207 
 Im7' 
 
 :Jl?>g^y'' 
 
 {] II \i K S P N I) E N C E 
 
 CONCERNING THE 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN 
 
 TIIKOLOGIOIL SE^[[XVRY 
 
 Of the North- West, 
 
 IJKTWEEN 
 
 Professor of Theology, 
 
 M!i. JESSP: L. WILLIAMS, 
 
 Director, 
 
 VW » r ).\LMlL'rEHS iK l)Ilil!.L: UJi; V, 
 
 And Others; 
 
 l''oiinili'r :iii<l I'ni-i r.'. 
 
 REV. ^^ L. Ill OK, I). I).. 
 1' )!• II 'r IVofessor of Thcolo_' in i
 
 " IMPORTANT CORRESPONDENCE," 
 
 CONCERNING THE 
 
 PRESBYTERIAIsr 
 
 THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 
 Of the North-West, 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 REV. WILLIS LORD, D. D., 
 
 Professor of Theology, 
 
 JESSE L. WILLIAMS, Esq., 
 
 Director, 
 
 TWO COMiVIITTEES OF THE DIRECTORY, 
 AND OTHERS, 
 
 Mr. CYRUS H. McCORMICK, 
 
 Founder and Trustee, 
 
 REV. N. L. RICE, D. D., 
 
 Former Professor of Theology, and oihers. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 A. C. ROGERS, Steam, Book and Job Printer, 142 Fulton St. 
 
 1869. 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVrr.^ITY OF ILL|w<^'
 
 
 "IMPORTANT CORRESPONDENCE," 
 
 COXCEEKING THE 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN 
 
 THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 
 Of the North- West. 
 
 J^^otn the North- Western Presbyterian, November 28, 1868. 
 
 Messrs. Editors: — Inclosed, I send you a copy of a letter 
 
 from a Committee of the Board of Directors of the Theo- 
 
 ,^( logical Seminary of tlie North- West, notifying me of the 
 
 '■ election of Rev. Mr. Blackburn, to a Professorship in the 
 
 Seminary, with an intimation that the fourth instalment of 
 
 ^ my endowment fund woidd be acceptable, — and my reply to 
 
 the Committee. 
 
 :i I ask the favor of the publication of these letters in tlie 
 
 ^_North Western Presbyterian. I liad hoped that it might 
 
 ~ not become necessary for me to appear before the public 
 
 in connection with this matter. I preferred to remain quiet, 
 
 thus letting the experiment undertaken be made by those 
 
 r?who had by superior numbers and proffered means, wrested 
 
 jfrom its original friends the direction and management of 
 
 ^the Seminary. 
 
 -c At different times heretofore criticisms on my course, and 
 Iraisrepresentations of my position, have come to my know- 
 pledge, while I have remained silent, and still when called 
 •Sion by my friends have responded, as now shown. Having 
 ^*reached the point where, in my judgment, further silence 
 would be improper, and a vindication of myself becomes a 
 ^uty, I offer this correspondence to the public, that the 
 ^^acts in the case may be understood. 
 Truly yours, 
 
 CYRUS II. Mccormick. 
 
 Chicago, Nov. 11 th, 1868. 
 
 932202
 
 Chicago, Illinois, 
 
 October IG, 18G8. 
 
 Cyrus II. McCormicJc, JEsq.^ New York City: 
 
 Dear Sir: — The undersigned, a committee appointed by 
 the Board of Directors of the Theological Seminary of the 
 North- West, for that purpose, have the pleasure to inform 
 you that the General Assembly at its sessions in Albany in 
 May last, appointed the Rev. William M. Blackbui-n to the 
 Professorshii) of Biblical and Ecclesiastical History in the 
 Seminary. He was inaugurated and entered upon its du- 
 ties at the beginning of this term. He promises to be an 
 able and efficient Professor. All the four Professorships 
 in the Seminary are now filled. 
 
 This information is due, in view of the arrangement 
 heretofore made, in regard to the last instalment of your 
 noble and beneficent gift to endow the Seminary. 
 
 The Institution is now in a prosperous cdhdition, and its 
 fields of usefulness rapidly enlarging. 
 
 Uniting our prayers with yours, that the blessing of God 
 may rest upon it, we have the honor to remain, 
 
 Yours, very fraternally, 
 
 R. G. THOMPSON, Kintyro; 111. 
 C. A. SPRING. 
 
 Chicago, JVov. 17, 1868. 
 
 Hev. li. G. Thompson and C. A. Spring^ Sr., JEsq.^ Com- 
 mittee : 
 
 Gentlemen: — Your letter of October 16, 1868, was duly 
 received. Circumstances have prevented me from answer- 
 ing it sooner ; and, although very busily occupied since my 
 arrival here from New York, on business, and as I have 
 been approached on the same subject by the present col- 
 lecting agent of the Seminary (Mr. Traux,) I will not 
 longer delay an answer. 
 
 \
 
 In view of statements which, as I have been informed, 
 have been made to your Board of Directors, I had not sup- 
 posed that such a notice to me would be considered neces- 
 sary. 
 
 Learning, previous to the meeting of the General Assem- 
 bly at St. Louis, in 1866, that, in a meeting of the Board of 
 Directors of the Theological Seminary of the North-W est, 
 a proposition had been made to transfer Dr. Lord from the 
 chair of History in this Seminary to the chair of Theology, 
 I decided to attend the meeting of the Assembly for the 
 purpose of satisfying myself of the course to be taken by 
 that body, and if possible, of preventing the proposed 
 transfer, by making the Assembly acquainted with the 
 state of things existing at Chicago, as between Dr. Lord 
 and myself and friends, bearing upon that question. I ac- 
 cordingly, when there, sought an interview with Mr. Jesse 
 L. Williams, whom I knew personally, and who I was 
 informed was the most active and leading member of the 
 Assembly in connection with the action sought in relation 
 to the affairs of the Seminary at Chicago. A large mi- 
 nority of the Board of Directors had protested against the 
 transfer of Dr. Lord, at the previous meeting of the 
 Board, on the ground that such transfer would be far from 
 satisfactory to the friends of the Seminary who bad con- 
 tributed to its endowment, and sustained and carried for- 
 ward the Institution successfully to that time, as well as to 
 myself, no friendly intercourse liaving existed been Dr. 
 XiOrd and me for some years. I informed Mr. Williams of 
 this fact, explaining to him somewhat the character of the 
 differences which had existed between Dr. Lord and myself 
 and friends, who had co-operated with me in the establish- 
 ment of the Seminary, adding that I hoped the General As- 
 sembly Avould not place Dr. Lord in that chair ; that I felt 
 that the interests of the Institution would not be thereby 
 promoted ; and, as that chair bore my name, and was the 
 only recognition of the sort of my connection with the 
 Seminary, I trusted that circumstance, as well as others, 
 would be entitled to consideration in placing a professor in 
 that chair.
 
 I may here state tliat, among other things, on one occa- 
 sion, in tlic meeting of the IJoard of Directors, Dr. Lord 
 denounced the manner in Avhich my donation had been 
 made to the Assembly, saying that if the Assembly had 
 understood its terms, it woidd not liave been accepted. 
 This denunciation referred to the application of $25,000 to 
 each professorship, a point which could not possibly have 
 been misunderstood by the Assembly, and to which no ob- 
 jection was taken. It had some bearing upon his interest 
 <at the time in the distribution of the proceeds of the en- 
 dowment fund. 
 
 On another occasion when Dr. Lord was a candidate for 
 the pastorate of the Xorth Church, at a meeting of the con- 
 gregation lor the consideration of that question, he made a 
 gross attack upon me without cause, in my absence, as I 
 was informed, when lie stated that if he were to expose all 
 that he knew in reference to some parties in that church, it 
 would tear that church to pieces. This threat was heard by 
 ix large majority of the audience then present with aston- 
 ishment and disapprobation, and his course led ultimately 
 to the division of the Xorth Church, and to a number of 
 his friends going oft' and organizing themselves into a rival 
 congi'cgation. 
 
 I am induced to state these matters, in order that the ex- 
 isting relations between Dr. Lord and myself nuiy be the 
 better understood, supposing, as 1 have, that there are fe\>' 
 men who would be willing to occui)y the chair in question 
 as he has done, under such circumstances, 
 
 I further stated to Mr. Williams that Henry Day, Esq., 
 one of Dr. Kice's elders, from his church in New York, felt 
 authorized to nominate him in the Assembly for that chair, 
 to which he had been elected at Indianapolis, when the 
 Seminary was first constituted, and which he had resigned 
 on receiving a call to the Fifth Avenue church in New 
 York, (his health not being equal to his labor of teaching, 
 preaching and editing the J^xpositor,) and that I hoped 
 the Assembly would be disposed to restore him to that 
 chair, as I supposed no more suitable and advantageous se- 
 lection coidd be made for it ; and more especially as Mr.
 
 Day was prepared, in the event of his election, to give a 
 pledge for a largo addition to the endowment fund for that 
 chair, from his congregation. 
 
 Mr. "Williams replied that, in his opinion, the Assembly 
 would not be disposed to elect Di*. Rice to that chair, and 
 that it was not decided to transfer Dr. Lord to it. He said 
 that Dr. McMaster was spoken of in the Assembly for the 
 chair, and asked whether he Avould be more acceptable than 
 Dr. Lord. I replied that I thought Dr. McMaster would be 
 more acceptable, in part for the reasons stated ; but that 
 Dr. McMaster had been nominated in opposition to Dr. 
 Rice at Lidianapolis, when Dr. Rice was elected over him on 
 the ground, I believe, that Dr. Rice better represented the 
 views of those undertaking the support of the Seminary, in 
 that they were opposed to agitating the church by the in- 
 troduction of political questions ; — that I supposed Dr. 
 McMaster to be a consistent, able and honest man, but still 
 differing, as before stated, from the views of those sustain- 
 ing the Seminary, and who had so well, under Providence, 
 brought it to its then prosperous and promising condition. 
 
 In this connection, 1 urged, to some extent, the propriety 
 of the election of Dr. Rice, but Mr. Williams, conceding all 
 that was claimed for what had been done up to that time by 
 " our side," as he said, and remarking that full credit was 
 due to us for all that had hecn done, still insisted that tliey, 
 not having co-operated with us before, considered it due to 
 them that they should have an opportunity to come for- 
 ward and do their part, our part having been so well done. 
 They considered, he said, that there was as much remaining 
 to be done to complete the w^ork of tne Seminary as had 
 already been done by us ; and that, to do so, they felt tliey 
 " should have the Chair of Theology, and a good xcorking 
 majority in the Board of Directors^ 
 
 I then remarked to him that if they persisted in carrying 
 out their plans as proposed, and in thus setting us aside in 
 disregard of our wishes, axvdi preventing us from continuing 
 our work, especially when we had always been desirous 
 that they should co-operate with us in support of the sem- 
 inary, they would of course not expect me to pay over the
 
 remaining fourth instalment of the endowment, then unpaid.. 
 To which he replied that there would be no difficulty upon 
 that point, as they had on their side men of wealth and 
 ample means, by whose contributions they proposed to 
 endow the Chair of Theology for Dr. McMaster, if elected, 
 with the sum of $50,000, and that Dr. McMaster would not 
 accept the chair otherwise than with the understanding that 
 it would be endowed by his friends. Mr. Williams said 
 he would communicate my suggestions to the Committee 
 on Seminaries, but that he had little expectation they would 
 be adopted by the Assembly. And he afterwards informed 
 me that no change could be made, and that Dr. McMaster 
 Avould receive the nomination. 
 
 This is the substance of the conversation between Mr. 
 Williams and myself, and, as near as I can give it, the lan- 
 guage that was used ; and after the election of Dr. McMas- 
 ter, I prepared a statement of the conference between Mr. 
 Williams and myself, together with the action of the Assem- 
 bly on the subject, for publication, but, with the advice of 
 friends, finally concluded to make no publication of the 
 matter. 
 
 Feeling, as stated, that no further call would be made on 
 me for this (fourth) instalment of my endowment ($25,000), 
 I soon after donated to the Union Theological Seminary of 
 Virginia, for the endowment of one of its Professorships, 
 $30,000, not desiring to withdraw for my personal use any 
 portion of what I had donated for the benefit of the church. 
 It appears, however, that certain of the Faculty and 
 Directory of the Seminary have been in ignorance of the 
 foregoing facts, or are disposed to look no higher tlian the 
 law in the case, expressing the opinion that I am " bound 
 to pay this instalment." Inquiries have also been made of 
 the Trustees upon this point. But, in view of what has 
 been said, I now submit whether this proscription of the 
 Directors, as well as of myself and friends, wholly upon polit- 
 ical grounds, does not justly work a forfeiture of the whole- 
 endowment fimd — instead of my being subjected to a calf 
 from you, under the circumstances, for further funds. 
 
 When my endowment was accepted by the General As-
 
 sembly, it is well known that a large majority of the Old 
 School Presbyterian church were opposed, as I have before 
 said, to the agitation in the church of political questions. 
 My own humble views on that subject were known to agree 
 with those opposed to such agitation, as represented by Dr. 
 Rice. The General Assembly — as I believe is universally 
 the case when not inconsistent with duty — in accepting 
 such donation, elected Professors and Directors to carry 
 forward the Institution, agreeing essentially in these views. 
 At that time Dr. Lord was understood to be in perfect 
 accord with them. I have always accorded to others the 
 same liberty of opinion claimed for myself, and hava, had 
 nothing whatever to say in the selection of Directors or 
 agents of the Seminary, at any time, not even knowing the 
 men, and I challenge the production of testimony to show 
 proscription in any case while the Seminary was in the 
 hands of its founders. The General Assembly acted then 
 upon the principle that justice and equity, to say nothing of 
 Christian courtesy, require that due regard should be had to- 
 the wishes and sentiments of members of the church who- 
 have placed in her hands the means of founding and sustain- 
 ing important institutions in her gift. The correctness of this- 
 principal was fully recognized by Dr. McMaster at the time? 
 of his election, his conduct appearing in marked contrast 
 with that of the present incumbent, for, while Dr. Lord ad- 
 vocated before the Seminary committees of the Assemblies 
 of 1866 and 1867 his transfer to the chair of theology. Dr. 
 McMaster had the manliness to refuse it unless endowed by 
 his friends ! 
 
 And as my political opinions were thought of sufficient 
 consequence to be referred to in an address by the Modera- 
 tor (Dr. Stanton) of the Assembly at St. Louis, though not 
 quite accurately, I may add that they have always been 
 the same as when the endowment fund offered by me waa 
 accepted by the General Assembly ; and as they were at 
 that time Democratic, they have at no time since been more 
 than Democratic, while throughout the troubles of parties 
 during the Avar, they were uniformly for the union, as was 
 well known during the political canvas in '64, when I was 
 
 ^
 
 10 
 
 the candidate for the Democratic party for Congress in this 
 district. And as there was no reason for proscription on 
 political grounds when my donation was accejited, there 
 can liave been no good reason for proscription on that 
 ground at any time since. 
 
 After tlie death of Mr. McMaster, and the faihire to raise 
 the sum anticipated for tlie .endowment of tliat chair, Dr. 
 Lord was transferred to it at the meeting of the next Assem- 
 bly, at Cincinnati, leaving the chair of Biblical and Eccles- 
 iastical history unoccupied during the past year. 
 
 Prior to the meeting of the General Assembly at Albany, 
 residing in New York, I was written to by friends in 
 Chicago, iiupiiring whether, in the event of being able at 
 the meeting of that Assembly to elect a Professor to the 
 chair acceptable to the old friends of the Seminary, and to 
 restore the Directors displaced to their former positions 
 upon the Board, and to procure some satisfactory giiai'antees 
 against similar unjust interferences in the future, I would 
 be disposed to return to my original position in connection 
 with the Seminary, and, of course, to pay over the fourth 
 instalment of the endowment fund. To which I replied, if 
 a satisfactory arrangement of that sort could be effected, I 
 would not only willingly, but cheerfully do so ; that Dr. 
 Rice was, as I was informed, in the enjoyment of better 
 Iiealth than for some time previous, and I had no doubt 
 coald be induced to accej)t the professorship of theology if 
 re-elected to it. He was accordingly nominated for tlie 
 vacant chair in the Assembly at Albany, when Dr. Thomas 
 was nominated in opposition to him. And wlien it was 
 thought at a later day by some of his friends that he (Dr. 
 Rice) .would not be elected, they consented to withdraw 
 his nanie and substitute for it that of Dr. Skinner, a man of 
 acknowledged ability and learning. But Rev. jNfr. Black- 
 burn was elected in opposition to him. 
 
 Your letter, in effect, calling upon me for the payment of 
 the fourth instalment of my endowment fund has seemed to 
 me to make it proper to refer, as I have done, to so much of 
 the past history of these transactions. 
 
 The Board of Directors were long since apprized by the
 
 11 
 
 Trustees of the Seminary of what occurred at St. Louis, as 
 above related — of the statement made to me by Mr. Wil- 
 liams, tliat I would be exonerated from the payment of this 
 instalment, and of my unAvillinguess to pay it, accordingly. 
 And I understand that Mr. Williams has^himself confirmed 
 the foregoing statement at one of the meetings of the 
 Directors. It only remains for me to add that, as the mat- 
 iiei's in controversy remain unchanged, I cannot itndei'stand, 
 as intimated above, why this application is made to me. 
 
 I need not say that my interest in the success of so great 
 an enterprise, labored for with so ranch interest and anxiety, 
 remains unabated. And if, as stated to me by Mr. Truax, 
 the Seminary is now embarassed for funds, and with no rea- 
 sonable prospect of obtaining them — some of the few sub- 
 scribers to the McMaster endowment refusing to pay 
 because of the failure to raise the 150,000 proposed — in this 
 condition of things I would reaffirm my willingness to co- 
 operate in the support of the Seminary, and my desire to 
 assist in placing it on a solid financial basis, if the General 
 Assembly will provide for such a corps of Professors as the 
 original one, and the corresponding " working majority " of 
 Directors demanded and taken from us " by the other side," 
 and with proper assurances of noninterference in the future. 
 In this case I should be disposed not only to pay the $25,000, 
 but to add besides $5,000 to the endowment of each Pro- 
 fessorshij) — considered by the I>oard also important. 
 
 Finally, I submit whether — this issue having been made 
 by " the new friends of the Seminary" — first, in their refu- 
 sal to co-operate with its old friends and founders ; and, 
 second, in their turning them out and taking possession 
 themselves — it is not jicst that tliey meet them in a spirit 
 of Christian equality and fairness, and either accept this 
 proposition or refund (without interest) the $75,000 paid l)y 
 me. 
 
 Respectfully yours, <fec., 
 
 CYRUS 11. McCORMICK.
 
 12 
 
 Editorial from the Presbyter^ 
 
 Cincinnati, December 2, 1868, 
 
 MR. M'CORmCK'S LETTER. 
 
 The letter of Mr. Cyrus M'Cormick, on our first page, will 
 attract earnest attention. Several years ago the Board of 
 Directors agreed that as there were but three professors- 
 in the institution, Mr. M'Cormick might be released from 
 paying interest on the $25,000 of his endowment until a fourth 
 professor was elected. October 16, 1868, the Committee of the 
 Directors, appointed for the purpose, notified Mr. M'Cormick 
 of the election of Mr. Blackburn to the vacant chair, in order 
 that Mr. M'Cormick might pay his last 125,000, or the inter- 
 est on it, for the support of the new incumbent. The letter 
 we publish to-day is Mr. M'Cormick's reply. He claims 
 that he had an understanding with Jesse L. Williams, when 
 Dr. McMaster was elected at St.. Louis in 1866, that no more 
 was to be expected of him. We heard Mr. AVilliams' state- 
 ment before the Board in regard to his conversation with 
 Mr. M'Cormick at St. Louis, and if we understood Mr. W., 
 then Mr. M'C. misunderstood him. Mr. M'Cormick claims 
 that there was an understanding that his and Dr. Rice's 
 views were opposed to political action in the church whea 
 his donation was accepted ; that he has not changed ; that- 
 Dr. Lord was understood to be "in perfect accord with 
 them," and regard should be paid to the wishes of donors in 
 placing persons on foundations made by them. He is willing 
 to pay the unpaid part of his pledge and add twenty thou- 
 sand dollai-s, if he can have such men as were elected at 
 Indianapolis in 1858, Dr. Lord excepted. Mr M'Cormick'» 
 letter will produce a sensation. We have nothing to say.
 
 13 
 
 From North Westerji Presbyterian, 
 
 December, 19, 1868. 
 
 Messrs. Editors: The letter of Cyrus H. McConnick, Esq., 
 •published in your issue of the 28th Nov., calls for correction 
 in some particulars. 
 
 Let me say, first, that Mr. M. giees me far more credit 
 than is due for influence in the affairs of the seminary, and 
 attaches quite too much importance to our brief interview 
 during the session of the General Assembly of 1866. Soon 
 after being informed by one of his friends that he desired 
 to see me, I met him in the public hall of the Southern Hotel, 
 where both of us lodged, not in any sense as a negotiator, 
 •or representative of the Directors, nor of any special policy, 
 but in the spirit, I trust, of that Christian courtesy due to a 
 •gentleman who had contributed so liberally to the endow- 
 ment of the seminary. That any remarks made by either 
 of us at that interview should have been afterwards written 
 down, and considered of so grave import as to enter into 
 the question of payment or non-payment of an obligation 
 entered into for the endowment, surprises me. It must be 
 manifest that I was clothed with no authority to speak for 
 the Assembly, the Directors, or Trustees, and I certainly 
 •assumed none. 
 
 My recollection differs from his in several particulars : 
 
 1 St. Mh McCormick, as he states, remarked, in view of au 
 apprehended result of the Assembly's deliberations, that 
 *'they would not, of course, expect me to pay any more." 
 To this remark I am very confident I made no response 
 whatever. What reply could I have made? Assent to 
 his conclusion, by a Director in an institution yet greatly 
 needing his contribution for the support of the professors, 
 would have been indiscreet, to use the mildest term. Dissent, 
 leading certainly to an argument, might have been consid 
 ■ered under the circumstances, uncivil, as it certainly would
 
 14 
 
 have been unavailing at that particular juncture. In relating 
 this remark of Mr. M. to the friends of the seminary, tlie next 
 day, I distinctly stated the fact that I made no response. 
 
 2nd In another part of his letter lie speaks of "the state- 
 ment made to me by Mr. Williams that I would be exone- 
 rated from the payment of this installment." Here his recol- 
 lection is certainly at fault. No such statement was made 
 by me. He must have confounded my convei*sation with 
 that of some other j^erson whose views on the seminary 
 (question corresponded with his own. Having myself no 
 authority to release any party from any moneyed obligation 
 to the seminary, and desiring rather to increase than dimin- 
 ish its fiiiuls, it is not supposnble that I would inform any 
 donor that he would be released or exonerated i'roni ])aynient. 
 
