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

/
But 1T was soon discovered by the
friends of the Seminary that this transfer
from which many advantages were ex-
pected, was most unfortunate for its pros
perity and welfare. The Assembly be-
ing changing body, composed of an en-
tlrely different set of men every year,
could not be kept accurately informed of
the condition and needs of the institution;
and proved in other respects most unfit
body tor it's management. The question
OF its removal, which, under the condi-
lions OF the transfer, they had no right
even to discuss, was agitated from year
to year to its serious detriment. When
professors were to be elected, matter
which involved its most vital interests,
the choice had to be made by those who,
knowing little of the institution and its
special needs, could not be trusted to
make wise selection, and on more thar
one occasion it narrowly escaped the dis
aster OF having most unsuitable men ap-
pointed to its chairs
Whenever it's internal management
and discipline came up for consideration
the discussion of these delicate and diff
cult matters in open Assembly, often by
those who felt no personal interest in it's
welfare, but rather pref udice against It,
wrought incalculable damage-as notably
at the Columbus Assembly, the action of
which caused the instant resignation of
two OF It's professors, and for a time pros
trated the institution.
The friends of the Seminary saw with
dismay that the most unfortunate thing
In its whole history was its connection
with the Assembly, and earnestly desired
to undo the almost fatal act by which the
Synods which had established and built
1t up and which had loved and cherished
1t as their own offspring, had allowed it
to pass from their immediate control.
During the sessions of the Assembly IN
Charleston, in 1880, meeting of the Al
umni was held, at which resolution was
offered by myself, requesting the Assem-.
bly, then In session, to initiate some meas
ure looking to the restoration of the Sem
mary to the Synods originally owning
and controlling it. This resolution was
warmly seconded by DIR. Palmer, who
said that this was what he had long
wished, but he had never been able to
see how it could be brought about; this
seemed to him to be the proper way to
begin the movement which he earnestly
hoped would be successful. The resolu-
ton was adopted with single dissenting
voice, and the Assembly in response to
the request, expressed it's readiness to re-
store the Seminary to the Synods if they
desired it. These Synods at their next
meetings declared their wish that the
Seminary should be restored to them
and the following Assembly which met
in Staunton, did, by formal act, restore
the Seminary to the Synods.
When the Alumni asked that the Sem
mary be restored to the Synods, they
meant that it should be placed in the
same relation to them that it had occu.
pied before the transfer was made to the
Assembly in 1863-that is, that these
Synods should have absolute and entire
ownership and control of the institution;
and the very point aimed at was that the
Assembly should relinquish every YES.
tige of authority over 1t. This is what
the Synods desired it is what they ask
ed it is what they supposed was done
by the Stanton Assembly in 1881.
When the committee on Theological
Seminaries in that Assembly, offered their
report through DR.. Armstrong, their
chairman, in which it was resolved:
" That this Assembly does hereby return
the ownership and control of the said
Seminary at Columbia, to the said
Synods Of South Carolina, Georgia, and
Alabama what these Synods asked
was done. When it was added "The
Seminary hereafter to sustain to the Gen.
eral Assembly the same relation as that
now sustained by Union Theological Sem
mary, Virginia, they were probably not
aware that by the action of the Assem-
blies of 1926 and 1927, there was a GER
tain authority over that Seminary ex.
pressly reserved. The Assembly in adopt.
ing this resolution was probably not
aware Of it. 1t is very certain that the
Synods of South Carolina, Georgia, and
Alabama were not aware of it, and did
not suspect that, by using that language,
the Assembly was reserving certain pow.
ers over the Columbia Seminary, which
they had asked should be restored to
them as it was before. They Lever would
have consented to the transfer with such
reserve, and the Assembly had no right
thus to condition the transfer without
their consent; nor did it intend to do
80. The language was misleading it
was supposed that the Assembly had no
reserved power over Union Seminary,
and that the resolution was framed In
this way only to express more clearly
\ and with greater emphasis. that it would