:iM'!a!iSliaii«iili!lil 
 
^ JAN 
 
 AL Sv 
 
 BY 4070 .U66 P7 1891 
 Prentiss, George Lewis, 181 
 
 -1903. 
 The agreement between Union 
 
 Seminary and tJie General 
 
THE AGREEMENT 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 UNION SEMINARY AND THE GENERAL 
 ASSEMBLY. 
 
 A CHAPTER SUPPLEMENTARY TO "FIFTY YEARS OF THE UNION 
 THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 
 
 BY 
 
 t 
 
 GEORGE L. PRENTISS, 
 
 Professor in the Institution. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 ANSON D. F. RANDOLPH & COMPANY, 
 
 38 WEST TWENTY-THIRD STREET. 
 
Copyright, 1891, by 
 ANSON D. F. RANDOLPH & COMPANY. 
 
 PRESS OF 
 
 EDWARD 0. JENK1N3' SON, 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Action op the Joint Committee on Reunion with regard 
 TO THE Theological Seminaries, .... 1 
 
 II. 
 
 The Veto in the Election of its Professors as Conceded 
 BY Union Seminary to the General Assembly, . . 7 
 
 (a). Origin and design of Union Theological Seminary, . 9 
 
 (b). Seasons and influences that induced Union Seminary, 
 
 in 1810, to give up a portion of its autonomy, . . 12 
 
 (c). Action and purpose of the Board of Directors in making 
 
 this concession, 24 
 
 {d). Bid the Board of Directors of Union Seminary suppose 
 that in their action on May 16, 1870, they were offer- 
 ing to enter into a legal compact with the Oeiural 
 Assembly? 29 
 
 (e). Scope and limitations of the reto in the election of its 
 Professors offered to the General Assembly by the 
 Directors of Union Seminary in 1870, . , .34 
 
 (/). Acceptance of the offer of Union Seminary made to the 
 
 General Assembly in its memorial of 1870, . . 41 
 
 III. 
 
 Sketch of the Operation and Effects op the Assembly's 
 Veto Power in the Election of Theological Profes- 
 sors FROM 1870 TO THE PRESENT TIME 48 
 
 (a). Early and frequent misapprehension of the extent of this 
 
 poicer on the part of the General Assembly, . . 49 
 
 (iiO 
 
iv CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 (J). Quiescence of the Assembly's veto power from 1870 to 
 
 1891, 51 
 
 (c). Sudden use of the veto power in 1891, . . • .52 
 (d). The General Assembly at Detroit, and how to judge its 
 
 course, -""^ 
 
 (e). The case against Br. Briggs as argued by John J. 
 
 McCook 60 
 
 (/). The Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries ; 
 
 its report and the action of the Assembly, . . .70 
 
 ig). Union Theological Seminary in its relations to Prince- 
 
 ton, 
 
 91 
 
 ih). The action at Betroit in the case of Br. Briggs as an 
 
 eye-opener, ^"'' 
 
 {i). A word in conclusion, . . . • • • • 1^1 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 I. The establishment of the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical 
 
 Theology, ^^'^ 
 
 II. ITie Inauguration, and the Rev. Br. BavidR. Frazer's charge, 139 
 
 III. Resolutions of the Board of Birectors sustaining Br. Briggs, . 137 
 
 IV. Statement of the Faculty 
 
NOTE. 
 
 The following paper ^ prepared last summer^ is now 
 published in the hope that it may serve to correct some 
 misapprehensions^ which have widely prevailed %oith r<?- 
 gard to the Union Theological Seminary in its 7rlations 
 to the General Assemhly and the Pi'csbyterian Church. 
 
 New York, October 24, 1891. 
 
THE AGREEMENT OF 1870 
 
 BETWEEN UNION SEMINAKY AND THE GENERAL 
 ASSEMBLY. 
 
 A CHAPTER SUPPLEMENTARY TO 
 
 "FIFTY YEARS OF THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, IN 
 THE CITY OF NEW YORK." 
 
 In the historical address delivered at the semi-centenary 
 of Union Seminary, in 1886, there was only a passing allu- 
 sion to this agreement. Nor had it attracted any special 
 attention until early in the present year. Then, all at once, 
 it began to be discussed in the religious newspapers ; at 
 first mildly and somewhat hesitatingly, but later in a very 
 earnest and positive manner. As the meeting of the 
 General Assembly drew near, the motive of this discussion 
 became apparent. The agreement of 1870, as interpreted 
 by the opponents of Dr. Briggs in the Presbyterian Church, 
 gave the General Assembly power to forbid his transfer to 
 the new chair of Biblical Theology ; and no sooner had the 
 Assembly actually met than its ]3urpose to exercise this power 
 was unmistakable. On the 29th of May it disapproved of 
 Dr. Briggs' transfer by an overwhelming vote. This action 
 of the General Assembly of 1891, whether regarded in its 
 bearing upon the Presbyterian Church or upon the Union 
 Seminary, is fraught with consequences of the utmost im- 
 portance. In the following paper I propose to consider the 
 subject in this twofold bearing ; and I shall try to do so 
 without passion or prejudice. A better understanding of 
 
2 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 the whole subject will help, perhaps, to allay some of the 
 passions and prejudices which unhappily its discussion has 
 aroused. My aim will be to set forth, as clearly and suc- 
 cinctly as possible, the main points which seem to me to be 
 involved in the controversy, and thus to aid those whose 
 minds are not yet fully made up, in reaching a just conclu- 
 sion. 
 
 ACTION OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON REUKION WITH REGARD 
 TO THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES. 
 
 The question of the Theological Seminaries was one of 
 the most difficult and perplexing with which the Joint Com- 
 mittee, appointed in 1866, had to deal. This was owing 
 partly to the nature of the subject, and in part to the great 
 diversity of origin, constitution, environment, and legal re- 
 lations which marked these institutions. 
 
 The 9th Article of "the proposed terms of reunion be- 
 tween the two branches of the Presbyterian Church of the 
 United States of America," reported by the chairmen, Drs. 
 Beatty and Adams, to their respective Assemblies, in May, 
 1867, was as follows: 
 
 If at any time, after the union has been effected, any of 
 the theological seminaries under the care and control of the 
 General Assembly, shall desire to put themselves under syn- 
 odical control, they shall be permitted to do so at the request 
 of their Boards of Directors ; and those seminaries which are 
 independent in their organization shall have the privilege of 
 putting themselves under ecclesiastical control, to the end 
 that, if practicable, a system of ecclesiastical supervision of 
 such institutions may xiltimately prevail through the entire 
 united Church. 
 
 The 9th Article, as reported by the Joint Committee and 
 
THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 3 
 
 adopted by the two General Assemblies in 1868, varied 
 somewhat from this. It was as follows : 
 
 In order to a uniform system of ecclesiastical supervision 
 those theological seminaries that are now under Assembly 
 control may, if their Boards of Direction so elect, be trans- 
 ferred to the watch and care of one or more of the adjacent 
 synods, and the other seminaries are advised to introduce, as 
 far as may be, into their constitutions, the principle of Syn- 
 odical or Assembly supervision ; in which case they shall be 
 entitled to an official recognition and approbation on the part 
 of the General Assembly. 
 
 The changes in the Article are highly significant, and in- 
 dicate several points of objection made to it as reported in 
 1867. This amended Article reappeared among the " Con- 
 current Declarations" of the General Assemblies of 1869. 
 In explaining it in their report of 1868, the chairmen said : 
 
 A recommendation looking to some uniformity of ecclesi- 
 astical supervision, is all which the Committee felt to be with- 
 in their province or that of the Assembly ; except that those 
 seminaries, now belonging to either branch of the Church, 
 should have every guarantee and protection for their char- 
 tered rights which they might desire. 
 
 This passage, both in its mild, even subdued, tone, and in 
 its explanation, throws a clear light back upon the devious 
 path by which the Committee had reached their conclusion. 
 The discussion and criticism occasioned by their plan, as re- 
 ported in 1867, had convinced them that the whole subject' 
 was beset with difficulties and perils, which required very 
 delicate as well as skillful treatment. "J. recommendation " 
 (the italics are their own) " looking to some uniformity of 
 ecclesiastical supervision, is all which the Committee felt to 
 be within their province or that of the Assembly"; except 
 that the '•''chartered rights " of all the seminaries of either 
 
4 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 branch of the Church, should be carefully guaranteed and 
 protected. This was quite different language from that used 
 in 1867 : " Those seminaries which are independent in their 
 organization, shall have the peivilege of putting themselves 
 under ecclesiastical control.'''' 
 
 The temper of mind, as also the way, in which the Joint 
 Committee and the friends of reunion generally had come to 
 regard the question of the theological seminaries, may be seen 
 most distinctly, perhaps, in the speech of Rev. George W. 
 Musgrave, D.D., LL.D., made on the occasion of the pres- 
 entation of the report of the Joint Committee of Confer- 
 ence to the Old School General Assembly sitting in the 
 Brick Church in the city of ]S'ew York, May 27, 1869. No 
 one who heard it is likely ever to forget that speech or the 
 remarkable old man who made it. A few extracts will in- 
 dicate its spirit and its bearing on the question now under 
 discussion. Its opening sentences are as follows : 
 
 It affords me great pleasure to be able to report a plan of 
 union between what are known as the Old and New School 
 bodies, and to be able to say that our report is unmiimous, 
 and is signed by every member of each Committee. The 
 Joint Committee report three papers to the Assembly. The 
 first is a plan of union, containing the basis, which wiU be 
 sent down to the presbyteries for their acceptance or rejec- 
 tion. The second paper is a declaration, made that there may 
 be a good understanding between the two branches. This 
 paper is not a compact or covenant, but it is a recommendation 
 of certain arrangements as to seminaries, boards, etc. It is 
 no part of the basis or terms of union. It only recommends 
 certain arrangements as suitable to be adopted. The third 
 paper is one recommending a day of prayer to Almighty God 
 for His guidance and presence, that presbyteries may be 
 under Divine influence when they come to vote iipon this 
 momentous question. 
 
THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 
 
 In the course of hfs speech Dr. Musgrave thus referred 
 to the " concurrent declarations " on theological seminaries, 
 boards, and other matters pertaining to the interests of the 
 Church, when it should become united : 
 
 I have already stated to the Assembly that these articles 
 don't form a part of the basis. They are not a compact or 
 covenant, but they suggest to the Assembly what are suitable 
 aiTangements. I will not repeat what T have said, except to 
 call your attention to that important distinction. They are 
 not terms of the union. They may be amended or modified, 
 as any future Assembly may deem proper. We told our 
 brethren that we were unwilling to tie the future hands of 
 the Church of God; and I, for one, was very decided on that 
 point. And I will say to you that I woiild have risked the 
 failure of this union at the present time, rather than concede 
 that these articles s^liould be unchangeable, though I cannot 
 foresee that there will be any necessity in the futirre to change 
 them. I am neither a prophet, nor the son of a prophet ; but 
 I think I have some Httle common sense, and I felt that it 
 would be unsafe for us to imperil the future by trammeling 
 the Church of God, preventing it from exercising its liberty, 
 and from dealing with circumstances as they might arise in 
 the providence of God. Su-, we were very decided and de- 
 termined that those articles should not form a part of the 
 compact, but that they should be suggestions and recom- 
 mendations, in order that the presbyteries should get an 
 understanding between the parties. But, sir, it is due to 
 fairness that I should say, and I repeat it now pubUcly in 
 order that it may have a response from this house, we did 
 say to these brethren, " We will not consent to make these 
 articles a covenant. We won't adopt them as a legal compact, 
 binding upon the future ; yet we are acting in good faith and 
 as honorable men, and we say to you that we will not change 
 them at any future time without obviously good and sufficient 
 reasons." 
 
6 UNION SEMINAEY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 It is needless to add, that the wisdom of proposing and 
 adopting these articles in the sense not of a legal compact, 
 but of judicious, suitable arrangements, very soon became 
 apparent. Dr. Musgrave's expressions, "We told our 
 brethren," "We did say to these brethren," refer to the 
 New School brethren, and are explained by the following 
 extract from a sketch of " The Assemblies of 1869," writ- 
 ten by the Kev. Dr. M. W. Jacobus, Moderator of the Old 
 School Assembly : 
 
 It may be mentioned, as part of the inside history of the 
 negotiations, that when the Joint Sub-Committee met for the 
 purpose of engrossing what had been passed upon by the 
 Joint Committee of Conference, and to prepare the report to 
 the Assembly, one of the members (N. S.) objected to the in- 
 sertion of the words contained in the preamble to the con- 
 current declarations, viz. : " not as articles of compact or 
 covenant, but as in their judgment proper and equitable 
 arrangements." He admitted that the language fairly ex- 
 pressed what had been agreed upon, that the articles referred 
 to were merely recommended, and if adopted by the united 
 Church might hereafter, for good and sufficient reasons, be 
 modified or repealed. But he argued that the inseiiion of 
 the words above referred to would make the imjDression 
 that the articles are ephemeral, and would have a tendency 
 to invite change. There was force in the objection. But to 
 this it was well replied, that the words ought to be inserted : 
 1. Because they fairly express our mutual good under- 
 standings. 2. Because, if omitted, ?Y might he hereafter argued 
 that the articles ivere intended to he a compact hetween the two 
 parties, which could not he honorably modified or repealed. 3. 
 Because it was held to be in the highest degree imj^ortant 
 that the united Church should be left entirely free to adapt 
 itself to any changes which, in the future development of 
 Providence, might be deemed either necessary or expedient. 
 This difference threatened to be a stumbling-block in the 
 
THE CONCESSIOIST OF THE VETO POWER. 7 
 
 way, even within reach of the goal. At this very crisis, how- 
 ever, an eminent layman of the New School committee joined 
 in this view of the case, with such cogent reasons as to prove 
 the correctness of the position. Upon re-examination of the 
 paragraph, the dissent was revoked, and the entire paper 
 was then adopted by a unanimous vote. This meeting of the 
 Joint Sub-Committee was held on the evening preceding the 
 day of presenting the report to the General Assembly, and 
 it was not until eleven o'clock at night that the decisive vote 
 was reached in the committee-room. 
 
 II. 
 
 THE VETO IN THE ELECTION OF ITS PROFESSORS AS CONCEDED 
 BY UNION SEMINARY TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 
 
 We come now to a main o1)ject of this paper, the occa- 
 sion, meaning, and force of the veto power offered and 
 given to the General Assembly in 1870 by Union Semi- 
 nary. I have shown what was the action of the Joint Com- 
 mittee respecting the theological seminaries up to the time 
 of the reunion. As the result of long and patient con- 
 sideration, aided by varied discussion throughout the two 
 Churches, the ninth article, or concurrent declaration, al- 
 ready given, had been reported to the General Assemblies 
 and adopted by both bodies. This article was a " recom- 
 mendation " and nothing more. So the case stood, when 
 the first General Assembly of the united Church met at 
 Philadelphia, in May, 1870. The work of this Assembly 
 was principally one of readjustment and reconstruction. 
 The articles approved by the two Assemblies at New York 
 in 1869, not as a part of the basis of union, or as a legal 
 compact, but as " suitable arrangements," were now to be 
 acted upon. The varying, not to say more or less conflict- 
 ing, institutions, legal rights, customs, agencies, properties, 
 
8 UNIOI^ SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 and activities of both branches, Old School and Kew, now no 
 longer two but one, were all to be brought into harmonious 
 relations, in accordance with the changed order of things 
 and the new organic life. I was a member of the Assem- 
 bly of 1870, and can testify, as an eye-witness, that its ruling 
 spirit, from beginning to end, was the spirit, not of fear, or 
 suspicion, or jealousy, or any such thing, but of power and 
 of love, and of a sound mind. The presence of the stur- 
 diest, foremost opponent of reunion. Dr. Charles Hodge, if 
 not as a commissioner, yet as a most interested looker-on 
 and even friendly adviser, along with the beautiful tribute 
 of high regard and affection paid by Kew and Old School 
 men alike to Albert Barnes, then about to pass to his great 
 reward, happily symbolized this spirit. 
 
 As might have been anticipated, William Adams was 
 placed at the head of the standing committee on theological 
 seminaries. As chairman of the New School part of the 
 joint committee on reunion, he had won the confidence 
 and admiration of the whole Church, alike by his wisdom, 
 his Christian temper, his felicitous addresses, and his mas- 
 terly reports. One of his colleagues on the committee, the 
 late beloved Dr. Shaw, of Rochester, wrote to him : " The 
 Church owes to you so large a debt that no one but God is 
 rich enough to pay it." But inasmuch as all the theological 
 seminaries connected with the Assembly belonged to the Old 
 School, Dr. Adams felt that delicacy forbade his acting as 
 chairman of the committee on that subject. He, therefore, 
 as a personal favor, asked permission to decline the appoint- 
 ment, suggesting Dr. John C. Backus in his place. But 
 the Assembly insisted that he should serve. 
 
 "I think," said Dr. Musgrave, himself a director of 
 Princeton, " the moderator has shown his wisdom in ap- 
 pointing a man so entirely acceptable to all this house. 
 We have no rivalship, no jealousies, no fear, but perfect 
 
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 9 
 
 confidence and love, and the Old School men would rather 
 Dr. Adams should be in that position, because he was once 
 a New School man. We have this additional evidence that 
 we are one." * 
 
 And now, before proceeding further, let us return to 
 LTnion Seminary and the veto power offered by it to the 
 General Assembly in the election of its professors. In 
 order to present the subject more clearly, I will touch 
 briefly upon sevei'al points bearing on it. 
 
 (a). Origin and design of Union Theological Seminary. 
 
 The Union Theological Seminary was intended not only 
 to be a new school of divinity, but also, as such, to repre- 
 sent a distinct type of religious thought, sentiment, and 
 policy. It differed in important respects from Andover, 
 from Princeton, and from Auburn. It was largely the 
 growth at once of the fervid evangelistic spirit of the time, 
 and of that devotion to the cause of sacred science and a 
 learned ministry, which marked all the churches of Puritan 
 origin. In establishing it, the founders, who were earnest, 
 practical men, aimed to embody in a permanent form cer- 
 tain views of Christian piety and theological training, 
 which they regarded as specially fitted to prepare young 
 men for effective service in the ministry of the Gospel in 
 their own age. And in carrying out these views, they 
 took pains to organize the institution on a plan in harmony 
 with them. While providing carefully for sound Scnptural 
 
 * These two eminent leaders of the Assembly at Philadel- 
 phia early attracted the attention of spectators in the gal- 
 leries, who by way of characterizing then- jDeculiar traits, 
 jokingly named Dr. Musgrave " Old Unanimous," and Dr. 
 Adams "Old Magnanimous." See a letter of Rev. Dr. T. L. 
 Cuyler in The Evangelist, written at the time, in which is a 
 graphic pen-pictm'e of the Assembly of 1870. 
 
10 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 teaching, and avowing also their adherence to Presbyterian 
 doctrines and polity, they at the same time resolved to give 
 the Seminary perfect freedom and self-control in the man- 
 agement of its own affairs. This was doubtless the result 
 in part of providential circumstances ; but it was none the 
 less a result of deliberate conviction and purpose. Their 
 noble temper of mind, their large, world-wide outlook, and 
 the sacredness they attached to their work, may be seen in 
 the preamble to the constitution of the Seminary. Here 
 are portions of it : 
 
 That the design of the founders of this Seminary may 
 be publicly known, and be sacredly regarded by the directors, 
 professors, and students, it is judged proper to make the 
 following preliminary statement: 
 
 A number of Christians, both clergymen and laymen, in 
 the cities of New York and Brooklyn, deeply impressed with 
 the claims of the world upon the Church of Christ, to furnish 
 a competent supply of well-educated and pious ministers of 
 the Gospel ; impressed also with the inadequacy of all exist- 
 ing means for this purpose ; and believing that large cities 
 furnish many peculiar facilities and advantages for conduct- 
 ing theological education ; having, after several meetings for 
 consultation and prayer, again convened on the 18th of 
 January, a.d. 1836, unanimously adopted the following reso- 
 lution and declarations : 
 
 1. Besolved, In humble dependence on the grace of God, 
 to attempt the establishment of a theological seminary in the 
 city of New York. 
 
 2. In this institution it is the design of the founders to 
 furnish the means of a full and thorough education in all the 
 subjects taught in the best theological seminaries in this or 
 other countries. 
 
 3. Being fuUy persuaded that vital godliness, a thorough 
 education, and practical training in the works of benevolence 
 and pastoral labor are all essential to meet the wants and 
 
THE COJSrCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 11 
 
 promote the best interests of the kingdom of Christ, the 
 founders of this seminary design that its students, remain- 
 ing under pastoral influence, and performing the duties of 
 church members in the several churches to which they be- 
 long, or with which they worship, in prayer-meetings, in the 
 instruction of Sabbath-schools and Bible-classes, and being 
 conversant with all the benevolent effoi-ts of the present day 
 in this great community, shall have the opportunity of add- 
 ing to solid learning and true piety the teachings of experi- 
 ence. 
 
 4. By the foregoing advantages, the founders hope and 
 expect, with the blessing of God, to call forth and enlist in 
 the service of Christ and in the work of the ministry, genius, 
 talent, enlightened piety, and missionary zeal ; and to qual- 
 ify many for the labors and management of the various 
 religious institutions, seminaries of learning, and enterprises 
 of benevolence which characterize the present times. 
 
 The founders of Union Seminary were at the time 
 mostly pastors or members of cliurches, nearly all of 
 which, after the disruption, sided with the New School 
 branch. Of the clerical directors in the first board, one 
 only adhered to the Old School, and he had recently come 
 from a Congregational pastorate in New England. Of the 
 first lay directors, also, nearly all belonged to the New 
 School. The founders of the Seminary were in hearty 
 sympathy with Albert Barnes, Lyman Beecher, and men 
 of that stamp. They were enthusiastic believers in the 
 new Christian evangelism at home and abroad. They be- 
 lieved also in the " voluntary principle," and were exceed- 
 ingly jealous of all "high-toned" ecclesiasticism. They 
 hated religious quarrels and bickerings. Their sentiments 
 on these and similar points led to the establishment of the 
 Seminary, found expression in its constitution, and have 
 shaped its policy from that day to this. Here is their own 
 
12 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSE3IBLT. 
 
 account of the matter, written by that admirable man, 
 Erskine Mason, son of the friend of Hamilton, the re- 
 nowned Dr. John M. Mason : 
 
 It is the design of the founders to provide a theological 
 seminary in the midst of the greatest and most growing com- 
 munity in America, around which all men of moderate views 
 and feelings, who desire to live free from party strife, and to 
 stand aloof from aU extremes of doctrinal speculation, practical 
 radicalism, and ecclesiastical domination, may cordially and 
 affectionately rally. 
 
 To keep clear of all extremes of " ecclesiastical domina- 
 tion," they made the Seminary independent alike of Pres- 
 bytery, of Synod, and of General Assembly. Its autonomy 
 ^7as complete and unquestioned. Nothing could be more 
 cordial than were its relations with the N^ew School Church. 
 It made annnal reports and statements to the General 
 Assembly tc>uching its afiairs : the elections, transfers, and 
 deaths of its professors ; its successive endowments, and all 
 things of general interest. But the Assembly had no pro- 
 prietorship or control over it. The whole Church was proud 
 of Union Seminary, and the Seminary loved and honored 
 the Presl.iyterian Church. This happy state of things con- 
 tinned until 1870. Why was it then changed ? 
 
 {h). Eeasons and inftuences that induced Union Semi- 
 i>ary^ in 1870, to give up ajyortion of its autonomy. 
 
 1. Firi-t of all, it was done in the hope of furthering 
 thereby the harmony and prosperity of the Presbyterian 
 Chnrcii. Eemiion bad been already accomplished, and 
 Union Seminary liad from the first thrown the whole 
 weight of its influence in favor of the movement. Henry 
 B. Smith had struck its keynote, and, later, in a contest of 
 the pen. liad met and vanquished its ablest foe. Dr. Sliedd, 
 
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 13 
 
 in the General Assembly at Albany, in 1868, had vindicated 
 the cause of reunion, and at the same time the orthodoxy of 
 tlie New School against the charges of Drs. Charles and 
 A. A. Hodge, Dr. Breckinridge, and other Princeton and 
 Old School leaders. Their colleagne, Thomas H. Skinner, 
 a very eminent Kew School leader, was in heartiest sym- 
 pathy with them ; while WiUiam Adams, Jonathan F. 
 Stearns, and Edwin F. Hatfield, all directors of Union, 
 had been among the most active members of the Joint 
 Committee. Such ardent friends of reunion as William 
 E. Dodge, Charles Butler, Richard T. Haines, and other 
 noted laymen, also belonged to the Union Board. It was 
 altogether natural, therefore, that Union Seminary should 
 have felt deeply interested in removing, as far as possible, 
 all obstacles to the complete success of reunion out of the 
 way. Dr. Adams was especially anxious that the wheels 
 of the great Church organization, whose strength was now 
 doubled, and which he believed to be fraught with vast 
 power for good, should move right on without friction. 
 He wielded at this time a greater influence than any other 
 director or Union Seminary, greater perhaps than any 
 other minister of the Presb_)i:erian Chm'ch. He was the 
 man of all others to appeal to in taking hold of the 
 " plan " of 1870. These are some of the general considera- 
 tions and motives which led him to propose and the direct- 
 ors of Union Seminary to adopt that plan. 
 
 2. But the question here arises, why precisely such a 
 plan, differing so materially from that reeommGnded by 
 the General Assemblies of 1869, should have been pro- 
 posed? In the plan recommended by the General Assem- 
 blies, it will be noticed, no mention was made of a veto in 
 the election of professors. The Old . School seminaries 
 mighty if their boards of direction desired it, be transferred 
 from Assembly control to the watch and care of one or 
 
14 UNION SEMINAEY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 more of the adjacent synods ; while the New School semi- 
 naries were " advised " to introduce, as far as might be, 
 into their constitutions the principle of synodical or Assem- 
 bly supervision. 
 
 Neither of these recommendations was followed. No 
 Old School seminary was transferred from the control of 
 the General Assembly to the watch and care of one or 
 more of the adjacent synods. Nor did Union Seminaiy 
 introduce into its " constitution " the principle of synod- 
 ical or Assembly supervision. This shows what good reason 
 Dr. Musgrave had for saying that the " concurrent declara- 
 tions" lacked entirely the binding force or quality of a 
 "legal compact," and it shows also that, with all their 
 uncommon abihty and wisdom, and after years of delibera- 
 tion, the Joint Committee had recommended what was 
 altogether impracticable. Between the great ratification 
 meeting at Pittsburgh in November, 1869, and the meeting 
 at Philadelphia in May, 1870, it had become perfectly 
 clear that Princeton — I confine myself at present mainly 
 to this seminary — could not be released from Assembly 
 control, and put itself under the watch and care of one 
 or more of the adjacent synods, without imperilling its 
 endowments. In this dilemma Union Seminary was urged 
 to come to the help of Princeton ; nor did there seem to 
 be any other way of relief. The appeal was based largely 
 upon a strong conviction, common to the wisest and best 
 friends of both seminaries, that the election of professors 
 by the General Assembly was open to serious objections, 
 and would be open to graver objections in the future. 
 
 At the foimding o{ Princeton in 1812 the Presbyterian 
 Church was a small body, numerically and territorially, 
 and the selection of theological teachers could very prop- 
 erly be intrusted to the knowledge and discretion of its 
 General Assembly. The choice of the first professors of 
 
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 15 
 
 Princeton — those very admirable types of Presbyterian 
 piety, wisdom, and learning, Samuel Miller and Archibald 
 Alexander — was, doubtless, the best possible. But in 1870 
 the Presbyterian Church had increased enormously both in 
 numbers and extent ; it covered the continent ; and its 
 branches reached to the uttermost parts of the earth. Even 
 then in exceptional cases, no doubt, the General Assembly 
 could judge as well as any board of directors who was best 
 qualified for this or that chair of instruction — but only in 
 exceptional cases. As a rule, the General Assembly was 
 every year becoming less fitted to exercise this difficult 
 function. 
 
 The point is so important in its bearing on the matter 
 under discussion, that I will enforce my position by that of 
 men whose opinions respecting it are entitled to special 
 weight. Here is an extract from a letter of Dr. A. A. 
 Hodg-e, written late in 1867 : 
 
 It is proper, it is almost a necessity, that each institution 
 should be left in the management of those upon whose sup- 
 port it exclusively depends. The majority of any Assembly 
 must be necessarily ignorant of the special wants and local 
 conditions of any seminary, and of the qualifications of can- 
 didates proposed for its chairs of instruction. The best of 
 these are generaUy young men, up to the time of their 
 nomination known only to a few. To vest the choice in the 
 General Assembly will tend to put prominent ecclesiastics 
 into such positions, rather than scholars, or men speciaUy 
 qualified with gifts for teaching. As the population of our 
 country becomes larger and more heterogeneous, and the 
 General Assembly increases proportionably, the difficulties 
 above mentioned, and many others easily thought of, wiU 
 increase. 
 
 Dr. Henry B. Smith, to whom this letter was addressed, 
 
16 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLT- 
 
 thus expressed his owii view in noticing some of the ob- 
 jections to the Joint Committee's report of 1867: 
 
 The plan allows those seminaries that are now under the 
 Assembly to remain so, or if they choose, to j)ut themselves 
 instead under synodical supervision ; and it recommends 
 the seminaries not tmder ecclesiastical supervision to attain 
 unto that condition ; but does not insist on this — as of 
 
 course it could not It is a fair and serious question, 
 
 whether a General Assembly, representing the Presbj-terian 
 Church throughout the whole United States, especially in 
 view of the numbers in that Church, and the extent of the 
 territory in twenty or thirty years, will be the best, or even a 
 suitable body, to choose the professors and manage the con- 
 cerns of all the Presbyterian seminaries scattered through- 
 out the country. We very much doubt whether this would 
 be a wise arrangement. It may work well in Scotland, but 
 Scotland has its limits. It might bring into the Assembly local, 
 personal, and theological questions, which it would be better to 
 settle in a narrower field. 
 
 The following strong expression of opinion, written by 
 Dr. Adams, is from the memorial itself of the directors of 
 Union Theological Seminary to the General Assembly : 
 
 It has appeared to many, and especially to those who 
 took an active part in founding the Union Theological Semi- 
 nary, that there are many disadvantages, infehcities, not to 
 say at times perils, in the election of professors of the theo- 
 logical seminaries directly and immediately by the General 
 Assembly itself, — abody so large, in session for so short a time, 
 and composed of members to so great an extent resident at a 
 distance from the seminaries themselves, and therefore per- 
 sonally unacquainted with many things which pertain to 
 their true interests and usefulness. 
 
 It is noteworthy that in this memorial of the directors 
 of Union Seminary, offering a veto in the election of its 
 
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWEK. 17 
 
 professors, two reasons only arc assigned ; namely, first a 
 desire, as was said before, of doing all in their power to 
 establish confidence and harmony throughout the whole 
 Church ; and, in the second place, a desire to secure to the 
 Old School seminaries, in which those of the New School 
 were henceforth to have a common interest, the privilege, 
 so highly prized by themselves, of choosing professors in 
 each institution by its own board of directors, instead of 
 having them chosen in every case by the General Assem- 
 bly. On these two grounds the memorial of the boai'd of 
 directors of Union Seminary was chiefly based. These 
 two considerations the friends of Princeton appealed to 
 with great force, when urging Dr. Adams to give them 
 aid in their dilemma. 
 
 It was stated at Detroit that prior to the meeting of the 
 Assembly of 18Y0, " Dr. Adams conferred with and fully 
 submitted his plan to his friends at Princeton, who opened 
 their arms and hearts to receive him, and they promptly 
 responded to every one of his suggestions." * 
 
 This needs to be supplemented by the additional state- 
 ment that his friends at Princeton submitted to him their 
 plan, and that he promptly responded to their suggestions. 
 It was no doubt in response to their suggestion that his 
 original plan gave to the General Assembly a veto in the 
 election of directors, as well as of professors. Had that wav 
 of solving the problem of the theological seminaries origi- 
 nated with Dr. Adams, he would almost certainly have pro- 
 posed it during the troublesome negotiations on this sub- 
 ject, which ran on for nearly three years prior to the re- 
 union. There is no intimation that he did anything of the 
 sort. And yet the point had been made, again and again, 
 
 * Eemarks of John J. McCook, a Commissioner from 
 the Presbytery of New York, pp. 3. 
 
