s JUL 2 1968 
 
 3X^14-8 
 
 .C8TT 
 
Aft 
 
 APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC, 
 
 IN BEHALF OF THE 
 
 ffliroloatrni Knstitutr of CCouucrtfcttt. 
 
 The Trustees of the Theological Institute of Connecticut, would invite 
 the attention of the public to some considerations, suggested bv a state- 
 ment of the Theological Professors of Yale College, recently published, 
 and extensively circulated. 
 
 We should deem it altogether improper, in our official capacity, to take 
 notice of this document, were it not necessary for the vindication of our- 
 selves, and of the founders and supporters of the seminary under our care. 
 But finding ourselves implicitly charged with being engaged in an enter- 
 prise for which no justifiable reason can be assigned, we feel ourselves 
 called upon to make a frank exposition of our views, and motives, to the 
 Christian public. 
 
 The Professors say : " It is well known to the public, that a second 
 Theological seminary has been organized in this State. To the estab- 
 lishment of such an institution, as a means simply of increasing the facili- 
 ties for theological instruction, we should be the last to object ; but this 
 institution, it is well known, was established avowedly on the ground, 
 that the department under our care, has become the seat of dangerous 
 error. Against such an assumption, we feel ourselves bound most sol- 
 emnly to protest." They say also : " On the ground of our entire con- 
 formity to their own standard of orthodoxy, the friends of the Theological 
 Institute, arc forever precluded from saying, or insinuating, that a new 
 institution was called for to oppose any errors of ours." 
 
 The impression which these statements are evidently intended to make 
 on the public mind, is, that the founders and friends of the Theological 
 Institute, are laboring under an entire delusion, in supposing that there 
 exists any important difference of theological views among the Congre- 
 gational ministers of Connecticut ; and that under the influence of this 
 delusion, they have gone forward to establish a seminary which is not 
 called for, and which ought not to be patronized by the Christian public. 
 They assume it to be a fact, that the new institution is intended to be 
 arrayed in opposition to the one with which they are connected ; and that 
 the sole object for which it was founded, is, to oppose certain errors which 
 exist only in the imagination of its friends and supporters. Whether 
 these representations are well founded, the public will judge, when they 
 have carefully attended to what we have to say in our own defence. 
 
 We do n<>t deaf, that there exists serious dissatisfaction in relation to 
 the Theological School at New-Haven ; and that this is among the rea- 
 sons which have given rise to the new Institution. The grounds of this 
 dissatisfaction, we now feel ourselves called upon frankly to 
 
 1. Many have been dissatisfied, that the Theological School at New- 
 Haven, has no more connexion with the ministers and churches of the 
 State. Being an appendage of the College, it is under the entire control 
 of the Corporation ; a Board which, as at present constituted, is deemed 
 altogether unsuitable to be the guardians of a Theological Seminary. It 
 i known] that of the eighteen members who compose this Board, 
 (exclusive of the President,) eight are ex-officio members, — the ( Governor, 
 Lieutenant Governor, and six Senators. These are annually chosen by 
 
 1 
 
(he people at large, and are, of course, such men as happen to be elected 
 to these offices. They may, and often do, belong to different religious- 
 denominations. There is no certainty that they will not be, occasionally 
 at least, men whose influence, (great as it must be from the stations which 
 they occupy.) will be exerted in opposition to evangelical religion ;* yet 
 they have a right, equally with the other members of the Board, to act, 
 and vote, in the election and removal of the Theological Professors, in 
 directing the course of studies, and in regulating all the internal concerns 
 of the Institution. That a school, intended for the theological education 
 of Congregational ministers, should be under the entire control of a Board 
 thus constituted, has appeared to many altogether improper ; and they 
 have looked forward with no small degree of solicitude to the probable 
 results of such an arrangement. 
 
