The Union theological seminary in the city of New York: its design and another decade of its history. With a sketch of the life and public services of Charles Butler, LL.D

Front matter

€mm\\ ^mvmii^ Jitotatg

THE GIFT OF

O-O i^t?

Preface

^His volume, although prepared at the request of the Board of Directors of the Union Theological Seminary in the city of New York, is published on my own responsibility alone. The subject was full of difficulty ; and if the w^ork is marred by mistakes and errors of judgment, or should seem to some readers too severe in its tone, the fault is mine, not that of the board. And yet from first to last I have tried to write without any unseemly passion and without prejudice. The book has cost me not a little hard work, as well as trouble of mind ; it is anything but pleasant to criticise the unwise zeal, misunderstandings and wrongconduct of good men ; and had not a foresight of the closing chapters of the volume relieved the pain of writing those that went before, I should have been tempted to abandon my task midway, as utterly distasteful if not hoj)eless. For much of the best material relating to the history, I am indebted to my deaifriend, Dr. Hastings. It was found in eight large volumes of newspaj^er cuttings, pamphlets and letters bearing on the subject, which, with a sort of prophetic instinct, he had collected and carefully arranged during the long conflict between Union Seminary and the General Assembly. Without the help thus given me, joined to the constant aid and comfort of his wise

^i PREFACE.

counsel, this volume avouIcI have been simply impossible. To another old friend, Mr. D. Willis James, I am also greatly indebted for assistance, both in the way of encouragement and of judicious, timely suggestions. Unwittingly I have referred twice, somewhat at length and in the same language, to the so-called qwlh system as illustrating the point, that a false doctrine or principle once clothed with power, is sure, sooner or later, to exert its baleful influence. (See pp. 64, ^5 and pp. 238-240). The simple truth is, my hatred of that abominable system has been so active for half a century that, whenever there is a chance to denounce it I am always tempted to repeat myself.

The sketch of my revered friend, Charles Butler, needs, I trust, no apology. Much of it, to be sure, hardly belongs to the special subject of this volume, but the whole helps to show how Mr. Butler was fitted to render such inestimal)le service to Union Seminary. At all events it is my loving tribute to one of the best and most remarkable men I have been privileged to knoAV at home or abroad. At his urgent entreaty, not without long delay and a certain dread, this history was undertaken ; and I like to remember that one of his dying hours seemed to be cheered by the assurance that the work had been actually begun. The reader who never saw Mr. Butler's benionant countenance will see it truthfully pictured on the frontispiece as he

looked in his ninety-third year.

G. L. p.

New York, Sqjtcinber 11, 1899.

Chapter I

the theological seiaiinaries of the old school branch of the presbyterian church ani> their relation to the general assembly. — origin and design of the union theological

seminary. reunion and the theological

seminaries. — the veto power : how it arose

and what it meant . . . 1

Chapter IL

the first exercise of the veto power and its

consequences. the detroit assembly .... 66

Chapter III

THE PARTING OF THE WAYS. — SKETCH OF THE CON- FLICT BETWEEN UNION SEMINARY AND THE GEN- ERAL ASSEMBLY. — THE ECCLESIASTICAL VETO. — POSITION OF THE ASSEMBLY'S COMMITTEE OF CON- FERENCE. ANTAGONISTIC POSITION OF THE SEM- INARY.— IMMEDIATE ISSUE OF THE STRUGGLE. — A TRUCE 158

Chapter IV

REASONS IN FAVOR OF ANNULLING THE AGREEMENT OF 1870. — THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY REQUESTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF UNION SEMI- NARY TO CONCUR WITH THEM IN THIS SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM . ... 222

Chapter V

THE MEMORIAL OF TIIK BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF UNION SEMINARY ASKING THE ASSEMBLY TO JOIN WITH IT IN ANNULLING THE AGREEMENT OF 1870. — THE ASSEMBLY REFUSING TO COMPLY viii CONTENTS.

with this request, proposes arbitration. — the seminary thereupon severs all connection with the assembly caused by the a(jreement of 1870, and resumes its original freedom and independence of ecclksl\stical control. — a generous gift. — sequel to the assembly's action in regard to union seminary ... . . 255

CpI AFTER VI.

bearing of the CONFLir'T WITH THE GENERAL AS- SEMBLY UPON THE QUESTION OF ECCLESIASTICAL CONTROL OF THEOLOGK'AL SE:\riNARIES. — LESSONS TAUGHT BY THIS CONFLICT RESPECTIN(; THE DE- SIGN OF UNION SEMINARY AND THE MOTIVES OF ITS FOUNDERS. — HOW THE CHARTER FITS INTO AND SERVES THE DESIGN . . . 293

PART SFX'OND.