18 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 by 01(1 School opponents of the terms of reunion, as pro- 
 posed by the Joint Committee in their report to the As- 
 semblies of 1867, that the seminaries of both branches of 
 the Church ought in fairness to be placed on a footing of 
 " perfect equality." Why, it was said, should the Old 
 School institutions continue to be subject to the full control 
 of the General Assembly, the New School coming in for an 
 equal share in its exercise, while two at least of the New 
 School institutions continued under what Dr. A. A. Hodge, 
 in a letter to Professor Smith, called " self-perpetuated and 
 irresponsible boards of trustees." Such was the reasoning 
 of opponents of the Joint Committee's report of 1867. 
 Indeed so strong was the feeling and contention of some 
 with regard to this point ; so conjfident were they of the 
 superior advantages of subjection to ecclesiastical control, 
 more especially the control of the General Assembly, over 
 any possible advantages of subjection to a board of di- 
 rectors, or trustees ; and so persistent were they in assert- 
 ing this view, that upon reviewing their arguments in the 
 light of to-day, one can scarcely help being reminded of 
 the fable, so dear to children, entitled " The Fox without 
 a Tail."' The fox, it will be remembered, was caught in a 
 trap by his tail, and in order to get away was forced to 
 leave it behind. Whereupon he resolved to try to induce 
 his fellows to part with theirs / or, as Henry B. Smith ex- 
 pressed it, in his characteristic way, " to attain unto that 
 condition." * 
 
 * So at the next assembly of foxes he made a speech on 
 the unprofitableness of tails in general, and the inconveni- 
 ence of a fox's tail in pai'ticular, adding that he had never 
 felt so easy as since he had given up his own. When he sat 
 do^Ti, a sly old fellow rose, and waving his long brash with 
 a gi'aceful air, said with a sneer, that if, like the last speaker, 
 he had lost his tail, nothing further would have been needed 
 
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 19 
 
 I liave taken for granted that Dr. Adams' first plan, 
 which gave to the (xeueral Assembly a veto in the election 
 of Union directors, was the result of a conference with 
 his friends at Princeton. So too, unquestionably, was his 
 second plan, which conceded to the General Assembly a veto 
 in the election of Union professors. Had either of these 
 modes of solving the question of the theological semi- 
 naries occurred to his o^\^l mind as the best, he cer- 
 tainly, I repeat, would have brought it before the Joint 
 Committee during the two or more years that Committee 
 was in existence. But I find no evidence that it was even 
 mentioned. Neither the word " veto," nor the thing itself, 
 appears in the report of the Joint Committee made in 
 1867, nor in that of 1868, nor in the report of the Com- 
 mittee of Conference in 1869. The veto first appears in 
 the plan presented to the board of directors of Union 
 Seminary at the meeting on May 9, 1870. At an adjourned 
 meeting of the same board, held on May 16, it reappeared 
 as a veto in the election of professors. Why this abandon- 
 ment of the scheme recommended by article ninth of the 
 report of the Joint Committee and by the General As- 
 semblies of 1869? And why the sudden abandonment of 
 the method proposed to the board of directors of Union 
 Seminary on May 9th, and the substitution in its place, on 
 May 16th, of still another method, namely, a veto in the 
 election of professors alone ? The whole thing is curious 
 and suggestive in a high degree. Consider that the ad- 
 journed meeting of the board occurred on Monday after- 
 noon, May 16th, and that the General Assembly was to 
 meet at Philadelphia on the ensuing Thursday, May 19th. 
 No time, therefore, was to be lost. And no time was lost. 
 
 to convince him ; but till such an accident should happen 
 he should certainly vote in favor of tails. — Ancient Fables. 
 
20 UNIOiSf SEMINAKV AMD THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 It was too late, however, to give to the pubhc intimations 
 of the plan of May 16th. The Eva/n^/elisU one of whose 
 editors at that time was a prominent minister of the late 
 Old School, contained a carefully written editorial, out- 
 lining the General Assembly's work. In the course of this 
 article is the following fiignificant paragraph : 
 
 It is very desirable that the several theological seminaries 
 connected with the Church be brought into the same, or sim- 
 ilar, relations to the Assembly. The scheme proposed by the 
 Princeton Beview, April number, has met with much favor. 
 Let it be understood that the boards of the respective semi- 
 naries shall be allowed to fill the vacancies in their own num- 
 ber, as that scheme contemplates ; and to appoint the incum- 
 bents of the several chairs, subject in each case to the approval 
 of the next General Assembly ; and, it is thought, the semina- 
 ries of both branches will cheerfully come upon this platform. 
 Princeton and Union are understood to be prepared for it, and to 
 desire it. 
 
 The article in the Prmceton Beview for April, 1870, was 
 probably written by Dr. Charles Hodge, the founder and 
 then senior editor of the Beview. The " scheme " referred 
 to was as follows : 
 
 Let the Assembly confide the supervision and control of 
 the seminaries now under its control to their resjDective boards 
 of direction, as now, with simply these alterations : 1. That 
 these boards shall nominate persons to fiU their own vacancies 
 to the Assembly for confirmation. 2. That they shall arrange 
 the professorships, and appoint the professors, subject to rat- 
 ification by the Assembly. This would suffice for unification, 
 so far as seminaries heretofore of the Old School branch are 
 concerned. 
 
 It seems to us that it cannot be difficult for the seminaries 
 of the other branch to reach substantially the same platform. 
 Tiiey, of course, can report annually to the Assemblies [Assem- 
 
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 21 
 
 bly ] . Without knowing all tbe details of their present char- 
 ters, we presume there is no insuperable obstacle to their 
 making the simple by-law that all their elections to fill vacan- 
 cies in the board or boards of oversight and direction, also of 
 professors, shall be submitted to the Assembly for approval 
 before they are finally ratified. If the charters now forbid 
 such an arrangement, doubtless alterations could easily be 
 obtained which would admit of it, or something equivalent. 
 —pp. 311, 312. 
 
 At the opening, then, of the first General Assembly of 
 the reunited Church, on May 19, 1870, the case stood thus : 
 Princeton objected to the " recommendation " of the As- 
 / semblies of 1869 as unwise and could not follow it without 
 imperilling a portion of her endowments ; Union, warned 
 in time, refused to adopt the Princeton '' scheme " with re- 
 gard to directors, but offered to accept it in a greatly modi- 
 fied form with regard to professors ; while both had me- 
 morialized the General Assembly in favor of the latter ar. 
 rangement. This posture of things was a logical, not to 
 say necessary, outcome of the whole situation. It followed 
 inevitably that Princeton should look forward with special 
 solicitude to the possible action of the Assembly at Phila- 
 delphia, touching theological seminaries. Some of her dear- 
 est interests were, as she believed, more or less involved in 
 the issue. It would have been strange, indeed, had she not 
 regarded with a certain misgiving the part which the new 
 copartners might take in shaping that issue. Her tempta- 
 tion was to overestimate the importance of a " uniform sys- 
 tem " in dealing with the theological seminaries, and to be 
 too solicitous of having them all even as she herself was. 
 The temptation of Union, on the other hand, was rather to 
 yield too readily to the magnanimous impulses of the hour, 
 and so allow her cooler judgment to be overpowered by the 
 surging tide of reunion enthusiasm. 
 
22 UNION SEMINAEY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 Pope Innocent XII. wrote to the French prelates, who 
 had procured the famous brief condemning Fenelon : " He 
 erred by loving God too much," — ''Peccavit excessu amoris 
 dwini'';—&o one might say of Dr. Adams, that he erred, if 
 at all, in too exclusive devotion to the peace and harmony 
 of the reunited Church ; and the same might be said of most 
 of his associates in the directory of Union Seminary. But 
 on one point Union and Princeton were in perfect accord. 
 Both regarded it as exceedingly desirable that theological 
 professors should no longer be elected by the General As- 
 sembly ; Princeton, primarily, on her own account ; Union, 
 on account of Princeton, as also of the other Old School 
 seminaries. It is fair to add that some of the strongest 
 friends of Princeton were, no doubt, influenced by another 
 reason for wishing to be liberated from further subjection 
 to the General Assembly in the election of its professors ; 
 namely, distrust of the doctrinal soundness of the late New 
 School Church. Dr. Charles Hodge led a whole company 
 of eminent Old School men, who to the last protested and 
 fought against reunion largely on this ground ; they had no 
 sympathy with it. To some of these, especially to Dr. Hodge 
 himself. Dr. Beatty refers in a striking letter printed in 
 The Evangelist of August 6, 1891 : " Dr. Adams knew what 
 great difficulties and conflicts of mind I had from the fact 
 that my best friends were in opposition to my views ; and 
 I made the request of hnn that after my death he would 
 state these things in some article in The Evangelist:' Did 
 the simple fact of reunion at once change their honest con- 
 victions on this subject? Not at all. And, therefore, the 
 sudden accession of the New School branch to equal power 
 in the General Assembly, bringing their " loose " notions 
 of subscription and all their other objectionable views with 
 them, intensified the desire to take the election of Prince- 
 ton professors out of that bod}'. 
 
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 23 
 
 And it is only rigbt to add further, that in voting, as they 
 all did, in favor of remitting the election of professors in the 
 Old School seminaries to their several boards of direction, 
 the commissioners who belonged to the late New School 
 branch were voting to dispossess themselves at once of a power 
 in the control of those seminaries, which reunion had fairly 
 put into their hands. It was the proper thing for them to 
 do ; but it was also a handsome thing to do so promptly and 
 so heartily. 
 
 On the basis, then, of a common sentiment respecting the 
 election of theological professors both Union and Princeton 
 memorialized the General Assembly ; and through their 
 joint influence the plan proposed by Union was unanimously 
 adopted. 
 
 And just here let me say that in the negotiations and dis- 
 cussion relating to the theological seminaries from 186C to 
 1870, and in most of the pending controversy about the 
 veto power as well, one ever recurring fallacy and misap- 
 prehension is perceptible ; viz., that all the seminaries stood 
 and stand substantially upon the same ground and should 
 therefore be dealt with in the same way. A "uniform sys- 
 tem " of ecclesiastical control or supervision, was the thing 
 sought for. It was a thing impossible without uprooting 
 or suppressing original elements of the utmost value in the 
 very being and life of several of the seminaries. How could 
 Union and Princeton, for example, be put upon a footing 
 of " perfect equality," when one of these institutions derived 
 its origin from the action of a company of good men in the 
 cities of New York and Brooklyn, and possessed complete 
 autonomy ; while the other was created by the special ac- 
 tion of the General Assembly and was subject to its ulti- 
 mate authority in all things ? And the differences between 
 the two institutions are still radical. This point should be 
 kept constantly in mind. It will not do, for example, to 
 
24 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 consider the legal relations of Princeton and of Union to 
 the General Assembly, as if these relations were the same. 
 They are almost wholly different. Princeton derives its 
 origin from the General Assembly, which is its patron and 
 the fountain of its powers. The General Assembly had 
 nothing to do with the founding of Union, is not its patron 
 nor the fountain of any of its powers. The proprietorship 
 and control of the General Assembly over Princeton, al- 
 though modified in one respect in 1870, remain still intact 
 with regard to other points of vital importance. In the 
 election of its directors, as well as of its professors, Prince- 
 ton is subject to the veto of the General Assembly, and so 
 it is in suspending or removing a professor. The Assembly 
 has no such power in the case of Union. For cause the 
 board of directors of Union can discipline, suspend, or re- 
 move a professor ; can at its discretion assign him specific 
 duties, and transfer him from one chair to another, or cre- 
 ate a new chair and put him into it ; and the General As- 
 sembly has no voice whatever in the matter. 
 
 I have thus stated some of the principal reasons and in- 
 fluences that in 1870 induced Union Seminary to concede 
 to the General Assembly a portion of its autonomy. 
 
 (c). Action and pnifose of the Board of Directors in 
 raaMng this concessiwi. 
 
 The subject was first brought before the board by Dr. 
 Adams at a meeting held on May 0, 1870. Among the 
 directors present were Edwin F. Hatfield and Jonathan F. 
 Steai'Ds, who with Dr. Adams had been members of the 
 Joint Committee on Eeuniou ; Joseph S. Gallagher, James 
 Patriot Wilson, Chai-les Butler, Korman White, Fisher 
 Howe, William A. Booth, D. Willis James, and John 
 Crosby Brown. These names speak for themselves and 
 need no glossary. They represent moral strength, sound 
 
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 25 
 
 judgment, large and varied experience, world-wide influ- 
 ence, intelligent piety, and all the other qualities that go to 
 make up solid weight of character. To most of the di- 
 rectors the plan proposed for their adoption was wholly new. 
 They had never before heard of it. But as coming from 
 Dr. Adams, as offered in the interest of the unity and har- 
 mony of the Presbyterian Church, and, also, in response to 
 urgent persuasions from the old and honored seminary at 
 Princeton, it won their consent, if not their entire approval. 
 So far as its weak points were concenied, it took them at a 
 serious disadvantage. They had no time for reflection. 
 And so, while there was considerable discussion, with 
 a single notable exception none opposed the scheme. 
 Several of the professors were present, but they raised 
 no objectiou. The record would doubtless be differ- 
 ent had Henry B. Smith been among them. He was a 
 theologian of extraordinary sagacity, always looking be- 
 fore and after, for he had the instincts of a born statesman. 
 And his devotion to Union Seminary was a rnliug passion. 
 The plan of putting the institution under ecclesiastical 
 control never pleased him. He considered the generous 
 and self-governing liberty, which was its birthright, a bless- 
 ing too gi'eat to be parted with at any price. He distrusted 
 also a certain tendency and temper, or, rather, as he viewed 
 it, distemper, wiiich again and again in the last ceutury 
 and in our own had troubled the peace and hampered the 
 free development of American Presbyterianisra. In 1S37, 
 at the age of twenty-one, lie had been a watchful eye- 
 witness of the tm*bnlent scenes at Philadelphia, when the 
 four synods were cut off and the great disruption was in- 
 augurated. From that time he was a keen observer of all 
 that went on in the two branches of the Presbyterian 
 Church ; and before coming to New York, thirteen years 
 later, he liad formed opinions oti the su])ject which re- 
 
26 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 mained essentially unchanged to the day of his death. In 
 a letter to me, dated Amherst, September 17, 1850, he 
 wrote : 
 
 I go to New York in full view of the uncertainties and 
 
 difficulties of the position It [the Seminary] stands 
 
 somewhere between Andover and Princeton, just as New 
 School Presbyterianism stands between Congregationalism 
 and the consistent domineering Presb}i:erianism, and wiU be 
 pressed on all sides. Whether it is to be resolved into these 
 two, or to be consolidated on its own ground, is stiU a 
 
 problem I am going to New York to work, — to work, 
 
 I trust, for my Master. 
 
 This " consistent domineering " element, so far as it pre- 
 vailed in Presbyterianism, whether in the theological or 
 the ecclesiastical sphere, he regarded with strong dislike. 
 Had he been present, therefore, at the meeting of the 
 board on May 9, 1870, I believe he would have stood just 
 where D. AVillis James so firmly stood with respect to the 
 plan of conceding to the General Assembly so vital a 
 part of the Seminary's chartered rights and autonomy as 
 tlie last decisive word in the election of its own professors. 
 And Henry B. Smith was, probably, the only man whose 
 voice at that time on any matter touching the theological 
 seminaries would have been equally potential with that of 
 WiUiam Adams. But, unfortunately, early in the previous 
 year, just as reunion was about to triumph, Professor Smith, 
 utterly broken down in the service of Union Seminary and 
 of the Presbyterian Church, had fled for his life beyond 
 the sea, and he was still abroad. 
 
 I have intimated that a single director only — D, Wilhs 
 Jangies — raised his voice against the plan proposed by Dr. 
 Adams. Mr. James is a grandson of Anson G. Phelps, 
 and thus is identified with the history of the Seminary by 
 
THE CONCESSIOJ^ OF THE VETO POWER. 27 
 
 his close kinship to three generations of its benefactors, as 
 well as by his own munificent gifts. At the memorable 
 meeting of the board of directors of Union Seminary, 
 held on June 5, 1891, Mr. James made the following 
 highly important statement : 
 
 I feel it due to the board of directors to give to them a 
 statement of what occurred at the meeting of the directors 
 held on the 9th of May, 1870, when the matter of the con- 
 nection of the Seminaiy with the General Assembly of the 
 Presbyterian Church was first considered. That meeting, 
 from the circumstances of the case, and all that occm-red 
 there at that time, is most clearly and indelibly impressed 
 upon my memory. 
 
 Dr. Adams proposed that the Union Theological Seminary 
 should give to the General Assembly a veto power over the 
 appointment of the directors of the Seminary, assigning as 
 the reason, in much detail, that it would be a great aid to 
 the other seminaries of the Church, whose professors were 
 appointed by the action of the General Assembly and not by 
 the board of du'ectors. He also stated that experience had 
 shown that the professors thus appointed by the General 
 Assembly were frequently not such as proved to be the best 
 men for the several positions. 
 
 I strenuously objected to giving the veto power in the 
 appointment of the directors to the General Assembly on the 
 ground that it was practically placing the control of the 
 property and all the interests of the Union Theological Sem- 
 inary in the hands of the General Assembly, and that such 
 action was fraught with great danger. 
 
 A general discussion occurred, participated in by most of 
 the directors, and I spoke a second time on the subject, call- 
 ing attention most earnestly to the great danger, as it seemed 
 to me, of any such action by which the large property of the 
 Seminar}^, and all its interests, would be practically turned 
 over to the control of the General Assembly. 
 
28 UNIOIS" SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 But when it seemed evident that a vote would be taken 
 and that the resolution would he passed by the hoard of di- 
 rectors, I arose for the third time, feeling very strongly the 
 importance of the matter under consideration, and said, in 
 substance, that I should request, when the vote was taken, 
 that it should be by ayes and nays, so that my vote could be 
 recorded in the negative, and that I should also request that 
 my most earnest and solemn protest be entered in full in the 
 minutes, to the end that when the disaster came, as it cer- 
 tainly would from this action — perhaps after all those who 
 were taking part in the discussion at that time had passed 
 away — the Seminary could then have the benefit of this 
 protest and whatever legal advantages might come from such 
 protest. 
 
 I said that I did not desire to make factious opposition, 
 but that I felt the interests of the Seminary were being 
 jeopardized and that a great injury was being done to its 
 future. 
 
 When I sat down Dr. Prentiss rose and said, substan- 
 tiaUy, that he would surjorise the mover of the resolution 
 by the action he was about to take, but that he had become 
 impressed with the fact that it was wise to take fuiiher time 
 for consideration, and would move a postponement of the 
 matter for that purpose. This motion led to the jDOstpone- 
 ment of the vote. 
 
 Prior to the adjourned meeting of May 16, 1870, I had 
 an interview with Dr. Adams and expressed to him my sin- 
 cere regret that I had been compelled to differ with him and 
 other members of the board, but he then tendered to me his 
 thanks for my having taken the course I did, and said he felt 
 that it was wiser not to have passed the resolution he first 
 proposed. 
 
 He then suggested, in the interest of the other semi- 
 naries then controlled by tlie General Assembly, the motion 
 which was presented and adopted on the 16th of May, 1870, 
 viz. : That the veto power in the appointment of the profes- 
 
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 29 
 
 sors should be given to the General Assembly, and this solely 
 in the interest of other seminaiies which would be benefited 
 by this action of the Union Theological Seminary. 
 
 I expressed to him then the view that I held, that even 
 this action, though much better than placing the control of 
 the property in the hands of the General Assembly, was still 
 a very serious mistake, and calculated to produce gi-eat and 
 unfortunate mischief. 
 
 I said, however, that if he and other directors felt that 
 this was the wisest course, and as they had yielded the mat- 
 ter of the veto power over the appointment of dii-ectors, 
 while I would not vote in favor of the resolution, I would not 
 go on record against it ; and, as a result, the resolution was 
 passed on the 16th of May, 1870, giving to the General 
 Assembly only a veto over the appointment of professors and 
 nothing more. 
 
 {d). Bid the Board of Birectors of Union Seminary sup- 
 pose that in their action on May 16, 1870, they were 
 offering to enter into a legal compact with the General 
 Assembly f 
 
 1. It has been assumed by many, and strenuously argued 
 by others, that this was their understanding of the matter ; 
 at all events, that such was the real quality and effect of 
 their action. And on the ground of its possessing this 
 character, we have been treated to somewhat elaborate 
 definitions and expositions of the nature and bindinof force 
 of a contract, the extent and limitations of ultra vires, and 
 I know not how many other lessons in legal lore. And yet, 
 according to the best of my own recollection, as a member 
 of the board, and of my belief concerning all the other 
 members present, not a single director supposed the board 
 was entering into any such legal compact. Three directors 
 who were present on May 9th, and also on May 16th, had 
 been members of the Joint Committee on Keunion, as I 
 
30 UNION SEMINAEY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 Lave said before ; one of them, Jonathan Y. Steams, was 
 also a member of the Joint Committee of Conference, which 
 reported the final basis and plan of union to the two Assem- 
 blies in 1869. He aided in preparing that important re- 
 port, voted for it, signed it, and gave it his hearty approval. 
 And it was in this report, made and explained to the Old 
 School Assembly in the Brick Church by Dr. Musgrave, 
 that those empliatic sentences relating to the articles on 
 seminaries, boards, and the like occur : " We will not con- 
 sent to make these articles a covenant ; we won't adopt 
 them as a legal compact binding upon the future." Dr. 
 Stearns was the most trusted counsellor of Henry B. 
 Smith, and not unlike him in sagacity and forethought, as 
 also in devotion to Union Seminary and the Presbyterian 
 Church. To Dr. Stearns more, in my opinion, than to any 
 other man did Union Seminary owe the coming of Henry 
 B. Smith to New York. The New School branch of the 
 Church especially never knew the full extent of her indebt- 
 edness to him, for he was as modest as he was wise, fear- 
 less, and public-spirited. Is it likely that such a man would 
 have sat quietly and given his vote for a settlement of the 
 question of the theological seminaries in a way, on a princi- 
 ple, and with an understanding contradicting so utterly the 
 report which a few months before he had joined in fram- 
 ing and urging upon the acceptance of the General Assem- 
 bhes? The thing is inconceivable. 
 
 But I have not stated this aspect of the case in its full 
 strength. Dr. Adams himself was a member of the Joint 
 Committee of Conference, and signed the report as its 
 chairman. He also presented the report to the New School 
 Assembly in the Church of the Covenant, as Dr. Musgrave 
 did at the same time to the Old School Assembly in the 
 Brick Church. He explained it in a careful speech, calling 
 attention to the point that the articles of agreement or con- 
 
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 31 
 
 current declarations were not a compact or contract, but 
 recommendations only as to what might be suitable and ex- 
 pedient. Is it at all probable, is it really conceivable, that 
 such a man as Dr. Adams, only a few months later, would 
 have proposed to the board of directors of Union Semi- 
 nary a plan touching the whole future of that institution, 
 which involved the very thing so distinctly repudiated by 
 the unanimous vote of the Joint Committee of Conference ? 
 and repudiated, too, by both Assemblies ? 
 
 The plan of 1870 was an expression of Christian confi- 
 dence and good-will on the part of the directors of Union 
 Seminary. In offering to give up so much of their autono- 
 my as was involved in conceding to the General Assembly 
 a veto in the election of its professors, they were not think- 
 ing of a legal compact, whereby the Seminary would gain 
 certain positive advantages in return ; they were thinking 
 simply of what seemed to them, on the whole, best fitted to 
 promote the harmony and prosperity of the united Church, 
 and the true interests of all the other theological seminaries. 
 Their offer was in its very essence, as the General Assem- 
 bly a few days after characterized it, an act of high " gen- 
 erosity," or as Dr. Musgrave expressed it, in 1871, an act 
 of " courtesy." But generosity and courtesy belong to a 
 line of thought and action totally distinct from that of a 
 legal compact with its definite obligations and advantages. 
 Had the discussion in the board of directors of Union 
 Seminary moved along the line of such a compact, nothing 
 is more certain than that the plan of agreement would have 
 failed utterly. 
 
 'No doubt there is an element of agreement in a legal 
 compact. Every such compact is an agreement ; but there 
 are many sorts of agreement which are only differing 
 forms of good understanding, friendly arrangements, acts 
 of generosity or courtesy, which lose their most essential 
 
32 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 virtue and all their beauty the moment you invest them 
 with the rigidity and binding force of a legal contract. The 
 discussion on reunion, and especially the speech of Dr. 
 Musgrave before the Old School Assembly — heard, proba- 
 blv, by most of the Union directors — had made the whole 
 Presbyterian Church familiar with this distinction. " We 
 will not consent," said Dr. Musgrave, referring to the 
 recommendations about theological seminaries, boards, etc., 
 " we will not consent to make these articles a covenant. 
 We wo7iH adopt them as a legal compact, Mnding upon the 
 future / yet we are acting in good faith and as honorable 
 men, and we say to you that we will not change them at 
 any future time without obviously good and sufficient 
 reasons.'''' Exactly so would the directors of Union Semi- 
 nary have expressed themselves with regard to their gener- 
 ous arrangement with the General Assembly. Such words 
 as " compact," " contract," " covenant," are carefully avoid- 
 ed in the memorial of Union Seminary and in the action 
 of the General Assembly thereupon. "Plan," "rule," 
 "agreement," "method," or the like, are the terms used. 
 It was intended, just as the ninth article in the report of 
 the Joint Committee was intended, " as a measure for the 
 maintenance of confidence and harmony, and not as indi- 
 cating the best method for all future time" {Moore^a 
 Digest, p. 384). 
 
 All that the article in the Princeton Review for April, 
 1870, written by Dr. Charles Hodge, or with his approval, 
 ventured to suggest to the New School branch was " mak- 
 ing the simple hy-law that all the elections to fill vacancies 
 in the board or boards of oversight and direction, also of 
 professors, shall be submitted to the Assembly for approval 
 before they are finally ratified." Who ever heard of a 
 " simple by-law " that could not be suspended, changed, or 
 repealed by the power that made it ? The difTerence be- 
 
THE CONCESSIOISr OF THE VETO POWER. 33 
 
 tween tlie concessions asked, if not claimed, of the New 
 School by the Old School opponents of the first plan of re- 
 union, as reported by the Joint Committee in 1867, and 
 the concessions hoped for just before the meeting of the 
 Assembly of 1870, as stated in the above article of the 
 Princeton Heview^ is very striking. It is the difference 
 between a maximum and a minimum. Perhaps it cannot 
 be better illustrated than by some extracts from a letter of 
 Professor A. A. Hodge, of the Allegheny Seminar}'-, to Dr. 
 Henry B. Smith, written in December, 1867. The italics 
 are his own : 
 
 Although I am in every sense unknown to you, my knowl- 
 edge of and indebtedness to you through your writings, and 
 especially our community of interest in the subject of this 
 letter, emboldens me to intrude it upon you, and to urge 
 your deliberate attention to it. 
 
 Undoubtedly one of the chief causes of uneasiness on the 
 part of the Old School, in view of reunion upon the terms 
 proposed by the Joint Committee, is the inequality between 
 the positions of the two parties in respect to seminaries. 
 This is evident from the fact that serious objection is made 
 to the terms proposed in resjiect to this interest by a far 
 larger number of presbyteries than is necessary to defeat the 
 whole matter Now, although I write without consul- 
 tation with or the knowledge of a single person, I feel certain 
 that a compromise to the following effect would be highly 
 gratifj'ing to the great majority of those most nearly inter- 
 ested in seminaries on our side, and f lurther, that if proposed 
 from your side it would be almost certainly accepted by our 
 General Assembly as a condition of union. 
 
 Suppose then the matter be adjusted on the following 
 principles : 
 
 1. All the seminaries of both parties to be, as a condition 
 of union, brought in on the same basis, so that there may be 
 perfect equality. 
 
34 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 2. That you on your side admit the principle of direct 
 ecclesiastical control, and put your seminaries each under 
 the care of one or more contiguous synods. The synods to 
 elect the boards of directors, the boards of directors to elect 
 the professors. The General Assembly, for the sake of pre- 
 serving uniformity of doctrine in the Church, to possess the 
 right of peremptory veto in the case of the election of a pro- 
 fessor. 
 
 3. That we on our side yield the principle of the im- 
 mediate control of the seminaries by the General Assembly, 
 and put each of our seminaries under one or more s}Tiods in 
 the manner specified above. 
 
 Such a plan might have some legitimate objections. It 
 would certainly meet with decided opposition from some of 
 the more distant portions of our branch, which would there- 
 by be dispossessed of powers previously enjoyed. It would 
 be obviously unadvisable for such a proposition to be publicly 
 offered by any of our professors. Therefore, I shall do no 
 
 more than make this suggestion to you If you agree 
 
 with me as to the plan, and are willing to present it to the 
 representatives of your branch in the Joint Committee, I have 
 much hope that it wiU prevail. 
 
 Professor Smith, regarding the scheme so strongly urged 
 in this interesting letter as wholly impracticable, felt un- 
 willing to recommend it to the New School representatives 
 of the Joint Committee. 
 
 {e). Scope and limitations of the veto in the election of its 
 Professors offered to the General Assembly hy the 
 Directors of Union Seminary in 1870. 
 
 Passing from the question of the nature of this offer, let 
 us consider its extent and limitations. The language used 
 is very exact and carefully chosen. My impression is, that 
 it differs materially from that used in the plan presented to 
 the board on May 9tli. Before the meeting on May 16th 
 
LIMITATIONS OF THE VETO POWEE. 35 
 
 legal counsel had probably been taken. In nearly all, if 
 not in all, the proposals and articles on the subject, prior to 
 the meeting at Philadelphia, positive action by the General 
 Assembly was contemplated as requisite to a complete elec- 
 tion ; in other words, every election or appointment, in 
 order to be complete, must be directly approved, or else 
 disapproved, by the General Assembly. This would be in 
 accordance with the usual practice in the political sphere. 
 Ordinarily the veto power goes along with the power of 
 approval and confirmation. It is so with the Presidential 
 veto. It is so generally with the veto power of governors 
 and mayors. But it was not so here ; and as a consequence, 
 even the General Assembly itself, as we shall see, required 
 twenty years fairly to learn the lesson of the extent of its 
 power in the case. All that the Assembly can rightfully 
 do, under the agreement of 1870, is either to disapprove or 
 to do nothing. This shows how sagaciously the whole 
 matter was finally arranged. The plan bears on its very 
 face marks of the utmost caution and forethought. Had it 
 included the power of approval, as well as of disapproval, 
 every election reported between 1870 and 1891 would then 
 have come before the Assembly for confirmation, and 
 might have led to any amount of more or less excited 
 discussion and conflict of ophiion. An approval, if strenu- 
 ously opposed by only a small minority, would be likely to 
 prejudice even a good appointment; while an approval, 
 carried by a bare majority, could hardly fail to stir up bad 
 feeling among the friends of the candidate, if not in his 
 own breast. Whatever evils are incident to the election of 
 theological teachers by the General Assembly, the plan of 
 1870 certainly reduces them to a minimum, as compared 
 with a plan which should embrace the power of ratifying, 
 as well as of vetoing, every appointment. It is likely that 
 between May 9th and May 16th Dr. Adams not only took 
 
36 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 legal counsel, but tliat lie also sought the counsel of those 
 two wise men and old friends, Dr. Stearns and Dr. Hat- 
 field, with whom for nearly three years he had been in the 
 habit of conferring on this very question of the theological 
 seminaries in the Joint Committee on Reunion, or in the 
 New School branch of it. That the General Assembly, 
 under the rule of 1870, has no power of approval "s ad- 
 mitted now on all hands. 
 
 But there is another point, concerning which there has 
 been and is still direct conflict of opinion ; the point, 
 namely, whether the transfer of a member of the faculty 
 from one chair to another is an election in the same sense 
 as an original appointment, and therefore subject to the 
 Assembly's veto. The General Assembly at Detroit as- 
 sumed that a transfer does not differ from an original elec- 
 tion, and by a large majority voted to disapprove the 
 transfer of Dr. Briggs from the chair of Hebrew and cog- 
 nate languages to the new chair of Biblical Theology. The 
 position of the board of directors, on the other hand, was 
 and is that the original election of Dr. Briggs, not having 
 been disapproved by the General Assembly, fixed his 
 status, once for all, as a member of the teaching faculty 
 of Union Seminary ; and that his transfer to the chair of 
 Biblical Theology could not therefore unsettle, suspend, or 
 in any wise change that status ; it was simply an assign- 
 ment of new and other duties, belonged solely to the 
 jurisdiction of the board, and lay wholly beyond the control 
 or supervision of the General Assembly. 
 
