A history of the division of the Presbyterian church in the United States of America

<^ OF PWJ^

, FEB 20 1964

'^y

sec

3157

i-iu

HISTORY OF THE DIVISION

OF THE

PRESBYTEEIAN CHURCH

IN THE

United $hUB nf Iraeritn.

BY A

COMMITTEE OF THE SYNOD

OP NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.

NEW YORK:
PUBLISHED BY M. W. DODD,

Brick Cliurch Cluipel, City Hall Square, opposite the City Hall.

18 5 2.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1852, by

G. N. JUDD,

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the
Southern District of New York.

EDWARD O. JENKINS, PRINTER,
114 Nasiau Stre«t.

Cnnt tnts.

CHAPTER FIRST.

History of the causes which produced the Division in the Presbyterian

Church, 9

CHAPTER SECOND.

The grounds On which the majority attempted to justify their Ex-
scinding Acts, and the Dissolution of the Third Presbytery of
Philadelphia, stated, 22

CHAPTER THIRD.

The grounds on which the Assembly attempted to justify their Abro-
gation of the *' Plan of Union," the Excision of the Four Synods,
and Dissolution of the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia, ex-
amined, 34

CHAPTER FOURTH.

The alleged, shown to be, not the real nor chief reasons for the Exci-
sion of the fQjir Synods, 79

CHAPTER FIFTH.

The real grounds of the passing of the Acts of Excision, stated, . 84

CHAPTER SIXTH.

Measures taken by the Constitutional portion of the Church to pre-
serve its integi'ity, and prevent the organization of an irregular
Assembly. — They succeeded in organizing it in strict accordance
with the principles of the Constitution, l.^S

CHAPTER SEVENTH.

The Assembly, which held its Sessions in the Seventh Presbyterian
Church, in 1838, was organized upon a basis wholly unknown to
our Constitution, 170

IV CONTENTS.

. CHAPTER EIGHTH.
Erroneous application of the names, Old and New iSchool.— Those
who style themselves Old School are the New, and those whom
they denominate New are the Old School branch of the Presby-
terian Church, 183

CHAPTER NINTH.

Policy of the self-styled Reformers concerning a division of the funds,
and their feelings in reference to an appeal to the law of the land,
to decide to whom they belonged, or how they should be divided
— Unsuccessful efforts of the Constitutional Assembly to prevent
litigation — Legal proceedings, and their results, .... 186

CHAPTER TENTH.

Measures taken by the Constitutional Branch of the Church to unite

the two in one body, 207

CHAPTER ELEVENTH.

Our position, duty, and prospects, 214

Appendix, 226

The following extract from the Minutes of the Synod of
New York and New Jersey, at their Sessions held in the City
of Brooklyn, Oct., 1850, and the accompanying remarks,
show the origin and object of this publication.

" The Synod, taking into view the state of that branch of
the Church with which they are connected, believe that their
interests, and the cause of truth and righteousness, will
be promoted by the careful preparation, and the wide diffu-
sion of a history of the causes which produced a division of
the Presbyterian Church in this country ; therefore,

Resolved, That a committee, consisting of five Ministers
and five Ruling Elders, be appointed to prepare and publish
a brief history of the causes which produced this division, and
of the subsequent attempts which have been made by our
branch of the Church to unite the two Assemblies, together
with the legal rights of churches in which attempts may be
made to remove them from our connection." — Minutes of the
Synod, jyarje 15.

The members of the committee were designated as follows :

Rev. G. N. Judd, D. D. Hon. Jos. C. Hornblower,

" T. H. Skinner, D. D. " Cyrus P. Smith,

,*' E. F. Hatfield, D. D. " John L. Mason,

** Jos. S. Gallagher, " Danl. Haines,
" S. T. Spear, ** William Jessup.

1

VI PREFACE.

Till within a recent period the hope was cherished that the
necessity of such a history as that which this resolution
contemplates, would be superseded by the union of the two
branches of the Presbyterian Church. Repeated overtures
have been made by our Assembly to that of our brethren for
the purpose of securing this object, all of which have been
rejected by them, as will be seen by the perusal of the follow-
ing history. The report of the committee of their last As-
sembly upon " the Memorial of the Presbytery of Rochester,
asking the Assembly to adopt measures to effect a union
betw^een the two branches of the Presbyterian Church," and
the haste with which the transfer of the Third Church, New-
ark, was made to the Presbytery of Elizabethtown against the
respectful and earnest remonstrance of a minority of said
Church, and another from members of the Presbytery of
Newark, and elders of the churches under its care, show
beyond all controversy that the only union, which the lead-
ing members of their branch of the Church contemplate, is
by the absorption of our ministers and churches.

In these circumstances we are called upon either to admit
that the principles which governed us in the organization of
the Assembly of 1838, and in our uniform course of action
since, were wrong ; or in the spirit of the Gospel, manfully
to defend them. We cannot for a moment hesitate which
alternative to choose. That all our acts in the peculiarly try-
ino- circumstances in which we have been placed, are faultless,
we would by no means assert. That the pnviczp/t5 which
in the main have governed us in the unhappy controversy,
forced upon us by our brethren, are correct, and that it is
our imperative duty to defend them, we are as fully persuaded
as that it is our duty " earnestly to contend for the faith
which was once delivered unto the saints."

Other reasons call for the history contained in the follow-
ino- pages. So long as any ground of hope remained that
the two branches of the Church might soon be united, but lit-
tle was said or pubhshed by the one to which we are attached.

PREFACE. Vii

respecting the causes of the division. The necessary conse-
quence is, that the younger portion of our ministers and
church-members need information on this subject. Indeed,
many important facts connected with the division have faded
from the memories of those who once possessed the knowl-
edge of them, andLgught to be restored.

The presentation of these facts is also needed, in order to
counteract erroneous statements and remove false impressions
made by them, respecting the causes of the division. We
charge none with intentional misrepresentation, but statements
have been made by our brethren respecting them, which we
believe to be wholly unauthorized by facts, and which have led
many in our country and on the other side of the Atlantic,
to believe that our branch of the Church, w^hile it inofessedlij
adheres to the Confession of Faith, is corrupt in doctrine,
fanatical in practice, and guilty of the sin of schism. It is
high time that the evidence of the truthlessness of these
statements should be laid before the public, and that minds
which have been led into error by them should be disabused.
To do this is one of the objects of the following narrative.

€lji^ttx in$i.

HISTORY OF THE CAUSES "WTHICH PRODUCED THE DIVISION IN THE PRESBY-
TERIAN CHURCH.

A FEW years since the Presbyterian Churcli in these United
States was a united and efficient branch of the Protestant
family of behevers. Her ministers and hcentiates niimbered
more than two thousand, and in talents, learning, Christian
character, and the ability and fidelity with which they dis-
charged their official duties, they held an honorable rank
amons: their brethren of the other branches of the Protestant
Church. The number of her communicants exceeded tAVO
hundred thousand, comprising an amount of intelligence,
wealth, and influence which, in connection with her Ministry,
qualified her to perform no unimportant part in the evangeliza-
tion of our countiy and the world. For the literary, scien-
tific, and theological education of her sons, she had colleges
and theological seminaries, not inferior to those of any of her
sister denominations, and great advantages for promoting the
cause of education throughout our widely extended country.
Her resources for exerting a wide and commanding influence
for good were ample. Now she is divided into two bands,
both of which adopt the same standards of doctrine and
discipline. They do not, however, as formerly, meet in the
same judicatories. Each has its own Presbyteries, Synods,
and General Assembly. Those who once united in sweet
and hallowed fellowship in the worship of God, now meet
in diff'erent sanctuaries, and rarely unite in commemorating

10

A HISTORY OF THE

their redemption by the priceless sacrifice of their common
Lord and Saviour.

Why is it thus ? What has rent asunder a body of be-
lievers, who adopt the same system of doctrinal belief and
the same Ecclesiastical Polity ? In the minds of intelligent
men, who are not well versed in the history of the Presbyterian
Church in this country for the last fifteen or twenty years,
these are questions which naturally arise. The object of
the ensuingr narrative is to furnish a true answer to them.

For several years previous to the division of the Church,
causes had been in operation, tending to produce this sad
catastrophe, which will be noticed in a subsequent part of
this narrative. By the great body of those now composing
our branch of the Church, however, and many in the other,
of tolerant views and pacific spirit, it was hoped their influ-
ence miofht be counteracted and ultimately removed. This
fondly cherished hope was not realized. Within the bosom
of the Church there were elements of evil, which could be
controlled only by the combined efforts of moderate men of
both parties. Unhappily, this combination was not efl'ected.
By a document which will be noticed hereafter, called " The
Act and Testimony," Conventions held previously to the
meetings of several General Assemblies, for the express pur-
pose of controlling their proceedings and other efforts di-
rected to the attainment of the same end, in the Assembly
of 1837, they received a majority. Finding themselves in
possession of power, they resolved to use it. The course,
which it was their purpose to pursue in case they should
have a majority in the Assembly, was marked out by the
Convention, which during the previou*^ week, had been in ses-
sion in the city of Philadelphia. On the second day of the
Sessions of the Assembly the "Testimony and Memorial" of
the Convention was presented to that body. The character
of this document will be sufficiently evident from the fol-
lowing extract and brief statement of its principal objects.
They say,

DIVISION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 11

" It is against error that we emphatically bear our testi-
mony,— error dangerous to the souls of men, dishonoring to
Jesus Christ, contrary to his revealed truth, and utterly at
variance with our standards. Urror, not as it may be freely
and openly held by others, in this age and land of absolute
religious freedom ; but error held, and taught in the Pres-
byterian Church, preached and written by persons who pro-
fess to receive and adopt our scriptural standards — promoted
by societies operating widely through our churches — re-
duced into form, and openly embraced by almost entire
Presbyteries and Synods — favored by repeatsd acts of Ge-
neral Assemblies, and at last virtually sanctioned to an
alarming extent by the numerous Assembly of 1836."

This declaration is followed by a specification of appaUing
errors, in doctrine and departures from Presbyterian order
and discipUne, which the Convention afi&rmed to be exten-
sively prevalent in the Presbyterian Church.

The above quotation from the " Testimony and Memo-
rial" of the convention and brief statement of its character,
is all that a due regard to brevity on the part of the Com-
mittee admits. Those who desire more ample information
respecting it, we refer to the document itself and the minutes
of the Convention. An examination of them will make it
undeniably evident either that large portions of the Church
zvere grossly corrupt both in doctrine and practice, or that the
Convention were guilty of wholesale slander. Which was
really the fact, will appear in the progress of this narrative.

The statement of the errors and grievous departures from
the order and discipline of the Presbyterian Church, which
the " Testimony and Memorial" affirmed to be extensively
prevalent, was followed by a proposed method of reform,
designed to be adopted by the Assembly, the first measure
of which was the abrogation of '' a plan of union between
Presbyterians and Congregationalists in the new settlements
adopted in 1801."

Here let it be borne in mind that this plan orirjinated with

12 A HISTORY OF THE

Presbyterians, and was by their General Assembly proposed
to the General Association of Connecticut, and by both
bodies unanimously adopted. It is as follows : —

" Regulations adopted by the General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church in America, and by the General Asso-
ciation of the State of Connecticut, (provided said Associa-
tion agree to them), with a view to prevent alienation and
promote union and harmony, in those new settlements which
are composed of inhabitants from these bodies.

1st. 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 Presbyterian
and those who hold the Congregational form of church gov-
ernment.

2d. 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, stiU conduct their
discipline according to congregational principles, settling their
difficulties among themselves, or by a council mutually agreed
upon for that purpose : But if any difficulty shall exist be-
tween 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 parties agree to it ; if not, to a
council consisting of an equal number of Presbyterians and
Congregationalists, agreed upon by both parties.

3d. If a Presbyterian Church shall settle a minister of
congregational principles, that church may still conduct their
discipline according to Presbyterian principles; excepting
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 both parties
agree to it ; otherwise by a council, one half Congregation-
alists and the other half Presbyterians, mutually agreed on
by the parties.

4th. If any congregation consist partly of those who hold

DIVISION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 13

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 communicants 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 con-
duct : and if the person condemned by their judgment, be a
Presbyterian, he shall have liberty to appeal to the Presby-
tery ; if a Congregationalist, he shall have liberty to appeal
to the bod}^ of the male communicants of the church : in the
former case the determination 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
provided 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 Presbytery, as a
ruling elder of the Presbyterian Church.

On motion Resolved, That an attested copy of the above
plan be made by the Stated Clerk, and put into the hands of
the delegates of This Assembly to the General Association,
to be by them laid before that body for their consideration ;
and that if it should be approved by them, it go into imme-
diate operation." — Vol. I. p. 261, 262.

On the 23d day of May, after a long and animated debate
on the subject, the following resolution was passed by the As-
sembly— viz. : —

" But as the plan of union adopted for the new settle-
ments in ISOl was originally an unconstitutional act on the
part of that Assembly — these important 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
1*

14 A HISTORY OF THE

with no power to legislate in such cases, and especially to
enact laws to reofulate churches not within her limits : and
as much confusion and irregularity have arisen from this un-
natural and unconstitutional system of union, therefore it is
resolved, that the act of the Assembly of 1801, entitled a-

* Plan of Union,' be, and the same is hereby abrogated." —
Minutes of the Assemhy of 1837,^:>ff^e 421.

• By this resolution •' a Plan of Union," all whose provi-
sions were manifestly adapted to promote the spread of
true religion in the new settlements, and to diffuse the bene-
volent and uniting principles and spirit of the Gospel, and
which for thirty six years had been acted upon in good faith,
was abrogated. The grounds of a procedure so manifestly
unjust and so uncourteous in its aspect toward the General
Association of Connecticut, will be noticed in a subsequent
part of this history.

The day next succeeding that on which the resolution ab-
rogating "the Plan of Union" was passed, the Assembly
took up that part the Memorial of the Convention which rela-
ted to doctrinal errors. This called forth a long and animated
discussion, and on Friday, the 26th day of May, the follow-
ing resolutions were adopted by a majority of six votes, viz. :

" 1. Resolved, That the proper steps be now taken to cite
to the bar of the next Assembly such inferior judicatories as
are charged by common fame with irregularities.

" 2. That a special committee be now appointed to ascertain
what inferior judicatories are thus charged by common fame,
prepare charges and specifications against them, and to di-
gest a suitable plan of procedure in the matter ; and that
said Committee report as soon as practicable.

*' 3. That, as citations on the foregoing plan is tlie com-
mencement of a process involving the right of membership
in the Assembly ; therefore, resolved, tli at agreeably to a prin-
ciple laid down, chap. V., sec. 9th of the 'Form of Gov-
ernment,' the members of said judicatories be excluded
from a seat in the next Assembly, until their case shall be
decided." — Minutes of the Assembhj of 1837, 'page 425.

DIVISION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 15

These resolutions were protested against by the minority,
not because they were unwilhng to concur in methods, au-
thorized by the Gospel and our book of disci phne for the
removal of error and the maintenance and vindication of the
fundamental doctrines of Christianity, but because they were
fully persuaded that the facts in the case did not authorize
the measures proposed in these resolutions. That errors in
doctrine and irregularities in practice existed in some sec-
tions of the Church, was believed and deplored by many
now attached to the Constitutional Assembly. They were
fully satisfied, however, that there was gross exaggeration in
the statements of the Memorial of the Convention on this
subject, calculated to produce unnecessary alarm and agita-
tion, and injure the reputation and usefulness of brethren who
were sound in the Mih. Nor did they believe arraignment
at the bar of the Assembly was the first step which should
be taken wiih erring brethren. Deeply did they feel that
before charges of heresy and gross disorder were formally
brouofht against them, efforts should be made to reclaim them
in the spirit of Christian forbearance and love. Such efforts
they believed were all that the facts in the case authorized.
Moreover, evidence was before their minds, which fully satis-
fied them that however honestly and zealously some of the
majority were laboring to promote the purity of the Church,
the leaders in that Assembly had an ulterior object in view.
They were grasping at power. The evidence of this is pal-
pable in this narrative. It is apparent from the third resolu-
tion, designed to secure the arraignment of the inferior judi-
catories on the charge of heresy and irregularities at the bar
of the next Assembly. Mark the language of this resolu-
tion. " Resolved, That agreeably to a principle laid down,
chap. V. sec. 9th, of the Form of Government, the members
of said judicatories be excluded from a seat in the next As-
sembly, until their case shall be decided." By carrying out
this resolution, they hoped to secure the power which, it was
manifest, they were laboring to attain.

16

A HISTORY OF THE

Strongly, however, as the minority were opposed to the
resolutions in favor of arraigning the Synods against which
they were aimed, when they became convinced that this
measure must be adopted or the Synods cast out of the
Church without trial or an opportunity to be heard in their
own defence, as the less of two evils, they chose the former.
In order to prevent their immediate exclusion from the Church,
they presented the following preamble and resolution,
viz. :

** Whereas, it has been alleged, that tlie Synods of Geneva,
Genesee, and Utica, of the Presbyterian Church, in the
United States of America, have been guilty of important de-
linquency and grossly unconstitutional proceedings, and a
resolution predicated on this allegation to exclude the said
Synods from the said Presbyterian Church has been offered
in this Assembly ; and, whereas, no specified act of the said
Synods has been made the ground of proceeding against those
bodies, nor any specific members of those bodies have been
designated as the delinquents ; and, whereas, these charges
are denied by the commissioners representing these bodies on
this floor, and an inquiry into the whole matter is demanded ;
and, whereas, a majority of the members of the Synods have
had no previous notice of these proceedings, nor of the ex-
istence of any charge against them, individually or collect-
ively, nor any opportunity of defending themselves against
the charges so broue^ht ae^ainst them :

" Therefore, resolved. That 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, before the next
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United
States of America, to show what they have done or failed to
do, in the case in question, and if necessary, generally to an-
swer any charges that may or can be alleged against them,
to the end that the whole matter may be examined into,
deliberated upon, and judged of, according to the Constitu-
tion and Discipline of the Presbyterian Church in the United

DIVISION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 17

States of America." — Minutes of the Asae^nhly of 1837, pa-
ges 443, 444.

This preamble and resolution, presented subsequently to
other acts of the Assembly which claim attention, are
introduced here to show that the minority, though opposed
to the measure for reasons before stated, advocated the cita-
tion of the Synods named in the resolution, when they be-
came convinced if that were not done, they would be thrust
out of the Church, without opportunity to be heard in their
own defence.

In order to give a correct history of the division of the
Church and the causes which led to the sad catastrophe, it
must be stated that previously to the presentation of the
foregoing resolution, an effort was made to effect an amicable
division. This was proposed by the leading member in the
majority. By the minority, division had for years been uni-
formly opposed as unnecessary and disastrous. When com-
pelled to contemplate measures with a view to bring about a
division of the Church, they yielded to the law of necessity.
A committee of ten, five from the majority and five from the
minority, was appointed to consult together respecting a di-
vision, but they could not agree, and each branch brought in
a separate report. These documents are too long to be in-
serted here. TEey can be found and examined by turning
to pages 430 and 437 inclusive, of the Minutes of the As-
sembly of lb37. Upon the points which respected a division
of the Church, the Committee came to an agreement, except
those which related to the time and manner of its being done,
and the charactei- of the Assembly. The members of the
Committee who acted in behalf of the majority of the As-
sembly, insisted upon an immediate division. Those who
represented the minority believed they had no authority from
the Constitution, nor the Presbyteries which commissioned
them, to do anything to effect an immediate dismemberment
of the Church. In this they were undoubtedly right. Had the
Committee agreed upon a plan for the proposed division, and

18 A HISTORY OF THE

the Assembly adopted it, the act would not liave been bind-
ing without the consent of the Presbyteries. An able writer
on this subject has well remarked, " According to the Con-
stitution of the Church, this Committee of ten, or even the
whole Assembly, had no more right to divide the Church
than the Committee of Ways and Means in Congress has to
divide the Union."

Moreover, those who labored to eflfect an immediate divis-
ion, insisted on holding the charter, with all its privileges
and franchises, in their own hands. This, had it been granted
them, would, in any case, have made them secure, while
those from whom they wished to be separated would have
had nothing on which to depend but fair promises, which
often mock the hopes of those who confide in them. To
such a division, the members of the Committee, representing
the minority' in the Assembly, could not consent, withoiit a
shameful dereliction of their duty. It would have been a
betrayal of the confidence, and a surrender of the rights of
brethren, who Avere conscientiously struggling to maintain
their chartered rights, and preserve the constitution of the
church inviolate.

The measure adopted for an amicable division of the church
having failed, the majority resolvod to effect a separation by
another method. They then passed the following resolution
by a vote of 132 members, 105 voting against it — viz. :

*' Resolved, That, by the operation of the abrogation of the
Plan of Union of 1801, the Synod of Western Reserve is, and
is hereby declared to be no longer a part of the Presbyte-
rian Church, in the United States of America." — Minutes of
the Assembly of 183*7, page 440.

The men who were professedly engaged in labors *' to
effect the purificition, and ensure the permanent peace of the
church," were not satisfied to pause here. They doubtless
feared that they had not done enough to perpetuate the
power of which they were then possessed, and were wielding
with such terrible efficiency. Hence they subsequently in-

DIVISION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 19

trodiiced the following resolutions, wliich were passed by tlie
Assembly, viz. : —

'* Be it Resolved, By tlic General Assembly of the Pres-
byterian Church in the United States of America,

1. " That in consequence of the abrogation by this Assem-
bly, of the Plan of Union of ISOl, between it and the Gen-
eral Association of Connecticut, as utterly unconstitutional,
and therefore null and void from the beginning, the Synods
of Utica, Geneva and Genesee, which were formed and at-
tached to this body under and in execution of said Plan of
Union, be and are hereby declared to be out of the eccle-
siastical connection of the Presbyterian Church of the United
States of America, and that they are not in form or in fact
an integral portion of said Church."

In favor of this resolution 115 votes were ofiven and 88
against it, the ministers and elders from the Synod of West-
ern Reserve not being allowed to vote. They then passed
three other resolutions, of which it is necessary here to notice
only the one numbered second, and is as follows, viz. : —

*' 2. That the solicitude of this 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 Western" Reserve, against which a declarative resolu-
tion, similar to the first of these, has been passed during our
present sessions), it being made clear to us, that even the Plan
of Union itself was never consistently carried into effect by
those professing to act under it." — Minutes of the Assembly
of 1837, par/es 444, 445.

For the purpose of preventing any members from the
exscinded Synods from obtaining seats in the next General
Assembly, they appointed "a Committee to confer Avith the
officers of the Assembly, who compose the Committee of
Commissions, to procure from them a pledge to carry out
the action of the Assembly in their official character to its

20 A HISTORY OF THE

full accomplishment." — Minutes of the Assembly of 1838,
page 15.

Even all this Avas not suflScient to satisfy the ruling spirits
of the majority of the Assembly. The Rev. Robert L. Breck-
inridge offered a series of resolutions, which, after being
amended, were passed as follows, viz. : —

" Be it resolved, By the General Assembly of the Presby-
terian Church in the United States of America,

" 1. That the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia be, and
hereby is dissolved.

''2. The territory embraced in this Presbytery is re-an-
nexed to those to which it respectively appertained before
its creation. Its Stated Clerk is directed to deposit all the
records and other papers in the hands of the Stated Clerk of
the Synod of Philadelphia, on or before the first day of the
sessions of that Synod, at its first meeting after this Assem-
bly adjourns.

" 3. The candidates and foreign missionaries of the Third
Presbytery of Philadelphia are hereby attached to the Pres-
bytery of Philadelphia.

*' 4. The ministers, churches and licentiates, in the Pres-
bytery hereby dissolved, are directed to apply without delay
to the Presbyteries to which they most naturally belong, for
admission into them. And upon application being so made
by any duly organized Presbyterian Church, it shall be re-
ceived.

*' 5. These resolutions shall be in force from and after the
final adjournment of the present sessions of the General
Assembly." — Minutes of the Assembly of 1837, pages 472,
473.

Against these acts of the Assembly by which four Synods,
five hundred ministers, and about sixty tliousand communi-
cants, against whom no charge of heresy or immorality had
been substantiated, were declared to be out of the Presby-
terian Church, and an important Presbytery was dissolved,
the minority solemnly protested, but in vain. In their reply

DIVISION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 21

to the protest of tlie members from the Synod of Western
Reserve, the majority say expressly, '' tliey had 710 right to
join in a protest against any decision of the Assembly, or to
have their protest admitted to record." These arbitrary and
unrighteous acts were the proximate cause of tlie division of
the church. In a subsequent part of this narrative, they
will be examined and placed in their true light.

THE GROUNDS ON WTIICn THE MAJORTTT ATTEMPTED TO JUSTIFY THEIR
EXSCINDING ACTS AND THE DISSOLUTION OF THE THIRD PRESBYTERY OF
PHILADELPHIA, STATED.

That we may not misrepresent the views of our brethren,
respecting these extraordinary measures, but present fairly the
grounds on which they attempted to justify them, we shall
state them mainly in their own language as contained in the
answers to the protests against them, and the review of the
acts of the Assembly in the Biblical Repertory of July, 1837.

The first ground on which they attempted to justify their
exscinding acts, and on which they placed their main reliance,
was the alleged unconstitutionality of the Plan of Union of
ISOl. In their reply to the protest of the minority of the
Assembly, they make this important preliminary statement,
which the reader, who would fully possess himself of the
absurdity of their acts, would do well to bear in mind.

" We believe," say they, " that our powers as a judicatory
are limited and prescribed by the constitution of the Pres-
byterian Church. Whatever any Assembly may do, which
it is not authorized by the constitution to do, is not binding
on any inferior judicatory, nor on any subsequent Assembly."
They then say,

" The constitution provides that all our judicatories shall
be composed of bishops or ministers and ruhng elders of the
Presbyterian Church, and the General Assembly have no
nght to introduce into any of the judicatories any other per-

ACTS OF EXCISION. 23

sons claiming to hold any other offices, either in the Presby-
terian Church or any other church. And should they at-
tempt to do this, no one is bound by it. But the General
Assembly of 1801 did permit members of standing commit-
tees in churches not Presbyterian, * to sit and act' in our
Presbyteries, and under this provision they have sat in the
higher judicatories of the church."

" On a thorough investigation it is now fully ascertained
that they had no authority from the constitution to admit
officers from any other denomination of Christians to sit and
act in our judicatories ; and therefore, no Presbytery or Synod
thus constituted, is recognized by the constitution of our
church, and no subsequent General Assembly is bound to
recognize them."

" The Presbyteries of the Synod of the Western Reserve
are thus constituted, for committee-men are permitted ' to sit
and act ' in all these Presbyteries ; therefore this General
Assembly cannot recognize the constitutional existence of
these Presbyteries."

" The fact that they have been recognized by former As-
semblies cannot bind this Assembly, when it is fully con-
vinced of the unconstitutionality of the organization. The
existence of Presbyteries thus constituted is recognized
neither in the former nor the amended constitution of the
church."

" The representatives of these churches, on the accommo-
dation plan, form a constituent part of these Presbyteries as
reallg as the pastors or elders, and this Assembly can recog-
nize no Presbytery, thus constituted, as belonging to the Pres-
byterian Churchy

"The Assembly has extended the operation of this princi-
ple to other Synods, which tiiey find similarly constituted." —
Minutes of the Assembly of 1837, iiages 450, 451.

The Biblical Repertory, in presenting the arguments of the
majority of the Assembly in favor of their resolution, which
declared the Synod of Western Reserve " no longer a part

24 ATTEMPTED JUSTIFICATION

of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America,"
gives the same views with those presented in the preceding
extracts from their answer to the protest, but with consider-
able amphfication. That we may present their views fairly
and fully, we give the substance of their vindication in the
language of the Repertory.

"The resolution," it says, ''declares that the Western
Reserve Synod is not a regular portion of our Church, and
it rests this declaration on the unconstitutionality of the Plan
of Union. Of course, it is here assumed, first, that this
Plan is unconstitutional, and secondly, that the Synod in
question is in the Church only in virtue of that plan. Re-
specting the first of these assumptions, the Repertory says,
*' It is in fact as plain as that a Congregational Church is not
a Presbyterian Church." It then adds, " With regard to
the second point, we admit that something more is necessary
than merely to prove that the Plan of Union is unconstitu-
tional. It must be shown in the first place that the churches
within the bounds of this Synod were formed on the basis
of this plan ; secondly, that the abrogation of the plan ef-
fects the separation of these churches from this body ; and
thirdly, that the connection of the Synod is of necessity also
thereby dissolved. With regard to the first of these points,"
the Repertory states, " it is, as a general fact, a matter of his-
torical notoriety, and might be as safely assumed as that the
United States were originally British colonies." The ques-
tion then is, does the abrogation of that Plan dissolve this
connection ? It undoubtedly does, unless you take measures
to prevent it, and declare the contrary. The General Assem-
bly has a resolution declaring that churches organized in a
certain way may be connected with our body : afterwards they
rescind that resolution — what is the consequence ? Why
certainly to withdraw the permission and dissolve the con-
nection. The connection was formed by the first resolution,
it lasts while the resolution continues, and ceases when it is
repeaj^ed." " It is, however objected that where a law is of

, OF THE ACTS OF EXCISION. 25

the nature of a contract, its repeal cannot invalidate the
rights which have vested under it. We admit the principle
freely, but we ask what is law ? It is an enactment made
by competent authority, in the exercise of its legitimate pow-
ers. An act passed by a body that had no right to pass it,
is no law; it has no binding force; it is legally nothing, and
can give existence to nothing legal. Even admitting that
the Plan of Union adopted in 1801 was of the nature of a
contract, yet if the Plan is unconstitutional, it is void ; it
has existed hitherto only by suflferance, and may at any time
be set aside. There is, however, an unfairness in this mode
of presenting the case. The Plan of Union is not a contract
in the ordinary sense of the word ; nor have absolute rights
vested under it according to the common use of those terms.
The Plan of Union is little else than a declaration on the
part of the Assembly that it will recognize churches organ-
ized in a certain way. The connection formed was perfectly
voluntary ; one which either party might dissolve at pleas-
ure."

*' The next question to be decided is, whether, admitting
the unconstitutionality of the Plan of Union, and that the
churches formed upon it are now no part of our Church, does
this authorize the declaration that the Synod of the Western
Reserve is no longer connected with this body ? We an-
swer this question in the affirmative. According to the con-
stitution of our Church, * As a Presbytery is a convention of
the Bishops and Elders within a certain district : so a Synod
is a convention of the Bishops and Elders within a larger
district, including at least three Presbyteries.' The question
then is, are these Presbyteries or this Synod conventions of
Bishops and Elders ? This question has been already an-
swered. They are not such conventions."

" Again, on the supposition that after all these accommoda-
tion churches are disconnected with this body, the Presby-
teries and Synod still retain their connection, we should have
Presbyteries and a Synod composed almost entirely of min-

26

ATTEMPTED JUSTIFICATION

isters. These are not regular Presb3'terian bodies. It is said,
however, that since there ai-e regular churches and pastors
within the hmits embraced by these bodies, they are Presby-
teries and a Synod within the meaning of the constitution.
The fallacy of this argument is obvious. These materials are
indeed included within the Synod, but do not constitute it."
— Biblical Repertori/, July, 1837, pages 454, 455, 458, 459,
460, 461.

The foregoing extracts from the Minutes of the General
Assembly and the Biblical Pvepertory are sufficient to make
the first ground on which the Assembly attempted to justify
the excision of the Synod of the Western Reserve, unmistak-
ably evident. The allegtd unconstitutionality oi the Plan of
Union, they likewise urged in justification of the excision of
.the Synods of Utica, Geneva, and Genesee. The only thing
in regard to which these Synods differed from that of Western
Reserve was this — in 1808, "The Synod of Albany requested
the Assembly to sanction a plan of union and correspondence
between themselves and the Northern Associate Presbytery,
and the Middle Association in the Western District, in the
State of New York. The plan being read, and the subject
discussed. Resolved, That the Assembly sanction the aforesaid
plan." — Assembh/s Digest, page 310.

The Commissioners from the Synods of Utica, Geneva and
Genesee, in their protest against the act by which those
Synods were *' declared to be out of the ecclesiastical con-
nection of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of
America," stated, that "the majority of the churches within
the bounds of said Synods were strictly Presbyterian in their
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 possessed rights on this subject
secured to them hj the Assembly of 1808, by which the Synod
of Albany was authorized to take the Middle Association un-
der its care." — Minutts of the Assembly of 1831 , page 465.

OF THE ACTS OF EXCISION. 27

To this the Assembly rephed — " The compact of the As-
sembly of 1808 with the Synod of Albany, in reference to
the Middle Association, is as unconstitutional as the Plan of
Union of 1801."

The Assembly, after having declared the four Synods " to
be out of the ecclesiastical connection of the Presbyterian
Church," passed the following resolution, expressive of the
bearing of the act upon the exscinded ministers and churches,
viz. :

" That the General Assembly has no intention, by these
resolutions, or by that passed in the case of the Synod of
the Western Pteserve, to affect 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 interfere
with the duties or relations of private Christians in their re-
spective congregations ; but only to declare and determine
according to the truth and necessity of the case, and by vir-
tue of the full authority existing in it for that purpose, the
relation of all said Synods, and all their constituent parts, to
this body, and to the Presbyterian Clmrch in the United
States." — Minutes of the Assembly of 1831, 2y((ge 445.

On this subject the Biblical Repertory makes similar state-
ments. In reporting the arguments of the exscinders in
favor of their exscinding acts, it says, ** In support of the
resolution, it was urged, — That it was neither in intention
nor fact an act of discipline. Such act supposes an offence,
a trial, and a sentence. The resolution, however, charges no
offence, it proposes no trial, it threatens no sentence. It pur-
ports merely to declare a fact, and assigns a reason for the
declaration. It is neither the form nor the operation of judi-
cial process. Should the resolution be adopted, it will not
affect the standing of the members of this Synod as Chris-
tians, as ministers or pastors. It will simply alter their rela-
tion to the Presbyterian Church. We do not propose to
excommunicate them as church members, or to depose them
as ministers. We do 7iot withdraw our confidence from them^

28 ATTEMPTED JUSTIFICATION

or intend to cast any imputation on them. We simply de-
clare tliat they are not constitutionally a part of our church."
— Biblical Repertory, July 1837, pa^/es 453, 454.

This language certainly expresses a settled determination
not to slander, nor pursue with invective, nor do any injury
to those whom they had ruthlessly cast out of the churcli.
Nay, it asserts that they do not even loithdraw their confi-
dence from them. This is kind indeed. Whether the kind-
ness professed has been actually shown, the reader may judge
after having examined the

2d Ground on which they attempted to justify their acts
of excision. This is alleged departures from the doctrine and
order of the Presbyterian Church. The 2d Resolution passed
respecting the Synods declared to be no longer a part of the
Presbyterian Church in the United States, is in these words,
viz. :

" That the solicitude of the Assembly on the whole sub-
ject, 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 [that is, the one de-
claring the Synods of Utica, Geneva and Genesee no longer
a part of the Presbyterian Church in this country] has been
passed during our present sessions), it being made clear to
us, that even the Plan of Union itself was never consistently
carried into effect by those professing to act under it." — Min-
utes of the Assembly of 183*7, page 445.

In the Biblical Repertory we find the following language
in vindication of the excision of the Synod of the Western
Reserve. ** All that kind of evidence which produces moral
certainty as to the state of things in that region of country,
may very properly be adduced as an argument why we should
dissolve our connection with a body in which our system is
openly disregarded. We presume there is not an individual
on this floor, who is not perfectly satisfied that there are such

OF THE ACTS OF EXCISION. 29

frequent and serious departures from presbyteriai order per-
mitted within the bounds of this Synod, as would justify its
excision by judicial process. — The departures from Presby-
terianism in this region are not confined to matters of gov-
ernments ; w^c have every evidence such a case admits of,
that what we believe to be serious departures from our doc-
trinal standards, prevail throughout this Synod. We know
what is the theology of Oberlin Seminary ; we know what
opinions the commissioners from these Presbyteries have, at
various times, avowed on the floor of the Assembly ; we
know% and every one else knows, that new-school theology,
be it good or bad, is the theology of this Synod." — Biblical
Rei^ertory, July, 1837, i)age8 465, 466.

On page 4*74 of the sam j work, we find the following state-
ment respecting the exsc'nded Synods in the State of New
York. " In support of the second resolution," (the one we
last quoted), " wliich assigns as a reason for the speedy de-
cision of this matter the prevalence of gross disorders within
the bounds of these Synods, extracts from various documents
were read, such as the pastoral letter of the Synod of Geneva,
the letter of the Association of Western New York, Mr. Fin-
ney's lectures, Dr. Betcher's letter to the editor of the New
York Observer, &c. These documents were read not as
evidence but argimients If it is true that extravagance and
fanaticism have prevailed to a great extent in this region of
country, it is certainly a strong reason for dissolving our con-
nection with these churches."

Near the close of the sessions of the Assembly, '* the re-
port of the Committee on the memorial"- of the Convention,
** which relates to doctrinal errors," was taken up and adopt-
ed as follows, viz. : —

** As one of the principal objects of the memorialists is to
point out certain errors, more or less prevalent in our church,
and to bear testimony against them, your committee are of
opinion, that as one great object of the institution of the
church was to be a depository and guardian of the truth ;
2

30 ATTEMPTED JUSTIFICATION

and as, by the constitution of the Presbyterian Church in
the United States, it is made the duty of the General As-
sembly to testify against error ; therefore, resolved, that the
testimony of the memorialists concerning doctrine, be adopt-
ed as the testimon3^ of this General Assembly, ("vvith a few
verbal alterations,) which is as follows :

1. That God would have prevented the existence of sin
in our world, but was not able without destroying the moral
agency of man : or, that for aught that appears in the Bible
to the contrary, sin is incidental to any wise moral system.
" 2. That election to eternal life is founded on a foresight of
faith and obedience.

3. That we have no more to do with the first sin of
Adam than with the sins of any other parent.

4. That infants come into the world as free from moral de-
filement as was Adam, when he was created.

5. That infants sustain the same relation to the moral go-
vernment of God in this world as brute animals, and that
their sufferings and death are to be accounted for, on the same
principles as those of brutes, and not by any means to be
considered as penal.

6. That there is no other original sin than the fact that all
the posterity of Adam, though by nature innocent, or pos-
sessed of no moral character, will always begin to sin when
they begin to exercise moral agency ; that original sin does
not include a sinful bias of the human mind, and a just ex-
posure to penal suffering ; and that there is no evidence in
Scripture, that infants, in order to salvation, do need redemp-
tion by the blood of Christ, and regeneration by the Holy
Ghost.

7. That the doctrine of imputation, whether of the guilt of
Adam's sin, or of the righteousness of Christ, has no founda-
tion in the Word of God, and is both unjust and absurd.

8. That the sufferings and death of Christ were not truly
vicarious and penal, but symbolical, governmental, and in-
structive only.

OP THE ACTS OF EXCISION. 31

9. Tliat the impenitent sinner is by nature, and independ-
ently of the renewing influence or almighty energy of the
Holy Spirit, in full possession of all the ability necessary to
a full compliance with all the commands of God.

10. That Christ does not intercede for the elect until after
their re o-ene ration.

o

11. That saving faith is not an effect of the special opera-
tion of the Holy Spirit, but a mere rational belief of the truth,
or assent to the Word of God.

12. That regeneration is the act of the sinner himself, and
that it consists in a change of his governing purpose, which
he himself must produce, and which is the result, not of any
direct influence of the Holy Spirit on the heart, but chiefly of
a persuasive exhibition of the truth, analogous to the influ-
ence which one man exerts over the mind of another ; or that
regeneration is not an instantaneous act, but a progressive
work.

13. That God has done all that he can do for the salva-
tion of all men, and that man himself must do the rest.

14. 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 without impairing their moral agency.

15. That the righteousness of Christ is not the sole ground
of the sinner's ai^ceptance with God ; and that in no sense
does the righteousness of Christ become ours.

16. That the reason why some diff'er from others in re-
gard to their reception of the gospel is, that they make them-
selves to diff'er.

Against all these errors, whenever, wherever, and by
whomsoever taught, the Assembly would solemnly testify ;
and would warn all in connection with the Presbyterian
Church against them. They would also enjoin it upon all
the inferior judicatories to adopt all suitable measures to
keep their members pure from opinions so dangerous. Es-
pecially does the Assembly earnestly enjoin on all the Presby-
teries to guard with great care the door of entrance to the

32 ATTEMPTED JUSTIFICATION

sacred office. Nor can the Assembly regard as consistent
with ministerial ordination vows, an unwillingness to discip-
line according to the rules of the Word of God and of our
standards, any person already a teacher, who may give cur-
rency to the foregoing errors." — Minutes of the Assembly of
1837, pages 468, 469.

In the " Circular Letter" addressed by the Assembly "to
all the churches of Jesus Christ," in justification of their acts,
they say,

" As the great truths of the Gospel lie at the foundation
of all Christian hope, as well as of the purity and prosperity
of the church, we felt ourselves bound to direct early and
peculiarly solemn attention to those doctrinal errors which,
there was but too much evidence, had gained an alarming
prevalence in some of our judicatories. The advocates of
these errors, on their first appearance, were cautious and re-
served, alleging that they differed in words only from the
doctrines as stated in our public standards. Very soon, how-
ever, they began to contend that their opinions were really
new, and were a substantial and important improvement on
the old creed of the church ; and at length, that revivals of
rehgion could not be hoped for, and the souls of men must
be destroyed, if the old doctrines continued to be preached.
The errors thus promulged were by no means of that
doubtful or unimportant character, which seems to be as-
signed to them even by some of the professed friends of or-
thodoxy. You will see, by our pubhshed acts, that some of
them affect the very foundation of the system of Gospel
truth, and that they all bear relations to the Gospel plan, of
very serious and ominous import. Surely, doctrines which
go to the formal or virtual denial of our covenant relation to
Adam ; the native and total depravity of man ; the entire
inability of the sinner to recover himself from rebellion and
corruption ; the nature and source of regeneration ; and our
justification solely on account of the imputed righteousness
of the Redeemer, cannot, upon any just principle, be regarded

OF THE ACTS OF EXCISION. 33

as 'minor errors.* They form, in fact, 'another Gospel;'
and it is impossible for those who faithfully adhere to our
public standards, to walk with those who adopt such opin-
ions with either comfort or confidence." — Minutes of the As-
semhly of 1837, pages 503, 504.

The Assembly's attempted vindication of their act, dis-
solving the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia, we give in
their own langruao^e.

" Resolved, That the evidence before this Assembly, es-
tablishing the evil effects of the existence of this Presbytery,
is ample ; that the principle on which it was formed, and on
which it has existed up to this time, viz., that of elective
affinity, is now on all hands admitted to be unconstitutional ;
and lastly, that being originally formed by the Assembly,
none can question the right of that body to dissolve it, when-
ever its continued existence is found to be injurious to truth
and charity." — Minutes of the Assembly of 1837, page 488.
The grounds on which the Assembly attempted to justify
(X their abrogation of the '' Plan of Union" and acts declaring
':, four Synods no longer in connection with the Presbyterian
Church in these United States, and dissolving the Third Pres-
bytery of Philadelphia, are now before the reader. Their
utter indefensibility will now be shown.

CI]ll^tU %\iix)i.

TIIE GROUNDS ON \VHICH THE ASSEMBLY ATTEMPTED TO JUSTIFY THEIR
ABROGATION OF THE "PLAK OF UNION," THE EXCISION OF THE FOUR
SYNODS, AND DISSOLUTION OF THE THIRD PRESBYTERY OF PHILADELPHIA,
EXAMINED.

The alleged reason for abrogating the " Plan of Union,"
was its unconstitutionality. In regard to this, different opin-
ions have been entertained by those who opposed its abroga-
tion in the Assembly and those who now regard it as grossly
unrighteous. Some then believed, and many noiv beheve,
that the constitution authorized the adoption of the " Plan of
Union." Of this opinion were both the judges before whom
the suits, which originated in the acts of the Assembly com-
plained of, were tried. Judge Gibson, in dehvering the opin-
ion of the Court in Bank, said it was a temporary arrange-
ment, and acquired the force of a law without the sanction of
the Presbyteries. " It was evidently," he said, *' not intend-
ed to be permanent, and it consequently was constitutionally
enacted." In his charge to the jury. Judge Rogers remark-
ed, ''So far from believing the 'Plan of Union' unconstitu-
tional, I concur fully with one of the counsel, that confined
within its legitimate limits, it is an arrangement or regulation,
which the General Assembly not only had power to make,
but that it is one which is well calculated to promote the best
interests of religion."

We admit the Constitution of the Presbyterian Chuch
does not expressly provide for such a " Plan of Union" as
that now under consideration. Nor does it for the plan of
mutual correspondence between the General Assembly of the

JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 35

Presbyterian Cliurcli and the Congregational Bodies of New
England. No call has been made, however, for the abroga-
tion of the latter plan, on the ground of its unconstitution-
ality. If the constitution does not contain an express provis-
ion for these plans, it certainly does not prohibit them.

So far, however, as the vindication of the act by which the
" Plan of Union" was abrogated, is concerned, we deem it of
very little importance whether [^its adoption were or ivere not
strictly conformed to the letter of the constitution. It was
proposed by the General Assembly to the General Associa-
tion of Connecticut, formally adopted by both bodies, and
acted upon in good faith for more than one-third of a cen-
tury by them, and the churches organized in conformity with
its provisions. In these circumstances the discourtesy of its
abroofation toward the General Association of Connecticut,
and its gross injustice to the churches formed under it, are
quite sufficient to doom it to utter and everlasting reproba-
tion.

Toward the General Association of Connecticut, it was a
flagrant violation of the laws of Christian courtesy. With-
out the concurrence of that body the General Assembly
could not have adopted the Plan. This was by them per-
fectly known. Hence, when they presented the Plan to the
Association, they' employed the following language — viz.,
" Regulations adopted by the General Assembly of the Pres-
byterian Church in America and by the General Association
of Connecticut, [provided said Association agree to them.")
After their proposal had been accepted by the Association
and both bodies had acted upon it for thirty-six years, how
manifestly and grossly uncourteous toward their New Eng-
land brethren was its abrogation, without first asking their
consent ! Of such discourtesy no former Assembly had been
guilty. In 1*794 a mutual agreement was entered into by the
General Assembly and the General Association of Connecti-
cut, securing to the delegates, to their bodies respectively,
the right to vote on all questions which should be determined

36 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF

by either of them. The Assembly of 1826 deemed it desir-
able that this right should be tciken away. They did not feel,
however, that they were authorized to do it without first ask-
ing the consent of the Association. This was done, and since
1827, by the consent of both bodied, their delegates have had
the right to sit and deliberate, but not to vote. The Assem-
bly of 1835 were desirous that no more churches should be
formed according to the provisions of the *' Plan of Union of
1801." They did not, however, ordain that none should be.
They did no more than pass the following resolution, viz. : —
"Resolved, That our brethren of the General Association of
Connecticut be, and they hereby are respectfully requested to
consent that said Plan be, from and after the next meeting of
that Association, declared to be annulled." — Mbmtes of the
Assembly of 18S5, page 29.

In respect to the rights of their Congregational brethren
and Christian courtesy toward them, what a sad departure
from the course pursued by the Assembly of 1835, in refer-
ence to the annulling of the " Plan of Union," and that of
the Assembly of 1837 to secure its abrogation ! The former
resp)ectfully request the Association to consent that no more
churches be formed under it ; the latter, without uttering a
syllable in their ear on the subject, abrogated it, and all
which, for thirty-six years, had been done in conformity with
its stipulations. •

But the gross injustice done by its abrogation to the
churches organized agreeably to its provisions, is a much
stronger ground of objection against the act than its discour-
tesy to the General Association of Connecticut. These
churches, though not one of the original parties in adopting
the plan, became a party to it by connecting themselves with
the Presbyterian Church, according to its provisions. By it,
they were authorized to administer their discipline according
to Congregational or Presbyterian principles of Church go-
vernment, and call men to the pastoral office among them
from either denomination. The Minutes of many Assem-

JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 37

blies previous to the abrogation of the plan, show that they
had sent up their statistical reports to the Presbyteries with
which they were connected, and contributed to the funds of
the General Assembly. Whether the plan were or were not
constitutional, we see not how it can with justice or propriety
be denied that it embraced the elements of a mutual com-
pact or covenant. In this light the plan of mutual represen-
tation in the General Associations of Kew England and the
General Assembly has been regarded. In 1833, Doctor
Miller said, ** 1 have always been a warm friend of it, and
should be grieved at the occurrence of anything calculated to
interrupt it, or render it less comfortable. If no such inter-
course existed, it ouo-ht forthwith to be befjun. Those who
come so near together as the great body of ministers of New
England and those of the Presbyterian Church, ought un-
doubtedly to know and love one another, and to co-operate
in the great work of enlightening and converting the world."
Again he says, **The articles of intercourse between the As-
sociations of Kew England and the General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church are to be considered as a solemn ecclesi-
astical compact, evidently intended to promote harmony, co-
operation, and mutual strength." — History of the Freshyle-
rian Controversy, hy H. Woods, page 43.

If the articles of intercourse between the Associations of
New England and the General Assembly are to be regarded
as solemn covenants, much more is the " Plan of Union,"
which provides for the organization of churches, the admin-
istration of discipline and the settlement of pastors, to be so
regarded. In that compact or covenant, they considered
themselves a party, fulfilled its stipulations, and expected
them to be fulfilled on the part of the Assembly. Had the
plan operated ever so disastrously to the interests of the Pres-
bytarian Church, the Assembly would have had no right to
violate its plighted faith to the churches, which had per-
formed what the compact required of them. So thought
the advocates of a Board of Foreign Missions in the Assem-
2*

38 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF

bly of 1 836. Kear the close of the Assembly of the previous
year, a Committee was " appointed to confer with the Synod
of Pittsburg on the subject of a transfer of a supervision of
the Western Foreign Missionary Society to the General As-
sembly," and in case of their approval of such transfer, the
Assembly *' authorized them to ratify and confirm the same
with the said Synod," The conductors of the Biblical Re-
pertory, when presenting the arguments of tihe advocates of
this transfer, say expressly, " Though our Assembly cannot
by an act of ordinary legislation bind its successors, yet
in all cases in which contracts have been formed under the
authority of our Assembly, succeeding Assemblies are bound
in honor and honesty to execute them." — Ste July No. of
Repertory for 1836, page 421.

In that case, the utmost that justice would have allowed
them to do, would have been to request those churches
to become strictly Presbyterian, or connect themselves
with Congregational associations. The Assembly of 1835,
wdiich requested the General Association of Connecticut to
concur with them in annulling the Plan, were not prepared to
abrogate all that had been done under it. They " resolved
that the annulling of said Plan shall not in any wise interfere
with the existence and lawful operations of churches which
have been already formed on this Plan." — Minutes of the
Assembly o/ 1835, page 29.

Had the spirit of this resolution prevailed in the Assembly
of 183V, no act like the one we are now considering could
have been passed. Unhappily, it was under the influence of
a very different spirit, — a spirit which urged it forward to
the act of annulling all which for thirty-six years had been
done under a solemn compact. This was a rash and arbi-
trary act, subversive of the \erj foundation of sound morals^
and highly injurious to the cause of evangelical religion.

That, however, was not the most objectionable act per-
formed by that Assembly. Had it been, the Presbyterian
Church would not have been rent asunder. The minority

JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 39

would then have done nothing more than enter their solemn
protest ao-ainst the act, declaring the ** Plan of Union" null
and void from the beginning. But after having performed
that act, they declared four Synods, embracing churches or-
ganized under that Plan, no longer in connection with the
Presbyterian Church. By this act, five hundred ministers,
and sixty thousand communicants in good standing, were
cast out of the Church without trial, without citation even,
or any opportunity to be heard in self-defence. One of the
grounds on which they attempted to justify this arbitrary
proceeding, was the alleged unconstitutionality of the " Plan
of Union."

This ground is wholly untenable. The Synods and Pres-
byteries embraced in them, were 7iot created by that Plan.
It contained no provision for the erection of either. The
reader, by turning to pages 12 and 13 of this narrative, will
perceive at a glance that it merely secured to churches the
right of conducting their disciphne, either upon Congrega-
tional or Presbyterian principles, of settling pastors from
either denomination, and in case difficulties should arise be-
tween pastors and their flocks, it pointed out the methods
which they might adopt to settle them. It also recommend-
ed to churches, composed partly of Congregationahsts and
partly of Presbyterians, to appoint a standing committee to
conduct their discipline, and allowed them to depute one of
their number to attend the Presbytery, who should have the
same right to sit and act in that body as a ruling elder. Not
a syllable does it contain respecting the erection of Synods
and Presbyteries. For their organization the constitution
makes ample provision. It expressly asserts that the power
of erecting new Presbyteries belongs to the Synod ; and
that of erecting new Synods, to the General Assembly.
That the exscinded Presbyteries and Synods were organized
in strict conformity with the provisions of the constitution,
we have ample proof. The records of the Synods, containing
an account of the organization of every new Presbytery, were

40 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF

sent up from year to year to the General Assembly for ex-
amination and appioval. Had there been anything ir-
regular or unconstitutional in their organization, it surely
would not have escaped the notice of the Assembly. We
have yet to learn that any exception was ever taken to the
erection of any one of these Presbyteries, on the ground
of irregularity in its organization. Had there been, their
commissioners m^ ould not have been admitted to seats in the
General Assembly. Against the admission of commissioners
from Presbj^teries, not constitutionally organized, tlie As-
sembly had long exercised great vigilance. For the purpose
of guarding effectually against it, the Assembly of 1822
passed the following resolution, viz. : —

■ "Resolved, that it be adopted as a standing rule of this
house, that commissioners from newly formed Presbyteries
shall, before taking their seats as members of this body, pro-
duce satisfactory evidence that the Presbyteries to which
they belong have been regularly 07'ganized, according to the
constitution of the Church, and are in connection with the
General Assembly." — Min. of the Assembly of 1822, par/e 20,

Guarded as the Assembly had been against receiving com-
missioners from Presbyteries not organized according to the
constitution, previously to 1838, the commissioners from
within the bounds of the exscinded Synods had uniformly
been admitted to seats in that body. Vv^hat stronger proof
can be given that, up to the time of the excision of the Synods,
the Assembly had been perfectly satisfied that the Presby-
teries, which they embraced, had been constitutionally or-
ganized ?

The evidence of the constitutional ors^anization of the
Synods is equally conclusive. By a reference to the Minutes
of the Assemblies now to be named, it will be seen that the
Assembly of 1812 constituted the Synod of Geneva; that of
1821, the Synod of Genesee; that of 1825, the Synod of
the Western Reserve ; and that of 1829, the Synod of Utica.

The " Plan of Union," as we have seen, related exclusively

JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 41

to the government of churches, which, by it, became connect-
ed with the Presbyterian Church, the settlement of pastors,
and the admission of members of standino- committees to
seats in the judicatories of the church. How, then, could
the abrogation of that Plan, whether constitutional or not,
exclude from the Presbyterian Church Presbyteries and
Synods which had been organized in strict conformity with
the letter of the constitution ?

Our exscinding brethren attempt to avoid this conclu-
sion, by affirming that the organization of these Presbyteries
and Synods was rendered unconstitutional by permitting
members of standing committees in churches not Presbyte-
rian to sit, and act, in the presbyteries and higher judicato-
ries. They say expressly, that they cannot recognize the
constitutional existence of presbyteries thus established, and
that the fact of their having been recognized by former As-
semblies, had no power to bind the one, which declared
them no longer in connection with the Presbyterian Church .*

These are sweeping declarations, leading to consequences
which, we presume, their authors would be very unwilling
to admit. If, as they affirm, admitting members from other
denominations of Christians to sit and act in the judicatories
of the Presbyterian Church vitiates their organization, and
makes them unconstitutional bodies, such Avere the Synods
of Albany and New Jersey. Both of these Synods had
churches under their care, whose discipline was conducted
upon Congregational principles, and which were represented in
Presbytery and Synod by members of standing committees.
Had the Assembly of 1837 acted in conformity with the
principle by which they attempted to justify the excision of
the four Synods, they would have declared the Synods of
Albany and New Jersey no part of the Presbyterian Church.
Had they passed that act, which a regard to consistency re-
quii-ed them to do, they would have declared the Professors
in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, not even except-

* Min. Assembly of 1837, pages 450, 451.

