Columbia Theological Seminary Bulletin, 21, number 2, January 1928

Columbia
Theological Seminary

BULLETIN

The Columbia Theological Seminary Bulletin,
Published Quarterly by the Seminary

Vol. XXI January, 1928 No. 2

Entered as Second Class Matter, September 23, 1927, at the Postoffice of
Decatur, Ga., under the Act of July 16, 1894.

The following article was prepared for
publication in connection with the re-
moval of the Seminary. Its issuance
has been delayed till now. Though it
seems less timely now, still we think it
should be given to the public.

COMMITTEE ON BULLETIN

THE COLUMBIA TRADITION.
By Wm. Childs Robinson, A.M., Th.M.

The Sons of Columbia are intensely interested in her ! That
was the delightful conviction the writer received from a few
hours happily spent among them at Montreat. Men like Dr.
W. M. Hunter, North Carolina Synod's Secretary of Educa-
tion; Dr. S. L. Morris, the greatly loved Secretary of Home
Missions; Dr. C. R. Hemphill of Louisville, bespoke a deep in-
terest, a true filial love. As the dean of our Southern Presby-
terian theological professors gave his blessing to the youngest
member of that group he spoke touchingly of his farewell visit
to the old grounds in Columbia, S. C.

And the Presbyterian Church in the United States is in-
tensely interested in Columbia Seminary, as well she may be.
For she was cradled in the Columbia tradition. Those who
presided at the momentous occasion of her birth were Colum-
bia men: Dr. B. M. Palmer, Dr. J. H. Thornwell, Drs. J.
Leighton and Joseph R. Wilson. The great architectonic prin-
ciples of our Church were laid down by James Henley Thorn-
well; while Dr. Adger supervised the writing of the Book of
Church Order along the lines of these constitutive principles.
Those who love most this Southern Zion are concerned that the
Columbia tradition live, in order that this tradition may keep
the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. true to her own funda-
mental ideals.

But wherein does the Columbia tradition lie? In the walls
and buildings in Columbia in which these words are penned, or
in the great, abiding, rock principles of truth according to the
Word principles like the sole Headship and Kingship of
Christ in His Body, the Church ? Just at this moment we are
witnessing a great effort to transform a sister seminary,
Princeton from a citadel of orthodoxy into a different tradi-
tion. The plan there seems to be to preserve the old land-
marks, the same buildings, towers, turrets, and grounds ; but

to make them symbols of something different. Instead of
standing as symbols of the granite-like, consistent, Old School
Calvinism of Charles Hodge's "Three Volumes," or of B. B.
Warfield's scholarly defense of the super-natural character of
the Christian origins, these towers are to be made the symbols
of a conglomerate, hodge-podge known as "the inclusive
church." A seminary with which the writer is familiar in an-
other denomination seems to have swung from the conserv-
ative position to the liberal position in the space of a few
months by the replacing of old professors by new ones. In
the last few years many have expressed grave doubts as to
whether the name, the place, or the blood of the great Dwight
L. Moody have been sufficient to hold his loved Northfield true
to the testimony he bore. A school, in which the teachers
chafe under the bonds of orthodoxy, instead of glorying that
they are set for the defense of the faith, will lose the very
life of its tradition and will turn out men untrue to the name
of that school. The point to these comparisons is that the
Columbia tradition is a matter of heart, of principle, of love, of
loyalty to a great heritage; not of location, nor of buildings.
The soundness of the heart is the question; not the cut of
the ckfthes!

Is it time for any lover of Columbia Seminary to bid good-
bye to this great Southern Presbyterian tradition as the school
moves to Atlanta? When the writer entered Columbia Theo-
logical Seminary in Columbia, ten years ago, there were in the
faculty two men (out of six) who were alumni of the school.
These two men had put in a total of five years as students in
Columbia Seminary. Those who enter Columbia Seminary this
year will have (in a faculty of seven) four men who have had
a total of twelve years in the classroom study in Columbia
Seminary. And, if a personal allusion may be pardoned, of
these four, two are Columbia men who have been reared in
the very shadow of the Seminary and imbibed its theology not
for three years each but for twenty. Dr. Clark grew up as
the "son of a leading director, and a son of Columbia First
Church, the Church whose life has ever been most closely en-
twined with the life of the Seminary. The writer has known
the Seminary influence from a father who is a director, from

a mission Sunday school of which Dr. R. C. Reed was super-
intendent, from Arsenal Hill Church where Giradeau's theology
was faithfully reproduced by his son-in-law, Dr. Geo. A. Black-
burn, from Woodrow Memorial Church where most of the
preaching was done by Columbia Seminary professors. The
name of our president has been the synonym of true blue
Presbyterianism since the days of the Westminster Assembly,
and every student of Columbia's history knows the place that
the "Gillespie Clan" had in giving to the Southern Church her
greatest mind Thornwell.

