-
"'. ' .
. ܂
܀
iiܪ
..
܂
. '
܀
܀
. . . . . |
ܘ
ܘ
.
; . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
܃ ܂
ܐܪ
܂
0
.
ܪ
܀
܂ ܂
ܕ
.
.
.
A 1,158,520
.
.
, .
'
:ܙ...܀ܫܝ܂..ܙܙܙܙܙܕܪܝ ܝܫܝܙܝܨܙܙܙܙܙ:::-.tt :
.-..
܀܂ܐ.܂.:.::. ܀:.
::.
..... :;:;::.
܂
. ܙ
ܕܪܐ
! !!!ܐܙܐܠܐ ܐ
ܨܕܠܪܟ
ܕܙܝܘܗܝܙ
:z::::ܐܢܛܐܪܐܫܢܐܫܐ:.rc
iiiimum
ܕܕ
ܙܝܪܪ
;
-
;
:
r
'
1
:
܀ ܀ ܀
C
o lor
-
* c
;
iii
. ܙܙܫܙܙ ܙܙܙܙܙ |ܙܙ |ܙܙܙܙܙܙܐܙܙ:!:.fܙܪ
ܐܨܕܪ....ܙܝܼ.܀܀:iiܐܢܳ ܀ܪܢܙܕܪܙܘܕܰܐ::"::-::.::..-ܪܕܬ
-----I' -;'ܪܕ܀
ܝܐܕܪܐܨܙܕܪܕܙܐܫܙܝܨܫܫܝܝܪܚܪܙ-:---
ܕ
ܪ ܕ
ܝ
ܪ40
:ܚ
0
܂
ܙܪܙ ܙ ܙܙܙ܀ ܀ ܝ
:
ܐ
ܐܐܕ
ܕܪܪܠܪܪjiia

ܙ
Q,;
܀
܀

*
*
*
KAN
934
$
.
.
.
SAR
Y
*
We
3
.
.
29
TA
:
SER
SAK
*
WA
WORS
*
.
1113
4
21
*
RM2
SO
WAN
..
YN
.
M
149
TW
12
43
ry
DI
MOS
M
4
az
VLC
R
3
WE
PA
AR
1960
23
WY
X.12
UIT
ED
**
on
FUTA
Yes
LLOL. DIBIZA V OLHULL
UNTITLES
septiem
PW ECIR
SCIENTIS
LIBRARY VERITAS OF THE
.
ARTES
**MIKA
AN
.
T
.
*.
.
OSITY OF MICHIGAN
te
AVA
.
472
RE
07
.
WISHONIT
uuuuunhbindununaruunid KINO
um |
VAS
:
C
ITIE INSTITUUTTUVATTIIN
#
UNIVERSITY
+
VIDU
su
PAR
L
TER
A
CENTARI
.
TO
AVE
ZA
WA
'
.
I
.
.
.
AK
CEBOR
*
*
.:
.
LI
.out
5
.
Au
...
SI QUERIS.PENINSUL
57
MAMONAMIT
CIRCUMSPICE.
SIJS' Pis'.:JJ/3!/w...11 .D.
UUUU.SI
I NIST!
animnimnimi muuuuuuuuuu
STILISESTIMM
UY
0:41.
WISA
អាវីដែរអាងពីរលើក
T |||||II|IIIIMITY
16
200.
0
.
.
00
M
.-
1
.
OLLS
972
.
.
USM
.
A
OOOOOOP
21
als://HISTUJUH Tina
Illll|||IIIIIIIIIIIIII.
SunnuntbuiniinhimnitorunmmunititutunmittentTC
DAN
PM
TI
*
CS
*
*
*
-
1.
P
. -
ER
.
R2X
AR
ATTITO
.
Tappan Presbyterian
Association:
12
CAVA
-
-
IMNI
-
w
FO
.79
AM
3237
.
ht
TAS
***
tt.
NI
Se
+
*
NA
FSA
Y
THE
i
M
ESP
22
fa
.
.
Lure
.
UK
ST
7
A
A2.10
TV
tte
Y
TER?
LINEA
SI
.
5
**
X
A
**
.
***
:
SUAR
3
214
TT
2
SALAT
7
AH
24
22
KY
tid
.
+
S
*
.
.
SA
.
zm.
S
Sy
12
YE
**
22
wa
DA
**
<3
32
***
3
X2
LETTA
est,
BA
E W202
Tr
11
&W
+
ya
A
*
1.
B
PA
*
*AXXX
22
WY
TAN
WW
*
*
LY
.
..
..
....
.
..nu
*
*
".
*
*
REVIA
34
WY.
.
*..
***
Аҳм*
r
343
Р
.....
.
....
....
..
..
..................
.....
.
...
-
.........ii
i mme
**
*


ΤΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΤΤΤΤΤΤΤΤΤΤΤΠΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥΥ
-
Tappan Presbyterian Association
LIBRARY
mmm
DIO
www
Presented by HON. D. BETHUNE DUFFIELD.
From Library of Rev. Geo. Duffield, D.D.
YYYYYTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
M
:
.:..
.
..
-
-
"
****
.
REIPUBLIC

DEO RED
AMICIS;
.
NO.
IIIIIII010..
11 .
01.
9
10010
100
. 00
+91OID
DISOUNDTUDI
1
WINNINUX
IO
W
lebAM
Tone
In tali nunquam lassat venatio sylva.
A.D.1884.
....
.
--
-
.
.
.
.
----
-
-
-
-
-
-
---
-
.
..
.
.
.
.
1999
. .
.
.
.
.
..
-
--
--
-
-
-
THE HISTORY
225-6
.
OF:
THE PRESBYTERIAN CONTROVERSY,
WITH
EARLY SKETCHES OF PRESBYTERIANISM.
BY H. WOODS.
[COPY RIGHT SECURED.)
· LOUISVILLE:
PRINTED BY N. H. WHITE, MARKET STREET
1813,
Tappan Proste in
12-5-1931
CONTENTS.
.
.
ST
1
CHAPTER 1. Early Sketches of Presbyterianism
Westminster Assembly.
CHAPTER II. Union of Presbyterians and Congrega-
tionalists~-Primitive and Liberal Policy of American
Presbyterianism.
CHAPTER II. The Controversy and Schism of 1741.
CHAPTER IV. The Policy of the Presbyterian Church
; in the struggle for National Independence.
CHAPTER V. Plan of Union of 1801.
CHAPTER VI. The Hopkinsian Controversy.
CHAPTER VII. The Home Missionary Controversy-
Old School Circular-New School Disavowal-Drs.
Green and Beman--Cincinnati Convention.
CHAPTER VIII. Voluntary Societies and Ecclesiasti.
cal Boards.
CHAPTER IX. Assembly of 1831-Mr. Barnes' Case
--Re-examination--Elective Affinity.
CHAPTER X. The Act and Testimony.
CHAPTER XI. General Assembly of 1835..
S
..
iy
.
YTT
CHAPTER XII. The Foreign Mission Question--As:
sembly of 1836.
CHAPTER XIII. Mr. Barnes' Case again-Secret Cir-
cular.
CHAPTER XIV. Policy of the two. Parties in reference
to the Division of the Church.
CHAPTER XV. Old School Convention of 1837.
CHAPTER XVI. The General Assembly of 1837.
CHAPTER XVII. Operation of the Excinding Acts-
Arguments of the Parties for; and against Excision-
The true character of the Excinded Synods--The
Policy of the Reformers...
CHAPTER XVIII, : The Controversy about Doctrines.
CHAPTER XIX. The Auburn Convention.
CHAPTER XX. The Assembly of 1838–The Division
of the Church-The tumult in the organization of
the Assembly.
CHAPTER XXI. The Policy of the New Basis Assem.
bly.
CHAPTER XXII. The great reform Ordinance of 1838.
CHAPTER XXIII. Unsuccessful efforts for an amica.
ble adjustment.
CHAPTER XXIV. Results of legal investigation.
The opinion of the venerable Dr. Cleland, in regard to
the merits of this work, is here inserted :
The “History of the Presbyterian Controversy, if by the Rev. H.
Woods, I have carefully read, and with no small interest and gratifica-
tion. It embodies, in a succinct form, a large amount of matter found.
ed on facts and evidences, contained in official and historical docti-
ments, not to be successfully controverted. It will serve admirably as
a book of reference for the present generation, as well as a little store-
house of information for posterity, to whom it is especially commended.
As for the style, it is familiar and agreeable, exhibiting a perspicuity
and accuracy rarely to be found in similar modern productions, which
makes the work at once both valuable and desirable of attainment.
I cordially wish it a hearty patronage and extensive circulation. .
T'HOMAS CLELAND.
PREFACE.
2
The history of the controversy and schism of tho
Presbyterian Church embraces a very eventful period in
the annals of the American Church. After the divisiort,
I was induced to undertake the task of writing a brief
history of this whole' matter. The work was accomplished
with some labor and with great care. The statements
made rest mainly upon documentary evidence; and their
correctness has not been controverted, though submitted to
the public, through the “Presbyterian Sentinel," during
the years 1841 and 1842. .
The reason why I originally undertook this work was
to gratify a very general desire to know what caused the
division of the Presbyterian Church, and what separates
the two parties. This anxiety for information was not
confined to the Presbyterian Church. The members of
other churches, and the people of the world were anxious
to understand the subject.
I thought it best to present briefly some early sketches
of Presbyterianism, as introductory to the main object.
And especially did I deem it necessary to present some
sketches of primitive American Presbyterianism, seeing
this question runs through all the controversy: Which
party is the oldest, and which has departed most widely
from the principles upon which the American Presbyterian
Church was founded ? The so called New School party
professes to be as old as the so called Old School party.
viii
The New School also urge that they stand upon the founas
dation of primitive American Presbyterianism; and that
the measures that resulted in the dismemberment of the
Church were the new or 'reform measures of the Old
School. To settle questions of this nature, it was neces-
sary to examine our early history, to sce upon what
principles the American Church was foundede
The history of so important a period, in the annals of
our Church, slould not only be presented to those. now
living, but should also be handed down to coming genera-
tions, that their curiosity may be gratified, and that they
may learn wisdom from our sad experience.
Where I have relied on historiaus so correct, in gene-
ral, as Moshiem and Neal, I have not burdened the History
by minute references. This was unnecessary, as what I
have said of Presbyterianisin prior to the organization of
the Church in America, will not be controverted by any
one. But as my statements in relation to the history of
our Church in America may be subjected to the most rigid
scrutiny, I have not only quoted good authorivies, but have
made my references sufficiently ample.
· I have only to add, that I have written these chapters
as I trust, in the fear of God. I have written them with
an expectation that they will be read, and with a hope
that they will promote the advancement of truth and
righteousness.
THE AUTHOR.
GLASGOW, Ky. 1843.
THE PRESBYTERIAN CONTROVERSY.
CHAPTER 1.
EARLY SKETCHES OF PRESBYTERIANISM – WESTMIN,
STER ASSEMBLY.
The Church of Christ, before its alliance, in the fourth
century, with the State under Constantine, flourished with.
out the aid of civil power. Then the way seemed to be
open, for a more extensive propagation of the gospel, than
at any former time. But the advantages of this union were
not real. Religion suffered by coming in contuct with
civil power and seculiar arrangements. The purity and
simplicity of christianity were corrupted ; forms and cere-
movies were multiplicd; a worldly policy controlled
tho ministers of religion, and soon the kingdom of Christ
became a kingdom of this world.
From the fourth to the close of the fifteenth century, a
long night of eleven centuries, the Church was in a deplor-
able condition, if. we except the Waldenses, who, during
that long period, seemed to stand aloof from the establish-
ment. We no more expect to find a correct system of
Church Government among the Roman Catholics, than it
correct system of faith. And we know so little of the
history of the Waldenses, that we ought not 10 say what
form of Church government they maintained.
About the beginning of the sixteenth century, the
light of the reformation began to dawn upon the world.
do
'Í'he Protestants alſ condemned the government of the Pa.
pists as well as their doctrines. But they could not agree
among themselves. A very respectable portion believed,
that the primitive form of Church government was Pres.
bylerian. Among the advocates of this form of govern-
ment was Calvin, who lived in the beginning of the six-
teenth century. Moshiem says of him Hè maintained,
that the church was to be governed, like the primitive
Church, only by Presbyteries and Synods, that is, by as-
senblies of olders, composed both of the clergy and laity;
and he left to a civil magistrate little more than the privi.
lege of protecting and defending the Church, and providing
for what related to its external exigencies and concerns.
Thus this eminent reformer introduced into the Republic of
Geneva, and endeavored to introduce into all the reform.
ed churches, throughout Europe, that form of ecclesias.
rical government, which is called Presbyterian, from its
neither admitting the institution of bishops, nor any subor-
dination among the clergy; and which is founded on this
principle, that "all ministers of the gospel are, by the law
of God, declared to be equal i'n rank and authority."
The Presbyterian form of church government, which
was adopted by Calvin, became the model for the reform.
ed churches in many countries of Europe. Frederick HI.,
elector of Palatine; in 1560, removed from their pastoral
charge the Lutheran doctors, and filled their places with
those who favored the doctrines and discipline of Calvin.
This form of ecclesiastical government was embraced by
his subjects and became the established institution. The
Republic of Bremen adopted the same form of government.
Other German States also regulated their faith and fornis
of government by that of Geneva.
The French Protestants, though they differed among
tliems lves, were gèneral y under the influence of the Swiss
divines. This is easily accounted for from their proximity
to Geneva, and the efforts of those zealous and eminent
men, Calvin, Farel and Beza. Thus, before the middle of
the sixteenth century, the French Protestants entered into
the bonds of fraternal communion with the church of
Geneva. It is therefore clear, that the Protestants of
France were Presbyterians. They were however, called
by their enemies, Huguenots-a term of reproach.
11
The church of Scotland was founded by John Knox, a
discipie of Calvin; and from that time down to the present,
Presbyterians have always been the most numerous.
The Presbyterian form of government was more re-
luctantly embraced in England than Scotland. Yet after
the death of Henry VIII. the doctrines of Calvin were
embraced by the ministers and churches of Englanda
And in the reign of Edward VI.'Geneva was acknowledged
as a sister church, and the doctrines of Calvin were
adopted, and rendered the public rule of faith. The form
of government, however, then established was not Presby:
terian. Yet the Presbyterians were a numerous body:
But they were divided among ihemselves. Some were dis:
posed to observe the ritual established by Edward. But
Others were conscientiously opposed to that form of goy-
ernment, and the rites and ceremonies enjoined. To such
persons the name of Puritans was given, on account of
their contending for a more pure worship than the liturgy
set up by Edward.
A large portion of those called Puritans were Presby,
terians, yet among the Puritans were reckoned the Inde.
pendents and Baptists..
In the history of the English Church, it will be remem;
bered, that the Presbyterians were called by different
names-Puritans, Nonconformists, Dissenters--names
common to all who oppose the discipline and forms of the
established church.
The Congregationalists, were called Independents,
The same names were often applied to them as to Presbyte:
rians. They agreed in articles of faith; and the difference
between the two bodies, in their views of church govern;
snent, was at times deemed so unimportant, that they liy-
ed upon terms of correspondence and commụnion.
In Ireland, the reformation was not general, Yet from
an early period there were Presbyterians there, and large
and respectable churches.
At the commencement of the reformation in the Belgian
Provinces, the people hesitated whether they would fash-
ion their faith and discipline after Luther or Calvin. Bu
after the middle of the sixteenth century, they Fublicly
adopted the system of Calvin.
The reputation of this great Reformeſ, and of the Col.
lege at Geneva, together with the indefatigable zeal of the
Swiss in extending their system of doctrine and govern.
ment; will readily account for the prevalence of this sys.
ten, not only among the reformed churches of France,
Liut those of Belgium and other States near to France.
This system of faith and discipline found ils way into
Sexony, Poland, Prussia, Denmark, and nearly all the
countries of Europe, and was extensively embraced at an
early period of the reformation.
Though the Presbyterian system was extensively em-
braced, yet it is not to be in ferred that there was a perfect
uniformity. Moshiem says: “This universal conformity
was, indeed, ardently desired by the Helvetic doctors ; but
their desires, in this respect, were far from being accom-
plished.”
On the intricate doctrine of Predestinalion--the prima-
l'v cause of the salvation of the elect--or the ruin of the
reprobate, some adopted une view and some another. And
it was so in reference to some other deep subjects in
theology.
There were differences in their form of discipline. Some
were for a General Assembly, and others not. Some or-
dained olders for life; and some were for one year.
Some believed in the livine right of Presbytery and oth-
ers not. Some were for the toleration of other sects, and
others not. That period of the world, however, was
strongly marked by bigotry, and intolerance. And in an
age of so much intolerance, we are almost surprised to
learn, that, at an early period of the reformation, this
maxim, having a tendency to promote concord, was pretty
generally adopted, viz.; "That Jesus Christ has left upon
record no express injunctions with respect to the external
form of government that is to be observed in his church."
But this maxim was not carried into effect. The world
had been so long accustomed to a union of church and
State, that the great mass seemed never to think of any.
thing but an establishment. And men of learning and
piety, in every sect, seemed to think their party was the
only true church.
Upon a review of the feelings and policy of our ances.
tors, the English, Scotch and Irish, we find much to admire.
They were the firm friends of the reformation, the bold
13
and courageous defenders of their liberties, the patrons of
learning and of morals. But in their history, we find
much to condernn. They were too rigid and uncompro-
- mising in things indifferent; too intolerant towards others,
and too fond of the aid of civil power.
Indeed, the honor of the christian religion demands the
concession long since made, that “all parties of chris-
lians, when in power, have been guilty of persecution for
conscience sake," and that it is unsafe and dangerous
to trust any sort of clergy with the sword."
In England and Scotland, our Presbyterian ancestors, as
well as others, were for one mode of worship, and one forni
of church government for the whole nation, to which all
must conforn. Perfect uniformity was attempted in Queen
Elizabeth's reign ; uniformity too, in many respects, about
things indifferent, according to the opinions of the party in
-power. The contest was then mainly about unity of
apparel. Those who refused the gown, cap, &c. diidi
so because they regarded them as the garments of Po.
pery. But for this refusal, ministers were cut off from
the church and imprisoned, and families ruined. The
cries of the people for preachers reached the court. But
it. pleased the bishops to let the people do without the
means of grace, unless their preachers would take the sun's
plice and cap!
Upon-this fatal rock of perfect uniformity the Church
of England split. Neal says: “The rigorous pressing of
this act was the occasion of all the · mischiefs that befell
the church for above eighty years."
In consequence of their persecutions, the Puritans, in
The reign of Charles I., began to make rapid settleinents
in North America. One remarkable instance the cele.
brated John Cotton, a popular preacher, of meek and gen-
tle disposition. He became a non-conformist, and omitted
some of the ceremonies of the Church. He was informed
against. He applied to the Earl of Dorset to befriend
him. But the Earl sent him word, that, if he had been
guilty of drunkenness, uncleanness, or any such lesser
fault, he could have got his pardon, but the sin of Pure.
You must fly for your safety."
Upon this he traveled to
London in disguise, and took passage for New England,
where he spent the remainder of his life.
In this reign, the Presbyterian Establishment of Scot-
land was made to quake. During the reign of Elizabeth
and James I., the Presbyterians in the North were free
from the troubles of their brethren in England. But when
Charles I., in 1637, attempted to force upon them the
liturgy of the English Establishment, they rallied under
their Solemn League and Covenant, and finally triumphed
Qver every attempt to 'subyert their system. Could we
persuade ourselves that a union of Church and State is
right, we would say that the Scotch deserve the greatest
praise for their valor and conscientiousness in battling for
their Establishment. Yet, during the reign of Charles log
the sitting of the long parliament, the protectorate of
Cromwell, and the civil wars, the conduct of the Scotch
Presbyterians was, in many caşes, highly reprehensible.
li some things they were as much to blame as those who
desired to oppress them. Bishop Burnet says : 66 that the
King and the Scots desired uniformity in church govern;
ment, but with different viewşthe King was for bringing
them to the English standard; whereas, the Scots intend;
ed to bring the English to theirs." And Neal says, the
Scots insisted that "there should be uniformity between the
i wo nations."
in the contest between Charles I. and his Parliament,
the Scotch and English Presbyterians and the Independ
ents generally sided with the latter. ..
in 1643, the Westminster Assembly met, according to
- an ordinance of the Lords and Commons, in parliament.
This was a convocation, neither according to Episcopacy
or Presbytery. The parliament chose all the members,
with i view to have their advice, in settling the doctrine
and government of the Church of England. They ap-
pointed in England thirty laymen-ten lords and twenty
commoners and one hundred and twenty one divines ;
from Scotland, six laymen and five divines. More than
one hundred met. Some were Episcopalians, some Eng.
Jish Presbyterians, some Scotch Presbyterians, some Eras.
tians, and some Independents. Few Episcopalians apg
peared, and soon withdrew, because of lay representation,
and the number of men of puritanical stamp, and other
reasons. Baxter says, that they who composed the Ago
sembly "were men of eminent learning, godliness, minisa
terial abilities, and fidelity.”
The Assembly, after a long and animated debating,
went through their work. They agreed upon ä Confession
of Faith and Form of Government, and signed the Solemn
League and Govenant, sent there from Scotland, with
some slight alterations. The Solemn League and Coves
nant, though a short document, exerted a powerful influ:
ence, and proved eventually for England and for Presbye
terja nism, as impolitic as it was intolerant. It consisted
of six articles, to the second of which there was the
greatest objection. It reads as follows: "That we shall,
in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavor the
extirpation of popery, prelacy, (that is, church government
by archbishops, bishops their chancellors and commissaries,
deans, deans and chapters, aichideacons and all other eccle.
siastical officers depending on that hierarchy) superstition,
heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatever shall be found
to be contrary to sound doctrine, and the power of godli.
ness, lest we partake in other men's sins, and thereby be
in danger to receive of their plagues; and that the Lord
may be one, and his name one, in the three kingdoms."
This document was subscribed, not only by the West-
minister Assembly, but by the parliament. The Commit.
tee of States in Scotland, ordered it to be subscribed in
that kingdom, on penalty of the confiscation of goods,
and rents and other punishments. All the lords of the
Council were required to sign it, and those who did not,
were declared enemies to religion and to their king and
country. Orders were issued to seize their goods and ap).
prehend their persons, upon which they fled into England.
In England, all persons over the age of eighteen were or-
dered to subscribe it.
To the League and Covenant, there were many and
weighty objections. It was regarded as a religious and civil
test act, subjecting any one who did not sign it, to be pro-
ceeded against as a "malignant”-an enemy to religion
and to his country. It was also opposed by some, because
it bound them to acts of persecution of the extirpation":
of thoxe who might be called heretics or schismatics.
. From the document we can easily see, that Episcopalians,
-
16
1
Independents and others would not be very hearty in sub.
seribing iſ. But it was subscribed by multitudes of all
Creeds and classes. Some took the Covenant, because
they thought the Protestant religion in danger; some, in
obedience to the parliament; some because they wanted
the assistance of Scotland, which was to be had on no
other terms, and some to avoid danger.
It was not, however; to be supposed, that in.30 large an
Assembly as that of Westminister, there was a perfect
uniformity, of views on all points. Neal says: "It is not
to be wondered,- that so many parties, with different views,
should entangle the proceedings of this venerable body,
and protract the intended union with the Scots."
There was some jarring when they came to sign the
League and Covenant.. Dr.Featly objected to one article.
Dr. Burges objected to several, and was persuaded to sub-
scribe, after he had been suspended. The Scotch were
for abjuring episcopacy as. unlawful, but the English di-
vines were against it. The English Commissioners were
for a civil league, but the Scotch would have a religious
one, to which Bishop Burnet says, "the English were
obliged to yield, taking care at the same time to leave
a door open for a latitude of interpretation." Thus, in
the first article, they bound themselves to defend and pre-
serve the reformation of religion, "in doctrine, worship,
discipline and governmeni,, according to the word of God,
and the example of the best reformed churches." Here
was a latitude, that would suit all. The Episcopalian
would have it according to the word of God." But the
Presbyterian would go a little farther, and have it also ac-
cording to the example of the best reformed churches."
Thus, says Neal, “the wise men on both sides endeavor.
ed to outwit each other in wording the articles.”
It would indeed be something strange, if there were not
different views of doctrine and church government, among
men who belonged to different sects—Scotch, English
Presbyterians, Erastians, and Independents. The majori.
ty, at first, were in favor of such an episcopacy as they
supposed existed in the early ages of the church. Put
for ihe sake of the alliance with the Scotch they declared
for the Presbyterial form.
On the mode of baptism, there was at first some dif.
ference. One half were for excluding dipping: Ilie
other half, though they believed that affusion was the
lawful mode, were unwilling to vote that:dipping was not
a valid baptism.
The Directory, in reference to prayer, was not well re.
ceived by the ludependents. Mr. Fuiler says: 'ithe Inde'-
pendents in the Assembly, were hardly persuaded to cor-
sont to it, for fear of infringing the liberty of prayer, yet
being admitted to qualify some things in the preface, they
complied."
On the subject of the keys and 07:en communion, there
was difference of opinion. Neal says: “The Presbyteriaos
were for giving the power of the keys into the hands of
the ministers and elders, as the Independents were to the
whole brotherhood; but Liglitfoot, Selden, Coleman and
others, were for an open communion to whom the parli.
ament were most inclinable." These latier were Eras.
tians.
There were other points about which the members of
the Assembly differed. Some olijected to certain expres-
sions relative to reprobation, the inputation of Christ's
obedience, &c. But they at last agreed upon the Confes-
.sion of Faith and Book of Discipline, as the best thing
they could get, though all were not pleased with them.
And thai Coufession, as since modified, certainly ranks, in
the opinion of good judges, among the best systems of
divinity ever published. Yet, from the history of those
times, we learn that there was no small degree of dissatis-
faction about the Confession of Faith, Neal, speaking of
the Baptists, who were not represented in the Assembly, "
says: "These, joining with the Independents in the point.
of discipline and toleration, made them the more considera -
ble, and encouraged their opposition to the Presbyterians,
who were for establishing their own discipline, without re-
gard to such as differed from them." In this, the Presbyte-
rians grealy erred, and manifested an intolerant spirit. Even
the good Mr. Baxter avowed that, she abhorred limit.'
ed liberty, or toleration of all." **
: The great question about the dirine right of Presbytery
was warmly debated during the sitting of the Assembly,
as well as afterwards. Mr. Coleman was bold against
this doctrine. He declaimed against it, not only in the
2* .
18
Assembly, but in the pulpit, "apprehending Presbytery
would prove as arbitrary and tyrannical as prelacy, if it
came in on the foot of a divine claim."
Here also the Independents erred; for in opposing the
dirine right of Presbytery, they advocates "a diving
higit of their own scheme.” But, in the Assembly, the
Presbyterians carried their point, by a large majority vot-
ing for the divine right. But the Independents entered
their dissent in writing, and complained to the world wof
the unkind usage they met with in the Assembly; that the
papers they offered were not read; that they were not al-
lowed to state their own questions," &c. ,
But when the matter came before the House of Com-
mons, the Independents were joined by the Erastians.
When the vote was there taken, the Commons voted
ilgainst the dirine right. Neal says, that “the disappoint.
inent of the Scotch Commissioners and their friends, at
this vote in parliament, is not to be expressed."
Indeed, the entire book, as it came from the Assembly,
and has been published to the world, never was approved
by the English parliament. The parliament, howevei',
made some concessions to the majority of the Assembly,
but with such provisios, that it was evident they did not
intend to part with the sword, or subject the civil powers
But when Parliament had now established the Presbyte-
rial form of government, no one party of Christians was
satisfied. The Episcopalians and independents were ex.
c!uded ; and because the parliament would not come fully
up to the Scotch notions of divine right, they were not
pleased. And yet it is clear that what was done, was in
a great degree to please the Scotch Commissioners. Bish-
op Kennet observes, that "the settling Presbytery was
supported by the fear and love of the Scotch army, and
that when they were gone home, it was better managed by
the English army, who were for independency and a prin.
ciple of toleration.” In this divided state of affairs in
England, the Scotch felt that they held the balance of pow.
er, and they seemed determined to impose their form of
government upon the English. .
Here was the grand error of our Scotch and English
Ya
19
Presbyterian ancestors. They were not satisfied with any
thing short of covenant uniformity and the dirine right
of Presbytery. Of this Mr. Baxter, who was a Presby.
terian, was in some degree sensible. He says, that tho
Prestbyerian ministers were so little sensible of their own
infirmities, that they would not agree to tolerate those
who were not only tolerable, but worthy instruments, and
members in the church, prudent men, who were for union
in things necessary, for liberly in things unnecessary,
and for charity in all."
Though the Independents were the advocates of tolera-
tion, yet their foundation was not very generous. They
plead only for the toleration of themselves, the Baptists,
and such as agreed in the fundamentals of religion.
Though no two denominations were more alike than
the Presbyterians and Independents, yet in the latter part
of the reign of Charles I., during the revolution, and pro-
tectorate of Cromwell, they had bitter strifes, growing
out of the doings of the Westminister Assembly, attempts
at uniformity, &c. Sectarian jealousy and rivalry rose
high in the days of Cromwell, who inclined to inde.
pendercy. Therefore, the rigid Presbyterians were not
satisfied with his government. And when he was suc.
ceeded. by his son Richard, seeing no prospect of restor-
ing the Covenant or obtaining uniformity, they united with
the Royalists and Episcopalians to restore Charles II. which
took place in 1660. In this the Scotch united, and sent
the Earls of Crawford and Landerdale to Holland, "humbly
to put his majesty in mind, that the Kirk of Scotland ex.
pected protection upon the footing of the Presbyterian
establishment, without indulgence to sectaries." The pro-
fligate Charles II. agreed with the Presbyterians, to come
to the throne upon their terms. Like promises he made
10 the Episcopalians and the Catholics. Thus, says Neal,
rothe credulous Presbyterians were gradually drawn into
the snare, and made to believe, that Presbytery was to be
the established government of the Church of England,
under King Charles 11." In uniting with the Royalists
and Episcopalians, for the restoration of Charles, the most
solemn promises were made them. But, says the histo-
rian just quoted, "the reader will judge hereafter, who -
were most to blame, the Episcopal party, for breaking
through so many solemn vows and profestations; or the
Presbyterians, for bringing in the king without a previous
triaiy, and trusting a set of men, whom they knew to be
their implacable enemies. I can think of no decent ex.
cuse for the former; and the best apology that can be
made for the latter is, that most of them lived long enough
to see their error and heartily repent it.?!
. With the restoration of Charles II., the old constitution
was restored, together with the Episcopal Church. By
establishing Episcopacy, the king expected the great body
of the nation, Presbyterians, Independents, &c. would be
dissatisfied ; that they would demand a general toleration,
and thus he would open the door for the Roman Catholics.
But soon the Preshyterian ministers were made to suffer.
Though men of gravity, and far advanced in years, they
were rallied in the pulpits under the opprobrious names of
schismatics and fanatics ; exposed 10 insults ; assaulted
bý mobs, and forced to go in disguise. The old penal
laws for non-conformity were executed with severity.
The hardships and poverty attending non-conformity,
tempted some few to conform contrary to their judgment;
but the great body of dissenters stood firm to their princi-
ples.
The sufferings of the non-conformists were great.' Ma-
ny were sent to prison and to death. In the history of
the Puritans, it is estimated, that between the restoration
and the revolution, seventy thousand families were ruined,
and that eight thousand persons suffered death upon the
scaffold and in prison. This happened in the short reign
of Charles Il. It is also stated, that “besides those who
suffered in their own country, great numbers retired to the
plantations of New England, Pennsylvania, and other
parts of America."
Such treatment of the dissenters, and from those whom
they had helped into power, was unaccountable. In re.
ference to it, the Earl of Castlemain, a Roman Catholic,
said : “ 'Twas never known that Rome persecuted, as the
bishops do, those who adhere to the same faith with them.
selves, and established an inquisition against the professors
of the strictest piety among themselves."
But when, in the reign of James II., the successor of
Charles II., the king endeavored 10 establish the Roman
21
Catholic religion, and thus involved himsölf in a war wiili
the established church, the dissenters were true to their
principles. The king offered them all manner of encour-
agement, if they would aid him. The clergy of the es.
tablishment, also, entreated them for assistance against
the king and the Catholic religion. The dissenlers, in de.
ciding, shewed a magnanimous-spirit. Though they had,
till that tiine, been inhumanly persecuted by the bishops,
yet they knew, that they and the churchmen agreed sub-
slantially in matters of faith, and they were unwilling that
the great cause of the reformation should perish for lack
of their aid. They, therefore, cordially joined the church
party, in consequence of which the wonderful revolution
was effected, at little cost of treasure or blood. King
James abdicated the throne upon which William and Min-
ry were placed in 1689.
Though the bishop had made the fairest and most solemn
promises to the dissenters, for their assistance, yet these
promises were scon forgotten. On this subject Neal says ::
"Such was the ungrateful return that these stubborn
churchmen made to those who had assisted them in their
distress ! For it aught to stand upon record, that the
Church of England had been twice rescued from the most
imminent danger, by men for whose satisfaction they
would not move a pin, nor abate a ceremony : first in the
year 1660; when the Presbyterians restored the King and
Constitution, without making any terms for themselves;
and now again at the revolution, when the church fled for
succor to a Presbyterian Prince, and was delivered by an
army of fourteen thousand Hollanders, of the same prin-
ples with the English Dissenters."
This highly honorable conduct of the dissenters, was
not forgotten by the lords in. Parliament:in.1702, when
Queen Anne came to the throne. In & conference with
the house of Commons, on the Oceasional Bill, they say :
"That in the last and greatest danger the church was ex.
posed to, the dissenters joined with her, with all imagina.
ble zeal and sincerity, against-the Papists, their common
enemies, showing no prejudice to the church."
During the reign of King William, the high church
party were displeased that toleration was granted to the
dissenters, Thus says Neal: "The tories and high
church clergy enjoyed the advantages of this glorious rev.
olution, while they acted a most ungrateful part towards
their deliverer; and a most unkind and ungenerous one la
their dissenting brethren."
While William lived, hë defended the dissenters; but
mediately brought in the Occasional Bill to cramp the tol
eration of the dissenters, which did not obtain the royal
assent till the year 1711.
But when George I. came to the throne in 1714, he was
satisfied, that the oppressions, of which the dissenters
complained, were brought upon them for their steady ad-
herence to the Protestant succession in his illustrious
house." And in five years, he-procured the repeal of the
acts against toleration, since which time, no important
change has taken place in the statutes of England, on the
subject of religion. The Episcopal church is the estab-
lished religion, but others are tolerated.
In Scotland, since the days of Knox, Presbyterianism
has generally stood on a firm basis. It has been, and is
now the established religion. The Scotch have always
shown an unwavering attachment to their discipline, arid a
desire to have their system prevail. And had they been
less eager on this point, and morë tolerant towards others,
their influence would have been more extensively felt.
They erred in imposing Presbyterianism upon the Engo
lish. And when they had procured their establishment
in England, they opposed the toleration of others. The
pendents. But the rigid Presbyterians opposed and preo
vented it. Thus they alienated this body, and eventually
defeated their own cause; so that the Presbyterians in
England, son became comparatively a small body. And,
as to the Scotch, we would look with admiration upon
their church, were it not for their attachment to the Solemiz
League and Covenant, and the divine right of Presbytery,
and their alliance with the civil power.
.
The Presbyterians or Huguenots of France, never had
the aid of civil power, but were often sorely persecuted.
They generally enjoyed some toleration, till the horrible
St. Bartholomew massacro, in 1572, which resulted in the
destruction of at least thirty thousand Protestants. In
1598, in the reign of Henry IV, their civil rights were se..
cured by the edict of Nantes. During the reign of Lou.
is XIV, they were again greatly persecuted; and by the
revocation of the edict of Nantes, in 1685, many thou,
sands were forced to make their escape to other parts of
Europe, and to America. Since which time, the Hugue.
nots in France have lived the subjects of alarm and per-
secution, never enjoying a full and free toleration, except
during the great revolution under Napoleon.
When we look back, two or three centuries ago, to the
history of the church, in any of its parts, we see thàt the
principles of a general toleration and equal rights were
not understood. Nor are these principles, at the present
day, embraced and cherished, except in the United States,
And when we wonder at the persecutions of former times,
we should recollect that they were times of violence and
intolerance. Rudeness often characterized the persecuted
as well as the persecutor. Take one specimen two hun.
dred years ago, Mr. Prynne wrote a book, in which he
uses such language as this, in speaking of the ladies at
court, and of the nobility ; "Our English ladies, shorn
and frizzled madams, have lost their modesty ; that the
devil is only honored by dancing' &c. For this book he
was prosecuted. The Earl of Dorset, in a speech against
him, says : “I will never set him at liberty, no more than
a plagued man, or å mad dog. He is fit to live in dens
with such beasts of prey as wolves and tigers, like him-
self; therefore I condemn him to perpetual imprisonment;
and for corporeal punishment, I would have him branded
in the forehead, slit in the nose, and have his ears chopt
off.” And this was only a part of the penalty inflicted.
His imprişonment, however, was not perpetual. Surely
these were times of violence, when a savage barbarism
was vastly more popular than in our day. And, it being
an age of intolerance, conscientious men, no doubt, though!
they were doing God service, by persecuting those who :
differed from them.
.. But in the United States, all sects now profess to have ..
abandoned their persecuting principles. When they sat-
isfy the public mind that this is so, the past ought to be
forgotten and forgiven. In other parts of the world, there
are yet church establishments. And wherever, at this
24
day, a church sits securely in the lap of civil power, there
are still to be found the principles of intolerance. And
wherever a church claims to be independent of, or superi.
or: to the civil.power, there.persecution is to be found.
But the Episcopalians, in the United States, have no ec-
Clasiastical connection with the Episcopal -establishment
of England, and they profess to be the friends of equal
rights. The Presbyterians, in the United States, have no
ecclesiastical connection with the Presbyterian establish-
ment of Scotland, and they profess to have abandoned
those arbitrary and intolerant principles, to which the
Scotch have generally adhered. Such professions are
right, and worthy of confidence, whilst strengthened by a
corresponding practice.
,However, where there is no church establishment,
there is one featire in some sects, that is calculaied to
sow deeply and widely the seeds of intolerance, viz.,--the
divine right--a.conceit'that, notwithstanding according
to the civil law ther are on an equality with other sects,
yet, according to dirine law, they are THE CHURCH ; others
are out of the church, heretics and schismatics, because
they are not of their party. Of one thing, however, we
may feel confident, that wherever a sect has no connection
with civil power, and abandons her divine right notions,
such a seçt is not to be feareda
From these brief sketches of Presbyterianism, the rea.
der will perceive, that Presby.terians do not claim to have
been an infallible church. It ought, however, to be re.
membered, that Presbyterianism in the New World, is
:not what it is in the Old World. -
It is our purpose. to show, in these sketches, that
ithe unlovely features of Scotch Presbyterianism-Church
and State.; Solemn League and Covenant ; Divine Right,
.8.c.--have never pertained to American Presbyterianism.
Where those brethren will land, who have commenced a
sort of relrogade reformation, is for future development.
They have nothing to say in favor of the tolerant and li.
beral principles upon which American Presbyterianism
was founded, but seem to have a strange "affinity” for the
Scotch system, as the only perfect model of Presbyterian-
iam. But of this bereafter.
( 25 )
CHAPTER II.
UNION OF PRESBYTERIANS AND CONGREGATIONAL-
ISTS-PRIMITIVE AND LIBERAL POLICY OF AMERI.
CAN PRESBYTERIANISM.
In the history of the Presbyterian Church, it is neces.
sary to notice its connection with the Independents or Con.
gregationalists. The two bodies, ip England and Amere
ica, have generally adopted the same Confesssion of
Faith; and when their jealousies, alienations and strifes
about other matters were healed, they have been ready to
adopt plans of correspondence and union. .
The first effort at union in England, worthy af notice,
was about the year 1653. At first the articles of con.
cordes were drawn up so as to embrace Episcopalia ns.
But the associations were attended mostly by the Congre.
gationalists and Presbyterians. We find the following
statement in Neal's history : “The chief of the Presbyte-
rian and Independent divines, who were weary of divis:
ions, and willing to strengthen each others hands, united in
these assemblies, though the exasperated prelatists, the
more rigid Presbyterians and severer sort of Independents,
kept at a distance. But many remarkable advantages at-
tended these associations; they opened and preserved a
friendly correspondence among the ministers," &C..
But towards the close of the seventeenth century, iho
two bodies effected a firmer union. Hence we learn, that
son the 6th day of April, 1691, the Presbyterian and Con-
gregational denominations of christians, in Great Britain,
met at Stepney, and there, by the blessing of Almighty
God, after talking over their differences and agreements,
consummated a union of the two denominations, by a.
dopting what was called the heads of agreement, ombracing
26
a fer cardinal principles, which were to govern them in
their fraternal intercourse."
Presbyterians and Congregationalists, with this spirit,
fiving from iptolerance and perseguțion in the Old World,
would find little difficulty in uniting, when sharing in the
toils and privations of a settlement in the wilds of Amer-
ica. . The Presbylerians, who settled in the New England
States, generally united with the Congregationalists; and
the Congregationalists, who settled in the middle and South-
erd States, united with the Presbyterians...
