The Connecticut courant, and the weekly intelligencer — Hartford [Conn.], 1783-04-29 00:00:00, page 1

THE proprietors of the township, of Randolph, in the
county of Windsor, and State of Vermont, are hereby
totifyed, forthwith, to pay to me the Subscriber, living in
Norwich in said county of Windsor, the following proprie
tary taxes, viz. one oftwelve shillingslawful money on each
proprietors right, granted the 31st day of December, 1781,
ro be paid in to the treafmy, by the firft day of April then
next, for the purpose of paying proprietary debts and flat
ting said township. Allo a tax oftwelve shillings on each
light, for the fame purpose (the other tax being found in
fuflicient) granted the 20th day ofinftant February, 10 be
paid forthwith, or their lands will be advertised and fold, to
pay said taxes and cost, as the law direds.
And the said proprietors are further notified, that on the
af^efaid 20th of February instant, said proprietors granted
two other taxes to be paid the firft day of Augult next, viz.
one of twelve shillings on each right, for the purpose of
making reads in said Randolph. The other tax of fifteen
shillings on each right, granted for the Support of the gof
£el in said Randolph the ensuing year, whichlaid piopietors
Ire hereby notifyed to pay accordingly, or tbcirlandsin said
Randolph will be advertised and fold, in due time, for pay
ment of said taxes and cost, as the lawdire&s.
MOSES BELNAP, Colleger.
Norwich, February 23, ,780.
WE the Subferibers being appointed Commissioners, by
the Hon. Court of Probate for the difhi& of Scaf-^
ford, in the county of Hartford, to receive and examine the
claims of the creditorsto the estate of M, Levi Peale, 2d,
late of Somers, defeafed, represented infolvenr,do hereby
give notice that we shall attend said bufibefs at the late
dweliing-houfe ofthedeceafed on the firft Monday's of June,
September and Odober next, atone o'clock in the afternoon
on each of said days.
REUBEN SIKES, ) Commiffl-
JOSHUA POMROY- ) oners.
omers, April 1, 1783.
TO BE SOL D,
At PUBLIC VENDU E,
To the highest Bidder.
ON the firft day of May next, at the Dwelling-Hotfe that
belongs the estate of Peter Verftille in Hajeford,
fajd Dwelling-House and Garden, encumbered with the
Widows dowry, and a very convenient Shop, belonging to
said estate, Handing a little north of the Statc-Houfe, a good
tide will be given to the purchaser.
NOTICE is hereby given to the proprietors of the town
ships of Pittsfield and Hancock, in the county of Rufr
tod, and State of Vermont, that at a meeting of the pro
prietors of the said Townships, at Rutland, on the nineteenth
day ofDecember, 1781, they agreed and voted co raise the
fOm of twelve shilling upon each right of land within the
faidtowashipi, and that on the twenty-fecund day of O&o
---ber, 1782, ata meeting ofthe said proprietors of the said
townships, at Rutland aforefaid, they voted to raise the fur
ther sum bitwenty shillings upon each of the said rights of
land, and both of the said films were voted to be railed to
defray the charges of laying out the said townships. And
whereas the following pertons owners of the said rights,f
land, have negleded to pay the said taxes, although notice
has been given in the ConneaicutGourant agreeable to law,
these are therefore comotify them that unless they pay the
said taxes, co one of us the fubferibers, on or before Thurs
day the twenty-ninth day of May next, at one o'clock in the
afternoon, their lands, or so much of them as shall be ne
cessary so discharge the said taxes, and the necessary inter
vening charges, snall be fold at Public Vendue at the time
hit mentioned, at the dwelling-house of Abraham Chafe,
Danby, in said county of Rutland.
The following persons will be pleased to pay their raxes
B Mr. ^bn Baker, of Northampton co"^or, viz, Narba..
Chittenden, Asa Rosier, Joshua Whitney, Ephraim Whit
comb, Christopher Miner, Benjamin Sawyer, jun. James
Kuffell, Joel Holland, Waler Cheney, Jacob Ward, Josiah
Ward, Samuel Winchester, Ephraim Whitcomb, jun. Ben
jamin Winchester, Silas Winchester, Benjamin Sawyer, 3d.
Elisha White.-
And the fallowing persons will be pleased to pay their
taxes to Mr. Joon Lefuer, of Adams collector, viz. Jeremiah
Cady, Zebulon Norton, Ezra Norton, Benjamin Sawyer,
Jonathan Norton, Josiah Wright, jun. Woodbridge Belcher,
Warren Cady, Andrew Norton, William Norton, Nathan
Chittenden, Dorothy Norton, Ephraim Sawyer, Ephraim
Sawyer jun. Ebenezer Bacon, Nathaniel Murray, Andrew
Belcher, Abraham Norton, Samuel Belcher, Silas Winchester,
Ebenezer Church, John Norton, Daniel Morse, jun. Calvin
Burt Belcher, Samuel Winchester, Matthew Norton.
