Full text of "The Union theological seminary in the city of New York: its design and another decade of its history. With a sketch of the life and public services of Charles Butler, LL.D"

See other formats

PRINCETON, N. J.

BV 4070 7U66^P 73^1899 ~~^
Prentiss, George Lewis, 181

-1903.
The Union theological
Shelf. ;Seminarv^,iji„,the....citv of NeJ

/^f.^^^^^€^ /^a~4f'^^1^^^^€tiyr?

THE

Union Theological Seminary

IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK:

Its Design

AND

Another Decade of its History.

WITH A SKETCH OF THE LIFE AND PUBLIC SERVICES
OF

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D.

Ci. L. PRENTISS.

ASBURY PARK, N. J.:

[., W. & C, PENNYPACKER,
1899.

By G. L. PRENTISS,

in the United States and Great Britain.

All Eights Reserved.

H)eMcateC)
to

all true lovers of tbe Mvinelgsgiven

ticibts an& liberties ot Cbristian

tbougbt anC> scbolarsbip.

Composition and Presswork by M., W. & C. Pennypacker
Seaside Torch Press.

PREFACE.

q^His volume, although prepared at the request of
the Board of Directors of the Union Theological
Seminary in the city of New York, is published on
my own responsibility alone. The subject was full of
difficulty ; and if the work is marred by mistakes and
errors of judgment, or should seem to some readers too
severe in its tone, the fault is mine, not that of the
board. And yet from first to last I have tried to write
without any unseemly passion and without prejudice.
The book has cost me not a little hard work, as well
as trouble of mind ; it is anything but pleasant to crit-
icise the unwise zeal, misunderstandings and wrong
conduct of good men ; and had not a foresight of the
closing chapters of the volume relieved the pain of
writing those that went before, I should have been
tempted to abandon my task midway, as utterly dis-
tasteful if not hopeless. For much of the best material
relating to the history, I am indebted to my dear
friend, Dr. Hastings. It was found in eight large
volumes of newspaper cuttings, pamphlets and letters
bearing on the subject, Avhich, with a sort of prophetic
instinct, he had collected and carefully arranged dur-
ing the long conflict between Union Seminary and the
General Assembly. Without the help thus given me,
joined to the constant aid and comfort of his wise

^i PREFACE.

counsel, this volume would have been simply impos-
sil>le. To another old friend, Mr. D. Willis James, I
am also greatly indebted for assistance, both in the
way of encouragement and of judicious, timely sugges-
tions. Unwittingly I have referred twice, somewhat
at length and in the same language, to the so-called
Bjpoih system as illustrating the point, that a false doc-
trine or principle once clothed with power, is sure,
sooner or later, to e^ert its baleful influence. (See pp.
64, Q>b and p]3. 238-240). The simple truth is, my
hatred of that abominable system has been so active
for half a century that, whenever there is a chance to
denounce it I am always tempted to repeat myself.

The sketch of my revered friend, Charles Butler,
needs, I trust, no apology. Much of it, to be sure,
hardly belongs to the special subject of this volume,
but the whole helps to show how Mr. Butler was fitted
to render such inestimable service to Union Seminary.
At all events it is my loving tribute to one of the best
and most remarkable men I have been privileged to
know at home or abroad. At his urgent entreaty, not
without long delay and a certain dread, this history
was undertaken ; and I like to remember that one of
his dying hours seemed to be cheered by the assurance
that the work had been actually begun. The reader
who never saw Mr. Butler's benignant countenance
will see it truthfully pictured on the frontispiece as he

looked in his ninety-third year.

G. L. p.
New York, September 11, 1899.

CONTENTS.

PART FIRST.
Chapter I.

THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES OF THE OLD SCHOOL
BRANCH OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH AND
THEIR RELATION TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. —
ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF THE UNION THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY. — REUNION AND THE THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARIES. — THE VETO POWER: HOW IT AROSE
AND WHAT IT MEANT 1

Chapter II.

THE FIRST EXERCISE OF THE VETO POAVER AND ITS

CONSEQUENCES. — ^THE DETROIT ASSEMBLY .... 66

Chapter III.

THE PARTING OF THE WAYS. — SKETCH OF THE CON-
FLICT BETWEEN UNION SEMINARY AND THE GEN-
ERAL ASSEMBLY. — THE ECCLESIASTICAL VETO. —
POSITION OF THE ASSEMBLY'S COMMITTEE OF CON-
FERENCE.— ANTAGONISTIC POSITION OF THE SEM-
INARY.— IMMEDIATE ISSUE OF THE STRUGGLE. —
A TRUCE 158

Chapter IV.

REASONS IN FAVOR OF ANNULLING THE AGREEMENT
OF 1870. — THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY REQUESTED
BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF UNION SEMI-
NARY TO CONCUR WITH THEM IN THIS SOLUTION
OF THE PROBLEM . 222

Chapter V.

THE MEMORIAL OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
UNION SEMINARY ASKING THE ASSEMBLY TO
JOIN WITH IT IN ANNULLING THE AGREEMENT
OF 1870. — THE ASSEMBLY REFUSING TO COMPLY

viii CONTENTS.

WITH THIS REQUEST, PEOPOSES ARBITRATION. —
THE SEMIXARY THEREUPON SEVERS ALL CONNEC-
TION AVITH THE ASSEMBLY CAUSED BY THE AGREE-
MENT OF 1870, AND RESUMES ITS ORIGINAL FREE-
DOM AND INDEPENDENCE OF ECCLESIASTICAL
CONTROL. — A GENEROUS GIFT. — SEQUEL TO THE
assembly's action in REGARD TO UNION SEMI-
NARY 255

Chapter VI.

BEARING OF THE CONFLICT WITH THE GENERAL AS-
SEMBLY UPON THE QUESTION OF ECCLESIASTICAL
CONTROL OF THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES. — LESSONS
TAUGHT BY THIS CONFLICT RESPECTING THE DE-
SIGN OF UNION SEMINARY AND THE MOTIVES OF
ITS FOUNDERS. — HOW THE CHARTER FITS INTO
AND SERVES THE DESIGN 293

PART SECOND.

THE CASE OF DR. BRIGGS ; BEARING ON THE JUDICIAL
SYSTEM OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH ; DR. R.

w. Patterson's views on the subject, as ex-
pressed IN LETTERS TO DR. HASTINGS, WRITTEN
AT THE TIME 311

PART THIRD.

INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION OF THE

SEMINARY SINCE 1886 339

THE COURSES OF STUDY AND SCHEDULE 346

THE LIBRARY AND THE ALUMNI 352

THE INAUGURATION OF A NEW PRESIDENT AND

GLANCES AT THE FUTURE 362

PART FOURTH.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF DEPARTED DIRECTORS

AND PROFESSORS 387

PART FIFTH.

A SKETCH OF THE LIFE AND PUBLIC SERVICES OF

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D 427

APPENDIX 533

INDEX 569

part jfirst.

THE

IDlnion ^beological Seminary

IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK:

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY.

(1888—1898.)

CHAPTER L

THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES OF THE OLD SCHOOL
BRANCH OP THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH AND THEIR
RELATIONS TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. — ORIGIN AND
DESIGN OF THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. —
REUNION AND THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES. — THE
VETO POWER: HOW IT AROSE AND WHAT IT MEANT.

TT is not likely that at this time there would be
any call for a second volume on the history of
the Union Theological Seminary, had not its sixth
decade been marked by a controversy with the Gen-
eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the
United States of America, which involved the auton-
omy and chartered rights of the institution. While
writing The Union Theological Seminary in the
City of New York : Historical and Biographi-
cal Sketches of its First Fifty Years, the

2 THE UNIOX THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

thought of such a struggle did not cross my mind ;
nor, so far as I know, had it occurred to the direc-
tors, with perhaps one exception, or to the facuky.

The position asserted by Union Seminary cannot,
therefore, be fully understood without a knowledge
of facts not recorded or even referred to in the
Semi-Centennial History. The only passage bearing
directly upon the subject in the whole volume is as
follows : " It [the seminary] was wholly indej)end-
ent, I repeat, of direct ecclesiastical control ; and so
it continued until 1870. At that time, in the inter-
est of reunion and of larger freedom of other theo-
logical seminaries, whose professors had heretofore
been chosen by the General Assembly, it generously
relinquished a j^ortion of its own autonomy."

The main design of the present volume is to give
an account of the agreement of 1870 between the
Union Theological Seminary and the General Assem-
bly, and to explain the causes which led to the
annulling of that agreement by the Board of Direc-
tors of the seminary. In order to do this most
effectually it will be necessary to consider, first of
all, the ecclesiastical status of the theological semi-
naries connected with the so-called Old School branch
of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of
America at the time of the reunion in 1869, as also
the origin and design of the Union Seminary. Had
not that seminary differed radically in its origin,
charter and ecclesiastical position from the Old

AXOrilER DECADE OE ITS ///STORY. 3

School seminaries no sucli controversy as that wliicli
took place would liave been possible. This will a])-
pear clearly as we proceed.

{a ) Ii('l((fions of fhcolof/ical seminaries in the Old
School branch of the P^^esbyterian Church to its Gen-
eral Assembly.

These relations indicated the general ])laH and
pattern and exhibited the characteristic features of
the institution according to the Old School type.
What then was the ecclesiastical status of Princeton,
the AVestern, Northwestern, and Danville semina-
ries, all belonging to that branch, when the first
Assembly of the reunited Church met at Philadel-
phia on May ID, 1870? It was that of unqualified
subjection to and dependence upon the General
Assembly. With one excej^tion they derived their
origin from the General Assembly, and the Assembly
Avas their patron and the fountain of their powers.
Such was the " plan," or constitution, upon which
they had been organized and according to which they
were governed and carried on. The General Assem-
bly appointed their professors and directors. It held
in its hand the initiative, as also the final decision,
in all the j)rincipal matters of instruction, policy and
discipline. After the disruption in 1838 the semi-
naries, then connected with the General Assembly,
passed under the exclusive control of the Old School
branch, which continued to adminster them in strict

4 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

accordance with the original plan of 1812, — the plan
npon which Princeton was founded. Its new semi-
naries were all fashioned after the same model. The
Seminary of the Northwest, now McCormick, will
serve as a good illustration. This institution, which
had been started at New Albany, was later removed
to Chicago, and there, through the munificent bene-
factions of Mr. McCormick, entered upon its present
career of power and usefulness. In 1859, with an
amended constitution, it came under the full control
of the Old School General Assembly. What such
control involved aj)pears from Article II, Section 1, of
this " amended constitution." It is as follows :

Sec. 1. The General Assembly shall have the general
supervision and control of the said seminary, and of all its
directors, professors, officers and agents ; and shall have
power to direct as to its management in all respects, and as
to the disposition of its funds and property ; to determine
the number of its directors and professors, and to appoint
the same, and to prescribe their term of office ; to designate
the branches of study to be pursued, and the titles and
departments of the respective professors, and to suspend or
remove from office any of the said professors at its discre-
tion. And shall decide all questions and controversies
arising between the Board of Directors and professors, or
between the respective professors ; and all questions referred
to it by the Board of Directors ; and sliall have power of
its own motion to review and to confirm, reverse or modify
any decision of the Board of Directors, and generally have
all other powers necessary for the accomplishment of the
object for which the seminary was established.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 5

This article was in force in 1870 at the time of
my own call to the chair of Systematic Theology in
the institution. And while in regard to certain
details the ecclesiastical status of Princeton and the
other Old School seminaries differed from that of the
Seminary of the Northwest, all of them were alike
in the matter of Assembly control and in the prin-
ciples underlying that control.

{h ) Origin, design and ecclesiastical status of Union
Theological Seminary.

The Union Theological Seminary was intended
not only to be a new school of divinity, but also, as
such, to represent a distinct type of religious thought,
sentiment and policy. It was largely the growth at
once of the fervid evangelistic spirit of the time, and
of that devotion to the cause of sacred science and a
learned ministry, which marked all the churches of
Puritan origin. In establishing it the founders, who
were earnest, jDi'^ctical men, aimed to embody in a
permanent form certain views of Christian piety and
theological training, which they regarded as specially
fitted to prepare young men for effective service in the
ministry of the Gospel in their own age. And in car-
rying out these views, they took pains to organize the
institution on a plan in harmony with them. While
providing carefully for sound Scriptural teaching, and
avowing also their adherence to Presbyterian doctrine
and polity, they at the same time resolved to give the

6 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

seminary perfect freedom and self-control in the man-
agement of its own affairs. Their noble temper of
mind, their large outlook, and the sacredness they
attached to their work, may be seen in the preamble to
the constitution of the seminary. Here are portions
of it :

That the design of the founders of this seminary may be
publicly known, and be sacredly regarded by the directors,
professors and students, it is judged proper to make the
following preliminary statement :

A number of Christians, both clergymen and laymen, in
the cities of New York and Brooklyn, deeply impressed
with the claims of the world upon the Church of Christ, to
furnish a competent supply of well-educated and pious min-
isters of the Gospel ; impressed also with the inadequacy of
all existing means for this purpose ; and believing that large
cities furnish many peculiar facilities and advantages for
conducting theological education ; having, after several
meetings for consultation and prayer, again convened on the
18th of January, A. D., 1836, unanimously adopted the
following resolutions and declarations :

1. Resolved, In humble dependence on the grace of God,
to attempt the establishment of a theological seminary in the
city of New York.

2. In this institution it is the design of the founders to
furnish the means of a full and thorough education in all
the subjects taught in the best theological seminaries in this
or other countries.

3. Being fully persuaded that vital godliness, a thorough
education, and practical training in the works of benevolence
and pastoral labor are all essential to meet the wants and
promote the best interests of the kingdom of Christ, the

ANOTHER DECADE OE EES HISTORY. 7

founders of this seminary (lesiu;n that its students, remaining
under pastoral influence, and })erf()rming the duties of church
members in the several churches to wliich tliey belong, or
with which they worshij), in prayer-meetings, in the instruc-
tion of Sabbath-schools and Bible classes, and being conver-
sant with all the benevolent efforts of the ])resent day in
this great community, shall have the opportunity of adding
to solid learning and true i>iety the teachings of experience.
4, By the foregoing advantages, the founders hope and
expect, with the blessing of God, to call forth and enlist in
the service of Christ and in the work of the ministry, genius,
talent, enlightened piety, and missionary zeal ; and to qual-
ify many for the labors and management of the various
religious institutions, seminaries of learning, and enterprises
of benevolence which characterize the present times.

The founders of Union Seminary were at the time
mostly pastors or members of churches, nearly all of
which sided later wdtli the so-called New School branch.
Of the clerical directors in the first board one only
adhered after the rupture to the Old School, and he
had recently come from a Congregational pastorate in
New England. Of the first lay directors, also, nearly
all belonged to the New School. The founders w^ere in
hearty sympathy w ith Albert Barnes, Lyman Beecher,
and men of that stamp. They were enthusiastic be-
lievers in the new Christian evangelism at home and
abroad. They believed also in the " voluntary princi-
ple," and were exceedingly jealous of all "high-toned"
ecclesiasticism. They had no confidence in heresy
trials as the way to defend orthodoxy. I doubt if a

8 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

single one of them looked with favor upon the noted
trials of Albert Barnes and Dr. Beecher ; while the
most of them regarded these trials with the strongest
disapproval. They hated religious quarrels and bick-
erings. Their sentiments on these and similar points
led to the establishment of the seminary, found expres-
sion in its constitution, and have shaped its policy
from that day to this. Here is their own account of
the matter :

It is the design of the founders to provide a theological sem-
inary in the midst of the greatest and most groiving community
in America, around which all men of moderate views and
feelings, ivho desire to live free from party strife, and to stand
aloof from all extremes of doctrinal speculation, practical rad-
icalism, and ecclesiastical domination, may cordially and
affectionately rally.

In order to keep clear of all extremes of " ecclesias-
tical domination," they made the seminary independ-
ent alike of Presbytery, of Synod, and of General
Assembly. Its autonomy was complete and unques-
tioned. As com23ared with Princeton and other semi-
naries of the earlier type, its establishment was essen-
tially a new departure. In keeping clear of all direct
ecclesiastical control it broke with the old traditions.
This was in part the result of providential circum-
stances ; but it was also, none the less, a result of
deliberate purpose and conviction. The founders of
Union Seminary held views respecting the best plan

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. 9

of a school of divinity, such as they proposed to estab-
lish, which differed materially from the views embodied
in the " plan " of Princeton and other Old School
seminaries. The very names of some of these founders
indicate this to any one at all familiar with the Pres-
byterian Church of that day.

And then their design, as it will be seen, was not so
much to train up ministers for the service of the Pres-
byterian Church in particular, as to train ministers
and men for the great work of evangelization both at
home and abroad. " Deeply impressed," to quote
again their own words, " with the claims of the world
upon the Church of Christ, to furnish a comiDctent
supply of well-educated and pious ministers of the
Gospel ; impressed also with the inadequacy of all
existing means for this purpose ; and believing that
large cities furnish many peculiar facilities and advan-
tages for conducting theological education," they
resolved " in humble dependence on the grace of God,
to establish a seminary in the city of New York,
hoiking and expecting thereby, with the divine bless-
ing, to call forth and enlist in the service of Christ and
in the work of the ministry, genius, talent, enlightened
j)iety, and missionary zeal ; and to qualify many for
the labors and management of the various religious
institutions, seminaries of learning and enterprises of
benevolence which characterize the present times."
Such was the catholic and world-wide scope of their
design. It was in order more effectually to carry out

K) THE UNIOX THEOLOGICAL SEMIXARY.

this plan that they (leteriiiined to make their seminary
a free, self-governing institution, and thus to keep it
clear of all extremes of " ecclesiastical domination."
This design qualified and gave a peculiar cast to the
whole movement. It contradistinguished Union from
seminaries of the old type. In their generic character
as Presbyterian, orthodox schools of divinity, with the
Bible as their great charter, and the training of a
learned and godly ministry as their practical aim, the
old and the new were alike. But in respect of their
origin, their patron, the fountain of their powers, and,
as a consequence, in their government and administra-
tion, they Avere essentially unlike.

This radical difference was regarded by many, long
wedded to the old plan of 1812, with strong disfavor.
An illustration of this occurs in a letter of Dr. A, A.
Hodge to Dr. Henry B. Smith, in which he character-
izes Union Seminary as under an " irresponsible Board
of Trustees." Of course Dr. Hodge meant no offence
in using such a term, and yet from the point of view
of a director, or professor of Union Seminary, the term
was offensive in a high degree. Every director of
Union Seminary held himself responsible to God, to
conscience, and to public opinion ; and every director
solemnly bound himself to maintain the plan and con-
stitution of the seminary as a Presbyterian, orthodox
institution of Christian learning. But it was not
under ecclesiastical control, and that was Dr. Hodge's
conqilaint. In order to purge it of this "irresi^onsible"

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. \\

character, he urged Professor Smith to recommend to
the New School branch of the Joint Committee on Re-
union, tliat " all the seminaries of both parties be, as a
condition of union, brought in on the same basis, so
that there may be perfect equality." Here in a nut-
shell is the reason Avhy Professor Smith considered Dr.
Hodge's scheme inadmissible. It jiroposed in effect to
"mediatize" Union Seminary ; in other words, to make
a radical change in the jilan and constitution of the
seminary by transferring the ultimate center of power
and authority from the institution itself to one or more
adjacent Synods.

All this was in entire accordance with the general
theory and practice of the Old School branch, but it
ran wholly counter to the ruling sentiment of the New
School branch. The princij^le of local ecclesiastical
control was indeed recognized in the case of Auburn —
a seminary founded under the old system — and it is
quite possible that there were some advocates of this
principle among New School men in other parts of
that branch. But I am not aware that any attempt
was ever made, or any public desire ever expressed, to
bring Union Seminary under Assembly control. The
feeling on the subject was indicated in a resolution
adopted by the New School General Assembly of 1857,
a part of which is as follows :

The General Assembly would not claim any authority
over the institutions where our ministry are educated ; hut
it is hereby requested of the faculties of the Union and

12 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Auburn Theological Seminaries in New York, of Lane Sem-
inary near Cincinnati, and Maryville Seminary in Tennessee,
and of any other similar institutions liereafter established, to
furnish the General Assembly each year, through its Perma-
nent Committee on Education for the Ministry, with a
written statement of their condition, advantages and pros-
pects, the names of their professors, the ordinary yearly ex-
penses, and any other matters of general interest to the Church,
to be read to the Assembly, and published as an appendix
to the annual report of said committee ; and the General Sec-
retary is hereby charged with the duty of presenting this request
annually to said faculties, in time to receive their written
report before the meeting of the General Assembly.

The request of the Assembly was gladly complied
with and had the happiest effect. The relations of
the seminary to the Church became still more close
and trustful. Union always considered itself as an
institution of the New School Church. Its professors
were sent as commissioners to the General Assembly.
The names of William Adams, Thomas H. Skinner
and Henry B. Smith are among the most honored on
its roll of Moderators. After 1857 the seminary
reported annually to the New School Assembly, pre-
cisely as it reported after 1870 to the Assembly of
the united Church.

(<?.) Action of the Joint Committee on Reunion with
regard to the theological seminaries.

The question of the theological seminaries was
one of the most difficult and perplexing with which

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 13

the Joint Committee on Reunion, appointed in 1866,
had to deal. This was owing partly to the nature of
the subject, and in part to the great diversity of origin,
constitution, environment and legal relations which
marked these institutions. The ninth article of *' the
proposed terms of reunion between the two branches
of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of
America," reported by the chairmen, Drs. Beatty and
Adams, to their respective Assemblies in May, 1867,
was as follows :

If at any time, after the union has been eifected, any of
the theological seminaries under the care and control of the
General Assembly, shall desire to put themselves under
Synodical control, they shall be permitted to do so at the
request of their Boards of Directors ; and those seminaries
which are independent in their organization shall have the
privilege of putting themselves ' under ecclesiastical control,
to the end that, if practicable, a system of ecclesiastical
supervision of such institutions may ultimately prevail
through the entire united Church.

The ninth article, as reported by the Joint Com-
mittee and adopted by the two General Assemblies in
1868, varied somewhat from this. It was as follows :

In order to a uniform system of ecclesiastical supervision
those theological seminaries that are now under Assembly
control may, if their Boards of Direction so elect, be trans-
ferred to the watch and care of one or more of the adjacent
Synods, and the other seminaries are advised to introduce, as
far as may be, into their constitutions, the principle of

14 THE UXIOX THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Synodical or Assembly supervision ; in which case they shall
be entitled to an official recognition and approbation on the
part of the General Assembly.

The changes in the article are highly significant,
and indicate several points of objection made to it as
rejDorted in 1867. This amended article reappeared
among the so-called " concurrent declarations " of the
General Assemblies of 1869. In explaining it in their
report of 1868, the chairmen said :

A recommendation looking to some uniformity of eccles-
iastical supervision, is all which the committee felt to be
within their province or that of the Assembly, except that
those seminaries, now belonging to either branch of the
Church, should have every guarantee and protection for
their chartered rights which they might desire.

This passage, both in its mild, even subdued tone,
and in its ex2:)lanation, throws a clear light back upon
the devious path by which the committee had reached
their conclusion. The discussion and criticism occa-
sioned by their plan, as reported in 1867, had con-
vinced them that the whole subject was beset with
difficulties and perils, which required very delicate
as well as skillful treatment. " A recommendation "
[the italics are their OAvn] looking to some uniformity
of ecclesiastical supervision, is all wdiich the committee
felt to be within their province or that of the Assembly,
except that the " chartered rights " of all the seminaries
of either branch of the Church should be carefully

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 15

guaranteed and protected. Tliis was (|uite different
language from that used in 1867 : " Those seminaries
which are independent in their organization shall have
the j^rivilege of putting themselves under ecclesiastical
control."

The temper of mind, as also the way, in which the
Joint Committee and the friends of reunion generally
had come to regard the question of the theological
seminaries, may be seen most distinctly, perhaps, in the
speech of Rev. George W. Musgrave, D.D., LL.D.,
made on the occasion of the presentation of the report
of the Joint Committee of Conference to the Old
School General Assembly, sitting in the Brick Church
m the city of New York, May 27, 1869. No one who
heard it is likely ever to forget that speech or the
remarkable old man who made it. A few extracts will
indicate its spirit and its bearing on the (juestion now
under discussion. Its opening sentences were as
follows :

It aifords me great pleasure to be able to report a plan
of union between what are known as the Old and New
School bodies, and to be able to say that our report is
unanimous, and is signed by every member of each com-
mittee. The Joint Conniiittee report three papers to the
Assembly. The first is a plan of union, containing the
basis, which will be sent down to the Presbyteries for their
acceptance or rejection. The second paper is a declaration,
made that there may be a good understanding between the
two branches. This paper is not a compact or covenant
but it is a recommendation of certain arrangements as to

16 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

seminaries, boards, etc. It is no part of the basis or terms
of union. It only recommends certain arrangements as suit-
able to be adopted. The third paper is one recommending
a day of prayer to Almighty God for His guidance and pres-
ence, that Presbyteries may be under divine influence when
they come to vote upon this momentous question.

In the course of his speech Dr. Musgrave thus
referred to the " concurrent declarations " on theolog-
ical seminaries, boards, and other matters pertaining
to the interests of the Church, when it should become
united :

I have already stated to the Assembly that these articles
don't form a part of the basis. They are not a compact or
covenant, but they suggest to the Assembly what are suitable
arrangements. I will not repeat what I have said, except
to call your attention to that important distinction. They
are not terms of the union. They may be amended or
modified, as any future Assembly may deem proper. We
told our brethren that we were unwilling to tie the future
hands of the Church of God; and I, for one, was very
decided on that point. And I will say to you that I would
have risked the failure of this union at the present time,
rather than concede that these articles should be unchange-
able, though I cannot foresee that there will be any necessity
in the future to change them. I am neither a prophet, nor
the son of a prophet ; but I think I have some little com-
mon sense, and I felt that it would be unsafe for us to
imperil the future by trammeling the Church of God, pre-
venting it from exercising its liberty, and from dealing with
circumstances as they might arise in the providence of God.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. tj

Sir, we were very decided and determined that those arti-
cles should not form a part of the compact, but that they
should be suggestions and recommendations, in order that
the Presbyteries should get an understanding between the
parties. But, sir, it is due to fairness that I should say,
and I repeat it now publicly in order that it may have a
response from this house, we did say to these brethren, " We
will not consent to make these articles a covenant. We
won't adopt them as a legal compact, binding upon the
future ; yet we are acting in good faith and as honorable
men, and we say to you that we will not change them at
any future time without obviously good and sufficient
reasons."

It is enoiigli to say, in proof of Dr. Musgrave's
" common sense " and foresight, that had the " con-
current declarations " been made a term of reunion, the
effect in the case of Princeton Seminary would have
been to imperil all its endowments. Dr. Musgrave's
expressions, " We told our brethren," " We did say to
these brethren," refer to the New School brethren, and
are explained by the following extract from a sketch
of " The Assemblies of 1869," written by the Rev. Dr.
M. W. Jacobus, Moderator of the Old School Assembly :

It may be mentioned, as part of the inside history of the
negotiations, that when the Joint Sub-Committee met for the
purpose of engrossing what had been passed upon by the
Joint Committee of Conference, and to prepare the report to
the Assembly, one of the members (N. S.) objected to the
insertion of the words contained in the preamble to the con-
current declaration, viz : " Not as articles of compact or

18 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

covenant, but as in their judgment proper and equitable
arrangements." He admitted that the language fairly ex-
pressed what had been agreed upon, that the articles referred
to were merely recommended, and if adopted by the united
Church, might hereafter, for good and sufficient reasons, be
modified or repealed. But he argued that the insertion of
the words above referred to would make the impression that
the articles are ephemeral, and would have a tendency to
invite change. There was force in the objection. But to
this it was well replied, that the words ought to be inserted.
1. Because they fairly express our mutual good understand-
ing. 2. Because, if omitted, it might be hereafter argued
that the articles were intended to be a compact between the
two parties, which could not be honorably modified or re-
pealed. 3. Because it was held to be in the highest degree
important that the united Church should be left entirely free
to adapt itself to any changes which, in the future develop-
ments of Providence, might be deemed necessary or expe-
dient. This difference threatened to be a stumbling-block
in the way, even within reach of the goal. At this very
crisis, however, an eminent layman of the New School com-
mittee joined in this view of the case, Avith such cogent
reasons as to prove the correctness of the position. Upon
re-examination of the paragraph, the dissent was revoked,
and the entire paper was then adopted by a unanimous vote.
This meeting of the Joint Sub-Committee was held on the
evening preceding the day of presenting the report to the
General Assembly, and it was not until eleven o'clock at
night that the decisive vote was reached in the committee
room.

yd) The veto in the election of its professors as con-
ceded by Union Seminary to the General Assembly.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 19

We come now to a main object of this narrative,
namely, the occasion, meaning and force of the veto
j^ower offered and given to the General Assembly in
1870, by Union Seminary. I have shown what was
the action of the Joint Committee respecting the theo-
logical seminaries uj) to the time of the reunion. As
the result of long and patient consideration aided by
varied discussion throughout the two Churches, the
ninth article, or " concurrent declaration," already
given, had been reported to the General Assemblies
and adopted by both bodies. This article is not a com-
pact or covenant, but a " recommendation " and nothing
more. So the case stood, when the first General
Assembly of the reunited Church met at Philadelphia,
in May, 1870. The work of this Assembly was prin-
cipally one of readjustment and reconstruction. The
articles approved by the two Assemblies at New York,
in 1869, not as a part of the basis of union, or as a
legal compact, but as " suitable arrangements " were
now to be acted upon. The varying, not to say more
or less conflicting, institutions, legal rights, customs,
agencies, properties and activities of both branches,
Old School and New, now no longer two but one, were
all to be brought into harmonious relations, in accord-
ance with the changed order of things and the new
organic life. I was a member of the Assembly of
1870, and can testify as an eye witness, that its ruling
spirit from beginning to end was the spirit, not of fear,
or suspicion, or jealousy, or any such thing, but of

20 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

power and of love, and of a sound mind. The pres-
ence of the sturdiest, foremost opponent of reunion. Dr.
Charles Hodge, if not as a commissioner, yet as a most
interested looker-on and even friendly adviser, along
with the beautiful tribute of high regard and affection
paid by New and Old School men alike to Albert
Barnes, then about to pass to his great reward, happily
symbolized this spirit.

As might have been anticipated, William Adams
was placed at the head of the Standing Committee on
Theological Seminaries. As chairman of the New
School i^art of the Joint Committee on Reunion, he had
won the confidence and admiration of the whole
Church, alike by his wisdom, his Christian temper, his
felicitous addresses and his masterly reports. But in-
asmuch as all the theological seminaries connected
with the Assembly belonged to the Old School, Dr.
Adams felt that delicacy forbade his acting as chair-
man of the committee on that subject. He, therefore,
as a personal favor, asked permission to decline
the appointment, suggesting Dr. John C. Backus
in his place. But the Assembly insisted that he
should serve.

" I think," said Dr. Musgrave, himself a director of
Princeton, " the Moderator has shown his wisdom in
appointing a man so entirely acceptable to all this
house. We have no rivalship, no jealousies, no fear,
but perfect confidence and love, and the Old School
men would rather Dr. Adams should be in that posi-

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. 21

tion, because he was once a New School man. We
have this additional evidence that we are one.'"''

And now, before j)roceeding further, let us return to
Union Seminary, and the veto power offered by it to
the General Assembly in the election of its professors.

(e ) Reasons and injtuences that induced Union Sem-
inary in 1870, to give up a portion of its autonomy.

1, First of all, it was done in the hope of furthering
thereby the harmony and prosperity of the Presby-
terian Church. Reunion had been already accom-
plished, and Union Seminary had from the first thrown
the whole weight of its influence in favor of the move-
ment. Henry B. Smith had struck its keynote, and
later, in a contest of the pen, had met its ablest foe.
He was indeed, as President Patton afterwards called
him, "the Hero of Reunion." Dr. Shedd in the Gen-
eral Assembly at Albany, in 1868, had vindicated the
cause of reunion, and at the same time the orthodoxy
of the New School against the charges of Drs. Charles
and A. A. Hodge, Dr. Breckinridge and other Prince-
ton and Old School leaders. Their colleague, Thomas
H. Skinner, a very eminent New School leader, was in
heartiest sympathy with them ; while William Adams,
Jonathan F. Stearns and Edwin F. Hatfield, all direc-

* These two eminent leaders of the Assembly at Philadelphia early attracted
the attention of spectators in the galleries, who by way of characterizing their
peculiar traits, jokingly named Dr. Musgrave, " Old Unanimous," and Dr.
Adams, "Old Magnanimous." See a letter of Rev. Dr. T. L. Cuyler, in ''The
Eixtnyelixt,'^ written at the time, in Avhich is a graphic jjen-picture of the
Assembly of 1870.

22 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

tors of Union, had been among the most active
members of the Joint Committee. Such ardent friends
of reunion as William E. Dodge, Charles Butler,
Kichard T. Haines, Norman White and other noted
laymen also belonged to the Union board. It was
altogether natural, therefore, that Union Seminary
should have felt deej^ly interested in removing, as far
as possible, all obstacles to the complete success of re-
union out of the way. Dr. Adams was especially
anxious that the wheels of the great Church organiza-
tion, whose strength was now doubled, and which he
believed to be fraught with vast power for good,
should move right on without friction. He wielded
at this time a greater influence than any other
director of Union Seminary, greater perhaps than
any other minister of the Presbyterian Church. He
was the man of all others to ap23eal to in taking
hold of the "plan" of 1870. These are some of
the general considerations and motives that led
him to propose and the directors of the Union
Seminary to adopt that plan.

2. But the question here arises, why precisely such a
plan, differing so materially from that recommended
by the General Assemblies of 1869, should have been
proposed ? In the plan recommended by the General
Assemblies, it will be noticed no mention was made of
a veto in the election of professors. The Old School
seminaries might, if their Boards of Direction desired
it, be transferred from Assembly control to the watch

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 23

and care of one or more of the adjacent Synods ; while
the New School seminaries were " advised " to intro-
duce, as far as might be, into their constitutions the
principle of Synodical or Assembly su2:)ervision.
Neither of these recommendations was followed. No
Old School seminary was transferred from the control
of the General Assembly to the watch and care of one
or more of the adjacent Synods. Nor did Union Sem-
inary introduce into its " constitution " the principle of
Synodical or Assembly supervision. This shows what
good reason Dr. Musgrave had for saying that the
"concurrent declarations" lacked entirely the binding
force or quality of a " legal compact," and it shows also
that with all their uncommon ability and wisdom, and
after years of deliberation, the Joint Committee had
recommended what was altogether impracticable. Be-
tween the great ratification meeting at Pittsburgh, in
November, 1869, and the meeting at Philadelphia, in
May, 1870, it had become clear that Princeton, to say
nothing of other Old School seminaries, could not be
released from Assembly control, and put itself under
the watch and care of one or more of the adjacent
Synods without imperilling its endowments. In this
dilemma Union Seminary was urged to come to the
help of Princeton, nor did there then seem to be any
other way of relief. The aj^peal was based largely
upon a strong conviction, common to the wisest and
best friends of both seminaries, that the election of
professors by the General Assembly was open to

24 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

serious objections, and would be open to graver objec-
tions in the future.

At the founding of Princeton in 1812 the Presby-
terian Church was a small body, numerically and ter-
ritorially, and the selection of theological teachers
could very properly be entrusted to the knowledge and
discretion of its General Assembly. The choice of the
first professors of Princeton — those very admirable
types of Presbyterian piety, wisdom and learning,
Samuel Miller and Archibald Alexander — was doubt-
less the best possible. But in 1870 the Presbyterian
Church had increased enormously both in numbers
and extent ; it covered the continent ; and its branches
reached to the uttermost parts of the earth. Even
then in exceptional cases perhaps the General Assem-
bly could judge as well as any Board of Directors, who
was best qualified for this or that chair of instruction,
but only in exce^Dtional cases. As a rule, the General
Assembly was every year becoming less fitted to exer-
cise this difficult function.

The point is thus referred to in a letter of Dr. A. A.
Hodge, written late in 1867 :

It is proper, it is almost a necessity, that each institution
should be left in the management of those upon whose sup-
port it exclusively depends. The majority of any Assembly
must be necessarily ignorant of the special wants and local
conditions of any seminary, and of the qualifications of can-
didates proposed for its chairs of instruction. The best of
these are generally young men, up to the time of their nom-

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 25

illation known only to a few. To vest the olioico in the
General Assembly will tend to pnt prominent e(!clesiastics
into such ]-)Ositions, rather than scholars, or men specially
qualified with gifts for teaching. As the population of our
country becomes larger and more heterogeneous, and the
General Assembly increases proportionably, the difficulties
above mentioned, and many others easily thought of, will
increase.

Dr. Henry B. Smith, to whom this letter was ad-
dressed, thus expressed his own view in noticing some
of the objections to the Joint Committee's report of
1867 :

The plan allows those seminaries that are noAV under the
Assembly to remain so, or if they choose, to put themselves
instead under Synodical supervision; and it recommends the
seminaries not under ecclesiastical supervision to attain unto
that condition ; hut doen not imid on this, as of course, it
could not. . . . It is a fair and serious question whether
a General Assembly, representing the Presbyterian Church
throughout the whole United States, especially in view of the
numbers in that Church, and the extent of the territory in
twenty or thirty years, will be the best, or even a suitable
body, to choose the professors and manage the concerns of
all the Presbyterian seminaries scattered throughout the
country. We very much doubt whether this would be a
wise arrangement. It may work well in Scotland, but Scot-
land has its limits. It might bring into the Assembly local,
personal and theological questions, which it would be better
to settle in a narrower field.

The following strong expression of opinion, w^'itten
by Dr. Adams, is from the memorial itself of the

26 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

directors of Union Theological Seminary to the Gen-
eral Assembly :

It has appeared to many, and especially to those who
took an active part in founding the Union Theological Sem-
inary, that there are many disadvantages, infelicities, not to
say at times perils, in the election of professors of the theo-
logical seminaries directly and immediately by the General
Assembly itself, — a body so large, in session for so short a
time, and composed of members to so great an extent resi-
dent at a distance from the seminaries themselves, and there-
fore personally unacquainted with many things which pertain
to their true interests and usefulness.

It is noteworthy that in the memorial of the direc-
tors of Union Seminary, offering a veto in the election
of its professors, two reasons only are assigned, namely :
first, a desire, as was said before, of doing all in their
power to establish confidence and harmony throughout
the whole Church ; and, in the second j^lace, a desire to
secure to the Old School seminaries, in which those of
the New School were henceforth to have a common
interest, the privilege, so highly prized by themselves,
of choosing professors in each institution by its own
Board of Directors, instead of having them chosen in
every case by the General Assembly. On these two
grounds the memorial of the Board of Directors of
Union Seminary was chiefly based. These two consid-
erations the friends of Princeton apjDcaled to with great
force, when urging Dr. Adams to give them aid in
their dilemma. For nothing is more certain than that

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 27

the plan presented to the Union board on the 9th and
16th of May, 1870, was first suggested to Dr. Adams
by his Princeton friends. Had that way of solving
the problem of the theological seminaries originated
with Dr. Adams, he would certainly have proposed it
during the troublesome negotiations on this subject,
which ran on for nearly three years prior to the
reunion. There is no intimation that he ever did any-
thing of the sort. And yet the point had been made
again and again by Old School opponents of the terms
of reunion, as proposed by the Joint Committee in
their report to the Assembles in 1867, that the semina-
ries of both branches of the Church ought in fairness,
to be placed on a footing of " perfect equality." Why,
it was said, should the Old School institutions continue
to be subject to the full control of the General Assem-
bly, the New School coming in for an equal share in
its exercise, while two at least of the New School insti-
tutions continued under what Dr. A. A. Hodge in a
letter to Professor Smith, called " self-perpetuated and
irresponsible Boards of Trustees." Such was the
reasoning of opponents of the Joint Committee's report
of 1867. Indeed so strong was the feeling and con-
tention of not a few of them with regard to this point ;
so confident were they of the superior advantages of
subjection to ecclesiastical control, more especially the
control of the General Assembly, over any possible
advantages of subjection to a Board of Directors or
Trustees ; and so persistent were they in asserting this

28 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

view that their opponents couki scarcely help being
reminded of the fable, so dear to children, entitled
"The Fox Without a Tail." The fox, it will be
remembered, was caught in a trap by his tail, and in
order to get away was forced to leave it behind ; where-
upon he resolved to try to induce his fellows to part
with theirs ; or, as Henry B. Smith expressed it, in
his characteristic way, "to attain unto that condition."*
Had this mode of solving the question of the theo-
logical seminaries occurred to his own mind as the
best, Dr. Adams, I repeat, would have brought it
before the Joint Committee during the two or more
years that committee was in existence. But there is
no evidence that it was even mentioned. Neither the
word " veto," nor the thing itself, appears in the report
of the Joint Committee made in 1867, nor in that of
1868, nor in the report of the Committee of Conference
in 1869. The veto first appears in the plan presented
to the Board of Directors of Union Seminary at the
meeting on May 9, 1870. That plan offered to the
General Assembly a veto in the election of both direc-
tors and j^rofessors. At an adjourned meeting of the
same board, held on May 16, it reappeared as a veto in
the election of professors. AVhy this abandonment of

* So at the next assembly of foxes he made a speech on the improfitable-
ness of tails in general, and the inconvenience of a fox's tail in particular,
adding that he had never felt so easy as since he had given up his own.
When he sat down a sly old fellow arose, and waving his long brush with a
graceful air, said with a sneer, that if, like the last speaker, he had lost his
tail, nothing further would have been needed to convince him ; but till such
an accident should happen, he sliould certainly vote in favor of tails. — An-
cient Fables.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 29

the scheme recommended by article ninth of the report
of the Joint Committee and by the General Assemblies
of 18G9 ? And why the sudden abandonment of the
method proposed to the Board of Directors of Union
Seminary on May 9th, and the substitution in its place,
on May IGtli, of still another method ? The whole
thing is curious and suggestive in a high degree.
Consider that the adjourned meeting of the board
occurred on Monday afternoon, May 16th, and that
the General Assembly was to meet in Philadelphia on*
the ensuing Thursday, May 19th. No time, therefore,
was to be lost. It was too late, however, to give to the
public intimations of the plan of May 16th. The
Evangelist, one of whose editors at that time was a
prominent minister of the late Old School, contained a
carefully written editorial, outlining the General ^

Assembly's work. It was without doubt from his pen.
In the course of this article is the following significant
paragraph :

It is very desirable that the several theological seminaries
connected with the Church be brought into the same or
similar relations to the Assembly. The scheme proposed by
the Princeton Beview, April number, has met with much
favor. Let it be understood that the boards of the respec-
tive seminaries shall be allowed to fill the vacancies in their
own number, as that scheme contemplates ; and to appoint
the incumbents of the several chairs, subject in each case to
the approval of the next General Assembly ; and, it is
thought, the seminaries of both branches will cheerfully come

30 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

upon this platform. Princeton and Union are understood
to be prepared for it and to desire it.

The article referred to in the Princeton Review for
April, 1870, was doubtless written by Dr. Charles
Hodge, the founder and then senior editor of the
Review. The scheme was as follows :

Let the Assembly confide the supervision and control of
the seminaries now under its control to their respective
Boards of Direction, as now, with simply these alterations:
1. That these boards shall nominate persons to fill their own
vacancies to the Assembly for confirmation. 2. That they
shall arrange the professorships, and appoint the professors,
subject to ratification by the Assembly. This would suffice
for unification, so far as seminaries heretofore of the Old
School branch are concerned.

It seems to us that it cannot be difficult for the semina-
ries of the other branch to reach substantially the same
platform. They, of course, can report annually to the
Assemblies [Assembly] . Without knowing all the details of
their present charters, we presume there is no insuperable
obstacle to their making the simple by-law that all their
elections to fill vacancies in the board or boards of oversight
and direction, also of professors, shall be submitted to the
Assembly for approval before they are finally ratified. If
the charters now forbid such an arrangement doubtless alter-
ations could easily be obtained, which would admit of it, or
something equivalent, [pp. 311, 312.]

'On the 26th of April, 1870, at the annual meeting
of the directors of Princeton Theological Seminary,
the following paper was presented to the board :

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 31

111 the negotiations leading to the nnion of the two
branches of onr Chnrch it was unanimously agreed upon by
the Joint Committee that as the theological seminaries con-
nected with the New School were either independent or
under Synodical control, any seminary under the General
Assembly of the Old School might, at the discretion of its
Board of Directors, be freed from the direct control of the
Assembly of the united Church. This was regarded as due
to fairness and courtesy.

As, however, the endowments of this seminary are held
on condition that it shall be subject to the General Assem-
bly of the Presbyterian Church, it can neither be rendered
independent nor placed under the control of one or more
Synods. The professors would, therefore, respectfully suggest
to the Board of Directors, with a view of accomplishing the
object contemplated by the Joint Committee, that the board
should request the General Assembly so to alter the plan of
the seminary that the directors shall hereafter have the right
to appoint and to remove the professors, subject to the veto
of the General Assembly ; and also the right to supply their
own vacancies, subject to a like veto. This would leave the
institution subject to the control of the Assembly, as no man
could have a place either in the faculty or in the board, of
whom the Assembly did not approve.

The suggestion of the professors was adopted and
their paper sent up to the General Assembly, un-
altered, as a memorial from the Princeton directors.

On May 16th, 1870, the Board of Directors of the
Union Theological Seminary adopted the following me-
morial to the General Assembly of the reunited Church,
which was to meet in Philadelphia three days later.

32 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Whereas, In the recent negotiations for reuniting the
two branches of the Presbyterian Church, great importance
was attached to some uniform system of ecclesiastical super-
vision over the several theological seminaries of the denom-
ination ; and,

Whereas, The directors of the Union Theological Semi-
nary in New York, an institution founded before the
disruption of the Presbyterian Church, belonging exclusively
to neither of its branches, and administered upon its own
independent charter, are desirous of doing all in their power
to establish confidence and harmony throughout the whole
Church, in respect to the education of its ministers ; and,

Whereas, It has appeared to many, and especially to
those who took an active part in founding the Union Theo-
logical Seminary, that there are many disadvantages, infelici-
ties, not to say at times perils, in the election of professors
of these seminaries directly and immediately by the General
Assembly itself — a body so large, in session for so short a
time, and composed of members to so great an extent resi-
dent at a distance from the seminaries themselves, and
therefore personally unacquainted with many things which
pertain to their true interest and usefulness ; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Board of Directors of the Union
Theological Seminary, in the city of New York, being all
of them ministers or members of the Presbyterian Church,
do hereby memorialize the General Assembly to the follow-
ing effect, viz : That the General Assembly may be pleased
to adopt it as a rule and plan, in the exercise of the pro-
prietorship and control over the several theological semi-
naries, that so far as the election of professors is concerned
the Assembly will commit the same to their respective Boards
of Directors, on the following terms and conditions :

1. That the Boards of Directors of each theological

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 33

seminary shall bo authorized to appoint all professors of the
same.

2. That all such appointments shall be reported to the
General Assembly, and no such appointment shall be consid-
ered as a complete election if disapproved by a majority
vote of the Assembly.

And further be it Besolvcd, That the Board of Directors
of the Union Theological Seminary, in the city of New
York, persuaded that the plan proposed in the memorial
will meet the cordial approval of the patrons, donors and
friends of all these seminaries, and contribute to the peace
and prosperity of the Church, do hereby agree, if the said
plan shall be adopted by the General Assembly, that they
will agree to conform to the same, the Union Seminary in
New York being in this respect on the same ground with
other theological seminaries of the Presbyterian Church.

At the opening, then, of the first General Assembly
of the reunited Church, on May 19, 1870, the case
stood thus : Princeton objected to the "recommenda-
tion" of the Assemblies of 1869 as unwise, and could
not follow it without imperilling a jiortion of her en-
dowments. Union, warned in time, refused to adopt
the Princeton "scheme" with regard to directors, but
accepted it in a greatly modified form with regard to
professors, while both had memorialized the General
Assembly. This posture of things was a logical,
not to say necessary, outcome of the whole situation.
It followed inevitably that Princeton should look for-
ward w ith special solicitude to the possible action of
the Assembly at Philadelphia, touching theological

34 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

seminaries. Some of her dearest interests were, as she
believed, involved in the issue. It would have been
strange, indeed, had she not regarded with a certain
misgiving the part which the new co-partners might
take in shaping that issue. And then she was tempted
to overestimate the importance of a " uniform system "
in dealing with the theological seminaries, and to be
too solicitous of having them all even as she herself
was. The temptation of Union, on the other hand,
was to yield too readily to the magnanimous impulses
of the hour, and so allow her cooler judgment to be
overpowered by the surging tide of reunion enthusiasm.
Pope Innocent XII wrote to the French prelates,
who had procured the famous brief condemning Fene-
lon : " He erred by loving God too much." " Pecca-
mt^ excessu amoris divini f^ so one might say of Dr.
Adams, that he erred, if at all, in too exclusive devo-
tion to the peace and harmony of the reunited Church ;
and the same might be said of most of his associates in
the directory of Union Seminary. But on one point
Union and Princeton were in perfect accord. Both
regarded it as exceedingly desirable that theological
professors should no longer be elected by the General
Assembly ; Princeton primarily on her own account ;
Union, on account of Princeton, as also of the other
Old School seminaries. It is fair to add that some of
the strongest friends of Princeton were, no doubt^
influenced by another reason for wishing to be liber-
ated from further subjection to the General Assembly

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 35

in the election of its professors, namely : distrust of
the doctrinal soundness of the late New School Church.
Dr. Charles Hodge led a whole conijiany of eminent
Old School men, who to the last protested and fought
against reunion largely on this ground. To some of
these, especially to Dr. Hodge himself, Dr. Beatty
refers in a striking letter printed in The Evangelist of
August C), 1891 : " Dr. Adams knew what great diffi-
culties and conflicts of mind I had from the fact that
my best friends were in opposition to my views ; and I
made the request of him that after my death he would
state these things in some article in The Evangelist^
Did the sim23le fact of reunion at once change their
honest convictions on this subject? Not at all. And,
therefore, the sudden accession of the New School
branch to equal power in the General Assembly,
bringing what were regarded their " loose " notions of
subscrij^tion and all their other objectionable views
with them, intensified the desire to take the election of
Princeton professors out of that body.

And it is only right to add further, that in voting,
as they all did, in favor of remitting the election of
professors in the Old School seminaries to their sev-
eral Boards of Direction, the commissioners who be-
longed to the late New School branch were voting to
dispossess themselves at once of a power in the control
of those seminaries, which reunion had fairly put into
their hands. It was the proper thing for them to do ;
but it was also a handsome thing to do so promptly and

THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

SO heartily. On the basis then, of a common senti-
ment respecting the election of theological professors,
both Union and Princeton memorialized the General
Assembly ; and through their joint influence, the plan
first suggested by Princeton and proposed by Union,
was unanimously adoj^ted.

I have thus stated some of the principal reasons and
influences that in 1870 induced Union Seminary to
concede to the General Assembly a portion of its
autonomy. Let us now go back and consider the mat-
ter a little more in detail.

(/) Action and pwyose of the Board of Directors in
making this concession.

The subject w^as first brought before the board by
Dr. Adams at a meeting held on May 9, 1870. Among
the directors present, were Edwin F. Hatfield and
Jonathan F. Stearns, who with Dr. Adams had been
members of the Joint Committee on Keunion ; Josejoh
S. Gallagher, James Patriot AVilson, Charles Butler,
Norman White, Fisher Howe, William A. Booth, D.
Willis James and John Crosby Brown. These names
speak for themselves and need no glossary. They rep-
resent moral strength, sound judgment, large and
varied exj^erience, world-wide influence, intelligent
piety, and all the other qualities that go to make up
solid weight of character. To most of the directors the
plan proposed for their adoption was wholly new.
They had never before heard of it unless as suggested

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS IIISTORY. I^J

in the April number of Dr. Hodge's Revicir. But as
coming from Dr. Adams, as offered in the interest of
the unity and harmony of tlie Presbyterian Church,
and also in response to urgent persuasions from the old
and honored seminary at Princeton, it won their con-
sent, if not their entire approval. Bo far as its weak
points were concerned, it took them at a serious disad-
vantage. They had no time for reflection. And so,
while there was considerable discussion, with a single
notable exception, none refused to suj^port the scheme.
Several of the professors were present, but they raised
no objection. The record would probably be different
had Henry B. Smith been among them. The plan of
putting the institution under ecclesiastical control never
pleased him. He considered the generous and self-
governing liberty, which was its birthright, a blessing
too great to be parted with at any price. He distrusted
also a certain tendency and temper, or rather, as he
viewed it, distemper, which again and again in the last
century and in our own had troubled the peace and
hampered the free development of American Presby-
terianism. In 1837, at the age of twenty-one, he had
been a watchful eye witness of the turbulent scenes at
Philadeli^hia, when the four Synods were cut off and
the great disruption was inaugurated. From that time
he was a keen observer of all that went on in the two
branches of the Presbyterian Church, and before com-
ing to New York, thirteen years later, he had formed
opinions on the subject which remained essentially un-

38 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

changed to tlie day of liis deatli. In a letter to me,
dated Amherst, September 17, 1850, he wrote:

I go to New York in full view of the uncertainties and
difficulties of the position. . . .It [the seminary]
stands somewhere between Andover and Princeton, just as
New School Presbyterianism stands between Congregational-
ism and the consistent domineering Presbyterianism, and
will be pressed on all sides. Whether it is to be resolved
into these two, or to be consolidated on its own ground, is
still a problem. ... I am going to New York to
work — to work, I trust, for my Master.

This " consistent domineering " element, so far as it
prevailed in Presbyterianism, whether in the theolog-
ical or the ecclesiastical sj^here, he regarded with strong
dislike. Had he been present, therefore, at the meet-
ing of the board, on May 9, 1870, I believe he wonld
have stood where D. Willis James so firmly stood with
respect to the plan of conceding to the General Assem-
bly so vital a part of the seminary's chartered rights
and autonomy as the last decisive word in the election
of its own directors and professors. And Henry B.
Smith was probably the only man whose voice at that
time, on any matter touching the theological seminaries,
would have been equally potential with that of William
Adams. But unfortunately, early in the jjrevious year,
just as reunion Avas about to triumph. Professor Smith,
utterly broken down in the service of Union Seminary
and of the Presbyterian Church, had fled for his life
beyond the sea, and he was still abroad.

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. 39

I have intimated that a single director only, D.
Willis James, raised his voice against the i)lan pro-
posed by Dr. Adams. Mr. James is a grandson of
Anson G. Phelps, and thus is identified with the history
of the seminary by his close kinshijD to three genera-
tions of its benefactors, as well as by his own long
service and munificent gifts. At the memorable meet-
ing of the Board of Directors of Union Seminary, held
on June 5, 1891, Mr. James made the following highly
important statement :

I feel it due to the Board of Directors to give to them
a statement of what occurred at the meeting of the directors
held on the 9th of May, 1870, when the matter of the con-
nection of the seminary with the General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church was first considered. That meeting,
from the circumstances of the case, and all that occurred
there at that time, is most clearly and indelibly impressed
upon my memory.

Dr. Adams proposed that the Union Theological Semi-
nary should give to the General Assembly a veto power
over the appointment of the directors and professors of the
seminary, assigning as the reason, in much detail, that it
would be a great aid to the other seminaries of the Church,
whose professors were appointed by the action of the Gen-
eral Asssembly and not by the Board of Directors. He
also stated that experience had shown that the professors
thus appointed by the General Assembly were frequently not
such as proved to be the best men for the several positions.

1 strenuously objected to giving the veto power in the
appointment of the directors to tlie General Assembly, on the
ground that it was j^ractically ])lacing the control of the

40 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

property and all the interests of the Union Theological Sem-
inary in the hands of the General Assembly, and that such
action was fraught with great danger.

A general discussion occurred, participated in by most of
the directors, and I spoke a second time on the subject,
calling attention most earnestly to the great danger, as it
seemed to me, of any such action by which the large prop-
erty of the seminary, and all its interests, would be prac-
tically turned over to the control of the General Assembly.

But when it seemed evident that a vote would be taken
and that the resolution would be passed by the Board of
Directors, I arose for the third time, feeling very strongly
the importance of the matter under consideration, and said,
in substance, that I should request, when the vote was
taken, that it should be by ayes and nays, so that my vote
could be recorded in the negative, and that I should also
request that my most earnest and solemn protest be entered
in full in the minutes, to the end that when the disaster
came, as it certainly would from this action — perhaps after
all those who were taking part in the discussion at that time
had passed away — the seminary could then have the benefit
of this protest and whatever legal advantages might come
from such protest. I said that I did not desire to make
factious opposition, but that I felt that the interests of the
seminary were being jeopardized and that a great injury was
being done to its future.

When I sat down Dr. Prentiss rose and said, substan-
tially, that he would surprise the mover of the resolution by
the action he was about to take, but that he had become
impressed with the fact that it was wise to take further time
for consideration, and would move a postponement of the
matter for that purpose. This motion led to the postpone-
ment of the vote.

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. 41

Prior to tlie adjourned nicoting of May 16, 1870, I had
an interview with Dr. Adams, and expressed to hiiu my
sincere reji^ret that I had been compelled to differ with liim
and otluT members of the board, l)ut he then tenck'red to
me his thanks for my having taken the course I did, and
said he felt that it was wiser not to have passcnl the resolu-
tion he first proposed.

He then suggested, in the interest of the other seminaries
then controlled by the General Assembly, the motion which
was presented and adopted on the 16th of May, 1870, viz:
That the veto ])ower in the appointment of the professors
should be given to the General Assembly, and this solely in
the interest of other seminaries which would be benefited by
this action of the Union Theological Seminary. I expressed
to him then the view that I held, that even this action,
though much better than placing the control of the pro[)erty
in the hands of the General Assembly, was still a very
serious mistake, and calculated to produce great and unfor-
tunate mischief.

I said, however, that if he and other directors felt that
this was the wisest course, and as they had yielded the
matter of the veto power over the appointment of directors,
while I would not vote in favor of the resolution, I would
not go on record against it ; and, as a result, the resolution
was passed on the 16th of May, 1870, giving to the Gen-
eral Assembly only a veto over the appointment of pro-
fessors and nothing more.

(^) Did the directors of Umon Seminary suppose
that in their action on May 16, 1870, they tvere offering
to enter into a legal compact ivith the General Assembly f

When in 1891 the qnestion first arose, it was assumed

42 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

by many, and strenuously argued by others, that this
was their understanding of the matter ; at all events,
that such was the real quality and effect of their action.
And on the ground of its possessing this character, the
public was treated to somewhat elaborate definitions
and expositions of the nature and binding force of a
contract, the extent and limitations of ultra vires, and
• I know not how many other lessons in legal lore. And
yet, according to the best of my own recollection, as a
member of the board, and of my belief concerning all
the other members present, not a single director sup-
posed the board was entering into any such compact.
Three directors who were present on May 9th and also
on May IGth, had been members of the Joint Com-
mittee on Keunion, as I have said before : one of them,
Jonathan F. Stearns, was also a member of the Joint
Committee of Conference, which reported the final
basis and plan of union to the two Assemblies in 1869.
He aided in preparing that important report, voted for
it, signed it, and gave it his hearty approval. And it
was in this report made and explained to the Old
School Assembly in the Brick Church, by Dr. Mus-
grave, that those emphatic sentences relating to the
articles on seminaries, boards, and the like occur : " We
will not consent to make these articles a covenant : we
won't adopt them as a legal compact binding upon the
future. This paper is not a compact or covenant:
but it is a recommendation of certain arrangements as
to seminaries," etc.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 43

Dr. Stearns was the most trusted counsellor of Henry
B. Smith, and not unlike him in sagacity and fore-
thought, as also in devotion to Union Seminary and
the Presbyterian Church. To Dr. Stearns more, in
my opinion, than to any other man, did Union Semi-
nary owe the coming of Henry B. Smith to New York.
The New School branch of the Church especially never
knew the full extent of her indebtedness to him, for he
was as modest as he was wise, fearless and public-
spirited. Is it likely that such a man w^ould have sat
quietly and given his vote for a settlement of the ques-
tion of the theological seminaries in a way, and on a
principle, and with an understanding contradicting so
utterly the report which a few months before he had
joined in framing and urging upon the acceptance of
the General Assemblies ? The thing is inconceivable.

But I have not stated this aspect of the case in its .
full strength. Dr. Adams himself was a member of the
Joint Committee of Conference, and signed the report
as its chairman. He also presented the report to tli^'
New School Assembly in the Church of the Covenant,
as Dr. Musgrave did at the same time to the Old School
Assembly in the Brick Cliurch. He explained it in a
careful speech, calling attention to the point that the
articles of agreement or " concurrent declarations," were
not a compact or contract, but recommendations only as
to what might be suitable and expedient. Is it at all
probable, is it really conceivable, that such a man as
Dr. Adams, only a few months later, would have pro-

44 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

posed to the Board of Directors of Union Seminary, a
jDlan touching the whole future of that institution,
which involved the very thing so distinctly repudiated
by the unanimous vote of the Joint Committee of Con-
ference, and repudiated. too by both Assemblies.

The plan of 1870 was an expression of Christian
confidence and good-will on the part of the directors
of Union Seminary. In offering to give up so much of
their autonomy as was involved in conceding to the
General Assembly a veto in the election of its profess-
ors, they were not thinking of a legal compact, whereby
the seminary would gain certain positive advantages in
return, they were thinking simply of what seemed to
them, on the whole, best fitted to promote the harmony
and prosperity of the united Church, and the true in-
terests of all the other theological seminaries. Their
offer was in its very essence, as the General Assembly
a few days after characterized it, an act of" generosity,"
or as Dr. Musgrave expressed it, in 1871, an act
of " courtesy." " Courtesy " is one of the words used
also by the Princeton professors in their memorial
to the board and by the directors in their memorial to
the General Assembly. But generosity and courtesy
belong to a line of thought and action totally distinct
from that of a legal compact with its definite obliga-
tions, considerations and advantages. Had the discus-
sion in the Board of Directors of Union Seminary
moved along the line of such a compact, nothing is
more certain than that the jDlan of agreement would

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 45

have failed utterly. No doubt there is an element of
agreement in a legal compact. Every such compact is
an agreement ; but there are many sorts of agreement
which are only differing forms of good understanding,
friendly arrangements, acts of generosity or courtesy,
which lose their most essential virtue and all their
beauty the moment you invest them with the rigidity
and binding force of a legal contract. The discussion
on reunion, and especially the speech of Dr. Musgrave
before the Old School Assembly — heard, probably, by
most of the Union directors — had made the whole
Presbyterian Church familiar with this distinction.
" We will not' consent," said Dr. Musgrave, referring
to the recommendations about theological seminaries,
boards, etc., " we will not consent to make these articles
a covenant. We won't adopt them as a legal compact,
binding upon the future : Yet we are acting in good
faith and as honorable men, and we say to you that we
will not change them at any future time without ob-
viously good and sufficient reasons." Exactly so would
the directors of Union Seminary have expressed them-
selves with regard to their generous arrangement with
the General Assembly. Such words as " compact "
" contract," " covenant," are carefully avoided in the
memorial of Union Seminary and in the action of the
General Assembly thereupon. Not one of them can
be found in the historical record. " Plan," " rule,"
" agreement," " method," or the like, are the terms used.
It was intended, just as the ninth article in the report

46 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

of the Joint Committee was intended, " as a measure
for the maintenance of confidence and harmony, and
not as indicating the best method for all future time."
(Moore's Digest, p. 384).

All that the article in the Princeton Review for
April, 1870, written by Dr. Charles Hodge, or with
his approval, ventured to suggest to the New School
branch Avas " making the simple by-law that all the
elections to fill vacancies in the board or boards of
oversight and direction, also of professors, shall be
submitted to the Assembly for approval before they
are finally ratified." Who ever heard of a "simple
by-law" that could not be suspended, changed, or re-
pealed by the power that made it ? The difierence
between the concessions asked, if not claimed, of the
New School by the Old School opponents of the first
plan of reunion, as reported by the Joint Committee in
1867, and the concessions hoped for just before the
meeting of the Assembly in 1870, as stated in the
above article of the Princeton Review, is very striking.
It is the difference between a maximum and a mini-
mum. Perhaps it cannot be better illustrated than
by some extracts from a letter of Professor A. A.
Hodge, of the Alleghany Seminary, to Dr. Henry
B. Smith, written in December, 1867. The italics are
his own :

Although I am in every sense unknown to you, my
knowledge of and indebtedness to you througli your writings,
and especially our community of interest in the subject of

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 47

this letter, emboldens mc to intrude it upon you, and to
urge your deliberate attention to it.

Undoubtedly one of the chief causes of uneasiness on the
part of the Old School, in view of reunion upon the terms
proposed by the Joint Committee, is the inequality between
the positions of the two parties in respect to seminaries.
This is evident from the fact that serious objection is made
to the terms proposed in respect to this interest by a far
larger number of Presbyteries than is necessary to defeat the
whole matter, . . . Now, although I write without con-
sultation with or the knowledge of a single person, I feel
certain that a compromise to the following effect would be
highly gratifying to the great majority of those most nearly
interested in seminaries on our side, and further, that if
proposed from your side it would be almost certainly ac-
cepted by our General Assembly as a condition of union.

Suppose then the matter be adjusted on the ft)llowing
principles :

1. All the seminaries of both parties to be, as a condi-
tion of union, brought in on the same basis, so that there
may be perfect equality.

2. That you on your side admit the principle of direct
ecclesiastical control, and put your seminaries each under the
care of one or more contiguous Synods. The Synods to
elect the Boards of Directors, the Boards of Directors to
elect the professors. The General Assembly, for the sake
of preserving uniformity of doctrine in the Church, to pos-
sess the right of peremptory veto in the case of the election
of a professor.

3. That we on our side yield the principle of the im-
mediate control of the seminaries by the General Assembly,
and put each of our seminaries inider one or more Synods in
the manner specified above.

48 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Such a plan might have some legitimate objections. It
would certainly meet with decided opposition from some of
the more distant portions of our branch, which would thereby
be dispossessed of powers previously enjoyed. It would be
obviously unadvisable for such a proposition to be publicly
offered by any of our professors. Therefore, I shall do no
more than make this suggestion to you. ... If you
agree with me as to the plan, and are willing to present it
to the representatives of your branch in the Joint Committee,
I have much hope that it will prevail.

Professor Smith, regarding the scheme so strongly
urged in this letter as wholly imj)racticable, felt un-
willing to recommend it to the New School representa-
tives of the Joint Committee.

{h ) Scope cmd limitations of the veto in the elec-
tion of its professors, offered to the General Assembly by
the directors of Union Seminary in 1870.

Passing from the question of the nature of this offer,
let us consider its extent and its limitations. The
language used is very exact and carefully chosen. It
differs materially from that used in the plan presented
to the board on May 9tli. Before the meeting on May
16th legal counsel had unquestionably been taken.
Nor have I any doubt that it was taken of one of Dr.
Adams' closest friends and a member of his session,
Theodore AV. D wight, LL.D., the eminent jurist and
author. In nearly all, if not in all, the proposals and
articles on the subject, prior to the meeting at Phila-
delphia, positive action by the General Assembly was

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 49

contemplated as requisite to a complete election; in
other words, every election or appointment, in order to
be complete, must be directly approved, or else disap-
proved, by the General Assembly. This would be in
accordance with the usual practice in the political
sphere. Ordinarily the veto power goes along with
the power of approval and confirmation. It is so with
the Presidential veto. It is so generally with the veto
power of governors and mayors. But it was not so
here, and as a consequence, even the General Assembly
itself, as we shall see, required twenty years fairly to
learn the lesson of the extent of its power in the case.
All that the Assembly could rightfully do, under the
agreement of 1870, was either to disapprove or to do
nothing.

This shows how sagaciously the whole matter was
finally arranged. The plan bears on its very face
marks of the utmost caution and forethought. Had it
included the power of approval, as well as of disap-
proval, every election reported between 1870 and 1891
would then have come before the Assembly for con-
firmation, and might have led to any amount of a more
or less excited discussion and conflict of opinion. An
approval, if strenuously opposed by only a small
minority, would be likely to prejudice even a good
appointment ; while an approval, if carried by a bare
majority, could hardly fail to stir up bad feeling among
the friends of the candidate, if not in his own breast.
Whatever evils were incident to the election of theo-

50 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

logical teachers by the General Assembly, the plan of
1870 certainly reduced them to .a minimum, as com-
pared with a plan which should embrace the power of
ratifying, as well as vetoing, every appointment. It is
likely that between May 9th and May 16th Dr. Adams
not only took legal counsel, but that he also sought the
counsel of those two wise men and old friends, Dr.
Stearns and Dr. Hatfield, with whom for nearly three
years he had been in the habit of conferring on this
very question of the theological seminaries in the Joint
Committee on Reunion, or in the New School branch
of it. That the General Assembly, under the rule of
1870 had no power of apjDroval is admitted now on
all hands.

But there is another point concerning which there
was conflict of opinion; the point, namely, whether the
transfer of a member of the faculty from one chair to
another was an election in the same sense as an original
appointment, and, therefore subject to the Assembly's
veto. The General Assembly at Detroit, as we shall
see, assumed that a transfer did not differ from an
original election, and by a large majority voted to
disapprove the transfer of Dr. Briggs from the chair of
Hebrew and Cognate Languages to the new chair of Bib-
lical Theology. The position of the Board of Directors
on the other hand, was that the original election of Dr.
Briggs, not having been disapproved by the General
Assembly fixed his status, once for all, as a member of
the teaching faculty of Union Seminary; and that his

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 51

transfer to the chair of Biblical Theology could not
therefore unsettle, suspend, or in any wise change that
status; it was simply an assignment of new duties, be-
longed solely to the jurisdiction of the board, and lay
wholly beyond the control or supervision of the Gen-
eral Assembly.

This view is enforced by several considerations : 1.
It harmonizes with the exclusion from the plan,
adopted by the directors on May 16th, of all direct
power of approval. That exclusion indicates plainly
the animus and latent, if not the deliberate, purpose of
the board. I say " latent, if not deliberate purpose,"
because no evidence exists that in using the terms
"election" and "appointment" there was any thought
or suspicion in the mind of a single director present
that the agreement included also a transfer from one
chair to another. Not a word was lisped on this
point.* Had it been raised then and there ; had Dr.
Adams, in explaining his revised plan, said to the
board : " I feel bound to tell you frankly that this
plan, faithfully carried out, will of necessity render the
internal administration and housekeeping of Union

* Among the members of the faculty present was Dr. Philip Schaff. In a
letter to me Dr. Schaff, referring to Dr. Adams' proposal " as a generous
peace offering on the altar of the reunion of Old and New School," added :

My impression was that Dr. Adams had previously conferred with Dr.
Charles Hodge, who in behalf of Princeton was anxious to get freedom from
the control of the Assembly in the appointment of professors. Our loss was
Princeton's gain. The distinction between tlie appointment of a new pro-
fessor and the transfer of an old one to a new department was not mentioned
and probably not even thought of at that time. I myself was transferred
three times — to the Hebrew, to the Greek, and to Church History — and noth-
ing was said about a veto.

52 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Seminary, touching some of its vital interests, subject
to the ultimate control of the General Assembly " Mr.
James' protest of May 9th would have echoed through-
out the room. The plan would have withered on the
spot. Or, to state the case in another way, had the
question been put to Dr. Adams : " Do you mean to
include in the terms "election" and "appointment" a
transfer also, such as we often make from one chair to
another ? In our relations to the General Assembly
will the original status of one of our professors be lost
by calling him to new duties in the institution, until it
has been recovered by subjecting him again to the veto
of the General Assembly ?" the promjDt answer, I am
quite sure, would have been : " Most certainly not ;
that goes without saying. We are proposing to enter,
not into a legal compact, but into a friendly and cour-
teous arrangement by which the General Assembly shall
have a voice in respect to the qualifications of every
man who is to be a theological teacher in our seminary.
But once admitted, unforbidden, into our faculty, the
Assembly will have nothing further to do with him
except indirectly, of course, as a Presbyterian minister.
We are not trying to drive a bargain, but to do what
seems to us a fair and wise, not to say very generous,
thing in the interest of the peace and prosperity of the
united Church."

2. And then it is certainly a strong incidental con-
firmation of the view taken by the directors of Union
Seminary with regard to the scope of the agreement of

ANOl^HER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 53

1870, that the official minutes of the board took for
granted the correctness of that view. The board again
and again assigned its professors to new duties and to
new chairs. Tliree times it transferred Dr. Schaff
from one chair to another. It created a new chair and
selected Dr. Briggs to fill it, transferring Dr. Brown at
the same time to the chair vacated by Dr. Briggs.
The record of these and similar changes on the minutes
of the board varied in language. The terms " elected,"
" chosen," " appointed," " transferred," were used
more or less indiscriminately ; and that for the simple
reason that in the mind of the board there was no
thought of any question touching its own proper
authority in each case. Transfer was evidently the
fitting term, expressing both the fact and the power ;
and this is the word which had been chiefly employed
in the minutes of the Executive Committee and of the
Board of Directors of Union Seminary. If all " ap-
pointments " in the literal sense were subjected to the
veto of the General Assembly, temporary assignments
of duty would have had to be reported to the Assembly ;
for nothing is more common than to " appoint " a pro-
fessor to such special duties.

3. There is still another consideration which sus-
tained the view that a transfer is wholly different from
an original election ; the fact, namely, that the strict
rules and procedure in the original election were not
observed in the case of a mere transfer. The disregard
of these rules had in repeated instances been so positive

54 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

and varied as to invalidate the whole action of the
board, if a transfer is the same thing as an original
appointment. Alike in the open disregard of some of
these rules and in inducting at once into the new or
vacant chair without any respect to the General As-
sembly — as, for example, in the case of Dr. Briggs —
we have a clear demonstration that in the view of the
Board of Directors of Union Seminary, a transfer had
always been regarded as simply an assignment of
duties, and subject, therefore, neither to the veto of the
General Assembly, nor to a strict observance of the
usual forms prescribed by law and custom in first call-
ing a man to the service of the seminary.

In the discussion of the extent of the Assembly's
veto power, the singular point was made that we ought
to distinguish between the different chairs and the sub-
ject matter taught in them. A Jew, for example — so I
heard it argued by at least two eminent directors in a
leading Presbyterian seminary — a Jew might make
an excellent professor of Hebrew ; but sujijDOse, hiding
behind the technicality of a transfer, you should 23ut him
into the chair of Systematic Theology, would not that
have been a case for the intervention of the General
Assembly's veto power ? I reply, no ; not if the As-
sembly had failed to disapprove of his taking the chair
of Hebrew. I freely admit that there are devout, God-
fearing Jews, abundantly qualified to be professors of
Hebrew in any theological seminary. Isaac Nord-
heinier, my own beloved teacher, was such a man ; but

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 55

the best and most learned Jew in the world could not
get into the chair of Hebrew in Union Seminary, to say
nothing of his transfer to the chair of Systematic Theol-
ogy. How could a Jew sincerely adopt the Westminster
Confession of Faith as containing the system of doctrine
taught in the Holy Scriptures ? For that is the pledge.

{% ) Acceptance of the offer of Union Seminary made
to the General Assembly in the memorial of 1870.

Let us now go back to the meeting of the Assembly
in Philadelphia. Dr. Adams, as we have seen, was ap-
pointed chairman of the Standing Committee on Theo-
logical Seminaries. He asked, as a personal favor, I
repeat, to be excused from serving in that capacity, on
the ground that all the seminaries under the care of the
Assembly belonged to what had been the Old School
branch, but his request was not granted. Before this
committee came the memorial of Union Theological
Seminary and also a memorial from Princeton of simi-
lar tenor; the difference between them being that
Princeton asked what it deemed a great favor to itself,
while U ion asked what it believed would be a great
favor wO Princeton and other seminaries. The report
of tl_j committee led to no discussion, met with no op-
position, and was unanimously adopted. I will give
the larger part of this important report, italicizing a
few passages :

That the relations of these several theological seminaries,
differing in origin and administration to the rennited Church,

56 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

should be regarded as a matter of no little delicacy and
difficulty, was inevitable. On the one hand it is obvious
that a matter so important as the education of its ministry
should in some way be under the supervision and control of
the Church, so as to secure the entire and cordial confidence
of the Church. On the other hand, there is a liberty and
flexibility in the matter which must be respected and
allowed. If individuals or associations are disposed to found
and endow seminaries of their own, there is no power in the
Presbyterian Church to forbid it.

As to any project by which the entire control and admin-
istration of all our theological seminaries — for example, as to
the election of trustees — can be transferred to the General
Assembly on any principle of complete uniformity, your com-
mittee regard it as wholly impracticable, and the attempt to ac-
complish it altogether undesirable. To bring it about, should
it be undertaken, would require an amount of legislation in
six or seven diiferent States, which would be portentious.

Besides, the intentions and wishes of benevolent men who
have founded and endowed some of these seminaries, and
aided others on their present footing, should be honorably and
zealously jjrotected.

Your committee, therefore, would recommend no change
and no attempt at change in this direction, save such as
may safely and wisely be effected under existing charters.

For example, the directors of the seminary at Princeton
have memorialized this Assembly with the request that the
Assembly would so far change its "plan" of control over
that institution as to give the Board of Directors enlarged
rights in several specified particulars, subject to the veto of
the General Assembly.

Your committee are unanimously of the opinion that the
changes asked for are eminently wise and proper. If it

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 57

were wltlihi the power of the General Anftembli/ to remit the
entire adinhiistration of this venerable institution to its Board of
Directors without am/ of the restrictions they have mentioned
as to the supply of their own vacancies, they would cordicdltj
I'ecoinnu'ud it. But inasmuch as the endowments of this
seminary are held on the condition that it should bo the
property and under the control of the General Assembly of
the Presbyterian Church in the United States, that trust
cannot be vacated nor transferred to any other body. The
method desired and proposed by the directors themselves is
open to no such objection, and is believed to be quite within
the provisions of the law as now defined, being only a con-
venient and wise mode of executing by the General Assembly
itself the trust which it now holds.

A memorial has been presented to this Assembly from
the directors of Union Theological Seminary, in New York,
bearing upon the point of uniformity as to a certain kind
and amount of ecclesiastical supervision.

It had appeared to them — many of them having taken an
active part in founding that seminary thirty-three years ago,
in a time, as already noticed, of memorable excitement — that
there were great disadvantages and perils in electing pro-
fessors and teachers by the Assembly itself, without sufficient
time or opportunity for acquaintance with the qualifications
of men to be appointed to offices of such responsibility.

It is self-evident, as your committee are agreed, that a
body so large as the General Assembly, and composed of
men resident, most of them, at so great a distance from the
several seminaries, is not so competent to arrange for their
interests and usefulness as those having local and personal
intimacy with them. Desirous of bringing about as nuich
uniformity as was possible in the relation of the seminaries
to the General Assembly of the Church, the directors of

58 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Union Seminary have memorialized this Assembly to the
effect that the Assembly would commit, so far as practicable,
the general administration of all seminaries now under the
control of the Assembly to their several Boards of Directors ;
proposing, if this be done, to give to the General Assembly
what it does not now possess, the right of veto in the elec-
tion of professors of Union. In this generous oflFer, looking
solely to the peace and harmony of the Church, the memo-
rialists did not include the same veto in regard to the elec-
tion of their own directors, inasmuch as these directors hold
the property of the seminary in trust. The trustees of
Princeton Seminary being one of two boards, are a close
corporation. The directors of Union Seminary in New
York, being but one board, are the trustees.

Leaving all the diversities of method and administration
in the several seminaries intact, save in the particulars here-
after provided for, your committee are happy to report that
there is one mode of unifying all the seminaries of the Pres-
byterian Church as to ecclesiastical supervision so far as
unification is in any way desirable. It is the mode suggested
in the several memorials of the directors of Union and
Princeton, and approved, or likely to be approved from
information in our possession, by the directors of Auburn
and Lane. This is to give to the General Assembly a vdo
power upon the appointment of professors in all these sev-
eral institutions. This seems to your committee to secure
all the uniformity, as to the relation of these seminaries to
the Church, which can be necessary to ensure general confi-
dence and satisfaction. Less than this might excite jealousy,
more than this is cumbersome and undesirable. *

*The full report will be found in Moore's Digest of 1886, pp. 383-
386. It is proper to say here, that two statements in the report are some-
what inaccurate, namely : that relating to the ecclesiastical connection in

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 59

I have said that the report of the Standing Committee
on Theological Seminaries met with no opposition. The
offer of Union Seminary, which was wholly unexpected
to the great body of commissioners, whether of the Old
or New School, made the happiest impression ujDon the
Assembly and called forth strong words of satisfaction
and thankfulness. And yet the committee appear to
have been in some doubt whether all the seminaries,
then belonging to the General Assembly, would be
willing to pass from under its immediate control ; for
the report closes with this resolution :

In case the Board of Directors of any theological semi-
nary now under the control of the General Assembly should
prefer to retain their present relation to this body, the plan
of such seminary shall remain unaltered.

Whatever doubt, if any, led to this provision, it was
solved in the acceptance of the Princeton j^lan by all
the other seminaries hitherto belonging to the Old
School ; while Lane, that, like Union, was independent
of ecclesiastical control, and Auburn, which was under
the watch and care of adjacent Synods, fell in also with
the new arrangement by conceding to the General
Assembly a veto over the election of their professors.
I do not find that, at the time, these changes involved
any public discussion, or even attracted public notice.
Such was the confiding and hopeful temper of the

183G of the founders of Union Seminary, and that rehating to "the design
of its founders." Their own hmguage touchuig this point, as also the
facts with regard to tlieir ecclesiastical connection, have been given in an
earlier part of this volume.

60 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

reunited Church, that it seems to have accepted the
action at Philadelphia almost as a matter of course.

I have thus endeavored to trace from stage to stage
the course of discussion and of action Avith regard to
theological seminaries in the Joint Committee on Ke-
union, in the Old and New School General Assemblies,
in the Board of Directors of Union Seminary, and last-
ly in the Assembly of the reunited Church. It has
been my aim to give as far as possible all the main
facts, omitting nothing essential to a right understand-
ing of the case. At the beginning of the investigation
my mind was very much in the dark respecting a num-
ber of important points, but after patient research and
inquiry, now and then not a little to my own surprise,
the needed light appeared. I will now proceed to a
sketch of the practical working and effects of the
Assembly's veto power from 1870 to 1891.

( y ) Early and frequent misapprehension of the ex-
tent of this power on the part of the General Assembly.
Its quiescence for twenty years.

The facts bearing on this point are equally curious
and instructive. They are curious as an illustration of
the tendency in all poj^ular bodies, — a tendency partly
innate, and in part the effect of ignorance, jDrejudice or
passion — to stretch their prerogative in the exercise of
power. The facts are instructive as illustrating the old
maxim that " the price of liberty is eternal vigilance,"
and also the j^ainful truth that even a court of Jesus

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. ^\

Christ is not exempt from some of the unloveliest
infirmities of human nature. Good men when, armed
witli authority, they meet together for the performanee
of important duties and the promotion of sacred objects,
mean, of course, to do the tiling that is right and,
especially, to keep the whole law under which they
act ; but how strangely they often err, on the right
hand and on the left !

Nothing would seem to be plainer than the power
of disapproval as conceded to the General Assembly in
1870, and yet upon the very first opportunity to exer-
cise this power, at Chicago in 1871, the Standing Com-
mittee on Theological Seminaries recommended the
"approval" of certain elections reported to the Asse,
bly ; and had it not been for the presence of Henry B.
Smith as commissioner from the Presbytery of New
York, the recommendation would no doubt have been
unanimously adopted. The "official journal" of the
Assembly contained the following record :

UNION SEMINARY.

Prof. Henry B. Smith, D.D., LL.D., of Union Theological
Seminary, New York city, moved an amendment to the report
of the Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries, thus :

Resolved, That the clauses of the report of the committee
be modified or stricken out which express in the name of
the Assembly "approval" of the elections of directors or
professors in the seminaries that have adopted the plan sug-
gested by Union Seminary, and ratified by the Assembly in

62 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

1870 (see minutes, pp. 64, 65, 148) ; since according to said
plan such elections are complete unless "vetoed" by the
Assembly to which they are reported.

Dr. Musgrave hoped this amendment would be sustained.
Union Seminary has courteously, and as he thought wisely,
conceded this measure of control over it by the General
Assembly, and it was only fair and honorable to accept this
amendment. It was so ordered.

One would have supposed that this formal interpre-
tation of the extent of its veto power contained in the
resolution offered by Professor Smith, and seconded by
Dr. Musgrave as " only fair and honorable," by a
unanimous vote of the Assembly itself, would have
settled the question for all tune. It did no such thing.
Only two years later at Baltimore the Standing Com-
mittee on Theological Seminaries, through the chair-
man, the Kev. Dr. R. R. Booth, then a director of
Union, repeated the error of 1871, and was sustained
in doing so by the unanimous vote of the General
Assembly.* Nor was that the last of this remarkable
misapjDrehension. Between 1§70 and 1891 about sixty
elections, appointments and transfers were rej)orted to
the General Assembly. Of these some twenty were
"recognized,", "approved," or their "confirmation"
voted by the General Assembly ; in other words, in a

*The committee would recommend that the Assembly approve the
election of the Rev. Philip Schaif, D.D., to the Brown professorship of
Hebrew, and of the Rev. George L. Prentiss, D. D., to the Skinner and
McAlphin professorship of Pastoral Theology, Church Polity, and Mission-
ary [Mission] Work, [See minutes of 1873, page 580].

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 63

third of the cases reported, the General Assembly did
what, according to its own unanimous vote in 1871, it
had no legal power to do."^ These figures will be
found nearly, if not altogether, accurate, and they
show how easily the most intelligent and conscientious
ecclesiastical bodies are led to exercise power that does
not belong to them. The chronic misapprehension of
which I am speaking cropped out at almost every turn
in the newspaper discussions of the veto power which
sprang out of the Briggs case.

For twenty years the veto power, conceded to the
General Assembly in 1870 by Union Seminary, re-
mained quiescent. During all this period it was never
used. While many appointments were " confirmed,"
or ''approved," — illegally, to be sure — not one was
vetoed ; a striking j)roof, certainly, of the harmony and
good-will that prevailed in the reunited Church, as
also of the wise prudence of our theological seminaries
in the choice of their teachers. It seemed, indeed, as
if the fears of Henry B. Smith, D. Willis James and
others, who regarded the agreement of 1870 with so
much misgiving, were shown by the test of experience
to have been groundless.

* Except in the case of Auburn Seminary. On entering into connec-
tion with the General Assembly this seminary in 1873 had adopted a by-
law by which the appointments of its professors were " primarily made
conditional upon the approval of the (ieneral Assembly." Why this
change in the agreement of 1870 was made by the Board of Commission-
ers of Auburn Seminary, 1 do not know. But, of course, that seminary
alone was bound bv it.

64 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

The veto power, however, was not wholly forgotten.
In the case of Rev. R. W. Patterson, D. D., in 1873,
and perhaps a few other instances, a professor-elect
and his friends were reminded, in a somewhat menacing
way, that such a power, though dormant, was still in
existence, and might of a sudden wake up.* Wher-
ever real power exists, it is sure to make itself felt.
Its turn always comes, sooner or later ; nor is the
opportunity apt to be neglected, when a much desired
object, whether good or bad, can be secured by its ex-
ercise. What is called the " spoils system," for exam-
l^le — a system which has done so much to poison and
vulgarize our political life — was largely the outgrowth
of that simple power of removal, which the Congress
of 1789 decided to belong exclusively to the President.
At the time nobody seems to have dreamed that any
special harm would come through an abuse of the
power, Mr. Madison, whose influence was most potent
in this decision of the first Congress, declared that if a
President should exercise his poAver of removal from
mere personal motives, or excej)t in extreme cases, he
would deserve to be impeached. And for more than a
third of a century Executive 2:>atronage was used solely

*In 1873 my appointment to a professorship in the then Noi'thwest-
ern Theological Seminary was threatened with veto on the ground that I
had lately in the Swing trial expressed the wish that the Confession of
Faith might soon be revised. How would that sound now? But my
orthodox opponents were quieted, as I was afterward informed, by the
statement of the Committee on Seminaries, that in not vetoing the Assem-
bly would not necessai-ily approve. Time changes both sentiment and
logic. [Letter of Rev. Dr. Patterson, dated Evanston, 111., Aug. 14, 1891].

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 65

as a public trust by Washington and the other great
jDatriots who then ruled the country. Even after 1820,
when the mischievous "Four Years" law was passed,
during the second term of Monroe and the whole term
of John Quincy Adams, very few removals were made,
and those in every case for cause. Only here and
there a far-seeing statesman surmised what, during the
next third of a century, lay wrapped up in the unlim-
ited power of removal, when, instead of being used as
a public trust, it was going to be so largely j^rostituted
to vul2:ar o-reed and the ruthless animosities of selfish
partisanship. How different it is now ! The ^^spoils
system " has come to be regarded, not merely by a few
far-seeing statesmen, but by tens of thousands of our
most thoughtful and patriotic citizens, of both parties,
as, on the whole, the greatest evil that, since the over-
throw of slavery, has beset the moral life of the coun-
try. To this illustration from our political history
how easy it would be to give still more impressive
illustrations from the history of the Christian Church,
of the way in which power long quiescent, may of a
sudden, when the fitting opportunity occurs, spring into
vigorous and baleful action.

66 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

CHAPTEK II.

THE FIRST EXERCISE OF THE VETO POWER AND ITS
CONSEQUENCES. THE DETROIT ASSEMBLY.

We come now to a new and highly interesting chap-
ter in the history of the veto given to the General
Asssembly by Union Seminary in 1870. Months be-
fore the Assembly of 1891 met at Detroit, it became
apj^arent to observing eyes that the transfer of the
Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., to the new chair of
Biblical Theology in Union Seminary, was to be sharply
contested, and, if possible, vetoed. The contest, of
course, would rest upon the ground that a transfer was
equivalent to an original election, and subject, there-
fore, to the disaj)proval of the General Assembly.
There existed throughout the Presbyterian Church
much dissatisfaction with some of Dr. Briggs' views as
expressed in his writings ; and had opportunity oc-
curred sooner, it would doubtless have been seized to
attempt his removal, by act of the General Assembly,
from the faculty of Union Seminary.

The feeling against Dr. Briggs, already existing and
wide-spread, was greatly intensified by the address
he delivered on being inducted into his new chair,
January 20, 1891. In response to this address, a large
number of Presbyteries overtured the General As-

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 57

sembly on the subject. The address led also to the
initiation of a judicial process in the Presbytery of
New York When the General Assembly met on the
21st of May, the excitement about Dr. Briggs and his
case had reached a very high pitch. The press, both
religious and secular, discussed the matter with extra-
ordinary interest. There had been nothing like it
since the reunion ; nothing, in truth, like or equal to it
since the tempestuous days of 1837-38, when both the
ecclesiastical and theological storm-centre swept down
with such fury on the old " City of Brotherly Love."
And the key to the whole situation was the veto power.
Had it been admitted on all hands that a transfer dif-
fered essentially from an original election, and was not
subject to the Assembly's disapproval, there still might
have been a Dr. Briggs case, but it would not have
been the case that in May, 1891, drew the attention of
the whole country to Detroit.

{a ) The General Assembly at Detroit, and how to
judge its course.

Although my own opinion of the action of the Gen-
eral Assembly at Detroit, in the case of Dr. Briggs
was anything but favorable, my impression of the As-
sembly itself was favorable, on the whole, in a high
degree. The commissioners came from far and near,
from city and country, from the Atlantic and the
Pacific shores, and from the most distant parts of
heathendom. They differed immensely in age, in train-

68 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

ing, in experience, in temperament, in social habits and
tastes, in their way of looking at things, in the types
of piety and religious thought which they represented ;
but they seemed to be very much alike in their love to
Jesus Christ, in their faith in His blessed Gospel, in
their reverence for the Holy Scrij)tures, in their God-
fearing patriotism and j)hilanthropy. Eye-witnesses
told me that they never saw a body of good men who
appeared more sincerely desirous to do right, and to do
it in a Christian spirit. I was especially touched by
what I heard about Judge Breckinridge, for it recalled
pleasant boyish impressions of his distinguished and
excellent father. He belonged to a historic family,
and his own character added honor to the name. Only
the evening before his sudden death he expressed to a
friend of mine his keen anxiety respecting the case of
Dr. Briggs, and his deep sense of responsibility in the
vote he was about to give. His last words attest how
sincerely he spoke.

It is quite possible to respect and even admire a
man's character, and to take for granted the purity of
his motives without always approving his conduct or
assenting to his logic. And what is thus true with re-
gard to individuals, may be no less true with regard to
a body of men, to a party, to a community, and to a
whole people. Were it not so, history instead of being
one of the most interesting of studies, would be rej)ul-
sive and demoralizing beyond expression. It will
ever redound to the honor of the American people that

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. (39

when the stress and agony of their struggle for National
life and union was once passed, the whirlwind of em-
bittered passions it had aroused, began to subside, just
as the waves of an angry sea dashing upon a rock-
bound coast, die away after the storm is over. And
these passions have been subsiding ever since. The
magnanimous and patriotic sentiments of mutual con-
fidence, love, patience and brotherhood, which are the
crowning glory of our Christian civilization, have been
taking their place, until the billows of sectional strife
have at last

Quite forgot to rave,
While birds of calm sit brooding 011 the charmed wave.

What a striking illustration of the same thing our
Presbyterian annals afford in the reunion of 1869 !
We retained, whoever cared to do so, our old differ-
ences of opinion respecting the causes and merits, or
demerits, of the Exscinding Acts, the disruption of
1838, and the thirty years of alienation between Old
School and New School ; but for all that, led no doubt
by a Divine hand, we came together again in the spirit
of mutual trust and love, forgiving and forgetting, in
order that we might the more effectually do the good
works foreordained for us as a Church to walk in.
And yet, even to this day, how far are we from think-
hig alike about the events of 1837-38, or about the
wisdom of the men Avho taught and led the contending
schools ! But it now costs us probably no great effort

70 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

to admit that tliey, at all events, were good men, fear-
ing God, and honestly meaning, as well as trying, to
keep His commandments.

For myself, I remember well the day when to my
youthful fancy Albert Barnes was the very embodi-
ment of pious good sense, meek wisdom, and upright-
ness, as well as freedom of mind in the interpretation
of Holy Scripture ; while Robert J. Breckinridge ap-
peared to me as a pugnacious theological " fire-eater,"
a domineering ecclesiastic, and a persecutor of the
saints. My impression of Albert Barnes was only con-
firmed when, years later, I learned to love and revere
him as a personal friend. But time and memorable
hours more than a third of a century ago, of most in-
teresting talk with him, in the company of Henry B.
Smith, Boswell D. Hitchcock, Howard Crosby, Taylor
Lewis and Henry M. Field, and other congenial
spirits, quite revolutionized my impression of Robert
J. Breckinridge, and while not much changing my
opinion of certain features of his course in 1837-38, his
relentless hostility to reunion, or his way of doing
things, I have ever since had no trouble whatever in
thinking of him as a devoted servant of the Lord, as
an able theologian, an humble Christian, a great-
hearted patriot, and a brave, even if a somewhat rugged,
type of old Kentucky manhood.*

*Here is an entry in my little diary under date of August 18, 1857:
" Breakfasted at Mr. Field's, of '■The. Evangelist,' with Dr. Robert J.
Breckinridge, the famous Exscinder, a very original and interesting man —
a true Kentuckian."

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 71

While, then, I feel bound to criticise the Assembly's
action in the case of Dr. Briggs as unfair, wrong, and
unwise in the extreme, let no one suppose me to be
imj)uting bad motives either to the Assembly or to all
the men who, as I think, misled it. So far from im-
puting unworthy motives to most of the commissioners
to the Assembly at Detroit, I can readily believe that
they were actuated by the best of motives. By their
votes in disapproval of Dr. Briggs' transfer to the chair
of Biblical Theology, they meant to express no per-
sonal hostility to him, but a hostility to what they had
read or been assured a hundred times over, and what
they honestly supposed, were his opinions and teaching
respecting the inspiration and authority of the Holy
Scriptures. And had I been a member of the Assem-
bly, viewed the subject as they did, and deemed it right
to vote at all, my vote would probably have gone with
theirs. From the bottom of my heart I sympathize
with all pious and tender feelings toward the Bible,
with jealousy of any rival to its authority, with pain
and grief at seeing it assailed from without or lightly
esteemed in the house of its friends, and with awe of
the divine majesty and glory of its truths. Perhaps
more or less of ignorance and prejudice may be mixed
up with these sentiments. Be it so, but how much of
prejudice and ignorance is apt to be mixed up with
everybody's best sentiments ! If I must choose between
ignorant and prejudiced but sincere love to the Word
of God on the one hand, and on the other a rational-

72 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

istic, fault-finding, reckless temper of mind toward it,
I infinitely prefer the former. The Word of God,
which livetli and abideth forever, is the sure founda-
tion and germinant principle of American piety. It
was so in the beginning of our religious life as a peo-
ple ; it has been so ever since ; and unless \ve prove
recreant to our great trust, it will be so in all the years
to come. So far as criticism of the Bible, whether
literary or theological, aims or tends to subvert this
foundation and put something else in place of this prin-
ciple, I, for one, am opposed to it utterly. And had it
not been my belief that Dr. Briggs could and would
say amen to this sentiment, I should have been equally
opposed to him also. Biblical criticism, whether of the
higher or lower sort, is very far from being an exact
science, and it mars its own best work just in the
degree that it puts on the airs of an exact science, and
shouts before it is out of the woods. That was the bane
of rationalism, and if co-existing with it, is none the less
a bane of the most orthodox Christian scholarship.
8eed thou a man wise in his own conceit ? There is more
hope of a fool than of him. This senseful j)roverb ap-
plies not to persons alone. It applies also to every
kind of knowledge relating to moral and religious
truth, more especially to every branch of knowledge
that deals with Holy Scripture. Scholarship may be
never so able and learned, yet if puffed up with self-
conceit, if not animated by the spirit of humility and
reverence, it is certain to go astray. " Let no man,"

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 73

to use the words of Lord Bacon, " upon a weak conceit
of sobriety or an ill-aj^plied moderation, think or main-
tain that a man can search too far or be too well studied
in the book of God's word or in the book of God's
works, divinity and j^hilosophy ; but rather let men
endeavor an endless progress and proficience in both ;
only let men beware that they apply both to charity
and not to swelling ; to use, and not to ostentation."

{h) The case against Union Seminary as argued by
John J. McCook.

The case against Union Seminary had been set be-
fore the commissioners in a variety of ways, especially
by the religious papers of the denomination, before
they left home and on their way to Detroit. Probably
its most plausible presentation after their arrival there
was in an elaborate lawyer's brief, prepared by John
J. McCook, a prominent member of the New York bar.*

This brief, bristling with points, and fortified by an
array of legal authority, was well fitted prima facie to
impress the ordinary lay, or even clerical mind. And
there is no doubt that both by its arguments and its
statements it contributed not a little to confuse and
mislead the General Assembly, as also the Christian

* One Hundred and Third General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church
in the United States of America, Detroit, May, 1891. Memorandum of facts
and the law controlling the relations of Union Theological Seminary in the
city of New York to tlie (ieneral Assembly of the Presbyterian C'liurch in
the United States of America, by John J. McCook, commissioner from the
Presbytery of New York.

74 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

public, in regard to the facts and law of the case. It
contained charges, too, of a very grave character
against the good faith of Union Seminary. For
these reasons it requires special notice in this his-
torical sketch.

It was noteworthy, first of all, that a lawyer's brief,
prepared with such care and so confident in its tone,
should have betrayed throughout utter misapprehen-
sion as to one of the most obvious features of the veto
power, as conceded to the General Assembly, namely :
that it was solely a ^^ower of <:/is-apj)roval. Here are
instances in 'point: "Thus all appointments of pro-
fessors are, and the safety of the Church demands that
they always should be, made by the directors condition-
ally first upon the apjwoval of the General Assembly."
(p. 18.) " It is intimated in a statement by the faculty
of the seminary which appeared in the secular press of
May 16, 1891, and in the opinion of Mr. Day, already
referred to, . . . that Professor Briggs having been
once appointed a professor in the seminary, with the
approval of the General Assembly, his present appoint-
ment is merely a transfer." (p. 27.) " The only
question before this Assembly is the exercise of the
power granted to it by Union Seminary under the con-
tract, viz ., to approve or disapprove the appointment
by transfer of Dr. Briggs to the new chair of Biblical
Theology." (p. 31.) Here were three instances in
which Mr. McCook stated as fact and law in the case
what was in direct conflict with the unanimous decision

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 75

of the General Assembly of 1871, a decision which at
the time Dr. Musgrave declared to be " only fair and
honorable" !

Mr. McCook opened his brief with a statement of
what he regarded as the material facts bearing upon
the case. He then proceeded to make this starting
point : " The memorial of the directors of Union Sem-
inary of May 18, 1870, and the subsequent action of the
General Assembly thereupon, constituted a contract
upon valid considerations.^^ As to the meaning of a
contract he quoted Story's definition : " Whenever
any injury to the one party or any benefit to the other
party springs from a consideration, it is sufficient to
supjDort a contract." The contract between Union
Seminary and the General Assembly, he said, contains
considerations of both kinds mentioned by Story,
"injury and benefit." "There was a substantial con-
cession on the 23art of the General Assembly, in that
it gave up rights of control which it had theretofore
possessed over some of the seminaries [that was the
injuryl ; and there was benefit to the Union Seminary in
securing the influence and name of the General Assem-
bly to reassure pujjils and benefactors as to its ortho-
doxy." Of course Mr. McCook did not suppose he
was jesting in the use of this language; he, no doubt,
believed himself to be asserting a simple fact. But
had William Adams, Henry B. Smith, Thomas H.
Skinner, Boswell D. Hitchcock, Edwin F. Hatfield
and Jonathan F. Stearns — not to mention others —

76 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

listened to such a statement they woukl have regarded
its author as only jesting, and that in a very strange
way. Not one of them, I am sure, ever heard a lisp
of it from any responsible source, either before or after
1870. And although for nearly forty years connected
with Union Seminary, as director or professor, I read
it for the first time in Mr. McCook's Detroit brief.
The statement implied that both pupils and benefac-
tors, being in serious doubt respecting the orthodoxy
of the institution, found relief in the agreement of
1870. What pupils ? What benefactors ? and where
was the evidence that the seminary entered into the
"contract" of 1870 in order to reassure its pupils and
benefactors as to its own orthodoxy ? There was no
evidence. The whole statement was not only utterly
without foundation but it involved a highly offensive
imputation upon the General Assembly, upon Union
Seminary, and upon all the parties concerned. Is it
strange that when the directors, the faculty, and the
friends of Union Seminary read it in Mr. McCook's
brief, or as it was reported far and wide by the public
press, they were filled with indignation ?

No principle laid down in the basis of reunion in
1869 was more emphatically asserted than that of the
perfect equality of both branches, Old School and New,
in the matter of their orthodoxy. The whole move-
ment hinged upon the distinct recognition of this
princijile. Had Dr. Musgrave, Dr. Beatty, and the
other Old School leaders intimated that Union Semi-

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 77

nary was not as sound in the faith as Princeton,
and needed the influence of the General Assembly
to " reassure j)upils and benefactors as to its ortho-
doxy," that of itself would have broken up the nego-
tiations for union.

The second " good and valuable consideration," re-
ceived by the Union Seminary under this " contract,"
according to Mr. McCook, was *' a large increase of its
students," drawn from all parts of the reunited Church.
This statement also lacked foundation. ^Reunion
brought very few students to Union Seminary ; while
it tended, in several ways, to draw them elsewhere. It
wrought a great change, for example, in the feeling of
New School men toward Old School seminaries, as well
as toward the Old School church ; and thus led more
or less of those studying for the ministry to enter these
seminaries, who would never have thought of doing so
before 1870. Prior to reunion few of the bright young
men of the New School church cared to study theology
in an Old School seminary. The following table fur-
nished me by the Rev. Charles R. Gillett, D. D.,
librarian of Union Seminary, shows at a glance the
number of students for twenty years before and twenty
years after 1870, and will enable the reader to judge
for himself as to the probable influence of the General
Assembly upon the increase of its students by " reas-
suring pupils and benefactors of the orthodoxy " of the
institution. This increase, it will be seen, was from the
first somewhat irregular. Special causes from time to

THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

time dej)leted the seminary. The war for the Union
had this effect in a marked degree. In the four years
1861-65, not a few Union students, or young men, who
were intending to enter Union Seminary, were at the
front, fighting the battles of their country. Then
again special causes occasionally increased the number
of students ; as, for example, the expectation that the
World's Fair would be held in New York. It is
doubtful if the . endorsement of its orthodoxy by the
General Assembly during all the twenty years added a
dozen names to the roll of students in Union Seminary.

Students in Union Seminary, by years and classes.
Undergraduates only.

YEAR.

SENIOKS.

MIDDLERS.

JUNIORS.

TOTALS.

1890-91 . . .

152

1889-90

158

1888-89

127

1887-88

125

1886-87

130

1885-86

119

1884-85

131

1883-84

111

1882-83

116

1881-82

120

1880-81

120

1879-80

130

1878-79

37 .

119

1877-78

142

1876-77

139

1875-76

136

1874-75

116

1873-74

111

1872-73

120

1871-72

114

Averages.

39.95

42.75

44.10

126.8

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY

YEAR.

Sf^NIORS.

MIDDLERS.

JUNIORS.

TOTALS.

1H70-71 . . .

