<^ OF PWJ^ 
 
 , FEB 20 1964 
 
 '^y 
 
 sec 
 
 3157 
 
i-iu 
 
 HISTORY OF THE DIVISION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PRESBYTEEIAN CHURCH 
 
 IN THE 
 
 United $hUB nf Iraeritn. 
 
 BY A 
 
 COMMITTEE OF THE SYNOD 
 
 OP NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 PUBLISHED BY M. W. DODD, 
 
 Brick Cliurch Cluipel, City Hall Square, opposite the City Hall. 
 
 18 5 2. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1852, by 
 
 G. N. JUDD, 
 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the 
 Southern District of New York. 
 
 EDWARD O. JENKINS, PRINTER, 
 114 Nasiau Stre«t. 
 
Cnnt tnts. 
 
 CHAPTER FIRST. 
 
 History of the causes which produced the Division in the Presbyterian 
 
 Church, 9 
 
 CHAPTER SECOND. 
 
 The grounds On which the majority attempted to justify their Ex- 
 scinding Acts, and the Dissolution of the Third Presbytery of 
 Philadelphia, stated, 22 
 
 CHAPTER THIRD. 
 
 The grounds on which the Assembly attempted to justify their Abro- 
 gation of the *' Plan of Union," the Excision of the Four Synods, 
 and Dissolution of the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia, ex- 
 amined, 34 
 
 CHAPTER FOURTH. 
 
 The alleged, shown to be, not the real nor chief reasons for the Exci- 
 sion of the fQjir Synods, 79 
 
 CHAPTER FIFTH. 
 
 The real grounds of the passing of the Acts of Excision, stated, . 84 
 
 CHAPTER SIXTH. 
 
 Measures taken by the Constitutional portion of the Church to pre- 
 serve its integi'ity, and prevent the organization of an irregular 
 Assembly. — They succeeded in organizing it in strict accordance 
 with the principles of the Constitution, l.^S 
 
 CHAPTER SEVENTH. 
 
 The Assembly, which held its Sessions in the Seventh Presbyterian 
 Church, in 1838, was organized upon a basis wholly unknown to 
 our Constitution, 170 
 
IV CONTENTS. 
 
 . CHAPTER EIGHTH. 
 Erroneous application of the names, Old and New iSchool.— Those 
 who style themselves Old School are the New, and those whom 
 they denominate New are the Old School branch of the Presby- 
 terian Church, 183 
 
 CHAPTER NINTH. 
 
 Policy of the self-styled Reformers concerning a division of the funds, 
 and their feelings in reference to an appeal to the law of the land, 
 to decide to whom they belonged, or how they should be divided 
 — Unsuccessful efforts of the Constitutional Assembly to prevent 
 litigation — Legal proceedings, and their results, .... 186 
 
 CHAPTER TENTH. 
 
 Measures taken by the Constitutional Branch of the Church to unite 
 
 the two in one body, 207 
 
 CHAPTER ELEVENTH. 
 
 Our position, duty, and prospects, 214 
 
 Appendix, 226 
 

 The following extract from the Minutes of the Synod of 
 New York and New Jersey, at their Sessions held in the City 
 of Brooklyn, Oct., 1850, and the accompanying remarks, 
 show the origin and object of this publication. 
 
 " The Synod, taking into view the state of that branch of 
 the Church with which they are connected, believe that their 
 interests, and the cause of truth and righteousness, will 
 be promoted by the careful preparation, and the wide diffu- 
 sion of a history of the causes which produced a division of 
 the Presbyterian Church in this country ; therefore, 
 
 Resolved, That a committee, consisting of five Ministers 
 and five Ruling Elders, be appointed to prepare and publish 
 a brief history of the causes which produced this division, and 
 of the subsequent attempts which have been made by our 
 branch of the Church to unite the two Assemblies, together 
 with the legal rights of churches in which attempts may be 
 made to remove them from our connection." — Minutes of the 
 Synod, jyarje 15. 
 
 The members of the committee were designated as follows : 
 
 Rev. G. N. Judd, D. D. Hon. Jos. C. Hornblower, 
 
 " T. H. Skinner, D. D. " Cyrus P. Smith, 
 
 ,*' E. F. Hatfield, D. D. " John L. Mason, 
 
 ** Jos. S. Gallagher, " Danl. Haines, 
 " S. T. Spear, ** William Jessup. 
 
 1 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 Till within a recent period the hope was cherished that the 
 necessity of such a history as that which this resolution 
 contemplates, would be superseded by the union of the two 
 branches of the Presbyterian Church. Repeated overtures 
 have been made by our Assembly to that of our brethren for 
 the purpose of securing this object, all of which have been 
 rejected by them, as will be seen by the perusal of the follow- 
 ing history. The report of the committee of their last As- 
 sembly upon " the Memorial of the Presbytery of Rochester, 
 asking the Assembly to adopt measures to effect a union 
 betw^een the two branches of the Presbyterian Church," and 
 the haste with which the transfer of the Third Church, New- 
 ark, was made to the Presbytery of Elizabethtown against the 
 respectful and earnest remonstrance of a minority of said 
 Church, and another from members of the Presbytery of 
 Newark, and elders of the churches under its care, show 
 beyond all controversy that the only union, which the lead- 
 ing members of their branch of the Church contemplate, is 
 by the absorption of our ministers and churches. 
 
 In these circumstances we are called upon either to admit 
 that the principles which governed us in the organization of 
 the Assembly of 1838, and in our uniform course of action 
 since, were wrong ; or in the spirit of the Gospel, manfully 
 to defend them. We cannot for a moment hesitate which 
 alternative to choose. That all our acts in the peculiarly try- 
 ino- circumstances in which we have been placed, are faultless, 
 we would by no means assert. That the pnviczp/t5 which 
 in the main have governed us in the unhappy controversy, 
 forced upon us by our brethren, are correct, and that it is 
 our imperative duty to defend them, we are as fully persuaded 
 as that it is our duty " earnestly to contend for the faith 
 which was once delivered unto the saints." 
 
 Other reasons call for the history contained in the follow- 
 ino- pages. So long as any ground of hope remained that 
 the two branches of the Church might soon be united, but lit- 
 tle was said or pubhshed by the one to which we are attached. 
 
PREFACE. Vii 
 
 respecting the causes of the division. The necessary conse- 
 quence is, that the younger portion of our ministers and 
 church-members need information on this subject. Indeed, 
 many important facts connected with the division have faded 
 from the memories of those who once possessed the knowl- 
 edge of them, andLgught to be restored. 
 
 The presentation of these facts is also needed, in order to 
 counteract erroneous statements and remove false impressions 
 made by them, respecting the causes of the division. We 
 charge none with intentional misrepresentation, but statements 
 have been made by our brethren respecting them, which we 
 believe to be wholly unauthorized by facts, and which have led 
 many in our country and on the other side of the Atlantic, 
 to believe that our branch of the Church, w^hile it inofessedlij 
 adheres to the Confession of Faith, is corrupt in doctrine, 
 fanatical in practice, and guilty of the sin of schism. It is 
 high time that the evidence of the truthlessness of these 
 statements should be laid before the public, and that minds 
 which have been led into error by them should be disabused. 
 To do this is one of the objects of the following narrative. 
 
€lji^ttx in$i. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE CAUSES "WTHICH PRODUCED THE DIVISION IN THE PRESBY- 
 TERIAN CHURCH. 
 
 A FEW years since the Presbyterian Churcli in these United 
 States was a united and efficient branch of the Protestant 
 family of behevers. Her ministers and hcentiates niimbered 
 more than two thousand, and in talents, learning, Christian 
 character, and the ability and fidelity with which they dis- 
 charged their official duties, they held an honorable rank 
 amons: their brethren of the other branches of the Protestant 
 Church. The number of her communicants exceeded tAVO 
 hundred thousand, comprising an amount of intelligence, 
 wealth, and influence which, in connection with her Ministry, 
 qualified her to perform no unimportant part in the evangeliza- 
 tion of our countiy and the world. For the literary, scien- 
 tific, and theological education of her sons, she had colleges 
 and theological seminaries, not inferior to those of any of her 
 sister denominations, and great advantages for promoting the 
 cause of education throughout our widely extended country. 
 Her resources for exerting a wide and commanding influence 
 for good were ample. Now she is divided into two bands, 
 both of which adopt the same standards of doctrine and 
 discipline. They do not, however, as formerly, meet in the 
 same judicatories. Each has its own Presbyteries, Synods, 
 and General Assembly. Those who once united in sweet 
 and hallowed fellowship in the worship of God, now meet 
 in diff'erent sanctuaries, and rarely unite in commemorating 
 
10 
 
 A HISTORY OF THE 
 
 their redemption by the priceless sacrifice of their common 
 Lord and Saviour. 
 
 Why is it thus ? What has rent asunder a body of be- 
 lievers, who adopt the same system of doctrinal belief and 
 the same Ecclesiastical Polity ? In the minds of intelligent 
 men, who are not well versed in the history of the Presbyterian 
 Church in this country for the last fifteen or twenty years, 
 these are questions which naturally arise. The object of 
 the ensuingr narrative is to furnish a true answer to them. 
 
 For several years previous to the division of the Church, 
 causes had been in operation, tending to produce this sad 
 catastrophe, which will be noticed in a subsequent part of 
 this narrative. By the great body of those now composing 
 our branch of the Church, however, and many in the other, 
 of tolerant views and pacific spirit, it was hoped their influ- 
 ence miofht be counteracted and ultimately removed. This 
 fondly cherished hope was not realized. Within the bosom 
 of the Church there were elements of evil, which could be 
 controlled only by the combined efforts of moderate men of 
 both parties. Unhappily, this combination was not efl'ected. 
 By a document which will be noticed hereafter, called " The 
 Act and Testimony," Conventions held previously to the 
 meetings of several General Assemblies, for the express pur- 
 pose of controlling their proceedings and other efforts di- 
 rected to the attainment of the same end, in the Assembly 
 of 1837, they received a majority. Finding themselves in 
 possession of power, they resolved to use it. The course, 
 which it was their purpose to pursue in case they should 
 have a majority in the Assembly, was marked out by the 
 Convention, which during the previou*^ week, had been in ses- 
 sion in the city of Philadelphia. On the second day of the 
 Sessions of the Assembly the "Testimony and Memorial" of 
 the Convention was presented to that body. The character 
 of this document will be sufficiently evident from the fol- 
 lowing extract and brief statement of its principal objects. 
 They say, 
 
DIVISION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 11 
 
 " It is against error that we emphatically bear our testi- 
 mony, — error dangerous to the souls of men, dishonoring to 
 Jesus Christ, contrary to his revealed truth, and utterly at 
 variance with our standards. Urror, not as it may be freely 
 and openly held by others, in this age and land of absolute 
 religious freedom ; but error held, and taught in the Pres- 
 byterian Church, preached and written by persons who pro- 
 fess to receive and adopt our scriptural standards — promoted 
 by societies operating widely through our churches — re- 
 duced into form, and openly embraced by almost entire 
 Presbyteries and Synods — favored by repeatsd acts of Ge- 
 neral Assemblies, and at last virtually sanctioned to an 
 alarming extent by the numerous Assembly of 1836." 
 
 This declaration is followed by a specification of appaUing 
 errors, in doctrine and departures from Presbyterian order 
 and discipUne, which the Convention afi&rmed to be exten- 
 sively prevalent in the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 The above quotation from the " Testimony and Memo- 
 rial" of the convention and brief statement of its character, 
 is all that a due regard to brevity on the part of the Com- 
 mittee admits. Those who desire more ample information 
 respecting it, we refer to the document itself and the minutes 
 of the Convention. An examination of them will make it 
 undeniably evident either that large portions of the Church 
 zvere grossly corrupt both in doctrine and practice, or that the 
 Convention were guilty of wholesale slander. Which was 
 really the fact, will appear in the progress of this narrative. 
 
 The statement of the errors and grievous departures from 
 the order and discipline of the Presbyterian Church, which 
 the " Testimony and Memorial" affirmed to be extensively 
 prevalent, was followed by a proposed method of reform, 
 designed to be adopted by the Assembly, the first measure 
 of which was the abrogation of '' a plan of union between 
 Presbyterians and Congregationalists in the new settlements 
 adopted in 1801." 
 
 Here let it be borne in mind that this plan orirjinated with 
 
12 A HISTORY OF THE 
 
 Presbyterians, and was by their General Assembly proposed 
 to the General Association of Connecticut, and by both 
 bodies unanimously adopted. It is as follows : — 
 
 " Regulations adopted by the General Assembly of the 
 Presbyterian Church in America, and by the General Asso- 
 ciation of the State of Connecticut, (provided said Associa- 
 tion agree to them), with a view to prevent alienation and 
 promote union and harmony, in those new settlements which 
 are composed of inhabitants from these bodies. 
 
 1st. It is strictly enjoined on all their missionaries to the 
 new settlements, to endeavor, by all proper means, to pro- 
 mote mutual forbearance and accommodation, between those 
 inhabitants of the new settlements who hold the Presbyterian 
 and those who hold the Congregational form of church gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 2d. If in the new settlements, any church of the Congre- 
 gational order shall settle a minister of the Presbyterian 
 order, that church may, if they choose, stiU conduct their 
 discipline according to congregational principles, settling their 
 difficulties among themselves, or by a council mutually agreed 
 upon for that purpose : But if any difficulty shall exist be- 
 tween the minister and the church or any member of it, it 
 shall be referred to the Presbytery to which the minister 
 shall belong, provided both parties agree to it ; if not, to a 
 council consisting of an equal number of Presbyterians and 
 Congregationalists, agreed upon by both parties. 
 
 3d. If a Presbyterian Church shall settle a minister of 
 congregational principles, that church may still conduct their 
 discipline according to Presbyterian principles; excepting 
 that if a difficulty arise between him and his church, or any 
 member of it, the cause shall be tried by the Association, to 
 which the said minister shall belong, provided both parties 
 agree to it ; otherwise by a council, one half Congregation- 
 alists and the other half Presbyterians, mutually agreed on 
 by the parties. 
 
 4th. If any congregation consist partly of those who hold 
 
DIVISION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 13 
 
 the congregational form of discipline, and partly of those who 
 hold the Presbyterian form ; we recommend to both parties, 
 that this be no obstruction to their uniting in one church and 
 settling a minister : and that in this case, the church choose 
 a standing committee from the communicants of said church, 
 whose business it shall be, to call to account every member 
 of the church, who shall conduct himself inconsistently with 
 the laws of Christianity, and to give judgment on such con- 
 duct : and if the person condemned by their judgment, be a 
 Presbyterian, he shall have liberty to appeal to the Presby- 
 tery ; if a Congregationalist, he shall have liberty to appeal 
 to the bod}^ of the male communicants of the church : in the 
 former case the determination of the Presbytery shall be 
 final, unless the church consent to a further appeal to the 
 Synod, or to the General Assembly ; and in the latter case, 
 if the party condemned shall wish for a trial by a mutual 
 council, the cause shall be referred to such council. And 
 provided the said standing committee of any church, shall 
 depute one of themselves to attend the Presbytery, he may 
 have the same right to sit and act in the Presbytery, as a 
 ruling elder of the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 On motion Resolved, That an attested copy of the above 
 plan be made by the Stated Clerk, and put into the hands of 
 the delegates of This Assembly to the General Association, 
 to be by them laid before that body for their consideration ; 
 and that if it should be approved by them, it go into imme- 
 diate operation." — Vol. I. p. 261, 262. 
 
 On the 23d day of May, after a long and animated debate 
 on the subject, the following resolution was passed by the As- 
 sembly — viz. : — 
 
 " But as the plan of union adopted for the new settle- 
 ments in ISOl was originally an unconstitutional act on the 
 part of that Assembly — these important standing rules 
 having never been submitted to the Presbyteries — and as 
 they were totally destitute of authority as proceeding from 
 the General Association of Connecticut, which is invested 
 1* 
 
14 A HISTORY OF THE 
 
 with no power to legislate in such cases, and especially to 
 enact laws to reofulate churches not within her limits : and 
 as much confusion and irregularity have arisen from this un- 
 natural and unconstitutional system of union, therefore it is 
 resolved, that the act of the Assembly of 1801, entitled a- 
 
 * Plan of Union,' be, and the same is hereby abrogated." — 
 Minutes of the Assemhy of 1837,^:>ff^e 421. 
 
 • By this resolution •' a Plan of Union," all whose provi- 
 sions were manifestly adapted to promote the spread of 
 true religion in the new settlements, and to diffuse the bene- 
 volent and uniting principles and spirit of the Gospel, and 
 which for thirty six years had been acted upon in good faith, 
 was abrogated. The grounds of a procedure so manifestly 
 unjust and so uncourteous in its aspect toward the General 
 Association of Connecticut, will be noticed in a subsequent 
 part of this history. 
 
 The day next succeeding that on which the resolution ab- 
 rogating "the Plan of Union" was passed, the Assembly 
 took up that part the Memorial of the Convention which rela- 
 ted to doctrinal errors. This called forth a long and animated 
 discussion, and on Friday, the 26th day of May, the follow- 
 ing resolutions were adopted by a majority of six votes, viz. : 
 
 " 1. Resolved, That the proper steps be now taken to cite 
 to the bar of the next Assembly such inferior judicatories as 
 are charged by common fame with irregularities. 
 
 " 2. That a special committee be now appointed to ascertain 
 what inferior judicatories are thus charged by common fame, 
 prepare charges and specifications against them, and to di- 
 gest a suitable plan of procedure in the matter ; and that 
 said Committee report as soon as practicable. 
 
 *' 3. That, as citations on the foregoing plan is tlie com- 
 mencement of a process involving the right of membership 
 in the Assembly ; therefore, resolved, tli at agreeably to a prin- 
 ciple laid down, chap. V., sec. 9th of the 'Form of Gov- 
 ernment,' the members of said judicatories be excluded 
 from a seat in the next Assembly, until their case shall be 
 decided." — Minutes of the Assembhj of 1837, 'page 425. 
 
DIVISION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 15 
 
 These resolutions were protested against by the minority, 
 not because they were unwilhng to concur in methods, au- 
 thorized by the Gospel and our book of disci phne for the 
 removal of error and the maintenance and vindication of the 
 fundamental doctrines of Christianity, but because they were 
 fully persuaded that the facts in the case did not authorize 
 the measures proposed in these resolutions. That errors in 
 doctrine and irregularities in practice existed in some sec- 
 tions of the Church, was believed and deplored by many 
 now attached to the Constitutional Assembly. They were 
 fully satisfied, however, that there was gross exaggeration in 
 the statements of the Memorial of the Convention on this 
 subject, calculated to produce unnecessary alarm and agita- 
 tion, and injure the reputation and usefulness of brethren who 
 were sound in the Mih. Nor did they believe arraignment 
 at the bar of the Assembly was the first step which should 
 be taken wiih erring brethren. Deeply did they feel that 
 before charges of heresy and gross disorder were formally 
 brouofht against them, efforts should be made to reclaim them 
 in the spirit of Christian forbearance and love. Such efforts 
 they believed were all that the facts in the case authorized. 
 Moreover, evidence was before their minds, which fully satis- 
 fied them that however honestly and zealously some of the 
 majority were laboring to promote the purity of the Church, 
 the leaders in that Assembly had an ulterior object in view. 
 They were grasping at power. The evidence of this is pal- 
 pable in this narrative. It is apparent from the third resolu- 
 tion, designed to secure the arraignment of the inferior judi- 
 catories on the charge of heresy and irregularities at the bar 
 of the next Assembly. Mark the language of this resolu- 
 tion. " Resolved, That agreeably to a principle laid down, 
 chap. V. sec. 9th, of the Form of Government, the members 
 of said judicatories be excluded from a seat in the next As- 
 sembly, until their case shall be decided." By carrying out 
 this resolution, they hoped to secure the power which, it was 
 manifest, they were laboring to attain. 
 
16 
 
 A HISTORY OF THE 
 
 Strongly, however, as the minority were opposed to the 
 resolutions in favor of arraigning the Synods against which 
 they were aimed, when they became convinced that this 
 measure must be adopted or the Synods cast out of the 
 Church without trial or an opportunity to be heard in their 
 own defence, as the less of two evils, they chose the former. 
 In order to prevent their immediate exclusion from the Church, 
 they presented the following preamble and resolution, 
 viz. : 
 
 ** Whereas, it has been alleged, that tlie Synods of Geneva, 
 Genesee, and Utica, of the Presbyterian Church, in the 
 United States of America, have been guilty of important de- 
 linquency and grossly unconstitutional proceedings, and a 
 resolution predicated on this allegation to exclude the said 
 Synods from the said Presbyterian Church has been offered 
 in this Assembly ; and, whereas, no specified act of the said 
 Synods has been made the ground of proceeding against those 
 bodies, nor any specific members of those bodies have been 
 designated as the delinquents ; and, whereas, these charges 
 are denied by the commissioners representing these bodies on 
 this floor, and an inquiry into the whole matter is demanded ; 
 and, whereas, a majority of the members of the Synods have 
 had no previous notice of these proceedings, nor of the ex- 
 istence of any charge against them, individually or collect- 
 ively, nor any opportunity of defending themselves against 
 the charges so broue^ht ae^ainst them : 
 
 " Therefore, resolved. That that the Synods of Utica, Ge- 
 neva and Genesee be and hereby are cited to appear on the 
 third Thursday of May next, at Philadelphia, before the next 
 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States of America, to show what they have done or failed to 
 do, in the case in question, and if necessary, generally to an- 
 swer any charges that may or can be alleged against them, 
 to the end that the whole matter may be examined into, 
 deliberated upon, and judged of, according to the Constitu- 
 tion and Discipline of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 
DIVISION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 17 
 
 States of America." — Minutes of the Asae^nhly of 1837, pa- 
 ges 443, 444. 
 
 This preamble and resolution, presented subsequently to 
 other acts of the Assembly which claim attention, are 
 introduced here to show that the minority, though opposed 
 to the measure for reasons before stated, advocated the cita- 
 tion of the Synods named in the resolution, when they be- 
 came convinced if that were not done, they would be thrust 
 out of the Church, without opportunity to be heard in their 
 own defence. 
 
 In order to give a correct history of the division of the 
 Church and the causes which led to the sad catastrophe, it 
 must be stated that previously to the presentation of the 
 foregoing resolution, an effort was made to effect an amicable 
 division. This was proposed by the leading member in the 
 majority. By the minority, division had for years been uni- 
 formly opposed as unnecessary and disastrous. When com- 
 pelled to contemplate measures with a view to bring about a 
 division of the Church, they yielded to the law of necessity. 
 A committee of ten, five from the majority and five from the 
 minority, was appointed to consult together respecting a di- 
 vision, but they could not agree, and each branch brought in 
 a separate report. These documents are too long to be in- 
 serted here. TEey can be found and examined by turning 
 to pages 430 and 437 inclusive, of the Minutes of the As- 
 sembly of lb37. Upon the points which respected a division 
 of the Church, the Committee came to an agreement, except 
 those which related to the time and manner of its being done, 
 and the charactei- of the Assembly. The members of the 
 Committee who acted in behalf of the majority of the As- 
 sembly, insisted upon an immediate division. Those who 
 represented the minority believed they had no authority from 
 the Constitution, nor the Presbyteries which commissioned 
 them, to do anything to effect an immediate dismemberment 
 of the Church. In this they were undoubtedly right. Had the 
 Committee agreed upon a plan for the proposed division, and 
 
18 A HISTORY OF THE 
 
 the Assembly adopted it, the act would not liave been bind- 
 ing without the consent of the Presbyteries. An able writer 
 on this subject has well remarked, " According to the Con- 
 stitution of the Church, this Committee of ten, or even the 
 whole Assembly, had no more right to divide the Church 
 than the Committee of Ways and Means in Congress has to 
 divide the Union." 
 
 Moreover, those who labored to eflfect an immediate divis- 
 ion, insisted on holding the charter, with all its privileges 
 and franchises, in their own hands. This, had it been granted 
 them, would, in any case, have made them secure, while 
 those from whom they wished to be separated would have 
 had nothing on which to depend but fair promises, which 
 often mock the hopes of those who confide in them. To 
 such a division, the members of the Committee, representing 
 the minority' in the Assembly, could not consent, withoiit a 
 shameful dereliction of their duty. It would have been a 
 betrayal of the confidence, and a surrender of the rights of 
 brethren, who Avere conscientiously struggling to maintain 
 their chartered rights, and preserve the constitution of the 
 church inviolate. 
 
 The measure adopted for an amicable division of the church 
 having failed, the majority resolvod to effect a separation by 
 another method. They then passed the following resolution 
 by a vote of 132 members, 105 voting against it — viz. : 
 
 *' Resolved, That, by the operation of the abrogation of the 
 Plan of Union of 1801, the Synod of Western Reserve is, and 
 is hereby declared to be no longer a part of the Presbyte- 
 rian Church, in the United States of America." — Minutes of 
 the Assembly of 183*7, page 440. 
 
 The men who were professedly engaged in labors *' to 
 effect the purificition, and ensure the permanent peace of the 
 church," were not satisfied to pause here. They doubtless 
 feared that they had not done enough to perpetuate the 
 power of which they were then possessed, and were wielding 
 with such terrible efficiency. Hence they subsequently in- 
 
DIVISION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 19 
 
 trodiiced the following resolutions, wliich were passed by tlie 
 Assembly, viz. : — 
 
 '* Be it Resolved, By tlic General Assembly of the Pres- 
 byterian Church in the United States of America, 
 
 1. " That in consequence of the abrogation by this Assem- 
 bly, of the Plan of Union of ISOl, between it and the Gen- 
 eral Association of Connecticut, as utterly unconstitutional, 
 and therefore null and void from the beginning, the Synods 
 of Utica, Geneva and Genesee, which were formed and at- 
 tached to this body under and in execution of said Plan of 
 Union, be and are hereby declared to be out of the eccle- 
 siastical connection of the Presbyterian Church of the United 
 States of America, and that they are not in form or in fact 
 an integral portion of said Church." 
 
 In favor of this resolution 115 votes were ofiven and 88 
 against it, the ministers and elders from the Synod of West- 
 ern Reserve not being allowed to vote. They then passed 
 three other resolutions, of which it is necessary here to notice 
 only the one numbered second, and is as follows, viz. : — 
 
 *' 2. That the solicitude of this Assembly on the whole 
 subject, and its urgency for the immediate decision of it, are 
 greatly increased by reason of the gross disorders which are 
 ascertained to have prevailed in those Synods, (as well as 
 that of Western" Reserve, against which a declarative resolu- 
 tion, similar to the first of these, has been passed during our 
 present sessions), it being made clear to us, that even the Plan 
 of Union itself was never consistently carried into effect by 
 those professing to act under it." — Minutes of the Assembly 
 of 1837, par/es 444, 445. 
 
 For the purpose of preventing any members from the 
 exscinded Synods from obtaining seats in the next General 
 Assembly, they appointed "a Committee to confer Avith the 
 officers of the Assembly, who compose the Committee of 
 Commissions, to procure from them a pledge to carry out 
 the action of the Assembly in their official character to its 
 
20 A HISTORY OF THE 
 
 full accomplishment." — Minutes of the Assembly of 1838, 
 page 15. 
 
 Even all this Avas not suflScient to satisfy the ruling spirits 
 of the majority of the Assembly. The Rev. Robert L. Breck- 
 inridge offered a series of resolutions, which, after being 
 amended, were passed as follows, viz. : — 
 
 " Be it resolved, By the General Assembly of the Presby- 
 terian Church in the United States of America, 
 
 " 1. That the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia be, and 
 hereby is dissolved. 
 
 ''2. The territory embraced in this Presbytery is re-an- 
 nexed to those to which it respectively appertained before 
 its creation. Its Stated Clerk is directed to deposit all the 
 records and other papers in the hands of the Stated Clerk of 
 the Synod of Philadelphia, on or before the first day of the 
 sessions of that Synod, at its first meeting after this Assem- 
 bly adjourns. 
 
 " 3. The candidates and foreign missionaries of the Third 
 Presbytery of Philadelphia are hereby attached to the Pres- 
 bytery of Philadelphia. 
 
 *' 4. The ministers, churches and licentiates, in the Pres- 
 bytery hereby dissolved, are directed to apply without delay 
 to the Presbyteries to which they most naturally belong, for 
 admission into them. And upon application being so made 
 by any duly organized Presbyterian Church, it shall be re- 
 ceived. 
 
 *' 5. These resolutions shall be in force from and after the 
 final adjournment of the present sessions of the General 
 Assembly." — Minutes of the Assembly of 1837, pages 472, 
 473. 
 
 Against these acts of the Assembly by which four Synods, 
 five hundred ministers, and about sixty tliousand communi- 
 cants, against whom no charge of heresy or immorality had 
 been substantiated, were declared to be out of the Presby- 
 terian Church, and an important Presbytery was dissolved, 
 the minority solemnly protested, but in vain. In their reply 
 
DIVISION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 21 
 
 to the protest of tlie members from the Synod of Western 
 Reserve, the majority say expressly, '' tliey had 710 right to 
 join in a protest against any decision of the Assembly, or to 
 have their protest admitted to record." These arbitrary and 
 unrighteous acts were the proximate cause of tlie division of 
 the church. In a subsequent part of this narrative, they 
 will be examined and placed in their true light. 
 
THE GROUNDS ON WTIICn THE MAJORTTT ATTEMPTED TO JUSTIFY THEIR 
 EXSCINDING ACTS AND THE DISSOLUTION OF THE THIRD PRESBYTERY OF 
 PHILADELPHIA, STATED. 
 
 That we may not misrepresent the views of our brethren, 
 respecting these extraordinary measures, but present fairly the 
 grounds on which they attempted to justify them, we shall 
 state them mainly in their own language as contained in the 
 answers to the protests against them, and the review of the 
 acts of the Assembly in the Biblical Repertory of July, 1837. 
 
 The first ground on which they attempted to justify their 
 exscinding acts, and on which they placed their main reliance, 
 was the alleged unconstitutionality of the Plan of Union of 
 ISOl. In their reply to the protest of the minority of the 
 Assembly, they make this important preliminary statement, 
 which the reader, who would fully possess himself of the 
 absurdity of their acts, would do well to bear in mind. 
 
 " We believe," say they, " that our powers as a judicatory 
 are limited and prescribed by the constitution of the Pres- 
 byterian Church. Whatever any Assembly may do, which 
 it is not authorized by the constitution to do, is not binding 
 on any inferior judicatory, nor on any subsequent Assembly." 
 They then say, 
 
 " The constitution provides that all our judicatories shall 
 be composed of bishops or ministers and ruhng elders of the 
 Presbyterian Church, and the General Assembly have no 
 nght to introduce into any of the judicatories any other per- 
 
ACTS OF EXCISION. 23 
 
 sons claiming to hold any other offices, either in the Presby- 
 terian Church or any other church. And should they at- 
 tempt to do this, no one is bound by it. But the General 
 Assembly of 1801 did permit members of standing commit- 
 tees in churches not Presbyterian, * to sit and act' in our 
 Presbyteries, and under this provision they have sat in the 
 higher judicatories of the church." 
 
 " On a thorough investigation it is now fully ascertained 
 that they had no authority from the constitution to admit 
 officers from any other denomination of Christians to sit and 
 act in our judicatories ; and therefore, no Presbytery or Synod 
 thus constituted, is recognized by the constitution of our 
 church, and no subsequent General Assembly is bound to 
 recognize them." 
 
 " The Presbyteries of the Synod of the Western Reserve 
 are thus constituted, for committee-men are permitted ' to sit 
 and act ' in all these Presbyteries ; therefore this General 
 Assembly cannot recognize the constitutional existence of 
 these Presbyteries." 
 
 " The fact that they have been recognized by former As- 
 semblies cannot bind this Assembly, when it is fully con- 
 vinced of the unconstitutionality of the organization. The 
 existence of Presbyteries thus constituted is recognized 
 neither in the former nor the amended constitution of the 
 church." 
 
 " The representatives of these churches, on the accommo- 
 dation plan, form a constituent part of these Presbyteries as 
 reallg as the pastors or elders, and this Assembly can recog- 
 nize no Presbytery, thus constituted, as belonging to the Pres- 
 byterian Churchy 
 
 "The Assembly has extended the operation of this princi- 
 ple to other Synods, which tiiey find similarly constituted." — 
 Minutes of the Assembly of 1837, iiages 450, 451. 
 
 The Biblical Repertory, in presenting the arguments of the 
 majority of the Assembly in favor of their resolution, which 
 declared the Synod of Western Reserve " no longer a part 
 
24 ATTEMPTED JUSTIFICATION 
 
 of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America," 
 gives the same views with those presented in the preceding 
 extracts from their answer to the protest, but with consider- 
 able amphfication. That we may present their views fairly 
 and fully, we give the substance of their vindication in the 
 language of the Repertory. 
 
 "The resolution," it says, ''declares that the Western 
 Reserve Synod is not a regular portion of our Church, and 
 it rests this declaration on the unconstitutionality of the Plan 
 of Union. Of course, it is here assumed, first, that this 
 Plan is unconstitutional, and secondly, that the Synod in 
 question is in the Church only in virtue of that plan. Re- 
 specting the first of these assumptions, the Repertory says, 
 *' It is in fact as plain as that a Congregational Church is not 
 a Presbyterian Church." It then adds, " With regard to 
 the second point, we admit that something more is necessary 
 than merely to prove that the Plan of Union is unconstitu- 
 tional. It must be shown in the first place that the churches 
 within the bounds of this Synod were formed on the basis 
 of this plan ; secondly, that the abrogation of the plan ef- 
 fects the separation of these churches from this body ; and 
 thirdly, that the connection of the Synod is of necessity also 
 thereby dissolved. With regard to the first of these points," 
 the Repertory states, " it is, as a general fact, a matter of his- 
 torical notoriety, and might be as safely assumed as that the 
 United States were originally British colonies." The ques- 
 tion then is, does the abrogation of that Plan dissolve this 
 connection ? It undoubtedly does, unless you take measures 
 to prevent it, and declare the contrary. The General Assem- 
 bly has a resolution declaring that churches organized in a 
 certain way may be connected with our body : afterwards they 
 rescind that resolution — what is the consequence ? Why 
 certainly to withdraw the permission and dissolve the con- 
 nection. The connection was formed by the first resolution, 
 it lasts while the resolution continues, and ceases when it is 
 repeaj^ed." " It is, however objected that where a law is of 
 
, OF THE ACTS OF EXCISION. 25 
 
 the nature of a contract, its repeal cannot invalidate the 
 rights which have vested under it. We admit the principle 
 freely, but we ask what is law ? It is an enactment made 
 by competent authority, in the exercise of its legitimate pow- 
 ers. An act passed by a body that had no right to pass it, 
 is no law; it has no binding force; it is legally nothing, and 
 can give existence to nothing legal. Even admitting that 
 the Plan of Union adopted in 1801 was of the nature of a 
 contract, yet if the Plan is unconstitutional, it is void ; it 
 has existed hitherto only by suflferance, and may at any time 
 be set aside. There is, however, an unfairness in this mode 
 of presenting the case. The Plan of Union is not a contract 
 in the ordinary sense of the word ; nor have absolute rights 
 vested under it according to the common use of those terms. 
 The Plan of Union is little else than a declaration on the 
 part of the Assembly that it will recognize churches organ- 
 ized in a certain way. The connection formed was perfectly 
 voluntary ; one which either party might dissolve at pleas- 
 ure." 
 
 *' The next question to be decided is, whether, admitting 
 the unconstitutionality of the Plan of Union, and that the 
 churches formed upon it are now no part of our Church, does 
 this authorize the declaration that the Synod of the Western 
 Reserve is no longer connected with this body ? We an- 
 swer this question in the affirmative. According to the con- 
 stitution of our Church, * As a Presbytery is a convention of 
 the Bishops and Elders within a certain district : so a Synod 
 is a convention of the Bishops and Elders within a larger 
 district, including at least three Presbyteries.' The question 
 then is, are these Presbyteries or this Synod conventions of 
 Bishops and Elders ? This question has been already an- 
 swered. They are not such conventions." 
 
 " Again, on the supposition that after all these accommoda- 
 tion churches are disconnected with this body, the Presby- 
 teries and Synod still retain their connection, we should have 
 Presbyteries and a Synod composed almost entirely of min- 
 
26 
 
 ATTEMPTED JUSTIFICATION 
 
 isters. These are not regular Presb3'terian bodies. It is said, 
 however, that since there ai-e regular churches and pastors 
 within the hmits embraced by these bodies, they are Presby- 
 teries and a Synod within the meaning of the constitution. 
 The fallacy of this argument is obvious. These materials are 
 indeed included within the Synod, but do not constitute it." 
 — Biblical Repertori/, July, 1837, pages 454, 455, 458, 459, 
 460, 461. 
 
 The foregoing extracts from the Minutes of the General 
 Assembly and the Biblical Pvepertory are sufficient to make 
 the first ground on which the Assembly attempted to justify 
 the excision of the Synod of the Western Reserve, unmistak- 
 ably evident. The allegtd unconstitutionality oi the Plan of 
 Union, they likewise urged in justification of the excision of 
 .the Synods of Utica, Geneva, and Genesee. The only thing 
 in regard to which these Synods differed from that of Western 
 Reserve was this — in 1808, "The Synod of Albany requested 
 the Assembly to sanction a plan of union and correspondence 
 between themselves and the Northern Associate Presbytery, 
 and the Middle Association in the Western District, in the 
 State of New York. The plan being read, and the subject 
 discussed. Resolved, That the Assembly sanction the aforesaid 
 plan." — Assembh/s Digest, page 310. 
 
 The Commissioners from the Synods of Utica, Geneva and 
 Genesee, in their protest against the act by which those 
 Synods were *' declared to be out of the ecclesiastical con- 
 nection of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of 
 America," stated, that "the majority of the churches within 
 the bounds of said Synods were strictly Presbyterian in their 
 structure, and with few exceptions, even the small number of 
 churches originally Congregational, were not organized under 
 the stipulations of the said Plan of Union, but came in under 
 a different arrangement, and possessed rights on this subject 
 secured to them hj the Assembly of 1808, by which the Synod 
 of Albany was authorized to take the Middle Association un- 
 der its care." — Minutts of the Assembly of 1831 , page 465. 
 
OF THE ACTS OF EXCISION. 27 
 
 To this the Assembly rephed — " The compact of the As- 
 sembly of 1808 with the Synod of Albany, in reference to 
 the Middle Association, is as unconstitutional as the Plan of 
 Union of 1801." 
 
 The Assembly, after having declared the four Synods " to 
 be out of the ecclesiastical connection of the Presbyterian 
 Church," passed the following resolution, expressive of the 
 bearing of the act upon the exscinded ministers and churches, 
 viz. : 
 
 " That the General Assembly has no intention, by these 
 resolutions, or by that passed in the case of the Synod of 
 the Western Pteserve, to affect in any way the ministerial 
 standing of any members of either of said Synods ; nor to 
 disturb the pastoral relation in any Church ; nor to interfere 
 with the duties or relations of private Christians in their re- 
 spective congregations ; but only to declare and determine 
 according to the truth and necessity of the case, and by vir- 
 tue of the full authority existing in it for that purpose, the 
 relation of all said Synods, and all their constituent parts, to 
 this body, and to the Presbyterian Clmrch in the United 
 States." — Minutes of the Assembly of 1831, 2y((ge 445. 
 
 On this subject the Biblical Repertory makes similar state- 
 ments. In reporting the arguments of the exscinders in 
 favor of their exscinding acts, it says, ** In support of the 
 resolution, it was urged, — That it was neither in intention 
 nor fact an act of discipline. Such act supposes an offence, 
 a trial, and a sentence. The resolution, however, charges no 
 offence, it proposes no trial, it threatens no sentence. It pur- 
 ports merely to declare a fact, and assigns a reason for the 
 declaration. It is neither the form nor the operation of judi- 
 cial process. Should the resolution be adopted, it will not 
 affect the standing of the members of this Synod as Chris- 
 tians, as ministers or pastors. It will simply alter their rela- 
 tion to the Presbyterian Church. We do not propose to 
 excommunicate them as church members, or to depose them 
 as ministers. We do 7iot withdraw our confidence from them^ 
 
28 ATTEMPTED JUSTIFICATION 
 
 or intend to cast any imputation on them. We simply de- 
 clare tliat they are not constitutionally a part of our church." 
 — Biblical Repertory, July 1837, pa^/es 453, 454. 
 
 This language certainly expresses a settled determination 
 not to slander, nor pursue with invective, nor do any injury 
 to those whom they had ruthlessly cast out of the churcli. 
 Nay, it asserts that they do not even loithdraw their confi- 
 dence from them. This is kind indeed. Whether the kind- 
 ness professed has been actually shown, the reader may judge 
 after having examined the 
 
 2d Ground on which they attempted to justify their acts 
 of excision. This is alleged departures from the doctrine and 
 order of the Presbyterian Church. The 2d Resolution passed 
 respecting the Synods declared to be no longer a part of the 
 Presbyterian Church in the United States, is in these words, 
 viz. : 
 
 " That the solicitude of the Assembly on the whole sub- 
 ject, and its urgency for the immediate decision of it, are 
 greatly increased by reason of the gross disorders which are 
 ascertained to have prevailed in those Synods, (as well as 
 that of the Western Reserve, against which a declarative 
 resolution, similar to the first of these [that is, the one de- 
 claring the Synods of Utica, Geneva and Genesee no longer 
 a part of the Presbyterian Church in this country] has been 
 passed during our present sessions), it being made clear to 
 us, that even the Plan of Union itself was never consistently 
 carried into effect by those professing to act under it." — Min- 
 utes of the Assembly of 183*7, page 445. 
 
 In the Biblical Repertory we find the following language 
 in vindication of the excision of the Synod of the Western 
 Reserve. ** All that kind of evidence which produces moral 
 certainty as to the state of things in that region of country, 
 may very properly be adduced as an argument why we should 
 dissolve our connection with a body in which our system is 
 openly disregarded. We presume there is not an individual 
 on this floor, who is not perfectly satisfied that there are such 
 
OF THE ACTS OF EXCISION. 29 
 
 frequent and serious departures from presbyteriai order per- 
 mitted within the bounds of this Synod, as would justify its 
 excision by judicial process. — The departures from Presby- 
 terianism in this region are not confined to matters of gov- 
 ernments ; w^c have every evidence such a case admits of, 
 that what we believe to be serious departures from our doc- 
 trinal standards, prevail throughout this Synod. We know 
 what is the theology of Oberlin Seminary ; we know what 
 opinions the commissioners from these Presbyteries have, at 
 various times, avowed on the floor of the Assembly ; we 
 know% and every one else knows, that new-school theology, 
 be it good or bad, is the theology of this Synod." — Biblical 
 Rei^ertory, July, 1837, i)age8 465, 466. 
 
 On page 4*74 of the sam j work, we find the following state- 
 ment respecting the exsc'nded Synods in the State of New 
 York. " In support of the second resolution," (the one we 
 last quoted), " wliich assigns as a reason for the speedy de- 
 cision of this matter the prevalence of gross disorders within 
 the bounds of these Synods, extracts from various documents 
 were read, such as the pastoral letter of the Synod of Geneva, 
 the letter of the Association of Western New York, Mr. Fin- 
 ney's lectures, Dr. Betcher's letter to the editor of the New 
 York Observer, &c. These documents were read not as 
 evidence but argimients If it is true that extravagance and 
 fanaticism have prevailed to a great extent in this region of 
 country, it is certainly a strong reason for dissolving our con- 
 nection with these churches." 
 
 Near the close of the sessions of the Assembly, '* the re- 
 port of the Committee on the memorial"- of the Convention, 
 ** which relates to doctrinal errors," was taken up and adopt- 
 ed as follows, viz. : — 
 
 ** As one of the principal objects of the memorialists is to 
 point out certain errors, more or less prevalent in our church, 
 and to bear testimony against them, your committee are of 
 opinion, that as one great object of the institution of the 
 church was to be a depository and guardian of the truth ; 
 2 
 
30 ATTEMPTED JUSTIFICATION 
 
 and as, by the constitution of the Presbyterian Church in 
 the United States, it is made the duty of the General As- 
 sembly to testify against error ; therefore, resolved, that the 
 testimony of the memorialists concerning doctrine, be adopt- 
 ed as the testimon3^ of this General Assembly, ("vvith a few 
 verbal alterations,) which is as follows : 
 
 1. That God would have prevented the existence of sin 
 in our world, but was not able without destroying the moral 
 agency of man : or, that for aught that appears in the Bible 
 to the contrary, sin is incidental to any wise moral system. 
 " 2. That election to eternal life is founded on a foresight of 
 faith and obedience. 
 
 3. That we have no more to do with the first sin of 
 Adam than with the sins of any other parent. 
 
 4. That infants come into the world as free from moral de- 
 filement as was Adam, when he was created. 
 
 5. That infants sustain the same relation to the moral go- 
 vernment of God in this world as brute animals, and that 
 their sufferings and death are to be accounted for, on the same 
 principles as those of brutes, and not by any means to be 
 considered as penal. 
 
 6. That there is no other original sin than the fact that all 
 the posterity of Adam, though by nature innocent, or pos- 
 sessed of no moral character, will always begin to sin when 
 they begin to exercise moral agency ; that original sin does 
 not include a sinful bias of the human mind, and a just ex- 
 posure to penal suffering ; and that there is no evidence in 
 Scripture, that infants, in order to salvation, do need redemp- 
 tion by the blood of Christ, and regeneration by the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 7. That the doctrine of imputation, whether of the guilt of 
 Adam's sin, or of the righteousness of Christ, has no founda- 
 tion in the Word of God, and is both unjust and absurd. 
 
 8. That the sufferings and death of Christ were not truly 
 vicarious and penal, but symbolical, governmental, and in- 
 structive only. 
 
OP THE ACTS OF EXCISION. 31 
 
 9. Tliat the impenitent sinner is by nature, and independ- 
 ently of the renewing influence or almighty energy of the 
 Holy Spirit, in full possession of all the ability necessary to 
 a full compliance with all the commands of God. 
 
 10. That Christ does not intercede for the elect until after 
 their re o-ene ration. 
 
 o 
 
 11. That saving faith is not an effect of the special opera- 
 tion of the Holy Spirit, but a mere rational belief of the truth, 
 or assent to the Word of God. 
 
 12. That regeneration is the act of the sinner himself, and 
 that it consists in a change of his governing purpose, which 
 he himself must produce, and which is the result, not of any 
 direct influence of the Holy Spirit on the heart, but chiefly of 
 a persuasive exhibition of the truth, analogous to the influ- 
 ence which one man exerts over the mind of another ; or that 
 regeneration is not an instantaneous act, but a progressive 
 work. 
 
 13. That God has done all that he can do for the salva- 
 tion of all men, and that man himself must do the rest. 
 
 14. That God cannot exert such influence on the minds of 
 men, as shall make it certain that they will choose and act 
 in a particular manner without impairing their moral agency. 
 
 15. That the righteousness of Christ is not the sole ground 
 of the sinner's ai^ceptance with God ; and that in no sense 
 does the righteousness of Christ become ours. 
 
 16. That the reason why some diff'er from others in re- 
 gard to their reception of the gospel is, that they make them- 
 selves to diff'er. 
 
 Against all these errors, whenever, wherever, and by 
 whomsoever taught, the Assembly would solemnly testify ; 
 and would warn all in connection with the Presbyterian 
 Church against them. They would also enjoin it upon all 
 the inferior judicatories to adopt all suitable measures to 
 keep their members pure from opinions so dangerous. Es- 
 pecially does the Assembly earnestly enjoin on all the Presby- 
 teries to guard with great care the door of entrance to the 
 
32 ATTEMPTED JUSTIFICATION 
 
 sacred office. Nor can the Assembly regard as consistent 
 with ministerial ordination vows, an unwillingness to discip- 
 line according to the rules of the Word of God and of our 
 standards, any person already a teacher, who may give cur- 
 rency to the foregoing errors." — Minutes of the Assembly of 
 1837, pages 468, 469. 
 
 In the " Circular Letter" addressed by the Assembly "to 
 all the churches of Jesus Christ," in justification of their acts, 
 they say, 
 
 " As the great truths of the Gospel lie at the foundation 
 of all Christian hope, as well as of the purity and prosperity 
 of the church, we felt ourselves bound to direct early and 
 peculiarly solemn attention to those doctrinal errors which, 
 there was but too much evidence, had gained an alarming 
 prevalence in some of our judicatories. The advocates of 
 these errors, on their first appearance, were cautious and re- 
 served, alleging that they differed in words only from the 
 doctrines as stated in our public standards. Very soon, how- 
 ever, they began to contend that their opinions were really 
 new, and were a substantial and important improvement on 
 the old creed of the church ; and at length, that revivals of 
 rehgion could not be hoped for, and the souls of men must 
 be destroyed, if the old doctrines continued to be preached. 
 The errors thus promulged were by no means of that 
 doubtful or unimportant character, which seems to be as- 
 signed to them even by some of the professed friends of or- 
 thodoxy. You will see, by our pubhshed acts, that some of 
 them affect the very foundation of the system of Gospel 
 truth, and that they all bear relations to the Gospel plan, of 
 very serious and ominous import. Surely, doctrines which 
 go to the formal or virtual denial of our covenant relation to 
 Adam ; the native and total depravity of man ; the entire 
 inability of the sinner to recover himself from rebellion and 
 corruption ; the nature and source of regeneration ; and our 
 justification solely on account of the imputed righteousness 
 of the Redeemer, cannot, upon any just principle, be regarded 
 
OF THE ACTS OF EXCISION. 33 
 
 as 'minor errors.* They form, in fact, 'another Gospel;' 
 and it is impossible for those who faithfully adhere to our 
 public standards, to walk with those who adopt such opin- 
 ions with either comfort or confidence." — Minutes of the As- 
 semhly of 1837, pages 503, 504. 
 
 The Assembly's attempted vindication of their act, dis- 
 solving the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia, we give in 
 their own langruao^e. 
 
 " Resolved, That the evidence before this Assembly, es- 
 tablishing the evil effects of the existence of this Presbytery, 
 is ample ; that the principle on which it was formed, and on 
 which it has existed up to this time, viz., that of elective 
 affinity, is now on all hands admitted to be unconstitutional ; 
 and lastly, that being originally formed by the Assembly, 
 none can question the right of that body to dissolve it, when- 
 ever its continued existence is found to be injurious to truth 
 and charity." — Minutes of the Assembly of 1837, page 488. 
 The grounds on which the Assembly attempted to justify 
 (X their abrogation of the '' Plan of Union" and acts declaring 
 ':, four Synods no longer in connection with the Presbyterian 
 Church in these United States, and dissolving the Third Pres- 
 bytery of Philadelphia, are now before the reader. Their 
 utter indefensibility will now be shown. 
 
CI]ll^tU %\iix)i. 
 
 TIIE GROUNDS ON \VHICH THE ASSEMBLY ATTEMPTED TO JUSTIFY THEIR 
 ABROGATION OF THE "PLAK OF UNION," THE EXCISION OF THE FOUR 
 SYNODS, AND DISSOLUTION OF THE THIRD PRESBYTERY OF PHILADELPHIA, 
 EXAMINED. 
 
 The alleged reason for abrogating the " Plan of Union," 
 was its unconstitutionality. In regard to this, different opin- 
 ions have been entertained by those who opposed its abroga- 
 tion in the Assembly and those who now regard it as grossly 
 unrighteous. Some then believed, and many noiv beheve, 
 that the constitution authorized the adoption of the " Plan of 
 Union." Of this opinion were both the judges before whom 
 the suits, which originated in the acts of the Assembly com- 
 plained of, were tried. Judge Gibson, in dehvering the opin- 
 ion of the Court in Bank, said it was a temporary arrange- 
 ment, and acquired the force of a law without the sanction of 
 the Presbyteries. " It was evidently," he said, *' not intend- 
 ed to be permanent, and it consequently was constitutionally 
 enacted." In his charge to the jury. Judge Rogers remark- 
 ed, ''So far from believing the 'Plan of Union' unconstitu- 
 tional, I concur fully with one of the counsel, that confined 
 within its legitimate limits, it is an arrangement or regulation, 
 which the General Assembly not only had power to make, 
 but that it is one which is well calculated to promote the best 
 interests of religion." 
 
 We admit the Constitution of the Presbyterian Chuch 
 does not expressly provide for such a " Plan of Union" as 
 that now under consideration. Nor does it for the plan of 
 mutual correspondence between the General Assembly of the 
 
JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 35 
 
 Presbyterian Cliurcli and the Congregational Bodies of New 
 England. No call has been made, however, for the abroga- 
 tion of the latter plan, on the ground of its unconstitution- 
 ality. If the constitution does not contain an express provis- 
 ion for these plans, it certainly does not prohibit them. 
 
 So far, however, as the vindication of the act by which the 
 " Plan of Union" was abrogated, is concerned, we deem it of 
 very little importance whether [^its adoption were or ivere not 
 strictly conformed to the letter of the constitution. It was 
 proposed by the General Assembly to the General Associa- 
 tion of Connecticut, formally adopted by both bodies, and 
 acted upon in good faith for more than one-third of a cen- 
 tury by them, and the churches organized in conformity with 
 its provisions. In these circumstances the discourtesy of its 
 abroofation toward the General Association of Connecticut, 
 and its gross injustice to the churches formed under it, are 
 quite sufficient to doom it to utter and everlasting reproba- 
 tion. 
 
 Toward the General Association of Connecticut, it was a 
 flagrant violation of the laws of Christian courtesy. With- 
 out the concurrence of that body the General Assembly 
 could not have adopted the Plan. This was by them per- 
 fectly known. Hence, when they presented the Plan to the 
 Association, they' employed the following language — viz., 
 " Regulations adopted by the General Assembly of the Pres- 
 byterian Church in America and by the General Association 
 of Connecticut, [provided said Association agree to them.") 
 After their proposal had been accepted by the Association 
 and both bodies had acted upon it for thirty-six years, how 
 manifestly and grossly uncourteous toward their New Eng- 
 land brethren was its abrogation, without first asking their 
 consent ! Of such discourtesy no former Assembly had been 
 guilty. In 1*794 a mutual agreement was entered into by the 
 General Assembly and the General Association of Connecti- 
 cut, securing to the delegates, to their bodies respectively, 
 the right to vote on all questions which should be determined 
 
36 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 
 
 by either of them. The Assembly of 1826 deemed it desir- 
 able that this right should be tciken away. They did not feel, 
 however, that they were authorized to do it without first ask- 
 ing the consent of the Association. This was done, and since 
 1827, by the consent of both bodied, their delegates have had 
 the right to sit and deliberate, but not to vote. The Assem- 
 bly of 1835 were desirous that no more churches should be 
 formed according to the provisions of the *' Plan of Union of 
 1801." They did not, however, ordain that none should be. 
 They did no more than pass the following resolution, viz. : — 
 "Resolved, That our brethren of the General Association of 
 Connecticut be, and they hereby are respectfully requested to 
 consent that said Plan be, from and after the next meeting of 
 that Association, declared to be annulled." — Mbmtes of the 
 Assembly of 18S5, page 29. 
 
 In respect to the rights of their Congregational brethren 
 and Christian courtesy toward them, what a sad departure 
 from the course pursued by the Assembly of 1835, in refer- 
 ence to the annulling of the " Plan of Union," and that of 
 the Assembly of 1837 to secure its abrogation ! The former 
 resp)ectfully request the Association to consent that no more 
 churches be formed under it ; the latter, without uttering a 
 syllable in their ear on the subject, abrogated it, and all 
 which, for thirty-six years, had been done in conformity with 
 its stipulations. • 
 
 But the gross injustice done by its abrogation to the 
 churches organized agreeably to its provisions, is a much 
 stronger ground of objection against the act than its discour- 
 tesy to the General Association of Connecticut. These 
 churches, though not one of the original parties in adopting 
 the plan, became a party to it by connecting themselves with 
 the Presbyterian Church, according to its provisions. By it, 
 they were authorized to administer their discipline according 
 to Congregational or Presbyterian principles of Church go- 
 vernment, and call men to the pastoral office among them 
 from either denomination. The Minutes of many Assem- 
 
JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 37 
 
 blies previous to the abrogation of the plan, show that they 
 had sent up their statistical reports to the Presbyteries with 
 which they were connected, and contributed to the funds of 
 the General Assembly. Whether the plan were or were not 
 constitutional, we see not how it can with justice or propriety 
 be denied that it embraced the elements of a mutual com- 
 pact or covenant. In this light the plan of mutual represen- 
 tation in the General Associations of Kew England and the 
 General Assembly has been regarded. In 1833, Doctor 
 Miller said, ** 1 have always been a warm friend of it, and 
 should be grieved at the occurrence of anything calculated to 
 interrupt it, or render it less comfortable. If no such inter- 
 course existed, it ouo-ht forthwith to be befjun. Those who 
 come so near together as the great body of ministers of New 
 England and those of the Presbyterian Church, ought un- 
 doubtedly to know and love one another, and to co-operate 
 in the great work of enlightening and converting the world." 
 Again he says, **The articles of intercourse between the As- 
 sociations of Kew England and the General Assembly of the 
 Presbyterian Church are to be considered as a solemn ecclesi- 
 astical compact, evidently intended to promote harmony, co- 
 operation, and mutual strength." — History of the Freshyle- 
 rian Controversy, hy H. Woods, page 43. 
 
 If the articles of intercourse between the Associations of 
 New England and the General Assembly are to be regarded 
 as solemn covenants, much more is the " Plan of Union," 
 which provides for the organization of churches, the admin- 
 istration of discipline and the settlement of pastors, to be so 
 regarded. In that compact or covenant, they considered 
 themselves a party, fulfilled its stipulations, and expected 
 them to be fulfilled on the part of the Assembly. Had the 
 plan operated ever so disastrously to the interests of the Pres- 
 bytarian Church, the Assembly would have had no right to 
 violate its plighted faith to the churches, which had per- 
 formed what the compact required of them. So thought 
 the advocates of a Board of Foreign Missions in the Assem- 
 2* 
 
38 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 
 
 bly of 1 836. Kear the close of the Assembly of the previous 
 year, a Committee was " appointed to confer with the Synod 
 of Pittsburg on the subject of a transfer of a supervision of 
 the Western Foreign Missionary Society to the General As- 
 sembly," and in case of their approval of such transfer, the 
 Assembly *' authorized them to ratify and confirm the same 
 with the said Synod," The conductors of the Biblical Re- 
 pertory, when presenting the arguments of tihe advocates of 
 this transfer, say expressly, " Though our Assembly cannot 
 by an act of ordinary legislation bind its successors, yet 
 in all cases in which contracts have been formed under the 
 authority of our Assembly, succeeding Assemblies are bound 
 in honor and honesty to execute them." — Ste July No. of 
 Repertory for 1836, page 421. 
 
 In that case, the utmost that justice would have allowed 
 them to do, would have been to request those churches 
 to become strictly Presbyterian, or connect themselves 
 with Congregational associations. The Assembly of 1835, 
 wdiich requested the General Association of Connecticut to 
 concur with them in annulling the Plan, were not prepared to 
 abrogate all that had been done under it. They " resolved 
 that the annulling of said Plan shall not in any wise interfere 
 with the existence and lawful operations of churches which 
 have been already formed on this Plan." — Minutes of the 
 Assembly o/ 1835, page 29. 
 
 Had the spirit of this resolution prevailed in the Assembly 
 of 183V, no act like the one we are now considering could 
 have been passed. Unhappily, it was under the influence of 
 a very different spirit, — a spirit which urged it forward to 
 the act of annulling all which for thirty-six years had been 
 done under a solemn compact. This was a rash and arbi- 
 trary act, subversive of the \erj foundation of sound morals^ 
 and highly injurious to the cause of evangelical religion. 
 
 That, however, was not the most objectionable act per- 
 formed by that Assembly. Had it been, the Presbyterian 
 Church would not have been rent asunder. The minority 
 
JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 39 
 
 would then have done nothing more than enter their solemn 
 protest ao-ainst the act, declaring the ** Plan of Union" null 
 and void from the beginning. But after having performed 
 that act, they declared four Synods, embracing churches or- 
 ganized under that Plan, no longer in connection with the 
 Presbyterian Church. By this act, five hundred ministers, 
 and sixty thousand communicants in good standing, were 
 cast out of the Church without trial, without citation even, 
 or any opportunity to be heard in self-defence. One of the 
 grounds on which they attempted to justify this arbitrary 
 proceeding, was the alleged unconstitutionality of the " Plan 
 of Union." 
 
 This ground is wholly untenable. The Synods and Pres- 
 byteries embraced in them, were 7iot created by that Plan. 
 It contained no provision for the erection of either. The 
 reader, by turning to pages 12 and 13 of this narrative, will 
 perceive at a glance that it merely secured to churches the 
 right of conducting their disciphne, either upon Congrega- 
 tional or Presbyterian principles, of settling pastors from 
 either denomination, and in case difficulties should arise be- 
 tween pastors and their flocks, it pointed out the methods 
 which they might adopt to settle them. It also recommend- 
 ed to churches, composed partly of Congregationahsts and 
 partly of Presbyterians, to appoint a standing committee to 
 conduct their discipline, and allowed them to depute one of 
 their number to attend the Presbytery, who should have the 
 same right to sit and act in that body as a ruling elder. Not 
 a syllable does it contain respecting the erection of Synods 
 and Presbyteries. For their organization the constitution 
 makes ample provision. It expressly asserts that the power 
 of erecting new Presbyteries belongs to the Synod ; and 
 that of erecting new Synods, to the General Assembly. 
 That the exscinded Presbyteries and Synods were organized 
 in strict conformity with the provisions of the constitution, 
 we have ample proof. The records of the Synods, containing 
 an account of the organization of every new Presbytery, were 
 
40 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 
 
 sent up from year to year to the General Assembly for ex- 
 amination and appioval. Had there been anything ir- 
 regular or unconstitutional in their organization, it surely 
 would not have escaped the notice of the Assembly. We 
 have yet to learn that any exception was ever taken to the 
 erection of any one of these Presbyteries, on the ground 
 of irregularity in its organization. Had there been, their 
 commissioners m^ ould not have been admitted to seats in the 
 General Assembly. Against the admission of commissioners 
 from Presbj^teries, not constitutionally organized, tlie As- 
 sembly had long exercised great vigilance. For the purpose 
 of guarding effectually against it, the Assembly of 1822 
 passed the following resolution, viz. : — 
 
 ■ "Resolved, that it be adopted as a standing rule of this 
 house, that commissioners from newly formed Presbyteries 
 shall, before taking their seats as members of this body, pro- 
 duce satisfactory evidence that the Presbyteries to which 
 they belong have been regularly 07'ganized, according to the 
 constitution of the Church, and are in connection with the 
 General Assembly." — Min. of the Assembly of 1822, par/e 20, 
 
 Guarded as the Assembly had been against receiving com- 
 missioners from Presbyteries not organized according to the 
 constitution, previously to 1838, the commissioners from 
 within the bounds of the exscinded Synods had uniformly 
 been admitted to seats in that body. Vv^hat stronger proof 
 can be given that, up to the time of the excision of the Synods, 
 the Assembly had been perfectly satisfied that the Presby- 
 teries, which they embraced, had been constitutionally or- 
 ganized ? 
 
 The evidence of the constitutional ors^anization of the 
 Synods is equally conclusive. By a reference to the Minutes 
 of the Assemblies now to be named, it will be seen that the 
 Assembly of 1812 constituted the Synod of Geneva; that of 
 1821, the Synod of Genesee; that of 1825, the Synod of 
 the Western Reserve ; and that of 1829, the Synod of Utica. 
 
 The " Plan of Union," as we have seen, related exclusively 
 
JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 41 
 
 to the government of churches, which, by it, became connect- 
 ed with the Presbyterian Church, the settlement of pastors, 
 and the admission of members of standino- committees to 
 seats in the judicatories of the church. How, then, could 
 the abrogation of that Plan, whether constitutional or not, 
 exclude from the Presbyterian Church Presbyteries and 
 Synods which had been organized in strict conformity with 
 the letter of the constitution ? 
 
 Our exscinding brethren attempt to avoid this conclu- 
 sion, by affirming that the organization of these Presbyteries 
 and Synods was rendered unconstitutional by permitting 
 members of standing committees in churches not Presbyte- 
 rian to sit, and act, in the presbyteries and higher judicato- 
 ries. They say expressly, that they cannot recognize the 
 constitutional existence of presbyteries thus established, and 
 that the fact of their having been recognized by former As- 
 semblies, had no power to bind the one, which declared 
 them no longer in connection with the Presbyterian Church .* 
 
 These are sweeping declarations, leading to consequences 
 which, we presume, their authors would be very unwilling 
 to admit. If, as they affirm, admitting members from other 
 denominations of Christians to sit and act in the judicatories 
 of the Presbyterian Church vitiates their organization, and 
 makes them unconstitutional bodies, such Avere the Synods 
 of Albany and New Jersey. Both of these Synods had 
 churches under their care, whose discipline was conducted 
 upon Congregational principles, and which were represented in 
 Presbytery and Synod by members of standing committees. 
 Had the Assembly of 1837 acted in conformity with the 
 principle by which they attempted to justify the excision of 
 the four Synods, they would have declared the Synods of 
 Albany and New Jersey no part of the Presbyterian Church. 
 Had they passed that act, which a regard to consistency re- 
 quii-ed them to do, they would have declared the Professors 
 in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, not even except- 
 
 * Min. Assembly of 1837, pages 450, 451. 
 