THE CASE OF DR. BRIGGS ; P.EARING ON THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF THE PRESBVTERLVN CHURCH ; DR. R.

w. Patterson's views on the sub.iect, as expressed IN LETTERS TO DR. IIASTLXGS, W^RITTEN AT THE TLME. . . . 311

A SKETCH OF THE LIFE AND PUBLIC SERVICES oF

(part fmt

THE

XDlnion ^beolootcal Seminary?

IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK;

ANOTHEE DECADE OF ITS HISTORY.

(1888—1898.)

Chapter I

THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINAEIES OF THE OLD SCHOOL BRANCH OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH AND THEIR RELATIONS TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. — ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. — REUNION AND THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES. — THE VETO POWER: HOW IT AROSE AND WHAT IT MEANT.

TT is not likely that at this time there would be any call for a second volume on the history of the Union Theological Seminary, had not its sixth decade been marked by a controversy with the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, which involved the autonomy and chartered rights of the institution. While writing The Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York : Hlstorical and Biographical Sketches of its First Fifty Years, the thought of such a struggle did not cross my mind.; nor, so far as I know, had it occurred to the directors, with perhaps one exception, or to the faculty.

The position asserted by Union Seminary cannot, therefore, be fully understood without a knowledge of facts not recorded or even referred to in the Semi-Centennial History. The only passage bearing directly upon the subject in the whole volume is as follows: "It [the seminary] was wholly independent, I repeat, of direct ecclesiastical control ; and so it continued until 1870. At that time, in the interest of reunion and of larger freedom of other theological seminaries, whose professors had heretofore been chosen by the General Assembly, it generously relinquislied a portion of its own autonomy."

The main design of the present volume is to give an account of the agreement of 1870 between the Union Theological Seminary and the General Assembly, and to explain the causes Avhich led to the annulling of that agreement by the Board of Directors of the seminary. In order to do this most effectually it will be necessary to consider, first of all, the ecclesiastical status of the theological seminaries connected with the so-called Old School branch of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America at the time of the reunion in 1869, as also the origin and design of the Union Seminary. Had not that seminary differed radically in its orioin charter and ecclesiastical position from the Old

School seminaries no such controversy as that which took place would have been possible. This will appear clearly as we proceed.

{a ) Relations of theological semijiaries in the Old School branch of the Presbyterian Church to its General Assembly.

These relations indicated the general plan and pattern and exhibited the characteristic features of the institution according to the Old School type. What then was the ecclesiastical status of Princeton, the Western, Northwestern, and Danville seminaries, all belonging to that branch, when the first Assembly of the reunited Church met at Philadelphia on May 19, 1870? It was that of unqualified subjection to and dependence upon the General Assembly. With one exception they derived their origin from the General Assembly, and the Assembly was their patron and the fountain of their powers. Such was the "plan," or constitution, upon which they had been organized and according to which they were governed and carried on. The General Assembly appointed their professors and directors. It held in its hand the initiative, as also the final decision, in all the principal matters of instruction, policy and discipline. After the disruption in 1838 the seminaries, then connected with the General Assembly, passed under the exclusive control of the Old School branch, which continued to adminster them in strict accordance with the original plan of 1812, — the plan upon which Princeton was founded. Its new seminaries were all fashioned after the same model. The Seminary of the Northwest, now McCormick, will serve as a good illustration. This institution, which had been started at New Albany, was later removed to Chicago, and there, through the munificent benefactions of Mr. McCormick, entered upon its present career of i^ower and usefulness. In 1859, with an amended constitution, it came under the full control of the Old School General Assembly. What such control involved appears from Article II, Section 1, of this "amended constitution." It is as follows:

Sec. 1. Tlie General Assembly shall liave the general supervision and control of the said seminary, and of all its directors, professors, officers and agents ; and shall have power to direct as to its management in all respects, and as to the disposition of its funds and property ; to determine the numhcr of its directors and professors, and to appoint the same, and to prescribe their term of office; to designate the branches of study to be pursued, and the titles and departments of the respective professors, and to suspend or remove from office any of the said professors at its discretion. And shall decide all questions and controversies arising between the Board of Directors and professors, or between the respective professors ; and all questions referred to it by the Board of Directors ; and shall have power of its own motion to review and to confirm, reverse or modifv any decision of the Board of Directors, and generally have all other powers necessary for the accomplishment of the object for which the seminary was established.

This article was in force in 1870 at the time of

my own call to the chair of Systematic Theology in

the institution. And while in regard to certain details the ecclesiastical status of Princeton and the

other Old School seminaries differed from that of the Seminary of the Northwest, all of them were alike in the matter of Assembly control and in the principles underlying that control.

[h ) Origin, design and ecclesiastical status of Union Theological Seminary,

The Union Theological Seminary was intended not only to be a new school of divinity, but also, as such, to represent a distinct tyj^e of religious thought, sentiment and policy. It was largely the growth at once of the fervid evangelistic spirit of the time, and of that devotion to the cause of sacred science and a learned ministry, which marked all the churches of Puritan origin. In establishing it the founders, who were earnest, practical men, aimed to embody in a permanent form certain views of Christian piety and theological training, which they regarded as sj^ecially fitted to j)repare young men for effective service in the ministry of the Gospel in their own age. And in carrying out these views, they took pains to organize the institution on a plan in harmony with them. While providing carefully for sound Scriptural teaching, and avowing also their adherence to Presbyterian doctrine and j)olity, they at the same time resolved to give the seminary 2:)erfect freedom and self-control in tlie management of its own affairs. Tlieir noble temper of mind, tlieir large outlook, and the sacredness they attached to their work, may be seen in the preamble to the constitution of the seminary. Here are jDortions of it :

That the design of the founders of this seminary may be publicly known, and be sacredly regarded by the directors, professors and students, it is judged proper to make the following preliminary statement :

A number of Christians, both clergymen and laymen, in the cities of New York and Brooklyn, deeply impressed with the claims of the world upon the Church of Christ, to furnish a competent supply of well-educated and pious ministers of the Gospel ; impressed also with the inadecpiacy of all existing means for this purpose ; and believing that large cities furnish many peculiar facilities and advantages for conducting theological education ; having, after several meetings for consultation and prayer, again convened on the 18th of January, A. D,, 1836, unanimously adopted the following resolutions and declarations :

1. BesoJved^ In humble dependence on the grace of God, to attempt the establishment of a theological seminary in the citv of New York.

2. In this institution it is the design of the founders to furnish the means of a full and thorough education in all the subjects taught in the best theological seminaries in this or other countries.

3. Being fully persuaded that vital godliness, a thorough education, and practical training in the works of benevolence and pastoral labor are all essential to meet the wants and promote the Ix'st interests of the kingdom of Christ, the founders of this seminary design that its students, remaining under pastoral influence, and performing the duties of church members in the several churches to which they belong, or with which they worship, in prayer-meetings, in the instruction of Sabbath -schools and Bible classes, and being conversant with all the benevolent efforts of the present day in this great community, shall have the opportunity of adding to solid learning and true piety the teachings of experience. 4. By the foregoing advantages, the founders hope and expect, with the blessing of God, to call forth and enlist in the service of Christ and in the work of the ministry, genius, talent, enlightened piety, and missionary zeal ; and to qualify many for the labors and management of the various religious institutions, seminaries of learning, and enterprises of benevolence which characterize the present times.

