II. Resolved, That a committee, consisting of eight ministers

and seven ruling elders, be appointed by the General Assembly to confer with the directors of Union Theological Seminary in regard to the relations of said Seminary to the General As- sembly, and to report to the next General Assembly.
Before considering the report of the committee I wish to call attention to the statement of the chairman on reading it.
I would like to say that this committee have felt the re- sponsibility that has been placed upon them ; that they have
76 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
not felt at liberty to divide this responsibility with any one ; that they have studiously avoided consulting with any one who may have been supposed to have preconceived opinions on either side of the question ; and having reached our con- clusions, we present them to the Assembly for such action as the Assembly in its wisdom may see fit to take.
Is this not equivalent to saying that they deliberately refused to seek, or to receive, any light from anybody in reference to the momentous question which they were ap- pointed to consider ? If so, it is a confession that, in my opinion, reflects anything but credit upon the committee. Were these fifteen commissioners already omniscient when they shut themselves up in committee ? Would their minds henceforth of necessity be biased, or misled, by any addition to their knowledge touching the Union Seminary and Dr. Briggs \ I say nothing about the other " side "; but so far as the Union Seminary was concerned, it had good right to be heard before that committee, if it desired or cared to do so. Three of its directors were commissioners to the Assembly, Drs. Parkhurst, Dickey, and White. Of Dr. Parkhurst I can- not speak. Dr. Dickey has repeatedly stated that he offered, as a member of the Union board of directors, to give the committee any information in his power; not "precon- ceived opinions," but simple information. Dr. White made the same offer, both orally and in writing, and he was as- sured by Dr. Patton that the committee would be glad to hear him. He fully expected to be heard ; but neither he nor Dr. Dickey were ever sent for or asked to appear. The committee " studiously avoided " consulting with him.
And, pray, who is Erskine N. White, that he should be treated in that manner ? He is, as his honored father was before him, one of the most candid, judicious, and clear- sighted, as he is also one of the best, men in the Presbyterian Church. He was sent to the Assembly
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 77
because the whole Presbytery of New York knew him to be such a man. He insisted upon declining the appointment, moved thereto in part no doubt by reason of his exacting duties as secretary of the Assembly's Board of Church Erection, and partly, it may be, by reason of the somewhat delicate position in which the case of Dr. Briggs might place him, should he take part in its discus- sion. Hearing of his purpose, I joined Dr. Hastings in urg- ing him not to decline. " You need take no part in the dis- cussion of Dr. Briggs' case," we said to him, " but you know all about our Seminary affairs. You know the mind and temper of the board ; you have the confidence of the whole Church. You can explain things; you can give needed information. Go, by all means." He yielded, and when he got to Detroit found his information " studiously avoided." Was it because, forsooth, he " might be supposed to have preconceived opinions " % Surely, this is not the spirit of fairness that ought to rule a leading committee of the Gen- eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, when dealing with a question that involves the professional standing and character of one of her most distinguished ministers !
But this slight put upon the three directors of Union Seminary, who were commissioners to the Assembly, was only a prelude to a far greater slight put upon the Seminary itself. Had Union Seminary belonged to the General Assembly and been subject to its authority as Princeton, for example, was and is, such treatment would still have been open to criticism. But Union Seminary, as we have seen, is not subject to the authority of the General Assembly. That body is in no sense its patron or the foun- tain of any of its powers. It stands, and has always stood, upon its own independent foundation. The single tie which in 1870 by its own free act connected it with the General Assembly, by its own free act it can sever at any moment
78 UNION SEMINAEY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
" for good and sufficient reasons." It is true that the report of the committee distinctly recognizes the fact that Union Seminary was a party in the case and had rights of its own as over against the Assembly. And yet the report recommended an ex parte decision of the vital question at issue without consulting in the least Union Seminary. The consultation was to come after the matter had been practi- cally, and so far as that Assembly was concerned, irrevoca- bly settled.
