The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1869-02-24

the venerable Dr. Hodge, OF princeton, pe'
lieved then, and believe still, that in adopting
the "Spring Resolutions" the Assembly
travelled entirely beyond its Constitutional
and Scriptural limits, and decided great
civz question; and that, by so doing, that
body virtually cat off nearly One-haf Of
the Church And as 1 gave the endow-
ment to the whOle Church of the United
States of america, and as | agree with those
"great and good men" in regard to the
course of the Assembly; is it surprising
that, in connection with the course since
pursued towards myself and friends, am
not only unwilling to pay more money in the
same direction, as matters stand, but believe
that what 1 have paid has been forfeited?
You knew, and the entire church knew, as
DIR. Rice has shown, that two different doc
trines were agitating the church and country
in reference to the subject of slavery, to
which you refer. when this Seminary was
founded: that one doctrine--the church
doctrine-was represented by DR.. Rice, 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 position of all the Summaries of the
Church, Princeton, Allegheny and Danville,
was the one that prevailed at Indianapolis,
after having been advocated at length by
DR.. Rice as against DR.. Manchester. You
knew that the endowment was proffered and
accepted by the General Assembly on that
basis. The Professors were elected on that
basis, and on that basis they accepted, |
further submit, therefore, that the Church
and the Professors, so long as they retain
their positions and draw from that endow
ment fund, are in all moral honesty bound to
abide by that postion-the former keeping
the chairs filled by men in harmony with the
Seminary as originally founded. | have al
ways believed that the Old School Church,
as represented by the deliverances of the
Assembly, and the other Summaries, held
the true OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES ground
on this question-that the doctrine that
slaveholding is alsOays sinful, without regard
to circumstances, is unscriptural, and, like
all error, is pernicious in its influence. Like
Shylock of old you harp on "the bond! the
bondw But the Vritten conditions of that
bond were not the only terms of the gift.
There were understood and implied pledges
that as the Seminary was the outgrowth, so
it should continue to be the exponent of
sound Scriptural and Conservative views.
These pledges have been openly and grossly
violated. No one knows this better than
yourself. 1t is for me, not you, therefore,
to talk of "broken pledges "-"v violated
plighted faith" etc.
For the first two years your conservatism
was as pronounced as that of any member of
the faculty. Your allegations in regard to
the atmosphere and surroundings of the
Seminary" and its being an "outpost and
bulwark of slavery" are all afterthoughts.
In your proposed commentary on Peter, you
discussed the subject of Slavery, and stated
and defended at length the Church doctrine
on that subject, and opposed the abolition
doctrine that slaveholding was sinful per Sc.
You read it to Drs. Rice and Halsey, and
received their approval. You were given to
the recital of an anecdote, that: On being
invited by a Congregationalst minister to
attend Congregationaist Convention in
Chicago, you said No: If you were to attend,
you might offer this resolution: RESOLVED,
That when we get to Heaven, we will not
sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
for they were Shareholders, and we have no
evidence that they ever repented of their
SIM" You have spoken of your refusal to
allow the Chicago Tribune to come into your
house" that vile, radical sheet, was unfit
to be read in any family" You reioiced
with member of the Assembly of 1859, af.
ter his return from the Assembly, in the de-
feat of DIR. Manchester and the views he re
presented. In December, 1860, immediate
iy after the Rev. DR.. Van Dyke, of Brook
Ign, had preached his wel-known sermon on
6 The Character and Influence of Abolition.
ISM" you wrote to him highly congratu-
latory letter, intimating your full approval
of his views, and your disapprobation of
those whose favor you are now so anxious to
court.
But l am not so much offended at your
having thrown off the mask you so long
wore, as disguised at your having, by wear
ing it got yourself into Professors Chair !
So much for your alleged conscious
offences" They have been shown to be
foundation. How thenis your present
hostility to the former management of the
Seminary to be explained?
The first actual ground of disafection,
or detection, on your part so far as known
was the action of the Executive Committee
in 1861, after the resignation of DR.. Rice,
in appointing DR.. Scott instead of yourself
to teach Theology. You took offence at
this, and threatened to resign-so expressed
yourself to an Elder in the church, and
member of the Executive Committee This
it would seem dates the commencement of
your aspirations to the Chair of Theology.
The second (known) offence to you was the
application, as shown, of only $4,000 to
each Professors Chair; and the third rock
of offence, the declination of the North
Church to accept you as their pastor.
Nor was your original position in the
Seminary so entirely unsought by you as
you would fain have the public believe
You say: "Urged by the special friends of
the Seminary, and Notwithstanding it sub
jected me to much pecuniary sacrifice, l. at
length, accepted the appointment" You
may have forgotten your letter to DIR. Rice
previous to the Assembly of 1859, inquiring
of him if there was any opening for you in
the MISLEADING that you had to leave
Brooklyn.
You attempt to excite odium against me
because | made donations to two Institutions
in Virginia-the Union Theological Semina
ry in my native State; and Washington Col
lege in my native county. You say: "Soon
as the throes of the rebellion were sufficient