they were more radical in their theology, but that they were more hopeful in spirit. They believed that the truth was able to take care of itself, and were eager to co-operate in practical effort with every one who shared this faith. Those whom they associated with them were men of like mind with themselves, and the new Seminary became almost from its birth the organ of the New School and the training school of its ministers in the new era of independence which the disruption of 1837 forced upon it.

A single instance will illustrate what I mean. When Henry B. Smith came to the Seminary in 1850 he was fresh from New England, and what was still more dangerous, only four years away from Germany. In his inaugural address at Andover a few years before, he had paid a glowing tribute to Schleiermacher as the great German theologian, who first in modern times led his fellow countrymen back to the feet of Christ. It was not strange that a man of such a type should be looked upon askance in Presbyterian circles. It seems that some of his own colleagues had their doubts.

Dr. Smith thus describes a conversation which he had with Dr. White, his colleague in the Chair of Systematic Theology, just before he came to the Seminary.

Last evening I spent wholly till eleven o'clock and after with Dr. White talking over the whole Seminary and matters thereto belonging. He was rather curious about some of my theological opinions, and we got into a discussion of two hours on the person of Christ, in which he claimed that I advocated something inconsistent with the Catechism, and I claimed that he taught what was against the Catechism, which was rather a hard saying against an old-established professor of theology. However, it was all very well and kind on both sides, and did not prevent his urging my coming here."

"It was all very well and kind on both sides, and did not prevent his urging my coming here." Here speaks the spirit of Union; mutual confidence consistent with the recognition of individual differences. So may it ever be. God forbid that the day shall ever come when all the members of the Union Seminary faculty shall be men of one type, however excellent that type may be.

Next in the order of my impressions is that of thoroughness of preparation. The men who founded Union Seminary were men of affairs, and they believed in training. They thought the best training possible was none too good for a minister of Jesus Christ. They believed in training in theory

as well as training in practice, important as they regarded the latter, and strenuously as they insisted upon it. In the darkest days of the institution, when the Seminary was practically bankrupt, they invested $5,000 in the Van Ess Library, a sum more than half as great as that paid for the site of the building. They knew that a seminary without books was a contradiction in terms, and they were determined that Union should have the best that could be obtained, whatever the cost.

The spirit of the founders was the spirit of the professors. I wish I had the time to read the letter written by Dr. Robinson when he accepted his appointment to the Chair of Biblical Literature. It was no light matter, I can tell you, to study under this insatiable scholar.

"To understand the Bible," he tells us, "the student must know all about the Bible. It is not a mere smattering of Greek and Hebrew, not the mere ability to consult a text in the original Scriptures, that can qualify him to be a correct interpreter of the word of life. He must be thoroughly furnished for his work if he be expected to do his work well.”

And then he goes on to enumerate the particulars which fall within the department as he understands it.

"To it properly belong full courses of instruction in the Hebrew, Greek and Chaldee languages, and also as auxiliaries in the Syriac, Arabic and other minor dialects; in Biblical Introduction, or the history of the Bible as a whole and its various parts, its writers, its manuscripts, editions, etc.; in Biblical Criticism, or the History and condition of the text; in Biblical Hermeneutics, or the theory and principles of Interpretation; in Biblical Exegesis or the practical application of those principles to the study and interpretation of the sacred books; in Biblical Antiquities; and further, a separate consideration of the version of the Seventy as a chief source of illustration for both the Old and New Testaments."

This was written in 1837. Even our own beloved Dr. Briggs, from his high tower of theological encyclopædia surveying the whole field of human knowledge, could find little to add to such a program.

New subjects have taken their place in the Seminary curriculum, but the old spirit lives on. If sometimes in our zeal we younger men are tempted to ask of our students more than we ought, you must remember the training we have ourselves received. To those who have studied under Dr. Briggs, Edward Robinson professor in fact as well as in name, and the teachers whom he has trained, lack of thoroughness is not an

intellectual failing, it is a moral fault. We cannot help this feeling. It is bred in our bones. We have drunk it in from the mother who has nurtured us. We owe it to ourselves; we owe it to our fellowmen; we owe it to our Master, to learn all that we can learn, that we may be able to do all that we can do.

With confidence in the truth and thoroughness of training went courage in the defense of the right. This is my third impression. Twice in its history the Seminary has faced a crisis which would have daunted men of less heroic mould. From each it has emerged triumphant. The first was financial. It met the' Seminary on the threshold of its history before it had had time to take root in the new soil. The founders met for the first time in 1835. Two years later the panic of 1837 swept over the country, carrying down with it many of those on whose support they had relied. Many of the subscriptions, which had been made in good faith, could not be collected. The original plans which contemplated houses for the professors had to be abandoned. The property was heavily mortgaged, the salaries of the professors were often months in arrears, and they were reduced to every shift to keep body and soul together.

