Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-07-22
UNION SEMINARY.
REV. DR. MOORE IN RESPONSE 70
REV. OR. MuLWAlNE.
He Hzpaains HE Speech Urging ne r.
novAl q the lnstitution From
Aampien-s Sidney.

40 the Editor OF the Dispatch:
have Just received a clipping from the
sunday Dispatch containing the criticisms
OF my friend. Dr. McIlwaine. upon the
report Of my recent remarks in Richmond
concerning the proposed removal OF Union
Theological Seminary. Nothing Is farther
from my purpose than to engage In
newspaper controversy over this matter
In It's present stage. though II Is a singu-
lar fact that DIR. Mcilwaine does not
touch either OF the two main grounds
upon which stated that the Board OF
Directors based their action In appoint
Ing the committee OF investigation. which
Z represented at Richmond. IT may De
that these grounds were not mentioned
In the report which he saw. and which
was evidently not a complete or verbatim
report. At any rate. the things to which
he devotes his attention occupied subor-
innate place in my remarks. and were
certainly stated in a very different way
by me from that In which 1 ma thein
stated in his communication.
A NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..
upon n Misrepresentation. And as 90
not care 20 be misunderstood in this way.
either by him or by my other friends
Mt Hampdcn- Sidney or elsewhere. ! beg
leave TO submit a few brief statements,
which, / trust. will put a very diHereht
face on the matter
I. i did not say that most OF our lite-
rary institutions had heretofore been To-
Gated In cities. said exactly the OPP
posite OF this. and even gave the reasons
for their rural location.
2. did say that there was gro",ns
conviction among the friends OF the
seminary that II should be transplanted
10 n city. In presenting this point 1
was careful TO state repeatedly that the
considerations adduced were such as APP
piled especially TO professional Schools
that is. schools Of law. medicine ana
theology. ms distinguished from academic
institutions.
3. did not say that the cost or living
was greater for students at Hampden-
Sidney than IL would be at Richmond.
In speaking of certain external advantages
possessed by the latter l merely alluded
in passing TO the additional expense
incurred by many OF our students IN
travelling to and from Richmond when-
ever they needed TO consult an ocuiist.
II was simply one OF a number OF minor
itorns mentioned to show that the entire
weight. even of that argument. did not
lie in favor of Hampden-Sidney. That
Esmpden- Sidney also possess some au-
yantaees over Richmond is unquestionably
true. and 80 stated that evening.
4. did not compare the social ana
religious influences Of Richmond ana
Hampden-S Sidney 10 the disadvantage OF
the. latter. call my audience to witness
that 1 stated cmphatically that Ioveiier
body of Christian people could not be
found on this planet than those VINO i've
at Hampden-Sidney.
A LITTLE PLEASANTLY.
s. Surely there was a twinkle In the
ave Of my honored friend when he made
that little fling at the faculty about the
prenching. lie could not have said
thing like that except as plNsantry. But
ne does not seem to be aware or the
fact that on two occasions the Board or
Directors has instructed the faculty TO
do this very thing-viz. to provide ior
preaching by members OF the senior class
on Sunday nights. 1t Is well known that
there were additional and imperative rea-
sons for this arrangement during the last
two sessions, growing out OF the illness
and death Of two Of our professors, ana
that II was distinctly stated that the ar
rangement was only temporary. as II
had been in former years.
s. There are no legal grounds on which
prevented If the trustees and the con-
trolling synods agree that 1t should be
done.
Z. DIR. McIlwaine asks. VIII the Synod
Of Virginia consent? ] am sure ! cannot
tell; but. judging from the action OF the
board already taken. with extraordinary
unanimity, and In obedience to which
visited your city, / should think II would
depend largely upon the Inducements that
may be offered by such places as Rich
mond. If they should be satisfied that
they could secure more advantageous
location for their institution by the
change. I think they would move IT. III
not, l think they will let II remain
g. Permit me to remind the people OF
prince Edward and the surrounding coun-
try that they are as fully at liberty
under the action of the board, TO oner IN
ducements TO keep the seminary as other
places are to secure IL. For, as stated
at Richmond the action of the board as
10 place was tentative. Why not adopt
DR. Mcflwaines suggestion TO set about
helping the institution to secure the de-
sired improvements where II standsf
NOT A LOCAL QUESTION.
3. II will be observed that / have not
here discussed the main question. That
was not my object. When the main ques-
ton docs come up for discussion (and
this depends upon the further action OF
the board), let us all remember that
II Is not a personal or local question. out
one that has been deliberately raised. ar
ter years Of consideration, by an able,
earnest. and thoughtful body OF men,
and one which will affect the whole fu-
ture OF the Presbyterian Church on the
Atlantic slope: and let US endeavor TO
reach that decision of It which will most
promote the glory of God and the up
huiidiny OF His Kingdom.
w. w. MOORE.
July IS. 1894.