In the early settlement of this country, the Scotch Preg-
bylerians came into these arrangements somewhat reluc-
tanly. They had not favored the plans of union between
the iwo denominations in the Old World. Many of them
pere devotedly attached to the measures of the Church
of Scotland, a church that was long disposed to adhere to
ler arbitrary principles, as will appear from the faci, that
as late as 1712, during the reign of Queen Anne, they
published an act or testimony against religious toleration,
It was not to be expected that Scotoh Presbyterians, Eng.
lish Presbyterians, Huguenots, Independents, &c. coming
from so many different countries---England, Scotland,
Wales, Ireland, France, Germany, &c.--could unite in
any rigid system. The result was a modified Congrega:
ționalism in New England, and a modified system of Prego
cyterianism south and west of New Englarid,
As the result äf the plan of union of 1691, between the
Presbyterians and Congregationalists of England, Mr.
Nickemie, a native of Ireland, was sent as a missionary
to America. He with others in 1704 or 1705, formed the
first Presbytery in America- the Presbytery of Phila.
delphia. - This Presbytery was composed partly of Pres:
byterians and partly of Congregationalists. Mr. An;
drews, the first pastor of the first church in Philadelphia,
was a Congregational Presbyterian. And that church was
sixty-four yeara vithout any ruling elders, though under
the care of the Preabytery. :: :
Thus it appears, that Presbyterianism was introduced
into this country from England, and not from Scotland,
and upon the foundation of an enlightened and liberal tol.
gration.
The Presbytery of Philadelphia was formed upon the
27
liberal principles which controleil the united body in Erica
land. The small number of churches, the sparseness of
population, and difficulty of supporting the gospel, woulik.
contribute to such a result: When the first Presbytery was
formed; it was composed of seven ministers. One of these
was Mr. Andrews, a graduate of Cambridge, and a nativo
of New England. Or the seven, it is not clear that more
than three of them were Presbyterians originally. It is
however certain that Congregational materials were the
most numerous. In 1701, Massachusetts had eighty-six
ministers and in 17.13, Connecticut had "forty-six church
ës which had been illuminated by about ninety minis-
ters.” At that time, therefore, in the history of the Amer-
ican church, the Congregationalists composed a much lar-
ger body than the Presbyterians." ."
And from the fact of their emigration South and West,
they would exercise no small influence in the Presbyterian
church. As early as 1640, the New Haven colony "inado
a large purchase on both sides of the Delaware Bay and
River." This purchase was: made with a view to trade;
and for the settlement of churches in gospel order and pu-
rity." The settlements were made under the jurisdiction
of New Haven, and "in close combination with thại colo
ony in all their fundamental articles."... in
The intercourse between the two denominations was
fraternal and liberal. The assistance which they afford-
ed each other, was often substantial. When the Presby-
tery of Philadelphia, in 1709, applied' to Sir Edmund Hare
rison, one of the dissenters in London, for aid, they re-
quested the Rev. Ministers of Boston, to join with them in
Simploring help and assistance for promoting the inter-
wrote in their behalf. .
. In 1716, the first Synod was formed the Synod of Phil-
adelphiam upon the same liberal principles of a modified
drews, in a letter to Rev. Mr. Prince, of Boston,-sa vs :
“We all call ourselves Presbyterians; none pretending to
be called Congregationalists". And the ministers are all
Presbyterian, though mostly from New England.” (Sce
Hill's History, p. 105.)
Those who had been reared in the church of Scotland,
28
A
were not generally pleased with those liberal principles
shich resulted in the union of Presbyterian's and Con- .
gregationalists, and the founding of the American church
nipon the basis of a modified Presbyterianisni.. Soon after
the formation of the Synod, murmurs, of dissatisfaction,
iroin the more rigid Scotch, were heart. The ministers
irom Sco!land, who, to use the words of Dr. Miller, “were
clesirous to carry into effect the system. to which they had
cen accustomed in all its extent and strictness," began to
insist, that the church in this country should adopt. the ex.
clusive policy of the church of Scotla od. In ihat coun.
lý they adop:cd the whole of the Old Westminster Con
Aussion, which made it the duty of the ciril magistrate "sto
take oider, that unity and peace be preserved in the
church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire,
that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressedy: all cora
ruprions and abuses in worship and discipling prevented on
l'eformed, and all the ordinances of Göd duly settled, ad.
ministered and observed." And according to the Scotch
more of adopting the Confession of Faith, a minister be.
longing to the established church of Scotland, could regard
ro: mar asa: minister, who had not received license from
one of their Presbyteries, and subscribed a fórmula, which
would bind Him to adhere to the established church, with
its: Confession, its entire system of Government, and its
Solemn League and Coveñant, which Covenant would bind
him to endeavor the extirpation of popery, prelacy, su.
perstition, heresy, schism," &c. These were the princi.
ples of the rigid Scotch "in all its extent and strictness.”'
And it is not surprising, that such an adoption should
mnect with opposition in founding the Ämerican Presby-
terian Church..
...
.
( 29 ) ...
CHAPTER III..
CONTROVERSY AND SCHISM OF 1741.
: As soon as the Presbyterian Church begạn to prosper
and extend its influence, men's views began to conflict.
The two extreme parties in this controversy, were the
favorers of the Scotish system and those who had im.
bibed the more liberal principles of the Congregationalists.
The strength of the parties, the reasons of their union,
their differences' and agreements are briefly set forth by
Dr. Green, in his Advocate of August 1834. ^ He słys:
"Indeed there were circumstances in the early history of
our church, which so powerfully urged the Presbyterians
and Congregationalists to a. union, that we do not wonder
it was sought, nor think that we ought to attachi blameito
those who endeavored to effect it. The Presbyterians, at
first, were but a hạndful, and naturally wished to increase
their strength by any feasible alliance. The Congrega-
tionalists, although more numerous, having previously
establişhed themselves in the eastern part of the Britisi
provinces, and although not favorable to the settlement of
Presbyterians among themselves, yet were willing to fornis
a coalition which would'manifestly-extend their influence.'
Tlie mother country. was also at the time, hostile to both
these sectsShe hadg.mbuy-persecution at home, driven
both into exile, cand-even-in-exile, was far from regàrd.
coming them with a propitious eye. To strengthen ench
other against a common, adverse and powerful influence,
was certainly an operative motive to conjoint action, ani
· to the amalgamation in which it resulted. Such a result,
moreover, seemed to be recommended by an entire agree-
ment of the parties in their doctrinal theology. Boti
Presbyterians and Congregationalists were, at this time,
strict Calvinists. They were both, and we believe equally


30.
attached to the doctrinal creed of the Westminister Dic
vines, especially to the summary of it which is containo
ed in the Shorter Catechism. · It was in regard to church:
government, or the system of ecclesiastical order and dis-,
cipline, that the parties differed. The attempts to com-
promise this difference, produced the difficulties and diso-
sentions in the early periods of our church."
These are very correct and valuable items of history,
especially as coming from Dr. Green, a thorough Old
School mæir, and going to shew the strength of parties in
the mild and moderate character of primitive, American-
Presbyterianism, &c.
Dt. Miller says, that in the organization of the Pies--
byterian church in this country, They "had not formally:
and publicly adopted any particular confession of faith, or
ecclesiastical constitution. They acted under a plan
rather understood than officially ratified.” This alarmed
the more rigid of the Scotch Presbyterians. Dr. Green:
says: "In the year 1721, we have the first indication of
the general controversy."! Ti 17224' several ministers from
Scotland began to insist: upon a subscription to the old
Westminister Confession of Faith, which, as it then was,
would give to the civil magistrate the power of persecu.
ting God's people, and bind the ministers to the extirpa-
tion of heresy andischism. The descendants of the Puric
lans regarded' this as an attempt to introduce the entire-
system of Scotch Piesbyterianism, under which toleration:
bad been denied their forefathers.
These contentions led to the Adopting Act of the Synod
of Philadelphia in 1729. The act embodied the liberal prio.
ciples upon which Presbyterians and Congregationalists
had united. It is as follows: .
"The committee brought in an overture-upon the affair
of the Confession, which, after long debating upon it, was
agreed 10 in haec verba. Although the synod do not claim
or pretend to any authority of imposing our faith upon
other men's consciinces, but do profess our just disatisfa.c.
tion with, and abhorrence of such impositions, and do-noc.
only disclaim all legislative power and authority in the
church, being willing to receive one another, as Christ
hath received us, to the glory of God, and admit to fellow-
ship in such ordinances, all such as we have grounds tó
believe 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 uncorrupt
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 into this synod, shall declare
their agreement in, and approbation of the Confession of
Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the AS:
sembly of divines at Westminister, as being in all essen-
tial and necessary articles, good forms and sound words,
and systems of Christian doctrine, and do also adopt the
said Confession of Faith and Catechism as the confession
of our faith. And we do also agree, that the Presbyteries,
within our bounds shall always take care not to admit any.
candidate of the ministry, into the exercise of the sacred
function, but what declares his agreement in opinion with
all the essential and necessary articles of said Confession
either by subscribing the said Confession of Faith and
Catechisms, or by a verbal declaration of their assent
thereto, as such ministers or candidates shall think besto
And in case any minister of this synod, or any candidate
for the ministry, sliall have any scruple with respect to
any article or articles of said Confession of Faith or
Catechisms, he shall, at the time of his making such de-
claration, declare his sentiments 10 the Presbytery or
Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exer.
cise of the ministry within our bounds, and to ministerial
communion, if either Synod or Presbytery shall judge his
scruple or mistake to be only about articles not essential
and necessary in doctrine, worship, or government. But
if the Synod or Presbyterý shall judge sueh ministers or
candidates erroneous in essential and necessary articles of
faith, the Synod or Presbytery shall declare them incapa-
ble of communion with them. And the Synod do solemn-
ly agree, that none of us will: traduce, or use any oppro.
bious terms of those that differ from us in those extra-es-
sential, and not necessary points of doctrine, but treat
them with the same friendship, kindness and brotherly
love, as if they had not differed from us in such senti-
ments."':
It is not inferred from this act, that the Synod was too
latitudinarian, or that it was their purpose to tolerate every
02
32
species of error, as some would conjecture, sofrom highı
Arianism to low Arminianism.". They were orthodox
men. To guard against misapprehension, on the after-
rioon of the same day, they say by way of explanation,
" All the ministers of the Synos, except one that declared
hinigelf not prepared," "after proposing all the scruples
any of them had to make against any of the articles and
expressions in the Confession of Faith, and Larger and
Shorter Catechisms, of the Assembly of Divines of Wes!.
minister; and we' unaniinously agreed in the solution of
triose scruples, in declaring the said Confession and Cåte.
chism to be the Confession of their faith, except only some
clauses in the 201h, and 23rd chapters, concerning which
clauses, the Synod do unanimously declare, that they do
not receive those articles in any such sense as to suppose
the civil magistrate hath a controling power over Synods,
with respect to their exercise of their ministerial authori.
ty; or power to persecute any for their religion, or in any
case contrary to the Protestant succession to the throne of
Great Britain." . . . . .
· But the adopting act did not satisfy the friends of a
rigid subscription. By this act; Dr. Green says, ihat the
mother Synod “Congregationalized the church," and that
is they left- nothing of Presbyterianism behind but the
name; so that it become nothing but a Presbyterio Cone
gregational church.” Some of these strict Presbyterians
immediately left their former connection and joined the
secession church, in consequence of this act.
Efforts were made to stay this dissatisfaction and seces-
sion. New Castle Presbytery, the next year, in Septem.
ber 1730, adopted the following minute : "Whereas, diver's
persons belonging to several of our congregations have
been stumbled and offended, at a certain minute of the
proceedings of the last Synod, contained in a pripted Jet-
ter, because of some ambiguous words or expressions,
contained therein; being willing to remove, as far as in us
relation to that affair, and openly before God and the
world, to testify, that we all with one accord, firmly adheré
to that same sound doctrine, which we and our forefathers
were trained up in."
Two years after this, Donnegal Presbytery adopted a
similar minute.
These movements were calculated to alarm the Synod.
In consequence of the adopting act, they saw some of
their members going off to the seccders, and no less than
iwo of their Presbyteries passing resolutions to counteract
their liberal policy. The result was, that the dissatisfied
party raised such a clamor against the adopting act, that
at last the old Synod quailed before it. And in 1736 the
Synod "do declare, that inasmuch as we understasid that
many persons of our persuasions, both more lately and
formerly, have been offended with some expressions, or
distinctions; in the first preliminary act of the Synod,
contained in the paper relating 10 our receiving or adoptó
ing the Westinimister Confession and Catechisms, &c.;
that in order to remove said offence, and all jealousies
that have arisen, or. mny arise in any of our people's
minds on account of said distinctions and expressions, the
Synod doth declare, that the Synod have adopted, and do
still adhere to the Westminister Confession, Catechisms,
and Directory without the least variation or alteration,
and without any regard, to said distinctious,"?;
This act was as little relished by the liberal party, as
the adopting act was by the rigid party. And it rapidly
paved the way for the schism which orcurred in 1741.
Other causes conspired to hasten the schism of the
church. The two parties differed on the subject of revi.
rals. The great revival of 1735, which commenced un.
der President Edwards, and under Mr. Whitfield and
uthers. in 1740, gave rise 10. some departures from truth,
and sobriety. The "Old Side” were ihe opposers of the
revival; and the “New S de” its ardent friends. The
opposers wrote and circulated pamphlets to suppress the
revival.
There was also some difference between the parties
about vital godliness, and qualifications for the ministjy..
The New Side men charged the Old. Side with caring too:
much about literary qualifications, and not enough about
experimental religion. Dr. Miller says, "The cordial and
active friends of this revival, generally coincided with that
portion of the Presbyterian church, which was most friend.
ly to ardent piety, and least zealous for Presbyterial order:
34
confessions of faith and literary qualifications in the minis.
try,"
All these, and perhaps other conflicting views alienated
the feelings of brethren from each other. Dr.- Miller
says : •Old Side men regarded their opponents as a body
of extravagant and ignorant enthusiasts; while the New
Side men regarded the Old Side men as a set of pharisaical
formalists."
These dissentions about qualifications for the ministry,
revivals of religion, vital godliness, and the männer of sub.
scribiřg the old-Confession of Faith; resulted in the great
schism of 1741.'
Dr. Miller, an Ord School man, in speaking of that schism,
censures both sides ; the New Side too-severely. He says:
s.The Old Side was wrong in opposing the revival of relis
gion under the ministry of Whitfield and his friends; and
in contending as they did at first, against examination on
vilal piety: while the New Side were as plainly wrong
in frequently violating that ecclesiastical order which they
had stipulated to observe ; in undervaluing literary quali:
fications for the holy ministry; and in giving countenance,
for a time, to some real extravagancies and disorders whichi
attended the revival of religion.” That the New Side did
not undervalue literature, is evident from the fact, that
they immediately built up New Jersey College. And
in regard to revivals, allowance can be made for the cen-
sure, when it is recollected that the anxious seat” and
all such measures are ranked by Dr. Miller among bilme
travagancies and disorders.”
At the time of the schism, there was but one Synod--
that of Philadelphia. In 1745, the Synod of New York
was organized, embracing the New Side men.
One of the first efforts of the New Side party, was to
build up New Jersey College, which was permanently 10-
cated at Princeton, in 1757. The college had difficulties
and opposition to encounter. At first it Innguished for want
of funds. But in 1753, the Synod of New York, at the
request of the Trustees of the college, sent Rev. Samuel
Davies and Rev. Gilbert Tennent to England to solicit aidi
They were successful. The liberal benefactions received,
placed the college in a respectable condition. (See Quarter.
ly Register, Vol. 3: No. 4. p. 273.)
From President Davies, while on this tour, we also learn,
that among the New Side men, during the schism, a rigid
subscription of the Confession of Faith was not demanded.
When interrogated, in England, on this subject, Mr. Da.
vies says: 'I replied that, we allowed the candidate to men-
tion his objections to any article in the Confession, and the
judicatures judge whether the articles objected against were
essential to Christianity; and if they judged they were not,
they would admit the candidate, notwithstanding his ob.
jections."
It will be remombered, that this was the principle upon
which the American Presbyterian church was founded
This was the spirit of the adopting act of 1729- this the
policy of the New Side in that day, and for more than this,
no party has since ever contended. .
But to return to our history. Seven years after the di.
vision, efforts were made to unite the two Synods. But
these efforts did not succeed till 1958-the parties having
been separate for seventeen years.
Then the Synods united, under the name of the Synod
of New York and Philadelphia. They agreed to adopt
the Confession of Faith, as it had been adopted in 1720,
disclaiming all olegislative power," "as being, in all es.
sential and necessary articles, good forms and sound
words.” This was, therefore, a union upon what is gen:
erally called the liberal principles of American Presby.
terianism. ..
In 1766, eight years after the union of the Synods, the
Presbyterian Church proposed a convention of delegates
of the pastors of the Presbyterian and Congregational
churches in America, which met annually, until it was
interrupted by the American Revolution.
In 1788, the General Assembly was organized. Some
alterations were then made in the old Westminster Con.
fession, making it more suitable to the views of the en:
tire church. Two years after this, the Assembly “being
peculiarly desirous to renew and strengthen every bond of
union between brethren so nearly agreed in doctrine and
forms of worship, as the Presbyterian and Congregational
churches evidently are, do resolve, that the Congregation:
al churches in New England be invited to renew their
annual conyention with the clergy of the Presbyterian
36
church." This led to the plans of correspondence with
the Congregational churchies of New England, which are
yet in existence, and which provide, that every preacher
traveling from one body to the other, and properly recom.
mended, shall be received as an authorized preacher of
the gospel, and cheerfully taken under the patronage of
the Presbytery or Association, within whose bounds he
shall find employment as a preacher.". :.
In 1799, the Legislature of Pennsylvania -passed an act
incorporating "The Trustees of the General Assembly of
the Presbyterian Church in the United States of Ame.
riça."
CHAPTER IV.
THE POLICY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE
STRUGGLE FOR NATIONAL ÎNDEPENDENCE.
Though in ecclesiastical matters, there had been a rigid
and a liberal party in the Presbyterian church in the Uni-
ted States, yet in civil matters, the whole church acted the
part of the most ardent friends af liberty, in the most per:
ilous times of our history. The Episcopal.church was the
established church in the mother country. So it was in
the colonies previously to the revolution. In some of the
colonies there were chartered privileges which caused the
dissenter, not to feel the burdens of the establishment. Yet
the Episcopal was the government church, and, in the
Middle and Southern colonies, claimed most of the rights
and.immunities of the church in the mother country

37
From an early period in the settlement of some of the
colonies, as in Virginia, very severe laws were enacted
against dissenters--Presbyterians, Baptists, &c. This
would very naturally cause them to dislike the establish-
ment, and twish to see the Episcopal hierarchy in this
country.overthrown. The rights of conscience as well
as civit liberty, enlisted themenergies of the Presbyterian
church in the contest for our national independence.
During the revolutionary war, the Synod of New York
and Phildelphia was the highest judicatory of the Presby.
terian church in the United States. More than a year
before the declaration of Independence, in May. 1775,
while the 2d Congress was in session in Philadelphia, che
Synod threw the weight of their official influence in favor
of Congress-and liberty. They addressed a pastoral let-
ter to their people, and ordered it to be read in all the
churches, on the day of the general fast in June, 1775.
In this letter they say: "Be careful to maintain the union
which at present subsists through all the colonies. No-
thing can be more manifest than that the success of every
measure depends on its being inviolably preserved, and
therefore we hope that you will leave nothing undone
which can promote that end. In parti ular as the Conti-
Rental Congress, now sitting in Philadelphia, consists of
delegates chosen in the most free and unbiassed manner
by the body of the people, let them not only be treated
with respect, and encouraged in their difficult service ; not
only. let your prayers be offered up to God for his di-
rection in their proceedings, but adhere firmly to their
resolutions; and let it be seen that they are able to bring
out the whole strength of this vast country to carry them
into execution. We would also advise for the same pur-
pose that a spirit of candor, charity, and mutual esteem
se preserved, and promoted towards those of different res
Jigious denominations."
This is the letter to which Ramsey refers, in the 2d vol-
ume of his history. The ehairman of the committee that
prepared the letter, was the Rev. Dr. Witherspoon, one of
the signers of the Declaration of Independence. The
Rev. Dr. Rogers, afterwards the first moderator of the
General Assembly, was one of the committee. And so

T

38
.
was the Rev. Mr. Caldwell, who was afterwards shot by
the British.
The most prominent individuals in the Presbyterian
church were the ardent friends of liberty. Dr. Wither.
spoon's course is well known.
• Dr. Rogers was among the most influential in the
church. Gen. Washington conferred and corresponded
with him about public matters, and received from him val.
uable information.
The Rey. David Rice, well known in Kentucky, was a
member of a committee of public safety for Bedford coun.
ty, Virginia, during most of the war. His brothers were
soldiers in the army. In his sermons, he exhorted his peo.
ple to constancy and firmness in the contest, in such lan.
quage as this: "We should resist oppression by every
means in our power to the last extremity; cheerfully un:
dergoing the various fatigues and dangers of military life.
This is wise, because oppression is worse than death. Let
us duly consider the evils of oppression, and particularly
that oppression which is prepared for us, and resolve to
suffer any losses, undergo any hardships, and expose our:
selves to death with all its natural terrors, rather than sub?
mit to it. Let us not indulge a mean, selfish disposition,
but consider our wives and children, and even generations
yet unborn, and remember that their happiness depends on?
our conduct."
Dr. John B. Smith was President of Hamden Sydney
College, Virginia, and one of the most popular ministers in
the Presbyterian church. He took a bold stand for his
country. At one time, when there was a sudden call
for troops, he headed a company of students to bring aid
to his countrymen in arms.
Dr. James Hall was a popular minister in North Caro.
Jina, and afterwards moderator of the General Assem-
bly. At a time of great ernergency in the South, he, at
the close of his sermon on the Sabbath, told his people,
that all men hud various duties to perform--and that he
thoughi it his duty in the present crisis to shoulder his
firelock and fight for his country; and that they need not
for a time expect his services as a pastor. He formed a
company chiefly of his own parishioners, and as their lead:
ef, şerved a campaign.
39
Many other examples of similar character might be give
en-but these are enough.
After the independence of the colonies had been *
cured, the question involving religious liberty had to be
settled. In the organization of State governments the
question came up: Shall there be an established reli.
gion? Or, shall provision be made for some of the more
prominent sects? Or, shall all connexion-between church
and state be dissolvedy and equalliberty--granted-to-atl?
The Presbyterians advocated equat iberty for all.
In Virginia the struggle was most arduous. An ata.
tempt was made to retain the old establishment. This
was opposed by the Presbyterians, and coulıl not succeed.
Then an effort was made to pass "a comprehensive incora
porating act," by which Presbyterians might participaro
in the establishment. This was opposed by the Presbyte-
rians. It was not, however, till the year 1786, that the
la w securing full and equal liberty was passed in Virginia,
Previously io this time the Presbyterians had sent five me.
morials to the Legislature, all in favor of full religious lib.
erty; one of which was signed hy ten thousand names.
The last memorial was drawn up by a convention of Pres.
byteriani ministers and mentbers in 1785, and was to bo
presented to the Legislature at its next session. It was
accordingly presented by Dr. John B. Smith, who was
heard at the bar of the house three dily's successively in
its support. The objects for which these efforts were
made were gained a bill was passed granting to all full
l'eligious liberty-placing all ministers and sects upon an
equal footing, and leaving it to the people of different de.
nominations to support their own ministers by their own
voluntary contributions. (See the Presbyterian Adrocaic,
published in Lexington, in 1830.)

* NOTE TO THE READER. It was necessary, in getting at the spi.
rit of the Presbyterian Controversy, toglance at the earlier periods of
our Charch. In doing this, we see the difference between Scotch Presa
byterianisin and primitive American Presbyterianisni. This will also
enable us, in the prosecution of our design, to see the strong resem)-
hlance which modern Old Schoolism has of the Scotish system.
It has been charged upon the liberal party in the Presbyterian church,
that they favor plans of union with the Congregationalists. We shıcıy
on the history of our church, that if they are in this, the founders of
our church erred still more; for, according to Dr. Green, "they Con.
grcgajnalized the churck."
It has been charged upon the liberal party, that they have become
too lax in theology, because they are willing to tolerate snme shades of
difference. But if this be error, how great was the error of the foun.
ders of our church, who, according to Dr. Miller, "had not formally and
publicly adopted any particular confession of faith or ecclesiastical
constilution. If this be error, how great was the error of the notrer
fynod in the adopting act of 1729, when our ministers were required
to subscribe the Confession of Faith, "as being, in all essential and ne.
cessary articles, good forms and sound words. If this be error, how
great was the error of Rev. Samuel Davies, when he asserted, that in
his day, the principles of the adopting act were carried out!
The schisin of 1741 is a part of the history of our church, which is
now looked into with deep interest, as exhibiting the same spirit, which
has again resulted in the disruption of the church.
The history of those early periods will shew which party has adhered
toour primitive liberal policy, and which has been the advocate of mea-
sures, which neither we nor our fathers could bear. .
It has been charged upon the liberal party, that they are no Presbyte.
rians, because they are in favor of voluntary associations the Ameri-
can Board, &c But in the days of McKemie, or of Davies, whoever
was told that he was no Presbyterian, because he would not favor the
narrow policy of ecclesiastical Boards? In that day these new meeti
pures, new basis, and new tests were not knowl.
In the struggle for independence- for civil and religious liberty-it
will be seen, that American Presbyteriavisni was not Scotch Presbyte.
manisi ; and while the Presbyterian church of Scotland was sitting
securely in the lap of civil power, the American Presbyterian church
was-laboring for full religious liberty for all..
CHAPTER V.
PLAN OF UNION OF 1801.
After the schism of 1741 had been healed, and the
war with the mother country ended, nothing of impor.
tance transpired, during the remainder of that century,
to mar the friendly intercourse between Presbyterians
and Congregationalists. Plans of union and correspon.
dence between the two bodies were extensively cherished
by both denominations. But the plan of Union of 1801
has been the occasion of more unpleasant feeling than all
the others. It ought therefore to be particularly noticed.
It was a Plan of Union between Presbyterians and Con-
gregationalists in the new settlements of New York, Ohio,
&c., where there was great difficulty in supporting the
preaching of the gospeľ and other means of grace. It
was thought to be agreeable to the powers vested in the
General Assembly, by the constitution of the church, 10
correspond with other churches. The plan was matured
by the Assembly, and by them proposed to the Association
of Connecticut, and by that body unanimously adoptedo
The Plan of Union was as follows:
“Regulations adopted by the General Assembly of the
Presbyterian church in America, and by the General As-
sociation of the State of Connecticut, (provided said As-
sociation 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.
l. 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 Presa
42
byterian and those who hold the Congregational form of
church government.
2. If in the new settlements any church of the Congre-
gational order shall settle a minister of the. Presbyterian
order, that church may, if they choose, still conduct their
discipline according to Congregational principles, settling
their difficulties among themselves, or hy a council mutu.
ally agreed upon for that purpose : but if any difficulty
shall exist between the minister and the church or any
member of it, it shall be referred to the Presbytery to
which the minister shall belong, provided both parties agree
to it; if not, to a council consisting of an equal number
of Presbyterians and Congregationalists, agreed upon by
both parties.
3. If a Presbyterian church shall settle a minister of
Congregational principles, that church may still conduct
their discipline according to Presbyterian principles ; ex.
cepting that if a difficulty, arise between him and his
church, or any member of it, the cause shall be tried by
the Association to which the said ininister shall belong,
provided botii parties agree to it; otherwise by a council,
une half Congregationalists and the other half Presbyteri.
ans, mutually agreed upon by the parties.
4. If any congregation consists parily of those who
hold the Congregational form of discipline, and partly of
those who hold the Presbyterian form, we recommend to
both parties that this be no obstruction to their uniting in
one church and settling å minister; and that in this case,
the church choose a Standing Committee from the commu..
nicants of said church, whose business it shall be to call
to account every member of the church who shall conduct
himself inconsistently with the laws of christianity, and
to give judgment on such conduct; and if the person con-
demned by their judgment be a Presbyterian, he shall have
liberty 10 appeal to the Presbyterý; if a Congregational-
ist, he shall have liberty to appeal to the body of the male
communicants of the church ; in the former case, the de.
termination of the Presbytery shall be final, unless the
church consent to a further appeal to the Synod, or to the
General Assembly ; and in the latter case, if the party
condemned shall wish for a trial by a mutual council,
the cause shall be referred to such council. And pro-
43
vided that the said Standing Committee of any church shall
depute one of themselves to attend the Presbytery, he may
have the same right to sit and act in the Presbytery as a
ruling elder of the Presbyterian church." (Assembly's
Digest, p. 297.)
This plan operated handsomely. And, except among
a few friends of the most rigid Presbyterianism, no unea-
siness was felt about the operations of the plan for a great
number of years. The wisest and best men in the church
formed the plan and were pleased with its results. As
late as 1833, Dr. Miller said : 56) have always been a warm
friend to it; and should be grieved at the occurrence of
any thing calculated to interrupt it, or render it l'ess
comfortable. If no such intercourse existed, it ought
forth with to be begun. Those who come so near together
as the great body of ministers of New England and those
of the Presbyterian church ought undoubtedly to know
and love one another, and to co-operate in the great work
of enlightening and converting the world." And again :
"The articles of intercourse between the Associations of
New England and the General Assembly of the Presby-
rian church are to be considered as a solemn ecclesiasti-
cal compact, evidently intended to promote harmony, co-op-
eration and mutual strength."
Other plans of union and correspondence have been en-
tered into between the Presbyterian church and other
bodies.
. In 1803, a Plan of Union and Correspondence was pro-
posed by the General Assembly to the Convention of Ver-
mont. It was ratified by the Convention.
In 1808, a Plan of Union was formed between the Syn-
od of Albany and the Middle Association in the Westerni
District, in the State of New York.
In 1811, a Plan of Union and Correspondence was
formed between the General Assembly and the General
Association of Massachusetts.
In 1821, a Plan of Union was entered into between the
Presbyterian church and the Associate Reformed Synod
a body of christians familiarly known as Seceders, ex-
tremely rigid on some points. The first article of that
plan has been regarded, by many, as more objectionable
than any feature in the plan of 1801, with the Association
44
of Connecticut. It is as follows: "The different Presby.
terics of the Associate Reformed church shall either re-
tain their separate organization, or shall be amalgamated
with those of the General Assembly, ať their own choice.
In the former case, they shall have as ſull powers and priv.
ileges as any other Presbytery in the united body, and
shall attach themselves to the Synods most convenient."
NOTE TO THE READER. The Plan of Union of 1801 has been made a
pretext with the Reform party, for the dismemberment of the church.
It will be seen that it was a wise and liberal arrangement. So thought
Dr. Miller, one of the most prominent of the Reformers.
f the Reformers. The reader
can compare the Plan of 1801 with the Plan of 1821-the one with
Congregationalists and the other with the Seceders—and then deter-
mine upon their merits. But he wili be surprised to learn, that the
Plan with the Seceders is regarded by the Reform party as aliogether
constitutional, while the Plan with the Congregationalists is entirely
unconstitutional! The fact, that the Seceders side with the Reformi
party, and the Congregationalists favor the more liberal policy of Ame-
rican Presbyterianism, will throw some light on this subject.

CHAPTER VI.
THIE HOPKINSIAN CONTROVERSY:
Though many plans of union and correspondonce had
been formed between: the Presbyterians and Congrega-
tionalists, yet jealousies and suspicions were two freely in:
dulged by the more rigid Presbyterians, who became
alarmned at what they were pleased to call New England
Divinity. In 1792, Dr. Hopkigs, of New England, pube
lished his system of Divinty. In his work he contended
for a religion above all selfishness. He taught' a general
alonement, the offer of salvation to all, moral depravity or
inability of will, or that the great difficulty in the way of
the sinner's salvation lies wholly in his will. This work
was circulated extensively, and was the occasion of array-
ing the old parties-the Scotch and the American, or the
.:Old Side” and the “New Side.” The Old Side men con-
Hemned. Hopkinsianism: as heresy. ln 1812, a work of
some 500 pages, called the Contrast, was published, to
crush the errors of the Hopkinsians; and to show that the
Hopkinsians differed from Calvin!
In 1816, a work. called the Triangle, made ils appear-
ance in defence of the Hopkinsians and New England
theology. The author of this work says there were threa:
great points of difference in theology between the two
parties—that the “Old Side" men held the affirmative,
and the Hopkinsians the negative of these propositions;
nimely.
"1. That the whole human race are guilty of the sin
of Adam, independently of their own conduct;. and for
that sin are truly deserving of eternal punishment; and
that every man ought to feel himself deserving of eternal
damnation for the first sin of Adam..
.
46
2. That all men labor under a true and physical inca-
pacity to do any thing which God requires.
3. That Christ died for an.elect number, and not for
the sins of the whole world.”
The excitement ran high. The author of the Trian:
gle, speaking of the rigid party in the church, says:
Their plan and their hope is, by maneuvering, by art
and intrigue, to undermine the reputation of the men who
hold to the sentiments which prevail in New England."
On the other hand, the rigid party denounced the writings
of the New England meu as consisting of nothing but
verbiage, lautology, absurdity, nonsense, Armenianism
Socinianism, Atheism," &c.
In 1816, the Synod of Philadelphia came out in opposi.
tion to Hopkinsianism. In their pastoral letter they say:
ii'The Synod assenibled in Lancaster at the present time
consists of a greater number of members than have been
convened at any meeting for many years; and from the
free conversation on the state of religion, it appears, that
all the Presbyteries are more than commonly alive to the
importance of contending earnestly for the faith once
delivered to the saints, and of resisting the introduction of
Arian, Socinian, Armenian and Hopkinsian heresies :
which are some of the means by which the enemy of souls
would, if possible, deceive the very elect." And again :
}Tay the time never come when orir ecclesiastien courts
shall determine, that Hopkinsianism and the doctrines of
our Confession of Faith are the same thing; or that mer
are less exposed now than in the days of the apostles to
the danger of perverting the right ways of the Lord."
The author of the Triangle, in 1816, predicted the
probable results of this rigid, uncompromising opposition
to Hopkinsianism. He says : - Among the unhappy effects
likely to resuit from the measures recently taken, we may
well consider the gloomy prospects which threaten to over.
spread the whole body of professed Christians in the
United States. How terrible and shocking the thought,
that Christian brethren, friends and neighbors, united
for many years in the strictest bonds of amity, must be
severer under the charge of heresy! Many churches
must be torn and agitated with fierce disputes, and proba.
bly rent asunder; churches be cast out of Presbyteries,
49
and perhaps Presbyteries out of Synods. And what ap.
pearance would the Presbyterian church make, torn with
divisions, distracted by disputes, rent with schisms, palsied
by animosities, and branded with the name of a persecu:
tor?"
Here it will be seen what commotions the rigid party
were making twenty-five years ago, under the pretext of
fighting Hopkinsianism--a system that has stood, and will
stand the test.
It also appears from the controversial writings of that
day, that the parties differed as to the propriety of de.
manding a rigid subscription to the Confession of Faith,
The author of the Triangle says: "In subscribing the
Confession of Faith, my views were, I trust, not dissimi.
lar to the views of those who compiled it, I viewed it as
a noble system of doctrine, but as the work of fallible
men, and of course, by no means perfect or infallible, or
to be regarded as divine law. I had never any idea of
substituting it for the word of God, or laying it beside the
sacred oracles as of paramount authority, at which all
inquiry was to stop, and disputation cease. It was never
in the dreams of its authors to set it up as the sovereign
arbiter of conscience; or that any deviation from any
points therein contained were to be stigmatized as a devia:
lion from the eternal standard of truth, or subject those
who deviated to censure and excommunication."
It is not certain how extensively the ministers and
members of the Presbyterian Church coincide in views
xith Dr. Hopkins. But it is certain, that but very few
ecclesiastical bodies in the connexion could be brought to
denounce the Hopkinsians. A Synod or two and perhaps
a few Presbyteries armed themselves with ecclesiastical
censures, talked and resolved and hurled their spiritual
thunders at the errors of the Hopkinsians, and at all who
would not receive the Old Side exposition of the Confes:
sion of Faith. But soon the storm blew over, and there
was a.calm; and now some who were, and are still Hop.
kinsians, stand as fair even with the Scotch party, as if
this controversy had never been waged.
( 48 )
CHAPTER VII.
THE HOME MISSIONARY CONTROVERSY-OLD SCHOOL
CIRCULAR--NEW SCHOOL* DISAVOWAL-DRS! GREEN
AND BEMAN--CINCINNATI CONVENTION.
Before the close of the last century, the General As-
sembly appointed a Standing Committee on Missions.
Yet but little could be done to supply the increasing deso-
lations of the land with the preaching of the gospel.
The success of the American Board of Commissioners
for Foreign Missions, a voluntary society, patronized by
Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed and Congregational
churches, induced those churches to try a similar plan
for Domestic Missions. The wisest and best men in the
Presbyterian church cordially recommended such a plan.
Drs. Alexander and Miller wrote to Dr. Peters, the First
Secretary, as follows:
os Rev. and Dear Sir:-We rejoice to hear that there is
a plan in contemplation for forming à Domestic Missione
ary Society, on a much larger scale than has heretofore
existed. We have long been of the opinion, that the sub-
ject of Domestic Missions is one which ought to interest
the hearts, and to rouse the exertions and prayers of
American Christians to an extent.which very few appear
to appreciate. Our impression is, that unless far more
vigorous measures than we have hitherto witnessed shall
be soon adopted for sending the blessed gospel and its
ordinances to the widely extended and rapidly increasing
New Settlements of our country, their active and enter-
* The reader will see that I often use the names ! Old School" and
“New School," just as our New Basis brethren would do. I do it not
because I consider them appropriate, but for the sake of distinction, as
I wish to be understood by the mass of both parties.
49
prising population must, at no great distance 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 re-
flects on the value of immortal souls; no parent, who re-
members that his own children, or children's children,
may, in due time, make a part of the population of those
districts; no patriot, who desires to see the virtue, peace,
union and happiness of his country established, can possi.
bly be indifferent to an object of such immense importe
ance. Our prayer is, that the God of all grace may rouse
the spirit of the nation on this subject; and that the
friends of religion who may be convened for the purpose
of taking it into consideration, in the month of May next,
may be directed to the adoption of a system which shall
serve to give increasing interest and energy of proceeding
in this momentous concern, and prove a source of lasting
blessings to our beloved country. .
The feeling thus expressed by Drs. Alexander and
Miller prevailed. After much consultation it was p.ro.
posed to form a National Institution, embracing all those
denominations that were on terms of wintercommunion.
and ecclesiastical correspondence." This was the case
with the Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed, and Congrega-
tional churches. Delegates from these three denomina.
tions met in the city of New York, May 10th, 1826, and
formed the American Home Missionary Society. .
The plan for the Society's operations was generally
and briefly this: to sustain Presbyterian ministers in fee.
ble Presbyterian churches, Dutch Reformed ministers in
Dutch Reformed churches, and Congregational minis-
ters in Congregational churches. The ministers were re-
quired to be regularly authorized, and in good standing in
their Presbytery, Classis or Association.
Of the hundred and twenty-six delegates in that Con-
vention, fifty-two were from New England. One hundred
and one were from the territory embraced within the
bounds of the Presbyterian Church, seventy of whom
were members of the Presbyterian church. .
Shortly after the formation of the Home Missionary
Society, the General Assembly reorganized their Board of
Missions.
50
The plan of the Home Missionary Society succeeded,
and the Society fourished. But soon it was opposed by
the friends of Ecclesiastical Boards. They advocated an
exclusive policy, and endeavored to excite suspicion
against the American Home Missionary Society."
When in 1828 the Assembly's Board was reorganized,
it was seen that the two Societies would conflict. Then
the Home Missionary Society was desirous to unite with
the Assembly's Board. Their Executive Committee pro.
posed a plan of union. Of that plan, the late Dr. Rice
of Virginia said, "I do greatly approve of the plan pro.
posed by the Executive Committee of the A. H. M. So.
ciety.” But the plan was rejected, and the A. H. M.
Society, was greatly-blamed, by the Old School party, for
seeking a union.
• The Old School party wished to rouse the church in
favor of the Assembly's Board, which had hitherto been
.comparatively inoperative, against the A. H. M. Society,
In 1829, only three years after the formation of the A. H.
M. Society, this subject was brought up in the General
Assembly, and the following preamble and resolution
adopted :
“While the Assernbly would affectionately solicit the
co-operation of the churches with their own Board of Mis-
sions: yet as many of our churches have already united
their efforts with the A. H. M. Society, and the A. B. C.
F. Missions, therefore ,
· Resolved, as the sense of the Assembly, that the
churches should be left entirely to their own unbiased
and deliberate choice of the medium through, which their
charities shall flow forth to bless the perishing.” (Min.
utes, 1829, p. 374.)
This liberal policy did not suit the friends of Ecclesias.
tical Boards. In. 1831, the A. H. M. Society was al:
most simultaneously attacked in Philadelphia and Cincin,
nati. At a meeting of the Cincinnati Presbytery in Jan.
