b;: 
 
 
 8971 
 
 i' ' 
 
 .C8 
 
 
 B43 
 
 
 1904 
 
 CVxAva^ \-n -tne. U.S.A. 
 

 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 .« 
 
 Presented by pTe.a\Ae-Y^^ Ta^lo^ 
 
 BX 8971 .C8 B43 1904 
 Cumberland Presbyterian 
 Church. 
 Reasons why the Cumberland 
 
F '/ 
 
 Bfli,etiin No. l 
 
 REASONS WHY 
 
 The Cumberland Presbyterian Church and 
 
 The Presbyterian Church in the United 
 
 States of America Should Be United. 
 
 Published by 
 The. Voluntary Committee on Union Information. 
 
 S. M. Templeton, D.D., Clarksville, Texas, Chairman. 
 
 Ira IjAndrith, LL.D., 809 Association Building, Chicago, 111., Corre- 
 sponding Secretary. 
 
 John M. Gaut, Attorney-at-Law, Steger Building, Nashville, Tenn., Edi- 
 torial Secretary. 
 
 John H. DeWitt, Attorney-at-Law, Cole Building, Nashville, Term., 
 Treasurer. 
 
 Rev. I. D. Steele, Pastor First Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Bir- 
 mingham, Ala. 
 
 Rev. C. E. Hayes, Synodical Superintendent of Church Extension, De- 
 catur, 111. 
 
 Besides the foregoing members of the Executive Committee, there 
 is an active general committee composed oi one member in each Synod 
 and three in each Presbytery, 304 in all. Following are the 
 
 SvNODicAL Representatives. 
 
 .\i-abama — Rev. B. G. Mitchell, A.M., Huntsville, Ala. 
 .\rkansas — F. R. Earle, D.D., Cane Hill, Ark. 
 Ilmnoxs — W. T. Ferguson, D.D., Charleston, 111. 
 Indiana — Rev. M. L. Gillespie, Martinsville, Ind. 
 Indianoi.a — Hon. W. G. D. Hinds, South McAlester, I. T 
 Iowa — Rev. R. L. Vannice, Waukon, Iowa. 
 Kan.sas — R. M. Tinnon, D.D., Denver, Colo. 
 Kentucky — J. S. Grider, D.D., Smith's Grove, Kv. 
 Missouri — B. P. Fullerton, D.D., St. Louis, Mo. 
 Ohio — Rev. J. G. Miller, West Chester, Ohio. 
 Oregon — Rev. E. N. Allen. Portland, Ore. 
 Pacific — Rev. W. J. Fisher, San Francisco, Cal. 
 Pennsylvania — Rev. .J. G. Patton, Ph.D., Wa.shinciton, Pa. 
 Tennessee — John M. Gaut, Nashville, Tenn. 
 Texas — Rev. J. Frank Smith, Dallas, Tex. 
 Order literature from 
 
 John M. Gaut, Steger Building, Nashville, Tenn 
 
 N.B. — Where practicable enclose a sum equal to two cents for each 
 pamphlet ordered, thus assisting the committee in meeting the large ex- 
 pense of printing and po.stage. 
 
 Liberal contributions for the general work of the Committee are here- 
 by solicited, and should be sent to the Treasurer. 
 
 Correspondence on other subjects may be addressed to either the 
 Corresponding Secretary or the Chairman. 
 
EXPLANATORY. 
 
 The Voluntary Committee on Union Information is com- 
 posed of gentlemen who believe that every Cvmiberland Pres- 
 byterian is entitled to all of the facts, and that when all the 
 facts are known the adoption of the plan of union will be 
 by a practically unanimous vote of the presbyteries. This 
 committee came into being because, although there was a 
 general demand for such an organization, everybody's busi- 
 ness is nobody's, and somebody had to volunteer. The com- 
 mittee will be true to its first official announcement : "Noth- 
 ing will be published by us which is designed to reflect upon 
 either the intelligence or the integrity, or to question the sin- 
 cerity of the motives of our brethren who are honestly op- 
 posed to our views. It is well known that these brethren have 
 had for some time an organized bureau of information, and 
 have been exercising their unquestioned right to publish their 
 opinions with the purpose of securing adherence thereto. The 
 committee will do nothing at any time concerning which the 
 entire church shall not be taken into our full confidence. Per- 
 fect candor and the utmost possible publicity shall characterize 
 everything we attempt, and neither the criticisms of opponents 
 nor the zeal of friends shall influence us to do what is unfair 
 or unfraternal, nor deter us from doing anything which truth 
 and righteousness demand." 
 
 No fear of the result, when the presbyteries act, disturb.s 
 us ; but wc are anxious that there shall be, not merely a good 
 majority, but practical unanimity in favor of union. Other 
 literature will follow the present pamphlet, and as rapidly as 
 funds are provided, every member of the church shall be 
 supplied with adequate printed matter to enable him to reach 
 an unbiased conclusion, it being our firm conviction that 
 when all of the facts arc known, the plan of union will be 
 gladly approved. 
 
ENDORSEMENT. 
 
 "We, the undersigned ministers and ruling elders, believing that 
 when in possession of all the facts, Cumberland Presbyterians will agree 
 that the proposed union of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and 
 the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. would be not only honoring alike 
 to both Churches but also for the glory of God and the advancement of 
 his kingdom, desire, in this formal way, to express our approval of the 
 organization for the promulgation of union information, of which organ- 
 ization Dr. S. M. Templeton, of Clarksville, Texas, is Chairman. 
 
 ' ' We further promise our substantial co-operation with this committee , 
 and invite on that behalf the aid of all other friends of union for the pur- 
 pose of securing, not merely the success of the union movement, which 
 we regard as assured, but chiefly for the purpose of giving correct infor- 
 mation, allaying misunderstanding, and obtaining as nearly as possible 
 absolute unanimity." * 
 
 Ministers: 
 
 R. R. Crockett, Oklahoma, Okla 
 
 A. H. Stephens, Chicago, 111. 
 
 F. R. Earle, Cane Hill, Ark. 
 R. F. Johnston, Walnut, N. C. 
 R. L. Irving, Punxsutawney, Pa. 
 C. G. Watson, Columbus, Ohio. 
 J. C. Worlby, Japan. 
 
 W T. RoDGERS, Knoxville, Tenn. 
 R. H. Fry, Logansport, Ind. 
 Geo. H. Mack, Atlanta, Ga. 
 
 B. G. Mitchell, Huntsville, Ala. 
 W. A. Provine, Columbia, Tenn. 
 J. M. Van Horn, Oliveburg, Pa. 
 T. G. Pool, Macon, Mo. 
 
 W. B. Holmes, Nashville, Tenn. 
 J. W. Jordan, Nashville, Tenn. 
 S. O. Woods, D.D., Crowell, Tex. 
 E. E. Morris, Lebanon, Tenn. 
 W. A. McAnally, Martha, Okla. 
 
