Opening of the Seminary at Princeton

OPENING OF SEMINARY — PLAN — ANTECEDENT QUALIFICATIONS — EAELT METHODS — INTERCOURSE WITH STUDENTS — EVENING SERMONS — ACCES-SION OF DR. MILLER RELATIONS OF THE PEOFESSOES.

A MODE ST man could scarcely be placed in more trying circumstances than was Dr. Alexander in his new post. It is much easier to carry on the routine of an established institution, than to draught the original plan. In this case many things remained to be done. The scheme was not so much to be carried out as to be created. There was not only no foregoing incumbent, in whose steps to tread, but there could scarcely be said to be any precedent. In our day we are familiar with theological seminaries, among Baptists, Episcopalians, and Methodists; but at that time, such institutions, as distinct from colleges and universities, were new in America, and scarcely known in Europe. In Great Britain, France and Holland, clerical training is pursued at the universities; and even the Prediger-Seminar of some German States is of late origin, besides being very different from our theological schools.

From the existence for so many years at Princeton of both College and Seminary, the misapprehension has somewhat naturally prevailed that the two schools are connected; whereas they have always been totally distinct; one being an independent chartered institution under a close corporation, owning no necessary alliance with any sect, and the other a strictly ecclesiastical foundation, managed by trustees, and superintended by directors appointed from time to time by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. There had indeed been theological lectures in the College of New-Jersey, and eminent men had proceeded from the instructions of Witherspoon and Smith, but the experiment was now to be tried of a separate and additional curriculum; and from this time, all strictly professional lessons in divinity ceased to be delivered in the College.

The Committee of the General Assembly had indeed prepared a general scheme or programme of a theological course to be observed in the new seminary, and in the construction of this, which was framed by Dr. Green, Dr. Alexander’s views were largely contributed. But now, as sole professor for a time, he was to strengthen this outline, to fill up its details, and to carry the work into laborious execution. It can scarcely be doubted that these were among the most anxious moments of his life. With the highest views of what was demanded, he unfeignedly shrank from the responsibility of realizing his large idea, and would doubtless have laid down the attempt, but from the deep persuasion that the call was of God, and from the hope that his hands would soon be strengthened by the accession of a suitable

colleague. His first solicitude was concerned in drafting a plan of study for the three years which had been allotted for the course. He was next to address himself to the work of actual instruction. However well furnished in several departments with the general knowledge implied in ministerial accomplishment, he was necessarily destitute of all special preparations. Not only were lectures to be written, on branches lying far asunder, but such lacunas were to be filled up, as exist here and there in the acquisitions of the most diligent student; while the whole modus of communicating knowledge and conducting discipline was as yet an affair of tentative and doubtful effort.

Although called primarily to be a teacher of theology, in its stricter acceptation, he was led both by strong native tastes and by convictions of reason, to give first attention to the criticism and interpretation of the original Scriptures. With the Greek, as has been intimated, he was sufficiently familiar to be a competent instructor; but Hebrew literature was in its infancy in America. The works of Gesenius were as yet unknown, and the learned labours of Gibbs and Stuart had not been given to the world. Even in New England the vowel-points were for a time held in suspicion, and those who desired to penetrate into their mysteries were fain to seek after the difficult and very rare volumes of Buxtorf, Leusden and Opitius. Conscious of his own imperfect knowledge, he modestly but indefatigably set about the work of inculcation, and the few survivors of those small classes will readily testify how zealously and even enthusiastically he toiled with them among the knotted roots of Hebrew rudiments. For a number of years, and with increasing ability, he worked in this field, until relieved by the services of a beloved pupil, the Keverend Charles Hodge, now senior professor in the Seminary. As it regards Criticism and Hermeneutics, it was a department which had great charms for him, and by extensive reading, compiling and original investigation, he prepared to furnish a system of instruction, which for some years he delivered as lectures, a number of which still remain among his papers. We can call to mind no subject in which he was more uniformly interested, than the fortunes of the Hebrew and Greek text, the annals of translation and recension, and the principles of hermeneutical study. To this he added copious instructions in Biblical Archeeology, on which he prepared numerous discourses, and which remained under his control for many years. The manuscripts on this subject in our possession are more than would fill a single large volume. It was a topic which awakened his profound attention and lively feeling; for no man looked more reverently on the typical Christology of the levitical law; and none of his pupils can forget the awe with which he approached the recesses of the expiatory system, or the felicitous use which he made of the altar and the propitiatory, in his more purely theological exposition of the Atonement. Though far from the extreme of Cocceius, and though falling short of Witsius in his interpretation of Mosaic symbols, he nevertheless differed still more from that rationalizing school of American divines, then becoming loud and influential, who were disposed to reduce the contents of levitical typology to a minimum. We have lived to see a healthful reaction against this extreme tendency.

