IV. Statement of the Faculty, 137

NOTE.
The following paper, prepared last summer, is now published in the hope that it may serve to correct some misapprehensions, which have widely prevailed with re- gard to the Union Theological Seminary in its relations to the General Assembly and the Presbyterian Church.
New York, October 24, 1891.
THE AGREEMENT OF 1870
BETWEEN UNION SEMINAEY AND THE GENEBAL ASSEMBLY.
A CHAPTER SUPPLEMENTARY TO
" FIFTY YEARS OF THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK."
In the historical address delivered at the semi-centenary of Union Seminary, in 1886, there was only a passing allu- sion to this agreement. Nor had it attracted any special attention until early in the present year. Then, all at once, it began to be discussed in the religious newspapers; at first mildly and somewhat hesitatingly, but later in a very earnest and positive manner. As the meeting of the General Assembly drew near, the motive of this discussion became apparent. The agreement of 1870, as interpreted by the opponents of Dr. Briggs in the Presbyterian Church, gave the General Assembly power to forbid his transfer to the new chair of Biblical Theology ; and no sooner had the Assembly actually met than its purpose to exercise this powder was unmistakable. On the 29th of May it disapproved of Dr. Briggs' transfer by an overwhelming vote. This action of the General Assembly of 1891, whether regarded in its bearing upon the Presbyterian Church or upon the Union Seminary, is fraught with consequences of the utmost im- portance. In the following paper I propose to consider the subject in this twofold bearing ; and I shall try to do so without passion or prejudice, A better understanding of
2 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
the whole subject will help, perhaps, to allay some of the passions and prejudices which unhappily its discussion has aroused. My aim will be to set forth, as clearly and suc- cinctly as possible, the main points which seem to me to be involved in the controversy, and thus to aid those whose minds are not yet fully made up, in reaching a just conclu- sion.
I.
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 the Joint Com- mittee, appointed in 1866, had to deal. This was owing partly to the nature of the subject, and in part to the great diversity of origin, constitution, environment, and legal re- lations which marked these institutions.
The 9th Article of "the proposed terms of reunion be- tween the two branches of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America," reported by the chairmen, Drs. Beatty and Adams, to their respective Assemblies, in May, 1867, was as follows:
If at any time, after the union has been effected, any of the theological seminaries under the care and control of the General Assembly, shall desire to put themselves under syn- odical control, they shall be permitted to do so at the request of their Boards of Directors ; and those seminaries which are independent in their organization shall have the privilege of putting themselves under ecclesiastical control, to the end that, if practicable, a system of ecclesiastical supervision of such institutions may ultimately prevail through the entire united Church.
The 9th Article, as reported by the Joint Committee and
THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 3
adopted by the two General Assemblies in 1868, varied somewhat from this. It was as follows :
In order to a uniform system of ecclesiastical supervision those theological seminaries that are now under Assembly control may, if their Boards of Direction so elect, be trans- ferred to the watch and care of one or more of the adjacent synods, and the other seminaries are advised to introduce, as far as may be, into their constitutions, the principle of Syn- odical or Assembly supervision ; in which case they shall be entitled to an official recognition and approbation on the part of the General Assembly.
The changes in the Article are highly significant, and in- dicate several points of objection made to it as reported in 1867. This amended Article reappeared among the " Con- current Declarations" of the General Assemblies of 1869. In explaining it in their report of 1868, the chairmen said :
A recommendation looking to some uniformity of ecclesi- astical supervision, is all which the Committee felt to be with- in their province or that of the Assembly ; except that those seminaries, now belonging to either branch of the Church, should have every guarantee and protection for their char- tered rights which they might desire.
This passage, both in its mild, even subdued, tone, and in its explanation, throws a clear light back upon the devious path by which the Committee had reached their conclusion. The discussion and criticism occasioned by their plan, as re- ported in 1867, had convinced them that the whole subject was beset with difficulties and perils, which required very delicate as well as skillful treatment. "A recommendation " (the italics are their own) " looking to some uniformity of ecclesiastical supervision, is all which the Committee felt to be within their province or that of the Assembly"; except that the "chartered rights " of all the seminaries of either
4 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
branch of the Church, should be carefully guaranteed and protected. This was quite different language from that used in 1867 : " Those seminaries which are independent in their organization, shall have the privilege of putting themselves under ecclesiastical control."
The temper of mind, as also the way, in which the Joint Committee and the friends of reunion generally had come to regard the question of the theological seminaries, may be seen most distinctly, perhaps, in the speech of Rev. George W. Musgrave, D.D., LL.D., made on the occasion of the pres- entation of the report of the Joint Committee of Confer- ence to the Old School General Assembly sitting in the Brick Church in the city of 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 in- dicate its spirit and its bearing on the question now under discussion. Its opening sentences are as follows :
It affords me great pleasure to be able to report a plan of union between what are known as the Old and New School bodies, and to be able to say that our report is unanimous, and is signed by every member of each Committee. The Joint Committee report three papers to the Assembly. The first is a plan of union, containing the basis, which will be sent down to the presbyteries for their acceptance or rejec- tion. The second paper is a declaration, made that there may be a good understanding between the two branches. This paper is not a compact or covenant, but it is a recommendation of certain arrangements as to seminaries, boards, etc. It is no part of the basis or terms of union. It only recommends certain arrangements as suitable to be adopted. The third paper is one recommending a day of prayer to Almighty God for His guidance and presence, that presbyteries may be under Divine influence when they come to vote upon this momentous question.
THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON SEMINAEIES. 5
In the course of his speech Dr. Musgrave thus referred to the " concurrent declarations " on theological seminaries, boards, and other matters pertaining to the interests of the Church, when it should become united :
I have already stated to the Assembly that these articles don't form a part of the basis. They are not a compact or covenant, but they suggest to the Assembly what are suitable 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 unchangeable, 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 common sense, and I felt that it would be unsafe for us to imperil the future by trammeling the Church of God, preventing it from exercising its liberty, and from dealing with circumstances as they might arise in the providence of God. Sir, we were very decided and de- termined that those articles should not form a part of the compact, but that they should be suggestions and recom- mendations, in order that the presbyteries should get an understanding between the parties. But, sir, it is due to fairness that I should say, and I repeat it now 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."
6 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
It is needless to add, that the wisdom of proposing and adopting these articles in the sense not of a legal compact, but of judicious, suitable arrangements, very soon became apparent. Dr. Musgrave's expressions, "We told our brethren," "¥e did say to these brethren," refer to the New School brethren, and are explained by the following extract from a sketch of " The Assemblies of 1869," writ- ten by the Kev. Dr. M. W. Jacobus, Moderator of the Old School Assembly :
It may be mentioned, as part of the inside history of the negotiations, that when the Joint Sub-Committee met for the purpose of engrossing what had been passed upon by the Joint Committee of Conference, and to prepare the report to the Assembly, one of the members (N. S.) objected to the in- sertion of the words contained in the preamble to the con- current declarations, viz. : " not as articles of compact or covenant, but as in their judgment proper and equitable arrangements." He admitted that the language fairly ex- pressed what had been agreed upon, that the articles referred to were merely recommended, and if adopted by the united Church might hereafter, for good and sufficient reasons, be modified or repealed. But he argued that the 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 under- standings. 2. Because, if omitted, it might be hereafter argued that the articles were intended to be a compact between the two parties, which coxdd not be honorably modified or repealed. 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 development of Providence, might be deemed either necessary or expedient. This difference threatened to be a stumbling-block in the
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 7
way, even -within reach of the goal. At this very crisis, how- ever, an eminent layman of the New School committee joined in this view of the case, with such cogent reasons as to prove the correctness of the position. Upon re-examination of the paragraph, the dissent was revoked, and the entire paper was then adopted by a unanimous vote. This meeting of the Joint Sub-Committee was held on the evening preceding the day of presenting the report to the General Assembly, and it was not until eleven o'clock at night that the decisive vote was reached in the committee-room.