42 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 
 
 ing the venerable Docts. Alexander and Miller, no longer in 
 connection with the General Assembly, as they did the vener- 
 able Doct. Richards and his associate Professors in the Se- 
 minary at. Auburn. Nay, a strict adherence to the principle 
 before stated, that the admission of officers from any other 
 denomination of Christians to sit and vote in the judicatories 
 of the Presbyterian Church, destroys their constitutionality, 
 w^ould require the admission that between the years 1794 
 and 1827 — a period of thirty-three years, there was no Gen- 
 eral Assembly, constitutionally organized. During that pe- 
 riod, the delegates from the General Association of Connec- 
 ticut to the General Assembly enjoyed all the rights of its 
 own members. Our exscinding brethren, we presume, are not 
 prepared to affirm that all the acts of the thirty-three Assem- 
 blies, in which Congregational ministers were allowed to 
 vote, are null and void. 
 
 In justification of their act, dissolving the 3d Presbytery 
 of Philadelphia, they assigned two reasons. One was, the 
 evil effects of its existence ; the other, that its organization 
 was unconstitutional. The evils, resulting from its exist encey 
 they did not specify. They doubtless consisted in the ob- 
 stacles which it opposed to the increase of the power and 
 influence of their party in the Church. 
 
 This Presbytery was constituted by the General Assembly 
 in 1832, on the principle of elective affinity, — a principle 
 which, it is presumed, all will admit should be acted upon 
 only in extraordinary cases, of which that under consideration 
 was one. The same party in the old Presbytery of Phila- 
 delphia, which was the most zealous and active in casting 
 their brethren out of the Church without trial in 1837, in 
 1831 did all they could to prevent the settlement of the Rev. 
 Albert Barnes over the 1st Presbyterian Church in that city. 
 For many years previous an unhappy state of things had ex- 
 isted in that Presbytery. A large majority of its members 
 were dissatisfied with some of the theolomcal views of the 
 Rev. James P. Wilson, D.D,, for many years the honored 
 
JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 43 
 
 pastor of the 1st Churcli in that city, and the Eev. Thomas 
 H. Skinner, D.D., pastor of the 5th Church, and a few others, 
 who, if they did not agree with them in all their doctrinal 
 views, were convinced that the opposition to the brethren 
 just named was uncalled for and unchristian. Mr. Barnes' 
 views coincided with those of these brethren, and they in the 
 Presbytery who opposed them, determined, if they could, to 
 prevent the settlement of Mr. Barnes. Tlie case was carried 
 up by complaint to the General Assembly of 1831, and was 
 disposed of by the adoption of the following resolutions, 
 viz. : — 
 
 ** 1. Resolved, That the General Assembly, while it ap- 
 preciates the conscientious zeal for the purity of the Church, 
 by which the Presbytery of Philadelphia is believed to have 
 been actuated in its proceedings in the case of Mr. Barnes ; 
 and while it judges that the sermon of Mr. Barnes, entitled 
 * The Way of Salvation,' contains a number of unguarded and 
 objectionable passages ; yet is of opinion, that, especially 
 after the explanations which were given by him of those 
 passages, the Presbytery ought to have suffered the whole 
 to pass without further notice. 
 
 2. Resolved, That in the judgment of this Assembly, the 
 Presbytery of Philadelphia ought to suspend all further pro- 
 ceedings in the case of Mr. Barnes. 
 
 3. Resolved, That it will be expedient, as soon as the reg- 
 ular steps can be taken, to divide the Presbytery in such 
 way as will be best calculated to promote the peace of the 
 ministers and churches belonging to the Presbytery." — Min. 
 Assemhly 1831, page 180. 
 
 Conformably to the recommendation of the Assembly, ap- 
 plication was made to the Synod of Philadelphia at its ses- 
 sions the ensuing October, to divide the Presbytery, but the 
 Synod rejected the application. Of the refusal of the Synod 
 to divide the Presbytery, those members who desired the 
 division complained to the next General Assembly. Their 
 complaint was sustained, and the Presbytery divided agrcea- 
 
44 
 
 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 
 
 bly to their wishes. — See Minutes of the Assembly of 1832, 
 pacje 321. 
 
 As the guardian of the peace of tlie churches, how could 
 the Assembly forbear to divide the Presbytery ? And was 
 the erection of the new one on the principle of elective af- 
 finity, for the express purpose of putting an end to the un- 
 hallowed strifes which had long existed in the old Presby- 
 tery of Phihidelphia, and which the Assembly had good 
 reason to believe would be continued, were it not divided, a 
 sufficient ground for the Assembly of 183'7 to dissolve a Pres- 
 bytery erected by a previous Assembly? Can any person 
 qualified by knowledge and candor to judge in the case, give 
 an affirmative answer to this inquiry? 
 
 The attempted justification of the act dissolving the 3d 
 Presbytery of Philadelphia, because it was organized on the 
 principle of elective affinity, is utterly at variance with the 
 act of their own party in 1821. In that year a union was 
 effected between the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
 Church and the Associate Reformed Church. The Assem- 
 bly, in consummating that union, recognized and carried out 
 the principle of elective affinity. One article of the plan of 
 union is in these words : 
 
 "The different Presbyteries of the Associate Reformed 
 Church shall either retain their separate organization, or 
 shall be amalgamated with those of the General Assembly, 
 at their own choice. In the former case (that is, by elect- 
 ive affinity), they shall have as full powers and privileges as 
 any other in the united body." One of the Presbyteries of 
 the Associate Reformed Church availed itself of this per- 
 mission. The General Assembly therefore allowed two Pres- 
 byteries, one previously belonging to it, and one received from 
 the Associate Church, to occupy "the same ground and have 
 jurisdiction over the same territory." 
 
 It requires but a moderate share of discernment to see the 
 real ground of the objection of the exscinders of 1837 to a 
 Presbytery organized on the principle of elective affinity. 
 
JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 45 
 
 When the adoption of the principle tended to increase their 
 power and inllaence, they had no objection to it : — when it 
 tended to diminish them, it was an evil not to be tolerated. 
 
 And the Assembly did more than dissolve the 3d Presby- 
 tery of Philadelphia. Their 4th and 5th resolutions respect- 
 ing it are in these words, viz. : 
 
 4th. " The Ministers, Chmxhes and Licentiates, in the Pres- 
 bytery hereby dissolved, are directed to apply without delay 
 to the Presbyteries to which they naturally belong, for ad- 
 mission into them. And upon application being so made by 
 any duly organized Presbyterian Church, it shall be received. 
 
 5th, These resolutions shall be in force from and after the 
 final adjournment of the present sessions of the General As- 
 sembly." — Minutes of the Assembly of 18S1, paye 413. 
 
 These resolutions make it manifest as the light, that after 
 the final adjournment of the Assembly, the Ministers, 
 Churches and Licentiates of the 3d Presbytery of Philadel- 
 phia, till they should apply for admission into " the Presby- 
 tery to which they most naturally belong," and be actually 
 received by them, were declared to be out of the Presbyte- 
 rian Church. 
 
 This procedure against the 3d Presbytery of Philadelphia 
 and the excision of the four Synods without trial or citation, 
 in respect to the~"reputation of the authors of these acts, 
 were passed three centuries too late. The darkness of the 
 dark ages would have been but a miserable apology for them. 
 
 The Assembly did not rest their attempted vindication of 
 the excision of the four Synods solely on the ground of the 
 unconstitutionality of the Plan of Union. They were 
 doubtless convinced, if they could assign no other reason for 
 those acts, they would be placed before an enlightened com- 
 munity in a most unenviable position. Anotlicr ground on 
 which they attempted to justify them, was doctrinal error 
 and gross departures from the order of the Presbyterian 
 Church. By turning to pages 29-33 inclusive of this history, 
 it will be seen that the Assembly attempted to vindicate their 
 
46 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 
 
 exscinding acts, by alleging the alarming prevalence of fun- 
 damental errors in the Church, especiall3' within the bounds 
 of the disowned Synods. In their '' Circular Letter to all 
 the Churches of Jesus Christ," they say of these errors, 
 " They form in fact another Gospel ; it is impossible for those 
 who faithfully adhere to our public standards to walk with 
 those who adopt such opinions with either comfort or con- 
 fidence." 
 
 The principal " disorders and irregularities " of which the 
 Assembly complained and. against which they warned the 
 churches, are these, viz., " Irregularities in the formation of 
 Presbyteries, hcensing men to preach the Gospel and or- 
 daining them to the office of the ministry," who do not cordially 
 adopt the standards of the Presbyterian Church " and preach 
 and publish radical errors ; the formation of creeds, often 
 incomplete, false, and. contradictory of each other, and of 
 our Confession of Faith and the Bible ; the needless ordina- 
 tion of a multitude of men to the office of evangelist ; the 
 disuse of the office of Ruhng Elder; the unlimited and irre- 
 sponsible power, assumed by several associations of men under 
 various names, to exercise authority and influence, direct and 
 indirect, over Presbyteries, and a progressive system of Pres- 
 byterial representation in the General Assembly — until the 
 actual representation seldom exhibits the true state of the 
 Church." — See Minutes Assembly of 1837, page 471. 
 
 These are grave charges indeed. If well founded, they 
 could doubtless have been established by testimony before 
 the regularly constituted judicatories of the church. If 
 they could not be proved, those who wrongfully charged 
 their brethren with embracing the errors specified, and prac- 
 tising the alleged irregularities, ought to have been dealt 
 with as slanderers. These are charges, too, be it remem- 
 bered, brought against Synods and the churches within their 
 bounds, declared to be out of the Presbyterian Church on 
 the ground of the unconstitutionality of " the Plan of Union." 
 The authors of the exscinding acts, when attempting to justify 
 
• JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 47 
 
 them on this ground, solemnly affirm that they passed them 
 ** without impeaching the character or standing of the 
 brethren composing these Synods." In support of the 
 resolution for exscinding the Synod of the Western Reserve, 
 it was said in the Assembly, " The resolution — charges fio 
 offence, it proposes no trial, it threatens no sentence. It 
 purports merely to declare a fact, and assigns a reason for 
 the declaration. It has neither the form nor the operation 
 of a judicial process. Should the resolution be adopted, it 
 will not affect the standing of the members of this Synod as 
 Christians, as ministers or pastors. It will simply alter their 
 relation to the Presbyterian Church. We do not propose to 
 excommunicate them as church members, or depose them as 
 ministers. We do not withdraw our confidence from them, 
 or intend to cast any imputation upon them." — Biblical 
 Repertory, July 1837, page 454. 
 
 It is difficult to conceive of lano;uao;e more kind and cour- 
 teous toward those whom they were laboring to cast out of 
 the church without trial. How humihating, shortly after it 
 was uttered, to hear its authors, when attempting to justify 
 their act of exscinding them, charge them with errors and 
 irregukrities so gross as to merit exclusion from the Presbyte- 
 rian Church by judicial process ! 
 
 After having cast them out of the church, their position 
 was an exceedingly difficult one. They are really to be pitied 
 no less than blamed. In casting them out without trial, they 
 did an egregious wrong, and they must either repent or at- 
 tempt to justity it. Unhappily they chose the latter, and 
 must abide the consequences. 
 
 Before a refutation is attempted of the charges of gross 
 errors and irregularities against constitutional Presbyterians, 
 justice to them requires that it be stated and borne in mind, 
 that an overwhelming majority of them have never denied 
 that there were errors in doctrine and irregularities in prac- 
 tice in the churches, which required correction. They be- 
 lieved there were, deplored their existence, and were willing 
 
48 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 
 
 to co-operate in the employment of constitutional and scrip- 
 tural means for their removal. They then resisted and have 
 uniformly borne their testimony against them. The evils 
 complained of were mainly attributable to a class of reckless 
 evangelists and pastors, who admitted them to their pulpits, 
 some of whom doubtless approved and adopted their doc- 
 trines and measures. Those who were opposed to them, and 
 wilhng to employ means authorized by the Scriptures for the 
 removal of error both in doctrine and practice, were opposed 
 to the substitution of violent and summary measures for the 
 discipline of the Gospel. And at the time the four Synods 
 were disowned, the evils complained of had been arrested, 
 and far less was to be apprehended from them than 
 there had been six or eight years before. This is admitted 
 by the editors of the Biblical Repertory. In their review of 
 the " Act and Testimony " in 1834, after having commended 
 one Presbytery in which they say, there is not " a single ad- 
 herent of the Old School," for refusing to ordain a candidate 
 w^ho held the popular errors on depravity and regeneration, 
 they say, " There are not wanting other decisive and cheer- 
 ing intimations that the portentous union between New 
 Divinity and new measures, which threatened to desolate the 
 church, has, at least for the present, done its worst." 
 
 Moreover, the zeal of the leaders in the ranks of the self- 
 constituted reformers was all employed in one direction. 
 Among themselves were men strongly tinctured with Anti- 
 nomian errors — errors highly dishonorable to God, and cal- 
 culated to remove from the minds both of saints and sinners 
 the burden of obligation to yield immediate and unceasing 
 obedience to His will. But the exscinders would suffer no 
 testimony to be borne against these errors. And measures 
 for promoting revivals of religion, of which they loudly com- 
 plained, had been used by leading men of their own party 
 for years. And compared with evils which attended revi- 
 vals among Presbyterians in the West, especially in Kentucky 
 and Temiessee more than thirty years before, for the removal 
 
JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 49 
 
 of which no disciphnary nor legishitive measures were em- 
 ployed, those upon which their zeal was expended were as 
 the twilight to the darkness which brooded over Egypt on 
 that fearful night when her first-born were slain. 
 
 Justice to constitutional Presbyterians requires that an- 
 other ground of their opposition to the course pursued to- 
 ward the disowned Synods should be stated. It was not de- 
 nied even by the exscinders themselves that there were 
 among them sound Presbyterians, and those in other sections 
 of the church, who opposed their exscinding acts, had evi- 
 dence which, to their minds, was perfectly satisfactory, that 
 there were hundreds of ministers and thousands of church- 
 members whose soundness in the faith could not be impeach- 
 ed. The act of excision placed these unoffending brethren, 
 who had done and suffered four-fold more than any of the 
 self-styled reformers had done, to prevent the spread of error 
 in doctrine and practice in the church, in precisely the same 
 position with those who had embraced and labored to pro- 
 pagate them. To this procedure they were conscientiously 
 and irreconcilably opposed. True, in justification of this ex- 
 traordinary and revolting procedure, it was said ample pro- 
 vision was made for the reception of all sound Presbyterians 
 into the church, from whicli they had been thrust out. This 
 adds insult to injury-. Let us suppose an analogous case. 
 Rumors reach the ears of Congiess that within the territory 
 covered by the four disowned Synods, there are citizens of 
 treasonable principles and practice. Instead of ordering a 
 legal investigation of these rumors to be made, on the ground 
 of them, though wholly irresponsible, they pass a resolution, 
 declaring all the inhabitants of the suspected districts no 
 longer citizens of the United States, and their senators and 
 representatives no longer entitled to seats in their body. Not 
 doubting, however, that there are many unoffending and 
 law-abiding citizens in the exscinded districts. Congress en- 
 acts that all who will come forward and take the oath of 
 allegiance to the Government, shall be received as loyal riti- 
 
50 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 
 
 zens. It would be insulting to any man's understanding and 
 sense of common justice, to inquire what would be the senti- 
 ment of the nation, and of the civilized world, respecting the 
 legality and justice of such a procedure ? Such, however, 
 was the character of the acts of the Assemby of 1837 of 
 which we complain. 
 
 But we pass to the consideration of the attempted justifi- 
 cation by our exscinding brethren of their acts of excision on 
 the alleged ground of the alarming prevalence in the church 
 of doctrinal errors. Here, at the very threshold, the re- 
 markable fact meets us, that not an individual minister in 
 connection with the General Assembly had been convicted 
 of any departure from " The Confession of Faith and Cate- 
 chisms." Charges of departures in doctrine from the Con- 
 fession of Faith and the Word of God had been made against 
 the Rev. Albert Barnes, of Philadelphia, and the Rev. Dr. 
 Beecher, Professor of Theology in Lane Seminary, C incinnati, 
 Ohio. Indeed, this charge had been twice brought against 
 Mr. Barnes. In 1830 he received a call from the 1st Pres- 
 byterian Church in Philadelphia, to become its pastor. A 
 minority of the Presbytery opposed his settlement on the al- 
 leged ground of errors in doctrine contained in a sermon 
 which he had published, entitled " The Way of Salvation." 
 The majority, however, after hearing Mr. Barnes's explana- 
 tions, were satisfied that there was nothing in the sermon 
 which ought to prevent his settlement, and so decided. Of 
 this the minority complained to the Synod. The Synod re- 
 ferred the case back to the Presbytery, to hear and decide 
 upon their objections to Mr. Barnes's sermon. When the 
 Presbytery convened the minority had become the majority, 
 and the case was referred to the next General Assembly. 
 This reference the Assembly disposed of by passing the 
 resolutions before cited, on page 39 of this history. 
 
 This conclusion was deemed so auspicious and important 
 to the peace of the church, that ** the Assembly united in 
 special prayer, returning thanks to God for the harmonious 
 
JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 51 
 
 result to which they liave come ; and imploring the blessing 
 of God on their decision." — See Minutes of the Assembly of 
 1831, ^m^es ISO, 181. 
 
 In 1835, the Rev. George Junkin, D. D., then President 
 of Lafayette College, arraigned Mr. Barnes before his Pres- 
 bytery, on charges of erroneous doctrines, contained in a Avork 
 which he had published, entitled '' Notes on the Epistle to 
 the Romans." These charges were ten in number, the state- 
 ment of which, in this place, is not necessary. After a pa- 
 tient hearing of the case, the Presbytery decided that the 
 charges were not sustained. From this decision. Dr. Junkin 
 appealed to the Synod of Philadelphia, which met the en- 
 suing October, in York, Penn. The Synod sustained the 
 appeal of Dr. Junkin, and " suspended " Mr. Barnes from the 
 exercise of all the functions proper to the Gospel ministry," 
 till he should retract his errors, or give satisfactory evidence 
 of repentance. From this act of suspension Mr. Barnes ap- 
 pealed to the next General Assembly. The Assembly met 
 the ensuing May, in the city of Pittsburg, when the appeal 
 of Mr. Barnes was sustained by a vote of one hundred and 
 thirty-four members, ninety-six only voting against it. The 
 sentence of suspension from the functions proper to the Gos- 
 pel ministry was alio reversed, by a vote of one hundred and 
 forty-five members against seventy-eight. 
 
 A resolution was then introduced censuring some of the 
 languaoje in Mr. Barnes's Notes on the Romans, as at variance 
 with the standards of the church, and admonishing him to 
 revise the work, modify its statements, and " be more careful, 
 in time to come, to study the purity and peace of the church," 
 but the motion was lost. 
 
 In 1835 the Rev. Dr. J. L. Wilson, of Cincinnati, arraign- 
 ed the Rev. Dr. Beecher, of Lane Theological Seminary, be- 
 fore the Presbytery of Cincinnati, on a charge of heresy and 
 slander, by charging the whole Church of God with agreeing 
 with him in regard to the nature of the sinner's inability to 
 do the will of God. The charges brought against Dr. Beecher 
 
52 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 
 
 were substantially the same with those for which Mr. Barnes 
 was tried and suspended by the Synod of Philadelphia. Tlie 
 Presbytery, after a protracted and patient hearing of the case, 
 decided that the charges against him had not been sustained. 
 From this decision Dr. V/ilson appealed to the Synod, but 
 his appeal was not sustained. He then appealed from the 
 decision of the Synod to the General Assembly, but when 
 that body met the ensuing May, in the city of Pittsburg, he 
 requested leave to withdraw his appeal, and his request was 
 granted. 
 
 These are the only individuals who have been tried during 
 the unhappy controversies which for years had agitated the 
 Presbyterian Chnrch for errors alleged to have been em- 
 braced and propagated by its members. Both of them were 
 honorably acquitted. Neither of them belonged to the ex- 
 scinded Synods. Not a member of those bodies had been 
 tried or arraigned for heresy. But if the errors, affirmed to 
 have been extensively embraced and disseminated by their 
 members, had actually existed among them, they could have 
 been arraigned, tried and condemned, unless those bodies 
 were so corrupt as to prevent the regular exercise of disci- 
 pline ; and in that case the General Assembly could have 
 taken the work of reform into its own hand by the method 
 prescribed in Section 5th, Chapter 12th, in our Form of 
 Government. The attempted justification of the acts, cutting 
 oflf the four Synods on the ground of doctrinal errors, is an 
 utter failure. It was more than a mere failure. It was nothing 
 less than an effort to justify the casting out of the church 
 without trial, or a responsible accuser, brethren in good stand- 
 ino" in their respective Presbyteries and Synods on the ground 
 of mere rumor; nay, of casting out many who, according to 
 their own admission, were sound in the faith. Much more 
 creditable would it have been to the authors of these acts 
 frankly to have admitted that they were unconstitutional, ar- 
 bitrary, and unrighteous, and promptly to have rescinded 
 them. 
 
JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 53 
 
 And tliey not only cast out of the Presbyterian Cliurcli so 
 many of her ministers and her members, all of whom were in 
 good standing in their respective presbyteries and churches, 
 but did it in the face of repeated public and solemn declara- 
 tions on the part of those who represented them in the judi- 
 catories and other convocations of the Church, of their rejec- 
 tion and deep abhorrence of the errors laid to their charge. 
 When the list of errors, contained in the Memorial of the 
 Convention, which commenced its sessions ten days before, 
 was introduced into the Assembly, an efifort was made by 
 one of the minority to add to it others of Antinomian tendeli- 
 cy. After some discussion, it was agreed to make the con- 
 sideration of these errors the order of the day for the ensu- 
 ing morning. Instead of being* considered then, however, it 
 was not again presented for discussion in the Assembly till 
 the Vth of the ensuing month, when, after a few verbal al- 
 terations, it was adopted. The reasons for this delay, and 
 for cutting off all further amendment and discussion of th€ 
 report, will be best understood by the protest of the minori- 
 ty against its adoption, which is as follows, viz. : — 
 
 '^ PROTEST. 
 
 " The undersigned respectfully present their protest against 
 the act of the Genei-al Assembly, adopting the report of the 
 Committee on Bills and Overtures, on so much of the memo- 
 rial of the convention as relates to erroneous doctrines, and 
 for the following reasons : 
 
 " We protest, 1 . Because of tlie course pursued by the md" 
 jority in relation to this report. Early in the sessions of the 
 Assembly it was announced, that all the great questions 
 which should claim their attention, and the action on which 
 would give character to this Assembly, and affect the very 
 integrity of the Presbyterian Church, were entwined around 
 and involved in the memorial of the convention. That me- 
 morial presented, as the evil which lay at the foundation of 
 their solemn testimony, and threatened the very existence of 
 3 
 
54 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 
 
 the church, the prevalence of error. * It is against errors say 
 the memorialists, * that we emphatically bear our testimony — 
 error, not as it may be freely and openly held by others, in 
 this age and land of absolute religious freedom, but error held 
 and taught in the Presbyterian Church, preached and written 
 by persons who profess to receive and adopt our scriptural 
 standards — promoted by societies widely operating through 
 our churches — reduced into form and openly embraced by al- 
 most entire Presbyteries and Synods — favored by repeated 
 acts of successive General Assemblies, and at last virtually 
 sanctioned to an alarming extent by the numerous Assembly 
 of 1836.' Of this they said they had ' conclusive proof.' 
 
 " On Monday, the 22d ultimo, the fourth day of the sessions 
 of the Assembly, the committee to whom the memorial was 
 referred, presented their report in relation to these errors, 
 and invited the attention of the Assembly to this subject, as 
 one of the very first importance, detailing with one or two 
 verbal alterations merely, the list of errors condemned by the 
 memoriahsts, and alleged to be rife in the Presbyterian 
 Church. It was moved to amend this list by introducing 
 into it four other en^ors, alleged to be held and taught, and 
 productive of great mischief in the church. At the same 
 time, request was made for one day's delay, that so grave and 
 important a subject might receive the calm and sober atten- 
 tion it merited. On all hands, discussion was allowed to be 
 desirable and necessary; and the Assembly agreed to make 
 the subject the order of the day for the next day. When the 
 next day anived, however, the Assembly refused to take up 
 the subject, and notwithstanding frequent attempts were 
 made by the minority to get at the discussion, and the radi- 
 cal importance of the subject had been alleged, the Assembly 
 uniformly refused to take it up, till near the close of the ses- 
 siont, when all discussion and amendment were instantly pre- 
 vented by the call for the previous question. 
 
 ** 2. We protest, because of the manner in ivhkh the vote was 
 arrived at. The amendment offered proposed the condemna- 
 
JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 55 
 
 tion of the four following errors, of the existence of which in 
 the Presbyterian Church, more decisive proof, in our view, 
 was given by several speakers, tlian of any reported by the 
 convention, viz. : 1. ' That man has no ability of any kind 
 to obey GocVs command or do his duty. 2. That ability is 
 not necessary to constitute obligation. 3. That God may just- 
 ly command what man has no ability to perform, and justly 
 condemn him for the non-performance, 4. That all the 2>ow- 
 ers of man to perform the duty required of him, have been 
 destroyed by the fall' The admission of this amendment 
 was opposed. 
 
 " A motion was made for the postponement of the amend- 
 ment and doctrinal discussion till the next day, and argued 
 till the previous question was demanded, which, the Modera- 
 tor decided, would present the question of postponement as 
 * the main question ;' and in that form the previous question 
 was put and carried. But instead of taking up the subject 
 then made the order of the day for the next day, the ma- 
 jority even afterwards refused to do so, until the rule for the 
 previous question had been so altered, and the Moderator's 
 decision on it so had, that the use of the previous question 
 would cut off the amendment, and bring up the original list 
 of errors as the main question. At the close of the session, 
 when it was well known this would be the effect of the pre- 
 vious question, the report of the committee was taken up, and 
 the call for the previous question made so immediately as to 
 prevent all discussion on the amendment thereafter, as well 
 as on the whole list of doctrinal errors. 
 
 " 3. We protest, because of the effect produced by the pros- 
 pect or probability of obtaining a unanimous condemnation of 
 the errors. During the short discussion which took place on 
 the amendment, it became obvious, that there would be a 
 general if not unanimous testimony of the Assembly against 
 the errors proposed to be condemned. Such a vote would 
 have greatly weakened if not entirely destroyed the allega- 
 tions of the convention, who affirmed that they had * conclu- 
 
56 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 
 
 sive proof that these errors *are widely disseminated in 
 the Presbyterian Church.' We hoped it would have arrest- 
 ed all the subsequent action of the Assembly, which we feel 
 to have been so disastrous to the interests of our beloved 
 church. At all events, its moral effect, as a testimony 
 against error, would have been so great, that had it been the 
 main and exclusive design of the majority to condemn error, 
 we think it strange they did not see and appreciate it. We 
 think it strange, too, that instead of endeavoring to obtain a 
 unanimous vote in the condemnation of error, and promote 
 peace and harmony, which might have prevented much of 
 what we beheve will be productive of great and lasting injury 
 to the church, the doctrinal errors were studiously and with 
 determination- kept back from the consideration of the As- 
 sembly till nearly all those measures were adopted, which 
 could only be alleged to be necessary, on supposition of the 
 fact, that there could be no unanimity or agreement in the 
 condemnation of error. 
 
 ** 4. We protest, because of the embarrassing condition in 
 which members of the minority were placed, by the manner in 
 tvhith the majority determined, finally, to act on the report. 
 The report presented the list of errors, and proposed that the 
 Assembly testify against them, not as errors, in thesi, but as 
 errors declared by the convention to be rife in the Presbyte- 
 rian Church. This, some of the members did not believe. 
 At all events, no proof whatever was exhibited or offered 
 that such is the fact. Others felt that some of the errors 
 condemned are erroneous inferences, which have been drawn 
 and falsely charged by those who do not imderstand the real 
 sentiments of brethren, who prefer, in explaining the great 
 doctrines of our confession and of the Word of God, to speak 
 in the language of common sense, rather than to employ cer- 
 tain theological technics or terms of scholastic divinity, not 
 found either in the Bible or in our standards, and which, it 
 is believed, in many instances make dangerous practical im- 
 pressions, and contrary both to the truth and to the design 
 
JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 57 
 
 of those that use them. To have refused, on the one hand, 
 for these and such hke reasons, to condemn these errors, 
 would necessarily, in the present agitated state of the public 
 mind, excite suspicions and doubts as to their soundness in 
 the faith, who did so. Yea, even a non liquet vote, or de- 
 clining to vote altogether, would have the same effect. On 
 the other hand, to have condemned these errors, without 
 some opportunity afforded in discussion to state their real 
 views, and to disavow their belief of the erroneous inferences 
 drawn from their mode of explaining the doctrine of the stand- 
 ards in the language of common sense, in preference to that 
 of scholastic theology, would have subjected them to the 
 charge of insincerity and hypocrisy, of late so industriously 
 circulated against many estimable men in the Presbyterian 
 Church. Christian candor, the spirit of brotherly love, and 
 the obligation to do to others as we would have them to do 
 to us, we think, should have rendered the majority wilhng to 
 afford their brethren full opportunity to exhibit their real 
 views, to correct any misrepresentations, to disavow any false 
 inferences attributed to them as their opinions, and to unite 
 with them in the condemnation of pernicious error. 
 
 " 5. We protest also, because of the want of discrimination, 
 as we think, in the statement of the errors ; some of which 
 are propositions wholly of a metaphysical character, and on 
 points by no means clearly and positively settled, either in 
 our standards or in the sacred Scriptures ; and calculated 
 exceedingly to perplex and bewilder the great mass of or- 
 dinary readers, in finding them classed with errors essen- 
 tially at variance with both. 
 
 " 6. We protest further, because of the imperfect character, 
 as we think, of the testimony given against error, in the report 
 and resolutions adoj^ted. We think that the dangerous er- 
 rors brought into view by the amendment, should have been 
 condemned ; and that it is not sufficient to affirm a proposi- 
 tion to be erroneous without asserting the contrary truth. 
 
58 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 
 
 Such a testimony in full, we were prepared to give, had we 
 been allowed an opportunity. 
 
 *' 1. We protest yet further, because the language of several 
 of the statements, we think, is so ambiguous as to contain 
 different propositions according to the different legitimate 
 signification of the terms employed in the statement, and 
 therefore requiring some explanation, as in specification first, 
 where it is said, God was not able to prevent the existence of 
 sin. Here, if the words * not able' be taken in the sense of a want 
 of a mere literal power, we have one proposition ; but if under- 
 stood to signify inconslsltncy with the perfections of the di- 
 vine nature generally, we have another totally different ; and 
 so of can in the thirteenth and cannot in the fourteenth spe- 
 cifications. The same is also true in regard to the term 
 ability in the latter clause of specification ninth. If by 
 abilitv be meant endowments, such as constitute the natural 
 capabilities of a moral and responsible agent, we have one 
 proposition ; but if ability be understood to signify a disposi- 
 tion of mind to will, and to do the good pleasure of God, we 
 have one wholly diverse. To the list of ambiguities we may 
 add the term regeneration, in the latter clause of specifica- 
 tion twelfth. If, in that place, regeneration be understood 
 to comprehend all the vicissitudes of mind which man expe- 
 riences in the chano-e from a careless sinner to a real Chris- 
 
 O 
 
 tian, we shall have a proposition wholly diverse from that 
 which we would have, if we understood the term to mean 
 merely the transformation of a convicted and anxious sinner 
 into a true and spiritual Christian, or the translation from a 
 state of death in trespasses and sins to a state of life ; so that 
 several of these statements may be true or false, error or or- 
 thodoxy, just as the terms that express them may be differ- 
 ently explained. We feel bound to protest against any doc- 
 trinal statements coming from this body, of so ambiguous 
 import, and so adapted, as, w^e think, without explanation, 
 to perplex and confound, and not to instruct and edify the 
 churches. 
 
JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 59 
 
 ** 8. Wc protest, finally, because, in view of all the circum- 
 stances of the case, we feel tliat while we were prevented 
 from uniting in the final vote with the majority in their tes- 
 timony against error, for the reasons above stated, we owe 
 it to ourselves, to our brethren, to the church, and to the 
 world, to declare and protest, that it is not because we do, 
 directly or indirectly, hold or countenance the eiTors stated. 
 We are willing to be;ir our testimony in full against them, 
 and now do so, when, without misapprehension and liability to 
 have our vote misconstrued, we avow our real sentiments, 
 and contrast them with the errors condemned, styling them, 
 as we believe, the true doctrine, in opposition to the errone- 
 ous doctrine condemned, as follows, viz. : 
 
 ** First Error. * That God would have prevented the ex- 
 istence of sin in our world, but was not able, without destroying 
 the moral agency of man ; or, that for aught that appears in 
 the Bible to the contrary, sin is incidental to any wise moral 
 system.' 
 
 *' True Doctrine. God permitted the introduction of sin, 
 not because he was unable to prevent it, consistently with 
 the moral freedom of his creatures, but for wise and benevo- 
 lent reasons, which he has not revealed, 
 
 *' Second Error. * That election to eternal life is founded 
 on a foresigcht of faith and obedience,' 
 
 "True Doctrine. Election to eternal life is not founded 
 on a foresight of fidth and obedience, but is a sovereign act 
 of God's mercy, whereby, according to the counsel of his 
 own will, he h-is chosen some to salvation ; *yet so as there- 
 by neither is violence offered to the will of the creatures, 
 nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken 
 away, but rather estabhshed ;' nor does this gracious pur- 
 pose ever take effect independently of faith and a holy life. 
 
 *' Tkird Error. * That we have no more to do with the 
 first sin of Adam, than with the sins of any other parent.' 
 
 " True Docti;ink. By a divine constitution, Adam was so 
 the head and representative of the race, that, ns a coiise- 
 
60 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 
 
 quence of his transgression, all manMnd become morally cor- 
 rupt, and liable to death, temporal and eternal. 
 
 " Fourth Error. ' That infants come into the world as 
 free from moral defilement as was Adam when he was 
 created.' 
 
 *' True Doctrine. Adam was created in the image of God, 
 endowed with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness. 
 Infants come into the world not only destitute of these, but 
 with a natui e inclined to evil, and only evil. 
 
 << Fifth Error. * That infants sustain the same relation 
 to the moral government of God, in this world, as brute ani- 
 mals, and that their sufFeiings and death are to be account- 
 ed for on the same principles as those of brutes, and not by 
 any means to be considered as penal.' 
 
 " True Doctrine. Brute animals sustain no such relation 
 to the moral government of God as does the human family. 
 Infants are a part of the human family ; and their sujfferings 
 and death aie to be accounted for, on the ground of their 
 being involved in the general moral ruin of the race induced 
 by the apostacy. 
 
 " Sixth Error. * That there is no other original sin than 
 the fact, that all the posterity of Adam, though by nature 
 innocent, will always begin to sin when they begin to exer- 
 cise moral agency ; that original sin does not include a sinful 
 bias of the human mind, and a just exposure to penal suffer- 
 ing ; and that there is no evidence in Scripture, that infants, 
 in order to salvation, do need redemption by the blood of 
 Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Ghost.' 
 
 " True Doctrine. Original sin is a natural bias to evil, 
 resulting from the first apostacy, leading invariably and cer- 
 tainly to actual transgression. And all infants, as well as 
 adults, in order to be saved, need redemption by the blood 
 of Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Ghost. 
 
 " Seventh Error. * That the doctrine of imputation, wheth- 
 er of the guilt of Adam's sin, or of the righteousness of Christ, 
 
JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 61 
 
 has no foundation in the Word of God, and is both unjust 
 and absurd.' 
 
 '' True Doctrine. The sin of Adam is not imputed to his 
 posterity in the sense of a hteral transfer of personal quah- 
 ties, acts, and demerit ; but by reason of the sin of Adam, in 
 his pecuhar relation, the race are treated as if they had sin- 
 ned. Nor is the righteousness of Christ imputed to his peo- 
 ple in the sense of a literal transfer of personal qualities, acts, 
 and merit ; but by reason of his righteousness, in his peculiar 
 relation, they are treated as if they were righteous. 
 
 " Eighth Error. * That the sufferings and death of Christ 
 were not truly vicarious and penal, but symbolical, govern- 
 mental, and instructive only.' 
 
 *' True Doctrine. The sufferings and death of Christ were 
 not symbolical, governmental, and instructive only, but were 
 truly vicarious, i. e. a substitute for the punishment due to 
 transorressors. And while Christ did not suffer the hteral 
 penalty of the law, involving remorse of conscience and the 
 pains of hell, he did offer a sacrifice which infinite wisdom 
 saw to be a full equivalent. And by virtue of this atone- 
 ment, overtures of mercy are sincerely made to the race, and 
 salvation secured to all who believe. 
 
 " Ni> th Error. ' That the impenitent sinner is by nature, 
 and independently of the renewing influence or almighty en- 
 ergy of the Holy Spirit, in full possession of all the ability ne- 
 cessary to a full compliance with all the commands of God.' 
 
 '^ True Doctrine. While sinners have all the faculties 
 necessary to a perfect moral agency and a just accountability, 
 such is their love of sin and opposition to God and his law, 
 that, independently of the renewing influence or almighty 
 energy of the Holy Spirit, they never will comply with the 
 commands of God. 
 
 " Tenth Error. * That Christ does not intercede for the 
 elect until after their refjeneration ' 
 
 " True Doctrine. The intercession of Christ for the elect 
 is previous as well as subsequent to their regeneration, as 
 3# 
 
62 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OP' 
 
 appears from the following Scripture, viz., *[ pray not for 
 the world, but for them which thou hast giv^en me, for they 
 are thine. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also 
 which shall believe on me through thy word.' 
 
 ** Eleventh Error. * That saving faith is not an effect of 
 the operations of the Holy Spirit, but a mere rational belief 
 of the truth or assent to the word of God.' 
 
 " True Doctrine. Saving faith is an intelligent and cordial 
 assent to the testimony of God concerning his Son, implying 
 reliance on Christ alone for pardon and eternal life ; and in all 
 cases it is an effect of the special operations of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 " Twelfth Error. * That regeneration is the act of the 
 sinner himself, and that it consists in change of his govern- 
 ing purpose, which he himself must produce, and which is 
 the result, not of any direct influence of the cloly Spirit on 
 the heart, but chiefly of a persuasive exhibition of the truth, 
 analogous to the influence which one man exerts over the 
 mind of another ; or that regeneration is not an instantaneous 
 act, but a progressive work.' 
 
 " True Doctrine. Regeneration is a radical change of 
 heart, produced by the special operations of the Holy Spirit, 
 * determining the sinner to that which is good,' and is in all 
 cases instantaneous. 
 
 " Thirteenth Error. * That God has done all thatAe can 
 do for the salvation of all men, and that man himself must 
 do the rest.' 
 
 "True Doctrine. While repentance for sin and faith in 
 Christ are indispensable to salvation, all who are saved are 
 indebted from first to last to the grace and Spirit of God. 
 And the reason that God does not save all, is not that he 
 wants the poiver to do it, but that in his wisdom he does not 
 see fit to exert that power further than he actually does. 
 
 ** Fourteenth Error. * That God cannot exert such in- 
 fluence on the minds of men, as shall make it certain that 
 they will choose and act in a particular manner, without im- 
 pairing their moral agency.' 
 
JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 63 
 
 " True Doctrine. While the liberty of the will is not im- 
 paired, nor the established connexion betwixt means and end 
 broken by any action of God on the mind, he can influence 
 it according to his pleasure, and does effectually determine 
 it to good in all cases of true conversion. 
 
 ** Fifteenth Error. * That the rigliteousness of Christ is 
 not the sole ground of the sinner's acceptance with God ; 
 and that in no sense does the righteousness of Christ become 
 ours.' 
 
 " True Doctrine. All believers are justified, not on the 
 ground of personal merit, but solely on the ground of the 
 obedience and death, or, in other words, the righteousness of 
 Christ. And while that righteousness does not become theirs, 
 in the sense of a literal transfer of personal qualities and 
 merit ; yet, from respect to it, God can and does treat them 
 as if they were righteous." 
 
 " Sixteenth Error. * That the reason why some differ 
 from others in regard to their reception of the Gospel is, that 
 they make themselves to differ.' 
 
 "True Doctrine. While all such as reject the Gospel of 
 Christ do it, not b}^ coercion but freely — and all who em- 
 brace it do it, not by coercion but freely — the reason why 
 some differ f i om others is, that God has made them to differ. 
 
 *' Fhiladel/jhia,Juue 8th, 183V. 
 
 " George Duffield, E. W. Gilbert, Thomas Brown, Bliss 
 Burnap, N. S. S. Beman, E. Cheever, E. Seymour, 
 George Painter, F. W. Graves, Obadiah Woodruff, 
 N. C. Clark, Robert Stuart, Nahum Gould, Absa- 
 lom Peters, Alexander Campbelj." 
 
 — Minutes of the Assembly, pages 4S1-486. 
 
 On the 17th of August next ensuing the meeting of the 
 Assembly, a convention of ministers and laymen, commis- 
 sioned by their respective Presbyteries, met in Auburn, New 
 York, to deliberate upon the unhappy position in which the 
 church had been placed by the exscinding and kindred acts of 
 the Assembly, and recommend such u course of action to the 
 
64 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 
 
 ministers and churches, who beheve those acts to be uncon- 
 stitutional, unrighteous, and revolutionary, as they in their 
 wisdom should deem best calculated to promote their peace 
 and prosperity, and the glory of God. In that Convention 
 nine Synods and thirty-three Presbyteries were represented 
 by ninety-eight clergymen, and fifty- eight laymen, duly com- 
 missioned, and twenty-four clergymen, not commissioned by 
 their Presbyteries, who were invited to sit as corresponding 
 members, making a total of one hundred and eighty. These 
 men certainly can be regarded in no other light thnn fair 
 representatives of the prevailing doctrinal sentiments of the 
 Presbyteries and Churches with which they were connected. 
 Whether they were so heretical as to deserve exclusion from 
 the church by judicial process, the reader may judge by 
 reading the second and third resolutions which they passed 
 upon doctrine, without a dissenting voice. They are these, 
 viz. : — 
 
 *' 2. Resolved, That as the rehgious sentiments of the 
 Synods and Presbyteries whom we represent, we cordially 
 embrace the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, 
 ' as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy 
 Scriptures,' as understood by the church ever since the 
 Adopting Act of 1729, viz. : 'And in case any minister of 
 the Synod, or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any 
 scruple with respect to any article or articles of said confes- 
 sion, he shall, in time of making said declaration, declare his 
 scruples to the Synod or Presbytery ; who shall, notwith- 
 standing, admit him to the exercise of the ministry within 
 om' bounds, and to ministerial communion, if the Synod or 
 Presbytery shall judge his scruples not essential or necessary 
 in Doctrine, Worship, or Government. 
 
 ''3. Resohed, That in accordance with the above declara- 
 tion, and also to meet the charges contained in the before- 
 mentioned circular [' The Circular Letter to all the Churches 
 of Jesus Christ'], and other published documents of the late 
 General Assejpbly, this convention cordially disapprove and 
 
JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 65 
 
 condemn the list of errors condemned by the late General 
 Assembly, and adopt, as the expression of tlieir own senti- 
 ments, and as they believe the prevalent sentiments of the 
 churches of these Synods on the points in question, the list 
 of * true doctrines' adopted by the minority of the said As- 
 sembly in their 'Protest' on this subject." 
 
 These repeated disavowals of the list of errors, condemned 
 by the Assembly, the repeated affirmation of the true doc- 
 trine, presented in the protest of the minority, and adherence 
 to **The Confession of Faith as containing the system of 
 doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures," constitute an amount 
 of testimony in favor of the doctrinal purity of Constitutional 
 Presbyterians, which can be resisted only by an implied or 
 avowed affirmation that their solemn declarations and vows 
 are unworthy of credit. Are the excinders, who have rent 
 the church asunder, prepared to say that the professions of 
 the men whom they charge with heresy, are hypocritical, and 
 that by their ordination vows, they made themselves guilty 
 of perjury ? We are confident many who adhere to that 
 branch of the Presbyterian Church which, in 1837, trampled 
 upon the Constitution, abandoned the old, time-honored 
 platform of Presbyteriarism and placed themselves on an 
 entirely " neAv basis," would on no account do this. For 
 reasons, which they doubtless consider sufficient, but the 
 validity of which, if they be vahd, we have not to this day 
 been able to discern, they still adhere to that body. In this 
 matter, we are willing to leave them to their own sense of 
 duty. We have a right, however, according to the teachings 
 of the "Biblical Repertory," (an authority which they re- 
 spect,) to place the acts of the body with which they are 
 connected in their true light. In the number for July, 1 837, 
 we find the following language :—" The only fair criterion 
 by which to judge of any public body, is their acts and their 
 official documents. Individuals must answer for themselves." 
 In availing ourselves of this universally conceded right, to 
 speak of their exscinding acts, it gives us no pleasure, but un- 
 
6G THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 
 
 feigned and deep regret to be compelled to say iliey thrust 
 out of the church so large a number of ministers and com- 
 municants, not one of whom had been convicted of heresy or 
 error, or of any disciplinable offence, and against their solemn 
 disavowal of the heresies laid to their charge and declarations 
 of adherence to the Confession of Faith. These acts they 
 first attempted to justify on the ground of the alleged uncon- 
 stitutionality of the Plan of Union, but as if conscious of the 
 invalidity of the plea, they urge that of i'umored. heresies 
 and departures from Presbyterian order in the bounds of the 
 disowned Synods, and other sections of the Church. By the 
 deep and unwavering convictions of our minds, we are con- 
 strained to pronounce these acts unfounded, arbitrary, and 
 oppressive. They indeed said they meant not to crimhiate 
 those whom they disowned and cast out, ror to affect their 
 standing as christians and ministers, or pastors ; but directly 
 after, in justification of their acts of excision, charge them 
 with heresies and disorders so gross as to render them de- 
 serving of exclusion from the church by judicial process. If 
 these allegations are no injury to those against whom they 
 are made, it can be only because the public regard their 
 authors unworthy of confidence. 
 
 The actual state of things w^ithin the bounds of the three 
 exscinded Synods in the State of New York, may be judged 
 of by the perusal of the following letter of the venerable and 
 lamented Doctor Richards, written in Nov., 1838, and ad- 
 dressed to the Rev. Joseph C. Stiles, D.D , late pastor of 
 the Mercer Street Presbyterian Church, in the city of New 
 York, then residing in Kentucky. 
 
 "November 13, 1838. 
 " To the Rev. J. C. Stiles : 
 
 " My Dear Sir : — I regret that my engagements will not 
 allow me to give you a full and detailed account of the ec- 
 clesiastical affairs of Western New York. All I can do is 
 briclly to reply to your several queries. You ask, first, 
 
JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 67 
 
 What is the degree of our corruption in doctrine and order 
 around me, in my judgment. 
 
 ''I belong to the Synod of Geneva, which embraces two 
 hundred and one churches — one hundred and forty organized 
 with a session on strictly Presbyterian principles, and sixty- 
 one which have no session, but which make use of our Book 
 of Discipline in their church courts, and submit their acts and 
 doings to the supervision of Presbytery as much as if they 
 had a session. They are, in fact, Presbyterian churches 
 with a defective organization. Instead of doing their busi- 
 ness by means of a bench of Elders, they do it by assembling 
 the male communicants, after the Congregational method. 
 One of our Presbyteries, which has under its care thirty-nine 
 churches, has but two wlilch are not strictly Pi-esbyterian, 
 Another, embracing twenty-five churches, has not a single 
 church without a regular session. 
 
 " Presbyterianism is popular in this part of the country, and 
 with a little kind and prudent management, it might become 
 universal. Nothing but the untimely fears and mistaken 
 policy of some of the good brethren in other parts of the 
 church, has prevented it from becoming far more prevalent 
 than it really is. 
 
 " As to corruption in doctrine, I know of none which is 
 deep and fundamental among the ministers and churches 
 which stand connected with our Synod. The ministers have 
 all solemnly professed to receive the Confession of Faith, and 
 the Catechism of our church, as containing that system of 
 doctrine which is taught in the Holy Scriptures. At the 
 same time, I do not suppose that they consider this as 
 amounting to a declaration that they receive every proposi- 
 tion included in this extended confession, but such things only 
 as are vital to the system, and which distinguish it from 
 Arminianism, Pelagianism and Semipelagianism. They be- 
 lieve in the doctrine of total depravity by nature — Rejjenera- 
 fum by the Sovereign and efficacious influence of the Holy 
 Spirit, — Justification by the righteousness of Christ, as the 
 
68 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 
 
 only true and meritorious cause — the persecerance of the 
 saints, and the inlermlnahle 'punishment of the wicked. They 
 have no scruple about the doctrine of particular and personal 
 election, but maintain it firmly as a doctrine of the Bible 
 which ought to have a place in the instructions of the pulpit. 
 " As to our churches, their opinions may be learned from 
 the brief confessions they use in admitting members to full 
 communion. It is the custom in this part of the country, 
 when a person is admitted to the fellowship of the church 
 upon his own confession, to require a public assent to a creed 
 embracing all the great leading doctrines of the Gospel, as 
 well as his solemn and explicit engagement to lead a life of 
 devoted piety. It is common for each Presbytery to super- 
 vise the creeds made use of by the churches under its care. 
 Knowing this to be the fact, I addressed a letter to each of 
 the Presbyteries in the bounds of the four exscinded Synods, 
 requesting them to state whether these confessions, employed 
 at the admission of members to their communion, were con- 
 formable in their tenor and spirit to the Confession of Faith 
 and Catechism of our church, desiring them at the same time 
 to send me a sample of them. The answer I received was, 
 that these brief formulas fully accorded with the Confession 
 of Faith of the Presbyterian Church. I have now before me 
 tw^enty-six of these confessions from as many Presbyteries ; 
 and if I have any judgment as to what belongs to orthodoxy, 
 they are sound as a roach, with the exception of the article 
 on Atonement. They favor the idea of general atonement, 
 as John Calvin and the early Reformers did. Some, I sup- 
 pose, would regard this as deviating from our standards ; 
 but, aside from this, I do not believe that Dr. Green himself 
 would find any fault with these confessions. I say this con- 
 fidently wnth respect to them all, one alone excepted. In one 
 of these confessions there was not so full a recognition of the 
 Divine decree extending to all events absolutely as I could 
 desire, and yet the language of Scripture was employed, 
 which asserts that God governs or works all things after the 
 
JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 69 
 
 counsel of his own will. Is it to be supposed that ministers 
 would demand, or the people from time to time would (jive 
 their public and solemn assent to these confessions, if they 
 were far gone in heretical opinions ? Can you get people in 
 our Methodist Churches to subscribe to strong and pointed 
 Calvinistic formulas, supposing that their ministers were 
 wilhng and desirous that they should ? 
 
 " But if this be a true state of the case, whence the alarm 
 which has pervaded every part of the Presbyterian Church, 
 with respect to our Arminianism, Pelagianism, Perfectionism, 
 and I know not what ? Has there been no ground for the 
 fears and suspicions which have been entertained ? I cannot 
 conscientiously say that I think there has been none. A state 
 of things has existed which excited apprehensions that some 
 were departing from the faith once delivered to the saints. 
 
 ** During the excitements which prevailed under the labors 
 of Messrs. Burchard and Finney, and their associates, things 
 were said and done which had better have been avoided. A 
 new style of preaching was introduced, new measures adopted 
 and advocated, and occasionally new opinions advanced 
 touching the pi-ayer of faith, the method of the Spirit's in- 
 tluence in conversion, and the best method of securing that 
 influence and promoting the conversion of sinners. No direct 
 encroachment, however, was made upon any of the great 
 doctrines of the Gospel. These were cheerfully adm-ttcd, 
 and some of them distinctly and powerfully inculcated. But 
 a notion was imbibed that the doctrine of election, and of the 
 sinner's dependence on Divine influence, and some other 
 doctrines of the Calvinistic system, had heretofore been urged 
 out of due proportion, and that more ought to be said of the 
 sinner's immediate obligation to repent and believe. In 
 pressing this obligation, they urged the sinner's entire ability 
 to comply with the terms of the Gospel. In a word, they 
 taught sinners could, but would not repent without special 
 Divine influence. Many believed then, and do still believe, 
 that their language on this subject was unguarded, and 
 
70 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 
 
 likely to produce an Arminian impression on the hearer 
 That such was the fact in numerous instances, there is no 
 reason to question. Some of Mr. Finney's converts doubted 
 v.'hether he believed in the doctrine of election, and wrote to 
 him, while he was in Boston, to know if he did. He an- 
 swered that he did believe the doctrine, and that they ought 
 to believe it. 
 
 *' From the manner, however, in which some of our 
 preachers at that time presented the truths of the Gospel, and 
 especially from the fact that they did not very prominently 
 present some of them at all, there was danger that an Armi- 
 nian leaven would creep in, and corrupt the faith of the 
 churches. This danger was not lessened by the speculations 
 of the 'New Haven divines, and by some other dubious 
 writings from New England. 
 
 ** After all, through the good hand of God upon us, I do 
 not believe that any radical error has taken root among us, 
 and is likely to prevail. I speak of the churches in our own 
 connection. There is scattered throuorh our bounds a set of 
 
 o 
 
 Christians called Unionists, who hold the doctrine of sinless 
 perfection, and other absurd notions. But they are not of 
 us, and receive no countenance fi'om any of our judicatories. 
 Were you to ask me to name the minister or the church in 
 our Synod who did not fully and unqualifiedly believe in the 
 doctrine of the total depravity of human nature, in regenera- 
 tion by the injluence of the Holy Spirit, in personal election 
 and justification by faith through the righteousness of Christ 
 only, I could not do it. I have much the same impressions 
 with respect to the Synods of Utica and Genesee, and the 
 Synod of the Western Reserve ; but I am not as well ac- 
 quainted with the members of these Synods. Still, it is true 
 we do not all see eye to eye. There are shades of difference 
 in some less important matters. What these are, I have 
 neither time nor room to state to you. But allow me, in 
 conclusion, to say, that in my judgment there never was a 
 
JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 71 
 
 greater mistake than that under which our Old School bre- 
 thren are laborine;. 
 
 " 1st. As to the prevalence of error in the exscinded 
 Synod. 
 
 "2d. As to its cause. The state of belief is not as they 
 suppose it. Nor do the errors which have been supposed 
 to exist owe their origin to any such cause as they ascribe 
 them to. They seem to think that Congregationalism has 
 done all the miscliief. It has had no more influence in the 
 case than the moons of Jupiter. Our Congregational 
 Churches, as a general fact, are the most stable and 
 thoroughly orthodox churches we have. But my sheet 
 is full, and I have only room to say, that I left the Consti- 
 tutional Assembly last Spring, from ill health alone. 
 
 " With much afiPection, I am truly yours, 
 
 " James Richards." 
 No one will dare affirm that the testimony of Doctor 
 Richards is unworthy of credit. His veracity and Christian 
 character were above suspicion, and his sources of informa- 
 tion respecting the doctrines preached by the ministers and 
 embraced by the cluirches connected with the Synods 
 of Utica, Geneva and Genesee, abundant. In view of his 
 testimony contained in his letter to Doctor Stiles, and the 
 repeated declarations of bodies, composed of Constitutional 
 Presbyterians, it would really seem that the charge of 
 heresy among them should have ceased, and the exscind- 
 ing; acts of 1837 been rescinded. Such is not the fact. 
 The acts of which we complain are unrepealed, and the 
 cry of heresy is still continued. In 1848, a work appeared, 
 entitled " Differences between Old and New School Pres- 
 byterians," by the Rev. Lewis Checsman of Rochester, with 
 an introductory and commendatory chapter by the Rev. John 
 C. Lord, D.D., of Buffiilo. This woik has been lauded by 
 the organs of the exscinding Assembly as a seasonable and 
 highly important publication. In it he charges those whom 
 he is pleased to call New School Presbyterians, with dupli- 
 
72 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OP 
 
 city and insincerity, denying the doctrine of native depravity, 
 making void the Spirit's dispensation in the renewal of the 
 heart in the divine image, and maintaining that regeneration 
 is the act of man; — of hmiting the nature of the atonement, 
 denying that Christ died to satisfy the law and justice of 
 God, and justification by His righteousness, and affirms that 
 the revivals which take place under their ministry, are the 
 work, not of God, but of men. It is truly surprising and 
 deeply afiiictive that such charges continue to be brought 
 against men who have often publicly and solemnly denied 
 them. Are Constitutional Presbyterians destitute of common 
 veracity — perjured men, who, under the solemnity of ordina- 
 tion vows, give their assent to formulas of doctrine which 
 they do not believe ? We are persuaded many of our breth- 
 ren of *' the new-basis" Assembly would not affirm that they 
 are. How they can hear men in whom they profess to have 
 confidence thus branded as heretics and neglect to bear tes- 
 timony against these base calumnies, is truly strange and 
 mysterious. In the estimation of the Great Head of the 
 Church, it is not a light thing for one branch of it falsely to 
 accuse another, and hold its ministers up before the pubhc as 
 *' blind leaders of the bhnd," and unfit to be entrusted with 
 the care of souls. Our exscinding brethren seem to have 
 forgotten that a written constitution is binding upon those 
 who profess to adopt it, and that the ninth commandment 
 has never been repealed. 
 
 That the views of Constitutional Presbyterians respecting 
 a few points of doctrine differ from those who are continu- 
 ally reiterating the charge of heresy against them, is not de- 
 nied. And it is equally true that the latter also are very far 
 fiom being agreed among themselves. Some of them be- 
 lieve in the identity of the posterity of Adam with him in his 
 first transgression ; others that there was a literal transfer of 
 his sin to them, as also of the righteousness of Christ to His 
 people. These, however, are not the views entertained by the 
 Professors in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, and it is 
 
JlJSTIFICATIOxN EXAMINED. 73 
 
 presumed of a large majority of those who claim to be the 
 only conservators and expositors of the truth in the Presby- 
 terian Church. The doctrine on these subjects, as taught in 
 the Commentary of Professor Hodge, on the Epistle to the 
 Komans and the Biblical Repertory, is, that the posterity of 
 Adam are held legally resjwnsihle for his sin, and that the 
 righteousness of Christ is placed to the account of those that 
 believe in Hwi, so that thei/, for If is sake, are treated as if they 
 were personally righteous. They also maintain that the suf- 
 ferings of Christ were not the same either in their nature or 
 degree with those which the elect would have endured, had 
 they suffered what their sins deserve. Others maintain that 
 Christ suffered for the elect, the literal 2>€nalty of the law. 
 Some of them maintain that men by nature have no ability 
 whatever to do the will of God ; others that the only ob- 
 stacle to their obedience is their imwUlingness to obey. And 
 yet all of them, we doubt not, with equal sincerity, adopt 
 *' the Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms 
 as containing the system of doctrine taught in the holy Scrip- 
 tures." And Constitutional Presbyterians do the same, not- 
 withstanding they differ from them upon a few points of doc- 
 trine. The only ones to which they attach much importance 
 are these. The first respects the connection between the first 
 sin of Adam and tliat of his posterity. Let them^be heard on 
 this subject in their own language in their statement of true 
 doctrine. They say, " By divine constitution, Adam was so 
 the head and representative of the race, that as a consequence 
 of his transgression, all mankind became morally corrupt, and 
 liable to death, temporal and eternal." 
 
 We also differ from most of our brethren in connection 
 with the other Assembly, respecting the extent of the atone- 
 ment. With them, w^e beheve none but the elect will be 
 savingly benefited by thei death of Christ, but that it was a 
 sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, so that whosoever will, 
 may be saved. 
 
 From a majority of those in connection with the other As- 
 
74 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OP 
 
 Bembly, we dissent from their views of the nature of the in- 
 abihty of unrenewed men to obey the commands of God. 
 They maintain that men by nature have no ability whatever 
 to do the will of God, — that they are in the same sense un- 
 able to do it, that they are to blot out the sun in the heavens 
 or create a vforld. The views of Constitutional Presby- 
 terians on this subject may be learned from their own lan- 
 guage in their statement of true doctrines. They say, 
 " While sinners have all the faculties necessary to a perfect 
 moral agency and a just accountability, such is their love of 
 sin and opposition to God and His law, that independently of 
 the renewing influence or almighty energy of the Holy Spirit, 
 they never will comply with the commands of God." Or in 
 other words, they believe the onlg obstacle to their obecJience 
 and salvation is, their unwillingness to obey the Gospel and 
 be saved on the conditions which it proposes. 
 
 Constitutional Presbyterians do not beheve their views on 
 these subjects to be of iw practical importance, but they 
 have uniformly maintained that the differences between them- 
 selves and their brethren respecting them, were such as ought 
 not to destroy mutual confidence and prevent them from 
 dwelling together in unity. Both are agreed in believing the 
 jrreat facts, that the whole race were involved in sin and ruin 
 by the sin of Adam, that the death of Christ is the only and an 
 all- sufficient sacrifice for the sins of men, in its nature strictly 
 vicarious and a satisfaction to divine justice, but that owing to 
 their utter aversion to holiness, and love of sin, by nature, 
 none will ever trust in it for remission and eternal life, but 
 by the special influences of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 This is not the place to present at length our reasons for 
 entertaining the views on these subjects which have just been 
 presented. It cannot be irrelevant, however, to show, that 
 men, whose orthodoxy our brethren will not call in question, 
 are substantially agreed with us. Calvin may not always have 
 been consistent with himself when speaking of the influence 
 of Adam's sin upon his posterity. The following language 
 
JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 75 
 
 of tbe great reformer contains a perspicuous statement of 
 our views on this subject. "When it is said that the sin of 
 Adam renders us obnoxious to the divine judgment, it is not to 
 be understood as if ive, though innocent, were undeservedly 
 loaded with the guilt of his sin; but because vre are all 
 subject to a curse in consequence of his transgression, he is 
 therefore said to have involved us in guilt." This language 
 is quoted from Book II., Chap. I., of his Institutes. In his 
 commentary on the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans 
 he says, " Some contend our ruin to be effected in such a 
 manner by the sin of Adam, that we persish, not from any 
 fault of our own, but merely because our first father had, as 
 it were, sinned for us. Paul, however," he adds, " expressly 
 affirms that sin is propagated to all those who suffer punish- 
 ment on its account. And the apostle presses this still 
 closer, when shortly after he assigns a reason why all the 
 posterity of Adam is subject to the power of death, namely, 
 because we have all sinned.'" 
 
 Whatever may have been the views of Calvin respecting 
 the extent of the atonement in the early part of his life, 
 near its close when he wrote his commentary on the Romans, 
 in his exposition of the 10th verse of the 5th chapter of that 
 Epistle, he says expressly, "Christ, by his death, according 
 to Paul, reconciled.us to God, because he was an expiatory 
 sacrifice by yf\\\Q\\ atonement was made to God for the loorld.^^ 
 
 In explaining the 18th verse of this chapter, he employs 
 the following language, viz., ** Paul makes grace common to 
 all, because it is proposed and declared to all, but in reality 
 not extended to all ; for though Christ suflfered for the sins 
 of the whole world, and, by the kindness of God, is offered 
 indifferently to all, yet he is not apprehended and laid hold 
 of by all mankind." 
 
 On this subject it is unnecessary to adduce the testimony 
 of others, whose orthodoxy is acknowledged by our esxcind- 
 ing brethren, for it has been conceded by tlieir accredited or- . 
 gans that the doctrine of a general atonement is no longer to 
 
76 THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF 
 
 be regarded as a heresy. The Bibhcal Repertory, in its re- 
 view of " The Act and Testimony," (a document which will 
 be noticed in a subsequent part of this narrative) inquires, 
 ** Is it to be expected that at this time of the day, the Assembly 
 vrould solemnly condemn all who do not hold the doctrine 
 of a limited atonement ?" Even the late Doctor Greene, of 
 Philadelphia, one of the distinguished leaders of the self- 
 styled reform party, which rent the Church asunder, in a 
 sermon, which he delivered Dec. 14th, 1836, said, " All who 
 hold to real atonement are agreed in everything that is ma- 
 ter iaV We would fain hope no one hereafter will ring the 
 alarm-bell of heresy for the purpose of summoning the Church 
 to the work of thrusting out of her pale believers in a general 
 atonement. 
 
