Princeton’s Pastor: A Reconsideration Of Old Princeton’s View Of The Christian Ministry

By Allen Stanton

As preparations for the bicentennial celebration of Princeton Seminary indicate, the influence of Princeton Seminary upon the Protestant church can hardly be exaggerated. [1] This has been sufficiently demonstrated from the resurgence in Princeton studies over the last three decades. [2] After all, no other institution trained more clergy in the nineteenth century than Princeton. [3] This clerical influence did not simply extend to Presbyterians; although Presbyterians founded the seminary, Princeton’s faculty also trained Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, and Episcopalians. From its earliest years, Princeton boasted a broad ecumenical draw. [4] Princeton should be viewed as a significant influence upon nineteenth-century pastoral ministry. It should not be seen as the only voice, but a considerable voice nonetheless. Such influence should, if only for a better understanding of her substantial voice in the nineteenth century, warrant our attention to Princeton’s concept of pastoral ministry. By listening to the voices of the past, the twenty-first century church might likewise profit.

The Founding Of Princeton Seminary

The origins of Princeton stemmed from Presbyterian pastors lamenting the deficient education rampant among their co-laborers. Samuel Miller, a New York City pastor since 1792, grew concerned about educational insufficiency amid aggressive episcopacy. High church priests, led by John Henry Hobart, began proselytizing defenseless Presbyterians, whose pastors proved unable to defend their flock against Hobart’s charge that their ministry lacked the validating stamp of “apostolic succession.” [5] In 1805, Miller began intense correspondence with an influential Presbyterian named Ashbel Green proposing a seminary to remedy this deficiency. Green, the son of Presbyterian pastor Jacob Green, had been pastor of second Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia since 1787, and by the turn of the century had earned a reputation as a Presbyterian churchman. [6]

As Miller continued to persuade Ashbel Green to his cause, he likewise began acquiring a reputation in the Presbyterian Church. In 1803, he published an intellectual history entitled A Brief Retrospect of the Eighteenth Century and, by 1805, had earned two honorary doctorates for his work. [7] In 1806, he was elected moderator of the General Assembly and straightaway began pushing his agenda for a seminary. After this assembly, Miller had fully persuaded Green to his objective. [8] They also recruited another reputable ally at this time, a Virginian preacher named Archibald Alexander. Alexander was licensed and ordained as an evangelist by Virginia presbytery around 1791, and from 1796-1807 served as president of Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia. In 1807, having committed to Miller and Green’s agenda, Alexander preached a sermon on the floor of General Assembly calling for a seminary that would ensure an educated Presbyterian ministry. [9] The General Assembly finally approved of their objective in 1810, and assigned Miller, Green, and Alexander to develop a charter for the seminary. They did this in what became known simply as “the Plan.”

As we turn our attention to Princeton’s idea of pastoral ministry, we will begin by looking at the charter of the seminary. Next, we will look at the elaboration of this view of the Christian ministry by Samuel Miller. Then, we will examine the charter’s plan of integrating and accomplishing its desired end, followed by some more particular applications by Samuel Miller.

The Plan Of The Seminary

The Plan of the seminary can best be captured in a few lines of its introduction:

Inasmuch as the obtaining of salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord, to the glory of the eternal God, is the chief object which claims the attention of man; and considering, that in the attainment of this object the dispensation of the Gospel is principally instrumental; it is manifestly of the highest importance, that the best means be used to ensure the faithful preaching of the Gospel, and the pure administration of all its ordinances. [10]

According to the three founders of Princeton, the chief end of the ministry was the preservation of the gospel. In order to cultivate faithful preachers and defenders of the gospel, the Plan proposed a seminary that aimed to produce men able to rightly divide the word of truth but also men of true and fervent piety. They further explained this purpose in what followed:

To unite, in those who shall sustain the ministerial office, religion and literature; that piety of the heart which is the fruit only of the renewing and sanctifying grace of God, with solid learning; believing that religion without learning, or learning without religion, in the ministers of the Gospel, must ultimately prove injurious to the Church. [11]

This captures the general emphasis of the purpose of the seminary. Yet, the Plan developed particular practices that should facilitate such an end. We will return to those particulars in time.