110

1869-70

113

lH(58-69

127

1867-68

133

1866-67

108

1865-66

123

1864-65

100

1863-64

1862-63

1861-62

109

1860-61

133

1859-60

141

1858-59

120

1857-58

108

1856-57

102

1855-56

1854-55

1853-54

1852-53

1851-52

Averages.

30.6

36.6

39.6

106.8

YEAR.

SENIORS^

MIDDLERS.

JUNIORS.

TOTALS.

1850-51 . . .

1849-50 .

1848-49 .

1847-48 .

103

1846-47 .

115

1845-46 .

100

1844-45 .

105

1843-44 .

1842-43 .

1841-42 .

32 .

102

1840-41 .

1839-40 .

120

1838-39 .

Averages.

27.4

33.4

37.4

98.2

Tlie third " good and valuable consideration "
received by Union Seminary under this " contract,"
according to Mr. McCook, consisted in the financial
aid granted each year to its students from the Board

80 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

of Education of the Presbyterian Church. But the
students of Union Seminary had received financial aid
every year from the New School Committee of Educa-
tion. After 1870 they received similar aid from the
Board of Education of the reunited Church. Was a
dollar coming by way of Philadelphia a better dollar
than used to come from the treasury of the New School
Committee of Education in New York? Was there
more silver or more gold in it ? Was it stamped with
a stronger assurance of orthodoxy ?

The fourth and last " good and valuable considera-
tion," binding Union Seminary fast to its " contract,"
consisted in " large additions to its endowments and
funds such as those received from James Brown, Esq.,
Gov. Morgan, and others which have been asked for
and received since 1870 upon the guarantee of its
orthodoxy through its relation to the General Assembly
under this contract and the provisions of its constitu-
tion." I do not pretend to say that none of the bene-
factors of the seminary were more or less influenced by
their confidence in the orthodoxy of the institution, as
guaranteed by its relations to the General Assembly.
I do not know. Men are usually led by a variety of
motives to give away their money, especially when they
do it on a large scale. Of one of the benefactors
named. Gov. Morgan, I feel entitled to speak with
some confidence. In 1851 I preached a sermon to my
people on the position, character, and claims of Union
Theological Seminary, urging its immediate endow-

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 81

ment. The sermon made no allusion to the General
Assembly, or to what Mr. McCook seemed to under-
stand by Presbyterian orthodoxy ; but did set forth
what I held, and still hold, to be the chief j^urpose and
function of a great metropolitan institution of Christian
theology and learning like Union Seminary. Thirty
years later Gov. Morgan was kind enough to write to
me respecting my sermon : " There is not an expres-
sion in it which I do not approve. I thank you from
the bottom of my heart for j)resenting this vastly im-
portant subject in its true light." Here follow a few
passages from the sermon which met his hearty ap-
proval :

The character of Union Seminary is eminently catholic
in the true sense of the word ; it is at once liberal and con-
servative. There is nothing that I am aware of in its
history, nothing in its associations, nothing in its general
policy, nothing in its temper, which would make this insti-
tution cleave inordinately to the past or to the future ;
which should render it unstable in the ways of old truth, or
unwilHng to greet new truth with a friendly welcome; noth-
ing which commits it to any party or prevents its cordial
relations with all parties that love the Gospel and Christian
union. It stands in special connection with our own branch
of the great Presbyterian family, but it numbers on its Board
of Directors, and among its warmest friends, influential mem-
bers of the other branch ; while it seeks its professors and
attracts its students as readily from the old Puritan body of
New England, as if its predilections were all Congregational.
If you will have an institution occupying as catholic a

82 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

ground as the distracted state oi the Church in our day
seems to permit, I do not know how you can well come
nearer to such a plan than have the founders of Union Sem-
inary. Its main advantages are as accessible and useful to
a Baptist, a Methodist, an Episcopalian, or a Congregation-
alist, as to a Presbyterian ; and students of all these and of
other denominations have availed themselves of them. Let
it be understood that in what I have said, or may say, I
cast no reflection upon any other seminary. All honor to
Princeton, and Lane, and Auburn, and Andover, and Bangor,
and New Haven, and others of whatever name, that are
doing the Master's work !

As the seat, too, of a liberal and profound theological
culture New York ought to stand foremost in the land.
She ought for her own sake. There is perhaps no other
power, after the Word preached, which would do more to
preserve her Christian influence, wealth and enterprise from
falling a prey to the show, self-aggrandizement, and other
vices incident to the predominance of a commercial spirit.
She ought for the sake of our country and the world. Let
a wise, tolerant, Christian theology flourish here, and it
would diffuse a beneficent radiance over the land, and even
among pagan nations. The position, then, of the Union
Seminary is unsurpassed, both for the training of ministers
and for the cultivation of sacred learning. For this reason
its founders planted it in the city- of New York.

I have the clearest conviction that the Union Seminary
is capable of doing a great work for Christ and the Church.
It has already done much. Not a few of the most useful
ministers in the land, not a few of our best missionaries to
the heathen, are among its alumni. Already, too, has it
made important contributions to the theological literature
of the age. But I trust it is to have a still nobler, career

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS Hf STORY. 83

in the future. T look forward to the time wlien young men
of piety and generous endowments shall flock to it in thou-
sands from all quarters of the Republic ; from California and
Oregon, and from the islands of the sea, even; when its
library shall be the resort of Christian scholars from neigh-
boring towns and cities ; when its professorships shall be
multiplied so as to embrace one for each great branch of
sacred lore ; when it shall be the pride and glory of our
churches and its treasury be continually enriched by the
princely donations of the living and the dying; when, in a
word, it shall be such a nursery of men of God, and such a
citadel of holy faith as the voice of Providence commands
us to build up in this emporium of the New World.

Gov. Morgan's letter to me closed thus :

I have always thought, and I still think, that New
Yorkers, of all others, ought to do something for a good
institution, like Union Seminary, hi their oion city, and not
send all their money to Princeton. I am convinced now
more than ever that my judgment in this respect has not
been at fault.

In his letter to Dr. Adams offering to establish a
fund of one hundred thousand dollars for the erection
of a new library building and for the improvement,
increase and support of the library, Gov. Morgan be-
gins by saying : "I desire to show my appreciation of
the usefulness of the Union Theological Seminary, and
to aid in the great work it is now doing for the coun-
try.^^ No mention w^as made of Presbyterian ortho-
doxy as fixed by the " standard of the General Assem-

84 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

bly." Nor do I believe any such thought passed
through the mind of this strong man, either at that
time, or later, when he added to his first gift two
hundred thousand dollars more. Not long before
his death, while busying himself with " Morgan
Hall," his generous gift to Williams College, he said
one day to a friend of mine : " I see now clearly
that it has been the greatest mistake of my life
that I have not engaged in this kind of thing before.
It is one of the greatest pleasures I have ever expe-
rienced. And what a host of opportunities I have
lost ! If men of means could only realize what gratifi-
cation is to be derived in this way, worthy and deserv-
ing objects would be fairly besieged with clamorous
donors."

In a letter from the late Henry Day to Mr. John
Crosby Brown there is still further testimony to the
same effect :

Governor Morgan's interest in Union Seminary arose as
follows : I was consulting with him about his will, and knew
something of his views in regard to charities. I then
advised Dr. Adams to call on Governor Morgan and lay be-
fore him the needs of the seminary. This he did. The
Governor then consulted me with regard to the institution.
I stated all the facts about it, but made no mention of the
arrangement with the General Assembly, of which I myself
was not then aware, and am sure he also had no knowledge.
He finally concluded to give the seminary one hundred thou-
and dollars, and requested me to draft a letter expressing
the terms on which the gift was bestowed. This I did.

ANOTHER DECADE OE EES HISTORY. 85

The only wisli he expressed in regard to it was tliat the
principal should he used in erecting a lihrary huilding, and
the income, if any, should be applied to the improvement
of the library. The views controlling him were that a sem-
inary located in a great city, afforded the students better
facilities for practical training for Christian work, than sem-
inaries located in smaller towns, and that Union Seminary
should have the finest site in New York.

Mr. McCook, some pages later, recurred almost
pathetically to the distressing effect of a ftiilure to veto
Dr. Briggs : " It would work an irreparable wrong
upon those donors, such as James Brown, Esq., Gov-
ernor Morgan, Russell Sage, Esq., Daniel B. Fayer-
weather, Esq., and others, who have contributed so
largely to the endowment of Union Seminary upon the
faith of this arrangement with the General Assembly
and the orthodoxy of the seminary, which was intended
to be secured thereby." All the benefactors named
but one long since have j)assed far beyond the reach
of such "irreparable wrong," Bussell Sage, Esq., alone
surviving. Why Mr. McCook selected this gentleman
in particular from among a score or more of five-
thousand-dollar contributors to the fund of Union
Seminary as a special object of his sympathy, I do not
know.

Had I space it would be interesting to dwell a little
upon some of the odd maxims of ecclesiastical wisdom
scattered through Mr. McCook's extraordinary brief.
They surpass anything I have ever found in books on

86 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Presbyterian Church polity, after reading and lectur-
ing on the subject for many years.

" The SOLE OBJECT of Union Theological Seminary
is to uphold and teach the Presbyterian standards."
(p. 15). " Upon questions of orthodoxy the directors,
individually and as a Presbyterian body, are subject
to the General Assembly'' (p. 16). "The Assembly
merely sets a standard of orthodoxy, and the corpora-
tion, wishing to be orthodox, agree to appoint no agent
of a certain class who does not come up to it."" (p. 18).
" The standard of orthodoxy for the seminary, and for
all Presbyterians and Presbyterian institutions, must
be set by the General Assembly. What is more
proper, therefore, than a contract providing that all
appointees to the high and responsible office of a pro-
fessor in such a seminary shall be measured by this
standard ? " (p. 17).

But let us pass to Mr. James Brown. Mr. Brown
never expressed any doubt, nor is there any good
reason for thinking he ever felt any doubt, with regard
to the orthodoxy of Union Seminary, either before or
after 1870. Years prior to the reunion he had been a
generous friend of the institution. In 1865, by a gift
of $15,000, in addition of another of $10,000 by his
brother, John A. Brown, of Philadelphia — a man like-
minded with himself — he endowed the chair of Hebrew
and Cognate Languages. From this time on his inter-
est in the seminary grew ever stronger and deeper.
In January, 1870, months before the agreement with

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. y7

the General Assembly, he gave $30,000 toward the
new endowment, being a part of the great five-million
memorial fund. And then, in 1873, his various dona-
tions cuhninated in the splendid gift of $300,000, by
which the endowment of every chair in the seminary
was raised — sotee from $25,000, some from $50,000 or
less — to $80,000. This was j^erhaps the most wise and
considerate, as it was the largest, benefaction to the
institution up to that time.

But while Mr. McCook failed to adduce any proper
evidence, either documentary or oral, of his assertion
respecting the suj^posed motives which prompted Mr.
Brown's gifts to Union Seminary, it was not for lack of
evidence, clear and unmistakable, as to the real mo-
tives of those noble benefactions. The story of what
Mr. Brown did for Union Seminary forms one of the
most striking and beautiful episodes in all its varied
history. The institution owed to him several hundred
thousand dollars, but it owed him something far more
precious than money. I mean the inestimable blessing
of having William Adams as its president and one of
its teachers during the last seven years of his life.
Dr. Hitchcock, in his address at the dedication of the
new buildings on Park Avenue, thus referred to this
auspicious event :

The administration of Dr. Adams came npon ns like a
bnrst of snnshine. He had, of course, first of all, to take
care of his own department of Sacred Rhetoric, which lie
handled with all the versatility and freshness of early man-

88 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

hood. To this he added the toils and cares of an office which
had lain dormant for thirty years. The whole institntion
was toned up. Professors and students, equally and all, felt
the magnetism of his courtly and stimulating presence. On
all public occasions he was our ornament and pride. In all
the dry details of our daily, weekly and monthly routine of
work, he was a model of punctuality, precision and thorough-
ness. He possessed in an eminent degree what I will ven-
ture to call the institutional instinct and habit. He was a
genuine University man, always promptly in his place, and
always ready for his work. He also believed in new de-
partures. At an early date our course of study was care-
fully revised in the interest of a severer discipline. During
the first period of our history, and some way on into the
second period, there had been only two lectures a day, and
these were between the hours of four and six in the after-
noon, partly for the convenience of such as were supporting
themselves by outside work. Some time before the lectures
had been pushed back an hour ; and now we added a morn-
ing lecture at eleven o'clock, for the expressed purpose of
bringing outside work within the narrowest limits possible.
With Dr. Adams originated our two scholastic Fellowships,
which have done so much for the higher grade of service in
our colleges and seminaries. He secured for us in 1874, our
present treasurer, Ezra Munson Kingsley, who seems now so
indispensable, that we wonder how we ever got on without
him. . . . In 1875, Dr. Adams procured the means of
renovating our old buildings and erecting a new one, in the
expectation of holding on indefinitely to the old location.
It was Governor Morgan's gift on the 29th of March, 1880,
of $100,000 — partly for books and partly for a fire-proof
building — which suddenly changed all that. Then our pres-
ident began to look about for another site. Soon after, at

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. gg

his summer homo on Orang;e Mountain, in New Jersey —
looking oif upon tlie sea, looking up into the sky — on the
last day of August, 1880, the throbbing, busy pulse stood
still. Of fifty years of signal service the last seven had been
the golden autumn of his life.

To Mr. James Brown, I repeat, Union Seminary
owed it that Dr. Adams spent the golden antnmn of
his eminently useful life in her service. And Mr.
Brown fully comprehended the nature and extent of
the blessing. Nor is the secret of his wise forecast far
to seek. Mr. Brown (to borrow the words of Dr.
Hitchcock concerning him) " was a man of rare quali-
ties, in most symmetrical combination. With a judg-
ment seldom at fault, strong of will, tender in his
domestic relations, profoundly religious, no act of his
life was ever challenged, and absolutely no shadow
darkens his memory. In the year 1854 a terrible
affliction befell him. A son, two daughters, a daugh-
ter-in-law, and two grandchildren, with two nurses —
passengers on board the steamer Arctic, returning from
Europe — perished by shipwreck. This, with other
sorrows before and after, greatly enriched his religious
life," It was in the soil of such deep exjDerience that
his interest in Union Seminary took root, grew to
strong sympathy with the spirit and character of the
institution, blossomed in various timely gifts, and at
length ripened into the crowning benefaction of 1873.
This great benefaction, it is asserted, had been " asked
for and received " by Union Seminary upon the guar-

90 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

antee of its orthodoxy, througli its relation to the Gen-
eral Assembly under the agreement of 1870. This
assertion is based upon an entire misapprehension of
the facts in the case. Mr. Brown's gift of |300,000
was never "asked for" at all. It was a purely sponta-
neous act on his part. When first announced his
purpose was a complete surprise alike to his own family
and to Dr. Adams, for whom he cherished a singularly
tender and devoted friendship. But although a sur-
prise when first announced, it soon became the subject
of frequent talks and also of correspondence with his
son, Mr. John Crosby Brown, now president of the
Union Board of Directors, who entered with his whole
heart into his father's plan, both with regard to the
full endowment of all the professorships and the bring-
ing of Dr. Adams into the faculty of the seminary.
Most of the letters relating to this matter which passed
between the father and the son, as also those which
passed between Mr. James Brown and Mr. John
Crosby Brown, on the one hand, and Dr. Adams on
the other, are still in existence ; and although replete
with very interesting details, alike of plan and feeling,
there is not in one of them the remotest allusion to the
"orthodoxy" of Union Seminary as guaranteed by the
agreement of 1870.

To return to Mr. Brown's motives. Here is the tes-
timony of Mr. John Crosby Brown, the one man living
specially entitled and best qualified to bear witness on
the subject :

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS I ITS 'TOR): 91

The motives which prompted my father's gifts to Union
Seminary at tliis time, as I well know from freqnent con-
versations with him, were mainly the following: (1) Sym-
pathy with the principles upon which, and the objects for
which, the seminary was founded. ]My father's ])r<'ference
was decided and often expressed for what he conceived to be
the broader views and more liberal instruction enjoyed by
the students of Union, in comparison with those afforded the
students at certain well-known seminaries of the Church.
(2) The conviction, also often expressed, that a great city
offered superior advantages for the training of young men
for the Christian ministry. His brother, Mr. John A. Brown,
an old friend and parishioner of the Rev. Albert Barnes,
shared his views on both these points.

The details connected with this gift of $300,000, formed
the subject of many conversations between my father and
myself. I thus became intimately acquainted with his views
and the motives which prompted him, and am able to state
with confidence, that he was in no way influenced l)y the
agreement of 1870, as affording an additional guarantee of
the orthodoxy of the seminary. In not one of our conversa-
tions was the agreement so much as mentioned; nor is
there an allusion to it in the whole correspondence now in
my possession between my father and the seminary, or be-
tween him and Dr. Adams, or in his letters to me, or in any
other letters bearing upon the matter.

It can hardly excite surprise that the charges re-
specting Mr. James Brown's gifts to Union Seminary,
made in Mr. McCook's " Memorandum " and speech at
Detroit, should have greatly disj^leased Mr. Brown's
family and friends. It is only right, therefore, to quote

92 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

here a statement by Mr. McCook, made in 1892, just
before the adjournment of the Portland Assembly, to
which he was a commissioner.

Colonel John J. McCook made a frank statement, with-
drawing any word which might have irritated or cansed dis-
tress to the family of James Brown, one of the benefactors
of the Union Seminary. He remarked that his object in
referring to the matter, had been to express the view that,
whether the benefactors of the seminary intended to do so
or not, or whether they considered the legal propositions in-
volved or not, their gifts having been once delivered to the
seminary, they necessarily come under the trusts devolved
by the charter, the constitution and the contract obligations
of the seminary, inchiding the compact of 1870.

(c ) Organization of the Detroit Asseriibly. The
Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries. Its re-
port. The speeches a7id the action of the Assembly.

The One Hundred and Third General Assembly of
the Presbyterian Church in the United States of
America met at Detroit, Michigan, in the Fort Street
Presbyterian Church, of which the Rev. Dr. Wallace
Radcliffe was pastor, on May 21, 1891. The Eev. Dr.
William Henry Green, the distinguished professor of
Oriental and Old Testament Literature at Princeton,
was chosen Moderator. Dr. Green was held in the
highest esteem and affection, all over the land, as a vet-
eran in the service of Christian scholarship. Nothing
could have been more fitting than his unanimous elec-

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 93

tion. Tlie organizMtioii of the Assembly was thus de-
scribed by the correspondent of the New York Tribune,
under (bite of May 22 :

This is pre-eminently a conservative Assembly; more, it
is a Princeton Assembly. The Moderator is a Princeton
man, the senior professor in that seminary ; the Stated Clerk
is a Princeton man, having been for a long time hbrarian
of that institntion ; the chairman of the Standing Committee
on Theological Seminaries, Dr. Patton, is president of Prince-
ton College, and it is to this committee that the report of
Union Seminary is to be submitted. Friends and opponents
of Dr. Briggs are already forming their opinions as to what
action this committee will report in regard to the New York
professor.

Dr. Green announced the standing committees this morn-
ing. There is no special significance in the appointments,
except in that of the Committee on Theological Seminaries.
This is composed as follows : 3IinisferrS — Francis L.
Patton, Princeton ; William McKibbin, Cincinnati ; John
Lapsley, Danville ; S. Bowden, Rochester ; J. D. Hewitt,
Emporia; J. K. Wright, Florida: T. R. Ruber, Philadel-
phia; and M. A. Bronson, Detroit. Elders — S. M. Breck-
inridge, St. Louis; P. McDavitt, Chicago ;^E. W. C. Hum-
phrey, Louisville ; R. C. Totten, Pittsburg ; P. Doremus,
Montclair, N. J.; N. J. Frick, Fort Dodge; R. McCon-
naughy, Nebraska City. It was said by those professing to
know that this was a decidedly anti-Briggs committee, but
Dr. Patton, its chairman, assured the Tribune correspondent
that he did not know how the members stood on any spe-
cial question that might come before them. They had
apparently been chosen by Dr. Green because he knew their
fitness for the work before them.

94 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Here are some passages from a letter of Dr. Park-
hurst to The Evangelist, depicting the Assembly from
his point of view, both as a director of Union Sem-
inary and as a commissioner.

The General Assembly was made up for the most part
of men that it did one good to look upon. It is a splendid
thing for the country to have such people as an element of
its population. They were Christian men with good heads
and honest hearts. I am speaking of the body in its
entirety, regardless of geographical relations or doctrinal
affiliations. Nine out of ten of that assemblage were anxious
for nothing so much as to have the truth brought to the
front, and the right prevail. ... I recognize the solid
sense of the commissioners, but there are a great many ques-
tions in theology, as there are in every other science, that
need something beside solid sense in order to handle them
wisely. Take the matter of the higher criticism, which
was repeatedly touched in the course of the debate. I doubt
if one in twenty of the commissioners at Detroit would have
dared to stand up in the presence of that company and
attempt to state what the higher criticism is. Their one
impression seemed to be that it was a frightful doctrinal
disease of some kind, and that Dr. Briggs had it in its most
malignant form. The General Assembly were frightened;
I had better say panic-stricken. They had no desire to be
rid of Union Seminary, but they were afraid of Dr. Briggs,
and evidently supposed that in trying to exorcise him they
were saving the seminary, and expelling the one evil spirit
and foul demon by which it seemed to them to be possessed.
I have thus far spoken about the nine out of every ten. I
want now to pay my respects in the same frank way to the
tenth man out of every ten. If ninety per cent, of the

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 95

members were sheej) waiting to be led, ten per cent, were
bell-wether waiting to lead them, and Princeton was that
bell-wether.

Before noticing the report of the Standing Commit-
tee on Theological Seminaries it will not be ont of
place to say a word of its chairman. The Moderator
and his chief adviser knew very well what they did.
Dr. Patton was by far the strongest man for that position
in view of the object to be accomplished. No other
commissioner could have filled his place. He was the
ruling spirit at once of the Assembly and of the Com-
mittee. It is only fair, therefore, to quote a passage
from Dr. McKibbin's speech, made in defence of the
report. In vicAv of his relation to Princeton, Dr. Pat-
ton was somewhat sharply criticised, at the time for
consenting to serve on the committee. I myself joined
in this criticism. But I am bound to say, that for its
recognition as a party in the case, with equal rights of
its own over against the Assembly, Union Seminary
was chiefly indebted to Dr. Patton. Here is the pas-
sage in Dr. McKibbin's speech :

Now I am going to tell you some secrets ont of school.
The chairman seemed to be hunting so hard for some way
to peaceably settle this thing, that I began to find my own
faith in him weakening. So far from shutting his eyes and
ears — and I know you recognize his master-hand in that
report — it seemed to me that he was bound to get through
the inclosure if there was a hole anywhere in the fence big
enough to let him through, before he would consent to say

96 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

to this Assembly, as he has solemnly said, and we all say,
there is no other way, because there is no other duty.

On May 27th Dr. Patton read the report of the com-
mittee, which was accepted and ordered to be printed.
The report opened with an enumeration of sixty-three
Presbyteries which had overtured the General Assem-
bly respecting the recent utterances of Dr. Briggs. It
also referred to the report of the directors of Union
Theological Seminary respecting the transfer of Dr.
Briggs to the chair of Biblical Theology. The report
then proceeds thus :

On the 20th of January, 1891, Dr. Briggs delivered
an inaugural address on the authority of the Holy Scrip-
tures which has been the subject of some criticism, and
which is the occasion of the recommendations which your
committee feel constrained to make to the Assembly. In
making these recommendations your committee feel that they
are acting in the discharge of a delicate duty. The matter
with which they have been called to deal bears in a very
important way upon the purity and peace of our Church.
The interest of the Union Theological Seminary should be
most carefully considered, and great respect should be had
for the judgment of those who, as directors and as members
of its faculty, are administering its affairs. The committee
feel, moreover, that while the Assembly has not been
officially informed, the Presbytery of New York has taken
steps that look toward a prosecution of Dr. Briggs on the
charge of heresy ; that well-known facts should be so far
recognized as to secure from the Assembly the protection of
the good name of Dr. Briggs in the discussion of the ques-

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. 97

tion that will come before the Assembly through this report,
and also to prevent an expression of opinion on the part of
this Assembly that could be justly regarded as prejudgment
of the case that will soon, as it now appears, assume the
form of a judicial process in the Presbytery of New York.
It cannot be too carefully observed tliat the question before
this Assembly is not Avhether Dr. Briggs, as a Presbyterian
minister, has so far contravened the teaching of the West-
minster Confession of Faith as to have made himself liable to
a judicial censure, but whether, in view of the utterances
contained in the inaugural address, already referred to, and
the disturbing eifect which they have produced throughout
the Church, the election of Dr. Briggs to the chair of
Biblical Theology in Union Theological Seminary should be
disapproved. Your committee have examined the law of
the Church regarding the relation of the General Assembly
to the theological seminaries under its care. The relation
of the Assembly to the Union Theological Seminary, so ftir
as the appointment of professors is concerned, is embodied
in the following statement taken from page 390 of the New

Having cited the statement referred to, the report
continued as follows :

It appears, then, that according to the items of the com-
pact quoted above, the directors of the Union Theological
Seminary have conceded to the Assembly the right to veto
the appointment of professors, and that an election is com-
plete unless vetoed by the next Assembly following the
election. Your committee would have been disposed to rec-
ommend that the report of the directors of Union Theolog-
ical Seminary to this Assembly, so far as it referred to the

98 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

transfer of Dr. Briggs to the chair of Biblical Theology, be
referred to the next Assembly, if such a disposition of the
matter had been possible ; but the Assembly has clearly no
power to postpone action. The control of the Church over
the election of Dr. Briggs ceases with the dissolution of this
present Assembly. Your committee are constrained, there-
fore, to say that in their judgment it is the duty of the
Assembly to disapprove of the appointment of Dr. Briggs
to the Edward Robinson chair of Biblical Theology in Union
Theological Seminary.

Your committee desire to say, moreover, that while they
are clear in their judgment that the Assembly has the right
to veto the appointment of Dr. Briggs to the chair of Biblical
Theology, it is possible to impose a meaning upon the appa-
rently unambiguous phraseology of the compact between the
General Assembly and the directors of the Union Theological
Seminary, that would lead to a different conclusion. Fairness
also requires us to say that the Assembly is one of the
parties of the compact that it is called upon to construe.
While your committee are of the opinion that the compact
in question did not contemplate the distinction between the
election of a person to be a professor and the appointment
of one already a professor to the work of a certain depart-
ment of instruction, it cannot be denied that such a dis-
tinction exists ; the one act conferring status, the other only
assigning duties. The seemingly irregular course of the
directors of the Union Theological Seminary, whereby Dr.
Briggs was inducted into office before the Assembly had
been advised of his appointment, is doubtless to be attributed
to their mode of construing their contract with the General
Assembly. While your committee are sure that the Assem-
bly will not, and should not, admit its right of disapproval
is restricted to the original election of a person to a pro-

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 99

fessorship of Biblical Theology in that seminary, and while
they are of the opinion that, acting according to the light
it now has, the Assembly cannot bnt disapprove of the ap-
pointment of Dr. Briggs to the professorship of Biblical
Theology in that seminary, they are nevertheless of the opin-
ion that, in the interest of the mutual relations of confidence
and cordial respect subsisting between the Union Theological
Seminary and the General Assembly, it would be eminently
proper for the Assembly to appoint a committee to confer
with the directors of the Union Theological Seminary in
regard to the relations of said seminary to the General
Assembly, and report to the next General Assembly. The
committee, therefore, recommend the adoption of the follow-
ing resolutions :

I. Besolved, That in the exercise of its right to veto
the appointment of professors in Union Theological Seminary
the General Assembly hereby disapproves of the appointment
of the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D. D., to the Edward Rob-
inson professorship of Biblical Theology in that seminary,
by transfer from another chair in said seminary.

II. Besolved, That a committee, consisting of eight min-
isters and seven ruling elders, be appointed by the General
Assembly to confer with the directors of Union Theological
Seminary in regard to the relations of said seminary to the
General Assembly, and to report to the next General Assem-
bly.

Before considering the report of the committee I
wish to call attention to a statement of the chairman
on reading it :

I would like to say that this committee have felt the
responsibility that has been placed upon them ; that they

100 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

have not felt at liberty to divide this responsibility with any
one ; that they have studiously avoided consulting with any
one who may have been supposed to have preconceived opin-
ions on either side of the question ; and having reached our
conclusions, we present them to the Assembly for such action
as the Assembly in its wisdom may see fit to take.

Was this not equivalent to saying that they delib-
erately refused to seek, or to receive, any light from
anybody in reference to the momentous question which
they were appointed to consider ? Were these fifteen
commissioners already omniscient when they shut
themselves up in committee? Would their minds
henceforth of necessity be biassed, or misled, by any
addition to their knowledge touching the Union Semi-
nary and Dr. Briggs ? I say nothing about the other
" side ;" but so far as the Union Seminary was con-
cerned, it had good right to be heard before that com-
mittee, if it desired or cared to do so. Three of its
directors, Drs. Parkhurst, Dickey and White, were
present in the Assembly, the first two as commission-
ers. Dr. White as Corresponding Member. Dr. Dickey
stated that he offered, as a member of the Union Board
of Directors, to give the committee any information in
his power ; not " j^reconceived opinions," but simple
information. Dr. White made the same offer, both
orally and in writing, and he was assured by Dr.
Patton that the committee would be glad to hear him.
He fully expected to be heard ; but the committee
"studiously avoided " consulting with him. In the

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. IQl

letter to Dr. Field, already quoted, Dr. Parkliurst thus
referred to the course of the committee :

There were three of tlic directors of Union Seminary
present in the Assembly, and we natnrally snjiposcd that
the committee wonld like to have tlio h<>:lit tnrned on, and
that they wonkl be pleased to confer with ns before bring-
ing in their verdict. Snch simplicity on our part may be
pitiable, but it is hardly censurable. Two out of these
three even wont so far as to volunteer their services, and to
suggest to Dr. Patton's committee that we should be willing
and glad to come before them, and state any facts that they
might wish to question us upon. They met our overtures
so far as to say that they should be glad to hear anything
that we would communicate. One of us in particular was
informed that such citation would be made. Nothing came
of it. Not one of us loas sent for. All of which means
that that committee was constructed with the definite purpose
of vetoing Dr. Briggs' transfer.

But this slight put upon the three directors of Union
Seminary was only a prelude to a far greater slight
j)ut upon the seminary itself. It is true that the report
of the committee distinctly recognized the fact that
Union Seminary was a party in the case and had rights
of its own as over against the Assembly. And yet the
report recommended an ex ^^ar^e decision of the vital
question at issue without consulting in the least Union
Seminary. The consultation was to come after the
matter had been practically, and so far as that Assem-
bly w^as concerned, irrevocably settled.

102 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

The exposition of the case in the report, more fully
given in Dr. Patton's speeches and in those of other
members of the committee, was remarkable for the
manner in which it utterly ignored the deliberate action
and testimony of the Board of Directors of Union Sem-
inary, as also the carefully prepared statement of its
faculty. These were not, it is true, officially made
known to the Assembly, but neither was the action of
the Presbytery of New York, looking to a judicial j^ro-
cess in the case of Dr. Briggs ; and yet the Standing
Committee on Theological Seminaries kept that action
constantly in mind in framing their report and urged
the Assembly to do so in considering it. Why was not
the Assembly also informed in this report of the exact
position taken both by the Board of Directors and by
the faculty of the seminary ? Why was not the Assem-
bly distinctly told that the board, by a unanimous vote
and after careful investigation, had virtually jDronounced
the charges against Dr. Briggs unfounded, and that the
faculty of the institution had done the same thing?
Was this solemn testimony also "studiously avoided"
on the ground that it consisted of " preconceived opin-
ions " ? *

Let me repeat the language of Dr. Patton's report :
"The interest of the Union Theological Seminary
should be most carefully considered, and great respect

*The action of the board in establishing the new chair and transferring
Dr. Briggs to it, Dr. Frazer's cliarge, the resolutions- of the Board of Directors
sustaining and promising to stand by Dr. Briggs, and also the statement of the
faculty will all be found in the Appendix.

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS IirSTORY. 103

should be had for the judgment of those who, as direc-
tors and as members of the faculty, are administering
its affairs. The committee feel, moreover, that while
the Assembly has not been officially informed, the
Presbytery of New York has taken steps that look
toward a prosecution of Dr. Briggs on the charge of
heresy ; that ivell-knoivn facts should be so far recog-
nized as to secur'c from the Assembly the 'protection of
the good name of Dr. Briggs in the discussion of the
question that will come before \he Assembly through
this report," Why, I repeat, was not the Assembly
informed of "well-known facts" in the case of Union
Seminary though not "officially reported" ?

The debate upon the report of the Standing Commit-
tee on Theological Seminaries opened on May 2^8th and
closed late on May 29th. Much of the discussion,
while able and very earnest, was yet quite irrelevant.
A good deal of it consisted in what is called beating
about the bush. The first and fundamental point,
namely, that of jurisdiction, was hardly touched upon
except in the rej)ort of the committee.

With regard to this question the friends of the
seminary were handicapped and tongue-tied from the
outset. Their case was simply given away by the
statement that the technical distinction, if any existed,
between an original ajipointment and a transfer, need
not be discussed, inasmuch as the directors of Union
Seminary, at their meeting on May 12th, had unani-
mously voted not to j}le(id this distinction. At that

104 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

meeting the Executive Committe had presented to the
board a report to the effect that it would be unwise to
assume in advance that the General Asembly would
misconceive the extent of its prerogative ; and in any
event it was better at this time not to raise an issue by
the sending up of a resolution ujoon the distinction be-
tween an "appointment" and a " transfer." As the mis-
statement about the action of the board, strangely
enough, met with no contradiction, the friends of the
seminary had nothing to do but to oppose the adop-
tion of Dr. Patton's rejDort as best they could. Some
of them did this directly ; others by urging an amend-
ment offered by Dr. Logan, to the effect that Dr.
Briggs' transfer be disapproved " for the present ;"
and others still by advocating a substitute to Dr.
Logan's amendment prepared by Dr. Worcester ;
both of which contemplated the postponement of final
action to the next Assembly. But the distinction
between the original election and a transfer, having
been waived, the advocates of a veto had it all their
own way. And their own way consisted in two things ;
first, to assert very positively that Dr. Briggs ought to
be vetoed ; and second, that he must be vetoed now or
never.

The discussion, as I have said, was able and very
earnest ; and now that the excitement of the hour is all
gone, much of it is full of interest and instruction.
Some of the speeches have a historical value as photo-
graphs of the thoughts and impressions that ruled the

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 105

Assembly of 1891. I will quote from a few of them.
The opening speech was made by Professor Henry
Preserved Smith, of Lane Seminary. It discussed
mainly Dr. Briggs' theological position and character,
defending him with much scholarly ability and in an
excellent sj)irit. Among the liveliest speeches was
one by Dr. Bartlett, of AYashington. Here are pas-
sages from it :

If there is any way in which all parties could be con-
sidered, and in which the unity and harmony of this great
Presbyterian Church could be preserved, I am certain there
are no two purposes about the advisability of doing just that
thing. Now we are here as a company of Christian be-
lievers. I am in favor of the immediate action on this
report, if action must be taken — and I don't say that we
should veto this appointment " for the present." The im-
putation always is by men who argue for the higher criti-
cism, that every Presbyterian minister is a fool, and that
nobody ever read the Bible or had any private secret reve-
lations but themselves. (Laughter.) I wish to say that
over thirty years ago I was in the German universities, and
I can take Dr. Briggs' books and do for them with absolute
certainty what he guessed at with Moses, and can show him
where he took every one of his positions from a rationalist
German professor over thirty years ago ; and I am prepared
here to vindicate that statement. (Applause.) Now, gen-
tlemen, there is scholarship and there is scholarship. No
one ever doubted but what Strauss was a scholar. He is
not a very learned man, and he began his career by tearing
Moses to pieces, and he ended by stripping Christ of every-
tliing but being a plain Nazarene peasant. Yes, there is

106 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

scholarship and scholarship. Why, Ignatius Donnelly is a
scholar. He has marvellous secrets that nobody else has
ever pried into. And right here I wish to say as to these
intimations — in all these addresses that I have heard on the
higher scholarship — about the marvellous teachings they are
gabbing about, the wonderful things that they see which
nobody else has ever explored — why, gentlemen, you could
talk that a thousand years and back to peasants, but that is
the charlatanism of scholarship to-day. I tell you, we know
every fact that any man knows on higher criticism or any-
thing else. There is water in the sea, there is water in the
air and there is water in the rivers; but they are in com-
munication with each other. Now, bring out your facts.
The truth of it is that there are some peculiar minds in
every age that look upon a class of facts that are perfectly
familiar to Christian scholars, and they see in them the
solution of great, doubtful and perplexed problems, which
the great average level-headed scholarship of the day doesn't
see. They have the same state of facts, but they differ in
their interpretation. For instance, there are seven or eight
hundred theories as to the origin of the Pentateuch. Now,
I, the great level-l^eaded scholar, look over them, and I
state what I see, and I say it raises great doubt in my
mind. And so the great scholar gives his students all the
information he has upon it ; brings it from the depths and
puts it before them. Now, I say, state it, bring it before
the students, keep nothing back, they are entitled to it.
But they are entitled as well not to have a man with a
peculiar tendency of mind and a peculiar mental sympathy
fix the stamp of his authority on some one of those theories
and say that, if he knows anything about Moses, Moses did
not write the Pentateuch. Now, that is what I complain
of. The higher criticism doubt has proved that Bacon

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. IQT

wrote Sliakospcare. In the Oxford investigations as to the
origin of Homer they proved, I believe, that Homer did not
write Homer, bnt that Homer was really written by another
man of the same name. (Langliter.)

A member — " I rise to a question of order, Mr. Moderator."

Dr. Bartlett — Well, rise — and sit down again. You have
had your time on this thing, and I propose to have mine.
(Cries of "Order," "Order.")

A member — "I rise to a question of order."

Dr. Bartlett — Yes, this is the form of liberty accorded.
In the name of liberty men often become bigots. They
never dare to hear the truth.

A member — " I wish the chair would decide upon my
question of order, whether the position of Homer and of
Ignatius Donnelly has anything to do with the amendment
before the house."

Dr. Bartlett — It is an illustration. (Laughter.) I was
going to move a committee, consisting of Donnelly and
Keely and Briggs and half a dozen others, to settle all
questions of modern times. (Laughter.) I wish further to
say a word about scholarship. The impression is always
made that we don't want light. We say let the light in.
The Presbyterian Church seeks scholars, but it does not on
insufficient evidence ask men to draw inferences and shatter
the very foundations of faith.

And now in regard to heresy. This is not an age of
heresy-hunting. Why, there is no such thing in the air.
The response that the Presbyterian Church officially has
made to ten years of heresy-hunting is seen this morning in
the report of this committee. The heretic has hunted the
Church, and not the Church the heretic, if there is any
heresy. For ten long years in book after book, periodical
after periodical — culminating in the inaugural address — the

108 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Presbyterian Church has been pursued. The man has
rubbed against it with chips on his shoulder, defying it in
every way. Now, I say that even a fire company has a
right to have rules. Their rule is that their members shall
wear red shirts. A fellow comes in with a blue shirt, and
says he is going to wear it. Of course it is a small matter
what color their shirts shall be, but their rule is that only
red shirts shall be worn. Now, I say that any society has
a right to have some defined rules, and after a Church has
been pursued for more than ten years on this question, I
say it is to be commended for long-suifering patience and
for tender mercy and for quietness and peace. The impli-
cation has always been that there is heresy being sought ;
that this is an age of thumbscrews and all that species of
humbug. In this case it does not apply. Every Church
is free, but the Church must be free enough to decide the
question independently and fairly. I like Professor Smith's
dog story. It was a good one, and it reminded me of one
that I will tell you. We had a bench show in Washington
this winter and there were several $3,000 and $4,000 and
I believe one $5,000 dog exhibited there. One day this
$5,000 dog got out. He was a rather ferocious fellow,
though very expensive, and running down the street he
seized one of my fellow-citizens in a convenient place in the
back (laughter,) and his owner, who was chasing him, cried
out to the citizen who had been seized : " Don't injure that
dog, you might spoil him, and he is a very valuable dog"
— and all the while the dog was gnawing away, and the
poor man had the impression that he was not in any great
danger of injuring the dog, but that the dog was in great
danger of injuring him. And so it is. We have been
pursued and finally caught, and we wish for them to make
the apology. Who has made this disturbance ? Is it the

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 109

Presbytorian Clmivli, through spies and queer and double
construction chasing a man down to convict him of heresy?
The Church is forced to regard it, and we simply say : Let
go. Let us alone. And if the time has come when you
must go out from the beautiful land of Lgypt under the
repression of this awful Pharaoh— the Presbyterian Cluirch
— we say, go, and take all your intimate friends witii you.
(Laughter and applause.) There is the end of the matter.
We must face it fliirly. There is no personal thing about
it. We have talked of trying to save Professor Briggs. I
know him, and I love him personally, as a man. But
there is a question about saving the seminary and about
saving the Church of God. The physician, when he came
out from the sick chamber, said the mother was dead, and
the child was dead, but he thought he might possibly save
the husband. (Laughter.) I think it is about time for us to
save the Church.

In kindness my heart responds to every kindly feeling.
I was a Union Seminary man. I w\as there under that
grand scholar whose fame is over the earth, Edward Robin-
son. I was under the scholarship and careful training of
Henry B. Smith. I was under the superb rhetorician,
Hitchcock, and I was there under that Chesterfield of a
teacher, old Dr. Skinner, so sweet in his exterior and a St.
John at his soul. In that elder day to be a Roman was
greater than to be a king. I confess I have stood all
my life in the advance line. I have been a radical of the
radicals, but I drew the line when I have known the qual-
ity of this criticism for over thirty years — and I got it fresh
from Germany, too — I know its tendency, and I know where
it leads. Give us the learning, give us the study of the
books, give us professors that know how to handle it. The
implication always is that it is never studied in any other semi-

110 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

nary but New York ; but I believe it is studied in every theolog-
ical seminary of the earth, and I believe that in them all to-day
these things are current facts. Bring them to their natural
result, and then let the students find that the subordinate
things are relegated to the rear, that we are not ordained to
discover whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch or not, but to
preach Christ.

Dr. Israel W. Hathaway, of Jersey City, opened the
discussion on the 29th of May. Here follow some
passages from his strong speech in favor of Dr.
Logan's amendment :

It is one of the glories of our Presbyterian Church
that every minister, elder and brother is to do his own
thinking. Notwithstanding my regard for these brethren in
high places, yet I must in duty to my own conscience and
to the Presbytery which I represent here, do my own think-
ing. We have seen here the master-strokes of the great
giants of debate ; but nevertheless I in my humble place
have the temerity to controvert their conclusions. This
beautiful argument, so finely drawn by Dr. Patton, is build-
ed upon the supposition that it is impossible for us to post-
pone this action. Dr. Patton said here yesterday in our
hearing that he wished it were possible, that we all would
love to postpone this action if it were possible. Now, I
claim that it is not in the precedents of the ecclesiastical
courts of our Church, in interpreting the law, to give that
construction to the technical interpretation of the law as it
is given in the civil courts. It has never been the custom
of the Presbyterian Church so to do. I will admit that
technically they are right, but that is the letter that killeth,
while the spirit giveth life. And it will be a sad day for

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. m

the Presbyterian Church when we allow the technicalities of
the law to defeat justice. It is that justice may prevail,
and not that we may use technicality in order to defeat
justice, that our ecclesiastical courts are constituted.

It is upon this point now that I make my argument that
it is in the precedents of the Presbyterian Church to inter-
pret this in the spirit and not in the letter. And I say
that on that supposition and upon that fact all the argument
of Dr. Patton topples to the ground. He admits it himself
if we can maintain this point. And now, brethren, I ask
you to note for a moment the form of that report. There
is no reason given. Dr. Patton tells us that the reason
why there are no reasons given is that it would be unjust,
that it would be unfair, that it would prejudice the case
before the New York Presbytery. Well, now, I ask you
in all candor— for I have the utmost confidence in the judg-
ment and the scholarship of all the members of this body,
and in their ability to think for themselves— I ask you,
brethren, whether you have carefully noted what the ulti-
mate effect of this position is ? Why, sir, who ever heard
of a man being condemned without a reason given? And
this report is thus drawn without reason. It seems to me,
whether in the intent of the committee or not, it is a fact
that its effect will be to catch all possible votes, that you
may read into it all the reasons that you choose. The very
Avidest opportunity is given for every member to have his
own reason. Some of our brethren who will vote to sustain
this report will so vote because they feel that Dr. Briggs is
heretical. Others of you will vote to sustain this report
because you feel that the infelicities of his manner and his
idiosyncrasies incapacitate him for his position. One will
vote upon one ground and another will vote upon another,
because there are no reasons given.

112 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

And now one word as to the unfairness of all that.
Why, I had rather meet a thousand foes with square
reasons given than an inference. If there be any unfair-
ness in putting the reasons in, there is an hundredfold more
unfairness in leaving the reasons out, because then it is
open to all manner of construction.

And then Dr. Patton, in your hearing, after saying it
would be unfair and unjust, proceeded to give us the
reasons in part, and said that there were many others lying
back, opening the field for our imagination to play in its
largest scope. Now I ask you furthermore, what will be
lost by postponing this for a year? Where is the danger?
Why, it is said here that the Church is being run down.
Our brother from Washington yesterday drew his illustration
of the dog, you remember. Why, if the great Presbyterian
Church of America is likely to be destroyed by this man,
then how much is it worth ? The danger, dear friends, is
on the other side. How long has this beloved brother been
a professor in this seminary ? He has been teaching
the same things that he will teach to-day, and has the
Church been ruined thereby ? Can we not afford to wait
one more year ? And I am sure, brethren, that our brother,
by reason of the warning and by feeling the pulse of
the Church will adjust himself to the conditions, if time be
given.

Dr. Patton says, " Have we not the right ?" I concede
the right. Shylock had the right to have the pound of
flesh. So has this Assembly the right to veto and destroy
the usefulness forever of that brother, and perhaps lose the
Union Seminary to our beloved Church. Dr. Patton him-
self intimated that it might go into the civil courts, that it
miffht take its course through all the courts and vex our
Church for years. And this action that it is proposed to

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. II3

take is the very thing that will precipitate that result.
But let us not claim the pound of flesh. Let us not draw
the blood that shall make much of the inheritance of our
Church confiscate. Now, dear brethren, I plead not for Dr.
Briggs, for I am a loyal Princetonian. God has given me
a son who has chosen the ministry, who graduated with high
honors under Dr. Patton last June, and who has already
made his arrangements with our beloved Moderator to enter
the seminary next September, while he might attend Union
and board at home ; but with my advice and approval he
goes to Princeton, and thus I prove my loyalty to that
institution. I plead not for Dr. Briggs ; I plead for charity,
I plead for peace, I plead for the broadest liberty of inves-
tigation in the scholarship of our Church. And if it be
possible for Dr. Briggs, or those whom he represents, to
destroy our Bible, then I want it destroyed. I do not give
a farthing for a Bible that is conserved by the deliverance
of a General Assembly. Let us not be afraid of dangers
that I think have been magnified in our mind. I think
a sort of wave of enthusiasm for the old orthodoxy
has taken possession of us, so that we know not of what
spirit we are. I plead that you will halt ; I plead that you
will for a moment wait and think of that which is before
you. We are making history to-day, brethren. Let us be
careful that we do not make a history that our children will
have to apologize for, as the Presbyterian Church has ever
been apologizing for Calvin when he consented to the burn-
ing of Servetus in Geneva. Let us not make history so that
our children will have to apologize for our position as some
have in their position toward Albert Barnes. Let us halt
until the waters shall quiet down. I plead not for Briggs,
I plead not for heresy. I plead simply for the broadest
charity and the broadest investigation, the most liberal in-

114 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

vestigation in our Church. I do not believe that the Pres-
byterian Cliurch can afford to take any other position than
this. Some of my brethren have said to me : " We care
not what the world says ; we must not be influenced by the
world." But, dear brethren, we are dealing with a world
lost in sin. We are here to bring them to grace, to bring
them to a knowledge of the saving love of God in Jesus
Christ our Lord. We have to deal with the world, and the
^^•(^*ld may misinterpret us if we take this action to-day.
They will not even give you the credit of honesty of pur-
pose, some of them ; and so I plead that you will in the
magnanimity of your hearts consent to the adoption of this
amendment in the interest of the peace and harmony of our
Church.

Suppose that it was one of you. Suppose it was you,
my brother, that had made some mistake; that had said
things that you ought not to have said, and the eye of the
Church was focussed upon you, and that this General Assem-
bly was discussing your case. Would you consider it a
great thing if they held off their hands for a little until this
matter could be investigated in the judicial manner provided
in the form of government in our Church, through the Pres-
bytery of New York? I think not. I think you would
think it was a very hasty action to do otherwise. It makes
a vast difference, brethren, whose ox is being gored. So it
is for this that I plead. Let us turn to the great thoughts
and objects of our Church. This is not the greatest subject.
This sinks into insignificance beside the great commission,
"Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every
creature." Why, if the position taken by Dr. Briggs be
false it will come to nothing. If it be true, what are we
that we shall stand against it? lest with Paul we be found
fighting against God.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. II5

In explaining his amendment — ''for the present" —
Dr. Logan said :

It is not a very gracious task to undertake to attack
such an ecclesiastical lawyer as Dr. Patton, or such civil
lawyers as have spoken from the platform on this subject.
But it is a queer kind of law that these brethren have given
us, as it strikes an old Presbyterian, I am amazed at the
report of this committee. ... I say it is not wise as a
work of administration to take this judgment as announced
by the committee which impeaches the act of the Board of
Directors of Union Seminary, which impeaches the character
of Dr. Briggs as a professor — and all this without having
the parties before us, and without having a full understand-
ing of the case, and in the face of those categorical answers
to direct questions, which the Board of Directors have issued
as a vindication of their acts — I say it is not wise. It will
lead to bickerings and misunderstandings ; it will lead to
controversy, and it will have a bad effect. But, on the
other hand, if we go slowly, if we go to these men kindly,
they may see the wrong ; the things that need mending may
be mended, and, if not, the evil will develop itself distinctly
so that the Church of God shall be able wisely to destroy
it. That is my reason for this amendment. I beg you to
walk slowdy and reach a decision, on w^iich you may be
able to present a united Church before the living God for
the glory of our one Lord. (Applause).

Dr. Ramsey, of New York, followed Dr. Logan in a
vigorous protest against the report of the committee.
Here is an extract from his speech :

I venture to doubt the constitutionality of any Presby-
tery passing over its right of original jurisdiction to the

116 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

court of final appeal. I believe, sir, that whatever we do
in this case, however we may disguise it, it will be a virtual
trial of the case.

This leads me, therefore, to the second point, tliat I do
not think it constitutional. This proposed action infringes
on the right of the individual. Dr. Briggs is not here. He
has no case in court. The directors of the Union Theolo-
gical Seminary in their plight, in their anxiety, asked that
Dr. Briggs and — mark now, I am not a Briggs man in the
sense that that term is used — solemnly to state what he be-
lieved, and he wrote that short catechism, with its yeas and
nays, and which, if it had been handed in by any other man
than Professor Briggs, would have been received as the cor-
rect interpretation of previous utterances. Instead of that,
sir, as you all know, it has met with a destructive analysis,
and this catechism has been finally interpreted back by the
inaugural. Brethren, if there is one thing I do, I stand for
the rights of a man, whether he be my friend or my foe. I
do not believe that this glorious Presbyterian Church can
ever let the semblance of a trial pass without the due forms
had been taken ; and yet we are drifting toward a virtual
verdict before the Presbytery has even framed its indictment.

Now, that is the case of this man as he stands before us.
His last utterance, solemn utterance, satisfactory to the
directors of Union Seminary, has been utterly ignored here;
and, sir, if it means anything, it means that we doubted its
sincerity. Perhaps you say, " we have the right." But God
Almighty grant that the day be far distant when we may
impeach an uncondemned brother's veracity or receive his
words as if they came from a Delphic oracle, or assume that
his writings may be read between the lines. If the evidence
is convincing, I shall follow up this case and be found
voting against Dr. Briggs. Yet, sir, he shall have any

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. II7

guard thrown around him tliat I can ])ossihly aid in giving
him in any stage of his trial. ... J think this action
is an infringement on the constitutional rights of the Pres-
bytery of New York. It is an advanced shadow of a
decision, at least in a higher court. ... If this goes
through the whole matter of a trial may secure a weak
force. I protest as a New York Presbyterian against any
action by this Assembly that anticipates final action.

Here are a few j^assages from Dr. Worcester's forci-
ble and manly speech :

When I heard that this matter had been intrusted to
some of the clearest brains in the Church I felt reassured,
and it was with profound disappointment that I listened to
their report when they presented it to this Assembly. The
course proposed in that report is an extreme course. Dr.
Patton told us yesterday that this was the very least that
this Assembly could do. What more could this Assembly
do? You cannot hang Dr. Briggs ; you cannot imprison
him ; you cannot cast him out of the Church ; you cannot
depose him from the ministry ; you cannot impeach his
orthodoxy or touch his moral character. The one thing
that you can do is to veto, bluntly, absolutely, without a
reason given, his appointment. Even upon your power to
do that the committee admit there rests the shadow of a
doubt, sufficient to make them think it necessary to appoint
fifteen wise men before another year to clear it away. But
in the meantime — and I wonder if I am the only commis-
sioner to whom the relation of the two resolutions in the
report was a surprise — while we admit that there may be
some question about our authority to do this, we will behead
the man and then we will confer with the directors as to
whether we had the rio-ht to do it.

118 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Then I object to this report because it is an arbitrary
report. It says that we disapprove this appointment, and
gives no reason. Judge Breckinridge said yesterday, and
we all recognize its force, that a judge might often give a
wise decision founded on bad reasons, and therefore, it was
better never to give reasons if you could help it. But in a
matter which touches the standing, the reputation of a man,
in a matter which may produce an ecclesiastical trial already
initiated, you cannot help it ; you have no right to help it.
Why, if I remember rightly, it is not so many years since
there was a great controversy over the question whether the
President of the tjnited States had the right even to behead
a postmaster without giving a reason for it. Now we pro-
pose to behead officially a theological professor without
stating any reason for it. We were told by President
Patton that a great many reasons might be given. Why
don't the committee give a reason ? Mr. Moderator, I fear
it was because the committee knew that no one reason would
carry a majority of this Assembly with it. Dr. Patton
admitted that it would not do to say that it was on account
of the idiosyncracries of the Professor. He said the theologi-
cal reasons, not amounting to a charge of heresy, might
have been given ; but he admitted that, with all his power
of lucid statement, in which he has not a peer in this
Assembly, those reasons would be so intricate and obscure
that a very few would be able to distinguish them from a
charge of heresy. He admitted that it would not do to
charge him on the ground that he is not sound in faith,
because that would be anticipating the decision of the Pres-
bytery of New York. And the only reason that I could
discover that he would urge as a practical reason that might
have been given was that Dr. Briggs is under suspicion.
Sir, shall we disapprove of this appointment because Dr.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. HQ

Briggs is under suspicion, when we know that steps have
already been initiated to sift tliis suspicion and ascertain
whether it is right or wrong. Is it not one of the ])rinci-
ples of our Church to stand by a man who is under sus[)i-
cion until tliis suspicion has been sifted to the bottom ? At
all events I ])rotest against a bare disapproval of this elec-
tion without any reason being given. I protest against it
because it will inevitably, as Mr. Ramsey has so well said,
have an influence upon the judicial proceedings of the Pres-
bytery of New York. The world will believe, and the
New York Presbytery will believe, that if this Assembly
has not suspected Dr. Briggs of serious departure from the
faith it would never have taken this action, and the only
way in which you can prevent that impression from being
made on the mind of the Church and on the mind of the
country is to give some other reason with your resolution.

Dr. Erskine opposed the second resolution of the
report, and also Dr. Worcester's substitute, but was
heard by the Assembly with not a little impatience.
This part of his speech, at least, seemed to show that
he understood the subject far better than some of his
more eloquent brethren. Here is what he said as to
the second recommendation of the committee :

It is proposed that we appoint a committee and go and
hold a conference with the Union Seminary directors in re-
gard to Dr. Briggs' relation to that seminary, and to give
them some advice. Mr. Moderator, what authority have we
for that? Where have we any authority in regard to Union
Seminary, excepting that which is embraced in the compact
between that seminary and us in the articles of agreement
which were adopted in the year LSTOin the General Assem-

120 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

bly at Philadelphia ? And where have we any authority to
go to them and advise with them, to do anything outside of
the compact ? None whatever. This proposition is a mis-
leading proposition. It would have us surrender the only
authority we have in regard to the instructions which are
given to our candidates for the ministry in Union Seminary,
and to assume an authority that does not belong to us. If
we do so, we just allow ourselves to be misled and outwitted.
The only control as an Assembly that we have over the
theological seminary — I mean directly, except through the
Synod and the Presbytery where we may reach ministers and
elders — is embraced in that compact which has been entered
into between the General Assembly and our .theological semi-
naries, and the power that we have is the power of disap-
proval in regard to a professor that has been elected ; and if
you surrender that power, you surrender all the controlling
power that you have in regard to the instructions that are
given in these seminaries. Suppose you adopt this substi-
tute ; suppose you appoint your most prominent, most influ-
ential and wisest representatives. You go there and make
your propositions. Why, they will receive you very cordially
and politely, and say : " Gentlemen, we will take this into
consideration ; we will take time to consider this. We are
obliged to you ; we shall treat it with great respect and great
courtesy." And they will take it into consideration, and what
will be the result ? You can all anticipate it. The majority
of the directors in that theological seminary have sat upon
this question again and again. . There is a minority in that
board with whom you might deal if you had the power, and
they had the power ; but the majority of that Board of
Directors have acted upon this, and they have expressed
their approval and their confidence in the views held by the
person in question. And so if we were to go into this

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. 121

arrangement it would be vetoing the great issue. It would
be surrendering the power that we have, and it Avould be
putting you in a position just to be treated with simple
courtesy by that board. You have no authority over them,
and I don't know that they have any authority to carry out
the proposition that is made.

This common sense view of the relations of the
Assembly to the directors of the Union Seminary may
very well be compared with that expressed, or implied,
by Dr. Patton, for example, in the following passages
of his speech :

We have recognized that as a judge we are bound to
construe, and we have recognized that as a party Union
Seminary claim that their rights have been infringed by our
construction, and if they see fit they can take us into the
civil courts for a judicial and authoritative interpretation of
this compact. . . . Now we understand that you intend
to take us in the courts.* Well, brethren, is that the best
course to pursue? Can't we talk the matter over? It is
possible, you know, that you may be wrong. Is it not
possible, therefore, that they may come around ? You might
elect a man as professor of Elocution, and then transfer him
to the chair of Theology. Isn't it possible that the directors
will feel that the Assembly was right, after all ? Why, cer-
'tainly. On the other hand, isn't it possible that your com-
mittee would change their view, and that they would recom-
mend the next Assembly to reverse the judgment of this
Assembly ? Isn't that possible ? Why, of course it is pos-
sible ; all things are possible. (Laughter and applause.)

*This was an idle rumor. The board never thought of taking the
Assembly into court. How could it have done so?

122 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

That would be a representative committee — eight ministers
and seven elders, composed of the best men, the wisest law-
yers, and to such a committee would we intrust this duty.
Isn't it possible that both parties, in their inability to change
their views, may say : " Well, we do not want to go to the
courts. We remember what Paul said about prosecuting these
matters before the heathen court." But cannot the General
Assembly on the report of this committee and the Board of
Directors of Union Seminary agree to refer the constitutional
interpretation of this old compact, which is liable to come
up and be a source of disturbance in years to come — refer
it, not to this committee, not to the Board of Directors of
Union Seminary, but to some Christian men outside, known
for their wisdom, praised for their fairness, and saying on
our part as a General Assembly, while they say on their
part as a Board of Directors, " Dear brethren, we are per-
fectly willing to let any fair-minded set of men arbitrate this
question?" These are the possibilities in the case.*

The vote was taken late in the afternoon of May
29th. It resulted in the adoption of the resolutions of
the committee by the overwhelming majority of 447 to
60. On the afternoon of May 28th Judge Breckin-
ridge, a commissioner from St. Louis, at the moment
of closing a speech in favor of the report, dropped dead
in the presence of the whole Assembly. This startling
incident, following so quickly upon the almost equally
sudden death of the Rev. Henry J. VanDyke, D.D.,
professor-elect to the chair of Systematic Theology in

* These quotations, as all others, from the speeches made in the As-
sembly, are taken from the revised reports of the New York I^ibune,
printed in pamphlet form under the title, The Presbji:erian Faith.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 123

Union Seminary — a noble man and one of the foremost
leaders in the Presbyterian Church — tended naturally
to deepen the serious feeling which already pervaded
the Assembly.

I have said that the advocates of a veto had it all
their own way, which consisted in asserting very posi-
tively that Dr. Briggs ought to be vetoed, and that he
must be vetoed "now or never." The latter point was
urged with great solemnity and most impressive reiter-
ation. " We are under obligation," said Mr. McCook,
" as honest men, as Christian men, to carry out in its
exact terms all the provisions of that compact, and we
cannot, we dare not, postpone action. We must act
now and before the adjournment of this Assembly, or
the right to disapprove is lost forever." Dr. Patton
was equally emphatic as to the " now or never," giving
as a reason how he should feel if threatened with a veto
in the indefinite future. Here is what he said :

The question is whether we have the right to veto. I
think we have. . . . Very well, suppose we have that
right, how long does that right last? One General Assem-
bly has said that it can last only during the Assembly im-
mediately following the election of the professor. Very well,
I think that is a good rule. It may seem a singular thing
for me to play the role of an advocate of freedom ; (laugh-
ter) but I am. I am a professor. I have the prejudices
of my class, and I tell you that, in the name of that class,
I will protest against the right of an Assembly to hold the
threat of a veto over me for a dozen years in succession.
They have their chance once, and if they don't veto my ap-

124 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

poiutment then, they ought not to have the chance four or
five years hence. Suppose you admit that you can postpone
this veto. By and by some other professor will be saying
something that is not right, as we think, and we shall say,
"Let us go and veto him. We did not veto him then, but
we will do it now." Who is safe? I tell you it is in the
interest of freedom ; it is in the interest of a proper freedom
that you should not allow that it is possible to postpone the
veto. You have to do it now, or not at all. Very well.
Now, then, you have the right to veto, and if you veto, you
must veto now.

A veto, after all, was a terrible thing to be threatened
with ! It seems to have made the chairman of the
Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries himself
squirm to think of being the possible subject of it.
Theological freedom, too, might be at stake ; and theo-
logical freedom, the proper liberty of a Christian scholar
and teacher, in the last decade of the nineteenth cen-
tury, was a very serious matter. If it must be done,
let it be done quickly and put the man out of his mis-
ery. Precisely so ; but who would have guessed it from
other parts of this speech ?

But even admitting, for the moment, that the Assem-
bly had a right to veto Dr. Briggs' transfer, was it true
that now or never was the absolute condition of its
exercise? Nothing could be further from the truth.
The rule adopted by the Assembly, that the veto jDOwer
must be uged, if at all, by the Assembly to which the
election is reported, formed no part of the agreement of
1870, but was suggested and adopted a year later. The

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 125

Board of Directors of Union Seminary liad nothing to
do with it. Although a very sensible rule, it was yet
in the nature of a mere by-law, belonging to the admin-
istrative functions of the Assembly, and in such an
exigency might have been suspended without the
slightest impropriety. But the leaders of the Assem-
bly— not to speak with any disrespect — seem to have
had ''compact," as well as the veto of Dr. Briggs, "on
the brain," as the 23hrase is, and so a simple rule of
fairness and prudence, with which, however. Union
Seminary had nothing to do, took on, in their reason-
ing, the color and rigidity of a law of the Medes and
Persians which changeth not ! A good deal in the
whole matter impelled one to say with Faust,

— der casus macht inich lachen,

but nothing, I think, like this " now or never " j)lea.

The Assembly then, it is plain, was fatally misled by
the " now or never " plea. That plea was based upon a
sheer mistake. But it served its purpose quite as well
as if it had been based uj)on an opinion of Chief Justice
Marshall, or upon the latest decision of the United
States Supreme Court. It deluded the Assembly into
just the right state of mind for the stern work in hand
— vetoing Dr. Briggs. See how skillfully Dr. Patton
put the case :

We are here ; the Presbyteries have sent us here, and
the report of the Union Theological Seminary has brought
this question right up to the bar of every man's conscience.

126 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

and you cannot avoid it, and you dare not avoid it. I do
not use the word " dare " in an unkind sense at all, I sim-
ply use it in the moral sense. There we are. Now for us
not to express technical disapproval is for us to express
technical approval. And it is not a matter of reflection upon
Union Seminary, or a matter of sentiment or regard for their
feelings, or a matter of how much disturbance this is going
to occasion the Church, but it is a question as to the dis-
charge of a solemn duty at the bar of your conscience and
of mine, here and now. Then I think that every man of
us will agree that the question is here. It is here. We
must say, seeing that we have a right to veto, and seeing
that we can never veto, if we do not do it now, we must
say whether or no there is occasion for the veto. Now is
there an occasion for veto?

Could lie have got his hearers just where he wanted
them more adroitly ? They were in exactly the
"solemnized" mood and posture of thought to hear
most attentively his answer to the question, " Now is
there occasion for veto ?" No wonder, as the Detroit
re23orter said, they listened "spell-bound." This
solemn, reiterated plea, " now or never," coupled with
the "compact" plea, carried all before it. The only
wonder is how sixty commissioners ke23t cool enough to
vote against vetoing Dr. Briggs. I am really afraid
I myself should have vetoed Dr. Briggs, had I been a
commissioner. As to the skillful way in which the
"compact" i^lea was handled, who can fail to admire it?
The chairman of the Committee on Theological Semi-
naries took the "compact" under his special care and

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 127

guardianship. He was very jealous of the slightest
interference with it, even by so honored and learned an
ecclesiastic as Dr. Moore. Hear him :

If we are going to veto under the terms of the compact,
we must veto in the terms of tlie compact.

Dr. Moore (the Permanent Clerk) — " Excuse me. Doctor,
a moment. I want to call attention to the fact that while
the first of that is the compact, the second is simply the
decision of the General Assembly."

Dr. Patton — That is not relevant to my remarks. . . .
And so I go back to my statement, in spite of the m-
strnction that I have received, and I say that if you intend
to veto under the terms of the compact, you must veto in
the terms of the compact. Now, what are the terms of the
compact ? . . . Now, when you talk of disapproving "for
the present" you depart from your compact, and you have
simply expressed your oral dislike and put the stigma of
your moral disapproval upon the case, but you have done
nothing.

I tried to count up the number of times in which
"compact" occurred in this speech, but my memory
failed me. How extremely interested, not to say enter-
tained, Williams Adams, George W. Musgrave, Henry
B. Smith, Jonathan F. Stearns and Edwin F. Hatfield
would have been in listening to this exposition of " the
compact of 1870," and noiv or neve7% by so adroit an
ecclesiastic as the president of Princeton College !

The most striking point in the chairman's discussion
of the question, whether there was occasion for veto, is
"kindness" to Dr. Briggs. Can the records of Ameri-

128 T^HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

can Presbyterianism furnish another instance of such
peculiar kindness? It was "kindness" to Dr. Briggs
that forced him to turn a deaf ear to all entreaties for
"reasons." "Well, but," it is said, "couldn't you
state some reasons without involving the question of
heresy?" "Yes," I said, "I could." "Well," said
some one, " you have been working in theology ;
couldn't you draft such a report ?" " Yes," I said, " I
might." But "kindness" to Dr. Briggs forbade it.
Here are some passages about Dr. Briggs :

When your feelings cool down, brethren, you will see
that this is a much kinder thing than you think, and it is
not so cold, either ; we made it cold, but it is not so cold.
. . . So far as Dr. Briggs is concerned, I will yield to
none of his friends, not even the best, in my recognition of
his learning, in my admiration of his industry, in my con-
viction concerning his piety. He is my friend. It is my
privilege to call him so. I venture to hope that in spite of
my relations to this debate he will not be unwilling to
reciprocate my expression of the relationship between us. .
. . I wish to say that we have done this in the interest
of kindness to Dr. Briggs. I would be unwilling for the
Assembly to pass a resolution, in the full body of which
there should be the stigma of a constitutional kind, that
would affirm that Dr. Briggs' idiosyncrasies are such that he
should not be a professor in a seminary. Why, a man's
idiosyncrasies go with him through life, and I don't know
but they go into the middle state, (laughter) and I am not
willing to say that Dr. Briggs is not fit to be a professor
in any seminary. I am not willing to say that he is not
fit to be a professor in Union Seminary. Not at all. . .

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 129

I said, "Brethren, it is not kind, it is not right for the
Assembly, in its explicit utterance on the adoption of a re-
port, to say a word that can be construed, even remotely, to
the detriment of Dr. Briggs." That is why we did not
give reasons, but it was not because we had no reasons.
AVe had reasons.

Dr. Patton and his committee, then, had reasons.
The reasons appear to have been as plentiful as black-
berries. But nobody was the wiser for them. Nobody
is the wiser for them to this day. I have been unable
to find any authentic record of them ; otherwise they
would have appeared in these pages. Every now and
then at Detroit they seemed, to be sure, on the very
point of leaking out, both in the speeches of the chair-
man and in those of several members of his committee.
In other speeches they not only leaked out, they came
gushing out, explicit and unmistakable. I said that a
good deal of the discussion at Detroit consisted in beat-
ing about the bush. In this the chairman surpassed
all his brethren. The logical agility and deftness with
which he beat, and beat about, this particular bush of
"no reasons" was something remarkable. He kept
saying, as it were :

Fain would I, but I dare not ; I dare, and yet I may not.

It apjDcars, then, that while the Standing Committee
on Theological Seminaries had plenty of reasons — good,
valid reasons, as they believed — for recommending the
veto of Dr. Briggs' transfer, they purposely concealed
these reasons, alike from the Assembly and from the

130 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Christian public. Nobody, I repeat, knew then, or
knows to this day, unless privately informed by some
member of the committee, what was the real ground of
the decision for which they were responsible to Chris-
tian scholarshijD, to history, and to God. They them-
selves acted, as they said, in the light of their own
reason and conscience. They left the Assembly to act
in the dark and adopt their decision on trust. If the
President of the United States disapprove a bill passed
by Congress, he is required to return the bill with his
objections. If the Governor of New York disapprove
of a bill passed by the Legislature, he sends it back
with his reasons for vetoing it. And this is according
to the true genius of republican liberty. Our Ameri-
can idea of free government abhors arbitrary, reason-
less exercise of power. If the agreement of 1870 had
given the General Assembly " the right of peremptory
veto," as proposed in the letter of Dr. A. A. Hodge to
Henry B. Smith, then, indeed, the recommendation of
Dr. Patton's committee would have been in order. A
peremptory veto is a veto that requires no explanation.
It is like an edict of the Sultan — an arbitrary act, j^ure
and simple. The American Presbyterianism, in which
Union Seminary was born and nurtured, was never
fond of such acts. It likes to give a good reason for
what it does, as well as for what it believes. The pow-
er of intelligible, rational, Christian disapproval, not a
peremptory veto, was the power conceded by Union
Seminar V in 1870.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. I3I

Before passing from this topic I desire to add still
another word resj^ecting the course of the Standing
Committee on Theological Seminaries. When I wrote
the article in The Evangelist of May 21, 1891, on the
veto power, I j^urposely restrained myself, and care-
fully omitted to say what would be, in my judgment,
the inevitable effects of a veto of Dr. Briggs' transfer.
In this perhaps I erred ; if so, it was in the interest of
the peace of the Church. The crisis seemed to me
serious enough to demand the utmost caution, not to say
reticence, on the part of every friend of Union Semi-
nary. Having exj^ressed the opinion that the question
about the veto power touched in principle all the other
theological seminaries in the Presbyterian Church, I
closed my article as follows :

The General Assembly is shortly to convene and show
its judgment upon the matter. Nor, for myself, have I any
fear of the result. Many of the ablest, wisest, and best men
in the Presbyterian Church, both of the ministry and elder-
ship, will sit in that Assembly, and they will not be likely
to countenance any hasty or unjust action.

This was my honest feeling and expectation. When,
therefore, the result came, my disappointment was all
the keener, especially with regard to Dr. Patton.
Although my acquaintance with him was slight, I had
for many years admired, as I admire still, his varied
gifts and his remarkable power of swaying a popular
assembly. His oft-expressed reverence for the char-

132 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

acter and memory of my bosom friend, Henry B.
Smith, touched me in a very tender spot. There were
few men in the Presbyterian Church, perhaps there
was not another one, of whom I could have honestly
said just what in my letter to Dr. Field, in The Evan-
gelid of June 11, I wrote of him. And what was
there written of him expresses so truly my feeling and
opinion still, that I can only repeat it here :

He had an opportunity to speak a word and strike a
blow for justice, for sacred scholarship, for reasonable liberty,
both of thought and teaching, for the suppression of clamor,
as an ecclesiastical and theological force, and for the highest
interests of Christian truth, which, like the shot fired by the
" embattled farmers " at Lexington, would have been " heard
round the world." Acting, I do not question, from a strong
sense of duty to the Presbyterian Church, he failed to seize
it; and he will be a fortunate man indeed, if Providence
ever again entrusts to him such an opportunity.*

The wrong done to Union Seminary by the General
Assembly at Detroit, especially in the comjDOsition and
action of its Standing Committee on Theological Semi-
naries, met with severe censure in one of the strongest
and most conservative religious newspapers of the

* Since writing the above criticism of tlie action of the Standing Com-
mittee on Theological Seminaries, the stenographic report of the meetings
of the Board of Directors and the Committee of Conference has been put
into my hands. In this report is a very frank statement by Dr. Patton
himself of the reasons why Dr. White and Dr. Dickey were not invited to
come before his committee at Detroit. It is due to him that this state-
ment should be published. It will be found in the Appendix.

ANOTHER DECADE OE EPS HISTORY. I33

denomination. Here is the judgment of Dr. (^ray, the
phiin-spoken, fearless editor of Tlie Interior, pronounced
a year later, in a review of the course of Dr. Young,
Moderator of the Assembly at Portland, Oregon, in
appointing the Judicial Committee and that on Theo-
logical Seminaries :

His selections showed that lie was not only fair hut
magnanimous to the minority. He gave them representa-
tions on both committees, not only equal to, but larger than
their proportion as shown in the votes. This was in the
widest contrast to the scandalous proceeding of last year; in
that the minority not only had no representation in the Com-
mittee on Theological Seminaries, but were denied a hearing
before the committee, though they urgently requested it.
That was, in our opinion, partly the cause of the defiant atti-
tude taken by Union Seminary. No one can have any doubt
in regard to Dr. Young's convictions on the present issues,
nor is there doubt of the side he would have taken had he
been on the floor of the Assembly. But he is large enough
as a man to be what he is, an American Presbyterian.

The principle is that the majority have the right of a
majority on the committee, — no one would think of ques-
tioning that right — and that the minority have a right to pro-
portionate representation on, and a full hearing before, a
committee. This has never been denied in any reputable
deliberative body, civil or ecclesiastical, with the sin(>:le ex-
ception which occurred in Detroit, last year. We did not
dwell upon it at that time, not wishing to add to the gen-
eral excitement, but now that it has been fully rectified and
the Assembly's dignity restored, we express the hope that no
such wrong may ever again mar her fair escutcheon.

134 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

{g) The action of the General Assembly in the case
of Dr. Briggs as an eye-opener.

Before closing this cha2:>ter I will add a few words
about the action at Detroit as an eye-opener. The
effect of the veto of Dr. Briggs was instantaneous and
far-reaching. In a moment, as by a flash of lightning,
the agreement of 1870 was seen, as it had never been
seen before. It was seen to involve alarming possibil-
ities of harm to the Presbyterian Church, to free Chris-
tian scholarship, and to the cause of theological truth
and progress. It was, probably, at once the cause and
the subject of more anxious thought in one week after
the vote at Detroit, than during all the previous twenty
years. That vote revealed it as an arrangement full of
explosive mischief. Instead of contributing to the
" peace and prosperity of the Church," by promoting
mutual confidence and love, it showed itself, of a sud-
den, as a stirrer up of strife and bitterness. It proved
that the many disadvantages, infelicities and perils,
which, to those who took an active part in founding the
Union Theological Seminary, appeared so serious in
the election of professors by the General Assembly
itself, were no less incident to the veto power in the
election of professors, when exercised by the General
Assembly. In other words, the action at Detroit dem-
onstrated that the two principal grounds upon which
the veto power had been conceded to the General
Assembly by Union Seminary in 1870, were deceptive

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. 135

and untenable. The evils specially deprecated and to
be guarded against by the concession of that power
were sprung upon the Church in its very first
exercise. With the best intentions in the world, both
the Board of Directors of the Union Seminary and the
General Assembly greatly erred as to the effects which,
sooner or later, would be caused by arming the Assem-
bly with authority to forbid, year in and year out, at
its absolute discretion, every election of a professor in
every Presbyterian theological seminary in the United
States.

For a time it may have served, as the ninth " con-
current declaration " of 1869 had been intended, " to
allay the apprehensions of any who might imagine that
■ the sudden accession and intermingling of great num-
bers [that is, the coming in of the New School branch]
mioht overbear those who had hitherto administered

these seminaries which had been under the control of
one branch of the Church. It was intended as a meas-
ure for the maintenance of confidence and harmony,
and not as indicating the best method. for all future
time." As a measure for the maintenance of confi-
dence and harmony during that critical period of tran-
sition from a divided to a reunited Church, it w^as,
perhaps, of use. But time had long since allayed any
apprehensions, which the Old School might have felt,
of being: overborne in the administration of their sem-
inaries by a sudden accession of the New School to
equal power in the General Assembly. Old School

136 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

and New School were fast becoming obsolete terms.
And yet who can wonder that, in 1870, some " ap-
prehensions," if not "jealousy," with regard to this
matter still existed on the Old School side, especially
at Princeton ?

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church
in the United States, to return to my point, is a grand
and powerful religious body. In its own proper sphere
it is a mighty agency for building up and extending
the kingdom of God on earth. But it is singularly
unfitted to make the best possible choice, or to ascertain
and forbid the unwise choice, of a theological professor.
The chances seem to me as ten to one that, in all ordi-
nary cases, the choice of a j^rofessor in Princeton, or
Auburn, or McCormick, or Union, or San Francisco,
or any other seminary, will be far more wisely made
by its own Board of Directors than by a poj)ular
Assembly composed of some five hundred men, living
thousands of miles apart, coming together for ten days,
subject to numberless misleading influences through
ignorance of the candidate, and restrained jDcrhaps by
only a feeble sense of direct personal resj)onsibility in
the case. Twenty votes in a Board of Directors, com-
posed, as the boards of our theological seminaries
usually are, of judicious, experienced, high-minded
Christian men, stand for more, and are worth more,
than five hundred votes in General Assembly. Of
course, the best boards are liable also to commit mis-
takes. No device or method of election can insure

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. 137

against possible errors and imperfections of human
judgment, whether it be the judgment of eight and
twenty directors or of five hundred commissioners.

Personally, no man has better reason than I have to
speak well of the General Assembly in this regard. I
myself bear its imprimatur as " the standard of Pres-
byterian orthodoxy." Under the lead of that apostolic
servant of Christ, Dr. Charles C. Beatty, the first Gen-
eral Assembly of the reunited Church, by a unanimous
and rising vote, elected me to the chair of Systematic
Theology in one of its most important seminaries ; and
upon my declining the call, re-elected me with similar
unanimity in 1871. Never can I cease to feel grateful
in remembrance of such uncommon kindness and
honor ; grateful also in memory of the special tokens
of personal interest and good-will which I received
from the layman so distinguished at once for his stanch
Presbyterianism and his generosity, whose name the
Seminary of the Northwest now bears.

I will now proceed to note some of the ways in which
the action at Detroit, in the case of Dr. Briggs, proved
to be an eye-opener.

(1) In disclosing the doubts and scruples respecting
the agreement of 1870 which existed at the time, but
had never, so far as I am aware, been made public.
I refer more especially to Lane Seminary, which, like
Union, was entirely independent of ecclesiastical con-
trol. An extract from a letter of the Rev. Henry A.
Nelson, D.D., addressed to Hon. James B. Cox, of

138 J^HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Auburn, and 2)ublislied in Tlie Evangelist of June
25th, shows what was done at Lane and why it was
done. Dr. Nelson was a member of the Joint Com-
mittee on Reunion, as well as a professor at Lane, and
is known far and wide as an eminently wise and true
man. Here is the extract :

Our Lane Seminary charter made its Board of Trustees
a close corporation, empowered to fill vacancies in its own
membership, and to appoint all professors and instructors,
who should hold their chairs at the pleasure of the board.
Hon. Stanley Matthews, afterward a justice of the United
States Supreme Court, was consulted on the legal questions
involved. He stated clearly and positively that the Board
of Trustees, a corporate body, could not legally delegate any
of its powers to the General Assembly or to any other body.
. . . Our Board of Trustees adopted the by-law (as its
charter empowered it to do) in words like the following, as
nearly as I can remember : * " Every election of a professor
in this institution shall be reported to the next General As-
sembly, and if the said Assembly shall by vote express its
disapprobation at the election, the professorship in question
shall be ipso facto vacant from and after such veto of the
General Assembly ; it being understood that in such case it
is not the pleasure of this board that such professor shall con-
tinue in office.'' Judge Matthews said that this by-law, being
adopted by the Board of Trustees, could at any time be re-
pealed by the board. The board could not divest itself of
this power. But as long as it should keep that rule on its
own book and govern itself by it, it would no doubt have

* I give the resolution of the Lane Seminary board exactly as it was
passed. — Maoris Digest, p. 384.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 139

all the moral effect which was sought for. No one of us
imagined that it could have any further legal force or effect
than was thus defined by that competent legal adviser.

Dr. E. D. Morris, later professor of Systematic
Theology at Lane, occupied in 1870 the chair of
Church History in that institution. Dr. Morris has
long ranked among the ablest and most judicious
writers in this country on questions of ecclesiastical
law and j^olity. The Evangelist of July 23, 1891,
contained a striking article from his pen, entitled
" The Compact of 1870." The following are extracts
from this article :

The writer does not hesitate to say at this point, that
having occasion in 1871 to look into the matter of legaUty,
so far as Lane was concerned, he was led to the conclusion
that, in the eye of the civil law, this compact, excellent as
it was in intention, w^as wholly unwarranted. Indeed it was
questionable in his judgment whether it lay within the con-
stitutional prerogative of the General Assembly to accept such
a function if proffered to it, and the recent experience has
appeared to him to give some degree of reasonableness to
that doubt. But on the civil side of the matter, it must be
ordinarily clear to any student of the charter of that institu-
tion, that its trustees are the sole and only party having, or
that can have, or gain, any authority whatsoever in the -ap-
pointment of those who, in whatever capacity, give instruction
in it. These trustees are limited by but one condition, that
such instructors shall be in good standing in the Presby-
terian Church. But they have no right to go to the As-.
sembly to inquire whether such or such a teacher is in

140 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

good standing, nor has the Assembly any power, by mere
resolution, to declare the standing of any such person to be
either good or bad. They might go to the records of some
Presbytery having jurisdiction, and inquire whether the per-
son involved was reQius in curia there; but they could not
commit to such a body the matter of approving or disap-
proving their choice of him as a teacher. In that choice
they are absolutely and forever sovereign, with no chartered
right to delegate their responsibility to, or even share it in
any particular with any other body whatever. If the ques-
tion were one of financial administration, no court in the
land would justify these trustees in calling on the General
Assembly to guide or to control them in the care of the
funds and properties of that institution, and the same legal
principle holds no less truly in the exercise of any other part
of their corporate trust. The board of Lane Seminary is in
every particular, and at all times, the official authority, and
there can be no other.

Such was the view which the writer was compelled to
take twenty years ago, so far as one of these three seminaries
was concerned, and the recent discussions have served to make
it evident that the trustees of Auburn and Union are by the
charters of those institutions in a very similar position. Look-
ing at the matter as one of legal principle simply, to be
determined judicially, is it not clear that these boards of trust
could not hand over to a General Assembly a right of ultimate
control over any of the endowments committed to their keep-
ing ? And is it not just as clear that they could not ask a
General Assembly to create any new department, or pre-
scribe any change in the methods of instruction, or to choose
or even nominate a professor for any work within these in-
stitutions? All such matters are committed by law to these
several boards, and to them alone, in the exercise of their

ANOTHER DECADE OE EfS HISTORY. 141

corporate sovereignty, and there is ground for the query
whether their failure to exercise such prerogative in the way
prescribed by their respective charters wouhl not ultimately
work a forfeiture of the funds intrusted to their keeping.
No such board could, for exam])le, discharge their corps of
instructors and close the institution indefinitely, without be-
coming subject to civil suit, even though it should resolve
to commit its endowments meanwhile to the care and keep-
ing of the General Assembly. And the same principle must
apply to all their acts.

Turning from the question of legality to that of expediency
and (ledrabkness, we enter a field more difficult of discussion,
yet one where a dispassionate examination will be likely to
lead thoughtful men into substantial agreement. The com-
pact is a good one so long as there is no occasion to apply
it. As a simple expression of good will and cordial confi-
dence between the parties it is admirable. But the moment
a case arises, in which the judgment of any of these boards
of trust goes in one direction, and that of an Assembly goes
in another, and the Assembly overrules such board by
vetoing its action and displacing a teacher, whom, in the
exercise of its chartered prerogatives and its corporate wis-
dom, it has chosen, there will always be trouble ; it cannot
be otherwise. If the Assembly acts without giving any
reasons, simply interposing its final negative in the case, it
exposes itself at once to the charge of arbitrariness, and to
those immediately affected by its action, that action inevit-
ably savors of a tyranny to wdiich any born Presbyterian
will find it hard to submit. On the other hand, if an
Assembly attempts to give reasons for its veto, all such
reasons must resolve themselves into two — the lack of fitness
to teach, and the lack of orthodoxy. How difficult it is for
an Assembly to adduce either of these reasons in support of

142 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SE3IINARY.

its decision without precipitating serious trouble, will be
evident on very slight reflection.

Suppose the reason to be the lack of fitness to teach, what-
ever may be the special nature of that lack. At once a
series of questions spring up, such as the following : What
constitutes fitness to teach in a theological seminary ? What
are the special requisites to success in this or that particular
department of the theological study? Is the Assembly as
well qualified as the particular board of trust to ascertain
whether the person appointed possesses such fitness, and in
what degree ? It it right for a board, after it has chosen a
teacher as the result of the most minute investigation it can
make, to let its deliberate judgment be set aside by the veto
of a body every way less prepared to decide the matter
wisely? Would it be just to the man himself, if, after he
and the board had settled the matter, and a call had been
presented and accepted, the Assembly should step in, and
>vith only such knowledge as a body so constituted would
possess, should hold him up before the whole Church and
before the world as a person incompetent to teach, and unfit
for the place to which he had been chosen?

So serious are such questions that it is doubtful whether
any General Assembly could be induced to take such a step
on this ground. The case must be an exceptional one in-
deed ; and the veto of the Assembly would become not
merely a remarkable and destructive condemnation of the
man, but also a verdict of gross incompetency against the
board who had appointed him. And the case would be
more exceptional still if the chosen instructor had already
been before the Church for many years in some similar
capacity, perchance in the same institution, and the board
that chose him had acted on the basis of an experimental
acquaintance with his abilities as a teacher.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. I43

But the second ground, the lack of orthodox ij, is a liun-
dred fold more perplexing. Suppose an Assembly should
openly say, in any given case : We put our veto on this
appointment, because in our judgment the chosen instructor
is not orthodox, or is heretical, according to our standards.
Suppose it should vary the statement, and say in a more
guarded form : AYe do not condemn this man as a minister,
but we do pronounce his teachings doubtful and dangerous
in quality, and even heretical, and on this ground declare
him unfit as a teacher. The Assembly of 1836 has estab-
lished a precedent against any declaration of the latter sort,
before which it would be very difficult to set up valid oppo-
sition. The distinction between the minister and professor,
between the man and his teachings, vanishes the moment it
is touched. It is simply impossible to pronounce the teach-
ing heretical without condemning the man also ; and it is
simply impossible to condemn the teacher without pronoun-
cing judgment on the minister also. But this is clearly
inadmissible under our form of government. The obvious
principle in the case, as the precedent of 1836 affirms, is
that the Assembly cannot do by indirection what it cannot
do directly and under constitutional warrant, and for such a
declaration and distinction as this there can be no constitu-
tional warrant whatever.

The declaration of the first sort is still more obviously
inadmissible so long as the Presbytery to which such a
teacher is amenable, regards and treats him as orthodox.
At this pgint the Assembly is powerless. The experience
of the Southern Church in the case of Professor Woodrow
ought to be a sufficient guide and warning here. It is not
needful that the person implicated be already undergoing
judicial examination before the only body on earth compe-
tent of pronouncing upon him ecclesiastically. The simple

144 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

fact that he stands uuimjjeached before that body, is enough
to forbid the Assembly from assuming any judicial preroga-
tives in his case. No diiference of this sort can be recog-
nized in our form of government, between one minister and
another, between a teacher in a seminary and a pastor in
his pulpit, and any attempt to set up such a distinction can
only end in trouble. In a word, the Assembly is abso-
lutely precluded by our constitution from pronouncing an
opinion by mere resolution upon the good standing of even
the humblest minister in our Church.

The compact of 1870 thus betrays its weakness in what-
ever aspect it may be regarded. To say the best that can
be said, the only two grounds on which the Assembly can
possibly act under it are doubtful and dangerous grounds.
It loads the Church with a responsibility which is pleasant
enough so long as there is no occasion to wield it, but which
is as certain as fate to bring in trouble wherever there is
fair room for doubt as to either the capacity or the ortho-
doxy of any candidate for professional service. The expe-
rience of the current year Avill inevitably be repeated in
every like case as long as the compact lasts. Diiferences of
interpretation as to its intent and scope will always arise,
as they have unhappily sprung up in this instance. Diver-
sities of judgment and more or less dissatisfaction with the
result will always make their appearance, and whatever may
be the effect upon the seminary involved, the Church is
sure to suffer much more than it gains.

Add to this calm statement that the " compact" of
1870 was no legal compact at all, but simply a
friendly agreement, and Dr. Morris' argument becomes
irresistible.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HIS TO A'): 145

Let us now turn to Auburn. This seminary, unlike
Lane and Union, was already under ecclesiastical con-
trol, namely, that of adjacent Hynods. Here also there
was doubt and scruple respecting the legal aspect of
the agreement of 1870. It was not until 1873 that
Auburn consented to enter into the arrangement.
The following was its official action in the case :

The committee to whom has been referred the question
as to whether the proposal of the General Assembly to
submit the election of professors in the seminary to the
control of that body can be complied with without a change
of the charter of this institution, would respectfully report,
that they have carefully examined said charter, and sought
legal counsel on the subject. They find that the board of
commissioners is invested with the sole and idtimate author-
ity to a})point its professors, and they cannot legally delegate
this jMwer to any other body. They are, however, convinced
of the fact that they may in their primary action make a
conditional appointment, subject to the approval of the Gen-
eral Assembly, and that the right of such approval may be
accorded to and recognized from that body without necessa-
rily interfering with their ultimate authority. The committee
regard the seminary as standing in an organic relation to the
General Assembly through its commissioners, who are themselves
ecclesiastically amenable to the action of that body, and that,
therefore, there is a generic propriety in submitting their
appointments conditionally to its advisory action.

They further find that it comes within the sphere of
power accorded to the board by the charter that they make
whatever by-laws and regulations they may regard as essen-
tial for the prosperity of the seminary ; and, therefore, .

146 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

deeming it desirable that this institution be classed on an
equal basis with others of a like character as under the
])atr()nage and supervision of the General Assembly, the
committee would hereby present and commend for adoption
by the board the following by-law, viz : '* That hereafter
the appointments of professors in this seminary be primarily
made conditional upon the approval of the General Assembly,
and that such appointments be complete and authoritative
only upon securing such approval." — [Minutes of the Board
of Commissioners of Auburn Seminary, meeting May 8, 1873.]

(2) But while at Lane, and, later, at Auburn also,
the agreement of 1870 between Union Seminary and
the General Assembly excited at the time serious
doubt, and was adopted only in a modified form upon
the advice of able legal counsel, the agreement yet met
with general acquiescence as a " suitable arrangement."
For twenty years it remained, as we have seen, quies-
cent and undisputed. Nobody challenged either its
legality or its expediency, and this for the simple rea-
son that the power with which it clothed the Assembly
was never used. For several months before the meet-
ing of the Assembly in 1891, it is true, the veto power
was widely discussed in the religious papers, but chiefly
as to its direct bearing upon the case of Dr. Briggs,
not as to its legality or its wisdom. Only after the
action of the General Assembly w^ere men's eyes opened
to discern its real character. That action, as is ajDt to
be the case with all unfair and arbitrary exercise of
power, aroused thoughtful public opinion in a high de-

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS IIISTORY. 147

gree, and prt'cipitatecl, so to say, coiu'lusiuns and a
jndgment touching the whole mattei- which years of
ordinary discussion could not have i-eached.

The public reason and conscience, under certain con-
ditions, give their verdict very quickly, and in a way
not to be gainsaid. It was so in the present instance.
No arguments could shut again the eyes which were
opened so wide by the action at Detroit. Not alone
Union Seminary and its oldest and best friends, but
thousands of the best and most discerning friends of
Christian scholarship and reasonable liberty of theo-
logical inquiry and teaching throughout the country,
felt that a hard blow had been struck at a great in-
terest common and equally dear to them all. It would
be easy to illustrate the intensity and strength of this
feeling by numberless testimonies, given in j)rivate let-
ters and coming from all parts of the Union. I my-
self read scores of such letters, some of them written
by men noted for their fine culture, their piety, their
zeal for the truth as it is in Jesus, and their unusual
weight of character. Of the public testimonies and
protests called forth by the action at Detroit, time
would fail me to speak at length. Two or three only
must suffice ; and I give them just as they appeared,
without, of course, holding myself responsible for all
they contain. The first was from the pen of the Rev.
C. H. Haydn, D.D., LL.D., pastor of the First Presby-
terian Church of Cleveland, Ohio, a man whose name
stands for whole-souled devotion to the kingdom of

148 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Christ. Dr. Haydn was a member of the Assembly
at Detroit, and chairman of its Standing Committee on
Foreign Missions. Of the veto of Dr. Briggs he said,
addressing his own people :

Had the Union Seminary acquiesced in this veto, / question
whether a twelvemonth would hare gone by before men in at lead
three other seminaries would have been called to account in one
way or another, and liberty within the lines of Holy Scripture
would have had a set-back from vhich it ivould not have recovered
in a quarter of a century. Princeton would have triumphed
all along the Hne, and nothing could well be worse than to
have Princeton dominate the thinking of the Presbyterian
Church. Already, to my view, it begins to dawn that Prince-
ton's ecclesiastical lawyer has overreached himself, and un-
wittingly aided the very cause that he thought to put under
the ban of the Church.

My next extract is from a letter of the Rev. Robert
W. Patterson, D.D., of Chicago, then past his seven
and seventieth year. Dr. Patterson was a venerated
patriarch, as he had been for more than a generation
the New School leader, of the Presbyterian Church in
the great Northwest. He was Moderator of the Gen-
eral Assembly in 1859, and was also a member of the
New School branch of the Joint Committee on Re-
union. If there was another man in the whole Interior
who stood higher in the estimate of his ministerial
brethren, or whose judgment in matters relating to the
order and prosperity of the Presbyterian Church, was
entitled to greater weight, I do not know his name.
Here is what Dr. Patterson said :

ANOTHER DELWni': OF ITS HISTORY. 149

I am distrossed about our somiuarics. The plan of allow-
ing the General As.senihly a veto on appointments is, I am
persuaded, unwise. I question with many as to the fitness
of Dr. Brig:gs for the place to which he was elected by the
Union directors, but I think it very unsafe for the Assembly
to veto the action of such a board, especially when a trial
of the professor-elect is pending. It must necessarily be in
a great measure a prejudgment of the judicial case. And in
most instances of veto, a judicial case will be likely to follow
or to bo actually pending.

Besides, it is not clear that in ordinary cases the Assem-
bly is as competent a judge as a well-selected board. More-
over, if the Assembly were the more competent body, it
could not fail to awaken dangerous antagonism for it to
exercise such authority. It is not like a veto of a vomina-
tion ; it is a veto of an appointment, so far as the board can
make one, and it is, therefore, an injurious judgment against
the professor-elect and also against the board electing.

And, still further, it is likely to create a wide sympathy
for the injured parties, and give currency to the very errors
which it was designed to prevent. This is evidently so in
the present case, in which grossly partsian action has been
taken. The proper check upon unwise appointments is the
discipUne of the Church, if serious errors are taught by the
appointee. The New School Church never lodged any veto
power in the Assembly. Such power ought not now to be
continued ; it is virtually the trial of a man without process
and without forms of law\ Not one quotation from Dr.
Briggs was made in the debate at Detroit, so far as I heard,
and no reasons were given in the final judgment. This ivas
monstrous.

Along with this emphatic expression of opinion I

150 'fHE UNION .THEOLOGICAL SEMLNARY.

will quote some passages in the same strain from a pri-
vate letter of Dr. Patterson :

I have not liked Dr. Briggs' utterances, especially the
tone of them. But I regard the action of Princeton in the
matter as a startling illustration of the grievous injustice
that will always be liable to be done to a professor-elect
and to a seminary, so long as the jiower of veto remains
with the Assembly. It is a sort of lynch-law condemnation
on technicality, without trial and with no reasons responsibly
alleged, but with utterly untrue reasons implied or assumed.
. . . I see no escape from a like injustice in any case
where a veto can be plausibly demanded. First, get up a
clamor, and then have a one-sided committee appointed to
report that something must be done at once, or the Assem-
bly will be held as approving, and give no reasons, leaving
every man to sustain the report for his own reasons, or on
the ground of his prepossessions. This is a receipt for crush-
ing out any and every appointee that happens to incur pop-
ular displeasure on a question about wliich the Church is
sensitive. How easy to apply the guillotine in every such
case ! and if the candidate for decapitation cannot be easily
ansAvered on the main points, the motive is greater to dis-
patch him by vote>i. . . I have written simply because I
feel like it. I do not agree with Dr. Briggs on some impor-
tant questions, but I would not, if I could, overrule the
directors in regard to any such question, and no more would
I concede this right to the Assembly. We cannot afford to
have our able men brushed aside by popular clamor, even if
on some points they may have gone too far. If they become
heretics, let their heresy be judicially proird. But let not the
Assembly prejudge indirectly its future disciplinary action.
The day has passed for settling critical questions by votes of

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 151

councils or assemblies. But it is possible to distress and dis-
tract a whole denomination for a generation by attempting
this impossibility. The numbers will increase of those who
will say with Dr. Van Dyke: "If we cannot have orthodoxy
and liberty both, let us have liberty."

I will give one more testimony and protest. It is
from a letter of the Rev. S. M. Hamilton, D.D.,
addressed to Dr. Field, editor of The Evangelist, and
dated Louisville, Ky., June 5, 1891. Dr. Hamilton
for more than half a generation was pastor of the old
Scotch Church in Fourteenth Street, New York, where
he won the confidence, respect and love of his minis-
terial brethren and of all the churches by his charming
personal qualities, by his fine scholarship, and by his
solid Christian character and services :

The outside public have received a very definite impres-
sion that our highest ecclesiastical court has acted unfairly
and unjustly towards one of our foremost Biblical scholars.
The issue will not increase the respect of the world for the
Presbyterian Church. She has suffered immensely more than
Dr. Briggs. Thoughtful men are saying — I have heard them
— that our Church will not allow her scholars to make a thor-
ough study of the Bible by the modern scientific methods
unless they first bind themselves to come to no conclusions,
save such as are acceptable to a certain theological school in
the Church. Such an impression — and it exists and is spread-
ing— is calamitous, not to the Church only, but to religion
itself. Add to this the feeling which is abroad, that the As-
sembly has condemned an eminent professor without assign-
ing any reason therefor, and on the report of a committee.

152 THE VNION THEOLOGICAL SEMIXARY.

not a member of which was a friend of the professor or of
Union Seminary, and the injury to the reputation of our
Church cannot be calculated.

I have been on terms of intimate friendship with Dr,
Briggs for years. I have lived with him, I have walked the
mountains with him, I have talked with him for hours to-
gether, and I say deliberately that he has done more to make
the Bible a real living book to me, the true Word of God,
than all other ministers and teachers I have known in the
whole course of my life. His friendship is one of the things
for which I shall always have reason to be thankful. In my
judgment Dr. Briggs is the most iiispirinff teacher of the
Bible our Church possesses. No vote of any. Assembly can
impair his reputation among the Biblical scholars of Chris-
tendom.

(3) The action at Detroit was an eye-opener with
regard to the un-wisdom of trying to regulate theolog-
ical opinion and teaching by popular vote. The instant
the attempt is actually made, its futility is demon-
strated. I doubt if the vote at Detroit really moved
theological opinion a hair's breadth. Nor was it at
all more effective in the matter of theological instruc-
tion. Unless further enlightened respecting divine
truth by deeper study and fresh inspirations of the
Eternal Spirit, Princeton, and Union, and Lane, and
all the rest, continued to teach in 1892 what they
taught in 1890. As aforetime, they took counsel of
Holy Scripture and of the venerable standards of the
Presbyterian Church, as also of the old creeds of
Christendom. They still read diligently the writings

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. I53

of the great masters of divinity, whether of ancient, or
medieval, or later ages : they tried to discern the signs
of the times; andthey exercised themselves in working
ont more fully their own honest thought. But they
took very little note of what w^as said, or voted, on the
subject at Detroit. When in 1845, at Cincinnati, the
Old School General Assembly, led by some of the
strongest men in that branch of the Presbyterian
Church, decided by a vote of 173 to 8 — a majority not
of 7 to 1, as at Detroit, but of more than 20 to 1 — that
what was called " Romish Baptism " is sj^urious and un-
christian. Dr. Charles Hodge of Princeton, in spite of
the brilliant Dr. Thornwell, and of Dr. L. N. Rice,
and of Dr. Junkin, and of nearly the whole Assembly,
not only went right on teaching his students the old
Protestant view, but he attacked the decision of the
Assembly as wrong in fact and false in doctrine, dem-
onstrating, w^ith most cogent reasoning, that, notwith-
standing her errors, the Church of Rome is still a
branch of the Christian Church, and that baptism duly
administered by her, is Christian baptism. Dr. Hodge
knew very well that if such questions w^ere to be decided
by a majority vote in a popular Assembly, instead of
being decided according to the truth of history and the
voice of Scripture, the occupation of the theological
professor is well-nigh clean gone forever. This veto
power is like one of those terrible pieces of new ord-
nance of which we have read lately so much. It is not
only a most formidable instrument for destroying an

154 'J'HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

enemy, but of self-destruction as well, unless handled
with consummate skill. Setting five hundred men,
mostly untrained for the task, to firing it off all together,
even under the direction of an ecclesiastical boss or
expert, is extremely dangerous and against all the les-
sons of even worldly prudence.

Do I mean, then, that it is no function of the Pres-
byterian Church to bear faithful witness against preva-
lent errors in doctrine and practice, or, if necessary, in
the way of godly discipline, to put upon them the
stamp of her censure and condemnation ? No, that is
not my meaning. It seems to me one of the highest
functions of a church of Jesus Christ to bear constant,
earnest witness for Him and His truth, and to put the
mark of her disapproval upon all errors contrary
thereto. This is one great end for which the Church
exists in the world. When she ceases to be a witness-
bearer and the enemy alike of false doctrine and evil
practice, her glory is departed. The question is :
How shall she best fulfil this duty ? And here there is
need of the wisest discrimination, of large experience,
of the amplest knowledge, of much self-restraint, and
of Christian justice, candor, and magnanimity in their
finest expression.

• It is far from my meaning, I repeat, that the Presby-
terian Church, or any other church of Christ, is not
bound to hold fast to the faith once delivered to the
saints ; to stand up for soundness both of doctrine and
morals ; to bear witness against error ; and to be very

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. 155

jealous for the honor of God and His inspired oracles.
No church can here exceed the measure of her duty.
Nor do I in the least question that the Presbyterian
Church, in the performance of this solemn duty, may
often speak and act most effectually through the voice
and votes of the representative Assembly. The popu-
lar voice and vote, thus expressed, is a ruling principle
in our American system of republican government ;
and it is a ruling principle no less in American Pres-
byterianism — the source in large measure of its elas-
ticity, freedom, and working power. Nobody shall
surpass me in admiring it and its sj^lendid achieve-
ments.

But alike in the civil sphere and in that of religion
there are some things, which in their very nature, be-
long to the domain and jurisdiction, not of the many,
but rather of the select few. There are questions in
the civil order which the judges of the land, not the
legislators, alone are authorized and competent to de-
cide. And so in the religious sphere there are matters
which only learned divines and scholars — specially
trained, chosen, and set apart for the purj)ose — are
qualified to pass judgment upon. Such, for example,
are many of the questions raised by what is called the
higher or literary criticism of the Bible. No popular
vote, however honest and intelligent, can decide them ;
nor are ordinary scholars, however learned, competent
to decide them. They must be decided, if at all, by
the ablest sort of trained minds, just as there are ques-

156 '^HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

tioiis in law, in finance, in every department of science,
which only experts of the highest class are qualified to
settle for us.