 3rd. Mr. McCormick seems also to have been informed 
 that I confirmed his statement, as above quoted, at one of 
 the meetings of Directors. His informant misapprehended 
 me in this case also. At a meeting of the Directors, not 
 long after the vacant chair was filled by the election of Dr. 
 MacMaster, a member proposed that a letter be written to 
 ]S[r. McCormick, informing him of the filling of the chair, 
 Avith a view, of course, to the payment of the endowment. 
 To this I made some objection, on the ground that it would 
 be better to defer this call on INIr. M. until our new agent 
 had made further progress in the collection of funds from 
 others, or words of this puii)ort. From this remark the 
 inference may have been drawn by some one that I consid- 
 ered Mr. M. would be released from the payment of tlie 
 endowment. I certainly did not intend to be so understood. 
 On another occasion in the Board, I think Avhen the Trustees' 
 lieport of April 1st, 1867, was read, I recollect having ex- 
 pressed the belief that Mr. M. would, in his own time, pay 
 the endowment. 
 
 4th. Mr. McCormick seems to have underetood me as re- 
 sponding to his remark that "of course they will not expect 
 me to pay any more," by saying, "there would-be no diffi- 
 culty on that point, as they had on their side men of Avealth 
 and ample means, by whose contributions they pro2)osed to- 
 endow the chair of Dr. MacMaster, if elected, with the sum
 
 of $50,000." Althougli this is not very importuut, yet I 
 certainly believe that I gave no sui-h flattering view, for I 
 expected the agent Avould find very great difficulty amid the 
 divided sentiment of that period in raising tlie fifty thousand 
 dollars proposed, to say nothing of the funds needed for secu- 
 ring buildings. There was also misa2)prehension as to the 
 endowment of $50,000 for Dr. MacMaster's chair. That 
 sum had been named as an immediate eflfort in view, but 
 twenty thousand dollars of it was, in my own mind, to 
 supplement the other chairs. Dr. Mac^NIaster's frugal liabits 
 required no such support as indicated. While his friends 
 supposed he would not accept without bringing with him, 
 as their contribution, the basis of his own support, they 
 ju-esumed also that he would not expect more than his co- 
 professors. He was at the time 600 miles distant, probably 
 knowing nothing of the movement for his restoration to the 
 chair of Theology, which for ten years he had occupied in 
 the same Seminary when under the control of the western 
 synods. 
 
 One purpose in my remarks was, if possible, to reconcile 
 Mr. McCormick to the choice about to be made by the As- 
 sembly, I assured hira that when he came to know Dr. 
 McMaster he would admire him as a model Christian gen- 
 tleman, of many noble characteristics as a man, and an 
 instructor in Theology of very eminent attainments. 
 
 The delay in making this statement has been caused by 
 absence from home in the discharge of public duties. 
 
 J. L. WILLIAMS. 
 
 Fort Wayne, Bee 9, 18G8.
 
 16 
 
 Editorial from tlie Presbyter. 
 
 Cincinnati, Dec. 23, 1868. 
 MR. McCORMICK AND MR. WILLIAIMS. 
 
 Wc ask attention to the letter of Jesse L. Williams, in 
 another column, in response to Mr. McCormick's letter, 
 which we published in the Presbyter of December 2'. 
 
 Mr. McCormick represents himself as saying at St. Louis 
 to Mr. Williams, in view of the apprehended result of the 
 action of the Assembly in electing Dr. McMaster : " Tliey 
 would not, of course, expect me (Mr. McCormick) to pay 
 any more," and Mr. Williams quotes this language without 
 taking any exception to it. We venture to remind Mr. 
 Williams of what took place when at St. Louis he reported 
 his conversation with Mr. McCormick to us and several 
 other brethren. Mr. Williams reported Mr. McCormick not 
 as saying, " They will not expect me to pay any more," 
 but as saying, " They will not expect any more of me." 
 We at once said, " lie may mean by this remark that we 
 must not expect any more than his bond, or that we must 
 not expect of him any more than he has paid." Mr. Wil- 
 liams replied, " Yes ; I made no response, however, to the 
 remark." We are confident, moreover, that when Mr. Wil- 
 liams referred on two occasions^ in meetings of the Direct- 
 ors, to his conversation with Mr. ^IcCormick, he gave the 
 same report. The matter came up on one occasion in the 
 Board of Directors in April, 1867, when considering the 
 report of the Trustees to the Directors, in which is the fol- 
 lowing clause: "Mr. McCormick, as we are credibly in- 
 formed, intends to contest the demand for any further pay- 
 ment from him on his endowment fund, in view of the 
 action and treatment he received at St. Louis during the ses- 
 sion of the General Assembly." After hearing Mr. Williams 
 the Directors say in their report to the Assembly : " Nor
 
 17 
 
 can the Board believe that Mr. McCormick intends, as sug- 
 gested in the report of the Trustees, to contest the demand 
 for any further payment from him on his endowment fund, 
 in view of the action and treatment he received at St. Louis 
 during the session of the Assembly last year." If the 
 Directors had understood that Mr. McCormick meant by 
 liis remark to Mr. Williams that he must not be expected 
 " to pay any more," they would not have adopted the lan- 
 guage above employed in their report to the General Assem- 
 bly. They regarded his laiiguage as susceptible of the 
 interpretation — ^''Expect no inore of me than my bond'''' — 
 iind they felt bound to so understand him imtil they heard 
 directly and definitely from him ; inasmuch as the payment 
 of his last instalment was deferred, by arrangement with 
 himself, until the fourth chair Avas filled. 
 
 From the Cincinnati Presbyter^ Jan. Qtli, 18G9. 
 
 DR. LORD TO MR. McCOr.MICK. 
 
 Chicago, December 19, 186S. 
 Mr. Cyrus II. Mc Cormich : 
 
 SiK : — You have just given to the public a letter concern- 
 ing your obligations to the Theological Seminary of tlie 
 North- West. It consists so largely of views and statements 
 which relate to me personally, and wliicli at tlie same time 
 fio deeply effect, not only individual honor, but also public 
 truth and virtue, that I feel constrained to set forth such 
 counter views and statements as herein follow : 
 
 In the month of May, 1859, you appeared in the General 
 Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, then holding its an- 
 nual sessions in the city of Indianapolis, Ind. In that pre- 
 sence, and upon your own motion, you offered to donate to 
 the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of the North-west 
 the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, on these condi- 
 tions, viz.: 
 2
 
 18 
 
 Tliat the General Assembly (1) accept and take charge of 
 said Seminary ; (2) locate in the city of Chicago, or within 
 one and a half miles of its limits ; and (3) hold your dona- 
 tion as a perpetual endowment to be used exclusively for 
 the support of four professorships. 
 
 These were the sole conditions. In your bond, executed 
 subsequently to this ofter, it is fuitlier, and properly, pro- 
 vided, that if at any time the Seminary shall cease, or shall 
 cease to be an institution for the training of students for the 
 Christian ministry, this endowment of one hundred thousand 
 dollars shall revert to you or your heirs. 
 
 This offer "was felt to be generous. It seemed to indicate 
 not only large means, but also large ideas. Men were con- 
 scious of an impulse to place you among jjublic benefactors. 
 Tlie General Assembly accepted the offer ; expressed to you 
 its cordial thanks, and took immediate measures to carry 
 your propositions into effect. What followed, in the pro- 
 gress of the matter, and so far as is important to my pre- 
 sent purpose, I will present in tiie following extracts from a 
 paper wliich bears your name and seal, viz.; 
 
 " Whereas, the said General Assembly did accept the said 
 offer of the said Cyrus II. McCormick, and in consideration 
 thereof, and other considerations thereunto moving, did pro- 
 vide for the location of the said seminary within the said 
 limits and city of Chicago ; and 
 
 " Whereas the said Board of Directors of said seminary 
 did locate said seminary as aforesaid, in consideration of said 
 donation by said McCormick, and accept the same as an en- 
 dowment fund for the professorships established in said 
 seminary by the said General Assembly. 
 
 " Now, therefore, in consideration of the acceptance and 
 taking charge of said Theological Seminary, by the said 
 General Assembly and the location of the same by the said 
 General Assembly and Board of Directors of. said seminary^ 
 at the place aforesaid ; and 
 
 " In further consideration of tlie acceptance by the Gene- 
 ral Assembly of the Old School Presbyterian Church of the 
 United States of America, of said sum of one hundred
 
 19 
 
 thousand dollars, as an endowment fund cxrlusivi-ly of the 
 j)rofessorships in said seminary, as aforesaid : 
 
 "I, the said Cyrus II, MeCormick, of tlie city of Chicago, 
 county of Cook, and state of Illinois, do hereby donate the 
 same accordingly; and am therefore held and firndy bound 
 unto the trustees of the said Presbyterian Theological 
 Seminary of the Xorth-Avest and their successors for tlie 
 same as aforesaid ; and by these presents promise, agree and 
 bind myself, my heirs, executoi's, administrators and as- 
 signs, to pay to the said trustees and their successors in 
 office, for said seminary, as aforesaid, the sum of one hun- 
 dred thousand dollars, in four equal annual instalments, the 
 first of Avhicli is payable on the 14th day of September, 
 1860; and on the l^th day of September annually there- 
 after, with the privilege of paying said instalments or either 
 of them, before said days herein named, at the option of 
 said McCormick, his heirs, executors, administrators or as- 
 signs, with interest, payable annually at the rate of six per 
 cent, per annum on each instalment." 
 
 All this was done in the year 1859. On its part the Ge- 
 neral Assembly, from that day to tliis, has performed its 
 engagements in letter and spirit. On your part there has 
 been, for some reason, a failure. At the end of nine years 
 your bond is not paid ; and not only so, but now, at length, 
 through the public press, and over your own signature, you 
 [)ropose to repudiate so much of your obligation as remains 
 unfulfilled. 
 
 So grave an act as respects law and morals, ought to 
 have clear and invincible reasons. They should, at least, 
 be such as will palliate, if they cannot justify it. What 
 then must be the surprise of all thoughtful and candid men 
 when they read your letter. You plead, and you can 
 plead, no viohUion or even neglect of compact on the part 
 of the General Assembly. That venerable body has done 
 its whole duty. Your only avowed reasons for dishonoring 
 your bond are your personal feelings toward myself, and 
 an alleged private conversation with the Hon. J. L. Wil- 
 liams ; neither of which things you must know can effect in 
 the slightest degree your legal or your moral responsibility.
 
 20 
 
 "Mr. Williams" and "Dr. Lord" were not among your con 
 ditions. Tliey are not in your bond. 
 
 It is not my office to consider the legal quality and force 
 of your act. This duty belongs to the responsible guard- 
 ians of the seminary. You have seen fit, however, in de- 
 vising pretexts for such a crime, to arraign me before the 
 public as if I were the criminal. The plain tenor of your 
 letter is, that had I but thought, felt, spoken and acted as 
 you supposed I would, or as you willed I should, the bond 
 would have been paid. And you go into a careful detail of 
 my ottensos against you as a justification of your course. 1 
 thus am compelled to self-vindication. After years of pa- 
 tient and silent endurance of opposition and wrong fi-om 
 you and your sympathisers, and though it is painful to me 
 beyond expression to be dragged into the public arena, I 
 am compelled to assert and defend the truth and right. 
 
 The same General Assembly, sir, which accepted your 
 oflered endowment, appointed me to one of the four pro- 
 fessorships. This was done without my knowledge. The 
 faintest thought of such a thing was never in my mind, un- 
 til in a daily paper I read the telegram announcing my elec- 
 tion. You will perceive, therefore, that the place sought 
 me, not I the place. You will perceive, too, that whatever 
 may be true as to others, on my part, there were no pledges. 
 Neither the (Jeneral Assembly nor you had a particle of 
 right to assume that my views and conduct would be differ- 
 ent from what they have been. 
 
 Urged by the s})ecial friends of the Seminary, and not- 
 withstanding it subjected me to much pecuniary sacrifice, I, 
 at length, accepted the appointment. My reception in 
 Chicago was kind and cordial, and fi)r many months my 
 presence and labors merited certainly no higher apprecia- 
 tion than they had. From^ the first, however, I was con- 
 scious, in my immediate surroundings, of an atmosphere 
 difterent from that to which I had been accustomed. It 
 seemed to be, not so much that of Lake jNIichigan as of 
 Chesapeake Bay ; of the prosperous and free North, as of 
 the South. There were an air, color, tone and general drift 
 of things which made slowly but at length quite definitely
 
 21 
 
 this impression, that the professors were expected to be the 
 exponents of Southern ideas, and defenders, if necessary, of 
 Southern institutions, I may note it too, as a iiict, that 
 simultaneously Avith this, and equally definite, was another 
 impression, to wit, that if the former should prove really true,, 
 then, in the inevitable course of events, some one must be 
 disappointed. The course of events was inevitable, and I 
 come now to what you, in your arraignment of me before 
 the public, leave undone ; ?. e., to state what were my real 
 offenses. 
 
 1. Some few months before the war began, but when the 
 danger of it Avas becoming imminent, you proposed to the 
 professors to issue, in connection with yourself, a sort of mani- 
 festo or address to the South. The object was to save the 
 Union and slavery. To give it more weight, you wished it 
 to go forth over our signatures. One of the professors was 
 requested to prepare it and submit it for our consideration. 
 It was an able paper, but conceived and written from the 
 Southern stand-point. In the existing conflict, it assumed 
 that slavery was all right, and freedom all Avrong. I 
 declined to sign it. Materially modified and toned down, it 
 was published in the Expositor, without a. name. This wa& 
 my first conscious oflTense, I did not intend to offend you ; 
 but neither did I intend to compromise my Christianity or 
 my manhood. 
 
 2. The Chair of Theology in the Seminary, and the Pulpit 
 of the North Church, were about to become vacant. Dr. 
 Rice had decided to accept a call to New York, You came 
 to me and. said, that in your view the Chair and the Pulpit 
 ought to be filled, as they had been, by one and the same 
 man, and you proposed the Rev. Dr. Moore, of Richmond, 
 Va. '• If the people wisli such union of the two offices," I 
 answered, " let it be so. As for Dr. Moore, he is a ripe 
 scholar and an admirable ]n-eacher. So far as these quali- 
 ties are concerned, we could not, perhaps, have a better 
 man. But in the present state of things it would be most 
 unwise to even try to get him. He has identified himself 
 with the disunionists, and uttered expressions of contempt for 
 the people of the North, at which they are indignant. Dr.
 
 22 
 
 Gurley will meet our want equally well, without subjecting 
 us to such peril." You replied slightingly to this sugges- 
 tion, and insisted on Dr. Moore. With entire respect, but 
 with perfect frankness, I said: " So strong are my convic- 
 tions that an attempt to get Dr. Moore would be ruinous, I 
 shall feel it my duty to oppose it in every pro2)er way." 
 This was my second conscious oflfense. I did not intend to 
 offend you, but neither did I intend such damage should 
 come, with my. consent, upon the Seminary and the Church. 
 
 3 A few weeks only rolled on, and the war was indeed 
 upon us. Fort Sumter had fallen. The President had 
 issued his first call for seventy-five thousand men. The 
 streets of Baltimore were wet with the blood of our brave 
 soldiers. Every loyal heart in the land was on fire. T sug- 
 gested to the temporary editor of your £Jxj)ositor the prej)a- 
 ration of an article proper to the exigency. lie desired me 
 to write it. It was on the duty of Christian citizens in such a 
 crisis. It simply said, in Christian words, that putting away 
 all mere partisan animosities and strifes, they should rally 
 as one man around our imperiled government. The editor 
 cordially approved it, and it was to appear in the next issue 
 as an editorial. It got safely through the types, it reached 
 the condition of proof-sheet. At that point, you saw it and 
 forbade its publication. This was my third conscious 
 offense. I did not intend to oftond you. I only intended 
 to plead for our country in its struggle for life. 
 
 4. Another and brief interval brought the climax of my 
 offenses. T w^as sent by my brethren to the General Assem- 
 bly of 1861. The venerable Dr. Spring, of Xew York, 
 offered in that body his now historic resolutions. They 
 were alike patriotic and Christian. It is marvelous to think 
 what excitement they produced, and how vehemently they 
 were opposed by great and good men. I dared to sj)cak 
 for them, and vote for them. This was my fourth conscious 
 offense. From that day to this you have seemed to feel 
 that the gulf between you and myself was impassable. I 
 did not intend to offend you ; I only intended to do my 
 duty as a man and a Christian on that great occasion. 1 
 give thanks to God who enabled me to do it.
 
 23 
 
 These, then, are my oflenses ; my real offenses, according 
 to my best knowledge and belief. You will see, and the 
 public will see, how intimate is the connection between 
 them and the spirit tliat pei'vades your letter. They all 
 •occurred before the time at which you begin your definite 
 accusations. Let me now examine these. They have no 
 sufficient ground in trutli ; and were they true they would 
 ;Avail nothing to your main purpose. 
 
 1 You first affirm that in a meeting of the IJoard of 
 Directors, I " denounced the manner in which my (i. e., your) 
 donation had been made to the General Assembly, saying, 
 that if the Assembly had understood its terms, it would not 
 liave been accepted.'" That meeting of the Board was in 
 April, 1862. I do not wish to uncover all its history, unless 
 I am compelled. But there began what at the time I felt 
 to be practical repudiation. Dr. Rice had gone to Xcm' 
 York. Dr. Scott had gone, we trust, to heaven. I had 
 committed the above serious offenses. The General Assem- 
 bly also had incurred your disi)loasure by its patriotic 
 action. The purpose of making the Seminary an outpost 
 or bulwark of slavery, if any one entertained it, had plainly 
 become like a forlorn hope. Your first instalment only 
 had been paid. The second had been due since the 14th of 
 the preceding September. The third would mature in the 
 September approaching. By the declinature of Dr. Krebs, 
 4ind the death of Dr. Scott — both occurring in the interval 
 •of the Assembly — two of the Chairs in the Seminary had 
 been nominally vacant througlx the term. Really they had 
 been filled by the exhaustive labors of Dr. Halsey and my- 
 self. Because of these vacancies then existing, you intima- 
 ted that the endowment wjis forfeited. This, however, was 
 more than your most partial friends could admit. The mat- 
 ter was at length arranged by your obtaining a release 
 from the i)ayment of your third and fourth instalments, 
 both principal and interest, until the vacancies should be 
 filled. On that occasion you assumed the right, virtually, 
 to control the endowment, just as you do in your recent 
 letter. With reference especially to this assumption, I ex- 
 pressed it as my opinion tliat had the Assembly so under-
 
 24 
 
 stood your meaning, it would not have accepted the endow- 
 ment, I think so still. But I denounced no one. I simply 
 and with courtesy gave an opinion. My then only colleague 
 assured me of his concurrence in my view. But suppose^ 
 sir, I had done what you thus allege. What lias this to do 
 with your dishonored bond ? 
 
 2. You charge me next with a "gross attack" upon you,, 
 withont cause, and in your absence at a meeting of the 
 North Church. If this were indeed so, I ought to be 
 blamed. But it Avas not so. The meeting to which you 
 refer was in September, 18G1. It was held for ihe election 
 of a pastor. At a previous meeting, and in accordance with 
 your wishes, as was generally understood, the Kev. Dr. Gur- 
 ley had been nominated ; the very man whom I had sug- 
 gested to you months before. By some too j)artial friend^ 
 my name also had been presented. It was without my 
 knowledge, and to my very deep regret. I took occasion 
 from it, however, to be present at the meeting you specify ; 
 and there not only peremptorily withdrew my name, but 
 also, with whatever poAver I had, urged the parties in the 
 church to unite upon Dr. Gurley. I knew that good man, 
 and firmly believed that his coming to us Avould be a bless- 
 ing. He was called, there and then, by a unanimous vote. 
 Intelligent men present at the meeting told me this result 
 w^as owing to my earnest eftbrts. And when Dr. Gurley 
 was thus called, I wrote to him, urging his acceptance by 
 every consideration that seemed to me proper. Instead of 
 an attack upon you, according to my best recollection and 
 my firm belief, I neither uttered your name, nor even had 
 you in my thoughts, on that occasion. But suppose again, 
 I bad done what you thus allege, what has this to do witli 
 your dishonored bond ? 
 
 3. You allege further that I was the main cause of a divi- 
 sion of the church, which resulted in another organization. 
 This division occurred after the interval of a pastorate, that 
 of the Kev. J. B. Stewart, from the time last noted. You 
 assign me a jtlace in connection with it, which truth does- 
 not permit me to accept. All my conscious and intentional 
 influence was uniformly and strongly the other way. There
 
 25 
 
 are indeed some men who insist that our great and good 
 government Avas the cause of the rebellion. Possibly this 
 is your view. On such a principle of reasoning, no one can 
 know for what he may be held responsible. But in no truer 
 sense can this allegation apply to mo. On the contrary, I 
 prayed and labored for the luiity of the people. And when 
 the signs of division became imminent, I went to individu- 
 als and besought them, for the love of Christ, to forbear 
 crimination and recrimination, and to study those things 
 which would make for peace. I persisted to the last in my 
 efforts to prevent a schism in the church I loved. When, 
 however, those true Christian men and women had made 
 their firm decision, despite my earnest counsels against it, 
 I could not be blind to the weighty reasons which had 
 moved them ; nor could I make their judgment the measure of 
 their rights. But suppose again, I had done what you thus 
 allege, what has this to do with your dishonored bond ? 
 
 4, You venture another charge. " Dr. Lord," you affirm, 
 " advocated before the Seminary Committees of the Assem- 
 blies of 1866 and 1867 his transfer to the Chair of Theol- 
 ogy." .Vnd you press this point, as showing my want of 
 manly honor. 
 
 You, sir, were present at the Assembly of 1866. You, 
 therefore, had personal knowledge that I was not present. 
 At no time during its sessions was I nearer to it than Chi- 
 cago is to St. Louis, nor do I know who the committee were, 
 before whom you represent me as thus pleading. 
 
 Of the Assembly of 1867 I was a member. ^\t the spe- 
 cial request of its committee on. Seminaries, I appeared be- 
 fore it, in company with many others, to answer such ques- 
 tions and make such statements as the committee thought 
 necessary, to acquaint them with our affairs in the North- 
 west. And suppose that in their presence I had made the 
 alleged plea ? Having for five years and a half ])erforraed 
 all tlie duties ])ertainiiig to the (^hair of Theology, besides, 
 those in connection with my own, sujipose I had said, it 
 seemed to me just that I should bear its name, as well as do 
 its work? What tlien ? It is not commonly thought 
 unmanly to reach right and honorable ends. Nor is such a
 
 thing without precedent, in eitlier Churcli or State. But I 
 did not do so. I made no plea in advocacy of my transfer. 
 The Committee, however, thouglit it manly and right to re- 
 commend it. The General Assembly, by a unanimous de- 
 cision, thought it manly and right to make it. I thought it 
 manly and right to accept it. But again : Suppose I had 
 done what you thus allege? What has this to do with 
 your dishonored bond ? 
 