 This view is enforced by several considerations: 1. It 
 harmonizes with the exclusion from the plan, adopted l)y 
 the directors on May 16th, of all direct power of approval. 
 That exclusion indicates plainly the animus and latent, if 
 not the deliberate, purpose of the board. I say " latent, 
 if not deliberate, purpose," because no evidence exists that 
 
LIMITATIONS OF THE VETO POWER. 37 
 
 in using the terms "election" and "appointment" tliere 
 was any thought or suspicion in the mind of a single 
 director present that the agreement included also a transfer 
 from one chair to another. Not a word was lisped on this 
 point.* Had it been raised then and there ; had Dr. 
 Adams, in explaining his revised plan, said to the board : 
 " I feel bound to tell you frankly that this plan, faithfully 
 carried out, will of necessity render the internal administra- 
 tion and housekeeping of Union Seminary, touching some 
 of its most vital interests, subject to the ultimate control of> 
 the General Assembly," Mr. James' protest of May 9th 
 would have been echoed throughout the room. The plan 
 would have withered on the spot. Or, to state the case in 
 another way, had the question been put to Dr. Adams : 
 " Do you mean to include in the terras ' election ' and 
 'appointment' a transfer also, such as we often make 
 from one chair to another? In our relations to the General 
 Assembly will the original status of one of our professors 
 be lost by calling him to new duties in the institution, until 
 it has been recovered by subjecting him again to the veto 
 of the General Assembly?" the prompt answer, I am 
 quite sure, would have been : " Most certainly not ; that 
 
 * Among the members of the faculty present was Dr. Philip 
 Schaff. In a letter to me, Dr. Schaff, refening to Dr. Adams' 
 proposal " as a generous peace-offering on the altar of the 
 reunion of Old and New School," adds : 
 
 My impression was that Dr. Adams had previously conferred with 
 Dr. Charles Hodge, who in behalf of Princeton was anxious to get 
 freedom from the control of the Assembly in the appointment of pro- 
 fessors. Our loss was Princeton's gain. 
 
 The distinction between the appointment of a new professor and 
 the transfer of an old one to a new department was not mentioned, 
 and probably not even thought of, at that time. I myself was trans- 
 ferred three times — to the Hebrew, to the Greek, and to Church His- 
 tory — and nothing was said about a veto. 
 
38 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 goes without saying. We are proposing to enter, not into 
 a legal compact, but into a friendly and courteous arrange- 
 ment by which the General Assembly shall have a voice in 
 respect to the qualifications of every man who is to be a 
 theological teacher in our Seminary, But once admitted, 
 unforbidden, into our faculty, the Assembly will have 
 nothing further to do with him except indirectly, of course, 
 as a Presbyterian minister. "We are not trying to drive a 
 bargain, but to do what seems to us a fair and wise, not to 
 say very generous, thing in the interest of the peace and 
 prosperity of the reunited Church." 
 
 2. But even assuming, for an instant, that the plan of 
 1870 was a legal compact, binding as such upon the future, 
 it should yet be interpreted in strictest accordance with its 
 specific design. Whatever power it concedes is a power of 
 trust ; and if that power can be rightly delegated at all, 
 which I will not here discuss, it should certainly be dele- 
 gated in such manner and with such careful limitations as 
 to preclude all suspicion of tampering or dealing lightly 
 with the trust. We may, indeed, distinguish between the 
 trustee and the director, but we must not divide them. 
 The chartered rights and duties of the board cross and run 
 into each other. The office of every director of Union 
 Seminary is a sacred trust ; a trust not merely for property, 
 but for something infinitely more precious and enduring 
 — the moral and spiritual treasures of the institution ; its 
 grand design as a school of divinity ; the good deeds and 
 worth of its excellent founders ; the fame of its learned, 
 wise, and godly teachers ; the glorious achievements of its 
 alumni in the service of their Master ; the memories of its 
 munificent friends and benefactors ; in a word, its invalu- 
 able history and traditions. Hence every director, before 
 entering upon his duties, is required to take this solemn 
 pledge : 
 
LIMIT ATIOlSrS OF THE VETO POWER. 39 
 
 Approving of the plan and constitution of the Union 
 Theological Seminary in the city of New York, and of the 
 Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Presbyterian form 
 of chuich government, I do solemnly promise to maintain the 
 same so long as I shall continue to be a member of the 
 board of directors. 
 
 3. And then it seems to me a strong incidental con- 
 firmation of the view taken by the directors of Union 
 Seminary with regard to the scope of the agreement of 
 1870, that the official minutes of the board take for 
 granted the correctness of that view. The board has 
 again and again assigned its professors to new duties and 
 to new chairs. Three times it transferred Dr. Schaff from 
 one chair to another. Last winter it created a new chair, 
 and selected Dr. Briggs to fill it, transferring Dr. Brown at 
 the same time to the chair vacated by Dr. Briggs. The 
 record of these and similar changes on the minutes of tlie 
 board varies in language. The terms " elected," " chosen," 
 "appointed," "transferred," have been used more or less 
 indiscriminately ; and that for the simple reason that in the 
 mind of the board there was no thought of any question 
 touching its own proper authority in each case. Transfer 
 is evidently the fitting term, expressing both the fact and 
 the power ; and this is the word which has of late years been 
 chiefly employed in the minutes of the executive commit- 
 tee and of the board of directors of Union Seminary. If 
 all " appointments " in the literal sense are subject to the 
 veto of the General Assembly, temporary assignments of 
 duty would have to be reported to the Assembly; for 
 nothing is more common than to " appoint " a professor to 
 such special duties. 
 
 4. There is still another consideration which sustains the 
 view that a transfer is wholly different from an original 
 election ; the fact, namely, that the strict rules of procedure 
 
40 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 in the original election have not heen observed in the case 
 of a mere transfer. The disregard of these rules has in 
 repeated instances been so positive and varied as to in- 
 validate the whole action of the board, if a transfer is the 
 same thing as an original appointment. Alike in the open 
 disregard of some of these rules and in inducting at once 
 into the new or vacant chair without any respect to the 
 General Assembly — as, for example, in the case of Dr. 
 Briggs — we have a clear demonstration that in the view of the 
 board of directors of Union Seminary a transfer has always 
 been regarded as simply an assignment of duties, and sub- 
 ject, therefore, neither to the veto of the General Assem- 
 bly nor to a strict observance of the usual forms prescribed 
 by law and custom in first calling a man to the service of 
 the Seminary. 
 
 In the discussion of the extent of the Assembly's veto 
 power the singular point has been made that we ought to 
 distinguish between the different chairs and the subject- 
 matter taught in them. A Jew, for example — so I have 
 heard it argued by at least two eminent directors in a lead- 
 ing Presbyterian seminary — a Jew might make an excel- 
 lent professor of Hebrew ; but suppose, hiding behind the 
 technicality of a transfer, you should put him into the chair 
 of Systematic Theology, would that not be a case for the 
 intervention of the General Assembly's veto power? I 
 reply, Ko ; not if the Assembly had failed to disapprove 
 of his taking the chair of Hebrew. I freely admit that 
 there are devout, God-fearing Jews, abundantly qualified 
 to be professors of Hebrew in any theological seminary. 
 Isaac Nordheimer, my own beloved teacher, was such a 
 man ; but the best and most learned Jew in the world could 
 not get into the chair of Hebrew in Union Seminary, to 
 say nothing of his transfer to the chair of Systematic The- 
 ology, for how could a Jew sincerely adopt the West- 
 
THE OFFER OF UNION SEMINARY ACCEPTED. 41 
 
 minster Confession of Faith as containing the system of doc- 
 trine taught in the Holy Scriptures? Here is the pledge 
 taken by every professor, whatever may be his chair : 
 
 I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments 
 to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and 
 practice ; and I do now, in the presence of God and the 
 directors of this Seminary, solemnly and sincerely receive and 
 adopt the Westminster Confession of Faith as containing the 
 system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures. I do also, 
 inhke manner, approve of the Presbyterian Form of Govern- 
 ment ; and I do solemnly promise that I will not teach or 
 inculcate an3i;hing which shall appear to me to be subversive 
 of said system of doctrines, or of the principles of said 
 Form of Government, so long as I shall continue to be a 
 professor in the Seminary. 
 
 (/)• Acce2)ta7ioe of the offer of Union Seminary made to 
 the Geiieral Assembly in its memorial of 1870. 
 
 Let us now go back to the meeting of the Assembly in 
 Philadelphia. Dr. Adams, as w^e have seen, was appointed 
 chairman of the Standing Committee on Theological Sem- 
 inaries. He asked, as a personal favor, I repeat, to be ex- 
 cused from serving in that capacity, on the ground that all 
 the seminaries under the care of the Assembly belonged to 
 what had been the Old School branch, but his request was 
 not granted. Before this Committee came the memorial 
 of Union Theological Seminary and also a memorial from 
 Princeton of similar tenor; the difference between them 
 being that Princeton asked what it deemed a great favor to 
 itself, while Union asked what it believed would be a o-reat 
 favor to Princeton and other seminaries. The report of the 
 Committee led to no discussion, met with no opposition 
 and was unanimously adopted. Here follow some extracts 
 from this report : 
 
42 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 That the relations of these several theological seminaries, 
 differing in origin and administration, to the reunited Church 
 should be regarded as a matter of no little delicacy and diffi- 
 culty, was inevitable. On the one hand it is obvious that a 
 matter so important as the education of its ministry should 
 in some way be under the supervision and control of the 
 Church, so as to secure the entire and cordial confidence of 
 the Church. On the other hand, there is a liberty and flexi- 
 bility in the matter which must be respected and allowed. 
 If individuals or associations are disposed to found and en- 
 dow seminaries of their own, there is no power in the Pres- 
 byterian Church to forbid it. 
 
 As to any project by which the entire control and admin- 
 istration of all our theological seminaries, — for example, as to 
 the election of trustees, — can be transferred to the General 
 Assembly on any principle of complete uniformity, your 
 Committee regard it as Avholly impracticable, and the attempt 
 to accomplish it altogether undesirable. To bring it about, 
 should it be undertaken, would require an amount of legisla- 
 tion, in six or seven different States, which would be por- 
 tentous. 
 
 Besides, the intentions and wishes of benevolent men 
 who have founded and endowed some of these seminaries, 
 and aided others on their present footing, should be honora- 
 bly and zealously protected. 
 
 Your Committee, therefore, wotdd recommend no change 
 and no attempt at change in this direction, save such as may 
 safely and wisely be effected under existing charters. For 
 example, the directors of the seminary at Princeton have 
 memorialized this Assembly with the request that the Assem- 
 bly would so far change its " plan " of control over that in- 
 stitution as to give the board of directors enlarged rights in 
 several specified particulars, subject to the veto of the Gen- 
 eral Assembly. 
 
 Your Committee are unanimously of the opinion that the 
 changes asked for are eminently wise and proper. If it were 
 
THE OFFER OF UNION SEMINARY ACCEPTED. 43 
 
 witlain the power of the General Asseinbly to remit the en- 
 tire administration of this venerable institution to its board 
 of directors without any of the restrictions they have men- 
 tioned as to the supply of their own vacancies, they would 
 cordially recommend it. But inasmuch as the endowments 
 of this Seminary are held on the condition that it should be 
 the property and under the control of the General Assembly 
 of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, that trust 
 cannot be vacated nor transferred to any other body. The 
 method desired and proposed by the directors themselves is 
 open to no such objection, and is believed to be quite within 
 the provisions of the law as now defined, being only a con- 
 venient and wise mode of executing by the General Assem- 
 bly itself the trust which it now holds. 
 
 A memorial has been presented to this Assembly from the 
 directors of Union Theological Seminary, in New York, beax- 
 ing upon the point of uniformity as to a certain kind and 
 amount of ecclesiastical suiiervision. 
 
 It had appeared to them — many of them having taken an 
 active part in founding that Seminary thirty-three years ago, 
 in a time, as already noticed, of memorable excitement — that 
 there were great disadvantages and perils in electing profes- 
 sors and teachers by the Assembly itself, without sufficient 
 time or opportunity for acquaintance with the qualifications 
 of men to be appointed to offices of such responsibility. 
 
 It is self-evident, as your Committee are agreed, that a 
 body so large as the General Assembly, and composed of 
 men resident, most of them, at so great a distance from the 
 several seminaries, is not so competent to arrange for their 
 interests and usefulness as those ha^dng local and personal 
 intimacy with them. Desirous of bringing about as much 
 uniformity as was possible in the relation of the seminaries 
 to the General Assembly of the Church, the directors of 
 Union Seminary have memoriahzed this Assembly to the 
 effect that the Assembly would commit, so far as practicable, 
 the general administration of all seminaries now under the 
 
44 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 control of the Assembly to their several boards of directors ; 
 proposing, if this be done, to give to the General Assembly 
 what it does not now possess, the right of veto in the election 
 of professors at Union. In this generous offer, looking solely 
 to the peace and harmony of the Church, the memorialists 
 did not include the same veto in regard to the election of 
 their own directors, inasmuch as these directors hold the 
 property of the Seminary in trust. The trustees of Princeton 
 Seminary, being one of two boards, are a close corporation. 
 The directors of Union Seminary in New York, being but 
 one board, are the trustees. 
 
 Leaving all the diversities of method and administration 
 in the several seminaries intact, save in the particulars here- 
 inafter provided for, your Committee are happy to report 
 that there is one mode of unifying all the seminaries of the 
 Presbyterian Church as to ecclesiastical supervision, so far as 
 unification is in any way desirable. It is the mode suggested 
 in the several memorials of the directors of Union and Prince- 
 ton, and approved, or likely to be approved, from informa- 
 tion in our possession, by the directors of Auburn and Lane. 
 This is to give to the General Assembly a veto power upon 
 the appointment of professors in all these several institutions. 
 This seems to your Committee to secure all the uniformity, 
 as to the relation of these seminaries to the Church, which 
 can be necessary to ensure general confidence and satisfac- 
 tion. Less than this might excite jealousy, more than this is 
 cumbersome and undesirable.* 
 
 * The full report will be found in Moore's Digest of 1886, 
 pp. 383-386. It is proper to say here, that two statements 
 in the report are somewhat inaccurate ; namely, that relating 
 to the ecclesiastical connection in 1836 of the founders of 
 Union Seminary, and that relating to "the design of its 
 founders." Their own language touching this point, as also 
 the facts with regard to their ecclesiastical connection, are 
 given in an earlier part of this paper. 
 
THE OFFER OF UNION SEMINARY ACCEPTED. 45 
 
 I have said that the report of the Standing Committee 
 on Theological Seminaries met with no opposition. The 
 offer of Union Seminary, which was wholly unexpected to 
 the great body of commissioners, whether of the Old or 
 New School, made the happiest impression upon the As- 
 sembly and called forth strong words of satisfaction and 
 thankfulness. And yet the Committee appear to have 
 been in some doubt whether all the seminaries, then be- 
 longing to the General Assembly, would be willing to pass 
 from under its immediate control; for the report closes 
 with this resolution : 
 
 In case the board of directors of any theological semi- 
 nary now under the control of the General Assembly should 
 prefer to retain their present relation to this body, the plan 
 of such seminary shall remain unaltered. 
 
 Whatever doubt, if any, led to this provision, it was 
 speedily solved in the acceptance of the Princeton plan 
 by all the other seminaries hitherto belonging to the Old 
 School ; while Lane, that, like Union, was independent of ec- 
 clesiastical control, and Auburn, which was under the watch 
 and care of four adjacent synods, fell in also with the new 
 arrangement by conceding to the General Assembly a veto 
 over the election of their professors. I do not find that, \ 
 at the time, these changes involved any public discussion, J 
 or even attracted public notice. Sucli was the confiding 
 and hopeful temper of the reunited Church, that they seem 
 to have followed the action at Philadelphia almost as a 
 matter of course. 
 
 And yet it would be untrue to say that the new order of 
 things at once allayed all the " apprehensions " and " jeal- 
 ousy," referred to in the report of the Standing Committee 
 on theological seminaries at Philadelphia. "Apprehen- 
 sions," if not " jealousy," did continue to exist, especially at 
 
46 UIvION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 Princeton ; otherwise it would be scarcely possible to ex- 
 plain some facts in the case, notorious at the time. To 
 show that I do not speak at random, I will give an item 
 sent by me to The Evangelist shortly after the Assembly 
 of 1870 had adjourned. It was as follows : 
 
 A STRANGE EXCEPTION. 
 
 In appointing directors of its theological seminaries, as 
 also trustees and members of its various boards, the Gen- 
 eral Assembly seems to have been actuated by an admiiable 
 spirit of wisdom, fairness, and liberality. In this spirit it 
 actually removed six of its own trustees, all of them gentle- 
 men of the highest character, in order to give due repre- 
 sentation to the late New School side. The same excellent 
 spirit was shown in choosing ten new directors for the semi- 
 nary of the Northwest. But there is one marked exception, 
 which, we frankly confess, has struck us, as we know it has 
 struck others, with a good deal of surprise. We refer to the 
 new directors of Princeton Seminary. They are as follows : 
 
 Directors of Princeton Seminary. — Ministers : William D. 
 Snodgrass, D.D., Joseph McElroy, D.D., G. W. Musgrave, 
 D.D., Eobert Hammill, D.D., Joseph T. Smith, D.D., Robert 
 Davidson, D.D., Gardiner Spring, D.D. Elders : Robert 
 Carter, John K. Finley, George Sharswood, LL.D., Thomas 
 C. M. Paton, to fill the place of Moses Allen. 
 
 In The Evangelist of the following week appeared a 
 careful editorial, entitled "Princeton Theological Semi- 
 nary," and I give herewith extracts from this article, under- 
 scoring some passages, in order that they may the more 
 easily be compared with the official reports of the Joint 
 Committee and of the action of the General Assemblies, 
 cited in earlier parts of this paper : 
 
 A paragraph in our last paper referred to the reappoint- 
 ment of the former directors of this Seminary, all of whom 
 belonged to the former Old School branch of the Church, as 
 
THE OFFER OF UNION SEMINARY ACCEPTED. 47 
 
 an apparent exception to the rule of the late General Assem- 
 bly to unite representatives of both branches in aD its ap- 
 pointments. We are happy to be informed that the impres- 
 sion of inequality conveyed by our statement is not warranted 
 by the facts, and that so far from being an exception to the 
 rule of courtesy and fairness observed by the Assembly, this 
 reappointment of the former directors of Princeton was only 
 
 another instance of the same generous spirit The 
 
 Joint Committee on Reunion unanimously recognized it as 
 fair and proper that while the New School seminaries were, 
 and ajter the union must continue to be, under the exclusive 
 control of New School men, by whom they had been founded 
 and endowed, the Old School seminaries should, in like man- 
 ner, be under the direction of Old School men. The Com- 
 mittee therefore proposed, as one of the terms of reunion, that 
 any of these seminaries might ivithdraw from the control of 
 the united Assembly. This, however, could not be done in 
 the case of the Old School seminaries, as all their endow- 
 ments were held on the condition of their being under the 
 General Assembly. It was therefore next proposed that the 
 boards of directors should be authorized to elect professors, 
 and to fill their own vacancies, subject to the veto of the 
 General Assembly'. Thus no man could be either a professor 
 or director who has not the confidence of the body repre- 
 senting the whole Church. This plan ivas adopted by a unan- 
 imous vote of the Assembly. It must be noted, however, that 
 this rule, so far as directors are concerned, applies only to 
 " the seminaries now under the control of the General Assem- 
 bly." The choice of directors under the former New School 
 seminaries is not subject to such veto. It seemed then only 
 courteous and fair that if the boards of directors on the one 
 side must of necesaity remain unchanged, those on the other 
 side should occupy a similar position, and hence that the 
 gentlemen whose terms of service at Princeton had just ex- 
 pired, should be re-elected. This was only carrying out the 
 same spirit of candor which has marked all the Assembly's 
 proceedings. 
 
48 UNION SEMINAEY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 This article, whether written bj the Old School editor 
 of The Evangelist or by some one else, was so hopelessly 
 confused that I despaired of trying to correct its errors. 
 Almost every statement about the action of the Joint Com- 
 mittee on Keunion or that of the Assembly is inaccurate ; 
 while its statements about the former New School semi- 
 naries are directly contrary to the facts in the case. Union 
 Seminary, even hefore the close of 1869, had elected two 
 ministers of what, a few weeks earlier, were Old School 
 churches, namely. Dr. John Hall and Dr. James O. Murray, 
 to fill two clerical vacancies in its board of directors ; and in 
 1870 it filled three more vacancies by the election of three 
 prominent laymen of the late Old School. It was not until 
 1873 that Princeton elected a director who had belonged to 
 the New School. One of its last directors of distinctively 
 New School antecedents was chosen, I believe, in 1882, 
 viz., the Kev. Kobert Kussell Booth, D.D., of New York, 
 who is still a member of the Princeton board. Of course, 
 as the years pass away, all special thought of these obsolete 
 ecclesiastical names is passing away with them. It is only 
 fair to add that in no instance, so far as I am aware, have 
 former New School men, elected to such boards of former 
 Old School institutions, dishonored the confidence reposed 
 in them. There may have been such cases ; if so, I never 
 heard of them. 
 
 III. 
 
 SKETCH OF THE OPERATION AND EFFECTS OF THE ASSEM- 
 BLY'S VETO POWER IN THE ELECTION OF THEOLOGICAL 
 PROFESSORS FROM 1870 TO THE PRESENT TIME. 
 
 I have thus endeavored to trace from stage to stage the 
 course of discussion and of action with regard to theological 
 seminaries in the Joint Committee on Keunion, in the Old 
 
MISAPPREHENSIOISr AS TO THE VETO POWER. 49 
 
 and New School General Assemblies, in the board of direct- 
 ors of Union Seminary, and lastly in the first Assembly of 
 the reunited Church. It has been my aim to give as far 
 as possible all the main facts, omitting nothing essential to 
 a right understanding of the case. At the beginning of 
 the investigation my mind was very much in the dark 
 respecting a number of important points, but after patient 
 research and inquiry, now and then not a little to my own 
 surprise, the needed light appeared. I will now proceed 
 to a sketch of the practical working and effects of the As- 
 sembly's veto power from 1870 to the present time. 
 
 («). Early and frequent misapprehension of the extent of 
 this power on the part of the General Assembly. 
 
 The facts bearing on this point are equally curious and 
 instructive. They are curious as an illustration of the 
 tendency in all popular bodies — a tendency partly innate, 
 and in part the effect of ignorance, prejudice, or passion — 
 to stretch their prerogative in the exercise of power. The 
 facts are instructive as illustrating the old maxim that " the 
 price of liberty is eternal vigilance," and also the painful 
 truth that even a court of Jesus Christ is not exempt from 
 the infirmities of human nature. Good men when, armed 
 with authority, they meet together for the performance of 
 important duties and the promotion of sacred objects, mean, 
 of course, to do the thing that is right, and, especially, to 
 keep the whole law under which they act ; but how 
 strangely they often err, on the right hand and on the left ! 
 
 Nothing would seem to be plainer than the power of 
 disapproval as conceded to the General Assembly in 1870, 
 and yet upon the very first opportunity to exercise this 
 power, at Chicago in 1871, the Standing Committee on 
 Theological Seminaries recommended the " approval " of 
 certain elections reported to the Assembly ; and had it not 
 
50 UNIOX SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 been for the. presence of Henry B. Smith as commissioner 
 from the Presbytery of New York, the recommendation 
 would no donbt have been unanimously adopted. The 
 " official journal " of the Assembly contains the following 
 record : 
 
 UNION SEMINARY. 
 
 Prof. Henry B. Smith, D.D., LL.D., of Union Theological 
 Seminary, New York City, moved an amendment to the 
 report of the Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries 
 thus : 
 
 Resolved, That the clauses of the report of the committee 
 be modified or stricken out which express in the name of the 
 Assembly "approval" of the elections of directors or pro- 
 fessors in the seminaries that have adopted the plan sug- 
 gested by Union Seminary, and ratified by the Assembly in 
 1870 [see minutes, pp. 64, 65, 148] ; since according to 
 said plan such elections are complete unless " vetoed " by the 
 Assembly to which they are reported. 
 
 Dr. Musgrave hoped this amendment would be sustained. 
 Union Seminary has comieously, and as he thought wisely, 
 conceded this measure of control over it by the General 
 Assembly, and it was only fair and honorable to accept this 
 amendment. It was so ordered. 
 
 One would have supposed that this formal interpretation 
 of the extent of its veto power contained in the resolution 
 offered by Prof. Smith, and seconded by Dr. Musgrave as 
 "only fair and honorable," by a unanimous vote of the 
 Assembly itself, would have settled the question for all 
 time. It did no such thiug. Only two years later at 
 Baltimore the Standing Committee on Theological Semina- 
 ries repeated the error of 1871, and was sustained in doing 
 so by the unanimous vote of the General Assembly.* Nor 
 
 *The committee would recommend that tbe Assembly 
 
QUIESCENCE OF THE VETO POWER. 51 
 
 was that the last of this remarkable misapprehension. Since 
 1870 about sixty elections, appointments, and transfers 
 have been reported to the General Assembly. Of these 
 some twenty have been " recognized," " approved," or 
 their " confirmation " voted by the General Assembly ; 
 in other words, in a third of the cases reported, the Gen- 
 eral Assembly did what it had, confessedly, no legal power 
 to do.* These figures will be found nearly, if not 
 altogether, accurate, and they show how easily the most 
 intelligent and conscientious ecclesiastical bodies are led to 
 exercise power that does not belong to them. The chronic 
 misapprehension of which I am speaking cropped out at 
 almost every turn in the newspaper discussions of the veto 
 power, before and after the meeting of the last Assembly, 
 and also at Detroit itself. 
 
 {b). Quiescence of the Assemhly^s veto power from 
 1870 to 1891. 
 
 For twenty years the veto power, conceded to the Gen- 
 eral Assembly in 1870 by Union Seminary, remained qui- 
 escent. During all this period it was never used. While 
 many appointments were " confirmed," or " approved " — 
 illegally, to be sure — not one was vetoed ; a striking proof, 
 
 appro\:e the election of the Kev. Philip Schaff, D.D., to the 
 Brown professorship of Hebrew, and of the Rev. George L. 
 Prentiss, D.D., to the Skinner and McAlphin professorship of 
 Pastoral Theology, Church PoHty, and Missionary [Mission] 
 Work. [See minutes of 1873, page 580. J 
 
 * Except in the case of Auburn Seminary. On entering 
 into connection with the General Assembly this Seminary, in 
 1873, as I shall show later, had adopted a by-law by which 
 the appointments of its professors were "primarily made 
 conditional upon the approval of the General Assembly." 
 Why this vital change in the agreement of 1870 was made 
 
52 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 certainly, of the brotherly harmony and good-will that 
 prevailed in the reunited Church, as also of the wise pru- 
 dence of our theological seminaries in the choice of their 
 teachers. It seemed, indeed, as if the fears of Henry B. 
 Smith, D. "Wilhs James, and others, who regarded the 
 agreement of 1870 with so much misgiving, were shown by 
 the test of experience to have been groundless. The veto 
 power, however, was not wholly forgotten. In the case of 
 Rev. R. W. Patterson, D.D., in 1873, and perhaps in a few 
 other instances, a professor-elect and his friends were re- 
 minded, in a somewhat menacing way, that such a power, 
 though dormant, was still in existence, and might of a 
 sudden wake up.* 
 
 (c). Sudden iise of the veto power in 1891. 
 
 "Wherever real power exists, it is sure to make itself felt. 
 Its turn always comes, sooner or later ; nor is the opportuni- 
 ty apt to be neglected, when a much-desired object, whether 
 good or bad, can be secured by its exercise. What is called 
 the spoils system, for example — a system which has done 
 so much to poison and vulgarize our political life — is 
 
 by the board of commissioners of Auburn Seminary, I do 
 not know. But, of course, that Seminary alone was bound 
 by it. 
 
 * In 1873 my appointment to a professorship in the then 
 Northwestern Theological Seminary was threatened with veto 
 on the ground that I had lately in the Swing trial expressed 
 the wish that the Confession of Faith might soon be revised. 
 How would that sound now ? But my orthodox opponents 
 were quieted, as I was afterward informed, by the statement 
 of the Committee on Seminaries, that in not vetoing the 
 Assembly ivould not necessarily approve. Time changes both 
 sentiment and logic. [Letter of Kev. Dr. Patterson, dated 
 Evanston, HI., Aug. 14, 1891.] 
 
SUDDE:>f USE OF THE VETO POWER. 53 
 
 largely the outgrowth of that simple power of removal, 
 which the Congress of 1789 decided to belong exclusively 
 to the President. At the time nobody seems to have 
 dreamed that any special hann would come through an 
 abuse of the power. Mr. Madison, whose influence was 
 most potent in this decision of the first Congress, declared 
 that if a President should exercise his power of removal 
 from mere personal motives, or except in extreme cases, he 
 would deserve to be impeached. And for more than a 
 third of a century Executive patronage was used solely as 
 a public trust by Washington and the other great patriots 
 who then ruled the country. Even after 1820, when the 
 mischievous Four Years' law was passed, during the 
 second term of Monroe and the whole term of John 
 Quincy Adams, very few removals were made, and those 
 in every case for cause. Only here and there a far-seeing 
 statesman surmised what, during the next third of a cen- 
 tury, lay wrapped up in the unlimited power of removal, 
 when, instead of being used as a public trust, it was going 
 to be so largely prostituted to vulgar greed and the ruthless 
 animosities of selfish partisanship. How different it is 
 now ! The spoils system has come to be regarded, not 
 merely by a few far-seeing statesmen, but by tens of 
 thousands of our most thoughtful and patriotic citizens, of 
 both parties, as, on the whole, the greatest evil that, since 
 the overthrow of slavery, besets the moral life of the 
 country. While I am writing this paper in a lovely moun- 
 tain valley of Yermont, one of the most distinguished of 
 her sons is depicting her heroic services in the Revolu- 
 tionary war and the civic virtues which rendered her so 
 meet, in advance of all others, to join the Old Thirteen by 
 admission to the Union. It is a romantic and inspiring 
 story, told with an eloquence not unworthy of Daniel 
 Webster or of Edward Everett. And I find in it this 
 
54 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 golden passage : '* We have lived to see the prohibition of 
 slavery in the earliest constitution of Yermont, become a 
 part of the fundamental law of this nation. May the time 
 be not far off when its declaration against that other and 
 more widespread curse which corrupts and degrades free 
 government, shall be likewise put in force by the body of 
 the American people." * 
 
 I have given an illustration from our political history 
 of the way in which power long quiescent may of a sud- 
 den, when the fitting opportunity occurs, spring into vigor- 
 ous and baleful action. Illustrations still more impressive 
 might be drawn from the history of the Christian Church. 
 
 Months before the Assembly met at Detroit it became 
 apparent to observing eyes that the transfer of the Rev. 
 Charles A. Briggs, D.D., to the new chair of Biblical The- 
 ology in Union Seminary was to be sharply contested, and, 
 if possible, vetoed. The contest, of course, would rest upon 
 the ground that a transfer is equivalent to an original elec- 
 tion, and subject, therefore, to the disapproval of the Gen- 
 eral Assembly. There had long existed throughout the 
 Presbyterian Church great dissatisfaction with some of Dr. 
 Briggs' views as expressed in his writings ; and had oppor- 
 tunity occurred sooner, it would doubtless have been seized 
 to attempt his removal, by act of the General Assembly, 
 from the Faculty of Union Seminary. 
 
 The feeling against Dr. Briggs, already existing and 
 widespread, was very much intensified by the address ^\hich 
 he delivered on being inducted into his new chair, January 
 20, 1891. In response to this address a large number of 
 Presbyteries overtnred the General Assembly on the sub- 
 ject. The address also led to the initiation of a judicial 
 
 * Oration at the dedication of the Bennington Battle Monu- 
 ment, etc., etc., by E. J. Phelps. 
 
