part in this matter. "Would his illustrious predecessor, the

102 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
venerable Dr. McCosh, ever have consented to act such part ? It does not seem to me even thinkable.
" The union of the Old and New School Churches is gen- erally regarded as one of the greatest events in the annals of American Presbyterianism. "What was the agency of Princeton in bringing it about ! Dr. Hodge from first to last was its strongest opponent. What was the agency of Union in bringing it about ? Henry E. Smith was its fore- most leader and advocate. By his memorable sermon at Dayton in 1864, by his editorials in The Evangelist, by the powerful articles in his Review, he more than any other man started, defended, and guided the movement. With- out Henry B. Smith and such coadjutors, among the direct- ors of Union Seminary, as William Adams, Jonathan F. Stearns, Edwin F. Hatfield, and William E. Dodge, I, for one, do not believe .Reunion would have been accomplished even to this day. It had other very able New School ad- vocates, whose services also were invaluable. And without such strong friends in the Old School branch as Drs. Beatty, Gurley, Musgrave, Monfort, Allison, and many others like them, it could not, of course, have been accomplished. But so far as reunion was a great blessing to the Presbyte- rian Church, the agency of Union in bringing it to pass en- titles her, it seems to me, to lasting gratitude ; certainly to treatment very different from that of which she has so often and in so many quarters been the subject during the past six months. Nor is it a small service that Union has ren- dered both to the Presbyterian Church and to Christian scholarship as a living centre of reasonable theological free- dom and progress. ' I am not afraid to say that a new idea never originated in this Seminary,' was the remark of Dr. Hodge at his semi-centennial. That has never been the position of Union. She welcomes all new ideas, that ' swim into her ken ' from the word of God or from the vast realm
THE ACTION AT DETRIOT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 103
of science. How many new l ideas ' originated in Union Seminary in the days of Henry B. Smith ! But I weary you. I took up my pen simply to say that the feeling caused by the course of Princeton at Detroit, is really deeper and more widespread than even you appear to think. I may be wrong, but that is my opinion."
(h). The action at Detroit in the case of Dr. Briggs as an eye-opener.
The veto of Dr. Briggs was a veritable eye-opener. Its instantaneous effect was great ; its ultimate effects are likely to be greater. In a moment, as by a flash of lightning, the agreement of 1870 was seen, as it had never been seen be- fore. It was seen to involve alarming possibilities of harm to the Presbyterian Church, to free Christian scholarship, and to the cause of theological truth and progress. It was, probably, at once the cause and the subject of more anxious thought in one week after the vote at Detroit, than during all the previous twenty years. That vote revealed it as an arrangement full of explosive mischief. Instead of contrib- uting to the "peace and prosperity of the Church," by promoting mutual confidence and love, it showed itself, of a sudden, as a stirrer up of strife and bitterness. It proved that the many disadvantages, infelicities, and perils, which, to those who took an active part in founding the Union Theological Seminary, appeared so serious in the election of professors by the General Assembly itself, were no less incident to the veto power in the election of pro- fessors, when exercised by the General Assembly. In other words, the action at Detroit demonstrated that the two prin- cipal grounds upon which the veto power had been conceded to the General Assembly by Union Seminary in 1870, were deceptive and untenable. The evils specially deprecated and to be guarded against by the concession of that power
104 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
have been sprang upon the Church in its very first exer- cise. With the best intentions in the world, both the Board of directors of the Union Seminary and the General Assem- bly greatly erred as to the effects which, sooner or later, would be caused by armiug the Assembly with authority to forbid, year in and year out, at its absolute discretion, every election of a professor in every Presbyterian theological seminary in the United States.
For a time it may have served, as the ninth " concurrent declaration " of 1869 had been intended, " to allay the ap- prehensions of any who might imagine that the sudden accession and intermingling of great numbers [that is, the coming in of the New School branch] might overbear those who had hitherto administrated these seminaries which had been under the control of one branch of the Church. It was intended as a measure for the maintenance of confi- dence and harmony, and not as indicating the best method for all future time." As a measure for the maintenance of confidence and harmony during that critical period of tran- sition from a divided to a reunited Church, it was, perhaps, of use. But time has long since allayed any apprehensions, which the Old School might have felt, of being overborne in the administration of their seminaries by a sudden acces- sion of the New School to equal power in the General As- sembly. Old School and New School are obsolete terms. And yet who can wonder that, in 1870, some " apprehen- sions," if not " jealousy," with regard to this matter still existed on the Old School side, especially at Princeton ?
