C. M. Paton, to fill the place of Moses Allen.

In The Evangelist of the following week appeared a careful editorial, entitled "Princeton Theological Semi- nary," and I give herewith extracts from this article, under- scoring some passages, in order that they may the more easily be compared with the official reports of the Joint Committee and of the action of the General Assemblies, cited in earlier parts of this paper :
A paragraph in our last paper referred to the reappoint- ment of the former directors of this Seminary, all of whom belonged to the former Old School branch of the Church, as
THE OFFER OF UNION SEMINARY ACCEPTED. 47
an apparent exception to the rule of the late General Assem- bly to unite representatives of both branches in all its ap- pointments. We are happy to be informed that the impres- sion of inequality conveyed by our statement is not warranted by the facts, and that so far from being an exception to the rule of courtesy and fairness observed by the Assembly, this reappointment of the former directors of Princeton was only
another instance of the same generous spirit The
Joint Committee on Eeunion unanimously recognized it as fair and proper that while the New School seminaries were, and after the union must continue to be, under the exclusive control of New School men, by whom they had been founded and endowed, the Old School seminaries should, in like man- ner, be under the direction of Old School men. The Com- mittee therefore proposed, as one of the terms of reunion, that any of these seminaries might withdraw from the control of the united Assembly. This, however, could not be done in the case of the Old School seminaries, as all their endow- ments were held on the condition of their being under the General Assembly. It was therefore next proposed that the boards of directors should be authorized to elect professors, and to fill their own vacancies, subject to the veto of the General Assembly. Thus no man could be either a professor or director who has not the confidence of the body repre- senting the whole Church. This plan was adopted by a unan- imous vote of the Assembly. It must be noted, however, that this rule, so far as directors are concerned, applies only to " the seminaries now under the control of the General Assem- bly." The choice of directors under the former New School seminaries is not subject to such veto. It seemed then only courteous and fair that if the boards of directors on the one side must of necessity remain unchanged, those on the other side should occupy a similar position, and hence that the gentlemen whose terms of service at Princeton had just ex- pired, should be re-elected. This was only carrying out the same spirit of candor which has marked all the Assembly's proceedings.
48 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
This article, whether written by the Old School editor of The Evangelist or by some one else, was so hopelessly confused that I despaired of trying to correct its errors. Almost every statement about the action of the Joint Com- mittee on Reunion or that of the Assembly is inaccurate ; while its statements about the former New School semi- naries are directly contrary to the facts in the case. Union Seminary, even hefore the close of 1869, had elected two ministers of what, a few weeks earlier, were Old School churches, namely, Dr. John Hall and Dr. James O. Murray, to fill two clerical vacancies in its board of directors ; and in 1870 it filled three more vacancies by the election of three prominent laymen of the late Old School. It was not until 1873 that Princeton elected a director who had belonged to the New School. One of its last directors of distinctively New School antecedents was chosen, I believe, in 1882, viz., the Eev. Eobert Eussell Booth, D.D., of New York, who is still a member of the Princeton board. Of course, as the years pass away, all special thought of these obsolete ecclesiastical names is passing away with them. It is only fair to add that in no instance, so far as I am aware, have former New School men, elected to such boards of former Old School institutions, dishonored the confidence reposed in them. There may have been such cases ; if so, I never heard of them.
III.
SKETCH OF THE OPERATION AND EFFECTS OF THE ASSEM- BLY'S VETO POWER IN THE ELECTION OF THEOLOGICAL PROFESSORS FROM 1870 TO THE PRESENT TIME.
I have thus endeavored to trace from stage to stage the course of discussion and of action with regard to theological seminaries in the Joint Committee on Reunion, in the Old
MISAPPREHENSION AS TO THE VETO POWER. 49
and New School General Assemblies, in the board of direct- ors of Union Seminary, and lastly in the first Assembly of the reunited Church. It has been my aim to give as far as possible all the main facts, omitting nothing essential to a right understanding of the case. At the beginning of the investigation my mind was very much in the dark respecting a number of important points, but after patient research and inquiry, now and then not a little to my own surprise, the needed light appeared. I will now proceed to a sketch of the practical working and effects of the As- sembly's veto power from 1870 to the present time.
(a). Early and frequent misapprehension of the extent of this power on the part of the General Assembly.