Samuel Miller’s Elaboration Of Princeton’s View

Although Miller, Green, and Alexander collaborated on the Plan, Miller decisively shaped Princeton’s idea of pastoral ministry for the simple reason that the Board of Trustees hired him, in 1813, as the first professor of church history and government. A significant aspect of his job description included teaching on the history of preaching, homiletics, delivery, public prayer, and interaction in the church courts. He also wrote extensively on the Presbyterian ministry. [12] Much attention has been given to Archibald Alexander’s contributions in regards to Princeton’s view of the ministry but often to the neglect of Miller, whose views played an equal if not greater role. [13] Alexander’s teaching responsibilities predominantly covered dogmatic and polemic theology. Although he certainly used the Sunday afternoon conferences and his classroom lectures as vehicles for expressing his ministerial ideas, the General Assembly specifically hired Miller to articulate the seminary’s concept of pastoral ministry—a logical choice, considering that Miller had pastored nearly twice as long as Alexander. [14] In essence, Miller expounded the Plan of the seminary to a greater degree than any other professor in the first two and a half decades of the seminary’s existence. We will consider three of his most important literary productions on this topic.

The Importance Of Gospel Ministry

Prior to the Winter Session of 1827, Miller presented an introductory lecture to the student body. The thesis of the lecture could be summarized in the following statement: “What the ministers are, the Church will always be.” [15] He divided his lecture into four heads: (1) the design of the office, (2) defense of these statements of Scripture on the subject, (3) the general support of this by society and, (4) by history. Lastly, Miller offered some applicatory principles. We will briefly address his arguments in turn.

Miller began by defining his understanding of the essence of pastoral ministry. He claimed that a society had hope of preserving the gospel only where both the Word of God and faithful expounders of that Word were present. Without faithful ministers, “we have no reason to expect either that sinners will be converted, or saints edified and comforted.” [16]

Miller then defended his statements about the ministry under two headings. First, he claimed that the Scriptures everywhere promised that “faithful ministers shall be a great blessing.” To prove this from Scripture he appealed to three passages in particular: Jeremiah 3:15 and 23:4, and Isaiah 57:4, 6, 11. On the flipside, he claimed that the Scriptures everywhere teach the “incalculable injury” that unfaithful ministers do to the church. Corrupt doctrine and practice almost without exception extend from the teachers of the church.

He continued by noting that not only is this the rule of the church but that nearly “every species of society” in every age confirms this principle. He argued that all heresies which have corrupted the church have in almost every case been introduced by churchmen. He stated: “No church was ever ruined, or essentially injured, but by her own ministers: or signally blessed, but through a revival of their zeal and fidelity.” [17] Miller then asked, “what may we infer from this?” He proposed ten things. First, we should infer “that the ministerial office is the most interesting, the most responsible, the most awful under heaven.” [18] This should provoke the ministerial candidate toward a healthy fear. How can one think of this weighty task and not tremble under it? The candidate should not enter upon the ministry lightly.

Second, we should consider the great degree to which a minister of the gospel must be qualified and how difficult is the attainment of those qualities.

Surely such a man ought to have many qualifications which do not belong, and are not necessary to common Christians. What various, and extensive knowledge; especially, what familiar acquaintance with Scripture; what deep and ardent piety; what prudence; what knowledge of the world and the human heart; what command of his own spirit; what zeal; what patience; what capacity for labor; what diligence; what perseverance, and indispensable here! [19]

Therefore, the candidate for ministry should not be too hasty to end his preparatory studies to enter pastoral duties. If this task is so high and demands so much, one must take extremely seriously his preparation. If he does not, his unfaithfulness is exceedingly great. Miller claimed that even pagan society recognizes the centrality of the pastoral ministry to the success of the church. As a result, these societies have always made the denigration of the character of the church’s ministers a “favorite method for attacking Christianity itself.” [20]

Miller continued by arguing that the failure to understand the ministry in this way is a primary reason for the scarcity of good and profitable preaching.

