\V

s5^

kr PPIM^

^^OtOfilCAl S,l\tS^^

BX 8935 .W7 1843 Woods, H.

The history of the Presbyterian controversy

THE HISTORY

THE PRESBYTERIAN CONTROVERSY

EARLY SKETCHES OF PRESBYTERiAN!SM.

BY H. WOODS.

[copy right SECl'KiO.;

LOUISVlL-IiE;

PRINTED BY N, H. WHITE, MARKET STREET 1843.

'-'»W>tv.,->*^^««»,ft,

CONTENTS.

CIIAPTKR 1. Early Sketches of Prcsbytenanism-^ Westminster Assembly.

CilAPTER If. Union of Presbyterians and Congregu* -tionalists — Primitive and Liberal Policy of American Presbyterianism.

CHAPTER 111. The Controversy and Schism of 1741.

CHAPTER IV. The Policy of the Presbyterian Church in the struggle for National Independence.

CHAPTER V. Plan of Union of 1801.

CHAPTER VI. The Hopkinsian Controversy.

CHAPTER VII. The Home Missionary Controversy- Old School Circular — New School Disavowal — Drs. Green and Beman — Cincinnati Convention.

CHAPTER Vlll. Voluntary Societies and Ecclesiasti- cal Boards.

CHAPTER IX. Assembly of 1831— ^!r. Barnes' Caso — Re-examination — Elective Affinity.

CHAPTER X. The Act and Testimony.

CHAPTER XI. General Assemblv of 1835.

CliArTLR XII. The Foveigti Mission Question — As- sembly of 1836.

t'HAPTER XIII. .Mr. Barnes' Case again— .Secret Cir- cular.

CHAPTER XIV. Policy of the two Parties in reference to the Division of the Church,

CHAPTER XV. Old School Convention of 1837.

CHAi^TEK XVI. The General Assembly of 1837.

CHAPTER XVII. Operation of the Excinding Acts«- Argumen'.s of the Parties for, and against Excision — The true character of the Excinded Synods — The I'olicy of the Reformers.

CHAPTER XVIII. The Controversy about Doctrines.

CHAPTER XIX. The Auburn Convention.

CHAPTER XX. The Assembly of 1838— The Division of the Church — The tumult in the organization of the Assembly.

CHAPTER XXI. The Policy of the New Basis Assem- bly.

CHAPTER XXII. Thegreat reform Ordinance of 1838.

CHAPTER XXIII. Unsuccessful efforts for an amica- ble adjustment.

CHAPTER XXIV. Results of legal investigation.

The opinion of the venerable Dr. (Jle'and, in regard la the merits of this work, is here inserted:

The "History of the Presbyterian Controversy," by the Rev. H. Woods, I have carefully read, and with no small interest and gratifica- rion. It embodies, in a succinct form, a large amount of matter fountV ed on facts and evidences, contained in official and historical docu- ments, not to be successfully controverted. It will serve admirably as A book of reference for the present generaiion, as well as a little store- house of information for posterit)', to whom it is especially commended. As for the style, it is familiar and agreeaWe, exhibiting a perspicuity and accuracy rarely to be found in similar modern productions, wAich makes the work at once both valuable and desirable of attainment. I cordially wieJi it a hearty patronage and '"■xtensive circulation-

TliOMAi*? C7-.Ef.AND.

PREFACE

Thk history of the controversy and schism of the Presbyterian Church embraces a very eventful period in the annals of the American Church. After the division, I was induced to undertake the task of writing a brief history of this whole matter. The work was accomplished with some labor and with great care. The statements made rest mainly upon documentary evidence ; and their ' correctness has not been controverted, though submitted to the public, through the "Presbyterian Sentinel," during the years 1841 and 1842.

The reason why I originally undertook this work was to gratify a very general desire to know tohat caused the division of the Pre-shyferian Church, and what separates the two parties. This anxiety for information was not confined to the Presbyterian Church. The members of other churches, and the people of the world were anxious to understand the subject.

I thought it best to present briefly some early sketches of Presbyterianism, as introductory to the main object. , And especially did I deem it necessary to present some sketches of primitive American Presbyterianism, seeing this question runs through all the controversy : Which party is the oldest, and which has departed most widely from the principles upon which the American Presbyterian Church was founded ? The so called New School party professea to be as old as the so called Old School party.

VHl

The New School also urge that they stand upon the foun-- dalion of primitive American Preshyterianism ; and that the measures that resulted in the disntiemberment of the Church were the new or reform measures of the Old Sciiool. To settle questions of this nature, it was neces- sary to examine our early history, to see upon what principles the American Church was founded.

The history of so important a period, in the annals of our Church, should not only be presented to those now- living, but should also be handed down to coming genera-- tions, that their curiosity may be gratified, and that they may learn wisdom from our sad experience.

Where I have relied on historians so correct, in gene- ral, as Moshiem and Neal,I have not burdened the history by minute references. This was unnecessary, as what I have said of Preshyterianism prior to the organization of the Church in Ameiica, will not be controverted by any one. - Bat aa my statements in relation to the history of our Church in America may be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny, I have not only quoted good authorities, but have made my references sufficiently ample.

I have only to add, that I have written these chapters as I trust, in the fear of God. I have written them with an expectation that they will be read, and with a hope that they will promote the advancement of truth and righteousness.

THE AUTHOR,.

Glasgow, Ky. 1843.

THE PRESBYTERIAN CONTROVERSY.

CHAPTER I.

p:arly seetchbs of PHESBTTERIANISM — westmin-

STER ASSEMBLY.

The Church of Christ, before ilsalh'ai'ice. in the fourth' century, with the State under Constantine, flourished with» out the aid of civil power. Tiien the way seemed to be open, for a more extensive propagatiun of the gospel, than at any former time. But the advantages of this union were not real. Religion suffered by corriing in contact with civil power and seculiar arrangements. The purity and simplicity of Christianity were corrupted ;. forms and cere- monies were multiplied: a worldly policy controlled the ministers of religion, and soon the kuigdom of Christ became a kingdom of this world.

From the fourth to the close of the fifteenth century, a long night of eleven centuries, the Church was in a deplor- able condition, if we except the Waldenses, who, during that long period, seemed to stand aloof from the establish- ment. We no more expect to find a correct systeni of Church Government among the Roman Catholics, than a correct system oi faith. And we knmv so little of the history of the Waldenses, that we ought not to say what form of Church government they maint:uned.

About the beginning of the sixteenth century, the light of the reformation began to dawn upon the world.

10

'the Protestants all condemned the government of the Pa- pists as well as their doctrines. But they could not agree among themselves. A very respectable portion believed, that the primitive form of Church government was Pres- byterian. Among the advocates of this form of govern* ment was Calvin, who lived in the beginning of the six* teenth century. Moshiem says of him : "He maintained, that the church was to be governed, like the primitive Church, only by Presbyteries and Synods, that is, by as- semblies of elders, composed both of the clergy and laity; and he left to a civil magistrate little more than the privi- lege of protecting and defending the Church, and providing for what related to its external exigencies and concerns^ Thus this eminent reformer introduced into the Republic of Geneva, and endeavored to introduce into all the reform- ed churches, throughout Europe, that form of ecclesias- tical government, which is called Presbyterian, from its neither admitting the institution of bishops, nor any subor- dination among the clergy; and which is founded on this principle, that "all ministers of the gospel are, by the law of God, declaimed to be equal in rank and authority."

The Presbyterian form of church government, which was adopted by Calvin, became the model for the reform- ed churches in many countries of Europe. Frederick HI., elector of Palatine, in 1560, removed from their pastoral charge the Lutheran doctors, and filled their places witli those who favored the doctrines and discipline of C:ilvin. This form of ecclesiastical government was embraced by his subjects and became the established institution. The Republic of Bremen adopted the same form of government. Other German Stales also regulated their faith and forms of government by thai of Geneva.

T'he French P^-otestants, though they differed among tl.ems-tlves, were ge5;ierally under the influence of the Swiss divines. This is easily accounted for from their proximity to Geneva, and the efforts of those zealous and eminant men, Calvin, Farel and Beza. Thus, before the middle of the sixteenth century, the French Protestants entered into the bonds of fraternal communion with the church of Geneva. It is therefore clear, that the Protestants of France were Presbyterians. They were however, called by their enemies, Huguenots — a term of reproach.

li

The church of Scotland was founded by John Knox, a disciple of C-.ilvin ; and from that time down to the present, Presbyterians have always been the most numerous.

The Presbyterian form of government was more re- luctantly embraced in England than Scotland. Yet after the death of Henry Vlll. the doctrines o^ Calvin were embraced by ihe ministers and churches of England. And in the reign of Edward VI. Geneva was acknowledged as a sister church, and the doctrines of Calvin were adopted,(and rendered the public rule of faith. The form of government, however, then established was not Presby- terian. Yet the Presbyterians were a numerous body. But they were divided among themselves. Some were dis- ])osed to observe the ritual established by Edward. But others were conscientiously opposed to that form of gov? ernment, and the rites and ceremonies enjoined. To such persons the name of Puritans was given, on account of their contending for a more pure worship than the liturgy s?t up by Edy/ard.

A large portion of those called Puritans were Presby- terians, yet among the Puritans were reckoned the Inde- pendents and Baptists.

In the history of the English Church, it will be remem- bered, that the Presbyterians were called by different names — Puritans, Nonconformists, Dissenters — names common to all who oppose the discipline and forms of the established church.

The Congregationalists, were called Independents. The same names were often applied to them as to Presbyte- rians. They agreed in articles of faith ; and the difference between the two bodies, in their .views of church govern- ment, was at times deemed so unimportant, that they liv- ed upon terms of correspondence and communion.

In Ireland, the reformation was not general. Yet from an early period there were Presbyterians there, and large and respectable churches.

At the commencement of the reformation in the Belgian

Provinces, the people hesitated whether thoy would fash-

'ion their faith and discipline after Luther or Calvin. But

after the middle of the sixteenth century, they publicly

adopted the system of Calvin.

Jhe reputation of this great Reformer, and of the CoU

\em at Geticva, togellior with the indefatigable zeal of the Swiss in extending their system of doctrine and govern- ment, will readily account for the prevalence of this sys' tern, not only omong tlie reformed churches of France, hut those of Belgium and other States near to France. -

This system of faith and discipline found its way into Saxony, Poland, Prussia, Deuniirlc, and nearly all the countries of Europe, and was extensively embraced at an early period of the reformation.

Though the Presbyterian system vvns extensively em- braced, yet it is not to be inferred that there was a perfect uniformity. Moshiem says: "This universal conformity was. indeed, ardently desired by the Helvetic doctors ; but thoir desires, in this respect, were far fiom being accom- j)lished."'

On the intricate doctrine of Predeslination — the prima- t-y cause of the salvation of the elect — or the ruin of the reprobate, some adopted one vievv and some another. And it was so in reference to some other deep subjects in theology.

There were dilterences in their form of discipline. Some were for a General Assembly, and others not. Some or- dained ciders for life; and some were for one year. Some believed in the divine right of Presbytery and oth- ers not. Some were for the toleration of other sects, and others ijot. That period of the world, however, was gtrongly mariced by bigotry and intolerance. And in an age of po much intolerance, we are almost surprised to learn, that, at an early period of the reformation, this maxim, having a tendency to promote concord, was pretty generally adopted, viz.: "That Jesus Christ has left upon record no express injunctions with respect to the external form of government that is to be observed in his church." But this maxim was not carried into effect. The world had been so long accustomed to a union of church and State, that the great mass seemed never to think of any thing biit an establishment. And men of learning and piety, in every sect, seemed to think their party was the only true church.

Upon a review of the feelings and policy of our ances- tors, the English, Scotch and Irish, we find much to admire. They were the firm friends of the reformation, the bolql

13

and courageous defenders of their liberties, the patrons of learning and of morals. But in their history, we find much to condetnn. They were too rigid and uncompio- fnising in things indifferent ; too intolerant towards otheis, and too fond of the aid of civil {jower.

Indeed, the lionor of the christian religion demands the concession long since made, that '■'■all parties of chris- tians., when in poioer, have been guilty of persecution for conscience sake," and that "ti is unsafe and dangerous to trust any sort of clergy wilh the sivord.''^

In England and Scotland, our Presbyterian ancestors, as well as others, were for one mode of worship, and one forni of church government for the whole nation, to which all must conform. Perfect uniformity was attempted in Queen Elizabeth's reign ; uniformity too, in many respects, about things indifferent, according to the opinions of the party in power. The contest was then mainly about unity of apparel. Those who refused the gown, cap. &c. did so because they regarded them as ihe garments of Po- pery. But for this refusal, ministers were cut off from the church and imprisoned, and families ruined. The cries of the people for preachers reached the court. Bat it pleased the bishops to let the people do without the means of grace, unless their -preachers would take the sur- plice and cap !

Upon this fatal rock o^ perfect uniformity the Church of England split. Neal says : "The rigorous pressing of. this act was the occasion of all the mischiefs that befell •the church for above eighty years."

In consequence of their persecutions, the Puritans, in the reign of Charles I., began to make rapid settlements in North America. One remarkable instance — the cele- brated John Cotton, a popular preacher, of meek and gen- tle disposition. He became a non-conformist, and omitted some of the ceremonies of the Church. He was informed against. He applied to the Earl of Dorset to befriend him. But the Earl sent him word, that, '•'■if he had been guilty of drunkenness, uncleanness, or any such lesser fault, he could have got his pardon, but the sin of Puri- tanism and non-cot f or mity is unpardonable, and therefore yoxi must fly for your safety."' Upon this he traveled to

■3

14

London in disguise, and took passige for New England, wliere he spent the remainder of his life.

In this reign, the Presbyterian Estublishment of Scot- land was made to quake. During the reign of Elizabeth and James I., the Presbyterians in the North were free from the troubles of their brethren in England. But when (;harles 1., in 1637, attempted to force upon them the liturgy of the English Estaljlishment, they rallied under their Solemn League and Covenant, and finally triumphed over every attempt to subvert their system. Could we jtersuade ourselves thai a union of Church and State is right, we would siy that the Scotch deserve the greatest praise for their valor and conscientiousness in battling for their Establishment, Yet, during the reign of Charles L, the sitting of the long parliament, the protectorate of Cromwell, and the civil wars, the conduct of the Scotch Presbyterians was, in many cas3s, highly reprehensible. ]n some things they were as much to blame as those who desired to oppress them. B.sh.op Burnet says : " that the King and the Scots desired uniformity in church govern- ment, but with different views — the King was for bringing ihem to the English s'andard; ^yhereas, the Scots intend- ed to bring the English to theirs." And Neal says, the Scots insisted that '■'■there should be uniforinily helween ihe two nations.''^

In the contest between Charles I, and his Parliament, the Scotch and English Presbyterians and the independ? onts generally sided with the latter.

In 1643, the Westminster Assembly met, according to nn ordinance of tlje Lords and Commons, in parliament. This was a convocation, neither according to Episcopacy nr Presbytery. The parliament chose all the members, with a view to have tlieir advice in settling the doctrine and government of the Church of England. They ap- pointed in England thirty laymen — ten lords and twenty commoners — and qne hundred and twenty-one divines; from Scotland, six laymen and five divines. More than one hundred met. Some were Episcopalians, some Eng- lish Presbyterians, some Scotch Presbyterians, some Eras- tians, and some Independents. Fevy Episcopalians ap- peared, and soon withdrew, because of lay representation, ai.d the number of men of puritanical stamp, and othei

15

reasons. Baxter says, that they who composed the As* Sfmbly "were men of emineui learning, gocUiness, niiiits- te ial abilities, and fidelity."

The Assembly, nl'tir a long and animated debating, went througli.iheir work. They agreed upon aContessioii of Faith and Form of Government, and signed the Solemn League and Covenant, sent there from Scotland, with some slight alteriitions. The Solemn Leiigue and Cove- nant, though a short docnmenr, exerted a powerful influ- ence, and proved eventually for England and for Presby- terianism, as hnpolitic as it was intolerant. It consisted of six articles, to the second of which there was tlie greatest objection. It reads as follows: "That we shall, in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavor tiiT) e.Mirpation of pope ry, prelacy, (tiint is, church government by archbishop, bisliops ihcir chancellors and commi?sarie>', deans, denns and chfipters, archdeacons and all other eccle- siastical officers depending on that hi(;rarchy) superstition, heresy, schism, prufaneness, and wliatevcr shall be {v.\\\v\ to be contrary to sound doctrine, and the power of gcdii- ness, lest we partake in other men's sins, and thereby bo in danger to receive of their plagues; and that the Lord may bo one, and his name one, in the three kingdoms."

This document was subscribed, not only by the West- minister Assembly, but by the parliament. The Commit- tee of States in Scotland, ordered it to be suhsrribed in that kingdom, on penalty of the confiscation of goods, and rents and other punishments. All the lords of the Council were required to sign it, and those who did nor, were declared enemies to religion ai;d to their king and country. Ord^'rs were issued to sc'ze thiir goods and ap- prehend their persons, upon which tliey fled into England. In England, all persons over the age of eighteen were or- dered to subscribe it.

To the League and Covenant, there were many and weighty objections. It was regarded as a religious and civil test act, subjecting any one who did not sign i(, to be pro- ceeded against as a ^^maJig7iant^^ — an enemy to religion ani to his country. It was also opposed by some, because it bound them to acts of persecution — "//;e extirpation^^ of tho^e who might be called heretics or schisviatics. From the document we can easily sec, that Episcopalians,

16

IijJ^'pondcnts and others would not be very hearty in sub- scribing it. But it was subscribed Ijy multitudes of all '•iceJs and classes. Some took the Covenant, because ihey thought the Protestant religion in danger; some, in "iicdience to the parliament ; some because ihey wanted 5 lie assistance of Scotland, whicli was to be had on no 'jtiier terms, and so^me to avoid danger,

h was not, however, to be supposed, that in so large an Assembly as that of Westminister, there was a perfect uniformity of views on all points. Neal says: "It is not To be wondered, that so many parties, with dillerent views, siiolild entangle the proceedings of this venerable body, and protract the inlcndod unioti with the Sews.'''

There was some jarring when ihey came to sign the League and Covenant. Dr. Featly objected to one article. Pr. Burg'^s objected to several, and was persuaded to sub- scribe, after he hud been suspended. ']"he Scotch were for abjuring episcopacy sis unlawful, but the English di- vines were against it. Tlie English Commissioners were for a civil league, but the Scotcti would have a religious tnie, to which Bishop Burnet says, "the English were obliged to yield, taking care at the same time to leave a door open for a latitude of interpretation." Thus, iu the first article, they bound themselves to defend and pre- serve the reformation of religion, "in doctrine, worship, (!i9ci])linc and governmen', according to the wopd of God, !)p.d the example of the bes.t reformed churches." Here was a latitude, that would suit all. The Episcopalian would have it "according to the word of C4od." Uut the Presbyterian would goa little farther, and have it also ac- •ording to "the example of the best reformed churches." Thus, sij's Neal, "the wise men on both sides endeavor- ipd to outwit each other in wording the articles."

it would indeed be something strange, if there were not different views of doctrine and church government, among men who belonged to different sects — Scotch, English Presbyterians, Erastians, and Independents. The majori- ty, at first, were in favor of such an episcopacy as they supposed existed in the early ages of the church, lut for the sake of the alliance with the Scotch they declared for the Presbyterial form.

On the ruoJe of baptism^ there was at first some dif-

it

fereiice. One half wore for excluding dipping. Tlic other half, though they believed that affusion was the iaioful mode, were unwilling to vole that dipping was not a valid baptism.

The Director}^, in reference to prayer, was not well re- ceived by the Indf pendents. Mr. Fuller snys: "the Inde- pendents in the Assembly, were hardly persuaded to con- sent to it, for fear of infringing the liberty of prayer, yet being admitted to qualify some things in the preface, they complied."

On the subject of the keys and open cammtinion, there was difference of opinion. Neal sajs: ''The Presbj-teiians were for giving the power of the keys into the hands of the ministers and ciders, as the Independents were to the whole brotherhood \ but L-ghtfoot, Selden, Coleman and others, were for an open communion to whom the parli- ament were most inclinable." These latter were Eras- tians.

There were other points about which the members of the Assembly differed. Some olijected to certain expres- sions relative to reprobation, the imputation of Christ's obedience, &c. But they at last agreed upon the Confes- sion of Faith and Book of Discipline, as the best thing they could get, though all were not pleased with them. And that Cor/fcssion, as since modified, certainly ranks, in the opinion of good judges, among the best systems of divinity ever published. Yet, from the history of those times, we learn that there was no small degree of dissatis- faction about the Confession of Faith. Neal, speaking of the Baptists, who were not represented in the Assembly, says : "These, joining with the Independents in the point of discipline and toleration, made them the more considera- ble, and encouraged their opposition to the Presbyterians, who were for establishing their own discipline, without re- gard to such as differed from them." In this, the Presbyte- rians grealy erred, and manifested an intolerant spirit. Even the good Mr. Baxter avowed that, "he abhorred unlimit- ed liberty, or toleration of all."

The great question about the divine right of Presbj tery

was warmly debated during the sitting of the Assembly,

as well as aftervv-ards. Mr. Coleman was bold against

this doctrine. He declaimed against it, not only in the

2=.

18

Assembly, but in the pulpit, "apprehending Presbytery would prove as arbitrary and tyrannical as prelacy, if it came in on the foot of a divine cJui/n/'

Here also the Independents erred; for in opposing the divine right of Presbytery, they advocated "a divine right of their own scheme." But, in the Assembiy, the Presbyterians carried their point, by a large majority vot- ing for the divine right. But the Independents entered their dissent in writing, and complained to the world "of the unkind usage they met with in the Assembly; that the papers they offered were not read ; that they were not al- lowed to state their own questions," d;c.

But when the matter came before the House of Com- mons, the Jndependents were joined by the Erastians. When the vote was there taken, the Commons voted against the divine right. Neal says, that "the disappoint- ment of the Scotch Commissioners and their friends, at this vote in parliament, is not to be expressed."

Indeed, the entire book, as it came from the Assembly, and has been published to the world, never was approved by the English parliament. 'J'he parliament, however, made some concessions to the majority of the Assembly, but with such provisios, that it was evident they did not intend to part with the sword, or subject the civil powers to the church, which was very offensive to the Scotch and their adherents.

But when Parliament had now established the Presbyte- rial form of government, no one party of Christians was satisfied. The Episcopalians and Independents were ex- cluded ; and because ths parliament would not come fully up to t!)c Scotch notions of divine right, they were not pleased. And vet it is clear that what was done, was in a great degree to please the Scotch Commissioners. Bish- rp Kcnnet observes, that "the settling Presbytery was supported by the fear and love of the Scotch army, and iliat when they were gone home, it was better managed by the English army, who were for independency and a prin- ciple of toleration." In this divided state of affairs in luigland, the Scotch felt that they held the balance of pow- er, and they seemed determined to impose their form of government upon the English.

Here was the grand error of our Scotch and English

19

Presbyterian ancestors. They were not satisfied with any thing short of covenarii uniformity and the divine right of Presbytery. Of this Mr. Baxter, who was n Presby- terian, was in some degree sensible. He says, "that the Prestbyerian ministers were so Uttle sensible of their own infirmities, that they would not agree to tolerate those who were not only toierable, but worthy instruments, and members in the church, prudent men, who were for union in things necessary, for liberty in things unnecessary, and for charity in all,"

Though the Independents were the advocates of tolera- tion, yel their foundation was not very generous. They plead only for the toleration of themselves, the Baptists, and such as agreed in the fundamentals of religion.

Though no two denominations were more alike than the Presbyterians and Independents, yet in the latter part of the reign of Charles I., during the revolution, and pro- tectorate of Cromwell, they had bitter strifes, growing out of the doings of the Westminister Assembly, attempts at uniformity, &c. Sectarian jealousy and rivalry rose high in the days of Cromwell, who inclined to inde- pendency. Therefore, the rigid Presbyterians were not satisfied with his government. And when he was suc- ceeded by his son Richard, seeing no prospect of restor- ing the Covenant or obtaining uniformity, they united with the Royalists and Episcopalians to restore Charles II. which took place in 1660. In this the Scotch united, and sent the Earls of Crawford and Lauderdale to Holland, "humbly to put his majesty in mind, that the Kirk of Scotland ex- pected protection upon the footing of the Presbyterian establishment, without indulgence to sectaries." The pro- fligate Charles II. agreed with the Presbyterians, to come to the throne upon their terms. Like promises he made to the Episcopalians and the Catholics. Thus, says Neal, "the credulous Presbyterians were gradually drawn into the snare, and made to believe, that Presbytery was to be the established government of the Church of England, under King Charles II." In uniting with the Royalists and Episcopalians, for the restoration of Charles, the most solemn promises were made them. But, says the histo- rian just quoted, "the reader will judge hereafter, who were most to blame, the Episcopal party, for breaking

20

through so many solemn vows and protestations; or llie Presbyterians, tor bringing in the king without a previous treaty, and trusting a set of men, whom they knew to be their implacable enemies. 1 can think of no decent ex- cuse for the former; and the best apology that can be made for the latter is, that most of them lived long enough to see their error and heartily repent it."

With the restoration of Charles II., the old constitution was restored, together with the Episcopal Church. Cy establishing Episcopacy, the king expected the great body of the nation, Presbyterians, Independents, &c. would be dissatisfied ; that they would demand a general toleration, and thus he would open the door for the Roman Catholics. But soon the Presbyterian ministers were made to suffer. Though men of gravity, and far advanced in years, they were rallied in the pulpits under the opprobrious names of schismatics SLud fanaiics ; exposed to insults; assaulted by mobs, and forced to go in disguise. The old pena! laws for non-conformity were executed with severity.

The hardships and poverty attending non-conformity, tempted some few to conform contrary to their judgment ; but the great body of dissenters stood firm to their princi- ples.

The sufferings of the non-conformists were great. Ma- ny were sent to prison and to death. In the history of the Puritans, it is estimated, that between the restoration and the revolution, seventy thousand families were ruined, and that eight thousand persons suffered death upon the scaffold and in prison. This happened in the short reign of Charles II. It is also stated, that ''besides those who suffered in their own country, great numbers retired to the plantations of New England, Pennsylvania, and other parts of America."

Such treatment of the dissenters, and from those whom they had helped into power,- was unaccountable. In re- ference to it, the Earl of Castlemain, a Roman Catl/olic, said : •' 'Twas never known that Rome persecuted, as the bishops do, those who adhere to the same faith with them- selves, and established an inquisition against the professors of the strictest piety among themselves."

But when, in the reign of James II., the successor of Charles II., the king endeavored to establish the Roman

21

Catholic religion, and thus involved himsalf in a war witFr the established church, the dissenters were true to their principles. The king offered them all manner of cncour' agement, if they would aid him. The clergy of the es- tablishment,-also, entreated them for assistance against the king and the Calholic religion. The dissent-ers, in de- ciding, shewed a magnammous spirit. Though they had^ till that time, been inhumanly persecuted by the bishops, j'et they knew, that they and the churchmen agreed sub- stantially in matters of faith, and they were unwilling that the great cause of the reformation should perish for lack of their aid. They, therefore, cordially joined the church party^ in consecjuence of which the wonderful revolution was effected, at little cost of treasure or blood. King James abdicated the throne upon which William and Ma- ry were placed in 1689.

Though the bishop had made the fairest and most solemn jiromisesio the dissenters, for their assistance, yet these promises were soon forgotten. On this subject Neal says : •'Such was the ungrateful return that these stubborn churchmen made to those who had assisted them in their distress ! For it aught to stand upon record, that the Church of England had been twice rescued from the most imminent dagger, by men for whose satisfaction they would not move a pin, nor abate a ceremony : first in the yfcar 1660, when the Preshytericms restored the King and Constitution,, without making- aiuy terms for themselves ; and now again at the revolutioji, when the church lied for succor to a Presbyterian Prince, and was delivered by an army of fourteen thousand Hollanders, of the same prin- ples with the English Dissenters."

This highly honorable conduct of the dissenters, was not forgotten by the lords in Parliament in 1702, when Queen Anne came to the throne. In a conference with the house of Commons, on the Occasional Bill, they say : *'That in the last and greatest danger the church was ex- posed to, the dissenters joined with her, with all imagina- ble zeal and sincerity, against the Papists, their common enemies, showing no prejudice to the church.*'

During the reign of King William, the high church party were displeased that toleration was granted to the disaeaters., Thus says Neal,:, *^The lories and high

22

church clergy enjoyed tlie advantages of this glorious rev- olution, while tliey acted a most ungrateful part towaids their deliverer., and a most unkind and ungenerous one to their dissenting brethren."

While William lived, he defended the di.-senters ; but when Anne came to the throne, the high church party im- mediately brought in the Occasional Bill to cramp the toU eration of the dissenters, which did not obtain the royal assent till the year 1711.

But when George I. came to the throne in 1714, he was satisfied, that the oppressions, of which the dissenters complained, were brought upon thein for "their steady ad- herence to the Protestant succession in his illustrious house." And in five years, he procured the repeal of the acts against toleration, since which time, no important change has taken place in the statutes of England, on the subject of religion. The Episcopal church is the estab- lished religion, but others are tolerated.

In Scotland, since the days of Knox, Presbyteriauism has generally stood on a firm basis. It has been, and is now the established religion. The Scotch havealwajs shown an unwavering attachment to their discipline, and a desire to have their system prevail. And had they been less eager on this point, and more tolerant towards others, their influence would have been more extensively felt. They erred in imposing Presbyterian'sm upon the Eng- lish. And when they had procured their establishment in England, they opposed the toleration of others. The parliament was willing to grant toleration to the Inde- pendents. Rut the rigid Presbyterians opposed and pre- vented it. Thus ihcy alienated this body, and eventually defeated their own cause; so that the Prcsbyteiians in England, suon became comparatively a small body. And, as to the Scotch, we would look with admiration upon their church, were it not for their attachment to the Solemn League and Covenant, and the divine right of Presbytery, and their alliance with the civil power.

The Presbyterians or Huguenots of France, never had the aid of civil power, but were often sorely persecuted. They generally enjoyed some toleration, till the horrible St. Bartholomew massacre, in 1572, which resulted in the destruction of at least thirty thousand Protestants. In

23

1598, in the reign of Henry IV. their civil rights were se- cured by the edict of Nantes. During tha reign of Lou- is XIV. they were again greatly persecuted; and by the revocation of the edict of Nantes, in 1685, many thou- sands were forced to make their escape to other parts of Europe, and to America. Since which time, the Hugue- nots in France have lived the subjects of alarm and per- secution, never enjoying a full and free toleration, except during the great revolution under Napoleon.

When we look back, two or three centuries ago, to Vae history of the church, in any of ils parts, we see that the principles of a general toleration and equal rights were not understood. Nor are these principles, at the present day, embraced and cherished, except in the United States. And when we wonder at the persecutions of former times, we should recollect that they were times of violence and intolerance. Rudeness often characterized the persecuted as well as the persecutor. Take one specimen two hun- dred years ago. Mr. Prynne wrote a book, in which he uses such language as this, in speaking of the ladies at pourt, and of the nobility : "Our English ladies, shorn and frizzled iiiadams, have lost their modesty ; that the devil is only honored by dancing" &c. For this book he was prosecuted. The Earl of Dorset, in a speech against him, says : "1 will never set him at liberty, no more than a plagued man, or a mad dog. He is fit to live in dens with such beasts of prey as wolves and tigers, like him- self; therefore I condemn him to perpetual imprisonment ; and for corporeal punishment, 1 would have him branded in the forehead, slit in the nose, and have his ears chopt off." And this was only a part of the penalty inflicted. His imprisonment, however, was not perpetual. Surely these were times of violence, when a. savage barbarism was vastly more popular than in our day. And, it being an age of intolerance, conscientious men, no doubt, thought they were doing God service, by persecuting those who difTered from them.

But in the United States, all sects now profess to have abandoned their persecuting principles. When they sat- isfy the public mind that this is so, the past ought to be forgotten and forgiven. In other parts of the world, there are yet church establishments. And wheiever, at this

24

day, a church sits securely in the lapof civil power, there are still to be found the principles of intolerance. And wherever a church claims to be independent of, or superi- or to the civil power, there persecution is to be found.

But the Episcopalians, in the United States, have no ec- clesiastical connection with the Episcopal establishment of England, and they profess to be the friends of equal rights. The Presbyterians, in the United States, have no ecclesiastical connection with the Presbyterian establish- ment of Scotland, and they profess to have abandoned those arbitrary and intolerant principles, to which the Scotch have generally adhered. Such professions are right, and worthy of confidence, whilst strengthened by a corresponding practice.

However, where there is no church establishment, there is one feature in some sects, that is calculated to sow deeply and widely the seeds of intolerance, viz.: — the divine right — a conceit that, notwithstanding according to the civil laiv they are on an equality with other sects, yet, according to divine lazv, they are the church ; others are out of the church, heretics and schismatics, becausu they are not of their party. Of one thing, however, we may feel confident, that wherever a sect has no connection with civil power, and abandons her divine right notions, such a sect is not to be feared.

From these brief sketches of Presbyterianism, the rea- der will perceive, that Presbyterians do not claim to have h&Qn an infallible church, it ought, however, to be re- membered, that Presbyterianism in the New World, is not what it is in the Old World.

It is our purpose to show, in these sketches, that the unlovely features of Scotch Presbyterianism — Church and State ; Solemn League and Covenant ; Divine Right, 4*c. — have never pertained to American Presbyterianism. Where those brethren will land, who have commenced a sort of relrogade reformation, is for future development. They have nothing to say in favor of the tolerant and li- beral principles upon which American Presbyterianism was founded, but seem to have a strange "affinity" for the Scotch system, as the only perfect model of Presbyterian- ism. But of this hereafter.

( '25 )

CHAPTER II.

UxXION OF PRESBYTERIANS AND CONGREGATIONAL- ISTS-PRIMITIVE AND LIBERAL POLICY OF AMEKI CAN PRESBYTERIANISM.

In the history of the Presbyterian church, it is neces- sary to notice its connection with the Independents or Con- gregationalists. The two bodies, in England and Amer- ica, have generally adopted the same Confesssion of Faith; and when their jealousies, alienations and strifes about other matters were healed, they have been ready to adopt plans of correspondence and union.

The first effort at union in England, worthy of notice, was about the year 1653. At first the "articles of eon- cord" were drawn up so as to embrace Episcopalians. But the associations were attended mostly by the Congre- gationalists and Presbyterians. We find th.e following; statement in Neal's history : "The chief of the Presbyte- rian and Independent divines, who v/ere weary of divis- ions, and willing to strengthen each others hands, united in these assemblies, though the exasperated prelatists, th;- more rigid Presbyterians and severer sort of Independent?, kept at a distance. But many remarkable advantages at- tended these associations ; they opened and preserved ;i friendly correspondence among the ministers," &;c.

But towards the close of the seventeenth century, th.- two bodies effected a firmer union. Hence we learn, that "on the 6th day of April, 1691, the Presbyterian and Con- gregational denominations of christians, in Great Britain, met at Stepney, and there, by the blessing of Alm'igiity God, after talking over their differences and agreements, consummated a union of the two denominations, by a- dopting what was called the heads of agreement, embracing 3

26

:i few cardinal principles, which were to govern them in their fraternal intercourse."

Presbyterians and Congrcgationalists, with this spirit, ilying from intolerance and persecution in the Old World, would find liitle difficulty in uniting, when sharing in the toils and privations of a settlement in the wilds of Amer- ica. The Presbyterians, who settled in the New England Slates, generally united with the Congrcgationalists; and I he Congreorcitionalists, who settled in the middle and South- v.rn States, united with the Presbyterians.

In the early settlement of this country, the Scotch Prea- bylerians came into these arrangements somewhat reluc- mnly. They had not favored the plans of union between the two denominations in the Old World. Many of them v/cre devotedly attached to the measures of the Church of Scotland, a church that was long disposed to adhere to licr arbitrary principles, as will appear from the fact, that as late as 1712, during the reign of Queen Anne, they i;ubiished an act or testimony against religious toleration.

It was not to be expected that Scotch Presbyterians, Eng- lish Presbyterians, Huguenots, Independents, &c. commg from so many diiTerent countries — England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, France, Germany, &C.. — could unite in any rigid system. The result was a modified Congrega- tionalism in New England, and a modified system of Pres- cyterianism south and west of New England.

As tbe result of the plan of union of 1091, between the l^rosbyterlans' and Congrcgationalists of England, Mr. McKemie, a native of Ireland, was sent as a missionary TO America. He with others in 1704 or 1705, formed the first Presbytery in America — the Presbytery of Phila- delphia. This Presbytery was composed partly of Pres- liyterians and partly of Congregationalists. Mr. An- drews, the first pastor of the first church in Philadelphia, was a Congregational Presbyterian. And that church was sixty-four years without any ruling elders, though under the care of the Presbytery.

Thus it appears, that Presbyterianism was introduced into this country from England, and not from Scotland, and upon the foundation of an enlightened and liberal tol- eration.

The Presbytery of Philadelphia was formed upon the

27

liberal principles, which controled the united body in Eng- land. The small number of churches, the sparseuess of population, and difficulty of supporting the gospel, \vou!il contribute to such a result. When tiie first Presbytery was formed, it was composed of seven ministers. One of thcso was Mr. Andrews, a graduate of Cambridge, and a native of New England. Of the seven, it is not clear that more than three of them were Presbyterians originally. It is however certain that Congregational materials were the. most numerous. In 1701, Massacliusetts had eighty-six ministers; and in 1713, Connecticut had "forty-six church- es which had been illuminated by about ninety minis- ters." At that time, therefore, in the history of the Amer- ican church, the Congregationalists composed a much lar- ger body than the Presbyterians.

And from the fact of their emigration South and West, they would exercise no small influence in the Presbyterian church. As early as 1640, the New Haven colony "made a large purchase on both sides of the Delaware Bay and River." "This purchase was made with a view to trade, and for the settlement of churches in gospel order and pu- rity." The settlements were made under the jurisdiction of New Haven, and "in close combination with that col- ony in all their fundamental articles."

The intercourse between the two denominations was fraternal and liberal. The assistance which they afford- ed each other, was often substantial. When the Presby- tery of Philadelphia, in 1709, applied to Sir Edmund Har- rison, one of the dissenters in London, for aid, they re- (juested the Rev. Ministers of Boston, to join with them in "imploring help and assistance for promoting the inter- ests of our glorious Lord." And the Congregationuliats wrote in their behalf.

In 1710, the first Synod was formed — the Synod of Phil- adelphia— upon the same liberal principles of a modified Presbyterianism. Fourteen years after this, Mr. An- drews, in a letter to Rev. Mr. Prince, of Boston, says : "We all call ourselves Presbyterians; none pretending to be called Congregationalists" — "And the ministers are all Presbyterian, though mostly from New England." (See Hill's History, p. 105.)

Those who had been reared in the church of Scotland,

28

wcvb not generally pleased with those liberal principles which resulted in the union of Presbyterians ond Con- gregationalists, and the founding of the American church iipon tlie basis of a modified Presbyterianism. Soon after the formation of the Synod, murmurs of dissatisfaction, from the more rigid Scotch, were heard. The ministers from Scotland, who, to use the words of Dr. Miller, "were desirous to carry into eflect the system to whicii they hud heen accustomed in all its extent and strictness," began to insist, that the church in this country should adopt the ex- i:lusive policy of the church of Scotland. In that coun- try they adopted the whole of the Old VV'est minster Con- llssion, which made it the duty of the cicihnagistrate "to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, thai the truth of God be kept pure and entice, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all cor- ruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, ad- ministered and observed." And according to the Scotch mode of adopting the Confession of Faith, a minister be- longing to the established church of Scotland, could regard no man as a minister, who had not received license from one of their Preshyteries, and subscribed a formula, which would bind him to adhere to the established church, with its Confession, its entire system of Government, and its Solemn League and Covenant, which Covenant would bind }iin) to endeavor "the extirpation of popery, prelacy, su- jierstitiur, heresy, schism," &c. These were the^princi- jiles of the rigid Scotch "in all its extent and strictness." And it is not surprising, that such an adoption should meet v.'ith opposition in founding the American Presby- terian Church,

(^^)

CHAPTER IIL

CONTROVERSY AND SCHISM OF 1711.

As soon as the Presbyterian church began to prosper and extend its infiuence, men's views began to confl.ct. The two extreme parties in this controversy, were the favorers of the Scotish system and tliose who had im- bibed the more liberal principles of the Congregationalists. The strength of the parties, the reasons of their union, their differences and agreements are briefly set forth by Dr. Green, in his Advocate of August 183 i. He siys : "Indeed there were circumstances in the early history o-f our church, which so powerfully urged the Presbyterians and Congregationalists to a union, that we do not wonder it was sought, nor think that we ought to attach blame to those who endeavored to effect it. The Presbyterians, at first, were but a handful, and naturally wished to increase their strength by any feasible alliance. The Congrega- tionalists, although more numerous, having previously established themselves in the eastern part of the British provinces, and although not favorable to the settlement of l^resbyterians among themselves, yet were willing to form a coalition which would manifestly extend their influence. 'J'he mother country was also, at the time, hostile to both these sects. She liad, by persecution at home,, driven both into exile, and even in exile, was far from regard- ing them with a propitious eye. To strengthen each other against a common, adverse and powerful influence, was certainly an operative motive to conjoint action,^ and to the amalgamation in which it resulted. Such a result, moreover, seemed to be recommended by an entire agree- ment of the parties in their doctrinal theology. Botli Presbyterians and Congregationalists were, at this time,, strict Calvinists. They wure both, and we believe equaflv 3^

nttficlicd to the doctrinal creed of the Westminister Di- vines, especially to the summary of it which is contain- i;d in the Shorter Catechism, k was irj regard to cUurch government, or the system of ecclesiastical order luid diS' ripline, that the parties difl'ered. The attempts to com- promise this difference^ produced the difficulties and dis- scntions in the early periods of our church."