THE COMMISSIONEES AND VETO AT DETROIT. 65 
 
 process in the Presbytery of Kew York. When the Gen- 
 eral Assembly met on the 21st of May, the excitement 
 about Dr. Briggs and his case had reached a very high 
 pitch. The press, both religious and secular, discussed the 
 matter with extraordinary interest. There had been nothing 
 like it since the reunion ; nothing, in truth, like or equal 
 to it since the tempestuous clays of 183Y-38, when both 
 the ecclesiastical and theological storm-centre swept down 
 with such fury on the old City of Brotherly Love. And 
 the key to the whole situation was the veto power. Had 
 it been admitted on all hands that a transfer differs essen- 
 tially from an original election, and is not subject to the 
 Assembly's disapproval, there still might have been a Dr. 
 Briggs case, but it would not have been the case that in 
 May last drew the attention of the whole country to 
 Detroit. 
 
 {d). The General Assemhhj at Detroit, and how to judge 
 its course. 
 Although my impression of the action of the General 
 Assembly at Detroit in the case of Dr. Briggs is anything 
 but favorable, my impression of the Assembly itself is 
 favorable, on the whole, in a high degree. Judging from 
 all I have read and what I have heard from the lips of 
 those who were present as lookers-on, it seems to me to 
 have been a superior body of Christian men. The}' came 
 from far and near, from city and country, from the Atlan- 
 tic and the Pacific shores, and from the most distant parts 
 of heathendom. They differed immensely in age, in train- 
 ing, in experience, in temperament, in social habits and 
 tastes, in their way of looking at things, in the types of 
 piety and rehgious thought which they represented ; but 
 they were very much alike in their love to Jesus Christ, 
 in their faith in His blessed gospel, in their reverence for 
 the Holy Scriptures, in their God-fearing patriotism and 
 
66 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 philanthropy. Eye-witnesses told me that they never saw 
 a body of good men who appeared more sincerely desirous 
 to do right, and to do it in a Christian sj)irit. I was espe- 
 cially touched by what I heard about Judge Breckinridge, 
 for it recalled pleasant boyish impressions of his distin- 
 guished and excellent father. He belonged to a historic 
 family, and his own character added honor to the name. 
 Only the evening before his sudden death he expressed to 
 a friend of mine his keen anxiety respecting the case of 
 Dr. Briggs, and his deep sense of responsibility in the vote 
 he was about to give. His last words attest how sincerely 
 he spoke. 
 
 It is quite possible to respect and even admire a man's 
 character, and to take for granted the purity of his motives, 
 without always approving his conduct or assenting to his 
 logic. And what is thus true with regard to individuals 
 may be no less true with regard to a body of men, to a 
 party, to a community, and to a v/hole people. Were it 
 not so, history, instead of being one of the most interesting 
 and instructive of studies, would be repulsive and demoral- 
 izing beyond expression. It will ever redound to the honor 
 of the American people that when the stress and agony of 
 their struggle for national hfe and freedom was once passed, 
 the whirlwind of embittered passions it had aroused began 
 to subside, just as the waves of an angry sea dashing upon 
 a rock-bound coast die away after the storm is over. And 
 these passions have been subsiding ever since. The mag- 
 nanimous and patriotic sentiments of mutual confidence, 
 love, patience, and brotherhood, which are the crowning 
 glory of our Christian civilization, have been more and 
 more taking their place, and will continue to do so, let us 
 hope, until the billows of sectional strife shall have 
 
 quite forgot to rave, 
 
 "While birds of calm sit brooding on the charmed wave. 
 
THE COMMISSIONERS AND VETO AT DETROIT. 57 
 
 Or, to take an illustration from our Presbyterian annals, 
 was not the reunion of the severed branches of the Church 
 in 1869 a genuine triumph of similar sentiments ? We re- 
 tained, whoever cared to do so, our old differences of opin- 
 ion respecting the causes and merits, or demerits, of the 
 Exscinding Acts, the Disruption of 1838, and the thirty 
 years of alienation between Old School and New School ; 
 but for all that, led, no doubt, by a Divine hand, we came 
 together again in the spirit of mutual trust and love, for- 
 giving and forgetting, in order that we might the more 
 eflFectually do the good works foreordained for us as a 
 Church to walk in. And yet, even to this day, how far are 
 we from thinking alike about the events of 183Y-38, or 
 about the wisdom of the men who taught and led the con- 
 tending schools ! But it now costs us probably no great 
 effort to admit that they, at all events, were good men, fear- 
 ing God, and honestly meaning, as well as trying, to keep 
 His commandments. 
 
 For myself, I remember well the day when to my youth- 
 ful fancy Albert Barnes was the very embodiment of pious 
 good sense, meek wisdom, and uprightness, as well as free- 
 dom, of mind in the interpretation of Holy Scripture ; 
 while Robert J. Breckinridge appeared to me as a pugna- 
 cious theological "fire-eater," a domineering ecclesiastic, 
 and a persecutor of the saints. My impression of Albert 
 Barnes was only confirmed when, years later, I learned to 
 love and revere him as a personal friend. But time and 
 memorable hours, a third of a century ago, of most inter- 
 esting talk with him, in the company of Henry B. Smith, 
 Eoswell D. Hitchcock and other congenial spirits, quite 
 revolutionized my impression of Robert J. Breckinridge ; 
 and while not much changing my opinion of certain feat- 
 ures of his course in 1837-38, his relentless hostility to re- 
 union, or his way of doing things, I have ever since had 
 
68 Uj^ion semit^ary and the assembly. 
 
 no trouble whatever in thinking of him as a devoted servant 
 of the Lord, as an able theologian, an humble Christian, a 
 great-hearted patriot, and a brave, even if a somewhat rugged, 
 type of old Kentucky manhood. 
 
 While, then, I feel bound to criticise the Assembly's 
 action in the case of Dr. Briggs as unfair, wrong, and un- 
 wise in the extreme, let no one suppose me to be im])uting 
 bad motives either to the Assembly or to the men W'ho, as 
 I think, misled it. If any of them or their advisers were 
 actuated by such motives, that is not my business ; let them 
 answer for it to their own consciences and to God. But I 
 go further than this. So far from imputing unworthy 
 motives to most of the commissioners to the Assembly at 
 Detroit, I can readily believe that they were actuated by the 
 best of motives. By their votes, in disapproval of Dr. 
 Briggs' transfer to the chair of Biblical Theology, they 
 meant to express no personal hostility to him, but a hos- 
 tility to what they had read or been assured, a hundred 
 times over, and what they honestly supposed, were his opin- 
 ions and teaching respecting the inspiration and authority 
 of the Holy Scriptures. And had I been a member of the 
 Assem.bly, viewed the subject as they did, and deemed it 
 right to vote at all, my vote would have gone with theirs. 
 From the bottom of my heart I sympathize with all pious 
 and tender feelings toward the Bible, with jealousy of any 
 rival to its authority, with pain and grief at seeing it assailed 
 from without or lightly esteemed in the house of its friends, 
 and with awe of the divine majesty and glory of its truths. 
 Perhaps more or less of ignorance and prejudice may be 
 mixed up with these sentiments. Be it so ; but how much 
 of prejudice and ignorance is apt to be mixed up with 
 everybody's best sentiments! If I must choose between 
 ignorant and prejudiced but sincere love to the "Word of 
 God on the one hand, and on the other a rationalistic, fault- 
 
THE COMMISSIONERS AND VETO AT DETROIT. 59 
 
 finding temper of mind toward it, I infinitely prefer the 
 former. The Word of God, which Hveth and abideth for- 
 ever, is the sure foundation and the germinant principle of 
 American piety. It was so in the beginning of our religi- 
 ous life as a people ; it has been so ever suice ; and unless 
 we prove recreant to our great trust, it will be so in all the 
 years to come. So far as criticism of the Bible, whether 
 literary or theological, aims or tends to subvert this founda- 
 tion and put something else in place of this principle, I, for 
 one, am opposed to it utterly. And were it not my belief 
 that Dr. Briggs could and would say Amen to this senti- 
 ment, I should be equally opposed to him also. Biblical 
 criticism, whether of the higher or lower sort, as I have said 
 elsewhere, is very far from being an exact science, and it 
 mars its own best work just in the degi-ee that it puts on 
 the airs of an exact science, and shouts before it is out of 
 the woods. That has been the bane of rationalism, and if 
 co-existing with it, is none the less a bane of the most ortho- 
 dox Christian scholarship. " Seest thou a man wise in his 
 own conceit ? There is more hope of a fool than of him." 
 This senseful proverb applies not to persons alone. It ap- 
 plies also to every kind of knowledge relating to moral and 
 religious truth, more especially to every branch of knowl- 
 edge that deals with Holy Scripture. Scholarship may be 
 never so able and learned, yet if it be puffed up with self- 
 conceit, if not animated by the spirit of humility and rever- 
 ence, it is certain to go astray. " Let no man," to use the 
 words of Lord Bacon, " upon a weak conceit of sobriety or 
 an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain that a man can 
 search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's 
 Word or in the book of God's works, divinity or philoso- 
 phy ; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress and 
 proficience in both ; only let men beware that they apply 
 both to charity and not to swelling; to use, and not to 
 ostentation." 
 
60 UNIOIS^ SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 {e). TJie Case against Dr. Briggs as argued hy John J. 
 
 McCook. 
 
 Of course the case against Dr. Briggs was set before the 
 commissioners in a variety of ways, as well before they left 
 home as upon their reaching the Assembly. Probably its 
 most plausible presentation upon their arrival at Detroit, 
 was in a lawyer's brief prepared by John J, McCook, a 
 well-known member of the New York Bar.* This brief, 
 bristling with points, and fortified by an array of legal au- 
 thority, was well ^iX.^^ jpriina facie to impress the ordinary 
 lay or even clerical mind. I opened my own copy, not with- 
 out some misgiving, lest the ground against vetoing Dr. 
 Briggs, which had seemed to me so firm, should slip from 
 under my feet. Let me add in passing, that had the friends 
 of Union Seminary been as wise and zealous in their o-euer- 
 ation as their friends, the enemies of Dr. Briggs, the result 
 at Detroit miglit haye been quite different. 
 
 It is noteworthy that a lawyer's brief, prepared with such 
 care, and so confident in its tone, should betray an utter 
 misapprehension of one of the most obvious and vital feat- 
 ures of the veto power, as conceded by Union Seminary to 
 the General Assembly. It is solely, as the General Assem- 
 bly itself decided in 1871, the power of <fmpproval ; and 
 yet this brief, again and again, assumes that it was no less 
 the power of approval. Here are instances: "Thus, all 
 appointments of professors are, and the safety of the Church 
 
 * One Hundred and Third General Assembly of the Pres- 
 byterian Church in the United States of America, Detroit, 
 May, 1891. Memorandum of facts and the law controlling 
 the relations of Union Theological Seminary in the city of 
 New York to the General Assembly of the Pi-esbyterian 
 Churcli in the United States of America, by John J. McCook, 
 Commissioner from the Presbvtery of New York. 
 
ME. Mccook's brief. 61 
 
 demands that they always should be, made by the directors 
 conditionally, first upon the cq^proval of the General 
 Assembly " (p. 18). 
 
 Again, " Point YIII. The only question before this As- 
 sembly is the exercise of the power granted to it by Union 
 Seminary under the contract, namely : to approve or dis- 
 approve tlie appointment by transfer of Dr. Briggs to the 
 new chair of Biblical Theology " (p. 31). 
 
 Mr. McCook opens his brief with a narration of the ma- 
 terial facts bearing upon the case. He then makes his 
 " Point I," namely : That the memorial of the directors of 
 Union Seminary in 1870, and the action of the General 
 Assembly thereupon, constituted "a contract upon valid 
 considerations." I have already touched upon the question 
 of contract and pass it here. The first vaKd consideration 
 was " The benefit to the Union Seminary in securing the 
 influence and name of the General Assembly to reassure 
 pupils and henef actors as to its orthodoxy.^' Imagine 
 the looks of wondering incredulity with which William 
 Adams, Henry B. Smith, Thomas H. Skinner, Roswell D. 
 Hitchcock, Edwin F. Hatfield, and Jonathan F. Stearns— 
 not to mention others— would have listened to this as- 
 sertion ! I am sure they never heard a lisp of it, either 
 before or after 1870. And although for nearly forty years 
 connected with Union Seminary either as director or pro- 
 fessor, I read it for the first time in this brief. The state- 
 ment implies that both pupils and benefactors, being in 
 serious doubt respecting the orthodoxy of the institution, 
 found relief in the agreement of 1870. What pupils ? what 
 benefactors? and where is the evidence that the Seminary 
 entered into the " contract " of 1870 in order to reassure its 
 pupils and benefactors as to its own orthodoxy ? The whole 
 statement is not only utterly without foundation, but it in- 
 volves a very gross and offensive imputation upon the 
 
62 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 General Assembly, upon Union Seminary, and upon all the 
 parties concerned. 
 
 No principle laid down in the Basis of reunion in 1869 
 was more emphatically asserted than that of the perfect 
 equality of both branches, Old School and !N^ew, in the 
 matter of their orthodoxy. The whole movement hinged 
 upon the distinct recognition of this principle. Had Dr. 
 Musgrave, Dr. Beatty, and the other Old School leaders in- 
 timated that Union Seminary was not as sound in the faith 
 as Princeton, and needed the influence of the General As- 
 sembly to " 7'eassure pupils and benefactors as to its ortho- 
 doxy," that of itself would have broken up the negotiations 
 for union. 
 
 The second " good and valuable consideration," received 
 by the Union Seminary under this " contract," was " a large 
 increase of its students, drawn from all parts of the reunited 
 Church." This statement also I believe to be entirely 
 without foundation. Reunion, according to the best of my 
 knowledge and belief, brought very few students to Union 
 Seminary; while it undoubtedly tended, in several ways, 
 to draw them elsewhere. It wrought a great change, for 
 example, in the feeling of New School men toward Old 
 School seminaries, as well as toward the Old School 
 Church ; and thus led more or less of those studying for 
 the ministry to enter these seminaries, who would never 
 have thought of doing so before 18T0. 
 
 The following table, kindly furnished me by the Rev. 
 Charles R. Gillett, librarian of Union Seminary, shows at 
 a glance the number of students for twenty years before 
 and twenty years since 1870, and will enable the reader to 
 judge for himself as to the probableinfluenceof the General 
 Asseinbly upon the increase of its students by "reassur- 
 ing pupils and benefactors of the orthodox}^" of the in- 
 stitution. This increase, it will be seen, has been from the 
 
MR. Mccook's brief. 
 
 63 
 
 first somewhat irregular. Special causes have from time 
 to time depleted the Seminary. The war for the Union 
 had tliis eiiect in a marked degree. In the four years 1861-5 
 not a few Union students, or young men, who were in- 
 tending to enter Union Seminary, were at the front, fight- 
 ing the battles of their country. Then again special causes 
 have occasionally increased the number of students ; as, for 
 example, the expectation that the World's Fair would be 
 held in New York. I repeat my own opinion, that the 
 endorsement of its orthodoxy by the General Assembly, 
 during all these twenty years, has never added a dozen names 
 to the roll of students in Union Seminary. 
 
 Students in Union Seminary, by years and classes. 
 Undergraduates only. 
 
 YEAR. 
 
 SENIORS. 
 
 MIDDLERS. 
 
 JUNIORS. 
 
 TOTALS. 
 
 1890-91 
 
 1889-90 
 
 1888-89 
 
 1887-88 
 
 1886-87 
 
 1885-86 
 
 1884-85 
 
 1883-84 
 
 1882-83 
 
 1881-82 
 
 1880-81 
 
 1879-»0 
 
 1878-79 
 
 1877-78 
 
 1876-77 
 
 1875-76 
 
 1874-75 
 
 1873-74 
 
 1872-73 
 
 1871-72 
 
 43 
 43 
 36 
 35 
 53 
 37 
 39 
 33 
 39 
 37 
 36 
 38 
 43 
 45 
 48 
 36 
 43 
 37 
 42 
 36 
 
 60 
 49 
 
 47 
 39 
 41 
 49 
 37 
 37 
 35 
 40 
 44 
 43 
 37 
 50 
 44 
 49 
 33 
 40 
 42 
 40 
 
 49 
 66 
 44 
 51 
 36 
 33 
 55 
 41 
 42 
 43 
 40 
 50 
 39 
 47 
 47 
 51 
 40 
 34 
 36 
 38 
 
 152 
 
 158 
 127 
 125 
 130 
 119 
 131 
 ill 
 116 
 120 
 120 
 130 
 119 
 143 
 139 
 136 
 116 
 111 
 120 
 114 
 
 Averages. 
 
 39.95 
 
 42.75 
 
 44.10 
 
 126.8 
 
64 
 
 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 YEAR. 
 
 SENIORS. 
 
 MIDDLERS. 
 
 JUNIORS. 
 
 TOTALS. 
 
 1870-71 
 
 1869-70 
 
 1868-69 
 
 1867-68 
 
 1866-67 
 
 1865-66 
 
 1864-65 
 
 1863-64 
 
 1802-63 
 
 1861-62 
 
 1880-61 
 
 1859-60 
 
 1858-59 
 
 1857-58 
 
 1856-57 
 
 1855-56 
 
 1854-55 
 
 1853-54 
 
 1852-53 
 
 1851-52 
 
 37 
 89 
 43 
 44 
 26 
 35 
 23 
 26 
 28 
 36 
 37 
 33 
 38 
 25 
 33 
 19 
 20 
 27 
 32 
 23 
 
 36 
 37 
 
 44 
 43- 
 51 
 38 
 39 
 27 
 30 
 32 
 56 
 49 
 39 
 40 
 33 
 31 
 33 
 31 
 34 
 31 
 
 37 
 37 
 40 
 47 
 31 
 50 
 38 
 32 
 38 
 39 
 40 
 59 
 43 
 43 
 46 
 40 
 38 
 40 
 34 
 30 
 
 110 
 113 
 
 127 
 
 133 
 
 108 
 
 123 
 
 100 
 
 85 
 
 86 
 
 109 
 
 133 
 
 141 
 
 120 
 
 108 
 
 103 
 
 90 
 
 96 
 
 98 
 
 80 
 
 74 
 
 Averages. 
 
 30.6 
 
 36.6 
 
 39.6 
 
 106.8 
 
 YEAR. 
 
 SENIORS. 
 
 AHDDLERS. 
 
 JUNIORS. 
 
 TOTALS. 
 
 1850-51 
 
 1849-50 
 
 1848-49 
 
 1847-48 
 
 1846-47 
 
 1845-46 
 
 1844-45 
 
 1843-44 
 
 1842-43 
 
 1841-42 
 
 1840-41 
 
 1839-40 
 
 1838-39 
 
 30 
 31 
 37 
 30 
 40 
 35 
 39 
 32 
 35 
 32 
 23 
 34 
 28 
 
 28 
 20 
 32 
 37 
 33 
 45 
 30 
 40 
 39 
 31 
 43 
 41 
 36 
 
 35 
 41 
 33 
 36 
 43 
 30 
 46 
 31 
 44 
 39 
 33 
 55 
 33 
 
 73 
 
 93 
 
 91 
 
 103 
 
 115 
 
 100 
 
 105 
 
 93 
 
 98 
 
 103 
 
 99 
 
 120 
 
 86 
 
 Averages. 
 
 27.4 
 
 33.4 
 
 37.4 
 
 98.2 
 
MR. Mccook's brief. 65 
 
 The third " good and valuable consideration " received 
 bv Union Seminary under this contract, according to Mr. 
 McCook, consists in the financial aid granted each y.ear to 
 the students from the Board of Education of the Presby- 
 terian Church. How so ? The students of Union Seminary 
 had received financial aid every year from the New School 
 Committee of Education. After 1870 they received simi- 
 lar aid from the Board of Education of the reunited 
 Church. Where is the difference? Is a dollar coming by 
 way of Philadelphia a better dollar than used to come from 
 the treasury of the New School Committee of Education 
 right here in New York ? Is there more silver or more 
 gold in it? is it stamped with a stronger assurance of 
 orthodoxy ? 
 
 The fourth and last " good and valuable consideration," 
 binding Union Seminary fast to its contract, consists in 
 " large additions to its endowments and funds such as those 
 received from James Brown, Esq., Gov. Morgan, and 
 others which have been asked for and received since 1870 
 upon the guaranty of its orthodoxy through its relation to 
 the General Assembly under this contract and the provi- 
 sions of its Constitution." 
 
 I observe in passing that the " Constitution," containing 
 these important provisions, is here referred to with great 
 respect and printed with a big C ; while on page 2 it is 
 twice printed with a little c and is spoken of as " the con- 
 stitution so-calledP And on page 13 the little c comes 
 back again four times over. In replying to Mr. Henry 
 Day's question, "What authority had the board of 1870 
 to bind the board of 1891, and take from them their cor- 
 porate and constitutional powers ? " Mr. McCook's brief 
 goes on to say : " Such lauguage might be proper if the 
 Constitution of the United States were in question, but to 
 speak of the corporation's constitution as conferring con- 
 
66 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 stitutional powers is plainly misleading." Why should the 
 constitution of Union Seminary, which its founders in- 
 tended as the enduring basis and organic law of its existence 
 — full of perennial life, growth, and blessing — be called, 
 slightingly, " the cor])orationh constitution " ? 
 
 Bat to return to the fourth '' good and valuable consid- 
 eration," namely, " large additions to its endowments and 
 funds, such as those received from James Brown, Esq., Gov. 
 Morgan, and others upon the guaranty of its orthodoxy." 
 Of course, I do not pretend to say that none of the benefac- 
 tors of the Seminary were more or less influenced by their 
 confidence in the orthodoxy of the institution, as guaran- 
 teed by its relations to the General Assembly. I do not 
 know. Men are usually led by a variety of motives to 
 give away their money, especially when they do it on a 
 large scale. Of one of the benefactors named, Gov. Mor- 
 gan, I feel entitled to speak with some confidence. Kearly 
 forty years ago I preached a sermon to my people on 
 the position, character, and claims of Union Theological 
 Seminary, urging its immediate endowment. The sermon 
 made no allusion to the General Assembly, or to what Mr. 
 McCook seems to understand by Presbyterian orthodoxy ; 
 but it did set forth what I held, and still hold, to be the 
 chief purpose and function of a great metropolitan institu- 
 tion of Christian theology and learning, like Union Semi- 
 nary. Thirty years later Gov. Morgan was kind enough to 
 write to me respecting my sermon : " There is not an ex- 
 pression in it which I do not approve. I thank you from 
 the bottom of my heart for presenting this vastly important 
 subject in its true light." Hei'e follow a few passages 
 from the sermon which met his approval : 
 
 The character of Union Seminary is eminently catholic in 
 the true sense of the word ; it is at once liberal and conserv- 
 ative. There is nothing that I am aware of in its history, 
 
MR. Mccook's brief. 67 
 
 nothing in its associations, nothing in its general policy, noth- 
 ing in its temper, which should make this institution cleave 
 inordinately to the past or to the future ; which should 
 render it unstable in the ways of old truth, or unwilling to 
 greet new truth with a friendly welcome ; nothing which 
 commits it to any party or prevents its cordial relations with 
 all parties that love the Gosj^el and Christian union. It 
 stands in special connection with our own branch of the 
 great Presbyterian family ; but it numbers on its board of di- 
 rectors, and among its warmest friends, influential members 
 of the other branch ; while it seeks its professors and attracts 
 its students as readily from the old Puritan body of New 
 England, as if its predilections were all Congregational. If 
 you wiU have an institution occupying as catholic a ground as 
 the distracted state of the Church in our day seems to per- 
 mit, I do not know how you can well come nearer to such a 
 plan than have the founders of Union Seminary. Its main 
 advantages are as accessible and useful to a Baptist, a 
 Methodist, an Episcopalian, or a CongregationaHst, as to a 
 Presbyterian ; and students of all these and of other de- 
 nominations have availed themselves of them. Let it be 
 understood that in what I have said, or may say, I cast no 
 reflection upon any other seminary. All honor to Princeton, 
 and Lane, and Auburn, and Andover, and Bangor, and New 
 Haven, and others of whatever name, that are doing the 
 IMaster's work ! 
 
 As the seat, too, of a liberal and profound theological 
 culture New York ought to stand foremost in the land. She 
 ought for her own sake. There is perhaps no other power, 
 after the Word preached, which would do more to preserve 
 her Christian influence, wealth, and enterprise from falling 
 a prey to the show, self-aggrandizement, and other vices 
 incident to the predominance of a commercial spirit. She 
 ought for the sake of our country and the world. Let a 
 wise, tolerant. Christian theology flourish here, and it would 
 diffuse a beneficent radiance over the land, and even among 
 
68 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 pagan nations. The position, then, of the Union Seminary is 
 unsurpassed both for the training of ministers and for the 
 cultivation of sacred learning. For this reason its founders 
 planted it in the city of New York. 
 
 I have the clearest conviction that the Union Seminary is 
 capable of doing a great vs^ork for Christ and the Church. 
 It has already done much. Not a few of the most useful 
 ministers in the land, not a few of our best missionaries to the 
 heathen, are among its alumni. Akeady, too, has it made 
 invaluable contributions to the higher theological hterature 
 of the age. But I trust it has stiJl a nobler career in the 
 future. I look forward to the time when young men of 
 piety and generous endowments shall flock to it in thousands 
 from all quarters of the Republic ; from California and Ore- 
 gon, and from the islands of the sea, even ; when its library 
 shall be the resort of Christian scholars from neighboring 
 towns and cities ; when its professorships shaU be multiplied 
 so as to embrace one for each great branch of sacred lore ; 
 when it shall be the pride and glory of our churches and its 
 treasury be continually enriched by the princely donations 
 of the Hving and the dying ; when, in a word, it shall be 
 such a nursery of men of God and such a citadel of holy 
 faith as the voice of Providence commands us to build up in 
 this emporium of the New World. 
 
 Gov, Morgan's letter to me closed thus : 
 
 I have always thought, and I stiU think, that New Yorkers, 
 of all others, ought to do something for a good institution, 
 like Union Seminary, in their own city and not send all their 
 money to Princeton. I am convinced now more than ever 
 that my judgment in this respect has not been at fault. 
 
 In his letter to Dr. Adams offering to establish a fund of 
 one hundred thousand dollars for the erection of a new 
 library building and for the improvement, increase, and 
 support of the library, Gov. Morgan begins by saying : " I 
 
MR. McCOOk's brief. 69 
 
 desire to show my appreciation of the usefuhiess of the 
 Union Theological Seminary, and to aid in the great work 
 it is now doing for the country.^'' No mention is made of 
 Presbyterian orthodoxy as iixed by the " standard of the 
 General Assembly." Nor do I believe any such thought 
 passed through the mind of this strong man, either at that 
 time, or, later, when he added to his first gift two hundred 
 thousand dollars more. 
 
 Not loug before his death, while busying himself with 
 •'Morgan Hall," his generous gift to Williams College, he 
 said one day to a friend of mine : " I see now clearly that 
 it has been the greatest mistake of my life that I have not 
 engaged in this kind of thing before. It is one of the 
 greatest j)leasures I have ever experienced. And what a 
 host of opportunities I have lost ! If men of means could 
 only realize what gratification is to be derived in this way, 
 worthy and deserving objects would be fairly besieged with 
 clamorous donors." 
 
 Mr. McCook, ten pages later, recurs, almost pathetically, 
 to the distressing effect that must follow any other position 
 than the one maintained by himself : " It would work an 
 irreparable wrong upon those donors, such as James Brown, 
 Esq., Governor Morgan, Russell Sage, Esq., Daniel B. 
 Fayerweather, Esq., and others, who have contributed so 
 largely to the endowment of Union Seminary upon the 
 faith of this arrangement with the General Assembly and 
 the orthodoxy of the seminary, which was intended to be 
 secured thereby." All the benefactors named but one 
 have passed far beyond the reach of such " irreparable 
 wrong," Russell Sage, Esq., alone surviving. "Why Mr. 
 McCook selects this gentleman in particular from among a 
 score or more of five-thousand-doUar contributors to the 
 funds of Union Seminary as the special object of his sym- 
 pathy, I do not know. But I marvel a little that, in his 
 
70 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 eagerness to have Dr. Briggs' transfer to the chair of Bib- 
 lical Theology vetoed, he shows no touch of sympathy for 
 Charles Butlek, now in his ninetieth year, the revered 
 president, patriarch, and only surviving founder of Union 
 Seminary, whose gift of one hundred thousand dollars en- 
 dowed the chair, whose services to the institution cannot be 
 valued with pure gold, and whose deliberate choice, right 
 judgment, and Christian wisdom would be stamped by such 
 veto with the stigma of disapproval on the part of the high- 
 est judicatory of the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 I have time barely to cull a few more samples of the 
 ecclesiastical wisdom, which marks this extraordinary brief : 
 
 " The SOLE OBJECT of Union Theological Seminary is to 
 uphold and teach the Presbyterian standards " (p. 15). 
 
 " Upon questions of orthodoxy the directors, individually 
 and as a Presbyterian body, are subject to the General As- 
 semhly''^ (p. 16). 
 
 " The Assembly merely sets a standard of orthodoxy, 
 and the corporation, wishing to he orthodox, agree to ap- 
 point no agent of a certain class who does not come ujp to 
 iV (p. 18). 
 
 " The standard of orthodoxy for the seminary, and for all 
 Presbyterians and Presbyterian institutions, must be set by 
 the General Assembly. What is more proper, therefore, 
 than a contract providing that all appointees to the high 
 and responsible office of a professor in such a seminary 
 shall be measured by this standard?" (p. 17). 
 
 Surely, if these sayings are true, things are sadly topsy- 
 turvy both in Union Seminary and in the Presbyterian 
 Church. 
 
 {f). The Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries : 
 its report, and the action of the Assembly. 
 
 The one hundred and third General Assembly of the 
 
IIEPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 71 
 
 Presbyterian Church in the United States of America met 
 at Detroit, Michigan, in the Fort street Presbyterian 
 Church, of which the Rev, Dr. Wallace Ratcliffe is pastor, 
 on May 21, 1S9 1 . The Eev. Dr. William Henry Green, the 
 distinguished professor of Oriental and Old Testament Lit- 
 erature at Princeton, was chosen moderator. Dr. Green is 
 held in the highest esteem and affection, all over the 
 land, as a veteran in the service of Christian scholarship. 
 Nothing could have been more fitting; than his unanimous 
 election. The organization of the Assembly is thus de- 
 scribed by the correspondent of the New York Trihune, 
 under date of May 22 : 
 
 This is pre-eminently a conservative Assembly ; more, it 
 is a Princeton Assembly. The moderator is a Princeton 
 man, the senior professor in that seminary ; the stated clerk 
 is a Princeton man, having been for a long time librarian of 
 that institution ; the chairman of the Standing Committee 
 on Theological Seminaries, Dr. Patton, is president of Prince- 
 ton College, and it is to this committee that the report of 
 Union Seminary is to be submitted. Friends and opponents 
 of Dr. Briggs are already forming their opinions as to what 
 action this committee will report in regard to the New York 
 professor. 
 
 Dr. Green announced the standing committees this morn- 
 ing. There is no special significance in the appointments, 
 except in that of the Committee on Theological Seminaries 
 This is composed as follows f Ministers — Francis L. Patton, 
 Princeton ; William McKibbin, Cincinnati ; John Lapsley, 
 DanviUe ; S. Bowden, Rochester ; J. D. Hewitt, Emporia ; 
 J. K. Wright, Florida ; T. R. Buber, Philadelphia ; and 
 M. A. Bronson, Detroit. Elders — S. M. Breckinridge, St. 
 Louis; P. McDavitt, Chicago; E. W. C. Humphrey, LouisviDe; 
 R. C. Totten, Pittsburgh ; P. Doremus, Montclair, N. J. ; M. 
 J. Frick, Fort Dodge ; R. McConnaughy, Nebraska City. It 
 was said by those professing to know that this was a decid- 
 
72 UNION" SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 edly anti-Briggs committee, but Dr. Patton, its chairman, 
 assured the Tnbune correspondent that he did not know how 
 the members stood on any special question that might come be- 
 fore them. They had apparently been chosen by Dr. Green 
 because he knew their fitness for the work before them. 
 
 What ground there was, if any, for the charge, made at 
 Detroit, that the moderator allowed himself to be unduly 
 influenced in order to make the Standing Committee on 
 Theological Seminaries a decidedly " anti-Briggs " commit- 
 tee, I know not. Of the Standing Committee on Theolog- 
 ical Seminaries, I shall refer chiefly to the chairman. Had 
 Dr. Fatton, in view of the peculiarly delicate circumstances 
 of the case, peremptorily declined the appointment, or, at 
 the least, had he followed the example of Dr. Adams at 
 Philadelphia in 1870, and requested the Assembly, as a 
 personal favor, to excuse him from serving, he would have 
 stood higher than he does to-day in the respect of the 
 friends of Union Seminary, and, I cannot but think, in that 
 also of the Christian scholarship of the country. 
 