The exposition of the case in the report, more fully given in Dr. Patton's speeches and in those of other members of the committee, is remarkable for the manner in which it utterly ignores the deliberate action and testimony of the board of directors of Union Seminary, as also the carefully prepared statement of its Faculty. These were not, it is true, officially made known to the Assembly. But neither was the action of the Presbytery of New York, looking to a judicial process in the case of Dr. Briggs ; and yet the Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries kept that action constantly in mind in framing their report, and urged the Assembly to do so in considering it. Why was not the Assembly informed in this report of the exact position taken both by the Board of directors and by the Faculty of the Seminary ? Why was not the Assembly distinctly told that the Board, by a unanimous vote and after careful investiga- tion, had virtually pronounced the charges against Dr. Briggs unfounded, and that the Faculty of the institution had done the same thing? Was this solemn testimony also " studiously avoided " on the ground that it consisted of " preconceived opinions " % *
* The action of the Board in establishing the new chair and transferring Dr. Briggs to it, Dr. Frazer's charge, the resolutions of the Board of directors sustaining and promis-
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 79
As to the second recommendation of the committee, Dr. Erskine pointed out its real character in his very sensible comment upon it. Here is what he said :
It is proposed that we appoint a committee and go and hold a conference with the Union Seminary directors in re- gard to Dr. Briggs' relation to that Seminary, and to give them some advice. Mr. Moderator, what authority have we for that ? Where have we any authority in regard to Union Seminary, excepting that which is embraced in the compact between that Seminary and us in the articles of agreement which were adopted in the year 1870 in the General Assem- bly at Philadelphia ? And where have we any authority to go to them and advise with them, to do anything outside of the compact? None whatever. This proposition is a mis- leading proposition. It would have us surrender the only authority we have in regard to the instructions which are given to our candidates for the ministry in Union Seminary, and to assume an authority that does not belong to us. If we do so, we just allow ourselves to be misled and outwitted. The only control as an Assembly that we have over the theological seminary — I mean directly, except through the Synod and the Presbytery where we may reach ministers and elders — is embraced in that compact which has been entered into between the General Assembly and our theological semi- naries, and the power that we have is the power of disap- proval in regard to a professor that has been elected ; and if you surrender that power, you surrender all the controlling power that you have in regard to the instructions that are given in these seminaries. Suppose you adopt this substi- tute ; suppose you appoint your most prominent, most influ- ential and wisest representatives. You go there and make your propositions. Why, they will receive you very cordially
ing to stand by Dr. Briggs, and also the statement of the Faculty, will all be found in the Appendix.
80 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
and politely, and say : " Gentlemen, we will take this into consideration ; we will take time to consider this. We are obliged to you ; we shall treat it with great respect and great courtesy." And they will take it into consideration, and what will be the result ? You can all anticipate it. The majority of the directors in that theological seminary have sat upon this question again and again. There is a minority in that board with whom you might deal if you had the power, and they had the power ; but the majority of that board of direct- ors have acted upon this, and they have expressed their ap- proval and their confidence in the views held by the person in question. And so if we were to go into this arrangement it would be vetoing the great issue. It would be surrender- ing the power that we have, and it would be putting you in a position just to be treated with simple courtesy by that board. You have no authority over them, and I don't know that they have any authority to carry out the proposition that is made.
Dr. Erskine was heard by the Assembly with not a little impatience, but this part of his speech, at least, seems to me to show that he understood the subject far better than some of his more eloquent brethren. His common-sense view of the relations of the Assembly to the directors of the Union Seminary may very well be compared with that expressed, or implied, by Dr. Patton, for example, in the following passages :
We have recognized that as a judge we are bound to con- strue, and we have recognized that as a party Union Semi- nary claim that their rights have been infringed by our con- struction, and if they see fit they can take us into the civil courts for a judicial and authoritative interpretation of this
compact Now we understand that you intend to take
us into the courts. Well, brethren, is that the best course to pursue ? Can't we talk the matter over ? It is possible, you know, that you may be wrong. Is it not possible, therefore,
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 81
that they may come around? You might elect a man as professor of Elocution, and then transfer him to the chair of Theology. Isn't it possible that the directors will feel that the Assembly was right, after all ? Why, certainly. On the other hand, isn't it possible that your committee would change their view, and that they would recommend the next Assembly to reverse the judgment of this Assembly ? Isn't that possible ? Why, of course it is possible ; all things are possible. [Laughter and applause.] That would be a rep- resentative committee — eight ministers and seven elders, composed of the best men, the wisest lawyers, and to such a committee would we intrust this duty. Isn't it possible that both parties, in their inability to change their views, may say : " Well, we do not want to go to the courts. We re- member what Paul said about prosecuting these matters before the heathen court." But cannot the General Assem- bly on the report of this committee and the board of direct- ors of Union Seminary agree to refer the constitutional in- terpretation of this old compact, which is liable to come up and be a source of disturbance in years to come — refer it, not to this committee, not to the board of directors of Union Seminary, but to some Christian men outside, known for their wisdom, praised for their fairness, and saying on our part as a General Assembly, while they say on their part as a board of directors, " Dear brethren, we are perfectly will- ing to let any fair-minded set of men arbitrate this ques- tion " ? These are the possibilities in the case.*
The debate upon the report opened on May 28th, and on May 29th, late in the afternoon, the vote was taken. It re- sulted in the adoption of the resolutions of the committee
* These quotations, as all others, from the speeches, made in the Assembly, are taken from the revised reports of the N. Y. Tribune, printed in pamphlet form under the title, The Presbyterian Faith.
82 UNION SEMINABY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
by the overwhelming majority of 447 to 60. On the after- noon of May 28th Judge Breckinridge, a commissioner from St. Louis, at the moment of closing a speech in favor of the report, dropped dead in the presence of the whole As- sembly. This startling incident, following so quickly upon the almost equally sudden death of the Rev. Henry J. Yan Dyke, D.D., professor-elect to the chair of Systematic The- ology in Union Seminary — a noble man and one of the foremost leaders in the Presbyterian Church — tended nat- urally to deepen the serious f eeling which already pervaded the Assembly. While a few appear to have been in a different mood, the great body of commissioners, both ministers and elders, were very much impressed with the gravity of the situation.
