BULLETIN OF Wcp ^ologtral ^mttrarg OF THE 0jjttii&0 of &tm\\\ (Earolttta (gwtrgta, Alabama anb 3Uonna LOCATED AT (Holnmbta, &mx\\\ Carolina A Nntabb Sworb Published Quarterly by the Board of Directors of the Theological Seminary of the Synods of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Alabama of the Presbyterian Church in the United States Vol. 3. JULY, J9J0 No. J, [Entered as Second Class Matter July 11. 1908. at the Postoffiee at Columbia. S. C. under the Act of July 16, 1894] COLUMBIA SEMINARY A Retrospect Involving a Responsibility Its Local This institution is, at present, the joint prop- Habitation erty of the Synods of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Florida. It is now in its 82d year. It is located in the beautiful and historic capital of South Carolina. Columbia is situated on heights overlooking the Congaree. It is noted for the salubrity of its climate, and for the intelligence and refinement of its people. Latterly it has entered upon what promises to be- a career of steady if not, indeed, of even phenomenal develop- ment. The establishment of large manufacturing enter- prises in the various suburbs of the city means, not only increased material prosperity for the city, but enlarged opportunities for mission work by the students of the Seminary. Retrospect Our retrospect will concern itself with exhibiting the aims and hopes of those who founded the Seminary; and with inquiring how far these aims and hopes have been realized, or the reverse. The Situation in 1828 An Urgent ^ e Seminary formally opened its doors in Call the year 1828. It was the practical recogni- tion, by the fathers of that day, of the fact that they owed something to their own generation and something also to those who were to come after them. Looking around them, they saw even then fields white to the harvest. An increasing population with pressing spiritual needs was filling the boundaries both of South Carolina and Georgia. Looking ahead of them into the future, the fathers of that day foresaw that time would make the call for efficient laborers in this field only the more urgent.* Their children, even then, had begun to turn their eyes westward. The States of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana were being settled by those whose antecedents were in South Carolina and Georgia. The Christian people of these two States not unnaturally followed with eager interest not only the material, but also the spiritual progress of those who had gone out from them, and were still of them. A Worthy ^ e l uest i on * a supply of suitable laborers Response to overtake the great destitutions existing on every hand, was a question which at that time was being eagerly canvassed all along the Atlantic coast. Princeton, was the answer given by those living in the Northern tier of States. Union Seminary, in Virginia, was the answer given by those in the Middle tier. Those living in the Southern tier felt that the answers given by their brethren to the north of them would be not a sufficient answer for the question as it confronted them. They knew that no other section of the church could appreciate their needs as they themselves did. It required no great insight for them to perceive that no section of the church could be expected to send their best men to supply these needs. Any supply coming from either Princeton or Union Seminaries must be drawn, for the most part, either from the surplus or from the inefficients of these institutions. The latter, of course, they did not wish. And at a time when the needs of all were so pressing, the former seemed a far too uncertain source of supply, f The fathers of 1828 felt that the tier *In 1830 the total population of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Florida was 1,625,265. In 1900 it was 5,913,886. Today it must be nearly 7,000,000. In 1828 there were only 8,583 in the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia. Today in the four Synods there are 67,562 communicants. fBetween 1889 and 1904 there were 139 candidates from the Synod of Virginia at Union Seminary. During that period 123 of the graduates of that institution on leaving the Seminary settled in the Synod of Vir- of States beginning with South Carolina, in the extreme east, and extending westward through Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and across "the Father of Waters," needed both more and better laborers than they could reasonably expect would be raised up for them and sent to them from other sections of the church. They were not animated by any sense of a lack of solidarity between them- selves and their brethren to the north of them. They were one with these brethren in heart and mind. It was because they felt their unity with them that they felt their respon- sibility to help them meet the exigencies which were upon the church, as a whole. They believed that they could render this help most efficiently by doing for the