The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1886-09-15
For the Central Presbyterian.
The Assembly and Columbia
Seminary.

MeSSrS. Editors, Returning home after
summer vacation, find great accum-
ulatlon OF religious papers on my table,
glance at the contents of which shows
that the all-absorbing subject, which has
been so much discussed of late, still &C.
cupies the attention of our editors and
their correspondents. l have not had
time to read all that has been written on
this controversy during the last two
months, but my attention has been di-
rected to communication in your issue
of June 30th, by Col. w. W. Henry, in
which he refers to me by name as chair
man of the committee on Theological
Seminaries in the Houston Assembly, and
saws that the report which there brought
in "Misstated the relations between the
Assembly and Union and Columbia Sem
inaries
The statement to which he objects is
this: THE first two of these reports come
before the Assembly simply as informa-
ton, all authority as to government and
control of these institutions being vested
in the Synods to which they belong"
He further says that this report was
presented on the last day of the Assem-
bly,, when the adjournment was near, and
the statement seems not to have attracted
any special attention"
On behalf of the committee, of which
was chairman, have to say that before
that report was presented to the Assem-
bly, it was submitted to them for criticism
and approval, their attention being spe-
cially directed to the statement above
mentioned, and without single express
sion of dissent, it was unanimously con-
Cured in. Others who were supposed to
be well informed on the subject were con-
suited, and approved it as entirely cor
rect. When the report was offered to
the Assembly, the body was in no hurry,
the report was listened to patiently, and
neither this nor any other statement in
it was challenged by any member.
AS the author of that report, believed
then and, so far as concerns the Colum.
bia Seminary, believe still, that the
statement objected to is correct. AS to
Union Seminary, am not now concerned,
but recent writer, whose article ap.
peared in several of our church papers,
says: The resolutions of the Assemblies
of 1926 and 1927, when taking Union
Seminary under its supervision &. had
been entirely altered and annulled by the
revision and revolution in the Seminary
constitution, effected in 1869, and there.
fore they were no more the law in the
case than the constitutions of Andover or
Princeton" He refers very properly to
the present constitution of the Seminary
as defining the present re atoms of that
institution to the Assembly. And if the
relation of the Columbia Seminary to the
Assembly should be determined, as it
ought to be. by reference to its constitu-
ton, the only possible inference would
be that it bears no relation whatever to
it, since the Assembly is not once men
toned therein.
Before the organization of the South.
ern General Assembly the Synods of s.
Carolina, Georgia and Alabama, had IN
der their care two institutions which they
had established and iostered, and which
bore the same relation to the controlling
Synods, viz Oglethorpe College in Geor-
gia, and the Theological Seminary in
South Carolina. Call authority as to the
government and control of these institu.
tons was vested in the Synods to which
they belonged, and the General Assem-.
bly, had nothing whatever to do with
them it never asked or received any re.
port concerning them, and did not know
that they existed. But when the South
ern Assembly was organized it was
thought to be desirable (tor reasons which
need not here be given, to place the
Seminary under its care and this wal
done at the third meeting Of that body