 These, then, are my offenses, and these your accusations. 
 The church and the public will see that I have committed 
 no sin against peace, truth, honor, I'ight, or you, except only 
 that which is common to all those who felt and acted with 
 the church and the nation, as against slavery and the re- 
 bellion. My crimes are simply and only those of our Gene- 
 ral Assembly during the stupendous conflict of right Avith 
 wrong. And if that venerable body can think it just, at 
 your will, and because of my cordial agreement and co- 
 operation with it, to make me a sacrifice, let the sacrifice be 
 made. My consistency and honor will remain imstained. 
 
 But there are other matters in your letter Avhich merit 
 notice. You inform the public that having, for the reasons 
 assigned, resolved to violate your plighted faith, and not 
 feeling free to retain for private use the money thus sacredly 
 devoted, you bestowed it on other institutions than that to 
 which it legally and morally belonged ; as if the spoiling of 
 Peter could be sanctified by giving the gains of it to oven the 
 other ai)Ostles. The Institutions you sek'cted for this l)enefac- 
 tion were the Union Theological Seminary, and the College in 
 Lexington, both in Virginia. The Faculty of the former 
 were active participants in the war for slavery, and the Pre- 
 sident of the latter was the military Head of the rebellion. 
 My offense you judged to be grievous, and not to be for- 
 given, because while faithfully performing all my sacred 
 offices, I sympathized with our struggling country and with 
 freedom; but one of the professors of the above seminary, 
 who girded on his sword as an officer in the Confederate 
 army, and the president of the college, who for yeai's fiercely 
 sought to destroy the nation, and both of whom to the ex- 
 tent of their power, sent sorrow and death through the
 
 land, won your zealous admii'ation. Soon as the throes of 
 the rebellion were sufficiently quieted to permit it, you sent 
 your approval of their course in the form of money to their 
 respective Institutions ; money, too, as you yourself state, 
 which had been solemnly and publicly donated to another. 
 It is a signal proof of the inexorable impartiality with 
 which you keep jjolitics separate from religion. 
 
 There is also an error of principle and of fact pervading 
 your letter, which calls for remark. Your assumjition of 
 the right to control our endowment is only another form 
 of assuming that the endoAvment is still yours. Hence your 
 repeated and emphatic imputations against my manliness 
 and honor, because, though put in my office by the church, 
 a part of my insufficient support comes from the endow- 
 ment, i. e. as you clioose to regard it, from your money. I 
 repel the imputation and the assumption on which you 
 make it. The unmanliness is elsewhere. The assumption 
 is not true. My salary is paid me by the church, and from 
 means which are its own. When one man bestows a gift 
 upon another it is not, at least commonly, supposed that he 
 still retains his owTiership in it. And, certainly, among 
 high-minded and honorable men it Avould not be tolerated 
 that the donor should be constantly reminding the donee of 
 the gift, and exacting his homage on peril of its revocation. 
 When by your own deliberate act you publicly and solemnly 
 donated that one liundred thousand dollars to tlie seminary, 
 your ownership in it ceased. From that time it morally 
 and legally rested elsewhere. Your right to it became ex- 
 tinct, except in the contingency that its conditions should 
 be violated, Avhich contingency has never occurred. Let a 
 well-known precedent instruct us. A citizen of Jerusalem 
 was thought to have made a certain donation to the Church. 
 The sequel, however, showed that he had kept back a part. 
 An apostolic solution and decision of the case established 
 these points as permanent factors ever after in evangelic 
 law and morals. In the first instance, it was wholly at tlie 
 man's own option to make, or not to make the gift. In the 
 second stage of the matter, though specific and important 
 measures liad been taken to consummate it, he was still at
 
 28 
 
 perfect liberty to refrain or to go forwanl. But when im 
 the third and final step he solemnly laid his money at the 
 apostles' feet, the deed was done, and it was, without sin^ 
 irrevocable. The money was no longer his. It belonged 
 to the Church, and, through tlie Church, to God. 
 
 There is another and more practical view of this particu- 
 lar. Many others besides you have made donations to the 
 seminary, and for the purpose set forth in your bond, to 
 wit : to aid and carry forward an institution for tlie train- 
 ing of young men for the Christian ministry. Many piore, 
 we trust, will make donations, and in large amounts. "We 
 need them now, and we shall need them in the future. The 
 aggregate of those ah-eady made surpasses the amount we 
 have as yet received from you; and indeed your whole 
 endowment. Some have given valuable land. Some have 
 given for the erection and furniture of buildings. Some 
 have given to provide libraries. Some have given to endow 
 scholarships. Some have given to meet current expenses and 
 supplement the deficient endowment. A moderate estimate 
 of these various gifts would reach at least one hundred and 
 twenty-five thousand dollars. An additional amount, cer- 
 tainly equal to this, Avill be necessary to put the seminary 
 on an adequate financial basis, and provide for those en- 
 larged facilities of accommodation and instruction which the 
 future Avill demand. Xow, why should one alone of all these 
 donors, past, present and to come, claim and be accorded 
 the right of control ? If the principle is valid and to be 
 recognized in his case, why not also in theirs ? Or if, while 
 conceded to him, it is denied to them, would not the inevi- 
 table result be the severance of the seminary from the sym- 
 pathy and benefactions of the church at large. On the coYi- 
 trary, if this right of control be conceded to all alike, what 
 then must follow ? Sonie might say : We are not pleased 
 with this ; give us back our land. Others might say : That 
 does not meet our views ; give us back our building. Other* 
 still might say: We take exception to something else;., 
 give us back our libraries, or our scholarships, or our notes 
 for the endowment. Sir, a principle whose actual working.
 
 29 
 
 -would realize a Babel, cannot gain the suffrage of wise men, 
 -or belong to any true system of Bible ethics. 
 
 But, after all, you intimate that your avowed purpose can 
 be changed. You are willing to remove your displeasure 
 from the General Assembly, to take from off yourself the 
 spot of repudiation, and to show the reality and strength 
 of your interest in the Theological Seminary of the North- 
 west by giving an additional twenty thousand dollars, on 
 two very definite and very remarkable conditions, viz. : 
 
 First — That the General Assembly shall eject such of the 
 present professors as you desire, and put in their place 
 men who will reflect your views; and. 
 
 Second — That the General Assembly shall give you 
 " proper assurances of non-interference in the future." 
 
 Here one cannot but pause. Certainly, whether this 
 proposition proceeds from humility or audacity, it is as- 
 tounding. The Church of God thus knows on Avhat terms 
 it may have your favor. You offer to buy sacred rites and 
 powers. For the prerogative of ijermanent control in the 
 appointment of theological professors to teach and propa- 
 gate your ideas, you will give money. Before the breath of 
 Mammon had tainted man's sense of honor and right, as it 
 lias in later times, such things were called Simony. It is 
 incredible that you intended all that your words contain. 
 
 Before closing this letter allow me to inform you, and 
 through you the public, that in many ways God has blessed 
 and is blessing our young seminary. In respect to its inter- 
 ternal aftairs and its facilities for effecting the sacred ends 
 for which it was founded, it is perhaps in a better condition 
 now than ever before. We have a building not surpassed 
 by any otlier in the church in its arrangements for the con- 
 A'enience and comfort of students. ^Ve have a library which, 
 though not large, is yet, as to quality, exceeding choice, 
 and for adaptation to the ordinary wants of a Theological 
 Seminary is without a superior. We have a Financial 
 Agent of eminent fitness and excellence, and whom the 
 churches receive with great cordiality. We have a full 
 Faculty, working together in entire harmony, and, I trust, 
 twith real efiiciency. We have a company of noble young
 
 30 
 
 men diligently pursuing the prescribetl studies, and many 
 of them give high promise of success as pastors and preach- 
 ers in the Church of God. We have the confidence, sym- 
 pathy, prayers and co-operation of the great mass of 
 Christian ministers and people in our connection through 
 the Northwestern States. And as our special sphere Ave 
 have a field for action and influence literally immense. If 
 only a few brethren here and there wmild rise up to the 
 imitation of an apostolic example and forget those things 
 which are behind ; and if we all together would Christianly 
 and resolutely reach forth imto those things which are 
 before, our seminary would have not only peace, but a great 
 and glorious future. 
 
 In all that is true and right, I am yours, 
 
 WILLIS LOUD. 
 
 From the North- Western Preshi/terlat), Jan. 9th, 18U9. 
 
 REPLY TO MR. JESSE L. AVILLIA3IS. 
 
 Xeav York, Dec. 28, 1868. 
 
 Messus. Editoks: — I find in your issue of the 19th inst.,. 
 a letter from Jesse L. Williams, Esq., published as a " cor- 
 rection" of my letter of the I'Jth of Nov., "in some parti- 
 culars." As nothing further has appeared in your columns 
 in answer to my letter, I might hardly have felt it necessary 
 to occupy more S2)ace in your journal, had not my letter 
 elicited so much comment in other papers, religious and po- 
 litical, as to make it proper, with your leave, to take some 
 notice of them in the XoRxn- Western', as the medium of 
 my communications upon this subject. 
 
 With due deference to Mr. Williams, however, he is at 
 present over-modest of his influence with his Seminary 
 friends, and underrates, let me say, the importance of "our 
 brief interview durinc: the session of the (ieneral Assoniblv
 
 :31 
 
 of 1866." We liad certainly two interviews, and my im- 
 pression is that we had three ; and while conceding the dif- 
 ference of recollection between Mr. Williams and myself in 
 the particulars mentioned — every essential point between 
 ns, however, being quite clear — I must claim some advan- 
 tage over him on the score of recollection, having " written 
 down" for publication at the time a statement of the case, 
 not so much to preserve " any remarks made by either of 
 ns at that interview^" as then to lay the whole matter be- 
 fore the public, as is now done. 
 
 Xow I have not stated that Mr. Williams " was clothed 
 with authority to speak for the Assembly, the Directors, or 
 Trustees ;" or that he " assumed" any. Nor have I meant 
 to be understood as giving his precise words when not so 
 quoted; but when he says he made " no response" to my 
 remark — as he has it — that " they would not, of course, 
 expect me to pay any more ;" and that there was " a)i imme- 
 diate effort in vieio''^ to eyidoio his (MacMaster's) chair, by 
 ''^ his friends,^'' icho '■'' supposed he wovXd not accept icithout 
 bringing with him, as their contribution, the basis of his 
 oicn support^"* while Dr. MacMaster himself says, in his let- 
 ter of acceptance, published in the notice of this correspon- 
 dence by the Presbyter, that " this difficulty is obviated by 
 the spontaneous action of the brethren who have the matter 
 in charge, and by whom I am assured that the endowment of 
 the chair to which I have been appointed, is to be provided for 
 by an additional fund, so as to preclude the necessity of draw- 
 ing for its support on the present endowment ;•" and, fur- 
 ther, as shown in my previous letter by the statement of the 
 collecting agent, in connection with the present embarrass- 
 ment of the Seminary, that " some of the few subscribers 
 to the ]Mac]Master endowment refused to pay because of the 
 failure to raise the ^50,000" — I now submit, whether the cor- 
 rectness of my position is not made out, without reference 
 to the particular words, "response" or not, of ^Nfr. Wil- 
 liams, and irrespective of what he said of the matter after- 
 wards in the Board of Directors. The question of differ- 
 ence is no longer restricted to the conversations between 
 Mr. Williams and myself. It now appears that my position,
 
 .32 
 
 views and wishes in the matter, were promptly and fully 
 made known to the Seminary Committee of the Assembly, 
 and that the action of tlie Assembly, in the election of Dr. 
 MacMaster, was taken accordingly, and with the further 
 knowledge that the endowment by his friends was neces- 
 sar)'^ to his acceptance — that he depended upon such endow- 
 ment. And if endowed by the friends of Dr. Mac^Master, 
 how could the chair be also endowed by me ! And if, again, 
 as now recollected by Mr. Williams, $20,000 of the ^50,000 
 to be provided by tlie friends was to be applied to the in- 
 crease of tlie funds for the otJier chairs, no further funds for 
 the endowment could possibly have been expected of me. 
 
 Add to the endowment of Dr. McMaster's chair the addi- 
 tional funds necessary to tlie completion of this enterprise 
 by the " new friends " — as referred to in my previous letter, 
 and since admitted by Mr. "Williams — and the supposed 
 aggregate amount of about $150,000 appears, for which 
 "the Chair of Theology and the good working majority 
 in the Board of Directors" were required in 1866. 
 
 Since writing the foregoing, I have seen the comments of 
 the Presbyter on Mr. Williams's letter, which are confined 
 to his (Mr. Williams's) statement of my remark to him, that 
 " they will not expect me to ^>ay any more.'''' The Pres- 
 byter treats this as a quotation by Mr. Williams from my 
 representation of what I had said, without taking any ex- 
 ception to it. This is a mistake. 3fy pul^lished statement 
 of my remark to Mi*. Williams was, that " they would of 
 course not expect me to pay over the remainiiig fourth in- 
 stalment," then unpaid. The words used by Mr. Williams 
 agree with mine in substance. If by the slight change in 
 the words used by I\[r. Williams, suggested by the Pres- 
 byter, my meaning might have been considered uncertain — 
 " on two occasions, in meetings of the Directors " — it is not 
 jyossible that I could have meant less than is indicated by 
 the words of Mr. Williams. When involuntarily, and 
 against my protest, superseded by the action of the Assem- 
 bly, with the proposition that not only the means for the 
 endowment of Dr. McMaster's chair, but also what would 
 become necessary ^r completing the Seminary endowment,
 
 33 
 
 would be provided, it must have been superfluous in rae to 
 say, as rendered by the Presbyter^ " Expect no more of me 
 than my bond !" The clause in the " report of the Trustees 
 to the Directors in 1867," (given in the Presbyter,) showing 
 my unwilliyigness to "pay any more," is therefore quite 
 consistent with what every friend at St. Louis to whom I 
 •spoke of the matter understood ; and, how Mr. Williams 
 could have any donbt on that point, I of course do not 
 understand. 
 
 Respectfully, &c., 
 
 C. H. McCORMICK. 
 
 From the JVort/i- Western Presbyterian, February 6, 1869. 
 
 REPLY OF MR. CYRUS H. McCORMICK 
 TO DR. LORD, 
 
 New York Jan. 16th, 1869. 
 Rev. Willis Lord, D. D. 
 
 Sir : In answer to your letter to me, dated 19th ult, post- 
 marked the 28th, in reply to my published letter of Nov. 
 17th, on Seminary matters, it is of some consequence first to 
 ascertain the state of the case, and relations of the parties 
 to it. 
 
 In my letter, I only referred to such differences between 
 you and myself o.^ were necessary to show the inconsistency 
 and impropriety of your occupancy of the " Cyrus H. Mc 
 Cormick Professorship of Theology," and gave some reasons 
 to substantiate my position. I said : " I am induced to state 
 these matters in order that the existing relations between 
 Dr. Lord and myself may be the better understood, sup- 
 posing as I have, that there are few men who would be wil- 
 ling to occupy the chair in qicestion as he has done, under 
 such circumstances." 
 
 You have replied in a letter characterized by a Presby- 
 terian paper as one of " great length and severity.'^ You
 
 34 
 
 have not thought proper to stop with a defense of yourself, 
 but have labored far more to arraign me on the question of 
 my " dishonored bond," as you are pleased to term it, and 
 the differences between the General Assembly and myself 
 in relation thereto — not satisfied with the discussion of that 
 question between " the Hon. Jesse L. Williams " and my- 
 self, betAveen whom the only differences had appeared as to 
 the action of the Assembly of 1866, on that question. If the 
 sequel does not show that your " great severity " is more 
 against yourself than me, " some one (as you say) must be 
 disappointed " again ! I shall use no more " severity " tow- 
 ards you, however, than necessary to do justice to others. 
 
 A coiionitee of tlte Directors of the North Western Theo- 
 logical Seminary addressed a letter to me dated Oct. 16, 1868, 
 informing me of the election of Rev. Mr. Blackburn, by the 
 General Assembly, to the Chair of History, and signifying a 
 wish that I should pay over the (unpaid) fourth instalment 
 of my original endowment fund — and as yon would have 
 it, redeem my " plighted faith ; " honor my " dishonored 
 bond " ; restore " the money thus sacredly devoted " to the 
 "Institution to which it legally and morally belongs," wliich, 
 as you say, had been diverted and " bestowed on the Union 
 Theological Seminary and the College in Lexington, both 
 in Virginia " ! 
 
 In assigning in my letter some reasons why I felt called 
 on to notice in a public manner the demand made upon me 
 by the committee for this 2yay'>''ient, I said that, " having- 
 reached the point Avhere, in my judgment, further silence 
 would be improper, and a vindication of myself becomes a 
 duty, I offer this correspondence to the public, that the facta 
 in the case may be understood." I am gratified that Avhile 
 some of the political papers at Chicago have caught your 
 spirit, the religious press, in their treatment of the subject, 
 have shown a different spirit. 
 
 In refusing to pay to the Board of Directors the fourth 
 instalment of the endowment, which they had in 1867 been 
 informed by the " Report of the Board of Trustees " would 
 not be paid, I did so — not on the ground of your course and 
 conduct, as stated, for at that time you had not succeeded
 
 35 
 
 in getting yourself transferred to the chair of Theology, but 
 — on the ground made known to the General Assembly at 
 St. Louis, in 18t>6, through Mr. Jesse L. Williams, viz : the 
 taking from the original friends of the Seminary, by the Gen- 
 eral Assembly, the chair of Theology, in the election of Dr. 
 MacMaster ; and giving " a working majority in the Board 
 of Directors " to the " new friends," by the dis2:)lacement 
 of the Directors who had co-operated with us in the work 
 of the Seminary. And yet, you say my "only avowed rea- 
 sons for dishonoring " my bond are my '•'• personal feelings 
 towards yourself and an alleged conversation with the Hon. 
 J. L. Williams" ! This is not true. As I have already 
 shown, I " avowed" nothing of '■'■ pergonal feelings towards 
 you " in connection with my " dishonored hond " ! 
 
 In further noticing your communication, I will first con- 
 sider the only " offenses " with which, in my letter, I charged 
 you, and the manner in which these have been met. 
 
 1. I said, " Dr. Lord denounced the manner in which my 
 donation had been made to the General Assembly." This, 
 you say, occurred at the meeting of the Board of Directors 
 in April, 1862 ; and add that " then began what at that time 
 you felt to be practical repudiation / " and you account for 
 my disposition to repudiate by what you term your sun- 
 dry " real causes " of offense to me — which will be noticed 
 in their proj^er order. 
 
 Without recollecting all the particulars that occijrred at 
 this meeting, it is sufficient that your object was to have the 
 several instalments of the endowment fund paid by me, 
 that you might share the benefit of those applying to the 
 vacant chairs, or, as if so provided in the terms of my endow- 
 ment ; while it was shown by Judge Scates, on reading the 
 bond to the meeting, only to be payable, 825,000 to each 
 Professor ; and whereupon, as you say, the matter was 
 " at length arranged''"' by postponing payment of the " thircl 
 and fourth instalments, both principal and interest, until 
 the vacancies should be filled," After the reading of the 
 bond by Judge Scates, came your denunciation — not, as 
 you say, on the ground of my " assumed right, virtually, 
 to control the endowment, for the arrangement was made
 
 36 
 
 simply in accordance with the terms of the bond ; and the 
 fact that the second and third instalments were afterwards 
 paid accordingly, and subsequent to the occurrence of your 
 list of " real offenses " towards me, as you state them, does 
 not seem much like '■'^ practical repudiation ! ''"' Your "then 
 only colleague " has since stated that, on hearing the bond 
 read at that meeting of the Board, which was the first time 
 he had heard it, he became satisfied that I was right in my 
 construction of it, and that I intended " that the income of 
 the $100,000 should be applied to the four Professors, and 
 not to a less number." " But," as you say, " what has this 
 to do with your dishonored bond ?" Nothing : but it is one 
 reason why you should not have sought your transfer to the 
 *' Cyrus H, McCormick Professorship of Theology." 
 
 2. I alluded to your " gross attack upon me, Avithout 
 cau^e, and in my absence, at a meeting of the North Church." 
 " If this were indeed so," you say, " I ought to be blamed. 
 But it was not so. I neither uttered your name, nor had 
 you in my thoughts on that occasion." You admit this to 
 be a cause of offense to me if so, but deny the fact. I shall 
 make it clear that it wa^ so. 
 
 You have not denied that you used tha language alleged, 
 nor have you stated to Avhom or what you did refer. I can 
 not specify at what particular meeting your lengthy speech 
 containing this threat was made, but that you did make it, 
 and did refer to me, and could not well have referred to 
 any one else, I am assured, was the distinct understanding 
 of several of the most intelligent gentlemen then present, 
 by whom, as I said, " it was heard with astonishment and 
 disapprobation, " and who have been equally astonished at 
 your denial. That their understanding of the reference was 
 correct, is further confirmed by tlie statement of a minister, 
 whom you met upon the street in Chicago soon afterwards, 
 and to whom, in a most excited manner, for you, you re- 
 peated the declaration, making it still stronger, saying, " if 
 I were to make public what I knew of a certain party 
 in that church, in three hours time it would raise a mob 
 that would tear it to the ground." This statement led to a 
 pi'otracted conversation in which my name was repeatedly
 
 37 
 
 mentioned, as the person to whom reference was had in the 
 threat made. 
 
 In the same speech and in the same connection, yom alsa 
 said, you were " a proscribed man." And when asked the 
 next day, " By whom ? " your answer was, " By Mr. Mc- 
 Cormick," though as you were then assured I had in no 
 way interfered. Your fancied proscription, so far as is 
 known, was the great matter, Avhich if disclosed, to the 
 public, was to work such damage to that important church. 
 From these disclosures it is evident that your threat was 
 levelled against me, notwithstanding your denial. It is also 
 evident that the only ground for such a threat was that yoii 
 imagined yourself to have been proscribed. The names of 
 the pei'sons here referred to as witnesses will be given iu. 
 full if required. 
 
 In this connection you deny having been a candidate for 
 the pastorate of the North church, saying, " By some too 
 partial friend my name also had been presented. It was 
 Avithout my knowledge and to my very deep regret." This- 
 is a most surj^rising statement. In view of the facts. You 
 seem to have forgotten that, in the speech in which occur- 
 red your threat against me, and Avhich was delivered imme- 
 diately after your nomination, you did not once with draw 
 your name. You seem to have forgotten also your subse- 
 quent remark to one of the elders of that church that if the 
 Rev. Mr. Stewart should leave you would like to take 
 charge of the church, and also your statement to another 
 
 elder afterward, that, if he and Mr. M and Mr. R 
 
 would support you, you would accept the call, — which call 
 had been voted by your friends at a meeting when but a 
 part of the congregation were present. You seem to have 
 forgotten also that when this call, thus voted, was placed 
 In your hands by the Presbytery, in the face of a protest 
 numerously signed, you kept it in your possession until con- 
 vinced that you could not be supported as pastor of the 
 church. " But what has this to do with your dishonored 
 bond?" Nothing ; but in the opinion of many who were 
 acquainted with these facts it is a good reason why you
 
 38 
 
 should not occupy the " Cyrus H. McCormick Professorship 
 of Theology." 
 