It is not needful for my purpose to dwell long upon the speeches that were made. Much of the discussion, however able, was yet quite irrelevant. Much of it consisted in what is called beating about the bush. The first and fun- damental point, namely, the question of jurisdiction, was hardly touched upon except in the report of the commit- tee. With regard to this question, the minority were handicapped and tongue-tied from the outset. Their case was simply given away, and, strangely enough, by a director of Union Theological Seminary.*
* " The technical distinction, if any exists, between the ap- pointment of a professor to a newly-founded chair and a transfer from one chair to another, need not be discussed, as it is stated by Dr. Dickey that the directors of Union Semi- nary, at their last meeting in May, unanimously voted not to plead this distinction." — Eemarks by John J. McCook, p. 9. How Dr. Dickey's memory or hearing came to be so at fault, I am not able to say. His course at Detroit was in a high degree frank and manly, and all his friends know him to be incapable of stating what he did not believe to be true. The
EEPOET OF THE COMMITTEE OJS" SEMINARIES. 83
After this the friends of Dr. Briggs had nothing to do but to oppose the adoption of the report as best they could ; either directly, or by urging Dr. Logan's amendment or Dr. Worcester's substitute, both of which contemplated the postponement of final action to the next Assembly. The distinction between an original election and a transfer, however, having been waived, the advocates of a veto had it all their own way. And their own way consisted in two things : first, to assert very positively that Dr. Briggs ought to be vetoed ; and second, that he must be vetoed now or never. The latter point was urged with great solemnity and most impressive reiteration. "We are under obliga- tion," said Mr. McCook, " as honest men, as Christian men, to carry out in its exact terms all the provisions of that compact, and we cannot, we dare not, postpone action. We must act now and before the adjournment of this As- sembly, or the right to disapprove is lost fokever." Dr. Patton was equally emphatic as to the "now or never," giving as a reason how he should feel if threatened with a veto in the indefinite future. Here is what he said':
The question is whether we have the right to veto. I think we have Very well, suppose we have that right, how
following note is from Mr. E. M. Kingsley, the recorder of Union Seminary :
The Rev. Dr. Dickey's memory was at fault concerning the action of the directors at their meeting of May 12th. At that meeting the Executive Committee presented a report which in substance deemed it unwise to assume in advance that the General Assembly would mis- conceive the extent of its prerogative ; and in any event it was better at this time not to raise an issue by the sending up of a resolution upon the distinction between an "appointment" and a "transfer." This report, after discussion, was laid on the table, giving way to a motion which led to the series of questions submitted to and answered by Professor Briggs.
84 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
long does that right last ? One General Assembly has said that it can last only during the Assembly immediately following the election of the professor. Yery well, I think that is a good rule. It may seem a singular thing for me to play the role of an ad- vocate of freedom [laughter], but I am. I am a professor. I have the prejudices of my class, and I tell you that, in the name of that class, I will protest against the right of an Assembly to hold the threat of a veto over me for a dozen years in succession. They have their chance once, and if they don't veto my appointment then, they ought not to have the chance four or five years hence. Suppose you admit that you can postpone this veto. By and by some other professor will be saying something that is not right, as we think, and we shall say, " Let us go and veto him. "We did not veto him then, but we will do it now." "Who is safe ? I tell you it is in the interest of freedom ; it is in the interest of a proper freedom that you should not allow that it is possible to post- pone the veto. You have to do it now, or not at all. Very well. Now, then, you have the right to veto, and if you veto, you must veto now.
A veto, after all, is a terrible thing to be threatened with ! It seems to have made the chairman of the Standing Com- mittee on Theological Seminaries himself squirm to think of being the possible subject of it. Theological freedom, too, may be at stake ; and theological freedom, the proper liberty of a Christian scholar and teacher, in the last decade of the nineteenth century, is a very serious matter. If it must be done, let it be done quickly and put the man out of his misery. Precisely so ; but who would have guessed it from other parts of this speech ?
But even admitting, for the moment, that the Assembly had a right to veto Dr. Briggs' transfer, is it true that Now or Never was the absolute condition of its exercise ? Noth- ing could be further from the truth. The rule adopted by the Assembly, that the veto power must be used, if at all,
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES. 85
by the Assembly to which the election is reported, formed no part of the agreement of 1870, but was suggested by Auburn a year later. Had Auburn and Lane been consulted, as they should have been, and no doubt would have been but for the manner in which Union was hurried up by pressure from Princeton, such a rule would probably have been agreed upon by all the three New School institutions, acting in concert. Although a very sensible rule, it was yet in the nature of a mere by-law, belonging to the admin- istrative functions of the Assembly, and in such an exigency might have been suspended without the slightest impro- priety. But the leaders of the Assembly — not to speak with any disrespect — seem to have had " compact," as well as the veto of Dr. Briggs, " on the brain," as the phrase is, and so a simple rule of fairness and prudence, with which, however, Union Seminary had nothing to do, took on, in their reasoning, the color and rigidity of a law of the Medes and Persians which changeth not! A good deal in the whole matter impels one to say with Faust,
— der casus macht mich lachen,
but nothing, I think, like this Now or Never plea.