The facts bearing on this point are equally curious and instructive. They are curious as an illustration of the tendency in all popular bodies — a tendency partly innate, and in part the effect of ignorance, prejudice, or passion — to stretch their prerogative in the exercise of power. The facts are instructive as illustrating the old maxim that " the price of liberty is eternal vigilance," and also the painful truth that even a court of Jesus Christ is not exempt from the infirmities of human nature. Good men when, armed with authority, they meet together for the performance of important duties and the promotion of sacred objects, mean, of course, to do the thing that is right, and, especially, to keep the whole law under which they act ; but how strangely they often err, on the right hand and on the left !
Nothing would seem to be plainer than the power of disapproval as conceded to the General Assembly in 1870, and yet upon the very first opportunity to exercise this power, at Chicago in 1871, the Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries recommended the ''approval" of certain elections reported to the Assembly ; and had it not
50 UNIO^ SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
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 contains the following record :
UNION SEMINAKY.
Prof. Henry B. Smith, D.D., LL.D., of Union Theological Seminary, New York City, moved an amendment to the report of the Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries thus :
Resolved, That the clauses of the report of the committee be modified or stricken out which express in the name of the Assembly "approval" of the elections of directors or pro- fessors in the seminaries that have adopted the plan sug- gested by Union Seminary, and ratified by the Assembly in 1870 [see minutes, pp. 64, 65, 148] ; since according to said plan such elections are complete unless " vetoed " by the Assembly to which they are reported.
Dr. Musgrave hoped this amendment would be sustained. Union Seminary has 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 interpretation of the extent of its veto power contained in the resolution offered by Prof. Smith, and seconded by Dr. Musgrave as "only fair and honorable," by a unanimous vote of the Assembly itself, would have settled the question for all time. It did no such thing. Only two years later at Baltimore the Standing Committee on Theological Semina- ries repeated the error of 1871, and was sustained in doing so by the unanimous vote of the General Assembly.* Nor
* The committee would recommend that tbe Assembly
QUIESCENCE OF THE VETO POWER. 51
was that the last of this remarkable misapprehension. Since 1870 about sixty elections, appointments, and transfers have been reported to the General Assembly. Of these some twenty have been "recognized," "approved," or their " confirmation " voted by the General Assembly ; in other words, in a third of the cases reported, the Gen- eral Assembly did what it had, confessedly, no legal power to do.* These figures will be found nearly, if not altogether, accurate, and they show how easily the most intelligent and conscientious ecclesiastical bodies are led to exercise power that does not belong to them. The chronic misapprehension of which I am speaking cropped out at almost every turn in the newspaper discussions of the veto power, before and after the meeting of the last Assembly, and also at Detroit itself.
(b). Quiescence of the Assembly's veto power from 1870 to 1891.
For twenty years the veto power, conceded to the Gen- eral Assembly in 1870 by Union Seminary, remained qui- escent. During all this period it was never used. While many appointments were " confirmed," or " approved " — illegally, to be sure — not one was vetoed ; a striking proof,
approve the election of the Kev. Philip Schaff, D.D., to the Brown professorship of Hebrew, and of the Kev. George L. Prentiss, D.D., to the Skinner and McAlphin professorship of Pastoral Theology, Church Polity, and Missionary [Mission] Work. [See minutes of 1873, page 580.]
* Except in the case of Auburn Seminary. On entering into connection with the General Assembly this Seminary, in 1873, as I shall show later, had adopted a by-law by which the appointments of its professors were "primarily made conditional upon the approval of the General Assembly." Why this vital change in the agreement of 1870 was made
52 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
certainly, of the brotherly harmony and good-will that prevailed in the reunited Church, as also of the wise pru- dence of our theological seminaries in the choice of their teachers. It seemed, indeed, as if the fears of Henry B. Smith, D. "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. The veto power, however, was not wholly forgotten. In the case of Rev. P. W. Patterson, D.D., in 1873, and perhaps in a few other instances, a professor-elect and his friends were re- minded, in a somewhat menacing way, that such a power, though dormant, was still in existence, and might of a sudden wake up.*
(e). Sudden use of the veto power in 1891.
Wherever real power exists, it is sure to make itself felt. Its turn always comes, sooner or later ; nor is the opportuni- ty apt to be neglected, when a much-desired object, whether good or bad, can be secured by its exercise. What is called the spoils system, for example — a system which has done so much to poison and vulgarize our political life — is
by the board of commissioners of Auburn Seminary, I do not know. But, of course, that Seminary alone was bound by it.