I have thus endeavored to consider the action at
Detroit in the case of Dr. Briggs in its bearing upon
Union Seminary and upon the Presbyterian Church.
It has been my aim to tell the truth, so far as possible,
and nothing but the truth. And it has been my aim,
also, to do this in a frank and Christian way. Cer-
tainly, it would have been much easier to write in a
freer style. If now and then I have used language
savoring of severity, or even ridicule, it is because the
truth seems to me to demand such language. No rea-
sonable man could have supposed that the friends of
Union Seminary were going to keep silent, or that
when they did speak they would speak with bated
breath. If trained in no special awe of a General As-
sembly, they did stand in awe of God and His truth,
of Christian justice, and of that glorious liberty where-
with their divine Master had made them free.

Whatever hostile feeling prevailed at Detroit and
in the struggle that followed against Union Seminary,
was, as I believe, largely the effect of simple ignorance or
misapiorehension. Union Seminary stood firm on her
original foundations as an institution of Christian the-
ology in the service of the Presbyterian Church and of
the Church Universal. Taking the inspired Word
of God as her rule of faith and practice, she was striv-
ing in all things for the faith and furtherance of the

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. I57

Gospel ; iirst in our own land, and then over all the
earth. These were her ambitions and she has no
other. With every other school of divinity, of what-
ever name, she desired to keep step to the music of the
whole Church militant in fighting the battles of truth
and righteousness, here. and everywhere. Especially
did she desire to march and fight in fellowship with all
other seminaries of the Presbyterian Church. She was
ready, as she is still ready, to say to them, in the words
of Henry B. Smith, — words penned before the reunion,
but still fresh and true as ever :

Let us advance with open brow to meet the greater ques-
tions which are fast advancing to meet us. Let us not make
so much account of Old School and New School ; and even
if we believe the substance of the Old is better, let us not
deny that the earnestness, the philosophic spirit, the advanc-
ing movement, the wider aims of the New, are of inestimable
good. Who can so afford to be patient as the orthodox, who
know that the right faith will in the end surely triumph.
Let us eschew the arts of intrigue, of defamation, and innu-
endo. These are easily learned. They are the offspring of
fear or of hate. They show a timorous or a dogmatic spirit.
Let us not deny until we understand, or insult feelings be-
fore we know their reason, for it is easier to be extreme than
to be candid, to denounce than to examine. In the spirit of
love and wisdom let us maintain cogency of argument, energy
of faith, and urgency of zeal.

158 T}IE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

CHAPTER III.

THE PARTING OF THE WAYS. SKETCH OF THE CON-
FLICT BETWEEN UNION SEMINARY AND THE GEN-
ERAL ASSEMBLY. THE ECCLESIASTICAL VETO.

POSITION OF THE ASSEMBLY'S COMMITTEE OF

CONFERENCE. ANTAGONISTIC POSITION OF THE

SEMINARY. IMMEDIATE ISSUE OF THE STRUG-
GLE. A TRUCE.

We come now to the parting of the ways. The ac-
tion of the Assembly at Detroit was regarded by the
Board of Directors and faculty of Union Seminary,
and by the friends of the institution generally, as most
unwise and unjust. Those who understood the case
saw at a glance, that the seminary was in imminent
peril of falling a prey to what Henry B. Smith in his
letter to me, already quoted, called the " consistent
domineering Presbyterianism." But how to extricate
it from this peril was not yet so plain. The best solu-
tion of the problem, however, soon began to appear ;
and at the close of the final meeting of the Board of
Directors with the Assembly's Committee of Confer-
ence, it was in full process of evolution.

{a) The interpretation of the agreement of 1870 by
the Board of Directors of Union Seminary.

ANOTHER DECADE OE EPS 1 11 STORY. I59

The Assembly at Detroit, as we liave seen, regarded
the agreement of 1870 not only as in the strictest sense
a legal compact, or contract, but also as involving the
right to veto a transfer no less than an original elec-
tion. And just here arose the trouble. Had Dr.
Briggs been called to the new chair of Biblical Theol-
ogy from the pastorate, or from another institution,
and had his appointment been disapproved by the
General Assembly, no question of its jurisdiction in
the case would have been raised by the directors of
Union Seminary. Whatever their disappointment,
and however unfair or unwise they might have felt it
to be, the board would have bowed at once to the
Assembly's decision. In other words, while the agree-
ment lasted it would have been regarded by them as
morally binding. But it so happened that for some
seventeen years Dr. Briggs had been a ])rofessor in
the Union Theological Seminary. He was simply
transferred to another chair. And this transfer, as
the Board of Directors held, was merely an exercise of
the authority given them by the constitution of the
seminary not only to " apj)oint " all professors and
teachers, but also to " determine their duties ; " and
was not, therefore, subject to the Assembly's disap-
proval. Hence the conflict, which so disturbed the
peace of the Presbyterian Church.

As I have said already, the agreement of 1870 for
twenty years required no interpretation. It had ex-
cited no controversy and no hostility. Hardly any-

160 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

body, jjarticularly among the younger generation,
knew aught about it. Thousands of our ministers,
ruHng elders and private members had, j^robably,
never heard its name. So far as it gave to the semi-
naries, hitherto under Assembly control, the privilege
of electing their own professors its operation had been
quiet, normal and highly satisfactory. So far as it
contained in the veto power possibilities of harm, either
to the Church or to the seminaries, the evil lay dor-
mant and unsuspected. The action at Detroit first
revealed its real character.

This point seems to me especially noteworthy. A
negative by the General Assembly on the election of
both jDrofessors and trustees had, indeed, existed in the
case of the Union Theological Seminary in Virginia
as early as 1826. And the term " veto " itself was
familiar as an ecclesiastical term to all readers of the
Life of Dr. Chalmers and of the story of the Free
Church of Scotland. The " Veto Law " passed by the
General Assembly in 1834 under the lead of Dr.
Chalmers, played an important part in the struggle,
which issued in the great disruption of 1843. I am
not sure, however, that the term " veto " was employed
even in the case of the Union Theological Seminary in
Virginia-; nor can I find that the negative of the
General Assembly on all appointments of professors
or trustees in that institution, was ever actually used.
If used, it could hardly have attracted public notice, or
involved any conflict of theological opinion. Still, the

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 161

connection of Union Seminary in Virginia with Prince-
ton was close and almost personal. It was a sort of
family connection ; very likely, therefore, the Assem-
bly's negative on the election of its jirofessors and
trustees may," in 1870, have suggested to the professors
at Princeton a similar negative in the case of their own
institution. It is to be carefully noted that in the re-
port of the Joint Committee on Reunion made in 1867,
in that of 1868, and in that of the Joint Committee of
Conference in 1869, the word " veto " never occurs.
The only instance of its use between 1866 and 1870,
that I have been able to discover, is in the letter of Dr.
A. A. Hodge to Henry B. Smith, dated December 29,
1867, in which he proposed as a " condition of union "
that " the right of peremptory veto " on the election of
professors in all the seminaries should be given to the
General Assembly, and urged Professor Smith to
recommend this " compromise " to the New School
branch of the Joint Committee on Reunion. But it
should be remembered that this letter, as Dr. Hodge
said, was written " without consultation with or the
knowledge of a single person," and that probably no
eye save Dr. Smith's ever saw it until after his death.'-'
To the Presbyterian Church of that period, whether
of the Old or of the New School branch, the ecclesias-
tical veto was certainly a novel thing, and the power,

* I have examined carefully the correspondence which Dr. Adams and
Dr. Beatty carried on with each other between 1866 and 1870, — a corres-
pondence full of details and suggestions touching the reunion negotiations
—but the word "veto" does not occur in it from beginning to end.

162 'rHE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

expressed and now understood by it, was quite as un-
familiar as the term. I will venture to refer to my own
experience in illustration. Although a director of
Union Seminary in 1870, and, as such, in close confi-
dential relations with my associates in the board, Drs.
Adams, Stearns and Hatfield, — all members of the
Joint Committee ; and though myself taking an active
part in the memorable action on May 9 and 16 of that
year, it never crossed my mind that instead of j)romo-
ting mutual confidence and harmony, which was its
"sole object," the veto power on the election of profes-
sors would, in actual exercise, have just the contrary
effect. I say the veto upon the election of professors,
for Mr. D. Willis James' earnest protest against con-
ceding it to the Assembly in the election of directors,
did startle me, and led to my motion for an adjourn-
ment from May 9 to May 16, when that feature of the
plan was dropped. Let me add further, that not till
after the 20th of January, 1891, when Dr. Briggs'
utterances, on being inducted into the chair of Biblical
Theology, began to call forth such sharp censure
throughout the Presbyterian Church, did it distinctly
occur to me that his transfer to that chair, on being re-
ported to the General Assembly, might possibly be
regarded as equivalent to an original election, and as
such encounter the Assembly's veto.

My own state of mind with regard to the Agreement
of 1870, was, I believe, substantially that of the Board
of Directors of Union Seminary, as late as the begin-

ANOTHER DECADF. OF ITS HISTORY. I63

ning of 1891. Tliat it was also the only view taken in
the Presbyterian Church, so far at least as any distinct
view j^revailed, I am not prepared to assert. On the
contrary, I incline now to think that a different view
existed though mostly latent and unexpressed. Other-
wise, it is not so easy to account for the very decided
opinion on the subject which declared itself far and
wide after the publication of Dr. Briggs' address, and
then suddenly crystallized at Detroit into such a deter-
mined and overwhelming vote of disapproval. AVhat-
ever may have been the influence of misunderstanding,
of theological alarm, of misrepresentation in bringing
about that result, it is fair to assume that the result was
brought about also in part by honest belief and convic-
tion. Or, to express it in another way, different eccle-
siastical theories and habits of thought, w^iether inher-
ited or acquired, largely shaped the result ; and in
order to do justice to both sides this point must be kept
in mind.

The position of the Board of Directors in regard to
the transfer of Dr. Briggs to the new chair of Biblical
Theology, is most clearly shown in its successive con-
ferences wdth the committee of the General Assembly.
That committee consisted of eight ministers and seven
ruling elders, namely :

Ministers: Ruling Elders:

Francis L. Patton, D.D., LL.D., George Jnnkin,
John H. Worcester, Jr., D. D., John J. McCook,

William E. Moore, D.D., Russell Murdock, M.D.,

164 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Jlin listers: Ruling Elders:

William H. Roberts, D.D., George H. Ely,

Samuel J. Niccolls, D.D., LL.D., Samuel J. Wardell,

Herriek Joliusou, D.D., LL.D., Edward P. Durant,

John S. Macintosh, D.D., George U. Ketcham,
George Alexander, D.D.

All the members of the committee, excepting Dr.
Worcester, Avere present at the first meeting, which was
held at the seminary, in New York, on the 28th and
29th of October, 1891. The time was taken up partly
in direct conference ; partly in separate discussion in
the board and in the committee. President Hastings
acted as the leading spoksman on the side of the direc-
tors ; President Patton on the side of the committee.
One of the first points made respected, very naturally,
the attitude of the board touching the joresent validity
of the agreement of 1870. Did the board still hold
itself bound by that agreement ? The board replied in
the affirmative. This answer opened the way for fur-
ther inquiry and discussion. At the close of the meet-
ing of the board and the Committee of Conference on
the 29th of October, an adjournment was agreed to
until another meeting should be called by the board.
Thus far little had been accomplished by the two par-
ties beyond friendly greetings and a better under-
standing of each other's views and temper. The
following papers passed between the board and the
Committee of Conference at the meeting in October,
1891.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 165

PAPER READ BY DOCTOR HASTINGS AT THE CONFERENCE,
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, OCTOBER

28th, 1891.

This board will consider carefully what the Assembly's
committee has said to us. In courtesy to this committee,
we have postponed the consideration of some questions which
have been pressed upon our attention. We have felt that it
is due to the Assembly that we should first hear what its
appointed representatives might have to say. We shall in
due time forward to this committee through our chairman,
our reply to what you have said to us.

Meanwhile, I am requested to explain to this Committee
of Conference, the vieAvs of our board with reference to the
transfer of Dr. Briggs, by reading a carefully prepared state-
ment upon that subject, which was presented to our board
on the 12th of May last, before the late meeting of the As-
sembly at Detroit. This paper is a part of the report of
the Executive Committee to the board.

MEANING OF THE ACTION OF 1870.

Your committee have considered the question of the rela-
tion of this seminary to the General Assembly, in regard to
which there has lately been much discussion in the public
prints. The report that a large number of Presbyterians have
memorialized the approaching General Assembly to disap-
prove authoritatively of the recent transfer of one of our pro-
fessors to the new department of Biblical Theology, indicates,
as your committee believe, a misunderstanding in regard to
the authority of the Assembly in this matter. It is not to
be assumed in advance, that the Assembly itself will miscon-
ceive the extent of its prerogative, and your committee do

166 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

not deem it either necessary or expedient that any resolution
in regard to it should be transmitted to that body.

Nor in their judgement would it be advisable, even though
the Assembly should proceed to take formal action, for the
board to raise at this time an issue in regard to which there
might possibly be discussion and grave diiferences of opinion;
but inasmuch as the recollection of those who were members
of this board in 1870, when this seminary voluntarily divested
itself of a measure of its independence, is distinct as to the
limits of its concession then made, and inasmuch as the board
has always clearly distinguished in its mode of procedure be-
tween the election of a new professor and the transference
of a member of its faculty from one department of instruc-
tion to another, your committee recommend that in order to
prevent future misconception of the understanding of the
board in this matter, the following minute be entered upon
its records, viz.:

luasmuch as there appears to be in some quarters a mis-
conception of the meaning and intent of the action taken by
this board in 1870, whereby all a])pointments of professors
were to be reported to the General Assembly ; and further
providing that no such appointment should be considered as
a complete election if disapproved by a majority vote of the
Assembly ; this board w^ould hereby record its conviction that
the said action of 1870 was then understood and has been
ever since understood by this board, to refer to the election
of additional members of the faculty, and not to the assign-
ment to new departments of instruction, of professors already
in office or to their transfer from one chair to another, as
may appear expedient to the board.

To this may be added the simple statement that before
the late meeting of the Assembly, this board had carefully
investigated the charges which the Presbyteries were bring-
ing against Dr. Briggs, and received from him a clear and
positive denial of each charge on the ground of which de-
nials the board resolved to sustain him, saying that " we will

AXOTHER DECADE OI' ITS lIISIOk'Y. \{\~

stniul by liiin heartily on tlic around of tins report," (i. c.
the report of his dcniiils received from the ("oinmittee of In-
vestigation ) .

After the adjournment of the Assembly, a special meeting
of the board was called on the 5th of June, to arrange for
the iillinu: the vacancy in the flicultv, occasioned by the sud-
den death of Dr. Henry J. Van Dyke, our professor-elect of
Systematic Theology. After this important business, for which
the meeting wafe called, had been arranged, the board con-
sidered the action of the Assembly at Detroit, and decided
that it was due to our students to know what to count ujjou
for the coming year's instruction ; and that it was due to
ourselves and to Dr. Briggs that we shoukl be true to the
promise we had made to " stand by him." Accordingly the
following resolution was adopted :

Bemhed, That this Board of Directors, after having taken
legal advice, and after due consideration, see no reason to
change their views on the subject of the transfer of Dr.
Briggs, and feel bound in the discharge of their duties under
the charter and constitution, to adhere to the same. *

This action was taken in the conviction that the transfer
of Dr. Briggs, as already stated, did not in our judgment
come under the jurisdiction of the General Assembly accord-
ing to the arrangement adopted in 1870. In view of a state-
ment made in the Assembly, that transfer "did not make
any change in status, but only in duties," we would further
say that the transfer did not even make any real change in
duties ; for Dr. Briggs had been teaching Bible Theology for
ten years. The only change was that he gave up two lec-
tures a week in Hebrew exegesis to his colleague, Dr. Brown.

*The opinion of the board's legal adviser, ]Mr. AVilliaiu Allen lUitler,
will be found in Appendix C.

168 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

No disrespect to the Assembly Mas intended in our action;
for it did not enter our minds that the Assembly could have
any jurisdiction in the case.

II.

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE'S FIRST PAPER.

Resolution of the General Assembly's Committee on Con-
ference with the directors of the Union Theological Semi-
nary, October 28, 1891 :

Whereas, it appears by the written communication of the
directors of Union Seminary received this day at the con-
ference between this committee and the directors, that the
directors adopted the following minute on June 5, 1891, to
w-it :

Resolved, That this Board of Directors, after having
taken legal advice, and after due consideration, see no reason
to change their views on the subject of the transfer of Dr.
Briggs, and feel bound in the discharge of their duties, under
the charter and constitution, to adhere to the same, and

Whereas, it appears that this action was based upon the
opinion of their legal adviser, and

Whereas, in that opinion submitted to us by the directors
for our information, they Avere advised that the agreement or
arrangement made by the General Assembly and the direc-
tors in 1870, w^as not binding upon the directors, and

Whereas, President Hastings, representing the directors,
communicated to this committee orally, that the directors
reserved the right to determine this question hereafter, and
at the same time expressed the readiness of the directors to
hear the views of the committee upon this subject ;

Therefore, this committee states that the General Assem-
bly has always regarded the same agreement or arrangement
as binding legally and morally upon both parties to the

ANOTHER DECADE OE EfS HISTORY. 169

same ; ami it desires to know the views of the directors upon
this fundaraontal point, for if tlie agreement is not legally and
morally binding upon both parties, it is of no practical use
to discuss what ,is the true construction of the said agree-
ment or arrangement.

III.

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE'S SECOND PAPER.

The General Assembly's Committee of Conference submit
for the consideration of the Board of Directors of the Union
Theological Seminary in the City of New York, the follow-
ing paper :

Dear Brethren : We have considered the written state-
ments, as well as those made orally to you, with reference
to the transfer of Professor Briggs. It is manifest you hold an
interpretation of the terms of the agreement between the
General Assembly and the seminaries under their care, widely
different from that held by the Assembly under whose au-
thority this committee is now acting. We are sincerely
desirious, as we believe you are, to find some way of recon-
ciliation both for the present and for the future, which will
lead to a harmonious execution of the agreement between the
Assembly and the seminaries. We can not, even were we so
disposed, change the action of the body we represent with
reference to Professor Briggs.

Again, we are embarrassed by the action of your board,
taken in seeming disregard of the authority of the Assembly,
and thus debarring us from making any recommendations
which do not involve a denial of the right of the Assembly
to do what it did. Some concessions, not of principle, but
with reference to modes of action, must be made, in order to
place the matter of interpretation at issue, between the Gen-

170 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

eral Assembly and the Board of Directors in the future, for
an amicable settlement.

We would, therefore, ask you most respectfully, if you
would not so far modify the action you have taken, as to
submit to the action of the General Assembly, for the present,
under protest, if your conscientious judgment so demand, and
to regard the election of Professor Briggs as incomplete, until
the matter shall again be brought before the Assembly in such
form as your wisdom may suggest. If this was done, the
way would be opened for us to recommend to the General
Assembly the advisability of taking such action in conference
with all the seminaries as would leave the transfer of pro-
fessors in cases not involving an essentially diiferent and new
department of instruction, (such as the division of the in-
struction of a particular chair), to the entire control of the
directors of the seminaries.

In making this suggestion we do not ask you to surren-
der or deny any of your real or supposed rights under your
interpretation of the agreement of 1870. We recognize also
the fact that you had no desire or purpose in the transfer
of Professor Briggs, to act contrary to the agreement. We also
find from your statements that you did not elect Professor Briggs
to the chair of Biblical Theology, under the conditions pre-
scribed by your laws and observed in all other cases of elec-
tion, and that you intended to limit his duties to a depart-
ment of instruction in which he had already been, as you
supposed, properly engaged. In view of all this we hope
that you will unite with us in an effort to procure from the
General Assembly, such legislation as will define for the
future, the questions raised in the present issue.
William H. Roberts,

Secretary of the committee.
[A true cojjy.]

Through inadvertence, antl much to my regret, the fol-
U^wing important paper, jirepared by Dr. Hastings and
ado])ted by the board Nov. 17, 1891, in answer to the
second paper of the General Assembly's Committee of Confer-
ence, was omitted in my History. It should have appeared
on page 170, immediately after the Conference Committee's
second paper. G. L. P.

To THE General Assembly's Cojemittee of Conference,

Bear Brethren: — After due consideration of tlie second paper which
you submitted to us, we desire, Hrst of all, to recognize the Christian
courtesy with which you have discharged the delicate and difficult duty
entrusted to you by the General Assembly. We believe that you have
done all that could be done under the circumstances, "debarred as you
were from making any recommendations which would involve a denial
of the right of the Assembly to do what it did."

1. Before considering the j^roposition contained in your second
paper, we desire to put ourselves right with regard to certain inferences
which we fear might otherwise be drawn from the language used in
your communication.

(a). You speak of the '^ termx of the Ac/reement between the General
A.isembly and the Seminaries under iV.s care^' as if they were the same in
every case.

We do not so understand it. These terms seriously differ, and of
course they do not concern us in the least except just so far as they
coincide with the terms of agreement between Union Seminary and the
General Assembly. One of the terms of agreement between the General
Assembly and Auburn Seminary, for example, is that the election of
any Professor in that Institution shall be "primarily conditioned upon
the approval of the Assembly," and, without going into details, the
case is still stronger with reference to Princeton. Your language seems
to us therefore misleading, and likely to place us in a false position
before the Christian i)ublic.

(6). You say, " It is manifest that we hold an interpretation of the
terms of agreement between the General Assembly and the Seminaries
under its care, widely diflerent from that held by the Assembly under
whose authority this Committee is now acting"; and that "you cannot,
even were you so disposed, change the action of the body you represent,
with regard to Professor Briggs." We desire to express our strong

conviction that, for this state of things we are in no way responsible.
Had the Assembly, through its "Standing Committee on Theological
Seminaries," asked, or consented to receive, our view of the question
of a transfer, as the other party in the case, the unhappy difficulty
might perhaps have been avoided.

(c). You say, "We are embarrassed by the action of your Board
taken in seeming disregard of the authority of the Assembly, and thus
debarring us from making any recommendations which do not involve a
denial of the right of the Assembly to do what it did. Some conces-
sions, not of principle, but with reference to modes of action, must be
made, in order to place the matter of interpretation at issue, before the
General Assembly in the future, for an amicable settlement."

The action to which you refer we understand to be the Resolution
of this Board passed at its meeting on the 5tli of June last, to the effect
that, " After having taken legal advice, and after due consideration, this
Board of Directors see no i-eason to change their views on the subject
of the transfer of Dr. Briggs, and feel bound in the discharge of their
duties, under the charter and constitution, to adhere to the same." The
General Assembly, we readily admit, is in jjoint of dignity a body supe-
rior to this Board, but it is not in any wise superior in point of authority
as touching the agreement of 1870. Union Seminary was the ffrst party
to that arrangement, and its rights and authority are in this matter, we
repeat, in no wise inferior to those of the Assembly. The intimation
therefore that we seemed to act "in disregard of the authority of the
General Assembly," strikes us as unwarranted and unjust. The authority
of the General Assembly as the supreme judicatory of the Churcli, in
all matters brought before it in due course for its determination, in our
opinion, is soiuething wholly distinct and different in kind, from its
authority as one of two parties to an agreement. The other jiarty to
such an agreement must have equal authority in the case. Both parties
are on a ground of equality in this respect. If either party showed a
disregard for the authority of the other, we cannot admit that it was
Union Seminary.

{d). This appears all the more forcibly when we read in your paper this
frank admission, " We also find from your statements that you did not elect
Professor Briggs to the chair of Biblical Theology under the conditions
prescribed by your laws, and observed in all other cases of election."

Inasmuch as we are the only body that can elect a Professor in
Union Seminary, and as he must be chosen, if really or rightly elected,

in accordance witli tlie laws (if tlie Institution, does it not follow that
if he was not elected according to our laws, he was not elected at all?
When therefore the CJeneral Assembly insisted that he was elected a
Professor, and on that ground proceeded to disa[)prove of liis election,
was it not, to say the least, doing what a knowledge of the facts would
have prevented it from doing? While we imi)ute to the Assembly no
wrong intention in tlie matter, we cannot admit that our action showed
the slightest disregard of its authority.

TI. The proposition which you lay before us would involve the
entire surrender of our interpretation of the agreement of 1870. As that
agreement was prei)ared and proposed by this Board and not by the
Assembly, we feel that our interpretation of it deserves great con-
sideration.

Our reasons for our insistence upon the distinction between a transfer
and an election or appointment are well known. These reasons seem
to us conclusive. They are :

1st. The understanding and usage of this Board for the last twenty
years.

2nd. The provision in the by-laws of our Seminary which, as voii
acknowledge, clearly justifies the distinction upon which we insist.

3rd. The legal opinion from very Jiigh authority which was sub-
mitted to you confirming our view.

The principle involved has recently received a striking illustration
to which we called your attention. Mr. Balfour has been transferred
within the British Cabinet from one department to another entirely
difl^'erent, without that resignation and re-election to Parliament which,
according to British usage, is necessary in case of an original appoint-
ment to the Cabinet. It was decided that as Mr. Balfour was transferred
and not appointed, the usual formality of resignation and re-election
was not necessary.

We most respectfully submit that your Committee has not met any
of these reasons for our view of the meaning of the arrangement of
1870. You ask us to regard the transfer of Dr. Briggs as an original
election in violation of our usage, of our by-laws, of the best legal advice
we could obtain, and in view of a recent precedent from the highest
Parliamentary authority in the world. We recognize the fact that you
disavow any purpose to induce us "to surrender or deny any of our real
or supposed rights under our interpretation of the Agreement of 1S70."
But what you really ask of us we find it quite impossible to regard in

any otlier light than an absohite surrender of rights to maintain which
is to us a sacred obligation to the past, to the present and to the future.

Ar/ain. The course which you suggest requires action which, from
our point of view, we deeply feel would be utterly inconsistent. This
Board on the 5th of June did not act hastily, or without the most
careful consideration. We had committed ourselves in honor to our
venerable President, Dr. Butler, the munificent founder of the chair of
Biblical Theology ; Ave had committed ourselves in honor to Dr. Briggs
whose teaching in this very Department we had watched and known for
the last ten years ; and we had committed ourselves in honor to our
students and friends and to the Christian public.

We cannot help thinking that if we had been consulted before,
instead of after, the action of the General Assembly, its decision might
have been different. But now, while we do not see that your honorable
Committee could have done more than you have done ; on the other
hand, we do not see that we could honorably, or with a clear conscience,
have done otherwise than we have done.

We have been widely and greatly misrepresented. We have been
accused of defying tlie General Assembly, and of breaking our agreement.
Both charges are alike unfounded and unjust. We simply adhered to
the position -which we had conscientiously taken, before any action of
the General Assembly in the case, as we felt bound in honor to do. It
was no feeling of defiance, but only the sense of duty which governed
our action.

As to the Agreement of 1870, as we assured your Committee, we
have heretofore expresslv declined to consider the question of its legality,
out of respect to the Assembly and to your Committee, though the action
at Detroit compelled us to see that in due time this important question
must receive our calm and deliberate attention. Though we therefore
are unable to agree, yet we trust that the conference has already se-
cured this advantage, at least, that you, and through you, the General
Assembly, will have a better understanding of our position and of the
reasons of our action, and we hope that, ny.on further conference, some
common ground may be found upon which you and we may conscien-
tiously stand, and which may prove acceptable to the General Assembly.

Of one thing we would have you assured, that, whatever conclusion we
may reach, we shall honestly seek, not only to promote the interests of Union
Seminary, but also the welfare of the Presbyterian Church, with which
we are identified by our constitution and by our whole history.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 171

IV.

ACTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN VIEW OF THE
FIRST PAPER OF THE GENERAE ASSEMBLY'S COMMITTEE
OF CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 29, 1891.

^VhelTas the question lias been raised by the committee
of the General Assembly now in conference with this board,
as to the attitude of this board toward the arrangement of
1870:

Reaohed, That this board, Avithout surrendering its inter-
pretation of said arrangement, fully recognizes its binding-
force until it shall be proved to be illegal, or shall be prop-
erly abrogated.

ACTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN VIEW OF THE
SECOND PAPER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S COM-
MITTEE OF CONFERENCE, OCTOBER 29, 1891.

Resolved, That this board desire more time to consider
the second paper which has been laid before us by the com-
mittee of the General Assembly ; that they will take it up
at an early day and report their action to the said committee
and will then ask for another conference with the said com-
mittee.

Resolved, That the said papers be referred to the Execu-
tive Committee for examination and to report their views to
this board.

The adjourned meeting took place on Wednesday,
January 20, 1892, and closed on the afternoon of Jan-
uary 22. There was earnest debate in the Board of
Directors, in the Assembly's committee, and in joint
sittings of both. The discussion in the board turned

172 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

chiefly upon two points : first, arbitration in regard to
the question whether a transfer was equivalent to an
original election ; and second, the report to be made to
the next General Assembly as to what the seminary
would consent to do in reference to the future. For
reasons, which will be given later, the Committee of
Conference withdrew the proposal of arbitration. As
to several other points the views of the board were
expressed in the following paper, addressed to the
Committee of Conference :

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE UNION THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S COMMITTEE
OF CONFERENCE :

Dear Brethren : Having answered your proposition
in the second paper submitted to us, we desire in addition
to present to you the following considerations.

I. You have said to us, — "We recognize the fact that
you had no desire or purpose in tlie transfer of Professor
Briggs to act contrary to the agreement." On our part we
would reciprocate fully the courtesy of this acknowledge-
ment and say that we believe the General Assembly did not
mean to violate the agreement of 1870, or to transcend the
power then conceded. We do not question that the Assem-
bly acted conscientiously in its interpretation of that agree-
ment. AVe are willing also to believe that the Assembly
had no intention to dishonor or to wrong this institution.
And yet the action taken at Detroit was virtually a verdict
against either the character, or the competency of the Board
of Directors ; a verdict without reasons given, and ■without
a hearing. With a full knowledge of all the facts, and

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 173

after long con.sidcratioii, the board liad endeavored to do its
whole duty in the case at issue. Dr. Briggs was carefully
questioned upon all the points in which he had been assailed,
and the questions, and his direct and satisfactory answers to
the same, had been published and widely circulated, together
with the unanimous action of his colleagues in the faculty.
But our judgment and decision, and the opinion of the fac-
ulty, apparently received no recognition whatever. The
wroupf thus caused or occasioned to this board and to this
seminary, it would be hard, perhaps, to parallel in the
history of Christrian institutions in our time. Certain Pres-
byteries hastened to do what they could to prevent students
from coming to us. The Synod of Baltimore has virtually
asked the Assembly to disown us, and that in language of
an extraordinary character. We have seen little evidence
of respectful waiting for the results of your appointed con-
ference with us. But while we shall not ask the General
Assembly to reconsider its action, we do ask that our ina-
bility to concur in the Assembly's interpretation of the
agreement of 1870 be so fully and justly recognized that
the past shall be left to tell its own story. In our judg-
ment the mutual understanding of the two parties to that
agreement should rest in this conclusion, — we cannot agree
in our views of the rights involved, and neither party can
undo what has been done.

II. But we have a strong conviction that something more
than this is re(piisite to protect the peace of the Church in
the future, and you will allow us frankly to express that
conviction.

As chairman of the Standing Committee on Theological
Seminaries, Dr. William Adams said to the Assembly in
1870 that our directors in their memorial were "looking
solely to the peace and harmony of the Church." (Minutes

174 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

of 1870, p. 63). In that memorial onr directors expressed
themselves as " desirous of doing all in their power to
establish confidence and harmony throughout the whole
Church in respect to the education of its ministers." Doubt-
less, in those early days of reunion, the agreement did serve
temporarily a beneficent purpose in promoting confidence and
harmony. The possibilities and the perils of this agreement
lay dormant until at last the time came for their revelation
by a practical test. The true nature and eifect of a law
may remain unknown 'for years, unless that law is applied
to an actual case. Months before the late Assembly met a
sudden agitation spread through the Church, a general alarm
was sounded and many Presbyteries took part in the move-
ment by overturing the General Assembly. When, there-
fore, the Assembly met at Detroit the veto of Dr. Briggs'
transfer seemed to be a foregone conclusion. So for the
first time in twenty years the agreement of 1870 was really
tested as a working power ; and in the light of recent events,
as we need hardly say, it was found to be a dangerous ele-
ment in the life of the Church not calculated to promote
general peace and harmony, but full of the possibilities of
evil.

In 1869, in presenting the report of the Committee of
Conference on reunion. Dr. George W. Musgrave said to
the Old School Assembly, referring to the articles contained,
not in the " plan of union," but in the "declarations," — that
"they are not a compact or covenant, but they suggest to
the Assembly what are suitable arrangements. They are
not terms of the union. They may be annulled or modi-
fied as any future Assembly may deem proper. We told
our brethren that we were unwilling to tie the hands of the
future Church of God." (The Presbyterian Reunion Mem-
orial volume, p. 546.) If the General Assembly, as one

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. I75

]i:irtv to the agreement oi" ISTO, could "annul or modify"
that atjreement, then as the otlier ])arty, the seminary must
of necessity have the same ri<>:ht and power.

In the general Assembly of 1870, as chairman of the
Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries, Dr. William
Adams said, referring to the ninth Article of the "declara-
tion :" "It was intende<l as a measure for the maintenance of
confidence and harmony, and not as indicating the best
method for all future time." Such was the understanding
of those leaders of the Church, as on the height of reunion
feeling they looked off" into the future. They did not pre-
sume that they had determined " the best method for all
future time." They had seen or felt, as it is expressed in
the memorial of this board to the Assembly of 1870, (Min-
utes, p. 148) "that there Avere many disadvantages, infelicities,
not to say, at times, ])erils in the election of professors of
the seminaries directly and immediately by the General
Assembly itself, — a body so large, in session for so short a
time, and composed of members to so great an extent resi-
dent at a distance from the seminaries themselves, and
therefore personally unacquainted with many things which
pertain to their true interest and usefulness."

In a similar vein wrote Dr. A. A. Hodge to Dr. Henry
B. Smith in December, 1867, and we venture to quote his
wise and significant words :

It is proper, it is almost a necessity, that each insti-
tution should be left in the management of those upon
whose support it exclusively depends. The majority of
any Assembly must be necessarily ignorant of the special
wants and local conditions of any seminary, and of the
qualifications of candidates proposed for the chairs of in-
struction. The best of these are generally young men, up
to the time of their nomination, known only to a few.
To vest the choice in the General Assembly will tend to

176 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

put prominent ecclesiastics into such positions, rather than
scholars, or men specially qualified with gifts for teaching.
As the population of our country becomes larger and more
heterogeneous, and the General Assembly increases propor-
tionately, the difficulties above mentioned, and many others
easily thought of, will increase.

Dr. Henry B. Smith stated liis own views in the follow-
ing language :

It is a fair and serious question whether a General As-
sembly, representing the Presbyterian Church throughout the
whole United States, especially in view of the numbers in
Church, and the extent of the territory in twenty or thirty
years, will be the best or even a suitable body to choose the
professors and manage the concerns of all the Presbyterian
seminaries scattered throughout the country. We very much
doubt whether this will be a wise arrangement. It may work
well in Scotland, but Scotland has its limits. It might bring
into the Assembly local, personal and theological questions
which it would be better to settle in a narrower field.

Such are the views which led the Assembly to surrender
the right, A\'lii('li it had possessed before the reunion, of
electing the professors in those seminaries which were and
are distinctively its own, either because founded by the As-
sembly, or because entirely under its control. But these same
considerations apply at least equally to the exercise of the
"veto power" by the Assembly, only with this important
difference. The veto is virtually a verdict, not to say a
stigma, both against the professor appointed and against the
Board of Directors which appointed him ; and as such it is
much more harmful to the individual and to the institution
concerned, than could be the failure by the General Assem-
bly to elect as professor one who had been merely nominated.
The veto is positive, the failure to elect is only negative in
its influence. We claim in the light of recent events that

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 177

the objections so successfully urj>cd in 1870, against contin-
uing to the Assembly the electing power, have still greater
force against continuing to that body the veto power. The
first exercise of that power, instead of promoting, has greatly
disturbed the peace and harmony of the Church ; it has
wronged the institution, and the individual whose good name
has been branded with a disappi'oval based upon no trial
and accompanied and justified by no reasons. The judgment
of those who had close and long experimental knowledge of
the effects of Dr. Briggs' teachings was ignored and over-
ridden by the decision of a multitude who had looked on
from a distance, and were not guided in their judgment by
intimate personal knowledge.

III. But it will be said that the Church should be able
to protect herself against erroneous teaching. This we do
not question, and here our admirable Presbyterian policy
provides, as it seems to us, for all the necessities involved.

The right of "original jurisdiction" in the case of a minister,
whether he teaches from the pulpit or from the professor's
chair, inheres in the Presbytery to which he belongs, and
not in the General Assembly. It is as unjust as it is un-
Presbyterian to discriminate between a pastor and a i)rofes-
sor to the detriment or the peril of either. The Church
needs no other protection against heresy in the pulpit or in
the seminary, than that w^hich our })olity affords. In an ex-
treme case, such as is conceivable, the Assembly, through the
Synod, can even require the Presbytery to which a professor
belongs to arraign for trial. At Detroit, the Assembly w^as
involved in an inextricable tangle by the simple fact that the
veto power, as they interpreted it, impelled them to express
their disapproval of a man who at that very time was under
charges by his Presbytery, and whose case might later be
brought before the Assembly as a court of appeal. The ac-

178 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

tion thus taken could not fail to embarrass the Presbytery
of New York in undertaking judicial proceedings. Hence,
as it seems to us, the agreement of 1870 has proved itself
by the test of experience dangerously inconsistent with a
fundamental principle of the polity of our Church as also
with the true spirit of American Presbyterianism.

IV. In the conclusion of your second paper, to which we
have replied, you said :

We hope that you will unite with us in an effort to
procure from the General Assembly such legislation as will
define for the future the questions raised in the present issue.

With all due respect to that body we would say that in
this matter the General Assembly, in our opinion, has no
riglit whatever to legislate. In the agreement the Assembly
is simply one party and this seminary is the other.

In view then of the considerations we have presented
concerning the practical and the ecclesiastical aspects of the
agreement of 1870, and in view of the fact that the recent
exercise of the veto power by the Assembly must make it
seriously diificult in the future to induce scholars to accept
appointments in our seminary faculties, we sincerely believe
that both parties to the agreement of 1870 should equally
desire its abrogation, alike for the sake of the Church, and
for the sake of the seminaries.

But this board is certainly boimd to regard the safety
and welfare of the institution under its direction, and must
act according to its own best judgment. Since we stand
alone in our solemn responsibility and obligations as the
appointed guardians of this great institution of Christian
learning, so we must reserve the right, if need be, to act
alone according to the light and grace we have. We yield
to none in heartfelt loyalty to our beloved Church, and we
have pledged ourselves also to be loyal to the history, con-

AXOrilER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. 179

stitiition and cliarteivd riglits of Union Scnnnary. Conscience
forbids us in any way to surrender or to imperil this sacred
providential trust.

We shall be thankful and glad, honored brethren, if you
can see these things as Ave do, and can so represent them to
the General Assembly that they shall be convinced that it is
better for the Church as well as for us, that such relations
as this seminary sustained to the Church before 1870, which
for more than a third of a century, were so harmonious and
fruitful of good, should now be restored.

Such was the immediate issue of the conflict between
the Board of Directors and the Assembly's committee.
It was a sort of truce until the meeting of the next
General Assembly. A few days after the adjournment
the following statement was addressed to the public :

The adjourned conference, which began on AVednesday
last, between the Assembly's committee and the directors of
the Union Theological Seminary, was concluded on Friday
evening. A full, free and calm discussion was held of all
the points at issue. There was throughout an obvious and
earnest desire to reach harmoniously some conclusion.

The committee did not and could not yield as to the Gen-
eral Assembly's interpretation of the agreement of 1870. On
the other hand, the seminary directors did not yield their
position with regard to the transfer of Dr. Briggs. The fact
is accepted on both sides that there is an honest diiference
of opinion between the two parties to the agreement of 1870,
which difference will be reported to the General Assembly
as for the present irreconcilable. The committee recommend
that the status quo be recognized, in the hope that some

180 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

action may be taken which will lead to a harmonious settle-
ment of the questions involved.

The members of the committee and the directors of the
seminary have reached a better understanding of one another
by the free and courteous interchange of views, and on both
sides there has been an honorable disposition to seek those
things which make for peace.

In the conclusion of the conference the venerable Dr.
Butler addressed the committee in a few kindly and impres-
sive words, to w^hich Dr. Patton responded in like spirit, and
then, with the doxology and the benediction, the conference
was adjourned.

Francis L. Patton,
Chairman of the General Assembly's Committee.

Thomas S. Hastings,
For the Directors of Union Theological Seminary.

The following letter from Dr. Hastings wall explain
itself :

New York, May, 1898.
My Dear Dr. Prentiss:

You ask me for my impressions regarding the several
meetings of the Board of Directors with the General Assem-
bly's Committee on Conference, October 28, 1891, and
January 20, 1892. At this distance it is possible to write
calmly of things which at the time profoundly moved us all.
Of course the interviews of the board and the committee
were characterized by the utmost courtesy on both sides.
There w^as no apparent heat in the protracted and repeated
discussions. But it was evident from the first to the last
that the committee assumed that the General Assembly must
be right and therefore the seminary must be wrong. No
concession was made to the seminary ; but it was evidently

ANOTHER DECADE OF /J'S HISTORY. Igl

expected that -wo would make to them concessions which we
felt, and tried to show them, we could not in honor make.
The only propositions which the committee made to us
required that we should ignore the deliberate and conscien-
tious action which we had taken, and to which we were
bound by every principle of Christian honor and integrity
to adhere. Our papers carefully prepared and submitted to
the committee showed very clearly wherein the Assembly
had mistaken our position, and had transcended the right
conceded to them in the agreement of 1870. But the com-
mittee would concede nothing, while Dr. Patton crowned and
practically concluded the conference by deliberately saying
that if he had it all to do over again he would do exactly
what he did at Detroit. This made upon the board and
upon me a very unpleasant impression. It was evident that
further conference was useless.

Referring to the cry of " now or never," which w^as heard
so often at Detroit, I asked Dr. Patton if he thought that if
either Dr. Butler or I had been telegraphed from Detroit,
asking if we would be willing to waive the limitation of
time in the agreement there would have been the slightest
hesitation on our part in sending an affirmative reply? But
to this question there was no satisfactory answer.

The committee yielded nothing, though they wanted us
to yield everything, and at the conclusion of the conference
they asked that the several papers which we had presented
as containing our case, should not be given to the public.
Mr. George Junkin said, in urging their suppression :

I do not like the idea of having copies made of these
two papers, because they are really a very powerful argu-
ment setting forth the directors' view. I think it Avould be
perilous to the peace of the Church if these papers should
get out.

182 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

We parted in a kindly and fraternal way, but with the
feeling that nothing had been gained or lost on either side.
These in general are my impressions which you desired
me to give of the memorable conferences between the Assem-
bly's committee and our Board of Directors.

With sincere regard, yours truly,

Thomas S. Hastings.

{h) Discussio7i of the agreement of 1870 in the secu-
lar and religious press, especially that of the Presbyterian
denomination.

The public interest aroused by Dr. Briggs' address
and the Detroit veto was very lively and wide-
spread. There had been nothing quite like it since
1837-38. Both subjects touched the popular mind at
many j)oints and in various ways. Nor can there be
any doubt that, whatever else may be said of them,
they served an excellent purpose as object-lessons in
ecclesiastical ethics, opinion and manners. A good
deal of what was written against Union Seminary, espe-
cially in the religious papers, was very bitter and
rasping ; but much on the other hand, while decided
and even severe, was marked by such evident sincerity
and strong conviction as to disarm angry feeling. The
leading secular journals of New York watched the case
with the greatest interest and furnished the public with
a vast amount of information on all its successive
phases. In i^reparing this volume I have been con-
stantly indebted to the records of their energetic and
persistent labor. For the most part they were impar-

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HIS TO A')'. 183

tial and eager to get at and to tell the truth, the whole
truth and, as far as the infirmities of human nature in
the matter of news would permit, nothing but the truth.
One of them, however, "the Leading Evening Paper,"
was an exception. Its proprietor at that time, who was
said to be also the author of some of its sharpest edito-
rials on the subject, was one of the most estimable men
in New York ; kind-hearted, generous, and full of
varied Christian activity ; but his zeal for Presbyterian
orthodoxy was not at all according to knowledge ; Dr.
Briggs was to him a bete noire, and "higher criti-
cism " only another name for downright infidelity.
The editorials on these subjects were laden with the
wildest sort of personal abuse and denunciation. They
were just what for the honor of fair and truthful jour-
nalism they should not have been. Dr. Briggs, his
colleagues and friends. Union Seminary and its Board
of Directors, day after day, and month after month,
were stigmatized in frenzied assaults of blind passion
and calumny. And yet this pajoer was sent far and
wide to ministers and elders of the Presbyterian
Church in countless numbers, renewing old theological
prejudices and sowing the seeds of new ones. As a
faithful historian of Union Seminary I have felt bound
to refer to this jDainful instance and illustration of the
kind of warfare which it had to endure.

Besides innumerable articles, editorial or contrib-
uted, in the newspapers, several pamjDhlets apjDcared
in exposition and defence of the Assembly's action.

184 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

They also were widely circulated and did much to
fortify and increase the hostility to Union Seminary as
in rebellion against the General Assembly. One of
these entitled The Ecclesiastical Status of the Theologi-
cal Seminaries, was written by the Rev. Dr. William
H. Roberts, then professor at Lane. It was first pub-
lished in The Herald and Presbyter of December 2,
1891. As an exposition of the most stringent theory
of Assembly control it matched perfectly with the
actual embodiment of the principle in the first section,
Article II, of the " Amended Constitution " of the
Seminary of the Northwest, already cited. The points
were made with no little force and ingenuity, as also
with an assurance not unbecoming a Chief Justice of
the United States Suj)reme Court in announcing a
unanimous opinion of that great tribunal. Dr. Roberts
contended that the agreement of 1870 brought Union
Seminary under the control of the General Assembly
in a sense essentially the same as that in which all the
Old School seminaries were, and had ever been, under
Assembly control ; in other words, wrought a radical
change in the plan and constitution of Union Semi-
nary, annulled its most characteristic principle, and so
put an end to its independent existence. He took
ground in direct conflict with that of the Standing
Committee on Theological Seminaries at Detroit, as
also with the opinion of the Detroit Assembly itself.
Dr. Patton said in his report that the seminary was
" one of the parties of the compact ; " and, later, in his

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. 135

speech lie said, " AVe have recognized that as a party
Union Seminary may claim that their rights have been
infringed by our construction, and if they see fit they
can take us into the civil courts for a judicial and
authoritative interpretation of this compact." He said
still later : " We concede that we are parties in equal
interest. Neither can compel the other to accept its
construction." Dr. Roberts denied that the seminary
had any right whatever as a party over against the
Assembly. But I will let his article speak for itself,
simply underscoring a few words. Here is his own
recapitulation and summing u]^ of the argument :

CONCLUSIONS.

From the considerations, facts, laws and precedents pre-
sented, the following conclnsions are drawn as pertinent to
the present ecclesiastical status of the theological seminaries :

1. That concurrent declaration No. 9, as agreed to and
enacted at reunion by both the Old and New School General
Assemblies, established, as a principle of action for tlie re-
united Church, a uniform method of ecclesiastical control of
all the .theological seminaries.

2. That the General Assembly in 1870 and 1871 passed
acts which put into effective operation said concurrent
declaration No. 9 ; certain features of the act having been
suggested in a memorial presented to the Assembly by the
directors of tlie Union Theological Seminary.

3. That the Church now exercises control over ail theolog-
ical seminaries through the supreme legislative and executive
body, the General Assembly.

4. That the power to modify and interpret said acts of
1870-71 rests solely in the General Assembly. While, how-

186 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

ever, the Assembly would appear at present to be obligated
to maintain the act of 1870-71, in its several features, it is
clear that under the agreement made at reunion, should cir-
cumstances arise requiring action, the Church gathered in
General Assembly may place the seminaries under another
method of control.

5. That the several theological seminaries are so obligated
by the agreements connected with reunion, by the Assembly's
acts of 1870-71, and by the acts of their own directors, that
they can neither except to the authority of the General
Assembly, nor withdraw on their own motion from the con-
trol of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of
America.

6. That the General Assembly, by virtue of the consti-
tution, of the agreements made at reunion, and by the acts
of the directors of the several theological seminaries, is in-
vested with power to disapprove or veto appointments of
professors of the seminaries, whether said appointments are
original elections or transfers.

Without stopping to criticise Dr. Roberts' pamphlet
in detail and leaving his " conclusions " to speak for
themselves, it is only needful to call attention to two
or three errors of fact that vitiated all his reasoning.
On page 6 of the pamphlet Dr. Roberts said :

There was unanimous assent at reunion to the principle
that the Church should exercise, in some definite form, con-
trol of her theological institutions. And it is held that the
eifect of reunion, and of the joint unanimous adoption of the
concurrent declaration, by the Old and New School Assem-
blies, Avas to make the principle contained in declaration No.
9 binding upon all parties to the reunion until said declara-

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS li/STORV. -[^^

tion .should have been moclilicd or rescinded hy the General
Assembly of the united Church. Whatever may be thought
of details in the method of its administration, the j)rineiple
stands, and the law containing it is subject to change onlv
by action of the General Assembly.

But the declaration No. 9 was expressly stated by
the chairmen of the Joint Committee, Drs. Adams and
Beatty, in their report to the two Assemblies which
adopted it, to be only a " recommendation " (the italics
are their own). How, then, could it be treated as an
" established principle " and '* law " of the Church ?
Did the mere recommendation of a constitutional
amendment make it a part of the organic law ? Again,
on page 8 of his pamphlet. Dr. Roberts used this sin-
gular language :

As a result of the new status created by reunion, the
directors of the Union Theological Seminary appeared as
petitioners at the bar of the General Assembly. They Avere
not there, it is to be noted, to perform any act involving the
assertion of their independence as over against the Church.
They were simply petitioners, requesting from the supreme
legislative authority of the Church the performance of an
act, which the General Assembly alone was empowered by
the constitution and the reunion to perform. The directors
ask "that the Assembly may be pleased." The memorial,
therefore, as a petition to the General Assembly, by its direc-
tors, is the full proof that the Union Theological Seminary
was 'prepared to accept ccclesiasticed control.

The ecclesiastical control of all the theological semina-
ries was vested by reunion in the reunited Church, and could
best be exercised through the General Assembly. The Union

188 Tf^^- UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

memorial definitely asked " that the General Assembly may
be pleased to adopt it as a plan and rule in the exereise of
its proprietorship and control over the several theological
seminaries," etc. The directors of Union Theological Sem-
inary recognized distinctly that reunion had wrought a change
in the relations of that institution. Nowhere in the memo-
rial does there appear any objection to the control by the
Church, or any assertion of independence as over against the
Church.

In these passages Dr. Roberts applied to Union Sem-
inary language of the memorial respecting the Assem-
bly's " proprietorship and control " of the theological
seminaries, which referred excluswely to the Old
School seminaries ; and this is the simple and sole ex-
planation of the directors of Union Seminary coming
to the Assembly as petitioners and asking that body to
" be pleased to adopt it as a plan and rule," etc.
Union Seminary sought a favor not for itself, but for
the Old School seminaries which belonged to the As-
sembly,— a favor which the General Assembly alone
could grant, — and it naturally used the language of
deference and solicitation, but in the very act of doing
so it evinced its own freedom and independence by
offering the Assembly a veto on the election of its own
professors, in case the favor sought, viz.: the transfer
of the election of professors in the Assembly's institu-
tions to their Boards of Directors, were granted.

Had Dr. Roberts aimed in his Ecclesiastical Status
of the Theological Seminaries to exemp>lify the type of

ANOTHER DECADE OE EfS HISTORY. Igg

Presbyteriaiiism most repugnant to the convictions and
practice of the whole New ^School Church, from 1838
to 1870, he could not have done so more effectually.
Its tone and its arguments were alike utterly alien to
the Presbyterianism which founded and had always in-
spired the Union Theological Seminary.

The contention of Dr. Roberts in regard to the
meaning of the " c(jncurrent declaration " No. 9 ;
namely, that it j^ledged both branches of the Church
to the principle of ecclesiastical control over the theo-
logical seminaries as a term of reunion, met with wide
acceptance in those sections of the Church wdiich had
been Old School. It soon became a common belief
among them that the concession of the veto powder ^9?-e-
ceded reunion as one of its conditions ; and, further-
more, that this concession Avas made in fulfilment of a
" pledge " embodied in the " concurrent declaration,"
No. 9. The Presbyteriaii and Reformed Review for
July, 1892, contained an article on the 104th General
Assembly, written by its able and scholarly editor, Dr.
Warfield, in which this belief is expressed in the
strongest manner. Here are passages from the article
(pp. 532-33) bearing on this point :

As to the request itself — that is, to concur with the sem-
inary in annulling the arrangement of 1870 — the Assembly
could not, of course, yield to it. Such a procedure would
introduce that inequality in the relations of the seminaries
to the Church which was recognized as intolerable when the
negotiations for the reunion of the Old and New School

190 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Churches were in progress, and without adequate pledges for
the removal of which tliat reunion was fully understood to
be impossible. The generosity of Union's concession of the
existing measure of control by the Assembly of her appoint-
ments, consisted just in this — that by engaging to concede
this control, or by withholding it, it was in the power of the
seminary to enable or to prevent the consummation of re-
union ; and it chose the generous path of concession and
thereby rendered reunion possible. It ought to be generally
understood.

1. That it was held to be intolerable that the Assembly
of the reunited Church should have direct control of the elec-
tions to the professorships in the Old School seminaries and
no control over them in the New School seminaries.

2. That reunion could not, therefore, have been consum-
mated without sufficient pledges that all the seminaries should
be placed under something like equal ecclesiastical control.

3. That these pledges were given in the " concurrent dec-
larations," and carried out immediately, the concession of the
veto power by Union being the act by which, on its part,
they were carried out. That the requirements as to theolog-
ical seminaries were not made part of the reunion contract
itself, but only a debt of honor (if we can say "only" in such
a case), did not lead the fathers of the reunion period to
feel them any the less binding.

4. That the ecclesiastical control actually conceded by
Union Seminary in the proposition of 1870, was less, not
more, in amount than had been contemplated in any plan
that had been in discussion before reunion had been consum-
mated— the reunited Church meeting the generosity of the
seminary by generously yielding to its representations as to
the legal difficulties in the way of the concession of a veto
upon the election of directors.

ANOTHER DECADE OE EPS HISTORY. ^^\

5. Tliat to annul this arrangement of 1870, as regards
Union Seminary, would introduce the same inequality in the
ecclesiastical relations of the seminaries, })ledges of the re-
moval of wliieh were a prerequisite of reunion ; and that
such an inequality would be as intolerable now as it was
then. Above and behind all this there stands also the man-
ifest duty of the Church, as guardian of the doctrinal purity
of its ministry, to retain some efficient direct control of the
institutions in Avhich its candidates are trained, a duty safe-
guarded by the requirement of the form of government that
candidates shall be placed under the direction of "approved"
teachers. In these circumstances the action of the Assembly
could not be doubtful. But the generosity of the form in
which it was taken passes all precedent ; as, indeed, in all
the discussions and in all the rulings of the Moderator, gen-
erous kindness toward a great institution which (however
mistakenly) felt itself aggrieved, was allowed the fullest play.

So far as the concession of the veto by Union Semi-
nary is concerned, all this must be ascribed to entire
misapprehension of the facts in the case. No doubt
the leading opponents of reunion regarded " inequal-
ity " in the relations of the seminaries to the Church
as an " intolerable " feature of the situation. This is
plainly indicated by Dr. A. A. Hodge's noted letter to
Henry B. Smith, written in December, 1867. But the
" concurrent declaration " contains no " pledges," sim-
ply a " recommendation " and that underscored. Dr.
Warfield may, I think, be safely challenged to produce
any evidence that Dr. Beatty, the wise and great-
hearted chairman of the Old School Committee on Re-

192 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

union, ever uttered a word in favor of requiring
" pledges " touching New School theological seminaries
as a term of reunion. But, allowing for the moment
that Dr. Warfield's version of the matter is correct, how
came it to j)ass that, in spite of the solemn " pledges,"
which, he says, made reunion possible, its ablest oppo-
nents, Dr. Charles Hodge, Dr. A. A. Hodge and Dr.
Kobert J. Breckinridge — not to mention others — still
fought against it to the bitter end. Why were they not
satisfied with the " pledges " ?

Another paper, entitled Union Seminary and the As-
sembly, was published by the Bev. William INIcKibbin,
D.D., of Cincinnati, in reply to a pamphlet of my own.
It is interesting as showing what strange illusions on
the whole subject got possession of men noted for their
intelligence and Christian character. Dr. McKibbin
was a leading member of the Standing Committee on
Theological Seminaries at Detroit, and made one of the
ablest speeches in favor of disapproving Dr. Briggs'
transfer. ^ few sentences from the oj^ening part of
this speech will show how he regarded the question at
issue :

I believe that we are taking part in the greatest crisis
through which the Presbyterian Church has ever passed. I
believe that the issue or the issues which were involved in
the Old and New School difficulties were mere bagatelles com-
pared with the issue which is now at stake.

It is not surprising that, looking at the subject

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 193

this way, Dr. ]\I('Kibbin should have taken very stron<r
ground against Professor Briggs. His speech was in
an excellent spirit, and contained more or less with
which I, for one, was in hearty sympathy ; as, for ex-
ample, its closing sentences : " I want that Book han-
dled reyerently ; and I don't care whether it be in the
name of higher criticism or of an angel from heayen,
if he preaches any other Gospel than that of reverence
for the Word of God, I say reject him." One of the
most remarkable things in Dr. ]\IcKibbin's reply to my
pamphlet, was his contention that Union Seminary is
" the 2^1'op^rty of the Presbyterian Church in the
United States of America." In order to show this, fol-
lowing Dr. Boberts, he aj^plied the language of the
Union memorial of 1870 in regard to the Old School
seminaries, which were all under the proprietorship
and control of the General Assembly, to Union Semi-
nary. This seems almost incredible ; but here are the
passages, and they show, as hardly anything else could,
what the friends of Union Seminary had to contend
with in the way of argument.

Union Seminary had belonged to the New School body,
and the Assembly of the reunited Church had inherited all
the rights and privileges which this relation involved. As
the debate turned upon the Assembly's rights undev the com-
pact, there may have been a failure to recognize and suffi-
ciently emphasize this other and primary connection. But
that such relation exists is unquestionable, and it throws
great light upon the meaning to be attached, in Union's
memorial of IS 70, to the words, "That the General Assem-

194 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

bly may be pleased to adopt it as a rule and plan, in the
exercise of the proprietorship and control over the several
theological seminaries." (p. 23).

Can there be any doubt that Union Seminary did belong
to the New School Church and does now belong to the
reunited Church, which inherited all the rights , of both
branches of the Church, or, to use the language of the plan
of reunion, which possesses "all the legal and corporate
rights and powers pertaining to the Church previous to the
division of 1838, and all the legal and corporate rights
which the separate Churches now possess " ? Can Union,
after having been aided and endorsed and commended as and
because a New School seminary, and after securing its sup-
port under such a representation of itself for over thirty
years, now deny the fact ? And if they cannot deny this,
can they deny that this relation has been transferred to the
united Church? And must we not conclude that the memo-
rial of the Union board of 1870 expressed the exact truth
when it stated this relationship to be one of proprietorship
mid control 2 (pp. 27-8).

Again, if the New School body did convey its "proprie-
torship and control " to the united Church, are not its mem-
bers who are now living bound to protest against a
course which implies that they conveyed powers they did not
hold, and transferred rights they did not possess? If the
United States Government has a right to demand that the
Russian Government in the Behring Sea matter shall sustain
it in the assertion of all the rights which Russia claimed to
have possessed and transferred to it, against .England's
counterclaim, has not the united Church a right to demand
that all members of the New School body now living shall
sustain it in asserting rights transferred to it by the New
School body? (pp. 28-9).

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. I95

This analogy between the case of the General As-
sembly against Union Seminary and that of the United
States Government against England in the Behring
Sea matter, recalls Flnellen's account of the resem-
blance between Harry of Monmouth and Alexander
the Great : " There is a river in Macedon ; and there
is also, moreover, a river at Monmouth ; . . . and
there is salmons in both." If the question were whether
before 1870, Union was a New School seminary and
belonged, to all intents and purposes, to the New
School Church, though in no wise under the proprie-
torship and control of its General Assembly, the an-
swer would be plain and simple. Dr. McKibbin's quo-
tations from the New School minutes to prove this are
all so many mares' nests. But his contention went far
beyond this. " The idea," he said, " that the New
School body had any different mode of connection with
its seminaries from the Old School body, or the Church
before the division, is a pure fiction. Both New School
and Old School claimed all the powers of the Church
before the division, but were only able partially to en-
force their claim. The New School claimed Princeton,
and Western, and the Old School claimed Union, Au-
burn, and Lane." Really, had Dr. McKibbin con-
tended that the Old School " claimed " Yale and Hart-
ford and Andover and Bangor, it would not have been
a bit more preposterous. When, where, and in what
manner did the Old School ever " claim " Union Sem-
inary ?

196 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

The closing part of Dr. JMcKibbin's reply is so cur-
ious and suggestive that I quote almost the whole of it.
Nothing could indicate more clearly the ecclesiastical
animus which marked his paper. The italics are his
own :

THE POWER OF THE ASSEMBLY TO ENFORCE THE FULFILL-
MENT OF THE COMPACT.

The question has been raised as to what the General
Assembly is " going to do about it " in case Union Semi-
nary continues to resist its authority, or severs its connection
with the Presbyterian Church. This question is squarely
raised by Dr. Prentiss with reference to Union's relation to
the Assembly when he says : "The single tie which in 1870
of its own free Avill, connected it with the General Assem-
bly, by its own free act it can sever at any moment for
good and sufficient reasons." Of course we are to infer that
Union claims to be the sole judge of what are good and
sufficient reasons. This sounds like a menace. Coming
from one who is not " a man of war " it cannot be attrib-
uted to abnormal belligerency, or an easily excited tempera-
ment. Th^ Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
must face this question. Here is the cry of seminary sover-
eignty raised as against the federal supremacy of the whole
Church. It sounds like a cry heard in 1861 with reference
to State sovereignty. And there is ten times more said in
the constitution of the Presbyterian Church with reference
to its federal supremacy than there was in the constitution
of the United States of America with reference to the su-
premacy of the general government. Let Union, before this
cry becomes more distinct and threatening, remember that a
majority of the Presbyterian Church were either participants

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. 197

in or sympathiziiif^ witnesses of the struggle in wliieh that
question Avas settled, and that they will not be unequal to
the vindication in the ecclesiastical sphere of a principle as
fundamental to the existence and integrity of the Presby-
terian Church as it was to the existence and integrity of the
nation. Let us then see what answer can be framed as to
what the General Assembly could do.

1. The Assembly, so long as Union defies its authority,
may, without surrendering any of its own rights, decline to
give to Union " official recognition and approbation " and
call the attention of the Presbyteries to the form of govern-
ment, chapter xiv, section 5, in ^hich, " it is recommended
that no candidate, except in extraordinary cases, be licensed
unless he shall have studied divinity at least two years,
under some approved divine or professor of theology."

2. It can arraign Union's directors before the bar of the
Church, if, after heresy is proven against one of its profes-
sors, they continue to retain him as an instructor in the
institution, as faithless to their ordination vows, viz : " To
study the peace, purity and unity of the Church," for they
would then aid and abet the propagation of such heresy.
Fadt per alium, facit per se.

3. It can have recourse to the civil courts. What the
civil rights of the Assembly are, and the rights of donors and
directors in sympathy with the Assembly, and what the mode
or modes of enforcing them, I will not discuss. It is to be
hoped that no such discussion will be necessary in the set-
tlement of the questions at issue.

Two other pamphlets against Union Seminary ought
to be noticed, for they were scattered broadcast through-
out the Presbyterian Church and did much to mystify
and mislead even fair-minded, good men. Their author

198 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

appeared upon the scene a year or so later than Dr.
William H. Roberts and Dr. McKibbin ; but he soon
made up for lost time and was widely regarded as far
surjDassing them in the lawyer-like acuteness and vigor
of his attacks. One of his papers was first published
in the New York Sun of October 17, 1892, a few days
after the Board of Directors of Union Seminary had
voted to annul the agreement of 1870. It soon ap-
peared in a pamphlet form under the title, Union Theo-
logical Seminary vs. the General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church. The Case to Date, by Thomas
McDougal, Cincinnati. ' In reading this pamj^hlet I
was inclined to ajDply to it an expression my brother
once used in depicting the report of the United States
Secretary of the Treasury on the notorious defalcations
of Swartwout and others. He called it " a fragment
of chaos." It were hard to say whether ignorance of
the law and facts in the case, or sweej)ing, not to say
truculent, charges against the moral character and con-
duct of the directors of Union Seminary contributed
the largest share to this chaotic mixture. A few ex-
tracts will enable the reader to judge for himself:

Between 1870 and 1892 Union Seminary has received
from the membership of the Presbyterian Chnrch over one
million and a half dollars, on the faith of its contract relation
with the Assembly, and on its exjjress representation made
in circulars, constitution, by-laws, personal appeals and
otherwise, that the seminary was distinctively Presbyterian,
and was, by the compact of 1870, in ecclesiastical connection

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. I99

with the Presbyterian Churcli, on the same footing with the
other seminaries of that Church.

The Assembly having refused to surrender its contract
rights, and to annul the contract, the seminary, of its own
motion, now declares that the contract is illegal and void, be-
cause, as it alleges, of the lack of corporate power on its part
to make the same, refuses to obey its terms, and, without the
consent of the Assembly, the party to the contract, attempts
to annul the same. It constitutes itself a judicial forum to
try the question of the validity of the contract which it had
made, without a hearing from the other party, and acting as
the judge in its own case, a thing which no civil court in
Christendom could, or would, attempt to do, annuls its own
contract, and that without a return to the other party of
what it had received on the faith of the contract and the re-
lation as represented by it. In order to justify its action in
refusing to carry out its contract — which it concedes is bind-
ing if it had the power to make it — it obtains from a learned
lawyer, whom it employs, an opinion that it had no power
under the charter to make the contract, and that therefore
no contract in fact exists.

Here is Mr. McDoiigall's view of the very eminent
lawyer whose opinion the seminary had ventured to
solicit :

We are advised that the learned counsel who gave the
opinion to the seminary is not a member of the Presbyterian
Church, nor a believer in the Christian faith, and assiune
that he was selected for the purpose, because of his ability,
and of being wholly disinterested and without bias so far as
the Christian faith could bias him in his opinion. He knew,
and the board knew that neither he nor the board was com-

200 '^^HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

petent authority to determine the question between the par-
ties, of the validity of the contract. Both knew that a
competent forum existed in which that question could be
authoritatively decided, and both knew the only party inter-
ested in the contract that can now legitimately question its
validity on the ground of charter power, is the State of New
York, and that that State has never questioned the exercise
of the power by the seminary, but has knowingly permitted
its exercise for a period of more than twenty years, without
question.

It is a novel experience in jurisprudence to find a party
to the contract, and one who has received the benefits of the
contract on its part calling in its own lawyer to sit in judg-
ment upon the validity of the contract thus made, and decid-
ing to annul it and declare it illegal and void, on the ground
of a want of authority on its part to make it, and refusing
to perform its terms, and that without returning the consid-
eration it has received on the faith of the contract and the
relation created by it, and at the same time placing itself on
high moral grounds, and averring that if it had the power to
make the contract, it would willingly obey it.

Here is Mr. McDougall's Avay of looking at the posi-
tion and oflftee of such professors of Christian theology
and learning as Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge,
Addison Alexander, Edward Robinson, Thomas H.
Skinner, Henry B. Smith, W. G. T. Shedd, William
Adams, Roswell D. Hitchcock and Philip Schaff :

The professors and teachers are merely employees of the
corporation. They are not named in the charter, perform
no essential corporate function, and are in no sense necessary

ANOTHIIR PECAPR OF ITS HISTORY. 201

to corporate existence. How then can their employment,
however or by whoever made, be held to be a delegation or
surrender of corporate ])o\ver.

Why could not Union Seminary create the office of a
general manager and refuse to appoint any professor he dis-
approved of? or contract with another seminary to supply
it with teaching, or to appoint only such teachers as it
would approve? If it may do this for one professor for one
year, why not for all and fof an indefinite number of years?
Does the validity of the exercise of the power as to being
within the charter or in excess of it depend on the number
of the professors to be approved of, or the length of time
the right of approval is exercised ?

The professors hold the same corporate relation to the
seminary, as the janitor, or the book-keeper, or the errand
boy ; and are on the same plane as the foreman, superin-
tendent or manager of a manufacturing company.

AVe are unable to find an adjudicated case by any court
sustaining the proposition as laid down by counsel for the
seminary, that a corporation created for the purpose of car-
rying on a business of any kind can not contract with the
purchaser of its product, whether that product be houses,
engines or ministers, to turn out that product on a model
satisfactory to the purchaser ; and in order to that end, shall
have the employment of the architect, mechanic or teacher,
who is to make the product which he is to take, conditioned
on his approval. Tiiat is all that underlies the contract
between the Assembly and the seminary, and yet, as we
have already seen, the seminary as a party to that contract
hires its own attorney, constitutes itself its own judge in the
case, and jealous of the interests of the corporation, and
zealous for good faith and good morals, determines tliat such
a contract is not mthin the scope of its corporate powers,

202 ^^^ LNTON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

is therefore illegal and void, and refuses to perform it,
while retaining the consideration it has received by reason
of it.

And liere is the manner in which Mr. Thomas Mc-
Dougall expressed his mind about the venerable Charles
Butler, William A. Booth, D. Willis James, John
Crosby Brown, William E. Dodge, Morris K. Jesup
and others like them, in executing their solemn trust
as directors of Union Seminary :

We submit that if such an attitude had been assumed by
a corporation whose directors were Mohammedans or Hin-
doos, its conduct might have been assailed as dishonest, im-
moral, and a deliberate breach of faith. Does it alter the
case that the conduct is that of a Board of Directors, whose
members are members of the Presbyterian Church, and who
take their code of morals on this important question from
their attorney, who has given them the opinion he has, on
high moral grounds, without oven suggesting to his clients
the moral obligations of such a contract and the duty of
returning the million and a half dollars which they have
received on the faith of the contract, and the relation created
by it with the Presbyterian Church.

And here is the conclusion of the whole matter ac-
cording to " The Case to Date " :

The action of the board in annulling the compact of 1870
and refusing to discharge the moral obligations of that con-
tract, evidences conclusively — all protestation to the contrary —
that no moral obligations will be permitted to interfere with
her separation from the Presbyterian Church. Her constitu-

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 203

tion, by-laws and oaths of allegiance to the Presbyterian
Church arc her own voluntary acts, which she can at any
moment annul or abandon. She may require her faculty to
teach Unitarianism or Popery, and no legal power can pre-
vent her action and the application of her funds to that end.

In the absence of any legal relation to the Presbyterian
Church by charter or contract, she is in no sense and can
never be in any sense a Presbyterian seminary.

We assume it is safe to affirm that every dollar of her
endowment and property received prior to 1892 was given
to her on the belief whether expressed or not, that she was
and would continue to be a Presbyterian seminary. Many
of the donors who were Presbyterians have passed away.
In the absence of any expressions to the contrary in making
their gifts, in view of the compact of 1870, the fact that the
directors were Presbyterians, the representations in constitu-
tion and by-laws, the history of the seminary and otherwise
the conclusive presumption is that all gifts made by Presby-
terians were made to what they believed to be a Presbyterian
seminary. What an object lesson to the Church and the
world, we have in the conduct of her directors. Over two
millions of dollars thus contributed, free to be used for all
time to come in teaching any kind of theology other than
that wdiich donors intended it should be used to teach, and
no power to prevent the misapplication of the funds.

How perfectly idle to talk of moral obligations being
sufficient to insure the fulfillment of trust obligations. The
compact of 1870 is the test of the strength of the sense of
moral obligations possessed by the present directors of Union
Seminary.

This compact repudiated and the money retained, it is
worse than idle to talk of moral obligations being any safe-
guard for the protection of funds contributed for the purposes

204 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

named, or for the fulfillment of either legal or moral con-
tract obligations.

The question is not one of sentiment ; it is not one of the
honesty or the sincerity of the belief of the Board of Direc-
tors. The question is above all such considerations, and is
not to be beclouded or lost sight of by fireworks or senti-
ment without reason as to the high character or disinterested-
ness of the directors. Is there any reason, in law or
morals, that will justify them in refusing to carry out their
contract, while retaining the million and a half of dollars
received from the Presbyterian Church on the faith of the
seminary being Presbyterian by reason of the relation creat-
ed by the contract?

Not very long after " The Case to Date " appeared,
Mr. McDoiigall published a second pamphlet, in
which he took me to task with no little severity.*

It was another " fragment of chaos," and even sur-
passed the first as a legal, ethical and ecclesiastical cu-
riosity. Nothing quite like it, as far as I know, had
before seen the light. Its author evidently had not
the slightest knowledge of me. He called me an " ec-
clesiastical lawyer " and said I was one of the directors
of Union Seminary. All he seemed to know about me
was that I had written a pamphlet defending Union
Seminary against the charges of Mr. J. J. McCook at
Detroit, in regard to ex-Governor Morgan's and Mr.

*The Moral Qualtity of the Conduct of the Directors of Union Semi-
nary— An open letter to the Eev. George L. Prentiss, D.D. — A Lesson in
Ecclesiastical Morals, Construction of Ecclesiastical Control, etc., by Thomas
McDougall, Cincinnati. — Robert Clarke & Co., Printers, 1893.

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. 205

James Brown's iniinificeiit gifts to the institution.
As in the case of Dr. W. H. Roberts and of Dr.
McKibbin, I will give a few characteristic passages from
this i^amphlet and leave every candid reader to decide
for himself whether they are marked by such an im-
partial, humble and truth-loving spirit as fairly entitled
their author to sit in judgment upon " the moral con-
duct of the directors of Union Seminary."

One of Mr. McDougall's points was that the plan
and constitution of Union Seminary of themselves
afforded no proper safeguard against the misappropria-
tion of its funds, or the abandonment of its Presbyterian
principles : in other words, the directors of Union Sem-
inary at any moment, if they chose to do it, could per-
jure themselves, violate their solemn pledge and turn
the institution over to the support of any kind of re-
ligious error or unbelief ! He refers to this point again
and again : " By the agreement of 1870 the institution
had put itself under the control of the General Assem-
bly and was henceforth legally bound to use Mr.
Brown's and Governor Morgan's and other gifts exclu-
sively for Presbyterian purposes." A§ to what is Pres-
byterian, and what is not, the General Assembly is the
supreme judicatory, and its decisions are final and
binding on all parties in the denomination. Address-
ing me, he says :

It would be interesting to have you discuss how
Union Seminary is in any sense a Presbyterian semi-
nary, if the compact of 1870 is annulled. How is it Pres-

206 ^^^ UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

byterian in the sense that any gift made to it on tlie faith
that it was a Presbyterian seminary whose orthodoxy was
guaranteed can be secured beyond peradventure for the
purposes for wliich it was given. ... If you could
only realize that a professor, in the eyes of the law, is
nothing more than an employee, and occupies no higher legal
relation than the janitor or the bookkeeper, and is no more
essential to the corporate vitality than these servants are,
you might change your conclusions as to Avhat is and what
is not a delegation of corporate power. One of the troubles
with this Avhole question grows out of what appears to be a
sacred, mysterious, indefinable, inexplicable relation which
professors sustain to the seminaries of the Church. They are
mere servants, who seem to be treated, however, as if they
were greater than their masters, creatures greater than their
Creator. Their appointment, by whomsoever made, and how-
ever made, is no more a delegation of corporate power than
is the appointment of the janitor or the engineer, and it is
an extraordinary assumption to place them on an equality,
so far as corporate functions are concerned, with the direc-
tors of the corporation, as you have done.

The present directors, in annulling the compact of 1870,
and asserting what they choose to call the " independence of
the seminary, as provided by its charter," have placed them-
selves in the attitude of saying : " We are a Presbyterian
seminary only by our voluntary act. So long as we choose
to be a loyal Presbyterian seminary, we will be loyal as a
matter of choice, but not of obligation. When it is our in-
terest or pleasure to be disloyal, Ave propose to be in a
position to carry out our interest or pleasure. Under no cir-
cumstances do we intend the Presbyterian Church, either
through the General Assembly or any of its members, to in-
terfere with us, or compel us to be Presbyterian, or to com-

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS H [STORY. 207

pel us to use our funds tor the purpose of tciU'hiug anv
theology that AV(i do not desire to have taught. We will be
Presbyterian when it suits us, otherwise when we choose to
be. Whatever trust attaches to the funds given to us, moral
or otherwise, will not be permitted by us to stand in the
way of our complete independence of Presbyterian control."
Such is the ])osition assumed by the present directors of
Union Seminary, and such is their complete ignoring of the
moral obligations resting upon them by the compact of 187f),
and the trust relation they sustain to the donors of the money
given to them to be used for the purpose of a Presbyterian
seminary.

UNlbx's PURPOSE IX MAKING THE COMPACT OF 1870.

Union Seminary sought, by the compact of 1870, to place
itself in such relation to the Presbyterian Church as would
give it tlie confidence, indorsement and patronage of the de-
nomination, in order that it might obtain funds from the
membership of that Church. Whatever may be said touch-
ing the legal quality of the relation thus created, the moral
obligation is of as high a quality as the ordination vow of a
minister, and the moral trust attaching to the gifts thus re-
ceived, is of as binding a character in the forum of conscience
as any trust, whether legally enforceable or otherwise. Fidelity
to its obligations, and the relations thus created, cannot be
affected by the fireworks of liberality, broad views and liberal
instruction.

True liberty is implicit obedience to law, and fidelity to
obligation. True orthodoxy is true liberty. True charity is
as just as it is generous, and above all things, seeketh not
her own, but is loyal even unto death to the obligations it
has assumed toward others.

208 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

The modern chatter that " liberty is preferable to ortho-
doxy," and the gush of charity that deliberately violates
moral obligations, are destructive of that righteousness which
is the crowning glory of the Christian religion, and of which
loyal Presbyterians should be the highest exponents.

This " open letter " closes with the following literary
suggestion to me :

It might be interesting, instructive and profitable to
have you write a treatise on the quality of moral and con-
tract obligations, and fidelity to trust relations, taking the
high grounds on these subjects which men of business honor
occupy. Such a treatise might prove in this controversy a
moral tonic, a breath of fresh air in a foggy atmosphere, and
do more to aid clear thinking and right acting than all the
special pleas heretofore made by you for the directors of
Union Seminary — of which you are one — in attempting to
cancel the compact of 1870, and ignoring the moral obliga-
tions and trust relations they occupy to the Presbyterian
Church, and the donors of the funds to the seminary.

Yours respectfully,

Thomas McDougall.
Cincinnati, January 9, 1893.

I will give a single extract from the supplementary
" Lesson in Ecclesiastical Morals " — a lesson intended,
perhaps, to show me how and in what temper my
" treatise " should be written.

Dr. Prentiss was one of the directors of Union Seminary
when the agreement was made. It is remarkable that he
did not present a copy of his ecclesiastical lexicon to the
General Assembly, and draw attention to his construction of
this contract, before the Assembly entered into it, and the
other seminaries of the Church became parties to it.

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. 209

If such is tlie teaching on the subject of contracts in eccle-
siastical circles, what is to be thought of the students who
are moulded by such teachers? What kind of a product will
we receive at the hands of such instructors? What appre-
ciation of the obligation of ordination vows and fidelity to
the faith and creed of the Church can be expected from the
students who are taught " that agreements are not legal com-
pacts, but only expressions of confidence and good will, acts
of generosity and courtesy," and that ordination vows and
loyalty to the faith, purity, peace and discipline of the
Church may lose their most essential virtue and all their
beauty, the moment they are invested with the rigidity and
binding force of a legal contract?

In view of such teaching is it remarkable that the direc-
tors of Union Seminary, after declaring in 1891, in answer
to the Assembly's Conference Committee, that they "fully
recognized the binding force of the agreement of 1870, until
it shall be proved to be illegal or shall be properly abro-
gated," have attempted to annul the agreement, and have
refused to discharge its legal, moral and trust obligations
before it has been proven illegal, or has been properly abro-
gated? To call in their own lawyer, ask for his own opin-
ion— and that without notice or consent of the other party —
and upon that opinion such as it is, as if it were a judicial
fiat in a proper case, declare the contract illegal, is without
a parallel in history.

The money received from Presbyterians for Presbyterian
uses while the compact of 1870 and the relations and obliga-
tions it created existed, and while the directors were loudly
proclaiming their loyalty to the Presbyterian Church, and which
amounts to one and a half million dollars, is coolly retained, no
tender is made to those from whom it was thus obtained, and
the Church is politely invited to attend to its own business.

210 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Before passing from this most disagreeable subject I
desire once more to show how utterly gratuitous and
without foundation were the charges, each and all,
which Mr. McDougall and so many other enemies of
Union Seminary brought, year after year, against the
good faith, intesrritv and Christian honor of the direc-
tors of that institution. I will give two papers bearing
upon the subject ; one a summary statement in regard
to the endowments of the seminary, prepared at my
request by Mr. Kingsley, its recorder and treasurer ;
the other, entitled Union and the General Assembly,
being a letter to the editor of the New York Tribune
by John T. Terry, an eminent merchant of New York.
Here is Mr. Kingsley's paper :

The Board of Directors of Union Theological Seminary
in the autumn of 18G9, with the purpose of removal, pur-
chased a site in the upper part of the city, and their plans
for such removal made necessary a largely increased endow-
ment, estimated at $500,000. The work of procuring the
required amount was undertaken with great energy. The
first eifort was limited to $300,000, and at the regular Jan-
uary (1870) meeting, a public appeal was agreed upon which
was issued over the several signatures of the entire directo-
rate.

Rev. Edwin F. Hatfield, D.D., was appointed financial
agent, and he entered promptly upon his official duty. A
portion of the compensation for Dr. Hatfield's service was
conditioned upon the obtaining the full amount of this un-
dertaking, and as the records of January, 1871, show the
payment of the additional sum, no better evidence of the
complete success of the eifort could be desired.

The public appeal under which this endowment was ob-
tained, made no reference to any relations with the General

ANOrffER nilCAPE OF ITS IIISrOh'Y. 211

Assonihly, for the excellent reason that no sueli relations
existed, and none were then contemplated. In the l)eo;iiuilnsr
of the year 1871, encouraged by the success of the yeai- pre-
cedino;, jubilant over the accomplished reunion, and ho[)eful in
view of the " agreement" with tlu; (jreneral Assembly which had
been perfected in May, 1870, the Ixturd undertook to raise
the remaining $20(),()()0. The agency of Dr. Hatfield was
continued and an appeal to the benevolent j)ul)lic was issued,
in wliicli the new relations with the General iVssemblv were
mentioned with em])hasis. The result of this effort and this
appeal was disappointing. From a careful examination of
the seminary's financial records it appears that beyond the
$300,000 subscribed under the tirst appeal, which was paya-
ble at the option of the subscribers in one, two and three
years, not one-half of the desired amount was realized. A
memorandum book containing in Dr. Hatfield's own hand-
writing, dated in 1872, what is evidently a complete list of
subscriptions to the fund gives an aggregate of something less
than $o.)0,000 which accords substantially with the treasurer's
accounts, and marks the second effort as a signal failure.

The permanent endowments of the seminary began in
1853, with the Davenport professorship, which was in the
sum of $20,000, and was followed in 1855 by the Roosevelt
and the Washburn professorships each in the sum of $25,000.

Scholarship endowments began in 1860, and have in-
creased in number to about thirty. Library, Elocution, Lec-
tureship and Fellowship with other professorship endowments
have since been established, until the number of individuals
Avho have thus expressed their interest and confidence in the
institution, is about sixty. It is remarkable that in no single
instance, have the founders accompanied their gifts with the
faintest allusion to the General Assembly.

The present financial condition and credit of the semi-
mary is in striking contrast with the straitened circum-
stances of its early history. At a meeting of the board held
May 6, 1840, the following resolution was adopted: "iv*e-
solved, That in the judgment of the board a sufficient sum
has been raised by subscription to justify the board in con-

212 THE UXIOX THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

tinuing the seminary in operation for tlie ensuing year."
Twelve years later, in August, 1852, a Mr. Barclay was found
willing to loan $10,000 on the seminary property for three
years, at seven per cent, per annum, payable semi-annually,
" prompt payment of principal and interest to be guaranteed
by Caleb O. Halsted, Richard T. Haines, Anson G. Phelps,
Charles Butler and David Hoadley jointly and severally,"
which terms were accepted.

E. M. KlXGSLEY,

Treasurer and Recorder.
New York, April, 1898.

Here is the noble letter of Mr. Terry to the New
York Tribune :

Sir : — Since the death of Governor E. D. Morgan I have
occasionally seen intimations of what he would or would not
have done if he could have foreseen the state of aifairs now
existing in the Presbyterian Church. It is a very easy
matter to speculate upon what can neither be proved nor
disproved, but some assertions have been made with a
directness and assurance that are not warranted by any
known facts, specially those with reference to Governor
Morgan's benefactions to the Union Theological Seminary.

Governor Morgan was educated in his early life in a
Congregational church, his father for a long series of years
filling the office of deacon in the church at Windsor, Con-
necticut. When he removed to Hartford there were four
prominent Congregational churches in that city, three of
which were of a pronounced conservative type ; the other
one Avas under the pastorate of Dr. Horace Bushnell, and it
was to this church that he gave his allegiance, and it was
here that I first knew of him in the years 1835 and 1836.
He came to Brooklyn to reside in 1837, and, finding no
Congregational church there he connected himself with the
New School Presl>yterian church under the pastorate of
Rev. Dr. Samuel H. Cox. If Dr. Storrs' church had been

ANOTHER DECADE OE EPS HISTOk'Y. 213

established in Brooklyn whoii ho came there to reside, I
am sure that you would never have heard of Governor
Morgan as a Presbyterian in that eity. He, like many
others, became a Presbyterian by force of circumstances, not
by choice. He removed to New York about 1844, and
continued his connection with the Presbyterian Church.
Governor Morgan was, during his long and useful life, en-
gaged in mercantile business and aifairs of State, and I do
not think he ever considered himself a theologian. He
certainly was not what may be designated as a crank either
in matters of business, politics or religion. He was a man
of liberal tendencies, and I can hardly conceive of anyone
supposing that he would approve of the "rule or ruin"
policy advocated by those who are at present in power in
the Presbyterian Church.

I became connected with Governor Morgan in 1841, and
until 1883, the period of his death, I was in almost daily
intercourse with him when he was not absent from the city.
When he stated to me that he was making his will and that
he found it a difficult matter to determine exactly what to
do, I suggested that we all owed something to New York,
to which he assented, and I found upon reading his will
that he had adopted some suggestions which I then made.
He told me of some of his intentions with regard to Union
Seminary, and I inferred that his benefactions were made
there because it was an institution for the education of young
men for the ministry and of liberal tendencies, and in the
city of New York, and, further, that it afforded him much
gratification to make the bequest, owing to his great regard
and affection for Dr. Roswell D. Hitchcock.

To undertake to belittle his character by assuming that he
would regret having given his money to the Union Theo-
logical Seminary upon the ground that it is not conducted
absolutely U])on the lines that would be approved by the
majority at present in control of the General Assembly is to
do his memory a great injustice.

John T. Terry.
New York, May 23, 1895.

214 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

If Mr. McDougall is not satisfied with these papers,
or detects flaws in them, he can, no doubt, obtain
further light by applying to the gentlemen themselves.
They are two of the best and most highly esteemed cit-
izens of New York, and are both, I believe, ruling
elders in good and regular standing. Their only weak
point, so far as I know, is that they get their orthodoxy
from the Bibje and not from a General Assembly.

There are two very different theories of American
Presbyterianism ; and they have, every now and then,
come into sharp conflict with each other. One of them
may be called a rigid High-Church theory ; while the
other, varying in name or form, shuns domineering
ways and has ever shown a special affinity for evangel-
ical tolerance, moderation and liberty. Both have
contended for orthodoxy and the faith once delivered
to the saints ; but not exactly in the same spirit or by
the same methods. It seems to me that in the papers
of Dr. Roberts, Dr. McKibbin and Thomas McDougall
we have marked specimens of the High-Church type.
The tone of these papers is a tone of rigid ecclesiastical
authority and rule, not to say menace, whenever the
power of the General Assembly is referred to. I have
had occasion of late to familiarize myself somewhat

ANOTIIEk' DECADE OE ITS IlfSTORY. 215

witli the tone which chanicterized the leaders aiul
friends of reunion in 18GtJ-70 ; and it struck nie as an
almost ideal expression of the true spirit of American
Presbyterianism. The papers of Dr. Roberts and Dr.
McKibbin and Thomas McDougall make a different
impression. They uphold a theory of Assembly power
and rule which I cannot but regard as in conflict with
vital principles of American Presbyterianism. The
whole New School branch of the Church always set its
face, like a flint, against such a theory ; and so did
many of the weightiest men in the Old School branch.
As for Union Seminary, it was born and nurtured, and
has always moved and had its being, in another eccle-
siastical atmosphere. Its difference of tone and theory
from Dr. Roberts' and Mr. McDougall's reactionary
Presbyterianism is like the difference in theory and
spirit between American liberty and the autocratic
despotism of the Russian Czar.

Let me show just what I mean by the rigid " High-
Church theory of the powers of the General Assembly."
I will do so by giving an extract bearing on the sub-
ject, from the life of George Junkin, D. D., LL.D.,
written by his brother, the Rev. Dr. David X. Junkin.
No one can read this life of that champion of Old
School orthodoxy without learning to esteem him as an
eminently good man ; nor did his renowned son-in-law,
Stonewall Jackson, excel him in strong qualities of
character. Here is his opinion on the subject in ques-
tion :

216 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

He deplored the assumption by the General Assembly of
powers not granted to that body in the constitution, powers
which he verily believed were dangerous to the liberties of
God's people, and destructive of the beautiful and well-balan-
ced Presbyterianism which our fathers had deduced from the
Bible. He felt that the assumption by the General Assem-
bly of the powers of a court of original jurisdiction in cases
of discipline was unconstitutional, and tended to the utter
destruction of our system of appeals from a lower to a
higher court. He abhorred the doctrine of the "omnipo-
tence of the General Assembly," and in a series of vigorous
articles published in the Northicestern Presbyterian, a paper
ably edited at Chicago, by the Rev. E. Erskine, D. D., and
the Rev. D. McKinney, D.D., he showed the unconstitution-
ality and the dangerous tendencies of this dogma, and
besought his brethren to beware lest in their excited zeal
for a good end they should adopt doctrines and measures
which were revolutionary and destructive. ... It
is believed that his views of this matter are the views
which prevail with the great mass of Presbyterians, es-
pecially since the reunion. The Old School branch before
the reunion had substantially receded from and repudiated
positions taken in 1865 and 1866, and the New School
branch stand committed by all their deliverances in all
their separate history against the High-Church doctrine
of the "omnipotence of the General Assembly," the right
of the Assembly to assume original jurisdiction in cases of
discipline, and the possession by the highest court of
all the powers of the inferior judiciaries. This would be
a consolidation of power more puissant than the Pope-
dom, and more dangerous to the liberties of God's people.
Against it Dr. Junkin left his latest, almost his dying
testimony, for in some of the last letters traced by his

ASOTHER DECADF. OF ITS HISTORY. 217

pen he charges his brother to i-cnid il everywhere and at
all f'lmcx. *

But far better to me than the best written statement
on the subject were two types of American Presbyte-
rianism exemplified in the men who, as chairmen of
the Okl and New School Committee on Reunion, led
that oreat movement with so much skill and such
far-sighted wisdom. I refer to Charles C. Beatty and
William Adams.

In preparing this volume I have had the privilege
of reading many of the letters which passed between
Dr. Adams and Dr. Beatty while they were acting as
chairmen of the Joint Committee on Reunion. I say
the privilege, — for while the letters relate largely to
points and difficulties no longer of any special interest,
the sj^irit pervading them all is so admirable, so
full of zeal for the unity and peace of the Church,
so full, too, of mutual confidence and love, that their
perusal has been to me a real edification. It was this
spirit which contributed more than aught else to bring
about reunion. AYithout this sjiirit that happy con-
summation would have been impossible.

* The position of the New School Church is clearly and forcibly set forth
by the committee appointed by its General Assembly in 1855, "to report to
the next Assembly on the constitutional power of the Assembly over the sub-
ject of slave-holding in our Churches." The committee consisted of Albert
Barnes, Asa D. Smith, afterwards president of Dartmouth College, Hon. Wil-
liam Jessup, Augustus P. Ilascall and A. II. H. Boyd, of Virginia. The
report will be found in the New School Minutes of 1856, pp. 197-201.

218 ^J^HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Charles C. Beatty and William Adams were men
ofthe highest qualities of personal character, greatly be-
loved and admired by all who knew them. Dr. Beatty,
who was seven years older than Dr. Adams, repre-
sented the Old School in its most solid and attractive
characteristics. Son of an officer of the Revolutionary
army, grandson of an eminent Presbyterian minister,
an alumnus of both the college and seminary at Prince-
ton, he had passed his life in the West, chiefly in Ohio,
where he was universally honored and revered, espec-
ially as a devoted and munificent friend of education.
In face of the strongest opposition he led the Old
School in the reunion movement with consummate good
sense and judgment as also with the very meekness of
wisdom. Probably no other man was so well fitted to
serve as chairman of the Joint Committee on the part
of the Old School. Dr. Adams was not less signally
fitted to serve the New School in the same capacity.
He was the son of one of the foremost American educa-
tors of the early half of the century. On the mother's
side he traced his lineage back to Governor Bradford
of the Mayflower. A graduate of Yale College and of
Andover Theological Seminary, and first settled as pas-
tor over a Congregational cliurch near Boston, he was
seasoned, through and through, with Puritan and New
England ideas — those vitalizing ideas of religion,
freedom and social progress which had so largely ruled
the spirit and shaped the growth and policy ofthe New
School churches. At the same time his soundness in

ANOTHER nF.CADE OF ITS JirSTORY. 219

the faith was imquestioned, and he wiekled an influence
not in tlie New School branch alone, but in the other
branch and in the whole Christian community, which
in its peculiar elements of strength and persuasiveness
was hardly equalled by that of any other minister in
the Presbyterian Churcli. When the reunion was at
length accomplished, everybody felt that he had been
one of its chief instruments. Dr. Shaw, of Rochester,
a man whose own praise was in all the land, wrote to
him : " The Church owes you a debt so large that no
one but God is rich enough to pay it."

These two eminent servants of the Lord deserve to
be held in lasting remembrance as rare examples at
once of Christian character and of the far-reaching
power of genuine Christian influence. Their relations
to each other while chairmen of the Joint Committee
were very beautiful, as may be seen by the following-
extract from a letter of Dr. Beatty to Mr. John
Crosby Brown, written after Dr. Adams' death :

My previous personal knowledge of Dr. Adams had been
very slight ; but upon our first interview he met me with
such cordiality, as well as courtesy, and in all our conferences
showed so kind, frank and confiding a manner as at once won
my heart to love as well as respect him ; and this feeling on
my part was retained to the close of his life. I think it was
reciprocated. We did not so much correspond as we had
personal intercourse at his home in New York. The two
reports to the General Assembly were, at my request, prin-
cipally pre})ared by him. Some parts, chiefly the historical,

220 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

were written out by me, l)ut the general form and style was
his ; all was submitted to the members, and sometimes mod-
ifications were made at their suggestion, and finally I had
the review ; but in anything material the reports were from
the pen of Dr. Adams.

We talked over the subject very freely and unreservedly,
and ])rayed over it earnestly, for we both felt that there was
a great responsibility resting upon us to God and tlie Church.
He knew what great difficulties and conflicts of mind I had
from the fact that my best friends were in opposition to my
views ; and I made the request of him that after my death
he would state these things in some article in The Evangelist,
which he promised to do — for we then had little thought that
I could survive him. On one occasion, after the reunion,
both of us expressed our conviction that the position we had
held had been a means of grace to us, in drawing us nearer
to God, and enabling us to feel more fully our entire de-
pendence on Him for light and aid in our work. I consider
it a great privilege and blessing to me to have been thus
associated with him in this matter.

I shall not forget his kind manner towards me at the
close of the Council at Edinburgh. He said to me, " I have
been requested to make the closing address at the Council,
and I have asked that you officiate in the religious exercises."
He introduced me to the Assembly as his dear friend, mak-
ing some beautiful remarks about my age and sacrifice in
coming in despite of my blindness.

I have sjDoken of the two chairmen of the Joint Com-
mittee and of the correspondence between them. Among
the other members of the committee on both sides were
ministers and elders of wide influence, who also ren-

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. 221

dered invaluable service to the cause of reunion. And
they did it because they, too, like Charles C. Beatty
and William Adams, were such faithful patterns of the
American Presbyterianism which has its root and life
in the Gospel of Christ.

222 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

CHAPTER IV.

EEASON8 IX FAVOR OF ANNULLING THE AGREEMENT

OF 1870. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY REQUESTED

BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF UNION SEMI-
NARY TO CONCUR WITH THEM IN THIS SOLUTION
OF THE PROBLEM.

The action at Detroit left the friends of Union Semi-
nary only the slightest hope of a peacefnl settlement
of the veto question except by unconditional submission
to the claims of the Assembly. And few of them
cherished even this slight hope after the adjourned
meeting of the Board and the Assembly's Committee of
Conference, January 20-22, 1892. Their chief concern
was now to sever the tie that for twenty years had
bound the institution to the General Assembly, with
the least possible disturbance of the peace of the Pres-
byterian Church. At the special request of my old
and revered friend, Charles Butler, the president
and only surviving founder of the seminary, I j^rejoared
a paper on the subject, in which was set forth the
conclusion my own mind had reached with regard to
the relations of the seminary to the General Assembly,
as also the reasons leading to such conclusion. The
paper, entitled The Problem of the Veto Power,
and How to Solve It, was published in March,
1892, on my ow^n responsibility, but with the apjoro-

ANOTnr.R ni:cADE of rrs Hf story. 223

val of Mr. I>utU'i- and otlicr t'rieiids of Union tSeni-
inary. My cont-liLsion and reasons coincided in all
essential points with their own. I venture, therefore,
to embody a j)art of tiie |)ai)ei' in tliis historical record
substantially as it was written eai-ly in l<Si)2.

THE iniOBLE.M TO UK SOLVED AND THE JiEST WAY TO

SOLVE IT.

I propose to give some reasons why the agreement
of 1870 between Union Seminary and the General
Assembly should be annulled. I shall state these rea-
sons frankly as they present themselves to my own
mind, fully conscious of the grave issue involved, and
sincerely desirous to avoid a single word that could
justly be charged with unfairness or prejudice. After
long reflection I have slowly reached the conviction
tliat, in the interest of all the parties concerned, the
best and only safe way out of the present trouble is to
annul the agreement of 1870. Several distinct lines
of thought have led me to this conclusion. And the
first line of thought relates to the legal bearing of that
agreement.

(a) The agreement of 1870, conceding to the General
Assembly a veto on the election of professors in Union
Seminary, should be annulled because inconsistent ivith
the chartered obligations of the Board of Directors.

Great stress was laid upon the j^oint of legality by
the Joint Committee on • Reunion, by the first united
Assembly at Philadelphia in 1870, and by most, if not
all, of the theological seminaries themselves. In ex-

224 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

plaining the ninth article of their report of 18G8 the
chairman of the Joint Committee said that a " recom-
mendation^'' looking to some uniformity of ecclesiastical
supervision, was all which the committee felt to be
within their province or that of the Assembly, except
that those seminaries, now belonging to either branch
of the Church, " should have every guarantee and pro-
tection for their chartered rights which they might
desire."

The Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries
at Philadelphia, in 1870, said in their report, which
was unanimously adopted by the Assembly :

Your committee would recommend no change, and no at-
tempt at change, in this direction, save such as may safely
and ivisely be effected under existing charters. For example,
the directors of the seminary at Princeton have memorialized
this Assembly, with the request that the Assembly would so
far change its " plan " of control over the institution as to
give the Board of Directors enlarged rights in several spec-
ified particulars, subject to the veto of the General Assem-
bly. Your committee are unanimously of the opinion that
the changes asked for are eminently wise and proper. If it
were within the power of the General Assembly to remit
the entire administration of this venerable institution to its
Board of Directors, without any of the restrictions they
have mentioned as to the supply of their own vacancies,
they would cordially recommend it. But, inasmuch as the
endowments of this seminary are held on the condition that
it should be the property and under the control of the
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United
States, that trust cannot be vacated nor transferred to any
other body.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. ^2d

Tn 1871 the Board of Directors of Dunville Seminary
reported to tlie (Teneral Assembly that they had ap-
pointed a committee to investigate the whole snbject of
entering into an arrangement with the Assembly and
to report to the directors, whether " they can legally
adopt the plan of the Assembly." In the same year
the Board of Directors of the Northwestern Theological
Seminary report : " In regard to the relation of the
seminary to the General Assembly, the board, finding
that there are legal points involved in this question
which require careful investigation, referred the whole
matter to a committee with instructions to report to the
directors at their next annual meeting in April,
1872." Similar difficulties arose in the case of
Lane and Auburn Seminaries. It is plain, then,
that the question of legality was considered of vital
importance in reference to adopting the Assembly
plan.

This' brings us back to the case of Union. And
here it becomes me to speak with much diffidence, see-
ing I am no lawyer. But the interpretation of a sim-
ple charter, like the Act of Incorporation of Union
Seminary, is, in part at least, a function of common
sense as well as of legal skill and learning. Every
director is presumed to understand it. What is the
charter of Union Seminary ? So far as concerns the
present discussion it is compressed into a single section,
which is as follows :

The government of the seminary shall at all times be
vested in a Board of Directors, which sliall consist of not
less than twenty-eight members ; one-half of whom shall be
clergymen and the other half laymen.

226 77/;^ CN/OX THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Voila tout / One word expresses it all, but that word,
in the domain of law and authority, is one of the most
comprehensive, as well as of the most potential, in the
English language. It means sovereign power. " The
government shall be upon His shoulders." Govern-
ment has all things under its feet. The government
of the United States bears sway over the President and
his Cabinet ; over Congress ; over the Judiciary ; over
the army and navy ; over all the people ; over the
whole land. In saying, then, that " the government
of the seminary shall at all times be vested in a Board
of Directors," the people of the State of New York,
represented in Senate and Assembly, enacted that the
Board of Directors shouhl themselves, individually and
as a body, exercise and fulfil this trust.

How could they delegate such a trust to several hun-
dred men assembled at Detroit, or at Portland, or at
any other place — men coming together for ten or twelve
days and then scattering far and wide over the land ?
And how could such a fugitive, unincorporate collec-
tion of men carry on the ''government" or execute the
trust, " at all times vested in a Board of Directors " ?
How can this Board of Directors " appoint all profes-
sors " — and yet its appointment of every professor be
so imperfect that a majority vote of the General As-
sembly can utterly nullify it ? No act of" the govern-
ment of the seminary " is so high, or so vital and char-
acteristic, as the appointment of its 2:>i"ofessors ; and to
let a General Assembly or any other body step in at
the last moment and forbid this act, deliberately per-
formed by the Board of Directors, in whom it is " at
all times vested," does seem to me to involve a distinct
violation of chartered rights and duties.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS IlfSTORY. 227

Such was the opinion of the eminent legal counsel,
Mr. Stanley Matthews, consulted hy Lane Seminary in
1871. Mr. Matthews, afterwards a Justice of the
United States Supreme Court, stated clearly and pos-
itively that "the Board of Trustees, a corporate hody,
could not legally delegate any of its powers to the
General Assembly or to any other body." Two years
later the legal counsel of Auburn Seminary gave a
similar opinion. Both seminaries followed this opinion
and entered into their several arrangements with the
General Assembly in pursuance of it. They guarded
against the violation of tlieir chartered obligations, as
they believed, by a special provision or by-law. Here
it is in the case of Lane :

Every election of a professor in this institution shall be
reported to the next General Assembly, and if the said As-
sembly siiall by vote express its disapprobation of the elec-
tion, the professorship in question shall /yj.so jado be vacant
from and after such veto of the General Assembly : it being
understood that in such cases it is not the pleasure of this
board fhcit such professor shall continue in ojjice. — [New Di-
gest, p. :389.]

The action of Auburn was to the same effect. The
committee appointed to consider the subject said in
their report :

They have carefully examined said charter and sought
legal counsel on the subject. They find that the Board of
Commissioners is invested with the sole and ultimate author-
ity to appoint its professors, and they cannot legally delegate
this power to any other body.

228 I^HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Thereupon the board adopted the following by-laws :

That hereafter the appointments of professors in this
seminary be primarily made conditional upon the approval
of the General Assembly, and that such appointments be com-
plete and authoritative only upon securing such approval. *

No such provision or by-law was ever adopted by
Union. It is very plain, therefore, that if Lane and
Auburn were right. Union Seminary was wrong. In
delegating the ultimate decision in the election of its
professors to the General Assembly it undertook to do
what exceeded its chartered powder.