The Assembly then, it is plain, was fatally misled by the Now or Never plea. That plea was based upon a sheer mistake. But it served its purpose quite as well as if it had been based upon an opinion of Chief -Justice Marshall, or up- on the latest decision of the United States Supreme Court. It deluded the Assembly into just the right state of mind for the stern work in hand — vetoing Dr. Briggs. See how skil- fully Dr. Patton put the case :
We are here ; the presbyteries have sent us here, and the report of the Union Theological Seminary has brought this question right up to the bar of every man's conscience, and
86 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
you cannot avoid it, and you dare not avoid it. I do not use the word " dare " in an unkind sense at all, I simply use it in the moral sense. There we are. Now for us not to express technical disapproval is for us to express technical approval. And it is not a matter of reflection upon Union Seminary, or a matter of sentiment or regard for their feelings, or a matter of how much disturbance this is going to occasion the Church, but it is a question as to the discharge of a solemn duty at the bar of your conscience and of mine, here and now. Then I think that every man of us will agree that the question is here. It is here. We must say, seeing that we have a right to veto, and seeing that we can never veto, if we do not do it now, we must say whether or no there is occasion for the veto. Now is there an occasion for veto ?
Could he have got his hearers just where he wanted them more adroitly ? They were in exactly the " solemnized " mood and posture of thought to hear most attentively his answer to the question, " Now is there occasion to veto % " No wonder, as the Detroit reporter said, they listened " spell-bound." This solemn, reiterated plea, " Now or Never," coupled with the " compact " plea, carried all be- fore it. The only wonder is how sixty commissioners kept cool enough to vote against vetoing Dr. Briggs. I am really afraid I myself should have vetoed Dr. Briggs, had I been a commissioner. As to the skilful way in which the " compact " plea was handled, who can fail to admire it ? The chairman of the Committee on Theological Seminaries took "the compact" under his special care and guardian- ship. He was very jealous of the slightest interference with it, even by so honored and learned an ecclesiastic as Dr. Moore. Hear him :
If we are going to veto under the terms of the compact, we must veto in the terms of the compact.
Dr. Moore (the Permanent Clerk) : " Excuse me, Doctor, a
EEPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINAKIES. 87
moment. I want to call attention to the fact that while the first of that is the compact, the second is simply the decision of the General Assembly."
Dr. Patton: " That is not relevant to my remarks And
so I go back to my statement, in spite of the instruction that I have received, and I say that if you intend to veto under the terms of the compact, you must veto in the terms of the com- pact. Now, what are the terms of the compact ? . . . . Now, when you talk of disapproving 'for the present' you de- part from your compact, and you have simply expressed your oral dislike and put the stigma of your moral disap- proval upon the case, but you have done nothing."
I tried to count up the number of times in which " com- pact " occurs in Dr. Patton's speech, but my memory failed me. How extremely interested, not to say entertained, William Adams, George W. Musgrave, Henry B. Smith, Jonathan F. Stearns, and Edwin F. Hatfield would have been in listening to this exposition of " the compact of 1870," by so adroit an ecclesiastic as the President of Princeton College !
The most striking point in the chairman's discussion of the question, whether there was occasion for veto, is " kind- ness " to Dr. Briggs. It is " kindness " to Dr. Briggs that forced him to turn a deaf ear to all entreaties for " reasons." " Well, but," it is said, " couldn't you state some reasons without involving the question of heresy ? " " Yes," I said, " I could." " Well," said some one, " you have been work- ing in theology ; couldn't you draft such a report ? " " Yes," I said, u I might." But " kindness " to Dr. Briggs forbade it. Here are some passages about Dr. Briggs :
When your feelings cool down, brethren, you will see that this is a much kinder thing than you think, and it is not so
cold, either ; we made it cold, but it is not so cold So
far as Dr. Briggs is concerned, I will yield to none of his
b« UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
friends, not even the best, in my recognition of his learning, in my admiration of his industry, in my conviction concern- ing his piety. He is my friend. It is my privilege to call him so. I venture to hope that in spite of my relations to this debate he will not be unwilling to reciprocate my ex- pression of the relationship between us I vish to say
that we have done this in the interest of kindness to Dr. Briggs. I would be unwilling for the Assembly to pass a resolution, in the full body of which there should be the stigma of a constitutional kind, that would affirm that Dr. Briggs' idiosyncrasies are such that he should not be a pro- fessor in a seminary. Why, a man's idiosyncrasies go with him through life, and I don't know but they go into the middle state, [laughter] and I am not willing to say that Dr. Briggs is not fit to be a professor in any seminary. I am not willing to say that he is not fit to be a professor in Union
Seminary. Not at all I said, " Brethren, it is not kind,
it is not right for the Assembly, in its explicit utterance on the adoption of a report, to say a word that can be construed, even remotely, to the detriment of Dr. Briggs." That is why we did not give reasons, but it was not because we had no reasons. "We had reasons.