 3. In connection with the " astonishment and disappro- 
 bation " felt at your threat above mentioned, I said that 
 your course led ultimately to the division of the North 
 Church, and to a number of your friends going off and or- 
 ganizing themselves into a rival congregation — on which 
 you comment under this head, saying, " All my conscioiut 
 and intentional influence was uniformly and strongly tlie 
 other way." You were then, perhaps, as in other cases, 
 wholly unconscious of your " real " influence. From your 
 remark in this connection — but with no legitimate connec- 
 tion — that "there are indeed some men who insist tliat 
 our great and good government was the cause of the rebel- 
 lion, possibly this is your view, as well as from your failure 
 to recollect so thrilling a scene in your imagination as the 
 one so pathetically portrayed by you in the tearing down 
 of the North Church in three hours' time by a mob, one is 
 inclined to think your memory not quite reliable as to plain 
 matters of fact, when under the "influence" of highly pitclied 
 patriotic emotion. You certainly had your share at least 
 of the credit due " those true Christian men and women " 
 who, moved by such " weighty reasons," did organize said 
 " rival church " under your open advocacy in Presbytery. 
 " But what has this to do with your dishonored bond ? " 
 Nothing : but it is a reason why you should not insist on 
 payment of that bond for your support in the " Cyrus II. 
 McCormick Professoi*ship of Theology." 
 
 4. As to your advocacy of your transfer to the Chair of 
 Theology, in 1866 and 1867 : you virtually admit the fact 
 as to the Assembly of ISO 7, and defend your right to do so. 
 This you could not well deny, in view of the Avell known 
 fact that you appeared in person before the Assembly's 
 Committee on Seminaries, (which committee " had been 
 placed in the hands of the Moderator,") and together 
 with others replied to speeches made before the same com- 
 mittee in opposition to your proposed transfer. You say 
 you were not at the Assembly of 1866. This is true ; but 
 the mail and telegraph supply the means of accomplishuig
 
 39 
 
 what would otherwise be lost for want of personal pre- 
 sence, and it was understood at St. Louis that you had re- 
 course to one or both of these means, to effect your trans- 
 fer to the Chair of Theology by that Assembly — having 
 threatened to resign if not transferred, whereupon you were 
 at once dropped ! And it is said, and of course knotcn^ if 
 80, that you exerted yourself to the utmost to secure Com- 
 missioners from Presbytery (of Chicago) in favor of your 
 transfer, going into a caucus for that purpose, and refusing 
 to vote for any one (as Commissioner) who would not vote 
 for the transfer. 
 
 " But what had this to do with your dishonored bond ?" 
 N'othing : But the Assembly at St. Louis regarded it as 
 the best reason why you should not then occupy the " Cyrus 
 H. McCormick Professorship of Theology." 
 
 I must now notice your own pretended " real offenses," 
 and add something to the list of your actual offenses. The 
 letter of Dr. Rice, hereto subjoined, will assist in showing 
 how " real " your " offenses " are. 
 
 1 . You say, " Some months before the war began, but 
 when the danger of it was becoming imminent, you pro- 
 posed to the professors to issue, in connection with yourself, 
 a sort of manifesto or address to the South. The object 
 was to save the Union and Slavery. To give it more 
 weight, you wished it to go forth over our signatures. One 
 ■of the professors was requested to prepare it and submit it 
 for our consideration. It was an able paper, but conceived 
 and written from a Southern standpoint. In the existing 
 conflict, it assumed that slavery was all right, and freedom 
 all wrong. I declined to sign it. Materially modified and 
 toned down, it was published in the Expositor^ without a 
 name. This was my first conscious offense." 
 
 Immediately preceding this you had said : " From the 
 -first, however, I was conscious, in my immediate surround- 
 ings, of an atmosphere different from that to which I had 
 been accustomed. It seemed to be not so much that of 
 Lake Michigan as of Chesapeake Bay ; of the prosperous 
 and free North, as of the South. There were an air, color, 
 tone and general drift of things which made slowly but at
 
 40 
 
 length quite definitely this impression, that the professom 
 Avere expected to be the exponents of Southern ideas, and 
 defenders, if necessary of Southern institutions." 
 
 ElscAvhere in your Christian and conciliatory letter you 
 said: "The purpose of making the seminary an outpost or 
 bulwark of slavery, if any one entertained it, had ])lainly 
 become like a forlorn hope." 
 
 Should these statements, equally unfriendly to your col- 
 leagues, to the original Directors and students of the serai- 
 nary, and damaging to the church at large, be found to be 
 wholly untrue, what then ? "What would your position then 
 be before the church and all candid and impartial men ? 
 Coidd any man, who truly loved the Old School Presbyte- 
 rian Church and her institutions, and who was truly loyal 
 to all her interests, permit himself to make such charges 
 against an important Seminary, its professors and founders ? 
 That they are not only unsustained, as they are in your let- 
 ter, but unfounded assertions, the letter of Dr. Kice, your 
 senior professor for two years, herewith submitted to the 
 public, abundantly shows. It disposes completely of your 
 " first conscious offense." His testimony can be confirmed 
 by that of the only other surviving Professor, and by most 
 of the Directors then in oflice. " But what has this to do 
 with your dishonored bond ?" Nothing ; but it goes to- 
 show your unfitness for the position you have used every 
 means to secure, and the impropriety of your asking me to- 
 pay $25,000 for your siqjport in that Chair. 
 
 2. Your second conscious offense is equally groundless- 
 with the first. If you used the "strong" expressions you now 
 state against the nomination of " the llev. Dr. Moore " for 
 " the Chair of Theology, in the Seminary, and tlie })ulpit of 
 the North church," I have no recollection of it. I do well 
 recollect, however, that at a meeting of the Board of Direc- 
 tors, Dr. Boardman, Dr. Moore and Dr. Gurley, were named 
 for the chair. As I recollect, neither of the three gentle- 
 men would accept. Dr. Ilalsey s})oke in the highest terms 
 of Dr. Moore, and I was asked to write to him, which I did. 
 Some doubts were exjiressed in the meeting as to his loy- 
 alty, and whether he had written certain things against the-
 
 41 
 
 North, as had been represented, but was not known. Satis- 
 factory information was to be sought on that question, but 
 his declinature superseded further investigation. There 
 was no such issue made about him, however, as you repre- 
 sent. Dr. Gurley was my friend, personally, and his call 
 afterwards to the pastorate of the Noith church, and visit 
 to Chicago, were brought about by my instrumentality. He 
 was unwilling to undertake both j^reaching and teaching. 
 . 3. Your " third conscious offense," the character of the 
 article written by you as an editorial for the Expositor, I 
 do not recollect. I have some recollection of the circum- 
 stance, since your reference to it, but only as disagreeing 
 with you as to the expediency of publishing the article as 
 an editorial. After Dr. Rice left Chicago, I was not only 
 the proprietor but the responsible manager (or editor) of 
 the paper; and as you have made good your claim to hav- 
 ing been a Radical of the first water — often the case with 
 converts from one doctrine to another — it cannot be con- 
 sidered very strange that an editorial written by you with- 
 out any conference whatever with me, under all the excite- 
 ment to which you refer, should not have been precisely 
 what I chose to be responsible for — apart from the fact, 
 well understood, that conservative Presbyterians generally 
 are opposed to agitating the church with political questions. 
 I understand, moreover, that JDr. Ilalsey has a distinct 
 recollection that I only objected to the article as an edi- 
 torial, in my name, saying explicitly that if you wished to 
 publish such an article, you could do so over your own 
 name. This you did not choose to do. 
 
 4. YoMY fourth, and " climax of offenses," as you represent 
 it, consisted in advocating and voting for the " Spring Reso- 
 lutions" in the General Assembly of 1861. Those Resolu- 
 tions, you say, were " alike Patriotic and Christian ;" but 
 you also* say: "It is marvelous to think Avhnt excitement 
 tlu'v pro luc'd, and how vehemently tliey were opposed by 
 grt'at an 1 uoo I men." Well, if lliey were nut only opjtosed 
 • " by grt-at aiid goo.l nit-n." liut <)i)|)()se(l '" rt//t'.//('//^/v," it is 
 not surprising that I ditl not approve tliem. " (ircat and 
 good men " ari' generally '»otli jKitrio's an<l Christians, and
 
 42 
 
 were not very likely to oppose a popular paper that was 
 " alike Patriotic and Christian." Tliose " great and good 
 men," among whom stood prominently the venerable Dr. 
 Hodge, of Princeton, believed then, and believe stilly that in 
 adopting the " Spring Resolutions," the Assembly traveled 
 entirely beyond its Constitutional and Scriptural limits, and 
 decided a great civil question ; and that, by so doing, that 
 body virtually cut off nearly one-half of the church! And 
 as I gave the endowment to the whole churchy of the United 
 States of America, and as I agree with those " great and 
 good men " in regard to the course of the Assembly ; is it 
 surprising that, in connection with the couree since pursued 
 towards myself and friends, I am not only unwilling to pay 
 more money in tlie same direction, as matters stand, but 
 believe that what I have paid has been forfeited ? 
 
 You knew, and the entire church knew, a's Dr. Rice has 
 shown, that two different doctrines were agitating the 
 church and country in reference to the subject of slavery, to 
 which you refer, when this Seminary was founded : that one 
 doctrine — the chui'ch docti'ine — was represented by Dr. 
 Rice, and the other by Dr. MacMaster. You knew that the 
 position on this subject represented by Dr. Rice, which was 
 the church position, and the position of all the Seminaries 
 of the church, Princeton, Allegl)any and Danville, was the 
 one that prevailed at Indianapolis, after having been advo- 
 cated at length by Dr. Rice, as against Dr. MacMaster. 
 You knew that the endowment was proffered and accepted 
 by the General Assembly on that basis. The Professors 
 were elected on that basis, and on that basis they accepted. 
 I further submit, therefore, that the Church and the Pro- 
 fessors, so long as they retain their positions and draw from 
 that endowment fund, are in all moral honesty bound to 
 abide by that position— the former keeping the Professor- 
 ships filled by men in harmony with the Seminary as origi- 
 nally founded. I have always believed that the Old School 
 Church, as represented by the deliverances of the Assembly, 
 and the other Seminai'ies, held the true Conservative Scrip- 
 tural ground on this question — that the doctrine that slave- 
 holding is always sinful, without regard to circumstances,
 
 43 
 
 is unscriptural, and is, like all error, pernicious in its influ- 
 ence. Like Shylock of old, you harp on " the bond ! the 
 Tjond !" But the written conditions of that bond were not 
 the only terms of the gift. There were understood and im- 
 plied pledges that, as the Seminary was the outgrowth, so 
 it should continue to be the exponent of sound Scriptural 
 and Conservative views. These pledges have been openly 
 and grossly violated. No one knows this better than your- 
 self. It is for me^ not you, therefore, to talk of " broken 
 pledges " — " violated plighted faith," etc. 
 
 For the first two years your conservatism was as pro- 
 nounced as that of any member of the Faculty. Your alle- 
 gations in regard to the " atmosphere and surroundings of 
 the Seminary," and its being an " outpost and bulwark of 
 slavery," are all afterthoughts. In your proposed com- 
 mentary on Peter, you discussed the subject of Slavery, and 
 stated and defended at length the church doctrine on that 
 subject, and opposed the abolition doctrine that slavehold- 
 ing was sinful per se. You read it to Drs. Riee and Ilalsey, 
 and received their approval. You were given to the re- 
 cital of an anecdote, that : On being invited by a Congre- 
 gationalist minister to attend a Congregationalist Con- 
 A'ention in Chicago, you said no : If you were to attend, 
 you might offer this resolution : " Resolved, That when 
 we get to Heaven, we will not sit down with Abra- 
 ham, Isaac and Jacob, for they were slaveholders, and we 
 have no evidence they ever repented of their sin." You 
 have spoken of your refusal to allow the Chicago Tribune 
 to come into your house — " that vile, radical sheet, was 
 unfit to be read in any family." You rejoiced with a mem- 
 ber of the Assembly of 1859, after his return from the As- 
 sembly, in the defeat of Dr. MacMaster and the views he 
 represented. In Deoeraber, 1860, immediately after the 
 Rev. Dr. VanDyke, of Brooklyn, had^ preached his well 
 known sermon on " The Character and Influence of Aboli- 
 tionism," you wrote to him a highly congratulatory letter, 
 intimating your full approval of his views, and your disap- 
 probation of those whose favor you are now so anxious to 
 <;ourt.
 
 44 
 
 But I am not so much offended at your liaving thrown off 
 the mask you so long wore, as disgusted at your having, by 
 wearing it, got yourself into a Professor's Chair. 
 
 So much for your alleged " conscious offenses." They 
 have been shown to be without foundation. How then is 
 your i)resent liostility to the former management of the 
 Seminary to be explained ? 
 
 The^rs^ actual ground of disaffection, or defection, on your 
 part so far as known, was the action of the Executive Com- 
 mittee in 1861, after the resignation of Dr. Kice, in appoint- 
 ing Dr. Scott instead of yourself to teach Theology. You 
 took offense at this, and threatened to resign — so expressed 
 yourself to an Elder in tlie chureh, and member of the Execu- 
 tive Committee. This it would seem dates the commence- 
 ment of your aspirations to the Professorship of Theology. 
 
 Tha second (known) offense to you Avas the application^, 
 as show^n, of only $25,000 to each Professor's Chair ; — and the 
 third rock of offense, tlic declination of the North Church 
 to accept you as their pastor. 
 
 Nor was your original position in the Seminary so entirely 
 unsought by you as you would fain have the ])ublic believe. 
 You say .* " Urged by the special friends of the Seminary, 
 and notwithstanding it subjected me to much pecuniary 
 sacrifice, I, at length, accepted the appointment." You may 
 have forgotten your letter to Dr. Kice previous to the Assem- 
 bly of 1859, inquiring of him if there was any opening for 
 you in the West — adding that you had to leave Brooklyn. 
 
 You attempt to excite odium against me because I made 
 donations to two Institutions in Virginia — the Union The- 
 ological Seminary, in my native State ; and Washington 
 College, in my native county. You say : " Soon as the 
 throes of tlie rel)ellion were sufficiently quieted to })ermit it, 
 I sent my approval of their course in tlie form of money to 
 ' the Union Theological Seminary, and the College in Lex- 
 ington^ " which is simply false. The amo;int of "this ben- 
 efaction " being $25,000, I said in my letter : " I soon after 
 donated to the Union Theological Seminary of Virginia, 
 for the endowment of one of its JTrofessorships, |t30,000, — 
 not desiring to withdraw for my personal use any portion of
 
 45 
 
 •what I had donated for the benefit of the church " — 7iot to 
 "the " College at Lexington !" My donation to Washington 
 College was a separate matter entirely. 
 
 Whatever wrong may have been done in time past by 
 persons connected with these institutions ; in one respect 
 they differ widely from you and your friends. Xow that the 
 war has ended, they do not still seek to keep up the strife, 
 but have gone quietly to work to build up Institutions needed 
 both by the church and the country. If you and your 
 friends had pursued a similar course, this controversy would 
 not have occurred. It is more than absurd for Christian 
 men to boast of their loyalty and their love of country who 
 •continue to show a bitterness and vindictiveness of feeling 
 which even men of the world rebuke. 
 
 But is it really true that those who now give money to assist 
 Southern Institutions thereby express approval of the Rebel- 
 lion ? Did Henry Ward Beecher express his approval of 
 the Rebellion, when he gave money to this same Washing- 
 ton College ? Did any one think of charging Mr. Peabody 
 with approval of the Rebellion when he made his princely 
 donation for Educational purposes to the States recently in 
 rebellion ? Does it not argue a narrow mind and unchris- 
 tian spirit in any man, much more in a minister of the Gos- 
 pel, and still more in a teacher of ministers, thus to criticise 
 such benefactions, the very design of which was to conciliate 
 the two sections of the country, so sadly alienated, and to 
 aid them in their deep poverty — the cries of which may never 
 have reached your ears ? Is this any part of the doctrine 
 taught in your Seminary ? Is this in accord with the com- 
 mand of Christ : " Love your enemies ?" Has the Episco- 
 ;pal Church of the North expressed its approval of the Re- 
 bellion, by inviting the Southern branch of the church to 
 return, and by sending men and money to build up churches 
 :and Institutions of learning in the South ? Is the spirit 
 manifested by you to be fostered in our Theological Semin- 
 raries ? Are the young men who go from them to make it 
 •one object of their ministry to keep up this bitterness and 
 :strife ? If so, well may any Christian man decline giving 
 money to tliem. This proscriptive spirit is not content to
 
 46 
 
 vent itself against the South. It is equally intolerant tow- 
 ard those " great and good men " at the JVo^rth who opposed 
 " the Spring resolutions ;" and all who, like them, would keep' 
 the church out of the political strifes of the times. 
 
 But further, you say : " Why should one alone, of all the 
 donors, past, present and to come, claim and be accorded 
 the right of control ? If the principle is valid and recog- 
 nized in his case, Avhy not also in theirs ?" The riglit of 
 control has never been assumed by me. The same answer 
 must of course be given to all, as to one. It must be alike 
 to all as to one a question of Justice and right. Misman- 
 agement by the Assembly and Directors may destroy, in- 
 stead of building up, any such institution, while the just 
 rights of no single contributor can be disregarded with im- 
 punity. Where the responsibility properly lies, there it 
 must be met. You have undershot tlie mark entirely, when 
 you say : " The plain tenor of your letter is, that had JTbut 
 thought, felt, spoken and acted as you supposed I would,, 
 or as you willed I should, the bond woidd have been paid''''! 
 And you thereupon volunteer to fill one entire page of the 
 J^esbyter, professedly in " self-vindication," but really for 
 the support of your Professorship, and in abuse of me ; while,, 
 I repeat, the question of my " dishonored bond," as between 
 the General Assembly and myself, had been fully discussed 
 and disposed of between Mr. Williams and myself before 
 you commenced writing. 
 
 It must be apparent, however, that while tlie issue be- 
 tween the General Assembly and myself was taken \ipon the 
 action of that body anterior to your transfer to the Professor- 
 ship of Theology, when that transfer was made, it might then 
 properly have been, and should now be, embraced as one of 
 the reasons why, if continued there, the $75,000 should be 
 returned to me and those acting Avith me. What fair- 
 minded and '\ra\):ivi\ii\ minister of the G^ojffpe/ could justify 
 keeping a man in the chair of Theology (bearing my name) 
 who could be guilty of your demagogical conduct, in talk- 
 ing about my " grave act as it respects la-w and morals " — 
 " pretexts for such a crime " — the " spoiling of Peter " — 
 " offer to buy sacred rights and powers " — " such thing*
 
 47 
 
 were called Simony," etc. And all this for what ? After our 
 having been set aside by the Assembly, and relieved by its ac- 
 tion ixoxa. further responsibility in connection with the Semi- 
 nary ; and after the other side having utterly failed to obtain 
 the requisite means for sustaining the Institution — the " Fi- 
 nancial Agent, of eminent fitness and excellence," as you say, 
 having informed me, in connection with his application for 
 help, that he had thoroughly canvassed Illinois, Ohio and 
 Iowa, and nothing further could be depended upon from 
 those States, and that the prospect was not good for collect- 
 ing for the Seminary in Wisconsin or Minnesota — after these 
 things, I say, and informed as I was also by the Treasurer 
 that thei-e would not be money enough to get through the 
 session with ; that I should, under such circumstances, have 
 proposed to " assist in placing it on a solid financial basis, 
 if the General Assembly will provide for such a corps of pro- 
 fessors as the original one, and a corresponding working 
 majority of Directors," thus only maJcing right the wrong 
 done to tis — this, you say, " was called Simony !" 
 
 Not that I thought of " ejecting''^ you from oftice, or even 
 that you would make the issue with the Assembly of being 
 sacrificed by that body. Neither of these things occurred 
 to me. . I had supposed it even possible that you might be 
 disposed to let the General Assembly consider and decide 
 the case with a view to promoting in the best way the best 
 interests of the church, without reference to yourself per- 
 sonally — ready yourself even to resign your professorship, 
 hould that sacrifice be necessary to save the institution, or, 
 in the judgment of the Assembly, to do justice to all con- 
 cerned. 
 
 I may not pass unnoticed the further demagogism of 
 your reference to V human freedom " — " Fort Sumter had 
 fallen" — " slavery and rebellion " — and such miserable clap- 
 trap as furnishes the chief staple of certain depraved politi- 
 cal sheets ; but I say again, what church unity can be ex- 
 pected so long as such agitation is continued ? When are 
 we to look for the return of brotherly love and Christian 
 fellowship so long as those aspiring to fill the high places 
 of the church indulge in such wrath and bitterness ? Such
 
 48 
 
 demonstrations of passion and violence may have been par- 
 donable during the exciting periods of the war, when great 
 national interests were at stake and great sacrifices were re- 
 quired. But now that that great conflict is past, and its 
 issues settled, religion and patriotism alike require the exer- 
 cise of mutual forbearance, and the pursuit of those things 
 which tend to peace. 
 
 Yours, resjjectfully 
 
 c. ir. Mccormick. 
 
 LETTER OF DR. K L. RICE. 
 
 40, Fifth Avenue, New York, 
 January 2, 1869. 
 
 Rev. N. L. Rige, D. D. — Mxj Dear Sir: — Having just 
 received a remarkable letter from Dr. Lord, in which he ac- 
 cuses me, if I understand him, of being the instrument of 
 producing an atmosphere around the Seminary at Chicago, 
 *' not so much that of Lake Michigan as of Chesapeake 
 Bay;" and in which "the Professors were expected (by 
 me of course) to be exponents of Southern ideas, and de- 
 fenders, if necessary, of Southern institutions," etc. ; it has 
 occurred to me that you can more appropriately than I 
 reply to this portion of his letter, and accordingly I send 
 you a copy of his letter for such correction as your know- 
 ledge and convenience may enable you to write, wliieh will 
 oblige. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 c. H. Mccormick. 
 
 New Brunswick, Jan. 4, 1S69. 
 
 Mr. C. H. McCoRMicK — J/y Dear Sir : — I liave just read 
 your note of this date. It is due to you, and perhaps to 
 myself, to give, as far as I am able, the information neces
 
 49 
 
 «ary to vindicate you from the charge which, I regret to 
 learn, Dr. Lord has made against you. I will say, then — 
 
 1. I never had the slightest intimation that you desired 
 the Professors in the Theological Seminary to take any 
 other ground on the subject of slavery than that which the 
 Presbyterian church had ever occupied. The last deliver- 
 ance on that subject by the General Assembly, previous to 
 the organization of the Seminary, was in 1845. Of that 
 paper, it is well known, I was the author. It was fully en- 
 dorsed by the Princeton Jievietc, and has more than once, 
 since that time, been declared by the Assembly to be in har- 
 mony with all preceding deliverances. And even since the 
 war excitement began, our Board of Publication has pub- 
 lished a pamphlet, written by Dr. McGill, of Princeton, in 
 -which the defense of that paper has a ])rominent place. I 
 always understood you to be satisfied with the doctrine of 
 our church on that subject. 
 