II.
THE VETO IN THE ELECTION OF ITS PROFESSORS AS CONCEDED BY UNION SEMINARY TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
"We come now to a main object of this paper, the occa- sion, meaning, and force of the veto power offered and given to the General Assembly in 1870 by Union Semi- nary. I have shown what was the action of the Joint Com- mittee respecting the theological seminaries np to the time of the reunion. As the result of long and patient con- sideration, aided by varied discussion throughout the two Churches, the ninth article, or concurrent declaration, al- ready given, had been reported to the General Assemblies and adopted by both bodies. This article was a " recom- mendation " and nothing more. So the case stood, when the first General Assembly of the united Church met at Philadelphia, in May, 1870. The work of this Assembly was principally one of readjustment and reconstruction. The articles approved by the two Assemblies at New York in 1869, not as a part of the basis of union, or as a legal compact, but as " suitable arrangements," were now to be acted upon. The varying, not to say more or less conflict- ing, institutions, legal rights, customs, agencies, properties,
8 UNION seminary and the assembly.
and activities of both branches, Old School and Kew, now no longer two but one, were all to be brought into harmonious relations, in accordance with the changed order of things and the new organic life. I was a member of the Assem- bly of 1870, and can testify, as an eye-witness, that its ruling spirit, from beginning to end, was the spirit, not of fear, or suspicion, or jealousy, or any such thing, but of power and of love, and of a sound mind. The presence of the stur- diest, foremost opponent of reunion, Dr. Charles Hodge, if not as a commissioner, yet as a most interested looker-on and even friendly adviser, along with the beautiful tribute of high regard and affection paid by ^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 ISTew School part of the joint committee on reunion, he had won the confidence and admiration of the whole Church, alike by his wisdom, his Christian temper, his felicitous addresses, and his mas- terly reports. One of his colleagues on the committee, the late beloved Dr. Shaw, of Rochester, wrote to him : " The Church owes to you so large a debt that no one but God is rich enough to pay it." But inasmuch as all the theological seminaries connected with the Assembly belonged to the Old School, Dr. Adams felt that delicacy forbade his acting as chairman of the committee on that subject. He, therefore, as a personal favor, asked permission to decline the appoint- ment, suggesting Dr. John C. Backus in his place. But the Assembly insisted that he should serve.
"I think," said Dr. Musgrave, himself a director of Princeton, " the moderator has shown his wisdom in ap- pointing a man so entirely acceptable to all this house. We have no rivalship, no jealousies, no fear, but perfect
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 9
confidence and love, and the Old School men would rather Dr. Adams should be in that position, because he was once a New School man. We have this additional evidence that we are one." *
And now, before proceeding further, let us return to Union Seminary and the veto power offered by it to the General Assembly in the election of its professors. In order to present the subject more clearly, I will touch briefly upon several points bearing on it.
(a). Origin and design of Union Theological Seminary.
The Union Theological Seminary was intended not only to be a new school of divinity, but also, as such, to repre- sent a distinct type of religious thought, sentiment, and policy. It differed in important respects from Andover, from Princeton, and from Auburn. It was largely the growth at once of the fervid evangelistic spirit of the time, and of that devotion to the cause of sacred science and a learned ministry, which marked all the churches of Puritan origin. In establishing it, the founders, who were earnest, practical men, aimed to embody in a permanent form cer- tain views of Christian piety and theological training, which they regarded as specially fitted to prepare young men for effective service in the ministry of the Gospel in their own age. And in carrying out these views, they took pains to organize the institution on a plan in harmony with them. While providing carefully for sound Scriptural
* These two eminent leaders of the Assembly at Philadel- phia early attracted the attention of spectators in the gal- leries, who by way of characterizing 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 Evangelist, written at the time, in which is a graphic pen-picture of the Assembly of 1870.
10 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
teaching, and avowing also their adherence to Presbyterian doctrines and polity, they at the same time resolved to give the Seminary perfect freedom and self-control in the man- agement of its own affairs. This was doubtless the result in part of providential circumstances ; but it was none the less a result of deliberate conviction and purpose. Their noble temper of mind, their large, world-wide outlook, and the sacredness they attached to their work, may be seen in the preamble to the constitution of the Seminary. Here are portions of it :
That the design of the founders of this Seminary may be publicly known, and be sacredly regarded by the directors, professors, and students, it is judged proper to make the following preliminary statement:
A number of Christians, both clergymen and laymen, in the cities of New York and Brooklyn, deeply impressed with the claims of the world upon the Church of Christ, to furnish a competent supply of well-educated and pious ministers of the Gospel ; impressed also with the inadequacy of all exist- ing means for this purpose ; and believing that large cities furnish many peculiar facilities and advantages for conduct- ing theological education ; having, after several meetings for consultation and prayer, again convened on the 18th of January, a.d. 1836, unanimously adopted the following reso- lution and declarations :
1. Besolved, In humble dependence on the grace of God, to attempt the establishment of a theological seminary in the city of New York.
2. In this institution it is the design of the founders to furnish the means of a full and thorough education in all the subjects taught in the best theological seminaries in this or other countries.
3. Being 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
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 11
promote the best interests of the kingdom of Christ, the founders of this seminary design that its students, remain- ing under pastoral influence, and performing the duties of church members in the several churches to which they be- long, or with which they worship, in prayer-meetings, in the instruction of Sabbath-schools and Bible-classes, and being conversant with all the benevolent efforts of the present day in this great community, shall have the opportunity of add- ing to solid learning and true piety the teachings of experi- ence.
4. By the foregoing advantages, the founders hope and expect, with the blessing of God, to call forth and enlist in the service of Christ and in the work of the ministry, genius, talent, enlightened piety, and missionary zeal ; and to qual- ify many for the labors and management of the various religious institutions, seminaries of learning, and enterprises of benevolence which characterize the present times.
The founders of Union Seminary were at the time mostly pastors or members of churches, nearly all of which, after the disruption, sided with the New School branch. Of the clerical directors in the first board, one only adhered to the Old School, and he had recently come from a Congregational pastorate in New England. Of the first lay directors, also, nearly all belonged to the New School. The founders of the Seminary were in hearty sympathy with Albert Barnes, Lyman Beecher, and men of that stamp. They were enthusiastic believers in the new Christian evangelism at home and abroad. They be- lieved also in the " voluntary principle," and were exceed- ingly jealous of all "high-toned" ecclesiasticism. They hated religious quarrels and bickerings. Their sentiments on these and similar points led to the establishment of the Seminary, found expression in its constitution, and have shaped its policy from that day to this. Here is their own
12 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
account of the matter, written by that admirable man, Erskine Mason, son of the friend of Hamilton, the re- nowned Dr. John M. Mason :
It is the design of the founders to provide a theological seminary in the midst of the greatest and most growing com- munity in America, around which all men of moderate views and feelings, who desire to live free from party strife, and to stand aloof from all extremes of doctrinal speculation, practical radicalism, and ecclesiastical domination, may cordially and affectionately rally.
