Columbia Theological Seminary Bulletin, 15, number 1-2, July-October 1922

BULLETIN

Vol. XV July-October, 1922 Nos. 1-2

KENTUCKY

SEMINARY AND

THE SYNODS

of the

' SOUTHWEST

Published Quarterly by the Board of Directors of the Theological
Seminary of the Synods of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama
and Florida of the Presbyterian Church in the United States

Entered as Second-Class Matter July 11, 1908, at the Postomce at Columbia
South Carolina, Under the Act of July 16, 1894

PREFATORY NOTE

Since the fall of 1918 both Kentucky and Columbia Sem-
inaries have had overtures before the Synods of the South-
west inviting those Synods to make common cause with them
respectively in the matter of theological education. The first
of these institutions devoted the issue of its "REGISTER" for
Oct.-Dec, 1921, and also an undated "EXTRA" of the same
publication to commending its overtures to these Synods.
Through the kindness of a member of its faculty, copies of both
of these have been placed in my hands, on purpose to keep me
advised of what he and his brethren of Kentucky Seminary
are doing to further their cause. Of course I appreciate the
fine spirit of courtesy that prompted his act. It is in keeping
with what I would expect from him, and strengthens the re-
gard in which I have long held him. In availing myself of
the opportunity he has thus given me to canvass before the
Synods to which they were addressed the claims set up on be-
half of Kentucky Seminary, I feel that I am only doing what
it was intended that I should do, if I so desired.

W. M. McP.

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE OVERTURES NOW
BEING MADE BY KENTUCKY SEMINARY TO
THE SYNODS OF THE SOUTHWEST.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the overtures now
being made by Kentucky Seminary to the Synods of the South-
west and the arguments by which it is seeking to commend
the same to those Synods.

Before doing so, however, I desire to say that I have only
the kindest feelings for my brethren of Kentucky Seminary.
So far as I know, and I think I am qualified to speak on the
point, to a man they are sound in the faith. Not only so, but
they are all men of fine scholarly attainments : and those of

them whom I happen to know best are men of charming per-
sonality and possessed of certain exceptional gifts. In what
I have to say of their overture to the Synods of the Southwest
and their arguments supporting the same, while I can "extenu-
ate nothing," I shall not "set down aught in malice," but shall
simply let the facts speak for themselves.

First, then, let us note the overture itself. The Southwestern
Synods are invited to reopen the Divinity School of South-
western Presbyterian University and consolidate the same with
Kentucky Seminary at Louisville. The end aimed at in this
proposed consolidation is said to be to provide for the Missis-
sippi Valley a great theological seminary, and so to fulfill the
dream cherished for generations by Presbyterian leaders of that
section and particularly by Doctors Palmer, Waddell, Shearer,
Lyons, Welch, and others. Such is their overture. To those
informed in regard to the facts of the past it will seem that
such an overture coming from Kentucky Seminary and ad-
dressed to the Synods of the Southwest has in it an element
of unconscious, but strange and sad irony. Let us see.

It may be admitted as alleged that Dr. Palmer and others
did earnestly desire to found at Clarksville a great university
with a Divinity School as one of its departments. Suppose
then, we ask why that cherished scheme still waits for adequate
realization, and, in particular, why it is that the realization of
the Divinity School feature of the scheme seems now destined
to be deferred to the future, if not indeed to be rendered un-
feasible altogether. To this question the answer of impartial
history in a few words is : Mainly because of the activities
of the Synod of Kentucky. Today Kentucky Seminary is
earnestly endeavoring to impress upon the Synods of the
Southwest the beauty and duty, the importance and advantages
of co-operation with it. How was it in 1869? At that
time Dr. Palmer was calling the attention of the Synod of Ken-
tucky, U. S. and others to the fact that there was a large and
open field for the establishment of a great university. He
had not at that time committed himself to the advocacy of any
location for this university. There is evidence, however, that
he would have been willing to see it located within the bounds
of the Synod of Kentucky, U. S. What was uppermost in his