* In 1873 my appointment to a professorship in the then Northwestern Theological Seminary was threatened with veto on the ground that I had lately in the Swing trial expressed the wish that the Confession of Faith might soon be revised. How would that sound now ? But my orthodox opponents were quieted, as I was afterward informed, by the statement of the Committee on Seminaries, that in not vetoing the Assembly would not necessarily approve. Time changes both sentiment and logic. [Letter of Rev. Dr. Patterson, dated Evanston, HI., Aug. 14, 1891.]
SUDDEN USE OF THE VETO POWER. 53
largely the outgrowth of that simple power of removal, which the Congress of 1Y89 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 power of removal from mere personal motives, or except in extreme cases, he would deserve to be impeached. And for more than a third of a century Executive patronage was used solely as a public trust by Washington and the other great patriots who then ruled the country. Even after 1820, when the mischievous Four Years' law was passed, during the second term of Monroe and the whole term of John Quincy Adams, very few removals were made, and those in every case for cause. Only here and there a far-seeing statesman surmised what, during the next third of a cen- tury, lay wrapped up in the unlimited power of removal, when, instead of being used as a public trust, it was going to be so largely prostituted to vulgar greed and the ruthless animosities of selfish partisanship. How different it is now! The spoils system has come to be regarded, not merely by a few far-seeing statesmen, but by tens of thousands of our most thoughtful and patriotic citizens, of both parties, as, on the whole, the greatest evil that, since the overthrow of slavery, besets the moral life of the country. While I am writing this paper in a lovely moun- tain valley of Vermont, one of the most distinguished of her sons is depicting her heroic services in the Revolu- tionary war and the civic virtues which rendered her so meet, in advance of all others, to join the Old Thirteen by admission to the Union. It is a romantic and inspiring story, told with an eloquence not unworthy of Daniel Webster or of Edward Everett. And I find in it this
54 UNIOj* SEMIj^AEY akd the assembly.
golden passage : '* "We have lived to see the prohibition of slavery in the earliest constitution of Yermont, become a part of the fundamental law of this nation. May the time be not far off when its declaration against that other and more widespread curse which corrupts and degrades free government, shall be likewise put in force by the body of the American people." *
I have given an illustration from our political history of the way in which power long quiescent may of a sud- den, when the fitting opportunity occurs, spring into vigor- ous and baleful action. Illustrations still more impressive might be drawn from the history of the Christian Church.
Months before the Assembly met at Detroit it became apparent to observing eyes that the transfer of the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., to the new chair of Biblical The- ology in Union Seminary was to be sharply contested, and, if possible, vetoed. The contest, of course, would rest upon the ground that a transfer is equivalent to an original elec- tion, and subject, therefore, to the disapproval of the Gen- eral Assembly. There had long existed throughout the Presbyterian Church great dissatisfaction with some of Dr. Briggs' views as expressed in his writings ; and had oppor- tunity occurred sooner, it would doubtless have been seized to attempt his removal, by act of the General Assembly, from the Faculty of Union Seminary.
The feeling against Dr. Briggs, already existing and widespread, was very much intensified by the address ^vhich 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 Assembly on the sub- ject. The address also led to the initiation of a judicial
* Oration at the dedication of the Bennington Battle Monu- ment, etc., etc., by E. J. Phelps.
THE COMMISSIONERS AND VETO AT DETROIT, 55
process in the Presbytery of "New York. When the Gen- eral Assembly met on the 21st of May, the excitement about Dr. Briggs and his case had reached a very high pitch. The press, both religious and secular, discussed the matter with extraordinary interest. There had been nothing like it since the reunion ; nothing, in truth, like or equal to it since the tempestuous 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 differs essen- tially from an original election, and is not subject to the Assembly's disapproval, there still might have been a Dr. Briggs case, but it would not have been the case that in May last drew the attention of the whole country to Detroit.
(d). The General Assembly at Detroit, and how to judge its course. Although my impression of the action of the General Assembly at Detroit in the case of Dr. Briggs is anything but favorable, my impression of the Assembly itself is favorable, on the whole, in a high degree. Judging from all I have read and what I have heard from the lips of those who were present as lookers-on, it seems to me to have been a superior body of Christian men. They came from far and near, from city and country, from the Atlan- tic and the Pacific shores, and from the most distant parts of heathendom. They differed immensely in age, in train- ing, in experience, in temperament, in social habits and tastes, in their way of looking at things, in the types of piety and religious thought which they represented ; but they were very much alike in their love to Jesus Christ, in their faith in His blessed gospel, in their reverence for the Holy Scriptures, in their God-fearing patriotism and
56 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
philanthropy. Eye-witnesses told me that they never saw a body of good men who appeared more sincerely desirous to do right, and to do it in a Christian spirit. I was espe- cially touched by what I heard about Judge Breckinridge, for it recalled pleasant boyish impressions of his distin- guished and excellent father. He belonged to a historic family, and his own character added honor to the name. Only the evening before his sudden death he expressed to a friend of mine his keen anxiety respecting the case of Dr. Briggs, and his deep sense of responsibility in the vote he was about to give. His last words attest how sincerely he spoke.