As might have been expected, however, his primary attention was bestowed upon the large round of topics included within the title of his peculiar professorship, that is, the statement, establishment, and defence of the doctrines which constitute the Christian system. Deeply persuaded that many theological errors have their origin in a bias derived from false metaphysics, he set about the methodizing of his thoughts upon mental philosophy, always keeping in hand the clew which he had received from his venerated preceptor, William Graham. The German philosophy was as yet unknown among us, and he was never led to travel the transcendental or “high priori road,” but treated mental phenomena on the inductive method, as the objects of a cautious generalization. While he uniformly recommended the perusal of Locke, it was as he often declared, not so much for the value of his particular conclusions, as for the spirit of his investigation, the calmness, patience, and transparent honesty of that truly great man. He likewise expressed great favour for Keid, Beattie, Burner, Campbell and Stewart, with whose general methods, as well as their views of intuitive truths and constitutional principles of reason, he was in agreement, while he dissented from many of their definitions, distinctions, and tenets. These were subjects which fell in with his tastes, habits of thought and course of reading; and as preliminary to the development of the revealed system, he regarded them as forming a necessary part of every complete theological course. And if the acuteness of his inquiry and the force of his reasoning were ever fully exhibited, it is in his lectures on the Will, and his elaborate refutation of Dr. Thomas Brown’s work on Causation. From year to year his scheme of mental philosophy took on a form of stricter method; yet he may be said to have begun with it at his entrance upon public teaching. No portion of his course more awakened the interest of his auditors; and such was the ingenuity with which he made these lessons bear on theological questions still in reserve, that in the days of church-controversy it used to be a common remark, that students who had been imbued with Dr. Alexander’s metaphysics were sure to swallow his entire system. Perhaps the same is true of every theological instructor who deduces a concatenated system from any clearly defined principles.

From these topics he turned to the closely allied domain of Natural Keligion. In regard to this, the only safe way of defining his theological position would be to publish his treatises, and any thing short of this might be misapprehended. While he was far from being a rationalist, he was never satisfied with the tactics of those reasoners who under the pretext of exalting revelation, dismiss with contempt all arguments derived from the light of nature. Here he freely declared his judgment that many sound, able and pious men had greatly erred. He rendered due homage, therefore, to the labours of such writers as Nieuwentyt, the younger Turrettine, and Paley, and spent much time in considering and unfolding with nice discrimination the various schemes of argument for the Being and Perfections of God, and the necessity and antecedent probability of a revelation. Connected closely with this was the discussion of Ethical Philos-

ophy, in which he taught from the outset the same doctrines which have been given to the world in a posthumous work, and which have awakened severe opposition from those who find them fatally inconsistent with modern systems of theology.