mind and what he was pleading for was that the synods of the
Mississippi Valley take common counsel and concerted action
with a view to founding such a university. What he depre-
cated as endangering the common interest was each synod's
looking to its own things and not to the interests of a common
cause. What response did he then get from the Synod of Ken-
tucky? A letter addressed by Dr. Palmer to Dr. Stuart Rob-
inson nomen venerabile et praeclarum in 1872, furnishes
the answer. That letter represents the final effort on the part
of Dr. Palmer to head off even at the eleventh hour a course of
action on the part of the Synod of Kentucky, U. S., which he
clearly foresaw would imperil the realization of his desire for a
great university. In it Dr. Palmer says in part : "I was sorry
that you in Kentucky took that shoot of building up a college
for yourselves. * * * But it is useless to discuss this mat-
ter here; perhaps it is too late in point of time. You might
have secured the entire Southwest in the movement. I almost
despair on the whole subject." Did this indirect appeal and
gentle protest produce any effect ? Not the least. The Synod
of Kentucky went steadily ahead and in 1874 opened, at Rich-
mond, Ky., a university of, and for its own.

In 1875 the Synods of Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, and
Louisiana, more responsive to Dr. Palmer's appeal for co-
operative action than their sister Synod of Kentucky, U. S.,
opened Southwestern Presbyterian University at Clarksville.
Now note the course of subsequent events. In 1885 those in
control of S. W. P. U. felt that the time had come to open their
Divinity School, and did so. Up to the year 1893 and for a
considerable time thereafter this Divinity School was meas-
ureably fulfilling the desires and expectations of those who
founded it. But in due time a period of slow but steady de-
cline set in, until in 1918 it was deemed wise to suspend the
Divinity School altogether. If now we ask, what blighted this
promising beginning, the answer must be that in 1893 the Synod
of Kentucky, U. S., decided that the interests of the cause of
Presbyterianism, let us say not in its own bounds, but in the
Mississippi Valley, demanded the opening of a seminary at
Louisville: and in 1901 the outlook for this institution not
being all that could be desired, the Synods of Kentucky and

Missouri, U. S., concluded that the same interests demanded
that the Seminary at Louisville be combined with the Seminary
of the Synod of Kentucky, U. S. A., at Danville, which latter
institution had been taken over bodily, as we say, by the Pres-
byterian Church, U. S. A., in the fateful year 1866; and in
1907, actuated by the same regard for the interests of Presby-
terianism, not in the Synods of Kentucky and Missouri, but let
us say in the Mississippi Valley, this consolidated Seminary
called Dr. R. A. Webb from the Chair of Theology in S. W. P.
U. to the same chair in Kentucky Seminary at Louisville. Far
be it from me to sit in judgment upon the action of the Synod
of Kentucky, U. S., either in opening its Seminary at Louisville
in 1983 or in calling Dr. Webb in 1907. I simply desire to
bring before the minds of the Synods of the Southwest this
series of facts in their historical sequence, and in their causal
relations to and bearing upon the realization of the plans and
hopes of those who founded S. W. P. U. and opened there
their Divinity Department in 1885. It is this same Synod of
Kentucky, U. S., which for the past four years, and with added
eloquence and urgency in the past two years has been adjuring
the Synods of the Southwest by their veneration for the mem-
ory of Dr. Palmer and their loyalty to his ideas and ideals, to
give effect to his earnest hopes, and crown his labors by casting
in their lot with Kentucky Seminary as the great embodiment
of the co-operative principle a principle most cordially "ap-
proved by the warm Christian instincts of the generous Chris-
tian heart." Do not the facts recited justify the statement
that in all this there is a strange and sad, though of course
utterly unconscious irony? It recalls what our Lord said
about the fathers killing the prophets, and the sons building
their sepulchres.

And the case is not materially different when we turn to the
arguments by which the overture of Kentucky Seminary is now
being commended to the acceptance of the Synods of the South-
west. This argument, if I mistake not, has been framed by
the same facile and gifted pen which in 1919 urged upon the
same Synods the acceptance of the overtures then and now
being made them by Columbia Seminary. Fortunately, hav-
ing at that time a better cause to commend than he now has,

6

my distinguished former colleague in his argument of 1919 an-
ticipated and pulverized his argument of 1922. The result is
that the most that his accomplished pen has been able to do is to
impart to his argument of 1922 a specious semblance of solidity.
To exhibit the inherent and incurable weakness of the latter
argument one has only to set it in the light of the former. This
I now purpose doing.