It is quite possible to respect and even admire a man's character, and to take for granted the purity of his motives, without always approving his conduct or assenting to his logic. And what is thus true with regard to individuals may be no less true with regard to a body of men, to a party, to a community, and to a whole people. Were it not so, history, instead of being one of the most interesting and instructive of studies, would be repulsive and demoral- izing beyond expression. It will ever redound to the honor of the American people that when the stress and agony of their struggle for national life and freedom was once passed, the whirlwind of embittered passions it had aroused began to subside, just as the waves of an angry sea dashing upon a rock-bound coast die away after the storm is over. And these passions have been subsiding ever since. The mag- nanimous and patriotic sentiments of mutual confidence, love, patience, and brotherhood, which are the crowning glory of our Christian civilization, have been more and more taking their place, and will continue to do so, let us hope, until the billows of sectional strife shall have
quite forgot to rave,
While birds of calm sit brooding on the charmed wave.
THE COMMISSIONERS AND VETO AT DETROIT. 57
Or, to take an illustration from our Presbyterian annals, was not the reunion of the severed branches of the Church in 1869 a genuine triumph of similar sentiments? We re- tained, whoever cared to do so, our old differences of opin- ion respecting the causes and merits, or demerits, of the Exscinding Acts, the Disruption of 1838, and the thirty years of alienation between Old School and New School ; but for all that, led, no doubt, by a Divine hand, we came together again in the spirit of mutual trust and love, for- giving and forgetting, in order that we might the more 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 thinking alike about the events of 1837-38, or about the wisdom of the men who taught and led the con- tending schools ! But it now costs us probably no great effort to admit that they, at all events, were good men, fear- ing G-od, and honestly meaning, as well as trying, to keep His commandments.
For myself, I remember well the day when to my youth- ful fancy Albert Barnes was the very embodiment of pious good sense, meek wisdom, and uprightness, as well as free- dom, of mind in the interpretation of Holy Scripture ; while Robert J. Breckinridge appeared to me as a pugna- cious theological " fire-eater,'' a domineering ecclesiastic, and a persecutor of the saints. My impression of Albert Barnes was only confirmed when, years later, I learned to love and revere him as a personal friend. But time and memorable hours, a third of a century ago, of most inter- esting talk with him, in the company of Henry B. Smith, Roswell D. Hitchcock and other congenial spirits, quite revolutionized my impression of Robert J. Breckinridge ; and while not much changing my opinion of certain feat- ures of his course in 1837-38, his relentless hostility to re- union, or his way of doing things, I have ever since had
58 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
no trouble whatever in thinking of him as a devoted servant of the Lord, as an able theologian, an humble Christian, a great-hearted patriot, and a brave, even if a somewhat rugged, type of old Kentucky manhood.