The question may here be asked, why this legal
point was not considered by Union Seminary before
offering to the General Assembly a veto on the election
of its professors ? And why it was not considered, also,
by the General Assembly before accepting that offer ?
For the General Assembly was as much bound not to

*This action of Auburn, conditioning its appointment of a professor
upon " the approj-al of the General Assembly " was one cause, perhaps, of
the solicitude which Pr. Adams expressed about this time and subsequently
concerning the veto power. The following letter from Mr. Kingsley will
explain what I mean :

My Dear Dr. Prentiss: In May, 1874, just before I started on my
journey as commissioner to General Assembly, Rev. Dr. William Adams
called upon me, and, with an earnestness of manner which I could not
then understand or explain, charged me to see that the Assembly, in any
action touching theological seminaries, should not attempt, or allow, any
control over Union iSeminary beyond the one point of ^^ disappi-omV of
professorial appointments. He appeared to me alarmed unreasonably, and
as he expressed a similar anxiety on two or three subsequent occasions,
the matter impressed itself distinctly upon my memory.

I have learned more recently that in 1873 the Assembly at Baltimore
assumed and exercised the power of "approval" of the transfer of Dr.
Schaft"; and that action perhaps accounts for the extreme concern man-
ifested by Dr. Adams. Yours truly,

E. M. Kingsley.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS /If STONY. 229

accept the offer without being first assured of its
legality, as the Board of Directors was bound not to
make the offer without being first assured that the
charter of the institution would not thereby be violated.
The question may be answered in several ways. The
necessity of being aided by legal counsel was distinctly
recognized by the Joint Committee, as appears in the
thirteenth article of their report of 1867, recommend-
ing the appointment by the General Assemblies of a
committee of six distinguished lawyers " to investigate
all questions of property and of vested rights, as they
may stand related to the matter of reunion." Such a
legal committee was designated ; but owing to the death
of Mr. Daniel Lord, one of its members, and the ina-
bility of several other members to act, the Joint Com-
mittee on Reunion informed the General Assemblies
of 1868 that they had as yet received from this com-
mittee no report in regard to " questions of property
and vested rights." After 1868, the whole subject of
the theological seminaries retired into the background,
the question of a Presbytery's right to examine minis-
ters applying for admission from other Presbyteries
having largely taken its place.

Another answer to the question why both Union
Seminary and the General Assembly did not carefully
investigate all the legal jDoints involved before entering
into the agreement of 1870, is the haste which of neces-
sity marked the whole matter. It was all compressed
into two or three weeks. Between the meeting of the
Board of Directors of Union Seminary on May 9th, and
that held on May 16, 1870, legal counsel was sought
with regard to the veto Avhich had been proposed on
the election of directors. Less than three weeks later,

230 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

in the report of the Standing Committee on Theological
Seminaries at Philadelj^hia occurs the following signifi-
cant passage :

In this generous offer [viz., Union's offer of a veto on
the election of its professors] looking solely to the peace and
harmony of the Church, the memorialists did not include the
same veto in regard to the election of their own directors,
inasmuch as these directors hold the property of the seminary
IN TRUST.— [Minutes of 1870, p. 63.]

I cannot find that with this exception any distinct
question of legality was raised either by the Union
board or by the General Assembly. Both seem to
have taken for granted that what they were doing was
all right. How often has the same thing been true of
important acts of Congress and of State Legislatures,
afterward declared illegal, or unconstitutional, by the
judgment of the United States Suj)reme Court !

(b) The agreement of 1870, conceding to the General
Assembly a veto on the election of professors in Union
Seminary, should be annulled because inconsistent with
the plan and constitutio7i, as well as with the charter, of
the institution.

And here we come at once to very close quarters with
the ethical side of the problem before us. It is a ques-
tion of conscience and personal duty, and not merely
nor mainly a question of opinion, or of ecclesiastical
order. Every director of Union Seminary made the
following declaration in the presence of the board :

Approving of the plan and constitution of the Union
Theological Seminary in the city of New York, and of the

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 231

Westminster Confession of Faith, and of the Presbyterian
Form of Church Government, I do solemnly promise to main-
tain the same, so long as I shall continue to be a member
of the Board of Directors.

What is the meaning of this declaration ? It means
that every director binds himself to maintain the plan
and constitution of Union Seminary in the same sense
that he binds himself to maintain the Westminster
Confession of Faith as the doctrinal standard of the
institution, or the Presbyterian Form of Church Gov-
ernment. When no longer able to do this in good
conscience he virtually pledges himself to resign his
directorship.

Now what is the " plan " of Union Seminary, which
every director declared his approval of and solemnly
promised to maintain ? One of its most distinctive and
vital features is the autonomy and self-governing free-
dom of the institution. If anything enters into the
essence of its plan, as conceived and carried out by its*
founders, it is independence of ecclesiastical control.
This plan was guaranteed by its charter. " The gov-
ernment of the seminary shall at all times be vested in
a Board of Directors." Whether a good or a bad plan,
such was the actual plan of the institution.

Every director next makes a solemn promise to
maintain the constitution of the seminary. At Detroit
this " constitution so-called " was held up before the
Assembly as a very small affair,— a mere " corpora-
tion's constitution." But is it really so small an affair
that every director solemnly promises to maintain?
Let us consider the question for a moment. What
makes Union Seminary a Presbyterian institution ?

282 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Certainly not the charter/-' Its charter makes Auburn
a distinctively Presbyterian seminary. But the char-
ter of Union would serve equally well for an Ejoiscopal,
a Methodist, a Roman Catholic, or a Unitarian institu-
tion. What declares it to be a Presbyterian seminary
is its constitution. And so, also, with its orthodoxy.
The constitution, prepared by men of wisdom, skill and
experience, as well as j)iety, sets forth the design, char-
acter and limits of its corporate powers. The first
section of Article I, reads :

No person shall be eligible to the office of director unless
he be a minister or member in good standing of some evan-
gelical Church accepting the Westminster Confession of Faith,
as adopted by the Presbyterian Churches of this country.

And now wherein was the agreement of 1870 incon-
sistent with the constitution of Union Seminary ? In
this, that it conceded to the General Assembly the
exercise of a right and duty, which the constitution, as
well as the charter, entrusted to the Board of Directors
alone. The third section of Article I, reads as follows :

In order to carry out the powers vested in them by the
Act of Incorporation, the Board of Directors shall have au-
thority to make their own by-laws ; hokl, manage, and dis-
burse the funds of the seminary ; appoint all officers, professors,
and teachers; fix their salaries; determine their duties; make
laws for the government of the institution ; and, in general,

* In the report on theological seminaries at Philadelphia in 1870, it is
said that Lane and Union '" by their charters, most cautiously prepared, are
made Presbyterian institutions." (New Digest, p. 384.) This is a mistake in
the case of Union. Its charter makes no allusion to Presbyterianism.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS lUSTORY. 233

to adopt all such measures, not uiconsisfcut irilli f/ic jjrori.sion.s
of said act and of this constitution, as the iuterests of the
seminary may recjuire.

Here is section first of Article II :

The faculty shall consist of a president and professors, all
of whom shall be ordained ministers of the Gos])el, and all
of irJioia s/i((ll be appointed by the Hoard of JJireetorx.

These clauses are mandatory, explicit, and leave no
place for any rival or superior authority. If the Board
of Directors can lawfully delegate to the General
Assembly the power of vetoing the appointment of a
professor, it can just as law^fully delegate to the Gen-
eral Assembly the power of vetoing the appointment
of president, directors, treasurer, and all other officers
of the institution. Will any one say that it can law-
fully do this ? Nothing short of an amendment to the
constitution of the seminary could have empowered the
Board of Directors in 1870 to give to the General
Assembly a veto upon the appointment of its profes-
sors. Even this, as I think, would have been insuffi-
cient ; for the charter Avould still have barred the way.
Without such amendment their w ay was doubly barred.
And this necessity of a change of the constitution in
order to bring the seminary under ecclesiastical super-
vision w^as distinctly recognized as early as 1868.
The ninth article of the plan of union reported by the
Joint Committee of that year, reported again in 1869
and adopted by both Assemblies, w^as as follows :

In order to a uniform system of ecclesiastical supervision
those theological seminaries that are now under Assembly
control may, if their Boards of Directors so elect, be trans-

234 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

ferrecl to the watch and care of one or more of the adjacent
Synods ; and the other seminaries are advised to introduce, as
far as may be, into their constitidions, the principle of Syn-
odical or Assembly supervision ; in which case they shall be
entitled to an official recognition and approbation on the
part of the General Assembly.

It thus appears that, according to the deliberate judg-
ment of the Joint Committee on Reunion in 1868, of
the Joint Committee of Conference in 1869, and of
both General Assemblies in 1869 — the Assemblies
that adopted and carried out the final plan of union —
the only way by which Union Seminary could place
itself under Synodical or Assembly supervision was to
amend the constitution of the seminary by introducing
into it the principle of ecclesiastical supervision. This,
therefore, is what they all, one after the other and in
perfect concert, " advised " Union Seminary to do.
But Union Seminary did not see fit to follow this ad-
vice. It never introduced into its constitution " the
principle of Synodical or Assembly suiDcrvision ; " and
this not having been done, any such measure as the
agreement of 1870 Avas and is " inconsistent with the
constitution " which every director solemnly promises
to maintain. Why the " recoimnendation " of the Joint
Committees and of the t^vo Assemblies was not acted
upon by the Union board, I cannot say. I was a
member of the board and can only testify that the sub-
ject never came before it. Mr. D. Willis James'
opposition to conceding to the General Assembly a
veto on the election of Union directors and professors
was based, not specifically upon illegality or unconsti-
tutionality, but upon its un-wisdom and inherent perils.

ANOTHER DECAJm OF ITS HISTORY. ^35

And here let me add that when Princeton was freed
from tlie direct control of the General Assembly of the
united Church, the "plan," or constitution, of the semi-
nary was at the same time amended in order to allow
of the new arrangemnnt. The Assembly was asked by
Princeton " so to alter the i)lan of the seminary that
the directors shall hereafter have the right to appoint
and to remove professors, subject to the veto of the
General Assembly." And the Princeton professors in
their j^aper say that if their suggestion is adopted " it
would require the following changes in the plan " —
that is, in the constitution. (See " Plan as Amended
by the Assembly of 1870," New Digest, j^p. 381-383.)
Similar constitutional changes were made by the West-
ern, Northwestern and Danville Seminaries.

At first thought it does seem hard to believe that
such men as the directors of Union Seminary and such
a body as the General Assembly of the Presbyterian.
Church could have agreed upon a method of settling
the question of the theological seminaries, that was
inconsistent both with the charter of Union Seminary
and with its constitution framed in order to carry out
the powers vested in it by that charter. But we must
consider that wise men sometimes do hasty and unwise
things, especially when acting under the pressure of
circumstances and of unselfish, generous sentiment.
At the best the world is largely ruled by mistaken
views ; and if a stronger, more far-seeing power than
man's was not at the helm, the mistakes of even good
and right-minded men would be sure to wreck human
progress.

In this very matter of reunion we have elsewhere a
striking illustration of error of judgment on the part

236 ^^^ UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

of the Joint Committee and of both Assemblies. Is it
not natural to assume that in dealing with so important
a question as the theological seminaries and after years
of discussion any scheme of settlement, unanimously
agreed U23on by both parties, would have been, if not
actually the best — a point which experience alone could
determine — yet at least feasible and not illegal ? This,
however, was confessedly not the case in the present
instance. The plan recommended by the Joint Com-
mittee on Reunion and adopted without objection by
both Assemblies in 1868, proposed again by the Joint
Committee of Conference in 1869, and once more
adopted without objection by both Assemblies, was
vitiated by a fatal error. The error was discovered
only at the last moment. " As the endowments of this
seminary are held on condition that it should be sub-
ject to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church, it can neither be rendered independent [like
Union and Lane] nor jjlaced under the control of one
or more Synods" [like Auburn] . Such was the lan-
guage of Dr. Hodge and the other Princeton professors,
addressed to the Board of Directors of that seminary
on the 25tli of April, 1870. And yet, as I have shown,
a learned committee had been appointed to look par-
ticularly at all the legal points involved, while the
whole subject had been under discussion for nearly
three years !

In view of this simple fact I submit to every candid
mind whether the memorial of the directors of Union
Seminary, adopted on May 16, 1870, in which they ask
the General Assembly to remit the election of profes-
sors in the seminaries under its " proprietorship and
control " to their several Boards of Direction, and offer

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 237

in tliat case to concede to the Assembly a veto on the
election of Union's professors, was after all so very
strano-e, even thouo'li such concession would be in
direct conflict with the " plan and constitution " of this
seminary ? To the best of my own recollection and be-
lief no definite question of either chartered, or consti-
tutional, right was raised at this meeting. The discus-
sion turned upon quite other points. But this is no
more an impeachment of the perfect honesty, intelli-
sence and rio'ht feelins; of the Board of Directors of
Union Seminary or of the General Assembly in the
action of 1870, than it is an imjDeachment of the hon-
esty, capacity and patriotic sentiment of Congress or of
any legislative body, that its deliberate action is later
decided by the Supreme Court to have been wrong.
How much easier it often is to be wise afterward than
to be wdse at the critical, eventful moment. In offer-
ing to the General Assembly a veto on the election of
its professors the Board of Directors of Union Semi-
nary acted under a misapprehension of its corporate
and constitutional powers ; and the Assembly erred no
less in accepting the offer. But for all that the whole
transaction, even though unwarranted, was inspired by
the best motives and did honor to the spirit of peace
and harmony that governed alike both of the parties
to it.

[c] The agreement of 1870 should be annulled be-
cause the veto oti the election of professors has proved
highly injurious to the very object ivhich that agreement
aimed to secure.

In conceding the veto power the directors of Union
Seminary, as they said, were " looking solely to the

238 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

peace and harmony of the Church." But as a matter
of fact nothing, in the twenty years since reunion, has
so disturbed the peace and harmony of the Church as
the very first exercise of this power. And there is
every reason to believe that its exercise in the future
would be fraught with similar effects. In 1870 the
ecclesiastical veto was, to all intents and purposes, an
unknown power. It was in the nature of an experi-
ment. Nobody could tell how it would work. We
know now by the sure test of trial and experience just
how it works. As I have said before, real power,
wherever it exists, is sure to make itself felt. Its turn
always comes, sooner or later ; nor is the opportunity
apt to be neglected, when a much desired object,
whether good or bad, can be secured by its exercise.
What is called the spoih system, for example — a system
which has done so much to poison and vulgarize our
political life — is largely the outgrowth of that simple
power of removal, which the Congress of 1789 decided
to belong exclusively to the President. Who dreamed
at the time what immense harm would come to
the nation through an abuse of the power? Mr.
Madison, whose influence was most potent in this deci-
sion of the first Congress, declared that if a President
should exercise his power of removal from mere per-
sonal motives, or except in extreme cases, he would
deserve to be impeached. And for more than a third
of a century Executive patronage was used solely as a
public trust by Washington and the other great patriots
who then ruled the country. Even after 1820, when
the mischievous Four Years' law was passed, during the
second term of Monroe and the whole term of John
Quincy Adams, very few removals were made, and

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. 239

those ill every case for cause. Only liere and there a
far-seeing statesman surmised what, during tlie next
third of a century, lay wrapped up in the unlimited
power of removal, when, instead of being used as a
public trust, it was going to be so largely prostituted to
vul<rar <rreed and the ruthless animosities of selfish
partisanship. How different it is now ! The "spoils
system " has come to be regarded, not merely by a few
far-seeing statesmen, but by tens of thousands of our
most thoughtful and patriotic citizens, of both parties,
as, on the whole, the greatest evil that, since the over-
throw of slavery, has beset the moral life of the coun-
try. While I am writing this paper in a lovely moun-
tain valley of Vermont one of the most distinguished
of her sons is depicting her heroic services in the Rev-
olutionary war and the civic virtues which rendered
her so meet, in advance of all others, to join the Old
Thirteen by admission to the Union. It is a romantic
and inspiring story, told with an eloquence not un-
worthy of Daniel Webster or of Edward Everett. And
I find in it this golden passage : " We have lived to
see the prohibition of slavery in the earliest constitu-
tution of Vermont become a part of the fundamental
law of this nation. May the time be not far off when
its declaration against that other and more widespread
curse which corrupts and degrades free government,
[the 'spoils system'] shall be likewise put in force by
the body of the American people."*

Illustrations still more impressive of the way in
which power long quiescent may of a sudden, when
the fitting opportunity occurs, spring into vigorous

* Oration at the dedication of the Bennington Battle Monument, etc.,
by E. J. Phelps.

240 T^HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

and baleful action, might be drawn from the history
of the Christian Church. Alike in the civil and in
the ecclesiastical sphere unlimited power will always
act, sooner or later, according to its quality, its oppor-
tunities, and the passions or Aveaknesses of human
nature. When all these are combined they produce
the appropriate results according to an inexorable
law of cause and effect.

Let it once appear that the mind of the Church is
especially sensitive resjDecting a certain questionable
opinion relating to theology or to Biblical criticism,
for example, and nothing is easier than to arouse
susjDicion, distrust, or hostile feeling toward any man
who is supposed to entertain that oj^inion. And if he
chance to be a professor-elect in a theological seminary
and subject to the disapproval of the General Assem-
bly, nothing will be easier than to facilitate such
disapproval by idle rumor, false charges, misunder-
standing, and all the varied methods of ecclesiastical
influence and manipulation. Had the New School
General Assembly possessed in 1850 a veto on the
ap23ointment of professors in Union Seminary, and had
the theological atmosphere then been as susceptible of
sudden, violent changes as it is to-day, I have great
doubt whether Henry B. Smith could have taken the
chair of. Church History without a sharp struggle.
He was charged with being too ardent an admirer
of " German Theology ;" and his splendid eulogy
of Schleiermacher in the famous address at Andover
on the Belations of Faith and PhilosojDhy, in 1849,
which seemed to afford some countenance to the charge,
excited anxiety and misgiving, not to say positive
hostility, in the minds of not a few excellent men.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 241

who at the time represented the okl orthodoxy. Upon
his nomination in the Union Board of Directors in
1850 questions relating to this subject were asked, to
which, fortunately, such men as Dr. Adams and Dr.
Stearns were able on the spot to give satisfactory an-
swers. But had these questions got into the religious
newspapers, been scattered broadcast over the Church,
and so aroused public notice and controversy, the
result would j)robably have been a peremptory
withdrawal of his name by Professor Smith, or else
a disapproval of his appointment by the General
Assembly.

And so, a few years later, had the New School
General Assembly possessed the veto power, and had
the theological atmosphere been as strongly charged
with anxiety, suspicion, or hostile feeling, as it is in
the Presbyterian Church to-day, I believe the nomina-
tion of E-oswell D. Hitchcock to the chair of Church
History would almost certainly have resulted in the
ultimate defeat of his election. As it was, and in spite
of the earnest support of such directors as Dr. Adams
and Dr. Stearns and of Professor Henry B. Smith in
the faculty, misrepresentation did its work so effec-
tually that, by the advice of his friends and of friends
of the seminary he withdrew his name as a candidate.
Not until a year later, when unreasonable suspicions and
whisperings had spent their force, was he renominated
and unanimously elected. And those, I may add, who
had most strenuously opposed his appointment, were
soon numbered among his warmest friends. The case
forcibly illustrated the wisdom of Professor Smith's
objection to the election of professors by vote of the
General Assembly. " It might bring into the Assem-

242 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

bly local, personal, and theological questions, which it
would be better to settle in a narrower field."

Had the General Assembly of 1837 possessed a veto
upon the election of professors in the new seminary,
just founded in the city of New York, it is highly prob-
able that the appointment of Edward Robinson, too,
would have met with strong opposition, if not actual
disajjproval, on the part of the Assembly. "German
Rationalism " or " Neology," was at that time regarded
with the utmost apprehension, and no one suspected of
sympathy with it, still more of following its exegetical
and theological methods, would have been allowed to
pass, unchallenged, into the chair of Biblical Literature.
Moses Stuart, to whom Biblical learning in this coun-
try owes such a lasting debt of gratitude, Avas widely
viewed as a dangerous man, if not a heretic ; and Dr.
Robinson had for years been intimately associated with
Moses Stuart at Andover, in cultivating and naturaliz-
ing German scholarship on this side of the Atlantic.
It is well-known that on this account leading ministers
in the Presbyterian Church felt in doubt about him.
Had his election as a Union professor been subject to
the veto of the General Assembly, which passed the
Exscinding Acts — and that was the Assembly to which
the appointment would have been reported — no one can
say, I repeat, that it would not have been sharply con-
tested, if not positively disapproved.

The simple truth in the case is, that those best qual-
ified to fill the most important chairs in our theological
institutions, are apt to be comparatively young men,
and young men, too, of so much originality, intellectual
force, and independence of thought and utterance, as
easily to expose themselves to be misunderstood and

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 243

distrusted by old-fashioned conservatives, witli whom
they are yet at bottom in genuine sympathy. It was
so with Henry B. Smith, Roswell D. Hitchcock, Lewis
F. Stearns, and others I might name. How true is
what Dr. A. A. Hodge wrote in his letter to Professor
Smith :

The majority of any Assembly must bo necessarily ignor-
ant of the special wants and local conditions of any semi-
nary, and of the qualifications of candidates proposed for its
chairs of instruction. The best of these are generally young
men, up to the time of their nomination known only to a
few. To vest the choice in the General Assembly will tend
to put prominent ecclesiastics into such positions, rather
than scholars, or men especially qualified with gifts of teach-
ing. As the population of our country becomes larger and
more heterogeneous, and the General Assembly increases pro-
portionately, the difficulties above mentioned, and many others
easily thought of, will increase.

When these objections to the election of professors
by the General Assembly are added to those already
mentioned, how very strong they are ! And yet the
objections to the exercise of the veto power by the Gen-
eral Assembly seem to me to involve nearly all the
evils, infelicities, and perils of the electing powder, with
still others and even greater ones peculiar to itself.
These objections, should the veto powder be continued,
are likely to increase very much the difficulty of obtain-
ing the best men to fill chairs of instruction in our Pres-
byterian seminaries. The Assembly's veto will repel
them, especially if they belong to other communions.
I can speak here from personal knowledge. One of
the first points raised by my nephew, the lamented Pro-
fessor Stearns, of Bangor, against accepting the call to

244 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Union Seminary, given him in the summer of 1890,
was the possibiHty that, even should he accept, be re-
ceived without objection into the Presbytery of New
York and enter upon the duties of his cliair, the Gen-
eral Assembly might, five or six months later, undo all
that had been done, veto his appointment, mark him
as not competent or not sound, and thus set him adrift
in the world. I thought at the time that such fears
were chimerical. I cannot think so now. The action
at Detroit forbids it. Lewis F. Stearns is now recog-
nized as a theologian of the very best type, and his
sudden death is universally deplored as a heavy loss to
the American Church. In 1890, he was comparatively
unknown ; his inauo-ural address at Banoor had not
escaped severe criticism ; although a conservative, he
was also a liberal, independent, and fearless thinker ;
and I can readily understand now, as I could not in
1890, what a j^lausible case in favor of disapproving his
appointment might readily have been made out before
the General Assembly. At all events, the veto power
helped to deter him from accepting the call to Union
Seminary. And if continued, it will tend strongly to
deter others like him from accepting a similar call.

It is argued, I know, that the Presbyterian Church
ought surely to have some voice in the education of her
own ministers and teachers. I do not deny it. Much
that is said on this point seems to me just and reason-
able. I assent to it heartily. The trouble is not in the
principle, but in its application. By what method can
the Church, in the actual condition of things, make its
influence felt most wisely and effectually in training up
her own pastors and teachers ? That is the question.
And what I now maintain is, that the veto power on

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. s>45

the election of professors in lier theoloo-ical seminaries is
not the right method. It does not meet tlie real diflieul-
ties. It does not at all meet the difficulty, for example,
in the case of that large number of future Presbyterian
ministers who are receiving their education in the acade-
mies, colleges, and theological seminaries of other de-
nominations. Nor does it meet the difficulty, or solve
the problem, when they are in training in our own in-
stitutions. A great deal may be done and is done in
the academy, in the college, and in the seminary,
through the kindly and wise supervision of the local
church and its pastor, of the Presbytery and of the
Board of Education. And then as to the choice of the
best theological instructors, — best in learning, in char-
acter, in gifts of teaching, in soundness of doctrine, in
zeal for the cause and kingdom of Christ, — such Boards
of Directors as those of Union, Princeton, Auburn,
McCormick, and the rest, are far better qualified to
make it than any General Assembly. A Board of
Directors can take weeks or months, if needful, to in-
vestigate and make inquiries. It is perfectly familiar
with " the special wants and local conditions " of the
institution under its care. Every director acts under
the pressure of a " solemn promise," and of a feeling of
direct, personal, as well as official, responsibility hardly
possible in the case of a great popular Assembly. The
best Board of Directors, it is true, is an imperfect body
and may commit mistakes. But mistakes are inevita-
ble under any method. Imperfection and possible
errors cling to every system.

[d) Would an ecclesiastical veto on the appointment
of rel'Kjious editors be a good thing f

246 ^^^^^ UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

How would this veto power work in other spheres ?
Look, for example, at the denominational religious
newspaper by which opinion and character in the
Presbyterian Church are so largely influenced. It is
one of the most powerful of all agencies in the training
alike of her ministers, her elders and private members,
and, above all, in the training of her children. How
many of her homes it enters every week ! And in
every one of these homes it is read with avidity ; it
wins confidence and affection ; becomes a trusted friend
and counsellor ; shapes in no small degree all the fam-
ily thinking about Christian truth, about the kingdom
of God, about the ways of Providence and whatever is
going on in the world. It is, in a word, a ruling pow-
er in the Presbyterian Church, alike in the domain of
thought and action. As an instrument of immediate,
all-pervading influence, whether over private or public
opinion, it far surpasses the theological seminary. At
what a disadvantage a professor speaks compared with
the editor who has the ear of thousands and tens of
thousands every Sabbath day, and, more or less, all
the other days of the week ! Should not the Presby-
terian Church have some kind of supervision of an
agency so closely connected with her duty to the fam-
ilies under her care and with her dearest interests?
Ought she not to have some voice in selecting the men
who, directly or through their contributors, speak to"
her people so often and with such immense effect ? It
seems to me that, in answer to these questions, an argu-
ment in favor of subjecting the denominational religious
paper to ecclesiastical control by giving the Assembly
a veto upon the appointment of its editor, might be
made out quite as strong, to say the least, as that for

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. 247

the veto on tlie election of theological prof'essoi-.s. And
yet the argument would never convince American
Presbyterians — and it is of them I am now speaking —
that the great religious papers of the denomination,
The Evan</clist, TJie Obi^crvcr, The Presbyterian, The
Fresbytcrhoi Journal, The Presbyterian Banner, The
Herald and Presbyter, The Interior, The Northern
Presbyterian, The Occident, and all the rest, would, on
the whole, he as effectively, or as wisely and safely,
conducted by editors appointed, directly or indirectly,
by the General Assembly, as under the existing inde-
pendent system they are conducted l)y the veterans,
who with so much toil and skill have made them what
they are. My patience has, now and then, been sorely
tried by the " course " of some of these veterans ; but
it would, 2)robably, have been tried far more severely
had their places been filled by a majority vote of the
General Assembly. And if some of them have seemed
to me at times very unfair and harsh toward Union
Seminary in the present " unpleasantness," I can never
forget what invaluable service they rendered to the
cause of reunion, while that great event in our Presby-
terian annals was passing into history.

The religious j^ress has its faults and imperfections,
like everything human ; but it is an agency of vast
power and reach in furtherance of the kingdom of
Christ on earth. And as it advances nearer to its
ideal and becomes more comj^letely guided and inspired
by the Sermon on the Mount, this will more and more
ajDpear. One of the wisest men I ever knew and one
of my best friends was Asa Cummings, the biographer
of Dr. Payson, and for many years editor of the old
Christian llirror. I owe him no small debt of grati-

248 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

tilde for the influence of that paper, while under his
care, upon my early religious life and opinions. And
it left its beneficent impress upon all the Congrega-
tional churches of Maine. But to return to the point :
my contention is, that the argument in favor of an
Assembly veto on the election of professors in our
theological seminaries, on the ground that the Church
ought to have some direct supervision of the education
of her ministers, is quite as strong in favor of an eccle-
siastical veto on the appointment of the editors of our
religious family papers ; and yet that it is equally un-
desirable in either case. Is it not very strange, then,
that among the many wise men who concurred in vest-
ing in the General Assembly a veto power on the elec-
tion of professors, no one seems to have forseen this ?
Not more strange, I reply, than that among the many
wise men who took part in planning and founding
Princeton Seminary, for exam23le, no one seems to
have foreseen that, sooner or later, the election of its
professors by the General Assembly would have to be
abandoned for a simpler and better method. Time
and experience taught the friends of Princeton and
other seminaries this better method ; nor would any-
thing now tempt them to return to the old system.
And, as I have said before, if the veto power were
freely given up by a unanimous vote of the General
Assembly, just as the electing power in 1870 and later
was freely given up, the result, I for one do not
doubt, would be equally satisfactory.

{e) Objection to annulUng the agreement between
Union Seminary and the General Assembly on account
of the other seminaries.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 249

It has been argued, I know, that the agreement of
1870 was not only a strict legal coni2:>act between Union
Seminary and the General Assembly, but between
Union and the other seminaries ; and that its abroga-
tion would at once remand the other seminaries to
their state anterior to the reunion. But the argument
seems to me to be based upon an entire misapprehen-
sion of the facts in the case. Why should this follow ?
The General Assembly of 1870, of its own free will,
by a unanimous vote, offered to remit the election of
professors in the seminaries under its proprietorship
and control to their own Boards of Direction, and
actually did remit it in the case of Princeton. And
this was done ex^^ressly on the '' self-evident " ground
" that there were great disadvantages and perils in
electing professors and teachers by the Assembly itself,
without sufficient time or opportunity for acquaint-
ance with the qualifications of men to' be appointed to
offices of such responsibility." Is not the ground as
"self-evident " now as it was in 1870 ? And surely no
one will question the jierfect authority of the Assem-
bly, then or now, to let the seminaries under its " ^^\Q-
prietorshij) and control " elect their own professors.
And as to Lane and Auburn, if they desire to go back
to their state in 1870, the repeal of a mere by-law will
enable them to do so ; or, better still, a simple expres-
sion of such desire to the General Assembly Avould,
j^robably, secure the object, and that without contro-
versy or friction.

The special reason for investing the Assembly with
the veto,- — namely, to allay "jealousy," — having ceased,
what harm could come of giving up the veto power
itself? No seminary would cease thereby to be just as

250 ^^>^ UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

truly ci Presbyterian institution as it was in the begin-
ning, and is now. It is not in any sense the veto
power that makes Union, for example, a Presbyterian
seminary. Its history, its plan and constitution give
it this character. Its connection with the great Pres-
byterian Church does not depend in the least upon its
being under the proprietorship and control of the Gen-
eral Assembly. Every one of its professors will still
have to be an " ordained minister of the Gospel " and
to " approve of the Presbyterian doctrine and Form of
Government." Every one of its professors will be
under the sui^ervision and control of a Board of
Directors rej)resenting the intelligence, wisdom, public
spirit, and Christian character of the whole adjacent
Presbyterian community. " The board shall watch
over the fidelity of all who may be employed in giving
instruction ; shall judge of their competency , doctrine
and morals; and shall have power to remove any
officer, j)i"ofessor or teacher from office." (Article I,
Section 4.) And then committees from Synod and
Presbytery are cordially invited to attend the annual
examinations and freely rej^ort concerning the same
to their several bodies. In the way of supervision
what more than all this can reasonably be asked for ?
And when I look over the catalogues of Princeton,
Auburn, McCormick, Lane and other seminaries, and
read the names of their directors, I repeat the question :
In the way of supervision what more can reasonably be
asked for than the watch and care of such weighty
bodies of select Christian ministers and laymen ?

Let us keep in mind that no method or amount of
formal supervision can insure against more or less prac-
tical shortcoming and mistakes in the training of our

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. 251

ministers. AVhen the Cliiurli has done the hest she
can do, she will have to confess that the whole matter
is beset with difficulties beyond the control of mere
human wisdom. And in any case no small proportion
of the ministers and theological teachers of the Presby-
terian Church will continue to be trained in other than
Presbyterian schools of divinity. Our Churches will
continue to call pastors and our theological seminaries
wdll continue to call j)rofessors in view of their qualifi-
cations, rather than with reference to the places where
they w^ere educated. AVilliam Adams, Edward Robin-
son, Henry B. Smith, Roswell D. Hitchcock, were
trained in Congregationalism ; and how many more of
the leading New School ministers and scholars came
from other denominations ? How many of the most
learned, useful, and honored Presbyterian pastors and
teachers of to-day were called from other branches of
the Church of Christ ?

(/) The issues ivider tluui Presbyterianism.

And this leads me to say, that the problem to be
solved involves issues of far wider scope than the bounds
of Presbyterianism. It concerns vital interests of the
whole Christian scholarship of the country. Such, at
all events, is the conviction of many of the foremost —
and, I may add, most conservative — representatives of
that scholarship in New England, in the Middle States,
and throughout the Great West. I w^ish it w^ere proper
to make public the letters bearing upon this point,
which have come to me, as also to Union directors,
from far and near ; for the fair and catholic temper in
which the writers express the conviction would carry

252 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

hardly less weight than their distinguished names —
names honored alike in Church and State. " I do not
believe," writes one of them, a theologian held in uni-
versal respect for his learning and impartial judgment,
" I do not believe that in the times in which we are
now living there can be a due amount of freedom in a
school of theology which is dependent, in the appoint-
ment of its professors, on the will of a great ecclesiasti-
cal body like the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church." " I confess," writes another, a pastor of emi-
nent gifts and wide influence, " I confess that to my
mind nothing could be more disastrous than ecclesias-
tical management of our theological seminaries. If the
Presbyterian Church should establish such a super-
vision and rigidly carry it out, its institutions would
soon cease to have any j)art in Christian leadership."
Another, ranking among the first men in the nation,
both as a jurist and a diplomatist, closes a letter thus :
" There is no doubt, in my mind, that the general in-
telligence of the country is on the side of the seminary."
It is, in a word, the common interest of American
Christianity and of sound scholarslii]^ that the claims
of a reasonable liberty in theological and Biblical
inquiry and study should be carefully guarded to the
end that the truth may have free course and be glori-
fied. I advocate no license to rash and destructive
criticism or teaching. Nor, to quote the words of
the founders of Union Seminary in tlie preamble
to the constitution, have I sympathy with the
" extremes of theological speculation " any more
than with those of ''ecclesiastical domination." I have
no wish to silence the rightful voice of the Church in
the assertion and defense of those great doctrines of

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. 253

Revealed Truth, whicli are the very substance of her
faitli, or in bearing witness against the errorists who
deny them. I believe most profoundly in the inspir-
ation and ruling authority of the Holy Scriptures.
And no Church in the land can more safely or better
trust its theological seminaries than the Presbyterian.
It is a Church of deej) and strong convictions. It is a
Church, committed, through and through, to the prin-
ciple that God alone is Lord of the conscience, to the
infollible authority of His word, and to the ''inalien-
able rights of private judgment" in the intepretation
of that woTd. It is a Church that loves and knows how
to work for the Divine Master, and is full of the
genuine enthusiasm of humanity. It has its faults, to
be sure, but its virtues outweigh them a hundred fold.
Howard Crosby's memorable words, which amidst
great applause rang through the Church of the Cove-
nant on the 27th of May, 1869, shortly before the
whole vast audience rose to give its unanimous vote for
reunion, are yet, I trust, to be fulfilled to the letter :
" I hope when the conservators of orthodoxy and the
conservators of liberty come together, as Dr. Adams
has said, there will be an orthodox liberty and a free
orthodoxy such as the world has never seen."

The solution of the veto problem by annulling the
agreement of 1870 commended itself to a large major-
ity of the directors of Union Seminary as the only one
now feasible ; and accordingly, in a memorial to the
General Assembly which met at Portland, Oregon, on
May 19, 1892, the board requested the Assembly t<j
join with it in such a settlement. The friends of the

254 ^^^ UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

seminary were much encouraged to hope for a favor-
able issue of this request by the emphatic language of
The Presbyterian, of Philadelphia, one of the ablest
and most influential, as well as conservative weekly
papers of the denomination : " We have no doubt that
if this is the wish of the authorities of the seminary,
and they made known their desire to the Assembly, it
would be ready to give the seminary a full release," —
Their hope, unhappily, proved, as we shall see, al-
together fallacious.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 255

CHAPTER V.

THE MEMORIAL OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF UNION
SEMINARY, ASKING THE ASSEMBLY TO JOIN WITH

IT IN ANNULLING THE AGREEMENT OF 1870. THE

ASSEMBLY REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH THIS RP>

QUEST, PROPOSES ARBITRATION. THE SEMINARY

THEREUPON SEVERS ALL CONNECTION WITH THE
ASSEMBLY CAUSED BY THE AGREEMENT OF 1870,
AND RESUMES ITS ORIGINAL FREEDOM AND INDE-
PENDENCE OF ECCLESIASTICAL CONTROL. A GEN-
EROUS GIFT. SEQUEL TO THE ASSEMBLY'S ACTION

IN REGARD* TO UNION SEMINARY.

We come now to the closing scene and incidents of
the conflict between the seminary and the General
Assembly. The scene opens with an appeal to the
Assembly, which met at Portland, Oregon, on May 19,
1892, to join with Union Seminary in annulling the
agreement of 1870.

(«) Memorkd of the Board of Directors to the Assem-
bly at Portland.

This memorial and other documents which, it was
thought desirable to lay before the Assembly, were
carried across the continent to Oregon by a special
messenger, Mr. E. M. Kingsley, the recorder and an
honored member of the board. This was done in
token of high respect for the Assembly as well as to

256 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

give it important information bearing ujDon the action
and feeling of the directors. Mr. Kingsley was him-
self invited to read the memorial ; and received, both
on the platform and on the floor of the Assembly, the
friendliest treatment. "At 2 p. m., to-day [so he
wrote on May 23d to President Hastings] I was allowed
the honor of the platform and read our two papers as
impressively as my somewhat husky voice would per-
mit. The full house listened attentively and at one or
two points applauded vigorously. Dr. Briggs and
wife arrived this morning. This is to be an interest-
ing week, for Revision, Heresy and Rebellion are
exciting topics." Indeed, so far as concerned the semi-
nary, my impression is that at this time, and through-
out the whole painful controversy, the institution itself
was still regarded with general pride and affection.
Such names as Edward Robinson, Thomas H. Skinner,
Henry B. Smith, William Adams and Roswell D.
Hitchcock had still kept for it a tender spot in the
heart of the Presbyterian Church. The memorial of
the Board of Directors was as follows :

To THE General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church in the United States of America.

Reverend and Dear Brethren :

There are certain points which we coukl not properly
embody in the report of our conference with the committee
sent to us by the last General Assembly. These points we
desire to present in the folk) wing memorial, as they have an
important bearing upon our case in this Assembly.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 257

1. We desire first of all to say that, while wa do not
question that the Assembly believed they had the right to
do as they did at Detroit, yet we claim that, as one of the
parties to the agreement of 1870, our understanding of that
agreement must of necessity govern our action. We claim
that the Assembly at Detroit transcended its power under
the agreement in such a way as to inflict a serious wrong
upon this institution. We are far from thinking that the
General Assembly intended to violate the agreement of 1870
in any way, and your committee has conceded that this board
had no such intention.

2. For more than twenty years the agreement has remained
unquestioned, simply because untested. The possibilities and
the perils of' such an agreement must, in the nature of the
case, lie dormant until revealed by a practical application.
The one and sole aim of the concession of the veto power
made by Union Seminary was " the peace and harmony of
the Church." But the very first exercise of the power has
greatly disturbed "the peace and harmony of the Church,"
and compelled us to realize that it is a power fraught with
peril alike for the seminaries and for the Church. In 1869,
in presenting the report of the Committee of Conference on
reunion. Dr. George W. Musgrave said to the Old School
Assembly that the articles in the "declaration" "are not a
compact or covenant, but they suggest to the Assembly what
are suitable arrangements. . . . They are not terms of the
union. They may be annulled or modified as any future
Assembly may deem proper. We told our brethren," he
said, "that we were unwilling to tie the hands of the future
Church of God." (The Presbyterian Reunion INIemorial
Volume, p. 546.) In the same spirit with Dr. Musgrave,
referring to the ninth article of the "declaration" which dealt
with the question of the seminaries, the Assemblv of the

258 ^I^HE UXION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

united Church in 1870 said: " It was intended as a measure
for the maintenance of confidence and harmony, and not as
indicating the best method for all future time. It had been
discovered by years of experiment in the Old School branch
that the election of professors in the seminaries directly by
the General Assembly involved many ' disadvantages, infelic-
ities, not to say, at times, perils.'" (Minutes, 1870, p. 148.)
In December, 1867, Dr. A, A. Hodge wrote to Dr. Henry
B. Smith : "It is proper, it is almost a necessity, that each
institution should be left in the management of those upon
whose support it exclusively depends. The majority of any
Assembly must be necessarily ignorant of the special wants
and local conditions of any seminary, and of the qualifications
of candidates proposed for its chairs of instruction. The
best of these are generally young men, up to the time of their
nomination known only to a few. To vest the choice in the
General Assembly will tend to put prominent ecclesiastics
into such positions, rather than scholars, or men especially
qualified with gifts for teaching As the population of our
country becomes larger and more heterogeneous, and the
General Assembly increases proportionably, the difficulties
above mentioned and many others easily thought of, will
increase."

Dr. Henry B. Smith, expressed his own views in the
following language : " It is a fair and serious question
whether a General Assembly, representing the Presbyterian
Church throughout the whole United States, especially in
view of the numbers in that Church, will be the best or
even a suitable body to choose the professors and manage
the concerns of all the Presbyterian seminaries scattered
throughout the country. We very much doubt whether this
will be a wise arrangement. It may work well in Scotland
but Scotland has its limits. It might bring into the

AXOrilER n/iCADE OF ITS HISTORY. 259

Asscnihly local, personal and theological questions which it
would he better to settle in a narrower field."

Tliese views were generally accepted by the united
Church, and led the Assembly at the time of the reunion,
to oifer to surrender the power of electing the professors in
those seminaries which had been under the control of the
Old School branch of the Church.

3. But it is our conviction that there are more and
stronger objections to the possession of the veto power than
of the electing power of the Assembly. The failure to elect
a professor nominated by a seminary is comparatively a neg-
ative thing. The veto is a positive verdict, both against the
professor appointed and against the Board of Directors which
appointed him ; and, as we have seen, it may be a verdict
-without a trial, without a hearing, and without reasons given.
The injustice and the peril of such an exercise of ecclesias-
tical power in our judgment, can hardly be overestimated.
The multitude, wdio had looked on from a distance, who liad
heard only one side of the case, and who had no close per-
sonal knowledge of the interests involved, could disregard
and override the matured judgment of those who had the
fullest personal knowledge, and who had at stake rights
commensurate with their obligations. The veto power may
be hasty, arbitrary, unjust and even cruel. The electing
power may be unwise and hasty, but it cannot begin to do
such injury as may be done by the veto power. AVe are
persuaded, therefore, that it would be for better for the
Church, as well as for the seminaries, that the veto power
should no longer reside in the General Assembly.

4. But it is claimed by some that, in order to protect the
Church against heretical teaching in the seminaries, the As-
sembly must have and maintain the veto power. Does that
really protect her? If a professor, one year after his ap-

260 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

pointmcnt, or at any later time, depart from the faith, the
temporary veto power cannot reach him. Has the Church
then no other and better resource for her defense? Evidently
the power of disapproval is insufficient ; it can reach only
exceptional cases, and can afford no general or permanent
protection. Our admirable Presbyterian polity is far better
than the artificial device of 1870 for protecting the Church
against unsafe teaching in the seminaries. A Presbyterian
minister, Avhether he teach from the pulpit or from the pro-
fessor's chair, has the inalienable right to insist that, if his
teaching be called in question, he shall first of all have
refuge and defense in his Presbytery, to which alone belongs
" original jurisdiction." In this regard the professor and the
pastor have equal rights; biit under the arrangement of 1870,
there is a special discrimination against the professor. The
Assembly has no veto power over the appointment of a pas-
tor. To us this seems an abnormal and unjust discrimina-
tion, not consistent with our polity. If either professor or
pastor teach heresy, the one resort alike for each is, in the
first instance, the Presbytery. If in any case a Presbytery
fail to do its duty, the General Assembly can, directly or
through the Synod, reach and rebuke that Presbytery, and
require that the unsound teacher be brought to trial. Be-
sides this, another normal method of protection is in the
right of the Presbyteries to examine carefully the graduates
of the seminaries who apply for licensure, and to reject such
as have imbibed false teaching and are not sound in the
faith. This twofold protection by the Presbytery, it seems
to us, is as ample as it is constitutional. In our judgment,
therefore, those who insist that the veto power is necessary
for the protection of the Church, show a radical lack of con-
fidence in our Presbyterian polity, which lack of confidence
we cannot share.

• ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 261

5. As the appointed directors and iriiardians of this school
of Christian learning, we deeply realize onr solemn obliga-
tion to act faithfnlly for its interests according to our own
conscientious convictions, under our charter and constitution.
We are charged with a sacred trust handed down to us
from the past by noble men whom the Presbyterian Church
has long delighted to honor. We must keep that trust in-
violate. There can be no conflict between real obligations.
Our loyalty alike to the Church and to "Union Seminary
constrains us to believe that it would be far better, for both
Church and seminary, that the relations which existed so
harmoniously between the two, far more than a third of a
century before 1870, should now be restored.

6. It is claimed, however, by some that if the agreement
of 1870 should be abrogated. Union Seminary would cease
to be Presbyterian. Can that be? Does its Presbyterianism
date from 1870? What was this seminary before that time?
No charge of heresy was ever brought against it. Can those
who remember such honored names among our founders and
directors as Erskine Mason. Albert Barnes, Samuel Hanson
Cox, William Adams, Edwin F. Hatfield, Jonathan F.
Stearns and J. Few Smith, besides such laymen as Richard
T. Haines, William E. Dodge, Anson G. Phelps and Nor-
man White, not to mention others no less distinguished, —
can those who remember these names say that before the
reunion this seminary was not Presbyterian ? AVe submit
that if it be only the concession of the veto power to the
Assembly Avhich made this institution Presbyterian, then its
Presbyterianism is something Avhich we cannot understand.
Our Presbyterianism is in our whole history, and in the
personnel of our directors and of our faculty.

In conclusion, permit us to say, that through all this
painful misunderstanding it has been to us a marvel inex-

262 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

plicablc that any of our brethren conkl possibly suppose that
men, so well known to the Church as are our directors and
our professors, could or can tolerate anything that will
undermine the divine authority of the inspired Word, to
which we cling; with all our hearts as the only infallible
rule of faith and practice, and to whose maintenance all our
lives are consecrated.

There are other and weighty considerations which we
have preferred not to urge. While there exists the un-
doubted right of either party to the agreement of 1870 to
act alone in its abrogation, yet this memorial is submitted
with the earnest hope that your reverend body may cordial-
ly concur with us in annulling the arrangement of 1870,
thus restoring Union Seminary to its former relations to the
General Assembly.

With great respect on behalf of the Board of Directors,

\jiigned\ Charles Butler, President.

[Signed] E. M. Kingsley, Secretary.

May 5, 1892.

(b) Report of the Detroit Committee of Conference
with Union Seminary. Report of the Standing Commit-
tee Oil Theological Seminaries as adopted by the Assem-
bly at Portland. Arbitration again proposed.

The Kev. S. A. Miitclimore, D. D., chairman of the
Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries, was
one of the publishers and editors of The Presbyterian,
of Philadelphia ; and the confident opinion, expressed
by a weighty editorial in the paper that, if Union Sem-
inary so desired, the Assembly would be ready to give
it " a full release," naturally led the friends of the
seminary to lio^^e that, as chairman of the Committee

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS ///STORY. 263

on Tlieologieal Seminaries, he might he ahle to hring
ahont the fidfiUment of The Presbyterian's assurance.
But a very different result followed. Here is Dr.
Mutchmore's report :

Haviny: due reijard to die overtures and all the other
papers in the case of Union Theological Seminary, etc., re-
ferred to the committee, the Assembly takes the following
action :

1. That the Assembly endorses the interpretation of the
compact of 1870 as expressed by the action of the Assem-
bly of 1891.

2. That the Assembly declines to be a party in the
breaking of the compact with Union Theological Seminary.

3. That the Assembly is persuaded that the Church
should have direct connection with and control over its
theological seminaries.

4. That the Assembly appoint a committee of fifteen,
eight ministers and seven ruling elders, to take into consid-
eration the whole subject of the relation of the Assembly to
its theological seminaries, confer Avith the directors of those
seminaries, and report to the next General Assembly such
action as in their judgment will result in a still closer rela-
tion between the Assembly and its seminaries than that
which at present exists.

5. That the Assembly dismiss the Committee of Confer-
ence appointed last year, with the heartiest thanks for its
faithfulness and highest appreciation of the service rendered
the Church.

An additional paper, on the Arbitration of the Theological
Seminary Compact of 1870, in the matter of the transfer of"
a professor from one chair to another in the same seminary,
was adopted, and is as follows :

264 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Resolved, 1. That this General Assembly recognize the
status quo as to the difference of interpretation given by the
directors of Union Seminary to the Theological Seminary
Compact of 1870, from that given by the Assembly's Com-
mittee of Conference, and in accordance with the proposition
snggested by the six members of the Committee of Confer-
ence in their supplementary report, this Assembly agrees to
refer the difference of interpretation of the said compact of
1870 as to transfer, to a Committee of Arbitration.

Resolved, 2. That a committee of five members, represent-
ing this Assembly, shall be appointed by the Moderator,
which shall select five persons as arbitrators, to meet a like
number selected by the directors of Union Seminary ; and
these ten shall select five others ; and by the fifteen thus
chosen shall the interpretation of the compact, (viz : as to
the transfer of a professor,) be decided.

The proposal of arbitration, with which this rej)ort
closed, at once astonished and shocked the friends of
Union Seminary. The question of arbitration had been
raised at the meeting of the board with the Assembly's
Committee of Conference, held in January, 1892 ; and
both parties agreed that the case was not, under the
circumstances, a proper subject for arbitration. This
decision gave great relief to the Board of Directors, for
reasons which can easily be imagined. But there is
no occasion for imagining what the reasons were. The
following memorandum can leave no doubt res^Decting
their character or th'eir conclusive, unabated force :

New York, January 25, 1892.
While my recollections of the closing scenes with the Gen-
eral Assembly's Conference Committee (22d inst.) are yet fresh
and vivid, I desire to record them for future reference.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HI STORY. 265

Two papers were presented to the board ; tlie first that
M'hieh was finally adopted, and the second a proposal for
the arbitration of the questions at issue. We saw at once
that the first paper was a modification of one M'hich had
been presented informally upon his own responsibility, at a
previous meeting, by INIr. Edward S. Durant. We missed
the word " parity " as applied by Mr. Durant to the two
parties to the agreement of 1870. Some other changes also
were noted. After discussion it was decided by the board
to send Mr. William A. Booth and myself as a committee
to make the three following inquiries of the Conference
Committee :

1. Why was the word "parity," as applied in INIr.
Durant's paper to the two parties to the agreement of 1870,
omitted in the paper now presented to us ?

2. Would the adoption of this paper which your
committee has presented to us, in your judgment involve in
any way the surrender of our reserved rights M'ith reference
to the agreement of 1870 as those rights have been set
forth in the supplementary paper presented to you for your
consideration.

3. The arbitration proposed in your sec(jnd paper,
would it be decisive of Dr. Briggs' case, or would it decide
only the abstract question as to the future?

The answer to the first question was that the word
"parity," was omitted because it was regarded as "inex-
pedient;" it might be misunderstood. The answer to the
second question was addressed to INIr. George Junkin because
he is a lawyer and which he pleasantly referred to Dr. Pat-
ton, saying " he is as good a lawyer as I am." I said to
Mr. Junkin, I do not think Dr. Patton is as good a lawyer
as you are ; I want your opinion. If we accept this paper,
do you consider that we shall sacrifice or surrender any of

266 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

those points in our case which are presented in our supple-
mentary paper with reference to the agreement of 1870?
He answered " No." Mr, McCook, said, "Of course not," and
Dr. Patton assented to this opinion. I remarked, we are m-
tensely desirious to be entirely frank with you. We do not
want you to go away and afterwards say that we had not
dealt plainly with you. If we should see fit, under painful
necessity at any time, to assert that we must withdraw from
the agreement of 1870, and on the grounds stated in that
supplementary paper, would you feel that our right to do
this had been compromised by our acceptance of your paper ?
They assured me that they understood that we would be at
liberty to act according to our judgment. As to the third
question, they said that arbitration would involve the con-
crete case of Dr. Briggs and not merely the abstract question
for the future, of the difference between an ajapointment and
a transfer. Thereupon I appealed to them on the ground of
personal considerations. If we accept arbitration. Dr. Briggs
will instantly resign. That I knoic. Probably Dr. Brown
will resign. That I believe ; and probably there would be
a general breaking up of our faculty. But more than all
this. Arbitration would call in question the crowning act of
Dr. Butler's life. We all revere and love him and could
never consent to involve him in arbitration. AVould you as
Christian gentlemen, be willing to put us to such a disad-
vantage before the Church and the world as our refusal to
accept arbitration would certainly involve? With real mag-
nanimity and kindness, they answered " No. We would
by no means take such advantage of you." * Dr. Johnson
said, " I proposed arbitration in your interest and should be
glad to withdraw the proposition." This was an immense re-
lief to me. Hardly had we returned to the board, before
Dr. Patton and Dr. Johnson appeared and requested permis-

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HISTORY. 267

sioii t(i withdraw the ,so(!Oiul paper which j)rop(>se(l arbitra-
tion. It was aeeordingly withdrawn antl evich'utly the board
was greatly relieved by this generous and kindlv action.
Thereupon the first paper with the condition on record that
it should be understood in the light of our supplementary
paper was adopted by a rising vote, four members of the
board declining to vote. Then the Conference Committee
was called in and the result was announced to them. I in-
sisted that my report of the Conference Connnittee's answers
to the three questions as given above, should be repeated in
their presence and in the presence of the board, so that there
should be no mistake in our record of the condition on which
we had accepted the final paper. Accordingly, I repeated
the answers to the three questions as given above, and the
answers were taken down by the " sworn stenograi)her."
Only one correction was made and that by Dr. William H.
Roberts. I had omitted the word " inexpedient " in the an-
swer to the first question. That word was at once inserted,
and then the record was accepted as complete and accurate.

It was directed that only such notice should be given to
the press as Dr. Patton and I could agree npon. It was
also agreed that, under the terms of the paj)er just adopted,
the report of the board to the General Assembly sh(^uld first
be submitted to Dr. Patton, and that his report to the Gen-
eral Assembly should be submitted to me.

Then after the singing of the doxology, the benediction
was pronounced, and the conference adjourned mxe die.

[Signal] Thomas S. Hastings.

My recollections accord with the above.

[Si(/nc(r\ William A. Booth.

Owing to Dr. Patton 's illness, his rejoort to the Gen-
eral Assembly was not submitted to Dr. Hastings until

268 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

the Assembly had actually met at Portland. In ac-
knowledging the report, Dr. Hastings wrote :

If this were all that your committee had presented to
the General Assembly, every one in our board would be en-
entirely satisfied ; but, if it be true, as the papers represent,
that Roberts and McCook have added thereto the recommen-
dation to appoint a committee of arbitration that will be re-
garded by us as a breach of faith.

The memorandum signed by Dr. Hastings and Mr.
Booth speaks for itself and needs no interpreter. Cer-
tainly, the renewed proposal of arbitration could not
have been the result of ignorance or misapprehension ;
for not only were six members of the Detroit Committee
of Conference commissioners to the Assembly at Port-
land, but they themselves suggested the proposal of
arbitration. It was a part of their supplementary re-
port. Dr. Wm. H. Roberts, the secretary of that
committee and Stated Clerk of the General Assembly,
was one of the six, and offered the resolution. During
the discussion on the rejDort of the Committee on The-
ological Seminaries he said : " I rise to a question of
privilege as a member of the Assembly's Committee of
Conference. I desire to remove a false impression in
many minds that the committee was unanimous in the
action reached by it in conference with the directors
of Union Seminary. For the information of the house,
I simply read two lines from the minutes of the com-
mittee :

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HLSTORV. 269

' On the vote to adopt the paper as a whole, both Dr.
Roberts and Mr. MeCook gave notiee that they reserved the
rio^ht to act inih'pendently n])()n siicli portions of the paper
as were not satisfactory to them.' "

The pa|^er referred to seems to have been Mr. Du-
rant's as modified by the committee. Dr. Roberts, in
the Assembly at Washington, a year later, justified his
resokition on the ground that it proposed a different
sort of arbitration from that proposed in New York;
viz., the abstract question respecting the transfer, not
the concrete case of Dr. Briggs. But the speech of Mr.
George Junkin made no such distinction, and he was
one of the six members of the Detroit Committee of
Conference, who drew w]) the Portland report and pro-
posed arbitration. Mr. Junkin advocated arbitration
as the best way of settling not only the abstract ques-
tion about a transfer, but the concrete case of Dr. Briggs.
He made no allusion to the proposal of arbitration in
New York. That proposal, indeed, seems to have been
carefully concealed from the public. Here is what
Mr. Junkin said :

Mr. Moderator axd Brethrex : — We have nothing to
do with any statements of Avhat took place in the Confer-
ence Committee, and all allusions to stenographic reports
and all reflections on Dr. Patton and the last Assembly are
out of order. We have simply to do with reports made to
us by our committee and by the memorial from Union Sem-
inary. We have kept our mouths closed as to what took
place in that conference, because it was so understood, and
those who have not done so, in my opinion, have done

270 T^H^ UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

wrong. Now, what is the condition of things? They re-
ported to us that we were in status quo. That meant, we
recognized that Union has a right to consider that agree-
ment, and it has construed it conscientiously and believes it
has a right to keep Dr. Briggs in his chair. We say they
did wrong. Now, on the other hand, the seminary recog-
nized that we acted conscientiously. There we were face to
face. How are we to settle it? Are we to stand in that
position year after year? Six of us came to this Assembly
having no meeting of our Conference Committee, owing to
Dr. Patton's illness. The report presented by Dr. Patton
is not the report of the Conference Committee. It is all
right, however. We six presented a report in the interests
of peace. We had no desire to do what I have heard
politicians do, try to put anybody in a hole. I would like
to have a man come to me and tell me that I was capable
of trying to put Union Seminary " in a hole " ! It has
been said that we can go to law. No, we said we would
arbitrate. If the arbitrators say that Union is wrong, then
let Union have the grace of God to acknowledge it. If, on
the other hand, the arbitrators say the General Assembly is
wrong, then I hope the grace of God will give the Assem-
bly the impulse to say to Union, " You were right, and you
had a right to keep Dr. Briggs there." Is not that the
Christian way in which honest men ought to settle their
differences? I am a lawyer, but I always advise my clients
not to go to law if they can help it, because the law, while
perfect, has to act through human instrumentality, which is
wonderfully imperfect. And why can't we settle this mat-
ter so that Union won't go out like Ishmael from the tent
of Abraham among the heathen, possibly. (Laughter.)
Well, I did not mean what you are laughing at, but some-
times a man builds wiser then he knew. (Renewed laugh-

AXOTHER DECADE OF /TS HISTORV. 271

ter.) But I take it all back, because it is not in my
heart to throw any slur upon Union. I want to keep
her in the Presbyterian fold ; and I do not believe that
Union Seminary directors are going to lay down this com-
pact after twenty years, in the face of our Christian etibrt
to effect a settlement by arbitration. (Applause.)

In Dr. Hastings' memorandum, allusion is made to
answers taken down l)y the " sworn stenographer."
There are two large volumes of notes taken by this
"sworn stenographer" during the discussion in the
board and also in conference ^vith the Assembly's
committee. A few extracts from this stenographic
report will serve to throw additional light, backward
and for^vard, uj)on the attitude and temper of both the
parties concerned. Here is a copy of Mr. Durant's
paper as first presented to the board :

Eecognizing the parity of the two parties to the agree-
ment of 1870 and agreeing substantially to all the facts
relative to the present conflict of opinion between the parties,
something like the following might be done if the Board
of Directors and the committee should concur therein :
each party may fully respect the opinion of the other, and
conclude that the difference, for the present, is irreconcil-
able. The seminary might report to the next General
Assembly, substantially, that their understanding of the com-
pact differed from that of the General Assembly, as applied
to transfers, and that although the Assembly had disa})-
proved of the appointment of Dr. Briggs, they had not
seen their way clear, in view of their own obligations, to
do other than continue him in the active duties of his office.

272 '^HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

It would seem that they might with propriety do this,
because the language of the Assembly's action is that the
Assembly disapproves of the appointment of Dr. Briggs to
the chair of Biblical Theology by transfer from another
chair. It is not defined as to what the effect of dis-
approval shall be, and the seminary would naturally have
some range in treating of the matter and in construing their
own action. The committee, on the other hand, might report
the facts to the Assembly, and in view of the parity of the
parties, and in recognition of and in respect for the integ-
rity of the parties and their honest difference, recommend
that the status quo be recognized and no action taken.

Then it would seem desirable that the committee recom-
mend to the Assembly the careful appointment of a suitable
committee to confer with representatives of the several sem-
inaries, and recommend to the Assembly, with the concur-
rence of the seminaries, such changes in their mutual eccle-
siastical and legal relations as may be deemed wise and best.

Here is Mr. Durant's paper as revised and presented
to the Board of Directors by the Committee of Confer-
ence :

Recognizing the fact that the General Assembly and the
Union Theological Seminary are parties to the agreement or
compact of 1870, as contained in the memorial of the direc-
tors to the Assembly of 1870, and also the fact that there
is a wide difference of opinion in the matter of the interpre-
tation of said agreement or compact, something like the fol-
lowing might be done :

First. Each party may fully respect the opinion of the
other and conclude for the present that the difference is irre-
concilable. Second. The seminary might report to the next

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 273

General Assembly, substantially, that their understanding of
the conijiact differed from that of the General Assembly as
applied to transfers, and that although the Assembly has dis-
a])proved of the appointment of Dr. Briggs, the directors had
not seen their way clear in view of their own obligations to
do other than to continue him in the active duties of his
office. Till I'd. The committee on the other hand might re-
2)ort the facts to the Assembly, and in view of the relations
of the parties, and in recognition of their honest difference,
recommend that the xtatus quo be recognized in the hope that
some action may be taken which may lead to a harmonious
adjustment of all the matters at issue.

Second paper. The General Assembly's committee would
also express its willingness to join with the board in asking
the General Assembly to agree to refer the difference of in-
terpretation of the compact of 1870 as to transfers, to a
Committee of Arbitration.

Mr. Durant's paper, as thus modified by the Com-
mittee of Conference, elicited while under discussion in
the board some very striking expressions of feeling and
opinion. I will give a few of them. Here is Henry
Day's comment upon it :

Mr. President : — There is to my mind a very studied
intention in that third section to bind this seminary hand
and foot in regard to the legal connection between it and the
General Assembly. In the first place, Mr. Durant's opinion
as to whether we are equal parties or not has been cut out.
I had a long talk of two hours with Dr. Roberts and Mr.
Durant together yesterday morning, and Mr. Durant in-
sisted that we ought to be recognized as equal parties here
and he meant to bring that in in his paper, and if you re-

274 >^^>^ UX/ON THEOLOGICAL SE3fINARy.

collect, he put it in. Dr. Roberts said he doubted very much
whether Ave were equal parties ; he thouglit that when we
were handed over by the New School to the General As-
sembly, the General Assembly had acquired right over us ;
that they controlled us legally, and that they had a per-
fect right to legislate for us exactly as they do for Princeton.
Now, gentlemen, that is the view of the other side — of Mr.
Junkin and of Dr. Roberts — and that is the view of a cer-
tain class of men in the Presbyterian Church that mean to
hold and take and control forever this seminary. Mr. Jun-
kin is one of the sharpest and shrewdest men I know.

What they want is this, that we shall let this issue slide
along and say nothing about it, so that Avithin a year or two
years they can say : " Gentlemen, this whole question was up
when we, representing the General Assembly, were conferring
with you ; you never saw fit to take action in regard to this
vital point, then ; you have let it slip, and now you have as-
sented to it." They will say, and say properly that that was
the time — then or never — with us to say to them, " We feel
that there is essential trouble at the bottom of this very con-
tract, we feel that it is illegal " and that when we had a com-
mittee of the General Assembly here, we ought to have taken
steps to reform it and make it legal.

You see that this question may come up again, it may.
come up any day. They may except to any one of our pro-
fessors that we may nominate within a year or two, and then
you will have this question again upon you, was it legal or
not? Now, gentlemen, is the time to settle this question of
legality, and if it is not settled now, you can never open your
mouth again, and you ought not to. You never can say that
the rights that you have properly transferred to them they
did not properly exercise, and for one I say distinctly and
frankly, I do not wish to sit on this board and have that

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS 1 1 [STORY. 275

construction put upon it and carried to the General Assem-
bly for them to act upon it. I think you will destroy this
seminary if you do. You will never get another dollar of
money, in my opinion, to help build it up, and I believe its
usefulness will be ended.

I do not sympathize at all with some of my brethren who
say: "The Church is against us; this is an awful row that
they are getting uji." I do not say I don 't care for the
Church. I do care for the Church, but I say when we are
right, Avhen we are on the line of right, I do not care what
may be said ; we can bide our time. Five years will tell
whether this seminary, which stands in the grandest part of
the grandest city in the country^ will or will not stand right
before the Church ; and it will stand right if we assert our
independence, as our charter obliges us to do, as the pream-
ble to all our proceedings. That preamble asserted that we
were to be an independent seminary, and if we fail to so
maintain it, we fail to uphold the plan of its founders.

Now, brethren, I do not say that if this action is not
taken, I Avill have lost my interest in this seminary. I Avould
not under any circumstances accept the paper presented, un-
less I put a rider to it, and I should not vote for it in any
event as it is put now ; but if it is to be accepted, I would
put such a rider to it as this " without hereby assenting to
the construction by the General Assembly of the agreement
of 1870, and reserving our right to act hereafter, according
to our views of the obligations imposed upon us, we hereby
accept the proposition of the General Assembly's committee
as a measure for the readjustment of said agreement." But
recollect, they will not have it readjusted except as to the
matter of transfer; that is all this controversy is about be-
tween us — merely about this transfer of Dr. Briggs — and Ave
have had this trouble and will have settled but this single

276 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

case. We ought to settle forever our rights and connection
with the General Assembly ; if we do not settle them now,
we never can — we have bound ourselves and given ourselves
over. Now, in this rider I say that we accept the proposi-
tion of the General Assembly's committee as a measure in-
tended for the readjustment of the said agreement — the whole
agreement. If we are to talk about it by a committee, we
want it all readjusted, and this is the theory we talked about
the other day ; namely, that when we had a committee of the
General Assembly here we would readjust our entire relations.
Now they readjust nothing. What do they readjust? Nothing
but this matter of transfer, whether when you transfer a man
that is an election, that is all ; whereas the readjustment of the
said agreement should be in a manner which shall be consistent
with the views of this board as to their rights and duties.

Other directors preceded and followed Mr. Day
along similar lines. All seemed to regard the situation
as perilous in the extreme. Dr. Ludlow said :

We have come to the critical moment in the history of our
institution. We have come to a chasm and are in danger of
dropping into it. , . . We have come to the very edge of
the chasm — where self-respect and the life of the institution are
at stake. That is the reason I offer the resolution that no fur-
ther action be taken by us until the Committee of Conference
shall have responded to our papers submitted for their consid-
eration. They are good papers and we do not want them shelved
or pigeon-holed, while this movement for arbitration comes up.

Drs. Parkhurst, C. Cuthbert Hall, and Frazer fol-
lowed in favor of the resolution. Mr. D. Willis James
said:

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 277

I agree that tliis is a crisis in the seminary. We are not
dealing here with men alone ; for within a few years all of
us will have passed away. We are dealing with the life of
this institution. If we are not faithful to the great trust
imposed upon us, if we act in a way to jeopardize that trust,
woe be to us. I beg that no vote be taken in a hurry. I
beg you will stand on the papers, vigorous, courteous and
strong, that we presented to the Conference Committee ; await
their answer in writing, and then let us see whether we can-
not come to some just and wise conclusion. But let us take
no hasty vote which we may regret as long as we live, and
which may cause this seminary to descend from the heights
to which it has been brought by the labors of men who have
gone before.

Dr. Merle Smith said it was a pleasant thing to read
in Mr. Durant's pap)er the frank admission that the
Assembly and the seminary are on grounds of j)erfect
parity. He then proceeded to argue earnestly against
a continuance of the arrangement of 1870. That ar-
rangement, in the first place, does not protect the
Church against heresy, as it cannot touch professors in
a seminary ; and, second, it interferes with the right
of the Presbytery ; and third, whenever the veto is
exercised it is sure to plunge the Church into con-
fusion.

Mr. William E. Dodge said :

I was greatly interested in the paper of Mr. Durant.
The board feel that our present relation to the General As-
sembly is dangerous and cannot continue without menacing
the Church with trouble. It is painful to hear some of the

278 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

remarks of Dr. Patton. He states that if the same matter
came up again, ho should feel bound to act in the same way.
It seems to me that the way in which the matter was treated
in the General Assembly at Detroit, was so unkind, so un-
Presbyterian, so unfair, that it should not be done again.
Here was a case which brought up virtually the reputation
of a man. There was an utter refusal on the part of the
committee to hear a single word on the other side. No evi-
dence of any kind was allowed. The wliole thing was
decided entirely ex parte. It is simply impossible in this
country in the 19th century to have the character, the reputa-
tion and usefulness of any man imperilled by that sort of "star
chamber" examination. That is just the trouble we have had.

Drs. Dickey, Dana, Holmes, Booth, Clark, White,
Mcllvaine, Frazer, and Messrs. Jesnp, Kingsley,
Hoppin and William A. Booth, also at various
points took part in the discussion. At length the
02:>inion was expressed that if certain questions bear-
ing upon the subject were to be answered by the
Committee of Conference, it might be very helpful to
the board in reaching a right conclusion. Mr.
McAlpin, therefore, suggested whether it might not be
well for Dr. Hastings and Mr. William A. Booth to go
to the Committee of Conference and ask just those
questions. That would not commit the board at all.
The questions are of vital importance to this board.
If President Hastings and Mr. Booth go and ask these
simple questions, it will aid us very much. Let us
get an explanation from the committee on these 2:)oints.
Mr. McAlpin's suggestion was adoj)ted ; three distinct

AXOTIfllR DECini-: OF ITS HISTORY. 279

questions were tbriuulated and carried to tlie eoiuniittee
by Dr. Hastings and Mr. Bootli, witli the result given
already in their paper written at the time. During
the conference between the Detroit committee and the
board, a letter of Judge Noah Davis, of New York, in
regard to the legality of the agreement of 1<S70, which
had recently appeared in print and excited much
attention, was repeatedly alluded to. " The opinion of
Judge Davis," said Dr. Hastings, " is not in the hands
of this board, and has not been, and was not published
at our suggestion, or with our knowledge." The opin-
ion will be found in the Appendix.

What came of the projjosal of arbitration, made
by the Portland Assembly, appeared later in the
report of the Standing Committee on Theological
Seminaries at the Washington Assembly in 1893. In
the course of the discussion on that report a very note-
Avorthy statement was made by a member of the
Detroit Committee of Conference, one who was not
present at Portland. I refer to Dr. Herrick Johnson.
His statement was as follows :

I think it due to the Union Theological Seminary that
a word should be said with reference to certain matters oc-
curring year before last in the interview with the Board of
Directors by the committee appointed by the Assembly at
Detroit, in order that this refusal to arbitrate may not seem
to be so rude as it now seems on the surface. The question
of arbitration was suhmitted by that committee. I remem-
ber this very distinctly, for I was the author of the motion

280 Tf^E UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

in the committee to ask the Board of Directors to unite in
requesting the Assembly to appoint a Committee of Arbitra-
tion. This was before the Assembly met at Portland, and
after the meeting of the Assembly at Detroit, the committee
having been apjjointed by the Assembly at Detroit to confer
with the Board of Directors to see if some adjustment of
the situation might be made. This question of arbitration
was submitted to the board, and the board respectfully
requested that we withdraw that proposition, as it would
seriously interfere with the efficiency of the Union Semi-
nary. It was accordingly withdrawn, with the express under-
standing that it should not be brought before the next Assembly.
I think this modifies somewhat the attitude of the seminary.

A member — "Will you repeat that?"

I)r. Johnson — I say that the question of arbitration was
moved in the committee appointed by the Assembly at
Detroit — the Committee of Conference with the Board of
Directors. I made the motion myself. We submitted that
matter to the Board of Directors in our interview, and asked
that they unite with us in appointing a committee that
should go to the Assembly and request a Committee of
Arbitration. The board very respectfully asked us to with-
draw that suggestion, for reasons which were indicated, and
on that account it was withdrawn linth the understanding that
the proposition should not be made to the Assembly.

We now approach the conclusion of the whole
matter.

At a special meeting held October 13, 1892, the
board was notified of the General Assembly's action in

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 'Jgl

regard to Union Seminary by a letter from Dr. Wil-
liam H. Roberts, its Stated Clerk. Tliereujion, after
leading directors had given utterance to their strong
convictions of right and duty in the case, the following
paper was adopted :

The Board of Directors of the Union Theological Semi-
nary in the city of New York, addressed a memorial to the
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Chnrcli in the United
States of America, which met at Portland, May 19, 1892.
In that paper we stated, with the ntmost courtesy, some of
the practical reasons which render it necessary, in our judg-
ment, that the veto power, conceded to the General Assem-
bly in 1870, should no longer reside in that body. The
memorial concluded with this language : " There are other
and weighty considerations which we have preferred not to
urge. While there exists the undoubted right of either party
to the ae-reeraent of 1870 to act alone in its abroo-ation, vet
this memorial is submitted with the earnest hope that your
reverend body may cordially concur with us in annulling the
arrangement of 1870, thus restoring Union Seminary to its
former relations to the General Assembly." The hope thus
expressed was disappointed. With no official notice what-
ever of the reasons assigned by us, the answer to our me-
morial was : That the Assembly declines to be a party to the
breaking of the compact with Union Theological Seminary.
In view of this action of the late General Assembly,
we are constrained now to urge those considerations which we
had preferred to reserve. They are constitutional and legal.

1. The Constitutional Considerations.

There is no provision whatever in our charter and con-
stitution for " the principle of Synodical or Assembly super-

282 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

vision." The Committees on Rennion and both Assemblies in
1869 recognized this important f:iet, and advised the intro-
duction of that principle into the constitution. Upon this
advice no action was taken. The constitution Avas not changed.
Therefore the seminary could not rightfully give, and the
Assembly could not rightfully receive or exercise the veto
power under our existing charter and constitution.

2. The Legal Consideration.

Since the action of the General Assembly at Portland, the
Executive Committee of our board has sought and obtained
the best legal advice as to the point at issue between the
seminary and the Assembly. * This advice leaves us no
room to doubt that, under the laws of the State of Ncav
York, the agreement of 1870 is illegal. AVe "cannot
abdicate any of our official duties in whole or in part."

Therefore, As the sole directors of Union Seminary, we
are compelled by the practical considerations, presented in our
memorial, and by constitutional and legal considerations, to
maintain our rights and to fulfil our chartered obligations,
which can neither be surrendered nor shared. In this action
we regret deeply that we have been refused that concurrence
of the Assembly, which we respectfully asked, and whicli
would have done much toward softening the past and reliev-
ing the present. Obliged to act alone for the protection of
the institution committed to our care, and actuated by sincere
regard for the highest interests both of Union Seminary and
of the Church we love, we do now

Resoh-e, 1. That the resolution passed by the board,
May 16, 1870, adopting the memorial to the General As-
sembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of
America, which provided that all appointments of professors
" shall be reported to the General Assembly, and no sucli

*See the Opinion of James C. Carter in Appendix D.

ANOTHER PFAWDE OF ITS HISTORY. 283

ap])ointment of pi'ofcssor s^luill be considered as a coinj)lete
election, if disapproved by a majority vote of the Assenil)ly,"
be and the same is hereby reconsidered and rescinded ;

Resolve, 2. Tiiat the said arrangement between the
Union Theological Seminary in the city of New York, and
the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the
United States of America be and the same is hereby termi-
nated ; thus reinstating the relations between the seminary and
the General Assembly as they existed prior to May, 1870.

Resolve, 3. That official notice of this action be duly
given to the General Assembly, and also to the public,
with the assurance of the undiminished loyalty of Union
Seminary to the doctrine and government of the Presby-
terian Church in the United States of America, to which
the directors and faculty are personally bound by their
official vow, and of our earnest desire for the restoration of
our former relations to the General Assembly.

The vote stood 19 yeas and 1 no. Twenty directors were
present; viz., Charles Butler, LL.I)., President; Rev. Drs. T.
S. Hastings, R. R. Booth, Charles H. Parkhurst, S. W. Dana,
Edward L. Clark, C. Cuthbert Hall, D. R. Frazer, John
McC. Holmes, J. H. Mcllvaine, J. M.. Ludlow, W. M. Smith;
Messrs. William A. Booth, John Crosby Brown, D. Willis
James, Henry Day, William E. Dodge, Morris K. Jesup, D.
H. McAlpin, E. M. Kingsley. The only negative vote was
cast by Dr. R. R. Booth,

The feeling of satisfaction and gratitude caused by
the action of the board was very profound, both in the
seminary and among its friends throughout the coun-
try. Those especially, who had taken an active j^art
in the struggle, had borne the heavy cares and re-

284 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

sponsibility attending it, and had now won the victory,
were scarcely able to give utterance to their sense of
relief or their joy. I cannot help quoting the follow-
ing letter by way of illustration :

New York, October 17, 1892.
My Dear Dr. Hastings :

I have been so happy since the last meeting of the board
that I have hardly known how to express my thanks. It
was a wonderful triumph and I feel the greatest respect for
such men as Dr. Holmes and Dr. Dana, who were governed
solely by their judgment and what they deemed to be right.

But the one man who deserves the heartiest thanks of all
interested, is our honored president. Had it not been for
your marvellous tact, good temper and great ability, the
results which have been accomplished could never have
been reached. I sincerely congratulate you and thank you
with all my heart.

I trust now you will rest and gain strength. The victory
is won and we have nothing more to say. I have read
with great interest the reports in the papers this morning
and think them admirable.

Very sincerely your friend,

D. Willis James.
To Rev. Thomas S. Hastings, D. D.

id) A gift explaining and croivning the vote.

At the next meeting of the board, on November 8,
1892, the following letter was received :

To Charles Butler, Esq., President of the Board of
Directors of the Union Theological Seminary
in the city of New York.

Dear Sir : — Inasmuch as the Union Theological Semi-
nary has resumed the position intended by its founders, its
charter, and its constitution, we desire to express our hearty

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 285

approval of the principle of its management by its own
Board of Directors, and also our confidence that its affairs
will be so administered as best to promote the spiritual life
and growth of its students and of the Presbyterian Church,
of which we are members. Therefore, in order that the
seminary may be placed on a sound financial basis by a
substantial addition to its general fund, and by the comple-
tion of the endowments of its professorship funds, we take
great pleasure in presenting to you, without conditions, the
sum of $175,000. We remain,

John Crosby Brown, W. E. Dodge,

D. Willis James, • Morris K. Jesup.

The following extract from a leading article of the
New York Sun, November 17, 1892, will show how
the signers of this letter are regarded in the com-
munity at large :

Four of the members of the Board of Directors of the
Union Theological Seminary have made an unconditional
gift of $175,000 to the general fund of the institution.
They are Mr. D. Willis James, Mr. William E. Dodge, Mr.
John Crosby Brown and Mr. Morris K. Jesup, and the
purpose of their benefaction is, to express emphatically their
sympathy with the course of the seminary in separating
itself from the Presbyterian General Assembly, in order that
it may be undisturbed in its theological teachings. All
these four gentlemen are Presbyterians of such distinction
that they are known to their own communion and to the
public generally throughout the United States. They are
Presbyterians by inheritance, and a few years ago if we had
been called upon to select four laymen in New York more
especially representative of the conservative character of that
denomination, theirs are the names which would have oc-

286 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

curred to us first. All of them, too, are men of great
wealth and of high standing in business and financial circles
and in the society of New York, For many years they
have been liberal promoters of the religious and charitable
institutions of the Presbyterian Church, and their loyalty to
its faith and doctrine has never been questioned until
recently. Coming from strict Presbyterian families, it is
probable that all of them were carefully instructed in the
Westminster Catechism in their youth, and all of them have
remained devout and influential members of leading Presby-
terian churches of the city since that time.

[e) Sequel to the annulling of the agreement of 1870.
Action of the General Assembly of 1893 relating to the
Union Theological Seminary.

Although the annulling of the agreement of 1870
closed all further controversy on the part of the Board
of Directors, it by no means ended discussion of the
subject, both in the religious papers unfriendly to
Union Seminary, and also in the General Assembly.
Nor did it end vigorous effort on the part of the Assem-
bly, through two of its committees, to bring about a
settlement of the trouble. This appears most clearly
in the proceedings of the General Assembly, which
met at Washington, D. C, on May 18, 1893. The
rej^ort of the Committee on Theological Seminaries,
along with the speeches accompanying it, show very
distinctly the final attitude and temper of the General
Assembly toward Union Seminary. The Rev. Dr.
John Dixon, chairman of the committee, on June 1st,

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 287

presented the report. The part bearing upon Union
Seminary was as follows :

From Union Seminary has been received the usual re-
port. The Board of Directors liave also sent a special
communication which is as follows :

[This special communication, annoiuicin^ the action of
tile Board of Directors of Union Scminarv, annulling the
agreement of IS 70, has been given already and need not
here be repeated.]

COMMITTEE OX ARBITRATION.

To your committee was also referred the report of the
committee appointed by the last General Assembly as arbi-
trators M'ith Union Seminarv.

To THE General Assembly at Washington, D. C.

The committee consisting of five members, appointed by
the General Assembly at Portland, in 1892, "as arbitrators,
to meet a like number selected by the directors of Union
Seminary," with power to select five others, to which was
referred for settlement the difference of interpretation of the
theological compact of 1870, as to the question whether the
transfer of a professor from one chair to another in the same
seminarv is an appointment, and therefore subject to veto by
the General Assembly, respectfully submits the following
report :

On July 10, 1892, the Stated Clerk of the General As-
sembly notified the Board of Directors of Union Seminary
of the appointment of arbitrators who were to confer with
said board, and on August 4, 1892, the chairman of this
committee communicated the action of the General Assembly
in regard to the a])j)ointment of arbitrators and the duties
assigned them, to Mr. E. M. Kingsley, the secretary or re-
corder of the Board of Directors of Union Seminary, and
received from him a re])ly dated August 6, 1892, in which
he stated in substance that it would be impracticable for the
Board of Directors to meet and take any action on the sub-
ject before the middle of October.

In view of this statement the chairman of the Assembly's
committee called a meeting of the committee to be held in

288 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

New York City, November 2, 1892, and all the members
were present at a meeting held in New York at that time.
A communication was sent by the committee to the Board
of Directors of Union Seminary, informing them of the com-
mittee's presence in New York City, and saying, " It will
be pleased to receive such communication as you may see fit
to send it ; or to meet your board or a sub-committee from
it, in personal interview at such time and place as you may
indicate."

The receipt of this communication was acknowledged by
the president of the board, and on the 8th of November,
1892, your committee received a communication from the
Board of Directors of Union Seminary, in which they say :
" Since the meeting of the General Assembly at Portland, by
an almost unanimous vote — a vote of 19 to 1 — this board
has rescinded the resolution of 1870, adopting the memorial
to the General Assembly, in which a veto on the election of
professors was offered to that body, thus terminating the
special relation then constituted between the General Assem-
bly and Union Seminary. By this action the question
whether a transfer is an election and subject therefore to the
Assembly's veto, is no longer to us an open question. There-
fore no further action in this matter is called for.'^

As your committee was appointed to arbitrate a single
question at issue between the General Assembly and the
Board of Directors of Union Seminary, and the foregoing
action of the Board of Directors, taken as we understand on
the 13th of October, 1892, without waiting for a conference
with the Assembly's committee, shows that the board has
declined to have the question at issue arbitrated, your com-
mittee asks to be discharged.

The chairman of the committee. Rev. T. Ralston Smith,
D.D., and George Junkin, Esq., LL.D., are both absent from
the country. — Dr. Smith as a delegate from the General As-
sembly to the Free Church of Scotland and Mr. Junkin for
the benefit of his health, — and therefore their names are not
subscribed to this report.

B. L. Agnew,
Logan C. Murray,
E. W. C. Humphrey.

To the special communication from the directors of Union
Seminary your committee have given careful and prolonged
consideration. AVhile they would recommend the Assembly
to recognize the fact, that the directors of Union Seminary

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 289

have declared upon their own motion and authority that the
compact of 1870 is void and of unbinding eifect; and while
insisting that such action is wholly without warrant, yet they
advise the Assembly for the })resent simply to place on
record, by way of protest, its views of the situation.

For twenty-one years the most cordial relations existed
between Union Theological Seminary and the General As-
sembly. In the discharge of what seemed its plain but most
painful duty, the General Assembly at Detroit declared its
disapproval of the appointment of Professor Briggs to the
chair of Biblical Theology. The Board of Directors, instead
of removing Dr. Briggs, or at least requiring him to desist
from teaching in the seminary, until the question at issue
between the Assembly and the seminary as to the full and
proper com])act had been decided, resolved to continue Dr.
Briggs in the chair which the Assembly had declared he
ought not to occupy. This action was the more questionable
because the Assembly appointed a committee of fifteen to
confer with the directors of the Union Theological Seminary
in regard to the relation of the said seminary to the General
Assembly. This conference resulted in practical failure to
remove the misunderstanding, and it was so reported to the
Assembly of 1892, meeting in Portland. That Assembly
appointed five arbitrators to meet a like number selected by
the directors of Union Seminary, with power to select five
others to determine the interpretation of the compact, viz.
as to the transfer of a professor. The Stated Clerk of the
Assembly notified the directors of the seminary on July 16,
1892, that the Assembly had appointed such a Committee of
Arbitration. . On the 11th of August Dr. T. Kalston Smith,
chairman of the committee, addressed a similar communica-
tion to the directors. To this the recorder of the board re-
sponded that the board could not take any action before the

290 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

middle of October. On the 15th of October the Board of
Directors met and resolved to terminate the compact. This
action was taken nearly three months after the board had
been officially informed of the appointment of a Committee
of Arbitration, and before any opportunity was given to the
committee of the General Assembly to present' their case.
This extraordinary action of the Board of Directors is inex-
plicable to the Assembly. The high character of the gentle-
men composing the board, fully warranted the expectation
that so fair a proposition as that of arbitration would not be
treated in such a way.

While there remained to the Assembly the hope that by
a conference of arbitration the difficulty that had arisen
would be removed, the Assembly did not think it best to
discuss the points raised by the directors of the Union Semi-
nary, in attempted justification of their action. But now
the Assembly takes issue with the statement made in the
memorial presented to the Portland Assembly, that " there
existed the undoubted right of either party to the agreement
of 1870 to act alone in its abrogation," No such right is
expressed in the agreement, and in the nature of things no
agreement where valuable interests are involved, not to say
valuable considerations are given and received, can in good
morals be abrogated by one party to the agreement, without
the consent and against the expressed desire of the other
party.

The claim that the words of Dr. Musgrave, spoken in the
Old School Assembly of 1869, and quoted by the directors
in their memorial to the Portland Assembly give warrant to
either party to abrogate the agreement, is not in accordance
with a proper understanding of those words. The " declara-
tion " referred to by Dr. Musgrave, was not a compact or
covenant as one of the terms of reunion. The relation

ANOTHER DECADE OE EfS HISTORY. 291

of tlio seminaries to the Assembly was a (liffen^it problem.
The arraiif^ement in the "declaration" he was discnssing,
proved to be unacce])table to Union Seminary and was not
adopted. The following year, Union Seminary came to the
Assembly with a memorial, setting forth an arrangement
which was accepted by the Assembly and agreed to by all
the seminaries. This is the compact or arrangement not
discussed by Dr. Musgrave in 1869, which Union Seminary
has declared on its own motion that it has abrogated. What-
ever force the constitntional and legal objections may have
to the making and continuance of such a compact by the
directors, there was an easy and simple way to remove them
if the directors so desired. The Legislature of the State of
New York would doubtless have amended the charter if the
members had requested it.

Because, then, of the strange and unwarranted action of
the directors in retaining Dr. Briggs after his appointment
had been disapproved by the Assembly; and because of the
refusal by the directors to arbitrate the single point in dis-
pute between the Assembly and the board ; and because of
the attempt of the board on its own motion and against the
expressed desire of the Assembly to abrogate the compact of
1870, the Assembly disavows all responsibility for the teach-
ing of Union Seminary, and declines to receive any report
from its board until satisfactory relations are established.
The Assembly, however, cherishes the ho})e, and will cor-
dially welcome any effort to bring Union Seminary into such
a relationship with itself as will enable the Assembly to com-
mend the institution again to students for the ministry.

Your committee would further recommend that the Board
of Education be enjoined to give aid to such students only
as may be in attendance upon seminaries approved by the
Assembly.

292 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Your committee would also recommeud that the re-elec-
tion of the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., by the Presbytery
of New York as a director of the German Theological Semi-
nary at Bloomfield, N. J., be disapproved by this Assembly.

The reasons assigned in this report why the Assem-
bly disavowed all responsibility for the teacbing of
Union Seminary, and declined to receive any report
from its board, along with the recommendation tliat
the Board of Education be enjoined to give no aid to
its students — in other words, to " boycott " it — w^ere
regarded by the venerable president and the other
directors, by tlie entire faculty, and by friends of the
seminary through the world, as a very great wrong,
not only to the institution itself but to fundamental
principles of American Presbyterianism, to the cause
of a reasonable theological liberty, and to the entire
Christian scholarship of the country.

In concluding the account of this unhappy conflict
between the General Assembly and the Union Theo-
logical Seminary it is only fair to say further, that in
all the oflicial records of -the action of the directors in
the case I have not found a single word, or exjiression,
unbecoming their sacred trust or the character of
Christian gentlemen.

ANOTHER DECADE OE EDS II/STORV. 293

CHAPTEll VI.

BEARING OF THE CONFLICT WITH THE GENARAL AS-
SEMBLY UPON THE QUESTION OF ECCLESIASTICAL

CONTROL OF THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES. LESSONS

TAUGHT BY THIS CONFLICT RESPECTING THE
DESIGN OF UNION SEMINARY AND THE MOTIVES

OF ITS FOUNDERS. HOW THE CHARTER FITS INTO

AND SERVES THE DESIGN.

Before concluding it may not be amiss to add a few
words about the bearing of the conflict I have described
upon. the general question of ecclesiastical control of
theological seminaries ; and also to point out some of
its lessons in regard to the special design of the Union
Seminary.

(«) Is d'lreet ecclesiastical control essential to the
efficiency, sound teaching and usefulness of a theological
institution f

If the answer to this question Avere based upon the
position maintained by nearly the whole body of the
opponents of Dr. Briggs, who had been trained in the
Old School branch of the Church, it would be an
emphatic yea. I do not recall an instance in which one
of them recognized the fact, that for a third of a cen-
tury Union Seminary was under no ecclesiastical con-
trol whatever. They seemed to shut their eyes to this
fact as not of the slightest importance. And also to

294 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

the fact that the New School branch of the Church, to
which the seminary belonged, never- attempted, or
desired, to exercise any authority over it, or over the
other institutions where Presbyterian ministers were in
training.

In taking this ground with regard to Union Semin-
ary there was no thought of casting any censure upon
seminaries founded upon a different plan and in differ-
ent circumstances. Individuality is an element of ut-
most importance in the life of institutions, as well as in
personal and national life. Unity in diversity is a
fundamental law of the Providential system ; unity in
essence and spirit, endless diversity of outward form
and manifestation. It is so in poetry and painting and
all the other grand spheres of art ; why should it not
be so in the great sphere of learning and divinity?
Institutions of lasting power grow ; they cannot be
improvised or manufactured. How little, for example,
of the vast and beneficent influence of Princeton, as a
theological institution, has been the j^roduct of mere
ecclesiastical control ? The hiding-place of that influ-
ence has been not in the supervision or in the votes
and deliverances of the General Assembly, but in the
minds and hearts and learning and enlightened piety
and inspiring memories of Archibald Alexander, Samuel
Miller, Charles Hodge, Addison Alexander, and others
like them. And how little the best possible ecclesiasti-
cal supervision would have added to what such scholars
and men of God as Edward Robinson, Thomas H.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS ///STORY. 295

Skinner, Henry B. Smith, W. G. T. Sliedd, William
Adams, Roswell D. Hitchcock and Philip Scliaff did
to make Union Seminary a fountain of spiritual light
and benediction to our country and to the world ! No
ecclesiastical authority supervised its birth or controlled
it during the first third of a century of its existence.
And yet the New School Presbyterian Church, as I
have said before, cherished Union as one of her most
precious jewels, and delighted to honor it by choosing
from its professors several JModerators of her General
Assembly. Annual collections were taken in some of
her wealthiest congregations for their worldly suj^port.
I was privileged to be the pastor of one of these con-
gregations ; a third of the first endowment of the sem-
inary was its free gift ; and yet I never heard a whisper
even, that, in addition to the control of its Board of
Directors, it ought also to be under the control of the
General Assembly.

Let me now note some important lessons taught the
friends of Union Seminary by its struggle with the
Assembly — lessons which ought to be marked, learned
and inwardly digested. Conflict, when based upon good,
solid reasons and inspired by the right sj)irit, is one
of the most potent educating forces in the world. It
tends to aw^aken, stimulate and call into play dormant
or latent capabilities. It drives men back into them-
selves, acquaints them with the full meaning of things,
helps them to understand better their own real aims and
ends, widens their outlook, and so trains them to wise

296 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

aiul successful action. Our country, even while I
write, is furnishing a wonderful illustration of this
truth.* A long, trying conflict of i^ublic opinion about
our relations and duty, as a nation, to the island of
Cuba has of a sudden ended in a terrible conflict of
arms far off" on the other side of the globe. How fast
it is educating the American people to a distinct con-
sciousness of their providential calling and mission as
a world-power ! What an eye-opener it has been to
them touching their possible duty as a leader in the
glorious march of Christian civilization, freedom and
humanity ! Dewey's victory at Manila has all at once
set the " universal Yankee nation " not only to a dili-
gent study of the geography of the Phillipines, but to
deej) pondering of coming events throughout the
farthest Orient that already cast their shadows before.
To return to the conflict between Union Seminary
and the General Assembly. What useful lessons it has
taught thousands of Christian men and women, both
in and outside the Presbyterian Church ! Including
the " Briggs case," it has taught them more than in all
their lives they had known before about theological
seminaries. Biblical study and learning, " higher
criticism," and the close connection of all these with
human life and progress. But in referring to the
lessons of this conflict I had in mind those chiefly
which specially concern the friends and guardians of
Union Seminary. It almost shames me to compare

* This was written in May, 1898.

ANOTHER DECADE OE ITS HI STORY. 297

what I knew til)oiit the far-reaching (k'sign of the in-
stitution when the conflict began with what I know to-
day ; and, doubtless, my own experience is not at all
singular. What then, interpreted in the light of its
recent struggle, was the design of the founders of Union
Theological Seminary in the city of New York ? That
they themselves regarded it as of the very highest
imjDortance is evident from the opening sentence of the
preamble to their j^lan. Here it is :

That the design of the founders of the seminary may be
publicly knoicn and be sacredly regarded by the directors, and
professors and students, it is judged proper to make the fol-
loicing preliminary statement.

Let us look closely at this statement and consider
well its weighty clauses. And, first of all, it tells us
that,

[b) The design of the founders of Union Seminary

was WORLD-WIDE.

A number of Christians, both clergymen and laymen, in
the cities of New York and Brooklyn, deeply impressed
with the claims of the world upon the Church of Christ to
furnish a competent supply of well-educated and pious min-
isters of the Gospel, resolved, in humble dependence on tlie
grace of God, to attempt the establishment of a theological
seminary in the city of New York.

Its founders were a number of Christians, both
clergymen and laymen ; and their attempt was not
merely in response to the claims of the Presbyterian

298 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

denomination, or of their own country, but of all
nations. How vast, even unto the ends of the earth,
was their spiritual outlook ! From what a vantage-
ground and in what an exalted mood they contempla-
ted " the claims of the world upon the Church of
Christ " ! A new Acts of the Apostles could not open
more fittingly. There is not a touch of sectarianism ;
not a sectarian note. And all that follows is in full
accord with this beginning.

(c) The design of the founders of Union Seminary
was comprehensive, generous and ideal in the breadth
and completeness of its plan.

" In this institution it is the design of the founders to
furnish the means of a full and thorough education in
all the subjects taught in the best theological semi-
naries in this or other countries." Such was their
language ; and just that, I do not doubt, was in the
mind of Erskine Mason, when after much thought and
consultation, he conceived and thus defined the plan.
It is the language of wisdom, foresight and strong con-
victions touching the high office of Christian learning
and scholarship. One is surprised, to be sure, to hear
such words at that day from a modest young Presby-
terian minister. But Erskine Mason's father, the
renowned John M. Mason — whose sermon at Bristol on
Messiah's kingdom, is said to have wrung from Bobert
Hall the exclamation : "I can never preach in that
pulpit again !" — was an intimate friend of Alexander

ANOTHER DJICADE OF ITS mSTORY. 299

Hainiltuii, and not wliolly nnlikc iJaniilton in states-
manlike sagacity. The sun inherited the spirit of the
father, " Nothing, my brethren, is great in this world
but the kingdom of Jesus Christ ; nothing but that to
a spiritual eye, has an air of permanency." This
grand sentiment, uttered in one of his sermons, seems
to have inspired him in setting forth the design of the
new school of divinity.

How beautiful is such aspiring, prophetic thought,
united, as it was here, with such practical, everyday
wisdom, good sense and piety ! " A full and thorough
education ;" what does that mean ? It means that the
young men trained in this seminary are to be genuine
scholars, putting their whole mind and soul and
strength into their studies. They are, each in his
measure and all together, as far as j^ossible, to become
accurate, conscientious, self-centered and able to
teach others also, in their knowledge of the Hebrew
and Greek Scriptures, of the old English Bible, of the
history of the Christian Church, life and doctrine, and
of every other branch of theological instruction and
science needful to render them thoroughly furnished
for effective, fruitful labor in the varied service of the
blessed Master, whether at home or abroad. That is
the aim of the institution. " Li all the subjects
taught ill the best theological seminaries in this or other
countries.'" Why not ? Shall American students in
New York, who follow Christ and are preparing for
the ministry of His Gospel, be in their advantages one

300 'THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SE3IINARY.

whit behind students of divinity at Oxford and Cam-
bridge, or at Halle and Leipsic and Berlin ? Ought
they not to have as good a theological education as
Christendom affords ?

So much on the intellectual side ; but this is not all.
Here is the design of the founders on the practical side :

Being fully persuaded that vital godliness, a thorough
education, and practical training in the works of benevolence
and pastoral labor, are all essential to meet the wants and
promote the best interests of the kingdom of Christ, the
founders of this seminary design that its students, remaining
under pastoral influence, and performing the duties of church
members in the several churches to which they belong, or
with which they worship, in prayer-meetings, in the instruc-
tion of Sabbath-schools and Bible classes, and being conver-
sant Avith all the benevolent efforts of the present day in this
great community, shall have the opportunity of adding to
solid learning and true piety the teachings of experience.

{d) The hope and expectation, of the founders in the
carrying out of their sacred design.

By the foregoing advantages the founders hope and ex-
pect with the blessing of God to call forth and enlist in the
service of Christ and in the work of the ministry genius,
talent, enlightened piety and missionary zeal ; and to qualify
many for the labors and management of the various religious
institutions, seminaries of learning, and enterprises of benev-
olence which characterize the present time.

This seems to me a remarkable passage. What does
it say ? It says that in laying their plans for a tlieo-

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 301

logical seminary as good as could be found in the wide
world, their first hope and expectation was to call
forth and enlist in the service of Christ and in the
work of tlie ministry genius. It is a strange word to
use here ; there is no other quite like it ; and yet how
fitting and in its right ^^lace is the word ! Genius is
something far deeper and higher than talent ; it is in-
spiration and creative 2:)0wer ; in the religious sphere,
especially, it is the enthusiasm of holy intelligence,
thought and passion for souls. It is what gives talent,
enlightened piety and missionary zeal, resistless energy.
All great theologians, preachers, evangelists and saints
have possessed it, or rather been possessed by it ;
Paul and John among the apostles ; Augustine and
Chrysostom and Bernard ; Luther, Calvin, Hooker,
Jeremy Taylor, Leighton, Bunyan, John Wesley,
Jonathan Edwards, Eliot, Swartz, Brainerd, Zeisberger,
Livingston, they were all endued with the genius of
faith and unbounded devotion to Jesus Christ ; and,
thank God, Union Seminary know^s well in her own
history what this sort of genius is and can do !

{e) The design of the founders was crowned with the
peace and charitg of the Gospel.

Let me quote yet once more their own admirable
statement :

It is the design of the founders to provide a theological semi-
nary in the midst of the greatest and most groioing community in
America, around which all moi of moderate views and feel-

302 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

ings, xcho desire to live free from party -"ttrife, and to stand.
aloof from all extremes of doctrinal speculation, practical
radiccdism, and ecclesiastical domination, MAY cordially and

AFFECTIONATELY RALLY.

(/) The special fitness of the charter of the Union
Theological Seminary to fortify and carry out the design
of its founders.

" The government of the seminary shall at all times
be vested in a Board of Directors." Of this brief but
comprehensive enactment I have spoken already. An-
other provision of the charter is as follows :

Equal privileges of admission and instruction, with all the
advantages of the institidion, shall be allowed to students of every
denomination of CJiristians.

There are some one hundred and fifty theological
seminaries in the United States. As far as I have
been able to learn there is not another among them all,
whose charter contains an enactment so large and gen-
erous as this. Had not the founders of Union Semi-
nary been men of extraordinary breadth of vision and
been inspired by one overmastering, gospel-like design,
never would they have framed, or accepted, such a
charter and organized their new school of divinity in
harmony with its catholic spirit.

(g) A few words in conclusion.

Before closing this chapter a few words about

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 303

schools of divinity in general will not be out of place.
The simple fact that not far from one hundred and
fifty such institutions have grown up in the United
States — mostly within the last half century — may
serve to show how highly they are valued by the
various denominations of the country. They are
related to its spiritual interests somewhat as West
Point and Annapolis stand related to its great
inilitary interests. As the latter are training schools
for leaders of our army and navy, in fighting the bat-
tles of the Republic on sea and land, so the theological
seminary is a training school for leaders in the
greater world-wide conflict of truth with error, of social
right with social wrong, of humanity and its sweet
charities with all forms of vice, cruelty and barbarism.
Let me repeat on this subject what I said to my old
jMercer street flock once, when urging them to be
generous to Union Seminary : " Theology and theo-
logical institutions have something of the dignity and
importance which belong to fundamental principles in
ethics, or to universal laws in nature. These may
vary greatly in their forms of working and of mani-
festation ; but they themselves are permanent and
immutable. Light, for examjile, is an element or force
which conditions all our seeing ; where there is no
light, there can be no vision ; yet in how many differ-
ent ways it fulfils its kindly office ? Truly, the light
is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to behold
the sun ; but it is pleasant also to behold the moon and

304 T^HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY,

stars, the clear sky, the gleam from a distant home,

the fire on the hearth.

And stoi'ied windows, richly dight,
Casting a dim, religions light.

So also with inspired theology, 'the sabbath and
port of all men's labors and peregrinations,' as Lord
Bacon calls it. How its precious, life-giving truth
diffuses itself far and wide, embodies itself in song
and parable, as well as in doctrine, precept and
story, irradiating with its saving grace alike the souls
of little children and the souls of learned divines and
philosophers !

' Where there is no vision ' said the wise man — and
' vision ' in his day was prophetic insight and fore-
sight ; it was truth revealed first to the inspired seer,
and through him, shining forth uj^on the face of the
Nation — ''where there is 7io vision the people perish.'
The saying is for all time. Where, in our day, there
is no genuine theology, no vital science of God and His
government of the world ; where the jDopular mind,
opinion, literature, domestic and social habits, business
and institutions are not in some degree informed
and ruled by its holy, benign influences, there, sooner
or later, the people will perish. This is at bottom one
of the chief reasons of the sad spectacle which meets
our eyes as we survey the moral state of Christendom;
the sjDectacle, I mean, of dead and dying nations.

Never was there a time in all its history when
Union Seminary was summoned to more strenuous

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS IlfSTORY. 305

work, or liad a better opportunity to fulfil its noble
office in teaching and in training others to teach the
truth as it is in Jesus than to-day. Never had it
stronger or more insjoiring motives to call forth and
enlist genius, talent and the best learning in carrying
out its grand design. Some appear to feel that as
society and knowledge advance, and we draw nearer
to the millennial ages, the race of great theologians is
going to die out. But I cannot think that the grow-
ing triumph of the Church is to be j^^ii'chased by
dwarfing the souls of her teachers. On the contrary,
I believe the coming days will not be one whit behind
the best days of her history. As she rises to greater
heights of piety and holy intelligence ; as she turns her
back ujDon the world and fixes her expectant eye more
steadily upon her risen Lord and Redeemer, I doubt
not she will be blessed with preachers and divines
worthy to have sat in the council of the Aj)ostles. I
doubt not that Jesus Christ will then hold in His rio;ht
hand, stars as resj)lendant in their kind and measure
as any that ever shone there in ancient or modern
times ! IMay it please Him to raise w^ many such
preachers and theologians to be stars in the crown of
Union Theological Seminary."

