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