 E. J. McCroskey, Nashville, Tenn. 
 S. G. Frazier, Soddy, Tenn. 
 
 G. O. Bachman, Paducah, Ky. 
 J. R. McMuLLEN, Gadsden, Ala. 
 J. M. Webb, I.ewisburg, Tenn. 
 R. A. Cody, Meridian, Miss. 
 
 H. G. King, Auburn, Ky. 
 
 L. D. Ewing, Bunceton, Mo. 
 
 R. Thomsen, Fayetteville, Ark. 
 
 G. A. Blair, St. Joseph, Mo. 
 
 J. L. Alexander, Nashville, Tenn. 
 
 J. O. Davison, Memphis, Tenn. 
 
 W. C. Logan, Assistant Editor "The 
 
 Cumberland Presbyterian," Nashville. 
 W. O. H. Perry, Stewartsville, Mo. 
 
 F. K. Farr, Theol. Sem., Lebanon,Tenn. 
 E. B. Surface, Mount Vernon, 111. 
 
 J. C. Reid, Kansas City, Mo. 
 J. W. McDonald, Decatur, 111. 
 J. M. Johnston, Petersburg, 111. 
 
 J. S. Grider, Smiths Grove, Ky. 
 
 D. C. DeWitt, Ferri.-j, Texas. 
 
 J. R. Lamb, Walla Walla, Wash. 
 
 .\. E. Perry, Carthage, Mo. 
 
 A. B. Johnson, S. McAlester, 1. T. 
 
 W. G. Beaird, Tipton, Iowa. 
 
 A.B.Johnson, Bonner Spgs,Kans. 
 
 R. J. Shaw, Pickens, Miss. 
 
 W. B. Farr, Clovis, Cal. 
 
 W. J. Darby, Evansville, Ind. 
 
 1r,\ Landrith, Chicago, 111. 
 
 J. E. Clarke, Editor "The Cum- 
 berland Presbyterian," Nash- 
 vUle, Tenn. 
 
 G. W. Shelton, Nashville, Tenn. 
 
 John A. McKAMY,Editor S. S.Lit., 
 Nashville, Tenn. 
 
 R. V. Foster, D.D., Theol. Sem., 
 Lebanon, Tenn. 
 
 J. V. Stephens, Theol. Sem., 
 Lebanon, Tenn. 
 
 W. C. Denson, Athens, Ala. 
 
 W. M. Woodfin, Christiana, Tenn. 
 
 W. O. Harless, Humboldt, Tenn. 
 
 F. L. Wear, Ensley, Ala. 
 
 S. P. Pryor, McKenzie, Tenn. 
 
 A. M. Williams, Clarksville, Tenn. 
 
 E. W. Graves, Irvington, Ky. 
 A. E. Faust, Webb City, Mo. 
 
 G. R. Harrison, Editor "Western 
 Presbyter," Dallas, Tex. 
 
 J. D. C. Cobb, Jonesboro, Ark. 
 Will L. Dahby, Kirksville, Mo. 
 
 F. H. Ford, MUan, Tenn. 
 
 D. T. Waynick, Troy, Tenn. 
 Geo. p. Baity, Kansas City, Mo. 
 T. A. Wigginton, Evansville, Ind. 
 J. A. Francis, Winchester, Ky. 
 W. C. McClelland, Brooks, Iowa. 
 
 * Only a few of the many times more names we could have secured 
 are here given. Others are coming by every mail, but enough appear 
 above to show how general and strong is the demand for union. — Committee 
 
K. B. Landis, Mattoon, 111. 
 J. J. Dunham, Sarcoxie, Mo. 
 Martin W. Robison, Muskogee, I. T. 
 Wm. S. Smith, Concord, Tenn. 
 G. A. Wilson, Danvers, 111. 
 W. E. Olmsted, Stanford, 111. 
 C. P. GooDSON, St. Louis, Mo. 
 H. N. Babbee, Covington, Ohio. 
 T. J. Clagett, Marshall, Mo. 
 Monroe Seals, Springfield, Tenn. 
 A. S. M.\DDOx, Little Rock, Ark. 
 W. F. Perry, Independence, Mo. 
 J. J. Dalton, Bonham, Tex. 
 Joseph H. Curry, Denton, Tex. 
 J. C. Smith, Waxahachie, Tex. 
 
 A. G. Bergen, Chicago, 111. 
 W. J. King, Oxford, Miss. 
 Walter E. Spoonts, Leroy, 111. 
 J. W. Elder, Petersburg, 111. 
 Geo. H. Turner, Petersburg, III. 
 
 F. A. Shape, Newman, 111. 
 Geo. H. Silvius, Bethany, 111. 
 J. E. Roach, Peter.sburg, 111. 
 W. F. Padgett, Evansville, Ind. 
 .1. D. Hunter, Franklin, Tenn. 
 D.wiD L. Dickey, Olustee, Okla. 
 U. W. McWilliams, Louisville, Ky. 
 Geo. W. Martin, Lebanon, Tenn. 
 W.-.S. D.A.NLEY, D.D., McKeesport. Pa. 
 W. D. Landis, Los Angeles, Cal. 
 
 J. L. Crawford, Galesburg, 111. 
 
 E. O. Whitwell. Willow Springs, Mo. 
 
 Clay Bobbitt, Maxwell, Iowa. 
 
 H. C. CuLTON, Winters, Cal. 
 
 L. C. KiRKES, Clinton, Mo. 
 
 J. H. Kelly, Vale, Ark. 
 
 .Ino. J. Wilson, Fairmount, 111. 
 
 Benjamin Spencer, Garland, Tex. 
 
 B. A. Hodges, Temple, Tex. 
 
 W. A. AusBAN, Savannah, Tenn. 
 J. T. Price, Glendale, Tenn. 
 W. B. WiTHERSPOON, Huntsville, Ala. 
 .1. A. Dop.Ris, Oklahoma, Okla. 
 
 C. R. Zahni.ser, Pittsburg, Pa. 
 
 R. W. Binkley, McMinnville. Tenn. 
 
 .1. D. Black, Newman, Cal. 
 
 P. A. Price, Grand Junction, Colo. 
 
 John Royal Harris, Pittsburg, Pa. 
 
 M. E. Chappell, Arlington, Tex. 
 
 P. M. Fitzgerald, Arlington, Tex. 
 
 A. G. Bergen, Chicago, III. 
 
 J. M. Wooten, Gravville, Tenn. 
 
 R E. Ch.\ndler, Ft. Worth, Tex. 
 
 G. P. Howard, Ada, I. T. 
 
 H. L. Walker, Clintoii, Mo. 
 Taylor Bernard, St. Louis, Mo. 
 W. T. Sullivan, Hot Springs, Ark. 
 R. T. Caldwell, Macon, Mo. 
 T. B. McAmis, Lincoln, lU. 
 G. W. Williams, Norris City, 111. 
 J. W. Mitchell, MarshaU, Mo. 
 R. H. Anthony, Cleveland, Tenn. 
 C. P. CooLEY, Ridge Farm, III. 
 H. F. Smith, GaUatin, Mo. 
 