 2. Another ground of dissatisfaction with the New-Haven school, as 
 at present organized, is the want of sufficient security against the intro- 
 duction of heresy. In regard to three of the Theological Professors, - ! - it 
 is not known that they are required to give their assent to any Confession 
 of Faith, or that the Corporation are required, or even authorised, to re- 
 move them from office, for any heretical opinions whatever.^: In regard 
 to the Professorship of Didactic Theology, the founders do indeed make 
 the following requisition : " Every Professor who shall receive the income 
 or revenue of this fund, shall be examined as to his faith, and be required 
 to make a written declaration thereof, agreeably to the following : / 
 hereby declare my free assent to the Confession of Faith, and ecclesiastical 
 discipline, agreed upon by the churches of the State, in the year 1708," i. e., 
 the Saybrook Platform. " If, at any future period, any person who fills 
 the chair of this Professorship, holds or teaches doctrines contrary to those 
 above referred to, then it shall be the duty of the Corporation of the Col- 
 lege to dismiss such person from office, forthwith." Yet the Professors 
 say in their statement, that " a subscription to Confessions of Faith," is to 
 be considered " as made for substance of doctrine therein contained, 
 without binding the conscience to every expression used." They say 
 also, that the present incumbent, while Professor elect, "had certain 
 knowledge, from personal intercourse with the founders, that if he had 
 embraced every minute doctrine of the Confession, it would have been 
 considered a decisive disqualification for the office." 
 
 In view of these statements, the question naturally arises, On what is 
 this Professorship founded, and for what cause are the Corporation required 
 to dismiss the Professor from office ? The founders, so far as appears 
 from their statutes, require an unqualified assent to the Confession of 
 Faith contained in the Platform, and make it the duty of the Corporation 
 to dismiss the Professor from office, if he holds or teaches doctrines con- 
 trary to those contained in this Confession. Yet it is admitted, that 
 
 * We shall not be understood to have any reference to the present members of 
 the Corporation. We speak only of what may be. Nor do we complain of the 
 manner in which this Board is constituted, so far as it relates to the Academical 
 Department merely ; but only in reference to the Theological School. The principle 
 for which we contend, is, that a Theological Seminary ought to be under the control 
 of a distinct Board of Trustees, composed of ministers and members of churches, 
 who are amenable to some, ecclesiastical body. The Trustees of the Theological 
 Institute, are appointed by the Pastoral Union, and are amenable to them. There is, 
 of course, a connexion between the Seminary and the ministers and churches, which 
 would not exist, were it under the control of an independant and irresponsible Board. 
 
 t The Professors of Divinity, of Biblical Literature, and of Rhetoric. 
 
 t Some of the Professors in this department may have given their assent to the 
 Saybrook Platform, at the time when they were inducted into office ; but since that 
 time, the test law of the College has been repealed, and, so far as we have been 
 able to learn, no exception was made in regard to the Theological Professors. 
 
the present Professor, does hold and teach doctrines contrary to those 
 above referred to. But it is contended, that he is not liable, on this 
 account, to impeachment, because he had "certain knowledge, from 
 personal intercourse with the founders," that it is their will that lie should 
 hold and teach doctrines contrary to the Confession to which they have 
 required him to " declare his free assent," in the most unqualified terms. 
 What, then, is the creed by which this Professor is bound ? In case of 
 impeachment, by what standard is he to be tried ? By the creed which 
 the present Professor submitted to the Corporation ? But this is not men- 
 tioned by the founders ; and if it had been, in what sense is it to be taken ? 
 In the literal and unqualified sense, or only "for substance of doctrine ?" 
 Is the Saybrook Platform, " for substance of doctrine," to be considered 
 as the standard ? Neither is this mentioned by the founders. And if we 
 may suppose it to have been so understood, how is it to be ascertained 
 what is implied in a subscription to a creed " for substance of doctrine ?" 
 How much may be rejected, and still the substance be retained ? Who 
 shall draw the line, and where shall the line be drawn ? Here, as it 
 appears to us, is room for endless debate ; and if the principles laid down 
 by the Professors, be admitted, we see not how a charge of heterodoxy 
 could ever be sustained against any person filling the chair of this Pro- 
 fessorship. Nor do we see, on these principles, that the requisitions of the 
 founders, afford any security against the introduction of dangerous and 
 even fatal error. 
 