 On May 2Ttli Dr. Patton read the report of the commit- 
 tee, wliich was accepted and ordered to be printed. The 
 report opened with an enumeration of sixty-three Presby- 
 teries which had overtured the General Assembly respect- 
 ing the recent utterances of Dr. Briggs. It also refers to 
 the report of the directors of the Union Theological Semi- 
 nary to the General Assembly respecting the transfer of 
 Dr. Briggs to the chair of Biblical Theology. The report 
 then proceeds thus : 
 
 On the 20th of January, 1891, Dr. Briggs delivered an in- 
 augural address on the authority of the Holy Scriptures 
 which has been the subject of some criticism, and which is 
 the occasion of the recommendations which your committee 
 feel constrained to make to the Assembly. In making these 
 recommendations, your committee feel that they ai'e acting 
 
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIE:^. 73 
 
 in the discharge of a delicate duty. The matter with which 
 they have been called to deal bears in a very important way 
 upon the purity and peace of our Church. The interest of 
 the Union Theological Seminai-y should be most carefully 
 considered, and great respect should be had for the judgment 
 of those who, as directors and as members of its faculty, are 
 administering its affairs. The committee feel, moreover, that 
 while the Assembly has not been officially informed, the 
 Presbytery of New York has taken steps that look toward a 
 prosecution of Dr. Briggs on the charge of heresy ; that 
 well-known facts should be so far recognized as to secure 
 from the Assembly the protection of the good name of Dr. 
 Briggs in the discussion of the question that will come be- 
 fore the Assembly, through this report, and also to prevent 
 any expression of opinion on the part of this Assembly that 
 could be justly regarded as prejudgment of the case that will 
 soon, as it now appears, assume the form of a judicial pro- 
 cess in the Presbytery of New York. It cannot be too care- 
 fully observed that the question before this Assembly is not 
 whether Dr. Briggs, as a Presbyterian minister, has so far 
 contravened the teaching of the Westminster Confession of 
 Faith as to have made himself liable to a judicial censure, but 
 whether, in view of the utterances contained in the inaugural 
 address, already referred to, and the disturbing effect which 
 they have prodiiced throughout the Church, the election of 
 Dr. Briggs to the chair of Biblical Theology in Union Theo- 
 logical Seminary should be disapproved. Your committee 
 have examined the law of the Church regarding the relation 
 of the General Assembly to the theological seminaries under 
 its care. The relation of the Assembly to the Union Theo- 
 logical Seminary, so far as the appointment of professors is 
 concerned, is embodied in the following statement taken from 
 page 390 of the New Digest. 
 
 Having cited the statement referred to, the report con- 
 tinues, as follows : 
 
74 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 It appears, then, that, according to the items of the com- 
 pact quoted above, the directors of the Union Theological 
 Seminary have conceded to the Assembly the right to veto 
 the appointment of professors, and that an election is com- 
 plete unless vetoed by the next Assembly following the elec- 
 tion, "ioui- committee would have been disposed to recom- 
 mend that the report of the directors of Union Theological 
 Seminary to this Assembly, so far as it referred to the trans- 
 fer of Dr. Briggs to the chair of Biblical Theology, be re- 
 ferred to the next Assembly, if such a disposition of the matter 
 had been possible ; but the Assembly has clearly no power 
 to postpone action. The control of the Church over the 
 election of Dr. Briggs ceases with the dissolution of this 
 present Assembly. Your committee are constrained, there- 
 fore, to say that in their judgment it is the duty of the As- 
 sembly to disapprove of the aiDpointment of Dr. Briggs to 
 the Edward Robinson chair of Biblical Theology in Union 
 Theological Seminary. 
 
 Your committee desire to say, moreover, that while they 
 are clear in their judgment that the Assembly has the right 
 to veto the appointment of Dr. Briggs to the chair of Biblical 
 Theology, it is possible to impose a meaning upon the ap- 
 parently unambiguous phraseology of the compact between 
 the Genei'al Assembly and the directors of the Union Theo- 
 logical Seminary, that would lead to a different conclusion. 
 Fairness also requires us to say that the Assembly is one of 
 the parties of the compact that it is called upon to construe. 
 While your committee are of the opinion that the comj^act 
 in question did not contemplate the distinction between the 
 election of a person to be a professor and the aj^pointment 
 of one already a professor to the work of a certain depart- 
 ment of instruction, it cannot be denied that such a distinc- 
 tion exists ; the one act conferring status, the ^ther only as- 
 signing duties. The seemingly ii-regular course of the 
 directors of the Union Theological Seminary, whereby Dr. 
 Briggs was inducted into ofCcj before the Assembly had 
 
EEPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 75 
 
 been advised of his appointment, is doubtless to be attributed 
 to their mode of construing their contract with the General 
 Assembly. "While your committee are sure that the Assem- 
 bly will not, and should not, admit its right of disapproval is 
 restricted to the original election of a person to a professor- 
 ship of Biblical Theology in that Seminar}-, and while they 
 are of the opinion that, acting according to the liglit it now 
 has, the Assembly cannot but disapprove of the appointment 
 of Dr. Briggs to the professorship of Biblical Theology in 
 that Seminary, they are nevertheless of the opinion that, in 
 the interests of the mutual relations of confidence and cordial 
 respect subsisting between the Union Theological Seminary 
 and the General Assembly, it would be eminently proper for 
 the Assembly to appoint a committee to confer with the 
 directors of the Union Theological Seminary in regard to 
 the relations of said Seminary to the General Assembly, and 
 to report to the next General Assembly. The committee, 
 therefore, recommend the adoption of the following resolu- 
 tions : 
 
 I. Resolved, That in the exercise of its right to veto the ap- 
 pointment of professors in Union Theological Seminary, the 
 General Assembly hereby disapproves of the appointment of 
 the Rev. Chas. A. Briggs, D.D., to the Edward Robinson pro- 
 fessorship of Biblical Theology in that Seminary, by transfer 
 from another chair in said Seminary. 
 
 n. Resolved, That a committee, consisting of eight ministers 
 and seven ruling elders, be appointed by the General Assembly 
 to confer with the directors of Union Theological Seminary in 
 regard to the relations of said Seminary to the General As- 
 sembly, and to report to the next General Assembly. 
 
 Before considering the report of the committee I wish to 
 call attention to the statement of the chairman on reading 
 it. 
 
 I would like to say that this committee have felt the re- 
 sponsibility that has been placed upon them ; that they have 
 
76 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 not felt at liberty to divide this responsibility with any one ; 
 that they have studiously avoided consulting with any one 
 who may have been supposed to have preconceived opinions 
 on either side of the question ; and having reached our con- 
 clusions, we present them to the Assembly for such action as 
 the Assembly in its wisdom may see fit to take. 
 
 Is this not equivalent to saying that they deliberately 
 refused to seek, or to receive, any light from anybody in 
 reference to the momentous question which they were ap- 
 pointed to consider ? If so, it is a confession that, in my 
 opinion, reflects anything but credit upon the committee. 
 Were these fifteen commissioners already omniscient when 
 they shut themselves up in committee ? Would tlieir minds 
 henceforth of necessity be biased, or misled, by any addition 
 to their knowledge touching the Union Seminary and Dr. 
 Briggs? I say nothing about the other "side"; but so far as the 
 Union Seminary was concerned, it had good right to be heard 
 before that committee, if it desired or cared to do so. Three 
 of its directors were commissioners to the Assembly, Drs. 
 Parkhurst, Dickey, and White. Of Dr. Parkhurst I can- 
 not speak. Dr. Dickey has repeatedly stated that he offered, 
 as a member of the Union board of directors, to give the 
 committee any information in his power; not " pi*econ- 
 ceived opinions," but simple information. Dr. White made 
 the same offer, both orally and in writing, and he was as- 
 sured by Dr. Patton that the committee would be glad to 
 hear him. He fully expected to be heard ; but neither 
 he nor Dr. Dickey were ever sent for or asked to appear. 
 The committee " studiously avoided " consulting with him. 
 
 And, pray, who is Erskine N. White, that he should be 
 treated in that manner ? He is, as his honored father was 
 before him, one of the most candid, judicious, and clear- 
 sighted, as he is also one of the best, men in the 
 Presbyterian Church. He was sent to the Assembly 
 
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 77 
 
 because the whole Presbytery of 'New York knew him 
 to be such a man. He insisted upon dechning the 
 appointment, moved thereto in part no doubt by reason 
 of his exacting duties as secretary of the Assembly's 
 Board of Church Erection, and partly, it may be, by reason 
 of the somewhat dehcate position in which the case of Dr. 
 Briggs might place him, should he take part in its discus- 
 sion. Hearing of his purpose, I joined Dr. Hastings in urg- 
 ing him not to decline. " You need take no part in the dis- 
 cussion of Dr. Briggs' case," we said to him, " but you know 
 all about our Seminary affairs. You know the mind and 
 temper of the board ; you have the confidence of the whole 
 Church. You can explain things; you can give needed 
 information. Go, by all means." He yielded, and when he 
 got to Detroit found his information " studiously avoided." 
 "Was it because, forsooth, he " might be supposed to have 
 preconceived opinions " ? Surely, this is not the spirit of 
 fairness that ought to rule a leading committee of the Gen- 
 eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, when dealing 
 with a question that involves the professional standing and 
 character of one of her most distinguished ministers ! 
 
 But this slight put upon the three directors of Union 
 Seminary, who were commissioners to the Assembly, 
 was only a prelude to a far greater slight put upon the 
 Seminary itself. Had Union Seminary belonged to the 
 General Assembly and been subject to its authority as 
 I*rinceton, for example, was and is, such treatment would 
 still have been open to criticism. But Union Seminary, as 
 we have seen, is not subject to the authority of the General 
 Assembly. That body is in no sense its patron or the foun- 
 tain of any of its powers. It stands, and has always stood, 
 upon its own independent foundation. The single tie which 
 in 1870 by its own free act connected it with the General 
 Assembly, by its own free act it can sever at any moment 
 
78 UNION SEMINAEY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 " for good and sufficient reasons." It is true that the report 
 of the committee distinctly recognizes the fact that Union 
 Seminary was a party in the case and had rights of its 
 own as over against the Assembly. And yet the report 
 recommended an ex parte decision of the vital question at 
 issue without consulting in the least Union Seminary. The 
 consultation was to come after the matter had been .practi- 
 cally, and so far as that Assembly was concerned, irrevoca- 
 bly settled. 
 
 The exposition of the case in the report, more fully given 
 in Dr. Patton's speeches and in those of other members of 
 the committee, is remarkable for the manner in which it 
 utterly ignores the deliberate action and testimony of the 
 board of directors of Union Seminary, as also the carefully 
 prepared statement of its Faculty. These were not, it is 
 true, officially made known to the Assembly. But neither 
 was the action of the Presbytery of New York, looking to 
 a judicial process in the case of Dr. Briggs ; and yet the 
 Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries kept that 
 action constantly in mind in framing their report, and urged 
 the Assembly to do so in considering it. Why was not the 
 Assembly informed in this report of the exact position taken 
 both by the Board of directors and by the Faculty of the 
 Seminary ? Why was not the Assembly distinctly told that 
 the Board, by a unanimous vote and after careful investiga- 
 tion, had virtually pronounced the charges against Dr. 
 Briggs unfounded, and that the Faculty of the institution 
 had done the same thing? Was this solemn testimony 
 also " studiously avoided " on the ground that it consisted 
 of " preconceived opinions " ? * 
 
 *The action of the Board in establishing the new chair 
 and transferring Dr. Briggs to it, Dr. Frazer's charge, the 
 resolutions of the Board of directors sustaining and promis- 
 
KEPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 79 
 
 As to the second recommendation of the committee, Dr. 
 Erskine pointed out its real character in his very sensible 
 comment upon it. Here is what he said : 
 
 It is proposed that we appoint a committee and go and 
 hold a conference with the Union Seminary directors in re- 
 gard to Dr. Briggs' relation to that Seminary, and to ^ive 
 th em some advice . Mr. Moderator, what authority have we 
 for that ? Where have we any authority in regard to Union 
 Seminary, excepting that which is embraced in the compact 
 between that Seminary and us in the articles of agreement 
 which were adopted in the year 1870 in the General Assem- 
 bly at Philadelphia ? And where have we any authority to 
 go to them and advise with them, to do anything outside of 
 the compact? None whatever. This proposition is a mis- 
 leading proposition. It would have us surrender the only 
 authority we have in regard to the instructions which are 
 given to our candidates for the ministry in Union Seminary, 
 and to assume an authority that does not belong to us. If 
 we do so, we just allow ourselves to be misled and outwitted. 
 The only control as an Assembly that we have over the 
 theological seminary — I mean directly, except through the 
 Synod and the Presbytery where we may reach ministers and 
 elders — is embraced in that compact which has been entered 
 into between the General Assembly and our theological semi- 
 naries, and the power that we have is the power of disap- 
 proval in regard to a professor that has been elected ; and if 
 you surrender that power, you surrender aU the controlling 
 power that you have in regard to the instructions that are 
 given in these seminaries. Suppose you adopt this substi- 
 tute ; suppose you apjDoint your most prominent, most influ- 
 ential and wisest representatives. You go there and make 
 your propositions. Why, they wiU receive you very cordially 
 
 ing to stand by Dr. Briggs, and also the statement of the 
 Faculty, will all be found in the Appendix. 
 
80 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 and politely, and say : " Gentlemen, we will take this into 
 consideration ; we will take time to consider this. We are 
 obliged to you ; we shall treat it with great respect and great 
 courtesy." And they will take it into consideration, and what 
 will be the result? You can all anticipate it. The majority 
 of the directors in that theological seminary have sat upon 
 this question again and again. There is a minority in that 
 board with whom you might deal if you had the power, and 
 they had the power ; but the majority of that board of direct- 
 ors have acted upon this, and they have expressed their ap- 
 proval and their confidence in the views held by the person 
 in question. And so if we were to go into this arrangement 
 it would be vetoing the great issue. It would be surrender- 
 ing the power that we have, and it would be putting you in 
 a position just to be treated with simple courtesy by that 
 board. You have no authority over them, and I don't know 
 that they have any authority to carry out the proposition 
 that is made. 
 
 Dr. Erskine was heard by the Assembly with not a little 
 impatience, but this part of bis speech, at least, seems to 
 me to show that he understood the subject far better than 
 some of his more eloquent brethren. His common-sense 
 view of the relations of the Assembly to the directors of 
 the Union Seminary may very well be compared with that 
 expressed, or implied, by Dr. Patton, for example, in the 
 following passages : 
 
 We have recognized that as a judge we are bound to con- 
 strue, and we have recognized that as a party Union Semi- 
 ixarj claim that their rights have been infringed by our con- 
 struction, and if they see fit they can take us into the civil 
 courts for a judicial and authoritative interpretation of this 
 
 compact Now we understand that you intend to take 
 
 us into the courts. Well, brethren, is that the best course to 
 pursue ? Can't we talk the matter over ? It is possible, you 
 know, that you may be wrong. Is it not possible, therefore, 
 
KEPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 81 
 
 that tbey may come around ? You miglit elect a man as 
 ]^)rofessor of Elocution, and then transfer him to the chair of 
 Theology. Isn't it possible that the directors will feel that 
 the Assembly was right, after all ? Why, certainly. On the 
 other hand, isn't it possible that yovu' committee would 
 change their view, and that they would recommend the next 
 Assembly to reverse the judgmont of this Assembly ? Isn't 
 that possible ? Why, of course it is possible ; all things are 
 possible. [Laughter and applause.] That would be a rep- 
 resentative committee — eight ministers and seven elders, 
 composed of the best men, the wisest lawyers, and to such a 
 committee would we intrust this duty. Isn't it possible that 
 both pai*ties, in their inability to change their views, may 
 say : " Well, we do not want to go to the courts. We re- 
 member what Paul said about prosecuting these matters 
 before the heathen court." But cannot the General Assem- 
 bly on the report of this committee and the board of direct- 
 ors of Union Seminary agree to refer the constitutional in- 
 terpretation of this old compact, which is liable to come up 
 and be a source of disturbance in years to come — refer it, 
 not to this committee, not to the board of directors of Union 
 Seminary, but to some Christian men outside, known for 
 their wisdom, praised for their faii-ness, and saying on our 
 part as a General Assembly, while they say on their part as 
 a board of directors, " Dear brethren, we are perfectly will- 
 ing to let any fair-minded set of men arbitrate this ques- 
 tion " ? These are the possibilities in the case.* 
 
 The debate upon the report opened on May 28th, and on 
 May 29th, late in the afternoon, the vote was taken. It re-, 
 suited in the adoption of the resolutions of the committee 
 
 * These quotations, as all others, from the speeches, made 
 in the Assembly, are taken from the revised reports of the 
 N. Y. Tribune, printed in pamphlet form under the title, 
 The Presbyterian Faith. 
 
82 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 by the overwhelming majority of 447 to 60. Ou the after- 
 noon of May 28th Judge Breckinridge, a commissioner from 
 St. Louis, at the moment of closing a speech in favor of 
 the report, dropped dead in the presence of the whole As- 
 sembly. This startling incident, following so quickly upon 
 the almost equally sudden death of the Rev. Henry J. Van 
 Dyke, D.D., professor-elect to the chair of Systematic The- 
 ology in Union Seminary — a noble man and one of the 
 foremost leaders in the Presbyterian Church — tended nat- 
 urally to deepen the serious feeling which already pervaded 
 the Assembly. While a few appear to have been in a 
 different mood, the great body of commissioners, both 
 ministers and elders, were very much impressed with the 
 gravity of the situation. 
 
 It is not needful for my purpose to dwell long upon the 
 speeches that were made. Much of the discussion, however 
 able, was yet quite irrelevant. Much of it consisted in 
 what is called beating about the bush. The first and fun- 
 damental point, namely, the question of jurisdiction^ was 
 hardly touched upon except in the report of the commit- 
 tee. AVith regard to this question, the minority were 
 ,v handicapped and tongue-tied from the outset. Their case 
 was simply given away, and, strangely enough, by a director 
 ' of Union Theological Seminary.* 
 
 * " The technical distinction, if any exists, between the ap- 
 pointment of a professor to a newly-founded chair and a 
 transfer from one chair to another, need not he discussed, as it 
 is stated by Dr. Dickey that the directors of Union Semi- 
 nary, at their last meeting in May, unanimously voted not to 
 plead this distinction." — Remarks by John J. McCook, p. 9. 
 How Dr. Dickey's memory or hearing came to be so at fault, 
 I am not able to say. His course at Detroit was in a high 
 degree frank and manly, and all his friends know him to be 
 incapable of stating what he did not believe to be true. The 
 
KEPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 83 
 
 After this the friends of Dr. Briggs had nothing to do 
 but to oppose the adoption of the report as best they could ; 
 either directly, or by urging Dr. Logan's amendment or 
 Dr. Worcester's substitute, both of which contemplated the 
 postponement of final action to the next Assembly. The 
 distinction between an original election and a transfer, 
 however, having been waived, the advocates of a veto had 
 it all their own way. And their own w^ay consisted in two 
 things : first, to assert very positively that Dr. Briggs ought 
 to be vetoed ; and second, that he must be vetoed now or 
 never. The latter point was urged with great solemnity 
 and most impressive reiteration. "We are under obliga- 
 tion," said Mr. McCook, " as honest men, as Christian men, 
 to carry out in its exact terms all the provisions of that 
 compact, and we cannot, we dare not, postpone action. 
 We must act now and before the adjournment of this As- 
 sembly, or the right to disapprove is lost forever." Dr. 
 Patton was equally emphatic as to the "now or never," 
 giving as a reason how he should feel if threatened with a 
 veto in the indefinite future. Here is what he said : 
 
 The question is whether we have the right to veto. I think 
 we have Very well, suppose we have that right, how 
 
 following note is from Mr. E. M. Kingsley, the recorder of 
 Union Seminary : 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Dickey's memory was at fault concerning the action 
 of the directors at their meeting of May 12th. At that meeting the 
 Executive Committee presented a report which in substance deemed 
 it unwise to assume in advance that the General Assembly would mis- 
 conceive the extent of its prerogative ; and in any event it was better 
 at this time not to raise an issue by the sending up of a resolution 
 upon the di.stinction between an "appointment" and a "transfer." 
 This report, after discussion, was laid on the table, giving way to a 
 motion which led to the series of questions submitted to and answered 
 by Professor Briggs. 
 
84 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 long does that right last ? One General Assembly has said that 
 it can last only during the Assembly immediately following the 
 election of the professor. Very well, I think that is a good rule. 
 It may seem a singular thing for me to play the role of an ad- 
 vocate of freedom [laughter], but I am. I am a professor. 
 I have the prejudices of my class, and I tell you that, in the 
 name of that class, I will protest against the right of an 
 Assembly to hold the threat of a veto over me for a dozen 
 years in succession. They have their chance once, and if they 
 don't veto my appointment then, they ought not to have the 
 chance four or five years hence. Suppose you admit that 
 you can postpone this veto. By and by some other professor 
 will be saying something that is not right, as we think, and 
 we shall say, " Let us go and veto him. We did not veto 
 him then, but we will do it now." Who is safe ? I tell you it 
 is in the interest of freedom ; it is in the interest of a proper 
 freedom that you should not allow that it is possible to post- 
 pone the veto. You have to do it now, or not at all. Very 
 well. Now, then, you have the right to veto, and if you veto, 
 you must veto now. 
 
 A veto, after all, is a terrible thing to be threatened with ! 
 It seems to have made the chairman of the Standing Com- 
 mittee on Theological Seminaries himself squirm to think of 
 being the possible subject of it. Theological freedom, too, 
 may be at stake ; and theological freedom, the proper liberty 
 of a Christian scholar and teacher, in tl.ie last decade of the 
 nineteenth century, is a very serious matter. If it must be 
 done, let it be done quickly and put the man out of his 
 misery. Precisely so ; but who would have guessed it from 
 other parts of this speech ? 
 
 But even admitting, for the moment, that the Assembly 
 had a right to veto Dr. Briggs' transfer, is it true that Now 
 or Never was the absolute condition of its exercise ? !Noth- 
 ing could be further from the truth. The rule adopted by 
 the Assembly, that the veto power must be used, if at all, 
 
KEPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OX SEMINAEIES. 85 
 
 by the Assembly to which the election is reported, formed 
 no part of the agreement of 1870, but was suggested by 
 Auburn a year later. Had Auburn and Lane been consulted, 
 as they should have been, and no doubt would have been 
 but for the manner in which Union was hurried up by 
 pressure from Princeton, such a rule would probably have 
 been agreed upon by all the three New School institutions, 
 acting in concert. Although a very sensible rule, it was 
 yet in the nature of a mere by-law, belonging to the admin- 
 istrative functions of the Assembly, and in such an exigency 
 might have been suspended without the slightest impro- 
 priety. But the leaders of the Assembly — not to speak 
 with any disrespect — seem to have had " compact," as well 
 as the veto of Dr. Briggs, " on the brain," as the phrase is, 
 and so a simple rule of fairness and prudence, with which, 
 however. Union Seminary had nothing to do, took on, in 
 their reasoning, the color and rigidity of a law of the Modes 
 and Persians which changeth not! A good deal in the 
 whole matter impels one to say with Faust, 
 
 — der casus maclit mich lachen, 
 
 but nothing, I think, like this Now or Never plea. 
 
 The Assembly then, it is plain, was fatally misled by the 
 Now or Never plea. That plea was based upon a sheer 
 mistake. But it served its purpose quite as well as if it had 
 been based upon an opinion of Chief -Justice Marshall, or up- 
 on the latest decision of the United States Supreme Court. It 
 deluded the Assembly into just the right state of mind for 
 the stern work in hand — vetoing Dr. Briggs. See how skil- 
 fully Dr. Patton put the case : 
 
 "We are here ; the presbyteries have sent us here, and the 
 report of the Union Theological Seminary has brought this 
 question right up to the bar of every man's conscience, and 
 
86 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 you cannot avoid it, and you dare not avoid it, I do not use 
 the word " dare " in an unkind sense at all, I simply use it in 
 the moral sense. There we are. Now for us not to express 
 technical disapproval is for us to express technical approval. 
 And it is not a matter of reflection upon Union Seminary, or 
 a matter of sentiment or regard for theii* feelings, or a matter 
 of how much disturbance this is going to occasion the Church, 
 but it is a question as to the discharge of a solemn duty at 
 the bar of your conscience and of mine, here and now. Then 
 I think that every man of us will agree that the question is 
 here. It is here. We must say, seeing that we have a right 
 to veto, and seeing that we can never veto, if we do not do it 
 now, we must say whether or no there is occasion for the veto. 
 Now is there an occasion for veto ? 
 
 Could he have got his hearers just where he wanted them 
 more adroitly ? They were in exactly the " solemnized " 
 mood and posture of thought to hear most attentively his 
 answer to the question, " Now is there occasion to veto ? " 
 No wonder, as the Detroit reporter said, they listened 
 '' spell-bound," This solemn, reiterated plea, " Now or 
 Never," coupled with the " compact " plea, carried all be- 
 fore it. The only wonder is how sixty commissioners kept 
 cool enough to vote against vetoriig Dr. Briggs. I am 
 really afraid I myself should have vetoed Dr. Briggs, had I 
 been a commissioner. As to the skilful way in which the 
 " compact " plea was handled, who can fail to admire it ? 
 The chairman of the Committee on Theological Seminaries 
 took "the compact" under his special care and guardian- 
 ship. He was very jealous of the slightest interference 
 with it, even by so honored and learned an ecclesiastic as 
 Dr. Moore, Hear him : 
 
 If we are going to veto under the terms of the compact, 
 we must veto in the terms of the compact. 
 
 Dr. Moore (the Permanent Clerk) : " Excuse me, Doctor, a 
 
EEPOKT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINAEIES. 87 
 
 moment. I want to call attention to the fact tbat while the 
 first of that is the compact, the second is simply the decision 
 of the General Assembly." 
 
 Dr. Patton: " That is not relevant to my remarks And 
 
 so I go back to my statement, in spite of the instruction that 
 I have received, and I say that if you intend to veto under the 
 terms of the compact, you must veto in the terms of the com- 
 pact. Now, what are the terms of the compact ? . . . . Now, 
 when you talk of disapproving 'for the present' you de- 
 part from your compact, and you have simply expressed 
 your oral dislike and put the stigma of your moral disap- 
 proval upon the case, but you have done nothing." 
 
 I tried to count up the number of times in which " com- 
 pact " occurs in Dr. Patton's speech, but my memory failed 
 me. How extremely interested, not to say entertained, 
 William Adams, George W. Musgrave, Henry B. Smith, 
 Jonathan F. Stearns, and Edwin F. Hatfield would have 
 been in listening to this exposition of " the compact of 
 1870," by so adroit an ecclesiastic as the President of 
 Princeton College ! 
 
 The most striking point in the chairman's discussion of 
 the question, whether there was occasion for veto, is " kind- 
 ness " to Dr. Briggs. It is " kindness " to Dr. Briggs that 
 forced him to turn a deaf ear to all entreaties for " reasons." 
 " Well, but," it is said, " couldn't you state some reasons 
 without involving the question of heresy ? " " Yes," I said, 
 " I could." " Well," said some one, " you have been work- 
 ing in theology ; couldn't you draft such a report ? " 
 " Yes," I said, " I might." But " kindness " to Dr. Briggs 
 forbade it. Here are some passages about Dr. Briggs : 
 
 When your feelings cool down, brethren, you will see that 
 this is a much kinder thing than you think, and it is not so 
 
 cold, either ; we made it cold, but it is not so cold So 
 
 far as Dr. Briggs is concerned, I will yield to none of his 
 
88 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 friends, not even the best, in my recognition of his learning, 
 in my admiration of his industry, in my conviction concern- 
 ing his piety. He is my friend. It is my privilege to call 
 him so. I venture to hoj)e that in spite of my relations to 
 this debate he will not be unwilling to reciprocate my ex- 
 pression of the relationship between us I wish to say 
 
 that we have done this in the interest of kindness to Dr. 
 Briggs. I would be unwilling for the Assembly to pass a 
 resokition, in the full body of which there should be the 
 stigma of a constitutional kind, that would affirm that Dr. 
 Briggs' idiosyncrasies are such that he should not be a pro- 
 fessor in a seminary. Why, a man's idiosyncrasies go with 
 him through life, and I don't know but they go into the 
 middle state, [laughter] and I am not willing to say that Dr. 
 Briggs is not fit to be a professor in any seminary. I am 
 not willing to say that he is not fit to be a professor in Union 
 
 Seminary. Not at all I said, " Bretkren, it is not kind, 
 
 it is not right for the Assembly, in its expHcit utterance on 
 the adoption of a report, to say a word that can be construed, 
 even remotely, to the detriment of Dr. Briggs." That is why 
 we did not give reasons, but it was not because we had no 
 reasons. We had reasons. 
 
 Dr. Fatten and his committee, then, had reasons. The 
 reasons appear to have been as plentiful as blackberries. 
 But nobody was the wiser for them. !Nobody is the wiser 
 for them to this day. Every now and then at Detroit they 
 seemed, to be sure, on the very point of leaking out, both 
 in the speeches of the chairman and in those of several 
 members of his committee. In other speeches they not 
 only leaked out, they came gushing out, explicit, frank, and 
 unmistakable. I said that a good deal of the discussion at 
 Detroit consisted in beating about the bush. In this the 
 chairman surpassed all his brethren. The the logical agility 
 and deftness with which he beat, and beat about, this par- 
 
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 89 
 
 ticular bush of "no reasons " was something remarkable. 
 He keeps saying, as it were : 
 
 Fain would I, but I dare not ; I dare, and yet I may not. 
 It appears, then, that while the Standing Committee on 
 Theological Seminaries had plenty of reasons — good, valid 
 reasons, as they believed — for recommending the veto of 
 Dr. Briggs' transfer, they purposely concealed these reasons, 
 alike from the Assembly and from the Christian public. 
 Nobody, I repeat, knew then, or knows to this day, unless 
 privately informed by some member of the committee, 
 what was the ground of the decision for which they are 
 responsible to Christian scholarship, to history, and to God. 
 They themselves acted^ as they said, in the Kght of their 
 own reason and conscience. They left the Assembly to act 
 in the dark and adopt their decision on trust. If the 
 President of the United States disapprove a bill passed by 
 Congress, he is required to return the bill with his objec- 
 tions. If the Governor of New York disapprove of a biU 
 passed by the Legislature, he sends it back with his reasons 
 for vetoing it. And this is according to the true genius of 
 republican liberty. Our American idea of free government 
 abhors arbitrary, reasonless exercise of power. If the agree- 
 ment of 1870 had given the General Assembly "the right 
 of peremptory veto," as proposed in the letter of Dr. A. A. 
 Hodge to Henry B. Smith, then, indeed, the recommenda- 
 tion of Dr. Patton's committee would have been in order. 
 A peremptory veto is a veto that requires no explanation. 
 It is like an edict of the Sultan — an arbitrary act, pure 
 and simple. The American Presbyterianism, in which 
 Union Seminary was born and nurtured, is not fond of 
 such acts. It likes to give a good reason for what it does, 
 as well as for what it believes. The power of intelligible, 
 rational. Christian disapproval, not a jyeremjptory veto, was 
 the power conceded by Union Seminary in 1870. 
 
90 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 Before passing from this topic I desire to add a word 
 respecting the course of the chairman of the Standing 
 Committee on Theological Seminaries. When I wrote the 
 article in The Evangelist of May 21st on the veto power, I 
 pm'posely restrained mjself, and carefully omitted to say 
 what would be, in my judgment, the inevitable effects of a 
 veto of Dr. Briggs' transfer. In this perhaps I erred ; if 
 so, it was in the interest of the peace of the Church. The 
 crisis seemed to me serious enough to demand the utmost 
 caution, not to say reticence, on the part of every friend of 
 Union Seminary. Having expressed the opinion that the 
 question about the veto power touched in principle all the 
 other theological seminaries in the Presbyterian Church, I 
 closed my article as follows : 
 
 The General Assembly is shortly to convene and show its 
 judgment upon the matter. Nor, for myself, have I any feai* 
 of the result. Many of the ablest, wisest, and best men in 
 the Presbyterian Church, both of the ministry and eldership, 
 will sit in that Assembly, and they will not be likely to coun- 
 tenance any hasty or unjust action. 
 