The true reason, then, why we have so little good and profitable preaching, is, that, among those who attempt to perform this service, there is so little deep, warm, heart-felt piety; and so little of that patient, indefatigable labor, to store the mind with knowledge, and to attain an easy, natural, forcible method of communicating it, which are within the reach of the most ordinary minds, supremely intent on doing good. [21]

With these things in mind, Miller continued, the friends of piety will be much in prayer that God will provide such men of learning and piety to bless the church. Sheer numbers are of little value; what is necessary is men of the “proper stamp.” For “what advantage is it to any church to add to her ministry a drone, an ignoramus, or a learned formalist?” [22]

These considerations, said Miller, clarify what kind of honor the ministers should attain for and what kind of spirit must be roused for the faithful service of these duties. He concluded his lecture with the following exhortation:

May the Lord give you grace to ponder well in your hearts what you are about, and what is before you! May the Lord give you grace to consider seriously the furniture which you need for this mighty work; especially that deep, ardent, active piety, which lies at the foundation of all other useful furniture…. Resolve, that, if the Church be corrupted with error, agitated by controversy, or torn by schism, the sin shall not lie at your door. If her walls be broken down, by folly or wickedness, see that you be found in the breach, fighting and praying for her restoration. [23]

For Miller and his associates, the gospel ministry is the highest of all callings and necessarily demands more from its candidates than any other occupation. Therefore one must not enter it lightly. He must be a man of great piety and be committed to learning the system of doctrine found in Scripture. He elaborated on the latter in 1829.

The Necessity Of Mature Preparatory Study

After the founding of the seminary and the first decade and a half of its operation, Presbyterian clergymen were still unhappy with its candidates’ level of education. In 1829, a committee of the General Assembly requested that Dr. Miller publish another introductory lecture that he delivered on the topic prior to the summer session in July of 1829 in hopes of promoting greater vigor in candidates’ preparatory study. This lecture was simply entitled The Importance of Mature Preparatory Study for the Ministry.

In this work, Miller spoke out against the presumptuousness of students who left the seminary before completing the regular three-year course of study. He summarized his intent in the following manner:

To impress upon the minds of those whom I address, that the preliminary studies of a candidate for the holy ministry ought to be as mature and complete as he can make them; and, of consequence, that nothing less than what is commonly styled a “regular course,” either here or elsewhere, under the direction of some approved teacher or teachers, ought to be considered as sufficient, by any theological student, who wishes to be, permanently, either acceptable or useful in the sacred office. [24]

Miller attempted to drive home this impression with eight arguments. First, he contended, we must serve Christ with the best of our abilities. The person who enters the ministry without proper instruction in the Bible’s system of truth seldom proves useful to the church. Undoubtedly, the Spirit of God makes a man’s ministry effectual, yet, “as long as God’s kingdom is a kingdom of means,” a man thoroughly equipped will likely be more successful.

Second, he compelled his audience to consider the extent of information in which the minister must be familiar. He must know the biblical languages, history and antiquities, biblical criticism, interpretation, didactic and polemic theology, the various controversies of the church, as well as church history and church government. He must also be familiar with practical theology. He must know how to develop and deliver sermons and how to properly care for the flock entrusted to him. These things every candidate must know and they cannot do so without mature preparation.

Miller continued by arguing the unlikelihood of acquiring a sufficient educational foundation after the conclusion of his preparatory studies. The demands upon a young pastor are too intense to allow time for rigorous simultaneous study. Grandiose ambitions will more than likely be vain and empty intentions. In the end, he will simply exhaust himself and his influence as a preacher.

He argued further that preparatory study not only equips one mentally but spiritually as well. Mature and slow training tempers the general character of the candidate. It humbles a man who might have previously thought himself wise above his capacities. Seminary education forces him to ponder the great task to which he is called and produces in him a solemnity that might otherwise escape him. Seminary training is as much necessary for piety as for the intellect.