The anxieties belonging to an attempt to lay down the great lines of a method for teaching the whole system of revealed truth, to those who were to be the ministers of the Church, were just and burdensome. There are a few living who can recollect the particulars of these instructions. As compared with those later methods which grew out of continued experience with successive classes, they were probably more extemporaneous and colloquial; there was more use of existing manuals, and less adventure of original expedients. Dr. Alexander, herein concurring with Chalmers, conceived that theology was best taught by a wise union of the text-book with the free lecture. Finding no work in English which entirely met his demands, he placed in the hands of his pupils the Institutions of Francis Turrettine. It was ponderous, scholastic and in a dead language, but he believed in the process of grappling with difficulties; he had felt the influence of this athletic sinewy reasoner on his own mind, and had observed that those who mastered his arguments were apt to be strong and logical divines. At this time there had been no modern edition, and copies were rare; but the classes were small, and the book was not laid aside until it became impossible to supply the demand. It would be very unjust to suppose that the young men were charged with the tenets of Turrettine, to the injury of their mental independence. It is indeed difficult to apprehend the force of a vulgar argument which sneers at text-books — the convenient wisdom of the mighty dead — but admits any amount of unwritten dogmatism from the chair of the living professor. Dr. Alexander often dissented from the learned Genevan, and always endeavoured to cultivate in his students the spirit and habit of original investigation. It is likely that his labours at this period derived a peculiar vivacity from his time of life, from the freshness of the employment, and from the necessity of adapting himself to a limited circle. He very laboriously engaged in making such brief aids in the way of syllabus and compendium as might furnish to the student a manageable key to the whole classification. He prepared extensive and minute questions, going into all the ramifications of theology; lists of which still remain in the hands of some alumni. He assigned subjects for original dissertations, which were publicly read, and commented on by both professors and students; a near approach to the acts held in the old university schools, under the scholastic moderator. To this were added, at a date which we find ourselves unable to fix with precision, the debates of a theological society, meeting weekly, always on some important topic, and always closed by the full and highly animated remarks of the professor.

So far as we have been able to discover, the general plan of the studies in the Seminary received its form at this time; there were subsequent additions and emendations, but the main trunks and branches remained the same. This is particularly true of the theological course, properly so called.

The natural and simple light, in which it was a characteristic of the professor to view all subjects, and the predominance of logical nexus as the element of association in his mind, concurred to cause a preference for the ancient and more obvious scheme of classifying Scripture truth. Hence he did not adopt the Federal method of arrangement, as it has been called, of Witsius; great as was his sympathy with the evangelical warmth and unction of that school. For the same reasons his judgment disapproved the order suggested by Chalmers, in the preface to what remains of his original and striking but fragmentary theological course. For, while he agreed with this great author in considering the plan of redemption as the ultimate scope and crowning glory of all theology, he nevertheless preferred as a medium of scientific communication, that disposition of topics which takes its departure from the Being, Attributes, and Works of God; that is, from Theology in its strictest acceptation. On each head or title he was accustomed to assign a considerable portion of the text-book, to be carefully perused by the class, and to be made the subject of a sifting examination; also naming the chief authors who had treated of the points respectively, and sometimes, when these works were numerous, allotting them to different students, with a requisition that they should give some account of each, either orally, or what was more common, in writing. This examination and these essays gave rise to brief but animated remarks from the chair, and he was never more felicitous or more convincing than in such impromptus; in which his eye would kindle and flash, and his expressive face become radiant, as he poured forth the gatherings of an extraordinary erudition, or pursued the thread of nice and delicate analysis, with a clearness and closeness of argument which his partial hearers thought unrivalled. To this was added, however, and with greater fulness as years advanced, the delivery of formal and elaborate lectures on the grand articles of the faith.

The division of this department into Didactic and Polemic Theology, which the Plan of the institution made imperative, gave the professor an opportunity to go over all the leading doctrines in the way of defence against the objections of errorists, heretics and infidels. In doing this he brought to bear his remarkable stores of recondite reading. He gave the biography of eminent opponents, clear analyses of their systems, and refutation of their reasons. Of necessity he was thus carried into the field of Dogmengeschichte, the progress of controversies, the debates and conclusions of councils, the construction of creeds, and the whole round of symbolical theology. What might be considered by some an inordinate length of time was devoted to the cardinal differences, such as the controversy with Deists, Arians, Socinians, Pelagians, Arminians, Papists and Universalists; all being made to revolve around the Calvinistic system, which, upon sincere conviction, he had adopted.