42 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF

ing the venerable Docts. Alexander and Miller, no longer in
connection with the General Assembly, as they did the vener-
able Doct. Richards and his associate Professors in the Se-
minary at. Auburn. Nay, a strict adherence to the principle
before stated, that the admission of officers from any other
denomination of Christians to sit and vote in the judicatories
of the Presbyterian Church, destroys their constitutionality,
w^ould require the admission that between the years 1794
and 1827 — a period of thirty-three years, there was no Gen-
eral Assembly, constitutionally organized. During that pe-
riod, the delegates from the General Association of Connec-
ticut to the General Assembly enjoyed all the rights of its
own members. Our exscinding brethren, we presume, are not
prepared to affirm that all the acts of the thirty-three Assem-
blies, in which Congregational ministers were allowed to
vote, are null and void.

In justification of their act, dissolving the 3d Presbytery
of Philadelphia, they assigned two reasons. One was, the
evil effects of its existence ; the other, that its organization
was unconstitutional. The evils, resulting from its exist encey
they did not specify. They doubtless consisted in the ob-
stacles which it opposed to the increase of the power and
influence of their party in the Church.

This Presbytery was constituted by the General Assembly
in 1832, on the principle of elective affinity, — a principle
which, it is presumed, all will admit should be acted upon
only in extraordinary cases, of which that under consideration
was one. The same party in the old Presbytery of Phila-
delphia, which was the most zealous and active in casting
their brethren out of the Church without trial in 1837, in
1831 did all they could to prevent the settlement of the Rev.
Albert Barnes over the 1st Presbyterian Church in that city.
For many years previous an unhappy state of things had ex-
isted in that Presbytery. A large majority of its members
were dissatisfied with some of the theolomcal views of the
Rev. James P. Wilson, D.D,, for many years the honored

JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 43

pastor of the 1st Churcli in that city, and the Eev. Thomas
H. Skinner, D.D., pastor of the 5th Church, and a few others,
who, if they did not agree with them in all their doctrinal
views, were convinced that the opposition to the brethren
just named was uncalled for and unchristian. Mr. Barnes'
views coincided with those of these brethren, and they in the
Presbytery who opposed them, determined, if they could, to
prevent the settlement of Mr. Barnes. Tlie case was carried
up by complaint to the General Assembly of 1831, and was
disposed of by the adoption of the following resolutions,
viz. : —

** 1. Resolved, That the General Assembly, while it ap-
preciates the conscientious zeal for the purity of the Church,
by which the Presbytery of Philadelphia is believed to have
been actuated in its proceedings in the case of Mr. Barnes ;
and while it judges that the sermon of Mr. Barnes, entitled
* The Way of Salvation,' contains a number of unguarded and
objectionable passages ; yet is of opinion, that, especially
after the explanations which were given by him of those
passages, the Presbytery ought to have suffered the whole
to pass without further notice.

2. Resolved, That in the judgment of this Assembly, the
Presbytery of Philadelphia ought to suspend all further pro-
ceedings in the case of Mr. Barnes.

3. Resolved, That it will be expedient, as soon as the reg-
ular steps can be taken, to divide the Presbytery in such
way as will be best calculated to promote the peace of the
ministers and churches belonging to the Presbytery." — Min.
Assemhly 1831, page 180.

Conformably to the recommendation of the Assembly, ap-
plication was made to the Synod of Philadelphia at its ses-
sions the ensuing October, to divide the Presbytery, but the
Synod rejected the application. Of the refusal of the Synod
to divide the Presbytery, those members who desired the
division complained to the next General Assembly. Their
complaint was sustained, and the Presbytery divided agrcea-

44

THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF

bly to their wishes. — See Minutes of the Assembly of 1832,
pacje 321.

As the guardian of the peace of tlie churches, how could
the Assembly forbear to divide the Presbytery ? And was
the erection of the new one on the principle of elective af-
finity, for the express purpose of putting an end to the un-
hallowed strifes which had long existed in the old Presby-
tery of Phihidelphia, and which the Assembly had good
reason to believe would be continued, were it not divided, a
sufficient ground for the Assembly of 183'7 to dissolve a Pres-
bytery erected by a previous Assembly? Can any person
qualified by knowledge and candor to judge in the case, give
an affirmative answer to this inquiry?

The attempted justification of the act dissolving the 3d
Presbytery of Philadelphia, because it was organized on the
principle of elective affinity, is utterly at variance with the
act of their own party in 1821. In that year a union was
effected between the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church and the Associate Reformed Church. The Assem-
bly, in consummating that union, recognized and carried out
the principle of elective affinity. One article of the plan of
union is in these words :

"The different Presbyteries of the Associate Reformed
Church shall either retain their separate organization, or
shall be amalgamated with those of the General Assembly,
at their own choice. In the former case (that is, by elect-
ive affinity), they shall have as full powers and privileges as
any other in the united body." One of the Presbyteries of
the Associate Reformed Church availed itself of this per-
mission. The General Assembly therefore allowed two Pres-
byteries, one previously belonging to it, and one received from
the Associate Church, to occupy "the same ground and have
jurisdiction over the same territory."

It requires but a moderate share of discernment to see the
real ground of the objection of the exscinders of 1837 to a
Presbytery organized on the principle of elective affinity.

JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 45

When the adoption of the principle tended to increase their
power and inllaence, they had no objection to it : — when it
tended to diminish them, it was an evil not to be tolerated.

And the Assembly did more than dissolve the 3d Presby-
tery of Philadelphia. Their 4th and 5th resolutions respect-
ing it are in these words, viz. :

4th. " The Ministers, Chmxhes and Licentiates, in the Pres-
bytery hereby dissolved, are directed to apply without delay
to the Presbyteries to which they naturally belong, for ad-
mission into them. And upon application being so made by
any duly organized Presbyterian Church, it shall be received.

5th, These resolutions shall be in force from and after the
final adjournment of the present sessions of the General As-
sembly."— Minutes of the Assembly of 18S1, paye 413.

These resolutions make it manifest as the light, that after
the final adjournment of the Assembly, the Ministers,
Churches and Licentiates of the 3d Presbytery of Philadel-
phia, till they should apply for admission into " the Presby-
tery to which they most naturally belong," and be actually
received by them, were declared to be out of the Presbyte-
rian Church.

This procedure against the 3d Presbytery of Philadelphia
and the excision of the four Synods without trial or citation,
in respect to the~"reputation of the authors of these acts,
were passed three centuries too late. The darkness of the
dark ages would have been but a miserable apology for them.

The Assembly did not rest their attempted vindication of
the excision of the four Synods solely on the ground of the
unconstitutionality of the Plan of Union. They were
doubtless convinced, if they could assign no other reason for
those acts, they would be placed before an enlightened com-
munity in a most unenviable position. Anotlicr ground on
which they attempted to justify them, was doctrinal error
and gross departures from the order of the Presbyterian
Church. By turning to pages 29-33 inclusive of this history,
it will be seen that the Assembly attempted to vindicate their

46 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF

exscinding acts, by alleging the alarming prevalence of fun-
damental errors in the Church, especiall3' within the bounds
of the disowned Synods. In their '' Circular Letter to all
the Churches of Jesus Christ," they say of these errors,
" They form in fact another Gospel ; it is impossible for those
who faithfully adhere to our public standards to walk with
those who adopt such opinions with either comfort or con-
fidence."

The principal " disorders and irregularities " of which the
Assembly complained and. against which they warned the
churches, are these, viz., " Irregularities in the formation of
Presbyteries, hcensing men to preach the Gospel and or-
daining them to the office of the ministry," who do not cordially
adopt the standards of the Presbyterian Church " and preach
and publish radical errors ; the formation of creeds, often
incomplete, false, and. contradictory of each other, and of
our Confession of Faith and the Bible ; the needless ordina-
tion of a multitude of men to the office of evangelist ; the
disuse of the office of Ruhng Elder; the unlimited and irre-
sponsible power, assumed by several associations of men under
various names, to exercise authority and influence, direct and
indirect, over Presbyteries, and a progressive system of Pres-
byterial representation in the General Assembly — until the
actual representation seldom exhibits the true state of the
Church." — See Minutes Assembly of 1837, page 471.

These are grave charges indeed. If well founded, they
could doubtless have been established by testimony before
the regularly constituted judicatories of the church. If
they could not be proved, those who wrongfully charged
their brethren with embracing the errors specified, and prac-
tising the alleged irregularities, ought to have been dealt
with as slanderers. These are charges, too, be it remem-
bered, brought against Synods and the churches within their
bounds, declared to be out of the Presbyterian Church on
the ground of the unconstitutionality of " the Plan of Union."
The authors of the exscinding acts, when attempting to justify

• JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 47

them on this ground, solemnly affirm that they passed them
** without impeaching the character or standing of the
brethren composing these Synods." In support of the
resolution for exscinding the Synod of the Western Reserve,
it was said in the Assembly, " The resolution — charges fio
offence, it proposes no trial, it threatens no sentence. It
purports merely to declare a fact, and assigns a reason for
the declaration. It has neither the form nor the operation
of a judicial process. Should the resolution be adopted, it
will not affect the standing of the members of this Synod as
Christians, as ministers or pastors. It will simply alter their
relation to the Presbyterian Church. We do not propose to
excommunicate them as church members, or depose them as
ministers. We do not withdraw our confidence from them,
or intend to cast any imputation upon them." — Biblical
Repertory, July 1837, page 454.

It is difficult to conceive of lano;uao;e more kind and cour-
teous toward those whom they were laboring to cast out of
the church without trial. How humihating, shortly after it
was uttered, to hear its authors, when attempting to justify
their act of exscinding them, charge them with errors and
irregukrities so gross as to merit exclusion from the Presbyte-
rian Church by judicial process !

After having cast them out of the church, their position
was an exceedingly difficult one. They are really to be pitied
no less than blamed. In casting them out without trial, they
did an egregious wrong, and they must either repent or at-
tempt to justity it. Unhappily they chose the latter, and
must abide the consequences.

Before a refutation is attempted of the charges of gross
errors and irregularities against constitutional Presbyterians,
justice to them requires that it be stated and borne in mind,
that an overwhelming majority of them have never denied
that there were errors in doctrine and irregularities in prac-
tice in the churches, which required correction. They be-
lieved there were, deplored their existence, and were willing

48 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF

to co-operate in the employment of constitutional and scrip-
tural means for their removal. They then resisted and have
uniformly borne their testimony against them. The evils
complained of were mainly attributable to a class of reckless
evangelists and pastors, who admitted them to their pulpits,
some of whom doubtless approved and adopted their doc-
trines and measures. Those who were opposed to them, and
wilhng to employ means authorized by the Scriptures for the
removal of error both in doctrine and practice, were opposed
to the substitution of violent and summary measures for the
discipline of the Gospel. And at the time the four Synods
were disowned, the evils complained of had been arrested,
and far less was to be apprehended from them than
there had been six or eight years before. This is admitted
by the editors of the Biblical Repertory. In their review of
the " Act and Testimony " in 1834, after having commended
one Presbytery in which they say, there is not " a single ad-
herent of the Old School," for refusing to ordain a candidate
w^ho held the popular errors on depravity and regeneration,
they say, " There are not wanting other decisive and cheer-
ing intimations that the portentous union between New
Divinity and new measures, which threatened to desolate the
church, has, at least for the present, done its worst."

Moreover, the zeal of the leaders in the ranks of the self-
constituted reformers was all employed in one direction.
Among themselves were men strongly tinctured with Anti-
nomian errors — errors highly dishonorable to God, and cal-
culated to remove from the minds both of saints and sinners
the burden of obligation to yield immediate and unceasing
obedience to His will. But the exscinders would suffer no
testimony to be borne against these errors. And measures
for promoting revivals of religion, of which they loudly com-
plained, had been used by leading men of their own party
for years. And compared with evils which attended revi-
vals among Presbyterians in the West, especially in Kentucky
and Temiessee more than thirty years before, for the removal

JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 49

of which no disciphnary nor legishitive measures were em-
ployed, those upon which their zeal was expended were as
the twilight to the darkness which brooded over Egypt on
that fearful night when her first-born were slain.

Justice to constitutional Presbyterians requires that an-
other ground of their opposition to the course pursued to-
ward the disowned Synods should be stated. It was not de-
nied even by the exscinders themselves that there were
among them sound Presbyterians, and those in other sections
of the church, who opposed their exscinding acts, had evi-
dence which, to their minds, was perfectly satisfactory, that
there were hundreds of ministers and thousands of church-
members whose soundness in the faith could not be impeach-
ed. The act of excision placed these unoffending brethren,
who had done and suffered four-fold more than any of the
self-styled reformers had done, to prevent the spread of error
in doctrine and practice in the church, in precisely the same
position with those who had embraced and labored to pro-
pagate them. To this procedure they were conscientiously
and irreconcilably opposed. True, in justification of this ex-
traordinary and revolting procedure, it was said ample pro-
vision was made for the reception of all sound Presbyterians
into the church, from whicli they had been thrust out. This
adds insult to injury-. Let us suppose an analogous case.
Rumors reach the ears of Congiess that within the territory
covered by the four disowned Synods, there are citizens of
treasonable principles and practice. Instead of ordering a
legal investigation of these rumors to be made, on the ground
of them, though wholly irresponsible, they pass a resolution,
declaring all the inhabitants of the suspected districts no
longer citizens of the United States, and their senators and
representatives no longer entitled to seats in their body. Not
doubting, however, that there are many unoffending and
law-abiding citizens in the exscinded districts. Congress en-
acts that all who will come forward and take the oath of
allegiance to the Government, shall be received as loyal riti-

50 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF

zens. It would be insulting to any man's understanding and
sense of common justice, to inquire what would be the senti-
ment of the nation, and of the civilized world, respecting the
legality and justice of such a procedure ? Such, however,
was the character of the acts of the Assemby of 1837 of
which we complain.

But we pass to the consideration of the attempted justifi-
cation by our exscinding brethren of their acts of excision on
the alleged ground of the alarming prevalence in the church
of doctrinal errors. Here, at the very threshold, the re-
markable fact meets us, that not an individual minister in
connection with the General Assembly had been convicted
of any departure from " The Confession of Faith and Cate-
chisms." Charges of departures in doctrine from the Con-
fession of Faith and the Word of God had been made against
the Rev. Albert Barnes, of Philadelphia, and the Rev. Dr.
Beecher, Professor of Theology in Lane Seminary, C incinnati,
Ohio. Indeed, this charge had been twice brought against
Mr. Barnes. In 1830 he received a call from the 1st Pres-
byterian Church in Philadelphia, to become its pastor. A
minority of the Presbytery opposed his settlement on the al-
leged ground of errors in doctrine contained in a sermon
which he had published, entitled " The Way of Salvation."
The majority, however, after hearing Mr. Barnes's explana-
tions, were satisfied that there was nothing in the sermon
which ought to prevent his settlement, and so decided. Of
this the minority complained to the Synod. The Synod re-
ferred the case back to the Presbytery, to hear and decide
upon their objections to Mr. Barnes's sermon. When the
Presbytery convened the minority had become the majority,
and the case was referred to the next General Assembly.
This reference the Assembly disposed of by passing the
resolutions before cited, on page 39 of this history.

This conclusion was deemed so auspicious and important
to the peace of the church, that ** the Assembly united in
special prayer, returning thanks to God for the harmonious

JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 51

result to which they liave come ; and imploring the blessing
of God on their decision." — See Minutes of the Assembly of
1831, ^m^es ISO, 181.

In 1835, the Rev. George Junkin, D. D., then President
of Lafayette College, arraigned Mr. Barnes before his Pres-
bytery, on charges of erroneous doctrines, contained in a Avork
which he had published, entitled '' Notes on the Epistle to
the Romans." These charges were ten in number, the state-
ment of which, in this place, is not necessary. After a pa-
tient hearing of the case, the Presbytery decided that the
charges were not sustained. From this decision. Dr. Junkin
appealed to the Synod of Philadelphia, which met the en-
suing October, in York, Penn. The Synod sustained the
appeal of Dr. Junkin, and " suspended " Mr. Barnes from the
exercise of all the functions proper to the Gospel ministry,"
till he should retract his errors, or give satisfactory evidence
of repentance. From this act of suspension Mr. Barnes ap-
pealed to the next General Assembly. The Assembly met
the ensuing May, in the city of Pittsburg, when the appeal
of Mr. Barnes was sustained by a vote of one hundred and
thirty-four members, ninety-six only voting against it. The
sentence of suspension from the functions proper to the Gos-
pel ministry was alio reversed, by a vote of one hundred and
forty-five members against seventy-eight.

A resolution was then introduced censuring some of the
languaoje in Mr. Barnes's Notes on the Romans, as at variance
with the standards of the church, and admonishing him to
revise the work, modify its statements, and " be more careful,
in time to come, to study the purity and peace of the church,"
but the motion was lost.

In 1835 the Rev. Dr. J. L. Wilson, of Cincinnati, arraign-
ed the Rev. Dr. Beecher, of Lane Theological Seminary, be-
fore the Presbytery of Cincinnati, on a charge of heresy and
slander, by charging the whole Church of God with agreeing
with him in regard to the nature of the sinner's inability to
do the will of God. The charges brought against Dr. Beecher

52 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF

were substantially the same with those for which Mr. Barnes
was tried and suspended by the Synod of Philadelphia. Tlie
Presbytery, after a protracted and patient hearing of the case,
decided that the charges against him had not been sustained.
From this decision Dr. V/ilson appealed to the Synod, but
his appeal was not sustained. He then appealed from the
decision of the Synod to the General Assembly, but when
that body met the ensuing May, in the city of Pittsburg, he
requested leave to withdraw his appeal, and his request was
granted.

These are the only individuals who have been tried during
the unhappy controversies which for years had agitated the
Presbyterian Chnrch for errors alleged to have been em-
braced and propagated by its members. Both of them were
honorably acquitted. Neither of them belonged to the ex-
scinded Synods. Not a member of those bodies had been
tried or arraigned for heresy. But if the errors, affirmed to
have been extensively embraced and disseminated by their
members, had actually existed among them, they could have
been arraigned, tried and condemned, unless those bodies
were so corrupt as to prevent the regular exercise of disci-
pline ; and in that case the General Assembly could have
taken the work of reform into its own hand by the method
prescribed in Section 5th, Chapter 12th, in our Form of
Government. The attempted justification of the acts, cutting
oflf the four Synods on the ground of doctrinal errors, is an
utter failure. It was more than a mere failure. It was nothing
less than an effort to justify the casting out of the church
without trial, or a responsible accuser, brethren in good stand-
ino" in their respective Presbyteries and Synods on the ground
of mere rumor; nay, of casting out many who, according to
their own admission, were sound in the faith. Much more
creditable would it have been to the authors of these acts
frankly to have admitted that they were unconstitutional, ar-
bitrary, and unrighteous, and promptly to have rescinded
them.

JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 53

And tliey not only cast out of the Presbyterian Cliurcli so
many of her ministers and her members, all of whom were in
good standing in their respective presbyteries and churches,
but did it in the face of repeated public and solemn declara-
tions on the part of those who represented them in the judi-
catories and other convocations of the Church, of their rejec-
tion and deep abhorrence of the errors laid to their charge.
When the list of errors, contained in the Memorial of the
Convention, which commenced its sessions ten days before,
was introduced into the Assembly, an efifort was made by
one of the minority to add to it others of Antinomian tendeli-
cy. After some discussion, it was agreed to make the con-
sideration of these errors the order of the day for the ensu-
ing morning. Instead of being* considered then, however, it
was not again presented for discussion in the Assembly till
the Vth of the ensuing month, when, after a few verbal al-
terations, it was adopted. The reasons for this delay, and
for cutting off all further amendment and discussion of th€
report, will be best understood by the protest of the minori-
ty against its adoption, which is as follows, viz. : —

'^ PROTEST.

" The undersigned respectfully present their protest against
the act of the Genei-al Assembly, adopting the report of the
Committee on Bills and Overtures, on so much of the memo-
rial of the convention as relates to erroneous doctrines, and
for the following reasons :

" We protest, 1 . Because of tlie course pursued by the md"
jority in relation to this report. Early in the sessions of the
Assembly it was announced, that all the great questions
which should claim their attention, and the action on which
would give character to this Assembly, and affect the very
integrity of the Presbyterian Church, were entwined around
and involved in the memorial of the convention. That me-
morial presented, as the evil which lay at the foundation of
their solemn testimony, and threatened the very existence of
3

54 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF

the church, the prevalence of error. * It is against errors say
the memorialists, * that we emphatically bear our testimony —
error, not as it may be freely and openly held by others, in
this age and land of absolute religious freedom, but error held
and taught in the Presbyterian Church, preached and written
by persons who profess to receive and adopt our scriptural
standards — promoted by societies widely operating through
our churches — reduced into form and openly embraced by al-
most entire Presbyteries and Synods — favored by repeated
acts of successive General Assemblies, and at last virtually
sanctioned to an alarming extent by the numerous Assembly
of 1836.' Of this they said they had ' conclusive proof.'

" On Monday, the 22d ultimo, the fourth day of the sessions
of the Assembly, the committee to whom the memorial was
referred, presented their report in relation to these errors,
and invited the attention of the Assembly to this subject, as
one of the very first importance, detailing with one or two
verbal alterations merely, the list of errors condemned by the
memoriahsts, and alleged to be rife in the Presbyterian
Church. It was moved to amend this list by introducing
into it four other en^ors, alleged to be held and taught, and
productive of great mischief in the church. At the same
time, request was made for one day's delay, that so grave and
important a subject might receive the calm and sober atten-
tion it merited. On all hands, discussion was allowed to be
desirable and necessary; and the Assembly agreed to make
the subject the order of the day for the next day. When the
next day anived, however, the Assembly refused to take up
the subject, and notwithstanding frequent attempts were
made by the minority to get at the discussion, and the radi-
cal importance of the subject had been alleged, the Assembly
uniformly refused to take it up, till near the close of the ses-
siont, when all discussion and amendment were instantly pre-
vented by the call for the previous question.

** 2. We protest, because of the manner in ivhkh the vote was
arrived at. The amendment offered proposed the condemna-

JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 55

tion of the four following errors, of the existence of which in
the Presbyterian Church, more decisive proof, in our view,
was given by several speakers, tlian of any reported by the
convention, viz. : 1. ' That man has no ability of any kind
to obey GocVs command or do his duty. 2. That ability is
not necessary to constitute obligation. 3. That God may just-
ly command what man has no ability to perform, and justly
condemn him for the non-performance, 4. That all the 2>ow-
ers of man to perform the duty required of him, have been
destroyed by the fall' The admission of this amendment
was opposed.

" A motion was made for the postponement of the amend-
ment and doctrinal discussion till the next day, and argued
till the previous question was demanded, which, the Modera-
tor decided, would present the question of postponement as
* the main question ;' and in that form the previous question
was put and carried. But instead of taking up the subject
then made the order of the day for the next day, the ma-
jority even afterwards refused to do so, until the rule for the
previous question had been so altered, and the Moderator's
decision on it so had, that the use of the previous question
would cut off the amendment, and bring up the original list
of errors as the main question. At the close of the session,
when it was well known this would be the effect of the pre-
vious question, the report of the committee was taken up, and
the call for the previous question made so immediately as to
prevent all discussion on the amendment thereafter, as well
as on the whole list of doctrinal errors.

" 3. We protest, because of the effect produced by the pros-
pect or probability of obtaining a unanimous condemnation of
the errors. During the short discussion which took place on
the amendment, it became obvious, that there would be a
general if not unanimous testimony of the Assembly against
the errors proposed to be condemned. Such a vote would
have greatly weakened if not entirely destroyed the allega-
tions of the convention, who affirmed that they had * conclu-

56 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF

sive proof that these errors *are widely disseminated in
the Presbyterian Church.' We hoped it would have arrest-
ed all the subsequent action of the Assembly, which we feel
to have been so disastrous to the interests of our beloved
church. At all events, its moral effect, as a testimony
against error, would have been so great, that had it been the
main and exclusive design of the majority to condemn error,
we think it strange they did not see and appreciate it. We
think it strange, too, that instead of endeavoring to obtain a
unanimous vote in the condemnation of error, and promote
peace and harmony, which might have prevented much of
what we beheve will be productive of great and lasting injury
to the church, the doctrinal errors were studiously and with
determination- kept back from the consideration of the As-
sembly till nearly all those measures were adopted, which
could only be alleged to be necessary, on supposition of the
fact, that there could be no unanimity or agreement in the
condemnation of error.

** 4. We protest, because of the embarrassing condition in
which members of the minority were placed, by the manner in
tvhith the majority determined, finally, to act on the report.
The report presented the list of errors, and proposed that the
Assembly testify against them, not as errors, in thesi, but as
errors declared by the convention to be rife in the Presbyte-
rian Church. This, some of the members did not believe.
At all events, no proof whatever was exhibited or offered
that such is the fact. Others felt that some of the errors
condemned are erroneous inferences, which have been drawn
and falsely charged by those who do not imderstand the real
sentiments of brethren, who prefer, in explaining the great
doctrines of our confession and of the Word of God, to speak
in the language of common sense, rather than to employ cer-
tain theological technics or terms of scholastic divinity, not
found either in the Bible or in our standards, and which, it
is believed, in many instances make dangerous practical im-
pressions, and contrary both to the truth and to the design

JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 57

of those that use them. To have refused, on the one hand,
for these and such hke reasons, to condemn these errors,
would necessarily, in the present agitated state of the public
mind, excite suspicions and doubts as to their soundness in
the faith, who did so. Yea, even a non liquet vote, or de-
clining to vote altogether, would have the same effect. On
the other hand, to have condemned these errors, without
some opportunity afforded in discussion to state their real
views, and to disavow their belief of the erroneous inferences
drawn from their mode of explaining the doctrine of the stand-
ards in the language of common sense, in preference to that
of scholastic theology, would have subjected them to the
charge of insincerity and hypocrisy, of late so industriously
circulated against many estimable men in the Presbyterian
Church. Christian candor, the spirit of brotherly love, and
the obligation to do to others as we would have them to do
to us, we think, should have rendered the majority wilhng to
afford their brethren full opportunity to exhibit their real
views, to correct any misrepresentations, to disavow any false
inferences attributed to them as their opinions, and to unite
with them in the condemnation of pernicious error.

" 5. We protest also, because of the want of discrimination,
as we think, in the statement of the errors ; some of which
are propositions wholly of a metaphysical character, and on
points by no means clearly and positively settled, either in
our standards or in the sacred Scriptures ; and calculated
exceedingly to perplex and bewilder the great mass of or-
dinary readers, in finding them classed with errors essen-
tially at variance with both.

" 6. We protest further, because of the imperfect character,
as we think, of the testimony given against error, in the report
and resolutions adoj^ted. We think that the dangerous er-
rors brought into view by the amendment, should have been
condemned ; and that it is not sufficient to affirm a proposi-
tion to be erroneous without asserting the contrary truth.

58 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF

Such a testimony in full, we were prepared to give, had we
been allowed an opportunity.

*' 1. We protest yet further, because the language of several
of the statements, we think, is so ambiguous as to contain
different propositions according to the different legitimate
signification of the terms employed in the statement, and
therefore requiring some explanation, as in specification first,
where it is said, God was not able to prevent the existence of
sin. Here, if the words * not able' be taken in the sense of a want
of a mere literal power, we have one proposition ; but if under-
stood to signify inconslsltncy with the perfections of the di-
vine nature generally, we have another totally different ; and
so of can in the thirteenth and cannot in the fourteenth spe-
cifications. The same is also true in regard to the term
ability in the latter clause of specification ninth. If by
abilitv be meant endowments, such as constitute the natural
capabilities of a moral and responsible agent, we have one
proposition ; but if ability be understood to signify a disposi-
tion of mind to will, and to do the good pleasure of God, we
have one wholly diverse. To the list of ambiguities we may
add the term regeneration, in the latter clause of specifica-
tion twelfth. If, in that place, regeneration be understood
to comprehend all the vicissitudes of mind which man expe-
riences in the chano-e from a careless sinner to a real Chris-

O

tian, we shall have a proposition wholly diverse from that
which we would have, if we understood the term to mean
merely the transformation of a convicted and anxious sinner
into a true and spiritual Christian, or the translation from a
state of death in trespasses and sins to a state of life ; so that
several of these statements may be true or false, error or or-
thodoxy, just as the terms that express them may be differ-
ently explained. We feel bound to protest against any doc-
trinal statements coming from this body, of so ambiguous
import, and so adapted, as, w^e think, without explanation,
to perplex and confound, and not to instruct and edify the
churches.

JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 59

** 8. Wc protest, finally, because, in view of all the circum-
stances of the case, we feel tliat while we were prevented
from uniting in the final vote with the majority in their tes-
timony against error, for the reasons above stated, we owe
it to ourselves, to our brethren, to the church, and to the
world, to declare and protest, that it is not because we do,
directly or indirectly, hold or countenance the eiTors stated.
We are willing to be;ir our testimony in full against them,
and now do so, when, without misapprehension and liability to
have our vote misconstrued, we avow our real sentiments,
and contrast them with the errors condemned, styling them,
as we believe, the true doctrine, in opposition to the errone-
ous doctrine condemned, as follows, viz. :

** First Error. * That God would have prevented the ex-
istence of sin in our world, but was not able, without destroying
the moral agency of man ; or, that for aught that appears in
the Bible to the contrary, sin is incidental to any wise moral
system.'

*' True Doctrine. God permitted the introduction of sin,
not because he was unable to prevent it, consistently with
the moral freedom of his creatures, but for wise and benevo-
lent reasons, which he has not revealed,

*' Second Error. * That election to eternal life is founded
on a foresigcht of faith and obedience,'

"True Doctrine. Election to eternal life is not founded
on a foresight of fidth and obedience, but is a sovereign act
of God's mercy, whereby, according to the counsel of his
own will, he h-is chosen some to salvation ; *yet so as there-
by neither is violence offered to the will of the creatures,
nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken
away, but rather estabhshed ;' nor does this gracious pur-
pose ever take effect independently of faith and a holy life.

*' Tkird Error. * That we have no more to do with the
first sin of Adam, than with the sins of any other parent.'

" True Docti;ink. By a divine constitution, Adam was so
the head and representative of the race, that, ns a coiise-

60 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF

quence of his transgression, all manMnd become morally cor-
rupt, and liable to death, temporal and eternal.

" Fourth Error. ' That infants come into the world as
free from moral defilement as was Adam when he was
created.'

*' True Doctrine. Adam was created in the image of God,
endowed with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness.
Infants come into the world not only destitute of these, but
with a natui e inclined to evil, and only evil.

<< Fifth Error. * That infants sustain the same relation
to the moral government of God, in this world, as brute ani-
mals, and that their sufFeiings and death are to be account-
ed for on the same principles as those of brutes, and not by
any means to be considered as penal.'

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

" Sixth Error. * That there is no other original sin than
the fact, that all the posterity of Adam, though by nature
innocent, will always begin to sin when they begin to exer-
cise moral agency ; that original sin does not include a sinful
bias of the human mind, and a just exposure to penal suffer-
ing ; 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.'

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

" Seventh Error. * That the doctrine of imputation, wheth-
er of the guilt of Adam's sin, or of the righteousness of Christ,

JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 61

has no foundation in the Word of God, and is both unjust
and absurd.'

'' True Doctrine. The sin of Adam is not imputed to his
posterity in the sense of a hteral transfer of personal quah-
ties, acts, and demerit ; but by reason of the sin of Adam, in
his pecuhar relation, the race are treated as if they had sin-
ned. Nor is the righteousness of Christ imputed to his peo-
ple in the sense of a literal transfer of personal qualities, acts,
and merit ; but by reason of his righteousness, in his peculiar
relation, they are treated as if they were righteous.

" Eighth Error. * That the sufferings and death of Christ
were not truly vicarious and penal, but symbolical, govern-
mental, and instructive only.'

*' True Doctrine. The sufferings and death of Christ were
not symbolical, governmental, and instructive only, but were
truly vicarious, i. e. a substitute for the punishment due to
transorressors. And while Christ did not suffer the hteral
penalty of the law, involving remorse of conscience and the
pains of hell, he did offer a sacrifice which infinite wisdom
saw to be a full equivalent. And by virtue of this atone-
ment, overtures of mercy are sincerely made to the race, and
salvation secured to all who believe.

" Ni> th Error. ' That the impenitent sinner is by nature,
and independently of the renewing influence or almighty en-
ergy of the Holy Spirit, in full possession of all the ability ne-
cessary to a full compliance with all the commands of God.'

'^ True Doctrine. While sinners have all the faculties
necessary to a perfect moral agency and a just accountability,
such is their love of sin and opposition to God and his law,
that, independently of the renewing influence or almighty
energy of the Holy Spirit, they never will comply with the
commands of God.

" Tenth Error. * That Christ does not intercede for the
elect until after their refjeneration '

" True Doctrine. The intercession of Christ for the elect
is previous as well as subsequent to their regeneration, as
3#

62 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OP'

appears from the following Scripture, viz., *[ pray not for
the world, but for them which thou hast giv^en 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 effect of
the operations 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
cases it is an effect of the special operations of the Holy Spirit.

" Twelfth Error. * That regeneration is the act of the
sinner himself, and that it consists in change of his govern-
ing purpose, which he himself must produce, and which is
the result, not of any direct influence of the cloly Spirit on
the heart, but chiefly of a persuasive exhibition of the truth,
analogous to the influence which one man exerts over the
mind of another ; or that regeneration is not an instantaneous
act, but a progressive work.'

" True Doctrine. Regeneration is a radical change of
heart, produced by the special operations of the Holy Spirit,
* determining the sinner to that which is good,' and is in all
cases instantaneous.

" Thirteenth Error. * That God has done all thatAe can
do for the salvation of all men, and that man himself must
do the rest.'

"True Doctrine. While repentance for sin and faith in
Christ are indispensable to salvation, all who are saved are
indebted from first to last to the grace and Spirit of God.
And the reason that God does not save all, is not that he
wants the poiver to do it, but that in his wisdom he does not
see fit to exert that power further than he actually does.

** Fourteenth Error. * That God cannot exert such in-
fluence on the minds of men, as shall make it certain that
they will choose and act in a particular manner, without im-
pairing their moral agency.'

JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 63

" True Doctrine. While the liberty of the will is not im-
paired, nor the established connexion betwixt means and end
broken by any action of God on the mind, he can influence
it according to his pleasure, and does effectually determine
it to good in all cases of true conversion.

** Fifteenth Error. * That the rigliteousness of Christ is
not the sole ground of the sinner's acceptance with God ;
and that in no sense does the righteousness of Christ become
ours.'

" True Doctrine. All believers are justified, not on the
ground of personal merit, but solely on the ground of the
obedience and death, or, in other words, the righteousness of
Christ. And while that righteousness does not become theirs,
in the sense of a literal transfer of personal qualities 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 differ
from others in regard to their reception of the Gospel is, that
they make themselves to differ.'

"True Doctrine. While all such as reject the Gospel of
Christ do it, not b}^ coercion but freely — and all who em-
brace it do it, not by coercion but freely — the reason why
some differ f i om others is, that God has made them to differ.

*' Fhiladel/jhia,Juue 8th, 183V.

" George Duffield, E. W. Gilbert, Thomas Brown, Bliss
Burnap, N. S. S. Beman, E. Cheever, E. Seymour,
George Painter, F. W. Graves, Obadiah Woodruff,
N. C. Clark, Robert Stuart, Nahum Gould, Absa-
lom Peters, Alexander Campbelj."

— Minutes of the Assembly, pages 4S1-486.

On the 17th of August next ensuing the meeting of the
Assembly, a convention of ministers and laymen, commis-
sioned by their respective Presbyteries, met in Auburn, New
York, to deliberate upon the unhappy position in which the
church had been placed by the exscinding and kindred acts of
the Assembly, and recommend such u course of action to the

64 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF

ministers and churches, who beheve those acts to be uncon-
stitutional, unrighteous, and revolutionary, as they in their
wisdom should deem best calculated to promote their peace
and prosperity, and the glory of God. In that Convention
nine Synods and thirty-three Presbyteries were represented
by ninety-eight clergymen, and fifty- eight laymen, duly com-
missioned, and twenty-four clergymen, not commissioned by
their Presbyteries, who were invited to sit as corresponding
members, making a total of one hundred and eighty. These
men certainly can be regarded in no other light thnn fair
representatives of the prevailing doctrinal sentiments of the
Presbyteries and Churches with which they were connected.
Whether they were so heretical as to deserve exclusion from
the church by judicial process, the reader may judge by
reading the second and third resolutions which they passed
upon doctrine, without a dissenting voice. They are these,
viz. : —

*' 2. Resolved, That as the rehgious sentiments of the
Synods and Presbyteries whom we represent, we cordially
embrace the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church,
' as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy
Scriptures,' as understood by the church ever since the
Adopting Act of 1729, viz. : 'And in case any minister of
the Synod, or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any
scruple with respect to any article or articles of said confes-
sion, he shall, in time of making said declaration, declare his
scruples to the Synod or Presbytery ; who shall, notwith-
standing, admit him to the exercise of the ministry within
om' bounds, and to ministerial communion, if the Synod or
Presbytery shall judge his scruples not essential or necessary
in Doctrine, Worship, or Government.

''3. Resohed, That in accordance with the above declara-
tion, and also to meet the charges contained in the before-
mentioned circular [' The Circular Letter to all the Churches
of Jesus Christ'], and other published documents of the late
General Assejpbly, this convention cordially disapprove and

JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 65

condemn the list of errors condemned by the late General
Assembly, and adopt, as the expression of tlieir own senti-
ments, and as they believe the prevalent sentiments of the
churches of these Synods on the points in question, the list
of * true doctrines' adopted by the minority of the said As-
sembly in their 'Protest' on this subject."

These repeated disavowals of the list of errors, condemned
by the Assembly, the repeated affirmation of the true doc-
trine, presented in the protest of the minority, and adherence
to **The Confession of Faith as containing the system of
doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures," constitute an amount
of testimony in favor of the doctrinal purity of Constitutional
Presbyterians, which can be resisted only by an implied or
avowed affirmation that their solemn declarations and vows
are unworthy of credit. Are the excinders, who have rent
the church asunder, prepared to say that the professions of
the men whom they charge with heresy, are hypocritical, and
that by their ordination vows, they made themselves guilty
of perjury ? We are confident many who adhere to that
branch of the Presbyterian Church which, in 1837, trampled
upon the Constitution, abandoned the old, time-honored
platform of Presbyteriarism and placed themselves on an
entirely " neAv basis," would on no account do this. For
reasons, which they doubtless consider sufficient, but the
validity of which, if they be vahd, we have not to this day
been able to discern, they still adhere to that body. In this
matter, we are willing to leave them to their own sense of
duty. We have a right, however, according to the teachings
of the "Biblical Repertory," (an authority which they re-
spect,) to place the acts of the body with which they are
connected in their true light. In the number for July, 1 837,
we find the following language :—" The only fair criterion
by which to judge of any public body, is their acts and their
official documents. Individuals must answer for themselves."
In availing ourselves of this universally conceded right, to
speak of their exscinding acts, it gives us no pleasure, but un-

6G THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF

feigned and deep regret to be compelled to say iliey thrust
out of the church so large a number of ministers and com-
municants, not one of whom had been convicted of heresy or
error, or of any disciplinable offence, and against their solemn
disavowal of the heresies laid to their charge and declarations
of adherence to the Confession of Faith. These acts they
first attempted to justify on the ground of the alleged uncon-
stitutionality of the Plan of Union, but as if conscious of the
invalidity of the plea, they urge that of i'umored. heresies
and departures from Presbyterian order in the bounds of the
disowned Synods, and other sections of the Church. By the
deep and unwavering convictions of our minds, we are con-
strained to pronounce these acts unfounded, arbitrary, and
oppressive. They indeed said they meant not to crimhiate
those whom they disowned and cast out, ror to affect their
standing as christians and ministers, or pastors ; but directly
after, in justification of their acts of excision, charge them
with heresies and disorders so gross as to render them de-
serving of exclusion from the church by judicial process. If
these allegations are no injury to those against whom they
are made, it can be only because the public regard their
authors unworthy of confidence.

The actual state of things w^ithin the bounds of the three
exscinded Synods in the State of New York, may be judged
of by the perusal of the following letter of the venerable and
lamented Doctor Richards, written in Nov., 1838, and ad-
dressed to the Rev. Joseph C. Stiles, D.D , late pastor of
the Mercer Street Presbyterian Church, in the city of New
York, then residing in Kentucky.

"November 13, 1838.
" To the Rev. J. C. Stiles :

" My Dear Sir : — I regret that my engagements will not
allow me to give you a full and detailed account of the ec-
clesiastical affairs of Western New York. All I can do is
briclly to reply to your several queries. You ask, first,

JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 67

What is the degree of our corruption in doctrine and order
around me, in my judgment.

''I belong to the Synod of Geneva, which embraces two
hundred and one churches — one hundred and forty organized
with a session on strictly Presbyterian principles, and sixty-
one which have no session, but which make use of our Book
of Discipline in their church courts, and submit their acts and
doings to the supervision of Presbytery as much as if they
had a session. They are, in fact, Presbyterian churches
with a defective organization. Instead of doing their busi-
ness by means of a bench of Elders, they do it by assembling
the male communicants, after the Congregational method.
One of our Presbyteries, which has under its care thirty-nine
churches, has but two wlilch are not strictly Pi-esbyterian,
Another, embracing twenty-five churches, has not a single
church without a regular session.

" Presbyterianism is popular in this part of the country, and
with a little kind and prudent management, it might become
universal. Nothing but the untimely fears and mistaken
policy of some of the good brethren in other parts of the
church, has prevented it from becoming far more prevalent
than it really is.

" As to corruption in doctrine, I know of none which is
deep and fundamental among the ministers and churches
which stand connected with our Synod. The ministers have
all solemnly professed to receive the Confession of Faith, and
the Catechism of our church, as containing that system of
doctrine which is taught in the Holy Scriptures. At the
same time, I do not suppose that they consider this as
amounting to a declaration that they receive every proposi-
tion included in this extended confession, but such things only
as are vital to the system, and which distinguish it from
Arminianism, Pelagianism and Semipelagianism. They be-
lieve in the doctrine of total depravity by nature — Rejjenera-
fum by the Sovereign and efficacious influence of the Holy
Spirit, — Justification by the righteousness of Christ, as the

68 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF

only true and meritorious cause — the persecerance of the
saints, and the inlermlnahle 'punishment of the wicked. They
have no scruple about the doctrine of particular and personal
election, but maintain it firmly as a doctrine of the Bible
which ought to have a place in the instructions of the pulpit.
" As to our churches, their opinions may be learned from
the brief confessions they use in admitting members to full
communion. It is the custom in this part of the country,
when a person is admitted to the fellowship of the church
upon his own confession, to require a public assent to a creed
embracing all the great leading doctrines of the Gospel, as
well as his solemn and explicit engagement to lead a life of
devoted piety. It is common for each Presbytery to super-
vise the creeds made use of by the churches under its care.
Knowing this to be the fact, I addressed a letter to each of
the Presbyteries in the bounds of the four exscinded Synods,
requesting them to state whether these confessions, employed
at the admission of members to their communion, were con-
formable in their tenor and spirit to the Confession of Faith
and Catechism of our church, desiring them at the same time
to send me a sample of them. The answer I received was,
that these brief formulas fully accorded with the Confession
of Faith of the Presbyterian Church. I have now before me
tw^enty-six of these confessions from as many Presbyteries ;
and if I have any judgment as to what belongs to orthodoxy,
they are sound as a roach, with the exception of the article
on Atonement. They favor the idea of general atonement,
as John Calvin and the early Reformers did. Some, I sup-
pose, would regard this as deviating from our standards ;
but, aside from this, I do not believe that Dr. Green himself
would find any fault with these confessions. I say this con-
fidently wnth respect to them all, one alone excepted. In one
of these confessions there was not so full a recognition of the
Divine decree extending to all events absolutely as I could
desire, and yet the language of Scripture was employed,
which asserts that God governs or works all things after the

JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 69

counsel of his own will. Is it to be supposed that ministers
would demand, or the people from time to time would (jive
their public and solemn assent to these confessions, if they
were far gone in heretical opinions ? Can you get people in
our Methodist Churches to subscribe to strong and pointed
Calvinistic formulas, supposing that their ministers were
wilhng and desirous that they should ?

" But if this be a true state of the case, whence the alarm
which has pervaded every part of the Presbyterian Church,
with respect to our Arminianism, Pelagianism, Perfectionism,
and I know not what ? Has there been no ground for the
fears and suspicions which have been entertained ? I cannot
conscientiously say that I think there has been none. A state
of things has existed which excited apprehensions that some
were departing from the faith once delivered to the saints.

** During the excitements which prevailed under the labors
of Messrs. Burchard and Finney, and their associates, things
were said and done which had better have been avoided. A
new style of preaching was introduced, new measures adopted
and advocated, and occasionally new opinions advanced
touching the pi-ayer of faith, the method of the Spirit's in-
tluence in conversion, and the best method of securing that
influence and promoting the conversion of sinners. No direct
encroachment, however, was made upon any of the great
doctrines of the Gospel. These were cheerfully adm-ttcd,
and some of them distinctly and powerfully inculcated. But
a notion was imbibed that the doctrine of election, and of the
sinner's dependence on Divine influence, and some other
doctrines of the Calvinistic system, had heretofore been urged
out of due proportion, and that more ought to be said of the
sinner's immediate obligation to repent and believe. In
pressing this obligation, they urged the sinner's entire ability
to comply with the terms of the Gospel. In a word, they
taught sinners could, but would not repent without special
Divine influence. Many believed then, and do still believe,
that their language on this subject was unguarded, and

70 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF

likely to produce an Arminian impression on the hearer
That such was the fact in numerous instances, there is no
reason to question. Some of Mr. Finney's converts doubted
v.'hether he believed in the doctrine of election, and wrote to
him, while he was in Boston, to know if he did. He an-
swered that he did believe the doctrine, and that they ought
to believe it.

*' From the manner, however, in which some of our
preachers at that time presented the truths of the Gospel, and
especially from the fact that they did not very prominently
present some of them at all, there was danger that an Armi-
nian leaven would creep in, and corrupt the faith of the
churches. This danger was not lessened by the speculations
of the 'New Haven divines, and by some other dubious
writings from New England.

** After all, through the good hand of God upon us, I do
not believe that any radical error has taken root among us,
and is likely to prevail. I speak of the churches in our own
connection. There is scattered throuorh our bounds a set of

o

Christians called Unionists, who hold the doctrine of sinless
perfection, and other absurd notions. But they are not of
us, and receive no countenance fi'om any of our judicatories.
Were you to ask me to name the minister or the church in
our Synod who did not fully and unqualifiedly believe in the
doctrine of the total depravity of human nature, in regenera-
tion by the injluence of the Holy Spirit, in personal election
and justification by faith through the righteousness of Christ
only, I could not do it. I have much the same impressions
with respect to the Synods of Utica and Genesee, and the
Synod of the Western Reserve ; but I am not as well ac-
quainted with the members of these Synods. Still, it is true
we do not all see eye to eye. There are shades of difference
in some less important matters. What these are, I have
neither time nor room to state to you. But allow me, in
conclusion, to say, that in my judgment there never was a

JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 71

greater mistake than that under which our Old School bre-
thren are laborine;.

" 1st. As to the prevalence of error in the exscinded
Synod.

"2d. As to its cause. The state of belief is not as they
suppose it. Nor do the errors which have been supposed
to exist owe their origin to any such cause as they ascribe
them to. They seem to think that Congregationalism has
done all the miscliief. It has had no more influence in the
case than the moons of Jupiter. Our Congregational
Churches, as a general fact, are the most stable and
thoroughly orthodox churches we have. But my sheet
is full, and I have only room to say, that I left the Consti-
tutional Assembly last Spring, from ill health alone.

" With much afiPection, I am truly yours,

" James Richards."
No one will dare affirm that the testimony of Doctor
Richards is unworthy of credit. His veracity and Christian
character were above suspicion, and his sources of informa-
tion respecting the doctrines preached by the ministers and
embraced by the cluirches connected with the Synods
of Utica, Geneva and Genesee, abundant. In view of his
testimony contained in his letter to Doctor Stiles, and the
repeated declarations of bodies, composed of Constitutional
Presbyterians, it would really seem that the charge of
heresy among them should have ceased, and the exscind-
ing; acts of 1837 been rescinded. Such is not the fact.
The acts of which we complain are unrepealed, and the
cry of heresy is still continued. In 1848, a work appeared,
entitled " Differences between Old and New School Pres-
byterians," by the Rev. Lewis Checsman of Rochester, with
an introductory and commendatory chapter by the Rev. John
C. Lord, D.D., of Buffiilo. This woik has been lauded by
the organs of the exscinding Assembly as a seasonable and
highly important publication. In it he charges those whom
he is pleased to call New School Presbyterians, with dupli-

72 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OP

city and insincerity, denying the doctrine of native depravity,
making void the Spirit's dispensation in the renewal of the
heart in the divine image, and maintaining that regeneration
is the act of man; — of hmiting the nature of the atonement,
denying that Christ died to satisfy the law and justice of
God, and justification by His righteousness, and affirms that
the revivals which take place under their ministry, are the
work, not of God, but of men. It is truly surprising and
deeply afiiictive that such charges continue to be brought
against men who have often publicly and solemnly denied
them. Are Constitutional Presbyterians destitute of common
veracity — perjured men, who, under the solemnity of ordina-
tion vows, give their assent to formulas of doctrine which
they do not believe ? We are persuaded many of our breth-
ren of *' the new-basis" Assembly would not affirm that they
are. How they can hear men in whom they profess to have
confidence thus branded as heretics and neglect to bear tes-
timony against these base calumnies, is truly strange and
mysterious. In the estimation of the Great Head of the
Church, it is not a light thing for one branch of it falsely to
accuse another, and hold its ministers up before the pubhc as
*' blind leaders of the bhnd," and unfit to be entrusted with
the care of souls. Our exscinding brethren seem to have
forgotten that a written constitution is binding upon those
who profess to adopt it, and that the ninth commandment
has never been repealed.

That the views of Constitutional Presbyterians respecting
a few points of doctrine differ from those who are continu-
ally reiterating the charge of heresy against them, is not de-
nied. And it is equally true that the latter also are very far
fiom being agreed among themselves. Some of them be-
lieve in the identity of the posterity of Adam with him in his
first transgression ; others that there was a literal transfer of
his sin to them, as also of the righteousness of Christ to His
people. These, however, are not the views entertained by the
Professors in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, and it is

JlJSTIFICATIOxN EXAMINED. 73

presumed of a large majority of those who claim to be the
only conservators and expositors of the truth in the Presby-
terian Church. The doctrine on these subjects, as taught in
the Commentary of Professor Hodge, on the Epistle to the
Komans and the Biblical Repertory, is, that the posterity of
Adam are held legally resjwnsihle for his sin, and that the
righteousness of Christ is placed to the account of those that
believe in Hwi, so that thei/, for If is sake, are treated as if they
were personally righteous. They also maintain that the suf-
ferings of Christ were not the same either in their nature or
degree with those which the elect would have endured, had
they suffered what their sins deserve. Others maintain that
Christ suffered for the elect, the literal 2>€nalty of the law.
Some of them maintain that men by nature have no ability
whatever to do the will of God ; others that the only ob-
stacle to their obedience is their imwUlingness to obey. And
yet all of them, we doubt not, with equal sincerity, adopt
*' the Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms
as containing the system of doctrine taught in the holy Scrip-
tures." And Constitutional Presbyterians do the same, not-
withstanding they differ from them upon a few points of doc-
trine. The only ones to which they attach much importance
are these. The first respects the connection between the first
sin of Adam and tliat of his posterity. Let them^be heard on
this subject in their own language in their statement of true
doctrine. They say, " By 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 to death, temporal and eternal."

We also differ from most of our brethren in connection
with the other Assembly, respecting the extent of the atone-
ment. With them, w^e beheve none but the elect will be
savingly benefited by thei death of Christ, but that it was a
sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, so that whosoever will,
may be saved.

From a majority of those in connection with the other As-

74 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OP

Bembly, we dissent from their views of the nature of the in-
abihty of unrenewed men to obey the commands of God.
They maintain that men by nature have no ability whatever
to do the will of God, — that they are in the same sense un-
able to do it, that they are to blot out the sun in the heavens
or create a vforld. The views of Constitutional Presby-
terians on this subject may be learned from their own lan-
guage in their statement of true doctrines. They say,
" While sinners have all the faculties necessary to a perfect
moral agency and a just accountability, such is their love of
sin and opposition to God and His law, that independently of
the renewing influence or almighty energy of the Holy Spirit,
they never will comply with the commands of God." Or in
other words, they believe the onlg obstacle to their obecJience
and salvation is, their unwillingness to obey the Gospel and
be saved on the conditions which it proposes.

Constitutional Presbyterians do not beheve their views on
these subjects to be of iw practical importance, but they
have uniformly maintained that the differences between them-
selves and their brethren respecting them, were such as ought
not to destroy mutual confidence and prevent them from
dwelling together in unity. Both are agreed in believing the
jrreat facts, that the whole race were involved in sin and ruin
by the sin of Adam, that the death of Christ is the only and an
all- sufficient sacrifice for the sins of men, in its nature strictly
vicarious and a satisfaction to divine justice, but that owing to
their utter aversion to holiness, and love of sin, by nature,
none will ever trust in it for remission and eternal life, but
by the special influences of the Holy Spirit.

This is not the place to present at length our reasons for
entertaining the views on these subjects which have just been
presented. It cannot be irrelevant, however, to show, that
men, whose orthodoxy our brethren will not call in question,
are substantially agreed with us. Calvin may not always have
been consistent with himself when speaking of the influence
of Adam's sin upon his posterity. The following language

JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 75

of tbe great reformer contains a perspicuous statement of
our views on this subject. "When it is said that the sin of
Adam renders us obnoxious to the divine judgment, it is not to
be understood as if ive, though innocent, were undeservedly
loaded with the guilt of his sin; but because vre are all
subject to a curse in consequence of his transgression, he is
therefore said to have involved us in guilt." This language
is quoted from Book II., Chap. I., of his Institutes. In his
commentary on the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans
he says, " Some contend our ruin to be effected in such a
manner by the sin of Adam, that we persish, not from any
fault of our own, but merely because our first father had, as
it were, sinned for us. Paul, however," he adds, " expressly
affirms that sin is propagated to all those who suffer punish-
ment on its account. And the apostle presses this still
closer, when shortly after he assigns a reason why all the
posterity of Adam is subject to the power of death, namely,
because we have all sinned.'"

Whatever may have been the views of Calvin respecting
the extent of the atonement in the early part of his life,
near its close when he wrote his commentary on the Romans,
in his exposition of the 10th verse of the 5th chapter of that
Epistle, he says expressly, "Christ, by his death, according
to Paul, reconciled.us to God, because he was an expiatory
sacrifice by yf\\\Q\\ atonement was made to God for the loorld.^^

In explaining the 18th verse of this chapter, he employs
the following language, viz., ** Paul makes grace common to
all, because it is proposed and declared to all, but in reality
not extended to all ; for though Christ suflfered for the sins
of the whole world, and, by the kindness of God, is offered
indifferently to all, yet he is not apprehended and laid hold
of by all mankind."