To these words of my own, uttered more than seven
and forty years ago, I cannot refrain from adding the
following sentences from a striking letter of my dearly
beloved old friend, Dr. Thomas H. Skinner, written
to Mr. Norman White, in February, 1865 :

306 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

There is not in the entire church a theological school of
higher promise than the Union Seminary. New York is
the American centre of every human interest, secular and
sacred ; and it is doubtless, since our Nation is resolved not
to die, the centre, prospectively, of the influences which are,
under the Divine Will, to have the chief control of the
world's future history. Not in Europe, but in the United
States, is to be the seat of the Empire of the East, as
De Tocqueville has told us ; and no one can doubt that our
already wonderful city is to be, to the end of our Nation's
career, the imperial locality in this new world. A power
for supreme good, — the dominion of Christianity, — cannot be
established among men, of greater efficiency than a first-rate
School of the Prophets, in New York City. The " Mer-
chant Princes" of this metropolis who, with others, have
undertaken to make our seminary what it ought to be, have
put their hand to a business of infinitely higher moment
than any enterprise of trade, real or conceivable ; or any
other interest which does or may solicit the application of
their immense means. I use no hyperbole in thus speak-
ing ; given the continuance of our National life, and only
prophecy itself is more certain of accomplishment, than what
I have just predicted. Standing as I am, upon the verge
of " nature's confine," it would be presumptuous in me to
expect to see its accomplishment, but only the Nation's death
can hinder it, and, except as this may by possibility happen,
there are some living who will not die before they will have
seen it. So far as " material " means are required for the
perfection of our school, it is already provided for, virtually ;
these means are in the possession of our friends, in super-
abundance ; and earnestness in prosecuting the work cannot
but preclude the possibility of their not being applied on the
largest scale of liberality ; it cannot, will not, rest until

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. 397

edifices, and books, and the best accommodations for stu-
dents and teachers, as far as they may be needed, shall be
supplied, as largely as the completest execution of the
undertaking can require.

part Seconb.

THE CASE OF DR. BRIGGS.

ITS BEARING ON THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

DR. R. AV. PATTERSON'S VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT, AS EXPRESSED

IN l?:tters to dr. Hastings, written

AT THE TIME.

DR. DRIGGS AND HIS TRIAL FOR HERESY. 311

part Seconb.

DR. BRIGGS AND HIS TRIAL FOR HERESY. SOME OF

ITS LESSONS.

The main design of the present volume, as was stated
at the outset, is to give an account of the agreement of
1870 between the Union Theological Seminary and
the General Assembly, and to explain the causes which
led, in 1892, to the annulling of that agreement by the
Board of Directors of the seminary. In carrying out
this design, it has been necessary to refer frequently to
the address of the Reverend Charles A. Briggs, D.D.,
on taking the new professorship of Biblical Theology
in Union Seminary, and to the consequent action of the
General Assembly at Detroit, vetoing his transfer to
that chair. It is only incidentally, therefore, that the
trial of Dr. Briggs for heresy by the Presbytery of
New York, and, later, by the General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church in the United States of America,
has a place in my narrative. Dr. Briggs was the oc-
casion, though not the cause, of the struggle between
the Assembly and Union Seminary. And as the occa-
sion— the providential occasion — of this struggle, he
rendered, perhaps, as great a service to Christian
scholarship and theological freedom as in any other act
of his remarkable career. It is due to him, therefore.

312 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

due likewise to the claims of friendship and justice,
that I should here put on record a brief expression of
my opinion of him, as also of his trial and condemna-
tion as a heretic.

Charles Augustus Briggs was born in the city of
New York, January 15, 1841. His ancestors on the
father's side were English Puritans, and on the
mother's side, j)artly Huguenot and partly German
Reformed and Scotch Presbyterian ; all early settlers
of New York and the New England colonies. It
would be hard to see how, naturally or spiritually, he
could have inherited a better mixture of solid qualities
than belong to these renowned old stocks. An early
letter, written by him to a younger brother of his
father, shows the ancestral spirit that was in him :

I am going back to school to prepare for college. I
intend to finish Csesar and Virgil, and get along consid-
erable in Greek. ... I intend to go right at it, when I
get back to school. I am going in strong. When I start
once, I am going to finish. My mind is made up.

/ am going in strong; when I start once I am going to
finish. There was the coming man in the boy. At
the age of sixteen he entered the University of Vir-
ginia, where he pursued his studies for three years.
He is said to have taken much interest in the " AVash-
ington Society," and to have been active in the
prayer meeting, and the " Ragged Mountain "
school. In his second year at the University, he

DR. BRIGGS AND HIS TRIAL FOR HERESY. 313

united with the Presbyterian church in Charlottes-
ville, and decided to give himself to the Christian min-
istry. He was one of the founders of the Young Men's
Christian Association in the University, said to have
been the first of these associations established in a
college.

The outbreak of the Civil AVar, in 1861, cut short his
course. He belonged to the celebrated Seventh Regi-
ment of New York Btate Volunteers, and marched with
it to the defense of Washington. In the same year he
entered the Union Theological Seminary to study for the
ministry. Here he came at once under the powerful
and inspiring influence of Edward Robinson, Henry B.
Smith and Roswell D. Hitchcock. After his gradua-
tion he became for several years his father's assist-
ant and a hard-working, skilful man of business. In
1866 he went abroad, accompanied by his wife, and
spent some three years in Germany, mostly at Berlin ;
making vacation trips also to Italy, France, Russia,
Egypt and the Holy Land. In Berlin he was in very
close relations with Dr. Dorner, both as a pupil and a
friend.

Here is an extract from a letter to Dr. Henry B.
Smith, written at Berlin, in November, 1868 :

I had thought of sending you an article on Biblical
theology. It is a difficult subject, and as in some things, I
must go an independent way, I have concluded to hold hack
for the present. It is one ,of my favorite studies. I have
sometimes thouglit I would like a position in a theological

314 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

seminary ; but I fear I could do little more with the lan-
guages— so little attention is paid to exegesis with us — and
I would not devote my life even to the Biblical languages.
I would use them as means and not ends.

In another letter from Berlin, dated January, 1867,
he wrote :

We have religious services in the chapel every Siniday.
We take turns in preaching. Sunday evenings at half past
seven, we have a Bible circle on exactly the same plan as
the one I organized in New York. I organized this here
last winter, with the help of two brethren at the outset. It
has become a great success and a standing institution of
Berlin. . . . We all meet on pure Christian principles :
Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregatioualists, Eng-
lish, Scotch and American ; and there is entire harmony.

Shortly after returning home. Dr. Briggs accepted a
call to the First Presbyterian church of Koseville, New
Jersey, where for several years he labored with marked
devotion and success. In October, 1876, he was
inaugurated as Davenport professor of Hebrew and
Cognate Languages in Union Seminary. His inau-
gural address was on Exegetical Theology, and in this
address he claimed liberty of opinion on all questions
of the higher criticism.

In November, 1890, the Board of Directors of the
Union Seminary transferred Dr. Briggs to the new
chair of Biblical Theology. His memorable address
upon taking it, was delivered on January 20, 1891.
This address led, a few months; later, to the first exer-

DR. BRIGGS AND HIS TRIAL FOR HERESY. 315

cise of the veto power by the General Assembly and to
the conflict between the Assembly and Union Seminary
already described. The subject of the address was The
Authority of Holy Scripture. Dr. Briggs discussed it
without fear, or favor, and with great ability.

The main positions of the address were by no means
new. Dr. Briggs himself had asserted them for years
in his various writings. But in this address he pre-
sented them in a somewhat novel form and with con-
centrated force of thought and learning. He pointed
out, too, their vital relation to some of the burning
questions of the day ; and that in a very positive tone.
The consequence, naturally enough, was a violent dis-
turbance of the religious atmosphere, more especially
within the Presbyterian pale. His treatment of the
subject offended many good men and was well adapted
to stir ujD both theological and ecclesiastical j)rejudices,
as he himself, doubtless, foresaw would be the case.
And then impregnable as was the strength of his main
argument in favor of the Church and the Eeason as,
along with Holy Scripture, fountains or channels of
divine authority, he did not, jDcrhaps, sufficiently con-
sider how easily, how almost inevitably, important
points and distinctions, clear as day to him, w^ould be
likely to puzzle and confuse plain Christian people,
unversed in the knowledge that comes of books and
scholastic studies. Had Dr. Briggs' real, honest mean-
ing, born of his deep reverence for the Word of God,
been as obvious to other minds as to his own, I feel

316 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

quite sure that the number of his opponents would have
been very nnich smaller than it was. In reference to
one point in particular it always seemed to me that he
made a mistake, which led to not a little needless sus]3i-
cion and misunderstanding. I refer to his selection of
Dr. Martineau as an example of those who, not finding
God in the Scriptures or in the Church, do find Him in
and through the Keason. If the example was to be
sought within the bounds of Christendom, no better
choice could have been made than Dr. Martineau.
But in any case how much of Avhat is best and most
admirable in the writings, as in the life and character,
of this noble Christain thinker, came to him through
the old English Bible and the Church, as well as
through the Beason. The power of reason as a foun-
tain, or channel, of divine authority should have been
illustrated, it appears to me, by taking a case outside
Christendom, beyond the reach of the Bible or the
Church. Socrates, or Plato, or even Epictetus, would
have been a better examj^le than Dr. Martineau ; oc-
casioning far less theological prejudice and furnishing
a much stronger illustration.

During the conflict, that grew out of his address,
very bitter charges were made against Dr. Briggs. In
consequence of these charges he was regarded by tens
of thousands of good men and women as an errorist of
the worst sort. To decry him as an enemy of the
Bible and an arrant heretic seemed to be considered by
not a few as doing God service. Was he really such a

DR. BRIGGS AND HIS TRIAL FOR HERESY^ 317

man as his enemies depicted liim ? Or did tliey bear
false witness against him ? I might answer tliese ques-
tions by giving the testimony of eminent Christian schol-
ars, at home and abroad, who knew liim well and some
of whom strongly dissented from much of his teaching
about the higher criticism. But I do not think that, at
this late day, he is in need of any such testimony. He
can stand securely on the testimony of his own charac-
ter, writings and services. The best answer to the
charges brought against him by his enemies was his
whole-souled, courageous devotion to the Divine Master
whom he loves and adores. It has been my privilege
to enjoy the friendship of very many good, learned and
true men at home and abroad, and I have ever counted
Dr. Briggs among them. Those, who knew him best,
liked and loved him best. He was not, to be sure,
altogether perfect ; nor did he ever pretend to be. He
was, undeniably, very positive and even aggressive,
both by constitutional temperament and by force of
conviction. If no good men were positive and at times
even aggressive, who would be left to fight the perilous
battles of truth and justice in such a world as this?
Even granting that Dr. Briggs' tone and manner did
not always tend to soften, or conciliate, hostile feeling,
his intense earnestness rather than any personal ill-
will was at fault. I have rarely known a man of
such j^ositive and strong convictions who was so little
obdurate or selfish in his opinions.

To speak unadvisedly, or very jDositively, with one's

318 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

lips, or with one's pen, is no strange thing in the
annals of American Presbyterianism. It did not
come in with higher criticism. Dr. Briggs did not
invent it. If in his Presbyterian days he sometimes
sinned in that line, he followed the example of other
famous Presbyterians of the 19th century. I have
expressed my honest respect, not to say admira-
tion, for Dr. Kobert J. Breckinridge. But what
shall be said of the tone and manner in which he was
wont to express his mind about his New School breth-
ren— and, as for that, his Old School brethren, also,
when they differed with him — in 1834, 1837-38, at the
Philadelphia Union Convention in 1867, and in the
General Assembly at Albany in 1868 ? What could
have been more provoking than his biting criticism
upon the report of Dr. Adams and Dr. Beatty on
reunion — a report so seasoned with the meekness of
wisdom — pronouncing it unworthy of the great Pres-
byterian Church and " deficient in style, literature,
grammar, and rhetoric from one end to the other ! "
The truth is, that Presbyterians, even if now and
then the Lord's "silly people," as they have been
often called, are also, undeniably, among the Lord's
fighting people. Their Calvinism makes them bold
and determined, but it tends also to make them
somewhat pugnacious, not to say domineering. They
hold a high doctrine of original and indwelling sin ;
and I have wondered whether, in His permissive
will, the Lord did not, perhaps, allow an unusually

DR. BRIGGS AND HIS TRIAL FOR HERESY. 319

large share of the hitter to remain in them in attes-
tation of their doctrine, as also to keep down their
pride of orthodoxy.

When I consider what were Dr. Briggs' services to
the Presbyterian Chnrch, and to Christian truth; how
far they exceeded in variety, amount, and quality
those of most other Presbyterian scholars of his own
day, at least in this country, and with what fidelity and
zeal he rendered them, I am little in the mood to com-
plain of his faults or to hear others do so. At his
urgent request I consented to serve on the Executive
Committee of the Association in charge of the Presby-
terian Review, of which he was the principal founder
and senior editor. He consulted me, both as a friend
and as a member of that committee, year in and year
out. He talked to me with absolute freedom respect-
ing the Review, its policy, his colleagues, and his own
plans, labors and trials in its management. He w^as
restrained by no fear that anybody would ever know
what he said to me. I do not believe he ever hesitated
to give vent in my ear to his inmost thoughts, or
doubts and suspicions and grievances about persons
and things, so far as he had any, and yet as I now look
over the record in my memory of those ten years I see
nothing dishonoring to Christian scholarship? ; nothing
that did not betoken one, whose devotion to sound
doctrine, the best interests of the Presbyterian Church,
the cause of sacred learning, and, above all, to the
King of Truth, was an absorbing passion. Again and

320 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

again I said to myself, " How this man loves to work
for his Master and his Master's kingdom ! "

This is not the place to speak at length of Dr. Briggs'
trial for heresy by the Presbytery of New York and
by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church
in the United States of America. It has always seemed
to me a very sad story, alike in its initiation, in its
processes and incidents and in its final issue. I agree
fully with those — and they formed a host of learned,
wise and good men — who viewed this trial with pro-
found regret, as involving not merely a great wrong
to Dr. Briggs, but as also a heavy blow and dishonor
to some of the most sacred principles of American
Presbyterianism. As to the rasping tone, style, man-
ner and language of not a few of his brethren, both
ministers and elders, in ojoposing him and his views, it is
hard to speak without some impatience. Harsh words,
on both sides, usually accompany religious quarrels ;
that is one of the worst things about them. And they
were often used, no doubt, in the Briggs case, as in all
other cases of theological contention, Avith far less per-
sonal motive than their severity seemed to indicate.
The best men and women are tempted to indulge in
them ; and are aj^t afterward to be sorry for it. Noth-
ing is ever gained for a good cause by bitter, angry
words. Still, the treatment of Dr. Briggs, bad as it
was, might have been worse. I have examined with
considerable care the records of his case as presented
in the religious and secular press, and in the official

DR. BRIGGS AND HIS TRIAL FOR HERESY. 321

proceedings of Presbytery and General Assembly, and
find that so far as the printed accounts show, much that
was most bitter had been weeded out, and that what is
left was more fair, manly and of good report than I ex-
pected to find in them. Take, for example, the minutes
and rej^orts of speeches in the Washington Assembly,
when it had been solemnly transformed from an ordin-
ary business meeting into what is called a " Court of
Jesus Christ." After years of heated conflict and dis-
cussion, the main question was now to be decided : Is
Dr. Briggs guilty of heresy ? Each commissioner,
at the calling of his name, rose to " explain his vote "
and give his judgment. A great hush, of a sudden,
came over the whole Assembly. It was a wonderfully
impressive scene. Almost everybody seemed to be
awed by it, and a large number of the commissioners,
who declared Dr. Briggs guilty of heresy, did it, appar-
ently, not without regret, in entire honesty, quietly,
and in the fear of God. There were, to be sure, a
good many explanations loaded with partisan feeling
and theological rancor ; one in particular caused a
pious shudder to pass over the whole vast audience.
When the name was called of a ruling elder, who had
been specially prominent in the organization and pro-
ceedings of the Assembly, he rose and explained his
vote by a charge * against Dr. Briggs so terrible that

*" If it be in order in this Presbyterian General Assembly, in this court,
permit me to direct your attention to the character of Almighty God and
the Lord Jesus Christ for omniscience, veracity and absolute trutli fulness.
Almighty God said that Isaiah said thus and so ; Dr. Briggs says to Almigiity

322 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

the late Rev. Dr. H. M. Storrs — a splendid pattern of
Christian manliness — sprung to his feet and exclaimed :

Mr. Moderator : I rise to a point of order, and I wish
it taken down. This man has been before us ; is the charge
now made against him true ? Is it veracious? Has Dr. Briggs
said any such thing? That is the question, sir. My point
of order is that any man here has a right to the defence of
his personal character against unwarranted statements. This
is a charge of blasphemy upon Dr. Briggs.

Mr. McDoug;all — It is that matter I am going to discuss.

Dr. Storrs — Mr. Moderator, before a man can say any-
thing of this sort, he must locate particular language and
statement ; otherwise it is a general statement, and becomes
an accusation of blasphemy for which there is no pardon.

This is not jDleasant reading. But the majority,
I repeat, of those who at Washington declared Dr.
Briggs guilty of heresy, did it in a wholly different
style and temper. One may easily respect them in
spite of their unwise and wrongful verdict. Indeed,
I go even further. Some of them in explaining their
votes displayed, without knowing it, fine qualities of
Christian sensibility and manhood. And along with
the noble loyalty and devotion of the steadfast minority
to Presbyterian law, liberty, justice and truth, these

God, ' Isaiah did not say so.' Which will you believe? This is not a ques-
tion of finance, not a matter of science, not a matter of history ; but the
Almighty God, the Eternal Jehovah, said in His Written Word, in Luke,
in John, in Romans, that Isaiah said thus and so; Dr. Briggs says, 'Al-
mighty God, Isaiah never said it ; he never wrote it ; he was not living
when it was written.' This is not a formal or technical question, it is a
direct issue as to the veracity of the Eternal God."

DR. BRIGGS AND HIS TRIAL FOR HERESY. 323

qualities helped greatly to relieve the darker aspects
of the scene. For, at the best, an American heresy
trial, like that of Albert Barnes, or like those of Charles
A. Briggs and Henry Preserved Smith, is a pitiable
thing in the sight of heaven and earth.

This is not the place, as I have before said, to deal
at length with the case of Dr. Briggs, to narrate the
successive stages and incidents of his trial, to state the
arguments for and against him, or to discuss the bear-
ing of this trial upon public opinion, both in and out-
side the Presbyterian Church, in regard to the character
and practical working of its judicial system. And yet
the case was so full of impressive lessons, especially on
the latter point, that I cannot wholly pass them over.
Instead of my own reflections on the subject, however,
I will give those of a much wiser man — one of larger
experience and singularly gifted with ecclesiastical pru-
dence. I refer to the late P. W. Patterson, D.D., the
patriarch of American Presbyterianism in the great
Northwest.

While engaged in writing this chapter Dr. Hastings
put into my hands a parcel of letters, written to him
by Dr. Patterson during 1891-1894. The following
extracts from these familiar but weighty letters will
explain some of the lessons taught by the case of Dr.
Briggs, to which I have referred.

May 30, 1892.
I see that the Portland Assembly has decided to sustain the
appeal of tlie coniinittee and has reversed the action of the New

324 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

York Presbytery, but did not go on with the trial on the
merits. This last the only sensible thing so far. I am not
surprised, after witnessing the spirit of the Assembly at
Detroit. Our judicial system must be reformed, or we shall
as a Church lose all credit for decency in the trial of men
accused of heresy, or, indeed, of any offence. Only think of
five or six hundred men acting as a court !

It seems three membei's of the last Assembly's Commit-
tee of Conference were allowed, as individuals, to make a
supplementary report, giving their pretended understanding
of the ''status quo,'' directly opposite (as Dr. Johnson tells
me) of the fact that your board declined (very properly, I
think) to consent to settle the question at issue by arbitra-
tion ! I hope Union Seminary will resume her original
freedom. The Assembly is on the high road to a tyranny
that will divide the Church into worrying factions, and that
will not be permanently endured in this free age, and all
this outside of any provision of our constitution. Such
usurpations are always smuggled in under the guise of infer-
ences from constitutional provisions.

You will not infer from anything I say that I swear by
Dr. Briggs. I dissent firmly from some of his views. But
he is not a heretic, and his critical conclusions cannot be
set aside by clamor, nor by the ignorant and prejudiced
votes of an Assembly. He must be met, if at all, by
patient discussion. The day for settling critical questions by
fire and banishment is past, although I heard a high oppo-
nent of Dr. Briggs say (some years ago, it is true) that
"Servetus ought to have been burned."

June 1, 1892.

I do earnestly desire a thorough reform in our judicial
system, which is the worst, I believe, in any Protestant

DR. nRfCGS AND HfS TRIAL FOR /I/: RES)'. 325

Cliurcli. A t'oiu't of five or six liuiKli-cd nu'ii, choscui with a
view to tlio questions tliev are to adjudicate, and open to all
outside influences and ])i-cjudiced appeals while tiiey arc act-
ing in a judicial capacity ! Of course a heresy-hunting com-
mittee Mould like to carry their case directly to such a body,
passing over all intervening courts.

July 4, 1893.

I was not disappointed by the action of the Washington As-
sembly. The spirit of the leaders of 1835-1838 is again in the
ascendant. But it is too violent to hold its present undisputed
control. I know of strong dissent among conservative men,
even at Princeton, and in the far West. The warriors, as
in 1837, are led on by Kentuckians and Philadelphians. In
spite of misrepresentation and attempts to repress discussion,
thought and open speech will go forward and be felt. Union
Seminary will live and be a great power in this struggle for
liberty.

My greatest concern pertains to the roiwter futuve of our
Church. Can progressive men wait long enxmgh to escape at
last from the ecclesiastical tyranny that has fortified itself by
misconstructions of Presbyterian law, still remaining in the
Church? I fear many will get tired of the delay and go
out in one direction or another — many of our best, ablest
men. I feel the tendency myself. In fact, I begin to ques-
tion Scriptural authority for such a system of government as
ours has always been. Has a Christian church a right to
build up such fences as we claim for safeguards against
error ?

September 24, 1893.
The assumption now is that having a majority the ex-
tremists have a right, as a human organization, to construe
or make laws as they please, without regard to the limita-

326 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

tions of a Christian ehurch, restricted by the teaching of its
Divine Founder and the precedents furnished by the inspired
apostles. I agree with you that if the church is a mere club,
with authority to make or un-make its own laws, it is an
instrument of despotism worse than Romanism. We are
bound by a long confession, all of which we are confessedly
not required to accept, but the majority can at any time fix
the limits of "essential and necessary articles" as wider or
narrower, and construe those articles by a court of six hundred
men, the greater number of whom have no clear knowledge of
the questions at issue. And then our rules of order can be
stretched by forced interpretations of the same unwieldy
majority to any result the leaders may desire. And, finally,
if we complain, we are coolly invited to "get out," or be
held as covenant breakers. The limits of church authority
must be more discriminatingly settled if we are to hold our
ground as Protestant Christians and churches. Many acute
thinkers are inquiring in this line.

The theory of Presbyterian church polity, to
which Dr. Patterson here refers, was very clearly de-
fined by the Rev. Dr. William H. Roberts, Stated
Clerk of the General Assembly, in exjDlaining his vote
at Washington in favor of condemning Dr. Briggs.
It was as follows :

The foundation principle of Church organization held by
the Presbyterian Church is that of a voluntary association.
Without intruding on the rights of others, Presbyterians have
voluntarily associated themselves into a denomination and
have agreed to maintain a certain system of doctrine and
form of government. The system of doctrine is composed of
the fundamental doctrines contained in the Confession of

DR. BRIGGS AND HIS TRIAL FOR ,)ilRESY. 327

Faith. The Presbytery of New York by finding charges 1
to 3 ill the case of Professor Briggs sufficient to put the
accused on trial, approved as fundamental doctrines of the
Presbyterian system these three, viz., that the Reason and the
Church are not fountains of divine authority, and tliat the
original Scriptures did not contain errors. The evidence
given in Presbytery and the statements made by the parties
on this floor have shown clearly, in my opinion, that the
Presbytery has made a mistake and committed an injustice
by its verdict of acquittal ; and, further, that the Assembly,
in order to maintain our system of doctrine intact, must so
act that liberty of scholarship and opinion shall be given in
the future as in the past only in matters non-essential. We
must hold our ministers strictly to our system of doctrine in
all fundamentals, or our Church will become something other
than the clear-cut and thorough-going Calvinistic and Pres-
byterian Church which it has been for two centuries.

October 20, 1893.
I do not see how we are to escape from the centralizing
tendency of our Church. Your Synod of New York is
largely governed by it, and so are all of our Synods. They
must vindicate their loyalty to the Assembly by humbly
bowing to all of its decisions. And the Assembly is gov-
erned by a dozen men, chiefly of Princeton antecedents. All
the powers of the Church are concentrated at last in the
Assembly, even to the creation of new constitutional provis-
ions, which are easily made by new interpretations. Then
each new decision of the Assembly is in the direction of
stringency and narrowness.

November, 1893.
Hardly anything is surprising in these days. But it
does seem past belief that Robinson and Booth should pro-

328 THd.(jriO.V THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

pose the refusal (if license to the students Wf Union Seminary.
That was beyond the Old School extremists of 1835-1837;,
No such ground was ever taken in regard to the students
of Congregational seminaries, who have always been licensed
without question on examination. Romanism could do no more.
Union Seminary was always absolutely independent of eccle-
siastical control up to 1870. It now stands on its original
ground. . . . The truth is, our Church is more and more
becoming a despotism. It needs a radical revision in polity
as well as doctrine. I do not wish to die in such a Church
as ours now is.

It is not my purpose, I repeat once more, to give
in this volume a history of Dr. Briggs' case, but I am
unwilling to pass from it without a word from Dr.
Briggs himself. Here is a brief but very lucid state-
ment on the subject, j)repared by him at my request :

STATEMENT OF DR. BRIGGS.

In the autumn of 1879 I went to Princeton as a repre-
sentative of the Union faculty to ask the co-operation of
the Princeton faculty in the re-establishment of the Presby-
terian Revieiv. The W. Robertson Smith case was still in
debate in Scotland, and it was sujjposed that I was in gen-
eral sympathy with him ; although I had not expressed my
opinion in public any further than to claim his liberty of
opinion in matters of the Higher Criticism, in my inaugural ad-
dress as Professor of Hebrew in October, 1876. The Prince-
ton faculty asked my views of inspiration and of the Higher
Criticism. I stated that I did not accept Verbal Inspira-
tion and Inerrancy and that I was in accord with the move-
ment of Higher Criticism. The Princeton faculty agreed to

DR. BRIGGS AND HIS TRIAL FOR HERESY. ^29

unite with the Union fliculty in the enterin-ise, and consented
that Dr. A. A. Hodoe and I should be the manairino-
editors of the Review. The Presbyterian Review was started
in January, 1880. The introductory article was written l)y
myself and signed by Dr. Hodge without the change of a
word. It was agreed that we should avoid questions in de-
bate between us and endeavor to discuss all questions in the
interest of the peace, harmony and luiity of the Presbyterian
Church. The other theological seminaries cordially united
with us on this platform. Toward the close of 1880 the
Princeton representative stated that it was necessary that the
W. Robertson Smith case should be discussed in the Revieio,
and that the conservatives demanded the right to speak their
minds upon it. It was then resolved that both sides should
be heard on the Higher Criticism. Dr. Hodge was to open
and close the debate. I was to follow him at the beginning
and precede him at the close. Dr. Hodge was to choose two
intermediate writers and I two. I selected Dr. H. P. Smith
and Dr. Willis J. Beecher, the representatives of the Auburn
and Lane faculties, supposing that Dr. Hodge w^ould choose
representatives of the Alleghany and Chicago faculties, so
that the six faculties represented in the Review Avould all be
heard from. Instead of doing that. Dr. Hodge chose Dr.
Green, of Princeton, and Dr. S. Ives Curtiss, of the Con-
gregational Seminary of Chicago. To this plan of discussion
we agreed. Subsequently the Princeton representatives in-
sisted upon joining Dr. Warfield to Dr. Hodge in the open-
ing article on Inspiration and of substituting Dr. Patton for
Dr. Hodge in the closing article. The unfairness and parti-
sanship of this proposed change of agreement was pointed
out ; but I consented to this violation of the original compact,
under the advice of my colleagues in Union Seminary, in
the interest of peace and harmony.

330 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

At the close of the discussion in the Review in April, 1883,
there was little further discussion of the subject of Higher
Criticism in the Review, except incidentally in the notices of
books ; and the excitement in the Church on the subject was
gradually abating. It was revived only by partisan efforts
in connection with the movement for the revision of .the
Westminster Confession in 1889.

The General Assembly in May, 1889, to the surprise of
the great majority of the Church, sent down overtures to the
Presbyteries, proposing the following questions : Do you ^
desire a revision of the Confession of Faith ? If so, in what
respects, and to what extent?

These questions greatly agitated the whole Presbyterian
Church. Three parties sprang into existence : One in favor
of revision ; one opposed to revision ; and a third in favor of
a new and simple consensus creed. The last two parties
co-operated in the revision movement and won the victory,
the result of which was the appointment of two committees;
one to prepare a revision ; the other to prepare a concensus
creed. Union Seminary led the party of revision ; Princeton
the anti-revision party. At first I was opposed to the revi-
sion movement, as premature and impracticable ; and ex-
pressefl my views to this effect in the Presbyterian Review for
Octobel*, 1889; but subsequently, seeing that the movement
was an earnest and powerful one, and that it was necessary
for me to take sides, I could not refrain from joining the
party of progress.

The Presbyterian Union of New York invited Dr. Patton
and myself to represent the two sides of the question before
them December 2, 1889. This debate drew the fire of the
entire anti-revision party on me. The very next evening,
December 3rd, The Mail and Express published a bitter
editorial attack on Union Seminary and on me, inspired by

DR. BRIGGS AND HIS TRIAL FOR HERESY. 33I

the anti-revisionists ; and this attack continued in a most
shameful way from that date onward.

These articles in The Mall and Express were sent to Pres-
byterian ministers and laymen especially in the West and
Southwest, stirring up the Presbyterian Church against Union
Seminary, the Presbytery of New York, and myself by false
statements and misrepresentations. As this was done secretly,
and was unknown at the time to the friends of Union Sem-
inary, there was no opportunity of counteracting them. In
the interest of peace and harmony, the friends of Union
Semuiary refrained from making any reply to these attacks
in New York and vicinity, except by a few dignified articles
by the late Henry Day. For the same reasons I refrained
from making any reply to the attacks upon me. This situation
continued for an entire year, waxing worse and worse.

In the autumn of 1890 enemies of Union Seminary em-
ployed a student in the Junior Class of the seminary to act
as their spy. He made such false reports of my lectures
that the entire student body arose in indignation and de-
manded his retirement from the seminary. The faculty,
under the advice of the Board of Directors, called him to
account, and after a careful investigation of the case ex-
pelled him from the seminary for his false statements in the
public press.

When this situation was most acute, November 11, 1890,
the directors of Union Seminary unanimously transferred me
to the chair of Biblical Theology, just established by Mr.
Charles Butler, president of the board. My induction into
the new chair took place on January 20, 1891. The chair
was entitled the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical Theol-
ogy. Inasmuch as Edward Robinson had been my teacher,
and his name was more identified with Biblical Geography
than with any other subject; the theme selected by me for

332 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

my address was Biblical Geography. The donor of the chair,
who was at the same time president of the Board of Direc-
tors of the seminary, was consulted as to the theme. He
sajid that under other circumstances the theme would be most
appropriate ; but, under the circumstances forced upon us at
the time, it was necessary to select a theme that would vin-
dicate the seminary and myself in the matters under debate.
I said to him that the result would be a very great increase
in public excitement and bitter hostility on the part of the
ultra, conservatives, but he replied that it was necessary to
meet the issue forced upon us, whatever the result might be.
When one considers that it was Mr. Butler who aided Dr.
Robinson in his journeys to Palestine, in the investigation
of Biblical Geography ; one can understand the significance
of his opinion that I should abandon the theme of Biblical
Geography and select the burning question. Yielding to his
advice, which was reinforced by the faculty and other mem-
bers of the board, the theme selected was the Authority of
Holy Scripture. The aim of the address was to maintain and
to assert in the strongest terms the divine authority of Holy
Scripture in connection with a full recognition of the results
of modern Biblical criticism and modern thought in all de-
partments. No position was taken in that address which had
not previously been taken in articles in the Presbyterian Be-
vieiv and in printed books many months before. The limits
of the discourse required the condensation of a vast amount
of material and the concentration of a very great many points
of difference, which in the nature of the case were exceed-
ingly disagreeable to the ultra conservative section of the
Church, and the situation exacted of the speaker that his
rhetoric should be fired to some degree of passion in view
of the defense of himself and the cause that he represented,
after more than a year of unjust attack. After several years

DR. BRIGGS AND HIS TRIAL FOR HERESY. 333

of reflection I do not see how I could have done otherwise ;
but tliere is not a word of the address that I see any reason
to change. There can be no reasonable doubt that this
attack upon the seminary and myself was the result of the
bitter feelings engendered by the revision controversy, and
that it was oro-anizcd and carried on as an anti-revision con-
spiracy by a very small body of active and unscrupulous
partisans, wha used The Mail and Express and affiliated
organs and also an extensive pamphlet literature, and ex-
pended a large sum of money in order to fire the Presby-
terian Church against the Higher Criticism and to persuade
them that the Bible and the evangelical faith were in peril.
In fact, the Presbyterian Church was deliberately thrown
into a panic about the Bible in order to defeat the revision
movement and to discredit Union Seminary. I was only an
incident in this warfare. Circumstances made me the con-
venient target on which to concentrate the attack. In all
respects this conspiracy was successful. The revision move-
ment was defeated ; Union Seminary was discredited ; and I
was suspended from the ministry of the Presbyterian Church.
It ought to be said that I was taken ill with a severe
attack of the grippe, which confined me to my house and to
my bed at the time when the movement against me began
in the Presbytery of New York and the General Assembly.
It was entirely contrary to ecclesiastical usage that action
should be taken against a minister in his absence, when it
was impossible for him to make such public statements
before the bodies as might have satisfied them that no pro-
cess was necessary. The directors of Union Seminary
endeavored to overcome the panic by submitting a series of
questions to me, the answers to which were signed from my
sick bed. This action by the Board of Directors had no
appreciable effect on the situation.

334 'I^HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

It should also be said that I proposed to the directors,
through the officers of the board, to resign my chair in the
seminary and relieve them of the necessity of defending me.
The reason why I have remained in my chair is that I was
requested not to resign because the directors felt that the
rights and liberty of the seminary were inseparably bound
up in my case.

It should also be said that it was my desire, in accor-
dance with my best judgment, to withdraw from the Presby-
terian Church after my acquittal by the Presbytery of New
York, and that I yielded my desire and judgment to the
unanimous advice of the faculty and the pillars of the sem-
inary. . I went on to sure defeat at the General Assembly,
as was well known beforehand ; and then suffered the humil-
iation of the unrighteous and illegal sentence for five years.
At the close of this time, having made up my mind that I
could change my ecclesiastical relations without any damage to
the seminary or the cause that I represented, I carried out
my desire and judgment, expressed several years before,
and severed my connection with the Presbyterian Church
and was received into the ministry of the Protestant Episco-
pal Church.

In closing this brief notice of the case of Dr. Briggs
I will add a word touching the effect upon public
opinion of his suspension by the General Assembly, as
also of that of his friend, the Rev. Dr. Henry Preserved
Smith, who on essentially the same ground was not
long afterwards condemned as a heretic and punished
in the same way. How were these two gifted Chris-
tian scholars, after they had been declared guilty of
heresy, regarded and treated by their brethren outside

DR. BRIG as AND HIS TRIAL FOR HERESY. 335

the Presbyterian Church ? The following extract
from a letter of Mr. D. Willis James, dated Pasadena,
California, March 30, 1899, may serve as a partial
answer to this question :

Rarely has any ecclesiastical action met with such
prompt and well-nigh universal condemnation as that of sus-
pending the Rev. Dr. Charles A. Briggs and the Rev. Dr.
Henry Preserved Smith from the sacred ministry. A large
and, as I believe, the most intelligent part of the Presby-
terian Church disapproved of this action. Dr. Briggs was
warmly welcomed into the Episcopal Church and endorsed
by some of its ablest leaders, such men, for example, as
Bishop Potter and the Rev. Dr. Huntington ; while the Rev.
Dr. Henry Preserved Smith was unanimously elected by the
trustees of Amherst College (composed of leading Congrega-
tional clergymen and laymen, also leading Episcopal clergy-
men and laymen, and at least two Presbyterians, one a
prominent clergyman of New York City) as Professor of
Biblical History and Interpretation and associate pastor of
the college church. Dr. Smith was also received into the
Congregational body by a unanimous vote of the local asso-
ciation and council. In what way could these eminent
'representatives of Episcopacy and of New England Congre-
grtionalism — differing so widely in forms and polity, agree-
ing so strongly in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us
free — have expressed more emphatically their feeling and
conviction that Dr. Briggs and Dr. Smith, judged by the
great rule of the Gospel, are no heretics but brethren be-
loved in the Lord?

part Zhivb.

INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION OF
THE SEMINARY SINCE 1886.

THE REV. FRANCIS BROWN, Ph.D., D.D.,

Davenport Professor of Hebrew and the Cognate Languages.

THE COURSES OF STUDY AND SCHEDULE FOR

1898-99.

THE LIBRARY AND THE ALUMNI,

THE REV. DR. CHARLES R. GILLETT,

Libraria?i.

THE INAUGURATION OF A NEW PRESIDENT
AND GLANCES AT THE FUTURE.

INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 339

part ^blrb.

THE INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION OF
THE SEMINARY SINCE 1886.

BY PROFESSOR FRANCIS BROWN, D. D.

The internal development of the seminary, during
the last twelve or thirteen years, has been gradual and
quiet. The advance is, however, considerable.

Increase in the teaching force. Since the establish-
ment of the Edward Robinson professorship of Biblical
Theology, in 1890, not only have three new professors
been chosen to fill vacancies, * but in the present year
(February, 1899) two additional professors have been
elected : the Rev. Thomas Cuming Hall, D.D., a grad-
uate of Princeton University, in 1879, and of this sem-
inary in 1882, as professor of Christian Ethics, and the
Rev. George William Knox, D.D., a graduate of Ham-
ilton College in 1874, and of Auburn Theological
Seminary in 1877, as professor of the Philoso2)hy and

* These are: The Eev. Arthur Cushman McGiifert, D.D., a graduate
of western Reserve University in 1882, and of this seminary in 1885, on
the resignation of Dr. Schaff, in 1S93, was appointed Washburn professor
of Church History; the Rev. Charles Cuthbert Hall, D.D., a graduate of
Williams College in 1872, and of this seminary in 1875, on the resignation
of Dr. Prentiss, in 1897, was appointed Skinner and McAlpin professor of
Pastoral Theology, Church Polity and Mission Work, and also president of
the faculty, on the resignation of that office by Dr. Hastings, in the same
year ; and, in 1878, the Rev. William Adams Brown, a graduate of Yale
University in 1886, and of this seminary in 1890, was appointed Roosevelt
professor of Systematic Theology, to fill the vacancy caused by the death
of Dr. Worcester, in 1893.

340 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

History of Keligion. These gentlemen will begin their
regular work in the autumn of 1899.

With the transfers of Dr. Briggs to the Edward
Kobinson professorship of Biblical Theology, and of
Dr. Francis Brown, to the Davenport . professorship of
Hebrew and the Cognate Languages (both in 1890), the
position of instructor in Biblical Philology, as assistant
in the Old Testament dej^artment, was revived. It was
held for one year, 1891-92, by the Bev. Owen Ham-
ilton Gates, Ph.D., a graduate of Dartmouth College
in 1883, and a Fellow of this seminary in 1889-1891.
When Dr. Gates left to accej^t the Old Testament pro-
fessorship at Oberlin, O., the position was taken by the
Bev. Charles Prosper Fagnani, D.D., a graduate of the
College of the City of New York in 1878, and of this
seminary in 1882, who still occupies the place. In
1897, the New Testament department was strengthened
by the ai^pointment of the Bev. James Everett Frame,
M.A., a graduate of Harvard University in 1891, and
Fellow of this seminary in 1895-1897, as instructor in
that department, a position he still holds. In addition
to these, the Bev. Charles Bipley Gillett, D.D.,L.H.D.,
librarian of the seminary, has, since 1893, given
regular instruction in Theological Encyclopedia,
Methodology and Bibliography.

Relations with the Columbia University and with the
New York University. A much greater practical en-
largement of tlie teaching force to whose instruction
students of this seminary have access, is due to the spe-
cial relations of mutual academic courtesy maintained
since 1890 with the Columbia University and with the
New York University, under which relations well

INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 34I

qualified students of the seminary are admitted upon
proper recommendation, and without fee, to the courses
offered hy the faculty of Philosophy at Columbia, and
in the University Graduate School at New York Uni-
versity. These courses include advance work in
Psychology and Philosophy, Anthropology, P(^litic}il
Science, Economics and Sociology, Greek, Latin and
Semitica, Sanskrit, German and English, History,
Comparative Religion, and other important subjects.
A large proportion of the students of the seminary,
avail themselves of these privileges.

Seminary Curriculum. Until 1894, there had been
but three lectures daily in the seminary; since that date
the number has been increased to four. The course of
study in the seminary has been modified in several j^ar-
ticulars. While a professional school can never adopt
a purely elective system, it is recognized that, after a
solid foundation has been laid in those studies which
ought to form a j^art of the furnishing of every minister,
some degree of specialization is j^ossible, and, for
thorough work is highly desirable, if not necessary.
Changes in the curriculum have been made with this
end in view. In 1894, there was announced a division
of courses into required (in particular years or terms),
variable (as to year or class, although required for grad-
uation), and elective. In the junior or first year, the
opportunity for electives is least, it is greater in the
middle year, and greater still in the senior year ;
while graduate students and special students have a
free range of electives. A certain proportion of the
electives may be taken at the Columbia University and
at the Xew York University.

342 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

There has been an increase in the number of semi-
nars or classes for Special Research. In the year
1898-99, there were four seminars carried on in as
many departments, to which only students of high
grade are admitted, after personal application to the
professor. Besides these, there are various seminars at
the universities, open to the students of the seminary.

The practical use of the English Bible has been rec-
ognized as a distinct branch of instruction. In
1894-95, Dr. Fagnani offered a sjoecial course in this
subject, and since 1896, he has given two courses each
year ; an additional course is announced for 1899-1900,
by Thomas C Hall, to whom the subject has been
specifically assigned.

Students entering the seminary with a good elemen-
tary knowledge of Hebrew have, since 1884, been put
in a class by themselves, and have had opportunity for
advanced work. Since 1897, a similar advanced class
in Greek has been instituted, open to those who pass
an entrance examination in that subject, and the result
has been gratifying.

In 1896, an Honor Course was established for stu-
dents of the higher grades, with somewhat severer re-
quirements than the Kegular Course. There is an
Honor Course for graduates as well as for under-
graduates. Special students who take at least fourteen
hours a week, are upon the same footing with under-
graduates and graduates in the matter of recommenda-
tion to the universities, but are not eligible for the
Honor Course in the seminary.

Degrees. Under an agreement made in 1896, with
the regents of the University of the State of New

INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT. 343

York, students who successfully complete the Honor
Course, are recommended by the faculty to the regents
for the degree of B. D. Students have the further
opportunity of working for the degrees of M. A. and
Ph.D., at the Columbia University or at the New York
University, and certain courses at this seminary are
accepted by these universities in partial fulfilment of
the conditions of these degrees.

Scliolarships. Since 1893, four prize scholarships
have been offered each year to college graduates of high
rank who pass a special entrance examination. In
1898, a plan was adopted by which all scholarships are
awarded on the basis of merit, and the scholarships are
divided into classes varying in amount and correspond-
ing to different degrees of merit. " Merit " is under-
stood to include both scholarship rank and practical
Christian efiiciency.

In addition to the scholarships with stipend, an order
of honorary scholarship's without stipend, was estab-
lished in 1898, for the further recognition of merit,
called the Edward Kobinson Scholarships.

Christian Work. For years past, a large number of
the students of the seminary, have engaged in many
forms of Christian work, under various methods of ap-
pointment and control. In 1898, this work was re-
organized, and placed under the direction of the faculty
as a department of Christian Work. The following
branches of work are maintained under the rules of the
department : work in churches and chapels ; w^ork as
pastors' assistants ; work in connection with the city

344 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

mission society ; settlement work ; work in j^nblic in-
stitntions ; regular and occasional preaching ; choir
service (for the advancement of the worship life within
the seminary, and for occasional choir work in public
institutions). Suitable measures are taken to secure
supervision of the men, and reports of their work
sufficiently definite to base upon them estimates of rank
which estimates are considered in the award of the
merit scholarships.

Almost the entire student body is engaged in some
kind of Christian work under this scheme.

Student Societies. In addition to the historic " So-
ciety of Inquiry Concerning Missions," a branch of the
Young Men's Christian Association was formed in
1898, and by means of it, membership was secured in
the "World's Student Federation of Christian Workers."

Religious Services. The established services have
long been daily morning j^rayers, students' prayer meet-
ings and a monthly devotional meeting of faculty and
students. In February, 1898, a vesper service, with
sermon, was begun at 4:30 on Sunday afternoons, and
has been continued. During the year 1898-99, a
series of ten sermons on " The Holy Spirit," has been
given on alternate Sunday afternoons, by specially in-
vited preachers. Attendance by the students upon all
the religious services of the seminary has been made
voluntary.

The Union Settlement. A social settlement was es-
tablished in 1895, by alumni and friends of the sem-

INTERN A I. DEVELOPMENT. 345

iiiarv, known as the " Union Settlement." It has a
residenee liouse in a needy distriet of tlie city — at 237
East 104th Street — with separate quarters for clulj
rooms and kindergarten, a large hall for Sunday ser-
vices, and a large free playground. The Head Worker
is a graduate of the seminary, and members of the
Board of Directors and of the faculty belong to the
governing body. Its influence is rapidly increasing,
and it offers valuable opportunities to students desiring
to engage in this form of Christian work. Its relation
to the seminary is close, though unofficial. It is sup-
ported by private subscription, and representatives of
nearly all the Protestant Communions are united in its
maintenance.

The Alumni Club. The Alumni Club of the Union
Theological Seminary was formed in 1890. It was an
outgrowth from a club maintained for some years by the
members of the class of 1875. Its members are alumni
of the seminary, for the most part settled in and near
New York. Its purj)ose is social fellowship, the discus-
sion of important questions, and co-operation, whenever
practicable, in the interest of the seminary. It holds
four meetings each year, with a luncheon, usually in
November, January and March, and a dinner at the
anniversary in May. Papers and addresses by special-
ists in many fields, form a prominent feature of the
meetings. The number of members is about 250.
The alumni, generally, are invited to the annual
dinner in May. It was at a meeting of this club
in 1894, that the Union Settlement Association was
formed, which now carries on the settlement referred
to above.

346 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

THE COURSES OF STUDY.

It may interest some readers to see, in addition to Dr.
Brown's comprehensive and instructive paper, the Courses
OF Study for 1898-99. Here they are arranged by de-
partments.

PROPAEDEUTICS.

Lectures on Tlieological Encyclopnedia, Methodology and Bibliology, Dr.
GiliLETT ; First Term, Fri., 12 M. ; required of Juniore.

BIBLICAL PHILOLOGY AND EXEGESIS.

Old Testament.

Hebrew A (1) Introductory Hebrew Grammar, with exercises in reading and
writing Hebrew, followed by the reading of selected chapters of the
Old Testament, Dr. Fagnani ; First Term, Mon., Tues., Thui-s., 9 A.
M. ; Wed., 10 A. M. ; Fri., 11 A. M. ; required of Juniors not taking B.

Hehrew A (2) Readings in the Pentateuch, with Exposition, Dr. Fagnani ;
Second Term, Thurs., 9 A. M., Fri., 10 A. M. ; required of Juniors not
taking B.

Hebrew B (1) Readings in I. Samuel, with exercises. Prof. F. Brown ; First
Term, Tues., 9 A. M.; Wed. 10 A. M.; Fri. 11 A. M.; recpiired of
Junioi-s advanced in Hebrew, elective for Graduates and qualified
special students.

Hebrew B (2) Unpointed Text; Old Hebrew Inscriptions, Prof. F. Brown ;
Second Term, Fri., 10 A. M. ; required of Juniors advanced in Hebrew,
elective for all other qualified students.

Hebreiv C. Hebrew Etymology and Syntax ; Sight reading of Hebrew Prose,
Dr. Fagnani ; Second Term, Mon., 10 A. M.j required of Juniors.

Hebrew D. Readings in Kings, with Exposition, Prof. F. Brown ; Second
Term, Tues., 11 A. M. ; Wed., 10 A. M. ; required of Juniors.

Hebrew E (1) Isaiah i.-xii., Prof. F. Brown ; First Term, Tues., 10 A. M. ;
Wed., 9 A. M. ; variable, Middlers or Seniore.

Hebi-ew E (2) Psalms of Books I. and II., Prof F. Brown ; Second Term,
Tues., Wed., 9 A. M. ; variable, Middlers or Seniors.

Hebrew F (1) Zephaniah and Jonah, Prof F. Brown ; First Term, Fri., 9
A. M. ; variable, Middlers or Seniors.

THE COURSES OF STUDY. 347

Hebrew F (2) Micah, Prof. F. Buo^^•N ; Second Term, Fri., 9 A. M.; var-
iable, Middlers or Seniors.

Hebrew G (1) Exegetical Class ; Judges, Trof. F. Brown ; First Term, Wed.,
Fri., 2.15 P. M. ; elective for all (qualified students.

Hebrew G (2) Exegetical Class; Isaiah xl., /., Prof. F. Brcma-n ; Second
Term, Wed., Fri., 2.15 P. M. ; elective for all qualified students.

Hebrew II. Seminar ; Ilaggai, Zechariali and Ezra, Prof. F. Brown ; two
hoiu-s weekly through the year ; open to a limited number of (Jraduates,
Seniors and Middlers of high standing, after personal application to
the Professor.

Biblical Aramaic. Dr. Fagnani ; Second Term, Thurs., 11 A. M. ; elective for
all qualified students.
(See also Semitic Courses at Columbia and New York Universities.)

New Testament.

Greek A (1) Grammar of the N. T. Greek ; Synoptic Gospels ; the Narrative
of Mark and his Parallels ; the Logia and other sources of Luke and
Matthew ; Mr. Frame ; Fii-st Term, Mon., 12 M.; Tues., Wed., 11 A.
M. ; Fri., 10 A. M. ; required of Juniors not taking B.

Greek A (2) Synoptic Gospels, with Grammar, continued, Mr. Frame ;
Second Term, Mon., 11 A. M.; Wed., 9 A. M.; Thurs., 10 A. M. ; re-
quired of Juniors not taking B.

Greek B (1) Epistles of John, Prof. Vincent ; First Term, Tues., 11 A. M.,
Fri., 10 A. M. ; required of Junioi-s advanced in Greek.

Greek B (2) Gospel of John, Prof. Vincent ; Second Term, Wed., 12 JVI.;
Fri. 11 A. M. ; required of Juniors advanced in Greek, elective for
Middlers, Graduates, and qualified Special Students.

Greek C {I) Exegetical Class; Galatians, Mr. Frame; First Term, Wed.,
Fri., 2.15 P. M. ; elective for all but Juniors taking Greek A.

Greek C (2) Exegetical Class ; Acts, Mr. Frame ; Second Term, Wed., Fri.,
2.15 P. M. ; elective for all qualified students.

Greek D (1) Epistle to the Romans, Prof. Vincent ; First Term, Tues., 10
A. M. ; Wed., 9 A. M. ; variable for Seniors or Middlers.

Greek D (2) Epistle to the Hebrews, Prof. Vincent ; Second Term, Tues.,
Wed., 9 A. M.; variable for Senioi-s or Middlers.

Greek E (1) General Introduction to the New Testament, T., Prof. Vincent ;
First Term, Fri., 9 A. M. ; variable for Senioi-s or Middlei-s.

Greek E (2) General Introduction to the New Testament, II., Prof. Vin-
cent ; Second Term, Fri., 9 A. M.; variable for Seniors or Middlei-s.

348 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Greek F. I. and IT. Peter and Jude, Mr. Frame; Second Term, Tues., 2.15
P. M. ; elective for all qualified students.

Greek G. Seminar ; I. Corinthians, Prof. Vincent ; two hours weekly
through the year ; open to a limited number of Middlers, Seniors and
Graduates of high standing, after jiersonal application to the professor.
(See further courses in Greek at Columbia and New York Universities. )

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY.

A. General Introduction to the Study of the Bible, Prof. Briggs ; First
Term, Tues., 10 A. M. ; Wed., 9 A. M. ; required of Juniors.

B (1) Biblical Theology I.: The Biblical Doctrine of God, Prof. Briggs ;
Fii-st Term., Tues., Thurs., 9 A. M.; Wed., 11 A. M.; variable,
Middlers or Seniors.

B (2) Biblical Theology II.: The Biblical Doctrine of Man and of Redemp-
tion, Prof. Briggs; Second Term, Tues., Thurs., 11 A. M.; Wed., 10
A. M. ; variable, Middlers or Seniors.

C. Special Introduction to the Old Testament, Prof. Briggs ; Second Term,

Tues., 10 A. M. ; Wed., 11 A. M. ; elective for all students.

D. The Ethical Teachings of Jesus, Prof. Briggs; First Term, Thurs., 11

A. M. ; elective for all students.

E. The Apostolic Church, Prof. Briggs ; Second Term, Thurs., 12 M. ; elec-

tive for all students.

CHURCH HISTORY.

A (1) History I.: History of Primitive, Catholic and Protestant Christianity,
Prof. McGiFFERT ; First Term, Mon., 11 A. M. ; Wed., Fri., 10 A.M.;
variable, Middlers or Seniors.

A (2) History II.: Continuation of A (1); Second Term, Mon., 11 A. M.;
Wed., Fri., 12 M.

B (1) History of Christian Doctrine I., Prof. McGiffert ; First Term,
Mon., Thurs., 12 M. ; elective for all students except Junioi-s.

B (2) History of Christian Doctrine II.; Continuation of B (1), Prof. ]Mc-
GiFFERT ; Second Term, Mon., 12 M. ; Fri, 10 A. M. ; elective for all
students except Juniors.

C. History of the Reformation in Western Europe, Prof. McGiffert ; First
Term, Thurs., 2.15 P. M.; elective for Seniors and Graduates.

THE COURSES OE STUDY. 349

D. Orifiin and History of the Apostles' Creed, Prof. McGiffert ; two liours
weekly throiifrh the year; Seminar for a limited niimher of (Jradii-
ates, Seniors and Middlers of hiyh standing, after personal application
to the professor.

SYSTEMATIC Til EOLOGY.

A (1) Dogmatics T. : The System of Christian Doctrine ; The Christian Doc-
trine of (iod, and of the World; Tiie Kingdom of God, Prof. Wm.
Adams Buown ; First Term, Mon., 11 A. M.; Wed., Fri., 10 A. M.;
variable, Seniors or Middlers.

A (2) Dogmatics II.: Continuation of A (1); The Person and Work of
Christ ; The Trinity ; The Christian Doctrine of Man, of Sin, and of
Salvation ; The Christian Doctrine of Redemption ; Second Term, Mon.,
11 A. M.; Wed., Fri., 12 M.

B. Introduction to Dogmatics. This coui-se is designed as an introduction to

the fuller (dogmatic) Course A (1) and (2), and will discuss such prac-
tical questions as the idea and sources of Christian Theology, the nature
of Revelation and Insj)iration, and the Authority of the Scriptures,
Prof. Wm. Auam.s Brown; First Term, Wed., Fri., 12 M.; elective
for all students except Junioi-s ; especially recommended to Middlere.

C. The Westminster Standards. (Informal reading and discussion of selected

passages from the Westminster Confession and Ciitechisms), Pi'of. Wm.
Adams Brown; Second Term, Tues., 10 A. M. ; Wed., 11 A. M.;
elective for all students except Junioi-s.

D. The Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Prof. Wm. Adams Brown ; two

hours weekly through the year ; Seminar for a limited number of Grad-
uates, Scnioi-s and Middlers of high standing, after pei-sonal application
to the professor.

PHILOSOPHY' OF RELIGION, APOLOGETICS AND ETHICS.

A. Philosophy of Eelic/ion. — Introductory, the Rev. George William Knox,

D. D. ; First Term, Mon., Thni-s., 10 A. M.; elective for all students ;
especially recommended to Juniors.

B. Philosophy of Religion. — Historical Development, the Rev. George Wil-

liam Knox, D.D. ; Second Term, Mon., Thurs, 10 A. M.; elective for
Middlei-s, Seniors and Graduates.

C. Apoloyetics. — The Conflict with Modern Doubt (not given in 1898-99).

D. Christian Ethics. — The Moral Principles of Christianity, and their Appli-

cation to Human Life and Conduct (not given in 1898-99).

E. Sociology.

350 T^HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

PKACTICAL THEOLOGY.

Homiletics A (1) Introductory instruction as to Methods of Pulpit Prepara-
tion, with practical exercises, Prof. Hastings ; First Term, Mon., 11
A. M. ; required of Juniors.

Homiletics A ( 2) Lectures with Practical Exercises, Prof. Hastings ; Plans
of Sermons are submitted not only for criticism by the class but also
for |:rivate criticism by the professor ; Second Term, Mon., 9 A. M.;
required of Juniors and Middlers. Thui-s., 9 A. M., required of Mid-
dlers.

Homiletics B (1) Lectures on the Composition and Delivery of Sermons, with
practical exercises. Prof. Hastings ; Sermons delivered by each student
both in private and before the class; Fii-st Term, Tues., 11 A. M.;
required of Seniors.

Homiletics "& [2) Continuation of B (1), Prof. Hastings; Second Term,
Fri., 11 A. M, ; required of Seniors.

Homiletics C. Private Criticism of Sermons, through the year. Prof. Hastings ;
Mon., Tues., Thui-s., Fri., 2.30 to 3.30 P. M.; required of Seniors.
Four students in succession each week take their sermons to the profes-
sor for private criticism. At least two sermons must be thus submitted
during the year by each member of the class.

Pastoral Theology A (1) Lectures on the Calling, Qualifications and Work of
the Christian Pastor ; on Hymnology and Psalmody, Prof. Hastings ;
Fii-st Term, Thure., 9 A. M.; variable, Middlers or Seniors.

Pastoral TIteology A {2) Continuation of A (1), Prof. Hastings; Second
Term, Tues., 11 A. M.; variable, Middlei-s or Senioi-s.

Catechetics : Principles and Methods of Religious Teaching for Young People,
Pres. Hall; Second Term, Wed., 10 A. M.; variable, Middlei-s or
Seniors.

Church Polity : The New Testament Idea and Constitution of the Church of
Christ : the ecclesiastical polities of later ages, Pres. Hall ; Second
Term, Thurs., 11 A. M.; variable, Middlers or Seniors.

llissions I. : City Evangelization and the Institutional Churcli, Pres. Hall ;
Fii-st Term, Thui-s., 12 M.; elective for all students.

3Iissions II. : Home and Foreign Missions in the Nineteenth Century, Pres.
Hall; Second Term, Tues., Fri., 9 A. M.; ret^uired of Juniors.

Missifms III.: Geographical Distribution and Race Problems of Missions.
Pres. Hall ; Fii-st Term, Tues, Fri., 11 A. M.; elective, especially for
Middlers (not open to Juniors).

Liturgies: I.: Historical Forms of Christian Worship ; II.: Practical Admin-
istration of Christian Worship, Pres. Hall; First Term, Wed., Fri.,
12 M. ; elective for all students except Juniors.

THE COURSES OF STUDY. 35I

C(mfermc€s on the Spiritual Life of the Minister : Themes invited from students,
Pres. Hall ; Second Term, Thurs, 9 A. M.; elective for Seniors.

Practical Use of the English Bible A ( 1 ) The International Sunday-school
Lessons, Dr. Fagnani ; First Term, Sat., 9 A. M. ; elective for all
students.

Practical Use of the Enrjlish Bible A (2) Continuation of A (1); Second Term,
Sat., 9 A. M. ; elective as above.

Practical Use of the English Bible B. Selections from the Old Testament practi-
cally expounded, Dr. Fagnani; Second Term, Tues., 3.15 P. M. ;
elective for all students.

VOCAL CULTURE.

The exercises in this department are under the direction of Prof
Roberts. They are obligatory, unless otherwise stated, but do not count
toward the required number of lectures specified.

A. Juniors. — The class is divided into sectioas ; each section has exercises

once a week for the developing, strengthening and management of the
voice, and in the principles of expression in elocution as applied to the
reading of extracts in Prose, and Verse ; Second Term, daily, 4.15 to
5.15 P. M.

B. Middlers ( 1 ) — Exercises in the reading of the Scriptures and Hymns ;

each section once a week ; First Term, daily, 4.15 to 5.15 P. M.

C. Middlers (2) — Exercises in Pulpit and Platform Speaking. Individual

drill and criticism ; Second Term, daily, 5.15 to 6.15 P. M.

D. Seniors (1) — Exercises in Pulpit and Platform Speaking. Individual

drill and criticism ; First Term, daily, 5.15 to 6.15 P. M.

D. Seniors (2) — Continuation of D (1) ; Second Term, daily, at hours
privately arranged.

SACRED MUSIC.

The exercises in this department are under the direction of Prof. Smith.
They are obligatory, unless otherwise stated, but do not count toward the
rapiired number of lectures specified. Most of them continue through the
year.

A. Elementary Class (First Term), Thurs., 5.15 to 6 P. M.

B. Choir Drill and Rehearsal, Thurs., 4 to 5 P. M.

C. Solfeggi Class, Thurs., 5 to 5.15 P. M. (First Term).

D. Elementary Class, Section I., Thurs., 5.15 to 6 P. M. (Second Term).

E. Elementary Clas.'i, Section II., Fri., 5.15 to 6 P. M. (Second Term).

352 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

THE LIBRARY, GENERAL CATALOGUE AND THE ALUMNI.

BY THE REV. CHARLES RIPLEY GILLETT, D.D., L.H.D.,

LIBRARIAN.

The library of Union Theology Seminary contains an
aggregate of abont one hundred and fifteen thousand titles
and volumes. It stands first in size among the collections
belonging to theological seminaries in the country, and tenth
in the list of libraries connected with educational institutions.
It has grown by purchase, special gift and the endowment
of departments. It came into existence almost as soon as
the institution itself, and it has continued to increase with
steady growth from the start, in spite of the lack of an
adequate endowment.

The nucleus of the library was formed by the purchase
of the Van Ess collection in 1838. This collection consisted
originally, it is said, of about thirteen thousand volumes, and
it has been characterized by Professor T. F. Crane of Cor-
nell University, as " the most valuable library which has
ever been brought into this country." The beginning of the
collection is to be traced back to the library of the Bene-
dictine Monastery of St. Mary, at Paderborn, where it con-
stituted the collection of Uhri prolnhlt'i under the charge of
Brother Leander Van Ess. When the peace of Luneville, in
1801, threatened the sequestration of the property of the relig-
ious houses, the Benedictines of Paderborn divided the books
and other property of the order among themselves and removed
the same to places of safety. Van Ess went to INIarburg, where
he became professor of theology in the Roman Catholic fiiculty.
Later he embraced Protestantism, and devoted himself to the
translation of the Bible into the vernacular. At a later date

THE LIBRARY AND THE ALUMNI. 353

the collection, which had grown much in the interval as a
result of later studies, Avas offered for sale, and was finally
acquired by the " New York Theological Seminary."

The collection is particularly rich in Incunabula or "cradle-
books," printed before 1500, when the art of the printer
was in its infancy ; in patristic literature in the original
editions, and in the early collections made in the 17th and
18th centuries; in Roman Catholic theology, liturgies, Canon
law, and Casuistry, and in the writings of Luther and other
reformers in the original editions ; in early German, Latin,
Greek, Hebrew and Polyglot editions of the Bible ; in the
exegetical works produced by post-reformation writers, and
printed in great tomes ; in collections of councils and of lives
of saints, such as the Acta Sanctorum ; in early theological
systems ; and in the German theological periodicals of the
early part of the present century. Taken in its entirety, the
collection justifies the remark of the eminent specialist quoted
above.

For many years the library was under the charge of the
renowned scholar and famous professor. Dr. Edward Robin-
son. To it he devoted much of his unbounded enthusiasm,
and to it came, after his death, the valuable library which he
had gathered in the pursuit of his archaeological and exegeti-
cal studies. Next it passed into the charge of the late Dr.
Henry B. Smith, professor of Systematic Theology. The cat-
alogue of the library, which has survived in four great folio
volumes, is a maze to the seeker after information, and the
tradition still lingers that the gifted librarian's wonderful
memory and his exhaustive knowledge of the treasures under
his charge, constituted a far better index to the collections
than this manuscript catalogue on many pages and in
various styles of handwriting.

All this time the growth of the library had gone on

354 T^HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

steadily. During Dr. Smith's incumbency, the late Dr. Ezra
H. Gillett, had given much pains and labor to the increase
of the department of British theology of the latter part of
the 16th and the early portion of the 17th centuries. The
result of this labor is seen to-day in an almost absolutely com-
plete collection of the works which appeared in the Deistic
controversy, and in an almost as complete representation of
the Trinitarian and Non-Conformist controversies. It was by
the generosity of Mr. David H. McAlpin, that the gathering
of these books was made possible, and it was through the
efforts thus made that Mr. McAlpin's interest in the library
was lastingly aroused, an interest which led in 1884, to the en-
dowment of the " McAlpin Collection of British Theology and
History," and the "Gillett Collection of American Theology
and History," by that generous donor. This interest was
continued after the death of Drs. Gillett and Smith, and by
it Dr. Charles A. Briggs, who succeeded Dr. Smith as libra-
rian in 1876, was enabled to begin the acquisition of the col-
lection of the works of the Westminster and Puritan divines
of the 17th century, and of the religious and controversial
works which preceded and followed the period of the West-
minster Assembly, which are so essential to the proper com-
prehension and exposition of the Presbyterian standards,
and of the other historical documents of this period of
British history. In the same way have been gathered large
and valuable collections of books bearing upon the early
Baptist, Brownist and Independent connections, and upon
the Family of Love, Muggletonians and other sects. The
Roman Catholic controversies of the 16th and 17th cen-
turies are also well represented by many scarce books and
tracts. The importance of these special departments may
be judged by the fact that the McAlpin collection is third
in size only to the British Museum and the Bodleian

THE LIBRARY AND THE ALUMNI. 355

Library so far as the first two thousand titles in Dcxter's
" Biblio<2;raphy of Conf^regationalism " are concerned. Tlie
collection will over remain as a lasting monument to
the enlightened generosity of the donor, and to the scholarly
enthusiasm, the persistent and tireless zeal, tiie wide know-
ledge and the deep scholarship of Dr. Briggs, without whom
the collection could never have been made. To-day it
stands as one of the greatest treasures of the library which
it adorns. The foregoing collections are all component parts
of the greater collection which bears Mr. McAlpin's name.
But besides them it contains also a large number of general
and local secular histories of Great Britain and its parts ;
the most important histories of the Churches of England,
Scotland and Ireland ; a large number of biographies, and
the collected works of British divines of all periods.

The Gillett collection of American Theology and History
stands as another monument to the generosity of the same
donor, and to the memory of his early pastor and manhood's
friend. It is rich in general and bcal histories, both secular
and ecclesiastical, and in biography in all its phases and
branches. Ecclesiastical bodies are well represented by large
and valuable collections of minutes and proceedings, and the
early theological controversies of New England can be
studied in the original writings which they produced.

Important additions were made also to the pamphlet de-
partment of the library through the efforts of Dr. Gillett.
Most important among these are the early American titles
contained in the extensive collection made by Dr. David
Dudley Field, which constitute a veritable mine for the study
of early American religious history. In this branch of the
library are also the collections made by Dr. Gillett, Dr.
Samuel Hanson Cox, Dr. William B. Sprague, and Dr. John
Marsh, most of them being bound in book form, in mauilla

356 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

paper covers, placed there by Dr. Gillett himself. This
pamphlet collection, which has been growing steadily for
many years, and which has been further enriched by pur-
chase from the library of Dr. Henry B. Smith, and by gift
from the families of Dr. William Adams, and Dr. Edwin F.
Hatfield, is regarded as a part of the department of Ameri-
can History and Theology, and is named in honor of Dr.
Gillett.

Another section of the pamphlet department contains a
large assortment of titles from the 17th, 18th and 19th cen-
turies, bearing upon the religious controversies and history
of Great Britain. These naturally form a portion of the
McAlpin Collection, and are so counted. Recent purchases
have added materially to the collection especially in the later
periods.

When Dr. Briggs became librarian in 1876, he at once
undertook a re-classification of all departments, and began a
card catalogue which has grown ever since, till it covers
practically all the books in the library. Under his successor
the work in both departments has been continued, and a
subject index, corresponding in the main to the shelf classi-
fication of the library, has been prepared. This catalogue
resulted in more than doubling the use of the library. The
original classification made by Dr. Briggs was a very large
task, embodying an application of the current principles of
Theological Encyclopaedia, and representing an advance upon
any scheme that had been employed previously in any theo-
logical library.

The most notable addition to the library in its more re-
cent history was that from the library of the late Dr. Edwin
F. Hatfield, so long the Stated Clerk of the General Assem-
bly of the Presbyterian Church. This addition was rich in
many departments, particularly in Americana and periodicals.

THE LIBRARY AND THE ALUMNI. 357

It was the richest gift ever made to the seminary library,
aggregating about seven thousand volumes. A considerable
portion of tlie books was incorporated in the Gillctt collec-
tion, and the rest were distributed through the library by
topics, in accordance with the settled policy. The periodical
department, in recognition of the notable additions thus made
to it, deserves to be called in honor of Dr. Hatfield.

AVhen tlie construction of the present buildings was pro-
posed, the late Governor Edwin D. Morgan endowed the library
in the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, one-half of which
was expended in the construction of the library building,
and the other half was retained as a permanent fund. A
further addition was made to the permanent fund by the
gift of twenty thousand dollars by the late Mrs. Elizabeth
Fogg in 1892, as the "William H. Fogg Memorial." The
income of this fund is recommended to be expended for the
purchase of books, pamphlets, and maps. For several years
past the fund originally subscribed by the alumni and pro-
fessors as an endowment of the Reference Library, has been
known as the " Henry B. Smith Memorial : Philosophy,"
the change of object having been approved by the Associated
Alumni of the seminary. The collection for which it is
used has already been greatly enriched from the library of
Dr. Smitli, thus making the new designation of the fund
particularly appropriate. The fund is small and inadequate
for its purpose, but so far as it goes it insures a steady
growth to the collection.

Another notable feature of the library is found in its
hymnological department. This was a result of growth
through many years, and it had been enriched by the addi-
tion of many volumes bearing the names of Dr. Robinson,
Dr. Hatfield, and others. But the largest addition was that
of the library of Professor Frederic M. Bird, bought through

358 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

the liberality of the late Henry Day, Esq., prompted by Dr.
Thomas S. Hastings. The combination of all these collec-
tions resulted in the exclusion of a remarkably small num-
ber of duplicates, and constituted a department of over five
thousand titles, the largest collection of English hymnology
to be found in any institution in the land.

The general library of the seminary is divided into four
main divisions in accordance with the current scheme of
theological classification. The department of Exegetical
Theology contains valuable works which represent each separ-
ate topic of the general subject. With the acquisition
of the Van Ess collection came many polyglots, texts and
versions. Within the past year, through the munificence of
Mr. David H. McAlpin, the valuable collection of Greek Tes-
taments, made by the late Dr. Isaac H. Hall, was added to the
library. It forms a unique collection of about eight hundred
volumes, and it cost the collector years of patient and untir-
ing search. In the departments of criticism and exegesis the
library is well supplied, both with the older and newer lit-
erature. Here again the name of Edward Robinson is found
upon the fly-leaves of many volumes.

The Historical Department is also large and valuable,
being particularly rich in the matter of sources. Patristic
literature, which was well represented in the Van Ess col-
lection, has been supplemented as the years have passed, and
it now constitutes one of the most valuable departments
upon our shelves. The history of doctrine occupies consider-
able space. By the kindness of Charles W. Hassler, Esq.,
the library came into possession of a remarkable collection
of books bearing upon the dogma of the immaculate concep-
tion of the Virgin Mary. These books found their place in
the department of the history of Roman Catholic doctrine.
The library also contains in this department a large number of

THE LIBRARY AND THE ALUMNI. 359

important works in the field of general and local ecclesiastical
and secular history, with many numbers in the field of Refor-
mation history and literature. The writings of the Reformers
are available both in the original editions and in the scholarly
collections of learned societies and associations. Oriental
history and antiquities, European history and general biogra-
phy occupy much space.

Systematic theology covers a number of cognate topics :
symbolics, polemics, irenics, apologetics, the systems of the
various confessions, and monographs on the separate doctrines.
The side-lights upon these doctrines are cast by the various
controversies which have rent the churches, the literary re-
sults of which are classed with the history of which they
are a part. The whole collection shows evidences of the
formative hand of that master of theological science,
Dr. Henry B. Smith. Unfortunately the department has not
experienced a proportionate growth in later years. Never-
theless to the student of past phases of theological discus-
sion as well as of present problems the collection is most
valuable.

The department of Practical Theology is fairly well sup-
plied. There is an abundance of w^orks on various phases
and experiences of personal religion, but the most used por-
tion deals with the various phases of the activity of pastor
and preacher. Homiletics and sermonic literature, the doc-
trine of the Church, the sacraments, missions and applied
Christianity are all quite well represented, but they are by no
means beyond the necessity of continued growth.

There are some departments in which the library needs
to be supplemented, and the necessity is sore. Indeed, the
size and growth of the collections are remarkable, in view of
the mcagreness of its endowment. An income is demanded
which shall enable the library to keep abreast of the latest

3G0 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

and best literature, and which sliall provide also for efficient
administration. A total endowment of two hundred and fifty-
thousand dollars would place it in this enviable position ; its
present income does not fully cover .running expenses and
fixed charges.

THE GENERAL CATALOGUE AND THE ALUMNI.

Within the past year the third general catalogue of the
seminary has appeared, bringing the record down to include
the class of 1898. The first was prepared by Dr. Edwin
F. Hatfield, formerly the Stated Clerk of the General As-
sembly, and was published in 1876. The second appeared
in 1886, and the third in 1898, both the latter being the
work of the present writer. Appended to the third edition
is a table, showing some interesting facts in regard to the
student-body. It includes the classes from 1837 to 1897,
sixty-one in all.

The total number of students during this period was
2,896, or, including the class of 1898 also, 2,955. Of these,
1,836 (or, with the class of 1898, 1,871) were graduates in
the regular course, and 1,060 (or 1,084) were partial or
special course students. The record shows the decease of
817 ; 58 others are returned as " unknown," that is, no amount
of enquiry has sufficed to trace them. It is probable that at
least forty of them are dead, bringing the total necrological
list to nearly 860. This would indicate that about 2,100
alumni are now living.

The statistics as to ordination are interesting and instruc-
tive. Of the total of 2,896 students, 431 never were
ordained, 83 of them having died at so early an age as to
prevent their entry into the ministry, 57 having become phy-
sicians, 97 lawyers and 38 business men. The 58 "unknown"
nearly all belong here also. The Presbyterian Church (Old

GENERAL CATALOGUE AND ALUMNI. 361

School) received 09, the New School, 514, and tlic reunited
Church, 7.35, makini^ an aggregate of 1,318, out of a total of
2,465 ordained men, or 51^ per cent. The other Presby-
terian Churches received 110, and the Reformed Churches,
98, making a total of 1,526 holding the Presbyterian system;
almost 62 per cent. There were 691 who went into the Con-
gregational Church (a little over 28 per cent.), and 101
entered other denominations holding: the Conffrei>;ational
polity, making a total of 792 such, or 32 per cent, of all.
Up to 1897, Union had graduated 21 Lutherans, 59 Epis-
copalians, 61 Methodists and 6 Moravians.

The record of the seminary as a missionary educator is
also enviable. The record shows that no less than 209 were
engaged in labor under one or other of the various Foreign
Mission Boards or other agency. This was a total of almost
8^ per cent, of those who were ordained. As a trainer of
educators it holds a remarkable place also, having sent out no
less than 84 teachers in theological seminaries, 72 college
presidents, 196 college professors, 105 principals of acade-
mies or superintendents of education, and 124 teachers in
schools. Many of these had been ordained and had engaged
at some time in the work of the ministry.

To some extent the quality of the alumni of a seminary
is indicated by the learned degrees which have been conferred
upon them. The doctorate of philosophy belongs to 92, of
divinity to 444, of laws to 44, and of literature to 10.

The list of abbreviations shows that through its students,
the seminary has had relations with about 250 institutions
of learning, in this and other lands. The edition of the
General Catalogue, issued in 1886, showed that over 91 per
cent, of the students of Union had had college training, and
it is probable that the present edition would not have shown
any lowering of the proportion if the statistics had been

362 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

compiled. In fact there is a growing tendency to raise, not
to lower the requirements and the proportion.

In his preceding volume, "Fifty Years of Union
Theological Seminary "( published in 1889 ), Dr. Pren-
tiss spoke of the wide distribution of the original homes
of the members of the student-body. The same statement
remains true to-day, and the seminary remains constant to
its name, for it is still a place where men meet from all
parts of the United States and of the world. Irrespective of
storm and tumult without, and unwounded by the shafts
leveled at it. Union is a place of studious calm, where there
is that union with God and man wherein is strength.

THE INAUGURATION OF A NEW PRESIDENT-
GLANCES AT THE FUTURE.

I am unwilling to close this narrative without an
allusion to the ha|3py auspices under which Union
Seminary has entered its seventh decade, and will
shortly cross the threshold of another century. The
growth of a theological seminary, like that of all great
educational institutions, is largely a succession of new
departures and involves ever-increasing cares, perils
and resp>onsibility ; nor is anyone wise enough to fore-
tell what errors or false steps may lie hidden in the
future. The transition period through which Union
Seminary has been passing is a case in point. Still,
the prospect appears, to me at least, to be bright with
promise. We are saved by hope : but hope that is seen
is not hope. Distinct signs seem already to foretoken
what the future is likely to be ; and I cannot think

INAUGURATION OF A NEW PRESIDENT. 303

these clieering signs are going to prove delusive.
The inauguration of my old pupil and well-beloved
friend, Charles Cuthbert Hall, as president of
the seminary and successor to my chair, with some
passages from his address on the occasion, will best
show what they are.

THE INAUGURATION SERVICE.

The inauguration of the Rev. Chaeles Cuthbert Hall,
D.D., as Skinner and McxVlpin Professor of Pastoral Theol-
ogy, Church Polity and Mission Work in the Union The-
ological Seminary, and president of the faculty, took place,
by appointment of the Board of Directors, in the Adams
Chapel, on Tuesday evening, February 8, 1898, at a quarter
past eight o'clock.

The procession entered the chapel in the following order :
1. Ushers. 2. Choir, followed by Dr. Gerrit Smith, the
musical director. 3. Faculty of the seminary. 4. Represen-
tatives of other institutions. 5. Directors of the seminary.
6. Officiating persons.

The representatives of other institutions present were :

From Columbia University, President Seth Low, LL.D.;
New York University, Chancellor Henry M. MacCracken,
D.D., LL.D.; Harvard University, Professor Francis G. Pea-
body, D.D., and Professor J. Winthrop Platner, M.A.; Yale
University, Professor Edward L. Curtis, Ph.D., D.D. ;
Princeton University, Professor Charles W. Shields, D.D.,
LL.D. ; Wesleyan University, Professor Andrew C. Arm-
strong, Jr., Ph.D., and the Rev. Henry A. Starks, D.D ;
Cornell University, Professor Charles M. Tyler, D.D.; Johns
Hopkins University, Dean Edward H. Griffin, D.D., LL.D.;

364 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Williams College, President Franklin Carter, LL.D.; Rut-
gers College, Professor Jacob Cooper, D.D., S.T.D., LL.D.
Whitworth College, President Calvin W. Stewart, D.D.
Vassar College, President James M. Taylor, D.D., LL.D.
Barnard College, Dean Emily James Smith, B.A. ; Auburn
Theological Seminary, President Henry M. Bootli, D.D.,
LL.D. ; German Theological Seminary of Newark, President
Charles E. Knox, D.D., and Professor Henry J. Weber,
Ph.D.; Hartford Theological Seminary, President Chester D.
Hartranft, D.D. ; Chicago Theological Seminary, Professor
Emeritus George N. Boardman, D.D., LL.D ; Pacific Theo-
logical Seminary, President John K. McLean, D.D. ; Drew
Theological Seminary, President Henry A. Buttz, D.D., LL.D.
The Divinity Schools of Harvard University and Yale Uni-
versity were represented, respectively, by Professor Platner,
and Professor Curtis, named above.

Courteous messages of regret were received from many
institutions.

The organ voluntary was played during the entrance of
the procession by Mr. P. H. Woodman, organist of the
First Presbyterian Church of Brooklyn, whose pastorate Dr.
Hall resigned to accept office at the seminary. At its con-
clusion, the hymn, "The Church's One Foundation," was
sung by the choir and congregation ; the Scripture lesson,
Ephesians iv: 1-16, was read by President Franklin Carter,
LL.D., of Williams College; after this Mr. John Crosby
Brown, vice-president of the Board of Directors, and its
acting president since the death of Charles Butler, LL.D.,
December 13, 1897, spoke as follows:

On the seventh day of February, 1897, the Board of Direc-
tors of the Union Theological Seminary by a unanimous vote
elected the Rev. Charles Cuthbert Hall, D.D., to fill the
Skinner and McAlpin Chair of Pastoral Theology, Church

INAUGURATIOX OF A NEW PRESIDENT. 365

Polity and Mission Work, made vacant by tho resignation
of the Rev. Dr. Prentiss. At the same time and by the
same vote they elected Dr. Hall to the presidency of the
faculty, made vacant by the resignation of the Rev. Dr.
Hastings.

Both of these honored professors are with us to-day. Dr.
Prentiss, as Professor Emeritus, enjoying the well-earned
leisure to which his age and years of service entitle him, and
Dr. Hastings, relieved at his own request, by the advice of
his physician, from the onerous duties of president of the
faculty, but retaining and discharging with unabated vigor
the full work of his professorship.

One familiar face we miss. The president of the Board
of Directors, the late Charles Butler, one of the original
founders of this seminary, its devoted friend, counsellor and
benefactor, who was spared to welcome Dr. Hall to his new
work here, was taken from us too soon to preside as the
official representative of the board on this as on so many
other similar occasions for the past twenty-eight years. We
mourn his absence to-day.

Under ordinary circumstances the inauguration of Dr.
Hall would have taken place last autumn at the opening of
the term. Gifts of friends, however, made possible some
much needed improvements to the seminary buildings, and
the completion of the chapel according to the original design
of the architect, which contemplated a beautiful and appro-
priate place of worship and a memorial worthy of the man
whose name it bears.

The time required for the completion of this work neces-
sitated the postponement of this service.

Some here present may remember the old chapel on Uni-
versity Place, cold, forbidding and cheerless, and they may
also remember that the late Dr. William Adams, after his
election as ju'ofessor and president of the faculty, at once
undertook, through the liberality of a friend, its reconstruction.
Some of us look back with special interest to those occa-
sions, when jirofessors, students and friends of the seminary
met with graduating class in that renovated chapel for a last

366 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

communion service before entering upon their life's work.
The memory of those services lingers with us still ; they
have proved an inspiration to many a life.

Standing as this seminary does, and as I believe always
will, for thorough scholarship, and aiming to give its stu-
dents the best and highest intellectual training, I thiuk I
may venture to say for my colleagues in the board, that we
hope that this chapel may become to all connected with this
institution — directors, professors, teachers, students, and even
to the neighborhood — a house of God and a very gate of
Heaven, and that the services held here, where all will be
cordially welcomed, whether morning prayer, Sunday service
or the communion services with the graduating classes, may
bring us all into closer fellowship, and above all into closer
personal touch with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,
without Whose presence here all the beauty and outward
adornment of this chapel and all its services will be utterly
valueless.

Prayer was then offered by the Rev. Henry Van Dyke,
D.D., of New York City.

Mr. John Crosby Brown tlien spoke further, as follows :

The constitution of this seminary requires each professor
when entering u])on the duties of his "ciiair, and periodically
thereafter, to make a certain declaration prescribed by that
instrument. I now call upon the Rev. Dr. Hall to make
the constitutional declaration.

Thereupon Dr. Hall made the declaration, as follows :

In the presence of God and of the directors of this semi-
nary, I solemnly affirm that I believe the Scriptures of the
Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only
infallible rule of faith and practice ; that I receive and
adopt the Westminster Confession of Faith, in all the essen-
tial and necessary articles thereof, as containing the system
of doctrine taught in Holy Scripture ; that I approve of the

INAUGURATION OF A NEW PRESIDENT. 367

principles of the Presbyterian Form of Government ; and
that I will not teach anything which shall appear to me to
be subversive of the said system of doctrine, or of the prin-
ciples of the said Form of Government, so long as I con-
tinue to be a professor in this seminary.

Mr. John Crosby Brown then said :

Having been elected by the Board of Directors a pro-
fessor in this seminary and president of the faculty, and
having made in this public manner the declaration required
by the constitution, on behalf of the Board of Directors of
the Union Theological Seminary I now pronounce the Rev.
Charles Cuthbert Hall, D.D., duly inaugurated as Skinner
and McAlpin Professor of Pastoral Theology, Church Polity,
and Mission Work, and president of the faculty, and as
such entitled to discharge all the duties of these respective
offices in this seminary.

Mr. Brown added : «

It is the custom of this board to appoint one of its own
members to deliver on its behalf a charge to a professor at
his inauguration. Acting upon the authority conferred upon
them by the board, the executive committee has asked the
Rev. Dr. Hastings to deliver the charge to Dr. Hall.

Technically, this appointment is slightly irregular. At
the present time Dr. Hastings is not a member of the
board, having declined to allow us to retain him as a mem-
ber of our body, lest thereby a precedent might be estab-
lished that might possibly embarrass this institution in the
future. We could not, however, release him from the duty
of representing us this evening, and he will now deliver the
charge to Dr. Hall.

The charge was then delivered by the Rev. Professor
Thomas S. Hastings, D.D., LL.D., L.H.D., former presi-
dent of the faculty.

368 777^ UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Thereupon the inaugural address was delivered by the
Eev. Charles Cuthbert Hall, D.D.

At its conclusion a hymn, " We give Thee but Thine
own/' was sung by the choir and congregation ; prayer was
offered and the benediction pronounced by the Rev.
Professor Francis G. Peabody, D.D., of Harvard University,
and the procession retired during an organ voluntary by Dr.
Gerrit Smith.

CHARGE.

BY THE REV. PROFESSOR THOMAS S. HASTINGS, D.D., LL.D., L.H.D.

On behalf of the Board of Directors I am called upon
to address you, my brother, in recognition of the important
office you will henceforth occupy.

First of all, permit me to congratulate you upon the sin-
gular unanimity with which you were called to the presi-
dency of the faculty. No other name than yours was con-
sidered in the board or mentioned in the faculty. A common
conviction and a common feeling seemed at once to possess
all minds and hearts. We feel, and, I am sure, you feel
that the hand of Providence was peculiarly clear in the mat-
ter from the beginning. This is a great comfort to us all
and should be also a great comfort to you. If God has
called you, as we all believe, to this high trust. He will cer-
tainly help you to fulfill its obligations.

Let me congratulate you, also, upon the time of your in-
duction into the presidency. The autonomy and position of
this seminary have been secured : its self-governing power
and its catholic independence have been settled ; and now
"forgetting those things which are behind," we are all, with
one heart, " reaching forth unto those things which are be-

INAUGi RATION OF A NEW PRESIDENT. 359

fore." We are eager to enrich our curri(niliini, and in every
way to enlarge and to improve our work. The beautiful
catholicity, which has characterized this institution iVoin the
beginning up to this sixty-second year of its life, is demand-
ing a fuller expression than that of o])en doors as toward
students of all denominations of Christians. We look and
long for a theological university, broad and comprehensive,
which shall be the natural evolution of the spirit and aim
of our honored founders.

Our doctrinal basis must and will be maintained invio-
late. We are anchored to the Westminster Confession of
Faith, though some of us deeply regret that it was not re-
vised when two-thirds of the church desired revision. Yet,
while holding to that confession, and hdd by if, we receive
on equal terms students of every denomination of Christians,
and must provide for them, as our charter says "Equal
privileges of admission and instrudion,''^ and this cannot really
be done unless our institution expands into a true theological
university. The way seems to me to be opening before you,
my brother, for such expansion. It may not be effected at
once, but the morning glow is already gilding our horizon,
and, though I may not live to see the noontide splendor, I
trust devoutly that this may be your high and happy priv-
ilege. What we want is not ^revolution, but only evolution.
One of the finest mills in the British manufacturing districts
is the oldest. The machinery has always been kept even
Avith the j)rogi'ess of improvement and of invention ; and yet
the mill has never been closed for a single day. The pro-
prietor explains it thus: "I am always altering, but never
changing." Abvays altering, hut never changing; that is the
true progressive method. We cannot be content with what
has been accomplished ; we must move on to higher and bet-
ter things ; progress is the necessity of healthy life. Our

370 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

teaching should be as broad as our charter is, and as com-
prehensive and catholic as is our student body, within which
are always found representatives of all the Evangelical
churches. God forbid that we should try to make them all
Presbyterians. To make a good Methodist or Baptist into a
poor Presbyterian would be a dreadful waste of consecrated
force, besides being a dishonorable betrayal of our high
trust. We must aim only to make our students better in
and for their respective denominations than they can be made
anywhere else. We scorn the low work of proselyting, and
aim only at the high and holy work of a truly Christian
education, — scholarly, spiritual, practical and catholic. We
delight always to stimulate our students to think for them-
selves, only with such guidance and help as we may be
enabled to give them. We crave the free development of
sacred and consecrated individuality. Traditions and con-
ventionalities and shibboleths in Union Seminary have always
been put aside, that, in the love of the truth, we may all be
emancipated from every kind of small and degrading bond-
age, and so may study God's Holy Word with reverent and
open hearts, and with free, trained and enlightened minds.
I know, my brother, that you are in cordial sympathy with
this controlling and characteristic spirit of our seiiiinary life,
and I am sure that you will seek to promote its unbroken
continuance.

Permit me also to congratulate you that you are called
to preside over a united faculty. Of course I do not mean
to say that we always think alike on every question which
comes before us : each one of us thinks his own thought and
speaks his own word frankly and freely. We are decidedly
finite men, and so we differ and discuss ; but we are united
by strong and delightful ties, and we reach our conclusions
harmoniously, and we stand by one another and by our pres-

INAUGURATIOX OF A NFAV PR ESI HE XT. 371

idont witli affectionate loyalty. The faculty is accustomed to
being considered and consulted in all things which pertain to
the welfare and the growth of the seminary ; but you may
be assured that they will right loyally sustain you, and faith-
fully honor your leadership. After nine years of experience,
I say to you,— i/o(t can trust them, and the more you trust
them, the more can they and will they help you.

Again, I congratulate you that you have with you a united
Board of Directors, composed of the noblest collection of
men with whom it has ever been my privilege to work. I
cannot think or speak of them without deep emotion and a
thrill of enthusiasm. They have proved their love for this
seminary by a noble and a generous devotion to its best and
highest interests. I am sure that Dr. Adams and Dr. Hitch-
cock, if, from out the great cloud of witnesses, they could
speak to you to-night, would join me in saying — You can
trust this board; they will support you to their uttermost
ability in all your efforts to promote the welfare and the
growth of this seminary. They will carefully guard the finan-
cial interests of the institution, and if they do not always
move as fast as you could wish, be assured that they will
move as fast as they can, and as fast as is best. I doubt
whether there is an educational institution in the country
whose finances have been managed with such consummate
skill and success as have the finances of this seminary. You
should be happy that you have with you such wise and such
safe supporters. Progress and enlargement or expansion re-
quire money, and that necessity is a constant and a painful
limitation. Unfortunately this seminary has the reputation
of being wealthy, and that misapprehension needs to be cor-
rected before we can hope to receive such gifts as our plans
and hopes require. When the Lord's stewards know that this
institution is reaUy poor, and can improve and expand, grow

372 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

better and more useful, only as fast and far as the noble gener-
osity of the friends of sacred learning will permit, then we shall
have the help we need. All good educational institutions, are
always wanting money ; they are perennially poor because they
are good, and are so eager to do better. But we must be
thankful for the past, and try hard to be patient for the present.
In all our forward movements you, my brother, are to be
our leader. May you be enabled to lead us wisely and
safely. A passenger on one of our coastwise steamers said
to the veteran pilot at the helm, — " I suppose you know
where every rock is, and every sand-bar on this coast."
" No," said the pilot, " but I know where they are not."
We believe you, my brother, know where the rocks and the
sand-bars are. not, and we trust you to steer our course just
THERE ! We have no desire to hunt for rocks or sand-bars !
You have already made your mark upon our seminary
life. You are aiming to get near to the student-body and
to reach its heart. You will do it. The students will
love you because you love them. You are aiming to pro-
mote their spiritual development, and to prepare them for
practical, divine and human service. You are seeking to
cultivate among our students a high Christian manliness,
which will fit them to command the respect and to win the
love and the confidence of those to whom they will be
called to minister. The amplitude and the comprehensive-
ness of the Skinner and McAlpin chair, which you occupy,
will give you abundant opportunity to carry out your high
purpose, and to realize your cherished ideal. Permit me to
assure you that in all this you will have the cordial co-
operation of the faculty, as well as the earnest and the
prayerful symjmthy of the directors. May God bless you,
my dear brother, and endue you richly with His grace, for
the high and holy service upon which you have entered.

INAUGURATION OF A NFAV PR FSIDFST. ;j73

III.
PASSAGES FROM THE INAUGURAL ADDRESS.

Union Seminary has exercised an engaging fascination
over the minds that have known it best. It is donbtful if
any institution of theology Avas ever more beloved of men.
A singular charm of perpetual youth and freshness abides
upon it. The years of its history multiply, yet it grows
not antiquated and feeble. It renews its youth. It keeps
pace with the changing thought of the changing generations,
that it may the better bear witness to Him Who through all
changes is the same yesterday, and to-day and forever. It
turns itself hopefully to the new problems of the new times,
that it may help men to hold with braver hearts the fiiith
once for all delivered to the saints. It seeks to understand
the thought and the temper of the current age that it may
exalt amidst new conditions the eternal and indestructible
Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

As to-night, I seem to stand where two ways meet, look-
ing backward over two generations of the seminary's history,
and forward into a new time throbbing Avith new and vast
problems — problems that involve the most precious interests
of the Church of Christ and the moral health and safety of
society, I need not attempt to conceal the profound and
sacred solicitude that fills my mind as I ask myself: To
this new time, with its new interests and its new problems,
in what relation shall this seminary stand? Shall it be but
as a surviving institution of the past, honored and loved for
the good it has done, cherished still for the unworldly calm
of age that shall brood over it, but bearing no real relation
to the thought struggles of the twentieth century, and to
those social movements of Christianity that are even now
advancing as in a mighty crusade of love to grapple with

374 THE UNION rfJEOLOCICAL SEMINARY.

the sorrows and the oppressions and the ignorances of the
human race ? Shall this seminary in that new time, the
thunder of whose coming is in our ears like the boom of
the rising tide, be but a seat of cloistered repose, or shall
it be a centre of power consecrated to the service of
humanity? Questions like these fill my soul as I stand to-
night at the parting of the ways. This is not an hour in
which it is given me to make any official announcement of
the means and methods by which the expansion of the semi-
nary is to be accomplished, and I make no such announce-
ment. But speaking as one whose love was long since
given to this seminary and whose life is now given for
whatsoever form or duration of service it may please God to
indicate, it is my privilege, if not my duty, to describe an
expansion of the seminary which would be at once concur-
rent with the ideals of the founders and adapted to some
great needs and great opportunities of the times into which
we are moving. Circumstances may postpone for a season
the accomplishment of this expansion (I pray God it may
not be long postponed !), I may not survive to see upon the
earth the fruition of this fond desire ; nevertheless I would
record myself, in this hour which binds me to this work,
as having believed these things, hoped these things, and (so
far as one man may do) as laboring to accomplish these
things. Not that the lines of expansion I am about to
indicate are devised by myself : not that I am the author of
this scheme of expansion — some of the features of which
have been for years discussed by my colleagues in the
faculty and in the board, and I doubt not by others. But
there is a sense in which one who gives his life to an
undertaking appropriates, incorporates as of the very sub-
stance of his own thought, affirms as the true expression of
his own mind, the principles and ideals to which he unre-

INAUGURATION OF A NEW PRESIDENT. 375

servedly commits himself. In such a sense I speak of the
expansion of tiic seminary, committing myself to that ideal
in all fullness of faith, in all seriousness of hope and expec-
tation. But this ideal whereof I speak is not the pleasure-
able dream of an unsanctified ambition, seeking great things
for the sake of worldly glory ; it is not the vain conceit of
an unspi ritual rivalry, straining to outdo its competitors in
the field of theological discipline — this ideal is but the yearn-
ing hope that in the time to come this honorable foundation,
over which the prayers and labors of the holy dead were
lavishly expended, may still ])e worthy of Christ's use, and
fruitful of good in the great world for which Christ died.

The expansion of the seminary presents itself to my
mind not as a one-sided development, an overgrowth in one
direction, but as an expansion on every side, a quadrilateral
expansion. For there are four lines which are susceptible
of an extension perfectly concurrent with the plans of the
founders and with the constitutional rights and liberties of
the institution.

There is the Academic Line. There is the University Ex-
tension Line. There is the Line of Social Service. There
is the Line of Spiritual Power. This is a quadrilateral
which would represent an immense expansion of the semi-
nary, but which would not by one jot or tittle deflect the
plans of those wise and far-seeing men to whose courage,
generosity, and faith the seminary owes its existence. This
expansion w^ould indeed bring the seminary into close and
irenic relation with the various branches of the Christian
Church, but it would not weaken nor change in any way its
relation to that particular branch of the Church, in the com-
munion of which the founders lived and died. This expan-
sion would indeed bring the seminary into warm and prac-
tical touch with some of those most broad and most earnest

37G ^^^ UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

sociological movements Avliich are seeking to purge and up-
lift and bless with gladness the lives of the poor, but it
would not confuse nor obscure in any way the chief end of
the founders which was, to use their own language, "to
furnish a competent supply of well-educated and pious min-
isters of the Gospel." This expansion would indeed bring
this seminary nearer perhaps than it has ever been to the
spiritual life of the community at large ; would involve it,
more perhaps than it has ever been involved, in the respon-
sibility of offering the comforts and encouragements of
worship to human souls ; woidd emphasize more strongly
perhaps than has ever been emphasized the sujDreme neces-
sity for an ardent, profound and progressive spiritual expe-
rience in students for the ministry ; but nothing in this
spiritual expansion would diminish, by so much as the least
degree, the height and stability of that academic standard
which from the first days imtil now has been the honorable
and continuous tradition of this seat of learning.

In language which shall be as calm as may be when the
heart's love is uttering itself with the mind's conviction, I
shall endeavor in this closing portion of my address to
describe the nature of this expansion upon what I have
called the lines of the Quadrilateral.

1. The Academic Line. To me, who am but the hum-
blest student of contemporary thought and feeling within
the Church of Christ, the time seems ripe for a noble and
irenic extension of the academic work of this seminary.
Two influences, beneficent and broadening, appear to be at
work in the minds of many men who having finished their
earlier courses are thoughtfully engaging in post-graduate
study ; or who, whether by choice or by necessity, having
gone into the pastorate arc eagerly and anxiously ponder-

INArCl'RATION OF A NEW PRESIDENT. 377

ing, ill the scant leisure of their daily round, problems of
belief and ])robl(ms of Christian brotherhood. One of
these influences is theological and ethical — the other is
ecclesiastical. Theological and ethical thought in the
minds of the younger ministry is to-day like the full,
swift, impetuous, torrent of a springtide flood, when the ice
gorge is broken and the stream runs free. It is a great
and glorious time Avherein to be young, wherein to be stand-
ing on the threshold of one's ministry, or to have moved
but a little way along its course. The Christianity of the
cross is being seen in new light — which is also old light —
the light of the knoM'ledge of the glory of God in the face
of Jesus Christ. New co-ordinations are being made of
truth with life, of life with truth ; the Gospel, fresh with
eternal youth, is vindicating its power to deal with social
difficulties, and everywhere young men of consecration are
awaking to the thought that he who holds the truth holds
power if he but learn to use the truth aright.

Ecclesiastical thought in young, brave and unfettered
minds is also like the springtide flood speeding into sun-
light below the gloomy gorge. The Church of which the
one Lord Jesus Christ, God of God, Light of Light is the
sovereign and enthroned head is awaking to conceive of her
own oneness in Him. From remotely separated points of
view, on lines sometimes deflected, it may be, by prejudice
or by un-wisdom, yet with hearts glowing in the w^armth of
truly Cliristian purpose many younger men arc following
many older men in love's unconquerable search for a self-
revelation to the whole Church of her own essential oneness
in the one Ijord Jesus Christ. Men of various polities are
yea,rning for a better understanding of one another.

I believe that for these post-graduate men and for these
young pastors, upon wdiom the theological and ecclesiastical

378 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

progress of the time is bringing a new sense of the value of
calm and careful study of these mighty themes, the semi-
nary may, by an expansion of its scope upon the academic
line, provide an incalculable blessing. By establishing a
series of University lectureships outside the faculty, and by
appointing to those lectureships, in accordance with its well-
known constitutional right, representatives of the various
branches and polities of the Christian Church, who in the
spirit not of controversy but of peace shall luminuosly pre-
sent the history and the distinctive principles of their respec-
tive polities ; by providing other lectureships for the most
advanced study of Christian ethics, canon law, symbolics and
comparative religion, the seminary can meet and answer
comprehensively, irenically, and on the highest grade of
academic discipline, that fundamental need of a clearer faith,
a more intelligent ethics, a more catholic and Christlike
churchmanship, of which all over the land many of our
finest and ablest men are conscious.

2. The University Extension Line. " University Ex-
tension " has become a technical term in the modern
educational system. As applied to the college and to the
university, it signifies the arrangement of special lectures
outside of the ordinary curriculum, by means of which a
measure of collegiate advantage is supplied to those who,
for any reason, cannot have the privilege of collegiate train-
ing. As applied to the theological seminary, "University
Extension " would mean the sharing with lay-workers
of those advantages of Bible study and other preparation
for Christian usefulness which are secured to ministers by
the ordinary curriculum. With new intensity and a fresh
baptism of social love the Church is everywhere making a
practical application of Christianity for the betterment of

INAUGURATION OF A NEW PRESIDENT. \\~\)

society. It is seeking to offset the evils and sorrows of
poverty; to supplement the deficiencies resulting from sin,
neglect or ignorance ; to reduce the melancholy alienation of
class from class. And the Church has found out that this
practical application of Christianity can never be accom-
plished by the unassisted work of the ministry. The pro-
gress already made would have been impossible but for the
splendid earnestness of men and women of the laity. But
the value of lay-work can be indefinitely augmented by
means of training ; training in the principles of a popular-
ized and purely evangelical theology, training in the practi-
cal and facile use of the English Bible, training in the
history of missions throughout the world, training in the
true and harmonious relation of various church polities to
each other, training in the uses and values of sacred music,
training in the principles of civics and in the economic side
of social reconstruction ; training, in short, in whatever
makes for the complete efficiency of the lay-worker. I
believe that the seminary, by an expansion of its scope on
lines well within its constitutional rights, may place itself in
an attitude toward lay-training which shall be related to its
ordinary curriculum for ministerial training as the Uni-
versity Extension Lectures are related to the college course.
Steadily, as I believe and as I pray, the distinction between
the ministry and the laity, in so far as it is an artificial dis-
tinction, is receding from view ; and in its place is rising a
new brotherhood between all, ordained or unordained, who
are working, in the one Sacred Name, to upbuild and to
unify a fallen and dismembered social fabric. Why should
the ministry have a monopoly of that learning which may be
supposed to exist in the faculty of such a school as this?
Why may not the same knowledge be commimicated to any
and to all who are to labor side by side in the great world-

380 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

field of human life? If the subjects taught in the theo-
logical seminary are of any real value as an equipment for
practical usefulness, why should not those teachings be shared
by all men and women who love the Lord Jesus Christ in
sincerity and who are purposing to spread Christ's influence
in the earth?