To prevent a return to this subject, we shall here add a few words concerning methods which, as the growth of experience, were not matured until some years later. He was so earnestly in favour of having the young clergyman armed at all points against adversaries, that he greatly extended his lectures, so as to embrace the varieties of Hea-

thenism and Mohammedanism with which missionaries must be brought into conflict; and also the forms of error which prevail in our Western country. Accordingly he has left copious reviews of Campbellism, Shakerism, and even Mormonism, with details which show how largely and attentively he must have examined all the available authorities of these heretics. In conducting these studies, he alighted on a method which gave him great pleasure, and was always interesting to his pupils. Early in the session each member of the class had allotted to him some erroneous system or controversy, to be made the subject of a dissertation. The whole term was sometimes allowed for preparing these, and some of the essays became almost volumes. Among them were productions which he prized very highly. All this was over and above his extensive course of lectures. He was far from having a stereotyped plan; but besides undertaking new subjects of instruction in the close of his life, as we shall have occasion to say, he made frequent changes in his modus operandi to the last.

It is worthy of note, that while he gave diligent attention to this part of his duties, he was in no sense an active controvertist. In private, his error, if he erred, was altogether in the opposite direction. When falsehood was read or heard by him, it was the tendency of his mind, from its strong logical interest, rather to yield himself to the consideration of adverse arguments, and to weigh them with a judgelike calmness, than to seek on the spot for weapons of refutation. His practical maxim was the audi alteram ‘partem; and those who were privy to his daily studies were astonished at the time which he bestowed on the most dangerous writers. And yet his own opinions were held with a firmness which in his mature years seemed to suffer not even a momentary shaking. The habits to which allusion has been made, tended beyond doubt to produce in him a peculiar reserve and impartiality in stating the opinions of adversaries, and in refuting them.

There is one charm connected with the opening of a theological school, which belongs peculiarly to its infant state, and can never be fully regained in years of greater prosperity. This is the intimate association between teachers and scholars. As yet, there were no buildings; the professor’s house was at once library, chapel, and auditorium. The handful of pious young men gathered around their preceptor almost as members of his family; going freely in and out, sitting at his board, joining in the domestic worship, and, in a sense, not merely learning of him but living with him. This continued to be the case for a number of years, for the Seminary began with three, and did not attain the number of thirty until the fifth year of its existence. In such a state of things, there is more freedom and frequency of intercourse, than when more than a hundred are collected, when it would absorb all the time and strength of the professor to bestow the same personal attentions. In later years, it is but just, however, to observe, Dr. Alexander gave as free access to his study as pupils ever enjoyed of a teacher. Few moments of the day passed without a knock at his door; and as his apartment was but a few steps from the principal edifice, it was resorted to by the young men with the greatest familiarity, and on every sort of errand both temporal and spiritual. We may here add, that at no time of his life was he accustomed to deny himself to visitors; acting, as it should seem, on the maxim which Payson adopted, — “the man that wants to see me, is the man I want to see.” But in these early years, the relation of professor and student was peculiarly intimate, as will be remembered by many now alive, who sought his advice in the greatest emergencies of their spiritual life.

Some extracts from a family letter of the period, will add interest to this time of transition.

“October 10, 1812.

“I was dismissed from my charge in Philadelphia, on the 22d of July. You may guess that I felt some regret at leaving a congregation in which I have reason to believe there are many of God’s dear children, particularly among the poor. As in every congregation, however, there are some who are not of the right spirit, so also in this there were some men rather turbulent. Though we never had any contention in the Society, I could perceive there was fuel to cherish the flame if it should ever be kindled. The labours of a city minister are necessarily very great, where his charge are numerous; and it is extremely difficult, with any exertion which can be made, to afford universal satisfaction. And upon the whole, a city is not so favourable for religion, except among the poor and distressed. I have every reason to believe that my people were sufficiently attached to me, and parted with me reluctantly; but most of them were convinced that I was following the path of duty. It seems, however, that God had a controversy with that city, for since my removal Dr. Green has been elected President of this College, and has determined to come. Or He may intend to substitute men whose labours He will more abundantly oless.