The core of the first argument reads : "All are agreed that
the Mississippi Valley must have a seminary of commanding
rank and grade unsurpassed anywhere in our country. The
acceptance of this proposition guarantees this result." On
reading this one is disposed to ask, Since when have "all" been
thus agreed? Note again the words of Dr. Palmer's letter to
Dr. Stuart Robinson in 1872 : "I was sorry that you in Ken-
tucky took that shoot of building up a college for yourselves."
1 have italicized the words calling for special attention "for
yourselves." Since 1869 the Kentucky brethren had been fully
advertised of Dr. Palmer's hope and desire to be able to build
up a "great university" in, it may be, I cannot say; but cer-
tainly not for the Mississippi Valley. In saying this I simply
follow Dr. Palmer's biographer who states explicitly that Dr.
Palmer's wish was to build up a "great university for the
Southern Church." It is clear, then, that at that time the
vSynod of Kentucky, U. S., was not among the "all" who "are
agreed, etc." On the contrary, despite the argument of Dr.
Palmer, despite the bitter disappointment that they knew their
action would occasion him, the Synod of Kentucky, U. S.,
"took the shoot of building up a college for" themselves, not for
the Synods of the Mississippi Valley. For theirs was to be a
synodical college. Note again the language of Dr. Palmer:
"I am sorry that you in Kentucky took that shoot of building
up a college for yourselves; and thus continuing the old policy
of synodical colleges, etc." I am not now sitting in judgment
upon the wisdom of the action of the Synod of Kentucky, U. S.
But on its face, at least, it does not seem to exemplify the prin-
ciple of co-operation "approved by the warm Christian instincts
of the generous Christian heart."

Again, in 1893, the Synod of Kentucky, U. S., was not agreed
that the Mississippi Valley must have a theological seminary of

7

commanding grade and rank. If so, why did they at that time
open Louisville Seminary in Louisville? We will be told, of
course, that in taking this step they were simply carrying out
the policy contemplated from the beginning, that is, let us say,
as early as 1873 I take Dr. Hemphill's date. But will it be
observed that while that policy may have called for the estab-
lishment of a theological department in connection with Central
University, it certainly did not demand that such theological
department be located at Louisville. Is not the Synod of Ken-
tucky, U. S., now asking that the Divinity School of S. W. P.
U. be revived and located in Louisville in the bosom of Ken-
tucky Seminary. It was clearly possible, therefore, for them
to have located the divinity department of their own university
elsewhere than in Louisville. Indeed, "the Kentucky propo-
sition," while it mentioned Louisville as a possible location for
the theological seminary which was to be a department of Cen-
tral University, also mentioned two other places namely, St.
Louis to the north, and Nashville to the south of Louisville.
But the one location for this proposed divinity department that
we would have expected them to name in their "proposition"
of 1891 is conspicuous by its absence. That place, of course,
was Clarksville, where the Divinity School had been established
by Dr. Palmer and his venerated associates, and had been in
successful operation for six years. I have said above that in
1893 the Synod of Kentucky was not agreed that the Missis-
sippi Valley must have a seminary of commanding rank and
grade. But let me hasten to confess that I am mistaken : and
for my mistake I beg the pardon of my brethren of that Synod.
It was made, I may say, in all good faith. It was only when,
by chance, to make sure of certain other facts, I refreshed my
memory by a reference at this point to the record, that I found
to my surprise that in 1891 the Synod of Kentucky, U. S., did
not hesitate to come forward with a "proposition" to establish
"a first-class theological seminary for the Mississippi Valley."
Why do I say "did not hesitate"? What reason had they to
hesitate about making such a statement? I answer, because
they knew that Dr. Palmer and his venerated associates had
already planted at Clarksville a theological seminary for the
Mississippi Valley : and because they themselves are insisting

8

that "there is na room for twa" theological seminaries in the
Mississippi Valley. It seems, then, that in 1893 these so ardent
apostles of the "principle of co-operation" "approved" let it
be noted "by the warm Christian instincts of the generous
Christian heart" deliberately entered into a life and death com-
petition with a seminary that had been planted six or eight years
before by whom? by Dr. Benjamin M. Palmer, whose
"hopes and prayers" these brethren are now assiduously en-
gaged in realizing.