 The foregoing considerations would have great weight in our minds, if 
 we were perfectly satisfied with the doctrines at present taught in the 
 New-Haven school ; but, 
 
 3. The theological views maintained by the Professors, have given 
 great and extensive dissatisfaction. This dissatisfaction has not been 
 produced by vague rumors, as to what the Professors are supposed to 
 believe and teach, but by a perusal of their own published statements, — 
 statements which seem to us to be utterly inconsistent with the creeds to 
 which they still acknowledge their assent ; and which make it evident 
 to our minds, that while they adopt the language of these creeds, they 
 must affix to that language a meaning altogether different from that in 
 which it has been commonly received. It is well known, that different 
 individuals may attach a very different meaning to the same forms of 
 expression. The proposition that Jesus is the Christ, is assented to, both 
 by the Calvinist and the Socinian ; but how widely different is the con- 
 struction which they put upon this language, and how utterly at variance 
 are their views of the character of the Saviour ! An expressed assent to 
 the same general propositions, by different individuals, is no evidence of 
 harmony of views, when their own explanations of these propositions, are 
 irreconcilably at variance. Now it does appear to us, that in the ex- 
 planations which the Professors have given of some of the fundamental 
 doctrines of the gospel, they have adopted principles, which lead, by legiti- 
 mate consequence, to the utter subversion of those doctrines. This, we 
 think, has been conclusively shown, in publications which have appeared 
 within the last five or six years. To those who have carefully perused 
 these publications, it cannot be necessary, that we should add any thing in 
 proof of the above position. For the benefit of others, it may be ne- 
 cessary to advert briefly to a few examples. 
 
 In the first place, The Professors have advanced positions, which seem 
 to us to subvert the doctrine of the divine decrees. They maintain that 
 "God prefers, all things considered, holiness to sin, in all instances in 
 which the latter takes place ;" and that sin is suffered to exist, because 
 God could not entirely prevent its existence in a moral system . They 
 
insist, that it is utterly inconsistent with the goodness of God, to suppose, 
 that " he preferred, decreed, and made a universe, comprising sin and 
 its everlasting miseries," when he "could, if he would, have made a 
 universe of perfectly holy and happy beings." Were we to adopt these 
 principles, we should feel ourselves compelled to renounce the doctrine of 
 decrees, as it is taught in the Scriptures. It is matter of fact, that God 
 has " made a universe, comprising sin and its everlasting miseries;" and 
 the Scriptures assert, " As for God, his way is perfect. Who can stay 
 his hand ? Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he, in heaven and in 
 earth, in the seas and in all deep places." How can this be true, if the 
 present universe is not such, as God, on the whole, prefers ; and if he 
 would have made a different universe, had it been in his power 1 Who 
 ever heard, that any being ever purposed, or chose, that a thing should 
 exist, when he preferred, all things considered, that something else should 
 exist in its stead ? How is it possible for God to prefer, cm any account, 
 the existence of sin in any instance, if, all things considered, that is, on 
 all accounts, he prefers something else in its stead, in all instances ? Until 
 this question can be satisfactorily answered, the views of the Professors, 
 must be regarded as utterly irreconcilable with the Calvinistic creed. 
 
 Again : The principles adopted by the Professors, seem to us to subvert 
 the doctrines of special grace, and of particular election. If it be true, 
 that " God, all things considered, prefers holiness to sin, in all instances 
 in which the latter takes place," then it must be his choice, all things 
 considered, that all men should become holy and be saved ; and his infinite 
 benevolence will prompt him to do all in his power to bring all men to re- 
 pentance. What then becomes of the doctrines of special grace, and of 
 particular election ? Who makeih thee to differ ? Not God, surely ; for if 
 he prefers, all things considered, holiness to sin in every instance, he will 
 do all in his power to prevent sin, and secure holiness in its stead, in 
 every instance. To say that God chooses not to secure that which he, 
 on the whole, prefers, and which he is able to secure, is a manifest 
 contradiction. 
 