“On the 29th of July I removed my family to this place, where a house was provided for us, not very large or commodious, but the best which could be obtained. The people here we found very kind and attentive, and the situation of the place remarkably pleasant, especially in summer. Every place however has its inconveniences and difficulties. Heaven is not to be expected in this world. External circumstances go but a little way towards making us happy. The relief which we receive in our afflictions and distresses has often more real pleasure in it than we experience in our greatest prosperity. Little things often disturb our peace as much as great, and we bear small adversities with less patience than greater, because we do not seek c grace to help, During the whole summer our family has through God’s mercy enjoyed uninterrupted health. I am greatly pleased to learn that some of your children begin to fear the Lord, in the days of their youth. I hope you will not be disappointed in the fruit which these early blossoms promise. There can be no greater pleasure to serious parents than to see their offspring choosing wisdom’s ways and ’ walking in the truth, “—” You may suppose that I have abandoned preaching. Yery true, it is no part of my office, so long as the school is in a place supplied with the Word; but as I

have been so long accustomed to preach, it does not seem pleasant to be altogether silent, and therefore I preach every Sunday evening in my own house; and as often as opportunity offers I ride over to some one of the neighbouring congregations, and assist my brethren.”

Adverting to the same topic, he writes January 27, 1813: “It is a part of my duty to preach to my students, who are nine in number, but as I did not wish to interfere with the regular worship of the place, I instituted a meeting on Sunday evening at my own house. No persons attended but such as were invited, and when the winter commenced, very few could attend with comfort; but in proportion to the difficulty of attending was the desire increased, both among the students and citizens. At length a large room was fitted up in one of the College buildings, and I was invited by the Faculty to preach in it. The place was very soon crowded, and all the principal families in the place and vicinity took the lead in attending. We were soon obliged to seek a larger place, which was also found insufficient to contain the people who came. Sometimes more than a hundred have been unable to get in. We have now removed to the Refectory or Dining Room [the present Museum], a room which will hold several hundred people seated, and even this seems as if it would be scarcely sufficient. The attention of the people is uncommonly solemn and many appear to be affected, but what the result will be, Grod only knows. Two particular facts have encouraged me to hope for some good issue. A young man who came here to study divinity, appeared soon after his arrival to fall under deep convictions. He came to me and told me with many tears, that he was an unconverted man, and that he wished to withdraw. But I insisted on his remaining, and he has ever since been much exercised in mind. The other case was very unexpected to me. A daughter of... called on me the day before she left the place, to converse with me respecting the concerns of her soul. She appeared to be deeply affected, and so far as I could judge manifested the temper of a true penitent. She regrets very much that she has not the opportunity of making a profession of her faith before leaving the country. This family has been uncommonly gay and thoughtless, and I suppose she never mentioned her case to any of them.”

These evening services are well remembered by many, as connected with their great spiritual delight and progress, if not with their conversion to God. Young men of different religious persuasions prized these evangelical instructions; and it is not many weeks since we heard a bishop of the Protestant Episcopal church declare that this was the best preaching he ever heard. Dr. Alexander’s discourses on these occasions were uniformly of the practical and experimental kind. They were extemporaneous and animated, and embodied all those qualities which made him eminently popular, especially among the common people, who preferred his free and often irresistible invitations, and the clear ringing of his lively and penetrative voice, to more staid and scholastic addresses which smell of the lamp and sacrifice religious to literary merit. He was sought after in private by great numbers who were in distress concerning their salvation, and was invited in various instances to labour in fields which the Lord was blessing by the effusion of his grace.

“Two weeks ago,” he writes in the same letter, “I visited Elizabethtown, to see the work of the Lord which is going on in that place. Here are about a hundred persons under deep impressions, and the number is increasing every day. A place five miles beyond has also received another shower of divine influence. Some remarkable cases of awakening have occurred in both places. 0 that the blessed influence may spread far and wide!”

