The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1886-11-03
For the Central Presbyterian.
The Assembly and the Seminary.

Assembly In tnls anu III ali mdlleIs 10
to be found in the constitution of the
Church and in that alone.
What then becomes OF the genius OF
Presbyterianism as a source OF power, as
claimed by the Assembly? 1t surely can.
not be contended that, that phrase, and
the words 1.-The constitution of the Church,
are one and the same. If So it is untor.
tunste they did not sag the constitutions
OF the Church, which every one would
understand.
Mr.. Henry again cites the general pro-
visions of the constitution, which In his
opinion sustains the claim of power as
serted by the Assembly Let us under
stand what this claim is. The Assembly
claimed that by the genius of Presbyte-
rianism it had such supervisory jurisdic-
tion over the corporations OF Union and
Columbia Seminaries as authorized 1T to
direct the removal of a Professor and
through the Synods controlling them to
compel obedience to its directions or re.
quirements.
This is the Interpretation put by the
Assembly on the propositions adopted by
it, in the resolution recorded on pages 40
and Al of the minutes IN which the As
sembly directs the Synods to remove Dr.
Woodrow. 1t is true that this resolution
was subsequently changed by substituting
the word recommend Tor direct but
the change was made without abandon
ing, or intending to abandon, the claim
as before asserted. l cited, as showing
that thesconstruction Mr.. Henry put ur-
on these provisions of the constitution
should not now be acted upon-the re.
port of Drs. Alexander and Miller, and
the action of the Assembly of 1880; and
said, "This committee did not question
the fact that these seminaries existed in
dependently of the General Assembly, or
that such independence was consistent
with the constitution of the Church, and
nowhere intimate that the Assembly had
any control over them" To this Mr..
Henry replies; and, referring to the state
meDt of the committee that the plan OF
controlling the schools must not be in
consistent with the constitution of the
Church" he says, "This" the (constitu-
tion) would require that the Assembly
exercise a supervisory control over these,
as over all the interests of the Church. "
/ respectfully submit that this is a com
plete begging OF the question. 1t assumes
that Mr.. Henrys construction Is the right
one-which is the point in dispute! NV
construction of this action of the commit
tee and the Assembly is, that they dis
tinctly recognize the right of the Synods
to establish such seminaries and manage
them without any control by the Assem-
bly,, supervisory or otherwise, provided
h. ,ol1- - al moo ~, OIL or raopaofo
consistent with the constitution of the
Church - and to entertain this view,
cited the fact that Columbia was at that
time independent of the Assembly, with
out any arrangement with the Assembly
for supervisory cont oil by it, and with
out any such control being exercised or
claimed by the Assembly; and SO con-
tinued down to 1868 | might have cited
Lane, and | believe, other seminaries as
in the same condition. Also various
colleges established and controlled by
Syno3s in the Northern States, without
the slightest supervisory control over
them being acknowledged as in the AS
sembly, or exercised, or claimed by it,
down to the division of the Church in
1861. And / placed this unbroken &C.
ton of the Church for so long period
against the opinion of Mr.. Henry and
the Augusta Assembly.
pass on to my next position. That
no Church constitution can give, and no
Church court can have, any authority
whatever over these corporations, except
so far as it is given by the civil law, or
by agreement with the corporations. |
understand Mr. Henry to concede this in
these sentences {" do not contend as
Judge Armstrong seems to think, that
the charter of the seminaries can be vio-
lated by the Assembly. 1t is only when
these charters permit the Assembly to
exercise supervision that it can do SO"
And he admits "the binding obligation
Of arrangements made with these corpo.
rsticns by the Assembly" 1t seems to
me that in this Mr.. Henry virtually
sbsndons his position as to the authority
over them given by the constitution, and
his defence of the proposition of the AS
sembly which l have been discussing
For if the Assembly cannot have any su.
pervision over these corporations but
what is given by the charters, or agree.
ments made in pursuance of them, how
can the constitution of the Church, or the
genius Of Presbyterisnism give it?
This brings me to consider the resolu
ton in regard to Dr. Woodrow, which,
though based on the assertion of power
which l have been discussing, merely
recommends" and does not "drect.
This resolution was not intended to con-