To keep clear of all extremes of " ecclesiastical domina- tion," they made the Seminary independent alike of Pres- bytery, of Synod, and of General Assembly. Its autonomy was complete and unquestioned. Nothing could be more cordial than were its relations with the .New School Church. It made annual reports and statements to the General Assembly touching its affairs : the elections, transfers, and deaths of its professors ; its successive endowments, and all things of general interest. But the Assembly had no pro- prietorship or control over it. The whole Church was proud of Union Seminary, and the Seminary loved and honored the Presbyterian Church. This happy state of things con- tinued until 1370. Why was it then changed ?
(b). Reasons and influences that induced Union Semi- naryr, 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 Presbyterian Church. Reunion had been already accomplished, and Union Seminary had from the first thrown the whole weight of its influence in favor of the movement. Henry B. Smith had struck its keynote, and, later, in a contest of the pen, had met and vanquished its ablest foe. Dr. Shedd,
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POY/ER. 13
in the General 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 Princeton and Old School leaders. Their colleague, Thomas H. Skinner, a very eminent New School leader, was in heartiest sym- pathy with them; while William Adams, Jonathan F. Stearns, and Edwin F. Hatfield, all directors of Union, had been among the most active members of the Joint Committee. Such ardent friends of reunion as William E. Dodge, Charles Butler, Richard T. Haines, and other noted laymen, also belonged to the Union Board. It was altogether natural, therefore, that Union Seminary should have felt deeply interested in removing, as far as possible, all obstacles to the complete success of reunion out of the way. Dr. Adams was especially anxious that the wheels of the great Church organization, whose strength was now doubled, and which he believed to be fraught with vast power for good, should move right on without friction. He wielded at this time a greater influence than any other director of Union Seminary, greater perhaps than any other minister of the Presbyterian Church. He was the man of all others to appeal to in taking hold of the " plan " of 1870. These are some of the general considera- tions and motives which led him to propose and the direct- ors of Union Seminary to adopt that plan.
2. But the question here arises, why precisely such a plan, differing so materially from that recommended by the General Assemblies of 1869, should have been pro- posed ? In the plan recommended by the General Assem- blies, it will be noticed, no mention was made of a veto in the election of professors. The Old School seminaries might, if their boards of direction desired it, be transferred from Assembly control to the watch and care of one or
14 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
more of the adjacent synods ; while the New School semi- naries were " advised " to introduce, as far as might be, into their constitutions the principle of synodical or Assem- bly supervision.
Neither of these recommendations was followed. No Old School seminary was transferred from the control of the General Assembly to the watch and care of one or more of the adjacent synods. Nor did Union Seminary introduce into its " constitution " the principle of synod- ical or Assembly supervision. This shows what good reason Dr. Musgrave had for saying that the " concurrent declara- tions" lacked entirely the binding force or quality of a "legal compact," and it shows also that, with all their uncommon ability and wisdom, and after years of delibera- tion, the Joint Committee had recommended what was altogether impracticable. Between the great ratification meeting at Pittsburgh in November, 1869, and the meeting at Philadelphia in May, 1870, it had become perfectly clear that Princeton — I confine myself at present mainly to this seminary — could not be released from Assembly control, and put itself under the watch and care of one or more of the adjacent synods, without imperilling its endowments. In this dilemma Union Seminary was urged to come to the help of Princeton ; nor did there seem to be any other way of relief. The appeal was based largely upon a strong conviction, common to the wisest and best friends of both seminaries, that the election of professors by the General Assembly was open to serious objections, and would be open to graver objections in the future.
At the founding of Princeton in 1812 the Presbyterian Church was a small body, numerically and territorially, and the selection of theological teachers could very prop- erly be intrusted to the knowledge and discretion of its General Assembly. The choice of the first professors of
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 15
Princeton — those very admirable types of Presbyterian piety, wisdom, and learning, Samuel Miller and Archibald Alexander — was, doubtless, the best possible. But in 1870 the Presbyterian Church had increased enormously both in numbers and extent ; it covered the continent ; and its branches reached to the uttermost parts of the earth. Even then in exceptional cases, no doubt, the General Assembly could judge as well as any board of directors who was best qualified for this or that chair of instruction — but only in exceptional cases. As a rule, the General Assembly was every year becoming less fitted to exercise this difficult function.
The point is so important in its bearing on the matter under discussion, that I will enforce my position by that of men whose opinions respecting it are entitled to special weight. Here is an extract from a letter of Dr. A. A. 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 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 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 addressed,
16 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY,
thus expressed his own view in noticing some of the ob- jections to the Joint Committee's report of 1867 :
The plan allows those seminaries that are now under the Assembly to remain so, or if they choose, to put themselves instead under synodical supervision ; and it recommends the seminaries not under ecclesiastical supervision to attain unto that condition ; but does not insist on this — as of
course it could not It is a fair and serious question,
whether a General Assembly, representing the 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 con- cerns of all the Presbyterian seminaries scattered through- out the country. We very much doubt whether this would be a wise arrangement. It may work well in Scotland, but Scotland has its limits. It might bring into the Assembly local, personal, and theological questions, which it would be better to settle in a narrower field.
The following strong expression of opinion, written by Dr. Adams, is from the memorial itself of the directors of Union Theological Seminary to the General Assembly :
It has appeared to many, and especially to those who took an active part in founding the Union Theological Semi- nary, that there are many disadvantages, 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 resident at a distance from the seminaries themselves, and therefore per- sonally unacquainted with many things which • pertain to their true interests and usefulness.
It is noteworthy that in this memorial of the directors of Union Seminary, offering a veto in the election of its
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. . 17
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 place, a desire to secure to the Old School seminaries, in which those of the New School were henceforth to have a common interest, the privilege, so highly prized by themselves, of choosing professors in each institution by its own board of directors, instead of having them chosen in every case by the General Assem- bly. On these two grounds the memorial of the board of directors of Union Seminary was chiefly based. These two considerations the friends of Princeton appealed to with great force, when urging Dr. Adams to give them aid in their dilemma.
It was stated at Detroit that prior to the meeting of the Assembly of 1870, " Dr. Adams conferred with and fully submitted his plan to his friends at Princeton, who opened their arms and hearts to receive him, and they promptly responded to every one of his suggestions." *
This needs to be supplemented by the additional state- ment that his friends at Princeton submitted to him their plan, and that he promptly responded to their suggestions. It was no doubt in response to their suggestion that his original plan gave to the General Assembly a veto in the election of directors, as well as of professors. Had that way of solving the problem of the theological seminaries origi- nated with Dr. Adams, he would almost certainly have pro- posed it during the troublesome negotiations on this sub- ject, which ran on for nearly three years prior to the re- union. There is no intimation that he did anything of the sort. And yet the point had been made, again and again,
* Eemarks of John J. McCook, a Commissioner from the Presbytery of New York, pp. 3.