 After having placed a few testimonies before our readers 
 to show that the only inability to do the will of God, of 
 which the impenitent are the subjects, consists in their un- 
 wilHngness to do it, we trust no attempt will be made to 
 place the fearful brand of heresy upon us for agreeing with 
 them. Dr. Twiss, the Prolocutor of the Assembly of Di- 
 vines, who framed our Confession (tf Faith and Catechisms, 
 will be regarded by all as an unexceptionable authority. He 
 says, " The inability to do what is pleasing and acceptable 
 to God, is not a natural, but moral inability. The natural 
 poiver of doing anything according to our will, is preserved 
 to all, but 7iot moral power.'^ 
 
 Howe was a personal friend of Dr. Twiss. He says, " For 
 notwithstanding the soul's natural capacities before asserted, 
 its moral incapacity, I mean its wicked aversation from God, 
 is such as none but God Himself can overcome, nor is that 
 aversation the less culpable for that it is so hardly overcome, 
 but the more. It is an aversation of will ; and who sees not 
 that every man is more wicked, according as his will is 
 more wickedly bent ? Hence his impotency or inability to 
 turn to God, is not such that he cannot turn if he loould ; 
 but it consits in this, that he is not willing. ^^ 
 
JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 77 
 
 Dr. Watts, an eminent divine and the prince of evangelical 
 poets, says, "Man has lost, not hh natural poiver to obey the 
 law ; he is bound then as far as natural powers will reach. 
 I own his faculties are greatly corrupted by vicious inclina- 
 tions, or sinful propensities, which has been happily called by 
 our divines, a moral inability to fulfil the law, rather than a 
 natural imimssibility of it." 
 
 Matthew Henrj'-, the eminent commentator on the Bible, in 
 his exposition of Ezekiel 18 : 31, says, "The reason why sin- 
 ners die, is, because they loill die, they will go down the way 
 that leads to death, and not come up to the terms on which 
 life is offered. St. Austin," he remarks, " well explains the 
 precept ; * God does not command impossibiUties, but admon- 
 ishes us by His command to do what is possible, and seek 
 what is not.' " 
 
 Dr. Witlierspoon was no heretic, even our accusers " them- 
 selves being judges." In his sermon on the yoke of Christ, 
 he uses this language — " Now consider, I pray you, what sort 
 of inability this is. It is not natural, but moral. It is not 
 want of power, but inclination. Nothing is required of us 
 that is unsuitable to our situation, or above our natural pow- 
 ers ; so far from it, that even what ivas our duty before, if 
 by any accident, it becomes impossible in this sense, it ceases 
 to be a duty." - 
 
 These quotations make it abundantly evident that Consti- 
 tutional Presbyterians, in respect to the most important 
 points concerning which they differ from their accusing breth- 
 ren, embrace no novelties. They have been believed and 
 publicly taught by some of the most eminent divines of the 
 last two centuries. If we be still denounced as heretics for 
 embracing them, we have the consolation of finding ourselves 
 in excellent company ; — with men " of whom the world was 
 not worthy." And we believe the language of "the Con- 
 fession of Faith" legitimately admits of an interpretation 
 consistent with the views of the doctrines just stated. We 
 therefore cordially adopt it "as containing the s?/s^^?i of doc- 
 4 
 
78 JUSTIFICATION EXAMINED. 
 
 trines tauglit in the Holy Scriptures." We do it in conform- 
 ity with the spirit and letter of the adopting act of 1*729, 
 •which has before been quoted. ''' And we utterly repudiate 
 the name of New School Presbyterians, by which maligners 
 have attempted to bring odium upon us. In respect to the 
 adoption of the Confession of Faith, as a standard of doctrinal 
 belief, we are Old- School Presbyterians, and those who 
 falsely accuse us, are the JVew. /'Subsequently, we are confi- 
 dent it will appear this is the fact also in reference to our 
 strict adherence to the Form of Government. 
 
(^imttx ifiwttiu 
 
 THE ALLEGED, SHOWN TO BE, NOT THE REAL NOR CHIEF REASONS FOR 
 THE EXCISION OF THE FOUR SYNODS. 
 
 It cannot, we think, be deemed an unauthonzed assump- 
 tion to say, that any one "who has read the preceding chapters 
 with candor and attention, must have come to the conclusion 
 that the reasons assigned by the authors and defenders of 
 the exscinding acts, could not have been the chief ones for a 
 procedure so manifestly unconstitutional and oppressive. The 
 conviction of every such reader of the foregoing pages, we 
 believe, must be that their authors were urged to the per- 
 formance of them by other, and, in their judgment, at least, 
 stronger reasons than those by which they have attempted 
 to justify them. The following considerations constrain us 
 to believe such was~the fact. 
 
 1. Had the unconstitutionality of "the Plan of Union,'* 
 as they allege, been the chief ground for cutting off the four 
 Synods, they would have felt constrained, in like manner, to 
 cast out the Synods of Albany, New Jersey and Illinois. 
 These Synods had churches under their care, whose disci- 
 pline was conducted upon Congregational priYiciples. These 
 churches sent committee-men to their respective Presbyteries, 
 and in some instances, to the higher judicatories, who were 
 admitted to all the rights of ruling elders. Instead, however, 
 of casting them out of the church with the four Synods be- 
 fore named, the Assembly merely passed the following reso- 
 lutions respecting them, viz. : — 
 
80 THE ALLEGED, NOT THE REAL 
 
 *' Resolved, 1. That the Synods of Albany and !N'ew Jersey 
 be enjoined to take special order in regard to the subject of 
 irregularities in church order, charged by common fame upon 
 some of their Presbyteries and churches. 2. That the Synod 
 of Illinois be enjoined to take special order in regard to errors 
 in church order, and errors in doctrine, so charged upon several 
 of its Presbyteries." — Minutes of the Assembly of \d>Z*l, pages 
 496, 497. 
 
 If the alleged were the real reasons for casting out of the 
 Presbyterian Church the four Synods, why did they not in 
 like manner cast out the three Synods named in the resolu- 
 tions just quoted? Concerning Presbyteries embracing 
 churches thus constituted, the exscinders made the affirma- 
 tion, " This Assembly can recognize no Presbytery, thus con- 
 stituted, as belonging to the Presbyterian Church." — [Min- 
 utes of the Assembly, page 451). Had they been governed 
 by the principle laid down in this quotation in cutting off the 
 four Synods, they could not have suffered those of Albany, 
 New Jersey, and Illinois to remain in the bosom of the church. 
 They would have thrust them out, and with the Synod of 
 New Jersey, the Professors in the Theological Seminary at 
 Princeton, as they did the Professors in the sister Institution 
 at Auburn. In view of these facts, who can believe that the 
 alleged unconstitutionality of " the Plan of Union" was a 
 governing motive with the Assembly in declaring the four 
 Synods no longer in connection with the Presbyterian Church 
 in these United States ? 
 
 2. Equally evident is it that departures from Presbyterian 
 order and errors in doctrine, could not have controlled the 
 leaders of the High Church Party in procuring the passage 
 of those acts. That some, who voted for them, and others 
 who have attempted to justify them, had been made to be- 
 lieve many of the churches in the disowned Synods were 
 guilty of the disorders and heresies laid to their charge, is 
 undoubtedly true. A little candid and patient examination 
 of facts, however, would have furnished them abundant evi- 
 
REASONS OF THE EXCISION. 81 
 
 dence that they had been misled by statements either wholly 
 without foundation, or grossly exaggerated. To our certain 
 knowledge, men have been left undisturbed, and are now in 
 good standing in then* body, who employed the same meas- 
 ures to promote revivals, the use of which within the bounds 
 of the ejected Synods, was asserted to be one of the strong 
 grounds for their excision, while others, who never resorted 
 to, but firmly resisted them, were ruthlessly thrust out of the 
 church. It is also a fact of equal notoriety, that they have 
 scores, if not hundreds of ministers in their branch of the 
 church, whose doctrinal creed is the same with that contain- 
 ed in the " statement of true doctrine" presented by the 
 minority of the Assembly to that body, and which was re- 
 affirmed by the Auburn Convention. Had the reprobated 
 measures and alleged departures from sound doctrine 
 been, as the ruling spirits in the Assembly affirmed, one of 
 the chief grounds for declaring the four Synods out of the 
 Presbyterian Church, they would have cast out all who were 
 obnoxious to the same charges. 
 
 Moreover, only a few years previous to the division of the 
 church, men whose orthodoxy the leaders of the professed 
 reform party would be slow to call in question, gave their 
 decided testimony in favor of the soundness in the faith of 
 the great body of ~iier ministers and members. The editor 
 of *' The Western Luminary," a paper decidedly in the in- 
 terests of the exscinders, published " the Act and Testimo- 
 ny," accompanied with these remarks : "We give it simply 
 as an article of news, — a portion of the history of the times. 
 We think it but due, however, to the ministry and eldership 
 of this region, to state, that so far as our acquaintance ex- 
 tends, we know of no one who holds any of the doctrinal 
 views which are justly designated as errors in ' the Act and 
 Testimony.' "'* 
 
 The conductors of the Biblical Repertory, in their review 
 
 * " Western Luminary," of Aug. 13th, 1S3 J, as quoted by H. Woods 
 in his history of the Presbyterian Controversy, page 69. 
 
82 THE ALLEGED, NOT THE REAL 
 
 of " the Act and Testimony," after having expressed their 
 firm belief that no such crisis as that mentioned in that docu- 
 ment existed, say, *' We have not the least idea that one- 
 tenth of the ministers in the Presbyterian Church would de- 
 liberately countenance and sustain the errors specified. We 
 believe, indeed, that there is a number of men in our church 
 who hold doctrinal opinions which ought to have precluded 
 their admission, and who should now be visited by regular 
 ecclesiastical process. But we believe the number to be com- 
 paratively small." In a subsequent part of their review, after 
 expressing their pleasure that one Presbytery in which they 
 knew there was not *' a single adherent of the Old School, 
 had refused to ordain a candidate, who held the popular 
 errors on depravity and regeneration," they say, *' There are 
 not wanting; other decisive and cheerinsf intimations that the 
 portentous union between the New Divinity and the New 
 Measures, which threatened to desolate the church, has, at 
 least for the present, done its worst." 
 
 The sentiments expressed in the preceding quotations from 
 " The Western Luminary," and the " Bibhcal Repertory," 
 concerning the state of the Church, were undoubtedly cor- 
 rect. If so, no small share of credulity is required to induce 
 the belief, that with well-informed men, the reasons assigned 
 for the excision of the four Synods were the controlling 
 ones in the performance of an act wholly unauthorized by 
 the constitution of the Church, and so arbitrary and oppress- 
 ive. And let it not be forgotten that it was but three years 
 previous to the passing of this act, that the testimonies just 
 cited were given. Admitting that dangerous errors actually 
 existed in the Church to the extent supposed by the Editors 
 of the Repertory, can it be believed they could, in that 
 brief period, have so increased as to constitute a principal 
 motive for casting out of the Church so large a portion of 
 her ministers and members ? Only a year previous to that 
 disorganizing and unrighteous procedure, the conductors of 
 the Repertory did not believe they had increased at all. In 
 
REASONS OF THE EXCISION. 83 
 
 their review of the proceedings of the Assembly of 1836, 
 they say, " Our faith in the orthodoxy of the great body of 
 the Presbyterian denomination, much as we disapprove of 
 the acts of the majority of the late Assembly, remains un- 
 shaken ; and we feel satisfied that it requires nothing but 
 wisdom, union, and efficiency on the part of the orthodox, to 
 make the fact abundantly evident." — Vol. 8th, page 473. 
 
 To these statements respecting the orthodoxy of the great 
 body of the Church, we give our unqualified assent, and ap- 
 ply the inquiry of the reviewers respecting its state iu the 
 interval of the Assemblies of 1835 and 1836, to its state in 
 the intervening year between the Assemblies of 1836 and 
 1837. "Has the state of the Church materially changed 
 during the last twelve months ?" We answer the inquiry 
 in their own language. " This cannot be pretended." In 
 view of the facts which we have placed before our readers, 
 we leave them to decide whether, in the circumstances, it were 
 possible for the ruling spirits in the Assembly of 1837 to 
 have been wholly or even chiefly influenced in casting the 
 four Synods out of the Church, by a desire to promote its 
 purity, order and peace. 
 
THE REAL GROUNDS OF THE PASSING OF THE ACTS OF EXCISION, 
 
 STATED. 
 
 In order to gain a knowledge of the real causes of the 
 acts -which rent the Church asunder, some of the facts of 
 its previous history must be examined. 
 
 *'It will be found upon a reference to the history of by- 
 gone days, that on the 6th day of April, 1691, the Presby- 
 terian and Congregational denominations of Christians, in 
 Great Britain, met at Stepney, and there by the blessing of 
 Almighty God, after talking over their diflferences, and their 
 agreements, consummated a union of the two denominations, 
 by adopting what was the then called 'HEADS OF 
 AGREEMENT,' embracing a few cardinal principles, which 
 were to govern them in their fraternal intercourse." — See 
 Minutes of the Constitutional Assembly/, pa(/e 56. 
 
 The first Presbytery in America was formed in 1'704, " by 
 the name of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, upon the liberal 
 principles which governed the London Association," and was 
 composed partly of Presbyterian and partly of Congrega- 
 tional ministers and churches. The Rev. Jedediah Andrews, 
 the first pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Phila- 
 delphia, was one of the original members of this Presbytery. 
 He was a native of New England, and decidedly favorable 
 to Congregational Church government. 
 
 In 1*716 "the Synod of Philadelphia was formed out of 
 the Presbyteries of Philadelphia, New Castle, Snow Hill 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 85 
 
 and Long Island, the last three having grown up after the 
 formation of the first in 1704." 
 
 See Minutes of the Constitutional AssemhJij, page 50 ; also 
 the late Dr. Miller s Catechism on the " Rise, Progress and 
 Present State of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States," in manuscript, iwepared for the use of his pupils. 
 
 " Fourteen years after the formation of the Synod of Phil- 
 adelphia, the Rev. Mr. Andrews, in a late letter to Mr. Prince, 
 says, that in the then existing state of things, * we call our- 
 selves Presbyterians, none pretending to be called Congrega- 
 tionalists, and our ministers are all Presbyterians, though 
 most of them are from New England.' " 
 
 During all this period, the Church of Scotland, instead of 
 imbibing the liberal principles of the age, which had resulted 
 in the fraternal union of 1691, in London, and in the estab- 
 lishing of a modified Presbyterianism in America, still ad- 
 hered to her arbitrary principles, as will appear from the fact, 
 that during the reign of Queen Anne, in 1712, only four years 
 before the formation of the Synod of Philadelphia, they sol- 
 emnly bore their testimony against religious toleration. 
 
 In 1724, those ministers from Scotland who came over to 
 this country, and who, in the language of the Rev. Dr. Mil- 
 ler, " were desirous to carry into effect the system to which 
 they had been accustomed in all its extent and strictness," 
 began to insist that the entire system of the Scottish Church 
 be received in this country."'^ This demand led to the adopt- 
 ing act of 1729, which was a return to (or reaffirmation of) 
 "the liberal principles of 1691, upon which the Presbyterian 
 Church in America was based, and is as follows : 'Although 
 the Synod do not claim or pretend to any authority of im- 
 posing our faith on other men's consciences, but do profess our 
 just dissatisfaction with, and abhorrence of such impositions, 
 and do not only disclaim all legislative power and authority 
 in the Church, being willing to receive one another as Christ 
 has received us to the glory of God, and admit to fellowship 
 
 * See Dr. Miller's Catecliism just referred to. 
 
 4# 
 
86 REAI. GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 in Church ordinances all such as we have grounds to believe 
 that Christ will, at last, admit to the kingdom of heaven, 
 yet we are undoubtedly obliged to take care that " the 
 faith once delivered to the saints^' be kept pure and uncor- 
 rupt among us, and so handed down to our posterity ; and 
 do therefore agree, that all the ministers of this Synod, or 
 that shall hereafter be admitted to this Synod, shall de- 
 clare their agreement in and approbation of the Confession 
 of Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the 
 Assembly of Divines at Westminster, as being in cdl essential 
 and necessary articles, good forms and sound words, and sys- 
 tems of Christian doctrine, and do also adopt the said Con- 
 fession of Faith and Catechisms, as the confession of our 
 faith. And we do also agree that the Presbyteries within our 
 bounds shall always take care not to admit any candidate for 
 the ministry into the exercise of the sacred functions, but 
 what declares his agreement in opinion with all the essential 
 and necessary articles of said Confession, either by subscrib- 
 ing the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms, or by ver- 
 bal declaration of his assent thereto, as such minister or can- 
 didate shall think best. And in case any minister of this 
 Synod, or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any 
 scruples with regard to any article or articles of said Confes- 
 sion of Faith or Catechisms, he shall, at the time of his 
 making such declaration, declare his sentiments to the Pres- 
 bytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to 
 the exercise of the ministry within our bounds, and to min- 
 isterial communion, if either the Presbytery or Synod shall 
 judge his scruples or mistakes to be only about articles not 
 essential and necessary in doctrine, worship, or government. 
 But if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge such minister or 
 candidate erroneous in essential and necessary articles of 
 faith, the Synod or Presbytery shall declare him incapa- 
 ble of communion with them. And the Synod do solemn- 
 ly agree, that none of us will traduce or use any opprobrious 
 terms toward those who differ from us in those extra essen- 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 87 
 
 tial and not necessary points of doctrine, but treat them with 
 the same friendship, kindness and brotherly love, as if noth- 
 ing had happened.' " — Minutes of the Constitutional Assem- 
 hhj, 1839, pages bQ, 57. 
 
 This instrument does immortal honor to its authors and 
 those who received it as a bond of Christian union and fel- 
 lowship It provides for the preservation, " pure and entire," 
 of the fi-ystem of doctrine embraced in the Confession of 
 Faith and Catechisms. To errors which are subversive of 
 this system it gives not the least approval or even toleration, 
 and at the same time admits what is undoubtedly true of 
 every human symbol of doctrinal belief, equally extensive 
 and minute in its details, that it embraces some things in re- 
 gard to which those who sincerely adopt it, may lawfully 
 differ. It likewise bound those who adopted it, to treat each 
 other, their minor differences notwithstanding, with Christian 
 courtesy and brotherly affection. It is difficult to conceive 
 how it could have been better adapted to keep " the unity of 
 the Spirit in the bond of peace." Had the Presbyterian 
 Church in this country been governed by the pacific and 
 magnanimous principles of this act, she would at this time 
 have been a united body, presenting to the world the lovely 
 and commanding spectacle of brethren dwelling together in 
 unity, and consecraTmg their united energies to the advance- 
 ment of the kingdom and honor of her enthroned and glori- 
 fied Head. But unhappily other counsels and a widely dif- 
 ferent spirit prevailed. 
 
 " In 1730 we find the Presbytery of Newcastle, in the 
 face of these conciliatory measures of the Synod, adopting 
 the Confession of Faith and Catechisms, as being in all things 
 agreeable to the word of God — and in 1732, the new Pres- 
 bytery of Donegal followed their example, and promised 
 * forever thereafter to adhere thereto.' 
 
 In 1736 that party who were in favor of the strong mea- 
 sures of the Scottish Church, had gained so much ascen- 
 dency, that they brought a majority of the Synod to follow 
 
88 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 the example of the two Presbyteries of Newcastle and Done- 
 gal, and adopt the Confession, Catechisms and Directory of 
 the Westminster of Divines ; without alteration or exception, 
 thus establishing the power of the civil magistrate to control 
 Synods and persecute the Church." — Minutes of the Consti- 
 tutional Assembly, 1S39, page 57. 
 
 As might have been expected, " this rash departure from 
 the tolerant and fraternal principles of 1691 in Eno-land, and 
 of 1*729 in America," was followed by most disastrous con- 
 sequences. The parties reposed but little confidence in each 
 other, and their mutual complaints and criminations produced 
 alienation and strife. These evils were greatly increased by 
 diversity of opinion on other points of great practical impor- 
 tance. The ultra Presbyterians, who had succeeded in secur- 
 ing a majority of votes in tlie Synod in favor of a rigid ad- 
 herence to the Confession of Faith, Catechisms and Direc- 
 toiy in every minute particular, were exceedingly lax in their 
 views respecting the importance of vital piety as a qualifica- 
 tion for membership in the church and the Christian ministry. 
 In candidates for the former, they required doctrinal know- 
 ledge, and in those for the ministry, learning and an unquali- 
 fied assent to the Westminster Confession, but opposed the 
 strict examination of both in regard to their acquaintance with 
 experimental religion. The other party, convinced that vital 
 piety is of paramount importance, insisted that the examina- 
 tion of candidates for church fellowship and the sacred office 
 of the ministry, should be more strict respecting the reality 
 of their conversion to God, tlian the other qualifications con- 
 cerning which their brethren were so strenuous and unyield- 
 ing.* 
 
 During this unhappy state of things, the Rev. George 
 Whitefield paid his second visit to this country. His labors, 
 and the extensive and glorious revivals of religion which 
 they were instrumental in producing, were the occasion of 
 
 * See Doet. Miller's Catechism before referred to, also the " Great 
 Awakening," by the Rev. Joseph Tracy, pages 22, 23. 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 89 
 
 greatly increasing. the dissensions vvhicli for years had agita- 
 ted the church, and producing a wider separation of the par- 
 ties. The ultra Presbyterians refused to admit Whitefield to 
 .their pulpits, pronounced him a wild enthusiast, and the re- 
 vivals which attended his ministry, mere fanatical excite- 
 ments. The more liberal and pious portion of the church 
 regarded Whitefield as a devoted and highly honored servant 
 of God, rejoiced in his success, and encouraged and assisted 
 him in his labors.* 
 
 These dissensions concerning the manner of adopting the 
 Confession of Faith, the necessity of experimental religion 
 as a qualification for membership in the church and for 
 the Christian ministry, the labors of Whitefield and thvi reli- 
 gious interest which they were instrumental in producing, 
 brought on the crisis w^hich, in 1741, resulted in the division 
 of the Synod, and in 1745 in the erection of the Synod of 
 ^New York. The latter body, how^ever, was not made up ex- 
 clusively of the Old and New England element in the church. 
 The Blairs, Tennents, Doctor Finley, and others of the Stotch 
 and Irish and their descendants, strongly opposed the intol- 
 erance of the high church party, zealously co-operated with 
 Whitefield, and blessed God for the signal displays of His 
 grace in the revivals which attended his ministry. That 
 these men were not, as their opponents represented them, fan- 
 atics and opposed to learning in the ministry, is evident from 
 the fact that soon after the division of the Synod, they took 
 measures to found the College of New Jersey, for the ex- 
 press purpose of providing the means of a thorough educa- 
 tion to candidates for the sacred office. 
 
 The unhappy schism of 1741 lasted seventeen years. At 
 the expiration of this period, the Synods were united upon 
 the liberal and tolerant principles of the adopting act of 1*729, 
 and took the name of the Synod of New York and Philadel- 
 phia. Had these principles been adhered to, the Presbyte- 
 
 * See Doct. Miller's Catechism before referred to, and Tracy's his- 
 tory of the Great Awakening, Chapter 5th. 
 
90 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 rian Church in these United States would have remained to 
 this day a united body. 
 
 Very soon after the commencement of the present century, 
 the same intolerant spirit exhibited itself by violent opposi- 
 tion to what was denominated Hopkinsianism or New Eng- 
 land Divinity. It is believed few comparatively eithor in or 
 out of New England, embraced the views of Hopkins re- 
 specting the agency of God in the production of moral evil 
 and a conditional willino-ness to be banished from Him and 
 made eternally miserable. These, however, were the only im- 
 portant differences between his theological views and those 
 of Edwards, Bellamy and other leading divines of New Eng- 
 land. The chief differences between the doctrinal views of 
 these men and the rigid portion of the Presbyterian Church, 
 related to the direct imputation of Adam's sin to his pos- 
 terity, the extent of the atonement, and the nature of the in- 
 ability of the unregenerate to do the will of God, as stated 
 at the close of the 3d chapter of this history. The ultra 
 Presbyterians, however, resolved that departures from their 
 interpretation of the Confession of Faith and Catechisms, 
 respecting these points, should not be tolerated. And their 
 language toward their brethren, who differed from them, 
 sometimes seemed to indicate a settled determination to de- 
 stroy their reputation and usefulness. Take the following 
 extract from the pastoral letter of the Synod of Philadelphia 
 in 1816, as a specimen. 
 
 " The Synod assembled in Lancaster at the present time, 
 consists of a greater number of members than have been 
 convened at any meeting for many years ; and from the free 
 conversation on the state of religion, it appears, that all the 
 Presbyteries are more than commonly alive to the impor- 
 tance of contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to 
 the saints, and of resisting the introduction of A rian, Socin- 
 ian, Arminian and Hopkinsian heresies, which are some of the 
 means by which the enemy of souls would, if possible, de- 
 ceive the very elect. May the time never come when our 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 91 
 
 ecclesiastical courts shall determine that Hopkinsianism and 
 the doctrines of our Confession of Faith are the same thincr. 
 or that men are less exposed now than in the days of the 
 apostles to the danger of perverting the right ways of the 
 Lord." — H. Wood's History of the Freshyterian Controversy 
 page 46. 
 
 The intolerant spirit of this letter was not confined to the 
 body which issued it. It prevailed in other sections of the 
 church. In the city of New York it was no less clearly de- 
 veloped. As the respected pastor of the Brick Church in 
 that city, and other members of the Presbytery of New 
 York, were known to agree with the New England divines 
 respecting the influence of Adam's sin upon his posterity, the 
 extent of the atonement and the nature of the sinner's ina- 
 bility to obey the Gospel, great eftbrts were made by those 
 who differed from them to impair confidence in their ortho- 
 doxy. They were represented as embracing and preaching 
 doctrines highly dishonorable to God, and dangerous to the 
 souls of men. 
 
 Discerning men then clearly foresaw what must be the re- 
 sult of the prevalence of this intolerant spirit in the church. 
 An able writer of that period remarked, '' Among the un- 
 happy effects likely to result from the measures recently 
 taken, we may well consider the gloomy prospects which 
 threaten to spread over the whole body of professing Chris- 
 tians in the United States. How terrible and shocking the 
 thought that Christian brethren, friends and neighbors, united 
 for years in the strictest bonds of amity, must be severed under 
 the charge of heresy ! Many churches must be torn and agi- 
 tated with fierce disputes, and probably rent asunder ; churches 
 must be cast out of Presbyteries, and perhaps Presbyteries 
 out of Synods. And what appearance would the Presby- 
 terian Church make, torn with divisions, distracted by dis- 
 putes, rent with schisms, palsied by animosities, and branded 
 with the name of a persecutor?" 
 
 The sad catastrophe which the author of this quotation 
 
92 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 seemed then to anticipate as near, was averted. The storm 
 gradually subsided, and some of the most strenuous opposers 
 of what liad been denominated Hopkinsian heresies seem, be- 
 fore the division of the church, to have been fully convinced 
 that they are not fundamentally at variance with its stand- 
 ards. Of this number was the venerable Doctor Greene. 
 In an article, published in " the Christian Advocate of 1831," 
 when speaking of the " Old Hopkinsians," he said, "Their 
 brotherhood has been cordially admitted, although a dif- 
 ference in some minor points of doctrine is distinctly recog- 
 nized." In their branch of the church, they have now, and 
 have had ever since the division in 1837, men of this class, 
 whose soundness in the faith they do not pretend to question. 
 This fact, it would seem, must be sufficient to convince all 
 unprejudiced persons that the differences respecting doctrine 
 between the rigid interpreters of the Confession of Faith and 
 those who entertained the views of Edwards, Bellamy and 
 Hopkins, could not have been the chief grounds for exscind- 
 ing the four Synods. Nor could the errors, specified in the 
 Act and Testimony and the Memorial of the Philadelphia 
 Convention, and alleged in those documents to be alarmingly 
 prevalent in the church. The statement of true doctrine in 
 opposition to those errors, presented by the minority of the 
 Assembly, furnished conclusive evidence that the. great body 
 of those whom they represented utterly repudiated those 
 errors, and held them in equal detestation with those who 
 bore their testimony against them. That the strong desire 
 and settled determination of the latter, to make all adopt their 
 interpretation of the Confession of Faith, had much to do 
 with the division of the church, is undoubtedly true, but we 
 are persuaded that this alone would not have brought about 
 the catastrophe. The spirit of intolerance, which manifested 
 itself respecting doctrine, was more stiikingly exhibited in 
 efforts to control the benevolent operations of the church. 
 Of this fact a brief history of the controversy between the 
 
REAL GROUNDS OP THE EXCISION. 93 
 
 advocates of Ecclesiastical Boards and Voluntary Societies 
 for spreading the Gospel, will funish conclusive proof. 
 
 Previous to the commencement of tlie present century, the 
 General Assembly appointed a Standing Committee of Mis- 
 sions. It did but little, however, toward accomphshing the 
 great work of evangelizing our country, which, considering 
 her numbers, intelligence, and wealth, really belonged to the 
 Presbyterian Branch of the great family of believei-s in the 
 United States. For the purpose of prosecuting the work of 
 home evangelization with more vigor, in 1816, the Assembly 
 organized a Board of Missions. After it had been in operation 
 eight or nine years, it was clearly perceived by discerning 
 and pious men in those denominations which patronized the 
 A. B. C. F. Foreign Missions, that something on a greatly 
 enlarged scale ought to be done for supplying the destitute 
 in our own country with the preaching of the Gospel. Ex- 
 tensive correspondence and consultation on this subject 
 resulted in a conviction of the importance of organizing a 
 National Society for the prosecution of this work. This plan 
 was warmly recommended by some of the most distinguished 
 men in the Presbyterian Church. In writing to the Rev. 
 Dr. Peters, the first Secretary of the A. H. Missionary 
 Society, respecting its organization, the Rev. Drs. Alexander 
 and Miller employed the following language : — 
 
 " Rev. A^'D Dear Sir, — We rejoice to hear that there is 
 a plan in contemplation for forming a Domestic Missionary 
 Society, on a much larger scale than has heretofore existed. 
 We have long been of the opinion that the subject of Domes- 
 tic Missions is one which ought to interest the hearts, and to 
 rouse the exertions and prayers of American Christians to 
 an extent which very few appear to appreciate. Our im- 
 pression is, that unless far more vigorous measures than we 
 have hitherto witnessed shall be soon adopted for sending 
 the blessed Gospel and its ordinances to the widely extended 
 and rapidly increasing new settlements of our country, their 
 active and enterprising population must, at no great distance 
 
94 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 of time, be abandoned to a state not much short of entire 
 destitution of the means of grace. We would fain hope that 
 no Christian who loves the Redeemer's kingdom, and reflects 
 on the value of immortal souls ; no parent who remembers 
 that his own children, or children's children, may, in due time, 
 make a part of the population of those districts ; no patriot 
 who desires to see the virtue, peace, union, and happiness 
 of his country established, can possibly be indifferent to an 
 object of such immense importance. Our prayer is that the 
 God of all grace may rouse the spirit of the nation on this 
 subject ; and that the friends of religion who may be con- 
 vened for the purpose of taking it into consideration, in the 
 month of May next, may be directed to the adoption of a 
 system which shall serve to give increasing interest and 
 energy of proceeding in this momentous concern, and prove 
 a source of lasting blessings to our beloved country." 
 
 On the 10th of May, 1826, a convention of one hundred 
 and twenty-six delegates from the Congregational, the Re- 
 formed Dutch and Presbyterian Churches, was held in the 
 city of New York, to take into consideration the propriety 
 and importance of forming a National Society for prosecuting 
 the work of Domestic Missions. After due consultation, 
 they organized the A. H. Missionary Society. The plan of 
 its operations was to sustain ministers in good standing in 
 their Association, Classis, or Presbytery, in feeble churches 
 belonging to either of those denominations with which they 
 might be connected. Of the one hundred and twenty-six 
 delegates in the Convention which organized the Society, 
 seventy were from the Presbyterian Church. For several 
 years it is believed it had the hearty approval of a large pro- 
 portion of her ministers, and the most intelhgent of her lay 
 members. Upon its operations the great Head of the 
 Church bestowed marked tokens of His approbation. But 
 with the leadino: individuals of the exclusive and intolerant 
 portion of the Presbyterian Church, it soon became an object 
 of suspicion and dislike. Hence, in 1828, only two years 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EiJ^CISION. 95 
 
 after the organization of the A. H. M. Society, they suc- 
 ceeded in procuring a re-organization of the General As- 
 sembly's Board of Missions. By many friends of Domestic 
 Missions in the Presbyterian Church, this measure was 
 looked upon with painful apprehensions. Hithertc- she had 
 done very little to furnish the destitute population of our 
 country with the preaching of the Gospel. The A. H. M. 
 Society had commenced the work upon a plan admirably 
 adapted for its safe and efficient prosecution by the three 
 denominations in whose behalf it acted. God had crowned 
 its labors with signal success. In these circumstances the 
 attempted enlargement of the operations of the Assembly's 
 Board of Missions was looked upon by many ardent friends 
 of Domestic Missions in the Presbyterian Church with 
 great anxiety. They were persuaded that the action of two 
 separate and independent general organizations, one of them 
 to a great extent, and the other exclusively conducted by 
 Presbyterians, for the same object, and on the same field, 
 must produce embarrassment to both, and they feared, 
 would greatly retard the work of home evangelization. Sup- 
 posing their executive officers and agents to be governed by 
 the kindest feelings, it would be difficult to avoid interference 
 in the collection of funds and the appointment of missionaries. 
 For the purpose oT preventing the evils which it was appre- 
 hended might result from their separate action on the same 
 field, the Executive Committee of the A. H. M. Society, 
 after havina: conferred with several members of the Assem- 
 bly's Board of Missions, and ascertained that they were 
 favorable to a union of the two organizations, labored with 
 great zeal, and it seems to us, with equal prudence, to 
 secure it. A due regard to brevity will not allow us to lay 
 before our readers the details of this plan, nor the measures 
 which the Society took to secure its adoption. Those who 
 wish to gain a knowledge of them, we refer to pages 20G and 
 211 inclusive, of the first volume of the " Home Missionary." 
 A candid perusal of these pages, we think, cannot fail to 
 
96 REAL jJROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 produce the conviction that the plan was equitable and wise, 
 and that its authors and advocates were governed by a 
 desire to promote the peace of the Presbyterian Church, and 
 secure the greatest efficiency in prosecuting the work of 
 Domestic Missions. In this light it was viewed by many 
 intelligent and excellent men in the Presbyterian Church, to 
 whose consideration it was submitted. The lamented Dr. 
 John H. Rice, of Virginia, said, " I do greatly ap- 
 prove of the plan proposed by the Executive Committee of 
 the A. H. M. Society. So desirable did this union appear 
 in the West, that the Presbytery of Cincinnati, in 1830, took 
 measures to secure union of action between the Assembly's 
 Board and the A. H. M. Society, on the Western field. 
 Their application to the Board for this object, however, 
 proved unsuccessful. . On the 20th of July of that year, they 
 appointed the Rev. J. L. Wilson, D.D., and the Rev. Messrs, 
 John Thompson, James Gallaher, David Root, and F. Y. 
 Vail, a Committee to correspond with the Board respecting 
 union of effort in the West, with the A. H. M. Society. In 
 their communication to the Board, dated July 26th, 1830, 
 they say, " That boath Boards are doing good, much good, 
 we certainly know. We certainly ought to thank God, and 
 take courage from the knowledge of the fact that the Mis- 
 sionaries of your Board have increased in two years from 
 thirty-one to nearly two hundred. And what gratitude is 
 due to God for another fact, that the other Society has 
 nearly four hundred missionaries in the field ! Nearly six 
 hundred heralds of the cross aided by these two Institutions !" 
 
 After having stated some of the evils which had arisen, 
 and others, which, from their separate and independent action 
 in the West, they feared would arise, they say, 
 
 " We appreciate the claims of the Assembly's Board. It, 
 in one form or other, is the oldest Missionary Board in Ame- 
 rica. It has effected much good, and since its re-organiza- 
 tion has been very successful. It is under the watch and 
 control of our highest judicatory. It can elicit and command 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 97 
 
 funds, which other societies cannot touch. Shall we say, 
 Dissolve and throw your funds into the treasury of the 
 American Home Missionary Society ? No, this we cannot, 
 dare not do." 
 
 " That Society commenced when the Assembly's Board was 
 not eflfecting much. They adopted energetic measures, and 
 in a very few years, saw happy results. They are still in- 
 creasing their exertions and success. And we cannot doubt 
 their assertion, that they have access to funds which would 
 never come into the Assembly's Board. Shall we say to 
 them, Cease to exist ; wind up your accounts, and throw 
 your influence into the other Board ? This we cannot do. 
 We do not know that God would succeed such a measure. 
 But we do think something may be done. And we have yet 
 to learn what good reason can be urged against a united 
 operation in the Western country. Cannot the two Boards 
 unite in some men in the West whom they can trust as faith- 
 ful stewards of their beneficence?" 
 
 *' We feel confident that this communication speaks the 
 sentiments of a large majority of brethren in the West, who 
 have sincerely deliberated on this matter ; and we trust we 
 will be able to make this appear in a future communication, 
 if necessary." 
 
 See " A Brief Answer to an Official Rej^ly of the Board 
 of Missions of the General Assembly to Six Letters of the 
 Rev. Absalom Peters, entitled, ' A Plea for Union in the 
 West ;' also Mr. Peters' Reiyly to the Rev. Dr. J. L. Wil- 
 son! s four propositions, sustained against the claims of the 
 American Home Missionary Society.^' — -j^a^^es 27-29. 
 
 The Assembly's Board, after having considered the com- 
 munication of the Committee of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, 
 passed the following resolution, viz. : — 
 
 " Resolved, That while this Board have the highest confi- 
 dence in the integrity and purity of motives of the Commit- 
 tee of the Cincinnati Presbytery, in the suggestions which 
 they have submitted in respect to a united agency in the 
 
98 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 West for conducting missionary operations ; and while they 
 sincerely regret that any difficulties and collisions should 
 have arisen in the prosecution of thi^ great and important 
 work, they are, nevertheless, constrained by a sense of duty 
 to many of the churches and Presbyteries in the West, which 
 are already auxiliary to the Board on the plan which has 
 been approved by the General Assembly, as well as by their 
 own earnest desire to pursue such a course as they deem 
 best adapted to secure the permanent peace and tranquillity 
 of the churches, to express their full conviction of the entire 
 inexpediency of attempting to organize such a united agency 
 in the West." — See 'pamiMet just referred to, 'page 29. 
 
 This resolution was followed by a statement of the reasons 
 for deeming the union proposed inexpedient, which is too 
 long to be inserted here. 
 
 This official reply of the Executive Committee of the Board 
 of Missions to the communication of the Committee of the 
 Presbytery of Cincinnati, led to the publication in the Cin- 
 cinnati Journal, in the months of Dec. 1830, and Jan. 1831, 
 of six letters from the Corresponding Secretary of the Ame- 
 rican Home Missionary Society, entitled, "A Plea for Union 
 in the West." To these letters the Board of Missions made 
 an official reply, dated March 2d, 1831. 
 
 These documents are too long to be quoted entire. Those 
 of our readers who are desirous of gaining a thorough knowl- 
 edge of this controversy, we refer to these documents. 
 
 Only a few months after Dr. Wilson signed the letter of 
 the Committee of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, of which he 
 was Chairman, addressed to *'the Secretary of the Assem- 
 bly's Board of Missions," urging it to form a union with the 
 American Home Missionary Society, he issued a pamphlet, 
 in which he attempted to support the following propositions 
 against the Society. 
 
 " 1st. The Lord Jesus Christ has committed the manage- 
 ment of Christian Missions to His Church. 
 
 ** 2d. The Presbyterian Church being one great family of 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 99 
 
 the church of Jesus Christ, is, by her form of government, 
 organized into a Christian Missionary Society. 
 
 *' 3d. The American Home Missionary Society is not an 
 ecclesiastical, but a civil Institution. 
 
 *' 4th. By interference and importunity she disturbs the 
 peace, and injures the prosperity of the Presbyterian 
 Church." 
 
 At the meeting of the General Assembly the ensuing May, 
 the subject of union between its Board of Missions and the 
 American Home Missionary Society was introduced. After 
 considerable discussion the following minute was adopted, 
 viz. : — 
 
 " In view of existing evils resulting from the separate ac- 
 tion of the Board of Missions of the General Assembly and 
 the American Home Missionary Society, the General Assem- 
 bly recommend to the Synods of Ohio, Cincinnati, Kentucky, 
 Tennessee, West Tennessee, Indiana, and IHinois, and the 
 Presbyteries connected with the same, to correspond with 
 each other, and endeavor to agree upon some plan of con- 
 ductmg Domestic Missions in the Western States, and report 
 the result of their correspondence to the next General As- 
 sembly : it being understood that the brethren in the West 
 be left to their freedom to form any organization which in 
 their judgment may~best promote the cause of missions in 
 these States ; and also that all the Synods and Presbyteries 
 in the valley of the Mississippi may be embraced in this cor- 
 respondence, provided they desire it." — Minutes of the Assem- 
 bly oflS3l,2Mge 189. 
 
 Conformably with this resolution a convention from twenty 
 Presbyteries met in Cincinnati, in the month of November 
 next ensuing. A majority of the convention decided against 
 a united agency of Home Missions for the West, and in favor 
 of " the General Assembly's mode of conducting missions." 
 Of this decision the minority complained. They published 
 " A report to the Presbyteries in the valley of the Mississip- 
 pi ; " likewise calling " the attention of the General Assembly 
 
100 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 of the Presbyterian Cluircli to some facts connected with the 
 business of the said Convention." In their report they state 
 that the Synod of Pittsburg (not named in the resolution of 
 the Assembly) had "a controlling influence in the Conven- 
 tion." They say, *' The votes of that Synod went together, 
 and carried every question which they were pleased to ap- 
 prove ; and particularly in regard to several efforts at com- 
 promise, that Synod determined their rejection, whereas a 
 decided majority of votes from the suffering Synods were in 
 their favor." They also complained that *' the oflScial influ- 
 ence of the Board of Missions " was employed " to prevent 
 union in the West," whereas the compromise of the previous 
 Assembly left the brethren in that region to their own free- 
 dom respecting it. 
 
 This determined opposition to the A. H. M. Society 
 hastened the general controversy respecting the most eligible 
 method of conducting the various benevolent operations of 
 the church. Most who were in favor of conducting them by 
 boards, under the direct and exclusive control of the judica- 
 tories of the Church, especially of the General Assembly, 
 became more decided and zealous in the support of their pe- 
 culiar policy, and increasingly hostile to the operations within 
 the bounds of the Presbyterian Church, of societies organized 
 and conducted upon the voluntary principle. " The Western 
 Foreign Missionary Society" had been organized a short time 
 before, " within the bounds of the Svnod of Pittsburjx, under 
 the auspices of that body ; having as its formal patrons, all 
 the Presbyteries composing that Synod, together with some 
 Presbyteries belonging to other Synods." This, the most 
 zealous and bigoted friends of ecclesiastical organizations, 
 wished to place under the care of the General Assembly. 
 Some, however, who in the main agreed with them, were not 
 at that time in favor of a Board of Foreign Missions under 
 the control of that body. Tlie A. B. C. F. Missions had 
 been engaged in this work about twenty years, had conduct- 
 ed it with great wisdom and efflciency, and was firmly fixed 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 101 
 
 in the affections of many friends of missions in tlie Presbyte- 
 rian Churcho Many who were in favor of the Boards for 
 promoting other objects of Christian benevolence then under 
 the control of the Assembly, did not wish the patronage 
 which the A. B. C. F. Missions, received from the Presbyte- 
 rian Church, withdrawn. As ample opportunity was afford- 
 ed by this Board and the Society, under the care of the 
 Synod of Pittsburg, to the friends of missions to the heathen 
 in the Presbyterian Church, to prosecute the work in accord- 
 ance with their own preferences, they did not deem a Board 
 for this purpose under the care of the Assembly, desirable. 
 These were the views of the venerable Doct. Miller, late Pro- 
 fessor in the Theological Seminary at Princeton. In his fifth 
 letter to Presbyterians, published in 1833, after having ex- 
 pressed his approbation of " the Western Foreign Missionary 
 Society," he remarked, " The probability is, that the Western 
 Foreign Missionary Society will not be placed under the 
 direction of the General Assembly, or attempt any resort to 
 that body for patronage. It would be unwise and unhappy 
 to introduce, into the highest judicatory of the Church, 
 another subject of party jealousy and party contention. Such 
 portions of the Church that feel friendly to its existence, and 
 willing to make efforts for its support, will, of course, yield it 
 their patronage, without impeaching the motives of those 
 who may choose to act otherwi^^e, and without the least un- 
 friendly feeling towards other institutions." 
 
 Doct. Miller's views on this subject, and those of many 
 others, who then agreed with him, were soon after greatly 
 changed. The advocates for conducting all the benevolent 
 operations of tlie Church by Boards under ecclesiastical su- 
 pervision, increased in number, and their policy became more 
 and more exclusive and intolerant. Hence those who were 
 from principle in favor of Voluntary Societies, were laid un- 
 der the necessity either of abandoning their conscientious 
 preferences or of defending them. A sense of duty con- 
 strained them to adopt the latter course. In order to give a 
 
102 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 faitliful history of this controversy, however, and make our 
 readers acquainted with the real grounds of the passage of 
 those Acts by the Assembly of 1837, which rent the Church 
 asunder, some other extraordinary measures of the ultra 
 party must be noticed. 
 
 For several years previous, that of 1835 only excepted, 
 they had been in the minority. At the close of the Assem- 
 bly of that year, some of the most rigid and intolerant among 
 them, met for consultation. They drew up '* The Act and 
 Testimony," which was " addressed to the Ministers, Elders, 
 and private members of the Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States, and signed by thirty-seven Ministers and 
 twenty-seven Elders." 
 
 This document is too long to be inserted entire upon these 
 pages. A few extracts will be given, by which the reader 
 may judge for himself of its spirit, tendency and design : 
 
 " Brethren, beloved in the Lord : — In the solemn crisis, 
 to which our Church has arrived, we are constrained to ap- 
 peal to you in relation to the alarming errors which have 
 hitherto been connived at, and now at length have been coun- 
 tenanced and sustained by the acts of the supreme judicatory 
 of our Church. 
 
 *' Constituting as we do, a portion of yourselves, and deep- 
 ly concerned, as every portion of the system must be, in all 
 that affects the body itself, we earnestly address ourselves to 
 you in the full belief, that the dissolution of our Church, 
 or, w^hat is worse, its corruption in all that once distinguish- 
 ed its peculiar testimony, can, under God, be prevented only 
 by you. 
 
 " From the highest judicatory of our Church, we have for 
 several years in succession sought the redress of our griev- 
 ances, and have not only sought in vain, but with an aggra- 
 vation of the evils of which we have complained. Whither, 
 then, can we look for relief but first to Him, who is made 
 Head over all things, to the Church, which is His body, and 
 then to you, as constituting a part of that body, and as in- 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 103 
 
 struments in His hand to deliver the Church from the op- 
 pression, whicli she sorely feels ? 
 
 " In the presence of that Redemer, by whom Paul adjures 
 us, we avow our fixed adherence to those standards of doc- 
 trine and order, in their obvious and intended sense, which 
 we have heretofore subscribed under circumstances the most 
 impressive. In the same spirit we do therefore solemnly ac- 
 quit ourselves in the sight of God, of all responsibility arising 
 from the existence of those divisions and disorders in our 
 Church, which spring from a disregard of assumed obliga- 
 tions, a departure from doctrines deliberately professed, and 
 a subversion of forms pubhcly and repeatedly approved. By 
 the same high authority, and under the same weighty sanc- 
 tions, we do avow our fixed purpose to strive for the resto- 
 ration of purity, peace, and scriptural order to our Church ; 
 and endeavor to exclude from her communion those who dis- 
 turb her peace, corrupt her testimony, and subvert her 
 established forms." 
 
 The authors of this extraordinary document, after having 
 thus criminated a large portion of their brethren in good 
 standing in the church, and avowed their purpose to do their 
 utmost to thrust them out of its communion, present a list 
 of truly formidable errors and grievous departures from its 
 discipline and order which they also lay to their charge, and 
 then close with eight recommendations to the churches, the 
 last of which is in these words, viz. : — 
 
 *' We do earnestly recommend that on the second Thurs- 
 day of May, 1835, a convention be held in the city of Pitts- 
 burg, to be composed of two delegates, a minister, and a 
 ruling elder, from each Presbytery, or from the minority of 
 any Presbytery who may concur in the sentiments of this 
 Act and Testimony, to deliberate and consult on the present 
 state of our church, and to adopt such measures as may b? 
 best suited to restore her prostrated standards." 
 
 The influence of the Act and Testimony in bringing about 
 the division of the church, gives it an importance far beyonci 
 
104 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 its intrinsic merits. Respecting the controversy in regard to 
 ecclesiastical Boards and voluntary societies, it is silent. Not, 
 however, for lack of zeal on the part of its authors in favor of 
 the former, and for the utter exclusion of the latter, from the 
 Presbyterian Church, as subsequent events make undeniably 
 evident. They doubtless felt that the work of revolution, 
 (reformation as they call it), upon which they had entered 
 with such uncompromising pertinacity, could be most effect- 
 ually promoted by ringing the alarm-bell of heresy and gross 
 departures from Presbyterian discipline and church-order. 
 Should they succeed in creating a general panic on these 
 subjects, the entire work at which they aimed could easily be 
 accomplished. That this is not an erroneous and uncharitable 
 statement of their policy and aims, we trust, will be made 
 undeniably evident when we come to notice the results of 
 ** the Act and Testimony" in the Pittsburg Convention and 
 the Assembly, which commenced its sessions in that city the 
 week next succeeding that in which the Convention met. 
 
 Those on whom this document was designed to cast odi- 
 um, were grieved and alarmed. They deeply felt that with 
 men not well-informed in regard to their real sentiments and 
 aims, it was calculated to make them objects of unfounded 
 and cruel suspicion. Existing evils in the church, which they 
 had hoped prudence, forbearance, and Christian love would 
 greatly lessen, if not remove, by the sending forth of this 
 document they foresaw must be increased, and that there 
 were just grounds to apprehend it would result in the divis- 
 ion of the church. Men of moderation and pacific spirit in 
 the party to which its authors belonged mourned over and 
 condemned it. They regarded it as unauthorized by the 
 actual state of things in the church, as revolutionary in its 
 character, and schismatic in its tendency. The editor of the 
 Western Luminary accompanied its publication with the re- 
 mark, " We think it due to our brethren of the ministry and 
 eldership of this region to state, that so far as our acquaint- 
 ance extends, we know of no one who holds any of the doc- 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 105 
 
 trinal views, which are justly designated as errors in the Act 
 and Testimony." 
 
 Our views of the real character and design of this docu- 
 ment are clearly presented in the following extracts from a 
 review of it, in *' the Biblical Repertory," whose conductors 
 cannot be supposed in the publication of it, to have been in- 
 fluenced by prejudice. 
 
 *' It would seem to be a very obvious principle, that any 
 individual member of a body has a right to address his fellow- 
 members on subjects affecting their common interests. If he 
 thinks that errors and disorders are gaining ground among 
 them, it is more than a right, it is a duty for him to say so, 
 provided he has any hope of making his voice effectually 
 heard. If such be the case with an individual, it is equally 
 obvious that he may induce as many as he can, to join him 
 in his warnings and counsels, that they may come with the 
 weight due to numbers acting in concert. Had the meeting 
 in Philadelphia therefore been contented to send forth their 
 solemn testimony against error and disorder, and their earnest 
 exhortation to increased fidelity to God and his Truth, we are 
 sure none could reasonably object. Their declaration would 
 have been received with all the respect due to its intrinsic 
 excellence, and to the source whence it proceeded. But 
 when it is propose'H to * number the people ;' to request and 
 urge the signing of this testimony as a test of orthodoxy, 
 then its whole nature and design is at once altered. What 
 was the exercise of an undoubted right becomes an unau- 
 thorized assumption. What was before highly useful, or at 
 least harmless, becomes fraught with injustice, discord and 
 division. The very design of the effort is to make neutrahty 
 impossible." 
 
 ** Now we say, no man, and no set of men, have the right 
 thus to necessitate others of their own body to adopt their 
 sentiments auv*. recommendations, or be considered as the 
 abettors of errorists and anarchists. Here is one of the 
 most serious evils of the whole plan. It makes one a heretic 
 
106 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 or an abettor of heresy, not for an error in doctrine, not for 
 unfaithfulness in disciphne, but because he may be unable to 
 adopt an extended document as expressing his own opinions 
 on a multitude of facts, doctrines and practical counsels. This 
 is an assumption which ought not to be allowed. It is an 
 act of gross injustice to multitudes of our soundest and best 
 men ; it is the most effectual means of splitting the church 
 into mere fragments, and of alienating from each other men 
 who agree in doctrine, in views of order and discipline, and 
 who differ in nothing, perhaps, but in opinion as to the wis- 
 dom of introducing this new League and Covenant." 
 
 " Had the ingenuity of man been taxed for a plan 
 
 to divide and weaken the friends of truth and order in our 
 church, we question whether a happier or more effectual ex- 
 pedient could have been devised. 
 
 " Is it then true that the highest judicatory of 
 
 our church has * countenanced and sustained ' the doctrine 
 that we have no more to do with the sin of Adam than with 
 the sins of any other parent — that there is no such thing as 
 original sin, — that man's regeneration is his own act — that 
 Christ's sufferings are not truly and properly vicarious ? 
 How serious the responsibility of announcing to the world 
 that such is the case ! How clear and decisive should be 
 the evidence of the fact, before the annunciation was made 
 and ratified by the signatures of such a number of our best 
 men ! Surely something more than mere inference from acts 
 of doubtful import, should be here required. . . . We have 
 not the least idea that one tenth of the ministers of the 
 Presbyterian Church would deliberately countenance and 
 sustain the errors specified." 
 
 When speaking of the resolutions contained in the memo- 
 rial presented to the Assembly, condemning these errors, the 
 reviewers say, *' Instead of wondering that a majority of the 
 Assembly did not vote for them, we Avonder that any con- 
 siderable number of voices were raised in their favor, so 
 various are the errors they embrace, and so different in de- 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 107 
 
 gree ; some of tliem serious heresies, and others opinions (at 
 least as we understand tlie resohitions) which were held and 
 tolerated in the Synod of Dort, and in our own church from 
 its very first organization. Is it to be expected that at this 
 time of the day, the Assembly would condemn all who do 
 not hold the doctrine of a limited atonement?" 
 
 Here is a concession, which ought not to be passed over 
 unnoticed. It is a full admission of the truth of all that has 
 been stated on previous pages of this narrative, concerning 
 the adopting act of 1*729 and the tolerant principles of 
 American Presbyterianism in the early periods of its history. 
 Then, according to the testimony of the reviewers, diversity 
 of views on some points of doctrine, was tolerated, among 
 which, was the doctrine of general atonement. Provided men 
 received the Confession of Faith as containing the system of 
 doctrine taught in the Scriptures, they were accouted sound 
 Presbyterians, though they differed respecting some points 
 of minor importance from their brethren, who received it in 
 all its details according to the most rigid interpretation of 
 its language. Subsequently the reviewers say, 
 
 *' We cannot but regard, therefore, the recommendation of 
 this document, that churches and ministers consider certain 
 acts of the Assembly unconstitutional, as a recommendation 
 to them to renounce their allegiance to the Church, and to 
 disregard their promises of obedience." 
 
 " Division, then, is the end to which this enterprise leads, 
 and to which we doubt not it aims." In a note, however, 
 the reviewers say, " Since writing the above, we see that this 
 intention is denied in the 'Presbyterian.' We have heard 
 other signers of the Act and Testimony, however, very dis- 
 tinctly avow their desire to effect a division of the Church." 
 
 Of the recommendations of the Act and Testimony, they 
 speak in terms of decided disapprobation. They say, " The 
 point now before us, however, is the true nature of its re- 
 commendations. We say they are extra- constitutional and 
 revolutionary, and should be opposed by all those who do 
 
108 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 not believe that the crisis demands the dissolution of the 
 
 Church We do not believe that any such crisis 
 
 exists." — Copied from the New York Obstrcer of Novemher 
 15th, 1834. 
 
 The limits to which we are confined, forbid further ex- 
 tracts from this document. Those which we have made, are 
 quite sufficient to enable the reader to form an accurate 
 judgment of its spirit and design. The Princeton reviewers 
 cannot be supposed to have looked upon it with too unfavor- 
 able an eye. The say, it is *' fraught with injustice, discord 
 and division; — its recommendations are extra- constitutional 
 and revolutionary; — division is its tendency and aim." 
 
 How surprising and deeply to be regretted is it that the 
 Princeton fathers and brethren, and many others, who, when 
 the Act and Testimony first appeared, agreed with them re- 
 specting its real character and design, soon after aided in 
 carrying out its revolutionary and divisive measures ! 
 
 Having shown in what light the Act and Testimony was 
 viewed by the best men of the party to which its author and 
 signers belonged, it may be well to notice the opinions 
 . which were formed of it by other denominations. How the 
 Congregationalists of New England regarded it, is sufficiently 
 manifest from the following extracts from a review of it in 
 the 'Zth vol. of the Quarterly Christian Spectator, published 
 in New Haven, Con. 
 
 ** What then is this Act and Testimony ? It is a new 
 * Confession of Faith,' or a recently invented test of orthodoxy, 
 agreed upon, subscribed, and published, by thirty- seven 
 ministers, and tw ntj^-seven ruling elders of the Presbyterian 
 Church, at the close of the last General Assembly, in Phila- 
 delphia. . . . ! The introduction does not abound in the 
 qualities of conciliation, which some masters of rhetoric tell 
 lis, ought to be prominent in this part of a discourse. It is 
 more in keeping with the habits of a western liuntsman ; for 
 it takes the beast by the horns, at tlie very outset of the bat- 
 tle. Or, to pass by one bold stride from the wilderness to 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 109 
 
 the ocean, these * Act and Testimony' brethren are no sooner 
 embarked, than they nail the flag of nuUification to the mast. 
 It cannot for a moment be admitted that the Presbyterian 
 Church' in this country, is in a condition to merit the sweep- 
 ing denunciation Avhich breathes, or rather thunders, in the 
 first 'sentence of this manifesto." 
 
 The reviewers having stated some of the principles of 
 Presbyterian Church government, say, 
 
 " Let the * Act and Testimony,' then, be arraigned at the 
 bar of these principles, and have a fair trial, and receive a 
 righteous sentence. The subscribers of this document beirin 
 by a practical renunciation of their whole system; and if 
 their solemn manifesto proves anything, it proves that, 
 * quoad hoc,' they are not Presbyterians. They have erected 
 a new tribunal, unknown to their standards; and before this 
 voluntary and irresponsible association, they arraign all de- 
 linquents, whether the peccant General Assembly, or minis- 
 ters suspected of heresy. And Avho constitute this new 
 Presbyterial court ? The answer may be given in their own 
 words, — ' The ministers, elders, and private members of the 
 Presbyterian Church of the United States. . . .' To this 
 new tribunal they appeal, from * the supreme judicatory' of 
 their Church. And yet these brethren love ' the good old 
 way,' and dread Innovation ! And this ground they have 
 assumed, deliberately and systematically, throughout this 
 whole document. In the face of the constitution of their 
 Church, they have called a convention to be held in Pitts- 
 burg, on the second Thursday in May, 1835." 
 
 "The subscribers of this document avow their 'fixed' ad- 
 herence to their 'standards' of ecclesiastical 'order ;' Avhile 
 the very document in which they make this profession, is, 
 both in essence and action, at war with the whole system. 
 They acquit themselves of all responsibility, for the 'subver- 
 sion of FORMS publicly and repeatedly approved;' while 
 they are subverting those very 'forms' themselves. They 
 tell us that they are laboring for the restoration of * scriptu- 
 
110 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 ral order ' to the Cluircli ; and yet they attempt that refor- 
 mation by means which contravene their own notions of ec- 
 clesiastical organization. They intend, if possible, to exclude 
 from the Church, those who ' subvert her established forms ;* 
 and yet, in compassing this end, they themselves perpetrate 
 the act of subversion. They believe that the form of govern- 
 ment of the Fresbyterivn Church^ accords with the will of 
 God, and deprecate everything that ' changes its essential 
 charcater ;' while, in their practice, they are fast verging to 
 Congregationalism — a form of government at which they 
 almost instinctively shudder. They do ' love the constitu- 
 tion ' of their Church, ' in word,' if not * in deed ;' they * ven- 
 erate its peculiarities/ because they exhibit the rules by 
 which God intends the affairs of His Church on earth to be 
 conducted; but, as the 'peculiarities' of this organization, 
 embracing no other tribunals, advisory or compulsive, than 
 Church-Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assem- 
 bly, do not quite answer their revolutionary movements, they 
 intend to recrulate the afifairs of the Church, at least till 
 things assume a better posture, by another system." 
 
 This notice of the ''Act and Testimony" is not a digres- 
 sion from the history of the controversy respecting voluntay 
 societies and ecclesiastical boards. This document had an 
 important influence upon the action of the Pittsburg Con- 
 vention and of succeeding assemblies, concerning it. 
 
 ASSEMBLY OF 1835. 
 
 This Assembly met in Pittsburg. It was preceded by 
 the meeting of the Convention, called by the recommenda- 
 tion of the " Act and Testimony." By the untiring exer- 
 tions of the signers of this document and the aid of the Con- 
 vention, they succeeded in securing a majority favorable to 
 their views in the Assembly, and in controlling its proceed- 
 ings. The Convention prepared a memorial to be presented 
 to it, which is too long to be inserted entire. The substance 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. Ill 
 
 of tlic grievances of wliicli they complain is contained in the 
 following specifications, viz. : — 
 
 1. That the last General Assembly had denied to Presby- 
 teries the right of re-examining men, applying to them for 
 admission from other Presbvterics and foreimi bodies. 
 
 2. That the Assembly had denied the right of Presbyte- 
 ries to censure "a printed pubhcation, irrespective of its au- 
 thor." 
 
 3. That the Assembly had sanctioned the erection "of 
 Presbyteries and Synods upon the principle of elective affin- 
 ity." ' 
 
 4. That the Assembly allowed the American Home Mis- 
 sionary Society to operate within the bounds of the Presby- 
 rian Church. 
 
 5. That the Church did not take the exclusive control of 
 the education of her c mdidates for the ministry, but suffered 
 it to be done in part by a voluntary society, not responsible 
 to her judicatories. 
 
 6. That "the Plan of Union," formed in 1801, between 
 the General Association of Connecticut and the General As- 
 sembly, was fraught with evil to the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 7. That " the Plan of Union and Correspondence with the 
 Congregational associations of New England and with other 
 Churches" was adverse to her interests. 
 
 8. That the General Assembly had not been sufficiently 
 zealous in guarding the doctrinal purity of the Church. 
 
 The committee of the Assembly to whom the memorial 
 containing these complaints was referred, brought in a report 
 decidedly favorable to the memorialists. The Assembly de- 
 cided that " it is the right of every Presbytery to be entirely 
 satisfied of the soundness in the faith of those ministers who 
 apply to be admitted into the Presbytery as members ; 
 that it is the right of any judicatory of our Church to take up, 
 and, if it see cause, to bear testimony against any printed 
 publication which may be circulating within its bounds, and 
 which, in the judgment of that judicatory, may be adapt( d 
 
112 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 to inculcate pernicious errors, whether the author be living 
 or dead ; that the erection of church courts, and especially 
 of Presbyteries and Synods, on the principle of * elective 
 affinity,' is contrary both to the letter and spirit of our con- 
 stitution, and opens a wide door for mischiefs and abuses of 
 the most serious kind." They likewise ordered the Synod 
 of Delaware to be dissolved at and after the meeting of the 
 Synod of Philadelphia, in the ensuing October, and " an- 
 nexed to the Synod of Philadelphia." This order, if exe- 
 cuted, would throw the Assembly's second Presbytery back 
 into that Synod. 
 
 The Assembly refused to carry out the policy of the Con- 
 vention respecting voluntary societies. They said, " it is not 
 expedient to attempt to prohibit, within our bounds, the 
 operation of the ''Home Missionary Society,' or of the 'Pres- 
 byterian Education Society,' or any other voluntary associa- 
 tion not subject to our control." 
 
 They recommended that no more churches be formed in 
 the Presbyterian connection under the Plan of Union of 1801, 
 but were not in favor either of terminating or modifying 
 " the plan of correspondence with the associations of Con- 
 gregational brethren in Nevf England." 
 
 The Assembly also bore its testimony against ** Pelagian or 
 Arminian errors" and enjoined upon all its "Presbyteries and 
 Synods to exercise the utmost vigilance in guarding against 
 the introduction and publication of such pestiferous errors.'* 
 — See Minutes of the Assembly, fages 27-30. 
 