The founders of Union Seminary were at the time mostly pastors or members of churches, nearly all of which sided later with the so-called New School branch. Of the clerical directors in the first board one only adhered after the rupture to the Old School, and he had recently come from a Congregational pastorate in New England. Of the first lay directors, also, nearly all belonged to the New School. The founders were in hearty sympathy with Albert Barnes, Lyman Beecher, and men of that stamp. They were enthusiastic believers in the new Christian evangelism at home and abroad. They believed also in the " voluntary principle," and were exceedingly jealous of all "high-toned" ecclesiasticism. They had no confidence in heresy trials as the way to defend orthodoxy. I doubt if a single one of them looked with favor upon the noted trials of Albert Barnes and Dr. Beecher ; while the most of them regarded these trials with the strongest disapproval. They hated religious quarrels and bickerings. Their sentiments on these and similar points led to the establishment of the seminary, found expression in its constitution, and have shaped its policy from that day to this. Here is their own account of the matter :

It is the design of the founders to provide a theological seminary in the midst of the greatest ami most grouing community in America^ around which all men of moderate views and feelings, icho desire to live free from party strife, and to stand aloof from all extremes of doctrinal speculcdion, practical radicahwi, and ecclesiasticcd domination, may cordially and affectionately rally.

In order to keep clear of all extremes of " ecclesiastical domination," they made the seminary independent alike of Presbytery, of Synod, and of General Assembly. Its autonomy was complete and unquestioned. As comj^ared with Princeton and other seminaries of the earlier type, its establishment was essentially a new departure. In keeping clear of all direct ecclesiastical control it broke with the old traditions. This was in part the result of providential circumstances ; but it was also, none the less, a result of deliberate purj)()se and conviction. The founders of Union Seminary held views respecting the best plan of a school of divinity, such as they proposed to establish, which differed materially from the views embodied in the " plan " of Princeton and other Old School seminaries. The very names of some of these founders indicate this to any one at all familiar with the Presbyterian Church of that day.

And then their design, as it will be seen, was not so much to train up ministers for the service of the Presbyterian Church in particular, as to train ministers and men for the great work of evangelization both at home and abroad. " Deeply impressed,'^ to quote again their own words, " with the claims of the world upon the Church of Christ, to furnish a competent supply of well-educated and pious ministers of the Gospel ; impressed also with the inadequacy of all existing means for this purpose ; and believing that large cities furnish many peculiar facilities and advantages for conducting theological education," they resolved '' in humble dependence on the grace of God, to establish a seminary in the city of New York, hoping and expecting thereby, with the divine blessing, to call forth and enlist in the service of Christ and in the work of the ministry, genius, talent, enlightened piety, and missionary zeal ; and to qualify many for the labors and management of the various religious institutions, seminaries of learning and enterprises of benevolence which characterize the present times." Such was the catholic and world-wide scope of their design. It was in order more effectually to carry out

]() THE UN/OX THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

this plan tliat they determined to make their seminary a free, self-governing institution, and thus to keep it clear of all extremes of " ecclesiastical domination.' This design qualified and gave a peculiar cast to the whole movement. It contradistinguished Union from seminaries of the old type. In their generic character as Presbyterian, orthodox schools of divinity, with the Bible as their great charter, and the training of a learned and godly ministry as their practical aim, the old and the new were alike. But in respect of their origin, their patron, the fountain of their powers, and, as a consequence, in their government and administration, thev were essentiallv unlike.

This radical difference was regarded by many, longwedded to the old plan of 1<S12, vf'iih. strong disfavor. An illustration of this occurs in a letter of Dr. A. A. Hodge to Dr. Henry B. Smith, in which he characterizes Union Seminary as under an " irresponsible Board of Trustees." Of course Dr. Hodo'e meant no offence in using such a term, and yet from the point of view of a director, or i)rofessor of Union Seminarv, the term was offensive in a high degree. Every director of Union Seminary held himself responsible to God, to conscience, and to public opinion ; and every director solemnly bound himself to maintain the plan and constitution of the seminary as a Presbyterian, orthodox institution of Christian learning. But it was not under ecclesiastical control, and that was Dr. Hodo^e's complaint. In or<ler to purge it of this "iri"esponsible"

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. H

character, he urged Professor Smith to recoiimiend to the New School branch of the Joint Committee on Reunion, that " all the seminaries of both parties be, as a condition of union, 1)rought in on the same basis, so that there may be perfect equality." Here in a nutshell is the reason Avhy Professor Smith considered Dr. Hodge's scheme inadmissible. It joroposed in effect to "mediatize" Union Seminary ; in other Avords, to make a radical change in the j^l^n and constitution of the seminary by transferring the ultimate center of power and authority from the institution itself to one or more adjacent Synods.