These are very correct afid valuable items of history, especially as coming from Dr. Green, a thorough Old t^chooi man; and going to shew the strength of parties^ the mild and moderate character of primitive, American Presbyterlanism, &c.

Dr. Miller says, that in the organization of the Pres- byterian church in this country, they "had not formally nad publicly adopted any particular confession of faith, of ecclesiastical constitution. They acted under a plan, rather understood than officially ratified." This alarmed the more rigid of the Scotch Presbyterians. Dr. Green says: "In the year 1721, we have the lirst indication of trie general controversy." In 1724 several ministers from Scotland began to insist upon a subscription to the old Westminister Confession of Faith, which, as it then was, ,would give to the civil magistrate the power of persecu- ting God^s people, and bind the ministers to the extirpa- tion of heresy and schism. The descendants of the Puri- tans regarded this as an attempt to introduce the entire system of Scotch Presbyterianism, under which toleration h:ui been denied their forefathers.

These contentions led to the Adopting Act of the Synod cf Philadelphia in 1729. The act embodied the liberal prin- ciples upon which Presbyterians and Congregationalists liad united. It is as follows :

"The committee brought in an overture upon the atTair of the Confession, which, after long debating upon it, was agreed to in Iiaec verha. Although the synod do not clain> or pretend to any authouity of imposing our faith upon ether men's consci 'nccs, but do profess our just disatisfao- fion with, and abhorrence of such impositions, and do not only disclaim all legislat-ve power and authority in the church, being willing to receive one another, as Christ li&th received us, to the glory of God, and admit to fellow- ship in such ordinances, all such as we have grounds to

31

believe Christ will at last admit to the kingdom of heaven ; yet we are undoubtedly obliged to take care that the fuith once delivered to the saints, be kept pure and uncorrupt among us, and so handed dovvn to our posterity ; and do therefore agree, thatall the ministers of this synod, or that shall hereafter be admitted into this synod, shall declare iheir agreement in, and approbation of the Confession of Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the As- sembly of divines at Westminister, as being i?i all essen." tiai end necessary articles, good forms and sound words, and systems of Christian doctrine, and do also adopt the said Confession of Faith and Catechism as the confession of our faith. And we do also agree, that the Presbj teries within our bounds shall always take care not to admit any candidate of the ministry, into the exercise of the sacrf d function, but what declares his agreement in opinion irilh all the essential and necessary articles of said Conftssioj) either by subscribing the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms, or by a verbal declaration of their assent thereto, as such ministers or candidates shall think best. And in case any minister of this synod, or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any scruple with lespect to any article or articles of said Confession of Faith or Catechisms, he shall, at the time of his making such «le- claration, declare his sentiments to the Presbytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exer- cise of the ministry within our bounds, and to ministerial communion, if either Synod or Presbytery shall judge his scruple or mistake to be only about articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship, or government. But if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge 6uch ministers or candidates erroneous in essential and necessary articles of faith, the Synod or Presbytery shall declare them incapa- ble of communion with them. And the Synod do solemn- ly agree, that none of us will traduce, or use any oppro- bious terms of those that differ from us in those extra-es- sential, and not necessary points of doctrine, but treat them with the same friendship, kindness and brotherly love, as if they had not differed from us in such senti- ments."

It is not inferred from this act, that the Synod was too latitudinarian, or that it was their purpose to tolerate every

species of error, as some would conjecture, "from high Arianism to low Arminianism." They were orthodo:< men. To guard against misapprehension, on the after' noon of the same day, they say by way of explanation, ■"•All the ministers of the Synod, except one that declared himself not prepared," "after proposing all the scruples- any of them had to make against any of the articles and expressions in the Confession of Faith, and Larger and Shorter Catechisms, of the Assembly of Divines of West- minister; and we unanimously agreed in the solution of those scruples, in declaring the said Confession and CatC' chism to be the Confession of their faith, except only some clauses in the 20th, and 23rd chapters, concerning which clauses, the Synod do unanimously declare, that they do not receive those articles in any such sense as to suppose the civil magistrate hath a oontroling power over Synod.'*, with respect to their exercise of tlieir ministerial aulhori-- ty ; or power to persecute any for their religion, or in any case contrary to the Protestant succession to the throne of Great Britain."

But the adopting act did not satisfy the friends of a rigid subscription. By this act, Dr. Green says, that the mother Synod "Congregationalized the church," and that "-they left nothing of Presbyterianism behind but the name; so that it become nothing but a Presbyterio Con- gregational church." Some of these strict Presbyterians immediately left their former connection and joined the secession church, in consequence of this art.

Efforts were made to stay this dissatisfaction and seces- sion. New Castle Presbytery, the next year, in Septem- ber 1730, adopted the following minute : "Whereas, divers j)crsons belonging to several of our congregations have been stumbled and oflended, at a certain niinute of the proceedings of the last Synod, contained in a printed let- ter, because of some ambiguous words or expressions, contained therein ; being willing to remove, as far as in us lies, all causes and occasions of jealousies and offences irr relation to that affiir, and openly before God and the world, to testify, that we all with one accord, firmly adhere to that same sound doctrine, whici) we and our forefathers- were trained up in."

33

Two years after this, Donnegal Presbytery adopted a similar minute.

These movements were calculated to akrm the Synod. In consequence of the adopting act, they saw some of their members going off to the seceders, and no less than two of their Presbyteries passing resolutions to counteract their liberal policy. The result was, that the dissatisfied party raised such a clamor against the adopting act, that at last the old Synod quailed before it. And in 1736 the Synod "do declare, that inasmuch as we understand that many persons of our persuasions, both more lately and formerly, have been offended with some expressions, or distinctions, in the first preliminary act of the Synod, contained in the paper relating to our receiving or adopt- ing the Westminister Confession and Catechisms, &c. ; that in order to remove said offence, and all jealousies that have arisen, or may arise in any of our people's minds on account of said distinctions and expressions, the Synod dolh declare, that the Synod have adopted, and do still adhere to the Westminister Confession, Catechisms, and Directory without the least variation or alteration, and without any regard to said distinctions."

This act was as little relished by the liberal party, as the adopting act was by the rigid party. And it rapidly paved the way for the schism which occurred in 1741.

(3ther causes conspired to hasten the schism of the church. The two parties differed on the subject of revi- vals. The great revival of 1735, which commenced un- der President Edwards, and under Mr. Whitfield and others in 1740, gave rise to some departures from truth and sobriety. The "Old Side" were the opposers of the revival ; and the "New Side" its ardent friends. The opposers wrote and circulated pamphlets to suppress the revival.

There was also some difference between the parties about vital godliness, and qualifications for the ministry. The New Sido men charged the Old Side v^^ith caring too much about literary qualifications, and not enough about experimental religion. Dr. Miller says, "The cordial and active friends of this revival, generally coincided with that portion of the Presbvterian church, which was most friend- ly to ardent piety, and least zealous for Presbyterial ordcr>

34

confessions of faith and literary qualifications in the minis- try."

All these, and perhaps other conflicting views alienated the feelings of brethren from each other. Dr. Miller says: "Old Side men regarded their opponents as a body of extravagant and ignorant enthusiasts ; while the New Side men regarded the Old Side men as a set of pharisaical formalists."

These dissentions about qualifications for the ministry, revivals of religion, vital godliness, and the manner of sub- scribing the old Confession of Faith, resulted in the great schism of 1741.

Dr. Miller, an Old School man, in speaking of that schism, censures both sides ; the New Side too severely. He says: '•The Old Side was wrong in opposing the revival of reli- gion under the ministry of Whitfield and his friends; and in contending as they did at first, against examination on vital pieltj : while the New Side were as plainly wrong in frequently violating that ecclesiastical order which they had stipulated to observe ; in undervaluing literary quali- fications for the holy ministry; and in giving countenance, for a time, to some real extravagancies and disorders which attended the revival of religion." That the New Side did not undervalue literature, is evident from the fact, that they immediately built up New Jersey College. And in regard to revivals, allowance can be made for the cen- sure, when it is recollected that the '■'■anxious seal''' and all such measures are ranked by Dr. Miller among "e«- travagancies and disorders.^'

At the tin^e of the schism, there was but one Synod — that of Philadelphia. In 1745, the Synod of New York was organized, embracing the New Side men.

One of the first efforts of the New Side party, was to build up Now Jersey College, which was permanently lo- cated at Princeton, in 1757. The college had difficulties and opposition to encounter. At first it languished for want of funds. But in 1753, the Synod of New York, at the request of ihe Trustees of the college, sent Rev. Samuel Davies and Rev. Gilbert Tennent to England to solicit aid. They were successful. The liberal benefactions received, placed the college in a respectable condition. (See Quarter- ly Register, Vol. 3: No. 4. p. 273.}

35

From President Davies, while on thi3 tour, we also learn, that among the New Side men, during the schism, a rigid sub'^cription of the Confessionof Faith wo.s not demanded. When interrogated, in England, on this subject, Mr. Da- vies says: "I replied that we allowed the candidate to men- tion his objections to any article in the Confession, and tho judicatures judge whether the articles objected against were essential to Christianity; and if they judged they were not, they would admit the candidate, notwithstanding his ob- jections."

It will be remembered, that this was the principle upon which tho American Presbyterian church was founded — this was the spirit of the adopting act of 1729 — this the policy of the New Side in that day, and for more than this, no party has since ever contended.

But to return to our history. Seven years after the di- vision, efforts were made to unite the two Synods. But these efforts did not succeed till 1758— =-the parties having been separate for seventeen years.

Then the Synods united, under the name of the Synod of New York and Philadelphia. They agreed to adopt the Confession of Faith, as it had been adopted in 1729, disclaiming a\\ '^legislative ]wtoer,^^ "as being, hi all es- sential and necessary articles, good forms and sound words." This was, therefore, a union upon what is gen- erally called the liberal prmciples of American Presby- terianism.

In 1766, eight years after the union of the Synods, the Presbyterian Church proposed a convention of delegates of the pastors of the Presbyterian and Congregational churches in America, which met annually, until it was interrupted by the American Revolution.

In 1788, the General Assembly was organized. Some alterations were then made in the old Westminster Con- fession, making it more suitable to the views of the en- tire church. Two years after this, the Assembly "being peculiarly desirous to renew and strengthen every bond of union between brethren so nearly agreed in doctrine and forms of worship, as the Presbyterian and Congregational churches evidently are, do resolve, that the Congregation- al churches in New England be invited to renew their annual convention with the clergy of the Presbyteriaa

S6

church." This led to the plans of correspondence with the Congregational churches of New England, which are yet in existence, and which provide, that "every preacher traveling from one body to the other, and properly recom- mended, shall be received as an authorized preacher of tlie gospel, and cheerfully taken under the patronage of the Presbytery or Association, within whose bounds he shall find employment as a preacher."

In 1799, the Legislature of Pennsylvania passed an act incorporating "The Trustees of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United Siaies of Ame- rica,"

CHAPTER IV.

THE POLICY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE STRUGGLE FOR NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE.

Though in ecclesiastical matters, there had been a rigid and a liberal party in the Presbyterian church in the Uni- ted States, yet in civil matters, the whole church acted the part of the most ardent friends of liberty, in the most per- ilous times of our history. The Episcopal church was the established church in the mother country. So it was in the colonies previously to the revolution. In some of the colonies there were chartered privileges which caused the dissenters not to feel the burdens of the establishment. Yet the Episcopal was the government church, and, in the Middle and Southern colonies, claimed most of the rights and immunities of the church in the mother country.

37

From an early pftriod in the settlement of some of the colonies, as in Virginia, very severe laws were enncted aga'nst dissenters — Presljyterians, Baptists, &c. This would very naturally cause them to dislike the establish- ment, and to wish to see the Episcopal hierarchy in this country overthrown. The rights of conscience as well as civil liberty, enlisted the energies of the Presbyterian church in the contest for our national independence.

During the revolutionary war, the Synod of New York and Phildelphia was the highest judicatory of the Presby- terian church in the United States. More than a year before the declaration of Independence, in May, 1775, while the 2d Congress was in session in Philadelphia, the Synod threw the weight of their official influence in favor of Congress and liberty. They addressed a pastoral let- ter to their people, and ordered it to be read in all the churches, on the day of the general fast in June, 1775. In this letter they say: "Be careful to maintain the union which at present subsists through all the colon'es. No- thing can be more manifest than that the success of every measure depends on its being inviolably preserved, and therefore we hope that you will leave nothing undone which can promote that end. In particular as the Conti- nental Congress, now sitting in Philadelphia, consists of delegates chosen in the most free and unbiassed manner by the body of the people, let them not only be treated with respect, and encouraged in their difficult service ; not only let your prayers be offered *lip to God for his di- rection in their proceedings, but adhere firmly to their resolutions ; and let it be seen that they are able to bring out the whole strength of this vast country to carry them into execution. We would also advise for the same pur- pose, that a spirit of candor, charity, and mutual esteem be preserved, and promoted towards those of ditl'erent re- ligious denominations."

This is the letter to which Ramsey refers, in the 2d vol- ume of his history. The chairman of the committee that prepared the letter, was the Rev. Dr. Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Ddclaration of Independence. The Rev. Dr. Rogers, afterwards the first moderator of the General Assembly, was one of the committee. And so

4

38

was the Rev. Mr. Caldwell, who was afterwards shot by the British.

The most prominent individuals in the Presbyterian church were the ardent friends of liberty. Dr. Wither- spoon's course is well known.

Dr. Rogers was among the most influential in the church. Gen. Washington conferred and corresponded with him about public matters, and received from him val- Viable information.

The Rev. David Rice, well known in Kentucky, was a member of a committee of public safety for Bedford coun- ty, Virginia, during most x)f the war. His brothers were soldiers in the army. In his sermons, he eshorted his peo- ple to constancy and firmness in the contest, in such lan- guage as this: "We should resist oppression by every means in our power to the last extremity ; cheerfully un- dergoing the various fatigues and dangers of military life. This is wise, because opprersion is worse than death. Let 03 duly consider the evils of oppression, and particularly that oppression which is prepared for us, and resolve to suffer any losses, undergo any hardships, and expose our- selves to death with all its natural terrors, rather than sub- mit to it. Let us not indulge a mean, selfish disposition, but consider our wives and children, and even generations yet unborn, and remember that their happiness depends on our conduct."

Dr. John B. Smith v;as President of Hamden Sydney College, Virginia, and one of the most popular ministers in the Presbyterian church. He took a bold stand for his country. At one time, when there was a sudden call foi- troops, he headed a company of students to bring aid to his countrymen in arms.

Dr. James Hall was a popular minister in North Caro- lina, and afterwards moderator of the General Assem- bly. At a time of great emergency in the South, he, at the close of his sermon on the Sabbath, told his people, that all men had various duties to perform — and that he thought it his duty in the present crisis to shoulder his firelock and fight for his country ; and that they need not for a time expect his services as a pastor. He formed a company chiefly of his own parishioners, and as their lead' .ey, served a campaign.

39

I\iany other examples of similar cljaracter might {^egiv en — but these are enough.

After the independence of the colonies had been ft* cured, the question involving religious liberty had to uc settled. In the organization of State governments Vho fjuestion came up: Shall there be an established reli- gion? Or, shall provision be made for gome of the more prominent sects? Or,- shall all connexion between churifi and state be dissolved, and equal liberty granted to nil? The Presbyterians advocated equal liberty for all.

In Virginia the struggle was most arduous. An at- tempt was made to retain the old establishment. This was opposed by the Presbyterians, and could not succeed. Then an effort was made to pass "a comprehensive incor" porating act," by which Presbyterians might parlicipa"e in the establishment. This was opposed by the Presbyte- rians. It was not, however, till the year 1786, (hat the law securing full and equal liberty was passed in Virgin\i> Previously to this time the Presbyterians had sent five me- morials to the Legislature, all in favor of full religious lib- erty ; one of which was signed by ten thousand namfs. 'i'he last memorial was drawn up by a convention of Pres- byterian ministers and members in 1785, and was to bo presented to the Legislature at its next session, it was accordingly presented by Dr. John B. Smith, who w;\s heard at the bar of the house three diys successively in its support. The objects for which these efforts were made were gained — a bill was passed granting to all A;'! religious liberty — placing all ministers and sects upon an equal footing, and leaving it to the people of ditierent ''<:.- nominations to support their own ministers by their own voluntary contributions. (See the Presbyterian Advocate, published in Lexington, in 1830.)

5:5" Note to the Reader. It was necessary, in getting at the spi- rit of the Presbyterian Controversy, to glance at the earlier periods oi our Church. In doing this, we see the diflerence between Scotch Prtg- byierianism and primitive American Presbyterianisni. This will also enable us, in the prosecution ot our design, to see the strong resem- blance which modern Old SchooUs7)i has oT the Scotish system.

It has been charged upon the liberal party in the Presbyterian church, that they favor plans of union with the Congregationalisis. We sljtw

40

fjoni the liistovy of our church, that if they err in this, the fo'inders of vur church erred sull more; for, Recording to Dr. Green, "they Con- grcgaijiialized ihu church."

It lias been charged upon the libera! party, that tley have become too lax in theology, brcause they are willing to tolfrate some shades ol difference. But it this De trror, how great was the error of the foun- ders of our church, who, according to Dr. Miller, "had not formally and publjcly adopted any particular confession ol fa;th or ecclesiastical cons-titiition." If this be error, how great was the error of </ic mo<Af Sy7iod'\n the adopting act of 17-^9, when our ministers were required to bubscribe tlie Coniess'.on of Faith, "as htinp, in^a/l essential and ne- cessary articles, good forms and sound words.''' If this be error, how great was the error of Kev. 6'a/rtMeZ iJai-iea, when he asserted, that in his day, the principles of the adopting act were carried out !

The schism of 1741 is a part of the history w 0'.:r church, which is now looked into v,':th deep interest, as exhibiting the same spirit, which has again resulted in the disruption of tlie church.

The history of those early periods will shew which party hasadhered to our primitive liberal policy, and which has ! etn the advocate ot mea- sures, which neither we nor our fathers could bear.

It has been charged upon the liberal parly, that they are no Presbyte- rians, because they are in favor of voltuilary asbociations — the Ameri- can Board, &.c. But in the days of McKenue, or of Davits, who ever was told tl'.at he was no Presbyterian, because lie would not favor the narrow policy of ecclesiastical Boards? In that day these new mea- sures, new basis, ami new tests were not kncwii.

In the struggle for independence — for civil a.';d religious liberty — it will be s'^en, that American Presbyterianism wi-s noT Sc' Ich Preshyte- rianism ; and while the Presbyterian chuich o: !?'cotlfind was sitting Sicurelyin the lap of civil power, the America.! Prtsbytcrian church was laboring for full religious liberty for all.

(41)

CHAPTER V.

PLAN OF UNION OF ISO 1.

After the schism of 1741 had been healed, and the war with the mother country ended, nothing of impor- tance transpired, during the remainder of that century, to mar the friendly intercourse between Presbyterians and CongregationaUsts. Plans of union and coirespon- dence between the two bodies were extensively cherished by both denominations. But the plan of Union of 1801 has been the occasion of more unpleasant feeling than all the others. It ought therefore to be particulurly noticed. It was a Plan of Union between Presbyterians and Con- gregationalists in the new settlements of New York, Ohio. &c., where there was great difficulty in supporting thu preaching of the gospel and other means of grace. It was thought to be agreeable to the powers vested in the General Assembly, by the constitution of the church, lo correspond with other churches. The plan was matured by the Assembly, and by them proposed to the Association of Connecticut, and by that body unanimously adopted. The Plan of Union was as follows :

"Regulations adopted by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church in America, and by the General As- sociation of the Stale of Connecticut, (provided said As- sociation agree to them,) with a view to prevent alienation and promote union and harmony in those new settlementt^ which are composed of inhabitants from these bodies.

1. It is strictly enjoined on all their missionaries to the new settlements, to endeavor, by all proper means, to pro- mote mutual forbearance and accommodation, between those inhabitants of the new settlements who hold the Pros-

42

byterlan and tliose who hold the Congregational form of church government.

2. If in the new settlements any church of the Congre- gational order shall settle a minister of the Presbyterian order, that church may, if they choose, still conduct their discipline according to Congregational principles, settling their difficulties among themselves, or by a council mutu- allv agreed upon for that purpose: but if any difficulty shall exist between the minister and the church or any member of it, it shall be referred to the Presbytery to which the minister shall belong, provided both parlies agree to it; if not, to a council consisting of an equal number of Presbyterians and Congregatioualists, agreed upon by both parties.

3. if a Presbyterian church shall settle a minister o-f Congregational principles, that church may still conduct their discipline according to Presbyterian principles: ex- cepting that if a difficulty arise between him and his church, or any member of it, the cause shall be tried by the Association to which the said minister shall belong, provided botii parties agree to it; otherwise by a council, one half Congregatioualists and the other half Presbyteri- ans, mutually agreed upon by the parties.

4. If any congregation consists partly of those who hold the Congregational form of discipline, and partly of those who hold the Presbyterian form, we recommend to both parties that this be no obstruction to their uniting in one church and settling a minister; and that in this case, the church choose a Standing Committee from the commu- nicants of said church, whose business it shall be to call to account every member of the church who shall conduct himself inconsistently with the laws of Christianity, and to give judgment on such conduct ; and if the person con- demned by their judgment be a Presbyterian, he shall have liberty to appeal to the Presbytery; if a Congregational- ist, he shall have liberty to appeal to the body of the male communicants of the church; in the former case, the de- termination of the Presbytery shall be final, unless the church consent to a further appeal to the Synod, or to the General Assembly ; and in the latter case, if the party- condemned shall wish for a trial by a mutual council, the cause shall be referred to such council. And pro-

43

vided that the said Standing Committee of any church shall depute one of themselves to attend the Presbytery, he may have the same right to sit and act in the Presbj tery as a ruling elder of the Presbyterian church." (Assembly's Digest, p. 297.)

This plan operated handsomely. And, except among a few friends of the most rigid Presbyterianism, no unea- siness was felt about the operations of the plan for a great number of years. Tiie wisest and best men in the church formed the plan and were pleased with its results. As late as 1833, Dr. Miller said : "] have always been a warm friend to it; and should be grieved at the occurrence of any thing calculated to interrupt it, or render it less comfortable. If no such intercourse existed, it ought forthwith to be begun. Those who come so near together as the great body of ministers of New England and those of the Presbyterian church ought undoubtedly to know and love one another, and to co-operate in the great work of enlightening and converting the world." And again "The articles of intercourse between the Associations of New England and the General Assembly of the Presby rian church are to be considered as a solemn ecclesiasti cal compact, evidently intended to promote harmony, co-op ei'alion and mutual strength."

Other plans of union and correspondence have been en tercd into between the Presbyterian church and other bodies.

In 1803, a Plan of Union and Correspondence was pro posed by the General Assembly to the Convention of Ver mont. It was ratified by the Convention.

In 1808, a Plan of Union was formed between the Syn- od of Albany and the Middle Atsociation in the Western District, in the State of New York.

In 1811, a Plan of Union and Correspondence was formed between the General Assembly and the General Association of Massachusetts.

In 1821, a Plan of Union was entered into between the Presbyterian church and the Associate Reformed Synod— a body of christians familiarly known as Seceders, ex- tremely rigid on some points. The first article of that plan has been regarded, by many, as more objectionable than any feature in the plan of 1801, with the Association

44

of Connacticut. It is as follows: "The difterent Presby- teries of the Associate Keformed church shall either re- tain their separate organization, or shall be amalgamated with those of the General Assembly, at their own choice. In the former case, they shall hnve as full powers and priv- ileges as any oiher Presbytery in the united body, and shall attach themselves to the Synods most convenient."

Note to the REAnER. The Plan of Union of 1801 has been made a pretext with the Reform party, for the dismemberment of the church. It will be seen that it was a wise and hberal arrangement. So thought Dr. Miller, one of the most prominent of the Reformers. The reader can compare the Plan of 16OI with the Plan of 1821— the one with Congregationalists and the other with the fcieceders— and then deter- mine upon their merits. But he will be s-urprised to learn, that the Plan with the Seceders is regarded by the Rel'orm party as altogether constitutional, while the Plan with the Con gregationali :<tg is entirely unconstitutional! The fact, that the Seceders side with (he Reform party, and the Congregationalists favor the more liberal policy of Anie- rican Fresbyterianism, will throw some light on this subject.

45

CHAPTER VI.

THE HOPKINSIAN CONTROVERSY.

Though many plana of union and correspondoiice had brcn formed between the Presbyterians and Congrega- tionaltsts, yet jealousies n,nd suspicions were two freely in- dulged by the more rigid Presbvlerians, who became alarmed at what they were pleased to call Kexo England Divinily. In 1792, Dr. Hopkins, of New England, pub' lished his system of Divinty. In his work he contended lor a religion above all selfishness. He taught a general atouemeni, the offer of saJvalian to all, moral depravity or inahUity of icill, or that the great diffir,ulty in t/ie way of the sinner's salvation lies wholly in his will. This work was circulated extensively, and was the occasion of array- ing the old parties — the Scotch and the American, or the "Old Side" and the "New Side." The Old Side men con- demned Hopkinsianism as heresy. In 1812, a work of some 500 pages, called the Contrast, was publisl.cd, to crush the errors of the Ho|)kinsians, and to show that the Hopkinsians differed from Calvin!

In 18 IG. a work, called the Triangle, made ils appear- ance in defence of the Flopkinsians and New Ei.gland theology. The author of this work says there were three great points of difference in theology between the two parties — that the "Old Side" men held the aflirmative, and the Hopkinsians the negative of these propositions, n imely.

"I. That the whole human race are guilty of the sin of Adam, independently of their own conduct, and for that sin are truly deserving of eternal punishment ; and that every man ought to feel himself deserving of eternal dntnnation for the first sin of Adumi

46

2. That all men labor under a true and physical inca- pacity to do any thing which God requires.

3. That Clirist died for an elect number, and no( for ihe sins of the whole world."

The excitement ran high. The author of the Trian- gle, speaking of the rigid party in the church, says: '•'J''heir plan and their hope is, by mancEuvering, by art and intrigue, to undermine the reputation of the men who hold to the sentiments which prevail in New England." On the other hand, the rigid party denounced the writings of the New England men as "consisting of nothing but verbiage, tautology, absurdity, nonsense, Armenianisni Socinianism, Atheism," &c.

In 1816, the Synod of Philadelphia came out in oppo.<;l- tion to Hopkinsianistn. In their pastoral letter they say: '*The Synod assembled in Lancaster at the present time consists of a greater number of members than have been convened at any meeting for many years; and from the free conversation on the state of religion, it appears, that all the Presbyteries are more than commonly alive to the importance of contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints, and of resisting the introduction of Arian, Sociuian, Armenian and Hopkinsian heresies: whicli are some of the means by which the enemy of souls would, if possible, deceive the very elect."' And agnin : "May the time never como when our ecclesiastical co.irts shall di'termine, that Ilopkinsianism and the doctrines of o'lr Confession of Faith are the same thing; or that ruen are less exposed now than in the days of the apo-ties to the danger of perverting the right ways of the Lord."

The author of the Triangle, in 1810, predicted the [irobable results of this rigid, uncompromising oppositiorj to Hopkinsianism. lie says : "Among the unhappy effects likely to result from the measures recently taken, we may well consider the gloomy prospects which threaten to over- spread the wliole body of professed Christians in the United States, flow terrible and shocking the thought, that .Christian brethren, friends and neighbors, united for many years in the strictest bonds of amity, 7nust be severed under the charge of heresy! Many churches must be torn and agitated with fierce disputes, and proba- bly rent asunder; churches be cast out of Presbyteries,

47

and perhaps Presbyteries out of Synods. And what ap- pearance would the Presbyterian church make, torn with divisions, distracted by disputes, rent with schisms, palsied bv animosities, and branded with the name of a persecu- tor?"

Here it will be seen wliat commotions Ihe rigid party were making twenty-five years ago, under the pretext of fighting Hopkinsianism — a system that has stood, and will stand the test.

I,t also appears from the controversial writings of that day, that the parties differed as to the propriety of de- manding a rigid subscription to the Confession of Faith. The author of the Triangle says: "In subscribing the Confession of Faith, my views were, I trust, not dissimi- lar to the views of those who compiled it, I viewed it as a noble system of doctrine, but as the work of fallible men, and of course, by no means perfect or infallible, or to be regarded as divine law. I had never any idea of substituting it for the word of God, or laying it beside the sacred oracles as of paramount authority, at which all inquiry was to stop, and disputation cease. It was never in the dreams of its authors to set it up as the sovereigii arbiter of conscience; or that any deviation from any points therein contained were to be stigmatized as a devia- tion from the eternal standard of truth, or subject those who deviated to censure and excommunication."

It is not certain how extensively the ministers and members of the Presbyterian church coincide in views with Dr. Hopkins, But it is certain, that but very few ecclesiastical bodies in the connexion could be brought to denounce the Hopkinsians. A Synod or two and perhaps a few Presbyteries armed themselves with ecclesiastical censures, talked and resolved and hurled their spiritual thunders at the errors of the Hopkinsians, and at all who would not receive the Old Side exposition of the Confes- sion of Faith. But soon the storm blew over, and there was a calm ; and now some who were, and are still Hop- kinsians, stand as fair even with the Scotch party, as if this controversy had never been waged.

( 43 )

CHAPTER VII.

THE HOME MISSIONARY CONTROVERSY-OLD SCHOOL CIRCULAR— NEW SCHOOL* DISAVOWAL— DRS, GREEN AND BEMAN— CINCINNATI CONVENTION. /

Before the close of the last century, the General As- sembly appointed a Standing Committee on Missions. Yet but little could be done to supply the increasing deso- lations of the land with the preaching of the gospel. The success of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, a voluntary society, patronized by Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed and Congregational churclies, induced those churches to try a similar plan for Domestic Missions. The wisest and best men in the Presbyterian church cordially recommended such a plan. Drs. Alexander and Miller wrote to Dr. Peters, the First Secretary, as follows :

*'Rev. and Dear Sir: — We rejoice to hear that there is a plan in contemplation for forming a Domestic Mission- ary Society, on a much larger scale than has heretofore existed. We have long been of the opinion, that the sub- ject of Domestic Missions is one which ought to interest the hearts, and to rouse the exertions and prayers of American Christians to an extent which very few appear to appreciate. Our impression is, that unless far more vigorous measures than we have hitherto witnessed shall be soon adopted for sending the blessed gospel and its ordinances to the widely extended and rapidly increasing New Settlements of our country, their active and enter-

* The reader will see that I often use the names "Old School" and '•New School," just as our New Basis brethren wouild do. 1 do it not because I consider them appropriate, but for the sake of distinction, as I wish to be understood by th« mass of both parties.

49

prising population inuat, at no great distance of time, In al)ancloned to a slate not mucii short of entire destitution of tlie means of grace. We would fain hope, that no christian, who loves the Redeemer's kingdom, and re- flects on the value of immortal souls; no parent, who \\> members that his own children, or children's children, may? in due time, make a part of the population of those districts; no patriot, who desires to see the virtue, peace, union and happiness of his country established, can possi- bly be indifferent to an object of such immense import- ance. Our prayer is, that the God of all grace may rouse the spirit of the nation on this subject ; and that the friends of religion who may be convened for the purpose of taking it into consideration, in the month of May next, may be directed to the adoption of a system which shall serve to give increasing interest and energy of proceeding in this momentous concern, and prove a source of lasting blessings to our beloved country."

The feeling thus expressed by Drs. Alexander and Miller prevailed. After much consultation it was pro- posed to form a National Institution, embracing all those denominations that were on terms of "intercommunion and ecclesiastical correspondence." This was the case with the Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed, and Congrega- ti-onal churches. Delegates from these three denomina- tions met in the city of New York, May 10th, 1826, and formed the American Home Missionary Society.

The plan for the Society's operations was generally and briefly this: to sustain Presbyterian ministers in fee- ble Presbyterian churches, Dutch Reformed ministers ia Dutch Reformed churches, and Congregational minis- ters in Congregational churches. The ministers were re- quired to be regularly authorized, and ui good standing ia their Presbytery, Classis or Association.

Of the hundred and twenty-six delegates in that Con- vention, fifty-two were from New England. One hundred and one were from the territory embraced within the bounds of the Presbyterian church, seventy of whom were members of the Presbyterian church.

Shortly after the formation of the Home Missionary Society, the General Assembly reorganized their Board of Missions. 5

50

The plan of the Home Missionary Society succeeded, and the Society flourished. But soon it was opposed by tlie friends of Ecclesiastical Boards. They advocated an exclusive poUcy, and eudeavored to excite suspicion atrainst the American Home Missionary Society.

^When in 1828 the Assembly's Board was reorganized, )t was seen that the two Societies would conflict. Then tlie Home Missionary Society was desirous to unite with the Assembly's Board. Their Executive Committee pro- jiosed a plan of union. Of that plan, the late Dr. Rice of Virginia said, "I do greatly approve of the plan pro- j>ased by the Executive Committee of the A. H. M. So- ciety." But the plan was rejected, and the A. H. M. Society was greatly blamed, by the Old School party, for yeeking a union.

The Old School party wished to rouse the church in favor of the Assembly's Board, which had hitherto been comparatively inoperative, against the A. H. M. Society. in 1829, only three years after the formation of- the A. H. f.I. Society, this subject was brought up in the General Assembly, and the following preamble and resolution adopted :

"While the Assembly would affectionately soHcit the co-operation of the churches with their own Board of Mis- sions : yet as many of our churches have already united iheir efforts with the A. H. M. Society, and the A. B. C, F. Missions, therefore

Resolved, as the sense of the Assembly, that the cluirches should be left entirely to their own unbiased and deliberate choice of the medium through which their charities shall flow forth to bless the perishing." (Min- utes, 1829, p. 374.)

This liberal policy did not suit the fiiends of Ecclesias- tical Boards. In 1831, the A. H. M. Society was al- inost simultaneously attacked in Philadelphia and Cincin- nati. At a meeting of the Cincinnati Presbytery in Jan. J.831, Rev. Mr. Crane, agent of the Assembly's Board of Missions, requested the Presbytery to appoint a Board of Agency for the Assembly's Board for the Valley of the IVlississippi. This measure was advocated by Dr. Wilson and others. Bat the Presbytery refused to comply with the request. Dr. Wilson then threw out suspicions and

51

insinuations against the A. H. M. Society. Soon after thiis, he published a pamphlet entitled "Four Proijosiiiors fcuslained against the claims of the A. H. M. Society." Speaking of the friends of this Society he says, that ''Hhey profess to be Presbyterians for the purpose of sub* : verting the doctrines, and overthrowing the Presbytejiau church." (p. 18.)

This was considered a very uncharitable suspicioii against such men as Drs. Woods, Porter, Cornelius, Pay-- son, Wisnerj Griffin, Day, Humphrey, &c., of New England, and Drs. Rice, Blackburn, Alexander, MillCi., Cox, McA-uley, Richards,- Skinner, Beman, Cleland, Nel- son, Anderson, Allan, &c., of tlie Presbyterian church.

Thesg charges too, were made against the A. H. ,\f. Society in the year 1&31, when it was known, that in th^j year 1=830, that Society had done more to supply the des- titute with the preaching of the gospel than had bcca- done by the Assombly's Committee or Board in the spaotr of almost foity years.

Soon after the .publication of Dr. Wilson's paniphlet i.i Citcinnati, a second edition of five thousand copies was published in Philadelphia by the friends of the Assembly'-? Board.

in not4cing this pamphlet, Mr. Peters, the Socretary of the Society, said:: '"if any have suspectoJ us of ulterior views- unfriendly to the Preal^yterian church, will not cur steady altuchment to its best interests, and our zealou-5 fffijrts to build- up its desolations, in a I'ltle while convino all candid men, who are willing to corne to the light, liiat their suspicions are unjust and cruel?" Agiin: '"'I'ho stand taken by my friend. Dr. Wilson, with all the liyiit he has upon ilie subject, surprises me iiuich. But I ain still not without hope, that on fuither reflection, he will come to a more friendly stuteof feeling towards the A. W. M.. Society. Surely he must see tliat his suspicions cf unfriendliness to the Presbyterian church on our part, arp not only in the face of all the evidence,, but also con- trary to express and reiterated assurances of our unwaver- ing desire to build up the Presbvteri.'in ciiurch bver the whole field of the West and the Sjuth. An! are we not doing it more efficiently tluui. all the other Missionary So- cieties tojietlier L'^'

52

The strong argument of the advocates of the Assem- bly's Board was, that the church, in her distinctive character, ought to evangelize the world ; that is ecclesias- tically, not through voluntary societies. To this it wns replied, that Presbyterians regard their denomination only :)s a part of the general church, and that if for the rea- son assigned, they stand off from the A. H. M. Society, for the same reason they might refuse to operate with the A. B. C. F, IMiss ons, the American Bible Society, tho American Tract Society, or the American Sunday School Union,

T'he stiife by this time rose Ijigh. Ttie friends of Ec- clesiastical Boards, or of an exclusive policy, appropria- ted to themselves the names, "Old School": — ^'tljp ortho- dox"— "true friends of the Presbyteri;in church."' They called the friends of Voluntary Association*, "New School," charging them with a partialiy for the Con- grrgntionulista. New England theology, &c. With many, names hnd a powerful charm. To the name "JVefc School,'- li.e friends of a liberal policy have objected. But for the sake of distinction it has been used, knowing that the spirit and conduct of the parlies ought to decide who are '-the true friends of the Presbyterian Church;-" knowiiig alsOr as President Young once said, ^lat ^'new pavers uic often usurped while eld names are rctaiHcd."

it appears from the documents of 1831, tlu.t the Old School party endeavored to secure the control of the church, tlie funds. Missionary operations, &:c., by creat- ing an alarm about doctrines. The case of Mr. Barnes, which came before the Assembly cf 16S1, excited general interest, and afforded the Old School an opportunity of /ningling doctrinal differences with every question that was agitated. But still they were unsuccessful.

The action of the Assembly of 1831 did not, therefore, satisfy the fiiends of the Assembly"s Board. That party was in a miijority. After the close of the Assembly, the^v appointed a Central Committee at Philadelphia to correspontl with Comn.iitees which they appointed in every Synod supposed "to be friendly to their views, and dis- po>!ed to co'operate in giving efficiency to their plans."

The appointment of these Committees, with a view eventually to control the highest judicatory of the church,

53

was regarded by tlie true friends of tlie churcli, as an uii* constitutional and revolutionary measure. In July 1831, the Central Committee issued their Circular, it is too lengthy for insertion here. It can be seen in the Calvinis- tic Magazine and other periodicals of that day. It was a *'jjfl7ric" document as the following extract will show :

"Our Board of Education, and Board of Missions must both receive a liberal patronage and a decided support. This is essential. Without this we are undone. The Vol- untary Associations that seek to engross the patronage of our church, and have already engrossed a large part of it, have taken the start of us, in the all-important con- cerns of education and of missions. They now labor tj get the whole of these into their own hands; well know- ing that if this be effected, they will infallibly, in a very short time, govern the church." Being in a minority, the Old School arrayed themselves against the General As- sembly, the highest judicatory of the church. From the extract above, it wiM be s'?en that they were alarmed be- cause their party could not "govei-n lite church.''^

At the same time, (July 1831) Dr. Green, in the Chris- tian Advocate, commenced the publication of a series ot^ numbers on "TAe freseni state of the Presbyterian church." They were pretty much in the style of the "Circular," as a few extracts will show :

"We say then, that the members of the last Ajjsembly appear to us to be far more strongly and characteristically marked by a difference in theologcal views and attach- ments, than those of any other Assembly we have ever seen. Indeed the difference we speak of was unhesita- tingly avowed, by a number of the members in their speeches; and to give our readers a right understanding of it, we shall, as correctly as we can, divide those among whom this difference did and does exist, into two classes — sometimes called — and occasionally so called in the As- sembly— the Old School and the New School Presby- terians." "We speak what we firuily believe, when we say, that unless, in the passing year, there is a general waking up of the Old School Presbyterians, to a sense of their danger and their duty, their influence in the General Assembly will forever afterward be subordinate, and un- der control ; and we are willing that men of all parties 5*

54

should know tliat such is our conviction. We wish for no concealment on the sm'jject. It need not be told that tliose whom we have ranked in the second class of the constituent members of the Assembly, were a decided majority of that body. They chose a Moderator suited to their plans and intentions; and it was in their power to dispose of every measure that came before the judica- ture, just as they pleased." Then follows a dissertation upon the character of Drs. Beman and Peters. There is one remark in this connection, which is true, and mani- festly so, in the treatment which the New School — a ma- jcrihj, received at the hands of their Old School brethren. "It will always happen that party spirit in one portion of the church will beget it in another, indeed whfn partiti^ exist, and are earnestly opposed to each other, Iht one /hat uses no means to obtain or preserve an ascendency , icill al- Most immediately he crushed, by the one that actively etn- ploys such means.'''