18 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
by Old School opponents of the terms of reunion, as pro- posed by the Joint Committee in their report to the As- semblies of 1867, that the seminaries of both branches of the Church ought in fairness to be placed on a footing of " perfect equality." Why, it was said, should the Old School institutions continue to be subject to the full control of the General Assembly, the New School coming in for an equal share in its exercise, while two at least of the New School institutions continued under what Dr. A. A. Hodge, in a letter to Professor Smith, called " self-perpetuated and irresponsible boards of trustees." Such was the reasoning of opponents of the Joint Committee's report of 1867. Indeed so strong was the feeling and contention of some with regard to this point ; so 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 di- rectors, or trustees ; and so persistent were they in assert- ing this view, that upon reviewing their arguments in the light of to-day, one can scarcely help being reminded of the fable, so dear to children, entitled " The Fox without a Tail." The fox, it will be remembered, was caught in a trap by his tail, and in order to get away was forced to leave it behind. Whereupon he resolved to try to induce his fellows to part with theirs ; or, as Henry B. Smith ex- pressed it, in his characteristic way, " to attain unto that condition." *
* So at the next assembly of foxes he made a speech on the unprofitableness of tails in general, and the inconveni- ence of a fox's tail in 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 rose, 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
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 19
I have taken for granted that Dr. Adams' first plan, which gave to the General Assembly a veto in the election of Union directors, was the result of a conference with his friends at Princeton. So too, unquestionably, was his second plan, which conceded to the General Assembly a veto in the election of Union professors. Had either of these modes of solving the question of the theological semi- naries occurred to his own mind as the best, he cer- tainly, I repeat, would have brought it before the Joint Committee during the two or more years that Committee was in existence. But I find no evidence that it was even mentioned. Neither the word " veto," nor the thing itself, appears in the report of the Joint Committee made in 1867, nor in that of 1868, nor in the report of the Com- mittee of Conference in 1869. The veto first appears in the plan presented to the board of directors of Union Seminary at the meeting on May 9, 1870. At an adjourned meeting of the same board, held on May 16, it reappeared as a veto in the election of professors. Why this abandon- ment of the scheme recommended by article ninth of the report of the Joint Committee and by the General As- semblies of 1869 ? And why the sudden abandonment of the method proposed to the board of directors of Union Seminary on May 9th, and the substitution in its place, on May 16th, of still another method, namely, a veto in the election of professors alone ? The whole thing is curious and suggestive in a high degree. Consider that the ad- journed meeting of the board occurred on Monday after- noon, May 16th, and that the General Assembly was to meet at Philadelphia on the ensuing Thursday, May 19th. No time, therefore, was to be lost. And no time was lost.
to convince him ; but till such an accident should happec he should certainly vote in favor of tails. — Ancient Fables.
20 UNION SEMINABY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
It was too ]ate, 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, out- lining the General Assembly's work. 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 sim- ilar, relations to the Assembly. The scheme proposed by the Princeton Review, April number, has met with much favor. Let it be understood that the boards of the respective semi- naries shall be allowed to fill the vacancies in their own num- ber, as that scheme contemplates ; and to appoint the incum- bents of the several chairs, subject in each case to the approval of the nest General Assembly ; and, it is thought, the semina- ries of both branches will cheerfully come upon this platform. Princeton and Union are understood to be prepared for it, and to desire it.
The article in the Princeton Review for April, 1870, was probably written by Dr. Charles Hodge, the founder and then senior editor of the Review. The " scheme " referred to 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 rat- ification by the Assembly. This would suffice for unification, so far as seminaries heretofore of the Old School, branch are concerned.
It seems to us that it cannot be difficult for the seminaries of the other branch to reach substantially the same platform. They, of course, can report annually to the Assemblies [Assem-
THE CONCESSION OE THE VETO POWER. 21
bly] . Without knowing all the details of their present char- ters, we presume there is no insuperable obstacle to their making the simple by-law that all their elections to fill vacan- cies in the board or boards of oversight and direction, also of professors, shall be submitted to the Assembly for approval before they are finally ratified. If the charters now forbid such an arrangement, doubtless alterations could easily be obtained which would admit of it, or something equivalent, —pp. 311, 312.
At the opening, then, of the first General Assembly of the reunited Church, on May 19, 1870, the case stood thus : Princeton objected to the " recommendation " of the As- semblies of 1869 as unwise and could not follow it without imperilling a portion of her endowments ; Union, warned in time, refused to adopt the Princeton " scheme " with re- gard to directors, but offered to accept it in a greatly modi- fied form with regard to professors ; while both had me- morialized the General Assembly in favor of the latter ar- rangement. This posture of things was a logical, not to say necessary, outcome of the whole situation. It followed inevitably that Princeton should look forward with special solicitude to the possible action of the Assembly at Phila- delphia, touching theological seminaries. Some of her dear- est interests were, as she believed, more or less involved in the issue. It would have been strange, indeed, had she not regarded with a certain misgiving the part which the new copartners might take in shaping that issue. Her tempta- tion was to overestimate the importance of a " uniform sys- tem " in dealing with the theological seminaries, and to be coo solicitous of having them all even as she herself was. The temptation of Union, on the other hand, was rather to yield too readily to the magnanimous impulses of the hour, and so allow her cooler judgment to be overpowered by the surging tide of reunion enthusiasm.
22 UNION SEMINAEY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
Pope Innocent XII. wrote to the French prelates, who had procured the famous brief condemning Fenelon : " He erred by loving God too much," — "Peccavit excessu amoris divini "; — so one might say of Dr. Adams, that he erred, if at all, in too exclusive devotion to the peace and harmony of the reunited Church ; and the same might be said of most of his associates in the directory of Union Seminary. But on one point Union and Princeton were in perfect accord. Both regarded it as exceedingly desirable that theological professors should no longer be elected by the General As- sembly ; Princeton, primarily, on her own account ; Union, on account of Princeton, as also of the other Old School seminaries. It is fair to add that some of the strongest friends of Princeton were, no doubt, influenced by another reason for wishing to be liberated from further subjection to the General Assembly in the election of its professors ; namely, distrust of the doctrinal soundness of the late New School Church. Dr. Charles Hodge led a whole company of eminent Old School men, who to the last protested and fought against reunion largely on this ground ; they had no sympathy with it. To some of these, especially to Dr. Hodge himself, Dr. Beatty refers in a striking letter printed in The Evangelist of August 6, 1891 : " Dr. Adams knew what great difficulties and conflicts of mind I had from the fact that my best friends were in opposition to my views ; and I made the request of him that after my death he would state these things in some article in The Evangelist" Did the simple fact of reunion at once change their honest con- victions on this subject? Not at all. And, therefore, the sudden accession of the New School branch to equal power in the General Assembly, bringing their " loose " notions of subscription and all their other objectionable views with them, intensified the desire to take the election of Prince- ton professors out of that body.
THE CONCESSION OF THE YETO POWEK. 23
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 several boards of direction, the commissioners who belonged to the late New School branch were voting to dispossess themselves at once of a power in the control of those seminaries, which reunion had fairly put into their hands. It was the proper thing for them to do ; but it was also a handsome thing to do so promptly and so heartily.
On the basis, then, of a common sentiment respecting the election of theological professors both Union and Princeton memorialized the General Assembly ; and through their joint influence the plan proposed by Union was unanimously adopted.
And just here let me say that in the negotiations and dis- cussion relating to the theological seminaries from 1866 to 1870, and in most of the pending controversy about the veto power as well, one ever recurring fallacy and misap- prehension is perceptible ; viz., that all the seminaries stood and stand substantially upon the same ground and should therefore be dealt with in the same way. A "uniform sys- tem " of ecclesiastical control or supervision, was the thing sought for. It was a thing impossible without uprooting or suppressing original elements of the utmost value in the very being and life of several of the seminaries. How could Union and Princeton, for example, be put upon a footing of " perfect equality," when one of these institutions derived its origin from the action of a company of good men in the cities of New York and Brooklyn, and possessed complete autonomy ; while the other was created by the special ac- tion of the General Assembly and was subject to its ulti- mate authority in all things ? And the differences between the two institutions are still radical. This point should be kept constantly in mind. It will not do, for example, to
24 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
consider the legal relations of Princeton and of Union to the General Assembly, as if these relations were the same. They are almost wholly different. Princeton derives its origin from the General Assembly, which is its patron and the fountain of its powers. The General Assembly had nothing to do with the founding of Union, is not its patron nor the fountain of any of its powers. The proprietorship and control of the General Assembly over Princeton, al- though modified in one respect in 1 870, remain still intact with regard to other points of vital importance. In the election of its directors, as well as of its professors, Prince- ton is subject to the veto of the General Assembly, and so it is in suspending or removing a professor. The Assembly has no such power in the case of Union. For cause the board of directors of Union can discipline, suspend, or re- move a professor ; can at its discretion assign him specific duties, and transfer him from one chair to another,' or cre- ate a new chair and put him into it ; and the General As- sembly has no voice whatever in the matter.