 2. Whilst my connection with the Seminary continued, I 
 never knew you to inquire into the opinions of the Profes- 
 sors in relation to slavery; or to attempt, directly or indi- 
 rectly, to control or to influence their opinions or teachings 
 on this or any other subject. I certainly was not conscious 
 
 • of the peculiar " atmosphere " Dr. Lord describes, or of 
 " the air, tone, color and general drift of things," which 
 
 'Seem to have awakened his apprehensions. Indeed, al- 
 though associated with him first in Cincinnati, and after- 
 wards in Chicago, if he at all differed in his views of sla- 
 very from the other professors and myself, I was never 
 made aware of such difference. Dr. Lord had been many 
 years in the ministry, and had labored in the West, as well, 
 
 . as in the East, during the period when both the church and 
 the country were intensely agitated by this subject. It is 
 not to be supposed that he concealed his opinions, much less 
 that he designedly allowed them to he misunderstood. Nor 
 is it to be supposed that he was ignorant of the controver- 
 sy which immediately preceded the locating and organiz- 
 ing of the Seminary at Chicago, and which was terminated 
 by the Assembly which elected him to a Professorship. I 
 
 .believe he was nominated through my influence ; and I was 
 4
 
 50 
 
 one of " the special friends of the Seminary," " wh<j urged" 
 his acceptance. I piirsued this course, not only because I 
 believed him qualified for tlie chair to which he was elected, 
 but because, from long acquaintance, I thought I had abun- 
 dant evidence that his views and mine were in harmony. 
 And I felt quite certain that, before he accepted the Profes- 
 sorship, he understood the kind of " atmosphere " into which 
 he was coming, " and the general drift of things " which he 
 would [meet in Chicago. He certainly knew my views of 
 slavery ; and he knew that you did not object to them. 
 
 3. It is due to you further to state, that during my edi- 
 torial connection with the Mfpositor, you never attempted 
 to control its columns ; and it certainly was not the " expo- 
 nent of Southern ideas," In the winter of 1860-61, 1 pub- 
 lished in the Exj^ositor a lengthy correspondence between 
 Rev. Mr. Matthews, of Georgia, and myself; in which I 
 wrote, in the strongest terms, against secession, and defend- 
 ed the paper on slavery, adopted by the General Assembly 
 of 1818 — universally regarded as strongly anti-slavery, and 
 condemned by Mr. Mathews as an abolitionist document. I 
 never heard from you any objection to the publication of 
 such views in your paper. 
 
 4. I ought further to say that Dr. Lord's memory is very 
 much at fa\ilt, in my opinion, in regard to the paper which, 
 as he supposes, oftended you. I feel confident that it did ' 
 not originate with you. My recollection is that Rev. Dr. 
 Scott prepared the paper of his own motion, and hoped that, 
 either as he wrote it, or somewhat modified, it might be 
 published avowedly by the Professors. He read it to me, 
 1 think, before he showed it to any one else. I do not 
 think you requested either of the Professors to sign it ; nor 
 did I ever hear an intimation, that Dr. Lord had offended 
 you by declining to sign it. I am confident, likewise, that 
 Dr. Lord errs in saying that before being publislied it was 
 " materially altered and toned down." I feel sure that I 
 put it into the printer's hands without alteration. The pa- 
 per was designed to be conciliatory, and to dissuade Soiith- 
 ern ministers from favoring secession ; but it never occurred 
 to me that it was designed, as Dr. Lord represents it to save 
 slavery.
 
 51 
 
 5. In a word, so far as I am aware, you had nothing to 
 do with the nomination of those who were elected to Pro- 
 fessorships in the Seminary; and dming my connection 
 with the Seminary, I never heard an intimation from either 
 of the Professors that you had, in any Avay, attempted to 
 influence their course. On the contrary, I left the Seminary, 
 not only myself entertaining the kindest feelings towards 
 each of my associates, but believing that the most pleasant 
 relations existed between you and them. Indeed Dr. Lord 
 himself states, not only that his " reception " in Chicago was 
 " kind and cordial," but that " for many months" his pres- 
 ence and his labors merited no higher appreciation than 
 they received. During those " many months," and though 
 the churches and the country were intensely agitated on 
 the subject of slavery, yet no difference of sentiment was 
 developed amongst us ; and I lefc, after a connection of two 
 years with the Seminary, hoping and believing that the re- 
 lations between those with whom I had labored so pleas- 
 antly, Avould long continue undisturbed. 
 
 Under this impression, I had the happiness, after my re- 
 moval to Xew York, of enabling the agent to secure the 
 money for the erection of a Seminary building, and thus of 
 recovering the valuable lands in Chicago, which had been 
 forfeited. Why those who had done little or nothing for 
 the Seminary, sought, in 1866, to get the control of it, and 
 to secure, of their party, " a working majority," I do not 
 profess to know. It has not been common, I am sui*e, thus 
 to treat those who have given liberally of labor and money 
 to the church. I cannot but express my deep regret that 
 an institution so important to the church, and which enter- 
 ed upon its career with prospects so cheering, should have 
 been crippled, apparently for no cause. Slavery had ceased 
 to exist ; the war was over. The time surely had come 
 when the church should have aimed to unite her forces, and 
 go forward in her great work. Having said so much, I owe 
 it to myself to say — that I have had nothing to do, directly 
 or indirectly, with having my name brought before the Ge- 
 neral Assembly in connection with a Professorship, since I 
 resigned my place in the Institution. 
 
 Very truly, N. L. RIC E
 
 52 
 
 Frm the Cincinnati Presbyter^ Feb. 17, 1869. 
 
 DR. LORD TO MR. McCORMICK. 
 
 CraGAGO,.i^e&. 9, 1869. 
 Mr. Cyrus II. Mc Cormick : 
 
 Sir: — In view of its character, my thanks are due for 
 your renewed attack upon me, through your accredited 
 organ, the North- Western Presbyterian. It certainly puts 
 me out of the number of those of whom Christ said : " Woe 
 unto you, when all men shall speak well of you." At the 
 same time I am not without hope ; it leaves me in the 
 goodly fellowship of others to whom he said : " Blessed are 
 ye when men shall revile you, and say all manner of evil 
 against you, falsely, for my sake." Whether I may assume 
 this or not, I am sure your protracted effort requires only a 
 brief answer. Virulent as it is, it is also, for the most part, 
 its own best antidote. 
 
 1. To your profuse personal aspersions I make no reply. 
 To do so would not become me. Of the mass of second- 
 hand puerilities you adduce as their ground, every one is, 
 either wholly untrue, or it is untrue in the relation and as- 
 pect in which you give it. Let the sermon on Slavery illus- 
 trate. In the confidence of private personal friendship I did 
 read it to one of the two persons you name. I read it to him, 
 simply and only, to learn how my view of the Bible teach- 
 ing as to that vexed matter would impress a candid Southern 
 man. The utterly perverse and ignoble use you make of 
 this incident will be plain when I state that I preached the 
 sermon before my removal to Chicago, as the expression of 
 my then views on the subject of slavery. I have preached 
 the same sermon since I came to Chicago, and since the 
 war, witliout the change of a thought or word, as tlie ex- 
 pression of my present views on th6 same subject. It does 
 not maintain what is called the jy^r se doctrine ; but it does 
 earnestly maintain the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church,
 
 53 
 
 as that is set forth in the full and fundamental exposition of 
 the General Assembly of 1818 ; and its main purpose is to 
 prove that slavery has no reftl ground in the word of God,, 
 and ought to have no being among men. 
 
 2. The principles and reasonings in my defense against 
 your first assault yon do not venture to question. You do 
 attempt, however, to impugn its record of facts, though 
 without success. I made no statement, sir, in that record^ 
 except on my personal knowledge of its truth, save only 
 one, and that I made on your published testimony. The 
 wave, therefore, has dashed against the rock, and the rock 
 remains. The single instance in which Di*. Rice, whose aid 
 you invoke, thinks my memory is at faiilt, must still stand 
 as I gave it. I cannot concede to his want of recollection 
 what I know to be true. If, in the other instance, resting on 
 your own authority, any reader of my letter understood me 
 to mean that your gifts to those Southern institutions, were 
 both and all pledged to us, it was an error. What I meant 
 was this, that in the whole amount you gave to them — the 
 sum of $25,000 — for which we hold your legal bond, was 
 included. This was your public confession. Xot feeling at 
 liberty to apply to your private use the money you had 
 solemnly pledged to this seminary, you sent it elsewhere. 
 Witliholding it from us on account of our alleged political 
 views, you yet transferred it to a seminary whose professor 
 of Theology was a captain in the rebel army ; and, still fur- 
 ther, while persisting in this proscription of us, for our opin- 
 ions, you sent an additional sum of thousands of dollars to 
 another institution whose president' was the military head of 
 the rebellion. These, I suppose to be, the exact facts. Most 
 people think they have a deep significance. This man, they 
 say, purposely discriminates against freedom in favor of 
 slavery, and to the extent of violating his word and bond 
 The love of freedom he treats as a crime, while fighting for 
 slavery he rewards as a virtue ; and he does all this in the 
 holy name of religion ! 
 
 3. I am most happy, sir, to say that your second assault 
 upon me has one merit. In the circumstances it is a great 
 merit. Despite its quality, in every other respect, it has
 
 54 
 
 the merit of being a demonstration. If after your first ex- 
 hibit, there remained anywhere one single mind that did 
 not see tlirougli tlie thousand j^retexts and disguises thrown 
 around the real root of all our woes in Chicago, it is impos- 
 sible that even that mind should now not see. 'That root is 
 laid bare. Our original sin is uncovered. The deep and 
 hidden source of every actual transgression is opened to the 
 light ; and, consciously or unconsciously, your hand has 
 done it. Here is the fatal grievance ; not that the seminary 
 has been turned aside from the sacred ends for which it was 
 founded by holy men more than a quarter of a century ago ; 
 not that the senior professor has been remiss in diligence or 
 fidelity with respect to any one duty devolved upon him by 
 his office ; not that the young men resorting here are not 
 faithfully and thoroughly instructed in the whole sum of 
 Christian truth and duty bearing on the office and work of 
 the gospel ministry. These things, or any one of them, 
 would be a just cause of complaint. But the immediate 
 wound is this ; Your offer of the endowment, you assert, 
 was made on a certain, not expressed but implied basis as 
 to slavery ; it was accepted by the General Assembly on 
 that basis ; and all the original professors were elected to 
 their office on that basis ; and that basis, it is unmistakably 
 implied, binds the Assembly and the professors, i7i mternnm^ 
 to all the logical, ethical and historical sequences of the 
 sacred system ! 
 
 I will waste no time in comment on this plain self-exposi- 
 tion; this more than signal self-condemnation. The near 
 future will show whether the Presbyterian Church in these 
 United States is about, to deny its ancient faith, revoke its 
 noble testimonies, and sell its glory for ineffable shame. 
 
 In the meantime, permit me to recall a suggestive passage 
 in history. I have reason to think it occurred in your 
 presence. The venerable Dr. Robert J. Breckinridge was 
 charged with precisely the same offenses, in kind, which you 
 allege against the senior professor in Chicago. Because of 
 these offenses he was no longer a fit person to teach theology, 
 and ought to be displaced. 
 
 During the session of the General Assembly in Columbus,
 
 55 
 
 in 1862, this grave matter was carefully considered. As the 
 result, and by an immense vote, that venerable body 
 
 Resolved^ That the Assembly does not concede, that in 
 accepting a professor's chair in the seminary. Dr. Brecken- 
 ridge did yield the right of expi-essing his views freely in 
 relation to matters of great national concernment ; and, in 
 its judgment, his bold and patriotic stand in reference to 
 the great conflict now in progress, entitles him to the grati- 
 tude of the church and the country. 
 
 "With due consideration, 
 
 I am yours, 
 
 WILLIS LORD. 
 
 For the North- 'Western Presbyterian. 
 A CORRECTION. 
 
 In Mr. McCormick's letter published in your issue of Jan. 
 30th, there is an item respecting an interview between him 
 a,nd myself, in which he must have misunderstood me. It 
 is due to our churches in the Northwest, to say that where 
 the claims of our Seminary have been presented, they have 
 nlmost invariably made liberal contributions. But a small 
 proportion of them up to this time has been visited, and 
 yet something more than fifty thousand dollars have been 
 secured, in cash, notes, and other obligations, within the 
 past fifteen months. My faith is strong enough to believe 
 that when they are all visited within the Synods represented 
 in the institution, we will obtain two hundred and fifty 
 thousand dollars. We were never in a more prosperous 
 condition than at present. 
 
 W. B. TRUAX, 
 
 General Ayent.
 
 50 
 
 Article from the Virginia Gazette^ March \Oth 1869, writ- 
 ten hy the Hon. John TF^ JBrochenhrough^ Hector of 
 Washington College. 
 
 CYRUS H. McCORMICK AND DR. LORD. 
 
 Messrs. Editors : — The vigorous manner in -whieh yoa 
 are editing your paper is worthy of all commendation, but 
 I apprehend you have made a grave mistake in indulging in 
 those sharp strictures on the conduct of Dr. Lord, in your 
 last week's issue.- You are actually so inconsiderate as to 
 complain that the Trustees of the Theological Seminary, at 
 Chicago, have secured " a good working majority " of 
 Radicals in their Board, and that the Rev. Dr. Lord has 
 lent himself to the base i)Ui'posc of perverting the munifi- 
 cent charity of Cyrus II. MeCormick to the promotion of 
 Radicalism, and in contravention of the declared wishes of 
 the donor ! Declared wishes of the donor, indeed ! As 
 my uncle Toby exclaimed to Corporal Trim, with an em- 
 phasis of rebuke which brought the Corporal up all stand- 
 ing — on one leg! — and instantly silenced his impertinent 
 suggestion — Fiddlesticks ! Are you sui;e that you, rebel 
 editors that you are, do not deserve an equally stunning 
 rebuke? Have not the *■'■ good icorking.majorty'''' and. Dr, 
 Lord acted in this matter in most perfect hannony with the 
 avowed teachings of Radical ethics ? Who dare question 
 the ^orthodoxy of that sublime code of morality which inciU- 
 cates the maxim, so well done into verse by Wordsworth — 
 
 " The good old rule sufflceth them, 
 That he should taka who has the power, 
 And he should keep who can." 
 
 And who is Cyrus H. MeCormick that he dare refuse pay- 
 ment of his " dishonored bond ?" Born on Virginia soil, of 
 Virginia parents, and himself little better than a rebel sym- 
 pathiser ! W^hat right has such as he to feel an emotion of 
 pity when he casts a saddening eye over the beautiful land 
 of his birth, and beholds her altars and hearths prostrate 
 under the Vandal hoof of War? W^hat right to yield to a
 
 57 
 
 natural impulse to assist in restoring her waste places to 
 something of their radiant beauty ere the blight of inter- 
 necine war had fallen upon them ? Was it not incumbent 
 on him, as a true and loyal man, to forget the home of his 
 birth and infancy, with all the clustering associations en- 
 twining themselves about his heart, and remember only her 
 frightfully enormous crime ? If nothing short of the sublime 
 sternness of Roman virtue could accomplish this task, why, 
 he should have proved himself a Roman, and, falling below 
 that high standard, he has made himself an object for Radi- 
 cal scorn to point its slow, unmoving finger at ! And is not 
 Cyrus II. McCormick a rebel sympathiser? Behold the 
 proof ! He has lavished his bounty on two such notoriously 
 rebel institutions as the Theological Seminary, of Virginia, 
 and Washington College, the latter, led by the arch-traitor 
 and rebel^ R. E. Lee, and has dishonored his bond by refus- 
 ing payment to the " good working majority ^^"^ of the Chica- 
 go Trustees and the fit exponent of Radical Abolitionism, 
 the Rev. Dr. Lord ! Is he not doubly dishonored in bestow- 
 ing his bounty on unrepentant rebels, and denying it to 
 those pre-eminently worthy persons w^ho know how to turn 
 their loyalty to account, and make it a first-rate paying in- 
 vestment ? Has he not, in fact, given away their money, 
 and cannot the Trustees and Dr. Lord follow it into the 
 hands of the rebel beneficiaries and recover it back, as so 
 much money had and received to their use ? Why not ? 
 I have known worse cases than this gained in a court of 
 justice. Who knows but when the Bench, Bar, and Jury 
 Box have been thoroughly expurgated of every trace of 
 rebellion, and when loyalty rules supreme within our bor- 
 ders, such a suit might be brought with most encouraging 
 prospects of success, in this District Xo. 1 ? Would it not 
 be good policy in the Seminary and College to disgorge the 
 ill-gotten fruits of violated plighted faith, and disarm resent- 
 ment by laying these, spolia opima, in the lap of the peer- 
 less Institiition which sits, in imperial beauty, in the Queen 
 City of the Lakes ? Prenez garde ! I tremble to think, Messrs. 
 Editors, how thoughtlessly you have imperilled the material 
 interests of the College in our midst, by rousing the sleeping
 
 S8 
 
 lion of Fanaticism ! Sleeping lion, indeed ! Fanaticism 
 never sleeps — while there is money in keeping awake ! You 
 may catch a weasel asleep, but Fanaticism has too well re- 
 warded its carpet-bag devotees ever to be allowed to fall 
 into the gentlest kind of slumber. No ! eternal vigilance is 
 the price of spoils ! The tiger does sometimes sleep in his 
 jungle and let his prey pass unscathed and harmless ; but 
 Fanaticism, more watchful than either, is ever ready to 
 spring at the throats of this doomed people, and to tear and 
 rend them with its claws and teeth of insatiable greed! 
 Her's is, 
 
 " The immortal hate, and study of revenge 
 And courage never to submit or j-ield." 
 
 Satanic, but sublime ! 
 
 Cyrus II. McCormick has done a very naughty thing, and 
 offended the radical and dominant clique of the Presbyterian 
 Church North, quite past forgiveness ! Possessed of such 
 old-fashioned notions as, " peace on earthy good will toicards 
 men'''' — for his was the evangel of love and not of hate — he 
 munificently endowed three Chairs of the Theological Semi- 
 nary of Chicago and promised a like endowment of a fourth, 
 at a future time, on a like princely scale of $25,000 each, lie 
 designed his bounty to promote the cause of genuine Chris- 
 tianity, as in his simplicity, he understood it, without any 
 taint of radicalism, political or religious. All worked har- 
 moniously for a season, and his bounty was applied 
 according to his wishes. But lo ! a change ! — Tlie rest- 
 less, remorseless, fiend of Fanaticism, entei-s this Eden 
 and turns it into Hell ! The eleemosynary institutions 
 of the Church fall into the hands of a " good icorking 
 majority " of Radicals, and the pious Dr. Loi-d, after filling 
 the " Cyrus H. McCormick " Chairs, and professing to incul- 
 cate conservative religious doctrines, Avriggles himself into 
 the fourth Chair, throws off the ugly mask of conservatism, 
 dons the radiant one of radicalism and demands that he 
 shall still be fed by the bounty of the donor ! The donor 
 demurs to a further misapplication of his bounty, the donee 
 falls into a paroxysm of holy horror at the dishonesty ! of
 
 59 
 
 •the donor, and gives utterance to his consuming wrath and 
 withering indignation through many cohimns of a conge- 
 nial radical paper ! Xow, pray, Messrs. Editors, Avhat is 
 there astonishing in all this ? Do you really know so little 
 of the code of radical morality as not to know that there is 
 no inconsistency at all, in defending the act of obtaining a 
 bond by false and fraudulent pretences, as right and Jwsif, 
 :and undertaking to prove, uno flatu, that the defrauded 
 (Obligor is guilty of dishonesty in withholding payment? 
 Now, 'pon my soul, I pity you if you cannot comprehend so 
 .elementary a principle of ethics as that f Neither, I sup- 
 ?2)ose, can you be made to comprehend that peculiar system 
 of ethics which justified the African slave-trade, the prose- 
 Mcution of it as lawful, pocketed the rich fruits, (and the 
 richer the more legitimate !) These radicals are the clever- 
 ..est and most practical school of moralists, never turning 
 .abolitionist till they had received the full price of their 
 .human freight ! Now, in old times these were the ethics of 
 the foot-pad and highwayman, and we have discovered that 
 .the system of the foot-pad and highwayman is really sound, 
 but it was not accepted as satisfactory till a great politico- 
 religious party made it respectable and obtained for it uni- 
 versal adoption throughout all the happy realms of radical- 
 ism. If you are such incorrigible old fogies as not to be able 
 to elevate your minds to the sublime heights of this new phil- 
 osophy, you should be objects of pity to all enlightened 
 men and women ! If you cannot comprehend such truths 
 j^ou may, at least, learn from the hints I have given that it 
 is dangerous to attempt their refutation. Radicalism is now 
 rampant and a power in the State. Let me entreat you, in 
 ati agony of fear, that if you cannot " see it," as I think I 
 do, you Avill possess your souls with a little more of that 
 negative virtue, which all men commend and few practice, 
 .called 
 
 PRUDENCE.
 
 60 
 
 From the N'orth- Western Presbyterian^ Chicago^, 
 March. 20th, 1869. 
 
 REPLY TO DR. LORD'S REJOINDER. 
 
 New York, March 3, 1869. 
 
 Messrs. Editors : I had hoped it would not be neces- 
 sary for me to ask any further use of your columns, or in- 
 dulgence of your readers, in the prosecution of this Semin- 
 ary controversy ; but the appearance in the Presbyter, of 
 the IVth inst., of Dr. Lord's letter in reply to mine of 16th> 
 January, and the note of Mr. Truax, as General Agent, in 
 the North Western of the 27th inst., make it incumbent 
 on me to write another letter. The responsibility is not 
 mine for the continuance of the controversy, Avhile the im- 
 portance of the subject under discussion is understood and 
 admitted. 
 
 In availing myself of the ])nvilege you accord me, I find 
 next to nothing in Dr. Lord's letter which I have not al- 
 ready refuted. He produces a repetition of his political clap- 
 trap that may as well be eliminated from the case. 
 