 E. D. Pearson, Louisiana, Mo. 
 H. F. Bone, Greenville, Tex. 
 W. K. Howe, Aurora, Mo. 
 
 S. E. Kennon, Waxahachie, Tex. 
 
 J. M. Gaiser, Danville, 111. 
 
 R. G. Shafer, Crossville, 111. 
 
 W. P. Thurston, Owensboro, Ky. 
 
 C. E. Hayes, Decatur, 111. 
 
 J. E. Ennis, Catlin, 111. 
 
 J. F. Rogers, Greenview, 111. 
 
 L. D. Lasswell, Donnell.son, 111. 
 
 Geo. W. Neal, Lincoln College, 
 Lincoln, 111. 
 
 J. Wesley Derr, Lincoln, 111. 
 
 W.M. Crawford .Montgomery, Ala. 
 
 J. K. Howard, Jackson, Tenn. 
 
 H. C. Bird, Blairsville, Pa. 
 
 James Hardin Smith, West Nash- 
 ville, Tenn. 
 
 C. S. Tanner, Downey, Cal. 
 
 M. E. Prather, Sullivan, Ind. 
 
 J. W. Mount, Hanford, Cal. 
 
 C. M. Latten, McCallsburg, Iowa. 
 
 W. F. Silvius, Pittsburg, Pa. 
 
 B. Wrenn Webb, Nevada, Mo. 
 
 F. M. Wylie, Morrillton, Ark. 
 
 .1. S. Groves, Honey Grove, Tex. 
 
 John A. Ward, Moberly, Mo. 
 
 M. E. Gab.^rd, Santa Fe, Tenn. 
 
 J. T. White, Savannah, Tenn. 
 
 A. W. Denny, Danville, 111. 
 
 L. D. Beck, Salem, 111. 
 
 Z. T. Walker, Norris City, 111. 
 
 James Rayburn, Argenl-a, 111. 
 
 J. W. Mount, Hanford, Ca!. 
 
 L. N. Montgomery, Louisiana, Mt. 
 
 F. E. Birkett, Enfield, 111. 
 
 H. W. Se.\rs, Decatur. 111. 
 
 J. F. Claycomb, McMinnville, Ore. 
 
 L. R. Bond, D.D., SodaviUe, Ark. 
 
 J. B. Wilhoite, Lebanon, Tenn. 
 
 R. A. King. Foss, Okljj. 
 
 Cha-. Manton. D.D , Paris, Tex, 
 
 Ruling Elders: 
 
 J. Frank Hays, Crowel!. Te.x. 
 J. W. Hays. Crpwell, Tex. 
 M. A. Montgomery, Oxford, Miss. 
 M. F. Smith, Nashville, Tenn. 
 A. R. Taylor, The James Millikin Uni- 
 versity, Decatur, 111. 
 John H. DeWitt, Nashville, Tenn. 
 Henry Kauffman, Stanford, 111. 
 W. T. Baird, lurksvLUe. Mo. 
 C. W. Turner, Waverly, Tenn. 
 W. H. H. Stephens, Bunceton, Mo. 
 
 B. F. Allison, Crowell, Tex. 
 T. H. Perrin, Alton. 111. 
 Walter McWilliams, Athens, Ga 
 F. O. Frye. West Nashville, Tenn. 
 John M. Gaut, Nashville, Tenn. 
 J. K. Buchanan, Pittsburg, Pa. 
 J. A. Petrie, Greenview, 111. 
 W. J. Grannis. Lebanon, Tenn. 
 W. T. Atkinson, Clarksville,Tenn . 
 J. T. Rudolph, Clarksville, Tenn. 
 W. T.WATTS.West Nashville, Tenn. 
 
J. M. Freeman, Bunceton, Mo. 
 
 A. H. B0CHANAN, Lebanon, Tenn. 
 
 G. T. Williams, Danvers, 111. 
 
 J. T. AyERs, Danvers, 111. 
 
 T. B. Underwood, Union City, Tenn 
 
 D. C. Caldwell, Milan, Tenn. 
 
 T. H. Allen, Clarksville, Tenn. 
 
 R. W. HiMES, Covington, Ohio. 
 
 W. T. Smith. Bonham, Tex. 
 
 I. H. Orr, St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 W. E. RucKER, Cleveland, Tenn. 
 
 Ben Eli Guthrie, Macon, Mo. 
 
 J. W. Axtell, Nashville, Tenn. 
 
 W. B. Baird, Nashville, Tenn. 
 
 M. B. Templeton, Waxahachie, Tex. 
 
 J. M. Lancaster, Waxahachie, Tex. 
 
 R. G. Matthews, Macon, Mo. 
 
 R. M. J. Sharp, Macon, Mo. 
 
 Thos. Roach, Oklahoma, Okla. 
 
 Dr. a. C. Scott, Temple, Tex. 
 
 George Houghton, Temple, Tex. 
 
 Matt Hamilton, Garland, Tex. 
 
 Ed. Newton, Garland, Tex. 
 
 W. F. Porterfield, Fairmount, 111. 
 
 J. T. Alexander, Madisonville, Ky. 
 
 H. Holloman, Madisonville, Ky. 
 
 W. H. SuLB, Nevada, Mo. 
 
 Thos. L. Cate, Cleveland, Tenn. 
 
 C. C. Farnsworth, Hanford, Cal. 
 
 L. P. Padgett, Columbia, Tenn. 
 
 A. M. Kenney, Broadlands, 111. 
 
 John Gordon, Cleveland, Tenn. 
 
 T. H. Newberry, Soddv, Tenn. 
 
 W. P. Stark, Louisiana, Mo. 
 
 J. M. GowDY, Enfield, 111. 
 
 C. A. Orr, Enfield, 111. 
 
 J. R. Ru.sH, Pittsburg-, Pa. 
 
 S. V. Reeve.s, Pittsburg, Pa. 
 
 Geo. K. Smith, Pittsburg, Pa. 
 
 G. F. J. Stephens, Honey Grove, Tex. 
 
 Frank Campbell, Temple, Tex. 
 
 T. B. Stephens, Bunceton, Mo. 
 S. O. Smith, Girard, 111. 
 S. A. Deal, Danvers, 111. 
 Paul Ingram, Troy, Tenn, 
 
 F. P. Moore, Obion, Tenn. 
 
 W. H. Rudolph, Clarksville, Tenn. 
 
 W. J. Humphrey, Greenville, Tex. 
 
 N. C. Bradford, Bonham, Tex. 
 
 A. C. Stewart, St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 Jno. T. Huffine, Cleveland, Tenn. 
 
 Dr. G. M. Bozemore, Cleveland, 
 Tenn. 
 
 W. T. Hardison, Nashville, Tenn. 
 
 William E.WARD,Nashville,Tenn. 
 