I have thus stated some of the principal reasons and in- fluences that in 1870 induced Union Seminary to concede to the General Assembly a portion of its autonomy.
(c). Action and piuypose of the Board of Directors in malting this concession.
The subject was 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 ; Joseph S. Gallagher, James Patriot Wilson, Charles Butler, Korman White, Fisher Howe, William A. Booth, D. Willis James, and John Crosby Brown. These names speak for themselves and need no glossary. They represent moral strength, sound
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWES. ■ 25
judgment, large and varied experience, world-wide influ- ence, intelligent piety, and all the other qualities that go to make up solid weight of character. To most of the di- rectors the plan proposed for their adoption was wholly new. They had never before heard of it. But as coming from Dr. Adams, as offered in the interest of the unity and har- mony of the Presbyterian Church, and, also, in response to urgent persuasions from the old and honored seminary at Princeton, it won their consent, if not their entire approval. So far as its weak points were concerned, it took them at a serious disadvantage. They had no time for reflection. And so, while there was • considerable discussion, with a single notable exception none opposed the scheme. Several of the professors were present, but they raised no objection. The record would doubtless be differ- ent had Henry E. Smith been among them. He was a theologian of extraordinary sagacity, always looking be- fore and after, for he had the instincts of a born statesman. And his devotion to Union Seminary was a ruling passion. The plan of putting the institution under ecclesiastical control never pleased him. He considered the generous and self-governing liberty, which was its birthright, a bless- ing too 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 Presbyterianism. In 1837, at the age of twenty-one, he had been a watchful eye- witness of the turbulent scenes at Philadelphia, when the four synods were cut off and the great disruption was in- augurated. From that time he was a keen observer of all that went on in the two branches of the Presbyterian Church ; and before coming to ISTew York, thirteen years later, he had formed opinions on the subject which re-
26 UNION SEMINAEY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
mained essentially unchanged to the day of his death. In a letter to me, dated Amherst, September 17, 1850, he wrote :
I go to New York in full view of the uncertainties and
difficulties of the position It [the Seminary] stands
somewhere between Andover and Princeton, just as New School Presbyterianism stands between Congregationalism and the consistent domineering 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 pre- vailed in Presbyterianism, whether in the theological or the ecclesiastical sphere, he regarded with strong dislike. Had he been present, therefore, at the meeting of the board on May 9, 1870, I believe he would have stood just where D. Willis James so firmly stood with respect to the plan of conceding to the General Assembly so vital a part of the Seminary's chartered rights and autonomy as the last decisive word in the election of its own professors. And Henry B. Smith was, probably, the only man whose voice at that time on any matter touching the theological seminaries would have been equally potential with that of William Adams. But, unfortunately, early in the previous year, just as reunion was about to triumph, Professor Smith, utterly broken down in the service of Union Seminary and of the Presbyterian Church, had fled for his life beyond the sea, and he was still abroad.
I have intimated that a single director only — D. Willis James — raised his voice against the plan proposed by Dr. Adams. Mr. James is a grandson of Anson G. Phelps, and thus is identified with the history of the Seminary by
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 27
his close kinship to three generations of its benefactors, as well as by his own munificent gifts. At the memorable meeting of the board of directors of Union Seminary, held on June 5, 1891, Mr. James made the following highly important statement :
I feel it due to the board of directors to give to them a statement of what occurred at the meeting of the directors held on the 9th of May, 1870, when the matter of the con- nection of the 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 Seminary should give to the General Assembly a veto power over the appointment of the directors of the Seminary, assigning as the reason, in much detail, that it would be a great aid to the other seminaries of the Church, whose professors were appointed by the action of the General Assembly and not by the board of 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.
I strenuously objected to giving the veto power in the appointment of the directors to the General Assembly on the ground that it was practically placing the control of the property and all the interests of the Union Theological Sem- inary in the hands of the General Assembly, and that such action was fraught with great danger.
A general discussion occurred, participated in by most of the directors, and I spoke a second time on the subject, call- ing attention most earnestly to the great danger, as it seemed to me, of any such action by which the large property of the Seminary, and all its interests, would be practically turned over to the control of the General Assembly.
28 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMELY.
But when it seemed evident that a vote would be taken and that the resolution would be passed by the board of di- rectors, I arose for the third time, feeling very strongly the importance of the matter under consideration, and said, in substance, that I should request, when the vote was taken, that it should be by ayes and nays, so that my vote could be recorded in the negative, and that I should also request that my most earnest and solemn protest be entered in full in the minutes, to the end that when the disaster came, as it cer- tainly would from this action — perhaps after all those who were taking part in the discussion at that time had passed away — the Seminary could then have the benefit of this protest and whatever legal advantages might come from such protest.
I said that I did not desire to make factious opposition, but that I felt the interests of the Seminary were being jeopardized and that a great injury was being done to its future.
"When I sat down Dr. Prentiss rose and said, substan- 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.
Prior to the adjourned meeting of May 16, 1870, I had an interview with Dr. Adams and expressed to him my sin- cere regret that I had been compelled to differ with him and other members of the board, but he then tendered to me his thanks for my having taken the course I did, and said he felt that it was wiser not to have passed the resolution he first proposed.
He then suggested, in the interest of the other semi- naries then controlled by the General Assembly, the motion which was presented and adopted on the 16th of May, 1870, viz. : That the veto power in the appointment of the profes-
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 29
sors should be given to the General Assembly, and this solely in the interest of other 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 property in the hands of the General Assembly, was still a very serious mistake, and calculated to produce great and unfortunate mischief.
I said, however, that if he and other directors felt that this was the wisest course, and as they had yielded the mat- ter of the veto power over the appointment of 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 General Assembly only a veto over the appointment of professors and nothing more.
(d). Did the Board of Directors of Union Seminary sup- pose that in their action on May 16, 1870, they were offering to enter into a legal compact with the General Assembly ?
1. It has been assumed by many, and strenuously argued by others, that this was their understanding of the matter ; at all events, that such was the real quality and effect of their action. And on the ground of its possessing this character, we have been treated to somewhat elaborate definitions and expositions of the nature and 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 supposed the board was entering into any such legal compact. Three directors who were present on May 9th, and also on May 1 6th, had been members of the Joint Committee on Eeunion, as I
30 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
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 Assem- blies in 1869. He aided in preparing that important re- port, voted for it, signed it, and gave it his hearty approval. And it was in this report, made and explained to the Old School Assembly in the Brick Church by Dr. Musgrave, that those emphatic sentences relating to the articles on seminaries, boards, and the like occur : " We will not con- sent to make these articles a covenant ; we won't adopt them as a legal compact binding upon the future." Dr. Stearns was the most trusted counsellor of Henry B. Smith, and not unlike him in sagacity and forethought, as also in devotion to Union Seminary and the Presbyterian Church. To Dr. Stearns more, in my opinion, than to any other man did Union Seminary owe the coming of Henry B. Smith to New York. The New School branch of the Church especially never knew the full extent of her indebt- edness to him, for he was as modest as he was wise, fear- less, and public-spirited. Is it likely that such a man would have sat quietly and given his vote for a settlement of the question of the theological seminaries in a way, on a princi- ple, and with an understanding contradicting so utterly the report which a few months before he had joined in fram- ing and urging upon the acceptance of the General Assem- blies ? The thing is inconceivable.
