M. A. Bronson, Detroit. Elders— S. M. Breckinridge, St.

Louis; P. McDavitt, Chicago; E. W. C. Humphrey, Louisville; E. C. Totten, Pittsburgh ; P. Doremus, Montclair, N. J. ; M. J. Frick, Fort Dodge ; E. McConnaughy, Nebraska City. It was said by those professing to know that this was a decid-
72 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
edly anti-Briggs committee, but Dr. Patton, its chairman, assured the Tribune correspondent that he did not know how the members stood on any special question that might come be- fore them. They had apparently been chosen by Dr. Green because he knew their fitness for the work before them.
What ground there was, if any, for the charge, made at Detroit, that the moderator allowed himself to be unduly influenced in order to make the Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries a decidedly " anti-Briggs " commit- tee, I know not. Of the Standing Committee on Theolog- ical Seminaries, I shall refer chiefly to the chairman. Had Dr. Patton, in view of the peculiarly delicate circumstances of the case, peremptorily declined the appointment, or, at the least, had he followed the example of Dr. Adams at Philadelphia in 1870, and requested the Assembly, as a personal favor, to excuse him from serving, he would have stood higher than he does to-day in the respect of the friends of Union Seminary, and, I cannot but think, in that also of the Christian scholarship of the country.
On May 27th Dr. Patton read the report of the commit- tee, which was accepted and ordered to be printed. The report opened with an enumeration of sixty-three Presby- teries which had overtured the General Assembly respect- ing the recent utterances of Dr. Briggs. It also refers to the report of the directors of the Union Theological Semi- nary to the General Assembly respecting the transfer of Dr. Briggs to the chair of Biblical Theology. The report then proceeds thus :
On the 20th of January, 1891, Dr. Briggs delivered an in- augural address on the authority of the Holy Scriptures which has been the subject of some criticism, and which is the occasion of the recommendations which your committee feel constrained to make to the Assembly. In making these recommendations, your committee feel that they are acting
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 73
in the discharge of a delicate duty. The matter with which they have been called to deal bears in a very important way upon the purity and peace of our Church. The interest of the Union Theological Seminary should be most carefully considered, and great respect should be had for the judgment of those who, as directors and as members of its faculty, are administering its affairs. The committee feel, moreover, that while the Assembly has not been officially informed, the Presbytery of New York has taken steps that look toward a prosecution of Dr. Briggs on the charge of heresy ; that well-known facts should be so far recognized as to secure from the Assembly the protection of the good name of Dr. Briggs in the discussion of the question that will come be- fore the Assembly, through this report, and also to prevent any expression of opinion on the part of this Assembly that could be justly regarded as prejudgment of the case that will soon, as it now appears, assume the form of a judicial pro- cess in the Presbytery of New York. It cannot be too care- fully observed that the question before this Assembly is not whether Dr. Briggs, as a Presbyterian minister, has so far contravened the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith as to have made himself liable to a judicial censure, but whether, in view of the utterances contained in the inaugural address, already referred to, and the disturbing effect which they have produced throughout the Church, the election of Dr. Briggs to the chair of Biblical Theology in Union Theo- logical Seminary should be disapproved. Your committee have examined the law of the Church regarding the relation of the General Assembly to the theological seminaries under its care. The relation of the Assembly to the Union Theo- logical Seminary, so far as the appointment of professors is concerned, is embodied in the following statement taken from page 390 of the New Digest.
Having cited the statement referred to, the report con- tinues, as follows :
74 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
It appears, then, that, according to the items of the com- pact quoted above, the directors of the Union Theological Seminary have conceded to the Assembly the right to veto the appointment of professors, and that an election is com- plete unless vetoed by the next Assembly following the elec- tion. Your committee would have been disposed to recom- mend that the report of the directors of Union Theological Seminary to this Assembly, so far as it referred to the trans- fer of Dr. Briggs to the chair of Biblical Theology, be re- ferred to the next Assembly, if such a disposition of the matter had been possible ; but the Assembly has clearly no power to postpone action. The control of the Church over the election of Dr. Briggs ceases with the dissolution of this present Assembly. Your committee are constrained, there- fore, to say that in their judgment it is the duty of the As- sembly to disapprove of the appointment of Dr. Briggs to the Edward Robinson chair of Biblical Theology in Union Theological Seminary.
Your committee desire to say, moreover, that while they are clear in their judgment that the Assembly has the right to veto the appointment of Dr. Briggs to the chair of Biblical Theology, it is possible to impose a meaning upon the ap- parently unambiguous phraseology of the compact between the General Assembly and the directors of the Union Theo- logical Seminary, that would lead to a different conclusion. Fairness also requires us to say that the Assembly is one of the parties of the compact that it is called upon to construe. While your committee are of the opinion that the compact in question did not contemplate the distinction between the election of a person to be a professor and the appointment of one already a professor to the work of a certain depart- ment of instruction, it cannot be denied that such a distinc- tion exists ; the one act conferring status, the other only as- signing duties. The seemingly irregular course of the directors of the Union Theological Seminary, whereby Dr. Briggs was inducted into ofici before the Assembly had
EEPOET OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINAEIES. 75
been advised of his appointment, is doubtless to be attributed to their mode of construing their contract with the General Assembly. While your committee are sure that the Assem- bly will not, and should not, admit its right of disapproval is restricted to the original election of a person to a professor- ship of Biblical Theology in that Seminary, and while they are of the opinion that, acting according to the light it now has, the Assembly cannot but disapprove of the appointment of Dr. Briggs to the professorship of Biblical Theology in that Seminary, they are nevertheless of the opinion that, in the interests of the mutual relations of confidence and cordial respect subsisting between the Union Theological Seminary and the General Assembly, it would be eminently proper for the Assembly to appoint a committee to confer with the directors of the Union Theological Seminary in regard to the relations of said Seminary to the General Assembly, and to report to the next General Assembly. The committee, therefore, recommend the adoption of the following resolu- tions :