While, then, I feel bound to criticise the Assembly's action in the case of Dr. Briggs as unfair, wrong, and un- wise in the extreme, let no one suppose me to be imputing bad motives either to the Assembly or to the men who, as I think, misled it. If any of them or their advisers were actuated by such motives, that is not my business ; let them answer for it to their own consciences and to God. But I go further than this. So far from imputing unworthy motives to most of the commissioners to the Assembly at Detroit, I can readily believe that they were actuated by the best of motives. By their votes, in disapproval of Dr. Briggs' transfer to the chair of Biblical Theology, they meant to express no personal hostility to him, but a hos- tility to what they had read or been assured, a hundred times over, and what they honestly supposed, were his opin- ions and teaching respecting the inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures. And had I been a member of the Assembly, viewed the subject as they did, and deemed it right to vote at all, my vote would have gone with theirs. From the bottom of my heart I sympathize with all pious and tender feelings toward the Bible, with jealousy of any rival to its authority, with pain and grief at seeing it assailed from without or lightly esteemed in the house of its friends, and with awe of the divine majesty and glory of its truths. Perhaps more or less of ignorance and prejudice may be mixed up with these sentiments. Be it so ; but how much of prejudice and ignorance is apt to be mixed up with everybody's best sentiments! If I must choose between ignorant and prejudiced but sincere love to the Word of God on the one hand, and on the other a rationalistic, fault-
THE COMMISSIONERS AND VETO AT DETROIT. 59
finding temper of mind toward it, I infinitely prefer the former. The Word of God, which liveth and abideth for- ever, is the snre foundation and the germinant principle of American piety. It was so in the beginning of our religi- ous life as a people ; it has been so ever since ; and unless we prove recreant to our great trust, it will be so in all the years to come. So far as criticism of the Bible, whether literary or theological, aims or tends to subvert this founda- tion and put something else in place of this principle, I, for one, am opposed to it utterly. And were it not my belief that Dr. Briggs could and would say Amen to this senti- ment, I should be equally opposed to him also. Biblical criticism, whether of the higher or lower sort, as I have said elsewhere, is very far from being an exact science, and it mars its own best work just in the degree that it puts on the airs of an exact science, and shouts before it is out of the woods. That has been the bane of rationalism, and if co-existing with it, is none the less a bane of the most ortho- dox Christian scholarship. " Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit ? There is more hope of a fool than of him." This sensef ul proverb applies not to persons alone. It ap- plies also to every kind of knowledge relating to moral and religious truth, more especially to every branch of knowl- edge that deals with Holy Scripture. Scholarship may be never so able and learned, yet if it be puffed up with self- conceit, if not animated by the spirit of humility and rever- ence, it is certain to go astray. " Let no man," to use the words of Lord Bacon, " upon a weak conceit of sobriety or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's Word or in the book of God's works, divinity or philoso- phy ; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress and proficience in both ; only let men beware that they apply both to charity and not to swelling ; to use, and not to ostentation."
60 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
(e). The Case against Dr. Briggs as argued ly John J.
McCoolc.
Of course the case against Dr. Briggs was set before the commissioners in a variety of ways, as well before they left home as upon their reaching the Assembly. Probably its most plausible presentation upon their arrival at Detroit, was in a lawyer's brief prepared by John J. McCook, a well-known member of the New York Bar.* This brief, bristling with points, and fortified by an array of legal au- thority, was well fitted prima facie to impress the ordinary lay or even clerical mind. I opened my own copy, not with- out some misgiving, lest the ground against vetoing Dr. Briggs, which had seemed to me so firm, should slip from under my feet. Let me add in passing, that had the friends of Union Seminary been as wise and zealous in their gener- ation as their friends, the enemies of Dr. Briggs, the result at Detroit might have been quite different.
It is noteworthy that a lawyer's brief, prepared with such care, and so confident in its tone, should betray an utter misapprehension of one of the most obvious and vital feat- ures of the veto power, as conceded by Union Seminary to the General Assembly. It is solely, as the General Assem- bly itself decided in 1871, the power of ^approval ; and yet this brief, again and again, assumes that it was no less the power of approval. Here are instances : " Thus, all appointments of professors are, and the safety of the Church
* One Hundred and Third General Assembly of the Pres- byterian Church in the United States of America, Detroit, May, 1891. Memorandum of facts and the law controlling the relations of Union Theological Seminary in the city of New York to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, by John J. McCook, Commissioner from the Presbytery of New York.
me. Mccook's beief. 61
demands that they always should be, made by the directors conditionally, first upon the approval of the General Assembly " (p. 18).
Again, " Point Till. The only question before this As- sembly is the exercise of the power granted to it by Union Seminary under the contract, namely : to approve or dis- approve the appointment by transfer of Dr. Briggs to the new chair of Biblical Theology " (p. 31).
Mr. McCook opens his brief with a narration of the ma- terial facts bearing upon the case. He then makes his " Point I," namely : That the memorial of the directors of Union Seminary in 1870, and the action of the General Assembly thereupon, constituted "a contract upon valid considerations." I have already touched upon the question of contract and pass it here. The first valid consideration was "The benefit to the Union Seminary in securing the influence and name of the General Assembly to reassure pupils and oenefactors as to its orthodoxy." Imagine the looks of wondering incredulity with which William Adams, Henry B. Smith, Thomas H. Skinner, Roswell D. Hitchcock, Edwin F. Hatfield, and Jonathan F. Stearns — not to mention others — would have listened to this as- sertion ! I am sure they never heard a lisp of it, either before or after 1870. And although for nearly forty years connected with Union Seminary either as director or pro- fessor, I read it for the first time in this brief. The state- ment implies that both pupils and benefactors, being in serious doubt respecting the orthodoxy of the institution, found relief in the agreement of 1870. What pupils 1 what benefactors? and where is the evidence that the Seminary entered into the " contract " of 1870 in order to reassure its pupils and benefactors as to its own orthodoxy ? The whole statement is not only utterly without foundation, but it in- volves a very gross and offensive imputation upon the
62 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
General Assembly, upon Union Seminary, and upon all the parties concerned.