JOHN BAKER, )
JOHN LESUER.
April 9, 1783*
ere §^@iß|i£ffl^
ram p
VOTCTITTV TWTOT T TfYTXTr VV
V, JL,LA>. .LY ° .1- JM JLL# LLsIIT" Jbl^ ^^^ *
'iorß TF^O^R D: Printed by H UDSO N AND GOODWIN, near the Great Bridge. l
1' UESDA Y, A p r i l " 29,°1783.
If President Clap's religious constitution of College exhi
bits the present Sentiments of the Corporation, (page I—-3)
they would have the College consist almost entirely ofStudents
for the ministry, as well as exclude all but ministers from
an, office of inftrudion or government. But as there are
many Students who design for other profcffions, and few
comparitively for the ministry, and none of the present Tu
tors being Students in Divinity, I conclude the Corporation
do not fully adopt this idea of Mr. Clap.* And what hath an
enlightened, protestant age and country to do with such etta
blishments for Colleges as took place in the darkest times
of popery? Must the lagy ftil lbe accounted unworthy of
learning? Or if learned, are they unqualified to take part in
the infpedion and government of an university? While all
departments in the State are supplied with learned men, is
there the shadow of a reason for the claim of one profeffion
to the foie regulation of the public seminary? But,
“ Secondly, should the Corporation consent to any alte
ration in their Board, the estate pf the College would not be
used agreeable to the design of the donors. To this it is
answered, that more than three quarters of this estate was
given by the General Assembly. The College-edifice and
Presidents house were built mainly by public donations. The
chapel was compleated by a generous public grant. The
lands given by the General Aflembly to the College, nearly
rent for 2001. per annum. The Affemb'y have declared, with
Sufficient plainness in their charter, that the intent of their
donations cannot be fully complied wi h, but by the adrnifr
bon ofother profeflions into the Corporation, and a ready
submission ofthe concerns of College to the cognizance and
controul ofthe Legislature. By withholding, for near thir
ty years past, the annuity to College mentioned in the char
ter', the Legislature have, in the strongest manner, exprefled
their resentment, that their washes and expectations have
been opposed by the Corporation, The donations from a
broad were none of them given under a limitation that the
Corporation retain its p resent form. And it is questionable
whether a single private donation within the country or go
vernment is so limited, that the design of the donor may not
be effeQually pursued, should the Corporation assume a dif
ferent form. But admit that some few and small donations
were thus reftrided; what are these to the whole estate of
College? Shall these "regulate all the benefactions, public
and private? How much more fit is it, that the gifts of the,
PARNASSUS, No. X.
Errori nomen virtus po/wiffet honeftUm.
HOR.
THE ensuing paper will be appropriated to the considera
tion of objections.
" First, it would be a violation of their facred trust, should
the Reverend Corporation consent to any alteration in their
Board." This objection has been Igng urged, and much Press
is laid upon it. lam willing to giveit due weight. It will
not, I presume, be insisted, that the Corporation, ar fech,
had any powers or privileges, or even an exiften^f, before
the charter of 1705. And if that charter gave them any pow
ersnot contained in the charter of 1745, such powers were
voluntarily surrendered by the Corporation ? when they accept
ed the last charter. Their powers are neither more nor less
than the second or last charter gives them. Whatever might
be the motives with the Corporation to ask, or with the Ge
neral Affemb'y to give, a new charter, that of 1745 is the
only charter now in force. By this they hold all the powers
they poflefs-7-this well Secures what the Corporation Sup
pose to be the original and immediate obje& of the institu
tion of the College, and makes further provision that it might
answer other important purposes, according to difference of
circtimftances.
If the reader will carefully examine the new charter, or
will only recoiled the observations upon it in No. 111 ofPar
naffus, I persuade myfelf he will be so far from thinking it a
breach of trust in the Corporation, -0 consent to the enlarge
ment of t.ibir Board by the admission of other profeflions
than clergymen, that he'will rather think it a breach oftruft
that they have not long ago-consented to this. If the ad
mission of other profeffions would be a breach of trust, it
was a breach of trust to accept the new charter, which has
r^tthe r^A, Qir, o|) -^.^ xticulaty doth not limit
the overrigheef the College to minivers of the gospel. The
petition for the last charter asked, indeed, for a confirma
tion of all the rights, powers, privileges and interests of the
firft: But this was not granted. The General Assembly con
firmed the donations only, and proceeded to enlarge and im
prove the institution, according to the improvedcircurnftan
ces ofthe College and government; fubje&ing the whole
and every part ultimately to the General Assembly, as has
been remarked.