The other members of our faculty are men whose training
in great kindred traditions has fitted them to take up and
bear onward the Columbia tradition. Indeed among those
who bear to us the nobility of the Richmond tradition, the
name of Dr. Wm. M. McPheeters has in the last half century,
become so closely interwoven with that of Columbia that to
mention the one is inevitably to think of the other. While
still in the old Columbia atmosphere, Dr. J. B. Green has closely
devoted himself to the study of the Columbia theology. As a
result of this study of our two great traditions it is hard to
find Dr. Green's peer, either in the pulpit proclamation, or in
the classroom exposition of Southern Presbyterian Theology.
Moreover, these are men who have earned and enjoy and
bring to the new "home Synod" (Georgia), the highest con-
fidence, love, and esteem of the old "home Synod" (South
Carolina). And we rejoice in the approaching coming of an-
other representative of the great Princeton traditions Dr. H.
B. Blakely. Two other members of our faculty have taken
post-graduate work at Princeton. All have studied carefully
the books and articles there produced. If our great Northern
sister denomination does not care for the Princeton heritage,
we, in Columbia, will do our best to perpetuate the matchless
defense of Christian beginnings worked out by Princeton's
great Southern triumvirate, Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield
of Kentucky, J. Gresham Machen of Georgia and Baltimore,
Wm. Park Armstrong of Alabama. An exposure to the con-
trary viewpoint has taught some of us to appreciate anew the
value of this great line of defense. We believe that these two
additional traditions will make the new Columbia a mighty

cord woven of three noble strands for the preservation and
proclamation of those truths on wTiich our souls depend.

Perhaps a word as to our attitude toward this Columbia
tradition may not be out of order for this is the crux of the
matter. What is our purpose and aim on the new foundations ?
We purpose to keep the old landmarks not of buildings, but of
truths ; not of location, but of vocation ; not of method, but of
meat and matter. We are set for the defense of the Gospel in
our day and time as were our fathers in theirs the same Gos-
pel they preached, the same Christ, 'The Lord of Glory"
the same Cross and gloriously emptied tomb. We have girded
our loins to take care that the Columbia tradition is re-em-
bodied in new foundations. The controlling Synods have de-
cided that Atlanta gives us a larger pulpit to reach a greater
audience with the Columbia tradition. Atlanta enables us to
follow those of Southeastern lineage and of Columbia theology
who have moved westward toward the Mississippi and the
New Orleans of Palmer. In Atlanta we promise the Church
our best endeavors to exalt the Columbia tradition.

But just because the Columbia tradition is a Scriptural
tradition, a spiritual tradition, our human efforts are not suf-
ficient to guarantee its perpetuation. We earnestly ask the
prayer support of every one who loves this great heritage. In
this year of removal we ask the prayers of those who have so
faithfully held the lines and proven the bulwark of support for
the Seminary. One of the Seminary's most devoted support-
ers recently suggested that the attention of its friends be
called to the gracious promise recorded in Isaiah 40:31. Will
every lover of the Seminary lay to heart this year our spiritual
need and plead to God His promise, "They that wait on the
Lord shall renew their strength" ? Will you ask Him to renew
Columbia Seminary this year in the great tradition of loyalty
to Himself? Will you ask for her a regirding with strength
by the Lord for service in His vineyard? In this crucial mo-
ment we earnestly appeal to you, who are "the Lord's remem-
brancers," to make mention of Columbia in prayer: that the
Lord may renew His heritage, revive His work, regenerate
with a rich baptism of redeeming grace every soul that comes
in any way into contact with the Seminary you own and love.

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2012 with funding from

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation

http://archive.org/details/columbiatheo2128colu