The next extract from Dr. Green will show, that in his epinion, ^Hhe principal cause^' of party spirit was in relation to missionary operations. As this difficulty was among the most promincni it should be well under- stood. Dr. Green says: "But the peculiar ardor of ex- citmient now prevalent, is principally attributable to a special cause, which ought to be more distinctly marked. It is not the case of ?tlr. Barnes. That case was indeed made an adjunct, and an auxiliary of the principal cause ; but the cause itself, the baneful apple of discord which has been thrown into the midst of us, is the inflexible puipose and untiring effort of the Corresponding Secretary and General Agent of the A. H. M. Society, to amalgamate the Board of Missions of the General Assembly with that Society."

On the other side, a "Disavowal" was published by prominent New School ministers, supposed to be implica- ted in the Christian Advocate, and by the Circular of the Central Committee. They say : "Now, if any persons adverse to the views and measures of Dr. Green, whom he calls opponents, are implicated by the foregoing charges, it is natural to suppose, from local circumstances and other causes, that some or all of the subscribers to this paper are intended: we think it, therefore, our duty

55

to th(3 church and to our.-^elvas, hereby solemnly to de- clare, that no one of us knew of any pre-concerted plan, combination, or effort, designed to affect the men)bers,

-the character or the measures of the KtsI Assembly." "We repel, also, the numerous insinuations directed against us, if classed with those who are called "New School Presbyterians," that we are hostile to evangelical orthodoxy, sound Presbyterianism, and the best interests of the Presbyterian church."

In reference to the Circular, they say : "We have read with pain the Circular signed by a Central Committee of Correspondence in this city ; and we solemnly declare, that we know of no member of the Presbyterian church who has been willing to expose to hazard the vital interest;* of the same, or who desires either the mutilation or sub- version of our Presbyterian system."

A similar disavowal was made by Dr. Eeman in his B-cview of "The present state of the Presbyteriaa church." It was published in the Philadelphian in 1831. The following are extracts from that noble vindication.

"The same shades and modifications of doctrinal views have been held by the members of that body for many years

' past, and when any question came up adapted to call forth peculiar views, these shades and modifications have been disclosed. But let it be remembered, that we never had a case like that of Mr. Barnes till the present year. And the venerable Editor (Dr. Green) may thank h.\mse\r\^ ^ the dif- ference in theological vines and attachments^ were ^more strongly and characteristically marked^ than he could wish. Could a man be so infatuated as to suppose, that a minister, holding the sentiments expressed by Mr. Barnes, could be deposed or censured as a heretic, without creating some excitement in the Presbyterian church ? The same effect essentially would have been witnessed, under similar circumstances, in any Assembly at least for twenty years past. But here let it be remarked, that this very case, though it called forth the expression of doctrinal views, did not produce any uniform or settled arrangement of parties. Some were in favor of Mr. Barnes, because they were essentially with him in senti- ment ; others because they have always known that simi- lar sentiments were held and tolerated in the Presbyterian

56

1

chiircli ; and those persons who have sustained Mr. Barnes, were some of them not only pupils hut teachers in the Old School as well as the New." "From this discussion, it would seem that the majoriiy and the minority in the last Assembly, were not formed on the principle of rfoc- trinal distinction, but on the principle of ecclesiastical order. The terms Old School and New School more pro- perly mark the difference in theological sentiment, and are employed somewhat incorrectly and loosely by this writer, where the terms minority and majority, or High Church and Loio Church parties would have been more simple and appropriate, and much less liable to mislead the reader. A correct and analyticr.l classification of the members of the last General Assembly, as it strikes me, would be the following. The majority .were the Low Church Presbyterians. They are friendly to those volun- tary associations which are the glory of our age and na- tion : such as the Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, the American Education Society, and the Ame- ican Home Missionary Society. They love these Socie- ties, because their constitutions breathe a liberal spirit, and because their beneficent course has secured the confi- dence of the public." "If the object of this public alarm is demanded. Dr. Green himself shall answer the ques- tion. 'We speak what we firmly believe, when we say, that unless, in the passing year, there is a general waking up of the Old School Presbyterians to a sense of their danger and their duty, their injfluence in the General As- semb/y will forever afterward be subordinate and under control.^ This text is plain enough without a comment. The imminent ^danger'' that now threatens the church is, that the '0/J School Presbyterians' are likely to lose Hheir influence in the General Assembly,^ and their pres- sing duty is to exert themselves, this year, to regain this iw//uence."

The last quotation we will make from Dr.Beman, when compared with subsequent developments, will show that he well understood the merits of the controversy. He says : "The great controversy now carried on in the Pres- byterian church principally relates to questions of ecclesi- astical order ; and among these the mode of conducting missions appears to be considered the most important by

57

the High Church party. This question, if \vc may crcdi-t the Advocate, more than any thing else, now feeds the fire of party zeal ; and if alienation is to increase, and the breach to become wider, and more and more ruinous, it would seem probable that this is tc sonstitute the princi- pal source of the desolating mischief. True, Dr. Green has sounded the alarm against heresy, and said many things which would lead the ignorant and timid to appre- hend that our doclriaal standards are about to be annihi- lated, but when he touches the cord of ^ecclesiastical or- der,^ there is a vibration which tells us the whole truth."

From an impartial review of the controversy at that time, it is iBamfest that the commotion was made by the C'ld School struggling fo-r power. Dr. Green was one of the oldest and most excellent men in the church. He and a few others about Philadelphia had long been in the habit of controling the General Assembly. The delegates to the Assembly had been in the habit, year aficr year, of going up to- Philadelphia, and giving their sanction to these fathers and brethren. But now, when the church had grown to considerable size, and the pul)lic sentiment of the church was likely to go in favor of voluntary socie- ties, and in opposition to the plans and control of these brethren, they became alarmed, supposing that while they were in a minority, the truth and order of the church would be exposed to "■iinpei,4ing rasi/t." llenee T}y. ^Vil. son, in his Standard in 1831, in speaking of the New School, says: "Who (unless God of his infinite mercy arrest the evil,) will ia a short time be able to control ev- ery existing judicatory and institution of learniug belong- ing to the Presbyterian charch throughout the wiiole land."

Admitting that these brethren conscientiously believed that the church was in danger unless their plans were carried out, it is still evident, from the emphasis they lay on the word '■^control,'" they were under the influence of the littleness of party fear. They could not brook the idea of the Assembly's being under the C07itral of the oth- er party !

From the history of those times, it is also manifest that if the majority had been willing to be governed by the minority, doctrinal diference would liave created no diffi-

58

cnlty — New England Divinity could easily have been tolerated. The error of the New School, therefore, in 1831, (if error it can be called) was in refusing to let the minority govern the church !

In reference, however, to the missionary question, the Assembly of 1831 was desirous to have the difficulties compromised. They passed the following resolution:

"That in view of existing evils, arising from the sepa- rate action of the Assembly's Board- of Missions and the A. H. M. Society in the West, it be recommended to the Synods of Ohio, Cincinnati, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Tennessee, and the Presbyteries in the Wes-t connected with them, to correspond with one another and devise a plan for carrying on missions in the West, and report the result of their correspondence to the next General Assembly; it being understood that brethren in the West shall be left to adopt their own plan, and any other Synods and Presbyteries, besides the above men- tioned, in the Valley of the JMississippi, may be embraced in the correspondence, if they desire it."

In conformity with this recommendation, a Convention- met at Citjctnnati in November 1831. Delegates from twenty Presbyteries were present. The i^csult of their deliberations was favorable to the Assembly's Board, aa appears from the following resolution :

^^ Resolved, That under these circumstances they deem> it inexpedient to propose any change in th^, General As- sembly's mode of conducting missions, as they fully ap- prove of ctiat now in such successful operation ; and that the purity, peace and prosperity of the Presbyterian church macerially depend on the active and efficient aid the sessions- and Presbyteries under its care may afford to the Assembly's Board/' (Minutes of Convention, p. 14.)

With the action of the mnjority, the minority were dis- satisfied. They submitted to the public a Report, in a pamphlet of forty-eight pages, in which, they protested against the course pursued by their Old School brethren in the Convention. They complained that the members of the Synod of Piusburgh, which was not named, or con- templated in the Assembly's resolution, were admitted to seats, and that they controled the Convention. They said the Home Missionary interest iathe West was not

59

.cpresented. They complained, tliat the official influence of the Assembly's Board had been used to prevent any compromise or agreement short of what would result in the ultimate death of the A. H. M. Society ; and that the instructions of the Assembly had not been regarded by the majority of the Convention, inasmuch as the As- sembly had recommended some action, that all might "endeavor to agree upon some plan of conducting mis- sions," and the course of the majority was calculated to preclude all agreement. (See Report.)

After this, efforts at union or agreement were generally abandoned. The friends of each Society pursued their own way.

The character, strength and plan? of the parties re- mained, for the -most, unchanged, during the years 1831, 2, 3, and 4. Each year the New School had the majori- ty in the Assembly. Had they designed to revolutionize the church, they could have done it; for, in the language of Dr. Green, "it was in their power to dispose of every measure that came before the judicature just as they pleased." But their course was marked by great modera- tion and forbearance.

(60)

CHAPTER VIII.

VOLUNTARY SOCIETIES AND ECCLESIASTICAL BOARDS.

The opposition which was made to the A. H. Mis- sionary Society gave rise to the general controversy a- bout the manner of conducting benevolent operations. The A. B. C. F. Missions, and the A. Education Society, and the A. H. M. Society were called Voluntary Socie- ties— not under the ecclesiastical control of the Presbyte- rian, Congregational, or Dutch Reformed Church, but pat- ronized by these several churches — bodies which are Cal- vinistic in their creeds, and which recognize each other as orthodox, and are upon terms of friendly correspondence. Upon this principle — the voluntary — are founded the A. Bible, the A. Tract, the A. Temperance, and the A. Sun- day School Societies.

The New School were generally the friends of the Vol- untary Societies, and the Old School the friends of Ec- clesiastical Boards.

The friends of ecclesiastical organizations urged that missionary and other benevolent olforts to convert the world, ought to be under the control of the church, in her distinctive capacity ; that Presbyterians, in educating young men for the ministry and in sending ministers to the destitute in our own country or to the heathen, ought not to co-operate with Congregationalists, or others, in a Voluntary Society ; that all the secular and financial busi- ness of the work of missions ought to be under the super- vision of the General Assembly ; that upon the voluntary principle, we could have no security for the truth and or- der of the church.

The friends of the voluntary principle were the active friends of missions and other benevolent efforts. They

61

considered themselves free to unite with others, in any wiiy that would promise success. They conceded to the church the right and power to preserve doctrinal purity and discipline. But they denied to the church any power to control the property of her members. They cherished a liigh regard, upon principle, for associations which were "free and voluntary, unsupported by civil and ecclesiasticai power."

They urged that the Great Head of the church left it to h"is people to act volunlarihj in their efforts to evangelize the world. He left it to the conscience of each disciple, howmuch\\Q \\o\x\6i give, andybr ivhat, Tind through ivhat channel, and in this, to be iincontrolled by any church court.

They urged, that the Presbyterian church was only a small part of the Church of Christ, and to confine the ef forts of our members to our party organizations was a- dopting an exclusive, sectarian policy unauthorized by tlie Word of God ; that Jesus Christ did not range his peo- ple under sectarian banners, that they might manifest more zeal for a party than for our common evangelical Christianity.

It was also urged, that our General Assembly, as a church court, was not calculated to conduct efficiently the benevolent enterprises of the age. The members of the Assembly live far apart — are changed generally every year — know comparatively little of the work, and are to- gether only a few days. The Boards of their appointment were the most irresponsible of any — not answerable to the public-— only to the Assembly — exhibiting an unlove- \y feature that has caused even Old School men to call such a contrivance "a Presbyterian hierarchy.''''

The supervision of these Boards by the Assembly must ever be exceedingly imperfect, rather a hindrance to their energetic and healthful action : or, when there is misman- agement, this supervision might be made a cloak to hide abuses from the public eye.

It was furthermore urged, that the General Assembly was constituted, as a bond of union, for the preservation of truth and order ; not to attend to the secular affairs of schools, colleges, seminaries of learning, boards, &c. And especially that the handling of large sums of the money be- 6

62

ionging to the various societies would hazard the spiritual utiairs of the church, by presenting temptations to avarice, umbition, jealousy, intrigue, bargain, &c. And that it was dangerous to give to our General Assembly legisla- tive, judicial, and exeaitive po7ver, ixW backed by the large and increasing funds of the church ; and that nothing was better calculated to hasten the corruption, and secure the overthrow of the church than such a concentration of power.

The controversy about the American Home Missionary •Society has already been noticed. That about the A. B. 0. F, Missions will be in its proper place.

( 03)

CHAPTER IX.

ASSEMBLY OF 1831-MR. BARNES' CASE--RE-EXAMINA- TION— ELECTIVE AFFINITY.

The struggle about the American Home Missionary Soci* ety had thrown the church into commotion, before Iho case of Rev. Mr. Barnes came up. This, however, aid- ed in keeping up the excitement between tlie parties.

In 1830, Mr. Barnes received a call to become the pas- tor of the First Presbyterian church in Philadelphia. TJio minority of the Philadelphia Presbytery tried lo prevent his becoming pastor of said church. In this thev were overruled by the majority. They then insisted on the right to examine him respgciing hii theologyi In xhls they were also overruled. They then Qompluined to iha ^ynod of Philadelphin. Tho Synod referred the ccim- plainants back to the Presbytery, and ordered the Presby' tery to hear and decide upon their objections to the or- thodoxy of Mr. fciarnes' Sermon, styled "The Way of Salvation."

By this time, the minority of Presbytery had become the majority. The case was then referred to the General Assembly. The following resolutions were there a- dopted :

"1. Resolved, That the General Assembly, while it np. predates the conscientious zeal for the purity of the church, by which the Presbytery of Philadelphia is be- lieved to have been actuated, in its proceedings in the case of Mr. Barnes; and while it judges that the sermon, by Mr. Barnes, entitled "The Way of Salvation," contains a number of unguarded and objectionable passages ; yet is of the opinion, that, especially after the explanations which were given by him of those passages, the Prcsby-

64

tsry ought to have suffered the whole to pass without fur- tiier notice.

2. Resolved, That in the judgment of this Assembly, the Presbytery of Philadelphia ought to suspend all fur- ther proceedings in the case of .Mr. Burnes."

This cnse gave rise to two other questions, viz : — 1. Wlieiher Presbyteries have the right to re-exaviine minis- ters coming to them, with clean papers, from other Pres- byteries ? and 2. Whether it was unconstitutional to di- vide Presbyteries upon the principle of £/ec/ire Ajjinityl

The Old School contended for the right to re-examine ministers, coming from other Presbyteries. They con- tended, and with much phiusibility, that every society ought to judge of the qualifications of its own members.

On the other hand, it was urged, that the Presbyteries were only parts of one great society, the qualifications of whose members are to be judged of according to the Book of Discipline. Indeed the action of the church, in the higiiest judicature, has been against this practice. Our present revised form of government was adopted by the lieneral Assembly in 1821. On the same page with the record ot the adoption, are the following minutes:

'•The following Overture, from the Presbytery of Balti- more, was received and read, viz:

That af er the twelfth article of the tenth Chapter of the revised Form of Governmen', the following be added :" Tiiirteenth. Every Prfs^iytery shall judge of ll'C quali- fications pf iis oivn members. On motion,

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to grant the request contained in tho above oveiture ; or mahe any new alte- rations at present in tlie BooU of Discipline."

It would seem from this, that the Baltimore Presbytery thought that the Book of Discipline did not give them the right to re-examine those in good standing coming from other Presbyteries. And the Assembly, at the time of a- dopting our Form of Government, thought it inexpedient to adopt such regulation, so well calculated to impair confi- dence and alienate the affections of the ministers of one Presbvtery from those of another.

The contest about elective affinity was of similar bear- ing. This difficulty grew out of the attempt of the Phil- Philadelphia Presbytery to prevent the setllerneQt of Mr»

#

65

Barnes as pastor of the First Church in Philadelphia. la 1831, the General Assembly passed the following res- olution :

••Resolved, That :t will bf> expedient, as soon as the re- gular steps can be taken, to divide the Presbytery in such a way as will be best calculated to promote the peace of the ministers and churches belonging to the Philadelphia Presbytery."

According to the usage of the church, for many years, and to the powers granted, it was the duty of the Synod of Philadelphia to do this. But at their next meeting they refused, the majority being Old School. In 1832, certain members of the Philadelphia Presbytery presented to the General Assembly a complaint against the Synod, for refusing to divide the Presbytery. After a number of days spent in deliberation on the subject, the Assembly erected the Second Presbytery of Philadelphia, embracing Mr. Barnes and thirteen other ministers, and fourteen^ churches. This measure was carried by a vote of 158 to 33.

This new Presbytery was not bounded by any lines or streets, but composed of ministers and churches, scatter- ed over the city and its vicinity, that had a sjmpathy for each other. It was evident to the General Assembly, that there was no prospect of the two parties in the old Pres- bytery acting harmoniously. The New School in the Presbytery, being in a minority, stated to the Assembly, that they were straitened in their work, and that their in- fluence and usefulness were prevented by brethren in the same Presbytery. This v/as a case that threatened the peace of the whole church. And it was the duty of the Assembly to promote the peace of the church. They felt bound to make an effort to put an end to this controversy. They, therefore, said to Drs. Ely, McAuley and others, take your brethren, and go in peace, and let Dr. Green and his friends live to themselves and be at peace.

In this controversy the Old School were violent against elective affinity, urging that it was absurd and unconstitu- tional for a Presbytery to have no geographical limits, or for two Presbyteries to cover the same ground.

The other party urged, that the Assembly had a right to erect a Presbytery — that the peace of the church de- 6^

66

mrfn^dit — that the Assembly had before done it — and that the elective atliiiity jirinciple had been acquiesced in, very happilv, by the Old School, when it had operated to in- crease their power, as in the case of the union with the Associate Reformed Church in 1821. According to that jilan, as adopted by the Assembly, the aflinity principle is fully carried out. One article of that plan was as fol- lows :

"The different Presbyteries of the Associate Reform- ed Church shall either retain their separate organization, or shall be amalgamated with those of the General Assem- bly at their own choice. In the former case [by elective aflinity] ihey shall have as full powers and privileges as any other Presbytery in the united body.

in this case, the Assembly which adopted our revised Form of Government, allowed those Presbyteries, coming to us from another body, to retain their former organiza- tion. One of them did this. And thus the General As- sembly permitted two Presbyteries — an Assembly Presby- tery and an Associate Presbytery — to cover the same ground and have jurisdiction over the same territory.

It was, therefore, urged by the friends of the Second Presbytery, that it was strange, that the elective affinity principle could give Presbyterial existence to Seceders and not to Presbyterians!

The Synod of Philadelphia, being Old Schoo', in the fall of 1832 refused to receive the delegates from the Second Presbytery, and declared the Act of the (^4eneral Assem- bly, in forming the Second Presbytery, unconstitutional and void ! The Assembly of 1838 would not submit to the dictation of the Synod, but adhered to the principles of the former Assembly.

In the fall of 1833, the Synod so far yielded to the au- thoiity of the General Assembly as to admit the Second Presbytery to membership. But the Synod then formed a new division, regardless of the recommendation of the Assembly. The Assembly again, in 1834, shewed a de- termination to carry out their measures, in sustaining the Second Presbytery. And to prevent further difficulty with the Synod of Philadelphia, they erected a new Syn- od, the Synod of Delaware, throwing the Second Pres- bytery into a new Synodical relation.

67

In 1835, the Assembl} , (the Old School having^a ma- jority,) dissolved the Synod of Delaware, and threw the Second Presbytery baclt into the Synod of Piiil-idelphia. The Synod at their meeting in the fall dissolved the Pres- bytery. The Assembly again, in 1836, (the New School again having a majority,) stood by the mnjority. But as the Synod now had a Stcond Presbytery, the Assembly's Second Presbytery was named the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia. The Assembly, however, at this time assigned geographical limits to their Presbytery, in the belief and (Teneral understandina; that it was to terminate the dispute in relation to the alleged unconstitutional ex- istence of the Presbytery, on the ground of elective affin- ity. But this arrangement was of short duration ; for the next Assembly, being Old School, in their work of re- form, swept this Presbytery from existence!

It ought not to be forgotten, that after the trial of .Mr. Barnes, and during these contentions about elective affin- ity, &c. Dr. Miller, a Professor in the Theological Semi- nary at Princeton, wrote his famous ^^ Letters to Preslyte- riajis, on the present crisis in the Preslyirian Church in the United States." They were extensively circulated ."hnd read. Coming from the seat of orthodoxy, impor- tance was attached to them, and they exerted an influence — an influence, though not intended, yet injurious to the church. They contributed to the alarms and suspicions, which afterwards alienated the affection and confidence of minister^ and people, and to the strifes which resulted in theschism of thechurch. IManygood things were smoothly said, but in such a way as to operate wonderfully in un- dermining confidence in ministers, and leading to violent measures — such measures as even Dr. Miller did not an- ticipate, when thus fanning the flame — and such measures as he attempted afterwards, in vain, to arrest, when he found that some had over-acted their part, and got greatly in advance of himself in seeing the dangers of the church in 'Hhe crisis."

Among the violent measures referred to was the "Act and Testimony," which will come under review in the next Chapter.

(68)

CHAPTER X.

THE ACT AND TESTIMONY.

The Old School party, having been in tho minority in the Assembly for a number of years, became so restless in the Assembly of 1834, that they resolved upon a sys- tem of new measures, to gain, if possible, the ascendency, that they might carry their plans in the church.

Accordingly, at the close of the Assembly of 1834, a small portion of that body, the most thorough-going of the Old School, had a meeting. As the result of their deliberations, they drew up the famous "Act and TesH' viony,''^ which was signed by thirty-seven ministers and twenty-seven elders. ' It was designed to operate as a Test Act, and thus very much resembles the old Solemn League and Covenant.

As it has been regarded the entering wedge to schism, and has exerted much influence, it ought to be preserved, it was addressed "to the Ministers, Elders, and Private Members of the Presbyterian Church in the United States." It begins thus :

"Brethren beloved in the Lord : — In the solemn crisis, in which our church has arrived, we are constrain- ed to appeal to you in relation to the alarming errors which have hitherto been connived at, and now at length have been countenanced and sustained by the acts of the supreme judicatory of our church.

Constituting, as we all do, a portion of yourselves, and deeply concerned, as every portion of the system must be, in all that affects the body itself, we earnestly address ourselves to you, in the full belief, that the dissolution of our church, or what is worse, its corruption in all that

Q9

once distinguished its peculiar tesiimony, can, under God, be prevented only by you.

From the highest judicatory of our church, we have for several years in succession sought the redress of our grievances, and have not only sought it in vain, but vvitli an aggravation of the evils of which we have complain- ed," &c.

The whole is too lengthy for insertion here. Its spirit may be judged of from the above quotation. The attempt was made to alarm the churches. The burden of the document was about '■^ doctrine''^ — '■^disciplined'' — and "■church order.'''' It charged upon the New School the grossest heresies and disorders.

It appeared in Kentucky in the Western Luminary, of 13th August, 1834. The editor of that paper, who is an Old School man, said of this document — "We give it sim- ply as an article of news — a portion of the history of the times. We think it but due, however, to our brethren of the ministry and eldership of this region, to state that so far as our acquaintance ex'ends, we know of no one who holds any of the doctrinal views which are justly designa- ted as errors in the Act and Testimony." This docu- ment met the npprobation of a very small number of the Synods or Presbyteries. Some objected to it, because they denied to a few ministers and elders the right of re- quiring the church to subscribe a new Test Act. Others disapproved of it, because they considered it a slander on the General Assembly and the Presbyterian Church. And many opposed it, because they regarded the measures proposed, in the language of the Princeton brethren, ^'e.} i ra'Constiful ionaJ and revolutionary,^^ and designed "/o effect the division of the Church.'^

The Act and Testimony was reviewed, and severely censured by the Princeton Professors, in the Biblical Repertory, a decidedly Old School periodical, and as such, the organ of the party. A few extracts from their re- view will shew in what light they viewed this document. They say :

"Had the meeting in Philadelphia, therefore, been con- tended to send forth their solemn testimony against error and disorder, and their earnest exhortation to increased fidelity to God and h'\s truthj we are sure oQne could i'et\»

70

sonably object." "But when it is proposed to numler the people ; to request and urge the signing of this Testi- mony as a test of orthodoxy, then its whole nature and design is at once altered."

"Here is one of the most serious evils of the whole plan. It makes one a heretic, or an abettor of heresy, not for error in doctrine, not for unfaithfulness in disci- pline, but because he may be unable to adopt an extended document as expressing iiis own opinions on a multitude of facts, doctrines and practical counsels. This is an as- sumption which ought not to be allowed. It is an act of gross injustice to multitudes of our soundest and best men ; it is the most effectual means of splitting the church into mere fragments, and of alienating from each other men who agree in doctrine, in views of order and disci- pline, and who differ in nothing, perhaps, but in opinion as to the wisdom of introducing this new League and Covenant."

"Our first leading objection, then, to this document is, that it is not what it professes to be, a Testimony, but a Test."

"Is it then true, that the highest judicatory of our rhurch has 'countenanced nnd sustained' the doctrine, that we have no more to do with tho sin of Adam than with tiio sins of any other parent — that there is no such thing as original sin — thai man's regeneration is his ovv4i act — that Christ's sufferings are not truly and properly vicarious? How serious the responsibility of announcing to the world that such is the case." "We do not believo it to be true."

"Is it to be expected that, at this time of the day, the Assembly would solemnly condemn all who do not hold the doctrine of a limited atonement?"

Here is a developoment not often made. It is taken for granted that "a liiuifed aionemenf^ is the doctrine of the Old School, but that the Assembly ought not to con- demn those who believe in a general atonement! But to go on with our extracts :

"We cannot but regard, therefore, the recommendation of this document, that churches and ministers consider certain acts of the Assembly unconstitutional, as a re-

71

commendation to them to renounce their allegiance to the church, and to disregard their promises of obedience."

"Division, then, is the end to which this enterprise leads, and to which, we doubt not it aims." Here in a note the writers say : "Since writing the above, we see - that this intention is denied in the Presbyterian. We have heard other signers of the Act and Testimony, how- ever, very distinctly avow their desire to effect a division of the church."

"The point now before us, however, is the true nature of its recommendations. Wo say they are extra-consti- tutional and revolutionary, and should be opposed by all tho-^e who do not believe that the crisis demands the disso- lution of the church."

"We have more than once remarked, that this recom- mendation was designed to necessitate either the annul- ling of the acts of the Assembly complained of, or the division of the church. It was designed to make a case from which there could be no escape ; to assume such a position as would produce a state of confusion and difficul' ty perfectly intolerable, in order that the Assembly should be forced either to retract or submit to have the church divided." [We quote from the Western Luminary, No- vember 19, 1834, and March 4, 1835.]

Here the spirit of the Act and Testimony men — the spirit that finally triumphed among the^Old School, is forcibly stated by the Princeton brethren, themselves Old School. They determined, '■Hhat the Assembly should he forced to retract, or suhmit to have the church divided.''^ That is, they determined to rule the church or rend it.

This controversy about the Act and Testimony had well nigh broken up the friendship of its reputed author, the Rev. R. J. Breckinridge, and the Princeton brethren. Indeed, it was regarded as something novel, that Mr. Breckinridge, who in 1832 was an Elder in the Assem- bly, should in 1834 regard himself as the great champion of order and orthodoxy. But no less strange than true, his measures at last triumphed over the Princeton fathers, and hosts of others, who had never seen the dangers to which the church was exposed till Mr. Breckinridge found his way into the church ! !

72

TliQ above extracts from the Repertory will show clear- ly, that the Act and Testimony was not well received by tiie wisest and best men among the Old School. They regarded it as a Grecian horse, full of danger, though pro- fessedly a voio to orthodoxy. They raised a warning voice, like the faithful priest of Troy :

" Aut haec in nostros fabr'cata est machina muros, Inspectura domos, venturaque desnper urbi ; Aut aliquis latet error : equo ne credite, Teucri."

Of course, it was very odious to the New School, view- ed by them as the entering wedge of schism. Indeed, the subsequent history of the church shows, that it was at the time fairly interpreted and fully understood.

But 10 show how it was regarded by other denomina- tions, a few extracts are given from the Christian Specta- tor, a quarterly periodical, among the Congregationalists. The reviewer of the Act and Testimony in that Journal says:

"What then is the Act and Testimony 1 It is a new confession of faith, or a recently invented test of ortho- dox;/, agreed upon, subscribed, and published, by thirty- seven ministers, and twenty-seven elders of the Presby- terian church, at the close of the last General Assembly in Philadelphia." "The introduction does not abound in the qualities of conciliation, which some masters of rhet- oric tell us, ought to be prominent in this part of a dis- course. It is more in keeping with the habits of a wes- tern huntsman ; for it takes the beast by the horns at the very outset of the battle. Or, to pass by one bold stride from the wilderness to the ocean, these ^c^ and Testimony brethren are no sooner embarked, than they nail the flag of nullification to the mast."

"The subscribers of this document begin by a practical renunciation of their whole system ; and if their solemn manifesto proves any thing, it proves, that, quoad hoc, they are not Presbyterians. They have erected a new tribunal, unknown to their standards; and before this voluntary and irresponsible association, they arraign all delinquents, whether the peccant General Assembly, or ministers suspected of heresy."

7S

'•The subscribers of this docuiiient avow their ^i'?i ad- herence to tlieii" standards of ecclesiastical order, while the very documjiit in which they make this profession, is, both rii essence and action, at war with the whole sys- tem. They acquit themselves of all responsi'jiiity for the suhcersion of forms jmhlicJij and rejiealedh/ ap- proved; while they are subverting those very ybr/MS them- selves. They tcl! us, that they are laboring for the resto- ration of scriptural order to their church; and yet they attempt tliat reformation by means which contravene their own notions of ecclesiastical organization. They intend, if possible, to exclude from the cliurch, those wlio suhcerl her established forms; ani yet, in compassing this end, they themselves perpetrate t!ie act of subver- sion." "They believe that the form of government of the Preshyterian Church accords with the will of God, and deprecate every thing that changes its essential character ; wiiile, in their practice, they are fast verging to Congre- gationalism— a form of government at which they almost instinctivelv shudder." [Quarterly Christian S[>ectator, March, 1835,]

The A:t and Testimony was coisidired a document of little intrinsic value. Yet its relative influence proved to be great. It was a bold nullification measure, well calcu- lated to marslial every restless and belligerent spirit—to create a panic among the lovers of truth who were unin- formed, and to cause the intelligent friends of peace and order to mourn over an antici[)ated and bitter strife, and the most fearless heart to tremble for the integrity of the church and the honor of religion. It may inJced be ques- tioned, whether any document, since the days of the Solemn League and Covenant, has ever proved so ruinous to the Presbyterian Church as the Act and Testimony. Here the controversy began in good earnest. These mvn'. a small minority, virtually declared, that they would rule or rend the church; or, in the language of the Princeton Professors, '■'•that the Assemhhj should he forced eilher to retract, or submit to have the church divided.'' What was now to be done? Must the majority consent to be ruled by the minority, rather than udtness the sin and sorrow of division? Moderate Ok! School rnen, and mod*

74

prate New School men yielded, one after another, until the Act and Testimony men gained the ascendency, and fit last the work of schism was carried forward with fearful despatch in the excindmg acts of 1837, and the velorm act? ard ordinances of 18BS.

(75)

CHAPTER XL

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF 1835.

This year the General 'Assembly met at Pittsburj'h. The week before the meeting of the Assembly, the OKI School Convention met at the same place, in obedience Lo the call of the Act and Testimony. The Convention party succeeded in bringing into the Assembly a mnjority of Old School men, and in controlling the body that year..

When the Assembly met, the Convention had a lengthy ''Memorial" ready for their action. In it they complain- ed of some eight grievances of this nature, viz. :

1. That the Assembly would not sanction a re-exami- nation of ministers going from one Presbytery to another.

2. That the Assembly would not condemn a book ir- respective of its author.

3. That the Assembly had favored the elective affinHij principle.

4. That the Assembly permitted the American Home ^lissionary Society to operate in the bounds of the Pres- byterian Church.

5. That the Church had been too lax in the education of young men for the ministry.

0. That the Plan of Union of 1801 had not workeJ. well for the Presbyterian Church.

7. That the Plans of Union and Correspondence wu!). New England and other churches were dangerous U) truth and order.

8. That the General Assembly had not been sufficient- ly concerned for the orthodoxy of the church.

This, in few words, is the sum of that long document. It was referred to a Committee. Their report was fa- vorable to this Memorial. The Assembly decided, that the Presbytery had a r^ght to re-examine — that any

76

'-■Kiivch court had a right to censure an author's book, ir- respective of the author, and that the erection ol" Pres- byteries upon the principle of elective affinity was con- trary to the spirit of our form of government. They ;>!so ordered, that the Synod of Delaware should be dis- solved "at and after the meeting of the Synod of Phila- delphia in October next." Thus the Assembly's Second Presbytery was thrown back into the old Synod.

'i'hc Assembly were unwilling to carry out the policy cf the Mctiiorialists in reference to Voluntary Associa- tions. On this subject they said: "It is not expedient to prohibit, within our bounds, the operations of the Home Missionary Society, or of the Presbyterian Education So- ciety, or any other Voluntary Association not subject to our control."

They were of the opinion, that it was not desirable that the Plan of Union of ISOl should any longer operate in the Presbyterian church.

They also expressed their readiness to condemn "Pela- gian and Arminian errors," and exhorted all our Presby- teries and Synods to exercise the utmost vigilance in guarding against the introduction and publication of such pestiferous errors.''

As the Old School had the majority in this Assembly, and carried most of their measures, and as the New School were disposed peaceably to submit to the action of the Assembly, there was a cheering prospect of a better state of things.

CHAPTER XIL

THE FO:iEIGN MISS:ON QUESTION— ASSEMBLY OF 1836

The subject of Foreign Missions came up in thr- Assembly of 1835. and produced an unpleasant contro- versy.

The American Board of Commissioners for Foreigr: ?Jissions was organized in 1810 — vl vohtntarii association ; so constituted as to enlist the co-operation of the Presbvr terian, Congregational and Dutch Reformed Churche-. A number of years after that, the Western Foreign Mis- sionary Society was formed — an ecclesiastical society/. under the control of the Synod of Pittsburgh.

In the Assembly of 1835, the "Committee of Bills and Overtures" reported an overture in relation to Foreign Mis- sions. A Committee was appointed. They reported and recommended, that it was the conviction of the General Assembly, that the Presbyterian Church, in her ^'distinc- tive character,''^ ought to send the Gospel to the heathen, and that a committee be appointed to confer with the Synod of Pittsburgh on the subject of the transfer of the Western Foreign Missionary Society to the General As- sembly, and report to the next Assembly.

In the Assembly of 1835, there were twa hundred and thirty-four members who had a right to vote. But near the close of the Assembly, when nearly two thirds of the members had left, the following resolution was adopted, viz:

^^ Resolved, That the Committee appointed to confer with the Synod of Pittsburgh, on the subject of the trans- fer of the supervision of the Western Foreign Missionary

Society to the General Assembly, be authorized, if they

rrv

should approve or^tfie said transfer, to ratify and confirm the same witli the Synod, and report the same to the next (Teneral Assembly." Minutes of 1835, p. 33.

Of this attempt, in such a way, to undermine the A- mericrtn B. C. F. Missions, the New Scliool greatly com- plained.

'i'iie Committee,, in the fall of 1835, submitted to the Synod of Pittsburgh, "Terms of A-greement." They were nccepted by the Synod.

At the meeting of the Assembly, in 1S36, tliese "Terms," ratified and confirmed, not by the Church, nor by the Presbyteries, nor by the General Assembly, l)Ut by a committee of five men, were submitted to the Genera! As!5^mbl3^ They were committed to Drs. Phillips and Skinner, and Messrs. Scovel, Dunlap and Ewing. The majority of the Committee reported favorably to the Terms- of Agreement. Among other things they say : . "Jt appears, then, to your Committee, thai the Assem- jbly have entered into a solemn compact with the Synod of Pittsburgh, and that there remains but one righteous course to pursue, which is, to adopt the report of the Committee appointed last year, and to appoint a Foreign .Missionary Board. To pause now, or to annul the doings of the last Assembly in this matter, would be obviously a violation of contract, a breach of trust, and a departure from that good faith which should be sacredly kept between man and man, and especially between christian societies ; con- duct, which would be utterly unworthy of this venerable body and highly injurious to the Western Foreign Mis- sionary Society."

They recommended the adoption of the following reso- lutions^ viz. :

"1. Eesolced, That this report of the Committee, ap* pointed by the last General Assembly to confer with the Synod of Pittsburgh on the subject of a transfer of the Western Foreign Missionary Society to the General Assembly, be adopted, and that said transfer be accepted on the terms of agreement therein contained.

2. Resolved, That the Assembly will proceed to ap- point a Foreign Missionary Board, the seat of whose t^peratioQs shall be in New York."

K

Dr. Skinner,- as the minority of the Commiitee, pre- sented the following counter report, viz. :

"Whereas, ihe Am. B. C. F. Missions has been connect- ed with the Presbyterian church from the year of its in-- corporation, by the very elements of its existence; and whereas, at the present time, the majority of the whole of the Board are Presbyterians; and whereas, it is undesira- ble, in conducting the work of Foreign Missions, that there should be any collision at home or abroad : there- fore,

Resolved, That it is inexpedient, that the Assembly should organize a separate Foreign Missionary Institu- tion."

After a long debate, the plan proposed 'by the Com- mittee was rejected by a vote of 111 to 106, which ex- hibited a majority of five for the New School, or against an ecclesiastical organization.

Against this decision, Dr. Miller offered a protest signed by eighty-two members of the Assembly, it was entered on the Minutes, and was as follows:

"The undersigned would solemnly protest against the decision of the General i^ssembly, whereby the report of the Committee of the last General Assembly respecting, the Western Foreign Missionary Society was rejected : for the fbllowijig reasons, viz. :

1. Because wc consider the decision of the Assembly in this case as an unjustifiable refusal to carry into effect a so'emn contract svith the Synod of Pittsburgh, duly ratified and confirmed under the autborit}'' of the las: As- sembly.

2. Because we are impressed with the deepest convic- tion, that the Presbyterian Church, in her ecclesiasticar capacity, is bound, in obedience to the command of her Divine Head and Lord, to send the glorious gospel,- as far as may be in her power, to every creature; and we consider the decision of the Assembly in this case as a direct refusal to obey this command, and to pursue one of the great objects for which the church was founded.

3. Because it is our deliberate persuasion that a large part of the energy, zeal and resources of the Presbyterian church cannot be called into action in the Missionary

so ^

cause, without £he establishment of a Missionary Board by the General Assembly. It is evident that no other ecclesiasiical organization, by fragments of the church, can be formed, which will unite, satisfy, and call forth the zealous co-operation of those in every part of 4he church who wish for a general Presbyterian Board.

4. Because, while a majority of the Assembly acknowl- edge that they had a Board which fully met all the wants and wishes of themselves and those who sympathized with them, they refused to make such a decision as would ac- cord to us a similar and equal privilege ; thereby as v/o conceive, refusing that which would have been only just and equal, and rejecting a plan which would have greatly extended the missionary spirit, and exerted a reflex bene- ficial influence on the churches thus indulged with a Board agreeable to their views.

5. Because to all these considerations, urged with a solemnity and affection, the majority of the Assembly were deaf^ aird have laid us under the necessity of pro- testing against their course, and of complaining that we are denied a most reasonable, and to us, precious privi- lege, and of lamenting that we are laid under the necessi- ty of resorting to plans of ecclesiastical organization, complicated, inconvenient, and much more adapted, on a variety of accounts, to interfere with ecclesiastical har- mony than the proposed Board could have been."

A committee was appointed by the Assembly to answer this protest. Dr. Peters, the Chairman, presented the following, which was adopted by the Assembly, and en- tered on the Minutes, viz. :

"in answer to the protest of the minority of the Gen- eral Assembly, on the subject of Foreign Missions, the majority regard it as due to the churches and the friends of missions generally, to stale some of the grounds on which they have declined to carry into effect the arrange- ment adopted and reported by the Committee of the last General Assembly, in regard to the West. For. Missionary Society.

We are of opinion,

1. That the powers intended to be conferred upon the above Committee, by the last General Assemb'y,to ratify

81

and confirm the transfer of the said Society from the Synod of Pittsburgh to the C4enerdi Assembly on such terms as the said Committee might approve, are altogeth- er unusual and unwarranted; and especially that it was indiscreet and improper for that Assembly to attempt to confer such unlin^iited po^yers for such a purpose, in the existing state of our churches, upon so small a Committee, and that too on the last day of the sessions of the As- sembly, when more than one half of the enrolled mem- bers of the body had obtained leave of absence, and had already returned to their homes.

2. That it was unwarrantable and improper for the above Committee, in the exercise of the extraordinary pow- ers proposed to be conferred on them, to incorporate in their agreement with the Synod of Pittsburgh the condi- tion, that the superversion of the Missions of the Mission- ary Board intended tobeorganized should never be aliena- ted by the General Assembly, thus endeavoring to bind ir- reversably all future Assemblies by the stipulations of that Committee.

3. It is, therefore, our deep conviction that it was the duty of the Assembly to resist the unwarrantable and ex- traordinary powers of the above Committee, and to reject the unreasonable condition of the contract with the Syn- od of Pittsburgh.