No principle laid down in the Basis of reunion in 1869 was more emphatically asserted than that of the perfect equality of both branches, Old School and New, in the matter of their orthodoxy. The whole movement hinged upon the distinct recognition of this principle. Had Dr. Musgrave, Dr. Beatty, and the other Old School leaders in- timated that Union Seminary was not as sound in the faith as Princeton, and needed the influence of the General As- sembly to " ^assure pupils and benefactors as to its ortho- doxy," that of itself would have broken up the negotiations for union.
The second " good and valuable consideration," received by the Union Seminary under this " contract," was " a large increase of its students, drawn from all parts of the reunited Church." This statement also I believe to be entirely without foundation. Reunion, according to the best of my knowledge and belief, brought very few students to Union Seminary; while it undoubtedly tended, in several ways, to draw them elsewhere. It wrought a great change, for example, in the feeling of New School men toward Old School seminaries, as well as toward the Old School Church ; and thus led more or less of those studying for the ministry to enter these seminaries, who would never have thought of doing so before 1870.
The following table, kindly furnished me by the Be v. Charles R. Gillett, librarian of Union Seminary, shows at a glance the number of students for twenty years before and twenty years since 1870, and will enable the reader to judge for himself as to the probable influence of the General Assembly upon the increase of its students by "reassur- ing pupils and benefactors of the orthodoxy" of the in- stitution. This increase, it will be seen, has been from the
MR. MCCOOK7 S BRIEF.
63
first somewhat irregular. Special causes have from time to time depleted the Seminary. The war for the Union had this effect in a marked degree. In the four years 1861-5 not a few Union students, or young men, who were in- tending to enter Union Seminary, were at the front, fight- ing the battles of their country. Then again special causes have occasionally increased the number of students ; as, for example, the expectation that the World's Fair would be held in New York. I repeat my own opinion, that the endorsement of its orthodoxy by the General Assembly, during all these twenty years, has never added a dozen names to the roll of students in Union Seminary.
Students in Union Seminary, by years and classes. Undergraduates only.
YEAR.
SENIORS.
MLDDLERS.
JUNIORS.
TOTALS.
1890-91
1889-90
1888-89
1887-88
1886-87
1885-86
1884-85
1883-84
1882-83
1881-82
1880-81
1879-80
1878-79
1877-78
1876-77
1875-76
1874-75
1873-74
1872-73
1871-72
43 43 36 35 53 37 39 33 39 37 36 38 43 45 48 36 43 37 42 36
60 49
47 39 41 49 37 37 35 40 44 ' 42 37 50 44 49 33 40 42 40
49 66 44 51 36 33 55 41 42 43 40 50 39 47 47 51 40 34 36 38
152
158 127 125 130 119 131 ill 116 120 120 130 119 142 139 136 116 111 120 114
Averages.
39.95
42.75
44.10
126.8
64
UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
YEAR.
SENIORS.
MIDDLERS.
JUNIORS.
TOTALS.
1870-71
1869-70
1868-69
1867-68
1866-67
1865-66
1864-65
1863-64
1862-63
1861-62
1860-61
1859-60
1858-59
1857-58
1856-57
1855-56
1854-55
1853-54
1852-53
1851-52
37 39 43
44 26 35 23 26 28 38 37 33 38 25 23 19 2G 27 22 23
36 37
44 42 51 38 39 27 30 32 56 49 39 40 33 31 32 31 24 21
37 37 40 47 31 50 38 32 28 39 40 59 43 43 46 40 38 40 34 30
110 113
127
133
108
123
100
85
86
109
133
141
120
108
102
90
96
98
80
74
Averages.
30.6
36.6
39.6
106.8
TEAR.
1850-51
1849-50
1843-49
1847-48
1846-47
1845-46
1844-45
1843-44
1842-43
1841-42
1840-41
1839-40
1838-39
Averages.
20 31 27 30 40 25 29 22 25 32 23 24 28
27.4
MIDDLERS.
28 20 32 37 32 45 30 40 29 31 43 41 26
JUNIORS.
25 41 32 36 43 30 46 31 44 39 33 55
33.4
37.4
TOTALS.