On this subject it is unnecessary to adduce the testimony
of others, whose orthodoxy is acknowledged by our esxcind-
ing brethren, for it has been conceded by tlieir accredited or- .
gans that the doctrine of a general atonement is no longer to

76 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF

be regarded as a heresy. The Bibhcal Repertory, in its re-
view of " The Act and Testimony," (a document which will
be noticed in a subsequent part of this narrative) inquires,
** Is it to be expected that at this time of the day, the Assembly
vrould solemnly condemn all who do not hold the doctrine
of a limited atonement ?" Even the late Doctor Greene, of
Philadelphia, one of the distinguished leaders of the self-
styled reform party, which rent the Church asunder, in a
sermon, which he delivered Dec. 14th, 1836, said, " All who
hold to real atonement are agreed in everything that is ma-
ter iaV We would fain hope no one hereafter will ring the
alarm-bell of heresy for the purpose of summoning the Church
to the work of thrusting out of her pale believers in a general
atonement.

After having placed a few testimonies before our readers
to show that the only inability to do the will of God, of
which the impenitent are the subjects, consists in their un-
wilHngness to do it, we trust no attempt will be made to
place the fearful brand of heresy upon us for agreeing with
them. Dr. Twiss, the Prolocutor of the Assembly of Di-
vines, who framed our Confession (tf Faith and Catechisms,
will be regarded by all as an unexceptionable authority. He
says, " The inability to do what is pleasing and acceptable
to God, is not a natural, but moral inability. The natural
poiver of doing anything according to our will, is preserved
to all, but 7iot moral power.'^

Howe was a personal friend of Dr. Twiss. He says, " For
notwithstanding the soul's natural capacities before asserted,
its moral incapacity, I mean its wicked aversation from God,
is such as none but God Himself can overcome, nor is that
aversation the less culpable for that it is so hardly overcome,
but the more. It is an aversation of will ; and who sees not
that every man is more wicked, according as his will is
more wickedly bent ? Hence his impotency or inability to
turn to God, is not such that he cannot turn if he loould ;
but it consits in this, that he is not willing. ^^

JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 77

Dr. Watts, an eminent divine and the prince of evangelical
poets, says, "Man has lost, not hh natural poiver to obey the
law ; he is bound then as far as natural powers will reach.
I own his faculties are greatly corrupted by vicious inclina-
tions, or sinful propensities, which has been happily called by
our divines, a moral inability to fulfil the law, rather than a
natural imimssibility of it."

Matthew Henrj'-, the eminent commentator on the Bible, in
his exposition of Ezekiel 18 : 31, says, "The reason why sin-
ners die, is, because they loill die, they will go down the way
that leads to death, and not come up to the terms on which
life is offered. St. Austin," he remarks, " well explains the
precept ; * God does not command impossibiUties, but admon-
ishes us by His command to do what is possible, and seek
what is not.' "

Dr. Witlierspoon was no heretic, even our accusers " them-
selves being judges." In his sermon on the yoke of Christ,
he uses this language — " Now consider, I pray you, what sort
of inability this is. It is not natural, but moral. It is not
want of power, but inclination. Nothing is required of us
that is unsuitable to our situation, or above our natural pow-
ers ; so far from it, that even what ivas our duty before, if
by any accident, it becomes impossible in this sense, it ceases
to be a duty." -

These quotations make it abundantly evident that Consti-
tutional Presbyterians, in respect to the most important
points concerning which they differ from their accusing breth-
ren, embrace no novelties. They have been believed and
publicly taught by some of the most eminent divines of the
last two centuries. If we be still denounced as heretics for
embracing them, we have the consolation of finding ourselves
in excellent company ; — with men " of whom the world was
not worthy." And we believe the language of "the Con-
fession of Faith" legitimately admits of an interpretation
consistent with the views of the doctrines just stated. We
therefore cordially adopt it "as containing the s?/s^^?i of doc-
4

78 JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED.

trines tauglit in the Holy Scriptures." We do it in conform-
ity with the spirit and letter of the adopting act of 1*729,
•which has before been quoted. ''' And we utterly repudiate
the name of New School Presbyterians, by which maligners
have attempted to bring odium upon us. In respect to the
adoption of the Confession of Faith, as a standard of doctrinal
belief, we are Old- School Presbyterians, and those who
falsely accuse us, are the JVew. /'Subsequently, we are confi-
dent it will appear this is the fact also in reference to our
strict adherence to the Form of Government.

(^imttx ifiwttiu

THE ALLEGED, SHOWN TO BE, NOT THE REAL NOR CHIEF REASONS FOR
THE EXCISION OF THE FOUR SYNODS.

It cannot, we think, be deemed an unauthonzed assump-
tion to say, that any one "who has read the preceding chapters
with candor and attention, must have come to the conclusion
that the reasons assigned by the authors and defenders of
the exscinding acts, could not have been the chief ones for a
procedure so manifestly unconstitutional and oppressive. The
conviction of every such reader of the foregoing pages, we
believe, must be that their authors were urged to the per-
formance of them by other, and, in their judgment, at least,
stronger reasons than those by which they have attempted
to justify them. The following considerations constrain us
to believe such was~the fact.

1. Had the unconstitutionality of "the Plan of Union,'*
as they allege, been the chief ground for cutting off the four
Synods, they would have felt constrained, in like manner, to
cast out the Synods of Albany, New Jersey and Illinois.
These Synods had churches under their care, whose disci-
pline was conducted upon Congregational priYiciples. These
churches sent committee-men to their respective Presbyteries,
and in some instances, to the higher judicatories, who were
admitted to all the rights of ruling elders. Instead, however,
of casting them out of the church with the four Synods be-
fore named, the Assembly merely passed the following reso-
lutions respecting them, viz. : —

80 THE ALLEGED, NOT THE REAL

*' Resolved, 1. That the Synods of Albany and !N'ew Jersey
be enjoined to take special order in regard to the subject of
irregularities in church order, charged by common fame upon
some of their Presbyteries and churches. 2. That the Synod
of Illinois be enjoined to take special order in regard to errors
in church order, and errors in doctrine, so charged upon several
of its Presbyteries." — Minutes of the Assembly of \d>Z*l, pages
496, 497.

If the alleged were the real reasons for casting out of the
Presbyterian Church the four Synods, why did they not in
like manner cast out the three Synods named in the resolu-
tions just quoted? Concerning Presbyteries embracing
churches thus constituted, the exscinders made the affirma-
tion, " This Assembly can recognize no Presbytery, thus con-
stituted, as belonging to the Presbyterian Church." — [Min-
utes of the Assembly, page 451). Had they been governed
by the principle laid down in this quotation in cutting off the
four Synods, they could not have suffered those of Albany,
New Jersey, and Illinois to remain in the bosom of the church.
They would have thrust them out, and with the Synod of
New Jersey, the Professors in the Theological Seminary at
Princeton, as they did the Professors in the sister Institution
at Auburn. In view of these facts, who can believe that the
alleged unconstitutionality of " the Plan of Union" was a
governing motive with the Assembly in declaring the four
Synods no longer in connection with the Presbyterian Church
in these United States ?

2. Equally evident is it that departures from Presbyterian
order and errors in doctrine, could not have controlled the
leaders of the High Church Party in procuring the passage
of those acts. That some, who voted for them, and others
who have attempted to justify them, had been made to be-
lieve many of the churches in the disowned Synods were
guilty of the disorders and heresies laid to their charge, is
undoubtedly true. A little candid and patient examination
of facts, however, would have furnished them abundant evi-

REASONS OF THE EXCISION. 81

dence that they had been misled by statements either wholly
without foundation, or grossly exaggerated. To our certain
knowledge, men have been left undisturbed, and are now in
good standing in then* body, who employed the same meas-
ures to promote revivals, the use of which within the bounds
of the ejected Synods, was asserted to be one of the strong
grounds for their excision, while others, who never resorted
to, but firmly resisted them, were ruthlessly thrust out of the
church. It is also a fact of equal notoriety, that they have
scores, if not hundreds of ministers in their branch of the
church, whose doctrinal creed is the same with that contain-
ed in the " statement of true doctrine" presented by the
minority of the Assembly to that body, and which was re-
affirmed by the Auburn Convention. Had the reprobated
measures and alleged departures from sound doctrine
been, as the ruling spirits in the Assembly affirmed, one of
the chief grounds for declaring the four Synods out of the
Presbyterian Church, they would have cast out all who were
obnoxious to the same charges.

Moreover, only a few years previous to the division of the
church, men whose orthodoxy the leaders of the professed
reform party would be slow to call in question, gave their
decided testimony in favor of the soundness in the faith of
the great body of ~iier ministers and members. The editor
of *' The Western Luminary," a paper decidedly in the in-
terests of the exscinders, published " the Act and Testimo-
ny," accompanied with these remarks : "We give it simply
as an article of news, — a portion of the history of the times.
We think it but due, however, to the ministry and eldership
of this region, to state, that so far as our acquaintance ex-
tends, we know of no one who holds any of the doctrinal
views which are justly designated as errors in ' the Act and
Testimony.' "'*

The conductors of the Biblical Repertory, in their review

* " Western Luminary," of Aug. 13th, 1S3 J, as quoted by H. Woods
in his history of the Presbyterian Controversy, page 69.

82 THE ALLEGED, NOT THE REAL

of " the Act and Testimony," after having expressed their
firm belief that no such crisis as that mentioned in that docu-
ment existed, say, *' We have not the least idea that one-
tenth of the ministers in the Presbyterian Church would de-
liberately countenance and sustain the errors specified. We
believe, indeed, that there is a number of men in our church
who hold doctrinal opinions which ought to have precluded
their admission, and who should now be visited by regular
ecclesiastical process. But we believe the number to be com-
paratively small." In a subsequent part of their review, after
expressing their pleasure that one Presbytery in which they
knew there was not *' a single adherent of the Old School,
had refused to ordain a candidate, who held the popular
errors on depravity and regeneration," they say, *' There are
not wanting; other decisive and cheerinsf intimations that the
portentous union between the New Divinity and the New
Measures, which threatened to desolate the church, has, at
least for the present, done its worst."

The sentiments expressed in the preceding quotations from
" The Western Luminary," and the " Bibhcal Repertory,"
concerning the state of the Church, were undoubtedly cor-
rect. If so, no small share of credulity is required to induce
the belief, that with well-informed men, the reasons assigned
for the excision of the four Synods were the controlling
ones in the performance of an act wholly unauthorized by
the constitution of the Church, and so arbitrary and oppress-
ive. And let it not be forgotten that it was but three years
previous to the passing of this act, that the testimonies just
cited were given. Admitting that dangerous errors actually
existed in the Church to the extent supposed by the Editors
of the Repertory, can it be believed they could, in that
brief period, have so increased as to constitute a principal
motive for casting out of the Church so large a portion of
her ministers and members ? Only a year previous to that
disorganizing and unrighteous procedure, the conductors of
the Repertory did not believe they had increased at all. In

REASONS OF THE EXCISION. 83

their review of the proceedings of the Assembly of 1836,
they say, " Our faith in the orthodoxy of the great body of
the Presbyterian denomination, much as we disapprove of
the acts of the majority of the late Assembly, remains un-
shaken ; and we feel satisfied that it requires nothing but
wisdom, union, and efficiency on the part of the orthodox, to
make the fact abundantly evident." — Vol. 8th, page 473.

To these statements respecting the orthodoxy of the great
body of the Church, we give our unqualified assent, and ap-
ply the inquiry of the reviewers respecting its state iu the
interval of the Assemblies of 1835 and 1836, to its state in
the intervening year between the Assemblies of 1836 and
1837. "Has the state of the Church materially changed
during the last twelve months ?" We answer the inquiry
in their own language. " This cannot be pretended." In
view of the facts which we have placed before our readers,
we leave them to decide whether, in the circumstances, it were
possible for the ruling spirits in the Assembly of 1837 to
have been wholly or even chiefly influenced in casting the
four Synods out of the Church, by a desire to promote its
purity, order and peace.

THE REAL GROUNDS OF THE PASSING OF THE ACTS OF EXCISION,

STATED.

In order to gain a knowledge of the real causes of the
acts -which rent the Church asunder, some of the facts of
its previous history must be examined.

*'It will be found upon a reference to the history of by-
gone days, that on the 6th day of April, 1691, the Presby-
terian and Congregational denominations of Christians, in
Great Britain, met at Stepney, and there by the blessing of
Almighty God, after talking over their diflferences, and their
agreements, consummated a union of the two denominations,
by adopting what was the then called 'HEADS OF
AGREEMENT,' embracing a few cardinal principles, which
were to govern them in their fraternal intercourse." — See
Minutes of the Constitutional Assembly/, pa(/e 56.

The first Presbytery in America was formed in 1'704, " by
the name of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, upon the liberal
principles which governed the London Association," and was
composed partly of Presbyterian and partly of Congrega-
tional ministers and churches. The Rev. Jedediah Andrews,
the first pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Phila-
delphia, was one of the original members of this Presbytery.
He was a native of New England, and decidedly favorable
to Congregational Church government.

In 1*716 "the Synod of Philadelphia was formed out of
the Presbyteries of Philadelphia, New Castle, Snow Hill

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 85

and Long Island, the last three having grown up after the
formation of the first in 1704."

See Minutes of the Constitutional AssemhJij, page 50 ; also
the late Dr. Miller s Catechism on the " Rise, Progress and
Present State of the Presbyterian Church in the United
States," in manuscript, iwepared for the use of his pupils.

" Fourteen years after the formation of the Synod of Phil-
adelphia, the Rev. Mr. Andrews, in a late letter to Mr. Prince,
says, that in the then existing state of things, * we call our-
selves Presbyterians, none pretending to be called Congrega-
tionalists, and our ministers are all Presbyterians, though
most of them are from New England.' "

During all this period, the Church of Scotland, instead of
imbibing the liberal principles of the age, which had resulted
in the fraternal union of 1691, in London, and in the estab-
lishing of a modified Presbyterianism in America, still ad-
hered to her arbitrary principles, as will appear from the fact,
that during the reign of Queen Anne, in 1712, only four years
before the formation of the Synod of Philadelphia, they sol-
emnly bore their testimony against religious toleration.

In 1724, those ministers from Scotland who came over to
this country, and who, in the language of the Rev. Dr. Mil-
ler, " were desirous to carry into effect the system to which
they had been accustomed in all its extent and strictness,"
began to insist that the entire system of the Scottish Church
be received in this country."'^ This demand led to the adopt-
ing act of 1729, which was a return to (or reaffirmation of)
"the liberal principles of 1691, upon which the Presbyterian
Church in America was based, and is as follows : 'Although
the Synod do not claim or pretend to any authority of im-
posing our faith on other men's consciences, but do profess our
just dissatisfaction with, and abhorrence of such impositions,
and do not only disclaim all legislative power and authority
in the Church, being willing to receive one another as Christ
has received us to the glory of God, and admit to fellowship

* See Dr. Miller's Catecliism just referred to.

4#

86 REAI. GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

in Church ordinances all such as we have grounds to believe
that Christ will, at last, admit to the kingdom of heaven,
yet we are undoubtedly obliged to take care that " the
faith once delivered to the saints^' be kept pure and uncor-
rupt among us, and so handed down to our posterity ; and
do therefore agree, that all the ministers of this Synod, or
that shall hereafter be admitted to this Synod, shall de-
clare their agreement in and approbation of the Confession
of Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the
Assembly of Divines at Westminster, as being in cdl essential
and necessary articles, good forms and sound words, and sys-
tems of Christian doctrine, and do also adopt the said Con-
fession of Faith and Catechisms, as the confession of our
faith. And we do also agree that the Presbyteries within our
bounds shall always take care not to admit any candidate for
the ministry into the exercise of the sacred functions, but
what declares his agreement in opinion with all the essential
and necessary articles of said Confession, either by subscrib-
ing the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms, or by ver-
bal declaration of his assent thereto, as such minister or can-
didate shall think best. And in case any minister of this
Synod, or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any
scruples with regard to any article or articles of said Confes-
sion of Faith or Catechisms, he shall, at the time of his
making such declaration, declare his sentiments to the Pres-
bytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to
the exercise of the ministry within our bounds, and to min-
isterial communion, if either the Presbytery or Synod shall
judge his scruples or mistakes to be only about articles not
essential and necessary in doctrine, worship, or government.
But if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge such minister or
candidate erroneous in essential and necessary articles of
faith, the Synod or Presbytery shall declare him incapa-
ble of communion with them. And the Synod do solemn-
ly agree, that none of us will traduce or use any opprobrious
terms toward those who differ from us in those extra essen-

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 87

tial and not necessary points of doctrine, but treat them with
the same friendship, kindness and brotherly love, as if noth-
ing had happened.' " — Minutes of the Constitutional Assem-
hhj, 1839, pages bQ, 57.

This instrument does immortal honor to its authors and
those who received it as a bond of Christian union and fel-
lowship It provides for the preservation, " pure and entire,"
of the fi-ystem of doctrine embraced in the Confession of
Faith and Catechisms. To errors which are subversive of
this system it gives not the least approval or even toleration,
and at the same time admits what is undoubtedly true of
every human symbol of doctrinal belief, equally extensive
and minute in its details, that it embraces some things in re-
gard to which those who sincerely adopt it, may lawfully
differ. It likewise bound those who adopted it, to treat each
other, their minor differences notwithstanding, with Christian
courtesy and brotherly affection. It is difficult to conceive
how it could have been better adapted to keep " the unity of
the Spirit in the bond of peace." Had the Presbyterian
Church in this country been governed by the pacific and
magnanimous principles of this act, she would at this time
have been a united body, presenting to the world the lovely
and commanding spectacle of brethren dwelling together in
unity, and consecraTmg their united energies to the advance-
ment of the kingdom and honor of her enthroned and glori-
fied Head. But unhappily other counsels and a widely dif-
ferent spirit prevailed.

" In 1730 we find the Presbytery of Newcastle, in the
face of these conciliatory measures of the Synod, adopting
the Confession of Faith and Catechisms, as being in all things
agreeable to the word of God — and in 1732, the new Pres-
bytery of Donegal followed their example, and promised
* forever thereafter to adhere thereto.'

In 1736 that party who were in favor of the strong mea-
sures of the Scottish Church, had gained so much ascen-
dency, that they brought a majority of the Synod to follow

88 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

the example of the two Presbyteries of Newcastle and Done-
gal, and adopt the Confession, Catechisms and Directory of
the Westminster of Divines ; without alteration or exception,
thus establishing the power of the civil magistrate to control
Synods and persecute the Church." — Minutes of the Consti-
tutional Assembly, 1S39, page 57.

As might have been expected, " this rash departure from
the tolerant and fraternal principles of 1691 in Eno-land, and
of 1*729 in America," was followed by most disastrous con-
sequences. The parties reposed but little confidence in each
other, and their mutual complaints and criminations produced
alienation and strife. These evils were greatly increased by
diversity of opinion on other points of great practical impor-
tance. The ultra Presbyterians, who had succeeded in secur-
ing a majority of votes in tlie Synod in favor of a rigid ad-
herence to the Confession of Faith, Catechisms and Direc-
toiy in every minute particular, were exceedingly lax in their
views respecting the importance of vital piety as a qualifica-
tion for membership in the church and the Christian ministry.
In candidates for the former, they required doctrinal know-
ledge, and in those for the ministry, learning and an unquali-
fied assent to the Westminster Confession, but opposed the
strict examination of both in regard to their acquaintance with
experimental religion. The other party, convinced that vital
piety is of paramount importance, insisted that the examina-
tion of candidates for church fellowship and the sacred office
of the ministry, should be more strict respecting the reality
of their conversion to God, tlian the other qualifications con-
cerning which their brethren were so strenuous and unyield-
ing.*

During this unhappy state of things, the Rev. George
Whitefield paid his second visit to this country. His labors,
and the extensive and glorious revivals of religion which
they were instrumental in producing, were the occasion of

* See Doet. Miller's Catechism before referred to, also the " Great
Awakening," by the Rev. Joseph Tracy, pages 22, 23.

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 89

greatly increasing. the dissensions vvhicli for years had agita-
ted the church, and producing a wider separation of the par-
ties. The ultra Presbyterians refused to admit Whitefield to
.their pulpits, pronounced him a wild enthusiast, and the re-
vivals which attended his ministry, mere fanatical excite-
ments. The more liberal and pious portion of the church
regarded Whitefield as a devoted and highly honored servant
of God, rejoiced in his success, and encouraged and assisted
him in his labors.*

These dissensions concerning the manner of adopting the
Confession of Faith, the necessity of experimental religion
as a qualification for membership in the church and for
the Christian ministry, the labors of Whitefield and thvi reli-
gious interest which they were instrumental in producing,
brought on the crisis w^hich, in 1741, resulted in the division
of the Synod, and in 1745 in the erection of the Synod of
^New York. The latter body, how^ever, was not made up ex-
clusively of the Old and New England element in the church.
The Blairs, Tennents, Doctor Finley, and others of the Stotch
and Irish and their descendants, strongly opposed the intol-
erance of the high church party, zealously co-operated with
Whitefield, and blessed God for the signal displays of His
grace in the revivals which attended his ministry. That
these men were not, as their opponents represented them, fan-
atics and opposed to learning in the ministry, is evident from
the fact that soon after the division of the Synod, they took
measures to found the College of New Jersey, for the ex-
press purpose of providing the means of a thorough educa-
tion to candidates for the sacred office.

The unhappy schism of 1741 lasted seventeen years. At
the expiration of this period, the Synods were united upon
the liberal and tolerant principles of the adopting act of 1*729,
and took the name of the Synod of New York and Philadel-
phia. Had these principles been adhered to, the Presbyte-

* See Doct. Miller's Catechism before referred to, and Tracy's his-
tory of the Great Awakening, Chapter 5th.

90 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

rian Church in these United States would have remained to
this day a united body.

Very soon after the commencement of the present century,
the same intolerant spirit exhibited itself by violent opposi-
tion to what was denominated Hopkinsianism or New Eng-
land Divinity. It is believed few comparatively eithor in or
out of New England, embraced the views of Hopkins re-
specting the agency of God in the production of moral evil
and a conditional willino-ness to be banished from Him and
made eternally miserable. These, however, were the only im-
portant differences between his theological views and those
of Edwards, Bellamy and other leading divines of New Eng-
land. The chief differences between the doctrinal views of
these men and the rigid portion of the Presbyterian Church,
related to the direct imputation of Adam's sin to his pos-
terity, the extent of the atonement, and the nature of the in-
ability of the unregenerate to do the will of God, as stated
at the close of the 3d chapter of this history. The ultra
Presbyterians, however, resolved that departures from their
interpretation of the Confession of Faith and Catechisms,
respecting these points, should not be tolerated. And their
language toward their brethren, who differed from them,
sometimes seemed to indicate a settled determination to de-
stroy their reputation and usefulness. Take the following
extract from the pastoral letter of the Synod of Philadelphia
in 1816, as a specimen.

" 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 impor-
tance of contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to
the saints, and of resisting the introduction of A rian, Socin-
ian, Arminian and Hopkinsian heresies, which are some of the
means by which the enemy of souls would, if possible, de-
ceive the very elect. May the time never come when our

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 91

ecclesiastical courts shall determine that Hopkinsianism and
the doctrines of our Confession of Faith are the same thincr.
or that men are less exposed now than in the days of the
apostles to the danger of perverting the right ways of the
Lord." — H. Wood's History of the Freshyterian Controversy
page 46.

The intolerant spirit of this letter was not confined to the
body which issued it. It prevailed in other sections of the
church. In the city of New York it was no less clearly de-
veloped. As the respected pastor of the Brick Church in
that city, and other members of the Presbytery of New
York, were known to agree with the New England divines
respecting the influence of Adam's sin upon his posterity, the
extent of the atonement and the nature of the sinner's ina-
bility to obey the Gospel, great eftbrts were made by those
who differed from them to impair confidence in their ortho-
doxy. They were represented as embracing and preaching
doctrines highly dishonorable to God, and dangerous to the
souls of men.

Discerning men then clearly foresaw what must be the re-
sult of the prevalence of this intolerant spirit in the church.
An able writer of that period remarked, '' Among the un-
happy effects likely to result from the measures recently
taken, we may well consider the gloomy prospects which
threaten to spread over the whole body of professing Chris-
tians in the United States. How terrible and shocking the
thought that Christian brethren, friends and neighbors, united
for years in the strictest bonds of amity, must be severed under
the charge of heresy ! Many churches must be torn and agi-
tated with fierce disputes, and probably rent asunder ; churches
must be cast out of Presbyteries, and perhaps Presbyteries
out of Synods. And what appearance would the Presby-
terian Church make, torn with divisions, distracted by dis-
putes, rent with schisms, palsied by animosities, and branded
with the name of a persecutor?"

The sad catastrophe which the author of this quotation

92 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

seemed then to anticipate as near, was averted. The storm
gradually subsided, and some of the most strenuous opposers
of what liad been denominated Hopkinsian heresies seem, be-
fore the division of the church, to have been fully convinced
that they are not fundamentally at variance with its stand-
ards. Of this number was the venerable Doctor Greene.
In an article, published in " the Christian Advocate of 1831,"
when speaking of the " Old Hopkinsians," he said, "Their
brotherhood has been cordially admitted, although a dif-
ference in some minor points of doctrine is distinctly recog-
nized." In their branch of the church, they have now, and
have had ever since the division in 1837, men of this class,
whose soundness in the faith they do not pretend to question.
This fact, it would seem, must be sufficient to convince all
unprejudiced persons that the differences respecting doctrine
between the rigid interpreters of the Confession of Faith and
those who entertained the views of Edwards, Bellamy and
Hopkins, could not have been the chief grounds for exscind-
ing the four Synods. Nor could the errors, specified in the
Act and Testimony and the Memorial of the Philadelphia
Convention, and alleged in those documents to be alarmingly
prevalent in the church. The statement of true doctrine in
opposition to those errors, presented by the minority of the
Assembly, furnished conclusive evidence that the. great body
of those whom they represented utterly repudiated those
errors, and held them in equal detestation with those who
bore their testimony against them. That the strong desire
and settled determination of the latter, to make all adopt their
interpretation of the Confession of Faith, had much to do
with the division of the church, is undoubtedly true, but we
are persuaded that this alone would not have brought about
the catastrophe. The spirit of intolerance, which manifested
itself respecting doctrine, was more stiikingly exhibited in
efforts to control the benevolent operations of the church.
Of this fact a brief history of the controversy between the

REAL GROUNDS OP THE EXCISION. 93

advocates of Ecclesiastical Boards and Voluntary Societies
for spreading the Gospel, will funish conclusive proof.

Previous to the commencement of tlie present century, the
General Assembly appointed a Standing Committee of Mis-
sions. It did but little, however, toward accomphshing the
great work of evangelizing our country, which, considering
her numbers, intelligence, and wealth, really belonged to the
Presbyterian Branch of the great family of believei-s in the
United States. For the purpose of prosecuting the work of
home evangelization with more vigor, in 1816, the Assembly
organized a Board of Missions. After it had been in operation
eight or nine years, it was clearly perceived by discerning
and pious men in those denominations which patronized the
A. B. C. F. Foreign Missions, that something on a greatly
enlarged scale ought to be done for supplying the destitute
in our own country with the preaching of the Gospel. Ex-
tensive correspondence and consultation on this subject
resulted in a conviction of the importance of organizing a
National Society for the prosecution of this work. This plan
was warmly recommended by some of the most distinguished
men in the Presbyterian Church. In writing to the Rev.
Dr. Peters, the first Secretary of the A. H. Missionary
Society, respecting its organization, the Rev. Drs. Alexander
and Miller employed the following language : —

" Rev. A^'D Dear Sir, — We rejoice to hear that there is
a plan in contemplation for forming a Domestic Missionary
Society, on a much larger scale than has heretofore existed.
We have long been of the opinion that the subject of Domes-
tic 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 im-
pression 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 enterprising population must, at no great distance

94 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

of time, be abandoned to a state not much short of entire
destitution of the means of grace. We would fain hope that
no Christian who loves the Redeemer's kingdom, and reflects
on the value of immortal souls ; no parent who remembers
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 possibly be indifferent to an
object of such immense importance. 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 con-
vened 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."

On the 10th of May, 1826, a convention of one hundred
and twenty-six delegates from the Congregational, the Re-
formed Dutch and Presbyterian Churches, was held in the
city of New York, to take into consideration the propriety
and importance of forming a National Society for prosecuting
the work of Domestic Missions. After due consultation,
they organized the A. H. Missionary Society. The plan of
its operations was to sustain ministers in good standing in
their Association, Classis, or Presbytery, in feeble churches
belonging to either of those denominations with which they
might be connected. Of the one hundred and twenty-six
delegates in the Convention which organized the Society,
seventy were from the Presbyterian Church. For several
years it is believed it had the hearty approval of a large pro-
portion of her ministers, and the most intelhgent of her lay
members. Upon its operations the great Head of the
Church bestowed marked tokens of His approbation. But
with the leadino: individuals of the exclusive and intolerant
portion of the Presbyterian Church, it soon became an object
of suspicion and dislike. Hence, in 1828, only two years

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EiJ^CISION. 95

after the organization of the A. H. M. Society, they suc-
ceeded in procuring a re-organization of the General As-
sembly's Board of Missions. By many friends of Domestic
Missions in the Presbyterian Church, this measure was
looked upon with painful apprehensions. Hithertc- she had
done very little to furnish the destitute population of our
country with the preaching of the Gospel. The A. H. M.
Society had commenced the work upon a plan admirably
adapted for its safe and efficient prosecution by the three
denominations in whose behalf it acted. God had crowned
its labors with signal success. In these circumstances the
attempted enlargement of the operations of the Assembly's
Board of Missions was looked upon by many ardent friends
of Domestic Missions in the Presbyterian Church with
great anxiety. They were persuaded that the action of two
separate and independent general organizations, one of them
to a great extent, and the other exclusively conducted by
Presbyterians, for the same object, and on the same field,
must produce embarrassment to both, and they feared,
would greatly retard the work of home evangelization. Sup-
posing their executive officers and agents to be governed by
the kindest feelings, it would be difficult to avoid interference
in the collection of funds and the appointment of missionaries.
For the purpose oT preventing the evils which it was appre-
hended might result from their separate action on the same
field, the Executive Committee of the A. H. M. Society,
after havina: conferred with several members of the Assem-
bly's Board of Missions, and ascertained that they were
favorable to a union of the two organizations, labored with
great zeal, and it seems to us, with equal prudence, to
secure it. A due regard to brevity will not allow us to lay
before our readers the details of this plan, nor the measures
which the Society took to secure its adoption. Those who
wish to gain a knowledge of them, we refer to pages 20G and
211 inclusive, of the first volume of the " Home Missionary."
A candid perusal of these pages, we think, cannot fail to

96 REAL jJROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

produce the conviction that the plan was equitable and wise,
and that its authors and advocates were governed by a
desire to promote the peace of the Presbyterian Church, and
secure the greatest efficiency in prosecuting the work of
Domestic Missions. In this light it was viewed by many
intelligent and excellent men in the Presbyterian Church, to
whose consideration it was submitted. The lamented Dr.
John H. Rice, of Virginia, said, " I do greatly ap-
prove of the plan proposed by the Executive Committee of
the A. H. M. Society. So desirable did this union appear
in the West, that the Presbytery of Cincinnati, in 1830, took
measures to secure union of action between the Assembly's
Board and the A. H. M. Society, on the Western field.
Their application to the Board for this object, however,
proved unsuccessful. . On the 20th of July of that year, they
appointed the Rev. J. L. Wilson, D.D., and the Rev. Messrs,
John Thompson, James Gallaher, David Root, and F. Y.
Vail, a Committee to correspond with the Board respecting
union of effort in the West, with the A. H. M. Society. In
their communication to the Board, dated July 26th, 1830,
they say, " That boath Boards are doing good, much good,
we certainly know. We certainly ought to thank God, and
take courage from the knowledge of the fact that the Mis-
sionaries of your Board have increased in two years from
thirty-one to nearly two hundred. And what gratitude is
due to God for another fact, that the other Society has
nearly four hundred missionaries in the field ! Nearly six
hundred heralds of the cross aided by these two Institutions !"

After having stated some of the evils which had arisen,
and others, which, from their separate and independent action
in the West, they feared would arise, they say,

" We appreciate the claims of the Assembly's Board. It,
in one form or other, is the oldest Missionary Board in Ame-
rica. It has effected much good, and since its re-organiza-
tion has been very successful. It is under the watch and
control of our highest judicatory. It can elicit and command

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 97

funds, which other societies cannot touch. Shall we say,
Dissolve and throw your funds into the treasury of the
American Home Missionary Society ? No, this we cannot,
dare not do."

" That Society commenced when the Assembly's Board was
not eflfecting much. They adopted energetic measures, and
in a very few years, saw happy results. They are still in-
creasing their exertions and success. And we cannot doubt
their assertion, that they have access to funds which would
never come into the Assembly's Board. Shall we say to
them, Cease to exist ; wind up your accounts, and throw
your influence into the other Board ? This we cannot do.
We do not know that God would succeed such a measure.
But we do think something may be done. And we have yet
to learn what good reason can be urged against a united
operation in the Western country. Cannot the two Boards
unite in some men in the West whom they can trust as faith-
ful stewards of their beneficence?"

*' We feel confident that this communication speaks the
sentiments of a large majority of brethren in the West, who
have sincerely deliberated on this matter ; and we trust we
will be able to make this appear in a future communication,
if necessary."

See " A Brief Answer to an Official Rej^ly of the Board
of Missions of the General Assembly to Six Letters of the
Rev. Absalom Peters, entitled, ' A Plea for Union in the
West ;' also Mr. Peters' Reiyly to the Rev. Dr. J. L. Wil-
son! s four propositions, sustained against the claims of the
American Home Missionary Society.^' — -j^a^^es 27-29.

The Assembly's Board, after having considered the com-
munication of the Committee of the Presbytery of Cincinnati,
passed the following resolution, viz. : —

" Resolved, That while this Board have the highest confi-
dence in the integrity and purity of motives of the Commit-
tee of the Cincinnati Presbytery, in the suggestions which
they have submitted in respect to a united agency in the

98 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

West for conducting missionary operations ; and while they
sincerely regret that any difficulties and collisions should
have arisen in the prosecution of thi^ great and important
work, they are, nevertheless, constrained by a sense of duty
to many of the churches and Presbyteries in the West, which
are already auxiliary to the Board on the plan which has
been approved by the General Assembly, as well as by their
own earnest desire to pursue such a course as they deem
best adapted to secure the permanent peace and tranquillity
of the churches, to express their full conviction of the entire
inexpediency of attempting to organize such a united agency
in the West." — See 'pamiMet just referred to, 'page 29.

This resolution was followed by a statement of the reasons
for deeming the union proposed inexpedient, which is too
long to be inserted here.

This official reply of the Executive Committee of the Board
of Missions to the communication of the Committee of the
Presbytery of Cincinnati, led to the publication in the Cin-
cinnati Journal, in the months of Dec. 1830, and Jan. 1831,
of six letters from the Corresponding Secretary of the Ame-
rican Home Missionary Society, entitled, "A Plea for Union
in the West." To these letters the Board of Missions made
an official reply, dated March 2d, 1831.

These documents are too long to be quoted entire. Those
of our readers who are desirous of gaining a thorough knowl-
edge of this controversy, we refer to these documents.

Only a few months after Dr. Wilson signed the letter of
the Committee of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, of which he
was Chairman, addressed to *'the Secretary of the Assem-
bly's Board of Missions," urging it to form a union with the
American Home Missionary Society, he issued a pamphlet,
in which he attempted to support the following propositions
against the Society.

" 1st. The Lord Jesus Christ has committed the manage-
ment of Christian Missions to His Church.

** 2d. The Presbyterian Church being one great family of

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 99

the church of Jesus Christ, is, by her form of government,
organized into a Christian Missionary Society.

*' 3d. The American Home Missionary Society is not an
ecclesiastical, but a civil Institution.

*' 4th. By interference and importunity she disturbs the
peace, and injures the prosperity of the Presbyterian
Church."

At the meeting of the General Assembly the ensuing May,
the subject of union between its Board of Missions and the
American Home Missionary Society was introduced. After
considerable discussion the following minute was adopted,
viz. : —

" In view of existing evils resulting from the separate ac-
tion of the Board of Missions of the General Assembly and
the American Home Missionary Society, the General Assem-
bly recommend to the Synods of Ohio, Cincinnati, Kentucky,
Tennessee, West Tennessee, Indiana, and IHinois, and the
Presbyteries connected with the same, to correspond with
each other, and endeavor to agree upon some plan of con-
ductmg Domestic Missions in the Western States, and report
the result of their correspondence to the next General As-
sembly : it being understood that the brethren in the West
be left to their freedom to form any organization which in
their judgment may~best promote the cause of missions in
these States ; and also that all the Synods and Presbyteries
in the valley of the Mississippi may be embraced in this cor-
respondence, provided they desire it." — Minutes of the Assem-
bly oflS3l,2Mge 189.

Conformably with this resolution a convention from twenty
Presbyteries met in Cincinnati, in the month of November
next ensuing. A majority of the convention decided against
a united agency of Home Missions for the West, and in favor
of " the General Assembly's mode of conducting missions."
Of this decision the minority complained. They published
" A report to the Presbyteries in the valley of the Mississip-
pi ; " likewise calling " the attention of the General Assembly

100 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

of the Presbyterian Cluircli to some facts connected with the
business of the said Convention." In their report they state
that the Synod of Pittsburg (not named in the resolution of
the Assembly) had "a controlling influence in the Conven-
tion." They say, *' The votes of that Synod went together,
and carried every question which they were pleased to ap-
prove ; and particularly in regard to several efforts at com-
promise, that Synod determined their rejection, whereas a
decided majority of votes from the suffering Synods were in
their favor." They also complained that *' the oflScial influ-
ence of the Board of Missions " was employed " to prevent
union in the West," whereas the compromise of the previous
Assembly left the brethren in that region to their own free-
dom respecting it.

This determined opposition to the A. H. M. Society
hastened the general controversy respecting the most eligible
method of conducting the various benevolent operations of
the church. Most who were in favor of conducting them by
boards, under the direct and exclusive control of the judica-
tories of the Church, especially of the General Assembly,
became more decided and zealous in the support of their pe-
culiar policy, and increasingly hostile to the operations within
the bounds of the Presbyterian Church, of societies organized
and conducted upon the voluntary principle. " The Western
Foreign Missionary Society" had been organized a short time
before, " within the bounds of the Svnod of Pittsburjx, under
the auspices of that body ; having as its formal patrons, all
the Presbyteries composing that Synod, together with some
Presbyteries belonging to other Synods." This, the most
zealous and bigoted friends of ecclesiastical organizations,
wished to place under the care of the General Assembly.
Some, however, who in the main agreed with them, were not
at that time in favor of a Board of Foreign Missions under
the control of that body. Tlie A. B. C. F. Missions had
been engaged in this work about twenty years, had conduct-
ed it with great wisdom and efflciency, and was firmly fixed

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 101

in the affections of many friends of missions in tlie Presbyte-
rian Churcho Many who were in favor of the Boards for
promoting other objects of Christian benevolence then under
the control of the Assembly, did not wish the patronage
which the A. B. C. F. Missions, received from the Presbyte-
rian Church, withdrawn. As ample opportunity was afford-
ed by this Board and the Society, under the care of the
Synod of Pittsburg, to the friends of missions to the heathen
in the Presbyterian Church, to prosecute the work in accord-
ance with their own preferences, they did not deem a Board
for this purpose under the care of the Assembly, desirable.
These were the views of the venerable Doct. Miller, late Pro-
fessor in the Theological Seminary at Princeton. In his fifth
letter to Presbyterians, published in 1833, after having ex-
pressed his approbation of " the Western Foreign Missionary
Society," he remarked, " The probability is, that the Western
Foreign Missionary Society will not be placed under the
direction of the General Assembly, or attempt any resort to
that body for patronage. It would be unwise and unhappy
to introduce, into the highest judicatory of the Church,
another subject of party jealousy and party contention. Such
portions of the Church that feel friendly to its existence, and
willing to make efforts for its support, will, of course, yield it
their patronage, without impeaching the motives of those
who may choose to act otherwi^^e, and without the least un-
friendly feeling towards other institutions."

Doct. Miller's views on this subject, and those of many
others, who then agreed with him, were soon after greatly
changed. The advocates for conducting all the benevolent
operations of tlie Church by Boards under ecclesiastical su-
pervision, increased in number, and their policy became more
and more exclusive and intolerant. Hence those who were
from principle in favor of Voluntary Societies, were laid un-
der the necessity either of abandoning their conscientious
preferences or of defending them. A sense of duty con-
strained them to adopt the latter course. In order to give a

102 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

faitliful history of this controversy, however, and make our
readers acquainted with the real grounds of the passage of
those Acts by the Assembly of 1837, which rent the Church
asunder, some other extraordinary measures of the ultra
party must be noticed.

For several years previous, that of 1835 only excepted,
they had been in the minority. At the close of the Assem-
bly of that year, some of the most rigid and intolerant among
them, met for consultation. They drew up '* The Act and
Testimony," which was " addressed to the Ministers, Elders,
and private members of the Presbyterian Church in the
United States, and signed by thirty-seven Ministers and
twenty-seven Elders."

This document is too long to be inserted entire upon these
pages. A few extracts will be given, by which the reader
may judge for himself of its spirit, tendency and design :

" Brethren, beloved in the Lord : — In the solemn crisis,
to which our Church has arrived, we are constrained to ap-
peal to you in relation to the alarming errors which have
hitherto been connived at, and now at length have been coun-
tenanced and sustained by the acts of the supreme judicatory
of our Church.

*' Constituting as we do, a portion of yourselves, and deep-
ly 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, w^hat is worse, its corruption in all that once distinguish-
ed its peculiar testimony, 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 griev-
ances, and have not only sought in vain, but with an aggra-
vation of the evils of which we have complained. Whither,
then, can we look for relief but first to Him, who is made
Head over all things, to the Church, which is His body, and
then to you, as constituting a part of that body, and as in-

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 103

struments in His hand to deliver the Church from the op-
pression, whicli she sorely feels ?

" In the presence of that Redemer, by whom Paul adjures
us, we avow our fixed adherence to those standards of doc-
trine and order, in their obvious and intended sense, which
we have heretofore subscribed under circumstances the most
impressive. In the same spirit we do therefore solemnly ac-
quit ourselves in the sight of God, of all responsibility arising
from the existence of those divisions and disorders in our
Church, which spring from a disregard of assumed obliga-
tions, a departure from doctrines deliberately professed, and
a subversion of forms pubhcly and repeatedly approved. By
the same high authority, and under the same weighty sanc-
tions, we do avow our fixed purpose to strive for the resto-
ration of purity, peace, and scriptural order to our Church ;
and endeavor to exclude from her communion those who dis-
turb her peace, corrupt her testimony, and subvert her
established forms."

The authors of this extraordinary document, after having
thus criminated a large portion of their brethren in good
standing in the church, and avowed their purpose to do their
utmost to thrust them out of its communion, present a list
of truly formidable errors and grievous departures from its
discipline and order which they also lay to their charge, and
then close with eight recommendations to the churches, the
last of which is in these words, viz. : —

*' We do earnestly recommend that on the second Thurs-
day of May, 1835, a convention be held in the city of Pitts-
burg, to be composed of two delegates, a minister, and a
ruling elder, from each Presbytery, or from the minority of
any Presbytery who may concur in the sentiments of this
Act and Testimony, to deliberate and consult on the present
state of our church, and to adopt such measures as may b?
best suited to restore her prostrated standards."

The influence of the Act and Testimony in bringing about
the division of the church, gives it an importance far beyonci

104 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

its intrinsic merits. Respecting the controversy in regard to
ecclesiastical Boards and voluntary societies, it is silent. Not,
however, for lack of zeal on the part of its authors in favor of
the former, and for the utter exclusion of the latter, from the
Presbyterian Church, as subsequent events make undeniably
evident. They doubtless felt that the work of revolution,
(reformation as they call it), upon which they had entered
with such uncompromising pertinacity, could be most effect-
ually promoted by ringing the alarm-bell of heresy and gross
departures from Presbyterian discipline and church-order.
Should they succeed in creating a general panic on these
subjects, the entire work at which they aimed could easily be
accomplished. That this is not an erroneous and uncharitable
statement of their policy and aims, we trust, will be made
undeniably evident when we come to notice the results of
** the Act and Testimony" in the Pittsburg Convention and
the Assembly, which commenced its sessions in that city the
week next succeeding that in which the Convention met.

Those on whom this document was designed to cast odi-
um, were grieved and alarmed. They deeply felt that with
men not well-informed in regard to their real sentiments and
aims, it was calculated to make them objects of unfounded
and cruel suspicion. Existing evils in the church, which they
had hoped prudence, forbearance, and Christian love would
greatly lessen, if not remove, by the sending forth of this
document they foresaw must be increased, and that there
were just grounds to apprehend it would result in the divis-
ion of the church. Men of moderation and pacific spirit in
the party to which its authors belonged mourned over and
condemned it. They regarded it as unauthorized by the
actual state of things in the church, as revolutionary in its
character, and schismatic in its tendency. The editor of the
Western Luminary accompanied its publication with the re-
mark, " We think it due to our brethren of the ministry and
eldership of this region to state, that so far as our acquaint-
ance extends, we know of no one who holds any of the doc-

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 105

trinal views, which are justly designated as errors in the Act
and Testimony."

Our views of the real character and design of this docu-
ment are clearly presented in the following extracts from a
review of it, in *' the Biblical Repertory," whose conductors
cannot be supposed in the publication of it, to have been in-
fluenced by prejudice.

*' It would seem to be a very obvious principle, that any
individual member of a body has a right to address his fellow-
members on subjects affecting their common interests. If he
thinks that errors and disorders are gaining ground among
them, it is more than a right, it is a duty for him to say so,
provided he has any hope of making his voice effectually
heard. If such be the case with an individual, it is equally
obvious that he may induce as many as he can, to join him
in his warnings and counsels, that they may come with the
weight due to numbers acting in concert. Had the meeting
in Philadelphia therefore been contented to send forth their
solemn testimony against error and disorder, and their earnest
exhortation to increased fidelity to God and his Truth, we are
sure none could reasonably object. Their declaration would
have been received with all the respect due to its intrinsic
excellence, and to the source whence it proceeded. But
when it is propose'H to * number the people ;' to request and
urge the signing of this testimony as a test of orthodoxy,
then its whole nature and design is at once altered. What
was the exercise of an undoubted right becomes an unau-
thorized assumption. What was before highly useful, or at
least harmless, becomes fraught with injustice, discord and
division. The very design of the effort is to make neutrahty
impossible."

** Now we say, no man, and no set of men, have the right
thus to necessitate others of their own body to adopt their
sentiments auv*. recommendations, or be considered as the
abettors of errorists and anarchists. Here is one of the
most serious evils of the whole plan. It makes one a heretic

106 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

or an abettor of heresy, not for an error in doctrine, not for
unfaithfulness in disciphne, but because he may be unable to
adopt an extended document as expressing his own opinions
on a multitude of facts, doctrines and practical counsels. This
is an assumption 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 discipline, and
who differ in nothing, perhaps, but in opinion as to the wis-
dom of introducing this new League and Covenant."

" Had the ingenuity of man been taxed for a plan

to divide and weaken the friends of truth and order in our
church, we question whether a happier or more effectual ex-
pedient could have been devised.

" Is it then true that the highest judicatory of

our church has * countenanced and sustained ' the doctrine
that we have no more to do with the sin of Adam than with
the sins of any other parent — that there is no such thing as
original sin, — that man's regeneration is his own 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 ! How clear and decisive should be
the evidence of the fact, before the annunciation was made
and ratified by the signatures of such a number of our best
men ! Surely something more than mere inference from acts
of doubtful import, should be here required. . . . We have
not the least idea that one tenth of the ministers of the
Presbyterian Church would deliberately countenance and
sustain the errors specified."

When speaking of the resolutions contained in the memo-
rial presented to the Assembly, condemning these errors, the
reviewers say, *' Instead of wondering that a majority of the
Assembly did not vote for them, we Avonder that any con-
siderable number of voices were raised in their favor, so
various are the errors they embrace, and so different in de-

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 107

gree ; some of tliem serious heresies, and others opinions (at
least as we understand tlie resohitions) which were held and
tolerated in the Synod of Dort, and in our own church from
its very first organization. Is it to be expected that at this
time of the day, the Assembly would condemn all who do
not hold the doctrine of a limited atonement?"

Here is a concession, which ought not to be passed over
unnoticed. It is a full admission of the truth of all that has
been stated on previous pages of this narrative, concerning
the adopting act of 1*729 and the tolerant principles of
American Presbyterianism in the early periods of its history.
Then, according to the testimony of the reviewers, diversity
of views on some points of doctrine, was tolerated, among
which, was the doctrine of general atonement. Provided men
received the Confession of Faith as containing the system of
doctrine taught in the Scriptures, they were accouted sound
Presbyterians, though they differed respecting some points
of minor importance from their brethren, who received it in
all its details according to the most rigid interpretation of
its language. Subsequently the reviewers say,

*' We cannot but regard, therefore, the recommendation of
this document, that churches and ministers consider certain
acts of the Assembly unconstitutional, as a recommendation
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." In a note, however,
the reviewers 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, however, very dis-
tinctly avow their desire to effect a division of the Church."

Of the recommendations of the Act and Testimony, they
speak in terms of decided disapprobation. They say, " The
point now before us, however, is the true nature of its re-
commendations. We say they are extra- constitutional and
revolutionary, and should be opposed by all those who do

108 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

not believe that the crisis demands the dissolution of the

Church We do not believe that any such crisis

exists." — Copied from the New York Obstrcer of Novemher
15th, 1834.

The limits to which we are confined, forbid further ex-
tracts from this document. Those which we have made, are
quite sufficient to enable the reader to form an accurate
judgment of its spirit and design. The Princeton reviewers
cannot be supposed to have looked upon it with too unfavor-
able an eye. The say, it is *' fraught with injustice, discord
and division; — its recommendations are extra- constitutional
and revolutionary; — division is its tendency and aim."

How surprising and deeply to be regretted is it that the
Princeton fathers and brethren, and many others, who, when
the Act and Testimony first appeared, agreed with them re-
specting its real character and design, soon after aided in
carrying out its revolutionary and divisive measures !

Having shown in what light the Act and Testimony was
viewed by the best men of the party to which its author and
signers belonged, it may be well to notice the opinions
. which were formed of it by other denominations. How the
Congregationalists of New England regarded it, is sufficiently
manifest from the following extracts from a review of it in
the 'Zth vol. of the Quarterly Christian Spectator, published
in New Haven, Con.

** What then is this Act and Testimony ? It is a new
* Confession of Faith,' or a recently invented test of orthodoxy,
agreed upon, subscribed, and published, by thirty- seven
ministers, and tw ntj^-seven ruling elders of the Presbyterian
Church, at the close of the last General Assembly, in Phila-
delphia. . . . ! The introduction does not abound in the
qualities of conciliation, which some masters of rhetoric tell
lis, ought to be prominent in this part of a discourse. It is
more in keeping with the habits of a western liuntsman ; for
it takes the beast by the horns, at tlie very outset of the bat-
tle. Or, to pass by one bold stride from the wilderness to

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 109

the ocean, these * Act and Testimony' brethren are no sooner
embarked, than they nail the flag of nuUification to the mast.
It cannot for a moment be admitted that the Presbyterian
Church' in this country, is in a condition to merit the sweep-
ing denunciation Avhich breathes, or rather thunders, in the
first 'sentence of this manifesto."

The reviewers having stated some of the principles of
Presbyterian Church government, say,

" Let the * Act and Testimony,' then, be arraigned at the
bar of these principles, and have a fair trial, and receive a
righteous sentence. The subscribers of this document beirin
by a practical renunciation of their whole system; and if
their solemn manifesto proves anything, 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 de-
linquents, whether the peccant General Assembly, or minis-
ters suspected of heresy. And Avho constitute this new
Presbyterial court ? The answer may be given in their own
words, — ' The ministers, elders, and private members of the
Presbyterian Church of the United States. . . .' To this
new tribunal they appeal, from * the supreme judicatory' of
their Church. And yet these brethren love ' the good old
way,' and dread Innovation ! And this ground they have
assumed, deliberately and systematically, throughout this
whole document. In the face of the constitution of their
Church, they have called a convention to be held in Pitts-
burg, on the second Thursday in May, 1835."

"The subscribers of this document avow their 'fixed' ad-
herence to their 'standards' of ecclesiastical 'order ;' Avhile
the very document in which they make this profession, is,
both in essence and action, at war with the whole system.
They acquit themselves of all responsibility, for the 'subver-
sion of FORMS publicly and repeatedly approved;' while
they are subverting those very 'forms' themselves. They
tell us that they are laboring for the restoration of * scriptu-

110 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

ral order ' to the Cluircli ; and yet they attempt that refor-
mation by means which contravene their own notions of ec-
clesiastical organization. They intend, if possible, to exclude
from the Church, those who ' subvert her established forms ;*
and yet, in compassing this end, they themselves perpetrate
the act of subversion. They believe that the form of govern-
ment of the Fresbyterivn Church^ accords with the will of
God, and deprecate everything that ' changes its essential
charcater ;' while, in their practice, they are fast verging to
Congregationalism — a form of government at which they
almost instinctively shudder. They do ' love the constitu-
tion ' of their Church, ' in word,' if not * in deed ;' they * ven-
erate its peculiarities/ because they exhibit the rules by
which God intends the affairs of His Church on earth to be
conducted; but, as the 'peculiarities' of this organization,
embracing no other tribunals, advisory or compulsive, than
Church-Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assem-
bly, do not quite answer their revolutionary movements, they
intend to recrulate the afifairs of the Church, at least till
things assume a better posture, by another system."

This notice of the ''Act and Testimony" is not a digres-
sion from the history of the controversy respecting voluntay
societies and ecclesiastical boards. This document had an
important influence upon the action of the Pittsburg Con-
vention and of succeeding assemblies, concerning it.

ASSEMBLY OF 1835.

This Assembly met in Pittsburg. It was preceded by
the meeting of the Convention, called by the recommenda-
tion of the " Act and Testimony." By the untiring exer-
tions of the signers of this document and the aid of the Con-
vention, they succeeded in securing a majority favorable to
their views in the Assembly, and in controlling its proceed-
ings. The Convention prepared a memorial to be presented
to it, which is too long to be inserted entire. The substance

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. Ill

of tlic grievances of wliicli they complain is contained in the
following specifications, viz. : —

1. That the last General Assembly had denied to Presby-
teries the right of re-examining men, applying to them for
admission from other Presbvterics and foreimi bodies.

2. That the Assembly had denied the right of Presbyte-
ries to censure "a printed pubhcation, irrespective of its au-
thor."

3. That the Assembly had sanctioned the erection "of
Presbyteries and Synods upon the principle of elective affin-
ity." '

4. That the Assembly allowed the American Home Mis-
sionary Society to operate within the bounds of the Presby-
rian Church.

5. That the Church did not take the exclusive control of
the education of her c mdidates for the ministry, but suffered
it to be done in part by a voluntary society, not responsible
to her judicatories.

6. That "the Plan of Union," formed in 1801, between
the General Association of Connecticut and the General As-
sembly, was fraught with evil to the Presbyterian Church.

7. That " the Plan of Union and Correspondence with the
Congregational associations of New England and with other
Churches" was adverse to her interests.

8. That the General Assembly had not been sufficiently
zealous in guarding the doctrinal purity of the Church.

The committee of the Assembly to whom the memorial
containing these complaints was referred, brought in a report
decidedly favorable to the memorialists. The Assembly de-
cided that " it is the right of every Presbytery to be entirely
satisfied of the soundness in the faith of those ministers who
apply to be admitted into the Presbytery as members ;
that it is the right of any judicatory of our Church to take up,
and, if it see cause, to bear testimony against any printed
publication which may be circulating within its bounds, and
which, in the judgment of that judicatory, may be adapt( d

112 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

to inculcate pernicious errors, whether the author be living
or dead ; that the erection of church courts, and especially
of Presbyteries and Synods, on the principle of * elective
affinity,' is contrary both to the letter and spirit of our con-
stitution, and opens a wide door for mischiefs and abuses of
the most serious kind." They likewise ordered the Synod
of Delaware to be dissolved at and after the meeting of the
Synod of Philadelphia, in the ensuing October, and " an-
nexed to the Synod of Philadelphia." This order, if exe-
cuted, would throw the Assembly's second Presbytery back
into that Synod.

The Assembly refused to carry out the policy of the Con-
vention respecting voluntary societies. They said, " it is not
expedient to attempt to prohibit, within our bounds, the
operation of the ''Home Missionary Society,' or of the 'Pres-
byterian Education Society,' or any other voluntary associa-
tion not subject to our control."

They recommended that no more churches be formed in
the Presbyterian connection under the Plan of Union of 1801,
but were not in favor either of terminating or modifying
" the plan of correspondence with the associations of Con-
gregational brethren in Nevf England."

The Assembly also bore its testimony against ** Pelagian or
Arminian errors" and enjoined upon all its "Presbyteries and
Synods to exercise the utmost vigilance in guarding against
the introduction and publication of such pestiferous errors.'*
— See Minutes of the Assembly, fages 27-30.

An overture, *' relative to Foreign Missions," was likewise
presented to the Assembly. The Committee to whom it was-
referred, '* reported," and their report was accepted and
adopted, and is as follows, viz. : —

" The Committee on the papers submitted to them in re-
lation to the Foreign Missionary Society, recommended the
adoption of the following lesolutions, viz.. : —

" I. Tliat it is the solemn conviction af this General Assem-
bly that the Presbyterian Church owes it a.s a sacred duty t€>

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 113

her glorified Head, to yield a far more exemplary obedience,
and that in her distinctive character as a church, to the com-
mand, which He gave at his ascension into heaven, — * Go ye
into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.' It
is believed to be amono; the causes of the frowns of the jxreat
Head of the Church, which are now resting upon our beloved
Zion, in the declension of vital piety, and the disorders and di-
visions which distract us, that we have done so little, — compa-
ratively nothing — in our distinctive character as a Church of
Christ, to send the Gospel to the Heathen, the Jews, and the
Mohammedans. It is regarded as of vital importance to the wel-
fare of our church, that Foreign as well as Domestic Missions
should be more zealously prosecuted, and more liberally pa-
tronized ; and that as a nucleus of Foreign Missionary ef-
fort and operation, the Western Foreign Missionary Society
should receive the countenance, as it appears to us to merit
the confidence, of those who cherish an attachment to the
doctrines and order of the church to which we belontj.

*' II. Resolved, That a Committee be appointed to confer
•with the Synod of Pittsburg on the subject of a transfer of the
supervision of the Western Foreign Missionary Society, now
under the direction of that Synod, to ascertain the terms on
which such transfer can be made, to devise and digest a plan
of conducting ^'oreign Missions under the direction of the
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, and report
the whole to the next General Assembly." — Minutes of the
Assembly, page 31.

On the afternoon of the last day of the sessions of the
Assembly, when, as has since been ascertained, less than one
third of the members of the Assembly were present, this
Committee made their report, and the following resolution was
adopted, viz, : —

" Resolved, That the Committee appointed to confer with
the Synod of Pittsburg, on the subject of a transfer of the
supervision of the Foreign Western Missionary Society to the
General Assembly, be authorized, if they shall approve of

114 KKAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

said transfer, to ratify and confirm the same witli the said
Synod, and report the same to the next General Assembly."
— Minutes of the Assembly, page 33.

The next documentary notice which we have of this
transaction, is contained in the published account of the
Meeting of the Synod of Pittsburg, at Meadville, October,
1835. It is as follows : —

" A committee, appointed for that purpose by the last Ge-
neral Assembly, submitted the following
Terms of agreement between the Committee of the General
Assembly and the Synod of Pittsburg, in reference to the
transfer of the Western Foreign Missionary Society.

" 1. The General Assembly will assume the supervision and
control of the Western Foreign Missionary Society from and
after the next annual meeting of said Assembly, and will
thereafter superintend and conduct, by its own proper autho-
rity, the work of foreign missions of the Presbyterian church
by a board especially appointed for that purpose, and directly
amenable to said Assembly. And the Synod of Pittsburg
does hereby transfer to that bod}^ all its supervision and con-
trol over the missions and operations of the Western Foreign
Missionaiy Society, from and after the adoption of this
minute, and authorizes and directs said society to perforin
every act necessary to complete said transfer, when the As-
sembly shall have appointed its board, it being expressly un-
derstood that the said Assembly will never hereafter alienate
or transfer to any other judicatory or board whatever, the di-
rect supervision and management of the said missions, or those
which may hereafter be established by the board of the Ge-
neral Assembly.

" 2. The General Assembly shall annually choose ten minis-
ters and ten laymen, as members of the Board of Foreign
Missions, whose term of office shall be four years, and these
forty ministers and forty laymen so appointed, shall consti-
tute a board, to be styled the Board of Foreign Missions of

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 115

the Presbyterian Church in the United States ; to "svliich, for
the time being, shall be entrusted, with such directions and
instructions as may from time to time be given, the superin-
tendence of the foreign missionary operations of the Presby-
terian church, who shall make annually to the General As-
sembly, a report of their proceedings, and submit for its ap-
proval, such plans and measures as may be deemed useful
and necessary. Until the transfer shall have been completed,
the business shall be conducted by the Western Foreign Mis-
sionary Society.

" 3. The board of directors shall hold a meeting annually at
some convenient time during the sessions of the General As-
sembly, at which it shall appoint a president, vice president,
a corresponding secretary, a treasurer, general agents, and an
executive committee, to serve for the ensuing year. To the
board it shall belong to receive and decide upon all the doings
of the executive committee, to receive and dispose of their an-
nual report, and present a statement of their proceedings to the
General Assembly. It shall be the duty of the board of di-
rectors to meet for the transaction of business as often as may
be expedient ; due notice of every special meeting being
seasonably given to every member of the board. It is re-
commended to the board to hold in different parts of the
church, at least one public meeting annually, to promote
and diffuse a livelier interest in the Foreign Missionary cause.

" 4. To the executive committee, consisting of not more
than seven members, besides the corresponding secretary, and
treasurer, shall belong the duty of appointing all missionai-ies
and missionary agents, except those otherwise provided for ;
of designating their fields of labor ; receiving the reports of
the corresponding secretary ; and giving him needful direc-
tions in reference to all matters of business and correspon-
dence entrusted to him ; to authorize all appropriations and
expenditures of money ; and to take the particular direction
and management of foreign missionary work, subject to the
revision of the board of directors, 'llie executive committee

116 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

shall meet at least once a montli, and oftener if necessary ;
of whom, three members meeting at the time and place of
adjournment or special call, shall constitute a quorum. The
committee shall have power to fill their own vacancies, if any
occur during a recess of the board.

*' 5. All property, houses, lands, tenements, and permanent
funds belonging to the Board of Foreign Missions, to be con-
stituted by this agreement, shall be taken in the name of the
trustees of the General Assembly, and held in trust by
them for the use and benefit of the Board of Foreign Mis-
sions for the time being.

". 6. The seat of the operations of the Board shall be desig-
nated by the General Assembly.

" Cornelius C. Cutler,
" Chairman of the Com. of the Gen, Jssetnhly."

" These terms were accepted by a vote of the Synod ; and
the Editor of the * Preshyteiian announced, that * Of course
the General Assembly will proceed to appoint its Board of
Foreign Missions, to proceed, according to the above agree-
ment, in the work of preaching the Gospel to the Heathen.'

" The Synod of Philadelphia, at its meeting in York, about
the same date, adopted the following resolutions , viz. :

*^ Resolved, 1. That in the opinion of this Synod the Gen-
eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, is bound by every
consideration in faithfulness to our divine Master and fidelity
to our ruined world, to embark fully and immediately in the
great cause of Foreign Missions.

" 2. That the organization by that body of a permanent
board and the appointment of suitable persons for this work,
should be undertaken without delay.

"3. That the principal seat of the operations of such an or-
gmization ought to be in one of the large Atlantic cities — the
Synod v/ould suggest the city of New- York.

" 4. That the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign
Missions ought to be recjuested to transfer to the Board of

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. H?

our Assembly, when fully organized, all those stations in for-
eign lands, at which the raajojity of ordained persons belong
to the Presbyterian Church.

" 5. That members of the Presbyterian Church, who are
now in the foreign held, or who may hereafter go into it,
ought in the opinion of this Synod, unless special and extra-
ordinary reasons indicate a different course, to maintain a
direct missionary relation to the Board of their own church
when organized, and they are affectionately exhorted to the
serious consideration of this question.

" 6. That if the General Assembly should not, at its next
meeting, organize this great interest upon the general princi-
ples now exhibited, this Synod will itself, at its next meeting,
in dependence upon God, fully enter upon the glorious woi k.

** Resoli'dd, That the stated Clerk be directed to lay a copy
of the above report before the next General Assembly.

*' The foregoing * Terms of Agreement,'' &c., and also the
resolutions of the Synod of Philadelphia, were submitted to
the General Assembly of 1830, and were committed to Drs.
Phillips and Skinner, and. Messrs. Scovil, Dunlap, and Ewing.
This Committee reported as follows, viz. :

" That the attenFion of the last Assembly was called to the
subject of Foreign Missions by the following overture on p.
31 of the Minutes. [Here the report quotes the first resolu-
tion from p. 31 of the Minutes of the Assembly of 1835.]

" The Assembly feeling the force of the suggestions con-
tained in this overture, and believing it to be their most im-
portant and appro i-rlale work to spread the gospel through
the world, adopted the overture in the form of a resolution,
together with the following, viz. [Here the report quotes
the second resolution from p. 31, of the Minutes of 1835.]

*' Thus it appears tliat the proposition to confer with the
Synod, and to assume the supervision and control of the
Western Foreign Missionary Society, originated in the As-

118 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

sembly.* At that time the Western Foreign Missionary-
Society was in a prosperous condition, enjoying the confidence
and receiving the patronage of a considerable number of our
churches, having in their employ about 20 missionaries, and
their funds were unembarrassed. The committee having con-
ferred with some of the members of that Society, and finding
that the proposition was favorably regarded by them, and
indulging the hope that an arrangement might be defi.nitely
made with the Synod, at their next stated meeting, by which
the Assembly would be prepared to enter on the work at
their present sessions, brought the subject again before the
Assembly, where it was, after mature deliberation,

" Resolced, That the committee appointed to confer with the
Synod of Pittsburg on the subject of a transfer of the
supervision of the Western Foreign Mission Society to the
General Assembly be authorized, if they shall approve of the
said transfer, to ratify and confirm the same with the said
Synod and report the same to the next General Assembly.
[See Minutes for 1835, p. 33.]

*' The committee, thus appointed and clothed with full
powers to ratify and confirm a transfer, submitted the terms
on which they were willing to accept it to the Synod of
Pittsburg at their sessions last fall. The members of the
committee not being present at the meeting of the Synod,
and there being no time for farther correspondence, the
Synod (although they would have preferred some alterations
of the terms,) were precluded from proposing any on the
ground that such alteration would vitiate the whole proceed-
ings, and therefore, acceded to the terms of the transfer

* The Chairman of this Committee ought to have known that this
proposition did not originate in the General Assembly. The first of
the resolutions quoted in this report, was a transcript of a resolution
adopted by the Pittsburg Convention, * * * * *
and Dr. Phillips, who was a leading member of that Convention, was
aware that its connection with the appointment of the Committee to
confer with the Synod of Pittsburg, was at least as intimate as that
of cause and efi^ect.

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 119

which were proposed by the committee of the Assembly,
and solemnly ratified the contract on their part. Feeling
themselves bound by the same, and trusting to the good
faith of this body, they have acted accordingly, and have
made no provision for their Missionaries now in the field for
a longer time than the meeting of this Assembly ; having in-
formed them of the transfer which had taken place, and of the
new relation they would sustain to this body after their pre-
sent sessions.

"It appears then to your committee that the Assembly
have entered into a solemn compact with the Synod of Pitts-
burg, and that there remains but one lighteous course to
pursue, which is, to adopt the report of the committee ap-
pointed 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 ; conduct, which would be utter-
ly unworthy of this venerable body, and highly injurious to
the Western Foreign Missionary Society.

" The committee beg leave further respectfully to remind
the Assembly, that a large proportion of our churches,
(being Presbyterian from conviction and preference) feel it to
be consistent not only, but their solemn duty in the sight of
God, to impart to others the same good, and in the same
form of it, which they enjoy themselves, and to be repre-
sented in heathen lands by Missionaries of their own denomina-
tion! They greatly prefer such an organization as that con-
templated, and which shall be under the care of the Presby-
terian Churches, and cannot be enlisted so well in the great ,
and glorious work of sending the gospel to the heathen un-
der any other. Already, with the blessing of the Great
Head of the Church, on the efforts of the Western Foreign
Missionary Society in this form of operation, has a missionary
spirit been awakened among them to a considerable extent,

120 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

and an interest in the cause of missions been created, never
before felt by them. They have fm'nished men for the work,
and are contributing cheerfully to their support in the For-
eign field.

" As one great end to be accomplished by all who love the
Redeemer, is to awaken and cherish a missionary spirit, and
to enlist all the churches in the work of evangelizing the
world ; as everj;^ leading Christian denomination in the world
has its Foreign Missionary Board, and has found such dis-
tinct organization the most effective method of interesting
the churches under their care in this great subject ; as such
an organization cannot interfere with the rights or operations
of any other similar organization ; for the field is the world,
and is wide enough for all to cultivate ; as it is neither de-
sired nor intended to dictate to any in this matter, but sim-
ply to give an opportunity of sending the gospel to the
heathen by their own missionaries to those who prefer this
mode of doing so, giving them that liberty which they cheer-
fully accord to others : Your committee cannot suppose for
a moment that this General Assembly will, in this stage of
the proceedings, refuse to consummate this arrangement
with the Synod of Pittsburg, and thus prevent so many
churches under their care from supporting their Missionaries
in their own way. For they are unwilling to believe that
there can exist in the nineteenth century, a spirit of bigotry
and intolerance, which would interfere with the sacred liberty
of conscience, and which would seem to say to all, unless
you belong to our party, you shall not publish the glad tid-
ings of salvation through the crucified Redeemer to a dying
world. From this view of the case, they recommend to the
Assembly the following resolutions, viz.

" 1. Resolved, That the report of the committee appointed
by the last Assembly to confer with the Synod of Pittsburg
on the subject of a transfer of the Western Foreign Mission-
ary Society to the General Assembly be adopted, and that

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 121

said transfer be accepted on the terms of agreement therein
contained.

" 2. Resolved, That the Assembly will proceed to appoint
a Foreign Mission Board, the seat of whose operations shall
be in the city of New- York.

(Signed) W. W. Phillips, Chairman.

" Agreed to by the committee, excepting Dr. Skinner, who
as the minority of the Committee presented the following
report, viz.

*' Whereas the American Board of Commissioners for
Foreign Missions, has been connected with the Presbyterian
Church from the year of its incorporation, by the very ele-
ments of its existence ; and whereas at the present time the
majority of the whole of the Board are Presbyterians ; and
whereas it is undesirable, in conducting the v»^ork of Foreign
Missions, that there should be any collision at home or
abroad ; therefore

^^ Resolved, That it is inexpedient that the Assembly should
organize a separate Foreign Missionary Institution."

** The question being on the adoption of the report of the
Committee, a motion was introduced to postpone this report,
for the purpose of adopting the counter report of Dr. Skin-
ner. A long debate ensued, embracing to some extent the
merits of the whole subject; at the close of which, the vote
was taken by yeas and nays, when it appeared that there
was a majority of one against the postponement. This has
been regarded by some as exhibiting ' a majority of one in
favor of an ecclesiastical organization.' We are assured,
however, that more than one who voted against the post-
ponement, voted, on the final question, to reject the plan
proposed by the Committee. They voted against the post-
ponement, because they preferred to meet directly the report
of the majority of the Committee, and reject it at once.

** On a subsequent day, the question was resumed, and
after a renewed and animated debate of several hours, the

122 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

plan proposed by the Committee was rejected by a vote
of 111 to 106, eibibiting a majority of live against the at-
tempted organization. Against this decision, the following
protest, penned by Dr. Miller, and signed by himself and
eighty-one other members of the Assembly, containing a
summary of the reasons which had been previously urged
in favor of the formation of the proposed Board, was entered
on the Minutes : viz.

" The undersigned would solemnly protest against the de-
cision of the General Assembly, whereby the report of the
committee of the last General Assembly respecting the
Western Foreign Missionary Society was rejected : for the
following reasons, viz.

" 1. Because we consider the decision of the Assembly in
this case as an unjustifiable refusal to carry into effect a
solemn contract with the Synod of Pittsburg duly ratified
and confirmed under the authority of the last Assembly.

" 2. Because we are impressed with the deepest conviction
that the Presbyterian Church, in her ecclesiastical 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 cause,
without the establishment of a missionary board by the Gen-
eral Assembly. It is evident that no other ecclesiastical
organization by fragments of the church can be formed,
which will unite, satisfy, and call forth the zealous co-opera-
tion of those in every part of the church who wish for a
general Presbyterian Board.

" 4. Because while the majority of the Assembly acknow-

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 123

ledge that ihey 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 accord
to us a similar and equal privilege ; thereby, as we conceive,
refusing that which Avould have been only just and equal,
and rejecting a plan which would have greatly extended the
missionary spirit, and exerted a reflex beneficial influence on
the chuj dies thus indulged with a board agreeable to their
views.

"5. Because to all these considerations, urged with a so-
lemnity and affection, the majority of the Assembly were
deaf, and have laid us under the necessity of protesting
against their course ; and of coqi plaining that we are denied
a most reasonable, and, to us, most precious privilege, and
of lamenting that we are laid under the necessity of resort-
ing to plans of ecclesiastical organization, complicated, incon-
venient, and much more adapted, on a variety of accounts,
to interfere with ecclesiastical harmony, than the proposed
board could have been,

''Pittsburg, June 9th, 1836.

" To this protest. Dr. Peters, as Chairman of the Com-
mittee appointed for that purpose, presented the following
answer, which was adopted by the Assembly, and entered
on the Minutes : viz.

" In answer to the protest of the minority of the General
Assembly on the subject of Foreign Missions, the majority
regard it as due to the churches and the friends of missions
generally, to state some of the grounds on which they have
declined to carry into effect the arrangement adopted and
reported by the committee of the last General Assembly, in
regard to the Western Foreign Missionary Society.

" We are of opinion,

"1. That the powers intended to be conferred upon the
above committee by the last Assembly, to ratify and confirm

124 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

the transfer of the said society from the Synod of Pittsburg
to the General Assembly, on such terras as the said commit-
tee might approve, are altogether unusual and unwarranted ;
and especially that it was indiscreet and improper for that
Assembly to attempt to confer such unlimited powers 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 Assembly, when more than one half of the
enrolled members 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 powers
supposed to be conferred on them, to incorporate in their
agreement with the Synod of Pittsburg the condition, that
the supervision of the missions of the Missionary Board
intended to be organized should never be alienated by the
General Assembly, thus endeavoring to bind irreversibly all
future assemblies by the stipulations of that committee.

"3. It is, therefore, our deep conviction that it was the
duty of this Assembly to resist the unwarrantable and extra-
ordinary powers of the above committee, and to reject the
unreasonable condition of their contract with the Synod of
Pittsburg.

"4. It is our settled belief that the church is one by divine
constitution, and that the command is of universal obligation :
* Let there be no divisions among you,' and that whatever
advantages or disadvantages may have resulted from the
division of the church into numerous denominations, with
conflicting opinions, it cannot be our duty, as Christians, to
perpetuate and extend these divisions by incorporating them
in our arrangement to spread the Gospel in heathen
lands. We cannot, therefore, regard the decision of the As-
sembly in this case, as a refusal to obey the command of the
Great Head of the church to preach the gospel to every crea-
ture. That command, as we understand it, is not to the
Presbyterian Church in her distinctive ecclesiastical capacity.

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 125

but to the whole church, to tlie collective body of Christ's
disciples, of every name. It was that they may the more
effectually obey the above command, by uniting with chris-
tians of other denominations in the noble work of foreio-Q

o

missions, that the Assembly declined to carry into effect the
proposed organization restricted to the Presbyterian Church.

** 5. We do not agree with the protestants in the opinion
that the resources of any part of the Presbyterian Church
* cannot be called into action in the missionary cause without
the establishment of a Missionary Board by the General As-
sembly.' The history of missionary operations in this and
in other countries furnishes ample evidence that the energy
and zeal of christians in the spread of the gospel are much
more effectually enlisted, and their liberality 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 gospel of the blessed God. It is
our settled belief that societies formed on these principles,
and including different denominations of christians, are ac-
tually performing as the proxies of the church, in the work
of missions, that which the church, on account of her exist-
ino' divisions, can perform in no other way so well. They
appear to us to have embraced the harmonizing principle
which is destined- ultimately to reunite the churches, and.
make them one, as it was in the beginning and will be in the
end.

" 6. While the majority of the Assembly acknowledge
their unabated confidence in the American Board of Com-
missioners for Foreign Missions, as fully meeting our wishes,
and affording a safe and open channel through which all our
churches may, as consistent Presbyterians, convey their con-
tributions to the cause of Foreign Missions ; we do not re-
gard ourselves as having denied, by the decision protested
against to the minority, the privilege of conducting their
missionary operations with entire freedom, on any other plan
which they may prefer. But we think it unreasonable for
6

126 REAL GROUiNDS OF THE EXCISION.

them to ask us to form, and to complain of our not forming,
by a vote of the General Assembly, an organization, the
principles of which we do not approve. We do not ask of
them to assume the responsibilities of the plan which we
prefer, and we cannot regard ourselves as chargeable with
unkindness or injustice, in having refused to assume the re-
sponsibilities of the plan which ihey prefer. If we cannot
agi'ee to unite in the same organization, for the same pur-
pose, it appears to us manifestly proper, that each party
should bear the responsibihties of its own chosen plan of
operations ; and if our brethren cannot so far commend their
principles, as to extend their ecclesiastical organizations be-
yond those '' fragments of the church" of which they speak,
they surely 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 judge themselves under " the ne-
cessity of resorting to plans of ecclesiastical organization"
which shall *' interfere with ecclesiastical harmony," the
majority cannot regard themselves as responsible for such
results. The settled belief of the majority of the Assembly
is, that the operations of the American Board of Commis-
sioners for Foreign Missions, with its numerous auxiliaries,
both ecclesiastical and voluntary, within the bounds of the
Presbyterian church, present the best arrangement for the
promotion of the cause of missions by our churches ; and it
was to prevent the ecclesiastical conflicts and divisions which
have resulted from the operations of other similar organiza-
tions, that they have thought it their duty to decline the
organization proposed. They have made their decision for
the purpose, and with the hope of securing and promoting

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 127

the union in the missionary woik which has so happily ex-
isted in former years. With these views and hopes, they
commend the cause of missions and their solemn and con-
scientious decision to the blessing of God, and pray for the
peace of Jerusalem."

" The reader is now in full possession of the history of the
proposed measure and its rejection, as far as it may be gath-
ered from the Minutes of the two General Assemblies before
which it was urged." — See Plea for Voluntary Societies,
2Mges 35-47.

Ample as is the proof now before our readers, of the in-
fluence of the exclusive and intolerant views and pohcy of
the advocates of Ecclesiastical Boards in bringing about the
division of the Church, it is but a part of the sum total by
which the fact may be established.

At their signal defeat in the Assembly of 1836, the ultra-
ists were far from a submissive spirit. The most intolerant
among them undoubtedly hoped to secure the condemnation
of Doctor Beecher and Mr. Barnes, and the ratification of the
agreement respecting the Western Foreign Missionary Soci-
ety between the Assembly of the previous year and the
Synod of Pittsburg, and thereby awe those who difl"ered
from them into submission. Had their hopes been reahzed,
they would have- had the whole Church committed to the
principle of Ecclesiastical Boards.

Before the close of the Assembly they gave unmistakable
indications of their determination not to submit to its de-
cisions. The evening previous to the close of its sessions,
they held a private meeting in the basement of the Rev. Mr.
Blythe's church. It was ascertained on authority fully en-
titled to credit, that at that meeting the subject of a division
of the Church had been discussed. A convention, similar to
the one held in Pittsburg the year previous, was proposed
for effecting it. " This, however, was objected to by some
of the more cautious, and, at their suggestion, after consid-
erable discussion, it was agreed that it would be much the

128 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

wisest plan to appoint a confidential committee of corre-
spondence, to write to such ministers and elders in all parts
of the Church as were known to sympathize with them, and
urge them to use all their influence to secure the appoint-
ment of such delegates to the next Assembly, as might be
depended on to favor the views of the present minority.
The committee were also to be instructed to kee}:) their cor-
respondence out of the newspapers as long as possible, and
exert their influence secretly, until they should judge it ex-
pedient to avow their purpose. Then, instead of having an-
other * Pittsburg Convention ' publicly called, the prevalent
opinion was, that it would be best to have such individuals
as the committee might designate, meet at Philadelphia, as
if by common consent, a day or two before the meeting of
the next General Assembly, and there hold a conference as
to the measures proper to be adopted by the party. If it
should then appear from the report of the confidential com-
mittee, that they might calculate on a majority, they would
proceed and adopt such measures as they desired ; but if
they should find themselves a minority still, it was suggested
that they might then determine to retire from the meeting
of the majority, and call themselves the General Assembly,
and proceed accordingly."*

Immediately after the Moderator had pronounced the ben-
ediction and declared the Assembly dissolved, he "an-
nounced that all the individuals who had been present at the
meeting in the basement of Mr. Blythe's church, the pre-
ceding evening, were expected to attend a similar meeting at
the same place that afternoon at 3 o'clock."

" The meeting was convened according to his announce-
ments, but of what was said and done within its enclosures,
we are wholly ignorant ; excepting so far as its decisions have
been indicated by what has since transpired ; and this leaves
us in no doubt as to their substantial accordance with the
suggestions of the previous evening. Soon after the meeting
* Plea for Voluntary Societies, pages 165, 166.

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 129

was dissolved and the members, with others, were preparing
for their return to their homes, Mr. Witherspoon," (the Mod-
erator of the Assembly), *' remarked to a gentleman Avho
accosted him on the subject of the meeting, * The die is
cast ; the Church is to be divided.' The newspapers, also,
which are the organs of the party, have been constantly
breathing suspicion and suggesting and advocating division.
But the Confidential Committee were silent and unknown to
the public until the issuing of their pamphlet, which has
waked the party papers to a bolder tone of advocacy on be-
half of division ; and by some a convention for this purpose,
to meet immediately preceding the meeting of the next Gen-
eral Assembly, is boldly and strenuously urged." *

The pamphlet alluded to " was issued about the last of
August. It was preceded, however, by a secret circular, over
the signatures of the same * Committee,' dated New York, July
13, 1836. This circular was addressed, in a confidential way, to
numerous individuals, both ministers and laymen, supposed
to be displeased, (or capable of being rendered so,) with the
decisions of the last Assembly, and was not seen by others,
until it providentially fell into the hands of a correspondent
of the Philadelphia Observer,' by whom it was forwarded,
to that paper and pubhshed on the 15 th of September. It
asks attention to the proceedings of the last Assembly, and
concludes with a series of questions addressed to each of the
selected individuals as follows, viz. : —

* And now, dear brother, in view of the whole subject, we
ask you. What ought to be done ? That we may be put fully
in possession of your views, without at this time expressing
any of our own, we would respectfully ask you the following
questions : —

* 1 . With so great diversity of sentiment in regard to doc-
trine and order in the Presbyterian Church, can we continue
united in one body, and maintain the integrity of our stand-
ards, and promote the cause of truth and righteousness in
the earth ?

* Plea for Voluntary Societies, pages 165-167.

130 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

' 2. If you think we can, then please to say how the causes
that at present distract us can be removed.

* 3. Do you believe that there are ministers in our connec-
tion who hold errors, on account of which they ought to be
separated from us ?

' 4. If you think such errors are held, please to name them
particularly ?

* 5. If you believe that persons holding the errors you
name, ought to be separated from our communion, what in
your judgment is the best way of accomplishing it ?

* 6. It was repeatedly avowed by ministers in the last
General Assembly, that they received the Confession of Faith
of our Church only "for substance of doctrine" — " as a sys-
tem " — or " as containing the Calvinistic system in opposi-
tion to the Arminian," &c. — hence we know how much of
our Standards they adopt and how much they reject. Is
this, in your opinion, the true intent and meaning of " re-
ceiving and adopting the Confession of Faith ?"

* 7. It is believed by many that much of the evil of which
we now complain, has come upon us in consequence of our
connection with Congregational churches within our bounds,
and represented in our judicatories. We would ask you
whether, in your judgment, it would not be better for us as
a Church, to have no other connection with Congregation-
alists than the friendly one which we now have with them as
corresponding bodies ?

' You are earnestly entreated, dear brother, to give a
serious and speedy answer to these inquiries. It is of vast
importance to our beloved Church that we should have em-
bodied, as soon as practicable, the views of judicious, thorough
Presbyterians of our connection, as the best index in regard
to the course that ought to be pursued.*

" To be convinced that this letter was intended to prepare
the way for a division of the church, we have only to recur
to the pamphlet before named. Here we find the same in-

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 131

dividuals, in a little more than a month after the date of the
letter containing the above confidential inquiries, openly and
avowedly advocating division, and laboring to convince all
the disaffected that it is their solemn duty, if possible, by all
means to produce the dismemberment of all who sympathize
with the decisions of the last Assembly. They say,

* That creeds, confessions of faith, to answer their true and
legitimate purpose, must be honeslhj received. And here we
are constrained to believe is one fruitful source of our present
distractions as a church, a lack of honesty in the reception of
our standards. Some examine these standards with care —
they compare them with the scriptures of truth on whi.^h
they profess to be founded — they scan narrowly the language
used in them, and ha^dng done so, they sincerely receive and
adopt all .the doctrines they contain. Without laying any
claim to infallibility, or pretending to judge those who may
differ from them, they proclaim to the world that the Con-
fession of Faith of this Church is their confession of faith.
They feel themselves solemnly bound, as by an oath, to ad-
here to this form of sound words, and to publish no doctrines
either inconsistent or at variance with it. This course they
pursue as honest men. There are others, however, who view
this matter in a very different light, and who act a very dif-
ferent part. Although they have professed to receive our
standards in the same manner with the class just referred to,
they do not consider themselves bound by that act to receive
all the doctrines contained in them ; nor to construe the lan-
guage in which they are expressed, in the sense in which it
was manifestly employed by those who framed them.'

" Again. ' Under the name and cloak of Presbyterianism
they disseminate sentiments which lead directly to Arminian-
ism, Pelagianism and Socinianism. These are the men who,
in our judgment, have caused divisions among us — for we are
a divided church— as really divided as though we were rtiUed
by different names and existed under different organizations.

132 R^AL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

The schism has come already, and let those men who have
come into our church by professing to receive our standards,
when, in fact, they did not believe them in their plain and
obvious import, answer for it — for they are its authors." —
A Plea for Voluntary Societies, jKt^es 156, 159.

Subsequently they say, " Fathers, brethren, fellow-Chris-
tians, whatever else may be dark, this is clear, ice cannot
continue in the same body. We are not agreed, and it is vain
to attempt to walk together. That those whom we regard
as the authors of our present distractions will retrace their
steps, is not to be expected ; and that those who have hith-
erto rallied around the standards of our Church will continue
to do so, is both to be expected and desired. In some way
or other, therefore, THESE MEN MUST BE SEPARATED
FROM US." — Plea for Voluntary Societies, page 163.

We cannot more fully express our own views of the na-
ture and tendency of this whole transaction than by quoting
the following from the remarks of the Correspondent of the
** Philadelphia Observer," before referred to, accompanying
the publication of the secret circular of the confidential com-
mittee, viz. : —

*' * 2. The tendency of the letter is to invite crimination,
and to perpetuate alienation and contention. What does it
ask of each man to whom it is sent ? Does it ask him to
cherish feelings of love and charity towards his ministerial
brethren around him? Does it conjure him to seek their aid
and co-operation in endeavoring to advance the kingdom of
the Redeemer, and to promote pure and undefiled religion ?
Does it implore him to lay aside any unfounded suspicions
which he may have cherished respecting the piety, the hon-
esty, and the orthodoxy of brethren in the same communion?
No. It asks of every man to look over tlie whole ciicle of
his ministerial acquaintance ; to put his memory and his in-
vention upon the rack ; to form in his own mind charges of
heresy against ministers of the Son of God, and to report
them SECRETLY to this committee with a view to further ac-

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 133

tion. Every man to whom the letter is sent, is tenderly
invited to become a spy upon his brethren ; to give form and
substance to all his suspicions ; to put his own construction
upon his brother's sentiments ; to report them to the com-
mittee ; and to become pledged over his own hand that such
brethren ought to be cut off from the Presbyterian Church.
If thus pledged, it is assumed that he will act for it, and
vote for it, when the effort ^shall be made to expurgate the
church."

" How extensively this letter breathing suspicion, and in-
viting crimination has been circulated, no man can tell, ex-
cept the committee and they who are with them in the secret
and dishonorable plan. I have heard of it from the North
and the West. Few probably have gone East ; the South,
doubtless, is flooded. It is to be presumed, however, that
its circulation has been al least co-extensive with the sierners
of the "Act and Testimony" — for they are all pledged, and
sworn, and tried men. Yet where are they ? They are
scattered everywhere through the Church. Every minister
not in the secret has one or more of them in his neighbor-
hood, perhaps in his own Presbytery. To promote the
same object, the letters are sent to the elders of the churches
that they may become spies upon their pastors, and inform-
ers in regard to their orthodoxy. It invites to secret suspi-
cion, and secret crimination. It asks my neighbor with
whom I am associated, and who sees me every day, to be a
spy upon my movements ; and to give his own construction
to my opinions, and secretly to convey his impressions to a
distant, irresponsible committee, clandestinely engaged in
plotting the dismemberment of the Church, and overthrow-
ing the fair institutions of Presbyterianism in this land.

" ' 3. This letter contemplates movements that are an en-
tire departure from Presbyterianism ; and which, it seems to
me, involve a violation of solemn ministerial vows. Every
minister of the Gospel in our connexion solemnly promises to
adhere to the Standards of the Presbyterian Church ; and it
6#

134 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION,

is implied in those vows that he will seek no other mode of
discipline, and no other measures for opposing heresy or er-
ror than those which are prescribed in the standards. Yet
in the cases which have given birth to this letter, the regular
and prescribed modes of discipline have been pursued.
Charges have been regularly brought and tried, and after
the fullest investigations there has been an entire acquittal.
Here according to Presbyterianism and common honesty, the
matter in regard to those gentlemen is to stop. If there are
gentlemen in the Church who hold error, the way is open
for their regular arraignment, and trial, and condemnation.
The Book of Discipline prescribes the course, and the only
course which conscientious Presbyterians can pursue. But
this letter invites to a different course. It contemplates a
new measure. It asks gravely of the initiated and the faith-
ful, whether, if any such error exists as ought to exclude the
holders thereof from the Church, they know of any mode in
which the offending brother can be removed ? Why is this ?
Is not the way open? Does not the Book of Discipline pre-
scribe the mode ? Can an honest Presbyterian ask about
any other mode than that to which he has sworn, and to
which he has promised adherence ? Why then is invention
put upon the rack ? Why then do the Committee acknow-
ledge that they can tliink of no way, and invite others all
over the land to think out some new way by which they can
eject their brethren from the ministry ? The language of
this question put into plain English, is this, " We have tried
the regular steps of discipline in the Presbyterian Church,
and the system does not work to our mind. We raised the
note of alarm ; we succeeded in getting the Church excited
and distracted ; we enrolled the names of all who promised
to adhere to us ; and then, when matters were all arranged,
we brought charges against prominent men. We carried
those charges through all the regular stages, and adopted all
the means known to the Constitution. But the system did not
work to our mind. They are still in the Church. Do you

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 135

know, " dear brother," of any new way — any way unknown
to the Constitution by which those men and their friends can
be removed ? Is there any new way of attacking them, of
undermining their influence, of cripphng their usefulness, so
as to compel them to leave the Church ? It is true we have
established rules, and a regular government, and most excel-
lent standaids," and we have tried all these. But nil this
uvaileth vs nothing so long as we see Mordecai the Jew sit-
ting in the King's gate,'*

" 4. It is natural to ask who are the men who thus se-
cretly invite suspicion, and crimination, and who are aiming
at the dismemberment of the Church ?

" Foremost is the Chairman of the Committee, and one
other minister who came among us from the Seceder Church.
Not native born Presbyterians ; or not nurtured in the views
of interpreting the Standards of the Church which have pre-
vailed among us from the year 1729 — and down through all
the periods of our history till the present, they came among
us but a few years since with a few others from the same
communion, and as one of their first acts they now invite
suspicion, and crimination, and modestly demand that a large
portion of the ministers of our connection should be ejected.
Certainly the modesty of these gentlemen cannot be suffi-
ciently commended ; nor can it be deemed surprising that
they should in this letter complain of ''foreign influence,'*
and ask whether the evils which now exist have not arisen
from a *' foreign influenoe" — from our connection with the
churches of New England ? Almost forty j-ears have rolled
away since that connection was formed ; ten j^ears have not
elapsed since those gentlemen were in the Associate church.

" One other of the signers of this letter is a Professor in the
Theological Seminary at Princefon. Last fall, in the Synod
of Philadelphia, this gentlemaft used the following language,
" Let us trust the next General Assembly." If that body
shall not decide that there is error and more dangerous error
in this book (Mr. Barnes' Notes on the Romans) then my

136 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

best prayer for it shall be, ** may it never, never, meet again 1''
Yes ; if that shall be its decision, let it be dissolved into its
elements ; and while out of its scattered fragments th© gold,
and ^silver, and precious stones shall be gathered into one
heap, let the wood, and hay, and stubble be gathered into
another. If the Assembly shall take your ground we shall
be safe : but if not, I repeat the prayer, * may it never, no,
NEVER MEET AGAIN.' Report of Syuod, p. 263. This Secret
Letter is one of the means by which this prayerHs to be an-
swered.

" The name of another member of the Committee is the
Rev. William A. M'Dowell, D.D., Secretary"^ and General
Agent of the General Assembly's Board of Missions. That
his name is there isi/l be a matter of surprise and regret by
all his friends. His course of life hitherto had not been such
as to lead to the expectation that his name should be thus
recorded. It would have been predicted ten years since, nay^,
three years since, that he would have pursued a different
course ; and that from respect to his official station, or his
personal character, or following the natural inclinations of his
heart to peace, and to confidence in his ministerial brethren,
he would have frowned on a transaction like this. I venture
to predict that the time will come — and that at no distant
period — when he will look upon this act with regret.

" The name of one other gentleman is that of the Rev.
Francis M'Farland, Correspondiag Sficretary and General
Agent of the General Assembly s Board of Rducailon^ (who
has declared, over his own signature, in regard to this letter,)
that ' it was never expected to be kept secret ; it was the
full understanding of the Committee that it would be shortly
published in the newspapers ; and it would have been pub-
lished long ago, but it was the v^ish of the Committee to call
the special attention of a number of those who were known
in general, to coincide with them in opinion to these points,
which certainly could not have been so well accomplished
had it appeared first, or simultaneously in print.'

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 137

'* Here is a distinct avowal over the name of the Correa-
ponding Secretary and General Agent of the General Assem-
bhfs Board of Education that he, in connexion with other
gentlemen, had objects to be ' accomplished' by a secret cir-
cular, sent to a part of the Presbyterian Church, which
* could not so VTELL be accomplished/ had the design been
known.

" Here w^e are presented with a most remarkable fact ; and
one which demands and which will receice the attention of
the Presbyterian Churches in the land. A secret letter, in-
viting suspicion, and crimination, and tending to the dismem-
berment of the Presbyterian Church, is sent forth signed by
one Professor in the Theological Seminary, and by the two,
and only general Agents of the General Assembly. Some
reflections of serious import crowd on the mind.

" It is natural to ask whether this is the purpose for which
these gentlemen were appointed to these important offices ?
Did the General Assembly when it made or sanctioned these
appointments contemplate this as a part of their duties?
Did the Assembly suppose that they would have either the
inclination or the leisure to engage in plans contemplating
the dismemberment of the Church ? Is this the way in
which they shall fulfil their duties to the body from which
they have receiveTl their power ; and is this to constitute a
part of their reports to the next General Assembly ?

" Those gentlemen are supported from the funds of the
church, at an annual expense of not less than s'i:c thousand
dollars. Was that money contributed with the expectation
that it would be appropriated to men who would labor for the
dismemberment of the Church ? Did the General Assembly
of this year, or of any former year, make appropriations for
their salaries with the expectation that they were sustaining
men who w^ere secretly aiming at the division of the Church ?
A delicate casuist would say that it was a matter of difficult
solution to know how they could appropriate time and in-
fluence which belongs to the entire Church, and which is sus-

138 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

tained by tlie monies of the Church in other purposes than
those contemplating the training of her sons for the ministry,
or the extension of the gospel throughout the land. In what
article of these Boards, or in the ' Plan for the Theological
Seminary,' is it said that the promotion of suspicion and schism
shall be a part of the duty of the incumbents in these offices ?
" Again — These gentlemen have an official influence and
power. It has been created by the acts of the General As-
sembly, and is the property of the General Assembly. It
arises not from the moral worth of these gentlemen, how-
ever great that may be, but it arises from the fact that the
Assembly has committed to them a portion of its own in-
fluence and authority. Did the Assembly design that its
own influence should be thus employed ? Was it to pro-
mote division and alienation that they were appointed to
these responsible offices ?

" There is one other question. Can it be supposed that
the secretaries and agents of the Boards of the Assembly
are pursuing a course which is unknown to their Boards, or
which is disapproved by them ? Is it not a fair inference
that when the general agents of their Boards become thus the
advocates of schism, and lend their official influence to pro-
mote it, that this is the course also which their numerous
subordinate agents in the churches are expected to pursue,
and which they will advance ? But if this be so, then who
can follow and detect the numerous bad influences which are
now already in operation, and which have been so long pur-
sued that a public stand may now b':: taken tending to divide
and rend into fragments the Presbyterian Church in the
United States ? If this be the purpose, the action, and the
prostituted official influence of these Boards, is the preserva-
tion of the church consistent with their continued existence ?
Should the church nourish in its own bosom, and sustain by
its own authority and resources, that which is known to be
employed to rend it into fragments ?

" I ask, in conclusion, is the church always to be harassed

REAL GROUNDS OP THE EXCISION. 139

and distracted by plans like this ? Six years have rolled
away amidst suspicions, and criminations, and prosecutions,
and plans, secret and public, to rend the church in this land.
Plan after plan has been tried and foiled, and yet invention
is not exhausted. Suspicion did all it could. Crimination
did all it could. Prosecution did all it could. The 'Act
and Testimony' did all it could. God in mercy inter-
posed and saved the church from division. And now
official influence, and the names of the public officers of the
church are doing what they can secretly to accomphsh the
same end ; to recover prostrated power, or to rend the
church to fragments. In the mean time, revivals have ceased,
and the humble and the pious are weary with these conten-
tions, and the feeling of the church at large demands that the
ministers of religion should lay aside these contentions, and
give themselves to the promotion of pure and undefiled reli-
gion. The church on earth, and the church in heaven ; the
interests of religion everywhere demand, that every friend of
peace and unity should be at his post ; should oppose these
efforts at division, and fix his eye and heait on the maxim

of Paul, MARK THEM WHICH CAUSE DIVISIONS, AND AVOID

THEM. An Enemy to Schism." — Flea for Voluntary iSo-
cieties, pages 168--1'74.

Additional proof that hostility to Voluntary Societies, and
a desire to rule the Church, were the chief causes of the acts
of the Assembly of 1837, which rent the Church asunder,
will be found in the proceedings of the Convention, which
commenced its sessions in Philadelphia, the week immediate-
ly preceding the meeting of the Assembly. We present our
readers with an account of the proceedings of this body, as
contained in " the Rev. H. Wood's History of the Presbyte-
rian Controversy :"

" CHAPTER XV.

''OLD SCHOOL CONVENTION 0¥ 1837.

" This Convention, called by the Committee of the Old
School party in the Assembly of 1836, met in Philadelphia

140 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

about a week before the meeting of the General Assembly.
There were more than one hundred members in attendance.

" The first measure proposed in the Convention was, some
action in reference to ' certain judicatories' charged by com-
mon fame with heresies and disorders. The Convention 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 them. Various rumors
were communicated. And though the parties accused were
not represented, and could make no defence, yet they were
soon condemned.

*' The Convention, however, were not agreed as to the plan
which they should propose for the Assembly's adoption.
Dr. Blythe suggested the plan of citation, with a view to ex-
cision. He thought the course pursued by the Synod of
Kentucky, in the case of the Cumberland Presbyterians, the
proper one. He said : * Thirty- three or four years ago, the
Synod of Kentucky knew it to be difficult to try any man for
heresy ; but they appointed a Commission to visit the parts
where the heresy was reported to exist, to inquire and report.
The suspected Presbyteries were not allowed to sit in Synod
till the affair was settled. The Synod acted, cut off the un-
sound, and restored peace to the orthodox. Why may not
the next General Assembly do the same thing ?' 'If this
course be taken, you exclude from your judicatories those
who are charged with unsoundness until the affair is issued ;
and you gain two things — first, you put out those who trou-
ble you ; and second, you will be prepared to administer
wholesome 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 made in an orderly
manner. But if something of this sort is not done, what will
the world say ?' — See Western Presbyterian Herald, June 1,
1837.

" Dr. Junkin offered a resolution : ' That the orthodox
would agree not to go into the Assembly, unless the Synod

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 141

of the Western 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-
fers to what the Assembly ought to do. We must go to the
Assembly. We can do nothing here. I am just where I
used to be. I am opposed to violent action. Let us do
nothing which cannot be fully justified. It is vain to hope
that you can exclude the persons against whom tliese speech-
es and memorials are aimed. There is no power anywhere
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, I cannot
support them. We have no constitutional authority here.
We meet merely to consult, in the exercise of a proper right,
and to present our views to the General Assembly. But if
we take the ground that we are a part of the judicatories of
the church, and proceed to excommunicate our brethren, we
assume high judicial powers and array public opinion against
us.' * If high-handed and apparently unconstitutional meas-
ures are taken, it will greatly injure us. There is great dis-
trust as to the designs of the orthodox : it is supposed that
the friends of the constitution propose to alter the constitution.
And if the Convention resolved to set aside Synods, and ex-
communicate them, it will injure us by confirming these fears.'
— Herald, June 1, 1837.

" Mr. Breckinridge said : ' The decision on the Foreign
Missionary question of the last Assembly was an oiitrage ;
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 ngo as fully as now.' * Let it be recollected too,
that to (jtt fqjart from the unsound, is not the only thing to
be done. It must not be done on the principles which may

142 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

destroy ourselves.' *I have asked a hundred brethren,
' what is your view of getting apart?' Yet not 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 there. Let him also turn to the Voluntary As-
sociations ; I call them not benevolent, but party engines.'
* But we forget the machiner}'- that is at work against us,
manufacturing and sending out ministers so rapidly, that ^f
we simply wait, discuss and do not act, in twelve months our
case will be entirely hopeless. Some of our brethren are al-
ready clear that the present state of things is no longer tole-
rable. They will have a reform or separation.' ' What then
is to be done with such men, who are false and deceivers ?
We cannot live with them — we can have no peace with them
— they are in opposition to our principles and policy, and to
moral honesty. That we must get apart is clear. Mr.
Breckinridge 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 I hope we shall have — although I am not very
sanguine — is it not clear that men who teach doctrines con-
fessedly at variance with our standards must be cut off, and
the institutions which divide and ruin us must be destroyed ?
This is clear. Let us then determine that those bodies which
are corrupt shall be arraigned and tried. My plan would be
to cite them, bring them to your bar, get a Committee to
present the facts to the next Assembly, and you exclude
them from all power till the issue is settled.' ' But suppose
we have not a majority in the next General Assembly.
There are two propositions which may be made. 1. We
may propose an amicable division. Let us try our brethren
who say they love peace and are tired of war, and that it is
destructive of revivals — except about two months before the

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 143

meeting of the General Assembly. Well, we say so too.
We are sick and weary of their falseness and their assaults,
we want rest. 2. But suppose we cannot divide amicably.
Although we cannot see at first what to do, we must look
about for light. I come to ask you, and God the Father of
lights : let us look to him in prayer. Let us settle this, that
if the New School have the majority in the next Assembly,
we are a dead minority — not an accidental minorit}^ but
we never shall be a majority. If the last Assembly and
other Assembhes have not brought up the church to secure
a majority, all hope is gone. Yom* opponents multiply like
frogs. They 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 impossible, the imperative alternative
is separation.' ' Let us cling together and strive for victory,
or fall in the effort.' — Herald, June 1, 1S37.

" It will be seen from the debates in the Convention, that
the members aimed at one of two things : reform or separa-
tion. 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. J\Ir.
Musgrave says : * If the last Assembly and other Assemblies
have not brought jip the church to secure a majority, all
hope is gone.' The reader of this portion of the history of
the church cannot fail to see that a 2^^^^nianent majority for
the Old School was, with one portion of the Convention, the
lead ingf object in this business of * reform.^ * Let us settle
this point, that if the New School have the majority in the
next Assembly, we are a dead minority — not an accidental
minority, but im shall never he a majority.'' Whether such
measures, on the part of a minority, to gain the ascendency,
is not a reform tliat needs to be reformed, is a question to be
decided by the irapartiil reader.

'' Whilst some would have beer satisfied with a permanent
majority, others would not have been content with anything
short of a division of the church. Mr. Breckinridsce was

144 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

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 separation. He
wanted to contend — was opposed to cutting off any Synod
till tried.'— Herald, June 1, ISSY.

" Dr. Junkin said : ' We ought to have some plan. We
must not count on a majority ; let us have some settled prin-
ciples. Do not trust a New School majority to arraign and
cut off New School men, and New School Presbyteries. If
we have a majority we can do what we please ; and we know
what we shall do.' * We must be prepared for amputation,
diflficult and painful as it is.'

** The Convention found it difficult to agree upon a plan
for action, provided they should be a minority in the Assem-
bly. Dr. Junkin urged the Convention in such a case, ' at
once to bring in its ultimatum and say — we are determined
as one man, that unless this reform is immediately effected,
we will cut you off. We are the Presbyterian Church ; you
are not, but are undermining its foundations.'

" Dr. Blythe's plan savored a little more of modesty. He
hoped, ' that if the orthodox were in a minority in the As-
sembly, 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
one's plan but his own, if plan he had. He said : * We need
not detail plans for the General Assembly ; I will not agree
to make the Moderator the Dictator of the General Assem-
bly. I will go as far as any one for sound Presbyterian doc-
trine and order. But not for measures unsonstitutional, such
as the exclusion of any body regularly commissioned to the
General Assembly.'

*' After five or six days had been spent by the Convention

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 146

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 reform, this Con-
vention will 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 greatly divided in
opinion, and cannot agree in anything to be determined upon.
It will moreover be very injudicious in us to present a re-
quest to the Assembly for important reforms, and dictate to
thera by threats what they shall do.' *

" Dr. Junkin thought that * definite, 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- Presbyterian party from the Presbyterian
Church.'

" * Dr. Wilson objected to the word * Pelagian,' in the
amendment. In all the charges for false doctrine which he
had framed, he had never accused any man of Pelagianism.
There is a great deal of semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism
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 operandi of the separation. This is the last Conven-
tion I shall ever attend if I live to fourscore. But I mean to
know before I leave this Convention what the Old School are
to do.'

" Mr. Brown said : ' I will not consent to menace the Gen-
eral Assembly. It is utterly out of place for us to decide 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 us,

146 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

and a new General Assembly is formed out of the orthodox
portion of the church, still the whole afifair has a most irregu-
lar orif^in.'

" In the discussions of the general questions of Reform or
Separation, a multiplicity of subjects was introduced — the
heresies and disorders of certain bodies, plans of union, Con-
gregationahsm, Hopkinsianism, New Havenism, Abolition,
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 to other voluntary societies.

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

" Mr. Pkimer said : * There has been no evidence furnished
to my mind that the bodies here aimed at have done wrong.
The improprieties are the improprieties of the agents.'

•' Mr. Smyth of Charleston, said : * If the language of the
amendment be right, as respects the Am. B. C. F. Missions,
it is equally applicable to the agents of the Western Foreign
Missionary Society, (Old School,) for the agents of that
Board have inteifered with us.'

" Mr. Engles said : ' In the station which I occupy, I have
had access to a number of facts illustrating the influence of
Voluntary Associations on the controversies of the Presby-
terian 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 feel-
ing. Notwithstanding the explanations that have been given
of this amendment, it implies strong censure. Of all the so-
cieties meant 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 Sunday School Union and the Tract

REAL GROUlXDS OF THE EXCISION. 147

Society are much more so, if they are to be held responsible
for the doino;s of their accents.'

" The Convention at la:st agreed upon a Memorial to the
General Assembly. It was presented to the Convention by
Mr. Breckinridge, the author of the Act and" Testimony, and
is much in character with that document, though prepared
with more caution. It treats, 1. 'In relation to doctrine.' 2.
* In relation to church order.' 3. ' In relation to discipline.'
4. 'Method of Reform." — Wood's History of the Fresby-
terian Conlroversy, pages 101-108.

The documentary evidence of a spirit of intolerance and
determination to govern the church on the part of our
exscinding brethren may be summed up in few words.
They have departed from the tolerant principles and
spirit of American Presbyterianism as set forth in the adop-
ting act of 1729, by requiring an assent to all the minute
details of the Confession of Faith, according to their inter-
pretation of its language. By the Act and Testimony, sent
out in 1834, by the acts of the Convention in Pittsburg,
the ensuing May, the secret circular and pamphlet, sent out
by " the Confidential Committee," appointed at the secret
meeting, held in the Rev. Mr. Blythe's church in Pittsburg
in 1 836, and by the Convention held in Philadelphia in 1 837,
the ruling spirits of-the revolutionists,' have furnished a mass
of evidence, which it would require no small amount of
prejudice and credulity to set aside, of their determination
to prevent the operation of the Voluntary Societies in the
Presbyterian Church, and govern her counsels. These were
unquestionably the real reasons of the acts of the Assembly
of 1837, which rent the church asunder. The truth of this
statement is fully established by their own admissions and
avowed purposes.

In 1831, soon after the unavaihng effort to prevent the
settlement of the Rev. Albert Barnes over the 1st Presby-
terian Church in Philadelphia, Doct. Green published three
numbers in " the Christian Advocate," entitled, " The Present
State of the Presbyterian Church." In the first number we

148 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

find the following language : " 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, iheir injiuence in the
General Assembly \i'A\ forever afterward be subordinate, and
under ^ control ; and we are willing that all parties should
know that such is our con\action." There is no ambiguity
in this language. It is a frank admission on the part of
the writer that the chief ground of his fears respecting the
church was, that the Old School Presbyterians were about to
lose forever their controlling influence in the Assembly.

In his second number he complains that " preconcerted
operations and arrangements " had been made by those
whom he opposed, to secure a majority in the Assembly, and
at the same time admits that his own party had done the
same thing. He says, " They had themselves made some
exertions to secure a return of such members to the Assem-
bly as they believed would favor their cause ; and they did
not doubt that their opponents had done the same. But
that such an extended, active, and systematic combination
had been entered into against them, was as perfectly unknown
and unapprehended^by them, till it began to develop itself in
the choice of a Moderator, as if the thing had been itself an im-
possibility. In military phrase, they had been completely out-
generalled, and were taken perfectly by surprise."

Were this statement accordant with fact, unless the Doc-
tor were prepared to condemn his own party for the exer-
tions which he admits they made to secure a majority in the
Assembly, we see not for what those whom he so severely
censures merit his crimination, unless it be that they made
greater exertions and succeeded. It would seem that in the
Doctor's judgment, it was not the nature, but the amount of
the exertion, which they made, for which he condemned
them. Their sin, in his estimation, seems to have consisted
in the fact that they put forth an amount of effort which de-
feated that made by his own party. This is a species of
casuistry to which we are not prepared to subscribe. The

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 149

fact, however, is, that no such combmation as that of which
the Doctor speaks had been formed. The " ministers sup-
posed to be imphcated by him and by the circular of the
Central Committee," published a declaration over their own
signatures, in which they say, " We think it, therefore, our
duty to the Church and to ourselves, hereby solemnly to de-
clare that no one of us knew of any preconcerted plan or
effort designed to affect the members, the character, or the
measures of the last Assembly."

We have before stated our belief that the controversy re-
specting doctrine had less to do in rending the Church asun-
der than that which related to the best means of giving the
Gospel to the world. To this fact, the leaders in the so-
called measures of reform give their decided testimony. The
Doctor, in his second number on the state of the Church,
when speaking of the special cause of the excitement in the
Assembly of 1831, says, "It is not the case of Mr. Barnes.
That case was indeed made an adjunct and 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 purpose 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.*^ Subsequently he remarks, " In stating
the immediate exciting causes of the lamentable divisions,
controversies, and alienations, which mark the present state
of the Presbyterian Church, we should not do justice to the
subject, if we did not set down as the most effective of all,
the plans, and measures, and demands of the A. H. M. Soci-
ety, and the interference of its members, both in the Gene-
ral Assembly and out of it, with the Board of Missions
formed and sustained by that judicatory, and directly re-
sponsible to it for all its transactions."

In July of the same year. Dr. Green and the Rev. Messrs.
Engles, Potts, and Winchester, and Messrs. M. L. Bevan, S.
Allen, and F, Learning, elders, sent out a circular to the
7

150 REAL GROUND'S OF THE EXCISION.

Churches, the object of which, they say, was to rouse them
" to a just sense of then- danger and their duty." In this
circular they say, " Our Board of Education and Board of
Missions must both receive a hberal patronage and a decided
support. This is essential — without this we are undone.
The voluntary associations that seek to engross the patron-
age of the Church, and have already engrossed a large part
of it, have taken the start of us in the all-important concerns
of education and of missions. They now labor to get the
whole of these into their own hands, well knowing that if
this be eflfected, they will infallibly, in a very short time,
govern the Church ; for education furnishes missionaries,
and missionaries become pastors, and pastors with their
ruling elders form Church Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods,
and General Assemblies. Our Education and Missionary
Boards, therefore, we repeat, must be sustained — must be
promptly, and liberally, and efficiently patronized, or our
Church is gone. We must take from others, so far as it is
necessary, to give to these ; and we ought to regard it as a
sacred duty to withhold our aid from all institutions that
seek to supplant or to rival these."

In 1831 the Rev. Dr. Wilson, of Cincinnati, attempted to
establish four propositions, as before stated, against the
claims of the A. H. M. Society, the last of which is in these
words : " That the A. H. M. Society, by interference and im-
portunity, disturbs the peace and injures the prosperity of
the Presbyterian Church." His professed attempt to sup-
port this proposition, he closes by saying, "Families are
divided, churches are divided, and ministers who once labored
together as true yoke-fellows, now shun each other's society.
This American Home is to Presbyterians what Campbellism
is to the Baptists. And he who can affirm that the opera-
tions of this society have not disturbed the peace and injured
the prosperity of the Presbyterian Chiu'ch, may as easily say
that the morning was never spread upon the mountains —
that the sun never shone at noon." These statements he

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 151

follows with tliG remark, " The origin, organization, and op-
erations of the A. H. M. Society prove clearly to me that
the overthrow of Presbyterianism, as it now exists, is a lead-
ing object with those who understand the whole scheme."

In the Convention, held in Philadelphia, May, 1837, Mr.
Musgrave, when speaking of the Voluntary Societies, said :
** I call them not benevolent, but party engines. But wc
forget the machinery that is at work against us, manufactur-
ing and sending out ministers so rapidly, that if we simply
wait, discuss, and do not act in twelve months, our case will
be entirely hopeless. Some of our brethren are already
clear that the present state of things is no longer tolerable.
They will have a reform or separation. Is it not clear that
the institutions, which divide and ruin us, must be destroy-
ed ?"*

" The debate on a resolution to discountenance the Home
Missionary and Education Societies showed the feelings o-f
the Convention in reference to other Voluntary Societies,

" Mr. Breckinridge moved to amend by adding * that other
Voluntary Societies, and especially the A. B. C. F. Missions,
be requested to use greater caution in respect to the inter-
ferexice by their agents, in the conti-oversies of the Presby-
terian Church. I mean this,' said Mr. Breckinridge, ' as an
indictment of the- A. B. C. F. Missions.' "f

In the pamphlet sent out by the " Confidential Commit-
tee" appointed at the recent meeting held in Mr. Blythe's
Church in Pittsburg, they say expressly — " whatever else
may be dark, this is clear, we cannot continue in the same
hoihj. In some way or other, therefore, these men must be
separated from us."

Mr. Witherspoon, the Moderator of the Assembly, when
returning from the meeting at which the Confidential Com-
mittee just alluded to was appointed, *' remarked to a gen-
tleman who accosted him on the subject of the meeting,

*n. Wood's History^ page 106,
f Ibid, page 107.

152 REAL GROUNDS OP THE EXCISION.

* the die is cast ; the Church is to be divided,' Since that,
a letter from Mr. Witherspoon has been seen, which ex-
presses the same sentiment."*

After the meeting of the Assembly of 1836, the papers,
which were in the interests of the party, openly advoca,ted
the division of the Church. '' The editor of the Western
Presbyterian Herald, (3d Nov., 1836), speaking as though
division was certain, says : * As to which way the work will
go, surely when intruders have disturbed our house, and
will neither come to order, nor quietly leave us, upon mutual
agreement, ive will inU them out as soon as we are strong
enough ; and the signs of the times are beginning to inti-
mate, that this may be sooner than any of us expected a
little while ago."f

** A Correspondent" of the Presbyterian, in speaking of
the object of the Convention, to meet in Philadelphia, May,
1837, said : " Let it be distinctly understood, that the pre-
cise object for which it is called, is to effect a division of the
Church, and to dehberate on the manner of accomplishing
that great and noble work. "J

*' The Assembly of 1837, after the excision, in their Pas-
toral Letter, say : * 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
present 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."'§

In the Convention of 1837, Mr. Musgrave said : "Let us
settle this, that if the New School have the majority in the
next Assembly, we are a dead minority. — If the last Assem-
bly, and other Assemblies, have not brough t up the Church
to secure a majority, all hope is gone. — If the next Assem-

*Plea for Voluntary Societies, page 1G7.
f H. Wood's History, page 90.

X Ibid, page 97. § Ibid, page 98.

REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 153

bly be Old School, what shall we do ? If reform be im-
possible, the imperative alternative is separation. Let us
chng together and strive for victory, or fall in the effort."*

'* Dr. Junkin said: *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 Presbyteries. 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 painful as
it is.' "

" The Convention found it difficult to agree upon a plan
of action, provided they should be a minority in the Assem-
bly. Dr. Junkin urged the Convention in such a case, * at
once to bring in its ultimatum, and say — we are determined
as one man, that unless this reform is immediately effected,
we will cut you off. We are the Presbyterian Church ; you
are not, but are undermining its foundations.' "f

The Rev. R. L. Breckinridge, in the course of the debate
in the Assembly upon the resolutions to cut off the four
Synods, made the frank avowal, in these or words of the
same import, "Moderator, I am aware the' Constitution
makes no provision for acts like these ; but the fact is, we
have the power in our hands now, and we must use it, for
the Church will never give it to us ao-ain." This is a frank
admission of the unconstitutionality of the measure ; that if
carried, it would be an act of mere arbitrary power.

Admitting what the fathers and brethren whose language
we have just quoted, have said respecting their zeal for the
purity of the Church, from their own admissions it is evident
the chief ground of their solicitude, was the fear that the
influence of their party was ever after to be subordinate —
that they would "be a dead minority," unless something
were immediately done to prevent so dire a calamity. In
order to avert it, and secure the power for which they were
laboring, they deemed it indispensable that the operation of
*II. Wood's History, page 104. f Ibid, page 105.

154 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION.

the voluntary societies in the Presbyterian Church should
cease. To ensure this, they resolved by some means or
other, to rid themselves of a sufficient number of the friends
of these institutions, to secure and perpetuate the power of
their party and secure to their favorite organizations the
entire patronage of the Church. This is what Constitutional
Presbyterians have uniformly said was the real ground of
those revolutionary and unrighteous acts, which rent the
Church asunder. We hope we shall no longer be censured
for believing what is fully attested by leading men of their
own party.

MEASURES TAKEN BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PORTION OF THE CUURCH TO
PRESERVE ITS INTEGRITY, AND PREVENT THE ORGANIZATION OF AN

IRREGULAR ASSEMBLY. THEY SUCCEEDED IN ORGANIZING IT IN STRICT

ACCORDANCE "WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION.

To the meeting of the Assembly of 1838, both the ex-
scinders and iheiv adherents, and the exscinded, and those
who were resolved to do their utmost to redress their griev-
ances, looked forward with interest. By both parties it was
well understood that the manner of its organization must
decide whether the acts of the Assembly of 1837, by which
the four Synods were declared out of the church, and the
Third Presbytery of Philadelphia was dissolved, were to be
sanctioned, and the church permanently divided, or this sad
catastrophe prevented, and the exscinded restored to the
position which they had previously occupied. The Assembly
which thrust them out, left nothinor within the limit of their
ability unattempted for carrying out their revolutionary and
unrighteous measures. That this statement may be made
intelligible to those who are not familiar with the method of
making out the roll of the Assembly, preparatory to its or-
ganization, it may be proper to state that the commissions
are required to be put into the hands of the clerks, who are
a committee to receive them, and enter the names of the
commissioners upon the roll of the Assembly. The Assem-
bly of 1S37 required and obtained a pledge from this com-
mittee that in making out the roll of the commissioners to con-

156 EFFORTS TO SECURE A

stitute the Assembly of 1838, they would omit the names of
those from the Presbyteries within the bounds of the exscinded
Synods. This, the constitutional party, were resolved, if
possible, to prevent. Beheving the excision of the Synods
to have been an act of arbitrary power, in direct contravention
of the principles of the Constitution of the Church, they de-
termined to omit nothing which they could do with pro-
priety, to secure to the Commissioners from the Presbyteries
within the bounds of the disowned Synods, seats in the As-
sembly. Of this, unpropitious as were tlie circumstances,
they did not despair. They knew there were many excellent
men who, in church polity and doctrinal views, were sub-
stantially agreed with the exscinders, who, nevertheless, dis-
approved of their exscinding acts. These, it was hoped,
would put forth some effort to procure their repeal. It was
also hoped, some who voted, and others who at first at-
tempted to vindicate those acts, after a year's reflection,
would see and acknowledge their error, and " bring forth
fruits meet for repentance." Such were the hopes of the
members of the Convention at Auburn, New York, in Aug.,
1837. The first paragraph of their circular letter " to the
Judicatories, Ministers, and Members of the Presbyterian
Church in the United States," is in these words :

** Brethren, beloved in the Lord :
" You will perceive from the published minutes of the
Convention, that we have come mianimously to the conclu-
sion that the integrity of our church is not to be despaired of,
and that the apprehended evils of division on tlie one hand,
and the hope of deliverance on the other, together with our
solemn vows to seek her prosperity, demand our united en-
deavors to restore her peace, and perpetuate her unity. This
result has been obtained after much deliberation and prayer,
and the ^consideration of many documents and letters from
different and distant sections of the church, indicative of a
very extensive and increasing disapprobation of those acts of

REGULAR ASSEMBLY. 157

the late General Assemblyj of wliicli "we complain, as unjust
and oppressive."

The concluding language of this letter is equally pacific
and hopeful with that with which it commences. They say,
— " In a representation of the whole church, by such men as
the exigencies of her danger may convene, we cannot doubt
that the rights of conscience, and the preference of the two
great divisions of the church, may be amicably adjusted.
Nor do we believe it to be true that wounds have been in-
flicted which cannot be healed, or alienations created which
cannot be reconciled. For though we have been tried by
each other's language, our temptations and sins have not,
we trust, vacated our confidence in each other's Christian
character, or created the ranklings of a personal hostility, or
obliterated the remembrance of those years of prosperity
through which some of us have travelled from early life to
gray hairs, and the verge of heaven. And we cannot be
willing that a revolutionary revulsion of the church, so late
in time, and so near the church's glorious day, should go
down in such dark imagery upon the page of her history.
We entreat, therefore, the judicatories of the church to send
to the next Assembly those who will reverse the revolu-
tionary action begun, and by the favor of heaven, once more
pacificate the church. But should our efforts to restore the
harmonious action of our church be unavailing, it will be a
melancholy pleasure worth preserving, to reflect that we
have done what we could. Moreover, if the church must
divide, it is still important that our common Christianity, and
our institutions of civil liberty, should be rescued from the
peril and disgrace of a violent division, and that under auspi-
ces different from those that ruled in the hour of her calam-
ity, she may be peaceably and amicably divided."

In accordance with the views presented in these extracts,

from the circular letter of the Auburn Convention, and for

the purpose of securing the objects at which they aimed, on

the Monday evening preceding the meeting of the General

7^

158 EFFORTS TO SECURE A

Assscmbly, a Convention met in the First Presbyterian
Church in the city of Philadelphia, for consultation and
prayer. The evening was spent in devotional exercises, in
the presence of a large and deeply interested congregation.
In the pubhshed account of the exercises, it is stated that
** It was most evident that God was present on the occasion ;
and all felt as if such a spirit of prayer and conciliation, and
fraternal harmony and aflfection, was a token for good. Not
a word was uttered, nor an allusion made during the whole
of the services, but what was conciliating and kind." To
this Convention all the Commissioners to the General Assem-
bly were invited.

The next morning a Convention met *' for prayer and con-
sultation," in the Seventh Presbyterian Church in Philadel-
phia, to which no Commissioners to the approaching Assem-
bly were invited nor admitted, except such as were in favor
of sustaining the revolutionary measures of the previous As-
sembly.

While these two Conventions were in session, the Consti-
tutional one adopted the following resolutions, viz. : —

** Resolved 1. That while we regard with deep sorrow
the existing difficulties in our beroved church, we would
fondly hope that there are no insurmountable obstacles m
the way of arresting the calamity of a violent dismember-
ment, and of securing such an organization as may avoid
collision, and secure the blessings of a perpetual harmonious
action.

*' Resolved 2. That we are ready to co-operate in any
efforts for pacification, which are constitutional, and which
shall recognize the regular standing and secure the rights of
the entire church, including those portions which the acts of
the last Assembly were intended to exclude.

" Resolved 3. That a Committee of three be now ap-
pointed, respectfully to communicate the foregoing resolu-
tions to those Commissioners who are at present inclined to
sustain the acts of the last General Assembly, and t i

REGULAR ASSEMBLY. 159

quire whether it be their pleasure to open a friendly confer-
ence for the purpose of ascertaining if some constitutional
terms, if practicable, may not be agreed upon."*

The Hon. Willard Hall and the llev. Drs. Hill aud Fisher
were appointed a committee to communicate these resolu-
tions to the commissioners, convened in the Seventh Presby-
terian Church, for deliberation.

" It was resolved to spend a season of prayer for the
Divine blessing upon this attempt to adjust amicably the
difficulties between the two parties. All felt this to be a
most solemn and critical moment, and an unusual spirit of
prayer w^as manifest."*

On the afternoon of the following day, this committee
made their report. They were " not permitted to enter the
house where the Old School Convention was convened — they
were kept standing without for forty minutes, and were
finall}'- told by a committee appointed to confer with them,
that the subject would be presented for the consideration of
the Convention, and that the result would be communicated
in writing. The following is the communication :"

*' The Committee on the communication from the meeting
of Convention now in session in the lecture-room of the First
Church, presented the following preamble and resolutions,
which were read -and adopted, viz. : —

" Whereas, the resolutions of ' the meeting,' whilst they
profess a readiness ' to co-operate in any efforts for pacifica-
tion which ai-e constitutional,' manifestly proceed upon the
erroneous supposition that the acts of the last General As-
sembly, declaring the four Synods of the Western Reserve,
Utica, Geneva, and Genesee, out of the ecclesiastical connec-
tion of our church, were unconstitutional and invalid, and
the Convention cannot for a moment consent to consider
them in that light ; therefore,

" 1. Resolved, unanimoubly, That the Convention regard
the said overture of 'the meeting,' however intended, as
founded upon a basis which is wholly inadmissible, and as
*New York Observer, May 20111, 1838.

160 EFFORTS TO SECURE A

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 blessing of Divine Providence, establish and secure.

*' 2. Resolved, That in the judgment of the Convention, the
resolutions of the last General Assembly, which provide in
substance that all churches and ministers within the said
four Synods, which ai-e strictly Presbyterian 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 tespective locations, and that
any such Presbytery as aforesaid, being strictly Presbyterian
in doctrine and order, and now in connection with either of
the said Synods, as may desire to imite with us, are directed
to make application, with a full statement of the case, to the
next General Assembly, which will take order thereon, fur-
nishes a fair and easy mode of proceeding, by which all such
ministers, churches, and Presbyteries, within the said Sy-
nods, as are really desirous 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.'"''^

These resolutions in reply to the pacific overtures of the
Convention, sitting in the 1st Presbyterian Church, blasted
all the hopes that had been entertained by them, of an ami-
cable adjustment of the difficulties which threatened the
permanent division of the Church. Previous to the adop-
tion of these resolutions, the Convention bad resolved " that
the acts of the last General Assembly, declaring the four
Synods of Western Reserve, Utica, Geneva, and Genesee out
of the ecclesiastical connection of the said Church, be cor-
dially and conclusively sustained. "f

Their whole proceedings made it manifest as the light of
noon-day, that the only pacification, which they contem-
plated, was that of passive obedience to their rule and dicta-
tion. Nothing now remained for the Constitutional party>

* Ivew York Observer, May 20th, 1838, f Ibid.

REGULAR ASSEMBLY. 161

but to bow to their usurped and unrighteous authority, or
endeavor to secure the organization of the Assembly in ac-
cordance with the principles of the Constitution. In view of
the uncertainty of the success of the pacific overture, made
to their brethren of the other Convention, while the negotia-
tions for pacification were pending, the following resolution
was introduced and subsequently passed, with but one or two
votes in the negative, viz. :

" Resolved, That should a portion of the Commissioners
to the next General Assembly attempt to organize the As-
sembly without admitting to their seats commissioners from
all the Presbyteries recognized in the organization of the
General Assembly of 1837 — it will then be the duty of the
commissioners present, to organize the General Assembly of
1838, in all respects according to the Constitution, and to
transact all other necessary business consequent upon such
organization."*

Such was the position of the two parties when the time
for the meeting of the Assembly arrived. Those who met
in Convention in the 7th Presbyterian Church, were resolved
to sustain the revolutionary acts of the last Assembly, and
exclude from the one about to be organized all commission-
ers from the Presbyteries within ihe bounds of the disowned
Synods. Those -who met in the 1st Church, were resolved
to use all lawful measures to prevent an organization so
manifestly unconstitutional and unrighteous, and secure
one in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
The meetino: of the two conventions on the eve of the meet-
ing of the Assembly, one to sustain the revolutionary acts of
that of the previous year ; — the other, if possible, to annul
them, and secure the integrity of the Church, and public
rumor, had produced great excitement and called together a
large concourse of people. The Assembly met in the 7th
Presbyterian Church. " At an early hour the Reformers
were found in a body near the pulpit, and the two doors near
* New York Observer, May 26tb, 1838.

162 EFFORTS TO SECURE A

the Moderator's cliair, locked,"— a thing believed to be
wholly unprecedented in the annals of the Presbyterian
Church in the United States. The Commissioners, who
were opposed to the arbitrary acts of the Assembly of the
previous year, were compelled to enter the door in the rear
of the church and take seats behind their brethren, who had
taken possession of those near the pulpit.

The sermon being ended, the Rev. Doct. ElUot, the Mod-
erator of the last Assembly, announced that the General
Assembly would be constituted with prayer. After prayer,
before the Clerk had presented the roll of the Assembly, the
Rev. Dr. Patton offered the following preamble and resolu-
tions, viz :

" Whereas, the General Assembly of 183 7 adopted certain
resolutions intended to deprive certain Presbyteries of the
right to be represented in the General Assembly; — and
whereas, the more fully to accomplish their purpose, the said
Assembly of 1837 did require and receive from theu* clerks
a pledge or promivse, that they would, in making out the
roll of commissioners to constitute the General Assembly of
1838, omit to insert therein the names of commissioners from
said Presbyteries; — and whereas the said clerks, having
been requested by commissioners from the said Presbytt-ries
to receive their commissions and enter their names on the Roll
of the General Assembly of 1838, now about to be organ-
ized, have refused to receive and enter the same — Therefore,
" 1. Resolved, That such attempts on the part of the Gen-
eral Assembly of 1837 and their clerks, to direct and control
the organization of the General Assembly of 1838, are uncon-
stitutional, and in derogation of its just rights as the general
representative judicatory of the whole Presbyterian Church
in the United States of America.

"2. Resolved, That the General Assembly cannot be
legally constituted except by admitting to seats and to
equahty of powers, in the first instance, all commissioners,
who present the usual evidences of their appointment ; and

REGULAR ASSEMBLY. 1GB

that it is the duty of the clerks, and they are hereby direct-
ed, to form the Roll of the General Assembly of 1838, by
including therein the names of all commissioners from Pres-
byteries belonging to the said Presbyterian Church, not
omitting the commissioners from the several Presbyteries
within the bounds of the Synods of Utica, Geneva, Genesee,
and the Western Reserve ; and in all things to form the said
Roll according to the known practice and estabhshed usage
of previous General Assemblies."*

The Moderator declared Dr. Patton out of order, as the
first business was the formation of the Roll. Dr. Patton re-
plied that the resolutions had reference to its formation, and
that if permitted to present them, he would do so without
remark. The Moderator again declared him out of order.
Dr. Patton appealed from this decision. The Moderator
declared the appeal out of order, and refused to put it. Dr.
Patton then took his seat without readino- the resolutions.

The Clerk then read the roll of the Commissioners, omit-
ting those from the disowned Synods.

The Moderator then stated that if other commissioners
were present, whose names had not been entered on the roll,
they could then present them.

The Rev. Erskine Mason, D.D., one of the enrolled mem-
bers, then rose~"and said, " Moderator, I hold in my hand a
number of commissions which the clerks have rejected : I
now tender them to the house, and move that their names be
added to the roll." The Moderator declared the motion out
of order. Dr. Mason then appealed to the house, but the
Moderator refused to put the appeal. By this refusal, the
rights of Dr. Mason, and the rights of the house, were inva-
ded, and a question of privilege, which takes the precedence
of all other questions, and is always in order, was raised.
Decisions by the presiding officer of a deliberative body, more
arbitrary and unrighteous, cannot well be conceived. They
were in direct conflict with the 29th of the general rules,

* S. Miller's, Jun. Ileport of the Presbyterian Church case, p. 51.

164 EFFORTS TO SECURE A

for tlie government of Church Judicatories in the transaction
of their business, which is in these words, viz. :

" If any member consider himself as aggrieved by a decis-
ion of the Moderator, it shall be his privilege to appeal to the
judicatory ; and the question on such appeal shall be taken
without debate."

After Doctor Mason had taken his seat, " The Rev. Miles
P. Squier rose in his place, and said, that he had been regu-
larly commissioned from the Presbytery of Geneva, that he
had handed his commission to the Clerks, and that they had
refused to receive it ; that he tendered it to the Assembly,
and demanded his seat upon that floor. I'he Moderator asked
whether the Presbytery of Geneva belonged to the Synod of
Geneva ? On being told that it did, the Moderator said,
* We do not know you,' and Mr. Squier sat down."*

The Rev. John P. Cleveland then rose and said in sub-
stance, ** As the Commissioners from a large number of Pres-
byteries have been denied their seats in this house, and as we
have been advised by counsel learned in the law, that a Con-
stitutional Assembly must be organized at this time and place,
he trusted it would not be considered an act of discourtesy,
but merely of necessity, if we now proceed to organize the As-
sembly of 1838, in the fewest words and in the shortest time,
and with the least interruption practicable. I therefore move
that Doctor N". S. S. Beman, from the Presbytery of Troy,
take the chair." This motion was put by Mr. Cleveland and
carried, a few voices only being heard in the negative, and
Doctor Beman was declared duly elected.

The Rev. Doctor Mason and the Rev. E. W. Gilbert were
then chosen clerks. Doctor Beman then called for nomina-
tions for a Moderator. Doctor Fisher was nominated, and
chosen by an overwhelming majority. Doctor Beman then
declared Doctor Fisher elected, and resigned his place to him.
Doctor Fisher took it, and called for nominations for Clerks.
Doctor Mason and Mr. Gilbert were nominated, and elected.
* Presbyterian Church case, by S. Miller, Jun., page 80.

REGULAR ASSEMBLY. . 165

A motion was then made and carried to adjourn to the Lecture
Room of the First Presbyterian Church. Doctor Fisliergave
notice of the adjournment, and requested any Commissioners
present who had not yet handed in their Commissions, to do
so at the place and time to which the Assembly had ad-
journed.

After the Assembly thus organized had left the church,
" the Commissioners, who adhered to the acts of the As-
sembly of 1837, having with few exceptions taken no part in
the transaction, organized themselves into an Assembly, and
have subsequently taken measures to divide the Presbyterian
Church by organizing into separate Synods, Presbyteries and
Churches, such minorities in different parts of the country as
adhered to them, and when they had the majority, casting
out such minorities as adhered to this " (that is, the Consti-
tutional) "Assembly."*

These are indeed afflictive and humiliating events to be
placed upon the pages of history, but Constitutional Pres-
byterians do not feel themselves responsible for them. In
1837 they labored to prevent the passage of the exscinding
acts, and in 1838 the organization of an irregular Assembly.
Though unsuccessful in these efforts, they organized the As-
sembly in strict conformity with the Constitution, before the
exscinders organized theh's upon their new basis. This they
did in as courteous and orderly a manner as the circum-
stances admitted, but the act has been severely censured, and
even ridiculed. In the circumstances, it is manifest the As-
sembly could not be constitutionally organized without ex-
citement and some confusion, for the Moderator, Clerks, and
Commissioners, who approved and were determined to sus-
tain the acts of the previous Assembly, declaring the four
Synods out of the Presbyterian Church, were leagued to-
gether to prevent it. Any one, however, who will read with
candor the testimony of the witnesses at the trial, insti-
tuted for deciding which of the two Assemblies was consti-

* Minutes of the Constitutional Assembly for 1S39, page 59.

166 EFFORTS TO SECURF A

tutionally organized, cannot fail to be convinced tlmt the ac-
counts of the excitement and noise at the time of the oro-an-
ization, are gross exaggerations, and that a large share of
what was really objectionable is chargeable to their own
party. The fact is, the Commissioners, who were opposed
to the organization of an irregular Assembly, were laid un-
der the necessity of org-anizing one at that time and place in
conformity with the Constitution, or see it trampled upon,
and abandon their principles and their brethren, who had
been ruthlessly cast out of the Church. The latter they
could not do. Nothing therefore remained for them but to
remove the Moderator and Clerks who refused to do their
duty, and elect such to fill their places as would aid in or-
ganizing a regular Assembly. This they did, and thereby
secured such an organization.

Those who opposed it, and subsequently organized an As-
sembly on a new basis, have often asserted, but never proved
that Mr. Cleveland had no right to put the motion for Doctor
Beman to take the chair, till a new Moderator should be
chosen. If the action of Congress, in similar circumstances, is
to be regarded as valid authority, he had a perfect right to
put the motion.

*' The Twenty- Sixth Congress met on the second of De-
cember, 1839. According to" established usage, "the Clerk
of the House of Representatives takes the chair till the organ-
ization of tjie 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 represen-
atives, as their seats would be contested. Passing over these
members would probably give to the Clerk's party the balance
of power in the organization, election of speaker, &c. Here
business came to a stand. The Clerk was unwilling to pro-
ceed, except in his own way. On the fourth day Mr. Adams
rose and said :

* Fellow-citizens and members elect of the Twenty-Sixth

REGULAR ASSEMBLY. 167

Congress of the United States — I address rayself to you, and
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 he might put the question of adjournment.
He therefore put it ; but he gave notice that he should put
no other question. Fellow-citizens, in Avhat predicament are
we placed ? We are fixed as firml}'- and immovably as these
columns around the house. We can neither go forward nor
backward, and the Clerk tells us he will persist in both the
decisions he has made. We must organize. If there is diffi-
culty 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 Governor had excluded them, adjourn-
ed 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 doubt of their power to do it. Therefore, in sub-
mitting this proposition, I have no reference to the clerk, nor
to any opinion of his. I propose that the house itself should
act. It may, if it pleases, choose a temporary Clerk.'

*' These extracts from Mr. Adams' speech will show how
Conjxressmen 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 gentleman in the chair, when he was
interrupted by many members asking, ' How shall the ques-
tion be put V 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-
man, till the house could be organized, and a speaker ap-
pointed."

168 EFFORTS TO SECURE A

" Here is, then, a case in point. Has any one contended
that Mr. Adams had no right to put the question ? Has
any one said that the Twenty-Sixth Congress ^Yas not con-
stitutionally organized, because the gentleman in the chair
was removed and another put in his place ?"*

" And how very similar the two organizations ! The
Moderator of one body and the clerk of the other, according
to law, were acting as chairman till the organization of the
bodies, and the election of presiding officers. The chairman
of each body refuses to enroll certain members claiming seats,
with commissions in proper form. They refuse to put mo-
tions bearing upon the roll. Mr. Cleaveland in one body, and
Mr. Adams in the other, rise and call upon the members to
organize — to act regardless of the decisions of the chair, and
appoint other officers who will organize according to law
and usage. And the thing was done. There was opposi-
tion and cries of order from those who were opposed to the
organization. But the voices of Mr. Adams and Mr. Cleave-
land rose above the swelling tumult — above the cries of or-
der, the coughing and scraping of the opposition, and were
heard by all who wanted to hear."*

The Assembly organized under Doct. Fisher as Moderator
and Doct. Mason and Mr. Gilbert as Clerks, was not a dif-
ferent one, as those who trampled upon the Constitution by
refusing to enter upon the roll of the House the names of a
portion of the Commissioners, and their adherents have often
asserted, but the continuation of the one in the process of
formation, which could not be completed under its original
officers. Had their refusal to do their duty been the result
of a sudden ebullition of bad temper, — a mere temporary ex-
citement, they would soon have passed away, and with them,
the obstacles to a regular orfyanization. But it was not. It
was the result of a settled, avowed purpose to carry out the
revolutionary measures of the Assembly of the previous
year. Hence the Commissioners to the Assembly of 1838,
* Wood's History, pages 156, 157.

REGULAIi ASSEMBLY. 169

who removed those officers, and appointed others, who per-
formed their duty, and admitted all who presented Com-
missions in due form of their appointment by their Presby-
teries, to seats in the House, completed the organization of a
strictly Constitutional Assembly.

THE ASSEMBLY, WHICH HELD ITS SESSIONS IN THE SEVENTU PKESBYTERIAW
CHURCH IN 1888, WAS ORGANIZED UPON A BASIS WHOLLY UNKNOWN
TO OUR CONSTITUTION.

The Form of Government, Chapter XII., section 2d, reads
thus : ** The General Assembly shall consist of an equal
delegation of Bishops and Elders from each Presbytery. A
large number of Bishops and Elders, appointed by their res-
pective Presbyteries to attend the Assembly of 1S38, went to
the place of meeting with Commissions made out in due form,
against whom no charge of heresy or irregularty had been
substantiated or even brought. They were, it is true, from
Presbyteries within the bounds of the disowned Synods. It
has been shown, however, in a previous part of this his-
tory, that the acts of the Assembly by which they were
declared no longer in connection with the Presbyterian Church
in these United States, were unconstitutional and void.
Consequently their Commissioners were as fully entitled to
seats as those from other sections of the Church. But those
who had declared them out of the church and their coad-
jutors, had taken every precautionary measure to prevent
them from obtaining seats in the Assembly. The Assembly
of the previous year had required and obtained a pledge
from the Clerks that they would not receive their Commis-
sions. This pledge they redeemed. The Commissioners,
who held their Convention in the church in which the As-
sembly was organized, took their seats near the pulpit at an
early hour, caused the doors on each side of it to be locked,

THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY. 171

and obtained a pledge from the Trustees of the church that
no other Assembly than the one which should be organized
under the direction of the Moderator and Clerks of the last
Assembly, should have the use of the building. Had it
been their purpose to organize the Assembly according to the
Constitution, these unprecedented measures, preparatory to
its organization, would have been wholly unnecessary. Stick-
lers as they professedly were for the Constitution, in their
efforts to organize the Assembly, they utterly disregarded its
requisitions. They labored to perfect the revolution, com-
menced by the Assembly of the previous year, till the
Moderator and Clerks were removed, and the Assembly was
regularly organized by the appointment of others, who per-
formed their duty. After the Assembly thus constitutionally
organized had adjourned to the First Presbyterian Church,
they remained, and organized an Assembly upon a *' new
basis." This is evident from the report of '* the Committee on
the State of the Church," adopted by that body on the 30th
of May. This report we present entire, that our readers
may have the evidence of the truth of what we assert in
their own language. The report is as follows, viz :

*' The Presbyterian Church in the United States of Ameri-
ca finds itself, by the providence of God, in the course of
new and unprecedented events, in a position of great diffi-
culty, novelty and importance. The Church, led and sup-
ported by the God of Zion, has within the last few years
commenced a great reform, which had become indispensable
to its very existence, as organized on the principles of the
doctrine and order of its own Constitution. The General
Assembly of 1837 carried forward this reform in several
measures of great and momentous importance, for the de-
tails of which we refer to its records. The voice of the
Church, uttered in a multitude of forms, and especially by
the Commissioners to the present General Assembly, is
clearly and decisively in favor of consummating the reform
thus auspiciously commenced."

172 THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY

*' 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 de-
part from us, have, in connection with other persons not in
the communion of our Church, constituted a new ecclesias-
tical organization, which they improperly and unjustly as-
sume to call the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church in the United States of America. To meet the
present crisis at once, with the temper and sphit becoming
our high vocation, and to preserve in it, and carry safely
through it, the Church committed in so great a degree to
our guidance, in times of so much trial and disorder, the
three following Acts are now ordained and established, by
the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the
United States of America."

*'ACT. I.

"Section 1st. That in the present state of the Church,
all the Presbyteries in our connection ought to take order,
and are hereby enjoined to take such order as is consistent
with this minute, for the general reform and pacification of
the Church ; and they are directed so to do some time be-
tween the dissolution of the present General Assembly and
the fall meetings of the Synods, either at stated, or at 'pro re
nata meetings of the Presbyteries, as shall seem most advi-
sable to them respectively. And those presbyteries whose
commissioners to this Assembly have united with others in
the formation of another Assembly, in the presence of this,
and with tumult and violence in open contempt 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 recognize this true and only Gen-
eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United
States of America, are hereby required to take proper order
in regard to their said commissioners."

'SSection 2d. Tn case the majority of any Presbytery,

UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ORGANIZED. 173

whose commissioners have acted as aforesaid, shall take
proper order touching their conduct in the premises, and
are willing, 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 commis-
sioners, in advising, creating, or uniting with said secession,
or in refusing to attend on this Assembly, as the case may be,
shall not prejudice the rights or intei^ests, or aflfect the in-
tegrity of said Presbytery, or its union with the Presbyte-
rian Church in the United States of America, as an integral
portion thereof."

'* Section 3d. In case the majority of any Presbytery
shall refuse or neglect to take proper order in regard to its
seceding commissioners, or shall approve their conduct, or
adhere to the new sect they have created, or shall decline,
or fail to adhere to the Presbyterian Church in the United
States of America, upon the said basis of 1837 and 1838,
for the reform of the Church, then and in that case the mi-
nority of said Presbytery 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 erroneous and schismatical decision, which is the test in
the case, be the Presbytery ; and if sufficiently numerous to
perform PresbyteTial acts, shall go forward with all the
proper acts and functions of the Presbytery."

" Section 4th. In case the minority of any Presbytery
should be too small to constitute a Presbytery, and perform
Presbyterial acts, said minority shall remain in its existing
state until the next subsequent meeting of the Synod 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 minori-
ties attach themselves to other Presbyteries, or several unite
into one, before the Synods meet."

** Section 5th. The principles of this Act shall be ap-

b

174 THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY

plied to Churches, with their majorities and minorities, and
to church sessions, as far as they are applicable. And the
Presbyteries are hereby required so to exercise their watch
and care, that as far as possible, all the Churches may be
preserved :» and where, unhappily, this cannot be done, then
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, m this great crisis. In this conviction,
the whole of that part of the subject which relates to
Churches and private Christians, is especially commended
to the Christian zeal, prudence, and fidelity of the Presby-
teries and Church Sessions. In regard to the temporal in-
terests of the Churches, 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 in the Churches are very large, or our minori-
ties are very small : while on the other hand it would ad-
vise, that providential advantages and important rights
ought not in any case to be hghtly thrown away."

*' Section 6th. It is enjoined on the 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 need-
ful modifications in the Presbyteries as their altered circum-
stances may require — and to promote, by all proper means,
the speedy pacification of the Churches, by delivering and
saving them from heresy, disorder and schism, which having
so long worked among them, is at length ready, by God's
mercy, to be purged away."

" Section Yth. The Synods, in all cases, shall be consid-
ered lawfully constituted only when formed by or out of
those Presbyteries recognized as true Presbyteries by this
Assembly, according to the true tenor or intent of this Act."

UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ORGANIZED. 175

"Act II.

" Whereas the act of the Assembly of June 5th, 1837, de-
claring the three Synods of Utica, Geneva and Genesee, to
be out of the ecclesiasti3al connection of the Presbyterian
Church in the United States of America, made ample pro-
vision 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 those of the Synod of the Western Re-
serve :

*' And whereas, it is represented to this Assembly that, in
addition to those who have embraced this invitation and
provision of the aforesaid Act, there are others who have
held back and are still waiting on the developments of Provi-
dence :

" 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
our doctrine, love our order, and are willing to conform to
our discipline, should unite themselves with us :

** And whereas, moreover, the General Assembly has no
idea of narrowing, but would rather expand its geographical
limits, so as to unite, in bonds of 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 Presbyterian
Church in the United States of America, that it be recom-
mended,—

"1st. That those ministers and churches living within the
geographical limits of the Synods of the Western Reserve,
Geneva, Utica, and Genesee, who are willing to adhere to
the Presbyterian Church in the United States, on the basis
of the Acts of the Assembly of 1837 and 1838, for the gen-
eral reform of the Church, take steps for the immediate or-

176 THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY

ganization of as many presbyteries as there are ministers and
cliiirches, such as are above described, sufiBiciently numerous
to constitute, so that the whole number of presbyteries thus
formed shall not exceed one presbytery for each of the afore-
named synods ; and so that the territory of the Western Re-
serve shall in no case be added to that in Western New
York. And in case only two presbyteries can be constituted
on the ground occupied by the three Synods of Utica, Gene-
va, and Genesee, then that whole territory shall be divided
between them. And in case but one Presbytery can be con-
stituted, then the whole territory shall attach to it. In re-
gard to the Western Reserve, it is desired that a single pres-
bytery be formed as soon as convenient to embrace the whole
ground."

" 2d. The ministers and churches intended by this Act
will hold such mutual correspondence as they 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 presbytery,
and then and there constitute themselves in a regular, or-
derly, and Christian manner, into a presbytery under the
care of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in
the United States of America."

"3d. If as many as three presbyteries can be conveniently
formed in Western New York, it will be orderly for them, as
soon as possible thereafter, to unite and constitute them-
selves into a Synod upon the principles indicated in this Act;
and such Synod, if formed, shall cover the entire territoiy
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 into the bosom of such Synod
now in our connection, as shall be most convenient and na-
tural. And the presbytery on the Western Reserve, if one
should be formed, will adopt the same line of conduct. And
any Synod to which application may be thus made by any

UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ORGANIZED. 177

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 power to perform all presbyterial or synodical acts
agreeably to the Constitution of the Church."

''Act III.

" Section 1st. Be it resolved by the General Assembly of
the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America,
That the Presbytery of Abingdon, now attached to the
Synod of Tennessee, be, and hereby is, at its own request,
detached from said Synod, and united to the Synod of Vir-
ginia, and it shall hereafter be an integral part of the Synod
of Virginia, and subject to its care and oversight."

*' Section 2d. And whereas it is known to the Assembly
that all the Commissioners who were present at its constitu-
tion from the Synods of Tennessee, Michigan, and Missouri,
with the exception of the Commissioner from the Presbytery
of Abingdon, have withdrawn from the house, and, it is be-
lieved, have united in forming another body : Therefore,

''Be it resolved, That if the Synod of Tennessee shall,
either by its own act or the acts of its presbyteries, adhere
to the secession which has been made, or fail or refuse to
adhere to the Presbyterian Church, as provided in the First
Act; then the minority or minorities therein adhering as
aforesaid to the Presbyterian Church, shall be attached to,
and shall be under the care of the Synod of West Tennessee,
and may proceed as afore directed in the First Act, and ap-
ply for admission to the Synod of West Tennessee, whose
jurisdiction shall in that case be extended so as to include
the ecclesiastical hmits of the Synod of Tennessee ; and if
the like circumstances occur with respect to the Synod of
Missouri, its minorities shall be under the care of the Synod
of Kentucky on the same principles."

" On motion,

'* Ordered, That the stated clerk send an attested copy of

178 THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY

the foregoing acts to the stated clerk of each presbytery and
Synod in connection with the General Assembly." — Minutes
of the Assembly of 1838, pages 33-3*7.

This is an extraordinary document, well worthy of a few
moments' consideration. It commences by stating that
" The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
finds itself, by the providence of God, in the course of new
and unprecedented events, in a position of great difficulty,
novelty, and importance." Her position was indeed novel
and difficult, and made so by the acts of their own branch of
it, in 183 7 and 1838, against the earnest and repeated re-
monstrances of those who contended for a strict adherence
to the Constitution. Their acts, which were a gross viola-
tion of it, they denominate ''a reform — a great reform,"
which, in the document under consideration, they profess,
and no doubt very sincerely, to desire to consummate.
Previous parts of this history, however, show that the work
in which they were engaged and eager to perfect, was no re-
form, but a violent and disastrous revolution. And yet, in
the document before us, they have the assurance to say, " A
portion of the ministers and ruling elders sent to this As-
sembly, 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 communion
of our Church, constituted a new ecclesiastical organization,
which they improperly and unjustly assume to call the true
Presbyterian Church in the United States of America."

In view of facts contained in previous parts of this histo-
ry, our readers will judge for themselves who were guilty of
violating " their duty to God and the Church" — those who
thrust out so many of her ministers and communicants, and
violently rent her asunder, or those who used every lawful
means in their power to prevent their violent and revolution-
ary action, and, when they could not succeed, organized the
Assembly in conformity with the Constitution.

Nothing can be more evident than that the authors of the

UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ORGANIZED. 179

acts of which we complain did riot organize their Assembly
according to its requirements. Ministers and elders against
whom no charge of heresy or irregularity had been substan-
tiated, nor even brought in a constitutional manner, who had
been regularly commissioned to the Assembly of 1838 by
their Presbyteries, were denied seats in the body. Accord-
ing to their own admissions in the acts now under review,
they organized their Assembly upon a new basis. In them
they declare their purpose to recognize majorities, nay, mi-
norities of presbyteries, sessions, and churches, as the case
might be, as members of their body, who should adhere to
it "upon the basis of the Assemblies of IBS'? and 1838."
According to the Constitution, the reception of the Confes-
sion of Faith " as containing the system of doctrine taught in
the Holy Scriptures," and adoption of the Form of Govern-
ment and Discipline, are all that is necessary to valid stand-
ing in the Church. With the revolutionists of 1838 this was
altogether insufficient. Those who had fully complied with
these requirements of the Constitution before they could be
recogriized as connected with their body, must declare their
adhesion to the new basis, created by the Assemblies of IBS'?
and 1838. In the first act of the reforming ordinance now
under consideration, the presbyteries are directed to take or-
der on this subject previous to the next meetings of their re-
spective Synods, under the fearful penalty of being declared
not in connection with "the Presbyterian Church in the
United States of America." Their adhesion to it upon this
basis, they affirm to be "the test in the case." This test is
wholly unknown to the Constitution. They of course organ-
ized upon a "new basis" — a basis which they have not to
this day repudiated. This reformatory ordinance, without
having been sent down to the presbyteries for their approval
or rejection, is really of the nature of a constitutional rule.
It is, however, a "new measure" to which Constitutional
Presbyterians can never conscientiously give their approval.
In regard to the precise object of these Acts, the mem-

180 • THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY

bers oif their own body were not agreed. Some believed, and
we think, were warranted by the language to believe, that
they required the approval of what they were pleased to call
the reform measures of 1837 and 1838. It is difficult to
conceive what else could have been their object. They soon
discovered, however, that if an approval of them were rigidly
insisted on, there would be a great diminution of their body.
In some cases, it uas required, while other Presbyteries,
which passed resolutions strongly disapproving of them,
were nevertheless left unmolested, and are now recognized
by them as orthodox bodies. The Princeton Repertory,
doubtless on account of the divisive and seceding tendency
of a demand of approval, were dissatisfied with the language
of the Act. *' We regret," say they, " the use of the lan-
guage employed, because it is amhiguous.^^ Construing it as
requiring approval, they say, " We readily admit that if this
interpretation be correct, the act complained of would be
unconstitutional and tyrannkal.^^ And yet in this sense,
*^ unconstitutional and tyrannicaV^ as it made the Act, it was
understood and enforced by some Synods and many more
Presbyteries, though we know not their number. *'The
majority of the Presbytery of Erie, belonging to the Synod
of Pittsburg, were informed by the Synod that there would
be no difficulty in their case, if they would now declare their
adherence ^ on the basis of IBS'? and 1838.' The Presbytery
answered : * We are willing to adhere to the Synod of Pitts-
burg and the General Assembly by which it is governed,
without having ourselves bound by any additional pledge
whatever.' Whereupon, Synod ' Resolved, that they do not
consider said claimants as having complied with the require-
ments of Synod.'

*' In this case, the majority of the Presbytery were cut
off. Why? Because they were unwilling to adhere on the
basis of the Confession of Faith and Book of Discipline?
No. But because they could not approve the new test, and
were unwilling to adhere upon the new basis.^'

UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ORGANIZED. 181

The Synod of Pittsburg, in their Pastoral Letter of 1838,
thus interpret the great ordinance : " By the provision of
that act, the Assembly says, if a majority of a Presbytery
ap])rove and adhere to us, we recognize you as a Presbytery
in our connection, (fee. If you do not ajyprove and adhere,
we compel you not, but leave you to act as your best judg-
ment dictates. If only a minority approve and adhere, that
minority we do not disown, but if sufficient in number, we
recognize you as a Presbytery."

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 same time, that
those only should thereafter constitute said Church, who
shall * 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 those operations of the Assembly for
the reform of the Church.'

On the 4th of December, 1838, the following measure was
proposed at a meeting of Charleston Union Presbytery :

" Resolved, That the roll be now called, and each member
without discussion, do declare whether he can approve the
reform measures of the General Assembly of 1837 ; and that
those who answer in the affirmative, according to the provi-
sion of the last General Assembly, do constitute the Pres-
bytery of Charleston Union, in connection with the Presby-
terian Church.' The Moderator refused to put the question:
a small minority, in obedience, as they say, * to an injunction
of the supreme judicatory of our Church,' declared them-
selves the Charleston Union Presbytery, to the exclusion of
the majority."*

Additional proof cannot be needed to establish the fact
* Wood's History, pages 180-182.
8*

182 THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY.

that the self-styled reformers organized their Assembly in
1838 upon a basis unknown to the Constitution. As a test
of adhesion to it, they did not require evidence of a cordial
adoption of " the Confession of Faith and Form of Govern-
ment," but an approval of its great reforming ordinance, or
at least of a determination to submit to it : — in other words,
that they would sustain the revolutionary Acts of that As-
sembly and those of the Assembly of the previous year. To
make way^for this " new basis,^^ the Constitution was wholly
set aside.

ERRONEOUS APrLICATION OF THE NAMES, OLD AND NEW SCHOOL. THOSE

WHO STYLE THEMSELVES OLD SCHOOL ARE THE NEW, AND THOSE WHOM
THEY DENOMINATE NEW ARE THE OLD SCHOOL BRANCH OF ^mK PEES-
BYTERIAN CHURai.

At an early period of the controversy respecting Ecclesi-
astical Boards and Voluntary Societies, the friends of the
former appropriated to themselves the appellations, "Old
School, — the Orthodox, — the true friends of the Presbyterian
Church," and gave to the friends of Voluntary Societies, the
name, " New School." These appellations are not only
erroneous, but manifestly unjust. They are adapted, and
we fear on the part of those with whom they originated,
were designed to^produce the impression that the great body
of those, whom they denominate New School men, had
embraced doctrines, wholly at variance with those contained
in the Confession of Faith, and were opposed to the princi-
ples of Presbyterian Church Government and Disciphne.
The facts of the preceding part of this history show conclu-
sively, that the appellations and epithets just mentioned, are
grossly misapplied. Those who claim to be " Old School
Presbyterians, dyed in the wool," are in fact 7ieiu, and those
whom thei/ denominate 7iew are in reality the Old School
branch of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of
America, both in doctrine and order. That in saying this,
we do *' but speak the words of truth and soberness," is
evident,

184 WHO ARE THE OLD SCHOOL PRESBYTERIANS ?

1. From the new test of orthodoxy, required by '* the
Act and Testimony," sent out by leading men of their party.
The character of this instrument has been noticed in prece-
ding pages of this narrative. By calhng upon ministers and
elders to sign it as a test of orthodoxy, and in case of refusal,
subjecting themselves to the charge of heresy, or at least of
being the abettors of gross error in doctrine they introduced
a new test of soundness in the faith, wholly unknown to the
Constitution. In this ho^ht the Reriewers g^ it in the Bibli-
cal Repertory viewed it, as we have shown in another part
of this history, by quoting the language of their review.

2. They have departed from the principles of American
Presbyterianism, as contained in the adopting ae-t of l72t,
by requiring an unqualified assent to every shade of senti-
ment contained in the Confession of Faith, That Act, as we
have already shown, tolerates differences of opinion on points
of minor importance, not affecting the integrity of the system
of doctrine embraced in our standards. The Assembly of
1817 reiterate the noble and tokrant sentiments of that Act.
In their pastoral letter to the churches we find the following
language : "That differences of opinion,, acknowledged on all
hands, to be of the minor class, may and ought to be tole-
rated among those who are agreed in great and leading views
of Divine truth, is a principle on v.'hicb the godly b^re po»
long and so generally acted, thai it seems unnecessary, at the
present day, to seek arguments for its support. Our fathers,
in early periods of the history of our Chui-ch, had their pe-
culiarities and diversities of opinion ; which yet, however, did
not p-event them from loving one another, from cordially
acting together ; and by their imited prayers and exertions,,
transmitting to us a goodly inheritance. Let us emulate
their moderation and forbearance, and we may hope to be
favored with more than their success." — Minutes of the As-
&emhly o/" 1817, imge 28.

These sentiments of the adopting Act of 1729, and the?
Assembly of 1817,. are the sentiments of Constitutional Pres-

WHO ARE THE OLD SCHOOL PRESBYTERIANS ? 185

byterians. How utterly inconsistent with fact, how grossly
unjust to denominate thevi Xew School men ! Thei/ are the
Old School, and those who insist upon a subscription to the
Confession of Faith, according to the most rigid construction
of its language, are I^eiv School Presbyterians.

3. Their acts of excision, by which they cast out of the
church thousands of her members in good standing, without
trial, was a flagrant violation of the constitution, by which
they had solemnly pledged themselves to be governed. It
was a neiv measure, to prevent which Constitutional Presby-
terians labored with untiring zeal, and against which they
have uniformly protested. In respect to Presbyterial order
they are Old School Presbyterians.

4. The great reform ordinance, as its authors were pleased
to denominate it, of 18S8, requiring the Synods, PresbyterieS;,
Sessions and Churches, to aid in carrying out the revolution-
ary measures of the Assembly of the previous year, promis-
ing to recognize even minorities of those bodies, who should,
and threatening all who should refuse, with expulsion from
their branch of the church, was a gi'oss violation of the con-
stitution. Nay, this instrument it actually thrust aside. The
constitution makes nothing necessary to good standing in the
ministry and church but the adoption of " the Confession of
Faith as containing the system of doctrine taught in the holy
Scriptures, and of the Form of Government and Discipline. '^
Of this test of orthodoxy and attachment to Presbyterial
order, the extraordinary instrument just mentioned, said not
a word. It only required adhesion to their body ** on the basis
of the Assemblies of 1837 and 1838."

These facts fully establish the position that the self-styled
Old School Presbyterians are in reality the JVew; Md those
whom they reproachfully denominate the JV^ew, are the Old,
firmly planted upon the time-honored platform of original
American Presbyterianism.

(Jljajtu |;iiitl]»

POLICY OF THE SELF-STTLKD REFORMERS CONCERNING A DIVISION OF THE
FUNDS, AND THEIR FEELINGS IN REFERENCE TO AN APPEAL TO THE
LAW OF THE LAND, TO DECIDE TO AVHOM THEY BELONGED, OR HOW
THEY SHOULD BE DIVIDED UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS OF THE CONSTITU-
TIONAL ASSEMBLY TO PREVENT LITIGATION LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, AND

THEIR RESULTS,

By the organization of the two Assemblies in 1838, each
claiming to be the true Assembly, the division of the Presby-
terian Church in this country was consummated. But though
her ministers and members were divided, no division was
made of her funds. Before the division, while the self-styled
reformers were a minority and determined to effect it, they
professed to desire that an equitable and amicable division of
the funds should be made. Some, at least, of the new-basis
Assembly of 1838, still professed a willingness that those
whom they denominated seceders, and who on that account
had forfeited all right to any part of the funds, should, never-
theless, have some share of them. Provided this were grant-
ed, however, it must be as a gratuity to those who had no
claim to any portion of the funds of the Church. Their feel-
ings may be best known by an examination of two papers,
presented to the Reform Assembly, but which were not acted
upon, as we are informed, because the seceders, as they were
pleased to call them, had commenced a civil process for se-
curing their rights. The * Presbyterian' accompanied the pub-
lication of them with the remark, " In the main we believe
they expressed the mind of the Assembly."

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 187

Dr. PhilliiDS offered the following paper, viz. : —

" 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 prosperity
of the Church, and not for earthly gain ; and whereas a por-
tion of what has heretofore been called the Presbyterian
Church, have •s'oluntarily gone out from us, and by their
secession and separate organization, have forfeited in law all
their title to any of the property belonging to the Presby-
terian 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 those
who adhere to the secession, and report to the next General
Assembly, and thus, if possible, secure an amicable adjust-
ment of our pecuniary affairs."*

In reference to the same matter, Mr. Breckinridge oflfered
the following paper, viz. : —

" The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in
the United States, both during its present sessions and dur-
ing those of the last year, had distinctly and repeatedly ex-
pressed its perfect willingness to settle all the difficulties, and
especially those of a pecuniary kind, which have arisen, or
could arise, between those Synods which have been declared
out of our connection, and all who have seceded and united
with them on the one part, and the Church itself on the
other."

*'This was indeed the earnest desire of the Church ; as well
because of the questions involved, turned finally on questions
purely ecclesiastical, as because money questions were in our
view wholly insignificant, compared with others, which lay
behind them. And as we construed the law of God, it seem-
* H. Wood'o History, page 168.