 Dr. Lord takes no issue with me on the overwhelming 
 evidence produced in my letter of the 16th of January in 
 confirmation of the statements made in my reply to the 
 Committee of Directors, (1) as to his offensive conduct tow-- 
 ards me, and the consequent impropriety of his seeking to 
 be transferred to the Chair of Theology bearing my name, 
 and to be endowed by me ; and (2) in refutation of his al- 
 leged offenses towai-ds me. The proof adduced as to his 
 strongly pi'onounced conservatism, and entire agreement 
 with the other Professors in the Seminary, when, and for 
 two years after he was elected — even to the date of his as- 
 pirations to the Professorship of Tlieology and the pastorate 
 of the North chnrch — was so conclusive that he is forced to 
 concede it, and does so by introducing his " Sermon on Sla- 
 very," preached as he says, "before his removal to Chicago,, 
 since he came to Chicago, and since the war," — not to prove-
 
 61 
 
 IJiow he so soon found, on reaching Chicago, that some one 
 was to be disappointed in expecting him to support the 
 '" bulwark of slavery ;" nor yet to maintain " what is called 
 .the per se (abolition) doctrine," but to show his " earnest 
 maintenance of the doctrine of the Presbyterian church as 
 that is set forth in the full and fundamental exposition of 
 the General Assembly of 1818." 
 
 Dr. Monfort, also, in noticing his last letter, assumes and 
 gives assurances that his (Dr. Lord's) present views are the 
 same that they ever have been — conservative — and entirely 
 in harmony with those of Dr. Rice on the question of sla- 
 very. He seems surprised that Dr. Lord's conservatism 
 should liave been questioned by me, remarking that " Mr. 
 McCormick may not know it, but we are sure that Dr. Lord 
 still holds with him," in holding that the true conservative 
 Scriptural ground on this question of slaveholding is, that 
 it is not " always sinful Avithout regard to circumstances;" 
 that " Drs. Rice and Lord agree perfectly here;" and going 
 on to say that " this statement of Mr. McCormick may per- 
 haps explain what he says elsewhere of Dr. Van Dyke's 
 sermon, and of the Chicago Tribune^ and of sitting down 
 with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven." 
 
 Now I might leave this question hei*e, as Dr. Lord has 
 left it, to be settled between his Radical friends and him- 
 self, whether he is at this time a Radical or Conservative ! 
 IRxs, former conservatism^ and agreement with the other Pro- 
 fessors, are both proved and conceded. It is for him to rec- 
 oncile this fact with his statements in regard to the atmos- 
 phere which he found on coming to Chicago ; the Seminary 
 . a bulwark of slavery, and for the defense of Southern ideas, 
 etc., and especially when he and Dr. Rice agree perfectly 
 in their views on slavery ! 
 
 But while startled for the moment by this most unlooked 
 for turn in the case — the surprise of Dr. Monfort at the 
 pains I had taken to prove what had been so clear to him, 
 :and is now claimed by Dr. Lord for himself - and finding 
 myself still lampooned by him for doing for Southern Insti- 
 ^tutions what is recognized by such men as Greely, 13cecher^ 
 President Grant and others, as meriloriouSy I am led to look
 
 62 
 
 for a moment at the quality of his Conservatism ! " Thi» 
 man," he says, "purposely discriminates against freedom, 
 in favor of slavery, and to the extent of violating his Avord 
 and bond. The love of freedom he treats as a crime, while 
 fighting for slavery he rewards as a virtue ; and he does all 
 this in the holy name of religion !" Rather a cutting rebuke, 
 to be sure, from a brother Conservative^ after the labored 
 effort in my last letter to justify myself on this point ! " His 
 word and bond " On these the Dr, again rings his changes. 
 I have heard of " out-Hcroding Herod ;" but not before of 
 out-Shylocking " Shylock !" 
 
 He says, " the single instance in which Dr. Rice, whose 
 aid you invoke, thinks my memory is at fault must still 
 stand as I gave it." He forgets again that Dr. Rice, with 
 his letter before him, wrote to me : " It is due to you (me), 
 and perhaps to myself (himself), to give, as far as I am able, 
 the information necessary to vindicate you from the charge 
 which I regret to learn Dr. Lord has made against you." 
 He forgets also that Dr. Rice thought proper in his letter 
 to vindicate me against all Dr. Lord's charges of interference 
 on the question of " Slavery ;" adding that, " I felt quite 
 certain that before he accepted the Professorship he under- 
 stood the kind of ' atmosphere ' into which he was coming, 
 and ' the genei'al drift of things ' which he would meet in' 
 Chicago. He certainly knew my views of slavery ; and he 
 knew that you did not object to them.'''' 
 
 Referring Dr. Lord again to Dr. Rice's letter for the po- 
 sition of " the Presbyterian churdi on the subject of slavery^" 
 and the evidence that I never " desired the Professors in the 
 Theological Seminar]/ to take any other ground on the sub' 
 ect of Slavery than that ichich the Presbyterian Church has 
 ever occupied, " I simply submit whether this position 
 " binds the Assembly and the Professors, in aeternum, to 
 all the logical, ethical and historical sequences of the sacred" 
 system " — that was, is not, and never again can be ? If not, 
 " the near future will (in the eloquent language of Dr. Lord 
 and may, I admit ) show Avhcther the Presbyterian Church 
 in these United States is about to deny its ancient faith, 
 revoke its noble tesumonies, and sell its glory for ineffable- 
 shame !"
 
 63 
 
 That " suggestive passage " in history referred to by Dr. 
 Lord as having " occurred in your (my) presence (not recol- 
 lected by me) during the session of the General Assembly in 
 Columbus in 1862," viz : the resolution of the Assembly on 
 ^^ Dr. Robert J. JSreckenridge's^^patrwtism, which he cites 
 with such self-complacency ; modestly classing " the Se- 
 nior Professor in Chicago " with that eminent divine, in 
 being " charged with precisely the same offenses, in kind ;" 
 and of course anticipating from " that venerable body, in 
 the near future," a corresponding resolution of "gratitude" 
 for " his bold and patriotic stand in reference to the great 
 C07->fiict " — but not " now in progress^"* as in the case of 
 Dr. Breckinridge ! Let him have this resolution by all 
 means, that his name may go down to posterity with that 
 of " Dr. Robert J. Breckinridge," as the two great cham- 
 pions of freedom and of the country's glory. Certainly, 
 let justice be done in this respect. But what has this to do 
 with his occupancy of the " Cyrus H. McCormick Profes- 
 sorship of Theology ?" What parallel is there between the 
 case of Dr. Lord and that of the distinguished divine of 
 Danville ? Where have I arraigned him in regard to his 
 patriotic services or stand for the country? What peurile 
 clap-trap is this to excite popular sympathy in his behalf? 
 I have only spoken of him as acting in connection with the 
 party by which the founders and original supporters of the 
 Seminary Avere proscribed and set aside, " solely on polit- 
 ical grounds " — or on the ground of being opposed to tlie 
 agitation of the Church and Seminary by the discussion of 
 political questions ; and arraigned him in my first letter on 
 the ground only of alleged personal oiFenses to myself and 
 friends, that made it wholly inconsistent and improper for 
 him to seek and occupy the Chair bearing my name. 
 
 These " cliarges " he denied ; and, after having been 
 proved, instea4 of acknowledging his errors, as a Christian 
 professor should do, (and as he had proinised^ he'says : " To 
 your profuse personal aspersions I make no reply. To do 
 so would not become me. Of the mass of second-hand pue- 
 rilities you adduce as their ground, every one is either 
 wholly imtrue, or it is untrue in the relation and aspect in 
 which you give it " ! ,
 
 64 
 
 Dr. Lord may liope to turn aside tlie force of the testi- 
 mony adduced by me from gentlemen whose names I offered 
 to give, if called for, and every one of whom, for intelligence 
 'and veracity, is his peer — by characterizing their statements 
 as " personal aspersions," " second hand peurilities," &c. If, 
 however. Dr. Lord can afford to rest under such disinterested 
 and responsible testimony, in direct contradiction to liis un- 
 sustained and personally interested assertions, both those 
 who make them and myself can afford to bear his imputa- 
 tions. , 
 
 A more manly and Christian course, in the judgment of 
 impartial men, jealous of the veracity and purity of the 
 ministry, would have been for him to have demanded an in- 
 vestigation. His veracity and Christian honor, if his state- 
 ments were sustained, might then be vindicated. Such in- 
 vestigation he manifests no disposition to court. 
 
 In my first letter on this subject, I said that the General 
 Assembly of 1866 was informed that " a large minority of 
 the Board of Directors had protested against the transfer 
 of Dr. Lord to the Professorship of Tlieology, on the ground 
 that such transfer would be far from satisfactory to the 
 friends of the Seminary who had contributed to its endow- 
 ment, sustained and carried forward the Institution success- 
 fully to that time, as well as to myself" In that letter I did 
 not desire to raise the question of Dr. Lord's unfitness for that 
 Professorship, further than was stated. 
 
 But the opposition of the old members of the Board to 
 his transfer went further^ viz. : that he lacked the proper 
 qualifications for the position ; and that he was not a thor- 
 ough Old School Presbyterian" in Theology — moi-e Congre- 
 gational in his training and sympathies than Presbyterian. 
 These points were urged in the Board of Directors against 
 his transfer; and I thus refer to them in connection with his 
 repealed challenge^ as this : " Not that the senior Pro- 
 fessor lias been remiss in diligence or fidelity with rcsj^ect 
 to any one dujty devolved upon him by his office ; not that 
 the young men resorting here are not faithfully and thor- 
 oughly instructed in the whole sum of Christian truth and 
 duty bearing on the office and work of the Gospel ministry,"
 
 66 
 
 etc.; while / clearly showed, in my letter of IGth January, 
 that the spirit inculcated in his previous letter was ani/t/n/ifi 
 else than such as is "becoming in the office and work of the 
 Gospel ministry"! 
 
 But Dr. Lord's " financial agent, of eminent fitness and 
 excellence," comes to the rescue ! 
 
 In my letter of November 17th, immediately after being 
 called on by this agent, I said : " And if, as stated to me by 
 Mr. Truax, the Seminary is now embarrassed for funds, 
 and with no reasonable prospect of obtaining them — some 
 of the few subscribers to the McMaster endowment refusing 
 to pay because of the failure to raise the $50,000 proposed 
 — in this condition of things, I would re-affirm my willing- 
 ness to co-operate in the support of the Seminary, and my 
 desire to assist in placing it on a solid financial basis," etc. 
 To this statement the agent did not at the time, and does 
 not now object. What addition to this statement, then, is 
 found in my last letter, to which he excepts ? I therein say : 
 *' And after the other side Imving utterly failed to obtain 
 the requisite means for sustaining the Institution — the 'fi- 
 nancial agent of eminent fitness and excellence ' having in- 
 formed me in connection with his application for help, that 
 lie had thoroughly canvassed Illinois, Ohio, and Iowa, and 
 nothing further could be depended upon from these States ; 
 and that the prospect was not good for collecting for the 
 Seminary in Wisconsin or Minnesota — after these things, I 
 say, and informed, as I was also by the IVea^urer that there 
 would not be money enough to get through the session 
 with," etc. 
 
 Here now are the two statements, and they are suhstaii- 
 tially the same, and corroborated by the statement of the 
 Treasurer as to the actual state of the finances, so far as he 
 <'ould know. In my reference to the agent's statement in 
 the connection* last used by me, I mentioned more particu- 
 larly the diffisrent States, as referred to by him. And the 
 only additional remark I have to make on his " correct ioii,^'' 
 is that, if his "fait/i,"'^ being without works, is not " dead,'' 
 the occasion. as understood for my proposed assistance is not 
 only removed, but the $75,000 may be retrirned to its icith- 
 6
 
 66 
 
 out inconvenience ; in which case both parties may work 
 satisfactorily in the future, thougli tee should liave lost the 
 fruit of our labors and means in the past. 
 
 Feeling as I did about the Seminary, I may, under the 
 circumstances explained, have oifered to "give" more "mo- 
 ney " than was called for, and thus have excited Dr. Lord's 
 suspicion that my object Avas not only to " buy sacred right* 
 and powers," but also to "give money" for the "Cyrus 
 11. McCormick Chair of Theology." If so, I can but assure 
 him of his error. While his " dishonored bond " argument 
 was one directly to save himself from the " sacrifice " to- 
 wliicli he ii'ft'iri-d, I can conceive of no motive personal to 
 myself either to " buy " him oiF, or " buy " up^the Semin- 
 ary ; and if, therefore, (in his languarge) "that venerable 
 body can think it Just, because of my (his) cordial agreement 
 and co-operation with it'*'' — to save him from this "sacrifice,'^ 
 I shall be content. 
 
 Rights of property involved are of course secondary ques- 
 tions ; but, under the operations of wrong done to one party,, 
 and demands both " legal and moral "made upon that ])artyy 
 it must not be supposed that in the contingency of such 
 wrong being perpetuated, similar ^'^ legal and moraV claim* 
 on the other side cannot be alluded to. It is very modest 
 to say : We have taken the Seminary as we proposed to do,. 
 with the Chair of Theology just where it stood in 1866, 
 when we threw you "overboard." We did then propose 
 that, whereas you had to that time done nobly, you should 
 have full credit for all you had so well accomjjlished ; but, 
 excuse us, we have now men and means ami will relieve you 
 of all further care and responsibility in the premises. You 
 have done half the whole work of completing this noble In- 
 stitution. We will take to ourselves " the Chair of Theol- 
 ogy and a working majority of the Directors," (by displa- 
 cing those who had so well till then discharged their duty,) 
 and will complete the work, and will hold and run the Insti- 
 tution for you. You protest to be sure,but what of that ; we 
 have just now a majority in the Assembly, and can do the 
 work better than you, while you have done your part of it I
 
 Soon, however, though with :x new and :v[)j)i"()ve<l coUt'ct- 
 ing agent, we fail to get tlie " money V neeessary for the 
 work — the vevy^first instahnent towards oicr work — the Mac 
 Master endowment, " depended upon " fails — and we send 
 our Committee to you. Ah, if you please, the chairs are all 
 filled now, and your fourth instalment would be acceptable. 
 Dr. Lord thunders, "Your plighted faith," "Your dishon- 
 ored bond," etc. — in effect : " I occupy the Cyrus IT. Me 
 Cormick Chair of Theology, and want the bond paid !" 
 And of course the " old friends," superseded and superan- 
 nuated, being just where the General Assembly placed them, 
 should stay there most quietly! The idea that tliey should, 
 under such circumstances, imagine themselves entitled to 
 any share of what the;/ had themselves provided, and so •sa- 
 credly given to their " neio fkiexds," would be-^" to say 
 the least of it " — " Simony IP'' ' 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 C. H. IVIcCOKMICK. 
 
 LETTER FROM REV. T. V. MOORE, D. D. • 
 
 Nashville, March 5, ]809. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Lord — ^Dear Sir: You Avill pardon me if I 
 say that your reply of the 3d inst. is somewhat extraordinary. 
 You have made in the Presbyter a statement about me Avhich 
 is untrue and injurious, in that^ ^?r/or to the fall of fort Sum- 
 ter, I was a disunionist, and had spoken contemptuously of the 
 North. I solemnly aver that both these statements are un- 
 true. When I call your attention to them, you say tliat 
 they rested on statements made in the New York Observer, 
 and perhaps, the Presbyterian ; and, if their statements were 
 incorrect, you have no doubt they woidd willingly make tjic 
 due correction. To this I reply: 1st, That no such state- 
 ments were published in those papers at. any time ; .for I saw 
 them regularly, and I challenge you or any one else to find
 
 68 
 
 any such allegations in tliem at that time. You have con- 
 -foundod statements published during the war with that you 
 allege to have been published previous to April, 1861. 
 
 Hence, the statement was not with these papers, but with 
 you; and they might well decline to correct incorrect state- 
 ments which they never made. 
 
 2. Were it possible for these papers to make any such 
 correction, it would not reach the case ; for your statement 
 was made by the Presbyter^ whose readers may never see 
 'these papers — and made, not as a contingent statement, based 
 on the authority of others, but on your own authority, the 
 responsibility being thus assumed by yourself. 
 
 You speak of Mr. McCormick's "unmanly attack" on you. 
 .fa your assault on me any more manly? You have dragged 
 flay name before the public, needlessly, as it seems to me ; 
 and, on a statement, the responsibility of which you formally 
 assume, made a charge against me which is untrue, and in- 
 capable of proof by the witnesses you cite ; and when I ask a 
 manly reparation of the wrong you have done me, you invite 
 me to ask the news-papers to correct misstatements which 
 I know they never made, and were made by you alone. Is 
 that manly ? Is that bearing true witness against your neigh- 
 bor? I know that a strong prejudice exists against me in 
 the North ; and it does so because there have been so many 
 who, like you, have made false statements about me which 
 they had not the manliness to correct when pointed out to 
 them. Pardon me if I speak plainly, for I think you have 
 acted in a very improper manner, and I feel bound to say so 
 m plain words. I do not now expect any reparation of the 
 injury you 'have done me; but I feel bound in Christian 
 fidelity to say that you have done me this wrong; and I 
 hope the time may come Avhen God will lead you to see it, 
 and to act justly and fairly to even a poor, hated rebel, as 
 I suppose you regard me to be, whose good name is of no sort 
 of consequence to you. I greatly regret the necessity of 
 writing these things; but your own sensitiveness in regard 
 to the statements of others about you, will, I hope, be my 
 apology. 
 
 I am youTs, etc., T. V. Moore. 
 
 liev. Willis Lord, I). D., Chicago.
 
 69 
 
 From the Presbyterian Banner, March 24, 1869. 
 WRITTEN BY DR. JUNKIN, 
 
 Late Pastor of the North Church, Chicago. 
 
 DR. LORD AND MR McCORMICK. 
 
 Messrs. Editors. — It is very important not only for the 
 interests of the " Seminary of the North- West," but for the 
 welfare of all similar institutions in our Church and country, 
 that the dispute about the Seminary in question be settled, 
 not in a partisan spirit, but in a spirit of Christian fairness 
 and equity. I deplore this dispute most profoundly. It iB 
 especially to be lamented, that sharp personalities should 
 have entered into it ; lor they always complicate the real 
 issues. Nor is it less deplorable that a disposition should 
 appear in any quarter, to gather round the true issues the 
 blinding mists of political passions. 
 
 In what I propose to say, I shall endeavor to deal candid- 
 ly with the real issues ; and that, not with a view to do 
 injury to either of the gentlemen named at the head of this 
 article, but simply to do justice to them and the cause. 
 Permit then a few remarks, and, 1. I am sincerely of opin- 
 ion that injustice is done to Mr. McCormick, by the allega- 
 tion that he desires to control the Seminary, or dictate its 
 management in the interest of anything beyond tlie legiti- 
 mate objects of its foundation. I know that gentleman Avell ;. 
 and know him to be unusually marked by a spirit of toler- 
 ance and exemption from a disposition to dictdte or controL 
 In this estimate I will be sustained by all candid men in 
 Chicago, who know the man. I have had frequent conver- 
 sations with him about the interests of the Seminary, and of 
 the North Church ; and can truly say, that his freedom from 
 the .domineering .disposition that has been attributed to 
 him, was more complete than I could conceive to be possi- 
 ble, in such a set of circumstances.
 
 70 . 
 
 I know, too, that in the treatment of men in social life, or 
 in business, sacred or secular, he was never influenced by 
 their dittering from him in political opinions. Many of his 
 employees and confidential agents differed with him in 
 political questions. In selecting attorneys and other pro- 
 fessional agents, I happen to know that he often chose his 
 decided political opponents. I never knew a man less dis- 
 posed to yield to such prejudices. 
 
 2. If our brother Lord had been content to retain the 
 chair to which he was elected, and for which Mr. McCor- 
 mick deemed him qualified, no objection would ever have 
 been raised by the founder of the Seminary. It was the 
 proposal to transfer Dr. Lord to a cliair bearing the 
 founder's name, by a process that violated the trust — to a 
 chair for which he was not deemed so competent as for the 
 one to which he was elected — that awaked the founder's 
 apprehensions. 
 
 3. It is a fact, which no man posted in the history of the 
 Seminary can question, that there was a very explicit ujider- 
 stariding^ in the General Assembly, at the time the Seminary 
 was located at Chicago, in regard to the type of theology 
 that was to jjrevail in it, and in regard to the general policy 
 that was to lie at its foundation. I was at the Assembly in 
 Indianapolis — heard the debates — was cognizant of the is- 
 sues'' decided by the vote in regard to location (Indianapolis 
 or Chicago;) and know, as every other man there knew, 
 that the friends of a distinctive Old School Theology and of 
 the conservative basis of 1845 voted for Chicago, and the 
 more 2)rof/ressive brethren voted for Indianapolis. Had the 
 latter prevailed. Dr. MacMaster would have been the Pro- 
 fessor of Theology ; as it was, Dr. Kice was chosen as the 
 exponent of the objects and platform of the Institution. 
 The General Assembly i^erfectly undei*stood this at the 
 time! Mr. McCormick so understood it, and it was \vith 
 this explicit understanding tiiat he made his munificent 
 giftr^^ 
 
 4. Tiie gift was also made upon the basis of the " plan for 
 Theological Seminaries," adopted by the General Assembly, 
 at tlia tini3 tha first oa'j (Princeton) was established ;
 
 11 
 
 and which has been the law of the Church ever since. That 
 ^^plan^^ prescribes very explicitly the mode of electing pro- 
 fessors ; and makes no provision for the smuggling process, 
 by which a professor elected to one chair, is transferred to 
 .another by the manipulation of a committee, without prayer, 
 iiud without a ballot. It was by this process Dr. Lord . 
 reached the chair of Theology ; a chair to which in ordinary 
 times it is hardly likely he would be originally chosen,. 
 And I do not wonder that the founder of the Seminary 
 should feel reluctant to see the chair of Theology filled by 
 an indirection ; and that by a man who had assumed, with- 
 out just cause, as Mr. McCormick thouglit, an attitude of: 
 pereonal hostility to himself. This reluctance was doubtless, 
 increased by the fact that this transfer was effected, by its 
 managers, not so much out of regard to the peculiar qualiti- 
 cations of the candidate, but on the score of his " loyalty " 
 .to a particular set of political opinions ; which, too, the in- 
 cumbent liad but recently embraced, in obedience to the 
 current of events. 
 
 5, I was personally observant at the time the manceuver- 
 ing was in progress, for effecting this transfer, of tlie means 
 resorted to ; and if the painful necessity of a full expose 
 should arise, can give it, backed by proof: but I hope such 
 will never pi'ove necessary. Human frailty can be proven 
 by Scriptui'e, without such a demonstration, as the secret 
 Jiistory of this thing would furnish. 
 
