CHAPTER
XVIII
THE
EDUCATION QUESTION
COINCIDENT with the
occurrence of the question as to the education of ministerial candidates, were
the agitations which divided the New York Missionary Society; the
dissatisfaction in the Synod of Philadelphia at the spread of Hopkinsian
doctrines; and the opposition to Princeton Seminary, which was manifesting
itself, in connection with the inaugural pledge of the professors, to which we
have already referred.
In 1815 the American
Education Society had been organized in Boston; and was already putting forth
its energies, to possess and control the Presbyterian Church; giving occasion,
to anxious fears, on the one hand, and, on the other, to high expectation, as to
its influence, in forming the future character of her ministry.
Under the influence of such
considerations as these circumstances were calculated to induce, a conference
was held, in Baltimore, at the close, of the sessions of the Synod of
Philadelphia there, in October, 1818, to consult on the formation of an
education society. As the result, the Rev. Drs. Janeway, and Neill, and the Rev.
James Patterson, were appointed, to mature a plan for such a society; and the
Rev. R. F. N. Smith, the editor of the Religious Museum, published at Milton,
Pa., was requested to announce the proceedings to the public; which he did,
earnestly recommending the subject to his readers, and especially to the members
of Synod; to each of whom he sent a copy of the paper.
The committee engaged in an
extensive correspondence, on the subject. They found it to be the opinion of the
Professors of the Theological Seminary at Princeton, and of many other ministers
and members of the Presbyterian Church, that one general education society ought
to be established; which should be under the immediate inspection of the General
Assembly, and which should be a faithful representative of the whole
denomination; that this society ought to embody, systematize, and direct, all
the energies of our Presbyteries and congregations, which may be devoted to the
education of young men willing to consecrate themselves to the ministry, but
unable to defray their own expenses, while preparing for the work; that this
society ought to carry the sons of her adoption through the whole course of
their academical and theological studies, until they obtain licensure; that the
managers of this society should serve as a standing committee, or Board of
Education, for the supreme judicatory of the Church; through which all the
Presbyteries, and such auxiliary societies as might be formed, should annually
report to the Assembly; what they have done on this subject and that this
society should, from the surplus funds of the different Presbyteries, and such
other resources as may be obtained, create a general fund, from which all cooperating
Presbyteries and auxiliary societies, may derive such assistance as the number
of their candidates, and other circumstances may demand.
With a view to effecting
such an organization, the committee called a meeting, in the Third Church,
Philadelphia, on the 9th of December, 1818. This meeting appointed the Rev. Drs.
Janeway, Neill, Wilson, Green, Alexander, and Miller, with the Rev. James
Patterson, a committee to draught a constitution, to be reported at an adjourned
meeting, to be held on the 17th of the same month. At that time, the
constitution was reported and adopted, the society organized, and officers
elected.
Simultaneous with this
movement, in Philadelphia, was a similar one, in New York. On the 23d day of
October, 1818, a number of ministers and laymen met in the session room of the
Brick Church, New York, and resolved, unanimously, to attempt the formation of a
society, for the education of poor and pious youth, for the gospel ministry. A
committee was appointed, to prepare a plan for such a society. The committee
met, on the 10th of November, in the session room of the Wall Street Church, and
agreed upon the form of a constitution. This they reported to a meeting held at
New Brunswick, New Jersey, on the 26th of November, when a society was
organized, under the style of “The Education Society of the Presbyterian
Church in the United States of America."
Drs. Alexander and Miller,
attended this meeting. But they found the prevalent feelings so hostile to the
authority of the General Assembly, to the doctrines of the standards, in their
strict acceptation, and to the plan of Princeton Seminary, that they withdrew,
and returned home.
The essential difference
between the two societies appears, distinctly, on the face of their
constitutions. The society, organized at New Brunswick, the seat of which was
New York, jealous of ecclesiastical control, and of doctrinal strictness, made
no recognition, in its articles, of the authority of the Assembly, and no
provision for any denominational relations, whatever; nor for the theological
training of beneficiaries. “Article 1. This society shall be called—The
Education Society of the Presbyterian Church, in the United States of America.
Article 2. The object of the Society shall be to assist indigent and pious young
men destined for the gospel ministry, in acquiring an academical
education.”—And that was all.