The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, to return to my point, is a grand and powerful religious body. In its own proper sphere it is a mighty agency for building up and extending the kingdom of God on earth. But it is singularly unfitted to make the best possible choice, or to ascertain and forbid the unwise
THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 105
choice, of a theological professor. The chances seem to me as ten to one that, in all ordinary cases, the choice of a pro- fessor in Princeton, or Auburn, or McCormick, or Union, or San Francisco, or any other seminary, will be far more wisely made by its own board of directors than by a popular assembly composed of some five hundred men, living thou- sands of miles apart, coining together for ten days, subject to numberless misleading influences through ignorance of the candidate, and restrained perhaps by only a feeble sense of direct personal responsibility in the case. Twenty votes in a board of directors, composed, as the boards of our theological seminaries usually are, of judicious, experienced, high-minded Christian men, stand for more, and are worth more, than five hundred votes in General Assembly. Of course, the best boards are liable also to commit mistakes. No device or method of election can insure against possible errors and imperfections of human judgment, whether it be the judgment of eight and twenty directors or of five hundred commissioners.
Personally, no man has better reason than I have to speak well of the General Assembly in this regard. I myself bear its imprimatur as "the standard of Presbyterian ortho- doxy." Under the lead of that apostolic servant of Christ, Dr. Charles C. Beatty, the first General Assembly of the reunited Church, by a unanimous and rising vote, elected me to the chair of Systematic Theology in one of its most important seminaries ; and upon my declining the call, re- elected me with similar unanimity in 1871. Never can I cease to feel grateful in remembrance of such uncommon kindness and honor ; grateful also in memory of the special tokens of personal interest and good-will which I received from the layman so distinguished at once for his stanch Presbyterianism and his generosity, whose name the Semi- nary of the Northwest now bears.
106 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
I will now proceed to note some of the ways in which the action at Detroit, in the case of Dr. Briggs, may be re- garded as an eye-opener.
(1). In disclosing the doubts and scruples respecting the agreement of 1870 which existed at the time, but had never, so far as I am aware, been made public. I refer more especially to Lane Seminary, which, like Union, was entirely independent of ecclesiastical control. An extract from a letter of the Rev. Henry A, Kelson, D.D., addressed to Hon. James R. Cox, of Auburn, and published in The Evangelist of June 25th, shows what was done at Lane and why it was done. Dr. Kelson was a member of the Joint Committee on Reunion, as well as a professor at Lane, and is known far and wide as an eminently wise and true man. Here is the extract :
Our Lane Seminary charter made its board of trustees a close corporation, empowered to fill vacancies in its own membership, and to appoint all professors and instructors, who should hold their chairs at the pleasure of the board. Hon. Stanley Matthews, afterward a justice of the United States Supreme Court, was consulted on the legal questions involved. He stated clearly and positively that the board of trustees, a corporate body, could not legally delegate any of its powers
to the General Assembly or to any other body Our
board of trustees adopted the by-law (as its charter em- powered it to do) in words like the following, as nearly as I remember : * " Every election of a professor in this institu- tion shall be reported to the next General Assembly, and if the said Assembly shall by vote express its disapprobation of the election, the professorship in question shall be ipso facto vacant from and after such veto of the General Assembly; it being understood that in such case it is not the pleasure of this
* I give the resolution of the Lane Seminary board exactly as it was passed (Moore's Digest, p. 384).
THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENEE. 107
board that such professor shall continue in office" Judge Mat- thews said that this by-law, being adopted by the board of trustees, could at any time be repealed by the board. The board could not divest itself of this power. But as long as it should keep that rule on its own book and govern itself by it, it would no doubt have all the moral effect which was sought for. No one of us imagined that it could have any further legal force or effect than was thus denned by that competent legal adviser.