Dr. Patton and his committee, then, had reasons. The reasons appear to have been as plentiful as blackberries. But nobody was the wiser for them. Nobody is the wiser for them to this day. Every now and then at Detroit they seemed, to be sure, on the very point of leaking out, both in the speeches of the chairman and in those of several members of his committee. In other speeches they not only leaked out, they came gushing out, explicit, frank, and unmistakable. I said that a good deal of the discussion at Detroit consisted in beating about the bush. In this the chairman surpassed all his brethren. The the logical agility and deftness with which he beat, and beat about, this par-
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SEMINARIES, 89
ticular bush of "no reasons " was something remarkable. He keeps saying, as it were :
Fain would I, but I dare not ; I dare, and yet I may not. It appears, then, that while the Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries had plenty of reasons — good, valid reasons, as they believed — for recommending the veto of Dr. Briggs' transfer, they purposely concealed these reasons, alike from the Assembly and from the Christian public. Nobody, I repeat, knew then, or knows to this day, unless privately informed by some member of the committee, what was the ground of the decision for which they are responsible to Christian scholarship, to history, and to God. They themselves acted> as they said, in the light of their own reason and conscience. They left the Assembly to act in the dark and adopt their decision on trust. If the President of the United States disapprove a bill passed by Congress, he is required to return the bill with his objec- tions. If the Governor of New York disapprove of a bill passed by the Legislature, he sends it back with his reasons for vetoing it. And this is according to the true genius of republican liberty. Our American idea of free government abhors arbitrary, reasonless exercise of power. If the agree- ment of 1870 had given the General Assembly "the right of peremptory veto," as proposed in the letter of Dr. A. A. Hodge to Henry B. Smith, then, indeed, the recommenda- tion of Dr. Patton's committee would have been in order. A peremptory veto is a veto that requires no explanation. It is like an edict of the Sultan — an arbitrary act, pure and simple. The American Presbyterianism, in which Union Seminary was born and nurtured, is not fond of such acts. It likes to give a good reason for what it does, as well as for what it believes. The power of intelligible, rational, Christian disapproval, not & peremptory veto, was the power conceded by Union Seminary in 1870.
90 UNION SEMINAEY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
Before passing from this topic I desire to add a word respecting the course of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries. When I wrote the article in The Evangelist of May 21st on the veto power, I purposely restrained myself, and carefully omitted to say what would be, in my judgment, the inevitable effects of a veto of Dr. Briggs' transfer. In this perhaps I erred ; if so, it was in the interest of the peace of the Church. The crisis seemed to me serious enough to demand the utmost caution, not to say reticence, on the part of every friend of Union Seminary. Having expressed the opinion that the question about the veto power touched in principle all the other theological seminaries in the Presbyterian Church, I closed my article as follows :
The General Assembly is shortly to convene and show its judgment upon the matter. Nor, for myself, have I any fear of the result. Many of the ablest, wisest, and best men in the Presbyterian Church, both of the ministry and eldership, will sit in that Assembly, and they will not be likely to coun- tenance any hasty or unjust action.
This was my honest feeling and expectation. "When, therefore, the result came my disappointment was all the keener, especially with regard to Dr. Patton. Although my acquaintance with him was slight, I had for many years admired his varied gifts and his remarkable power of sway- ing a popular assembly. His oft-expressed reverence for the character and memory of my bosom friend, Henry B. Smith, touched me in a very tender spot ; and I had heard things related of him, privately, which won my sincere esteem. There are few men in the Presbyterian Church, perhaps there is not another one, of whom I could have honestly said just what in my letter to Dr. Field, in The Evangelist of June 11, 1 wrote of Dr. Patton. And what
UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 91
is there written of him expresses so truly my feeling still, that I can only repeat it here :
He had an opportunity to speak a word and strike a blow for justice, for sacred scholarship, for reasonable liberty, both of thought and teaching, for the suppression of clamor as an ecclesiastical and theological force, and for the highest interests of Christian truth, which, like the shot fired by the " embattled farmers " at Lexington, would have been "heard round the world." Acting, I do not question, from a strong sense of duty to the Presbyterian Church, he failed to seize it ; and he will be a fortunate man indeed, if Provi- dence ever again entrusts to him such an opportunity.
(g). Union Theological Seminary in its relations to Princeton.
I have been connected with Union Seminary, either as director or professor, for about forty years, and during all that time my relations with Princeton have been of the friendliest character. Eever have I failed to recognize the invaluable services rendered by her scholars and divines to the cause of Biblical learning and of sacred science in this country. Though trained in other schools of thought and of theological opinion, I have always found much to admire in her sturdy orthodoxy, in her fidelity to the teachings of the Westminster standards on the great questions of the church and the sacraments, in her homage to the authority of the inspired oracles, and in the fervor of her piety. The name of her " Old Dr. Alexander " was as familiar, and almost as dear, to my boyhood as the name of " Dr. Pay- son," or that of any other minister of Christ in New Eng- land. I might mention other names on her roll of saints of earlier and of later days, for whom I cherished, and still cherish, sentiments of unfeigned respect and affection. Who could have even a casual acquaintance with Dr.
