Cheraw gazette. [volume] (Cheraw, S.C.) 1835-1838, 1837-05-03

cas;oned by an attack made upon the sem,
mary in q Manifesto from the Theological
Professors in Yale College, must give
YOU son } account Of this Manifesto.
The Rev. Daniel Dow, member OF the
Corporation of Yale College, having been
appointed on committee 10 attend the OK,
animation of the Theological School. and
being called upon to make u report to the
Corporation, at their annual meeting III
September, 1884, took occasion to object
to some Of the doctrines taught IN that
School, and to suggest thatthc Professor OF
Didac,ic Theology had taught and publish
ed sentiments Inconsistent with the creed on
which this Professorship was iounded'-
| This led to some discussion in the Corpo-
ration, to a conference with the Professors
and to the Manifesto Of which have just
spoken.
Itmay be proper here to state, that since
1922 until recently, all the officers OF Yale
College have been required 10 declare their
assent to the Confessional Faith contained
in the Saybrook Platform, which is almost
entirely the same as that of the Westmin-
ster diyincs. But within few years past,
the ,est.law of the College has been repeal
cd; so that now, neither the President nor
Professors are obliged to 1--WE their assent
to any confession Of faith, nor arc the
CORPORATION authorized to dismiss them
from office on account of any religious
oniniops whatever This applies to
the Theological no less than to the Acadc-
mcal Professors, with the exception OF the
Professor of Ddactic Theology. But the
repeaI Of the test.law could not affect this
Professorship, because there were certain
stiouIations with the founders, which it was
beyond the power OF the Corporation to re-
peal. The principal subscribers to the
| fund. made the following requisitlon: "Ev-
ery 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, Il hereby declare my free assent
to the Confession Of Faith, and Eeclssias-
tical Discipline, agreed upon blythe Church.
IS of the State III 17OS. &c. the Say
brook Platform.) If at any future period
any person who fills the chair of this Pro-
fessorship, holds or teaches doctrines con-
trarv to those referred to, it shall be the
duty of the Corporation of the College to
dismiss him from office forthwith; ;-and ii
they Go not dismiss him, then we reserve to
our heirs the right to demand the sew
eral sums which We have paid, or may
hereafter pay respectively" The Corpo-
ration after reciting thc foregoing in pre-
amble, passed the following vote: "ThlS
Board doth accordingly found and es:ab.
lish in this College, on said fund, Proscs-
sorsh!p ofDidactic Theology, on the terms,
conditions, and limitations expressed in said
instrument signed BY Timothy Dwlgh! and
others.
Itwould seem from the foregoing STATE
mcnt, that the Professor Of Dldactc Theol-
ogy is required to give his unqualified as.
sent to the Confession Of Faith contained
in the Saybrook Platform. 1t was so un-
derstood by Mr.. Dow when he made his
report to the Corporation. But the Protes-
fessors in their Manifesto, defend the prin-
ciple that a subscription to articles of faith,
is made only for "substance Of doc
trine. They admit that DR.. Taylor
does hold and teach doctrines contrary to
those contained in the Saybrook Platform.
They say moreover, that while Professor
elect, he "had certain knopledge from per-
soaal intercourse with The founders, that
hal he embraced crery minute doctrine Of
the Confession, 1t acouM hare been con-
sidcred decisire disqualification for the
Office" This is certainly very ex.raordl.
nary declaration; and it naturally suggests
several enquiries.
What could be the object Of the foun.
dcrs. to require their Professor to give his
unqualified assent to creed, anL then IN
form him thatif he did comply with their
requistion fully and sincerely, thcy should
consider him disqualified for the office
Was such thing ever heard of before on
the face Of the globe? Why did they not
prescribe such a creed as they should be
willing 10 have their Professor subscribe,
ey amino, and without reservation! Or If
it was their intention that assent should be
given to the creed only "for substance of
doctrine" why did they not say so? And
if DR.. Taylor intended 10 give his assent
only "tor substance Of doctrine" why did
he not say so? If he had informed the
Corporation, that he could moi give an un-
qualified assent 10 the creed, and if the
Corporation had been authorized by the
founders to accept, and had actually accept
ed Of qualified assent, the case would be
different. But it does not appear tina; the
Corporation are authorized to accept ofany
but are unqualified assent; and SO far Us
appears, the assent given by DR.. Taylor