Dr. E. D. Morris, now professor of Systematic Theology at Lane, occupied in 1 870 the chair of Church History in that institution. Dr. Morris has long ranked among the ablest and most judicious writers in this country on ques- tions of ecclesiastical law and polity. The Evangelist of July 23, 1891, contained a striking article from his pen, en- titled " The Compact of 1870." The following are extracts from this article :
The writer does not hesitate to say at this point, that hav- ing occasion in 1871 to look into the matter of legality, so far as Lane was concerned, he was led to the conclusion that, in the eye of the civil law, this compact, excellent as it was in intention, was wholly unwarranted. Indeed it was question- able in his judgment whether it lay within the constitutional prerogative of the General Assembly to accept such a func- tion if proffered to it, and the recent experience has appeared to him to give some degree of reasonableness to that doubt. But on the civil side of the matter, it must be ordinarily clear to any student of the charter of that institution, that its trus- tees are the sole and only party having, or that can have, or gain, any authority whatsoever in the appointment of those who, in whatever capacity, give instruction in it. These trus- tees are limited by but one condition/that such instructors shall be in good standing in the Presbyterian Church. But they have no right to go to the Assembly to inquire whether
108 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
such or such a teacher is in good standing, nor has the Assem- bly any power, by mere resolution, to declare the standing of any such person to be either good or bad. They might go to the records of some presbytery having jurisdiction, and inquire whether the person involved was rectus in curia there ; but they could not commit to such a body the matter of ap- proving or disapproving their choice of him as a teacher. In that choice they are absolutely and forever sovereign, with no chartered right to delegate their responsibility to, or even share it in any particular with any other body whatever. If the question were one of financial administration, no court in the land would justify these trustees in calling on the General Assembly to guide or to control them in the care of the funds and properties of that institution, and the same legal princi- ple holds no less truly in the exercise of any other part of their corporate trust. The board of Lane Seminary is in every particular, and at all times, the official authority, and there can be no other.
Such was the view which the writer was compelled to take twenty years ago, so far as one of these three seminaries was concerned, and the recent discussions have served to make it evident that the trustees of Auburn and Union are by the charters of those institutions in a very similar position. Looking at the matter as one of legal principle simply, to be determined judicially, is it not clear that these boards of trust could not hand over to a General Assembly a right of ultimate control over any of the endowments committed to their keep- ing ? And is it not just as clear that they could not ask a General Assembly to create any new department, or prescribe any change in the methods of instruction, or to choose or even nominate a professor for any work within these institu- tions? All such matters are committed by law to these several boards, and to them alone, in the exercise of their corporate sovereignty, and there is ground for the query whether their f ailure to exercise such prerogative in the way prescribed by their respective charters would not ultimately
THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 109
work a forfeiture of the funds intrusted to their keeping. No such board could, for example, discharge their corps of instructors and close the institution indefinitely, without be- coming subject to civil suit, even though it should resolve to commit its endowments meanwhile to the care and keeping of the General Assembly. And the same principle must apply to all their acts.
Turning from the question of legality to that of expediency and desirableness, we enter a field more diificult of discussion, yet one where a dispassionate examination will be likely to lead thoughtful men into substantial agreement. The com- pact is a good one so long as there is no occasion to apply it. As a simple expression of good-will and cordial confidence between the parties it is admirable. But the moment a case arises, in which the judgment of any of these boards of trust goes in one direction, and that of an Assembly goes in an- other, and the Assembly overrules such board by vetoing its action and displacing a teacher, whom, in the exercise of its chartered prerogatives and its corporate wisdom, it has chosen, there will always be trouble ; it cannot be otherwise. If the Assembly acts without giving any reasons, simply in- terposing its final negative in the case, it exposes itself at once to the charge of arbitrariness, and to those immediately affected by its action, that action inevitably savors of a tyranny to which any born Presbyterian will find it hard to submit. On the other hand, if an Assembly attempts to give reasons for its veto, all such reasons must resolve themselves into two — the lack of fitness to teach, and the lack of ortho- doxy. How difficult it is for an Assembly to adduce either of these reasons in support of its decision without precipitat- ing serious trouble, will be evident on very slight reflection.
Suppose the reason to be the lack of fitness to teach, what- ever may be the special nature of that lack. At once a series of questions spring up, such as the following : What constitutes fitness to teach in a theological seminary ? What are the special requisites to success in this or that particular
110 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
department of the theological study? Is the Assembly as well qualified as the particular board of trust to ascertain whether the person appointed possesses such fitness, and in what degree ? Is it right for a board, after it has chosen a teacher as the result of the most minute investigation it can make, to let its deliberate judgment be set aside by the veto of a body every way less prepared to decide the matter wisely? "Would it be just to the man himself, if, after he and the board had settled the matter, and a call had beem presented and accepted, the Assembly should step in, and with only such knowledge as a body so constituted would pos- sess, should hold him up before the whole Church and be- fore the world -as a person incompetent to teach, and unfit for the place to which he had been chosen ?