The constitution of the
other society contained these clauses. "Article 1. This Society shall be
called—The Education Society of the Presbyterian Church, under the care of the
General Assembly. Article 2. The object of this society shall be to furnish
pious and indigent youth, of the Presbyterian denomination, who have the gospel
ministry in view, with the means of pursuing their academical and theological
studies. Article 8. It shall be the duty of the Board of Managers every year, to
communicate to the General Assembly, for their information, a copy of the
report, required by the last article, [the annual report,] as soon as possible
after it shall have been laid before the Society. Article 13. The annual
meetings of the society shall be, always, held in the city of Philadelphia, on
the Tuesday next after the commencement of the annual sessions of each General
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church; at such time and place as the Board of
Managers may direct."
At the third meeting of the
Board of Managers of the Philadelphia Society, held on the 11th of January,
1819, their attention was called to a printed circular letter, signed by the
Rev. Dr. James Richards, of Newark, New Jersey, and others, stating that an
offer had been made, by some members of the New York society, through the
brethren at Princeton, for the union of the two societies, on certain specified
terms. The writer stated, that, pained at the existence of two rival societies,
and anxious not to lose the benefit of a general and combined operation, some of
the brethren had proposed to the gentlemen at Princeton, through a common
friend, "so to enlarge the object of the society, as to include, according
to their wishes, both a theological and academical course, and to locate the
institution in Philadelphia, as the American Bible Society is located in New
York, by choosing two-thirds of the directors there; thus making that city the
chief seat of operations; retaining, however, the principle of alternation, in the anniversary."
This circular, although not
officially certified, was sent out under the auspices of the New York Society;
and was, therefore, supposed to be an authentic statement of what it was willing
to do. The Board of Managers at Philadelphia, therefore, drafted a project of
union, on the basis here indicated; in which, the only modification suggested,
upon the New York overture, was, with respect to the annual meeting. Anxious
that it should be held in the presence of the General Assembly, the Board
proposed the holding of a semiannual meeting, in New York, during the sessions
of the Synod of New York and New Jersey. Should this plan not prove acceptable,
they proposed that each of the societies "request the General Assembly,
which is to convene in May next, to appoint an Education Board of the General
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, in the United States of America; and that,
in case such a Board shall be established, each society shall alter its style,
so as to become auxiliary to said Board."
These propositions were
immediately communicated to the New York Society; but the response was not in
the spirit anticipated. The New York Board replied that, as to these
propositions, they have not found in them that appearance of conciliation they
had been led to expect;" and that, as the Philadelphia Board "could
not be ignorant of the views of this Board, it may be matter of conjecture, what
could be the motive, in submitting a plan of union, which yields nothing to
their brethren." They intimate that it was incautiously, in a moment of
anxiety, and to prevent division," that a number of members of this Board
offered to the brethren at Princeton, to include the theological course."
But, in view, especially, of doctrinal differences, they are, now, decidedly of
the opinion that the object of the society "ought to be exclusively to
assist indigent and pious young men, destined to the gospel ministry, in
acquiring an academical education."
To the proposal, that the
Assembly be petitioned to erect a Board, they replied that their Society, had
"so far pledged itself to the public, in the choice of its officers, and in
the organization of auxiliary societies, and executive committees, that it would
be incompatible with that pledge, to abandon the essential features of its
constitution, or to become, itself, auxiliary to any other body."
The New York plan, of
abandoning candidates, when they were about to enter upon their theological
studies, was a scheme, palpably, contrived to render these two societies mere
feeders to the American Education Society and the New England Theological
Seminaries. The pledge, which rendered it impossible that the New York society
should become auxiliary to the Assembly's Board, proved no obstacle to a
subsequent subordination, and ultimate union with the American Society.
In a final review of these
negotiations, the Philadelphia Board remarked that it augured ill for the peace
and prosperity of our Church, "to hear our brethren plead difference in
theological views, as a reason for limiting the object.—And have matters come
to this pass, that members of the same Church cannot associate, in assisting
young men in their theological education? Why can they not associate? Is not the
Confession of Faith a basis wide enough for us to walk together, in peace? All
the ministers and elders belonging to
this Board have professed ‘sincerely to receive and adopt the
Confession as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy
Scriptures.’ And the ministers and elders belonging to the other Board have
made the same profession. We are willing to go, heart and hand, with our
brethren, in supporting the doctrines contained in our Confession. Are they
willing?…If they are afraid to trust the matter in the hands of the supreme
judicatory of our Church, this Board have more confidence in the wisdom and
integrity of that venerable body."