 This was my honest feeling and expectation. "When, 
 therefore, the result came my disappointment was all the 
 keener, especially with regard to Dr. Patton. Although 
 my acquaintance with him was slight, I had for many years 
 admired his varied gifts and his remarkable power of sway- 
 ing a popular assembly. His oft-expressed reverence for 
 the character and memory of my bosom friend, Henry B. 
 Smith, touched me in a very tender spot ; and I had heard 
 things related of him, privately, which won my sincere 
 esteem. There are few men in the Presbyterian Church, 
 perhaps there is not another one, of whom I could have 
 honestly said just what in my letter to Dr. Field, in The 
 Evangelist of June 11, 1 wrote of Dr. Patton. And what 
 
U]!^IO]Sr SEMINARY AXD PEINCETON^. 91 
 
 is there written of him expresses so truly my feehng still, 
 that I can only repeat it here : 
 
 He had an opportunity to speak a word and strike a blow 
 for jvistice, for sacred scholarship, for reasonable liberty, 
 both of thought and teaching, for the suppression of clamor 
 as an ecclesiastical and theological force, and for the highest 
 interests of Christian truth, which, like the shot fired by 
 the " embattled farmers " at Lexington, would have been 
 " heard round the world." Acting, I do not question, from 
 a strong sense of duty to the Presbyterian Church, he failed 
 to seize it ; and he will be a fortunate man indeed, if Provi- 
 dence ever again entrusts to him such an opportunity. 
 
 {g). Union TJieological Seminary in its relations to 
 Princeton. 
 
 I have been connected with Union Seminary, either as 
 director or professor, for about forty years, and during all 
 that time my relations with Princeton have been of the 
 friendliest character, Never have I failed to recognize the 
 invaluable services rendered by her scholars and divines to 
 the cause of Biblical learning and of sacred science in this 
 country. Though trained in other schools of thought and 
 of theological opinion, I have always found much to admire 
 in her sturdy orthodoxy, in her fidelity to the teachings of 
 the Westminster standards on the great questions of the 
 church and the sacraments, in her homage to the authority 
 of the inspired oracles, and in the fervor of her piety. The 
 name of her " Old Dr. Alexander " was as familiar, and 
 almost as dear, to my boyhood as the name of " Dr. Pay- 
 son," or that of any other minister of Christ in New Eng- 
 land. I might mention other names on her roll of saints 
 of earlier and of later days, for whom I cherished, and still 
 cherish, sentiments of unfeigned respect and affection. 
 Who could have even a casual acquaintance with Dr. 
 
92 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 Charles Hodge without beginning at once to love and 
 revere him ? And I say frankly that in his theology, as in 
 that of Dr. Alexander, there was not a little that I pre- 
 ferred to not a little of the theology dominant in New 
 England while I was a pastor there, or in the New School 
 Presbyterian Chm-ch when I first came into it. But there 
 were also certain features of Princeton theology and of 
 the Old School ecclesiastical temper, which never attracted 
 me in the least ; some, indeed, which strongly repelled me. 
 I used to think that Princeton was altogether too inclined 
 to fancy that her theology was, and of right ought to be, 
 the only authorized theology in the Presbyterian Church. 
 Nor did reunion seem to me to cure her wholly of this 
 fond notion. 
 
 I have ventured to speak of my personal relations to 
 Princeton. So far as is known to me, the relations of 
 Union Seminary to Princeton have been of the same 
 friendly character ; only in the case of one of her oldest 
 directors and professors, the saintly Skinner, much more 
 intimate. Dr. Skinner was a typical New School theo- 
 logian, enthusiastic and whole-souled in his devotion to the 
 New England and Puritan, in distinction from the Scottish, 
 Scotch-Irish, and Swiss divinity. He held the writings of 
 Baxter, Howe, Owen, Jonathan Edwards, and Albert 
 Barnes in much greater esteem than the writings of Tur- 
 retin and his school, whether in Scotland or America. 
 And he bore upon his person the scars of many a sharp 
 encounter in defense of his opinions, while preaching and 
 fighting for his Master amidst the powerful foes who, in 
 the second and third decades of the century, represented 
 conservative Presbyterian orthodoxy at Philadelphia. But 
 for all that, a very warm friendship existed between Dr. 
 Skinner and Dr. Charles Hodge. They loved each other 
 with the generous fervor of Christian brotherhood, slu^ 
 
UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 93 
 
 when, in 1871, Dr. Skinner passed suddenly into the glory 
 of that risen Redeemer whom he so adored, Dr. Ilodge 
 wrote thus to the Faculty of Union Seminary : 
 
 When your beloved and revered colleague, Dr. Thomas H. 
 Skinner, was called away, I was ill in bed. I was not in- 
 formed of his death for more than a week after its occurrence. 
 I wish these facts to be known, because no person was under 
 stronger obligation to stand at the grave of Thomas H. Skin- 
 ner than myself ; and few had better right to appear there 
 as a mourner. For more than fifty-five years I knew, loved, 
 and honored, and was loved and trusted by him. Of this 
 he assui'ed me, and no man ever doubted his sincerity. 
 
 You must excuse the personal character of this communi- 
 cation. I cannot forbear entering my claim to be counted 
 among the oldest and most devoted of his friends. He was 
 a man by himself. The union of high gifts with the most 
 transparent, childlike simplicity of character gave him a 
 peculiar position in the love and admiration of his friends. 
 
 Dr. Henry White studied theology at Princeton ; but of 
 his relations to that seminary in his later years I cannot 
 speak. ]S^or do I know what were those of Edward Rob- 
 inson, the great Biblical scholar. 
 
 Henry B. Smith had no early association with Princeton. 
 As late as 1850, when he came to Kew York, the embit- 
 tered feelings of 1837-8 were still rankling. Ecclesias- 
 tically and theologically, one might almost say, as it is 
 written concerning the Jews and the Samaritans, Old School 
 and New School "had no dealings with each other." I 
 speak of my own recollections and experience. For years 
 after I became pastor of the Mercer-street Presbyterian 
 Church, the Old School ministers of New York — and such 
 men as Spring, Potts, James W. Alexander, and Krebs 
 were among them — neither called upon me nor I upon 
 them. We never exchanged pulpits. We had no social 
 
94 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 intercourse, except incidentally. I cared nothing for them 
 except to esteem them, in a general way, as faithful minis- 
 ters of Christ; and they, I presume, cared still less for 
 me. The Congregationalists, the Baptists, the Methodists, 
 the Episcopalians, attracted me much more than Old 
 School Presbyterians. They never crossed the threshold 
 of our Chi Alpha circle or of Union Seminary. It was the 
 prevailing Presbyterian atmosphere of the day. I yielded 
 to it, partly from temperament, partly because there seemed 
 to be, theologically speaking, " a certain condescension " on 
 the part of the Old School, as if its orthodoxy, especially 
 as taught at Princeton, was the only standard orthodoxy ; 
 and that was not at all to my taste. 
 
 My impression is that this state of things influenced Pro- 
 fessor Smith less than it did me. His sympathy with im- 
 portant features of Old School theology was, perhaps, 
 deejier and more active than mine. And he far surpassed 
 me in the feeUng that not only was such a state of things 
 wrong, but that it ought to be changed just as soon as pos- 
 sible. I do not think he had much intercourse with Prince- 
 ton ; and later, as is well known, he took decided ground in 
 his Review and elsewhere against some of Dr. Hodge's 
 views. But nothing petty or partisan was ever allowed to 
 enter into the discussion. He was far above such a thing. 
 He attended Dr. Hodge's semi-centennial in 1872, and, on 
 behalf of Union Seminary, spoke with admiration of that 
 great and good man. Here are a few sentences from his 
 address on the occasion : 
 
 It is only the accident of my being bom two or three 
 years earlier that prevents you from hearing some more elo- 
 quent representative of our institution, for we are all here. 
 [Applause.] .... For the first time in America, we cele- 
 brate to-day the semi-centennial of a professor in a theolog- 
 ical institution. It is a matter of sincere congratulation that 
 
UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 95 
 
 the merit is as incontestable as are the years. To speak on 
 such an occasion is embarrassing ; but, after all, this assem- 
 blage itself is the great speech of the occasion. All these 
 ministers and men gathered from all parts of our land, from 
 all parts of the world, are here to do honor to one most hon- 
 orable name, to testify to the power and influence of a long 
 and noble life consecrated to the highest welfare of our 
 country, as well as to the service of the Church of our Lord 
 
 and Saviour Jesus Christ In comparison with such a 
 
 life, I do not know what glory in peace or war can be called 
 gi'eater or more worthy of the highest style of mauHness or 
 manhood. 
 
 There is another circumstance about this celebration which 
 we may well emphasize, and that is, that here we meet, as 
 we so seldom can, to pay due honor also to theology, to see 
 what theology is and means, and how it is needed for the 
 highest welfare and true progress of the nation. Literatui'e 
 is spoken of every day, and appeals to all. Merely literary 
 men live in a popular atmosphere, but theology must be 
 studied in comparative seclusion. Its fruits are the fruits of 
 mature years, and they come to be known in their full value 
 only after a long lapse of time. In behalf of our Seminary, 
 then, I would congratulate him whose name is on all our lips 
 to-day, for the high honor to which he has been called, and 
 for the eminent success vouchsafed to him. We offer to him 
 the expression of our deep and unfeigned esteem and affec- 
 tion. May he yet many years live to receive the grateful 
 tributes of the Church which he has always loved, and which 
 loves him so well. And, above all, may he now and evermore 
 be blessed with all spiritual blessings in Jesus Christ our 
 Lord! 
 
 Dr. Adams' relations to Princeton, in his later years at 
 least, were much closer and more pronounced. To him, as 
 we have seen, Princeton was chiefly indebted for whatever 
 of good she found in that veto power, which relieved her 
 
96 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 of the necessity of having her professors elected by the 
 General Assembly. The last person outside of his own 
 family who saw Dr. Hodge before he departed was Dr. 
 Adams. As the latter came to the bedside, Dr. Hodge 
 took his hand and held it fast during the whole interview. 
 Although too feeble to speak with his lips, by a silent 
 pressure of the hand and with expressive eyes the dying 
 theologian responded to the assurance how many there were 
 who held him in their thoughts and hearts, and to com- 
 forting words of Holy Scripture. 
 
 Dr. Hitchcock stood upon substantially the same ground 
 as Professor Smith with respect to Princeton. In Xew 
 England he had sympathized rather with the Old than the 
 New School of Congregational orthodoxy ; and on coming 
 to New York, while entering with loyal devotion into tlie 
 service of the New School, his generous culture, large 
 views, and catholic spirit enabled him to do full justice to 
 whatever was best in the Old School. I can recall no word 
 from his lips, in public or in private, between 1855, when 
 he came to New York, and the day of his death, which was 
 not most friendly to Princeton. Of Dr. Shedd I might 
 use still stronger language, were it needful. 
 
 I am not entitled to speak for my present colleagues in 
 the Faculty of Union Seminary. They are quite able to 
 speak for themselves. But if a single one of them has not 
 a conscience void of offense toward Princeton, the reason 
 is unknown to me. The only possible exception would be 
 Dr. Briggs, and he is now beyond the sea.* "What his feel- 
 ings are I can only conjecture by considering what my own 
 would be, were I in his place. He no doubt believes, as 
 his friends believe, that the veto of his transfer to the chair 
 
 * This paper was prepared last summer, while Dr. B. was 
 in Eui'ope. 
 
UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 97 
 
 of Biblical Theology was, primarily and mainly, the result 
 of what may justly be called Princeton influence in the 
 Church. Had that powerful influence, whether exerted 
 from far or near, been put forth in opposition to the veto, 
 or had it only remained quiet, there is no reason to doubt 
 that Dr. Briggs would have been spared the stigma which 
 the General Assembly at Detroit placed upon his brow. 
 
 But while unable to say what is Dr. Briggs' present state of 
 mind with regard to Princeton, I know what it was during the 
 ten years in which, as principal founder and senior editor of 
 The Presbyterian Review^ he came into such intimate rela- 
 tions with that seminary through his successive co-editors, 
 Drs. Aiken, Hodge, Patton, and Warfield. At his earnest 
 request I consented to serve on the executive committee of 
 the Presbyterian Review Association. He consulted me, both 
 as a friend and as a member of that committee, year in and 
 year out. He talked to me with absolute freedom respect- 
 ing the Review, its policy, his colleagues, and his own plans, 
 labors, and trials in its management. He was restrained 
 by no fear that anybody would ever know what he said to 
 me. 1 do not believe he ever hesitated to give vent in my 
 ear to his inmost thoughts, or doubts and suspicions, if he 
 had any, about Princeton. And yet as I look back over 
 the record in my memory of those ten years I see nothing 
 dishonoring to Christian scholarship ; nothing that did not 
 betoken a man whose devotion to what he regarded as 
 sound doctrine, the best interests of the Presbyterian 
 Church, the cause of sacred learning, and, above all, alle- 
 giance to the King of Truth, was an absorbing passion. 
 Again and again I said to myself, " How this man loves 
 to work for his Master and his Master's kingdom ! '' To be 
 sure. Dr. Briggs did, now and then, say or write things 
 about certain features of Princeton divinity and biblical 
 scholarship which seemed to me needlessly severe. The 
 
98 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 tone of liis article in The Presbyterian Review on the 
 Old Testament Revision and Revisers, for example, I dis- 
 liked exceedingly and frankly told liim so. Such a tone, I 
 said, is against all my convictions as to the right temper of 
 Christian scholarship ; it hurts my feelings. And he al- 
 lowed me to say this without the slightest sign of irritation. 
 
 But to speak unadvisedly with one's lips, or one's pen, is 
 really no new thing in the annals of American Presbyte- 
 rianism. Dr. Briggs did not invent it. If, as is charged, 
 he has sinned in that line, his sins are venial in comparison 
 with those of not a few eminent Presbyterians in the 
 eighteenth century and in the nineteenth. How some Old 
 and New School men used to " talk back " to each other ! 
 And it always did seem to me that, as a general rule, an 
 Old School Presbyterian, when once fairly aroused and 
 " on the war-path," so to saj^, left a IS'ew School Presbyte- 
 rian, however gifted and advanced in that method, far 
 behind. I have expressed my honest respect, not to say 
 admiration, for Dr. Robert J. Breckinridge. But what 
 shall be said of the tone and manner in which he was wont 
 to express his mind about his New School brethren — and, 
 as for that, his Old School brethren, also, when they dif- 
 fered with him — in 1834, 1837-8, at the Philadelphia 
 Union Convention in 1867, and in the General Assembly 
 at Albany in 1868 ? "What could have been more provok- 
 ing than his biting criticism upon the noble report of Dr. 
 Adams and Dr. Beatty on reunion — a report so seasoned 
 with the meekness of wisdom — pronouncing it unworthy 
 of the great Presbyterian Church and " deficient in style, 
 literature, grammar, and rhetoric from one end to the 
 other"! 
 
 The simple fact is, that Presbyterians now and then 
 are not only, as they have often been called, the Lord's 
 " silly people," but they are also the Lord's fighting people. 
 
UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 99 
 
 Their Calvinism makes them bold and determined, but it 
 tends also to make tliem somewhat pugnacious and domi- 
 neering. They hold a high doctrine of original and in- 
 dwelling sin ; and I have wondered whether, in His permis- 
 sive will, God did not allow an unusually large share of 
 the latter to remain in them in attestation of their doctrine, 
 as also to keep down their pride of orthodoxy. 
 
 When I consider what have been Dr. Briggs' services to 
 the Presbyterian Church, and to Christian scholarship; 
 how far they exceed in variety, amount, and quality those 
 of most other Presbyterian scholars of his own day, and 
 with what fidelity and devotion he has rendered them, I 
 am little in the mood to complain of his faults or to hear 
 others do so. As to his relations to Princeton during the 
 ten years to which I have referred there is no ground 
 whatever, I repeat, so far as my knowledge goes, to speak 
 of him otherwise than in terms of respect and praise. 
 Upon his severing his connection with The Presbyterian 
 Revieio the sense of his services, entertained by the Review 
 Association, was expressed in the following letter addressed 
 to him by Dr. Aiken, under date of Princeton, Oct. 18, 1889 : 
 
 At the meeting of the Review Association in New York, on 
 Wednesday last, it was unanimously and heartily voted that 
 the thanks of the Association be given to you for the many 
 important services which you have rendered the Association 
 during the ten years of its history. We recognize your con- 
 spicuous and invaluable service in the starting of the Asso- 
 ciation and the Remew, and, in many ways, in maintaining 
 both. We recognize the great benefit we have derived from 
 your deep interest in the Review, your indefatigable energy 
 and industry, your wide acquaintance with men on both 
 sides of the water, your patience in looking after details, and 
 your wide outlook over the field which the Review was aimed 
 to cover. 
 
 And the embarrassments of various kinds which appear 
 
100 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 now to have brought to an end the work of the Revieio, make 
 us only the more eager to express to you our sense of what 
 we owe you. It was on my motion that this vote was 
 passed, — but it needed only the motion to secure the instant 
 and unanimous assent of all present. The absent, we are 
 sure, would have concurred with us. I was requested to 
 communicate with you, freely, without any form of words 
 proposed by me, or given me to transcribe. It gives me per- 
 sonally real pleasure to be the organ of the Association in 
 conveying to you the knowledge of this action. 
 
 The members of the Executive Committee of the Re- 
 view Association at this time were William M. Paxton, 
 Charles A. Aiken, Benjamin B. Warfield, Thomas S. Hast- 
 ings, George L. Prentiss, and Marvin R. Yincent. 
 
 It is hardly needful to say more of the friendly relations 
 of Union to Princeton. On the part of Union, for forty 
 years at least, I can testify that, so far as I know, not only 
 has no hostile sentiment toward Princeton been cherished 
 by her, but habitually and on principle has she abstained 
 from saying or doing aught that might stir up jealousy, 
 strife, or rivalry between the two institutions. Hei- record 
 in this respect is clear and unimpeachable. Had Union 
 Seminary been established a few years earlier, the case 
 might have been different. In a letter dated New York, 
 June 5, 1827, Dr. John Holt Rice, one of the wisest and 
 best men in the Presbyterian Church of that day, writes : 
 
 While all the brethren appear to regard me with great per- 
 sonal affection, neither of the parties are entirely cordial to 
 me. The Princeton people apprehend that I am approximat- 
 ing to Auburn notions ; and the zealous partisans of New 
 England divinity think me a thorough-going Princetonian. So 
 it is! And while there is much less of the unseemly bitter 
 ness and asperity which brought reproach upon the Church 
 in past times, I can see that the spirit of paiiy has struck 
 
UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 101 
 
 deeper than I had even supposed. And I do fvilly expect 
 that there will be either a strong effort to bring Princeton 
 under different management, or to build up a new seminary 
 in the vicinity of New York, to counteract the influence of 
 Princeton. One or the other of these things wall assuredly 
 be done before long, unless the Lord interpose and turn the 
 hearts of the ministers. 
 
 Fortunately, Union Seminary was founded nine years 
 later, and with no design whatever antagonistic to Prince- 
 ton. Such, then, being her record from the beginning until 
 now, can it be thought strange that the course of Princeton 
 at Detroit was regarded by the friends of Union, in view 
 especially of 1870, with most painful surprise ? or that 
 they felt deeply offended and injured by it ? Is it strange 
 if it inflicted one of those wounds, that are apt to rankle 
 long and are very hard to cure ? "I doubt," writes an old 
 and devoted friend of Union Seminary, " I doubt whether 
 you fully realize the depth, or extent, of the indignant feel- 
 ing which the course of Princeton at Detroit aroused among 
 thousands of thoughtful men and women, throughout the 
 country. It was, and still is, largely a suppressed feeling — 
 suppressed partly, perhaps, by reason of its very intensity 
 and in part for the sake of the peace of the Church — but a 
 feeling which, you may rest assured, is not going to be al- 
 layed by any pious truisms. It is not now the case of Dr. 
 Briggs chiefly — that is a mere occasion and passing incident 
 — it is the honest conviction that vital principles of Amer- 
 ican Presbyterianism, as well as vital principles of justice 
 and Christian liberty, are involved, which renders this feel- 
 ing so deep and strong. As to Union Seminary, what a 
 return she got for her services to Princeton in 1870 ! How 
 would William Adams have felt, could he have foreseen 
 it ! I do not envy the President of Princeton College his 
 part in this matter. Would his illustrious predecessor, the 
 
102 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 venerable Dr. MeCosh, ever have consented to act such 
 part ? It does not seem to me even thinkable. 
 
 " The union of the Old and New School Churches is gen- 
 erally regarded as one of the greatest events in the annals 
 of American Presbyterianism. What was the agency of 
 Princeton in bringing it about '{ Dr. Hodge from first to 
 last was its strongest opponent. What was the agency of 
 Union in bringing it about ? Henry 13. Smith waG its fore- 
 most leader and advocate. By his memorable sermon at 
 Dayton in 186-i, by his editorials in 2'he Evangelist^ by the 
 powerful articles in his Review^ he more than any other 
 man started, defended, and guided the movement. With- 
 out Henry B. Smith and such coadjutors, among the direct- 
 ors of Union Seminary, as William Adams, Jonathan F. 
 Stearns, Edwin P. Hatfield, and William E. Dodge, I, for 
 one, do not believe Keunion would have been accomplished 
 even to this day. It had other very able I^ew School ad- 
 vocates, whose services also were invaluable. And without 
 such strong friends in the Old School branch as Drs. Beatty, 
 Gurley, Musgrave, Monfort, Allison, and many others 
 like them, it could not, of course, have been accomplished. 
 But so far as reunion was a great blessing to the Presbyte- 
 rian Church, the agency of Union in bringing it to pass en- 
 titles her, it seems to me, to lasting gratitude ; certainly to 
 treatment y^x^ different from that of which she has so often 
 and in so many quarters been the subject during the past 
 six months. Nor is it a small service that Union has ren- 
 dered both to the Presbyterian Church and to Christian 
 scholarship as a living centre of reasonable theological free- 
 dom and progress. ' I am not afraid to say that a new idea 
 never originated in this Seminary,' was the remark of Dr. 
 Hodge at his semi-centennial. That has never been the 
 position of Union. She welcomes all new ideas, that ' swim 
 into her ken ' from the word of God or from the vast realm 
 
THE ACTION AT DETRIOT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 103 
 
 of science. How many new ' ideas ' originated in Union 
 Seminary in the days of Henry B. Smith ! But I weary you'. 
 I took up my pen simply to say that the feehng caused by 
 tlie course of Princeton at Detroit, is really deeper and more 
 widespread than even you appear to think. I may be 
 wrong, but that is my opinion." 
 
 {h). The action at Detroit in the case of Dr. Briggs 
 as an eye-opener. 
 
 The veto of Dr. Briggs was a veritable eye-opener. Its 
 instantaneous effect was great ; its ultimate effects are likely 
 to be greater. In a moment, as by a flash of lightning, the 
 agreement of 1870 was seen, as it had never been seen be- 
 fore. It was seen to involve alarming possibilities of harm 
 to the Presbyterian Church, to free Christian scholarship, 
 and to the cause of theological truth and progress. It was, 
 probably, at once the cause and the subject of more anxious 
 thought in one week after the vote at Detroit, than during 
 all the previous twenty years. That vote revealed it as an 
 arrangement full of explosive mischief. Instead of contrib- 
 uting to the " peace and prosperity of the Church," by 
 promoting mutual confidence and love, it showed itself, 
 of a sudden, as a stirrer up of strife and bitterness. It 
 proved that the many disadvantages, infelicities, and perils, 
 which, to those who took an active part in founding the 
 Union Theological Seminary, appeared so serious in the 
 election of professors by the General Assembly itself, were 
 no less incident to the veto power in the election of pro- 
 fessors, when exercised by the General Assembly. In other 
 words, the action at Detroit demonstrated that the two prin- 
 cipal grounds upon which the veto power had been conceded 
 to the General Assembly by Union Seminary in 1870, were 
 deceptive and untenable. The evils specially deprecated 
 and to be guarded against by the concession of that power 
 
104 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 have been sprung upon the Church in its very first exer- 
 cise. With the best intentions in the world, both the Board 
 of directors of the Union Seminary and the General Assem- 
 bly greatly erred as to the effects which, sooner or later, 
 would be caused by arming the Assembly with authority to 
 forbid, year in and year out, at its absolute discretion, every 
 election of a professor in every Presbyterian theological 
 seminary in the United States. 
 
 For a time it may have served, as the ninth " concurrent 
 declaration " of 1869 had been intended, " to allay the ap- 
 prehensions of any who might imagine that the sudden 
 accession and intermingling of great numbers [that is, the 
 coming in of the ISTew School branch] might overbear those 
 who had hitherto administrated these seminaries which had 
 been under the control of one branch of the Church. It 
 was intended as a measure for the maintenance of confi- 
 dence and harmony, and not as indicating the best method 
 for all future time." As a measure for the maintenance of 
 confidence and harmony during that critical period of tran- 
 sition from a divided to a reunited Church, it was, perhaps, 
 of use. But time has long since allayed any apprehensions, 
 which the Old School might have felt, of being overborne 
 in the administration of their seminaries by a sudden acces- 
 sion of the New School to equal power in the General As- 
 sembly. Old School and New School are obsolete terms. 
 And yet who can wonder that, in 1870, some " apprehen- 
 sions," if not " jealousy," with regard to this matter still 
 existed on the Old School side, especially at Princeton ? 
 
 The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 
 the United States, to return to my point, is a grand and 
 powerful religious body. In its own proper sphere it is a 
 mighty agency for building up and extending the kingdom 
 of God on earth. But it is singularly unfitted to make the 
 best possible choice, or to ascertain and forbid the unwise 
 
THE ACTIOlSr AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 105 
 
 choice, of a tlieological professor. The chances seem to me 
 as ten to one that, in all ordinary cases, the choice of a pro- 
 fessor in Princeton, or Auburn, or McCormick, or Union, 
 or San Francisco, or any other seminary, will be far more 
 wisely made by its own board of directors than by a popular 
 assembly composed of some five hundred men, living thou- 
 sands of miles apart, coming together for ten days, subject to 
 numberless misleading influences through ignorance of the 
 candidate, and restrained perhaps by only a feeble sense 
 of direct personal responsibility in the case. Twenty votes 
 in a board of directors, composed, as the boards of our 
 theological seminaries usually are, of judicious, experienced, 
 high-minded Christian men, stand for more, and are worth 
 more, than five hundred votes in General Assembly. Of 
 course, the best boards are liable also to commit mistakes. 
 No device or method of election can insure against possible 
 errors and imperfections of human judgment, whether it 
 be the judgment of eight and twenty directors or of five 
 hundred commissioners. 
 
 Personally, no man has better reason than I have to speak 
 well of the General Assembly in this regard. I myself bear 
 its imprimatur as "the standard of Presbyterian ortho- 
 doxy." Under the lead of that apostolic servant of Christ, 
 Dr. Charles C. Beatty, the first General Assembly of the 
 reunited Church, by a unanimous and rising vote, elected 
 me to the chair of Systematic Theology in one of its most 
 important seminaries ; and upon my declining the call, re- 
 elected me with similar unanimity in ISTl. JSTever can I 
 cease to feel grateful in remembrance of such uncommon 
 kindness and honor ; grateful also in memory of the special 
 tokens of personal interest and good-will which I received 
 from the layman so distinguished at once for his stanch 
 Presbyterianism and his generosity, whose name the Semi- 
 nary of the Northwest now bears. 
 
106 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 I will now proceed to note some of the ways in whicli 
 the action at Detroit, in the case of Dr. Briggs, may be re- 
 garded as an eye-opener. 
 
 (1). In disclosing the doubts and scruples respecting the 
 agreement of 1870 which existed at the time, but had 
 never, so far as I am aware, been made public. I refer 
 more especially to Lane Seminary, which, like Union, was 
 entirely independent of ecclesiastical control. An extract 
 from a letter of the Rev. Henry A. Nelson, D.D., addressed 
 to Hon. James R. Cox, of Auburn, and published in The 
 Evangelist of June 25th, shows what was done at Lane and 
 why it was done. Dr. Nelson was a member of the Joint 
 Committee on Reunion, as well as a professor at Lane, and 
 is known far and wide as an eminently wise and true man. 
 Here is the extract : 
 
 Our Lane Seminary charter made its board of trustees a 
 close corporation, empowered to fill vacancies in its own 
 membership, and to appoint all professors and instructors, 
 who should hold then' chairs at the plejsure of the board. Hon. 
 Stanley Matthews, afterward a justice of the United States 
 Supreme Court, was consulted on the legal questions involved. 
 He stated clearly and positively that the board of trustees, a 
 corporate body, coidd not legally delegate any of its powers 
 
 to the General Assembl}- or to any other body Our 
 
 board of trustees adopted the by-law (as its charter em- 
 jDOwered it to do) in words like the following, as nearly as I 
 remember : * " Every election of a professor in this institu- 
 tion shall be reported to the next General Assembly, and if 
 the said Assembly shall by vote express its disapprobation of 
 the election, the professorship in question shall be ijjso facto 
 vacant from and after such veto of the General Assembly; it 
 being understood that in such case it is not the pleasure of this 
 
 * I give the resolution of the Lane Seminary board exactly 
 as it was passed {lloore's Digest, p. 384). 
 
THE ACTIO:?^ AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 107 
 
 hoard thai such professor shall corUinue in office." Judge Mat- 
 thews said that this by-law, being adopted by the board of 
 trustees, could at any time be repealed by the board. The 
 board could not divest itself of this power. But as long as 
 it should keep that rule on its own book and govern itself by 
 it, it would no doubt have all the moral effect which was 
 sought for. No one of us imagined that it could have any 
 further legal force or effect than was thus defined by that 
 competent legal adviser. 
 
 Dr. E. D. Morris, now professor of Systematic Theology 
 at Lane, occupied in 1870 the chair of Church History in 
 that institution. Dr. Morris has long ranked among the 
 ablest and most judicious writers in this country on ques- 
 tions of ecclesiastical law and polity. The Evangelist of 
 July 23, 1891, contained a striking article from his pen, en- 
 titled '' The Compact of 1870." The following are extracts 
 from this article : 
 
 The writer does not hesitate to say at this point, that hav- 
 ing occasion in 1871 to look into the matter of legality, so far 
 as Lane was concerned, he was led to the conclusion that, in 
 the eye of the civil law, this compact, excellent as it was in 
 intention, was wholly unwarranted. Indeed it was question- 
 able in his judgment whether it lay within the constitutional 
 prerogative of the General Assembly to accept such a func- 
 tion if proffered to it, and the recent experience has appeared 
 to him to give some degree of reasonableness to that doubt. 
 But on the civil side of the matter, it must be ordinarily clear 
 to any student of the charter of that institution, that its trus- 
 tees are the sole and only party having, or that can have, or 
 gain, any authority whatsoever in the appointment of those 
 who, in whatever capacity, give instruction in it. These trus- 
 tees are limited by but one condition, that such instructors 
 shall be in good standing in the Presbyterian Church. But 
 they have no right to go to the Assembly to inquire whether 
 
108 UNION SEMINAEY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 such or such a teacher is in good standing, nor has the Assem- 
 bly any power, by mere resolution, to declare the standing of 
 any such person to be either good or bad. They might go 
 to the records of some presbytery having jurisdiction, and 
 inquii-e whether the person involved was rectus in curia there ; 
 but they could not commit to such a body the matter of ap- 
 proving or disapproving their choice of him as a teacher. In 
 that choice they are absolutely and forever sovereign, with 
 no chartered right to delegate their responsibility to, or even 
 share it in any particular with any other body whatever. If 
 the question were one of financial administration, no court in 
 the land would justify these trustees in calling on the General 
 Assembly to guide or to control them in the care of the funds 
 and properties of that institution, and the same legal princi- 
 ple holds no less truly in the exercise of any other part of 
 theii" corporate trust. The board of Lane Seminary is in 
 every particular, and at all times, the official authority, and 
 there can be no other. 
 
