the Union Theological Seminary in the city of New York, persuaded that the plan proposed in the memorial will meet the cor· dial approval of the patrons, donors and friends of all these Seminaries, and contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Church, do hereby agree, if the said plan shall be adopted by the General Assembly, that they will agree to conform to the same, the Union Theological Seminary in New York being in this respect on the same ground with other Theological Seminaries of the Presbyterian Church." (See "Minutes," 1870, pp. 148, 149.) "The Assembly complied with this request." (See "Minutes,' 1870, pp. 60-64.)

On page 397 of the New Digest there is the following statement respecting the "limitations of time within which the Assembly may exercise its veto in the election of a professor: "

"That the Assembly declare that the true meaning of the act subjecting the election of a professor to the veto of the Assembly is that such election be reported to the next General Assembly thereafter, and if not vetoed by that Assembly the election shall be regarded as complete according to the plan ratified by the Assembly of 1870." (See "Minutes," pp. 60-65, 1878; 1871, p. 581.) It appears, then, that according to the terms of the contract quoted above, the Directors of the Union Theological Seminary have conceded to the Assembly the right to veto the appointment of professors; and that an election is complete unless vetoed by the next Assembly following the election.

Your Committee would have been disposed to recommend that the Report of the Directors of the Union Theological Seminary, so far as it has reference to the transfer of Dr. Briggs to the chair of Biblical Theology, be referred to the next Assembly, if such a disposition of the matter had been possible. But the Assembly has clearly no power to postpone action. The control of the Church over the election of Dr. Briggs ceases with the dissolution of the present Assembly. Your Committee are constrained, therefore, to say that, in their judgment, it is the duty of the Assembly to disapprove of the appointment of Dr. Briggs to the Edward Robinson chair of Biblical Theology in the Union Theological Seminary.

Your Committee desire to say, moreover, that while they are clear in their judgment that the Assembly has the right to veto the appointment of Dr. Briggs to the chair of Biblical Theology, it is possible to impose a meaning upon the apparently unambig. uous phraseology of the compact between the General Assembly and the Directors of the Union Theological Seminary that would lead to a different conclusion. Fairness also requires us to remember that the Assembly is one of the parties to the contract that it is called upon to construe. While your Committee are of the opinion that the compact in question did not contemplate the distinction between the election of a person to be a professor, and the appointment of one already a professor, to the work of a certain depart

ment of instruction, it cannot be denied that such a distinction exists; the one act conferring status, the other only assigning duties.

The seemingly irregular course of the Directors of the Union Theological Seminary, whereby Dr. Briggs was inducted into office before the Assembly had been advised of his appointment, is doubtless to be attributed to their mode of construing their compact with the General Assembly. While your Committee are sure that the Assembly will not and should not admit that its right of disapproval is restricted to the original election of a person to a place in the faculty of the Union Theological Seminary, and while they are of the opinion that, acting according to the light it now has, the Assembly cannot but disapprove of the appointment of Dr. Briggs to the professorship of Biblical Theology in that Seminary, they are nevertheless of the opinion that in the interest of the mutual relations of confidence and cordial respect subsisting between the Union Theological Seminary and the General Assembly, it would be eminently proper for the Assembly to appoint a Committee to confer with the Directors of the Union Theological Seminary in regard to the relations of the said Seminary to the General Assembly, and to report to the next General Assembly.

Your Committee recommend the adoption of the following resolutions:

1. Resolved, That in the exercise of its right to veto the appointment of professors in the Union Theological Seminary, the General Assembly hereby disapproves of the appointment of the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., to the Edward Robinson professorship of Biblical Theology in that Seminary, by transfer from another Chair in the same Seminary.

2. Resolved, That a Committee, consisting of eight ministers and seven ruling elders, be appointed by this Assembly to confer with the Directors of the Union Theological Seminary in regard to the relations of the said Seminary to the General Assembly, and to report to the next General Assembly.

Respectfully submitted,

FRANCIS L. PATTON, Chairman.

The vote on the Report, by yeas and nays, was ordered to be recorded, and is as follows:

The following Commissioners voted in the affirmative: