The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-10-17
WILL SEVER IT'S RELATIONS
Union Theological Seminary and the
General Assembly Will Part Company.
Board of Directors of the Institution Will Also
Stand by DIR. Erigcs if lie Is Convicted
of Heresy by the P~resbyiery.

the board OF directors oil the Union lneo.
logical Seminary, which took place at its
meeting last Tuesday. were to-day given
out in detail. The announcement that the
board of directors had decided to sever its
relations with the General Assem-
bly, of the Presbyterian Church Gre
ated much surprise and interest. and
the further explanation of the board,
promised for publication to-day. was
eagerly looked forward to. Ezra NJ. Kings
lev, who is secretary and treasurer OF the
seminary and recorder of the board OF
directors. said to-day. in explaining the
action of the board, that while the action
was not taken in a spirit of defiance to the
General Assembly, yet the board had TO
be governed by the seminary charter.
In speaking about the Rev. DE-. Briggs, In
regard to whose transfer the friction arose
between the seminary and Mt.
Kingsley said that should the verdict OF
the New York Presbytery be an adverse enc
at the trial next month, the board OF dlrec-
tors would combine to stand by him II he
answered the questions pr~opounded to him
In the same way as he has done hitherto.
the object was staten to be the "considera-
tiOn OF the relations between the seminary
and the General Assembly," In the report
of the executive committee was included
tuo lcRbl OPINION OI Jdmtb ~. OdEtts Oh tuo
points OF Issue between the seminar di-
rectors and the General Assembly
and q reply to the action of the
last General Assembly which the executive
committee had unanimously adopted.
The opinion presented by Mr.. Carter em.
bodies q history of the organization of the
seminary. and quotes the sections from
the charter of the institution which give
the board of directors the power to appoint
and remOve professors. to disburse the
fnndQ of fha Inafituflnn and IN
watch over and judge of the
conduct of all employed In giving in
struction as we'll as maintaining O close
observance over the morals and conduct of
those receiving Instructions. After citing
the resolutions which form the compact of
1870, giving the General Assembly the
power OF veto upon appointments, he
answered the following questions:
First-Had the General Assembly capacity to
make the agreement referred To in 1870!
SecOnd-Had the board OF directors OF the
Union Theological Seminary power to delegate
to the assembly the absolute authority to there
after veto the appointment or the election of a
professor made by the board OF directors OF the
Union theological Seminary
Third-If not. was the action OF the board IL
legal and voidl
Fourth-Is the present board of directors legal
~ or morally bound By the said action Of the
Fifth-If such action OF the board in 1870 was
illegal or void, what action should be taken by
the present board in relation TO I'll
To the fret question MIR. Carter said IL
was his opinion that the General Assembly
had not legal capacity TO make the con-
tract referred to, assuming that 1t was it's
intention to mako a binding contract. To
tho second question be gave as his
opinion that the board of directors
of the Union theological Seminary
had no power to delegate TO the General
Assembly an authority to veto the appoint
meEt or election of professors made by
such board, and that any such appointment
nr alarfinn o0nl6 mot ha \ m nnu maDnQr na-
prived of it's efficacy by. any action of
such General Assembly. The other three
questions were answered as follows:
Third am clearly of the opinion that the ac-
ton OF the board or directors OF the seminary,
in attempting to make a binding contract rela-
tive to the appointment OF professors. assuming,
as before, that such was the intent OF the offer
contained in the memorial to the General Assem-
bly,. was illegal and void.
FOURTH am clearly of the opinion that the
present board OF directors OF the seminary Is not
legally bound by the action referred to in 1870.
I do not profess to be competent TO advise
others upon moral questions In general, but 1
think L may safely declare In this instance, that
the present members OF the hoard of directors
cannot be morally bound by an act OF its prede-
cessors which was in violation OF the duty they
had taken upon themselves by accepting the
office OF director.
Fifth-It IL. in my opinion. the duty of the
present board of directors to disavow any intent
TO abdicate their functions, or to delegate them
to others, and. to that end. to rescind and annul,
BY a formal vote, the apparent offer contained in
~ II WI W ~ 0CncIul - u 4,
and TO advise the latter body of such action.
Rev. Henry Preserved Smiths Case.
Special TO the Indianapolis Journal.
CINCINNATI, Dot. 16-The trial of Rev.
Henry Preserved Smith. the eminent pro-
fessor of Greek and Hebrew in Lane Theo-
logical Seminary. accused Of teaching
heretical doctrines. begins tomorrow. He
is also charged with failure to carry out
the obligation imposed upon him when he
was ordained as q minister of the Presby-
terian Church. The a~rraignment of Prof.
Smith will take place at 10 A. NJ. and he
will be asked to plead to the indictment.
The case of Dr.. Smith Is very similar to
that of DR.. Briggs. and differs from 1t in
only one or two essential particulars. Prof.
Smith will conduct his own case. He sand
to q reporter that he would resist the
effort to convio him of heresy. although
he intimated the chances were against
him. The matter" said he, will turn on
the construction of what is meant by the
word of God"