Miller then prompted his audience to consider the opinions and practices of the church throughout history. The Jews demanded their candidates be thoroughly trained before entering the service of the synagogue. The apostles studied three years with Jesus, and Paul also underwent intensive study under Gamaliel before he was charged as an apostle. The second to fourth centuries encouraged similar training, as did the European universities afterward. “If our fathers in all ages,” Miller challenged, deemed intense study necessary for the preparation for ministry, “shall we be arrogant enough to suppose that they were all wrong, and that we understand the subject better than they did?”25 “Rely on it,” Miller continued, “if you have not the same conviction now, you will, I doubt not, adopt them by and by; perhaps…when it is too late to profit by the conviction.” [26]

Lastly, Miller argued that the situation of this country demanded more able ministers than the past; this stemmed from the fact that the learnedness of Presbyterian clergy was at a “low ebb.” He lamented the loss of eminent men of the past such as Edwards, Burr, the Tennents, Blair, Davies and Finley, Witherspoon, Waddell, and Rodgers, and argued that the country demanded a larger supply “of truly able, pious, and well-trained ministers of the gospel,” akin to those eminent men. [27]

Yet Miller did not want his students to draw the wrong conclusion. He anticipated that many might respond, “If ministers are in such great demand, shouldn’t we stop wasting our time in the classroom and begin working in the harvest?” To this Miller responded:

There is indeed, the most pressing want of more laborers to go forth and feed the destitute and perishing millions in every part of our revolved world. But I will venture to say, there is a still greater want of well qualified laborers, in whom piety, wisdom, prudence, zeal, and learning are conspicuously united. One such man will really be likely to do more good—far more good—than fifty unqualified men, or men not furnished, in some measure, as public teachers ought to be. [28]

In the mind of Miller and his Princetonian associates, the gospel ministry was the greatest of all callings, and the person who pursued it must undergo a time of mature preparation both intellectually and spiritually. The Plan provided a few particulars for the seminary in hopes of cultivating such growth during the student’s preparatory years.

The Particulars Of The Plan

Having seen the generalities of the Plan more clearly defined, we now return to it to see how the founders of the seminary provided for the accomplishment of cultivating piety and learning. In article five, the Plan delineated expectations for both the professors and for the students in this regard.

Upon graduation, the student must have been thoroughly equipped in all the areas previously mentioned. The Plan expected that this chiefly would be accomplished through professorial instruction, but it also allotted specific responsibility to the professors for the production of personal piety. The Plan divided these principles into four sections.

In section one, the Plan delineated between daily exercises and those particular to the Lord’s Day. In their daily habits, the Plan charged:

It is expected that every student in the Theological Seminary will spend a portion of time every morning and evening in devout meditation, and self-recollection and examination; in reading the holy Scriptures solely with a view to a personal and practical application of the passage read, to his own heart, character, and circumstances; and in humble fervent prayer, and praise to God in secret. [29]

It continued with more specific instructions for the Sabbath. It asserted:

The whole of every Lord’s Day is to be devoted to devotional exercises, either of a social or secret kind. Intellectual pursuits, not immediately connected with devotion or the religion of the heart, are on that day to be forborne. The books to be read are to be of a practical nature. The conversations had with each other are to be chiefly on religious subjects. Associations for prayer and praise, and for religious conference, calculated to promote growth in grace, are also proper for this day; subject to such regulations as the professors and directors may see proper to prescribe. It is also wished and recommended, that each student should ordinarily set apart one day in a month for special prayer and self-examination in secret, accompanied with fasting. [30]

It is interesting to note the professors’ role in this. During their time in seminary, the professors were in essence the pastors of their students as well as their professors. The Plan charged the professors not only to teach but also to take a vested interest in the development of character and piety of the seminary’s students. Therefore, the Plan granted much authority to the professors in evaluating the faithfulness of the students in these regards. If they deemed their progress unsatisfactory, the Plan permitted the professors to dismiss the students from the seminary if they “persist in a system of conduct not exemplary in regard to religion.” [31]

In closing, the Plan charged the professors to use all “the means in their power, to encourage, cherish, and promote devotion and personal piety among their pupils.” It was their responsibility not simply to instruct but to use both teaching and any other proper means to “foster true experimental religion, and unreserved devotedness to God.” [32]