92 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
Charles Hodge without beginning at once to love and revere him ? And I say frankly that in his theology, as in that of Dr. Alexander, there was not a little that I pre- ferred to not a little of the theology dominant in New England while I was a pastor there, or in the New School Presbyterian Church when I first came into it. But there were also certain features of Princeton theology and of the Old School ecclesiastical temper, which never attracted me in the least ; some, indeed, which strongly repelled me. I used to think that Princeton was altogether too inclined to fancy that her theology was, and of right ought to be, the only authorized theology in the Presbyterian Church. Nor did reunion seem to me to cure her wholly of this fond notion.
I have ventured to speak of my personal relations to Princeton. So far as is known to me, the relations of Union Seminary to Princeton have been of the same friendly character ; only in the case of one of her oldest directors and professors, the saintly Skinner, much more intimate. Dr. Skinner was a typical New School theo- logian, enthusiastic and whole-souled in his devotion to the New England and Puritan, in distinction from the Scottish, Scotch-Irish, and Swiss divinity. He held the writings of Baxter, Howe, Owen, Jonathan Edwards, and Albert Barnes in much greater esteem than the writings of Tur- retin and his school, whether in Scotland or America. And he bore upon his person the scars of many a sharp encounter in defense of his opinions, while preaching and fighting for his Master amidst the powerful foes who, in the second and third decades of the century, represented conservative Presbyterian orthodoxy at Philadelphia. But for all that, a very warm friendship existed between Dr. Skinner and Dr. Charles Hodge. They loved each other with the generous fervor of Christian brotherhood, an^
UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 93
when, in 1871, Dr. Skinner passed suddenly into the glory of that risen Redeemer whom he so adored, Dr. Itodge wrote thus to the Faculty of Union Seminary :
When your beloved and revered colleague, Dr. Thomas H. Skinner, was called away, I was ill in bed. I was not in- formed of his death for more than a week after its occurrence. I wish these facts to be known, because no person was under stronger obligation to stand at the grave of Thomas H. Skin- ner than myself ; and few had better right to appear there as a mourner. For more than fifty-five years I knew, loved, and honored, and was loved and trusted by him. Of this he assured me, and no man ever doubted his sincerity.
You must excuse the personal character of this communi- cation. I cannot forbear entering my claim to be counted among the oldest and most devoted of his friends. He was a man by himself. The union of high gifts with the most transparent, childlike simplicity of character gave him a peculiar position in the love and admiration of his friends.
Dr. Henry White studied theology at Princeton ; but of his relations to that seminary in his later years I cannot speak. JNor do I know what were those of Edward Rob- inson, the great Biblical scholar.
Henry B. Smith had no early association with Princeton. As late as 1850, when he came to New York, the embit- tered feelings of 1837-8 were still rankling. Ecclesias- tically and theologically, one might almost say, as it is written concerning the Jews and the Samaritans, Old School and New School " had no dealings with each other." I speak of my own recollections and experience. For years after I became pastor of the Mercer-street Presbyterian Church, the Old School ministers of New York — and such men as Spring, Potts, James W. Alexander, and Krebs were among them — neither called upon me nor I upon them. We never exchanged pulpits. We had no social
94 UNION SEMINAKY AKD THE ASSEMBLY.
intercourse, except incidentally. I cared nothing for them except to esteem them, in a general way, as faithful minis- ters of Christ; and they, I presume, cared still less for me. The Congregationalists, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Episcopalians, attracted me much more than Old School Presbyterians. They never crossed the threshold of our Chi Alpha circle or of Union Seminary. It was the prevailing Presbyterian atmosphere of the day. I yielded to it, partly from temperament, partly because there seemed to be, theologically speaking, " a certain condescension " on the part of the Old School, as if its orthodoxy, especially as taught at Princeton, was the only standard orthodoxy ; and that was not at all to my taste.
My impression is that this state of things influenced Pro- fessor Smith less than it did me. His sympathy with im- portant features of Old School theology was, perhaps, deeper and more active than mine. And he far surpassed me in the feeling that not only was such a state of things wrong, but that it ought to be changed just as soon as pos- sible. I do not think he had much intercourse with Prince- ton ; and later, as is well known, he took decided ground in his Review and elsewhere against some of Dr. Hodge's views. But nothing petty or partisan was ever allowed to enter into the discussion. He was far above such a thing. He attended Dr. Hodge's semi-centennial in 1872. and, on behalf of Union Seminary, spoke with admiration of that great and good man. Here are a few sentences from his address on the occasion :
It is only the accident of my being born two or three years earlier that prevents you from hearing some more elo- quent representative of our institution, for ice are all here. [Applause.] .... For the first time in America, we cele- brate to-day the semi-centennial of a professor in a theolog- ical institution. It is a matter of sincere congratulation that
UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 95
the merit is as incontestable as are the years. To speak on such an occasion is embarrassing ; but, after all, this assem- blage itself is the great speech of the occasion. All these ministers and men gathered from all parts of our land, from all parts of the world, are here to do honor to one most hon- orable name, to testify to the power and influence of a long and noble life consecrated to the highest welfare of our country, as well as to the service of the Church of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ In comparison with such a
life, I do not know what glory in peace or war can be called greater or more worthy of the highest style of manliness or manhood.