All this was in entire accordance with the general theory and j)ractice of the Old School branch, but it ran wholly counter to the ruling sentiment of the New School branch. The princijDle of local ecclesiastical control was indeed recognized in the case of Auburn — a seminary founded under the old system — and it is quite possible that there were some advocates of this principle among New School men in other parts of that branch. But I am not aware that any attempt was ever made, or any public desire ever expressed, to bring Union Seminary under Assembly control. The feeling on the subject was indicated in a resolution adopted by the New School General Assembly of 1857, a part of which is as follows :

The General Assembly Avould not claim any authority over the institutions where our ministry are educated ; but it is hereby requested of the faculties of the Union and

12 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEIMINARY.

Auburn Theological Seminaries in Kew York, <>f Lane Seminary near Cincinnati, and Maryville Seminary in Tennessee, and of any otlicr similar institutions hereafter established, to furnish the General Assembly each year, through its Permanent Committee on Education for the Ministry, with a written statement of their condition, advantages and prospects, the names of their professors, the ordinary yearly expenses, and any other matters of general interest to the Church, to be read to the Assembly, and published as an appendix to the annual report of said committee ; and the General Secretary is hereby charged with the duty of presenting this rerjii(;<t rmvurdh/ to said faculties, in time to receive their written report before the meeting of the General Assembly.

The request of the Assembly was gladly complied with and had the happiest effect. The relations of the seminary to the Church became still more close and trustful. Union always considered itself as an institution of the New 8chool Church. Its professors were sent as commissioners to the General Assembly. The names of AVilliam Adams, Thomas H. Skinner and Henry B. Smith are among the most honored on its roll of Moderators. After 1857 the seminary reported annually to the New School Assembly, precisely as it rej^orted after 1870 to the Assembly of the united Church.

(c.) Action of tJfc Joint Committee on Reunion with re yard to the theological seminaries.

The question of the theological seminaries was one of the most difficult and perplexing with Avhicli the Joint Committee on Reunion, ajDpointed in 1866, had to deal. This was owing partly to the nature of the subject, and in part to the great diversity of origin, constitution, environment and legal relations which marked these institutions. The ninth article of *' the proposed terms of reunion between the two branches of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America," reported by the chairmen, Drs. Beatty and Adams, to their respective Assemblies in May, 1867, was as follows :

If at any time, after the union has been effected, any of the theological seminaries under the care and control of the General Assembly, shall desire to put themselves under Synodical control, they shall be permitted to do so at the request of their Boards of Directors ; and those seminaries which are independent in their organization shall have the privilege of putting themselves under ecclesiastical control, to the end that, if practicable, a system of ecclesiastical supervision of such institutions may ultimately prevail through the entire united Church.

The ninth article, as reported by the Joint Committee and adopted by the two General Assemblies in 1868, varied somewhat from this. It was as follows :

In order to a uniform system of ecclesiastical supervision those theological seminaries that are now under Assembly control may, if their Boards of Direction so elect, be transferred to the watch and care of one or more of the adjacent Synods, and the other seminaries are advised to introduce, as far as may be, into their constitutions, the principle of

J4 THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Synodical or Assembly supervision ; in which f'as<' tliev snail be entitled to an official recognition and approbation on the part of the General Assembly.

The changes in the article are highly significant, and indicate several points of objection made to it as reported in 18(;7. This amended article reappeared amono' the so-called "concurrent declarations" of the General Assemblies of 1869. In explaining it in their report of 1868, the chairmen said :

A recommcmfation lookinir to some uniformity of ecclesiastical supervision, is all which the committee felt to be within their province <>r that of the Assembly, except that those seminaries, now belongini;- to cither branch of the Church, should have every guarantee and protection for their cliartered rights which they might desire.