 Again : The Professors maintain, that " mankind come into the world 
 with the same nature, in kind, as that with which Adam was created ;" 
 and that "the only reason that the posterity of Adam do not exhibit the 
 same moral character which Adam exhibited, is not that they have a 
 different nature, but that they are placed in different circumstances." 
 These positions appear to us, to be utterly inconsistent with the Calvinistic 
 views of the original character of man, and of the consequences of 
 the apostacy. Were we to adopt these principles, we could not 
 believe, that man was originally created holy, or that there is any 
 real connexion between the sin of Adam and that of his posterity ; 
 nor could we believe, that infants are, in any sense, sinners, and need to 
 be born again, or to be redeemed by the blood of Christ. If admitted to 
 heaven, they must, according to these principles, for aught that we can 
 see, be accepted on the ground of their own righteousness, and without 
 regeneration, contrary to the express declarations of Christ and the apos- 
 tie. John iii. 3 ; Rom. iii. 20. 
 
 Again : The Professors maintain ; that self-love, or the desire of happi- 
 ness, is the grand principle by which all moral beings, whether sinful or 
 holy, are actuated. They say, "Of all specific, voluntary action, the 
 happiness of the agent, in some form, is the ultimate end." Were we to 
 adopt this principle, we should feel ourselves compelled to give up the 
 doctrine of disinterested love, and to deny all radical distinction between 
 holiness and sin. According to this theory, the distinction of moral char- 
 acter which exists among men, does not arise from the fact that they 
 
have different ultimate ends, but from the fact that they employ different 
 means to obtain the same ultimate end. The reason that one is holy, and 
 another sinful is, the one seeks his own happiness, by choosing God as his 
 portion, or chief good; the other seeks Ms own happiness, by choosing the 
 world as his portion, or chief good. Both have a supreme regard to 
 their own happiness. Consequently, holiness and sin are to be traced to 
 the same principle of action. We cannot but say, what we honestly 
 believe, that the religion which is in accordance with this theory, is a 
 selfish, and, of course, a spurious religion. 
 
 Again : The Professors maintain, that antecedent to regeneration, the 
 selfish principle is suspended in the sinner's heart ; and that, prompted by 
 self-love, he uses the means of regeneration, with motives which are nei- 
 ther sinful nor holy. 
 
 This theory, seems to us, to subvert the doctrine of regeneration by the 
 special agency of the Holy Spirit; for it supposes every thing which 
 renders that agency necessary, to be removed, antecedent to a change of 
 heart. How can it be necessary, that God should interpose, by the 
 almighty energy of his Spirit, to effect the conversion of a sinner, after 
 his selfishness is suspended, and his opposition to the motives of the gospel, 
 has ceased ? 
 
 This theory, also seems to us, to involve the doctrine of progressive 
 regeneration, — a doctrine utterly at variance with the Calvinistic system. 
 Again : The Professors have advanced principles which seem to us to 
 subvert the doctrine of the Saints' Perseverance. They say, " Free, 
 moral agents can do wrong under all possible preventing influence. 
 Using their powers as they may use them, they will sin ; and no one 
 can show that some such agents will not use their powers as they may 
 use them. This possibility that free agents will sin, remains, (suppose 
 what else you will,) so long as moral agency remains, and how can it be 
 proved that a thing will not be, when for aught that appears, it 
 may be? When, in view of all the facts and evidence in the c; - 
 remains true that it may be, what evidence or proof can exist that it 
 will not be ?" 
 
