The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1885-06-11
Published by Request
An Explanation.
From the Southern Presbyteriam

From various published statements
touching the proceedings of the Board Of
Dir ectors of the Columbia Seminary at
their late meeting, it has appeared that
on several questions of great Importance,
two members cast their votes in opposi-
ton to the measures passed by the ma
iority. The undersigned are the two
members to whom allusion has been
made. And we deem it due to those for
the management of whose Institution we
are in part responsible, and to ourselves
also, that We submit brief statement of
the reasons which induced US, under a
sense of duty, to assume the position that
we did in respect to some of the matters
referred to.
1. As to the election of Mr.. Vos. We
knew nothing whatever against this
Young brother; on the contrary, were
led to form high opinion of his native
ability, his scholarly attainments, and
his Christian character, by the very
strong concentrations of his instructor,
DIR. Green, of Princeton Seminary. But
it seemed to us very unwise and unsafe
to place in a professorship in our Semi
nary, the very fountain of theological
instruction and training for our rising
ministry, and that in the most important
and difficult chair of "Biblical Litera-
ture and Exegesis of Scripture" a man
so young and inexperienced as Mr.. Vos,
who had but the week before been grad.
uated at Princeton Seminary: of whose
capacity to teach, We had no testimor =
whatever who is foreigner, writes his
sermons in foreign tongue and holds
membership in a foreign Church and of
whose requisite qualifications for tho
chair We had almost no knowledge, DR..
Green's letters containing all the infor-
nation that we had concerning him.
Besides, we regard him as ineligible to
the Office under the Constitution of the
Seminary, which requires that the Pro.
fessors shall be ordained ministers of the
gospel (see Section 8, Art. p which
difficulty the calling Of Mr.. Vos "Pro-
visional Instructor" does not relieve,
since he will be expected 10 discharge all
the duties of the chair, and the Board
has no authority in the Constitution to
elect any Professor except as contained
in that article, the appointment of "a
tu.or of the Hebrew language" belonging
to the Faculty (Sec. 8, Art. y. In view
of these facts we felt that we could not
vote for Mr.. Vos, while there are good
and able and experienced men in our
Church whom We know, and who we are
persuaded are more competent to fill that
chair.
Q. AS to the filling of the Perkins
Chair. The Constitution Section 8,
| Articles and 11) expressly provides in
the case of the Boards removal of a
Professor from his Office, that it "shall
be reported to the Synods and be subject
to their approyal"; and eff approved by
majority of the Synods, or if the Syn.
DDS fail to act, it shall be regarded as
complete." And as the removal of Pro.
fessor Woodrow has not yet been report.
ed 10 or acted upon by the controlling
Synods, that chair in our judgment is
not vet vacant, and the Board has no
right under the Constitution to elect
another person to it at the present stage
of the case. When, therefore, the ma
iority had overruled our objection and
proceeded to 60 into an election for that
chair, we could not conscientiously take
any part in the proceeding and asked to
be excused from voting. With regard to
DIR. Hersman, the nominee for the posi-.
ton, of whom we had never heard before
and knew nothing whatever, we said
nothing for or against.
Upon several of the points mentioned
above, other members of the Board
expressed themselves as agreeing with
US, but on the general questions voted
| with the majority.
8. As to the continuance Of the finan-
cial agency of DR.. Mack for the year
1885. We opposed this simply upon
business principles, carefully avoiding
any and every thing personal with regard
to the incumbent. The Treasurer's
report for the last year shows that the
expense of the agency was so per cent
of the amount actually collected, and we
believe it to be a wrong to the Church
and bad business policy to continue an
agency that costs 80 large proportion
Of its receipts. And after the motion to
continue the agency for another yeal
was carried over US, we presented the
following paper, which we respectfully
asked to have recorded, as stating the rea
SONS of our opposing vote; but after con-
siderable discussion our request was
refused:
"The undersigned respectfully request
that their vote against the reappointmenI
of Financial Agent for another year be
recorded, together with the following, as
q reason that should forbid their so doing
During the last year the Financial Agent
| has collected in cash only S2,SS9.42; and
| in subscriptions only $4,000, and this al
cost of 81 ,458.a3. This expense of col.
lection being out of all proportion to the
receipts of the agency, on purelp ous!.
| -.:a,;n1ap fbav ho1iava that IL ie