The Philadelphia Board, further, as an act of justice to themselves,
informed the New York society that they "would willingly have conceded the
principle of alternation in the anniversaries, rather than prevent a
union."
So ended this correspondence. At the meeting of the General Assembly, in
May, 1819, an overture came in, for the organization of a Board of Education. It
was referred to a committee, of five; every man of which, but one, belonged to
that class of moderates, who opposed the decisive maintenance of the principles
and polity of the Church. They reported a constitution for a General Board,
which was adopted by the Assembly. And, so far, the "Calvinists" of
the Church seemed to have succeeded. But the Board was left so entirely
destitute of resources, and the means of obtaining them; and so restricted in
its functions and objects, that the apparent success, availed nothing. The
voluntary societies availed themselves, most diligently, of the interval, during
which the Board had existence without powers. In 1821, it applied to the
Assembly for authority to employ agents to solicit funds, and fulfill the
designs of the organization. But the Assembly found it "inexpedient, for
want of time, to act" on the application.
In 1824, that judicatory, was requested "to authorize the Board of
Education to select such young men as are contemplated by the constitution of
the Board, for the gospel ministry, and make provision for their support."
For five years; the Board had existed without this power! The request was, at
length, granted, and the Board began to exist, as a power for usefulness.
Still,
however, there was a most deplorable want of efficiency, in the management. From
1824 till 1829, the duties of Corresponding Secretary were performed by the Rev.
Dr. Ely, in connection with the multiplicity of his pastoral and other labors.
The Rev. William Neill, D. D., was then called to that office. His second
report, was made in May, 1831. It exhibited sixty‑five beneficiaries on
the roll; the treasury in debt; no funds on hand, and no attempt made, nor plan
proposed, to supply the deficiency. A committee was appointed by the Assembly,
to report on the expediency of making any alterations in the organization of the
Board. A member of this committee, the Rev. Moses Chase, of Western New York,
contemptuously remarked, that. the Board was dead, and it would be well to
leave its burial to the Philadelphia brethren. The suggestion was, in the same
spirit, acquiesced in, by the party which was a majority in that Assembly, and
now began to be designated as the New School. The opportunity thus given was
seized upon by the Old School party; who, thereupon, proposed an enlargement of the Board, which was
granted. They were, also, allowed to make their own nominations for the
vacancies, and the names proposed were elected. At the first meeting of the
reorganized Board, Dr. Neill resigned his office. On the next day, the 8th of
June, the Rev. Dr. John Breckinridge was elected his successor. He accepted,
upon condition that $10,000 were, in the first place, put into the treasury; and
that the Board should make it the basis of future operations, "to receive,
at all hazards, every fit candidate, who may come, regularly recommended;
trusting to God and his Church to sustain it in redeeming the pledge."
These conditions were
complied with, and the policy thus inaugurated by Dr. Breckinridge, and the
vigor infused into all its operations, by the personal energies of that eminent
servant of Christ, at once lifted the Board out of the depth into, which it had
fallen; and started it forward on a career of prosperity and usefulness.
Such is the first chapter in
the history of a succession of persistent plans, designed to bind our Church,
hand and foot, to "liberalize" and corrupt her divine and saving
theology, and to enervate and subsidize the resources and efficiency of her
scriptural polity.
We have seen the energy and
zeal, displayed by the Hopkinsian party, in its endeavor to take charge of the
education of the rising ministry; and the unfavorable light in which they viewed
the Seminary at Princeton. In such circumstances, they did not overlook so
evident a feature of policy, as the establishment of a Theological Seminary. The
importance of such an institution had been the subject of private conversation
for some time. In February, 1818 it was proposed to the Synod of Geneva, which
was, at the time, the sole offspring and representative in New York, of the Plan
of Union. The Synods of Geneses and Utica were formed, subsequently. After
discussion, the Synod resolved to ask the advice of the Assembly. That body
replied that it was not prepared to give any opinion or advice, on the subject
of the overture, "which contemplates the establishment of an academical and
theological seminary; believing the Synod are the best judges of what may be
their duty, in this important business."