 According to the principles here laid down, what evidence or proof can 
 exist, that God will be able to prevent the total and final apostacy of 
 every saint and every angel? Saints and angels are free moval . 
 and, according to the principles here laid down, the possibility that they will 
 apostatize remains, (suppose what else you will.) "and how can it be proved 
 that a thing will not be, when, for aught that ap .MAY be ? 
 
 When in view of all the facts and evidence in the case, it remains true 
 that saints may apostatize, what evidence <>n proof can exist that 
 thev will not apostatize ?"* 
 
 We wish it to be distinctly understood, that we do no charge the Pro- 
 fessors, with admitting the consequences which we have deduced from 
 their principles; but we cannot CO iceal our solemn conviction, that the 
 
 * The publications in which the principles above referred to, and others equally 
 objectionable, may be found, are a Concio ad Clerum, preached in the chapel of 
 College, Sept. 10,1828; Review of Dr. Spring on the Means oi Ri 
 Christ. Spect. for March, June, September, and December, 1829; Review of Dr. 
 
 Tyler's Strictures, Christ. Spect. for March, L830; Review of Dr. \\ I'a L 
 
 Christ. Spect. for Sept 1830 ; Letter to Dr. Hfawea, Christ. Spect. for March, 1832 ; 
 Reply to Dr. Tyler in the Spirit of th<' Pilgrims, Vols. V. and VI.: R . ■ • of Dr. 
 Tyler's Remaiks, Christ. Spect. for Sept. 1832 ; Letter to the E litor, Christ. Spect. 
 for Sept. 1833. Of ihese publications, Dr. Taylor is either the avowed or reputed 
 author. Review of Taylor and Harvey, Christ. Spect. for June 18:2'.), supposed to 
 be written principally by Prof. Goodrich ; Review of Dr. Fiske on IV lestination, 
 Christ. Spect. for Dec. 1831 ; and a Treatise on the Divine Permission of Sin, Christ. 
 Spect. for Dec. 1832, from the pen of Prof. Fitch. 
 
principles, which they have advanced, do necessarily lead to these con- 
 sequences ; and that were we to adopt them, we should feel ourselves 
 compelled to renounce the distinguishing doctrines of the Calvinistic 
 creed. Nor are we alone in this conviction. It is a conviction, which 
 exists extensively in the Christian Community ; and in the minds of a 
 large portion of the most distinguished divines in the country. We might 
 add, also, to some extent in Great Britain.* 
 
 4. Another ground of dissatisfaction, is, the great importance which 
 the Professors have attached to their peculiar views, and the charges of 
 dangerous error, which they have brought against their brethren. They 
 have charged their brethren, (whose views have been shown to harmon- 
 ize with those of the standard orthodox writers of New England,) with 
 having advanced theories which lead to. the most shocking and blasphe- 
 mous errors — theories, which involve the positions, that ' sin is a good thing' : 
 " good in itself" — " the only real good to man" — that " when men sin, they 
 do the very best thing they can do" — that " God is the responsible au- 
 thor of sin" — that "the terms of salvation, and the exhibition of motives 
 to comply with them, are a delusive mockery" — that " God is a criminal 
 tempter" that " in no respect is Satan more truly criminal as a tempter 
 than God is" — that we ought to praise God for all the sin which we and 
 others have ever committed" — that " to sin and be damned to all eternity, 
 is the result, and the sole result, in respect to the greater part of man- 
 kind, designed, preferred and purposed by their Maker" — that " the worst 
 kind of moral action is the best" — and that " mankind are bound to believe 
 that they shall please and glorify God more by sin, than by obedience, 
 and therefore to act accordingly." They have also alleged, that nothing 
 but the inconsistency of their brethren, saves them from being " the ve- 
 ry worst of heretics ; and that their theories " if carried out into their 
 legitimate consequences, lead to universalism, to infidelity, and to 
 
 ATHEISM. "f 
 
 We do not complain of the Professors, for bringing these charges, if 
 they sincerely believe there is a foundation for them ; but we do utterly 
 protest against the assumption, that there is no important difference of 
 opinion between them and brethren against whom such charges are pre- 
 ferred. 
 