73 92 91
103 115 100 105
93
98 102
99 120
86
98.2
mr. mccook's bsief. 65
The third " good and valuable consideration " received by Union Seminary under this contract, according to Mr. McCook, consists in the financial aid granted each year to the students from the Board of Education of the Presby- terian Church. How so ? The students of Union Seminary had received financial aid every year from the New School Committee of Education. After 1870 they received simi- lar aid from the Board of Education of the reunited Church. Where is the difference? Is a dollar coming by way of Philadelphia a better dollar than used to come from the treasury of the New School Committee of Education right here in New York ? Is there more silver or more gold in it? is it stamped with a stronger assurance of orthodoxy ?
The fourth and last " good and valuable consideration," binding Union Seminary fast to its contract, consists in " large additions to its endowments and funds such as those received from James Brown, Esq., Gov. Morgan, and others which have been asked for and received since 1870 upon the guaranty of its orthodoxy through its relation to the General Assembly under this contract and the provi- sions of its Constitution."
I observe in passing that the " Constitution," containing these important provisions, is here referred to with great respect and printed with a big C ; while on page 2 it is twice printed with a little c and is spoken of as " the con- stitution so-called" And on page 13 the little c comes back again four times over. In replying to Mr. Henry Day's question, "What authority had the board of 1870 to bind the board of 1891, and take from them their cor- porate and constitutional powers ? " Mr. McCook's brief goes on to say : " Such lauguage might be proper if the Constitution of the United States were in question, but to speak of the corporations constitution as conferring con-
66 UNION SEMINAEY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
stitutional powers is plainly misleading." Why should the constitution of Union Seminary, which its founders in- tended as the enduring basis and organic law of its existence — full of perennial life, growth, and blessing — be called, slightingly, " the corporation's constitution " ?
But to return to the fourth " good and valuable consid- eration," namely, " large additions to its endowments and funds, such as those received from James Brown, Esq., Gov. Morgan, and others upon the guaranty of its orthodoxy." Of course, I do not pretend to say that none of the benefac- tors of the Seminary were more or less influenced by their confidence in the orthodoxy of the institution, as guaran- teed by its relations to the General Assembly. I do not know. Men are usually led by a variety of motives to give away their money, especially when they do it on a large scale. Of one of the benefactors named, Gov. Mor- gan, I feel entitled to speak with some confidence. Nearly forty years ago I preached a sermon to my people on the position, character, and claims of Union Theological Seminary, urging its immediate endowment. The sermon made no allusion to the General Assembly, or to what Mr. McCook seems to understand by Presbyterian orthodoxy ; but it did set forth what I held, and still hold, to be the chief purpose and function of a great metropolitan institu- tion of Christian theology and learning, like Union Semi- nary. Thirty years later Gov. Morgan was kind enough to write to me respecting my sermon : " There is not an ex- pression in it which I do not approve. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for presenting this vastly important subject in its true light." Here follow a few passages from the sermon which met his approval :
The character of Union Seminary is eminently catholic in the true sense of the word ; it is at once liberal and conserv- ative. There is nothing that I am aware of in its history,
mr. mccook's brief. 67
nothing in its associations, nothing in its general policy, noth- ing in its temper, which should make this institution cleave inordinately to the past or to the future ; which should render it unstable in the ways of old truth, or unwilling to greet new truth with a friendly welcome ; nothing which commits it to any party or prevents its cordial relations with all parties that love the 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 di- rectors, and among its warmest friends, influential members of the other branch ; while it seeks its professors and attracts its students as readily from the old Puritan body of New England, as if its predilections were all Congregational. If you will have an institution occupying as catholic a ground as the distracted state of the Church in our day seems to per- mit, I do not know how you can well come nearer to such a plan than have the founders of Union Seminary. Its main advantages are as accessible and useful to a Baptist, a Methodist, an Episcopalian, or a Congregationalist, as to a Presbyterian ; and students of all these and of other de- nominations have availed themselves of them. Let it be understood that in what I have said, or may say, I cast no reflection upon any other seminary. All honor to Princeton, and Lane, and Auburn, and Andover, and Bangor, and New Haven, and others of whatever name, that are doing the 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
b8 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
pagan nations. The position, then, of the Union Seminary is unsurpassed both for the training of ministers and for the cultivation of sacred learning. For this reason its founders planted it in the city of New York.
