Year: 1873

| He did not complain of this nor censure it..


but he thought it not just, when such mean'


were employed to gather students of the


class in view into the denominational schools


to reproach other schools for the small nun


Der of candidates they furnish to the Semi


naries. The argument drawn from the com


parative statistics of the different classes Of


colleges, it was contended, failed thus to


evince the necessity of institutions controlled


by the Church.


The speaker then referred in terms Of


qualification to the highly favorable opinion


expressed by DIR. Dabney of the University


of Virginia and Washington and Lee Uni


versity, and taking that opinion as starting


point, proceeded to argue:


l. That these and other non ecclesiastical


institutions offered to Presbyterians all the


advantages for the education of their sons


which were needed, without any greater


danger to their faith and morals than might


ordinarily be expected in any institution.


2. That il would be unwise 70 withdraw
from these institutions any portion of the


religious element they have contained or now


contain, by concentrating the pious and


piously trained youth of the country, in


some few church-colleges. Such students are


needed in the Universities as leaven.


3. That for Christian people to withdraw


their patronage from the institutions not un-
der UNCONVENTIONAL control would expose
them to the invasion and dominance Of inf
deity. We have had very startling disclOs-
ures and warnings on this subject. The dan
ger has not been xaggerated. Is this a
time to remove the safeguard from the great
centres of educational influence, or do aught
to weaken the hold Of sound Christianity
on them?


4. That PresbyUerians have valuable
interest in both of the institutions named by
DR.. Dabney, which it would be unwise in US
to forfeit. But if we throw the united in
fuence and patronage of the Church into the
scale of any one college we will compel the
competing colleges to look to other quarters,
for that which we have withdrawn. Thus
our interest will surely be lost to us. We
cannot expect them to consult our wishes or
work for our advantage when We turn our
backs on them.


Addressing himself directly to the substi-
tute which it had been announced would be Of
fered for the resolutions of the Report, the
speaker maintained that this paper either
gave the Synod control over Hampden Sid
ney, or it did not. If it did not, he asked,
can you, for the small advantage which it
pretends to bring to that institution, run the
risk of losing so much elsewhere? lfit does
give control, then you will decide to take
charge of the secular education of the youth
of the Church, when it is not necessary to
the discharge of your spiritual functions,
that is-to do the very thing which the res
olution, which it is understood all assent
to, virtually forbids you to do. Reference
is made in the Report and on this floor to
the example of our fathers who founded and
governed schools and colleges. They thought
them necessary, in the existing condition Of
the country, to the discharge of the proper
Offices of the Church and SO they were, for
there were not institutions in which their
SONS could be trained for the ministry. If
no such necessity now exists, then the ex-
ample is no longer of effect. If there were
no vessels on which our missionaries could
reach their foreign fields, it might bet
would be--the duty of the Church to engage
in the business of ship-building; but is it the
duty of the Church to do so aOw {? Or sup
pose that Presbyterians, having through ne
cessity, established ship-yards, had gained
great reputation as taking the lead" in
that noble enterprise, must we continue the
business, the necessity having ceased to ex-
ist-continue it lest we lose the leadership
and the prestige?


The speaker closed with an expression of
his regret that he was constrained to take
position that seemed adverse to the views
and plans of Hampden Sidney, his alma ma.
ter, in whose prosperity he had long, and still
felt the deepest interest. The president of
that institution, he had known, loved and ad-
mired from their joint school-boy days, and
never had word passed his lips but of aS
fection and commendation toward him and
the institution over which he so ably pre-


Rev. DR.. ATKINsoN-Mr. Moderator,
Dr. Kirkpatrick has asked an explanation
of the substitute for DR.. Smiths resolutions,
or rather as it would seem, of my connection
with the Offering of that substitute thinking
as he does, that its advocacy is inconsistent
with the principles maintained by me on the
floor of the last Synod.


Thatexplanation is easily given. With the
substitute as to its form and diction, have
nothing special to do. saw it for the first
time, few moments ago in this house; bat
| avow the fact that the essential feature of
the paper was first proposed by me. 1t is
the concession to the Synod of veto in the
election of the Trustees Of Hampden Sidney.
[ am willing to cOncede this much to those
who with DR.. Smith maintain that the
church should have direct control over the
schools where her children ere instructed
| make this concession not because think
with DR.. S NTH that any such control is best
in itself, but because | think that in conse-
luence of the discussion of the subject, such
istrust has been awakened IN the mind of
Presbyterians Of institutions over which
the church through her ecclesiastical bodies
exercises no control whatever, that think
it best to yield thus far.


| find it indeed hard to understand how
DR.. kirkpatrick can manifest any opposition
to the institution of such relation between
the Synod and Hampden Sidney as proposed
in the substitute. He tells US that he was
member of the committee which, through its
chairman, DR.. Smith, presented the original
resolution and that he concurred in the repsrt.
He tells us likewise that the first of these
resolutions is a mere truism and in this he
IS unquestionably correct. Why then did
DR.. kirkpatrick agree to that resolution in
committee? The only reply must be that