It is greatly to be regretted that no letters can be recovered, entering into any detail of his views and feelings as to the great work of education which he had begun, or the studies which he was pursuing. Such correspondence, it is well known, he maintained somewhat largely with congenial minds, especially with Doctors Kice, Speece, and Campbell of Kentucky; but from the necessity of the case we must allow these years to be very much a blank. And even in regard to those which follow, one year succeeds another with a felicitous sameness which leaves little for the narrator. The same cares, the same labours, the same contentment. A beloved wife and four children, with an increasing circle of pupils, and a great number of visitors, made happy days in the humble, cheerful home. Death came in and bore away the youngest child, an only daughter. Disease gave frequent cause of solicitude respecting the others, whose lives were nevertheless preserved. The employments of the study and the lecture-room were incessant and wearing, but they were enthusiastic. The compilation, collection, translation, revision and refutation, incident to the life of a young and ardent professor, went on with a diligence of which the fruits were extant for many years in piles of manuscripts, some of which became lectures, others parts of published works, while all have long since, and perhaps intentionally, been committed to the flames.

During the first few years there was a peculiar glow of delight in the mind of the professors, when small companies of alumni began to try their gifts as probationers, and leave the nest as the first fledged of the new institution. But greatly interesting as this was to both parties, it affords little for record, and most of the persons concerned have long since gone to their rest. In the years which remain, therefore, we cannot undertake to set down the quiet events in the way of annals. Their true history is in the General Catalogue which registers the names of successive classes.

Externally, the period of which we write was troublous, for the war with Great Britain was in progress. Except, however, that general sympathy which every good man must have with the interests of his country, Dr. Alexander was as little disturbed as any man in the land. From the site of Princeton, the village was again and again traversed by bodies of troops, both going to the field of hostilities and returning. The whole population was much agitated by the controversies leading to the war, and by the progress of the conflict. Privately, he lamented the policy which involved us in these troubles; but he never took any active part in politics, never preached a political sermon in his life, and indeed seldom voted at an election. In common with

Christians throughout the Union, he deplored the spiritual evils consequent on the war; and it was too evident that for many years there had not been a time of so general decay in religious zeal and activity. The even tenor of his studious life was nevertheless pursued, and the gentle stimulus of new employments added to his happiness.

But the event most worthy of being noted in this connection was the accession of a colleague. Hitherto, as we have seen, he had conducted his little band of pupils through all the parts of their preparation. The Keverend Samuel Miller, D. D., of New-York, was elected to the chair of Ecclesiastical History and Church Government, by the General Assembly of 1813; but in consequence of a violent illness he did not assume his duties until the month of December, in that year. Dr. Miller brought with him a high reputation as a preacher, an author, and a Christian gentleman. He was about three years older than his colleague, being accordingly in his prime of mental and bodily vigour. His name was widely known from his “Retrospect of the Eighteenth Century,” and more recently from his defence of presbytery against the attacks of Doctors Hobart and Bowden. For many years he had maintained his post with honour and esteem, in the First Presbyterian Church of New- York, where he succeeded the venerable Dr. Rodgers, after having been his colleague.

This seems to be the first place offered in which to speak of the mutual relations of the two professors; a subject to which we shall revert. For six and thirty years they laboured side by side and were in almost daily communication. These were circumstances in which, if any where, one might expect sinister and unkindly attributes to be drawn forth. In many particulars they were dissimilar; indeed two men of genuine piety could scarcely be found more unlike. Dr. Miller came from the training of city life, and from an eminently polished and literary circle. Of fine person and courtly manners, he set a high value on all that makes society dignified and attractive. He was pre-eminently a man of system and method, governing himself, even in the minutest particulars, by exact rule. His daily exercise was measured to the moment; and for half a century he wrote standing. He was a gentleman of the old school, though as easy as he was noble in his bearing; full of conversation, brilliant in company, rich in anecdote, and universally admired. As a preacher, he was clear without brilliancy, accustomed to laborious and critical preparation, relying little on the excitement of the occasion, but rapid with his pen, and gifted with a tenacious memory and a strong sonorous voice; always instructive, always calm, always accurate.