There is another circumstance about this celebration which we may well emphasize, and that is, that here we meet, as we so seldom can, to pay due honor also to theology, to see what theology is and means, and how it is needed for the highest welfare and true progress of the nation. Literature is spoken of every day, and appeals to all. Merely literary men live in a popular atmosphere, but theology must be studied in comparative seclusion. Its fruits are the fruits of mature years, and they come to be known in their full value only after a long lapse of time. In behalf of our Seminary, then, I would congratulate him whose name is on all our lips to-day, for the high honor to which he has been called, and for the eminent success vouchsafed to him. • We offer to him the expression of our deep and unfeigned esteem and affec- tion. May he yet many years live to receive the grateful tributes of the Church which he has always loved, and which loves him so well. And, above all, may he now and evermore be blessed with all spiritual blessings in Jesus Christ our Lord!
Dr. Adams' relations to Princeton, in his later years at least, were much closer and more pronounced. To him, as we have seen, Princeton was chiefly indebted for whatever of good she found in that veto power, which relieved her
96 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
of the necessity of having her professors elected by the General Assembly. The last person outside of his own family who saw Dr. Hodge before he departed was Dr. Adams. As the latter came to the bedside, Dr. Hodge took his hand and held it fast during the whole interview. Although too feeble to speak with his lips, by a silent pressure of the hand and with expressive eyes the dying theologian responded to the assurance how many there were who held him in their thoughts and hearts, and to com- forting words of Holy Scripture.
Dr. Hitchcock stood upon substantially the same ground as Professor Smith with respect to Princeton. In New England he had sympathized rather with the Old than the New School of Congregational orthodoxy ; and on coming to New York, while entering with loyal devotion into the service of the New School, his generous culture, large views, and catholic spirit enabled him to do full justice to whatever was best in the Old School. I can recall no word from his lips, in public or in private, between 1855, when he came to New York, and the day of his death, which was not most friendly to Princeton. Of Dr. Shedd I might use still stronger language, were it needful.
I am not entitled to speak for my present colleagues in the Faculty of Union Seminary. They are quite able to speak for themselves. But if a single one of them has not a conscience void of offense toward Princeton, the reason is unknown to me. The only possible exception would be Dr. Briggs, and he is now beyond the sea.* What his feel- ings are I can only conjecture by considering what my own would be, were I in his place. He no doubt believes, as his friends believe, that the veto of his transfer to the chair
* This paper was prepared last summer, while Dr. B. was in Europe.
UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 97
of Biblical Theology was, primarily and mainly, the result of what may justly be called Princeton influence in the Church. Had that powerful influence, whether exerted from far or near, been put forth in opposition to the veto, or had it only remained quiet, there is no reason to doubt that Dr. Briggs would have been spared the stigma which the General Assembly at Detroit placed upon his brow.
But while unable to say what is Dr. Briggs' present state of mind with regard to Princeton, I know what it was during the ten years in which, as principal founder and senior editor of The Presbyterian Review, he came into such intimate rela- tions with that seminary through his successive co-editors, Drs. Aiken, Hodge, Patton, and Warfield. At his earnest request I consented to serve on the executive committee of the Presbyterian Be view Association. He consulted me, both as a friend and as a member of that committee, year in and year out. He talked to me with absolute freedom respect- ing the Keview, its policy, his colleagues, and his own plans, labors, and trials in its management. He was restrained by no fear that anybody would ever know what he said to me. 1 do not believe he ever hesitated to give vent in my ear to his inmost thoughts, or doubts and suspicions, if he had any, about Princeton. And yet as I look back over the record in my memory of those ten years I see nothing dishonoring to Christian scholarship ; nothing that did not betoken a man whose devotion to what he regarded as sound doctrine, the best interests of the Presbyterian Church, the cause of sacred learning, and, above all, alle- giance to the King of Truth, was an absorbing passion. Again and again I said to myself, " How this man loves to work for his Master and his Master's kingdom ! " To be sure, Dr. Briggs did, now and then, say or write things about certain features of Princeton divinity and biblical scholarship which seemed to me needlessly severe. The
98 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
tone of his article in The Presbyterian Review on the Old Testament Revision and Revisers, for example, I dis- liked exceedingly and frankly told him so. Such a tone, I said, is against all my convictions as to the right temper of Christian scholarship ; it hurts my feelings. And he al- lowed me to say this without the slightest sign of irritation.
But to speak unadvisedly with one's lips, or one's pen, is really no new thing in the annals of American Presbyte- rianism. Dr. Briggs did not invent it. If, as is charged, he has sinned in that line, his sins are venial in comparison with those of not a few eminent Presbyterians in the eighteenth century and in the nineteenth. How some Old and E"ew School men used to " talk back " to each other ! And it always did seem to me that, as a general rule, an Old School Presbyterian, when once fairly aroused and " on the war-path," so to say, left a ISTew School Presbyte- rian, however gifted and advanced in that method, far behind. I have expressed my honest respect, not to say admiration, for Dr. Robert J. Breckinridge. But what shall be said of the tone and manner in which he was wont to express his mind about his New School brethren — and, as for that, his Old School brethren, also, when they dif- fered with him— in 1834, 1837-8, at the Philadelphia Union Convention in 1867, and in the General Assembly at Albany in 1868 ? What could have been more provok- ing than his biting criticism upon the noble report of Dr. Adams and Dr. Beatty on reunion — a report so seasoned with the meekness of wisdom — pronouncing it unworthy of the great Presbyterian Church and " deficient in style, literature, grammar, and rhetoric from one end to the other"!