territory contiguous to themselves what the brethren who founded Princeton, in New Jersey, and Union Seminary, in Virginia, were attempting to do for the territory contiguous to them. They believed that the best way to help on the work in the other parts of the church was by helping themselves. Hence they determined to pay their debt to their own generation by building the wall over against their own house : and to pay their debt to the future by leaving to those who should come after them not only the actual fruit of their labors, but the instruction and inspiration of their example. This is not conjecture. It is history. Let us see. Aims and Hopes of Founders The first direct reference that I find to the aims and hopes of those who founded Columbia Seminary occurs in the narrative of the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia for the year 1832. This was four years after the Seminary opened its doors. The language referred to reads as follows : ginia and 18 candidates from that Synod went as foreign missionaries. In other words, during that period of fifteen years the candidates from the Synod of Virginia were not enough to supply ministers for its own churches. Of course, it had none to spare to supply the destitutions of other Synods. T b Prin- "** 1S t0 ^ ^P e( ^ t ^ iat ^ e P^od 1S not ^ ar cipal Source distant, when the school of the prophets to of Ministerial which principally our Churches look for the Supply successors of those who are removed from the Ministry by death for the Pastors who are to break the bread of life among our numerous Misap- plied Churches, shall be so amply furnished by Christian liberality with the means of imparting a complete Theo- logical Education, that it shall not be behind similar institu- tions to which the Churches in other parts of our land look for their spiritual guides." The same ideas are not obscurely hinted at in this language found in the narrative of 1834 : First Fruits "And it is not a small accession to the number An Earnest of our Ministers, to have ten more young, vigorous, intelligent, zealous and well fur- nished for the work, ready to co-operate with those who have borne the burden and heat of the day. The Synod will doubtless hail with rejoicing this addition to their effective force. And as these are the first fruits of an institution which they have established and cherished and sustained, they will be regarded as only an earnest of a more ample supply of able and faithful heralds of the cross/' Perfectly unambiguous and directly to the point is the following statement : A Matter "-^ * s a matter f vital importance to our Well Settled church to sustain this institution by their prayers and contributions; for the necessity is laid upon us now, more than ever, to maintain our own sacred and literary institutions, and educate our youth at home* The Seminary has in connection with it at the *Between 1889 and 1909 the Synod of South Carolina sent twenty-four of its candidates to Princeton. Of these, four became foreign mis- sionaries. Of the remaining twenty, fourteen have never labored a single year in South Carolina, and ten not a single year in any of the four Synods controlling Columbia Seminary. Seven have entered the Presbyterian Church, U. S. A. During the same twenty-year period, thirteen candidates from South Carolina graduated from Union Sem- 6 present time, so far as our information extends, every student of Theology within the bounds of the two Synods, with an exception of two in South Carolina, and one in Hopewell. f The fewness of Theological students is a remarkable and affecting fact which well deserves the atten- tion of our Ministers, our Elders, and our church members. Without an increase of our ministry, how can our destitu- tions ever be supplied? The matter is well settled, zve cannot look for much aid beyond our own bounds"* More significant still, if possible, is the following from the report of the Board of Directors in 1841 : First and "^ * s seventeen years since the Presbtyery Chiefly a Well of South Carolina first resolved on the estab- Qualified lisriment of a Literary and Theological Insti- Ministry tution within its own bounds. The impelling motives seem to have been a desire to raise up a well qualified Ministry to supply the destitutions of the Church, and to provide an institution for the education of their sons, free from the skeptical influences which then pervaded the College of the State; and in which piety and learning should be blended in delightful harmony- but first, and chiefly, to raise up a native ministry, well qualified to preside over the Churches already gathered, and to extend the bounds of our Zion." Alms and Omitting matters of interest upon which I Hopes of have elsewhere touched, I think we' may Founders fairly assert that Columbia Seminary was but the concrete expression of a deep-rooted conviction that such an institution was in the interest of the Presbyterian