188 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

ed better, even to take wrong and suffer wrong 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 quarter, to control the conscien-
tious decisions of the Church of Christ on matters of Chris-
tian doctrine, order or discipline, by civil tribunals."

*' We are bound, and we hope prepared, to render to Caesar
all things that are Caesar's, but we are also* bound, and re-
solved, never to surrender to Caesar the things which are
only God's."

" It is, therefore, with decided reprobation, that this As-
sembly has learned, not only that suits are threatened against
its Board of Trustees, but that other suits have been actu-
ully commenced against the officers of this body, and sev-
eral of its members, the object of which is, not only 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 affairs, this As-
sembly deems it a solemn duty to declare, and does hereby
declare :

** 1. That it expects of its Board of Trustees the same
loyalty to the church, and the same fidelity to its divine
Lord, that have marked their course in past times, and it
hereby pledges to them its support, and that of the churches
represented in it, in their lawful acts, in carrying out the de-
cisions of the last and present Assemblies."

" 2. That we solemnly, in the name of God, whose we
are, and whom we try to serve, and on behalf of his church,
of which we are ministers and ruling elders, and as commis-
sioners constituting its highest earthly court, do hereby pro-
test against all attempts to subject the church of Christ, in
its purely ecclesiastical action, to the surveillance or revision
of the civil power. And as free American citizens, we re-
nounce for ourselves and for our country, all pretence to any
such ruinous power as it regards others."

" 3. That the churches and minorities of churches in the

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 1.89

bounds or under the care of either of those Synods or Pres-
byteries, which were declared to be out of the ecclesiastical
connection of the Presbyterian Church in the United States
of America, — or within its bounds, or under the care of any
seceding Presbytery or Synod, which churches or minorities
are willing to adhere to the Presbyterian Church in man-
ner 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 against the new sect, and the ruin-
ous principles upon which their proceedings go."*

Had these papers been expressive of the views of their
authors merely, upon them the responsibility of approving
them might have been left to rest, without remark. But
we are told by the editor of the " Presbyterian *' that they
exhibit the views of the Assembly. That they were not
adopted by them, we are informed, was because civil process
had been commenced by the Constitutional Assembly for the
recovery of rights which they believed had been violently
taken from them.

The language of these documents is by no means remark-
able for Christian courtesy toward the constitutional branch
of the church. They are spoken of as seceders, who had
" forfeited in law all title to any property belonging to the
Presbyterian Church ;" — as litigious, appealing to Ceesar for
a decision which it is the exclusive prerogative of the church
to give, against whom the reformers " had for years con-
tended for the doctrines and order of the Gospel, for the
truth, purity, peace, and spiritual prosperity of the church.'*
The sincerity with which these statements were made, we
have no disposition to call in question. However sincere may
have been their authors, this fact does not prove that they
are true, and they doubtless believe with us, that sincerity
in error, when the means of knowing the truth are accessi-
H: Wood's History of the Presbyterian Controversy, p. 169.

190 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

ble, does not exonerate from blame. Were the things al-
leged in these papers against Constitutional Presbyterians
true, tliey ought indeed to be separated from the church.
Not, however, by the summary and unconstitutional process
of excision without trial and an opportunity of self-defence,
but by the application of Gospel discipline.

In these documents there are several things which we are
utterly unable to reconcile with the action of the Body. They
both profess a commendable and pious disregard "for
earthly-gain, — that money questions were wholly insignifi-
cant, compared with others, which lay behind them."

If the reader can reconcile these statements with the re-
commendation of Mr. Breckinridge and the Assembly itself
in its great reform ordinance, already noticed, to minorities
of churches, " to secure their corporate property, — that
providential advantages, and important rights, ought not in
any case to be lightl} thrown away," he can perform a task
which wholly transcends our ability.

He may also, if he can, reconcile these statements and pro-
fessions with the tenacious, iron grasp, with which they have
till this time held, and now hold the entire funds of the
church. Not a farthing, so far as we have been able to as-
certain, have they given to those whom they denominate
seceders and schismatics, except in the few instances in which
they have been compelled to do it by legal decisions. We
cannot but fear these brethren were not fully aware of the
strength of their love for " filthy lucre."

The pious horror of these self-styled reformers at the
thought of appealing to the civil tribunals of the country
to decide which of the two Assemblies was organized ac-
cording to the constitution, is no less at variance with their
application to " the court in bank " to grant a new trial af-
ter the decision against them in the court below. For com-
mencing that process before Judge Rogers, the constitu-
tional branch of the church were, and to this day are, se-
verely censured. Their reasons for this procedure will be

LEGAL TROCEEDINGS. 191

given hereafter, and tlie reader will have an opportunity
to judge for himself whether they are sufficient to justi-

fy it.

Mr. Breckinridge's paper is far from respectful in its aspect
toward the civil tribunals of our country. Throughout, it
breathes the spirit of nullification and rebellion. " We utterly
repudiate," he says, " all pretensions from whatever quarter,
to control the conscientious decisions of the Church of Christ,
on matters of Christian doctrine, or order, by the civil tribu-
nals." Again he says, by what seems to us a most irrever-
ent, not to say profane appeal to Jehovah, '* We solemnly, in
the name of God, whose we are, and whom w^e try to serve,
and on behalf of His Church, of which we are Ministers and
Ruling Elders, and as Commissioners constituting its highest
earthly court, do hereby protest against all attempts to subject
the Church of Christ, in its purely ecclesiastical action, to the
surveillance or revision of the civil power. We are bound, and
we hope prepared, to render to Caesar all things that are
Caesar's, but we are also bound and resolved, never to surren-
der to Caesar the things which are only God's."

It cannot be doubted that Mr. Breckinridge well under-
stood that the Constitutional Body had not appealed to the
civil law for the purpose of subjecting " the Church of Christ
to the surveillance or revision of the civil power," but to decide
whether those, whom he and his party denominated schisma-
tics, seceders, and grossly disorderly, were really such, or
sound Presbyterians according to " the Confession of Faith
and Form of Government ;" also whether their acts in cast-
ing the four Synods out of the Church without trial, were au-
thorized by the Constitution or in direct contravention of it.
If such were his understanding of the appeal of the Constitu-
tional Assembly to the civil tribunals, we see not how he could
have doubted its propriety. A court of justice is certainly
competent to decide whether a Church, or Branch of a Church,
have or have not violated its Constitution.

Notwithstanding the solemn protest of this paper against

192 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

•

submitting the unhappy differences between the two Bodies
to the decision of a civil tribunal, and determination not to
submit to it, the new basis Assembly appeal from the court
that gave judgment against them, to the court in bank for a
new trial. How this procedure is to be reconciled with their
previous protests against appealing to Ccesar and determina-
tion not to submit to his jurisdiction, is for them to show.

The climax of their inconsistencies, however, consists in the
utter want of agreement between their professed desire for an
equitable and amicable settlement of the difficulties be-
tween the two Branches of the Church, and their refusal
to accede to any proposals made by the Constitutional
Branch, to secure such a settlement. We speak not
now of negotiations between the parties previous to the di-
vision in 1838, and the overture made by the Constitution-
alists during the sessions of the two Assemblies. These have
been noticed in previous parts of this history, and the reasons
of their failure stated. From what was said and published
by the exscinding branch when they learned that it was the
purpose of the other to commence civil process against them,
a stranger to this controversy would infer that the new basis
Assembly were men of a very pacific spirit, and that the
other was made up of ecclesiastical warriors, — of men full of
the spirit of strife and war, whose very element was contro-
versy and litigation. Mr. Breckinridge, in the paper which
we have noticed, says, " The General Assembly of the Pres-
byterian Church in the United States, both during the pres-
ent sessions, and during those of the last year, had distinctly
and repeatedly expressed its perfect willingness to settle all
the difficulties, and especially those of a pecuniary kind, which
have arisen or could arise, between those Synods which have
been declared out of our connection, and all who have sece-
ded and united with them on the one part, and the Chm'ch
itself on the other."

Statements of similar import may be found in their Pas-
toral Letter of 1838 to the churches.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 193

Whether they were really as desirous as theii' language
seemed to indicate to prevent litigation, and those from whom
they differed as fierce for it, we will leave our readers to
judge, when they shall have read that part of the

** Report of the Committee of Twelve, to the General As-
sembly of the Presbyterian Church,''^ which we here
present.

"In the General Assembly, May 20, 1839, Judge Darling,
from the Committee of twelve, made the following report in
part:

"The Committee appointed on the 21st May, 1838, 'to
advise and direct to any legal questions and pecuniary in-
terests that might require attention during the ensuing year,'
and who were authorized to adopt all such measures as they
in their judgment might deem proper, to preserve and main-
tain inviolate the rights and privileges of the General Assem-
bly, and of the churches under its jurisdiction, entered upon
the discharge of their duties immediately after the adjournment
of the last General Assembly, deeply impressed with the
importance of the interests entrusted to them, with
their responsibihties to the Presbyterian Church, and with
a determination to exert their influence to bring the con-
troversy in the Presbyterian Church to a speedy termination,
on just and equitable terms, which would restore peace and
harmony to our beloved Zion. They resolved not to resort
to the civil courts for redress, until every reasonable hope of
an amicable adjustment should be abgmdoned, and unless it
became necessary so to do to protect and preserve the rights
and privileges of the church which they represented. The
Trustees elected by the General Assembly of 1838, hav-
ing been denied the right to take their seats at a regular
meeting of the Board of Trustees, as then constituted, and
our opponents manifesting a determination to persist in their
acts of injustice and oppression, the Committee, with the

194 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

notice, and under the direction of their counsel, Josiah Ran-
dall and William Meredith, Esq.'s, of Philadelphia, and
George Wood, Esq., of New York, caused a writ of quo
warranto to be issued, in the name of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, at the relation of the Hon. James Todd, et.
al. vs. the Rev. Ashbel Green, D.D., et. al,, to show cause by
■what authority they continued to usurp and hold the office of
Trustees, &c. The Committee adopted this mode of pro-
ceeding at the suggestion of their legal advisers, believing
that, in this form of action, they would be enabled to obtain
a more speedy trial and decision on the merits of the contro-
versy between the Reformed and Constitutional General As-
semblies, and on the various points of law involved in the
same, and with less expense and excitement, than in any other
form of action which could be devised. Whilst this cause
was pending, and previous to the trial before Judge Rogers,
at Nisi Prius, the Committee were informed by one of their
counsel, that John K. Kane, Esq., one of the Trustees of the
General Assembly, and who was of counsel for the respond-
ents, had stated to him that those he represented were dis-
posed to adjust, amicably and equitably, all matters in con-
troversy in this cause, and had requested him to ascertain
what terms the Committee would propose, as a basis for an
amicable division of the Presbyterian Church, and the final
adjustment of all the matters in dispute between the Reform-
ed and Constitutional General Assemblies. Upon inquiry,
the Committee ascertained that neither Mr. Kane, nor any
other person, was authorized to enter into a negotiation with
the Committee on the subject of a compromise ; that Mr.
Kane was probably acting on his own responsibility, influ-
enced by a most laudable desire to promote union and peace
among the professed fiiends of the Redeemer. The Com-
mittee duly appreciated the motives which prompted the
efforts of Mr. Kane, and keeping in view the resolution of the
General Assembly of 1838, viz. : 'That this body is willing
to agree to any reasonable measures tending to an amicable

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 195

adjustment of the difficulties in the Presbyterian Clmrch,and
will receive^ and respectfully consider, any propositions made
for that purpose/ — they waived all exceptions which might
have been taken to enter into any negtoiation with, or to
making any propositions to, one irresponsible individual, and
promptly requested their counsel to furnish Mr. Kane with a
copy of the following articles of agreement :

" Articles of Agreement Proposed.

** In order to secure an amicable and equitable adjustment
of the difficulties existing in the Presbyterian Church in the
United States of America ; it is hereby agreed by the respec-
tive parties, that the following shall be articles on which a
division shall be made and continued.

** Article I. The successors of the body which held its
sessions 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 succes-
sors of the body which held its sessions in the First Presby-
terian Church, shall hereafter be known by the name and
style of * The General Assembly of the American Presbyte-
rian Church.'

" Article II. Joint application shall be made by the parties
to this agreement, to the Legislature of Pennsylvania, for a
charter to incorporate Trustees of each of the respective
bodies, securing to each the immunities and privileges now
secured by the existing charter to the Trustees of the Gen-
eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United
States of America ; subject, nevertheless, to the limitations
and articles herein agreed on ; and when so obtained, the
existing charter shall be surrendered to the State.

" Article III. Churches, ministers, and members of church-
es 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 congregation shall
prefer to be connnected with any Presbytery connected with

196 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

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 thenceforth cease.

" Article IV. 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, ac-
cording to this agreement, shall be chartered under the title
of ' The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in
the United States of America.'

" This agreement shall not be considered a secession on
the part of either body, from the Presbyterian Church in the
United States of America, but a voluntary and amicable di-
vision of this Church into two denominations, each retaining
all the ecclesiastical 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 Presby-
terian Church without molestation from them, and that they
should not be called Seceders. This reply, in the opinion of
the Committee, cut off all hope of an amicable and just settle-
ment, and closed the door of reconciliation. They, therefore,
formally resolved that it was inexpedient to make any further
attempt to eflfect a compromise, and that the necessary pre-
parations be made for the trial of the cause now pending." —
Minutes of the General Assembly 0/ 1839, ^:>a^e5 38, 39.

If our brethren were really as desirous for an equitable and
pacific settlement, and to prevent litigation, as they professed
to be, why was not this overture entertained by them ? Or if
dissatisfied with its stipulations, why did they not appoint a

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 197

Committee to negotiate with the Committee which pre-
sented it, and see whether terms could not be agreed upon,
which would be satisfactory to both Bodies ? It is not for
us, but for them to reply to these inquiries. From the facts
presented, our readers have a right to form their own opinion
which of the two Bodies w^ere more desirous of peace and
averse to litigation.

As all the eftbrts of the Constitutional Branch of the
Church to prevent the latter and secure the former had
proved unavailing, nothing remained for them, but to sacrifice
important rights, or appeal to the civil tribunals of their
country to decide whether their Assembly had, or had not
been organized in conformity with the Constitution ; or
whether the persons elected by the New-Basis Assembly as
Trustees of tbe General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church
in the United States of America, were such in reality, or
those elected to that office by the Constitutional Assembly.

" The Committee of Twelve " in their report, a part of
which we have already quoted, say, '' The Trustees elected
by the General Assembly of 1838, having been denied the
right to take their seats at a regular meeting of the Board
of Trustees, as then constituted, and our opponents manifest-
ing a determination to persist in their acts of injustice and
oppression, the Committee, with the notice, and under the
direction of their counsel, Josiah Randall and William Mere-
dith, Esqs. of Philadelphia, and George Wood, Esq. caused
a writ of quo luarranto to be issued, in the name of the Com-
monwealth of Pennsylvania, at the relation of the Hon.
James Todd, et al , vs. the Rev. Ashbel Green, D.D., et ah, to
show cause by what authority they continued to usurp and
hold the office of Trustees, &c. The Committee adopted this
mode of proceeding at the suggestion of their legal advisers,
believing that, in this form of action, they would be enabled
to obtain a more speedy trial and decision on the merits of
the controversy between the Reformed and Constitutional
Assemblies, and on the various points of law involved in the
9

198 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

same, and with less expense and excitement than in an}'- other
form of action which could be devised."

The trial of this cause *' before Hon. Molton C. Rogers
and a special juiy/' commenced March 4th, 1839.

The cause was ably argued by the learned counsel on both
sides, and was closed March 20th by the delivery of the
charge of Judge Rogers and the verdict of the Jury in favor
of the Constitutional Assembly. As the charge of Judge
Rogers is a document of great importance, well worthy of
being transmitted to posterity and preserved and studied by
them, we give it entire. — See Appendix A.

This result was exceedingly ungrateful to the Reformers.
Both the charge of the Judge and the verdict of the Jury,
were a decided condemnation of the excision of the four
Synods and the dissolution of the Third Presbytery of Phila-
delphia, and of the manner of organizing their Assembly in

1838, and a complete vindication of the organization of the
Constitutional Assembly. This result of the trial seemed
at once to remove all their conscientious scruples in regard
to an appeal to Caesar to decide controversies between pro-
fessing Christians. By their counsel, they applied to ** the
Court in Bank," — a tribunal consisting of " all the Judges,
sitting in a body to determine questions of law," for a new
trial. The case came on for adjudication at the March term,

1839, and the Cour,t, through Judge Gibson, gave a decision
in favor of a new trial.*

That our readers may be furnished with the means of
forming an accurate judgment in respect lo the grounds

■* The opinion was really by three of the Judges of the court, viz.,
Messrs. Gibson, Houston and Kennedy.

Judge Sergeant being a member of the Rev. Mr. Barnes' congrega-
tion, did not feel at liberty to take part in the case, and Judge Rogers
dissented.

Judges Houston and Kennedy were both attached to the exscind-
ing portion of the Church, and the former was a strong partisan of
that body. They felt none of the delicacy of Judge Sergeant.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 199

on which the Court granted a new trial, we give the opinion
of Chief Justice Gibson entire. — See Appendix B,

After the decision of the Court in Bank, the Constitu-
tional party concluded to withdraw the suit.

The issues of these trials in the Supreme Court of Penn-
sylvania are these : In the trial before Judge Rogers, he
charged the jury strongly in favor of the Constitutional As-
sembly, and the jury, after an hour's deliberation, rendered
a verdict in their favor. The Assembly, on the New Basis,
appealed to the Court in Bank for a new trial, and the Court
granted it.

Some things in the charge of Judge Rogers, and the
opinion of Chief Justice Gibson, demand a moment's at-
tention. Judge Rogers's charge contains a lucid statement
of the principles of the Constitution of the Presbyterian
Church, and a concise, but accurate history of the unhappy
controversy, which resulted in its division.

Both Judges are agreed in the opinion, that " the Plan of
Union of 1801 was strictly constitutional." If this opinion
be correct, the strongest alleged reason for the excision of
the Synods, is no reason at all. Of course, if the act be jus-
tified, it must be on other grounds. The candid and intelli-
gent reader of the foregoing pages, we trust, is fully con-
vinced that there are no grounds on which the acts of excis-
ion can be justified — that they deserve universal and ever-
lasting reprobation. Of course the refusal of the New Basis
A ssembly to enter the names of the Commissioners from the
disowned Synods on the roll of the Assembly was arbitrary
and unrighteous, and a gross violation of the Constitution,
quite sufficient to justify the measui'es, adopted by the Con-
stitutional Branch of the Church, to secure a regularly or-
ganized Assembly.

Judge Rogers was decidedly of the opinion, that Dr. El-
liott, the Moderator, by refusing to put the appeal of Dr.
Mason, was guilty of *' a dereliction of duty — a usurpation
of authority, which called for the censure of the house."

200 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

Again he says : '' It is tlie opinion of the Court, that the
General Assembly has a right to depose the Moderator,
upon sufficient cause. This power is necessarj^ for the pro-
tection of the house ; otherwise the Moderator, instead of
being the servant, would be the master of the house."

He was also of the opinion that Mr. Cleaveland had a
right to put the question, that Dr. Beman should be the
Moderator. " There is no doubt the house may elect a Mode-
rator, although the seats of some of the members are contest-
ed." He says, moreover, " That the fact that Mr. Cleave-
land put the question instead of the Moderator, the cries of
order when this was in progress, the omission of some of
the formula usually observed, when there is no contest and
no excitement, . . . wall not vitiate the organization. ..."

Judge Gibson was of a different opinion. He says : " The
refusal of an appeal from the decision of the Moderator,
would be no ground for the degradation of the officer, at the
call of a minority ; nor could it impose on the majority an
obligation to vote on a question put unofficially and out of
the usual course. The choice of a Moderator to supplant
the officer in the chair, even if he were removable at the
pleasure of the commissioners, would seem to have been
unconstitutional. But he was not removable by them, be-
cause he had not derived his office from them, nor was he
answerable to them for the use of his power. He was not
their Moderator. He was the mechanical instrument of
their organization ; and till that was accomplished, they were
subject to his rule — not he to theirs.''^

If this opinion be correct, the Moderator of the previous
Assembly, or to use the language of the Judge, '* the me-
chanical instrument of their organization" might persist in
his refusal to put a question during his lifetime, and utterly
prevent the transaction of all business ; nay, the organization
of the body. According to this opinion of Judge Gibson,
the Twenty- Sixth Congress was not constitutionally organi-
zed, because Mr. Adams put the question on a motion for

LEGAL TROCEEDINGS. 201

the removal of the Clerk of ilie House of Representatives and
the appointment of another in his place.

The Judge also assumes it as an incontrovertible fact that
the Presbyteries embraced in the exscinded Sj-nods, were
formed upon the basis of the Plan of Union. On previous
pages of this history, it has been shown that the Plan of
Union had nothing to do with their formation — that they
were organized in strict conformity with the Constitution of
the Presbyterian Church. Consequently the Judge's as-
sumption is wholly at variance with the facts.

Another assumption of the Judge, equally unfounded
with the one just noticed, is, that the Assembly unites ** the
legislative, executive and judicial functions of the govern-
ment ;" that **its acts are referable to the one or the other
of them, according to the capacity in which it sat when they
were performed." The reader has but to turn to chapter
XII., section VI. of the Form of Government, to satisfy
himself that the Assembly has no legislative power what-
ever— that it pertains exclusively to the Presbyteries.

In connection with the last mentioned unauthorized as-
sumption, the Judge makes two admissions, which are too
important to be passed over unnoticed. One is that the
Synods, notwithstanding all that had been alleged by the
exscinders conc^ning their heresies and disorders, had done
nothing deserving of censure : the other is that the excision,
as a legislative act, had the appearance of injustice, and we
think his language implies that he believed it had something
of the reality. He says : " Now the apparent injustice of
the measure arises from the contemplation of it as a judicial
sentence pronounced against parties who were neither cited
nor heard, which it evidently was not. Even as a legislative
act, it may have been a hard one, though certainly constitu-
tional and strictly just." " Had the exscinded Synods been
cut off by a judicial sentence without hearing or notice, the
act would have been contrary to the cardinal principles of
natural justice, and consequently void."

202 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

We would like to be informed by the learned Judge how-
decapitation or hanging, which would be *' contrary to the
cardinal principles of natural justice," as a judicial act,
could be just as a legislative act. We confess we have not
discernment enough to see how there could be more in-
justice in the one case than the other.

In a subsequent suit in Pennsylvania, brought up by
appeal before the Supreme Court, Judge Gibson explained
some of the principles on which he had given his opinion in
the Court in Bank in favor of the Reformers. The property
of the Presbyterian Church in York was of considerable
value. A small minority in it were decidedly in favor of
the New Basis Assembly. In conformity with the recom-
mendation of its great reforming ordinance, they claimed to
be the true Presbyterian Church in York, and brought suit
against the constitutional portion of the Church for the pro-
perty. The case was tried before Judge Hays, and decided
in favor of the Constitutional party.

The Reformers regarded Judge Gibson's opinion in the
Court in Bank as deciding that they were the only orthodox
Presbyterians, and the Assembly of the exscinders the only
true Assembly, and they doubtless felt if they could bring
the suit before him, he would reverse the decision of the
lower Court. In this they were disappointed. He affirmed
the decision of the lower Court, and decided that the pro-
perty belonged to the Constitutional portion of the Church.

In delivering the opinion of the Court, to the astonishment
and deep regret of the minority, he explained some of the
grounds of his opinion in the Court in Bank. He says,
" There was not merely a secession of particles, leaving the
original mass entire, but the original mass was split into two
fragments of nearly equal magnitude ; and though it was
held by this Court, in the Commonwealth v. Green, 5 Wheat.
Rep. 531, that the party which happened to be in office by
means of its numerical superiority at the time of the division,
was that which was entitled to represent it and perform the

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 203

functions of the original body, it was not because the minor-
ity were thouglit to be anything else than Presbyterian, but
because a popular body is known only by its government or
head. That they differed from tlie majority in doctrine or
discipline was not pretended, though it was alleged that they
did not maintain the scriptural warrant of ruling elders. But
the difference in this respect had been tolerated if not sanc-
tioned by the Assembly itself, which, with full knowledge of
it, had allowed the heterodox Synods to grow up as a part of
the Church ; and it could not therefore have been viewed as
radical or essential. We were called, however, to pass, not
on a question of heresy, for we would have been incompe-
tent to decide it, but on the regularity of the meeting at
which the trustees were chosen. I mention this to show
that we did not determine that the exscision was expurgation,
and not division. Indeed, the measure would seem to have
been as decisively revolutionary as would be an exclusion of
particular States from tho Federal Union for the adoption of
an anti-republican form of government. The excluded Syn-
ods, gathering to themselves the disaffected in other quarters
of the Church, formed themselves into a distinct body, gov-
erned by a supreme judicatory so like its fellow as to pass
for its twin brother, and even lay claim to the succession.
That the Old School party succeeded to the privileges and
property of the Assembly was not because it was more Pres-
byterian than the other, but because it was stronger ; for had
it been the weaker, it would have been the party excluded,
and the New School party, exercising the government as it
then had done, would, have succeeded in its stead, and thus
the doctrine pressed upon us would have made title to Church
property the sport of accident. In that event an attempt to
deprive the Old School congregations of their churches, for an
act of the majority, in withdrawing from the jurisdiction of
the Assembly, would have loaded the New School party with
such a weight of popular odium as would have sunk it.
Here then was the original mass divided into two parts of

204 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

nearly equal magnitude and similar structure ; and what was
a congregation in the predicament before us to do ? It was
not bound to follow the party which was successful in the
conflict merely because superiority of numbers had given it
the victory." — See Waits and Serjeant's Reports, Vol. I.,
/pages 38, 39.

Here the Judge gives the real ground of his opinion in the
Court in Bank. He gave it in favor of the reformers not be-
cause they were more orthodox in doctrine or in practice,
more strictly conformed to the Constitution of the Presbyte-
rian Church, but because they were the majority. Conse-
quently had the constitutional branch of the Church in 1831,
1832, 1833, 1834, and 1836, when they were the majoirty,
cast out the Synods of Pliiladelphia and Pittsburg after the
manner of their exscinding brethren, seized and appropriated
the entire funds of the Church, exhorted minorities in all the
churches to declare themselves the orthodox, the only true
Presbyteiians, and claimed all the property, and thus per-
petuated their power, the law would have protected them.
But would it have been morally right ? Oui' brethren of the
new basis, we are persuaded, will not affirm that it would.
We doubt not they will reject the logic and morality of the
Judge's opinion no less decidedly than we do.

The judge himself admits that had our branch of the Church
adopted this course it would have been suicidal. He says it
" would have loaded the New School party with such a weight
of popular odium as would have sunk it."

To this opinion of the Judge we give our unqualified as-
sent. It bears hard, however, upon our brethren of the New
Basis. If just, how are they to bear up under " a weight of
popular odium," which would have crushed our branch of
the Church ? We leave them and posterity in the coming
time, when misapprehension and prejudice shall have passed
away, to answer this inquiry.

Other parts of the Judge's opinion are equally adverse to
our brethren. They had maintained that the excision was a

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 205

necessary expurgation, and that those Tvho united with the
exscinded were seceders, and they beheved that the Judge in
dehvering the opinion of the Court in Bank had so decided.
These positions, his opinion in the case of the Churcli in York,
exphcitly denies. He says the Court " did not determine
that the excision was expurgation, and not division." He
even goes further. He says, " the measure would seem to
have been as decisively revolutionary as would be an ex-
clusion of particular States from the Federal Union for the
adoption of an anti-republican forni of government." He
affirms that the action of the Assembly of which we com-
plain, " was no less than a dismemberment of the Presby-
terian Body, not indeed by disorganization of it, or an entire
reduction of it to its primitive elements, but by an excision.
There was not merely a secession of particles, leaving the
original mass entire, but the original mass was split into two
fragments." And the Judge considers each equally Presbyte-
rian,— " each so like its fellow as to pass for its twin-brother."
With one exception the Judge decides that in the former suit
the claims of the Constitutional Branch of the Church were as
strong: as those of the New Basis. At the time of the ex-
cision the latter were the stronger party.

There have been a few other suits which merit a brief
notice.

In the Church of Neshammony, Pennsylvania, the New
Basis Party, a minority, claimed to be the only true Presby-
terians, and sought to obtain the property, but they were
unsuccessful.

A minority in the Presbyterian Church, in Florida, Orange
Co., N. Y., did the same, and with the same result.

"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 they must have
the Church property, house, parsonage, &c. The Constitu-
tional Party, who were the majoiity, proposed that the two
9*

206 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

parties sliould use the Churcli alternately, and that the ques-
tion concerning property should be settled by compromise.
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 quiet-
ly ' within the fortifications of the New Basis.'

" The old trustees had no other alternative left but to de-
cide the matter by a law-suit. They commenced an action
of ejectment for the parsonage. After a patient hearing, the
jury gave a verdict for the Constitutional Party without
leaving their seats."*

The results of these legal investigations and decisions are
briefly these : With the exception of the Court in Bank, in
Pennsylvania, all of them are decidedly favorable to the Con-
stitutional Branch of the Church. That, by ordering a new
trial, which they have not chosen to bring to an issue, was
adverse to them. Considered, however, in connection with
statements made respecting the ground of that decision, it is
very little in favor of the New Basis Body. As we have
seen. Judge Gibson did not decide to grant a new trial, be-
cause he considered those who denominated themselves the
orthodox, true " Old School Presbyterians," any more worthy
of these epithets and appellations, than those whom they de-
nominated " heterodox, schismatics, seceders, the new sect,
and New School Presbyterians," but simply because they
were a majority. The judgment of the Court in Bank, order-
ing a new trial, was evidently given upon the unrighteous
principle that " might makes figlity

The legal decisions in this unhappy controversy establish
two points of great importance. One is, that in the judg-
ment of the Courts both bodies are sound orthodox Presby-
terians : the other, that in cases of litigation for church pro-
perty, it should be given to the majority.

See oimdons of the Hon. Samuel Bl. Hopkins, Hon. George
Wood, ami Chancellor Kent, Appendix C.

* Woods' History, pages 203, 204

MEASURES TAKEN BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL BRANCH OF THE CHURCH TO UNITE
THE TWO IN ONE BODY.

That the constitutional branch of the church were strong-
ly adverse to division, and desirous after it had been effected
to have the difficulties arising out of it settled without Uti-
gation, has been clearly shown by facts placed before our
readers on previous pages of this history. Facts now to be
presented will make it equally evident that they have since
been governed by the same pacific spirit.

In 1846 the two Assemblies met in the city of Philadelphia.
On page 11th of the minutes of the Constitutional Assem-
bly, we find the following minute, viz. :

**Rev. A. W. Campbell moved, that the committee on
devotional exercises be authorized to confer with a similar
committee of the General Assembly, meeting in the Tenth
Presbyterian Church of this city, in reference to a united
celebration of the Lord's Supper."

"The motion was carried unanimously."

The report of this committee, and the action of the As-
sembly in reference to it, are recorded on pages 21st and
2 2d of the Minutes, and are as follow, viz. :

" The committee on devotional exercises presented a re-
port as to the result of a conference with a similar com-
mittee of the other Assembly, in reference to a united cel-
ebration of the Lord's Sitpper, which was adopted, and is as
follows :

208 EFFORTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL

" The committee on devotional exercises, to whom was
referred the resolution authorizing them to confer with a
similar committee of the Assembly, meetinof in the Tenth
Presbyterian Church, in reference to a united celebration of
the Lord's Supper, report,

"That they presented to the committee of the Annual
Assembly a certified copy of the resolution passed by this
Body, accompanied by the following letter, addressed to
the chairman of said committee :

*' ' Dear Brother — It devolves upon us, as chairman and
secretary of the committee on devotional exercises of the
Triennial* General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church,
convened in the First Presbyterian Church in this city, to
present for your consideration the above resolutio-o.

" ' Should the foregoing proposal meet the approval of
yourself and of your Assembly, it would aiFord us great
pleasure as a committee to confer with you at such time and
place as you may designate.

" ' Wishing you, and the Assembly with whc>m you are
associated, grace, mercy, and peace from our Lord Jesus
Christ, v/e are yours, affectionately,

" ' ALFRED E. CAMPBELL, Chairman.

" * Charles H. Read, Secretary.'

** To our proposal we have received the following answer,
through the Rev. Daniel Baker, one of the committee on
devotional exercises :

"Extract from the Minutes of the General Assembly, in
session at Philadel2ohia, Mcty 2Sth, 1846:
" * The committee on devotional exercises, having reported
to the General Assembly a communication from a similar
committee of the General Assembly in session in the First
Presbyterian Church, representing that the said Assembly

* At that time the Constitutional Assembly met every third year;
but like the other^ they now meet annually.

PRESBYTERIANS FOR UNION. 209

has authorized its committee to confer with the committee
of this Assembly in relation to a joint celebration of the
Lord's Supper by the two bodies ; it was ordered, that the
committee respectfully acknowledge and reciprocate the
courtesy of the communication, and say in reply, that while
this Assembly recognize the above-mentioned body as a
branch of the church of our common Lord, and for this
reason would, as individuals, under appropriate circum-
stances, unite with our brethren in the celebration of di-
vine ordinances, yet, as this Assembly has never, in its cor-
porate and official capacity, united with any other ecclesi-
astical body in celebrating the Lord's Supper, it judges it
inexpedient to institute a new usage at this time,

" * On motion, the committee on devotional exercises were
directed to communicate a copy of the above minute to
the committee of the other Assembly.

" * Attest, Willis Lobd,

'* ^Stated Olerk of the General Assembly.^ "

*• We can only regret that the proposal, made in the most
fraternal manner, and passed by a unanimous vote, did not
meet with a cordial response in the other Assembly. We
have long seen, that while the two Assemblies were hold-
ing correspondence with many of the same ecclesiastical
bodies, and in their respective Synods and Presbyteries
maintaining the usual courtesies of correspondence, and
freely exchanging pulpits with each other, nothing had
been done, in our official capacity, to show to the world
that we recoQfnized each other as brethren. And as the
world had seen the jarring and contention that existed in
former years between the two Assemblies, it seemed to be
demanded from both, to manifest, by some public act, like
that of the united celebration of the Lord's Supper, that,
though we were separated, we were 07ie in Christ, and would
love and treat each other as brethren. And though we are
the injured party, our motives and our ministerial charac-

210 EFFORTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL

ter having been impeached, and some of us belonging to
Presbyteries and churches who were exscinded by the acts
of 1837, still it was our earnest wish to extend to them
the hand of Christian charity, to forgive and forget, as we
pray to be forgiven of our God."

*' It is, therefore, to us, a source of deep regret, that our
brethren of the other Assembly did not manifest a disposi-
tion to unite with us, and by their influence and example aid
us in doing away the reproach and the odium which have
been heaped upon the Presbyterian Church. But though
we may not as an Assembly, under existing circumstances,
unite with our brethren of the other Assembly in a joint cel-
ebration of the Lord's Supper, still it is our sincere prayer,
that we may meet with them in the General Assembly and
Church of the First-Born in Heaven, and sit down with them
at the marriage supper of the Lamb."

The reason assigned by our brethren of the New Basis for
refusing to accede to the proposition of the Constitutional
Assembly to unite with them in commemorating the death
of their common Lord and Redeemer, was the fact that in
their " corporate and official capacity," they had never done
it, and then deemed it inexpedient. With some, doubtless,
this was the chief reason. It was our lot, however, to listen to
a protracted debate in their Assembly upon the propriety of
the proposed joint celebration of the Lord's Supper, and we
know that other reasons were assigned for refusing to accede
to the proposition, made by our Assembly, and we distinctly
recollect that one was tliat it would be virtually undoing all
that ihey had done by the exscinding acts and the measures
subsequently adopted to purify the Church. Their speeches
furnished unmistakable evidence that they were not prepared
to meet their brethren whom they had violently cast out of
the Church, and slandered as grossly heretical, at the table
of their redeeming Saviour and God.

Other members of their Assembly advocated the meas-
ure with a spirit of Christian liberahty and zeal, which did

PRESBYTERIANS FOR UNION. 211

them immortal honor, till they saw that the strong opposi-
tion of some of their brethren to the measure rendered the
adoption of it inexpedient, if not impossible.

In 1850 the Presbytery of Rochester sent an overture to
both Assemblies, requesting them " to adopt measures to
effect a union between the two b; anches of the Presbyterian
Church."

Each Assembly appointed a committee to consider this
overture and report thereon to the Body. The Chairman of
the Constitutional Assembly was the late lamented Dr.
Erskine Mason. In his report, after having stated what the
Assembly had previously done to effect a union of the two
Bodies, but without success, he thus concluded his report :

" These propositions and overtures were all made in good
faith, and with an earnest desire and hope that they might
be met in the spirit which prompted them."

*' The result is a matter of history, and is now before the
world. We do not pretend to question the motives of our
brethren in rejecting them ; we yield to them what we claim
for ourselves, honesty of purpose and sincere convictions of
duty. We stated only the facts, and do so to show that we
cannot, as a Body, at the present time, take any farther action
in this mattei"."

" While we are constrained to come to this conclusion, we
should be untrue to ourselves before God and the world, did
we not frankly avow our readiness to meet, in a spirit of fra-
ternal kindness and Christian love, any overtures which may
be made to us by the other Body." — Minutes of the Asse77i-
hly of 1850, Images 322 and 323.

The Committee of the New Basis Assembly on the over-
ture from the Presbytery of Rochester, " recommended the
adoption of the following minute in relation to it."

" This Assembly having in former years (see Minutes of
1838, pages 35 and 36, and Minutes of 1842, page 32), fully
declared that it was not its intention * to cause any sound
Presbyterian to be permanently separated from our connec-

212 EFFORTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL

tion/ and having provided a mode of return to our Body (see
Minutes of 1838, page 36), on principles which have seemd
adapted to preserve the purity and peace of our churches,
consider it inexpedient to take any further action on the sub-
ject at this time. Yet the Assembly would reiterate its de-
sire to see all sound Presbyterians re-united in one commu-
nion, according to the doctrine and polity of our standards,
and would affectionately invite all such to seek this union in
the ways that are now open to them."

We envy not the hand which penned, nor the heart which
dictated this report. Still less do we covet the reputation
of the Assembly which adopted it, half a century hence.
Its chief characteristic is the slanderous insinuation that most
of the ministers and churches in connection with the Consti-
tutional Assembly, are " not sound Presbyterians,''^ and it
reminds those that are, that they can be received into their
Body, not on the ground of their having complied with the
requirements of the Constitution, but only by adopting the
New Basis of 1837 and 1838. This report, be it remem-
bered, was adopted by the Assembly thirteen years after
they thrust out of the Church with ruthless violence the
four Synods ; — a period, it would seem, quite sufficient for
passion to give place to reason, and prejudice to candor, and
the exercise of Christian love.

As little is the writer of an editorial article upon this
minute, which was published in the Presbyterian of July
20th of that year, to be envied as its author and the Body
which adopted it. We quote its closing paragraph.

" The process of re-union is now going on ; those churches
and ministers that are not pleased with their present position
are gradually transferring their relations. Since the debate
on the subject in the New School Assembly, it seems to be
agreed on all hands that no union en masse can be effected.
But a more excellent way is for all those who think alike to
get together. When all think alike we shall all be to-
gether."

PRESBYTERIANS FOR UNION. 213

This language and that of the report of the Committee on
the overture from the Presbytery of Rochester make it un-
deniably evident that the only union which the Reformers
contemplate, is, by withdrawing ministers and churches from
our body and attaching them to theirs. Absolution, not
union, is their policy.

One ignorant of the actual state of things in their branch
of the Church Avould infer from their language that they are
" perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same
judgment." Such, however, we are certain, is not the fact.
Not a few in connection with tlieir Assembly approve of the
" statement of true doctrine" presented by the minority of
the Assembly of 1837, and adopted by the Auburn Conven-
tionj and likewise of the tolerant principles of the adopting
act of 1729. But as they sit down quietly under acts which
they do not approve, and make no eflforts to procure the re-
moval of the new basis created in 1837 and 1838, they are
freely tolerated. So long as they contribute to their boards
and do not oppose the carrying out of their ecclesiastical pol-
ity, they will doubtless be left undisturbed. Should they
refuse to do this and become formidable in numbers, unless
wiser counsels and a better spirit prevail than did in 1837, as
were the four Synods in that year, they will doubtless be
legislated out of the Church.

In view of the facts placed before our readers in reference
to a miion of the two branches of the Church, they can be
at no loss which is most desirous of it on Christian princi-
ples. They must also, we think, be forcibly reminded of the
striking resemblance of the exscinders of the nineteenth cen-
tury to Diatrophes of the first, of whom the beloved disciple
thus wrote : " Who loveth to have the pre-eminence, prating
against us with malicious words ; and not content therewith,
neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth
them that w^ould, and casteth them out of the Church."

OUR POSITION, DUTY, AXD PROSPECTS.

The preceding chapters contain what the Committee be-
lieve to be a faithful documentary history of the division of
the Presbyterian Cliurch, and the causes which produced it.
By their appointment the Synod probably contemplated
nothing more. To the Committee the history appears highly
suggestive, presenting matters worthy of grave consideration,
especially by our branch of the Church, and it has seemed to
them they might, Avith propriety, and with the prospect of
doing good, close their labors by calling attention to them.

One thing which will be likely to suggest itself to every
attentive reader of the preceding pages, is, that our position,
whether desirable or otherwise, is not of our own election.
As long as there was any hope of preventing the division of
the Church, the men who now compose our branch of it la-
bored to avert the catastrophe, and since it was effected, they
have sought to unite the two bodies in one. By our brethren
of the other branch these efforts to effect their union have
been counteracted. To this day they manifest an iron deter-
mination to have no union but upon the basis which they
created in 1837 and 1838. To this we cannot consent with-
out the sacrifice of principle and a criminal dereliction of
duty. Culpable as we believe our brethren from whom we
are now ecclesiastically separated, to have been, in placing
us in our present position, we are nevertheless under obliga-
tion to recognize a higher agency in the measures which

OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 215

placed us in it. A sparrow falls not to the ground wiiLout
the agency, direct or permissive, of our Heavenly Father.
Surely, then, events intimately connected with the weal or
woe of any branch of His Church, cannot. All things consid-
ered, it seemed good to Him to suffer the events to come to
pass which have placed us in the position we occupy. By it
He has purposes to answer, which are worthy of His infinite
wisdom and benevolence. He has a mission for us to per-
form, and it is our duty to avail ourselves of the means which
He has furnished for ascertaining what it is, and hoio Ave may
best perform it.

In respect to doctrine, our position is between the latitu-
dinarianism, which tolerates error, subversive of the Gospel
on one hand, and uniformity, which precludes all diversity
of views on points not essential, on the other. With the
great body of the fathers of Presbyterianism in this country,
we maintain that no one can honestly subscribe or give his
assent to the Confession of Faith and Catechism, framed
and adopted by the Westminster Assembly, who does not
cordially receive them as containing the system of doctrine
taught in the Holy Scriptures. As distinguished from sys-
tems embraced by several other branches of the Protestant'
Church, it is Calvinistic, and we believe Scriptural. With
the early Presbyterians of our country, however, we believe,
amidst the great diversity which exists among the fol-
lowers of the Saviour in respect to mental constitution,
education and habits of thought, that with the present
degree of their sanciification, perfect uniformity in ref-
erence to a system so comprehensive and minute in its
details, is not to be expected, and ought not to be required.
Hence it seems to us that diversity of views on points ^
not affecting the integrity of the system, should "be made \
the subject of Christian toleration. It must be so, or what
is worse, there will be visible unity without union — insin-
cerity, or almost endless strife and divisions. The coercive
measures which from time to time have been adopted to

216 OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS.

secure perfect uniformity of doctrinal belief, churcli polity,
and modes of worship, have not only failed, but done in-
calculable injury to the cause of religion. Our position in
respect to doctrine, is that of agreement in things funda-
mental, and toleration and forbearance in things not essen-
tial, *' endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds
of peace."

Our position in respect to disciphne and measures for the
removal of error, is what the name by which we choose to
be known, Constitutional Presbyterians, indicates. Unless a
Church have become so corrupt that the discipline of the
Gospel cannot be carried out, and revolution is the only thing
which gives promise of relief, the recovery of erring mem-
bers and the expurgation of error are to be sought only by
the process prescribed in our Book of Discipline and the word
of God. This is one of the things for which we contended
at the time the exscinding acts were passed, and for which
we had contended for several years previous. Had our
brethren adopted this course with the four disowned Synods,
had they patiently investigated the rumors respecting the
heresies and disorders alleged to exist in them, and in case
they should, in any portions of them, be found actually to
exist, employed for their removal the means prescribed in the
Gospel, the Presbyterian Church in this country would have
remained a united and powerful Branch of the great Protes-
tant family of believers. So far as discipline is concerned,
our position is that of Constitutional law and order. It is
opposed to all arbitrary, rash, and revolutionary measures for
securing the ends of discipline and promoting the purity of
the Church. We utterly repudiate and reprobate in the Pro-
testant, as in the Romish Church, the Jesuitical maxim in
morals, *' The end sanctifies the meansT We maintain that
we are under the most sacred obligation to observe the rules
which God has given for the maintenance of discipline and
the removal of error.

Our position in reference to other branches of the Church,

OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 217

is that of preference for our own, without the narrowness of
bigotry and sectarian exckisiveness. The type of Presbyte-
rianism, which characterizes our body, is that of the founders
of Presbyterianism in this country. Our preference and
love for its formulas, polity and order are strong, while we
desire to maintain friendly relations with all evangelical
Christians of every name, and co-operate with them in labors
for the spread of our common Christianity.

As regards the most eligible organizations for evangehzing
our nation and the world, our preferences are generally in favor
of that type of evangelism which seeks the attainment of its
object by Voluntary Societies, composed of members of vari-
ous denominations of Christians.

Our position is decidedly in favor of the great principles of
civil and religious liberty. We maintain that men of all na-
tions, countries, complexions and circumstances, unless, by
wrong-doing, they ha^^ forfeited their prerogatives as men,
have a perfect right to think for themselves, to express their
opinions freely, except when they are adverse to the interests
of society, to enjoy the fruits of their own labor and the
blessings of domestic life ; to cultivate their minds, read the
word of God, and worship Him according to the dictates of
their own consciencies, enlightened by His Word and Spirit.

Our position, how'ever, in respect to the involuntary bond-
age of men, is conservative. Firmly fixed as are our prin-
ciples against the system cf slavery as it exists in our coun-
try; deep as is our abhorrence of the legal conversion of
men into mere chattels, and the fearful liability connected with
it, of sundering the bonds which unite husbands and wives,
parents and children, brothers and sisters, we are no less op-
posed to the indiscriminate denunciation of all who are con-
nected with this iniquitous system. We believe there is a
more excellent way, a way more benevolent, both toward the
master and the slave, to labor for its extermination. For the re-
moval of this foul blot upon our national escutcheon and com-
mon humanity, we advocate no violent measures, but a calm.

218 OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS.

kind, and uncompromising testimony against it, and efforts to
secure an everlasting divorce of our Branch of the Church
from all connection with the institution. In several of our
Assemblies, this subject has been calmly and fully discussed.
They have re-affirmed what the Synod of New York and
Philadelphia did respecting it in 1181, and the testimony of
the Assembly of 1818. The action of both these bodies
against slavery is temperate, but strongly condemnatory, as
anti-Christian, and opposed alike to the principles of justice
and humanity. Equally opposed are we to all infringements
of the sacred rights of religious liberty. Such, in the various
particulars specified, is our position before the nation and the
world.

Here the inquiry naturally presents itself, what, in the in-
teresting position which we occupy, is our

DUTY ?

It requires no supernatural vision to see that a body of
professing Christians, large and intelHgent as is ours, occu-
pying the position which the providence of God has as-
signed to us, must be laid under weighty responsibilities, and
that it deeply concerns us to know and meet them.

An important branch of our duty respects ourselves. By
the course pursued by our brethren of the New Basisj we
have been deeply grieved and injured. That the ^jrinciples,
which in the main, have governed us in resisting their revo-
lutionary and oppressive measures, are characterized by
eternal truth and righteousness, we do not doubt. That in
the peculiarly trying circumstances in which we have been
placed by the action of our exscinding and falsely accusing
brethren, we have never indulged feelings and performed
acts displeasing to God, we would by no means affirm.
Hence, it is our duty to exercise the most diligent self-scru-
tiny for the purpose of ascertaining wherein we have sinned,
to humble ourselves before God, and seek his pardoning
mercy.

To our brethren, by whom we feel that we have been

OUR POSITION, DUTY, AIN^D PROSPECTS. 219

deeply injured, we owe an important duty. They have east
brethren in good standing out of the Church, untried ; com-
pelled those of our body, who were not exscinded, to stand
by them and attempt to redress their wrongs or sacrifice
their principles. They have laid things to our charge re-
specting our doctrinal belief, our practice, and the adoption
of our standards, of which we know ourselves to be guiltless
as the angels before the throne of God. The errors, which
they have from time to time laid to our charge, we as sincerely
reject as they do, and are grieved that our testimony against
them, and in favor of the system contained in the Confession
of Faith and Catechisms, which both tkei/ and we adopt, is
not believed by them. It is no matter of surprise, that the
leaders of the misnamed reform do not believe our testimony,
but it is that the numerous, excellent brethren in that branch
of the Church, who have confidence in our orthodoxy and
integrity, can hear us slandered as we have been for years,
and still are by men in their connection, and forbear to lift
up their voices in our defence. Still they are our brethren,
redeemed by the same precious blood to which we trust for
remission and eternal life. As such we are bound to bear
with and love them, their faults notwithstanding, and pray
no less sincerely than we do for ourselves, that God would
make known to them their duty, give them grace to perform
it, and cause the light of His countenance to shine upon
them.

What we have suffered from the revolutionary and intoler-
ant measures of the New Basis Assembly, should lead to the
exercise of forbearance and toleration toward each other in
regard to things of subordinate moment, concerning which
we differ. An intolerant, overbearing spirit in our branch of
the Church, woul^ be most unseemly, and deeply cul-
pable. In our position, we ought to give the most earnest
heed to the inspired entreaty and injunction : ** That ye walk
worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all low-
liness and meekness, with long-suffering, forgiving one an-

220 OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS.

other in love ; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace."

Our position before all the branches of the great Protest-
ant brotherhood of believers, and before the world, as the
sincere friends of our standards of doctrine and order, should
influence us to a strict adherence to them in accordance with
the principles of the adopting act of 1729. If there be men
in our branch of the church who repudiate their doctrines,
and are guilty of flagrant departures from their discipline and
order, let the measures, prescribed by the Gospel, be em-
ployed to reclaim them. Should they prove unavailing, let
them be removed from us by judicial process. May the day
never come when any shall be declared out of our commun-
ion by the operation of ex-post-facto laws and legislative acts,
wholly unauthorized by our Constitution and the Word of
God.

As a distinct brancli of the great family of believers in
Christ, we have certainly a rigid, nay, it is our imjjerative
duty, to employ all available means authorized by the Gos-
pel for her enlargement and prosperity. Not less sacredly
are we bound to abstain from infringing the rights of other
branches of "the household of faith," and the httleness and
guilt of a bigoted and sectarian policy and spirit. Should
we unhappily be called to resist these evils in our brethren of
other denominations, let us oppose them by the firmness of
Christian principle, the meekness of heavenly wisdom, and
the spirit of Christian forbearance and love. Our position is
too high and sacred to allow us to descend to the low ground
of sectarian prejudice and policy. Our principles forbid us
to employ the low arts of proselytism to augment our num-
bers, or interfere with the evangelical labors of Christians of
other denominations who difi^er from us only in matters of
subordinate importance. Still, we are** Roman citizens, or
rather the Lord's freemen, and may, and ought to defend our
rights with the weapons of truth and love. It is our indis-
pensable duty to seek the purity, peace, and enlargement of

OUR f»OSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 22 L

that brancli of the church with which we are connected, be-
cause we beheve it to be most conformable to the Gospel
pattern. The field of labor for the world's recovery to God
is broad enough for all the disciples of Christ, without inter-
fering with each other. While we honest!}' and sincerely
labor to propagate Constitutional Presbyterianism, let us re-
joice in the success of all who labor to make converts to
Christ by the Gospel.

Our principles lay us under obligation to do all in our
power to give increased efficiency to Voluntary Societies for
the spread of the Gospel and the conversion of the world.
The unreasonable opposition to them on the part of our breth-
ren, and their iron determination to exclude their operation
from the Presbyterian Church, and bind all her members to
contribute to Boards under Ecclesiastical control, was one of
the chief causes of placing us in our present position. We
had no desire to interfere with their preferences, and all we
asked or desired from them, was like toleration. This they
denied us, and insisted that in this particular we should sub-
mit to their dictation or be separated from them. If there
be any in our body who adopt their views of Ecclesiastical
Boards, it certainly becomes them to pay a respectful defer-
ence to the opinions of those who differ from them, and es-
pecially of their fatliers and brethren who have manfully and
with great self-denial contended for the voluntary principle
in labors for spreading the Gospel at home and in foreign
lands. Especially should we hold fast and defend that fea-
ture of the voluntary principle which unites the labors, con-
tributions, and prayers of Christians of different names for
the spread of their common faith, and promoting the glory
of their common Father, Redeemer, and Sanctifier.

To all who are suffering from civil or ecclesiastical despo-
tism, we owe an important duty. What we are bound to
do for their relief, it may not in all cases be easy to decide ;
but that we are under obligation to sympathize with them,
and do for them what we might reasonably desire them to
10

222 OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS.

do for us in like circumstances, is manifest as the light. As
the avowed friends of civil and religious liberty, we are bound
to employ all lawful means for the defence of the rights of
the oppressed both in Church and State. To this principle
we stand committed before our country and the world, by
the action of several of our Assemblies. The field before
us, inviting this labor of love, is vast, for the number of those,
both in Church and State, who are suffering under the bur-
dens and wrongs of involuntary bondage, is immense. It
should be our aim to have our branch of the Church de-
tached from all connection with the system of slaver}^ —
nay, to do our utmost to banish this Hydra evil from our
country and the world, and introduce all the victims of eri'or
and superstition into the glorious liberty of the Gospel ; —
liberty to read and interpret the word of God for themselves,
and worship Him, unembarrassed by the traditions and com-
mandments of men.

OUR PROSPECTS

are bright with encouragement and hope, demanding our
united and fervent thanksgiving to God. How changed are
they since the excision of 1837 and the organization of our
Assembly in 1838! The year between those Assembhes
was a period of deep anxiety and painful apprehension.
Our brethren, who had lent their agency to procure the ex-
cision of the four Synods and the dissolution of the Third
Presbytery of Philadelphia, or were pledged to support
them, were strong in the belief that those Synods, and all
who were resolved to make common cause with them, could
never form a homogeneous, harmonious body. The ruling
spirit of the Assembly of 1837, when urging the passage of
the exscinding resolutions, said, " Moderator, pass them, and
you will scatter these New School men to the winds, and
never hear of them again." After they had been passed, mul-
titudes believed that this assertion wovdd be verified. They
were confident that many who were deeply grieved by their

OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 223

passage, would nevertheless sit down under tliem without
complaint, and that a still greater number would seek a union
with Congregationalists. The firm friends of Constitutional
Presb3^terianism could not tell what would be the effect of
so violent a blow for the deprivation of rights, secured by
the Constitution of the church, as that which, contrary to
every principle of natural justice, thrust out of it five hun-
dred of her Ministers and sixty thousand of her Communi-
cants, without trial or citation. It was calculated to pro-
duce strong prejudices against a system, under which a deed
of such revolting iniquity had been perpetrated.