1831, Rev. Mr. Crane, agent of the Assembly's Board of
Missions, requested the Presbytery to appoint a Board of
Agency for the Assembly's Board for the Valley of the
Mississippi. This measure was advocated by Dr. Wilson
and others. But the Presbytery refused to comply with
the request. Dr. Wilson then threw oyt suspicicns and
51
insinúations against the A. H. M. Society. Soon after
this, he published a pamphlet entitled: "Four Propositions
sustained against the claims of the A. H. M. Society."
Speaking of the friends of this Society he says, that
“they profess to be Presbyterians for the purpose of sub.
verting the doctrines, and overthrowing the Presbyterian
church." (p. 18.)
This was considered a very uncharitable suspicion
against such men as Drs. Woods, Porter, Cornelius, Paya
son, Wisner, Griffin, Day, Humphrey, &c., of New
England, and Drs. Rice, Blackburn, Alexander, Miller,
Cox, McAuley, Richards, Skinner, Beman, Cleland, Nel-
son, Anderson, Allan, &c., of the Presbyterian church.
These charges too, were made against the A. H. M.
Society in the year 1831, when it was known, that in the
year 1830, that Society had done more to supply the des-
titute with the preaching of the gospel than had been
done by the Assembly's Conimittee or Board in the space
of almost forty years.
Soon after the publication of Dr. Wilson's pamphlet in
Citcinnati, a second edition of five thousand copies was
published in Philadelphia by the friends of the Assembly's
Board.
In noticing this pamphlet, Mr. Peters, the Secretary of
the Society, said : Goff any have suspected us of ulterior
views unfriendly to the Presbyterian church, will not our
steady attachment to its best interests, and our zealous
efforts to build up its desolatious, in a little while convince
all candid men, who are willing to come to the light, that
their suspicious are unjust and cruel?" Again: "The
stand taken by my friend, Dr. Wilson, with all the light
he has upon the subject, surprises me much. But I am
still not without hope, that on further reflection, he will
come to a more friendly state of feeling towards the A. H.
M. Society. Surely he must see that his suspicions of
unfriendliness to the Presbyterian Church on our part,
· are not only in the face of all the evidence, but also con.
trary to express and reiterated assurances of our unwaver.
ing desire to build up the Presbyterian Church over the
whole field of the West and the South. And are we not
doing it more efficiently than all the other Missionary Sq.
cieties together !!!
52
The strong argument of the advocates of the Assem.
bly's Board was, that the church, in her distinctive.
character, ought to evangelize the world; that is ecclesias.
tically, not through voluntary societies. To this it was
replied, that Presbyterians regard their denomination only.
as a part of the general church, and that if for the rea-
son assigned, they stand off from the A. H. M. Society,
for the same reason they might refuse to operate with the
A. B. C. F. Missions, the American Bible Society, the
American Tract Society, 09 the American Sunday School
Union.
The strife buy this time rose high. The friends of Ec.
clesiastical Boards, or of an exclusive policy, appropria.
·ted to themselves the names, "Old School"_"the ortho-
cox"_ true friends of the Presbyterian church." They
called the friends of Voluntary Associations, (New
School," charging them with a partiality for the Con.
gregationalists, New England theology, &c. With many,
names had a powerful charm. To the name “New
School,” the friends of a liberal policy have objected. But
for the sake of distinction it has been used, knowing that
the spirit and conduct of the parties ouglit to decide who
Elle uthe true friends of the Presbyterian Church ;'!
knowing also, as President Young once said, that "17020
powers are often usurped while old names are retảined.”
It appears from the documents of 1831, that the Old
School party endeavored to secure the control of the
church, the funds, Missionary:operations, &c., by creat-
ing an alarm about doctrines. The case of Mr. Barnes,
which came before the Assembly of 1831, excited general
interest, and afforded the Old School an opportunity of
mingling doctrinal differences with every question that
was agitated.But still they were unsuccessful.
The action of the Assembly of 1831 did not, therefore,
satisfy the friends of the Assembly's Board. That party
was in a minority. After the close of the Assembly,
they appointed a Central Committee at Philadelphia to
correspond with Commiltees which they appointed in every
Synod supposed to be friendly to their views, and dis-
posed to co-operate in giving efficiency-to their plans.".
The appoiniment of these Committees, with a view
eventually to control the highest judicatory of the church,
63
was regarded by the true friends of the church, as an un-
constitutional and revolutionary measure. In July 1831,
the Central Committee issued their Circular. · It is too
lengthy for insertion here. It can be seen in the Calvinis-
tic Magazine and other periodicals of that day. It was a
"spanic" document as the following extract will show : ..
“Our Board of Education, and Board of Missions must
both receive a liberal patronage and a decided support.
This is essential. Without this we are undone. The Vol.
untary Associations that seek to engross the patronage of
our church, and have already engrossed a large part of
it, have taken the start of us, in the all-important con-
cerns of education and of missions. They now labor to
get the whole of these into their own hands; well know-
ing that if this be effected, they will infallibly, in a very
short time, govern the church." Being in a minority, tho
Old School arrayed themselves against the General As.
sembly, the highest judicatory of the church.. From the
extract above, it will be seen that they were alarmed be-
cause their party could not “govern the church.”
At the same time, (July 1831) Dr. Green, in the Chris.
tian Advocate, commenced the publication of a series of
numbers on "The present state of the Presbyterian
church." They were pretty much in the style of the
“Circular," as a few extracts will show: .
“We say then, that the members of the last Assembly
appear to us to be far more strongly and characteristically
marked by a difference in theologcal views and attache
ments, than those of any other Assembly we have ever
seen. Indeed the difference we speak of was unhesita-
tingly avowed, by a number of the members in their
speeches; and to give our readers, a right understanding
of it, we shall, as correctly as we can, divide those among
whom this difference did and does exist, into two classes
-sometimes called and occasionally so called in the Ag.
sembly--the Old School and the New School Presby-
terians." "We speak what we firmly believe, when we
say, that unless, in the passing year, there is a general
waking up of the Old School Presbyterians, to a sense of
their danger and their duty, their influence in the General
Assembly will forever afterward be subordinate, and un.
der control; and we are willing that men of all parties
5*
54
should know that such is our conviction. We wish for no
concealment on the subject. It need not be told that
those whom we have ranked in the second class of the
constituent members of the Assembly, were a decided
majority of that body. They chose a Moderator suited
to their plans and intentions; and it was in their power
to dispose of every measure that came before the judica.
ture, just as they pleased." Then follows a dissertation
upon the character of Drs. Beman and Peters. There is
one remark in this connection, which is true, and mani.
festly so, in the treatment which the New School-a male
jorily, received at the hands of their Old School brethren.
ilt will always happen that party spirit in one portion of
the church will beget it in another. Indeed when parties
exist, and are earnestly opposed to each other, the one that
uses no means to obtain or preserve an ascendency, will als
most immediately be crushed, by the one that actively ema
ploys such means.”
The next extract from Dr. Green will show, that in his
opinion, "the principal cause" of party spirit was in
relation to missionary operations. · As this difficulty
was among the inost prominent it should be well under-
stood. Die Green says: “But the peculiar ardor of ex-
citament now prevalent, is principally attributable to a
special cause, which ought to be more distinctly marked.
It is not the case of Mr. Barnes. That case was indeed
made an adjunct, and an auxiliary of the principal cause ;
but the cause itself, the baneful apple of discord which has
been thrown into the midst of us, is the inflexible 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."
On the other side, a “Disavowal” was published by
prominent New School ministers, supposed to be implica.
·ted in the Christian Advocale, and by the Circular of the
Central Committee. They say: "Now, if any persons
adverse to the views and measures of Dr. Green, whom
he calls opponents, are implicated by the foregoing
charges, it is natural to suppose, from local circumstances
and other causes, that some or all of the subscribers to
this paper are intended: we think it, therefore, our duty
55
to the church and to ourselves, hereby solemnly to des
clare, that no one of us knew of any pre-concerted plan,
combination, or effort, designed to affect the members,
the character or the measures of the last Assembly."
"We repel, also, the numerous insinuations directed
against us, if classed with those who are called “New
School Presbyterians," that we are hostile to evangelical
orthodoxy, sound Presbyterianism, and the best interests
of the Presbyterian church."
In reference to the Circular, they say : “We have read
with pain the Circular signed by a Central Committee of
Correspondence in this city; and we solemnly declare,
that we know of no member of the Presbyterian church
who has been willing to expose to hazard the vital interests
of the same, or who desires either the mutilation or sub-
version of our Presbyterian system."
A similar disavowal was made by Dr. Beman in his
Review of is The present state of the Presbyterian
church.” It was published in the Philadelphian in 1831.
The following are extracts from that noble vindication.
"The same shades and modifications of doctrinal views
have been held by the members of that body for many years
past, and when any question came up adapted to call forth
peculiar views, these shades and modifications have been
disclosed. But let it be remembered, that we never had a
case like that of Mr. Barnes till the present year. And the
venerable Editor (Dr. Green) may thank himself if 'the dif.
ference in theological views and attachments' were more
strongly and characteristically marked' than he could
wish. Could a man be so infatuated as to suppose, that
a minister, holding the sentiments expressed by Mr.
Barnes, could be deposed or censured as a heretic, without
creating some excitement in the Presbyterian church?
The same effect essentially would have been witnessed,
under similar circumstances, in any Assembly at least
for twenty years past. But here let it be remarked, that
this very case, though it called forth the expression of
doctrinal views, did not produce any uniform or settled
arrangement of parties. Some were in favor of Mr.
· Barnes, because they were essentially with him in senti-
ment; others because they have always known that simi.
lar sentiments were held and tolerated in the Presbyterian
56
church; and those persons who have sustained Mr. Barnes,
were some of them not only pupils but teachers in the
Old School as well as the New." "From this discussion,
it would seem that the majoriiy and the minority in the
last Assembly, were not formed on the principle of doc-
trinal distinction, but on the principle of ecclesiastical
order. The terms Old School and New School more pro.
perly mark the difference in theological sentiment, and
are employed somewhat incorrectly and loosely by this
writer, where the terms minority and majority, or High
Church and Low Church parties would have been more
simple and appropriate, aud much less. liable to mislead
the reader. A correct and analytical classification of the
members of the last General Assembly, as it strikes me,
would be the following. The majority were `the Low
Church Presbyterians. They are friendly to those volun.
tary associations which are the glory of our age and na-
tion: such as the Board of Commissioners for Foreign
Missions, the American Education Society, and the Ame:
ican Home Missionary Society. They love these Socie.
ties, because their constitutions breathe a liberal spirit,
and because their beneficent course has secured the confi.
dence of the public.” “If the object of this public alarm
is demanded, Dr. Green himself shall answer the ques.
tion. We speak what we firmly believe, when we say,
that unless, in the passing year, there is a general waking
up of the Old School Presbyterians to a sense of their
danger and their duty, their influence in the General As-
sembly will forever afterward be subordinate and under
control.' This text is plain enough without a comment.
The imminent dangers that now threatens the church is,
that the Old School Presbyterians' are likely to lose
'their influence in the General Assembly,' and their pres-
sing duty is to exert themselves, this year, to regain this
influence."
The last quotation we will make from Dr. Beman, when
compared with subsequent developments, will show that
he well understood the merits of the controversy. : He
says: “The great controversy now carried on in the Pres-
byterian church principally relates to questions of ecclesia
astical order; and among these the mode of conducting
missions appears to be considered the most important by
the High Church party. This question, if-we may crèdit
the Advocate, more than any thing else, now feeds the
fire of party zeal; and if alienation is to increase, and the
breach to become 'wider, and more and more ruinous, it
would seemt.probable that this is to constitute the princi:
pal source of the desolating mischief. True, Dr. Green
has sounded the alarm against heresy, and said many
things which would lead the ignorant and timid to appre.
hend that our doctrinal standards are about to be annihi.
lated, but when he touches the cord of becclesiastical or.
aer,' there is a vibration which tells us the whole truth."
From an impartial review of the controversy at thai
time, it is manifest that the commotion was made by the
Old School struggling for power. Dr. Green was one of
the oldest and most excellent men in the church. He and
a few others about Philadelphia had long been in the habit
of controling the General Assembly. The delegates to
the Assembly had been in the habit, year afier year, of
going up to Philadelphia, and giving their sanction io these
fathers and brethren. But now, when the church. liad
grown to considerable size, and the public sentiment of
the church was likely to go in favor of voluntary socio-
lies, and in opposition to the plans and control of these
brethren, they became alarmed. supposing that while they
were in a minority; the truth and order of the church
would be exposed to "impending ruin." Hence Dr. Wil.
son, in his Standard in 1831, in speaking of the New
School, says: “Who (unless God of his infinite mercy
arrest the evil,), will in a short time be able to control ey.
ery existing judicatory and institution of learning belong.
ing to the Presbyterian Church throughout the whole
land."
Admitting that these brethren conscientiously believed
that the church was in danger unless their plans were
carried out, it is still evident, from the emphasis they la y
on the word "control," they were under the influence of
idea of the Assembly's being under the control of the oth-
er party !
From the history of those times, it is also manifest that
if the majority had been willing to be governed by the
minority, doctrinal difference would have created no diffio
58
culty-New England Divinity could easily have been
tolerated. The error of the New School, therefore, in
1831, (if error it can be called) was in refusing to let the
minority govern the church!
In reference, however, to the missionary question, the
Assembly of 1831 was desirous to have the difficulties
compromised. They passed the following resolution :
"That in view of existing evils, arising from the sepa.
rate action of the Assembly's Board of Missions and the
A. H. M. Society in the West, it be recommended to the
Synods of Ohio, Cincinnati, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky,
Tennessee, West Tennessee, and the Presbyteries in the
W'est connected with them, to correspond with one another
and devise a plan for carrying on missions in the West,
and report the result of their correspondence to the next
General Assembly ; it being understood that brethren in
the West shall be left to adopt their own plan, and any
other Synods and Presbyteries, besides the above men.
tioned, in the Valley of the Mississippi, may be embraced
in the correspondence, if they desire it.”
'In conformity with this recommendation, a Convention
met at Cinctnnati in November 1831. Delegates from
twenty Presbyteries were present. The result of their
deliberations was favorable to the Assembly's Board, as
appears from the following resolution : ..
"Resolved, That under these circumstances they deem
it inexpedient to propose any change in the General As-
sembly's mode of conducting missions, as they fully ape
prove of that now in such successful operation; and that
the purity, peace and prosperity of the Presbyterian
church macerially depend on the active and efficient aid
the sessions and Presbyteries under its caro may afford to
the Assembly's Board." (Minutes of Convention, p. 14.)
With the action of the majority, the minority were dis-
satisfied. They submitted to the public a Report, , in a
pamphlet of forty-eight pages, in which they protested
against the course pursued by their Old School brethren
in the Convention. They complained that the members of
the Synod of Pittsburgh, which was not named, or con:
templated in the assembly's' resolution, were admitted to
seats, and that they controled the Convention. They
said the Home Missionary interest in the West was not
59
represented. They complained, that the official influence
of the Assembly's Board had been used to prevent any
compromise or agreement short of what would result in
the ultimate death of the A. H. M. Society; and that
the instructions of the Assembly had not been regarded
by the majority of the Convention, inasmuch as the As.
sembly had recommended some action, that all might
"endeavor to agree upon some plan of conducting mis-
sions," and the course of the majority was calculated to
preclude all agreement. (See Report.)
After this, efforts at union or agreement were generally
abandoned. The friends of each Society pursued their
own way.
The character, strength and plans of the parties re.
mained, for the most, unchanged, during the years 1831,
2, 3, and 4. Each year the New School had the majori.
ty in the Assembly. Had they designed to revolutionize
the church, they could have done it; for, in the language
of Dr. Green, it was in their power to dispose of every
measure that came before the judicature just as they
pleased." But their course was marked by great modera-
tion and forbearance.
Janet
S
is a
Bare
( 68 )
CHAPTER VIII.
VOLUNTARY SOCIETIES AND ECCLESIASTICAL BOARDS.
The opposition which was made to the A. H. Miss
sionary Society gave rise to the general controversy a.
bout the manner of conducting benevolent operations.
The A. B. C. F. Missions, and the A. Education Society,
and the A. H. M. Society were called Voluntary Socie.
ties--not under the ecclesiastical control of the Presbyte.
rian, Congregational, or Dutch Reformed Church, but pat-
ronized by these several churches-bodies which are Cal.
vinistic in their creeds, and which recognize each other as
orthodox, and are upon terms of friendly correspondence.
Upon this principle--the voluntary-are founded the A.
Bible, the A. Tract, the Ą. Temperance, and the A. Sun-
day School Societies.
The New School were generally the friends of the Vol.
untary Societies, and the Old School the friends of Ec.
clesiastical Boards.
The friends of ecclesiastical organizations urged that
missionary and other benevolent offorts to convert the
world, ought to be under the control of the church, in her
distinctive capacity ; that Presbyterians, in educating
young men for the ministry and in sending ministers to
the destitute in our own country or to the heathen, ought
not to co-operate with Congregationalists, or others, in a
Voluntary Society ; that all the secular and financial busi-
ness of the work of missions ought to be under the super-
vision of the General Assembly; that upon the voluntary
principle, we could have no security for the truth and or-
der of the church.
The friends of the voluntary principle were the active
fziends of missions and other benevolent efforts. They
61
considered themselves free to unite with others, in any
way that would promise success. They conceded to the
church the right and power to preserve doctrinal purity
and discipline. But they denied to the church any power
to control the property of her members. They cherished
a high regard, upon principle, for associations which were
Sifree and voluntary, unsupported by civil and ecclesiastical
power."
They urged that the Great Head of the church left it lo
his people to act voluntarily in their efforts to evangelize
the world. He left it to the conscience of each disciple,
how much he would give, and for what, and through what
channel, and in this, to be uncontrolled by any church
court.
They urged, that the Presbyterian church was only a
small part of the Church of Christ, and to confine the ef-
forts of our members to our party organizations was a:
dopting an exclusive, sectarian policy unauthorized by
the Word of God; that Jesus Christ did not range his peo:
ple under sectarian banners, that they might manifest
more zeal for a party than for our common evangelical
christianity.
It was also urged, that our General Assembly, as a
church court, was not calculated to conduct efficiently the
benevolent enterprises of the age. The members of the
Assembly live far apart-are changed generally every
year-know comparatively little of the work, and are to:
gether only a few days. The Boards of their appointment
were the most irresponsible of any--not answerable to
the public-only to the Assembly-exhibiting an unlove.
ly feature that has caused even Old School men to call
such a contrivance "a Presbyterian hierarchy."
The supervision of these Boards by the Asseinbly must
ever be exceedingly imperfect, rather a hindrance to their
energetic and healthful action: or, when there is mismai);
agement, this supervision might be made a cloak to hide
abuses from the public eye.
It was furthermore urged, that the General Assembly
was constituted, as a bond of union, for the preservation
of truth and order; not to attend to the secular affairs of
schools, colleges, seminaries of learning, boards, &c. And
especially that the handling of large sums of the money be.
62
longing to the various societies would hazard the spiritual
affairs of the church, by presenting temptations to avarice,
ambition, jealousy, intrigue, bargain, &c. And that it
was dangerous to give to our General Assembly legisla-
tive, judicial, and executive power, all backed by the large
and increasing funds of the church; and that nothing was
better calculated to hasten the corruption, and secure the
overthrow of the church than such a concentration of
power.
The controversy about the American Home Missionary
Society has already been noticed. That about the A. B.
C. F, Missions will be in its proper place.
( 63 )
CHAPTER IX.
ASSEMBLY OF 1831-MR. BARNES' CASE--RE-EXAMINA-
TION-ELECTIVE AFFINITY.
The struggle about the American Home Missionary Socia
ety had thrown the church into commotion, before the
case of Rev. Mr. Barnes came up. This, however, aida
ed in keeping up the excitement between the parties.
In 1830, Mr. Barnes received a call to become the pas.
tor of the First Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. The
minority of the Philadelphia Presbytery tried to prevent
his becoming pastor of said church. In this they were
overruled by the majority. They then insisted on the
right to examine him respecting his theology. In this
they wero also overruled. They then compluined to the
Synod of Philadelphia. The Synod referred the com-
plainants back to the Preshytery, and ordered the Presby-
tery to hear and decide upon their objections to the. or-
thodoxy of Mr. Barnes' Sermon, styled “The Way of
Salvation."
By this time, the minority of Presbytery had become
the majority. The case was then referred to the General
Assembly. The following resolutions were there ao
dopted :
61. Resolved, That the General Assembly, while it apo
preciates the conscientious zeal for the purity of the
church, by which the Presbytery of Philadelphia is be-
lieved to have been actuated, in its proceedings in the casu
of Mr. Barnes; and while it judges that the sermoni, by
Mr. Barnes, entitled “The Way of Salvation," contains
a number of unguarded and objectionable passages ; you
is of the opinion, that, especially after the explanations
which were given by him of those passages, the Presby-
64.
tery ought to have suffered the whole to pass without fur.
thier notice.
2. Resolved, That in the judgment of this Assembly,
the Presbytery of Philadelphia ought to suspend all fur-
ther proceedings in the case of Mr. Barnes."
This case gave rise to two other questions, viz:-1.
Whether Presbyteries have the right to re-examine minis-
ters coming to them, with clean papers, from other Preg.
hyteries ? and 2. Whether it was inconstitutional to die
vide Presbyteries upon the principle of Elective Affinity ?
The Old School contended for the right to re-examine
ministers, coming from other Presbyteries. They con-
tended, and with much plausibility, that every society
ought to judge of the qualifications of its own members.
On the other hand, it was urged, that the Presbyteries
were only parts of one great society, the qualifications of
whose members are to be judged of according to the Book
of Discipline. Indeed the action of the church, in the
highest judicature, has been against this practice. Our
present revised form of government was adopted by the
General Assembly in 1821. On the same page with the
record of the adoption, are the following minutes :
o''The following Overture, from the Presbytery of Balti.
nore, was received and read, viz:
That af:er the twelfth article of the tenth Chapter of
the revised Forin of Government, the following be added :"
Thirteenth. Every Presbytery shall judge of the quali-
fications of its own members. On motion,
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to grant the request
contained in the above overture ; or make any new alte-
rations at present in the Book of Discipline."
. It would seem from this, that the Baltimore Presbytery
thought that the Book of Discipline did not give them the
right to re-examine those in good standing coming from
other Presbyteries. And the Asseinbly, at the time of a-
dopting our Form of Government, thought it inexpedient to
adopt such regulation, so well calculated to impair confi-
dence and alienate the affections of the ministers of one
Presbytery from those of another.
The contest about elective affinity was of similar bear.
ing. This difficulty grew out of the attempt of the Phil.
Philadelphia Presbytery to prevent the settlement of Mr.
65
Intion.
Barnes as pastor of the First Church in Philadelphia. In
1831, the General Assembly passed the following res.
olution :
ii Resolved, That it will be expedient, as soon as the re-
gular steps can be taken, to divide the Presbytery in such
a way as will be best calculated to promote the peace of
the ministers and churches belonging to the Philadelphia
Presbytery."
According to the usage of the church, for many years,
and to the powers granted, it was the duty of the Synod
of Philadelphia to do this. But at their next meeting
they refused, the majority being Old School. In 1832,
certain members of the Philadelphia Presbytery presented
to the General Assembly a complaint against the Synod,
for refusing to divide the Presbytery. After a number of
days spent in deliberation on the subject, the Assembly
erected the Second Presbytery of Philadelphia, embracing
Mr. Barnes and thirteen other ministers, and fourteen
churches. This measure was carried by a vote of 158
to 33.
· This new Presbytery was not bounded by any lines or
streets, but composed of ministers and churches, scatter-
ed over the city and its vicinity, that had a sympathy for
each other. It was evident to the General Assembly, that
there was no prospect of the two parties in the old Pres-
bytery acting harmoniously. The New School in the
Presbytery, being in a minority, stated to the Assembly,
that they were straitened in their work, and that their in7-
fluence and usefulness were prevented by brethren in the
same Presbytery. This was a case that threatened the
peace of the whole church. And it was the duty of the
Assembly to promote the peace of the church. They felt
bound to make an effort to put an end to this controversy,
They, therefore, said to Drs. Ely, McAuley and others,
take your brethren, and go in peace, and let Dr. Green
and his friends live to themselves and be at peace.
In this controversy the Old School were violent against
elective affinity, urging that it was absurd and unconstitu-
tional for a Presbytery to have no geographical limits, or
for two Presbyteries to cover the same ground.
:. The other party urged, that the Assembly had a right
to erect a Presbytery--that the peace of the church de-
6*
.
66
manded it that the Assembly had before done it--and that
che elective affinity principle had been acquiesced in, very
happily, by the Old School, when it had operated to in-
crease their power, as in the case of the union with the
Associate Reformed Church in 1821. . According to that
plan, as adopted by the Assembly, the affinity principle is
fully carried out. . One article of that plan was as fol-
lows:
The different Presbyteries of the Associate Reform-
ed Church shall either retain their separate organization,
or shall be amalgamated with those of the General Assem-
bly at their own choice. In the former case [by elective
affinity) they shall haze as full powers and privileges as
any other Presbytery in the united body.
In this case, the Assembly which adopted our revised
Form of Government, allowed those Presbyteries, coming
to us from another body, to retain their former organiza-
tion. One of them did this. And thus the General As-
sembly permitted two Presbyteries--an Assembly Presby-
tery and an Associate Presbytery—to cover the same
ground and have jurisdiction over the same territory,
It was, therefore, urged by the friends of the Second
Presbytery, that it was strange, that the elective affinity
principle could give Presbyterial existence to Seceders and
not to Presbyterians!
The Synod of Philadelphia, being Old School, in the fall
of 1832 refused to receive the delegates from the Second
Presbytery, and declared the Act of the General Assem.
bly, in forming the Second Presbytery, unconstitutional
and), 2014! The Assembly of 1833 would not submit to the
dictation of the Synod, but adhered to the principles of the
former Assembly.
In the fall of 1833, the Synod so far yielded to the au-
thority of the General Assembly as to admit the Second
Presbytery to membership. But the Synod then formed
a new division, regardless of the recominendation of the
Assembly. The Assembly again, in 1834, shewed a de-
terinination to carry out their measures, in sustaining the
Second Presbytery. And to prevent further difficulty
with the Synod of Philadelphia, they erected a new Syn.
od, the Synod of Delaware, throwing the Second Pres.
bytery into a new Synodical relation.
:
657
In 1835, the Assembly, (the Old School having a ma-
jority,) dissolved the Synod of Delaware, and threw the
Second Presbytery back into the Synod of Philadelphia.
The Synod at their meeting in the fall dissolved the Prego
bytery. The Assembly again, in 1836, (the New School
again having a majority,) stood by the majority. But as
the Synod now had a Second Presbytery, the Assembly's
Second Presbytery was named the Third Presbytery
of Philadelphia. The Assembly, however, at this time
assigned geographical limits to their Presbytery, in the
belief and general understanding that it was to terminate
the dispute in relation to the alleged unconstitutional ex- :
istence of the Presbytery, on the ground of elective affin-
ity. But this arrangement was of short duration ; for the
next Assembly, being Old School, in their work of ree
form, swept this Presbytery from existence! .
It ought not to be forgotten, that after the trial of Mr.
Barnes, and during these contentions about elective affin-
ity, &c. Dr. Miller, a Professor in the Theological Semi.
na ry at Princeton, wrote his famous "Letters to Presbyte.
rians, on the present crisis in the Presbytrian Church in
the United States. They were extensively circulated
and read. Coming from the seat of orthodoxy, impor-
tance was attached to them, and they exerted an influence
-an influence, though not intended, yet injurious to the
church. They contributed to the alarms and suspicions,
which afterwards alienated the affection and confidence of
ministers and people, and to the strifes which resulted in
the schism of the church. Many good things were smoothly
said, but in such a way as to operate wonderfully in un.
dermining confidence in ministers, and leading to violent
measures-such measures as even Dr. Miller did not an-
ticipate, when thus fanning the flame-and such measures
as he attempted afterwards, in vain, to arrest, when he
found that some had over-acted their part, and got greatly
in advance of himself in seeing the dangers of the church
in the crisis."
Among the violent measures referred to was the "Act
and Testimony," which will come under review in the
next Chapter.
( 68 )
CHAPTER X.
THE ACT AND TESTIMONY.
The Old School party, having been in the minority in
the Assembly for a number of years, became so restless
in the Assembly of 1834, that they resolved upon a sys-
tem of new measures, to gain, if possible, the ascendency,
that they might carry their plans in the church.
Accordingly, at the close of the Assembly of 1834, a
small. portion of that body, the most thorough-going of
the Old School, had a meeting. As the result of their
deliberations, they drew up the famous "Act and Teste.
mony," which was signed by thirty-seven ministers and
twenty-seven elders. It was designed to operate as a
Test Act, and thus very much resembles the old Solemn
League and Covenant.
As it has been regarded the entering wedge to schism, ':.
and has exerted much influence, it ought to be preserved.
It was addressed to the Ministers, Elders, and Private
Members of the Presbyterian Church in the United
States." It begins thus:
"BRETHREN BELOVED IN THE LORD:- In the solemn
crisis, in which our church has arrived, we are constrain-
ed to appeal to you in relation to the alarming errors
which have hitherto been connived at, and now at length
have been countenanced and sustained by the acts of the
supreme judicatory of our church
Constituting, as we all do, a portion of yourselves, and
deeply concerned, as every portion of the system must be,
in all that affects the body itself, we earnestly address
ourselves to you, in the full belief, that the dissolution of
our church, or what is worse, its corruption in all that
69
once distinguished 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
grievances, and have not only sought it in vain, but with
än aggravation of the evils of which we have complain.
ed,' &c.
The whole is too lengthy for insertion here. Its spirit
may be judged of from the above quotation. The aitempt
was made to alarm the churches. The burden of the
document was about "doctrine” -discipline”-and
"church order.” It charged upon the New School the
grossest heresies and disorders.
It appeared in Kentucky in the Western Luminary, of
13th August, 1834. The editor of that paper, who is an
Old School man, said of this document-We give it sim:
ply as an article of news-a portion of the history of the
times. . We think it but due, however, to our brethren of
the ministry and eldership of this region, to state that so
far as our acquaintance extends, we know of no one who
holds any of the doctrinal views which are justly designa.
ted as errors in the Act and Testimony. This docu.
ment met the approbation of a very small number of the
Synods or Presbyteries. Some objected to it, because
they denied to a few minis!ers and elders the right of re-
quiring the church to subscribe a new Test Act. Others
disapproved of it, because they considered ita slander on
the General Assembly and the Presbyterian Church.
And many opposed it, because they regarded the measures
proposed, in the language of the Princeton brethren,
seatra-constitutional and revolutionary," and designed sito
effect the division of the Church."
The Act and Testimony -was reviewed, and severely
censured by the Princeton Professors, in the Biblical
Repertory, a decidedly Old School periodical, and as such,
the organ of the party. A few extracts from their re.
view will shew in what light they viewed this document.
They say:
"Had the meeting in Philadelphia, therefore, been con-
tended to send forth their solemn testimony against error
and disorder, and their earnest exhortation to increased
fidelity to God and his truth, we are sure none could rea.
70
sonably object.” “But when it is proposed to number
the people ; to request and urge the signing of this Testi:
mony as a test of orthodoxy, then its whole nature and
design is at once altered."
“Here is one of the most serious evils of the whole
plan. It makes one a heretic, or an abettor of heresy,
not for error in doctrine, not for unfaithfulness in disci.
pline, but because he may be unable to adopt an extended
document as expressing his own opinions on a multitude
of facts, doctrines and practical counsels. This is an as-
sumption which ought not to be allowed. It is an act of
gross injustice to multitudes of our soundest and best
men; it is the most effectual means of splitting the church
into mere fragments, and of alienating from each other
men who agree in doctrine, in views of order and disci.
pline, and who differ in nothing, perhaps, but in opinion
as to the wisdom of introducing this new League and
Covenant."
“Our first leading objection, then; to this document is,
that it is not what it professes to be, a Testimony, but a
Test."
"Is it then true, that the highest judicatory of our
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 owil
act-that Christ's sufferings are not truly and properly
vicarious ? How serious the responsibility of annuuncing
to the world that such is the case.” “We do not believe
it to be true."
"Is it to be expected that, at this time of the day, the
Assembly would solemnly condemn all who do not hold
the doctrine of a limited atonement ?"
Here is a developement not often made. It is taken
for granted that "a limiled atonemerit" is the doctrine of
the Old School, but that the Assembly ought not to con.
demn those who believe in a general alonement! But to
go on with our extracts :
“We cannot but regard, therefore, the recommendation
of this document, that churches and ministers consider
certain acts of the Assembly unconstitutional, as a re-
commendation to them to renounce their allegiance to the
church, and to disregard their promises of obedience."
"Division, then, is the end to which this enterprise
leads, and to which, we doubt not it aims." Here in a
note the writers say: "Since writing the above, we see
that this intention is denied in the Presbyterian. We
have heard other signers of the Act and Testimony, how-
ever, very distinctly avow their desire to effect a division
of the church.”.
“The point now before us, however, is the true nature
of its recommendations. We say they are extra-consti.
tutional and revolutionary, and should be opposed by all
those who do not believe that the crisis demands the disso.
lution of the church.”
oWe have more than once remarked, that this recome
mendation was designed to necessitate either the annul.
ling of the acts of the Assembly complained of, or the
division of the church. It was designed to make a case
from wbich there could be no escape ; to assume such a
position as would produce a state of confusion and difficul.
ty perfectly intolerable, in order that the Assembly should
be forced either to retract or submit to have the church
divided.? [We quote from the Western Luminary, No.
vember 19, 1834, and March 4, 1835.]
Here the spirit of the Act and Testimony men-the
spirit that finally triumphed among the Old School, is
forcibly stated by the Princeton brethren, themselves Old
School. They determined, shat the Assembly should be
forced to retract, or submit to have the church divided."
That is, they determined to rule the church or rend it.
This controversy about the Act and Testimony had
well nigh broken up the friendship of its reputed author,
Indeed, it was regarded as something novel, that Mr.
Breckinridge, who in 1832 was an Elder in the Assem-
bly, should in 1834 regard himself as the great champion
of order and orthodoxy. But no less strange than true,
his measures at last triumphed over the Princeton fathers,
and hosts of others, who had never seen the dangers to
which the church was exposed till Mr. Breckinridge
found his way into the church !!
The above extracts from the Repertory will show clear.
ly, that the Act and Testimony was not well received by
the wisest and best men among the Old School. They
regarded it as a Grecian horse, full of danger, though prn.
fessedly à vow to orthodoxy. They raised a warning
voice, like the faithful priest of Troy :
"Aut haec in nostros fabricata est machina muros,
Inspectura domos, venturaque desniper urbi;
Aut aliquis latet error : equo ne credite, Teucri."
Of course, it was very odious to the New School, view.
ed by them as the entering wedge of schism. Indeed,
the subsequent history of the church shows, that it was
at the time fairly interpreted and fully understood.
But to show how it was regarded by other denomina.
tions, a few extracts are given from the Christian Specta-
tor, a quarterly periodical, among the Congregationalists.
The reviewer of the - Act and Testimony in that Journal
says:
"What then is the Act and Testimony? It is a new
confession of faith, or a recently invented test of ortho-
doxy, agreed upon, subscribed, and published, by thirty-
seven ministers, and twenty-seven elders of the Presby.
terian church, at the close of the last General Assembly
in Philadelphia." "The introduction does not abound in
the qualities of conciliation, which some masters of rhet.
oric tell us, ought to be prominent in this part of a diş.
course. It is more in keeping with the habits of a wes.
tern huntsman; for it takes the beast by the horns at the
very outset of the battle. Or, to pass by one bold stride
from the wilderness to the ocean, these Act and Testimony
brethren are no sooner embarked, than they nail the flag
of nullification to the mast."
. “The subscribers of this document begin by a practica!
renunciation of their whole system; and if their solemn
manifesto proves any thing, it proves, that, quoad hoc,
they are not Presbyterians. They have erected a new
tribunal, unknown to their standards; and before this
voluntary and irresponsible association, they arraign all
delinquents, whether the peccant General Assembly, or
ministers suspected of heresy."
73
"The subscribers of this document avow their fixed ad-
herence to their standards of ecclesiastical order, while
the very document in which they make this profession,
is, both in essence and action, at war with the whole sys.
tem. They acquit themselves of all responsibility for .
the subversion of forms publicly and repeatedly ap.
proved ; while they are subverting those very forms theni-
selves. They tell us, that they are laboring for the resto-
ration of scriptural order to their church; and yet they
attempt that reformation by means which contravene
their own notions of ecclesiastical organization. They
intend, if possible, to exclude from the church, those who
subvert her established fornis; and yet, in compassing
this end, they themselves perpetrate the act of 'subver-
sion." "They believe that the form of government of the
Presbyterian Church accords with the will of God, and
deprecate every thing that changes its essential character;
while, in their practice, they are fast verging to Congres
gationalism-a form of government at which they almost
instinctively shudder." (Quarterly Christian Spectator,
· March, 1835.]
The Act and Testimony was considered a document of
little intrinsic value. Yet its relative influence proved to
be great. It was a bold nullification measure, well calcu-
lated to marshal every restless and belligerent spirit-to
· create a panic among the lovers of truth who were unin-
formed, and to cause the intelligent friends of peace and
order to mourn over an anticipated and bitter strife, and
the most fearless heart to tremble for the integrity of the
church and the honor of religion. It inay indeed be ques.
tioned, whether any document, since the days of the
Solemn League and Covenant, has ever proved so ruinous
to the Presbyterian Church as the Act and Testimony.
Here the controversy began in good earnest. These men,
a small minority, virtually declared, that they would rule
or rend the church; or, in the language of the Princeton
Professors, what the Assembly should be forced either to
retract, or submit to have the church divided." What
was now to be done? Must the majority consent to be
ruled by the minority, rather than witness the sin and
sorrow of division ? Moderate Old School men, and mod.
144
erate New School men yielded, one after another, until
the Act and Testimony men gained the ascendency, and
at last the work of schism was carried forward with
fearful despatch in the excinding acts of 1837, and the
reform acts and ordinances of 1838.
( 75 )
CHAPTER XI. :
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF 1835. -
This year the General Assembly met at Pittsburgh,
The week before the meeting of the Assembly, the Old
School Convention met at the same place, in obedience to
the call of the Act and Testimony. The Convention
party succeeded in bringing into the Assembly a majority
of Old School men, and in controlling the body that year,
When the Assembly met, the Convention had a lengthy
"Memorial" ready for their action. In it they complain-
ed of. some eight grievances of this nature, viz. : :
1. That the Assembly would not sanction a re-exami.
nation of ministers going from one Presbytery to another.
2. That the Assembly would not condemn a book ir-
respective of its author.
3. That the Assembly had favored the elective affinity
principle.
4. That the Assembly permitted the American Hone
Missionary Society to operate in the bounds of the Pres:
byterian Church.
5. That the Church had been too lax in the education
of young men for the ministry,
6. That the Plan of Union of 1801 had not worked
well for the Presbyterian Church.
7. That the Plans of Union and Correspondence with
New England and other churches were dangerous to
truth and order.
8. That the General Assembly had not been sufficient.
Jy concerned for the orthodoxy of the church.
This, in few words, is the sum of that long document.
It was referred to a Committee. Their report was fa-
vorable to this Memorial. The Assembly decided, that .
the Presbytery had a right to re-examine that any
96
church court had a right to censure an author's book, ir.
respective of the author, and that the erection of Pres-
hyteries upon the principle of elective affinity was con-
trary to the spirit of our form of government. They
alsci ordered, that the Synod of Delaware should be dis-
solved “at and after the meeting of the Synod of Phila-
delphia in October next.” Thus the Assembly's Second
Presbytery was thrown back into the old Synod.
The Assembly were unwilling to carry out the policy
of the Memorialists in reference to Voluntary Associa:
tions. On this subject they said: “It is not expedient to
prohibit, within our bounds, the operations of the Home
Missionary Society, or of the Presbyterian Education So.
ciety, or any other Voluntary Association not subject to
olir control."
They were of the opinion, that it was not desirable that
the Plan of Union of 1801 should any longer operate in
the Presbyterian church.
They also expressed their readiness to condemn "Pela.
gian and Arminian errors," and exhorted all our Presby.
teries and Synods to exercise the utmost vigilance in
guarding against the introduction and publication of such
pestiferous errors."
As the Old School had the majority in this Assembly,
and carried most of their measures, and as the New
School were disposed peaceably to submit to the-action of
the Assembly, there was a cheering prospect of a better
state of things.
(77)
CHAPTER XII.
THE FOREIGN MISSION QUESTION--ASSEMBLY OF 1836.
ILL
The subject of Foreign Missions came up in the
Assembly of 1835, and produced an unpleasant contro-
versy.
.
.
The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign
Missions was organized in 1810-a voluntary association;
SO constituted as to enlist the.co-operation of the Presby.
terian, Congregational and Dutch Reformed Churches,
A number of years after that, the Western Foreign Mis.
sionary Society was formed--an ecclesiastical society;
under the control of the Synod of Pittsburgh. . .
In the Assembly of 1835, the “Committee of Bills and
Overturės” reported an overture in relation to Foreign Mis-
sions. A Committee was appointed. They reported and
recommended, that it was the conviction of the General
Assembly, that the Presbyterian Church, in her "ristinc-
tive characier," ought to send the Gospel to the heathen,
and that a committee be appointed to confer with the
Synod of Pittsburgh on the subject of the transfer of the
Western Foreign Missionary Society to the General As-
sembly, and report to the next Assembly.