So serious are such questions that it is doubtful whether any General Assembly could be induced to take such a step on this ground. The case must be an exceptional one in- deed ; and the veto of the Assembly would become not merely a remarkable and destructive condemnation of the man, but also a verdict of gross incompetency against the board who had appointed him. And the case would be more exceptional still if the chosen instructor had already been be- fore the Church for many years in some similar capacity, perchance in the same institution, and the board that chose him had acted on the basis of an experimental acquaintance with his abilities as a teacher
But the second ground, the lack of orthodoxy, is a hundred- fold more perplexing. Suppose an Assembly should openly say, in any given case, We put our veto on this appointment, because in our judgment the chosen instructor is not ortho- dox, or is heretical, according to our standards. Suppose it should vary the statement, and say in a more guarded form, We do not condemn this man as a minister, but we do pro- nounce his teachings doubtful and dangerous in quality, and even heretical, and on this ground declare him unfit as a teacher. The Assembly of 1836 has established a precedent
THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER* 111
against any declaration of the latter sort, before which it would be very difficult to set up valid opposition. The dis- tinction between the minister and professor, between the man and his teachings, vanishes the moment it is touched. It is simply impossible to pronounce the teaching heretical without condemning the man also ; and it is simply impos- sible to condemn the teacher without pronouncing judgment on the minister also. But this is clearly inadmissible under our Form of Government. The obvious principle in the case, as the precedent of 1836 affirms, is that the Assembly cannot do by indirection what it cannot do directly and under con- stitutional warrant, and for such a declaration and distinc- tion as this there can be no constitutional warrant whatso- ever.
The declaration of the first sort is still more obviously in- admissible so long as the Presbytery to which such a teacher is amenable, regards and treats him as orthodox. At this point the Assembly is powerless. The experience of the Southern Church in the case of Prof. Woodrow ought to be a sufficient guide and warning here. It is not needful that the person implicated be already undergoing judicial exam- ination before the only body on earth competent of pro- nouncing upon him ecclesiastically. The simple fact that he stands unimpeached before that body, is enough to for- bid the Assembly from assuming any judicial prerogatives in his case. No difference of this sort can be recognized in our Form of Government, between one minister and another, between a teacher in a seminary and a pastor in his pulpit, and any attempt to set up such a distinction can only end in trouble. In a word, the Assembly is absolutely precluded by our constitution from pronouncing an opinion by mere resolution upon the good standing of even the humblest minister in our Church.
The compact of 1870 thus betrays its weakness in what- ever aspect it may be regarded. To say the best that can be said, the only two grounds on which the Assembly can
112 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
possibly act under it are doubtful and dangerous grounds. It loads the Church with a responsibility which is pleasant enough so long as there is no occasion to wield it, but which is as certain as fate to bring in trouble wherever there is fair room for doubt as to either the capacity or the orthodoxy of any candidate for professional service. The experience of the current year will inevitably be repeated in every like case as long as the compact lasts. Differences of interpreta- tion as to its intent and scope will always arise, as they have unhappily sprung up in this instance. Diversities of judg- ment and more or less dissatisfaction with the result will al- ways make their appearance, and whatever may be the effect upon the seminary involved, the Church is sure to suffer much more than it gains.
Add to this calm statement that " the compact of 1870 " was no legal compact at all, but simply a friendly agree- ment, and Dr. Morris' argument becomes irresistible.
Let us now turn to Auburn. This seminary, unlike Lane and Union, was already under ecclesiastical control, namely, that of four adjacent synods. Here also there was doubt and scruple respecting the legal aspect of the agreement of 1870. It was not until 1873 that Auburn consented to enter into the arrangement. The following was its official action in the case :
The committee to whom has been referred the question as to whether the proposal of the General Assembly to submit the election of professors in the seminary to the control of that body can be complied with without a change of the charter of this institution, would respectfully report, that they have carefully examined said charter, and sought legal counsel on the subject. They find that the board of com- missioners is invested with the sole and ultimate authority to appoint its professors, and they cannot legally delegate this power to any other body. They are, however, convinced of the
THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 113
fact that they may in their primary action make a conditional appointment, subject to the approval of the General Assem- bly, and that the right of such approval may be accorded to and recognized from that body without necessarily interfer- ing with their ultimate authority. The committee regard the seminary as standing in an organic relation to the Gen- eral Assembly through its commissioners, who are themselves ecclesiastically amenable to the action of that body, and that, therefore, there is a generic propriety in submitting their appointments conditionally to its advisory action.
They further find that it comes within the sphere of power accorded to the board by the charter that they make what- ever by-laws and regulations they may regard as essential for the prosperity of the seminary ; and, therefore, deeming it desirable that this institution be classed on an equal basis with others of a like character as under the patronage and supervision of the General Assembly, the committee would hereby present and commend for adoption by the board the following by-law, viz. : " That hereafter the appointments of professors in this seminary be primarily made conditional upon the approval of the General Assembly, and that such appointments be complete and authoritative only upon secur- ing such approval." — (Minutes of the Board of Commission- ers of Auburn Seminary, meeting May 8, 1873.)