 An overture, *' relative to Foreign Missions," was likewise 
 presented to the Assembly. The Committee to whom it was- 
 referred, '* reported," and their report was accepted and 
 adopted, and is as follows, viz. : — 
 
 " The Committee on the papers submitted to them in re- 
 lation to the Foreign Missionary Society, recommended the 
 adoption of the following lesolutions, viz.. : — 
 
 " I. Tliat it is the solemn conviction af this General Assem- 
 bly that the Presbyterian Church owes it a.s a sacred duty t€> 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 113 
 
 her glorified Head, to yield a far more exemplary obedience, 
 and that in her distinctive character as a church, to the com- 
 mand, which He gave at his ascension into heaven, — * Go ye 
 into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.' It 
 is believed to be amono; the causes of the frowns of the jxreat 
 Head of the Church, which are now resting upon our beloved 
 Zion, in the declension of vital piety, and the disorders and di- 
 visions which distract us, that we have done so little, — compa- 
 ratively nothing — in our distinctive character as a Church of 
 Christ, to send the Gospel to the Heathen, the Jews, and the 
 Mohammedans. It is regarded as of vital importance to the wel- 
 fare of our church, that Foreign as well as Domestic Missions 
 should be more zealously prosecuted, and more liberally pa- 
 tronized ; and that as a nucleus of Foreign Missionary ef- 
 fort and operation, the Western Foreign Missionary Society 
 should receive the countenance, as it appears to us to merit 
 the confidence, of those who cherish an attachment to the 
 doctrines and order of the church to which we belontj. 
 
 *' II. Resolved, That a Committee be appointed to confer 
 •with the Synod of Pittsburg on the subject of a transfer of the 
 supervision of the Western Foreign Missionary Society, now 
 under the direction of that Synod, to ascertain the terms on 
 which such transfer can be made, to devise and digest a plan 
 of conducting ^'oreign Missions under the direction of the 
 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, and report 
 the whole to the next General Assembly." — Minutes of the 
 Assembly, page 31. 
 
 On the afternoon of the last day of the sessions of the 
 Assembly, when, as has since been ascertained, less than one 
 third of the members of the Assembly were present, this 
 Committee made their report, and the following resolution was 
 adopted, viz, : — 
 
 " Resolved, That the Committee appointed to confer with 
 the Synod of Pittsburg, on the subject of a transfer of the 
 supervision of the Foreign Western Missionary Society to the 
 General Assembly, be authorized, if they shall approve of 
 
114 KKAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 said transfer, to ratify and confirm the same witli the said 
 Synod, and report the same to the next General Assembly." 
 — Minutes of the Assembly, page 33. 
 
 The next documentary notice which we have of this 
 transaction, is contained in the published account of the 
 Meeting of the Synod of Pittsburg, at Meadville, October, 
 1835. It is as follows : — 
 
 " A committee, appointed for that purpose by the last Ge- 
 neral Assembly, submitted the following 
 Terms of agreement between the Committee of the General 
 Assembly and the Synod of Pittsburg, in reference to the 
 transfer of the Western Foreign Missionary Society. 
 
 " 1. The General Assembly will assume the supervision and 
 control of the Western Foreign Missionary Society from and 
 after the next annual meeting of said Assembly, and will 
 thereafter superintend and conduct, by its own proper autho- 
 rity, the work of foreign missions of the Presbyterian church 
 by a board especially appointed for that purpose, and directly 
 amenable to said Assembly. And the Synod of Pittsburg 
 does hereby transfer to that bod}^ all its supervision and con- 
 trol over the missions and operations of the Western Foreign 
 Missionaiy Society, from and after the adoption of this 
 minute, and authorizes and directs said society to perforin 
 every act necessary to complete said transfer, when the As- 
 sembly shall have appointed its board, it being expressly un- 
 derstood that the said Assembly will never hereafter alienate 
 or transfer to any other judicatory or board whatever, the di- 
 rect supervision and management of the said missions, or those 
 which may hereafter be established by the board of the Ge- 
 neral Assembly. 
 
 " 2. The General Assembly shall annually choose ten minis- 
 ters and ten laymen, as members of the Board of Foreign 
 Missions, whose term of office shall be four years, and these 
 forty ministers and forty laymen so appointed, shall consti- 
 tute a board, to be styled the Board of Foreign Missions of 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 115 
 
 the Presbyterian Church in the United States ; to "svliich, for 
 the time being, shall be entrusted, with such directions and 
 instructions as may from time to time be given, the superin- 
 tendence of the foreign missionary operations of the Presby- 
 terian church, who shall make annually to the General As- 
 sembly, a report of their proceedings, and submit for its ap- 
 proval, such plans and measures as may be deemed useful 
 and necessary. Until the transfer shall have been completed, 
 the business shall be conducted by the Western Foreign Mis- 
 sionary Society. 
 
 " 3. The board of directors shall hold a meeting annually at 
 some convenient time during the sessions of the General As- 
 sembly, at which it shall appoint a president, vice president, 
 a corresponding secretary, a treasurer, general agents, and an 
 executive committee, to serve for the ensuing year. To the 
 board it shall belong to receive and decide upon all the doings 
 of the executive committee, to receive and dispose of their an- 
 nual report, and present a statement of their proceedings to the 
 General Assembly. It shall be the duty of the board of di- 
 rectors to meet for the transaction of business as often as may 
 be expedient ; due notice of every special meeting being 
 seasonably given to every member of the board. It is re- 
 commended to the board to hold in different parts of the 
 church, at least one public meeting annually, to promote 
 and diffuse a livelier interest in the Foreign Missionary cause. 
 
 " 4. To the executive committee, consisting of not more 
 than seven members, besides the corresponding secretary, and 
 treasurer, shall belong the duty of appointing all missionai-ies 
 and missionary agents, except those otherwise provided for ; 
 of designating their fields of labor ; receiving the reports of 
 the corresponding secretary ; and giving him needful direc- 
 tions in reference to all matters of business and correspon- 
 dence entrusted to him ; to authorize all appropriations and 
 expenditures of money ; and to take the particular direction 
 and management of foreign missionary work, subject to the 
 revision of the board of directors, 'llie executive committee 
 
116 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 shall meet at least once a montli, and oftener if necessary ; 
 of whom, three members meeting at the time and place of 
 adjournment or special call, shall constitute a quorum. The 
 committee shall have power to fill their own vacancies, if any 
 occur during a recess of the board. 
 
 *' 5. All property, houses, lands, tenements, and permanent 
 funds belonging to the Board of Foreign Missions, to be con- 
 stituted by this agreement, shall be taken in the name of the 
 trustees of the General Assembly, and held in trust by 
 them for the use and benefit of the Board of Foreign Mis- 
 sions for the time being. 
 
 ". 6. The seat of the operations of the Board shall be desig- 
 nated by the General Assembly. 
 
 " Cornelius C. Cutler, 
 " Chairman of the Com. of the Gen, Jssetnhly." 
 
 " These terms were accepted by a vote of the Synod ; and 
 the Editor of the * Preshyteiian announced, that * Of course 
 the General Assembly will proceed to appoint its Board of 
 Foreign Missions, to proceed, according to the above agree- 
 ment, in the work of preaching the Gospel to the Heathen.' 
 
 " The Synod of Philadelphia, at its meeting in York, about 
 the same date, adopted the following resolutions , viz. : 
 
 *^ Resolved, 1. That in the opinion of this Synod the Gen- 
 eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, is bound by every 
 consideration in faithfulness to our divine Master and fidelity 
 to our ruined world, to embark fully and immediately in the 
 great cause of Foreign Missions. 
 
 " 2. That the organization by that body of a permanent 
 board and the appointment of suitable persons for this work, 
 should be undertaken without delay. 
 
 "3. That the principal seat of the operations of such an or- 
 gmization ought to be in one of the large Atlantic cities — the 
 Synod v/ould suggest the city of New- York. 
 
 " 4. That the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign 
 Missions ought to be recjuested to transfer to the Board of 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. H? 
 
 our Assembly, when fully organized, all those stations in for- 
 eign lands, at which the raajojity of ordained persons belong 
 to the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 " 5. That members of the Presbyterian Church, who are 
 now in the foreign held, or who may hereafter go into it, 
 ought in the opinion of this Synod, unless special and extra- 
 ordinary reasons indicate a different course, to maintain a 
 direct missionary relation to the Board of their own church 
 when organized, and they are affectionately exhorted to the 
 serious consideration of this question. 
 
 " 6. That if the General Assembly should not, at its next 
 meeting, organize this great interest upon the general princi- 
 ples now exhibited, this Synod will itself, at its next meeting, 
 in dependence upon God, fully enter upon the glorious woi k. 
 
 ** Resoli'dd, That the stated Clerk be directed to lay a copy 
 of the above report before the next General Assembly. 
 
 *' The foregoing * Terms of Agreement,'' &c., and also the 
 resolutions of the Synod of Philadelphia, were submitted to 
 the General Assembly of 1830, and were committed to Drs. 
 Phillips and Skinner, and. Messrs. Scovil, Dunlap, and Ewing. 
 This Committee reported as follows, viz. : 
 
 " That the attenFion of the last Assembly was called to the 
 subject of Foreign Missions by the following overture on p. 
 31 of the Minutes. [Here the report quotes the first resolu- 
 tion from p. 31 of the Minutes of the Assembly of 1835.] 
 
 " The Assembly feeling the force of the suggestions con- 
 tained in this overture, and believing it to be their most im- 
 portant and appro i-rlale work to spread the gospel through 
 the world, adopted the overture in the form of a resolution, 
 together with the following, viz. [Here the report quotes 
 the second resolution from p. 31, of the Minutes of 1835.] 
 
 *' Thus it appears tliat the proposition to confer with the 
 Synod, and to assume the supervision and control of the 
 Western Foreign Missionary Society, originated in the As- 
 
118 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 sembly.* At that time the Western Foreign Missionary- 
 Society was in a prosperous condition, enjoying the confidence 
 and receiving the patronage of a considerable number of our 
 churches, having in their employ about 20 missionaries, and 
 their funds were unembarrassed. The committee having con- 
 ferred with some of the members of that Society, and finding 
 that the proposition was favorably regarded by them, and 
 indulging the hope that an arrangement might be defi.nitely 
 made with the Synod, at their next stated meeting, by which 
 the Assembly would be prepared to enter on the work at 
 their present sessions, brought the subject again before the 
 Assembly, where it was, after mature deliberation, 
 
 " Resolced, That the committee appointed to confer with the 
 Synod of Pittsburg on the subject of a transfer of the 
 supervision of the Western Foreign Mission Society to the 
 General Assembly be authorized, if they shall approve of the 
 said transfer, to ratify and confirm the same with the said 
 Synod and report the same to the next General Assembly. 
 [See Minutes for 1835, p. 33.] 
 
 *' The committee, thus appointed and clothed with full 
 powers to ratify and confirm a transfer, submitted the terms 
 on which they were willing to accept it to the Synod of 
 Pittsburg at their sessions last fall. The members of the 
 committee not being present at the meeting of the Synod, 
 and there being no time for farther correspondence, the 
 Synod (although they would have preferred some alterations 
 of the terms,) were precluded from proposing any on the 
 ground that such alteration would vitiate the whole proceed- 
 ings, and therefore, acceded to the terms of the transfer 
 
 * The Chairman of this Committee ought to have known that this 
 proposition did not originate in the General Assembly. The first of 
 the resolutions quoted in this report, was a transcript of a resolution 
 adopted by the Pittsburg Convention, * * * * * 
 and Dr. Phillips, who was a leading member of that Convention, was 
 aware that its connection with the appointment of the Committee to 
 confer with the Synod of Pittsburg, was at least as intimate as that 
 of cause and efi^ect. 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 119 
 
 which were proposed by the committee of the Assembly, 
 and solemnly ratified the contract on their part. Feeling 
 themselves bound by the same, and trusting to the good 
 faith of this body, they have acted accordingly, and have 
 made no provision for their Missionaries now in the field for 
 a longer time than the meeting of this Assembly ; having in- 
 formed them of the transfer which had taken place, and of the 
 new relation they would sustain to this body after their pre- 
 sent sessions. 
 
 "It appears then to your committee that the Assembly 
 have entered into a solemn compact with the Synod of Pitts- 
 burg, and that there remains but one lighteous course to 
 pursue, which is, to adopt the report of the committee ap- 
 pointed last year, and to appoint a Foreign Missionary Board. 
 To pause now, or to annul the doings of the last Assembly 
 in this matter, would be obviously a violation of contract, a 
 breach of trust, and a departure from that good faith which 
 should be sacredly kept between man and man, and especially 
 between Christian Societies ; conduct, which would be utter- 
 ly unworthy of this venerable body, and highly injurious to 
 the Western Foreign Missionary Society. 
 
 " The committee beg leave further respectfully to remind 
 the Assembly, that a large proportion of our churches, 
 (being Presbyterian from conviction and preference) feel it to 
 be consistent not only, but their solemn duty in the sight of 
 God, to impart to others the same good, and in the same 
 form of it, which they enjoy themselves, and to be repre- 
 sented in heathen lands by Missionaries of their own denomina- 
 tion! They greatly prefer such an organization as that con- 
 templated, and which shall be under the care of the Presby- 
 terian Churches, and cannot be enlisted so well in the great , 
 and glorious work of sending the gospel to the heathen un- 
 der any other. Already, with the blessing of the Great 
 Head of the Church, on the efforts of the Western Foreign 
 Missionary Society in this form of operation, has a missionary 
 spirit been awakened among them to a considerable extent, 
 
120 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 and an interest in the cause of missions been created, never 
 before felt by them. They have fm'nished men for the work, 
 and are contributing cheerfully to their support in the For- 
 eign field. 
 
 " As one great end to be accomplished by all who love the 
 Redeemer, is to awaken and cherish a missionary spirit, and 
 to enlist all the churches in the work of evangelizing the 
 world ; as everj;^ leading Christian denomination in the world 
 has its Foreign Missionary Board, and has found such dis- 
 tinct organization the most effective method of interesting 
 the churches under their care in this great subject ; as such 
 an organization cannot interfere with the rights or operations 
 of any other similar organization ; for the field is the world, 
 and is wide enough for all to cultivate ; as it is neither de- 
 sired nor intended to dictate to any in this matter, but sim- 
 ply to give an opportunity of sending the gospel to the 
 heathen by their own missionaries to those who prefer this 
 mode of doing so, giving them that liberty which they cheer- 
 fully accord to others : Your committee cannot suppose for 
 a moment that this General Assembly will, in this stage of 
 the proceedings, refuse to consummate this arrangement 
 with the Synod of Pittsburg, and thus prevent so many 
 churches under their care from supporting their Missionaries 
 in their own way. For they are unwilling to believe that 
 there can exist in the nineteenth century, a spirit of bigotry 
 and intolerance, which would interfere with the sacred liberty 
 of conscience, and which would seem to say to all, unless 
 you belong to our party, you shall not publish the glad tid- 
 ings of salvation through the crucified Redeemer to a dying 
 world. From this view of the case, they recommend to the 
 Assembly the following resolutions, viz. 
 
 " 1. Resolved, That the report of the committee appointed 
 by the last Assembly to confer with the Synod of Pittsburg 
 on the subject of a transfer of the Western Foreign Mission- 
 ary Society to the General Assembly be adopted, and that 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 121 
 
 said transfer be accepted on the terms of agreement therein 
 contained. 
 
 " 2. Resolved, That the Assembly will proceed to appoint 
 a Foreign Mission Board, the seat of whose operations shall 
 be in the city of New- York. 
 
 (Signed) W. W. Phillips, Chairman. 
 
 " Agreed to by the committee, excepting Dr. Skinner, who 
 as the minority of the Committee presented the following 
 report, viz. 
 
 *' Whereas the American Board of Commissioners for 
 Foreign Missions, has been connected with the Presbyterian 
 Church from the year of its incorporation, by the very ele- 
 ments of its existence ; and whereas at the present time the 
 majority of the whole of the Board are Presbyterians ; and 
 whereas it is undesirable, in conducting the v»^ork of Foreign 
 Missions, that there should be any collision at home or 
 abroad ; therefore 
 
 ^^ Resolved, That it is inexpedient that the Assembly should 
 organize a separate Foreign Missionary Institution." 
 
 ** The question being on the adoption of the report of the 
 Committee, a motion was introduced to postpone this report, 
 for the purpose of adopting the counter report of Dr. Skin- 
 ner. A long debate ensued, embracing to some extent the 
 merits of the whole subject; at the close of which, the vote 
 was taken by yeas and nays, when it appeared that there 
 was a majority of one against the postponement. This has 
 been regarded by some as exhibiting ' a majority of one in 
 favor of an ecclesiastical organization.' We are assured, 
 however, that more than one who voted against the post- 
 ponement, voted, on the final question, to reject the plan 
 proposed by the Committee. They voted against the post- 
 ponement, because they preferred to meet directly the report 
 of the majority of the Committee, and reject it at once. 
 
 ** On a subsequent day, the question was resumed, and 
 after a renewed and animated debate of several hours, the 
 
122 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 plan proposed by the Committee was rejected by a vote 
 of 111 to 106, eibibiting a majority of live against the at- 
 tempted organization. Against this decision, the following 
 protest, penned by Dr. Miller, and signed by himself and 
 eighty-one other members of the Assembly, containing a 
 summary of the reasons which had been previously urged 
 in favor of the formation of the proposed Board, was entered 
 on the Minutes : viz. 
 
 " The undersigned would solemnly protest against the de- 
 cision of the General Assembly, whereby the report of the 
 committee of the last General Assembly respecting the 
 Western Foreign Missionary Society was rejected : for the 
 following reasons, viz. 
 
 " 1. Because we consider the decision of the Assembly in 
 this case as an unjustifiable refusal to carry into effect a 
 solemn contract with the Synod of Pittsburg duly ratified 
 and confirmed under the authority of the last Assembly. 
 
 " 2. Because we are impressed with the deepest conviction 
 that the Presbyterian Church, in her ecclesiastical capacity, 
 is bound, in obedience to the command of her divine Head 
 and Lord, to send the glorious Gospel, as far as may be in 
 her power, to every creature ; and we consider the decision 
 of the Assembly in this case as a direct refusal to obey this 
 command, and to pursue one of the great objects for which 
 the church was founded. 
 
 " 3. Because it is our deliberate persuasion that a large 
 part of the energy, zeal, and resources of the Presbyterian 
 Church cannot be called into action in the missionary cause, 
 without the establishment of a missionary board by the Gen- 
 eral Assembly. It is evident that no other ecclesiastical 
 organization by fragments of the church can be formed, 
 which will unite, satisfy, and call forth the zealous co-opera- 
 tion of those in every part of the church who wish for a 
 general Presbyterian Board. 
 
 " 4. Because while the majority of the Assembly acknow- 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 123 
 
 ledge that ihey had a board which fully met all the wants 
 and wishes of themselves and those who sympathized with 
 them ; they refused to make such a decision as would accord 
 to us a similar and equal privilege ; thereby, as we conceive, 
 refusing that which Avould have been only just and equal, 
 and rejecting a plan which would have greatly extended the 
 missionary spirit, and exerted a reflex beneficial influence on 
 the chuj dies thus indulged with a board agreeable to their 
 views. 
 
 "5. Because to all these considerations, urged with a so- 
 lemnity and affection, the majority of the Assembly were 
 deaf, and have laid us under the necessity of protesting 
 against their course ; and of coqi plaining that we are denied 
 a most reasonable, and, to us, most precious privilege, and 
 of lamenting that we are laid under the necessity of resort- 
 ing to plans of ecclesiastical organization, complicated, incon- 
 venient, and much more adapted, on a variety of accounts, 
 to interfere with ecclesiastical harmony, than the proposed 
 board could have been, 
 
 ''Pittsburg, June 9th, 1836. 
 
 " To this protest. Dr. Peters, as Chairman of the Com- 
 mittee appointed for that purpose, presented the following 
 answer, which was adopted by the Assembly, and entered 
 on the Minutes : viz. 
 
 " In answer to the protest of the minority of the General 
 Assembly on the subject of Foreign Missions, the majority 
 regard it as due to the churches and the friends of missions 
 generally, to state some of the grounds on which they have 
 declined to carry into effect the arrangement adopted and 
 reported by the committee of the last General Assembly, in 
 regard to the Western Foreign Missionary Society. 
 
 " We are of opinion, 
 
 "1. That the powers intended to be conferred upon the 
 above committee by the last Assembly, to ratify and confirm 
 
124 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 the transfer of the said society from the Synod of Pittsburg 
 to the General Assembly, on such terras as the said commit- 
 tee might approve, are altogether unusual and unwarranted ; 
 and especially that it was indiscreet and improper for that 
 Assembly to attempt to confer such unlimited powers for 
 such a purpose, in the existing state of our churches, upon 
 so small a committee ; and that too on the last day of the 
 sessions of the Assembly, when more than one half of the 
 enrolled members of the body had obtained leave of absence, 
 and had already returned to their homes. 
 
 "2. That it was unwarrantable and improper for the 
 above committee, in the exercise of the extraordinary powers 
 supposed to be conferred on them, to incorporate in their 
 agreement with the Synod of Pittsburg the condition, that 
 the supervision of the missions of the Missionary Board 
 intended to be organized should never be alienated by the 
 General Assembly, thus endeavoring to bind irreversibly all 
 future assemblies by the stipulations of that committee. 
 
 "3. It is, therefore, our deep conviction that it was the 
 duty of this Assembly to resist the unwarrantable and extra- 
 ordinary powers of the above committee, and to reject the 
 unreasonable condition of their contract with the Synod of 
 Pittsburg. 
 
 "4. It is our settled belief that the church is one by divine 
 constitution, and that the command is of universal obligation : 
 * Let there be no divisions among you,' and that whatever 
 advantages or disadvantages may have resulted from the 
 division of the church into numerous denominations, with 
 conflicting opinions, it cannot be our duty, as Christians, to 
 perpetuate and extend these divisions by incorporating them 
 in our arrangement to spread the Gospel in heathen 
 lands. We cannot, therefore, regard the decision of the As- 
 sembly in this case, as a refusal to obey the command of the 
 Great Head of the church to preach the gospel to every crea- 
 ture. That command, as we understand it, is not to the 
 Presbyterian Church in her distinctive ecclesiastical capacity. 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 125 
 
 but to the whole church, to tlie collective body of Christ's 
 disciples, of every name. It was that they may the more 
 effectually obey the above command, by uniting with chris- 
 tians of other denominations in the noble work of foreio-Q 
 
 o 
 
 missions, that the Assembly declined to carry into effect the 
 proposed organization restricted to the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 ** 5. We do not agree with the protestants in the opinion 
 that the resources of any part of the Presbyterian Church 
 * cannot be called into action in the missionary cause without 
 the establishment of a Missionary Board by the General As- 
 sembly.' The history of missionary operations in this and 
 in other countries furnishes ample evidence that the energy 
 and zeal of christians in the spread of the gospel are much 
 more effectually enlisted, and their liberality greatly increased 
 by more expanded organizations, which overstep the limits 
 of sects, and the bond of whose union is the one great object 
 of spreading the glorious gospel of the blessed God. It is 
 our settled belief that societies formed on these principles, 
 and including different denominations of christians, are ac- 
 tually performing as the proxies of the church, in the work 
 of missions, that which the church, on account of her exist- 
 ino' divisions, can perform in no other way so well. They 
 appear to us to have embraced the harmonizing principle 
 which is destined- ultimately to reunite the churches, and. 
 make them one, as it was in the beginning and will be in the 
 end. 
 
 " 6. While the majority of the Assembly acknowledge 
 their unabated confidence in the American Board of Com- 
 missioners for Foreign Missions, as fully meeting our wishes, 
 and affording a safe and open channel through which all our 
 churches may, as consistent Presbyterians, convey their con- 
 tributions to the cause of Foreign Missions ; we do not re- 
 gard ourselves as having denied, by the decision protested 
 against to the minority, the privilege of conducting their 
 missionary operations with entire freedom, on any other plan 
 which they may prefer. But we think it unreasonable for 
 6 
 
126 REAL GROUiNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 them to ask us to form, and to complain of our not forming, 
 by a vote of the General Assembly, an organization, the 
 principles of which we do not approve. We do not ask of 
 them to assume the responsibilities of the plan which we 
 prefer, and we cannot regard ourselves as chargeable with 
 unkindness or injustice, in having refused to assume the re- 
 sponsibilities of the plan which ihey prefer. If we cannot 
 agi'ee to unite in the same organization, for the same pur- 
 pose, it appears to us manifestly proper, that each party 
 should bear the responsibihties of its own chosen plan of 
 operations ; and if our brethren cannot so far commend their 
 principles, as to extend their ecclesiastical organizations be- 
 yond those '' fragments of the church" of which they speak, 
 they surely ought not to complain of us, "if those in every 
 part of the church who wish for a general Presbyterian 
 Board," remain dissatisfied. We would respectfully ask 
 whether they ought not to charge their embarrassment, in 
 this respect, to the plan which they have adopted, rather 
 than to those who have chosen, on their own responsibility, 
 in the fear of God, to conduct their missionary operations 
 on other principles. If, therefore, the minority of the As- 
 sembly should hereafter judge themselves under " the ne- 
 cessity of resorting to plans of ecclesiastical organization" 
 which shall *' interfere with ecclesiastical harmony," the 
 majority cannot regard themselves as responsible for such 
 results. The settled belief of the majority of the Assembly 
 is, that the operations of the American Board of Commis- 
 sioners for Foreign Missions, with its numerous auxiliaries, 
 both ecclesiastical and voluntary, within the bounds of the 
 Presbyterian church, present the best arrangement for the 
 promotion of the cause of missions by our churches ; and it 
 was to prevent the ecclesiastical conflicts and divisions which 
 have resulted from the operations of other similar organiza- 
 tions, that they have thought it their duty to decline the 
 organization proposed. They have made their decision for 
 the purpose, and with the hope of securing and promoting 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 127 
 
 the union in the missionary woik which has so happily ex- 
 isted in former years. With these views and hopes, they 
 commend the cause of missions and their solemn and con- 
 scientious decision to the blessing of God, and pray for the 
 peace of Jerusalem." 
 
 " The reader is now in full possession of the history of the 
 proposed measure and its rejection, as far as it may be gath- 
 ered from the Minutes of the two General Assemblies before 
 which it was urged." — See Plea for Voluntary Societies, 
 2Mges 35-47. 
 
 Ample as is the proof now before our readers, of the in- 
 fluence of the exclusive and intolerant views and pohcy of 
 the advocates of Ecclesiastical Boards in bringing about the 
 division of the Church, it is but a part of the sum total by 
 which the fact may be established. 
 
 At their signal defeat in the Assembly of 1836, the ultra- 
 ists were far from a submissive spirit. The most intolerant 
 among them undoubtedly hoped to secure the condemnation 
 of Doctor Beecher and Mr. Barnes, and the ratification of the 
 agreement respecting the Western Foreign Missionary Soci- 
 ety between the Assembly of the previous year and the 
 Synod of Pittsburg, and thereby awe those who difl"ered 
 from them into submission. Had their hopes been reahzed, 
 they would have- had the whole Church committed to the 
 principle of Ecclesiastical Boards. 
 
 Before the close of the Assembly they gave unmistakable 
 indications of their determination not to submit to its de- 
 cisions. The evening previous to the close of its sessions, 
 they held a private meeting in the basement of the Rev. Mr. 
 Blythe's church. It was ascertained on authority fully en- 
 titled to credit, that at that meeting the subject of a division 
 of the Church had been discussed. A convention, similar to 
 the one held in Pittsburg the year previous, was proposed 
 for effecting it. " This, however, was objected to by some 
 of the more cautious, and, at their suggestion, after consid- 
 erable discussion, it was agreed that it would be much the 
 
128 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 wisest plan to appoint a confidential committee of corre- 
 spondence, to write to such ministers and elders in all parts 
 of the Church as were known to sympathize with them, and 
 urge them to use all their influence to secure the appoint- 
 ment of such delegates to the next Assembly, as might be 
 depended on to favor the views of the present minority. 
 The committee were also to be instructed to kee}:) their cor- 
 respondence out of the newspapers as long as possible, and 
 exert their influence secretly, until they should judge it ex- 
 pedient to avow their purpose. Then, instead of having an- 
 other * Pittsburg Convention ' publicly called, the prevalent 
 opinion was, that it would be best to have such individuals 
 as the committee might designate, meet at Philadelphia, as 
 if by common consent, a day or two before the meeting of 
 the next General Assembly, and there hold a conference as 
 to the measures proper to be adopted by the party. If it 
 should then appear from the report of the confidential com- 
 mittee, that they might calculate on a majority, they would 
 proceed and adopt such measures as they desired ; but if 
 they should find themselves a minority still, it was suggested 
 that they might then determine to retire from the meeting 
 of the majority, and call themselves the General Assembly, 
 and proceed accordingly."* 
 
 Immediately after the Moderator had pronounced the ben- 
 ediction and declared the Assembly dissolved, he "an- 
 nounced that all the individuals who had been present at the 
 meeting in the basement of Mr. Blythe's church, the pre- 
 ceding evening, were expected to attend a similar meeting at 
 the same place that afternoon at 3 o'clock." 
 
 " The meeting was convened according to his announce- 
 ments, but of what was said and done within its enclosures, 
 we are wholly ignorant ; excepting so far as its decisions have 
 been indicated by what has since transpired ; and this leaves 
 us in no doubt as to their substantial accordance with the 
 suggestions of the previous evening. Soon after the meeting 
 * Plea for Voluntary Societies, pages 165, 166. 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 129 
 
 was dissolved and the members, with others, were preparing 
 for their return to their homes, Mr. Witherspoon," (the Mod- 
 erator of the Assembly), *' remarked to a gentleman Avho 
 accosted him on the subject of the meeting, * The die is 
 cast ; the Church is to be divided.' The newspapers, also, 
 which are the organs of the party, have been constantly 
 breathing suspicion and suggesting and advocating division. 
 But the Confidential Committee were silent and unknown to 
 the public until the issuing of their pamphlet, which has 
 waked the party papers to a bolder tone of advocacy on be- 
 half of division ; and by some a convention for this purpose, 
 to meet immediately preceding the meeting of the next Gen- 
 eral Assembly, is boldly and strenuously urged." * 
 
 The pamphlet alluded to " was issued about the last of 
 August. It was preceded, however, by a secret circular, over 
 the signatures of the same * Committee,' dated New York, July 
 13, 1836. This circular was addressed, in a confidential way, to 
 numerous individuals, both ministers and laymen, supposed 
 to be displeased, (or capable of being rendered so,) with the 
 decisions of the last Assembly, and was not seen by others, 
 until it providentially fell into the hands of a correspondent 
 of the Philadelphia Observer,' by whom it was forwarded, 
 to that paper and pubhshed on the 15 th of September. It 
 asks attention to the proceedings of the last Assembly, and 
 concludes with a series of questions addressed to each of the 
 selected individuals as follows, viz. : — 
 
 * And now, dear brother, in view of the whole subject, we 
 ask you. What ought to be done ? That we may be put fully 
 in possession of your views, without at this time expressing 
 any of our own, we would respectfully ask you the following 
 questions : — 
 
 * 1 . With so great diversity of sentiment in regard to doc- 
 trine and order in the Presbyterian Church, can we continue 
 united in one body, and maintain the integrity of our stand- 
 ards, and promote the cause of truth and righteousness in 
 the earth ? 
 
 * Plea for Voluntary Societies, pages 165-167. 
 
130 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 ' 2. If you think we can, then please to say how the causes 
 that at present distract us can be removed. 
 
 * 3. Do you believe that there are ministers in our connec- 
 tion who hold errors, on account of which they ought to be 
 separated from us ? 
 
 ' 4. If you think such errors are held, please to name them 
 particularly ? 
 
 * 5. If you believe that persons holding the errors you 
 name, ought to be separated from our communion, what in 
 your judgment is the best way of accomplishing it ? 
 
 * 6. It was repeatedly avowed by ministers in the last 
 General Assembly, that they received the Confession of Faith 
 of our Church only "for substance of doctrine" — " as a sys- 
 tem " — or " as containing the Calvinistic system in opposi- 
 tion to the Arminian," &c. — hence we know how much of 
 our Standards they adopt and how much they reject. Is 
 this, in your opinion, the true intent and meaning of " re- 
 ceiving and adopting the Confession of Faith ?" 
 
 * 7. It is believed by many that much of the evil of which 
 we now complain, has come upon us in consequence of our 
 connection with Congregational churches within our bounds, 
 and represented in our judicatories. We would ask you 
 whether, in your judgment, it would not be better for us as 
 a Church, to have no other connection with Congregation- 
 alists than the friendly one which we now have with them as 
 corresponding bodies ? 
 
 ' You are earnestly entreated, dear brother, to give a 
 serious and speedy answer to these inquiries. It is of vast 
 importance to our beloved Church that we should have em- 
 bodied, as soon as practicable, the views of judicious, thorough 
 Presbyterians of our connection, as the best index in regard 
 to the course that ought to be pursued.* 
 
 " To be convinced that this letter was intended to prepare 
 the way for a division of the church, we have only to recur 
 to the pamphlet before named. Here we find the same in- 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 131 
 
 dividuals, in a little more than a month after the date of the 
 letter containing the above confidential inquiries, openly and 
 avowedly advocating division, and laboring to convince all 
 the disaffected that it is their solemn duty, if possible, by all 
 means to produce the dismemberment of all who sympathize 
 with the decisions of the last Assembly. They say, 
 
 * That creeds, confessions of faith, to answer their true and 
 legitimate purpose, must be honeslhj received. And here we 
 are constrained to believe is one fruitful source of our present 
 distractions as a church, a lack of honesty in the reception of 
 our standards. Some examine these standards with care — 
 they compare them with the scriptures of truth on whi.^h 
 they profess to be founded — they scan narrowly the language 
 used in them, and ha^dng done so, they sincerely receive and 
 adopt all .the doctrines they contain. Without laying any 
 claim to infallibility, or pretending to judge those who may 
 differ from them, they proclaim to the world that the Con- 
 fession of Faith of this Church is their confession of faith. 
 They feel themselves solemnly bound, as by an oath, to ad- 
 here to this form of sound words, and to publish no doctrines 
 either inconsistent or at variance with it. This course they 
 pursue as honest men. There are others, however, who view 
 this matter in a very different light, and who act a very dif- 
 ferent part. Although they have professed to receive our 
 standards in the same manner with the class just referred to, 
 they do not consider themselves bound by that act to receive 
 all the doctrines contained in them ; nor to construe the lan- 
 guage in which they are expressed, in the sense in which it 
 was manifestly employed by those who framed them.' 
 
 " Again. ' Under the name and cloak of Presbyterianism 
 they disseminate sentiments which lead directly to Arminian- 
 ism, Pelagianism and Socinianism. These are the men who, 
 in our judgment, have caused divisions among us — for we are 
 a divided church— as really divided as though we were rtiUed 
 by different names and existed under different organizations. 
 
132 R^AL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 The schism has come already, and let those men who have 
 come into our church by professing to receive our standards, 
 when, in fact, they did not believe them in their plain and 
 obvious import, answer for it — for they are its authors." — 
 A Plea for Voluntary Societies, jKt^es 156, 159. 
 
 Subsequently they say, " Fathers, brethren, fellow-Chris- 
 tians, whatever else may be dark, this is clear, ice cannot 
 continue in the same body. We are not agreed, and it is vain 
 to attempt to walk together. That those whom we regard 
 as the authors of our present distractions will retrace their 
 steps, is not to be expected ; and that those who have hith- 
 erto rallied around the standards of our Church will continue 
 to do so, is both to be expected and desired. In some way 
 or other, therefore, THESE MEN MUST BE SEPARATED 
 FROM US." — Plea for Voluntary Societies, page 163. 
 
 We cannot more fully express our own views of the na- 
 ture and tendency of this whole transaction than by quoting 
 the following from the remarks of the Correspondent of the 
 ** Philadelphia Observer," before referred to, accompanying 
 the publication of the secret circular of the confidential com- 
 mittee, viz. : — 
 
 *' * 2. The tendency of the letter is to invite crimination, 
 and to perpetuate alienation and contention. What does it 
 ask of each man to whom it is sent ? Does it ask him to 
 cherish feelings of love and charity towards his ministerial 
 brethren around him? Does it conjure him to seek their aid 
 and co-operation in endeavoring to advance the kingdom of 
 the Redeemer, and to promote pure and undefiled religion ? 
 Does it implore him to lay aside any unfounded suspicions 
 which he may have cherished respecting the piety, the hon- 
 esty, and the orthodoxy of brethren in the same communion? 
 No. It asks of every man to look over tlie whole ciicle of 
 his ministerial acquaintance ; to put his memory and his in- 
 vention upon the rack ; to form in his own mind charges of 
 heresy against ministers of the Son of God, and to report 
 them SECRETLY to this committee with a view to further ac- 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 133 
 
 tion. Every man to whom the letter is sent, is tenderly 
 invited to become a spy upon his brethren ; to give form and 
 substance to all his suspicions ; to put his own construction 
 upon his brother's sentiments ; to report them to the com- 
 mittee ; and to become pledged over his own hand that such 
 brethren ought to be cut off from the Presbyterian Church. 
 If thus pledged, it is assumed that he will act for it, and 
 vote for it, when the effort ^shall be made to expurgate the 
 church." 
 
 " How extensively this letter breathing suspicion, and in- 
 viting crimination has been circulated, no man can tell, ex- 
 cept the committee and they who are with them in the secret 
 and dishonorable plan. I have heard of it from the North 
 and the West. Few probably have gone East ; the South, 
 doubtless, is flooded. It is to be presumed, however, that 
 its circulation has been al least co-extensive with the sierners 
 of the "Act and Testimony" — for they are all pledged, and 
 sworn, and tried men. Yet where are they ? They are 
 scattered everywhere through the Church. Every minister 
 not in the secret has one or more of them in his neighbor- 
 hood, perhaps in his own Presbytery. To promote the 
 same object, the letters are sent to the elders of the churches 
 that they may become spies upon their pastors, and inform- 
 ers in regard to their orthodoxy. It invites to secret suspi- 
 cion, and secret crimination. It asks my neighbor with 
 whom I am associated, and who sees me every day, to be a 
 spy upon my movements ; and to give his own construction 
 to my opinions, and secretly to convey his impressions to a 
 distant, irresponsible committee, clandestinely engaged in 
 plotting the dismemberment of the Church, and overthrow- 
 ing the fair institutions of Presbyterianism in this land. 
 
 " ' 3. This letter contemplates movements that are an en- 
 tire departure from Presbyterianism ; and which, it seems to 
 me, involve a violation of solemn ministerial vows. Every 
 minister of the Gospel in our connexion solemnly promises to 
 adhere to the Standards of the Presbyterian Church ; and it 
 6# 
 
134 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION, 
 
 is implied in those vows that he will seek no other mode of 
 discipline, and no other measures for opposing heresy or er- 
 ror than those which are prescribed in the standards. Yet 
 in the cases which have given birth to this letter, the regular 
 and prescribed modes of discipline have been pursued. 
 Charges have been regularly brought and tried, and after 
 the fullest investigations there has been an entire acquittal. 
 Here according to Presbyterianism and common honesty, the 
 matter in regard to those gentlemen is to stop. If there are 
 gentlemen in the Church who hold error, the way is open 
 for their regular arraignment, and trial, and condemnation. 
 The Book of Discipline prescribes the course, and the only 
 course which conscientious Presbyterians can pursue. But 
 this letter invites to a different course. It contemplates a 
 new measure. It asks gravely of the initiated and the faith- 
 ful, whether, if any such error exists as ought to exclude the 
 holders thereof from the Church, they know of any mode in 
 which the offending brother can be removed ? Why is this ? 
 Is not the way open? Does not the Book of Discipline pre- 
 scribe the mode ? Can an honest Presbyterian ask about 
 any other mode than that to which he has sworn, and to 
 which he has promised adherence ? Why then is invention 
 put upon the rack ? Why then do the Committee acknow- 
 ledge that they can tliink of no way, and invite others all 
 over the land to think out some new way by which they can 
 eject their brethren from the ministry ? The language of 
 this question put into plain English, is this, " We have tried 
 the regular steps of discipline in the Presbyterian Church, 
 and the system does not work to our mind. We raised the 
 note of alarm ; we succeeded in getting the Church excited 
 and distracted ; we enrolled the names of all who promised 
 to adhere to us ; and then, when matters were all arranged, 
 we brought charges against prominent men. We carried 
 those charges through all the regular stages, and adopted all 
 the means known to the Constitution. But the system did not 
 work to our mind. They are still in the Church. Do you 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 135 
 
 know, " dear brother," of any new way — any way unknown 
 to the Constitution by which those men and their friends can 
 be removed ? Is there any new way of attacking them, of 
 undermining their influence, of cripphng their usefulness, so 
 as to compel them to leave the Church ? It is true we have 
 established rules, and a regular government, and most excel- 
 lent standaids," and we have tried all these. But nil this 
 uvaileth vs nothing so long as we see Mordecai the Jew sit- 
 ting in the King's gate,'* 
 
 " 4. It is natural to ask who are the men who thus se- 
 cretly invite suspicion, and crimination, and who are aiming 
 at the dismemberment of the Church ? 
 
 " Foremost is the Chairman of the Committee, and one 
 other minister who came among us from the Seceder Church. 
 Not native born Presbyterians ; or not nurtured in the views 
 of interpreting the Standards of the Church which have pre- 
 vailed among us from the year 1729 — and down through all 
 the periods of our history till the present, they came among 
 us but a few years since with a few others from the same 
 communion, and as one of their first acts they now invite 
 suspicion, and crimination, and modestly demand that a large 
 portion of the ministers of our connection should be ejected. 
 Certainly the modesty of these gentlemen cannot be suffi- 
 ciently commended ; nor can it be deemed surprising that 
 they should in this letter complain of ''foreign influence,'* 
 and ask whether the evils which now exist have not arisen 
 from a *' foreign influenoe" — from our connection with the 
 churches of New England ? Almost forty j-ears have rolled 
 away since that connection was formed ; ten j^ears have not 
 elapsed since those gentlemen were in the Associate church. 
 
 " One other of the signers of this letter is a Professor in the 
 Theological Seminary at Princefon. Last fall, in the Synod 
 of Philadelphia, this gentlemaft used the following language, 
 " Let us trust the next General Assembly." If that body 
 shall not decide that there is error and more dangerous error 
 in this book (Mr. Barnes' Notes on the Romans) then my 
 
136 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 best prayer for it shall be, ** may it never, never, meet again 1'' 
 Yes ; if that shall be its decision, let it be dissolved into its 
 elements ; and while out of its scattered fragments th© gold, 
 and ^silver, and precious stones shall be gathered into one 
 heap, let the wood, and hay, and stubble be gathered into 
 another. If the Assembly shall take your ground we shall 
 be safe : but if not, I repeat the prayer, * may it never, no, 
 NEVER MEET AGAIN.' Report of Syuod, p. 263. This Secret 
 Letter is one of the means by which this prayerHs to be an- 
 swered. 
 
 " The name of another member of the Committee is the 
 Rev. William A. M'Dowell, D.D., Secretary"^ and General 
 Agent of the General Assembly's Board of Missions. That 
 his name is there isi/l be a matter of surprise and regret by 
 all his friends. His course of life hitherto had not been such 
 as to lead to the expectation that his name should be thus 
 recorded. It would have been predicted ten years since, nay^, 
 three years since, that he would have pursued a different 
 course ; and that from respect to his official station, or his 
 personal character, or following the natural inclinations of his 
 heart to peace, and to confidence in his ministerial brethren, 
 he would have frowned on a transaction like this. I venture 
 to predict that the time will come — and that at no distant 
 period — when he will look upon this act with regret. 
 
 " The name of one other gentleman is that of the Rev. 
 Francis M'Farland, Correspondiag Sficretary and General 
 Agent of the General Assembly s Board of Rducailon^ (who 
 has declared, over his own signature, in regard to this letter,) 
 that ' it was never expected to be kept secret ; it was the 
 full understanding of the Committee that it would be shortly 
 published in the newspapers ; and it would have been pub- 
 lished long ago, but it was the v^ish of the Committee to call 
 the special attention of a number of those who were known 
 in general, to coincide with them in opinion to these points, 
 which certainly could not have been so well accomplished 
 had it appeared first, or simultaneously in print.' 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 137 
 
 '* Here is a distinct avowal over the name of the Correa- 
 ponding Secretary and General Agent of the General Assem- 
 bhfs Board of Education that he, in connexion with other 
 gentlemen, had objects to be ' accomplished' by a secret cir- 
 cular, sent to a part of the Presbyterian Church, which 
 * could not so VTELL be accomplished/ had the design been 
 known. 
 
 " Here w^e are presented with a most remarkable fact ; and 
 one which demands and which will receice the attention of 
 the Presbyterian Churches in the land. A secret letter, in- 
 viting suspicion, and crimination, and tending to the dismem- 
 berment of the Presbyterian Church, is sent forth signed by 
 one Professor in the Theological Seminary, and by the two, 
 and only general Agents of the General Assembly. Some 
 reflections of serious import crowd on the mind. 
 
 " It is natural to ask whether this is the purpose for which 
 these gentlemen were appointed to these important offices ? 
 Did the General Assembly when it made or sanctioned these 
 appointments contemplate this as a part of their duties? 
 Did the Assembly suppose that they would have either the 
 inclination or the leisure to engage in plans contemplating 
 the dismemberment of the Church ? Is this the way in 
 which they shall fulfil their duties to the body from which 
 they have receiveTl their power ; and is this to constitute a 
 part of their reports to the next General Assembly ? 
 
 " Those gentlemen are supported from the funds of the 
 church, at an annual expense of not less than s'i:c thousand 
 dollars. Was that money contributed with the expectation 
 that it would be appropriated to men who would labor for the 
 dismemberment of the Church ? Did the General Assembly 
 of this year, or of any former year, make appropriations for 
 their salaries with the expectation that they were sustaining 
 men who w^ere secretly aiming at the division of the Church ? 
 A delicate casuist would say that it was a matter of difficult 
 solution to know how they could appropriate time and in- 
 fluence which belongs to the entire Church, and which is sus- 
 
138 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 tained by tlie monies of the Church in other purposes than 
 those contemplating the training of her sons for the ministry, 
 or the extension of the gospel throughout the land. In what 
 article of these Boards, or in the ' Plan for the Theological 
 Seminary,' is it said that the promotion of suspicion and schism 
 shall be a part of the duty of the incumbents in these offices ? 
 " Again — These gentlemen have an official influence and 
 power. It has been created by the acts of the General As- 
 sembly, and is the property of the General Assembly. It 
 arises not from the moral worth of these gentlemen, how- 
 ever great that may be, but it arises from the fact that the 
 Assembly has committed to them a portion of its own in- 
 fluence and authority. Did the Assembly design that its 
 own influence should be thus employed ? Was it to pro- 
 mote division and alienation that they were appointed to 
 these responsible offices ? 
 
 " There is one other question. Can it be supposed that 
 the secretaries and agents of the Boards of the Assembly 
 are pursuing a course which is unknown to their Boards, or 
 which is disapproved by them ? Is it not a fair inference 
 that when the general agents of their Boards become thus the 
 advocates of schism, and lend their official influence to pro- 
 mote it, that this is the course also which their numerous 
 subordinate agents in the churches are expected to pursue, 
 and which they will advance ? But if this be so, then who 
 can follow and detect the numerous bad influences which are 
 now already in operation, and which have been so long pur- 
 sued that a public stand may now b':: taken tending to divide 
 and rend into fragments the Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States ? If this be the purpose, the action, and the 
 prostituted official influence of these Boards, is the preserva- 
 tion of the church consistent with their continued existence ? 
 Should the church nourish in its own bosom, and sustain by 
 its own authority and resources, that which is known to be 
 employed to rend it into fragments ? 
 
 " I ask, in conclusion, is the church always to be harassed 
 
REAL GROUNDS OP THE EXCISION. 139 
 
 and distracted by plans like this ? Six years have rolled 
 away amidst suspicions, and criminations, and prosecutions, 
 and plans, secret and public, to rend the church in this land. 
 Plan after plan has been tried and foiled, and yet invention 
 is not exhausted. Suspicion did all it could. Crimination 
 did all it could. Prosecution did all it could. The 'Act 
 and Testimony' did all it could. God in mercy inter- 
 posed and saved the church from division. And now 
 official influence, and the names of the public officers of the 
 church are doing what they can secretly to accomphsh the 
 same end ; to recover prostrated power, or to rend the 
 church to fragments. In the mean time, revivals have ceased, 
 and the humble and the pious are weary with these conten- 
 tions, and the feeling of the church at large demands that the 
 ministers of religion should lay aside these contentions, and 
 give themselves to the promotion of pure and undefiled reli- 
 gion. The church on earth, and the church in heaven ; the 
 interests of religion everywhere demand, that every friend of 
 peace and unity should be at his post ; should oppose these 
 efforts at division, and fix his eye and heait on the maxim 
 
 of Paul, MARK THEM WHICH CAUSE DIVISIONS, AND AVOID 
 
 THEM. An Enemy to Schism." — Flea for Voluntary iSo- 
 cieties, pages 168--1'74. 
 
 Additional proof that hostility to Voluntary Societies, and 
 a desire to rule the Church, were the chief causes of the acts 
 of the Assembly of 1837, which rent the Church asunder, 
 will be found in the proceedings of the Convention, which 
 commenced its sessions in Philadelphia, the week immediate- 
 ly preceding the meeting of the Assembly. We present our 
 readers with an account of the proceedings of this body, as 
 contained in " the Rev. H. Wood's History of the Presbyte- 
 rian Controversy :" 
 
 " CHAPTER XV. 
 
 ''OLD SCHOOL CONVENTION 0¥ 1837. 
 
 " This Convention, called by the Committee of the Old 
 School party in the Assembly of 1836, met in Philadelphia 
 
140 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 about a week before the meeting of the General Assembly. 
 There were more than one hundred members in attendance. 
 
 " The first measure proposed in the Convention was, some 
 action in reference to ' certain judicatories' charged by com- 
 mon fame with heresies and disorders. The Convention went 
 into a sort of ex-parte trial of certain bodies. Common fame 
 was the principal witness. The members were invited to 
 retail such reports as had reached them. Various rumors 
 were communicated. And though the parties accused were 
 not represented, and could make no defence, yet they were 
 soon condemned. 
 
 *' The Convention, however, were not agreed as to the plan 
 which they should propose for the Assembly's adoption. 
 Dr. Blythe suggested the plan of citation, with a view to ex- 
 cision. He thought the course pursued by the Synod of 
 Kentucky, in the case of the Cumberland Presbyterians, the 
 proper one. He said : * Thirty- three or four years ago, the 
 Synod of Kentucky knew it to be difficult to try any man for 
 heresy ; but they appointed a Commission to visit the parts 
 where the heresy was reported to exist, to inquire and report. 
 The suspected Presbyteries were not allowed to sit in Synod 
 till the affair was settled. The Synod acted, cut off the un- 
 sound, and restored peace to the orthodox. Why may not 
 the next General Assembly do the same thing ?' 'If this 
 course be taken, you exclude from your judicatories those 
 who are charged with unsoundness until the affair is issued ; 
 and you gain two things — first, you put out those who trou- 
 ble you ; and second, you will be prepared to administer 
 wholesome admonition to the suspected. This course will 
 show that you are cautious of the character of your brethren. 
 You will not impeach them till inquiry is made in an orderly 
 manner. But if something of this sort is not done, what will 
 the world say ?' — See Western Presbyterian Herald, June 1, 
 1837. 
 
 " Dr. Junkin offered a resolution : ' That the orthodox 
 would agree not to go into the Assembly, unless the Synod 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 141 
 
 of the Western Reserve were excluded.' * There is common 
 fame enough to cut off the Synod at the outset.' — Herald, 
 June 1, 1837. 
 
 " Mr. R. J. Breckinridge said : * All that is proposed, re- 
 fers to what the Assembly ought to do. We must go to the 
 Assembly. We can do nothing here. I am just where I 
 used to be. I am opposed to violent action. Let us do 
 nothing which cannot be fully justified. It is vain to hope 
 that you can exclude the persons against whom tliese speech- 
 es and memorials are aimed. There is no power anywhere 
 that can do it.' — Herald, June 1, 1837. 
 
 " Dr. Baxter said : ' In our general views we are unani- 
 mous, that the purity of the church is endangered, and that 
 something must be done. But we differ as to the mode of 
 relief.' *As to some suggestions of Dr. Junkin, I cannot 
 support them. We have no constitutional authority here. 
 We meet merely to consult, in the exercise of a proper right, 
 and to present our views to the General Assembly. But if 
 we take the ground that we are a part of the judicatories of 
 the church, and proceed to excommunicate our brethren, we 
 assume high judicial powers and array public opinion against 
 us.' * If high-handed and apparently unconstitutional meas- 
 ures are taken, it will greatly injure us. There is great dis- 
 trust as to the designs of the orthodox : it is supposed that 
 the friends of the constitution propose to alter the constitution. 
 And if the Convention resolved to set aside Synods, and ex- 
 communicate them, it will injure us by confirming these fears.' 
 — Herald, June 1, 1837. 
 
 " Mr. Breckinridge said : ' The decision on the Foreign 
 Missionary question of the last Assembly was an oiitrage ; 
 but preceding Assemblies had already implied the same 
 decision to refuse a Presbyterian organization. All the great 
 principles that are developed in our system were intrenched 
 on years ngo as fully as now.' * Let it be recollected too, 
 that to (jtt fqjart from the unsound, is not the only thing to 
 be done. It must not be done on the principles which may 
 
142 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 destroy ourselves.' *I have asked a hundred brethren, 
 ' what is your view of getting apart?' Yet not one has given 
 me a clear, distinct, detailed statement which he was willing 
 to adopt.' — Herald, June 1, 1837. 
 
 " Mr. Musgrave said : * I wonder that there is any call for 
 facts. If any man is in darkness, let him read Barnes' Notes 
 and the Christian Spectator, and read the doctrines which 
 are recorded there. Let him also turn to the Voluntary As- 
 sociations ; I call them not benevolent, but party engines.' 
 * But we forget the machiner}'- that is at work against us, 
 manufacturing and sending out ministers so rapidly, that ^f 
 we simply wait, discuss and do not act, in twelve months our 
 case will be entirely hopeless. Some of our brethren are al- 
 ready clear that the present state of things is no longer tole- 
 rable. They will have a reform or separation.' ' What then 
 is to be done with such men, who are false and deceivers ? 
 We cannot live with them — we can have no peace with them 
 — they are in opposition to our principles and policy, and to 
 moral honesty. That we must get apart is clear. Mr. 
 Breckinridge says we must not take a step in the dark. But 
 can we not legislate conditionally, and take the first step 
 that is clear ? Is not the course plain ? If we have the 
 power, as I hope we shall have — although I am not very 
 sanguine — is it not clear that men who teach doctrines con- 
 fessedly at variance with our standards must be cut off, and 
 the institutions which divide and ruin us must be destroyed ? 
 This is clear. Let us then determine that those bodies which 
 are corrupt shall be arraigned and tried. My plan would be 
 to cite them, bring them to your bar, get a Committee to 
 present the facts to the next Assembly, and you exclude 
 them from all power till the issue is settled.' ' But suppose 
 we have not a majority in the next General Assembly. 
 There are two propositions which may be made. 1. We 
 may propose an amicable division. Let us try our brethren 
 who say they love peace and are tired of war, and that it is 
 destructive of revivals — except about two months before the 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 143 
 
 meeting of the General Assembly. Well, we say so too. 
 We are sick and weary of their falseness and their assaults, 
 we want rest. 2. But suppose we cannot divide amicably. 
 Although we cannot see at first what to do, we must look 
 about for light. I come to ask you, and God the Father of 
 lights : let us look to him in prayer. Let us settle this, that 
 if the New School have the majority in the next Assembly, 
 we are a dead minority — not an accidental minorit}^ but 
 we never shall be a majority. If the last Assembly and 
 other Assembhes have not brought up the church to secure 
 a majority, all hope is gone. Yom* opponents multiply like 
 frogs. They educate, license, and settle men faster than you 
 can do. But if the next Assembly be Old School, what shall 
 we do ? If reform be impossible, the imperative alternative 
 is separation.' ' Let us cling together and strive for victory, 
 or fall in the effort.' — Herald, June 1, 1S37. 
 
 " It will be seen from the debates in the Convention, that 
 the members aimed at one of two things : reform or separa- 
 tion. And from the debates it will be seen what was meant 
 by reform. It was to secure to the Old School a majority, 
 and effectually to put the New School in the minority. J\Ir. 
 Musgrave says : * If the last Assembly and other Assemblies 
 have not brought jip the church to secure a majority, all 
 hope is gone.' The reader of this portion of the history of 
 the church cannot fail to see that a 2^^^^nianent majority for 
 the Old School was, with one portion of the Convention, the 
 lead ingf object in this business of * reform.^ * Let us settle 
 this point, that if the New School have the majority in the 
 next Assembly, we are a dead minority — not an accidental 
 minority, but im shall never he a majority.'' Whether such 
 measures, on the part of a minority, to gain the ascendency, 
 is not a reform tliat needs to be reformed, is a question to be 
 decided by the irapartiil reader. 
 
 '' Whilst some would have beer satisfied with a permanent 
 majority, others would not have been content with anything 
 short of a division of the church. Mr. Breckinridsce was 
 
144 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 clear that the church ought to 'get apart.' Dr. Junkin 
 urged that : ' That Convention never would have been 
 called, but for the purpose of separating the Pelagians 
 (the Dr's. name for New School) from the sound part of the 
 church.' 
 
 " But this policy was not urged by all. ' Dr. Blythe spoke 
 at some length in opposition to measures of separation. He 
 wanted to contend — was opposed to cutting off any Synod 
 till tried.'— Herald, June 1, ISSY. 
 
 " Dr. Junkin said : ' We ought to have some plan. We 
 must not count on a majority ; let us have some settled prin- 
 ciples. Do not trust a New School majority to arraign and 
 cut off New School men, and New School Presbyteries. If 
 we have a majority we can do what we please ; and we know 
 what we shall do.' * We must be prepared for amputation, 
 diflficult and painful as it is.' 
 
 ** The Convention found it difficult to agree upon a plan 
 for action, provided they should be a minority in the Assem- 
 bly. Dr. Junkin urged the Convention in such a case, ' at 
 once to bring in its ultimatum and say — we are determined 
 as one man, that unless this reform is immediately effected, 
 we will cut you off. We are the Presbyterian Church ; you 
 are not, but are undermining its foundations.' 
 
 " Dr. Blythe's plan savored a little more of modesty. He 
 hoped, ' that if the orthodox were in a minority in the As- 
 sembly, they would rise in a body, leave the house, and go 
 on with the business of the church.' 
 
 " Mr. Breckinridge seemed not to be pleased with any 
 one's plan but his own, if plan he had. He said : * We need 
 not detail plans for the General Assembly ; I will not agree 
 to make the Moderator the Dictator of the General Assem- 
 bly. I will go as far as any one for sound Presbyterian doc- 
 trine and order. But not for measures unsonstitutional, such 
 as the exclusion of any body regularly commissioned to the 
 General Assembly.' 
 
 *' After five or six days had been spent by the Convention 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 146 
 
 in a wide range of discussion, Dr. Wilson, from the business 
 committee, * presented a resolution, declaring that in case 
 the Assembly shall not take measures for reform, this Con- 
 vention will proceed to ulterior and decisive measures.' 
 
 " Dr. Junkin suggested, * that the resolution was too un- 
 defined. It does not state what measures we shall take, nor 
 when.' 
 
 " Mr. Musgrave said, * We are not yet prepared to say 
 what measures we will adopt. We must wait till we see the 
 action of the General Assembly. If we proceed now to say 
 what that action ought to be, we shall be greatly divided in 
 opinion, and cannot agree in anything to be determined upon. 
 It will moreover be very injudicious in us to present a re- 
 quest to the Assembly for important reforms, and dictate to 
 thera by threats what they shall do.' * 
 
 " Dr. Junkin thought that * definite, decided action, was 
 the thing now to be resolved on.' He moved to amend, by 
 appending to the resolution the words, * for separating the 
 Pelagians and anti- Presbyterian party from the Presbyterian 
 Church.' 
 
 " * Dr. Wilson objected to the word * Pelagian,' in the 
 amendment. In all the charges for false doctrine which he 
 had framed, he had never accused any man of Pelagianism. 
 There is a great deal of semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism 
 in the church ; but if there be Pelagianism I do not know it. 
 If the amendment be adopted, I shall insist on determining 
 the modus operandi of the separation. This is the last Conven- 
 tion I shall ever attend if I live to fourscore. But I mean to 
 know before I leave this Convention what the Old School are 
 to do.' 
 
 " Mr. Brown said : ' I will not consent to menace the Gen- 
 eral Assembly. It is utterly out of place for us to decide for 
 the Assembly and dictate to them.' 
 
 *' Dr. Baxter said : ' I am not prepared for revolutionary 
 measures. To attempt such would be usurpation in us. 
 Even if we proclaim division, and the church sustains us, 
 
146 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 and a new General Assembly is formed out of the orthodox 
 portion of the church, still the whole afifair has a most irregu- 
 lar orif^in.' 
 
 " In the discussions of the general questions of Reform or 
 Separation, a multiplicity of subjects was introduced — the 
 heresies and disorders of certain bodies, plans of union, Con- 
 gregationahsm, Hopkinsianism, New Havenism, Abolition, 
 Slavery, Voluntary Societies, &c. 
 
 *' The debate on a resolution to discountenance the Home 
 Missionary and Education Societies showed the feeling of the 
 Convention in reference to other voluntary societies. 
 
 ** Mr. Breckinridge moved to amend by adding * that other 
 voluntary societies, and especially the American Board of 
 Commissioners for Foreign Missions, be requested to use 
 greater caution in respect to the interference by their agents, 
 in the controversies of the Presbyterian church.' ' I mean 
 this,' said Mr. Breckinridge, ' as an indictment of the Am. B. 
 C. F. Missions.' 
 
 " Mr. Pkimer said : * There has been no evidence furnished 
 to my mind that the bodies here aimed at have done wrong. 
 The improprieties are the improprieties of the agents.' 
 
 •' Mr. Smyth of Charleston, said : * If the language of the 
 amendment be right, as respects the Am. B. C. F. Missions, 
 it is equally applicable to the agents of the Western Foreign 
 Missionary Society, (Old School,) for the agents of that 
 Board have inteifered with us.' 
 
 " Mr. Engles said : ' In the station which I occupy, I have 
 had access to a number of facts illustrating the influence of 
 Voluntary Associations on the controversies of the Presby- 
 terian church. All of them, in a greater or less degree, have 
 meddled. Yet I think the introduction of this amendment 
 unhappy ; it has consumed time, and excited unpleasant feel- 
 ing. Notwithstanding the explanations that have been given 
 of this amendment, it implies strong censure. Of all the so- 
 cieties meant to be reached by it, the Am. Board I believe to 
 be the least obnoxious to such a charge. I could state facts 
 which would show the Sunday School Union and the Tract 
 
REAL GROUlXDS OF THE EXCISION. 147 
 
 Society are much more so, if they are to be held responsible 
 for the doino;s of their accents.' 
 
 " The Convention at la:st agreed upon a Memorial to the 
 General Assembly. It was presented to the Convention by 
 Mr. Breckinridge, the author of the Act and" Testimony, and 
 is much in character with that document, though prepared 
 with more caution. It treats, 1. 'In relation to doctrine.' 2. 
 * In relation to church order.' 3. ' In relation to discipline.' 
 4. 'Method of Reform." — Wood's History of the Fresby- 
 terian Conlroversy, pages 101-108. 
 
 The documentary evidence of a spirit of intolerance and 
 determination to govern the church on the part of our 
 exscinding brethren may be summed up in few words. 
 They have departed from the tolerant principles and 
 spirit of American Presbyterianism as set forth in the adop- 
 ting act of 1729, by requiring an assent to all the minute 
 details of the Confession of Faith, according to their inter- 
 pretation of its language. By the Act and Testimony, sent 
 out in 1834, by the acts of the Convention in Pittsburg, 
 the ensuing May, the secret circular and pamphlet, sent out 
 by " the Confidential Committee," appointed at the secret 
 meeting, held in the Rev. Mr. Blythe's church in Pittsburg 
 in 1 836, and by the Convention held in Philadelphia in 1 837, 
 the ruling spirits of-the revolutionists,' have furnished a mass 
 of evidence, which it would require no small amount of 
 prejudice and credulity to set aside, of their determination 
 to prevent the operation of the Voluntary Societies in the 
 Presbyterian Church, and govern her counsels. These were 
 unquestionably the real reasons of the acts of the Assembly 
 of 1837, which rent the church asunder. The truth of this 
 statement is fully established by their own admissions and 
 avowed purposes. 
 