In the Assembly of 1835, there were two hundred and .
thirty-four members who had a right to vote. But near
the close of the Assembly, when nearly two thirds of the
members had left, the following resolution was adopted,
viz:
. "Resolved, That the Committee appointed to confer
with the Synod of Pittsburgh, on the subject of the trans-
fer of the supervision of the Western Foreign Missionaria
Society to the General Assembly, be authorized, if they
mi
:
78
should approve of the said transfer, to ratify and confirm
the same with the Synod, and report the same to the next
General Assembly." Minutes of 1835, p. 33.
Of this attempt, in such a way, to undermine the A.
merican B. C. F. Missions, the New School greatly com-
plained.
The Committee, in the full of 1835, submitted to the
Synod of Pittsburgh, “Terms of Agreement." They were
accepted by the Synod.
At the meeting of the Assembly, in 1836, these
"Terms,” ratified and confirmed, not by the Church, nor
by the Presbyteries, nor by the General Assembly, but by
il committee of five men, were submitted to the General
Assembly. They were committed to Drs. Phillips and
Skinner, and Messrs. Scovel, Dunlap and Ewing. The
majority of the Committee reported favorably to the Terms
of Agrcement. Among other things they my:
solt appears, then, to your Committee, that the Assem.
bly have entered into a solemn compact with the Synod of
Pittsburgh, and that ihere remains but one righteous course
10 pursue, which is, 10 adopt the report of the Committee
appointed last year, and to appoint a Foreign Missionary
Board.'. To pause now, or to annul the doings of the last
Assembly in this matter, would be obviously a violation of
contract, a breach of trust, and a departure from that
good faith which should be sacredly kept between man
and man, and especially between christian societies ; con.
dluct, which would be utterly unworthy of this. venerable
body and highly injurious to the Western Foreign Mis-
sionary Society."
They recommended the adoption of the following reso-
Jutions, viz.:
51. Resolr:ed, That this report of the Committee, apo
pointed by the last General Assembly to confer wiih
ihe Synod of Pittsburgh on the subject of a transfer of
the Western Foreign Missionary Society to the General
Assembly, be adopted, and that said transfer be accepted
on the terms of agreement therein contained.
2. Resolved, That the Assembly will proceed to ap-
point a Foreign Missionary Board, the seat of whose
operations shall be in New York."
79
Dr. Skinner, as the minority of the Committee, pres
sented the following counter report, viz. :.
"Whereas, the Am. B. C. F. Missions has been connect.
ed with the Presbyterian Church from the year of its.in.
corporation, by the very elements of its existence; and
whereas, at the present time, the majority of the whole of
the Board are Presbyterians; and whereas, it is undesira-
ble, in conducting the work of Foreign Missions, that
there should be any collision at home or abroad: there.
fore,
Resolved, That it is inexpedient, that the Assembly
should organize a separate Foreign Missionary Institu.
lion."
After a long debate, the plan proposed by the Com.
mittee was rejected by a vote of 111 to 106, which exo
hibited a majority of five for the New School, or against
an ecclesiastical organization. . .
Against this decision, Dr. Miller offered a protest
signed by eighty-two members of the dissembly. It was
entered on the Minutes, and was as follows:
The 'undersigned would solemnly protest against the
decision 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 Pittsburgh, duly
ratified and confirmed under the authority of the last As.
sembly. .
2. Because we are impressed with the deepest convica
tion, 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
80
cause, without the establishment of a Missionary Board
by the General 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-operation of those in every part of the
church who wish for a:general Presbyterian Board.
· 4. Because, while a majority of the Assembly acknowl-
edge that they had a Board which fully met all the wants
and wishes of themselves and those who sympathized with
them, they refused to make such a decision as would ac.
cord to us a similar and equal privilege ; thereby as wc
conceive, refusing that which would have been only just
and equal, and rejecting a plan which would have greatly
extended the missionary spirit, and exerted a reflex bene.
ficial influence on the churches thus indulged with a Board
agreeable to their views..
: 5. Because to all these considerations, urged with a
solemnity and affection, the majority of the Assembly
were deaf, and have laid us under the necessity of pro-
testing against their course, and of complaining that we
are denied a most reasonable, and to us, precious privi.
lege, and of laſenting that we are laid under the necessi-
ty of resorting to plans of ecclesiastical organization,
complicated, inconvenient, and much more adapted, on a
variety of accounts, to interfere with ecclesiastical hai.
mony than the proposed Board could have been."
A committee was appointed by the Assembly to answer
this protest. Dr. Peters, the Chairman, presented the
following, which was adopted by the Assembly, and en-
tered on the Minutes, viz. :
"In answer to the protest of the minority of the Gen-
eral Assembly, on the subject of Foreign Missions, the
majority regard it as due to the churches and the friends
of missions generally, to state some of the grounds on
which they have declined to carry into effect the arrange-
ment adopted and reported by the Committee of the last
General Assembly, in regard to the West. For. Missionary
Society.
We are of opinion,
1. That the powers intended to be conferred upon the
above Committee, by the last General Assembly, to ratify
81
and confirm the transfer of the said Society from the
Synod of Pittsburgh to the General Assembly on such
terms as the said Committee might approve, are altogeth-
er unusual and unwarranted; and especially that it was
indiscreet and improper for that Assembly to attempt to
confer such 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 As-
sembly, when more than one half of the enrolled memo
bers of the body had obtained leave of absence, and had
already returned to their homes.
2. That it was unwarrantable and improper for the
above Committee, in the exercise of the extraordinary powy-
er's proposed to be conferred on them, to incorporate in
their agreement with the Synod of Pittsburgh the condi.
tion, that the superversion of the Missions of the Mission.
ary Board intended to be organized should never be aliena -
ted by the General Assembly, thus endeavoring to bind ir.
reversably all future Assemblies by the stipulations of
that Committee.
3. It is, therefore, our deep conviction that it was the
duty of the Assembly to resist the unwarrantable and ex.
traordinary powers of the above Committee, and to reject
the unreasonable condition of the contract with the Syno
od of Pittsburgh.
4. It is our settled belief that the church is one by Divine
constitution, and that the command is of universal obliga.
tion--Let there-be no divisions among you,'' and that
· whatever advantages or disadvantages may have resulted
from the division of the church into numerous denomina.
tions, with conflicting opinions, it cannot be our duty as
Christians, to perpetuate and extend these divisions, by in.
corporating them in our arrangements to spread the gospel
in heathen lands. We capnot, therefore, regard the division
of the Assembly, in this case, as a refusal to obey the com-
mand of the Head of the Church to preach the gospel to eve-
ry creature. That command, as we understand it, is not to
the Presbyterian church in her distinctive' ecclesiastical
capacity, but to the whole church, to the collective body of
Christ's disciples of every name. It was that they may
the more effectually obey the above command, by uniting
82
with Christians of other denominations in the noble work
of foreign missions, that the Assembly declined to carry
into effect the proposed organization; restricted to the Pres:
byterian church
5. We do not agree with the protestants in the opinioři,
that the resources of any part of the Presbyterian church
cannot be called into action in the missionary cause with-
cut the establishment of a Missionary Board by the Gen.
eral Assembly.” The history of missionary operations
in this and other countries, furnishes ample evidence that
the energy and zeal of Christians in the spread of the
gospel are much more effectually enlisted, and their liber.
ality greatly increased by more expanded organizations,
which overstep the limits of sects, and the bond of whose
union is the one great object of spreading the glorious gos.
pel of the blessed God. It is our settled belief, that the
societies formed on these principles, and including differ-
ent denominations of Christians, are actually performing,
as the proxies of the church, in the work of missions, that
which the church, on account of her divisions, can per-
form in no other way so well. They appear to us to have
embraced the harmonizing principle, which is destined ul.
timately to re-unite the churches, and make them ONE, as
it was in the beginning, and will be in the end.
6. While the majority of the Assembly acknowledge
their una bated confidence in the American Board of Com.
missioners for Foreign Missions, as fully meeting our wish-
es, and affording a safe and open channel through which
all our churches may, as consistent Presbyterians, con:
vey their contributions to the cause of Foreign Missions,
we do not regard ourselves as having denied, by the decis.
ion protested against, to the minority the privilege of con.
ducting their Missionary operations with entire freedom,
on any other plan which they may prefer. But we think
it unreasonable for them to ask us to form, and to com.
plain of our not forming, by a vote of the General As-
sembly, an organization, the principles of which we do
not approve. We do not ask of them to assume the re.
sponsibilities of the plan which we prefer, and we cannot
regard ourselves as chargeable with unkindness or injis.
tice, in having refused to assume the responsibilities of the

83
plan which they prefer. If we cannot agree to unite in
the same organization, for the same purpose, it appears to
us manifestly proper, that each party should bear the re-
sponsibility of its own chosen plan of operations; and if
our brethren cannot so far commend their principles, as
to extend their ecclesiastical organizations beyond those
sofragments of the church," of which they speak, they sure.
ly ought not to complain of us, “if those in every part of
the church, who wish for a general Presbyterian Board,"
remain dissatisfied. We would respectfully ask whether
they ought not to charge their embarrassment, in this
respect, to the plan which they have adopted, rather than
to those who have chosen, on their own responsibility, in
the fear of God, to conduct their missionary operations on
other principles. If, therefore, the minority of the As-
sembly should hereafter 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 Assem-
bly is, that the operations of the American Board of
Commissioners for Foreign Missions, with its numerous
auxiliaries, both ecclesiastical and voluntary, within the
bounds of the Presbyterian church, present the best ar.
rangement for the promotion of the cause of Missions by
our churches ; and it was to prevent the ecclesiastical con:
flicts and divisions which have resulted from the opera.
tions of other similar organizations, 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 the union in the mission-
ary work which has so happily existed in former years.
With these views and hopes they commend the cause
of Missions, and their solemn and conscientious decis.
ion, to the blessings of God, and pray for the peace of Je.
rusalem."
From the foregoing, it will be seen, that the majority
of the General Assembly preferred the A. B. C. F. Mis.
sions to an ecclesiastical organization. Contemplating the
success of that noble institution, it was not strange. It
even commended itself to the respect of the most rigid
84
friends of ecclesiastical Boards. In January, 1837, the
Hon. Walter Lowrie, an Old School man, and the Corres-
ponding Secretary of the West. For. Missionary Society,
said: “It has been my privilege, wherever I have been
called to speak, to state our feelings toward the Am. B. C.
Foreign Missions. For eighteen years I have been famil-
iar with the operations of that Board. And not one of
their missionaries has gone to the heathen world, labored
or died there, whose progress I have not marked with great
interest, and followed with my prayers. I have always
cherished great confidence in that Board; I hope God will
prosper it abundantly, and enlarge its operations, until,
with the aid of other societies, they shall fill the earth
with the knowledge of God. We think we can feel thus,
and yet prefer another organizntion." See Journal and
Luminary, Feb. 16, 1837.
It will not, however, be forgotten, that in 1836, the Mig-
sionary question was the bone of contention the great
exciting subject. Because the majority of the Assembly
would not give up their partiality for the Am. B. C. F.
Missions, and have the Ąssembly, and through that body,
the church committed to an ecclesiastical organization,
there was great complaint. Or because, in this matter,
the majority were unwilling to be controlled by the minor.
ity, there was universal dissatisfaction among the Old
School. The Southern Christian Herald, an Old School
paper, said: "One of the best of the present indications is
the sensitiveness manifested at the Assembly's decision on
the Foreign Missionary question, although this decision
has no tendency to corrupt the church. Their sensi-
tiveness" on this question was greater than about doctrines.
The Editor of the Western Presbyterian Herald of Au-
gust 11, 1836, said: “Unless we separate amicably, the
dissentions which have arisen over the Home Missionary
Society will continue to increase until they produce a vio.
lent disruption." "But this unhappy contrariety of opin.
ion is not confined to the subject of Domestic Missions.
Whatever opinions are held on the subject of irresponsi.
ble associations, or ecclesiastical supervision and control,
they are applicable to the Foreign as well as the Domes.
tic Missionary work."
According this paper, therefore, the “dissensions" over
the missionary work were the causes that led to the suide
lent disruption."
In 1836, the Biblical Repertory, an Old School Quar-
terly, reviewing the action of the Assembly on the-Mis-
sionary question, said: “Thus ended this important de
cision. We fear the result has inflicted a deeper wound
on the prosperity of our church than she has suffered for
a long time."
• The Missionary question, then, was certainly, accor-,
ding to leading Old School men, the great matter of con-
test between the parties. · And had the majority, in 1836,
consented to let the Old School control the church, it is -
highly probable, that the lissensions," which led to a vi.
olent disruption" would have been hushed.
8 .
(86)
.
CHAPTER XIII.
: ""'MR. BARNES' CASE AGAIN-SECRET. CIRCULAR.
5
· "L'he case of Mi, Barnes came up again in the Assems
bly of 1836. The .year before, Dr. Junkin ţabled char,
ges against him before his Presbytery. They were as
follows, viz.::
.661. That sin consists in voluntary action.
2. Tial Adam (before and after the fall) was iguorant
of his moral relations to such a degree, that he did not
know the consequences of his sin would oy should reach
any further than to natural death.
. 3. That unregenerate men are able to keep the com.
mandments and convert themselves to God.
4. That faith is an act of the mind, and not a princip
ple, and in itself imputed for righteousness,"? ...
- He was charged with denying,
65. That God entered into covenaňt with Adam, con
stiluting him a federal or covenant head and representa.
tive of all his natural descendants. .
6. That the first şin of Adam is imputed to his poste.
rity.
7. That mankind are guilty, i. e, liable to punishment
on account of the sin of Adam. -
8. Thai Christ suffered the proper penalty of the law,
ins the vicarious substitute of his people, and thus took
a wáy legally their pardori.
9. That the righteousness, i, e., the active obedience of
Christ to the law is imputed to his people for their justifi.
calion ; so that they are righteous in the eye of the law,
and therefore justified.""
LO. Mi. Barnes also teaches, in opposition to the
SY
standards, that justification is simply pardon." [Barnesa
Trial, page 105 and onwards.].
The proofs relied on by Dii Junkin were all quoted
from Barnes' Nokes on the Romans, a work every one
can see for himself.
The Presbytery decided, that the charges were not sus-
tained. Dr. Junkin appealed from their decision to the
Synod of Philadelphia, which met at York, l'a., October,
1835.
The case occupied the attention of Synod about it
week. " Mr. Barnes was regarded as a leading man a.
mong those who were charged with holding a general
atonement, &c. It was pretty welt understood, that if he
went overboard, so would Drs. Beecher, Skinner, Cox,
a case that excited great interest. Besides, Mr.- Barnes
was greatly beloved by his friends, and was a minister, .
whose gentlemanly deportmrnt, whose piety and talents
commanded the respect even of the Old School. During
the progress of the trial, Dr. John Breckinridge declared:
"] must say, that I never saw a more calm, self-possessed
or dignified deportment in any individual, than the accus.
ed party has exhibited before us this night." Trial, page
74.
· On the subject of Mr. Barnes' Heresy, it appeared that
the Old School were far from being agreed among them. :
selves. The Princeton Reviewer of the Notes on the
Romans, in the Biblical Repertory, did not regard Mr.
Barnes as materially wrong on Iniputation, generally con.
sidered his greatest heresy. The Reviewer, tough hos-
tile to Mr. Barnes, says: “Notwithstanding all the ob.
jections urged against this doctrine, and the obloquy
which he endeavors to fasten upon it, Mr. Barnes teaches
it to its full extent. On page 122 he says: "Men are
indubitably affected by the sin of Adam, e. g., by being
born with a corrupt disposition, with loss of righteousness,
and subjection to pain and wo. Here are evils," continues
the Reviewer, “indescribably great and dreadful, which
are declared to come on all men prior to all agency and
Concurrence of their own, for a sin committed some il1011-
sands of years before their birth, and beyond their colle
88
trol. Fariher than this who would wish to go ? Farther
the Scriptures, the Reformers, our own Standards, and
the great body of old orthodox divines do not go."
Dr. McDowell, a prominent Old School man, said, dur.
ing the trial: “I can vote with a good conscience, that Mr.
Barnes is guilty of holding great and dangerous errors,
but not that he holds fundamental errors. I believe that
he holds to the doctrine of total depravity as fully and
firmly as any man in this house, and that he believes this
depravity to be derived from our connection with Adam.
I believe that he holds that there is no salvation for a sile
ner but through Jesus Christ, and that he is saved solely
on the ground of the merits of Christ, and that he be.
comes interested in these merits exclusively by faith.
And I believe farther, that he holds to the absolute neces.
sity of the influences of the Holy Spirit to convert and
sanctify the soul. I have long known that he differed
from me in his mode of explaining some of these points,
but I am satisfied that on the great and fundamental doc-
trines of our religion, he preaches in this way." Trials;
page 255.
The majority of the Synod, however, voted against Mr.
Barnes, adopting the following resolutions : *
1
of the whole case, the decision of the (Assembly's) Sec-
ond Presbytery of Philadelphia, in the case of the charges.
of said George Junkin against the said Albert Barnes be,
and the same is hereby reversedy, as contrary to truth and
righteousness, and the Appeal declared to be sustained.
2. That some of the eriors alleged in the charges to be
held by the said Albert Barnes, are fundamental; and all
of them contrary to the standards of the Presbyterian
Church in the United States, and that they do contravene
the system of truth therein taught, and set forth in the
Word of God.
3. That the said Albert Barnes be, and he hereby is
suspended from the exercise of all the functions proper to
the gospel ministry, until he shall retract the errors here-
by condemned, and give satisfactory evidence of repent.
ace."
Mr. Barnes appealed from this decision of Synod to
The General Assembly. Thus the case came before the
Assembly of 1836. Dr. Junkin, the prosecutoi, was
heard at length. Mr. Barnes then made his "noble de-
fence." All wlio wanted to speak, for or against, were
heard. And when the final question was put, “Sustain
or not sustain the appeal of Mr. Barnes ?" the vote stood
thus: For sustaining the appeal 134-Not suşlaining 96.
The following resolution was then offered:
... Resolved'. That the decision of the Synod of Phi.
ladelphia, suspending the Rev. Albert Barnes from ali
the functions proper to the gospel ministry be, and it is
hereby reversed."
When the vote was taken on this reso!ution, there were
* A yes 145--Noes 77." Thus Mr. Barnes was honorably.
acquitted any restored to the ministry by this large. ma.
jority of the General Assembly.
Dr. Miller, though voting for the restoration of Mr.
Barnes, offered a resolution, the substance of which was,
that while the Assembly will not condemn the man they
will condemn his book. This was rejected by a vote of
122 to 109. .
It is also true, ihat among those who voted to acquit
Mr. Barnes, there was not perfect uniformity of senti-
theirs, and that they approved his phraseology. Others
said, that if Mr. Barnes was condemned, that they, holding
that some of his views were correct, would also be con-
demned. Dr. Peter's said, “When I heard of the sentence
of his suspension, I regarded it as a blow struck at one
half of the Presbyterian Church. I shall not vote to l'e-
store him on the ground of toleration; he has a right to
be a member in our connexion."
Whether or not Drs. Peters, Skinner, and oiher's concur
with Mr. Barnes in all his views, is uncertain. But it is
certain that the Assembly did not endorse Mr. Barnes:
Book. Such a thing they would not do for any man's.
system. In their answer to the Protest of Dr. Phillips.
and others, they say:
61. That by their decision they do not intend to, and
do not, in fact, make themselves responsible for all the
phraseology of Mr. Barnes; some of which is not suf-
90
ficiently guarded ard is liable to be misunderstood; and
which we doubt not Mr. Barnes, with reference to his.
usefulness, and the peace of the church, will miodily so as
to prevent, as far as may be, the possibility of misconcepe
tion.
2. Much less do the Assembly adopt as doctrines, con.
sistent with our stindards, and to be tolerated in our
church, the errors alleged by the prosecutor, as contained
in the Book on the Romans. It was a question of fact,
whether the errors alleged are contained in the Book, and
by the laws of exposition, in the conscientious exercise
of their own rights and duties, the Assembly have come
to the conclusion that the Book does not teach the errors
charged."
The failure of the Old School, in the Assembly of
1836, in carrying out their measures, was signal. They
felt it Jeeply. Thoy had hoped, by the condemnation of
Mi: Barnes, to awe the New School party, and thus bring
them into complete subordination, and that they would find
little difficulty afterwards in the control of the whole
church. They also hoped to have the church committed
by ecclesiastiaal orgapization, to an Asscmbly's Board of
Foreign Missions, and that then there would not be much -
difficulty in calling off the patronage of the Presbyterian
church from the A. H. M. Society, the Presbyterian.
Education Society, the American Tract Society, the A-
merican Sunday School Union '&c., when funds were
needed to carry forward the ecclesiastical Boards of the
'church.
It was evident, before the close of the Assembly, that
the Old School did not intend to submit to the General
Assembly, if they were denied the control of the church..
Accordingly, on the rising of the Assembiy, they had a
meeting for deliberation. As the meeting was private,
the whole of their transactions has never perhaps come
before the public. The following statements-in reference:
to that meeting were made soon after : viz.
6.6.1. It was requested that all who did not sympathise:
with them should retire-a request which was certainly
proper, and against which no one could take exceptions.
2. That the subject of a division of the church.was
91
then agitated, but that this was regarded as prémature and
unwise.
3. That the measure of a new Act and Testimony,
and another Convention to be publicly called to meet in
Philadelphia, in 1837, just before the meeting of the As.
sembly, was proposed. To this it was objected, that the
trial had been made; that these, public measures had rous.
ed the other party, and had been the occasion of their
own defcat; and that some less public mode of action
would, in existing circumstances, best subserve their puj-
posesi
4. That it was then proposed that a Committee should
be appointed to correspond secretly with their friends, to
consult them on the proper measures to be pursued, and lo
suggest. that a Convention should assemble in Philadelphia
in 1837, in the week before the meeting of the Assembly.”
See Journal and Luminary, Oct. 6, 1836.
A committee of ten was appointed to correspond, and
to.carry out the measures: of the meeting. This com.
miitee, in due time, sent out what was calied the Secret
Circular."' to all who were believed to be of their party,
and not to the whole church or all her ministers. By
September it fell into wrong, hands, and found its way
into the papers. It may be seen in the Journal and Lu.
minary, Sept. 29, 1836. The Circular complained-great-
ly of ihe Assembly~its action in the case of Mr. Barnes,
the Missionary question, &c. It then closes with a num-
ber of enquiries such as- "And now, Dear Brother, in
view of the whole subject, we ask you, what ought to be
done?"
This document was clothed in cautious phraseology,
It seemed desirous of information. It was designed to
feel the pulse of the party, at the same time inviting crim.
ination, and intelligence in reference to those who belong.
ed to the opposite party. It looked to ulterior measures,
the division of the Church. The committee, in their let.
ter, inquire if it is possible, under the circumstances, that
the parties can remain together. It was evidently expect-
ed that all who were addressed would answer in the nega-
tive.
The Secret Circular was sent out in July. The answers
95
.
given encouraged the committee to take strong ground.
in September they issued a pamphlet of forty pages-i An
address to Ministers and Elders and members of the Presto
byterian church in the United States.". All disguise was
thrown off. They declared that the church must be di.
vided. They said: “We are a divided church-as really
divided as though we were called by different names and
existed under different organizations. The schism has
already come.”
In this same - Address," speaking of the New School
party, which was then a majority, they say, “Whatever
else may be dark, this is clear, we cannot continue in the
same body. We are not agreed, and it is in vain to ato
tempt to walk together. In some way or other, therefore,
these men (the New School) must be separated from us."****
Address, page 40.
The conduct of this committee, as well as sone others,
has been severely censured by the Constitutional party.
Dr. Phillips, the chairman of the committce, and one other ·
member had rather recently come into the Presbyterian
Church from the Seceders, or some such rigid sect. Dr:
Junkin, the prosecutor of Mr. Barnes, and Mr. Engles, the
Editor of the Presbyterian, the organ of the Old School
party, were not raised in the Presbyterian Church, but
came into the church from a foreign body. It was deem-
ed very indecorous for them to complain of " foreign in-
fluence," and of the Congregationalists coming into the
Presbyterian church. It was considered very officious in.
them, that they should, among their first acts, endeavor to .
excite suspicions and whisperings, and really demand that
ane half of the church should be turned out in some
way. or other separated from us."
Heavy censure also fell on three other members of the
committee--Rev. Messrs. Breckinridge, McDowell and
McFarland--one a Professor in the Theological Seminary
at Princeton, another Secretary and General Agent of the
Assembly's Board of Missions, and the third Secretary .
and General Agent of the Assembly's Board of Educa-
tion. It was urged that they were salaried officers of the
church and not of a party ; that the Assembly, when it.
made or sanctioned the appointments, did it without any
1
expectation that they would engage in an enterprise to
dismember the church. It was stated, that these three
gentlemen were sustained from the funds of the church at
an annual expense of not less than six thousand dollars;
and that the appropriation was not made to enable them.
to revolutionize the body that employed them.
The Old School party, by this time, had assumed a' sort
of politico-religious organization. They advocated and
held conventions. They sent out among the churches
Addresses, Circulars, Speeches und extra Newspapers in
great quantitios. They established presses at different
points, many of which could not be sustained by the
merits of the cause. Individuals have given as high as
one hundred dollars at a time, and individual churches.
hundreds of dollars, to sustain certain papers in this
worki
..
:
::(94) ..
CHAPTER XIV.
POLICY OF THE TWO PARTIES ÎN REFERENCE TO
THE DIVISION OF THE CHURCH.
The parties differed entirely in their policy during the
interval between the rising of the Assembly in 1836 and
the meeting in 1837. The Old School party were for the
division of the church, and the New School against it.
This part of the history of the church ought to he pre-
served. A few statements from documentary evidence
will suffice.
In 1834, the Act and Testimony me'n were only a part
of the Old School. It would be unfair to attribute their
designs to the whole party, at that period. These men',
however, were understood by their own party to be aim-
ing at the dismemberment of the church. The Prince-
ton Professors, in reviewing, in the Biblical Repertory, the
Act and Testimony, say: "Division, then, is the end to
which this enterprise leads, and at which, we doubt not it
aims:" This, however, was denied, in the Presbyterian,
by one of the signers. But the Reviewers say: "We
have, heard other signers of this Act and Testimony,
however, very distincily avow their desire to effect a di.
vision of the church."
It was not, however, till 1836, that the Old School party
generally could be brought up to devisive measures. The .
party's committee, in their “Address,” came out very
boldly. They said : "Whatever else may be dark, this
is clear, we cannot continue in the same.body. We are
not agreed, and it is in vain to attempt to walk together.
In some way or other, therefore, these men must be separa.
ted from us." Page 40..
95.
.
This was the policy advocated by the Editors of the re-
ligious papers, under the control of the Old Schools
The Editor of the Western Presbyterian Herald, (16th
June, 1836,) writing from Pittsburgh, says: “But a little
while ago, we would have heard of division alınost with
horror: now it is the subject of common conversation in
alimost every circle."
This Editor, week after week, came out manfully in
favor of division. He says: “We are of opinion that, in
the actual state of the case, formal division is not only in.
evitable, but is desirable." "We set out to illustrate the
necessity, and under the present painful but unavoidable
circumstances, the desirableness of the ultimate division
of our church by this simple idea, that we constitute al.
ready two distinct, widely separated, and nearly equal
parties." W. P. Herald, July 21, 1836.
“The practical question, how shall we divide, is certain.
ly one of great difficulty. We suppose that this is the
reason why the division of the Presbyterian Church has
not occurred before this time.” 6This much is clear, that
nothing should be done hastily, violently, in bad temper,
or without ample conference among all concerned."? “We
cannot relinquish the hope, that when the subject shall
}aye been fully considered, the necessity of separation
will be seen to be. so imperious, and its propriety will be
so obvious, that the great body of the church will concur
in some mode of amicable division." "We trust that
none will secede ; let us all.do what we can to l'ouse the
church.” W. P. Herald, August 18th, 1836.
In the same nuinber, after hoping that the next As.
sembly would give to the Old School their desired prepon-
derance, he says: “But if this be not so, perhaps some
peaceable mode of separation may be adopted. Let us
wait patiently and prayerfully to see. Should not even
.
jority of the New School, ready to pursue the policy and
adhere to the principles of the last Assembly, then we
may conclude, that the time for separation has, beyond a
doubt, arrived, and separate organizations of Synods, or
violent disruption of the body, by the orthodox planting
themselyes upon the constitution, declaring themselves the
church, and excommunicating the errorists, will probably
ensue,"
In the fall of 1836, the Old School party began to hope,
from the action of the Presbyteries and Synods, that, ia
the next Assembly, they would have a majority. After
this, the Editors of their papers said but little about an
samicable division." They seemed to anticipate a ma-
jority--strength enough to make a division that would suit
themselves. The Editor of the W. P. Herald, (3d Nov.
1836,) speaking as though division were certain, says:
"As to which way the work will go, surely when in-
truders (meaning the New School) have disturbed our house,
and will neither come to order, nor quietly leave u s, upon
mutual agreement, we will put them out as soon as we are
strong enough ; and the signs of the times are beginning
to intimate, that this may be sooner than any of us ex.
pected a little while ago."
Again he says: "Should there be such a strength of
orthodox men in the next Assembly as to prove the sound-
ness of the great majority of the church, we take it for
granted that the body will commence, in good earnest, a
system.of reform that will soon clear our church of those
who have no right to a place in it. Should there be a
majority of those who favor error in the next Assembly,
and thus the majority appear against the orthodox once
more, we see not what hope of reform will remain ; and
in some form or other the alternative of division must be
taken." W. P. Herald, December 29, 1836.
It will be seen here which way the work was to go."
The church was to be cleared of those who had “no right
to a place in it." Drs. Phillips, Junkin, Engles, &c. only
a few years before coming into the Presbyterian Church
from foreign bodies, Seceders, &c. are to drive out win-
truders"--scores and hundreds of minietsrs and people
who were born and educated in the Presbyterian church!
It will be seen, when quotations are made from Old
School papers, with what complacency they appropriate
to themselves the terms--the orthodox"-"We, the ortho-
dox." But it must be borne in mind, that the other party
did not allow them an exclusive. right to this modest
claim. They contended that, according to the Book of
97
God, and the Confession of Faith, and the decisions of
the Assembly, they too were sthe orthodox;"
It will also be seen why the Old School are often called
"Reformers.” They often speak of “ Reform," and call
their measures 66 reform acis.". They were sensible, how.
ever, of the incongruity of thë names - Old School" and
6. Reformers," and have not generally relished the latter.
But we return to our extracts. Its (the Convention's)
motto will no doubt be, Reform if possible--division only
as an alternative. And that division, if necessary, such
doubtless as to show that the orthodox are the true Pres-
byterian párty, and those whom they may leave:or expel.,
only so in name." W.P. Herald, Feb. 2, 1837. .
The samé policy was advocated by the Editor of the
Southern Christian Herald, an Old School paper. In 1836,
he says: “That the controversy is more painful to the
orthodox than to their opponents, who exclaim against it
so incessantly and so loudly, is proved by the faot, that
they (the Old School) are so anxious for a separation, as
well to get rid of it, as to testify to the truth, while their most
active opponents revile , them more for a movement with
this view, than they do for a continuance of the contro-
versy itself."
In 1836, after the Convention of 1837 had been deter-
mined on, the Presbyterian, the organ of the Old School
party, advocated division. A correspondent of that pa-
per, in speaking of the object of the Convention, said:
"Let it be distinctly understood, that the precise object for
which it is called, is to effect a division of the Church, and
to deliberate on the manner of accomplishing this grea:t
and noble work."
Not only did the Editors of their papers advocate di-
vision, but the same policy was advocated in their Con-
ventions. In 1836, a writer in the Presbyterian, said to
be Mr. Musgrave, of Baltimore, a member of the Assem-
bly of that year, and of the secret meeting at the close
of the Assembly, said, in reference to that meeting : "The
question was anxiously and solemnly discussed, in the
meetings of the party What is to be done?. Many re-
plied, let us immediately separate. Others said, 'let us
call a Convention, for the purpose of more general con-
sultation and united action. If the first named proposi-,
iion had been put to vote, I have good reason for believing,
that two thirds would haġe answered, let us separate.'"
In the Old School Convention of 1837, Dr. Junkin, who
ought to know, said: “That convention never would have
been called, but for the purpose of separating the Pelagians
(the Dr's name for the New School) from the sound part
of the church."
The Assembly of 1837, after the excision, in.their-Pas-
toral Letter, say : “Discerning men have perceived, for a
Duinber 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."
The Old School, or rather the New Basis Assembly of
1833, after the schism had occurred, in their Pastoral Let-
ter, say: -The last "General Assembly acted under the
conviction, that the only possible way to secure peace was
by the separation of the parties in our church." They
say certain measures were adopted "to effect this separa:
tion.” And for themselves they say, "hat they rejoice
that this separation is thus far effected.”
The policy of the New School was very different. Du-
ring this protracted controversy, the. Editors of the Old
ern Religious Telegraph, Cincinnati Journal, and other
New School.papers, because they opposed the division of
the church, and urged that the parties should let their mod:
cration .be known of all men,
A writer in the W. P. Herald, July 7, 1836, calls the
Southern Religious Telegraph oba professerlly neutral pa.
ger.” He says of the Editor : "He has labored assidu-.
ously to persuade the churches ihat they were warring av
bout words." .
A writer in the W. P. Herald, July 28, 1836, şays.:
6.New School men, from the beginning, declared that there
was no material difference between them and the standards
of the church and their Old School brethren."
Dr. Wilson, sa.y.s : "Among those who have shut out
the light from the people, by professed neutrality, and the
cant of no difference, I consider the Editors of the Southern
.
.
99
.
i
•
Religious Telegraph and Cincinnati Journal, as most costs
spicuous.17. W. P. Herald, July 19, 1837. Dr. Wilson,
it will be admitted on all hands, is a good witness. :: Well,
here he represents the opponents of his party as opposed
lo controversy and divisiời, crjirginerutality" and "rio
dillereñce." .. .
"A correspendent of the W. P. Herald, July 26, 1939,
represents the whole Anti-reforín party as opposed to
measures tending to division. He says : "The time bas
not yet passed the recollection of many, when these two
brethren-Editors of the Journal and Telegraph7_-772
common with the New School fraternily, locked up in the
most profound neutrality, were excessively bitter in their
opposition to all controversy and strife, recommending to
their dissatisfied brethren earnest prayer," &c.
In 1836, some valuable nòmbers appeared in the Phila-
delphia Observer, a New School paper, over the signature
of “An enemy to Schism)," whilst the Philadelphia Pres-
byterian, an Old School paper, was taking the ground that
schism was no sin.
A bout the beginning of the year 1837, Rev. Mr. White,
of South Carolina, a Constitutional. Presbyterian, in a se-
ries of published letters, remonstrated against all divisive
Heasures. His arguments were such a's were generally
urged by the Anti-reform party, stigmatized as New
School. He said the result would be--Disaffection, heart-
burnirigs and personal ill-will among coristians.--Separa-
tion of families and churches in their places of Worship.com
Dissolution of the pasioral relation-Destruction of minis.
terial intereourse and usefulness, &c. . . .
In justice to many of the Old School party, it onghi 'tu
be stated, that they were opposed to division of this
: number in 1833 was Dr. Miller. In his Letters to Pres-
byterians, he says : "Our body would be sundered into at
least four or five parties. Synods. would be divided into
several parts. Presbyteries would be rent in pieces. Con-
gregations would be found, in a multitude of cases, to be
made up of members of different sentiments, and, of course,
be severed into two or three sections, neither of whicla
would be able to sustain the regular 'ministration of the
gospel. Controversies also without end, respecting church:
property, would probably be engendered; unhallowed pas.
100
vioris would be excited, friends would be separated, fani.'
lies painfully divided, the. Saviour would be crucified afresh,
and put to an open shame among his professed disciples ;
and Zion would be bleeding and dishonored in the sight of
an unbelieving world :--and all this for what?“ Only to
remain a part for a little while, to make work for bitter
repentance." And again said the Dra.: "My voice is not
for division, but for peace and continued union."
But the peace party among the leading Reformers was
small. And their remonstrances were as. unavailing as
those of the Anti-reform party, in arresting the torrent of
innovation and revolution that was gathering over the
church.
Thus stood the two parties in 1836, when the New
School were in the majority. Thus they stood during thàt.
year, and till the meeting of the Assembly of 1837.
( 101 )
N
CHAPTER XV.
OLD SCHOOL CONVENTION OF 1834.
This Convention, called by the Committee of the Old
school party in the Assembly in 1836, met in Philadel-
phia about a week before the meeting of the General As..
sembly. 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
common fame with heresies anil disorders. The Conven-
tion went into a sort of ex parte trial of certà in 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 adops
iion. Dr. Blythe suggested the plan of citation, with iz
view to excision. He thought the course pursued by the
Synod of Kentucky, in the case of the Cumberland Pres-
hyterians, 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-report-
ed to exist, to inquire and report. The suspected Pres-
byieries were not allowed to sit in Synod till the affair
was settled. The Synod acted, cut off the unsoundand
:
102
Testored' pcace 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 iwo things—first, you put out those who
trouble you; and second, you will be prepared to admin.
ister · wholesome admonition to the suspected. This
Couso will show that you are cautious of the character of
Jour brethren. You will not impcach them till inquiry is
niade in an orderly manner. But if something of this
sort is not done, what will the world say ?" See Wes..
tern Presbyterian Herald, June 1, 1837. .
Dr. Junkin offered a resolution:: . That tlie orthodox
Iwould agree not to go into the Assembly, unless the Syn.
od of the Western Reserve were escluded."' *There is
coniman fame enough to cut off the Synod at the outset.''
Hicrald, June 1, 1837. .
- Mi. R.J. Breckinridge said: “All that is proposed, re..
terslo 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 violentaation. Leti
us do nothing which cannot be fully justificd. It is vain
to hope that you can exclude the persons against whom
those speeches and memorials are airned. There is no
power any where that can do it." Herald, June 1,
1837.
Dr. Baxter said: "In our general views we are unani:
mous, that the purity of the church is endangered, and
that something must be done. But we differ as to the
modo of relief." "As to some suggestions of Dr. Junking
I cannot-support them. We have no constitutional au-
ibority 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 ihe ground that we are a part:
of the judicatories.of the church, and proceed to excom-
municate our brethren, we assume high judicial powers.
and array public opinion against us.". "s]f high handed:
and apparently unconstitutional measures are taken, it
will greatly injure us. There is great distrust as to the
designs of the orthodox: it is supposed that the friends of:
the constitution propose to alter the constitution. And if:
103
..
the Convention resolved to set aside Synods, and excom-
municate them, it willinjure us by confirining these fears."
Herald, June 1, 1837,
- Mr. Breckinridge said: “The decision on the Forcign:
Missionary question of the last Assembly, was an outrage ;
but preceding Assenblies had already implied the same
decision to refuse a Presbyterian organization. All the
great principles that are developed in our system were.
intrenched on years ago as fully as now..?'' "Let it. be:
recollected, too, that ito get upart from the unsound, is not
the only thing to be done. It must not be done on the
principles which may destroy ourselves." "I have asked
å hundred brethren, 'what is your view of getting apart ?'
Yet rot one has given me a clear, distinct, detailed
statement which he was willing to adopt." Horald, June
1, 1837.
Mr. Musgrave said :: 65I 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 Associations ; I call them not benevolent,
but' party engines:" "But we forget the machinery that
is at work against us, manufacturing and sending out
ministers so rapidly, that if we simply wait, discuss and.
do not act, in tweive months our case will be entirely hope.
less. Some of our brethren are already clear that the
present state of things is no longer tolerable. They will
have a reform or separation." : What then is to be done
with such men, who are false and deceivers ? Ve can--
not live with them se 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. Breck-
inridge says we must: not take a step in the dark. But
can we not legislate conditionally, and take the first step.
that is clear? Is not the course plain.? If we have the
power, as I hope we shall have-although I am not very
sanguineis it not clear that men who leach doctrines..
confessedly at variance with our standards must be cut off,
and the institutions which divide and ruin us imust be de-
stroyed ? This is clear. Let us then, determine that:
those bodies, which are corrupt shall be arraigned åndi
104
öried. My plan would be to cite them, bring them to your
bar, get a Committee to present the facts to the next As.
sembly, and you exclude them fiom all power till ihe 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 aro tired of war, and that it is destructive of r6o*
rivals-except about two months before the ineering of
the General Assembly. Well, we say so too. We are
sick and weary of their falseness and their assaults, we
want rest. 2: Buli suppose we c.innot 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-Azor
sembly, we are a dead minority-not an accidental minori.
ty, but we never shall be a majority. If the last Aggen
bly and other Assemblies have not brought up the church
to secure a majority, all hope is gone. Your 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? 1f reform be impossi-
ble, the imperative alternative is separation."... Let us
cling together and strive for victory, or fall in the effort."
Herald, June 1, 1837.
