Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1852-08-13
Letter from Mr.. IIigbec,

Mr.. HiGBEE himself, (whom we met for the
first time when he brought the subjoined COM
munication to us;) and as he appears quite com
petent to speak for himself, and TO be fortified
with a series Of somewhat significant facts, we
insert his note TO us without a word of COM
men', further than to say that while we regret
that there should have been any cause for the
discussion, the discussion itself is full of in
s~truction and benefit, if it shall be properly
improved" The RIGHT is wholly on the side
of Mr.. %IlIGBEE, Common Sense, and true free
dom Of opinion and discussion, as he shows
both by fact and precedent las in the case Of
Professor PEAsE.) The less of this sort of
fummididde there is about our University the
better it will be, ercry ray.
The following is Mr.. HIGBEE's note -
BURLINGTON, August :, 1852.
GENERAL CLARKE:
Dear Sir. Unexpectedly and I might say contrary
to my desire | have noticed two articles in YOUR
paper, in reference to myself. | had desired silence
rather than publicity in a Transaction where | was
so personally involved, yet as this is impossible NJ =
der present circumstances, | feel it no more than
honorable and right to make known all the facts, as
they are.
In accordance with \ special invitation from the
faculty OF the University OF Vermont, arrived here
on Thursday evening before Commencement week,
to meet that invitation, by delivering what is termed
MASTERS Grafton" Saturday evening, called
upon Prot. ToRREY, and while with him, the CONVEX
satlon very naturally on his part, turned upon the
peculiar views of the institution or theological school
from which | came. CThis | would remark in way
OF correction to your first article is the theological
seminary OF the Gcrman Reformed Church instead
OF that of the Dutch Reformed church, | noticed
that the Professor entirely dis greed, as he himself
SAID, with the doctrine OF that school, especially in
regard to the sacraments. ! very carefully avoided
entering into a controversy with him however ,uuon
this point, although feeling confident that his objec-
lions were entirely misplaced and Incorrectly and
therefore satisfied myself by merely defining in a
very brief way, the position itself. ! am not about
t, give publicity to the conversation in detail, hut
only to such a portion of it as is necessary to make
myself Ineligible. The Professors main objection
was this, as nearly as | can recollect.-viz BY Civ
ing objective force and reality to the sacrarnents
themselves, they are made by us ~magically operative,
contradicting, in this way. the spiritual nature of
Christianity as distinguished from Judaism, and also
laying ourselves open TO the charge OF being unphll-
o%sophical. To tlls ! simply stated, that we consid-
cred the spiritual without form a mere abstraction.
and, in the sphere OF religion, nothing more, in the
cnd, ,han absolute GnosticIsin, and that faith no more
constituted the reality OF the sacraments, than sensu-
Gus lntuitIons constitute the natural world. but that
1t served only as the condition OF apprehending and
appropriating their mysterious power. In a short
time after this, made known, in the course of our
conversation, the sub, ct of my Grafton, telling him
that it was Theological, althou. III by no means contro-
verSial, and that | was fearful that it might in some
distinctly q hardly can have misunderstood him
that, il there ,odS Such a disagreement | could not
be niioIoed 10 speak, although our conversation had
been previously very amicaLle, and indeed almost
wholly CONDUCTED by the Professor himself. On leay-
Ing the door, fully understanding of course that nv
subject was theological, he remarked to me that he
trusted and hoped that there would be no such disa-
grcclnent, As WAS spoken OF. These arc, if my mem
ory serves me right, the very same words thai, he
used. and should have supposed, Judging from what
he afterwards said, and also from his letter to YOU.
that he would have immediately refused nv Grafton.
for reflection cculd by no means change the nature
OF my subject, and only upon this ground does he
now seem to object to 1t; and also cannot conceive
how under the circumstances afterwards alledged.
he could ask me TO kaHd il in between that time ana
Commencement dag, for examination, leaving me
TO inter, Of course, tiat if its contents were appropri.
ate, | should speak. | would remark here that the
subjects OF the orations OF candidates for the Masters
degree are not printed on the order OF exercises at
all, and that it is generally expected that they will
choose a subject corresponding with the peculiar bent
OF their studies, as it would be difficult not to do so,
and at the same time answer the proper design OF
the custom itself So at least | thought but this
will suffice upon this point.
Monday evening folio wing, | left my Grafton with
Prot. SnEDD, Tuesday evening, Prot. SHEpp met
me IN n great hurry, saying that he had been look
Ing for NE for some time. lie Immediately told me
that Prot. ToGREy had spoken to him in regard to
my Grafton, and that he was in haste to see the prin-
ter, and wanted to know whether would prefer to
have my name on the order OF exercises as "ercused,"
or have it entirely struck Off In the midst OF my
establishment at such uacultivated and rough hand
hing ! mustered thought enough to say that pre-
lcrred the Igtter, as conceived had asked for no
excuse, and therefore considered the whole transact
ton an emphatic crciusc. When on the way to the
printing office, tor the purpose Exchanging the cor.
der OF exercises" which by the way seemed to be the
IN object OF the Professor, and not an explana-
ton OF the reasons why he did SO, | asked If Prof
IoRREY had read my Grafton He said that he had
not, but that he objected to it on the ground OF its
being theological.
] then frank y told Prof. SHEpD that this wasvery
strange, since Prot. ToEEEY had expressed a hope
aud wish that should speak, and had even request
ed me 10 hand in my piece to be examined Tor that
purpose, already knowing that it was theological, of
course, and ms much open TO the objection which
was raised at one time as another. lie then told
me that after readiRs II himself, he entirely concur
red with Prot. ToRREYs remark. | thought at the
time thai tins concurrence would have been as ma
tural before reading as after, for the reading of 1t
OF course could not have changed the fact of It's be-
inc theological either one way or the other, and this
must have been the only remark OF Prot. ToRREy
Accord 9 to his letter, with which he cOuld concur.
Aitrr going to the printing office and not finding the
printer IN, Prot. SHEpn thought it advisable for me
to see Prot. ToRREY why know MT. | acquiesccd.
however, in tie suggestion, and, with Prot. SHEpp,