Church, as a whole, and absolutely indispen- sable to the best interests of that particular portion of the Presbyterian Church located in the tier of States beginning with South Carolina in the East, and terminating with inary, Virginia. Of this number one became a foreign missionary and ten have never labored for a single year in any of the four Synods which Columbia Seminary was founded to foster. fCompare the figures given above. * *Do not the facts cited above confirm this statement? Louisiana and Texas in the West. It was established in the hope and with the expectation that it would raise up from the Churches in these States a ministry for the Churches in these States. Its founders believed that its mere presence within this territory would serve to direct the- attention of many promising and worthy men to the min- istry, who would otherwise not enter it at all. It was founded upon the conviction that this part of our common Church would have, under God, to look largely to itself for the adequate supply of its ministerial, as well as its other needs. Results Ha e Results ^* us now turn anc * cons ^ er tne other ques- Justifled Their tion proposed at the outset: Has the institu- Conviction? tion realized or has it disappointed the aims and expectations of those who founded it? Have the results justified the pertinacity with which those charged with the maintenance of the institution have ' refused every inducement from without and every tempta- tion from within, to turn over to other hands the work upon which they had entered, and to look to some other source for a supply of ministers for the Churches within this terri- tory? Again, let history answer. On turning to the Minutes of the Synod of South Caro- lina for the year '39 (p. 14), we find the following entry: A Statement "** 1S num ^ n nature to be attracted by that Worth which is near. And the very establishment Pondering f f%{ s Seminary has been the direct means of bringing into the ministry tzvice the number that would have entered it had they been left without this institution in their vicinity to awaken their attention to the subject. But move it five or six hundred miles off, and it is to be feared that the result would be disastrous." This is not the language of disappointment. If the facts stated are correctly stated, there was no room for disap- 8 pointment. Nor is the following the language of those who felt, that their reasonable expectations had failed of realiza- tion : More Than "Since the commencement of the Seminary Thirty-Three in 1831, eighty students have, in whole or in Per Cent, in part, received their Theological education Years within its walls. Of the whole number, seven have departed this life. Five have failed through ill health to enter the ministry; twenty-one are laboring in other Synods; and six have become sepa- rated from us in the division of the Church ; and forty-one are now connected with our Synod, being considerably more than one-third of its whole number. Many of these young brethren, had the Seminary not been in existence, would have entered the ministry after a very partial course of study, and some perhaps would not have entered it at all." And just a little further on we read : "Our Seminary is steadily but slowly increasing. We have thirty-five more ministers than we had in 1829. " Service to Church as a Whole Answering This, however, is but a very partial answer Facts to the question under consideration. Nor will our space permit us to give the answer in full. We can only hint it. It will be well to divide the question. Let us, then, ask, in the first place, Has it been in the interest of the Church, as a whole, that Columbia Seminary was founded and maintained at great expense during a long term of weary and discouraging years? Nomen Perhaps the briefest answer to this question Venerabile is furnished by a single name James Hen- IvEy Thorn weix. It is easy, of course, to say that Dr. Thornwell was never a student in Columbia Seminary. It is easy to say that he would have entered the ministry and done his work for the Church had there been no such institution. It will not be found easy, however, to overlook the fact that it was through his connection with 9 Columbia Seminary that he was led to produce, and leave as a legacy to the Church, his mature thinking upon many of the great problems of Theology. What is more, it was through his connection with this institution that he suc- ceeded in stamping himself indelibly upon the minds of a large body of students who went forth to uphold, to unfold, to apply the great principles that they received from him. But Dr. ThornwELL was not the only master-mind who has been enabled through this institution to multiply and perpetuate its influence in every part of the Church. Not to mention the names of some still living, it is enough to recall those of George Howe, John B. Adger, William S. Plumer, and John L. Girardeau. Erase these names