Letters On Clerical Manners And Habits

The philosophy of ministry of the seminary, especially for Miller, did not simply consist of the endeavor of producing pious and learned preachers; it also sought to produce respectable clergy. In 1827, Miller penned a work entitled Letters on Clerical Manners and Habits, teaching habits he thought most proper in a Presbyterian pastor. To be certain, the work is filled with idiosyncrasies to both Miller and to the nineteenth century, yet Miller nevertheless expressed a wonderful sensitivity and general knowledge of customs and habits. So he penned this extensive work in hopes of helping his students avoid foibles and faults that have sometimes made ministers appear defective and thereby hindered their ministerial effectiveness. He summarized his goal for the book in the following way:

It is [a pastor’s] great business to win men to the love of truth and duty by moral means, and among others, by exhibiting in their own temper and lives, the meek, lowly, amiable, and benevolent spirit of religion which they inculcate…when I recollect how extremely important the first steps of a young minister are; at how early and inexperienced an age he frequently enters on his public work; how much depends on the character of his habits and manners when he is least sensible of the fact; and how completely he may prostrate his dignity, and foreclose his usefulness, by a few ridiculous foibles, or inadvertent habits, of the existence of which it would be sometimes difficult to convince him—I say, when I recollect all these things, I am astonished that candidates for the ministry think so little of the matter, and are so little concerned to form a style of manners, which may be conducive, at once, to their comfort and usefulness. [33]

Miller began the basic exposition of this work by proposing a summary of general characteristics that must be present in the manners of clergy: dignity, gentleness, condescension, affability, reserve, and uniformity.

He expounded dignity as “that happy mixture of gravity and elevation in human deportment, which evinces a mind habitually thoughtful, serious, and set on high things.” [34] One develops this characteristic, he argued, chiefly by the company with which one associates. Frivolous company necessarily impairs dignity.

Second, he defined gentleness as “that habitual mildness of disposition, and softness of manner, which carefully guard against everything, in speech or behavior, adapted unnecessarily to offend or to give uneasiness.” [35] This, he urged, as a fruit of the Spirit, should always be sought after. It is not, however, to be confused for cowardice; it simply “stands opposed to harshness and severity, to pride and arrogance, to violence and oppression.” [36]

The third general characteristic which must be present in the useful minister is condescension. A minister shares most of his time with the poor and destitute, the friendless, and the afflicted. In fact, this must be the case. Thus the preacher must be able to lay aside any hint of “haughtiness or superiority” and demonstrate to those who society might deem inferior that such a spirit does not reside in their minister. [37]

At this point, Miller gave a very practical exhortation for establishing a spirit of condescension. He wrote: “Go to their dwellings as a friend and a comforter. Listen with patient attention to their complaints and requests. Manifest, what you ought undoubtedly to feel, a readiness to serve them to the utmost of your power.” [38]

He continued, fourthly, by describing what he referred to as affability. “An affable man” Miller wrote, “is one who may be approached and accosted without embarrassment or difficulty; one who has a happy talent of conversing pleasantly and courteously, and of placing everyone in conversation with him perfectly at ease.” [39] Yet one must avoid the mistake of breaking down all barriers of mutual respect. To completely disavow respect for the office and work of the ministry undermines it completely. What Miller means by affability is simply the opposite of haughtiness and coldness. [40]

The fourth essential characteristic of clerical manners is reserve. Miller claimed that certain topics should not be spoken of by the pastor. Although he must be affable, his speech must not be utterly free and unrestrained.