But they never faltered for a moment. The darker grew the outlook, "the more hopeful, even brilliant" it seemed to them. The words are not my own, but those of Mr. Charles Butler, clarum et venerabile nomen,-long time our honored President, himself one of the founders and a participant of the vicissitudes of those early days. "I can recall in memory," he says, "but cannot describe the feeling that was reflected on the countenances of the members when called together to consider what could be done to meet the impending exigencies. These meetings were generally attended by the professors as well and were always opened and closed with prayer." Thus began a feature of the Seminary life which has been characteristic ever since,-the close contact between Faculty and Board and the entire frankness and confidence which have ever marked their relations.

The turn of the tide came in 1852. In that year, as the result of a sermon preached by Dr. Prentiss, a meeting was called at the house of Mr. Charles Butler, at which it was resolved to inaugurate a movement for immediate and full endowment. In the course of the next twenty years, through the united efforts of the friends of the Seminary, nearly a million dollars was raised and the financial stability of the Seminary once for all secured.

The second crisis in the Seminary's history was far more serious and called for courage of a higher order. It was the struggle with the General Assembly which began with the veto of Dr. Briggs' transfer to the Edward Robinson Chair in 1891.

It is not my purpose in this hour consecrated to the forward look to revive old memories. The controversy between the Seminary and the Assembly has become a matter of history, and it is not necessary in this presence to tell again what has been retold so often before. Let the dead past bury its dead. Our interest in the struggle to-day is in its revelation of the spirit of the Seminary.

I can remember as if it were yesterday the intensity of feeling which marked those early days. The controversy between the Seminary and the Assembly was at its height during the first years of my official connection with the Seminary Faculty. With what quiet patience all who were concerned carried themselves during this great ordeal, none could know better than the younger men who saw them in the intimacy of the classroom and of the Faculty meeting. The work of the Seminary proceeded as quietly as if nothing were happening without. We used to say, half in jest, and yet I think it was literally true, that the only place where you could go without hearing the Briggs case discussed was Union Seminary. Yet, underneath this quiet exterior a great fire was burning. It was a time that tried men's souls. Old ties were sundered; lifelong friendships severed. Every motive that could be brought to bear upon men was used to influence the Directors and friends of the Seminary to abandon this faithful servant of God whom the highest court of their own church had publicly adjudged a heretic. Financial support was cut off, motives were impugned, students turned aside to other seminaries, but the men at the helm never faltered for an instant. They had taken their course deliberately and under a high sense of responsibilty to God, and they kept it unfalteringly to the end.

For you younger men, sitting in this beautiful chapel today, with every sight and sound about you ministering to the sense of peace and beauty, it is difficult to realize what you owe to those who fought your battles in the past. With a great price they won the liberty to which we were born. I think of Butler and Dana, and Jesup and Dodge and Cuthbert Hall and James and Brown, and all the honored roll of faces whom we miss to-day. Would that they could be with

us to rejoice in the new era which their sacrifices and steadfast courage have made possible. Of the living, one name only I will name, our leader through those years of storm and stress, through the providence of God preserved to enjoy in the ripeness of his age the veneration of the sons of Union, our beloved ex-President, Thomas S. Hastings, wise in counsel, courteous in manner, unswerving in courage, trusted leader of men who were themselves accustomed to lead, his name will be held in remembrance wherever men love liberty and honor truth.

A fourth impression which I have carried away from my survey is that of catholicity of spirit. I have said that the founders were New School men, and that means that they were willing to work with anybody who was willing to work with them. From the first the doors of the Seminary have been open to men of all denominations, and all shades of theological opinion have found shelter within its walls. Whatever was of interest to the church of Christ here or across the sea has found a quick response in the hearts of Faculty and students. Nowhere has Christ's prayer that his disciples might all be one been prayed more fervently than within these walls.

To this eager love for unity must be traced the one serious mistake in policy which the annals of the Seminary disclose— I mean the so-called compact of 1870. This was an agreement between the Seminary and the General Assembly, by which the former agreed to grant the Assembly the right of veto over its professors, provided the latter would relinquish, in the case of the seminaries under its control, the right of direct appointment of professors which it had hitherto exercised. This action was taken at the earnest request of Dr. William Adams, the leader of the New School in the reunion movement, and one of the most influential members of the Board. Himself an ardent lover of liberty, chosen by common acclaim as the one American Christian fitted to voice his country's welcome to the Evangelical Alliance at its first meeting on this side of the sea, so great was his zeal for the unity of the church that he was willing that the Seminary, which he loved and served, should surrender some part of her own liberty, if by doing so she could help others to a larger freedom. The decision was not made without searching of heart on the part of the Directors and, in the case of one of them, Mr. D. Willis James, with grave misgivings. Time proved the action mistaken and in due course the Board