 T. J. Middleton, Waxahachie, 
 Tex. 
 
 S. L. Hornbeak, Trinity Univer- 
 sity, Waxahachie, Tex. 
 
 H. S. Parsons, Whitewright, Tex. 
 
 Geo. M. Houser, Macon, Mo. 
 
 W. S. Taylor, Oklahoma, Okla. 
 
 J. R. Kennedy, Oklahoma, Okla. 
 
 W. J. Halsell, Garland, Tex. 
 
 Sam C. Hall, Garland, Tex. 
 
 G. H. Robnett, Garland, Tex. 
 Dr. a. J. Lectzback, Fairmount. 
 
 III. 
 Dick Hodge, Madisonville, Ky. 
 G. G. Ewing, Nevada, Mo. 
 G. E. MosELEY, Nevada, Mo. 
 J. C. Gibson, Maxwell, Iowa. 
 M. B. Golden, Los Angeles, Cal. 
 W. T. Pankey, DanvUle, 111. 
 C. L. Keaton, Dexter, Mo. 
 J. W. Ci.ift, Soddy, Tenn. 
 L. Morgan, Soddy, Tenn. 
 Taylor Frier, Louisiana, Mo. 
 J. M. Jordan, Enfield, 111. 
 Pleasant Orr, Enfield, 111. 
 M. L. Zahniser, Pittsburg, Pa. 
 Thos. Hoskenson, Pittsburg, Pa. 
 
INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 
 
 In the following pages are carefully prepared articles upon 
 various phases of the so-called "Union Question." A full 
 history of the subject appears in a pamphlet edited by Rev. 
 James E. Clarke, editor of "The Cumberland Presbyterian," 
 which pamphlet is entitled "Documents and Reports Relating 
 to the Proposed Union Between the Presbyterian Church, 
 U. S. A., and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church." Extra 
 copies of either pamphlet will be furnished in quantities at 
 two cents per copy. 
 
 Address Jno. M. Gaut, Steger Building, Nashville, Tenn. 
 
 WHAT WE STAND FOR. 
 
 For the Christ of Galilee, 
 
 For the truth which makes men free. 
 
 For the bond of unity 
 
 Which makes God's children one. 
 
 For the love which shines '.n de^ds. 
 For the life which this world needs. 
 For the church whose triumph speeds 
 The prayer : "Thy will be done." 
 
 For the right against the wrong. 
 For the weak against the strong, 
 For the poor who've waited long 
 For the brighter age to be. 
 
 For the faith against tradition, 
 For the truth 'gainst superstition, 
 For the hope whose glad fruition 
 Our waiting eyes shall see. 
 
 For the city God is rearing. 
 For the New Earth now appearing, 
 For the heaven above us clearing, 
 And the song of victory. 
 
 — Anon. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 For the matter which fills the pages of this pamphlet the 
 committee are indebted to several authors. The chapters 
 entitled, "Explanatory," "Why Union?" and "Conclu- 
 sion," were written by Rev. Ira Landrith, LL.D. ; 
 and that entitled "Agreement of Creeds" by Rev. B. 
 G. Mitchell, D.D. While the chapter entitled "Predicted Liti- 
 gation" was written by John M. Gaut, it at the same time 
 embodies the results of extended and thoughtful investigation 
 on the part of Hon. M. A. Montgomery, of Oxford, Miss., 
 and John H. DeWitt, Esq., of Nashville, Tenn. Some weeks 
 since Hon. Alex P. Humphrey, of Louisville, at the request 
 of Judge Settle, gave in a letter to the latter an opinion upon 
 the legal construction of the provision made in the Basis of 
 Union for the separation of the races. This opinion Judge 
 Humphrey has kindly permitted us to embody in the chapter 
 on that subject. This opinion is supplemented by matter, re- 
 lating to somewhat different phases of the subject, prepared 
 by Judge Settle himself. Judge Humphrey is a son of an 
 eminent Presbyterian minister, is a member of the Presby- 
 terian Church in the United States of America and easily 
 stands in the front rank, if not at the head, of the Kentucky 
 bar. Judge Settle, the Hon. W. E. Settle, is one of the judges 
 of the Kentucky Court of Appeals and was Moderator of our 
 last General Assembly. The chapter, therefore, presents the 
 concurrent opinion of two eminent lawyers, one viewing the 
 questions from a Presbyterian, the other from a Cumberland 
 Presbyterian, standpoint. 
 
 The committee send forth the pamphlet trusting that the 
 facts which it sets forth and the arguments which it contains 
 may lead many to a better understanding of the important 
 question pending before the church. They humbly pray that 
 an overruling Providence may use it for the accomplishment 
 of his purposes. 
 
 S. M. Templeton, 
 John M. Gaut, 
 John H. DeWitt, 
 Ira Landrith, 
 I. D. Steele, 
 C. E. Hayes. 
 7 
 
WHY UNION? IN BRIEF. 
 
 Because, whether the Presbyterian Church has radically 
 revised its creed, as many of them admit, or has only ex- 
 plained it, as some of them claim, that creed now contains 
 practically everything for which Cumberland Presbyterians 
 have contended, hence there remains no sufficient reason for 
 continued separation. 
 
 Because the union of churches which are practically agreed 
 in doctrine and polity is in harmony with the fraternal spirit 
 of the age, and, above all, would, we think, please him who 
 prayed for the co-operative oneness of Christianity. 
 
 Because it would greatly reduce the cost of general ad- 
 ministration by lessening the number of boards and Assembly 
 committees. 
 
 Because it would enable weak churches in the same town 
 to combine and thus save for better uses the energy and 
 money sometimes wasted in competition. In this way, in 
 many instances, one good church would be organized and 
 more effective work accomplished than is now done by two 
 or more churches. 
 
 Because in both home and foreign missionary territory one 
 church with the combined strength of two can do more good 
 at less cost than two separate churches of the same faith 
 and practice are able to do. 
 
 Because the time has come when every Cumberland Pres- 
 byterian on earth, without apology for or change of his con- 
 victions of Biblical truth, and without the slightest humilia- 
 tion, can consistently surrender his denominational name for 
 the great gain, not of pride in a church with large numbers, 
 but the vast advantage of the increased usefulness that comes 
 to the individual worker when the whole body is made more 
 efficient. As the Herald and Presbyter, a Presbyterian journal, 
 has lately said : "The union of our great denominations, if it 
 can be accomplished in accordance with the will of Christ, 
 
is to be sought for not, as some seem to think, to gratify an 
 ambition for great things, but in order to more efficiency in 
 God's service. Some who decry such union think that its 
 promoters are animated only by a spectacular desire or am- 
 bition for what is big. This cannot be, or must not be, the 
 motive. But if energy, money, machinery and men may be 
 made to do more for the promotion of God's kingdom, when 
 working through one influential and economical organization 
 than through a dozen, then we should be in favor of the one 
 rather than the dozen. Because we all love Christ, and should 
 be working with the utmost efficiency to do his work in saving 
 men, all the Presbyterian churches of this country should be 
 one body. Some day they will be." 
 