4. It is our settled belief that the church is one by Divine constitution, and that the command is of universal obliga- tion— "Let there be no divisions among you,'' ond that whatever advantages or disadvantages may have resulted from the division of the church into numerous denomina- tions, with conflicting opinions, it cannot be our duty as Christians, to perpetuate and extend these divisions, by in- corporating them in our arrangements to spread the gospel in heathen lands. We cannot, therefore, regard the division of the Assembly, in this case, as a refusal to obey the com- mand of the Head of the Church to preach the gospel to eve-- ry creature. That command, as we understand it, is not to the Presbyterian church in her distinctive ecclesiastical capacity, but to the tchole church, to the collective body of Christ's disciples of every name. It was that they may the more effectually oley the above command, by uniting

82

with Christians of other denominations in the noble work of foreign missions, that the Assembly declined to carry into effect the proposed organization, restricted to the Pres* byterian church.

5. We do not agree with the protcstants in the opinion, that the resources of any part of the Presbyterian church "cannot be called into action in the missionary cause with- out the establishment of a Missionary Board by the Gen- eral Assembly." The history of missionary operations in this and other countries, furnishes ample evidence that the energy and zeal of Christians in tho spread of the gospel are much more effectually enlisted, and their liber- ality greatly increased by more expanded organizations, which overstep the limits of sects, and the bond of whose union is the one great object of spreading the glorious gos- pel of the blessed God. It is our settled belief, that the societies formed on these principles, and including differ- ent denominations of Christians, are actually perfoiming, as the proxies of the church, in the work of missions, that which the church, on account of her divisions, can per- form in no other way so well. They appear to us to have embraced the harmonizing principle, which is destined ul- timately to re- unite the churches, and make them one, as it was in the beginning, and will be in the end.

G. While the majority of the Assembly acknowledge their unabated confidence in the American Board of Com- missioners for Foreign Missions, as fully meeting our wish- es, and affording a safe and open channel through which all our churches may, as consistent Presbyterians, con- vey their contributions to the cause of Foreign Missions, we do not regard ourselves as having denied, by ihe decis- ion protested against, to the minority the privilege of con- ducting their Missionary operations with entire freedom, on any other plan which they may prefer. But we think it unreasonable for them to ask us to form, and to com- plain of our not forming, by a vote of the General As- sembly, an organization, the principles of which we do not approve. We do not ask of them to assume the re- sponsibilities of the plan which we prefer, and we cannot regard ourselves as chargeable with unkindness or injus- tice, in having refused to assume the responsibilities of the

83

plciti which they prefer. If we cannot agree to unite in the same organization, for the same purpose, it appears to us manifestly proper, that each party should bear the re- sponsibility of its own chosen plan of operations; and if our brethren cannot so far commend their principles, as io extend their ecclesiastical organizations beyond those ^^fragments of the church,'''' of which they speak, they sure- ly ought not to complain of us, "if those in every part of , the church, who wish for a general Presbyterian Board," remain dissatisfied. We would respectfully ask whether they ought not to charge their embarrassment, in this respect, to the plan which they have adopted, rather than to those who have chosen, on their own responsibility, in the fear of God, to conduct their missionary operations on other principles. If, therefore, the minority of the As? sembly should hereafter juHge themselves under "the ne- cessity of resorting to plans of ecclesiastical organisation," which shall "interfere with ecclesiastical harmony," the majority cannot regard themselves as responsible for such results. The settled belief of the majority of the Assem- bly is, that the operations of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, with its numerous auxiliaries, both ecclesiastical and voluntary, within the bounds of the Presbyterian church, present the best ar? rangement for the promotion of the cause of Missions by our churches ; and it was to prevent the ecclesiastical con? flicts and divisions which liave resulted from the opera- tions of other similar organizations, that they have thought it their duty to decline the organization proposed. They liave made their decision for the purpose, and with the hope of securing and promoting the union in the mission? ary work which has so happily existed in former years. AVith these vievvs and hopes they commend the cause of Missions, and their solemn and conscientious decis« ion, to the blessings of God, and pray for the peace of Je- rusalem."

From the foregoing, it will be seen, that the majority of the General Assembly preferred the A. B. C. F. Mis- sions to an ecclesiastical organization. Contemplating the success of that noble institution, it was not strange. It even commended itself to the respect of the most rigid

84

friends of ecclesiastical Boards. In January, 1837, the Hon. Walter Lowrie, an Old School man, and the Corres- ponding Secretary of the ^^^cst. For. Missionary Society, sa'd : '"It has been my privilege, wherever 1 have been culled to speak, to state our feelings toward the Am. B. C. Foreign I\lissions. For eighteen years I have been famil- iar With the operations of that Board. And not one of their missionaries has gone to the heathen world, labored or died there, whose progress 1 have not marked with great interest, and followed with my prayers. I have always clierished great confidence in tbat Board ; 1 hope God will prosper it abundantly, and enlarge its operations, until, with the aid of other societies, they shall fill the earth with the knowledge of God. We think we can feel thus, and yet prefer another organizntion." See Journal and Luminary, Feb. IG, 1837.

It will not, however, be forgotten, that in 1833, the Mis- sionary question was the bone of contention — the great exciting subject. Because the majority of the Assembly would not give up their partiality for the Am. B. C. F. Missions, and have the Assembly, and through that body, the church committed to an ecclesiastical organization, there was great complaint. Or because, in this matter, the majority were unwilling to be controlled by the minor- ity, there was universal dissatisfaction among the Old School. The Southern Christian Herald, an Old School p:iper, said ; "One of the best of the present indications is the sensUiceness manifested at the Assembly's decision on the Foreign Missionary question, although this decision has no tendency to corrupt the church." Their '■^sensU iiveness''' on this question was greater thanabout dodrinen.

Tlie Editor of the Western Presbyterian Herald of Au- gust 11, 1836, said : "Unless we separate amicably, the (lissentions lohich have arisen over the Home Missionary Society will continue to increase until they produce a vio- lent disruption." "But this unhappy contrariety of opin- ion is not confined to the subject of Domestic Missions. Whatever opinions are held on the subject of irresponsi- ble associations, or ecclesiastical supervision and control, they are applicable to the Foreign as well as the Dome^? .lie Missionary work."

According this j)a[)or, tlierefore, the ^'dissensions"' over tlio missionary work were the causes that Izd to tlie ''vio- lent disruption.''^

In 1836, the BibHcal Repertory, an OM School Quar- terly, reviewing the action of the Assembly on tlie Mir,- siouarv question said: ''Thus ended this important de- cision. We fear the result has inflicted a deeper wound on the prosperity of our ciiurch than she has suifered fo' a long time."

The Missionary question, then, was certainly, accor- ding to leading Old School men, the great matter of con- test between the parties. And had the majority, in 1836, consented to let the Old School control the church, it is highly probable, that the "dissensions,''^ which led to "a vi- olent disrupiion^^ would have been hushed.

(8G)

CHAPTER XIIl.

M'l. BARNES' CASE AGAIN— SEC ilET CIRCULAR.

'I'he case of Mr. Barnes came up again in the Assem- bly of 1836-. Tiie year before, Dr. Junkin tabled char- ges against him before his Presbytery. They were as jb'lows, viz.:

•'1. That sin consists in voluntary action.

", Tiial Adam (before and after the fall) was ignorant of his moral relations to such a degree, that he did not know the consequences of his sin would or should reach uny further than to natural death.

3. That unregenerate men are able to keep the com- mandments and convert themselves to God.

4. That taiih is an act of the mind, and not a princi* pic, and in itself imputed for righteousness."

He was charged with denying,

■•'5. That God entered into covenant with Adam, con- stituting him a federal or covenant head and representa- tive of all his natural descendants.

o. That the first sin cf Adam is imputed to his poste= lily.

7. That mankind are guilty, i. e., liable to punishment on account of the sin of Adam.

8. That Christ suffered the proper penalty of the law, as ihe vicarious substitute of his people, and thus took av.ay legally their pardon.

9. That the righteousness, i. e., the active obedience of Christ to the law is imputed to his people for their justifi- cation ; so that they are righteous in the eye of the law, und therefore justified."

Iv?. Mr. Barnes also teaches, in opposition to the

87

standards, that justification is simply pardon." fBiM-nes' Tris^, page 105 and onwards.]

The proofs relied on by Dr. Junkin were all ouottd from Barnes' Notes on the Romans, a work everV ono can see for himself. ^

The Presbytery decided, that the charges were not su^. lamed. Dr. Junkin appealed from their decision to tho teynod of Philadelphia, which met at York, Pa., October,

The case occupied tho attention of Synod about a week. Mr. Barnes was regarded as a leading man a- mong those who were charged with holding a general atonement &c. It was pretty well understood, that if'hu went overboard, so would Drs. Beecher, Skinner, Cox, Peters, McAuley, and hosts of others. It was, therefor.- a case that excited great interest. Besides, Mr. Barnes was greatly beloved by his friends, and was a ministe,", whose gent emanly deportm. nt, whose piety and talen'^-j commanded the respect even of the Old School. DurioL' the progress of the trial, Dr. John Breckinridcre declared ] must say that I never saw a more calm, self. possessed or dignified deportment in any individual, than the accu«.. ed party has exhibited before us this night." Trial rao,

il^l^l^fT' °^ f '••,^""<^^' -^^^^^i/' it appeared that the O.d School were far from being agreed among then,^ selves. The Princeton Reviev.-er of the Notes on th. Romans, in the Biblical Repertory, did not regnrd Mr Barnes as materially wrong on 7w>i<<«//ow. cenefallv c'ori- sidered his greatest heresy. The Reviewer" Inough hos- tile to Mr. Barnes, says: ''IVotwithstanding all the oh- jections urged against this doctrine, and the oblocuv which he endeavors to fasten upon it, Mr. Barnes Itadie^ It to.ts f. I extent On page 122 he says: ^Men aro ndubitably affected by the sin of Adam, e. <.., by bein<.- born with a corrupt disposition, with loss of righteousness" and subjection to pain and wo.' Here are evils/' continue, the Kev.evver, "indescribably great and dreadful, wi.i., are declared to come on all men prior to all aaency an<l concurrence of their own, for a sin committed some thou- sands of years before their birth, and bevonJ their ro-x.

88

trol. Farther than this who would wish to go ? Farther the Scriptures, the Rcforniers, our own Standards, and the great body of old orthodox divines do not go."

Dr. McDowell, a prominent Old School man, said, dur- ing the trial: "I can vote with a good conscience, -that Mr. Barnes is guilty of holding great and dangerous errors, but not that he holds fundamental errors. I believe that lie holds to the doctrine of total depravity as fully and firmly as any man in this house, and that he believes this depravity to be derived from our connection with Adam. ) believe that ho holds that there is no salvation for a sin- ner but through Jesus Christ, and that he is saved solely on the ground of the merits of Christ, and that he be- .'omes interested in these merits exclusively by faith. And I believe farther, that he holds to the absolute neces- sity of the influences of the Holy Spirit to convert and sanctify the soul. I have long known that he differed from me in his mode of explaining some of these points, but I am satisfied that on the great and fundamental doc- trines of our religion, he preaches in this way." Trial. page 255.

The majority of the Synod, however, voted against M?. Barnes, adopting the following resolutions :

*'l. That in view of the proof presented to Synod, and of the whole case, the decision ot ihe (Assembly's) Sec- ond Presbytery of Philadelphia, in the case of the charges of said George Junkin against th.e said Albert Barnes be, and the same is hereby revelled, as contrary to truth and righteousness, and the Appeal declared to be sustained.

2. That some of the errors alleged in the charges to be lield by the said Albert Barnes, are fundamental ; and all of them contrary to the standards of the Presbyterian <'liurch in the United States, and that they do contravene the sj'stem of trutli 1 herein tauglit, and set forth in tl>e Word of God.

3. That the said Albert Barnes be, and he hereby is suspended from the exercise of all the functions proper to the gospel ministry, until he shall retract the errors here- by condemned, and give satisfactory evidence of repent- ance."

yr. Barnes appealed from this decision, of Synod to

m

il Ki /fr;?^^'^^f. ^'^"' '^^ '^'^ ^^'-^^ before the Assemb y of lS3b Dr. Junkin, tl^e prosecutor, wos heard at length Mr. Barnes then madi his "noble de . fence." A 1 who wanted to speak,/o. or against, we.; heard And when the final question was p"ut, "Susla n

tls pf ""/'"-"'^'r' "^ ^'" ^"'•"^«^" the vote s'oo.'

thus For sustaining the appeal 134_Not suslainin-. 00.

I he tallowing resolution was then oiil^red • °

y Resolved, That the decision of the- Synod of Phi^

aaelphia, suspending the Rev. Albert Barnes from ali

h^ii^^^^^rsST'" '' ''' ^°^'^^' ^''-^'-^ ^^' --^ i^ '^ When the vote was taken on this resolution tl>e-p wm-.-

^Ayes 145--Noes 77." Thus Mr. Barnes w" o/iorl';

acquitte^d and restored to the ministry bv tl,i3 lar"! r ^

jonty of the General Assemblv. ^"^^ '^-I'gt^ r-i-

Dr. Miller though voting for the restoration of Mr

Barnes offered a resolution, the substance of wTich w'^ ■

ihatM thcAssemhly^oiU not condemn fl^^Llt:.

^2 xZ^r ' ^''' '''' ^^^^'^^ ^>^ - voti o>

It is also true, that among those who voted to acquit

Ml. Barnes, there was not perfect uniformity of sen

uie IS and that they approved his phraseolooy. Other

en ned Or P . ^''^^^^"'^':;',e°n-eet, would also be coii: lemncd. Di. Peters said, "When I heard of the sentenr

hai? ofTirP "T' ''^'?}^^-''' -^- blowstruci t" : iialt o the Presbyterian Church. I shall not vr.f^ ^^

.^e lum on the ground of ioleraL^^XlT^^t be a member in our connexion " °

Whether or not Drs Peters, Skinner, and oihers concur uith Mr. Barnes in all b,s views, is uncertain V.Tu grta.n that the Assembly did not ei;!^::^ Mr. 1 "

system ^'^ ."^ '""^ ^'"^ ^^'^^''^ "'^^ ^" f«'- =^"7 Ws ^nrothersl'lhersa;:"^"" '° '^^ "''"^^^ ^^ ^^"^ ^^^^'^^i''^

do"n;t^in'V,l^{ ^^'7 ^<^^isi"" they do not intend to, and ^0 not, in fact, make themselves responsible for ill phraseology of Mr RTmf.... o^ "^ I'ous o c lor all the &^ i>aines; some of which is not suf-

.*icicntly guarde'i and is liable to be misundrTstood ; arrd Tv'iiich we doubt not Mr. Barnes, with reference to his usefulness, and the peace of the church, will modify so as to prevent, as far as may be, the possibility of misconcep- tion.

2. ]\Iuch less do the Assembly adopt as doctrines, con- sistent with our standards, and to be tolerated in our church, the errors alleged by the prosecutor, as contained in the Book on the Romans. It was a question of fact, whether the errors allegf d are contained in the Book, and by the laws of exposition, in the conscientious exercise of their own rights and duties, the Assembly have come to the conclusion that the Book dees not teach the errors charged."

The failure of the Old Schoo', in tlie Assembly of 1836, in carrying out their measures, was signal. They felt it deeply. They had hoped, by the condemnation of Mr. Barnes, 1o awe the New School party, and thus bring ;hem into complete subordination, and that they would fij;d little difficulty afterwards in the control of the whole ehurch. They also hoped to have the church commiticd by ecclesiastiaal organization, to an Assrmbly's Board of Foreign Missions, and that then there would riot be much •iifficulty in calling oS' the patronage of the Presbyterian church from the A. H. M. Society, the Presbyterian' l-lducation Society, "the American Tract Society, the A- jneriean Sunday School Union &c., when funds were needed to carry forward the ecclesiastical Boards of the church.

it was evident, before the close of the Assembly, that the Old School did not intend to submit to the General Assembly, if they were denied the control of the church. Accordingly, on the rising of the Assembly, they had a >iiceting for deliberation. As the meeting was private, the lohole of their transactions has never perhaps come Iteforethe public. The following slat, ments in reference to that meeting were made soon after : vi2.

"1. It was requested that all who did not sympnthise with them should retire — a request which was certai«iy jiroper, and against which no one could take exceptions.

'i. I'hat the subject of a division of the church was

01

then agitated, but that this was regarded as premature and unwise.

3. That the measure of a new Act and Testimony, and another Convention to be publicly called to meet in Philadelphia, in 1837, just before the meeting of the As- sembly, was proposed. To this it was objected, that the trial had been made; that these public measures had rous- ed the other party, and had been the occasion of their own defeat ; and that some less public mode of action would, in existing circumstances, best subserve their pur- poses.

4. That it was then proposed that a Committee should be appointed to correspond secretly with their friends, to consult them on the proper measures to be pursued, and to suggest that a Convention should assemble in Philadelphia- in 1837, in the week before the meeting of the Assembly." See Journal and Luminary, Oct. 6, 1836.

A committee of ten was appointed to correspond, and to carry out the measures of the meeting. 71iis com- miitee, in due time, sent out what was called the "Secret Circular" to all who were believed to be of their party, and not to the whole church or all her ministers. ■ By Ir^eptember it fell into wrong hands, and found its way into the papers. It may be seen in the Journal and Lu- minary, Sept. 29, 1836. The Circular complained great- ly of the Assembly — its action in the case of Mr. Barnes, the Missionary question, &c. It then closes with a num- ber of enquiries such as — "And now, Dear Brother, in view of the whole subject, we ask you, ivhat ought to he done?"

This document was clothed in cautious phraseology. It seemed desirous of information. It was designed to J'tel the pulse of the parly, at the same time inviting crim- ination, and intelligence in reference to those who belong- ed to the opposite party. It looked to ulterior measures, the division of the C4)urch. The committee, in their let- ter, inquire if it is possible, under the circumstances, that the parties can remain together. It was evidently expect- ed that all who were addressed would answer in the nega- tive.

The Secret Circular -was sent out in Julv. The answers

92

given encouraged the committee to take strong grounJ. In September they issued a pamphlet of forty pages — ''An address to Ministers and Elders and members of the Pres- byterian church in the United States." All disguise was thrown off. They declared that the church must be di- vided. They said: "We are a divided church — as really divided as though we were called by different names and existed under different organizations. The schism has ■ already come."

In this same "Address," speaking of the New School party, which was then a majority, they say, "Whatever else may be dark, this is clear, we" cannot continue in the same body. We are not agreed, and it is in vain to at- tempt to walk together. In some way or other, therefore, these men (the New School) must le separated from us.''' Address, page 40.

The conduct of this committee, as well as some others> has been severely censured by the Constitutional party. Dr. Phillips, the chairman of the committee, and one other member had rather recently come into the Presbyterian Church from the Seceders, or- some such rigid sect. Dr. Junkin, the prosecutor of Mr. Barnes, and Mr. Engles, the Editor of the Presbyterian, the organ of the Old School party, were not raised in the Presbyterian church, but came into the church from a foreign body. It was deem- ed very indecorous for them to complain of '■^foreign in- fluence,'" and of the Congregationalists coming into tlie Presbyterian church. It was considered very officious in them, that they should, among their first acts, endeavor to excite su?picions and whisperings, and really demand that one half of the church should be turned out — "irt some 2vay or other separated from vs."

Heavy censure also fell on three other members of the committee — Rev. Messrs. Breckinridge, McDowell and I\IcFarland — one a Professor in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, another Secretary and General Agent of the Assembly's Board of Missions, and the third Secretary and General Agent of the Assembly's Board of Educa- tion. It was urged that they were salaried officers of the cJiurch and not 0? a parly ; that the Assembly, when it made or sanctioned the appointments, did it without any

03

oxpectrttion that they would engage in an enterprise to dismember the church. It was stated, that these tliree gentlemen were sustained from the funds of the church at an annual expense of not less than six thousand dollars, nnd that the appropriation was not made to enable them to revolutionize the body that employed them. - The Old School party, by this time, had assumed a sort of politico religious organization. They advocated and held conventions. They sent out among the churches Addresses, Circulars, Speeches and extra Newspapers in great (juantitics. They established presses at different points, many of which could not be sustained hy the merits of the cause. Individuals have given as high as one hundred dollars at a time, and individual churches hujidreds' of dollars, to sustain certain papers in this work.

(94)

CHAPTER XIY.

POLICY OF THE TWO PARTIES IN REFERENCE TO THE DIVISION OF THi; CHURCH.

The parties differed entirely in their poh'cy during the interval between the rising of the Assembly in 183(5 and the meeting in 1837. The Old School party were for the division of the church, and the New School againat it. This part of the history of the church ought to be pre- served. A few btalementa from documentary evidence will suffice.

In 1834, the Act and Testimony men were only a part of the Old School. It would be unfair to attribute their designs to the whole party, at that period. These men, however, were understood by their own party to be aim- ing at the dismemberment of the church. The Prince- ton Professors, in reviewing, in the Biblical Repertory, the Act and Testimony, say : "Division, then, is tha end to which this enterprise leads, and at which, we doubt not it aims." This, however, was denied, in the Presbyterian, by one of the signers. But th^ Reviewers say : "We have, heard other signers of this Act and Testimony, however, very distinctly avow their desire to effect a di- vision of the church."

It was not, however, till 1836, that the Old School party generally could be brought up to devisive measures. The party's committee, in their "Address," came out very boldly. They said: "Whatever else may be dark, this 33 clear, we cannot continue in the same body. We are not agreed, and it is in vain to attempt to walk together. In some way or other, therefore, these men must he separa- ted from j/5." Page 40.

95

This was the policy advocated by the Editors of the re- ligious papers, under the control of the Old School.

Tlic Editor of the Western Presbyterian Herald, (16tii June, 183G,) writing from Pittsburgh, says: "But a little \vhile ago, we would have heard of division almost with horror: now it is the subject of common conversation in almost every circle."

This Editor, week after week, came out manfully in favor of division. He says : "We are of opinion that, iu the actual state of the case, formal division is not only in- evitable, but is desirable." "We set out to illustrate the necessity, and under the present painful but unavoidable circumstances, the desirableness of the ultimate division of our church by this simple idea, that we constitute al- ready two distinct, widely separated, and nearly equal parties." W. P. Herald, July 21, 183G.

"The practical question, how shall we divide, is certain- ly one of great difficulty. We suppose that this is the reason why the division of the Presbyterian Church has not occurred before this time." "This much is clear, that nothing should be done hastily, violently, in bad temper, or without ample conference among all concerned." "We cannot relinquish the hope, that when the subject shall have been fully considered, the necessity of separation will be seen to be so imperious, and its propriety will be so obvious, that the great body of the church will concur in some mode of amicable division." "We trust that none will secede; let us all do what we can to rouse the church." W. P. Herald, August 18ih, 1836.

In the same number, after hoping that the next As? sembly would give to the Old School their desired prepon- derance, he says: "But if this be not so, perhaps some peaceable mode of separation may be adopted. Let ug wait patiently and prayerfully to see. Should not even this be done, but the next Assembly have a decided ma- jority of the New School, ready to pursue the policy and adhere to the principles of the last Assembly, then we may conclude, that the time for separation has, beyond a jdoubt, arrived, and separate organizations of Synods, or violent disruption of the body, by the orthodox planting themselves upon the constitution, declaring themselves the

churcli, and excommunicating the errorisls, will probacy ensue.''

In the full of 1836, the Old School party began to hope, from the action of the Presbyteries and Synods, that, iu the next Assembly, they would have a majority. After this, the Editors of their papers said but little about an ^'■amicahle division." They seemed to anticipate a ma- jority— strength enough to make a division that would suit themselves. "The Editor of the VV. P. Herald, (3d Nov. 1S36,) speaking as though division were certain, says :' "As to which way the work will go, surely when in- truders (meaning the New School) have disturbed our house, and will neither come to order, nor quietly leave us, upon mutual agreement, ji-e will put them out as soon as we are stro7ig enough ; and the signs of the times are beginning to intimate, that this may be sooner than any of us ex- pected a little while ago."

Again he says : "Should there be such a strength of orthodox men in the next Assembly as to prove the sound- ness of the great majority of the church, we take it for granted that the body will commence, in good earnest, a system of reform that will soon clear our church of those who have no right to a place in it. Should there be a majority of those who favor error in the next Assembly, and thus the majority appear against the orthodox once more, we see not what hope of reform will remain ; and in some form or other the alternative of division must be taken." W. P. Herald, December 29, 1836.

It will be seen here ''which v/ay the work was to go." Tlie church was to be cleared of those who had "no right to a place in it." Drs. Phillips, Junkin, Engles, &c. only a few years before coming into the Presbyterian church from foreign bodies, Seceders, &c. are to drive out " i/j- ii'udei's'" — scores and hundreds of minietsrs and people who were born and educa-ted in the Presbyterian church !

It will be seen, when quotations are made from Old School papers, with what complacency they appropriate to themselves the terms — " the orthodox'^ — " We, the ortho- dox." But it must be borne in mind, that the other party did not allow them an exclusive right to this modest .claiixi. Tney contended that, according to the Book of

07

God, and the Confession of Faith, and itie decisions of tiie Assembly, they too were "///e orthodox.''^

It will also be seen why the Old School are often called "Reformers." They often speak of " Reform," and call their measures "reform arts." They were sensible, how- ever, of the incongruity of the names "0/rf ScJiooV and ^'Eefo7'me7's,'' and have not generally relished the latter.

But we return to our extracts, "its (the Convention's) motto will no doubt be, Reform if possible — divisinn onhj as an alternative. And that division, if necessary, such doubtless as to show that the orthodox are the true Pres- byterian party, and those whom thev may leave or expel. only so in name." W. P. Herald, Feb. 2, 1837.

The same policy was advocated b}' the Editor of the Southern Christian Herald, an Old School paper. In 1836^ he says : "That the controversy is more painful to the orthodox than to their opponents, who exclaim against it so incessantly and so loudly, is proved by the fact, that they (the Old School) are so anxious for a separation, as well to get rid of it, as to testify to the truth, while their most active opponents revile them more for a movement with this view, than they do for a continuance of the contro- versy itself."

In 1836, after the Convention of 1837 had been deter- mined on, the Presbyterian, the organ of the Old School party, advocated division. A correspondent of that pa- per, in speaking of the object of the Convention, said : "Let it be distinctly understood, that the precise object for which it is called, is to effect a division of the Church, f>i;d to deliberate on the manner of accomplishing this grer.t and noble work."

Not only did the Editors of their papers advocate di- vision, but the same policy was advocated in their Con- ventions. In 1836, a writer in the Presbyterian, said ti be Mr. Musgrave, of Baltimore, a member of the Assem- bly of that year, and of the secret meeting at the close of the Assembly, said, in reference to that meeting : "The (question was anxiously and solemnly discussed, in the meetings of the party^ W'Vja^ is to he donel Many re- plied, 'let us immediately separate.' Others said, 'let us call it Convention, for the purpcse of more general con- jsultatiun and united action.' If the first named proposi- 9

OS

lion l:ad been put 1o vote, 1 have good reason for believ'ng. Jhut two thirds would have answe-rcd, Met us separate.'-"

In the Old School Convention of 1837, Dr. Junkin, who ought to know, said ; ''That convention never woald have been called, but for the purpose of separating the Pelagians (the Dr's name for the New School) from the sound part cf tiie church."

Tlie Assembly of 1837, after the excision, in their Pas- toral Letter, say : "Discerning men have perceived, for a number of years, that the alfliirs of our beloved church ivere hastening to a crisis, and when the members of the present Assembly canie together, the state of the parties ^vas such, as to niake it manifest that a division of the ch.urch was the most desirable object that could be ef- fected."

The Old School, or rather the New Basis Assembly of 183S, after the schism had occurred, in their Pastoral Let- ter, say : -'The last General Assembly acted under the conviction, that the only possible way to secure peace was bv the sepTration of the parties in our church." They Bay certain measures were adopted "to effect this separa- tion." And for themselves they say, "ihat they rejoice that this separation is thus far effected."

The policy of the New School was very different. Dii? ring this protracted controversy, the Editors of the Old {School papers were in the habit of sneering at the South- ein Tlcligious Telegraph, Cincinnati Journal, and other New School papers, because they opposed the division of ihc church, and urged that the parties should let their mod- eration be known of all mon.

A writer in the VV. P. Herald, July 7, 1836, calls the Southern Religious Telegraph "a professedly neutral pa- ;cr." He says of the Editor : "He has labored assidu- ously to persuade the churches that they were warring a- bout words."

A writer in the W. P. Herald, July 28, 1636, says : "New School men, from the beginning, declared that there was no material dilTerencc between them and the standards of the church and their Old School brethren."

Dr. Wilson, says : "Among those who have shut out the light from the people, by professed neutrality, and the rant of no difference, 1 consider the Editors jof the Souther ij

99

Eeligious Telegraph and Cincinnati Journal, ns most co-it'* spicuoLis." W. P. Herakl, July 10, IS37. Dr. Wilso.i, it will be admitttd on all hands, is a good witness. Well, liere he represents the opponents of his partv as opposed to controversy and division, crying '■^nerulalily" and "/.o dij'ersuce.'"

A corre.spendent of the W. P. tierald, July 26, 1S38, represents the whole Anti-reform party as opposed \o measures tending to division. He says : ''The time has not yet passed the recollection of many, when these two brethren — [Editors of the Journal and 'J'elegraph] — i/i common ivilh the New School J rater nily, locked up in tho most profound neutrality, were excessively bitter in their opposition to all controversy and strife, recommending to their dissatisfied brethren earnest prayer," &c.

In 1836, some valuable numbers appeared in the Phila- delphia Observer, a New School paper, over the signature of "An enemy to Schism," whilst the Philadelphia Pres- byterian, an Old School paper, was taking the ground that schism was no sin.

About the beginning of the year 1837, Rev. Mr. White, of South Carolina, a Constitutional Presbyterian, in a se- ries of published letters, remonstrated against all divisive measures. His arguments were such as were generally urged by Ihe Anti-reform party, stigmatized as Nev/ School. He said the result would be — Disaffection, hear:* burnings and personal ill-will among christians. — Separa- tion of families and churches in their places of worship — Dissolution of the pastoral relation — Destruction of minis- terial intercourse and usefulness, &:c.

In justice to many of the Old School party, it ought to be stated, that they were opposed to division. Of tii-s number in 1833 was Dr. Miller. In his Letters to Pres- byterians, he says : "Our body would be sundered into at least four or five parties. Synods would be divided in:o several parts. Presbyteries would be rent in pieces. Con- gregations would be found, in a multitude of cases, to be made up of members of diiferent sentiments, and, of course, be severed into two or three sections, neither of which would be able to sustain the regular ministration of tiie gos[)el. Cojitroversies also without end, respecting church property, would probably be engendered ;, unhallowed pas,-

100

sions would be excited, friends would be separated, fami- lies painfully divided, the Saviour would be crucified afresh, and put to an open shame among his professed disciples ; r.nd Zion would be bleeding and dishonored in the sight of an unbolieving world : — and nil this for what? Only to remain apart for u little while, to make work for bitter repentance." And again said the Dr. : "My voice is not for division^ hut for peace and continued union.^'

But the peace party among the leading Reformers was small. And their remonstrances were as unavailing as those of the Anti-reform pnrty, in arresting the torrent of innovation and revolution that was gathering over the rluirch.

Thus stood the two parties in 1836, when the New School were in the majority. Thus they stood during thai year, and till the meeting of the Assembly of 1837.

%

( loi }

CHAPTER XV.

OLD SCHOOL C0^"VENT10N OF 1=

This Convention, called by the'Commitiea of the Olfl fe'chool party in the Assembly in 183G, met in Philadel- phia about a week before the n.-eting of the General As- sembly. There were more than one hundred members in attendance.

Tbj first measure proposed in the Convention was, somtj action in reference to "certain judicatories" charged by common fame with heresies anil disorders. The Conven- tion went into a sort of ex parte trial of certain bodies. Common fame was the principal witness. The members were invited to retail such reports as had reached th^m. Various rumors were communicated. And though the parties accused were not represented, and could make no defence, yet they were soon condemned,-

The Conveni'on, however, were not agreed as to the plan . which they should proposro for the Assembly's adop- tion. Dr. Blythe suggested the plan of citation, with a view to excision. He thought the course pursued by the Synod of Kentucky, in the case of the Cumberland Pres- byterians, the proper one. Me said : "Thirty-three or four years ago, the Synod of Kentucky knew it to be difficult to try any man for hSresy ;• but they appointed a Commission to visit the parts where the heresy was report- ed to exist, to inquire and report. The suspected Pres- byteries were not allovved to sit in Synod till the affair was settled. The Synod acted, cut off the unsou-ndy arwli

102

restored peace to the orthodox. Why rnay not the next General Aasembly do the same thing?'' "If this course be taken, you exclude from your judicatories those who are charged with unsoundness until the affair is is^ued ; and you gain two things — first, you put out those who trouble you ; and secoi:d, you will be prepared to admin- ister wholeson^e admonition to the suspected. This course will show that you are cautious of the character of your brethren. You will not impeach them till inquiry is juade in'an orderly manner. But if something of this sort is not done, what will the world say 1" See Wes- tern Presbyterian Herald, June 1, 1837.

Dr. Junkin offered a resolution: "That the orthodcs would agree not to go into the Assembly, unless the Syn- od of the VVeslern Reserve were excluded." "There is common fame enough to cut off the Synod at the outset." Herald, June 1, 1837.

Mr. R. J. Breckinridge said: "All that is proposed, re- i'ers to what the Assembly ought to do. We must go to the i^ssernbly. We can do nothing here, lam just where 1 used to be. I am opposed to violent action. Let us do nothing which cannot be fully justified. It is vain to hope that jou can exclude the persons against whom these speeches and niemorials are aimed. There is no ])0\ver any where that can do it." Herald, June 1, 1837.

Dr. Baxter said : "In our general views we are unani- mous, that the purity of the church is endangered, and that something must be done. But we differ as to the mode of relief." "As to some suggestions of Dr. Junkin, 1 cannot support them. We have no constitutional au- thority here. We meet merely to consult, in the exercise cf a proper right, and to present our views to the General Assembly.. But if we take ihe ground that we are a part of the judicatories of the church, and proceed to excom- municate our brethren, we assume high judicial powers and array public opinion against ua." "if high handed and apparently unconstitutional measures are taken, it v/ill greatly injure us. There is great distrust as to the designs of the ortiiodox : it is supposed that the friends of the constitulion propose to alter the constitution. And if

r

103

the Convention resolved to sot aside Synods, and exconni- municate them, it will injure us by confirming these fears." Herald, Jane 1, 1837.

Mr. Breckinridge said : "The decision on the Foreign Missionary question of the last Assembly was an outrage ; but preceding Assemblies had already implied the same decision to refuse a Presbyterian organization. All the great principles that are developed in our system were intrenched on years ago as fully as now." "Let it be recollected too, tliat to get apart from the unsound, is not the only thing to be done. It must not be done on the principles which may destroy ourselves." "I have asked a hundred brethren, 'what is your view of getting apart T Yet r.ot one has given me a clear, distinct, detailed statement which he was willing to adopt." Herald, June 1, 1837.

Mr. Musgrave said : "I wonder that there is any call for facts. If any man is in darkness, let him read Barnes' Notes and the Christian Spectator, and read the doctrines which are recorded ihere. Let him also turn to the Voluntary Associations; I call them not benevolent, but party engines." "But we forget the machinery that is at work against us, manufacturing and sending out ministers so rapidly, that if we simply wait, discuss and do not act, in twelve months our case will be entirely hope- less. Some of our brethren nre already clear that the present state of things is no longer tolerable. They will have a reform or separation." "What then is to be done with such men, who are false and deceivers? We can- not live with them — we can have ro peace with them — they are in opposition to our principles and policy and to moral honesty. That we must get apart is clear. Mr. Breck- inridge says we must not take a step in the dark. But can we not legislate conditionally, and take the first step that is clear ■? Is not the course plain ? If we have the power, as 1 hope we shall have— although I am not very sanguine — is it not clear that men who teach doctrines confessedly at variance with our standards must be cut off, and the institutions which divide and ruin us must be de- stroyed ? This is clear. Let us then determine that those bodies which are corrupt shall be arraigned and

104

trieti. My plan would be lo cite them, bring them to yoiir bar, get a Committee tc present the facts to the next A*- sembly, antl you exclude ihem from all power till the issue is- settled.'' "But suppose we have not a majority in the Fisxt General Assembly. There are two propositions' which may be made. 1. We may propose an amrcablo division'. Let us try our brethren who say they love peace and ate tired of war, and that it is destructive of rc' vivals — except about two months before the meeting of the General Assembly. Well, we say so too. We are sick and weary of their falseness and their assaults, wo want restr 2. But suppose we cmaot divide amicably. Although we cannot see at first what to do, we must look Ptbout (or light. I come to ask you, and God the Father of lights: let us look to Him in prayer. L',;t us settle this, that if the New Scliool have the majority in the next As- sembl}', we are a dead minority — not an accidental niinori- ry, but we never shall be a majority. If the last Assem- bly and other Assemblies have not brought up the church- to secure a majority, all hope is gone. Your opponents multiply like frogs. I'hey educate, license, and settle men faster than you can do. But if the next Assembly be Old School, what shall we do? If reform be impossi- ble, the imperative alternative is separation." "Let us cling together and strive for victory, or fall in the effort." Herald, June 1, 1837.

It will be seen from the debates in the Convention, that the members aimed at one of two things: reform or separation. And from the debates it will be seen what was meant by reform. It was to secure to the Old School a majority, and effectually to put the New School in the minority. Mr. Musgrave says r "If the last Assembly and other Assemblies have not brougl.t up the church to secure a majnrityy all hope is gone." The reader of this portion of the history of the church cannot fail to see that a permanent majority for the Old School was, with one portion of the Convention, the leadin^j object in this busi- ness of ^'reform.^^ "Let us settle this..goint, that if the New School have the majority in the next Assembly, wo are a dead minority — not an accidental minority, but ice mcer shall he a major Uy.^^ Whether such measures, oa

105

tlie part of a minority, to gain the ascendency, is not a reform that needs to be reformed, is a question to be de- cided by the impartial reader.

Whilst some would have been satisfied with a perma^ ncnt majority, others would not have been content with any thing short of a division of the church. Mr. Breck- inridge was clear that the church ought "to get apart." Dr. Junkin urged that : "That Convention never would have been called, but for the purpose of separating the Pelagians (the Dr's name for New School) from the sound part of the church."

But this policy was not urged by all. "Dr. Blythe spoke at some length in opposition to measures of separa- tion. He wanted to contend- — was opposed to cutting ofF any Synod^lill tried." Herald, June 1, 1837.

Dr. Junkin said : "We ought to have some plan. We must not count on a majority; let us have some settled principles. Do not trust a New School majority to arraign and cut off New School men, and New School Presby- teries. If we have a majority we can do what we please ; and we know what we shall do." "We must be prepared for amputation, difficult and painfulas it is.^"

The Convention found it difficult to agree upon a plan for action, provided they should be a minority in the As- sembly. Dr. Junkin urged the Convention in such a case, "at once to bring in its ultimatum and say — we are deter- mined as one man,, that unless this reform is immediately t'fiected, ice will cut you off. We are the Presbyterian church; you are not, but are undermining its founda- tions."

Dfv Blythe's plan savored a little more of modesty. Ha hoped, "that if the orthodox were in a minority in the Assembly, they would rise in a body, leave the house and go on with the business of the church.-"

Mr. Breckinridge seemed not to be pleased with any oneV plan but his own, if plan he had. He said : "We need not detail plans for the General Assembly ; 1 will not agree to make the Moderator the Dictator of the General As- sembly. I will go as far as any one for sound Presbyte- rian doctrine and order. But not for measures unconsli-

,^

lOG

futioiial, such as the exclusion of any body regularly coin- missioned to the General Assembly."

After five or six days had been spent by the Conven- tion in a wide range of discussion, Dr. Wilson from the business committee, "presented a resolution, declaring that in case the Assembly shall not take measures for re- form, this Co-nventionwill proceed to ulterior and decisive measures.'^

Dr. Junkin suggested "that the resolution was too un- defined. It does not state what measures we shall take^ nor when."

Mr. Musgrave said : "We are not yet prepared to say what measures we will adopt. We must wait till we see the action of the General Assembly. If we proceed now to say what that action ought to be, we shall be great- ly divided in opinion, and cannot agree in any thing to be determined upon. It will moreover be very injudicious in us to present a request to the Assembly for important re- forms, and dictate to them, by threats, what they shall do."

Dr. Junkin thought that "defi.nite, decided action was the thing now to be resolved on. He moved to amend, by appending to the resolution the words, "for separating the Pelagians and anti-Presbytcrian party from the Pres- byterian church^"

"Dr. Wilson objected to the word '■'■Felagian''* in the amendment. In all the charges for false doctrine which he had framed, he had never accused any nnan of Pela- gianism. There is a great deal of Semi-Pelagianism and Armenianism in the church; but if there be Pelagianism I do not know it. If the amendment be adopted, i shall insist on determining the modus ojjerandi of the separa- tion. This is the last Convention I shall ever attend if I live to fourscore^ But I mean to know before 1 leave this Convention what the Old School are to do."

Mr. Brown said : "I will not consent to menace the Gcnei-al Assembly. It is utterly out of place for us to de- cide for the Assembly and dictate to them."