His colleague had received a lasting impress, in manners and labours, from a very different class of influences. The inward principle of delicacy and refinement, the soul of true politeness, we think we may assert, was within him in high measure. Perhaps no man ever more respected the feelings of others. But he was not a man of rules. Eminent natural simplicity was his characteristic. If this led him to be careless or abrupt, at any time, he cared not for the inelegance, even when he grieved over any occasional offence. His studies and his way of life were singularly free from all

constraint and plan. Though a perpetual reader, he seemed always to read for entertainment, rather than by constraint. A friend once found him deeply engaged in Jack’s old work on Conic Sections; and in the earlier part of his life he perused many volumes on physical philosophy. His rest was in continual change of mental pursuit. Never did he seem more at a loss than when called upon to lay down regulations for the hours, the employments or the behaviour of others. Perfect liberty, as to time, pursuits, and even bodily movements, was almost his passion. Scrupulously clean in his person, he never seemed to advert to the fashion of his dress. Animated even to vehemence in conversation on topics which aroused him, he often had his fits of silence. While his door was open to every visitant, and his kind counsel was freely given, he certainly omitted many a received form, and would occasionally, during an inordinate visitation, abstract his eye and his attention, and hum a tune to himself. In the pulpit, he was most himself when he was most truly extemporaneous; which perhaps was in the mind of the learned Chief Justice Kirkpatrick, when he said, with a jocose eulogy, “Dr. Alexander is the prince of Methodist preachers,”

With such marked differences, it is certainly no slight matter to record, that during a lifetime of common service, these two men never had an alienation, or the difference of an hour. In opinion they frequently diverged; yet mutual respect and affection were never violated, but rather increased with every year of their lives. Placed in circumstances which might have engendered rivalry, they appeared to rejoice in each other’s gifts and success. From the beginning of their acquaintanceship, Dr. Miller always resorted to his younger colleague as his wisest adviser. He admired his learning, testified the profoundest reverence for his judgment and piety, coveted his company, and unfeignedly delighted in his ministrations. On the other hand, Dr. Alexander regarded his friend and brother with the heartiest affection. Again and again has he been heard to say, that for the charitable use of his means, for adherence to his rules of self control, and especially for exemption from all traces of vanity and of envy, Dr. Miller surpassed all men he had ever known. He was fond of saying, that after more than thirty years proximity, he had never detected in his colleague the slightest appearance of jealousy. This was the more remarkable, as it is well known that with all his varied excellencies, Dr. Miller as a preacher was less followed by popular admiration than his friend.

Though we say it by anticipation, it is seasonable to add, that as years rolled on, and old age arrived, the concord and affection of these servants of Christ presented a beautiful and edifying spectacle. They conversed together and prayed together; and as their hoary heads appeared, with a punctuality belonging to both, in the devotional and other more public services of the Seminary, the moral influence of the sight upon their numerous and respectful pupils was happy and indelible.

After the arrival of Dr Miller, both professors were actively engaged in preaching the Gospel, not only in Princeton, but in the neighbouring congregations, and even in the

two great cities, where their labours were constantly in request. It is impossible to determine which of them most delighted in the actual labours of the pulpit. They never spoke of these as a burden, but eagerly welcomed them as a satisfaction. Before the erection of buildings for the Seminary, there was no separate worship on the Lord’s Day, for the students. The professors however preached frequently, and in some years in stated rotation with others, in the village church, and the chapel of the college; the control of the latter service being in the hands of their friend President Green.

At an early period in the history of the institution, a meeting was established on the afternoon of the Sabbath, for the spiritual edification of the young men, and was maintained during the whole life of these professors; it will be remembered by hundreds as the Conference, and shall be more fully noticed. The colloquial addresses which they delivered here would form a system of experimental theology, if they could be recovered.