 In 1831, soon after the unavaihng effort to prevent the 
 settlement of the Rev. Albert Barnes over the 1st Presby- 
 terian Church in Philadelphia, Doct. Green published three 
 numbers in " the Christian Advocate," entitled, " The Present 
 State of the Presbyterian Church." In the first number we 
 
148 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 find the following language : " We speak what we firmly 
 believe, when we say, that unless in the passing year, there 
 is a general waking up of the Old School Presbyterians to a 
 sense of their danger and their duty, iheir injiuence in the 
 General Assembly \i'A\ forever afterward be subordinate, and 
 under ^ control ; and we are willing that all parties should 
 know that such is our con\action." There is no ambiguity 
 in this language. It is a frank admission on the part of 
 the writer that the chief ground of his fears respecting the 
 church was, that the Old School Presbyterians were about to 
 lose forever their controlling influence in the Assembly. 
 
 In his second number he complains that " preconcerted 
 operations and arrangements " had been made by those 
 whom he opposed, to secure a majority in the Assembly, and 
 at the same time admits that his own party had done the 
 same thing. He says, " They had themselves made some 
 exertions to secure a return of such members to the Assem- 
 bly as they believed would favor their cause ; and they did 
 not doubt that their opponents had done the same. But 
 that such an extended, active, and systematic combination 
 had been entered into against them, was as perfectly unknown 
 and unapprehended^by them, till it began to develop itself in 
 the choice of a Moderator, as if the thing had been itself an im- 
 possibility. In military phrase, they had been completely out- 
 generalled, and were taken perfectly by surprise." 
 
 Were this statement accordant with fact, unless the Doc- 
 tor were prepared to condemn his own party for the exer- 
 tions which he admits they made to secure a majority in the 
 Assembly, we see not for what those whom he so severely 
 censures merit his crimination, unless it be that they made 
 greater exertions and succeeded. It would seem that in the 
 Doctor's judgment, it was not the nature, but the amount of 
 the exertion, which they made, for which he condemned 
 them. Their sin, in his estimation, seems to have consisted 
 in the fact that they put forth an amount of effort which de- 
 feated that made by his own party. This is a species of 
 casuistry to which we are not prepared to subscribe. The 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 149 
 
 fact, however, is, that no such combmation as that of which 
 the Doctor speaks had been formed. The " ministers sup- 
 posed to be imphcated by him and by the circular of the 
 Central Committee," published a declaration over their own 
 signatures, in which they say, " We think it, therefore, our 
 duty to the Church and to ourselves, hereby solemnly to de- 
 clare that no one of us knew of any preconcerted plan or 
 effort designed to affect the members, the character, or the 
 measures of the last Assembly." 
 
 We have before stated our belief that the controversy re- 
 specting doctrine had less to do in rending the Church asun- 
 der than that which related to the best means of giving the 
 Gospel to the world. To this fact, the leaders in the so- 
 called measures of reform give their decided testimony. The 
 Doctor, in his second number on the state of the Church, 
 when speaking of the special cause of the excitement in the 
 Assembly of 1831, says, "It is not the case of Mr. Barnes. 
 That case was indeed made an adjunct and auxiliary of the 
 principal cause ; but the cause itself, the baneful apple of 
 discord, which has been thrown into the midst of us, is the 
 inflexible purpose and untiring effort of the Corresponding 
 Secretary and General Agent of the A. H. M. Society to 
 amalgamate the Board of Missions of the General Assembly 
 with that Society.*^ Subsequently he remarks, " In stating 
 the immediate exciting causes of the lamentable divisions, 
 controversies, and alienations, which mark the present state 
 of the Presbyterian Church, we should not do justice to the 
 subject, if we did not set down as the most effective of all, 
 the plans, and measures, and demands of the A. H. M. Soci- 
 ety, and the interference of its members, both in the Gene- 
 ral Assembly and out of it, with the Board of Missions 
 formed and sustained by that judicatory, and directly re- 
 sponsible to it for all its transactions." 
 
 In July of the same year. Dr. Green and the Rev. Messrs. 
 Engles, Potts, and Winchester, and Messrs. M. L. Bevan, S. 
 Allen, and F, Learning, elders, sent out a circular to the 
 7 
 
150 REAL GROUND'S OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 Churches, the object of which, they say, was to rouse them 
 " to a just sense of then- danger and their duty." In this 
 circular they say, " Our Board of Education and Board of 
 Missions must both receive a hberal patronage and a decided 
 support. This is essential — without this we are undone. 
 The voluntary associations that seek to engross the patron- 
 age of the Church, and have already engrossed a large part 
 of it, have taken the start of us in the all-important concerns 
 of education and of missions. They now labor to get the 
 whole of these into their own hands, well knowing that if 
 this be eflfected, they will infallibly, in a very short time, 
 govern the Church ; for education furnishes missionaries, 
 and missionaries become pastors, and pastors with their 
 ruling elders form Church Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods, 
 and General Assemblies. Our Education and Missionary 
 Boards, therefore, we repeat, must be sustained — must be 
 promptly, and liberally, and efficiently patronized, or our 
 Church is gone. We must take from others, so far as it is 
 necessary, to give to these ; and we ought to regard it as a 
 sacred duty to withhold our aid from all institutions that 
 seek to supplant or to rival these." 
 
 In 1831 the Rev. Dr. Wilson, of Cincinnati, attempted to 
 establish four propositions, as before stated, against the 
 claims of the A. H. M. Society, the last of which is in these 
 words : " That the A. H. M. Society, by interference and im- 
 portunity, disturbs the peace and injures the prosperity of 
 the Presbyterian Church." His professed attempt to sup- 
 port this proposition, he closes by saying, "Families are 
 divided, churches are divided, and ministers who once labored 
 together as true yoke-fellows, now shun each other's society. 
 This American Home is to Presbyterians what Campbellism 
 is to the Baptists. And he who can affirm that the opera- 
 tions of this society have not disturbed the peace and injured 
 the prosperity of the Presbyterian Chiu'ch, may as easily say 
 that the morning was never spread upon the mountains — 
 that the sun never shone at noon." These statements he 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 151 
 
 follows with tliG remark, " The origin, organization, and op- 
 erations of the A. H. M. Society prove clearly to me that 
 the overthrow of Presbyterianism, as it now exists, is a lead- 
 ing object with those who understand the whole scheme." 
 
 In the Convention, held in Philadelphia, May, 1837, Mr. 
 Musgrave, when speaking of the Voluntary Societies, said : 
 ** I call them not benevolent, but party engines. But wc 
 forget the machinery that is at work against us, manufactur- 
 ing and sending out ministers so rapidly, that if we simply 
 wait, discuss, and do not act in twelve months, our case will 
 be entirely hopeless. Some of our brethren are already 
 clear that the present state of things is no longer tolerable. 
 They will have a reform or separation. Is it not clear that 
 the institutions, which divide and ruin us, must be destroy- 
 ed ?"* 
 
 " The debate on a resolution to discountenance the Home 
 Missionary and Education Societies showed the feelings o-f 
 the Convention in reference to other Voluntary Societies, 
 
 " Mr. Breckinridge moved to amend by adding * that other 
 Voluntary Societies, and especially the A. B. C. F. Missions, 
 be requested to use greater caution in respect to the inter- 
 ferexice by their agents, in the conti-oversies of the Presby- 
 terian Church. I mean this,' said Mr. Breckinridge, ' as an 
 indictment of the- A. B. C. F. Missions.' "f 
 
 In the pamphlet sent out by the " Confidential Commit- 
 tee" appointed at the recent meeting held in Mr. Blythe's 
 Church in Pittsburg, they say expressly — " whatever else 
 may be dark, this is clear, we cannot continue in the same 
 hoihj. In some way or other, therefore, these men must be 
 separated from us." 
 
 Mr. Witherspoon, the Moderator of the Assembly, when 
 returning from the meeting at which the Confidential Com- 
 mittee just alluded to was appointed, *' remarked to a gen- 
 tleman who accosted him on the subject of the meeting, 
 
 *n. Wood's History^ page 106, 
 f Ibid, page 107. 
 
152 REAL GROUNDS OP THE EXCISION. 
 
 * the die is cast ; the Church is to be divided,' Since that, 
 a letter from Mr. Witherspoon has been seen, which ex- 
 presses the same sentiment."* 
 
 After the meeting of the Assembly of 1836, the papers, 
 which were in the interests of the party, openly advoca,ted 
 the division of the Church. '' The editor of the Western 
 Presbyterian Herald, (3d Nov., 1836), speaking as though 
 division was certain, says : * As to which way the work will 
 go, surely when intruders have disturbed our house, and 
 will neither come to order, nor quietly leave us, upon mutual 
 agreement, ive will inU them out as soon as we are strong 
 enough ; and the signs of the times are beginning to inti- 
 mate, that this may be sooner than any of us expected a 
 little while ago."f 
 
 ** A Correspondent" of the Presbyterian, in speaking of 
 the object of the Convention, to meet in Philadelphia, May, 
 1837, said : " Let it be distinctly understood, that the pre- 
 cise object for which it is called, is to effect a division of the 
 Church, and to dehberate on the manner of accomplishing 
 that great and noble work. "J 
 
 *' The Assembly of 1837, after the excision, in their Pas- 
 toral Letter, say : * Discerning men have perceived, for a 
 number of years, that the affairs of our beloved Church 
 were hastening to a crisis, and when the members of the 
 present Assembly came together, the state of the parties 
 was such, as to make it manifest that a division of the 
 Church was the most desirable object that could be ef- 
 fected."'§ 
 
 In the Convention of 1837, Mr. Musgrave said : "Let us 
 settle this, that if the New School have the majority in the 
 next Assembly, we are a dead minority. — If the last Assem- 
 bly, and other Assemblies, have not brough t up the Church 
 to secure a majority, all hope is gone. — If the next Assem- 
 
 *Plea for Voluntary Societies, page 1G7. 
 f H. Wood's History, page 90. 
 
 X Ibid, page 97. § Ibid, page 98. 
 
REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 153 
 
 bly be Old School, what shall we do ? If reform be im- 
 possible, the imperative alternative is separation. Let us 
 chng together and strive for victory, or fall in the effort."* 
 
 '* Dr. Junkin said: *We must not count on a majority ; 
 let us have some settled principles. Do not trust a New 
 School majority to arraign and cut off New School men and 
 New School Presbyteries. If we have a majority, we can 
 do what we please ; and we know what we shall do, we 
 must be prepared for amputation, difficult and painful as 
 it is.' " 
 
 " The Convention found it difficult to agree upon a plan 
 of action, provided they should be a minority in the Assem- 
 bly. Dr. Junkin urged the Convention in such a case, * at 
 once to bring in its ultimatum, and say — we are determined 
 as one man, that unless this reform is immediately effected, 
 we will cut you off. We are the Presbyterian Church ; you 
 are not, but are undermining its foundations.' "f 
 
 The Rev. R. L. Breckinridge, in the course of the debate 
 in the Assembly upon the resolutions to cut off the four 
 Synods, made the frank avowal, in these or words of the 
 same import, "Moderator, I am aware the' Constitution 
 makes no provision for acts like these ; but the fact is, we 
 have the power in our hands now, and we must use it, for 
 the Church will never give it to us ao-ain." This is a frank 
 admission of the unconstitutionality of the measure ; that if 
 carried, it would be an act of mere arbitrary power. 
 
 Admitting what the fathers and brethren whose language 
 we have just quoted, have said respecting their zeal for the 
 purity of the Church, from their own admissions it is evident 
 the chief ground of their solicitude, was the fear that the 
 influence of their party was ever after to be subordinate — 
 that they would "be a dead minority," unless something 
 were immediately done to prevent so dire a calamity. In 
 order to avert it, and secure the power for which they were 
 laboring, they deemed it indispensable that the operation of 
 *II. Wood's History, page 104. f Ibid, page 105. 
 
154 REAL GROUNDS OF THE EXCISION. 
 
 the voluntary societies in the Presbyterian Church should 
 cease. To ensure this, they resolved by some means or 
 other, to rid themselves of a sufficient number of the friends 
 of these institutions, to secure and perpetuate the power of 
 their party and secure to their favorite organizations the 
 entire patronage of the Church. This is what Constitutional 
 Presbyterians have uniformly said was the real ground of 
 those revolutionary and unrighteous acts, which rent the 
 Church asunder. We hope we shall no longer be censured 
 for believing what is fully attested by leading men of their 
 own party. 
 
MEASURES TAKEN BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PORTION OF THE CUURCH TO 
 PRESERVE ITS INTEGRITY, AND PREVENT THE ORGANIZATION OF AN 
 
 IRREGULAR ASSEMBLY. THEY SUCCEEDED IN ORGANIZING IT IN STRICT 
 
 ACCORDANCE "WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
 To the meeting of the Assembly of 1838, both the ex- 
 scinders and iheiv adherents, and the exscinded, and those 
 who were resolved to do their utmost to redress their griev- 
 ances, looked forward with interest. By both parties it was 
 well understood that the manner of its organization must 
 decide whether the acts of the Assembly of 1837, by which 
 the four Synods were declared out of the church, and the 
 Third Presbytery of Philadelphia was dissolved, were to be 
 sanctioned, and the church permanently divided, or this sad 
 catastrophe prevented, and the exscinded restored to the 
 position which they had previously occupied. The Assembly 
 which thrust them out, left nothinor within the limit of their 
 ability unattempted for carrying out their revolutionary and 
 unrighteous measures. That this statement may be made 
 intelligible to those who are not familiar with the method of 
 making out the roll of the Assembly, preparatory to its or- 
 ganization, it may be proper to state that the commissions 
 are required to be put into the hands of the clerks, who are 
 a committee to receive them, and enter the names of the 
 commissioners upon the roll of the Assembly. The Assem- 
 bly of 1S37 required and obtained a pledge from this com- 
 mittee that in making out the roll of the commissioners to con- 
 
156 EFFORTS TO SECURE A 
 
 stitute the Assembly of 1838, they would omit the names of 
 those from the Presbyteries within the bounds of the exscinded 
 Synods. This, the constitutional party, were resolved, if 
 possible, to prevent. Beheving the excision of the Synods 
 to have been an act of arbitrary power, in direct contravention 
 of the principles of the Constitution of the Church, they de- 
 termined to omit nothing which they could do with pro- 
 priety, to secure to the Commissioners from the Presbyteries 
 within the bounds of the disowned Synods, seats in the As- 
 sembly. Of this, unpropitious as were tlie circumstances, 
 they did not despair. They knew there were many excellent 
 men who, in church polity and doctrinal views, were sub- 
 stantially agreed with the exscinders, who, nevertheless, dis- 
 approved of their exscinding acts. These, it was hoped, 
 would put forth some effort to procure their repeal. It was 
 also hoped, some who voted, and others who at first at- 
 tempted to vindicate those acts, after a year's reflection, 
 would see and acknowledge their error, and " bring forth 
 fruits meet for repentance." Such were the hopes of the 
 members of the Convention at Auburn, New York, in Aug., 
 1837. The first paragraph of their circular letter " to the 
 Judicatories, Ministers, and Members of the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States," is in these words : 
 
 ** Brethren, beloved in the Lord : 
 " You will perceive from the published minutes of the 
 Convention, that we have come mianimously to the conclu- 
 sion that the integrity of our church is not to be despaired of, 
 and that the apprehended evils of division on tlie one hand, 
 and the hope of deliverance on the other, together with our 
 solemn vows to seek her prosperity, demand our united en- 
 deavors to restore her peace, and perpetuate her unity. This 
 result has been obtained after much deliberation and prayer, 
 and the ^consideration of many documents and letters from 
 different and distant sections of the church, indicative of a 
 very extensive and increasing disapprobation of those acts of 
 
REGULAR ASSEMBLY. 157 
 
 the late General Assemblyj of wliicli "we complain, as unjust 
 and oppressive." 
 
 The concluding language of this letter is equally pacific 
 and hopeful with that with which it commences. They say, 
 — " In a representation of the whole church, by such men as 
 the exigencies of her danger may convene, we cannot doubt 
 that the rights of conscience, and the preference of the two 
 great divisions of the church, may be amicably adjusted. 
 Nor do we believe it to be true that wounds have been in- 
 flicted which cannot be healed, or alienations created which 
 cannot be reconciled. For though we have been tried by 
 each other's language, our temptations and sins have not, 
 we trust, vacated our confidence in each other's Christian 
 character, or created the ranklings of a personal hostility, or 
 obliterated the remembrance of those years of prosperity 
 through which some of us have travelled from early life to 
 gray hairs, and the verge of heaven. And we cannot be 
 willing that a revolutionary revulsion of the church, so late 
 in time, and so near the church's glorious day, should go 
 down in such dark imagery upon the page of her history. 
 We entreat, therefore, the judicatories of the church to send 
 to the next Assembly those who will reverse the revolu- 
 tionary action begun, and by the favor of heaven, once more 
 pacificate the church. But should our efforts to restore the 
 harmonious action of our church be unavailing, it will be a 
 melancholy pleasure worth preserving, to reflect that we 
 have done what we could. Moreover, if the church must 
 divide, it is still important that our common Christianity, and 
 our institutions of civil liberty, should be rescued from the 
 peril and disgrace of a violent division, and that under auspi- 
 ces different from those that ruled in the hour of her calam- 
 ity, she may be peaceably and amicably divided." 
 
 In accordance with the views presented in these extracts, 
 
 from the circular letter of the Auburn Convention, and for 
 
 the purpose of securing the objects at which they aimed, on 
 
 the Monday evening preceding the meeting of the General 
 
 7^ 
 
158 EFFORTS TO SECURE A 
 
 Assscmbly, a Convention met in the First Presbyterian 
 Church in the city of Philadelphia, for consultation and 
 prayer. The evening was spent in devotional exercises, in 
 the presence of a large and deeply interested congregation. 
 In the pubhshed account of the exercises, it is stated that 
 ** It was most evident that God was present on the occasion ; 
 and all felt as if such a spirit of prayer and conciliation, and 
 fraternal harmony and aflfection, was a token for good. Not 
 a word was uttered, nor an allusion made during the whole 
 of the services, but what was conciliating and kind." To 
 this Convention all the Commissioners to the General Assem- 
 bly were invited. 
 
 The next morning a Convention met *' for prayer and con- 
 sultation," in the Seventh Presbyterian Church in Philadel- 
 phia, to which no Commissioners to the approaching Assem- 
 bly were invited nor admitted, except such as were in favor 
 of sustaining the revolutionary measures of the previous As- 
 sembly. 
 
 While these two Conventions were in session, the Consti- 
 tutional one adopted the following resolutions, viz. : — 
 
 ** Resolved 1. That while we regard with deep sorrow 
 the existing difficulties in our beroved church, we would 
 fondly hope that there are no insurmountable obstacles m 
 the way of arresting the calamity of a violent dismember- 
 ment, and of securing such an organization as may avoid 
 collision, and secure the blessings of a perpetual harmonious 
 action. 
 
 *' Resolved 2. That we are ready to co-operate in any 
 efforts for pacification, which are constitutional, and which 
 shall recognize the regular standing and secure the rights of 
 the entire church, including those portions which the acts of 
 the last Assembly were intended to exclude. 
 
 " Resolved 3. That a Committee of three be now ap- 
 pointed, respectfully to communicate the foregoing resolu- 
 tions to those Commissioners who are at present inclined to 
 sustain the acts of the last General Assembly, and t i 
 
REGULAR ASSEMBLY. 159 
 
 quire whether it be their pleasure to open a friendly confer- 
 ence for the purpose of ascertaining if some constitutional 
 terms, if practicable, may not be agreed upon."* 
 
 The Hon. Willard Hall and the llev. Drs. Hill aud Fisher 
 were appointed a committee to communicate these resolu- 
 tions to the commissioners, convened in the Seventh Presby- 
 terian Church, for deliberation. 
 
 " It was resolved to spend a season of prayer for the 
 Divine blessing upon this attempt to adjust amicably the 
 difficulties between the two parties. All felt this to be a 
 most solemn and critical moment, and an unusual spirit of 
 prayer w^as manifest."* 
 
 On the afternoon of the following day, this committee 
 made their report. They were " not permitted to enter the 
 house where the Old School Convention was convened — they 
 were kept standing without for forty minutes, and were 
 finall}'- told by a committee appointed to confer with them, 
 that the subject would be presented for the consideration of 
 the Convention, and that the result would be communicated 
 in writing. The following is the communication :" 
 
 *' The Committee on the communication from the meeting 
 of Convention now in session in the lecture-room of the First 
 Church, presented the following preamble and resolutions, 
 which were read -and adopted, viz. : — 
 
 " Whereas, the resolutions of ' the meeting,' whilst they 
 profess a readiness ' to co-operate in any efforts for pacifica- 
 tion which ai-e constitutional,' manifestly proceed upon the 
 erroneous supposition that the acts of the last General As- 
 sembly, declaring the four Synods of the Western Reserve, 
 Utica, Geneva, and Genesee, out of the ecclesiastical connec- 
 tion of our church, were unconstitutional and invalid, and 
 the Convention cannot for a moment consent to consider 
 them in that light ; therefore, 
 
 " 1. Resolved, unanimoubly, That the Convention regard 
 the said overture of 'the meeting,' however intended, as 
 founded upon a basis which is wholly inadmissible, and as 
 *New York Observer, May 20111, 1838. 
 
160 EFFORTS TO SECURE A 
 
 calculated only to disturb that peace of our Church, which 
 a calm and firm adherence to those constitutional, just, and 
 necessary acts of the last General Assembly, can alone, by 
 the blessing of Divine Providence, establish and secure. 
 
 *' 2. Resolved, That in the judgment of the Convention, the 
 resolutions of the last General Assembly, which provide in 
 substance that all churches and ministers within the said 
 four Synods, which ai-e strictly Presbyterian in doctrine and 
 order, and wish to unite with us, may apply for admission 
 into those Presbyteries belonging to our connection, which 
 are most convenient to their tespective locations, and that 
 any such Presbytery as aforesaid, being strictly Presbyterian 
 in doctrine and order, and now in connection with either of 
 the said Synods, as may desire to imite with us, are directed 
 to make application, with a full statement of the case, to the 
 next General Assembly, which will take order thereon, fur- 
 nishes a fair and easy mode of proceeding, by which all such 
 ministers, churches, and Presbyteries, within the said Sy- 
 nods, as are really desirous to be 'recognized' as in 'regular 
 standing' with us, and as proper parts of our ' entire Church,* 
 may obtain their object without trouble and without delay.'"''^ 
 
 These resolutions in reply to the pacific overtures of the 
 Convention, sitting in the 1st Presbyterian Church, blasted 
 all the hopes that had been entertained by them, of an ami- 
 cable adjustment of the difficulties which threatened the 
 permanent division of the Church. Previous to the adop- 
 tion of these resolutions, the Convention bad resolved " that 
 the acts of the last General Assembly, declaring the four 
 Synods of Western Reserve, Utica, Geneva, and Genesee out 
 of the ecclesiastical connection of the said Church, be cor- 
 dially and conclusively sustained. "f 
 
 Their whole proceedings made it manifest as the light of 
 noon-day, that the only pacification, which they contem- 
 plated, was that of passive obedience to their rule and dicta- 
 tion. Nothing now remained for the Constitutional party> 
 
 * Ivew York Observer, May 20th, 1838, f Ibid. 
 
REGULAR ASSEMBLY. 161 
 
 but to bow to their usurped and unrighteous authority, or 
 endeavor to secure the organization of the Assembly in ac- 
 cordance with the principles of the Constitution. In view of 
 the uncertainty of the success of the pacific overture, made 
 to their brethren of the other Convention, while the negotia- 
 tions for pacification were pending, the following resolution 
 was introduced and subsequently passed, with but one or two 
 votes in the negative, viz. : 
 
 " Resolved, That should a portion of the Commissioners 
 to the next General Assembly attempt to organize the As- 
 sembly without admitting to their seats commissioners from 
 all the Presbyteries recognized in the organization of the 
 General Assembly of 1837 — it will then be the duty of the 
 commissioners present, to organize the General Assembly of 
 1838, in all respects according to the Constitution, and to 
 transact all other necessary business consequent upon such 
 organization."* 
 
 Such was the position of the two parties when the time 
 for the meeting of the Assembly arrived. Those who met 
 in Convention in the 7th Presbyterian Church, were resolved 
 to sustain the revolutionary acts of the last Assembly, and 
 exclude from the one about to be organized all commission- 
 ers from the Presbyteries within ihe bounds of the disowned 
 Synods. Those -who met in the 1st Church, were resolved 
 to use all lawful measures to prevent an organization so 
 manifestly unconstitutional and unrighteous, and secure 
 one in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. 
 The meetino: of the two conventions on the eve of the meet- 
 ing of the Assembly, one to sustain the revolutionary acts of 
 that of the previous year ; — the other, if possible, to annul 
 them, and secure the integrity of the Church, and public 
 rumor, had produced great excitement and called together a 
 large concourse of people. The Assembly met in the 7th 
 Presbyterian Church. " At an early hour the Reformers 
 were found in a body near the pulpit, and the two doors near 
 * New York Observer, May 26tb, 1838. 
 
162 EFFORTS TO SECURE A 
 
 the Moderator's cliair, locked,"— a thing believed to be 
 wholly unprecedented in the annals of the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States. The Commissioners, who 
 were opposed to the arbitrary acts of the Assembly of the 
 previous year, were compelled to enter the door in the rear 
 of the church and take seats behind their brethren, who had 
 taken possession of those near the pulpit. 
 
 The sermon being ended, the Rev. Doct. ElUot, the Mod- 
 erator of the last Assembly, announced that the General 
 Assembly would be constituted with prayer. After prayer, 
 before the Clerk had presented the roll of the Assembly, the 
 Rev. Dr. Patton offered the following preamble and resolu- 
 tions, viz : 
 
 " Whereas, the General Assembly of 183 7 adopted certain 
 resolutions intended to deprive certain Presbyteries of the 
 right to be represented in the General Assembly; — and 
 whereas, the more fully to accomplish their purpose, the said 
 Assembly of 1837 did require and receive from theu* clerks 
 a pledge or promivse, that they would, in making out the 
 roll of commissioners to constitute the General Assembly of 
 1838, omit to insert therein the names of commissioners from 
 said Presbyteries; — and whereas the said clerks, having 
 been requested by commissioners from the said Presbytt-ries 
 to receive their commissions and enter their names on the Roll 
 of the General Assembly of 1838, now about to be organ- 
 ized, have refused to receive and enter the same — Therefore, 
 " 1. Resolved, That such attempts on the part of the Gen- 
 eral Assembly of 1837 and their clerks, to direct and control 
 the organization of the General Assembly of 1838, are uncon- 
 stitutional, and in derogation of its just rights as the general 
 representative judicatory of the whole Presbyterian Church 
 in the United States of America. 
 
 "2. Resolved, That the General Assembly cannot be 
 legally constituted except by admitting to seats and to 
 equahty of powers, in the first instance, all commissioners, 
 who present the usual evidences of their appointment ; and 
 
REGULAR ASSEMBLY. 1GB 
 
 that it is the duty of the clerks, and they are hereby direct- 
 ed, to form the Roll of the General Assembly of 1838, by 
 including therein the names of all commissioners from Pres- 
 byteries belonging to the said Presbyterian Church, not 
 omitting the commissioners from the several Presbyteries 
 within the bounds of the Synods of Utica, Geneva, Genesee, 
 and the Western Reserve ; and in all things to form the said 
 Roll according to the known practice and estabhshed usage 
 of previous General Assemblies."* 
 
 The Moderator declared Dr. Patton out of order, as the 
 first business was the formation of the Roll. Dr. Patton re- 
 plied that the resolutions had reference to its formation, and 
 that if permitted to present them, he would do so without 
 remark. The Moderator again declared him out of order. 
 Dr. Patton appealed from this decision. The Moderator 
 declared the appeal out of order, and refused to put it. Dr. 
 Patton then took his seat without readino- the resolutions. 
 
 The Clerk then read the roll of the Commissioners, omit- 
 ting those from the disowned Synods. 
 
 The Moderator then stated that if other commissioners 
 were present, whose names had not been entered on the roll, 
 they could then present them. 
 
 The Rev. Erskine Mason, D.D., one of the enrolled mem- 
 bers, then rose~"and said, " Moderator, I hold in my hand a 
 number of commissions which the clerks have rejected : I 
 now tender them to the house, and move that their names be 
 added to the roll." The Moderator declared the motion out 
 of order. Dr. Mason then appealed to the house, but the 
 Moderator refused to put the appeal. By this refusal, the 
 rights of Dr. Mason, and the rights of the house, were inva- 
 ded, and a question of privilege, which takes the precedence 
 of all other questions, and is always in order, was raised. 
 Decisions by the presiding officer of a deliberative body, more 
 arbitrary and unrighteous, cannot well be conceived. They 
 were in direct conflict with the 29th of the general rules, 
 
 * S. Miller's, Jun. Ileport of the Presbyterian Church case, p. 51. 
 
164 EFFORTS TO SECURE A 
 
 for tlie government of Church Judicatories in the transaction 
 of their business, which is in these words, viz. : 
 
 " If any member consider himself as aggrieved by a decis- 
 ion of the Moderator, it shall be his privilege to appeal to the 
 judicatory ; and the question on such appeal shall be taken 
 without debate." 
 
 After Doctor Mason had taken his seat, " The Rev. Miles 
 P. Squier rose in his place, and said, that he had been regu- 
 larly commissioned from the Presbytery of Geneva, that he 
 had handed his commission to the Clerks, and that they had 
 refused to receive it ; that he tendered it to the Assembly, 
 and demanded his seat upon that floor. I'he Moderator asked 
 whether the Presbytery of Geneva belonged to the Synod of 
 Geneva ? On being told that it did, the Moderator said, 
 * We do not know you,' and Mr. Squier sat down."* 
 
 The Rev. John P. Cleveland then rose and said in sub- 
 stance, ** As the Commissioners from a large number of Pres- 
 byteries have been denied their seats in this house, and as we 
 have been advised by counsel learned in the law, that a Con- 
 stitutional Assembly must be organized at this time and place, 
 he trusted it would not be considered an act of discourtesy, 
 but merely of necessity, if we now proceed to organize the As- 
 sembly of 1838, in the fewest words and in the shortest time, 
 and with the least interruption practicable. I therefore move 
 that Doctor N". S. S. Beman, from the Presbytery of Troy, 
 take the chair." This motion was put by Mr. Cleveland and 
 carried, a few voices only being heard in the negative, and 
 Doctor Beman was declared duly elected. 
 
 The Rev. Doctor Mason and the Rev. E. W. Gilbert were 
 then chosen clerks. Doctor Beman then called for nomina- 
 tions for a Moderator. Doctor Fisher was nominated, and 
 chosen by an overwhelming majority. Doctor Beman then 
 declared Doctor Fisher elected, and resigned his place to him. 
 Doctor Fisher took it, and called for nominations for Clerks. 
 Doctor Mason and Mr. Gilbert were nominated, and elected. 
 * Presbyterian Church case, by S. Miller, Jun., page 80. 
 
REGULAR ASSEMBLY. . 165 
 
 A motion was then made and carried to adjourn to the Lecture 
 Room of the First Presbyterian Church. Doctor Fisliergave 
 notice of the adjournment, and requested any Commissioners 
 present who had not yet handed in their Commissions, to do 
 so at the place and time to which the Assembly had ad- 
 journed. 
 
 After the Assembly thus organized had left the church, 
 " the Commissioners, who adhered to the acts of the As- 
 sembly of 1837, having with few exceptions taken no part in 
 the transaction, organized themselves into an Assembly, and 
 have subsequently taken measures to divide the Presbyterian 
 Church by organizing into separate Synods, Presbyteries and 
 Churches, such minorities in different parts of the country as 
 adhered to them, and when they had the majority, casting 
 out such minorities as adhered to this " (that is, the Consti- 
 tutional) "Assembly."* 
 
 These are indeed afflictive and humiliating events to be 
 placed upon the pages of history, but Constitutional Pres- 
 byterians do not feel themselves responsible for them. In 
 1837 they labored to prevent the passage of the exscinding 
 acts, and in 1838 the organization of an irregular Assembly. 
 Though unsuccessful in these efforts, they organized the As- 
 sembly in strict conformity with the Constitution, before the 
 exscinders organized theh's upon their new basis. This they 
 did in as courteous and orderly a manner as the circum- 
 stances admitted, but the act has been severely censured, and 
 even ridiculed. In the circumstances, it is manifest the As- 
 sembly could not be constitutionally organized without ex- 
 citement and some confusion, for the Moderator, Clerks, and 
 Commissioners, who approved and were determined to sus- 
 tain the acts of the previous Assembly, declaring the four 
 Synods out of the Presbyterian Church, were leagued to- 
 gether to prevent it. Any one, however, who will read with 
 candor the testimony of the witnesses at the trial, insti- 
 tuted for deciding which of the two Assemblies was consti- 
 
 * Minutes of the Constitutional Assembly for 1S39, page 59. 
 
166 EFFORTS TO SECURF A 
 
 tutionally organized, cannot fail to be convinced tlmt the ac- 
 counts of the excitement and noise at the time of the oro-an- 
 ization, are gross exaggerations, and that a large share of 
 what was really objectionable is chargeable to their own 
 party. The fact is, the Commissioners, who were opposed 
 to the organization of an irregular Assembly, were laid un- 
 der the necessity of org-anizing one at that time and place in 
 conformity with the Constitution, or see it trampled upon, 
 and abandon their principles and their brethren, who had 
 been ruthlessly cast out of the Church. The latter they 
 could not do. Nothing therefore remained for them but to 
 remove the Moderator and Clerks who refused to do their 
 duty, and elect such to fill their places as would aid in or- 
 ganizing a regular Assembly. This they did, and thereby 
 secured such an organization. 
 
 Those who opposed it, and subsequently organized an As- 
 sembly on a new basis, have often asserted, but never proved 
 that Mr. Cleveland had no right to put the motion for Doctor 
 Beman to take the chair, till a new Moderator should be 
 chosen. If the action of Congress, in similar circumstances, is 
 to be regarded as valid authority, he had a perfect right to 
 put the motion. 
 
 *' The Twenty- Sixth Congress met on the second of De- 
 cember, 1839. According to" established usage, "the Clerk 
 of the House of Representatives takes the chair till the organ- 
 ization of tjie body is completed. The Clerk at the proper 
 time and place, when the members came together, commenced 
 calling the roll. He proceeded with the States till he came to 
 New Jersey. He then proposed passing over her represen- 
 atives, as their seats would be contested. Passing over these 
 members would probably give to the Clerk's party the balance 
 of power in the organization, election of speaker, &c. Here 
 business came to a stand. The Clerk was unwilling to pro- 
 ceed, except in his own way. On the fourth day Mr. Adams 
 rose and said : 
 
 * Fellow-citizens and members elect of the Twenty-Sixth 
 
REGULAR ASSEMBLY. 167 
 
 Congress of the United States — I address rayself to you, and 
 not to the Clerk in the chair, under a painful sense of my own 
 duty. The Clerk has said, he will not proceed in the call, 
 according to established usage and custom. He discovered 
 yesterday that he might put the question of adjournment. 
 He therefore put it ; but he gave notice that he should put 
 no other question. Fellow-citizens, in Avhat predicament are 
 we placed ? We are fixed as firml}'- and immovably as these 
 columns around the house. We can neither go forward nor 
 backward, and the Clerk tells us he will persist in both the 
 decisions he has made. We must organize. If there is diffi- 
 culty in relation to any portion of us, we must do what Mr. 
 Jefferson said was done when Lord Dunmore dissolved the 
 legislature of Virginia on a sudden. What did they do? 
 They adjourned to a tavern, they constituted themselves a 
 convention, and they acted as the legislature of the State or 
 Colony. They actually, instead of being assembled in the 
 place from which the Governor had excluded them, adjourn- 
 ed to another place, formed themselves into a Convention, 
 and there acted in the name of the State. I call upon you 
 in the name of the people to organize. I call upon the house 
 to set aside entirely his decisions, and to act for themselves. 
 I have no doubt of their power to do it. Therefore, in sub- 
 mitting this proposition, I have no reference to the clerk, nor 
 to any opinion of his. I propose that the house itself should 
 act. It may, if it pleases, choose a temporary Clerk.' 
 
 *' These extracts from Mr. Adams' speech will show how 
 Conjxressmen feel in a case in which an officer refuses to do 
 his duty. Mr. Adams was repeating his call upon the House 
 to act, regardless of the gentleman in the chair, when he was 
 interrupted by many members asking, ' How shall the ques- 
 tion be put V Mr. Adams replied, raising his voice above 
 the tumult : * I intend to put the question.' Mr. Adams 
 was accordingly soon nominated, and elected to act as chair- 
 man, till the house could be organized, and a speaker ap- 
 pointed." 
 
168 EFFORTS TO SECURE A 
 
 " Here is, then, a case in point. Has any one contended 
 that Mr. Adams had no right to put the question ? Has 
 any one said that the Twenty-Sixth Congress ^Yas not con- 
 stitutionally organized, because the gentleman in the chair 
 was removed and another put in his place ?"* 
 
 " And how very similar the two organizations ! The 
 Moderator of one body and the clerk of the other, according 
 to law, were acting as chairman till the organization of the 
 bodies, and the election of presiding officers. The chairman 
 of each body refuses to enroll certain members claiming seats, 
 with commissions in proper form. They refuse to put mo- 
 tions bearing upon the roll. Mr. Cleaveland in one body, and 
 Mr. Adams in the other, rise and call upon the members to 
 organize — to act regardless of the decisions of the chair, and 
 appoint other officers who will organize according to law 
 and usage. And the thing was done. There was opposi- 
 tion and cries of order from those who were opposed to the 
 organization. But the voices of Mr. Adams and Mr. Cleave- 
 land rose above the swelling tumult — above the cries of or- 
 der, the coughing and scraping of the opposition, and were 
 heard by all who wanted to hear."* 
 
 The Assembly organized under Doct. Fisher as Moderator 
 and Doct. Mason and Mr. Gilbert as Clerks, was not a dif- 
 ferent one, as those who trampled upon the Constitution by 
 refusing to enter upon the roll of the House the names of a 
 portion of the Commissioners, and their adherents have often 
 asserted, but the continuation of the one in the process of 
 formation, which could not be completed under its original 
 officers. Had their refusal to do their duty been the result 
 of a sudden ebullition of bad temper, — a mere temporary ex- 
 citement, they would soon have passed away, and with them, 
 the obstacles to a regular orfyanization. But it was not. It 
 was the result of a settled, avowed purpose to carry out the 
 revolutionary measures of the Assembly of the previous 
 year. Hence the Commissioners to the Assembly of 1838, 
 * Wood's History, pages 156, 157. 
 
REGULAIi ASSEMBLY. 169 
 
 who removed those officers, and appointed others, who per- 
 formed their duty, and admitted all who presented Com- 
 missions in due form of their appointment by their Presby- 
 teries, to seats in the House, completed the organization of a 
 strictly Constitutional Assembly. 
 
THE ASSEMBLY, WHICH HELD ITS SESSIONS IN THE SEVENTU PKESBYTERIAW 
 CHURCH IN 1888, WAS ORGANIZED UPON A BASIS WHOLLY UNKNOWN 
 TO OUR CONSTITUTION. 
 
 The Form of Government, Chapter XII., section 2d, reads 
 thus : ** The General Assembly shall consist of an equal 
 delegation of Bishops and Elders from each Presbytery. A 
 large number of Bishops and Elders, appointed by their res- 
 pective Presbyteries to attend the Assembly of 1S38, went to 
 the place of meeting with Commissions made out in due form, 
 against whom no charge of heresy or irregularty had been 
 substantiated or even brought. They were, it is true, from 
 Presbyteries within the bounds of the disowned Synods. It 
 has been shown, however, in a previous part of this his- 
 tory, that the acts of the Assembly by which they were 
 declared no longer in connection with the Presbyterian Church 
 in these United States, were unconstitutional and void. 
 Consequently their Commissioners were as fully entitled to 
 seats as those from other sections of the Church. But those 
 who had declared them out of the church and their coad- 
 jutors, had taken every precautionary measure to prevent 
 them from obtaining seats in the Assembly. The Assembly 
 of the previous year had required and obtained a pledge 
 from the Clerks that they would not receive their Commis- 
 sions. This pledge they redeemed. The Commissioners, 
 who held their Convention in the church in which the As- 
 sembly was organized, took their seats near the pulpit at an 
 early hour, caused the doors on each side of it to be locked, 
 
THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY. 171 
 
 and obtained a pledge from the Trustees of the church that 
 no other Assembly than the one which should be organized 
 under the direction of the Moderator and Clerks of the last 
 Assembly, should have the use of the building. Had it 
 been their purpose to organize the Assembly according to the 
 Constitution, these unprecedented measures, preparatory to 
 its organization, would have been wholly unnecessary. Stick- 
 lers as they professedly were for the Constitution, in their 
 efforts to organize the Assembly, they utterly disregarded its 
 requisitions. They labored to perfect the revolution, com- 
 menced by the Assembly of the previous year, till the 
 Moderator and Clerks were removed, and the Assembly was 
 regularly organized by the appointment of others, who per- 
 formed their duty. After the Assembly thus constitutionally 
 organized had adjourned to the First Presbyterian Church, 
 they remained, and organized an Assembly upon a *' new 
 basis." This is evident from the report of '* the Committee on 
 the State of the Church," adopted by that body on the 30th 
 of May. This report we present entire, that our readers 
 may have the evidence of the truth of what we assert in 
 their own language. The report is as follows, viz : 
 
 *' The Presbyterian Church in the United States of Ameri- 
 ca finds itself, by the providence of God, in the course of 
 new and unprecedented events, in a position of great diffi- 
 culty, novelty and importance. The Church, led and sup- 
 ported by the God of Zion, has within the last few years 
 commenced a great reform, which had become indispensable 
 to its very existence, as organized on the principles of the 
 doctrine and order of its own Constitution. The General 
 Assembly of 1837 carried forward this reform in several 
 measures of great and momentous importance, for the de- 
 tails of which we refer to its records. The voice of the 
 Church, uttered in a multitude of forms, and especially by 
 the Commissioners to the present General Assembly, is 
 clearly and decisively in favor of consummating the reform 
 thus auspiciously commenced." 
 
172 THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY 
 
 *' But a portion of the Ministers and Ruling Elders, sent 
 to this Assembly, forgetting or violating, as we apprehend, 
 their duty to God and to the Church, and choosing to de- 
 part from us, have, in connection with other persons not in 
 the communion of our Church, constituted a new ecclesias- 
 tical organization, which they improperly and unjustly as- 
 sume to call the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States of America. To meet the 
 present crisis at once, with the temper and sphit becoming 
 our high vocation, and to preserve in it, and carry safely 
 through it, the Church committed in so great a degree to 
 our guidance, in times of so much trial and disorder, the 
 three following Acts are now ordained and established, by 
 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States of America." 
 
 *'ACT. I. 
 
 "Section 1st. That in the present state of the Church, 
 all the Presbyteries in our connection ought to take order, 
 and are hereby enjoined to take such order as is consistent 
 with this minute, for the general reform and pacification of 
 the Church ; and they are directed so to do some time be- 
 tween the dissolution of the present General Assembly and 
 the fall meetings of the Synods, either at stated, or at 'pro re 
 nata meetings of the Presbyteries, as shall seem most advi- 
 sable to them respectively. And those presbyteries whose 
 commissioners to this Assembly have united with others in 
 the formation of another Assembly, in the presence of this, 
 and with tumult and violence in open contempt of it ; or 
 who have advised the formation of said body, or adhered 
 to, or attended it as members thereof, after its formation, 
 renounced, or refused to recognize this true and only Gen- 
 eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States of America, are hereby required to take proper order 
 in regard to their said commissioners." 
 
 'SSection 2d. Tn case the majority of any Presbytery, 
 
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ORGANIZED. 173 
 
 whose commissioners have acted as aforesaid, shall take 
 proper order touching their conduct in the premises, and 
 are willing, upon the basis of the Assemblies of 1837 and 
 1838, to adhere to the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States, then and in that case the acts of their said commis- 
 sioners, in advising, creating, or uniting with said secession, 
 or in refusing to attend on this Assembly, as the case may be, 
 shall not prejudice the rights or intei^ests, or aflfect the in- 
 tegrity of said Presbytery, or its union with the Presbyte- 
 rian Church in the United States of America, as an integral 
 portion thereof." 
 
 '* Section 3d. In case the majority of any Presbytery 
 shall refuse or neglect to take proper order in regard to its 
 seceding commissioners, or shall approve their conduct, or 
 adhere to the new sect they have created, or shall decline, 
 or fail to adhere to the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States of America, upon the said basis of 1837 and 1838, 
 for the reform of the Church, then and in that case the mi- 
 nority of said Presbytery shall be held and considered to be 
 the true Presbytery, and shall continue the succession of the 
 Presbytery by its name and style, and from the rendition of 
 the erroneous and schismatical decision, which is the test in 
 the case, be the Presbytery ; and if sufficiently numerous to 
 perform PresbyteTial acts, shall go forward with all the 
 proper acts and functions of the Presbytery." 
 
 " Section 4th. In case the minority of any Presbytery 
 should be too small to constitute a Presbytery, and perform 
 Presbyterial acts, said minority shall remain in its existing 
 state until the next subsequent meeting of the Synod to 
 which it properly belongs, which will then take order on the 
 subject. Otherwise there is a possibility that several Synods 
 might be unable to constitute, if majorities of part of their 
 Presbyteries should adhere to the secession, and the minori- 
 ties attach themselves to other Presbyteries, or several unite 
 into one, before the Synods meet." 
 
 ** Section 5th. The principles of this Act shall be ap- 
 
 b 
 
174 THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY 
 
 plied to Churches, with their majorities and minorities, and 
 to church sessions, as far as they are applicable. And the 
 Presbyteries are hereby required so to exercise their watch 
 and care, that as far as possible, all the Churches may be 
 preserved :» and where, unhappily, this cannot be done, then 
 the minorities in the sessions and churches shall be cared 
 for, and dealt with on the general principles now laid down.'* 
 ** The Assembly is fully sensible, that in divided Presby- 
 teries and Churches, every thing depends, under God, upon 
 the promptitude, firmness, wisdom and moderation of the 
 friends of Christ, m this great crisis. In this conviction, 
 the whole of that part of the subject which relates to 
 Churches and private Christians, is especially commended 
 to the Christian zeal, prudence, and fidelity of the Presby- 
 teries and Church Sessions. In regard to the temporal in- 
 terests of the Churches, and the difficulties which may 
 arise on their account, the Assembly advise that, on the 
 one hand, great liberality and generosity should mark the 
 whole conduct of our people, and especially in cases where 
 our majorities in the Churches are very large, or our minori- 
 ties are very small : while on the other hand it would ad- 
 vise, that providential advantages and important rights 
 ought not in any case to be hghtly thrown away." 
 
 *' Section 6th. It is enjoined on the Synods to take order 
 on this subject — to see that the principles here laid down 
 are duly enforced — to take care that the Presbyteries act as 
 truth and duty require in the premises — to make such need- 
 ful modifications in the Presbyteries as their altered circum- 
 stances may require — and to promote, by all proper means, 
 the speedy pacification of the Churches, by delivering and 
 saving them from heresy, disorder and schism, which having 
 so long worked among them, is at length ready, by God's 
 mercy, to be purged away." 
 
 " Section Yth. The Synods, in all cases, shall be consid- 
 ered lawfully constituted only when formed by or out of 
 those Presbyteries recognized as true Presbyteries by this 
 Assembly, according to the true tenor or intent of this Act." 
 
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ORGANIZED. 175 
 
 "Act II. 
 
 " Whereas the act of the Assembly of June 5th, 1837, de- 
 claring the three Synods of Utica, Geneva and Genesee, to 
 be out of the ecclesiasti3al connection of the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States of America, made ample pro- 
 vision for the return into the bosom of the Church of every 
 minister and church, truly Presbyterian in doctrine and 
 order, as well within the bounds of the three aforesaid 
 Synods, as within those of the Synod of the Western Re- 
 serve : 
 
 *' And whereas, it is represented to this Assembly that, in 
 addition to those who have embraced this invitation and 
 provision of the aforesaid Act, there are others who have 
 held back and are still waiting on the developments of Provi- 
 dence : 
 
 " And whereas, it was never the intention of the General 
 Assembly to cause any sound Presbyterian to be perma- 
 nently separated from our connection, but it is and always 
 was the desire of the Church, that all who really embrace 
 our doctrine, love our order, and are willing to conform to 
 our discipline, should unite themselves with us : 
 
 ** And whereas, moreover, the General Assembly has no 
 idea of narrowing, but would rather expand its geographical 
 limits, so as to unite, in bonds of most intimate fellowship, 
 every portion of our beloved country, and every evangelical 
 Christian like-minded with ourselves : It is therefore 
 
 " Resolved, by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States of America, that it be recom- 
 mended, — 
 
 "1st. That those ministers and churches living within the 
 geographical limits of the Synods of the Western Reserve, 
 Geneva, Utica, and Genesee, who are willing to adhere to 
 the Presbyterian Church in the United States, on the basis 
 of the Acts of the Assembly of 1837 and 1838, for the gen- 
 eral reform of the Church, take steps for the immediate or- 
 
176 THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY 
 
 ganization of as many presbyteries as there are ministers and 
 cliiirches, such as are above described, sufiBiciently numerous 
 to constitute, so that the whole number of presbyteries thus 
 formed shall not exceed one presbytery for each of the afore- 
 named synods ; and so that the territory of the Western Re- 
 serve shall in no case be added to that in Western New 
 York. And in case only two presbyteries can be constituted 
 on the ground occupied by the three Synods of Utica, Gene- 
 va, and Genesee, then that whole territory shall be divided 
 between them. And in case but one Presbytery can be con- 
 stituted, then the whole territory shall attach to it. In re- 
 gard to the Western Reserve, it is desired that a single pres- 
 bytery be formed as soon as convenient to embrace the whole 
 ground." 
 
 " 2d. The ministers and churches intended by this Act 
 will hold such mutual correspondence as they shall deem 
 needful, either by general meeting or otherwise ; and then 
 meet at such convenient time and place as may be agreed on 
 by those who are to be embraced in the same presbytery, 
 and then and there constitute themselves in a regular, or- 
 derly, and Christian manner, into a presbytery under the 
 care of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 
 the United States of America." 
 
 "3d. If as many as three presbyteries can be conveniently 
 formed in Western New York, it will be orderly for them, as 
 soon as possible thereafter, to unite and constitute them- 
 selves into a Synod upon the principles indicated in this Act; 
 and such Synod, if formed, shall cover the entire territoiy 
 heretofore occupied by the three Synods of Utica, Geneva, 
 and Genesee. But in case only one or two presbyteries can 
 be formed, then application shall be made by it, or them, for 
 admission under the care and into the bosom of such Synod 
 now in our connection, as shall be most convenient and na- 
 tural. And the presbytery on the Western Reserve, if one 
 should be formed, will adopt the same line of conduct. And 
 any Synod to which application may be thus made by any 
 
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ORGANIZED. 177 
 
 presbytery, shall take immediate order to accomplish the 
 ends of this Act. And it is considered that any presbytery 
 or Synod formed in pursuance of these directions, shall 
 have full power to perform all presbyterial or synodical acts 
 agreeably to the Constitution of the Church." 
 
 ''Act III. 
 
 " Section 1st. Be it resolved by the General Assembly of 
 the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 
 That the Presbytery of Abingdon, now attached to the 
 Synod of Tennessee, be, and hereby is, at its own request, 
 detached from said Synod, and united to the Synod of Vir- 
 ginia, and it shall hereafter be an integral part of the Synod 
 of Virginia, and subject to its care and oversight." 
 
 *' Section 2d. And whereas it is known to the Assembly 
 that all the Commissioners who were present at its constitu- 
 tion from the Synods of Tennessee, Michigan, and Missouri, 
 with the exception of the Commissioner from the Presbytery 
 of Abingdon, have withdrawn from the house, and, it is be- 
 lieved, have united in forming another body : Therefore, 
 
 ''Be it resolved, That if the Synod of Tennessee shall, 
 either by its own act or the acts of its presbyteries, adhere 
 to the secession which has been made, or fail or refuse to 
 adhere to the Presbyterian Church, as provided in the First 
 Act; then the minority or minorities therein adhering as 
 aforesaid to the Presbyterian Church, shall be attached to, 
 and shall be under the care of the Synod of West Tennessee, 
 and may proceed as afore directed in the First Act, and ap- 
 ply for admission to the Synod of West Tennessee, whose 
 jurisdiction shall in that case be extended so as to include 
 the ecclesiastical hmits of the Synod of Tennessee ; and if 
 the like circumstances occur with respect to the Synod of 
 Missouri, its minorities shall be under the care of the Synod 
 of Kentucky on the same principles." 
 
 " On motion, 
 
 '* Ordered, That the stated clerk send an attested copy of 
 
178 THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY 
 
 the foregoing acts to the stated clerk of each presbytery and 
 Synod in connection with the General Assembly." — Minutes 
 of the Assembly of 1838, pages 33-3*7. 
 
 This is an extraordinary document, well worthy of a few 
 moments' consideration. It commences by stating that 
 " The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America 
 finds itself, by the providence of God, in the course of new 
 and unprecedented events, in a position of great difficulty, 
 novelty, and importance." Her position was indeed novel 
 and difficult, and made so by the acts of their own branch of 
 it, in 183 7 and 1838, against the earnest and repeated re- 
 monstrances of those who contended for a strict adherence 
 to the Constitution. Their acts, which were a gross viola- 
 tion of it, they denominate ''a reform — a great reform," 
 which, in the document under consideration, they profess, 
 and no doubt very sincerely, to desire to consummate. 
 Previous parts of this history, however, show that the work 
 in which they were engaged and eager to perfect, was no re- 
 form, but a violent and disastrous revolution. And yet, in 
 the document before us, they have the assurance to say, " A 
 portion of the ministers and ruling elders sent to this As- 
 sembly, forgetting or violating, as we apprehend, their duty 
 to God and to the Church, and choosing to depart from us, 
 have, in connection with other persons not in the communion 
 of our Church, constituted a new ecclesiastical organization, 
 which they improperly and unjustly assume to call the true 
 Presbyterian Church in the United States of America." 
 
 In view of facts contained in previous parts of this histo- 
 ry, our readers will judge for themselves who were guilty of 
 violating " their duty to God and the Church" — those who 
 thrust out so many of her ministers and communicants, and 
 violently rent her asunder, or those who used every lawful 
 means in their power to prevent their violent and revolution- 
 ary action, and, when they could not succeed, organized the 
 Assembly in conformity with the Constitution. 
 
 Nothing can be more evident than that the authors of the 
 
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ORGANIZED. 179 
 
 acts of which we complain did riot organize their Assembly 
 according to its requirements. Ministers and elders against 
 whom no charge of heresy or irregularity had been substan- 
 tiated, nor even brought in a constitutional manner, who had 
 been regularly commissioned to the Assembly of 1838 by 
 their Presbyteries, were denied seats in the body. Accord- 
 ing to their own admissions in the acts now under review, 
 they organized their Assembly upon a new basis. In them 
 they declare their purpose to recognize majorities, nay, mi- 
 norities of presbyteries, sessions, and churches, as the case 
 might be, as members of their body, who should adhere to 
 it "upon the basis of the Assemblies of IBS'? and 1838." 
 According to the Constitution, the reception of the Confes- 
 sion of Faith " as containing the system of doctrine taught in 
 the Holy Scriptures," and adoption of the Form of Govern- 
 ment and Discipline, are all that is necessary to valid stand- 
 ing in the Church. With the revolutionists of 1838 this was 
 altogether insufficient. Those who had fully complied with 
 these requirements of the Constitution before they could be 
 recogriized as connected with their body, must declare their 
 adhesion to the new basis, created by the Assemblies of IBS'? 
 and 1838. In the first act of the reforming ordinance now 
 under consideration, the presbyteries are directed to take or- 
 der on this subject previous to the next meetings of their re- 
 spective Synods, under the fearful penalty of being declared 
 not in connection with "the Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States of America." Their adhesion to it upon this 
 basis, they affirm to be "the test in the case." This test is 
 wholly unknown to the Constitution. They of course organ- 
 ized upon a "new basis" — a basis which they have not to 
 this day repudiated. This reformatory ordinance, without 
 having been sent down to the presbyteries for their approval 
 or rejection, is really of the nature of a constitutional rule. 
 It is, however, a "new measure" to which Constitutional 
 Presbyterians can never conscientiously give their approval. 
 In regard to the precise object of these Acts, the mem- 
 
180 • THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY 
 
 bers oif their own body were not agreed. Some believed, and 
 we think, were warranted by the language to believe, that 
 they required the approval of what they were pleased to call 
 the reform measures of 1837 and 1838. It is difficult to 
 conceive what else could have been their object. They soon 
 discovered, however, that if an approval of them were rigidly 
 insisted on, there would be a great diminution of their body. 
 In some cases, it uas required, while other Presbyteries, 
 which passed resolutions strongly disapproving of them, 
 were nevertheless left unmolested, and are now recognized 
 by them as orthodox bodies. The Princeton Repertory, 
 doubtless on account of the divisive and seceding tendency 
 of a demand of approval, were dissatisfied with the language 
 of the Act. *' We regret," say they, " the use of the lan- 
 guage employed, because it is amhiguous.^^ Construing it as 
 requiring approval, they say, " We readily admit that if this 
 interpretation be correct, the act complained of would be 
 unconstitutional and tyrannkal.^^ And yet in this sense, 
 *^ unconstitutional and tyrannicaV^ as it made the Act, it was 
 understood and enforced by some Synods and many more 
 Presbyteries, though we know not their number. *'The 
 majority of the Presbytery of Erie, belonging to the Synod 
 of Pittsburg, were informed by the Synod that there would 
 be no difficulty in their case, if they would now declare their 
 adherence ^ on the basis of IBS'? and 1838.' The Presbytery 
 answered : * We are willing to adhere to the Synod of Pitts- 
 burg and the General Assembly by which it is governed, 
 without having ourselves bound by any additional pledge 
 whatever.' Whereupon, Synod ' Resolved, that they do not 
 consider said claimants as having complied with the require- 
 ments of Synod.' 
 
 *' In this case, the majority of the Presbytery were cut 
 off. Why? Because they were unwilling to adhere on the 
 basis of the Confession of Faith and Book of Discipline? 
 No. But because they could not approve the new test, and 
 were unwilling to adhere upon the new basis.^' 
 
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ORGANIZED. 181 
 
 The Synod of Pittsburg, in their Pastoral Letter of 1838, 
 thus interpret the great ordinance : " By the provision of 
 that act, the Assembly says, if a majority of a Presbytery 
 ap])rove and adhere to us, we recognize you as a Presbytery 
 in our connection, (fee. If you do not ajyprove and adhere, 
 we compel you not, but leave you to act as your best judg- 
 ment dictates. If only a minority approve and adhere, that 
 minority we do not disown, but if sufficient in number, we 
 recognize you as a Presbytery." 
 
 On the 5th of September, 1838, the Presbytery of Vin- 
 cennes enjoined it upon the Church Session of Evansville, to 
 take prompt measures in reference to their Elder, who had 
 been bold enough to vote, and even protest against the acts 
 of the General Assembly ; declaring at the same time, that 
 those only should thereafter constitute said Church, who 
 shall * approve of the acts of the Assembly.' 
 
 At the same time the above-named Presbytery withheld 
 from the Rev. Mr. Morrison liberty to preach within their 
 bounds, 'because he refused to give us any acknowledg- 
 ment of his approval of those operations of the Assembly for 
 the reform of the Church.' 
 
 On the 4th of December, 1838, the following measure was 
 proposed at a meeting of Charleston Union Presbytery : 
 
 " Resolved, That the roll be now called, and each member 
 without discussion, do declare whether he can approve the 
 reform measures of the General Assembly of 1837 ; and that 
 those who answer in the affirmative, according to the provi- 
 sion of the last General Assembly, do constitute the Pres- 
 bytery of Charleston Union, in connection with the Presby- 
 terian Church.' The Moderator refused to put the question: 
 a small minority, in obedience, as they say, * to an injunction 
 of the supreme judicatory of our Church,' declared them- 
 selves the Charleston Union Presbytery, to the exclusion of 
 the majority."* 
 
 Additional proof cannot be needed to establish the fact 
 * Wood's History, pages 180-182. 
 8* 
 
182 THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY. 
 
 that the self-styled reformers organized their Assembly in 
 1838 upon a basis unknown to the Constitution. As a test 
 of adhesion to it, they did not require evidence of a cordial 
 adoption of " the Confession of Faith and Form of Govern- 
 ment," but an approval of its great reforming ordinance, or 
 at least of a determination to submit to it : — in other words, 
 that they would sustain the revolutionary Acts of that As- 
 sembly and those of the Assembly of the previous year. To 
 make way^for this " new basis,^^ the Constitution was wholly 
 set aside. 
 
ERRONEOUS APrLICATION OF THE NAMES, OLD AND NEW SCHOOL. THOSE 
 
 WHO STYLE THEMSELVES OLD SCHOOL ARE THE NEW, AND THOSE WHOM 
 THEY DENOMINATE NEW ARE THE OLD SCHOOL BRANCH OF ^mK PEES- 
 BYTERIAN CHURai. 
 
 At an early period of the controversy respecting Ecclesi- 
 astical Boards and Voluntary Societies, the friends of the 
 former appropriated to themselves the appellations, "Old 
 School, — the Orthodox, — the true friends of the Presbyterian 
 Church," and gave to the friends of Voluntary Societies, the 
 name, " New School." These appellations are not only 
 erroneous, but manifestly unjust. They are adapted, and 
 we fear on the part of those with whom they originated, 
 were designed to^produce the impression that the great body 
 of those, whom they denominate New School men, had 
 embraced doctrines, wholly at variance with those contained 
 in the Confession of Faith, and were opposed to the princi- 
 ples of Presbyterian Church Government and Disciphne. 
 The facts of the preceding part of this history show conclu- 
 sively, that the appellations and epithets just mentioned, are 
 grossly misapplied. Those who claim to be " Old School 
 Presbyterians, dyed in the wool," are in fact 7ieiu, and those 
 whom thei/ denominate 7iew are in reality the Old School 
 branch of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of 
 America, both in doctrine and order. That in saying this, 
 we do *' but speak the words of truth and soberness," is 
 evident, 
 
184 WHO ARE THE OLD SCHOOL PRESBYTERIANS ? 
 
 1. From the new test of orthodoxy, required by '* the 
 Act and Testimony," sent out by leading men of their party. 
 The character of this instrument has been noticed in prece- 
 ding pages of this narrative. By calhng upon ministers and 
 elders to sign it as a test of orthodoxy, and in case of refusal, 
 subjecting themselves to the charge of heresy, or at least of 
 being the abettors of gross error in doctrine they introduced 
 a new test of soundness in the faith, wholly unknown to the 
 Constitution. In this ho^ht the Reriewers g^ it in the Bibli- 
 cal Repertory viewed it, as we have shown in another part 
 of this history, by quoting the language of their review. 
 
 2. They have departed from the principles of American 
 Presbyterianism, as contained in the adopting ae-t of l72t, 
 by requiring an unqualified assent to every shade of senti- 
 ment contained in the Confession of Faith, That Act, as we 
 have already shown, tolerates differences of opinion on points 
 of minor importance, not affecting the integrity of the system 
 of doctrine embraced in our standards. The Assembly of 
 1817 reiterate the noble and tokrant sentiments of that Act. 
 In their pastoral letter to the churches we find the following 
 language : "That differences of opinion,, acknowledged on all 
 hands, to be of the minor class, may and ought to be tole- 
 rated among those who are agreed in great and leading views 
 of Divine truth, is a principle on v.'hicb the godly b^re po» 
 long and so generally acted, thai it seems unnecessary, at the 
 present day, to seek arguments for its support. Our fathers, 
 in early periods of the history of our Chui-ch, had their pe- 
 culiarities and diversities of opinion ; which yet, however, did 
 not p-event them from loving one another, from cordially 
 acting together ; and by their imited prayers and exertions,, 
 transmitting to us a goodly inheritance. Let us emulate 
 their moderation and forbearance, and we may hope to be 
 favored with more than their success." — Minutes of the As- 
 &emhly o/" 1817, imge 28. 
 
 These sentiments of the adopting Act of 1729, and the? 
 Assembly of 1817,. are the sentiments of Constitutional Pres- 
 
WHO ARE THE OLD SCHOOL PRESBYTERIANS ? 185 
 
 byterians. How utterly inconsistent with fact, how grossly 
 unjust to denominate thevi Xew School men ! Thei/ are the 
 Old School, and those who insist upon a subscription to the 
 Confession of Faith, according to the most rigid construction 
 of its language, are I^eiv School Presbyterians. 
 
