The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1886-09-15

OF the moral sense; they seem really
incapable of feeling the distinction be-
tween right and wrong.
This is the KINGDOM OF DARKNESS,
and this is the reason that when Christ
came into the world, the world did not
receive him. They saw emo beauty
that they should desire Him." AS
many as received Him, "to them gave
He power to become the sons of God"
being born "not of blood nor of the
will of the flesh nor of the will of man,
but of God"
NJ. Green's article, which we publish
elsewhere, that he has not made him
self acquainted with the history of the
relations between our theological SEM
inaries and the General Assembly or
with the facts in the case In order to
ascertain this relation one obvious
means, but not the only one, is to trace
the history Of these institutions from
the beginning. Hence the necessity of
going back to the resolutions of the
Assembly of 1926. DR.. Green is at
fault when he says that "the old reso.
luton of 1926 had been dead letter,
dead and forgotten for fifty years"
For when our Assembly was organised
at Augusta, Ga, in 1861, the commit
tee on Theological Seminaries reported
the following which was adopted, viz !:
"The Synods of Virginia and North
Carolina request that the General AS
sembly in the Presbyterian Church of
the Confederate States will assume the
same review and control over the
Union Theological Seminary in Vir-
ginia which the General Assembly of
the Presbyterian Church in the United
States heretofore exercised according
to the plan of the Seminary and that
the Seminary shall be called the Union
Theological Seminary under the care
of the General Assembly of the Pres
byterian Church in the Confederate
States of America, and the Board of
Directors shall report annually to the
Assembly"
This, then, defined the relation be
tween the Seminary and the Assembly
until the adoption of the present con
stitution which modified the powers of
the Assembly, but still provided that
the Assembly" Eve quote from the
general catalogue of 1884, as q copy of
the constitution is not before us) "has
a right of general superintendent, may
advise and recommend, but not origi-
nate measures for the management of
the Seminary, nor have any controlling
negative on those of the Board, though,
for what may appear good reasons,
may send down to the Synods, written
expressions of disapproval of the acts
of the Boards as reported to it, from
year to year"
This defines the present relation be
tween the Assembly and the Seminary,
and makes it perfectly clear that the re-
ports sent to the Assembly from year
to year are not simply as informa-
tion," but also for advice and recon
mendations-for approval or disap.
proval.
And all this is true not only of
Union Seminary but equally of Colum
bia DR.. Green does not deny, but adj
mits that when the Assembly in 1881
returned to the Synods the ownership
and control of Columbia Seminary it
was provided that the Seminary here.
after sustain to the General Assembly
the same relation as that now sus
tanned by Union Theological Semi
nary"
He was right when, in his report to
the General Assembly of 1885, he
placed the reports from Union and Co
lumbia upon precisely the same foot
ing. He was wrong, however, when
he stated that these reports are made
" simply as information" They give in
formation upon which the advice, re-
commentator, approval, or disapprov-
al Of the supreme court of the Church
may be had. Neither of these institu.
tiOns is under the government and con
troll of the Assembly-they are owned