(2). But while at Lane, and, later, at Auburn also, the agreement of 1870 between Union Seminary and the Gen- eral Assembly excited at the time serious doubt, and was adopted only in a modified form upon the advice of able legal counsel, the agreement yet met with general acquies- cence as a " suitable arrangement." For twenty years it remained, as we have seen, quiescent and undisputed. No- body challenged either its legality or its expediency, and this for the simple reason that the power with which it clothed the Assembly was never used. For several months before the meeting of the Assembly of 1891, it is true, the
114 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
veto power was widely discussed in the religious papers, but chiefly as to its direct bearing upon the case of Dr. Briggs, not as to its legality or its wisdom. Only after the action of the General Assembly were men's eyes opened to discern its real character. That action, as is apt to be the case with all unfair and arbitrary exercise of power, aroused thoughtful public opinion in a high degree, and precipi- tated, so to say, conclusions and a judgment touching the whole matter which years of ordinary discussion could not have reached.
The public reason and conscience, under certain condi- tions, give their verdict very quickly, and in a way not to be gainsaid. I believe it will prove to have been so in the present instance. No arguments are likely to shut again the eyes — and their name is legion — which were opened so wide by the action at Detroit. Not alone Union Seminary and its oldest and best friends, but thousands of the best and most discerning friends of Christian scholar- ship and reasonable liberty of theological inquiry and teach- ing throughout the country, felt that a hard blow had been struck at a great interest common and equally dear to them all. It would be easy to illustrate the intensity and strength of this feeling by numberless testimonies, given in private letters and coming from all parts of the Union. I have myself read scores of such letters, some of them written by men noted for their fine culture, their piety, their zeal for the truth as it is in Jesus, and their unusual weight of character. Of the public testimonies and protests called forth by the action at Detroit, time would fail me to speak at length. Two or three only must suffice ; and I give them just as they appeared, without, of course, holding myself responsible for all they contain. The first is from the pen of the Eev. C. H. Haydn, D.D., LL.D., pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Cleveland, Ohio, a man
THE ACTION AT DETEOIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 115
whose name stands for whole-souled devotion to the king- dom of Christ. Dr. Haydn was a member of the Assem- bly at Detroit, and chairman of its Standing Committee on Foreign Missions. Of the veto of Dr. Briggs he said, ad- dressing his own people :
Had the Union Seminary acquiesced in this veto, I question whether a twelvemonth would have gone by before men in at least three other seminaries would have been called to account in one way or another, and liberty within the lines of Holy Scripture would have had a set-back from which it would not have recov- ered in a quarter of a century. Princeton would have tri- umphed all along the line, and nothing could well be worse than to have Princeton dominate the thinking of the Presby- terian Church. Already, to my view, it begins to dawn that Princeton's ecclesiastical lawyer has overreached himself, and unwittingly aided the very cause that he thought to put under the ban of the Church.
My next extract is from a letter of the Rev. Robert W. Patterson, D. D., of Chicago, now past his seven and seven- tieth year. Dr. Patterson is a venerated patriarch, as he was for more than a generation the New School leader, of the Presbyterian Church in the great Northwest. He was moderator of the General Assembly in 1859, and was also a member of the New School branch of the Joint Committee on Reunion. If there be another man in the whole Interior who stands higher in the estimate of his ministerial brethren, or whose judgment in matters relat- ing to the order and prosperity of the Presbyterian Church, is entitled to greater weight, I do not know his name. Here is what Dr. Patterson says :
I am distressed about our seminaries. The plan of allow- ing the General Assembly a veto on appointments is, I am persuaded, unwise. I question with many as to the fitness of Dr. Briggs for the place to which he was elected by the
116 UNION SEMINAKY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
Union directors, but I think it very unsafe for the Assembly to veto the action of such a board, especially when a trial of the professor-elect is pending. It must necessarily be in a great measure a prejudgment of the judicial case. And in most instances of veto, a judicial case will be likely to follow or to be actually pending.
Besides, it is not clear that in ordinary cases the Assembly is as competent a judge as a well-selected board. Moreover, if the Assembly were the more competent body, it could not fail to awaken dangerous antagonism for it to exercise such authority. It is not like a veto of a nomination / it is a veto of an appointment, so far as the board can make one, and it is, therefore, an injurious judgment against the professor- elect and also against the board electing.
And, still further, it is likely to create a wide sympathy for the injured parties, and give currency to the very errors which it was designed to prevent. This is evidently so in the present case, in which grossly partisan action has been taken. The proper check upon unwise appointments is the discipline of the Church, if serious errors are taught by the appointee. The New School Church never lodged any veto power in the Assembly. Such power ought not now to be continued ; it is virtually the trial of a man without process and without forms of law. Not one quotation from Dr. Briggs was made in the debate at Detroit, so far as I heard, and no reasons were given in the final judgment. This was monstrous.