But I have not stated this aspect of the case in its full strength. Dr. Adams himself was a member of the Joint Committee of Conference, and signed the report as its chairman. He also presented the report to the New School Assembly in the Church of the Covenant, as Dr. Musgrave did at the same time to the Old School Assembly in the Brick Church. He explained it in a careful speech, calling attention to the point that the articles of agreement or con-
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 31
current declarations were not a compact or contract, but recommendations only as to what might be suitable and ex- pedient. Is it at all probable, is it really conceivable, that such a man as Dr. Adams, only a few months later, would have proposed to the board of directors of Union Semi- nary a plan touching the whole future of that institution, which involved the very thing so distinctly repudiated by the unanimous vote of the Joint Committee of Conference ? and repudiated, too, by both Assemblies \
The plan of 1870 was an expression of Christian confi- dence and good-will on the part of the directors of Union Seminary. In offering to give up so much of their autono- my as was involved in conceding to the General Assembly a veto in the election of its professors, they were not think- ing of a legal compact, whereby the Seminary would gain certain positive advantages in return ; they were thinking simply of what seemed to them, on the whole, best fitted to promote the harmony and prosperity of the united Church, and the true interests of all the other theological seminaries. Their offer was in its very essence, as the General Assem- bly a few days after characterized it, an act of high " gen- erosity," or as Dr. Musgrave expressed it, in 1871, an act of " courtesy." But generosity and courtesy belong to a line of thought and action totally distinct from that of a legal compact with its definite obligations and advantages. Had the discussion in the board of directors of Union Seminary moved along the line of such a compact, nothing is more certain than that the plan of agreement would have failed utterly.
No doubt there is an element of agreement in a legal compact. Every such compact is an agreement ; but there are many sorts of agreement which are only differing forms of good understanding, friendly arrangements, acts of generosity or courtesy, which lose their most essential
32 UNION SEMINAEY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
virtue and all their beauty the moment you invest them with the rigidity and binding force of a legal contract. The discussion on reunion, and especially the speech of Dr. Musgrave before the Old School Assembly — heard, proba- bly, 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 obviously good and sufficient reasons" Exactly so would the directors of Union Semi- nary have expressed themselves with regard to their gener- ous arrangement with the General Assembly. Such words as " compact," " contract," M covenant," are carefully avoid- ed in the memorial of Union Seminary and in the action of the General Assembly thereupon. " Plan," " rule," "agreement," "method," or the like, are the terms used. It was intended, just as the ninth article in the report of the Joint Committee was intended, " as a measure for the maintenance of confidence and harmony, and not as indi- cating the best method for all future time" (Moore'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 was " mak- ing 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 repealed by the power that made it ? The difference be-
THE CONCESSION OF THE VETO POWER. 33
tween the concessions asked, if not claimed, of the New School by the Old School opponents of the first plan of re- union, as reported by the Joint Committee in 1867, and the concessions hoped for just before the meeting of the Assembly of 1870, as stated in the above article of the Princeton Review, is very striking. It is the difference between a maximum and a minimum. Perhaps it cannot be better illustrated than by some extracts from a letter of Professor A. A. Hodge, of the Allegheny 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 knowl- edge of and indebtedness to you through your writings, and especially our community of interest in the subject of this letter, emboldens me to intrude it upon you, and to urge your deliberate attention to it.
Undoubtedly one of the chief causes of uneasiness on the part of the Old School, in view of reunion upon the terms proposed by the Joint Committee, is the inequality between the positions of the two parties in respect to seminaries. This is evident from the fact that serious objection is made to the terms proposed in respect to this interest by a far larger number of presbyteries than is necessary to defeat the whole matter Now, although I write without consul- tation with or the knowledge of a single person, I feel certain that a compromise to the following effect would be highly gratifying to the great majority of those most nearly inter- ested in seminaries on our side, and further, that if proposed from your side it would be almost certainly accepted by our General Assembly as a condition of union.
Suppose then tne matter be adjusted on the following principles :
1. All the seminaries of both parties to be, as a condition of union, brought in on the same basis, so that there may be perfect equality.
34 UXIOX SEMIXAEY AOT) THE ASSEMBLY.
2. That you on your side admit the principle of direct ecclesiastical control, and put your seminaries each under the care of one or more contiguous synods. The synods to elect the boards of directors, the boards of directors to elect the professors. The General Assembly, for the sake of pre- serving uniformity of doctrine in the Church, to possess the right of peremptory veto in the case of the election of a pro- fessor.
3. That we on our side yield the principle of the im- mediate control of the seminaries by the General Assembly, and put each of our seminaries under one or more synods in the manner specified above.
Such a plan might have some legitimate objections. It would certainly meet with decided opposition from some of the more distant portions of our branch, which would there- by be dispossessed of powers previously enjoyed. It would be obviously unadvisable for such a proposition to be publicly offered by any of our professors. Therefore, I shall do no
more than make this suggestion to you If you agree
with me as to the plan, and are willing to present it to the representatives of your branch in the Joint Committee, I have much hope that it will prevail.
Professor Smith, regarding the scheme so strongly urged in this interesting letter as wholly impracticable, felt un- willing to recommend it to the Xew School representatives of the Joint Committee.
(e). Scope and limitations of the veto in the election 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 limitations. The language used is very exact and carefully chosen. My impression is, that it differs materially from that used in the plan presented to the board on May 9th. Before the meeting on May 16th
LIMITATIONS OF THE VETO POWEK. 35
legal counsel had probably been taken. In nearly all, if not in all, the proposals and articles on the subject, prior to the meeting at Philadelphia, positive action by the General Assembly was contemplated as requisite to a complete elec- tion ; in other words, every election or appointment, in order to be complete, must be directly approved, or else disapproved, by the General Assembly. This would be in accordance with the usual practice in the political sphere. Ordinarily the veto power goes along with the power of approval and confirmation. It is so with the Presidential veto. It is so generally with the veto power of governors and mayors. But it was not so here ; and as a consequence, even the General Assembly itself, as we shall see, required twenty years fairly to learn the lesson of the extent of its power in the case. All that the Assembly can rightfully do, under the agreement of 1870, is either to disapprove or to do nothing. This shows how sagaciously the whole matter was finally arranged. The plan bears on its very face marks of the utmost caution and forethought. Had it included the power of approval, as well as of disapproval, every election reported between 1870 and 1891 would then have come before the Assembly for confirmation, and might have led to any amount of more or less excited discussion and conflict of opinion. An approval, if strenu- ously opposed by only a small minority, would be likely to prejudice even a good appointment; while an approval, carried by a bare majority, could hardly fail to stir up bad feeling among the friends of the candidate, if not in his own breast. Whatever evils are incident to the election of theological teachers by the General Assembly, the plan of 1870 certainly reduces them to a minimum, as compared with a plan which should embrace the power of ratifying, as well as of vetoing, every appointment. It is likely that between May 9th and May 16th Dr. Adams not only took
36 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
legal counsel, but that lie also sought the counsel of those two wise men and old friends, Dr. Stearns and Dr. Hat- field, with whom for nearly three years he had been in the habit of conferring on this yery question of the theological seminaries in the Joint Committee on Reunion, or in the New School branch of it. That the General Assembly, under the rule of 1870, has no power of approval 's ad- mitted now on all hands.