The simple fact is, that Presbyterians now and then are not only, as they have often been called, the Lord's " silly people," but they are also the Lord's fighting people.
UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 99
Their Calvinism makes them bold and determined, but it tends also to make them somewhat pugnacious and domi- neering. They hold a high doctrine of original and in- dwelling sin ; and I have wondered whether, in His permis- sive will, God did not allow an unusually large share of the latter to remain in them in attestation of their doctrine, as also to keep down their pride of orthodoxy.
When I consider what have been Dr. Briggs' services to the Presbyterian Church, and to Christian scholarship; how far they exceed in variety, amount, and quality those of most other Presbyterian scholars of his own day, and with what fidelity and devotion he has rendered them, I am little in the mood to complain of his faults or to hear others do so. As to his relations to Princeton during the ten years to which I have referred there is no ground whatever, I repeat, so far as my knowledge goes, to speak of him otherwise than in terms of respect and praise. Upon his severing his connection with The Presbyterian Review the sense of his services, entertained by the Keview Association, was expressed in the following letter addressed to him by Dr. Aiken, under date of Princeton, Oct. 18, 1889 :
At the meeting of the Eeview Association in New York, on "Wednesday last, it was unanimously and heartily voted that the thanks of the Association be given to you for the many important services which you have rendered the Association during the ten years of its history. We recognize your con- spicuous and invaluable service in the starting of the Asso- ciation and the Review, and, in many ways, in maintaining both. We recognize the great benefit we have derived from your deep interest in the Review, your indefatigable energy and industry, your wide acquaintance with men on both sides of the water, your patience in looking after details, and your wide outlook over the field which the Review was aimed to cover.
And the embarrassments of various kinds which appear
100 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
now to have brought to an end the work of the Review, make us only the more eager to express to you our sense of what we owe you. It was on my motion that this vote was passed, — but it needed only the motion to secure the instant and unanimous assent of all present. The absent, we are sure, would have concurred with us. I was requested to communicate with you, freely, without any form of words proposed by me, or given me to transcribe. It gives me per- sonally real pleasure to be the organ of the Association in conveying to you the knowledge of this action.
The members of the Executive Committee of the Ke- view Association at this time were William M. Paxton, Charles A. Aiken, Benjamin B. Warfield, Thomas S. Hast- ings, George L. Prentiss, and Marvin P. Yincent.
It is hardly needful to say more of the friendly relations of Union to Princeton. On the part of Union, for forty years at least, I can testify that, so far as I know, not only has no hostile sentiment toward Princeton been cherished by her, but habitually and on principle has she abstained from saying or doing aught that might stir up jealousy, strife, or rivalry between the two institutions. Her record in this respect is clear and unimpeachable. Had Union Seminary been established a few years earlier, the case might have been different. In a letter dated New York, June 5, 1827, Dr. John Holt Pice, one of the wisest and best men in the Presbyterian Church of that day, writes :
"While all the brethren appear to regard me with great per- sonal affection, neither of the parties are entirely cordial to me. The Princeton people apprehend that I am approximat- ing to Auburn notions ; and the zealous partisans of New England divinity think me a thorough-going Princetonian. So it is! And while there is much less of the unseemly bitter- ness and asperity which brought reproach upon the Church in past times, I can see that the spirit of party has struck
UNION SEMINARY AND PRINCETON. 101
deeper than I had even supposed. And I do fully expect that there will be either a strong effort to bring Princeton under different management, or to build up a new seminary in the vicinity of New York, to counteract the influence of Princeton. One or the other of these things will assuredly be done before long, unless the Lord interpose and turn the hearts of the ministers.
Fortunately, Union Seminary was founded nine years later, and with no design whatever antagonistic to Prince- ton. Such, then, being her record from the beginning until now, can it be thought strange that the course of Princeton at Detroit was regarded by the friends of Union, in view especially of 1870, with most painful surprise % or that they felt deeply offended and injured by it % Is it strange if it inflicted one of those wounds, that are apt to rankle long and are very hard to cure ? "I doubt," writes an old and devoted friend of Union Seminary, " I doubt whether you fully realize the depth, or extent, of the indignant feel- ing which the course of Princeton at Detroit aroused among thousands of thoughtful men and women, throughout the country. It was, and still is, largely a suppressed feeling — suppressed partly, perhaps, by reason of its very intensity and in part for the sake of the peace of the Church — but a feeling which, you may rest assured, is not going to be al- layed by any pious truisms. It is not now the case of Dr. Briggs chiefly — that is a mere occasion and passing incident — it is the honest conviction that vital principles of Amer- ican Presbyterianism, as well as vital principles of justice and Christian liberty, are involved, which renders this feel- ing so deep and strong. As to Union Seminary, what a return she got for her services to Princeton in 1870 ! How would William Adams have felt, could he have foreseen it ! I do not envy the President of Princeton College his