It will be seen from the debates in the Convention, that
the members: aimed at one of two things : reform or
separation. And from the debates it will be seen what
was meant by reform. It was to secure to the Old School
a majority, and effectually to put the New School in the
minority.: Mr. Musgrave says :-"If the last Assembly
and other Assemblies have not brought up 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 permanent majority for the Old School was, with ono
portion of the Convention; the loadiny object in this busi..
ness of boreform." "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 we
stever shall be a majority." Whether such measures, on:
105
the part of a minority, to gain the ascendency, is not a
reform; that needs to be reformed, is: a question to be de.
cided by the impartial reader:
Whilst some would have been satisfied with a perma-
nent majority, others would not have been content with
any thing short of a division of the church. Mr. Breck-
inridge was clear that the church ought "to get apart.”
Dr. Junkin urged that: “That Convention never would
have been called, but for the purpose of sepnrating the
Pelagians (the Dr's name for New School) from the sound
part of the church."
But this policy was not urged by all. "Dr. Blythe
spoke at some length in opposition to measures of separa-
tion. He wanted to contend-was opposed to cutting off.
any Synodstill tried." Herald, June 1. 1837..
Dr. Junkin said: “We ought to have some plan. We
must not count on a majority; let us have some settled
principles. Do not trust a New School majority to arraign
and cut off New School men, and New School Presby.
teries. If we have a majority we can do what. we please ;:
and we know whatiwe shall do." "We must be prepared
for anıputation, difficult 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 As-
sembly. Dr. Junkin urged the Convention in such a case,
wat once to bring in its ultimatum. and say--we are deters.
mined as one mang.that' unless this reform is inimediately.
effected, we will cut you off. We are the Presbyterian
church; you are not, but are undermining its founda-
tions."
Dr. Blythe's plan savored a little more of modesty. He
hoped, "that if the orthodox were in a minority in the
Assembly, they would: rise in a body, leave the house and.
go on with the business of the church."
Mr. Breckinridge seemed not to be pleased with any one's
plan. but his own, if plan: he had. He said :.6.We need not:
detail. plans for the General Assembly; I will not agree:
to make the Moderator the Dictator of the General As-
sembly. I will go as far as any one for sound Presbyte-
rian. doctrine and order... But not for measures unconsti.
.
106
tutional, such as the exclusion of any body regularly com.
missioned to the General Assembly”
After five or six days had beeii spent by the Conven.
tion in a wide range of discussion, Dr. Wilson from the
business committee, "presented a resolution, declaring
that in case the Assembly shall not take measures for re-
form, this Convention 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 Assem:bly. If we proceed
now to say what that action ought to be, we shall be great-
ly divided in. opinion, and cannot agree in any thing to be
determined upon. It will moreover be very injudicious in
us to present a request to the Assembly for important re-
forms, and dictate to them, by threats, wliat 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 Pres.
byterian church."
"Dr. Wilson objected to the word "Pelagian" in the
amendment. In all the charges for ſalse doctrine which
he had framed, he had nevar accused any man of Pelaa
gianism. There is a great deal of Semi-Pelagianism and
Armenianism in the church; but if there be Pelagianism
I do not know it. If the amendment be adopted, I shall
insist on determining the modus operandi of the separa.
tion. This is the last Convention I shall ever attend it" 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 meduce the
General Assembly. It is utterly out of place for us to de-
cide for the Assembly and dictate to them."
Dr: Baxter said :41 am not prepared for revolutionary
measures. To attempt such would be usurpation in us.
Even if we proclaim division, and the church sustains us,
107
and a new General Assembly is formed out of the ortho.
dox portion of the church, still the whole affair has a most
irregular origin":
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,
Congregationalism, Hopkinsianism, New Havenism, Aba-
lition, Slavery, Voluntary Societies, &c.
į 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 oth-
er voluntary societies, and especially the American
Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions be request-
ed to use greater caution in respect to the interference, by
their agents, in the controversies of the Presbyterian
church.” “I mean this,' said Mr. Breckinridge, as an
indictment of the Am. B. C. F. Missions."
Mr. Plumer said: “There has been no evidence fur.
nished to my mind that the bodies here aimed at have done
wrong. The improprieties are the improprieties of the
agents.".
Mr. Smith.of Charleston, said: “If the language of the
amendment be right, as respects the Am. B. C. F. Mis.
sions, it is equally applicable to the agents of the Wes.'
tern Foreign Missionary Society, (Old School,) for the
agents of that Board have interfered with us."
Mr. Engles said: “In the station which l occupy, I have
had access to a number of facts illustrating the influence
of Voluntary Associations on the controversies of the
Presbyterian church. All of them, in a greater or less
degree, have meddled. Yet I think the introduction of this
amendment unhappy ; it has consumed time, and excited
unpleasant feeling. Notwithstanding the explanations
that have been given of this amendment, it. implies strong
.censure. Of all the societies 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 Sun: :
day School Union and the Tract Society are much more
so, if they are to be held responsible for the doings of their
agents."
.
108
"The Convention at last agreed upon a Memorial to the
General Assembly. It was presented to the Convention
by Mr. Breckinridge, the author of the Act and Testimo-
ny, and is much in character with that document, though
prepared with more caution. It ireats, 1. "In relation to
doctrine, "2...In relation to church order,". 3. “Iu ré.
lation to discipline." 4. "Method or Reform."
( 109 )
CHAPTER XVI.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF 1837.:
The Assembly met after the Convention had been in ses,
sion about a week, and before its final adjourument. The
election of Moderator showed a majority for the Old School
party.
The Memorial of the Convention was presented to the
Assembly the next day after it met. - After some opposi-
tion it was i'eceived, read, and acted upon, and was made
the foundation of the famous Reform Acts of 1837, wliich
resulted in the schism of the church.
The first measure proposed, was the abrogation of the
Plan of Union of 1801. The following is there solution :
. As the Plan of Union, adopted for the new settle.
Mients 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 proceeding from
the General Association of Connecticut, which is investeri
with no power to legislate in such cases, and especially to
enact laws to regulate churches not within her limits; and
as much confusion and irregularity have arisen from this
uanatural and unconstitutional systena of union, therefore,
it is resolved, that the Act of the Assombly of 1801, en.
titled a "Plan of Union," be, and the same is hereby ali.
rogaled.”
This was carried by a vote of 143 10 110, some Neni
School men, as Dr Cleland, voting for it for the sake of
peace.
Against this resolution of the Assembly the minority
protested. They urged, that the plan was not unconsti.
10
110
fuiional-that the plan was never submitted to the Pres.
byteries, because it was not regarded as possessing the na-
ture of "Constitutional rules, to be obligatory on all the
churches,” but merely an agreement with another body
about churches in the new settlements--that, the Assem.
hlr of 1801 had only exercised the power granted it by the
Form of Government [Chap. ). Sec. 2.] in declaring "the
terms of admission into the communion" of the Presby.
jerian church--that the Plan of Union, now declared 10
be unconstitutional, was formed TWENTY YEARS before the
adoption of the present constitution of the church--that
this Plan, at the time of the adoption of the present con-
stitution, was in full operation, and of acknowledged au.
thority as common law in the church--that it had been
recognised as constitutional, by the General Assembly,
from year to year, for more than one third of a century--
and that the Plan was not sunnatural," but a most natural,
wise and benevolent plan for promoting the unity, increase,
and purity of the church in the new settlements.
The minority also objected to the mode in which the re-
solution was brought before the Assembly, urging that a
majority of the Committee, to whom the Memorial was re-
ferred, were members of the Convention that presented the
Memorial, and that more than eighty, who voted for the
resolution in the Assembly, were members of the Conven,
tion in whose name the Memorial was presented.
The next measure was to ciie certain judicatories to apo
pear before the Assembly. This was considered a test
question, and showed that in an Assembly of two hundred
and fifty members, the Old School or Reform party had a
lenn majority of only six. The following resolution pass:
cd by a vote of 128 to 122, viz. ;
"Resolved, That the proper steps be now taken to cite
to the bar of the next Assembly, such inferior judicato:
ries as are charged by common fame with irregularities."
Against this resolution and two others on the same subo
ject, there was, as above stated, a strong vote. The plan
of citation would have been constitutional, yet it was op:
posed by the minority on the ground that they did not be.
lieve that the accused judicatories were guilty. This plan
was, however; soon abandoned by the majority, as tog
111
*iledious and troublesome.” And, at once, their entire
policy was changed.
After this a committee of ten was appointed to effect an
amicable division of the church. But this measure ſailor
ed. The reason will be stated herefter
The next measure was to cut off the Synod of the Wes-
tern Reserve. The resolution was as follows:
"Resolved, That by the operation of the abrogation of
Reserve is, and is hereby declared to be no longer a part
of the Presbyterian church in the United States of Amero
ica."
Against this resolution the commissioners from that
Synod protested. They considered this act, by which they
were excluded, sunconstitutional and unjust." They as.
serted that they were regularly commissioned, had been
udmitted and had exercised the rights of members for two
weeks—that their Presbyteries had a regular existence,
according to the constitution--that some of them existed
prior to the adoption of the constitution in 1821, and par-
ticipated in that act. They say: "If there was any thing
wrong in the original organization of our Presbyteries.com
which we do not admit or believe--this wrong was charge-
whose act our original Presbyteries received their exis-
tence, which act has been sanctioned by twenty-two Gen-
eral Assemblies, up to the present time." They con-
plained that this new discovery of unconstilutionality,
which could relate to accommodation churches” only,
should drive Presbyteries, ministers, elders and people, re-
gularly introduced according to the most orthodox form,
from their rights and privileges without a trial. They
urged the disastrous and suicidal bearing of such a policy
upon the churches hat under its operation any member,
or number of members, who may happen to be obnoxious
to the majority, may, under some pretext or other, be
driven from the church without citation or trial.
This very policy was indeed carried out in the next
great reforın measure--the excision of three Synods in
the State of New York. The following resolutions were
adopted : viza
112
"Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the Pres-
byterian Church in the United States of America,
*1. That in consequence of the abrogation, by ibis
Assembly, of the Plan of Union of 1801, between it and
The General Association of Connecticut, as utterly uncon-
stilutional, and therefore pull and void from the begin-
ning, the Synods of Utica, Geneva and Genesee, which
Here formed and attached to this body, under and in ex.
ecution of sirid Plan of Union, be, and are hereby declar.
td to be out of the ecclesiastical connexion of the Presby.
terian church of the United States of America, and that
they are not in form or in fact an integral portion of said
church.
2. That the solicitude of the Assembly on the whole
subject, and its urgency for the immediate decision of it,
are greatly increased by reason of the gross disorders
which are ascertained to have prevailed in those Synods,
(as well as that of the Western Reserve, against which a
declarative resolution, similar to the first of these, has
beon passed during our present session,) it being made
clear to us, that even the Plan of Union itself was never
consistently carried into effect by those professing to act
under it.
3. That the General Assembly has no intention, by
these resolutionsor by that passed in the case of the Synod
of the Western Reserve, to effect in any way the ministerial
standing of any members of either of said Synods, nor to
disturb the pastoral relation in any church; nor to inter-
fere with tho duties or relation of private christians in their
respective congregations ; but only to declare and deter-
mine, according to the truth and necessity of the case,
irnd by virtue of the full authority existing in it for that
purpose, the relation of all said Synods, and all their con-
stituent parts to this body, and to the Presbyterian church
in the United States.
4. That inasmuch as there are reported to be several
cliurcles and ministers, if not one or two Presbyteries,
now in connexion with one or more of said Synods, which
ille strictly Presbyterian in doctrine and order, be it, therc-
fore, further resolved, that all such churches and ministers
as wish to unite with us, are hereby directed to apply for
113
admission into those Presbyteries belonging to our con:
nexion which are most convenient to their respective lor
cations; and that any such Presbytery as aforesaid, being
strictly Presbyterian in doctrine and order, and now in
connexion with either of said Synods, as may desire to
unite with us, are hereby directed to make application,
with ar full statement of their cases; to: the next General
Assembly, which will take proper order thereon.”
The vote on the first resolution was, Yeas 115—Nays
88. The minority had been made less by the exclusion of
the members of the Synod of the Western Reserve. The
vote, however, shows that the Synods were excluded by ir
minorily of the Assembly as constituted. Out of ivo
hundred and fifty who had voted on the citation question,
sonly 115 voted to cut off the three Synods in New York.
After the above resolution had been offered, Mr. Jessup,
one of the minority, moved their postponement with a
view of introducing the following substitute, viz. :
"Whereas, it has been alleged, that the Synods of Ger
neva, Genesee and Utica, of the Presbyterian church in
the United States of America, have been guilty of impor-
tant delinquency and grossly unconstitutional proceedings,
and: a resolution predicated on this allegation to exclude
the said Synods from the said Presbyterian church, has
been offered in this Assembly; and, whereas, no'specified
act of sáid Synods has been made the ground of proceed-
ing 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 those bodies on this floor, and an inquiry into
the whole matter is demanded; andy, whereas, a majority
of the members of the Synods have had no previous notice
of these proceedings, nor of the existence of any charge
against them, individually and collectively, nor any oppor-
tunity of defending themselves against the charges so.
Brought against them.
Therefore, Resolved, That the Synods of Utica, Ge-
neva and Genesee, be, and hereby: are cited to appear on
the third Thursday of May next, at Philadelphia, 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 neces--
1.0
114
sary, generally to answer any charges that may or can be
alleged against them, to the end ihat the whole matter
may be examined into, deliberated upon, and judged of, ac.
cording to the Constitution and Discipline of the Presby.
terian church is the United States of America."
This course, which would have been constiiùtional, was
rejejled by the majority, and the motion to postpone was
cut off by the previous question. . .
Against this excinding act;the Commissioners from tlie
excinded: Synods, protested. They deemed the act utter-
ly unconstitutional and unprecedented. They contended
that the Book of Discipline gave to the Assembly no
power to adopt such a mode of procedure, in the trial and
uudisliment of ministers and members. They complain.
ed, that, when the regular and consiitutional method of
trial was proposed, the majority rejected it; and proceéda
four or five hundred ministers in good and regular stand-
ing. They asserted that the majority of the churches
within the bounds of said Synods were strictly Presbyta-
yian in tlieir structure, and with fow foxceptions, even the
small numher of churches originally Congregational, were
not orgunized under the stipulations of the said Plan of
Union, but come in under a different arrangement, and
possessed rights on this subject, separate from, and indu.
NA
TI
by the Assembly of 1898, by which the Synod of Albany
was authorized to take the Middle Association" under its
€ure. They urged, that their Presbyteriés and Synods
had teen constitutionally formed, and, as such, had no dc.
perdonce upon the Plan of Union, or any other plan, ard-
that their minis!ers had been regularly inducted into the
office of the ministry. They complained that the Con:
vention party were permitted to utter vague and injurious
reports, and when requested, refused to give names, pla-
ces or dati's—iliat "although the riglit was insisted upon,
not a single commissioner from any one of the three Syn:
ods could obtain the floor to address the Assembly on the
resolution, beir:g put down by the motion for the previous
question."
The impartial reader of this portion of the history of
the controversy will be surprised at the contradictory pa.
.
115
.
sitionsoften assumed by the Reformers-such as he will
find in the short compass of the excinding resolutions a-
bove. In the ihird resolution the Assembly bad "no inten.
tión, by these reso!litions to effect' in any way the minis
Lorial standing of any members of either of said Synods."
Yet in the second resolution, they had said, that ihe As-
sembly's surgency” on this subject was greatly increas.
cd by reason of the gross disorders which are ascertain-
od to have prevailed in those Synods."'
The Assembly declared that their acts were not intendo
ed to interfere with the organization and peace of the Syn.
ods, but to show the true condition of those Synods, to
be out of the ecclesiastical connexion of the Presbyterian
Church." And yet the last resolution directs Presbyto:
ries, ministers and churches to detach themselves from
their Synods, and seek a new connexion with the Reform-
ers, thus attempting to exercise authority over bodies de..
clared to be."out of” their connexion--and thus attempt-
ing to disturb their order and peace!
The Editor of the Protestant and Heralu, March 7,
1839, speaking of the excision, says : No. censure was
passed either upon the churches of ministers." But
soon he says: “We now leave the candid reader to de.
cide whether the Old School, as watchmen on the walls of
Zion, were nut bound to take decisive steps to arrest the
progress of dangerous error in our beloved church."
Tere it is stated ihat the Synods were severed, because
the Old School “were bound to take decisive steps to ar
rest the progress of dangerous error," or in the language
of the excinding resolution, because of " gross disorders.'
And yet we are told, no censure was passed either upon
the churches or their members."
In 1837, after the excision, Dr. Miller, in writing to Mr.
Plumer, and in speaking of the excinded ministers, says:
Their ininisterial character is left untouched." Herald,
Sept. 21, 1837.
Mr. Plumer must have smiled at this declaration, when
he contrasted it with his own famous speech in the Assem-
bly, when these excinding resolutions were discussed. An
extract will be given to shew how-their ministerial char.
acler was left untouched.” He said: “We have been told ·
that there have been extensive revivals of religion in the
116
regions of the church of which we speak." "It was re-
ported that a great revival was going on in a certain place;.
and some of these brethren must needs go up and see the
great work. It turned out to be a noisy fanatical mob of
christians and perfectionists: about 40 professou conver-
sion.” Speaking of one of their minister's, he says:
- Have you not heard of his indecencies, and his outrages
lipon all the proprieties of social life?" .6What are we
to think of a Presbytery that will permit, without cen-
sure or restraint, such a man to roam among the churches.
with clean papers, scattering errors, fire-brands and death.
wherever he goes? And what are we to think of a Syn-
od that will nourish in its bosom a Presbytery so grossly
remiss in dutv, and so criminally negligent in discipline?is
“A gentleman from that region told me he had seen young
men and girls walk the streets in broad day, hugging each
other and shouting hallelujah! This, Sir, is the natural
working of the system. It is unrestrained fanaticism.""
Herald, Aug. 3; 1837.
The scoffs of infidels against revivals of religion aro
rarely so coarse. And yet this rudeness of Mr. Plumer
met the approbation of ihe majority. In making this,
speech he was called to order by the minority. The mod:
erator said he was in order. “An appeal was taken from:
the chair; but the house sustained the moderator.” Her-
ald, Aug 3, 1837.
Yet, after this speech, and this action of the Assembly,
and the excinding resolution, charging the Synods: with:
ógross disorders,” Dr. Miller writes to Mr. Plumer :
6. Their ministerial character is left untouched ! !"
The next moasure of reform was the imperative act:-
viz :
"This Assembly now render it imperative on Presby..
teries to examine all who make application for admission:
into their bodies, on experimental religion, didactic or po:
lémic theology and church government." This was to-
operate on ministers-passing from one Presbytery to an-
otlıer, and is clearly a violation of the constitution of the-
church. Chap. 16, Art. 3i.
The next reform measure was a resolution in reference:
to new Presbyteries, which the minority urged was directly
in the face of the constitution. Chap. 22, Art. 1 and 2,
and Chap. 12, Art. 2. It is as follows:
That no commissioner from a new formed Presbytery
shall be permitted to take his seat, nor shall such coinmigo
sioner be reported by the Committee on Commissions, until
the Presbytery shall have been duly reported by the Syn-
ou, and recognised by the Assembly, and that the same
rule app!y where the name of any Presbytery has been
changed."!
The next measure of reform, was the dissolution of the
Third Presbytery of Philadelphia. The party in power
ordered the terrilory, and not the ministers of this Pres-
bytery to belong to the old Presbytery. The ministers
and churches, now out of the church, were directed to ap-
ply for admission once more, as if they never had been
in the church. This was protested against as an uncon.
stitutional measure, designed to act as an excision without
trial, or at least result in the exclusion of Mr. Barnes and
other Constitutional ministers of good standing.
And, lastly, as a measure to complete the reform, the
Assembly of 1837, in order to direct and control the or-
ganization of the next Assembly, required and received a
pledge from the clerks, that they would, in making out a
roll for the Assembly of 1838, omit the names of any
Commissioners from any of the excinded bodies.
These reform measures were viewed with astonishment
by the religious community generally. The Elditor of
the Cincinnati Journal, said: it will be seen by our colo
umns, that the effective party discipline kept up by the
convention or caucus at Philadelphia, were producing by
our last accounts, their appropriate results." "All the
forms of law., civil and ecclesiastical-all the principles of
natural justice have been set at nought."...We speak
not rashly, nor under the influence of party feeling.
wrought up: to passion. The greatness of the enormity
The Editor of the New York Observer very modestly
charges extravagance upon the Convention and the major-
ity of the Assembly. He says: "Without intending any
imputation against the honesty of the speakers, we must
caution our readers.against believing every thing that is
· 118
said in the speeches delivered at Philadelphia, either in the
Assembly or Convention."
The Editor of the Boston Recorder deurned the pro-
ceedings of the Assembly so extraordinary, that he could
not find a place for them in his paper. His remarks are
these : “We mentioned last week, in an extract from the
Presbyterian, the opening of tho sessions of that body at
Philadelphia, on the 18th ult. We could not in good con-
science toward God, nor in loving kindness to our readers,
nor in justice to ourselves, give oven an abstract of all the
proceedings of the body. We shall not attempt it."
(119)
CHAPTER XVII.
OPERATON OF THE EXCINDING ACTS-ARGUMENTS OF
THE PARTIES, FOR AND AGAINST THE EXCISION-THE
TRUE CHARACTER OF THE EXCINDING SYNODS—THE
POLICY OF THE REFORMERS.
LIU
The acts of the Assembly of 1837, which were pecu-
fiarly odious to the minority, were the excinding opera.
tions, by which five hundred and pine ministers, five hun:
dred and ninety-nine churches and about sixty thou:
sand members were severed from the church, and at once
disfranchised without notice or trial.
The advocates of reform justify their course by say:
ing, that the Plan of Union of 1801 was unconstitutional,
because it allowed committee-men to act as elders, &c,
To this it was replied, that committee-men have not been
allowed to sit in the Assembly since 1831-that the Plan
of Union had not the nature of constitutional rules-only
a contract between two denominations about frontier
churches, and, therefore, not unconstitutional; and that
thirty-six Assemblies had regarded it as constitutional.
But say the friends of the constitution, admit that the
Plan was, after thirty-six years, found to be unconstitu-
tional. Let the Legisla iure repeal the law. Indeed,
when the abrogation of the Plan was voted for, the Re-
formers intended nothing more than a repeal. A retro.
spective operation was altogether an afterthought. Dr.
Cleland and others voted for the abrogation or repeal, who
have steadily opposed the excision, and the retrospective
hearing of the repeal,
120
Under this Plan of Union contracts were made, and
monies were given, and rights vested, and without oppo.
silion for one third of a century.
In the law suit, it was proved, at length, and from the
Minutes of the Assembly, that from 1801 to 1837, the
Asseinbly had extended its jurisdiction over the territory
of the excinded Synods.
It was also proved from the Minụtes of the Assembly,
that year after year, the Assembly acknowledged the re-
ceipt of funds for education, missions, theological semina-
ries, &c., from those Synods. For six years in succes.
sion from 1813 to 1818, it was proved, that the Assembly
acknowledged the receipt of funds from the excinded re-
gion for the Seminary at Princeton. In 1815, one thou-
sand six hundred and sixty-six dollars were received for
this purpose. See McElroy's Report, pp. 31 to 36.
Could all the funds collected in that region for educa.
tion, missions, theological seminaries, &c., be accurately
summed up, they would show, that no portion of the who!e.
body have done more for the Presbyterian Church than
the excinded region.
The Constitutional party regarded this as a case almost
without parallel in civil or ecclesiastical jurisprudence-
that the General Assembly should pass an act in 1801,
under which, for thirty-six years, contracts were made,
rights vested and protection expected, and then the same
legislature, after so long a time, declare her own act, not
only unconstitutional, but the whole superstructure null
and void !
Common sense decides, that when a legislature passes
an unconstitutional act, and that act is, at the time, op:
posed, and the people refuse to acquiesce, as in the Old and
New Court question in Kentucky, the whole system ought
to fall with the repeal of the law. But where the legis.
lature passes a law, believed at the time to be constitu,
tional, to which there is no opposition, and in which the
people acquiesced for a third of a century, and then for
the same legislature, by a small majority to decide that
the old law is unconstitutional, and nullify every thing
built upon it, is, to be sure, a novel procedure in civil jua
risprudence!
The case of Georgia and the Yazoo purchase has been
121
quoted as a case in point. The Legislature of Georgia,
at one time, sold to certain individuals a large tract of land
in the Yazoo country. Under this law, the purchaser's
made grants to other individuals. But a subsequent ie-
gislature abrogated the law, declaring it to be null and
void in all its provisions,'thus endeavoring to cut off inno-
cent purchasers from their homes and rights, which had
been secured to them by the same legislature.. Chief Jus-
tice Marshall decided in this case against Georgia, and,
upon this principle--that her legislature could not make a
law, under which rights were vested, and then again re-
peal her law, and nullify the whole superstructure ; in
other words, that a party concerned could not invalidate
its own contracts; and that what was done by one legisla.
ture in this way, a succeeding one could not undo; that if
any rights were thus vested, they could not be recalled by
absolute power.
In this case, therefore, Judge Marshall decided according
to common sense, that an act, though an unconstitutional
law, is valid if rights have been invested under it. And
in reference to this case, he said: "The legislature of
Georgia was a party to this transaction; and for a party.
to pronou ace its own deed invalid, whatever reason may be
assigned for the invalidity, must be considered a inere act
of power."
Bringing the same principles to bear in the case of the
Assembly of 1837, we see what would be the decision of
the Supreme Court of the United States. It would be
this: “The Assembly, the Supreme Legislature of the
church, was a party to this transaction, and for a party
to pronounce its own deed invalid, whatever reason may be
assigned for the invalidity, must be considered a mere act
of power.".
These views also are sanctioned by statute law, and ac-
cord with the usages of all business men. If one man en-
teng into a contract with another, the law will not allow
him to nullify his own contract.
But admit the Old School exposition of the constitutional
law to be correct, and what would be ihe result? It would
sweep away all security based upon legislative enactment.
One legislature may pass. a law under which rights and
1.1
122
.
funds may be vested. But the next legislature may not
only repeal the law, but nullify the whole superstructure,
declaring it onull and voil from the beginning:" .
About the time the Supreme Legislature of the Presby:
terian Church formed the Pilan of Union, the Supreme Le-
gislature of the United States purchased from a foreign
power that large tract of country called Louisiana, which
was added to the territory of the United States, and out of
which were made the States of Louisiana, Mişsissippi and
Arkansas. It was said at the time that the purchase was
unconstitutional. But it was regarded as advantageous
and ratified by Congress. But suppose that in 1839, or
thirty-six years after the purchase, the arrangement all
the while being acquiesced in, the question had been
brought up again. Suppose that in Congress, party ex-
citement ran high, and that there was a struggle for pow:
eri Suppose that the administration party were stronger
than the Whigs, but feared that the other party would
gain the ascendency, and to prevent it, some Northern
Democrat had got up in Congress and said: "The Louis-
iana country ought never to have been added to the Uņ:
jon. Half the population were Spaniards and French.
They had no love for our Republican institutions. That
country has been the hot-bed of whigism. They have op
posed the administration of the government. And be:
side all, they came into the Union in an unconstitutional
inanner. The two parties cannot act together. There
must be a separation. We ought to şever from the Union
these foreigners. We now have the power--we may nev,
er have again. I now propose that we cut off States enough
to secure forever hereafter a preponderance to our party.”
Suppose the resolution had been offered, and by the vote
of a small majority, the States of Louisiana, Mississippi
and Arkansas declared to be not of the Union--no longer
an integral part of the United States ! What would ihe
civilized world have said of such a manœuvre of a par,
ty in Congress to secure power? Whether such, a case
would have been'analogous to the action of the Assembly
of 1837, the candid reader must decide. .
But admit the correctness of the principle contended for
by the Old School, and see the result. Because the Plan
123
of Union was unconstitutional, the whole is nullified. H
the formation of the Synorls was unconstitutional, null and
void, so was the formation of the Presbyteries. And if the
Presbyteries were a nullity, sor were their acts—the licen-
sure' and ordination of ministers, &c. And thus it will
follow, as a result, that the marriage connexions in the re-
gion of the Synods are null and void; and the good people
there, for thirty-six years, have been living in adultery,
and their children illegitimate !
But the Constitutional party have never admitted the
unconstitutionality of the plan of Union, except for søke
of argument. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Pennsylva.
nia, Judge Rogers presiding, regarded the Plan of Union
as constitutional. So did the Court in Bank, Chief Justice
Gibson presiding.
But the advocates of reform have, ať times, endeavored
to'smooth over the excision, by urging, that the Synods
were not cut off --only disowned, because not members of
the Assembly.
To this the other party replied, that they were members,
as would appear from the minutes of the Assembly, the
Assembly's Digest, the testimony of the whole church up
to 1837, and of the entire Old School Convention of 1837
the citation resolutions and other reform acts for days af.
ter the repeal of the Plan, and the testimony of such Old
School men as Dr. Blythe, who still say the Synods were
members of the Assembly.
Again: the Reformers have urged, that the churches.
were not Presbyterian but Congregational churches. This
representation was, by them, intended to justify the ex-
cişion. The truth on this point is not generally knowi).
Admitting, however, that the churches were not strictly
Presbyterian, ought they to be cast out and disfranchised
for acting upon the faith of a Plan . proposed and re-
commended and sanctioned by the Assembly itself, for
more than one third of a century ?
But the truth, in reference in these churches, will not
warrant this admission. In 1837, Rev. James Wood pub.
lished a pamphlet on this subject. As he was an Old
Suhool man, in the pay of tbe party, he will not be charged:
124
Ulica,
38
53
with favoring tlre excindeu Synods. He says this was the
character of the Synods in 1837 :
Synods. Pres. Churches. Con. Churches.
43
Geneva,
42
Genesse,
103
Western Reserve, 32
113
287
246
Sea Wood's Pamphlet, pp. 7. 18. 24. 31.
From Mr. Wood's statements, therefore, it appears that
there was a handsome majority of Presbyterian church-
es-enough without the Congregational churches for four
Synods upon the most rigid terms. This has been admit.
ted by the Reformers in reference to all the Synods, ex.
cept the Western Reserve. A bout it much has been said,
as though it lacked almost every constitutional element.
According to Mr. Wood's pamphlet, page 31, the Synod
of Western Reserve had eight Presbyteries and thirty-two
Presbyterian churches—an average of four churches to a
Presbytery. But as Mr. Wood states, on the authority
of the Stated Clerk of Synod, that some of the Presby.
teries had only two Presbyterian chiurches, it was urged
that these Presbyteries could have no constitutional exist.
pince. This ground was taken by those who urged that
the constitution required three churches to constitute a
Presbytery. But it makes no such requisition. Chapler 10,
Sec. 2, says,: “ A Prebytery consists of all the ministers
änd one ruling elder from each congregation within a cer.
tain district." Sec. 7, of the same Chapter says : 0 Any
three ministers, and as many elders as may be present,
belonging to the Presbytery, being met at the time and
place appointed, shall be a quorum to do business." So
far as the constitution is concerned, there might be a Pres.
bytery without any church. But if there are churches,
their representation is provided for.
It has also been slated, that the Synod of the Western
Heserve sent twenty delegates to the General Assembly
when she was.“ not entitled to more than four, or at most
eight.” [See Reply to Manifesto, p. 15.1 So far as the
constitution is concerned, this was also a groundless as-
u
125
-sertion. The representation in the Assembly is not in tho
ratio of churches, but of ministers. And if, in this Sy-
nod, there were more ministers than. Presbyterian church-
es, or if some of the ministers were preaching to Congre-
gational churches, the Plan of Union of their own Gen-
eral Assembly was to blame, and not the ministers. But
how it happened to be discovered in 1837, that it was worse
for Presbyterian ministers to preach to Congregationalists.
than to infidels.or heathens-'must be left to the reader to
conjecture:
In: reference, however; to the true character of the ex.
cinded Synods, the Old School' estimate was more fully
made out by Mr. Hubbell, counsel for the Old School par-
ty in the law suit. Speaking, in . his opening speech, of
the operations of the excision, he said: “ The measure:
would result in the exclusion of but two hundred and six-
ty-nine churches, or thereabouts, that being the estimaled.
number of Congregational churches in the bounds of these
Synods. The residue of the five hundred and ninety.
nine churches-being Presbyterian." McElroy's Report, 2..
167.
This estimate of Mr. Hubbell gives three hundred and
thirty truly Presbyterian churches, with thirty or forly
thousand members, cut off from the church of their fath-
ers, because of their connection with Congregationalists,
according to the plan and recommendation of their ow:13:
General Assembly
But the statements of Mr. Wood' and Mr. Hubbell are
from party men. They are given to make the case as.
strong for the Reformers as they can make it. The ina.
telligent reader,. diowever, knows that the statements of it
party at law, or their council, are not to be fully relied on.-
So in this controversy.. In the law suity. the Rev. Miles-
P. Squire was examined andi cross-examined, upon oath,
in reference to the character of the churches. He stated g.
that he had been an agent for the Home Missionary Soci..
ety ; had travelled in seventeen counties in the excinded.
region ;: and speaking of the Synod to which he: belonged,
(Geneva) he said, " I know of no churches that are stricton,
1.y Congregational.”. See McElroy's Report, p. 105.-
In this Synod, however, Mr. Wood, had forty-two Con-
gregational churches. But Mr. Squire made oath that. he:
1 .1:1*
S
2
126.
.
l'id not know one "strictly Congregational”' church. This
testin.ony, upon oaths of one who lived.. upon the ground,
belonged to the Synod, and had travelled extensively as an
agent among the churches, will show with what caution
the assertions of common fame, or interested: individu.
als, should be received.'.
But the injustice of the excision, it was urged, was still
more glaring as regarded the ministers who were cut off. -
They were nearly one fourth of the whole number in
the Presbyterian Church. They were all. Presbyterian.
ministers, recli in ecclesia. This has never been denied.
Níir Hubbell, in the trial, admitted this. Speaking of the..
five hundred and nine ministers who were declared out of
the church, he said : “None of them were Congregational;
the clergy of this district having, almost without excep-
tion, caused themselves to be ordained as Presbyterians,
McElroy, p. 167.
This excinding process of 1837 was the first thing,
that fully convinced the churches:that they would be forced
to submit to a division.' It was indeed regarded as divis.
ion itself. Against these measures, the five hundred and
nine excinded ministers, and their friends, in and out of
the Assembly, planted themselves. And of these reform.
measures, the friends of the constitution have greatly com...
plained, and very justly to be sure. .
The Reformers themselves seemed sensible of the enoro-
mity of their acts. Up to the excision of 1837: they had
reproached the other party for crying "neutrality" and
ono difference." But now they believed they had done.
something that“ would aroase the “New School," and
make them willing to strive. · The Editor of the Western.
Presbyterian Herald, June 21, 1837, in informing his
leaders of the excinding acts; calls upon his brethren to.
"stand firm amid the storm the New School will try to
j'aise." And in another editorial of the same date, he says::
"The New School; as might have been expected, are great...
ly excited.”
That the Reformers anticipated a "stórm," and when:
it came, acknowledged "it might have been expected,!? *
shows a consciousness of the enormity of the wrong
The Assembly of 1837 felt that an apology was neces--
sary, not, it would seem, for forcing separation, but for the:
127 .
.
manner, apparently so unjust. Hence, in their Circular:
Epistle; they plead necessity and say: "To have aliempted
to separate from us the brethren with whom we could no
longer walk in peace, by, personal process in each case;
would obviously have been inipossible, and even if possi.
ble, tedious, agitating and troublesome in the highest de-
gree. And though the measures were extraordinary and.
alarming; yet they hope the churches will bear with them,
inasmuch as good may come out of evil!!! They say in
the same Circular Epistle: olt.is our earnest hope, with:
respect to the brethren thus serered cut off from us, ihat
both parties will be essentially benefitted by the separation..
We trust that both parties will, henceforth, proceed in-the.
conscientious discharge of duty, without being crippled or
embarrassed by each other; and that hereafter there will
be nostrife between us, than who shall love the Redeemer:
most, and who shall serve him with the warmest zeal.”
There was to be sure a discrepancy between their antia
cipations and hopes. The New School had opposed strife
and division, and tried to live in. peace with their breiha.
ren.. But in 1837, in an Assembly of two-hundred and,
fifty members, the Old School, by ancident, had a lean ma..
jority of only six. They cut of their brethren by a sumo-
mary process, deprived them of rights and privileges as
Presbyterians, and covered them with reproaches. Then.
they anticipate a 'storm," and that the New School would
be greatly excited," and at the same time. hoped that:
hereafter there will be no strife" between the parties!.
This the New School called pacification:aggressive.
The excinding acis, however, accomplished what they :
were designed to effect the division of, ihe church. That
this was their primary design is evident. from the speech -
es and action of the party, notwithstanding much has been
said about-order, and the unconstitutionality of the Plan.
of Union.
When the resolution for the excision of the Synod of
the Western Reserve was offered, Dr. Baxter, in making
the opening speech in favor of it, said : “As the negocia..
tions for a voluntary separation have failed, the action":
proposed by this resolution becomes indispensably neceso.
Sury. It is not dictated by the spirit of unkindness, but is -
L
128
adopted as the only course which is left to effect a separa-
rion." W. P. Herald, 28th June, 1837.
If any one in the Assembly knew what was the design
of the excinding acts, Dr. Baxter did ; for he was the
Chairman of the Old School Convention-a-Convention
which arranged: and carried through the Assembly every
important measure
This corresponds with the declaration of the Assembly
of 1837, in their Pastoral Letter, in which they speak of
the division of the church being the most desirable object."'-
This is the language : "Discerning men have perceived,
for a number of years, that the affairs of our beloved,
church were hastening to a crisis, and when the members.
of the Assembly came together, the state of the parties.
was such, as to make it manifest, that a division of the
church was the most desirable objoct that could be ef..
fected.""..
This is confirmed by the Reform Assembly of 1838..
Speaking of the separation, they say: “The last General
Assembly acted under the conviction, that the only possi:
ble way 10-secure peace, was by the separation of the par.
ties in our church." They expressly say, that their der
sign, in their first reform measures, was to effect the sepa.
ration." Again, in the same Letter, they say: “This pro..
cedure was indeed novel; it had never been resorted to in
our church before, and from its very novelty was calcule.
lated to startle minds not accustomed to that mode of ac-'
tion; it was, however, the only remedy for our case.".
They felt, as one of their members expressed himself ::
66 We now have the majority--we may never have again."
The excinding process was indeed novel" and "was
calculated to startle." It was, however, they tell the world,
oothe only remedy to effect this separation."
The minority also complained of the great destitution of
impartiálity in the Assembly of 1837 in their application
of the principles of excision. If the existence of church-
es, it was inquired, on the “accommodation plan' destroys.
Synods and Presbyteries, which have such churches, why
confine this, in its application, to the four Synods? Why
not declare null and void all plans of union with the As.
sociate Reformed Church and the Congregationalists?!
Why not declare the" Synods: of Philadelphia and New
129
York out of the church, because the plan of union of 1821
with the Associate Reformed Church had operated ihero,
allowing the existence of Presbyteries upon the plinciple
of clective affinity, and allowing a Presbytery of two Sea
ceders to have as much-power in the General Assembly,
as our Presbyteries of three meinbers? Why not annie
hilate also this accommodation plan ?? And why limit
the excision in reference to the saccommodation-plan' with:
Congregationalists? If the Synod of the Western Re.
serve ought to be cut off for this reason, so ought the Syn.:
od of Western New York, and if these ought to be cut off.
for this reason, so ought the Synods of Albany, New Jer.
sey, South Carolina and Georgia.
This was explained by the declarations and actions of
the Reformers. The Seceders who came into the Presby.
terian Church under the Plan of Union of 1821, uniformly'
sided with the Old School. Jo reference to those who had
come in under the Plan of 1801 it was not so. These facts
caused the Old School 10 betray their partiality. A very
zealous advocate of the reform has said :..Of the two
parties in the church, the Old School or Orthodox and the
New School or Latitudinarian, the Synods sided with the
latter uniformly." See Reply to Manifesto, p. 16.
In noticing such an objection to the Synods, the New.
School have been bold to assert; that the fact of the Synods
siding with the New School was their offence! It was.
asked : “Suppose the four Synods had sided with the Old
School uniformly, had patronized the Philadelphia Presa
byterian, the Louisi ille Herald, and the Biblical Reporo'
tory, had sent their young men to Princeton, had given
their money to-the Assembly's Board, their Sunday School
and Tract Society, do you think they ever would have
been severed or disowned?!! See Answer to the Reply
p. 8.
There is no impartial reader of the history of those
events, who can decide, that the Synods would have been
cut off, if they could have been brcught up to this point of
party discipline.
But why cut off only four Synods ?. Wy not cut off all
the Synods, Albany, New Jersey, &c.g-in which the accom-
modation plan had operated ? A careless leader'. of Old
School statements miglit be led 10 suppose, that the consti-
130
T
tution and order of the church only demanded the excis.
ion of the four Synods. But some of the bolder men in
the Assembly of 1837, by their honest a vowals, let us
know what was the object. The first stroke at excision
only cut off one Synod. Here some of the Reformers, as
Dr. Blythe and others, wanted to stop. But it was fear.
ed that would leave the New School too strong in the As.
sembly. The most prominent man in the party declared
he would not stop there in the work of reform, but boldly
avowed: “We will cut off a sufficient number to give forerer
hereafter a majority to one side of the house."