from our Church's roll; eliminate from her history the influence that has emanated from the splendid personalities of these men, and see if her glory and her influence will not be sensibly diminished. Ably Who are the men who to-day have been Represented called by the Church and entrusted by her In All of Our w }tn the solemn responsibility of equipping her ministry? I find among these men the names of Thomas R. English, of Union Seminary, Va. ; C. R. Hemphill, of Louisville Seminary; R. A. Webb, formerly of Clarksville, now of Louisville; and W. T. Hall. Nor would this list be complete should I fail to name others ; some of them no longer with us, and some no longer engaged in this special work of training men for the ministry. Among the latter class I may mention the names of Thornton C. Whaling, William E. Boggs, Joseph R. Wilson, Benjamin M. Palmer, Daniel J. Bbimm, James E. Forgartie, Samuel C. Byrd, Edwin MullER. Among her dead, in addition to those already mentioned in the preceding paragraph, are recorded the names of Thomas Goulding, A. W. LEland, Charles Colcock Jones ; and last, but not least, James F. Latimer, T. D. WithErspoon and James Woodrow. Really, it begins to look as if in attempting to build the wall over 10 against her own house, the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia had been busily engaged in building a wall all around our Southern Church. It looks as if in raising up a ministry for her own territory she had taken a pretty vigorous hand in raising up one for our whole Southern Church. Influential in ^ et us ^^ at ^ e sery i ce which this Semi- Giving' Being' nary has rendered the Church from another to Our point of view. The Southern Presbyterian Church as such entered upon its organized existence in the city of Augusta, Ga., in the year 1861. Forty-nine years have elapsed since then. During all these years, by the blessing of God, she has steadily prospered, developed and progressed. To-day, her position among the great sisterhood of churches of like common faith is better established and her influence more of a recognized factor than at any time in the past. The reason is that, for the most part, she has adhered to the principles and followed the lines of development marked out for her by those who, under God, started her on her way. Now, it derogates from the honor of no one ; nor is it an empty boast to say that this beloved church of ours owes much if not most of that which is distinctive in her character and principles to influences emanating directly from Columbia Seminary. The facts are these : Thirteen ^ the fifty-two ministerial Commissioners Ministerial who were present, honored by their Presby- Commission- teries as men worthy to be entrusted with the Assembly responsibility of deciding whether, as a Church, we were to be, and what, as a Church, we were to be, thirteen were alumni or honorary alumni of this Seminary; six were alumni of our sister Seminary in Virginia, and the remainder, apparently, were not Seminary graduates, or were the alumni of institutions outside of our bounds. The alumni of this institution came from the following Synods, viz : Synod of Alabama, G. W. Boggs; Synod of Arkansas, John I. Boozer; Synod of 11 Georgia, J. E. DuBose, C. C. Jones, D. D., J. R. Wilson, D. D., LL. D. ; Synod of Mississippi, W. C. Emerson, B. M. Palmer, D. D., LL. D. ; Synod of South Carolina, J. H. Thornwell, D. D., LL. D., A. W. Leland, D. D., J. L. Wilson, D. D., D. E. Frierson, D. D., J. B. Adger, D. D., D. McN. Turner, D. D. An Alumnus ^ e se l ect i n f a suitable presiding officer the First for that first Assembly was a matter of no Moderator small importance. The man occupying that position on that occasion must needs be one capable, not only of commanding the respect and confidence of his brethren, but of the entire Church of God. Upon him also more than upon any one else would devolve the responsibility of guiding and shaping the action of the body that had placed him at the helm. We all know upon whom the choice of his brethren fell; nor has there ever been a moment since when the Church repented that choice, or failed to be proud that when the emergency arose she had in Benjamin M. Palmer a son worthy to meet it. Part Borne ^ e new-born Church received her name on by Alumni the motion of J. H. ThornwELL, D. D., which motion was seconded by A. W. Leland, D. D. The committees through whom the Assem- bly was to carry on its business were also appointed on motion of Dr. Thornwell. He was himself chairman of the committee which drew up for our Church her Magna Charta "The Address to the Churches of Jesus Christ Throughout the World." Associated with him on this committee were C. C. Jones, D. D., of Georgia, and John I. Boozer, of Arkansas. Dr. Thornwell was also an influential member of the Committee on Bills and Over- tures. Indeed, it is but history to add that to him probably more than to any other single individual, our Church