 6. The writer of this article was made the unsuspecting 
 .and unconscious agent, by u gentleman Avhom I will not 
 noio name, of- beginning the process of revolutionizing the 
 Seminary of the North- West, as early as the Newark As- 
 sejubly (1864), and has watclied the progress of this unwor- 
 tliy effort ever since, with sorrow and humiliation. And I 
 -desire soberly to ask my brethren in this Church, whether 
 they are prepared fully to inaugurate the custom of deter- 
 mining the theology and the directorate of our Seminaries 
 by considerations, not pertaining to the kingdom and cause 
 of Christ, but pertaining to questions of national and State 
 politics ? Is this patriotic dodge, this " loyalty " dodge, by 
 which some men have managed to mount into notoriety, to
 
 last for ever? Are we never to "have peace?" Are men 
 to be proscribed, and the Church's benefactors denounced, 
 because they, now that the war is ended, desire Christian 
 magnanimity to be extended to our misguided enemies ? I 
 was very sorry to see my brother Lord, in liis last letter, 
 attempt to make a point against Mr. McConnick, for hav- 
 ing carried out the Saviour's maxim — " love your enemies ** 
 — and aiming to prove him a Southern sympathiser — be- 
 cause he gave ten thousand dollars to the College that bears 
 the name of Washington and located in Mr. McCormick's 
 native county. If ever the Southern people are to be deliv- 
 ered from their political mistakes, and made a valuable por- 
 tion of our population, it will be by education : and is it a 
 crime in jNIr. McCormick, to pity them in their poverty, and 
 extend a helping hand ? When one of our Generals tore 
 down the statue of Washington, from that very College, 
 and bore it oflf, a trophy of war. General Grant, our present 
 woi'thy President, ordered it to be sent back and replaced. 
 Is the President a Southern sympathiser ? 
 
 7. The phraseology, " The friends of the Seminary," is a 
 stereotype phrase, in the parliamentary and historical lan- 
 guage of our Church. Very often have we heard it from 
 the lips of directors, professors, and friends of Princeton, 
 Alleghany, and other Seminaries ; and its meaning is well 
 understood, and it embodies an idea that is right, valuable, 
 and important. It means that every institution of the kind 
 is placed, by the Church, in the hands of persons who have 
 taken and expect to take a special interest in founding, 
 maintaining and managing it. And so long as it is man- 
 aged, by these " friends," in accordance with the objects 
 of its foundation and the wishes of the Church, it is wise to 
 leave it in the hands of its " friends." Princeton, Alleghany, 
 and Danville always expected and received from the Assem- 
 bly " a working majority " of " the friends of the Seminary " 
 — is the Seminary of the North- West to be blessed Avith "a 
 working majority" of its foes? This policy was partially in- 
 itiated in 18G4 — boldly attempted in 1805 — and is now un- 
 blushingly avowed, by certain men, far from Chicago, who 
 never have done anything towards its prosperity, except it
 
 19 
 
 be to lead an unsuspecting Assembly to give to those who 
 would kill it, " a working majority " in the Directorate. 
 Let it be understood that tliis policy is fairly inaugurated, 
 and that our Seminaries are to be made the stakes in eccles- 
 iastical games of bluff; and who will contribute to endow- 
 meiits hereafter? Let-it be understood that the munificence 
 of a Christian gentleman can be not only perverted from 
 the specific object for which he gave it, but even used for 
 the sustenance of persons who become his enemies without 
 cause — and farewell to such benefactions, so long as man is 
 
 lY^nn V SfC I* v "K V T* 
 
 NOUS VERRONS. 
 
 P. S. — Since writing the above, I have received a Banner 
 of the 10th inst., in which, in noticing the catalogue of the 
 Seminary, to which, it seems, is appended or pi-efixed a his- 
 toi-ical statement, you draw the inference that the " origi- 
 nal fi-iends of the Seminary" is a phrase which signifies 
 something very different from Avliat is intended by those 
 who use it." This inference is one very natural for you to 
 draw, with no information upon the subject, but what ap- 
 pears in the " history." Hereby hangs a tale. Dr. Lord, 
 during the sessions of the Assembly of 1864, approached 
 the Chairman of the Committee on Theological Seminaries, 
 (who is a very unsuspecting man,) and made such represen- 
 tations as induced the Chairman, and tlirough himtlie Com- 
 mittee, to adopt this little " history " into the report of the 
 Committee anent the Seminary of the Xorth-West ; and it 
 was adopted and reported, and, I think, adopted by the 
 Assembly. Though brought to the Chairman by Dr. Lord, 
 and though he requested that it should be incorporated in 
 the Committee's report, it was not in his handwriting ; but, 
 (probably) in that of the then Moderator of the Assembly, 
 Dr. Wood, That brotlier (Dr. W.) subsequently brought 
 out this " history " in an address delivered before the Direc- 
 tors of the Seminary, in the North churcli, Chicago ; some- 
 what curiously attributing the " history " to the pastor of 
 that church, (Dr. D. X. Junkin,) who had been the Cliair- 
 man of the Committee of the Assemblv of 1864.
 
 74 
 
 After the address was over, I heard a member of the 
 Board of Directors speaking in terms of severe condemna- 
 tion of the " history," denying its verity, and intimating 
 that it was part of the process, then going forward, of revo- 
 lutionizing the management of the Seminary. Dr. Junkin 
 was present, and said on the spot, that he was not the author 
 of the " history ;" that Dr. Lord had requested him, as 
 Chairman of the Committee, to incorporate it in the report 
 to the Assembly — that he had no time to verify its state- 
 ments, but took them upon Dr. Lord's representation. This 
 is the history of this " history " — and fairness demands a 
 remark or two. 
 
 Ist. It proves that so early as 18G4 a scheme was set on 
 foot to get the Seminary, which the General Assembly had, 
 by a vote of 251 to 82, taken out of the hands of certain 
 "friends" and put into the hands of other persons, smug- 
 gled back into the hands of the same " original friends," 
 with Dr. Joseph Monfort as their leader ! It was a scheme 
 to undo what the Assembly of 1859 had so emphatically 
 done. 
 
 2d. This " history " was written when Mr. McCormick 
 was in Europe, where he had been for some years, and at a 
 time when he was taking no part in the aiijiirs either of 
 Church or State. 
 
 3d. If you will look at the Minutes of the Assembly of 
 1859, you will see evidence enough of this fact, viz. : that 
 whilst, with a view to conciliate all our people in the West 
 and North- West, and also for the purpose of preventing the 
 existence of two rival Seminaries, the Assembly of 1859, 
 did take the bid New Albany Seminary under its control ; 
 the institution then established was, to all intents and pur- 
 poses, a new one. The Assembly went so far as to vacate 
 the seats of the old directors, and make all things new. In 
 the resolutions on p. 225, the Seminary is spoken of as one 
 " abovt to be established by this General Assembly," and 
 the Assembly thanks Mr. McCormick for his liberal dona- 
 tion, and accepts it " upon the terms and conditions therein 
 mentioned," N. V.
 
 75 
 
 MR. MCCORMICK'S ORIGINAL PROPOSITION TO 
 THE ASSEMBLY OF 1859. 
 
 New York, March 27, 1869. 
 
 Messrs. Editors — I am induced to inclose herewith, for 
 publication in the Northwestern Presbyterian, a copy of 
 the paper presented by me to the General Assembly of 1859, 
 at Indianapolis, containing the terms of my offer to that As- 
 sembly to endow the Theological Seminary of the N'orth- 
 west, by the postscript to an article I find in the last number 
 of the Presbyterian JBan7ier, over the assumed name, "A"oz<s 
 Verrons.^^ 
 
 The ^'■history" of this Seminary, as given by Dr. Lord to the 
 chairman of the committee of the Assembly of 18G4, lor 
 publication, had escaped my attention, and I send you this 
 paper that the matter may be set right. 
 
 It will be observed from this paper that I say : "Where- 
 as, * * it is proposed that the said General Assembly 
 shall take the charge and control of a Tlieo.ccical ISentinary 
 proposed to be established iov the use and bei efit of the North- 
 western portion of the Presbyterian Church, &c. 
 
 " Regarding, as I do, this proposed enterprise as one of the 
 greatest importance, not only to the religious, but also to the 
 general interests of the country, and thus being desirous of 
 securing for it," etc. * 
 
 *■'• Prov ided, that the said General Assembly shall take charge 
 oi said Theological Seminary, as aforesaid ,' and provided 
 that the donation shall be applied to the endowment of said 
 Seminary — $25,000 /or each prof essor to said Seminary ap- 
 pointed or elected by said General Assembly" — 7wt iransfei'- 
 red from one Chair to another. 
 
 The article in question, says : " The Assembly went so 
 far as to vacate the seats of the old Directors, and make all 
 things new.;; In the resolutions on page 225 the Seminary is 
 spoken of as one ' about to be established by this General 
 Assembly,' and the Assembly thanks Mr. j^FcCormick for 
 his liberal donation, and accepts it '■upon the terms and con- 
 ditions therein mentioned.'' "
 
 76 
 
 COPY. 
 
 Washington, D. C, May 13, '59. 
 
 Whereas, At the approaching meeting of the General 
 Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, at Indianapolis, Ind., 
 (on the 19th inst,,) it is proposed that the said General As- 
 sembly shall take the charge and control of a Theological 
 Seminary, proposed to be established for the use and bene- 
 fit of the Northwestern portion of the Presbyterian Church,, 
 select a site for the location of the same, and appoint a time 
 for opening it : 
 
 Now, therefore, regarding, as I do, this proposed enterprise 
 as of the greatest importance, not only to the religious, but 
 also to the general interests of the country ; and thus being 
 desirous of securing for it such assistance as I now may have 
 the means and privilege of doing, I hereby covenant and 
 agree, as follows, viz : 
 
 Provided, That the said General Assembly shall at it& 
 next meeting (during this month) take charge of said The- 
 ological Seminary as aforesaid, and locate, or provide for the 
 location of it, within the limits of the City of Chicago, in 
 the State of Illinois, or at the most eligible locality that can 
 be had within one and a half miles from said city limits ; 
 and provided that the donation hereinafter offered shall be 
 applied exclusively to the endowment of professorships in said 
 Seminary, I bind myself, my heirs, ere, to pay to the Direc- 
 tors or pro})erly authorized agents of said Seminary, the sura 
 of one hundred thousand dollars (#100,000), to be paid on the 
 following terms and conditions, viz. : Twenty-five thousand 
 dollars ($25,000,) for each Professor to said Seminary, ap- 
 pointed or elected by said General Assembly, and payable 
 in four equal annual instalments, with six per cent, interest 
 until paid — the first of which to be due and payable one 
 year after the opening of said Seminary, with the privilege 
 of paying the jyrincipal at any time in advance of being due, 
 if so preferred by me, or my heirs. As witness my hand 
 the date first above written. 
 
 (Signed,) C. H. McCormick.
 
 11 
 
 LETTER FROM DR. MONFORT. 
 
 Cixcix-VATi, April 14, 1869. 
 ■C. If. Mc Cormick, Esq. : 
 
 Dear Sir — As you are now a reader of the Presbyter^ you 
 have seen my report of the doings of the Board of Directors 
 •of the Theological Seminary of the North- West, at its late 
 meeting. You will have noticed that J. G. Monfort, S. T. 
 Wilson, F. T. Brown, J. L. Williams, and J. C. Grier, were 
 appointed a committee to report next year in regard to the 
 matter of your endowment, with instructions to hare a con- 
 ference with you on the subject. This action was unani- 
 mous, and several brethren of the minority complimented 
 me for my remarks in favor of this motion. I gave three 
 reasons: 1. We must take some action, so as not to waive 
 our claim for the $25,000. 2. We ought to take a year, so 
 as fully to find out what we ought to do. 3. I said that I 
 had good hope that time would enable us to settle this mat- 
 ter in a way satisfactory to all ; and I explained that reunion 
 with the New" School would be followed by an immediate 
 ■change for the better between the North and the South. I 
 •stated a conversation between Dr. Nelson and myself, in 
 ■which he expressed views the same as you will find in his 
 : remarks at a meeting in this city last week, of which he 
 .gives an abstract in the last Presbyter. I gave the views of 
 other leading New School men, as agreeing with Dr. Nelson. 
 I said that immediately after reunion with the New School, 
 we would begin to drift towards reunion with the South. I 
 said I believed that as soon as Mr. McCormick began to see 
 this, his feelings would change, and he would help the move- 
 ment, and, with it, the difiiculties of the Seminary would 
 be removed. These are the facts of the case, whatever you 
 may hear to the contrary. 
 
 I greatly desire that things may, within a year, be put in 
 such shape that you may feel well to all the authorities of 
 ihfi Seminary, and have that place in the esteem of all to
 
 which you arc entitled by your munificent donation. This 
 cannot be attained by giving you the control of the Profes- 
 porships or " a working majority " in the Board, for this per- 
 petuates strife and distrust, and implies that parties are to 
 be kept up. It may be done by a feeling on your part, that- 
 our alienations in the whole country are to end on terms- 
 equal and fraternal. My impression is that your objections 
 to the management, which you think are, to some extent, 
 personal, have all grown out of public questions, even those 
 in which Dr. Lord is involved, and that hence, as soon as- 
 those public questions are in the Avay of adjustment, your 
 feelings will change ; and the same will be true in regard to 
 the feelings of others toward yourself. This will take time. 
 If Horace Greely and Henry Ward Beecher can conciliate^ 
 surely our church can. If our Government can pacify the 
 South, our church may do the same. 
 
 I write for the purpose of bringing the work of the Com- 
 mittee before you, and asking if you are free to have a full 
 and fraternal interview. At least Mr. Williams and myself 
 will have an opportunity of seeing you during the meeting 
 of the Assembly, if you are willing. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 J. G. MONFOKT, 
 
 178 Elm Street^ Cinciiinati. 
 
 REPLY TO DR. MON FORT'S LETTER. . 
 
 40, Fifth Avenue, New York, 
 
 ^jt>ri7 29?A, 1869. 
 
 . Rev. J. G. Moxfort, D. D.^Dear Sir: — I avail my- 
 self of the first opportunity I have had to reply to your let- 
 ter of the 14th inst., in which you say, "J. G. Monfort, S. 
 T. Wilson, F. T. Brown, J. L.* Williams, and J. C. Grier,. 
 were appointed a Committee to report next year in regard
 
 79 
 
 to the mattor of our cndoAvmont, with instructions to have 
 a conference with you on the subject." 
 
 In reply to your " purpose of bringing the work of tlie 
 Committee before you and asking if you arc free to have a 
 full and fraternal interview ;" and to your remark that 
 " at least Mr. Williams and myself will have an opportunity 
 of seeing you during the meeting of the Assembly if you 
 are willing," I have not the least objection to such an in- 
 terview. 
 
 But, as to the first of your three reasons given for the 
 unanimous action of the Board of Directors appointing this 
 Committee, permit me to say that you need have no ap- 
 prehension of the loss of your " claim^'' from delay, " for 
 the 825,000 ;" and that, from the second, I regret to learn 
 that you think it necessary "to "take a year fully to find out 
 what we ought to do." In relation to your third reason, 
 after what I have written on this subject, I need hardly say 
 that I also regret that you should think any question of 
 " reunion with the New School," or of " change for the 
 better between the North and the South," should delay, 
 a year, justice to myself and the party with whom I have 
 acted. 
 
 Up to the point of your having failed to publish in the 
 Presbyter my reply to Dr. Lord's second comnmnication, I 
 have been gratified at the fair manner in which you treat- 
 ed this Seminary controversy, while I had hoped that you 
 would be found ready without delay to meet this question 
 on its merits ; and while, perhaps, no one thing more than 
 to do simple justice in this case would favor an early resto- 
 ration of fraternal feeling between the North and South ; 
 and which, thus promptly done, could not fail to counter- 
 act the insults offered that people (South) by Dr. Zord^s de- 
 nunciations of them. 
 
 • So far as my own " feelings " are concerned, the best pos- 
 sible evide7ice "that our alienations in the Avhole country 
 are to end on terms equal and fraternal " might be furnish- 
 ed by those who took from the original founders and sup- 
 porters of the Seminary " a working majority in the Board," 
 and " the control of the Professorships," in first restoring
 
 80 
 
 what had thus been taken from them. First restore to every 
 one liis rights, then do no more wrong. It seems to me 
 more that ''''parties are to be kept ■up'^ when the parti/ hav- 
 ing improperly usurped control insists that to ask tlie re- 
 turn of it can only " perpetuate strife and distrust !" 
 
 Is it in the golden rule, much less in human nature, for us to 
 *• feel well towards all the authorities of the Seminary," while 
 those authorities refuse to re-instate us in our rightful posi- 
 tions, from which they ejected us without a shadow of cause ? 
 Is it to be supposed that -Tcan "yce/ icc// towards" a man who 
 persists in the ocfiupancy of the "Cyrus II. McCormick 
 Prefessorship of Theology," after having triumphantly ex- 
 posed the unwarranted means resorted to by him in getting 
 himself placed there, when no high-minded man could have 
 been induced, under such circumstances, to have accepted 
 the position ? And should I be supposed i>ow to '■''feel 
 weW towards a proposition that, in connection with the late 
 action of the Board of Directors, and of IVie Chicago Pres- 
 bytery, implies the perpetuation of the wrong done by the 
 Assembly to my Conservative friends, and the continuance 
 of a man in the said Professorship of Theology who, by his 
 course as developed in his correspondence with me, has 
 proved himself so unworthy of it ? Never ! And if, to " have 
 that place in the esteem of all to which you (I) are entitled 
 by your (my) munificent donation," this is necessary, I must 
 remain without it, much as that may be desired. 
 
 The wonder with me is, when " Horace Greely and Henry 
 Ward Beecher can conciliate " the political differences of the 
 country, how such extreme Church factions could, in the 
 year '09, be found to rule the action in the Seminary meet- 
 ing of Directors, and in the Chicago Presbytery, as was 
 done ! 
 
 Duly appreciating your expressed disposition to conciliate 
 the South, and trusting that you, sir, will in due time feel 
 the propriety in this Seminary matter of being '^'■just before 
 being generous.'''* 
 
 I am, yours truly, 
 
 C. H. McCOKMICK.
 
 81 
 
 Editorial From The North Western Presbyterian ^ 
 May 8th, 1869. 
 
 THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF THE 
 NORTH WEST. 
 
 A Plain Statement. 
 
 The controversy in which this institution has been invol- 
 ved is universally dejjlored. A most important interest of 
 the church has thereby been greatly embarrassed and re- 
 tarded in its growth and usefulness. Its futiire existence is 
 even believed to be seriously endangered. Brethren who 
 before had harmoniously co-oi^erated in its support, have 
 been divided and alienated. Many who were its warm 
 friends and liberal supporters have become estranged from 
 it. The church and tlie cause of religion have been scandal- 
 ized. In every aspect this controversy is sad and painful in 
 the extreme. To no one has it been more embarrassing 
 than to us who are called to conduct a church journal in the 
 field of its existence. We have desired to give to this insti- 
 tution a most earnest and' cordial support. Not to be able 
 to do this from any cause has been to us embarrassing and 
 painful beyond expx'ession. 
 
 For prudential reasons we have declined to take part, 
 editorially, in the controversy which has been pending be- 
 tween the liberal founder of the Seminary and one of its 
 Professors, or to express any opinion editorially in reference 
 to it. With the general controversy touching the manage- 
 ment and control of the Seminary, we as journalists, and 
 the church at large, have the deepest interest. What this 
 Seminary is and continues to be, our church in the Noi'th- 
 west must soon become. Its injury or failure would be an 
 untold calamity. 
 6
 
 82 
 
 The questions which enter into the controversy in which 
 this institution is now involved, lie deeper and run farther 
 back than the differences which have arisen between Dr. 
 Lord and Mr. McCormick. As was stated in a very calm 
 and judicious article by one thoroughly posted in seminary 
 matters in the West, in our issue of the 24th ult., over the 
 signature of "Presbyter," " the origin of the present diffi- 
 culty lies back twenty years and east of Chicago. It had a 
 .connection with New Albany soon after the death of the 
 venerable Dr. Matthews. It may be traced as far back 
 as the nttemptod removal of Ilanovor College about 
 1844," 
 
 As was before stated by us, for twenty years our church 
 in the West has been torn and distracted by controversies 
 with respect to the founding, management and control of 
 Theological Seminaries. AVith these former controversies 
 the present writer had no connection. Of them he has no 
 particular knowledge. With respect to them he wishes to 
 express no opinion. They occurred before he was called to 
 the West. It is sufficient for our present purpose to know 
 that they existed — that they have been evil and almost only 
 evil, resulting in the death of the Seminary at New Albany, 
 in greatly crippling the one at Danville, in the entire failure 
 of the attempt to found the Tlieological Seminary of the 
 Northwest under Synodical control, and now threatens this 
 same institution under the control of the Assembly with 
 similar embarrassments and disasters. Whether these con- 
 troversies have been the result of serious differences as to 
 important ecclesiastical or doctrinal questions, of personal 
 ambition and conflicts, or of mere party strife, is not for us 
 to determine. They existed. Their influence was most un- 
 happy. If possible they should have been avoided. By no 
 means should they be perpetuated. 
 
 The inquiry Avhich we projiosed, some time since, in con- 
 nection with this subject, in due time to raise was — Is there 
 no generally recognized principle, by which the Theological 
 Seminaries of our church, under the control of the Assem- 
 bly, may be or arc managed in a manner alike fair and just 
 to all, and by adherence to which, on the part of the Assem-
 
 ^ 83 
 
 bly, these conflicts may be prevented, and those who era- 
 bark in building up such institutions may be allowed to go 
 on and do all the good they can unmolested by those who 
 may be unwilling to co-operate with them. 
 
 We then said, in view of these long protracted contro- 
 versies : 
 
 It is time to inquire earnestly whether there is not some 
 true and just principle upon which our theological semina- 
 ries can be established and managed, so as to avoid such 
 conflicts. One set of brethi-en band together with a sincere 
 desire to advance the kingdom of God, by rearing an insti- 
 tution for the training of an able and godly ministry. An- 
 other set of brethren, distrusting the purity of their motives, 
 and suspecting them of being actuated by an ambitious 
 intent of lording it over God's heritage, think they will be 
 doing God service by frustrating all their endeavors. A 
 conflict ensues, and a great work, honestly begun, and with 
 the ordinary amount of good intentions common to imper- 
 fectly sanctified men, is retarded or wholly tliAvaited. Now, 
 the inquiry we propose to raise is, is there no way to prevent 
 such collisions, and to allow each set of brethren to go for- 
 ward and do all the good they can, Avithout let or hindrance 
 from their unconfiding brethren. 
 
 This is the inquiiy we now pi*opose to prosecute in the in- 
 terests of peace. In order to secure this most desirable 
 result, some principle, at once fair, equitable and just, must 
 be adopted and enforced. Or if adopted and enforced in 
 certain cases with the best results, it should be alike applied 
 to all the seminaries of the church. 
 
 The whole church is interested alike in the settlement of 
 the present controversy as to the seminary of the North- 
 west on ti'ue and just principles. For if wrong is allowed 
 as to the management and control of one seminary, the party 
 perpetrating it will thereby be only strengthened and em- 
 boldened, and soon the same wi'ong may be repeated in 
 regard to the others. 
 
 What principle then is there, by the adoption and enforce- 
 ment of which on the part of the Assembly, the manage- 
 ment and control of the seminaries may be so arranged aH
 
 84 
 
 to secure these results ? We answer, these results may be 
 secured by the Assemhbj leaving the management and con- 
 trol of these institutions in the hands of tJieir friends. Their 
 friends are their supporters. 
 