3. The Line of Social Service. On the upper East
side of New York, particularly the thirty-second and
thirty-third Assembly Districts, a new and densely popu-
lated city has sprung into being within the last ten or
fifteen years. Far more than one hundred thousand per-
sons are dwelling in that quarter, the greater part of them
being industrious and self-supporting toilers. They represent
many nations and many forms of faith. Earnest ministers
and missionaries, Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish, are
laboring in that quarter to supply the comfort and guidance
provided by their social fiiiths. But all existing means of re-
ligious teaching and social elevation in that crowded district
are, up to this time, far less than the conditions require.
Three years ago, in the very heart of that populous territory,
a social settlement was JDlanted in faith and hope. It sus-
tained then, and it sustains now, no organic relation to this
seminary, although it bears the name of "Union." But it
was a direct emanation from this seminary ; an expression of
the spirit of social love which prevails within this institution.
An honored and dearly loved member of this faculty was at
the head of the movement, and his colleagues have given
freely of their time and strength to promote its interests.
An alumnus of the seminary became the head worker ; many
undergraduates have done manful service there, and the
friends of the seminary have been tlie friends of the settle-
ment. Its history thus far has been a sweet and simple

IN. I rCU RATION OF A NEW PRESIDENT. 381

ehroiiiclc of ^V()rk done in Christ's name and spirit to make
life brighter, purer, and more hopeful for men, women,
youths, and little children, who, because they are poor and
must toil painfully for daily bread, cannot otherwise possess
those inspirina; and educating influences which are provided
in the settlement. And now the time has arrived when the
preaching of tlie Gospel has become a ])art of tlie Union Set-
tlement work, and when week by week one of God's servants
offers to the dwellers in those crowded homes "the life which
is life indeed."

I believe that this seminary by the expansion of its scope
along the line of social service, and by using the Providen-
tial opportunity afforded in the Union Settlement, may take
one of the most advanced positions that has yet been taken
by a divinity school in showing that high Christian scholar-
ship and intense evangelistic and social effort truly and prop-
erly go together. I pray for the day when in the heart of
that neighborhood which I have described, some far-visioned
Christian man or woman shall buikl for the Union Settle-
ment a great and complete establishment, as great as Mans-
field House in the east of London ; making that house, con-
secrated to the service of humanity upon the basis of the
Gospel of the Cross, a perpetual expression of the true spirit
and intention of this seminary toward the problem of social
reconstruction. I would have that house a centre of physical,
intellectual, and spiritual education for the people of that
district ; an open portal, a gate beautiful into a wider and
happier life than the life of Christless ignorance. And I
would have that house and the district about it a sublime
opportunity for the students of this seminary to learn all the
new, loving, generous methods of helping mankind to a bet-
ter life, and of coming near unto, yes, of immersing one's
self into that deep sea of humanity which heaves in restless-

382 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

ness around tiie walls of the Church and knows so little of
what Christ intended that His Church should mean in this
fallen and disordered world.

4. The Line of Spiritual Power. In many quarters
of the Church to day (and I speak now of all branches
of the Church) the deepest longing of the most thought-
ful hearts is for a return of Christians to that spirituality
of mind and of life which prevailed among the believers
of the Apostolic Age. Gratefully do I quote the devout
words of one of my colleagues who has recently written
concerning this primitive period of Christian history. " It
is not enough to speak of the ethical principles and practice
of the early Christians ; their life was above all else re-
ligious and it was that dominant religiousness which gave it
its peculiar and distinctive character. The controlling fact
in their life was the consciousness of being citizens of a
heavenly Kingdom and heirs of a heavenly inheritance.
They might go about their ordinary occupations as they had
always done and might mingle with their neighbors as be-
fore, but they were conscious all the time that they were
living in another world, and that the forces and influences
which controlled them were from above. The consciousness
found concrete expression in the belief that the Holy Spirit
was in the church, guiding and inspiring the followers of
Christ and endowing them with jjower far beyond their own."
Words like these represent that for which the most thoughtful
men within the Church are praying ; the deepening of the spirit-
ual sense of Christ's person, of Christ's work, and of Christ's
ideal for His church which alone can prevail to banish
controversy, quicken faith, and promote personal consecration.

I believe that this seminary may and must expand its
scope along this line of spiritual power. The chapel in which

INAUGURATION OF A NFAl' PRESIDENT. 383

we gather to-night, and whicli loving and iilial hands have
adorned in nieniorv of one whose life and whose teach-
ings bore witness to tiie value of a spiritually minded min-
istry, ought to be a ])lace where those of all branches of the
Church who desire to worship in the spirit and to ponder
the principles and objects of the life which is hid with
Christ in God may come together, free from the saddening
influences of controversy and far from the dark shadows of
doubt, to sit together in heavenly places in Jesus Christ and
commune in the unity of the spirit and under the bond of
peace. The whole eifect and influence of this seminary upon
those who study within its walls in preparation for the min-
istry oucrht to be to exalt Jesus Christ in His eternal God-
head, in His atoning sacrifice, in His risen and enthroned
glory, in His future advent; and so to nourish and to
strengthen the powers of the spiritual manhood that all who
go forth from this place to lead the Living Church into the
new opportunities of a new century shall bear upon their
lives the seal of God and shall utter with their lips that age-
less mystery, revealed in Christ, of grace, mercy and peace,
through God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy
Ghost.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES

DIRECTORS AND PROFESSORS.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES. 387

part jfourtb.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF DIRECTORS AND
PROFESSORS.

William Agur Booth (1860-1895) was born in Stam-
ford, Connecticut, 1805, and died in Englewood, New Jersey,
on the 28th day of December, 1895, in the ninety-first year
of his age. Mr. Booth was one of the foremost citizens of
New York, eminent alike in the world of business, in the
whole sphere of religious activity and service, in patriotic
devotion, and above all, in weight of personal character and
influence. His name will always be associated with that
remarkable succession of Christian laymen of New York,
to whose wisdom, energy, foresight, liberality and pious zeal,
home and foreign missions in all their varied forms and
societies owe so great and lasting a debt. To do full justice
to this part of. his life-work would require a volume. His
own " Reminiscences," prepared for the gratification of his
wide family circle, and printed after his death, furnish in-
deed such a record. It is an old man's story, told to his
children and grandchildren, and told with a modesty and
simplicity of style most attractive. The following minute
was adopted by the Board of Directors of Union Theologi-
cal Seminary :

On the 28th day of December, 1895, at his home in
Englewood, New Jersey, surrounded by his immediate kin-
dred, our revered father, associate and friend, Mr. William
A. Booth, in the ninety-first year of his age,

Meekly gave his being up and went

To sliare that holy rest which waits a life well spent.

388 77/^ UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

The Board of Directors of Union Seminary, bowing sub-
missively to the divine visitation, hereby do record their
sense of bereavement and their liigh appreciation of the many
and rare qualities of mind and heart which easily placed
Mr. Booth among the foremost in Christian citizenship ; a
human standard of human excellence.

Mr. Booth was elected a director of this institution on
November 14, 1860, filling the place of Mr. Caleb O. Hal-
sted, then recently deceased. Of those who then composed
the directorate, only three survive, viz., Charles Butler, LL.D.,
Rev. George L. Prentiss, D.D., and Mr. Salem H. Wales.

With characteristic zeal and fidelity, Mr. Booth addressed
himself to the active duties of his office. He was at once
made a member of the Finance Committee, where his large
experience, sound judgment and wise counsels enabled him
to render eminent service in the management not only of
the financial, but of all other departments through the Civil
War period and continuously thereafter.

By reason of his advanced age and distant residence Mr.
Booth's personal intercourse wath the board in later years
has been subject to these limitations, but to those who
through long years of close intimacy have walked with him
in the marts of commerce, amid the rugged scenes of public
alarm and of national peril, in the more congenial fields of
benevolence and philanthropic enterprise, or in the tranquil
paths of Christian beneficence, his exemplary life and sym-
metrical character combining in such degree and beautiful
proportion the gentleness and grace of a Christian spirit
with the sterling qualities of a vigorous and forceful man-
hood, will be an abiding inspiration ; and his uniform cour-
tesy, his habitual self-command, his genial fellowship and
his generous friendship will all 'be cherished in grateful and
aifectionate remembrance.

John Hall D.D., LL.D., (1870-1892) belonged to an
old Scotch-Irish family. He was born in the county of
Armagh, Ireland, July 31, 1829. He was a graduate of
the Royal College and of the General Assembly's Theologi-

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES. 389

cal College in Belfast. Licensed to preach in 1849, he
labored for the next three years as the " students' mission-
ary " in the Mest of Ireland. In 1852 he became pastor
of the First Presbyterian church at Armagh, and in 1858
collegiate pastor of St. Mary's Abbey in Dublin. In 1867
he accepted a call to the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian church
in the city of New York. Here he labored with extraor-
dinary zeal, fidelity and success for the next thirty years.
His congregation was one of the largest, most influential and
most noted for its varied and munificent charities in all the
land. In addition to his work as a preacher and pastor
Dr. Hall rendered valuable service to the cause of missions,
both domestic and foreign, and to other great Christian
interests. For several years he was chancellor of the Uni-
versity of the city of New York. As an author also he
was highly useful. He died suddenly while on a visit to
his sister at Bangor, County Down, Ireland, on September
17, 1898. Others may have surpassed him in pulpit
oratory, in theological learning, or as leaders of religious
thought and action ; but in solidity of personal character, in
the simplicity, depth and earnestness of his piety, in preach-
ing the old Gospel of salvation through the grace of God in
Jesus Christ, in the abundance and sweetness of his pastoral
care. Dr. Hall was among the foremost Presbyterian minis-
ters of his generation, whether at home or abroad. "If I
could only preach the Gospel like that ! " wrote Dr. Henry
B. Smith in 1871, referring to a sermon he had just heard
from Dr. Hall.

John Taylor Johnston (1870-1893) was born in New
York, April 8, 1820. He graduated at the University of
the City of New York, with the class of 1839, and was ad-
mitted to the bar in 1843. The chief business of his life,

390 ^^^ UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

however, was the management and control of raih'oads, rather
than the practice of law. Before his thirtieth year he be-
came president of the Central Railroad of New Jersey, and
remained for many years at its head, directing its affairs
with rare skill and ability. He took an active interest in
education, especially as represented by his Alma Mater, and
was president also of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. He
died after a wearisome illness.

Mr. Johnston furnished a fine example of an American
man of business, who at the same time was a man of
scholarly tastes and of high culture both in literature and
art. No one could meet him in the Board of Directors, in
the committee room, or in social intercourse, without feeling
himself in the presence of a refined and high-minded Chris-
tian gentleman.

Joseph Tuttle Duryea, D.D., (1868-1874) was born
at Jamaica, Long Island, December 9, 1832. He graduated
at the College of New Jersey in the class of 1856, and was
also a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary in the
class of 1859. In the same year he was ordained pastor of
the Second Presbyterian church, Troy, New York. Three
years later he became a pastor of the Collegiate Reformed
church, New York City. In 1867 he accepted a call to the
Closson Avenue Presbyterian church, Brooklyn, New York.
In 1879 he became pastor of the Central Congregational
church, Boston, Massachusetts. After a ten years' ministry
of varied activity and power in Boston, he was called in
1889 to the First Congregational church in Omaha, Nebraska.
His last pastorate was of the First Reformed church in Brook-
lyn, New York. He resigned on account of physical weak-
ness in February, 1898, and died suddenly in Boston, a
few months later.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES. 391

My acquaintance with Dr. Duryea began soon after his
settlement in New York. He was then thirty years okl, very
winning in his manners, and full of intellectual and spiritual
energy. I thought him one of the most interesting and gifted
young ministers I had ever known. How high he stood in the
public estimation was shown a few years later by his ap-
pointment to deliver the opening address at the memorial
jubilee of Dr. Charles Hodge in 1872. During the Civil
War he rendered invaluable service in the work of the
Christian Commission, while as an orator at patriotic
gatherings, both in New York and at Washington, he
touched the popular heart with the skill of a master. I
never met him again after his removal to New England,
but often heard of his indefatigable labors and usefulness, both
as preacher in Boston and as a favorite lecturer at Andover,
at Wellesley, and elsewhere. Here is an extract from a
notice of his departure in The Evangelist of May 26, 1898,
written by an old friend :

The highest encomium we can pay him as a preacher is
to repeat the words of Phillips Brooks, " I cannot afford to
miss one of Dr. Duryea's sermons." Brooks was his near
neighbor in Boston and always attended Duryea's afternoon
service. He had grown up to a stature that made him easily
a superior intelligence and authority. He was too independ-
ent for a prescribed professorship ; he was sometimes too
philosophical for the comfort of his congregation. But he
was a man so richly endowed and so rarely furnished that it
was a privilege to listen to him, which the best men and the
best furnished minds found especially grateful and desirable.
He grew in wisdom and knoweldge to the end.

Hexry Day (1870-1893) was one of the most ardent
and influential friends of reunion among the laymen of the Old
School Church. In the General Assembly of that branch,
held at Albany in 1868, he took a leading part in advocating

392 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

the cause. He was sent as a special messenger to bear the
greeting of the Albany Assembly to that of the New School
Church, then in session at Harrisburg. I was a member of
that New School Assembly and remember well the fine im-
pression he made upon the entire body. Hardly had the
reunion been accomplished when he was unanimously elected
a director of the Union Theological Seminary. Of his in-
valuable services to the institution no one is so well entitled
to speak as his friend, Dr. Hastings, to whom I am indebted
for the following truthful sketch :

My Dear De. Prentiss: — You asked me to write you
concerning the life and services of our friend, the late Henry
Day, Esq. I accept this task as a labor of love, since I
have special reasons for holding Mr. Day in grateful and
affectionate remembrance, though I cannot hope to say how
much he was to me as a counsellor and a cordial supporter
through the most trying years of the seminary's history.

Henry Day was born in South Hadley, Massachusetts,
December 25, 1820. He was graduated at Yale College in
1845, and was admitted to the New York bar in the fall
of 1845. He married, January 31, 1849, the daughter of
the late Daniel Lord, and was associated with the distin-
guished firm of Lord, Day and Lord throughout his profes-
sional career. It was said of him at his death that " he had
drawn more wills, involving millions perhaps, than any other
lawyer in New York City," and he was one of those practi-
tioners who could never be induced by a retainer, or by any
other influence, to bring his great legal abilities to bear in favor
of corporations or individuals who sought to avoid legal
responsibility by legal subtlety. He was a director and the
counsel' of the Equitable Life Insurance Company, of which
he was one of the founders, and of the Mercantile Trust
Company, and of the Lawyers' Title Insurance Company.

Mr. Day united with the church in South Hadley in 1840
before entering college, and in New York was made an elder
in the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian church under the pastorate
of the late Dr. James W, Alexander, which office he held

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES. 393

until his death. In 1805 he was made a trustee of Prince-
ton Theological Sc^niinary. He took an active interest in
promoting the reunion of the Presbyterian Church, and was
a member of the committee of the Assembly of 1<SG7 which
prepared ,the overtures of peace of the New School Church,
and he also had a hand in drafting the articles which formed
the basis of reunion. He publislied two books of travel,
"A Lawyer Abroad," and "From the Pyrenees \;o the Pil-
lars of Hercules."

In 1870 Mr. Day was elected a director of Union The-
ological Seminary, in which capacity he served for twenty-
three years until his death. It would be difficult to
overestimate the zeal, devotion and fidelity with which he
discharged his duties as a member of the Board of Directors
and of the Executive Committee. Far seeing and fearless,
he was always ready to bear responsibility, and to meet
difficulty with an enthusiastic faith in the future of our
seminary. In the controversy with the General Assembly
he never faltered or weakened for a moment, but bravely
and yet in the best spirit contended for the liberty of our
institution. There were two other lawyers in the board, but
Mr. Day was the first to contend that the agreement of 1870
was an illegal surrender of the rights and responsibilities of
the seminary to the General Assembly. He obtained from
Judge Noah Davis an elaborate opinion confirmatory of this
view. It was then that the board secured the opinion of
James C. Carter, Esq., bearing upon this point, and I well
remember the satisfaction of Mr. Day in the conclusive im-
pression which Mr. Carter's opinion made upon the board.
He rejoiced to see the seminary recover its original inde-
pendence, and to the last, even when weakened by illness,
he attended the meetings of the board and aided its counsels.
He proved himself in many ways an ardent friend of free
and high scholarship, and a fearless advocate of Christian
liberty. He was genial and courteous and generous, and in
my judgment rendered distinguished service to the cause of
higher theological education, aiding us in bearing heavy
burdens and in meeting special exigencies.

394 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

He died in New York City on the 9th of January, 1893,
in the seventy-third year of his age and in the twenty-third
year of his service as a director. Surely his name should be
held in grateful and loving remembrance by all the friends
of Union Seminary and of what it represents.
Always affectionately yours,

Thomas S. Hastings.

Jonathan French Stearns, D.D. (1850-1888) was
one of the worthiest representatives of two very old and em-
inent ministerial families of New England. His father, the
Rev. Samuel Stearns, pastor for thirty-seven years of the
Congregational church in Bedford, Massachusetts, took a lead-
ing part in the controversy, which early in the century led to a
sharp division between Orthodoxy and Unitarianism ; while
his grandfather on his mother's side, the Rev. Jonathan
French, was closely identified with the establishment of the
Andover Theological Seminary. Both were men noted in
their day for weight of character, personal excellence, and
wide influence in the revival of religious faith and learning
among the Congregational churches of Massachusetts. Three
sons of the Rev. Samuel Stearns, all graduates of Harvard
College, and inheriting the best qualities of their Puritan an-
cestry, left behind them honored names as pastors and
preachers of the Gospel. Samuel, the eldest, after a short
ministry in the Old South church, Boston, passed away in
early manhood, greatly beloved and lamented by the whole
community. William, after a most useful pastorate, became
president of Amherst College, and did a noble work in
strengthening and widening its influence. Two other sons,
Josiah and Eben, spent their lives in teaching ; the former
in Boston, the latter in Portland, Exeter, Albany and Nash-
ville. They were among the most successful and noted
educators of their day.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES. 395

Mr. Stearns was born at Bedford, September 4, 1808,
and cdueated, as I have said, at Harvard College. He be-
longed to the elass of 1830. Shortly before the death of the
late George Ripley, so long identified with tlie literary de-
partment of the l^ew York Tribune, I accompanied Dr.
Stearns on a visit to that accomplished scholar, and listened
with delight to their charming talk and bright anecdotes
about college days. Charles Sumner was in the same class
with Jonathan F. Stearns, was his room-mate during a part
of the course, and the friendship then formed between them
continued unbroken to the last. In 1835 Mr. Stearns was
ordained and installed pastor of the first Presbyterian church,
Newburyport, Massachusetts; the church in which George
Whitefield often preached, and beneath whose pulpit his dust
is still sleeping. Here he continued to labor for fourteen
years, endearing himself more and more to the people and to
the whole city. In 1849, he accepted a call to the First
Presbyterian church in Newark, N. J.; the venerable clmrch
whose annals form no small part of the earlier history of the
town and of the region round about. Henry B. Smith, then
professor at Amherst, preached the installation sermon. Dr.
Stearns' Newark pastorate, was crowded with work and use-
fulness. Newark in 1849 was remarkable, as indeed it
always had been, for the high character of its ministers and
its Christian laymen, and as a centre of the religious life
and culture of New Jersey. Dr. Stearns' labors and in-
fluence both at Newark and in New York, for more than a
third of the century, were very great ; greater far than was
known to the general public. He was a modest man, and a
good deal of his best work was that of a wise counsellor
and helper ; he got oftentimes no credit for it because he
sought and desired none. As a director nearly two score
years of Union Theological Seminary, for example, his ad-

396 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

vice was at critical times simply invaluable ; but it was
usually given by request and followed without any mention
of his name. I myself owed him a heavy debt for such
advice ; and Henry B. Smith, I feel sure, would have said
the same thing. My own opinion is, and has always been,
that but for him Henry B. Smith would never have
been connected with the institution, nor would the
Washburn chair of Church History have been founded
or Roswell D. Hitchcock called to fill it. How much of
the most effective service to the cause of God and humanity
is rendered in just such quiet, unknown ways ! Dr. Stearns'
best influence in the Church at large, was of this unob-
trusive sort. And if to such influence be added that
of his open, strong advocacy of important principles and
measures bearing upon the order, faith, progress, peace and
unity of the Churches of Christ throughout our land — more
especially of the Presbyterian and Congregational Churches —
we shall have as the total result a kind and degree of use-
fulness worthy of the highest praise. I have never known
a man who seemed to me to look at great questions of duty with
an eye more single, or a judgment less biassed by sectarian or
personal narrowness and prejudice. The Presbyterian Church
showed her estimate of his character by placing him year
after year upon several of her most important committees or
boards, and by electing him Moderator of her General As-
sembly at Harrisburg, in 1868. He was also for many years
a trustee of Princeton College, from which he had received
his doctorate of divinity. Owing to failing health and in-
firmities of age, he resigned his charge in April, 1882, and
was made Pastor Emeritus, the congregation providing very
generously for his worldly comfort. His last days, though
sadly darkened by loss of memory and mental weakness,
were not without hours brightened by the old smile, by

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES. 397

flashes of liappv and tender recollection, by a child's delight
in the hooks and toys of his boyhood, by the sweetest ex-
pressions of old household affection, and by the wondrous
reverence with which he still bowed his knee to the name
of Jesus. He passed into rest at the home of his son-in-
law, President Scott of Rutgers College, New Brunswick,
November 11, 1889. He left three children, two of whom
still survive — Seargent Prentiss Stearns, Esq., of Montreal,
for several years United States Consul-General in Canada,
and Mrs. Austin Scott, of New Brunswick. His youngest
son, Lewis French, was professor of Theology at Bangor,
Maine, and died suddenly in 1892, greatly lamented by
Christian scholars throughout the country.

Dr. Stearns wrote a good deal for the religious press,
especially for the New York Evangelist, on questions of the
day, theological and ecclesiastical ; and besides published a
a very able sermon on "Justification," preached before the
Synod of New York and New Jersey, a centennial discourse
in memory of Whitefield, and various occasional addresses.
He also published a history of the First Church of Newark,
which is a model of its kind. Not long after his death his
successor, the Rev. Dr. Frazer, delivered in the First Pres-
byterian church at Newark, a very affectionate and discrim-
inating discourse, in which the leading traits of Dr. Stearns'
life and character were delineated in the happiest manner.

About the same time a special memorial service was held
in the First Presbyterian church at Newburyport, which
was attended by the mayor and other leading citizens, and
by a crowded assembly composed largely of the children and
children's children of Dr. Stearns' New England flock.
The tribute both to the old pastor and pastor's wife could
hardly have been more beautiful or more touching had only
five instead of forty years passed away since their departure

398 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

to Newark. A single extract from an address of the Rev.
Dr. Fiske on the occasion will show its spirit :

I esteem it a privilege to join you this morning in pay-
ing some fitting tribute to a former pastor of this church,
whom to know was to love. Dr. Stearns had been your
pastor nearly twelve years when I came to reside in the
city and first made his acquaintance. Yet he seemed and
was quite a young man beside his venerable ministerial
neighbors, Dr. Daniel Dana, Dr. Leonard Withington, and
Dr. Luther F. Dimmick. At my ordination he was
selected to give me, in the name of the Congregational
churches in the vicinity, and in the name of the Congrega-
tional churches at large, the right hand of fellowship. It
may seem strange that this duty should have been assigned
to the pastor of a Presbyterian church. But Dr. Stearns
was a Congregationalist before he was a Presbyterian, and
enough of a Congregationalist afterward to be in heartiest
sympathy with Congregational churches and Congregational
ministers. Indeed he was a man of such broad views,
large heart and catholic spirit that he could fitly represent
both of these denominations, which have always been one in
all the great essentials of Christianity. So hearty was the
right hand of fellowship which he gave me — more than
forty-two years ago — that I seem to feel the warm pres-
sure of his clasping palm still ; and so chaste and classic was
his diction, and yet so throbbing with life and emotion, that
my heart was touched and I felt assured that I should find in
him a true friend and brother. Nor was I disappointed.

Dr. Stearns was a man of scholarly and refined tastes,
of urbane manners, of sweet and gentle disposition, of warm
sympathies, of firm convictions, of earnest purposes, of tem-
pered enthusiasm and of a devout and reverent spirit, an
able and instructive preacher, a faithful pastor, a worthy citi-
zen, a kind neighbor, always and everywhere a cultivated
Christian gentlemen. His removal to Newark was a great
public loss ; a great loss to this church, to all these churches,
to our whole city where he was universally esteemed both
as a man and a minister.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES. 399

Let us to-day devoutly tlmnk God for tlie life of such a
noble man as Jonathan F. Stearns. His influence still lives
among you. The record of his ministry here forms a bright
cha])ter in your history. His very name is to you a per-
petual benediction.

It may not be unfitting to add a word respecting the wife,
so tenderly referred to in the memorial services at Newark and
Newburyport, and also the son, who quickly followed his
father to the better country. How much of the finest and
most effective work of the American pastorate is wrought
unconsciously by the woman behind the throne, and then reap-
pears in a son of her right hand ! It was so in the present case.
Mrs. Stearns was a sister of the great lawyer, orator and patriot,
S. S. Prentiss, whose name is still a household word throughout
the South. The relation between them was wonderfully
beautiful and had all the charms of romance.

Her youngest son, Lewis French, on the retirement of Dr.
Shedd from the chair of Systematic Theology in Union Semi-
nary, was unanimously chosen to succeed him. He had just
given an original and striking course of Ely lectures on The
Evidence of Chnstian Experience, and was already regarded
as one of the very foremost of the younger theologians of the
country. The veto power had something to do with his de-
clining the call to Union. A few months before his death
he had won the admiration of Christian scholars, both
at home and in England, by his masterly address before the
Congregational Council held in London in 1891.

Here follows an extract from the minutes of the Board
of Directors of Union Theological Seminary, on the death of
Dr. Stearns. The minute was prepared by Dr. Frazer, his
successor at Newark :

In 1850, Dr. Stearns, then in the full maturity of his
powers, was elected a member of this board, devoted him-

400 T^^E UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

self enthusiastically to the advancement of the best interests
of the seminary, rendered faithful and efficient service for
nearly two score years and ended his official relation only
when disease made him incompetent to serve.

He was one of the prompt, regular and diligent attendants
upon the meetings of the board. He was a wise counsellor,
being singularly free alike from that abnormal conservatism
which refuses to recognize the exigences of the present, and
from the excessive radicalism which insists upon repudiating
the past simply because it is past.

By reason of his long and intimate acquaintance with the
men, he was able to render and did render distinguished aid
in securing the invaluable services of Henry B. Smith and
Roswell D. Hitchcock to this institution. He was a man of
strong mind, large culture, broad views, warm sympathies
and courtly manners ; in a word, a Christian gentleman.

With gratitude to God that he gave and so long spared
Dr. Stearns to us, we record this minute as an expression
of the respect which we have long cherished for the man,
as an exponent of our appreciation of the zeal and the
fidelity with which for thirty-eight years he discharged the
duty of director, and also as an embodiment of our sym-
pathy for those who mourn a father beloved and whom we
tenderly commend to the all-sufficient grace of the great and
gracious Father above.

John H. Worcester, Jr., D.D., (1891-1893). Dr.
Worcester was a member of the Detroit Assembly and took
a prominent part in the discussion, which followed the re-
port of the Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries
recommending a disapproval of the transfer of Professor
Briggs to the new chair of Biblical Theology. Not long after
the adjournment of the General Assembly, he was unani-
mously elected to the chair of Systematic Theology in Union
Seminary. Having known and highly esteemed him while a
student in the institution, I watched his career as a pastor,
both in the East and in the West, with lively interest; and

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES. 401

it would afford nvc heartfelt pleasure to make this sketch
my own tribute to his memory. But a tribute much better
and more worthy than I could write was paid to him by his
friend the Rev, Simon J. McPherson, D.D., of Chicago, in
a discourse delivered by invitation of the Board of Directors
of the Union Theological Seminary in Adams Chapel, April
13, 1893. Here follow extracts from this very interesting
and beautiful discourse:

We are a company of bereaved brethren. We at once
lament and celebrate, a pastor, a colleague, a teacher, who
was a faithful lover and friend to us all. For myself I can
truly say that I never had, and I never expect to have, a
more valued fellow in the ministry of the Gospel than he.
From .the day on which I was ordained, through twelve
happy years to the day when he became a professor in this
honored institution, it was my favored lot in Providence to
serve parishes which immediately adjoined his own. I became
intimately associated and acquainted with him. The better I
came to know him, the more highly I estimated him as a
rare type of Christian manhood, and the more warmly I loved
him as a great-hearted companion.

He was of English and Puritan lineage, but in the eighth
of the generations who have been at home in the New
World. Four of his seven American forefathers were min-
isters. His name, which, under two or three different forms
of orthography, is widely scattered amongst Anglo-Saxons,
is said to have etymological ly, a martial meaning; but the
family coat of arms, we are told, " signifies the first bearer
to have been a priest, or some religious person ; or else one
that had done much for the church." The family itself has
certainly favored both the church and the school. . "

The original settler in New England, Rev. William Wor-
cester, is mentioned in the Magnalia of Cotton Mather. " A
fugitive from persecution and tyranny ;" he came, apparently,
from Salisbury, England, in 1637 or 1638. He was at once
appointed pastor at Colchester, which, in 1840, became Salis-
bury, the oldest town north of the Merrimac river. Its

402 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

church was the eighteenth in the Massachusetts Colony, of
Avhich he was made a freeman in 1639. A man of liberal
education, he is described as "learned, wise, meek and
patient," — attributes distinctive of his descendants.

The next three in the line lived in Massachusetts ; godly,
industrious men, of stalwart character, devoted to the public
weal, and loving, as one of them said, " to see a man, manly."
Francis, of the fourth generation, after being some ten years
a pastor, became an evangelist and did thorough work in
revival meetings, part of the time with Whitefield. Noah,
his son, a farmer and shoemaker, who settled at Hollis, New
Hampshire, entered the army of the revolution with two of
his sons, but lived to gather around his table eighteen chil-
dren, of whom five were ministers. When he died he left
seventy-eight grandchildren.

Throughout these five generations, we are credibly as-
sured, "one and the same character, essentially, appeared
from first to last . . . There may be ascribed to each an
enlightened belief in God and His Word ; a confiding recog-
nition of His Providence in all things ; a fervent spirit and
a constant habit of devotion ; an undeviating reverence for
the Sabbath and every institution of the Gospel ; an irre-
proachable veracity and honesty : an exact manliness and an
undaunted moral courage ; with an inflexible adherence to
convictions of duty, and a benevolent forwardness to multiply
and extend, in every appropriate and practical manner, ' the
glory and virtue ' of the Church of God." What an index
to the personality of Professor Worcester, and, indeed, to the
Pilgrim race of New England !

In the sixth generation, two members of the family are
of special interest to us. One of them. Dr. Samuel Wor-
cester, a graduate of Dartmouth and a famous preacher of
the day at Salem, was among the most active of the organ-'
izers, and for about twenty years the first corresponding sec-
retary, of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign
Missions. The other, Rev. Leonard Worcester, was the
grandfather of our friend. He was a trustee of the Univer-
sity of Vermont. At first an editor, he was afterwards, for

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES. 403

nearly half a century, the pastor at Peacham, Vermont,
where his memory is still reverently cherished.

Four of his sons, as I make it out, were ministers. One
of them. Rev. John H. AVorcestcr, D.D., whose namesake
and only child your professor was, still lives in Burlington,
Vermont, a noble and most venerable figure. He was the
pastor, first, at St. Jolmsbury, where his son was born, and,
later, at Burlington. For some years subsequently he was
occupied in teaching. Burdened with defective hearing at
his great age, he has passed his most recent years largely
within his spacious and well-filled library, in refined and
studious retirement. His patriarchal form, cast in the
heroic mould which has been common in the family, his in-
tellectual head and attractive face, his gentle and dignified
manner, and his pathetic and controlled sorrow, too deep for
tears and too great for words, would win and touch any
heart, especially if it loved his son. His is a gifted and
cultivated mind, stored with select and classified knowledge,
and trained to think upon high and difficult themes. Withal,
its forces are marshalled by a reverent and independent
judgment, conservative of ascertained realities and hospitable
to fresh aspects of truth from any quarter. We need not
wonder at what Professor Worcester was when we remember
that he was not only the son, but also, for a third of a cen-
tury, the close companion of such a man.

To this heritage and family John Hopkins Worcester,
Jr., was born April 2, 1845. Clean, stimulating blood flowed
in his infant veins. When self-consciousness dawned, he
could look backward with a sense of privilege and indebted-
ness, and forward with a sense of opportunity and high
obligation. He found himself tenderly welcomed in the mem-
bership of a respected, refined and unostentatiously affection-
ate Christian home. He had parents to whom he could look
up, and who led his youthful vision towards the Father in
heaven. His mother, Martha P. Clark, was the daughter of
Deacon Luther Clark, of St. Johnsbury. She was the
youngest of three sisters, and the only one that is not now
living. One of her sisters married the late Judge Redfield,

404 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

for many years Chief Justice of Vermont. The other became
the wife of Rev. Joseph S. Gallagher, once the skillful and
efficient treasurer of the seminary. All accounts agree that
Professor Worcester's mother was a lovely woman, with tine
intellectual endowments and a sweet Christian spirit. She
died when her son was three years old, entreating him with
her latest breath to love the dear Saviour. As he was car-
ried away from her grave, he burst into tears with the bit-
ter cry : " Now, I shan 't have a Mamma any more." But
it was otherwise ordered. He was favored as few orphans
have ever been. When he was less than seven years old,
the present wife of his father became a genuine mother to
him. Of Scottish extraction, high attainments and beautiful
Christian character, her training was invaluable to him.

In Burlington, as in St. Johnsbury, he was surrounded
by a quiet, cultivated New England town. The glories of
the Green Mountains and of the Adirondacks beset him
round. The picturesque and historic Lake Champlain lay
beneath his eyes. Temptations, like those of a great city,
were nowhere obtrusive, and there was a wholesome inspira-
tion alike in the human life and in the natural scenery en-
vironing him. The climate, like the moral standard of his
home, was honestly severe, but the impulses of domestic,
social and religious life were warm, true and inviting. It
was a favored, happy lot, whose good influences abounded
in him to his latest hour on earth.

As a boy, he appears to have been precocious, as he cer-
tainly was remarkably handsome. He knew the alphabet
from picture-blocks when he was only two years old, and by
the end of his third year he had, with a little occasional
help, taught himself to read. But his native capacity, indus-
try and modesty, coupled with wise training, kept him from
being spoiled. The intellectual and moral atmosphere of his
home were unusually stimulating, in some particulars, perhaps,
too stimulating for an entirely symmetrical development of
his boyish nature. It was at first a parsonage and after-
wards a school. He was constantly in the company of older
minds. It may be a question whether his early years had

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES. 405

enough either of playtime or playmates for jovial mental
health. At any rate, there are indications that he attained
uncommon maturity in his youth. He became a member of
the church in his seventeenth year. That step, however,
was by no means forced upon him. It was the natural
thing for him to take it, for he never knew when he became
a Christian. His faith blossomed out like a flower in spring
time. Its fruits, too, were prompt to follow. While still
young, he was one of the original founders of the Young
Men's Christian Association in Burlington, and an eifective
leader in Sunday-school and mission work. Nevertheless,
his powers and his useful activities continued to grow and to
increase their harmonious adjustments to the end of his life.

After completing his preparatory courses under the eye
of his father, he entered the University of Vermont, from
which he graduated in 1865. It was one of the small
colleges, set upon the Acropolis of the Athens of
Vermont. He was not cnly well-known to the uncon-
ventional students, but he enjoyed also the advantages,
peculiar to a small college, of intimate association with
ripe professors who gave him individual attention. He
improved his opportunities and became truly educated.
Indeed, he has added distinction to the institution. The
honored president tells me that all who have known it in-
timately for the last thirty years would be sure to name him
among the score, or even the ten, who have had the most
brilliant and promising collegiate careers. As attesting her
continued regard, the University of Vermont gave him his
doctorate degree in 1885.

He entered upon his theological course here in 1867.
At the end of his middle year he went abroad and spent a
year or more in traveling and in studying at Berlin and
Leipsic. Returning, he graduated from this school of the
prophets in 1871 ; and up to the 5th of last February, on
every day of his life, he was both an honor to Union Semi-
nary, and an exalted type of the ministers whom she has
trained for the Church of God.

The chief work of his noble life was done in the pastor-

406 'THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

ate, preaching the living Christ to dying men — to my mind
the holiest and sweetest vocation on earth. In these days
of frequent pastoral changes, occasioned in part, no doubt,
by the exacting and exhausting demands of the work, but
far more, I fear, by the restlessness of ministers and churches,
let it be noted both that in almost twenty years he had but
two charges and that he left neither of them because he
would or because he must, but solely in response to an im-
perative summons of conscience. He w^as installed pastor of
the First Presbyterian Church of South Orange, New Jer-
sey, January 10, 1872, and left it in January, 1883, to be-
come pastor of the Sixth Presbyterian Church of Chicago.
His work as preacher and pastor was of a uniform quality
throughout, and the quality w^as uniformly high. It was all
done on his honor as the servant of Jesus Christ. None of
it w^as slighted, whether it was public or private; his study
and his prayer-closet were as faithfully devoted to their pur-
poses as the pulpit or the platform. Every minister is mas-
ter of his own time. Every minister is likely to hear the
effusive praises of the friendly flatterer, and to be left out
of hearing by his average critic. Consequently, the besetting
sins of weak ministers are laziness and egotism. But my
brother was neither lazy nor egotistical, for he was not
weak ; he was faithful, sincere and virile. For genuine
fidelity towards God and man, he was well-nigh matchless.

His preaching, as some of you know, was distinguished
for thoroughness ; whether he read from manuscript, or spoke
extemporaneously, as he could do with admirable complete-
ness, clearness and finish, he always brought beateu oil into
the sanctuary. His published sermons on "Womanhood"
are in evidence. Unusually intellectual, yet with the white
light of great emotions, and with a passion for saving the
whole of a man, he made large demands upon his hearers,
at the same time that he gave them large supplies of thought,
feeling and purpose. Partly for that reason, he was not, in
the common apprehension of the word, a popular preacher.
He dwelt in rather too high and rare an atmosphere for
that. He appealed especially to the somewhat select class

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES. 407

of tlioughtful and educated minds. Yet he left indelible
lines of life upon the souls of all regular attendants, even
Avhen they were unconscious of the fact. He was singularly
unselfish in preaching. It was not a great name nor a con-
spicious place that he was seeking, any more than it was a
fat salary. His first desire seemed to be to fill the place
assigned to him, to make Jesus Christ conspicious in truth
and love, and to leave permanent gracious impressions.

He Avas a " house-going " minister, and he did not con-
fine himself to houses of any class, rich or poor, personally
friendly or personally indifferent. To his great personal re-
gret he could not easily win an entrance into the aflPections
of a stranger or acquaintance. He was too thorough for
that ; at a time when much of our pastoral visitation con-
sists largely of small talk, he had no small talk at all. He
had to make his "way on his genuine merits, which he was
not facile in exploiting. But in times of stress and burden,
when death stood at the door or devastated the home, he
was most welcome. There was enough of him to meet a
crisis, and souls in critical situations had faith in him, and
found strength and peace in his ministrations. I have often
felt that if I were on my death-bed, I should prefer his
ministry to any other. He would have told me the truth
honestly, completely, simply and affectionately.

A good general test of his pastoral efficiency may be
found in the condition in which he left each of his- churches.
I fancy that one of the surest tests of any pastor's career
conies to light after he goes away. If a church then has
parties who say I am of Paul, Apollos or Cephas, you may
almost take it for granted that there was something radically
defective or selfish in his teaching. For some pastors seem
to brand the Master's sheep with their own initials. But our
friend left the Master's high, unifying name in his parish-
ioners' hearts. Tiiey thought of Christ rather than of him.
They remained united and prepared to offer a common wel-
come to the succeeding under-shepherd.

Such a man needed human sympathy — he got it. His
brethren learned to love and trust him, and he had a sweet

408 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

and hallowed domestic life. On October 29, 1874, lie mar-
ried Miss Harriet W. Strong, a danghter of Edward Strong,
M. D., of Auburndale, Massachusetts. Four children, two
boys and two girls, were given to them, all born in Orange
and all living still excepting little Martha, who is with her
father. Let him who can, believe in the celibacy of the
clergy. Our friend found almost an ideal of the kingdom
of God on earth in his family. Strenuous man as he was,
with deep-seated convictions, he was so tolerant of the right-
ful opinions of others that, as I believe, he never once,
during their eighteen years of married life, crossed any real
independent judgment of Mrs. Worcester's. Nor was he ever
dictatorial, unreasonable or merely suppressive towards his
children. A strong man will be considerate and fair, if he
be only strong enough. He was strong enough, and he had
sufficient reason. His children are worthy of liim. His wife
was like-minded with himself. With the same Puritan blood
and New England culture, with almost equal gifts of mind
and heart, she loved to be in his shadow, but, more than
she will ever acknowledge or eyen know, she directed and
inspired his life. He owed her much and, through him, so
do you and I.

It is not strange that such a man, with such gifts, such
a pastoral experience and such a home, should come to love
with unspeakable ardor the ministry of the Gospel. He often
said to his nearest intimates, that he thought no other work
in life comparable to it. He left it, therefore, with as much
reluctance as he entered it. When he was called in May,
1891, to the chair of Systematic Theology in Hartford, he
was in actual distress until he concluded that it was his
privilege to decline it. He loved the pastorate, and altliough
he was from a Congregational family, he had an intelligent
and discriminating love for the Presbyterian Church. Two
months later came the call from you. He appreciated the
great honor of it, as his friends did; but he shrank from it,
with characteristic diffidence, and the acceptance of it required
no small degree of personal self-denial. It was not the line
of life which he had chosen, nor the department of theologi-

BIOGRAHICAL SKETCHES. 409

cal instruction wliicli he preferred. He consulted liis close
friends and they, in spite of their wishes to keep liini in tlio
pastorate, advised him to accept, because they regarded him
as an ordained leader of leaders and because they hoped that
he, with his conservative temper, non-partisan theological
attitude and independent yet progressive mind, might do
something to aid a beloved institution, and to heal the exist-
ing lamentable breach between brethren in the same church.
Now, that he has gone home, shall we not hope and pray
that the breach will be closed ?

During the last eighteen months of his life, as his strength
was failing and his life was fading away, some of us have
wondered whether his coming was not a mistake. But he
did not* feel any such questioning. Trusting to no human
counsel for the final decision, he had prayed fervently for
divine guidance ; he fully believed that he had been led l)y
God's spirit, and that the transfer was a part of the gracious
Father's plan for him and for us all. He died as he had
lived, better than submissive, — acquiescent. Filial hearts,
therefore, will not be impatient or complaining that his work
here ended when it seemed only to have begun. Its influence,
I am sure, will not be transient. I know his work among
you was rapidly growing in interest to him. You know, as
I cannot, how gifted, cultured, genuine, devoted and open-
hearted it was becoming. It would naturally have special
attractions for strong, candid and manly students. Doubt-
less, he was in the main a disciple of your epoch-making
teacher. Dr. Henry B. Smith ; so true a disciple that he could
be independent of his teacher in important particulars. He
had the same reverent, discerning spirit, the same firm, con-
servative and delicate grasp of generic essentials, the same
undisturbed sense of liberty as to all undetermined and inci-
dental matters. Equally with that master, he spent his
strength in strenuous seeking after truth, and he would dare
encourage his pupils to think for themselves, and to besiege
him with all sorts of honest questions. If he had lived, I
am sure he would have filled his place with ever-increasing
power and with indubitable adequacy and renown.

410 'THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

No one could accurately measure his intellectual processes
without noting his predominant moral qualities. Remember-
ing both, I call him a great man. But, lest my own esti-
mate of him may be partial and faulty, let me adapt the
words of another friend. His greatness consisted in his sur-
passing perspicuity of mind, in his rare capacity to separate
a complex problem into its simple elements, in his wonderful
power of thorough and convincing statement, in his supreme
loyalty to truth and his courageous advocacy of it, under all
circumstances, in his genuine humility of soul, which enabled
him to see the truth easily, yet never permitted him to seek
prominence for himself, in his sincere and unpretentious
candor, in his loving catholicity of spirit and in the complete
consecration of his unusual powers and acquirements to the
Light of the World. '

The key to his character, I believe, will be found in the
fact that moral considerations controlled him. The chief
defect which I have heard ascribed to him was an apparent
reserve of manner. His exterior gave to the average person
meeting him the impression that he was cold. A few acquaint-
ances have thought that he was even haughty. But his
intimate friends knew that this view of his character was
radically mistaken. His heart was always warm. He had
an ample capacity for true friendship. He depended upon
the love of friends, hungered for the good-will of all,
and suffered often because he could not facilely show
his own good-will. He could not tell you to your face that
he loved you. If his life did not show it, he was powerless.
It was one of his heavy burdens that he had to force his
way where many another could win an entrance to the
human heart. He was utterly unable to wear his heart
upon his sleeve.

As conscientious a man as I have ever known, he was
hard upon himself, but gracious and tolerant towards the
sincere moral postures of others. For this reason questions
which belonged to the pure ethical realm appeared to give
him unusually little trouble. He was simply above the reach
of many of the ordinary temptations of life. When he per-

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES. 411

ceivcd that a thing was right or obligatory, his doubts about
it were settled.

If, in matters of expediency or questions of the reason,
he would sometimes hesitate, you might be sure that con-
scientious scruples were at the bottom of his hesitancy, and
that he could not as yet make out his moral bearings. The
momeut that he discerned distinctly what he ought to do, he
became as bold as a lion. It was a curious combination,
timid as to his own personality, even as to his judgment ;
perfectly fearless as to duty. The historic speech at Detroit
is an instance in point. To his intimates it has always
seemed characteristic rather than exceptional in its intellectual
jiower, its Christian spirit, its moral weight. For days he
had been urged to speak. But he shrank from the conspicu-
ous responsibility. Though he passed almost sleepless nights
over the matter, he still refused to say a word. But things
appeared to him to be going wrong. Finally, alone, upon
his knees, it became plain to him that the Master summoned
him to the task. Then his lips were touched with fire, and,
even if the whole world had been against him, nothing could
have swerved him, more than Isaiah, from the purpose to utter
his convictions boldly, tenderly, mightily, under the resistless
inspiration of the sense of duty. This is why my friend's
speech will live and quicken after the mere controversies of
that hour are the forgotten dust of logomachy.

Contrary to the opinions of some acquaintances, he had an
enthusiastic nature. His later boyhood in Burlington furnishes
a typical illustration. It seems that one evening, shortly
after dark, fire broke out in a building down near the lake
shore under the little bluff. The boys started for it in-
stantly on a run. He outran the others, and, in ffointr
over the side of the bluflF, he made a misstep, fell and l)roke
his leg. When the others overtook him, they wanted to
carry him home at once. But he said : " No, no, leave
me here ; go and help put out the fire ; take me home after-
wards."

Under that calm manner and controlled temper, there
was an intensity of conviction, of purpose, of feeling, of cour-

412 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

age, of ideal vision, which explains apparent anomalies in his
finished career and which promised heroic achievements in
the withheld second half of his life-time. It will teach us
why he was constant and tireless in every form of faithful-
ness, to his conscience, to his father, his wife and children
and his friends, to the churches which he served, to the
seminary, to the Lord Jesus Christ. He was faithful in the
least and faithful also in much, faithful alike in service and
in suffering.

What is all this but to say, by way of summary and pre-
eminence, that he was a gifted, manly, true-hearted Christian.
His life amply exemplified the title of one of my favorites
among his sermons, "Christianity, a Virile Religion." He
exemplified it also in the supreme hour. He died at Lake-
wood, New Jersey, alone with his wife and his Saviour.
When it became plain to the physician about nine o'clock on
that Sabbath evening that he was soon to enter into rest, she
went to him and said : " Well, dear, you won't need to suffer
much longer." "Then," said he, "you think lam going?"
"Yes," she answered, with the simple truthfulness of their
life. He waited half a minute, and then replied : " We
should send some telegrams ; " that is, to his children and
father and nearest friends. Brave, self-forgetful, resolute to
the end ! A kind-hearted lady in the hotel came to the door
to ask them if she should not stay with them during that
awful ordeal. But it was he who, looking towards her with
a grateful smile, answered : " No, we will watch it out
together." Love was sufficient and triumphant. Presently,
Mrs. Worcester asked if he felt ready to go. Observe the
reply of that man of white character and noble life. He just
said : " Only as I trust in my Redeemer." They prayed to-
gether— he for patience, and she that he may be released
from physical agony. I shall never think of that man and
that woman, their children absent, sitting alone, hand in
hand, before the King who waited with the crown, not a
tear in their eyes, but praying with unbroken voices to
God their Father, without rejoicing that heroism still lingers
upon earth.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES. 413

Henry Jackson Van Dyke, D.D. My first acquaint-
ance with Dr. Van Dyke goes back to the summer of 1856.
I met him at Sharon Springs and we made an excursion
together to Howe's Cave. It was a charming day and he
ran over with liigh spirits and good fellowship. Although
he was Old School and I New School, we at once took a
liking for each other, which grew stronger and^ more
aifectionate as the years went on. After the reunion we
served together on an important church committee and
thus learned to know each other better. With the exception
of Dr. Briggs, he sympathized with me in special fondness
for the old mystical writers of the 17tli century more than
any one else. He was a noble specimen of Christian man-
hood and all my recollections of him are most pleasant.
I used to admire the beautiful relation which existed
between Dr. Van Dyke and his two sons. He was their
comrade and dear friend, as well as their loving father.
One of my last recollections of him is his look of
honest pride and joy, as he sat on the platform beside ex-
President Cleveland and Mr. Choate, listening to a glowing
address by his son Henry, on the public charities of New
York. To this son the reader is indebted for the following
vivid and truthful sketch :

A life of great simplicity, directed by a steady purpose
towards a simple aim, the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ ; a character of rare strength and tenderness, earnest-
ness and generosity, frankness and force ; a career of large
and tranquil usefulness as the bishop of a Christian church
in the Presbyterian communion, this is what we have to re-
call in making a brief memorial of Henry Jackson Van
Dyke, who was elected in the spring of 1891, to the pro-
fessorship of Systematic Theology in Union Theological Sem-
inary, but died on May 25th of the same year, before he had
entered upon the labors of his new office.

414 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

He was born on March 2, 1822, at Abingdon, Pennsyl-
vania, and was the favorite son of Frederick Augustus Van
Dyke, M. D. From boyhood he Avas marked by the firm-
ness of his religious faith and the directness of his moral
purposes. He was not a waverer. He was a straightfor-
ward believer and a fearless follower of his creed. He was
the first member of his immediate family to take an out-
spoken and unreserved stand for Christ. Many years after-
wards he had the joy of welcoming his father and mother
to the full communion of the Lord Jesus.

Educated at Yale College, the University of Pennsyl-
vania, and Princeton Theological Seminary, he was licensed
to preach by the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia in June,
1845, at the age of twenty-three years, and immediately
afterwards became the pastor of the Second Presbyterian
Church of Bridgeton, N. J. He was married in the same
year to Miss Henrietta Ashmead of Philadelphia, who bore
him six children, of whom four died in early childhood and
two sons are still living.

His pastorate at Bridgeton lasted seven years, and was
followed by a brief but fruitful work in charge of the First
Presbyterian Church of Germantown, Pa. From this place
he was called in 1853, to the First Presbyterian Church in
Remsen Street, Brooklyn. Here he remained for thirty-eight
years, with only a short interval of tentative labor as pastor-
elect of the First Presbyterian Church at Nashville, Tenn.,
from which he returned, after six months' absence, to his
Brooklyn parish in 1872.

The place which he occupied in the city where his life-
work was done, was distinctive and honorable. There were
many storms and conflicts in church and state during his
long pastorate. His strong and definite convictions often
forced him to take a position which was opposed to that of
his associates and unpopular with the majority. He was an
old-fiishioned State rights democrat in his political views, and
an open-minded conservative in his ecclesiastical preferences.
He never made any secret of his opinions, nor did he mod-
ify them for the sake of expediency. But through all the

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES. 415

controversies and struggles of these tempestuous years he
kei)t Ills teiupcr sweet, liis affections warm, liis courage clear,
and liis honor clean l)y living in the kindliest human fel-
lowship with men and women of his flock and in the closest
personal communion with his Divine Master. He won the
admiration of oj^ponents by his candor and fiiirness, the love
of friends by his loyalty and unselfishness, and the respect
of all men by his unquestionable integrity and devotion to duty.

He was characteristically a manly man. Fond of the free
intercourse of comrades, he cared little for the forms of arti-
ficial society. A great lover of children, he refreshed his
mind and his heart by joining in their sports without re-
straint. The boys and girls of Brooklyn knew him as a good
friend and a merry comrade. The dignities of life rested
lightly upon him ; he was not indifferent to them, but he
never let them chain him to a ponderous solemnity. He
had a lively sense of humor and was always ready to laugh
at clean fun. His short, vigorous, active frame, fitted him
for out-of-door life. He loved nature, and was always at
home in the woods or on the waters. Angling was his fav-
orite recreation. He was a man whom Izaak AValton would
have loved.

In his study he was industrious and systematic, a wide
reader, with a taste for the substantial and profitable, rather
than for the brilliant and sensational. The strongest in-
fluence in his intellectual development were the English
poets, of whom he preferred Milton and Shakspere, Words-
worth and Tennyson, and the Puritan divines, in whose
works he was profoundly versed. He did not care much for
metaphysics except as he found it in the form of theology.
He preferred history to fiction, though he frequently de-
lighted to read the greater objective novels, which deal more
with the real facts of life, than with subtle speculations
about them. He never succeeded in reading through a novel
of society, or a psychological romance. When he was tired,
if it was not possible for him to go a-fishing on a mountain
stream, he would turn to " Paradise Lost," or to " In Me-
morium " or to Wordsworth's poems, for rest and refresh-

416 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

ment. But all the other reading that he did was less, in
amount and in interest than his reading of the English Bible.

He published but two books ; a small volume of sermons
on " The Lord's Prayer/' and a larger volume of lectures on
" The Church : Her Ministry and Sacraments." The former
may stand as representative of his method of preaching;
dignified, earnest, Scriptural, authoritative, and specifically
directed to the inward experience of religion. The latter
presents his matured views on theological subjects. There
was an unmistakable change in his convictions in this region,
between his earlier and his later ministry, a change which
was not in the nature of a revolution, but of a growth, an
expansion. His theology did not become more loose, but did
become more simple. He worked it out in the school of
practical ministry to men. His attachment to the old doc-
trines of divine sovereignty, atonement by the cross of Christ,
regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and salvation through faith
in the Divine Christ, was strengthened as the years went on.
But he learned also to set these truths in larger relations
with life, and to welcome the interpretation which was given
to them by men of different schools, and to rejoice in the
substantial unity of the evangelical faith. The sacraments
became more dear to him as the universal signs and seals
of spiritual grace, and the oneness of the Christian ministry
as a divine institution was an article of his belief in which
he found great comfort and strength.

In 1876 he was elected Moderator of the Presbyterian
General Assembly, which met in Brooklyn. In 1877 he went
to Edinburgh as a delegate to the First General Presbyterian
Council. On several occasions he Avas elected to the chair of
Systematic Theology in various seminaries — among which
Alleghany and San Francisco may be mentioned. But these
invitations he always declined, until the election came in 1891,
which called him to Union Seminary in New York. He
rightly regarded this election as a great honor. Coming
unanimously as it did, from a Board of Directors representing
many shades of theological opinion, and in a time of contro-
versy and strife in the Presbyterian Church, it was a tribute

BrocRArnrcAL sketches. 417

to his reputation as a man of thou^lit as well as of action,
a recognition of tli(> soundness of liis faith and the fairness
of his spirit, a sii>^ii of lil)orty and ])oace within the Church.

It was in this spirit, with many unnecessary misgivings
as to his own fitness for the place, but with a clear, strong
desire to serve the Church and tlie seminary as one in their
interests and one in their allegiance to Christ, that he accepted
the invitation. *

He closed his fruitful and blessed ministry in Brooklyn
in his sixty-ninth year, in the fulness of his powers, with a
long and beautiful record of work behind him, and with the
love and reverence of his people crowning his labors in full
measure.

He turned his face with cheerful courage toward his new
task. He was confident that the evangelical theology in
which he was grounded by years of practical preaching as
well as of earnest study, was a living theology. He felt
that it could be presented simply and directly, on a Scrip-
tural basis, in such a way that students for the ministry
would see its moral reasonableness, its Biblical authority, and
its adaptation to the needs of mankind. He believed that
snch a presentation was entirely consistent with the freedom
of scholarship and Biblical research, and that it would pro-
mote the purity and peace of the Church. He looked forward
to this work with the interest, the enthusiasm, the courage of

* The following letter was written at the time :

Brooklyn, April 2G, 1891.
My Dear Dr. Hastings :

If the Board of Directors confirm the judgment of tlie Nominating
Committee in regard to my fitness for the Chair of Dogmatic Theology in
the Union Seminary, it is my desire and purpose to accept the position.

I am not without great misgivings in coming to this conclusion. But
I dare not allow my feare to oppose the judgment of such friends as you
and the rest of the committee. God seems to be leading me in the direc-
tion to which you point. In Him I put my trust. !May he guide us all
to do the best for His glory and the peace of the church. To be thought
worthy of the position to which you ])in-pose to call me is a crown to my
life-work such as I have never dared to hope for.

Afiectionutely yours in Christ,

Henry J. Van Dyke.

418 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

a young man, and with the steadiness, the breadth of mind,
the patience of a veteran.

But God's plan for him was different. On Monday, the
25th of May, after preaching tAvice in his old church on the
preceding Sabbath, he was suddenly attacked by agina pectoris.
Almost without a warning God's finger had touched his large
heart, and he fell quietly asleep. His last words were, "I
am ready to go."

The University of Wisconsin gave him the degree of
Doctor of Divinity in 1860. He was a member of the
Presbyterian Board of Home Missions and a Director of
Princeton Theological Seminary for many years.

William Greenough Thayer Shedd (1863-1893) was
born at Acton, Massachusetts, June 21, 1820. He studied
at the University of Vermont and was graduated in the class
of 1839. A year later he entered Andover Theological Sem-
inary, and not long after his graduation was ordained and
installed as pastor of the Congregational church of Brandon,
Vermont. In 1845 he was appointed professor of English
Literature in the University of Vermont. In 1852 he accept-
ed a call to Auburn Theological Seminary as professor of
Sacred Rhetoric. The next year he took the chair of Eccle-
siastical History at Andover. Here he remained until 1862,
when he became co-pastor with the venerable Gardiner
Spring of the Brick Church in the city of New York. The
next year he accepted a call to the chair of Biblical Litera-
ture in the Union Theological Seminary, and in 1874 was
transferred to the chair of Systematic Theology, occupying it
until 1893, when he resigned and was made Professor Emeri-
tus. His few remaining days were spent in congenial literary
work.

The University of Vermont gave him the honorary degree
of D.D. and the University of the City of New York that
of LL.D,

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES. 419

Dr. Shedcl was ono of tlie ablest and most accomplished
theologians our country has produced. In pure literary cul-
ture he had few equals. Among American divines Dr. Charles
Hodge, Professor Park of Andover, Henry B. Smith, Philip
Schaif, and several others may have surpassed him along
certain lines of theological scholarship, both in study and
action ; but no one surpassed him as a master of lucid and
vigorous English style, or in the high quality of his thinking.
Books, especially the best books, were his utmost delight.
He came early under the influence of Coleridge ; and, after
President Marsh of the University of Vermont, did more
than any other man to render the writings of that great
Christian philosopher a power in the intellectual life of New
England. He was indeed, after Dr. Marsh's death, the fore-
most disciple of Coleridge in this country. His memory is
fairly entitled to this honor. Among the leaders of theo-
logical opinion in his day no one could be compared with
Dr. Shedd in intimate knowledge of Coleridge's teaching, or
in eifective labor to spread it. No better evidence of this is
needed than his edition of Coleridge's prose writings, and
the very able essay which introduced it to the public.

Dr. Shedd's connection with the Union Theological Sem-
inary in the city of New York lasted nearly a third of a
century. He brought to it both as teacher and preacher a
high reputation; and his long service in it carried his
influence far and wide over the country and the world. He
was a man of profound convictiolis, a lover of truth for
truth's sake, ardent and fearless in asserting what he believed,
and armed with a logic which never flinched under the
pressure of any difficulties. His orthodoxy was of the old
Augustinian and Calvinistic type ; and it grew stronger, I
think, with the advancing years. His colleagues in Union
Seminary by no means agreed with all his premises or with

420 ^^^ UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY,

all his conclusions ; nor did all of his pupils. But his
colleagues and his pupils alike honored and loved him for
his manly qualities, his simplicity and godly sincerity, and
the many charms, both natural and spiritual, which adorned
his character. In the unhappy conflict between the seminary
and the General Assembly, which grew out of the case of
Dr. Briggs, he took little or no part, so* far as I know.
But in the whole matter of the so-called higher criticism as
represented by Dr. Briggs he took an active part, writing and
speaking against it Avith great decision. And surely nobody
that knew him well, could doubt for a moment that he did
it all as a painful duty and in the fear of God.

Among Dr. Shedd's more important writings are " History
of Christian Doctrine," New York and Edinburgh, 1865, 2
volumes. "Homiletics and Pastoral Theology," 1867.
"Sermons to the Natural Man," 1871 ; "Theological Essays,"
1877 ; "Literary Essays," 1878 ; "Commentary on Romans,"
1879; "Sermons to the Spiritual Man," 1884 ; "The Doc-
trine of Endless Punishment," 1885 ; "Dogmatic Theology,"
1889, 2 volumes.

Philip Schaff (1870-1893) was born at Coire, Swit-
zerland, January 1, 1819. He studied at Coire, in the
gymnasium at Stuttgart, and in the universities of Tubingen,
Halle and Berlin ; later, he traveled as tutor to a young
Prussian nobleman through Italy, returned to Berlin in 1842
and lectured in the university there as privat-docent on
Exegesis and Church History.

In 1844 he was called to a chair in the Theological Semi-
nary of the German Reformed Church of the United States
at Mercersburg, Pennsylvania. The next year he was tried
for heresy before the Synod of York and acquitted. His
labors at Mercersburg were most abundant. Besides lectur-

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES. 421

ing on all branches of theology, he served as chairman of
two committees to which was entrusted the task of preparing
a new liturgy and a new hymn book. Both were chiefly
written by him and passed into general use in the German
Reformed Church. During the civil war Mercersburg was
drawn into the struggle and the seminary turned into a
military hospital. Late in 1863 Dr. Schaif removed to New
York and became secretary of the New York Sabbath Com-
mittee. During this period, in addition to his indefatigable
labors among the German population in behalf of a better
Sabbath observance, he gave courses of lectures on Church
History, at Andover, Hartford and New York. In 1870
he became Professor of Theological Encyclopedia and Chris-
tian Symbolism in the Union Theological Seminary. In
1872 he was transferred to the Hebrew chair, and in 1875
to that of Sacred Literature. In 1887 he succeeded Dr.
Hitchcock as Professor of Church History. He was one of
the founders and also the honorary secretary of the American
branch of the Evangelical Alliance. He crossed the ocean many
times in the service of the Alliance and of the Alliance of
the Reformed Churches. He was president of the American
Bible Revision Committee, which he organized at the request
of the British Committee. His labors of this description
were extraordinary, as also the skill, ability and generous
self-devotion with which he performed them. He surpassed
all the men I ever knew in the extent, variety and fruitful
results of his practical, literary, and theological activities.
One is fairly staggered in reading over a list of the books
he wrote, the journeys he made, the societies he founded,
the plans he formed, the addresses he delivered, the funds
he raised, and the solid, lasting effects he produced in
furtherance of good learning, Christian union and fellowship,
and other vital interests of the cause and kingdom of

422 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Jesus Christ. Of all his books, as I often told him, " The
Creeds of Christendom " seemed to me the most valuable. I
doubt if any other Christian scholar on either side of the
Atlantic could have written it. I had the privilege of being
his oldest American friend. From our first meeting under
Tholuck's roof at Halle, in 1839, to our last walk together
through the Central Park in New York a few days before
his death, in 1893, our attachment to each other and our
fellowship in Christ and His truth grew ever stronger and
more full of mutual comfort and good cheer.

Dr. Schalf was greatly favored in leaving behind him a
son to walk in his footsteps, and to give to the Christian
public the story of his life.

Among the many tributes which crowned the fiftieth
anniversary of Dr. SchaflP's theological course, and which
followed his death, I select a single one as fairly represent-
ing all the rest. The following are the main sections of a con-
gratulatory address sent to him by the theological faculty of the
university of Berlin, which, it is understood, was written by
Professor Harnack. In his acknowledgment Dr. Schaif
declared he could not "have wished for a nobler and more
honorable testimonial to his labors."

Berlin, November 16, 1892.

Most Worthy Sir, Most Honored Colleague :

On this, the anniversary of the day when fifty years ago
you won in our high school the vema legendi, the Theological
Faculty of the Frederick William University would present
to you, most honored colleague, their heartiest good wishes
and prayers. You entered upon your work as academical
instructor in our high school at the time when the study of
church history, under the lead of Neander and Baur, had
taken on a marked impetus. Erbkam, Piper, Kahnis and
Jacobi were among your immediate predecessors ; Renter fol-

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES. 423

lowing two months later; these, with yonrself, all grateful
pupils of Neander and filled with the noble spirit that ani-
mated him, were one in their determination to seek the wel-
fare of the church by mastering with loving zeal the dis-
tinctive features of Christian life and thought in order
faithfully to impart the results to others.

You have introduced into your new fatherland in Eng-
lish translations an array of vahiable and weighty works of
German theology, thus naturalizing there that science and
causing it to be appreciated. This however, forms but a
small part of your great and fruitful work. You have ad-
vanced the science of theology by works both in German and
English, particularly by your great works, the " History of
the Apostolic Church," the " History of the Christian Church,"
BibliothcGa Symbolica Ecdesiae Universalis (" The Creeds of
Christendom"), together with numerous treatises on subjects
pertaining to church history, which are the fruits of your
own independent studies. Your Church History in particu-
lar has taken a most honorable rank among the church his-
tories of the day, by virtue of the thoroughness of its execu-
tion and the clearness' of its style. It is the most notable
monument of universal historical learning produced by the
school of Neander.

In addition to this, and thereby resembling the great
mediator between the Greek and the Latin Churches in the
past, you have shown the most lively interest in botli the
original text of the New Testament and its translation into
English. Your " Companion of the Greek Testament and the
English Version," has become a most useful hand-book. And
as president of the American Bible Revision Committee in
co-operation with the English committee, you have played a
most prominent part in bringing that great work to a happy
conclusion. But, unlike Jerome, your aim was not to intro-
duce into one country the theological conflicts of another,
nor to draw party lines of doctrine as strictly as possible,
but, on the contrary, you have ever made it your task to
promote reconciliation, to draw together the various parties.
in the Church, and everywhere to bring about " the speak-

424 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

ing of the truth in love." If. the signs of the times do not
deceive us, your work in this regard also has been crowned
with special blessing. The various evangelical denomina-
tions of your new home are indeed drawing nearer to one
another, and their ecclesiastical and scholarly emulation no
longer minister to strife, but to mutual recognition and co-
operation.

The Lord Almighty has vouchsafed to you, most honored
colleague, to pass the threshold of your seventieth year with
activity and strength undiminished. Within the past few years
you have begun two great undertakings, the founding of an
American Society of Church History, whose president you
have become and in the forefront of whose work you stand,
and the editing of an English translation of a " Nicene and
Post-Nicene Library of the Fathers."

That your health and strength may long abide unim-
paired in order that you may bring to a successful issue all
you have undertaken, is our most heartfelt wish.

The Theological Faculty of the Royal
Frederick William University.
B. Weiss, I)mn.

Since these sketches were written and in print two other
ministers, once directors of Union Seminary, have passed
away. They were known and honored throughout the
country alike for their high personal qualities, and for the
eminent services which they rendered, each in his own
peculiar sphere as preacher or teacher and author, to the
cause of the Divine Master. I refer to the Rev. Charles
Seymour Robinson, D.D., LL.D., (1860-1869) and the
Rev. James Ormsbee Murray, D.D., LL.D. (1869-1882).

part fifth.

A SKETCH OF

THE LIFE AND PUBLIC SERVICES

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D.

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 427

part jFiftb.

A SKETCH OF THE LIFE AND PUBLIC SERVICES

OF CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D.

BIRTH AND PARENTAGE. — EARLY YEARS. — ADMITTED TO THE
BAR. — SETTLED AT GENEVA, N. Y. — A JOURNEY TO THE
GREAT WEST AND WHAT CAME OF IT. — CHICAGO IN 1833.
— REV. JEREMIAH PORTER. — REMOVAL TO NEW YORK
CITY. — ENLARGEMENT OF HIS CAREER AS MAN OF BUSI-
NESS AND CHRISTIAN CITIZEN. — ENTERS AT ONCE UPON
HIS LIFE-WORK AS ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE
MERCER STREET PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, THE UNIVER-
SITY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND THE UNION
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. — BECOMES, LATER, THE AU-
THORIZED AGENT AND REPRESENTATIVE OF NEW YORK
AND LONDON CAPITALISTS IN ADJUSTING THE FINANCIAL
INTERESTS IN THE STATES OF MICHIGAN AND INDIANA.

Charles Butler was born at Kinderhook Landing,
now Stuyvesant, Columbia County, New York, Feb-
ruary 15, 1802, being the fifth son of Medad Butler
and Hannah Tyler, in a family of twelve children.
His father, well known as a merchant and as a judge
of the county of Columbia, was a descendant of
Jonathan Butler, an Irish gentleman, who settled in
Saybrook, Connecticut, in 1724, and who married
Temperance Buckingham, daughter of the Bev. Daniel
Buckingham, one of the founders of Yale College.
A younger sister, still living, recalls characteristic
scenes and incidents of Charles' early years. Here is
one of them :

428 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

The Fourth of July, 1821, was a memorable day for our
little town. Franklin came from Albany to deliver the
oration. Charles and Walter were very active in making
the occasion a success. We were just through with the
oration and refreshments when a great excitement was caused
by the arrival of the famous steamboat Richmond, on its
way to Albany, bringing the news of Napoleon Bonaparte's
death. As mother always had a great horror of Bonajmrte,
Charles congratulated her on the news as a forerunner of
the millenium ! His love and veneration for his mother was
very beautiful and touching, even to his ninety-sixth year.

Charles received his education in the district school
of Einderhook Landing and in the academy at Green-
ville, New York. On leaving school he entered the
office of Judge Vanderpool at Kinderhook, and, later,
went to Albany to pursue his law studies in the office
of Martin VanBuren, then Attorney-General of New
York, and afterwards President of the United States,
in whose family he was for some time an inmate. His
elder brother, Benjamin Franklin, had already been
taken in by Mr. VanBuren as junior partner. The
relations between the two brothers seem to have been
already very close and beautiful. Here is an extract
from a letter of Franklin to Charles, while the latter
was in Judge Vanderpool's office. Charles was then
seventeen and Franklin twenty-three years old :

I need not say anything to you about the importance of
clear and vigorous attention to office duty and reading.
Don't make too many acquaintances, and be cautious in those

CHARLES BUTLER. LL.LX 429

you do make. Above all things never be ashamed of being
more virtuous or less gay than the rest of the world. En-
deavor to retain as much as possible .the scrupulous regard
to truth, honesty and virtue you had when a child, and try
to be as ignorant of everything that opposes them as you
then were. Let conscience do her office fully and faithfully,
and be careful never to resist her dictates, or ever to reason
with her supposed absurdities. The moment you begin to
think her over-nice that moment your integrity is in danger.

Charles Butler was admitted to the bar in 1824. In
1825 he married Eliza A. Ogden, of Walton, Delaware
County, New York. Before his marriage he removed
to Geneva, New York, and there formed a partnership
with Bowen Whiting, later a justice of the Supreme
Court of the State. Shortly after settling in Geneva
he became Assistant District-Attorney of Genesee
County, and as such took part in the noted prosecution
of certain persons prominent in Masonic circles, which
grew out of the mysterious disappearance of Morgan.
His recollections, sixty years later, of this celebrated
case, as also of the man and the incidents, which so
stirred political and j)opular feeling throughout New
York and all over the country, were exceedingly vivid
and interesting. Mr. Butler j)racticed law in Geneva
for ten years, acting as agent and attorney in western
New York for the New York Life Insurance and
Trust Company — said to have been the first of modern
trust companies — on whose behalf he loaned the farmers
of that i^art of the State large sums of money, which

430 777^ UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

enabled, them to improve and develop their proper-
ties, and particularly to convert the leasehold inter-
ests, which they held from the so-called Holland
patent and other land grant companies, into estates
in fee simple. He was thus largely instrumental
in building up that section of western New York.

In June, 1833, Mr. Butler left Geneva with his
friend, Mr. Arthur Bronson, of New York City, to
make a visit to Chicago, known then chiefly as Fort
Dearborn. This journey was a turning-point in
his life and his life-work. It brought him face to
face with the Great West and opened his eyes to
the immense resources and possibilities of that vast
region. In letters and a journal, written at the
time, is a minute account of his journey. A few
passages from this record will show with what an
observing eye he watched the signs of coming
greatness, which before his death was to transform
the rude little settlement on the Chicago Kiver
into one of the foremost cities of the world :

I approached Chicago in the afternoon of a beautiful day,
the sun setting on a cloudless sky. On my left lay the
prairie bounded only by the distant horizon like a vast
expanse of ocean ; on my right in summer stillness lay Lake
Michigan. I had never seen anything in nature more capti-
vating. There was an entire absence of animal life, nothing
visible in the way of human habitation or to indicate the
presence of man ; and yet it was a scene full of life, for
there, spread out before me in every direction, as far as the

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 43I

eye could reach, were the germs of life in earth, air and
water. But what was this Chicago to which I had come?
A small settlement, a handful of people all told, who had
come together mostly in the last year or two. The houses,
with one or two exceptions, were of the cheapest and most
primitive character for human habitation. A string of these
buildings had been erected without much regard to lines on
the south side of Chicago river. On the west side near the
junction a tavern had been improvised for the entertainment
of travellers and there we found lodgings.

On the morning after our arrival, in walking out I met
a gentleman of whom I inquired where the Rev. Jeremiah
Porter, the chaplain of Fort Dearborn, to whom I had a
letter of introduction, could be found. Upoji exhibiting my
letter he said he was the person and that he was then on
his way to attend the funeral of a child. He asked me if I
would accompany him, and I did so. On going to the house,
which was new and cheap, we found the father and mother ;
the dead child lay in a rude coffin. There was no one
present except the parents, Mr. John Wright, Dr. Kimball,
Mr. Porter and myself. It became a question how the re-
mains of the child should be conveyed to the cemetery,
which was on the west side of the north branch of the river.
While we were attending this simple service we were inter-
rupted by the noise of the hammer of a workman outside,
engaged in putting up a shanty for some new comer. Mr.
Porter went out and secured the assistance of this workman.
We acted as bearers in conveying the remains of the child
from the house across the river to the grave and assisted in
burying it.*

*The Rev. Jeremiah Porter was a great-grandson of the renowned
New England theologian, Jonathan Edwards. He pursued his college coui-se
at Williams, while the missionary enthusiasm aroused by the memorable

432 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

At this time there were perhaps from two to three hun-
dred people in Chicago, mostly strangers to each other. The
tavern was filled with emigrants and travellers, many of
whom could only find a sleeping place on the floor, which
was crowded with weary men at night.

Mr. Butler spent some time in studying the con-
dition and prospects of the place. As a result, he pur-
chased a large amount of land in what is now the city
of Chicago, and held a small portion of it to the day
of his death. In September, 1833, the U. S. govern-
ment by treaty with the Indians extinguished the
Indian title to lands in the Northwest and advertised a
great land sale in this section to take place at Chicago
in June, 1835. This sale attracted a large concourse

scene at tlie hay-stack consecration was still in full tide. In the very spirit of
Samuel J. Mills and his ardent associates, young Porter "went West" and
became one of the most useful home missionaries that ever labored in that
field. He organized the Firet Presbyterian churcli in Chicago in 1833. "On
May 30th of tliat year I preached at Fort Dearborn," he Avrote, "the first
sermon ever preached within one hundred miles of Chicago by any other than
a traveling Methodist preacher." He died in 1893, greatly beloved and
revered throughout the whole Interior as a patriarch of all the churches. In
a journal, kept by him in his early years at Chicago, there are repeated allusions
to Mr. Butler. Here is an extract from this journal :

August 5, 1833.
Mr. Butler, a lawyer from Geneva, New York, made remarks in the
Sunday-scliool and at our evening prayer-meeting. Afterwards, he came to
my room with three of the brethren of my church and a young man just come
in from Dr. Cox's churcli ; and we had a pleasant prayer-meeting. Mr. But-
ler .says tliis is the most important point in a religious and commercial view
west of Buffalo.

A few months later he records the arrival of a fine Sunday-school library
of two hundred volumes, sent to him from New York by Mr. Butler and his
friend, Mr. Bronson. To show how land values had increased in Chicago, he
states in a letter to Mr. Butler, written in 1856, that a section of public school
land sold, not long after Mr. Butler's visit in 1833 for |40,000, was sold some
years afterward for $12,000,000.

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 433

of people. In May of that year Mr. Butler induced
his brother-in-law, William B. Ogden, then a young
man and just elected to the Legislature of New York,
to go to Chicago for the purpose of looking after and
offering for sale the lands in which he had invested.
Mr. Ogden was afterwards known throughout the
country as the first mayor of Chicago and one of its
most eminent citizens. Mr. Butler subsequently be-
came interested in several great railroad enterjirises
having their inception or terminus at Chicago ; among
them the Michigan Southern, Chicago and Rock Is-
land, and Chicago and Northwestern Railroads.

In 1834 Mr. Butler removed to New York, which
became his home until his death. Just at that time
three very important movements were about to begin,
in each of which he was to take a leading part. I re-
fer to the founding of the Mercer street Presbyterian
church, the University of the City of New York, and
the Union Theological Seminary Here, too, he still
represented financial interests that long had occupied
much of his time. But in New York he soon became
identified with far more imj^ortant interests, which
had their centre in London, involved many millions
of dollars, and for years tasked to the utmost both
his physical and mental forces. This chapter of his
life is highly interesting for the extraordinary ability
and wisdom, of which he showed himself master in
the conduct of great and very difficult financial opera-
tions. But it is far more striking on account of the

434 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

rare moral and personal qualities it brought into action.
The period to which it especially relates formed one
of the most critical in the commercial history and
character of the country. For the first time the hide-
ous doctrine of repudiation had seized control of several
States of the Union and threatened to subvert the very
foundations of public credit and justice. In meeting
and contending with this j^eril Mr. Butler stood among
the foremost men of the nation. His record relating
to it, had he done nothing else worthy of praise, should
keep him in lasting remembrance. I recall no other
name of that trying period that was, and still is,
entitled to higher honor in this regard. I refer par-
ticularly to Mr. Butler's service in effecting an adjust-
ment of the public debt of the State of Michigan in
1843, and to the still more important services, rendered
by him later, in restoring the credit of Indiana and
relieving that State from the embarrassments caused
by the building of the Wabash and Erie canal and
other internal improvements. In both cases he acted
as agent of the domestic and foreign bondholders of
these States. During his absence in Detroit and
Indianapolis on these errands of professional and
public duty Mr. Butler carried on a constant corres-
pondence with his wife, in which he communicated
to her in detail the nature and progress of the
negotiations. His letters to her cast much light
upon his character and his training for the work to
which he was later called in the service of the Union

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 435

Theological Seminary ; they bear directly upon
turning-points in the moral, as well as financial,
history of two great States of the Union ; and they
are full also of interesting personal incidents <jr
allusions ; I shall, therefore, offer no apology for
giving here somewhat copious abstracts of the most
important of them.

II.

THE FIGHT WITH REPUDIATION IN MICHIGAN IN 1843.

Arrival in Detroit and entrance upon his mission. —
Preliminary steps. — 3Iessar/e to the Governor and
the Legislature. — Difficulties in the way and un-
certainty of the issue. — Comfort in prayer and
thoughts of home.

Detroit, January 28, 1843.

My Dear Wife : — It is now twenty minutes to twelve,
but I cannot close the day without writing to you. I have
been at Chancellor Farnsworth's all the evening; in confer-
ence with him over our business, and returned only a few
minutes since, and found your letter to welcome me. I could
not but follow up the reading of it with the 8th of Romans,
our chapter in course, and then on my knees acknowledge
the goodness and grace of our Heavenly Father for His pre-
serving care and for all His mercy towards us.

Yesterday and to-day have been very, very busy days.
It is a regular lobbying campaign. The authorities from the
Governor down have received me with the greatest cordial-

436 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMLNARY.

ity. I arrived here in the very nick of time, neither too
early nor too late, and they all say it will do good. I will
not be too sanguine, for there are many difficulties in the
way, which no one can understand or appreciate, who is not
on the spot. On Monday morning I am to meet committees
of the Legislature. This morning I had a long, uninterrupted
conference with the Governor and went over the whole
ground. Yesterday I conferred with no less than twenty
persons on the subject. Talking is my special business, and
of that I shall have a great deal to do. The contents of
your letter interested me very much. The death of Captain
Stoddard was not unexpected, and I rejoice to learn that it
was peaceful and happy. By this event another is added to
the list of widows, and other orphans are thrown upon the
sympathy of Christian friends. Pure religion and undefiled
before God is to visit the widow and the fatherless in their
affliction. How the benevolence of the Gospel shames us for
our selfishness ! Oh, that we could break the fetters that
bind us to earthly interests and go forth in the love of
Christ, doing good as we have opportunity, every day and
every hour of every day !

Sunday, January 29th.
I remained at home this afternoon as well to rest as to
write to you. Sunday is a day of home feelings, a day to
think of those dear ones that cluster around its hearths and
altars more than at any other time. What a faculty is the
memory ; how vividly it brings up every expression of the
face, the manners and the very tones of voice of those
we love. And then imagination comes in and completes the
picture, and enables us to see them arranged around the
table at tea, in the parlor or nursery, in the church or on
the way to it. I know that at this moment you and the

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 437

children are occupied in thinking and talking about me.
Your account of our dear boy delighted me. I cannot bear
to have Ogden any other than one of the best of boys. I
look forward to the time when he will be a young man and
when, if we live, our hopes and happiness will be bound up
in him. A good boy is certain to make a good man, and
a bad boy is equally certain to make a bad man and to bring
disgrace and unhappiness upon his parents. Witness poor
S. Let us pray to God fervently and frequently to give us
the wisdom we need to train up our children to His service
and glory; and let us, above all, often, very often, pray for
them. We are called to exercise towards them the utmost
patience, forbearance, gentleness, kindness and firmness in
their management. We must regard the weakness and in-
firmity of their natures, as well as our own ; while we reprove
their faults and errors, whether of a negative or positive
character, we must not fail to encourage and cherish all their
endeavors to do right and to please us. The real difficulty
is in ike heart, and God alone by His grace can change
that. Ogden is getting to such an age that he is becoming
a companion for us. This will give us more influence over
him and we must exercise it in the best possible manner.

Detroit, Saturday evening, 4th February, 1843.
I was rejoiced this afternoon to receive your and Ogden's
letter. Ogden's letter was particularly gratifying. I read it
aloud to Mrs. Governor Barry and Mrs. Taylor, and they
both said it was a good letter. To hear that you were all
so well and happy made me feel very happy ; and I could
not refrain from expressing my gratitude on my knees. The
week has been one of great labor, day and night. I have
not made a single call till this evening, or been out except
on Thursday evening. Mrs. Farnsworth gave a party to help

438 T^HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

our business on. I went of course. Tliis afternoon I gave
Mrs. Barry and Mrs. Taylor a sleighride ; and as I had not
had one for nine years I was quite willing to get the relaxa-
tion. We had a delightful drive down the river, eight miles
and back, in quick time.

I shall send you next week my message to the Governor
and the two houses of Legislature, and you will then see
how I stand and what ground I have taken. It has excited
a great deal of interest, and I bid fair to be quite a lion, or
rather a stripling bearding the lion in his den. It is queer
business all around, and a Legislature here is a queer body,
and they have queer notions of matters and things. I enter-
tain strong hopes of success, but cannot possibly predict
what the result will be. It is all a lottery. I find many
old friends among the members of the Legislature. I have
really laid myself out to bring about something, and they
give me credit for urging sound doctrine and insisting on
reasonable terms. Still, the idea of any one coming here
and insisting on Michigan fulfilling her obligations is mon-
strous in the estimation of some ; it involves the honor and
dignity of a sovereign State ! My conununication was read
in the Senate with profound attention, and an extra nnmber
of co])ies ordered to be printed unanimously. In the after-
noon, however, they reconsidered, and by a majority of one
decided not to print. The main argument was that they did
not want it to go to the people without an antidote. It
will, however, be printed, and will, I think, do good. The
Legislature is a very impulsive body, and no reliance can be
placed on a large majority. I shall have to see every man,
and to omit one may lose the bill. Mr. Taylor and Mi-.
Farnsworth, my coadjutors, keep entirely in the background
and are not known at all in the premises. I, coming all
the way from New York, through the mud, on purpo.se, can

CHARLES }il^TLEh\ I. LP. 439

say aiul do tluiii^s which no one here would dure to say and
do without being charged with treason. It is now precisely
twelve o'clock at night and I will lay aside all business
cares for the coming Sabbath. Before commeucing this letter
I had read the fifteenth chapter of Romans in course. What
a beautiful epistle it is ! Oh, for the spirit of Paul ! I went
to prayer-meeting last night just to kindle up a spark of
love in this "cold heart of mine," and we had a pleasant
meeting. Ten days will bring me to another era in my life
and another revolution of the wheel. How true it is that
life is but a hand breadth.

II.

A hill 'pre'pared by Mm passes the Senate 14 to 1. — The
prospect clouded by the repudiators. — Bill finally
passes the House and is sent to the Governor. —
What it is and will do for 3Iichigan. — Sabbath

rest.

Friday Evening, February 24th.

I have but a moment to say that God seems to be pros-
pering me in my business here. The Senate by a vote of
14 to 1 have passed a bill which I had prepared in the very
form in which I had prepared it; and it will pass the House
next week, as I hope, by a unanimous vote. It is wonder-
ful. Patience, hearty good will and hard work, night and
day, have brought it about. . . . My prospects [he
writes a few days later] are not so bright as they were on
Friday. I then thought the trouble was over, l)ut in the
House it has just begun, I fear. Demagogues and repudia-
tors there are who resist every honest measure, but the
hearts of all men arc in the hand of God and He turns
them which way He will like rivers of water.

440 '^HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Monday Evening, February 27th.
I find that there is an opportunity of sending to New
York by private conveyance, and so I will make a double
letter. It is now eleven o'clock and I have had another
hard day's work. The prospect now is that I shall carry
my business through triumphantly and settle a great ques-
tion, to the honor and prosperity of a great State, and secure
a great object to the bondholders. And I am confident that
I say but the simple truth, and what is apparent, that it
would not have been settled if I had not come ; and that no
one else could probably have effected it in the same way.
I have as much as I can do to follow it up, being obliged
to go and see every man and talk it over with him plainly
and fully. You could have seen me this evening in a room
with half a dozen members seated around a table, laying
down sound principles of democracy in relation to the
'payment of the public debt and the maintenance of the public
credit; telling them that whereas a good citizen should be
ready always to lay down his life in defence of his country
against an invading foe, so he should always be ready to give
up his property to preserve and defend the honor of his
country and pay its debts.

Detroit, March 7, 1843.
In the morning of Monday it was ascertained that the
enemies of the bill had been so active during Sunday that
they had a fixed majority. I and my friends went to work
and in the afternoon when the bill came up, there was a
very animated debate pro and con. I had not conceived of
such violent opposition and at times it seemed as if the bill
would certainly be lost. We carried one question only by
a vote of 25 to 24. We finally carried the bill by a vote
of 28 to 20. To-day it is in the hands of the Governor for

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 441

his signature and is safe. But I have scarcely ever in my
life passed through a more exciting scene. The question
was in fact, repudiation, or no repudiation ; and the debates
were very exciting. General. Cass turned out in the eve-
ning to hear. The opponents of the bill appealed to passion
rather than to reason, and in the course of the evening the
yeas and nays were taken seven times. Thus has ended my
mission here after six weeks of toil and anxiety, and in the
result I recognize the hand and blessing of God. It is all
His work and not mine. It has settled a great question on
just and honest principles, redeemed the credit of Michigan,
and done justice to her creditors. The law grants precisely
what I asked for, and was prepared by me, and you will see
what that is by looking at my letter to the Governor. The
only change is in funding the interest up to July 1, 1845,
instead of January 1, 1844. The time I regarded as of second-
ary importance. The great question was whether the debt
would be recognized and secured by taxation. I desire to
place these things on record for my own benefit, if spared for
many years ; and if not, then for the benefit of those who
may come after us. I desire it from a conviction that
Michigan, if this law is maintained from this day forward,
will go on prosperously as a people and that this act will
constitute one of the most important events in her history.
It is to give shape and character to her future Legislation:
it will redeem the honor and credit of the State. It Mill be
a landmark to steer by ; a sheet anchor to hold on to ; and
a star to guide, and by it the policy of the State in coming
time will be established. Had I known, before coming to
Michigan, what I now know, I would not have ventured an
opinion in favor either of the recognition or the payment of
the debt. Ninety-nine persons out of a hundred did not feel
that there was any obligation resting on them to recognize,

442 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

or pay, any of the bonds; and though they said that the
State would acknowledge and pay what she had received, still
that even was considered a matter of grace rather than of
legal and equitable liability. This ground was quite broadly
taken in so important a document as the report of the joint
committee of the two houses — a committee composed of eight
individuals constituting the very best and most influential
men in the Legislature.

I shall now leave Detroit by Friday of this week. I
cannot close up sooner. Then I shall be at Toledo one week
to finish up there ; and then it is an even chance whether I
set my face steadily southwest or right about towards New
York. I am tired out now, and can hardly look my south-
western jaunt in the face ; still my duty may urge me on,
and I cannot well resist the monitor within. I thought of,
and prayed for, you and our dear children on Sunday a great
deal. It was communion Sunday in Dr. Duflfield's church,
and he was very interesting. It was a lovely day for
March, and though my mind was harassed and distracted by
the business of the week, and my bill had come up just at
the close of Saturday, yet I was enabled to preserve a good
degree of composure and to enter, I trust, somewhat into the
spirit of the day and its ordinances. What a blessed day
the Sabbath is ! I enjoyed our concert at the twilight and
could think of you and Ogden and Emily and our domestics
and our family altar and all its blessings, and thank my
Heavenly Father for the intelligence that you were, just one
week before, in life, health and comfort. May He keep you
thus, and sanctify unto each of us all the trials, cares and
temptations of life, and finally bring us into His heavenly
rest, with all whom we love, to the praise of the riches of
His grace in Jesus Christ our Redeemer. Kiss Ogden and
Emily thrice each for me.

CHARl.KS BUTLI':k\ 1. 1.. I). 443

III.

Sudden pull-back a7id consternation. — A veto tlireat-
ened. — How the friends of public honesty and good
faith rallied to save the bill and 'persuade the
Governor. Captain Purdy and other helpers.—
A noble object-lesson in the art of political manage-
ment and doing the right thing in the right ivay.
— The bill signed. — Letter from the Auditor
General of Michigan in praise of Mr. Butler.

Toledo, O., March 14, 1843.
I left Detroit on the eleventh, and arrived here the same
evening, with another cold fastened on me. I have been ont
to-day but a few minutes, to the post-office and printing
office, both near by. I wrote you on the passage of the bill
through the House, after a very stormy debate, by a vote
of 28 to 20. I will now relate what followed ; and this
letter I wish you to carefully preserve, as it contains the
record of important events, Avhich in coming times I may
desire to refer to. It is the only full history which I shall
give in writing; and this is not full either, for it would take
me a week to write all out.

The bill, having passed the House on Monday evening,
was returned with a slight amendment to the Senate, where
it originated, the same evening, the Senate being in session.
It again passed, the ayes and noes being called for, every
member but one voting in the affirmative, although leading
senators had made speeches against it on the ground that no
tax sliouhl ever he levied to pay the debt ; that the only security
of the bond holders was a lien upon the income of the I'ail-
roads ; and if that ])roved insufficient, then their security
failed altogether ; that it has never contemplated to tux the

444 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

people to pay the debt ; and the pledge of the faith of the
State did not involve any such consequences. They took the
ground, in a word, of open repudiation. The bill was sent
to the Governor for his approval on Tuesday at noon. I
then felt that the crisis had passed, and that the bill was
safe. It never entered my mind that the Governor could,
or would, veto it. It was a question of policy to be settled
by the Legislature and it did not involve any constitutional
principles. On Wednesday morning the Governor had not
returned the bill, and a good deal of solicitude began to be
expressed. This was increased by the declaration of Bush
and others that Governor Barry would veto the bill. Still
its friends did not yield to any serious fear. In the after-
noon I was in my room, about half-past two, and had just
finished a letter to my brother Franklin, giving an account
of the results of my mission, rather a crowing letter, too (I
shall never crow again till I get out of the woods !) when
Mr. Wells, the commissioner, a friend of the Governor, and
known to be intimate with him, came in with a good deal
of anxiety depicted in his face and said that he had called
to see me about the bill, and that something must be done
right away. I expressed my astonishment and inquired
whether the Governor had any hesitation on the subject.
He replied that he was not authorized to say that the Gov-
ernor would not sign the bill with the tax clause in, but
unless that clause was stricken out, he thought the bill
would be in danger. He then urged me to consent to this
alteration. If the tax clause was not stricken out it would
ruin the Governor and the party, and I ought not to place
them in such a position. I replied that this was the only
feature of the bill worth saving ; the Governor must take
the responsibility, and I had rather have the bill vetoed than
signed without the tax clause. Mr. Wells left me, saying

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 445

that if I changed my mind I must let him know within
half an hour, as time was passing. After lie had gone I
could not but muse on the uncertainty of all human aifairs.
Here was I, after having secured, as I supposed, beyond any
question the passage of a bill, which would reflect honor on
the people and do justice to the creditors of the State, rejoic-
ing in the victory and reposing on my laurels, when lo ! a
veto! I was almost driven in desperation to take ground
with Clay against the veto itovoen: altogether. A little
reflection, however, brought me to my senses and to my
knees. I had forgotten God in this business, and taken to
myself the praise, which belonged to Him and to Him alone.
Surely every man is vanity, as the psalmist says. Such a
rebuke, such a break down, I had never before realized.
But, my dear wife, when I arose from that prayer I felt
such a calmness, such contentment, such submission and
resignation to the will of God as to be willing, I had almost
said desiring, that He would cause the Governor to veto the
bill and thus humble my pride, self-confidence and conceit
into the very dust.

I thought, however, that duty to my employers and duty
to an upright cause and a sincere desire to promote what I
certainly conceived to be for the true interests, moral, polit-
ical and financial of Michigan, required of me to use all
honest means to prevent so great a disaster and injury to
these interests as such an event would produce. It would
be a death-blow to the character and credit of the State, and
fatal, of course, to the hopes of the bondholders. It Avould
be to encourage and strengthen the open repudiators and
stimulate them in their appeals to the people against the
recognition and payment of the bonds ; and it would be in
the very face of Governor Barry's messages ; while to him
personally it would be utter political ruin, and to the Dem-

446 'rHE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

ocratic party of the State division and ruin. Above all, it
would encourage the peo})le in their unwillingness to pay, and
open a wide field for demagogues and hold out an invitation
to them to come and occupy it. They had already declared
that if the Governor should sign the bill, they would take
the stump against him next summer throughout the State.
A veto would give such men great power and influence with
the people ; and the standard of moral feeling being very
low and the real inability of the people to pay falling in
with it, it was obvious to any reflecting mind that the most
important interests, individual and collective, were involved
in the crisis and dependent on the single act of the Gover-
nor. I never estimated the moral force of the veto power,
for good or evil, as I did then, and as I shall ever here-
after, when any great question is involved. I knew that
Governor Barry was an honest, just and prudent man; that
he would act cautiously ; but I saw in the fact that his most
confidential friend and adviser regarded a veto inevitable,
unless I consented to strike out the tax-clause, the strongest
evidence that such was the meaning, if not the conclusion,
of his mind.

But I Avent out to see what I could do. I first called on
a leading Democrat, resident in the city, and asked him if he
knew that the bill was in danger. He replied that he did.
He had been up to the Legislature, and he heard there that
the Governor would veto the bill. He had come down to
see Dr. Houghton (the Mayor and State Geologist) a per-
sonal and political friend of the Governor, also to see Chan-
cellor Farnsworth, and if possible, prevent a measure, which,
in his opinion, would be ruinous to the credit of the State,
to Governor Barry and to the Democratic party. He had
been unable to find either of the three gentlemen. He said
he would go again immediately to the House and see what

CHARLES nUTLER, LL.D. 447

could be (lone. As I left the office I met Chancellor Farns-
worth and coniniiinicated to him the intelligence, which
affected him as strongly as it had me. A few minutes
later we met Dr. Houghton, who was also alarmed, hav-
ing heard it from another source. We all started for the
Capitol, those two to see the Governor, and I to see what I
could see, and to do what I could do.

On getting to the Capitol, I went immediately to Captain
Purdy. Now Captain Purdy is a man about fifty years of
age, a sound, intelligent, upright man; remarkable for his
good sense, good temper, and conciliating manners, and withal
a pure and devoted Christian ; one of the best men in a
Legislative body I ever knew. He had from the beginning
taken a very deep interest in the bill, not only because it
was honest and just towards the creditors, but because it was
the duty of the State and would reflect honor upon the peo-
ple and do them good. He has exercised more influence in
the Legislature than any other man in it, and to him Prov-
idence directed me. I told him what I had heard and what
I feared. He expressed surprise that the Governor should
hesitate, said he had heard such a rumor but supposed it had
been circulated by the enemies of the bill. But now, he
would go at once and see the Governor, as his friend, and
tell hini what his fate would be if he did veto it. He
started off for the Executive chamber. I then passed round
among the members and found that the rumor was beginning
to excite a deep anxiety and feeling. I traced the rumor to
the Lieutenant Governor Richardson, and in a few moments
met him and he stated to me that to pass the bill with the
tax clause would be death to the Governor and the party.
I tiien went up into the Senate and found the rumor of veto
rife there. I went to Judge Bell, the chairman of the joint
committee, who said if the Governor did veto the bill it

448 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

would kill him, if it did not destroy the party and ruin the
credit of the State.

After a brief conversation he said he would go in and see
the Governor and tell him what he thought of it. I then
sj^oke to Mr. Wakefield, another leading member of the Sen-
ate, who said he would go and see the Governor and tell
him, too, what the consequences would be of such an act.
On passing through the Senate I spoke consecutively to about
every senator and found that they had all heard the rumor
and, with a single exception, spoke of it as a most extra--
ordinary thing. If vetoed, the bill, they said, would still
pass the Senate by a unanimous vote save one ; but in the
House the result would be doubtful. Shortly after I was
sent for into the library and there met Mr. Wells, who,
with the Secretary of State, had just come from the Gover-
nor. He again urged and begged of me to consent to strike
out the tax clause, and thus save the bill. I refused utterly
on the ground that the Legislature had passed it, and that
it would be improper for me to interfere in any way. And
if I could change it I would not, as it was the only feature
in the bill that furnished any security to the bond holders.
He seemed to think it very cruel in me to place the Gov-
ernor and the party in such a situation, and was firmly per-
suaded that we should lose the next election on this ground,
and that the next Legislature would repeal the law, leaving
the bond holders worse off than ever.

Mr. Wells left me to return to the Governor. It after-
wards turned out that the Governor had called his cabinet
around him and was then discussing the question. There
were four besides the Governor ; two, the Auditor General
and the State Treasurer, were firm and decided friends of
the bill : and two, the Secretary of State and Mr. Wells, the
Commissioner, were opposed ; and the Governor inclined to

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 449

go with the latter. In the course of the afternoon and eve-
ning the Governor had a series of calls from his personal
and political friends, who remonstrated with him most plainly
against so suicidal an act, and I had reports from Hough-
ton, Purdy, Hall, Wakefield and others, of the results of
their various interviews. As time was pressing, this being
the afternoon of the last day of the session, the gentlemen
had no time for compliments. It was plain talk all round,
and I was amused at the report Avhich an eye witness gave
of Judge Bell's mission. When the Judge entered, the Cab-
inet were in session deliberating on the bill, and he addressed
himself directly to the Governor, "talking with him like a
father." As the Governor is probably ten years older than
the Judge, it struck me with more humor.

After tea the Cabinet again met to deliberate further and
I went to the Capitol again to see how things stood. I
found very great excitement prevading both Houses and an
increasing confidence that the bill would be vetoed ; and it
was said, that if vetoed it would be passed through the
House even by a constitutional majority of two-thirds. Per-
haps the wish was father to the thought. It was evident,
however, that the current was setting with overwhelming
force against the veto. The enemies of the bill had
made extraordinary efforts to bring an influence to bear
upon the Governor through his trusted friend, Mr. Eldridge,
the Secretary of State. They said that his signing it would
be a deathblow to his administration, and to the ascendancy
of the Democratic party in the State, and he had, no doubt,
been brought to believe this. The counteracting influences,
however, in support of an honest and just cause, were too
powerful to be resisted and at nine o'clock in the evening
the Governor signed the bill. This result was brought to
me confidentially in the Senate chamber, where I was patiently

450 '^HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

awaiting the veto message, the moment it occurred. It was
soon circulated among the members and tlie congregation of
by-standers who were lookers-on in Vienna. Well was it
for Governor Barry and for the honor and credit of the State
of Michigan that unwise counsels did not prevail with him ;
that God so overruled things that he was kept from falling
into a snare and inflicting an irreparable injury on his own
character and upon the character and good name of the State.
And thus ended this chapter and this day of the 8tli of
March, 1843, at 10 o'clock p. m., when I left the Capitol.

Here are passages from a letter of Hon. C. J.
Hammond, Auditor General of the State, addressed to
Mr. George Griswold, one of the most distinguished
and highly esteemed citizens of New York in that day :

I avail myself of the opportunity presented by the return
of Charles Butler, Esq., to say what simple justice to him
requires you should know. You will be advised by him of
the result of his mission more perfectly than the limits of a
letter will permit me to do. Of his agency in producing
this result I cannot say too much. He has accomplished all
that man could do and more than almost any other gentle-
man you might have selected. You are aware that when
the present executive took the gubernatorial chair repudiation
was ready to burst forth, and if they had been led in that
direction a large majority of the people of this State would
have followed. In his first message the Governor gave tone
to the then forming public sentiment, which led to the legis-
lation of 1842. In his last annual communication to the
Legislature he advanced a step and public opinion sustained
him. But many even of our most valuable citizens had not
dreamed of taxation, and the Executive did not think public

CHARLES nUTLER, LL.D. 45I

opinion would wiirrant a present cnaetment embodyinj;- (hat
pi-iMcii)le. iVltliouiih it was fast approxiinatino- to tliat Iiigli
and honest stand, still it seemed a task hcyoud the powers
of any man to lead ;i majority of the representatives of the
people to tluit point, at this time. Mr. Butler, by liis ad-
dress, amenity of manners, and powerful arguments, has
succeeded and procured an enactment based on high moral
and political principles ; one that reflects great credit on
him and, I think I may justly say, great credit on the State.
. . . Discretion will require that the agency of Mr. Butler
iu producing this result should not be trumpeted. Our peo-
ple arc jealous of foreign and out-door influence, and the
people should have all the credit that can be bestowed upon
them consistently.

The readers of this history, which turns so largely
upon the veto power conceded by Union Seminary to
the General Assembly in 1870, can hardly fail to have
been struck by the following passage in one of
Mr. Butler's letters to his wife :

/ never estimated the moral force of the veto power, for
good or evil, as I did then, and as I shall ever hereafter,
when any great question is involved.

It is also noteworthy that in the midst of this severe,
all-absorbing struggle for public honesty in Michigan
Mr. Butler did not forget Union Theological Seminary,
then carrying on a struggle scarcely less severe with
poverty and discouragement. Dr. Peters was finan-
cial ao-ent of the institution.

'&^

I wish you to pay Dr. Peters the balance of my sub-

452 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

scription to the theological seminary, and to say to him that
if I live and prosper, I shall pay as much more the next
year. I want to know how they get on in the seminary,
and if you see Dr. Peters, or Professor Robinson, do ask
them to write me at Cincinnati and let me know. I have
not heard a word on the subject since I left New York.

In the same letter he thus alludes to his New York
pastor, Dr. Thomas H. Skinner :

I am afraid Dr. Skinner will think me a faithless elder.
Tell him I have endeavored to do my duty here, and that I
have not failed to remember our dear church. Oh, what
great privileges we enjoy iji New York ! All other ministers
seem so tame and languid as compared with Dr. Skinner !
Our chapter I fail not to read and with continued interest
every night. Kiss Ogden and Emily for me.

III.

THE FIGHT WITH REPUDIATION IN INDIANA IN 1845-6.