Just one other reference here to a somewhat painful history.
By 1901 the Synod of Kentucky, U. S., was, it seems, not alto-
gether satisfied with the progress being made by the "first-class"
note the word and its unhappy implication "the first-class
theological seminary" that they had established in competition
with the one previously established by Dr. Palmer. It will be
seen that now again they have the opportunity not merely of
extolling, but of exemplifying, that principle of co-operation so
cordially "approved by the warm Christian instinrts of the gen-
erous Christian heart." And they do exemplify it. But how?
By turning toward the brethren to the south of them whose
existence they had previously ignored nay worse than
ignored? Not at all. When the time came that their own in-
terests seemed to them to dictate co-operation, they turned
from their brethren to the south and entered into "organic co-
operation" with the theological seminary of the Synod of Ken-
tucky, U. S. A. Then, and thus it was that this principle of co-
operation became "embodied in Kentucky Theological Sem-
inary."

But coming down now to a much later date, as late even as
1919 there is at least one exception to the sweeping statement
that "all are agreed, etc.," too important to be passed over in
silence. I refer to none other than the distinguished Professor
of Theology in Kentucky Seminary itself. Why do I say so?
Because my honored brother, who was at that time the repre-
sentative and mouthpiece of Columbia Seminary, and, as such,
only authorized to speak the minds of its Fa'culty and Board
of Directors and controlling Synods, was, as such, earnestly
endeavoring to induce the Synods of the Southwest to cast in
their lot with that institution. These Synods were urged to do

so, that they, in conjunction with the Synods owning and con-
trolling Columbia Seminary, might build up a strong seminary
not for the Mississippi Valley, but for our church as a whole.
And he was authorized to say that, if the way proved clear,
those owning and controlling Columbia Seminary would be
willing to unite with their brethren of the Synods of the South-
west in building up such a seminary near the center of our
church's territory, east of the Mississippi. That those for
whom my distinguished brother then spoke -and let me add,
spoke so wisely and effectively never contemplated building
up a seminary for the Mississippi Valley surely needs no proof.
But if proof be demanded, it can be abundantly furnished.
Further, it was after the Board of Directors of Columbia Sem-
inary had been formally and explicitly notified that such an
overture from them to the Synods of the Southwest might
eventuate in the removal of the Seminary from its present loca-
tion to the center of the church, that the then President of
Columbia Seminary was authorized by the Board to make the
overture. Finally, among other considerations that were at
that time urged in favor of the removal of Columbia Sem-
inary to the center of our church was this namely, that such
would be the most practical way of safeguarding the integrity
of our church against influences prejudicial to that integrity
that might at any time emanate from Kentucky Seminary.
So far, then, were those for whom he then spoke from being
agreed that there must be a seminary for the Mississippi Val-
ley that the question of location inside or outside of the Missis-
sippi Valley was, as it ought to have been, a purely secondary
and inconsequential consideration.

This, perhaps, will be the best place to note the statement
that the Synods of the Southwest together with the Synods of
Kentucky, Missouri and Appalachia, U. S. and the Synod of
Kentucky, U. S. A. constitute a "homogeneous constituency,
marked by a well-nigh perfect solidarity." Perhaps it will
be enough in this connection simply to repeat what was so well
and truly said by the distinguished ex-President of Columbia
Theological Seminary in a little brochure published by him in
1919 for the information of the Synods of the Southwest. He
was explaining to them why he was making "the remarkable

10

proposition" that he had been authorized to make to them.
The very first reason that he gives reads as follows : "Because
you are like us and we are like you. There is a solidarity be-
twixt the Presbyterians of Tennessee and Carolina and the
Presbyterians of Mississippi and Georgia. They are of the
same strain and type and traditions and characteristics. It can-
not be denied that there is a difference between various Synods
in the Church ; there are the border Synods of Texas, Okla-
homa, Missouri and Kentucky, and then there are the Synods
which constitute the heart of the Church somewhat revolving
around Tennessee and Mississippi and including Carolina and
Georgia. It can be easily established that Tennessee is more
like Carolina than it is like Missouri, and Mississippi more like
Georgia than it is like Kentucky in doctrinal views, and
ecclesiastical practices. A woman could not preach for two
weeks in one of the leading pulpits in Tennessee or Mississippi
any more than she could in Carolina and Georgia. You may
take the issues as defined by our General Assembly in 1918,
which divided the Southern Church from the Northern Church,
and in every one of these points your Synods would stand with
us, while the border Synods now seeking affiliation with you
would stand well, who knows ! Their ecclesiastical status is
so uncertain that no prophet could certainly predict."