. By cutting off nearly one fourth of the ministers, they
secured to themselves a handsome majority of those who
were left. But it has been a matter of wonderment to
many, that men, who clamored so loudly for honesty and
fair-dealing, did not separate honorably from the New
School party, if they were determined to separate. Why
resort to such an expedient to make an impression that the
Old School were a majority in the church? This did not
happen by chance there was policy in it. The Editor of
the Western Presbyterian Herald, July 21, 1836, says ::
“There are always some ready to join the strongest party,
just because it is the strongest party.” This class is gen.
erally pretty large-a sort of floating capital. And the
Reformers knew, that if, by some stroke of policy, they
could gain all that class, by making them think they were
the stronger party, then they could-out-number the friends
of the constitution, and boldly set up a claims to the name,
rights and funds of the whole body.
In this way, by the excision of 1837, thie Reformers
gained an advantage over their brethren.. By this policy
they had made themselves a majority in the Assembly,.
There was then presented, at once, to the mind of the man
who had not been cut off a strong temptation to fall in
with the strongest party. In meeting the results of the
excision, the Old School ministers generally had nothing to.
lose... but the New School, every thing: The Old School
ministers hoped, by representing the excinded as no Pres.
byterians, and those who stood by them, as Seceders, 10
keep their own churches together, and to divide and colle
quer the churches of New School minisiers, unless they
would come into measures.
13,1
In defence of the measures of the Assembly of 1837,
the Reformers have been able to make no substantial plea,
except necessity. They discovered that the division of the
church was the most desirable object. They professed to
believe that there was great heresy and disorder' among the
New School, and to have attempted to discipline the dise
dious and troublesome." They urged, that unless some.
thing was done then, it might never be done ; that they
might never have a majority again; and they thus found
it necessary to cut off enough of the New School sto give
forever hereafter a majority to one side of the house," and
make it no longer "tedious and troublesome" to govern the
rest as they might choose.
Whatever the Reformers may say about their love of
truth and order, and the necessity that was laid upon
them, the conviction will fasten upon the public mind,
and will go down to posterity, that they went into the As-
sembly of 1837 with a fearful lust of domination, deter-
mined to divide the church, or to adopt measures to effect
this separation." The reader must decide whether or not
Dr. Cox expressed himself too strongly when he said: .
"They make the schism, and they feed the fire,
Which distant ages scarce shall sechexpire,
All to protect their party's godless sway, .
All to control the funds and have at last their way.ss
(132)
CHAPTER XVIII.
A
THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT DOCTRINES.
Differences in doctrinal views have, at all times,
been tolerated in the Presbyterian church. This every
Presbyterian knows. And even the best men among the
Old School say it is allowable. Dr. Miller, in 'his Let:
.ters to Presbyterians, says: "Some differences of opinion
among those in the same communion must necessarily be
allowed."
It has been shown, in a former chapter, that there was
not perfect uniformity among those who constituted ihe
Westminister Assembly. Nor has it been attained at any
one time, or even expected, except by a very small portion
of the church. The differences were not, however, re.
garded as fundamental; yet since the Hopkinsian contro-
versy especially, the points of difference have assumed
importance, as auxiliary to the accomplishment of certain
objects the securement of a majority, the control of the
church, &c.
The two parties in the church were mainly divided on
these points, viz: The nature of imputation-The na.
ture of man's inability And the nature and extent of the
atonement. The New School denied our personal indenti.
-ty with Adam--that his sin is really and truly our sin, or
that there is a literal transfer of moral character. They
taught, that the sinner's inabiliiy to do what God requires,
consists in his want of disposition, or an sinability of
will." They taught, that Christ did not suffer as much as
the whole human family would have suffered---not suffer-
ing eternal punishment, which was the penalty of the
law; and yet he tasted death for every man.
2
133
On these points, the New School said, that they con
curred with the Confession of Faith and the Bible. The
Old School said they did not.
In 1831, Mr. Barnes was before the Assembly, charged
with heresy. But he was honorably acguilted.
In 1834, the Act and Testimony men raised the aların
about the, alarning errors" which had been "counte.
nanced and sustained by the acts of the supreme judicatories
of our church." The signers of that document seemed
to feel, that they had entered into a solemn league, and in-
deed they proved true to their vow. No matter what
measure came up in Presbytery or Synod or General As.
sembly, they seemed to be sworn men. This was clearly
manifest in the Assembly of 1836, in the trial of Mr. Barnes.
Sixty-seven members who had signed the Act and Tes-
timony, voted for his condemnation--not a man who had
signed that document voted to sustain him. Every impal-
tial mind will say, that these men had prejudged the case',
and felt that, by the Act and Testimony, they were pledg.
ed not to sustain him,
In 1835, the Old School had a majority. That Assem.
bly passed sentence of condeinnation on certain doce
itrines which were never held in the Presbyterian church.
It is true, they said the errors were prevalent among the
New School. But such statements were made by Old
School men, who had their purposes to accomplish. In
the Act and Testimony, and similar productions, such
„Sweeping, unguarded assertions were made, as were well
.calculated to destroy confidence, not only in the docii-
.ments, but in the veracity of the authors themselves. This
opinion was entertained and politely expressed by the
Princeton Professors, in refereņce to the writer of the Act
and Testimony, the Rev. R. J. Breckinridge. They
say: "In concluding our remarks on this defence of the
Act and Testimony, there are a few supplementary re.
marks which we deem it expedient to make. In the first
place, there are many of the assertions of the writer
which appear to us very inaccurate as to matters of fact;
many of his assumptions altogether unauthorized." Seo
Western Luminary, March 4, 1835.
If therefore, the Princeton Fathers-decided Old School
men-could charge Mr. Breckinridge, the great leader of
12
134
the Reform party, with making assertions" which were
sivery. inaccurate as to matters of fact," well might the
public mind be slow in giving credence to all he has said
in the Act and Testimony, Old School Conventions and
elsewhere. -
About this time prosecutions were commenced against
two prominent New School men-Dr. Beecher and Mr.
Barnes. The a vowed design was to bring out the decision
of the General Assembly on the contested points. See Dire
Junkin's first letter to Mr. Barnes. Trial, Appendix, p. 4.
The charges related substantially to the same views.
The Old School expected a majority in 1836, and that both
these men would be before that Assembly for trial. They
calculated, that their sentiments would be condemned,
und ihese men, as the representatives of their party would
be rejected.; and that thus they would drive out the New
School, or force them into measures. These prosecutions
were indeed regarded by the New School not only as a
conspiracy against the happiness and reputation of Dr.
Beecher and Mr. Barnes as individuals, but as the repres
sentatives, as the Old School would have it, of the New
School party.
The results, however, were according to righteousness.
In the case of Dr. Beecher, the prosecution was withdraw.pl
by Dr. Wilson, the Prosecutor, because of the hopeless.
ness of success, - He had before been acquitted by his
Presbytery and Synod, and to use Dr. Wilson's own words,
of even the suspicion of unsoundness in the faith.”.
Mr. Barnes was acquitted by his own Presbytery; con.
demned by the Synod; but after a full and patient hear.
ing, was triumphantly acquitted by the General Assem-
bly.
Accordingis Presbyterianism, this ought to have been
an end of the matter. This was the result to which the
prosecutors wished to arrive in the language of Dr. Jun.
kin, "their final adjustment by the proper judicatories of
the church. And when this result was arrived at, Pres.
byterianism, ordination vows, and religion demanded of.
the Old School acquiescence. Or, if they felt that they
could not conscientiously do this, it was their duty peace.
ably lo withdraw from the church. But neither was
Fone. The party went into a secret meeting; a com
135
mittee was appointed. That committee sent out the Se:
cret Circular; and afterwards an Address, urging that
these men, the majority,“must be separated from us."
In 1837, in the Old School Convention, the more calla?
tious harped much upon doctrines; as if they cared not
about majority or power. But a man: might have an obo
ject-in view, and from his declarations at the tiine, you
might not see it. A Presbyterian elder once was tried by
his session for cheating his neighbor in a horse-swop,
his horse being diseased. The injured party urged, thit
the elder had assured him, that his horse was sound. The
elder here manifested less caution than in making the
trade, for he immediately contradicted the statement, als
ding “I was very guarded in my expressions:"
Mr. R. J. Breckinridge was boih cautious and bold.
In the Convention he was at timeg.66 very guarded" in his
expressions. He would then declare:. 6This is a great
controversy in which we are engrossed about doctrine and
order." But in the negociations of the committee of ten
he was less guarded. And in this unguarded moment, he.
seemed to forget doctrine and order and to be thinking of
power and predominance. In that committee he declared
that: “ If the New School did not accept the propositions
of the Old School, he would the next day, in the General
Assembly, move to excind a sufficient number of Synods
from the General Assembly, to secure thereafter, in that
body, the preponderance of the Old School.” McElroy,
- P. 93.
. A similar declaration he made; in an unguarded mo.
ment, on the floor of the General Assembly.
The statements of Mr. Breckinridge are quoted, and
regarded as-important; because he was a master-spirit in
those transactions-a gentleman whose commanding pow-
er's were not sufficiently chastened by age and experience,
und whose ecclesiastical course would suggest, that he had
been an admirer of the saying of Euripides : " Nam si
violandum est jus, regnandi, gratia violandum est ; aliias
rebus pictatem colas."
In the Memorial of the Convention of 1837, presented
to the Assembly, “ doctrinal errors'? Occupied a conspicu..
ous place. Sixteen errors were specified which ihe Old
136
SL
School said were • widely disseminated in the Presbyterian
church."'
This part of the Memorial was adopted by the Assem.
bly.
A New School member offered as an amendment the
condemnation of the four following errors, viz:
is). That man has no ability of any kind 10 obey God's
commands or do his duty : 2. That ability is not neces.
sary to constitute obligation : 3. That God may justly
command what man has no ability to perform, and justly
condemn him for the non-performance : 4. That all the
powers of man to perform the duty required of him have
bren destroyed by the fall."
This amendment struck at some of the errors of the
Old School, and of course, was not adopted.
It will from this be seen, that the New School thought
the Old School in error. This doctrine inculcated among
the Old School, that ability is not necessary to constitute -
obligation, in connection with another of similar stamp,
ihat for a large portion of the human race no salvation
has been provided, has been considered bigbly Antinomi-
an. The New School, as a body, steadily opposed such
sentiments, and thought their opposition was based upon
the word of God, as well as the Confession of Faith. And
though they differed with their Old School brethren on
such points, yet they urged, that such differences had al-
ways been tolerated in the church, and were not disposed
to excind their erring brethren.
. That the doctrines of the Old School are tending to An.
tinomia nism, is acknowledged by persons in their own
connection. A gentleman in the South, in connection
with the Old School, potices the 66 Causes of religious de-
clension at the South.” Among the causes he alludes to
doctrines. He says: 6 A persuasion that the mode of
preaching at the North savors of Pelagianism and fanati-
cism, has driven many at the South to verge toward an op-
posite extreme. While the exaltation of human means has
heen legarded as a capital part of the heresies of the
North, some preachers at the South have carried their no.
tions of dependence so far as, to a common mind, seems to
unter closely lipon the borders of fatalism. This tenden:
2
134
cylo Antinomianism hus, within a short space, considerably
increased. Many of their preachers are believers and ad-
vocates for the doctrine of particular redemption, the ob.
vious inference from which is, that for a large portion of
the human race 120 salvation has been provided." See
Christian Observer, July 16, 1841. :
This writer says, “ many of the preachers' hold these
sentiments. In justice to many others, it ought to be sla-
ted that all their preachers do not believe or teach these
doctrines. And in reference to the members of the Old
School party; it may be safely asserted, that the majority
of them concur with the Constitutional party in rejecting
these Antinomian tenets..
On the subject of doctrinal differences between the two
parties, the New School challenged' investigation in the
General Assembly. But it was cut off by the call for the
previous question, so as to prevent all discussion." See
Protest of the Minority.
The New School portion of the Assembly being denied
investigation, and not holding the errors charged upon
them, nor concuring with the Old School in their views
of imputation, man's inability, the extent of the atone.
ment, &c. protested against the action of the Assembly,
and in their protest, they placed the “true doctrines,!! as
held by them, in contrast with the errors charged upon
them by the Old School. This part of the protest, iix
justice to both parties, ought to be given. It is as follows :
FIRST ERROR.
TRUE DOCTRINE.
6 That God would have pre. God permitted the introduction
vented the existence of sin in our of sin, not because he was unable
world, but was not able, without to prevent it, consistently with the
destroying the moral agency of moral freedom of his creatures, but
man; or for ought that appears in for wise and benevolent reasons,
the bible to the contrary, sin is in which he has not-revealedi
cidental to any wise moral sys.
tem."
SECOND ERROR:
" That election to eternal life is
founded on a foresight of faith and
obedience." .
TRUE DOCTRINE.
Election to eternal life is not
founded on a foresight of faith and
obedience, but is a sovereign act of
God's mercy, whereby, according
to the counsel of his own will, le
has chosen some to salvation ;
" yet so as thereby neither is vio:
lence offered to the will of the
188
6
.
1
.
creature, nor is the liberty or.cons
tingency of second causes; taken
away, but rather established," por
does this gracious purpose ever
effect independently of faith.
and a holy life.
THIRD ERROR:
: TRUE DOCTRINE: ....
"That we have no more to do By a divine constitution, Adam
with the first sin of Adani, than was so the head and representative
with the sins of any other parent." of the race; that, as a consequence..
. ; of his transgression, all mankind.
became morally corrupt and liable. ·
: : to death temporal and eterjal...
FOURTH ERROR.
TRỤE DOCTRINE:.
Tlial infants come into the Adam was created in the image
world as free from moral defile- of God, endowed" with knowledge.
ment, as was Adam, when he was prighteousness, and true holiness.
created.".. .
Infants come into the world not:
only destitute of these, but with a
nature inclined 10 evil and only
. . .
.ai eyalli . . .
eyil.
...
i si
:
PIETII. ERROR.
*. "TRUE DOCTRINE.
"That infanıs sustain the same. Brute animals sustain no such:
relation to the moral government relation to the moral government:
of Gud, in this world, as brule an- of God, as does the human family.
jira!s: and that their sufferings and Infants are a; part of the human
sealh are to be accounted for on family, and their suff rings and
the same principles as those of death are to be accounted for on
Brutes, and not by any means to the ground of their being involved
be considered as penal.” : in the general: nyoral ruin of the..
race, induced by the apostacy. ::
::. SIXTH ERROR: . .
TRUE DOCTRINE.
.." That there is no other original - Original sin is a natural bias to:
sin than the fact that all the pos- , evil, resulting from the first apos--
terity of Adam, though by nature tacy, leading invariably and cer.
innocent, .will always begin to-sin, tainly to actual transgression.
when they begin. 10 exercise mor. And all infants, as well as adults, .
lal agency; that original. sin' does in order to be saved, need redemo-
not include a sinful bias of the tion by the blood of Christ, and,
lauman mind, and à just exposuré regeneration by the Holy Ghost.
to.penál sufferings, and that there
is no evidence in Scripture, thật.
infants, in order to salvation, do
need redemption by 'the blood of
Christ, and regeneration by the
Iloly. Ghost."
SEVENTA ERROR:
TRUE DOCTRINE: ,
...I'llat the doctrine of imputa. The sin of Adam is not imputed:
tion, whether of the guilt of Ad- to his posterity in the sense of a
am's sin .or of the righteousness of literal transfer of personal qualities,..
Christ, has no- foundation in the acts and demerits; but by reason
word of God, is both unjust and of the sin of Adam, in his peculiar:
absurd.!!:
relation, the race are treated, as if
139
they had sinned. Nor is the rightu.
eonsness of Christ imputed to his.
people, in the sense of a literal
transfer of personal qualities, act6,,
or merits; but by reason of his
righteousness, in his peculiar rela:
tion, they are treated as if they
were righteous.
EIGHTH ERROK.
. TRUE DOCTRINE
** Thai the sufferings and death. The sufferings and death of
of Christ were not truly vicarious Christ were not symbolical, gov.
and penal, but symbolical, govern ernmental, and instructive only, .
mental, and instructive only,. but were truly:vica:ious, i.e: a sub-
stitute for the punishment due 10
transgressors. And, while Christ'
did not suffer the literal penalty of
the law, involving remorse of con-
science, and the pains of hell, he did
offer a sacrifice, which infinite wis-.
dom saw to be a full equivalent.
And by virtue of this atonement,
overtures of mercy are sincerely.
made to the race,and salvation se-
cured to all who believe.
NINTA ERROR:
TRUE DOCTRINE
That the impenitent sinner is . While sinners have all the facul.
by nature, and independently of ties necessary to a perfect nioral a..
the renewing influence, or almigh- gency, and a just accountability,
ty energy of the Holy Spirit, in full such is their love of sin and oppo.
possession of all the ability neceg- sition to God and his law, that, in-
sary to a full compliance with all dependently of the renewing influ-
the cominands of God.!!
ence of almighty energy of the Ho-
ly. Spirit, they never will comply
with the commands of God.
. TENTH: 'ERROR.
That Christ does not intercede
for the elect until after their re.
generation."
TRUE DOCTRINI.
The intercession of Christ for
the elect is previous as well as sub..
sequent to their regeneration, as-
appears from the following Scrip-
ture,viz.;"I pray not for the world,
but for them that thou hast given
me, for they are thine : neither
pray I for these alone but for them
also, which sball believe, on me
through ihy word.".
ELEVENT! ERROR.
TRUE DOCTRINE:
6. That saving faith is not an ef. Saving faith is an intelligent and
- Pect of the operation of the Holy cordial assent to the testimony of:
Spirit, but a mere rational belief of God concerning his Son, implying.
the truth, or assent to the word of reliance-on Christ alone.for pardon:
God."
and eternal life; and in all casea
140
3
- it is an effect of the special opera-
tions of the Holy Spirit.
TWELFTH ERROR.
TRUE DOCTRINE....
. "That regeneration is the act of Regeneration is a radical change
the sinner himself, and that it con of the heart, produced by the spe-
sists in the change of his govern- cial operations of the Holy Spirit,
ing purpose which he bimself must "determining the sinner to that
produce, and which is the result, which is good," and is in all cases.
not of any direct influence of the instantaneous... "..
Holy Spirit on the heart, but chief-
ly of a persuasive exhibition of the
truth, a nalagous to the influence,
which one man exerts over the
mind of another; or that regen-
Cration is not an instantaneous
act, but a progressive work."
THIRTEENTH ERROR:
TRUE DOCTRINE
"That God has done all that he' While repentance for sin anii.
can do for the salvation of all meri, faith in Christ are indispensable'
and that man himself must do the to salvation, all who are saved
rest."
are indebted from the first to the
last to the grace and spirit of God.
And the reason that God does not
save all, is not that he wants the
power to do it; but that in his wisa-
dom he does not see fit to exert
that power further than he actu-
ally does.
TOURTEENTH ERROR. -.
TRUE DOCTRINE.
"That God cannot exért such While the liberty of the will is:
influence on the minds of men, as not impaired, nor the established
shall make it certain, that they connexion between means and end
will choose and act in a particular broken by any action of God on
manner, without impairing their the mind, he can influence it ac-
moral-agency."
cording to his pleasure, and does
effectually determine it to good in
all cases of true conversion.
FIFTEENTH ERROR:
TRUE. DOCTRINE.
"That the righteousnes of Christ All believers are justified, not on
is not the sole ground of the sin the ground of personal merit, but
ner's acceptance with God; and solely on the ground of the obedi:
that in no sense does the righteous ence and death, or, in other words,
ness of Christ become ours." the righteousness of Christ. And
while that righteousness does not
become, theirs; in the sense of a
literal transfer of personal quali--
ities and merit; yet from respect
to it, God can, and does treat thems
as.if they were righteous.
3IXTEENTH ERROR: . .
: TRUE DOCTRINE...
• sThat the reason why some dif... While all such as reject the Gos--
jer from others in regard to their pel of Christ, do it, not òy coercion.
reception of the Gospel, is that but freely-and all who embrace
they make themselves to differ." it, do it not by coercion but freely-
the reason why some differ from
others is, God has made them to
differ."
In the above it will be seen, that what is headed bier.
ror," is what the Old School charge upon the New School ;.
what is headed 66 true doctrine," is what the New School
really hold on that points
Here then was à denial, by the representatives of the
New School portion of the church, of the errors charged:
upon them, and an avowal of their areal sentiments."
With them, it might have been expected the great mass of:
the Presbyterian church would have been satisfied. But
strange as it may appear, the Old School portion of the
Assembly pretended to see great: heresy in the " True Doc.
trines" of the New School. They even. enjoined it upon
their Presbyteries to try the signers of the “ True Doc.
trines” for heresy, as will appear from the following reso-
olution of the Assembly, viz :
o Resolved, That duly certified copies of this paper be
sent to the respective Presbyteries to which the signers of
the protest. belong, calling their attention to the develop-
ments of theological views contained in it, enjoining on
them to enquire into the soundness of the faith of those
who have ventured to make so strange avowals as some of
these are."
In the controversy about doctrine, the Old School re.
sorted to much unfairness, to make an impression unfa-
vorable to Constitutional Presbyterians. They impuled to
the New School all the sins and errors of New Haven and
Oberlin-Dr. Taylor and Mr. Findeymas if these instit17--
tions or ministers had any connection with the Presbyteria.
an Church.
The Old School have also exhibited much inconsistency.
One instance will suffice. The Editor of the Charleston
Observer is an Old School man. But before the division
of the Assembly in 1838, he was willing to do the New
School justice. Before the division he had no party to
serve, whether right or wrong. He then could say of:
Charlestor Union Presbytery, the large majority of whica
142
was called New School:.. There is no discrepancy in this
Presbytery on questions of doctrine.” But since, the di.
vision, he calls the ministers of Charleston Union Presby.
tery, 6 the Pelagians of Charleston."
The same Editor, before the division, did not consider
Dr. Beman, Mr. Barnes and other prominent New School
men heretical. After quoling largely from their writings,
he says positively : “ If there be heresy in them, we are
not sufficiently sagacious to discorn it." But now the
church is divided, and the interests of the other party de-
mand that the New School be loaded and sunk with re.
proaches. And now this Editor can refer to the same
writings to prove that the New School are • Pelagians,"
and teach “another Gospel." Upon what principles the
Editors of Old School papers would justify such unfair.
ness and inconsistency, is not for us to say.
• In this controversy, the Old School have charged upon
the New School opinions which they have uniformly de..
nied. To this the Old School have said: “If the body of: -
the New School are not in error, some of their prominent
men are.” They then point to Mr. Barnes. But Mro..
Barnes was acquitted before the division of the church ;-
and if the New School are chargeable with heresy for
voting, in 1836, for the restoration of Mr. Barnes, so are
some of the most prominent Old School men, as Dr. Miller:
and others.
In this controversy, the New School always professed
their readiness for investigation or trial. And while one
party charged the other with holding sentiments tending
to Arininianism and Pelagianism; they in turn were be-
lieved to hold sentiments tending to Antinomianism. When:
the errors, such as are contained in the sixteen specifica.
tions were stated, the New School party said-prove them
upon any one and we will help you in turning him outo.
But the proof was lacking.
Indeed, it was found almost impossible to bring the Old
School up to the real points of difference. In the Assem..
bly of 1837, when the subject of si Doctrinal Errors'.
came up, all investigation was cut off by the call for the
previous question. Yet the New School, in their protest,
were enabled indirectly to bring the Old School to them.
And if any one should be curious on the subject of the
-
-143
real differences between the Schools, he may form a preity
correct opinion from the “ True Doctrines" of the New
School, and the action of the Old School in reference to
them. The New School, in the Assembly, said, these are
our 6 real sentiments," And in the Auburn Convention,
they said : “ This Convention cordially disapprove and
cordemn the list of errors condemned by the late Assem-
bly, and adopt, as the expression of their own sentiments,
and as they believe the prevalent sentiments of the church-
es in these Synods on the points in question, the list of
true doctrines' adopted by the minority of said Assembly
in their protest on this subject." See New York Obsery-
er, October 7, 1837.
The Old School, however, regarded the 6 True Docs
trines" as heresy, and enjoined it upon their Presbyteries
to try the siguers. On these points, therefore, the parties
were fairly at issue. Thus the real points of difference
were reached at last, so far as the New School were
concerned. And had the Old School come out and avow-
ed their real sentiments limited atonement, &c. their
Presbyteries would have had an opportunity of deciding
which party was the most orthodox. .
Here the controversy about doctrine mainly ceased.
Not a single Presbytery:obe.yed the injunction of the Old
School, in trying the signers of the “ True Doctrines" for
heresy, This resolution savored so much of infatuation,
that the Old School soon became ashamed of it; and no
Assembly since seems to have inquired whether its injunc-
tion has been complied with or not.
Notwithstanding all that has been said, the impression
has sometimes been made, that Constitutional Presbyteri. •
fans have rejected the Confession of Faith. In reply to
this, it is necessary only to quote one or two official de.
clarations of the Constitutional Assembly. During their
-session in 1838, the following resolution was adopted
unanimously :.
." That it be, and hereby is recommended to all the
Presbyteries to take special pains to have the book con
taining the Confession of Faith and Form of Government
of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of Ameri.
ca more generally circulated among the churches under
their care."
144
The same Assembly, in their Pastoral Leiter, say: "We
love and honor the Confession of Faith of the Presbyteri-
an Church, as containing more well defined, fundamental
truth, with less defect, than appertains to any other hu-
man formula of doctrine, and as calculated to hold in in-
telligent concord a greater number of sanctified minds, than
any which could now be formed, and we disclaim all de-
sign, past, present and future, to change it."
Whether or not all the noise the Old School made about
doctrine, was for the sake of doctrine, or to alarm the
.churches for the attainment of other objects, must be left
to the impartial and to posterity to decide.
CHAPTER XIX.
THE AUBURN CONVENTION.
After che close of the Assembly of 1837, it was soon
ascertained, that the excinded Synods and other large
portions of the church, regarded the measures of that As.
sembly as revolutionary and unconstitutional, and design-
ed to divide the church; or in the language of the Reform
Assembly of 1858, sto affect this separation."
The church was, by these reforming and révolutionary
measures, thrown into a deep state of alarm and confusion.
The friends of Constitutional liberty were bewildered.
As was to be expected, they could not entirely agree
arriong themselves, as to what ought to be done in the uni-
expected and fearful crisis. They sa iv that the Reform-
iers, taking advantage of an accidental majority., had laid
their plans to disfranchise the party which had hitherto
been the majority. Some, seeing that the Reformers had
taken advantage of them in the mere assumption of pow-
er, were for hanging on to the party, hoping they
would see their error. Some were for standing aloof front
the cantending parties. Some were for plainting them.
selves upon the constitution, and meeting the crisis with
firmness. The great portion were of the latter class. -
The first movement towards concert of action was the
Convention which met at Auburn, in the State of New
York, on the 17th of August, 1837. There were in at.
tendance nearly two hundred ministers and elders. The
reform measures were fully discussed. In reference
to the excision, the following resolution was passed, viz.:
"Resolved, That in the judgment of this Convention,
the acts. of the last General Assembly, declaring the Syn.
ods' of Western Reserve, Utica, Geneva, and Genessee,
not to be constitutional parts of the Prresbyterian Church,
* 13
146
on the ground that their connexion was dependent on the
Plan of Union of 1801, and upon charges vague and una
supported, were unconstitutional, and therefore in the
opinion of this Convention, null and void.."
In support of the foregoing resolution many reasons
were assigned
A few.extracts will exhibit the attitude of that body,
They say: "The act complained of has, without hear-
ing and without trial, without charges enen, deprived a
Vilst number of Presbyterian members of all connexion
with that church, and declares them "neither in form nor
in faci" members thereof.
CiThe constitution, has made ample provisions for the
redress of all grievances which it was supposed would
arise in the churcb; and especially for the correction of
any error in doctrine or irregularity in practice, whether
existing in the individual mernbers or in the bodies organi.
zed under the constitution. The mode of doing this is
fully and clearly defined in that instrument. An attempt,
then, to correct and alleged error or irregularity in any
O!her mode than that pointed out by the constitution or
compact into which all had entered, is usurpation ; if
i produce. oppression, it is tyranny; in its character, and
tendency it is and must inevitably be subversive of all
good and righteous government and order; and may
properly be clasged with those acts of lawless violence re-
.cently so disgracefully frequent in our country, and who se
justiſication is attempted alone upon the plea of "the ne.
cessity of the case,” or the still more unrighteous plea
tliat vihe ,enil justifies the means."
bla a government of laws, no necessity can ever exist
for trampling those laws in the dist, and disregarding their
l'equirements. If such acts be done, they are either re-
bellion or revolution or both.” Şee New York Observer,
October 7, 1837.
There is one point made clear by the Auburn Conven;
tion, which goes to show, that in reference to the three
Synods in New York, the General Assembly bạşed their
excision upon falsely assumed facts. The 'excinding reso-
lotion assumes, that these Synods.“were formed and atlach.
cd" to the Assembly ounder and in execution of the
Plan of Union of 1801. The Convention, in denying this,
say: "The whole of the territory, embracing the three
Synods of New York, came into connexion with the Presa
by!erian Church, so far as they were Congregationalists,
not under the Plan of Union of 1801, but under a plail:
of union and correspondence made in 1807 between the
Synod of Albany on the one part, and the Northern Assou
ciated Presbytery and the Middle Association on the oih.
er, which plan was subsequently submitted to the General
Assembly; and by them considered, sanctioned and adopta
ed in 1808, and has never been ohjected to or abrogated."
The documents on this subject are 100 lengthy for insero.
tion here. Let the reader, if he would be more fully .
satisfied, turn to the New York Observer, September 2,
and October 17, 1837.
The plan was regarded as a special compact betwec!
the Synod of Albany and the Middle Association. By it
the Middle Association became a constituent part of the
Synod of Albany, and the ministers and delegntes of
'churches belonging to the Association were admitted into
the Synod with all the rights and privileges of ministers
and elders of their Presbyteries." In speaking, therefore,
of the churches within the bounds of the three Synods,
they say: "Their connexion with the General Assembly
has no reference to the Plan of Union of 1801; and hence
the abrogation of that plan could not, in the slightest de-
gree, effect the standing of these churches, or destroy
their relation to the General Assembly."
The Assembly might, with as much propriet.y, have
abrogated the Adopting Act of 1729, and then declared,
that in consequence of that abrogation, the three Synods
are "out of the ecclesiastical connexion of the Presbyte.
vian church." Or admitting the plan of 1801 to be wil.
constitutional, they might as well have declared, that the
Synod of Philadelphia is out of the Presbyterian
Church.."!
Therefore, the history of these events show, that these
three Synods were cut off for a reason that had no există
ence in fact. But the advocates of excision, when re-
minded of this, urged that, though the plan of 1808 was.
not abrogated, yet it was of the same character. In their
answer to the protest of the excinded they say: "The
compact of the Assembly of 1808, with the Synod of. Als.
148
Bany, in reference to the Middle Association, is as uncon.
stitutional as the Plan of Union of 1801." But admilting
id was as unconstitutional, it was not abrogated, and the
Three Synods were cut off, because another plan was abro-
cated, with which they had no more connexion than with
the plan of union of 1691. .
• After the close of the Auburn Convention, it was un-
dersiood that the Constituional party designed to act with
the Reformers in the Assembly of 1838, provided the or.
ganization of a General Assembly could be effected by
admitting the Commissioners from the excinded Synods:
The 'position of the parties was such, however, that very
little hope could be indulged that they could longer act
together. The Reformers seemed to rejoice that division
had commenced, and would be carried out. Still the
friends of the constitution hoped, that if the two parties.
could not act together, some amicable mode of division.
could be devised which would prevents the alienation and;
bitterness of a violent dismemberment of the body. In:
His condition things remained till the meeting of the As..
gembly of 1838.
( 140 )
CHAPTER XX.
THE ASSEMBLY OF 1838--THE DIVISION OF THE CHURCH
-THE TUMULT IN THE ORGANIZATION. OF THE AS.
SEMBLY.
A few days before the meeting of the Assembly, in
1838, both parties met in Convention in Philadelphia. The
Constitutional Convention was open to all the Commis.
şioners to the General Assembly, and was attended by a
few of the other party. The invitation was to all, as apo
pears from the notice, which was given in the newspa-
pers, signed by some of the reformed party. See McE:.
roy's Report, p. 93.
The other Convention was a parly organižation. "The
distinst basison which the meeting was organized was,
that its meinbers were prepared to sustain the general
course of the last Assembly in the reform of the church."
"It was unanimously resolved, that in the opinion of the
meeting, the reform measures of the last Assembly should
be fully sustained." See Wi P. Herald, May 31, 1838.
While the two parties were in Convention, the Consti:
tutional party sent the following overture for pacification
to the other party :
"Resolved, That while we regard with deep :sorrow the
existing difficulties in our beloved church, we would fondlys
hope that there are no insurmountable obstacles in the way
of averting the calamities of a violent dismemberment, and
of securing such an organization as mly avoid.collisions,
ard secure the blessings of a perpetuated, harmonious
action.
" Resolved, . That we are ready to, co-operate in any ef.
forts which are constitutional, and w.hich shall recognize
the regular standing, and secure the rights of the entire
13*
150:
ohureſ, including those portions which the acts of the last
General Assembly were intended to exclude.”
In the reply to the foregoing we find the following:
Whereas, the resolutions of the "meeting," while
they profess a readiness "10 co-operate. in any efforts
for pacification which are constitutional,' manifestiv pro-
ceed on the erroneous supposition, that the acts of the
General Assembly declaring the four Synods of the
Western Reserve, Utica, Geneva and Genessee, out of the
ecclesiastical connexion of our church, were unconstituto
tional and invalid ;. and the Convention cannot for a mo-
mnent consent to consider them in that light, therefore,.-
- Resolved, unanimously, that the Convention regard the
said overture of the 'meeting,' however intended, as founden
ed on a basis which is wholly inadmissible, and as calcula.
ted only to disturb that peace of our church, which a calm
and firm adherence to those constitutional, just, and neces-
sary acts of the last General Assembly can alone, by the
blessing of Divine Providence, establish and secure." See
W. P: Herald, May 31, 1838
The Constitutional party declared their anxiety for pa-
cification, if any plan could be devised, which would be
cóconstitutional," and which would "secure the rights of
the excindedo
· The Reformers affected to take umbrage at the word;
constilutional," as if the overture had pronounced their
acts unconstitutional. But any one can see, that the word,
riconstilutional," was used in reference to the desired. plan
of pacification. This excuse was, therefore, mere suh.
terfuge: Indeed, it seems they had no idea of spacifi-
oool.ion,” except on the principles of passive obedience and
non-resistance; for they had already "unanimously re-
solved, that in the opinion of the meeting, the reform meas-
ures of the last: Assembly should be fully sustained."
Thus the parties stood in reference to each other, when
the General Assembly met in Philadelphia, on the 17th
of May, 1838. Common fame had excited much curiosity
is to the scenes which were to be acted when the body.
inet. The Assembly was large and a great concourse of
spectators were present.
The Assembly: met in the Seventh Presbyterian church..
At an early hour, the Reformers were found in a. body
151
near the pulpit, and the two doors near the Moderator's:
chair locked. The Constitutional party generally took
their seats farther back in the church.
Dr. Elliot, the Moderator of the previous year; preached
the sermon. At the close, he announced, that the General
Assembly would be constituted with prayer. After prayerg-
and before the Clerk had made his report on the roll, Dir..
Pation offered the following preamble and resolutions ::
· "Whereas, the General Assembly of 1837, 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 l'equire and receive from
their Clerks a pledge or prornise, that they would, in
making out the roll uf Commissioners to constiiute the
General Assembly of 1833, omit to introduce therein the
names of Commissioners from said Presbyteries : and.
whereas, the said Clerks, having been requested by Come.
missioners from the said Presbyteries to receive their com--
missions and enter their names on the roll of the General."
Assembly of 1838, now about to be organized, have re-
fused to receive and enter the same, Therefore,
1. Resolved,That such attempts on the part of the
General Assembly of 1837, and their Clerks, to direot
and control the organization of the General Assembly of
1838, are unconstitutional, and in derogation of its just:
rights. as the general representative judicatory of the
whole Presbyteriun church in the United States of Amers.
ica.
2. Resolved, That the General Assembly cannot be
legally constituted except by admitting to seats, and to:
equality of powers, in the first instance, all Commission-
ers, who present the usual evidences of their appointment';
and that it is the duty of the Clerks, and they are hereby.
directed to form the roll of: the General Assembly of 1838,
by including therein the names of all Commissioners from
Presbyteries. belonging to-the said Presbyterian church,
not omitting the Commissioners from the several Presby.
teries within the bounds of the Synods of Utica, Geneva,.
Genessee, and the Western Reserve; and in all things to
form the said roll according to the known practice and. eso-
.
152
tablished usage of previous General Assemblies." McEI
roy's Report, p. 85.
The Moderator informed Dr. Patton that he was out of
order, as the first business was the report on the roll. It
was then stated, that the resolutions related to the forma.
tion of the roll. The Moderator then said the Clerk had
the floor. Dr. Patton replied that he had the floor be.
fore the Clerk. The Moderator again declared him out of
order. ' DrPatton then appealed from the decision of the
chair. But the Moderator declared the appeal out of or.
der, and Dr. Patton took his seat without reading the
resolutions.
The clerk then read the roll of the Commissioners, ex-
cluding those from the excinded Synods.
After that, the Moderator announced that if there were
other Commissioners, whose names had not been entered on
the roll, they could then present them.
Dr. Mason then rose and said : “Mr. Moderator, I hold
in my hand a number of commissions, which have been re-
jected by the Clerks: I now tender them to the house, and
move that the names be added to the roll."!: The motion was
seconded. - The Moderator asked if they were from Pres.
byteries belonging to the Presbyterian Church. Dr. Ma.
son replied, they were from the Synods of Utica, Geneva,
Genessee and Western Reserve, The Moderator declared
the motion to receive those commissions was out of order.
From this decision Dr. Mason said he would appeal to the
house. The appeal was seconded. But the Moderator
declared the appeal was out of order.
These were, to be sure, strange decisions, when it is re-
membered that the rules of the house say: " The ques-
tion on the appeal shall be taken."
When Dr. Mason had taken his seat, Rev. Miles P.
Squirer, a Commissioner from one of the excinded Synods,
l'ose and stated to the Moderator, that he had a commis-
sion, which had been presented to the Clerks and rejected
by them, and that he now presented it to the house. When
the Moderator learned from himn that he came from the ex-
cinded region, he said : 66 We do not know you, sir," Mr.
Squirer ihen took his seat.
What now could be done? It was evident, the Mode-
rator and Clerks had conspired to prevent a constitutional
153
organization of the Assembly. The Moderator would
put no motion to the house, however orderly it might be,
which did not favor a party organization. He would al-
low no appeal from his decisions. Business was at a stand,
except the wire-working of the Moderator and Clerks,
who were doubtless doing as their Convention had directed
them. It was necessary that the meeting should organ.
ize, and it was necessary that some other person should
put a motion to the house. This was done. The Rev.
John P. Cleaveland rose and stated in substance : That
as the Commissioners to the General Assembly for 1838,
from a large number of Presbyteries, had been refused
their seats ; and as we had been advised by counsel learn,
ed in the law., that a constitutional organization of the
Assembly must be secured at this time and this place, he
trusted it would not be considered as an act of discourtesy:g.
but merely as a matter of necessity, if we now proceed 10
organize the General Assembly of 1838, in the fewest
words, the shortesk. time, and with the least interruption
practicable. He therefore moved. that Dr. Beman, from
the Presbytery of Troy, be Moderator, to preside till a
new. Moderator be chosen.",.... :
· The motion wàs seconded, and then put to the house by:
Mr. Cleaveland.“ It was carried by a large majority of
those who voted, only a few voting in the negative.
· Dr. Mason and Rey, E. W. Gilbert were chosen Clerks..
Dr. Beman then stated that the next business before the
house was the election of Moderator. The Rev. Dr. Fisho.
er was nominated and duly elected..
Dr. Fisher then took the station which had been occupi.
ed by Dr. Beman, and called for business. The Rev. Dr.
Mason and Rex. Mr: Gilbert were chosen stated and per.
manent Clerks. A motion was made and carried, that
the General Assembly now adjourn, to meet forth with in.
the session room of the First Presbyterian Church.
The Reformers remained and formed another Assem.
bly. And the division of the church was accomplished..
It has been objected against the organization of the As-
sembly, that it was the result of a plan ; and the impres.
sion has often been made, that the plan was laid in cun.
ning and secrecy. But is was proposed and adopted in
open day, with open doors, and the Reformers were ape-
154
jyrised of it, as appears from the following statement in
reference to their Convention ::- In the Old School Con-
vention this afternoon, information was received, that the
members of the other Convention, by a vole nearly unani.
mous ::
· Resolved, That if any of their party should be refused
seats in the General Assembly, about to be constituted on
the morrow, they will themselves organize a General As-
sembly at the same place at the proper hour." W. P.,
Herald, May 31, 1838.
It will be remembered that on the 15th of May, the
Constitutional party made their overtures for an amicable
arrangement, which was rejected by the other party. The
next day the 16th): the Reformers are in possession of the
plan which the Constitutional party intended to pursue to
secure their rights.