This passage, both in its mild, even subdued tone, and in its explanation, throws a clear light back upon the devious i)atli by which the committee had reached their conclusion. The discussion and criticism occasioned ])y their plan, as reported in 1867, had convinced them that the whole subject was beset with difficulties and perils, which required very delicate as w^ell as skillful treatment. ^' A recommendation'^ [the italics are their own] looking to some uniformity of ecclesiastical supervision, is all which the committee felt to be within their province or tltatofiJn: Assembly, except that the " chartered r'ujlits'' of all the seminaries of either branch of tlie Church should be carefuUi/ guaranteed and protected. This was quite different language from that used in 1867 : '' Those seminaries which are independent in their organization shall have the privilege of putting themselves under ecclesiastical control."

The temper of mind, as also the way, in which the Joint Committee and the friends of reunion generally had come to regard the question of the theological seminaries, may be seen most distinctly, perhaps, in the speech of Rev. George W. Musgrave, D. D., LL.D., made on the occasion of the presentation of the rejDort of the Joint Committee of Conference to the Old School General Assembly, sitting in the Brick Church in the city of New York, May 27, 1869. No one who heard it is likely ever to forget that speech or the remarkable old man who made it. A few extracts will indicate its spirit and its bearing on the question now under discussion. Its opening sentences were as follows :

It affords me great pleasure to be able to report a plan of union between what are known as the Old and New School bodies, and to be able to say that our report is unanhnous, and is signed by every member of each committee. The Joint Committee report three papers to the Assembly. The first is a plan of union, containing the basis, which will be sent down to the Presbyteries for their acceptance or rejection. The second paper is a declaration, made that there may be a good understanding between the two branches. This paper is not a compact or covenant but it is a recommendation of certain arrangements as to seminaries, boards, etc. It is no part of the basis or terms of union. It only recommends certain arrangements as suitable to be adopted. The third paper is one recommending a day of prayer to Ahnighty God for His guidance and presence, that Presbyteries may be under divine influence when they come to vote upon this momentous question.

In the course of his speech Dr. Musgrave thus referred to the " concurrent declarations " on theological seminaries, boards, and other matters pertaining to the interests of the Church, when it should become united :

I have already stated to the Assembly that these articles don't form a part of the basis. They are not a compact or covenant, but they suggest to the Assembly what are suitable arrangements. I will not repeat what I have said, except to call your attention to that important distinction. They are not terms of the union. They may be amended or modified, as any future Assembly may deem proper. AVe told our brethren that we were unwilling to tie the future hands of the Church of God ; and I, for one, was very decided on that point. And I will say to you that I would have risked the failure of this union at the present time, rather than concede that these articles should be unchaneceable, though I cannot foresee that there will be any necessity in the future to change them. I am neither a prophet, nor the son of a prophet ; but I think I have some little common sense, and I felt that it ^vould be unsafe for us to imJDcril the future by trammeling the Church of God, preventing it from exercising its liberty, and from dealing with circumstances as they might arise in the providence of God.

ANOTHER DECADE OF ITS HISTORY. l^

Sir, we were very decided and determined that those articles should not form a part of the compact, but that they should be suggestions and recommendations, in order that the Presbyteries should get an understanding between the parties. But, sir, it is due to fairness that I should say, and I repeat it now publicly in order that it may have a response from this house, we did say to these brethren, ^^ We will not consent to make these articles a covenant. We won't adopt them as a legal compact, binding upon the future ; yet we • are acting in good faith and as honorable

men, and we say to you that we will not change them at any future time without obviously good and sufficient

reasons. ''

It is enough to say, in proof of Dr. Musgrave's " common sense " and foresight, that had the " concurrent declarations " been made a term of reunion, the effect in the case of Princeton Seminary would have been to imperil all its endowments. Dr. Musgrave's expressions, " We told our brethren," " We did say to these brethren," refer to the New School brethren, and are explained by the following extract from a sketch of " The Assemblies of 1869," written by the Kev. Dr. M. W. Jacobus, Moderator of the Old School Assembly :