owes most of what is distinctive in her principles and her polity. To him we are largely indebted for the Book of Church Order, under which our Courts at present administer the business of our Church. "The Letter on the Religious 12 Instruction of the Colored People," issued by the Augusta Assembly, was the masterly product of C. C. Jones, D. D., of Georgia, who was also chairman of the Committee of Home Missions. The venerable D. McN. Turner, D. D., who continued his labors until over eighty years of age, and has only comparatively recently gone to his reward, was Clerk of the Assembly. The Standing Committee on Foreign Missions, appointed by that Assembly, consisted of J. R. Wilson, D. D., Jas. Woodrow, D. D., James H. ThornwEUv, D. D., George Howe, D. D., F. P. Mul- ivALivY, D. D., A. A. Porter, D. D., and J. B. Adger, D. D., all alumni or honorary alumni of this Seminary. So much for the relation of Columbia Seminary to our beginning as a Church. Time and space would fail to give in detail the record of the influence, the far reaching and beneficent influence exerted by the honored' alumni of this institution in every Assembly since 1861; in every Synod in the South and Southwest ; in every Presbytery of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas, not to mention Tennessee and Kentucky. The names of our alumni cannot be spread before the public, but just as little can their activity in the Courts of the Church be concealed. Moderators of lt wil1 P erna P s throw at least a gleam of light The General over this large theme to call attention to one Assembly single fact. Of the forty-eight noble men who have graced the position of Moderator of the General Assembly of our Church, nineteen have been chosen from among the alumni of this institution. Their names and Synods are as follows, viz : Benj. M. Palmer, D. D., Louisiana; George Howe, D. D., South Carolina; W. S. Pujmer, D. D., South Carolina; H. M. Smith, D. D., Mississippi; J. L. Girardeau, D. D., South Carolina; C. A. Stdxman, D. D., Alabama; J. R. Wilson, D. D., North Carolina; Thos. A. Hoyt, D. D., Tennessee; T. D. WiThERSpoon, D. D., Kentucky; H. C. DuBosE, D. D., 13 South Carolina; C. R. Hemphill, D. D., Kentucky; Geo. T. Geotchius, D. D., Georgia; E. M. Green, D. D., Kentucky; R. S. Mallard, Louisiana; W. T. Hall, South Carolina; S. M. Neel, Missouri; J. T. PlunkEtt, Georgia; J. R. Howerton, North Carolina; W. E. Boggs, Florida. of these Drs. Plumer and Wilson are honorary alumni, having occupied chairs in this institution. To them might well be added the beloved name of Thos. E. Peck, D. D., who while not an alumnus, was really a son of this Semi- nary. This is not a record to put to shame the confidence of the men who founded and maintained Columbia Semi- nary; and who, time after time, against hope, believed in hope. J Leighton ^ ut t ^ ie Srv ^ ce f Columbia Seminary to the Wilson and Church, as a whole, has not been confined to Foreign its beginnings nor to any single department of its activities. I have already adverted to the fact that it was to the hands of that most apostolic man of modern times, Dr. J. Leighton Wilson, that our Church committed the work of devising and putting into execution for her a scheme of Foreign Missions. It is only those who will be at the pains to inform themselves, who can appreciate to what an extent the whole course of the subse- quent development of our work in foreign lands reveals the impress stamped upon it by Dr. Wilson in its beginnings. Missionary Thus it appears that a son of Columbia Semi- Alumni nary projected the mission work of our Church along the lines upon which it has since been expanding and developing until it has reached its present encouraging proportions. Not only so, but both prior to the time of our independent existence, and subse- quent to that time, the alumni of Columbia Seminary have been working side by side with their brethren in all the mission fields of our Church. J. L. Merrick, a classmate of Dr. Wilson, went to Persia, and there labored for seven years; then for three years longer he preached the Gospel among the Nestorians. The following list of names tells 14 its own story of the part that Columbia Seminary has borne and is bearing in the Foreign Mission work of our Church : To India, she gave L. L. McBryde and M. M. Charl- ton ; to China, S. R. Brown, R. C. Way, J. W. Quarter- man, J. K. Wight, J. A. Danforth, H. C. DuBose, P. C. DuBosE, H. M. Smith ; to Japan, S. R. Hope, R. E. Mc- Alpine and Toji Takada ; to Korea, L. O. McCutchen ; to Siam, Alex. Waite, and James Waite; J. G. Hall to the United States of Colombia and then to Mexico, and finally to Cuba; Frank H. Wardlaw to Cuba; to the Indians, A. M. Watson, C. J. Stillman, J. H. Colter, J. J. Read and J. C. Kennedy; to Brazil, William C. Emmerson, J. R. Baird and Dr. Allyn. This list would not be complete without mentioning the fact that the late venerable Dr. J. B. Adger, long a