 Because, if this union succeeds, other denominational unions 
 under consideration can be consummated, and the too scattered 
 forces of our Lord's army concentrated for further action. 
 The failure of this union, mutually so honorable, and so 
 auspiciously inaugurated, would be a great discouragement, 
 not only to those who hope for the ultimate unity of Presby- 
 terianism, but to all who believe that the several ecclesiastical 
 families should seek a closer alliance. If this union is im- 
 possible no other union however desirable is an early proba- 
 bility. 
 
 Because the recent additions to the Presbyterian Confession 
 of Faith are all in such harmony with Cumberland Presby- 
 terianism's position that, whatever may have been left in the 
 creed that is not in accord with our position, has either been 
 contradicted and thereby revised, or explained away, and 
 thereby, so far as it is objectionable to us, annulled; hence, 
 why should we halt on doctrinal grounds? 
 
 Because, whatever differences may have existed among us 
 as to the timeliness of this union movement, we are now con- 
 fronted by a condition, not a theory. The movement has 
 advanced so far that we have admitted the truth, first by the 
 unanimous vote of our Committee on Fraternity and Union 
 and later by the voice of more than two-thirds of the General 
 Assembly, and the Presbyterians have agreed with us, that 
 there is no longer enough doctrinal difference between the 
 two churches to warrant continued separation ; which means 
 that, if union should fail, the future Cumberland Presbyterian 
 
 9 
 
Church would be a denomination without a distinctive doc- 
 trinal contention, and hence without a reason for existence 
 which would be acceptable to thoughtful people seeking a 
 church home. Plainly putting it, under the circumstances 
 union has now become all but a Cumberland Presbyterian 
 necessity, so close of kin is it to self-preservation ; and this, 
 too, in addition to the fact that, assuming that both the Com- 
 mittee on Fraternity and Union and the General Assembly 
 were sincere and capable of forming a correct opinion, the 
 proposed union would be in accord with the divine will and 
 promotive of the growth of the Kingdom of God. 
 
 Because the union of a church so largely Southern as is 
 our own with a denomination whose membership is chiefly 
 Northern, would be a national blessing, tending to prove that, 
 though too tardy, the churches are at last willing to make a 
 large contribution to that Christlike patriotism which refuses 
 to keep alive the bitterness of sectional hatred. If this union 
 can be consummated, we believe that the divisions of other 
 denominations into Northern and Southern churches will soon 
 be healed ; and surely this is a consummation devoutly to be 
 wished. 
 
 Because the united church would be characteristically and 
 completely the American Presbyterian Church, strong and 
 prepared to grow stronger in every state and territory in the 
 American union. Such a body, evangelistic in spirit and in 
 all respects well equipped for service, would be the most 
 powerful agency in the world for obeying our Lord's last com- 
 mand. Such a body, too, would soon draw unto itself the 
 other branches of Presbyterianism, making a single church 
 so vast and valuable, so influential and so powerful, that if it 
 remained humble and prayerful, and we believe it will — sin in 
 high and low places could be triumphantly attacked and sin- 
 ners in unprecedented multitudes led to the Savior. 
 
 Because, if a majority of the presbvteries so elect, there 
 are no legal barriers to complete union, including the transfer 
 of all church property to the united church. This is made 
 plain by legal opinions and decisions printed further on in 
 this brochure. Recent English decisions do not discourage 
 this confidence, for as the Westminster, a Philadelphia Pres- 
 byterian journal, remarks: "British law, whatever it may be, 
 
 10 
 
was repealed in this country something over a century ago. 
 Here a church has the right to interpret its own creed, and 
 so will Scotland before the case is over." Union will be in 
 effect on the part of Cumberland Presbyterians the mere ex- 
 ercise of the constitutional right to interpret or revise the 
 creed, by the adoption of the revised Westminster Confession 
 instead of our own creedal statement of the same doctrine. 
 No fear need be entertained but that the church's property 
 will follow the church into the union. 
 
 Because every step taken by both denominations has been 
 preceded by the most earnest prayer for divine guidance, and 
 by the most exhaustive discussion of every present and pos- 
 sible difficulty or obstacle, the overwhelming consensus of 
 opinion being that it is the Lord who is leading us into this 
 union. 
 
 Because, by the terms agreed upon, the race question has 
 been removed from the pathway of Presbyterian progress in 
 the South ; and that whole marvelously developing section 
 will henceforth be wide open to Presbyterian Church exten- 
 sion. The home missionary funds of both churches, wisely 
 expended according to the counsel of the great number of 
 informed Cumberland Presbyterians and the advice of their 
 Presbyterian neighbors, should render easy the planting of 
 the new church in every city, town, village and rural com- 
 munity South of the Ohio river where adequate church work 
 is not now being done. With a better mutual understanding, 
 too, and with the friction of compulsory presbyterial and 
 synodical contact forever removed, our own people should 
 gladly co-operate in the evangelization ?nd religious education 
 of the negroes in the South, thus ensuring better results 
 than have ever been possible. Missionary agencies will no 
 longer be far removed from them, but such efforts will be 
 made through those who know them best and are concerned 
 for them most — the white people of the South. 
 
 Because the Presbyterian Committee on Co-operation and 
 Union and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church 
 in the United States of America have manifested the most 
 generous possible spirit in all of these negotiations, en- 
 deavoring at no time to secure any of the advantages which 
 superior numbers might have won, but plainly, even coh- 
 
 11 
 
fessedly, anxious to make every consistent concession to in- 
 sure a union at once creditable and satisfactory to the most 
 devoted lover of the Cumberland Presoyterian Church. The 
 result is a plan whereby may be effected "a union alike honor- 
 able to both churches." 
 
 Because this union is earnestly desired by practically every 
 Presbyterian who favored the revision of the Westminster 
 Confession of Faith, whereas the very few Presbyterians op- 
 posed to union on doctrinal grounds belonged, without a 
 single known exception, to the small minority who antagon- 
 ized the recent revision. Any hint that "Cumberland Presby- 
 terians are not wanted in the Presbyterian Church," and any 
 appeal to our people against "going where they are not 
 wanted," should be disregarded, since the almost unanimous 
 majority for union in the Presbyterian Assembly, the un- 
 controllable joy of the commissioners that followed the vote, 
 the cordial expressions of eagerness for the union heard on 
 every hand by those of us who have lived among the Pres- 
 byterians and talked much with them from one end of the 
 continent to the other, and the assurance we have that more 
 than two-thirds of the Presbyterian presbyteries will certainly 
 endorse the union agreement — all these things should make 
 it plain that this union is not unwelcome to the Presbyterian 
 Church. The effort of Dr. Warfield and a few others to 
 make Cumberland Presbyterians afraid that they would not 
 find the atmosphere of the united church congenial, has been 
 repudiated by the strongest Presbyterian newspapers and 
 ministers. 
 