But there is another point, concerning which there has been and is still direct conflict of opinion; the point, namely, whether the transfer of a member of the faculty from one chair to another is an election in the same sense as an original appointment, and therefore subject to the Assembly's veto. The General Assembly at Detroit as- sumed that a transfer does not differ from an original elec- tion, and by a large majority voted to disapprove the transfer of Dr. Briggs from the chair of Hebrew and cog- nate languages to the new chair of Biblical Theology. The position of the board of directors, on the other hand, was and is that the original election of Dr. Briggs, not having been disapproved by the General Assembly, fixed his status, once for all, as a member of the teaching faculty of Union Seminary ; and that his transfer to the chair of Biblical Theology could not therefore unsettle, suspend, or in any wise change that status ; it was simply an assign- ment of new and other duties, belonged solely to the jurisdiction of the board, and lay wholly beyond the control or supervision of the General Assembly.
This view is enforced by several considerations: 1. It harmonizes with the exclusion from the plan, adopted 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
LIMITATIONS OF THE VETO POWER. 37
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 administra- tion and housekeeping of Union Seminary, touching some of its most vital interests, subject to the ultimate control of the General Assembly," Mr. James' protest of May 9th would have been echoed throughout the room. The plan would have withered on the spot. Or, to state the case in another way, had the question been put to Dr. Adams : " Do you mean to include in the 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 prompt answer, I am quite sure, would have been : " Most certainly not ; that
* Among the members of the faculty present was Dr. Philip Schaff. In a letter to me, Dr. Schaff, referring to Dr. Adams' proposal " as a generous peace-offering on the altar of the reunion of Old and New School," adds :
My impression was that Dr. Adams had previously conferred with Dr. Charles Hodge, who in behalf of Princeton was anxious to get freedom from the control of the Assembly in the appointment of pro- fessors. Our loss was Princeton's gain.
The distinction between the appointment of a new professor and the transfer of an old one to a new department was not mentioned, and probably not even thought of, at that time. I myself was trans- ferred three times — to the Hebrew, to the Greek, and to Church His- tory— and nothing was said about a veto.
38 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
goes without saying. "We are proposing to enter, not into a legal compact, but into a friendly and courteous arrange- ment by which the General Assembly shall have a voice in respect to the qualifications of every man who is to be a theological teacher in our Seminary. But once admitted, unforbidden, into our faculty, the Assembly will have nothing further to do with him except indirectly, of course, as a Presbyterian minister. "We are not trying to drive a bargain, but to do what seems to us a fair and wise, not to say very generous, thing in the interest of the peace and prosperity of the reunited Church."
2. But even assuming, for an instant, that the plan of 1870 was a legal compact, binding as such upon the future, it should yet be interpreted in strictest accordance with its specific design. "Whatever power it concedes is a power of trust; and if that power can be rightly delegated at all, which I will not here discuss, it should certainly be dele- gated in such manner and with such careful limitations as to preclude all suspicion of tampering or dealing lightly with the trust. "We may, indeed, distinguish between the trustee and the director, but we must not divide them. The chartered rights and duties of the board cross and run into each other. The office of every director of Union Seminary is a sacred trust ; a trust not merely for property, but for something infinitely more precious and enduring — the moral and spiritual treasures of the institution ; its grand design as a school of divinity ; the good deeds and worth of its excellent founders ; the fame of its learned, wise, and godly teachers ; the glorious achievements of its alumni in the service of their Master ; the memories of its munificent friends and benefactors ; in a word, its invalu- able history and traditions. Hence every director, before entering upon his duties, is required to take this solemn pledge :
LIMITATIONS OF THE VETO POWER. 39
Approving of the plan and constitution of the Union Theological Seminary in the city of New York, and of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Presbyterian form of church government, I do solemnly promise to maintain the same so long as I shall continue to be a member of the board of directors.
3. And then it seems to me a strong incidental con- firmation of the view taken by the directors of Union Seminary with regard to the scope of the agreement of 1870, that the official minutes of the board take for granted the correctness of that view. The board has again and again assigned its professors to new duties and to new chairs. Three times it transferred Dr. Schaff from one chair to another. Last winter it created a new chair, and selected Dr. Briggs to fill it, transferring Dr. Brown at the same time to the chair vacated by Dr. Briggs. The record of these and similar changes on the minutes of the board varies in language. The terms " elected," " chosen," "appointed," "transferred," have been used more or less indiscriminately ; and that for the simple reason that in the mind of the board there was no thought of any question touching its own proper authority in each case. Transfer is evidently the fitting term, expressing both the fact and the power ; and this is the word which has of late years been chiefly employed in the minutes of the executive commit- tee and of the board of directors of Union Seminary. If all " appointments " in the literal sense are subject to the veto of the General Assembly, temporary assignments of duty would have to be reported to the Assembly; for nothing is more common than to " appoint " a professor to such special duties.
4. There is still another consideration which sustains the view that a transfer is wholly different from an original election ; the fact, namely, that the strict rules of procedure
40 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
in the original election have not been observed in the case of a mere transfer. The disregard of these rules has in repeated instances been so positive and varied as to in- validate the whole action of the board, if a transfer is the same thing as an original appointment. Alike in the open disregard of some of these rules and in inducting at once into the new or vacant chair without any respect to the General Assembly — as, for example, in the case of Dr. Briggs — we have a clear demonstration that in the view of the board of directors of Union Seminary a transfer has always been regarded as simply an assignment of duties, and sub- ject, therefore, neither to the veto of the General Assem- bly nor to a strict observance of the usual forms prescribed by law and custom in first calling a man to the service of the Seminary.
In the discussion of the extent of the Assembly's veto power the singular point has been made that we ought to distinguish between the different chairs and the subject- matter taught in them. A Jew, for example — so I have heard it argued by at least two eminent directors in a lead- ing Presbyterian seminary — a Jew might make an excel- lent professor of Hebrew ; but suppose, hiding behind the technicality of a transfer, you should put him into the chair of Systematic Theology, would that not be a case for the intervention of the General Assembly's veto power? I reply, No ; not if the Assembly had failed to disapprove of his taking the chair of Hebrew. I freely admit that there are devout, God-fearing Jews, abundantly qualified to be professors of Hebrew in any theological seminary. Isaac ^Nordheimer, my own beloved teacher, was such a man ; but the best and most learned Jew in the world could not get into the chair of Hebrew in Union Seminary, to say nothing of his transfer to the chair of Systematic The- ology, for how could a Jew sincerely adopt the West-
THE OFFER OF UNION SEMINARY ACCEPTED. 41
minster Confession of Faith as containing the system of doc- trine taught in the Holy Scriptures ? Here is the pledge taken by every professor, whatever may be his chair :
I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice ; and I do now, in the presence of God and the directors of this Seminary, solemnly and sincerely receive and adopt the "Westminster Confession of Faith as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures. I do also, in like manner, approve of the Presbyterian Form of Govern- ment ; and I do solemnly promise that I will not teach or inculcate anything which shall appear to me to be subversive of said system of doctrines, or of the principles of said Form of Government, so long as I shall continue to be a professor in the Seminary.