The resolution referred to was in these words :
56 Resolved, That, should a portion of the Commission-
ers to the next General Assembly attempt to organize the
Assembly, without admitting to their seats Commission..
ers from all the Presbyteries recognized in the organiza.
tion of the Assembly of 1837, it will then be the duty of:
the Commissioners present to organize the General As.
sembly of 1838, in all respects according to the Constitu.
tion, and so transact all other necessary business conseo:
quent upon such organization." See Cincinnati 'Journal,
June 28, 1838.
It seems, however, that the Reformers expected, by take-
ing possession of the Seventh Church, as a Conventiong,
before the other party could get in on the morning of the
meeting of the Assembly, togeiher with the aid of the
resolutions of the Trustees of the Seventh Church, allow
ing the house only to a Reform Assembly, that they would
be able to prevent a Constitutional organization.or
An objection has been urged against the organization of
the Assembly, that “ Mr. Cleaveland had no right to put
the question to the house." To this it has been replied,
that he had the right, according to the usage of all bodies,
when the officers are absent, or refuse to do their duty.
The Moderator is the servant rather than the master of a
deliberative body. He possesses delegated power, for the
preservalion of order, and directing operations according
155
to the jutes of the body. fíe is put in the chair, not to
prevent the orderly operations of business and to create
l'isorder, not to make new rules or nulify old ones, but
that he, as well as the members, may observe the rules of
the body. And whenever a Moderator sets himself above
the law, and refuses to organize the body, according to its
rules, he forfeits his place. This is a correct principle in
all deliberative Assemblies of freemen..
On this point the Editor of the Presbyterian wished to
make a false issue. He said: “ Suppose a member of
Congress should rise in his place, after the house was or.
ganized, and should offer a motion and put it, would it not
be ridiculous ?"! This was not the case in point. Mr.
Cleaveland made and put his motion before the organiza-
tion of the house, while the Moderator of the previous
Asseinbly was in the chair pro.lem. according to usage,
till the Assembly could be organized.
But to make a supposition in-point : Suppose in Con-
gress, before the organization of the house, a person put
pro. tem, in the chair, a chairman or a clerk, should set
himself above all law, hesitate to enrol members, refuse
to-put motions or appeals to the house, or to organize ac.
.cording to usage. What would Congress do in such a case?
Would they be obliged to submit to the usurpation or ob-
.stinacy of the officer, and only discuss such subjects as he
would propose, or take such action as he would allow ? It
has so turned out that, since that time, Congress has been
.called to act in such a case ; and the public are not left
to guess what Congress would do under such circun.
stances.
The twenty sixth Congress met on the second of Bea
cember, 1839. According to the laws and constitution of
the United States, the clerk of the House of Representa.
tives takes the chair till the organization of the body is
completed. The clerk, at the proper time and place,
when the members came together, commenced calling the
roll. He proceeded with the States till he came to New
Jersey. He then proposed passing over her representa
tives, as their seats would be contested. Her representa-
tives were whigs. The clerk was an administration man.
Passing over these members would probably give to the
clerk's party the ballance of power in the organization
156
.
election of speaker, &c. Here business came to a stand.
The clerk was 11 willing to proceed, except in his own
way. On the 'fourth day, Mr. Adams rose and said:
• Fellow-citizons and members elect of the Twenty
Sixth Congress of the United States: I address myself 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. Ho
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
what predicament are we thus.placed ? We are fixed as
firmly.and as immovably as these columns around the
house. "We can neither go forward nor backward, and
the clerk tells us that he will persist in both the decisions
he has made. We must organize. .1f there is difficulty
in relation to any portion of us, we inust do what Mr.
Jefferson said was done when Lord Dunmore dissolved the
legislature of Virginia on a sudden. What did they do?
They adjourned to a tavern-they constituted themselves
a convention, and they acted as the legislature of the state
or colony. They actually, instead of being assembled in.
the place from which the act of the Governor had exclu.
ded them, adjourned to another place, foimed themselves
into a convention, and there acted in the name of the Slate.
I call upon you, in the name of the people, to organizè. 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 submitting this proposition; I have no
reference to the clerk, nor to any opinion of his.. I pra.
pose that the House itself should act. It may, if it pleasa
es, choose a temporary clerk."
. These extracts from Mr. Adam's speech will show how
Congress-men feel in a case in which an officer refuses to
.do his duty.. Mr. Adams was repeating his call upon the
House to act, regardless of the gentleman in the chair,
when he was interrupted by many members asking: "How
shall the question be put ?''_ .Who will put the ques.
tion ?''. Mr. Adams replied, raising his voice above the
tumult: -I intend to put the question." Mr. Adarns was
accordingly soon nominated and elected to act as chaire
.157
man, till the House, could be organized and a speaker apa?
pointeil,
Here is, then, a case in point. Has any one contended
that Mr. Adams had no right to put the question ? Mas
any one said that the Twenty Sixth Congress was not
constitutionally organized, becalise 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, acconse
ding to law, were aciing is chairmen.till the organizatimi
of the bodies, and the election of presiding officers. The
chairman of each body refuses to enrol certain members
claiming seats, with commissions in proper form. Then
refuse to put motions bearing upon the ro!!. Mr. Cleaves
land 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. otler: officers who
will organize according to la:w and usage. And the things
was done. There was opposition, and cries of order from
those who were opposed to the organizations. But the
voices of Mr. Adams and Mr. Cleaveland rose above the
swelling tumult--above the cries of order, the coughing
and scraping of the opposition, and were heard by all sho
wanted to hear.'
It is a matter of history, that there was confusion and
noise in the organization of the Assembly. The effort
was made by leading men among the Reform party to
fasten the odium of the tumult upon the Constitutional pike
ty, . On this point, also, it is but fair that the Reformers
should be heard. The :46 Presbyterian;" it would seem,
was satisfied that the “ New School had ulterly di:se
graced themselves." The reason is thus given: “Mr.
Cleaveland rose, and with a disregard to all decorum, sela
dom witnessed in any place, proceeded, in defiance of alt
the authority of the moderator, to read the resolution.
The New School party then rose in a most disorderly
manner, yelling and sliouting, and voting, pretending to
organize by the appointment of a moderator and clerk, and
then, amidst the clapping of a dozen or two of their par.
tv, retired to the Rev. Mr. Barnes' church,.crying out as
they retired : The General Assembly of the Presbyteri.
an Church will meet in the First Prebyterian Church."
14
156
With this he then contrasts the conduct of the Reformers:
• They remained quiet in their seats during this outrage.'
See WV. P. Herald, May 31st, 1838..
The Pittsburgh Christian Herald, another Reform pr-
pory', thus closes his notice of the affair : “ This ridiculous
and riotous farce was concluded with stamping and clap.
ping, as if they had obtained a great victory, which they
certainly did over common decency and common sense.
it is gratifying to add, that except the declaration of the
moderator, that they were out of order, which was mildly
ivid decorously announced, there was not an act or a word
buy any member of our house, and to hear the screams of
cilje at the different votes, and see and hear the mobbisha
manner in which the whole was conducted and concluded
was fir beyond what I ever witnessed before." See 1V.
P. Herald, May 31st, 1838.
· The Editor of the W. P. Herald, May 31, 1838, denom-
inated the organization of the Assembly sa riot. He
said: “That gentlemen of respectability that Presbyte-
rian izinisters and ruling elders of decent character should
have deliberately formed and attempled to execute a scheme
ut once so indecent, vulgır anck ridiculous, is, we firmly
believe, a thing without a parallel. Their partisans may
call it by what name they please, but we are well satisfied,
that all calm and decent people will call it a riot, and noth-
ing more or less can be made of it."
Mr, Hawthorn, a Reformer from Kentucky, said : 6 Mr.
Clcaveland demanded to be permitted to read his paper,
and in the midst of loud cries of order, he proceeded.
Then ensued a scene of confusion unparalleled in the
meetings of the Assembly. I must, however, be permilied
to say that it was almost exclusively among the New
School party and the spectators." See Wi P. Herald,
May 31,1838.
· li will be seen that these naratives differ in one points
about the confusion. The Pittsburgh Herald declares that
" there was not an act or a word by any member" among
the Reformers, " except the declaration of the moderator,
which was mildly and decorously announced.” But Mr.
Hawthorn says, that Mr. Cleaveland proceeded to read Kiş
papers in the midst of loud cries of order," from the
Reformers of course,
159
· To judge, however, of the correctness of the foregoing
statements, other sources of information should be referred
10. The American Sentinel, a political daily paper of Phi
- ladelphia, said : “ This body met yesterday at the place
appointed by the Assembly of last year. The variolis ri?.
mors which -were, afloat in the morning, led us to expect
division and confusion from the conflicting claims of iho
parties. A large concourse was present; happily, how-
ever, the party koown as the New School, had taken their
measures with so much wisdom, and carried them through
with so much inoderation, próinptness and confidence, ihit :
the other party were taken by surprise and allowed then
to go on and elect their officers and complete the organizii.
tion of the Assembly with entire unanimity. We learn)
that the course pursued by the Trustees of the Seveni!
Presbyterian Church rèndered another: place of meeting
necessary ; and the Assembly adjourned to meet in the
First Presbyterian Church, where ite sessions will hereaf-
ter be held. Perhaps it irould have been better if tho
audience had withheld their applause when the work was
done. We nre also informed that the Old School party
organized after the others had left the house. The parly
known as the New School did not adopt this course : until
it was rendered. certain that their brethren were fully.dc.
termined to carry out ihe aggressive measures of the last
Assembly, by which five hundred ministers and sixty
thousand church members were illegally, and without trial,
declared to be no longer connected with the Presbyteriär
church. The aggrieved party have now rendered their
churches, secure."
An examination, however, of the lestimony before the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in the Church Case, will
prove more satisfactory than any newspaper accounts.
In the trial, the Reformers had thirty witnesses. The
greater portion of these testified that the tunult was charge.
ablo upon the oiher party. It will be borne in mind, that
all these witnesses, except one or two, were of the Reform
party-some of them the leaders of the party, and the
very persons concerned in the transactions which were
uudergoing a legalinvestigation, viz.: Messrs Breckinridge,
Plurner, the Moderator, the Clerk, &c. And sonic of ihe
witnesses were salaried officers, who made their breid by
1
160
serving their party, viz. : Drs. Miller, Elliot, Messrs. Mc-
Farlan, Lowrie, &c. It is not to be wondered at, that these
gentlemen would consider every thing very disorderly that
would be attempted by the Constitutional party to stay the
usurpations and disorders of the so called reform.
The testimony of Professor McLean, (an Old Sohool
nan) a member of the Assembly of 1838, and a witness
for the Reformers, was as füir as could have been expeci.
ed. He said: " That there had been as liitle disturbance
by the meinbers of the New School party, as had been
possible, in that state of things." "I thought that the
tunju!t could not be charged on them, though they were
the occasion of it":_ I thought the proceedings disorder.
ly, of course; I have never thought otherwise."-"TO.
ward the conclusion of the seene, there was clapping and
some hissingi I did not know any of the individuals who
clapped or hissed, but supposed the clapping was in a ppro.
bation, and the bissing in disapprobation.”-6) saw no
clapping or hissing from any member of the Assembly."-
6 The voices of the New School in voting were altogether
above the pitch necessary to be heard."
Caunsel for the New School asked . Was it not neces.
cary: to speak loud in order to be heard ?" :
Witness. It was a perfect. scene of confusion. I
suppose it was necessary to speak loud in proportion to
the noise in order to be heard. The voice naturally rises
in loudness with excitementi".
** Counsel.--" Is it not more proba ble that the opponents
of the New School men would make a noise to interrupt
then, than that they should interrupt themselves ?"
Witness. As an abstract proposition it may be so."
See McElroy's Report, pp. 240, 241.
Mr. Norris, an Episcopalian, was, with not more than
one exception, ihe only witness for the Old School, who
was not an Old School Presbyterian. He did not fix the
confusion upon the New School. The most that he said
about the noise was in these words : " I saw Mr. Cleave.
land rise. He held a paper in his hand, and appeared as
if he was reading from the paper. He read in a very loud
voice. His voice was very loud, clear and distinct. I
could hear every thing which he read, but do not now re.
mnenuber what it was. When he finished reading the pa-
17
.
161
rer, as I presumed, he nominated Dr. Beman to act as
chairman. I heard a very loud affirmative, I should think
from the galleries, as well as the lower part of the house."
See McElroy's Report, page 239.
Rev. Mr. Boardman, ün Old School witness, said : “ The
Moderator called him [Mr. Cleaveland] to order, and rapped
with his hammer repeatedly, and there were cries of order
from a nuinber of the members around me, who used va-
rious expressions, sonie cried "shame, shame,' and I heard
one or two gentlemen say : • Let him go on. At this
time some rose on their feet, and there were some standing
on the seats, which prevented me from seeing Mr. Cleave.
land.” See McElroy's Report, p. 216.
The reader will see how this contrasts with the ac-
counts that went out at the time through the papers of the
Old School to their readers : « Except the declaration of
the Moderator that they were out of order, which was
mildly and decorously announced, there was not an act or
a word by any mernber of our house."
Dr. Miller, of Princeton, was.a witness for the Reform,
ers. He said : "Il was indeed a scene of great excite-
ment, and I was surprised to find myself, though not a
Commissioner, unconsciously waving my hand and ex.
pressing a wish for the restoration of order." See McEl-
roy's Report, p. 312.
· It was to be sure a scene of excitement. And if Di,
Miller, whose character and deportment was sanctifird by
years and religion, was found, though not a member, wa-
ving his hand and crying order, what was to be expected
of men whose career has been marked by rashness and
violence ?
But some of the testimony on the other side must be exe..
hibited. Mr. Geminill was a witness for the Constitution.
alists, and not a member of any church. He said : “late
tended the church in Ranstead Court on the day of the
organization of the Assembly of 1838. I was leaning on
a pew, near the South West door, just under the gallery,
not far from the Moderator. I saw Mr. Cleaveland rise,
but did not hear much of what he said, because of the
noise around me. In the neighborhood where I was, there
was a great deal of scraping with the feet, stamping and
other uniseemly noises. I saw a great number of the Old
14*
162
School' members around me. I saw none other in that
iew or in the vicinity where I was.” “ Some of them
scraped with their feet; and stamped on the floor, and there
was considerable other noise in that neighborhood. This
was while Mr. Cleaveland was speaking or reading. 'His
face was, at first, towards the Moderator, that is, when he
first commenced. li spoke to some of the gentlemen
i round me, and asked what was the necessity of making
so much noise. I knew some of them to be ministers,
and said to then, that. I thought that was pretty conduct
for clergymen, and asked them if they had not better hear.
what the gentleman who was reading had. to say."-66.1
am not a member of any church, and felt that'it' was rath-
or assuming for me to rebuke them, but I thought their
conduct.justified me, and I wanted to bear:" 'There was.
il tumult through the house. I cannot say that it was.
confined to the Old School party, but I understood that
those near me were the Old School. They generally act-
ed with the Old School party."-" I should not call it a
riot. There was scraping and coughing. I was twenty
or thirty feet from Mr. Cleaveland, and there did not apo
pear to be as much noise near him as about where I was."
See McElroy's Report, pp. 246, 247.
Mr. Elms,.a Congregationalist, was a witness for the
Constitutional party. He said : " I stood near the Moder-.
ator. Dr. Miller was between Dr. Elliot and me. Dr.
Elliot hammered and called to order, and Dr. Miller tried:
io hush the noise. He put his hand up as though to stop,
the tumult, and used some expression like 'Let them go.
through.! Dr. Milles, I think, stood up at this momenta
He had before been sitting. This was about the time Mr.
Cleaveland was endeavoring to'read his paper. The tu..
mult was the calling to order, very loudly, in the neigh..
borliood of the Moderator. All the noise pretty-much that:
I heard was in that part of the house."-". The reason
why I could not heal: all dislinotly,. was, that there were
calls to order. The Moderator called to order very loudly,.
and thumped with his hammer; and others around him
called order loudly. There was a good deal of stir and.
bustle. This was what. I meani, when I spoke of tumult.!!
See McElroy's Report, 251. .
In justice to the Hon. Mr. Lowrie, it ought to be stated;
183
that in his neighborhood, he heard " no legislative couglan
ing.' And in reference to many of the Reform witnesses,
it may be conjectured that they wero in the midst of so
much noise, from calling to order, rapping the hammer;
cries of shame, shame, o let them go on, 5 legislative
coughing,' &c. that they wore poorly, qualified to say upon
whom the tumult was chargeable.
Be the facts as they may, it is difficult for an unbiassed -
mind to perceive what object the Constitutional party..could
have in view in raising a tumult to defeat their own organ.
ization. But so the Reformers would have it. They call..
ed it is a riot." And those who aided in the organizatiom
of the Assembly they called " rioters." So at least, said:
the Editor of the Western Presbyterian. Herald..
( 164 )
CHAPTER XXI.
YT
THE POLICY OF THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY.
VV
Though the division of the General Assembly was ef-
fected at its meeting in May, 1838, yet the division gen-
erally throughout the churches was somewhat gradual. :
The Reformers, by the excision of nearly one fourth of
the church, had made the impression upon the minds of
many, who had no sympathy for their new measures, that
they were the church, seeming to be the majority such
persons supposing that the majority, by whatever means
secured, must be the church.
By this policy of the reform party, it must be conceded,
that when the Assembly divided, counting all who claim.
ed seats, the Reformers had the majority. The reform
estimate of the strength of the parties, after the division
of the Assembly, was briefly the following:
Whole number, claiming seats in the Assembly of 1838, - 282
Whole number who acted with the Reformers,
156
Leaving for the Constitutional Assembly, including a few neutrals, 126
(See Western Presbyterian Herald, June 14th, 1838.)
According to this estimate, the Reformers had fifteen
more than half of the Assembly.
But the strength of parties in the Assembly did not ex.
hibit the strength of parties throughout the church. After
the division of the Assembly, the Reformers claimed the
Southern States almost entirely. - They congratulated
themselves that six minislers” constituted the strength of
the “New School” in the South. In this they suffered
themselves to be deceived, as subsequent events have
proved.
After the division of the Assembly, the Synods, Presby-
165
teries and Churches had to take action on the subject of
separation. This was not generally done till the next fally:
and then not completely ; for since that period several
Presbyteries, and many churches have left the New Basis;.
and planted themselves again: upon the constitution of the
church.
fu noticing the policy of the Reformers, we must in jus.
tire confirie ourselves to their own documents and reports.
Their correctness or incorrectness, as regards principles
or matters of fact, is a subject of lawful investigation.
And whether their principles are more in accordance with
truth than their statements, the reader must judge. It can..
nut; however, escape the notice of any one, that much that:
was said in their papers and documents was for: effect. .
Let the reader take up the Western Presbyterian Her-
ald of the 14th of June, 1838, and he may have a speci.
men of things reported for effect: There the Editor, who
boasts as much nobleness and fairness as: is common a.
mong his Reform brethren, sends out to his readers: a ro.
port of seven things, which he, no doubt, was willing they
should believe "for substance of doctrine," or, "as a sys-
tem :'
1. “That Dr. Taylor, of New Haven, officiated and
preached the action sermon” for the Constitutional As-
sembly.
2. That.Dr. Richarils of Auburn, one of the most ju-
dicious divines connected with the secession, retired from
their councils:in disgust, very soon after the Constitutional
Assembly was organized.".
3: "That Judge Hall'one of the most judicious laymen
connected with the secession, did not hesitate to express
the opinion that they were destroying their prospects, by
their imprudent and indignified proceedings."
4. "That the brethren (in the Constitutional Assembly:).
were sometimes constrained to laugh outright at the ludi.
crousness of their appearance."
5. “That our brethren of the secession seriously contém:
plated at one time superceding that ty ro in theology, Ar-
chibald Alexander, and filling the chair which he has so
unworthily occupied in the Seminary at Princeton, with
the venerable Albert Barnes.".
6. “Thật certain persons, sound Presbyterians to be
166
sure, and very honorable men, have given reason to ex-
pect that they will adhere to the Presbyterian church, or
depart to the Seceders, according as the civil courts shall
adjudge the church property 10 the one or the other of
these bodies. Verily, these conscientious lovers of truth
and order, and contemners of filthy lucle, remind one of
ei toast said to have been offered some years ago, on a pub.
lic occasion in Richmond, Vair by John Randolph-Tlie
venerable Thomas Rilchãe, and his principles; just seven
five loaves and two fishes."
7. “That our seceding brethren intend to claim, not on-
ly all the property held by the Trustees of the General,
Assembly, but all the property held by all the congrega.
tions heretofore connected with the Presbyterian church in
the United States of America.".
Had the veracity of this Editor at this time been called
in question, it is probable he would have substantiated the
whole by certificates, as in the case of Mr. Stiles unsound
ness in the faith, and the certificate of Mr. Craig ! :
12
IL
believe these things "for substance of doctrine," yet he
was himself chargeable with an inconsistency never iin-
puted even to the “New School," viz.: wanting others to:
believe "for substance of doctrine” what he did not him.
self believe.
It should not, however, be supposed, that in these seven -
reports there was nothing true. About two-sevenths of
the statements were true; especially what was said under
the sixth item about “certain persons" of seren princi-
ples---fire lores and two fishes. These are the persons, no
doubt, of whom this same Editor was speaking in the W.
P. Herald, of July: 21st, 1836, when he said: “There are
always sorne ready to join the stroligest party, just be-
cause it is the strongest party." What, therefore, was
said, on this point was true. . Those who love to go with
the strongest party--men of seren principles, belong not
to the Constitutional party. And, indeed, after laboring
from 1830 to 1837 to get the stronger party and the men:
of seven principles, the Reformers ought not to complaius:
at, their success.
Well, as the newspaper reports of the Reformers are
169
pot to be relied on, the doings of other bodies must claim
attention.
When the Reformers, year after year, were in the min
nority, and were laboring for division, they then talked
about an amicable separation, and an anicable division of
church property. But when theỹ found themselves a mà.
jority in the Assembly, and had formed a division by ex. '
cision and other unconstitutional measures, they seemed
to have greatly changed their opinions about amicable ad-
justments. The attempt was early imade by the Reform
party to set up an exclusive claim to the name, privileges, .
rights and property of the church. They were unwilling
the community should regard the Constitutional party as
one division of the body, but as a faction of seceders, whe
had gone out from them, renouncing the nam3, the doc-
trines, or any claim to a share of the property of the
church.
That this is a correct view of the reform policy, will ap:
pear from a history of the times. Below are given some
resolutions which were before the New Basis Assembly of
1838. They were not acted on, it was said, because "the
secession commenced their suits at law.” But the Edi-
tor of the Presbyterian, in publishing them, says: “In the
main, we believe they expressed the mind of the As.
sembly."
The first paper was offered by Dr. Phillips, and is as
follows:
"W"hereas, the Presbyterian church in the United States,
as now represented in the General Assembly of the same,
have for years contended for the doctrines and order of
the gospel, for the truth, purity, peace and spiritual pros.
perity of the church, and not for earthly gain; and where:
as, a portion of what has heretofore been called the Pres.
byterian church, have voluntarily gone out from us, and
by their secession and separate organization, have for:
feited in law, all their title to any of the property belong.
ing to the Presbyterian church ; and whereas, the General
Assembly have no desire to hold or use any funds, which
may in equity belong to said secession, therefore,
.66 Resolved, That a committee be appointed to ascertain
whut portion, if any, of the funds in the hands of the
Trustees of the General Assembly, may be equitably
108
claimed by those who adhere to the secession, and report
to the next General Assembly, and thus, if possible, se.
cure an amicable adjustment of our pecuniary affairs.”
The other paper was offered by Mr. Breckinridge, and
is as follows: See Cincinnati :Journal, June 2812, 1838.
The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in
the United - States, both during its present sessions, and
during those of last year, had distinctly and repeatedly
expressed its perfect willingness to settle all the difficul.
ities, and especially those of a pecuniary kind, which have
arisen, or could arise, between those Synods which have
been declared out of our connexion, and all who have se.
ceded and united with them, on the one part, and the church
itself on the other. ,
This was indeed the earnest desire of the church; as
well because of the questions involved, turned finally on
questions purely ecclesiastical, as because money questions
- vere in our view wholly insignificant, compared with oth.
ers which lay behind them. And as we construed the law
. of God, it seemed better, even to take wrong and suffer
injustice in temporal affairs, than to be prompt to hale
We utterly repudiate all pretensions, from whatever quar-
tor, to control the conscientious decisions of the Church
of Christ, on matters of christian doctrine, order or discie
pline, by the civil tribunals.
We are bound, and we hope prepared, to render to Cæo
sar all things that are Cæsar's, but we are also bound, and
resolved, never 10 surrender to Cæsar the things which
are only God's.
It is, therefore, with decided repropation, that this Aş.
sembly has learned, not only that suits are threatened a.
gainst its Board of Trustees, but that other suits have
been actually commenced against the officers of this body,
and several of its members, the object of which is, not on.
ly to provent 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-
semby deems it a solemn duty, to declare, and does here.
.by declare:
L. That it expects of its Board of Trustees the same
169
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
décisions 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 com-
missioners constituting its highest earthly court, do hereby
protest against all attempts to subject the Church of Christ,
in its purely ecclesiastical action, to the surveillanee, or
revision of the civil power. And as free American cilin
zens, we renounce 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
bounds or under the care of either of those Synods or
Presbyteries, which were declared to be out of the ercles
siastical connexion of the Presbyterian Church in the Unia
ted States of America-or within its bounds, or under the
care of any seceding Presbytery or Synod, which churche
es or minorities are willing to adhere to the Presbyterian
Church in manner and form repeatedly declared by this
Assembly, all such churches and minorities are hereby
advised, not only to take steps for their early union with
our body, but also to protect themselves in the exercise of
ecclesiastical rights, to secure their corporate property a
gainst the new gect, and the ruinous principles upon which
their proceedings go."..
These papers, not acted on from policy, nevertheless,
upon the testimony of the Editor of the Presbyterian, sin
the main expressed the mind of the Assembly." The one
offered by Mr. Breckinridge is especially worthy of no-
tice, as going to show the feelings of the party.
The incorrectness of the stalement, in the first sentence,
about the Reform party's perfect willingness to settle all
the difficulties, and especially those of a pecuniary kind,"
will be noticed in its proper place. .
It will be seen from this paper that the Reformers were
ready to rebel against the civil authority, should an at-
tempt be made, as they had learned would be the case, to
bring their conduct before a civil tribunal. See their bold
declarations: “We utterly repu:iiate all pretensions, from
15 .
170
whatever quarter, to control the free and conscientious
decisions of the Church of Christ (the Reform party) on
matters of christian doctrine, order or discipline, by the
civil tribunals." 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 el-
ders, and as commissioners constituting its highest earth.
ly 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." They
scemed to regard their “ecclesiastical action as belonging
to God and not to Cæsar." And then they take a bold
stand against this expected interference, and make a bold
l'ender to Cæsar: all things that are Cæsar's, but we are also
bound and resolved never to surrender to Cæsar the things
which are only God's."
The Reformers attempted to inculcate such sentiments
among their people. The Editor of the "Watchman of
the South,” says: “No court in any of these States can
ever be brought to review or reverse ecclesiastical decis,
ions."-"Its (the Ąssembly's) decisions can be reviewed
or reversed by no other court on earth." These senii,
ments were copied into the Western Presbyterian Herald,
of June 28th, 1838.
The doctrine set forth in Dr. Phillips' paper, is, that tlie
reform party is the church, and that the constitutional par.
ty had forfeited their claim to any thing belonging to the
church. This is the language: “Whereas, a portion of
what has heretofore been called the Presbyterian Church
have voluntarily 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 Presbyterian
Church."
It will be seen that the excision is called a voluntary go:
ing out; and the division of the body, a secession. But
that party had a strange way of naming things; the im:
propriety of which is often as manifest as it would be for
Reformers in a church to call themselves the Old School.
. But in Dr. Phillips paper it was admitted that the Con.
stitutional party had a title to property; but as the Re:
formers would have a separation, so now they must have
171
all the property; for says the paper', the Constitutionalists
have forfeited in law, all their title to any of the prop-
erty belonging to the Presbyterian church.".
This policy of claiming all the property, as appears from
Mr. Breckinridge's paper, was to extend even to the ex-
cinded Synods. In that paper, not only majorities of
churches, but even minorities are whereby advised, not oniy
10'ta ke steps for their early union with our [reform] body,
but also to protect themselves in the exercise of their eccle-
siastical rights, to secure their corporate properly against
the new secl, and the ruinous principles upon which their
proceedings go."
Here are surely some strange features in the policy of
the New Basis sect. They will have division, and stoele
fect this separation," they cast out whole Synods and Pres-
byteries and churches, and then advise “minorities,” how-
ever small, to seize upon the funds to secure their corpo-
raie property against the new sect." Then they proclaim
that their proceedings are inecclesiastical," that they be-
long to the church, and the church belongs to God, and to
permit the civil courts to review their proceedings would be
subjecting the church of Christ to the surveillance of the
civil power; and then they resolve snever to surrender to
Cæsar the things that are only God's."
It will here be seen in what a state of embarrassment the
Constitutional party found themselves. When the divis.
ion took place, all the chartered funds of the Assembly
were in the hands of the reform party, and they were
advising their minorities of Synods, Presbyteries and
churches to secure all the property. And when the con-
stitutional party declared their intention to let the civil
courts decide, whether one party might thus disfranchise
another, the Reformers cried out, “Oh, you must not go to
law-it will injure religion !” The injured party then
said: "We differ à bout rights and property--who shall de.
cide ?" The Reforrers were ready to say, “We will de-
cide--you are seceders--just go along about your busi.
ness—you have forfeited all title to your property-yei,
if you will go off right peaceably, we will give you, as a
charity, what we can spare. The times, however, are
hard--the Vicksburg Bank is broke, and you must not ex-
pect much. Indeed, the Trustees of the General Assem-
172
bly only liold some three hundred thousand dollars--hard-
ly, worth dividing and as you care but little for the stuff.,
would it not show your great disinterestedness just to agree,
not only that the funds of the Assembly, but all the Theo-
logical Seminaries, parsonages, town losts, church edifi.
.ces, &c., of the whole body should belong to our party.
Indeed, you must submit to our terms, and to our decision;
for we do not intend that our proceedings shall be review.
ed by the civil courts. Ecclesiastical proceedings are
God's, and we are resolved never to surrender to Ceear the
things which are only God's."
To these terins the other party were unwilling to submit.
And whether such a policy as the Reformers attempted to
carry out should have been submitted to by the other por.
rion of the church, is a question that men may decide dif.
ferently.
( 173 )
CHAPTER XXII.
THE GREAT REFORM ORDINANCE OF 1938.
The most important measure of the New Basis Assem.
bly of 1838, was ihe passage of the three great acts - for
the general reform and pacification of the church." Omit.
ting the third, being of a local bearing, we present the
first two:
* REPORT
Of the Commitlee on the State of the church, as adopted
May 30, 1838.
- 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, novelly, and importance. The church,
led and supported by the God of Zion, has, within the
last few years, commenced a great reform, which has be-
come indispensable to its very existence, as organized on
the principles of the doctrine and order of its own consti.'
tution. The General Assembly of 1837 carried forward
this reform, in several measures of great and monientous
importance, for the details 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 Gene-
ral Assembly, is clearly and decisively in favor of con-
summating the reform thus a uspiciously commenced. But
a portion of the ministers and ruling elders, sent to this
Assembly, forgetting, or violating, as we apprehend, their.
duty to God and to the church, and choosing to depart from
us, have,' in connection with other persons not in the con-
15*
174
munion of our church, constituted a new ecclesiastical
organization, which they improperly and unjustly assume
10 call the true General Assembly of the Presbyterian
church in the United States of America. To meet the
present crisis at once with the temper and spirit becoming
our high vocation, and to persevere 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 acis are now ordained and established :
; : ACT t
Sec. I. 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-
1ween the dissolution of the present General Assembly,
and the fall meetings of the Synods, either at stated or pro
re nala meetings of the Presbyteries, as shall seem most
advisable to them respectively.' And those Presbyteries,
whose commissioners to this Assembly have united with
others in the formation of another Assembly, in the pres-
ence of this, and with tumult and violence in open con-
tempt of it : or who have advised the formation of said
body, or adhered to, or attended it, as members thereof,
after its formation, renounced, or refused to recognise this
true and only General. Assembly of the Presbyterian
church in the United States of America, are hereby re-
quired to take proper order in regard to their said com-
missioners.
Sec. 11. In case the majority of any Presbytery, whose
commissioners have acted as aforesaid, shall take proper
order-touching their conduct in the premises, and are wil.
ling, upon the basis of the Assemblies of 1937 and 1838,
to adhere to the Presbyterian church in the United States
then, and in that case, the acts of their said commission.
ers, in advising, creating, or unitng with said session, or
in refusing to attend on this Assembly, as the case may be,
shall not prejudice the rights or interests, or affect the in.
tegrity of said Presbytery, or its union with the Presbyte.
izian church in the United States of America, as an inte-
grad portion thereof.
175
SEC. III. In case the majority of any Presbytery shall
refuse, or neglect to take proper order in regard to its se-
ceding commissioners, or shall approve their conduct, or
adhere to the new sect they have created, or shall decline
or fail to adhere to the 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
minority 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 suffi-
ciently numerous to perform presbyterial acts, shall go
forward with all the proper acts and functions of the Pres.
bytery.
Sec. IV. In case the minority of any Presbytery
should be too small to constitute a Presbytery, and perfom
presbyterial acts, said minority shall remain in its existing
stata 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 parı
of their Presbyteries should adhere to the secession, and
the minorities attach themselves to other Presbyteries or
several unite into one, before the Synods meet.
Sec. V. The principles of this act shall apply to
churches, with their majorities and minorities--and to
church sessions, as far as they are applicable. And the
Presbyteries are hereby required so to cxercise their watch
and care, that as far as possible, all the churches may be
preserved, and where happily this cannot be done, then
that the minorities in the sessions and churches shall be
cared for, and dealt with on the general principles now
laid down.
The Assembly is fully sensible that in divided Presby.
teries and churches, every thing dependis, under God, upon
the promptitude, firmness, wisdom and moderation of the
friends of Christ, in this great crisis. In this conviction,
the whole of that part of the subject which relates 10
churches and private christians, is especially commended
to the christian zeal, prudence and fidelity of ihe Presby.
teries and church sessions. In regard to the temporal ini.
176
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 are very small : while on the other hand, it
would advise, -that providential advantages, and important
rights, ought not, in any case, to be lightly thrown away.
Sec. VI. It is enjoined on the Synods to take order on
this subject to see that the principles hero laid down are
duly enforced to take care that the Presbyteries act as
truth and duty require in the premises-o make such
needful modifications in the Presbyteries as their altered
circumstances may require—and to promote by all proper
means the speridy pacification of the churches, by deliver-
ing and saving them from the leaven of heresy, disorder
and schism, which having so long worked among them, is
at length ready, by Cod's mercy, to be purged away. **
Sec. VII. The Synods in all cases shall be considered
lawfully constituted only when formed by or out of those
Presbyteries recognised as true Presbyteries by this As.
sembly, according to the true tenor and intent of this act.
ACT II.
Whereas, the act of the Assembly of June 5th, 1837,
declaring the three Synods of Utica, Geneva, and Gene-
see, to be out of the ecclesiastical connection of the Pres: ;
byterian Church in the United States of America, made
ample provision for the return into the bosom of the
church of every minister and church, truly Presbyterian
in doctrine and order, as well within the bounds of the
three aforesaid Synods, as within those of the Synod of
the Western Reserve:
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 bick, and are still waiting on the developments of
Providence :
And whereas, it was never the intention of the General
Assembly to cause any sound Presbyterian to be perma.
nently separated from our connection, hut it is, and always
was the desire of the church, that all wlio really embrace
177
our discipline, should unite themselves with us :
: And whereas, moreover, the General Assembly has no
idea of narrowing, but would rather expand its geogru-
phical limits, so as to unite in bonds of the most intimate
fellowship every portion of our beloved country, and every
evangelical christian like minded with ourselves : it is
therefore, resolved by the General Assembly of the Pres.
byterian Church in the Uuited States of America, that it
be recommended
1. That those ministers and churches, living within the
geographical limits of the Synods of Western Reserve,
Geneva, Utica, and Genesee, who are willing to adhere to
the Presbyterian Church in the United States, on the ba-
sis of the acts of the Assemblies of 1837 and 1838, for
the general reform of the church, take steps for the imme.
diate organization of as many Presbyteries as there are
ciently numerous to constitute, so that the whole number
of Presbyteries thus formed, shall not exceed one Presby.
tery for each of the aforesaid Synods; and so that the
territory of the Western Reserve shall in no case be added
to that in Western New York-and in case only two Pres.
byteries can be constituted on the ground occupied by the
three Synods of Utica, Geneva, and Geneseemthen that
whole territory shall be divided between them. And in
Case but one Presbyterv can be constituted, then the whole
territory shall altach 10 it. In regard to the Western Re.
serve, it is desired that a single Preslytery be formed as
soon as convenient, to embrace the whole of that ground.
2. The ministers and churches intended by this act,
will hold such mutu:l correspondence as they shall deen
needful, either by general meeting or otherwise ; and then
ineet, at such convenient time and place, as may be agreed
on by those who are to be embraced in the sarne Presby-
tery, and then and there constitute themselves in a regular,
orderly, and christian manner, into a Presbytery under the
care of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church
in the United States of America.
3. lf as many as three Presbyteries can be convenient.
ly formed in Western New York, it will be orderly for
them, as soon as possible thereafter, to unite and consti-
178
tute themselves into a Synod, upon the principles indica-
ted in this Act; and such Synod, if formed, shall cover
the entire territory heretofore occupied by the three Synods
of Utica, Geneva, and Genesee. But in case only one or
two Presbyteries can be forined, then application shall be
made by it, or them, for admission under the care and in-
to the bosom of such Synod, now in our connection, as
shall be most convenient and natural. And the Presby.
tery on the Western Reserve, if one should be formed,
will adopt the same line of conduct. And any Synod, to
which application may be thus made by any Presbytery,
shall take immediate order to accomplish the ends of this
act. And it is considered, that any Presbytery or Synod,
formed in pursuance of these directions, shall have full
power to perform all Presbyterial or Synodical acts, agree.
ably to the Constitution of the Church."
The reader ought to notice particularly a few itens in
this document, which is to be considered as a part of the
foundation upon which the New Basis Assembly rests.
They found themselves " in a position of great diffi-
culty, novelty and importance"--in the midst of or a great
reform." They say: 66 The General Assembly of 1837
carried forward this reform," in the excinding acis, and
that now the voice of the church " is clearly and decisive-
ly in favor of consummating the reform thus a uspiciously
commenced."
Any one, however, must notice the absurd and incon.
sistent statements made by the New Birsis Assembly in
their "position of great difficulty and novelty." Here,,
in the Reform Ordinance, thoy would seem to regret the
division of the church, and lay great guilt at the door
of the other party for os forgetting, or violating, as we
apprehend, their duty to God and the church, and choosing
to depart from us.” Now, can any one believe they were
in earnest in this regret, or that ihey were sorry the “ New
School" had separated from them ? No. This was an
attempt to impute their own guilt, in 6 fogetting, or viola-
ting their duty to God and the church" to the innocent.
But that they felt no regret, is evident from what they
say in the latter part of the sixth section of the first Act.
They there enjoin it upon Synods to promote the interests
of their churches “ by delivering and saving them from
179
the leaven of heresy, disorder and schism, which having
so long worked among them, is at length ready, by God's
mercy, to be purged away.“! Could they regret that a
thing should be done, which, "by God's mercy," was ready
to purge away the heresy, disorder and schism which had
so long worked among them ?" The Reformers think the
separation wrong? They regret it ? No. They labored
for it for years. In the Pastoral Letter of the same As-
sembly, their language is, “ Rejoicing as we do, that this
separation is thus far effected."
Nor do they, in their Pastoral Letter, seem to charge
the Constitutional party with “ violating their duly to God
and his church" in separating from them. On this point
they say : “ If the minority cannot in conscience submit
to the measures or doctrines of the majority, it is their
right and duty to separate." Again they say : “ The
church is now fairly divided into two sepárate and inde.
pendent denominations.” Did they complain of this sepa.
ration ? No. They say: “We only complain as to ibe
manner in which it was effected."
The third section of the first Act was regarded as the
most odious portion of the document. It was offensive to
many who were inclined to adhere to the New Basis As.
sembly. Adherence wus required 66 upon the said basis
of 1837 and 1838, for the reform of the church.” And
this adherence upon this a basis" was to be “the test in the
case."
This ordinance was to apply even to churches as well
as to Synods and Presbyteries. In section five they say:
6. The principles of this act shall apply to churches with
their majorities and minorities."
The Constitutional party argued, that this was a "new
basis”, and a " new test." And that such an ordinance,
having the nature of « regulations," or "constitutional
rules," was in the face of Presbyterianisin and the con-
stitution of the church, and especially, because it had not
been transmitted to the Presbyteries, for their approval.
Indeed, it was a new measure, to say the least of it. The
ministers and elders and members said they had joined the
Presbyterian Church upon the basis of the Confession of
Faith and Book of Discipline. The Constitutional party
claimed to be upon that basis, and insisted that the other
180
T
party, by planting themselves upon “the basis of 1837
and 1838,'' had left the old basis.