Let us now notice the second argument advanced. It is this :
'"The acceptance of this overture secures for the Southwestern
Synods the kind of seminary which they really desire." Then
follows a reference to the history of the Seminary at Louisville,
to its curriculum, to its present faculty, and to its location. It
is interesting to note that in the reprint from the bulletin of
Columbia Theological Seminary for January, 1919, from which
I have previously quoted, on page 6, my friend and former
colleague, Dr. Whaling, speaking of Columbia Theological Sem-
inary, says to these very same "Southwestern Synods" : "You
are offered the kind of an institution that you really want."
He is able to support his affirmation in the bulletin by this
very conclusive evidence, "This is proven by the fact that your
Synods once voted to consolidate with Columbia Seminary.
You knew then, and you, of course, know now that this is the
kind of school that suits you." And again, on page 7, still

11

speaking of Columbia Seminary, he says : "This institution
is splendidly equipped for service today, with a full corps of
professors all of whom are specialists in their respective fields,
with a complete curriculum which covers the entire field of
theological study, and with an ardent and enthusiastic body of
students of high character and good scholastic preparation."
It is a matter of great gratification to me that I am able to cite
upon this point so unbiased and so thoroughly competent a wit-
ness as Dr. Whaling.

We come now to the third in this series of arguments. This
is evidently the center of the logical phalanx by which it is
hoped to carry the Synods of the Southwest for the overture of
Kentucky Seminary. "By the acceptance of this overture the
Southwestern Synods can obtain without the expenditure of
a dollar a well-equipped and endowed theological seminary."
Let me admit at once that on its face this is what would be
called in commercial parlance "an attractive proposition." In-
deed, as the framer of the argument elaborates it, he does it
with such enthusiasm that before he is through he appears to be
aglow with admiration for the unselfish generosity of Kentucky
Seminary in its attitude toward the Synods of the Southwest.
He concludes by saying : "The attitude of the Seminary is
truly Pauline : 'Brethren, we seek not yours, but you.' ' This,
however, is a day of "flattering propositions," and most of us
have learned by this time to study them calmly before accepting
them.

Reading this particular proposition, one almost gets the im-
pression that Kentucky Seminary is turning over to the Synods
of the Southwest its plant, endowment, and faculty as a gift.
"By the acceptance of this overture" we read "the South-
western Synods can obtain without the expenditure of a dollar,
etc." But there is a familiar sound about the phrase "can ob-
tain without the expenditure of a dollar" that at once puts us
upon our guard. Of course, Kentucky Seminary not only is
not making a gift of its plant, endowment and faculty to the
Southwestern Synods, but it is not even offering those Synods
the free use of these advantages for their candidates in per-
petuity. Nor, if such were the proposition, would the South-
western Synods be the men to accept it. They may have, and

12

will have, like their sister Synods, educational burdens to bear,
but these will not render them willing to be as it were the
beneficiaries of Kentucky Seminary, or any other seminary,
in the matter of theological education.

But even when stripped of the glamor of generosity with
which it has been invested by the skillful pen that drew it, this
proposition has on its face sufficient appearance of substantial
advantages to justify the Synods of the Southwest in giving
it serious consideration. Kentucky Seminary has a noble
plant. It has also a handsome endowment, and one that prom-
ises to grow larger. For its faculty I have already expressed
my appreciation. Fortunately, I am in a position to show that
it is after all a less attractive offer than the one being made
them by Columbia Seminary along similar lines. In 1919 Dr.
Whaling made the following presentation of the proposition
being made by the Synods controlling Columbia Seminary to
their sister Synods of the Southwest : "Instead of offering you a
trifling, infinitesimal fraction, like a tenth or a fifteenth or some-
thing like that, we offer you one-half plus, that is, more than
one-half of the ownership and control of the Seminary; instead
of offering you a fraction of a half, dividing ownership and
control between our Church and another Church, we offer you
something over a full half of the ownership and control of
Columbia Seminary. This is a remarkable proposition, which I
feel confident cannot be duplicated and I challenge you to in-
vestigate whether it is really duplicated in any proposal now
made to you by others. The details as to name, plans, policies,
etc., are left for settlement to you when you become virtual
owners and administrators of this great Seminary."