Dr. Baxter said : "I am not prepared for revolutionary measures. To attempt such would be usurpation in us. Even if we proclaim division, and the church sustains ua,

107

and a new General Assembly is form3d o;it of the ortho- dox portion of the church, still the whole affair has a most irregular oriijin."

Jn the discussions of the general questions of Reform or Separaiion, a multiplicity of suljjects was introduced — the heresies and disorrlers of certain bodies, plans of union, Congregationalism, liopkinsianism, New Havenism, Abo- lition, Slavery, Voluntary Societies, &:c.

The debate on a resolution to discountenance the Home Missionary and Education Societies showed the feeling of the Convention in reference toother voluntary societies.

Mr. Breckinridge moved to amend by adding "that oth- Ct' voluntary societies, and especially the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions be request- ed to use greater caution in respect to the interference, by their agents, in the controversies of the Presbyterian churcli." "I mean this," said Mr. Breckinridge, "as an indictment of the Am. B. C. F. Missions."

Mr. Plumer said : "There has been no evidence fur- nished to my mind that the bodies here aimed at have done wrong. The improprieties are the improprieties of the agents."

Mr. Smith of Charleston, said: "If the language of the amendment be right, as respects the Am. B. C. F. Mis- sions, it is equally applicable to the agents of the Wes- tern Foreign .Missionary Society, (Old School,) for the agents of that Board have interfered vvith us."

Mr. Engles said : "In the station which 1 occupy, I have hnd access to a number of facts illustrating the influence of Voluntary Associations on the controversies of the Presbyterian church. All of them, in a greater or less degree, have meddled. Yet I think the introduction of this amendment unhappy ; it has consumed time, and excited unpleasant feeling. Notwithstanding the explanations that have been given of this amendment, it implies strong censure. Of all the societies mean: to be reached by it. the Am. Board, I believe to be the least obnoxious to such a charge. I could state facts which would show the Sun- day School Union and the Tract Society are much more so, if they are to be held responsible for the doings of their g.^ents."

108

The Convention at last agreed u[)On a Memorial to the General Assembly. It was presented to the Convention by Mr. Breckinridge, the author of the Act and Testimo- ny, and is much ificliaracter with tliat document, tiioug!» prepared with more cauiion. It treats, 1. "In relation to doctrine," 2. "In relation to cliurch order." 3. "In re- lation to difici|)line.'' 4. "Method or Reform."

'm^-

( 109 )

CHAPTER XVL

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF 183:

The Assembh' met after the Convention had been in ses- sion about a week, and before its final adjournment. The election of Moderator showed a majority for tlieOid School part}'.

The Memorial of the Convention was presented to the Assembly the next day after it met. After some opposi- tion it was received, read, and acted upon, and was made the foundation of the famous Reform Acts of 1837, \vhii:h resulted in the schism of the church.

The first measure proposed, was the abrogation of llio Plan of Union of 1801. The following is there solution :

"As the Plan of Union, adopted for the new settle- ments in 1801, was originally an unconstitutional act ,oa the part of that Assembly — these import;! nt standing rules having never been submitted to the Presbyteries — and as they were totally destitute of authority as proceeding from the General Association of Connecticut, which is invested witli no power to legislate in such cases, and especially to enact laws to regulate churches not within her limits ; and as much confusion and irregularity have arisen from this unnatural and unconstitutional system of union, therefore, it is resolved, that the Act of the Assembly of 1801, en- titltjd a "Plan of Union," be, and the same is hereby ab- rogated."

This was carried by a vote of 143 to ll(,^ome New School men, as Pr. Cleland, voting for it far the sake of peace.

Against this resolution of the Assembly the minority protested. Thev urged, that tl:i« plan was not icnconsti- 10

110

(utional — tliat tlie plan was never submitted to the Pres- byjteries, because it was not regarded as possessing the na- ture of "Constiluiional rules, to be obligatory on all the churches," but merely an ngreement witri another body about churches in the new settlements— that the Assem? biy of 1801 had only exercised the power granted it by tlie Form of Government [Chap. ). Sec. 2.] in declaring "the terms of admission into the communion" of the Presby- rcrian church — that the Plan of Union, now declared to h^l unconstitutional, was formed twenty years before the adoption of the present constitution of the church — that this Plan, at tl'O time of the adoption of the present con- stitution, was in full operation, and of acknowledged au- thority as common law in the church — that it had been recognised as conslilu/ional, by the General Assembly, fiom year to year, for more than one third of a century — and thai the Plan was not "M??nrt/(/rrt/," but a most natural, wise and benevolent plan for promoting the unity, increase, and purity of the church in the new settlements.

The minority also objected to the mode in which the re- solution was bi'ought before the Assembly, urging that a majority of the' Committee, to whom the Memorial was re- ferred, were members pf the Convention that presentpd the Memorial, and that more than eighty, who voted for the j'esolution in the Assembly, were members of the Conven- tion in whose name the Memorial was presented.

The next measure was to cite certain judicatories to ap- j'.ear before the Assen)bly. This was considered a test q;!C3lion, and showed that in nn Assembly oftwo hundred and lifty members, the Old School or Reform party had a lean majority of only six. The fcllov/ing resolution pass? cd by a vote" of 128 to 122, viz. :

'■'■Resolced, That the proper steps be now taken to cite to the bar of the next Assembly, such inferior judicato- ries as are charged by common fame with irregularities.''

Against this resolution and two others on the same sub- ject, there was, as above stated, a strong vote. The plan of citatior^'ould have been constitutional, yet it was op- posed by tTO minority on the ground that they did not be- lieve that the accused judicatories were guilty. This plan 5vaS; however, soon abandoned by the majority, as too

Ill

''■ledious and irou'bJesome.^^ And, at once, tlicir entiiv: policy was changed. • . -

After this a committee of ten was appointed to etTecf'aa amicable division of the {.hurchi Rut this measure rail- ed. Tlie reason will b^ stated hereafter.

The next measure was to cut oil the Synod of the Wes- tern Reserve. The resolution v/as as follows :

'■'Resolved, That by the operation of the abrogation of the Plan of Union of 1801, the Synod of the Western Reserve is, and is hereby declared to be no longer a part of the Presbyterian church in the United States of Amer- ica."

Against this resolution the commissioners from that Synod protested. They considered this act, by which they were excluded, ^'unconstUntional and unjust.''^ They as- serted that they were regularly commissioned, had been admitted and had exercised the rights of members for two weeks — that their Presbyteries had a regular existence, according to the constitution — that some of them existed prior to the adoption of the constitution in 1821, and par- ticipated in that act. They say: "If there was any thing wrong in the original organization of our Presbyteries — which we do not admit or believe — this wrong was charge- able, not upon %is, but upon the Synod of Pittsburgh, from whose act our original Presbyteries received their exis- tence, which act has been sanctioned by twenty-two Gen- eral Assemblies, up to the present time." They com- plained that this new discovery of unconstUutionality, which could relate to ^'■accommodaiion churches''^ only, should drive Presbyteries, ministers, elders and people, re- gularly introduced according to the most orthodox form, from tb.eir rights and privileges without a trial. They urged the disastrous and suicidal bearing of such a policy upon the churches — that under its operation any member, or number of members, who may happen to be obnoxious to the majority, may, under some pretext or othei', be driven from the church without citation or tiial.

This very policy was indeed carried out in the next great reform measure — the excision of three Synods in the State of New York. The following resolutions were adopted : viz~

112

"Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the Pres- byterian Church m the United States of America,

"1. That in consequence of the abrogation, by this Assembly, of the Plan of Union of 1801, bntween it and the General Association of Connecticut, as utterly uncon- stitutional, and therefore null and void from the begin- ning, the Synods of Utica, Geneva and Genesee, which were formed and attached to this body, under and in ex- ecution cf s;iid Plan of Union, be, and are hereby declar- ed to be out of the ecclesiastical connexion of the Presby- terian church of the United States of America, and that they are not in form or in fact an integral portion of said church.

2. That the solicitude of the Assembly on the whole subject, and its urgency for the immediate decision of it, are greatly increased by reason of the gross disorders which are ascertained to have prevailed in those Synods, (as well as that of the Western Reserve, against which a declarative resolution, similar to the first of these, has beon passed during our present session,) it being made clear to us, that even the Plan of Union itself was never consistently carried into efiect by those professing to act under it,

3. That the General Assembly has no intention, by these resolutions, or by that passed in the case of the Synod of the Western Reserve, toeffect in any way the ministerial standing of any members of either of said Synods, nor to disturb the pastoral relation in any church; nor to inter- fere with the duties or relation of private christians in their respective congregations \ but only to declare and deter- mine, according to the truth and necessity of the case, and by virtue of the full authority existing in it for that purpose, the relation of all said Synods, and all their con- stituent parts to this body, and to the Presbyterian church in the United States.

4. That inasmuch as there are reported to be several churches and ministers, if not one or two Presbyteries, now in connexion with one or more of said Synods, which are strictly Presbyterian in doctrine and order, be it, there- fore, further resolved, that all such churches and ministers us wish to unite with us, are hereby directed to apply for

ns

admission into those Presbyteries belonging to our con« nexion which are most convenient to their respective io- cations ; and that any such Presbytery as aforesaid, being strictly Presbyterian in doctrine and order, and now in connexion with either of said Synods, as may desire to unite with us, are hereby directed to nnake application, with a full statement of their cases, to the next General Assembly, which will take proper order thereon."

The vote on the first resolution was, Yeas 115 — Nays S8. The minority had been made less by the exclusion of the members of the Synod of the Western Reserve. The vote, however, shows that the Synods were excluded by a minority of the Assembly as constituted. Out of [wo- hundred and fifty who had voted on the citation question,, only 115 voted to cut off the three Synods in New York.

After the above resolution had been offered, Mr. Jessup, one of the minority, moved their postponement with a view of introducing the following substitute, viz. r

"Whereas, it has been alleged, that the Synods of Gc neva, Genesee and Utica, of the Presbyterian church in the United S-tates of America, have been guilty of impor- tant delinquency and grossly unconstitutional proceedings, and a resolution predicated on this allegation to exclude the said Synods from the said Presbyterian church, hc^s been offered in this Assembl}'- ,-^ and, whereas, no specif.ed act of said Synods has been made the ground of proceed- ing against those bouies, nor any specific members of those bodies have been designated as the delinquents; and, whereas, these charges are denied by the commissioners representing those bodies on this floor, and an inquiry into the wiiole matter is demanded ; and, whereas, a majoritv of the members of the Synods have had no previous notice of these proceedings, nor of the existence of any chari^e against them, individually and collectively, nor any oppo='- tunity of defending themselves agains-t the charges so brought against them.

Therefore, Resolved, That the Synods of Utica, Ge- neva and Genesee, be, and hereby are cited to appear on the third Thursday of May next, at Philadelphia, befoio the next General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the Uni'ed States of America, to show what they have done or failed to do, in the case in question, and, if iiecei- 10*

114

.^nry, generally to answer any charges that may or can be alleged against them, to the end that the whole matter may he examined into, deliberated upon, and judged of, ae- eording to the Constitution and Discipline of the Presby- terian church in the United States of America."

Tills course,, which would have been constitutional, was rejected by the majority, and the motion to postpone was r-Lit off by the previous question.

Again>.t this excinding act, the Commissioners from tiio (xcinded. Synods, protested. They deemed the act utter- ly unconstilLilional und unprecedented. They contended that the Book of Discipline gave to the Assembly nc' j)ower to adopt sucli a mode of procedure, in tiie trial and j)unishment of ministers and members. They complain- ed, ih^t, wh^n -fhe regular and constitutional method of trial was proposed^ the majority rejected it, and proceed- ed, in the face of all constitutional regulations, to cut off four or five hundred ministers in good and regular stand- ing. Thev asserted that *'the majority of the churches within the bounds of said Synods were strictly Presbyte- rian in tl;eir structure, and with few exceptions, even the small number of churches originally Congregational, were not organized under the stipulations of the said Plan of Union, but came in under a different arrangement, and l)0ssessed rights on this subject, separate from, and inde- pendf nt of, the Plan of Union of 1801, secured to them by the Assembly of 1808, by which the Synod of Albany was authorized to take the "Middle Association" under its care. They urged, tl.at their Presbyteries and Synods had been constitutionally formed, and, as such, had no de- pendence upon the Plan of Union, or any other plan, and that their ministers had been regula.rly inducted into the office of the ministry. They complained that the Con- vention party were permitted to uUer vague and injurious reports, and when requested, refused to give names, pla- ces or dates — that "although the riglit was insisted upon, •not a single comniiss'oner from any one of the three Syn- ods could obtain the lloor to address the Assembly on the rt-'solution, being put down by the motion for the previous 5)uestion."

The impartial reader of this portion of the history of ihe coutiover?y will be surprised at the contradictory poi^

115

■sitions often assumed by the Reformers- — such as he will find in tlie short compass of the excinding resokitions a- bove. In the third resolution the Assembly had "no inten- tion, by these resolutions to efTect in any way the miniS' lerlal standing of any members of either of said Synods." Yet in the second resolution, they had said, that the As- sembly's ^'urgency'''' on this subject was "greatly increas- ed by reason of the grcfss disorders which are ascertain- ed to have 'prevailed in those Synods."

The Assembly declared that their acts were not intend- ed to interfere with the organization and peace of the Syn- ods, but to show tiie true condition of those Synods, '•to- be out of the ecclesiastical connexion of the Presbyterian Church." And yet the last resolution directs Presbyto-. ries, ministers and churches to detaclT.theniselv?s from their Synods, and seek a new connexion with the Reform- ers, thus attem()ting to exercise authority over bodies de- elared to be "out of'^ their connexion — and thus attempt- ing to disturb their order and peace !

Th3 Editor of the Protesiant and [lerald, March 7, 1830, speaking of the excision, says: "No censure was pasj^ed either upon the churches of ministers." But soon he says : "We now leave the candid reader to de- cide whether the Old School, as watohn>eii on the walls of Zion, were not bound to take decisive steps to arrest the progress of dangerous error in our beloved church." Here it is stated that the Synods ^ere severed, because the Old Scliool "were bound to take decisive steps to ar- rest the progress of dangerous error,^' or in the language of the excinding resolution, because of ^^gross disorders.^^ And yet we are told, "no censure was passed either upon the churches or their members."

In 1837, after the excision. Dr. Miller, in writing to Mr. Plumcr, and in speakingof the excinded ministers, says : "Their ministerial character is left untouched." Herald, Sept. 21, 1837.

Mr. Plumer must have smiled nt this declaration, when- he contrasted it with his own famous speech in the Assem- bly, when these excinding resolutions were discussed. An extract will be given to shew how '■'■their minislerial char- acter teas left untouched," He said : "We have been told that there have been extensive revivals of reliijion iu Lbs

116^

regions of the church of which we speak." ''It was re- ported that a great revival was going on in a certain place, and some of these brethren must needs go up and see the great work. It turned out to be a noisy fanatical mob of christians and perfectianiafs r about 40 professed conver- sion." Speaking of one of their ministers, he says : •'Have you not heard of his indecencies, and his outrages upon all ihe proprieties of social life?" "What are we to think of a Presbytery that will permit, without cen- sure or restraint, such a man to roam among the churches with clean papers, scattering errors, fire-brands and death Avherever he goes? And what are we to tliink of a Syn- od that will nourish in its bosom a Presbytery so grossly remiss in dutv,and so criminally negligent in discipline?" "A gentleman from that region told me he had seen young men and girls walk tlie streets in broad day, hugging each other and sliouting hallelujah 1 This, Sir, is the natural working of the system. It is unrestrained fanaticism."" Herald, Aug. 3, 1837.

The scoffs of infidels against revivals of religion are rarely so coarse. And yet this rudeness of Mr. Plumer met the ap[)robation of the majority. In making this speech he was called to order by the minority. The mod- erator said he was in order. ''An appeal was taken from the chair, but the house sustained the moderator." Her- ald, Aug. 3, 1837.

Yet, after this speech, and this action of the Assembly, and the excinding resolution, charging the Synods with '"gross disorders,''^ Dr. Miller writes to Mr. Plumer : '^Their ministerial character is left untouched ! !"

The next measure of reform was the imperative act : viz. :

"This Assembly now render it imperative on Presby- teries to examine all who make application for admission into their bodies, on experimental religion, didactic or po- lemic theology and church government." This was to operate on ministers passing from one Presbytery to an- other, and is clearly a violation of the constitution of the church. Chap. IG, Art. 3.

The next reform measure was a resolution in reference to new Presbyteries, which the minority urged was directly

117

in the face of the constitution. Cliap. 22, Art. 1 and 2^ and Chap. 12, Art. 2. It is as follows :

'♦That no commissioner from a new formed Presbytery shall be permitted to take his seat, nor shall such commis- sioner be reported by the Committee on Commissions, until the Presbytery shall have been duly reported by the Syn- od, and recognised by the Assembly ; and that the same rule apply where the name of any Presbytery has been changed."

The next measure of reform, was the dissolution of the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia. The party in powey ordered the territory, and not the tninislers of this Pres- bytery to belong to the old Presbytery. The ministers and churches, now out of the church, were directed toap- ply for admission once more, as if they never had been in the church. This was protested against as an uncon- stitutional measure, designed to act as an excision without trial, or at least result in the exclusion of Mr* Barnes and other Constitutional ministers of good standing.

And, lastly, as a measure to complete the reform, the Assembly of 1837, in order to direct and control the or- ganization of the next Assembly, required and received a pledge from the clerks, that they would, in making out v, roll for the Assembly of 1838, omit the names of any Commissioners from any of the cxcinded bodies.

These reform measures were viewed with astonishment by the religious community generally. The Elditor of the Cincinnati Journal, said : "It will be seen by our col- umns, that the effective party discipline kept up by the convention or caucus at Philadelphia, were producing by our last accounts, their appropriate results." "All the forms of law, civil and ecclesiastical — all the principles of natural justice have been set at nought." "We speak not rashly, nor under the influence of party feeling wrought up to passion. The greatness of the enormity would render idle all expressions of reproach."

The Editor of the New York Observer very modestly charges extravagance upon the Convention and the major- ity of the Assembly. He says: "Without intending any imputation against the honesty of the speakers, we must caution our readers against believing every thing that is

118

said in the speeches delivered at Philadelphia, either m t!je Assembly or Convention."

The Editor of the Boston Recorder deemed the pro- ceedings of the Assembly so extraordinary, that he could not tind a place for them in his paper. His remarks are these : "Wo mentioned last week, in an extract from the Presbyterian, the opening of the sessions of that body at Philadelphia, on the 18ih ult. We could not in good con- science toward God, nor in loving kindness to our readers, nor in justice to ourselves, give even an abstract of all the ■proceedings of the body. We shall not attempt it."

( 119)

CHAPTER XVII.

GPERATON OF THE EXCINDING ACTS-ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES, FOR AND AGAINST THE EXCISION-THE TRUE CHARACTER OF THE EXCINDING SYNODS— THE POLICY OF THE REFORMERS.

The acts of the Assembly of 1S37, which were pecu» liiirlv odious to the minority, were the excinding opera, tions, by which five hundred ond nine ministers, five hun^- dred and ninety-nine churches and about sixty thou^- sand members were severed from the churcli, and at once disfranchised without notice or trial.

The advocates of reform justify their course by say- ing, that the Plan of Union of 1801 was unconstitutional, because it allowed committee-men to act as elders, &c. To this it was replied, that committee-men have not been allowed to sit in the Assembly since 1831 — that the Plan cf Union had not the nature of constitutional rules — only a contract between two denominations about frontier churches, and, therefore, not unconstitutional; and that thirty-six Assemblies had regarded it as constitutional.

But say the friends of the constitution, admit that the Plan was, after thirty-six years, found to be unconstitu- tional. Let the Legislature repeal the law. Indeed, when the abrogation of the Plan was voted for, the Re- formers intended nothing more than a repeal. A retro- spective operation was altogether an afterthought. Dr. Cleland and others voted for the abrogation or repeal, who have steadily opposed the excision, and the retrospective bearing of the repeal.

1^0

Under this Plan of Union contracts were made, and monies were given, and riglits vested, and without oppo- sition for one third of a century.

In the law suit, it was proved, at length, and from the Minutes of the Assembly, that from 1801 to 1837, ihe Assembly had extended its jurisdiction over the territory of the excinded Synods.

It was also proved from the Minuses of the Assembly, ihai year after year, the Assembly acknowledged the re- ceipt of funds for education, missions, theological semina- ries, &c., from those Synods. For six years in succes- sion from 1813 to 1818, it was proved, that the Assembly acknowledged the receipt of funds from the excinded re- gion for the Seminary at Princeton. In 1815, one thou- sand six hundred and sixty-six dollars were received for this purpose. See McElroy's Report, pp. 31 to 36.

Could all the funds collected in that region for educa- tion, missions, theological seminaries, &c., be accurately summed up, they would show, that no portion of the whole body have done more for the Presbyterian Church than the excinded region.

The Constitutional party regarded this as a case almost without parallel in civil or ecclesiastical jurisprudence — that the General Assembly should pass an act in 1801, under which, for thirty-six years, contracts were made, rights vested and protection expected, and then the same legislature, after so long a time, declare her own act, not only unconstitutional, but the whole superstructure nuil and void !

Common sense decides, that when a legislature passes an unconstitutional act, and that act is, at the time, op- posed, and the people refuse to acquiesce, as in tlie Old and New Court question in Kentucky, the whole system ought to fall with the repeal of the law. But where the legis- lature passes a law, believed at the time to be constitur tional, to which there is no opposition, and in which the people acquiesced for a third of a century, and thpn for the same legislature, by a small majority to decide that the old law is unconstitutional, and nullify every thing built upon it, is, to be sure, a novel procedure in civil ju- ylsprudence !

The case of Georgia and the Yazoo purchase has been

121

quoted as a case m point. The Legislature of (jeorgla, at one time, sold to certain individuals a large tract of land in the Yazoo country. Under this law, the purciiasers made grants to other individuals. But a subsequent le- gislature abrogi'ited the law, declaring it to be null and void in all its provisions, thus endeavoring to cut off inno- cent purchasers from their homes and rights, which had.> been secured to them by the same legislature. Chief Jusi? ■> tice Marshall decided in this case against Georgia, -p.nd_., upon this principle — that her legislature could not make a law, under which rights were vested, and then again re- peal her law, and nullify the whole superstructure ; iu other words, that a party concerned could not invalidate its own contracts ; and that what was done by one legisla- ture in this way, a succeeding one could not undo; that if any rights were thus vested, they could not be recalled by absolute power.

In this case, therefore, Judcre Marshall decided accordina: to common sense, that an act, though an unconstitutional law, is valid if rights have been invested under it. And in reference to this case, he sald:-"'Tiie legislature of Georgia was a party to this transaction ; and for a party to pronounce its ov/n deed invalid, whatever reason may be assigned for the invalidity, must be considered a mere act of power."

Bringing the same principles to bear in the case of the Assembly of 1837, we see what would be the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, it wdulH be this: "The Assembly, '^Ate Supreme Legislature^ of tho church, was a party to this transaction ; and for a party to pronounce its own deed invalid, whatever reason may be assigned for the invalidity, must be considered a mere act of power."

These views also are sanctioned by statute law, and ac- cord with the usages of all business men. If one man ea- ters ihto a contract with another, the law will not allow him to miUify his own contract.

But admit the Old School exposition of the constitutional

law to be correct, and what would be the result? It would

sweep away all security based upon legislative enactment.

One legislature may pass a law unJer v/hich rights and

11

122

funds may be vested. Bat the next legislature may noi only repetii the law, but nullify the whole superstructure, (Jcclaring it "null and voil from the beginning."

About the time Hhe Supreme Legislature' cf the Presby- terian Church formed the Plan of Union, the Supreme Le- gislature of the United States purchased from a foreign power that large tract of country called Louisiana, which was added to the territory of the United States, and out of \vhich were i^iade the States of Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas. It was said at the time that the purchase was unconstitutional. But it was regarded as advantageous r>nd ratified by Congress. But suppose that in 1839, or thirty-six years after the purchascj the arrangement all the while being acquiesced in, the question had been brought up again. Suppose that in Congress, party ex- citement ran high, and that there was a struggle for pow- er. Suppose that the administration party were stronger than the Whigs, but feared that the other party would g-ua the ascendency, and to prevent it, some Northern Democrat had got up in Congress and said : "The Louis- iana country ouglit never to have been added to the Un- ion. Half the population were Spaniards and French. They had no love for our Republican institutions. That country has been the hot-bed of whigism. They have opr posed the administration of the government. And be- side all, they came into the Union in an unconslitutioncd manner. The tv.-o parties cannot act together. There must be a separation. \\'e ought to sever from the Union these foreigners. We now have the power — -we may nev- er have again. I now propose that \ye cut off States enough to secure forever hereafter a preponderance to our party." Suppose the resolution had been offered, and by the vote of a small majority, the States of Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas declared to be not of the Union — no longer an integral part of the United States \ What would the civilized world have said of su -h a manoeuvre of a par- ty in Congress to secure power? Whether such a cose v/ould have been analogous to the action of the Assembly of 1837, the candid reader must decide.

But admit the correctness of the principle contended for by the Old School, and see the result. Because the Plan

123

of Union was unconstitulional, the whole is nuliifjcd. IF the formationof the Syno'is was unconstitutional, null and void, so was the formation of the Presbyteries. And if the' Presbyteries were a nullity, so were their acts — the liccn- s-ure and ordination of ministers, &:c. And thus it will follow, as a result, that the marriage connexions in the re- gion of the Synods are nu!! and void; and ilie good pco|»iQ there, for thirty-six years, have been living in adultery, and their children illegitimate !

But the Constitutional party have never admitted the unconstitutionality of the Plan of Union, except for sake of argument. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Pennsylva- nia, Judge Rogers presiding, regarded the Plan of Union as constitutional. So did the Court in Bank, Chief Justice Gibson presiding.

But the advocates of reform have, at times, endeavored to smooth over the excision, by urging, that the Synods were not cat off — only disowned, because noi members of the Assembly.

To this the other party replied, that they were members, as would appear from the minutes of the Assembly, the Assembly's Digest, the testimony of the whole churrh up to 1837, and of the entire Old School Convention of 1837 — the citation resolutions and other reform acts for days af- ter the repeal of the Plan, and the testimony of such Old School men as Dr. Blythe, who still say the Synods were members of the Assembly.

Again: the Reformers have urged, that trie churches were not Presbyterian but Congregational churches. This representation was, by them, intended to justify the ex- cision. 7'he truth on this point is not generally known. Admitting, however, that the churches were not strictly Presbyterian, ought they to be cast out and disfranchised for acting upon the faith of a Plan proposed 'and re- commended and sanctioned by the Assembly itself, for more than one third of a century ?

But the truth, in reference to these churches, will not warrant this admission. In 1837, Rev. James Wood pub- lished a pamphlet on this subject. As he was an Old School rnan, in the pay of the party ..jie wiJ! not be charged'

■J 24

■wiih favoring the excindeJ Synod.". lie says this was the chnracter of the Synods in i887 ;

Pvnods. Pres. Churches. litica, 43 (Teneva, 109 Ceno'sse. 308 Wesiern Reserve, S2	,', 18.	C 24.	on. Churches. 38 42 .53 113
287 Fee Wood's Pamphlet, pp.	24(; 31.

From Mr. Wood's statements, therefore, it appears that tiiere was a handsome inajority of Presbyterian chureh- es — enough without the Congregational churches for four Synods upon the n-ost rigid terms. This has- been admit- ted by the Reformers in reference to all the Synods, ex- cept the Western Reserve. About it much has been said, ns though it lacked almost every constitutional element.

According to Mr. Wood's pamphlet, page 31, the Synod of Western Reserve had eight Presbyteries and. thirty-two Presbyterian churches — an average of four churches to a Presbytery. But as Mr. Wood states, on the authority of the Stated Glerk of Synod, that ?ome of the Presby- teries had only two Presbyterian churches, it was urged tliat these Presbyteries could have no constitutional exist- ence. This ground was taken by tlsose who urged that the constitution required three churches to constitute a Presbytery. But it makes no such requisition. Chap'er 10, Sec. 2, says : " A Preby-tery consists of all tlie ministers iind one ruling elder from each congregation within a cer- tain district." Sec. 7, of tlie same Chapter says : '« Any three ministers, and as many elders as may be present, belonging to the Presbytery, being met at the time and ])lace appointed, shall be a quorum to do business." So far as the constitution is concerned, there might be a Pres- bytery without any church. But if there are churches, their representation is provided for. *

It has also been stated, that the Synod of the Western Reserve sent twenty delegates to the GlaneraJ Assembly Avhen she was " not entitled to more than four, or at most eight." [See Reply to Manifesto, p. 15.] So far as the constitution is concerned, this was also a "roimdless as-

scriion. The roprescniation in the Assembly is not in ilic ratio of ciiurciies, but of ministers. And if, in this Sy- nod* there were more ministers than Presbyterian church- es, or if some of the ministers were preaching to Congre- gational churches, trie Plan of Union ct" their own Gen- eral Assembly was to blame, and not the ministers. BL<t how it happened to be discovered in 1837, that it was worse for Presbyterian ministers to preach to Congrcgationalists than to infidels or heathens must be left to the reader to conjecture.

In reference, however, to the true character of the ex- cinded Synods, the Old School estimate was more fully made out by Mr. Hubbell, counsel for the Old School par- ty in the law suit. Speaking, in his opening speech, oi the operations of the excision, he said : " 'i lie measure would result in the exclusion of but two hundred and six- ty-nine churches, or thereabouts, that being the estimi'.tid number of Congregational churches in the bounds of these Synods. The residue of the five hundred and ninety- nine churches being Presbyterian." McE-lroy's Report, p.- 167.

This estimate of Mr. Hubbeil gives three hundred and thirty truly Presbyterian churches, with thirty or foriy thousand members, cut off from the church of their fath- ers, because of their connection with Congrcgationalists. according to the plan and recommendation of their own General Assembly.

But the statements of Mr, Wood and Mr. Ilubbell are from party men. They are given to make the case as strong for the Reformers as they can mal;e it. The in- telligent reader, however, knows that the statements of ;i party at law, or their council, are not to be fully relied on. So in this controversy, in the law suit, the Rev. Miles P. Squire was examined and cross-examined, upon oa^ij, in reference to the character of the churches. He stated^ that he had been an agent for the Home I\Iissionary Soci- ety ; had travelled in seventeen counties in the excinded region ; and speaking of the Synod to which he belonged, (Geneva) he said, " 1 know of no churches that are slriot-- iy Congregational." See McElroy's Report, p. 105.

In this Synod, however, Mr. Wood had forty-two Con-- gregaiional churchesv But Mr. Stjuire made oatli that- he- ll*

r-26

Old not know ono '■^strictly Congregational*^ church. This testin.ony, upon oath, of one who lived upon the ground, belonged to the Synod, and had travelled extensively as- an rtgent among the churches, will show with what caution the assertions of common funje, or interested individu- als, should he received.

But the injustice of the excision, it v;as urged, was still more glaring as regarded tiie ministers who were cut cfF. They were nearly one fourth cf the whole number in the Presbyterian Church. They were all Presbyterian n\\x\\s\Qvs, recti- in ecdesia. This has never been denied. Mr. Hubbell, in the trial, admitted this. Speaking of the tive hundred and nine ministers who were declared out of the church, he said : '"None of ti.cm were Congregational ;. the clergv of this district having, almost without excep- tion, caused themselves to be ordained as Presbyterians." McElroy, p. JG7.

This excluding process of 1837 was the first thing that' fully convinced die churches that they would be forced to submit to a division. It was indeed regarded as divis- ion itself. Against these measures, the five hundred and nine excindtd ministers, and their friends, in and out of the Assembly, planted themselves. And of these reform jneasures, the friends of the constitution have greatly com- plained, and very ju>.tly to be sure.

The Reformers tiiemselves seemed sensible of the enor- mity of their acts. Up to the excision of 1837 they had reproached the other party for crying "neutrality" an3' ''no ditTerence." But now they believed they had done something that would arouse the "New School," and make them willing to strive. The Editor of the Western }*resbyteripn Herald, June 2], 1837, in informing his leaders of the excluding acts, calls upon his brethren to "stand firm aiiiid the storm the New School will try 10 raise." And in another editorial of the same date, he says : "The New School, as might have been exj)ccted. are great- ly excited."

That the Reformers anticipated a "slorm," and when it came, acknowledged "it n.ighl have been expected," shows a consciousness of the enormity of the wrong.

The Assembly of 1837 felt that an apology was neces- sary, not, it V. ou.'i 2ccm, for forcing separation, but for th&

127

mamier, apparently so un-ust^ Hence, in their Circular l^pistle, ihey plead necessity and say : "To have aiieiriptcd to separate from us the brethren with whom we could no longer walk in peace, by personal process in each case, would obviously have been impossible, and even if possi- ble, tedious, agitating and troublesome in the highest de- gree. And though the measures were extraordinary and alarming, yet they hope the churches will bear with them, ii.asmuch as good may come out of evil !" They say i!^ the same Circular Episile: "'It is our earnest hope, with respect to the brethren thus severed [cut off] from us, that both parties will be essentially benefitted by the separation. VVe trust that both parties will,.henGcforth,. proceed in the conscientious discharge of duty, without being crippled or embarrassed by each other; and that hereafter there will be no strife between us, than who shall love the Redeemer most, and who shall serve him with the warmest zeal."

There was to be sure a discrepancy between their anli- cipalions and hopes. The Nev/ School had opposed strife- and division, and tried to live in peace with their breth- ren. But in 1837, in an Assembly of two hundred and fitly members, the Old School, by ancident, had a lean ma- jority of only six. They cut of their brethren by a sum- mary process, deprived them of rights and privileges aa Presbyterians, and covered them with reproaches. Then they anticipate a "s^orm," and that the New School would- be '^oreatly excited^' and at the same time hoped "that hereafter there will be no strife" between the parties !

This-the New School called pacification aggressive.

The cxcinding acts, however, accomplished what they- were designed to effect — the division of the church. That tiiis was their primary design is evident from the speech- es and action of the party, notwithstanding much has been said nhout order, and the unconslitutionality of (he Plan of Unio7u

When the resolution for the excision of the Synod of the Western Reserve was offered, Dr. Baxter, in making the opening speech in favor of it, said ; "As the negocia- tions for a voluntary separation have failed, the action proposed by this resolution becomes indispensably necea- snry. It is not dictated by the spirit of uiikindness, but is

128

adopted as the only course whicli is !eft to eflect a separa- tion." W. P. Herakl, 28th June, 1837.

If anv one in the Assembly know what wns the design of the excinding acts, Dr. Baxter did ; for he was the Chairman of the Old School Convention — a Convenlioa which arranged and carried through tlie Assembly every important measure.

Tliis corresponds with the declaration of the Assembly of 1837, in their Pastoral Letter, in which they speak of the division of the church being ''Ike most desirable object.'^ This is the language : "Discerning men have perceived, for a number of years, that the affairs of our beloved church were hastening to a crisis, and when the members of the Assembly came together, the state of the parties was such, as to make it manifest, that a division of the church was the most desirable object that could be ef- fected."

This is confirmed by the Reform Assembly of 1839. Speaking of the separation, they say : "The last General Assembly acted under the conviction, that the only possi- ble way to secure peace, was by the separation of the par- tics in our church." They expressly say, that their de-- sign, in thiir first reform measures, was '7o effect the sepa- ration.'''' Again, in the same Letter, the}' say : "This pro- cedure was indeed novel; it had never been resorted to in our church before, and from its very novelty was calcu- lated to startle minds not accustomed to that mode of ac- tion ; it was, however, the only remedy for our case."" They felt, as one of their members es-[iressed himself: ^'We now have the majority — we may never have again."

The excinding process was indeed "novel'' and ^^was calculated to startle." It was, however, they tell the world, "the only remedy to effect this separation.'"

The minority also complained of the great destitution of impartiality in the Assembly of 1837 in their application of the principles of excision. If the existence of church- es, it was inquired, on the 'accommodation plan' destroys Synods and Presbyteries, which have such churches, why confine this, in its application, to the four Synods ? Why not declare null and void all plans of union with the As- sociate Reformed Cliurcb and the Congregational isis ? Vi'hy not declare the Synods of Philadelphia and New

^\

129

York oiu of the church, because tlie plan of union of 1821 with the Associate Reformed Church had operated there, allowing the existence of Presbyteries upon the plinciple of elective affinity, and allovvinri; a Presbytery of two Se- cedersto have as much power in the General Assembly, as our Presbyteries of three members ? Why not anni- liilule also this 'accommodation plan ?" And why limit the excision in reference to the 'accommodation plan' with Congregationalists ? If the Synod of the Western Ive- serve ought to be cut off for this reason, so ought the Syn- od of Western New York, and if these ought lo be cut off for this reason, so ought the Synods of Albany, New Jer- sey, Soul!) C-irolina and Georgia.

This was explained by the declarations and actions of the Reformers. The Seceders who came into the Presby- terian Church under the Plan of Union of 1821, uniform'^ sidtd with the Old School. In reference to those who had come in under the Plan of 1801 it was not so. 'J'hese facts caused the Old School to betray their partiality. A very zealous advocate of the reform has said : "Of the two parties in the church,, the Old School or Orthodox and the New School or Latitudinarian, the Synods sided witli the latter uniformly." See Reply to Manifesto, p. 16.

In noticing such an objection to the Synods, the New School have been bold to assert, that the fact of the Synods siding with the New School was their oflence ! It was asked : "Suppose the four Synods had sided with the Old Scliool uniformly, had patronized the Philadelphia Pres- byterian, t'he Louisville Herald, and the Biblical Reper- tory, had sent their young n.en to Princeton, had given their money to the Assembly's Board, their Sunday School and Tract Society, do you think they e\er would have been severed or disowned?" See Answer to the Replv, p. 8.

'J'here is no impartial reader of the liislory of ihoss f'vents, V ho can decide, that the Synods would have been cut off, if they could have been brought up to this point of party discipline.

'Rut why cut off only four Synods/ Wy not cut off ail the Synods, Albany, New Jersey, &P., in which the accom- modation plan had operated ? A careless reader of Old School statements might be led to suppose, that the cons'.i'-

330

tution and order of the church only demanded the excis- ion of the four Synods. But some of the bolder men in the Assembly of 18R7, by their honest avowals, let in know what was the object. The first stroke at excision only cut off one Synod. Here some of the Reformers, as Dr. BIythe and others, wanted to stop. But it was fear- ed that would leave the New School too strong in the As- sembly. The most prominent man in the party declared he would not stop there in the work of reform, but boldly avowed : " We toill cut off a svfficieni number io give forever hereafter a majority to one side of the house.''^

By cutting off nearly one fourth of the ministers, lliey secured to themselves u handsome majority of those whO' were left. But it has been a matter of wonderment to many, that men, who clamored so loudly for honesty and' fair-dealing, did not separate honorably from the New School parly, if they were determined to separate. Why resort to such an expedient to make an impression that the Old School vvere a majority in the church ? This did not happ3n by chance — there was policy in it. The Editor of the Western Presbyterian Herald, July 21, 1836, says : "There are always some ready to join the strongest party, just because it is the strongest party." This class is gen- erally pretiy large — a sort of floating capital. And the Reformers knew, that if, by some stroke of policy, they could gain all that class, by making them think they were the stronger party, then they could out-number the friends of the constitution, and boldly set up a claim to the name-, rights and funds of the whole body.

In this way, by the excision of 1837, the Reformers gained an advantage over their brethren. By this policy they had made themselves a majority in the Assembly. There was then presented, at once, to the mind of the man who had not been cut off a strong temptation to fall in with the strongest party. In meeting the results of the excision, the Old School ministers generally had nothing to lose, but the New School, every thing. The Old Seiiool ministers hoped, by representing the excluded as no Pres- byterians, and those who stood by them, as Seceders, !o keep their own churches together, and to divide and con- quer the churches of New School ministers, unless they would come into measures^

131

in defence of the measures of the Assembly of 1837, the Reformers have been able to make no substantial plea, except necessity. They discovered that the division of the church was the most desirable object. They professed to believe that tJiere was great heresy and disorder among the New School, and to have attempted to discipline the dis- .orderiy, according to the constitution, would have been "te- dious and troublesome." They urged, that unless sonie- ihing was done then, it might never be done ; that they might never have a majority again ; and they thus found it necessary to cut oil" enough of the New School "to give forever hereafter a majority to one side of the house," and make it no longer "tedious and troublesome" to govern the rest as they might choose.

Whatever the Reformers may say about their love of truth and order, and the necessity that was laid upon them, the conviction will fasten upon the public mind, and will go down to posterity, that they went into the As- sembly of 1S37 with a fearful lust of domination, deter- mined to divide the church, or to adopt measures "to effect fhis separation." The reader must decide whether or not Pr. Cox expressed himself too strongly when he said :

"Tlipy make the schism, and they feed the fire, Which distant ages scarce shall see expire, Ail to' protect their party's godless sway, All to control the funds and have at last tlieir way."

( 3.32 )

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT DOCTRINES.

DifFfjrences in doctrinal views have, at all timcg, been tolerated in the Presbyterian church. This every Presbyterian knows. And even the best men among the Old School say it is allowable. Dr. Miller, in his Let- ters to Presbyterians, says : "Some differences of opinion among those-in the same communion inusl necessarily he al/owed.^'

h has been shown, in a former chapter, that there was not perfect uniformity among those who constituted the Westminister Assembly. Nor has it been attained at any one time, or even expected, except by a very small portion of the church. The differences were not, however, re- garded as fundamental ; yet since the Hopkinsian contro- versy especially, the points of difference have assumed importance, as auxiliary to the accomplishment of certain objects — the securement of a majority, the control of tlse church, &c.