 Such was the view which the writer was compelled to take 
 twenty years ago, so far as one of these three seminaries was 
 concerned, and the recent discussions have served to make it 
 evident that the trustees of Aubiu'n and Union are by the 
 charters of those institutions in a very similar position. 
 Looking at the matter as one of legal principle simply, to be 
 determined judicially, is it not clear that these boards of tnist 
 could not hand over to a General Assembly a right of ultimate 
 control over any of the endowments committed to their keep- 
 ing ? And is it not just as clear that they could not ask a 
 General Assembly to create any new department, or prescribe 
 any change in the methods of instruction, or to choose or 
 even nominate a professor for any work within these institu- 
 tions ? All such matters are committed by law to these 
 several boards, and to them alone, in the exercise of their 
 corporate sovereignty, and there is ground for the query 
 whether their failure to exercise such prerogative in the way 
 prescribed by their resi^ective charters would not ultimately 
 
THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 109 
 
 work a forfeitiire of the funds intrusted to their keeping. 
 No such board could, for example, discharge their corps of 
 instructors and close the institution indefinitely, without be- 
 coming subject to civil suit, even though it shovJd resolve to 
 commit its endowments meanwhile to the care and keeping 
 of the General Assembly. And the same principle must 
 apply to all their acts. 
 
 Turning from the question of legality to that of expediency 
 and desirableness, we enter a field more difficult of discussion, 
 yet one where a dispassionate examination will be hkely to 
 lead thoughtful men into substantial agreement. The com- 
 pact is a good one so long as there is no occasion to apply it. 
 As a simple expression of good-will and cordial confidence 
 between the parties it is admii*able. But the moment a case 
 arises, in which the judgment of any of these boards of trust 
 goes in one direction, and that of an Assembly goes in an- 
 other, and the Assembly overrules such board by vetoing its 
 action and displacing a teacher, whom, in the exercise of its 
 chartered prerogatives and its corporate wisdom, it has 
 chosen, there wiU always be trouble ; it cannot be otherwise. 
 If the Assembly acts without giving any reasons, simply in- 
 terposing its final negative in the case, it exposes itself at 
 once to the charge of arbitrariness, and to those immediately 
 affected by its action, that action inevitably savors of a 
 tyranny to which any bom Presbyterian will find it hard to 
 submit. On the other hand, if an Assembly attempts to give 
 reasons for its veto, all such reasons must resolve themselves 
 into two — the lack of fitness to teach, and the lack of ortho- 
 doxy. How difficult it is for an Assembly to adduce either 
 of these reasons in support of its decision without precipitat- 
 ing serious trouble, will be evident on very sUght reflection. 
 
 Suppose the reason to be the lack of fitness to teach, what- 
 ever may be the special nature of that lack. At once a 
 series of questions spring up, such as the following : What 
 constitutes fitness to teach in a theological seminary ? "What 
 are the special requisites to success in this or that particular 
 
110 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 department of the theological study? Is the Assembly as 
 well qualified as the particular board of trust to ascertain 
 whether the person appointed possesses such fitness, and in 
 what degi-ee ? Is it right for a board, after it has chosen a 
 teacher as the result of the most minute investigation it can 
 make, to let its deliberate judgment be set aside by the veto 
 of a body every way less prepared to decide the matter 
 wisely? Would it be just to the man himself, if, after he 
 and the board had settled the matter, and a call had bee» 
 presented and accepted, the Assembly should step in, and 
 with only such knowledge as a body so constituted would pos- 
 sess, should hold him up before the whole Church and be- 
 fore the world as a person incompetent to teach, and unfit 
 for the place to which he had been chosen ? 
 
 So serious are such questions that it is doubtful whether 
 any General Assembly could be induced to take such a stej) 
 on this ground. The case must be an exceptional one in- 
 deed ; and the veto of the Assembly would become not 
 merely a remarkable and destructive condemnation of the 
 man, but also a verdict of gross incompetency against the 
 board who had appointed him. And the case would be more 
 exceptional stiU if the chosen instructor had already been be- 
 fore the Church for many years in some similar capacity, 
 perchance in the same institution, and the board that chose 
 him had acted on the basis of an experimental acquaintance 
 with his abilities as a teacher. ..... 
 
 But the second ground, the lack of orthodoxy, is a hundred- 
 fold more perplexing. Suppose an Assembly should openly 
 say, in any given case. We put our veto on this appointment, 
 because in our judgment the chosen instructor is not ortho- 
 dox, or is heretical, according to our standards. Suppose it 
 should vary the statement, and say in a more guarded form. 
 We do not condemn this man as a minister, but we do pro- 
 nounce his teachings doubtful and dangerous in quality, and 
 even heretical, and on this ground declare him unfit as a 
 teacher. The Assembly of 1836 has established a precedent 
 
THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. Ill 
 
 against any declaration of the latter sort, before which it 
 would be very difficult to set up valid opposition, The dis- 
 tinction between the minister and professor, between the 
 man and his teachings, vanishes the moment it is touched. 
 It is simply impossible to pronounce the teaching heretical 
 without condemning the man also ; and it is simply impos- 
 sible to condemn the teacher without pronouncing judgment 
 on the minister also. But this is clearly inadmissible under 
 our Form of Government. The obvious principle in the case, 
 as the precedent of 1836 affii-ms, is that the Assembly cannot 
 do by indirection what it cannot do directly and under con- 
 stitutional warrant, and for such a declaration and distinc- 
 tion as this there can be no constitutional waiTant whatso- 
 ever. 
 
 The declaration of the first sort is still more obviously in- 
 admissible so long as the Presbjiiery to which such a teacher 
 is amenable, regards and treats him as orthodox. At this 
 point the Assembly is powerless. The experience of the 
 Southern Church in the case of Prof. Woodi-ow ought to be 
 a sufficient guide and warning here. It is not needful that 
 the person implicated be already undergoing judicial exam- 
 ination before the only body on earth competent of pro- 
 nouncing upon him ecclesiastically. The simple fact that 
 he stands unimpeached before that body, is enough to for- 
 bid the Assembly from assuming any judicial prerogatives in 
 his case. No difference of this sort can be recognized in our 
 Form of Government, between one minister and another, 
 between a teacher in a seminary and a pastor in his pulpit, 
 and any attempt to set up such a distinction can only end in 
 trouble. In a word, the Assembly is absolutely precluded 
 by our constitution from pronouncing an opinion by mere 
 resolution upon the good standing of even the humblest 
 minister in our Church. 
 
 The compact of 1870 thus betrays its weakness in what- 
 ever aspect it may be regarded. To say the best that can 
 be said, the only two grounds on which the Assembly can 
 
112 UNIOlSr SEMIISrARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 possibly act under it are doubtful and dangerous grounds. 
 It loads the Church with a responsibility which is pleasant 
 enough so long as there is no occasion to wield it, but which 
 is as certain as fate to bring in trouble wherever there is fair 
 room for doubt as to either the capacity or the orthodoxy of 
 any candidate for professional service. The experience of 
 the current year Avill inevitably be repeated in every like 
 case as long as the compact lasts. Differences of interpreta- 
 tion as to its intent and scope will always arise, as they have 
 unhappily sprung up in this instance. Diversities of judg- 
 ment and more or less dissatisfaction with the result will al- 
 ways make their appearance, and whatever may be the effect 
 upon the seminary involved, the Church is sui'e to suffer 
 much more than it gains. 
 
 Add to this calm statement that " the compact of 1870 " 
 was no legal compact at all, but simply a friendly agree- 
 ment, and Dr. Morris' argument becomes irresistible. 
 
 Let us now turn to Auburn. This seminary, unlike 
 Lane and LTnion, was already under ecclesiastical control, 
 namely, that of four adjacent synods. Here also there 
 was doubt and scruple respecting the legal aspect of tlie 
 agreement of 1870. It was not until 1873 that Auburn 
 consented to enter into the arrangement. The following 
 was its oflScial action in the case : 
 
 The committee to whom has been referred the question as 
 to whether the proposal of the General Assembly to submit 
 the election of professors in the seminary to the control of 
 that body can be complied with without a change of the 
 charter of this institution, would respectfully report, that 
 they have carefully examined said charter, and sought legal 
 counsel on the subject. They find that the board of com- 
 missioners is invested with the sole and ultimate authority 
 to appoint its professors, and tlipy cannot legally delegate this 
 power to any other body. They are, however, convinced of the 
 
THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 113 
 
 fact that they may in their primary action make a conditional 
 appointment, subject to the approval of the General Assem- 
 bly, and that the right of such approval may be accorded to 
 and recognized from that body without necessarily interfer- 
 ing with their ultimate authority. The committee regard 
 the seminary as standing in an organic relation to the Gen- 
 eral Assembly through its commissioners, icho are themselves 
 ecclesiastically amenable to the action of that body, and that, 
 therefore, there is a generic propriety in submitting their 
 appointments conditionally to its advisory action. 
 
 They further find that it comes within the sphere of power 
 accorded to the board by the charter that they make what- 
 ever by-laws and regulations they may regard as essential 
 for the prosperity of the seminary ; and, therefore, deeming 
 it desirable that this institution be classed on an equal basis 
 with others of a like character as under the patronage and 
 supervision of the General Assembly, the committee would 
 hereby present and commend for adoption by the board the 
 folloAving by-law, viz. : " That hereafter the appointments of 
 professors in this seminary be primarily made conditional 
 upon the approval of the General Assembly, and that such 
 appointments be complete and authoritative only upon secur- 
 ing such approval." — (Minutes of the Board of Commission- 
 ers of Auburn Seminary, meeting May 8, 1873.) 
 
 (2). But while at Lane, and, later, at Auburn also, the 
 agreement of 18Y0 between Union Seminary and the Gen- 
 eral Assembly excited at the time serious doubt, and was 
 adopted only in a modified form upon the advice of able 
 legal counsel, the agreement yet met with general acquies- 
 cence as a " suitable arrangement." For twenty years it 
 remained, as we have seen, quiescent and undisputed. No- 
 body challenged either its legality or its expediency, and 
 this for the simple reason that the power with which it 
 clothed the Assembly was never used. For several montlis 
 before the meeting of the Assembly of 1891, it is true, the 
 
114 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 veto power was widely discussed in the religious papers, 
 but chiefly as to its direct bearing upon the case of Dr. 
 Briggs, not as to its legahty or its wisdom. Only after the 
 action of the General Assembly were men's eyes opened to 
 discern its real character. That action, as is apt to be the 
 case with all unfair and arbitrary exercise of power, aroused 
 thoughtful public opinion in a high degree, and precipi- 
 tated, so to say, conclusions and a judgment touching the 
 whole matter which years of ordinary discussion could not 
 have reached. 
 
 The public reason and conscience, under certain condi- 
 tions, give their verdict very quickly, and in a way not to 
 be gainsaid. I beheve it will prove to have been so in 
 the present instance. ISTo arguments are hkely to shut 
 again the eyes — and their name is legion — which were 
 opened so wide by the action at Detroit. Not alone Union 
 Seminary and its oldest and best friends, but thousands of 
 the best and most discerning friends of Clu-istian scholar- 
 ship and reasonable liberty of theological inquiry and teach- 
 ing throughout the country, felt that a hard blow had been 
 struck at a great interest common and equally dear to them 
 all. It would be easy to illustrate the intensity and strength 
 of this feeling by numberless testimonies, given in private 
 letters and conung from all parts of the Union. I have 
 myself read scores of such letters, some of them written by 
 men noted for their fine culture, their piety, their zeal for 
 the truth as it is in Jesus, and their unusual weight of 
 character. Of the public testimonies and protests called 
 forth by the action at Detroit, time would fail me to speak 
 at length. Two or three only must suffice ; and I give 
 them just as they appeared, without, of course, holding 
 myself responsible for all they contain. The first is from 
 the pen of the Rev. C. H. Haydn, D.D., LL.D., pastor of 
 the First Presbyterian Church of Cleveland, Ohio, a man 
 
THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 115 
 
 whose name stands for whole-souled devotion to the king- 
 dom of Christ. Dr. Haydn was a member of the Assem- 
 bly at Detroit, and chairman of its Standing Committee on 
 Foreign Missions. Of the veto of Dr. Briggs he said, ad- 
 dressing his own people : 
 
 Had the Union Seminary acquiesced in this veto, / question 
 whether a twelvemonth would have gone by before men in at least 
 three other seminaries xoould have been called to account in one 
 waxj or another, and liberty within the lines of Ho'y Scripture 
 would have had a set-bach from which it ivould not have recov- 
 ered in a quarter of a century. Princeton would have tri- 
 umphed all along the line, and nothing could well be worse 
 than to have Princeton dominate the thinking of the Presby- 
 terian Church. Already, to my view, it begins to dawn that 
 Princeton's ecclesiastical lawyer has overreached himself, and 
 unwittmgly aided the very cause that he thought to put 
 under the ban of the Church. 
 
 My next extract is from a letter of the Kev. Robert W. 
 Patterson, D. D., of Chicago, now past his seven and seven- 
 tieth year. Dr. Patterson is a venerated patriarch, as he 
 was for more than a generation the New School leader, 
 of the Presbyterian Church in the great Northwest. He 
 was moderator of the General Assembly in 1859, and was 
 also a member of the New School branch of the Joint 
 Committee on Reunion. If there be another man in the 
 whole Interior who stands higher in the estimate of his 
 ministerial brethren, or whose judgment in matters relat- 
 ing to the order and prosperity of the Presbyterian Church, 
 is entitled to greater weight, I do not know his name. 
 Here is what Dr. Patterson says : 
 
 I am distressed about our seminaries. The plan of allow- 
 ing the General Assembly a veto on appointments is, I am 
 persuaded, unwise. I question with many as to the fitness 
 of Dr. Briggs for the place to which he was elected by the 
 
116 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 Union directors, but I think it very unsafe for the Assembly 
 to veto the action of such a board, especially when a trial of 
 the professor-elect is pending. It must necessarily be in a 
 great measure a prejudgment of the judicial case. And in 
 most instances of veto, a judicial case -will be likely to follow 
 or to be actually pending. 
 
 Besides, it is not clear that in ordinary cases the Assembly 
 is as competent a judge as a well-selected board. Moreover, 
 if the Assembly were the more competent body, it could not 
 fail to awaken dangerous antagonism for it to exercise such 
 authority. It is not like a veto of a nominatiov ; it is a veto 
 of an ajypointment, so far as the board can make one, and it 
 is, therefore, an injurious judgment against the professor- 
 elect and also against the board electing. 
 
 And, still further, it is likely to create a wide sympathy for 
 the injured parties, and give currency to the very errors 
 which it was designed to prevent. This is evidently so in 
 the present case, in which gi-ossly partisan action has been 
 taken. The proper check upon unwise appointments is the 
 discipline of the Church, if serious errors are taught by the 
 appointee. The New School Church never lodged any veto 
 power in the Assembly. Such power ought not now to be 
 continued ; it is virtually the trial of a man without process 
 and without forms of law. Not one quotation from Dr. 
 Briggs was made in the debate at Detroit, so far as I heard, 
 and no reasons were given in the final judgment. This was 
 monstrous. 
 
 Along with this emphatic expression of opinion I will 
 quote some passages in the same strain from a private letter 
 of Dr. Patterson : 
 
 I have not liked Dr. Briggs' utterances, especially the tone 
 of them. But I regard the action of Princeton in the mat- 
 ter as a startling illustration of the grievous injustice that 
 will always be liable to be done to a professor-elect and to a 
 seminary, so long as the power of v eto remains with the A 
 
THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENEK. 117 
 
 sembly. It is a sort of lynch-law condemnation on technical- 
 ity, without trial and with no reasons responsibly alleged, but 
 
 with utterly untrue reasons implied or assumed I see 
 
 no escape from alike injustice in any case where a veto can be 
 plausibly demanded. First, get up a clamor, and then have 
 a one-sided committee appointed to report that something 
 must be done at once, or the Assembly will be held as ap- 
 proving, and give no reasons, leaving every man to sustain 
 the report for his own reasons, or on the ground of his own 
 prepossessions. This is a receipt for crushing out any and 
 every appointee that happens to incur popular displeasxu-e on 
 a question about which the Church is sensitive. How easy 
 to apply the guillotine in every such case ! and if the candi- 
 date for decapitation cannot be easily answered on the main 
 
 points, the motive is greater to dispatch him by vote-< I 
 
 have written simply because I feel like it. I do not agree 
 with Dr. Briggs on some important questions, but I would 
 not, if I could, overrule the directors in regard to any such 
 question, and no more would I concede this right to the 
 Assembly. We cannot afford to have our able men brushed 
 aside by popular clamor, even if on some points they may 
 have gone too far. If they become heretics, let theii- heresy 
 be judicially proved. But let not the Assembly prejudge indi- 
 rectly its future disciplinary action. The day has passed for 
 settling critical questions by votes of councils or assemblies. 
 But it is possible to distress and distract a whole denomina- 
 tion for a generation by attempting this impossibility. The 
 numbers wiU increase of those who will say with Dr. Van 
 Dyke : " If we cannot have orthodoxy and liberty both, let 
 us have liberty." 
 
 I will give one more testimony and protest. It is from 
 a letter of the Rev. S. M. Hamilton, D.D., addressed to 
 Dr. Field, editor of The Evangelist, and dated Louisville, 
 Ky., June 5, 1891. Dr. Hamilton for more tlian lialf a 
 generation was pastor of the old Scotch Church in Fourteenth 
 
118 UNIOX SEMINARY AIJ^D THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 St., New York, where he won the confidence, respect, and 
 love of his ministerial brethren and of all the churches by 
 his charming personal qualities, bj his fine scholarship, and 
 by his solid Christian character and services : 
 
 The outside public have received a very definite impres- 
 sion that our highest ecclesiastical court has acted unfairly 
 and unjustly towards one of our foremost Biblical scholars. 
 The issue Avill not increase the respect of the world for the 
 Presbyterian Church. She hfis suffered immensely more than 
 Dr. Briggs. Thoughtful men are saying — I have heard them 
 — that oui" Church wiU not allow her scholars to make a thor- 
 ough study of the Bible by the modern scientific methods 
 unless they first bind themselves to come to no conclusions, 
 save such as are acceptable to a certain theological school in 
 the Church. Such an impression — and it exists and is spread- 
 ing — is calamitous, not to the Church only, but to religion it- 
 self. Add to this the feeling which is abroad, that the Assem- 
 bly has condemned an eminent professor without assigning 
 any reasons therefor, and on the repoi-t of a committee not a 
 member of which was a friend of the professor or of Union 
 Seminary, and the injury to the reputation of our Church 
 cannot be calculated. 
 
 I have been on terms of intimate friendship with Dr. 
 Briggs for years. I have lived with him, I have walked the 
 mountains with him, I have talked with him for hours together, 
 and I say deliberately that he has done more to make the Bible 
 a real living book to me, the true Word of God, than all other 
 ministers and teachers I have known in the whole course of 
 my life. His friendship is one of the things for which I shall 
 always have reason to be thankful. In my judgment Dr. 
 Briggs is the most inspiring teacher of the Bible our Church 
 possesses. No vote of any Assembly can impair his reputa- 
 tion among the Biblical scholars of Christendom. 
 
 (3). The action at Detroit was an eye-opener with regard to 
 the unwisdom of trying to regulate theological opinion and 
 
THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 119 
 
 teaching by popular vote. The instant the attempt is actually 
 made, its futiUty is demonstrated. I doubt if the vote at 
 Detroit really moved theological opinion a hair's breadth. 
 Nor will it be at all more effective in the matter of theolog- 
 ical instruction. Unless further enlightened respecting 
 divine truth by deeper study and fresh inspirations of the 
 Eternal Spu-it, Princeton, and Union, and Lane, and all the 
 rest, will continue to teach in 1892 what they taught in 
 1890. As aforetime, they will take counsel of Holy Scrip- 
 ture and of the venerable standards of the Presbyterian 
 Church, as also of the old creeds of Christendom. They 
 will still read diligently the writings of the great masters of 
 divinity, whether of ancient, or medieval, or later ages ; they 
 will try to discern the signs of the times ; and they will exer- 
 cise themselves in working out more fully their omti honest 
 thought. But they will take very little note of what was said, 
 or voted, on the subject at Detroit. When in 1815, at Cin- 
 cinnati, the Old School General Assembly, led by some of 
 the strongest men in that branch of the Presbyterian Church, 
 decided by a vote of 173 to 8 — a majority not of 7 to 1, as at 
 Detroit, but of more than 20 to 1 — that what was called 
 "Romish Baptism" is spurious and unchristian, Dr. Charles 
 Hodge of Princeton, in spite of the brilliant Dr. Thornwell, 
 and of Dr. L. N. Rice, and of Dr. Junkin, and of nearly 
 the whole Assembly, not only went right on teaching his stu- 
 dents the old Protestant view, but he attacked the decision 
 of the Assembly as wrong in fact and false in doctrine, 
 demonstrating, with most cogent reasoning, that, notwith- 
 standing her errors, the Church of Home is still a branch 
 of the Christian Church, and that baptism duly adminis- 
 tered by her, is Christian baptism. Dr. Hodge knew very 
 well that if such questions were to be decided by a majority 
 vote in a popular assembly, instead of being decided ac- 
 cording to the truth of history and the voice of Scripture, 
 the occupation of the theological professor is well-nigh clean 
 
120 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 gone forever. This veto power is like one of those terrible 
 pieces of new ordnance of which we have read lately so much. 
 It is not only a most formidable instrument for destroy- 
 ing an enemy, but of self-destruction as well, unless handled 
 with consummate skill. Setting five hundred men, mostly 
 untrained for the task, to firing it off all together, even un- 
 der the direction of an ecclesiastical expert, is extremely 
 dangerous and against all the lessons of even worldly pru- 
 dence. 
 
 Do I mean, then, that it is no function of the Presby- 
 terian Church to bear faithful witness against prevalent er- 
 rors in doctrine and practice, or, if necessary, in the way of 
 godly discipline, to put upon them the stamp of her cen- 
 sure and condemnation ? No, that is not my meaning. It 
 seems to me one of the highest functions of a church of 
 Jesus Christ to bear constant, earnest witness for Him and 
 His truth, and to put the mark of her strong disapproval 
 upon all errors contrary thereto. This is one great end for 
 which the Church exists in the world. When she ceases to 
 be a witness-bearer and the enemy alike of false doctrine 
 and evil practice, her glory is departed. The question is : 
 How shall she best fulfil this duty ? And here there is need 
 of the wisest discrimination, of large experience, of the 
 amplest knowledge, of much self-restraint, and of Christian 
 justice, candor, and magnanimity in their finest expression. 
 
 It is far from my meaning, I repeat, that the Presbyterian 
 Church, or any other church of Christ, is not bound to hold 
 fast to the faith once delivered to the saints ; to stand up 
 for soundness both of doctrine and morals; to bear wit- 
 ness against error ;• and to be very jealous for the honor of 
 God and His inspired oracles. No church can here exceed 
 the measure of her duty. Nor do I in the least question 
 that the Presbyterian Church, in the performance of this 
 solemn duty, may often speak and act most effectually 
 
A WORD IN CONCLUSION. 121 
 
 throngli the voice and votes of the representative assembly. 
 The popular voice and vote, thus expressed, is a ruling 
 principle in our American system of repubhcan govern- 
 ment; and it is a ruling principle no less in American 
 Presbyterianism — the source in large measure of its won- 
 derful elasticity, fi'eedom, and working power. Nobody 
 shall surpass me in admiring it and its splendid achieve- 
 ments. 
 
 But alike in the civil sphere and in that of religion there 
 are some things, which in their very nature, belong to the 
 domain and jurisdiction, not of the many, but rather of the 
 select few. There are questions in the civil order which 
 the judges of the land, not the legislators, alone are author- 
 ized and competent to decide. And so in the religious 
 sphere there are matters which only learned divines and 
 scholars — specially trained, chosen, and set apart for the 
 purpose — are qualified to pass judgment upon. Such, for 
 example, are many of the questions raised by what is called 
 the higher or literary criticism of the Bible. Xo popular 
 vote, however honest rnd intelligent, can decide them ; nor 
 are ordinary scholars, however learned, competent to decide 
 them. They must be decided, if at all, by the ablest sort 
 of trained minds, just as there are questions in law, in 
 finance, in every department of science, which only experts 
 of the highest class are qualified to settle for us. 
 
 (?'). A word m conclusion. 
 
 I have thus endeavored to consider the action at Detroit 
 in the case of Dr. Briggs in its bearing upon Union Semi- 
 nary and upon the Presbyterian Church. It has been my 
 aim to tell the truth, so far as possible, and nothing but the 
 truth. And it has been my aim, also, to do this in a frank 
 and Christian way. Certainly, it would have been much 
 easier to write in a freer style. If my language savors now 
 
122 UNION^ SEMINAEY AND THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 and then of severity, or even ridicule, it is because tlie truth 
 seems to me to demand such language. No reasonable man 
 could have supposed that the friends of Union Seminary 
 were going to keep silent, or that when they did speak they 
 would speak with bated breath. If trained in no special 
 awe of a General Assembly, they do stand in awe of God 
 and His truth, of Christian justice, and of that glorious 
 liberty wherewith their divine Master has made them free. 
 What then, in view of the whole situation, ought to 
 be done ? It is not for me to answer this question further 
 than to say, that, in my opinion, it is high time for the 
 alumni and friends of Union Seminary to come to a good 
 understanding among themselves, to act in concert, and to 
 adopt such measures as shall give the whole world assurance 
 of their determination to join hands with the Board of 
 directors and Faculty of Union Seminary in maintaining 
 the character, honor, and chartered rights of the In- 
 stitution. 
 
 Whatever prejudice or suspicion against Union Seminary 
 prevails in the Presbyterian Church is, as I believe, largely 
 the effect of ignorance or misapprehension. Union Semi- 
 nary stands firm on her original foundations as an institu- 
 tion of Christian theology in the service of the Presbyterian 
 Church and of the Church Universal. Taking the inspired 
 Word of God as her rule of faith and practice, she is striv- 
 iuo- in all thinp^s for the faith and furtherance of the Gos- 
 pel ; first in our own land, and then over all the earth. These 
 are her ambitions, and she has no other. With every other 
 school of divinity, of whatever name, she desires to keep 
 step to the music of the whole church militant in fighting 
 the battles of truth and righteousness, here and everywhere. 
 Especially does she desire to march and fight in fellowship 
 with all other seminaries of the Presbyterian Church. She 
 is ready to say to them, in the words of Henry B. Smith, 
 
A WOED IN CONCLUSION. 123 
 
 —words penned before the reunion, but still fresh and true 
 as ever : 
 
 Let us advance with open brow to meet the greater ques- 
 tions which are fast advancing to meet us. Let us not make 
 so much account of Old School and New School ; and even 
 if we beheve the substance of the Old is better, let us not 
 deny that the earnestness, the philosophic spirit, the advanc- 
 ing movement, the wider aims of the New, are of inestimable 
 good. Who can so afford to be patient as the oiihodox, 
 who know that the right faith will in the end surely triumph. 
 Let us eschew the arts of intrigue, of defamation, and innu- 
 endo. These are easily learned. They are the offspring of 
 fear or of hate. They show a timorous or a dogmatic spirit. 
 Let us not deny until we understand, or insult feelings be- 
 fore we know their reason, for it is easier to be extreme than 
 to be candid, to denounce than to examine. Li the spirit of 
 love and wisdom let us maintain cogency of argument, energy 
 of faith, and urgency of zeal. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 THE ESTABUSHMENT OF THE EDWARD ROBINSON CHAIP OP BIBLICAL 
 
 THEOLOGY. 
 
 At the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the 
 Union Theological Seminary in the city of New York, held 
 November 11, 1890, the following preamble and resolution 
 were adopted by a unanimous vote : 
 
 Whereas, The Honorable Charles Butler, LL.D., President of the 
 Board of Directors of this Seminary, has made provision for a perma- 
 nent fund for the purpose of establishing and endowing a chair in 
 this Seminary, to be called the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical 
 Theology : 
 
 Now THEREFORE, Resolved, That a new professorship shall be and 
 is hereby created, which shall be called the "Edward Robinson 
 Chair of Biblical Theology"; that the income of the endowment of 
 one hundred thousand dollars given to this Seminary by the^ said 
 Charles Butler in the manner mentioned in his bond, dated April 35, 
 1890, shall be applied solely to the support of said chair, according to 
 the provisions of said bond. 
 
 The President of the Faculty suggested that the Board, in 
 courtesy, should ask Dr. Butler to express to us freely his 
 wishes with reference to the action just taken. 
 
 Thereupon President Butler addressed the Board of Direct- 
 ors as follows : 
 
 " The formal establishment by the Board of ' The Edward 
 Eobinson Chair of Biblical Theology ' fulfils the object de- 
 sired in the provision which I have made for its endowment. 
 I beg to express my satisfaction and gratitude for this action. 
 It is in accord with the views of the distinguished Christian 
 (124) 
 
APPENDIX. 125 
 
 scholar in wliose memory the chair is founded. In a letter to 
 the Board, dated Januaiy 20, 1837, accepting the Professorship 
 of Sacred Literature, he said : ' The Constitution properly 
 requires every Professor to declare that he believes the Scrip- 
 tures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of 
 God, the only infaUible rule of faith and practice. This is 
 placing the Bible in its true position as the only foundation 
 of Christian theology. It follows as a necessary consequence 
 that the study of the Bible, as taught in the department of 
 Biblical Literature, must be the foundation of all right the- 
 ologica'v education.' This new Chair of Bibhcal Theology 
 seems to me to realize the sentiment embodied in this quota- 
 tion, in a form which, if he were now present with us, would 
 receive his benediction. It embalms his memory indissolu- 
 bly with the life of this Seminary, and will ever be an inspi- 
 ration to its students in their ' search of the Scriptures.' 
 
 " In regard to the incumbent of this Chair, I avail of the 
 courtesy of the Board to express my wish that it may be one 
 who sat as a pupil at the feet of that eminent teacher, and I 
 regard it as a felicity to the Seminary that there is one here 
 who has been trained within its walls, and who, by his ripe 
 scholarship and purity of character in Christian faith and 
 practice, has won the confidence and affection of his associate 
 Professors, of this Board of Directors, and of the students 
 who have come under his teaching during these years of 
 faithful and devoted service. 
 
 "From what I have said, you will anticipate that my 
 wishes will be fully gratified in the appointment of the Rev. 
 Charles A. Briggs, D.D., as eminently qualified to fill this 
 Chair. In this expression of preference, it gives me the 
 greatest pleasure to say that I do but voice the views and 
 wishes of our late revered President of the Faculty, Roswell 
 D. Hitchcock. Dr. Briggs was his choice for this Chair. 
 
 " I cannot doubt that the highest interests of this Semi- 
 nary, and, what is more, those of the Redeemer's kingdom 
 on earth, will be promoted by this realization of the plans of 
 
126 APPENDIX. 
 
 these two Christian scholars, both as regards the foundation 
 of the Chair and the selection of the suggested incumbent." 
 
 THE APPOINTMENT OF THE INCUMBENT. 
 
 At the conclusion of President Butler's address, Henry- 
 Day, Esq., offered the following resolution, which was unan- 
 imously adopted : 
 
 Resohed, That Professor Charles A. Briggs, D.D., be transferred 
 from the Davenport Professorship of Hebrew and the Cognate Lan- 
 guages to the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology. 
 
 Professor Briggs, having been duly advised of the action 
 above recorded, addressed a communication to the Board, 
 under date of January 7, 1891, accepting the new Chair to 
 which he had been transferred. It is as follows : 
 
 120 West 93d St., New York, 
 January 7, 1891. 
 
 Gentkmen of the Board of Directors of the Union Theological 
 Seminary, Neiv York : 
 
 I thank you for the mark of confidence expressed in your 
 choice of me to fill the Edward Robinson Professorship of 
 Biblical Theology. There is no Chair that so well suits my 
 tastes and my studies for the past twenty-five years. Under 
 the advice of the Faculty, I have been building up the depart- 
 ment of Biblical Theology for some years past. But I had 
 reached the limit of new work, I could not advance fui-ther 
 until relieved of the Hebrew work. In accepting the new 
 Chair, I propose to push the work of the department rapidly 
 forward, and to cover the whole ground of the Chair at as 
 early a date as possible. I give over the work of the Hebrew 
 Chair to my pupO, colleague, and friend, Dr. Brown, with 
 confidence, that building on the foundations I have laid, he 
 will make marked improvement upon my work. 
 
