The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1886-09-29

are latltudlnarlan, and seem
to me to be as much so as those rules of
adopted by the Northern
Presbyterian Church, which led to the
organization of the Southern Church, and
the separation of the Synods of Missouri
and Kentucky. The ground taken by
those Synods was that in the lpSo fdcto |
resolutions, the Northern Assembly had
attempted that which the constitution
did not empower it to do, and therefore
its acts were null and void. And 1t was
in reliance upon this principle that the
property contest was waged by the Synod
of Kentucky. In the correctness OF this
view the whole Southern Church acqui
esced and supported those Synods. 1t Is
too late now for our Church to adopt
different principle.
regret that l did not have the pleas
ure of hearing Col. Henry speech before
the Assembly on this subject. 1t Is said
to have been very able. In his publish
ed articles find positions taken and de-
Tended by him from which, with all def
erence, 1 am constrained to dissent
He claims, as 1 understand him, that
under certain general provisions of the
constitution the Assembly has the power
to exercise a control over the seminaries
through the constitutional channels, other
than and superior to that granted by the
agreement between the Assembly and the
Summarizes control of which the AS
sembly cannot divest itself even by such
agreement. Col. Henry refers, in sup
port of his views, to such provisions OF
the constitution as that it shall have
power to bear testimony against error In
doctrine and immortality in practice in
luriously affecting the Church" to de-
eide all controversies respecting doctrine
and discipline-to superintend the affairs
of the whole Church, etc., etc. He says
in his first article these powers certain
ly embrace the control of the Synods in
their management of the seminaries.
The matter is certainly ecclesiastical,
etc. I venture to suggest some consider
atoms to which, it seems to me, he has
not given due weight. These general
provisions are always to be construed IN
connection with others in the constitution
which regulate and limit their exercise.
Though his application of these provis-
ions may be correct to certain extent,
he presses it too far. If his view be right
does it not logically lead to this result
that every school, academy or college
for the religious education of the youth
of the Church must be under this control
of the Assembly? If not, why not? And
where will you draw the line? While
these or similar provisions have always
been in the constitution OF the Church,
has the Assembly under them, ever claim
ed or exercised any such control until
now? Even if you limit it to theological
seneinaries, the practice of the Church to
allow Presbyteries and Synods to estab-
| lish such institutions under their own
control, without acknowledging any con-
troll in the Assembly other than such as
was agreed on between it and them has
been too long sanctioned to be now called
in question. From a very early period
these provisions have received construc-
ton from the Assembly and the Church,
very different from that now put upon
them by Col. Henry and others.
The agreement of 1926, made between
Hanover Presbytery and the Assembly,
is conclusive evidence of this Baird 8
Digest, PIP. 442-3, referred to by COL
Henry The institution referred to in
that agreement had existed for some
years altogether independent Of the AS
selnbly; and the able men concerned in
making the agreement seem never to
have imagined that the Assembly had
any control over it other than as stipu-
lated therein. The Assembly treats with
the Presbytery as an Independent body
in this matter, and as if it could give to
or withhold from the Assembly control
over the seminary as it chose.
This question substantially seems to
have been raised before the General As
sembly as early as 1880 (Bairds Digest,
PIP. 441-2). At that time, and before,
there were several theological seminaries
in existence or contemplated, under the
control Of different Synods, and indepen-
dent of the General Assembly. West
Lexington Presbytery sent memorial
to the Assembly setting forth the evils
which, in the opinion of the memorialists,
| threatened the Church from the opera
ton of numerous theological seminaries,
existing Independently of the Assem-
bly, and proposed that the Assembly
should take all of them under its imme-
date and absolute control. This memo
rial was referred in 1929 to Drs. A. Alex
ander, Samuel Miller, and Charles
Hodge. This able committee reported
to the Assembly in 1880. In that re-
port, while admitting the evils Of this in
dependence, they say as follows {" Be-
lieving, however, that it is perfectly COM
ID L l.