In reply to this it may be said that material changes have
occurred in the situation since 1919; and this is true. Two
such changes have occurred. One is that Dr. Whaling, who at
that time was President of Columbia Seminary, has since be-
come Professor of Theology in Kentucky Seminary. I should
be the last to underestimate the importance of this change. As
the result of it, Dr. Whaling's proposition of 1919 may seem
measurably less "remarkable" to him now than it did then, but
that proposition need not on that account seem less inviting to
the Southwestern Synods than it was then. For them a more

13

significant change is, that, whereas, in 1919, the Synods of Ken-
tucky and Missouri, U. S., owned a one-half interest in the plant
and endowment of Kentucky Seminary, today they with the
Synod of Appalachia, U. S., seem to own a two-thirds interest
in these properties. For it appears that as a basis for the over-
ture now being made to the Synods of the Southwest, the
Synod of Kentucky, U. S. A., has agreed to turn over
to its associate Synods, U. S., one-third of its original
financial interests in Kentucky Seminary. So that today
the Synods of Kentucky, Missouri and Appalachia, U.
S., have a one-sixth larger interest in the plant and endow-
ment of Kentucky Seminary than they had in 1919. It would
hardly be worth while, however, for the Synods of the South-
west to appoint a special committee to work out the mathemat-
ical problem that would show them just how much more ad-
vantageous is the offer now being made than the one which in
1919 Dr. Whaling advised them to turn down in favor of the
offer of Columbia Seminary: de minimis lex non curat neither
do serious-minded men. The underlying principle of Dr.
Whaling's argument in 1919 is as unanswerable today as it was
then. With the substitution of two-thirds for one-half it is
this "Instead of offering you a fraction of a two-thirds, di-
viding ownership and control between our Church and another
Church, we offer you something over a full half of the owner-
ship and control of Columbia Seminary." The weakness of the
offer then and now made by Kentucky Seminary is inherent
and incurable. It lies in the fact that the ownership and con-
trol of that institution is divided between our Church and an-
other Church. Be the proportionate part owned by the other
Church one-half or two-sixths, it is in either case enough for
practical purposes gravely to embarrass under certain circum-
stances.

In considering this offer of Kentucky Seminary the Synods
of the Southwest will do well to look carefully into such ques-
tions as the following:

1. Has the Synod of Kentucky, U. S. A., by agreeing to a
change in its proportionate representation on the Board of Ken-
tucky Seminary divested itself of one-sixth of its original inter-

14'

ests in the assets of the institution, and turned over said sixth
to its associate Synods, U. S., gratis?

2. Had the Synod of Kentucky, U. S., a right under the
covenant of 1901, by which Danville and Louisville Seminaries
and Centre College and Central University respectively became
consolidated, thus to transfer a sixth of its original assets to
its associate Synods, U. S. ? And here it should be noted that
the covenant of 1901 was what may be called a quadrilateral
covenant that is, a covenant affecting four institutions. Can
such a covenant be changed, I mean legally changed, by two of
the original parties?

3. In case, after the Synods of the Southwest have for a
term of years been contributing of their moneys to the expan-
sion of Kentucky Seminary, they should wish to withdraw, or
let us say they and the three other Synods, U. S. should wish
to withdraw, who will have the final word in the interpretation
of the covenant of 1901 as subsequently modified by any agree-
ments made in 1921 or 1922? And here the Synods of the
Southwest should note that unless the Supreme Court of the
United States reverses itself, it will be the General Assembly,
U. S. A., that will have the final voice in interpreting the orig-
inal covenant and its modifications. Though, with two General
Assemblies involved, it is hard to say certainly what the ruling
of the United States Supreme Court would be. It is one thing
to accept an interest in a handsome plant and endowment, and
another to accept an interest in a possible lawsuit. The latter
will have few attractions for thoughtful and peace-loving men.

In dismissing this argument I shall only add that while ma-
terial considerations even in such a matter as this are under
certain circumstances, entitled to due weight, still it is obvious
that in a transaction directly involving high spiritual inter-
ests material considerations can only have a very subordinate
place and weight, and may have none at all.