Private affairs of your neighbors; the characters, plans, and conduct of the absent; questions which implicate the principles and views of other religious denominations; the conflicts of party politicians; your own private concerns; the petty scandal of the neighborhood; what others have communicated to you, in reference to delicate subjects, whether under the injunction of secrecy or not; your opinions concerning the passing events and persons of the day, unless in very clear and special cases; on all these and similar subjects, if you are wise you will exercise much reserve; nay you will seldom allow yourself to converse at all, even when all around you are chattering about them. [41]

The final quality which Miller deems necessary for clergy is uniformity. In other words, the minister must treat all of his people the same from day to day. He must not honor some more than others and treat some specially and others indifferently. The only remedy for avoiding this error is simply attention. He must pay careful attention to the way he treats and speaks to people. [42]

For Miller, the purpose of the ministry can be basically summarized in a word: “usefulness.” Therefore, he must avoid foibles and practices that would limit his usefulness in gospel ministry. He must not only study the Bible but also the world. This does not mean conformity to the world, but “you must be acquainted with the actual world. You must see and study man as he is.” [43] If a man possesses the aforementioned general characteristics, he will ensure his greatest usefulness.

Miller proceeded by addressing all sorts of particulars, but the particulars are merely the application of these characteristics to all areas of the minister’s life: conversation, habits in the pulpit, conduct in the church judicatories, etc.

Conclusion

For the Princetonians, especially Samuel Miller, the ministry was the highest of all callings. As goes the minister, so goes the church. And because the ministry is so important, the candidate must enter it only after serious consideration and much diligent preparation. One must obtain adequate theological furniture before entering the pastoral ministry. But theological training without piety completely nullifies a pastor’s usefulness. For these reasons, in their view, the student must spend at least the full term of a regular course of study at the seminary and attend to his studies not only with great diligence but also with regular times—morning and evening—in prayer and meditation. So important were these daily practices that it was stated in the very charter of the seminary that if the student failed to satisfactorily attend to such disciplines, the professor had the authority to preclude his studies and remove him from the seminary.

Not only must the minister be theologically astute and eminently pious, he must also be respectable. He must be able to carry himself well in his community. He must know how to dress, speak, and relate in ways that are appropriate to local customs and in ways that will ensure his usefulness. The respectability of the ministry must be preserved by those who bear the office.

Where this concept of the ministry is in place, the candidate takes his seminary studies very seriously. He also works to cultivate and maintain practices that enforce his dependency upon the Lord and growth in grace. The seminary and its professors likewise view themselves as instrumental in cultivating both learnedness and piety in their students. They demonstrate this conviction by making a concentrated effort in the development of their students and in monitoring their progress in both doctrine and piety. During their time in the seminary, professors also take an interest in ridding their students of practices and habits which would inhibit their usefulness.

For some traditions, this understanding of the Christian ministry might sound familiar. Yet, I daresay, for many this sounds very foreign. Should this be the case? This was certainly a predominant manner of considering the Christian ministry, and the role of the seminary, in the nineteenth century, due to Princeton’s pervasive influence. That it has subsequently been dismissed and reformulated I hardly need to prove. Should we reconsider the thoughts of our forebears? As we celebrate the bicentennial anniversary of the founding of Princeton Seminary, we would indeed be remiss if we did not consider their view of the Christian ministry. After all, their chief purpose was to produce just that—Christian ministers, by God’s grace.