 Because, though some things in the creed, left after re- 
 vision, and taken apart from the revision itself, which is the 
 church's last, and, therefore, most binding utterance, may be 
 out of harmony with Cumberland Presbyterian belief, the 
 terms of union specifically allow liberty of belief, as also 
 does the Declaratory Statement ; and no Cumberland Pres- 
 byterian will be required to do more than accept the revised 
 Confession "as containing the system of doctrine taught in 
 the Holy Scriptures." Since the revised Confession, what- 
 ever else it holds, contains literally everj'thing Cumberland 
 Presbyterians have stood for, surely there will be no viola- 
 tion of conscience in adopting the plan of union. 
 
 12 
 
AGREEMENT OF CREEDS. 
 
 Is there now such aoctrinal agreement between our church 
 and the mother church as to warrant organic union? It is 
 a fact undisputed that the doctrinal and evangelical utterances 
 of the pulpits of the two churches have been a lonig time 
 in agreement. It now remains to show that the doctrinal 
 and evangelical agreement has taken such creedal and con- 
 fessional form as to justify the union of the two churches 
 without doing violence to the present faith of either. It 
 was the unanimous opinion of the joint committees on union 
 that there is now substantial creedal agreement, and that 
 opinion was adopted overwhelmingly by the two recent Gen- 
 eral Assemblies, thus making it the officially expressed opinion 
 of the two churches. The correctness of this judgment will 
 appear from a brief consideration of the character and man- 
 ner of creedal revision in both churches. 
 
 And first in our church : For the first four years of our 
 denominational life the Westminster Confession (excepting 
 the idea of fatality believed by many to be logically taught 
 in the third and tenth chapters) was our creed. In 1814 that 
 Confession was revised with special reference to four points 
 on which our founders differed or dissented from the West- 
 minster Confession as then interpreted. The points, in their 
 own language, are four, and have become historic: "i. There 
 are no eternal reprobates. 2. Christ died not for a part only, 
 but for all mankind. 3. That all infants dying in infancy are 
 saved through Christ and the sanctification of the Spirit. 4. 
 That the Spirit of God operates on all the world, or as co- 
 extensively as Christ has made atonement, in such a manner 
 as to leave all men inexcusable." Let anyone take the revi- 
 sion of 1814, which remained our Confession till 1883, go 
 through it carefully, and he will find that it was mainly 
 on the above mentioned four points that the Westminster 
 
 13 
 
was revised. Our revision of 1883 did not change the essen- 
 tial doctrines retained in the revision of 1814; it put them in 
 briefer form and more logical arrangement. The above four 
 points constituted the substance of the so-called "Brief State- 
 ment" formulated and sent out by our first synod. They 
 have ever constituted the basis of our historic protest against 
 so-called "extreme Westminsterism." Our method of re- 
 vision was to take up the Confession, chapter by chapter, 
 and the Catechism based on the Confession, and to change or 
 modify those sections that seemed to teach limited atonement, 
 unconditional reprobation, damnation of some infants, limited 
 operation of the Spirit and irresistible grace. Our present 
 Confession is the Westminster Confession as revised in 
 1814 and 1883, and as revised in the above four particulars. 
 
 And now as to the revision of the Westminster Confession 
 by the mother church. Have they revised? Certainly not 
 in the way in which we revised. They pursued a different 
 method. Instead of rewriting the famous third and tenth 
 chapters, and those portions of the Catechism corresponding 
 to, and based upon those chapters, they revised them by an 
 explanatory creedal amendment, called a "Declaratory State- 
 ment." This statement is made a part of the creed. It is 
 far-reaching in its eiTect. It declares particularly and spe- 
 cifically the construction that must be put upon those chap- 
 ters, and by implication upon the corresponding portions 
 of the Catechism, in their teachings concerning God's decree, 
 his love, the atonement in Christ, man's ability to accept or 
 reject salvation, and the salvation of infants. Now keep well 
 in mind that these are the very points in the old Confession 
 where our founders found trouble, and from which they 
 could get no relief. The same has been true with thousands 
 of others in the old church. But relief has come at last. 
 Here is the explanatory creedal amendment touching chapters 
 3 and 10 of the Confession of Faith : "That concerning 
 those who are saved in Christ, the doctrine of God's eternal 
 decree is held in harmony with the doctrine of his love for 
 all mankind, his gift of his Son to be the propitiation for the 
 sins of the whole world, and his readiness to bestow his sav- 
 ing grace on all who seek it. That concerning those who 
 
 14 
 
perish, the doctrine of God's eternal decree is held in harmony 
 with the doctrine that God desires not the death of any 
 sinner, but has provided in Christ a salvation sufficient for 
 all, adapted to all, and freely offered in the gospel to all ; that 
 men are fully responsible for their treatment of God's gra- 
 cious offer ; that his decree hinders no man from accepting 
 that offer ; and that no man is condemned except on the 
 ground of this sin ... ; that it is not to be regarded as 
 teaching that any who die in infancy are lost. We believe 
 that all dying in infancy are included in the election of grace, 
 and are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, 
 who works when and where and how he pleases." 
 
 Had this explanatory creedal amendment been a part of 
 the Confession in the days of our founders, who can im- 
 agine for a moment that the Cumberland Presbyterian church 
 would have ever been organized? This is the very relief and 
 privilege for which 'hey contended, the thing they prayed for, 
 the thing they longed for, and the thing for which they 
 waited through long and anxious years before lauiicning an 
 independent Presbyterian church. But this is not all that we 
 have. Two new chapters have been added to their creed, thus 
 revising by addition the Confession as a whole; for the ex- 
 pressed purpose of these two chapters, as set forth in the 
 revisional and adopting act, is "to express more fully the doc- 
 trine of the church concerning the Holy Spirit, missions, and 
 the love of God to all men." But why "express more fully" 
 the present doctrine or teaching of the church on these 
 points? Because the teaching of the old Confession (unre- 
 vised) on these points v/as obscure, partial, somewhat in 
 dispute, and did not represent fully and clearly, beyond all 
 question, the present faith of the church. I give a few 
 quotations from these new revisional chapters. Space will 
 not permit giving them entire : "God, in infinite and perfect 
 love, having provided in the covenant of grace, through the 
 mediation aud sacrifice of the Lord Tesus Christ, a way of 
 life and salvation, sufficient for and adapted to the whole 
 lost race of man, doth freely offer this salvation to all men in 
 the gospel. In the gospel God declares his love for the world 
 and his desire that all men should be saved, reveals fully 
 
 IS 
 
and clearly the only way of salvation; promises eternal life 
 to all who truly repent and believe in Christ ; invites and 
 commands all to embrace the offered mercy, and by his 
 Spirit accompanying the word pleads with men to accept his 
 gracious invitation. It is the duty and privilege of every one 
 who hears the gospel immediately to accept its merciful pro- 
 visions ; and they who continue in impenitence and unbelief 
 incur aggravated guilt and perish by their own fault. . . . The 
 Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of life everywhere present 
 in nature, and is the source of all good thoughts, pure de- 
 sires and holy counsels in men. . . . The dispensation of the 
 gospel is especially committed to him. He prepares the way 
 ' for it, accompanies it with his persuasive power, and urges 
 its message upon the reason and conscience of man, so that 
 they who reject its merciful offer are not only without ex- 
 cuse but- are also guilty of resisting the Holy Ghost. . . . He 
 convicts men of sin, moves them to repentance, regenerates 
 them by his grace, and persuades and enables them to em- 
 brace Jesus Christ by faith," etc. 
 