I have the clearest conviction that the Union Seminary is capable of doing a great 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 invaluable contributions to the higher theological literature of the age. But I trust it has still a nobler career in the future. I look forward to the time when young men of piety and generous endowments shall flock to it in thousands from all quarters of the Republic ; from California and Ore- gon, and from the islands of the sea, even ; when its library shall be the resort of Christian scholars from neighboring towns and cities ; when its professorships 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, in their own city and not send all their money to Princeton. I am convinced now more than ever that my judgment in this respect has not been at fault.
In his letter to Dr. Adams offering to establish a fund of one hundred thousand dollars for the erection of a new library building and for the improvement, increase, and support of the library, Gov. Morgan begins by saying : " I
MK. Mccook's beief. 69
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 country" No mention is made of Presbyterian orthodoxy as fixed by the a standard of the General Assembly." Nor do I believe any such thought passed through the mind of this strong man, either at that time, or, later, when he added to his first gift two hundred thousand dollars more.
Not 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 experienced. And what a host of opportunities I have lost ! If men of means could only realize what gratification is to be derived in this way, worthy and deserving objects would be fairly besieged with clamorous donors."
Mr. McCook, ten pages later, recurs, almost pathetically, to the distressing effect that must follow any other position than the one maintained by himself : " It would work an irreparable wrong upon those donors, such as James Brown, Esq., Governor Morgan, Kussell Sage, Esq., Daniel B. Fayerweather, Esq., and others, who have contributed so largely to the endowment of Union Seminary upon the faith of this arrangement with the General Assembly and the orthodoxy of the seminary, which was intended to be secured thereby." All the benefactors named but one have passed far beyond the reach of such " irreparable wrong," Kussell Sage, Esq., alone surviving. "Why Mr. McCook selects this gentleman in particular from among a score or more of five-thousand-dollar contributors to the funds of Union Seminary as the special object of his sym- pathy, I do not know. But I marvel a little that, in his
70 UNION seminary and the assembly.
eagerness to have Dr. Briggs' transfer to the chair of Bib- lical Theology vetoed, he shows no touch of sympathy for Charles Butler, now in his ninetieth year, the revered president, patriarch, and only surviving founder of Union Seminary, whose gift of one hundred thousand dollars en- dowed the chair, whose services to the institution cannot be valued with pure gold, and whose deliberate choice, right judgment, and Christian wisdom would be stamped by such veto with the stigma of disapproval on the part of the high- est judicatory of the Presbyterian Church.
I have time barely to cull a few more samples of the ecclesiastical wisdom, which marks this extraordinarv brief :
" The sole object of Union Theological Seminary is to uphold and teach the Presbyterian standards " (p. 15).
" Upon questions of orthodoxy the directors, individually and as a Presbyterian body, are subject to the General As- sembly " (p. 16).
" The Assembly merely sets a standard of orthodoxy, and the corporation, wishing to be orthodox, agree to ap- point no agent of a certain class who does not come ujp 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 professor in such a seminary shall be measured by this standard?" (p. 17).
Surely, if these sayings are true, things are sadly topsy- turvy both in Union Seminary and in the Presbyterian Church.
{/). The Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries : its report, and the action of the Assembly.
The one hundred and third General Assembly of the
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 71
Presbyterian Church in the United States of America met at Detroit, Michigan, in the Fort street Presbyterian Church, of which the Kev. Dr. Wallace Eatcliffe is pastor, on May 21, 189 1 . The Eev. Dr. William Henry Green, the distinguished professor of Oriental and Old Testament Lit- erature at Princeton, was chosen moderator. Dr. Green is held in the highest esteem and affection, all over the land, as a veteran in the service of Christian scholarship. Nothing could have been more fitting than his unanimous election. The organization of the Assembly is thus de- scribed by the correspondent of the New York Tribune, under date of May 22 :
This is pre-eminently a conservative Assembly ; more, it is a Princeton Assembly. The moderator is a Princeton man, the senior professor in that seminary ; the stated clerk is a Princeton man, having been for a long time librarian of that institution ; the chairman of the Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries, Dr. Patton, is president of Prince- ton College, and it is to this committee that the report of Union Seminary is to be submitted. Friends and opponents of Dr. Briggs are already forming their opinions as to what action this committee will report in regard to the New York professor.
Dr. Green announced the standing committees this morn- ing. There is no special significance in the appointments, except in that of the Committee on Theological Seminaries This is composed as follows : Ministers — Francis L. Patton, Princeton ; William McKibbin, Cincinnati ; John Lapsley, Danville ; S. Bowden, Eochester ; J. D. Hewitt, Emporia ; J. K. Wright, Florida ; T. E. Buber, Philadelphia ; and