Thanks be to God, the dark and ominous clouds which for
years brooded over us, have dispersed, and left our sky
serene and bright. If we do not misjudge, the Sun of
Righteousness sheds no brighter beams of gladness and hope
upon any portion of the Lord's heritage. Our position be-
fore the world commends itself to the approval of intelli-
gent and candid observers of all creeds and all ecclesiastical
organizations. Our action respecting slavery renders our
prospects most cheering when compared with those of other
denominations, which have shut out from their deliberative
bodies all discussion respecting it. They will be compelled
to admit it. The spiiit of the age and the providence of
God will, ere \oxig-r force it upon them, but what may be its
results in respect to their peace and prosperity, remains to
be known. Our branch of the church has discussed it in
all its bearings, calmly and fully, and our principles and
policy respecting it are understood, and generally approved.
With uncompromising hostility to the system, we unite a
conservative, benevolent policy in respect to measures for its
removal.

With a creed strictly Calvinistic, we associate views res-
pecting the extent of the atonement, the basis of human obli-
gation, and the nature of the sinner's inability to do the will
of God, which furnish advantages for defending the system
and justifying " the ways of God to men," which those who

224 OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS.

V diflfer from us on these points have not. They cannot, as we

I can, vindicate the sincerity of God in the indiscriminate offer

t/ of salvation to all, and press, as we can, the obligations of

1 the impenitent to yield immediate obedience to the Gospel.

On these topics, our theology is that of common sense,

sound philosophy, and the obvious teaching of inspiration.

Our principles, too, instead of forbidding, require us to co-
operate with all who give evidence of discipleship to the
Lord Jesus, in efforts to spread the Gospel. For this benevo-
lent, God-like purpose, we can labor, unencumbered with the
iron coat of mail with which sectarian exclusiveness girds its
disciples. Many of the obstacles to our progress by which
we have been embarrassed most of the time since our organi-
zation in 1838, are now removed. During a large portion of
this period, much of our time and energies were necessarily
devoted to the defence of our position and rights. Now
we can consecrate them to labors for extending the borders
of our heritage and the spread of the Gospel through the
world. We are not, indeed, rich in moneyed investments.
All that the church possessed previous to the division, our
brethren of the New Basis have appropriated to themselves.
We are confident, however, that God, whose is " the silver and
the gold, — the earth — and the fulness thereof, "approves our
principles and policy, and if we humbly confide in Him, will
not withhold His blessing from us. Though not the largest,
we are not the least of " the tribes of Israel." We have valuable
seminaries, endowed and in the process of endowment, for
giving a thorough education to our candidates for the ministry.
With our more than fourteen hundred Ministers, more than
fifteen hundred Churches, and more than one hundred and
forty thousand Communicants, embracing a large amount
of talent, learning, wealth and influence, if associated, as we
pray it may be, with a spirit of activity and humble depend-
ence upon God, what, by His blessing, may we not achieve
for the dissemination of His truth, the promotion of His
honor, and the salvation of our sin- destroyed, suffering

OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 225

world ! All that is necessary to warrant the most enlarged
expectations of success in every department of Christian
labor, is, that om* churches and ministry receive a fresh bap-
tism of the Holy Ghost. Let us seek this priceless blessing,
by humble, believing, persevering prayer. With these ani-
mating prospects before us, let us arise in the strength of
our redeeming God, and lay all our powers under contribu-
tion for the advancement of His kingdom and honor ; — al-
ways abounding in His work, assured that our labor will not
be in vain.

|ipniiji^\

[A.]

JUDGE ROGERS' CHARGE.

In the course of my remarks, gentlemen, so far as lies in my power,
I shall instruct you positively, clearly, and directly, upon the differ-
ent points of law involved in this case. My observations will be brief,
and discarding all collateral matter, I shall direct your attention to the
very points which I think material. If I err in my instructions to
you, by a resort to a higher tribunal, the error may be corrected. I
now request your careful attention.

Before the year 1758, the Presbyterian Churches in this country,
were under the care of two separate Synods, and their respective Pi-es-
byteries : the Synod of New York and the Synod of Philadelphia.

In the year 1*758, these Synods were united, and were called the
*' Synod of New York and Philadelphia." This continued until the
year 1788, when the General Assembly was formed. The Synod was
then divided into four Synods, the Synods of New York and New
Jersey, Philadelphia, Virginia, and the Carolinas ; of these four Syn-
ods the General Assembly was constituted.

In 1803 the Synod of Albany was erected. This Synod has been
from time to time sub-divided, and the Synods of Genesee, Geneva,
and Utica have been formed.

The Synod of Pittsburg has been also erected, out of which the Syn-
od of the AVestern Reserve has been formed.

These constitute the four exscinded Synods, viz., the Synods of Gene-
see, Geneva, Utica, and the Western Reserve.

The General Assembly was constituted by every Presbytery at
their last stated meeting, preceding the meeting of the General As-
sembly, deputing to the General Assembly commissioners in certain
epecific proportions.

APPENDIX. 227

The Westminster Confession of Faith is part of the constitution of
the Church. The constitution could not be altered, unless two-thirds
of the Presbyteries under the care of the General Assembly, prepared
alterations or amendments, and such alterations or amendments were
agreed to by the General Assembly.

The Form of Government was amended in 1821. The General As
eembly now consists of an "equal delegation of bishops and elders
from each Presbytery in certain proportions."

The judicatories of the Church consist of the Session, of the Pres-
byteries, of Synods, and the General Assembly.

The church-session consists of the pastor, or pastors, and ruling el-
ders of a particular congregation. A Presbytery, of all the ministers-
and one ruling elder from each congregation within a certain district.
A Synod is a convention of bishops and elders, including at least three
Presbyteries. And the General Assembly, of an equal delegation of
bishops and elders, from each Presbytery, in the following propor-
tion, viz, each Presbytery consisting of not more than twenty-four
ministers, sends one minister and one elder ; and each Presbytery con-
sisting of more than twenty-four ministers, sends two ministers and two
eldei's ; and in the like proportion for every twenty-four ministers in
any Presbytery. The delegates so appointed are styled commission-
ers to the General Assembly.

The General Assembly is the highest judicatory of the Presbyterian
Church. It represents, in one body, all the particular churches of
this denomination of Christians.

In relation to this body, the most important undoubtedly are the
various Presbyteries ^ for, as was before said, the General Assembly
consists of an equal delegation of bishops and elders from each of the
Presbyteries. If the Presbyteries are destroyed, the General Assem-
bly fiills, as a matter of course, as there would no longer be any con-
stituent bodies in existence, from which delegates could be sent to the
General Assembly.

The Presbyteries are essential features in the form of government
in another particular, for before any overtures or regulations proposed
by the General Assembly, to be established as constitutional rules, can
be obligatory on the churches, it is necessary to transmit them to all
the Presbyteries, and to receive the returns of at least a majority of
them in writing, approving thereof.

A Synod, as has been before observed, is a convention of bishops
and elders within a district, including at least three Presbyteries.
The Synods have a supervisory power over Presbyteries, but unlike
Presbyteries, as such they are not essential to the existence of the Gen-

228 APPENDIX.

eral Assembly. If every Synod in the United States were exscinded
and destroyed, still the General Assembly would remain as the high-
est tribunal in the Church. In this particular there is a vital differ-
ence between Presbyteries and Synods. The only connexion between
the General Assembly and the Synods is, that the former has a super-
visory power over the latter.

Having thus given you an account of such parts of the Form of
Church government as may, in some aspects of the cause, be material,
I shall now call your attention to the matter in issue.

This proceeding is what is called a " Quo Warranto" It is issued
by the Commonwealth, at the suggestion of James Todd and others,
against Ashbel Green and others, to show by what authority they
claim to exercise the office of Trustees of the General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. I must here
remark, that it is not only an a23propriate, but the best method of try-
ing the issue in this cause.

It is admitted, that until the 24th of May, 1838, the respondents
were the rightful trustees; but it is contended by the relators, that
on that day, the 24th of May, 1838, in pursuance of the act of incor-
poration, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church changed
one third of the trustees, by the election of the relators in the place
and stead of the respondents.

On the 28th of March, 1799, the Legislature of Pennsylvania declared
Ashbel Green and seventeen others, (naming them), a body politic,
and corporate, by the name and style of Trustees of the General As-
sembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.

The sixth section provides that the corporation shall not, at any
time, consist of more than eighteen persons; whereof, the General
Assembly may, at their discretion, as often as they shall hold their ses-
sions in the State of 'Pennsylvania, change one third in such manner
as to the General Assembly may seem proper.

It was the intention of the Legislature, by the act of incorporation,
to provide for the election of competent persons, who, as an incorpo-
rated body, might with more ease, and in a better manner, manage
the temporal affairs of the Church. It is only in this aspect that we
have cognizance of the case.

In this country, for the mutual advantage of church and state, we
have wisely separated the ecclesiastical from the civil power. The
court has as little inclination as authority to interfere with the church
and its government, farther than may be necessary for its protection
and security. It is only as it bears upon the corporation, which is
the creature of the civil power, that we have any right to determine

APPENDIX. 229

the validity, or to construe the acts and resolutions of the General
Assembly. It is, however, sufficient for us, gentlemen, to know that
in this case we have that right.

Although neither the members of the General Assembly, as such,
nor the General Assembly itself, are individually or aggregately mem-
bers of the corporation, yet the Assembly has power, from time to
time, as they may deem proper, to change the trustees, and to give
special instructions for their government. They stand in the relation
of electors, and have been properly denominated in the argument,
quasi corporate. The trustees only are the corporation by express
words of the act of the Assembly.

Unhappily, differences have arisen in the church, (the nature of
which it is not necessary for us to inquire into,) which have caused a
division of its members into two parties, called and known as the Old
and New School. These appellations we may adopt for the sake of
designating the respective parties, the existence of which will have
an important bearing on some of the questions involved in this im-
portant cau^e. It gives a key to conduct which it would be other-
wise difficult to explain.

The division continued to increase in strength and virulence until
the session of 1837, when certain decisive measiires, which will be
hereafter stated, were taken by the General Assembly, which at this
time was under the control of members, who sympathize, (as the
phrase is,) with the principles of the Old School.

At an early period the Presbyterian Church, at their own sugges-
tion, formed unions with cognate churches, that is, with churches
whose faith, principles and practice, assimilated with their own, and
between whom there-was thought to be no essential difference in doc-
trine.

On this principle a plan of union and correspondence was adopted
by the Assembly in 1*792, with the General Association of Connecti-
cut, with Vermont in 1803, with that of New Hampshire in 1810,
with Massachusetts in 1811, with the Northern Associate Presbytery
of Albany in 1802, and with the Reformed Dutch Church, and the
Associate Reformed Church, in J 798.

These conventions, as is stated, originated in measures adopted by
the General Assembly in 1790 and 1791. The delegates from each
of the associated churches not only sat and deliberated with each
other, but also acted and voted by virtue of the express terms of the
union.

In further pursuance of the settled policy of the Church to extend
its sphere of usefulness, in the year 1801, a plan of union between the
Presbyterians and Oongregationalists was formed.

10*

230 APPENDIX.

The plan which was devised by the fathers of the Church, to pre-
vent alienation and to promote harmony, was observed by the Gen-
eral Assembly without question by them, until the year 1835, a pe-
riod of thirty-four years.

At that time it was resolved by the General Assembly, that they
deemed it no longer desirable that churches should be formed in
their Presbyterian connexion, agreeably to the plan adopted by the
Assembly and the General Association of Connecticut in 1801. They,
therefore, resolved that their brethren of the General Association of
Connecticut be, and they hereby are, respectfully requested to consent
that the said plan shall be, from and after the next meeting of that
Association, declared to be annulled. And also resolved that the an-
nulling of said plan shall not in any wise interfere with the existence
and lawful association of churches which have been already formed on
this plan.

To this resolution no reasonable objection can be made ; and if the
matter had been permitted to rest here, we should not have been
troubled with this controversy. It had not then occurred to the As-
sembly, that the plan of union was unconstitutional. The resolutions
are predicated on the belief that the agreement or compact was con
stitutional. They request that the Association of Connecticut would
consent to rescind it. It does not seem to have been thought that
this could be done without their consent. And, moreover, the reso-
lution expressly saves the right of existing churches which had been
formed on that plan.

I must be permitted to regret, for the sate of peace and harmony,
that this business was not suffered to rest on the basis of resolutions
which breathe the spirit of peace and good feeling. But, unfortu-
nately, the General Assembly, in 1837, which was then under another
influence, took a different view of the question.

"As the 'Plan of Union' adopted for the new settlements, in 1801,
was originally an unconstitutional act on the part of that Assembly —
these important standing rules having never been submitted to the
Presbyteries — and as they were totally destitute of authority as pro-
ceeding from the General Association of Connecticut, which is invest-
ed with no power to legislate in such cases, and especially to enact
laws to regulate churches not within her limits ; and as much confu-
sion and irregularity have arisen from this unnatural and unconstitu-
tional system of union, therefore it is resolved, that the Act of the As-
sembly of 1801, entitled a ' Plan of Union,' be, and the same is hereby
abrogated." See Digest, pp. 29V-299.

The resolution declares the Plan of Uuiuu to be unconstitutional.

APPENDIX, 231

First, because those important standing rules, as they call them, were
not submitted to Ihe Presbyteries ; and, secondly, because the General
Association of Connecticut was invested with no power to legislate in
siich cases, and especially to enact laws to regulate churches not with-
in their limits.

The Court is not satisfied with the force of these reasons, and does
not think the agreement, or Plan of Union, comes within the words
or spirit of that clause in the constitution, which provides that before
any overture or regulations shall be proposed by the General Assembly
to be established as constitutional rules, shall be obligatory on the
churches, it shall be necessary to transmit them to all the Presbyteries,
and to receive the returns of at leasta majorityof them, approving there-
of. Nor is it, in the opinion of the Court, in conflict with the con-
stitution, before its amendment in 1821, which provides that no al-
teration shall be made in the Constitution, unless two-thirds of the
Presbyteries under thj care of the General Assembly propose altera-
tions or amendments, and such alterations or amendments are ao-reed
to by the Assembly.

It was a regulation made by competent parties, and not intended
by either as a constitutional rule ; nor was it obligatory on any of
the Presbyterian Churches within their connexion. Those who were
competent to make it, were competent to dissolve it without the as-
sent of the presbyteries, as such, which could not be done, were it
a constitutional rule, within the meaning of the constitution. Whether
one party may dissolve it, without the consent of the other, it might
be unnecessary to decide. My opinion is that they can. The Plan
of Union is intended to prevent alienation, and to promote union and
harmony in the new settlements.

It is not a union of the Presbyterian Church with a Congregational
Church, or churches, but it purports to be, and is, a Plan of Union
between individual members of the Presbyterian and Congregational
churches, in that portion of the country which was then denominated
the New Settlements. It is advisory and recommendatory in its char-
acter— has nothing obligatory about it. A Congregational church, aa
such, is not by force of the agreement incorporated with the Presby-
terian Church. It has no necessary connexion with it; for it is only
when the congregation consists partly of tliose who hold the Congre-
gational form of discipline, and partly of those who hold the Presby-
terian form, and there is an appeal to the presbytery, (as there may
be in certain cases,) that the Standing Committee of the Congrega-
tional church, consisting partly of Presbyterians and partly of
Congregationalists, may, or shall attend the presbytery, and may have

232 APPENDIX.

the same right to sit and act in the presbytery as a ruling elder. And
whatever may have been occasionally the instances to the contrary,
this I conceive to be the obvious construction of the regulation. That
part of the agreement was intended as a safeguard, or protection of
the rights of all the parties to be affected by it, without any design
to confer upon the Standing Committee all the rights of a ruling elder.

I view it as a matter of discipline, and not of doctrine, the effect
of which is to exempt those members of the different communions,
who adopted it, from the censures of the church to which they belong,
and pai'ticularly the clerical portion of them.

The Court is also of the opinion, that after an acquiescence of nearly
forty years, and particularly after the adoption by the presbyteries
of the amended constitution of 1821, the Plan of Union is not now
open to objection. The plan has been recognized by the presbyteries
at various times, and in different manners, under the old and amended
constitution. It has been acted on by them and the General Assembly
in repeated instances, and is equally as obligatory as if it had received
the express sanction of the presbyteries in all the forms known to the
constitution.

That acquiescence gives right, is a principle which we must admit.
The constitutionality of the purchase and admission of Louisiana as
a member of the Union, was doubted by some of the wisest heads and
purest hearts in the country; but he would be a very bold man,
indeed, who would now deny that state, and Mississippi, Arkansas,
and Missouri, to be members of the confederation. In the memorable
struggle for the admission of Missouri into the Union, this objection
was never taken.

Nor am I satisfied with the second reason, that the General Asso-
ciation of Connecticut was invested with no power to legislate in
such cases, and especially to enact laws to regulate churches not within
their limits. Although the General Assembly had the right to annul
the Plan of Union without the assent of the General Association of
Connecticut, yet I must be permitted to say, that after having acted
on the plan, and reaped all the advantages of it, it is rather discour-
teous, to say the least of it, to attempt to abrogate it without the
consent of the other party. Although the Association may be an
advisory body, yet it does not appear that any difficulty has been
started by them, or by the churches under their control. All parties
acquiesced in it for thirty-six years, axid it would be too late for either
now to object to its validity. Xor is there any thing in the idea that
they have no power to fegulate churches not within their limits.
This is a matter of consent, and there is nothing to prevent churches

APPENDIX. 233

in one state from submitting themselves to the ecclesiastical govern-
ment of churches located in another state. The Presbyterian Church
has furnished us with repeated examples of this kind.

So far from believing the Plan of Union to be unconstitutional, I
concur fully with one of the counsel, that, confined wiUiin ite legiti-
mate 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 promote the best interests of religion.

If, as is stated, the standing committee of Congregational churches
have claimed and exercised the same rights as ruling elders in pres-
byteries, and in the General Assembly itself, it is an abuse which
may be cori'ected by the proper tribunals; but surely that is no
argument, or one of but little weight, to show that the Plan of Union
is unconstitutional and void.

Although, in the opinion of the Court, the Assembly have the right
to repeal the Plan of Union without the consent of the General As-
sociation of Connecticut, yet it was unjust to repeal it, without saving
the rights of existing ministers and churches. But this is a matter,
the propriety of which they must determine.

But whether the Plan of Union be constitutional or not, is only
material so far as it is made the basis of some subsequent resolutions,
to which your attention will now he directed.

At the same session, and after failure of an attempt at compromise,
the character of which has been the subject of much comment, the
General Assembly " resolved, that by the abrogation of the Plan of
Union of 1801, the Synod of the Western Keserve is, and is hereby
declared to be, no longer a part of the Presbyterian Church."

^^ Resolved, That imionsequence of the abrogation by this General
Assembly of the Plan of Union of 1801, between it and the General
Association of Connecticut, as utterly unconstitutional, and therefore
null and void from the beginning, the Synods of Utica, Geneva, and
Genesee, which were formed and attached to this body, under and
in execution of said Plan of Union, be, and are hereby declared to
be, out of the connexion of the Presbyterian Church in the United
States of America, and that they are not, in form or in fact, an integral
portion of said church."

These resolutions refer only in name to the four synods, and if we
were called on for the construction alone, it might be well doubted
whether they were intended, or could be made to include, the pres-
byteries within their limits, the constituents or electoral bodies of the
General Assembly itself. I should be inclined, for the purpose of pro-
tecting their rights from a resolution so penal in its character, to say

234 APPENDIX.

that they ■svere not included, either in the spirit or words of the reso-
lution. But this construction we are prevented from giving by their
declarative resolution. It is there in effect said, that it is the purpose of
the General Assembly to destroy the relations of all said synods and
all their constituent parts to the General Assembly and to the Presby-
terian Church in the United States, In the fourth resolution it is de-
clared, that any presbytery within the four synods, being strictly Pres-
byterian in doctrine and order, who may desire to be united with them,
are hereby directed to make application, with a full statement of their
case, to the next General Assembly, which will take proper order
thereon.

There is no mistaking the character of these resolutions. It is an
immediate dissolution of all connexion between the four synods and
all their constitu^ent parts, and the General Assembly. They are
destructive of the rights of electors of the General Assembly. The
connexion might be renewed, it is true, by each of the presbyteries
making application to the next General Assembly, but they are at
liberty to accept or refuse them, provided they, the General Assembly,
deem them strictly Presbyterian in doctrine and order. As they had
the right to admit them, they had the right, also, to refuse them,
unless, in their opinion, they were strictly Presbyterian in doctrine
and order.

By these resolutions, the commissioners, who had acted with the
General Assembly up to that time, were deprived of their seats. At
the same time, four synods, with twenty-eight presbyteries, were cut
off from all connexion with the Presbyterian Church, The General
Assembly resolved, that because the Plan of 1801 was unconstitu-
tional, those synods and their constituent parts are no longer integral
parts of the Presbyterian Church.

You will observe, that I have ah*eady said the Plan of Union is
constitutional. That reason therefore fails. They have resolved that
it is not only unconstitutional, but that it is null and void from the
beginning. Instead of Si prospective, they have given their resolutions
a retrospective effect, the injustice of which is most manifest.

But admitting that the Plan of Union is unconstitutional, null and
void, from the beginning, I cannot perceive what justification that
furnishes for the exscinding resolutions. The infusion of Congrega-
tional ists with the presbyteries, or the General Assembly itself, does
not invalidate the acts of the General Assembly. They had a right,
notwithstanding the charter, which recognizes elders and ministers as
composing the Presbyterian Church, to perform the functions com-
mitted to them by the constitution. And among them to establish

APPENDIX. 235

and divide synods, to create presbyteries, as in their judgment the
exigencies of the church might demand.

Accordingly, we find that the four synods, and all the presbyteries
attached to them, have been formed since the year 1801. The As-
sembly creates the synods, and the synods the presbyteries. Some-
times the Assembly creates the presbyteries — a course pursued with
some of the presbyteries which have been exscinded. They have been
established since, but this is no evidence that the four exscinded synods
were formed and attached to the General Assembly under, and in
execution of, the Plan of Union. 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 voluntary act, and not the necessary
result of the agreement ; nor does it appear that the jsresbyteries
were formed and incorporated with the church on any other terms or
conditions than other presbyteries, who were in regular course taken
into the Presbyterian connexion.

But, gentlemen, when resolutions of so unusual a character, so con-
demnatory, and so destructive of the rights of electors, the constitu-
ents of the Assembly itself, are passed, we have a right to require
that the substantial forms of justice be observed. But so far from
this, the General Assembly, in the plenitude of its power, has under"
taken to exclude from all their rights and privileges twenty-eight
presbyteries, who are its constituents, without notice, and without
even the form of trial. By the resolutions, the commissioners, who
had acted as members of the General Assembly for two weeks, were
at once deprived of their seats. Four synods, twenty-eight presby-
teries, five hundred 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 eternal principles of
justice, the principles of the common law, but it is at variance with
the constitution of the church.

This is not in the nature of a legislative, but it is & judicial 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 ene-
mies and offenders against the rules, regulations, and doctrines of the
church. If there is anything that a man values, it is his religious
rights.

And of this oj->Inion were the General Assembly themselves; for,
only a few days before, they came to the following resolutions :

" Resolved, 1. That the proper steps now be taken to cite to the bur of

2oG APPENDIX.

tlie next Assembly, such inferior judicatories as are charged by com-
mon fame with irregularities.

"2. That a special committee be now appointed to ascertain what
inferior judicatories are thus charged by common fame, prepare
charges and specifications against them, and to digest a suitable plan
of procedure in the matter, and that said committee be requested to
report as soon as practicable."

K'othing further appears to have been done in this matter in the
General Assembly, for, after failure of the attempt at compromise,
they appear to have discovered a much more expeditious, if not a
more agreeable method of effecting their object.

I have said that exscinding the presbyteries without notice, and
without trial, was not only contrary to the common law, but it was
contrary to the constitution of the church. And it is only necessary
to open the book of discipline to see how very careful the fathers of
the church have been to secure to the accused a full, fair and impar-
tial trial.

Kotice is given to the parties concerned, at least ten days before
the meeting of the judicatory. The accused are informed of the names
of all the witnesses to be adduced against them. When the charges
are exhibited, the time, places and circumstances are stated, if, by
possibility, they can be ascertained: citations are issued, signed
by the moderator or clerk, by order, and in the name of the judi-
catory.

Judicatories are enjoined to ascertain, before proceeding to trial,
that their citations have been duly served. And, to secure a fair and
impartial trial, the witnesses are to be examined in the presence of
the accused, who is permitted to ask any question tending to his own
exculpation. The judgment, when rendered, is regularly entered on
the recoi'ds of the judicatory.

If these proceedings, before judgment, are requisite in the case of
the meanest member of the church, (the omission of which, by any of
the inferior judicatories, would call down on the offenders the se-
verest censure of the General Assembly,) it is inconceivable that simi-
lar precautions are not necessary to protect the rights of presbyteries,
which consist of many individuals, from the injustice, violence, and
party spirit of the General Assembly itself. Constitutions are in-
tended to protect the weak, the minority from the injustice of the
majority.

The majority, for the most part, are able to protect themselves. It
is the minority that need protection, and for this purpose it is neces-
sary to encircle them with at least all the forms of justice.

APPENDIX. 237

This, as has been before observed, is a judicial act; and if a regular
trial had been had, and judgment rendered, the sentence would have
been conclusive. "We should not have attempted to examine the
justice of the proceeding; but inasmuch as there have been no cita-
tions, and no trial, I instruct you, that the resolutions of the General
Assembly exscinding the four Synods of Utiea, Geneva, Genesee, and
the Western Reserve, are unconstitutional, null and void.

The judgments of all courts, whether ecclesiastical or civil, whe-
ther of inferior or superior judicatories, are absolutely void when
rendered without citations, and without trial, and without the op-
portunity of a hearing.

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 tribunal,
who act under the sanction of an oath, who examine witnesses on
oath, and who conform to all the rules of evidence established by the
usages of the law.

If the Legislature of Pennsylvania should dare, by resolution or
otherwise, to deprive one of you, gentlemen, of your right as an
elector, it would be the duty of the Court to declare such an act null
and void. I am unable to distinguish the difference between the two
cases.

"Whether the General Assembly are the proper tribunal, in the first
instance, for the trial of offences, or whether the presbyteries are
amenable to their judicatories, in this or any other mode, it is un-
necessary to decide ; as the Court are clearly of the opinion, that if they
have the right, it must be exercised with the same rules and regula-
tions which are applicable to the inferior judicatories.

Personal process in each case may be " tedious, agitating and trou-
blesome in the highest degree ;" but it is obviously not impossible.
Nor does it strike me as impossible to devise a plan under the consti-
tution to correct heresy and schism, without resort to personal pro-
cess in each case. But if it were so, this is an excuse, but it is no
justification of the exscinding resolutions.

Offenders, according to the rules of the church, may be brought
before a judicatory by common fame. But I perceive no power given
to convict on common fame.

You will remark, gentlemen, that the presbyteries, by the consti-
tution of the church, are the electors of the General Assembly. Their
right of representation has been taken away without trial, without
the examination (as far as we k«ow) of a single witness.

238 APPENDIX.

Whether these presbyteries have Congregational churches in their
connexion, is not now material. It is possible that had a trial been
had, that point, which is deemed so important, might have been dis-
proved. At any rate, it would seem a singular reason for dissolving
a whole presbytery, that one church was contaminated with false and
heretical doctrine?, or doctrines not strictly Presbyterian ; that a
whole presbytery should be ejected, because a single church was
governed without the benefit of ruling elders. It would be a reason,
perhaps a good one, for cutting off that church from the Presbyterian
connexion, but none for casting out the whole presbytery. And this,
gentlemen, would be particularly severe on the members and congre-
gations, when the fact was known at the time the presbytery was
created that such connexion did exist.

If, however, after having condemned this (as it is called) unnatural
connexion, the presbyteries should obstinately continue to adhere to
it, then they would justly expose themselves to the severest cen-
cures of the church. But whether there is any mode known to the
constitution, by which a bresbytery can be deprived of the right of
representation on the floor of the General Assembly, is a point
which is not necessary to the case, and which I shall not undertake to
decide.

I have been requested by the respondents' counsel to instruct you,
that the introduction of lay delegates from Congregational establish-
ments into the judicatories of the Pi'csbyterian Church, was a violation
of the fundamental principle of Presby terianism, and a contradiction
of the Act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, incorporating the
Trustees of the church: that any act pei'mitting such introduction
would therefore have been void, although submitted to the presby-
teries. As an abstract question on this point, I give an affirmative
answer, although, gentlemen, I am unable to see the bearing it has
on the matter at issue in this cause.

You have already seen that the Court is of the opinion, that the ex-
scinding resolutions are unconstitutional, null and void ; yet this did
not of itself dissolve the General Assembly. The General Assembly
was dissolved only at the termination of its sessions. You will per-
ceive in the course of the remarks which I shall have to make to you,
that the acts of this Assembly will have an important influence on the
proceedings of the Assembly of 1838.

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church is entitled to de-
cide upon the right claimed by any one to a seat in that body, but
unlike legislative bodies, their decision is the subject of revision.
Ecclesiastical judicatories are subject to the control of the law.

APPENDIX. 239

I also instruct you, that a Mandamus would not reach the case, for
before the remedy could be applied, the General Assembly would be
dissolved, and it would be impossible to foresee whether the next
Assembly would persist in their illegal and unconstitutional course of
conduct. You will recollect that the commissioners are elected a
short time befoi'e the meeting of the General Assembly, and that that
body, which sits but a few weeks for the transaction of business, is
dissolved, and a new General Assembly is called at the termination
of the sessions.

Having thus disposed of the proceeding of the General Assembly of
IBS'?, we will now direct our attention to the acts of 1838. It will
perhaps conduce to a proper understanding of the somewhat extraor-
dinary proceedings which then took place, to advert to the practice
of the General Assembly in times of less excitement and interest than
existed on that occasion.

After the business of the Assembly is finished, the General As-
sembly is dissolved, and another General Assembly is directed to be
chosen in the same manner, to meet at a time and place designated by
the Assembly.

The moderator, or in case of his absence, another member appointed
for the purpose, opens the next meeting with a sermon ; he is directed
to hold the chair till a new moderator be chosen. As this is for the
purpose of organization, it is not necessary that he be a member, nor
is it necessary that the clerks should be members, who are requested
to attend for the same purpose.

By the practice of the Assembly, in pursuance of a regulation for
that purpose, the stated and permanent clerks are a standing commit-
tee on commissions. To th^m are submitted the commissions of mem-
bers: they decide on them in the first place, and if unexceptionable
in form or substance, they are enrolled as members of the house : if
exceptionable, they report them as such in a separate list. The mo-
derator, after divine service, opens the session with prayer. He takes
his seat as moderator, and proceeds to organize the house. The first
business in order is the report of the clerks, who are the Committee
on Commissions, who make a report stating on the roll those who
are members, and designating either in the roll, or in a separate list,
those whose commissions have been examined and found defective
either in form or in substance.

The next business in order is to appoint a committee on elections
from the list of members who have been enrolled.

To that committee are referred the commissions of such persons

240 APPENDIX.

as may claim seats, "whose commissions have been examined and re-
jected.

It is usual to appoint the committee on elections on the morning of
the first daj of the session, and they, unless in cases of difficulty, re-
port to the house in the afternoon, and the house decides upon the
propriety of the report. It would seem also to be the practice, that
when a commissioner has omitted to hand in his commission to the
clerks, before the meeting of the- Assembly, he may do so in the As-
sembly, and the Committee of Commissions may add his name to
the roll of members.

After the house is organized, they proceed to the choice of a mode-
rator, and stated and permanent clerks, to preside over their delibera-
'tions, and to keep their records during their session.

You will observe that I am speaking of the rules of practice in the
sessions of ISST and 1838.

As the church increased in numbers, and, I may add without giving
offence, after the spirit of contention increased also in the same or a
greater ratio, the simplicity of the ancient practice gradually changed.
The changes have been stated with great clearness by one of our
venerable fathers, but as we have to do with existing rather than
ancient rules, it is not necessary for me to notice them.

The jury will recollect that the Court has decided that the exscind-
ing resolutions of the General Assembly of 1837, were unconstitu-
tional, null and void.

It results from this opinion, that the commissioners from the pres-
byteries within the bounds of these synods, had the same right to seats
in the General Assembly as the members from other presbyteries
within the jurisdiction of the Assembly, and were liable to be dealt
with by them in the same manner as commissioners from other pres-
byteries.

It was under these circumstances they presented themselves, with
commissions in proper form, to Mr. Krebs and Dr. M'Dowell, the
clerks of the former Assembly. They not only rejected their com-
missions, but refused to put their names on the roll at all.

I shall not now stop to inquire whether these gentlemen were, or
were not, pledged to the course they thought proper to pursue, nor
into the question whether they were the judges of the constitutionality
of an act of a former Assembly, as I am clearly of the opinion, and I so
instruct you, that the^ grossly erred in refusing to place their names
on the list of rejected applicants. They were the committee on com-
missions to whom such questions are in the first place referred. It
was their duty to decide on the propriety of the application and to

APPENDIX. 241

refer the decision to the further action of the House, by adding their
names to the roll of members whose commissions had been examined
and rejected.

They cannot consider commissions, in other respects regular, as alien
and outlawed, merely because they proceeded from presbyteries that
had been unconstitutionally put out of the pale of the church without
citation and without trial.

It is, therefore, the opinion of the Court, that in this there was a
palpable violation of the rights of the proscribed commissioners.
And this, gentlemen, was the second error committed, and which led
to the scene of disorder which ensued, so little creditable to a Chris-
tian Assembly.

After the moderator, Dr. Elliott, had taken the chair. Dr. Patton
addressed the chair, and stated that he had certain resolutions to offer.
The moderator decided that he was out of order, that the first busi-
ness was the report of the clerks, who, you will recollect, were the
committee on commissions.

Dr. Patton stated that his motion or resolution had reference to the
formation of the roll, that it was his intention to make his motion and
have the question taken without debate. The moderator said the
clerks were proceeding wi'h their report. Dr. Patton reminded the
moderator that he had the floor before the clerks. The moderator still
decided he was out of order, whereupon Dr. Patton respectfully ap-
pealed from the decision of the chair. The moderator decided that the
appeal was out of order, and stated as a reason for the decision, that
there was no House to which the appeal could be taken.

The Court is of the opinion that the decision of the moderator was
correct, for the reasoii" given by him. It is a rule of the Assembly
that no persons shall be permitted to vote unless they are enrolled,
and until the report of the committee on commissions it cannot be ju-
dically known who are members of the house, and as such, privileged
to take part in the organization. If, however, there was a majority
for it, arising from the absence of the moderator or the refusal of the
clerks to report the roll, there would be no difiiculty in organizing the
Assembly. The decision of the moderator was correct, if the reason
assigned was the true reason.

After this disposition of Dr. Patton's motion, the clerks made a report,
omitting, improperly, as has been before stated, the names of the com-
missioners from the exscinded presbyteries, and the moderator announ-
ced to those who had not presented their commissions, that now was
the time to present them, and have themselves enrolled. Some of the
witnesses say that the moderator announced that, if there were any

242

APPENDIX.

Dames omitted, this was the time to present their commissions. The one
side say that this was a distinct intimation from the moderator himself?
that now was the time to present the commissions of the commissioners
from the exscinded presbyteries. The other say it included those only
who had not presented their commissions to the clerks. That the only
course to be pm-sued as to those who had presented their commissions
and had their claim to be enrolled, refused, was to have their case re-
ferred to the committee on elections, on whose report only it would
come properly before the Assembly.

However the fact may be, and this of course you will decide, at
this time Dr. Mason, a member whose seat was uncontested, and who
had been reported by the clerks to the house as a member, moved that
the names of the commissioners from the exscinded synods should be
added to the roll. He had the commissions in his hand, and at the
time of the motion, stated that they were the commissions of com-
missioners, which had been rejected by the clerks. The moderator
inquired from what presbyteries those commissioners came. Dr. Ma-
son replied, they came from the Synods of Utica, Geneva, Genesee
and the Western Reserve. The moderator declared Dr. Mason out o
order, or said that he was out of order at that time. The witnesses
differ as to the precise expression, but whatever may have been the
reason assigned, they all concur that the moderator declared Dr. Ma-
son out of order. Dr. Mason said, that with great I'espect for the chair,
he must appeal from the decision. The appeal was seconded. The
moderator refused to put the appeal, declaring the appeal to be out
of order.

In this stage of the cause it is unnecessary to decide whether the
original motion was or was not out of order. I shall put this part of
the case on the refusal of the moderator to put the question on the
appeal. The question is not whether an appeal may not be out of
order, but it is whether this appeal was out of order. If the moder-
ator had put the question on the appeal, it is possible the house might
have decided that the original motion was out of order. They might
have thought that the matter was properly referable to the committee
of elections — that it was a privileged question ; or the Assembly might
by possibility have taken a different view of the question. And
whatever they might have thought and decided, would have been
conclusive.

But by refusing to put the question, the moderator took all the
power to himself over this question. .No reason was given by the
moderator. It rested simply upon Jda will. In the opinion of the
Court, it was a dereliction of duty — a usurpation of authority, which

APPENDIX. 243

called for the censure of the house. He could not then allege, as he
had done on a former occasion, that there was no house to which the
appeal could be taken. At that time, you will recollect, that the
clerks had made their report, and it was then ascertained what mem-
bers had a right to vote.

Had the question on the appeal been allowed, it could then have
been ascertained whether a motion had been made for the appoint-
ment of the committee on elections. As it is, it is doubtful whether
the motion was made before or after the motion made by Dr. Mason.

And here, let me remark, that I look upon the refusal of the clerks
to put the names of the commissioners on the roll, and this refusal of
the moderator to put the question on an aj)peal to the house, as most
unfortunate.

If the excitement did not then commence, yet it, with the uproar
and confusion which ensued, from this time greatly increased. After
the refusal of the moderator to allow an appeal, the Rev. Miles P.
Squier arose and said that he had presentei his commission to the
clerks, which they had refused to receive. The moderator asked
from what presbytery he came. He said from the presbytery of Ge-
neva. The moderator asked if it was within the bounds of the Synod
of Geneva. He said it was. The moderator then replied, we do not
Jcnoto you. The precise meaning and import of these words has been
the subject of comment. It will be for you to give them such weight
as you think them entitled to, in another part of this cause.

And here let me remark that the witness had not a right, (whatever
injustice he may have suffered,) either to speak or vote on any ques-
tion before the house. He had not been reported as a member by
the clerks; and the rules of the General Assembly required, that be-
fore a member speak or vote he must be enrolled.

To this time the witnesses substantially agree in their statement.
There was but little noise, and but little confusion. Every person
saw, and every person heard, all the transactions in the Assembly.

And here, gentlemen, it will be your solemn duty, respectfully^ but
firmly, to decide upon the conduct of the moderator.

Was he performing his duty as the presiding officer of the house
in its organization ? or was he carrying out the unconstitutional and
void proceedings of the General Assembly of 1837, which cut off
from the body of the Presbyterian Church, 4 synods, 28 presbyteries,
509 miniflteis, and near 60,000 communicants without citation and
without trial?

I put the question to you because it is the opinion of the Court,

244 APPENDIX.

that the General Assembly has a right to depose their moderator, upon
sufficient cause.

This power is necessary for the protection of the house, otherwise
the moderator, instead of being the servant, would be the master of
the house. There is nothing in the constitution of the church that
restricts or impairs the right.

It applies to all moderators, whether moderators for the session, or
moderators for organization. The right is, perhaps, less questionable
in the latter, than in the former case. He is a ministerial as well as a
judicial officer.

Nor do I think that they are restrained in their choice to a modera-
tor of a former year, who may be present. The rule applies only to
ordinary cases, when the moderator of the last year is not in attend-
ance, or is unable, from some physical reason, to discharge the duties of
the office. It does not apply to the peculiar and extraordinary cir-
cumstances of this case.

The deposition of a moderator, and the election of another in his
place, it appears, is not without precedent in the history of the church.

There is one thing certain, that the deposition of a moderator, and
the election of another, if in other respects regular, will not of itself
vitiate the organization.

After Mr. Squier had taken his seat upon the emphatic declaration
of the moderator, "we do not know you," Mr. Cleaveland arose. Mr.
Cleaveland held in his hand a paper, from which he read, at the same
time accompanying it with remarks not on the paper. It is not dis-
tinctly in evidence what he did say, but in substance it was perhaps
this :

That as the commissioners to the General Assembly of 1838, from
a large number of presbyteries, had been refused their seats, and as
we have been advised by counsel learned in the law, that a constitu-
tional organization of the Assembly must be secured at this time and
in this place, he trusted it would not be considered as an act of dis-
courtesy, but merely a matter of necessity, if we now proceed to or-
ganize the General Assembly of 1838, in the fewest words, the short-
est time, and with the least interruption practicable.

Mr. Cleaveland then moved that Dr. Beraan, of the Presbytery of
Troy, be moderator, or, as some of the witnesses say, that he take the
chair. The motion being seconded, the question was put by Mr.
Cleaveland, and was carried, as the witnesses for the relators say, by a
large majority, and by this they mean that a lai'ge majority of voices
voted in the affirmative. The question was reversed, and, as the same
witnesses say, there were some voices coming from the south-west cor-

APPENDIX. 245

ner of the church, who voted in the negative. This is denied by the
respondents.

Dr. Beman, who was sitting in a pew, the locality of which has
been described to you, stepped into the aisle and called the house to
order. A motion was then made that Dr. Mason and Mr. Gilbert be
appointed clerks. There being no others put in nomination, the ques-
tion was put by the moderator, Dr. Beman, in the affirmative and
negative, and there was a majority of voices in their favor.

Dr. Beman then stated, that the next business in order was the
election of a moderator. A member nominated Dr. Fisher, apd no
other person being in nomination, the question was put affirmatively
and negatively, and Dr. Fisher was elected by a large majority of
voices. There were no negative votes on this nomination ; several
of the witnesses say he was unanimously elected.

Dr. Beman then announced the election of Dr. Fisher as mode-
rator, and said, he should govern himself by the rules which might
be hereafter adopted.

Dr. Fisher stepped into the aisle, moved towards the north end of
the church, and called for business ; and Dr. Mason and Mr. Gilbert
were chosen clerks, no others being put in nomination.

Dr. Beman stated that some difficulties had been made by the trus-
tees about the occupation of the church in which they were then sit-
ting. To avoid difficulty, a motion was made to adjourn, to meet
forthwith at the lecture-room in the First Presbyterian Church. The
question was taken on the motion, and was decided in the affirmative,
there being no votes in the negative. The result of this vote was an-
nounced by Dr. Fisher, who then stated, that if there were any
commissioners who h^d not presented their commissions, they might
then and there attend for that purpose. The members of the house
then repaired to the lecture-room of the First Presbyterian Church,
proceeded with their business, and on the 24th of May, 1838, elected
the relators trustees, in the place and stead of the respondents.

This is the relators' ease, and here I will direct your attention to
some of the points which have been raised by the respondents' counsel.
The respondents contend that Mr. Cleaveland had no right to put
the question. They object, also, to the time and manner of putting
the question. Under one or other of these points I will endeavor
to include the question which has been raised, and which has been
argued with such force and with such a variety of illustrations.

Had Mr. Cleaveland a right to put this question ? It must be con-
ceded, that unless he was authorized to take the sense of the house,
the members were not bound to vote upon it. In ordinary cases, it

11

246

APPENDIX.

is usual for a member who moves a question to put it in writing, and
deliver it to the speaker, who, when it has been seconded, proposes it
to the house, and the house are then said to be in possession of the
question. But this, the relators say, is not an ordinary question, but
one of a peculiar nature. They allege, that the moderator had shown
gross partiality and injustice in the chair; that he was <?ngaged in a
plan or scheme to carry out the unconstitutional and void acts of 183*7,
which deprived cei'tain commissioners of their seats; that this author-
ized the house to displace him, and to elect another to discharge the
duties which he failed or was unwilling to perform. If this were so,
of which you are the judges, Mr. Cleaveland had a right to take the sense
of the house on the propriety of the moderator's conduct. It would
be worse than useless to require him to put the question on his own
deposition, for this the house were authorized to believe he would re-
fuse to perform, as he had failed in the performance of his duty before.
The law compels no person to do a vain or nugatory thing. The law
maxim is, " Lex 7ieminem cogit ad vana, sen impossibilia." Nor, gen-
tlemen, was it necessary that it should be taken by clerks, if they, as
well as the moderator, were engaged in the same plan, to deprive
members of seats to which they were justly and constitutionally en-
titled. 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 circum-
stances.

The motion which Mr, Cleaveland made, after explaining his object,
was either that Dr. Beman be moderator, or that Dr. Beman be called
to the chair. It is of no consequence in which form the motion was
made. They are substantially the same. The motion amounted to
this: that Dr. Elliott, who occupied the chair, should be deposed, and
that Dr. Beman should be elected chairman and moderator in his stead.
It was a pertinent question, easily understood, and not calculated to
mislead the dullest member of the Assembly. It was in proper form
and in proper time : for, gentlemen, it was not necessary to precede
it by a motion that the house should now proceed to the choice of a
moderator. All these requisites are substantially comprised in the
motion which was made. There was nothing in the question, or in
the manner of putting it, which was disorderly, or which should have
led to disorder. Mr. Cleaveland put the question to the house, which,
under certain circumstances, of which I have already said you are the
judges, he had a right to do. In the course of his remarks, he turned
liimself partly round from the moderator ; but this, so far as any point
of law is involved, is of no sort of consequence. It is also contended
by the respondents, that the claim of members to seats, according to

APPENDIX. 247

the standing order of the house, was referable to the committee on
elections, and further that the house cannot enter into business until
the organization is complete. The latter point the Court answers in
the negative. There is no doubt the house may elect a moderator,
although the seats of some of the members are contested. In gen-
eral, they would prefer to await the report of the committee on elec-
tions ; but this would be a matter of discretion. The right to seats
would be as well, if not better decided, after the house was organized
by the election of a moderator, as when it was in its inchoate or in-
cipient state. Such an objection would not vitiate the organization,
whatever cause there miglit be on the part of those who had been de-
prived of seats, to complain of the precipitation of the Assembly in
proceeding to business, particularly if done with a view of preventing
them from partaking in the business.

In deciding on the first point, and others which have been raised
by the respondents, it is necessary to advert to the nature of the ques-
tions themselves.

Dr. Mason moved that the names of certain members who had been
unconstitutionally and unjustly deprived of seats in the Assembly,
should be added to the roll. The motion of Mr. Cleaveland, and the
subsequent resolutions or motions, were the consequences of the de-
cision of the moderator, that Dr. Mason's motion was out of order, and
the refusal of the moderator to allow an appeal to the house. The
right of members was unjustly invaded, and from this moment it be-
came a question of privilege, which overrides all other questions
whatever. A question of privilege is always in order, to which pri-
vileged questions, such as the appointment of a committee of elec-
tions, must give way. "^ The cry, therefore, of " order," from the mod-
erator, or from any member whatever, under such circumstances,
would be disorderly. Two inconsistent rights cannot exist at the
same time, and it is obvious that if a member, or the moderator, may
put a stop to a proceeding which involves in it the conduct of the
moderator himself in the discharge of his high functions, and a ques-
tion of privilege, by the cry of order, it would be an easy and effectual
mode of destroying the rights of members in any deliberative
assembly. It is usual, when it is intended to prevent a mem-
ber from proceeding with a motion, to rise to order, and a re-
quisition is then made by the moderator that the member take
his seat. It is the opinion of the Court, that Dr. Mason had the right
to make his motion before the appointment of the committee on elec-
tions. Indeed, I know of no other mode of getting this question be-
fore the committee on elections, except by bringing it before the

248 APPENDIX.

house, who might either decide it themselves, or, if they thought
proper, refer it to that committee, in whose report it would again come
before the house. In this point, I wish you distinctly to understand,
that it is the opinion of the Court, and that I so instruct you, that if
you believe that the conduct of the moderator and clerks was the re-
sult of a preconcerted plan with a portion of the members to carry
out the unconstitutional and void acts of 1837, which deprived the
members from certain presbyteries of seats in the Assembly, then, in
this particular, the requisitions of the law have been substantially com-
plied with.

That the fact that Mr. Cleaveland put the question instead of the
moderator, the cries of order when this was in progress, the omission
of some of the formula usually observed, when there is no contest and
no excitement, such as standing in the aisle, instead of taking the chair
occupied by the moderator, not using the usual insignia of office, put-
ting the question in an unusual place, and the short time consumed
in the organization of the house, and three or more members standing
at the same time, will not vitiate the organization, if you should be
of the opinion that this became necessary, from the illegal and im-
proper conduct of the adverse party.

It is a singular point, gentlemen, that this part of the respondents'
case rests upon standing rules which were not then in existence. You
will recollect, that each Assembly adopted its own rules ; indeed both
the relators and respondents have appealed to these rules. I will re-
mark, that the roll of members reported by Mr. Krebs and Dr.
M'Dowell, was the roll of the house. As such, it was virtually in the
possession of the clerks afterwards chosen, provided they were reg-
ularly and duly elected. It is the opinion of the court, that the ex-
istence of a house competent to perform all the functions of a General
Assembly, does not depend on the observance or non-observance of
the standing order of the house. You, however, must take this opinion
with the qualification, that you believe that the house had been sub-
stantially organized for the transaction of business ; that you should
believe that the deviation from the accustomed course, was the ne-
cessary result of a preconcerted plan, unconstitutionally to exclude the
members from the exscinded presbyteries from their seats in the As-
sembly. And here, gentlemen, let me request your particular atten-
tion to the point in issue. The relators say, that they are trustees
regularly appointed by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church. In other words, they affirm that the house which assembled
in the lecture-room of the First Presbyterian Church, was the General

APPENDIX. 249

Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, This is an affirmative propo-
sition, which the relators are bound to support.

The question is not, which is the General Assembly, but whether
they are the General Assembly, and as such had a right to elect the
relators trustees. This allegation the relators must sustain to your
satisfaction, otherwise your verdict must be in favor of the respon -
dents.

The respondents strenuously deny that the portion of brethren who
asssembled in the First Presbyterian Church, are the General Assem'
bly. On this point, both parties, the relators and respondents, have
put themselves upon the country — and you, gentlemen, are that coun-
try.

Let me now briefly call your attention to the relators' ease. The
moderator. Dr. Elliott, proceeded to organize the house. The clerks,
Mr. Krebs and Dr. M'Dowell, reported to the house the roll of mem-
bers, omitting those who were not entitled to seats. Dr. Patton of-
fered a resolution on the formation of the roll. This motion was de-
clared by the moderator to be out of order, also his appeal was de-
clared to be out of order. Dr. Mason then moved that the names of
the members from the Presbyteries within the exscinded Synods
should be added to the roll. This motion was declared by the mod-
erator to be out of order. An appeal from that decision was denqand-
ed, which was also declared to be out of order. On motion of Mr.
Cleaveland, the former moderator was deposed for sufficient cause,
and Dr. Beraan was elected moderator, and Mr. Gilbert and Dr. Ma-
son were elected clerks. After organization. Dr. Fisher was elected
moderator, and Mr. Gilbert and Dr. Mason elected clerks for the
Assembly. The Assembly being thus organized by the appointment
of officers, adjourned to meet forthwith at the lecture-room of the
First Presbyterian Church, and accordingly met in pursuance of the
adjournment, and on the 24:th of May, 1838, in due form, elected the
relators trustees. This, gentlemen, is a summary of the plaintiffs' case ;
and if the facts are as stated, your verdict should be rendered in fa-
vor of the relators.

The respondents deny that the portion of brethren who assembled
in the First Presbyterian Church are the General Assembly.

Their objection, in addition to the points which have been already
stated, is, that there was not a full and free expression of the opinion
of the house.

They allege that the various motions for the appointment of mod-
erator and clerks, and for the adjournment, were not carried by a
majority of the house.

250 APPENDIX.

It is hardly necessary to observe that spectators had no right to
vote, nor had members not enrolled by the clerks, although entitled
to seats, a right to vote. But notwithstanding this, it is the opinion
of the Courts that if, after deductiag those who voted and .were not
entitled to vote, there was a clear majority in favor of several motions,
this irregularity, or if you please, something worse, would not vitiate
the organization. The presumption is, that none but qualified per-
sons voted ; but there is proof that some voted who were not enrolled,
yet this of itself will not destroy the relators' right of action.
You, gentlemen, will in the first plaae, inquire whether there was a
majority of affirmative voices of members entitled to a vote.

If there was not, there is an end of the question, and your verdict
must be in favor of the respondents.

But if there was a majority, you will further inquire whether the
question on the several motions was reversed.

If they were not reversed, your verdict must be in favor of the res-
pondents ; for in that ease, it is very clear, the members had no oppor-
tunity of showing their dissent to several motions or propositions
which were submitted to them.

These, gentlemen, are questions of fact for your decision. I will
content myself with referring to the evidence and the arguments of
the counsel, and at the same time observing to you that it is your
duty to reconcile the testimony of your case, and with one other ob-
servation, that affirmative testimony is more to be relied on than
negative testimony.

And here, gentlemen, I wish you distinctly to understand, that it
is the majority of those who were entitled to vote, and who actually
voted, that is to be counted on the various questions which were
submitted to the house. I wish you also to understand, that it is the
majority of members that had been enrolled, that must determine
this question, "When there is a quorum of members present, the
moderator can only notice those who actually vote, and not those
who do not choose to exercise their privilege of voting. " When-
ever," says Lord Mansfield, " electors are present, and don't vote at
all, they virtually acquiesce in the decision of those who do."

And with this principle, agrees one of the rules of the General As-
sembly itself, which must be familiar to every member.

"Members (30th rule,) ought not, without weighty reasons, to de-
cline voting, as this practice might leave the decision of very interest-
ing questions to a small proportion of the judicatory. Silent mem-
bers, unless excused from voting, must be considered as acquiescing
with the majority."

APPENDIX. 251

This is not only the doctrine of the common law, of the written
law, as you have seen, but it is the doctrine of common sense ; for
without the benefit of this rule, it would be almost impossible, cer-
tainly very inconvenient, to transact business in a large deliberative
assembly.

Of this rule, gentlemen, we have had very lately a most memorable
instance. The fundamental principles of yoin* government have been
altered ; a new constitution has been established by a plurality of
votes ; forty thousand electors, who deposited their votes for one or
other of the candidates for governor, did not cast them at all on that
most interesting and important of all questions. But notwithstanding
this, the amended constitution has been proclaimed by your executive,
and recognized by your legislature and by the people, as the supreme
law of the land. This, gentlemen, has been stigmatized as a technical
rule of law, a fiction and intendment in law. It is sufficient for us,
gentlemen, that it is a rule of law. "We must not be wiser than the
law; for if we attempt this, we endanger everything we hold dear;
our life, our liberty, our property.

Kor, gentlemen, can we know any thing of any fancied equity as
contradistinguished fi'om the law. The law is the equity of the case,
and it must be so considered under the most awful responsibility, by
this court and this jury. In my opinion, a court and jury can never
be better employed than when they are vindicating the safe and
salutary principles of the common law.

But the respondents further object that the design of the IS'ew
School brethren was not to organize a General Assembly according
to the forms prescribed by the constitution, but that they intended,
and it was so understood by them, to effect an ex parte organization,
with a view to a peaceable separation of the church. If this was the
intention, and was so understood at the time, the house which as-
sembled in the First Presbyterian Church, cannot be recognized as
the General Assembly, competent to appoint trustees under the
charter. Having chosen voluntarily to leave the church, they can no
longer be permitted to participate in its advantages and privileges.
If a member, or a number of individuals, choose to abandon their
church, they must at the same time be content to relinquish all its
benefits.

But this is a question of fact, which you must decide. In this part
of the case, the burden of proof is thrown on the respondents. They
must satisfy you that such was the intention of the K^ew School party,
in organizing the house, and adjourning to the First Presbyterian
Church. But granting that the motion of Mr. Cleaveland was in or-

252 APPENDIX.

der, that Drs. Beman and Fisher, and the clerks had a majority of
votes, that the intention was to organize the General Assembly, and
that they did not intend an ex parte organization, the respondents
eay that such was the precipitation and haste of these proceedings,
their extraordinary and' novel character, the noise, tumult and con-
fusion, that they and the other members of the house had no oppor-
tunity of hearing and voting, if they had wished to do so, and that
therefore this is an attempt at organization, which is null and void.

