The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1869-12-01
BETTER LATE THAN NEVER.

Seminary at Chicago. lt will be remembered that
when that Seminary was organized by the General
Assembly in 1882 it was in consequence OF an oner
BY Mr.. Mccormick to give it the munihcent en-
dowment of SlOO,OO payable in four instruments
All of this endowment was paid except the'lastn-
stalment of $4,000, which Mr.. Mccormick de
cIued paving tor reasons assigned. he objected
to the action of the General Assembly on political
subjects, and especially to its AbOhtiOnism, which
had been developed in its managementof the Iheo
logical Seminary This he regarded as in bad faith
with him, and contrary to the policy on which the
institution was endowed.
A very extended and prOtracted controversy
arose in connection with these matters, and at the
meeting of their General Assembly in New York
last spring, committee was appointed to investl-
gate the whole difficulty and report at the meeting
which has Just been held in PttSburg, That re-
port was made, and cordially adopted by the As
semby. The committee were successful IN settling
the controversy, but it is not within our present
purpose to enter into particulars, except on one
point
The second article of agreement between the
parties provides among other things, that the
General Assembly will order the release OF Mr.,
Mccormick from the 4th instalment of his bond,
and that the instalments Of the endowment already
paid shall be regarded as fulflment of his entire
obligations"
And now we wish to call some special attention
to the ground on which they place this release
They say that in their judgment, Mr.. Mccormick
was legally bound to pay the whole On this point
we shall not dwell Had they pushed the question
n NJ ok,hl bo cbOvvp
that there were two sides to it. But let us hear
the reason which governed the committee and the
General Assembly in what they did. 1t is fully
stated in the following extracts, part OF which we
italieise:
''In reference to the second article of the adjust
ment in its relation to Mr.. Mccormick endow-
ment, the committee recall to mind that when IN
1859 he made his muni6cent offer to the church,
it is historically true that he and great majority
Ofthe Assembly lrere agreed as TO the tn1ProPrety
Originating the SiaveTy question: IA the JudicotorleS
fhe church and that DR.. Rlee's then election to
the chair of Theology, according to the known
wishes of Mr. Mccormick did seem to authorize
him to expect, as a result of his endowment, that
those views would prevail In the teachings OF the
Seminary Indeed, We are justified IN believing
that had it been indicated that the opposite views
would Prevail in those teachings Mr.. Mccormick
would probably not have consented to the endOw-
ment. Upon this hypothesis the committee con-
cede that there was in the acceptance OF Mr.. Nc
COrmieks offer by the General Assembly taclt
understanding on the subject TO that effect, loch
IL Christian honor should be as binding on both
parties as u expressed IN formal terms.
Had the condition OF things continued IN the
church and in the country which existed when Mr.
Mccormick made, and the Assembly accepted his
offer, he might justly complain of breach OF faith
on the part of the Church, if through the subse-
quent election of Professors in the Seminary, 1t
departed from the understanding which both he
and the Assembly had when the corps OF Professors
was elected in 1859, causing thereby the precedence az
the Seta0TV Of opposite OleoS TO those 0Atcn 20 0oS
then the understanding Of both parties Sho~fa pre-
Uad therein. Had that condition OF things so con-
tinued the committee are impressed with the con-
vietion that there would have been up to this time
probably no change in the attitude OF the General
Assembly on this subject aud therefore no occasion
for complaint on Mr.. Mccormick S part. But SINCE
1859, q change has come OUer the Church and the
country in these respects, great and wonderful
change, such as no man in the North, and perhaps
few In the South, had any premOnltlOn or then,
and which, hardly less IA Church, than IN State,
has reU0hltiOaized installations and opinions.
We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the
attitude of the Church now, is not what 1t was In
1859, on the subject referred to.
So much for that chapter; let us now open an
other. When we turn to the action OF the North
ern General Assembly in 1864, we find long and
elaborate paper, in which, as President Lincoln
had decreed the abolition of slavery, Ito which in
fact they refer it seemed only becoming in them
to do so too But in this paper they proceed all
through under the profession that they are as
Stunning no new ground on this subject Not they :;
they took special pains to tell the world that they
were standing exactly on the ground where their
Church had always stood. La recting at large Its
testimonies, however, they took special care to
omit all reference to the act of the Assembly OF
lS45, which contains the following sentences =
"The Assembly intend simply to say. that since
Christ and his Apostles did not make the holding
of slaves a bar to communion, We as Court OF
Christ have no authority to do so; since they did
not attempt to reaa0Ue Il from the Church by tegis
latioa zoe hare no authority to legjslate the sub
ject" Neither the Scriptures nor oar constitution
authorize this body to prescribe any particular
course to be pursued
Had this been cited and sent out to the world
by the side of their own action, every one would
have seen the two were as much alike as black and
white. 1t was therefore piece of l7orldty pru
dence, or perhaps it is more proper to say 1t was
worthy of pure Jesuit, to leave all this out So
they set out in the very first sentence as follows:
"From the earliest period of our Church. the
General Assembly delivered unequivOcal testlmo-
MES upon this subject, which it will be now prof.
table to affirm.
Aud then they begin the last paragraph thus:
Sin view, therefore, of its former testimonies on
this subject" &C.. &c.
We all remember how constantly and vehemently
in speeches, newspapers, and pamphlets it was de-
elared that we slandered them in saying that the
Northern Presbyterian Church had left its former
ground and become abOEtionized. We have, fol-
example, now under our eye a large pamphlet pre-
pared by Father Allen, Editor Of the Western
PresJgteriaa, KY. himself warm adherent, ae-
cording to the best of his knowledge of the North
ern Assembly The whole purpOrt of his pamph
let is to prove that in this matter of slavery,
&c, his Church was standing on the old ground;
''that neither in her acts relative to civa affairs,
or to slaray has the Presbyterian Church departed
from her ancient testimonies.
Now let US next see what was Mr. Mccormick
charge against the Assembly, or the majority of
Directors in the management Of the Seminary he
had endowed The following is an extract from
his letter to Rev. DR.. Willis Lord
''You knew, and the entire church knew, as Dr.
Rice has shown, that two different doctrines were
agitating the church and country in reference to
the subject Of SiqUery, to which you refer, when
this Seminary was founded: that one doctrine
the church dOctrine-was represented by DIR. Rlce
and the other by Dr. Manchester You knew that
the position on this subject represented by Dr.
Rice, which was the church position, and the po
sitOn of all the Seminaries OF the church, Prince
tom Allegheny and Danvllle, was the one that pre-