At a special meeting of the
Synod; held in Auburn, in August of the same year, it was determined to proceed
at once to establish a theological seminary; and, on certain conditions, to
locate it at Auburn. The conditions were promptly complied with, and the
institution so located. Application was then made to the Legislature, for a
charter, which was obtained, in April, 1820.
This charter appoints
certain persons, and their successors, "Trustees of the Theological
Seminary of Auburn, in the State of New York." To them are entrusted the
immediate care and management of the funds and property, for the uses of the
institution; but "in such way and manner, only," " as shall be
appointed by the Board of Commissioners hereinafter mentioned:"
“A representation,
annually to be chosen, of two clergymen and one layman, from each of the
following Presbyteries, and such other Presbyteries as shall hereafter associate
with the said Synod, for the purpose, to wit:
shall compose a Board of Commissioners, who shall have the general
superintendence, management, and control, of the aforesaid institution; and who
shall have authority to fill the places of the aforesaid Trustees, as they shall
become vacant; to appoint the tutors, professors and other officers of the said
institution; to fix and determine the salary and other compensation of the said
officers; to authorize and direct all such appropriations of their funds as they
shall think proper; to make by‑laws and regulations, for themselves; to
choose their own president and other officers; and to determine what number of
their Board shall form a quorum, for doing business."
Under this charter, the
Boards of Trustees and of Commissioners were constituted, and on May 2d, 1821,
the institution was organized by the election of the Rev. Matthew La Rue
Perrine, D. D., of New York, the Rev. Henry Mills, D. D., of Woodbridge, New
Jersey, and the Rev. Dirck C. Lansing, of Auburn, professors. The last of these,
was a temporary appointment. Two years after, the chair of theology was
conferred on the Rev. James Richards, D. D., of Newark, New Jersey, who was
inducted into office, on the 23d of October, 1823.
Whilst the Hopkinsians of
New York and New Jersey were rearing the walls of Auburn, those of Tennessee
were laying the foundations of Maryville.
The Hopinsianism of East
Tennessee was of sporadic growth. The case of the Rev. Dr. Hezekiah Balch, who
was tried before the Assembly, in 1798, on charges of doctrinal error, has
already been noticed in these pages. Dr. Balch had acquired his new sentiments
in the course of a tour to New England, in 1795, on behalf of Greenville
College, of which he was the founder and president. As he was a zealous
propagandist, his Hopkinsian sentiments were soon diffused to a considerable
extent among his ministerial brethren, but few of whom possessed sufficient
theological learning, to render them altogether proof against such specious
innovations. And, as he remained at the head of the college, until his death, in
1810, and was succeeded by his friend and associate, the Rev. Dr. Coffin, a
disciple of the same school, the result was the dissemination of his theological
sentiments throughout East Tennessee, by means of the alumni of the college, who
became the pastors of the churches. Such was the manner in which, through the
casual visit of an individual to New England, the speculations which have
corrupted the theology of the East gained footing in the only locality which
they ever possessed in the South. The similar tendency, developed at a later
period, in South Carolina, in the publications of the Rev. W. C. Davis, and the
apparent sympathy of his Presbytery, was quickly suppressed, by the firm and
judicious exercise of discipline.
In 1819, the Synod of
Tennessee determined to found a theological seminary. The institution was opened
in 1822, under the charge of the Rev. Dr. Gideon Blackburn, who was a pupil of
the Rev. Dr. Robert Henderson, Dr. Balch's son‑in‑law. Dr. Blackburn
was an ardent disciple of the school of Hopkins, and a devoted advocate of
voluntary societies, and enemy of the Boards of the Church.
He was succeeded, in this post, by the Rev. Dr. Isaac Anderson. The latter had been early trained in the faith of his Presbyterian ancestors. But coming, as a student of theology, under the private tuition of Dr. Blackburn, some years before the establishing of the seminary, the latter set himself with extraordinary earnestness and diligence, and with complete success, to turn him from the doctrines of his youth, and establish him in the better way devised by the divine of Newport.