The two parties in the church were mainly divided on these points, viz: The nature of imputation — The na- ture of man's inability — And the nature and extent of the atonement. The New School denied our personal indenti- ty with Adam — that his sin is really and truly our sin, or that there is a literal transfer of moral character. They taught, that the sinner's inabiliiy to do what God requires, consists in his want of disposition, or an "in^.bility of will." They taught, that Christ did not suffer as much as the whole liuman family would have suffered — not suffer- ing eternal punishment, which was the penalty of the law; and yet he tasted death foreveiyman.

133

Gri these points, tho New School said, that they corb- curred vviih the Confession of Faith and the Bible. The GiJ School said they did not.

In 1831, Mr. Barnes was before the Assembly, charged with heresy. But he was honorably acqui'.ted.

In 1834, the Act and Testimony men raised the alarm about *'t/ie alarming errors^^ which had been " counter nanced and sustained by the acts ofthe supreme judicatories of our church." The signers of that document seemeei to feel, that they had entered into a solemn league, and in- deed they proved true to their vow. No matter what measure came up in Presbytery or Synod or General As- sembly, they seemed to bo sworn men. This was clearly manifest in the Assembly of 1836, in the trial of Mr. Barnes. Sixty-seven members who had signed the Act and Tes- timony, voted for his condemnation — not a man who had signed that document voted to sustain him. Every impar- tial mind will say, that these men had prejudged the cast', and felt that, by the Act and Testimony, they were pledg- ed not to sustain him.

tn 1835., the Old School had a majority. That Assem- bly passed sentence of condemnation on certain doc- trines which were never held in ihe Presbyterian church. It is true, they said the errors were prevalent among the New School. But such statements were made by Old School men, who had their purposes to accomplish. In the Act and Testimony, and similar productions, such sweeping, unguarded assertions were made, as were well calculated to destroy confidence, not only in the docu- ments, but in the veracity of the authors themselves. This opinion was entertained and politely expressed by the Princeton Professors, in reference to the writer of the Act and Testimony, the Rev. R. J. Breckinridge. Thev say : "In concluding our remarks on this defence of the Act and Testimony, there are a iew supplementary re- marks which we deem it expedient to make. In the first place, there are many of the assertions of the writer which appear to us very inaccurate as to matters of fact ; many of his assumptions altogether unauthorized." See Western Luminary, March 4, 1835.

If therefore, the Princeton Fathers — decided Old School men-^could charge Mr. Breckinridge, the great leader of 12

134

the Reform unity, with making "assertions" winch were '•very inaccurate as to matters of fact," welt might the public mind be alow in g'ving credence to all he has said in the Act and Testimony., Old School Conventions and 0 lie where.

About this time prosecutions were commenced against two prominent New School men — Dr. Beecher and Mr. l>arncs. The avowed design was to bring out the decision of the General Assembly on the contested po'nts. See Dr. .iunkin's first letlcr to Mr. Barnes. Trial, Appendix, p. 4.

The charges relat-ed suljstantially to the same views. The Old School expected a majorit)' in 1836, and that both tliese men would be before that Assembly for trial. They calculated, t'lat their sentiments would be condemned, and these men. as the representatives of their party would be rejected ; and that thus they would drive out the New School, or force them into measures. These prosecutions were indeed regarded by the New School not only as a conspiracy against the happiness and reputation of Dr. Beecher and Mf. Barnes as indiciduah, but as the repre- .sentatives, as the Old School would have it, of the New School party.

The results, h-Qwever. were according to righteousness. Jn the case of Dr. Beecher, the prosecution was withdrawn by Dr. Wilson, the Prosecutor, because of the hopeless- ness of success. He had before been acquitted by his fresl)ytery and Synod, and to use Dr. Wilson's own words, of even "the suspicion of unsoundness in the faith." .

Mr. Barnes was acquitted by his own Presbytery; con- demned by the Synod; but after a full and patient hear- ing, was triumphantly acquitted by the General Assem- bly.

According to Presbyterianism, this ou^ht to have been an end of the matter. This was the result to which the prosecutors wished to arrive — in the language of Dr. Jun- icin, "their final adjustment by the proper judicatoi'ies of ihe church." And when this result was arrived at, Pres- byterianism, ordination vows, a;id religion demanded of the Old School acquiescence. Or, if they felt that they could not conscientiously do this, it was their duty peace- ably to withdraw from the church. But neither was flone. The p^irty went into a secret meetinsr; a conv

135

niiuec was appointed. Tliat conimiuee sonl out the Se- cret Circular, and afterwards an Address, urging lliaf these men, the majorily, "must be separated frtm us."

In 1837, in the Old School Conveniion, the more cau- tious harped much upon doctrines, as if they cared nut about majority or power. But a niaa migltt have an ob- ject ill view, and from iiis declarations at the time, you might not see it. A Presbyterian eldei* oace was tried by his session for cheating liis neighbor in a horse-swop, Iiis horse being diseased. 'I'he injured party urged, lljut the elder had as-sured liim,. that his lioi-so was sound. The elder here manifested less caution than in making the trade, for he immediately contradicted the statement, ad- ding "1 was vevy guarded in my e.\pressions."

Mr. R. J. Breckinridge was both cautious and bold. In the Convention he was at times " very guarded" in his expressions. He would then declarer " This is a great controversy in which we are engrossed about dccirine and order.'" But in the negociaiions of the committee of tea he was less guarded. And in this unguarded moment, hs seemed to forget doctrine and order and to be thinking of power and predominance. In that committee he declared that: " If the New Sciiool did not accept the propositions' of the Old School, he would tiie next day, in the General' Assembly, move to excind a sufficient liumber of Synods from the General Assembly, to secure thereafter, in that bodv. the preponderance of the Old School." McElroy, p. 93.

A similar declaration lie made, in an unguarded mo- ment, on the floor of the General Assembly.

The statements of Mr. Breckimidgc are quoted, and regarded ae important, because he was a master-spirit in tijose transactions — a gentleman whose commanding pow- ers wore not sufficiently chasteiied by age and expertence, and whose ecclesiastical course would suggest, that he had bten an admirer of the saying of Euripides : " Nam si violandum est jus, regnandi gratia violandurn est ; aliias rebus pictatem colas. "

111 the Memorial of the Convention of 1837, presented to ih-^ Assembly, ^^ doctrinal errors'' occupied a conspicu- ous place* Sixteen errors were specitled which the Oid

136

Scriool said were •' widely disseminated in the Presbyterian church."

This part of the Memorial was adopted by the Assem- bly.

A New School member oflered as an amendment the condemnation of the four following errors, viz :

•' 1. That m:in has no ability of any kind to obey God's commands or do his duty ; 2. 'J'hat ability is not neces- sary to constitute oLiigation : 3. That God may justly command what man has no ability to perform, and justly condemn him for the non-performance : 4. That all the powers of man to perform the duty required of him have been destroyed by the full."

This amendnient struck at some of the ei'fors of the Old School, and of course, was not adopted.

It will from this be seen, that the New School thought the Old School in error. This doctrine inculcated among the Old School, that ability is not necessary to constitute ohligalion, in connection with another of similar stamp, ihat for a large portiori of the human race no salvation has been proinded, has been considered highly Antinomi- an. The New School, as a body, steadily opposed such sentiments, and thought their opposition was based upon the word of God, as well as the Confession of Faith. And Though they differed with their Old School brethren on such points, yet they urged, that such differences had al- ways been tolerated in the church, and were not disposed to excind their erring brethren.

That the doctrines of the Old School are tending to Ail- linomianism, is acknowledged by persons in their own connection. A gentleman in the South, in connection with the Old School, notices the " Causes of religious de- clension at the South." Among the causes he alludes to doctrines. He says : "A persuasion that the mode of preaching at the North savors of Pelagianism and fanati- cism, has driven many at the South to verge toward an op- posite extreme.. While the exaltation of human means has been regarded a& a capital part of the heresies of the North, some preachersat the South have carried their no- i-jons of dependence so far as, to a common mind, seems to Biiter closely upon the borders of fatalism. This tenden-

cy to Antinominnism lias.ioiilmi a short space, considerahip increased. Many of their preachers are believers and ad- vocates for ttie doctrine of |)articu!ar rcdeinption, tlic ob-^ vious inference from which is, that for a large poriion of the human race no salvMion has been 2:rovidcd." See Christian Observer, July 10, 1841.

Tiiis writer says," many of the preachers" hold- these sentiments. In justice to many others, it onglit to be sta- ted that all their pi'eachers do not believe or leach thes^ doctrines. And in reference to the memhers of the Old School party, it may be safety asserted, that the majority of them concur with the Constilulional party in rejecting; these Antinomian tenets.

On-the subject of doctrinal differences between the two ))ariies, the New School challenged investigation in the General Assembly. But it was cut off by the call for the previous question, so " as to prevent all discussion." Seo Protest of, the I\Iinority.

The New School portion of the Assembly being denit;i'. investigation, and not holding the errors charged upoi; them, nor concuring with the Old School in their views of imputation, man's inability, the extent of the atone- ment, &c. protested against the action of the Assembly, and in their protest, they placed the "true ddclr'ines" as held by them, in contrast with the errors charged upon them by the Old School. Tliis part of the protest, it; justice to both parties, ought to be given. It is as follows :

FIKST EKKOR. TRUE DOCTKIXE.

"That God would have pre- God permitted the introduction

vented the existence of sin in our of sin, not liecause he was unahl.

world, but was not able, without to prevent it, consistently with ih<;

destroying the moral agency of moral freedom of his creatures, hnt

man; or lor ought tl.at appears in for wise and benevolent reasons,

the bible to the contrary, sin is in- which he has not revealed, eidental to any wise moral sys- tem."

SECOND ERROR. ^ TRUE DOCTRINE.

" That election to eternal life is Election to eternal life is not founded on a foresight of faith and founded on a foresight of faith and obedience." obedience, but is a sovereign act of

God's mercy, whereby, according to the counsel of his own will, he has chosen some to salvation.;. " yet so as thereby neither is vio-- ience otlered to- the will of tbe-

188

TKIftn EHKOR.

'•That we have no more to do "Miththe first sin of Adain, tlian wyth llie sins ol any other parent."

creature, nor ib the liberty or con.- tingency of second causes taken away, but rather established," nor does this gracious purpose ever. take efi'ect independently of faith and a holy lile.

TRUE DOCTRINE.

By a divine constitution, Adam was so the head and representative of the race, that, as a consequence of his transgression, all mankind became morally corrupt and liable todeath temporal and eternal.

FOURTH ERROR.

" Thai infants come into the world as free from moral deiile- nviut, Qs was Adam, when he was created."

TRUE DOCTRINE.

Adam was created in the image of God, endowed with knowledge, righteousnets, and true holiness. Inliants come into the world not only dei^titute of these, but with a nature inclined to evil and only evil.

FIFTH ERROR.

"That infants sustain the same rolntion to the moral government of God, in this world, as brute an- imals, and that their sufferings and death are to be accounted for on the same principles as thoi;e of lirutes, and not by any means lo be considered as penal."

TRUE DOCTRINE.

Brute animals sustain no such relation to the moral government of God, as docs the human family. Infants are a part of the human family ; and their sufTi rings and death are to be accounted for on the ground of their being involved in the general moral ruin of the race, induced by the apostacy.

TRUE DOCTRINE.

Original sin is a natural bias to evil, resulting from the first apos- tacy, leading invariably and cer- tainly to actual transgression. And all infants, as well as adults, in order to be saved, need redemp- tion by the blood of Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Ghost..-

SIXTH ERROR.

" That there is no other original jin than the fact that all the pos- terity of Adam, though by nature innocent, will always I'egin to sin, when they begm to exercise mor- al agency ; that original sin does not include a sinful bias of the human mind, and a just e.xposure to penal sufferings, and that there is no evidence in Scripture, that , infants, in order to salvation, do • need redemption by the blood of Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Ghost."'

SEVENTH ERROR. T SITE DOCTRINE.

" That the doctrine of imputa- The sin of Adam is not imputed '

tion, whether of the guilt of Ad- to his posterity in the sense of a

am's sin or of the righteousness. of literal transfer of personal qualities,

Christ, has no foundation in the acts and demerits ; hut by reason

word of God, is both unjust and of the sin" of Adam, in his peculiar

absurd." relation, the race areireated, as if-

139

they had sinned. Nor is the right- eonsiiess of Christ imputed to his people, in the sense ot a literal transfer of personal qualities, acts, or merits; but by reason of his righteousness, in his peculiar rela- tion, they are treated as if il;ey were righteous.

EIGHTH EltROR. TRUE DOCTRINE.

'•That the suflerings and death The sufferings and death of

of Christ were not truly vicarious Christ were not symbolical, gov-

and penal, but symbolical, govern- ernmental, and instructive only,

mental . and instructive only.

but were truly vicarious, i. e. a sub- stitute for the punishment due to transgressors. And, while Christ did not suiTer the literal penalty of the law, involving remorse of con- science, and the pains of liell,l;e did offer a sacrifice, which infinite wis- dom saw to be a full ecjuivaient. And by virtue of this atonement, overtures of mercy are sincerely made to the race,and salvation se- cured to all who believe.

NINTH ERKOK.

"That the impenitent sinner is by nature, and independently of the renewing influence, or almigh- ty energy of the Holy Spirit, in full possession of all the ability neces- sary to a lull compliance with all the commands of God."

TRUE DOCTRINE

While sinneishave all the facul- ties necessary to a perfect moral a- gency, and a just accountability, such is their love of sin and oppo- sition to CTod and hislaw, that, in- dependently of the renewing influ- ence of almighty energy of the Ho- ly Spirit, they never will comply w-ith the commands of God.

TENTH ERROR.

"That Christ does not intercede for the elect until after their re- generation."

TRUE rOCTRINE.

The intercession of Christ for the elect is previous as well as sub- sequent to their regeneration, as ^ appears from the following Scrip- ture,viz.: ''I pray not for the world, but for them that thou hast given me, for they are thine : neither pray I for these alone but for them also, which shall believe on me through thy word."

ELEVENTH ERROR.

"That saving faith is not an ef- fect of the operation of the Holy Spirit, but a mere rational belief of the truth, or assent to the word of God,"

TRUE DOCTRINE.

Saving faith is an intelligent and cordial assent to the testimony of God concerning his Son, implying reliance on Christ alone for pardon and eternal life ; and in all casea -

IW

it is an effect of the special opera- tions of the Holy Spirit.

TtVELFTH ERROR. TRfE POCTRJXE.

"That regeneration is the act of Engeneration is a ri'dica! change t'ne sinner himself, and that it con- of the haart, produced by the spe- 3ists in the chanore of his covern- ciai operations of the fioiy 8pi»it, i ng purpose which he liimself must "dett-rmining the sinner to that produce, ariil which is the result, which is good," andis in all casee not of any direct influence of the instautatieous. Holy Spirit on the heart, -but chief- ly of a persuasive exhibition of the truth, analagoirs to the iiifluciice, which one man exerts over the mind of another; or that regen- eration is not an instantaneous ac!, but a progressive work..''

TniRTEENTII ERSOR.

"Tliat God has done all that he ca7t do for the salvation of all men, and;that rnan himsslf must do the

rest."

TRUE DOCTRIXE.

While repentance for sin and faith in Clirist are indispensable to salvation, all who are saved are indebted from the first to the last to the grace and sp-rit of God. And the reason- that <Jod does not" save all, is not that he .wants the power to do it, but that in his wis- dom he does not see fit to exert that power further than he actu- ally does.

irOTrRTEENTH ERROR.

"That God cannot exert such influence on the minds of men, as shall make it certain, that they will choose and act in a particular manner, witiiout impairing their moral agency."

trit; nocTRixE. While the liberty of the will is not impaired, nor the established connexion between means and end broken by any action of God on the mind, he can influence it aci cordinir to his pleasure, and does ellcctuiUy determine' it to good in all cases of true conversion.

FIFTEENTH ERrtOR. TRUE DOCTR'.NE.

"That the righteousnes of Christ AH belicversarejustitied, not on is not the sole ground of the sin- the ground of personal merit, hut ner's acceptance with God; and solely on the ground of the obedi-^ that in no sense does the righteous- ence and deatn, or, in other words, ne«s of Christ become ours.' the righteousness of Christ. And

while that righteousness does not become, theirs, in the sense of a literal transfer ol personal quali-^ itiea and merit ; yet from respect to it, God can, and does treat them as if they were righteous.

SIXTEENTH ERROR.

"That the reason why some dif-

TRUE DCCTKINE.

While all such as reject the Gos-

1-41

fcr fi-om oilicrs in regard to their pel of Christ, do it, not by coercion reception of the Gospel, is that but freely— and ail who embrace ihey make themselves to ciifitr " it, do it not by coercion but freely —

the reason M-hy some difl'er from others is, God has made them to differ."

In ihe above it will be seen,tliat what- is headed *• er- ror," is what the Old School charge upon the New School ; what IS iieaded " true doctrine," is what the New School really hold on that point.

Here then was a denial, by the representatives of the New School portion of the church, of the errors charged upon them, and- an avowal of their "real sentiments." With them5.it might have been expected the great mass of the Presbyterian church would have been satisfied. But strange as it may appear, the Old School portion of the- Assembly pretended to see great heresy in the •' True Doc- trines" of the New School. They even enjoined it upon their Presbyteries to try the signers of the " True Doc- trines" for heresy, as will appear from the following res- olution of the Assembly, viz :

^^' Resolved, That duly certified copies of this paper be sent to the respective Presbyteries to which the signers of the protest belong, calling tneir attention to the develop- ments of theological views contained in it, enjoining on them to enquire into the soundness of the faith of those, who have ventured to make so strange avowals as some of these are."

In the controversy about doctrine, the Old School re- sorted to much unfairness, to make an impression unfa- vorable to Constitutional Prcsbyterjans. They imputed to the New School all the sinsand errors of New Haven and Oberlin — Dr. Taylor and Mr. Finney — as if these institu- tions or ministers had any connection with the Presbyteri- an Chuich.

The Old School have also exhibited much inconsistency. One instance will suffice. The Editor of the Charleston Observer is an Old School man. But before the division of the Assembly in 1838, he was willing, to do the New. School justice. Before the division he had no party to serve, whether right or wrong. He then could say of Charleston Union Presbytery, the large majority of which

142

was called New School: " There is no discrepancy in ihis Presbytery on questions of doctrine.'' But since the di- vision, he calls the mioisiers of Charleston Union Presby- tery, " the Pelagians of Charleston."

The same Editor, before the division, did not consider Dr. Beman, Mr. Barnes and other prominent Now School men heretical. After quoting largely from their writings, he says positively : " If there be heresy in them, we are not sufficiently sagacious to discern it." But now the church is divided, and the interests of the other party de- mand that the New School be loaded and sunk with re- proaches. And now this Editor can refer to ihe same writings to prove that the New School are " Pelagians," and teach " another Gospel." Upon what principles tiie Editors of Old School papers would justify such unfair- ness and inconsistency, is not for us to say.

in this controversy, the Old School have charged upon the New School opinions which they have uniformly de- nied. To this the Old School have said: " If the body of the New School are not in error, some of their prominent men are." They then point to Mr. Barnes. But Mr» Barnes was acquitted before the division of the church ; and if the New School are chargeable with heresy for voting, in 1830, for the restoration of Mr. Barnes, so are some of the most prominent Old School men, as Dr. Miller and others.

In this controversy, the Nev/ School always professed their readiness for investigation or trial. And while one party charged the other with holding sentiments tending: to Arminiaiiism and Pelagianisni, they in tuin were be- lieved to hold sentiments tending to Antinomianism. ^Vhen the errors, such as are contained in the sixteen specifica- tions were stated, the New School party said — prove them upon any one and we will help you in turning him out. But the proof was lacking.

Indeed, it was found almost impossible to bring the Old School up to the real points of difier-ence.. In the Assem- bly of 1837, when the subject, of '' Doctrinal Errors" came up, all investigation was cut off by the call for the previous question. Yet the New School, in their protest, were enabled indirectly to bring the Old School to them. And if any one should b,e curious on the subject of the

143

real differences between the Schools, he may form a prett}' correct opinion from the " True Doctrines" of the New- School, and the action of the Old School in reference to them. The New School, in the Assembfy, said, these are our " real sentiments." And in the Auburn Convention, they said : " This Convention cordially disapprove and cordemn the list of errors condemned by the late Assem- bly, and adopt, as the expression of their own sentiments, and as they believe the prevalent sentiments of the church- es in these Synods on the points in question, the list of * true doctrines' adopted by the minority of said Assembly in their protest on this subject.'' See New York Obsery- er, October 7, 1837.

The Old School, however, regarded the " True Doc- trines" as heresy, and enjoined it upon their Presbyteries to try the signers. On these points, therefore, the parties were fairly at issue. Thus the real points of diffijrence wore reached at last, so far as the New School were concerned. And had the Old School come out and avow- ed their real sentiments — limited atonement, &c. their Presbyteries would have had an opportunity of deciding •which party was the most orthodox.

Here the controversy about doctrine mainly ceased. 'Not a single Presbytery obeyed the injunction of the Old School, in trying llie signers of the " True Doctrines" for heresy. This resolution savored so much of infatuation, that the Old School soon became ashamed of it ; and no Assembly since seems to have inquired whether its injunc- tion has been complied with or not.

Notwithstanding all that has been said, the impression has sometimes been made, that Constitutional Presbyteri- ans have rejected the Confession of Faith. In reply to this, it is necessary only to quote one or two official de- clarations of the Constitutional Assembly. During their session in 1838, the following resolution was adopted unanimously :

" Th.at it be, and hereby is recommended to all the Presbyteries to take sj)ecial pains to have tho book con- taining the Confession of Faith and Form of Government of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of Ameri- ca more generally circulated among the churches undex -their care."

144

The same Assembly, io their Pastoral Lclter, say; "'We love and honor the Confession of Failh of the Presbyteri- an Church, as containing more well defined, fundamental truth, with less defects than appertains to any other hu- man formula of doctrine, and us calculated to hold in in- telligent concord a greater number of sanctified minds, than any which could now be formed, and we disclaim all de- sign, past, present and future, to change it."

Whether or not all the noise the Old School made about doclri/ie,.\vas for the sake of doctrine, or to alarm the ■churches for the attainment of ol/:er ohjecls. must be left ■to tlie impartial and to posterity to decidQo

1 i5 ,)

CHAPTER XIX.

THE AUBURN COxWENTION.

After che close of the As'iembly of 1837, it was sooa ascertained, that tlie excinded Synods and other large portions of the church, regarded the measures of that As- sembly as rex^olulionai'y and unconstitutional , and design- ed to divide the church ; or in the language of the Keform Aasembty of 1838, "<o affect this seq}aration."

The church was, by these reforming and revolutionary measures, thrown into a deep state of alarm and confusion. The friends of Constitutional liberty were bewildered. As was to be expected, they could not entirely agree among themselves, as to what ought to be done in the yu- expected and fearful crisis. They aaw that the Reform- ers, taking advantage of an accidental majority, had laiJ tiieir plans to disfranchise the party which had hitherto been the mijority. Some, seeing that the Reformers had taken advantage of them in the mere assumption of pow- er, were for hanging on to the party, hoping they would see their error. Some were for standing aloof froi!! the contending parties. Some were for planting them- selves upon the constitution, and meeting the crisis witli iirmness. The great portion were of the latter class.

The fxrjst movement towards concert of action was the Convention which met at Auburn, in the State of New York, on the 17th of August, 1837. There were in at- tendance nearly two hundred ministers and elders. Tlie reform measures were fully discussed. In reference to the excision, the following resolution was passed, vi.:; :

^''Resolved, That in the judgment of this Convention, the acts of the last General Assembly, declaring the Svn- ^^!jfc* ods of Western Reserve, Utica, Geneva, and Gencss'ee/''"''-^ * not to be constitutional parts of the Prrcabyteriuri Churcfc -"V -■' 13

14G

on the grnund that their connexion was depenJenl on the Plan of Union of 1801, and upon charges vague and un- S'Uppor.ted, were unconstitutional, and therefore in the opinion of thisX'oiave-ntion, null and void.*'

In support of .tlic foregoing resolution many reasons weie assign id..

A -few extracts will exiiibit the- attitude of that body. They say : "The act complained of has, without iiear- ing and without trial, without charges even, deprived a v;ist iiuinber of Presbyterian members of all connexion with that church, aud declares thorn "ceitlier in form nor in fact" members thereof.

''The constitution has made ample provisions for the redress of all grievances which it was supposed would arise in the church; and especially for the correction of nny error in doctrine or irregularily in practice, whether existing in the individual members or in the bodies organi- i'.'d under the constitution. The mode of doing this is fiiily and clearly defined in that instrument. An attempt, th.en, to correct and alleged error or irregularity in any otlicr mode than that pointed out by the constitution or compnct into which all had entered, is usurpalvm ; if it produce oppression, it is tyranny; in its character, and tendency it is and must inevitably be subversive of all good and righteous govei'nmeni and order ; and may properly be cls.ssed with .those acts of lawless violence ra- cenllv ,so disgracefully frequrjnt in our country, and whose juslifica.tiga is aitemptcd alone upon the plea of "the ne- cessity of tlie ,cas»," or the still more unrighteous plea tl.at '■'ike end juslijies (he means.'''

"In a goverinnent of laws, «(? necessity can ever exist for trampling those laws in the dust, and disregarding their rtc,'n rejnents. If such acts be done, they are either re,- boiiion or rovolutiou or both." See New York Observer, October 7, 1S37.

Tlier.e is one poiijt made clear by the Auburn Conven- tion, which goes to shew, that in reference to the three Synods in New York, the General Assembly based their excision upon falsely assumed facts. The.excinding reso- lu'ion assumes, that these Synods ^^were formed and attach- ed''' to the Assenibly '^under and in execution of '' the Tian of Union of ISOl. The Convention, in denying thiS;

147

say : ••The whde of the territory, embracing the thrco' Synods of New York, came into connexion, with the Pres- byierian Church, so far as they were Congregationaiists, not under the Flan of Union of 1801, but under a plan of union and correspondence nxide in 1807 between iho Synod of Albany on tlic one part, and the Nortliern Asso- .ciated Presbytery and the Middle Association' on the otii-- er, wliich plan was subsequently submitted to the General Assembly ; and by them considered, sanctioned and ado[)t- ed in 1808, and has never been ohjected to or abrogated."

The documents on this subject are loo lengthy for inser- tion here. Let the reader, if he would be more fii!ly satisfied, turn to the New York Observer, September "-i, and October 7, 1837.

The plan was regarded as a special compact belwcoii the Synod of Albany and the Middle Association. By it the Middle Association became a constituent part of the Synod of Albany, and the ministers and delegates of churches belonging to the Association were, admitted into the Synod with all the rights and privileges of ministers and elders of their Presbyteries. In speaking, therefore, of the churches within the bounds of the three Synods, they say : "Their connexion with the General Assembly has no reference to the Plan of Union of 1801 ; and hence the abrogation of that plan could not, in the slightest de- gree, eftect the standing of these churches, or destroy their relation to the General Assem^bly."

The Assembly might, with a.s much propriety, havj abrogated the Adopting Act of 1729, and then declared, that in consequence of that abrogation, the three Synol.H are "out of the ecclesiastical connexion of the Presbyte- rian church." Or admitting the plan of 1801 to be im- constitutional, they might as well have declared, tiiat tna Synod of Philadelphia is "oat of the Presbyterian Church."

Therefore, the history of these events show, that these three Synods were cut off for a reason that had no exist- ence in fact. But the advocates of excision, when re- minded of this, urged that, though the plan of 1808 v.-as not abrogated, yet it was of the same character. In their answer to the protest of the excinded they say: "The compact of the Assembly of 1808, with the Synod of AL-

148

&nny, in refcr^iiCe lo the Middle Association, is as uncon- viitjtional as the Plan cf Uaion of 1801." But admitting V. was as unconstitutional, it was not abrogated, and tlie itircc Synods were cut off, because another plan was abro- gated, with which they had no more connexion than with riie plan of union of 1691.

Aft'-r the close of the Auburn Convention, it was un- derstood ibat the Constituional party designed 4o act with 11)0 Refornoers in the Assembly of 1838, provided the or- ganisation of a General Assembly could be effected by aidmitting the Commissioners from tlie excinded Synods.

The position of the parties was such, however, that very little hope could be indulged that they could longer act togother. The Eeformers seemed to rejoice that division had commenced and would be carried out. Still the friends of the constitution hoped, that if the two parties could not act together, some amicable mode of division fould be devised which would prevent the alienation and bitterness of a violent dismemberment of the body. In tiiis condition things remained till the meeting of the As- ajembly of 1838o.

( i40 )

CHAPTER XX.

TflE ASSEMBLY OF 1838— THE DIVISION OF THE CHLRCIi —THE TUMULT IN THE ORGANIZATIOxM OF THE AS- SEMBLY.

A few days before the m^eling of the Assem'o'y, iiY 1838, both parties met in Convention in Philadelphia. The Constitutional Convention was open to all the Commis- sioners to the General Assembly, and was attended by a few of the other party. The invitation was to all, as ap- pears from the notice, which was given in the newspa- pers, signed by some of the reformed party. Sec McEi-' roy's Refiort, p. 91.

The other Convention was a i-'f'/y organization. '-The distinct basis on which the mt;eting^ was organized way, that its members were prepared to sustain the general course of the last Assembly in the reform of the churcl).''^ '*It was- unanimously resolved, that in the opinion of tne meeting, the reform measures of the last Assembly sliou'.d' be fully sustained." See W. P. Herald, May 31, 1838.

While the two parties were in Convea-tion, the Consti- tutional party sent the following overture for pacificaiior;. to the other party :

^'■Resolved, That while we re<iard with deep sorrow tiic existing, difliculties m our beloved churchy we wouid fondly hope that there are no insurmountable obstacles in the way of averting the calamities of a violent dismemberment, and of securing such an organization as miy avoid collisions, and secure the blessings of a perpetuated,. hHrmoniou> ■itction.

'^Eesolved, That we are ready to co-operate in any ef- forts which are constitutional, and which shall recognize iiie regular standing, and secure the rights of the eutir-c'

150

church,. in-ciuding- these portions which the acts of ihe last General Assembly were intended to exclude."

In the reply to the foregoing we find the following:

*' Whereas, the resolutions of the "meeting," while they profess a readiness .'to co-operate, in any efibrts for pacification which are constitutional,' manifestly pro- ceed on the erroneous supposition, that the acts of the General Assembly declaring the four Synods of the \V( stern Reserve, Utica, Geneva and Genessi:e, out of the occlesi stical connexion of our church, were unconstitu- tional and idvalid ;.and the Coaventiori cannot for a mo- ment consent to consider them in that light, there-fore,..

'■^Resolved, unanimously, tlud the Ccnvenlion regard the said overture ofihe 'meeting,' however intended, as found- ed on a basis which is wholly inadujissible, and as calcula- ted only to disturb that peace of our churcli, which a calna and firm adherence to those constitutional, just, and neces- s;iry acts of the last General Assembly cin alone, by tha blessing of Divine Providence, establish and secure." See W-. P. Herald, May 31, 1838.

The Constitutional party .declared their anxiety for pa- ifification, if any plan could he devised, which would be "'consliiutional,'" and which wftuld ^'■secure the lights'^ of, the f xcinded.

The llerormcrs affected to take umbroge at the word^ "const iiitlionaJ,^^ as if the overture had pronounced tlieir acts unconstitutional. But any one can see, that tlie word,. ''const it uiiuiial,^^ wixs used in reference tu the desired plaa i.f pacilicatiun. This excuse was, therefore, mere suh- terfugp. Indeed, it seems they had i.o idea of '^paciji- calion," except on the principles of passive- obedience and non-resistance; for they had already "unanimously re- Tiolved, that in the opinion of the meeting, ///e reform meas- vres of ihe last AsiCmb/t/ should be fnllij sustained.'^

Thus the pailies stood in reference to each other, when the General xVsst"mhJy met in. Philadelphia, on the 17th of iMay, 1838. Common fame had excited much cariosity. as to the scenes which were to be acted when the body- met. The Assembly was large and a great concourse of i;.periators were pretent.

The Assembly n-et in the Seventh Presbyterian church... At an early hcurj the Reformers were found in.a lodjrv

151

noar the pulpit, and the two doors near the Modera!or''s: chair locked. The Constitutional party generally took their seats farther hack in the church.

Dr. Elliot, the Moderator of the previous year, preached the sermon. At the close, he announced, that ihs General Assembly would be constituted with prayer. After prayer, and before the Clerk had mr.de his report on the roil. Dr. Patton offered the following preamble and resolutions :

" Uliereas, the General Assembly of 1837, adopted certain re;>olutions intended to deprive certain Presbyteries of the right to be represented in the General Assenjbly : and whereas, the more fully to accomplish their purpose, the said Assembly of 1837 did require atid receive from their Clerks a pledge or promise, that they would, in inaking out the roll of Commissioners to constiiute the General Assembly of l8Si, omit to introduce therein the names of Commissioners from said Presbyteries: and whereas, the said Clerks, having been requested by Com- missioners from the said Presbyteries to receive their com-- missions and enter their names on the roll of the General Assembly of 1838, now about to be organized, have re- fused (o receive and enter the same. Therefore,

\, Resolved, That such attempts on the part of the <Teneral Assembly of 1837, and ihcir Clerks, to direct and control the organizatioa of the General Assembly of 1838, are unconstitutional, and in derogation of its just rights as the general representative judicatory of the whole Presbyterian church in the United States of Amer- ica.

2. Resolved, That the General Assembly cannot be •legally constituted except by admitting to sea's, and to equality of powers, in the first instance, all Commit^sion- ers, who present the usual evidences of their appointment ; and that it is the duty of the Clerks, and they are hereby directed to form the roll of the General Assembly of 1838, by including thereiji the names of all Commissioners from Presbyteries belonging to the said Presbytenan chunh, not omitting the Commissioners from the several Presby- teries within the bounds of the Synods of Utica, Geneva, Genessee, and the Western Reserve; and in all things to 4brm the said roll according to the known practice and es.--

152'

ttibiisheJ usngc of previous General Assemblies." McEl- roy's Report, p. 85.

The I\IoiJerritor informed Dr. Patton that he was out of order, as the first business was the report on the roll. It was then stated, that the resohuions rehited to the forma- tion of the roll. 'I'he Mode'rator then said the Uierk had the floor. Dr. Patton replied that he had the floor be- fore the Clerk. The Moderator again declared him out of order.. Dr. Patton then appealed from the decision of the chair. But the Moderator declared the appeal out of or- der, and Dr. Patton took his seat without reading the resolutions.

The clerk then read tho roll of the Commissioners, ex- cluding those from the excinded Synods.

After that, IheModerator announced that if there were other Commissioners, whose names had not been entered on the rolUlhey could then present them.

Dr. Mason then rose and said : " Mr. Moderator, I hold in my hand a number of commissions, which have been re- jected by the Clerks : I now tender them to the house, and move that the names be added to the roll." The motion was seconded. I'he IModerator asked if they were from Pres- byteries belonging to the Presbyterian Church. Dr. Ma- son replied, they were from the Synods of Utica, Geneva, Genessee and Western Reserve. The Moderator declared the motion to receive those commissions was out of order. From this decision Dr. Mason said he would appeal to the house. The appeal was seconded. But the Moderator declared tho appeal was out of order.

These were, to be sure, strange decisions, when it is re- membered that the rules of the house say : " The ques- tion on the appeal shcdl he iaken.^'

When Dr. Mason had taken his seat. Rev. Miles P. Squirer, a Com.missioner from one of the excinded Synods,, rose and stated to the Moderator, that he had a commis- sion, which had been presented, to the Clerks and rejected by them, and that he now presented it to the house. When the Moderator learned from him that he came from the ex- cinded region, he said : " We do not know you, sir." ^Iv. Squirer then took his seat.

What now could be done ? It was evident, the Mode- rator and Clerks had conspired to prevent a const ituiionG.1

1.53.

crganizathn of the Assembly. The Moderator would put no motion to the house, however orderly it might be, which did not favor a party organization. He would al- low no appeal from his decisions. Business was at a stand, except the wire-working of the Moderator and Clerks, who were doubtless doing as their Convention had directed them. It was necessary that tlie meeting should organ- ize, and it was necessary that some other person should put a motion to the house* This was- done. The Rev. John P. Cleaveland rose and stated in substance : " That as the Commissioners to the General Assembly for 1838,. from a large number of Presbyteries, had been refused their seats ; and as we had been advised by counsel learn- ed in the law, that a constitutional organization of the Assembly must be secured at this time and this place, he trusted it would not be considered as an act of discourtesy, but merely as a matter of necessity, if we now proceed to organize the General Assembly of 1838, in the fewest words, the shortest time, and with the least interruption practicable. He therefore moved that Dr. Beman, from the Presbytery of Troy, be Moderator, to preside till a new Moderator be chosen^.""

The motion was seconded, and then put to the house by Mr. Cleaveland. It was carried by a large majority of those who voted, only a (ew voting in the negative.

Dr. Mason and Rev. E. W. Gilbert were chosen Clerks.. Dr. Beman then stated that: the next business before the house was the election of Moderator. The Rev. Dr. Fish- er was nominated and duly elected.

Dr. Fisher then took the station which had been occupi- ed by Dr. Beman, and called for business. The Rev. Dr. Mason and Rev. Mr. Gilbert were chosen stated and per- manent Clerks. A motion was made and carried, that the General Assembly now adjourn to meet forth witji jn the session room of the First Presbyterian Cliurch.

The Reformers remained and formed' another Assem= biy. And the division of the church was accomplished.

Jt has been objected against the organization of the As* sembly, that it was the result of a plan ; and the irnpres?. sion has often been made, that the plan was laid in cuu". ning and secrecy. But is was proposed and adopted in open day, with open doors, and the Reformers were ap-

154

prised of it, as appears from the following statement in reference to their Convention : " In the Old School Con- vention this afternoon, information was received, that the members of the other Convention, by a vote nearly unani- mous :

. Kesohed, That if any of their jxirty should be refused seats in the General Assembly, about to be constituted on the morrow, they will themselves organize a General As- sembly at the same place at the proper hour." VV. P.. Herald, May 31, 1838.

It will be remembered that on the 15th of May, the Constitutional party made their overtures for an amicable arrangement, which was rejected by the other party. The- next day [the 16th] the Reformers are in possession of the- plan which the Constitutional party intended to pursue to secure their rights.

The resolution referred ta was in these words :

" Resolved, That, should a portion of the Commission- ers to the next General Assembly attempt to organize the Assembly, without admitting to their seats Commission- ers from all the Presbyteries recognized in the organiza- tion of the Assembly of 1837, it will then be the duty of the Commissioners present to organize the General As- sembly of 1838, in all respects according to the Constitu-- tion, and so transact all other necessary business conse- quent upon such organization.''' See Cincinnati Journal,. June 28, 1838.

It seems, however, that the Reformers expected, by tak- ing possession of the Seventh Church, as a Convention, before the other party could- get in on the morning of the meeting of the Assembly, together with the aid of the resolutions of the Trustees of the Seventh Church, allow- ing the house only to a Reform Assembly, that they would be able to prevent a Constitutional organization.

An objection has been urged against the organization of the Assembly, that " Mr. Cleavelaud had no right to put the question to the house." To this it has been replied, that he had the right, according to the usage of all bodies, when the officers are absent, or refuse to do their duty. The Moderator is the servant rather than the mister of a deliberative body. He possesses delegated power, for the l>reservci,Lion of order, and directing operations according

^55

to the rules of the body, tie is put in the chair, not to prevent the orderly operations of business and to create disorder, not to make new rules or nulify old ones, but that he, as well as the members, may observe the rules of the body. And whenever a Moderator sets himself above ti)e law, and refuses to organize the body, according to its rules, he forfeits his place. This is a correct principle in all deliberative Assemblies of freemen.

On this point the Editor of the Presbyterian wished to nnko a false iasue. He said : " Suppose a member of €'ongress should rise in his place, after the house was or- ga7iized, n.n(l should offer a motion and put it, would it not be ridiculous ?" This was not the case in point. Mr. Cleaveland made and put his motion before the organiza- tion of the house, while the Moderator of the previous Assembly was in the cliair^;r<?. tern, according to usage, till the Assembly could be organized.

But to make a supposition in point : Suppose in Con- gress, before the organization of the house, a person put pro. tern, in the chair, a chairman or a clerk, should set himself above all law, hesitate to enrol members, refuse to put motions or appeals to the house, or to organize ac- cording to usage. What would Congress do in such a case? Would they be obliged to submit to the usurpation or ob- stinacy of the officer, and only discuss such subjects as he would propose, or take such action as he would allow ? It has so turned out that, since that time. Congress has been called to act in s\ich a case ; and the public are not left to guess what Congress would do under such circum- stances.