Along with this emphatic expression of opinion I will quote some passages in the same strain from a private letter of Dr. Patterson :
I have not liked Dr. Briggs' utterances, especially the tone of them. But I regard the action of Princeton in the mat- ter as a startling illustration of the grievous injustice that will always be liable to be done to a professor-elect and to a seminary, so long as the power of v eto remains with the A
THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 117
sembly. It is a sort of lynch-law condemnation on technical- ity, without trial and with no reasons responsibly alleged, but
with utterly untrue reasons implied or assumed I see
no escape from a like injustice in any case where a veto can be plausibly demanded. First, get up a clamor, and then have a one-sided committee appointed to report that something must be done at once, or the Assembly will be held as ap- proving, and give no reasons, leaving every man to sustain the report for his own reasons, or on the ground of his own prepossessions. This is a receipt for crushing out any and every appointee that happens to incur popular displeasure on a question about which the Church is sensitive. How easy to apply the guillotine in every such case ! and if the candi- date for decapitation cannot be easily answered on the main
points, the motive is greater to dispatch him by votes I
have written simply because I feel like it. I do not agree with Dr. Briggs on some important questions, but I would not, if I could, overrule the directors in regard to any such question, and no more would I concede this right to the Assembly. We cannot afford to have our able men brushed aside by popular clamor, even if on some points they may have gone too far. If they become heretics, let their heresy be judicially proved. But let not the Assembly prejudge indi- rectly its future disciplinary action. The day has passed for settling critical questions by votes of councils or assemblies. But it is possible to distress and distract a whole denomina- tion for a generation by attempting this impossibility. The numbers will increase of those who will say with Dr. Van Dyke : " If we cannot have orthodoxy and liberty both, let us have liberty."
I will give one more testimony and protest. It is from a letter of the Rev. S. M. Hamilton, D.D., addressed to Dr. Field, editor of The Evangelist, and dated Louisville, Ky., June 5, 1891. Dr. Hamilton for more than half a generation was pastor of the old Scotch Church in Fourteenth
118 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
St., New York, where he won the confidence, respect, and love of his ministerial brethren and of all the churches by his charming personal qualities, by his fine scholarship, and by his solid Christian character and services :
The outside public have received a very definite impres- sion that our highest ecclesiastical court has acted unfairly and unjustly towards one of our foremost Biblical scholars. The issue will not increase the respect of the world for the Presbyterian Church. She has suffered immensely more than Dr. Briggs. Thoughtful men are saying — I have heard them — that our Church will not allow her scholars to make a thor- ough study of the Bible by the modern scientific methods unless they first bind themselves to come to no conclusions, save such as are acceptable to a certain theological school in the Church. Such an impression — and it exists and is spread- ing— is calamitous, not to the Church only, but to religion it- self. Add to this the feeling which is abroad, that the Assem- bly has condemned an eminent professor without assigning any reasons therefor, and on the report of a committee not a member of which was a friend of the professor or of Union Seminary, and the injury to the reputation of our Church cannot be calculated.
I have been on terms of intimate friendship with Dr. Briggs for years. I have lived with him, I have walked the mountains with him, I have talked with him for hours together, and I say deliberately that he has done more to make the Bible a real living book to me, the true Word of God, than all other ministers and teachers I have known in the whole course of my life. His friendship is one of the things for which I shall always have reason to be thankful. In my judgment Dr. Briggs is the most inspiring teacher of the Bible our Church possesses. No vote of any Assembly can impair his reputa- tion among the Biblical scholars of Christendom.
(3). The action at Detroit was an eye-opener with regard to the unwisdom of trying to regulate theological opinion and
THE ACTION AT DETROIT AS AN EYE-OPENER. 119
teaching by popular vote. The instant the attempt is actually made, its futility is demonstrated. I doubt if the vote at Detroit really moved theological opinion a hair's breadth. Nor will it be at all more effective in the matter of theolog- ical instruction. Unless further enlightened respecting divine truth by deeper study and fresh inspirations of the Eternal Spirit, Princeton, and Union, and Lane, and all the rest, will continue to teach in 1892 what they taught in 1890. As aforetime, they will take counsel of Holy Scrip- ture and of the venerable standards of the Presbyterian Church, as also of the old creeds of Christendom. They will still read diligently the writings of the great masters of divinity, whether of ancient, or medieval, or later ages ; they will try to discern the signs of the times ; and they will exer- cise themselves in working out more fully their own honest thought. But they will take very little note of what was said, or voted, on the subject at Detroit. When in 1845, at Cin- cinnati, the Old School General Assembly, led by some of the strongest men in that branch of the Presbyterian Church, decided by a vote of 173 to 8 — a majority not of 7 to 1, as at Detroit, but of more than 20 to 1 — that what was called "Romish Baptism" is spurious and unchristian, Dr. Charles Hodge of Princeton, in spite of the brilliant Dr. Thorn well, and of Dr. L. ~N. Rice, and of Dr. Junkin, and of nearly the whole Assembly, not only went right on teaching his stu- dents the old Protestant view, but he attacked the decision of the Assembly as wrong in fact and false in doctrine, demonstrating, with most cogent reasoning, that, notwith- standing her errors, the Church of Rome is still a branch of the Christian Church, and that baptism duly adminis- tered by her, is Christian baptism. Dr. Hodge knew very well that if such questions were to be decided by a majority vote in a popular assembly, instead of being decided ac- cording to the truth of history and the voice of Scripture, the occupation of the theological professor is well-nigh clean
120 UNION" SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
gone forever. This veto power is like one of those terrible pieces of new ordnance of which we have read lately so much. It is not only a most formidable instrument for destroy- ing an enemy, but of self-destruction as well, unless handled with consummate skill. Setting five hundred men, mostly untrained for the task, to firing it off all together, even un- der the direction of an ecclesiastical expert, is extremely dangerous and against all the lessons of even worldly pru- dence.
Do I mean, then, that it is no function of the Presby- terian Church to bear faithful witness against prevalent er- rors in doctrine and practice, or, if necessary, in the way of godly discipline, to put upon them the stamp of her cen- sure and condemnation ? No, that is not my meaning. It seems to me one of the highest functions of a church of Jesus Christ to bear constant, earnest witness for Him and His truth, and to put the mark of her strong disapproval upon all errors contrary thereto. This is one great end for which the Church exists in the world. When she ceases to be a witness-bearer and the enemy alike of false doctrine and evil practice, her glory is departed. The question is : How shall she best fulfil this duty ? And here there is need of the wisest discrimination, of large experience, of the amplest knowledge, of much self-restraint, and of Christian justice, candor, and magnanimity in their finest expression.
It is far from my meaning, I repeat, that the Presbyterian Church, or any other church of Christ, is not bound to hold fast to the faith once delivered to the saints ; to stand up for soundness both of doctrine and morals; to bear wit- ness against error ; and to be very jealous for the honor of God and His inspired oracles. No church can here exceed the measure of her duty. Nor do I in the least question that the Presbyterian Church, in the performance of this solemn duty, may often speak and act most effectually
A WORD IN CONCLUSION. 121
through the voice and votes of the representative assembly. The popular voice and vote, thus expressed, is a ruliug principle in our American system of republican govern- ment; and it is a ruling principle no less in American Presbyterianism — the source in large measure of its won- derful elasticity, freedom, and working power. Nobody shall surpass me in admiring it and its splendid achieve- ments.
But alike in the civil sphere and in that of religion there are some things, which in their very nature, belong to the domain and jurisdiction, not of the many, but rather of the select few. There are questions in the civil order which the judges of the land, not the legislators, alone are author- ized and competent to decide. And so in the religious sphere there are matters which only learned divines and scholars — specially trained, chosen, and set apart for the purpose — are qualified to pass judgment upon. Such, for example, are many of the questions raised by what is called the higher or literary criticism of the Bible. ~No popular vote, however honest rnd intelligent, can decide them ; nor are ordinary scholars, however learned, competent to decide them. They must be decided, if at all, by the ablest sort of trained minds, just as there are questions in law, in finance, in every department of science, which only experts of the highest class are qualified to settle for us.
{i). A word in conclusion.
I have thus endeavored to consider the action at Detroit in the case of Dr. Briggs in its bearing upon Union Semi- nary and upon the Presbyterian Church. It has been my aim to tell the truth, so far as possible, and nothing but the truth. And it has been my aim, also, to do this in a frank and Christian way. Certainly, it would have been much easier to write in a freer style. If my language savors now
122 UNION SEMINARY AND THE ASSEMBLY.
and then of severity, or even ridicule, it is because the truth seems to me to demand such language. No reasonable man could have supposed that the friends of Union Seminary were going to keep silent, or that when they did speak they would speak with bated breath. If trained in no special awe of a General Assembly, they do stand in awe of God and His truth, of Christian justice, and of that glorious liberty wherewith their divine Master has made them free. What then, in view of the whole situation, ought to be done ? It is not for me to answer this question further than to say, that, in my opinion, it is high time for the alumni and friends of Union Seminary to come to a good understanding among themselves, to act in concert, and to adopt such measures as shall give the whole world assurance of their determination to join hands with the Board of directors and Faculty of Union Seminary in maintaining the character, honor, and chartered rights of the In- stitution.