 Do not these quotations from their revision of the West- 
 minster Confession (1903) show that that revision affected 
 the identical points emphasized in our revision of the same 
 Confession (1814), and in the same direction? Do not these 
 revisional and amendment portions of the Confession teach 
 clearly and emphatically the love of God for all men, atone- 
 ment in Christ for all men. the ability of every man, under 
 the enabling grace of the Holy Spirit, to repent and believe, 
 the salvation of all infants dying in infancy, and the just con- 
 demnation of the man who is "guilty of resisting the Holy 
 Ghost?" Is it not set forth beyond all dispute that regener- 
 ation and justification (salvation) are conditioned upon re- 
 pentance and faith, and that no man is condemned by the 
 eternal decree of God, but solely "on the ground of his sin?" 
 
 But objection is made: "These explanatory revisional and 
 amendment utterances are clear, true, and beyond all ques- 
 tion the very heart of the gospel as understood and taught 
 by Cumberland Prestyterians, but they contradict the old 
 Confession and cannot be made to harmonize with it." Grant 
 that we, from our traditional point of interpretation, cannot 
 
 16 
 
harmonize the new with the old, shall we throw away the 
 new and the clear, and hold to the old and obscure? When 
 a great and intelligent church construes its Confession, and 
 puts that construction into its creed, there is nothing left for 
 us to do but to accept it as made in all sincerity. Certainly a 
 church has the right to explain its own creed. We need to 
 remember that all additions to a code or to a Confession by 
 way of explanatory and revisional amendments and additions 
 do not have to be harmonized with all that has been previ- 
 ously decreed. 
 
 The Presbyterian General Assembly at Buffalo adopted a 
 resolution which has been misunderstood to mean that the 
 revision of their Confession of Faith made no doctrinal 
 change. This resolution was to the effect that the revision 
 had not "impaired the integrity of the system of doctrine" 
 contained in the Westminster Confession. The "system of 
 doctrine" referred to is what is generally known as the Cal- 
 vinistic system as distinguished from the Arminian system. 
 Cumberland Presbyterians do not claim that the "system" has 
 been impaired ; in fact, from the times of the fathers to the 
 present day, Cumberland Presbyterians have never de- 
 manded that it should be. They have asked only that certain 
 statements of doctrine should be so changed that they could 
 not be understood to mean that God arbitrarily chose some 
 men to eternal life, without reference to the faith of such 
 men, and that he arbitrarily consigned others to eternal death, 
 without reference to their sins. That language of the West- 
 minster Confession has been so changed that it cannot now 
 be fairly interpreted as teaching "fatalism." Our fathers 
 rever demanded a change of the "system of doctrine." They 
 counted themselves as Calvinists, not Armmians. All they 
 asked was that the statements which they understood to teach 
 "fatalism" should be either removed or explained. Our 
 system of civil government is republican. We have repeatedly 
 made material changes in our Federal Constitution, yet no 
 one will contend that the integrity of our system was thereby 
 impaired. It is still the republican system. 
 
 Opponents of the Union proposition make much of the 
 fact that the Revision of the Westminster Confession was 
 made by adding a Declaratory Statement and some new 
 
 17 
 
chapters, rather than by actually changing the language of 
 the Third Chapter and others of similar bearing. A recent 
 writer says, "Whenever the Presbyterian Chur-^h takes the 
 Third Chapter and others like it out of its Confession and al- 
 lows the Declaratory Statement to stand in their stead, 
 then and not until then, can it be claimed that there is 'sub- 
 stantial agreement' between the two Confessions." 
 
 Article 4, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United 
 States is as follows : "No person held to service or to labor 
 in one state, und^r the laws thereof, escaping into another, 
 shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be dis- 
 charged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered 
 up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may 
 be due." Section i of the 13th Amendment, following 
 several, pages after the foregoing, is as follows: "Neither 
 slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for 
 crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted shall 
 exist within the United States, or any place subject to their 
 jurisdiction." This latter is the "Declaratory Statement" of 
 our Constitution which makes slavery and fugitive slave laws 
 forever impossible. And yet Article 4, Section 2, stands in- 
 tact, without a word changed and is printed in every copy 
 of the Constitution that is issued, anywhere in our land. 
 Not only is this true, but there is not even an asterisk and 
 footnote referring to the 13th Amendment, as is the case 
 between the 3rd Chapter and the Declaratory Statement. 
 Nobody ever heard of even the rankest abolitionist proposing 
 to renounce his allegiance to the Constitution of our Nation 
 because this Article upholding slavery remains in it un- 
 changed. 
 
 Again, Section 8 of our Church Constitution declares that 
 "the ordinary and perpetual officers of the Church are . . . 
 ruling elders," etc. By Section 47 it is again declared that 
 "The offices of ruling elder and deacon are perpetual." The 
 amendment of 1901, without striking out or changing a single 
 word in these two sections, and without professing to amend 
 Section 8, provides for the election of ruling elders "for a 
 limited time." Both sections, and the amendment to Section 
 47, are part of our Constitution and are, by order of the 
 Assembly, printed as such. Shall we amend by addition and 
 
 18 
 
not allow the same privilege to our Presbyterian brethren? 
 Has any one ever complained that there were "contradictory 
 statements" in our Constitution or doubted that the new 
 prevails over the old? 
 
 And now what is the conclusion to which we are forced? 
 It is that our own church and the Presbyterian Church in 
 the U. S. A., the mother church, are now in agreement in the 
 matters of creed, polity and spirit, and that the two may and 
 should become one. And now one practical argument in con- 
 clusion. Up to 1903 we were able to justify our separate 
 denominational existence on the ground that the mother 
 church differed with us on vital doctrinal points. As we 
 have seen these points were four, and have constituted the 
 basis of our historic protest against the creed of that church 
 as understood and interpreted by us. But since their recent 
 revision those points of dissent no longer exist. There is 
 positive creedal evidence now that the grounds of our historic 
 protest are gone. This was not of our doing. Is it not evi- 
 dent now, when we come in competition in our denominational 
 work with the mother church, that we are helpless when it 
 comes to giving, as we have ever been able to do heretofore, 
 a reason to wide-awake business men of the farm, the office, 
 the store, and the shop for our denominational exisence, and 
 why they should join us? Can we any longer justify our- 
 selves before the religious world? Can we any longer justify 
 ourselves before the earnest thinking men and women of our 
 own church, especially those on our borders and in our mission 
 fields? In all seriousness I ask, Can we justify ourselves 
 before the great Head of the Church who prayed "that they 
 all may be one?" Separations, schisms, and splits have long 
 been a reproach to our Presbyterian churches, and cannot 
 be too soon taken away. Unjustifiable division of the Church 
 the body of Christ, is sin. May the Spirit of him who is 
 Head and Lord guide us in his way. 
 