 3. Their acts of excision, by which they cast out of the 
 church thousands of her members in good standing, without 
 trial, was a flagrant violation of the constitution, by which 
 they had solemnly pledged themselves to be governed. It 
 was a neiv measure, to prevent which Constitutional Presby- 
 terians labored with untiring zeal, and against which they 
 have uniformly protested. In respect to Presbyterial order 
 they are Old School Presbyterians. 
 
 4. The great reform ordinance, as its authors were pleased 
 to denominate it, of 18S8, requiring the Synods, PresbyterieS;, 
 Sessions and Churches, to aid in carrying out the revolution- 
 ary measures of the Assembly of the previous year, promis- 
 ing to recognize even minorities of those bodies, who should, 
 and threatening all who should refuse, with expulsion from 
 their branch of the church, was a gi'oss violation of the con- 
 stitution. Nay, this instrument it actually thrust aside. The 
 constitution makes nothing necessary to good standing in the 
 ministry and church but the adoption of " the Confession of 
 Faith as containing the system of doctrine taught in the holy 
 Scriptures, and of the Form of Government and Discipline. '^ 
 Of this test of orthodoxy and attachment to Presbyterial 
 order, the extraordinary instrument just mentioned, said not 
 a word. It only required adhesion to their body ** on the basis 
 of the Assemblies of 1837 and 1838." 
 
 These facts fully establish the position that the self-styled 
 Old School Presbyterians are in reality the JVew; Md those 
 whom they reproachfully denominate the JV^ew, are the Old, 
 firmly planted upon the time-honored platform of original 
 American Presbyterianism. 
 
(Jljajtu |;iiitl]» 
 
 POLICY OF THE SELF-STTLKD REFORMERS CONCERNING A DIVISION OF THE 
 FUNDS, AND THEIR FEELINGS IN REFERENCE TO AN APPEAL TO THE 
 LAW OF THE LAND, TO DECIDE TO AVHOM THEY BELONGED, OR HOW 
 THEY SHOULD BE DIVIDED UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS OF THE CONSTITU- 
 TIONAL ASSEMBLY TO PREVENT LITIGATION LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, AND 
 
 THEIR RESULTS, 
 
 By the organization of the two Assemblies in 1838, each 
 claiming to be the true Assembly, the division of the Presby- 
 terian Church in this country was consummated. But though 
 her ministers and members were divided, no division was 
 made of her funds. Before the division, while the self-styled 
 reformers were a minority and determined to effect it, they 
 professed to desire that an equitable and amicable division of 
 the funds should be made. Some, at least, of the new-basis 
 Assembly of 1838, still professed a willingness that those 
 whom they denominated seceders, and who on that account 
 had forfeited all right to any part of the funds, should, never- 
 theless, have some share of them. Provided this were grant- 
 ed, however, it must be as a gratuity to those who had no 
 claim to any portion of the funds of the Church. Their feel- 
 ings may be best known by an examination of two papers, 
 presented to the Reform Assembly, but which were not acted 
 upon, as we are informed, because the seceders, as they were 
 pleased to call them, had commenced a civil process for se- 
 curing their rights. The * Presbyterian' accompanied the pub- 
 lication of them with the remark, " In the main we believe 
 they expressed the mind of the Assembly." 
 
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 187 
 
 Dr. PhilliiDS offered the following paper, viz. : — 
 
 " Whereas the Presbyterian Church in the United States, 
 as now represented in the General Assembly of the same, 
 have for years contended for the doctrines and order of the 
 Gospel, for the truth, purity, peace and spiritual prosperity 
 of the Church, and not for earthly gain ; and whereas a por- 
 tion of what has heretofore been called the Presbyterian 
 Church, have •s'oluntarily gone out from us, and by their 
 secession and separate organization, have forfeited in law all 
 their title to any of the property belonging to the Presby- 
 terian Church ; and whereas the General Assembly have no 
 desire to hold or use any funds which may in equity belong 
 to said secession : Therefore, 
 
 *' Resolved, That a Committee be appointed to ascertain 
 what portion, if any, of the funds in the hands of the Trustees 
 of the General Assembly may be equitably claimed by those 
 who adhere to the secession, and report to the next General 
 Assembly, and thus, if possible, secure an amicable adjust- 
 ment of our pecuniary affairs."* 
 
 In reference to the same matter, Mr. Breckinridge oflfered 
 the following paper, viz. : — 
 
 " The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 
 the United States, both during its present sessions and dur- 
 ing those of the last year, had distinctly and repeatedly ex- 
 pressed its perfect willingness to settle all the difficulties, and 
 especially those of a pecuniary kind, which have arisen, or 
 could arise, between those Synods which have been declared 
 out of our connection, and all who have seceded and united 
 with them on the one part, and the Church itself on the 
 other." 
 
 *'This was indeed the earnest desire of the Church ; as well 
 because of the questions involved, turned finally on questions 
 purely ecclesiastical, as because money questions were in our 
 view wholly insignificant, compared with others, which lay 
 behind them. And as we construed the law of God, it seem- 
 * H. Wood'o History, page 168. 
 
188 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 ed better, even to take wrong and suffer wrong in temporal 
 affairs, than to be prompt to hale even nominal Christians 
 before the judge. But above all, we utterly repudiate all 
 pretensions, from whatever quarter, to control the conscien- 
 tious decisions of the Church of Christ on matters of Chris- 
 tian doctrine, order or discipline, by civil tribunals." 
 
 *' We are bound, and we hope prepared, to render to Caesar 
 all things that are Caesar's, but we are also* bound, and re- 
 solved, never to surrender to Caesar the things which are 
 only God's." 
 
 " It is, therefore, with decided reprobation, that this As- 
 sembly has learned, not only that suits are threatened against 
 its Board of Trustees, but that other suits have been actu- 
 ully commenced against the officers of this body, and sev- 
 eral of its members, the object of which is, not only to 
 prevent the free action of our ecclesiastical courts, but to 
 unchurch the church itself, by the action of civil power." 
 
 " Under the present state of these painful affairs, this As- 
 sembly deems it a solemn duty to declare, and does hereby 
 declare : 
 
 ** 1. That it expects of its Board of Trustees the same 
 loyalty to the church, and the same fidelity to its divine 
 Lord, that have marked their course in past times, and it 
 hereby pledges to them its support, and that of the churches 
 represented in it, in their lawful acts, in carrying out the de- 
 cisions of the last and present Assemblies." 
 
 " 2. That we solemnly, in the name of God, whose we 
 are, and whom we try to serve, and on behalf of his church, 
 of which we are ministers and ruling elders, and as commis- 
 sioners constituting its highest earthly court, do hereby pro- 
 test against all attempts to subject the church of Christ, in 
 its purely ecclesiastical action, to the surveillance or revision 
 of the civil power. And as free American citizens, we re- 
 nounce for ourselves and for our country, all pretence to any 
 such ruinous power as it regards others." 
 
 " 3. That the churches and minorities of churches in the 
 
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 1.89 
 
 bounds or under the care of either of those Synods or Pres- 
 byteries, which were declared to be out of the ecclesiastical 
 connection of the Presbyterian Church in the United States 
 of America, — or within its bounds, or under the care of any 
 seceding Presbytery or Synod, which churches or minorities 
 are willing to adhere to the Presbyterian Church in man- 
 ner and form repeatedly declared by this Assembly, all such 
 churches and minorities are hereby advised, not only to take 
 steps for their early union with our body, but also to protect 
 themselves in the exercise of ecclesiastical rights, to secure 
 their corporate property against the new sect, and the ruin- 
 ous principles upon which their proceedings go."* 
 
 Had these papers been expressive of the views of their 
 authors merely, upon them the responsibility of approving 
 them might have been left to rest, without remark. But 
 we are told by the editor of the " Presbyterian *' that they 
 exhibit the views of the Assembly. That they were not 
 adopted by them, we are informed, was because civil process 
 had been commenced by the Constitutional Assembly for the 
 recovery of rights which they believed had been violently 
 taken from them. 
 
 The language of these documents is by no means remark- 
 able for Christian courtesy toward the constitutional branch 
 of the church. They are spoken of as seceders, who had 
 " forfeited in law all title to any property belonging to the 
 Presbyterian Church ;" — as litigious, appealing to Ceesar for 
 a decision which it is the exclusive prerogative of the church 
 to give, against whom the reformers " had for years con- 
 tended for the doctrines and order of the Gospel, for the 
 truth, purity, peace, and spiritual prosperity of the church.'* 
 The sincerity with which these statements were made, we 
 have no disposition to call in question. However sincere may 
 have been their authors, this fact does not prove that they 
 are true, and they doubtless believe with us, that sincerity 
 in error, when the means of knowing the truth are accessi- 
 H: Wood's History of the Presbyterian Controversy, p. 169. 
 
190 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 ble, does not exonerate from blame. Were the things al- 
 leged in these papers against Constitutional Presbyterians 
 true, tliey ought indeed to be separated from the church. 
 Not, however, by the summary and unconstitutional process 
 of excision without trial and an opportunity of self-defence, 
 but by the application of Gospel discipline. 
 
 In these documents there are several things which we are 
 utterly unable to reconcile with the action of the Body. They 
 both profess a commendable and pious disregard "for 
 earthly-gain, — that money questions were wholly insignifi- 
 cant, compared with others, which lay behind them." 
 
 If the reader can reconcile these statements with the re- 
 commendation of Mr. Breckinridge and the Assembly itself 
 in its great reform ordinance, already noticed, to minorities 
 of churches, " to secure their corporate property, — that 
 providential advantages, and important rights, ought not in 
 any case to be lightl} thrown away," he can perform a task 
 which wholly transcends our ability. 
 
 He may also, if he can, reconcile these statements and pro- 
 fessions with the tenacious, iron grasp, with which they have 
 till this time held, and now hold the entire funds of the 
 church. Not a farthing, so far as we have been able to as- 
 certain, have they given to those whom they denominate 
 seceders and schismatics, except in the few instances in which 
 they have been compelled to do it by legal decisions. We 
 cannot but fear these brethren were not fully aware of the 
 strength of their love for " filthy lucre." 
 
 The pious horror of these self-styled reformers at the 
 thought of appealing to the civil tribunals of the country 
 to decide which of the two Assemblies was organized ac- 
 cording to the constitution, is no less at variance with their 
 application to " the court in bank " to grant a new trial af- 
 ter the decision against them in the court below. For com- 
 mencing that process before Judge Rogers, the constitu- 
 tional branch of the church were, and to this day are, se- 
 verely censured. Their reasons for this procedure will be 
 
LEGAL TROCEEDINGS. 191 
 
 given hereafter, and tlie reader will have an opportunity 
 to judge for himself whether they are sufficient to justi- 
 
 fy it. 
 
 Mr. Breckinridge's paper is far from respectful in its aspect 
 toward the civil tribunals of our country. Throughout, it 
 breathes the spirit of nullification and rebellion. " We utterly 
 repudiate," he says, " all pretensions from whatever quarter, 
 to control the conscientious decisions of the Church of Christ, 
 on matters of Christian doctrine, or order, by the civil tribu- 
 nals." Again he says, by what seems to us a most irrever- 
 ent, not to say profane appeal to Jehovah, '* We solemnly, in 
 the name of God, whose we are, and whom w^e try to serve, 
 and on behalf of His Church, of which we are Ministers and 
 Ruling Elders, and as Commissioners constituting its highest 
 earthly court, do hereby protest against all attempts to subject 
 the Church of Christ, in its purely ecclesiastical action, to the 
 surveillance or revision of the civil power. We are bound, and 
 we hope prepared, to render to Caesar all things that are 
 Caesar's, but we are also bound and resolved, never to surren- 
 der to Caesar the things which are only God's." 
 
 It cannot be doubted that Mr. Breckinridge well under- 
 stood that the Constitutional Body had not appealed to the 
 civil law for the purpose of subjecting " the Church of Christ 
 to the surveillance or revision of the civil power," but to decide 
 whether those, whom he and his party denominated schisma- 
 tics, seceders, and grossly disorderly, were really such, or 
 sound Presbyterians according to " the Confession of Faith 
 and Form of Government ;" also whether their acts in cast- 
 ing the four Synods out of the Church without trial, were au- 
 thorized by the Constitution or in direct contravention of it. 
 If such were his understanding of the appeal of the Constitu- 
 tional Assembly to the civil tribunals, we see not how he could 
 have doubted its propriety. A court of justice is certainly 
 competent to decide whether a Church, or Branch of a Church, 
 have or have not violated its Constitution. 
 
 Notwithstanding the solemn protest of this paper against 
 
192 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 • 
 
 submitting the unhappy differences between the two Bodies 
 to the decision of a civil tribunal, and determination not to 
 submit to it, the new basis Assembly appeal from the court 
 that gave judgment against them, to the court in bank for a 
 new trial. How this procedure is to be reconciled with their 
 previous protests against appealing to Ccesar and determina- 
 tion not to submit to his jurisdiction, is for them to show. 
 
 The climax of their inconsistencies, however, consists in the 
 utter want of agreement between their professed desire for an 
 equitable and amicable settlement of the difficulties be- 
 tween the two Branches of the Church, and their refusal 
 to accede to any proposals made by the Constitutional 
 Branch, to secure such a settlement. We speak not 
 now of negotiations between the parties previous to the di- 
 vision in 1838, and the overture made by the Constitution- 
 alists during the sessions of the two Assemblies. These have 
 been noticed in previous parts of this history, and the reasons 
 of their failure stated. From what was said and published 
 by the exscinding branch when they learned that it was the 
 purpose of the other to commence civil process against them, 
 a stranger to this controversy would infer that the new basis 
 Assembly were men of a very pacific spirit, and that the 
 other was made up of ecclesiastical warriors, — of men full of 
 the spirit of strife and war, whose very element was contro- 
 versy and litigation. Mr. Breckinridge, in the paper which 
 we have noticed, says, " The General Assembly of the Pres- 
 byterian Church in the United States, both during the pres- 
 ent sessions, and during those of the last year, had distinctly 
 and repeatedly expressed its perfect willingness to settle all 
 the difficulties, and especially those of a pecuniary kind, which 
 have arisen or could arise, between those Synods which have 
 been declared out of our connection, and all who have sece- 
 ded and united with them on the one part, and the Chm'ch 
 itself on the other." 
 
 Statements of similar import may be found in their Pas- 
 toral Letter of 1838 to the churches. 
 
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 193 
 
 Whether they were really as desirous as theii' language 
 seemed to indicate to prevent litigation, and those from whom 
 they differed as fierce for it, we will leave our readers to 
 judge, when they shall have read that part of the 
 
 ** Report of the Committee of Twelve, to the General As- 
 sembly of the Presbyterian Church,''^ which we here 
 present. 
 
 "In the General Assembly, May 20, 1839, Judge Darling, 
 from the Committee of twelve, made the following report in 
 part: 
 
 "The Committee appointed on the 21st May, 1838, 'to 
 advise and direct to any legal questions and pecuniary in- 
 terests that might require attention during the ensuing year,' 
 and who were authorized to adopt all such measures as they 
 in their judgment might deem proper, to preserve and main- 
 tain inviolate the rights and privileges of the General Assem- 
 bly, and of the churches under its jurisdiction, entered upon 
 the discharge of their duties immediately after the adjournment 
 of the last General Assembly, deeply impressed with the 
 importance of the interests entrusted to them, with 
 their responsibihties to the Presbyterian Church, and with 
 a determination to exert their influence to bring the con- 
 troversy in the Presbyterian Church to a speedy termination, 
 on just and equitable terms, which would restore peace and 
 harmony to our beloved Zion. They resolved not to resort 
 to the civil courts for redress, until every reasonable hope of 
 an amicable adjustment should be abgmdoned, and unless it 
 became necessary so to do to protect and preserve the rights 
 and privileges of the church which they represented. The 
 Trustees elected by the General Assembly of 1838, hav- 
 ing been denied the right to take their seats at a regular 
 meeting of the Board of Trustees, as then constituted, and 
 our opponents manifesting a determination to persist in their 
 acts of injustice and oppression, the Committee, with the 
 
194 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 notice, and under the direction of their counsel, Josiah Ran- 
 dall and William Meredith, Esq.'s, of Philadelphia, and 
 George Wood, Esq., of New York, caused a writ of quo 
 warranto to be issued, in the name of the Commonwealth 
 of Pennsylvania, at the relation of the Hon. James Todd, et. 
 al. vs. the Rev. Ashbel Green, D.D., et. al,, to show cause by 
 ■what authority they continued to usurp and hold the office of 
 Trustees, &c. The Committee adopted this mode of pro- 
 ceeding at the suggestion of their legal advisers, believing 
 that, in this form of action, they would be enabled to obtain 
 a more speedy trial and decision on the merits of the contro- 
 versy between the Reformed and Constitutional General As- 
 semblies, and on the various points of law involved in the 
 same, and with less expense and excitement, than in any other 
 form of action which could be devised. Whilst this cause 
 was pending, and previous to the trial before Judge Rogers, 
 at Nisi Prius, the Committee were informed by one of their 
 counsel, that John K. Kane, Esq., one of the Trustees of the 
 General Assembly, and who was of counsel for the respond- 
 ents, had stated to him that those he represented were dis- 
 posed to adjust, amicably and equitably, all matters in con- 
 troversy in this cause, and had requested him to ascertain 
 what terms the Committee would propose, as a basis for an 
 amicable division of the Presbyterian Church, and the final 
 adjustment of all the matters in dispute between the Reform- 
 ed and Constitutional General Assemblies. Upon inquiry, 
 the Committee ascertained that neither Mr. Kane, nor any 
 other person, was authorized to enter into a negotiation with 
 the Committee on the subject of a compromise ; that Mr. 
 Kane was probably acting on his own responsibility, influ- 
 enced by a most laudable desire to promote union and peace 
 among the professed fiiends of the Redeemer. The Com- 
 mittee duly appreciated the motives which prompted the 
 efforts of Mr. Kane, and keeping in view the resolution of the 
 General Assembly of 1838, viz. : 'That this body is willing 
 to agree to any reasonable measures tending to an amicable 
 
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 195 
 
 adjustment of the difficulties in the Presbyterian Clmrch,and 
 will receive^ and respectfully consider, any propositions made 
 for that purpose/ — they waived all exceptions which might 
 have been taken to enter into any negtoiation with, or to 
 making any propositions to, one irresponsible individual, and 
 promptly requested their counsel to furnish Mr. Kane with a 
 copy of the following articles of agreement : 
 
 " Articles of Agreement Proposed. 
 
 ** In order to secure an amicable and equitable adjustment 
 of the difficulties existing in the Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States of America ; it is hereby agreed by the respec- 
 tive parties, that the following shall be articles on which a 
 division shall be made and continued. 
 
 ** Article I. The successors of the body which held its 
 sessions in Ranstead Court, shall hereafter be known by the 
 name and style of ' The General Assembly of the Presbyte- 
 rian Church in the United States of America.' The succes- 
 sors of the body which held its sessions in the First Presby- 
 terian Church, shall hereafter be known by the name and 
 style of * The General Assembly of the American Presbyte- 
 rian Church.' 
 
 " Article II. Joint application shall be made by the parties 
 to this agreement, to the Legislature of Pennsylvania, for a 
 charter to incorporate Trustees of each of the respective 
 bodies, securing to each the immunities and privileges now 
 secured by the existing charter to the Trustees of the Gen- 
 eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States of America ; subject, nevertheless, to the limitations 
 and articles herein agreed on ; and when so obtained, the 
 existing charter shall be surrendered to the State. 
 
 " Article III. Churches, ministers, and members of church- 
 es as well as Presbyteries, shall be at full liberty to decide to 
 which of the said Assemblies they will be attached ; and in 
 case the majority of legal voters of any congregation shall 
 prefer to be connnected with any Presbytery connected with 
 
196 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 the Assembly to which their Presbytery is not attached, they 
 shall certify the same to the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery, 
 which they wish to leave, and their connection with said 
 Presbytery shall thenceforth cease. 
 
 " Article IV. The Theological Seminary of Princeton, the 
 Western Theological Seminary, the Board of Foreign Missions, 
 the Board of Domestic Missions, the Board of Education, 
 with the funds appertaining to each, shall be the property 
 and subject to the exclusive control of the body which, ac- 
 cording to this agreement, shall be chartered under the title 
 of ' The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 
 the United States of America.' 
 
 " This agreement shall not be considered a secession on 
 the part of either body, from the Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States of America, but a voluntary and amicable di- 
 vision of this Church into two denominations, each retaining 
 all the ecclesiastical and pecuniary rights of the whole body, 
 with the limitations and qualifications in the above articles 
 specified. 
 
 " The only reply which the Committee received to these 
 propositions was, that they could not be accepted, but that 
 the Old School party would agree that the members of the 
 Constitutional General Assembly, and all who adhered to this 
 General Assembly, should be at liberty to leave the Presby- 
 terian Church without molestation from them, and that they 
 should not be called Seceders. This reply, in the opinion of 
 the Committee, cut off all hope of an amicable and just settle- 
 ment, and closed the door of reconciliation. They, therefore, 
 formally resolved that it was inexpedient to make any further 
 attempt to eflfect a compromise, and that the necessary pre- 
 parations be made for the trial of the cause now pending." — 
 Minutes of the General Assembly 0/ 1839, ^:>a^e5 38, 39. 
 
 If our brethren were really as desirous for an equitable and 
 pacific settlement, and to prevent litigation, as they professed 
 to be, why was not this overture entertained by them ? Or if 
 dissatisfied with its stipulations, why did they not appoint a 
 
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 197 
 
 Committee to negotiate with the Committee which pre- 
 sented it, and see whether terms could not be agreed upon, 
 which would be satisfactory to both Bodies ? It is not for 
 us, but for them to reply to these inquiries. From the facts 
 presented, our readers have a right to form their own opinion 
 which of the two Bodies w^ere more desirous of peace and 
 averse to litigation. 
 
 As all the eftbrts of the Constitutional Branch of the 
 Church to prevent the latter and secure the former had 
 proved unavailing, nothing remained for them, but to sacrifice 
 important rights, or appeal to the civil tribunals of their 
 country to decide whether their Assembly had, or had not 
 been organized in conformity with the Constitution ; or 
 whether the persons elected by the New-Basis Assembly as 
 Trustees of tbe General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church 
 in the United States of America, were such in reality, or 
 those elected to that office by the Constitutional Assembly. 
 
 " The Committee of Twelve " in their report, a part of 
 which we have already quoted, say, '' The Trustees elected 
 by the General Assembly of 1838, having been denied the 
 right to take their seats at a regular meeting of the Board 
 of Trustees, as then constituted, and our opponents manifest- 
 ing a determination to persist in their acts of injustice and 
 oppression, the Committee, with the notice, and under the 
 direction of their counsel, Josiah Randall and William Mere- 
 dith, Esqs. of Philadelphia, and George Wood, Esq. caused 
 a writ of quo luarranto to be issued, in the name of the Com- 
 monwealth of Pennsylvania, at the relation of the Hon. 
 James Todd, et al , vs. the Rev. Ashbel Green, D.D., et ah, to 
 show cause by what authority they continued to usurp and 
 hold the office of Trustees, &c. The Committee adopted this 
 mode of proceeding at the suggestion of their legal advisers, 
 believing that, in this form of action, they would be enabled 
 to obtain a more speedy trial and decision on the merits of 
 the controversy between the Reformed and Constitutional 
 Assemblies, and on the various points of law involved in the 
 9 
 
198 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 same, and with less expense and excitement than in an}'- other 
 form of action which could be devised." 
 
 The trial of this cause *' before Hon. Molton C. Rogers 
 and a special juiy/' commenced March 4th, 1839. 
 
 The cause was ably argued by the learned counsel on both 
 sides, and was closed March 20th by the delivery of the 
 charge of Judge Rogers and the verdict of the Jury in favor 
 of the Constitutional Assembly. As the charge of Judge 
 Rogers is a document of great importance, well worthy of 
 being transmitted to posterity and preserved and studied by 
 them, we give it entire. — See Appendix A. 
 
 This result was exceedingly ungrateful to the Reformers. 
 Both the charge of the Judge and the verdict of the Jury, 
 were a decided condemnation of the excision of the four 
 Synods and the dissolution of the Third Presbytery of Phila- 
 delphia, and of the manner of organizing their Assembly in 
 
 1838, and a complete vindication of the organization of the 
 Constitutional Assembly. This result of the trial seemed 
 at once to remove all their conscientious scruples in regard 
 to an appeal to Caesar to decide controversies between pro- 
 fessing Christians. By their counsel, they applied to ** the 
 Court in Bank," — a tribunal consisting of " all the Judges, 
 sitting in a body to determine questions of law," for a new 
 trial. The case came on for adjudication at the March term, 
 
 1839, and the Cour,t, through Judge Gibson, gave a decision 
 in favor of a new trial.* 
 
 That our readers may be furnished with the means of 
 forming an accurate judgment in respect lo the grounds 
 
 ■* The opinion was really by three of the Judges of the court, viz., 
 Messrs. Gibson, Houston and Kennedy. 
 
 Judge Sergeant being a member of the Rev. Mr. Barnes' congrega- 
 tion, did not feel at liberty to take part in the case, and Judge Rogers 
 dissented. 
 
 Judges Houston and Kennedy were both attached to the exscind- 
 ing portion of the Church, and the former was a strong partisan of 
 that body. They felt none of the delicacy of Judge Sergeant. 
 
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 199 
 
 on which the Court granted a new trial, we give the opinion 
 of Chief Justice Gibson entire. — See Appendix B, 
 
 After the decision of the Court in Bank, the Constitu- 
 tional party concluded to withdraw the suit. 
 
 The issues of these trials in the Supreme Court of Penn- 
 sylvania are these : In the trial before Judge Rogers, he 
 charged the jury strongly in favor of the Constitutional As- 
 sembly, and the jury, after an hour's deliberation, rendered 
 a verdict in their favor. The Assembly, on the New Basis, 
 appealed to the Court in Bank for a new trial, and the Court 
 granted it. 
 
 Some things in the charge of Judge Rogers, and the 
 opinion of Chief Justice Gibson, demand a moment's at- 
 tention. Judge Rogers's charge contains a lucid statement 
 of the principles of the Constitution of the Presbyterian 
 Church, and a concise, but accurate history of the unhappy 
 controversy, which resulted in its division. 
 
 Both Judges are agreed in the opinion, that " the Plan of 
 Union of 1801 was strictly constitutional." If this opinion 
 be correct, the strongest alleged reason for the excision of 
 the Synods, is no reason at all. Of course, if the act be jus- 
 tified, it must be on other grounds. The candid and intelli- 
 gent reader of the foregoing pages, we trust, is fully con- 
 vinced that there are no grounds on which the acts of excis- 
 ion can be justified — that they deserve universal and ever- 
 lasting reprobation. Of course the refusal of the New Basis 
 A ssembly to enter the names of the Commissioners from the 
 disowned Synods on the roll of the Assembly was arbitrary 
 and unrighteous, and a gross violation of the Constitution, 
 quite sufficient to justify the measui'es, adopted by the Con- 
 stitutional Branch of the Church, to secure a regularly or- 
 ganized Assembly. 
 
 Judge Rogers was decidedly of the opinion, that Dr. El- 
 liott, the Moderator, by refusing to put the appeal of Dr. 
 Mason, was guilty of *' a dereliction of duty — a usurpation 
 of authority, which called for the censure of the house." 
 
200 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 Again he says : '' It is tlie opinion of the Court, that the 
 General Assembly has a right to depose the Moderator, 
 upon sufficient cause. This power is necessarj^ for the pro- 
 tection of the house ; otherwise the Moderator, instead of 
 being the servant, would be the master of the house." 
 
 He was also of the opinion that Mr. Cleaveland had a 
 right to put the question, that Dr. Beman should be the 
 Moderator. " There is no doubt the house may elect a Mode- 
 rator, although the seats of some of the members are contest- 
 ed." He says, moreover, " That the fact that Mr. Cleave- 
 land put the question instead of the Moderator, the cries of 
 order when this was in progress, the omission of some of 
 the formula usually observed, when there is no contest and 
 no excitement, . . . wall not vitiate the organization. ..." 
 
 Judge Gibson was of a different opinion. He says : " The 
 refusal of an appeal from the decision of the Moderator, 
 would be no ground for the degradation of the officer, at the 
 call of a minority ; nor could it impose on the majority an 
 obligation to vote on a question put unofficially and out of 
 the usual course. The choice of a Moderator to supplant 
 the officer in the chair, even if he were removable at the 
 pleasure of the commissioners, would seem to have been 
 unconstitutional. But he was not removable by them, be- 
 cause he had not derived his office from them, nor was he 
 answerable to them for the use of his power. He was not 
 their Moderator. He was the mechanical instrument of 
 their organization ; and till that was accomplished, they were 
 subject to his rule — not he to theirs.''^ 
 
 If this opinion be correct, the Moderator of the previous 
 Assembly, or to use the language of the Judge, '* the me- 
 chanical instrument of their organization" might persist in 
 his refusal to put a question during his lifetime, and utterly 
 prevent the transaction of all business ; nay, the organization 
 of the body. According to this opinion of Judge Gibson, 
 the Twenty- Sixth Congress was not constitutionally organi- 
 zed, because Mr. Adams put the question on a motion for 
 
LEGAL TROCEEDINGS. 201 
 
 the removal of the Clerk of ilie House of Representatives and 
 the appointment of another in his place. 
 
 The Judge also assumes it as an incontrovertible fact that 
 the Presbyteries embraced in the exscinded Sj-nods, were 
 formed upon the basis of the Plan of Union. On previous 
 pages of this history, it has been shown that the Plan of 
 Union had nothing to do with their formation — that they 
 were organized in strict conformity with the Constitution of 
 the Presbyterian Church. Consequently the Judge's as- 
 sumption is wholly at variance with the facts. 
 
 Another assumption of the Judge, equally unfounded 
 with the one just noticed, is, that the Assembly unites ** the 
 legislative, executive and judicial functions of the govern- 
 ment ;" that **its acts are referable to the one or the other 
 of them, according to the capacity in which it sat when they 
 were performed." The reader has but to turn to chapter 
 XII., section VI. of the Form of Government, to satisfy 
 himself that the Assembly has no legislative power what- 
 ever — that it pertains exclusively to the Presbyteries. 
 
 In connection with the last mentioned unauthorized as- 
 sumption, the Judge makes two admissions, which are too 
 important to be passed over unnoticed. One is that the 
 Synods, notwithstanding all that had been alleged by the 
 exscinders conc^ning their heresies and disorders, had done 
 nothing deserving of censure : the other is that the excision, 
 as a legislative act, had the appearance of injustice, and we 
 think his language implies that he believed it had something 
 of the reality. He says : " Now the apparent injustice of 
 the measure arises from the contemplation of it as a judicial 
 sentence pronounced against parties who were neither cited 
 nor heard, which it evidently was not. Even as a legislative 
 act, it may have been a hard one, though certainly constitu- 
 tional and strictly just." " Had the exscinded Synods been 
 cut off by a judicial sentence without hearing or notice, the 
 act would have been contrary to the cardinal principles of 
 natural justice, and consequently void." 
 
202 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 We would like to be informed by the learned Judge how- 
 decapitation or hanging, which would be *' contrary to the 
 cardinal principles of natural justice," as a judicial act, 
 could be just as a legislative act. We confess we have not 
 discernment enough to see how there could be more in- 
 justice in the one case than the other. 
 
 In a subsequent suit in Pennsylvania, brought up by 
 appeal before the Supreme Court, Judge Gibson explained 
 some of the principles on which he had given his opinion in 
 the Court in Bank in favor of the Reformers. The property 
 of the Presbyterian Church in York was of considerable 
 value. A small minority in it were decidedly in favor of 
 the New Basis Assembly. In conformity with the recom- 
 mendation of its great reforming ordinance, they claimed to 
 be the true Presbyterian Church in York, and brought suit 
 against the constitutional portion of the Church for the pro- 
 perty. The case was tried before Judge Hays, and decided 
 in favor of the Constitutional party. 
 
 The Reformers regarded Judge Gibson's opinion in the 
 Court in Bank as deciding that they were the only orthodox 
 Presbyterians, and the Assembly of the exscinders the only 
 true Assembly, and they doubtless felt if they could bring 
 the suit before him, he would reverse the decision of the 
 lower Court. In this they were disappointed. He affirmed 
 the decision of the lower Court, and decided that the pro- 
 perty belonged to the Constitutional portion of the Church. 
 
 In delivering the opinion of the Court, to the astonishment 
 and deep regret of the minority, he explained some of the 
 grounds of his opinion in the Court in Bank. He says, 
 " There was not merely a secession of particles, leaving the 
 original mass entire, but the original mass was split into two 
 fragments of nearly equal magnitude ; and though it was 
 held by this Court, in the Commonwealth v. Green, 5 Wheat. 
 Rep. 531, that the party which happened to be in office by 
 means of its numerical superiority at the time of the division, 
 was that which was entitled to represent it and perform the 
 
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 203 
 
 functions of the original body, it was not because the minor- 
 ity were thouglit to be anything else than Presbyterian, but 
 because a popular body is known only by its government or 
 head. That they differed from tlie majority in doctrine or 
 discipline was not pretended, though it was alleged that they 
 did not maintain the scriptural warrant of ruling elders. But 
 the difference in this respect had been tolerated if not sanc- 
 tioned by the Assembly itself, which, with full knowledge of 
 it, had allowed the heterodox Synods to grow up as a part of 
 the Church ; and it could not therefore have been viewed as 
 radical or essential. We were called, however, to pass, not 
 on a question of heresy, for we would have been incompe- 
 tent to decide it, but on the regularity of the meeting at 
 which the trustees were chosen. I mention this to show 
 that we did not determine that the exscision was expurgation, 
 and not division. Indeed, the measure would seem to have 
 been as decisively revolutionary as would be an exclusion of 
 particular States from tho Federal Union for the adoption of 
 an anti-republican form of government. The excluded Syn- 
 ods, gathering to themselves the disaffected in other quarters 
 of the Church, formed themselves into a distinct body, gov- 
 erned by a supreme judicatory so like its fellow as to pass 
 for its twin brother, and even lay claim to the succession. 
 That the Old School party succeeded to the privileges and 
 property of the Assembly was not because it was more Pres- 
 byterian than the other, but because it was stronger ; for had 
 it been the weaker, it would have been the party excluded, 
 and the New School party, exercising the government as it 
 then had done, would, have succeeded in its stead, and thus 
 the doctrine pressed upon us would have made title to Church 
 property the sport of accident. In that event an attempt to 
 deprive the Old School congregations of their churches, for an 
 act of the majority, in withdrawing from the jurisdiction of 
 the Assembly, would have loaded the New School party with 
 such a weight of popular odium as would have sunk it. 
 Here then was the original mass divided into two parts of 
 
204 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 nearly equal magnitude and similar structure ; and what was 
 a congregation in the predicament before us to do ? It was 
 not bound to follow the party which was successful in the 
 conflict merely because superiority of numbers had given it 
 the victory." — See Waits and Serjeant's Reports, Vol. I., 
 /pages 38, 39. 
 
 Here the Judge gives the real ground of his opinion in the 
 Court in Bank. He gave it in favor of the reformers not be- 
 cause they were more orthodox in doctrine or in practice, 
 more strictly conformed to the Constitution of the Presbyte- 
 rian Church, but because they were the majority. Conse- 
 quently had the constitutional branch of the Church in 1831, 
 1832, 1833, 1834, and 1836, when they were the majoirty, 
 cast out the Synods of Pliiladelphia and Pittsburg after the 
 manner of their exscinding brethren, seized and appropriated 
 the entire funds of the Church, exhorted minorities in all the 
 churches to declare themselves the orthodox, the only true 
 Presbyteiians, and claimed all the property, and thus per- 
 petuated their power, the law would have protected them. 
 But would it have been morally right ? Oui' brethren of the 
 new basis, we are persuaded, will not affirm that it would. 
 We doubt not they will reject the logic and morality of the 
 Judge's opinion no less decidedly than we do. 
 
 The judge himself admits that had our branch of the Church 
 adopted this course it would have been suicidal. He says it 
 " would have loaded the New School party with such a weight 
 of popular odium as would have sunk it." 
 
 To this opinion of the Judge we give our unqualified as- 
 sent. It bears hard, however, upon our brethren of the New 
 Basis. If just, how are they to bear up under " a weight of 
 popular odium," which would have crushed our branch of 
 the Church ? We leave them and posterity in the coming 
 time, when misapprehension and prejudice shall have passed 
 away, to answer this inquiry. 
 
 Other parts of the Judge's opinion are equally adverse to 
 our brethren. They had maintained that the excision was a 
 
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 205 
 
 necessary expurgation, and that those Tvho united with the 
 exscinded were seceders, and they beheved that the Judge in 
 dehvering the opinion of the Court in Bank had so decided. 
 These positions, his opinion in the case of the Churcli in York, 
 exphcitly denies. He says the Court " did not determine 
 that the excision was expurgation, and not division." He 
 even goes further. He says, " the measure would seem to 
 have been as decisively revolutionary as would be an ex- 
 clusion of particular States from the Federal Union for the 
 adoption of an anti-republican forni of government." He 
 affirms that the action of the Assembly of which we com- 
 plain, " was no less than a dismemberment of the Presby- 
 terian Body, not indeed by disorganization of it, or an entire 
 reduction of it to its primitive elements, but by an excision. 
 There was not merely a secession of particles, leaving the 
 original mass entire, but the original mass was split into two 
 fragments." And the Judge considers each equally Presbyte- 
 rian, — " each so like its fellow as to pass for its twin-brother." 
 With one exception the Judge decides that in the former suit 
 the claims of the Constitutional Branch of the Church were as 
 strong: as those of the New Basis. At the time of the ex- 
 cision the latter were the stronger party. 
 
 There have been a few other suits which merit a brief 
 notice. 
 
 In the Church of Neshammony, Pennsylvania, the New 
 Basis Party, a minority, claimed to be the only true Presby- 
 terians, and sought to obtain the property, but they were 
 unsuccessful. 
 
 A minority in the Presbyterian Church, in Florida, Orange 
 Co., N. Y., did the same, and with the same result. 
 
 "Another suit of the same character was brought by the 
 Reform Party, in the Church of Somers, in the State of New 
 York. They informed the Constitutional Party that they 
 were the only true Presbyterians, and that they must have 
 the Church property, house, parsonage, &c. The Constitu- 
 tional Party, who were the majoiity, proposed that the two 
 9* 
 
206 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 parties sliould use the Churcli alternately, and that the ques- 
 tion concerning property should be settled by compromise. 
 But the Reform party would not compromise. The Clerk of 
 the congregation being on their side, they took possession of 
 records, church, parsonage, and all. Being secure, as they 
 thought, they leased the parsonage to a tenant, and lay quiet- 
 ly ' within the fortifications of the New Basis.' 
 
 " The old trustees had no other alternative left but to de- 
 cide the matter by a law-suit. They commenced an action 
 of ejectment for the parsonage. After a patient hearing, the 
 jury gave a verdict for the Constitutional Party without 
 leaving their seats."* 
 
 The results of these legal investigations and decisions are 
 briefly these : With the exception of the Court in Bank, in 
 Pennsylvania, all of them are decidedly favorable to the Con- 
 stitutional Branch of the Church. That, by ordering a new 
 trial, which they have not chosen to bring to an issue, was 
 adverse to them. Considered, however, in connection with 
 statements made respecting the ground of that decision, it is 
 very little in favor of the New Basis Body. As we have 
 seen. Judge Gibson did not decide to grant a new trial, be- 
 cause he considered those who denominated themselves the 
 orthodox, true " Old School Presbyterians," any more worthy 
 of these epithets and appellations, than those whom they de- 
 nominated " heterodox, schismatics, seceders, the new sect, 
 and New School Presbyterians," but simply because they 
 were a majority. The judgment of the Court in Bank, order- 
 ing a new trial, was evidently given upon the unrighteous 
 principle that " might makes figlity 
 
 The legal decisions in this unhappy controversy establish 
 two points of great importance. One is, that in the judg- 
 ment of the Courts both bodies are sound orthodox Presby- 
 terians : the other, that in cases of litigation for church pro- 
 perty, it should be given to the majority. 
 
 See oimdons of the Hon. Samuel Bl. Hopkins, Hon. George 
 Wood, ami Chancellor Kent, Appendix C. 
 
 * Woods' History, pages 203, 204 
 
MEASURES TAKEN BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL BRANCH OF THE CHURCH TO UNITE 
 THE TWO IN ONE BODY. 
 
 That the constitutional branch of the church were strong- 
 ly adverse to division, and desirous after it had been effected 
 to have the difficulties arising out of it settled without Uti- 
 gation, has been clearly shown by facts placed before our 
 readers on previous pages of this history. Facts now to be 
 presented will make it equally evident that they have since 
 been governed by the same pacific spirit. 
 
 In 1846 the two Assemblies met in the city of Philadelphia. 
 On page 11th of the minutes of the Constitutional Assem- 
 bly, we find the following minute, viz. : 
 
 **Rev. A. W. Campbell moved, that the committee on 
 devotional exercises be authorized to confer with a similar 
 committee of the General Assembly, meeting in the Tenth 
 Presbyterian Church of this city, in reference to a united 
 celebration of the Lord's Supper." 
 
 "The motion was carried unanimously." 
 
 The report of this committee, and the action of the As- 
 sembly in reference to it, are recorded on pages 21st and 
 2 2d of the Minutes, and are as follow, viz. : 
 
 " The committee on devotional exercises presented a re- 
 port as to the result of a conference with a similar com- 
 mittee of the other Assembly, in reference to a united cel- 
 ebration of the Lord's Sitpper, which was adopted, and is as 
 follows : 
 
208 EFFORTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL 
 
 " The committee on devotional exercises, to whom was 
 referred the resolution authorizing them to confer with a 
 similar committee of the Assembly, meetinof in the Tenth 
 Presbyterian Church, in reference to a united celebration of 
 the Lord's Supper, report, 
 
 "That they presented to the committee of the Annual 
 Assembly a certified copy of the resolution passed by this 
 Body, accompanied by the following letter, addressed to 
 the chairman of said committee : 
 
 *' ' Dear Brother — It devolves upon us, as chairman and 
 secretary of the committee on devotional exercises of the 
 Triennial* General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, 
 convened in the First Presbyterian Church in this city, to 
 present for your consideration the above resolutio-o. 
 
 " ' Should the foregoing proposal meet the approval of 
 yourself and of your Assembly, it would aiFord us great 
 pleasure as a committee to confer with you at such time and 
 place as you may designate. 
 
 " ' Wishing you, and the Assembly with whc>m you are 
 associated, grace, mercy, and peace from our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, v/e are yours, affectionately, 
 
 " ' ALFRED E. CAMPBELL, Chairman. 
 
 " * Charles H. Read, Secretary.' 
 
 ** To our proposal we have received the following answer, 
 through the Rev. Daniel Baker, one of the committee on 
 devotional exercises : 
 
 "Extract from the Minutes of the General Assembly, in 
 session at Philadel2ohia, Mcty 2Sth, 1846: 
 " * The committee on devotional exercises, having reported 
 to the General Assembly a communication from a similar 
 committee of the General Assembly in session in the First 
 Presbyterian Church, representing that the said Assembly 
 
 * At that time the Constitutional Assembly met every third year; 
 but like the other^ they now meet annually. 
 
PRESBYTERIANS FOR UNION. 209 
 
 has authorized its committee to confer with the committee 
 of this Assembly in relation to a joint celebration of the 
 Lord's Supper by the two bodies ; it was ordered, that the 
 committee respectfully acknowledge and reciprocate the 
 courtesy of the communication, and say in reply, that while 
 this Assembly recognize the above-mentioned body as a 
 branch of the church of our common Lord, and for this 
 reason would, as individuals, under appropriate circum- 
 stances, unite with our brethren in the celebration of di- 
 vine ordinances, yet, as this Assembly has never, in its cor- 
 porate and official capacity, united with any other ecclesi- 
 astical body in celebrating the Lord's Supper, it judges it 
 inexpedient to institute a new usage at this time, 
 
 " * On motion, the committee on devotional exercises were 
 directed to communicate a copy of the above minute to 
 the committee of the other Assembly. 
 
 " * Attest, Willis Lobd, 
 
 '* ^Stated Olerk of the General Assembly.^ " 
 
 *• We can only regret that the proposal, made in the most 
 fraternal manner, and passed by a unanimous vote, did not 
 meet with a cordial response in the other Assembly. We 
 have long seen, that while the two Assemblies were hold- 
 ing correspondence with many of the same ecclesiastical 
 bodies, and in their respective Synods and Presbyteries 
 maintaining the usual courtesies of correspondence, and 
 freely exchanging pulpits with each other, nothing had 
 been done, in our official capacity, to show to the world 
 that we recoQfnized each other as brethren. And as the 
 world had seen the jarring and contention that existed in 
 former years between the two Assemblies, it seemed to be 
 demanded from both, to manifest, by some public act, like 
 that of the united celebration of the Lord's Supper, that, 
 though we were separated, we were 07ie in Christ, and would 
 love and treat each other as brethren. And though we are 
 the injured party, our motives and our ministerial charac- 
 
210 EFFORTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL 
 
 ter having been impeached, and some of us belonging to 
 Presbyteries and churches who were exscinded by the acts 
 of 1837, still it was our earnest wish to extend to them 
 the hand of Christian charity, to forgive and forget, as we 
 pray to be forgiven of our God." 
 
 *' It is, therefore, to us, a source of deep regret, that our 
 brethren of the other Assembly did not manifest a disposi- 
 tion to unite with us, and by their influence and example aid 
 us in doing away the reproach and the odium which have 
 been heaped upon the Presbyterian Church. But though 
 we may not as an Assembly, under existing circumstances, 
 unite with our brethren of the other Assembly in a joint cel- 
 ebration of the Lord's Supper, still it is our sincere prayer, 
 that we may meet with them in the General Assembly and 
 Church of the First-Born in Heaven, and sit down with them 
 at the marriage supper of the Lamb." 
 
 The reason assigned by our brethren of the New Basis for 
 refusing to accede to the proposition of the Constitutional 
 Assembly to unite with them in commemorating the death 
 of their common Lord and Redeemer, was the fact that in 
 their " corporate and official capacity," they had never done 
 it, and then deemed it inexpedient. With some, doubtless, 
 this was the chief reason. It was our lot, however, to listen to 
 a protracted debate in their Assembly upon the propriety of 
 the proposed joint celebration of the Lord's Supper, and we 
 know that other reasons were assigned for refusing to accede 
 to the proposition, made by our Assembly, and we distinctly 
 recollect that one was tliat it would be virtually undoing all 
 that ihey had done by the exscinding acts and the measures 
 subsequently adopted to purify the Church. Their speeches 
 furnished unmistakable evidence that they were not prepared 
 to meet their brethren whom they had violently cast out of 
 the Church, and slandered as grossly heretical, at the table 
 of their redeeming Saviour and God. 
 
 Other members of their Assembly advocated the meas- 
 ure with a spirit of Christian liberahty and zeal, which did 
 
PRESBYTERIANS FOR UNION. 211 
 
 them immortal honor, till they saw that the strong opposi- 
 tion of some of their brethren to the measure rendered the 
 adoption of it inexpedient, if not impossible. 
 
 In 1850 the Presbytery of Rochester sent an overture to 
 both Assemblies, requesting them " to adopt measures to 
 effect a union between the two b; anches of the Presbyterian 
 Church." 
 
 Each Assembly appointed a committee to consider this 
 overture and report thereon to the Body. The Chairman of 
 the Constitutional Assembly was the late lamented Dr. 
 Erskine Mason. In his report, after having stated what the 
 Assembly had previously done to effect a union of the two 
 Bodies, but without success, he thus concluded his report : 
 
 " These propositions and overtures were all made in good 
 faith, and with an earnest desire and hope that they might 
 be met in the spirit which prompted them." 
 
 *' The result is a matter of history, and is now before the 
 world. We do not pretend to question the motives of our 
 brethren in rejecting them ; we yield to them what we claim 
 for ourselves, honesty of purpose and sincere convictions of 
 duty. We stated only the facts, and do so to show that we 
 cannot, as a Body, at the present time, take any farther action 
 in this mattei"." 
 
 " While we are constrained to come to this conclusion, we 
 should be untrue to ourselves before God and the world, did 
 we not frankly avow our readiness to meet, in a spirit of fra- 
 ternal kindness and Christian love, any overtures which may 
 be made to us by the other Body." — Minutes of the Asse77i- 
 hly of 1850, Images 322 and 323. 
 
 The Committee of the New Basis Assembly on the over- 
 ture from the Presbytery of Rochester, " recommended the 
 adoption of the following minute in relation to it." 
 
 " This Assembly having in former years (see Minutes of 
 1838, pages 35 and 36, and Minutes of 1842, page 32), fully 
 declared that it was not its intention * to cause any sound 
 Presbyterian to be permanently separated from our connec- 
 
212 EFFORTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL 
 
 tion/ and having provided a mode of return to our Body (see 
 Minutes of 1838, page 36), on principles which have seemd 
 adapted to preserve the purity and peace of our churches, 
 consider it inexpedient to take any further action on the sub- 
 ject at this time. Yet the Assembly would reiterate its de- 
 sire to see all sound Presbyterians re-united in one commu- 
 nion, according to the doctrine and polity of our standards, 
 and would affectionately invite all such to seek this union in 
 the ways that are now open to them." 
 
 We envy not the hand which penned, nor the heart which 
 dictated this report. Still less do we covet the reputation 
 of the Assembly which adopted it, half a century hence. 
 Its chief characteristic is the slanderous insinuation that most 
 of the ministers and churches in connection with the Consti- 
 tutional Assembly, are " not sound Presbyterians,''^ and it 
 reminds those that are, that they can be received into their 
 Body, not on the ground of their having complied with the 
 requirements of the Constitution, but only by adopting the 
 New Basis of 1837 and 1838. This report, be it remem- 
 bered, was adopted by the Assembly thirteen years after 
 they thrust out of the Church with ruthless violence the 
 four Synods ; — a period, it would seem, quite sufficient for 
 passion to give place to reason, and prejudice to candor, and 
 the exercise of Christian love. 
 
 As little is the writer of an editorial article upon this 
 minute, which was published in the Presbyterian of July 
 20th of that year, to be envied as its author and the Body 
 which adopted it. We quote its closing paragraph. 
 
 " The process of re-union is now going on ; those churches 
 and ministers that are not pleased with their present position 
 are gradually transferring their relations. Since the debate 
 on the subject in the New School Assembly, it seems to be 
 agreed on all hands that no union en masse can be effected. 
 But a more excellent way is for all those who think alike to 
 get together. When all think alike we shall all be to- 
 gether." 
 
PRESBYTERIANS FOR UNION. 213 
 
 This language and that of the report of the Committee on 
 the overture from the Presbytery of Rochester make it un- 
 deniably evident that the only union which the Reformers 
 contemplate, is, by withdrawing ministers and churches from 
 our body and attaching them to theirs. Absolution, not 
 union, is their policy. 
 
 One ignorant of the actual state of things in their branch 
 of the Church Avould infer from their language that they are 
 " perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same 
 judgment." Such, however, we are certain, is not the fact. 
 Not a few in connection with tlieir Assembly approve of the 
 " statement of true doctrine" presented by the minority of 
 the Assembly of 1837, and adopted by the Auburn Conven- 
 tionj and likewise of the tolerant principles of the adopting 
 act of 1729. But as they sit down quietly under acts which 
 they do not approve, and make no eflforts to procure the re- 
 moval of the new basis created in 1837 and 1838, they are 
 freely tolerated. So long as they contribute to their boards 
 and do not oppose the carrying out of their ecclesiastical pol- 
 ity, they will doubtless be left undisturbed. Should they 
 refuse to do this and become formidable in numbers, unless 
 wiser counsels and a better spirit prevail than did in 1837, as 
 were the four Synods in that year, they will doubtless be 
 legislated out of the Church. 
 
 In view of the facts placed before our readers in reference 
 to a miion of the two branches of the Church, they can be 
 at no loss which is most desirous of it on Christian princi- 
 ples. They must also, we think, be forcibly reminded of the 
 striking resemblance of the exscinders of the nineteenth cen- 
 tury to Diatrophes of the first, of whom the beloved disciple 
 thus wrote : " Who loveth to have the pre-eminence, prating 
 against us with malicious words ; and not content therewith, 
 neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth 
 them that w^ould, and casteth them out of the Church." 
 
OUR POSITION, DUTY, AXD PROSPECTS. 
 
 The preceding chapters contain what the Committee be- 
 lieve to be a faithful documentary history of the division of 
 the Presbyterian Cliurch, and the causes which produced it. 
 By their appointment the Synod probably contemplated 
 nothing more. To the Committee the history appears highly 
 suggestive, presenting matters worthy of grave consideration, 
 especially by our branch of the Church, and it has seemed to 
 them they might, Avith propriety, and with the prospect of 
 doing good, close their labors by calling attention to them. 
 
 One thing which will be likely to suggest itself to every 
 attentive reader of the preceding pages, is, that our position, 
 whether desirable or otherwise, is not of our own election. 
 As long as there was any hope of preventing the division of 
 the Church, the men who now compose our branch of it la- 
 bored to avert the catastrophe, and since it was effected, they 
 have sought to unite the two bodies in one. By our brethren 
 of the other branch these efforts to effect their union have 
 been counteracted. To this day they manifest an iron deter- 
 mination to have no union but upon the basis which they 
 created in 1837 and 1838. To this we cannot consent with- 
 out the sacrifice of principle and a criminal dereliction of 
 duty. Culpable as we believe our brethren from whom we 
 are now ecclesiastically separated, to have been, in placing 
 us in our present position, we are nevertheless under obliga- 
 tion to recognize a higher agency in the measures which 
 
OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 215 
 
 placed us in it. A sparrow falls not to the ground wiiLout 
 the agency, direct or permissive, of our Heavenly Father. 
 Surely, then, events intimately connected with the weal or 
 woe of any branch of His Church, cannot. All things consid- 
 ered, it seemed good to Him to suffer the events to come to 
 pass which have placed us in the position we occupy. By it 
 He has purposes to answer, which are worthy of His infinite 
 wisdom and benevolence. He has a mission for us to per- 
 form, and it is our duty to avail ourselves of the means which 
 He has furnished for ascertaining what it is, and hoio Ave may 
 best perform it. 
 
 In respect to doctrine, our position is between the latitu- 
 dinarianism, which tolerates error, subversive of the Gospel 
 on one hand, and uniformity, which precludes all diversity 
 of views on points not essential, on the other. With the 
 great body of the fathers of Presbyterianism in this country, 
 we maintain that no one can honestly subscribe or give his 
 assent to the Confession of Faith and Catechism, framed 
 and adopted by the Westminster Assembly, who does not 
 cordially receive them as containing the system of doctrine 
 taught in the Holy Scriptures. As distinguished from sys- 
 tems embraced by several other branches of the Protestant' 
 Church, it is Calvinistic, and we believe Scriptural. With 
 the early Presbyterians of our country, however, we believe, 
 amidst the great diversity which exists among the fol- 
 lowers of the Saviour in respect to mental constitution, 
 education and habits of thought, that with the present 
 degree of their sanciification, perfect uniformity in ref- 
 erence to a system so comprehensive and minute in its 
 details, is not to be expected, and ought not to be required. 
 Hence it seems to us that diversity of views on points ^ 
 not affecting the integrity of the system, should "be made \ 
 the subject of Christian toleration. It must be so, or what 
 is worse, there will be visible unity without union — insin- 
 cerity, or almost endless strife and divisions. The coercive 
 measures which from time to time have been adopted to 
 
216 OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 
 
 secure perfect uniformity of doctrinal belief, churcli polity, 
 and modes of worship, have not only failed, but done in- 
 calculable injury to the cause of religion. Our position in 
 respect to doctrine, is that of agreement in things funda- 
 mental, and toleration and forbearance in things not essen- 
 tial, *' endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds 
 of peace." 
 
 Our position in respect to disciphne and measures for the 
 removal of error, is what the name by which we choose to 
 be known, Constitutional Presbyterians, indicates. Unless a 
 Church have become so corrupt that the discipline of the 
 Gospel cannot be carried out, and revolution is the only thing 
 which gives promise of relief, the recovery of erring mem- 
 bers and the expurgation of error are to be sought only by 
 the process prescribed in our Book of Discipline and the word 
 of God. This is one of the things for which we contended 
 at the time the exscinding acts were passed, and for which 
 we had contended for several years previous. Had our 
 brethren adopted this course with the four disowned Synods, 
 had they patiently investigated the rumors respecting the 
 heresies and disorders alleged to exist in them, and in case 
 they should, in any portions of them, be found actually to 
 exist, employed for their removal the means prescribed in the 
 Gospel, the Presbyterian Church in this country would have 
 remained a united and powerful Branch of the great Protes- 
 tant family of believers. So far as discipline is concerned, 
 our position is that of Constitutional law and order. It is 
 opposed to all arbitrary, rash, and revolutionary measures for 
 securing the ends of discipline and promoting the purity of 
 the Church. We utterly repudiate and reprobate in the Pro- 
 testant, as in the Romish Church, the Jesuitical maxim in 
 morals, *' The end sanctifies the meansT We maintain that 
 we are under the most sacred obligation to observe the rules 
 which God has given for the maintenance of discipline and 
 the removal of error. 
 
 Our position in reference to other branches of the Church, 
 
OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 217 
 
 is that of preference for our own, without the narrowness of 
 bigotry and sectarian exckisiveness. The type of Presbyte- 
 rianism, which characterizes our body, is that of the founders 
 of Presbyterianism in this country. Our preference and 
 love for its formulas, polity and order are strong, while we 
 desire to maintain friendly relations with all evangelical 
 Christians of every name, and co-operate with them in labors 
 for the spread of our common Christianity. 
 
 As regards the most eligible organizations for evangehzing 
 our nation and the world, our preferences are generally in favor 
 of that type of evangelism which seeks the attainment of its 
 object by Voluntary Societies, composed of members of vari- 
 ous denominations of Christians. 
 
 Our position is decidedly in favor of the great principles of 
 civil and religious liberty. We maintain that men of all na- 
 tions, countries, complexions and circumstances, unless, by 
 wrong-doing, they ha^^ forfeited their prerogatives as men, 
 have a perfect right to think for themselves, to express their 
 opinions freely, except when they are adverse to the interests 
 of society, to enjoy the fruits of their own labor and the 
 blessings of domestic life ; to cultivate their minds, read the 
 word of God, and worship Him according to the dictates of 
 their own consciencies, enlightened by His Word and Spirit. 
 
 Our position, how'ever, in respect to the involuntary bond- 
 age of men, is conservative. Firmly fixed as are our prin- 
 ciples against the system cf slavery as it exists in our coun- 
 try; deep as is our abhorrence of the legal conversion of 
 men into mere chattels, and the fearful liability connected with 
 it, of sundering the bonds which unite husbands and wives, 
 parents and children, brothers and sisters, we are no less op- 
 posed to the indiscriminate denunciation of all who are con- 
 nected with this iniquitous system. We believe there is a 
 more excellent way, a way more benevolent, both toward the 
 master and the slave, to labor for its extermination. For the re- 
 moval of this foul blot upon our national escutcheon and com- 
 mon humanity, we advocate no violent measures, but a calm. 
 
218 OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 
 
 kind, and uncompromising testimony against it, and efforts to 
 secure an everlasting divorce of our Branch of the Church 
 from all connection with the institution. In several of our 
 Assemblies, this subject has been calmly and fully discussed. 
 They have re-affirmed what the Synod of New York and 
 Philadelphia did respecting it in 1181, and the testimony of 
 the Assembly of 1818. The action of both these bodies 
 against slavery is temperate, but strongly condemnatory, as 
 anti-Christian, and opposed alike to the principles of justice 
 and humanity. Equally opposed are we to all infringements 
 of the sacred rights of religious liberty. Such, in the various 
 particulars specified, is our position before the nation and the 
 world. 
 
 Here the inquiry naturally presents itself, what, in the in- 
 teresting position which we occupy, is our 
 
 DUTY ? 
 
 It requires no supernatural vision to see that a body of 
 professing Christians, large and intelHgent as is ours, occu- 
 pying the position which the providence of God has as- 
 signed to us, must be laid under weighty responsibilities, and 
 that it deeply concerns us to know and meet them. 
 
 An important branch of our duty respects ourselves. By 
 the course pursued by our brethren of the New Basisj we 
 have been deeply grieved and injured. That the ^jrinciples, 
 which in the main, have governed us in resisting their revo- 
 lutionary and oppressive measures, are characterized by 
 eternal truth and righteousness, we do not doubt. That in 
 the peculiarly trying circumstances in which we have been 
 placed by the action of our exscinding and falsely accusing 
 brethren, we have never indulged feelings and performed 
 acts displeasing to God, we would by no means affirm. 
 Hence, it is our duty to exercise the most diligent self-scru- 
 tiny for the purpose of ascertaining wherein we have sinned, 
 to humble ourselves before God, and seek his pardoning 
 mercy. 
 
 To our brethren, by whom we feel that we have been 
 
OUR POSITION, DUTY, AIN^D PROSPECTS. 219 
 
 deeply injured, we owe an important duty. They have east 
 brethren in good standing out of the Church, untried ; com- 
 pelled those of our body, who were not exscinded, to stand 
 by them and attempt to redress their wrongs or sacrifice 
 their principles. They have laid things to our charge re- 
 specting our doctrinal belief, our practice, and the adoption 
 of our standards, of which we know ourselves to be guiltless 
 as the angels before the throne of God. The errors, which 
 they have from time to time laid to our charge, we as sincerely 
 reject as they do, and are grieved that our testimony against 
 them, and in favor of the system contained in the Confession 
 of Faith and Catechisms, which both tkei/ and we adopt, is 
 not believed by them. It is no matter of surprise, that the 
 leaders of the misnamed reform do not believe our testimony, 
 but it is that the numerous, excellent brethren in that branch 
 of the Church, who have confidence in our orthodoxy and 
 integrity, can hear us slandered as we have been for years, 
 and still are by men in their connection, and forbear to lift 
 up their voices in our defence. Still they are our brethren, 
 redeemed by the same precious blood to which we trust for 
 remission and eternal life. As such we are bound to bear 
 with and love them, their faults notwithstanding, and pray 
 no less sincerely than we do for ourselves, that God would 
 make known to them their duty, give them grace to perform 
 it, and cause the light of His countenance to shine upon 
 them. 
 
 What we have suffered from the revolutionary and intoler- 
 ant measures of the New Basis Assembly, should lead to the 
 exercise of forbearance and toleration toward each other in 
 regard to things of subordinate moment, concerning which 
 we differ. An intolerant, overbearing spirit in our branch of 
 the Church, woul^ be most unseemly, and deeply cul- 
 pable. In our position, we ought to give the most earnest 
 heed to the inspired entreaty and injunction : ** That ye walk 
 worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all low- 
 liness and meekness, with long-suffering, forgiving one an- 
 
220 OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 
 
 other in love ; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in 
 the bond of peace." 
 
 Our position before all the branches of the great Protest- 
 ant brotherhood of believers, and before the world, as the 
 sincere friends of our standards of doctrine and order, should 
 influence us to a strict adherence to them in accordance with 
 the principles of the adopting act of 1729. If there be men 
 in our branch of the church who repudiate their doctrines, 
 and are guilty of flagrant departures from their discipline and 
 order, let the measures, prescribed by the Gospel, be em- 
 ployed to reclaim them. Should they prove unavailing, let 
 them be removed from us by judicial process. May the day 
 never come when any shall be declared out of our commun- 
 ion by the operation of ex-post-facto laws and legislative acts, 
 wholly unauthorized by our Constitution and the Word of 
 God. 
 
 As a distinct brancli of the great family of believers in 
 Christ, we have certainly a rigid, nay, it is our imjjerative 
 duty, to employ all available means authorized by the Gos- 
 pel for her enlargement and prosperity. Not less sacredly 
 are we bound to abstain from infringing the rights of other 
 branches of "the household of faith," and the httleness and 
 guilt of a bigoted and sectarian policy and spirit. Should 
 we unhappily be called to resist these evils in our brethren of 
 other denominations, let us oppose them by the firmness of 
 Christian principle, the meekness of heavenly wisdom, and 
 the spirit of Christian forbearance and love. Our position is 
 too high and sacred to allow us to descend to the low ground 
 of sectarian prejudice and policy. Our principles forbid us 
 to employ the low arts of proselytism to augment our num- 
 bers, or interfere with the evangelical labors of Christians of 
 other denominations who difi^er from us only in matters of 
 subordinate importance. Still, we are** Roman citizens, or 
 rather the Lord's freemen, and may, and ought to defend our 
 rights with the weapons of truth and love. It is our indis- 
 pensable duty to seek the purity, peace, and enlargement of 
 
OUR f»OSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 22 L 
 
 that brancli of the church with which we are connected, be- 
 cause we beheve it to be most conformable to the Gospel 
 pattern. The field of labor for the world's recovery to God 
 is broad enough for all the disciples of Christ, without inter- 
 fering with each other. While we honest!}' and sincerely 
 labor to propagate Constitutional Presbyterianism, let us re- 
 joice in the success of all who labor to make converts to 
 Christ by the Gospel. 
 