(f). Acceptance of the offer of Union Seminary made to the General Assembly in its memorial of 1870.
Let us now go back to the meeting of the Assembly in Philadelphia. Dr. Adams, as we have seen, was appointed chairman of the Standing Committee on Theological Sem- inaries. He asked, as a personal favor, I repeat, to be ex- cused from serving in that capacity, on the ground that all the seminaries under the care of the Assembly belonged to what had been the Old School branch, but his request was not granted. Before this Committee came the memorial of Union Theological Seminary and also a memorial from Princeton of similar tenor; the difference between them being that Princeton asked what it deemed a great favor to itself, while Union asked what it believed would be a great favor to Princeton and other seminaries. The report of the Committee led to no discussion, met with no opposition, and was unanimously adopted. Here follow some extracts from this report :
42 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
That the relations of these several theological seminaries, differing in origin and administration, to the reunited Church should be regarded as a matter of no little delicacy and diffi- culty, was inevitable. On the one hand it is obvious that a matter so important as the education of its ministry should in some way be under the supervision and control of the Church, so as to secure the entire and cordial confidence of the Church. On the other hand, there is a liberty and flexi- bility in the matter which must be respected and allowed. If individuals or associations are disposed to found and en- dow seminaries of their own, there is no power in the Pres- byterian Church to forbid it.
As to any project by which the entire control and admin- istration of all our theological seminaries, — for example, as to the election of trustees, — can be transferred to the General Assembly on any principle of complete uniformity, your Committee regard it as wholly impracticable, and the attempt to accomplish it altogether undesirable. To bring it about, should it be undertaken, would require an amount of legisla- tion, in six or seven different States, which would be por- tentous.
Besides, the intentions and wishes of benevolent men who have founded and endowed some of these seminaries, and aided others on their present footing, should be honora- bly and zealously protected.
Your Committee, therefore, 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 Assem- bly would so far change its " plan " of control over that in- stitution as to give the board of directors enlarged rights in several specified particulars, subject to the veto of the Gen- eral Assembly.
Your Committee are unanimously of the opinion that the changes asked for are eminently wise and proper. If it were
THE OFFER OF UNION SEMINARY ACCEPTED. 43
within the power of the General Assembly to remit the en- tire administration of this venerable institution to its board of directors without any of the restrictions they have men- tioned as to the supply of their own vacancies, they would cordially recommend it. But inasmuch as the endowments of this Seminary are held on the condition that it should be the property and under the control of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, that trust cannot be vacated nor transferred to any other body. The method desired and proposed by the directors themselves is open to no such objection, and is believed to be quite within the provisions of the law as now denned, being only a con- venient and wise mode of executing by the General Assem- bly itself the trust which it now holds.
A memorial has been presented to this Assembly from the directors of Union Theological Seminary, in New York, bear- ing 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 profes- sors and teachers by the Assembly itself, without sufficient time or opportunity for acquaintance with the qualifications of men to be appointed to offices of such responsibility.
It is self-evident, as your Committee are agreed, that a body so large as the General Assembly, and composed of men resident, most of them, at so great a distance from the several seminaries, is not so competent to arrange for their interests and usefulness as those having local and personal intimacy with them. Desirous of bringing about as much uniformity as was possible in the relation of the seminaries to the General Assembly of the Church, the directors of Union Seminary have memorialized this Assembly to the effect that the Assembly would commit, so far as practicable, the general administration of all seminaries now under the
44 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
control of the Assembly to their several boards of directors ; proposing, if this be done, to give to the General Assembly what it does not now possess, the right of veto in the election of professors at Union. In this generous offer, looking solely to the peace and harmony of the Church, the memorialists did not include the same veto in regard to the election of their own directors, inasmuch as these directors hold the property of the Seminary in trust. The trustees of Princeton Seminary, being one of two boards, are a close corporation. The directors of Union Seminary in New York, being but one board, are the trustees.
Leaving all the diversities of method and administration in the several seminaries intact, save in the particulars here- inafter provided for, your Committee are happy to report that there is one mode of unifying all the seminaries of the Presbyterian Church as to ecclesiastical supervision, so far as unification is in any way desirable. It is the mode suggested in the several memorials of the directors of Union and Prince- ton, and approved, or likely to be approved, from informa- tion in our possession, by the directors of Auburn and Lane. This is to give to the General Assembly a veto power upon the appointment of professors in all these several institutions. This seems to your Committee to secure all the uniformity, as to the relation of these seminaries to the Church, which can be necessary to ensure general confidence and satisfac- tion. Less than this might excite jealousy, more than this is cumbersome and undesirable.*
* The full report will be found in Moore's Digest of 1886, pp. 383-386. It is proper to say here, that two statements in the report are somewhat inaccurate ; namely, that relating to the ecclesiastical connection in 1836 of the founders of Union Seminary, and that relating to "the design of its founders." Their own language touching this point, as also the facts with regard to their ecclesiastical connection, are given in an earlier part of this paper.
THE OFFER OF UNION SEMINARY ACCEPTED. 45
I have said that the report of the Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries met with no opposition. The offer of Union Seminary, which was wholly unexpected to the great body of commissioners, whether of the Old or New School, made the happiest impression upon the As- sembly and called forth strong words of satisfaction and thankfulness. And yet the Committee appear to have been in some doubt whether all the seminaries, then be- longing to the General Assembly, would be willing to pass from under its immediate control; for the report closes with this resolution :
In case the board of directors of any theological semi- nary now under the control of the General Assembly should prefer to retain their present relation to this body, the plan of such seminary shall remain unaltered.
Whatever doubt, if any, led to this provision, it was speedily solved in the acceptance of the Princeton plan by all the other seminaries hitherto belonging to the Old School ; while Lane, that, like Union, was independent of ec- clesiastical control, and Auburn, which was under the watch and care of four adjacent synods, fell in also with the new arrangement by conceding to the General Assembly a veto over the election of their professors. I do not find that, at the time, these changes involved any public discussion, or even attracted public notice. Such was the confiding and hopeful temper of the reunited Church, that they seem to have followed the action at Philadelphia almost as a matter of course.
And yet it would be untrue to say that the new order of things at once allayed all the " apprehensions " and " jeal- ousy," referred to in the report of the Standing Committee on theological seminaries at Philadelphia. "Apprehen- sions," if not " jealousy," did continue to exist, especially at
46 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
Princeton ; otherwise it would be scarcely possible to ex- plain some facts in the case, notorious at the time. To show that I do not speak at random, I will give an item sent by me to The Evangelist shortly after the Assembly of 1870 had adjourned. It was as follows :
A STRANGE EXCEPTION.
In appointing directors of its theological seminaries, as also trustees and members of its various boards, the Gen- eral Assembly seems to have been actuated by an admirable spirit of wisdom, fairness, and liberality. In this spirit it actually removed six of its own trustees, all of them gentle- men of the highest character, in order to give due repre- sentation to the late New School side. The same excellent spirit was shown in choosing ten new directors for the semi- nary of the Northwest. But there is one marked exception, which, we frankly confess, has struck us, as we know it has struck others, with a good deal of surprise. We refer to the new directors of Princeton Seminary. They are as follows :
Directors of Princeton Seminary. — Ministers : William D. Snodgrass, D.D., Joseph McElroy, D.D., G. W. Musgrave, D.D., Eobert Hammill, D.D., Joseph T. Smith, D.D., Bobert Davidson, D.D., Gardiner Spring, D.D. Elders : Bobert Carter, John K. Finley, George Sharswood, LL.D., Thomas