It is very certain, that if individual members of a deliberative as-
sembly, by trick and artifice, by surprise, noise, tumult and confusion,
cany such a question as this, it ought not, it cannot be regarded. The
members must have an opportunity to debate, to vote if they desire
it, and for this reason it is, the negative question must be put, and
that the several questions must be reversed.

It will be for you to eay, whether the members had this opportu-
nity. To this part of the case, I request your particular attention.

If you believe that the several motions were made and reversed,
that they were carried by a majority of affirmative voices, whatever
may be your opinion of the relative strength of the two parties in
the Assembly, your verdict must be for the relators. I hold it to be
a most clear proposition, that silent members acquiesce in the decision
of the majority. It is of no sort of consequence for what reason they
were silent; whether from a previous determination, or otherwise.
The effect is the same, provided they had an opportunity of hearing
and voting on the question. It is not necessary that all should hear
or vote.

If persons Avho are members of an assembly, by surprise, by noise,
or violence, carry such a question, such a vote cannot be considered
as the deliberate sense of the assembly ; but when members are aware
of the nature of the proceedings, and ciioose to treat them with con-
tempt, or to interrupt the business themselves, by stamping, noise,
talking, cries of order, or shame ! shame ! or requesting silence with
a view to interruption, or attending to other business, when they
ought to be attending to this, they cannot be permitted afterwards to
allege that they had no opportunity to vote. They cannot take ad-
vantage of their own wrong, or their own folly. In such a case,
their silence, or, if you choose, noise, shall be viewed as an acquies-
cence in the vote of the majority. But when members are prevented
from hearing and understanding the question by the noise and con-
fusion, or by the indecent haste with which the business is conducted,
the organization is not such as can give it any legal validity. It is
of no consequence whether the members are prevented from voting

APPENDIX.

253

unders'andingly on the question by the persons engaged in conduct-
ing the business, or by the spectators. But when it comes from the
members of the other party, they shall not be permitted to object,
when they themselves are the causes of the difficulty.

If facts be so, they (the members of the Old School,) did not hear,
because they would not hear ; they did not vote, because they would
not vote. Tliey caused the disorder, and let them reap the bitter
fruits of their injustice. The court, and you, gentlemen of the jury,
have nothing to do with consequences, with fancied majorities and
minorities, but with majorities legally ascertained. We are placed
at this bar under an awful responsibility to do justice, without regard
to the numerical strength of the contending parties.

If you, gentlemen, believe that the questions were not reversed,
that they were not carried, that the members of the Assembly had
not an opportunity of hearing and voting upon them, your verdict
should be in favor of the respondents. But if, on the other hand,
you believe they intended to organize the Assembly ; that the ques-
tions were severally put; that the noise, tumult and confusion which
prevailed in the Assembly, were the result of a preconcerted plan,
or combination, or conspiracy between the clerks, the moderator, and
the members of the Old School party, to sustain the unconstitutional
and void resolutions of 1837, which deprived members of seats to
which they were justly entitled, your verdict should be in favor of
the relators.

And here I do not wish to be understood as having expressed, or even
intimated an opinion as to the facts of the case. The facts are for
you, the law is for the Court.

And now, gentlem'fen, I entreat you, as you sJiall ansicer to God at
the great day, that you discard from your minds all partiality, if any
you have, fear, favor and affection ; that you decide this interesting
cause according to the evidence, and that you remember that the
law is part of your evidence. The Court, and you, gentlemen, are
placed at this bar under an awful eesponsibility to do justice.

VERDICT.

The jury, after a short absence, returned into Court and rendered
their verdict, which, as read to them, and ordered to be recorded, is,
"that they find the defendants guilty."

Some question was made by counsel for the defendants, in regard
to the form of the verdict, when it was announced from the bench,
that the Chief Justice had prescribed this as the technical form of the
verdict, (under the issue in this case,) if the jury shoiild find that
the relators were the trustees of General Assembly ; that is, that the

11*

254 APPENDIX.

Assembly wliicli lield its sittings iii the First Presbyterian Churclx,
was the true " General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the
United States of America," under the charter.

[B.]
CHIEF JUSTICE GIBSON'S OPINION.

To extricate the question from the multifarious mass of irrelevant
matter in which it is enclosed, we must, in the first place, ascertain
the specific character of the General Assembly, and the relation it
bears to the corporation which is the immediate subject of our cog-
nizance. This Assembly has been called a qiiasi corpori^fion ; of
which it has no feature. A quasi corporation has capacity to sue and
be sued as an artificial person ; which the Assembly has not. It is
also established by law ; which the Assembly is not. IS^either is the
Assembly a particular order or rank in the corporation, though the
latter was created for its convenience ; such, for instance, as the
share-holders of a bank or joint-stock company, who are an integrant
part of the body. It is a segregated association, which, though it is
the reproductive organ of corporate succession, is not itself a mem-
ber of the body; and in that respect it is anomalous. Having no cor-
porate quality of itself, it is not a subject of our corrective jurisdic-
tion, or of our scrutiny, farther than to ascertain how far its organic
structure may bear on the question of its personal identity or indi-
viduality. By the charter of the corporation, of which it is the hand-
maid and nurse, it has a limited capacity to create vacancies in it, and
an ulimited power over the form and manner of choice in filling
them. It would be sufficient for the civil tribunals, therefore, that
the asseinbled commissioners had constituted an actual body; and
that it had made its appointment in its own way, without regard to its
fairness in respect to its members: with this limitation, however, that
it had the assent of the constitutional majority, of which the official
act of authentication would be at least, prima facie evidence. It
would be immaterial to the legality of the choice that the majority
had expelled the minority, provided a majority of the whole body
concurred in the choice. This may be safely predicated of an imdi-
vided Assembly, and it would be an unerring test in the case of a di-

APPENDIX. 255

visiou could a quorum not be constituted of less than such a majority;
but unfortunately, a quorum of the General Assembly may be con-
stituted of a very small minoi-ity, so that two, or even more, distinct
parts may have all the external organs of legitimate existence.
Hence, where, as in this instance, the members have formed them-
selves into separate bodies, numerically sufficient for corporate capa-
city and organic action, it becomes necessary to ascertain how far
either of them was formed in obedience to the conventional law of
the association, which, for that purpose only, ia to be treated as a rule
of civil obligation.

The division which, for purposes of designation, it is convenient to
call the Old School party, was certainly organized in obedience to the
established order; and, to legitimate the separate organization of its
rival, in contravention, as it certainly was of every thing like prece-
dent, would require the presentation of a very urgent emergency.
At the stated time and place for the opening of the session, the parties
assembled without any ostensible division ; and, when the organization
of the whole had proceeded to a certain point, by the instrumentality
of the moderator of the preceding session, who, for that purpose, was
the constitutional organ, a provisional moderator was suddenly cho-
sen [on the motion of an individual who had not been reported or
enrolled as a member, and by a minority of those who actually voted,
including several who were in the same predicament with the mover*]
by a minority of those who could be entitled to vote, including the
exscinded commissioners. The question on the motion to elect, was
put, not by the chair, but by the mover himself; after which, the se-
ceding party elected a permanent moderator, and immediately with-
drew, leaving the other party to finish its process of organization, by
the choice of its moderator for the session.

In justificatioTi of this apparent irregularity, it is urged that the
constitutional moderator had refused an appeal to the commissioners
in attendance, from his decision, which had excluded from the roll,
the names of certain commissioners who had been unconstitutionally
severed, as it is alleged, from the Presbyterian connexion by a vote of
the preceding session. It is conceded by the argument, that if the
synods with the dependent presbyteries by which those commission-
ers were sent, had been constitutionally dissolved, the motion [made
by an exscinded memberf ] was one which the moderator was not
bound to put, or the commissioners to notice ; and that whatever im-

* What follows, of this sentence, substituted in the published opinion, for the
portion in brackets.

t Oioitted in the published opinion.

256 APPENDIX.

plication of assent to the decision which ensued, might otherwise Le
deduced from the silence of those who refused to speak out, about
which it will be necessary to say something in the sequel, there was
no room for any such implication in the particular instance. It would
follow also, that there was no pretence for the deposal of the mode-
rator, if indeed such a thing could be legitimated by any circumstan-
ces, for refusing an appeal- from his exclusion of those who had no
color of title, and, consequently, that what else might be reform,
would be revolution. And this leads to an inquiry into the consti-
tutionality of the act of excision.

The sentence of excision, as it has been called, was nothing else
than an ordinance of dissolution. It bore that the synods in question,
having been foi'med and attached to the body of the Presbyterian.
Church under, and in execution of, the Plan of Union, " be, and are
hereby declared to be, out of the ecclesiastical connexion of the
Presbyterian Church in the United States of America ; and that they
are not in form or in fact, an integral portion of said church." !N"ow
it will not be said that if the dissolved synods had no other basis than
the Plan of Union, they did not necessarily fall along with it, and it
is not pretended that the Assembly was incompetent to repeal the
union prospectively, but it is contended that the repeal could not
impair rights of membership which had grown up under it. On the
other hand, it is contended that the Plan of Union was unconstitu-
tional and void from the beginning, because it was not submitted to
the presbyteries for their sanction ; and that no right of membership
could spring from it. But viewed, not as a constitutional regulation,
which implies permanency of duration, but as a temporary expedient,
it acquired the force of a law without the ratification of those bodies.
It was evidently not intended to be permanent, and it consequently
was constitutionally enacted and constitutionally repealed by an
ordinary act of legislation; and those synods which had their root in
it, could not be expected to survive it. There never was a design to
attempt an amalgamation of ecclesiastical principles which are as
immiscible as water and oil; much less to effect a commixture of
them only at particular geographical points. Such an attempt would
have compromised a principle at the very root of Presbyterian
government, which requires that the officers of the church be set
apart by special ordination for the v/ork, Now the character of the
plan is palpable, not only in its title and provisions, but in the minute
of its introduction into the Assembly. "We find in the proceedings of
1801, page 256, that a committee was raised "to consider and digest
a plan of government for the churches in the new settlements agreeably

APPENDIX. 257

to the proposal of the General Association of Connecticut;" and that
the plan adopted in conformity to its report, is called "a Plan of
Union for the new settlements." The avowed object of it was to prevent
alienation; in other words, the affiliation of Presbyterians in other
churches, by suffering those who were yet too few and too poor for
the maintenance of a minister, temporarily to call to their assistance
the members of a sect who differed from them in principles, not of
faith, but of ecclesiastical government. To that end, Presbyterian
ministers were suffered to preach to Congregational Churches, while
Presbyterian Churches were suffered to settle Congregational minis-
ters ; and mixed congi*egations were allowed to settle a Presbyterian
or a Congregational minister at their election, but under a plan of
government and discipline adapted to the circumstances. Surely this
was not intended to outlast the inability of the respective sects to
provide separately for themselves, or to perpetuate the innovations
on Presbyterial government which it was calculated to produce. It
was obviously a missionary arrangement from the first ; and they who
built up presbyteries and f^ynods on the basis of it, had no reason to
expect that their structures would survive it, or that Congregation-
alists might, by force of it, gain a foothold in the Presbyterian Church,
despite of Presbyterial discipline. They embraced it with all its
defeasible properties plainly put before them ; and the power which
constituted it, might fairly repeal it, and dissolve the bodies that had
grown out of it, whenever the good of the church should seem to
require it.

Could the synods, however, be dissolved by a legislative act? I
know not how they could have been legitimately dissolved, by any
other. The Assembly is a homogeneous body, uniting in itself,
without separation of parts, the legislative, executive and judicial
functions of the government ; and its acts are referable to the one or
the other of them, according to the capacity in which it sat when
they were performed. Now, had the exscinded synods been cut off
by a judicial sentence, without hearing or notice, the act would have
been contrary to the cardinal principles of natural justice, and con-
sequently 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 offence.

A glance at the Plan of Union, is enough to convince us that the
disorder had come in with the sanction of the Assembly itself. The
first article directed missionaries, (the word is significant,) to the
new settlements, to promote a good understanding betwixt the
kindred sects. The second and third permitted a Presbyterian con-

258 APPENDIX.

gregation to settle a Congregational minister, or a Presbyterian
minister to be settled by a Congregational church ! but these provided
for no recognition of the people in charge as a part of the Presby-
terian body; at least they gave them no representation in its gov-
ernment. But the fourth allowed a mixed congregation to settle a
minister of either denomination ; and it committed the government
of it to a standing committee, but with a right to appeal to the body
of male communicants, if tlie appellant were a Congregationalist, or
to the presbytery if he were a Presbyterian, l^ow it is evident the
Assembly designed that every such congregation should belong to a
presbytery, as an integrant part of it; for if its minister were a Con-
gregationalist, in no way connected with the Presbyterian Church, it
would be impossible to refer the appellate jurisdiction to any presby-
tery in particular. This alone would show, that it was designed to
place such a congregation in ecclesiastical connexion with the presby-
tery of the district ; but this is not all. It was expressly provided,
in conclusion, that if 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 presbytery as a ruling elder of
the Presbyterian Church." For what purpose, if the congregation
Were not ia Presbyterial fellowship ?

It is said that this jus represent ationis was predicated of the ap-
peal precedently mentioned ; and that the exercise of it was to be
restrained to the trial of it. The words, however, were predicated
without restriction; and an implied limitation of their meaning,
would impute to the Assembly the injustice of allowing a party to
sit in his owncawse, by introducing into the composition of the appel-
late court, a part of the subordinate one. That such an implication
would be inconsistent with the temper displayed by the Assembly
on other occasions, is proved by the order which it took as early as
1791, in the case of an appeal from the sentence of the Synod of Phil-
adelphia, whose members it prevented from voting on the question,
(Assembly's Digest, p. 332,) as well as by its general provision, that
" members of a judicatory may not vote in the superior judicatory on
a question of approving or disapproving their records." (Id. pp. 333.)

Tlie principle has since become a rule of the constitution, as appears
by the Book of Discipline, chap. vii. sec. 3, paragraph 12. As the
representatives of those anomalous congregations, therefore, could not
sit in judgment on their own controversies, it is pretty clear that it
was intended they should be represented generally, else they would
not be represented at all in the councils of the church, by those who
might not be Presbyterians ; and that to effect it, the principle of

APPENDIX. 259

Presbyterial ordination was to be relaxed, as regards both the minis-
try and eldership ; and it is equally clear, that had the synods been
cited to answer for the consequent relaxation as an offence, they
might have triumphantly appeared at the bar of the Assembly with
the Plan of Union in their hand. That body, however, resorted to
the only constitutional remedy in its power ; it fell back, so to speak,
on its legislative jurisdiction, in the exercise of which, the synods
were competently represented, and heard by their commissioners.

Now the apparent injustice of the measure arises from the contem-
plation of it as a judicial sentence pronounced against parties who
were neither cited nor heard ; which it evidently was not. Even as
a legislative act, it may have been a hard one, though certainly con-
stitutional, and strictly j ust. It was impossible to eradicate the dis-
order by any thing less than a dissolution of those bodies with whose
existence its roots were so intertwined as to be inseparable from it,
leaving their elements to form new and less heterogeneous combina-
tions. Though deprived of Presbyterial organization, the Presby-
terian parts were not excluded from the church, provision being
made for them, by allowing them to attach themselves to the nearest
presbytery.

It is said there is not sufficient evidence to establish the fact that
the exscinded synods had actually been constituted on the Plan of
Union, in order to have given the Assembly even legislative juris-
diction. The testimony of the Rev, Mr. Squier, however, shows that
in some of the three which were within the State of 'New York, con-
gregations were sometimes constituted without elders^; and the Synod
of the Western Reserve, when charged with delinquency on that
head, instead of denying the fact, promptly pointed to the Plan of
Union for its justification. But what matters it whether the fact
were actually what the Assembly supposed it to be ? If that body
proceeded in good faith, the validity of its enactment cannot depend
on the justness of its conclusion. "We have, as already remarked, no
authority to rejudge its judgments, on their merits; and this princi-
ple was asserted with conclusive force by the presiding judge who
tried the cause. Upon an objection made to an inquiry into the
composition of the Presbytery of Medina, it was ruled that "with
the reasons for the proceedings of 1837, (the act of excision,) we have
nothing to do. "We are to determine only what was done : the rea-
sons of those who did it are immaterial. If the acts complained of
were within the jurisdiction of the Assembly, their decision must be
final, though they decided wrong." This was predicated of judicial
jurisdiction, but the principle is necessarily as applicable to jurisdic-

260 APPENDIX.

tioB for purposes of legislation. I cite the passage, however, to show
that after a successful resistance to the introduction of evidence of
the fact, it lies not with the relators to allege the want of it.

If then the synods in question were constitutionally dissolved, the
presbyteries of which they had been composed, were, at least, for
purposes of representation, dissolved along with them ; for no presby-
tery can be in connexion with the General Assembly, unless it be at
the same time subordinate to a synod also in connexion with it, be-
cause an appeal from its judgment can reach the tribunal of the last
resort only through that channel. It is immaterial that the presby-
teries are the electors ; a synod is a part of the machinery which is
indispensable to the existence of every branch of the church. It ap-
pears, therefore, that the commissioners from the exscinded synods,
were not entitled to seats in the Assembly, and that their names
were properly excluded from the roll.

The inquiry might be rested here ; for if there were no color of
right in them, there was no color of right in the adversary proceed-
ings which were founded on their exclusion. But even if their title
were clear, the refusal of an appeal from the decision of the modera-
tor, would be no ground for the degradation of the officer at the call
of a minority; nor could it impose on the majority an obligation to
vote on a question put unofficially, and out of the usual course. To
all questions put by the established organ, it is the duty of every mem-
ber to respond, or be counted with the greater number, because he
is supposed to have assented beforehand to the result of the process
pre-established to ascertain the general will ; but the rule of implied
assent is certainly inapplicable to a measure which, when justifiable
even by extreme necessity, is essentially revolutionary, and based
on no pre-established process of ascertainment whatever.

To apply it to an extreme case of inorganic action, as was done
here, might work the degradation of any presiding officer in our legis-
lative halls, by the motion and actual vote of a single member, sus-
tained by the constructive votes of all the rest ; and though such an
enterprise may never be attempted, it shows the danger of resorting
to a conventional rule, when the body is to be resolved into its origi-
nal elements, and its rules and conventions to be superseded, by the
very motion. For this reason, the choice of a moderator to supplant
the officer in the chair, even if he were removable at the pleasure
of the commissioners, would seem to have been unconstitutional.

But he was not removable by them, because he had not derived
his office from them ; nor was he answerable to them for the use of
his power. He was not their moderator. He was the mechanical in-

APPENDIX. 261

BtrutDent of their organization ; and till tliat was accomplished, they
were subject to his rule — not he to theirs. They were chosen by the
authority of his mandate, and with the power of self-organization,
only in the event of his absence at the opening of the session. Cor-
porally present, but refusing to perform his function, he might be
deemed constructively absent, for constitutional purposes, insomuch
that the commissioners might proceed to the choice of a substitute
without him ; but not if he had entered on the performance of his
task ; and the reason is that the decision of such questions as were
prematurely pressed here, is proper for the decision of the body when
prepared for organic action, which it cannot be before it is fully constitu-
ted and under the presidency of its own moderator ; the moderator of
the preceding session being functus officio. There can be no occasion
for its action sooner; for though the commissioners are necessarily
called upon to vote for their moderator, their action is not organic,
but individual. Dr. Mason's motion and appeal, though the clerks
had reported the roll, were premature ; for though it is declared in
the twelfth chapter of the Form of Government, that no commission-
er shall deliberate or vote before his name shall have been enrolled,
it follows not that the capacity, consummated by enrollment, was ex-
pected to be exercised during any part of the process of organization,
but the choice of a moderator ; and moreover, the provision may have
been intended for the case of a commissioner appearing for the first
time, when the house was constituted.

Many instances may doubtless be found among the minutes, of mo-
tions entertained previously,, for our public bodies, whether legisla-
tive or judical, secular or ecclesiastical, are too prone to forget the
golden precept — "Let all things be done decently and in order."
But these are merely instances of irregularity which have passed sub
silejitio, and which cannot change a rule of positive enactment. It
seems, then, that an appeal from the decision of the moderator did not
lie ; and that he incurred no penalty by the disallowance of it. The
title of the exscinded commissioners could be determined only by the
action of the house, which could not be had before its organization
was complete ; and, in the mean time, he was bound, as the execu-
tive instrument of the preceding Assembly, to put its ordinance into
execution : for to the actual Assembly, and not to the moderator of
the preceding one, it belonged to repeal it.

It would be decisive, however, that the motion, as it was proposed,
purported not to be in fact a question of degradation for the disal-
lowance of an appeal, but one of new and independent organization.
It was ostensibly, as well as actually, a measure of transcendental

262 APPENDIX.

power, ■whose purpose was to treat the ordinance of the preceding As-
sembly as a nullity, and its moderator as a nonentity. It had been
prepared for the event avowedly before the meeting. The witnesses
concur that it was propounded as a measure of original organization
transcending the customary order ; and not as a recourse to the ultima
ratio for a specific violation of it. The ground of the motion, as it
was opened by the mover, was not the disallowance of an appeal,
which alone could afford a pretext of forfeitiire, but the fact of exclu-
sion. To affect silent members with an implication of assent, however,
the ground of the motion and nature of the question must be so ex-
plicitly put before them as to prevent misconception or mistake ; and
the remarks that heralded the question in this instance, pointed at,
not a removal of the presiding incumbent, but a separate organization
to be accomplished with the least practicable interruption of the busi-
ness in hand ; and if they indicated anything else, they were decep-
tive. The measure was proposed not as that of the body, but as the
measure of a party ; and the cause assigned for not having proposed
it elsewhere, was that individuals of the party had been instructed by
counsel that the purpose of it could not be legally accomplished in.
any other place. No witness speaks of a motion to degrade ; and the
rapidity of the process by which the choice of a substitute, not a suc-
cessor, was affected, left no space for reflection or debate. Now, be-
fore the passive commsssioners could be affected by acquiescence im-
plied from their silence, it ought to have appeared that they were ap -
prised of what was going on ; but it appears that even an attentive
ear witness was unable to understand what was done. The whole
scene was one of unprecedented haste, insomuch that it is still a matter
of doubt how the questions were put. Now, though these facts were
fairly put to the jury, it is impossible not to see, that the verdict is,
in this respect, manifestly against the current of the evidence.

Other corroborative views have been suggested ; but it is difficult
to compress a decision of the leading points in this case into the old
fashioned limits of a judical opinion. The preceding observations^
however, are deemed enough to show the grounds on which we hold
that the Assembly which met in the First Presbyterian Church was not
the legitimate successor of the Assembly of 1837 ; and that the defend-
ants are not guilty of the usurpation with which they are charged. \

Rule for a new trial made absolute.

From this opinion Judge Rogers dbsented. His dissent is in these
words, viz.

Judge Rogep^. — After the patient and impartial investigation, by
me, of this cause, at Nisi Prius, and in bank, I have nothing at this

APPENDIX. 263

time to add, except that my opinion remains unchanged on all the
points ruled at the trial. This explanation is deemed requisite, in jus-
tice to myself, and because it has become necessary (in a case, in some
respects, without precedent, and presenting some extraordinary fea-
tures) to prevent misapprehension and misrepresentation.

[C]

OPINION OF CHANCELLOR KENT ON THE ACTS
OF EXCISION.

The proceedings of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church of the United States, held at Philadelphia in May last, have
been submitted to me for my professional opinion, respecting the va-
lidity and effect of certain Resolutions of the Assembly, in which they
abrogate the Plan of Union made in ISOl with the General Association
of the State of Connecticut, and also declare that the Synods of the
Western Reserve, and of Utica, Geneva and Genesee were no longer a
part of the Presbyterian Church.

Without assuming to meddle with any questions exclusively eccle-
siastical, or of a theological nature, I have not felt myself at liberty
to withhold my opinion from the reverend gentlemen who have ap-
plied for it; so far, at least, as the proceeding's alluded to may be
considered as affecting rights that might, directly or indirectly , be dis-
cussed and protected in a court of justice.

The two points to be considered are,

1. The character and effect of the Plan of Union of ISOl, and of
its abrogation in 1837.

2. The cutting off the four Synods above mentioned from their con-
nection with the Presbyterian Church.

(1.) It appears that in 1792 the Convention of the Committees of
the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, and of the General
Association of Connecticut, agreed to a Standing Committee of Corres-
pondence for each body, to communicate with each other whatever
might be mutually useful to the churches under their care ; and to pro-
mote this plan of intercourse, delegates were to have a right to sit in
each other's general meetings. The General Assembly of the Pres-

264 APPENDIX.

byterian Church and the General Association of Connecticnt respec-
tively, approved of this plan, and they further mutually agreed, in
1794, that delegates from the Assembly to the Association and from
the Association to the Assembly should be received, not only to sit
and consult in their respective bodies, but vote upon all questions to
be determined by either house. Then followed the more formal and
specific Plan of Union of 1801, adopted by the General Assembly of
the Presbyterian Church and by the General Association of the State
of Connecticut. This Plan of Union, or government for the mutual
harmony and prosperity of the Presbyterian and Congregational
churches in the new settlements, was agreed to and ratified equally
by the General Assembly and the General Association, and was car-
ried into operation with great success, and with the continued appro-
bation of the Presbyteries and General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church, down to its final abrogation in 1537.

This solemn compact was doubtless made in good faith, and from
•worthy considerations, and for beneficial ends, and it was obligatory
upon each body in point of conscience, if not in point of law. The
contracting parties were competent to make it. The object was
within the spirit of both ecclesiastical associations, for both had but
one end, the propagation, growth and maintenance of the Gospel, as
taught in their respective churches. The constitutions of these res-
pective associations ought to be construed most liberally and be-
nignly when such pious and useful purposes were intended to be pro-
moted. I have no idea that we ought to apply the political doctrine
of a strict, dry, technical construction to the constitutions of religious
associations, and especially when all the parties unite in measures of
transcendent interest, and calculated to promote the great object of
all their associations, and meetings, and etforts; nor do I think that
either of the contracting parties was at liberty to disavow and re-
nounce the compact at pleasure, without the consent of the other, ex-
cept in the case of some new occurrence that would render the further
operation of the union useless, or destructive, or greatly injurious to
the ends in view ; nor even in that case, without first applying for
Buch consent and stating the reasons of the application. If the case
could be brought within the cognizance of a court of equity, (and I do
not mean to say it cannot) it is not probable that the court would dis-
charge the parties from their contract, unless upon these grounds.

The Plan of Union of ISOl was not submitted in due form to the re-
spective presbyteries for their sanction. The General Assembly as-
eumed the power and the right to agree to it absolutely and finally,

APPENDIX. 265

and it met with universal assent by all the subordinate councils of
that church. There was no prohibitory clause in the Presbyterian
constitution against such a proceeding by the General Assembly, and
the reception of that Plan of Union by all the presbyteries, and by
their delegates in all subsequent meetings of the General Assembly,
bound all the members. It may be taken, I presume, for a fact, that
every branch of the Presbyterian Church knew of that Plan of Union,
and uniformly acquiesced in it, and acted upon it, whenever the occa-
sion required it. Such general and uniform assent or acquiescence,
when given understandingly and with full knowledge of the fact, is
conclusive, and cannot be gainsayed. If a person in any transaction
will not speak or object when he has a fair opportunity, but suffers
the proceeding to go on, and acts to be done under his eye and under
the impression of his assent, the law will hold him to that presumed
assent. His conscience is bound by such an equitable estoppel. The
axioms of law bearing on this point are founded in sound ethics, in
solid wisdom, and in the approbation of ages — Qui facet, consentire vi-
detur, Qui potest, et debet vetare, juhet.

It is farther to be observed, that the constitution of the Presbyte-
rian Church underwent subsequent revisals and amendments, and no
abjection was taken to the formation of the Plan of Union and the ex-
ercise of the power of the General Assembly. It is not easy to im-
agine the case of any measure or covenant which has been better sus-
tained on the ground of authority, assent and ratification, for thirty-
six years, by all parties concerned. Plans of union were successively
formed by the General Assembly with other Christian denominations
of analogous character, as, for instance, with the Congregational asso-
ciations in Vermont, N^ Hampshire and Massachusetts, and with the
Reformed Dutch and Scots churches. They were all liable to the
same objection, and yet the General Assembly in their Resolution de-
signate the Act of Union of ISOL "an unconstitutional act."

The objection that the General Association of the State of Connec-
ticut had no power to enter into an agreement to regulate the churches
" not within her limits," does not strike me as being of any force. The
object of the Plan of Union was not local, and the Connecticut Asso-
ciation had a right to act with missionary views, and to make contracts
to be executed beyond the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of their
State. Every individual has that power. The contract in question
was formed in reference to new settlements in the western parts of
New York, Ohio, and the far West, and which were composed of in-
habitants both of the Presbyterian and Congregational denomina-

266 APPENDIX.

tions, and which were equally objects of the paternal care and solici-
tude of both the associations. The Connecticut Association assumed
to act as agent for the infant churches and their distressed members
in the West. The General Assembly treated with it in the character
of a body assuming such agency, and through that agency they dealt
with and recognized all the churches formed and organized upon the
Plan of the Union, No persons, either as members of the Presbyte-
rian or Congregational bodies, ever questioned the authority of the
Connecticut Association to enter into the compact on their behalf. All
parties, individually and collectively, acted knowingly on this subject,
and none are now at liberty, on principles of law and equity, to deny
the validity of acts founded on such agency. Omnis ratihahites man-
dato cequi paratur. Qui non prohibei pro se intervenire, mandare cre-
ditur. The courts of justice are constantly adopting and applying
these maxims of law and of common sense to sustain the contracts of
individuals, and prevent fraud and injustice. The General Assembly
in 1801 must have known what was the Constitution and what were
the powers of the General Association of Connecticut, and the want of
authority to make the contract and to carry it into effect was either
not perceived or not regarded, either at the time, or through the long
subsequent period in which it was in active operation. They are es-
topped now from making such a denial. They dealt with the Connec-
ticut Association as a competent body to be so dealt with, and the
Connecticut Association have never set up a want of power on their
part. There is no well-founded pretence for the objection, and if there
had been in the first instance, yet good faith and mutual confidence
could not be upheld in the dealings and intercourse of mankind, if
the doctrine of estoppels did not apply, in conscience as well as in law,
to bar such an objection, under all the circumstances, at this late day.
But I am by no means of the opinion that the Presbyterian churches
were to be always bound by such agreements, when they are found to
be ultimately injurious. The mode of relief has already been alluded
to. The agreement may be rescinded by mutual assent, and that as-
sent could not decently be withheld on due notice and kind and rea-
sonable application by the dissatisfied party. This result would be
almost inevitable when we consider that here are no stern and uncom-
promising civil rights and self-interests in the way, and that the whole
object of the compact was Christian benovolence ard the harmony
and prosperity of the churches in the Western Districts, The terms
of the proposition for abrogating the Union, brought forward in the
General Assembly of 1835, were mild and just, and such as it would

APPENDIX. 267

have been well to have followed in 1887. If such an application
should not be successful, I have no doubt that a peremptory renuncia-
tion of the Union for reasonable cause, would be justified even in the
purview of a court of equity.

(2.) The second, and the still graver question, arises on the Resolu-
tion of the General Assembly to sever from the Presbyterian Church
four Synods, consisting of the Synod of the Western Reserve, and the
Synods of Oneida, Geneva and Genesee.

It appears to me to be a very clear proposition, that the abroga-
tion of the Plan of Union of ISOl by the Resolution of the General
Assembly in 1S37, could not affect in any degree the rights and privi-
leges of the churches, presbyteries and synods which had been formed,
and organized, and governed, more or less, under the influence and
operation of that compact. The Resolution could not have any re-
troactive operation. It could not either annul or impair acts rightfully
done, in good faith, under its authority. This is a principle of uni-
versal jurisprudence. The churches formed in the western part of
New York and in Ohio, and organized under the Plan of Union of
1801, are entitled to be recognized and protected by the General As-
sembly, in their present modified state, so long as they should choose
to continue it, without any further approximation to the Presbyterian
model.

There is still another insuperable objection to the precipitate act
of rescinding the connection between the General Assembly and the
synods above mentioned, inasmuch as charges were made against
them seriously affecting the doctrine, discipline, and manners of the
churches under their care, and those synods, presbyteries and churches
had no due notice, by regular process, of the accusations, nor any op-
portunity to meet and answer them. This proceeding was contrary
to all established principles of municipal justice, and would of itself,
if there were no other objections, render the expulsion void, and leave
the Synods, notwithstanding the Resolution, component parts of the
Presbyterian Church in the United States, and entitled, of right, to
their future representation in the General Assembly, equally as if no
such Resolution had passed.

There is another objection to the expulsion of the Synods of Utica,
Geneva and Genesee, which does not seem to have occurred to the
General Assembly when they passed their Resolution, for they appear
to have considered the expulsion as a necessary consequence of the
abrogation of the Act of Union of ISO I. Nothing could be more er-
roneous than this idea, even if the premises were true ; for the repeal
of a grant or the recall of a power, will not and cannot invalidate acts

268 APPENDIX.

done and rights acquired under it, provided the grant or power did
not originate in fraud. Nor could any thing be more mischievous than
the principle assumed in the Resolution, if carried out to its practical
consequences. But it appears that the "mixed churches" in the three
Synods in Western New York were not formed on the plan of the
union of 1801, but essentially on that of ISOS, and which received the
sanction of the General Assembly in the same year. If this be the
fact, (and it appears to be so from the documents before me) then the
Resolution of 1S37 was, upon any view of the subject, inoperative as
to those Synods, ani had no application to them.

These are, briefly, the reasons which have led me to the conclusion
that the Resolution of the General Assembly " That the Synods of
Utica, Geneva and Genesee, and of the Western Reserve, were out of
the ecclesiastical connection of the Presbyterian Church," was irregu-
lar, illegal and void. It is not my intention, nor would it become me
to speak otherwise than with great respect of the General Assembly
of the Presbyterian Church of the United States, and I have not been
inclined to indulge in any observations not absolutely necessary to
the clear and precise expression of my opinion on the questions sub-
mitted. My wish is, and my advice would be, (if the advice of a
mere private layman, unconnected with the church, could be of any
value, and given without offence), that the next General Assembly,
calmly, and in the f?pirit of conciliation, review their former proceed-
ings, now so much complained of. In that case I think they would
be led to retract their obnoxious resolutions, and seek a more concilia-
tory and suitable way to rid themselves of the future operation of the
Plan of Union of 1801 ; and that they would also, and as of course,
recognize the four excluded Synods as parts and parcel of their own
Association, and endeavor by fraternal kindness and wisdom, to pro-
mote harmony, not only with those Synods, but among all the wide-
spread members of their great and interesting national association.
In ray humble opinion, the reputation and welfare of the Presbyte-
lian Church is deeply concerned in such a course.

JAMES KENT.
New YorJc, September 8, 1S37.

'.m*3Sl£^^

APPENDIX. 269

[D-J
OPINION OF GEORGE WOOD, ESQ.

Mr opinion has been requested upon the proceedings of the Gene-
ral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church at their late session, par-
ticularly the Resolutions passed by them abrogating the Plan of Union
with Congregational churches, exscinding the Synod of the "Western Re-
serve, and the three Synods of Utica, Genesee and Geneva, and dis-
solving the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia.

It may be proper to consider in the first place, how far and in what
way the legality of those proceedings as they touch the interests of
the parties concerned, may be inquired into before the judicial tribu-
nals of the country. There are two modes in which the proceedings
of inferior judicatories and institutions may be reviewed in courts of
justice, viz : First, directly, by a direct review or appeal, certiorari
mandamus, or some other process, in which the proceedings of the in-
ferior judicatory may be either revised or affirmed in whole or in
part. It is hardly necessary to state that such a jurisdiction or con-
trol over ecclesiastical institutions does not belong to the courts of this
country.

The second mode is collateral, or incidental ; and in this way
courts of justice have sometimes occasion to inquire into the proceed-
ings of our ecclesiastical tribunals. This, however, can only be done
when such inquiries become necessary to settle questions of property
or civil rights, and with a view to adjust and determine such contro-
versies. It is in this point of view only that I shall examine this sub-
ject, and it is only in this point of view that it would be proper for
me in my professional capacity to undertake to give an opinion on the
case.

The first topic I propose to consider is the abrogation of the Plan of
Union of 1801.

I do not think that this Plan of Union formed, or was the result of
a compact between the General Assembly and the Association of Con-
necticut, so as to render it obligatory upon the General Assembly to
carry into effect the measure, or to continue its operation any longer
than they should deem proper. It was a measure originating with
and belonging exclusively to the General Assembly.

It may be questioned whether the assent of the Association to the
adoption by the Assembly of this Plan was necessary. The Congre-
gational iats to be affected by this Plan were out of the jurisdiction of

12

270 APPENDIX.

that Association and beyond their control, but Ihey no doubt felt
themselves under a moral influence which rendered it a matter of del-
icacy and expediency on the part of the General Assembly to obtain
the assent of that Association,

But supposing the assent of the Association to have been indispen-
sable when it was given, they bad nothing further to do with the
Plan. It then became the measure of the General Assembly, to be
dropped, or acted upon, or modified, as they should deem advisable.

In order to illustrate this case, let us suppose that the State of New
Jersey should resolve to construct a canal, to be fed by the waters of
the Hudson, at a point where that river is the common property of
the two States, and New Jersey should apply for the assent of the
Legislature of New York, as a precautionary measure, before she
commenced the work. Whenever that consent should be given the
work would then become exclusively a New Jersey measure. It
could not be pretended that it was the offspring of a compact between
the two States, so that New Jersey could be said to construct it un-
der a compact, and to be bound to complete it and continue it in ope-
ration by virtue of such compact. She could, on the contrary, aban-
don the work whenever she should think proper to do so.

I see no ground for the supposition that this Plan of Union was in
Tiolation of the Constitution of the Church. It is true that the modes
of proceeding in those churches partly Congregational are not the
same as in the churches strictly Presbyterian, and which are referred
to by that Constitution in prescribing the organization and discipline
of churches. The Constitution provides for such churches alone;
churches which form essential parts of the Presbyterian institutions.

I see nothing in the Constitution which prohibits a union with other
denominations of Christians in a modified form. The usage of the
General Assembly appears fully to recognize and sanction such unions.
Thus by an arrangement between the Assembly and the Association
of Connecticut, as early as 1794, the respective delegates from each
body were empowered to sit and vote in the other upon all questions
decided there. A similar arrangement in 1803 was made be ween
the Assembly and the Convention of Congregationalists in Vermont.
An arrangement of the same kind was formed in 1810 with the Gen-
eral Association of New Hampshire. In 1816 an alteration was
made by which the New Hampshire Association was represented by
one delegate only in the Assembly. A similar arrangement has been
also made with the Association of Massachusetts. A union has been
formed and long subsisting between the Assembly and the General
Synod of the Keformed Dutch Church, by which delegates from the

APPENDIX. 271

latter were allo-\ved to sit in the General Assembly and participate
in their deliberations. A more intimate union has been formed be-
tween the Presbyterian and the Scotch churches; a union as close as
that of the Congregationalist under the Plan of Union of 1801. The
Scotch congregations still retaining in m^ny respects their own pecu-
liar discipline and modes of worship.

In 1808 a modified Plan of Union and correspondence between the
Synod of Albany and the Northern Associate Presbytery and the
Middle Association in the Western District, in the State of New York,
was sanctioned by a resolution of the General Assembly. It cannot
be pretended that Churches, Presbyteries, or Synods, formed under,
or growing out of that plan, could have been exscinded by the General
Assembly as a consequence resulting from the abrogation of the Plan
of Union, inasmuch as that Plan of Union of 1808 is not abrogated, or
in any way affected by any of the proceedings of that body.

An objection has been made that this Plan of Union of 1801 ought
to have been submitted by the Assembly to the Presbyteries, for their
inspection, before it was adopted. I see nothing in the constitution
requiring such a course in the formation of these Unions ; nor was
such a course pursued in establishing the various unions and arrange-
ments above stated : long-established usage must be considered as set-
tling that question. An acquiescence in the Plan of Union of ISOl by
every branch of the Presbyterian Church, accompanied by concurrent
usages in similar cases, would be received by any court of justice as
plenary evidence of its sanction and its validity. Such usage, so gen-
eral and uniform, can only be accounted for on the supposition that
there has been a predominating opinion pervading the members of
that Church, that th"fe constitution and fundamental principles of the
Presbyterian Church did not interfere with the establishment of such
Union, although established by the General Assembly alone.

This Plan of Union has been in operation for thirty-six years. Dur-
ing its continuance, in 1820 and 1821, a revised constitution was pre-
pared, similar in its provisions, so far as they appertain to this subject,
to the regulations in the old constitution in existence at the time this
Union was formed. Nowithstanding all this, the Plan of Union con-
tinued in operation, and no one appears to have dreamed that it was
unconstitutional. It is difiieult to suppose that all the able and con-
scientious men who have been upon the watch to guard that consti-
tution could have sunk into a profound sleep for six and thirty years.

Long-established usage has great effect in settling the powers, priv-
ileges, and duties of bodies and institutlomp, and in raising the pre-
sumption of the f sient to measure?, by the different members whose

272 APPENDIX.

assent or sanction may be necessary. 12 Wheaton's R. 79 ; 3 Mason,
606 ; 12 Sergeant & Rawle, 256.

I am therefore of opinion that this Plan of Union of 1801 was not
prohibited by the constitution of this church. That its adoption by
the General Assembly alone was in order, and sanctioned by general
usage — that it was not a compact, but a measure originating in the
Presbyterian Church, and which that Church was at liberty to abro-
gate whenever it should be deemed politic and expedient to do so. I
am of opinion, however, that it was a transaction of a high moral
character, upon which churches did act, and form a connection with
the Presbyterian Church ; and, as such, it ought not to be lightly re-
garded.

I do not think, however, that this abrogation had the effect to des-
troy the connection of particular congregations which had been ante-
cedently attached to the various Presbyteries. The resolution is
evidently prospective in its character. Such resolutions would not
be construed to operate retrospectively, unless the intention to give
them that effect should be clear and decisive. A resolution intended
to retroact upon churches attached under the Plan ought not to be
passed without notice or hearing. The General Assembly in 1835
had correct views of this subject when they declared that the annul-
ling of the Plan of Union should not, in any way, interfere with the
existence and lawful operation of churches already formed on this
Plan.

The next subject to be considered is the resolution exscinding the
Synod of the "Western Reserve.

The power to cut off Synods is not given to the General Assembly
in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication. The power
of "bearing testimony against error in doctrine, or immorality in
practice, in any Church, Presbytery, or Synod ; " " of suppressing
sehismatical contentions and disputations ; and in general of recom-
mending and attempting reformation of manners," &c., is too vague
and equivocal to confer a power so important and highly condem-
natory. It might as well be pretended that the power in the Federal
Constitution " to pass laws, <fec., to provide for common defence and
the general welfare," conferred upon Congress the power of exscind-
ing States. If they possess the power, they must derive it from the
great fundamental principles of government and discipline prevailing
in that Church, or from general and established usage. Admitting,
for the sake of argument, they possess the power, the condemnation
of bodies of men involving the innocent with the guilty is an exercise
of power which should be indulged in with great caution and del-
icacy.

APPENDIX. 273

Supposing the power to exist, I do not think it was duly exercised
in the present case. The body to be tried and condemned should
have been duly summoned. It ought to have received a reasonable
notice, and had an opportunity to be heard in defence. A condem-
nation ex p«rte, without reasonable notice, without an opportunity
of being heard in defence, is as repugnant to the principles and prac-
tice of our law as it is to the dictates of natural justice, A reason-
able notice of the accusation, with an opportunity of being heard in
defence, is an essential element in the administration of all justice.
Hence the proceedings of all judicatories condemning individuals, or
adopting measures affecting their rights without reasonable notice,
are treated as inoperative and void. — 11 Modern R., 225; 4 Con-
necticut R, 386; 4 Burrows, 26S2 ; 4 Barnwell & Cresard, 442; 1
Connecticut R,, 219 ; 2 Strange, 1051.

This great and vital principle, so essential to preserve the liberty of
the citizen, does not appear to have been lost sight of in this church,
in adopting their rules of practice. In the Digest, page 323, section
5, it is thus laid down : —

"It was resolved, as the sense of this house, that no man, or body of
men, agreeably to the constitution of this church, ought to be con-
demned or censured without having notice of the accusation against
him or thera, and notice given for trial." — Vol. i. p. 77, 1793.

I perceive that it is alleged, in justification of this proceeding, that
the exscinding of the Synod was a necessary consequence of abrogat-
ing the Plan of Union, inasmuch as this Synod was composed in part
of churches formed under that plan, and churches which, though
strictly Presbyterian in their character, were origially Congregational,
and brought in under tliat plan. I can see no possible objection to
the latter description of churches. The fact that they may have been
antecedently Congregational can, I think, furnish no good, ground for
cutting them off from their religious connection in any church acting
upon the liberal and tolerant principles of the Christian religion
whose object it is to promote the diffusion of piety, and to bring with-
in its influence all classes and conditions of men. If a congregation
at present Presbyterian, were composed of members originally infi-
dels, that circumstance would not furnish a reason for cutting them
off from their ecclesiastical connection.

The exscinding of these Synods, supposing it to be an invalid act,
will not, I think, have the effect of cutting off these Congregational
churches. If they had passed a resolution exscinding a number o*
churches, individually including these, and the resolution had been
good as respects these, but inoperative as to the others, it would have

274 APPENDIX.

had the effect to exscind these Congregational churches. But a
Synod is a body separate and distinct from the churches, and different-
ly organized. If the blow aimed at the Synod fails, it fails altogether.

I cannot consider this proceeding as merely declaratory. This
Synod, as well as the others, appears from the Minutes of the General
Assembly to have been a regularly organized branch of the Presby-
terian Church. But suppose there had been grounds of objection to
this Synod, both as to its original formation and its subsequent con-
duct and doctrines. It was a Synod, in fact, in possession of all the
privileges of a Synod, and such possession and enjoyment long recog-
nized and acquiesced in by all the members of the church. To strip
it at once of all these privileges is a proceeding in its nature condem-
natory, and ought not to be had without due consideration, and giving
to the party an opportunity for hearing and defence.

The Assembly in the next place proceeded to exscind the Synods of
Utica, Geneva, and Genesee. This measure appears to me to be
subject to precisely the same objections, and involved in the same dif-
ficulties as the one last considered. An additional reason is stated in
the resolution, at least as an inducement, if not as the foundation of the
proceedings, which is, that there were rumors of gross disorder preva-
lent in those Synods. The charge is vague, without any specification
of the disorders, and rests, or rather floats upon the most uncertain and
unsatisfactory of all evidence — common fame. This circumstance, in-
stead of strengthening this proceeding, furnishes, I think, an additional
objection to it. Under the Constitution rumor is the basis of accusation,
but it must be followed by citation and hearing. To condemn large
bodies of men, by wholesale, upon a general charge of disorders, with-
out specification, based upon the suspicious evidence of common
fame, without citation or defence, is an additional instance to prove
that large assemblies, as well in church as state, will, under the in-
fluence of high excitement, resort to measures which will not bear the
test of calm and deliberate inquiry.

The dissolution of the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia is, I think,
subject to the same objection, of want of notice and opportunity for
defence, and does not call for any further remarks.

Upon the whole, I consider these proceedings as inoperative and
void, and I think they will he so declared if any question about proper-
ty or rights should arise out of them by our judicial tribunals. I think
a court of law would treat these irrregular proceedings taking place
in the highest ecclesiastical tribunal as an absolute nullity ; otherwise
there would be no redress for the parties aggrieved by them. A par-
ty being in the minority, might, at a session not very full, find them-

APPENDIX. 275

selves a majority of the quorum present, and, by a summary excision
of a number of the opposite party without notice or trial, secure to them-
selves a majority in future. Mere forms and ceremonies designed to
carry out such a plan, such as pledginc^ their clerks, -who are mere
ministerial officers, to reject the commissions of the exscinded mem-
bers, will never stand in the way of arriving at substantial justice.
They are morning clouds, from which the mist will be di'^sipated in
the sunshine of a court of justice. An act, the effect of which is to
operate fraudulently upon the rights of others, whether designed to do
BO or not, whether it be constructive or actual, will be set aside, no
matter what forms and solemnities of proceeding are resorted to to
shield it. I am of the opinion that the four Synods and ihe Presby-
tery above mentioned are still legitimate members of the Presbyte-
rian Church and under the jurisdiction of the General Assembly, and
are entitled to all the riijhts and privileges, and subject to the duties
incident to that relationship.

[E.]

OPINION OF JUDGE HOPKINS.

I. I HAVE heard it suggested that eminent counsel have doubted
whether, in the case of the exscinded judicatories, there is not a diffi-
culty about the remedy. I take it to be a universal principle, that for
every wrong the law supplies a remedy. Or if this can fail at all, it
must, I think, be owkig to the imperfect organization of courts in
some of our states.

Perhaps I ought to explain, that I conceive the civil tribunals can
take no cognizance of ecclesiastical questions, except as incidental to
questions of property. In that shape they may be compelled to take
cognizance of any question not in its own nature objectionable, that
can ever possibly be raised.

II. A very prominent point of discussion, in the late convention and
General Assembly at Philadelphia, was the constitutional right of re-
pealing the Plan of Union of ISOl. I mention this merely for the
purpose of explaining, that I do not consider the discussion of it ne-
cessary, inasmuch as I think it is superseded by the points which I
shall proceed to mention, and which, I think, were not adverted to at
Philadelphia. I will merely remark, however, that I conceive that
the clause in chap. xii. sec. 6, p. 365, of the Form of Government, has
been misunderstood and misapplied.

276 APPENDIX.

I II. Some of the most beautiful and salutary of all regulations for
preserving civil order are those which regard the powers of officers
and functionaries who are such de facto, and not de Jure. Without
these there could be no safety in life, nor reliance upon any legal
guarantee. The legal principle is, in substance, that when a person
is in possession of an offine, exercising its powers, and claiming to do
80 of right, the acta of such officer are to be deemed rightful,
as regards third persons at least, though he was not truly en-
titled to the office he held. This principle extends through every de-
partment of society, from the highest to the lowest. Thus in England, in
the wars between the houses of York and Lancaster, the acts of either
king, while on the throne, were held legally binding, so far as their
Bubjects were concerned. Thus in the smallest corporation, if a ma-
jority of the members are illegally returned, the acts of those mem-
bers, after they are ousted by their rivals, bind the body corporate.
Thus it is, that when the deed for my house is recorded by the coun-
ty clerk, I stand in no fear of my title, although the acting clerk was
not truly entitled to the office. And thus, too, the acting sheriff, who
executes a criminal to-day, is not thereby guilty of murder, although
it should turn out that he was unduly elected, and his rival should
oust him to-morrow. The same applies to legislative acts, passed by
majorities, comprising sitting members, who may lose their seats,
when such acts could not have been passed, if the right members had
been first returned.

I conceive that this principle contains a conclusive answer to every
argument drawn against the exscinded Synods and Presbyteries, on the
ground that any of them might possibly be constituted in pursuance
of votes, in which some committee men, or unconstitutional delegates
may have concurred. Moreover, those arguments prove too much ;
for if the votes of unconstitutional delegates vitiate the proceedings
of synods and presbyteries, they would, on the same ground, vitiate
those of the General Assembly itself. I believe that it has even been
alleged, that such delegates have had seats in the Assembly, and in
this case, and upon this ground, the Assembly itself would thencefor-
ward have become illegal, possessing no higher rightful existence, than
it has allowed to the exscinded judicatories.

IV. The idea that the act of excision was merely arbitrary, and
adopted without formal accusation, citation, trial, proof, or regular de-
fence, or means of defence, is already fully before the public. But I wish
to add one or two considerations : First — the essentials of fair trial on
reasonable notice, and with means of defence, are matters of inherent
right in every case of this nature, and I apprehend the civil tribunals

APPENDIX. 277

would never allow that right to be violated, even if it were not ex-
pressly provided for. But, secondly, the Code of Discipline, chap ii.,
sec. 1, par. 5 and 6, p. 409, is perfectly express on that subject. It
both establishes the right of trial, and gives the form of process, and
according to those provisions the General Assembly had power to
correct all that was disorderly or irregular in those judicatories. And,
thirdly, these measures having been neglected, the case will, I think,
stand before the civil courts as a simple excision without cause ; and
in such case the civil tribunals will not at all entertain the question,
whether, in fact, there was cause or not. They will consider it suffi-
cient, that no due course of ecclesiastical judicial investigation was
adopted, such as the form of government prescribes.

V. Respecting the idea that the formation of the four exscinded Syn-
ods was consequent upon the Plan of Union, and that they must fall with
the repeal of that Plan, it seems to me that many links in the chain
of fact and argument are wanting to make that conclusion a seguitur.
How do these things appear to be so ? for I have seen no particular
fact stated. Was the Presbyterian church utterly and for ever pre-
cluded from forming particular Churches, Presbyteries and Synods
within the undefined Hmits of what were called new settlements in
1801 ? Was that prohibition perpetual, or limited in point of time ?
Was it not possible that one or more churches should be there formed
without this leaven of unconstitutionality, or that, having been orio-in-
ally infected with that leaven, they should have purged it out ? If
there are judicatories still thus infected, does it appear whether they
constitute the majority or the minority ? And if a minority, is it
then a principle that every judicatory containing a minority of infect-
ed members is for thatn-eason to be cut off ? Where would the Gen-
eral Assembly itself be upon that principle ? If a majority, why have
they not long since proceeded as the constitution points out ? If within
the exscinded judicatories there should be found to exist a single par-
ticular church which had a legitimate connection with the General As-
sembly, and was unimpeachable on any ground of error in doctrine*
practice, or organization, it may emphatically be asked, how could
such church be cut off xdthout trial— ho\y could it be cut off on trial?
Are we not then driven back to the question of fact, whether they
(the exscinded judicatories) were illegally constituted, and to the con-
sequences of that fact, and also to the question of their present state,
and have those questions been judicially investigated ?

VI. But there is matter apparent upon the very face of the printed
form of government, which alone must be sufficient to set this ques-
tion at rest, without support from any other point. This form of

33

278 APPENDIX.

government was adopted and ratified by the General Assembly in
1821. i. e, exactly twenty years after the Plan of Union. By the list
of standing committees at the end of the Form of Government, page
458, it appears that the Synods of Genesee and Geneva were then con-
stituent parts of the Presbyterian church, and were represented in the
Assembly of that year. From the minutes of the General Assem-
bly of that year, it appears that sundry presbyteries, which are now a
part of the Synod of Utica, were also there represented. In sub-
stance and effect, therefore, the three exscinded synods of this State
were then constituent parts of the Presbyterian church, and parties to
the formation of its present constitution. It follows, I think, as a ne-
cessary consequence, that, be the irregularities in constitution, discip-
line, doctrine, or measures ever so flagrant, the judicatories cannot in
any manner be impeached for any of those faults, except on the ground
of after-continuance. At the moment of forming that constitution ,
they were judicatories, acknowledged by the concurrence of all the
others to be such in full right — they constituted integral and legiti-
mate parts of the General Presbyterian Church, and, for causes then
existing, they were not, nor are more liable to excision, than the origi-
nal presbyteries of Philadelphia or New York.

But, furthermore, how does it appear that the four exscinded synods
embrace all the territory which was meant by new settlements in
ISOl, and in which the Assembly have now presbyteries ? What
shall we say of the remaining presbyteries of Ohio, of some in "West
Pennsylvania, and of several in the Synod of Albany ? Why are not
these also cut oflF? And can this question be answered without leaving
some imputation of partiality ?

SAMUEL M. HOPKINS.

Geneva, 20th July, 1887.

?

y

J