 Our principles lay us under obligation to do all in our 
 power to give increased efficiency to Voluntary Societies for 
 the spread of the Gospel and the conversion of the world. 
 The unreasonable opposition to them on the part of our breth- 
 ren, and their iron determination to exclude their operation 
 from the Presbyterian Church, and bind all her members to 
 contribute to Boards under Ecclesiastical control, was one of 
 the chief causes of placing us in our present position. We 
 had no desire to interfere with their preferences, and all we 
 asked or desired from them, was like toleration. This they 
 denied us, and insisted that in this particular we should sub- 
 mit to their dictation or be separated from them. If there 
 be any in our body who adopt their views of Ecclesiastical 
 Boards, it certainly becomes them to pay a respectful defer- 
 ence to the opinions of those who differ from them, and es- 
 pecially of their fatliers and brethren who have manfully and 
 with great self-denial contended for the voluntary principle 
 in labors for spreading the Gospel at home and in foreign 
 lands. Especially should we hold fast and defend that fea- 
 ture of the voluntary principle which unites the labors, con- 
 tributions, and prayers of Christians of different names for 
 the spread of their common faith, and promoting the glory 
 of their common Father, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. 
 
 To all who are suffering from civil or ecclesiastical despo- 
 tism, we owe an important duty. What we are bound to 
 do for their relief, it may not in all cases be easy to decide ; 
 but that we are under obligation to sympathize with them, 
 and do for them what we might reasonably desire them to 
 10 
 
222 OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 
 
 do for us in like circumstances, is manifest as the light. As 
 the avowed friends of civil and religious liberty, we are bound 
 to employ all lawful means for the defence of the rights of 
 the oppressed both in Church and State. To this principle 
 we stand committed before our country and the world, by 
 the action of several of our Assemblies. The field before 
 us, inviting this labor of love, is vast, for the number of those, 
 both in Church and State, who are suffering under the bur- 
 dens and wrongs of involuntary bondage, is immense. It 
 should be our aim to have our branch of the Church de- 
 tached from all connection with the system of slaver}^ — 
 nay, to do our utmost to banish this Hydra evil from our 
 country and the world, and introduce all the victims of eri'or 
 and superstition into the glorious liberty of the Gospel ; — 
 liberty to read and interpret the word of God for themselves, 
 and worship Him, unembarrassed by the traditions and com- 
 mandments of men. 
 
 OUR PROSPECTS 
 
 are bright with encouragement and hope, demanding our 
 united and fervent thanksgiving to God. How changed are 
 they since the excision of 1837 and the organization of our 
 Assembly in 1838! The year between those Assembhes 
 was a period of deep anxiety and painful apprehension. 
 Our brethren, who had lent their agency to procure the ex- 
 cision of the four Synods and the dissolution of the Third 
 Presbytery of Philadelphia, or were pledged to support 
 them, were strong in the belief that those Synods, and all 
 who were resolved to make common cause with them, could 
 never form a homogeneous, harmonious body. The ruling 
 spirit of the Assembly of 1837, when urging the passage of 
 the exscinding resolutions, said, " Moderator, pass them, and 
 you will scatter these New School men to the winds, and 
 never hear of them again." After they had been passed, mul- 
 titudes believed that this assertion wovdd be verified. They 
 were confident that many who were deeply grieved by their 
 
OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 223 
 
 passage, would nevertheless sit down under tliem without 
 complaint, and that a still greater number would seek a union 
 with Congregationalists. The firm friends of Constitutional 
 Presb3^terianism could not tell what would be the effect of 
 so violent a blow for the deprivation of rights, secured by 
 the Constitution of the church, as that which, contrary to 
 every principle of natural justice, thrust out of it five hun- 
 dred of her Ministers and sixty thousand of her Communi- 
 cants, without trial or citation. It was calculated to pro- 
 duce strong prejudices against a system, under which a deed 
 of such revolting iniquity had been perpetrated. 
 
 Thanks be to God, the dark and ominous clouds which for 
 years brooded over us, have dispersed, and left our sky 
 serene and bright. If we do not misjudge, the Sun of 
 Righteousness sheds no brighter beams of gladness and hope 
 upon any portion of the Lord's heritage. Our position be- 
 fore the world commends itself to the approval of intelli- 
 gent and candid observers of all creeds and all ecclesiastical 
 organizations. Our action respecting slavery renders our 
 prospects most cheering when compared with those of other 
 denominations, which have shut out from their deliberative 
 bodies all discussion respecting it. They will be compelled 
 to admit it. The spiiit of the age and the providence of 
 God will, ere \oxig-r force it upon them, but what may be its 
 results in respect to their peace and prosperity, remains to 
 be known. Our branch of the church has discussed it in 
 all its bearings, calmly and fully, and our principles and 
 policy respecting it are understood, and generally approved. 
 With uncompromising hostility to the system, we unite a 
 conservative, benevolent policy in respect to measures for its 
 removal. 
 
 With a creed strictly Calvinistic, we associate views res- 
 pecting the extent of the atonement, the basis of human obli- 
 gation, and the nature of the sinner's inability to do the will 
 of God, which furnish advantages for defending the system 
 and justifying " the ways of God to men," which those who 
 
224 OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 
 
 V diflfer from us on these points have not. They cannot, as we 
 
 I can, vindicate the sincerity of God in the indiscriminate offer 
 
 t/ of salvation to all, and press, as we can, the obligations of 
 
 1 the impenitent to yield immediate obedience to the Gospel. 
 
 On these topics, our theology is that of common sense, 
 
 sound philosophy, and the obvious teaching of inspiration. 
 
 Our principles, too, instead of forbidding, require us to co- 
 operate with all who give evidence of discipleship to the 
 Lord Jesus, in efforts to spread the Gospel. For this benevo- 
 lent, God-like purpose, we can labor, unencumbered with the 
 iron coat of mail with which sectarian exclusiveness girds its 
 disciples. Many of the obstacles to our progress by which 
 we have been embarrassed most of the time since our organi- 
 zation in 1838, are now removed. During a large portion of 
 this period, much of our time and energies were necessarily 
 devoted to the defence of our position and rights. Now 
 we can consecrate them to labors for extending the borders 
 of our heritage and the spread of the Gospel through the 
 world. We are not, indeed, rich in moneyed investments. 
 All that the church possessed previous to the division, our 
 brethren of the New Basis have appropriated to themselves. 
 We are confident, however, that God, whose is " the silver and 
 the gold, — the earth — and the fulness thereof, "approves our 
 principles and policy, and if we humbly confide in Him, will 
 not withhold His blessing from us. Though not the largest, 
 we are not the least of " the tribes of Israel." We have valuable 
 seminaries, endowed and in the process of endowment, for 
 giving a thorough education to our candidates for the ministry. 
 With our more than fourteen hundred Ministers, more than 
 fifteen hundred Churches, and more than one hundred and 
 forty thousand Communicants, embracing a large amount 
 of talent, learning, wealth and influence, if associated, as we 
 pray it may be, with a spirit of activity and humble depend- 
 ence upon God, what, by His blessing, may we not achieve 
 for the dissemination of His truth, the promotion of His 
 honor, and the salvation of our sin- destroyed, suffering 
 
OUR POSITION, DUTY, AND PROSPECTS. 225 
 
 world ! All that is necessary to warrant the most enlarged 
 expectations of success in every department of Christian 
 labor, is, that om* churches and ministry receive a fresh bap- 
 tism of the Holy Ghost. Let us seek this priceless blessing, 
 by humble, believing, persevering prayer. With these ani- 
 mating prospects before us, let us arise in the strength of 
 our redeeming God, and lay all our powers under contribu- 
 tion for the advancement of His kingdom and honor ; — al- 
 ways abounding in His work, assured that our labor will not 
 be in vain. 
 
|ipniiji^\ 
 
 [A.] 
 
 JUDGE ROGERS' CHARGE. 
 
 In the course of my remarks, gentlemen, so far as lies in my power, 
 I shall instruct you positively, clearly, and directly, upon the differ- 
 ent points of law involved in this case. My observations will be brief, 
 and discarding all collateral matter, I shall direct your attention to the 
 very points which I think material. If I err in my instructions to 
 you, by a resort to a higher tribunal, the error may be corrected. I 
 now request your careful attention. 
 
 Before the year 1758, the Presbyterian Churches in this country, 
 were under the care of two separate Synods, and their respective Pi-es- 
 byteries : the Synod of New York and the Synod of Philadelphia. 
 
 In the year 1*758, these Synods were united, and were called the 
 *' Synod of New York and Philadelphia." This continued until the 
 year 1788, when the General Assembly was formed. The Synod was 
 then divided into four Synods, the Synods of New York and New 
 Jersey, Philadelphia, Virginia, and the Carolinas ; of these four Syn- 
 ods the General Assembly was constituted. 
 
 In 1803 the Synod of Albany was erected. This Synod has been 
 from time to time sub-divided, and the Synods of Genesee, Geneva, 
 and Utica have been formed. 
 
 The Synod of Pittsburg has been also erected, out of which the Syn- 
 od of the AVestern Reserve has been formed. 
 
 These constitute the four exscinded Synods, viz., the Synods of Gene- 
 see, Geneva, Utica, and the Western Reserve. 
 
 The General Assembly was constituted by every Presbytery at 
 their last stated meeting, preceding the meeting of the General As- 
 sembly, deputing to the General Assembly commissioners in certain 
 epecific proportions. 
 
APPENDIX. 227 
 
 The Westminster Confession of Faith is part of the constitution of 
 the Church. The constitution could not be altered, unless two-thirds 
 of the Presbyteries under the care of the General Assembly, prepared 
 alterations or amendments, and such alterations or amendments were 
 agreed to by the General Assembly. 
 
 The Form of Government was amended in 1821. The General As 
 eembly now consists of an "equal delegation of bishops and elders 
 from each Presbytery in certain proportions." 
 
 The judicatories of the Church consist of the Session, of the Pres- 
 byteries, of Synods, and the General Assembly. 
 
 The church-session consists of the pastor, or pastors, and ruling el- 
 ders of a particular congregation. A Presbytery, of all the ministers- 
 and one ruling elder from each congregation within a certain district. 
 A Synod is a convention of bishops and elders, including at least three 
 Presbyteries. And the General Assembly, of an equal delegation of 
 bishops and elders, from each Presbytery, in the following propor- 
 tion, viz, each Presbytery consisting of not more than twenty-four 
 ministers, sends one minister and one elder ; and each Presbytery con- 
 sisting of more than twenty-four ministers, sends two ministers and two 
 eldei's ; and in the like proportion for every twenty-four ministers in 
 any Presbytery. The delegates so appointed are styled commission- 
 ers to the General Assembly. 
 
 The General Assembly is the highest judicatory of the Presbyterian 
 Church. It represents, in one body, all the particular churches of 
 this denomination of Christians. 
 
 In relation to this body, the most important undoubtedly are the 
 various Presbyteries ^ for, as was before said, the General Assembly 
 consists of an equal delegation of bishops and elders from each of the 
 Presbyteries. If the Presbyteries are destroyed, the General Assem- 
 bly fiills, as a matter of course, as there would no longer be any con- 
 stituent bodies in existence, from which delegates could be sent to the 
 General Assembly. 
 
 The Presbyteries are essential features in the form of government 
 in another particular, for before any overtures or regulations proposed 
 by the General Assembly, to be established as constitutional rules, can 
 be obligatory on the churches, it is necessary to transmit them to all 
 the Presbyteries, and to receive the returns of at least a majority of 
 them in writing, approving thereof. 
 
 A Synod, as has been before observed, is a convention of bishops 
 and elders within a district, including at least three Presbyteries. 
 The Synods have a supervisory power over Presbyteries, but unlike 
 Presbyteries, as such they are not essential to the existence of the Gen- 
 
228 APPENDIX. 
 
 eral Assembly. If every Synod in the United States were exscinded 
 and destroyed, still the General Assembly would remain as the high- 
 est tribunal in the Church. In this particular there is a vital differ- 
 ence between Presbyteries and Synods. The only connexion between 
 the General Assembly and the Synods is, that the former has a super- 
 visory power over the latter. 
 
 Having thus given you an account of such parts of the Form of 
 Church government as may, in some aspects of the cause, be material, 
 I shall now call your attention to the matter in issue. 
 
 This proceeding is what is called a " Quo Warranto" It is issued 
 by the Commonwealth, at the suggestion of James Todd and others, 
 against Ashbel Green and others, to show by what authority they 
 claim to exercise the office of Trustees of the General Assembly of the 
 Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. I must here 
 remark, that it is not only an a23propriate, but the best method of try- 
 ing the issue in this cause. 
 
 It is admitted, that until the 24th of May, 1838, the respondents 
 were the rightful trustees; but it is contended by the relators, that 
 on that day, the 24th of May, 1838, in pursuance of the act of incor- 
 poration, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church changed 
 one third of the trustees, by the election of the relators in the place 
 and stead of the respondents. 
 
 On the 28th of March, 1799, the Legislature of Pennsylvania declared 
 Ashbel Green and seventeen others, (naming them), a body politic, 
 and corporate, by the name and style of Trustees of the General As- 
 sembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. 
 
 The sixth section provides that the corporation shall not, at any 
 time, consist of more than eighteen persons; whereof, the General 
 Assembly may, at their discretion, as often as they shall hold their ses- 
 sions in the State of 'Pennsylvania, change one third in such manner 
 as to the General Assembly may seem proper. 
 
 It was the intention of the Legislature, by the act of incorporation, 
 to provide for the election of competent persons, who, as an incorpo- 
 rated body, might with more ease, and in a better manner, manage 
 the temporal affairs of the Church. It is only in this aspect that we 
 have cognizance of the case. 
 
 In this country, for the mutual advantage of church and state, we 
 have wisely separated the ecclesiastical from the civil power. The 
 court has as little inclination as authority to interfere with the church 
 and its government, farther than may be necessary for its protection 
 and security. It is only as it bears upon the corporation, which is 
 the creature of the civil power, that we have any right to determine 
 
APPENDIX. 229 
 
 the validity, or to construe the acts and resolutions of the General 
 Assembly. It is, however, sufficient for us, gentlemen, to know that 
 in this case we have that right. 
 
 Although neither the members of the General Assembly, as such, 
 nor the General Assembly itself, are individually or aggregately mem- 
 bers of the corporation, yet the Assembly has power, from time to 
 time, as they may deem proper, to change the trustees, and to give 
 special instructions for their government. They stand in the relation 
 of electors, and have been properly denominated in the argument, 
 quasi corporate. The trustees only are the corporation by express 
 words of the act of the Assembly. 
 
 Unhappily, differences have arisen in the church, (the nature of 
 which it is not necessary for us to inquire into,) which have caused a 
 division of its members into two parties, called and known as the Old 
 and New School. These appellations we may adopt for the sake of 
 designating the respective parties, the existence of which will have 
 an important bearing on some of the questions involved in this im- 
 portant cau^e. It gives a key to conduct which it would be other- 
 wise difficult to explain. 
 
 The division continued to increase in strength and virulence until 
 the session of 1837, when certain decisive measiires, which will be 
 hereafter stated, were taken by the General Assembly, which at this 
 time was under the control of members, who sympathize, (as the 
 phrase is,) with the principles of the Old School. 
 
 At an early period the Presbyterian Church, at their own sugges- 
 tion, formed unions with cognate churches, that is, with churches 
 whose faith, principles and practice, assimilated with their own, and 
 between whom there-was thought to be no essential difference in doc- 
 trine. 
 
 On this principle a plan of union and correspondence was adopted 
 by the Assembly in 1*792, with the General Association of Connecti- 
 cut, with Vermont in 1803, with that of New Hampshire in 1810, 
 with Massachusetts in 1811, with the Northern Associate Presbytery 
 of Albany in 1802, and with the Reformed Dutch Church, and the 
 Associate Reformed Church, in J 798. 
 
 These conventions, as is stated, originated in measures adopted by 
 the General Assembly in 1790 and 1791. The delegates from each 
 of the associated churches not only sat and deliberated with each 
 other, but also acted and voted by virtue of the express terms of the 
 union. 
 
 In further pursuance of the settled policy of the Church to extend 
 its sphere of usefulness, in the year 1801, a plan of union between the 
 Presbyterians and Oongregationalists was formed. 
 
 10* 
 
230 APPENDIX. 
 
 The plan which was devised by the fathers of the Church, to pre- 
 vent alienation and to promote harmony, was observed by the Gen- 
 eral Assembly without question by them, until the year 1835, a pe- 
 riod of thirty-four years. 
 
 At that time it was resolved by the General Assembly, that they 
 deemed it no longer desirable that churches should be formed in 
 their Presbyterian connexion, agreeably to the plan adopted by the 
 Assembly and the General Association of Connecticut in 1801. They, 
 therefore, resolved that their brethren of the General Association of 
 Connecticut be, and they hereby are, respectfully requested to consent 
 that the said plan shall be, from and after the next meeting of that 
 Association, declared to be annulled. And also resolved that the an- 
 nulling of said plan shall not in any wise interfere with the existence 
 and lawful association of churches which have been already formed on 
 this plan. 
 
 To this resolution no reasonable objection can be made ; and if the 
 matter had been permitted to rest here, we should not have been 
 troubled with this controversy. It had not then occurred to the As- 
 sembly, that the plan of union was unconstitutional. The resolutions 
 are predicated on the belief that the agreement or compact was con 
 stitutional. They request that the Association of Connecticut would 
 consent to rescind it. It does not seem to have been thought that 
 this could be done without their consent. And, moreover, the reso- 
 lution expressly saves the right of existing churches which had been 
 formed on that plan. 
 
 I must be permitted to regret, for the sate of peace and harmony, 
 that this business was not suffered to rest on the basis of resolutions 
 which breathe the spirit of peace and good feeling. But, unfortu- 
 nately, the General Assembly, in 1837, which was then under another 
 influence, took a different view of the question. 
 
 "As the 'Plan of Union' adopted for the new settlements, in 1801, 
 was originally an unconstitutional act on the part of that Assembly — 
 these important standing rules having never been submitted to the 
 Presbyteries — and as they were totally destitute of authority as pro- 
 ceeding from the General Association of Connecticut, which is invest- 
 ed with no power to legislate in such cases, and especially to enact 
 laws to regulate churches not within her limits ; and as much confu- 
 sion and irregularity have arisen from this unnatural and unconstitu- 
 tional system of union, therefore it is resolved, that the Act of the As- 
 sembly of 1801, entitled a ' Plan of Union,' be, and the same is hereby 
 abrogated." See Digest, pp. 29V-299. 
 
 The resolution declares the Plan of Uuiuu to be unconstitutional. 
 
APPENDIX, 231 
 
 First, because those important standing rules, as they call them, were 
 not submitted to Ihe Presbyteries ; and, secondly, because the General 
 Association of Connecticut was invested with no power to legislate in 
 siich cases, and especially to enact laws to regulate churches not with- 
 in their limits. 
 
 The Court is not satisfied with the force of these reasons, and does 
 not think the agreement, or Plan of Union, comes within the words 
 or spirit of that clause in the constitution, which provides that before 
 any overture or regulations shall be proposed by the General Assembly 
 to be established as constitutional rules, shall be obligatory on the 
 churches, it shall be necessary to transmit them to all the Presbyteries, 
 and to receive the returns of at leasta majorityof them, approving there- 
 of. Nor is it, in the opinion of the Court, in conflict with the con- 
 stitution, before its amendment in 1821, which provides that no al- 
 teration shall be made in the Constitution, unless two-thirds of the 
 Presbyteries under thj care of the General Assembly propose altera- 
 tions or amendments, and such alterations or amendments are ao-reed 
 to by the Assembly. 
 
 It was a regulation made by competent parties, and not intended 
 by either as a constitutional rule ; nor was it obligatory on any of 
 the Presbyterian Churches within their connexion. Those who were 
 competent to make it, were competent to dissolve it without the as- 
 sent of the presbyteries, as such, which could not be done, were it 
 a constitutional rule, within the meaning of the constitution. Whether 
 one party may dissolve it, without the consent of the other, it might 
 be unnecessary to decide. My opinion is that they can. The Plan 
 of Union is intended to prevent alienation, and to promote union and 
 harmony in the new settlements. 
 
 It is not a union of the Presbyterian Church with a Congregational 
 Church, or churches, but it purports to be, and is, a Plan of Union 
 between individual members of the Presbyterian and Congregational 
 churches, in that portion of the country which was then denominated 
 the New Settlements. It is advisory and recommendatory in its char- 
 acter — has nothing obligatory about it. A Congregational church, aa 
 such, is not by force of the agreement incorporated with the Presby- 
 terian Church. It has no necessary connexion with it; for it is only 
 when the congregation consists partly of tliose who hold the Congre- 
 gational form of discipline, and partly of those who hold the Presby- 
 terian form, and there is an appeal to the presbytery, (as there may 
 be in certain cases,) that the Standing Committee of the Congrega- 
 tional church, consisting partly of Presbyterians and partly of 
 Congregationalists, may, or shall attend the presbytery, and may have 
 
232 APPENDIX. 
 
 the same right to sit and act in the presbytery as a ruling elder. And 
 whatever may have been occasionally the instances to the contrary, 
 this I conceive to be the obvious construction of the regulation. That 
 part of the agreement was intended as a safeguard, or protection of 
 the rights of all the parties to be affected by it, without any design 
 to confer upon the Standing Committee all the rights of a ruling elder. 
 
 I view it as a matter of discipline, and not of doctrine, the effect 
 of which is to exempt those members of the different communions, 
 who adopted it, from the censures of the church to which they belong, 
 and pai'ticularly the clerical portion of them. 
 
 The Court is also of the opinion, that after an acquiescence of nearly 
 forty years, and particularly after the adoption by the presbyteries 
 of the amended constitution of 1821, the Plan of Union is not now 
 open to objection. The plan has been recognized by the presbyteries 
 at various times, and in different manners, under the old and amended 
 constitution. It has been acted on by them and the General Assembly 
 in repeated instances, and is equally as obligatory as if it had received 
 the express sanction of the presbyteries in all the forms known to the 
 constitution. 
 
 That acquiescence gives right, is a principle which we must admit. 
 The constitutionality of the purchase and admission of Louisiana as 
 a member of the Union, was doubted by some of the wisest heads and 
 purest hearts in the country; but he would be a very bold man, 
 indeed, who would now deny that state, and Mississippi, Arkansas, 
 and Missouri, to be members of the confederation. In the memorable 
 struggle for the admission of Missouri into the Union, this objection 
 was never taken. 
 
 Nor am I satisfied with the second reason, that the General Asso- 
 ciation of Connecticut was invested with no power to legislate in 
 such cases, and especially to enact laws to regulate churches not within 
 their limits. Although the General Assembly had the right to annul 
 the Plan of Union without the assent of the General Association of 
 Connecticut, yet I must be permitted to say, that after having acted 
 on the plan, and reaped all the advantages of it, it is rather discour- 
 teous, to say the least of it, to attempt to abrogate it without the 
 consent of the other party. Although the Association may be an 
 advisory body, yet it does not appear that any difficulty has been 
 started by them, or by the churches under their control. All parties 
 acquiesced in it for thirty-six years, axid it would be too late for either 
 now to object to its validity. Xor is there any thing in the idea that 
 they have no power to fegulate churches not within their limits. 
 This is a matter of consent, and there is nothing to prevent churches 
 
APPENDIX. 233 
 
 in one state from submitting themselves to the ecclesiastical govern- 
 ment of churches located in another state. The Presbyterian Church 
 has furnished us with repeated examples of this kind. 
 
 So far from believing the Plan of Union to be unconstitutional, I 
 concur fully with one of the counsel, that, confined wiUiin ite legiti- 
 mate limits, it is an agreement or regulation, which the General 
 Assembly not only had power to make, but that it is one which is 
 well calculated to promote the best interests of religion. 
 
 If, as is stated, the standing committee of Congregational churches 
 have claimed and exercised the same rights as ruling elders in pres- 
 byteries, and in the General Assembly itself, it is an abuse which 
 may be cori'ected by the proper tribunals; but surely that is no 
 argument, or one of but little weight, to show that the Plan of Union 
 is unconstitutional and void. 
 
 Although, in the opinion of the Court, the Assembly have the right 
 to repeal the Plan of Union without the consent of the General As- 
 sociation of Connecticut, yet it was unjust to repeal it, without saving 
 the rights of existing ministers and churches. But this is a matter, 
 the propriety of which they must determine. 
 
 But whether the Plan of Union be constitutional or not, is only 
 material so far as it is made the basis of some subsequent resolutions, 
 to which your attention will now he directed. 
 
 At the same session, and after failure of an attempt at compromise, 
 the character of which has been the subject of much comment, the 
 General Assembly " resolved, that by the abrogation of the Plan of 
 Union of 1801, the Synod of the Western Keserve is, and is hereby 
 declared to be, no longer a part of the Presbyterian Church." 
 
 ^^ Resolved, That imionsequence of the abrogation by this General 
 Assembly of the Plan of Union of 1801, between it and the General 
 Association of Connecticut, as utterly unconstitutional, and therefore 
 null and void from the beginning, the Synods of Utica, Geneva, and 
 Genesee, which were formed and attached to this body, under and 
 in execution of said Plan of Union, be, and are hereby declared to 
 be, out of the connexion of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States of America, and that they are not, in form or in fact, an integral 
 portion of said church." 
 
 These resolutions refer only in name to the four synods, and if we 
 were called on for the construction alone, it might be well doubted 
 whether they were intended, or could be made to include, the pres- 
 byteries within their limits, the constituents or electoral bodies of the 
 General Assembly itself. I should be inclined, for the purpose of pro- 
 tecting their rights from a resolution so penal in its character, to say 
 
234 APPENDIX. 
 
 that they ■svere not included, either in the spirit or words of the reso- 
 lution. But this construction we are prevented from giving by their 
 declarative resolution. It is there in effect said, that it is the purpose of 
 the General Assembly to destroy the relations of all said synods and 
 all their constituent parts to the General Assembly and to the Presby- 
 terian Church in the United States, In the fourth resolution it is de- 
 clared, that any presbytery within the four synods, being strictly Pres- 
 byterian in doctrine and order, who may desire to be united with them, 
 are hereby directed to make application, with a full statement of their 
 case, to the next General Assembly, which will take proper order 
 thereon. 
 
 There is no mistaking the character of these resolutions. It is an 
 immediate dissolution of all connexion between the four synods and 
 all their constitu^ent parts, and the General Assembly. They are 
 destructive of the rights of electors of the General Assembly. The 
 connexion might be renewed, it is true, by each of the presbyteries 
 making application to the next General Assembly, but they are at 
 liberty to accept or refuse them, provided they, the General Assembly, 
 deem them strictly Presbyterian in doctrine and order. As they had 
 the right to admit them, they had the right, also, to refuse them, 
 unless, in their opinion, they were strictly Presbyterian in doctrine 
 and order. 
 
 By these resolutions, the commissioners, who had acted with the 
 General Assembly up to that time, were deprived of their seats. At 
 the same time, four synods, with twenty-eight presbyteries, were cut 
 off from all connexion with the Presbyterian Church, The General 
 Assembly resolved, that because the Plan of 1801 was unconstitu- 
 tional, those synods and their constituent parts are no longer integral 
 parts of the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 You will observe, that I have ah*eady said the Plan of Union is 
 constitutional. That reason therefore fails. They have resolved that 
 it is not only unconstitutional, but that it is null and void from the 
 beginning. Instead of Si prospective, they have given their resolutions 
 a retrospective effect, the injustice of which is most manifest. 
 
 But admitting that the Plan of Union is unconstitutional, null and 
 void, from the beginning, I cannot perceive what justification that 
 furnishes for the exscinding resolutions. The infusion of Congrega- 
 tional ists with the presbyteries, or the General Assembly itself, does 
 not invalidate the acts of the General Assembly. They had a right, 
 notwithstanding the charter, which recognizes elders and ministers as 
 composing the Presbyterian Church, to perform the functions com- 
 mitted to them by the constitution. And among them to establish 
 
APPENDIX. 235 
 
 and divide synods, to create presbyteries, as in their judgment the 
 exigencies of the church might demand. 
 
 Accordingly, we find that the four synods, and all the presbyteries 
 attached to them, have been formed since the year 1801. The As- 
 sembly creates the synods, and the synods the presbyteries. Some- 
 times the Assembly creates the presbyteries — a course pursued with 
 some of the presbyteries which have been exscinded. They have been 
 established since, but this is no evidence that the four exscinded synods 
 were formed and attached to the General Assembly under, and in 
 execution of, the Plan of Union. The compact, as has been before 
 observed, was intended for a different purpose, and imposed on the 
 Presbyterian Church no obligation to admit churches formed on the 
 plan, as members. It was a voluntary act, and not the necessary 
 result of the agreement ; nor does it appear that the jsresbyteries 
 were formed and incorporated with the church on any other terms or 
 conditions than other presbyteries, who were in regular course taken 
 into the Presbyterian connexion. 
 
 But, gentlemen, when resolutions of so unusual a character, so con- 
 demnatory, and so destructive of the rights of electors, the constitu- 
 ents of the Assembly itself, are passed, we have a right to require 
 that the substantial forms of justice be observed. But so far from 
 this, the General Assembly, in the plenitude of its power, has under" 
 taken to exclude from all their rights and privileges twenty-eight 
 presbyteries, who are its constituents, without notice, and without 
 even the form of trial. By the resolutions, the commissioners, who 
 had acted as members of the General Assembly for two weeks, were 
 at once deprived of their seats. Four synods, twenty-eight presby- 
 teries, five hundred and nine ministers, five hundred and ninety-nine 
 churches, and sixty thousand communicants, were at once disfranchised 
 and deprived of their privileges in this church. 
 
 This proceeding is not only contrary to the eternal principles of 
 justice, the principles of the common law, but it is at variance with 
 the constitution of the church. 
 
 This is not in the nature of a legislative, but it is & judicial proceeding 
 to all intents and purposes. It is idle to deny that the presbyteries 
 within the infected districts, as they are called, were treated as ene- 
 mies and offenders against the rules, regulations, and doctrines of the 
 church. If there is anything that a man values, it is his religious 
 rights. 
 
 And of this oj->Inion were the General Assembly themselves; for, 
 only a few days before, they came to the following resolutions : 
 
 " Resolved, 1. That the proper steps now be taken to cite to the bur of 
 
2oG APPENDIX. 
 
 tlie next Assembly, such inferior judicatories as are charged by com- 
 mon fame with irregularities. 
 
 "2. That a special committee be now appointed to ascertain what 
 inferior judicatories are thus charged by common fame, prepare 
 charges and specifications against them, and to digest a suitable plan 
 of procedure in the matter, and that said committee be requested to 
 report as soon as practicable." 
 
 K'othing further appears to have been done in this matter in the 
 General Assembly, for, after failure of the attempt at compromise, 
 they appear to have discovered a much more expeditious, if not a 
 more agreeable method of effecting their object. 
 
 I have said that exscinding the presbyteries without notice, and 
 without trial, was not only contrary to the common law, but it was 
 contrary to the constitution of the church. And it is only necessary 
 to open the book of discipline to see how very careful the fathers of 
 the church have been to secure to the accused a full, fair and impar- 
 tial trial. 
 
 Kotice is given to the parties concerned, at least ten days before 
 the meeting of the judicatory. The accused are informed of the names 
 of all the witnesses to be adduced against them. When the charges 
 are exhibited, the time, places and circumstances are stated, if, by 
 possibility, they can be ascertained: citations are issued, signed 
 by the moderator or clerk, by order, and in the name of the judi- 
 catory. 
 
 Judicatories are enjoined to ascertain, before proceeding to trial, 
 that their citations have been duly served. And, to secure a fair and 
 impartial trial, the witnesses are to be examined in the presence of 
 the accused, who is permitted to ask any question tending to his own 
 exculpation. The judgment, when rendered, is regularly entered on 
 the recoi'ds of the judicatory. 
 
 If these proceedings, before judgment, are requisite in the case of 
 the meanest member of the church, (the omission of which, by any of 
 the inferior judicatories, would call down on the offenders the se- 
 verest censure of the General Assembly,) it is inconceivable that simi- 
 lar precautions are not necessary to protect the rights of presbyteries, 
 which consist of many individuals, from the injustice, violence, and 
 party spirit of the General Assembly itself. Constitutions are in- 
 tended to protect the weak, the minority from the injustice of the 
 majority. 
 
 The majority, for the most part, are able to protect themselves. It 
 is the minority that need protection, and for this purpose it is neces- 
 sary to encircle them with at least all the forms of justice. 
 
APPENDIX. 237 
 
 This, as has been before observed, is a judicial act; and if a regular 
 trial had been had, and judgment rendered, the sentence would have 
 been conclusive. "We should not have attempted to examine the 
 justice of the proceeding; but inasmuch as there have been no cita- 
 tions, and no trial, I instruct you, that the resolutions of the General 
 Assembly exscinding the four Synods of Utiea, Geneva, Genesee, and 
 the Western Reserve, are unconstitutional, null and void. 
 
 The judgments of all courts, whether ecclesiastical or civil, whe- 
 ther of inferior or superior judicatories, are absolutely void when 
 rendered without citations, and without trial, and without the op- 
 portunity of a hearing. 
 
 But admitting this to be in the nature of a legislative proceeding, 
 still it is void ; for I deny the right of any legislature to deprive an 
 elector of his right to vote, either with or without trial. 
 
 This is a power which can only be exercised by a judicial tribunal, 
 who act under the sanction of an oath, who examine witnesses on 
 oath, and who conform to all the rules of evidence established by the 
 usages of the law. 
 
 If the Legislature of Pennsylvania should dare, by resolution or 
 otherwise, to deprive one of you, gentlemen, of your right as an 
 elector, it would be the duty of the Court to declare such an act null 
 and void. I am unable to distinguish the difference between the two 
 cases. 
 
 "Whether the General Assembly are the proper tribunal, in the first 
 instance, for the trial of offences, or whether the presbyteries are 
 amenable to their judicatories, in this or any other mode, it is un- 
 necessary to decide ; as the Court are clearly of the opinion, that if they 
 have the right, it must be exercised with the same rules and regula- 
 tions which are applicable to the inferior judicatories. 
 
 Personal process in each case may be " tedious, agitating and trou- 
 blesome in the highest degree ;" but it is obviously not impossible. 
 Nor does it strike me as impossible to devise a plan under the consti- 
 tution to correct heresy and schism, without resort to personal pro- 
 cess in each case. But if it were so, this is an excuse, but it is no 
 justification of the exscinding resolutions. 
 
 Offenders, according to the rules of the church, may be brought 
 before a judicatory by common fame. But I perceive no power given 
 to convict on common fame. 
 
 You will remark, gentlemen, that the presbyteries, by the consti- 
 tution of the church, are the electors of the General Assembly. Their 
 right of representation has been taken away without trial, without 
 the examination (as far as we k«ow) of a single witness. 
 
238 APPENDIX. 
 
 Whether these presbyteries have Congregational churches in their 
 connexion, is not now material. It is possible that had a trial been 
 had, that point, which is deemed so important, might have been dis- 
 proved. At any rate, it would seem a singular reason for dissolving 
 a whole presbytery, that one church was contaminated with false and 
 heretical doctrine?, or doctrines not strictly Presbyterian ; that a 
 whole presbytery should be ejected, because a single church was 
 governed without the benefit of ruling elders. It would be a reason, 
 perhaps a good one, for cutting off that church from the Presbyterian 
 connexion, but none for casting out the whole presbytery. And this, 
 gentlemen, would be particularly severe on the members and congre- 
 gations, when the fact was known at the time the presbytery was 
 created that such connexion did exist. 
 
 If, however, after having condemned this (as it is called) unnatural 
 connexion, the presbyteries should obstinately continue to adhere to 
 it, then they would justly expose themselves to the severest cen- 
 cures of the church. But whether there is any mode known to the 
 constitution, by which a bresbytery can be deprived of the right of 
 representation on the floor of the General Assembly, is a point 
 which is not necessary to the case, and which I shall not undertake to 
 decide. 
 
 I have been requested by the respondents' counsel to instruct you, 
 that the introduction of lay delegates from Congregational establish- 
 ments into the judicatories of the Pi'csbyterian Church, was a violation 
 of the fundamental principle of Presby terianism, and a contradiction 
 of the Act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, incorporating the 
 Trustees of the church: that any act pei'mitting such introduction 
 would therefore have been void, although submitted to the presby- 
 teries. As an abstract question on this point, I give an affirmative 
 answer, although, gentlemen, I am unable to see the bearing it has 
 on the matter at issue in this cause. 
 
 You have already seen that the Court is of the opinion, that the ex- 
 scinding resolutions are unconstitutional, null and void ; yet this did 
 not of itself dissolve the General Assembly. The General Assembly 
 was dissolved only at the termination of its sessions. You will per- 
 ceive in the course of the remarks which I shall have to make to you, 
 that the acts of this Assembly will have an important influence on the 
 proceedings of the Assembly of 1838. 
 
 The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church is entitled to de- 
 cide upon the right claimed by any one to a seat in that body, but 
 unlike legislative bodies, their decision is the subject of revision. 
 Ecclesiastical judicatories are subject to the control of the law. 
 
APPENDIX. 239 
 
 I also instruct you, that a Mandamus would not reach the case, for 
 before the remedy could be applied, the General Assembly would be 
 dissolved, and it would be impossible to foresee whether the next 
 Assembly would persist in their illegal and unconstitutional course of 
 conduct. You will recollect that the commissioners are elected a 
 short time befoi'e the meeting of the General Assembly, and that that 
 body, which sits but a few weeks for the transaction of business, is 
 dissolved, and a new General Assembly is called at the termination 
 of the sessions. 
 
 Having thus disposed of the proceeding of the General Assembly of 
 IBS'?, we will now direct our attention to the acts of 1838. It will 
 perhaps conduce to a proper understanding of the somewhat extraor- 
 dinary proceedings which then took place, to advert to the practice 
 of the General Assembly in times of less excitement and interest than 
 existed on that occasion. 
 
 After the business of the Assembly is finished, the General As- 
 sembly is dissolved, and another General Assembly is directed to be 
 chosen in the same manner, to meet at a time and place designated by 
 the Assembly. 
 
 The moderator, or in case of his absence, another member appointed 
 for the purpose, opens the next meeting with a sermon ; he is directed 
 to hold the chair till a new moderator be chosen. As this is for the 
 purpose of organization, it is not necessary that he be a member, nor 
 is it necessary that the clerks should be members, who are requested 
 to attend for the same purpose. 
 
 By the practice of the Assembly, in pursuance of a regulation for 
 that purpose, the stated and permanent clerks are a standing commit- 
 tee on commissions. To th^m are submitted the commissions of mem- 
 bers: they decide on them in the first place, and if unexceptionable 
 in form or substance, they are enrolled as members of the house : if 
 exceptionable, they report them as such in a separate list. The mo- 
 derator, after divine service, opens the session with prayer. He takes 
 his seat as moderator, and proceeds to organize the house. The first 
 business in order is the report of the clerks, who are the Committee 
 on Commissions, who make a report stating on the roll those who 
 are members, and designating either in the roll, or in a separate list, 
 those whose commissions have been examined and found defective 
 either in form or in substance. 
 
 The next business in order is to appoint a committee on elections 
 from the list of members who have been enrolled. 
 
 To that committee are referred the commissions of such persons 
 
240 APPENDIX. 
 
 as may claim seats, "whose commissions have been examined and re- 
 jected. 
 
 It is usual to appoint the committee on elections on the morning of 
 the first daj of the session, and they, unless in cases of difficulty, re- 
 port to the house in the afternoon, and the house decides upon the 
 propriety of the report. It would seem also to be the practice, that 
 when a commissioner has omitted to hand in his commission to the 
 clerks, before the meeting of the- Assembly, he may do so in the As- 
 sembly, and the Committee of Commissions may add his name to 
 the roll of members. 
 
 After the house is organized, they proceed to the choice of a mode- 
 rator, and stated and permanent clerks, to preside over their delibera- 
 'tions, and to keep their records during their session. 
 
 You will observe that I am speaking of the rules of practice in the 
 sessions of ISST and 1838. 
 
 As the church increased in numbers, and, I may add without giving 
 offence, after the spirit of contention increased also in the same or a 
 greater ratio, the simplicity of the ancient practice gradually changed. 
 The changes have been stated with great clearness by one of our 
 venerable fathers, but as we have to do with existing rather than 
 ancient rules, it is not necessary for me to notice them. 
 
 The jury will recollect that the Court has decided that the exscind- 
 ing resolutions of the General Assembly of 1837, were unconstitu- 
 tional, null and void. 
 
 It results from this opinion, that the commissioners from the pres- 
 byteries within the bounds of these synods, had the same right to seats 
 in the General Assembly as the members from other presbyteries 
 within the jurisdiction of the Assembly, and were liable to be dealt 
 with by them in the same manner as commissioners from other pres- 
 byteries. 
 
 It was under these circumstances they presented themselves, with 
 commissions in proper form, to Mr. Krebs and Dr. M'Dowell, the 
 clerks of the former Assembly. They not only rejected their com- 
 missions, but refused to put their names on the roll at all. 
 
 I shall not now stop to inquire whether these gentlemen were, or 
 were not, pledged to the course they thought proper to pursue, nor 
 into the question whether they were the judges of the constitutionality 
 of an act of a former Assembly, as I am clearly of the opinion, and I so 
 instruct you, that the^ grossly erred in refusing to place their names 
 on the list of rejected applicants. They were the committee on com- 
 missions to whom such questions are in the first place referred. It 
 was their duty to decide on the propriety of the application and to 
 
APPENDIX. 241 
 
 refer the decision to the further action of the House, by adding their 
 names to the roll of members whose commissions had been examined 
 and rejected. 
 
 They cannot consider commissions, in other respects regular, as alien 
 and outlawed, merely because they proceeded from presbyteries that 
 had been unconstitutionally put out of the pale of the church without 
 citation and without trial. 
 
 It is, therefore, the opinion of the Court, that in this there was a 
 palpable violation of the rights of the proscribed commissioners. 
 And this, gentlemen, was the second error committed, and which led 
 to the scene of disorder which ensued, so little creditable to a Chris- 
 tian Assembly. 
 
 After the moderator, Dr. Elliott, had taken the chair. Dr. Patton 
 addressed the chair, and stated that he had certain resolutions to offer. 
 The moderator decided that he was out of order, that the first busi- 
 ness was the report of the clerks, who, you will recollect, were the 
 committee on commissions. 
 
 Dr. Patton stated that his motion or resolution had reference to the 
 formation of the roll, that it was his intention to make his motion and 
 have the question taken without debate. The moderator said the 
 clerks were proceeding wi'h their report. Dr. Patton reminded the 
 moderator that he had the floor before the clerks. The moderator still 
 decided he was out of order, whereupon Dr. Patton respectfully ap- 
 pealed from the decision of the chair. The moderator decided that the 
 appeal was out of order, and stated as a reason for the decision, that 
 there was no House to which the appeal could be taken. 
 
 The Court is of the opinion that the decision of the moderator was 
 correct, for the reasoii" given by him. It is a rule of the Assembly 
 that no persons shall be permitted to vote unless they are enrolled, 
 and until the report of the committee on commissions it cannot be ju- 
 dically known who are members of the house, and as such, privileged 
 to take part in the organization. If, however, there was a majority 
 for it, arising from the absence of the moderator or the refusal of the 
 clerks to report the roll, there would be no difiiculty in organizing the 
 Assembly. The decision of the moderator was correct, if the reason 
 assigned was the true reason. 
 
 After this disposition of Dr. Patton's motion, the clerks made a report, 
 omitting, improperly, as has been before stated, the names of the com- 
 missioners from the exscinded presbyteries, and the moderator announ- 
 ced to those who had not presented their commissions, that now was 
 the time to present them, and have themselves enrolled. Some of the 
 witnesses say that the moderator announced that, if there were any 
 
242 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Dames omitted, this was the time to present their commissions. The one 
 side say that this was a distinct intimation from the moderator himself? 
 that now was the time to present the commissions of the commissioners 
 from the exscinded presbyteries. The other say it included those only 
 who had not presented their commissions to the clerks. That the only 
 course to be pm-sued as to those who had presented their commissions 
 and had their claim to be enrolled, refused, was to have their case re- 
 ferred to the committee on elections, on whose report only it would 
 come properly before the Assembly. 
 
 However the fact may be, and this of course you will decide, at 
 this time Dr. Mason, a member whose seat was uncontested, and who 
 had been reported by the clerks to the house as a member, moved that 
 the names of the commissioners from the exscinded synods should be 
 added to the roll. He had the commissions in his hand, and at the 
 time of the motion, stated that they were the commissions of com- 
 missioners, which had been rejected by the clerks. The moderator 
 inquired from what presbyteries those commissioners came. Dr. Ma- 
 son replied, they came from the Synods of Utica, Geneva, Genesee 
 and the Western Reserve. The moderator declared Dr. Mason out o 
 order, or said that he was out of order at that time. The witnesses 
 differ as to the precise expression, but whatever may have been the 
 reason assigned, they all concur that the moderator declared Dr. Ma- 
 son out of order. Dr. Mason said, that with great I'espect for the chair, 
 he must appeal from the decision. The appeal was seconded. The 
 moderator refused to put the appeal, declaring the appeal to be out 
 of order. 
 
 In this stage of the cause it is unnecessary to decide whether the 
 original motion was or was not out of order. I shall put this part of 
 the case on the refusal of the moderator to put the question on the 
 appeal. The question is not whether an appeal may not be out of 
 order, but it is whether this appeal was out of order. If the moder- 
 ator had put the question on the appeal, it is possible the house might 
 have decided that the original motion was out of order. They might 
 have thought that the matter was properly referable to the committee 
 of elections — that it was a privileged question ; or the Assembly might 
 by possibility have taken a different view of the question. And 
 whatever they might have thought and decided, would have been 
 conclusive. 
 
 But by refusing to put the question, the moderator took all the 
 power to himself over this question. .No reason was given by the 
 moderator. It rested simply upon Jda will. In the opinion of the 
 Court, it was a dereliction of duty — a usurpation of authority, which 
 
APPENDIX. 243 
 
 called for the censure of the house. He could not then allege, as he 
 had done on a former occasion, that there was no house to which the 
 appeal could be taken. At that time, you will recollect, that the 
 clerks had made their report, and it was then ascertained what mem- 
 bers had a right to vote. 
 
 Had the question on the appeal been allowed, it could then have 
 been ascertained whether a motion had been made for the appoint- 
 ment of the committee on elections. As it is, it is doubtful whether 
 the motion was made before or after the motion made by Dr. Mason. 
 
 And here, let me remark, that I look upon the refusal of the clerks 
 to put the names of the commissioners on the roll, and this refusal of 
 the moderator to put the question on an aj)peal to the house, as most 
 unfortunate. 
 
 If the excitement did not then commence, yet it, with the uproar 
 and confusion which ensued, from this time greatly increased. After 
 the refusal of the moderator to allow an appeal, the Rev. Miles P. 
 Squier arose and said that he had presentei his commission to the 
 clerks, which they had refused to receive. The moderator asked 
 from what presbytery he came. He said from the presbytery of Ge- 
 neva. The moderator asked if it was within the bounds of the Synod 
 of Geneva. He said it was. The moderator then replied, we do not 
 Jcnoto you. The precise meaning and import of these words has been 
 the subject of comment. It will be for you to give them such weight 
 as you think them entitled to, in another part of this cause. 
 
 And here let me remark that the witness had not a right, (whatever 
 injustice he may have suffered,) either to speak or vote on any ques- 
 tion before the house. He had not been reported as a member by 
 the clerks; and the rules of the General Assembly required, that be- 
 fore a member speak or vote he must be enrolled. 
 
 To this time the witnesses substantially agree in their statement. 
 There was but little noise, and but little confusion. Every person 
 saw, and every person heard, all the transactions in the Assembly. 
 
 And here, gentlemen, it will be your solemn duty, respectfully^ but 
 firmly, to decide upon the conduct of the moderator. 
 
 Was he performing his duty as the presiding officer of the house 
 in its organization ? or was he carrying out the unconstitutional and 
 void proceedings of the General Assembly of 1837, which cut off 
 from the body of the Presbyterian Church, 4 synods, 28 presbyteries, 
 509 miniflteis, and near 60,000 communicants without citation and 
 without trial? 
 
 I put the question to you because it is the opinion of the Court, 
 
244 APPENDIX. 
 
 that the General Assembly has a right to depose their moderator, upon 
 sufficient cause. 
 
 This power is necessary for the protection of the house, otherwise 
 the moderator, instead of being the servant, would be the master of 
 the house. There is nothing in the constitution of the church that 
 restricts or impairs the right. 
 
 It applies to all moderators, whether moderators for the session, or 
 moderators for organization. The right is, perhaps, less questionable 
 in the latter, than in the former case. He is a ministerial as well as a 
 judicial officer. 
 
 Nor do I think that they are restrained in their choice to a modera- 
 tor of a former year, who may be present. The rule applies only to 
 ordinary cases, when the moderator of the last year is not in attend- 
 ance, or is unable, from some physical reason, to discharge the duties of 
 the office. It does not apply to the peculiar and extraordinary cir- 
 cumstances of this case. 
 
 The deposition of a moderator, and the election of another in his 
 place, it appears, is not without precedent in the history of the church. 
 
 There is one thing certain, that the deposition of a moderator, and 
 the election of another, if in other respects regular, will not of itself 
 vitiate the organization. 
 
 After Mr. Squier had taken his seat upon the emphatic declaration 
 of the moderator, "we do not know you," Mr. Cleaveland arose. Mr. 
 Cleaveland held in his hand a paper, from which he read, at the same 
 time accompanying it with remarks not on the paper. It is not dis- 
 tinctly in evidence what he did say, but in substance it was perhaps 
 this : 
 
 That as the commissioners to the General Assembly of 1838, from 
 a large number of presbyteries, had been refused their seats, and as 
 we have been advised by counsel learned in the law, that a constitu- 
 tional organization of the Assembly must be secured at this time and 
 in this place, he trusted it would not be considered as an act of dis- 
 courtesy, but merely a matter of necessity, if we now proceed to or- 
 ganize the General Assembly of 1838, in the fewest words, the short- 
 est time, and with the least interruption practicable. 
 
 Mr. Cleaveland then moved that Dr. Beraan, of the Presbytery of 
 Troy, be moderator, or, as some of the witnesses say, that he take the 
 chair. The motion being seconded, the question was put by Mr. 
 Cleaveland, and was carried, as the witnesses for the relators say, by a 
 large majority, and by this they mean that a lai'ge majority of voices 
 voted in the affirmative. The question was reversed, and, as the same 
 witnesses say, there were some voices coming from the south-west cor- 
 
APPENDIX. 245 
 
 ner of the church, who voted in the negative. This is denied by the 
 respondents. 
 
 Dr. Beman, who was sitting in a pew, the locality of which has 
 been described to you, stepped into the aisle and called the house to 
 order. A motion was then made that Dr. Mason and Mr. Gilbert be 
 appointed clerks. There being no others put in nomination, the ques- 
 tion was put by the moderator, Dr. Beman, in the affirmative and 
 negative, and there was a majority of voices in their favor. 
 
 Dr. Beman then stated, that the next business in order was the 
 election of a moderator. A member nominated Dr. Fisher, apd no 
 other person being in nomination, the question was put affirmatively 
 and negatively, and Dr. Fisher was elected by a large majority of 
 voices. There were no negative votes on this nomination ; several 
 of the witnesses say he was unanimously elected. 
 
 Dr. Beman then announced the election of Dr. Fisher as mode- 
 rator, and said, he should govern himself by the rules which might 
 be hereafter adopted. 
 
 Dr. Fisher stepped into the aisle, moved towards the north end of 
 the church, and called for business ; and Dr. Mason and Mr. Gilbert 
 were chosen clerks, no others being put in nomination. 
 
 Dr. Beman stated that some difficulties had been made by the trus- 
 tees about the occupation of the church in which they were then sit- 
 ting. To avoid difficulty, a motion was made to adjourn, to meet 
 forthwith at the lecture-room in the First Presbyterian Church. The 
 question was taken on the motion, and was decided in the affirmative, 
 there being no votes in the negative. The result of this vote was an- 
 nounced by Dr. Fisher, who then stated, that if there were any 
 commissioners who h^d not presented their commissions, they might 
 then and there attend for that purpose. The members of the house 
 then repaired to the lecture-room of the First Presbyterian Church, 
 proceeded with their business, and on the 24th of May, 1838, elected 
 the relators trustees, in the place and stead of the respondents. 
 
 This is the relators' ease, and here I will direct your attention to 
 some of the points which have been raised by the respondents' counsel. 
 The respondents contend that Mr. Cleaveland had no right to put 
 the question. They object, also, to the time and manner of putting 
 the question. Under one or other of these points I will endeavor 
 to include the question which has been raised, and which has been 
 argued with such force and with such a variety of illustrations. 
 
 Had Mr. Cleaveland a right to put this question ? It must be con- 
 ceded, that unless he was authorized to take the sense of the house, 
 the members were not bound to vote upon it. In ordinary cases, it 
 
 11 
 
246 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 is usual for a member who moves a question to put it in writing, and 
 deliver it to the speaker, who, when it has been seconded, proposes it 
 to the house, and the house are then said to be in possession of the 
 question. But this, the relators say, is not an ordinary question, but 
 one of a peculiar nature. They allege, that the moderator had shown 
 gross partiality and injustice in the chair; that he was <?ngaged in a 
 plan or scheme to carry out the unconstitutional and void acts of 183*7, 
 which deprived cei'tain commissioners of their seats; that this author- 
 ized the house to displace him, and to elect another to discharge the 
 duties which he failed or was unwilling to perform. If this were so, 
 of which you are the judges, Mr. Cleaveland had a right to take the sense 
 of the house on the propriety of the moderator's conduct. It would 
 be worse than useless to require him to put the question on his own 
 deposition, for this the house were authorized to believe he would re- 
 fuse to perform, as he had failed in the performance of his duty before. 
 The law compels no person to do a vain or nugatory thing. The law 
 maxim is, " Lex 7ieminem cogit ad vana, sen impossibilia." Nor, gen- 
 tlemen, was it necessary that it should be taken by clerks, if they, as 
 well as the moderator, were engaged in the same plan, to deprive 
 members of seats to which they were justly and constitutionally en- 
 titled. It is the opinion of the Court, that a member, although not 
 an officer, is entitled to put a question to the house in such circum- 
 stances. 
 
 The motion which Mr, Cleaveland made, after explaining his object, 
 was either that Dr. Beman be moderator, or that Dr. Beman be called 
 to the chair. It is of no consequence in which form the motion was 
 made. They are substantially the same. The motion amounted to 
 this: that Dr. Elliott, who occupied the chair, should be deposed, and 
 that Dr. Beman should be elected chairman and moderator in his stead. 
 It was a pertinent question, easily understood, and not calculated to 
 mislead the dullest member of the Assembly. It was in proper form 
 and in proper time : for, gentlemen, it was not necessary to precede 
 it by a motion that the house should now proceed to the choice of a 
 moderator. All these requisites are substantially comprised in the 
 motion which was made. There was nothing in the question, or in 
 the manner of putting it, which was disorderly, or which should have 
 led to disorder. Mr. Cleaveland put the question to the house, which, 
 under certain circumstances, of which I have already said you are the 
 judges, he had a right to do. In the course of his remarks, he turned 
 liimself partly round from the moderator ; but this, so far as any point 
 of law is involved, is of no sort of consequence. It is also contended 
 by the respondents, that the claim of members to seats, according to 
 
APPENDIX. 247 
 
 the standing order of the house, was referable to the committee on 
 elections, and further that the house cannot enter into business until 
 the organization is complete. The latter point the Court answers in 
 the negative. There is no doubt the house may elect a moderator, 
 although the seats of some of the members are contested. In gen- 
 eral, they would prefer to await the report of the committee on elec- 
 tions ; but this would be a matter of discretion. The right to seats 
 would be as well, if not better decided, after the house was organized 
 by the election of a moderator, as when it was in its inchoate or in- 
 cipient state. Such an objection would not vitiate the organization, 
 whatever cause there miglit be on the part of those who had been de- 
 prived of seats, to complain of the precipitation of the Assembly in 
 proceeding to business, particularly if done with a view of preventing 
 them from partaking in the business. 
 
 In deciding on the first point, and others which have been raised 
 by the respondents, it is necessary to advert to the nature of the ques- 
 tions themselves. 
 
 Dr. Mason moved that the names of certain members who had been 
 unconstitutionally and unjustly deprived of seats in the Assembly, 
 should be added to the roll. The motion of Mr. Cleaveland, and the 
 subsequent resolutions or motions, were the consequences of the de- 
 cision of the moderator, that Dr. Mason's motion was out of order, and 
 the refusal of the moderator to allow an appeal to the house. The 
 right of members was unjustly invaded, and from this moment it be- 
 came a question of privilege, which overrides all other questions 
 whatever. A question of privilege is always in order, to which pri- 
 vileged questions, such as the appointment of a committee of elec- 
 tions, must give way. "^ The cry, therefore, of " order," from the mod- 
 erator, or from any member whatever, under such circumstances, 
 would be disorderly. Two inconsistent rights cannot exist at the 
 same time, and it is obvious that if a member, or the moderator, may 
 put a stop to a proceeding which involves in it the conduct of the 
 moderator himself in the discharge of his high functions, and a ques- 
 tion of privilege, by the cry of order, it would be an easy and effectual 
 mode of destroying the rights of members in any deliberative 
 assembly. It is usual, when it is intended to prevent a mem- 
 ber from proceeding with a motion, to rise to order, and a re- 
 quisition is then made by the moderator that the member take 
 his seat. It is the opinion of the Court, that Dr. Mason had the right 
 to make his motion before the appointment of the committee on elec- 
 tions. Indeed, I know of no other mode of getting this question be- 
 fore the committee on elections, except by bringing it before the 
 
248 APPENDIX. 
 
 house, who might either decide it themselves, or, if they thought 
 proper, refer it to that committee, in whose report it would again come 
 before the house. In this point, I wish you distinctly to understand, 
 that it is the opinion of the Court, and that I so instruct you, that if 
 you believe that the conduct of the moderator and clerks was the re- 
 sult of a preconcerted plan with a portion of the members to carry 
 out the unconstitutional and void acts of 1837, which deprived the 
 members from certain presbyteries of seats in the Assembly, then, in 
 this particular, the requisitions of the law have been substantially com- 
 plied with. 
 
 That the fact that Mr. Cleaveland put the question instead of the 
 moderator, the cries of order when this was in progress, the omission 
 of some of the formula usually observed, when there is no contest and 
 no excitement, such as standing in the aisle, instead of taking the chair 
 occupied by the moderator, not using the usual insignia of office, put- 
 ting the question in an unusual place, and the short time consumed 
 in the organization of the house, and three or more members standing 
 at the same time, will not vitiate the organization, if you should be 
 of the opinion that this became necessary, from the illegal and im- 
 proper conduct of the adverse party. 
 
 It is a singular point, gentlemen, that this part of the respondents' 
 case rests upon standing rules which were not then in existence. You 
 will recollect, that each Assembly adopted its own rules ; indeed both 
 the relators and respondents have appealed to these rules. I will re- 
 mark, that the roll of members reported by Mr. Krebs and Dr. 
 M'Dowell, was the roll of the house. As such, it was virtually in the 
 possession of the clerks afterwards chosen, provided they were reg- 
 ularly and duly elected. It is the opinion of the court, that the ex- 
 istence of a house competent to perform all the functions of a General 
 Assembly, does not depend on the observance or non-observance of 
 the standing order of the house. You, however, must take this opinion 
 with the qualification, that you believe that the house had been sub- 
 stantially organized for the transaction of business ; that you should 
 believe that the deviation from the accustomed course, was the ne- 
 cessary result of a preconcerted plan, unconstitutionally to exclude the 
 members from the exscinded presbyteries from their seats in the As- 
 sembly. And here, gentlemen, let me request your particular atten- 
 tion to the point in issue. The relators say, that they are trustees 
 regularly appointed by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
 Church. In other words, they affirm that the house which assembled 
 in the lecture-room of the First Presbyterian Church, was the General 
 
APPENDIX. 249 
 
 Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, This is an affirmative propo- 
 sition, which the relators are bound to support. 
 
 The question is not, which is the General Assembly, but whether 
 they are the General Assembly, and as such had a right to elect the 
 relators trustees. This allegation the relators must sustain to your 
 satisfaction, otherwise your verdict must be in favor of the respon - 
 dents. 
 
 The respondents strenuously deny that the portion of brethren who 
 asssembled in the First Presbyterian Church, are the General Assem' 
 bly. On this point, both parties, the relators and respondents, have 
 put themselves upon the country — and you, gentlemen, are that coun- 
 try. 
 
 Let me now briefly call your attention to the relators' ease. The 
 moderator. Dr. Elliott, proceeded to organize the house. The clerks, 
 Mr. Krebs and Dr. M'Dowell, reported to the house the roll of mem- 
 bers, omitting those who were not entitled to seats. Dr. Patton of- 
 fered a resolution on the formation of the roll. This motion was de- 
 clared by the moderator to be out of order, also his appeal was de- 
 clared to be out of order. Dr. Mason then moved that the names of 
 the members from the Presbyteries within the exscinded Synods 
 should be added to the roll. This motion was declared by the mod- 
 erator to be out of order. An appeal from that decision was denqand- 
 ed, which was also declared to be out of order. On motion of Mr. 
 Cleaveland, the former moderator was deposed for sufficient cause, 
 and Dr. Beraan was elected moderator, and Mr. Gilbert and Dr. Ma- 
 son were elected clerks. After organization. Dr. Fisher was elected 
 moderator, and Mr. Gilbert and Dr. Mason elected clerks for the 
 Assembly. The Assembly being thus organized by the appointment 
 of officers, adjourned to meet forthwith at the lecture-room of the 
 First Presbyterian Church, and accordingly met in pursuance of the 
 adjournment, and on the 24:th of May, 1838, in due form, elected the 
 relators trustees. This, gentlemen, is a summary of the plaintiffs' case ; 
 and if the facts are as stated, your verdict should be rendered in fa- 
 vor of the relators. 
 
 The respondents deny that the portion of brethren who assembled 
 in the First Presbyterian Church are the General Assembly. 
 
 Their objection, in addition to the points which have been already 
 stated, is, that there was not a full and free expression of the opinion 
 of the house. 
 
 They allege that the various motions for the appointment of mod- 
 erator and clerks, and for the adjournment, were not carried by a 
 majority of the house. 
 
250 APPENDIX. 
 
 It is hardly necessary to observe that spectators had no right to 
 vote, nor had members not enrolled by the clerks, although entitled 
 to seats, a right to vote. But notwithstanding this, it is the opinion 
 of the Courts that if, after deductiag those who voted and .were not 
 entitled to vote, there was a clear majority in favor of several motions, 
 this irregularity, or if you please, something worse, would not vitiate 
 the organization. The presumption is, that none but qualified per- 
 sons voted ; but there is proof that some voted who were not enrolled, 
 yet this of itself will not destroy the relators' right of action. 
 You, gentlemen, will in the first plaae, inquire whether there was a 
 majority of affirmative voices of members entitled to a vote. 
 
 If there was not, there is an end of the question, and your verdict 
 must be in favor of the respondents. 
 
 But if there was a majority, you will further inquire whether the 
 question on the several motions was reversed. 
 
 If they were not reversed, your verdict must be in favor of the res- 
 pondents ; for in that ease, it is very clear, the members had no oppor- 
 tunity of showing their dissent to several motions or propositions 
 which were submitted to them. 
 
 These, gentlemen, are questions of fact for your decision. I will 
 content myself with referring to the evidence and the arguments of 
 the counsel, and at the same time observing to you that it is your 
 duty to reconcile the testimony of your case, and with one other ob- 
 servation, that affirmative testimony is more to be relied on than 
 negative testimony. 
 
 And here, gentlemen, I wish you distinctly to understand, that it 
 is the majority of those who were entitled to vote, and who actually 
 voted, that is to be counted on the various questions which were 
 submitted to the house. I wish you also to understand, that it is the 
 majority of members that had been enrolled, that must determine 
 this question, "When there is a quorum of members present, the 
 moderator can only notice those who actually vote, and not those 
 who do not choose to exercise their privilege of voting. " When- 
 ever," says Lord Mansfield, " electors are present, and don't vote at 
 all, they virtually acquiesce in the decision of those who do." 
 
 And with this principle, agrees one of the rules of the General As- 
 sembly itself, which must be familiar to every member. 
 