Let us pass now to Indianapolis and watch the De-
troit struggle repeated on a larger scale. The political
scene and the incidents change, but the same principles
are at work. In Indiana, as in Michigan, it was still
a deadly fight between public faith and public dis-
honesty ; and the signal triumph of the cause of honesty
forms one of the noblest chapters in the history of that
great commonwealth. In 1840 the State had defaulted
on the payment of interest on the public debt. It was
an ominous year in the moral and financial annals of

C/IARLES BUTLER, LLP. 453

the country. Early in 1840 Gov. McNutt hud sent
forth his notorious proclamation, announcing to the
world that Mississippi would not pay the bonds issued
under her great seal and signed by himself, in her name,
on account of the Union Bank. Repudiation was in
the air and threatened to become a veritable epidemic
of dishonesty over a large portion of the land. The
creditors of Indiana were among leading capitalists
and financial institutions in New York and London.
Mr. Butler's struggle, as authorized agent of the
domestic and foreign bond-holders, culminated in the
winter of 1845-6. A full account of the situation and
of the plan proposed for its relief may be found in a
letter addressed by him to the Legislature. This letter
is admirable alike for strong argument, for the wise
moderation of its claims, and in the dignity and gen-
tleness of its tone from beginning to end.*

Mr. Butler's letters to his wife, written at Indianapo-
lis, like those from Detroit, are full of details respect-
ing the character and progress of the negotiations he
was carrying on, as agent of the domestic and foreign
bond-holders of the State. I proceed now to give
copious passages and abstracts of these very interesting
letters. Aside from the valuable information stored
away in them, they furnish lessons in the art of deal-
ing with difficult questions bearing upon public morals

* Letter of Charles Butler, Esq., to the Legislature of Indiana and other
documents in relation to the {jublic dolit. Indianapolis, [jrinted by Morrison
& Spann, 1845, p. 107.

454 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

and appealing to the public conscience, which are good

for all time.

Mr. Butler arrives in Indianapolis and finds the situa-
tion almost hopeless. — The question of public honesty
to be settled noiv or never. — The Governor'' s posi-
tion.— Good preaching and Sabbath rest. — No man
dares to use the word pay or tax. — Still a faithful
remnant stand up for the honest cause. — A letter to
the Legislature written.

Indianapolis, November 29, 1845.
My Dear Wife :—

I have been incessantly engaged, night and day, and
hardly find time to eat or sleep. The prospects are altogether
discouraging and almost everybody says that nothing can be
done. Politicians, on both sides, are afraid to move. It is
really amazing to see what a paralysis hangs upon this
people. Everything is merged in the most trifling local
politics. The Governor is a prominent candidate for the
United States Senate and dare iiot oj)en his mouth as he
should, lest it might affect his election to that office. His
friends are in the same predicament ; and so with all the
other candidates and their respective friends. My mission is
a hard one and no mistake. Still, it is not fair to judge
altogether from present indications. I must take a week or
more to find out how the laud lies. It is hardly possible
but there will be found some good men, and some men who
will take right ground. I must try my hand and see what
I can do. Perhaps the very discouragements which meet me
at the outset may be useful, and prepare the way for ulti-

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 455

mate success. It is certain that if tlie (nicstion is not now
settled it never will l)e ; the jx'ople will j^o into repudiation.
I have had two interviews with the Governor, one at my
room and the other at his own house, and they have been
quite satisfiictory. He is one of the most cautious and timid
men in iiie woi'ld ; at the same time he is, I think, entirely
honest and would be glad to have rigiit done. He told me
Avhat he should say in his message, anfl if he adheres to this
intention, it will be all I coidd desire.

Indianapolis, December 7, 1845.
The last week has been one of great excitement and
pressure with me in my business, and I am glad to haye the
Sabbath come with its sacred rest. This morning I heard a
sound, practical discourse in Mr. Gurley's church, and this
evening another like it from Mr. Beecher.* What a diiferent
world this woidd be if all its inhabitants were influenced by
the simple principles of the Gospel ! What a beautiful world
it would be, and how sweet would be our existence in it !
The Sabbath has come to me as. a thing to be coveted.
My spiritual natui'e was famishing .and wearied, and needed
food and rest. I find that I am engaged in a great under-
taking^ involved in the most complicated and, perhaps, insup-
erable difficulties. I am fully persuaded that it is only by
addressing myself to the conscience of the people, stirring
that up, and bringing that to bear, that I stand the slightest
chance of success ; and this cannot be done in a day. A
revolution, a reformation, is required to be wrought. The
whole population has got to be, in a sense, made over again,
before justice can or will be done to the holders of the
pledged faith of the State. Who is sufficient for these
things? I am sure I am not. Th.e difficulty in tlie way is
radical ; it lies at the ver}' heart of the people. Such is the

456 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

sentiment produced by the efforts of heartless, unprincipled
politicians, that it has become a question whether it would
be honest and right to pay the debt! No man dare take the
responsibility in the Legislature of advocating payment. The
Governor, even though he went very far for him, yet dare
not use the word 'pay or tax. I consider his message a great
triumph and as preparing the way for my mission ; yet he
has thrown the whole* responsibility on me. I am preparing
my letter but it requires great labor and reflection. I have
to weigh every word and get it exactly right, or else I shall
stir up such a hornet's nest about my ears that I shall be
glad " to cut and run " out of the Hoosier State as fast as
possible. I transmitted by mail yesterday four sheets of
it, the first part, in manuscript, to Mr. King to be for-
warded to Mr. Palmer, by the steamer on the 16th instant,
and shall finish it to-morrow. I mean to make an issue
between the bond-holders and the State in a way that the
people shall understand it, and lay the foundation, I hope,
for future success if I fail now. I find myself backed up
by a few good and strong men of both parties, and a great
change has certainly been wrought since I came. The little
leaven may leaven the whole lump. I have reason, certainly,
to be encouraged with the indications around me, and the
revolution I speak of is certainly within the ])ower of Him
who holds all hearts in His hand. It is a great question,
intimately connected with religion and morals ; and that con-
nection is what I rely on. Last night I did not get to bed
till one o'clock. I am run down >vith engagements and
scarcely get out of my room all day.

December 10th, 7 p.m.
I have only this moment finished my letter to the Leg-
islature. To-morrow, or day after, I expect to read it in

CHARLES BUTI.ER, LL.D. 457

permn at the bar of the House of Representatives. I do not
know how it will he received. It will kill or cure. The
letter is very much complimented by the few to whom I
have submitted it, among whom there arc the best men I
can find here ; they think it will save the debt and the peo-
ple. The fact is, the State is on the verge of repudiation,
but they have not known it."

Having eased my mind of my message to the people of
Indiana, I am going to a party at the Governor's this eve-
ning. My task seems a mountain but it may be removed in
one way. The hearts of men are not in their own hands,
and well it is, they are not. I am aided by Mr. Dodge of
Terre Haute, who is at my elbow constantly, and then I
have a young man to aid also in copying.

II.

Delivers Ms letter to the Governor. — Invited to read it
to the Legislature. — Its suiyrising effect. — A letter
to his son Ogden. — A restful Sunday. — His letter
referred to a Joint Committee of Twenty-four. — His
authority to act for bond-holders questioned by the
repudiators. — His troubles fairly set in.

Indianapolis, December 11, 8 p. m.
I delivered my letter this forenoon to the Governor, who
transmitted it by special message to the two Houses this
afternoon. I was there, and the Speaker, by the unanimous
consent of the House, invited me to read it in person, which
I did. The lobby was pretty full, and they all listened with
profound attention. When I finished — it took just an hour — ■
they immediately ordered a thousand copies to be printed for
the use of the House, which shows their estimate, as one

458 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

hundred is the usual number. It seems to have met with
universal approbation. The Rev. Dr. White, president of
Wabash College, met me as I came out, took me by the
hand, said that he had heard the whole of it, and that it
was a most able and statesmanlike document. He seemed
perfectly delighted. The Governor was present; and though
he had, of course, read it through before sending it in, yet
sat throughout and listened with the deepest attention. He
and the Speaker expressed great satisfaction, and said that
the temper and spirit of it were most unexceptionable, and
compliments are pouring in on every side. Indeed, I am
myself surprised at the manner in which it has been received
and the effect produced.

My bark is now fairly launched, and though I have
scarcely a hope of its weathering the adverse blasts which I
hear and see driving all around me, yet I feel persuaded
that I have done enough to save the question in Indiana at
another session. I will send you the document itself to-
morrow and you will read and judge for yourself. All the
compliments which I have embodied in this letter are meant
for you, my better half, and I hope they will not make you
vain. My head is not quite turned, but it aches terribly
from excitement, and labor, and fatigue. Kiss the dear
children for me.

Before proceeding further, I will give a few extracts
from this Letter, addressed to Governor Whitcomb,
and through him to the Legislature and peoj^le of
Indiana. Let the reader judge for himself whether I
have praised it too highly :

According to the most reliable estimates, the people of
Indiana will realize an advance on the productions of the

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.P. 459

State for the year 1S4"), over the value of the same products
in the year 1844, of not less than four millions of dollars —
a result as gratifying to your bond-holders as it can be to
any resident citizen of the State ; and this, taken in connec-
tion with other concurring and favorable circumstances, ren-
ders the ])resent a most auspicious time for the disposition
of this subject.

I may be permitted with propriety to allude not only
to the great internal prosperity of the State, over which you
have the honor to preside, for encouragment ; but also to the
prosperous condition of all the States in the Great Valley,
and constituting at this time the granary whence are drawn,
I might almost say, the supplies of the world, and with
which States Indiana is so interlocked, as to make their
prosperity hers ; and especially would I direct the attention
of the Legislature to the brilliant example of your sister
State of Ohio, whose citizens have borne without murmuring
the burdens necessary to sustain their credit throughout a
period of great pressure and gloom, and where a ta.x is
collected for the year 1845 of seventy-jive cents on the hun-
dred dollars for the specific purpose of paying the interest
on her public debt. Here is a noble example, illustrating
the integrity of a free people, who regard the maintenance
of plighted faith as the true foundation of State character
and the seal of their prosperity. Indiana, with a soil equally
fertile and a population equally industrious and enterprising,
has opened to her a career as brilliant. She has only to
restore her credit — that greatest element of national wealth —
to render it certain.

I would refer also to the progress which other States have
made for the restoration of their credit, to Pennsylvania and
Maryland, to Michigan and Illinois, in each of which steps
have been taken for the restoration of their credit, and the

460 ^-^^ UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

satisfactory relief of their bond-holders ; and in these efforts
we see the recuperative energies of the American character
and the sense of justice prevailing over every obstacle. It
is a movement which enlists the sympathy of every Ameri-
can citizen, wherever his residence may be, and which should
challenge the admiration of the world.

I cannot close without availing myself of the occasion to
present a few of the considerations which belong to this great
subject, involving, as it surely does, the honor of the State,
and the prosperity, interests and welfare of its eight hundred
thousand population, and which, it would seem, should
prompt the Legislature to take immediate steps, to the ex-
tent of her ability, for the relief of her foreign bond-holders.
It will be remembered that they have held their bonds for
a long period, without receiving any payment from the State,
and the effect of such delay is to render their property com-
paratively valueless in their hands. In many instances parties
have held on without submitting to the enormous sacrifice
which a sale would involve, hoping for speedy relief from
the State ; and in such cases, if they can only be re-assured
by the payment of a small portion of the accruing interest,
and by certain provision for the future, it would save them
from ruinous sacrifices, and enable them to preserve their
property. Next to the payment in full of all arrears, is the
fixing the time when it will be paid ; in other words, eertainty
is the thing desired — it is the uncertainty in which the whole
subject is involved, and the consequent inability of needy
holders to make any certain calculations, that adds to their
unhappiness — as in the case between man and man. An
examination would show that the bonds of Indiana, like
those of Pennsylvania and New York, are to be found exten-
sively in the hands of trustees, guardians, retired and aged
persons, widows, and others whose object was investment.

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 461

and whose reliance for support is on income. Such, with
scarcely an exception, is the class I represent. The State
cannot be constrained to make payment, in any manner, at
the will of the holders of her bonds, however pressing their
necessities may be ; they are left to depend entirely for the
fulfilment of obligations, upon her own sense of honor and
justice. In the exercise of her sovereignty, she is the sole
judge of her own ability, and it might be deemed presump-
tion in any one, even a creditor, to question her integrity
and disinterestedness in deciding on the (}uestion, however
it migh't disappoint his expectations, and however variant it
might be from his own estimate.

The highest evidence which can be given of the reliance
of those whom I represent, on the honor and faith of the
State, is to be found in the fact already mentioned, that
they have continued to hold the bonds from the period of
their purchase, prior to the default of the State, down to the
present time. It is true, they have been encouraged from
time to time by the solemn assurances of the people of In-
diana, speaking through their Executive and Representatives,
of their intention to do justice to them as soon as they should
have the ability ; and especially by the emphatic language of
the joint resolution, adopted by the Legislature of 1844-45,
which is — " that we regard the slightest breach of plighted
faith, public or private, as an evidence of the want of that
moral principle upon which all obligations depend : that
when any State in this Union shall refuse to recognize her
great seal, as the sufficient evidence of her obligation, she
will have forfeited her station in the sisterhood of States and
will be no longer worthy of their confidence and respect" —
and while they ought not to doubt that such is the senti-
ment of the people of Indiana, still, they are painfully con-
cious that time is running against them, that the interest is ac-

A62 7W^ UN/ON THEOLOGICAL SEMIXARV.

cumulating, and with the increase of the debt the difficulties
in the way of payment will also naturally increase, and they
are impressed with the serious conviction that the neglect,
or refusal on the part of the State, to provide for the pay-
ment of its just debts, for an unreasonable length of time,
does involve all the practical consequences of repudiation to
the holders of its obligations and to the people themselves,
and will be so regarded by the world at large ; and the
danger of this tacit or jjassive repudiation is increased with
the delay ; for the longer it is suffered to remain, the further
removed it is from the time when the obligation was incurred,
and when the sense of it was fresh ; and when Ave consider
the changing character of the population of all the new States
it is not surprising that the sense of obligation should grow
weaker and weaker with the lapse of time. Nor is it sur-
prising, in this view of the subject, that the most lively
apprehension should be indulged by persons situated like
those I represent, nor that they should be importunate with
your Excellency and the Legislature, to save them from such
a possible fate. And in the communication which I have
the honor to make, if I have expressed myself too strongly
on any point, or if I have seemed to fail in any particular
in the respect which is due from me, either to your Excel-
lency or the Legislature, or the people of Indiana, I
beg once for all most earnestly to disclaim any such inten-
tion, and that you will attribute it to my anxiety to
represent faithfully the rights and expectations of those
who have sent me on this mission, and who cannot be
presumed from the relation they sustain to the State, to
entertain any other than feelings of the utmost respect
for its public authorities, and a sincere desire to see its
credit established on the most enduring basis, and its
prosperity thereby secured.

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 453

These passages, as indeed the whole letter, remind
nie vividly of the speeches made by my renowned
brother, S. S. Prentiss, a few years earlier, while car-
rying on his memorable fight with Repudiation in the
State of Mississii)pi. The disease was much more
virulent and frought wdth consequences vastly more
disastrous there than in Michigan or Indiana. But
the remedy urged upon the people of Mississippi with
matchless eloquence and moral power, was precisely
the same in principle as that depicted in Mr. Butler's
admirable letter to Governor Whitcomb. What an
unspeakable blessing it would have been to Mississippi
•had she applied the remedy as it was applied in Michi-
gan and Indiana ! This was what her ill-fated credi-
tors urged in season and out of season. In a letter to
me, dated Rydal Mount, March 23, 1843, Mr. Words-
worth, the illustrious poet, wrote, in regard to bonds
of that State held by his only daughter and an aged
brother and sister of his wife :

" In matters like this time, as in the case of my
relatives, is of infinite importance, and it is to be feared
that the two individuals for whose comfort payment is
of the most consequence, may both be in their graves
before it comes. Lei hut taxes, to amount however
small, once be imposed exclusively for discharging these
obligations, and that measure would be hailed as the
dawn of a coming day ; but until that is effected, the
most sanguine must be subject to fits of despondency."

Unhappily, it w^as never effected.

464 T^HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

TO HIS SON OGDEN.

Indianapolis, December 12, 1845.
Friday evening, 7 o'clock.
My Dear Son :

I was truly gratified to receive your affectionate letter
and read it with deep interest. I have scarcely a moment
to write to you. I think of you constantly and so I do of
dear Emily and Anna. I am delighted that you are all so
happy. You can make each other so happy if you only try.
Your school report was a famous one ; such a character is
more to be desired than gold. I am very busy. My letter
to the Governor will be printed to-morrow. I was amused
at a remark of one of the plain country members, who said
to Mr. Bright that there " was first a little sugar, then a
little soap, then sugar, and then soap, and it was sugar and
soap all the way through." Another said that I had "mo-
lassoed " it well. You will think from this it was a strange
document, but the critics were real Hoosiers and " no mis-
take," as they say here. 'At any rate, they liked it well, —
for maple sugar and soap and maple molasses, you will un-
derstand, are three of the greatest staples in this country.
They don't make much use of the soap, but they do of the
sugar and molasses, so I infer from it that they were pleased.
Take good care of dear mother and Emmy and Anna. I
will see if I can find anything curious for you in this coun-
try. I go out this evening to the Governor's party. I go
as a matter of business, to meet with the people and form
acquaintances.

Indianapolis, December 19, 1845.
My Dear Wife :

To-day I attended a communion service in the Rev. Mr.

Gurley's church, which was deeply interesting. Mr. Gurley

is a very spiritual man and a man of uncommon sweetne'ss.

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 465

mingled with great manliness and boldness. . . . My
nature is truly social, and needs constant exercise to preserve
it from the withering influence of corroding care. The
weighty business which seems to fall to my share is too
great a burden, and I am conscious of it. Still, it might be
borne, and without injury, if only I could keep my heart in
the right place ; for then I could cast it off on One who is
able and willing to bear it. I was never engaged in any
undertaking, in which I felt such utter impotence and fee-
bleness as I do now. God only knows how it will end. I
am in the midst of it, I voluntarily placed myself there, and
the interests of hundreds of thousands are bound up in the
result. I have unwittingly become conspicious before the
eyes of the people of this State, and they will look to all my
movements with the greatest circumspection and solicitude.
But I will not allow my thoughts to run into my business ;
the devil has all day been tempting me with it, and I have
tried to resist him. He had great advantage over me in the
circumstances which occurred yesterday afternoon, and which
left my business in a way calculated to make me think more
about it to-day. Nor is it possible to avoid intrusion alto-
gether to-day, in such a place. People will come in and
ask questions, and it is difficult to keep myself entirely
out of the way. As I think my business has an intimate
theological connection, I endeavor to turn it in that channel.
Mr. Gurley will, probably, give us a sermon yet on the
subject. For repudiation and Sabbath breaking ought to
go together as national sins.

My letter has been referred to a Joint Committee of
Twenty-four, to confer with me on the whole subject, and this
committee are now in session, and adopting their preparatory
organization. In so large a committee there are, of course,
friends and foes, and the latter, I fear, are the strongest, not in

4G6 '^HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

numbers, but in power. It is an easy thing to malve mischief
and they are now trying, as I understand, to embarrass the
question by objecting to my authority to act at all, which is
quite ludicrous, after receiving my communication and order-
ing 1,000 copies to be printed. This is the beginning of
trouble of which I shall have enough, before I get through.
But I mean, if my life is spared, to represent the bond-holders
faithfully to the end. The people have now got the matter
presented to them in a form it never was before, and they
cannot prevent the eifect of it. I expect to-morrow to go
before the Sanhedrim in person, and the discussions are to-
be oral. That is, I am to be permitted to make my propo-
sitions and accompany them with oral explanations, which
gives me the chance to say all I want to say, and to lay
all the reasons before them. It will probably be public
also ; and the matter is so novel and of such deep public
interest that everybody is looking to the proceedings of the
committee with great curiosity and interest.

III.

His authority recognized and the discussion with the
Committee of Twenty-four begins. — A Sunday even-
ing with two strong friends of public honesty, one
a Cumberland, the other a New School, Presby-
terian.— His entire reliance is in the moral power
of the question. — Bids his desponding friends to be
of good courage and go ahead. — Popular inteixst
in the subject throughout Indiana. — Converts the
wife of a leading anti-bond Senator.

Indianapolis, December 18, 1845.
My Dear Wife :

Your letter of the 11th inst. was received last evening,

just as I came in from my first meeting with the committee.

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 457

The question of authority is yet unsettled. They had a very
violent debate and flight over it. I declined entering into
any conference with them till they had settled that question,
laying before them such credentials as I could, and then I
withdrew. The coniniittee decided by a strong vote in favor
of my power and adjourned to meet to-morrow evening, when
I am to appear and enter on the discussion. This morning
the repudiators raised the same (question in the Senate and an
angry debate was the result. They finally adopted a resolu-
tion, by consent of the friends of public credit, calling on
the Governor for information. The Governor was present
during the discussion and will send in the message to-mor-
row. This will, I presinne, settle their point; but then they
will raise others, as fast as possible, in the hope, by reason
of the shortness of the session, to bluff off all action.

Indianapolis, December 21, 1845.
My Dear Wife :

I intended to deyote this whole evening to you and our
dear children, but two gentlemen came in, who have this
moment left me. One of them is a Cumberland Presbyterian,
and the other a New School Presbyterian. The first is a
plain farmer from the country, but a most lovely Christian.
Our conversation took a religious turn and he gave me a
history of his conversion in such simple and affecting lan-
guage that, in connection with the circumstances, it interested
me very much. What fine characters we meet with often
under the roughest exterior and the plainest manners, and
how refining, purifying and elevating is the influence of the
blessed Gospel on the man ! What a different being it makes
of him. This good man has come up on purpose to help
me settle the public debt. He says that his people sent him
on that business and he pledged himself to them that he

468 ^^^ UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

would not leave a single stone unturned, to eifect it. He is
a man of most excellent good sense. The other gentleman
is one of the first men in the State and also a lovely Chris-
tian ; he, too, is here on that business exclusively, and with
such aids I feel strong in the Lord. My entire reliance is
in the moral power of the question, the force of truth. If
God sees fit to make it go, it will go. If not, it will not.
There is enough to discourage the stoutest heart, and my
friends out doors have been most desponding and unhappy,
at the prospect. Strange to say, I have not been, but have
worked on as though it were certain and have animated them
to the conflict, and said to them, " keep cool, be of good cour-
age and go ahead, and we shall come out right in the end." The
opposition is boiling over and furious ; it is out and out re-
pudiation with many, and politics with others ; but I have a
sure conviction that if I can only keep the Legislature to-
gether long enough, I shall succeed. I feel calm and prepared
for any result. I had the first conference with the commit-
tee on Friday evening, and addressed them two hours in
connection with the proposition which I submitted. I suc-
ceeded in making a decided impression ; they listened with
the deepest interest. The result was better than I antici-
pated. It is a formidable business, I assure you, to address
a body of twenty-four men on so great and grave a subject,
and with the eyes of the whole State fixed on us. Our
meetings are private. I am allowed a reporter and clerk
and shall have every word reported. We meet again to-mor-
row evening. I expect to occupy about three evenings this
week, and about three hours each evening in order to go
over all the points, and submit all my views. I have
been so much absorbed in this business that I have not
heard the war rumbling in the East. * I cannot believe
* Referring to the trouble with Great Britain on the Oregon question.

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 4(59

that war will take }>laco. It would ho an awiiil calamity, and
may God in his mercy avert it from oiir land ! Oh, what
folly, and what an awful responsibility would rest some-
where. Still, I regard the arrogance of Great Britain with
distrust, and it may be the only way to check it. She is
too ambitious. She must let the American Continent alone.
It is the proper soil for free institutions, and such only can,
or will, be tolerated.

Indianapolis, December 22d.
Monday evening.
My Dear Wife :

I closed a second conference with the Joint Committee
this evening, having addressed them just two and a half
hours. The impression was evidently very favorable. The
meeting was held in the Senate chamber and was altogether
interesting. The truth is, the subject is a very great one
with the people of Indiana, and this proceeding has given to
it great prominence. All eyes are now directed to the result
of the conference pending between the State and its public
creditors, the latter represented by me. The momentous
question of the public debt is to be settled, and the founda-
tions laid for the future prosperity and greatness of the
State. The theme is a noble one and the occasion extraor-
dinary. Every evening thus far I have made converts in
the committee to my views, so that the friends of public
credit say they now consider the House safe, and the only
difficulty is in the Senate. I do not know how this is, and
can hardly, credit it. In the committee we have a number
of out and out repudiators, violent and unreasonable men, and
yet they have listened to me with much respect and atten-
tion. One only has abandoned the committee, and does not
pretend to come. The other twenty- three are there to a man,
and a minute.

470 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Tuesday Afternoon.

We meet again this evening, when I proceed with the
argument. To-morrow evening I appropriate especially to
the consideration of the bonds which it is proposed to repu-
diate, amounting to some $3,000,000 or $4,000,000. This
brings up the whole subject of repudiation, and is the most
important point involved in the discussion. It is profoundly
interesting, and I feel oppressed with the weight and burden
of it. On the result depends the question whether the State
will or will not repudiate. The committee will decide that
question, probably. If they decide against me, I shall then
protest and ask to be heard at the bar of the House, and if
the House decide against me, I shall withdraw the proposals
and shake the dust from my feet and go home.

The enemy will rally again. My committee meet again
this evening. The Governor helped me this afternoon, by a
message to the Senate in reply to a resolution. He and Mr.
Bright go in for me strong, head and shoulders, and now I
have a strong team, in-doors and out. My room is run down
with people constantly, and to-day I have done nothing but see
company, and make one call on two ladies. One of them is
the wife of a leading Senator, whom I have not seen yet,
but who is dead against me. His Avife I got all right, in
an hour's talk devoted exclusively to the subject, and she
goes in strong for my plan. I made the call this morning,
and this P. M. the Senator gave a vote in my flivor. So,
you see what a good wife can do in an important affair.
This morning he voted against me. You must -know that
in the Senate they have had me on the coals, for about
a week, hot enough. The Legislature will adjourn by the
15th of January. Wishing you all a hajipy New Year,
and commending you to the care of Him whose blessings
we have enjoyed for the year, so profusely bestowed

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 471

upon us, let us enter on another year with a purpose to
serve Him more faitlifully, and thereby secure our own
happiness, both temporal and eternal. Do give my love to
all my friends, and the compliments of the season. If for
a fortnight you do not hear much from mc, do not be
uneasy. Next week we enter in the regular battle, and up
to the end I shall have my hands full.

IV.

Lad conference with the Joint Committee of Twenty-
four. — He talked to them for three and a half hours
with REPUDIATION as his theme. — This question
raised in regard to over $3,000,000 of the State
bonds. — The mode of jwocedure. — One or more
eonvei'ts to the cause of honesty every evening. —
The repudiators wish to stay all actions ; but the
movement " ivill go 07i by its oivn mighty moral
power. ^^ — A day of great excitement : he submits
a final proposition and his hotel is on fire. — The
fire a blessing in disguise. — Electric effect of
his ultimatum.

Indianapolis, Christmas Eve.
After 10 o'clock.

My Dear Wife:

I have at this moment returned from the fourth and
last conference of the Joint Committee. I spoke with entire
freedom for a period of three and a half hours, and the
committee listened with deep attention and interest during
the whole time. The theme was repudiation. That is the
question raised distinctly in regard to from three to four

472 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

millions of dollars of the State bonds. I never satisfied
myself better in speaking than I did this evening, and I
was gratified to find that my remarks seemed to be received
with the most decided favor. The meetings are held in
the Senate chamber, and this evening the committee allowed
a nnmber of gentlemen to come in to listen to the discus-
sion. The mode of procedure is for the chairman to take
the president's chair in the Senate and call the committee
to order, the minutes of the last meeting are then read over,
the names of the Joint Committee called, and if all appear,
then the chairman announces to me the organization of the
committee, and their readiness to hear me proceed in my
remarks. The committee occupy seats directly in front of
me and my address is to them. Last evening I spoke about
an hour and a quarter. Thus far, every evening I have
made one or more converts to our side, and this evening I
was informed by the chairman of the House committee that
there was but one man on his committee now wrong, and
that one was Mr. Carr, who has been an out and out repu-
diator. He remarked, when I got through this evening,
that he could not have believed that he ever would sit so
long and hear a speech, every word of which rasped his
feelings. Still, he did it, and evidently was greatly inter-
ested. I can hardly credit it, that such a change has taken
place in the House committee. A week ago it seemed
incredible, nor do I now believe it. My friends were com-
pletely down at the heel and thought the Speaker had given
them the worst committee he could possibly have made up;
I think it Avill turn out a good committee yet. There are
seven farmers on it, and five lawyers and doctors. The
Senate is now the hardest body ; they have a set of low
blackguards in it, who have, ever since I came here, made
a dead set at me, and are constantly raising questions. They

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 473

want to prt'vont all action, sonic from one canse and some
from another. They wish to stifle the movement, l)nt it
will go on by force of its own intrinsic, mighty moral power,
and I yet have hope. It is indeed a missionary enterprise.

December 25, 1845, quarter past 11 p. m.
My Dear Wife :

This has been sio holiday to me ; the Joint Committee met
this morning at nine, and again this afternoon at three, and
we have been hard at work all day, diplomatically passing
notes. What the result will be I do not know. Governor
Whitcomb and Mr. Lane, the chairman, spent some time
with me this morning. I have yet another proposition to
be submitted in the morning, which I hope will be accepted.
It is a desperate business all around. Nobody can tell any-
thing about it, or form any correct opinion, who is not
familiar with the whole ground. I do not know that any-
thing satisfactory can be done, and if it goes on, the danger
is that it will be worse than it now is. My speech last
evening did good and made friends, and stirred up enemies,
and the two parties are arranging themselves actively for
a real cat fight. They get so angry at each other that I
have to keep advising them to keep cool. Yesterday P. M.
they had a most angry debate in the Senate, and I came
in for a full share, one Senator calling me a Wall Street
broker, etc.

I was rejoiced last evening to get your letter, with one
from my dear Emily enclosed. I was glad to see a letter
from her ; it made me laugh out loud, I was so happy. She
must write me again, and you must give her and dear Ogden
and sweet Anna each a New Year's present for me. I
shall have nothing but hard work, and hard knocks, and
hard times, during the holiday season. It makes me sick

474 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

to think of it, but I have embarked, and I mean to follow
it up to the last thoroughly. I have had a chance to talk
plain to the committee anyhow, and they have listened
attentively. These Hoosiers are made up from the Caro-
linas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, Ohio, Maryland, Penn-
sylvania and New Jersey, and at the north there is a mixing
^ of New York and New England people. They are the
strangest mixture I have ever seen.

Friday Evening, 10 o'clock.
I could not find time to finish my letter and send it off
by the mail this evening, which I regret, as I fear you will
not get it by New Year's day. I am so driven night and
day that I hardly know how the time runs. This has been
a day of great excitement. In the first place, the Joint
Committee adjourned over to this evening at six, to receive
a final proposition from me, — an ultimatum. At the same
time a desperate movement was made in the Senate to
revoke the powers of the committee. The repudiators, it was
feared, would carry the point this afternoon, and my friends
were speaking against time, so as to prevent its coming to
a vote to-day. Just then, about 3 p. m., while the war was
going on hot in the Senate chamber and I was busy in my
room at the hotel preparing my ultimatum, an alarm of fire
was given on the floor on which my room is — third story.
At the other end of the hall a gentleman had gone out,
leaving a large fire and it had caught and actually burned
through the floor, and dropped down into the room below,
which led to its detection by some ladies of the family, who
were occupying an adjoining room below. It is a large
house and has one hundred and fifty people in it, and the
alarm went like fire itself, from room to room through the
house, in the street, and up to the Capitol, where it found

CIIARLHS nUTI.ER, LL.D. 475

Mr. IvUiK', cliainuaM of" tlic Joint Coiiiniiltcc*, on the fioor,
making a beautiful speech on luy business. Of course the
Senate and House adjourned in a })ani(^, for half of them stay
at the Palmer House. I had my papers, books and clothes
all strewed about, and was alone. As the prospect was
threatening, — indeed, I scarcely doubted that the house Avould
burn up, — it put me in a panic, too, and I out with my trunk
and tumbled in my papers first, and then such clothes as
were most convenient, all in a heap and a mess, and dragged
my trunk down stairs ; and then -got out the balance of
my clothes.

The fire was extinguished, but it made a terrible muss
and confusion all the afternoon. It saved my friends, how-
ever, in the Senate, and this evening I proceeded to meet
the committee in the Senate chamber, and to deliver my
ultimatum in person. You can have no conception of the
interest felt on the subject ; the friends of the canal and
the friends of public credit all hanging in the deepest sus-
pense upon the issue. The committee had rejected my prop-
osition yesterday (which I enclose that you may know how.
the business is done) and now they were apprehensive that
nothing would or could be done, and a feeling of despondency
and restless gloom was creeping over them. I found a large
number of spectators present, to my surprise, expecting to
have a secret session with them, and entertaining doubts as
to the propriety of submitting my proposition to any except
the committee in private, — for its rejection might be inju-
rious, equally to the public credit and the pulilic creditors.
I hesitated about going on, for the step I was about to take
involved a great personal responsibility. The result I had
come to, had not been without inward groans and conflicts,
but it was the oidy chance, and the time had come for a
bold step, that would settle it one way or the other — for

476 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

weal or for woe. I concluded to take no exception to the
presence of others, and proceeded in introducing my propo-
sition with remarks which occupied half an liour, and then
read and explained it. The effect was electrical ; and if
I can judge, it really routed the last hold of the enemy.
One man, a Senator who has been exceedingly bitter and
personal in his opposition, so much so that my friends have
christened him with the nick name of " Tallow Face " — said
that he could not go against that.

The friends of public credit and the canal are now in
ecstacies. I think the blow has been struck that will sweep
the opposition and save the great object, to wit, the restora-
tion of credit and payment of the debt. They ordered a
large number of copies to be printed and adjourned. Now,
I cannot tell whether it will go or not, but it looks promising.
I have made great concessions, but they are indispensible.
If it were to go over to another session, with the war feel-
ing springing up among the people, and the bond-holders
being foreigners, and with the other difficulties operating on
it, the debt would be lost. By the proposition I have made,
I have no doubt but it will be ultimately paid to the last
farthing. The friends of the canal and public credit, on the
committee, had not one of them anticipated the proposition
I submitted, and it took them by surprise. It met their
most sanguine expectations — indeed, they had not dreamed
that I would make one so liberal and fair, and they were
overwhelmed, whilst the enemy were scattered in every
direction. They may rally, however, again, for it is impossi-
ble that it should pass in any shape without a great fight.
But I think I have placed its friends on the vantage ground.
On coming from the committee, I found among my mail a
letter from Mr. Palmer, under date of London, 2d Decem-
ber. " Thinks I to myself, now, what if the letter should

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 477

contain something adverse decidedly to the very movement
which I have just made, — it is too late to back out." On
reading the letter, however, I found it all right, and judg-
ing from its spirit I feel confident that I can rely on being
sustained when I come to explain to him my reason. This
has been truly a busy and exciting day with me.

Saturday Evening, 27th December.
I add a few words at the close of the day and week. I
can scarcely realize that we are so near the end of the year,
and that this will reach you not till the year 1846. I am
so driven and hurried with important matters that I cannot
think. To-day the friends of the canal and the public credit
have been in a perfect glee, — as though the question were
now settled, Indiana redeemed and the canal finished. They
already talk of illuminations, bon-fires and cannon, but I
tell them to keep cool, the battle is yet to be fought.

An anxious Sabbath day. — The time short and the
work j)ressin(/. — The Lord only knows when or
how it will end. — The strenyth of popular feeliny
in favor of the bill. — An anti-bond payiny Senator
rebuked by his town and cou7ity. — A sermon on
the subject by Henry Ward Beecher. — The bill
reported to both branches of the Leyislature by
una7iimous consent of the Committee of Twenty-four.
— Friendly attitude of the little country papers.

Indianapolis, December 28, 1845.
My Dear Wife :

At the close of the last Sabbath in the year! It is now
nine o'clock and I am alone in my room. I have been out
all day ; this morning to Mr. Gurley's, in the afternoon to

478 '^HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SERIINARY.

the Sabbath school, and this evening to Mr. Beecher's.
After Sabbath school I went home with Mr. Ray and took
tea. He is a cashier of the bank, a very fine man, and has a
fine family. The Misses Axtell live with him, and now
their brother Charles is also spending a little time with
them. All very nice people, and forming qnite a Geneva
circle, and as they are all associated with my first impres-
sions of Geneva, it was pleasant to go there and get out of
the noise and confusion of my hotel, which is a perfect bed-
lam. I have been under such high pressure, both mental
and physical, the last week, that I felt the need of the Sab-
bath very much. I have just been interrupted by a mem-
ber, coming to talk about the great business. I fear this day
has been devoted to it altogether, by the members of the
Legislature. It excites such a deep and thrilling interest,
they can't talk or think of anything else. And the time is
so short that they say they must keep at it on Sunday. I
was amused last Sunday when a Senator came to see and
talk with me and I declined talking with him about it, and
he remarked that he, thought " that it was like lifting the ox
out of the gutter," and that it was a work of necessity and
mercy ; and so, in truth, it is. I have thought and felt so
myself, and this rough Hoosier is right.

Governor Whitcomb came in this morning and spent an
hour with me on the subject, regarding it in its moral aspect.
He goes in, heart and soul, for me, and so does Mr. Bright.
They are in fine spirits, and it really looks as if Providence
designed that it should be settled. Still, I can hardly realize
it, and I do know that there must be a terrible fight over
it, for the opposition is very violent and active. " The lot
is cast into the lap, and the whole disposing thereof is of
the Lord." It is with Him, and He only knows how and
when it is to end. I do not want to be piitfed up about it.

CHARLES BUTLER. LL.D. 479

for if J am, I shall very likely be disappointed, and so it
is best to keep low, lie flat, and wait.

Indianapolis, January 1, 1846,
Thursday, 10 A. m.
My Dear Wife :

I had just taken up the act to settle the public debt of
Indiana, and to finish their great canal, for examination and
correction, but laid it aside, to devote the first business
moments this morning to you, and our dear children. The
day here is anything but a holiday. The Legislature sits,
the Joint Committe sits, as on any other day. It was the
intention to introduce the report of the committee and the
bill accompanying it, into the House to-day, as an auspicious
coincidence, — the beginning of the New Year and of a New
Era in the history of the State. God has wonderfully
blessed me and prospered my labors. Still, I do not count
on entire success. The time is too short for so great a work.
A wonderful change is coming over the people and public
sentiment is rolling in from every quarter in favor of the
settlement, on the plan last proposed by me, and the dema-
gogues are getting dreadfully frightened. My letter, I find,
meets the feelings of the people. They like it, and it is
interesting to read the comments of country papers on it.
Mr. Chapman, the Senator who has been so violent and
vindictive against me and the object, has been instructed,
by an overwhelming meeting of the Democrats in his town
and county, to support the bill, and they have rebuked him
terribly for his course. I received the paper yesterday con-
taining the proceedings and sent it to Mr. Palmer (England).
The editor came out in a very able article dead against
him. But I can hardly realize that we have entered on
another year. I hope you and our dear children are well
and enjoying the social pleasures and gratifications of this

480 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

day. It is a good custom, that of our city — a noble custom,
and worth a great deal — I feel it now and esteem its value.
May this year be one of renewed zeal and devotion to the
greatest, best and noblest of causes — the service of our Re-
deemer, to whom we are indebted for all our blessings, both
temporal and spiritual. The past year has been one of
extraordinary temporal mercies — health and life and every
needed blessing — ourselves, our children, and relatives, and
friends — all — all have been preserved and blessed. What a
year of mercies it has been.

I am anxious to hear from father and mother. How glad
I am that Walter is there to cheer and comfort them, and
Walter, I hope, is getting on with his business. I am
anxious he should, and say to him that I will help all I
can, and if I can settle the debt of Indiana, I shall hope to
be able to help him pay his, and help myself, too. But it
is a great business, this getting out of debt ; and if I had
not been very deep in and had a great deal of hmd-cast in
it (as the Dutchman said) I shouldn't have been at all
fitted for the work I am engaged in, so that every man is
prepared for his calling by his experience. My power here,
I find, is in my personal experience, which enables me to
hit the true chord of every man's heart on that subject.
Wish all my friends a Happy New Year for me. Kiss our
dear children, and wishing you all a Happy New Year and
commending you all to the care of God, I am.
Your affectionate husband,

Charles Butler.

P.S. — I now close my letter and go to the bill to finish
it. The bill and report will come in to-morrow, 2d of Jan-
uary, and then comes the tug of war. The time, I fear, is
too short to carry it.

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 481

Indianapolis, January 4, 1846.
I returned an hour since from the evening meeting, and
then took a walk for exercise. On my return to my room,
Governor Whitcomb came in, and has this moment left, so
that I shall write you very briefly to-night. Mr. Beccher
preached an admirable sermon, bearing on tlie great question
pending before the Legislature, to a full house containing a
large number of members. I was up till twelve last night
at work on the bill. It was reported yesterday to both
branches of the Legislature by the unanimous consent of the
committee. Still, I regard its final success as involved in
doubt. The Legislature has passed a resolution to adjourn
two weeks from to-morrow, and there does not seem to
me to be time enough to get so great a measure througli the
Legislature. And yet there may be. It is now the absorb-
ing topic with all parties. My only reliance is in the para-
mount moral obligation involved in the question, and the
discreet manner of pressing it. If the moral feeling be only
riglitly stimulated, the pecuniary relief will soon and cheer-
fully follow. It is not the mere question of dollars and
cents, nor have I ever so regarded it. If I had, I should
have failed, utterly, in awakening any interest. My labors
have been very great and my anxieties, corresponding to the
magnitude of the subject which I have had to grapple with.
Thus far, Providence seems to have wonderfully favored me,
and the people here cannot comprehend how it is that sucli
a commotion and change have been brought about. They
at first seemed to feel that it was useless to talk about it;
now they regard it as a most urgent subject and one that
may be disposed of notwithstanding the shortness of the
session. The intelligence from the country all around is very
favorable, as much so as I could possibly expect. My letter
has been extensively published by the little country papers

482 ^^^ UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

with very approbatory remarks. I have not seen one dis-
senting or complaining criticism on it.

This is the first Sabbath in the year, bnt I can liardly
realize it. I have had no holiday here and nothing to im-
press on me those reflections which the season ought to
inspire. On the contrary, I have been so driven as not to
find time to think at all. I feel that I have sustained great
loss in this respect, and the absence from home and its dear
ones at this time, is an occasion of real grief when I do think
at all, for which money cannot compensate. The conscious-
ness of doing good may. And I trust that the latter feeling
has been predominant with me since I got fairly embarked
in it. Looking around and seeing the great number of per-
sons interested, and the intense solicitude for the success of
my mission and their warm hearted encouragment, has changed
the whole motive power in my bosom. I feel that I am
working to accomplish a great moral object, dear to the
hearts and hopes of hundred of thousands, and affecting a
great State and its prosperity for all coming time. The object
seems to be a great and good one, and my heart is in it,
and God seems to regard it with favor, and why should He
not? Is it not the cause of the widow, and the fatherless
and the needy, thousands of them? I will send you the
memorial of the savings bank, which is one of the most beau-
tiful things of the kind I have ever read. It was drawn up
by Mr. Daniel Lord at my suggestion and transmitted to
the Governor.

VI.

The extraordinary character and pressure of his labor's,
especially " to keep my temper, the hardest work of
alV — Renomination of Governor Whitcomb. —
^^The ivar rages hotter and hotter.''^ — A Democratic

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 483

caucus called by the Governor. — In the House
only forty-jive cei^tain ; mud have fifty. — The
battle on. — He is charged with selling out the
jycople of Indiana, land and all, to the British bond-
holders.— The bill passed through the House by a
vote of 61 to 33, but will be killed he thinks, in the
Senate, — Amended at the last rnoment ; it is ordered
in the Senate to a third, by a vote of 31 to IS. —
The Governor taken very ill.

Indianapolis, January 9, 1846.
Friday evening, 1 1 : 30.
My Dear Wife :

I am almost fagged out with the excitement and labor of
the week, and cannot realize that it is Friday evening. I
console myself with the reflection that in a few days more
my work will be at an end, as the Legislature will have
closed its labors. A week from Monday next they adjourn.
My bill will probably come up to-morrow (Saturday). It
has been in the hands of a select committee for amendment,
and I have just closed my labors with them and agreed to
the amendments. I cannot give you any idea of my labors
here. They are greater than anything I ever before under-
took and more various. I have to talk with and see the
members, have to take care of the printers, superintend the
press, for I am printing a book on my own hook, attend on
committees, keep in with the Whigs and Democrats, counsel
and advise both parties, and all parties, and be all things, to
all men. Above all, I have to keep my temper, which is the
hardest work of all. My friends give me a great deal of
trouble about the bill, some of them ; they quarrel about the
details and kick out of the traces. I have had at least a
dozen serious flare ups, among its friends, on one point or
another, then I had to go to each one and reason with him

484 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

or get them all together, and make a speech to them. Some-
times one thing, and sometimes another. Yesterday the
Democrats held their convention, and to-day the Whigs.

Well, I have had to manage with the leaders of both to
get them to go right on the State debt, and last night I gave
up almost in despair at the result of the Democratic conven-
tion. They nominated Whitcomb again unanimously and by
acclamation, but quarelled about the resolutions and address
on the State debt. However, it passed off finally pretty well,
and this morning I waked up feeling that, on the whole, it
had done good. To-day the Whigs held their convention
and nominated, and took decided ground on the State debt,
by way of gaining on the Democrats, and to-night Whigs
and Democrats feel pretty strong on the subject and things
look better. Both parties are pledged to the proposition, and
my hope is that now the Legislature will act. Still, the time
is short and they are afraid, and I think the only form in
which it can be carried will be to agree that the act itself
shall be submitted to the people at the next election, to vote
on, law or no law. It is now precisely twelve and I go to
bed. These conventions have brought into the city a vast
number of country people and a great number are in the
hotel I am staying at, and have rendered it dreadfully un-
comfortable.

Saturday evening, January 10th.

My bill is set down for Monday certain, when the dis-
cussion comes on. The war rages hotter and hotter, one day
up, the other down. I am pressed to death with engage-
ments and only wonder that I can endure so much. The pros-
pect seems to be more favorable, but I regard the result as
altogether uncertain. Indeed, I have very little confidence
that the bill will pass, the time is so short and the difficul-
ties so great. One week from Monday the Legislature

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 485

adjourns. The weather is very fine indeed. The winter has
seemed no winter, it has been so moderate for a long time.
The roads have been bad but are now hard and smooth.
My health keeps good, and I rejoice that in one week more
all will be over, as far as this great measure is concerned.
My friends are in the highest state of anxiety and excite-
ment and can hardly keep their senses. I have just closed
a conference with the Democratic nominee for Lieutenant-
Governor, of two hours, and had a similar conference with
Governor Whitcomb to-day, of more than two hours, adjust-
ing proceedings. Now I have to go and look after my Whig
friends, and see how they stand. I never was quite in such
a fix as I am here. The country papers, with one or two
exceptions, speak out manfully, and I am encouraged by good
men of both parties.

Saturday, 10th January, 12 o'clock.
It is now exactly 12 o'clock, and Gov. Whitcomb has
this moment left me. He called a private caucus of the
Democratic Senators this evening, for the purpose of getting
them to agree to go as one man, for the Bill, and took very
decided, indeed very earnest and pressing ground, and told
them that he was committed for it, that it was a great and
honest measure, and one which the Democrats should go for
as a party. That he was willing to go to the stump on it,
and to peril his political fortunes on the issue, and wanted
his friends to take bold and decided ground, and go shoulder
to shoulder. That it was a question of simple honesty,
and they could not, as honest men, resist it ; they must go
for it. It had a very happy effect and some of the most
stubborn were melted down, and came in at once and agreed
to go for it. They finally agreed to have another meeting on
Monday evening, and my hope is that nearly all, if not all,
the Democratic senators will go in for it. The candidate

486 T^HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

for Lieut.-Governor is equally anxious, and will attend the
meeting on Monday evening and take the same ground. If
this movement succeeds, it will insure the passage of the
Bill next week. I have been all the evening engaged with
the Committee again on amendments, and have now settled
all so that on Monday the battle will come oif. But I will
not count on it. ^' Suffi,Gient unto the day is the evil thereof.''
I fear that I am placing too much reliance upon an arm of
flesh, and not enough upon an Almighty Arm. I ought to
see the hand of God in it all, and labor in dependence on
His blessing alone.

Sunday Evening, January 11th.
It is now precisely 12 again, and I . have this moment
parted from Gov. Whitcomb and Mr. Bright, with whom I
have been engaged the last hour. As in Revolutionary
times there are no Sabbaths, so it seems to be here in "debt
paying" times. I would not have you think that my Sab-
bath has been spent in the business, as this morning I went
to Mr. Gurley's, and this evening to Mr. Beecher's, and
after meeting went and spent an hour and a half with Mr.
Beecher and a friend, very pleasantly. The business is,
however, so pressing, and the time is so short, and the object
so great that the day has been spent by its friends and its
enemies in great activity, I understand. Gov. Whitcomb
and Mr. Bright work night and day, day in and day out ;
the Governor said he could not sleep at all, and as the
question may be decided to-morrow and must be next day
at the furthest, and the difficulties are so great, that it
demands the uttermost exertion from the friends of public
credit to carry it, the Governor called a caucus this evening
of all the opposing Democratic members of the House to
confer with them, and see if he couldn't get them to agree
to support it, and he and Mr. Bright discussed it all the

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 487

evening. The mectino; had ri good effect, but they are very
stubborn and the result is uncertain. They say it is proper
Sunday work, that it is lifting the ox out of the gutter.
To-morrow — I might say to-day, for it is now 20 minutes
after 12 — the question will be taken, probably to decide it.
I cannot but admire Gov. Whitcomb's decision and effort —
he has taken the only true ground. He is resolved that it
shall go, if any effort or influence of his can insure it, and
he is a host when he takes hold.

Monday Evening, 7 p. m.
I threw doAvn my pen this morning to go and see the
Governor. The day has been a busy one. The Bill was
put off till to-morrow 10 o^cIock, and referred back to the
Committee, and is now in my hands for amendments. It
will certainly come on to-morrow (13th); its fate is doubt-
ful. This evening the Governor has called all his Demo-
cratic friends together to a caucus to confer with them again,
and its fate will be sealed one way or the other. He and
Mr. Bright have just left me to go to the meeting. The
Governor seemed completely worn out and complained of
indisposition, and I sent out for a bottle of champagne for
him, and gave him a glass, which he said tasted good, and
revived him. I told him to take the bottle along to the
Capitol, which he did. You will laugh at this, I am sure,
I could n't help laughing myself. I shall in this campaign
lay up a fund to serve me for a life-time. It is the queerest
and still the greatest business I ever had on hand. It is a
regular set-to, and calls into exercise the most skillful tactics
and diplomacy. I think that the Governor, Mr. Bright and
myself make a strong team, still we may not be able to
carry it. We can only count on, as yet, forty-five certain
in the House ; we must have fifty. It is close counting, and

488 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

of course the result is uncertain. Gov. Whitcomb lias taken
the most manly and decided course throughout, and more
than sustained his pledges to me, and so has Mr. Bright.
I have no time to add more.

NoTA Bene. Keef all my letters from Aere carefully, as
part of my journal and memoranda.

Indianapolis, Monday night,
r2th January, 1846.

It is now half-past twelve, and Mr. Bright has just come
in from the Democratic caucus and reports that they have,
by a very large vote, decided on passing tlie bill, with a
proviso to submit it to the people to decide at the August
election, whether it shall be a law or not — the people to vote
directly for it. This course of the Democrats will ruin the
party, and put the bill in jeopardy, and devolves on me a
terrible responsibility. The question with me is, am I at
liberty to incur so great a risk as the loss of the entire
public debt by this course? Ought I not to withdraw my
proposal, and thus let the bill fall to the ground ? Suppose
the people should vote against it ; that would forever destroy
the hopes of the bond-holders ; and as the members of the
Legislature distrust the people, ought I not to distrust them ?
The great objection, that strikes my mind, is that it is im-
possible for the people in so short a time to make themselves
acquainted with the details of the bill, and they will quarrel
about the details.

" Through all the various shifting scenes,
Of life's mistaken ill or good,
Thy hand, 0 God, conducts unseen
The beautiful vicissitude."

Tuesday, 13th, 2 p. m.
The battle commenced this morning at ten, and is now
on. Have had six or seven speeches, pro and con. The dis-

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.P. 489

cussion is on tlio amendment to sul)mit it to the vote of the
people at the Auji^ust election. I cannot predict the fate of
the amendment; I hope it will not prevail. If it does, I
may feel constrained to withdraw my proposition altogether.
I dare not risk the loss of the whole.

7 P. M.

The battle is closed for to-day ; the Honse has just
adjourned. The vote on the amendment was taken and
rejected, 4^ io If-I. This weakening insures the passage of
the bill through the Honse to-morrow. The debate to-day
was very exciting, and some good speeches made on both
sides. Some very fine ones on our side, and some very bad
ones on the other side. The minority are very much excited,
and a violent effort will be made yet to defeat it, on its
final vote to-morrow. The time is very short and we may
lose it. I had made up my mind to withdraw the propo-
sition if they had added the amendment. I dared not take
the responsibility of the risk, involved in the submission, —
though it might be small. I have no time to add more, I
am too pressed to think. Kiss the children.

This has been a most exciting day, and yet I have been
cool. The ememy made a terrible assault on m(>, as the
representative of the British bondholders. One man said the
bill sold out the whole people, land and all, to the British.
The oldest gentleman in the House, Father Pennington, made
a most excellent speech in my defense, and vindicated me
from the attacks, in a very manly and gratifying manner.
I cannot give you any idea of the events of to-day.

Indianapolis, January 14, 1846.
7:15 p. M.
My Dear Wife :

After a most desperate battle all day, we closed this eve-
ning with a complete victory, 5G to 30. The question taken

490 '^HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

last evening was reconsidered to-day by a very large vote,
and the bill was in great danger, nnder a fnrious debate, till
6 P. M. when the vote was taken as above. At 3 p. m. I
had to make a further concession, which was thrown in at
the very crisis of its fate, and created a terrible commotion.
To-morrow, we shall have another fight, and a final one, and
then we have to go through the Senate. The Governor and
Mr. Bright and several others have just come in and my
room is thronged. My friends are in fine spirits, but I do
not yet count on success. The vote of last evening was rev-
olutionized so suddenly this morning, as to preclude certainty.
I have no time to write. Kiss the dear children.

January 15th.
The bill passed through the House to-day by a vote of
61 to 33, nearly 2 to 1, — after another furious onslaught on
me. The bill will be killed in the Senate, in spite of every
effort, l)y the unreasonable and absurd notions of some Sen-
ators, and the shameful conduct of others.

Indianapolis, Friday evening, 7 p. m.
16th of January, 1846.
My Dear Wife :

At the close of one of the most exciting and trying days
of my life, I am happy to say that the bill was ordered to
a third reading in the Senate this evening by a vote of 31
to 18. The debate was most violent and exciting, and the
conflict a long time doubtful. I had to yield to some amend-
ments again, which are, to some extent, objectionable, but
not fatal. The great question is settled. The bill is now,
I think, beyond danger. Will be concurred in by the House
to-morrow, and signed by the Governor on Monday, the last
day of the session. The Governor, by the way, was taken
very sick this morning in my room, and was obliged to go

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 491

to bed, and has been unable to leave since. Ho has been
removed this evening into an adjoining room, where he lies
very ill with a pleuritic attack. I verily believe that his
labors and anxieties for this measure have made him sick. .
I am almost sick myself with a severe cold which has come
within the last thirty-six hours, and just during the most
trying crisis of my business.

On Wednesday evening, the fight closed in the House,
and the bill was ordered to a third reading, and on coming
home I found your letter of the 6th, with Ogden's enclosed,
and also a good, long letter from Cornelia, giving me the
most gratifying news respecting father and mother. I thought
that I had too many mercies and favors heaped on me at
once. To know that you are all well, and to get letters so
frequently is most gratifying, and is a cordial under the
most trying burdens. Tell dear Emily that I hope she and
dear Anna are both good girls, and that I do want to see
them very much. There is a little orphan boy, about four
years old, in the house who comes up every day to see me.
He is a great favorite and loves me very much. He is a
generous little fellow. If he gets any candy or cake he is
sure to bring it to me and insist on my sharing it with him.
He is a noble hearted, manly little fellow. As for Ogdcn,
he gives me great comfort by his industry and progress. I
hope he will keep his heart right before his Maker, and be
sure to set a strict guard upon his tongue. Kiss the dear
children for me.

VII.

The final passage of the bill nearly prevented by a
characteristic demagogical pledge and trick of the
repudiators : an object lesson in subterranean
politics. — Another anti-bond paying trick met and

492 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

thwarted by a new concession in behalf of the
creditors. — The bill signed by Governor Whit-
combe while still lying very ill in bed. — Joy at
Terre Haute and all over the State at the passage of
the bill. — Henry Ward Beecher and 3fr. Gurley.

Indianapolis, 17th of January, 1846.
My labors have been crowned with complete success.
The public credit of Indiana is restored and her bond-holders
provided for. The progress of the measure, from its incep-
tion, has been wonderful and sure, but every step has been
contested inch by inch, and every possible measure has been
resorted to, to defeat it. The last and most desperate took
place on Thursday night, when 1 1 Senators met and entered
into a solemn pledge, in writing, with each other, that if
the question was forced on them, on the passage of the bill,
they would leave their seats in the Senate and break up a
quorum, and so defeat the bill. This pledge was signed by
11, taking in leading men in the Senate, chiefly Whigs. A
friend of the bill, an honorable Whig Senator, happened to
go into the room where the caucus had been held at a very
late hour, and just as it had broken up. Taking his seat
by the table, his eye, unwittingly, rested on the paper, which
had been signed and incautiously left on the table. He
seemed not to notice it, but read it over carefully with the
names, and when he retired from the room, immediately
committed to paper the substance of the pledge, with the
names of the Senators. While he sat near the table, and
after he had thus become possessed of the facts, Mr. Hollo-
way (the Senator in whose room it took place) noticed the
paper lying there, and slyly put out his hand and turned it
over, Mr. Coffin not seeming to notice it. The detection of
this conspiracy gave our friends a decided advantage; they

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 493

kept it strictly to themselves, and when the discussion came
on yesterday, they watched the movements of the conspirators
closely. The latter interposed every possible obstacle and
amendment, and bye and bye one of the leading Senators
got up and, in the course of his speech, alluded to the
combination which produced a great sensation. He was
called upon to give names, the principal parties being the
most vociferous. The Senator on the floor said the informa-
tion had been given to him confidentially by a Senator who
was within sound of his voice, and with Ms consent he
would give the names. Mr. Coffin immediately arose and
promptly cried out, ^^I am the hoy!"

Of course, this electrified the Senate and audience, and
he then told the story most inimitably and let the cat out
of the bag. Such a scene of confusion and excitement fol-
lowed as w^as both amusing and distressing. The object of
the exposition was to save those Senators who were really
honest and knew nothing of the desperate intentions of the
party, from being drawn into them, and this effect it had
and saved the bill. Every amendment was voted down,
and the bill passed by a vote of 31 to 18, and to-day by a
larger vote, 32 to 15, and one friend out. Another exciting
passage occurred on Thursday afternoon. Mr. Buel, a Icad-
ino- Senator in opposition, offered an amendment, requiring
one-half of all the bonds to be surrendered and cancelled
before the act should take effect. This amendment I w\as
unwilling to assent to as it came from the extreme left,
that is from the ultra-opponents of the bill, and the object
was, of course, to defeat it. This amendment was offered
to the Senate bill, which they had under discussion when
the House bill was reported. This last bill Avas then agreed
to be taken up yesterday morning, and when it came up
Mr. Buel offered what was stated and supposed to be the

494 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

mmc amendment, (it was not read) to the House bill.
The discussion on it was very warm, and I had, at the
instance of Mr. Bright, told Mr. Lane that he might agree
to the proposition of Mr. Buel, especially as it appeared
that it would satisfy nearly half the Senate and disarm
opposition. Mr. Lane had just risen to speak, as I had
whispered it to him, and he announced it. It was received
with a shout of applause and stamping and clapping of
hands, by the whole Senate, as a compromise.

The reading of Buel's amendment was then called for and
behold, on hearing it, I instantly said that it required not
half, but that every single bond should be surrendered before
the act should take eifect. It was so artfully drawn that a
superficial reading of it left the impression that only half
was required. This led to another scene of excitement, and
when Coffin exposed the caucus intrigue the history of this
amendment was unravelled. The enemies of the bill had all
rallied, on Buel's amendment, Thursday afternoon, and every
one of them said, " If you will only adopt that, we will go
for the bill," and when I finally assented on Friday fore-
noon, it was to catch all and take them at their word.
They found, it seemed, that the amendment offered on
Thursday afternoon did not go far enough to defeat the bill,
and the amendment offered yesterday was shaped accordingly.
It was handed to the clerk and not read, with a remark
that it was the same as had been previously offered. The
explanation helped us, and put the parties to shame. The
Senators who were in the secret, when Mr. Lane agreed to
adopt the substitute, were elated and shouted because they
thought they had trapped us, while the other part of the
Senate were elated because they received it as a compromise
and would secure harmony in the passage of the bill. The
error was corrected by a Senator, offering the very amend-

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 495

mcnt which had hecMi first proposed, and to which I sup-
posed 1 had agreed, and then these men (the leaders) all
turned around and hotly opposed it ! It rendered tliem so
ridiculous that they lost their strength, and though they
fought desperately to the last they were completely foiled.
There are a great many incidents connected with the progress
of the bill, equally exciting at the time, but it is impossible
to give any idea of them on paper. I rejoice that it is
over. Since I commenced writing a friend has come in to
inform me that the amendments have been concurred in by
the House with only two dissenting votes. Everybody is now
friendly to the bill. On Monday the Governor (who, by
the way, is very unwell and in bed yet) will put his
signature to it, and that will be the last act in the business,
and my mission will be closed. I cannot say yet when I
shall be able to leave. I have a great deal to do. Love to
all and kisses for the children.

Indianapolis, 19th of January, 1846.

My Dear Wife :

I am happy to say to you that the bill to redeem the
credit of Indiana and finish her great canal, has this day
received the signature of the Governor. He signed it in bed
in my presence, saying that it was one of the most gratify-
ing acts of his life. He is yet very sick and confined to his
bed, not being able to be removed to his own house. The
necessary tax bill, and all other needful bills to give effect
to the measure, have also passed. Thus my mission is ac-
complished, and God has smiled on me and on all my
endeavors. It has been the more remarkable because, as you
will see from my letters, I never counted a day ahead on
anything certain. Every day found and left me uncertain
as to the probable issue. I am sure now that the bill is

496 'rHE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

passed, tliough it seems like a dream. The friends of pulilic
credit are overjoyed. They are now taking leave of me.
I assnre you that I have become so attached to some of
these people, who have stood by me through thick and
thin, that I feel sorry to part with them. I feel as if with
them I have gone through a protracted scene of trial and
conflict. Adversity sweetens friendship and binds the tie
more closely. I shall never forget them and I am sure they
will not me, and if I should want to leave for the West I
should now find warm hearts and honest hands to give me
a welcome in Indiana. The people are warm hearted and
hospitable.

I cannot say yet when I shall leave. I am suffering
from severe cold and sore throat, and shall give myself up
to rest for a few days after the Legislature adjourns. They
hold on to-morrow in consequence of the Governor's sick-
ness, and then we shall be quiet enough. I have a great
deal to do to make up my report to the bondholders, which
I must do, before I leave.

Indianapolis, January 22, 1846.
The Governor is convalescent. I rode out with him this
p. M. By next week I hope that both of us will be well
enough to finish up our business. I cannot yet say when I
will leave. I have a great deal of hard labor yet to jier-
form, to prepare my report to my constituents. The feeling
about the bill is excellent. On receiving the intelligence of
its passage at Terre Haute, about eleven o'clock at night,
its friends fired cannon and illuminated, and the people came
together and they had a jubilee. Such will be the feeling
throughout the State ; at the same time, there will be a desper-
ate effort made to raise opposition to the bill. The politicians
are pondering what they shall do, especially the Whigs.

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 497

I liavc received a very complimentary letter, signed by
the leadiiio- nicml)er.s of the Legislature, and leading citiy.ens
of Indianapolis, to which I shall reply next week. To-
morrow will he my last day to write for the steamer of first
of February. I have kept up a very thorough correspon-
dence with Mr. King, having written him every day during
the whole session, and it has been no small job, I assure

you.

I have had an excellent assistant in Mr. Dodge, of Terra
Haute, a most estimable gentleman, who has been my secre-
tary, and is yet with me. His wife scolds a little at my
keeping him so long, but she is reconciled to it, as she
thinks he is engaged in a good work. Give my love to all.
Kiss the dear children.

Indianapolis, Feb'y 7, 1846.
Colonel Blake and the Governor are the only boys left
to keep me company. Everybody here is a hoy. A member
of the Legislature in speaking of it will say "the boys."
The Colonel is an old widower "boy" of 55, and the
Governor a bachelor "boy" of 48.

Sunday Evening, Feb'y 8.
This morning I heard Mr. Beecher on Luke 12:47:
And that servant which knew his Lord's will and prepared not
himself, neither did according to His will, shall be beaten with
many stripes. The subject ^vas the nature and eifect of mere
neglect upon moral character, and it was a very pungent,
solemn discourse. He is an extraordinary young man, highly
gifted as to talents, a remarkably fine speaker— eloquent,
indeed— a wonderful knowledge of human nature and a tact,
if I may so speak, of exhibiting it, which carries you along
irresistibly with him. He is an able reasoner, too. Old
Dr. Beecher more than lives in this son again. He seems

498 T^HE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

deeply exercised in his work and liis feelings are very
tender. Often his face is suffused with tears in prayer and
in preaching with the weight and pressure of his subject.
He touches the deepest chord of the human heart and wakes
you up powerfully. He is deservedly popular and draws
full houses. Mr. Gurley, from whose prayer-meeting I have
just come in, is also a most solemn preacher; always with-
out notes, but always methodical and logical. He, too, is a
fine young man. He is of the Old School. Mr. Beecher
is of the New School. I love them both and there is a
kind, Christian feeling among them. They work together
and so do all the churches here.*

Cincinnati, Sunday Evening, February 22, 1846.
I thought that in this business I was doing good and
promoting the welfare of a State and its hundreds of thous-
ands of people and of generations yet to come. The influence
of my operations is not limited to Indiana itself, but will
tell on the destiny of other States and the country at large.
The measure is not yet sufficiently estimated, nor, indeed,
can it be. A few years will develop its fruits and effects
more strikingly, and it will be regarded with admiration.

* The Eev. Henry Wakd Beecher was settled at Indianapolis as
pastor of the New School Presbyterian Church in 1839. He was then twenty-
six 3'ears old. In 1847 he was installed as pastor of the Plymouth Congrega-
tional Church in Brooklyn, N. Y., where his name and influence soon became
world-wide.

The Rev. Phineas Densmore Gurley, D.D., was a native of Hamilton,
N. Y. His father was a Quaker, though descended from Scotch Covenanters ;
his mother was a Methodist and he seemed to combine as an Old School
Presbyterian, the best qualities of all three. On the recommendation of "Old
Dr. Alexander," of Princeton, he was called to the Fii-st Presbyterian Church
in Indianapolis, being then in his twenty-fourth year. In 1854 he accepted a
call to Wasliington, where he labored with great success for many yfears. Mr.
Lincoln was one of his warmest friends and admirers. No better or truer
man could be found in the Presbyterian ministry of his day. He died in 1868.

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 499

IV.

MY EARLIEST ACQUAINTANCE WITH MR. BUTLER. HIS

INFLUENCE IN PROCURING THE FIRST ENDOWMENT
OF UNION SEMINARY. WHAT HE WAS TO THAT
INSTITUTION AND TO THE UNIVERSITY OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK.— EXTRACTS FROM DR. VIN-

CENT's MEMORIAL ADDRESS. DEATH OF HIS SON

OGDEN.

Mr. Butler's work at Detroit and Indianapolis at-
tracted wide attention and at once marked liim out as
a man of extraordinary wisdom and force of character.
This cannot, perhaps, be more clearly shown than by
referring to a meeting of the council, faculties and
friends of the University of the city of New York, held
on the evening of December 13, 1886, to commemorate
Mr. Butler's fifty years of service to the institution.
]\Ir. John E. Parsons, the eminent lawyer, delivered an
address on behalf of the council and faculties. In this
address Mr. Parsons thus alluded to Mr. Butler's
legal course :

As a lawyer you reached distinction among your com-
peers at a period from Avhicli there is scarcely a survivor in
active life ; you had the holders of the pubhc debt of
sovereign States for your clients, and gained early renown
in the settlement of legal and financial questions by which,
as the result of your ability, the rapid progress of those
States was promoted. In the development of the great
AVest, from hiohways and waterways to railways, you have
had a conspicuous part, and your statesmanship gave you

600 'THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

great j)ower in your constant purpose for the welfare of the
University. . . . An occasion like this is rare in human
history, still more unmatched for the promise your unbroken
energy gives us that you will continue to be wise in coun-
sels, and foremost among us in eiforts.

Soon after Mr. Butler's settlement in New York
another chapter in his remarkable career opened before
him — the chapter which records his invaluable services
to the cause of the higher education. These services
were rendered mainly in helping to found and build
up two great institutions of Christian culture and
learning, viz.: the University of the City of New York
and Union Theological Seminary. It was in connec-
tion with the latter institution that my own intimate
acquaintance with INIr. Butler may almost be said to
have begun. I first met him in the si)ring of 1851, on
my becoming pastor of the Mercer street Presbyterian
church, of which he was then a ruling elder. In
October of that year I made an api3eal to my people
for the immediate endowment of the Union Theologi-
cal Seminary. Mr. Butler seconded my appeal with
all his soul and strength. Early in 1852 he gave in
furtherance of this object a reception at his house in
14th Street. Many of New York's foremost citizens —
men of national reputation — were present on the occa-
sion. At this meeting — largely through Mr. Butler's
quiet but potent influence — it was resolved that an
effort should at once be made to raise $100,000 for the
endowment of the seminary. Speedy success crowned

CHARLES nrTLER, LL.D. 501

the effort. This was the beginning of the long succes-
sion of special efforts and benefactions by which the
institution has attained its present high position ; and
at every step of the progress Mr. Butler's devotion
only grew stronger and more helpful. A few extracts
from the address at his funeral by the Kev. Marvin K.
Vincent, D.D., one of his old pastors, will show how
abundant and faithful were his labors along not only
this but many other lines of humane and Christian
activity :

It has been truthfully said of Mr. Butler that a pro-
phetic instinct dominated all his acts, and that each act was
so conceived and so fulfilled as to insure increasing useful-
ness with the increasing lapse of years. This was manifest
in that work by which he is best known and by which he
will continue longest to be known— the promotion of liberal
education. It was not only that he desired to see literary
institutions established to meet immediate needs; it was
also that he was anxious to see these inaugurated on lines
which would admit of their expansion and ready adaptation
to future and larger needs. Work of this character has an
eternal quality which is wanting to material achievement.
The gray old obelisk looks down on the throngs in Central
Park to-day, as it looked down on the Egypt of the Pha-
raohs and of Moses ; yet in all the centuries in which it
has been toilsomely transported from city to city, it remains
only a stone, a huge, unproductive bulk, while the words
and the story of Moses whose burial place no man knoweth,
have wrought themselves as living forces into the life of
generations. By his labors, his counsels and his gifts in
the cause of education Mr. Butler has set in motion influ-

502 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

ences which are wrought into the society, the ideals, the
morals and the culture of this city and of this and other
lands, and which are asserting themselves with ever-growing
emphasis. These influences are deep-lying, silent, unrecog-
nized by the general public, but they are none the less real
and potent.

He was one of the earliest patrons of the New York
University, and became a member of its council six years
after its organization. He completed the fiftieth year of his
service in the council in December, 1886, and was its pres-
ident to the day of his death. During all those years, by
the example of his character, by his wisdom and energy,
and by his generous gift he helped to prepare the way for
that new and larger career upon which the institution has
entered, the beginnings of which he lived to witness and
rejoice in.

He Avas one of the founders of Union Theological Semi-
nary and was a member of the first Board of Directors, a
position which he continued to hold for the remainder of
his life. At the time of his death he had been the presi-
dent of the Board for twenty-seven years. I think that no
interest lay nearer to his heart than that of Union Semi-
nary. It was not only that he deeply felt the necessity of
such an institution, and thoroughly believed in the principles
for which it stood, but he had for it the affection which one
acquires for an object which he has helped to carry through
and struggle for. Through the first thirteen years of its
history, when its very existence was threatened by commer-
cial panic, when its treasury was empty, when its building
and library were mortgaged, and its instructors unpaid, he
was its steadfast friend and benefactor, never relaxing his
eiforts to free it from its embarrassments and to place it
upon a permanent basis. And after the peril was over, and

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 503

the success and prosperity apparently assured through the
baptism of fire wliich followed, he never flinched, never lent
an ear to lialf-way measures, never forsook the men whose
reputation and position were at stake, never dreamt of sur-
render, and never lost faith in the coming of that lirighter
morrow whose dawn lent its lustre and its joy to his last
days. Notwithstanding his advanced age he continued to
preside at the meetings of the board until less than two
years ago. He was always present at the annual alumni
meetings, and until the seminary commencement in May
last, he regularly appeared at the graduation exercises, and
presented their diplomas to the class, with either a formal
address to the entire body or a few appropriate words to
each graduate. For years it has been his custom to give
a reception to the senior class at his house, on some evening
shortly before their graduation, and to add to his elegant
hospitality words of ripe wisdom and fatherly counsel.

The reach and the fruit of work such as he has done
through these two institutions, it is not possible to compute.
It is not too much to say that if he had accomplished noth-
ing else, he would have richly served his day and generation.
When one thinks of the graduates of the University during
nearly seventy years, — of two full generations which have
struck out from that centre upon so many and such widely
diverging lines, and are represented in numerous positions
of honor and influence, — when one thinks of the hundreds
of men whom, in a period of sixty-one years. Union Semi-
nary has sent into pulpits from Maine to California, and
from Canada to the Gulf,— into teachers' chairs in colleges
and theological schools and academies, into mission fields in
Asia, Africa and America, — when one tries in vain to reckon
the rate at which their work multiplies itself in the interest
of religion and morals, of learning and culture, of social

504 ^^^ UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

order and social betterment — one may well thank God for
a man whom He has inspired and empowered to open
the fountain-heads of these streams, and count the man
himself blessed in having been the agent of such fruitful
ministries.

These are not all. It would be pleasant to speak of his
ministrations to the orphan, the friendless child, and to the
tiller of the soil; but there is not time for these. We
give the honor of these ministries of his where it is due ;
and that is not to mere natural kindness and generosity.

Conceding the most that can be claimed for his posses-
sion of these as natural traits, the natural traits were eleva-
ted, widened, intensified and guided by the spirit of that
gospel in the faith of which he lived and died. What he
was to other secular institutions, in his interest, and activity,
and efficiency, he was to the church. He was, if I am not
mistaken, one of the original members of that congregation
so notable in New York Presbyterianism, the congregation
of the old Mercer street Presbyterian Church, and he and
his family were among those Avho, in 1862, organized the
Church of the Covenant. His means, his counsel, his
labors were freely given to the church. He was an efficient
church officer, an attentive, reverent and appreciative hearer,
an affectionate and faithful friend to his pastors. The gen-
eral tone of his religious life was quiet and equable. His
faith was simple, and he had little interest in theological
subtleties. He was sorely chastened in the school of afflic-
tion, but he accepted the trials without murmuring, and
appropriated and bore them like a man of faith.

He was remarkable for his love of life. He lived in
readiness for death, which came very near him more than
once, but he had no desire to die, even at his great age.
He rejoiced in living almost up to the very last, and to a

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 505

degree which one rarely sees equalled he kept himself in
touch ^vith the world and with the current of events.

He had a pride in appearing at his post in the different
offices which he held ; many of us have seen him in his
official chair when most other men with his years and weak-
ness would have been in their beds. He delighted in the
society of his friends, and in dispensing the hospitalities of
his pleasant homes in the city and at Fox Meadow.

He was fond of books and of works of art, and num-
bered among his friends and guests some of the most
eminent literary men of England. He was always the
finished gentleman, not of mere polish of manner, but in
the shining of a genuine kindliness through his peaceful
dignity, and his fine courtesy was noticeable ev^en in his
intercourse with children. Yet with all his suavity and
peace and real heartiness, he was positive in conviction,
definite in opinion and tenacious of purpose, and a deter-
mined antagonist when his convictions were assailed.

One of the sore chastenings in the school of afflic-
tion, to which Professor Vincent alludes, was the death
of Ogden, his only son. Ogden Avas a graduate of the
University, very dear to his father, and full of promise.
Chiefly for his sake the splendid domain of Fox
Meadow had been j)urchased ; and some of its earliest
improvements were planned and started by him. How
well I recall the June morning in 1856, when, in
company with his uncle Franklin, I -went out to Fox
Meadow on a pastoral visit to this fine young man,
then on his death bed. Shortly after I tried to com-
fort the stricken parents and sisters as he lay upon his
bier in the old city home on Fourteenth street. It was

506 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

a very touching and impressive scene ; for in the large
company of mourning friends were William C. Bryant,
Samuel J. Tilden and a score more of the most eminent
citizens of New York. Even from beyond the sea
came tender messages of sympathy. Here is one sent
by Thomas Carlyle :

Alas, I can too well understand what a blank of utter
sorrow and desolation that sad loss must have left in your
household, and in the heart of everybody there. Your one
son, and such a son, cut off in the flower of liis days ; so
many high hopes for himself and others, suddenly abolished
forever ! It is hard for flesh and blood — and yet it must
be borne ; there is no relief from this ; and all wisdom of
all ages bids us say, " good is the will of the Lord," though
that is hard to do.

You do well not to slacken in your labors : to keep
doing so long as the day is, the duty of the day. I know
no other remedy so sure of ultimately helping in all sorrow
whatsoever. Let us work while it is called to-day. In a
very little while we too shall follow into the silent kingdom
the loved ones that have already gone ; and one divine
eternity will hold us all again, as God may have appointed
for them and for us. I will say no more on this sad sub-
ject; upon which you feel at present all speech to be
mostly only idle.

LETTERS FROM MR. FROUDE, GOLDWIN SMITH AND
THOMAS CARLYLE.

Mr. Butler Avent abroad repeatedly, both on business
and for recreation and pleasure. These visits to the

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 507

old world brought him into close acquaintance not only
with some of the most eminent European financiers
and capitalists hut also with leaders in society and
literature in London and on the continent. His
acquaintance with Mr. Carlyle in particular ripened
into a beautiful and lasting friendship. Their corres-
pondence with each other, while relating to business,
related also to higher interests and Avas full of expres-
sions of mutual esteem and affection. Mr. Butler
corresponded also with other noted men of letters
abroad, who had enjoyed his hospitality while visiting
this country. No one crossed his threshold without a
restful feeling. His hospitality, indeed, was almost
unique in its heartiness and good cheer. Froude,
Goldwin Smith, Charles Kingsley, Matthew Arnold,
Hon. Lyulph Stanley, Mr. Olyphant, the traveler.
Prof. Bruce of Scotland, and I know not how many
others all joined in praising it. In their letters to him
his hospitality is constantly referred to. Some of these
letters are very interesting and reflect a bright light
upon his own character. A good test, indeed, of a
man's quality is, often-times, the sort of letters written
to him by his friends. Certainly, this was the case
with Mr. Butler. A number of letters from Mr.
Froude have been preserved. I will give some passages,
expressive of his political sentiments and of his regard
for the American friend whom he esteemed above all
others. Here is the larger portion of a letter dated
No. 5 Onslow Gardens, January 1, 1892 :

508 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

My dear Mr. Butler :

This is the first letter which I write in the new year,
and I write it with peculiar pleasure to an old and honored
friend ; first to thank you for the pamphlets which you
have so kindly sent me, and then to wish you continued
peace and happiness in this fresh period on which we are
entering.

As to the pamphlets, I read them without the enthu-
siasm which I shoulcK-once perhaps have felt. The discus-
sions are the inevitable consequences of the eagerness of our
forefathers to make truth truer than it is, but I have lived
long enough to see with sadness how men rush along a new
course, imagining they can fix the limit to which they will
advance. The disintegration of an old established belief is
always demoralizing. Religious problems are insoluble to
the reason. The questions raised have no bottom either for
logic or speculation, and those generations are happiest
which inherit as a basis for morality a system of belief, like
a system of laws which the opinion of mankind forbids them
to take to pieces. Such systems no doubt will carry traces
in them of the imperfect knowledge of the age in which
they live. But a conviction of any kind which requires
and encourages morality and submission to our Maker is so
infinitely precious in itself, so hard to replace when broken
up, that wise men will bear with small defects sooner than
allow it to be disturbed. In the sixteenth century Catholic
Christianity had become so corrupt and deformed that the
reformation became an absolute necessity. It cannot
be said that the belief in the infallibility of the Bible was
doing similar harm, even if it is a pious mistake. I know
that I am stumbling over the root of a tree that I helped
to plant ; but many things are clear to me now \vhich I
could not see forty-five years ago. The severe piety of the

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 509

early Protestants could sweep away the faults and preserve
the more tenaciously the essential principles of religion.
But the temper no longer exists. Those who quarrel with
such points in the Bible go on to larger, and they or their
followers will continue till they reject its authority alto-
gether. The hardy and consistent go on to Atheism. The
timid fall back on the Roman Church. We have probably
centuries of spiritual anarchy before us before any fresh and
really pious conviction can grow up again.

You Americans are young and confident ; you are not
burdened with sentimental traditions. You are starting
fresh and may meet a new era, but the character of it I
expect will be something very unlike what broad church-
men affect to anticipate. I croak like an old man. You
are an old man too, and will understand me if you do not
sympathize. Anyway, these discussions are forced upon us
and will not now be checked till the natural issue is worked
out. It had to be and now it is come. You and I at
any rate will soon be out of it.

Here in England; and indeed in all Europe, the year closes
with universal uncertainty. The Great Powers are armed
to the teeth and any accident may set free the electricity.
Our own general election will be postponed if the govern-
ment can manage it, till July, but it may easily be forced
on by impatience and restlessness. There are many cross
currents under the surface. I conclude myself that Glad-
stone will return to office, and will try to carry his Home
Rule. Beyond that no one can venture a prediction. The
majority in England will still perhaps be against him. It
will be awkward and perhaps dangerous if England is to be
outvoted by Wales, Ireland and Scotland. The Peers will
resist, and who will prophesy what then may follow ! . . .
Prolonged life has many alleviations which when young we

510 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

did not anticipate. I should find it tolerable and even
pleasant but for the inseparable condition of the loss of our
friends. Most of my own old companions have now disap-
peared. The club is full of new faces which I do not
recognize. One forms fresh acquaintances, but cannot form
new friendships ; even one's own family shrink ; some dead,
some married. But the foolish anxieties and foolish ambi-
tions are gone also; and the future (in this world) draws
into so small a space that one ceases to worry oneself.
Time has nothing more to give. There is not much which
it can take away ; and thus there is a degree of tranquility
not possible in earlier years.

My Canada fellow subjects are anxious that I should go out
next summer and pay them a visit. If I do go, not the least
of the temptations will be the charm of seeing you once more.

The "pamphlets" sent to him by Mr. Butler related,
no doubt, to the fierce controversy about revision of the
Westminster symbols and the Higher Criticism, which
was then in full blast. On January 13, he wrote :

A few days ago I inflicted an unwarrantably long letter
on you in acknowledgment of those theological tracts. We
are worried here by the same controversies, which steal into
our houses and disturb the peace. . . . You say nothing
of your own condition, but your firm and vigorous hand
writing seems to show that age is dealing gently with you.
May a life so useful as yours be long continued. For my-
self 1 wish only to last as long as I can work. When I
can do no more I shall hope for my promotion. To the
change, whatever it may be, I can look with increasing
equanimity. Yours ever gratefully and truly,

J. A. Feoude.

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 511

Here is another characteristic letter, dated Decem-
ber 7, 1892 :

My Dear Mr. Butler :

When the cask of apples arrived yesterday from America
it set me speculating which of my kind friends thus had
been so kindly thinking of me. Your letter tells me that
I owe it to the one among them all by whom it is most
gratifying to me to be remembered. There is a protracted
enjoyment of such a gift as this which makes the giver
continually present. All this pleasant Christmas season we
shall have you constantly before our minds here. But
indeed to me the valuable part of such things is the sense
that I am not forgotten by those whose good opinion is
precious to me. Let me add to this, that I, as a Devon-
shire born and bred, profess to be a judge of apples and
find these particularly excellent.

There is much that is interesting in what is going on on
both sides of the Atlantic. You have had your Presiden-
tial election and we have our eternal Irish scandal. We
could extinguish it all with a stamp of the foot, and I sup-
pose in the end it will come to that. But our own record
is not clear. We are ashamed of our past neglect ; we are
not at all sure that we should do any better if we had it
all in our hands again to do as we pleased. We are
paralyzed by party government. Whatever one side pro-
poses the other opposes ; and so we go on, and shall go on,
making ourselves a laughing stock to Europe, and forfeiting
influence we ought to be exercising, till the situation
becomes unbearable.

My two short books about the colonies, "Oceana," and
"The Bow of Ulysses," have been a good deal read, and
perhaps have had some influence. But as far as our West

512 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Indies arc concerned, I sliould be heartily glad to hear that
there was a likelihood of your taking charge of them. For
I see no other hope of their escaping a relapse into barbar-
ism. When I plead with Cabinet ministers to give them
an effective government they tell me that it is impossible
in the immediate neighborhood of the United States.
Americans will insist on their having her Constitution under
which the black multitude must rule. In vain I say that
there are probably not a dozen Americans alive who care
the toss of a sixpence about it, and that those who do care
wish only to see the islands well and wisely managed. It
is all in vain. Their only chance lies in your taking them
and you are too prudent to do anything of the sort.

I hope I may see you again in this world, my dear Mr.
Butler. You will hardly cross the Atlantic again yourself;
but I always feel so much refreshed by a stay in New York
(unless I catch cold as I did the last time) that I think I
shall run over myself when I can find leisure. I trust it
may be so, and when I do I shall find you well and strong,
and enjoying the well-earned rest of the seventh day of
your life. Till then believe me.

Warmly and gratefully yours,

J. A. Froude.

Here are some sentences from his last letter :

Constitutional Government in England itself is at stake.
When the mass of our people are made to see that the
Liberal policy means disintegration of the Empire, there
will be a wild and final, and probably uncontrollable reac-
tion. The Conservatives are no wiser than their antagonists.
Carlyle alone in my opinion really understood the signs of
the present times.

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 513

You will be sorry to hoar that my dear friend .John
Ruskin is very ill. He is a man of true genius, the most
(j'tjkd perhaps of all his contemporaries. He started in life
an only son, heir of a large fortune with splendid talents.
At twenty-five he had made a European reputation. His
life has been spotlessly pure. He has been generous to ex-
cess, nobly disinterested in thought and action. Yet few
men have been more unhappy. His home has been deso-
late. He has instructed and delighted millions ; and his
own portion has been dust and ashes.

But I must not end in this melancholy tone. The sun-
light will come around again, and the good seed which has
been sown will then spring up and make itself seen. If it
is dark here, there is light yonder in the American Goshen.
May you live long and enjoy it.

Another of Mr. Butler's English friends and cor-
respondents, held by him in the highest esteem, still
survives ; and yet I cannot help giving here jiart of a
letter, in which he expressed his feeling about our
Civil War and the issues and interests involved in it.
I refer to one of the very few eminent Englishmen,
who were strong champions of the Union in that awful
struggle, GoLDwiN Smith. The letter is dated Ox-
ford, April 23, 1865 :

I need hardly tell you with what joy the tidings of these
days have filled the hearts of all friends of the Union and
of Freedom here. I thank God for this great deliverance
of humanity, the greatest since the defeat of the Armada.
At last, after four years of agony, it is decided that the hopes
of man shall not die but live.

514 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

And now, the Civil War is over, and American blood will
be shed by American hands no more. I should often have
been a weak counsellor, if it had been my part to say
whether the carnage, the suffering and the mourning shall go
on. May the wounds of your nation be quickly and com-
pletely healed ; may it now enter into a solid and enduring
peace; may its sacrifices be repaid tenfold by the prosperity
of the opening future — a prosperity pure and clear, untainted
by complicity with evil, darkened by no shadow of impend-
ing retribution.

That you will be merciful and more than merciful to the
vanquished — that conquest will be swallowed up in recon-
ciliation— that your free institutions will be justified before
the world not only by their military but by their moral
results. — I know not only from the language of your people,
which I am sure came from their hearts, but from their
treatment of the captured enemies whom I saw in their
hands. Your rulers in the midst of triumph, speak of peace
and moderation ; and their words shake the old stronghold
of Feudalism here more than the thunder of victory.

Already England begins to feel the effect of your success.
Already the Liberal party, half dead three years ago, feels
the current of a new life in its veins. We, as well as you,
shall date a new era from Gettysburg. It is the most
glorious and beneficent victory ever gained in war. Only
let us nor forget, while we thank Divine Goodness for it
that the most glorious and beneficent victories of all have
been won not in that but in peace. A long train of such
victories, I trust, awaits your nation now.

Mr. Butler's correspondence with Carlyle in partic-
ular is altogether charming. It were not easy to
decide which of the two it presents in the most attrac-

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 615

tive light, the sage of Chelsea or the New York man
of business. Mr. Carlyle's letters are very character-
istic of him in some of his strong and finest points. I
cannot resist the temptation to add to the interest of
this sketch by making a few of them a part of it. The
allusions to money matters tell their own story and
need no comment.

5 Cheyne Row, Chelsea, London,
January 17, 1854.
My Dear Sir:

Your very obliging letter came in due course of post, but
except a silent record of thanks for your goodness, I was
not at that time able to do anything with it. I had been
called into Scotland ; my dear and excellent old mother was
passing away from me by the road we have all to go : —
that unforgetable event took place on Christmas day ; and
ever since, there as here, I have been occupied as you may
fancy. It was not till yesterday that I could get a proper
copy of the Illinois bond ; and to-day I hasten to send you
the original, that you may dispose of it for me, according to
your kind purposes, in the way you judge most advantageous.

The copy, so far as I can examine, is exact to the origi-
nal now sent: Bond for $1,000. State of Illinois, No. 324
with thirty-warrants of interest of $30 each, attached to it,
the first dated July, 1843, the last, July, 1860, by means of
which, I suppose, the original could be replaced, should any
accident happen to it.

As to management of the affair, I have only to say that
the money is not at all wanted here at present ; and that I
will leave the matter wholly to your skill and friendliness,
well aware that there can be no course nearly so good for
me and it. Had I once got notice from you that the bond

516 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

has arrived safe, I shall dismiss it from the list of my anx-
ieties, and wait with very great composure indeed for what
issue you will educe from it. So enough on that subject.

Miss B has gone away from us — soon after you went — to
St. Albans, the great Chancellor Bacon's place : there we sup-
pose her to be elaborating the Shakspeare discovery ! but
have heard almost nothing since, and have seen absolutely
nothing. The painter whom my wife spoke of has at length,
I believe, actually got to sea, and will probably be in New
York the week before this arrives : he has a note to Miss
Lynch and you from my wife ; and as he is both a really
superior artist, and a very honest, modest, kindly and inter-
esting man, we doubt not you will be good to him as
opportunity offers. A lively remembrance of that pleasant
evening survives here, too; it is not always that one falls
in with human figures of that kind either from our side of
the water or from yours ! I beg many kind and respectful
regards to Miss Lynch, whom I shall long remember.

And so adieu for this time,

Yours sincerely,

T. Caelyle.

Chelsea, London, 3rd March, 1854.
My Dear Sir:

A week ago I received your kind and pleasant letter,
intimating to me, among other welcome things, that you
had received the Illinois Bond safe, and would, as your
beneficent purpose had been, take charge of it in due busi-
ness form, which is all right and a real favor done me;
which in fact, as it were, absolves my lazy mind from any
farther thought or trouble about that matter; there being
evidently nothing half so good I could have done with it,
and therefore in the meanwhile, nothing further whatever

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 517

that I have to do Avitli it. With many sincere thanks, let
it so stand therefore ! I have only to add that the 3
coupons you inquire about are quite gone beyond my reach
or inquiry. I suppose them to have been given off for 3
installments of interest, which were, (as I can remember)
paid to me in regular succession, long years ago, when a
worthy friend, a merchant in the city, now deceased, had
charge of the Bond for me ; if that was not their fate, I
cannot form a guess about it ; but in any case, they are to
be held, these 3 coupons, as extinct for us, and finally
gone. And this is now all I have to say upon the Illinois
Bond. Requesting you only not to bother yourself with it,
beyond what comes quite in your way in the current of far
wider operations, I will leave that rather memorable Docu-
ment now at length well lodged in your repositories, and
dismiss it again quite into the background of my own
rememberances.

We are struck with a glad surprise to hear you have
been so supremely hospitable to our voyaging painter. To
snatch him, the thin-skinned, sea-worn man, from tlie horrors
of a stranger hotel or boarding-house, and bid him come
and rest in safety, under soft covers and protection, in the
house of a human friend ; this is indeed a high and fine
procedure ; but it is far beyond what is demanded or ex-
pected in these later unheroic ages ! I can only say we
find a beautiful " politeness of the old school " in all this,
and in the way all this is spoken of and done ; and do very
much thank Miss Lynch and yourself for all your kind-
nesses ; and shall (if we be Avise) silently regard the
existence of such a temper of mind, thousands of miles
away from us, as a real possession in this world.

Miss B. sends no sign whatever from St. Albans ; we
suppose her to be, day and night, strenuously wrestling

518 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

down in lier own peculiar way, that monstrous problem she
has got ; poor lady, I really wish I heard of her safe home
again, and well out of it, on any terms. Your Minister
here has done a notable thing the other day : entertained,
or rather been partner while the Consul entertained,) the
6 or 5 select pearls of European Revolutionism, Kossuth,
Ledru-Rollin, Mazzini, Garibaldi, etc., I do believe the
most condensed Elixir of modern Anarchy that could have
well been got together round any earthly dinner table, which
has caused a preceptible degree of laughter, commentary and
censure in certain circles ; now pretty much fallen silent again.
Undoubtedly a diplomatic mistake (in a small way) on the
part of Mr. B.; which, however, it is expected he will amply
redeem by and by.

Adieu my dear sir ; with many kind regards, from both of
us, to both of you, I remain,

Yours always truly,

T. Carlyle.

Chelsea, London, May 28, 1854.
My Dear Sir:

It must be at once admitted, and ought to be always
gratefully remembered, you have stood a real father to that
poor down-broken bond ; and have set it up triumphantly,
with victorious kindness, on such a footing as it never had
before ! I think (so far as vague recollection serves), it bears
now almost the value, and yields about twice the interest
that was originally attached to it, which is a result valuable
to me, in more ways than one. The money is worth some-
thing in this ever-hungry world ; and as to the transaction
which the money now comes from, that is one with a value
in it higher, probably, than any money. I may long recol-
lect that pleasant brief evening, and the chivalrous proce-
dure that has arisen out of it.

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 519

By all means, leave the document where it is, if you will
still be so kind as to trouble yourself with the keeping of
it. If you continue to think the investment safe, I may send
you some more in the course of years ; the interest, in August
or any time, will find uses for itself here. And so, with
many thanks, let the matter lie arranged.

We are in our usual state here, little different from what
you saw, excei)t that I am dreadfully overwhelmed this long
while with an ill-fated Prussian enterprise in the Book way,
the ugliest I ever undertook, and the most thankless and
hopeless, in which, except the unwillingness to be flatly
beaten in one's old days, there is no adequate motive to per-
severe. This is really a sore job, and I have often fallen
nearly desperate upon it. One needs " the obstinacy of ten
mules," as I sometimes say, " in this world." However, I
now do begin, in cheerful moments, to see promises of day-
light here and there through the abominable black dust-
whirlwind where my dwelling has so long been ; and expect
to get out of it alive after all, doing a bad Book, the best I
can, since a good one is not possible in the case.

Of Miss B., I am sorry to report that I know absolutely
nothing for many months past, perhaps above a year, when
she made her last visit here, and promised to come back
soon, but never came. She lives about four miles from us
(in a street leading oif Hyde Park Gardens, towards the
Paddington region, at least there she did live, when 1 called
long since and found her gone out). I am so held to the
grinding-stone, I never, by any chance, get away to such dis-
tances, and indeed, hardly make visits at all, this long while.
I have often asked myself, and ask all American friends,
what poor Miss B. is about? but nobody knew her, nobody
can tell. Her very address I have now lost; could find the
place, I think, from the physiognomy of the street, were I

520 'rHE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

there in person, and from some recollections of " twelve " as
being the number of the house. Poor lady ! I fear she is in
a very abstruse condition ; engaged in an enterprise which is
totally without rational basis, and getting more and more
exasperated that she does not (as she cannot by possibility)
succeed in it.

Laurence need not write to me 'till his demon fairly bids
him ; I am satisfied to hear of his prospering so among you ;
for which, I doubt not, the good, meritorious man is thank-
ful. Such " hospitality " — I have often thought of it with
loyal wonder; it is like the hospitality of the heroic ages,
and rebukes common mankind of our day !

My wife joins with me in kind regards to Miss Lynch
(among others of the Chelsea party of that evening) whom
I very well remember, and still like. My notion is the Sar-
dinian professor may have done an extremely wise thing, in
staying where he was on those terms. Easily go farther and
fare worse.

What a narrow providential miss of the uttermost calamity
was that of you and yours. *

We do well to recognise such things as mercies of a Spe-
cial Power that has pity on us. Great pity withal is shown
us in this universe, where so much rage and cruelty also
are — the soil of it only getting arable by little and little.
Accept our united regards. I remain always,

Yours sincerely,
(Signed) T. Carlyle.

The last letter of Mr. Carlyle in regard to matters

* They liad taken passage on the ill-fated Arctic and, at the last mo-
ment, were led by an unexpected incident to give up their staterooms and
await the next steamer.

CHARLES BUTLER. LL.D. 521

of business was preceded by one from his brother
John. I give them both :

5 Cheyne Row, Chelsea, May 6, 1868.

My Dear Sir:

Last week before leaving Dumfries I wrote to you, ac-
knowledging receipt of your letter of the fourteenth of April,
with notarial packages of eighteen bonds, for one thousand
dollars each which up to that date you had purchased for
Thomas Carlyle, my brother. These bonds are now lodged
in his name at Dumfries in the British Linen Company's
Bank. And since my arrival here I have got your second
letter of April twenty-first, with notarial certificate (copy) of
statement of account up to that time, and bill for £34, 8s. 6p.
which balances it finally and which I have had paid to my
brother's London banker. The statement is quite clear to
me and corresponds with all earlier ones. I enclose that of
August, 1865 (4), signed by you and declaring what bonds
you had in trust at that time; and if there be any later
declaration of the sort at Dumfries, I will have it cancelled

at once.

I need hardly say that my brother feels extremely obliged
for all your kindness and work on his behalf through so
long a series of years. I find him looking at least as well
as last year, and he is occupied at present in preparing for
a new library edition of all his works. It will be a useful
and not too severe occupation for him in the coming month.
He may, perhaps, add a post-script to this, though to-day he
is entano-led with preliminaries for settling with printers as
to the forms of that edition.

I remain.

Most sincerely yours,

J. A. Carlyle.

522 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Chelsea, May 6, 1868.
Dear Sir :

I cannot let my brother despatch this final document,
and altogether satisfactory closure of the aifairs, there have
been between us, without testifying in my own words what
a pleasant and grateful feeling I have now, and aU along
have had, for the whole of your conduct, from first to last,
in regard to all that. I was a stranger, and I felt that you
took me up as a friend ; and, sure enough, you have through-
out acted conspiciously in that character ; caring for my in-
terests with a constant loyalty, sagacity and punctuality, as
if they had been your own ; manifesting at all times the
qualities of a perfect man of business, and of an altogether
singularly generous, faithful and courteous benefactor: — in
short, making good nobly, in all points, the reading we took
of you here, that evening, long years ago, when, alas, it was
still "we," not as now only one, who could recognize good
men and love them !

Words of thanks are of little use, but it is certain I shall
all my days remember you with gratitude, with honest satis-
faction, and even a kind of pride, which will or may, whether
talked of or not, be a real possession to us both. I do not
yet renounce the hope of seeing you again this side the sea.
Meanwhile, I enclose (by same mail) a little bundle of new
photographs, which may gain a few glances from your lady-
kind on an evening, and occasionally bring me to mind.
May all good be with you and yours, dear sir. I remain
yours with lasting esteem and good will,

T. Carlyle.

The reader may like to see the original letter.
Here is a facsimile of it :

- ^^^^v ^^ X^x'^'^-^- '^-^-^a^^'^^ >^<^t^<^ ^T

Vw^ -. tt<.^ ^Li, «,^ ^ >vt<c «*v '. ^t -r ^

'■V

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 525

VI.

HIS HOME. DEATH OF HIS YOUNGEST DAUGHTEK AND OF

MKS. I5UTLE11. HIS LAST YEAKS. FOX-MEADOW.

A PICTURE OF HIM THERE AS DRAWN BY AN

OLD FRIEND. TRIBUTE OF THE BOARD OF DIREC-
TORS AND FACULTY OF THE UNION THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY.

Mr. Butler's home, both to its own members and to
the stranger within his gates, was full of light and
sweetness. All who were privileged to sojourn under
his roof, whether for days, or for weeks and months,
felt and said so. In the letters from Detroit and
Indianai^olis, written late at night, under the pressure
of distracting cares and responsibility, one gets constant
glimpses of the ever-thoughtful, devoted husband and
father. And in the whole tone and character of these
same letters, I may add, one gets glimpses also of the
Christian wife and mother not less striking and attrac-
tive. The only son passed away in 1856, a score of
years later followed the youngest daughter, and shortly
after the mother herself; but the elder daughter was
still spared to be her father's companion, staff and
comforter during the rest of his long j)ilgrimage. A
large circle also of loving nephews and nieces with
their children and children's children grew up about
him and helped to cheer his old age. When they all
came together to celebrate one of " Uncle Charles' "
birthdays, after he had passed into the nineties, and

526 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

the time of his departure drew near, the sight was
most pleasing and beautifuL Of Mr. Butler's hospital-
ity I have spoken already. In the later years of his
life a visit in the summer or fall to Fox Meadow was
a special benediction. It was as if you were holding
converse with one of the patriarchs sitting at the
door of his tent and rehearsing the wonderful works
of the Lord. How many delightful memories are
associated with that summer home, its green meadows,
its walks and drives through the fine old forest trees
and along the rippling brooks !

Here is a pen picture of the scene, the place and
the man so truthful that I cannot help giving it as a
fitting close of this sketch. It was written by Col.
William E. McLean, of Terre Haute, Indiana, some
two years before the death of Mr. Butler :

Many of our older citizens will be pleased to learn that
Mr. Charles Butler, the kind and courtly old gentleman,
who, more than a quarter of a century ago, used to pay his
semi-annual visits to Terre Haute, in discharge of his duties
as chairman of the board of trustees of the Wabash and
Erie canal, is still living, in quiet and dignified retirement,
at his princely country residence, near the Hudson, some
sixteen miles above New York. During a recent visit East,
the writer called upon him, was most pleasantly received,
and delightfully entertained as a citizen of Terre Haute.

Mr. Butler remembered with lively interest our earlier
citizenship, many of whose acquaintance he made more than
fifty years ago. He recalled the fact that all the men most
intimately associated with him in the enterprise of the

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 527

construction and management of that great work have gone
to tlieir final reward. Colonel Thomas H. Blake, Colonel
Thomas Dowling, Jessie L. Williams, of Ft. Wayne, William
J. Ball, Jacob H. Hager and others. He inquired very
pleasantly of Colonel Thompson, Mr. McKeen, Harry Ross,
the family of his old friend W^illiam J. Ball whom he
esteemed most highly, and many others, surprising me by
the accuracy of his memory and the interest he still takes
in his old acquaintance of the Wabash. The day following
he did me the honor to call at a neighbor's — a gentleman
who was formerly a prominent young citizen of this city,
whom I was visiting — and presented me with his photograph,
a striking likeness, upon the reverse side of which he had
written, in clear and excellent hand, betraying no sign of^
age, "With regards of Mr. Charles Butler, Fox Meadow,
June 15, 1895." Upon the face of the photograph, which
would be easily recognized by any of his former acquaintances,
he had written "Charles Butler, February 15, 1895. Born
February 15, 1802." Although past his 93d year, Mr.
Butler is exceedingly well preserved for his years, enjoys
greatly the society of his friends, and, in every respect, is a
typical and cultured gentleman of the old school, one who
has eminently known how to grow old, demonstrating the
truth of the proverb that no old age is agreeable but that of
a wise man.

He was surprised to be informed that Terre Haute now
boasts a population of more than 40,000, and recalled his
early visits to our straggling little settlement as it existed
in the days of the tallow dip and the lumbering old stage
coach, when it required two long weary weeks to make the
trip from New York to the primitive hamlet on the Wabash.