 The limitations to this control are lo be found in the con- 
 stitution of the seminary and the government of the church. 
 So long as they are conducted in accoi'dance with their con- 
 Htitution, their management can safely be left in the hands 
 of their friends or supporters. 
 
 This principle is recogni/.ed and acted on by Presbyteries 
 in the government of individual churches, and has been the 
 principle upon which the General Assembly has always ac- 
 ted, in the management of the other seminaries. 
 
 For example, wlien any sufficient number of persons band 
 together for the purpose of seeking a church organization 
 and the support of the stated ministry, and apply to a 
 Presbytery to be organized, all that the Presbytery requires 
 upon tlie part of the private members in such cases, is a 
 credible profession of their faith in Christ, and on the part 
 of the pastor, ruling elders and deacons whom they elect, 
 adoption of the Confession of Faith, Form of Government, 
 Book of Discipline, and Directory for Worship contained in 
 our Standards. The management of the church, within the 
 prescribed limits of the constitution, the Presbytery leaves 
 in the hands of its membei's and supporters. It never in- 
 terferes except in case of irregularities of administration. 
 So long as the church is conducted in a regular manner as 
 to doctrine, government, discipline and worship, the Pres- 
 bytery neither interferes itself, nor alloAvs any other church 
 or individual to interfere in its management. The result is 
 peace, harmony and efficiency. 
 
 So also when any number of ministers, ruling elders, and 
 members, are impelled for the glory of God, and the advan- 
 cement of his kingdom, to associate together to build up a 
 Theological Seminary, to train candidates for the gospel 
 ministry in the knowledge of the Word of God, and in the 
 doctrines, order, and worship summarily set forth in the stan- 
 dards of the Presbyterian church, and to cultivate in them, 
 by all the means which God has appointed in his word, the
 
 85 
 
 life of true godliness, and thus aim to raise up a succession 
 of able, faithful and godly ministers of the divine. word ; 
 they go to the General Assembly, and ask that venerable 
 body to organize such an institution, and proffer to the As- 
 sembly the means for its support. The General Assembly 
 at once accepts their offer and grants their request, and elects 
 directors and professors, and directs them to organize under 
 a specified constitution, the solemn adoption of which is re- 
 quired of each person accepting office in the same. The 
 Seminary is constituted for cerain specified ends. These 
 ends are expressly stated in the constitution. Officers arc 
 chosen for the performance of certain well-defined duties. 
 These ends being secured, the Assembly leaves the manage- 
 ment of that institution in the hands of its friends. S(J long 
 as the ends of its institution are faithfully secured, the Ass- 
 embly neither interferes in its management, nor allows any 
 one else to interfere, to distract or hinder the good work. 
 This principle being adhered to, the institution has peace, 
 stability, efficiency. There is encouragement under such 
 circumstances to contribute to its support and establishment. 
 Those who thus contribute will have a voice in its manage- 
 ment. The funds thus set apart they have every assurance 
 will be neither wasted nor perverted. To leave the man- 
 agement of the institution thus in the hands of its supj^ort- 
 ers is reasonable and just. The extent of their control is 
 bounded by the government of the church and the consti- 
 tution of the Seminary. Deny this principle and confidence 
 is shaken, the benevolence of the church restrained, and. all 
 hands engaged in the church's work paralyzed. Xow this, 
 is the principle upon which the General Assembly has acted 
 in regard to the Seminaries at Princeton, Alleghany and 
 Danville. On this principle the General Assembly at In- 
 dianapolis, in 1859, accepted the proffered endowment for 
 the Seminary of the Xorth-West, and elected its Directoj"8 
 and Faculty at that time. This very principle was dis- 
 tinctly announced, and luiiversally accepted by all concerned 
 at tliat time, and that too, by a representative man of the 
 same party, who are now tramplijig it in the dust. " In a let- 
 ter published in the Preshjtericm Expositor^ in April, 185JD,
 
 86 
 
 by Dr. John M. Lowry, then pastor of the cliurcli at Fort 
 Wayne, Intl., alter stating, 1. That we are now agreed to 
 the Assenibly's control ; 2. That it should not be sec- 
 tional ;. 3. That the enterprise is important and action 
 should be prompt and wise, lie expressly says : " It is iioio 
 the j^oUcy of the church to place the control of these institu- 
 tions virtitaVu in the hands of their friends^ (See Mrpos- 
 itor, Yol ^, p. 196.) The word virtually was italicised by 
 ifaim. 
 
 This .was the principle upon which they then projjosed 
 that ;the seminary to be placed under the control of the 
 Assembly should be managed. Its control was to be vir- 
 tually in the hands of its friends. This announcement M'as 
 *iade at the very time it was proposed to transfer it to the 
 Oeneral Assembly. And on this principle the seminary 
 was :oro;anized. On this principle it was conducted with 
 j)eace and efficiency until the meeting of the Assembly at 
 Pittsburgh, in 1865. Then it was, when Dr. J. G, Monfort 
 was made Chairman of the Committee on Seminaries, that 
 the first qpen and avowed attempt was made to wrest its 
 :inanagement out of the hands of its founders and friends, 
 and ^place it in the hands of those in whose hands the New 
 Albany ?fcminary had died, and the Seminary for the North- 
 west, un9 or Synodical control had utterly failed. In the 
 •hands lO'f its founders and friends it had been wisely and 
 succcFsTully managed. No one ever heard any charge 
 of maladministration brought against them. No one has 
 ^pretended to allege that while the management was left in 
 their hauds^ it was not the aim of the Directors to have the 
 .Students faithfully trained in the doctrines, order and wor- 
 ship of the Presbyterian Church, and to have fostered in 
 them a life of true godliness. It is equally well known that 
 it was their constant endeavor to do all in their power to 
 make the institution in all respects acceptable to the region 
 of the cluircli whose interests it was sj)ecially designed to 
 j)romote. They invited the co-operation of all their brethren. 
 They aimed to give each Synod in the Northwest a fair 
 .representation in the Dirtctory. And while in their hands, 
 at the annual meeting of the Board of Directors in the
 
 87 
 
 spring of 1866, when the new friends first made their appear 
 anee in the Board, the Treasurer reported : 
 
 1. An endowment of $100,000.00 
 
 2. Twenty-five acres of land secured by them 
 
 within the city limits, then valued at 
 
 |i50,000, now valued at $220,000 - - 220,000,00 
 
 3. Seminary building erected and paid for by 
 
 them 25,000.00 
 
 4. Furniture and improvements of grounds - 10,000.00 
 
 5. Library 7,000.00 
 
 6. ScholarshiI)s 10,000.00 
 
 7. Lot and lands 3,600.00 
 
 8. Bequest 10,000.00 
 
 9. Notes in hands of agents .... 10,908.15 
 
 $396,508.15 
 
 In addition to the above, during the same period, there 
 had been disbursed in running the Seminary for salaries of 
 professors, agents, and contingent fund, $77,154.38, 
 
 The debts of Synodical Seminary had also been paid, and 
 the institution was free of debt. 
 
 Xow of what do the friends and founders of this institu- 
 tion complain ? They complain that a party in the church 
 in the West, in whose hands the Seminary at New Albany 
 had died, in whose hands the proposed Synodical Seminary 
 of tlic North- West had most signally failed; a parly wlio 
 expressly agreed to transfer the Seminary to the control of 
 the Assembly, with the avowal of the principle, that it was 
 the policy of the church to leave the control of these institu- 
 tions in the hands of their friends, and who voted against 
 its location at Chicago in the Assembly, and in favor of In- 
 dianapolis ; and^who, after the Seminary had been located 
 and orgaiiized at Chicago by an overichebning vote of the 
 church at large, and by a large majority of the votes of the 
 Northwest represented in the Assembly, refused to co-operate 
 in building it up ; not only so, but when the Synod of 
 Cincinnati, in whose bounds this party has its head, had ex- 
 pressly declared that it sustained ho other relation to this
 
 88 
 
 Seminary than to all the other Seminaries of the church / 
 tliat such a party, at a time of great excitement in the 
 church and country, without due information being given 
 to the Assembly of their relations to the institution or their 
 designs in regard to it, and by imputatioas upon the views 
 of those in charge of it in relation to the great questions 
 npon which the country was so deeply agitated, which were 
 at once as false as they were offensive — should be allowed 
 to displace from their positions of trust and responsibility 
 those whom they themselves acknowledged had done nobly 
 for the same, and usurp for themselves the control and man- 
 agement of the institution and its funds ; this is the matter 
 of which they complain. It is a proceeding so unjust and so 
 out of character, that it is to them a subject of amazement 
 that any man or set of men could be found, professing the 
 Christian name, who could persuade themselves to do it, 
 much less obtain the high and sacred sanction of the (Gen- 
 eral Assembly to so unjust a transaction. 
 
 Then what has this party accomplished for the Seminary 
 since the spring of 1866, when they entered the Board? To 
 say nothing of the controversy in which the institution has 
 been involved, the alienations produced, and the injury to 
 the peace and harmony of the churches of the Northwest, 
 which have been occasioned, what, have they done for the 
 institution, financially, since their advent to the Board? 
 The land, buildings, library, furniture, etc., are just the same 
 as in 1 866. In 1 866, the Treasurer reported the cash assets of 
 the Seminary to be $91 ,350. In 1 869, the Treasurer rei)ortcd 
 the cash assets to be 192,718, Avhich shows an actual increase, 
 in three years in cash assets of just $1,368. The same re- 
 ports, when carefully compared, also show an increase of 
 unsecured notes of only $29,517.77, against which an actual 
 debt has been incurred in the same time of $7,486.13. Thus 
 it appears that the party in whose hands the New Albany 
 Seminary went down, who utterly failed in the matter of a 
 Synodical Seminary for the Northwest, a\ ho voted against 
 the Seminary being located at Chicago, threw their influ- 
 ence against it in their Synods after its organization, who con- 
 tribuK.ed_^nothing to it, and who usurped its control by the
 
 89 
 
 suppression of its real designs, and by false imputations upon 
 their brethren ; have failed to fulfil their promises as to the 
 aid they proffered, and have added in three years of unpar- 
 alleled abundance of money and liberality toward other in- 
 stitutions, only the paltry sum of $1,868 to the cash assets 
 of the institution. 
 
 The controversy which has arisen between Dr. Lord and 
 Mr. McCormick is a mere incident in the general conspiracy 
 to usurp the control of the institution. Dr. Lord was elect- 
 ed to a subordinate position in the faculty of the Seminary 
 in the outset, as one who was in harmony with the friends 
 of the institution in whose hands it was placed by the As- 
 sembly. No note of discontent was ever heard from him 
 until after Dr. Rice was called to New York. He then 
 aspired to succeed him in the Cyrus H. McCormick chair of 
 theology, and in the pastorate of the North Church. The 
 North Church declined to call him, 1st, because they did not 
 want a professor ; 2d, because many of the most intelligent 
 among them did not like his preaching. The executive 
 committee of the Board of Directors regarded Dr. Scott as 
 the better qualified to teach Theology, and requested him 
 to take charge of that department of the institution. At 
 these two things Dr. Lord took oiFense, and, turning against 
 his old friends, joined hands with the party who Avere 
 opposed to the Seminary, and with them has labored ever 
 since to revolutionize its management, and to secure his 
 own advancement. This is the plain English of this side 
 issue between him and the old founders of the institution. 
 
 Mr. McCormick, on the other hand, has been remarkably 
 reticent in regard to the Seminary from its organization. 
 Notwithstanding his munificent gift, and his known disposi- 
 tion to do even more for it, yet he has never been known to 
 dictate eitlier as to the professors or directors. Under all 
 the discourtesy which has been shown him, he has remained 
 silent up to the time when the demand was made upon liini 
 for the payment of his last instalment of $100,000. The 
 treatment he has received is the most damaging blow to the 
 cause of enlarged benevolence, which has ever been given in 
 the history of our church.
 
 90 
 
 Dr. Lord's connection with this Seminary is likely to prove 
 a parallel to that of Dr. Beecher's with Lane Seminary 
 at Cincinnati. Dr. Beecher came from the Congregational 
 church and was received in the outset by the Presbyterians 
 with the utmost confidence and cordiality. Gradually he 
 formed a party and worked out of the Board Old School 
 men, and worked in his New School friends. When the 
 division came in '37, he had a majority in the Board, and 
 carried the Seminary with him to the New School, though 
 the funds for it had been given by the Old School. A simi- 
 lar course has been pursued in connection with the Seminary 
 of the Northwest. What the ultimate result of the tactics 
 here employed shall be, the future will disclose. 
 
 The two questions which now remain to be answered are, 
 1st, Will the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church 
 when fully informed of this whole matter, sanction such a 
 proceeding; or 2d, Will the Assembly adhere to the fair 
 and just principle openly announced at the time this pro- 
 posed Seminary for the Northwest was transferred to its 
 control, and restore its management to the hands of its 
 friends and chief supporters ? 
 
 It gives me pleasure, at the request of Dr. Monfort, to 
 print for this pamphlet the following (second) letter, just 
 received from him. He says " they contain a fair expres- 
 sion" oi his vieios, "and the second is as important to me 
 (him) as the first." 
 
 C. II. :McC. 
 
 Ci.vcixxATi, J/rty 5, 1869. 
 C. IT. Mc Cormick, Esq. : 
 
 Dbab Sir — I have not a copy of the letter I wrote you, 
 to which I have to-day received your reply, but I may say 
 that I had no intention of discussing the merits of the ques- 
 tion between you and the Seminary. I only wished to ap- 
 prise you of the appointment of the Committee, and to ask
 
 91 
 
 fill interview for as many of the Committee as may be in 
 New York during the Assembly, To this you. have as- 
 sented, and I will only add : that in giving you the reasons 
 which were presented to the Board in favor of the action 
 taken, I desired you to know what was said, by Avay of dis- 
 abusing your mind, from any misunderstanding that might 
 arise from certain things which have been published, not 
 fairly stating the case. 
 
 1. It was proper to take some action as the question was 
 before the Board by the report of the Committee which 
 called forth your letter, 
 
 2. We could not act at once, and delay of a year looked 
 like acting with proper deliberation, 
 
 3. There was hope in delay, that the state of the Church, 
 including relations to the Church South, might faror an 
 adjustment of onr difficulties. 
 
 As to the danger of losing your last installment, I am 
 not concerned on that subject, I do not expect you to pay 
 it until you feel that you ought to do so, and if you never 
 pay it, I shall never charge you with dishonesty, I shall 
 as heretofore treat the matter as a difference of opinion. 
 
 I am surprised that you ai*e not quite satisfied with the 
 course of the Presbyter in your last controversy. We pub- 
 lished two letters from you and two from Dr. Lord, from 
 you first and from Dr. Lord last ; and we published one 
 from Mr. Williams and one from you, from Mr. W. first 
 and you last. Have you thought how other papers did in 
 the case ? And what they said as compared with the 
 Presbyter ? I have never impeached you or your motives. 
 I have only stated your views as you have given them and 
 then have stated mine. I feel that you ought to appreciate 
 this, tliough we have differed widely and still differ. Your 
 good 02)inion of my fairness, I should highly prize, while 
 your approbation of my principles on certain questions I 
 do not expect; and yet I hope that even our diverse views 
 may yet be harmonized. 
 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 J. G. MONFORT.
 
 92 
 
 ADDRESS, 
 
 Prepared bij Mr. C. II. Mc Cormick^ at St.Loui.% to be delivered 
 to the General Asseinbl>/, then in session, in 1866, and 
 placed in the hands of Henry Day, JEsq., {ofN^eio York^ 
 Elder of Dr. liice,) to be presented to the Assembly, but 
 loho failed to get a suitable opportunity to do so. It 
 would have been introduced at the commencement of 
 this correspondence, but was not then found : 
 
 To the Moderator of the General Assembly of tlie Presby- 
 terian Church, St. Louis : 
 
 In view of the course proposed to be taken in this Assem- 
 bly, in relation to the Theological Seminary of the North- 
 West, I had intended to explain to your Committee on 
 Seminaries, prior to its final action, the views of the friends 
 and supporters of this Seminary as to the said ])roposed 
 course of action, but was deprived of the 0})j)ortunity to do 
 so by the assurances of ad active member of the Assembly 
 that no immediate action on the subject would be taken by 
 the Committee ; that there would be ample time, and that, 
 from the conversation between him and myself, which he 
 seemed properly lo appreciate, he thought it better not to 
 send a i)aper to the Committee until sonietliing furtiier coxdd 
 be ascertained, which he promised to do, and to report to 
 me. Next day, however, the Committee made its report to 
 the Assembly. 
 
 It is witli much reluctance, Mr. Moderator, that I can con- 
 sent to trespass upon the indulgence of the Assembly, in 
 consuming a moment of its time. Nothing but a sense of 
 duty impels me to it, with a desire tliat my own i)ositionand 
 that of the friends of this Seminary may be known to tlie 
 Assembly, and that whatever shall be done by the Assem- 
 bly in the matter shall be with a knowledge of the facts in 
 the case — that the responsibility may then rest wliere it 
 properly belongs. 
 
 Now, sir, as it has been opeidy avowed (for a suj»posed 
 good ])urpose) by the member of this body referred to, a 
 Director in the Seminary, (Mr. Jesse L. Williams,) that the
 
 93 
 
 changes proposed to be made in the Board of Directors of 
 the Seminary, as well as the election of a Professor to the 
 Cyrus H. McCormick Professorship of Didactic and Polemic 
 Theology, are to be made on political or party grounds, and 
 from party considerations ; as you, sir, in the presence of 
 this Assembly, have kindly and in flattering terms, though 
 in a different connection, referred to my political position 
 before the country, you -will allow me one word for myself 
 and friends in that connection. My political principles, 
 while not in harmony with the majority on this floor, are now 
 the same as when I proposed to endow the Professorships ; 
 the same as when, in 1864, 1 was in nomination for Congress 
 — when, yielding to no one as a Union man, I was alike op- 
 posed to connecting politics with religion, as with the social 
 or business relations of life ; — but, while myself believing 
 Democratic princij^les in the government of the country as 
 essential as ever to its prosperity — and even, if you please, 
 that the old Democratic and Presbyterian " hoops " that 
 were broken must be reunited before we can have a perfectly 
 restored and reunited country and church, I can see no 
 justification whatever for the proscription now proposed in 
 the management of the Seminary. Heretofore no such tests 
 have been applied or thought of; while now, in the language 
 of Mr. Jesse L. Williams, in the conversation referred to, 
 with about three-fourths of the whole number of Directors 
 Republican, further changes are to be made, for " a good 
 working majority !" 
 
 I approached Mr. Williams as the leading opposition 
 member who, at the last meeting of the Board of Directors 
 of the Seminary, proposed and carried by a majority of 1 1 
 to 9 a motion to transfer Dr. Lord to the Chair of Theology, 
 and to elect a fourth Professor. I dcsii-ed to know 
 of him the reason for desiring a man in the Chair of Theol- 
 ogy of known hostility to myself and friends — the only 
 Chair of the four endowed by me that bore my name — and 
 while v:e had, to the present time, not only endowed the 
 Professorships, but procured nearly all the property and 
 funds in and for the Seminary ? This he admitted, and ad- 
 ded that the object of himself ^nd friends was, by placing
 
 04 
 
 their man in the Chair of Theology, to so interest their 
 friends generally, who had heretofore sto0d aloof and done 
 next to 7iothing, that they would now come forward and 
 take the responsibility of providing the requisite funds for 
 the completion of the buildings undertaken^ supplementing 
 the endowment of Professorships, <fec., which would require 
 in the aggregate at least |300,000. While avc had done our 
 part well, they had, he said, ample mtans for accomplish- 
 ing the work, and should now do their jjart ; and to that 
 end they thought it best to have " a good working major- 
 ity of Directors-" I replied that I supposed there must be 
 some such money calculation, as they could hardly, by such 
 a course, expect from me the unpaid instalment for that 
 Chair. I also stated that I understood from one of Dr. Rice's 
 friends that, if he (Rice) were wanted in that Chair again, 
 further funds could be raised among his friends in XeAV 
 York to increase the endowment of it for him, which Avould 
 be a permanent help to the Seminary, I further enquired 
 of Mr. Williams if the possession of that particular Chair 
 was necessary to interest his friends in the Seminary ; and 
 if, indeed, while admitting that we had done so well, they 
 could not, now that " slavery was dead," come forward and 
 co-operate with us in the great work of carrying forward 
 this Institution. lie remarked that he was glad I had in- 
 troduced the conversation — regretted it had not taken place 
 sooner — would see whether anything further could be done — 
 there was still sufficient time to see, as nothing would be done 
 by the Committee for some days — would let me know, but 
 thought Dr. Rice need hardly be thought of further, while 
 Dr. McMaster^ who would probably be preferred to Dr. Lord, 
 would also be supported by endoicment, if elected. I^ext day 
 he remarked, on meeting me, that Dr. Mc^NIaster would be 
 elected ; and the same day the Committee reported. 
 
 The nine Directors referred to opposed the election of a 
 fourth Professor at this time. They were old Directors, 
 representing the views of those who had sustained the 
 Seminary. They opposed the election on the grouiul that 
 there was still a material deficiency of funds for its support. 
 
 4P^
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Page. 
 
 C. H. McCormick's letter to N'. W. Presbyterian . . 3 
 Committee's letter to C. H. McCormick . . . 4 
 
 C. H. McCormick's reply to Committee ... 4 
 
 Editorial from the I^esbyter 12 
 
 J. L. Williams's letter to N.W. Presbyterian . .13 
 Editorial from the Presbyter . . . . . 16 
 
 Dr. Lord to Mr. McCormick 17 
 
 C. H. 3IcCormick's reply to J. L. Williams . . 30 
 
 Do. do. to Dr. Lord . . . .33 
 
 Do. letter to Dr. Rice ... 48 
 
 Dr. Rice's letter to C. H. McCormick . . . .48 
 
 Dr. Lord to Mr. McCormick 52 
 
 W. B. Tnaax's card to JVl W. Presbyterian . .55 
 
 Hon. J. W. Brockenbroiigh's article from Va. Gazette 56 
 C. H. McCormick's reply to Dr. Lord's rejoinder. . 60 
 Rev. T. V. Moore to Dr. Lord from JV. W. Presbyte- 
 
 rian 
 
 Dr. Junkin's article from the Presbyterian Panner . . 69 
 C. H. McCormick's original proposition to the Assem- 
 bly of 1859 75 
 
 Dr. Monfort to C. H. McCormick 11 
 
 C. H. IMcCormick's reply to Dr. Monfort . . . T8 
 
 Editorial from X. W. Presbyterian, May 8, 1869. . 81 
 
 Dr. Monfort to C. H. McCormick .... 90 
 C. IL McCormick's Address to the General Assembly, 
 
 at St. Louis, in 186G . . . . . .92
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 
 
 207IM7 C001 
 
 IMPORTANT CORRESPONDENCE, CONCERNING T