 "Members (30th rule,) ought not, without weighty reasons, to de- 
 cline voting, as this practice might leave the decision of very interest- 
 ing questions to a small proportion of the judicatory. Silent mem- 
 bers, unless excused from voting, must be considered as acquiescing 
 with the majority." 
 
APPENDIX. 251 
 
 This is not only the doctrine of the common law, of the written 
 law, as you have seen, but it is the doctrine of common sense ; for 
 without the benefit of this rule, it would be almost impossible, cer- 
 tainly very inconvenient, to transact business in a large deliberative 
 assembly. 
 
 Of this rule, gentlemen, we have had very lately a most memorable 
 instance. The fundamental principles of yoin* government have been 
 altered ; a new constitution has been established by a plurality of 
 votes ; forty thousand electors, who deposited their votes for one or 
 other of the candidates for governor, did not cast them at all on that 
 most interesting and important of all questions. But notwithstanding 
 this, the amended constitution has been proclaimed by your executive, 
 and recognized by your legislature and by the people, as the supreme 
 law of the land. This, gentlemen, has been stigmatized as a technical 
 rule of law, a fiction and intendment in law. It is sufficient for us, 
 gentlemen, that it is a rule of law. "We must not be wiser than the 
 law; for if we attempt this, we endanger everything we hold dear; 
 our life, our liberty, our property. 
 
 Kor, gentlemen, can we know any thing of any fancied equity as 
 contradistinguished fi'om the law. The law is the equity of the case, 
 and it must be so considered under the most awful responsibility, by 
 this court and this jury. In my opinion, a court and jury can never 
 be better employed than when they are vindicating the safe and 
 salutary principles of the common law. 
 
 But the respondents further object that the design of the IS'ew 
 School brethren was not to organize a General Assembly according 
 to the forms prescribed by the constitution, but that they intended, 
 and it was so understood by them, to effect an ex parte organization, 
 with a view to a peaceable separation of the church. If this was the 
 intention, and was so understood at the time, the house which as- 
 sembled in the First Presbyterian Church, cannot be recognized as 
 the General Assembly, competent to appoint trustees under the 
 charter. Having chosen voluntarily to leave the church, they can no 
 longer be permitted to participate in its advantages and privileges. 
 If a member, or a number of individuals, choose to abandon their 
 church, they must at the same time be content to relinquish all its 
 benefits. 
 
 But this is a question of fact, which you must decide. In this part 
 of the case, the burden of proof is thrown on the respondents. They 
 must satisfy you that such was the intention of the K^ew School party, 
 in organizing the house, and adjourning to the First Presbyterian 
 Church. But granting that the motion of Mr. Cleaveland was in or- 
 
252 APPENDIX. 
 
 der, that Drs. Beman and Fisher, and the clerks had a majority of 
 votes, that the intention was to organize the General Assembly, and 
 that they did not intend an ex parte organization, the respondents 
 eay that such was the precipitation and haste of these proceedings, 
 their extraordinary and' novel character, the noise, tumult and con- 
 fusion, that they and the other members of the house had no oppor- 
 tunity of hearing and voting, if they had wished to do so, and that 
 therefore this is an attempt at organization, which is null and void. 
 
 It is very certain, that if individual members of a deliberative as- 
 sembly, by trick and artifice, by surprise, noise, tumult and confusion, 
 cany such a question as this, it ought not, it cannot be regarded. The 
 members must have an opportunity to debate, to vote if they desire 
 it, and for this reason it is, the negative question must be put, and 
 that the several questions must be reversed. 
 
 It will be for you to eay, whether the members had this opportu- 
 nity. To this part of the case, I request your particular attention. 
 
 If you believe that the several motions were made and reversed, 
 that they were carried by a majority of affirmative voices, whatever 
 may be your opinion of the relative strength of the two parties in 
 the Assembly, your verdict must be for the relators. I hold it to be 
 a most clear proposition, that silent members acquiesce in the decision 
 of the majority. It is of no sort of consequence for what reason they 
 were silent; whether from a previous determination, or otherwise. 
 The effect is the same, provided they had an opportunity of hearing 
 and voting on the question. It is not necessary that all should hear 
 or vote. 
 
 If persons Avho are members of an assembly, by surprise, by noise, 
 or violence, carry such a question, such a vote cannot be considered 
 as the deliberate sense of the assembly ; but when members are aware 
 of the nature of the proceedings, and ciioose to treat them with con- 
 tempt, or to interrupt the business themselves, by stamping, noise, 
 talking, cries of order, or shame ! shame ! or requesting silence with 
 a view to interruption, or attending to other business, when they 
 ought to be attending to this, they cannot be permitted afterwards to 
 allege that they had no opportunity to vote. They cannot take ad- 
 vantage of their own wrong, or their own folly. In such a case, 
 their silence, or, if you choose, noise, shall be viewed as an acquies- 
 cence in the vote of the majority. But when members are prevented 
 from hearing and understanding the question by the noise and con- 
 fusion, or by the indecent haste with which the business is conducted, 
 the organization is not such as can give it any legal validity. It is 
 of no consequence whether the members are prevented from voting 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 253 
 
 unders'andingly on the question by the persons engaged in conduct- 
 ing the business, or by the spectators. But when it comes from the 
 members of the other party, they shall not be permitted to object, 
 when they themselves are the causes of the difficulty. 
 
 If facts be so, they (the members of the Old School,) did not hear, 
 because they would not hear ; they did not vote, because they would 
 not vote. Tliey caused the disorder, and let them reap the bitter 
 fruits of their injustice. The court, and you, gentlemen of the jury, 
 have nothing to do with consequences, with fancied majorities and 
 minorities, but with majorities legally ascertained. We are placed 
 at this bar under an awful responsibility to do justice, without regard 
 to the numerical strength of the contending parties. 
 
 If you, gentlemen, believe that the questions were not reversed, 
 that they were not carried, that the members of the Assembly had 
 not an opportunity of hearing and voting upon them, your verdict 
 should be in favor of the respondents. But if, on the other hand, 
 you believe they intended to organize the Assembly ; that the ques- 
 tions were severally put; that the noise, tumult and confusion which 
 prevailed in the Assembly, were the result of a preconcerted plan, 
 or combination, or conspiracy between the clerks, the moderator, and 
 the members of the Old School party, to sustain the unconstitutional 
 and void resolutions of 1837, which deprived members of seats to 
 which they were justly entitled, your verdict should be in favor of 
 the relators. 
 
 And here I do not wish to be understood as having expressed, or even 
 intimated an opinion as to the facts of the case. The facts are for 
 you, the law is for the Court. 
 
 And now, gentlem'fen, I entreat you, as you sJiall ansicer to God at 
 the great day, that you discard from your minds all partiality, if any 
 you have, fear, favor and affection ; that you decide this interesting 
 cause according to the evidence, and that you remember that the 
 law is part of your evidence. The Court, and you, gentlemen, are 
 placed at this bar under an awful eesponsibility to do justice. 
 
 VERDICT. 
 
 The jury, after a short absence, returned into Court and rendered 
 their verdict, which, as read to them, and ordered to be recorded, is, 
 "that they find the defendants guilty." 
 
 Some question was made by counsel for the defendants, in regard 
 to the form of the verdict, when it was announced from the bench, 
 that the Chief Justice had prescribed this as the technical form of the 
 verdict, (under the issue in this case,) if the jury shoiild find that 
 the relators were the trustees of General Assembly ; that is, that the 
 
 11* 
 
254 APPENDIX. 
 
 Assembly wliicli lield its sittings iii the First Presbyterian Churclx, 
 was the true " General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States of America," under the charter. 
 
 [B.] 
 CHIEF JUSTICE GIBSON'S OPINION. 
 
 To extricate the question from the multifarious mass of irrelevant 
 matter in which it is enclosed, we must, in the first place, ascertain 
 the specific character of the General Assembly, and the relation it 
 bears to the corporation which is the immediate subject of our cog- 
 nizance. This Assembly has been called a qiiasi corpori^fion ; of 
 which it has no feature. A quasi corporation has capacity to sue and 
 be sued as an artificial person ; which the Assembly has not. It is 
 also established by law ; which the Assembly is not. IS^either is the 
 Assembly a particular order or rank in the corporation, though the 
 latter was created for its convenience ; such, for instance, as the 
 share-holders of a bank or joint-stock company, who are an integrant 
 part of the body. It is a segregated association, which, though it is 
 the reproductive organ of corporate succession, is not itself a mem- 
 ber of the body; and in that respect it is anomalous. Having no cor- 
 porate quality of itself, it is not a subject of our corrective jurisdic- 
 tion, or of our scrutiny, farther than to ascertain how far its organic 
 structure may bear on the question of its personal identity or indi- 
 viduality. By the charter of the corporation, of which it is the hand- 
 maid and nurse, it has a limited capacity to create vacancies in it, and 
 an ulimited power over the form and manner of choice in filling 
 them. It would be sufficient for the civil tribunals, therefore, that 
 the asseinbled commissioners had constituted an actual body; and 
 that it had made its appointment in its own way, without regard to its 
 fairness in respect to its members: with this limitation, however, that 
 it had the assent of the constitutional majority, of which the official 
 act of authentication would be at least, prima facie evidence. It 
 would be immaterial to the legality of the choice that the majority 
 had expelled the minority, provided a majority of the whole body 
 concurred in the choice. This may be safely predicated of an imdi- 
 vided Assembly, and it would be an unerring test in the case of a di- 
 
APPENDIX. 255 
 
 visiou could a quorum not be constituted of less than such a majority; 
 but unfortunately, a quorum of the General Assembly may be con- 
 stituted of a very small minoi-ity, so that two, or even more, distinct 
 parts may have all the external organs of legitimate existence. 
 Hence, where, as in this instance, the members have formed them- 
 selves into separate bodies, numerically sufficient for corporate capa- 
 city and organic action, it becomes necessary to ascertain how far 
 either of them was formed in obedience to the conventional law of 
 the association, which, for that purpose only, ia to be treated as a rule 
 of civil obligation. 
 
 The division which, for purposes of designation, it is convenient to 
 call the Old School party, was certainly organized in obedience to the 
 established order; and, to legitimate the separate organization of its 
 rival, in contravention, as it certainly was of every thing like prece- 
 dent, would require the presentation of a very urgent emergency. 
 At the stated time and place for the opening of the session, the parties 
 assembled without any ostensible division ; and, when the organization 
 of the whole had proceeded to a certain point, by the instrumentality 
 of the moderator of the preceding session, who, for that purpose, was 
 the constitutional organ, a provisional moderator was suddenly cho- 
 sen [on the motion of an individual who had not been reported or 
 enrolled as a member, and by a minority of those who actually voted, 
 including several who were in the same predicament with the mover*] 
 by a minority of those who could be entitled to vote, including the 
 exscinded commissioners. The question on the motion to elect, was 
 put, not by the chair, but by the mover himself; after which, the se- 
 ceding party elected a permanent moderator, and immediately with- 
 drew, leaving the other party to finish its process of organization, by 
 the choice of its moderator for the session. 
 
 In justificatioTi of this apparent irregularity, it is urged that the 
 constitutional moderator had refused an appeal to the commissioners 
 in attendance, from his decision, which had excluded from the roll, 
 the names of certain commissioners who had been unconstitutionally 
 severed, as it is alleged, from the Presbyterian connexion by a vote of 
 the preceding session. It is conceded by the argument, that if the 
 synods with the dependent presbyteries by which those commission- 
 ers were sent, had been constitutionally dissolved, the motion [made 
 by an exscinded memberf ] was one which the moderator was not 
 bound to put, or the commissioners to notice ; and that whatever im- 
 
 * What follows, of this sentence, substituted in the published opinion, for the 
 portion in brackets. 
 
 t Oioitted in the published opinion. 
 
256 APPENDIX. 
 
 plication of assent to the decision which ensued, might otherwise Le 
 deduced from the silence of those who refused to speak out, about 
 which it will be necessary to say something in the sequel, there was 
 no room for any such implication in the particular instance. It would 
 follow also, that there was no pretence for the deposal of the mode- 
 rator, if indeed such a thing could be legitimated by any circumstan- 
 ces, for refusing an appeal- from his exclusion of those who had no 
 color of title, and, consequently, that what else might be reform, 
 would be revolution. And this leads to an inquiry into the consti- 
 tutionality of the act of excision. 
 
 The sentence of excision, as it has been called, was nothing else 
 than an ordinance of dissolution. It bore that the synods in question, 
 having been foi'med and attached to the body of the Presbyterian. 
 Church under, and in execution of, the Plan of Union, " be, and are 
 hereby declared to be, out of the ecclesiastical connexion of the 
 Presbyterian Church in the United States of America ; and that they 
 are not in form or in fact, an integral portion of said church." !N"ow 
 it will not be said that if the dissolved synods had no other basis than 
 the Plan of Union, they did not necessarily fall along with it, and it 
 is not pretended that the Assembly was incompetent to repeal the 
 union prospectively, but it is contended that the repeal could not 
 impair rights of membership which had grown up under it. On the 
 other hand, it is contended that the Plan of Union was unconstitu- 
 tional and void from the beginning, because it was not submitted to 
 the presbyteries for their sanction ; and that no right of membership 
 could spring from it. But viewed, not as a constitutional regulation, 
 which implies permanency of duration, but as a temporary expedient, 
 it acquired the force of a law without the ratification of those bodies. 
 It was evidently not intended to be permanent, and it consequently 
 was constitutionally enacted and constitutionally repealed by an 
 ordinary act of legislation; and those synods which had their root in 
 it, could not be expected to survive it. There never was a design to 
 attempt an amalgamation of ecclesiastical principles which are as 
 immiscible as water and oil; much less to effect a commixture of 
 them only at particular geographical points. Such an attempt would 
 have compromised a principle at the very root of Presbyterian 
 government, which requires that the officers of the church be set 
 apart by special ordination for the v/ork, Now the character of the 
 plan is palpable, not only in its title and provisions, but in the minute 
 of its introduction into the Assembly. "We find in the proceedings of 
 1801, page 256, that a committee was raised "to consider and digest 
 a plan of government for the churches in the new settlements agreeably 
 
APPENDIX. 257 
 
 to the proposal of the General Association of Connecticut;" and that 
 the plan adopted in conformity to its report, is called "a Plan of 
 Union for the new settlements." The avowed object of it was to prevent 
 alienation; in other words, the affiliation of Presbyterians in other 
 churches, by suffering those who were yet too few and too poor for 
 the maintenance of a minister, temporarily to call to their assistance 
 the members of a sect who differed from them in principles, not of 
 faith, but of ecclesiastical government. To that end, Presbyterian 
 ministers were suffered to preach to Congregational Churches, while 
 Presbyterian Churches were suffered to settle Congregational minis- 
 ters ; and mixed congi*egations were allowed to settle a Presbyterian 
 or a Congregational minister at their election, but under a plan of 
 government and discipline adapted to the circumstances. Surely this 
 was not intended to outlast the inability of the respective sects to 
 provide separately for themselves, or to perpetuate the innovations 
 on Presbyterial government which it was calculated to produce. It 
 was obviously a missionary arrangement from the first ; and they who 
 built up presbyteries and f^ynods on the basis of it, had no reason to 
 expect that their structures would survive it, or that Congregation- 
 alists might, by force of it, gain a foothold in the Presbyterian Church, 
 despite of Presbyterial discipline. They embraced it with all its 
 defeasible properties plainly put before them ; and the power which 
 constituted it, might fairly repeal it, and dissolve the bodies that had 
 grown out of it, whenever the good of the church should seem to 
 require it. 
 
 Could the synods, however, be dissolved by a legislative act? I 
 know not how they could have been legitimately dissolved, by any 
 other. The Assembly is a homogeneous body, uniting in itself, 
 without separation of parts, the legislative, executive and judicial 
 functions of the government ; and its acts are referable to the one or 
 the other of them, according to the capacity in which it sat when 
 they were performed. Now, had the exscinded synods been cut off 
 by a judicial sentence, without hearing or notice, the act would have 
 been contrary to the cardinal principles of natural justice, and con- 
 sequently void. But, though it was at first resolved to proceed 
 judicially, the measure was abandoned; probably because it came to 
 be perceived that the synods had committed no offence. 
 
 A glance at the Plan of Union, is enough to convince us that the 
 disorder had come in with the sanction of the Assembly itself. The 
 first article directed missionaries, (the word is significant,) to the 
 new settlements, to promote a good understanding betwixt the 
 kindred sects. The second and third permitted a Presbyterian con- 
 
258 APPENDIX. 
 
 gregation to settle a Congregational minister, or a Presbyterian 
 minister to be settled by a Congregational church ! but these provided 
 for no recognition of the people in charge as a part of the Presby- 
 terian body; at least they gave them no representation in its gov- 
 ernment. But the fourth allowed a mixed congregation to settle a 
 minister of either denomination ; and it committed the government 
 of it to a standing committee, but with a right to appeal to the body 
 of male communicants, if tlie appellant were a Congregationalist, or 
 to the presbytery if he were a Presbyterian, l^ow it is evident the 
 Assembly designed that every such congregation should belong to a 
 presbytery, as an integrant part of it; for if its minister were a Con- 
 gregationalist, in no way connected with the Presbyterian Church, it 
 would be impossible to refer the appellate jurisdiction to any presby- 
 tery in particular. This alone would show, that it was designed to 
 place such a congregation in ecclesiastical connexion with the presby- 
 tery of the district ; but this is not all. It was expressly provided, 
 in conclusion, that if the " said standing committee of any church, 
 shall depute one of themselves to attend the presbytery, he may have 
 the same right to sit and act in the presbytery as a ruling elder of 
 the Presbyterian Church." For what purpose, if the congregation 
 Were not ia Presbyterial fellowship ? 
 
 It is said that this jus represent ationis was predicated of the ap- 
 peal precedently mentioned ; and that the exercise of it was to be 
 restrained to the trial of it. The words, however, were predicated 
 without restriction; and an implied limitation of their meaning, 
 would impute to the Assembly the injustice of allowing a party to 
 sit in his owncawse, by introducing into the composition of the appel- 
 late court, a part of the subordinate one. That such an implication 
 would be inconsistent with the temper displayed by the Assembly 
 on other occasions, is proved by the order which it took as early as 
 1791, in the case of an appeal from the sentence of the Synod of Phil- 
 adelphia, whose members it prevented from voting on the question, 
 (Assembly's Digest, p. 332,) as well as by its general provision, that 
 " members of a judicatory may not vote in the superior judicatory on 
 a question of approving or disapproving their records." (Id. pp. 333.) 
 
 Tlie principle has since become a rule of the constitution, as appears 
 by the Book of Discipline, chap. vii. sec. 3, paragraph 12. As the 
 representatives of those anomalous congregations, therefore, could not 
 sit in judgment on their own controversies, it is pretty clear that it 
 was intended they should be represented generally, else they would 
 not be represented at all in the councils of the church, by those who 
 might not be Presbyterians ; and that to effect it, the principle of 
 
APPENDIX. 259 
 
 Presbyterial ordination was to be relaxed, as regards both the minis- 
 try and eldership ; and it is equally clear, that had the synods been 
 cited to answer for the consequent relaxation as an offence, they 
 might have triumphantly appeared at the bar of the Assembly with 
 the Plan of Union in their hand. That body, however, resorted to 
 the only constitutional remedy in its power ; it fell back, so to speak, 
 on its legislative jurisdiction, in the exercise of which, the synods 
 were competently represented, and heard by their commissioners. 
 
 Now the apparent injustice of the measure arises from the contem- 
 plation of it as a judicial sentence pronounced against parties who 
 were neither cited nor heard ; which it evidently was not. Even as 
 a legislative act, it may have been a hard one, though certainly con- 
 stitutional, and strictly j ust. It was impossible to eradicate the dis- 
 order by any thing less than a dissolution of those bodies with whose 
 existence its roots were so intertwined as to be inseparable from it, 
 leaving their elements to form new and less heterogeneous combina- 
 tions. Though deprived of Presbyterial organization, the Presby- 
 terian parts were not excluded from the church, provision being 
 made for them, by allowing them to attach themselves to the nearest 
 presbytery. 
 
 It is said there is not sufficient evidence to establish the fact that 
 the exscinded synods had actually been constituted on the Plan of 
 Union, in order to have given the Assembly even legislative juris- 
 diction. The testimony of the Rev, Mr. Squier, however, shows that 
 in some of the three which were within the State of 'New York, con- 
 gregations were sometimes constituted without elders^; and the Synod 
 of the Western Reserve, when charged with delinquency on that 
 head, instead of denying the fact, promptly pointed to the Plan of 
 Union for its justification. But what matters it whether the fact 
 were actually what the Assembly supposed it to be ? If that body 
 proceeded in good faith, the validity of its enactment cannot depend 
 on the justness of its conclusion. "We have, as already remarked, no 
 authority to rejudge its judgments, on their merits; and this princi- 
 ple was asserted with conclusive force by the presiding judge who 
 tried the cause. Upon an objection made to an inquiry into the 
 composition of the Presbytery of Medina, it was ruled that "with 
 the reasons for the proceedings of 1837, (the act of excision,) we have 
 nothing to do. "We are to determine only what was done : the rea- 
 sons of those who did it are immaterial. If the acts complained of 
 were within the jurisdiction of the Assembly, their decision must be 
 final, though they decided wrong." This was predicated of judicial 
 jurisdiction, but the principle is necessarily as applicable to jurisdic- 
 
260 APPENDIX. 
 
 tioB for purposes of legislation. I cite the passage, however, to show 
 that after a successful resistance to the introduction of evidence of 
 the fact, it lies not with the relators to allege the want of it. 
 
 If then the synods in question were constitutionally dissolved, the 
 presbyteries of which they had been composed, were, at least, for 
 purposes of representation, dissolved along with them ; for no presby- 
 tery can be in connexion with the General Assembly, unless it be at 
 the same time subordinate to a synod also in connexion with it, be- 
 cause an appeal from its judgment can reach the tribunal of the last 
 resort only through that channel. It is immaterial that the presby- 
 teries are the electors ; a synod is a part of the machinery which is 
 indispensable to the existence of every branch of the church. It ap- 
 pears, therefore, that the commissioners from the exscinded synods, 
 were not entitled to seats in the Assembly, and that their names 
 were properly excluded from the roll. 
 
 The inquiry might be rested here ; for if there were no color of 
 right in them, there was no color of right in the adversary proceed- 
 ings which were founded on their exclusion. But even if their title 
 were clear, the refusal of an appeal from the decision of the modera- 
 tor, would be no ground for the degradation of the officer at the call 
 of a minority; nor could it impose on the majority an obligation to 
 vote on a question put unofficially, and out of the usual course. To 
 all questions put by the established organ, it is the duty of every mem- 
 ber to respond, or be counted with the greater number, because he 
 is supposed to have assented beforehand to the result of the process 
 pre-established to ascertain the general will ; but the rule of implied 
 assent is certainly inapplicable to a measure which, when justifiable 
 even by extreme necessity, is essentially revolutionary, and based 
 on no pre-established process of ascertainment whatever. 
 
 To apply it to an extreme case of inorganic action, as was done 
 here, might work the degradation of any presiding officer in our legis- 
 lative halls, by the motion and actual vote of a single member, sus- 
 tained by the constructive votes of all the rest ; and though such an 
 enterprise may never be attempted, it shows the danger of resorting 
 to a conventional rule, when the body is to be resolved into its origi- 
 nal elements, and its rules and conventions to be superseded, by the 
 very motion. For this reason, the choice of a moderator to supplant 
 the officer in the chair, even if he were removable at the pleasure 
 of the commissioners, would seem to have been unconstitutional. 
 
 But he was not removable by them, because he had not derived 
 his office from them ; nor was he answerable to them for the use of 
 his power. He was not their moderator. He was the mechanical in- 
 
APPENDIX. 261 
 
 BtrutDent of their organization ; and till tliat was accomplished, they 
 were subject to his rule — not he to theirs. They were chosen by the 
 authority of his mandate, and with the power of self-organization, 
 only in the event of his absence at the opening of the session. Cor- 
 porally present, but refusing to perform his function, he might be 
 deemed constructively absent, for constitutional purposes, insomuch 
 that the commissioners might proceed to the choice of a substitute 
 without him ; but not if he had entered on the performance of his 
 task ; and the reason is that the decision of such questions as were 
 prematurely pressed here, is proper for the decision of the body when 
 prepared for organic action, which it cannot be before it is fully constitu- 
 ted and under the presidency of its own moderator ; the moderator of 
 the preceding session being functus officio. There can be no occasion 
 for its action sooner; for though the commissioners are necessarily 
 called upon to vote for their moderator, their action is not organic, 
 but individual. Dr. Mason's motion and appeal, though the clerks 
 had reported the roll, were premature ; for though it is declared in 
 the twelfth chapter of the Form of Government, that no commission- 
 er shall deliberate or vote before his name shall have been enrolled, 
 it follows not that the capacity, consummated by enrollment, was ex- 
 pected to be exercised during any part of the process of organization, 
 but the choice of a moderator ; and moreover, the provision may have 
 been intended for the case of a commissioner appearing for the first 
 time, when the house was constituted. 
 
 Many instances may doubtless be found among the minutes, of mo- 
 tions entertained previously,, for our public bodies, whether legisla- 
 tive or judical, secular or ecclesiastical, are too prone to forget the 
 golden precept — "Let all things be done decently and in order." 
 But these are merely instances of irregularity which have passed sub 
 silejitio, and which cannot change a rule of positive enactment. It 
 seems, then, that an appeal from the decision of the moderator did not 
 lie ; and that he incurred no penalty by the disallowance of it. The 
 title of the exscinded commissioners could be determined only by the 
 action of the house, which could not be had before its organization 
 was complete ; and, in the mean time, he was bound, as the execu- 
 tive instrument of the preceding Assembly, to put its ordinance into 
 execution : for to the actual Assembly, and not to the moderator of 
 the preceding one, it belonged to repeal it. 
 
 It would be decisive, however, that the motion, as it was proposed, 
 purported not to be in fact a question of degradation for the disal- 
 lowance of an appeal, but one of new and independent organization. 
 It was ostensibly, as well as actually, a measure of transcendental 
 
262 APPENDIX. 
 
 power, ■whose purpose was to treat the ordinance of the preceding As- 
 sembly as a nullity, and its moderator as a nonentity. It had been 
 prepared for the event avowedly before the meeting. The witnesses 
 concur that it was propounded as a measure of original organization 
 transcending the customary order ; and not as a recourse to the ultima 
 ratio for a specific violation of it. The ground of the motion, as it 
 was opened by the mover, was not the disallowance of an appeal, 
 which alone could afford a pretext of forfeitiire, but the fact of exclu- 
 sion. To affect silent members with an implication of assent, however, 
 the ground of the motion and nature of the question must be so ex- 
 plicitly put before them as to prevent misconception or mistake ; and 
 the remarks that heralded the question in this instance, pointed at, 
 not a removal of the presiding incumbent, but a separate organization 
 to be accomplished with the least practicable interruption of the busi- 
 ness in hand ; and if they indicated anything else, they were decep- 
 tive. The measure was proposed not as that of the body, but as the 
 measure of a party ; and the cause assigned for not having proposed 
 it elsewhere, was that individuals of the party had been instructed by 
 counsel that the purpose of it could not be legally accomplished in. 
 any other place. No witness speaks of a motion to degrade ; and the 
 rapidity of the process by which the choice of a substitute, not a suc- 
 cessor, was affected, left no space for reflection or debate. Now, be- 
 fore the passive commsssioners could be affected by acquiescence im- 
 plied from their silence, it ought to have appeared that they were ap - 
 prised of what was going on ; but it appears that even an attentive 
 ear witness was unable to understand what was done. The whole 
 scene was one of unprecedented haste, insomuch that it is still a matter 
 of doubt how the questions were put. Now, though these facts were 
 fairly put to the jury, it is impossible not to see, that the verdict is, 
 in this respect, manifestly against the current of the evidence. 
 
 Other corroborative views have been suggested ; but it is difficult 
 to compress a decision of the leading points in this case into the old 
 fashioned limits of a judical opinion. The preceding observations^ 
 however, are deemed enough to show the grounds on which we hold 
 that the Assembly which met in the First Presbyterian Church was not 
 the legitimate successor of the Assembly of 1837 ; and that the defend- 
 ants are not guilty of the usurpation with which they are charged. \ 
 
 Rule for a new trial made absolute. 
 
 From this opinion Judge Rogers dbsented. His dissent is in these 
 words, viz. 
 
 Judge Rogep^. — After the patient and impartial investigation, by 
 me, of this cause, at Nisi Prius, and in bank, I have nothing at this 
 
APPENDIX. 263 
 
 time to add, except that my opinion remains unchanged on all the 
 points ruled at the trial. This explanation is deemed requisite, in jus- 
 tice to myself, and because it has become necessary (in a case, in some 
 respects, without precedent, and presenting some extraordinary fea- 
 tures) to prevent misapprehension and misrepresentation. 
 
 [C] 
 
 OPINION OF CHANCELLOR KENT ON THE ACTS 
 OF EXCISION. 
 
 The proceedings of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
 Church of the United States, held at Philadelphia in May last, have 
 been submitted to me for my professional opinion, respecting the va- 
 lidity and effect of certain Resolutions of the Assembly, in which they 
 abrogate the Plan of Union made in ISOl with the General Association 
 of the State of Connecticut, and also declare that the Synods of the 
 Western Reserve, and of Utica, Geneva and Genesee were no longer a 
 part of the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 Without assuming to meddle with any questions exclusively eccle- 
 siastical, or of a theological nature, I have not felt myself at liberty 
 to withhold my opinion from the reverend gentlemen who have ap- 
 plied for it; so far, at least, as the proceeding's alluded to may be 
 considered as affecting rights that might, directly or indirectly , be dis- 
 cussed and protected in a court of justice. 
 
 The two points to be considered are, 
 
 1. The character and effect of the Plan of Union of ISOl, and of 
 its abrogation in 1837. 
 
 2. The cutting off the four Synods above mentioned from their con- 
 nection with the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 (1.) It appears that in 1792 the Convention of the Committees of 
 the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, and of the General 
 Association of Connecticut, agreed to a Standing Committee of Corres- 
 pondence for each body, to communicate with each other whatever 
 might be mutually useful to the churches under their care ; and to pro- 
 mote this plan of intercourse, delegates were to have a right to sit in 
 each other's general meetings. The General Assembly of the Pres- 
 
264 APPENDIX. 
 
 byterian Church and the General Association of Connecticnt respec- 
 tively, approved of this plan, and they further mutually agreed, in 
 1794, that delegates from the Assembly to the Association and from 
 the Association to the Assembly should be received, not only to sit 
 and consult in their respective bodies, but vote upon all questions to 
 be determined by either house. Then followed the more formal and 
 specific Plan of Union of 1801, adopted by the General Assembly of 
 the Presbyterian Church and by the General Association of the State 
 of Connecticut. This Plan of Union, or government for the mutual 
 harmony and prosperity of the Presbyterian and Congregational 
 churches in the new settlements, was agreed to and ratified equally 
 by the General Assembly and the General Association, and was car- 
 ried into operation with great success, and with the continued appro- 
 bation of the Presbyteries and General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
 Church, down to its final abrogation in 1537. 
 
 This solemn compact was doubtless made in good faith, and from 
 •worthy considerations, and for beneficial ends, and it was obligatory 
 upon each body in point of conscience, if not in point of law. The 
 contracting parties were competent to make it. The object was 
 within the spirit of both ecclesiastical associations, for both had but 
 one end, the propagation, growth and maintenance of the Gospel, as 
 taught in their respective churches. The constitutions of these res- 
 pective associations ought to be construed most liberally and be- 
 nignly when such pious and useful purposes were intended to be pro- 
 moted. I have no idea that we ought to apply the political doctrine 
 of a strict, dry, technical construction to the constitutions of religious 
 associations, and especially when all the parties unite in measures of 
 transcendent interest, and calculated to promote the great object of 
 all their associations, and meetings, and etforts; nor do I think that 
 either of the contracting parties was at liberty to disavow and re- 
 nounce the compact at pleasure, without the consent of the other, ex- 
 cept in the case of some new occurrence that would render the further 
 operation of the union useless, or destructive, or greatly injurious to 
 the ends in view ; nor even in that case, without first applying for 
 Buch consent and stating the reasons of the application. If the case 
 could be brought within the cognizance of a court of equity, (and I do 
 not mean to say it cannot) it is not probable that the court would dis- 
 charge the parties from their contract, unless upon these grounds. 
 
 The Plan of Union of ISOl was not submitted in due form to the re- 
 spective presbyteries for their sanction. The General Assembly as- 
 eumed the power and the right to agree to it absolutely and finally, 
 
APPENDIX. 265 
 
 and it met with universal assent by all the subordinate councils of 
 that church. There was no prohibitory clause in the Presbyterian 
 constitution against such a proceeding by the General Assembly, and 
 the reception of that Plan of Union by all the presbyteries, and by 
 their delegates in all subsequent meetings of the General Assembly, 
 bound all the members. It may be taken, I presume, for a fact, that 
 every branch of the Presbyterian Church knew of that Plan of Union, 
 and uniformly acquiesced in it, and acted upon it, whenever the occa- 
 sion required it. Such general and uniform assent or acquiescence, 
 when given understandingly and with full knowledge of the fact, is 
 conclusive, and cannot be gainsayed. If a person in any transaction 
 will not speak or object when he has a fair opportunity, but suffers 
 the proceeding to go on, and acts to be done under his eye and under 
 the impression of his assent, the law will hold him to that presumed 
 assent. His conscience is bound by such an equitable estoppel. The 
 axioms of law bearing on this point are founded in sound ethics, in 
 solid wisdom, and in the approbation of ages — Qui facet, consentire vi- 
 detur, Qui potest, et debet vetare, juhet. 
 
 It is farther to be observed, that the constitution of the Presbyte- 
 rian Church underwent subsequent revisals and amendments, and no 
 abjection was taken to the formation of the Plan of Union and the ex- 
 ercise of the power of the General Assembly. It is not easy to im- 
 agine the case of any measure or covenant which has been better sus- 
 tained on the ground of authority, assent and ratification, for thirty- 
 six years, by all parties concerned. Plans of union were successively 
 formed by the General Assembly with other Christian denominations 
 of analogous character, as, for instance, with the Congregational asso- 
 ciations in Vermont, N^ Hampshire and Massachusetts, and with the 
 Reformed Dutch and Scots churches. They were all liable to the 
 same objection, and yet the General Assembly in their Resolution de- 
 signate the Act of Union of ISOL "an unconstitutional act." 
 
 The objection that the General Association of the State of Connec- 
 ticut had no power to enter into an agreement to regulate the churches 
 " not within her limits," does not strike me as being of any force. The 
 object of the Plan of Union was not local, and the Connecticut Asso- 
 ciation had a right to act with missionary views, and to make contracts 
 to be executed beyond the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of their 
 State. Every individual has that power. The contract in question 
 was formed in reference to new settlements in the western parts of 
 New York, Ohio, and the far West, and which were composed of in- 
 habitants both of the Presbyterian and Congregational denomina- 
 
266 APPENDIX. 
 
 tions, and which were equally objects of the paternal care and solici- 
 tude of both the associations. The Connecticut Association assumed 
 to act as agent for the infant churches and their distressed members 
 in the West. The General Assembly treated with it in the character 
 of a body assuming such agency, and through that agency they dealt 
 with and recognized all the churches formed and organized upon the 
 Plan of the Union, No persons, either as members of the Presbyte- 
 rian or Congregational bodies, ever questioned the authority of the 
 Connecticut Association to enter into the compact on their behalf. All 
 parties, individually and collectively, acted knowingly on this subject, 
 and none are now at liberty, on principles of law and equity, to deny 
 the validity of acts founded on such agency. Omnis ratihahites man- 
 dato cequi paratur. Qui non prohibei pro se intervenire, mandare cre- 
 ditur. The courts of justice are constantly adopting and applying 
 these maxims of law and of common sense to sustain the contracts of 
 individuals, and prevent fraud and injustice. The General Assembly 
 in 1801 must have known what was the Constitution and what were 
 the powers of the General Association of Connecticut, and the want of 
 authority to make the contract and to carry it into effect was either 
 not perceived or not regarded, either at the time, or through the long 
 subsequent period in which it was in active operation. They are es- 
 topped now from making such a denial. They dealt with the Connec- 
 ticut Association as a competent body to be so dealt with, and the 
 Connecticut Association have never set up a want of power on their 
 part. There is no well-founded pretence for the objection, and if there 
 had been in the first instance, yet good faith and mutual confidence 
 could not be upheld in the dealings and intercourse of mankind, if 
 the doctrine of estoppels did not apply, in conscience as well as in law, 
 to bar such an objection, under all the circumstances, at this late day. 
 But I am by no means of the opinion that the Presbyterian churches 
 were to be always bound by such agreements, when they are found to 
 be ultimately injurious. The mode of relief has already been alluded 
 to. The agreement may be rescinded by mutual assent, and that as- 
 sent could not decently be withheld on due notice and kind and rea- 
 sonable application by the dissatisfied party. This result would be 
 almost inevitable when we consider that here are no stern and uncom- 
 promising civil rights and self-interests in the way, and that the whole 
 object of the compact was Christian benovolence ard the harmony 
 and prosperity of the churches in the Western Districts, The terms 
 of the proposition for abrogating the Union, brought forward in the 
 General Assembly of 1835, were mild and just, and such as it would 
 
APPENDIX. 267 
 
 have been well to have followed in 1887. If such an application 
 should not be successful, I have no doubt that a peremptory renuncia- 
 tion of the Union for reasonable cause, would be justified even in the 
 purview of a court of equity. 
 
 (2.) The second, and the still graver question, arises on the Resolu- 
 tion of the General Assembly to sever from the Presbyterian Church 
 four Synods, consisting of the Synod of the Western Reserve, and the 
 Synods of Oneida, Geneva and Genesee. 
 
 It appears to me to be a very clear proposition, that the abroga- 
 tion of the Plan of Union of ISOl by the Resolution of the General 
 Assembly in 1S37, could not affect in any degree the rights and privi- 
 leges of the churches, presbyteries and synods which had been formed, 
 and organized, and governed, more or less, under the influence and 
 operation of that compact. The Resolution could not have any re- 
 troactive operation. It could not either annul or impair acts rightfully 
 done, in good faith, under its authority. This is a principle of uni- 
 versal jurisprudence. The churches formed in the western part of 
 New York and in Ohio, and organized under the Plan of Union of 
 1801, are entitled to be recognized and protected by the General As- 
 sembly, in their present modified state, so long as they should choose 
 to continue it, without any further approximation to the Presbyterian 
 model. 
 
 There is still another insuperable objection to the precipitate act 
 of rescinding the connection between the General Assembly and the 
 synods above mentioned, inasmuch as charges were made against 
 them seriously affecting the doctrine, discipline, and manners of the 
 churches under their care, and those synods, presbyteries and churches 
 had no due notice, by regular process, of the accusations, nor any op- 
 portunity to meet and answer them. This proceeding was contrary 
 to all established principles of municipal justice, and would of itself, 
 if there were no other objections, render the expulsion void, and leave 
 the Synods, notwithstanding the Resolution, component parts of the 
 Presbyterian Church in the United States, and entitled, of right, to 
 their future representation in the General Assembly, equally as if no 
 such Resolution had passed. 
 
 There is another objection to the expulsion of the Synods of Utica, 
 Geneva and Genesee, which does not seem to have occurred to the 
 General Assembly when they passed their Resolution, for they appear 
 to have considered the expulsion as a necessary consequence of the 
 abrogation of the Act of Union of ISO I. Nothing could be more er- 
 roneous than this idea, even if the premises were true ; for the repeal 
 of a grant or the recall of a power, will not and cannot invalidate acts 
 
268 APPENDIX. 
 
 done and rights acquired under it, provided the grant or power did 
 not originate in fraud. Nor could any thing be more mischievous than 
 the principle assumed in the Resolution, if carried out to its practical 
 consequences. But it appears that the "mixed churches" in the three 
 Synods in Western New York were not formed on the plan of the 
 union of 1801, but essentially on that of ISOS, and which received the 
 sanction of the General Assembly in the same year. If this be the 
 fact, (and it appears to be so from the documents before me) then the 
 Resolution of 1S37 was, upon any view of the subject, inoperative as 
 to those Synods, ani had no application to them. 
 
 These are, briefly, the reasons which have led me to the conclusion 
 that the Resolution of the General Assembly " That the Synods of 
 Utica, Geneva and Genesee, and of the Western Reserve, were out of 
 the ecclesiastical connection of the Presbyterian Church," was irregu- 
 lar, illegal and void. It is not my intention, nor would it become me 
 to speak otherwise than with great respect of the General Assembly 
 of the Presbyterian Church of the United States, and I have not been 
 inclined to indulge in any observations not absolutely necessary to 
 the clear and precise expression of my opinion on the questions sub- 
 mitted. My wish is, and my advice would be, (if the advice of a 
 mere private layman, unconnected with the church, could be of any 
 value, and given without offence), that the next General Assembly, 
 calmly, and in the f?pirit of conciliation, review their former proceed- 
 ings, now so much complained of. In that case I think they would 
 be led to retract their obnoxious resolutions, and seek a more concilia- 
 tory and suitable way to rid themselves of the future operation of the 
 Plan of Union of 1801 ; and that they would also, and as of course, 
 recognize the four excluded Synods as parts and parcel of their own 
 Association, and endeavor by fraternal kindness and wisdom, to pro- 
 mote harmony, not only with those Synods, but among all the wide- 
 spread members of their great and interesting national association. 
 In ray humble opinion, the reputation and welfare of the Presbyte- 
 lian Church is deeply concerned in such a course. 
 
 JAMES KENT. 
 New YorJc, September 8, 1S37. 
 
 '.m*3Sl£^^ 
 
APPENDIX. 269 
 
 [D-J 
 OPINION OF GEORGE WOOD, ESQ. 
 
 Mr opinion has been requested upon the proceedings of the Gene- 
 ral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church at their late session, par- 
 ticularly the Resolutions passed by them abrogating the Plan of Union 
 with Congregational churches, exscinding the Synod of the "Western Re- 
 serve, and the three Synods of Utica, Genesee and Geneva, and dis- 
 solving the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia. 
 
 It may be proper to consider in the first place, how far and in what 
 way the legality of those proceedings as they touch the interests of 
 the parties concerned, may be inquired into before the judicial tribu- 
 nals of the country. There are two modes in which the proceedings 
 of inferior judicatories and institutions may be reviewed in courts of 
 justice, viz : First, directly, by a direct review or appeal, certiorari 
 mandamus, or some other process, in which the proceedings of the in- 
 ferior judicatory may be either revised or affirmed in whole or in 
 part. It is hardly necessary to state that such a jurisdiction or con- 
 trol over ecclesiastical institutions does not belong to the courts of this 
 country. 
 
 The second mode is collateral, or incidental ; and in this way 
 courts of justice have sometimes occasion to inquire into the proceed- 
 ings of our ecclesiastical tribunals. This, however, can only be done 
 when such inquiries become necessary to settle questions of property 
 or civil rights, and with a view to adjust and determine such contro- 
 versies. It is in this point of view only that I shall examine this sub- 
 ject, and it is only in this point of view that it would be proper for 
 me in my professional capacity to undertake to give an opinion on the 
 case. 
 
 The first topic I propose to consider is the abrogation of the Plan of 
 Union of 1801. 
 
 I do not think that this Plan of Union formed, or was the result of 
 a compact between the General Assembly and the Association of Con- 
 necticut, so as to render it obligatory upon the General Assembly to 
 carry into effect the measure, or to continue its operation any longer 
 than they should deem proper. It was a measure originating with 
 and belonging exclusively to the General Assembly. 
 
 It may be questioned whether the assent of the Association to the 
 adoption by the Assembly of this Plan was necessary. The Congre- 
 gational iats to be affected by this Plan were out of the jurisdiction of 
 
 12 
 
270 APPENDIX. 
 
 that Association and beyond their control, but Ihey no doubt felt 
 themselves under a moral influence which rendered it a matter of del- 
 icacy and expediency on the part of the General Assembly to obtain 
 the assent of that Association, 
 
 But supposing the assent of the Association to have been indispen- 
 sable when it was given, they bad nothing further to do with the 
 Plan. It then became the measure of the General Assembly, to be 
 dropped, or acted upon, or modified, as they should deem advisable. 
 
 In order to illustrate this case, let us suppose that the State of New 
 Jersey should resolve to construct a canal, to be fed by the waters of 
 the Hudson, at a point where that river is the common property of 
 the two States, and New Jersey should apply for the assent of the 
 Legislature of New York, as a precautionary measure, before she 
 commenced the work. Whenever that consent should be given the 
 work would then become exclusively a New Jersey measure. It 
 could not be pretended that it was the offspring of a compact between 
 the two States, so that New Jersey could be said to construct it un- 
 der a compact, and to be bound to complete it and continue it in ope- 
 ration by virtue of such compact. She could, on the contrary, aban- 
 don the work whenever she should think proper to do so. 
 
 I see no ground for the supposition that this Plan of Union was in 
 Tiolation of the Constitution of the Church. It is true that the modes 
 of proceeding in those churches partly Congregational are not the 
 same as in the churches strictly Presbyterian, and which are referred 
 to by that Constitution in prescribing the organization and discipline 
 of churches. The Constitution provides for such churches alone; 
 churches which form essential parts of the Presbyterian institutions. 
 
 I see nothing in the Constitution which prohibits a union with other 
 denominations of Christians in a modified form. The usage of the 
 General Assembly appears fully to recognize and sanction such unions. 
 Thus by an arrangement between the Assembly and the Association 
 of Connecticut, as early as 1794, the respective delegates from each 
 body were empowered to sit and vote in the other upon all questions 
 decided there. A similar arrangement in 1803 was made be ween 
 the Assembly and the Convention of Congregationalists in Vermont. 
 An arrangement of the same kind was formed in 1810 with the Gen- 
 eral Association of New Hampshire. In 1816 an alteration was 
 made by which the New Hampshire Association was represented by 
 one delegate only in the Assembly. A similar arrangement has been 
 also made with the Association of Massachusetts. A union has been 
 formed and long subsisting between the Assembly and the General 
 Synod of the Keformed Dutch Church, by which delegates from the 
 
APPENDIX. 271 
 
 latter were allo-\ved to sit in the General Assembly and participate 
 in their deliberations. A more intimate union has been formed be- 
 tween the Presbyterian and the Scotch churches; a union as close as 
 that of the Congregationalist under the Plan of Union of 1801. The 
 Scotch congregations still retaining in m^ny respects their own pecu- 
 liar discipline and modes of worship. 
 
 In 1808 a modified Plan of Union and correspondence between the 
 Synod of Albany and the Northern Associate Presbytery and the 
 Middle Association in the Western District, in the State of New York, 
 was sanctioned by a resolution of the General Assembly. It cannot 
 be pretended that Churches, Presbyteries, or Synods, formed under, 
 or growing out of that plan, could have been exscinded by the General 
 Assembly as a consequence resulting from the abrogation of the Plan 
 of Union, inasmuch as that Plan of Union of 1808 is not abrogated, or 
 in any way affected by any of the proceedings of that body. 
 
 An objection has been made that this Plan of Union of 1801 ought 
 to have been submitted by the Assembly to the Presbyteries, for their 
 inspection, before it was adopted. I see nothing in the constitution 
 requiring such a course in the formation of these Unions ; nor was 
 such a course pursued in establishing the various unions and arrange- 
 ments above stated : long-established usage must be considered as set- 
 tling that question. An acquiescence in the Plan of Union of ISOl by 
 every branch of the Presbyterian Church, accompanied by concurrent 
 usages in similar cases, would be received by any court of justice as 
 plenary evidence of its sanction and its validity. Such usage, so gen- 
 eral and uniform, can only be accounted for on the supposition that 
 there has been a predominating opinion pervading the members of 
 that Church, that th"fe constitution and fundamental principles of the 
 Presbyterian Church did not interfere with the establishment of such 
 Union, although established by the General Assembly alone. 
 
 This Plan of Union has been in operation for thirty-six years. Dur- 
 ing its continuance, in 1820 and 1821, a revised constitution was pre- 
 pared, similar in its provisions, so far as they appertain to this subject, 
 to the regulations in the old constitution in existence at the time this 
 Union was formed. Nowithstanding all this, the Plan of Union con- 
 tinued in operation, and no one appears to have dreamed that it was 
 unconstitutional. It is difiieult to suppose that all the able and con- 
 scientious men who have been upon the watch to guard that consti- 
 tution could have sunk into a profound sleep for six and thirty years. 
 
 Long-established usage has great effect in settling the powers, priv- 
 ileges, and duties of bodies and institutlomp, and in raising the pre- 
 sumption of the f sient to measure?, by the different members whose 
 
272 APPENDIX. 
 
 assent or sanction may be necessary. 12 Wheaton's R. 79 ; 3 Mason, 
 606 ; 12 Sergeant & Rawle, 256. 
 
 I am therefore of opinion that this Plan of Union of 1801 was not 
 prohibited by the constitution of this church. That its adoption by 
 the General Assembly alone was in order, and sanctioned by general 
 usage — that it was not a compact, but a measure originating in the 
 Presbyterian Church, and which that Church was at liberty to abro- 
 gate whenever it should be deemed politic and expedient to do so. I 
 am of opinion, however, that it was a transaction of a high moral 
 character, upon which churches did act, and form a connection with 
 the Presbyterian Church ; and, as such, it ought not to be lightly re- 
 garded. 
 
 I do not think, however, that this abrogation had the effect to des- 
 troy the connection of particular congregations which had been ante- 
 cedently attached to the various Presbyteries. The resolution is 
 evidently prospective in its character. Such resolutions would not 
 be construed to operate retrospectively, unless the intention to give 
 them that effect should be clear and decisive. A resolution intended 
 to retroact upon churches attached under the Plan ought not to be 
 passed without notice or hearing. The General Assembly in 1835 
 had correct views of this subject when they declared that the annul- 
 ling of the Plan of Union should not, in any way, interfere with the 
 existence and lawful operation of churches already formed on this 
 Plan. 
 
 The next subject to be considered is the resolution exscinding the 
 Synod of the "Western Reserve. 
 
 The power to cut off Synods is not given to the General Assembly 
 in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication. The power 
 of "bearing testimony against error in doctrine, or immorality in 
 practice, in any Church, Presbytery, or Synod ; " " of suppressing 
 sehismatical contentions and disputations ; and in general of recom- 
 mending and attempting reformation of manners," &c., is too vague 
 and equivocal to confer a power so important and highly condem- 
 natory. It might as well be pretended that the power in the Federal 
 Constitution " to pass laws, <fec., to provide for common defence and 
 the general welfare," conferred upon Congress the power of exscind- 
 ing States. If they possess the power, they must derive it from the 
 great fundamental principles of government and discipline prevailing 
 in that Church, or from general and established usage. Admitting, 
 for the sake of argument, they possess the power, the condemnation 
 of bodies of men involving the innocent with the guilty is an exercise 
 of power which should be indulged in with great caution and del- 
 icacy. 
 
APPENDIX. 273 
 
 Supposing the power to exist, I do not think it was duly exercised 
 in the present case. The body to be tried and condemned should 
 have been duly summoned. It ought to have received a reasonable 
 notice, and had an opportunity to be heard in defence. A condem- 
 nation ex p«rte, without reasonable notice, without an opportunity 
 of being heard in defence, is as repugnant to the principles and prac- 
 tice of our law as it is to the dictates of natural justice, A reason- 
 able notice of the accusation, with an opportunity of being heard in 
 defence, is an essential element in the administration of all justice. 
 Hence the proceedings of all judicatories condemning individuals, or 
 adopting measures affecting their rights without reasonable notice, 
 are treated as inoperative and void. — 11 Modern R., 225; 4 Con- 
 necticut R, 386; 4 Burrows, 26S2 ; 4 Barnwell & Cresard, 442; 1 
 Connecticut R,, 219 ; 2 Strange, 1051. 
 
 This great and vital principle, so essential to preserve the liberty of 
 the citizen, does not appear to have been lost sight of in this church, 
 in adopting their rules of practice. In the Digest, page 323, section 
 5, it is thus laid down : — 
 
 "It was resolved, as the sense of this house, that no man, or body of 
 men, agreeably to the constitution of this church, ought to be con- 
 demned or censured without having notice of the accusation against 
 him or thera, and notice given for trial." — Vol. i. p. 77, 1793. 
 
 I perceive that it is alleged, in justification of this proceeding, that 
 the exscinding of the Synod was a necessary consequence of abrogat- 
 ing the Plan of Union, inasmuch as this Synod was composed in part 
 of churches formed under that plan, and churches which, though 
 strictly Presbyterian in their character, were origially Congregational, 
 and brought in under tliat plan. I can see no possible objection to 
 the latter description of churches. The fact that they may have been 
 antecedently Congregational can, I think, furnish no good, ground for 
 cutting them off from their religious connection in any church acting 
 upon the liberal and tolerant principles of the Christian religion 
 whose object it is to promote the diffusion of piety, and to bring with- 
 in its influence all classes and conditions of men. If a congregation 
 at present Presbyterian, were composed of members originally infi- 
 dels, that circumstance would not furnish a reason for cutting them 
 off from their ecclesiastical connection. 
 
 The exscinding of these Synods, supposing it to be an invalid act, 
 will not, I think, have the effect of cutting off these Congregational 
 churches. If they had passed a resolution exscinding a number o* 
 churches, individually including these, and the resolution had been 
 good as respects these, but inoperative as to the others, it would have 
 
274 APPENDIX. 
 
 had the effect to exscind these Congregational churches. But a 
 Synod is a body separate and distinct from the churches, and different- 
 ly organized. If the blow aimed at the Synod fails, it fails altogether. 
 
 I cannot consider this proceeding as merely declaratory. This 
 Synod, as well as the others, appears from the Minutes of the General 
 Assembly to have been a regularly organized branch of the Presby- 
 terian Church. But suppose there had been grounds of objection to 
 this Synod, both as to its original formation and its subsequent con- 
 duct and doctrines. It was a Synod, in fact, in possession of all the 
 privileges of a Synod, and such possession and enjoyment long recog- 
 nized and acquiesced in by all the members of the church. To strip 
 it at once of all these privileges is a proceeding in its nature condem- 
 natory, and ought not to be had without due consideration, and giving 
 to the party an opportunity for hearing and defence. 
 
 The Assembly in the next place proceeded to exscind the Synods of 
 Utica, Geneva, and Genesee. This measure appears to me to be 
 subject to precisely the same objections, and involved in the same dif- 
 ficulties as the one last considered. An additional reason is stated in 
 the resolution, at least as an inducement, if not as the foundation of the 
 proceedings, which is, that there were rumors of gross disorder preva- 
 lent in those Synods. The charge is vague, without any specification 
 of the disorders, and rests, or rather floats upon the most uncertain and 
 unsatisfactory of all evidence — common fame. This circumstance, in- 
 stead of strengthening this proceeding, furnishes, I think, an additional 
 objection to it. Under the Constitution rumor is the basis of accusation, 
 but it must be followed by citation and hearing. To condemn large 
 bodies of men, by wholesale, upon a general charge of disorders, with- 
 out specification, based upon the suspicious evidence of common 
 fame, without citation or defence, is an additional instance to prove 
 that large assemblies, as well in church as state, will, under the in- 
 fluence of high excitement, resort to measures which will not bear the 
 test of calm and deliberate inquiry. 
 
 The dissolution of the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia is, I think, 
 subject to the same objection, of want of notice and opportunity for 
 defence, and does not call for any further remarks. 
 
 Upon the whole, I consider these proceedings as inoperative and 
 void, and I think they will he so declared if any question about proper- 
 ty or rights should arise out of them by our judicial tribunals. I think 
 a court of law would treat these irrregular proceedings taking place 
 in the highest ecclesiastical tribunal as an absolute nullity ; otherwise 
 there would be no redress for the parties aggrieved by them. A par- 
 ty being in the minority, might, at a session not very full, find them- 
 
APPENDIX. 275 
 
 selves a majority of the quorum present, and, by a summary excision 
 of a number of the opposite party without notice or trial, secure to them- 
 selves a majority in future. Mere forms and ceremonies designed to 
 carry out such a plan, such as pledginc^ their clerks, -who are mere 
 ministerial officers, to reject the commissions of the exscinded mem- 
 bers, will never stand in the way of arriving at substantial justice. 
 They are morning clouds, from which the mist will be di'^sipated in 
 the sunshine of a court of justice. An act, the effect of which is to 
 operate fraudulently upon the rights of others, whether designed to do 
 BO or not, whether it be constructive or actual, will be set aside, no 
 matter what forms and solemnities of proceeding are resorted to to 
 shield it. I am of the opinion that the four Synods and ihe Presby- 
 tery above mentioned are still legitimate members of the Presbyte- 
 rian Church and under the jurisdiction of the General Assembly, and 
 are entitled to all the riijhts and privileges, and subject to the duties 
 incident to that relationship. 
 
 [E.] 
 
 OPINION OF JUDGE HOPKINS. 
 
 I. I HAVE heard it suggested that eminent counsel have doubted 
 whether, in the case of the exscinded judicatories, there is not a diffi- 
 culty about the remedy. I take it to be a universal principle, that for 
 every wrong the law supplies a remedy. Or if this can fail at all, it 
 must, I think, be owkig to the imperfect organization of courts in 
 some of our states. 
 
 Perhaps I ought to explain, that I conceive the civil tribunals can 
 take no cognizance of ecclesiastical questions, except as incidental to 
 questions of property. In that shape they may be compelled to take 
 cognizance of any question not in its own nature objectionable, that 
 can ever possibly be raised. 
 
 II. A very prominent point of discussion, in the late convention and 
 General Assembly at Philadelphia, was the constitutional right of re- 
 pealing the Plan of Union of ISOl. I mention this merely for the 
 purpose of explaining, that I do not consider the discussion of it ne- 
 cessary, inasmuch as I think it is superseded by the points which I 
 shall proceed to mention, and which, I think, were not adverted to at 
 Philadelphia. I will merely remark, however, that I conceive that 
 the clause in chap. xii. sec. 6, p. 365, of the Form of Government, has 
 been misunderstood and misapplied. 
 
276 APPENDIX. 
 
 I II. Some of the most beautiful and salutary of all regulations for 
 preserving civil order are those which regard the powers of officers 
 and functionaries who are such de facto, and not de Jure. Without 
 these there could be no safety in life, nor reliance upon any legal 
 guarantee. The legal principle is, in substance, that when a person 
 is in possession of an offine, exercising its powers, and claiming to do 
 80 of right, the acta of such officer are to be deemed rightful, 
 as regards third persons at least, though he was not truly en- 
 titled to the office he held. This principle extends through every de- 
 partment of society, from the highest to the lowest. Thus in England, in 
 the wars between the houses of York and Lancaster, the acts of either 
 king, while on the throne, were held legally binding, so far as their 
 Bubjects were concerned. Thus in the smallest corporation, if a ma- 
 jority of the members are illegally returned, the acts of those mem- 
 bers, after they are ousted by their rivals, bind the body corporate. 
 Thus it is, that when the deed for my house is recorded by the coun- 
 ty clerk, I stand in no fear of my title, although the acting clerk was 
 not truly entitled to the office. And thus, too, the acting sheriff, who 
 executes a criminal to-day, is not thereby guilty of murder, although 
 it should turn out that he was unduly elected, and his rival should 
 oust him to-morrow. The same applies to legislative acts, passed by 
 majorities, comprising sitting members, who may lose their seats, 
 when such acts could not have been passed, if the right members had 
 been first returned. 
 
 I conceive that this principle contains a conclusive answer to every 
 argument drawn against the exscinded Synods and Presbyteries, on the 
 ground that any of them might possibly be constituted in pursuance 
 of votes, in which some committee men, or unconstitutional delegates 
 may have concurred. Moreover, those arguments prove too much ; 
 for if the votes of unconstitutional delegates vitiate the proceedings 
 of synods and presbyteries, they would, on the same ground, vitiate 
 those of the General Assembly itself. I believe that it has even been 
 alleged, that such delegates have had seats in the Assembly, and in 
 this case, and upon this ground, the Assembly itself would thencefor- 
 ward have become illegal, possessing no higher rightful existence, than 
 it has allowed to the exscinded judicatories. 
 
 IV. The idea that the act of excision was merely arbitrary, and 
 adopted without formal accusation, citation, trial, proof, or regular de- 
 fence, or means of defence, is already fully before the public. But I wish 
 to add one or two considerations : First — the essentials of fair trial on 
 reasonable notice, and with means of defence, are matters of inherent 
 right in every case of this nature, and I apprehend the civil tribunals 
 
APPENDIX. 277 
 
 would never allow that right to be violated, even if it were not ex- 
 pressly provided for. But, secondly, the Code of Discipline, chap ii., 
 sec. 1, par. 5 and 6, p. 409, is perfectly express on that subject. It 
 both establishes the right of trial, and gives the form of process, and 
 according to those provisions the General Assembly had power to 
 correct all that was disorderly or irregular in those judicatories. And, 
 thirdly, these measures having been neglected, the case will, I think, 
 stand before the civil courts as a simple excision without cause ; and 
 in such case the civil tribunals will not at all entertain the question, 
 whether, in fact, there was cause or not. They will consider it suffi- 
 cient, that no due course of ecclesiastical judicial investigation was 
 adopted, such as the form of government prescribes. 
 
 V. Respecting the idea that the formation of the four exscinded Syn- 
 ods was consequent upon the Plan of Union, and that they must fall with 
 the repeal of that Plan, it seems to me that many links in the chain 
 of fact and argument are wanting to make that conclusion a seguitur. 
 How do these things appear to be so ? for I have seen no particular 
 fact stated. Was the Presbyterian church utterly and for ever pre- 
 cluded from forming particular Churches, Presbyteries and Synods 
 within the undefined Hmits of what were called new settlements in 
 1801 ? Was that prohibition perpetual, or limited in point of time ? 
 Was it not possible that one or more churches should be there formed 
 without this leaven of unconstitutionality, or that, having been orio-in- 
 ally infected with that leaven, they should have purged it out ? If 
 there are judicatories still thus infected, does it appear whether they 
 constitute the majority or the minority ? And if a minority, is it 
 then a principle that every judicatory containing a minority of infect- 
 ed members is for thatn-eason to be cut off ? Where would the Gen- 
 eral Assembly itself be upon that principle ? If a majority, why have 
 they not long since proceeded as the constitution points out ? If within 
 the exscinded judicatories there should be found to exist a single par- 
 ticular church which had a legitimate connection with the General As- 
 sembly, and was unimpeachable on any ground of error in doctrine* 
 practice, or organization, it may emphatically be asked, how could 
 such church be cut off xdthout trial— ho\y could it be cut off on trial? 
 Are we not then driven back to the question of fact, whether they 
 (the exscinded judicatories) were illegally constituted, and to the con- 
 sequences of that fact, and also to the question of their present state, 
 and have those questions been judicially investigated ? 
 
 VI. But there is matter apparent upon the very face of the printed 
 form of government, which alone must be sufficient to set this ques- 
 tion at rest, without support from any other point. This form of 
 
 33 
 
278 APPENDIX. 
 
 government was adopted and ratified by the General Assembly in 
 1821. i. e, exactly twenty years after the Plan of Union. By the list 
 of standing committees at the end of the Form of Government, page 
 458, it appears that the Synods of Genesee and Geneva were then con- 
 stituent parts of the Presbyterian church, and were represented in the 
 Assembly of that year. From the minutes of the General Assem- 
 bly of that year, it appears that sundry presbyteries, which are now a 
 part of the Synod of Utica, were also there represented. In sub- 
 stance and effect, therefore, the three exscinded synods of this State 
 were then constituent parts of the Presbyterian church, and parties to 
 the formation of its present constitution. It follows, I think, as a ne- 
 cessary consequence, that, be the irregularities in constitution, discip- 
 line, doctrine, or measures ever so flagrant, the judicatories cannot in 
 any manner be impeached for any of those faults, except on the ground 
 of after-continuance. At the moment of forming that constitution , 
 they were judicatories, acknowledged by the concurrence of all the 
 others to be such in full right — they constituted integral and legiti- 
 mate parts of the General Presbyterian Church, and, for causes then 
 existing, they were not, nor are more liable to excision, than the origi- 
 nal presbyteries of Philadelphia or New York. 
 
 But, furthermore, how does it appear that the four exscinded synods 
 embrace all the territory which was meant by new settlements in 
 ISOl, and in which the Assembly have now presbyteries ? What 
 shall we say of the remaining presbyteries of Ohio, of some in "West 
 Pennsylvania, and of several in the Synod of Albany ? Why are not 
 these also cut oflF? And can this question be answered without leaving 
 some imputation of partiality ? 
 
 SAMUEL M. HOPKINS. 
 
 Geneva, 20th July, 1887. 
 
 ? 
 
 y 
 
J