* But few Students in Divinity and candidates for the mi
nistry have resided at College after they have been gradua
ted. ' Hath this I een owing to want of countenance and 4*-
^ouragemeat from the Corporation ?
The Corporation will hot pretend, that the College or
country are more orthodox now, than eighty years ago-
They have complained of the heteredoxy of the country, and
that the College has been often and long infeded with er
rors. Would the College have been more infe&ed, had a.
number of refpe&able laymen been included in the fellow
ship? What evidence is it that the Corporation have been
fuccefsful in the cause of orthodoxy, if, notwithftandmg they
have long had the file management of the College, no or
thodox laymen can be found in the whole State? If so, is it
not time to change hands? Let those who are conversant in
church history fay, whether the laity are more liable to err
than the clergy; or whether heresy has oftener come in ar
the door of the former, than of the latter.
The present clergy of Conne&icat are friends to univerfaf
literature, liberty and the public good. They have taken x
laudable part in the American revolution. The body of
them wish to fee church and State united in the government
ofthe College. Are the body of the clergy therefore not or
thodox? Are none of them orthodox, but the final! number
who wish the College may be difionneded with the State?
Or doth the conservation of orthodoxy depend on so incon
siderable a part of the clergy as the Corp oration; and they
themselves not agree? Or, admit this, are they the only
competent judges in natural Philosophy, astronomy, geogra
phy, hifl;ory, eloquence, jurisprudence, &c.
Further, the indecency and insolence, contained in this
implicit accusation of die Legislature, ,may not always be
borne with patience. The Spirit of Christianity permits us
not to fyeak evil of our civil, any more than of our ecclesi
astical rulers. But the objection we are considering goes up
on the supposition, that the former are unprincipled men, in
whom no confidence can be placed. The character of our
rulers from the beginning has been, just, ruling in the fear of
God. Their laws and example have Supported religion. In
no State have rhe clergy been treated with more refpe& by
the civil magistrates and legislative authority.
The General Assembly, as well as the Corporation, have
consented to the confeffion of faith, heads of agreement, and
articles for administration of church discipline, agreed to by
the Saybrook synod. It may be said withas much truth and
decency, that the Corporation will violate their engage
ments, as that the General Aflembly will theirs. Shal the
General Assembly be yet told from time to time, that there
is no Safety in allowing laymen any share in the govern
ment of Co'lege, because orthodoxy would hereby be ekpo
fed? Is this confident with the smallest degree of refpe& to
the Supreme legiflatiye? Could a higher affront or injury be
offered to the authority over us? Should this insult be renew
ed, it will prove that that was indeed much occasion for
General ASTern^ly, which far surpass all others, should regu
late the ft w fmad private gifts? In other words,that the wisdom,
of the State should have the direction of the whole matter?
The Corporation can be at no loss what the op inion and
wishes of the State are. While the General Assembly have
been uniformly of opinion, that other profeffions besides the
clergy should be admitted to a partnership in the govern
ment of the College, may not the Corporation, with good
reason, fufpeC tthemfelves of past error in judgment?
Admit that the Corporation, in their present form, can re-'
tain all the estate of College; admit a so that they will infill
on an exclusive right to the government thereof: (which I
chufe not to suppose) yet the General Assembly are at least as
independent on them, as they are on the General Assembly.
Anew university can be inffituted. Gentlemen of fortune^
friends to literature, virtue and religion qan be found, at
home and abroad, to encourage the design. The Reverend
President ofYale College, it is not doubted, will preferbe
ing at the head of a seminary conduced on a more liberal
plan,
“ Thirdly, it would endanger orthodoxy, should any altera<
tion be consented to." That the promotion or preservation:
of orthodoxy depends on the Corporation, or on their retain
ing their present form, can by no means be granted. For
they are nor infall ble, nor agree among themselves. While
the preservation of orthodoxy is supposed to depend on an,
colledion of individuals fubjed to err, or change, there is
no certain security of it. Some of the Corporation are ad
vocates for what is called new divinity; Whether this divi
nity be new or old, orthodox or otherwise, is not to my pur
pose to enquire. The Corporation have declared it not or
thodox by giving their imprimatur to a pamphlet published
against it; but have pradically contradi&ed this declaration,
in chafing gentlemen to join their Board who embrace this
fyllem. They must be agreed among themselves on this
fubjed, before they can, with any hope offuccefs, undertake
to preserve and promote orthodoxy. Those who have been
best acquainted with College for a number of years, are able
to fay how many in office have not been orthodox in the de
clared sense ofthe Corporation; orwhether they themselves
have preserved orthodoxy any better than they have the ec—
clefiaftival constitution.
(No. 953.]