Whatever prejudice or suspicion against Union Seminary prevails in the Presbyterian Church is, as I believe, largely the effect of ignorance or misapprehension. Union Semi- nary stands firm on her original foundations as an institu- tion of Christian theology in the service of the Presbyterian Church and of the Church Universal. Taking the inspired Word of God as her rule of faith and practice, she is striv- ing in all things for the faith and furtherance of the Gos- pel ; first in our own land, and then over all the earth. These are her ambitions, and she has no other. With every other school of divinity, of whatever name, she desires to keep step to the music of the whole church militant in fighting the battles of truth and righteousness, here and everywhere. Especially does she desire to march and fight in fellowship with all other seminaries of the Presbyterian Church. She is ready to say to them, in the words of Henry B. Smith,
A WOED IN CONCLUSION. 123
— words penned before the reunion, but still fresh and true as ever :
Let us advance with open brow to meet the greater ques- tions which are fast advancing to meet us. Let us not make so much account of Old School and New School ; and even if we believe the substance of the Old is better, let us not deny that the earnestness, the philosophic spirit, the advanc- ing movement, the wider aims of the New, are of inestimable good. Who can so afford to be patient as the orthodox, who know that the right faith will in the end surely triumph. Let us eschew the arts of intrigue, of defamation, and innu- endo. These are easily learned. They are the offspring of fear or of hate. They show a timorous or a dogmatic spirit. Let us not deny until we understand, or insult feelings be- fore we know their reason, for it is easier to be extreme than to be candid, to denounce than to examine. In the spirit of love and wisdom let us maintain cogency of argument, energy of faith, and urgency of zeal.
APPENDIX.
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EDWARD ROBINSON CHAD? OP BIBLICAL THEOLOGY.
At the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Union Theological Seminary in the city of New York, held November 11, 1890, the following preamble and resolution were adopted by a unanimous vote :
Whereas, The Honorable Charles Butler, LL.D., President of the Board of Directors of this Seminary, has made provision for a perma- nent fund for the purpose of establishing and endowing a chair in this Seminary, to be called the Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology :
Now therefore, Resolved, That a new professorship shall be and is hereby created, which shall be called the "Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology"; that the income of the endowment of one hundred thousand dollars given to this Seminary by the said Charles Butler in the manner mentioned in his bond, dated April 25, 1890, shall be applied solely to the support of said chair, according to the provisions of said bond.
The President of the Faculty suggested that the Board, in courtesy, should ask Dr. Butler to express to us freely his wishes with reference to the action just taken.
Thereupon President Butler addressed the Board of Direct- ors as follows :
" The formal establishment by the Board of ' The Edward Kobinson Chair of Biblical Theology ' fulfils the object de- sired in the provision which I have made for its endowment. I beg to express my satisfaction and gratitude for this action. It is in accord with the views of the distinguished Christian (124)
APPENDIX. 125
scholar in whose memory the chair is founded. In a letter to the Board, dated January 20, 1837, accepting the Professorship of Sacred Literature, he said : * The Constitution properly requires every Professor to declare that he believes the Scrip- tures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice. This is placing the Bible in its true position as the only foundation of Christian theology. It follows as a necessary consequence that the study of the Bible, as taught in the department of Biblical Literature, must be the foundation of all right the- ological education.' This new Chair of Biblical Theology seems to me to realize the sentiment embodied in this quota- tion, in a form which, if he were now present with us, would receive his benediction. It embalms his memory indissolu- bly with the life of this Seminary, and will ever be an inspi- ration to its students in their ' search of the Scriptures/
" In regard to the incumbent of this Chair, I avail of the courtesy of the Board to express my wish that it may be one who sat as a pupil at the feet of that eminent teacher, and I regard it as a felicity to the Seminary that there is one here who has been trained within its walls, and who, by his ripe scholarship and purity of character in Christian faith and practice, has won the confidence and affection of his associate Professors, of this Board of Directors, and of the students who have come under his teaching during these years of faithful and devoted service.
"From what I have said, you will anticipate that my wishes will be fully gratified in the appointment of the Bev, Charles A. Briggs, D.D., as eminently qualified to fill this Chair. In this expression of preference, it gives me the greatest pleasure to say that I do but voice the views and wishes of our late revered President of the Faculty, Koswell