The twenty sixth Congress met on the second of De- cember, 1839. According to the .laws and constitution of the United States, the clerk of the House of Representa- ■tives takes the chair till the organization of the body is completed. The clerk, at the proper time and place, when the members came together, commenced calling the roll. He proceeded with the States till he came to New Jersey. He then proposed passing over her representa- tives, as their seats would be contested. Her representa- tives were whigs. The clerk was an administration man. Passing over these members would probably give to the .clerk's party tlie ballaace of power in the organization--^'

156

election of speaker, &:c. Here business came to a stand. The clerk was tinvilling to procaed, excepc in his own way* On the fourth day, Mr. Adams rose and said:

" Fellovv-citizTiis and mim'jers elect of the Twenty Sixth Congress of the United States: I address myself to you 'ind not to the clerk in the chair, under a painful sense of my own duty. The clerk has said he will not proceed in the call, according to established usage and custom. He discovered yesterday that ho might pat the question of adjournment. He therefore put it ; but he gave noticd that he should put no other question. Fellow-citizens, in what predicament are we thus placed ? We are fixed as firmly and as immovably as these columns around the house. We can neither go forward nor backward, and the clerk tells us that he will persist in both the decisions he has made. We must organize. If there is difRcuUy in relation to any portion of us, we must do what Mr. Jefferson said was done when Lord Dunmore dissolved the legislature of Virginia on a sudden. What did they do ? They adjourned to a tavern — they constituted themselves a convention, and they acted as the legislature of the state or colony. They actually, instead of being assembled in the place from which the act of the Governor had exclu- ded thein, adjourned to another place, formed themselves into a convention, and there acted in the name of the State. I call upon you, in the name of the people, to organize. I call upon the House to set aside entirely his decisions, and to act for themselves. I have no deubt <3f their |)ewer to doit. Therefore, in submitting this proposition, 1 have no reference to the clerk, nor to any opinion of his. I pro- pose that the House itself should act. It may, if it pleas- es, choose a temporary clerk."

These extracts from Mr. Adam's speech will show how Congress-men feel in a case in which an officer refuses to do his duty. Mr. Adams was repeating his call upon the House to act, regardless of the gentleiwan in ihe chair, when he was interrupted by many naerabers asking : "How «hall the question be put?" — "Who will put the ques- tion ?" Mr. Adams replied, raising his voice above the tumult : " I intend to put the question." Mr. Adams was accordingly soon nominated and elected to act as chair-

157

man, till the House could be orginized and a speaker ap- pointeil.

Here, 19, then, a case in point. Has any one contemled that Mr. Adams had no right to put the question ? Has any one said that the Twenty Sixth Congress was not constitutionally orginized, because the gentleman in the chair was removed and another put in his placf^ 1

And how very similar the two organizations. The moderator of one body and the cleric cf the ether, accor- ding to lav.', were acting as chairmen till the organization of the bodies, and the election of presiding officers. The chairman of each body refuses to enrel certain members cioiming seats, with commissions in proper form. They refuse to put motions bearing upon the roll. Mr. C'eave- kuid in one body, and Mr. Adams in the other, rise and call upon the members to organize — to act regardless cf t!ie decisions of the chair, and appoint other officers whu will organize according to law and usage. And the thing was done. There was opposition, and cries of order from .t'iiose who were opposed to the organizations. Br.t thti .voices of Mr. Adams and Mr. Cleaveland rose above the swelling tumult — above the cries of order, the coughing and scraping of the opposition, and were heard by all who wanted to liear.

It is a matter of history/, that there v/as confusion and noise in the organization of the Assembly. The efiort was made by leading men among the Reform party to fasten the odium of the tumult upon the Constitutional pir- ty. On this point, also, it is but fair that the Reformers should be heard. The " Presbyterian," it v.'ould seem, was satisfied that the " New Schnol" had ^* tUterJy dis- graced themselves,'''' The reason is thus given : '* Mr. Cleaveland rose, and with a disregard to all decoruni, sel- dom witnessed in any place, proceeded, in defiance of all the authority of the moderator, to read the resolution. The New School party then rose in a most disorderly manner, yelling and shouting, and voting, pre'endinT to organize by the appointment of a moderator and clerk, and then, amidst the clapping of a dozen or two of their par- ty, retired to the Rev. Mr. Barnes' church, cryino- out as they retired : ' The General Assembly of the Presbyteri- an Church will meet iq the First Prebvterian Church."' 14

158

^Villl this he tlien contrasts the conduct of the "Reformer?: ' I'hey remained quiet in their seats during this outrage.' t^ce W. P. Herald, iMay 31st, 1838.

The Pittsburgh Cliristian Herald, another Reform pa- per, thus closes his notice of the affair : " This ridiculous nod riotous farce was concluded with stamping and clap- ] ing, as if they iiad obtained a great victory, which they certainly did over common decency and common sense. U IS gratifying to add, that except the declaration of the moderator, that they were out of order, which was mildly ;tiid decorously announced, there was not an act or a word l)y any member of our house, and to hear the screams of <i:/e at the different votes, and see and hear the mobbish manner in which, the whole was conducted and concluded was far beyond what 1 ever witnessed before." See \V. P. Herald, May 31st, 1838.

The Editor of the W. P. Herald, May 31, 1838, deiiom- ipiuted the organization of the Assembly '■'■ ariol''\ He .said '. " That gentlemen cf respectability — that Presbyte- rian ministers and ruling elders of decent character should liive deliberately formed and attempted to execute a scheme jU once so indecent, vulgir and ridiculous, is, we firmly beUove, a thing without a parallel. Their partisans may tall it by what name they please, but we are well satisfied, t'iiat all calm and decent people will call it a riot, and noth- iiir' more or less can be made of it."

Mr. Hawthorn, a Reformer from Kentucky, said : " Mr. Cleaveland demandi^d to be permitted to read his paper, r»ni in the midst of loud cries of order, he proceeded. Then ensued a scene of confusion unparalleled in the meetings of the Assembly. 1 must, however, be permitted to say thai it was almost exclusively among the New School party and the spectators." See W. P. Herald, luny 31, 1838.

It will be seen that these naralives differ in one point — nhout the confusion. The Pittsburgh [lerald declares that '■'■ there was not an acl or a word by any member" among I'iip Reformers, " except the declaration of the moderator, ivhich was mildly and decorously announced." But Mr. Hawthorn says, that Mr. Cleaveland proceeded to read his paper '■' in the midst of loud cries of order,'" from the Reformers of course.

159

To judge, however, of ihc correctness of the foregomg statements, other sources of informtition sliould be referred; to. The American Sentinel, a political daily paper of Phi- ladelphia, i^aid : " This body*met yesterday at the placo appointed by the Assembly of last year. The various ru- ijiors which were afloat in the morning, led us to expect division and confusion from the conflicting claims of liio parties. A large concourse was present ; happily^ liow- ever, the parly known as the New School, had taUen their measures with so much wisdom, and carried ihem ihroiigli. with so much moderation, promptness and confidence, thiit the other party were taken by surprise and allowed then* to go on and elect their officers and complete the orgamzu- tion of the Assembly with entire unanimity. VVe leari'v that the course pursued by the Trustees of the Sev^;nli^i Presbyterian Church rendered ano;her pluce of meeting necessary ; and the Assembly adjourned to meet in tho First Presbyterian Church, where its sessions will hcrnai- ter be held. Perhaps it would have been better if tlio audience had withheld their applause when the work was done. We nve also inforraed that the Oid School par:/ organized after the others had left the house. T.Se party known as the New School did not adopt this course unt.l it was rendered certain that their brethren were fully de- termined to carry out the aggressive measures of the lis-t Assembly, by which five hundred ministers and sixty thousand chu-rch members were illegally, and without trial, declared to be no longer connected with the Presbyteririii church. The aggrieved party have now rendered tliC;/ clmrches secure."'

An examination,. hoAvever, of the testimony before tho Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in the Church Case, Will prove more satisfactory than any newspaper accounts.

In the trial, the Keformers had thirty witnesses. The greater portion of these testified that the tumult was charge- able upon the olher party. It will be borne in mind, liuit all these witnesses, except one or two, were of the Refoiin party — some of them the leaders of the party, ani the very persons concerned in the transactions which woro undergoing a legal investigation, viz.: Messrs Breckinridge,. Pluiner, the Moderator, the Clerk, &;c. And some of the vv:it.aes.sea were salaried oiiioers^ wha made their bread by

160

«t

serving their party, viz. : Drs. Miller, Elliot, Messrs. Mc- Parian, Lowiie, &c. It is not to be wondered at, that ttiese j^entlcmen would consider everj thing very disorderly that would be attempted by the Constitutional party to stay the usurpations and disorders of the so called reform.

Tl,e testimony of Professor .McLean, (an Old vSohool man) a member of the Assembly of 1838, and a witness for the Reformers, was as fair as could have been expect- ed. He said: " That there had been as liitle disturbance !)y the members of the New School party, as had been possible, in that state of things." " 1 thought that the jumuU couldnot he cliargcd on them, though they were the occasion of it" — " I thought the proceedings dison'er- ly, of course ; 1 have never thought otherwise.'' — "To- ward the conclusion of the scene, there was clapping and some hissing. 1 did not know any of the individuals wiio clapped or hissed, but supposed the clapping was in appro- bation, and tlie hissing in disapprob;ition." — " 1 saw no dripping or hissing from any member of the Assembly."' — *' The voices of the T-few School in votino; wore altofrcther above the pitch necessary to be heard."

Counsel for ike ISeio School asked — " Was- it no: neccs- sary to speak loud in order to be heard ?"

Witness. — "It was a perfect scene of confusion. I .suppose it was necessary to speak loud in proportion to the noise in order to be heard. Tlie voice naturally rises in loudness with excitement."

Counsel. — " Is it not more probable that the opponents of the New School men would make a noise to interrupt them, than that //ie;/ should interrupt themselves ?"

Witness. — " As un abstract proposition it may be so." ScPxMcElroy's Report, pp. 240,241.

.Mr. Norris, an Episcopalian, was, with not more than one exception, the only witness for the Old School, who was not an Old School Presbyterian. He did not fix the confusion upon the New School. The most that he said about the noise was in these words : " 1 saw Mr. Cleave- jand rise. He held a paper in his hand, and appeared as if he was reading from the papnr. He read in a very loud voice. His voice was very loud, clear and distinct. I could hear every thing which he iv ad, but do not now re-. Tj^fcrnber what it 'A;as. When he finished reading the pa-

161

per, as I presumed, he nominated Dr. Bemaii to act as- ehairman. I heard a. very loud atliiTnative, I should tiiink fro0) tlie galleries, as well as the lower part of the house."' See McEIroy's Report, page 239.

Rev. Mr. Boardinan, an Old School witness, said : " 'i'he Moderator called him [Mr. Cleaveland] toorder, and rapped with his hammer repeatedly, and there were cries of order from a number of the members around m 3, who used va~ rlous expressions; some cried ^ shame, shntne,^ and I heard one or two gentlemen' say : 'Let him go on.' At this time some rose on their feet, and there were some standing on the seats, which prevented me from seeing Mr. Cleave- land." See McEIroy's Report, p. 216.

The reader will see how this contrasts with the ac- counts that went out at the time through the papers of t!u3 Old School to their readers : " Except ihe declaration of the Moderator that they wero out of order, whicl) was mildhj and decorously announced, there -arts not cm act or a ivjrd by any member of our house."

Dr. Miller, of Princeton, was a witness for the Reform- ers. He said : "It was indeed a scene of great excite- ment, and I was surprised to find myself, though not a Commissioner, unconsciously waving my hand and ex- pressing a wish for the restoration of order." See McEN- roy's Report, p. 312.

It was to be sure a scene of excitement. And if Dr. Miller, whose character and deportment was .sanctifird by years and religion, was found, though not a member, Wii- ving his hand and crying order, what was to be expected of men whose career has been marked by rashness and violence ?

But some of the teslimony on tlie otlier side must be ex- hibited. Mr. Gemmili was a witness for the Constitution- alist^, and not a member of any church. He said : '« I at- tended the church in Ranatead Court on the day of tho organization of the Assembly j»C 183S. 1 was leaning on a pew, near the South West door, just under the gallery, not far from the Moderator. I saw Mr. Cleaveland rise, but did not hear much of what ho said, because of the noise around me. In the neighborhood where I was, there- was a great deal of scraping with the feet, stamping and' •atlier unseemly noises. 1 saw a great nwnber of thaOii. 14*

** 162.

School members around me. I saw none otlier in that pew or in tlie vicinity where 1 was." " Some of them scraped with tlicir feet and fetamped on the floor, and there was considerable other noise in tiiat neighborhood. This Mas while Mr. Cleaveland was speaking or reading. His face was, at first, towards the Moderator, that is, when he first commenced. 1 spoke to some of the gentlemen around me, and asked what was the necessity of making !^o much noise. 1 knew some of them to be ministers,^. and said to them, that 1 thought that was pietty conduct for clergymen, and asked them if they had not better hear what the genileman who was reading had to say." — ** !• am not a member of any church, and felt that it' was rath- or assuming for me to rebuke them, but I thought their (conduct justified me, and I wanted to hear." — "There was a tun.ult through the house. 1 cannot saj- that it was confined to the Old School party, but 1 understood that ttiose near me were the GId School. They generally act- ed with the Old School party." — " I should not call it a- riot. There was scraping and coughing. 1 was twenty, or thirty feet fiom Mr. Cleaveland, and there did not ap- pear to be as much noise nf^ar him as about where 1 was.'' See McElroy's Keport, pp. 246, 247.

Mr. Elms, a Congregationalist, was a witness for the Constitutional party. fJe said : "I stood near the Moder*- at(jr. Dr. Miller was between Dr. Elliot and me. Dr. Elliot liammered and called to order, and Dr. Miller tried to hush the noise. He put his hand up as though to stop ti)e tumult, and used some expression like ' Let them go through.' Dr. Miller, I think, stood up at this moment. He had before been sitting. This was about the time Mr. Cleaveland was endeavoring to read his paper. The tu- mult was the calling to order, very loudly, in the neigh- bor! ood of the Moderator. All the noise pretty much that ] heard was in that part of the house." — "The reason why 1 could not hear all distinctly, was, that there were calls to order. The Moderator called to order very loudly, and thumped with his hammer; and others around him ralhd order loudly. There was a good deal of stir and bustle. This w;is what ] meant, when I spoke of tumult." yee McElroy's Report, 251.

la justice" to the Hon.. Mr. Lowrie, it ought to be stated;.

that in his neigijborhood, he heard '* no hgisJulive cough- ing.'^ And in reference to many of the Reform witnesses^. it may be conjecttired that they were in the midst of so much noise, from calling to orJer, rapping the hammer, cries of ' shame, shame,^ ' let them go on,' ' legislative coughing,' &c. that they were poorly qualified to say upon whom the tumult was chargeable.

Be the facts as they may, it is difficult for^an unbiassed mind to perct-ive what object the Constitutional party could liave in view in raising a tumult to defeat their own org?in- izaiion. But so the Reformers would have it. They call-- ed it •' a riot.''' And those who aided in the organization of the Assembly they called " rioters.-^ So at least,, said. the Editor of the Western Presbyterian Herald...

( 16-4 >

CHAPTER XXr.

THE POLICY OF THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY.

Though the division of the General Assennhly was ef- fected at its meeting in May, 18S8, yet the division gen- erally throughout the churches was somewhat gradual, 'ilie Reformers, by the excision of nearly one fourth of the church, had made the impression upon the minds of many, who had no sympathy for their new measures, that they were the church, seeming to be the majority — such persons supposing that the majority, by whatever means secured, must be the church.

By this policy of the reform party, it must be conceded, that when the Assembly divided, countingall who claim- ed seats, the Reformers had the majority. The reform estimate of thn strength of the parties, after the division of the Assembly, was briefly ihe following:

Whole number, claiming seats in the Assembly of 1838, - 282

Whole number who acted with the Reformers, - - 156

Leaving for the Constitutional Assembly, including a few neutrals, 126 (See Western Presbyterian Herald, June 14th, 1838.)

According to this estimate, the Reformers had fifteen more than half of the Assembly.

But the strength of parties in the Assembly did not ex- hibit the strength of parties throughout the church. After the division of the Assembly, the Reformers claimed the Southern Slates almost entirely. They congratulated' themselves that ^^six ministers''' constituted the strength of the "Neio School" in the South. In this they suffered themselves to be deceived, as subsequent events have proved.

After the division of the Assembly, the Synods, Presby*-

165

<

teries and Churches had to take action on the subject oP separation. Tliis was not generally done till the next fall, and then not completely ; for since that period several Presbyteries, and many churches have left the New Ba.sia, and planted themselves again upon the constitution of the church.

In noticing the policy of the Reformers, we must in jus- tire confine ourselves to their own documents and reports. Their correctness or incorrectness, as regards principles oy matters of fact, is a subject of lawful investigation. And whetlier iheir principles are more in accordance with truth than tiieir statements, the reader must judge. It can- nut, however, escape the notice of any one, that much that was said in their papers and documents was for effect.

Let the reader take up the Western Presbyterian Ho aid of the 14th of June, 1838, and he may have a speci- men of things reported for effect. There the Editor, who boasts as much nobleness and fairness as is common a- mong his Reform brethren, sends out to his readers a re- port of seven things, which he, no-doubt, was willing they should believe "for substance of doctrine," or, "as a sys- tem :"

1. "That Dr. Taylor, of New Haven, officiated and preached the action, sermon" for the Constitutional As- sembly.

2. "That Dr. Richards, of Auburn, one of the most jur dicious divines connected with the secession, retired from tiieir councils in disgust, very soon after the Constitutional Assend)ly was organized."

3i "That Judge Hal! one of the most judicious laymen connected with the secession, did not hesitate to express the opinion that they were destroying their prospects, by their imprudent and undignified proceedings."

4. "That the biethren (in the Constitutional Assembly) v;ere sometimes constrained to laugh outright at the ludi- crousness of their appearance."

5. "That our brethren of the secession seriously contem- plated at one time superceding that tyroin theology, Ar- chibald Alexander, and filling the chair which he has so unworthily occupied in the Seminary at Princeton, uith

-the venerable Albert Barnes."

6. **That certaii) persons^ spqnd Presbyterians to be

166 ft

sure, and very lionorable men, have given reason lo ex- pect that they will adhere lo the Presbyterian church, or depart to the Seceders, according as the civil courts shall adjudge the church property to the one or the other of these bodies. Verily, these conscientious lovers of truth and order, and contenniers of filthy lucle, remind one of ^ a toast said to have been offered some years ago, on a pub- lic occasion in Richmond, Va., by John Randolph — The venerah/e Tlioynas Ritchie, and his principles ; just seven — -^ce loaves and twojishes.^^

7. "That our seceding brethren Intend to claim, not on- fy all the property held by the Trustees of the General Assembly, but all the property held by all the congrega- tions heretofore connected with the Presbyterian church in the United States of America."

Had the veracity of this Editor at this time been called in question, it is probable he would have substantiated the whole by certificates, as in the case of Mr. Stiles' unsound- ness in the faith, and the certificate of Mr. Craig !

Though the Editor was willing that his readers should believe these things "for substance of doctrine," yet he was himself chargeable with an inconsistency never iin- pnted even to the "New School," viz.: wanting others to believe "for subs'ance of doctrine" what he did not liim-- self believe.

It should' not, however, be supposed, that in these seven reports theve \\a.s nothing trvjs. About two-sevenths of the statements were true; especially what was said under the sixth item about "certain persons" of serc/t ^jri/ici- ples — -Jive 7oves and iwojishes. These are the persons, nO' doubt, of whom this same Editor was speaking in the W. P. Herald, of July 21st, 1836, when he said: "There are always some ready to join the stwngest party, just be- cause it is the strongest parly." What, therefore, was said on this point was true. Those who love to go with t!ie strongest party — men of serew principles, belong not to the Constitutional parly. T^nd, indeed, after laboring from 1830 to J837 to get the stronger party and the men Q^ seven principles, the Reformers ought not to complain, at their success..

Well, as the newspaper reports of the Reformers are

107

not to be relied on, the doings of other bodies must claim attention.

When the Reformers, year after year, were in the mi- nority, and were laboring for division, they then talked about an amicaUe se'pciration, and an amicable dioision of diurch properly. But when they found themselves a ma- jority in the Assembly, and had formed a division by ex- cision and other unconstitutional measures, they seemed to have greatly changed their opinions about amicable ad- justments. Tne attempt was early made by the Reform party to set up an exclusive claim to the name, privileges, rights and property of the church. They were unwilling the community should regard the Constitutional party as one division of the body, but as a faction of seceders, who hid gone out from them, renouncing the name, the doc- trines, or any claim to a share of the property of the church.

That this is a correct view of the reform policy, will ap- pear from a history of the times. Below are given sonl^ resolutions which were before the New Basis Assembly of 1838. They were not acted on, it wns said, because "the secession commenced their suits at law." But the Edi- tor of the Presbj'terian, in publishing them, says: "In the main, we believe they expressed the mind of the As- sembly."

The first paper was offered by Dr. Phillips, and is as follows :

" Whereas, the Presbyterian church in the United States, as now represented in the General Assembly of the same, have for years contended for the doctrines and order of the gospel, for the truth, purity, peace and spiritual pros- perity of the church, and not for earthly gain ; and where- as, a portion of what has heretofore been called the Pres- byterian church, have voluntarily gone out from us, and by their secession and separate organization, have for- feited in law, all their title to any of the property belong- ing to the Presbyterian church ; and whereas, the General Assembly have no desire to hold or use any funds, which may in equity belong to said secession, therefore,

^''Resolved, That a committee be appointed to ascertain what portion, if any, of the funds in the hands of the Trustees of the General Assembly, may be equitably

claimed by tliosG who adhere to the secession, an J i-eport to the next General Assembly, and thus, if possible, se- cure an amicable adjustment of our pecuniary affairs."

The other paper was offered by Mr. Breckinridge, and is as follows : See Cincinnati Journal, June 28th, 1888.

"The General Assembly of tlie Presbyterian church in the United Stales, both during its present sessions, and during those of last year, had distinctly and repented'y expressed its perfect willingness to settle all the difficul- ties, and especially those of a pecuniary kind, wh.ich have arisen, or could arise, between those Synods which have been declared out of our ccrmexion, and all who have se- ceded and united with them, on the one part, and the church itself on the other.

This was indeed the earnest desire of the churcli; as well because of tiie questions involved, turned finally on questions purely ecclesiastical, as because money questions were in our view wholly insignificant, compared with oth- ers which lay behind them. And as we construed the law of God, it seemed better, even f-o take wrong and suffer injustice in temporal affairs, than to be prompt to hale even nominal christians before the judge. But above all. we utterly repudiate all pretensions, from whatever quar- ter, to control the conscientious decisions of the Church of Christ, on matters of christian doctrine, order or disci- pline, by the civil tribunals.

We are bound, and we hope prepared, to render to CiR- sar all things that are Csesar's, but we are also bound, and resolved, never to surrender to Ctesar the things whick are onlv God's.

It is, therefore, with decided repropation, that this As- sembly has learned, not only that suits are threatened a- gainst its Board of Trustees, but that other suits have been actually commenced against the officers of this body, and several of its members, the object, of which is, not on- ly to prevent the free action of our ecclesiastical courts, but to unchurch the .church itself, by the action of civil power.

Under the present state of these painful afiairs, this As^ semby deems it a solemn duty, to declare, and does here- by declare :

I. That it expects of its Board of Trustees the sama

169

loyalty to the church, and the same fiJelity to its Divino Lord, that have marked their course in past times, and it hereby pledges to them itssu()porl, and that of the churches represented in it, in their lawful acts, in carrying out the decisions of the last and present Assemblies.

2. that we solemnly in the name of God, wliOse we arc, and whom we try to serve, and on behalf of bis Church, of wliidi we are Ministers and Ruling Elders, anti !is com- missioners constituting its highest earthly court, do hereby protest against all attempts to subject tho Church of Ci;rist, in its purely ecclesiastical action, to the surveillance, or revision of the civil power. And as free American citi- •zeng, we renounce for ourselves and for our countrv, all pretence to any such ruinous power as it regards others.

3. That the churches and mincirities of churches in tiio bounds or under the care of cither of those Synods or Presbyteries, which were declared to be out of the eccle- siaitical connexion of the Presbyleriah Church in 'I'hetjni- tcd States of America — or within its bounds, or under the care of any seceding Presbytery or Synod, which cliurch- es or minorities are willing to adhere to the Presbyterian Cluirch in manner and form repeatedly declared by this Assembly, all such churches and minorities are hereby advised, not only to take steps for their early union with our body, but also to protect themselves in the exercise of ecclesiastical rights, to secure their corporate property a- gainst the new sect, and the ruinous principles upon which their proceedings go."

These [)apers, not acted on from policy, nevertheless, upon the testimony of ihe Editor of the Presbvterian, '"in the main expressed the mind of the Assembly." The one oflfered by Mr. Breckinridge is especiallv worthy of no- tice, as going to show the feelings of the party.

The incorrectness of the statement, in the (irst sentence, about the Reform |)arty's ""perfect willingness to settle ail the difficulties, and especially those of a pecuniurv kind," will be noticed in its proper place.

It will be seen from this paper that the Reformers were ready to rebel against the civil authority, should an at- tempt be made, as they had learned would be the ease, to bring their conduct before a civil tribunal. See their bold declarations: "We utterly repuJiate all pretentions, from 15

170

xvlialever quarter, to coolrol the free and coivscientious (iucisiotis of the Cluu-ch of Christ (ihe R^;form parly) on in.-itters of christian doctrine, order or discipline, by liie civil tribunals." "VVc sjlemnly, in the name of God, uhose we are, and whom we try to serve, and on behalf of Ins chiir li, of which we are ministers and ru'ing el- ders, and as coiiiinissioners constituting its highest earth- ly courtjdo herel)y protest against all attempts to subject tlie Church^of Chrisi, m its purely ecclesiastical action, to tlie surveillance or nivislon of the civil power." They seemed to regard their "ecclesiaslicai action as belonging to God and not to Caesar." And then they take a boid st'ind against tliis expected interference, and make a bold ileclaration : "We are bound, and we iiope prepared to render to Ciesar all things that are Caesar's, but we are also bo'jnd and resoh-ed nccer to surrender to Ccesar the I kings ir/iich are only God's.'"

The Reformers attempted to inculcate such sentiments among their [)eople. The Editor of tim " VV^^tchman of the South," says : "No court in any ot tliese States can ever l)e brought to review or reverse ecclcsiasticii decis- ions."— "lis (tlie Assembly's) decisions can be rjview-d or reversed by no other court on earth." These senti- ments were cojiied into the Western Presbyteiian Herald, of .hme 2Sth, 183S.

Tiie doctrine set forth in Dr. Piiillips' papef, is, that the reform party is the church, and that the constitutional par* ty ii.'id forfeited tlltir claim to any thing belonging to the (rburch. This is the ianguase: "Whereas, a portion of what has heretofore betn called tlie Presbyterian Church have voluntarily gone out from u-<, and by their secession ana separate organization, have forfeited in law, all iheir title to any of the piO[)erly belonging to llie Presbyterian Church."

It will be seen th'it the excision is called avolunlary go- ing out ; and the division of the boiy, a secession. But that party hid a strange way of naming things; the im- propriety of which is often as manifest as it would be for Reformers in a church to call themselves //;e Old School.

But in Dr. Phillips' pipor it was admitted that the Con- stitutional party had a title to property; but as the Re- formers would have a separation, so now they niu$t have

171

all the propeity; for says the paper, tie Constitutionalists ••have forfeited in law, all their title to any of the prop- erty belonging to tlie Presbyterian church."

This policy of claiming all the property, as appears from Mv. Breckinridge's paper, was to extend even to the e.\- cinded Synods, in that paper, not only majorities of churches, but even minorities are "hereby ad'vised, not only to take steps for their early union with our [reform] body, but also to protect themselves in the exercise of their eccle- siastical right*', /o secure their corporate properly against the new sect, and the ruinous principles upon which their proceedings go."

Here are surely some strange features in the policy of the New Basis sect. They will have division, and '"to ef- fect this separation," they cast out \Vhole Synods and Pres- byteries and churches, and then advise "minorities," how- ever small, to st-^ize upon the funds — "to secure their corpo- rate property against the new sect." Then they proclaiin that their proceedings are "'■ecclesiastical,''^ that they be- long to the church, and the church belongs to God, and to permit the civil courts to review their proceedings would be subjecting the church of Christ to the surveillance of the civil power; and then they resolve "never to surrender to Csesar the things that are only God's."

it will here be seen in what a state of embarrassment the Constitutional party found thrmselves. When the divis- ion took p'ace, all the chartered funds of the Assembly were in the hands of the reform party, and they were advising their viinorities of Synods, Piesbyterics and churches to secure all the property. And when the con- stitutional party declared their intention to let the civil courts decide, whether one pnty might thus disfranchise anoihei-, th"^ Rrformers cried out, '-Oh, vou must not goto law — it will injure religion!" The injured party then said : "Wedifl'er about rights and property — who shall de- cide ?" The Reformers were ready to say, " TFe will dp- cide — you are seceders — ^just go along about your busi. ness — you have forfeited all title to your pro|)erty — yo:. if you will go off right peaceably, we will give you, as a charity, what wo can spare. The times, however, are hard — the Vicksburg Bank is broke, and you must not ex- pect much, indeed, the 'I'rustees of the General Assern-

172

illy only lioUl some tliree hundred thousand dollars — hard- ly worth dividing — and as you care lujt little for the stuff, would it not show your groat disinterestedness just to agree, not only that the funds of the Assembly, but all the Theo- logical Seminaries, parsonages, town losts, church edifi- ces, d:c., of the whole body should belong to our party. Indeed, you must submit to our terms, and toour decision ; for we do not intend that our proceedings shall be review- ed by the civil courts. Ecclesiastical proceedings are God's, and we are resolved never to surrender to Cceear the ihi)i£;sichich, are only God^s.^*

To these terms the other party were unwilling to submit. And whether such a policy as the Reformers attempted to carry out should have been submitted to by the other por- tion of the church, is a question that men may decide dif- ferently.

( 1-3)

CHAPTER XXIL

THS GREAT REFORM OKDINANCE OF 1838.

The most important measure of tlie New Biisis Assem- bly of 1838, was ihe passage of the three grt'at acts " for the general reform and pacification of ihechurch." Omit- ting the third, being of a local bearing, we present tlie first two :

REPORT

Of the Committee on the State of the church, as adopted Mai) 30, 1838.

" The Presbyterian church in the United States of America, finds it»elf, by the providence of God, in the course of now and unprecedented events, in a position of great difficulty, novelty, and importance. Tiie church, led and supported by the God of Zion, has, within the last few years, commenced a great reform, which has be- come indispensable to its very existence, as organized on the principles of the doctrin'3 and order of its own consti- tution. The General Assembly of 1837 carried forward this reform, in several measures of great and momentous; importance, for the details of which we refer to its records. The voice of the church, uttered in a multitude of forms, and especiiilly by the commissioners to the present Gene- ral Assembly, is clearly and decisively in favor of con- summating the reform thus auspiciously commenced. But a portion of the ministers and ruling elders, sent to this Assembly, forgetting, or violating, as we apprehend, their duty to God and to the church, and choosing to depart from us, have, in connection with other persons not in the com- 15*

174

inEMiion of our church, constituted a new ecclesiastieal ergnnizalion, which they improperly lUid unjustly assume lo call the true General Assembly of the Presbyterian church in the United States of America. 'Jo meet the jiresent crisis at once with the temper and s,jirit becoming our high vocation, and to persevere in it, niid carry safely through it, the church committed in so great a degree to our guidance, in times of so much trial and disorder, the ihrec following acts are now ordained and established :

ACT I.

Sec. I. That in the present state of the church, all the Piesbyteries in our connection ought to take order, and are hertb-y enjoined to take such order as is consistent with this Rjinutc, for the genorfil reform and pacification of the church, and tliey are directed so to do, some time be- tween the dissolution of the present General Assembly, and ihe fall meetings of the Synods, either nt stated ov pro re vain meetings of the Presbyteries, os shall seem most advisable to tliem respectively. And those Presbyteries, whose commissioners to this Assembly have united with others in the formation of anotlier Assembly, in the pres- ence of this, and with tumult and violence in open con- tempt of it : or who have advised the formation of said body, or adhered to, or attended it, as members thereof, after its formation, renounced, or refused to recognise this true and only General Assembly of the Presbyterian church in the United Stales of America, are hereby re- quired to take proper order in regard to their said com- missioners.

Stc. II. In case the majority of any Presljytery, whose commissioners have acted as aforesaid, shall take proper o-der touching their conduct in the premise*, and are wil- ling, upon the basis of the Assemblies of 1837 and 1838, to adhere to the Presbyterian church in the United States — then, and in that case, the acts of their said commission- ers, in advising, creating, or unitng with said session, or in refusing to attend on this Assembly, a? the case may be, shall not prejudice the righ's or interests, or aflect the in- tegrity of said Presbytery, or its union with li)c Presbyte- lian church in the Uniied States of America, as an inte- gral portion theieof.

175

Sec. III. In case the majority of any Presbytery shalf refuse, or neglect to take proper order in regard to its se- ceding commissioners, or shall approve their conduct, or adhere to the new sect they have created, or shall decline or fail to adhere to the Prt-sbyterian church in the United States of America, upon the said Iwisis of 1837 and 1838, for the reform of the church — then, and in that case, the minority of said Prcsb}tery shall be held and considered to be the true Presbytery : and shall continue the succession of the Presbytery by its name and style, and from the rendition of the err&neous and schismatical decision, which is the test in the case, be the Presbytery ; and if suffi- ciently numerous to perform presbyterial acts, shall go forward with all the proper acts and functions of the Pres- bytery.

Sec. IV. In case the minority of any Presbytery should be too small to constitute a Presbytery, and perfom presbyterial act«t, said minority shall remain in its existing Stat? until the next subsequent meeting of the Svnod to which it properly belongs, which will then take order on the subject. Otherwise, there is a possibility that several Synods might be unable to constitute, if majorities of part of their Presbyteries should adhere to the secession, and the minorities frttach themselves to other Presbyteries or several unite into one, before the Synods meet.

Sec V. The principles of this act shall apply to churches, with their majorities and minorities — and lo^ church sessions, as far as they are applicable. And the Presbyteries are hereby required so to exercise their watch and care, that as fPvT as possible, all the churches may be preserved, and where unhappily this cannot be done, then that the minorities in the sessions and churches shall be cared for, and dealt with on the general principles now laid down.

The Assembly is fully sensible that in divided Presby- teries and churches, every thing depends, under God, upon the promptitude, firmness, wisdom and moderation of the friends of Christ, in this great crisis. In this conviction, the whole of that part of the subject which relates to churches and private christians, is esjiecially commended to the christian zeal, prudence and fidelity of the Presby- teries and church sessions. In regard to the temporal iii>

176!

terests of the chu relics, and the difficulties which may arise on their account, the Assembly advise that, on the one hand, great liberality and generosity should mark the whole conduct of our people, and especially in cases where our majorities are very small : while on the other hand, it would advise, that providential advantages, and important rigiits, ought not, in any case, to be lightly thrown away.

Skc. VI. it is enjoined on Ihe Synods to take order on this subject — to see that the principles here laid down are duly enforced — to take care that the Presbyteries act as truth and duty require in the premises— to make such needful modifications in the Presbyteries as their altered circumstances may require — and to promote by all proper meins the speedy pacification of the chuiches, by deliver- ing and saving them from the leaven of lieresy, disorder and schism, which having so long worked among them, is at length ready, by Cod's mercy, to be purged away.

Sec, VII. The Synods in all cases shall be considered lawfully constituted only when formed by or out of those Presbyteries recognised as true Presbyteries by this As- sembly, according to the true tenor and intent of this act.

ACT II.

Whereas, the act of the Assembly of June 5th, 1837, declaring the three Synods of Utica, Geneva, and Gene- see, to be out of the ecclesiastical connection of the Pres- byterian Church in the United States of America, made ample provision for the return into the bosom of the church of every minister and church, truly Presbyterian in doctrine and order, as well within the bounds of the three aforesaid Synods, as within tiiose of the Synod of the Western Reserve :

And whereas, it is represented to this Assenibly, that in addition to those who have embraced this invitation and provision of the aforesaid act, there are others who have held bick, and are still waiting on the developments of Providence :

And whereas, it was never the intention of the General Assembly to cause any sound Presbyterian to be perma- nently separated from our connection, but it is, and always was the desire of the church, that all who really embrace

177

our doctrine, love our order, and are willing to conform to oar discipline, should unite themselves with us :

And whereas, moreover, the General Assembly has no idea of narrowing, but would rather expand its geogra- phical limits, so as to unite in bonds of the most intimate fellowship every portion of our beloved country, and every evangelical christian like minded with ourselves : it is therefore, resolved by the General Assembly of the Pres- byterian Church in the United States of America, that it be recommended-r-^

1. That those ministers and churches, living within the geographical limits of the Synods of Western Reserve, Geneva, Utica,aiid Genesee, who are willing to adhere to the Presbyterian Church in the United States, on the ba- sis of the acts of the Assemblies of 1837 and 1838, for the general reform of the church, take steps for the imme- diate organization of as many Presbyteries as there are minigterfs and. churches, such as are above described, suffi- ciently numerous to constitute, so that the whole number of Presbyteries thus formed, shall not exceed one Presby- tery for each of the aforesaid Synods ; and so that the territory of the Western Reserve shall in no case be added to that in Western New York — and in case only two Pres- byteries can be constituted on the ground occupied by the three Synods of Utica, Geneva, and Genesee — then that whole territory shall be divided between them. And in case but one Presbytery can be constituted, then the whoio territory shall attach to it. In regard to the Western Re-. serve, it-is desired that a single J rest)ytery be formed as soon as convenient, to embrace the whole of that ground.

2. The ministers and churches intended by this act, will hold such mutuil correspondence as thev shall deem needful, either by general meeting or otherwise ; and then meet, at such convenient time and place, as may be agreed on by those who are to be embraced in the same Presby- tery, and then and there constitute themselves in a regular, orderly, and christian manner, intoa Presbytery under the. care of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America,

3. If as many as three presbyteries can be convenientr ly formed in Western New York, it will be orderly for them, as soon as possible thereafter, to unite and consti-

178

tute thelnselves into a Synod, i;pon the principles indica- ted in this Act ; and such Synod, if fornKid, shall cover the entire territory heretofore occupied by the three Synods of Utica, Geneva, and Genesee. But in case only one or two Presbyteries can be formed, then application shall be made by it, or them, for admission under the care and in- to the bosom of such Synod, now in our connection, as shall be most convenient and natural. And the Presby- tery on the Western Reserve, if one should be formed, will adopt the same line of conduct. AnJ any Synod, tj which application may be thus made by any Presbytery, shall take immediate order to accomplish the ends of this act. And it is considered, that any Presbytery or Synod, formed in pursuance of these directions, shall have full jKjwer to perform all Presbylerial or Synodical acts, agree- ably to the Constitution of the Church."

The reader ought to notice particularly a few items in this document, which is to be considered as a part of the foundation upon which the New Basis Assembly rests.

They found tliemselves " in a position of great diffi- cAilty, novelty and importance" — in the midst of " a great reform." They say : " The General Assembly of 1837 carried forward lids reform" in the excinding acts, and tbat now the voice of the church " is clearly and decisive- ly in favor of consummating the reform thus aus|)iciously commenced."

Any one, however, must notice tiie absurd and incon- sistent statements made by the New Basis Assembly in their ^^ position of great difficulty and novelty." Here, in the Reform Ordinance, they would seem to regret the division of the church, and la)' great g'lilt at the door of the other party lor " forgetting, or violating, as we appreherid, their duty to God and the church, and choosing to depart from us." Now, can any one believe they were in earnest in this regret, or that they were sorry the " New School" had separated from them ? No. This was an attempt to impute their own guilt, in " fogetting. or viola- ting cieir duty to God and the church" to the innocent.

But that they felt no regret, is evident from what they say in the latter part of the sixth section of the first Act. They there enjoin it upon Synods to promote the interests of their churches " by delivering and saving them from

179

the leaven of heresy, disorder and schism, wliich h-winrr so long worked among them, is at length ready, by God's mercy, to be purged away.'' Could th^y regret that a tiling sliould be done, which, " i y GocVs ??ie;Tj/," was ready to purge away the heresy, disorder and scliism which had so long worked among tliem T' The Reformers think tlie separation wrong 1 Tlicy regret it ? No. They labored for it for year-5. In the Pastoral Letter of the same As- sembly, their language is, " Kejoicing as we do, that this separation is thus far edbcted."

Nor do they, in their Pastoral Letter, seem to charge the Constitutional party with " violating their duly to God and his cliurch" in separating from them. On this point they say : ♦' If the minority cannot in conscience submit to the measures or doctrines of the majority, it is their ri'^kt and duly to separate." Again tliey say : " The church is now fairly divided into two separate and inde- pendent denominations." Did they complain of this sepa- ration ? No. They say: " We only complain as to the mnnner in which it was effected."

Tiie third section of the first Act was regarded as the most odious portion of the document. It was offi-nsive to many who were inclined to adhere to the New Basis As- sem'ily. Adherence was required " upon the said basis of 1S37 and 183S. for the reform nf Ihe c/nirch." And this adneience upon this " basis^' was to be "//«e test in the case.''''

Tliis ordinance was to apply even to churches as well as to Synods and Presbyteiies. In section five they say : '' The principles of this act shall apply to churches with t'.ieir majorities and minorities."

The Constitutional party argued, that this was a " neio hasis^^ and a '•• new test.'''' And that such an ordinance, having the nature of "regulations," or "constitutional rales," was in the face of Presbyterianism and the con- stitution of the church, and especially, because it had not been transmitted to the Presbyteries for their approval. Indeed, it was a new measure, to say the least of it. The ministers and elders and members said they had joined the Presbyterian church upon the basis of the Confession of Faith and Book of Discipline. The Constitutional party claimed to be upon that basis, and insisted that the other

iSO

party, by planting themselves upon " the Basis of 1837 and '1838,"' had left the old basis.