 In view of the foregoing facts and considerations, we appeal to a candid 
 public, whether there is, or is not, any ground for the dissatisfaction which 
 exists in relation to the New Haven school, and whether we are engaged in 
 an enterprise for which no justifiable reason can be assigned. 
 
 While we have felt it our duty to speak thus plainly of the doctrines in- 
 culcated in the New Haven school, we wish it to be distinctly understood, 
 that we entertain none but the kindest feelings towards the Professors, and 
 those who accord with them in their theological views. We concede to 
 them the right, to maintain and defend their own opinions : and we ask 
 them to allow us the privilege, of maintaining, and inculcating what we 
 believe to be the faith once delivered to the saints. To say that the 
 founders of this seminary, "had a right to form, and publicly to avow 
 
 *See an article in the Eclectic Review, from the pen of Dr. John Pye Smith. 
 
 t All these quotations, and much more of a similar character, will be found in the 
 Review of Dr. Tyler's Remarks in the Christian Spectator, for September 1832, 
 and in Dr. Taylor's communications in the Spirit of the Pilgrims. It should be re- 
 membered, that none of these charges, nor any of the statements of the Professors, 
 which have produced so much dissatisfaction in the public mind, have ever yet been 
 retracted. 
 
their own religious principles ; to say, that they had a right to consecrate 
 a portion of their property, to the defence and diffusion of these principles, 
 and to guard the sacred deposite against perversion as they have done in 
 their statutes, is only to. claim in their behalf, a participation in the privi- 
 leges common to every Protestant, and to every citizen of a free 
 country." 
 
 We utterly disclaim every thing like hostility to Yale College. That 
 venerable Institution, is, and ever will be, dear to our hearts ; and while 
 we deeply lament the existence of evils which seem to us to threaten its 
 best interests, we shall not cease to pray, that its usefulness may be perpet- 
 uated, and greatly enhanced. 
 
 We disclaim all intention to render the seminary under our care, a par- 
 ty institution. We have no peculiar views to inculcate, no party purposes 
 to subserve. We mean not to assume a belligerent attitude, or to array 
 ourselves against any other institution. While we maintain what we be- 
 lieve to be the truth, our intention is, so far as in us lies, to live peaceably 
 with all men. In proof of our pacific intentions, we appeal to the testi- 
 mony of the very men, who have arraigned us before the public. The 
 Professors say : " Had the articles of the New Seminary been framed 
 expressly as articles of peace and concord, designed to exclude as ones* 
 sential, all the points which have been so long in controversy, they could 
 hardly have taken a better form for the attainment of so desirable an 
 end." 
 
 By this declaration, they " are forever precluded from saying or insin- 
 uating," that the new Seminary is intended to be a party institution. 
 If they can ex-animo, and without qualification, or reservation, subscribe 
 these articles ; and if they intend to teach nothing inconsistent with them, 
 we sincerely rejoice in the fact. But that they can subscribe them consis- 
 tently, in the sense in which we receive them, and in the sense in which 
 the language has heretofore been generally understood, we shall find it 
 impossible to believe, till they have retracted some of their published state- 
 ments, or explained them in a manner more satisfactory, than they have 
 hitherto done. 
 
 But while we frankly acknowledge, that the facts which we have sta- 
 ted, are among the reasons which led to the establishment of the Theo- 
 logical Institute ; we wish the public to understand, that there are other 
 considerations by which we are influenced in the prosecution of our en- 
 terprize. 
 
 The growing demand for ministers of the gospel, and the rapid increase 
 of theological students, occasioned by the efforts of education societies, 
 and by frequent revivals of religion, seem to us to call for an increased 
 number of Theological Institutions. 
 