What the party meant by the act is uncertain. Some
supposed they required approval of the reformy measures
of 1837 and 1838. This, to be sure, was a very natural
conclusion. Upon what basis does a man join any socie-
ty ? Upon the basis of its constitution. Upon what ba-
sis does a man belong to a church? Upon the basis of
her constitution, and because he approves of her faith and
discipline. Upon what basis does the Episcopalian adhere
to his church? Or the Methodist to his? Or the Pres-
byterian to his ? Surely upon the basis of the Confession
of Faith and Book of Discipline. And why upon this
basis ? Because he approves il.
Taking this common sense view of the subject, the As.
sembly required adherence upon this new basis, evidently
expecting that those who approved or the basis" would
stand on it, by coming up to of the test in the case ," and
thai those who did not approve would not adhere.
But it was soon ascertained by the party, that if the
approval of the reform measures were required, it would
rapidly thin their ranks; for it may be confidently assert.
ed that only a small portion of those who went with the
Reformers; approve the New Basis. Approval, therefore,
was not generally demanded by those Synuds and Presby.
teries which took action on the subject.
The history of those times shows that the reform ordia
nances were not every where understood alike. On the
subject of approval, the Princeton Repertory says. “We
regret the use of the language employed, because it is
ambiguous.' On the supposition that the act required
approval, they say: “ We readily admit that if this inter-
pretation be correct, the act complained of would be un.
constitutional and tyrannical.
It is however true, in some cases, approval was de.
manded, and adherence upon the new basis was made as the
test” of Presbyterianism. The majority of the Presby.
tery of Erie, belonging to the Synod of Pittsburgh, were
informed by the Synod that there wou ld be, no difficulty
in their case, if they would now decla re their adherence
on the basis of 1237 and 1838." The Presbytery an-
swored : " We are willing to adhere to the Synod of
181
Pittsburgh and the General Assembly by which it is gore
erned, without having ourselves bound by any additional
pledge whatever.” Whereupon, Synod " Resolved, that
they do not consider said claimanis: as having complied
with the requirements of Synod.” . ...
In this case, the majority of the Presbytery was 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 nero basis.'
· The Synod of Pittsburgh, in their Paştoral Letter of
1838, thus interpret the great ordinance : « By the pro.
vision of that act, the Assembly says, if a majority of a
Presbytery approve and adhere to us, we recognise you
as a Presbytery in our connection, &c. If you do not
approve and adhere, we compel you not, but leave you 10
act as your best judgment dictates. If only a minority
approve and adhere, that minority we do not disown, but if
sufficient in number, we recognise you as a Presbytery."
See Manifesto, p. 16.
On the 5th of Septenaber, 1838, the Presbytery of Vin-
cennes enjoined it upon the church session of Evansville,
to také 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 nåmed 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 leform of the church." See Manifesto, p. 15.
On the 4th of December, 1838, the following measure
was proposed at a meeting of Charleston Union Presbye
tery :
6 Resolved, That the roll be now called, and each mem.
ber, without discussion, do declare whether he can ap-
prove the reform measures of the General Assembly of
1837 ; and that those who answer in the affirmative, ac.
cording to the provision of the last General Assembly, do
constitute the Presbytery of Charleston Union, in connec.
tion with the Presbyterian church." The moderator re.
16
182
i
fusing to put the question, a small minority, in obedience,
as they say, " to an injunction of the Supreme Judicatory
of our church," declared themselves the Charleston Union
Presbytery, to the excision of the majority. And this said
small minority is to this day recognised as the Presbytery
by the Reform Synod and New Basis Assembly. See
Manifesto, p. 15. ..
It was indeed urged by the Constitutional party, that
the reform ordinance shouldered aside entirely the Confes-
sion of Faith. The New Basis party had asserted that
they were contending alone for the truth and order of the
church. In the first Act of this ordinance, they speak of
the "i heresy and disorders of the churches. And it might
have been supposed that they would have proposed a more
rigid subscription to the Confession of Faith, or ordained
a closer examination on theology. But this was not done.
And when, according to their Pastoral Letter : the
church is now fairly divided into two separate and inde.
pendent denominations," upon what basis do the Reform-
ers require adherence to their new denomination ? Was
it upon the basis of the Confession of Faith? Not one
word of this. The Confession is shouldered aside, and
a new foundation is laid in the great ordinance.
Suppose some of those Synods or Presbyteries in which
the - heresy and disordenis existed, had been called up.
Were doctrinal tests to be presented ? Not one word of
it. And no matter how high “ the leaven of heresy and
disorder:" had worked, they were to be acknowledged as
sound presbyterians, according to the great ordinance,
provided they would adhere upon the New Basis. The
object, therefore, judging from the test in the case,"?. was
not to secure men who loved the truth, but who would an.
swer the purposes of the party.
In this respect the Constitutional party seemed to be the
most consistent. They required adherence upon the basis
of the Confession of Faith, while the Reformers required
adherence upon 6 the basis of 1837 and 1838.” Now
which of these 6 two separate and independent denomina-
tions” has the best claim to the name of Old School is
left for others to decide,
(;183)
CHAPTER XXIII.
TO
UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS FOR AN AMICABLE ADJUST-
... MENT.
After the church was divided into two separate and in-
dependent denominations," ench party claimed to be the
Presbyterian church. The New Basis denomination wish.
ed to claim exclusively the name, privileges and funds of
the church. - The Constitutional party were unwilling 10
admit this claim. Such a surrender would have been a
virtual acknowledgment, that they had seceded from the
church of their tenderest regard--an, abandonment of ec-
.clesiastical rights--a relinquishment of funds and proper.
ty bequeathed to them by their futlers for sacred purpo.
ses. By such a course they would not only have forfeit.
ed their share in the chartered funds of the General As-
sembly, but their theological seminaries, colleges, acade.
mies, parsonages, town lots, church' edifices, and even the
grave yards, wliere sleep their fathers, and mothers, hus-
bands and wives, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters.
. In such a state of things, common serise and common
honesty would say, the parties ought amicably to have
adjusted their differences, and to have divided the property,
so that there should have been no law suits between the
parties in the Assembly, or in Synod's, Presbyteries or
churches. But this was not done. The Constitucional
party were obliged either to yield unconditionally to those
who had attempted to oppress them, or.sappeal to Cæsar."
They preferred the latter, for which they have been great-
Jy censured by their former brethren. .
Indeed, in no part of the controversy, has the conduct
of the Constitutional party been in:re fearfully misrepre-
sented than in this. The New Basis party have tried to
184
make the impression, that they were always ready for a
friendly arrangement. In their Pastoral Letter of 1838,
they intimate that the Constitutional party were averse to .
an aniicable arrangement, and then say, "had this course
been adopted, we were willing to concur in any reasona-
ble plan for the adjusįment of any unsettled claims which
have appei tained to the case.!! .
Greater misrepresentations than this were made in some
of the New Basis newspapers in that day. The Editor of
the Westerri Presbyterian Herald, of June 6th, 1839,
speaking of his party in 1837 and 1838, says : ' "The Old
School, thoughi a decided majority [of six in two hundred
and fifty) then offered the other party every farthing of
properly which they claimed. In 1838, they were still
willing and desirous to have an amicable adjustment of all
property.claims; but nothing would satisfy the New School
but an unchristian appeal to the civil courts.".
: li is necessary, therefore, that the history and charac-
ter of those efforts forran amicable adjustment” should be
fairly examined, that the impartial, may see who were
willing and desirous to have an amicable adjustment,'' and
who were lo blame for the "unchristian appeal to the civil
courts.''
' in the Assembly of 1837, it was well understood by both
parties, that the Reformers were determined on the divis-
ion of the church. Such an event the other party had
ever tried to avert, when in the majority, as well as when
in the minority. But when they perceived thal it could
not be avoided, they consented to it. The proposition,
However, for the division, came from the Reforn party.
A commitee of ten on the state of the church was ap-
pointed-five from each party. .
The papers which passed between the two parties of the
committee are too lengthy to insert here. They can be
seen in the newspapers of that day and in the reports of
the church case. From the reports of the committee to
the Assembly, it will be seen, that they agreed upon all im.
portant points, except such as were connected immediate.
Jy or remotely with the charter.
They agreed that the Assembly should be divided into
two bodies--ihe Reform Assembly to be called the General
Assembly of the Presbyterian church in the Uniled States
185
..
of America, and the Constitutional Assembly, the General
Assembly of the American Presbylerian church.
They agreed also in reference to the funds, institutions,
boards, records, &c. But they differed on this point. The
Reformers wanted the division consummated on the spot.
The other party said they had no authority from the con-
stitution of the church, or from the Presbyteries which
they represented, to dismember the body. But they were
willing to unite with the Reformers in recommending the
proposed plan of division to the Presbyteries, that they
might, the next year, give their sanctions, and rayify what
they were proposing. Indeed, according to the constitu-
tion of the church, this committee of ten, or even the
whole Assembly had no more right to divide the church
than the committee of ways and means in Congress has to
divide the Union. . And such an attempt would have been,
in ecclesiastical or civil law, null and void, in any State,
without the consent of the Presbyteries.
And not only did the Reformers want the plan to go into
effect then, but they insisted on holding on to the charter,
whiųh would in any contingency make them secure, but
would leave their brethren without any security except.
good promises.
We have only room for the reports of the committee.
The papers alluded to, which was passed between the two
portions of the committee, may be seen in McElroy's
Report, pp. 51–54.
1
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE MAJORITY.
“The committee of the majority, from the united com-
mittee on the state of the church, beg leave to report :
That having been unable to agree with the minority's.
committee on any plan for the immediate and voluntary
separation of the New and Old School parties in the Pres.
byterian Church, they lay before the General Assembly
the papers which passed between the committees, and
which contain all the important proceedings of both bodies.
The papers are marked one to five of the majoritv and
one to four of the minority. A careful examination of
them will show that the two committees were agreed in
the following matters, namely :
16*
186
1. The propriety of a voluntary separation of the par.
jies.in our church ; and their separate organization.
2. As to the corporale funds, the namės to be held by
cuch denomination, the records of the church, and its
boards and institutions.
It will further appear, that the committee were entirely
imable to agree on the following points, namely :
1. As to the propriety of entering at once, by the As.
sembly, upon the division, or the sending down of the ques-
sion to the Presbyteries.
2. As to the power of the Assembly to take effectual
- initiative steps, as proposed by the majority ; or the neces-
ity of obtaining a change in the constitution of the church.
3, As to the breaking up of the succession of the Gen-
eral Assembly, so that neither of the new Assemblies pro-
posed, to be considered this proper body continued, or that
the body which should retain the name and institutions
of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in
the United States of America, should be held in fact and
law, to be the true successor's of this body. While the
committee of the majority were perfectly disposed to do
all that the utmost liberality could demand, and to use in
all cases such expressions as should be wholly unexcep.
tionable ; yet it appears to us indispensable to take our
final stand on these grounds.
For, first, we are convinced that if any thing tending
towards a voluntary separation is done, it is absolutely
3)ecessary to do it effectually and at once.
Secondly. As 'neither party professes any desire to alter
any constitutional rule whatever, it seems to us not only
needless, but absurd, to send down an overture to the Pres.
byteries on this subject. We believe, moreover, that full
power exists in the Assembly, either by consent of parties,
or in the way of discipline, to settle this and all such
cases, and that its speedy settlement is greatly to be de-
sired.
Thirdly. In regard to the succession of the General
Assembly, this committee could not, in present circum-
stances, consent to any thing that should even imply the
final dissolution of the Presbyterian church, as now organ-
ized in this country ; which idea, it will be observed, is at
the basis of the plan of the minority; insomuch that even
187
the body retaining the name and institutions should not be
considered the successor of this body.
Finally. It will be observed from our fifth-paper, as
compared with the fourih paper of the minority's commit-
tee, that the final shape which their proposal assumed, was
such, that it was impossible for the majoriiy of the house
to carry out its views and wishes, let the vote be as it might.
For if the house should vote for the plan of the committee
of the majority, the other committee would not consider
itself or its friends bound thereby: and voluntary division
would therefore be impossible, in that case. But if the
house should vote for the minority's plan, then the fore-
going insuperable objections to that plan being supposed
to be surmounted--still the whole case would be put off,
perhaps indefinitely." See McElroy's Report, p. 49.
RETORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE MINORITY.
- The subscribers, appointed members of the committee
of ten on the state of the church, l'espectfully ask leave in
report, as follows:
It being understood that one ohject of the appointment :
of said committee was to considder the expediency of a
voluntary division of the Presbyterian church, and to de
vise a plan for the same, they, in connection with the other
members of the committee, have had the subject under
deliberation..
The subscibers had believed that no such imperious ne.
cessity for a division of the church existed, as some of
their brethrenis supposed, and that the consequences of di.
vision would be greatly to be deprecated. Such necessity,
however, being urged by many of our brethren, we have
been induced to yield to their wishes, and to admit the ex.
pediency of a division, provided the same could be accom.
plished in an amicable, equitable, and proper manner.
We have accordingly submitted the following propositions
to our brethren on the other part of the same committee,
who at the same time submitted to us their proposition,
which is annexed to this report. (Here read the proposi.
tion marked Minority No. 1, and Majority No. 2.)
Being informed by the other members of the committee,
that they had concluded not to discuss in committee the
188
propositions which should be submitted, and that all pro.
positions on hoth sides were to be in writing, and to be an.
swered in writing, the following papers passed between the
two parts of the committee. (Here read. papers, No. 2,
minority-2, majority-3, majority--3, minority-4, ma-
jority-4, minority--5, majority.) .
From these papers it will be seen, that the only ques.
tion of any importance upon which the committee differed,
was that proposed to be submitted to the decision of the
Assembly, as preliminary to any action upon the details
of either plan. Therefore, believing that the members of
this Assembly have neither a constitutional nor moralright
to adopt a plan for a division of the church, in relation to
which they are entirely uninstructed by the Presbyteries ;
believing that the course proposed by their brethren of the
committee to be onsirely inefficacious, and calculated to in-
troduce confusion and discord into the whole church, and
instead of mitigating, to enhance the evils which it. propo.
ses to remove ; regarding the plan proposed by them.
selves, with the modification thereof as before s!ated,
as presenting in general the only safe, certain, and con-
slitutional mode of division, the subscribers do respectfully
submit the same to the Assembly for their adoption or re-
jection." See McElroy's Report, p. 50..
From the report of the committee of the majority, it
will be seen that they very significantly objected to the
breaking up of the succession of this General Assembly."
From their report and the papers ihat they submitted to
the other portion of the committee, it will also be seen,
that their propositions in relation to " the successioni," and
the church property were stated in language well calculas
ted to deceive the unsuspecting.
It will, however, be seen that the attempt at an amica-
ble adjustment failed because they wanted every thing
made sure to them and nothing secure to the others---
claiming for themselves exclusively the succession of the
Presbyterian church.
The consequence of such a division to the Constitutioni
party would have been to make them at once seceders from
ihe church of their fathers--a church to whose constitu.
tion and principles they were determined to adhere. And
189
by such a course they would have excluded themselves
from all legal claim to the property of the church.
But there were other considerations of weightier valve
with the Constitutional party than dollars and cents. In.
deed had there been no other interests involved, it is be-
lieved, they would have relinquished their just claim to
their share of the property. But there were other inter-
ests-their honesty, their consistency, their christian rep-
utation, their zeal for the church, their usefulness. They
could not consent, without a struggle, to be unjustly branded
herelics or seceders from a church they were as árdently
attached as those were who would exclude them. They
were unwilling to be cut off and disfranchised, and then
covered with such reproaches as “ no Presbyterians'
6 false and deceiver3"-66 enemies to the Presbyterian
church," &c.
blame for the failure in this attempt at an amicable ad.
justment of conflicting claims:
When the effort for an amicable separation failed, Mr.
Breckinridge the same morning, according to his declara-
tion in the committee of ten, offered a resolution to cut off
the Synod of the Western Reserve. The work of excis.
ion then progressed, until they cut off " a sufficient num.
ber of Synods from the General Assembly to secure there.
after, in that body, the preponderance of the Old School."
The next attempt at an amicable adjustment was while
the two parties were in Convention, before the meeting of
the Assembly in 1838.
On the 15th of May, 1838, the Constitutional.conven.
tion sent the following proposal to the Reform conven-
tion, viz.:
o Resolved, That while we regard with deep sorrow the
existing difficulties in our beloved church, we wouid fond.
ly hope, that there are no insurmountable obstacles in the
way of averting the calamities of a violent dismember.
ment, and of securing such an organization as may avoid
collisions, and secure the blessings of a perpetuated harmo-
nious action.
“ Resolved, That we are ready to co-operate in any ef-
forts for pacification, which are constitutional, and which
shall recognise the regular standing and secure the rights
190
1
of the entire church ; including those portions which the
acts of the last General Assembly were intended to ex-
clude.
o Resolved, That a committe of three be now appoint-
ed, respectfully to communicate the foregoing resolutions
to those commissioners, now in session in this city, who
are at prosent inclined to sustain the acts of the last Gen.
eral Assembly, and enquire whother they will open a
friendly conference for the purpose of ascertaining if some
constitutional terms of pacification may not be agreed
upon.". See Cincinnati Journal, 28th of June, 1838.
To this communication the Reform Convention returned
the following answer, viz.;
6. The committee on the communication from the meet.
ing of commissioners, now in session in the lecture room
of the First Presbyterian Church, presented the following
preamble and resolutions, which were adopted, viz.;
" Whereas, the resolutions of the meeting, whilst they
profess-a readiness to, co-operate in any efforts for pacifi.
cation, which are constitutional,' manifestly proceed upon
'the erroneous supposition, that the acts of the last Gener.
al Assembly, declaring the fuur Synods of the Western Re.
serve, Utica, Geneva, and Genesee, out of the ecclesiasti.
cal connection of our church, weré unconstitutional and
invalid, and the convention cannot for a nioment consent
to consider them in this light ; therefore,
" Resolved, unanimously, that the convention regard the
said overture of the said meeting, however intended, as
founded upon a basis which is wholly inadmissible, and as
calculated only to disturb that peace of our church, which
a calm and firm-adherence to those constitutional, just and
necessary acts of the last General Assembly, can alone,
by the blessings of Divine Providence, establish and secure.
- Resolved, That in the judgment of the convention,
the resolution of the last General Assembly, which pro-
vides, in substance, " that all the churches and ministers
within the said faur Synads, which are strictly Presbyte.
rian in dootrine 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 l'espec.
tive locations; and that any such Presbytery as aforesaid,
Leing strictly Presbyterian in doctrine and order, and now
191
. in connection with any of the said Synods, as may desire
to unite with us, are directed to make application, with a
full statement of their case to the next General Assembly,
which will take order therein, furnishes a fair and easy
mode of proceeding, by which all such ministers, churches,
and Presbyteries within the said Synods, as are really desi-
rous to be l'ecognized as in regular standing with us, and as
proper parts of our entire church, may obtain their object
without trouble and without delay." See Cincinnati Jour-
nal, June 28th, 1838.
The reader, by comparing these two communications,
will be able to see which party was most desirous to have
an amicable adjustment. The Reformers took umbrage at
the word " constitutional." Hence they regarded the over-
ture was calculated only to disturb” the peace of the
church. They seemed to think that their plan of excision
and division and seizure of the property of the entire
church, was the only way to peace. They would not al.
low any overture för a friendly arrangement to disturb the
peace of the church. The plain meaning of all was-our
plans musi not be disturbed ; and if you will just agree
to let lis cut off Synods enough to secure to us forever
hereafter a majority, and to complete the reformation and
division of the church thus 6 auspiciously begun," and
secure the property to which your party hins forfeited its
title, then, by the blessings of Divine Providence, we will
have peace !!
The two parties had not yet separated, yet nearly all
prospect of conciliation, or of an amicable division was
foreclosed.
But when the Assembly met and the parties had separa.
ted, by the organization of two Assemblies, the Constitu-
tionalists were still desirous for an amicable adjustment.
Accordingly" the Constitutional Assembly, on the 24th of
May, 1838, passed the following resolution, vizi
• Resolved, That this body is willing to agree to any
reasonable measures tending to an amicable adjustment of
the difficulties existing in the Presbyterian church, and
will receive and respectfully consider any propositions
which may be made for that purpose." See Cincinnati
Journal, June 28th, 1838.
192
“ Besides these overtures for peace, influential members
of the Assembly held personal conference with the mem-
bers of the Reform body, till it was ascertained that there
was no hope of an amicable settlement of differences." See
Pastoral Letter of the Constitutional Assembly of 1838.
What then could the Constitutional party do ? One of
two things they were obliged to do ; either submit: uncon-
ditionally to the Reformers-mor « appeal to Cæsar," to
know if he would allow one portion of a church to dis.
franchise the other. They chose the latter allernalive ;
and the Trustees of the Assembly instituted suit against
the Trustees of the New Basis Assembly.
But before the trial came on, the Constitutional party,
were still anxious for an amicable arrangement, as will
appear from the following facts :
Os In the Assembly, which met in the First Church, May
20th, 1839, Judge Darling, from the committee of twelve,
appointed on the 21st of May, 1838, “ to advise and direct
ia respect to any legal questions and pecuniary interests
that might require attention during the ensuing year," re:
ported that previous to the trial before Judge Rogers, at
Nisi Prius, the committee were informed by one of their
counsel, that John R. Kane, Esq., one of the Trustees of
the General Assembly, and who was of counsel for the
respondents, had stated to him, that those he represented
were disposed to adjust, amicably and equitably, all mat-
ter's in controversy 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 be.
tween the Reformed and Constitutional General Assem.
blies. Keeping in view the resolution of the General As,
sembly of 1838, viz.: “ That this body is willing to agree
toany reasonable measures tending to an amicable adjust.
ment of the difficulties in the Presbyterian Church, and
will receive and respectfully consider, any 'propositions
made for that purpose" they waived all exceptions which
might have been taken to enter into negotiation with, or
to making propositions to, an irresponsible individual, and
promptly requested thoir counsel to furnish Mr. Kane with
a copy of the following articles; .
193
ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT PROPOSED.
" In order to secure an amicable and equitable adjusta
ment of the difficulties existing in the Presbyterian church
in the United States of America, it is hereby agreed by the
respective parties, that the following shall be articles on
which a division shall be made and continued.
ART. 1. The successors of the body which held its ses-
sions in Ranstead Court, shall hereafter be known by the
pame and style of the General Assembly of the Presbyte.
rian church in the United States of America. The suc-
cessors of the body which held its sessions in the First
Presbyterian Church, shall hereafter be known by the
name and style of " The General Assembly of the Ameri-
can Presbyterian church.."
· Art. 2. 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 l'espec-
tive bodies, securing to each the immunities and privileges
now secured by the existing charter to the Trustees of the
General 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
Siate.
Art. 3. Churches, ministers, and members of churches,
as well as Presbyteries, shall be at full liberty to decide
to which of the said Assemblies they will be attached ;
and in case the majority of legal voters of any congrega-
tion shall prefer to be connected with any Presbyterv con.
nected with the Assembly to which their Presbytery is
not attached, they shall certify the same to the stated clerk
of the Presbytery, which they wish to leave, and their
connection with said Presbytery shall henceforth cease.'
• ART. 4. The Theological Seminary of Princeton, the
Western Theological Seminary, the Board of Foreign
Missions, the Board of Domestic Missions, the Board of
Education with the funds appertaining to each, shall be
the property and subject to the exclusive contiol of the
bod y which, according to this agreement, shall be charter.
ed under the title of the General Assembly of the Pres.
byterian church in the United States of America'.
17
194
This agrcement 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 'amica
ble division of this church into two denominations, each
retaining all the ecclesiatical and pecuniary rights of the
whole body, with the limitations and qualifications in the
alove 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 10
this General Assembly, should be at liberty to leave the
Presbyterian church without molestation from them, and
that they should not be called seceders. See McElroy's
Report, pp. 6,7.:
From the documents already given, it will be seen that
lije Constitutional party made several overtures for an am.
icable adjustment, and that all their overtures were prompt.
ly rejected by the Reformers.
On the other band, nothing like an overture was made
by the Reformers, except some resolutions which they
adopted in 1839, after they were induced by the opinion of
Judge Gibson to consider the property all their own.
The principles of these résolutions are set forth in
the third, vizi:
- The Trustees of the Assembly are hereby authorized
and requested to do on the part of this Assembly, should
occasion offer, whatever is lawful, competent, and equita.
ble in the premises, conformable to the principles and in
the manner heretofore laid down in the minutes of this
Assembly for 1837 and 1838, so far as relates to the cor:
porate property of the church, and any equities springing
out of the same."
The phraseology of this resolution ought to be marked.
The Trustees are authorized to do what is "lawful,” S.C.,
os conformable to the principles, and in the manner heretofore
laid down in the minutes of this Assembly for '1837" and
1838.?' But what were the principles” laid down in 1837
and 1838 ? They were these : Minorities of Synods,
Prèsbyleries and churches were to be considered the bodies,
in cases where the majorities fail to adhere upon the busis
of 1837 and 1833.
195
.
It is true they said in the Reform Ordinance of 1838 :
oo In regard to the temporal interests of the churches and
the difficulties which may arise on their account, the As-
sembly advise that, on the one hand, great liberality and
generosity should mark the whole conduct of our peoplin,
and ospecially in cases where our majorites in the church.
es are very large, or our minoritos very small : while on
the other hand, it would advise, that providential advan.
tages, and important rights, ought not in any case to be
lightly thrown away.".
What was meant by “ providential advantages and in.
porlant rights" is uncertain. The language is ambiguous.
The intelligent reader can now decide for himself which
party was " willing and anxious to have an amicable ad
justment," and which party was to be blamed for the sun.
christian appeal to the civil courts."
( 196 )
CHAPTER XXIV.
TIT
RESULTS OF LEGAL INVESTIGATION.
As all the efforts of the Constitutional party for an ami-
cable adjustment of difficulties were unsuccessful, no al.
ternative was left but to bring suit against the Reformers,
who had all the chartered funds of the General Assembly
in their possession. .
The suit was instituted in the Supreme Court of Penn-
sylvania, in July, 1838. .
· The case was taken up in March, 1839, the Hon. Mil-
ton C. Rogers presiding. The trial occupied twenty days.
After the Judge had given his charge to the jury, they,
after a short absence, lelurned and rendered a verdict for
the Constitutional party.
There are some points in the charge of Judge Rogers,
which sliould be noriced.
It had been urged by the Reformers that the Plan of
Union of 1801 was unconstitutional; and upon this as-
sumption they based the excinding acts. But here the
Judge was against them. He says: “So far from believ-
ing the Plan of Union to be unconstitutional, I concur
fully with one of ihe counsel, that, confined within its le-
gitimate limits, it is an agreement or regulation, which
the General Assembly not only had power to make, but
that it is one which is well calculated to promote the best
interests of religion."
The Judge asserts that if the Plan were unconstitu-
tional, there is no evidence that the excinded Synods were
formed under it. He says: "The compact, as has been
197
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 vol.
untary act, and not the necessary result of the agreement;
nor does it appear that the Presbyteries were formed and
incorporated with the church on any other terms or condi-
tions than other Presbyteries, who were in regular course
taken into the Presbyterian connection."
It was the opinion of the Judge, that in the excinding
process, the substantial forms of justice" were not ob-
served. He says: “But so far from this, the General As-
exclude from all their righis and privileges twenty-eight
Presbyteries, who are its constituents, without notice, and
without even the form of trial. By the resolutions, the
commissioner's, who had acted as members of the General
Assembly for two weeks, were at once deprived of their
seats. Four Synods, twenty-eight Presbyteries, five hun-
dred and nine ministers, five hundred and ninety-nine
churches, and sixty thousand communicants, were at once
disfranchised and deprived' of their privileges in this
church. This proceeding is not only contrary to the eter-
nal principles of justice, the principles of the common
law, but it is at variance with the constitution of the
church." .
Nor would he admit that the excision was a legislalire
act. His language is : This is not in the nature of a le-
gislative, but it is a 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
enemies and offenders against the rules, regulations, and
doctrines of the church."
The Judge goes.on to say, in reference to the plea, that
the excision was legislalirem.But admitting this to be in
the nature of a legislative proceeding, still it is void; for
I deny the right of any legislature io deprive an elector
of his right to vote, either with or without trial. This is
a power which can only be exercised by a judicial tribu.
nal, who act under the sanction of an oath, who examine
witnesses on oath, and who conform to all the rules of
evidence established by the usages of law."
17*
After deciding that the Plan of Union was not unconstitu.,
fional, and that the excinding acts of 1837, "were unconsti-
tutional, null and void," he proceeds to decide several im-
.portant points in the proceedings of the Assembly of 1838.
He decided that the commissioners from the Presbyte-
ries, within the bounds of these Synods, had the same
right to seats in the General Assembly as the members
from the other Presbyteries within the jurisdiction of the
Assembly,"
. It was the opinion of the Judge, that Dr. Elliot, the
moderator, in declaring the appeal of Dr. Mason out of
order, was chargeable with “a usurpation of authority."
It was also the opinion of the Judge that the General
Assembly has a right to depose their moderator upon suf-
ficient cause."
And on the subject of Mr. Cleaveland's alleged irregu-
larity, in putting the question to the house for a new modo
erator, the Judge says: “It is the opinion of the Court,
that a member, although not an officer, is entitled to put a
question to the house in such circumstances.”
In reference to the objections-often urged against the
want of some of the usual forms, the Judge says : -6That
the fact that Mr. Cleaveland put the question, instead of
the moderator, the cries of order when this was in pro-
gress, the onissiõli. of some of the formula usually obr
served when there is no contest and no excitement, such
as slanding in the aisle instead of taking the chair occu-
pied by the moderátor, not using the usual insignia of ofo
fice, pulling the question in an unusual place, and the short
time consumed in the organization of the house, and three
or more members sta oding at the same time, will not vi-
tiate the organization, if you should be of the opinion that
this became necessary from the illegal and improper con-
duct of the adverse party.
· Fudge Rogers' charge to the jerry contains, in addition
to a clear and lucid exposition of constitutional and com-
mon law, a concise an pretty accurate history of the whole
controversy. It may be seen in McElroy's Report of the
Church Case, pp. 506, 529..
The result of the trial has already been stated. After
jury was for the Constitutional party.
199
The Old School had hilberto been very clamorous
against Christians appealing to Cåesar. Indeed, they show-
ed a great unwillingness to liave their acts reviewed by a
civil tribunal. Messrs. Bieckinridge, Plumer, &c. de.
clared that they would not submit to such a review, bea,
cause it would be rendering to Cæser the things that are
God's But it has always been true that men, who are
chargeable with wrong-doing, do not love the civil courts.
When, however, the decision of the Court went against
them, they soon changed their minds, and with great haste
they themselves appealed to Caesar. Their Counsel mov-'
ed the Court in Bauk for an order for a new trial. The
order was granted and the majority of the Court in' grant-
ing the order gave an opinion, through Chief Justice Gib-
son, adverse to the decision under Judge Rogers.
• A few points in the opinion of Judge Gibson are worthy
of notice
The Reformers had based their excision upon the un.
coristitutionality of the Plan of Union of 1801. But
Judge Gibson concurred in opinion with Judge Rogers that
the Plan was constitutional.
· Judge Rogers in his charge has said that the excinded
56 were treated as enemies and offenders agaiost the rules:
of the church, and that the act of excision was a "judi.
cial' proceeding to all intents and purposes." But here
Judge Gibson gives a different opinion. He says : " The
sentence of excision, as it has been called, was nothing
else than an ordinance of dissolution." This, however,
was an apology too flimpsy even for the Reformers. They
kuow, and so does every one acquainted with Presbyteri-
anisa), that to dissolve and excind are very different things.
A Synod may dissolve a Presbytery, or the General As-
sembly may dissolve a Synod. But the dissolution never
throws the members out of the church. It only changes
i
ever, is a turning out, or a curtig off from the church,
It is excommunication to all intents and purposes.
- The Synods were cut off. Judge Gibson says it was
66 a legislutire act." Judge Rogers says.it was sa judi.
cial proceeding." Well, the thing was done. The enor-
mity of the act was great, call it by what name you may.
200
But Judge Gibson, whose opinion strongly favored the Re-
formers, was very unwilling that the excision should be call-
ed a judicial act. His language is: “Now, had the excinded
Synods been cut off by judicial sentence, without hearing
or notice, the act would have been contrary to the car's
dinal principles of natural justice, and consequently void.
But, though it was at first resolved to proceed judicially,
the measure was abandoned ; probably because it came to
be perceived that the Synods had committed no offence."
Behold the potency of a name or word ! Hundreds of .
ministers and thousands of members were treated as
enemies and offenders against the rules" of the church,
and were cut off. Now, according to Judge Gibson, if
you call the proceeding “ legislative".all is well. But
call it " judicial," and the act is “ contrary to the cardi.
nal principles of natural justice."
But the Judge is of opinion that they were not proceed-
ed against judically, as at first proposed, 6 because it
came to be perceived that the Synods had committed no
offence." But this is an explanation the Reformers would
not receive. The plan of a fair and legal trial was aban.
doned because it was thought to be 6 tedious anil trouble.
some."
In reference to the two organizations, when the dissem:
bly divided, Judge Gibson gave a different opinion from
the decision under Judge Rogers. The great question
before the jury was, which body organized according to
the established order ? The decision under Judge Rogers
was that the Constitutional Assembly was the true Gen-
eral Assembly. Judge Gibson was of a different opinion.
Among other things, he objected to the Constitutional As.
sembly's organization, because that the old moderator,
though refusing to do his duty, was removed. He says :
65 But he was not removeable by them, because he had not
derived his office from them ; nor was he answerable to
tliem for the use of his power. He was not their modera-
tor. He was the mechanical instrument of their organi.
zation ; and till that was accomplished they were subject
to his rulemnot he to theirs." ..
The necessity for such a procedure had not before been
forced upon the Assembly. But that Judge Gibson's opin-
ly
201
ion, in reference to the duties and powers of a presiding
officer, is not the opinion of deliberative bodies, is evident
not only from the moasures of the Constitutional Assen-
bly in its organization, but from the action of Congress
since, in a similar case as mentioned in the 20th Chapter
of this history. And would Judge Gibson sur, that the
26th Congress was not constitutionally organized, because,
on motion of Mr. Adams, the presiding officer was remov.
ed and another put in his place ?
There were many other points in the opinion of the
Judge adverse to the claims of the Constitutional purty.
They can be seen in the opinion, in McElroy's Report,
pp. 620-628.
The order for a new trial, as already stated, was grant-
ed. But before the trial came on, the Constitutional party
instructed their counsel to withdra v the suit.
The results, therefore, of these legal investigations in
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, are briefly these :
Judge Rogers, in the first trial, charged the jury in favor
of the Constitutional party, avd the jury gave a verdict for
them. The Reformers made a motion for a new trial
the order was granted, the Court in Bark giving an opin.
ion adverse to the Constitutional party, by whorn the suit
was then withdrawn).
. In another suit in Pennsylvanin, which was brought up
by appeal to the Supreme court, Judge Gibson took occa-
sion to explain more fully the principles upon which, in the
former suit, his opinion had been given in favor of the
Reformers. This will be noticed in giving a satement of
the case alluded to the suit at York, in Pennsylvania.
'The church property at York was of some value. The
Reforma part of the church brought suit against the Consti.
tutional party. It was tried before Judge Hays, and the
jury gave a verdict for the Constitutional party.
The opinion of Judge Gibson, in the former suit had been
a matter of great exultation to many of the leading Re.
formers. And the party at York no doubt felt confident
that if they could get the suit before Judge Gibson, he
would reverse the decision of the lower court. But to the
astonishment of the party, he aſfimed the decision, and
gave the property to the Constitutional partý. Judge Gib.
202
son's opinion in this case may be seen in the Christian
Observer of the 251h January, 1841.
In this opinion the Judge takes occasion to explain some
points in his former opinion that had been misapprehended
by the Reformers. They had taken it for granted, that
they were to be considered the only true Presbyterians,
and their Assembly the only true Assembly—and that the
New School had forfeited name, rights, property and all.
But the Judge now corrects, this misapprehension. He
says that the order for a new trial, in the former case, was
granted not because the Old School 6 were more Presby.
terian than the New-but because the Old School were at
the time " the stronger party.”
According, then, to this opiniors, if the New School in ,
1831, 32, 33, 34, or 36, when they were the stronger par.
ty, had excinded the Old School and seized upon the funds,
the property would justly be theirs. Such a decision, ubo
on such principles, to say the least of it, puts but little hon.
or upon laws and constitutions,
The Judge, however, says that if the New School had
taken such a course it " would have loaded the New School.
party with such a weight of popular odium as would have
sunk it." This to be sure was administering a keen rebuke
to the Reformers
The advocates of excision had contended that the mea-
sure was a necessary expurgation, and that those who united
with the excinded were seceders; and they supposed that
Judge Gibson in the former instance had sanctioned that
view of the case. But the Supreme Court, in the York
church case, deny that they sanctioned such a view. They
say that they "did not determine that the excision was ex-
purgation and not division." They go further in charac-
terizing the excision. They say : «Indeed the measure
would seem to be as decisirely revolutionary as wonld be
an exclusion of particular states from the Federal Union
for the adoption of an anti-republican form of govern-
ment."
In this final decision in the Supreme Court of Pennsyl.
vania, the opinion was clearly expressed that the New Ba.
sis acts were measures "not of expurgation but of divis-
201"'not of reform, but of revolution not a rooting out
203
of Congregationalism, but a dismemberment of the Presa
byterian body!--not "merely a secession of particles
leaving the original mass itself entire, but the original mass
was split into two fragments." And did the court say
that one party was truly Presbyterian and the other was
not? No. They consider the New School as much Pres.
byterian as the Old School- each so like its fellow as to
pass for its twin brother." They decided that the claims
of the New School in the former suit were as strong as
those of the Old School with one exception, and that
accidental, 'viz. : that at the time of the revolution or
excision, the Old School were the stronger party--having
a majority of six in an Assembly of two hundred and
fifty.
There have been a few other suits, the results of which
must be very briefly noticed.
The Reform party, a minority in the Neshamony church,
in the State of Pennsylvania, made an effort to obtain the
church property ; but they were unsuccessful. :
The Reform party, a minority in the Presbyterian
church, in Florida, in the State of New York, claining
to be the only true Presbyterians, because of iheir adhe-
sion to the New Basis, brought suit for the property. They
were heard at length in the Chancery Court of that State.
But their claims were defeated by the decision of the Vice
Chancellor protecting the rights and property of the Con.
stitutional party.
Another suit of the same character was brought by the
Reform party in the church of Somers, in the State of New
York. They informed the Constitutional party, that they
were the only true Presbyterians, and that they must have
the church property-house, parsonage, &c. The consti.
tutional party, who were the majority, proposed that the
two parties should use the church alternately, and that the
question concerning property should be settled by com.
promise. But the Reform party would not compromise.
The clerk of the congregation being on their side, they
took possession of records, church, parsonage and allo
Being secure, as they thought, they leased the parsonage
to a tenant, and lay quietly "within the fortifications
of the New Basis."
204
..
+
The old trustees had no other alternative left, but to dea
cide the matter by a law-suit. They commenced an aca
tion of ejeciment for the parsonage. After a patient hear.
ing, the jury gave il verdict for the Constitutional party
without leaving their seats.
I have now briefly given the results of all the legal in-
vestigations of which I have certain knowledge. Except
the order for a new trial in one case, all the decisions go
to vindicate the claims, rights and characters of the Con.
stitutional party.
And now, dear, reader, I have gone through with all [.
intended to present to you on the subject of the Pres-
byterian controversy. In presenting this history of events,
I was desirous that you should see how the matter was
viewed by both parties. I have presented to you the re-
sults of ecclesiastical and legal investigations. These re-
sults have' vindicated the rights and characters of the
Constitutional party; and it is believed that public, sen-
timent approves the noble vindication.

is
T
:
is..,
-
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
12
DATE DUE
wyormy 1983
1997
JUN 31 1903
2661.6? NON
TA
.
3
1
NOV 17 1977
REN
KE
.
.
C2 z 1988 MAY 20 1998
NY
.
in
.
.
y
va
A
3
JANO 5 1989
**
*
*
TV
.,
*
*
*
HU
LULU!
SEP 1995
Juír 2 4 1993
hhh
6
..
TUR
DEC 09 1948
heim
..ja som
AUG 23.1995
AUG ? SUN 0 4 1996
11.
re
1
'.
.
..
..
..
.
L
'
.
5.
3
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
ON
4
.

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
..-
.
-...
3 9015 01215 3469
DO NOT REMOVE
OR
MUTILATE CARD

.
*
وه بهمنماطمة
د
همایا
ا ناللها والله له م له ؟
حام
. مه مه یه
تماما اب مم
اساسنامه اند
:
.
:
:
In
* "
|
1
|
*
*
۲
*
11
*
نورا
*
"11"
"
.
.
1
او
و ۰۰::
م 1
ها
|
او ای دی
.
.
سه
۱۲
:
۰۲
:
۱۸ ۱ -
س
تیم ۰-
ه
همه
... من
۱۰۰
,
۰۰۰
اب تماما. امان ماشلامتهم. ولی این موسسه مهمونهمههم
: ۴۰ ۰۰
:
۰۰
:
۰
.
۰۰۰
....... به ..
۹۰۰
.
۰۰۰
....
S
ها •
'
.
'
.
.
:: .::::
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
=
|
*
|
|
لم
*
1
1
:
.
*
*
*
؟
۱۰
-
:
1
.
F
-
.