The fourth argument by which the overture of Kentucky
Seminary is being commended to the Synods of the Southwest
is: "In accepting this invitation the Southwestern Synods are
protected by safeguards which eliminate the danger of heresy
or misappropriated funds." This argument, it seems to me, is
sufficiently answered by what has been said in dealing with the

15

one immediately preceding. If any additional answer is needed
it is supplied by the statement already cited above from my
honored friend and brother, Dr. Whaling: "It can be easily
established that Tennessee is more like Carolina than it is like
Missouri, and Mississippi more like Georgia than it is like Ken-
tucky in doctrinal views, and ecclesiastical practices. A woman
could not preach for two weeks in one of the leading pulpits in
Tennessee or Mississippi any more than she could in Carolina
and Georgia. You may take the issues as defined by our Gen-
eral Assembly, in 1918, which divided the Southern Church
from the Northern Church, and in every one of these points
your Synods would stand with us, while the border Synods now
seeking affiliation with you would stand well, who knows!
Their ecclesiastical status is so uncertain that no prophet could
certainly predict."

The fifth and last of the arguments advanced by Kentucky
Seminary reads : "The acceptance of this overture by the Syn-
ods of the Southwest will furnish a striking illustration of their
cordial sympathy with the principle of co-operation with other
Presbyterian and Reformed Churches which our Assembly has
so frequently and without exception endorsed when opportu-
nity presented itself.'' After what has been said it would seem
unnecessary to add anything in regard to Kentucky Seminary's
idea of co-operation. Its whole history up to the present time
reveals what will seem to many to be a one-sided and distorted
conception of co-operation. But when they say "co-operation
endorsed by the General Assembly of our Church, approved by
the warm Christian instincts of the generous Christian heart,
ought to win and must win the day, especially since our General
Assembly has for twenty years by official action endorsed this
principle as embodied in Kentucky Theological Seminary, and
the whole Church thus stands upon this generous and construc-
tive program" I say, when such a statement as this is made it
becomes necessary again to recall some painful history. I
venture to say, then, that our General Assembly has never en-
dorsed the principle of co-operation as embodied in Kentucky
Theological Seminary. Let the appeal be to the record. The
following, then, is the action of our General Assembly in 1901,
when it was confronted with the consolidation of Louisville

16

Seminary, U. S., and Danville Seminary, U. S. A., as an accom-
plished fact, and as a fact accomplished without the Assem-
bly itself having been consulted in the premises, or even
notified that such consolidation was contemplated.

"The consideration of the report of the Standing Commit-
tee on Theological Seminaries was resumed. The substitute
for the majority report was amended, and adopted, and is as
follows :

That while the Assembly may not wholly approve the wis-
dom of the consolidation of the two seminaries, yet, in view of
the fact that there was practical unanimity in the Synods of
Kentucky and Missouri as to the measure, and because of the
safeguards thrown about the compact, this court hereby inter-
poses no bar to such consolidation, but gives its assent thereto,
leaving the entire responsibility thereof to the Synods of Ken-
tucky and Missouri."

Let it be noted also in this connection that there was a major-
ity report of the Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries
advocating that the consolidation be formally disapproved.
Further, while the Assembly, as in the first instance, has
continued to deal courteously and considerately with the
Synods of Kentucky and Missouri, U. S., in this matter,
accepting reports from Kentucky Seminary along with similar
reports from other seminaries, it is a questionable return for
such courtesy to represent the Assembly as having in any sense
receded from its original position. I venture to say that if put
to the vote today, the judgment of the Church would still be
that such "organic co-operation" in so vital a matter as theolog-
ical education is so anomalous as not to approve itself wise.
In conclusion I can do no better than quote these statements
from the little brochure of 1919 already referred to :

"Palmer was three times professor at Columbia, and no one
who knows his position could ever believe that he would vote to
affiliate these Synods with an institution which was not marked
by single ownership and by thorough adherence to the recog-
nized policies and doctrinal views of the Southern Presbyterian
Church."

17

"We have a great regard for that splendid Seminary at
Louisville, two of whose professors are alumni of Columbia,
but we think that its natural and legitimate field is the border
Synods of the two Churches which it represents, and that it
ought to seek extension not by breaking into the heart of the
Church, South, but by bringing in Indiana, Illinois and Ohio."

18