 We believe also, that as there is a liability in such institutions to become 
 corrupt in doctrine, their number ought to be bo increased, that they shall 
 operate as a check upon each other, and that no one shall become 
 overgrown. If there were but one such seminary in New England, and 
 if. with its large endowments, and extended patronage, it should become 
 the seat of heresy, who can estimate the evils of which it would be in- 
 strumental > And here we cai t but advert to the fact, that the history 
 
 of all past agea admonishes us, that large and overgrown institutions are 
 peculiarly liable to corruption. By increasing the Dumber, we diminish 
 the dangers arising from this source, and throw around the churches, ad- 
 ditional safe-guards against the inroads of destructive error. 
 
 There is still another consideration which has had no small weight in 
 our minds. Until recently, the subject of physical education has received 
 
8 
 
 but little attention ; but its importance is beginning now to be deeply and 
 extensively felt. Facts have been disclosed, which go to show, that the 
 destruction of life and health, in our literary and theological Seminaries, 
 occasioned by the neglect of systematic bodily exercise, is truly appalling. 
 
 It appears from the testimony of a large number of the most respecta- 
 ble teachers in our own country, that " of those who deserve the charac- s 
 ter of close students, full one half, if not more, injure themselves by an 
 injudicious neglect of exercise ; and that of these, full one fourth, if not a 
 third, lay a foundation for feebleness and disease which go with them 
 through life, and greatly diminish both their usefulness and enjoyment." 
 This evil surely calls for a remedy ; and we know of no remedy which 
 promises to be more successful than that provided by manual labor insti- 
 tutions. Such is the institution under our care ; and if the plan shall 
 succeed according to our wishes, it will possess the two fold advantage, of 
 contributing to preserve the lives and health of the students, and of ena- 
 bling them at the same time, to defray, in part, at least, the expenses of 
 their education. Is not this part of the plan, worthy of encouragement 1 
 
 We would add in conclusion, that the enterprize in which we are embark- 
 ed was not undertaken without much deliberation, and earnest prayer to 
 Almighty God. The convention which met in East Windsor, September 
 10, 1833, and which resolved on the establishment of this Seminary, spent 
 two days in prayerful consultation. It was a season of peculiar interest. 
 Deeply impressed with a sense of the responsibility under which they 
 were acting, they looked to the great Head of the church for direction : 
 and unless they were greatly deceived, they enjoyed special tokens of his 
 presence. Nothing like party feelings, seemed to characterize their de- 
 liberations. The great and all.absorbing inquiry, was, what do the honor 
 of God, and the interests of his kingdom demand ? They were unanimous 
 in their result. Fully satisfied that they had discovered the path of duty, 
 they resolved to go forward in the strength of the Lord. Hitherto he 
 has seemed to smile on the enterprize, even beyond our most sanguine ex- 
 pectations. Friends have appeared both in, and out of the State, who 
 have aided us by liberal donations. A commodious building has been 
 erected, and is now prepared for the accommodation of students. An ex- 
 cellent farm has heen purchased, and a workshop will soon be completed. 
 A respectable library has been collected. Teachers have been provided, 
 who are on the ground, and ready to enter upon their labors. A respect- 
 able number of students have already expressed a desire to enjoy the 
 benefits of the Institution. In view of these tokens of the divine favor, 
 we would desire to be humble, and unfeignedly thankful. But our Seminary 
 is still in its infancy ; and a much greater amount of funds, than has yet 
 been received, Mill be needed to carry into full execution the plans which we 
 contemplate. We cannot doubt, however, that He to whom the silver and 
 the gold belong, and who has the hearts of all men in his hands, will raise 
 up patrons and benefactors. To him we still commit our cause, sensible, 
 that except, the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it ; feeling 
 assured, also, that it He shall smile upon our enterprize, it cannot be 
 overthrown ; and being willing, if our hearts deceive us not, that if it 
 does not meet with Mis approbation, it should come to nought. 
 
 East Windsor, October 14th, 1834. 
 
Princeton Theolog 
 
 cat Semmary-Speer Library 
 
 1012 01082 0258 
 
 ....... 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 j 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M^P^S^I 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A.