professor in this Semi- nary, came to her from a mission' field and filled with a missionary spirit. Alumni and ^ ^ a * so to t ^ ie * ot ^ t ^ ie Committee of Home which Dr. Wilson was Secretary to gather Missions an d foster the scattered flocks of our South- ern Zion when our people stricken, stripped and peeled, were confronted on every side with the destitutions and desolations caused by war. And from that day to the present the influence of Colum- bia Seminary has made itself distinctly felt in shaping and developing the Home Mission work of our Church. For more than twenty years one of her honored alumni, Dr. J. N. Craig, had this work in hand. During that time, despite adverse circumstances, its growth was marvelous. More recently this great work has been expanding steadily under the efficient supervision of the beloved Dr. S. L. Morris. Not only so, but the record of Home Mission work in the Synod of Texas cannot be written, up without giving much space to the activities of such veteran workers and wise organizers as Josephus Johnson, A. P. Smith and S. F. TennEy. If we turn to Kentucky and consider the splendid progress made in that Synod, we find that it is in a consider- 15 able measure traceable to the organizing ability and aggres- sive home missionary activity of the sainted T. D. Witherspoon and Dr. E. M. Green. . If, again, we turn to Virginia, conspicuous among the men who have not only themselves labored in her home mission field, but have organized and administered this department of her activities, will be found the name of F. J. Brooke. WorKfor Our Church has not done her duty to the Colored colored people. But if she has failed it has People k een for no lack of shining examples of genuine devotion to the spiritual interest of that people. She had had few sons more gifted, and none more godly than John L. Girardeau, C. Coixock Jones, Chas. A. Stii^IvMAn, and J. R. Howerton. The first two, before and after the war, gave the best energies of heart and mind to the evangelization of the colored people. Stillman Insti- tute is today a monument and memorial to the practical interest which Dr. Charges A. Stuxman felt in the salva- tion of his brother in black. Dr. Howerton gave some of the best years of his earlier ministry to professorial work in that institution. All four of these men are alumni of Columbia Seminary. If any other four men in our Church have exerted a deeper, more permanent, and more bene- ficent influence in this department of the Church's activity than has been exerted by those just mentioned, I confess that I do not know who they are. Female Turning another department of the Church's Education activity, we find that this Seminary has fur- nished quite a number of leaders in female education, among them the following : Rev. J. M. H. Adaims, for the Yorkville Seminary; Rev. William Curtis, Principal of Limestone Springs Sem- inary; I. S. K. Axson, D. D., and Rev. H. Hendee, each for a term of years Principal of the Sy nodical Female Col- lege, at Greensboro, Ga. ; Rev. T. F. Montgomery, Prin- cipal of the Masonic Female College, at Auburn, Ala. ; N. W. Edmunds, D. D., formerly of Sumter Female Institute; 16 S. R. Preston, D. D., and Rev. J. H. Alexander, each Principal for a term of years of the Female College at Wytheville, Va., the former was also for a term of years President of Chicora Female College, at Greenville, S. C. ; W. R. Atkinson, D. D., for some years President of Pres- byterian College for Women, at Columbia, S. C, and previ- ously engaged in successful work at Charlotte, N. C, and doubtless many others. Presidents ^he ^ as f urn i sne d Presidents and dis- and tinguished Professors to the following insti- Professors tutions : to the College of South Carolina, at Columbia, as Presidents, J. H. Thorn weix, D. D., and James Woodrow, D. D. ; as Professor, J. W. Funn, D. D. To the Presbyterian College of South Carolina, at Clin- ton, she gave its honored and widely known founder, W. P. Jacobs, D. D., who is also head of that most admirably managed and beneficent institution, the Thornwell Orphan- age; one of its Presidents, Rev. E. C. Murray, D. D., and two of its Professors, J. F. Jacobs and W. S. Bean, D. D. To Davidson College, in North Carolina, she furnished a President, Luther McKinnon, D. D. To Arkansas Col- lege she gave its President, that noble worker, J. I. Long, D. D., and to Indian Territory, the Rev. J. J. Read. To the Southwestern Presbyterian University, she has given, as Professor, James E. Fogartie, D. D. Influence ^ e P en was never mightier than it is in our Through the day. The press has become the indispensable Press auxiliary of every enterprise. Through this agency also, Columbia Seminary has fostered and furthered the interest of our whole Church. No periodical published among us was, in its day, more thoroughly representative, able, or more influential and useful than the Southern Pres- byterian Review. That enterprise