Although never a citizen of Indiana, no man played a
more important part in its early financial history than did ,

528 ^^^ UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Mr. Charles Butler. A gentleman of the highest character
for business ability and integrity, recognized as such both in
Europe and this country, he became the American represent-
ative of the foreign holders of our bonds — the agent of
Indiana's early creditors from 1840 to the final settlement
of the affairs of the old Wabash and Erie canal. He
discharged the duties of that great trust, difficult and delicate
as they were, in a manner satisfactory to his principals and
in a way that should have won him the everlasting gratitude
of the people of Indiana. No one not gifted with the ken
of prophecy, could have predicted that the construction of
the canal would so soon be rendered practically worthless
by the great railroad systems which were to spring into life
almost before the last shovel of dirt was thrown upon its
banks. Mr. Butler secured the passage after much labor
and serious opposition, by the legislature of 1846, of the
so-called " Butler Bill," by the provisions of which measure
the State surrendered to her bond-holders all her interest in
the canal, then unfinished and uncompleted, in consideration
of the cancellation of several millions of her bonds, thus
lifting from the shoulders of our people a load of indebtedness
which, at that time they had found too great to bear. The
" Butler Bill " preserved the credit and character of the
State unimpared. In the end it proved a splendid contract
for the State, but a hard one for the creditors. No human
foresight could have predicted that the canal would go so
quickly into "innocuous desuetude." The condition of the
State at the time of the passage of the " Butler Bill " was
truly critical. There had been borrowed by the State for
internal improvement purposes, including the amount expended
in the practical construction of the Wabash and Erie canal,
more than |4,000,000, upon which the State, then a mere
frontier State, with all her grand resources not only

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 529

undeveloped and nnavailable, bnt really not dreamed of, was
paying an unusnal interest of 5 per eent., which of itself
was an unbearable burden. Governor Wallace, in a message
to the legislature some years before the passage of the
"Butler Bill," in describing the financial condition then
existing in the State, said : " The truth is, and it would be
folly to conceal it, we have our hands full, full to over-
flowing, to sustain ourselves, to preserve the credit and
character of the State, we have not an hour of time, nor
a dollar of money, nor a hand employed in labor to
squander and dissipate upon objects of idleness, or taste or
amusement."

Mr. Butler talks entertainingly of Indiana's prominent
law-makers and politicians who figured in the old days of
1846. Governor Whitcomb, Oliver H. Smith, Caleb B.
Smith, Colonel Thompson, Joseph J. Jernegan, Mr. James
Farregan and others. Men of that marked individuality of
character which stamped their impress upon our early legisla-
tion. To-day one of New York's best known philanthropists,
his life redolent with good deeds, entrenched in old and
congenial friendships, respected and honored by all who
know him, he is still treading, wath confident and cheerful
steps, the brightening paths of duty. His friends, those who
know him best, will bear testimony, that were every soul as
free from guile as his has been, the world would be fairer
to live in and heaven more easily attained.

The following minute, prepared by President Hast-
ings, expresses the sentiment with which the Faculty
and Board of Directors of the Union Theological Semi-
nary regarded the departure to the " better country "
of this eminently wise and good man :

530 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

MINUTE OF THE DIRECTORY OF UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMI-
NARY IN REGARD TO CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D.

With sad hearts we record the death of the venerable
and beloved President of this Board, Charles Butler, LL.D.,
who was taken from us on the morning of December 13,
1897. This event makes an epoch of the sixty-second year
in the history of our Seminary, for Mr. Butler was the last
of the twenty-four "Founders," who in 1836 constituted
the first Board of Directors. Now all the names of the
Founders are among the starred, and yet they shall ever be
cherished here with veneration and affection by those who
guard well this institution as the great monument to their
memory.

We had hoped that our friend might live to celebrate
his ninety-sixth birthday on the 15th of February, but that
was not to be. During the first thirty-four years of our
history this board had four Presidents, the Rev. Thomas
McAuley, D.D., LL.D.; Richard Townley Haines ; the Rev.
Samuel Hanson Cox, D.D., LL.D., and Richard Townley
Haines. In 1870 Mr. Butler was elected to this responsible
position, which he has filled for twenty-seven years with so
much wisdom and grace. We are devoutly grateful for the
length of his service, but still more grateful for the character
and quality of his service. He had rare sagacity, poise and
balance, with inimitable grace and dignity as a presiding
officer. His commanding presence was also and always an
attractive presence. His fine countenance lighted by his
beautiful faith and love, wore a peculiar radiance which was
at once a doxology and a benediction. We loved him as
much as we revered him. His mind and heart was full of
the liveliest interest in all that pertained to the life and
growth of this institution, to which he gave' most liberally
of his time and strength and means. He generously endowed

CHARLES BUTLER, LL.D. 531

the Edward Robinson Professorship of Biblical Theology
intending it to be a monument to his honored friend whose
name it bears, but it will be his own monument also.

It was wonderful in his old age to see how clear and
how comprehensive his mind continued to be even unto the
last. During the recent serious and protracted controversy
growing out of our relation to the General Assembly, the
finest qualities of Mr. Butler's character were conspicuously
revealed. In all the trying conferences with the General
Assembly's Committee he commanded in a marked degree
the respect and admiration of the members of that Committee
by the dignity, calmness and graciousness with which he
presided over the protracted deliberations. In him with a
noble courage and an unflinching resolution there were
combined such gentleness and courtesy as to command the
reverence even of those who differed most with him. His
serene and charming spirit thus rendered admirable service
to this board throughout the period of its severest trial.

But no words of ours can do justice to our appreciation
of the personality, the character, and the service of our
departed friend. His memory for many years to come, will
be fragrant to the members of this Board, to the Faculty
and to the Alumni, so many of whom have known him in
the refined and generous hospitalities of his home.

We give him joy that he has entered the gates of the
Eternal City, where he has been welcomed to the blessed
fellowship of many who had loved him here and who have
long watched and waited for him there.

In concluding this tribute of reverent affection we desire
to express our deep gratitude and our profound sympathy to
his noble daughter who has ministered with such tender and
beautiful devotion to her father and our friend.

APPENDIX. 533

Hppenbix*

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EDWARD ROBINSON CHAIR OF
BIBLICAL THEOLOGY.

At the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Union Theological Seminary in the city of New York, held
November 11, 1890, the following preamble and resolution
were adopted by a unanimous vote :

Whereas, The Honorable Charles Butler, LL.D., president of the
Board of Directors of this seminary, has made provision for a permanent fund
for the purpose of establishing and endowing a chair in this seminary, to be
called the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology :

Now THEREFORE, Resolved, That a new professorship shall be and is
hereby created, which shall be called the " Edward Robinson Chair of Bibli-
cal Theology" ; that the income of the endowment of one hundred thousand
dollars given to this seminary by the said Charles Butler in the manner men-
tioned in his bond, dated April 15, 1890, shall be applied solely to the support
of the chair, according to the provisions of said bond.

The president of the faculty suggested that the board, in
courtesy, should ask Dr. Butler to express to us freely his
wishes with reference to the action just taken.

Thereupon President Butler addressed the Board of
Directors as follows :

The formal establishment by the board of "The Edward Robinson Chair
of Biblical Theology" fulfils the object desired in the provision which I
have made for its endowment. I beg to express my satisfaction and grati-
tude for this action. It is in accord with the views of the distinguislied

534 APPENDIX.

Christian scholar in whose memory the chair is founded. In a letter to
the board, dated January 20, 1837, accepting the professorship of Sacred
Literature, he said: "The constitution properly requires every professor
to declare that he believes the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.
This is placing the Bible in its true position as the only foundation of
Christian theology. It follows as a necessary consequence that the study
of the Bible, as taught in the department of Biblical Literature, must be
the foundation of all right theological education." This new chair of
Biblical Theology seems to me to realize the sentiment embodied in this
quotation, in a form which, if he were now present with us, would receive
his benediction. It embalms his memory indissolubly with the life of this
seminary, and will ever be an inspiration to its students in their "search
of the Scriptures."

In regard to the incumbent of this chair, I avail of the courtesy of
the board to express my wish that it may be one who sat as a pupil at
the feet of that eminent teacher, and I regard it as a felicity to the
seminary that there is one here who has been trained within its walls,
and who, by his ripe scholarship and purity of character in Christian
faith and practice, has won the confidence and affection of his associate
professore, of this Board of Directoi-s, and of the students who have come
under his teaching during these yeai-s of faithful and devoted service.

From what I have said, you will anticipate that my wishes will be
fully gratified in the appointment of the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D.,
as eminently qualified to fill this chair. In this expression of preference,
it gives me the greatest pleasure to say that I do but voice the
views and wishes of our late revered president of the faculty, Roswell
D. Hitchcock. Dr. Briggs was his choice for this chair.

I cannot doubt that the highest interests of this seminary, and, what
is more, those of the Redeemer's kingdom on earth, will be promoted
by this realization of the plans of these two Christian scholars, both as
regards the foundation of the chair and the selection of the suggested
incumbent.

THE APPOINTMENT OF THE INCUMBENT.

At the conclusion of President Butler's address, Henry
Day, Esq., offered the following resolution, which was unani-
mously adopted ;

APPENDIX. 535

Besohed, That Professor Cliarles A. Brings, D.D., be transferred from tlie
Davenport Professorship of Hebrew and the Cognate Languages to the Edward
Kobinson Chair of Biblieal Theology.

Professor Briggs, having been duly advised of the action
above recorded, addressed a communication to the board,
under date of January 7, 1891, accepting the new chair to
which he had been transferred. It was as follows :

120 West 93d St., New York,
January 7, 1891.

Gentlemen of the Board of Directms of the Union Theological Seminary, New
Yoi-k :

I thank you for the mark of confidence expressed in your choice of
me to fill the Edward Robinson Professorship of Biblical Theology. There
is no chair that so well suits ray tastes and my studies for the past
twenty-five years. Under the advice of the faculty, I have been building
up the department of Biblical Theology for some yeai-s past. But I had
reached the limit of new work. I could not advance further until
relieved of the Hebrew work. In accepting the new chair, I propose to
push the work of the department rapidly forward, and to cover the whole
ground of the chair at as early a date as possible. I give over the work
of the Hebrew chair to my pupil, colleague, and friend, Dr. Brown,
with confidence, that building on the foundations I have laid, he will
make marked improvement upon my work.

Biblical Theology is, at the present time, the vantage ground for the
solution of those important problems in religion, doctrine and morals that
are compelling the attention of the men of our times. The Bible is the
Word of God, and its authority is divine authority that determines the
faith and life of men. Biblical scholars have been long held in bondage
to ecclesiasticism and dogmatism. But modern Biblical criticism has won
the battle of freedom. The accumulations of long periods of traditional
speculation and dogmatism have been in large measure removed, and the
Bible itself stands before the men of our time in a commanding position,
such as it has never enjoyed before. On all sides it is asked, not what
do the creeds teach, what do the theologians say, what is the authority
of the church, but what does the Bible itself teach us? It is the office
of Biblical Theology to answer this question. It is the culmination of the

536 APPENDIX.

work of Exegesis. It rises on a complete induction tlirough all the de-
partments of Biblical study to a comprehensive grasp of the Bible as a
whole, to the unity and variety of the sum of its teaching. It draws the
line with the teaching of the Bible. It fences off from the Scriptures
all the speculations, all the dogmatic elaborations, all the doctrinal adap-
tations that have been made in the history of doctrine in the church. It
does not deny their propriety and importance, but it insists upon the three-
fold distinction as necessary to truth and theological honesty, that the
theology of the Bible is one thing, the only infallible authority ; the theology
of the creeds is another thing, having simply ecclesiastical authority ; and
the theology of the theologians, or Dogmatic Theology, is a third thing,
which has no more autliority than any other system of human construction.
It is well knojwn that until quite recent times, and even at present in
some quartei-s, the creeds have lorded it over the Scriptures, and the
dogmaticians have lorded it over the creeds, so that in its last analysis
the authority in the church has been, too often, the autliority of certain
theologians. Now, Biblical Theology aims to limit itself strictly to the
theology of the Bible itself. Biblical theologians are fallible men, and
doubtless it is true, that they err in their interpretation of the Scrip-
tures, as have others ; but it is the aim of the discipline to give the
theology of the Bible pure and simple ; and the inductive and historical
methods that determine the working of the department are certainly
favorable to an objective presentation of the subject, and are unfavorable
to the intrusion of subjective fancies and circumstantial considerations.
It will be my aim, so long as I remain in the chair, to accomplish this
ideal as far as possible. Without fear or favor I shall teach tlie truth
of God's Word as I find it. The theology of the Bible is much simpler,
richer, and grander than any of the creeds or dogmatic systems. These
have been built upon select portions of the Bible, and there is a capri-
ciousness of selection in them all. But Biblical Theology makes no selection
of texts — it uses the entire Bible in all its passages, and in every single
passage, giving each its place and importance in the unfolding of divine
revelation. To Biblical Theology the Bible is a mine of untold wealth ;
treasures, new and old, are in its storehouses ; all its avenues lead, in
one way or another, to the pi'esence of the Living God and the Divine
Saviour.

The work of Biblical Theology is conducted on such a comjirehen-
sive study of the Bible, that while the jirofessor builds ujion a thorough

APPENDIX. 537

study of tlie orip;inal texts, liis class must use tlicir Enp;lish Bibles. A
thoronjrh study of tiie Enplisli Bil)le is necessarily included in the course.
If the plan of the work is carried out, the student will accompany his
professsor through the entire English Bible during his seminary coni-se,
and will be taught to expound a large number of the most imj)ortant
passages in the light of all the passages leading up to them.

In conclusion, allow me to express my gratitude to the venerable
president of the Board of Directors for the interest he has ever taken
in my work, for the honor he has shown me in nominating me for the
chair he so generously founded, and for attaching to the chair, with
such modesty and consideration, the name of Edward Robinson, my honored
teacher, the greatest name on the roll of Biblical scholars of America,
and the most widely known and honored of her i)rofesso:'s. I shall regard
it as my high calling and privilege to build on his foundations, and to
advance the work that he carried on as far as it can be advanced in
the circumstances of our time. The names of Edward Robinson and
Charles Butler will be entwined into a bond of double strength to sus-
tain me in the delicate and ditEcult work that I now undertake to do.

Faithfully,

C. A. Briggs.

II.

THE INAUGURATION.

Tuesday Evening, January 20, 1891.

President Charles Butler, LL. D., presided. After devo-
tional exercises, at the request of Mr. Butler, the president
of the faculty made a brief preliminary statement, as follows :

As has been announced, last May the president of the Board of Di-
rectors of the Union Theological Seminary, Charles Butler, LL.D., pro-
vided for the endowment of a new chair in the sum of $100,000.

On the basis of this munificent gift, at the recent meeting of the
board, the new professorship was formally established, to be known, in
accordance with the request of President Butler, as The Edward Robimon
Professorship of Biblical Theology. This Avas designed by Mr. Butler to be
a memorial of his long-time friend, the late Edward Robinson, D. D.,
LL.D., the fii-st professor of Sacred Literature in this institution, who

538 APPENDIX.

honored that chair and this seminary by his long and distinguished
service from 1837 to 1863.

The president of the board suggested that it would be in accord with
his own wishes and with those of his friend, the late President Roswell
D. Hitchcock, D.D., LL.D., if the board should transfer the Rev. Pro-
fessor Charles A. Briggs, D.D., to the new chair just established. By
a unanimous vote the board at once adopted the suggestion of their
president, and transferred Professor Briggs from the Davenpoi-t Chair of
Hebrew and the Cognate Languages to the Edward Mobinson Chair of
Biblical Theology. Dr. Briggs, having signified his acceptance of this
transfer, his inauguration will now take place.

President Butler addressed Professor Briggs as follows :

On behalf of the Board of Directors, and in accordance with the
Constitution of the "Union Theological vSeminary in the city of New
York," I call upon you to "make and subscribe^ ^ the "declaration" re-
quired of each member of the faculty of this institution.

Thereupon Professor Briggs made the " declaration " as
follows :

/ believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the Word
of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice; and I do now, in the
presence of God and the directors of this seminary, solemnly and sincerely
receive and adopt the Westminster Confession of Faith, as containing the sys-
tem of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures. I do also, in like manner,
approve of the Presbyterian Form of Government ; and I do solemnly promise
that I will not teach or inculcate anything ivhich shall appear to me to be
subversive of the said system of doctrines, or of the principles of said Form
of Government, so long as 1 shall continue to be a professor in the seminary.

Thereupon President Butler said :

In the name of the Board of Directors, I declare that Professor
Charles A. Briggs, D. D. , is inaugurated as the Incumbent of the Edward
Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology.

On behalf of the Board of Directors, the charge to Professor Briggs
will now be delivered by the member of the board duly appointed for
this service — the Rev. David R. Frazer, D. D., the pastor of tlie Fii-st
Presbyterian Church of Newark, N. J.

APPENDIX. 539

THE CHARGE.

My dear Brother Rrioos : —

Before attempting to discharge the duty which, by your kind con-
sideration, has been devolved \x\^(m. nic, permit me to tender my heart-
felt congratulations : first, upon tlie establishment of tlie Edward Robin-
son Chair of Biblical Theology ; a consummation so devoutly wished for
alike by yourself and by our revered Hitchcock. We all share in your
joy, and recognize the new departure as a long and right step in ad-
vance in the history of our institution.

In the orderings of God's providence every age has its own peculiar
problem to solve, the solution being wrought out from the standpoint
of its own pressing needs. It is a marked characteristic of our day that
the Bible is now studied as never before in the world's history, and the
establishment of this new department is in the line of this development,
and is answerable to this modern demand. For, if 1 understand aright
the function of Biblical Theology, it does not conduct a simple, gram-
matical exercise ; it does not discuss the various textual readings ; it does
not study the ojiinions of the fathers or the deliverances of the church ;
it does not formulate a body of systematic divinity grouped about some
chosen central principle. These are important and legitimate topics of
study, hence are properly cared for in our curriculum. They will doubt-
less be very helpful as external aids in the prosecution of the work of
this chair, but tlie pecidiar province of Bi1)lical Theology is to study
the Word ; to determine what God intends to say in His AVord, and
then to formulate these hallowed teachings.

Such being its province, I need not pause to show that Biblical
Theology is the normal response to that modern critical spirit which
refuses to accept anything upon the basis of authority, and insists upon
tracing everything back to its genetic principle and its efficient cause.
Neither need I tarry to discriminate sharply and accurately between the
functions of Biblical and Systematic Theology. If you, my dear brother,
have any especial interest in or desire for information on this general
subject, I would respectfully refer you to a work on "Biblical Study,"
which is published by the Scribners, and was written by one who has
served long and well in, and has just been transferred from, "the Daven-
port Professorship of Hebrew and the Cognate Languages" in this insti-
tution ; and, if you are not acquainted with the work, I can assure you

540 APPENDIX.

that the time spent in its perusal will not be wasted, for you will find
therein an admirable and exhaustive discussion of the subject.

But I want to congratulate you, secondly, upon the fact that you
are to be the incumbent of the new chair, a position for which you are
pre-eminently qualified by reason of the peculiar character of your past
studies. I am very well aware that you would much prefer to have
me discuss the general topic of Biblical Theology, and to dwell upon the
claims it has to a place in our curriculum, rather than to hint the
name of, or make any reference to the professor who is to occupy the
new chair. But if anything of a personal character should be said, please
remember, my brother, you have no one to blame save yourself, since,
passing by abler men, you have kindly insisted that your old friend and
classmate should deliver the charge, as you enter the awful responsibili-
ties of your new position. And as the class spirit asserts itself, I will
say, despite your unspoken protest, that the class of '64 is proud of its
representative ; that it rejoices in your well-deserved success, and that it
appropriates to itself a peculiar glory by virtue of the events of this
hour. Little did we dream, when we sat at the feet of that honored
man whose name gives dignity to your new chair, as also at the feet
of those other scholarly and godly men, Henry B. Smith, Thomas H.
Skinner, Roswell D. Hitchcock, and Henry H. Hadley, men whose
presence was a benediction, whose instruction was an inspiration, whose
memories are revered and hallowed, that there was among us, going in
and out just as we went in and out, one who was destined to sit in
Gamaliel's seat and to honor the exalted position by his scholarly attain-
ments. Yet such was the fact, and although you wish I would not say
it, still, as your classmate and on behalf of the class thus signally hon-
ored, I tender you our warmest and heartiest congratulations.

And I propose saying further, since I betray no confidence by the
declaration, that it would have greatly rejoiced your heart and would
have wonderfully inspirited you for your work could you have heard
the cordial, tender, and appreciative words with which our venerable and
venerated president of the Board of Directors (who is also the kind
and generous patron through whose munificence the new chair has been
endowed, " Serus in coelum redeas"), placed your name, the only name
placed in nomination for the position.

And I am sure you would have been more than pleased could you
have witnessed the unanimity with which the directors ratified the nonii-

APPENDIX. 541

nation and transferrer! you from the Davenport Chair of Hebrew to tlie
Edward Kobinson Cliair of Hiblical Tlieology. I congratulate you tliat
the honored and revered founder of the department wanted you in the
department which he founded, and also upon the fact that you enter
your new work in the enjoyment of the fullest confidence, respect, and
love of the directors of this seminary.

But I may not forget that this is your hour. Inasmuch as I can-
not hope to impart any instruction respecting the peculiar and i)ractical
duties of your new position, I would be content to let these congratu-
latory words take the place of the more formal charge. In order,
however, to meet the requirements of my appointment, and to stir up
your pure mind by way of remembrance, I charge you :

First. To have clear, well-settled, and accurately defined views of the
nature, the scope, and the design of the Holy Scriptures.

The Bible is to be your text-book, and the Bible claims to be the
book of God. If this high claim cannot be maintained ; if the Bible
be not the book of God, as verily as Jesus Christ is the Son of God,
then is it unworthy of our confidence. That Word which was in the
beginning with God and was God, and which in the fulness of time
began to be flesh, was, as the Incarnate Word, the God-Man, very God
and very Man. We do not understand this "great mystery of godliness,
God manifest in the flesh." We do not attempt to explain it, but we
accept it, we believe it, we rest our hopes of life, here and hereafter,
upon it. And upon this same basis we can accept the Word written.
It also is an incarnation. Great is the mystery of Revelation, God mani-
festing His thought in the forms of human speech. Since holy men of
old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, the divine and human
elements are co-ordinated in the Word written as well as in the Word
Incarnated. We must recognize the divine and human factors in the
Scriptures and assign a legitimate place to each and to both, but I
need not charge you, my dear brother, to bear in ceaseless remembrance
the fact, that just in the proportion that the divine element is eliminated
or is abnormally subordinated to the human, is the authority of the Bible
circumscribed and the power of the Bible abridged. You will never
forget that you have God's Word for your text-book, and you will
never fail to teach it as the very Word of God.

The sco^ie, of biblical instruction is clearly set forth on the sacred
page. Great mischief is often wrought by the notion that the Bible

542 APPENDIX.

aims to cover the whole sphere of human knowledge, and that its
authority is lessened by the concession that there are some things which
can be comprehended without its aid. We surely do not need the Bible
to teach us that two and two make four, or that the whole is greater
than any of its parts. The Holy Word has a distinct mission and a
definite aim. It does not come to us as a teacher of physics or of
metaphysics, but as a revelation : as a revelation of God : as a revelation
of God to man : as a revelation of God to man concerning the highest
and the dearest moral interests of man, alike for time and for eternity.
It comes to man, not primarily to reason, but to reveal, and to reveal
those high themes, which, by necessity of being, transcend the ordinary
processes of human thought. While pervaded with an air of simplicity
and honesty and truthfulness, it comes not primarily to persuade, but to
command, and to command, not in view of the deductions of human
reason, or in the light of conclusions reached by the processes of a
speculative philosophy, but upon that simple, yet sublime, basis, "Thus
saith the Lord God."

The design of Revelation is sumined up essentially in the Johannean
statement, "these things are tmntien that ye might believe that Jesus is
the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through
His name." As all roads led to Rome, so all Scripture leads to Christ.
The poetry, the prophecy, the precepts, the biography, the history of the
Bible, find their true centrality in Him who was at once dust and
Divinity, the Workman of Nazareth, the Prophet of Galilee, "The Lamb
of God which taketh away the sin of the world." The final end and
ultimate design of the Holy Scriptures are "to make wise unto salva-
tion, through faith which is in Christ Jesus;" hence it is your business,
my dear brother, from the Word written to educe the Word Incarnate,
and I beg you to so present Jesus Christ to all who come to you for
instruction, that they may go from your class-room to their great life-
work, not only impressed with an abiding sense of the matchless beauty
and the mighty power of that Divine Saviour concerning whom the
Scriptures so abundantly testify, but also, and as the normal outcome
of your teachings, with a fixed determination "to know nothing among
men save Jesus Christ and Him crucified."

But Paul forewarns "of things hard to be understood," of problems
which must perplex the most acute mind and defy the grasp of the
most profound intellect. Furthermore, in the interpretation of the Word,

APPENDIX. 543

conflicting views respecting the exact significance of the revelation will
arise. Who shall decide when learned doctors disagree? To whom shall
the ultimate appeal be taken ? Manifestly to the Spirit of the Living
God by whom the declaration was prompted, and to whom the meaning
is clear ; hence, I charge you.

Secondly. Seek the aid of the Holy Ghost in your arduous and
responsible work.

I attempt no solution of the mooted questions as to whether our
Lord's promise of the Holy Ghost should lead believers in "the way
of all truth," was restricted to the Apostolic College, and was literally
fulfilled in the written revelation, or whether it pertains to believers
in all time.

But the Scriptures most clearly require that all believers should
"live in the Spirit," "walk in the Spirit," "be filled with the Spirit."
Christian consciousness bears witness that the abiding presence of the
Spirit begets deep and vital spirituality, and Christian experience abund-
antly confirms the assertion that vital spirituality ensures a large insight
of that truth which must be spiritually discerned. A willingness to do
God's will must precede the knowledge of the doctrine, and this will-
ingness of mind and heart must be begotten by the Holy Ghost. Put
peculiar honor upon the Divine Spirit and He will put peculiar honor
upon you and your Avork. He will open your eyes to behold the
wondrous things in God's law; He will give you the witness of His
presence in your own soul, and will enable you, in all meekness and
humility, yet with the highest Christian positiveness, to say : I know
whom and what and why I have believed, and am persuaded that my
confidence rests not upon the wisdom of man, but upon the wisdom of God.

And as you thus teach the Word of God under the guidance of
the Spirit of God ; as day by day you present the truth as it is in
Jesus to those who are to preach a crucified Redeemer to dying men,
may the Lord bless you and keep you ; may He equip you for duty,
help you in the discharge of it, and when your great work is finished
may His "Well done" be pronounced upon His "good and faithful
servant."

III.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO DR. BRIGGS AND HIS ANSWERS.
In view of the general attack upon Dr. Briggs the Board

544 APPENDIX.

of Directors appointed a committee of three to prepare a
series of questions for categorical answers from Dr. Briggs.
That committee reported June 5, 1891, as follows :

Question 1. Do you consider the Bible, the Church, and the Reason
as co-ordinate sources of authority ? Answer. No.

Or, do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament
to be the only infallible rule of faith and practice? Answer. Yes.

Question 2. When you use the word " reason " do you include the
conscience and the religious feelings ? Answer. Yes.

Question 3. Would you accept the following as a satisfactory defini-
tion of inspiration : " Inspiration is such a divine direction as to secure
an infallible record of God's revelation in respect to both fact and doc-
trine ? " Answer. Yes.

Question 4. Do you believe the Bible to be inerrant in all matters
concerning faith and practice, and in everything in which it is a reve-
lation from God or a vehicle of divine truth, and that there are no errors
that disturb its infallibility in these matters or in its records of the historic
events and institutions with which they are inseparably connected? An-
swer. Yes.

Question 5. Do you believe that the miracles recorded in Scripture
are due to an extraordinary exercise of divine energy either directly or
mediately through holy men ? Answer. Yes.

Question 6. Do you hold what is commonly known as the doctrine
of a second probation? Do you believe in Purgatory? Answer. No.

Question 7. Do you believe that the issues of this life are final and
that a man who dies impenitent will have no further opportunity of sal-
vation ? Answer. Yes.

Question 8. Is your theory of progressive sanctification such that it
will permit you to say that you believe that when a man dies in the faith
he enters the middle state regenerated, justified and sinless? Answer. Yes.

IV.

RESOLUTIONS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SUSTAINING DR.
BRIGGS, AS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY MAY 19, 1891.

Resolved, That this board has listened with satisfaction to the cate-
gorical replies rendered by Dr. Briggs to the questions submitted to him,

APPENDIX. 545

and tliiit it trusts that tlio manner in wiiicii lie has tlicrein dealt with the
points that are in dispute will operate to eorreet the misapprehensions that
are so widely current, and to quiet the disturhed condition of mind in which,
as a communion, we are so unhappily involved.

Rmdvcd, The directors of the Union Theological Seminary desire to
express to Professor Briggs their higli appreciation of his Cliristian courtesy
in the consultations which he has had with the Committee of Inquiry in
reference to the trying (juestions now under consideration.

They will stand hy him heartily on the ground of this report, and
aflectionately commend him to the leading of our common Master, having
perfect confidence in his honesty of i)urpose.

E. M. KiNGSLEY, John Crosby Brown,

Recorder. Vice-President.

New York, May 19, 1891.

STATEMENT OF THE FACUETY OF UNION THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY.

In view of the general comment and discussion culled
forth by the recent inaugural address of Professor Charles
A. Briggs, D.D., the undersigned, members of the faculty
of Union Theological Seminary, deem it their duty to make
the following statement :

With the conviction that Christian courtesy, modesty and mutual
respect for difference of opinion should characterize theological contro-
versy, we distinctly recognize and deiirecate the dogmatic and irritating
character of certain of Dr. Briggs' utterances in his Inaugural and in
others of his writings : while, on the other hand, we do not recognize,
even in these, any warrant for persistent misrepresentations of his views,
and for the style and temper in which he has in many cases been
assailed.

/. 77(6 views propounded hy Dr. Bri(/c/s in his Iiuiuf/ural are not new.

They have all been stated by him in one or another of his pub-
lislied works, in articles in the Presbyterian Review, during his ten
years' editorship, and in more recent contributions to other periodicals.
Moreover, for the past ten years. Dr. Briggs has been teaching Biblical
Theology in the seminary, and has been expounding to successive classes

546" APPENDIX.

of students the statements for which he is now arraigned. The present
excitement is, as we believe, due, largely, to the tone of the Inaugural
Address, to certain unguarded expressions, and to an impression that
the transfer of the author to the Chair of Biblical Theology would be
subject to the veto of the General Assembly.

2. The address contains, in our judgment, nothiiig ivhich can be fairly
construed into heresy or departure from the Westminsta- Confession, to which
Dr. Briggs honestly subscribed at his recent inauguration.

(a) His words concerning " Bibliolatry " are not aimed at humble
and devout reverence for the Word of God, but at the error, rebuked
by the Apostle Paul, of revering " the letter" above "the spirit."

(6) Dr. Briggs declares that, conjointly with the Bible, the Church
and the Reason are sources of authority in religion. He uses the term
"reason" as embracing the conscience and the religious feeling. We
object to the term "sources," since there is but one source of divine
authority — God himself. We prefer to say that the Bible, the Church,
and the Reason are media and vehicles through which we recognize and
receive the divine authority. This is the generally-accepted Protestant
position. Every Church in Christendom admits that the church is a
medium of divine authority.

The Confession of Faith declares that "unto the catholic, visible
Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles and ordinances of God."

That the reason, in the broad sense in which it is explained by
Dr. Briggs, is also an organ to and through which the divine authority
is conveyed, is assumed in Scripture and in the Confession, and is the
necessary postulate of a divine revelation to man. It is the only point
in the natural man to which the qualities of God's character, the
operations of His power, and the right-reasonableness of His claims can
appeal : and it is distinctly declared and assumed by St. Paul to be
the recipient of such appeals; to be the subject of the divine Spirit's
illumination ; and to become thus the proper instrument for discerning,
comparing and judging spiritual truth. If the reason has no such
function in religion, it is superfluous to assert that "Scripture is
profitable for teaching, for discipline, and for upbuilding in righteousness."
Spiritual righteousness implies an intelligent and rational perception and
reception of the law and truth of God. The living sacrifice which is
"holy and acceptable unto God" is a "rational service."

APPENDIX. 547

But Dr. Brigps does not, with the Romanist, exalt tlie Church
above the Bible and the Reason. lie does not, with the Rationalist, place
the Reason above the Bible and tiie Church. Neither does he, as has been
often charged, co-ordinate the three sources. His position is the Protest-
ant and the Presbyterian position, assumed in his subscription to the
declaration of the Confession, that the Scriptures are "the only infallible
rule of faith and practice," and asserted in his address in the words:
"Protestant Christianity builds its faith and life on the divine authority
contained in the Scriptures." That Protestant Christianity too often de-
preciates the Church and the Reason is an entirely distinct statement,
involving a question of fact ; and the statement and its discussion in no
way affect Dr. Briggs' endorsement of the Protestant doctrine of the
supreme authority of Scripture.

To assert, as has been so often done, that Dr. Briggs is aiming to
undermine the divine authority of Scripture, is preeminently unfair. Not
only this Inaugural, but all his published writings, teem with the most
positive and uncompromising expressions of love and reverence for the
Bible.

(c). The comistencij of Dr. Briggs' position as to the supreme authority
and divine quality of Holy Scripture, is in no way affected by his vieivs of the
nature of Inspiration.

While asserting the plenary inspiration of Scripture, he denies that
inspiration involves absolute inerrancy — literal, verbal accuracy, and perfect
correspondence of minor details.

In this view there is nothing original or new. It is the view of
Calvin, and of an overwhelming majority of Protestant divines in Europe
and America. It was propounded at least eight years ago by Dr. Briggs in
his "Biblical Study."

Inspiration, in the sense of literal inerrancy, is nowhere claimed for
Scripture by Scripture itself.

It is contradicted by the contents of Scripture in the form in which
we have it. It involves, logically, a minute, specific divine superintend-
ence of each detail of the entire process of transmission — copying, trans-
lating, printing — and the prevention of all errors. It confronts those who
maintain it not only with discrepancies of statement in the present text,
but with the innumerable textual variations in the Hebrew and Greek
Bibles, and the variations between the Hebrew and the Septuagint. To
meet these facts with the assertion of the inerrancy of the original auto-

548 APPENDIX.

graphs, is to beg the whole question in dispute, to lay down a purely
arbitrary, a priori hypothesis, and to introduce into the discussion an en-
tirely irrelevant factor, seeing that the errors and discrepancies remain and
the original autographs cannot be recovered.

To make the inspiration of Scripture turn upon verbal inerrancy is to
commit the Church to an utterly untenable position, and to place her apol-
ogists at the mercy of caviller who are only too glad to evade broader
and deeper issues and to shift the discussion to the region of mere verbal
details, where they are sure to have the best of the argument.

Dr. Briggs holds and teaches the doctrine of the divine inspiration,
infallibility, and authority of the Holy Scriptures in all matters of Christian
faith and duty, which is all that any evangelical divine is bound to main-
tain on that subject. The Westminster and other Confessions of Faith
clearly and strongly assert the fact of divine inspiration, but wisely abstain
from defining the mode and degrees of divine inspiration. The former is
a matter of faith, the latter of human theory, on which there must be liberty
if tliere is to be any progress. To impose upon a Christian teacher any
particular theory of inspiration not sanctioned by tiie Bible itself is tyranny.

(rf). Dr. Briggs is further charged with a departure from the West-
minster Eschatology in teaching progressive sanctification after death.

While we are not to be understood as accepting or endoi-sing Dr.
Briggs' conclusions on this point, it is sufficient to say that he is here in
an open field, where, having expressly repudiated the doctrines of future
probation, universal restoration, and the Romanist purgatory, he is cer-
tainly entitled to the largest liberty in the attempt to elucidate a subject
so little underetood, and on which the standards are open to differences
of interpretation. The phrase "progressive sanctification after death"
admits of a sound and orthodox interpretation ; but Protestant Eschat-
ology, as defined in the Confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries, is
generally admitted to be defective and in need of further development
within the limits of that caution and reserve imposed by the comparative
silence of Scripture on that mysterious period between death and resurrec-
tion. In the words of the late Henry B. Smith written not long before
his death: "What Reformed Theology has got to do is to Christologize
predestination and decrees, regeneration and sanctification, the doctrine of
the Church and the ivhole of Eschatology.

in. After years of familiar acquaintance with Dr. Briggs and his
teaching, we are moved to utter our emphatic protest against the spirit

APPENDIX. 549

and lansiiase with wiiicli, in so many cases, he lias hocn assailed. If, in
any of his writinj^fs, Dr. Hriggs, a.s is ehar<?ed, has wantonly offentU'd the
honest convictions of good men, or has in any other way sinned against
the ethical code of Christian scholai-ship laid down in the New Testament,
it is not our business to defend him therein. lie must answer for it to
his own conscience and to God. But in the public di.scassion of matters
of opinion, it is neither right nor decent that an earnest, learned, devoted
scholar and faithful teacher, even though mistaken, should be attacked
with virulence, contemptuous flippancy, and imputations of miworthy
motive. In too many instances it seems to have been assumed that all
the sacrcdnesfi of pei-sonal conviction is ni)on one side ; that a higher critic
can have no convictions or rights which the lower critic or the uncritical
censor is bound to respect ; and that the fact of his difi'ering with them
justifies his opponents in laying aside in discussion the character of
Christian gentlemen.

We know Dr. Briggs to be an earnest Christian, a devout student
of the Bible, an indefatigable teacher and worker, and one who holds
the standards of the Church with an intelligence based on an exhaustive
study of their history and literature. The numerous testimonies of his
students during seventeen years prove that he inspires them with a deep
reverence and enthusiasm for the Bible.

In like manner we protest against the matter and temper of the
assaults on Union Seminary. By its history of over half a century, by
the character, standing, and services of its graduates, and by the amount
and value of its contributions to Christian Literature, this Institution
should be insured against such assaults. Its value to the Presbyterian
Church needs no demonstration. From the days of Edward Robinson, the
pioneer of Palestine exploration and the founder of American Biblical
Lexicograghy, Union Seminary has steadily pressed forward on the lines of
advanced Biblical study. Its Professors, in subscribing to the Westminster
standards, have always been understood to do so with the concession of
that measure of freedom which is the right of every Christian scholar.
They honor the venerable Confessions of past ages, but they place the
Bible above the Confessions, and hold themselves bound by their loyalty
to Christ and to His Church, to follow the truth withei-soever it may
lead them.

AVe a.ssert and must insist upon the liberty exercised by the Reformers
and by the early Church, to di.scu.ss the tScriptures freely and reverently

550 APPENDIX.

and to avail ourselves of all the light which may be thrown upon them
from any source. It is in the interest of God's truth to set forth Scripture
0.S it is, and not to expose its friends and teachers to humiliation and
defeat by claiming for it that it cannot be substantiated. In the words
of Ullman, "Not fixedness nor revolution, but evolution and reform, is the
motto for our times." We maintain that human conceptions of the Bible
and of its inspired teachings are subject to revision. To grasp the results
of deeper research and to apply them with caution, reverence, and boldness
is not only our pritnlege, it is our solemn duty in the discharge of the
sacred trust committed to us by Christ and His Church. More light is
yet to break from God's Word. We would be found ever upon the
watch-towers to catch and to transmit its rays. No theological school can
take any other attitude Avithout neglecting its duty to the present age
and losing its hold upon the rising generation of Biblical students. That
such method may dissipate or modify certain traditional views as to the
origin or date of the Books of Scripture ; that it may expose and correct
certain long-established errors of interpretation ; that it may modify certain
theological dogmas, is only what is to be expected from similar results
in the past. But we have no fear for the Bil:)le. The Word of God
will come forth from the fire of reverent criticism as fine gold with a
new accretion of testimony to its divine origin, and a new power of appeal

to the world.

(Signed),

Thoma-s S. Hastings, {President),
Philip Schapf,
George L. Prentiss,
Marvin R. Vincent.

(Professor Francis Brown is at Oxford, superintending tlie puijlication of liis
Hebrew Lexicon.)

Dr. Patton's statement referred to on page 132 was
elicited by the following remarks of President Hastings :

Dr. Hastings : May I ask a single question of you, Dr. Patton, as
chairman of the late committee on Theological Seminaries? You may
have noticed in the paper submitted that the action in the matter of the
transfer, therein referred to, was taken by the Executive Committee and
laid before the Board before the meeting of the General Assembly. But

APPENPrx. 551

, T >o;Tr(l (lid not communicate tiiat jmper to the Committee on
the i

mi- 1 'ffical Seminaries, because it decided that it would not be n'sj)ectful
Ineolc^

, ,, ,jreneral Assembly to assume that the Assembly would undertake to
to tlie < •"

, , er the Agreement of 1870, what we think it had not the right

, but we sent to the Assembly Dr. "Wiiite, who prepared the paper,

T^. x^. ^key and Dr. Parkhurst, saying to oui-selves and to them that if

.1 r^ imittee on Theological Seminaries in the General Assembly desired

. c. lion as to our views, that Committee will ask our representatives

intorma ' '

c ti information. We learned that Dr. "White offered such iuforma-

lor sue.;

Dr. Patton courteously said he would call him before the

, , . ttee. Dr. White was not called before the Committee. That we
( orami

1 iot been able to understand. If Dr. Patton, as chairman of the

have 1

/-, 1 Assembly's Committee on Theological Seminaries, could give us

,• 1 i about that it would relieve some of us.
light .'

T^ 'a. Patton : It will give me the greatest pleasure in the world to

. ,, i/l I know about it, Mr. Chairman. Soon after I was appointed 1

. id a personal letter from Dr. White, stating substantially this: that
receivfi

1 . /s a Director of the Union Theological Seminary, and that he was

. ,• 'tely acquainted with its ins and outs ; that he knew everything

,1 , Vhad occurred in reference to the matter that was likelv to come
that \

, e * the General Assembly, in the case of Dr. Briggs ; and, particularly,

., . /he was one of the committee of three, who prepared the questions

iKich Dr. Briggs gave the categorical answers with which we are

J. M-'ar, and that he would like to have the opportunity of a personal

ew with me as chairman of that committee, because he thought
mtervi ' "

1 ii put me in possession of some facts that I ought to know. Well,

T • '■ • the letter. It was a personal letter to me, to be sure, but it

i receive*. ^ '

, "fidential letter and I happened to receive my mail, or I

was not a c>. ^ ' j i

1 1 * 1 ve my mail with me, in the committee room over the

happened to ha-,. • '

,, ^ y -1. <<p ethren, here is a letter from Dr. Erskine N. White,

1. , , , ,' ^ like an interview with me on the matter

in which he says he woulu ,

J- -r. r> • TVT T • 1 T r 1 that, lu the first place, this committee

of Dr. Bnggs. JNow, 1 said, i leel.. ' ' '

, ,j , ., , 1 ., 11 "bsolutelv to no one (I think it

sliould keep its own counsel antl talk u . • ^

., ^ ^- ^ -^^ ■ J.I k T^Vilv — I never heard of anv

was the most reticent committee in the Asse.-. '

1 ^ *i -^t i 11- ^t • * -'bodv); if there is to be

member ot the committee telling an}i^hing to an) . ' "

. .. 1 •.. 1 1 1 I 1 .. .1 ' entire committee,

any communication made it sliould be made to tht

For myself I am unw'illing to be burdened with any co.

any source, in regard to any matter that is to come before^t !. '

552 APPENDIX.

committee. If the committee wishes to hear Dr. White, I am en 'tu'ely
willing that it should do so. It may be best to hear him, but I « '^^P'y
wish to say that I am not willing to take information that is r ^ ^ ^^
common property of every member of the committee." The con '^i^ee
agreed with me, and we said well, perhaps it would be better t ^ hear
Dr. White ; and by a general consent, though I think no formj! ^"^
was taken, we agreed to hear him. After the committee had adj O'^^i'^^cl
I went downstairs and happened to meet Dr. White. I said : ' '

White, I read your letter to the committee ; and to be frank witi y*^"'
I am not going to talk with you or with anybody else on tli'® case.
We are charged with a very serious business, it is an immense : '"^^po""
sibility put on us, and we are going to take it, but I thiij
committee will hear you." He said, "I shall be very glad tc ' ^^^
upon the committee." He did suggest — I don't know just in ^^hat
form or how emphatically, whether in the form of a distinct prefe 'i"'^"^^,
or in the form of a modest disclaimer of precedence in fav ^^
Dr. Dickey — but, in all events, he did suggest that perha P^
would be better for the committee to hear Dr. Dickey. "Very \ ^®'^'
I said, "I will see the committee." I went back to the commit*''^®
a subsequent meeting and reported substantially what Dr. ^Vhite
said. We concluded that, perhaps, it would be better to hear Dr. Di ^'^^1-
Then somebody raised the question, "Do we know that Dr. Dickf '^ *^''
Dr. White has been authorized by the Board to speak for it? Ar ® ^^^
not assuming a great deal in that? How do we know that the ] ooard
would not prefer somebody else? Well," we said, "maybe we ^^
leave it with the men who are here in the Assembly that really i-ej^.'''^^"^
the seminary." That we left in the same informal and raggi ^^^^
without any definite action, until my report was fully ready, Jr''^*^' passed
our sub-committee and had been adopted, word for word ' ^ ® ^ '
committee of five, and I was ready to read it in ♦^'"^ session ot

the committee. I read it, and we were read-.' "-^ adopt it, when a
member of the committee said, "Are we "O*^ S^i^g ^o hear some of the
representatives of Union Seminary?" That, I said, was for the com-
mittee to decide. The Assemble was getting a little weary and wanted
to know when the matter wp'^ ^"^ ^^"^^ "P- I* ^^ ^^en made the order
of the day for Thursday'' naorning, and we wanted to get the report in,
in order that the 'iiembers of the Assembly might have the benefit of
readintj it tl^" night before, and that there might not be any needless

.ippE/vn/x. 553

delay tlie next day. Somebody said — I think it was Dr. Ilinnphrey, who
was a member of tiie committee — "Well, what is to Ijc gained by having
any one represent Union Seminary? We can only act on the light of
official commnnication ; private opinions and representations of a con-
iidental nature — comnninications that are not in tiie nature of evidence,
and that only show the sentiment or temper of the Board of Directors —
ought not, and cannot, intluence our judgement upon the square issues
brought before us in the official report of the Directors of Union Theo-
logical Seminary. It may be a great deal more embarrassing to have that
sort of communication than not ; we cannot act upon it, and if we have
it and don't act upon it, it does not look well; and let us remember
that two Directors of Union Theological Seminary are themselves members
of the Assembly and have all the privileges of the floor, with great
facility of speech besides (meaning Dr. Parkhurst and Dr. Dickey).
We may make mistakes in our report, to be sure, but we must take the
responsibility, and if we are the subject of blame, why, we must bear the
blame. We must take the responsibility of making the report in the
light of conscience, and with the best guidance we can get, upon the
basis of the facts officially before us. Then if the A.ssembly, under the
guidance and with the new light, and the reinforcement that shall come
through the medium of Dr. Dickey and Dr. Parkhurst, wlio undoubtedly
will speak in behalf of Union Seminary, sees fit to modify the rejtort,
we will cheerfully submit to the modification. Of course, it will lie in
the Assembly's power to do wh;it it thinks best when all tlie facts are
before it. ' '

Now, if we had known that our not hearing Dr. White would hurt
the feelings of any member of this Board, we would iiave heard him,
and anybody else connected with Union Seminary. I think there is no
doul)t about that. At the same time, if you ask the question, whether
in the liglit of my sober judgment after these months of reflection, I
think any rights were neglected by our failure to hear Dr. White, or
to hear any representative of Union Seminary, I must very frankly say
that I do not feel that there have been. I do not tiiink that we took
a single step upon which we ought to look back with regret. I am
inclined to think that if I should ever be chairman of another committee
(I trust it will not be of Theological Seminaries) but if I should ever be
chairman of a committee, or a committee charged with serious respon-
sibilities in the future, I should be very careful how I recommended an

554 APPENDIX.

action that would solicit ex-pm-te representations of an unofficial, and
perhaps, of a confidential kind, that might enlist feeling, but that ought
not to affect judgment. That is my present conviction, and if our com-
mittee seems to have erred in a matter of judgment, why, of course,
we are sorry for that, but so far as the question of technical right and
substantial justice is concerned, I don't think we erred at all.

And now, while I am on my feet, if the Directors will bear with
me, I will say another word apropos of what Dr. Hastings has said. I
did not know it then, and have not known it until now, but I take it
that the purpose of the interview between Dr. White and our committee
was to present to our committee the view taken by this Board of
Directors with respect to the construction of that arrangement of 1870.
Now I want to say — and I will think aloud — that that view would not have
taken us by surprise, for I knew it already. I am afraid I read the New
York Evangelist on Sunday and the j^art of it that was not so distinctly
devotional, more than I read some other things, that might have been
more suited to the day. But I had that problem on my mind and
heart the whole Lord's day, because I could not get rid of it, except
while 1 was preaching. When I went into that committee room — I am
thinking aloud again — I had never expressed in conversation, I had
never expressed in writing, by signed article, or by anonymous com-
munication, or by confidential letter, or by a letter less confidential, nor
by oral utterance or communication, directly or indirectly made, anything
whatever upon this whole question of Dr. Briggs and his relations to
the General Assembly, and to the Presbytery ; not a thing. My whole
expression of myself has been in the report of the General Assembly's
committee on Theological Seminaries. That I did write every word
of it and that I am thoroughly ready to assume the responsibility of at
any time. And to come back to where I was, the distinction that this
Board adopted was fully before us, and it was thoroughly weighed, and
we knew it, and I think we had read Dr. Prentiss' article (I had) very
carefully, and the reason that we did not adopt the distinction con-
templated by this Board (and that this Board has evidently seen its
way to adopt), was because we could not do it. We looked at this
matter, we went around the circle, we called upon every man to give
his opinion upon the question, as to whether a fair construction of the
language of the compact of 1870 made between the General Assembly
and the Seminary would justify us in saying that a transfer is not an

APPENDIX. 555

appointment witliin the meaninf!^ of that arrangement. We said no, it
would not ; and we said in our committee it woidd not. I rcaciu'd that
conclusion ; and with all the facts before me, and with all deference to
my friend Dr. White, I do not believe that it would have been possible,
if we had talked four hours instead of one, for him to have changed
our minds upon that ipiestion.

MR. WILLIAM ALLEN BUTLER's OPINION.

New York, June 4th, 1891.
Charles Butler, Esq.,

Preddcnt of the Board of Directors of the Union Theological Seminary,

Dear Sir — As requested by you I have carefully considered the

questions arising on the recent action of the General Assembly in

reference to the Rev. Dr. Briggs and the Union Theological Seminary.

Without going into details I submit a summary of the conclusions,

which it seems to me necessarily follow a fair view of the facts :

1. The Union Theological Seminary, being a corporation existing
under the laws of New York, has full power to regulate the adminis-
tration of its afTairs pursuant to its charter, which was enacted March
27, 1839, and which vests the government of the seminary in a Board
of Directors of twenty-eight members, one half of whom shall be cler-
gymen and the other half laymen. The constitution adopted under the
charter empowers the Board of Directoi-s to appoint all professors, fix
their salaries and determine their duties. These powers have never been
surrendered or impaired, and are now in full force and eflect.

2. In connection with the reunion of the diflering branches of the
Presbyterian Church in 1870 importance was attached to the establish-
ment of harmonious relations between the several Presbyterian theologi-
cal seminaries and the General Assembly of the reunited church. This
was in no wise an essential element in the reunion, but was an inci-
dent of the general plan. In aid of this desired end and especially in
the interest of the seminaries under the ecclesiastic supervision of the
so-called "Old School" Assembly, whose professors were appointed
directly by the Assembly and not by their Boards of Directors, and
who desired relief from this embarrassing control, it was proposed that
the General Assembly should confer on those seminaries over which it

556 APPENDIX.

had proprietorsliip and control, the power of electing their own pro-
fessors, the appointments to be reported to the Assembly, and no ap-
l)ointmcnt "to be considered as a complete election if disapproved by
a majority vote of the Assembly."

The Union Theological Seminary, by a minute of the Board of
Directors passed May 9, 1870, after reciting that it had been formed
before the disruption of the Presbyterian Church, and belonged to
neither of its branches, and was administered upon its own independ-
ent charter, and also that its Board of Directors was " desirous of
doing all in their power to establish confidence and harmony through-
out the whole church in respect to the education of its ministry,"
and that the appointment of professore in any seminary directly by the
General Assembly was, in their judgment, objectionable, resolved to
memorialize the General Assembly to adopt the plan above referred to
in the exercise of their proprietorship and control over the several
theological seminaries, and agreed in case of its adoption to conform
to the same.

The General Assembly complied with the request and recommended
that all seminaries controlled by the Assembly should conform to the
plan as proj)osed by the Union Theological Seminary (General Assem-
bly's minutes, 1870, pp. 62-64).

3. It is evident that by this action the Union Theological Semi-
nary acquired nothing. It received no benefit or advantage from the
plan adopted, except in the sense of having promoted the particular
interests of kindred institutions and the general well being of the
church. It retained, unimpaired, the power of appointment of its pro-
fes'sors as an inherent part of its corporate franchise, but it conferred
on the General Assembly, by way of gratuitous concession and grant,
the power to disapprove by a majority vote of any such appointment.
This action was apparently taken without any consideration of the
question whether the surrender or delegation of corporate power which
it involved was within the scope of the authority of the Board of
Directors under the charter of the seminary. Assuming for the present
that it was within the power of the board, the transaction as finally
made constituted a compact between the seminary and the General
Assembly, by which the latter was empowered to veto the appointment
and election of a professor. The source of this power was the delega-
tion of it by the seminary to the Assembly, and as it was purely

APPENDIX. 557

voluntary, it did not involve the transfer of any ('orjKJrate ri^lit, and
necessarily stood as to its execution upon the good faith and continuing
co-oi)eration of the res])ective parties to it, without any power on the part
of either to compel its continued performance upon any basis of acquired
right recognizable by the law.

4. In the practical operation of the arrangement, the annual reports
of the seminary presented to the Assembly since 1870, have included all
matters of administration and among these the appointments and elections
of ])rofessors and no instance has occurred of any disapproval of an appoint-
ment or election.

5. The concession made by the seminary to the Assembly of the
veto power under the circumstances above stated was so far in derogation
of its own absolute powers that it cannot be held to grant any jjrivilege
beyond its precise terms and these must be strictly pursued by the As-
sembly and cannot be enlarged by any implication.

The seminary has maintained and has acted upon the view that the
power of disapproval given by it to the General Assembly did not apply
to or in any wise afl'ect the right of the Board of Directors of the sem-
inary to regulate the duties of the professors whose election having once
become complete by the failure of the Assembly to disapprove of their
election, constituted them thereafter a part of the faculty of the seminary
to perform such duties of instruction as might be designated by the Board
of Directors ; the assignment of new duties to any professor, or the trans-
fer of a professor from one chair to another chair, or to a new chair,
being all matters of corporate administration not subject to any review
or control by the Assembly and in no way coming within the terms of
the compact.

6. The Assembly which recently convened at Detroit appears from the
published reports of its proceedings to have adopted a different view of
the subject, and to have given an interpretation to the compact of 1S70,
which extends the veto power so as to make it applicable not only to ap-
pointments and elections of professors as declared by its terms, but also
to tiie case of the transfer of a professor duly elected, and not disapproved
by the Assembly, from one chair in the seminary to another chair. Act-
ing upon its own interpretation and construction, the Assembly, by a ma-
jority vote, has assumed to disapi>rove of the transfer of Dr. Briggs from
the chair of Hebrew and Cognate Languages to the chair of Biblical
Theology, thus asserting a like power in respect to the action of the Board

558 APPENDIX.

of Directors in making such a transfer as in the case of an original ap-
pointment and election of a professor.

7. Without discussing at present the question of the validity of this
action of the Assembly, it is enough to say that it is the act of one party
to an agreement upon its own ex-parte interpretation and construction of it,
without the consent of the other party and in violation of what the other
party claims to be its true interpretation and construction. It is simply
the case of an assertion and an attempted exercise of a power claimed
under an agreement by one party and denied by the other party. The
seminary is not bound to accept the construction put upon the contract
by the Assembly and the Assembly is powerless to enforce its action by
any proceeding or process affecting the right of the seminary to continue
Dr. Briggs as its professor of Biblical Theology or the right of Dr. Briggs
to retain the professorship. Holding the view that the action of the As-
sembly is not within the scope of its power and, therefore, ultra vires,
the Board of Directors of the seminary must regard it as ineffectual for
any purpose relating to the seminary or to Dr. Briggs.

9. As between the seminary and Dr. Briggs the case is different and
the relation is one of contract founded on a valid consideration and en-
forceable at law. Having been elected a professor and his election not
having been disapproved by the General Assembly and having entered on
the discharge of the new duties devolved upon him, as a professor by the
Board of Directors, he is entitled, subject to the terms of his employment,
to the enjoyment of his office under his agreement with the seminary,
any breach of which would be the violation of a contract obligation.
And so long as the seminary and Dr. Briggs are in accord on this point,
no third party can intervene to annul or impair the existing relation
between them.

No present action, therefore, seems to be required on the part of the
Board of Directors either in reference to the General Assembly or to Dr.
Briggs, unless the board should think proper to re-affirm by resolution, its
adherence to the interpretation of the arrangement with the General As-
sembly which it has heretofore maintained and upon which it acted in
its transfer of Dr. Briggs from the chair formerly filled by him to that
of which he is now the imcumbent.

Yours truly,

(Signed) William Allen Butler.

APPENDIX. 559

In giving Mr. Carter's opinion it is proper to give also
the following report of the Executive Committee, presented
to the Jioard of Directors on October 13, 1892, recommending
and submitting that opinion :

At a meeting on the 9th of June last, the Executive Committee
having heard the report of Mr. E. M. Kingsley concerning liis special
mission to Portland, carefully deliberated as to the course to be pursued
under the circumstances. The unanimous conviction of the committee
was that some reply to the action of the Assembly should be prepared
for submission to the Board of Directoi-s. As our minutes show, a Sub-
Committee was appointed for this purpose with the understanding that
informally Dr. Prentiss should be consulted in the preparation of the
paper. After free discussion, it was agreed that while we have hitherto
wisely abstained from seeking a legal opinion on the questions involved
in our case, the time has come when it is imperative that we should
know whether the character of this institution is imperilled, as has been
intimated, by the existing agreement with the General Assembly. While
the Executive Committee does not feel itself authorized officially to seek
an opinion, the unanimous though informal conclusion was that it would
be very desirable that the Sub-Committee should secure such an opinion
from some lawyer of the very highest standing. In the informal conference
upon this matter, several names of conspicuous and able lawyers were
mentioned, but the desire was to select some man who is in no way,
personally or ecclesiastically, related to members of this Board or to the
Presbyterian Church. The name of James C. Carter, Esquire, answered
all these conditions, and it was felt that his independent position and
his very high standing in his profession would make his opinion conclusive
with all reasonable or unprejudiced minds. The Sub-Committee therefore
secured from Mr. Carter his opinion upon the questions involved in the
present relation of this institution to the General Assembly, which
opinion was presented to the Executive Committee on Tuesday the 27tli
Inst., with the request that it be submitted to the board.

The Executive Committee also presents herewith the official copy of
the action of the General Assembly in reply to our memorial and would
call attention to the character of the language used. In our memorial

560 APPENDIX.

we did not ask the Assembly to "break" a compact, but only "to concur
with us in annulling the arrangement of 1870."

Notwithstanding the character of the Assembly's reply, it was deemed
best that our response thereto should be kept free from every sign of
irritation, and should calmly and clearly state our deliberate conclusion.
This paper, unanimously adopted by the Executive Committee, is now
respectfully submitted to the board for its consideration.

Here is the opinion of Mr. Carter :

OPINION OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ.

The Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York was
incorporated by Act of the Legislature of the State of New York, passed
March 27th, 1839. It constituted Thomas McCauley and other persons
who were declared by the first section of the act to be the present
directors, and their successors, a body corporate by the name of the Union
Theological Seminary in the City of New York.

It is declared by the second section of the charter as follows: —

The government of the seminary shall at all times be vested in a
Board of Directors, which shall consist of twenty-eight members, one-half
of whom shall be clergymen and the other half laymen.

Subsequent to the incorporation of the Seminary a constitution and
by-laws were adopted by the Board of Directors. Sections 3 and 4 of
Article 1 of the Constitution are as follows : —

Sec. 3. In order to carry out the powers vested in them by the
act of incorporation, the Board of Directors shall have authority to make
their own by-laws ; hold, manage and disburse the funds of the seminary ;
appoint all officers, professors and teachers ; fix their salaries, determine
their duties ; make laws for the regulation and government of the institution ;
and, in general, to adopt all such measures, not inconsistent with the
provisions of the said act (the charter) and this constitution, as the interests
of the seminary may require.

Sec. 4. The board shall watch over the fidelity of all who may be
employed in giving instruction ; shall judge of tiieir competency, doctrines,
morals ; and shall have power to remove any officer, professor or teacher
from office. The board shall also exercise a general supervision over the
whole seminary, including the discipline of students by the faculty.

The first section of the Second Article of the Constitution is as
follows : —

APPENDIX. 561

Sec. 1. The faculty shall consist of a President and jirofessors, all
of whom shall i)e ordained ministers of the Gospel, and all of whom
shall be appointed by the Board of Directors.

These arc the only provisions of the charter concerning the body in
which the power of government is lodged.

On the 16th day of May, 1870, the Board of Directors adopted
resolutions designed to be a Memorial to the Cieneral Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church of the United States, which were as follows :—

Resolved, That the Board of Directors of the Union Theological
Seminary, being all ministers and elders of the Presbyterian Church, do
hereby memorialize the General Assembly to the following efTect:—

That so far as the election of professors is concerned, the Assembly
will connnit the same to their respective Boards of Directors on the
following conditions, viz.: —

1st. The Board of Directors of each Seminary shall be authorized
to appoint all professors for the same.

2nd. That all such appointments shall be reported to the General
Assembly, and no such appointment shall be considered a complete election
if disapproved by a majority vote of the General Assembly.

Be it further Resolved, That if this plan is adopted by the General
Assembly they will agree to conform to the same, the Union Theological
Seminary being in this respect on the same ground with other theological
seminaries of the Presbyterian Church.

The General Assembly adopted a resolution accepting the offer of
the seminary contained in the foregoing memorial of the latter body.

On the 8th day of May, 1876, Charles A. Briggs was elected as
professor to fill the Davenport Chair of Hebrew and Cognate Languages.
His election was not disapproved by the General Assembly, and he was
continued as such professor until the 11th day of November, 1890, when
he was transferred to the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology
by the following resolutions, passed by the Board of Directors of the
seminary :

Resolved, That Charles A. Briggs, D. D., be transferred from the
Davenport Professorship of Hebrew and Cognate Languages to the Edward
Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology.

In the By-laws relating to the action of the Board of Directors, it is
provided as follows:

Sec. 5. In the appointment of any member of the faculty, a nom-
ination shall be made at least four weeks before the election.

No such notice was deemed necessary to the transfer of Dr. Briggs
from the Davenport to the Edward Robinson chair, and none was given.

562 APPENDIX.

Dr. Briggs was inaugurated on the 20th of January, 1891, when he
delivered an inaugural address.

No new duties were assigned to him on the transfer from the one
chair to the other.

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian church is not an incorpo-
rated body, but is a representative body of over six hundred members
chosen annually by the different Presbyteries. The Assembly meets an-
nually, and continues in session about fifteen days.

There are twenty-eight Directors of the Board of the Union Theological
Seminary. Only nine of the present directors were members of the board
in 1870; and only six of that nine were present at the meeting of May
16, 1870.

Upon the foregoing case my opinion is requested on the following
points :

First : Had the General Assembly capacity to make the agreement
referred to in 1870?

Second : Had the Board of Directors of the Union Theological Sem-
inary power to delegate to the General Assembly the absolute authority to
thereafter veto the appointment for election of a professor made by the
Board of Directors of the Union Theological Seminary?

Third : If not, was the action of the Board illegal and void ?

Fourth : Is the present Board of Directors legally or morally bound
by the said action of the Board in 1870?

Fifth : If such action of the Board in 1870 was illegal or void,
what action should be taken by the present Board in relation to it?

OPINION.

If the offer of May 16, 1870, contained in the Memorial of the Union
Theological Seminary to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church,
and accepted by the General Assembly, creates an obligation binding upon
those bodies, or either of them, it must be because that offer and its ac-
ceptance constitute a contract between those bodies.

Aside from the question of the power of the seminary to enter into
any contract of such a nature, there would be very serious obstacles in
the way of any conclusion that this offer and its acceptance created any
contract at all. It would not be easy to make out that the General Assem-
bly has that corporate and perpetual existence which would make it a
person in the eye of the law competent to become a party to such a con-

APPENDIX. 563

tract ; and it certainly was not tlic intention to l)in<l tlie individuals com-
posing any particular (_icncral Assenihly in their cajiacity a.s natural persons.

Nor would it be easy to show what valid consideration there was to
sustain the sui)posed contract, or that it was really intended hy the parties
to impose any le^'al obligation upon each other. The ofliir and acce])t-
ance a[)pear to me to be designed rather to express a i)resent acciuiescence
in a line of iiolicy, and a willingness to follow it until some change in
ojiinions should take place, than as an intent to create a perpetual obliga-
tion which would fox'ever bind the })arties even though one of them
should at some time believe that a further continuance of it would be
unwise.

But I put these difficulties aside, in view of the presence of another
which seems to me to be absolutely insuperable. Assuming that the ofler
and acceptance were intended to create and were quite sufficient to create,
a binding contract, if the seminary had the legal power to make it, every
one nuist agree that, in the absence of any such power, the attempt to make
such a contract would be wholly ineffectual. .

Did, therefore, the directors of the seminary have the power to con-
fer upon the General Assembly the authority of vetoing any appointment
which they might make to a professorship ; that is to say, the power to
transfer a most important part of the power of governing the seminary
to the General Assembly, and, to that extent, to divest themselves both
of that power, and of the duty attached to it ?

It is, as it seems to me, too plain for argument that they never pos-
sessed any such authority. Who are to exercise the powers of a corporate
body is a matter which the Legislature alone can determine ; and upon
looking into the charter of the seminary we find the following provision,
which is quite decisive :

Sec. 2. The government of the seminary shall at all times be vfested
in a I>oard of Directors, which shall consist of twenty-eight members ;
one-half of whom shall be clergymen and the other half laymen.

There would be no insuperable difficulty in permitting this board to
devolve its functions, in whole or in part, upon others ; but a necessary
requisite in an authority so extraordinary would be an act of the Legislature
conferring it in the most clear and unequivocal language. There is no
pretense that sucli an authority has been conferred by the charter, or by
any other legislative act.

Undoubtedly the Board of Directors in the discharge of any of their

564 APPENDIX.

duties may seek and obtain tlie advice and assistance of others. But they
can not abdicate any of their official duties, in whole or in part. The
determination of the fitness of any candidate for the office of professor is
a part of the government of the seminary ; and if it be competent to the
Board of Directors to clothe the General Assembly with the power of de-
feating an appointment made by the board, by the expression of disapproval,
it is competent to that body to transfer to the General Assembly the
whole power of appointment, and indeed the whole power of governing
the seminary.

Should the General Assembly veto an appointment to a j^rofessorship
made by the Board of Directors, and the members of the latter body
should be, nevertheless, of the opinion that the best interest of the sem-
inary demanded that the place should be filled by the candidate thus
rejected, it is very clear that they should not, consistently with their
official duty, acquiesce in the rejection.

It may be that it would be a wise arrangement to make the seminary
in some manner subordinate to the general authority of the Presbyterian
church ; but that is not the arrangement made by its present charter.

If these views are well founded, it follows that the attempt to make
the alleged contract was not only ineffectual, as being beyond any power
conferred upon the Board of Directors by the charter, but was illegal and
contrary to the duty of the members of the board, because it was an at-
tempted surrender of a duty the performance of which they had taken
upon themselves by their acceptance of the office of director. And inas-
much as the charters of all corporations are given upon the condition
that the powers conferred by them shall be exercised in the manner pre-
scribed, this attempted making of an illegal contract, and all subsequent
acquiescence in it would be a breach of the condition, and subject the
seminary to the hazard of a forfeiture by judicial decree of its corporate
existence.

I answer the particular questions submitted to me as follows :

1. I am inclined to the opinion that the General Assembly had no
legal capacity to make the contract referred to, assuming that it was its
intention to make a binding contract ; but I am not prepared to announce
a definite conclusion upon this point for the reason that I cannot arrive
at one without a fuller statement of the facts relative to the constitution,
purpose and authority of that body than is contained in the case sub-
mitted to me.

APPENDIX. 565

2. T am clearly of the npinion tliat the I5oanl of Directors of the
Union Tlieolof^ical vSeminary had no ]io\ver to delegate to the General
Assemhly an authority to veto the appointment or election of professors
made hy such board ; and that any such appointment or election could
not he in any manner deprived of its efficacy by any action of such Gen-
eral Assembly.

3. I am clearly of the opinion tliat the action of the Board of Direc-
tors of the seminary in attempting to make a bindinf^ contract relative
to the ai)pointment of professors, assuming as before, that such was the
intent of the ofler contained in the Memorial to the General Assembly,
was illegal and void.

4. I am clearly of the opinion that the present Board of Directors
of the seminary is not legally bound l)y the action referred to of the
board in 1870.

I do not profess to be competent to advise others upon moral questions
in general, but I think I may safely declare in this instance that the
present membei-s of the Board of Directors cannot be morally bound by
an act of its predecessors which was in violation of the duty they had
taken upon themselves by accepting the office of director.

5. It is, in my opinion, the duty of the present Board of Directors
to disavow any intent to abdicate their functions, or to delegate them to
others ; and, to that end, to rescind and annul, by a formal vote, the
apjiarent otier contained in the Memorial of 1.S70, to the General Assem-
bly, and to advise the latter body of such action.

Signed, James C. Cakter.

June 23, 1892.

OPINION OF JUDGE NOAH DAVIS

AS TO THE POSITION OF UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY TOWARD TTTE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Upon a careful examination of the Act of tlie Legislature of the
State of New York incorporating the Union Theological Seminary in the
city of New York, and of the several acts amendatory thereto, and of the
constitution and by-laws of said corporation, in connection with the Me-
morial presented by the directoi-s of said seminary to the General Assembly
of tlie Presbyterian Church of the United States, in May, 1870, and the
action of such General As.sembly thereupon, together with the memoran-

566 APPENDIX.

dum and argument of John J. McCook, Esq., presented to the late Gen-
eral Assembly, I have reached the following conclusions of law :

1. That by the Act of incorporation of said seminary, commonly called
its charter, all power of government and control of said seminary is wholly
vested in its Board of Directors. The second section of the Act is in
these words:

Section 2. The government of the seminary shall at all times be
vested in a Board of Directoi-s, which shall consist of twenty-eight mem-
bers, one-half of whom shall be clergymen and the other half laymen.
This grant of power is broad, exhaustive, and exclusive. It neither recog-
nizes nor permits any superior governmental power, that can dictate,
control, or limit the action of the Board of Directors in the exercise of
what is called by the "Act" "the government of the Seminary." The
directors cannot abdicate this power of government in favor of any other
body or person. They can, of course, appoint and act through agents
and servants whom they may select, and to whom they may give the &uh-
ordinate functions necessary to carry into execution their own powers of
government, because that course is simply a mode of efficiently executing
their own authority.

The third section of Article One of the Constitution (as it is called)
correctly defines the power of the Directors in these words: "Sec. 3.
In order to carry out the powers vested in them by the Act of Incor-
poration, the~ Board of Directors shall have authority to make their own
by-laws ; hold, manage, and disburse the funds of the Seminary ; appoint
all officers, professors, and teachers ; fix their salaries ; determine their
duties" . . . .; and the fourth section declares that "The board shall
watch over the fidelity of all who may be employed in giving instruction,
shall judge of their competency, doctrine, and morals, and shall have
power to remove an officer, professor, or teacher from ofl[ice " . . . .

The first section of Article Two provides that the Faculty shall consist
of a President and professoi-s, all of whom shall be ordained ministers of
the Gospel, and all of whom shall be appointed by the Board of Directors.
And section five of the by-laws prescribes the deliberation with which the
appointment of any member of the Faculty shall be approached and con-
ducted ; and section eleven defines the mode in which the by-laws may
be changed.

All these provisions of the Constitution and by-laws define and ac-
centuate the powers of the Directoi-s under the charter and e.rcliulc their

APPENDIX. 567

exercise I)y any other body, witli or without the consent of the board.
It cannot be (loul)ti'<l tliat the power of appointinji; the Faculty and its
several members, stands in the front rank of all the authority conferred
by the charter upon the board who are to act and speak as, and for
the corporation. Tlic Var.nltxj are the essential elements of the corporate
vitality and nsefulncss. Whoever can appoint them, holds in his or their
hands the effective utility of the body corporate ; every act or attempt of
the directors to divest themselves of that power and confer it upon another
body, or subordinate it to the will or jiulgraent of another, or make its
effective use so conditional upon such will or judgment of others, that its
exercise by the corporate board is dependent upon the "veto" or .sic volo
of such other, is utterly void and not only ultra I'/rc.s, which may be simply
an excess of power, but is incurably void for its utter lack of authority,
and its unw'arranted conflict with a plain statute.

In my opinion, therefore, the resolution of the Board which handed
over to the General Assembly the vital and principal function, without the
exercise of which the objects and purposes of the corporation could not be
made or kept alive and effective, as the act of the Legislature clearly
intended, was void ad initio, and has continued to be void during the
whole of its existence. The Legislature has not created a corporation for
religious instruction, whose Faculty, that is to say, whose instructors, shall
be appointed or controlled, or their appointment prevented or forbidden,
by some other religious body, however wise and noble it may be, other
than that which the Act itself brings into corporate existence. It is true
the directors may consult and take advice in respect to their appointees
with wiiomsoever they like, and may act upon such advice in making or
refusing to make any appointment, but the ultimcde and creative act must
be their own, and they can confer no power upon another corporation
or person to veto and thereby prevent the operation of their own ap-
pointment.

It is asseiled and elaborately urged that some sort of contractual re-
lation sprang up between the corporation and the General Assembly and
other like corporations, by means of which the Seminary is bound in
perpetuam to this surrender of its most vital function to the General As-
sembly. There is no principal of law upon which such an idea can
stand. First, there is no contract, from the utter lack of power to make
one ; all parties knew, or, what is the same thing, were bound to know,
that there could be no such contract. Second, the abdication of a vital

568 APPENDIX.

corporate function by one corporate body to another, is not the subject of
contract, where the nature of the power is such, that without its exercise
by its legislative grantee, the function cannot be used as the Legislature
has prescribed. No coi'poration can contract with another that the latter
may veto, and thereby prevent the choice of its effective officers, when
chosen by the board or body to whom a charter has given the sole power
or right of choice. To admit the idea that a longer or shorter submission
to such an attempt hinds the submitting corporation by perpetual contract,
introduces an unheard of element, worse than that of putting corporate
functions into a trust held by one corporation for the benefit of many.

The government that grants the power in such a case cannot be stop-
ped by such an abuse of its use, and no contract of the parties can be
asserted in answer to an action to annul the charter.

The parties to such a contract are in pari delicto, and neither can
allege the contract as a defense against the State.

Past acts in violation of corporate powers may sometimes be condoned,
as between parties to them, where equities arise from valuable considera-
tions paid, or conditions are changed so that great prejudice may arise
from the avoidance of such acts, but in no case can any corporation for
public uses compel another to continue to violate the plain requirements
of a statute, because it has wrongfully or ignorantly violated them in the
past ; and least of all will the law imply a contract to compel one Board
of Directore, as in tliis case to violate a statute in performing a corporate
duty, because some former boards have done so. The repudiation in this
case of any sort of action of former boards which abdicated their absolute
and exclusive power to appoint the Faculty of the Seminary, is simply a
return to an obedience of the law of their being.

I cannot, therefore, bring my mind to doubt that the appointment of

Professor Briggs, over which tlie question has arisen, was and is lawful

and effective, notwithstanding the action of the General Assembly.

Noah Davis.
New York. October 28. 1891.

INDEX.

Action of Joint Committee on Re-
union, 12-18.

Adams, Dr. William, 12 ; head of
standing committee, 20 ; member of
joint committee, 21 ; his opinion
of election of ])rofessors by A&sem-
bly, 26 ; report at board meetint!^,
ofiering the veto to the Assembly,
36 ; chairman of standing commit-
tee on Tiieological Seminaries, 55 ;
Dr. Hitciicock's tribute to him, 87-89;
his action while chairman of Com-
mittee on Seminaries in 1870, 173 ;
his utterances on same, 175 ; sketch
of his life and character, 217-221.

Agnew, B. L. : member of Arbitration
Committee, 288.

Alexander, Archibald, 24.

Amherst College : installs Dr. H. P.
Smith as college pastor and professor
of Biblical Literature, 335.

Arbitration Committee : report of, to
Assembly of 1893, 287-288.

Auburn Seminary : its relation to
Assembly, 140 ; under control of
Synod, 145 ; opinion of its lawyer,
227 ; bylaw of the Seminary (juoted,
227 ; its charter distinctively Pres-
byterian, 232.

Backus, Dr. John C, 20.
Bacon, Lord; quotation from, 73.
Barnes, Albert, 10 ; tribute paid to

him by the Assembly of 1870, 20 ;

his wisdom and uprightness, 70;

tried for heresy, 323.
Bartlett, Dr. : extract from speecii

at Detroit, 105-110.
lieatty. Dr. Charles C. : at Asseml)ly,

137 ; sketch of his life and character,

217-221.

Beecher, Dr. Willis J.: one of the six

joint debaters in the Presbyterian
Review on Higher ('riticism, ;'>2'.).

Beecher, Henry Ward : at Indianapo-
lis, 455, 477, 481, 486, 497, 49S.

Booth, Dr. R. R. : chairman com-
mittee on Theological Seminaries
at Baltimore, 62.

Breckinridge, Judge: his sudden dcatli,
68-122.

Bootii, William A., 36: the memoran-
diun on arbitration as presented at
conference meeting, 2(i5-2()8 ; bio-
graphical sketch of, 387 ; minute
adopted on his death by Board of
Directors, 388.

Breckinridge, Dr. Robert J., 21 : hos-
tility to reunion ; his biting criticism
on the reunion report, 318.

Brown, Francis, D. D.: transferred to
Davenport Profcssorshij) of Jlel)rew
and the (Jognate Languages, 340 ;
paper by, 339-345.

Brown, Kev. William Adams : Roose-
velt Professor of Systematic Theol-
ogy, 339.

Brown, John A. : gift to endowment
fund, 86.

Brown, James : gift to endowment
fund, 80 ; Mr. McCook's reference to
it, 85 ; generous benefactor of Union
Seminary, 86 ; sketch of ids life and
character, 89-92.

Brown, John Crosby : President of
Board of Directors, 90 ; speech at
inauguration of Dr. Hall as presi-
dent of the Faculty, 364-366.

Briggs, Kev. Charles A., D.D. : trans-
ferred from chair of Hebrew to that
of P.iblical Theology, 50-54; di.s-
satisfaction with his views, 6() ; de-
fended by Professor H. P. Smith,
105 ; professor at Union Semi-
nary, 159 ; utterances on induc-
tion to chair of Biblical Theologv,

570

INDEX.

162 ; resolutions passed \ij Board of
Directors upon his transfer, 167 ;
satisfactorily answere their questions,
173 ; attacked by a "Leading Eve-
ning Paper" of New York, 183 ; at-
tends Assemhly at Portland, Oregon,
256 ; his re-election as a director of
(lerman Theological Seminary dis-
approved by Assembly of 1893, 292 ;
brief sketch of his life, 312-315 ;
letter of his when a boy quoted, 312 ;
a student at the University of Vir-
ginia, 312-313 ; founder of the Y.
M. C. A. in the University, 313 ; a
member of the Seventh Regiment
New York Volunteers in the Civil
War, 313 ; enters Union Seminary
as a student for the ministry, 313 ;
goes abroad in 1866, 313 ; letter
to Dr. H. B. Smith quoted, 313-314 ;
pastor of First Presbyterian C'hurch,
Roseville, New Jersey, 314 ; in-
augurated professor at Union Sem-
inary, 314 • his inaugural address on
Exegetical Theology, 314 ; trans-
ferred to chair of Biblical Theology,
314 ; his memorable addi'ess, Janu-
ary 20, 1891, 315-317 ; his con-
nection with The Presbyterian Re-
view, 319 ; his trial for heresy, 320-
323 ; his own statement, prepared
especially for this volume by request
of Dr. Prentiss. 328-334; debate
with Dr. Patton by invitation of
Presb3^terian Union of New York,

330 ; attacked in 3Iail and Exp^rss,

331 ; offer to resign refused by di-
rectors, 334 ; severs his connection
with the Presbyterian Church and
becomes an Episcopal minister, 334;
librarian at Union in 1876, 354 ; his
letter to directors of Union accepting
the chair of Biblical Theology, 535-
537 ; his inauguration to same and
charge delivered to him by Dr.
Frazer, 537-543; questions submitted
to Dr. Briggs by the Board of Direc-
tors, and his answers, 543-544.

Butler, Charles, 22 : at directors'
meeting, 36 ; president and one of
the founders of Union Seminary,
222 ; letter to, from Messrs. Brown,
James, Dodge and Jesup with gift
of f;i75,000, 285 ; death of, 364 ;
sketch of his life and public services,
427-531 ; his marriage, 429 ; visits
the Great West, 429-433 ; makes his

permanent liome in New York, 433;
fight with repudiation in Michigan,
described in letters to his wife, 435-
450 ; his care for Union Seminary,
451, 452 ; the fight with repudiation
in Indiana, 452-498 ; his services to
Union Seminary, 500, and to New
York University, 500 ; extracts from
the funeral address delivered by
Rev. Dr. Vincent, 501-505 ; death
of his son Ogden, 505 ; message of
condolence from Thomas Carlyle,

506 ; his many distinguished friends,

507 ; letters from Mr. Froude, 508-
512 ; letter from Goldwin Smith,
513 ; letters from Carlyle, 515-522,
and fac simile of one, 523 ; his home
at Fox Meadow, 525 ; description of
his life there, by Col. McLean, 526-
529; minute on his death adopted bv
Union Seminary, 529-531.

Butler, William Allen : his 0])inionon
the action of the (ieneral Assembly
in the matter of Dr. Briggs and
Union Theological Seminary, 555-
558.

Carlyle, Thomas : letter of condo-
lence to Charles Butler on the death
of his son, 506 ; letters to Charles
Butler, 515-518, 522, 523.

Carlvle, John A. : letter to Charles
Butler, 521.

Carter, James C. : opinion on the rela-
tion of Union Seminary to the As-
sembly, 560-565.

Chalmers, Dr. : connection with the
"Veto Law" in Scotland, 160.

Conference Committee : personnel of
committee, 163 ; their fii-st paper,
168 ; their second paper, 169 ; pajiers
presented to them by IBoard of Di-
rectors of Union Seminary, 172 ;
statement to the public, 179; arbitra-
tion proposed, then withdrawn,
memorandum by Messrs. Hastings
and Booth, 264-267 ; copy of paper
first presented by Mr. Durant, 271 ;
copy of Mr. Durant' s paper as
revised by committee, 272.

Crosby, Howard, 70 ; words from his
memorable speech of May, 1869,
quoted, 253.

INDEX.

571

Columliia rnivcrsity : students of
Union adiiiittod to special courses,
340, WW ; (le^rees of M. A. and Ph. I ).
conferred, 848.

Cox, Hon. James B.: letter to, from
Dr. Nelson, 188.

C'Unnninf;;s, Asa : many 3'cars editor of
tile "Christian Mirror", 247.

Curtiss, Dr. S. Ives: of the Conjjrega-
tional Seminary of (Jhicago, 329.

Danville Seiminary : report to the
(General Assembly in 1871, 225.

Davis, .Indite Noah, of New York, 279;
opinion on relation of Union Semi-
nary to the Assembly, 56r)-,5G8.

Day, Henry : letter to Mr. J. C. Brown,
84, 85 ; speech to Committee of
Conference, 273-276 •, bio<,M-aphical
sketch of, 891: Dr. Hastings' tribute
to him, 894.

Design of the present volume : to give
an account of agreement of 1870, 311.

Dickey, Dr. : director of Union Semi-
nary and Commissioner to Assembly,
100.

Discussion of Agreement of 1870 in
the public press, secular and relig-
ious, 182-214.

Dixon, John, D.D. : chairman of com-
mittee on Theological Seminaries,
Assembly of 1893, 2S6 : his report at
Washington, 287-291.

Dodge, William E., 22; unfair treat-
ment of Union Seminary by the De-
troit Assembly, 277.

Duryea, Joseph Tuttle, D.D. : bio-
graphical sketch of, 390-391.

Dwight, Theodore W., LL.D.: emi-
nent jurist, 48.

Ecclesiastical Control : is such
direct control essential to efficiency,
sound teaching, and usefulness of
theological seminaries ? 293-297.

Erskine, Dr.: opposes second resolu-
tion, 119.

Eranr/eliM, The: editorial, 29; letter
from Dr. Beatty, 35 ; letter from Dr.
Parkhnrst, 94 ; article in number
for May 21st, 1891, 131 ; of June

11, 1S91, 132; "The Compact of
1870," 139-144.

Faonani, Ciiaulks Piiospeh, D.D.

instructor in Iliblical Thcoloyy, 340

lectures on the Enj,dish Udilc, 842
Fayerweather, Daniel P>.: gift to en

dowment fund, 85.
Field, Henry M., 70; letter to him

from Dr. Hamilton, 151.

Fogg, Mrs. Elizabeth : gift of $20,000
to the library, as the " William H.
Fogg Memorial," 357.

Frame, Rev. James Everett, M.A. :
instructor in the New Testament de-
partment, 840.

Frazer, David R., D. I). : his charge to
Dr. Briggs on his inauguration to
chair of Biblical Theology at Union.
538-543.

Fronde, J. A. : letters to Charles But
ler, 508-512.

Gallactier, Joseph S.: a director, 36.

(iates, Rev. Oliver Hamilton, Ph.D.:
instructor in Biblical Theology for

1891-92, 340.

General Assembly: its control over the
Old School Seminaries, 3-5 ; veto
power given to it by Union Semin-
ary in 1870, 19-21 ; memorial from
Princeton's directors, 31 ; memorial
from Union's directors, 81-38 ; as-
sumes a transfer and election to be
similar, 50 ; acceptance of ofier of
Union Seminary in 1870, 55-60 ;
frequent misapprehension of the ex-
tent of the veto power, 60-65 ;
organization of Detroit Assembly
and report of Standing Committee
on Theological Seminaries, 92-134 ;
action of Assembly on Dr. Briggs,
184-157 ; its proper sphere, 186,
137 ; testimony and protest called
forth by its action at Detroit, 147 ;
agreement of 1870, how regarded
at Detroit, 159 ; personnel of Stand-
ing Committee on Theological Semi-
naries, 163; High-Church theory
about the powers of, 214-221 ; ex-
tract from report of Standing Com-
mittee on Theological Seminaries to

572

INDEX.

Assembly of 1870, at Philadelpliia,
230 ; objection to annulling agree-
ment between it and Union on
account of other seminaries, 248-251;
Assembly of 1892 asked by Union's
directors to annul said agreement,
253; their memorial, 255-262; at
Portland, 1892, report of Standing
Committee on Seminaries, Dr. Mutch-
more, chairman, 263 ; action of As-
sembly of 1893 on Union Seminarv,
286-292.

Gillett, Charles R., D.D.: librarian of
Union Seminary, 77 ; instructor in
Methodology and Bibliography, 340;
his paper on the library, 352-362.

Gillet, Dr. Ezra H. : his interest in the
library, 354.

Gray, Dr.: his editorial in Inter ior^XZZ.

Green, William Henry, D.D. : moder-
ator, 92.

Gurley, Phineas Densmore, D. D. : at
Indianapolis, 455, 464, 477, 486,
498 ; sketch of life, 498.

Hadyn, C. H., D. D, LL.D.: extract
from sermon of, 147.

Haines, Richard T., 22.

Hall, Rev. Charles Cuthbert, D.D. •
professor, and president of the fac-
ulty, 339 ; passages from his inau-
gural address, 373-383.

Hall, John, D.D., LL.D. : brief
sketch of his life, 388, 389.

Hall, Robert : his opinion, of John
M. Mason's preaching, 298.

Hall, Rev. Thomas Cumming, D.D. :
professor of Christian Ethics, 339 ;
to give a course on the English
Bible, 342.

Hamilton, Alexander: a friend of
John M. Mason, 299.

HamiUon, S. M., D.D.: letter of, 151,
152.

Hastings, Thomas S., D.D., LL.D.:
President Faculty of Union, 164 ;
paper presented on behalf of board
to Conference Committee, 165 ; letter
quoted, 180 ; his memorandum on
question of arbitration, 266-268 ;
letter to, from j\Ir. James, 284 ; let-
tei's to, from Dr. Patterson quoted,

323-328 ; resigns as president in
1897, 339 ; his charge at inaugura-
tion of Dr. Hall, 368-372; his
letter on the life of Henry Day,
392-394.

Hatfield, Ed\vin F., 21 : at meeting of
directors. May 1870, 36 ; Dr. Adams
confers with, 50 ; member of Board
of Directors, 162 ; prepares first gen-
eral catalogue of the seminary, 360.

Hathaway, Dr. Israel W.: extract from
speech to Assembly, 110-114,

Herald and Preshi/ter : article in num-
ber of December 2d, 1891, by Dr.
Roberts, 1 84 , quotations from same,
185-189.

Hitchcock, Roswell D., 70 ; Dr. Bart-
lett's tribute to him, 109; his nom-
ination to chair of Church History
opposed, 241.

Hodge, Dr. A. A.: letter to Dr. H. B.
Smith, 46-48 ; an editor of The
Presbyterian Review, 329.

Hodge, Dr. Charles, 20 ; charges
against New School, 21 ; protests
against reunion, 35 ; editor of the
Princeton Peview, 37 ; his teaching
at Princeton, 153.

Howe, Fisher, 36.

Humphrey, E. W. C. : member of
Arbitration Committee, 288.

Huntington, Dr., of New York : en-
dorses Dr. Briggs, 335.

Jacobus, Rev. M. W.: extract from
"The Assemblies of 1869," 17, 18.

James, D. Willis, 36 ; statement at
board meeting, 39-41 ; protest of
May 9th, 52 ; protests against veto
power, 162 ; speech at Conference
Committee quoted, 276, 277 ; letter
to Dr. Hastings in October, 1892,
284 ; letter of his referring to cases
of Drs. Briggs and Smith, quoted,
335.

Johnson, Dr. Her rick : statement at
Assembly of 1893, 279.

Johnston, John Taylor : biographical
sketch of, 389.

.Junkin, George : member of Confer-
ence Committee : urges suppression of
papers, ISl ; speech on arbitration

INDEX.

573

at Portland quoted, 209-271 ; inern-
ber of Alhitration C'oiuniittee, 288.

Junkin, Rev. Dr. (Joorgo : extract
from life of, 21 (i; Stonowall Jack-
son's fatiicr-in-law, 215.

Junkin, David X., D.D. : brotlier of,
and author of life of George Junkin,
215.

KiNGSLEY, E. M.: treasurer and re-
corder of Union Seminarv ; liis state-
iiKMit of the endowments, 210-212;
messenger iVom the directors to the
Assembly at Portland, Oregon.

Knox, (Jeorge William, D.D.: profes-
sor of tiie Philosophy and History
of Religion, 339.

Lane Seminary : opinion of Mr.
Justice Matthews regarding its re-
lation to the (leneral Assembly 227;
report of its Committee quoted, 227;
bylaw (pioted, 228.

Lewis, Taylor, 70.

Library of Union Seminary : nucleus
formed by purchase of the VanEss
collection in 1838, 352 ; the Gillett
collection of pamphlets and early
American titles, 355, 356 ; the Hat-
field collection, 356 ; the Henry B.
Smith memorial, 357 ; the Hymno-
logical department, 357, 358 ; the
liistorical department and gift of
Charles W. Hassler, 358, 359 ; col-
lection on Systematic Theology, 359;
on Practical Theology, 359.

Logan, Dr.: ofIi3rs amendment to re-
port, 104 ; exidains it, 115.

Ludlow, Dr. : opinion on arbitration
proposal, 27().

Madison, Mb. : influence in first Con-
gress, 64.

Mail and E.rpresf; : attacks Union Sem-
inary and Dr. Briggs, 331.

Martineau, Dr.: referred to in Dr.
Briggs' address, as an example of
those who find Cod through the
Reason, 316.

Mason, Ei-skine: a founder of Union

Seminarv, 298 ; author of its plan,
298-299.

Mason, John M.: renowned Presby-
terian divine, 29M.

Mathews, Stanley : eminent lawyer,
liis advice to Directors of Lane
Seminary, 227.

McAli)in, Mr. David H.: his interest
in and gifts to tiie library, 354 ; bis
gift of Greek Testaments, collection
of the late Dr. Isaac II. Hall, 358.

McCook, John J.: argument against
Union Seminary, 73-91; urges veto,
123.

McCormick Seminary : how started, 4;
its amended constitution, 4.

McDougall, Tliomas: author of "Union
Seminary vs the general Asseinl)ly
of the Presbvterian Cluirch" , "Tiie
Case to Date,"" 1 9S; samecjuoted, 1 98-
204; second ))aini)]ilet, 204; (piota-
tions from his second ])ampldet
against the Directors of Union Sem-
inary, 205-209; his High Church
theories, 214.

McGiftert, Arthur Cushman, D.D.,
Professor of Church History, 339.

McKibbin, Dr. : member of Detroit
vStanding Committee on Theological
Seminaries, 93 ; extract from his
speech on report, 95 ; author of
"Union Seminarv and the Assem-
bly," 192-4; same quoted 1 90-197;
his High Church theories, 214.

McLean, Col. Wni. E., description of
his visit to Charles Butler, at his
summer home, 526-529.

McPherson, Rev. Simon J., D.D., ad-
dress on Dr. Worcester, delivered by
invitation of Union's P.oard of Direc-
tors, in Adams Chapel, April, 1893,
401, 402.

]\Iiller, Samuel, 24.

j\l(n-gan. Governor, gift to endowment
fund, 80-81; letter to Dr. Adams on
same subject, 83 ; "Morgan Hall,"
his gift to Williams College, 84; Mc-
Cook refers to him, 85 ; endows the
library, 357.

Morris, Dr. E. D. : Professor at Lane
Seminary, 139.

Murray, Logan C. : member of arbitra-
tion committee, 288.

574

INDEX.

Miisgravc, George W., D. D. : speech
of, 15-17; report at Old School As-
sembly, 42; expression in 1871, 44;
statement in 1869 when presenting
I'oport of Conference Committee,
174.

Mntchmore, S. A., D. D. : chairman
Committee on Theological Sem-
inaries, 262.

Nelson, Henry A., D. D. : extract
from letter, 137-189.

New School General Assembly; resolu-
tion of 1857, 12; concessions asked
for by Old School, 46;

New York Sun: article on Union Sem-
inary by Thomas McDougall in issue
of October 17th, 1892, 198; com-
ment on the gift of Messrs. James,
Brown, Dodge and Jesup, Novem-
ber 17, 1892, 285.

New York University : students of
Union admitted to special courses at,
340, 341 ; degree of B. D. given on
recommendation of University fac-
ulty, 343.

Northwestern Theological Seminary:
report to general Assembly in 1871,
225.

Parkhukst, Dr.: extract from letter
to the Einnc/elist 94; commissioner
to Assembly, 100; extract from let-
ter, 101.

Patterson, Robert W., D. D. : extract
from letter of, 148 ; extract from
another letter, 150; letters to Dr.
Hastings on the Briggs case quoted,
323-328.

Patton, Francis L., D.D., LL.D.:
chairman Committee on Theological
Seminaries, 93; his course as such,
95-96; extracts from speech, 121-
123; urges decision by Assembly,
123; speech on same, 126; his kind-
ness to Dr. Briggs, 128; chairman
Standing Committee, 164; speech
quoted, 185.

Potter, Bishop : welcomes Dr. Briggs,
335.

Prentiss, Dr. letter from Dr. Hastings,
180 ; an open letter from Thomas

McDougall, 204-209 ; author of
paper on "The Problem of the Veto
Power, and How to Solve it," 223;
resigns Skinner and McAlpin pro-
fessorship in 1897, 339 ; letter
from Wordsworth, quoted, 463.

Prentiss, S. S.: his fight with repudia-
tion in Mississippi, 463.

Presbyterian and Reformed Review :
article by Dr.Warfield in number
of July, 1892, quoted, 189-192.

Presbyterian Church : what it should
stand for, 154 ; what is the best
method of influencing wisely and
effectually the training of its own
young pastors? 244.

Presbyterian Review : Dr. Prentiss a
member of its committee, 319 ; Dr.
Briggs the founder and senior editor,
319.

Presbyterian, The : extract quoted,
254; Rev. S. A. Mutchmore, D.D.
one of the editors of, 262.

! Princeton Review: article in number of

j April, 1870, 30.
Princeton Theological Seminary : its
relation to theGeneral Assembly, 4,
5; its founding in 1812, 24; aj)-
peals to Dr. Adams, 26 ; paper pres-
ented at annual meeting of directors
in April 1870, 31 ; its constitu-
tion amended, 235.

Radcliffe, Wallace, D.D.: pastor
of Fort Street Presbyterian Church,
Detroit, 92.

Ramsey, Dr. : extract from speech,
115-117.

Relation of Theological Seminaries in
the Old School branch to theGeneral
Assembly, 3-5.

Report of Committee on Theological
Seminaries, 55-58 ; report of same
at Detroit Assembly, 92-134.

Record from ofl[icial Journal of As-
sembly of 1871, 61.

Revision and anti-revision, 330 ; de-
bate on, between Drs. Patton and
Briggs, 330.

Rice, Dr. L. N. : member of Old School
Assembly, 153.

Roberts, William H. : Secretary Com-

INDEX.

575

rnittee of Conference, 170 ; author
of "The Koelesiastical Status of
Tlieuloi^ii-al Seminaries," IHl quota-
tions from same, ISo-lSil ; his lli.^ii
Cliureii tiieories, '214 ; iiis statement
at Wasiiin^ton in exjihniation of iiis
vote coiulenniing Dr. IJriggs, cjuoted,
32(i.

Kohinson, P^dward : Dr. liartlett's tri-
l)ute to iiiiu, 109 ; apiJrehension as
to his views, 242 ; chair of liil)lieal
Theology, established 1890, :339; for
many years in charge of the lil)rary
of Union, 353.

Koinish Baptism : action on by Old
School Assembly, 153.

Sage, Russell : gift to endowment
fund, 85.

Schafi; Philip : sketch of his life, 420-
422 ; congratulatory address sent
him by faculty of Berlin Universitv,
422-424.

Shedd, AVilliam Greenough Thayer :
biographical sketch of, 418-420.

Skinner, Thomas H. : moderator, 12;
a leader of the New School, 21;
Dr. Bartlett's tribute to him, 109;
letter to Mr. Norman White quoted,
305-307.

Smith, Dr. Henry B. : his views while
professor, 10 ; moderator, 12 ;
"Hero of Reunion", 21 ; objections
to Joint Conunittee's repoi't, 25 ;
"F^ox Without a Tail," 28 ; against
ecclesiastical control of Union Sem-
inary, 37 ; his coming to New York,
43; regards Dr. A. A. Hodge's scheme
impracticable, 48 ; commissioner
from Presljy tery of New York, G 1 ;
Dr. Bartlett's tribute to him, .109 ;
words of, 157; letter from Dr.
Hodge, 161 ; letter from same, 175 ;
his own views quoted, 176 ; once
supposed to be too ardent an ad-
mirer of "German Theology," 240 ;
lettere from Dr. Briggs, quoted, 314;
in charge of the library for many
years, 3.5.3 ; supervises library col-
lection on Systematic Theology, 356.

Smith, Prof. IlenrvP. : makes opening
speech at Asseu'ibly of 1891, 105 ;
tried for heresy, 323 ; debates in
the Presbyterian Review on Higher
Criticism, 329.

Smitli, F. Ralston, D. D. : chairman
Arbitration Conuniltee, 288.

Smitii, (Joldwin : letter to Charles But-
ler, 513, 514.

Stearns, Jonathan F., 21 ; at directors'
meeting, \M\ ; rnenil)er of Joint Com-
mittee of Conference, 42 ; his
sagacity and forethought, 43 ; his
advice sought, 50 ; sketch of his
life, 394-400 ; extract from Rev.
Dr. Fiske's eulogy on him, 398 ;
minute adopted by Board of Direc-
tors on his death, 399, 400.

Stearns, Lewis F. : professor at Bangor,
243 ; his sudden death deplored,
244.

Storrs, Dr. H. M.: iiis (liristian man-
liness in the Washington Assemljlv,
322.

Stuart, Moses : professor at Andover,
242 ; great debt Biblical learning
owes to iiim, 242 ; yet regarded as
well nigh a heretic, 242.

Synod of Baltimore : takes action
against Union Seminary, 173.

Terry, John T.: author of letter to

the New Y'ork Tribune, 210 ; same

quoted, 212.
Thornwell, Dr.: member of Old School

Assembly, 153.
Tribune, New York : description of

organization of the 103rd General

Assembly, 93.

Union Theological Seminary : rela-
tion to the General Assembly in
1870, 3; its origin, design, and
status, 5-12 ; it.s founders, their
beliefs and principles, 7-9 ; pream-
ble to its constitution, 6, 7 ; design of
its founders, and their "j)lan," 9;
reasons for giving up its autonomy,
21-36 ; memorializes General As-
seml)ly again.st election of j)rofessors
directly by Assembly, May, 1870,
32-34 ; Union and Princeton in
accord, 34-36 ; actiim and jjiirpose
of directors in this concession, 36-
41 ; did the directors snpixise they
were ottering in 1870 to enter into
a legal comi)act witii the Assembly,
41-48 ; scope and limitations of veto

576

INDEX.

offered to the Assembly by the direc-
tors, 48-55 ; table of students from
1871 to 1891, 78 ; extracts from
sermon on tiie duty of supporting it,
preached J 851, 8i-83 ; slighted by
Assembly, 101 ; what she stands
for, 156 ; interpretation of agreement
of 1870 by Board of Director, 158-
1 82 ; action of board on Conference
Committee's first paper, 171 ; action
on second paper, 171 ; paper ad-
dressed to Conference Committee by
Board of Directors, 172; section of
seminary's charter, 225 ; declaration
of faith required of all directors,
230 ; its charter not denominational,
232 ; but its constitution declai'es it
to be a Presbyterian Seminary, 232 ;
sections of Arts. I and II of the con-
stitution quoted, 233 ; 9th Art. of
plan of Union quoted, 233 ; Board
of Directors memorialize Assembly
of 1892 to annul agreementof 1870,
253; memorial quoted, 255-262 ;
final action of the board annulling
the agreement, 280-284 ; names of
directors voting on same, 283 ; de-
sign of its founders world-wide, 297-
300 ; their hope and expectation,

300 ; their design crowned with the
peace and charity of the Gospel,

30 1 ; special fitness of its charter to
carry out this design, 302 ; Charles
A. Briggs a student of, 313 ; inaugu-
rated professor of Hebrew and Cog-
nate Languages, 314 ; transferred to
chair of Biblical Theology, 314 ;
attacked in Mail and Express, 330,
331 ; a student spy expelled, 331 ;
its internal development since 1886,
339-345 ; its scholarships, 343 ;
Christian work, 343 ; student socie-
ties, 344 ; religious services, 344 ;
" Union Settlement," 345 ; the
Alumni Club, 345 ; the course of
study, arranged by departments,
346-351 ; tlie library and the
ahunni, 352-362 ; first catalogue,
1876, 360; second, 1886, 360;
third, 1898, 360; total number of
students and list of almnni, 360 ;
establishment of the Edward Robin-
son Chair of Biblical Theology, 533,
534 ; Dr. Brigg.s' appointment there-
to, 535-543 ; resolutions of the
Board of Directors sustaining Dr.

Briggs, 545 ; statement of the fac-
ulty on Dr. Briggs' inaugural ad-
dress, 545-550.

VanDyke, Henry J., D.D. : his
sudden death, 122; sketch of his
life, 413-418 ; letter to Dr. Hast-
ings quoted, 417.

VanEss, Brother Leander : sketches of
his connection with the Benedictine
Library, 352, 353.

Veto power : quiescent for twenty years,
63 ; sudden mention of using it in
1891, 66; determination to veto
Dr. Briggs, 104; Assembly takes
vote on question, 122 ; wrong result-
ing from it, 135; problem of, and
how to solve it, paper by Dr. Pren-
tiss, publisiied March, 1892,222;
extract from same, 223-240 ;
i-easons wliy agreement of 1870
should be annulled, 237 ; would it
be a good thing applied to the ap-
pointment of religious editors ? 245-
248.

Vincent, Marvin E., D. D. : extracts
from his funeral address on Charles
Butler, 501-505.

Virginia, University of, 312 ; Y. M.
C. A. of, the first in a college, 313.

Warfield, Dr.: editor of The Presby-
terian and Reformed Meview, 189.

White, Norman, 22 ; at directors'
meeting, 36 ; letter from Dr. Skin-
ner, February, 1865, 305-307.

Wilson, James Patriot, 36.

Worcester, John IL, Jr., D.D. : offers
substitute amendment, 104; extract
from speech, 117-121 ; biographi-
cal sketch of, 400 ; memorial dis-
course on him delivered by Dr.
McPherson, 401-412.

Wordsworth : letter to Dr. Prentiss,
quoted, 469.

Woodrow, Prof., 143.

Young, Dr.: Moderator of Assembly
of 1892, 133. •

Date Due

^M^UUU.

iW^

*mmmmm

mmmm^^

\»mmm»^

mmfffumijff^^

fmmmmm

■ ' ^'^

k«»

--^F^"'

<|)

This book and other publications
of M., W. & C. Pennypacker, may
be procured in New York, of

BoNNELL, Silver & Co.,»
24 W. Twenty-Second St.
(Bet. Fifth and Sixth Aves )

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Union theological seminary in the city of New York: its design and another decade of its history. With a sketch of the life and public services of Charles Butler, LL.D"

See other formats