 Biblical Theology is, at the present time, the vantage ground 
 for the solution of those important problems in religion, doc- 
 
APPENDIX. 127 
 
 trine, and morals that are compelling the attention of the men 
 of oui- times. The Bible is the Word of God, and its author- 
 ity is divine authority that determines the faith and life of 
 men. Biblical scholars have been long held in bondage to 
 ecclesiasticism and dogmatism. But modern Biblical criti- 
 cism has won the battle of freedom. The accumulations of 
 long periods of traditional speculation and dogmatism have 
 been in large measure removed, and the Bible itself stands 
 before the men of our time in a commanding position, such 
 as it never has enjoyed before. On all sides it is asked, not 
 what do the creeds teach, what do the theologians say, what 
 is the authority of the Church, but what does the Bible itself 
 teach us ? It is the office of Biblical Theology to answer this 
 question. It is the culmination of the work of Exegesis. It 
 rises on a complete induction through all the departments of 
 Biblical study to a comprehensive grasp of the Bible as a 
 whole, in the unity and variety of the sum of its teaching. 
 It draws the line with the teaching of the Bible. It fences 
 off from the Scriptures all the speculations, all the dogmatic 
 elaborations, aU the doctrinal adaptations that have been 
 made in the history of doctrine in the Church. It does not 
 deny their propriety and importance, but it insists upon the 
 three-fold distinction as necessary to truth and theological 
 honesty, that the theology of the Bible is one thing, the only 
 infallible authority ; the theology of the creeds is another 
 thing, having simply ecclesiastical authority ; and the theol- 
 ogy of the theologians, or Dogmatic Theology, is a thii'd 
 thing, which has no more authority than any other system of 
 human construction. It is weU known that until quite recent 
 times, and even at present in some quarters, the creeds have 
 lorded it over the Scriptures, and the dogmaticians have 
 lorded it over the creeds, so that in its last analysis the au- 
 thority in the Church has been, too often, the authority of 
 certain theologians. Now, Biblical Theology aims to limit 
 itself strictly to the theology of the Bible itself. Biblical 
 theologians are fallible men, and doubtless it is true, that 
 
128 APPENDIX. 
 
 they err in their interpretation of the Scriptures, as have 
 others ; but it is the aim of the discipUne to give the theol- 
 ogy of the Bible pure and simple ; and the inductive and 
 historical methods that determine the working of the depart- 
 ment are certainly favorable to an objective presentation of 
 the subject, and are unfavorable to the intinision of subject- 
 ive fancies and circumstantial considerations. It will be my 
 aim, so long as I remain in the Chair, to accomplish this ideal 
 as far as possible. Without fear or favor I shall teach the 
 truth of God's Word as I find it. The theology of the Bible 
 is much simpler, richer, and grander than any of the creeds 
 or dogmatic systems. These have been built upon select por- 
 tions of the Bible, and there is a capriciousness of selection 
 in them all. But Biblical Theology makes no selection of 
 texts — it uses the entire Bible in all its passages, and in every 
 single passage, giving each its place and importance in the 
 unfolding of divine revelation. To Biblical Theology the 
 Bible is a mine of untold wealth ; treasures, new and old, are 
 in its storehouses ; all its avenues lead, in one way or anoth- 
 er, to the presence of the living God and the divine Saviour. 
 
 The work of BibUcal Theology is conducted on such a 
 comprehensive study of the Bible, that whUe the Professor 
 builds upon a thorough study of the original texts, his class 
 must use their English Bibles. A thorough study of the 
 English Bible is necessarily included in the course. If the 
 plan of the work is carried out, the student will accomjDany 
 his Professor through the entire English Bible diu"ing his 
 Seminary course, and will be taught to expound a large num- 
 ber of the most important passages in the hght of all the 
 passages leading up to them. 
 
 In conclusion, allow me to express my gratitude to the 
 venerable President of the Board of Directors for the interest 
 he has ever taken in my work, for the honor he has shown 
 me in nominating me for the Chair he so generously founded, 
 and for attaching to the Chair, with such modesty and consid- 
 eration, the name of Edward Kobinson, my honored teacher, 
 
APPENDIX. 129 
 
 the greatest name on the roll of Biblical scholars of America, 
 and the most widely known and honored of her professors. 
 I shall regard it as my high calling and privilege to build on 
 his foundations, and to advance the work that he carried on 
 as far as it can be advanced in the circumstances of our time. 
 The names of Edward Robinson and Charles Butler will be 
 entwined into a bond of double strength to sustain me in the 
 delicate and difficult work that I now undertake to do. 
 
 Faithfully, 
 
 C. A. Briggs. 
 
 n. 
 
 THE INAUGURATION. 
 
 Tuesday Evening, Jan. 20, 1891. 
 
 President Charles Butler, LL.D. presided. After devo- 
 tional exercises, at the request of Mr. Butler, the President 
 of the Faculty made a brief preliminary statement, as 
 follows : 
 
 "As has been announced, last May the President of the 
 Board of Directors of the Union Theological Seminary, 
 Charles Butler, LL.D., provided for the endowment of a new 
 Chair in the sum of $100,000. 
 
 " On the basis of this munificent gift, at the recent meet- 
 ing of the Board, the new Professorship was formally estab- 
 lished, to be known, in accordance with the request of Pres- 
 ident Butler, as The Edward Robinson Professorship cf Biblical 
 Tneology. This was designed by Mr. Butler to be a memorial 
 of his long-time friend, the late Edward Robinson, D.D , 
 LL.D., the first Professor of Sacred Literature in this insti- 
 tution, who honored that Chair and this Seminary by his long 
 and distinguished service from 1837 to 1863. 
 
 " The President of the Board suggested that it would be 
 in accord with his own wishes and with those of his friend, 
 the late President Roswell D. Hitchcock, D.D., LL.D , if the 
 Board should transfer the Rev. Professor Charles A. Briggs, 
 
130 APPENDIX. 
 
 D.D., to the new Chair just estabHshed. By a unanimous 
 vote the Board at once adopted the suggestion of their Pres- 
 ident, and transfeiTed Professor Briggs from the ' Davenport 
 Chair of Hebrew and the Cognate Languages ' to the ' Edward 
 Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology.' Dr. Briggs, haying sig- 
 nified his acceptance of this transfer, his inauguration will 
 now take place." 
 
 President Butler addressed Professor Briggs as follows : 
 
 " On behalf of the Board of Du-ectors, and in accordance 
 with the Constitution of the ' Union Theological Seminary in 
 the City of New York,' I call upon you to ' make and subscribe ' 
 the ' declaration ' required of each member of the Faculty of 
 this institution." 
 
 Thereupon Professor Briggs made the 'declaration' as 
 follows : 
 
 " / believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be 
 the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice ; 
 and I do now, in the presence of God and the Directors of this 
 Seminary, solemnly and sincerely receive and adopt the Westmin- 
 ster Confession of Faith, as containing the system of doctrine 
 taught in the Holy Scriptures. I do also, in like manner, ap- 
 prove of the Presbyterian Form of Government ; and I do sol- 
 emnly promise that I will not teach or inculcate anything which 
 shall appear to me to be subversive of the said system of doctrines, 
 or of the principles of said Form of Government, so long as I 
 shall continue to be a Professor in the Seminary." 
 
 Thereupon President Butler said : 
 
 " In the name of the Board of Directors, I declare that 
 Professor Charles A. Briggs, D.D., is inaugurated as the 
 Incumbent of the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical The- 
 ology. 
 
 " On behalf of the Board of Directors, the Charge to Pro- 
 fessor Briggs will now be delivered by the member of the 
 Board didy appointed for this service, — the Kev. David R. 
 Frazer, D.D., the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of 
 Newark, N. J." 
 
APPENDIX. 181 
 
 THE CHABGE. 
 
 My deae Brothee BRiaas : 
 
 Before attempting to discharge the duty which, by your 
 kind consideration, has been devolved upon me, pennit me 
 to tender my heartfelt congratulations : First, upon the estab- 
 Hshment of the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical Theol- 
 ogy ; a consummation so devoutly wished for ahke by your- 
 self and by our revered Hitchcock. We all share in your 
 joy, and recognize the new departure as a long and a right 
 step in advance in the history of our Institution. 
 
 In the orderings of God's providence every age has its 
 own peculiar problem to solve, the solution being wrought 
 out from the standpoint of its own pressing needs. It is a 
 marked characteristic of our day that the Bible is now studied 
 as never before in the world's history, and the establishment 
 of this new department is in the line of this development, and 
 is answerable to this modern demand. For, if I understand 
 aright the function of Biblical Theology, it does not conduct 
 a simple, grammatical exercise ; it does not discuss the vari- 
 ous textual readings ; it does not study the opinions of the 
 Fathers or the deliverances of the Church ; it does not for- 
 mulate a body of systematic divinity grouped about some 
 chosen central principle. These are important and legiti- 
 mate topics of study, hence are properly cared for in our 
 curriculum. They will doubtless be very helpful as external 
 aids in the prosecution of the work of this Chair, but the 
 peculiar province of Biblical Theology is to study the Word ; 
 to determine what God intends to say in His Word, and then 
 to formulate these hallowed teachings. 
 
 Such being its province, I need not pause to show that 
 Biblical Theology is the noimal response to that modern 
 critical spirit which refuses to accept anything upon the 
 basis of authority, and insists upon tracing everything back 
 to its genetic principle and its efficient cause. Neither need 
 I tany to discriminate sharply and acctu-ately between the 
 
132 APPENDIX. 
 
 functions of Biblical and Systematic Theology. If you, my 
 dear brother, have any especial interest in or desire for in- 
 formation on this general subject, I would respectfully refer 
 you to a work on " Biblical Study," which is published by 
 the Scribners, and was written by one who has served long 
 and weU in, and has just been transferred from, " the Dav- 
 enport Professorship of Hebrew and the Cognate Languages " 
 in this Institution ; and, if you are not acquainted with the 
 work, I can assure you that the time spent in its perusal will 
 not be wasted, for you will find therein an admirable and 
 exhaustive discussion of the subject. 
 
 But I want to congratulate you, secondly, upon the fact 
 that you are to be the incumbent of the new Chair, a position 
 for which you are pre-eminently q-aalified by reason of the 
 peculiar character of yoiu' past studies. I am very well 
 aware that you would much prefer to have me discuss the 
 general topic of BibHcal Theology, and to dweU upon the 
 claims it has to a place in o;u' curriculum, rather than to 
 hint the name of, or make any reference to the Professor who 
 is to occupy the new Chair. But if anything of a personal 
 character should be said, please remember, my brother, you 
 have no one to blame save yourself, since, passing by abler 
 men, you have kindly insisted that your old friend and class- 
 mate should deliver the Charge, as you enter upon the awful 
 responsibilities of your new position. And as the class spirit 
 asserts itself, I will say, despite yovir unspoken protest, that 
 the class of '64 is proud of its representative ; that it rejoices 
 in your well-deserved success, and that it appropriates to it- 
 self a peculiar glory by virtue of the events of this hour. 
 Little did we dream, when we sat at the feet of that honored 
 man whose name gives dignity to your new Chau% as also at 
 the feet of those other scholarly and godly men, Henry B. 
 Smith, Thomas H. Skinner, Roswell D. Hitchcock, and Henry 
 H. Hadley, men whose presence was a benediction, whose 
 instruction was an inspiration, whose memories are revered 
 and hallowed, that there was among us, going in and out 
 
APPENDIX. 133 
 
 just as we went in and out, one wlio was destined to sit in 
 Gamaliel's seat and to honor the exalted position by his 
 scholarly attainments. Yet such was the fact, and although 
 you wish I would not say it, still, as your classmate and on 
 behalf of the class thus signally honored, I tender you our 
 warmest and heartiest congratulations. 
 
 And I propose saying stiU further, since I betray no confi- 
 dence by the declaration, that it would have greatly rejoiced 
 your heart and would have wonderfully inspirited you for 
 your work could you have heard the cordial, tender, and ap- 
 preciative words with which our venerable and venerated 
 President of the Board of Directors (who is also the kind 
 and generous patron through whose munificence the new 
 Chair has been endowed, " Serus in coelum redeas "), placed 
 yoiu" name, the only name placed in nomination for the 
 position. 
 
 And I am sure you would have been more than pleased 
 could you have witnessed the unanimity with which the 
 Directors ratified the nomination and transferred you from 
 the Davenport Chair of Hebrew to the Edward Robinson 
 Chair of Biblical Theology. I congratulate you that the 
 honored and revered Founder of the department wanted you 
 in the department which he founded, and also upon the fact 
 that you enter upon your new work in the enjoyment of the 
 fullest confidence, respect, and love of the Directors of this 
 Seminary. 
 
 But I may not forget that this is your hour. Inasmuch 
 as I cannot hope to impart any instruction respecting the 
 peculiar and practical duties of your new position, I would 
 be content to let these congratulatory words take the place 
 of the more formal charge. In order, however, to meet the 
 requirements of my appointment, and to stir up your pure 
 mind by way of remembrance, I charge you : 
 
 First. To have clear, well-settled, and accurately defined 
 views of the nature, the scope, and the design of the Holy 
 Scriptures. 
 
134 APPENDIX. 
 
 The Bible is to be your text-book, and the Bible claims to 
 be the book of God. If this high claim cannot be main- 
 tained ; if the Bible be not the book of God, as verily as 
 Jesus Christ is the Son of God, then is it unworthy of our 
 confidence. That Word which was in the beginning with 
 God and was God, and which in the fulness of time began 
 to be flesh, was, as the Incarnate Word, the God-man, very 
 God and very Man. We do not understand this " great mys- 
 tery of godhness, God manifest in the flesh." We do not 
 attempt to explain it, but we accept it, we believe it, we rest 
 our hopes of life, here and hereafter, upon it. And upon 
 this same basis we can accept the Word written. It also is 
 an incarnation. Great is the mystery of Kevelation, God 
 manifesting His thought in the forms of human speech. 
 Since holy men of old spake as they were moved by the 
 Holy Ghost, the Divine and human elements ai'e co-ordinated 
 in the Word wi'itten as well as in the Word Incarnated. We 
 must recognize the Divine and human factors in the Scrip- 
 tures, and assign a legitimate place to each and to both, but I 
 need not charge you, my dear brother, to bear in ceaseless 
 remembrance the fact, that just in the proportion that the 
 Divine element is eUminated or is abnormally subordinated 
 to the human, is the authority of the Bible circumscribed 
 and the power of the Bible abridged. You will never forget 
 that you have God's Word for your text-book, and you will 
 never fail to teach it as the very Word of God. 
 
 The scope of Bibhcal instruction is clearty set forth on the 
 sacred page. Great mischief is often wrought by the notion 
 that the Bible aims to cover the whole sphere of human 
 knowledge, and that its authority is lessened by the conces- 
 sion that there are some things which can be comprehended 
 without its aid. We surely do not need the Bible to teach 
 us that two and two make four, or that the whole is greater 
 than any of its parts. The Holy Word has a distinct mission 
 and a definite aim. It does not come to us as a teacher of 
 physics or of metaphysics, but as a revelation : as a revela- 
 
ArPENDIX. 135 
 
 tion of God : as a revelation of God to man : as a revelation 
 of God to man concerning the highest and the dearest moral 
 interests of man, alike for time and for eternity. It comes 
 to man, not primarily to reason, but to reveal, and to reveal 
 those high themes, which, by necessity of being, transcend 
 the ordinary processes of human thought. "While pervaded 
 with an air of simplicity and honesty and truthfulness, it 
 comes not primarily to persuade, but to command, and to 
 command, not in view of the deductions of human reason, or 
 in the light of conclusions reached by the processes of a 
 speculative philosophy, but upon that simple, yet sublime, 
 basis, " Thus saith the Lord God." 
 
 The design of Revelation is summed up essentially in the 
 Johannean statement, " these things are xoritten that ye might 
 believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that be- 
 lieving ye might have life through His name." As all roads 
 led to Rome, so all Scriisture leads to Christ. The poetry, 
 the prophecy, the precepts, the biography, the history of the 
 Bible, find their true centrality in Him who was at once dust 
 and Divinity, the Workman of Nazareth, the Prophet of 
 Galilee, ' The Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of 
 the world.' The final end and ultimate design of the Holy 
 Scriptures are " to make wise unto salvation, through faith 
 which is in Christ Jesus " ; hence it is your business, my dear 
 brother, from the Word written to educe the Word Licarnate, 
 and I beg you to so present Jesus Christ to all who come 
 to you for instruction, that they may go from your class-room 
 to their great life-work, not only impressed with an abiding 
 sense of the matchless beauty and the mighty power of that 
 Divine Saviour concerning whom the Scriptures so abun- 
 dantly testify, but also, and as the normal outcome of your 
 teachings, with a fixed determination "to know nothing 
 among men save Jesus Christ and Him crucified." 
 
 But Paul forewarns "of things hard to be understood," of 
 problems which must perplex the most acute mind and defy 
 the gi-asp of the most profound intellect. Furthermore, in 
 
136 APPENDIX. 
 
 the interpretation of the Word, conflicting views respecting 
 the exact significance of the revelation will arise. Who shall 
 decide when learned doctors disagree ? To whom shall the 
 ultimate appeal be taken ? Manifestly to the Spirit of the 
 Living God by whom the declaration was prompted, and to 
 whom the meaning is clear ; hence, I charge you, 
 
 Secondly, Seek the aid of the Holy Ghost in your arduous 
 and responsible work. 
 
 I attempt no solution of the mooted question as to whether 
 our Lord's promise that the Holy Ghost should lead believers 
 in " the way of all truth," was restricted to the ApostoUc 
 College, and was literally fulfilled in the wiitten revelation, 
 or whether it pertains to behevers in all time. 
 
 But the Scriptures most clearly require that all behevers 
 should " live in the Spirit," " walk in the Spirit," " be filled 
 with the Spirit." Christian consciousness bears witness that 
 the abiding j)resence of the Spirit begets deep and vital 
 spirituality, and Christian experience abundantly confirms 
 the assertion that vital spirituality ensures a large insight of 
 that truth which must be spiritually discerned. A willing- 
 ness to do God's will must precede the knowledge of the 
 doctrine, and this willingness of mind and heart must be be- 
 gotten by the Holy Ghost. Put peculiar honor upon the 
 Divine Spirit and He will put peculiar honor upon you and 
 your work. He will open your eyes to behold the wondi'ous 
 things in God's law ; He will give you the witness of His 
 presence in your own soul, and will enable you, in all meek- 
 ness and humility, yet with the highest Christian positiveness, 
 to say : I know whom and what and why I have believed, 
 and am persuaded that my confidence rests not upon the 
 wisdom of man, but upon the wisdom of God. 
 
 And as you thus teach the Word of God under the guid- 
 ance of the Spirit of God ; as day by day you present the 
 truth as it is in Jesus to those who are to preach a cruci- 
 fied Redeemer to dying men, may the Lord bless you and 
 keep you ; may He equip you for duty, help you in the dis- 
 
APPENDIX. 137 
 
 charge of it, and when your great work is finished may His 
 " Well done " be pronounced upon His " good and faithful 
 servant." 
 
 m. 
 
 RESOLUTIONS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SUSTAINING DR. BRIQGS, 
 AS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY MAY 19, 1891. 
 
 Besolv3d, That this Board has listened with satisfaction to 
 the categorical replies rendered by Dr. Briggs to the questions 
 submitted to him, and that it trusts that the manner in which 
 he has therein dealt with the points that are in dispute will 
 operate to correct the misapprehensions that are so widely 
 current, and to quiet the disturbed condition of mind in 
 which, as a communion, we are so unhappily iDVolved. 
 
 Resolved, The Directors of the Union Theological Seminary 
 desire to express to Professor Briggs their high appreciation 
 of his Christian courtesy in the consultations which he has 
 had with the Committee of Inquiry in reference to the trying 
 questions now under consideration. 
 
 They will stand by him heartily on the ground of this re- 
 port, and affectionately commend him to the leading of a 
 common Master, having perfect confidence in his honesty of 
 purpose. 
 
 E. M. KiNGSLEY, John Crosby Brown, 
 
 Recorder. Vice-President. 
 
 New York, May 19, 1891. 
 
 IV. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THE FACULTY OF UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 
 
 In view of the general comment and discussion called^ 
 forth by the recent Inaugural Address of Professor Charles ^ 
 A. Briggs, D.D., the undersigned, members of the Faculty 
 of Union Theological Seminary, deem it their duty to' make 
 the following statement : 
 
 With the conviction that Christian coui'tesy, modesty, and 
 mutual respect for difference of opinion should characterize 
 
138 APPENDIX. 
 
 theological controversy, we distinctly recognize and depre- 
 cate the dogmatic and irritating character of certain of Dr. 
 Briggs' utterances in his Inaugural and in others of his 
 writings : while, on the other hand, we do not recognize, 
 even in these, any warrant for persistent misrepresentations 
 of his views, and for the style and temper in which he has in 
 many cases been assailed. 
 
 I. — The views propounded by Dr. Briggs in his Inaugural are 
 
 not new. 
 
 They have aU been stated by him in one or another of his 
 published works, in articles in the Presbyterian Review, dur- 
 ing his ten years' editorship, and in more recent contribu- 
 tions to other periodicals. Moreover, for the past ten years, 
 Dr. Briggs has been teaching Biblical Theology in the 
 Seminary, and has been expounding to successive classes of 
 students the statements for which he is now arraigned. The 
 j^resent excitement is, as we believe, due, largely, to the tone 
 of the Inaugural Address, to certain unguarded expressions, 
 and to an impression that the transfer of the author to the 
 Chair of Biblical Theology would be subject to the veto of 
 the General Assembly. 
 
 n. — The address contains, in our judgment, nothing which can 
 be fairly construed into heresy or departure from the West- 
 minster Confession, to which Dr. Briggs honestly subscribed 
 at his recent inauguration. 
 
 (a). His words concerning "Bibliolatry " are not aimed at 
 humble and devout reverence for the Word of God, but at 
 the error, rebuked by the Apostle Paul, of revering "the 
 letter " above " the spirit." 
 
 (6). Dr. Briggs declares that, conjointly with the Bible, 
 the Church and the Reason are sources of authority in re- 
 ligion. He uses the term " reason " as embracing the con- 
 science and the religious feeling. We object to the term 
 " sources," since there is but one source of divine authority 
 — God himself. We prefer to say that the Bible, the Church, 
 
APPENDIX. 139 
 
 and the Eeason are media and vehicles through which we 
 recognize and receive the divine authority. This is the 
 generally-accepted Protestant position. Every Church in 
 Christendom admits that the Church is a medium of divine 
 authority. 
 
 The Confession of Faith declares that " unto the cathohc, 
 visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and 
 ordinances of God." 
 
 That the reason, in the broad sense in which it is explained 
 by Dr. Briggs, is also an organ to and through which the 
 divine authority is conveyed, is assumed in Scripture and in 
 the Confession, and is the necessary postulate of a divine 
 revelation to man. It is the only point in the natural man 
 to which the qualities of God's character, the ojDerations of 
 His power, and the right-reasonableness of His claims can 
 appeal : and it is distinctly declared and assumed by St. 
 Paul to be the recipient of such appeals ; to be the subject 
 of the divine Sjoirit's illumination ; and to become thus the 
 proper instrument for discerning, compai'ing, and judging 
 spiritual truth. If the reason has no such function in re- 
 ligion, it is superfluous to assert that " Scripture is profitable 
 for teaching, for discipline, and for upbuilding in righteous- 
 ness." Spiritual righteousness implies an intelligent and 
 rational perception and reception of the law and truth of 
 God. The living sacrifice which is " holy and acceptable 
 unto God " is a " rational service." 
 
 But Dr. Briggs does not, with the Romanist, exalt the 
 Church above the Bible and the Reason. He does not, with 
 the RationaHst, place the Reason above the Bible and the 
 Church. Neither does he, as has been often charged, co- 
 ordinate the three sources. His position is the Protestant 
 and the Presbyterian position, assumed in his subscription to 
 the declaration of the Confession, that the Scriptures are 
 " the only infalhble rule of faith and practice," and asserted 
 in his address in the words : " Protestant Christianity builds 
 its faith and Hfe on the divine authority contained in the 
 
140 APPENDIX. 
 
 Scriptures." That Protestant Christianity too often depre- 
 ciates the Church and the Reason is an entirely distinct 
 statement, involving a question of fact ; and the statement 
 and its discussion in no way affect Dr. Briggs' endorse- 
 ment of the Protestant doctrine of the supreme authority of 
 Scripture. 
 
 To assert, as has been so often done, that Dr. Briggs is 
 aiming to undermine the divine authority of Scriptiu-e, is 
 preeminently unfair. Not only this Inaugural, but all his 
 published writings, teem with the most positive and uncom- 
 promising expressions of love and reverence for the Bible. 
 
 (c). The consutency af Dr. Briggs' position as to the supreme 
 authority and divine quality of Holy Scripture, is in no ivay 
 affected by his vuws of the nature of Inspiration. 
 
 While asserting the plenary inspiration of Scripture, he 
 denies that inspiration involves absolute inerrancy — literal, 
 verbal accuracy, and perfect correspondence of minor details. 
 
 In this view there is nothing original or new. It is the 
 view of Calvin, and of an overwhelming majority of Prot- 
 estant divines in Europe and America. It was propounded 
 at least eight years ago by Dr. Briggs in his "Biblical 
 Study." 
 
 Inspiration, in- the sense of literal inerrancy, is nowhere 
 claimed for Scripture by Scripture itself. 
 
 It is contradicted by the contents of Scripture in the form 
 in which we have it. It involves, logically, a minute, specific 
 divine superintendence of each detail of the entire process 
 of transmission — copying, translating, printing — and the pre- 
 vention of all errors. It confronts those who maintain it not 
 only with discrepancies of statement in the present text, but 
 with the innumerable textual variations in the Hebrew and 
 Greek Bibles, and the variations between the Hebrew and 
 the Septuagint. To meet these facts with the assertion of 
 the inerrancy of the original autographs, is to beg the whole 
 question in dispute, to lay down a purely arbitrary, a priori 
 hypothesis, and to introduce into the discussion an entirely 
 
APPENDIX. 141 
 
 irrelevant factor, seeing that the errors and discrepancies re- 
 main and tiie original autographs cannot be recovered. 
 
 To make the inspiration of Scriptiu'e turn upon verbal in- 
 errancy is to commit the Church to an utterly untenable 
 position, and to place her apologists at the mercy of cavillers 
 who are only too glad to evade broader and deeper issues 
 and to shift the discussion to the region of mere verbal de- 
 tails, where they are sure to have the best of the argument. 
 
 Dr. Briggs holds and teaches the doctrine of the divine in- 
 spiration, infaUibility, and authority of the Holy Scriptures in 
 all matters of Christian faith and duty, Avhich is all that any 
 evangelical divine is bound to maintain on that subject. 
 The Westminster and other Confessions of Faith clearly and 
 strongly assert the fact of divine inspii'ation, but wisely ab- 
 stain from defining the mode and degrees of divine inspii'ation. 
 The former is a matter of faith, the latter of human theory, 
 on which there must be liberty if there is to be any progress. 
 To impose upon a Christian teacher any particular theory of 
 inspiration not sanctioned by the Bible itself, is tyranny. 
 
 ((Z). Dr. Briggs is fui'ther charged with a deiDartui'e from 
 the Westminster Eschatology in teaching progressive sanctifi- 
 cation after death. 
 
 While we are not to be understood as accepting or endors- 
 ing Dr. Briggs' conclusions on this point, it is sufficient to 
 say that he is here in an open field, where, having expressly 
 repudiated the doctrines of future probation, universal 
 restoration, and the Romanist purgatory, he is certainly en- 
 titled to the largest liberty in the attempt to elucidate a 
 subject so little understood, and on which the standards are 
 open to differences of interpretation. The phrase " progress- 
 ive sanctification after death " admits of a sound and ortho- 
 dox interpretation ; but Protestant Eschatology, as defined 
 in the Confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries, is gener- 
 ally admitted to be defective and in need of ftu'ther develop- 
 ment within the limits of that caution and reserve imposed 
 by the comparative silence of Scriptm-e on that mysterious 
 
142 APPENDIX. 
 
 period between death and resurrection. In the words of the 
 late Henry B. Smith, written not long before his death : 
 " What Reformed Theology has got to do is to Christologize 
 predestination and decrees, regeneration and sanctification, 
 the doctrine of the Church and the ivhole of Eschatology." 
 
 m. After years of familiar acquaintance with Dr. Briggs 
 and his teaching, we are moved to utter our emphatic pro- 
 test against the spirit and language with which, in so many 
 cases, he has been assailed. If, in any of his writings, Dr. 
 Briggs, as is charged, has wantonly offended the honest con- 
 victions of good men, or has in any other way sinned against 
 the ethical code of Christian scholarship laid down in the 
 New Testament, it is not our business to defend him therein. 
 He must answer for it to his own conscience and to God. 
 But in the public discussion of matters of opinion, it is nei- 
 ther right nor decent that an earnest, learned, devoted scholar 
 and faithful teacher, even though mistaken, shoixld be at- 
 tacked with virulence, contemptuous flippancy, and imputa- 
 tions of unwoithy motive. In too many instances it seems 
 to have been assumed that all the sacredness of personal con- 
 viction is upon one side ; that a higher critic can have no 
 convictions or rights which the lower critic or the uncritical 
 censor is bound to respect ; and that the fact of his differing 
 with them justifies his opponents in laying aside in discus- 
 sion the character of Chi'istian gentlemen. 
 
 We know Dr. Briggs to be an earnest Christian, a devout 
 student of the Bible, an indefatigable teacher and worker, 
 and one who holds the standards of the Church with an in- 
 telligence based on an exhaustive study of their history and 
 literature. The numerous testimonies of his students during 
 seventeen years prove that he inspires them with a deep 
 reverence and enthusiasm for the Bible. 
 
 In like manner we protest against the matter and temper 
 of the assaults on Union Seminary. B}^ its history of over 
 half a century, by the character, standing, and services of its 
 graduates, and by the amount and value of its contributions 
 
APPENDIX. 143 
 
 to Christian Literature, this Institution should be insured 
 against such assaults. Its value to the Presbyterian Church 
 needs no demonstration. From the days of Edward Robin- 
 son, the pioneer of Palestine exploration and the founder of 
 American Biblical Lexicography, Union Seminary has stead- 
 ily pressed forward on the lines of advanced Biblical study. 
 Its Professors, in subscribing to the Westminster standards, 
 have always been understood to do so with the concession of 
 that measure of freedom which is the right of every Chris- 
 tian scholar. They honor the venerable Confessions of past 
 ages, but they place the Bible above the Confessions, and 
 hold themselves bound, by their loyalty to Christ and to His 
 Chiu'ch, to foUow the truth whithersoever it may lead them. 
 We assert and must insist upon the liberty exercised by 
 the Reformers and by the early Church, to discuss the 
 Scriptures freely and reverently and to avail ourselves of all 
 the light which may be thrown upon them from any source. 
 It is in the interest of God's truth to set forth Scripture as 
 it is, and not to expose its friends and teachers to humilia- 
 tion and defeat by claiming for it what cannot be substan- 
 tiated. In the words of Ullmann, " 'Not fixedness nor revolu- 
 tion, but evolution and reform, is the motto for oiu' times." 
 We maintain that human conceptions of the Bible and of 
 its inspii'ed teachings are subject to revision. To grasp the 
 results of deeper research, and to apply them with caution, 
 reverence, and boldness to the examination of Scripture is 
 not only our privilege, it is our solemn dutij in the discharge 
 of the sacred trust committed to us by Christ and His 
 Church. More light is yet to break from God's Word. We 
 would be found ever upon the watch-towers to catch and to 
 transmit its rays. No theological school can take any other 
 attitude without neglecting its duty to the present age and 
 losing its hold upon the rising generation of Biblical students. 
 That such a method may dissipate or modify certain tradi- 
 tional views as to the origin or date of the Books of Scrip- 
 ture ; that it may expose and correct certain long-established 
 
144 APPENDIX. 
 
 errors of interpretation ; that it may modify certain theo- 
 logical dogmas, is only what is to be expected from similar 
 results in the past. But we have no fear for the Bible. 
 The Word of God will come forth from the fire of reverent 
 criticism as fine gold, with a new accretion of testimony to 
 its divine origin, and a new power of appeal to the world, 
 
 (Signed), 
 
 Thomas S. Hastings (President), 
 Philip Schatf, 
 Geokge L. Prentiss, 
 IVIarvin R. Vincent. 
 
 (Professor Francis Brown is at Oxford, superintending the publica- 
 tion of his Hebrew Lexicon.) 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries 
 
 "'"llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 
 
 1 1012 01252 0666 
 
"> f.l 
 
 ;