What the party meant by the act is uncertain. Some supposed they required approval of the reform measures of 1837 and 1838. This, to be sure, was a very natural conclusion. Upon what basis does a man join any socie- ty ? Upon the basis of its constitution. Upon what ba- sis does a man belong to a church ? Upon the basis of her constitution, and because he approves ot herfailli and discipline. Upon wliat basis does the Episco[)alian adhere to his church ? Or the Methodist to his ? Or the Pres- byterian to his 1 Surely upon the basis of the Confession of Faitli and Book of Discipline. And why upon this basis ? Because he appivixs if.

Taking this common sense view of the subject, the As- sembly required adherence upon tliis new basis, evidently expecting that those who approved " the basis^^ would stand on it, by coming up to " the test int/ie case ," and tliav those who did not approve would not adhere.

But it was soon ascertained by the party, that if the approval of the reform measures were required, it would rapidly thin their ranks; for it may be confidently assurt- ed that only a small portion of those who went with the Reformers, approve the New Ba;is. Approval, therefore, was not generally demanded by those Synods and Presby- teries which took action on the subject.

The history of those times siiows that the reform ordi- nances were not every where understood alike. On the subject of app7~oval, the Princeton Repertory says . " We regret the use of the language employed, liecause it is * amhiguous.^ On the supposition that the act required approval, they say : " We readily admit that if this inter- pretation be correct, the act complained of would be «»» constitutional and tyrannical.

It is however true, in some cases, approval was de- manded, and adherence upon the neiv basis was made "the test'''' of Presbyterianism. The majority of the Presby- tery of Erie, belonging to the Synod of Pittsburgh, were informed by the Synod that there wou Id be, no difficulty in their case, if they would now decla re their adherence on the basis of lb37 and 1838." The Presbytery an- swered : " We are willing to adhere to the Synod of

181

I'ittsliurgh and the General Assembly by which it is gov- erned, without having ourselves bound by any addilionnl pledge whatever." Whereupon, Synod " Resolved, that they do not consider said claimants as having complied with the requirements of Synod."

In this case, the majority of the Presbytery v.'as cut ofi\ Why ? Because they were unwilling to adhere on the basis of the Cjnfession of Faith and Book of Discipline ? No. But because they could not approve the new test, and were unwilling to adhere upon the neic basis.

The Synod of Pittsburgh, in their Pastoral Letter of 1838, thus interpret the great ordinance : " By the pro- vision of that act, the Assembly says, if a majority of a Presbytery approoe and adhere to us, we recognise you as a Presbytery in our connection, &c. If you do not approve and adhere, we compel you not, but leave you to act as your best judgment dictates. If only a mino: ity approve and adhere, that minority we do not disown, but if sutficient in number, we recognise you as a Presbytery." See Manifesto, p. 16.

On the 5th of September, 1838, the Presbytery of Vin- cennes enjoined it upon the church session of Evansville, to take prompt measures in reference to their elder, who had been bold enough to vote, and even protest against the acts of the General Assembly ; declaring, at the sime lime, that those only should thereafter constitute said church, who sliall " approve of the acts of the Assembly."

At the same time, the above named Presbytery withheld from the Rev. Mr. Morrison liberty to preach within their bounds, " because he refused to give us any acknowledg- ment of his approval of tho-e operations of the Assembly for the reform of the church." See Manifesto, p. 1.5

On the 4th of December, 1833, the following measure was proposed at a meeting of Charleston Union Presby- tery :

" Resolved. Tliat the roll be now called, and each mem- ber, without discussion, do declare whether he can ap- prove the reform measures of the General Assembly of 1837 ; and that those who answer in the affirmative, ac- cording to the provision of the last General Assembly, do constitute the Presbytery of Charleston Union, in connec- tion with the Presbyterian church." The moderator re- 16

182

fusing to put the question, a small minority, in obedience, as they say, " to an injunction of the Supreme Judicatory of our church," declared themselves the Charleston Union Pre.shytery, to the excision of the majority. And this said sm;ill minority is to this day recognised as tlie Presbytery bj' the Reform Synod and New Basis Assembly. See JManifesto, p. 15.

it was indeed urged by the Constitutional party, that the reform ordinance shouldered aside entirely the Confes- sion of Faith. The New Basis party had asserted that they were contending alone for the truth and order of the church. In the first Act of this ordinance, they speak of the " heresy and disorder" of the churches. And it might have been supposed that they would have proposed a more rigid subscrijHion to the Confession of Faitii, or ordained a closer examination on theology. But this was not done. And when, according to their Pastoral Letter: "the church is now fairly divided into two separate and inde- pendent denominations," upon what basis do the Reform- ers require adherence to their new denomination 1 Was it upon the basis of the Confession of Faith ? Not one ■word of this. The Confession is shouldered aside, and a new foundation is laid in the great ordinance.

Suppose some of those Synods or Presbyteries in which the '' heresy and disorder''^ existed, had been called up. Were doctrinal tests to be presented 1 Not one word of it. And no matter how high " the haven of heresy and disorder''^ had worked, they were to be acknowledged as sound presbyterians, according to the great ordinance, provided they would adhere upon the ISeio Basis. The object, therefore, judging from " the test in the case.,'''' was not to secure men who loved the truth, but who would an- swer the purposes of the party.

In this respect the Constitutional party seemed to be the most consistent. They required adherence upon the basis of the Confession of Faith, while the Reformers required adherence upon " the basis of 1837 and 1838." Now which of these " two separate and independent denomina- tions'''' has the best claim to the name of Old School is left for others to decide.

( 1S3 )

CHAPTER XXIII.

UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS FOR AN AMICABLE ADJUST- MEiNT.

After the church was "divided into two separate and in- dependent denominations," each party claimed to be the Presbyterian church. The New Basis denomination wish- ed to claim ea;c/'Msit;e/?/ the name, privileges and funds of the church. The Constitutional party were unwilling to admit this claim. Such a surrender would have been a virtual acknowledgment, that they had seceded from the church of their tenderest regard — an abandonment of ec- clesiastical rights — a relinquishment of funds and proper- ty bequeathed to ihem by their fathers for sacred purpo- ses. By such a course they would not only have forfeit- ed their share in the chartered funds of the General As- sembly, but their theological seminaries, colleges, acade- mies, parsonages, town lots, church edifices, and even the grave yards, where sleep their fathers and mothers, hus- bands and wives, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters.

In such a state of things, common sense and comrnoa honesty would say, the parties ought amicably to have adjusted their differences, and tu have divided the property, so that there should have been no law suits between t!io parties in the Assembly, or in Synods, Presbyteries or churches. But this was not done. The Constitutional party were oliliged either to yield unconditionally to those who had attempted to oppress them, or "appeal to Cresar." They preferred the latter, for which they have been great- ly censurtd by their former brethren.

Indeed, in no part of the controversy, has the conduct of the Constitutional party been more fearfully misrepre- sented than in this. The New Basis party have tried lo

184

make tho impression, that they were always ready for a friendly anongemcnt. In their Pa>tc)ral Letter of l!538, they inlimute that the Constitutional party were averse to on amicable arrangement, and then say, "had this course bt-cn adopted, we were willing to concur in any reasona- ble plan for the adjustment of any unsettled claims wliich iiave apjjeitained to the case."

Greater misrepresentations than this were made in some of the New Bnsis newspapers in thai day. The Editor of tiie Western Presbyterian Herald, of June 6lh, 1839, speaking of his party in 1837 and 1838. says: "The Old School, though a decided nnijority [of six in two hundred and fifty] then oflered the otfier party every farthing of j)roperiy which tiiey claimed. In 1838, they were still willing and desirous to liave an amicable adjustment of all property claims ; but nothing would satisfy the New School but an unchristian appeal to the civil courts."

It is necessary, therefore, that the history and charac- ter of those etfoi ts for "an amicable adjustment" should be fairly examined, that the impartial may see who "were willing and desirous to have an amicable adjustment," and who were to blame for the 'unchristian jippeal to the civil courts."

In the Assembly of 1837, it was well understood by both parties, that the Reformers were determined on the divis- ion of the church. Such an event the other party had ever tried to avert, when in the majority, as well as when in the- minority. But when they perceived that it could not be avoided, tli^y consented to it. Tfie proposition, however, for the division, came from the Reform party. A committee of ten on the state of the church was ap- pointed— five fiom each party.

The papers wliich passed between the two parties of the committee are too lengthy to insert here. They can be seen in the nesvspapers of that dav and in the reports of the chuich case. From the reports of the committee to the Assembly, it will be seen, that they agreed upon all im- j)ortant points, excejit such as were connected immediate- iy or remotely with the charier.

They agreed that the Assembly should be divided into two bodies — the Reform Assembl}' to be called the General As&emblif of the Presbyter ian church in the United States

185

of America, and the Constitutional x\ssembly, Ike General Assembly of the American Preshyterian church.

They agreed also in reference to the funds, institutions, boards, records, &c. But they ditfercd on this point. Tiie Reformers wanted the division consummated on the spot. The other party said they had no authority from the co!i- siitution of the churcii, or from the Presbyteries which they represented, to dismcniber the body. But they were willing to unite with the Keformers in recommending the proposed plan of division to the Preshyleries, that they might, the next year, give their sanction, and ratify what they were proposing. Indeed, according to the constitu- tion of the church, this committee of ten, or even the whole Assembly had no more right to divide the church than the committee of vvays and means in Congress has to divide the Union. And such an attempt would have been, in ecclesiastii-a! or civil law, null and void, in any State. without th ? consent of tlie Presbyteries.

And not only did the Reformers want the plan togo into cflect then, but they insisted on holding on to the charter. whh h would in any contingency make them secure, but would leave their brethren without any security except good promises.

We have only room for the reports of the committee. The papers alluded to, which was passed between the two porlions of the committee, may be seen in McElroy';> Report, pp. 51 — 54. ^

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE IVIAJORITY.

*'The committee of the majority, from the uniled com- mittee on the state of the church, beg leave to report :

That having been unable to agree with the minority's committee on any plan for the immediate and voluntary separation of the New and Old School parties in the Pres- byterian church, they lay before the General Assemblv the papers which {>;xssed between the committees, and which contain all the important proceedings of both bodies.

The papers are marked one to live of the mnjoritv and one to four of the minority. A careful examination of them %vill show that the two committees were agreed iu the following matters, namely : 16*

186

1. The propriety of a voluntary Sf-paration of the par- ties in our cliurcli ; and their separate organization.

2. As to the corporale funds, xi)e names to he held by • acli denomination, the records of the church, and its boards and insiitulions.

It will further appear, that tlie conrmiltce were entirely unable to agree on the foUov/iiig points, Jiamely ;

1. As to tl)e propriety of entering at once, bv the As- sembly, upon the ilivision, or the sending down of the qucs- lion to tlie Presbyteries.

2. As to the power c>f the Assembly to take efTectua! jnitiative steps, as proposed by the majority ; or the neces- jty of obtaining a change in the constitution of the church.

3. As to the breaking up of the succession of llie Gen- eral Assembly, so that neither of the new Assemblies pro- pos3d, to be considered lids proper Lody continued, or that the body which should retain the name and institutions of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church in the United Staies of America, should be held in fact and la\v,tobethe true successors of ^/t«s body. While the committee of the majority were perfectly disposed to do all that the utmost lil)erality couid demand, and to use" in all cases such expressions as should be wholly unexcep- tionable ; yet it appears to us indispensable to take our final stand on these grounds.

For, first, we are convinced that if any thing tending towards a \oluniary separation is done, it is absolutely necessary to do it effectually and at once.

Secondly. As neiiher party profceses any desire to alter any constiiutional rule whatever, it seems to us not only needless, but absurd, to send down an overture to the Pres- byteries <m this subject. We believe, moreover, that full jiower exists in the Assembly, either by consent of parlies, or in the way of discipline, to settle this and all such cases ; and that its speedy settlement is greatly to be de- sired.

Thirdly. In regard to the succession of the General Assembly, this counnittee could not, in present circum- stances, consent to any thing that should even imply the final dissolution of the Presbyterian church, as now organ- ized in this country ; which idea, it will be observed, is at the basis of the plan of the minority ; insomuch that even

187

the body retaining the name and instiuitions should not be considered the successor of ihis body.

Finally. It will be observed from our (ifih paper, as com|)ared with the fourih p;ip','r of the minority's commit- tee, that the final shape which their proposal assumed, was such, that it was impossible for the majority of the house to carry out its views and wishes, let the vute tJe as it might. For if the house should vote for the plan of the committee of the majority, the otlier committee would not consider itself or its friends bound thereby : and voluiiiaii/ division would therefore be impossible, in that case. But if the house should vote for the minority's plan, then — the fore- going insuperable objections to that plan being supposed to be surmounted — still the whole case would be put oft', perhaps indefinitely." See McElroy's Report, p. 49.

REICKT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE MINORITY.

"The subscribers, appointed members of the committee of ten on the state of the ciiurch, respectfully ask leave to report, as follows :

It being understood that one object of the appointment of said committee was to considder the expediency of a voluntary division of the Presbyterian church, and to de- vise a plan for the same, they, in connection with the other members of the committee, have had the subject under deliberation.

The subscibers had believed that no such imperious ne- cessity for a division of the church existed, as some of their brethren supposed, and that the consequences of di- vision would be greatly to be deprecated. Such necessity, however, being urged by many of our brethren, we have been induced to yield lo their wishes, and to admit the ex- pediency of a division, provided the same could be accom- plished in an amicable, equitable, and projier manner. We have accordingly submitted the following propositions to our brethren on the other part of the same committee, who at the same time submitted to us their proposition, which is annexed to this report. (Hei-e read the proposi- tion marked Minority No. 1, and Majority No. 2.)

Being info.vmed by tiie other members of the committee, that they had concluded not to discuss in committee the

188

propositions which should be submitted, and Uiat al! pro- positions on both sides were to be in writing, and to be'un- swered in writing, tiie following ]);ipers passrd between the two parts of the committee. (litre read papers, No. 2, minority — 2, majoriiy — 3, majority — 3, minority — 4, ma- jority— 4. minority — 5, majority.)

From these papers it will be seen, that the only ques- tion of any importance upon which the committee diflered, was that proposed to be submitted to the decision uf tiie Assembly, as preliminary to any action upon the details of eiiher>pl.in. 'I'herefore, believing that the members of this Assembly have neither a constitutional nor moral right to adopt a plan for a division of the church, in relation to which they are entirely nninstructed by the Presbyteries ; believing that the course proposed by their brethren of the comnnttee to be entirely inefficacious, and calculated toin- troduce confusion and discord into the whole church, and instead of mitigating, to enhance the evils which it propo- ses to remove ; regarding the plan proposed by them- selves, with the modification thereof as before stated, as presenting in general the only safe, certain, and con- stitutional mode of division, the subscribers do respectfully submit the same to the Assembly for their adoption or re- jection." See| McElroy's Report, p. 50.

From the report of the committee of the majority, it will be seen that they very aignijicantly objected " to the breaking up of the succession of this General Assembly. "^ From their report and the papers that they submitted to the other portion of tise committee, it will also be seen, that their propositions in relation to " the succession,'" and the church property were stated in language well calcula- ted to deceive the unsuspecting.

It will, however, be seen that the attempt at an amica- ble adjustment failed because they wanted every thing made sure to them and nothing secure to the others — claiming for themselves exclusively the succession of the Presbyterian church.

The consequence of such a division to the Constitution! party would have been to make them at once seceders from the church of their fiithers — a church to whose constitu- tion and principles they were determined to adhere. And

189

b)' such a course they would have excluded themselves fVoni all legal claim to the property of the church.

But there were other considerations of weightier value with the Constitutional party than dollars and cents, in- deed had there been no other interests involved, it is be- lieved, they would have relinquished their just claim to their share of the property. . But there were other inter- ests— their honesty, their consistency, tlieir christian rep- utation, their zeal for the church, their usefulness. They could not consent, without a struggle, to be unjustly branded heretics or seceders from a church they were as ardently 'attached as those were who would exclude them. They were unwilling to be cut off and disfranchised, and then covered with such reproaches as " 710 Preshyieriavs^' — ^^ false and deceivers'^ — " enemies to the Presbyterian chui'ch" 4"C.

The reader, however, must judge which party was to blame for the failure in this attempt at an amicable ad- justment of conflicting claims.

When the effort for an amicable separation failed, Mr. Breckinridge the same morning, according to his declara- tion in the co^nmittee of ten, offered a resolution to cut off the Synod of the Western Reserve. The work of excis- ion then progressed, until they cut off " a sufficient num- ber of Synods from the General Assembly to secure there- after, in that body, the preponderance of the Old School."

The next attempt at an amicable adjustment was while the two parties were in Convention, before the meeting of the Assembly in 1838.

On the 15lh of May, 1838, the Constitutional conven- tion sent the following proposal to tiie Reform conven- tion, viz.:

" Resolved, That while we regard with deep sorrow the existing difficulties in our beloved church, we vvou'd "fond- ly hope, that there are no insurmountable obstacles in the way of averting the calamities of a violent dismember- ment, and of securing such an organization as may avoid collisions, and secure the blessings of a perpetuated harmo- nious action.

'• Resolved, That we are ready to co-operate in any ef- forts for pacification, which are constitutional, and which shall recognise the regular standing and secure the rights

100

of the entire church ; including those portions which the acts of the last General Assembly were intended to ex- clude.

*' Resolved, That a committe of three be now appoint- ed, respectfully to communicate the foregoing resolutions to those commissioners, now in session in this city, who are at present inclined to sustain the acts of the last Gen- eral Assembly, and enquire whether they will open a friendly conference for the purpose of ascertaining if some constitutional terms of pacification may not be agreed upon." See Cincinnati Journal, 28lh of June, 1838.

To this communication the Reform Convention returned the following answer, viz.:

" The committee on the communication from the meet- ing of commissioners, now in session in the lecture room of the First Presbyterian Church, presented the following preamble and resolutions, which were adopted, viz.:

" Whereas, the resolutions of the meeting, whilst they profess a readiness to, co-operate in any efforts for pacifi- cation, which are constitutional,' manifestly procetd upon the erroneous supposition, that the acts of the last Gener- al Assembly, declaring the fuur Synods of the Western Re- serve, Utica, Geneva, and Genesee, out of the ecclesiasti- cal connection of our church, were unconstituiional and invalid, and the convention cannot for a moment consent to consider them in this light ; therefore,

" Resolved, unanimously, that the convention regard the said overture of the said meeting, however intended, as founded upon a basis which is wholly inadmissible, and as calculated only to disturb that peace of our church, which a calm and firm adherence to those constitutional, just and necessary acts of the last General Assembly, can alone, by the blessings of Divine Providence, establish and secure.

" Resolved, That in the judgment of the convention, the resolution of the last General^ Assembly, which pro- vides, in substance, " that all the churches and ministers within the said four Synods, which are strictly Presbyte- rian in doctrine and order, and wish to unite with us, may apply for admission into those Presbyteries belonging to our connection which are most convenient to their respec- tive locations; and that any such Presbytery as aforesaid, being strictly Presbyterian in doctrine and order, and now

191

in connection with any of the said Synods, as may desire to unite with us, are directed to make application, with a full st:itement of their case to the next General Assembly, which will take order therein, furnishes a fair and ea><y mode of proceeding, by which all such ministers, churches, and Presbyteries within the said Synods, as are really desi- rous to be recognized as in regular standing with us, and as proper parts of our entire church, may obtain their object without trouble and without delay." See Cincinnati Jour- nal, June 28th, 1838.

The reader, by comparing these two communications, will be able to see which party was most desirous to have an amicable adjustment. The Reformers took umbrage at the word " constitutional.'''' Hence they regarded the over- ture "as calculated only to disturb" the peace of the church. They seemed to think that their plan of excision and division and seizure of the property of the entire church, was the only way to peace. They would not al- low any overture for a friendly arrangement to disturb the peace of the church. The plain meaning of all was — our plans must not be disturbed ; and if you will just agree to let us cut off Synods enough to secure to us forever liereafter a majority, and to complete the reformation and division of the church thus " auspiciously begun," and secure the property to which your party has forfeited its title, then, by the blessings of Divine Providence, we will have peace ! !

The two parties had not yet separated, yet nearly all prospect of conciliation, or of an amicable division was foreclosed.

But when the Assembly met and the parties had separa- ted, by the organization of two Assemblies, the Constitu- tionalists were still desirous for an amicable adjustment. Accordingly the Constitutional Assembly, on the 24th of May, 1838, passed the following resolution, viz.;

" Resolved, That this body is willing to agree to any reasonable measures tending to an amicable adjustment of the difficulties existing in the Presbyterian church, and will receive and respectfully consider any propositions which may be made for that purpose." See Cincinnati Journal, June 28th, 1838.

192

•' Besides these overtures for peace, inflLiential members of the Assembly held personal conference with the mem- bers of the Reform body, till it was ascertained that there M'as no hope of an amicable settlement of differences." See Pastoral Letter of the Constitutional Assembly of 1838.

What then could the Constitutional party do 1 One of two things they were obliged to do ; either SM/>/»i/ uncon- ditionally to the Reformers — or " appeal to Coesar," to know if he would allow one portion of a church to dis- franchise the olher. They chose the latter alternaiive ; and the Trustees of the Assembly instituted suit against the Trustees of the New Basis Assembly.

Cut before the trial came on, the Constitutional party were still anxious for an amicable arrangement, as will appear from the following facts :

" In the Assembly, which met in the First Church, May 20th, 1839, Judge Darling, from the committee of twelve, appointed on the 21st of May, 1838, " to advise and direct in respect to any legal questions and pecuniary interests that might require attention during the ensuing year," re- ported that previous to the trial before Judge Rogers, at Nisi Prius, the committee were informed by one of their counsel, that John R. Kane, Esq., one of the Trustees of the General Assembly, and who was of counsel for the respondents, had stated to him, that those he represented were disposed to adjust, amicably and equitably, all mat- ters in controversy in this cause, and had requested him to ascertain what terms the committee would propose, as a basts for an amicable division of the Presbyterian church, and the final adjustment of all the matters in dispute be- tween the Reformed and Constitutional General Assem- blies. Keeping in view the resolution of the General As- sembly of 1838, viz.: " That this body is willing to agree toany reasonable measures tending to an amicable adjust- ment of the difficulties in the Presbyterian church, and will receive and respectfully consider, any propositions made for that purpose" — they waived all exceptions which might have been taken to enter into negotiation with, or to making propositions to, an irresponsible individual, and promptly requested their counsel to furnish Mr. Kane with a copy of the following articles :

193

ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT PROPOSED.

" In order to secure an amicable and equitable adjust ment of the difficulties existing in the Presbyterian chuich in the United States of America, it is hereby agreed by the respective parties, that the following shall be articles on which a division shall be made and continued.

Art. 1. The successors of the body which held its ses- sions in Ranstead Court, shall hereafter be known by the name and style of the General Assembly of the Presbyte- rian church in the United States of America. The suc- cessors of the body which held its sessions in the First Presbyterian church, shall hereafter be known by the name and style of " The General Assembly cf the Ameri- can Presbyterian church.^'

Art. 2. Joint application shall be mnde by the parties to this agreement, to the Legislature of Pennsylvania, for a charter to incorporate Trustees of each of the respec- tive bodies, securing to each the immunities and privileges now secured by the existing charter to the Trustees of the General Assembly of the Preobyterian church in the United States of America; subject nevertheless, to the limitations and articles herein agreed on ; and when so obtained, the ejiisting charter shall be surrendered to the State.

Art. 3. Churches, ministers, and members of churches, as well as Presbyteries, shall be at full liberty to decide to which of the said Assemblies they will be attached ; and in case the majority. of legal voters of any congrega- tion shall prefer to be connected with any Presbytery con- nected with the Assembly to which their Presbytery is not attached, they shall certify the same to the stated clerk of the Presbytery, which they wish to leave, and their connection with said Presbytery shall henceforth cease.

Art. 4. The Theological Seminary of Princeton, the Western Theological Seminary, the Board of Foreign Missions, the Board of Domestic Missions, the Board of Education with the funds appertaining to each, shall be the property and subject to the exclusive control of the body which, according to this agreement, shall be charter- ed under the title of ' the General Assembly of the Pre3- ■byterian church in the United States of America.' 17

194

This agreement shall not be considered a secession, on (lie part of either body, from the Presbyterian church in the United States of America, but a voluntary and arnica ble division of this church into two denominations, each retaining all the ecclesiatical and pecuniary rights of the whole body, with the limitations and qualifications in the above articles specified."

The only reply which the committee received to these propositions was, that they could not be accepted, but that the Old School party would agree that the members of the Constitutional General Assembly, and all who adhered to this General Assembly, should be at liberty to leave the Presbyterian church without molestation from them, and that they should not be called seceders. See McElroy's lleport, pp. 6, 7.

From the documents already given, it will be seen that the Constitutional party made several overtures for an am- icable adjustment, and that all their overtures were prompt- ly rejected by the Reformers.

On the other hand, nothing like an overture was made by the Reformers, except some resolutions which they adopted in 1839, after they were induced by the opinion of Judge Gibson to consider the property all their own.

The principles of these resolutions are set forth in the third, viz.:

<' The Trustees of the Assembly are hereby authorized and requested to do on the part of this Assem.bly, should occasion offer, whatever is lawful, competent, and equita- ble in the premises, conformable to the principles and in the manner heretofore laid down in the minutes of this Assembly for 1837 and 1838, so far as relates to the cor<- porate property of the church, and any equities springing out of the same."

The phraseology of this resolution ought to be marked. The Trustees are authorized to do what is " lajoful,^' SfC, " conformable to the principles, and in tlie manner heretofore laid down in the minutes of this Assembly for 1837 and 1838." But what were " the principles'' laid down in 1837 and 1838 1 They were these : Minorities of Synods, Presbyteries and churches xoere to be considered the bodies, in cafes lohere the majorities fail to adfiere upon the basis of 1^37 and 1838.

195

It is true they said in the Reform Ordinance of 1838 ; " In regard to the temporal interests of the churches and the difficulties which may arise on their account, the As- setnbly advise that, on the one hand, great liberality and generosity should mark the whole conduct of our people, and especially in cases where our majorites in the church- es are very large, or our minorites very small : while on the other hand, it would advise, that providential advan- tages, and important rights, ought not in any case to be lightly thrown away."

What was meant by ** providential advantages and iwt- porlant rights'" is uncertain. The language is ambiguous.

The intelligent reader can now decide for himself which party was " willing and anxious to have an amicaile ad- justment,^^ and which party was to be blamed for the " wn- christian appeal to the civil courts.^'

( li^6)

CHAPTER XXIV.

P.ESULT3 OF LEGAL INVESTIGATION.

As all the effoitsof the Constitutional party for an ami- cable adjuslment of difficulties were unsuccessful, no ak teruative was left but to bring suit against the Reformers, who had all the chartered funds of the General Assembly in their possession.

The suit was instituted in the Supreme Court of Penn- 5=y]vania, in July, 1838.

The case Was taken up in March, 1839, the Hon. Mil- ion C. Rogers presiding. The trial occupied twenty days- After the Judge had given his charge to the jury, they, after a short absence, retarned and rendered a verdict for the Constitutional party.

There are some points in the charge of Judge Rogers, which should be noticed.

It had been urged by the Reformers that the Plan of Union of 1801 was unconstitutional ; and upon this as- sumption they based the excinding acts. But here the Judge was against them. He says : "So far from believ- ing tlie Plan of Union to be unconstitutional, 1 concur fully with one of the counsel, that, confined within its le- gitimate limits, it is an agreement or regulation, which the General Assembly not only had power to make, but that it is one which is well calculated to {)romote the best interests of religion."

The Judge asserts that if the Plan were unconstitu- tional, there is no evidence that the excluded Synods were farmed under it. He says: "The compact, as has been

•••

before observed, was intended for a different purpose, and imposed on the Presbyterian church no obligation to admit churches formed on the Plan, as members. It was a \ o!- untary act, and not the necess&ry result of the agreement ; nor does it appear th.it the Presbyteries were formed ar.d incorporated with the church on any other terms or condi- tions than other Presbyteries, who were in regular course talcen into the Presbyterian connection."'

It was the opinion of the Judge, that in the excinding process,, '''■the suhsUinlial forms of justice^'' were not ob- served. He says : "But so far from this, the General As- sembly, in the plenitude of its power, has undertaken to exclude from all their rights and privileges tv/enty-eight Presbyteries, who are its constituents, without notice, and without even the form of trial. By tlie resolutions, the commissioners, who had acted as members of the Generiil Assembly for two weeks, were at once deprived of their seats. Four Synods, twenty-eight Presbyteries, five hun- dred and nine ministers, five hundred and ninety-nine churches, and sixty thousand communicants, were at once disfranchised and deprived of their privileges in this church. This proceeding is not only contrary to the eter- nal principles of justice, the principles of the common law, but it is at variance with the constitution of the church."

Nor would he admit that the excision was a legislative act. His language is : "This is not in the nature of a le- gislative, but it is a }'w(/icifl/ proceeding to all intents and purposes. It is idle to deny that the Presbyteries within the infected districts, as they are called, were treated as enemies and offenders against the rules, regulations, and doctrines of the cli i;ch."

The Judge goes on to say, in reference to the plea, that the excision was hgislative — ' But admitting this to be in the nature of a legislative proceeding, still it is void ; for I deny the right of any legislature to deprive an elector of his right to vote, either with or without trial. This is a power which can only be exercised by a judicial tribu- nal, who act under the sanction of an oath, who examine witnesses on oath, and who conform to all the rales; of

evidence established by the usages of law."

■< '^ *

Aher deciding tliat the Plan of Union was not unconstilu- •ional, and that the excinding acts of 1837, '■^wtre unconsli- liilional, mill and void," he proceeds to decide several im- {■■oitant points in the proceedings of the Assenribly of 1838.

Be decided "that the commissioners from the Presbyte- ries, within the Lovinds of these Synods, had the same rii^hi to seats in the General Assembly as the members from the other Presbyteries within tlie jarisdkuion of the Assembly."

It was the opinion of tlie Judge, that Dr. Elliot,- the' moderator, in declaring the appeal of Dr. Mason out of order, was chargeable with "a vsurpa/ion of authority V

It was also the opinion of the Judge "that the General Assembly has a right to depose their moderator upon suf- ficient cause."

And on the subject of Mr. Cleaveland's alleged irregu- larity, in putting the question to the house for a new mod- erator, the Judge says: "It is the opinion of the Court, that a member, although not an officer, is entitled to put a question to the house in such circumstances."

Jn reference to tlie oljections oflctr urged against the want of some of the usual forms, the Judge says : "Tliat the fact that Mr. Cleaveland put the question, instead of the moderator, the cries of order wlien this was in pro- gress, the omission of some of the formula usually ob- served when there is no contest and no excitement, such as standing in the aisle instead of taking the chair occu- pied by the moderator, not using the usual insignia of of- fice, pulling the question in an unusual place, and the short time consumed in the organization of the house, and three or more members sftanding at the same time, will not vi- tiate the organization, if you should be of the opinion that this became necessary from the illegal and improper con- duct of the adverse party."

Judge Rogers' charge to the jury contains, in addition to a clear and lucid exposition of conslituiional and com- mon law, a concise an pretty accurate history of the whole controversy. It may be s(^en in McElioy's Report of the Church Case, pp. 500, 5-29.

The result of the trial has already been stated. After a long and patient hearing, the verdict of an imparlial jury was for the Constitutional party.

The Old School had liiiherto been very clnmoroiiff ngain^t Christians nppcaling to Ciesar. Indeed, they shosv"' td a great uii\villingn( ss to have their acts reviewed by a civil tribunal. Meirsrs. Breckinridge, Plumer, d:c. de- clared that they would not submit to puch a review, be- cause it would be rendering to Cseser the things that are God's But it has always been true that men, who are chargeable with wrong-doing, do not love the civil courts.

VVlien, however, the decision of the Court went against tiiem, they soon changed their minds, and with great haste they themselves appealed to Caisi r. Their Counsel mov- ed the Court in Bunk for an order for a new trial. The order was granted and the majority of the Court in grant- ing the order gave an opinion, through Chief Justice Gib- &-on, a(iverse to the decision under Judge Rogers.

A few points in the opinion of Judge Gibson are worthy cf notice.

The Reformers had based (heir excision upon the un- constitutionality of the Plan of Union of 1801. But Judi^e Gibson concurred in oi)inion with Judge Hogers that the Plan was constituliona!.

Judgo Rogers in his charge has said that the cxcinded " were treated as enemies and offenders against the rules of the church, and that the act of excision vvtis a *■ judi- cial' \)\occei\\ng to all intents and pui poses." But here Judge Gibson gives a different opinion, tie says : " The sentence of excision, as it has been called, was nothing else than an ordinance of dissolution." This, however, was an apology too flinipsy even for the Reformers. They know, and so does every one acquainted with Presbyleri- anism, that to dissolve and cxeind are very diflercnt things. A Synod nnay dissolve a Pre^bv tcry, or tlie General As- sembly may dissolve a Synod. But the dissolution never throws the members out of the church. It only changes tlieir Presbyterial or Synodicnl relation. Plxcislon, how- ever, is a turning out, or a cutting off from the church. It is excommunication to all intents and purposes.

The Synods were cut oil'. Judger Gibson says it was *' a legislative act.'' Judge Rogers says it was " a judi- cial proceeding.''^ Well, the thing was done. The enor- mity of llie act was great, call it. t>y what name you niay.

200

But Judize Gibson, whoso opinion strongly favored the Ke' formersrwas very unwilling tiiat the fxcision should be call- ed a judicial act. H is language is : "Now, had the ixcinded Synods been cut ofT by judicial senlencu, without hearing or notice, the act would have been contrary to the car- dinal principles of natural justice, and consequently void. But, though it was at first resolved to proceed judicially, the measure was abandoned ; probably because it came to be perceived that the Synods had committed no olfence."

Behold the potency of a name or word ! Hundreds of ministers and thousands o-f members •' were treated as enemies and offenders against the rules" of the church, and were cut off. Now, according to Judge Gibson, if you call the proceeding '' legislaiioey a\[ is well. But call it <•' jiidicml,'' and the aet is " contrary to the cardi- nal principles of natural justice."

But the Judge is of opinion that they were not proceed- ed against judicalhi, as at first proposed, " because it came to be "perceived that tho Synods had committed no offence." But this is an explanation the Reformers would not receive. The plan of a fair and legal trial was aban- doned because it was thought to be " tedious and trouble-

some.''''

In reference to the two organizations, when the x\ssem- bly divided. Judge Gibson gave a different opinion from the decision under Judge Rogers. The great question before the jury was, which body organized according to the esiablisiied order 1 The decision under Judge Rogers was that the Constitutional Assembly was the true Gen- eral Assembly. Judge Gibson was of a different opinion. Among other things, he objected to the Constitutional As- sembly's organization, because that the old moderator, though refusing to do his duty, was removed. He says : " BuUie was not removeable by them, because he had not derived his office from them ; nor was ho answerable to them for the use of his power. He was not their modera- tor. He was the mechanical instrument of their organi- zation ; and till that was accomplished they were subject to his rule — not he to theirs."

The necessity for such a procedure had not before been forced upon the'Assembly. But that Judge Gibson's opin-

201

ion, in reference to the duties and powers of a presiding otlicer, is not the opinion of deliberative bodies, is evident not only from the measures of the Constitutional Assem- bly in its organization, but from the action of Congress since, in a similar case as mentioned in the 20th Chapter of this history. And would Judge Gibson say, tliat the 2Gth Congress was not constitutionally organized, because, on motion of Mr. Adams, the presiding officer was remov- ed and another put in his place ?

There were many other points in the opinion of the Judge adverse to the claims of the Constitutional party. They can be seen in the opinion, in JVIcElroy's Eeport^ pp. 620—628.

The order for a new trial, as already stated, was grant- ed. But before the trial came on, the Consiitutional party instructed their counsel to withdraw the suit.

The results, therefore, of these legal investigations ^ the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, are briefly these: Judgfi Rogers, in the first trial, charged the jury in favor of the Constitutional party, and the jury gave a verdict for them. The Reformers made a motion for a new trial — the order was granted, the Court in Bank giving an opin- ion adverso to the Constitutional party, by whom the suit was then withdrawn.

in another suit in Pennsylvania, which was brought up by appeal to the Supreme court, Judge Gibson took- occa- sion to e;iplain more fully the principles upon which, in the former suit, his opinion had been given in favor of the Reformers. This will be noticed in giving a satement of the case alluded to — the suit at York, in Pennsylvania.

The church property at York v\asof some value. The Reform part of the church brought suit against the Consti- tutional party. It was tried before Judge H lys, and the jury gave a verdict for the Canstitutional party.

The opinion of Judge Gibson, in the former suit bad been a matter of great exultation to many of the leading Re- formers. And the party at York no doubt felt conlident' that if they could get the suit before Judge Gibson, hs would reverse the decision of the lower court. But to the astonishment of the party, he affimed the decision, and gave the property to the Constitutional party. Judge Gib-

202

con's opinion in this case may be seen in tlie Christian Observer of the 25lh January, 1841.

In this opinion the Judge talies occasion to explain some points in his former opinion that had been misapprehended by the Reformers. They had taken it for granted, that they worQ to be considered the only true Presbyterians, and their Assembly the only true Assembly — and that the New School had forfeited name, rights, property and all. Bui the Judge now corrects this misapprehension. He says that the order for a new trial, in the former case, was granted not because the Old School " xoere more Presby- terian than the New''' — but because the Old School were at the time " the stronger pariy.^''

. According, then, to this opinion, if the New School in 1831, 32, 33,34, or 86, when they were the stronger par- ty, had excinded the Old School and seized upon the funds, the property would justly be theirs. Such a decision, up- on such principles, to say the least of it, puts but little hon- or upon laws and constitutions.

The Judge, however, says that if the New School had taken such a course it " would have loaded the New School party with such a weight of popular odium as would have sunk it." This to be sure was administering a keen rebuke lo the Reformerj

The advocates of excision had contended that the mea- sure was a necessary expurgation, and that those who united with the excinded were seceders; and they supposed that Judge Gibson in the former instance had sanctioned that view of the case. But the Supreme Court, in the York church case, deny that they sanctioned such a view. They say that they "did not determine that the excision was ex- purgation and not division." They go further in charac- terizing the excision. They say : "Indeed the measure would seem to be as decisively revolutionary as would be an exclusion of particular states from the Federal Union for the adoption of an anti-republican form of govern- ment."

In this final decision in the Supreme Court of Pennsyl- vania, the opinion was clearly expressed that the New Ba- sis acts were measures "not of expurgation but of dicis- iow" — not of reform, but of revolution — not a rooting oui

^03

of Congregationalism, but a dismembertnent of the Pres- byterian body" — not "merely a secession of particles leaving the original mass itself entire, but the original mass was split into two fragments." And did the court say that one party was truly Presbyterian and the other was not? No. They consider the New School as much Pres- byterian as the Old School — -"each so like its fellow as to pass for its twin brother." They decided that the claims of the New School in the former suit were as strong as those of the Old School with one exception, and that accidental, viz. : that at the time of the revolution or excision, the Old School were the stronger party — having a majority of six in an Assembly of two hundred and fifty.

There have been a few other suits, the results of which must be very briefly noticed.

The Reform party, a minority in the Nesharaony church, in the State of Pennsylvania, made an efTort to obtain the church property ; but they were unsuccessful.

The Reform party, a minority in the Presbyterian church, in Florida, in the State of New York, claiming to be the only true Presbyterians, because of their adhe- sion to the New Basis, brought suit for the property. They were heard at length in the Chancery Court of that State. But their claims were defeated by the decision of the Vice Chancellor protecting the rights and property of the Con- stitutional party.

Another suit of the same character was brought by the Reform party in the church of Somers, in the State of New York. They informed the Constitutional party, that they were the only true Presbyterians, and that ihey must have the church property — house, parsonage, &c. The consti- tutional party, who were the majority, proposed that the two parties should use the church alternately^ and that the question concerning property should be settled by com- promise. But the Reform party would not compromise. The clerk of the congregation being on their side, they took possession of records, church, parsonage and all. Being secure, as they thought, they leased the parsonage to a tenant, and lay quietly "within the fortifications of the New Basis."

204

The old trustees had no other alternative left, but to de- cide the matter by a law-suit. Theyi commenced an ac- tion of eject merit for the parsonage. After a patient hear- ing, the jury gave a verdict for the Constitutional party without leaving their seats.

1 have now briefly given ihe results of all the legal in- vestigations of which 1 have certain knowledge. Except tlie order for a new trial in one case, all the decisions go to vindicate the claims, rights and characters of the Con- stitutional party.

And now, dear reader, I have gone through with all I i.^tended to present to you on llie subject of the Pres- byterian controversy. In presenting this history of events, I was desirous that you should see how the matter was viewed by both parties. 1 have presented to you the re- sults of ecclesiastical and legal investigations. These re- sults have vindicated the rights and characters of the Constitutional party; and it is believed tliat public sen- timent approvea the noble vindication.

r

Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library

1 1012 01

122 9681

jS* . -it'-

A .i

# ,#

Bl, '«>

S^ -^^> . , W

't 1

ife #' rl: % r«r