Notes

1. A number of titles have been released, or will soon be, in anticipation of this occasion: Paul C. Gutjahr, Charles Hodge: Guardian of American Orthodoxy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); Paul Kjoss Heiseth, Right Reason and the Princeton Mind: An Unorthodox Proposal (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, 2010); Andrew Hoffecker, Charles Hodge: the Pride of Princeton (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, 2011); Gary Steward, Old Princeton: A Guided Tour of Its Leading Men and Their Writings (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, forthcoming); Fred G. Zaspel, The Theology of B.B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2010). Likewise, Evangelical Press is producing a series called “Bitesize Biographies” that will include several of the key figures of Princeton Seminary. One on B. B. Warfield is being completed by John Muether.
2. Some of the most important contributions to this resurgence are: David B. Calhoun, Princeton Seminary, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994, 1997); Andrew Hoffecker, Piety and the Princeton Theologians (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1981); and Mark Noll, The Princeton Theology: 1812-1921 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001). Noll has contributed a number of other works, many of which will be cited in this paper, but this is the most sweeping and comprehensive of his contributions.
3. See Mark Noll, “The Founding of Princeton Seminary,” Westminster Theological Journal 42 (1979): 72-110. See also the introduction to The Princeton Theology, 11-48; and David Calhoun, Princeton Seminary, 1:28-30.
4. See Peter Wallace and Mark Noll, “The Students of Princeton Seminary, 1812-1929: A Research Note,” American Presbyterians 72, 3 (1994): 203-15.
5. For a more detailed treatment, see Allen Stanton, “The Theological Climate of the Early Nineteenth Century and the Founding of a Polemical Seminary at Princeton,” The Confessional Presbyterian 6 (2010): 22-30, 298. See also Samuel Miller Jr., The Life of Samuel Miller (Philadelphia: Claxton, Remsen, and Haffelfinger, 1869).
6. Ashbel Green, The Life of Ashbel Green (New York: Robert Carter and Bros., 1849). William Buell Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit (New York: Robert Carter and Bros., 1858), 3:473-79. For the influence of his father Jacob Green see Mark Noll, “Jacob Green’s Proposal for a Seminary,” Journal of Presbyterian History 58 (1980), 210-22.
7. Samuel Miller, A Brief Retrospect of the Eighteenth Century. Part First; in two volumes, containing a sketch of the revolutions and improvements in science, arts, and literature during that period (New York: T. and J. Swords, 1803).
8. Ashbel Green, The Life of Ashbel Green, 315.
9. James W. Alexander, The Life of Archibald Alexander (New York: Charles Scribner, 1854), 314-15.
10. Plan of the Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, located in Princeton, New-Jersey. Adopted by the General Assembly of 1811. 2nd Edition (Elizabethtown: Isaac A. Kollock, 1816), 3.
11. The Plan, 4-5.
12. To see a list of a large portion of Miller’s lectures, see the collection of his manuscripts as preserved in the Princeton Seminary Library by Douglas F. Denee at http://libweb.ptsem.edu/collections/ead/miller_samuel.html#a23.
13. See, for example, James M. Garretson, Princeton and Preaching: Archibald Alexander and the Christian Ministry (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2005). See also Lefferts Loescher, Facing the Enlightenment and Pietism (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1983).
14. Miller pastored in New York City from 1793-1813, approximately twice the amount of Alexander’s two pastoral stints collectively (1791-96, 1807-12).
15. Samuel Miller, The Importance of the Gospel Ministry: An Introductory Lecture Delivered at the Opening of the Winter Session of the Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey, November 9, 1827 (Princeton: Princeton Press, 1827), 8.
16. Miller, The Importance of Gospel Ministry, 9-10.
17. Miller, The Importance of Gospel Ministry, 30, 32.
18. Miller, The Importance of Gospel Ministry, 32.
19. Miller, The Importance of Gospel Ministry, 34.
20. Miller, The Importance of Gospel Ministry, 39.
21. Miller, The Importance of Gospel Ministry, 43.
22. Miller, The Importance of Gospel Ministry, 44.
23. Miller, The Importance of Gospel Ministry, 50, 53.
24. Samuel Miller, “The Importance of Mature Preparatory Study for the Ministry,” an introductory lecture delivered at the opening of the summer session of the seminary at Princeton, New Jersey, July 3, 1829 (Princeton Press, 1829), 6.
25. Miller, “The Importance of Mature Study,” 21.
26. Miller, “The Importance of Mature Study,” 22.
27. Miller, “The Importance of Mature Study,” 28.
28. Miller, “The Importance of Mature Study,” 28.
29. The Plan, 17.
30. The Plan, 17.
31. The Plan, 18.
32. The Plan, 18.
33. Samuel Miller, Letters on Clerical Manners and Habits: Addressed to a Student in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, N.J. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1827), 22-23.
34. Miller, Clerical Manners, 28.
35. Miller, Clerical Manners, 28.
36. Miller, Clerical Manners, 34.
37. Miller, Clerical Manners, 36.
38. Miller, Clerical Manners, 36.
39. Miller, Clerical Manners, 38.
40. Miller, Clerical Manners, 40.
41. Miller, Clerical Manners, 41-42.
42. Miller, Clerical Manners, 44.
43. Miller, Clerical Manners, 19.