was inaugurated under the auspices of this Seminary. As an exponent of what was distinctive in our views, as an educator of our people and especially of our ministry, and as an agency for stimulating and cultivating the literary and scholarly spirit among us. 17 it proved invaluable. Founded by Drs. ThornwELL and Palmer, it was long under the editorial management of Dr. James Woodrow. Its worthy successor is the Presbyterian Quarterly. Turning now to the weekly religious press, we find the following influential journals have been conducted by the alumni of this institution, namely: The Southern Presbyterian, which was founded by Dr. A. A. Porter, and for long years edited by Dr. James Woodrow, who was suc- ceeded by Dr. W. S. Bean, who in his turn has been suc- ceeded by Rev. J. F. Jacobs; The Southwestern Presby- terian, long presided over by the beloved and honored Dr. H. M. Smith, and subsequently in the hands of Dr. R. Q. Mallard, supported by an able corps of assistant editors. The Alabama Presbyterian, published in Birmingham, under the editorship of Dr. J. M. P. Otts, and The Christian Com- panion, under that of R. S. Latimer, D. D. PulDit Once more, if we were asked to name the men Influence who, so to speak, have set the standard of pulpit eloquence in the Southern Presbyterian Church, perhaps the names that would come instinctively to the lips of all of us would be those of James H. Thorn- well, Moses Drury Hoge, John L. Girardeau and B. M. Palmer. Of these four, three have been the gift of Columbia Seminary. Can any Church in any section of our land boast of a more illustrious trio? How potent, how persuasive their eloquence, whether in the council chambers of the Church or before her popular assemblies. Their voices have been heard amki the uproar of battle, when shells were bursting and minie balls whizzing over the heads of the soldiers in the trenches; they have been heard amid the awful hush that attends the presence of the pestilence. When were they ever heard without bringing courage and hope to the soul? Their praise is in all the Churches. They are no longer with us, but their memory is an ointment poured forth. This splendid gift, greatly as it has enriched our Church, has not exhausted the liberality of this Seminary. 18 The reader has only to look around him to see the orna- ments which she has supplied with lavish hand to the pulpits of almost every Synod within our bounds, and to some beyond them. To Texas, she has given Drs. A. P. Smith and W. M. Anderson, Thornton C. Whaling, of Dallas; Dr. JosE- phus Johnson, of Victoria; S. F. Tenney, of Crockett; Dr. W. S. Jacobs, and others ; to the Synod of Mississippi, she has furnished Drs. B. M. Palmer, T. R. Markham, J. H. Alexander, J. H. Nall, G. S. Roudebush, E. P. Palmer, J. A. Witherspoon, Rev. A. H. Mecklin, T. M. Lowry, and others; to Tennessee, Drs. Jerry Wither- spoon, George A. Trenholm, Eugene Daniel, W. E. Boggs, J. L. Martin, J. W. Rogan, and others; to Ken- tucky, Drs. E. M. Green, C. R. Hemphill, T. D. Wither- spoon, and others; to Arkansas, Drs. J. R. HowERTon, S. C. Alexander, D. McN. Turner, and others; to North Carolina, Drs. A. W. Miller, J. F. Fair, J. E. Fogartie, Eugene Daniel, J. D. W. Burkhead, W. S. P. Bryan, and others; to Virginia, Drs. D. K. McFarland, J. Y. Fair, S. R. Preston, W. T. Hall, A. McIver Fraser, F. P. Mullally, and others. In another connection, perhaps, account will be taken of her gifts to the pulpits of her own Synods; but as already indicated, every effort to give an idea of her service to the Church through the ministers sup- plied to its pulpits must of necessity give only a partial list of the more than seven hundred alumni who have gone forth from her halls to stand as watchmen on the walls of Zion. The What department of the Church's activity is Ornament there that has not been enriched, invigorated, and Organ an d ennobled, and that in a marked degree, Church G ky influences issuing from Columbia Sem- inary. Indeed, it can be truly said that she has exerted a great, a permanent and a blessed influence in determining the genius of our Church and in shaping and securing its development, especially in what may be called 19 the Cotton States, and in the Southwest. The fathers of 18&8 were right. When they built the wall over against their own house they wrought not merely for themselves, but for the entire Church of God. The institution that they planted had of necessity a local habitation and a name. That institution, however, by the sweep of its influence and by the munificence and catholicity of its benefits has proven itself to be not the agency of any limited section, but the ornament, and an indispensable organ of the Church at large. The name of Columbia Seminary for those who, either in the present or in the future, care to inform them- selves, will be a synonym for much that is best and most vigorous in the life and in the activities of our beloved Church.