 19 
 
PREDICTED LITIGATION. 
 
 Some opponents of the union are filling the air with predic- 
 tions of schism, and litigation over church property. Such 
 prophecies throw no light on the question whether the union 
 is right or wrong. But as they may deter some member of 
 presbytery from voting his honest convictions it is proper to 
 consider the foundations on which they rest. It is not pre- 
 sumable that Cumberland Presbyterians will disturb the peace 
 of the church of Christ with hopeless litigation. 
 
 The Supreme Court of Tennessee is quoted as declaring 
 that the civil courts have exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the 
 personal and property rights of churches. But it is also true 
 that ecclesiastical courts have exclusive jurisdiction of all 
 ecclesiastical questions. Both of these statements are frag- 
 mentary. Their relation to each other is shown by a more 
 complete statement of the law made by the Supreme Court 
 of Indiana as follows : "The rule in this country has become 
 elementary that when a civil right depends upon some matter 
 pertaining to ecclesiastical affairs, the civil tribunal tries the 
 civil right and nothing more, taking the ecclesiastical decisions 
 out of which the civil right has arisen, as it finds them and 
 accepts such decisions as matters adjudicated by another 
 legally constituted jurisdiction." Lamb vs. Cain, 14 L. R. A. 
 527. In support of this the learned judge cites cases in 
 Indiana, Ohio, New York and the Supreme Court of the 
 United States. To these may be added the Supreme Courts 
 of Tennessee, Texas, Illinois, and other states. 
 
 When the attempt is made in a civil court to show that 
 the General Assembly and a majority of the presbyteries of 
 the Cumberland Presbyterian Church are schismatics or 
 "revolutionists" something more will be necessary than to 
 make the sweeping statement that they have "abandoned the 
 church and joined the Presbyterians." The court will want 
 
 20 
 
to know what particular acts have been done, who did them 
 and what were the constitutional powers of those who did 
 them. When it comes to the bill of particulars we assume 
 that the first complaint will be that they have surrendered 
 the name of the church. To this the most obvious reply is 
 that no one doubts their power to change its name. More- 
 over, the name of a church is a thing of minor importance. 
 In a case growing out of the union of the Associate Church 
 and the Associate Reformed Church the same complaint was 
 made. . The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania said that a 
 change in name was "a natural incident of the union and 
 must go with its principal." In words almost prophetically 
 applicable to our situation it further said: "Moreover, that 
 is not the name they adopted — it was imposed upon them by 
 the public. It is surely to be regretted that the acts of the 
 church should be ofifensive to its members; but it is much 
 more to be regretted that any members should be so wedded 
 to a name or other form as to be offended at what the church 
 regards as a progress that increases the organic force of its 
 principles. The Episcopal Church of the United States lost 
 none of its rights at our Revolution by giving up its old 
 name, the Church of England in America ; and all of its 
 churches, including Trinity, New York, retained their property 
 under the new organization and new name though the old 
 was very dear to them." Watson vs. McGinnis, 41 Penn. 9. 
 
 If it be objected that the consummation of the union in- 
 volves the substitution of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith 
 for our own, the reply is threefold. 
 
 1. Our General Assembly "is the highest court of the 
 church, and represents in one body all the particular churches 
 thereof." Con., Sec. 40. It has the power "to decide in all 
 controversies respecting doctrine." Con., Sec. 43. It has de- 
 cided, by adopting the Joint Report on Union, that "such 
 agreement now exists between the systems of doctrine con- 
 tained in the Confessions of Faith of the two churches as to 
 warrant this union." This decision of our highest ecclesiasti- 
 cal court is, as we shall hereafter show, conclusive on the 
 civil courts. 
 
 2. If this question of fact were an open one before the civil 
 court, that court v/ould be bound to find, on the testimony 
 
 21 
 
that there was agreement between the two creeds. It is a 
 mere begging of the question to say that we are surrendering 
 our Confession of Faith and taking that of the Presbyterians. 
 If the two creeds are in substance the same, we are neither 
 surrendering ours nor taking theirs. We are simply adhering 
 to our own which is at the same time their own. 
 
 3. Were the difference in the creeds ever so great the union 
 would nevertheless be legal. The General Assembly and a 
 majority of the presbyteries, are, by the express provisions 
 of the Constitution, given the power to "amend or change" 
 the Confession of Faith. Con., Sec. 60. They may change 
 every doctrine and every word. It is but an ordinary, legis- 
 lative mode of amendment to substitute one paper for an- 
 other. 
 
 If it- be objected that the union involves substituting the 
 Presbyterian Constitution for that of our own, a complete 
 reply is that the Assembly, with the concurrence of a majority 
 of the presbyteries, can, under the Constitution, "amend or 
 change" the Constitution (Con., Sec. 60) and the power is 
 unlimited. Who makes the union so far as our church is 
 concerned? The Assembly and a majority of the presbyteries. 
 W'ho made the Confession of Faith and the Constitution? 
 The General Assembly and a majority of the presbyteries. 
 "Hath not the potter power over the clay?" They exercise 
 this amending and changing power but slightly when they 
 substitute for our Confession one which is in substance the 
 same and v/hich differs only in the mode of statement, and 
 substitute for our Constitution one embodying the same systeiTk- 
 of government diffenng only in a few minor details. 
 
 Our Constitution also gives to the General Assembly, even 
 without the concurrence of the presbyteries, power "to receive 
 under its jurisdiction other ecclesiastical bodies whose organi- 
 zation is conformed to the doctrine and order of this church ; 
 to authorize synods and presbyteries to exercise similar power 
 in receiving bodies suited to become constituents of those 
 courts, and lying within their geographical bounds respective- 
 ly." Con., Sec. 43. Two fundamental principles of consoli- 
 dation are recognized in this provision. One is, that other 
 denominations, wholly or in part, may in one body and not 
 as individuals merely, be united with our own. The other is, 
 
 22 
 
that the General Assembly is to determine whether such an 
 union shall take place. It may be argued, however, that the 
 provision quoted gives our Assembly power only to receive 
 another denomination into our church but no power to carry 
 our church into another denomination. But when two de- 
 nominations, identical in creed and government, by mutual 
 agreement unite as entireties, it is mere sticking in the bark 
 to discuss the question as to which one joins the other. The 
 truth is neither, in the sense intended, joins the other. The 
 material fact is that they get together and the name by which 
 the transaction is called is wholly immaterial. And it matters 
 not whether this identity of creed and government existed 
 before the union was contemplated, was previously created 
 for the purposes of union, or was created in the same action 
 which consummates the union and as part of the union plan. 
 In our case, so far as substance is concerned, it existed be- 
 fore any steps towards union were taken. 
 
 The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 in 1844 divided that church into two denominations. North 
 and South, and assigned to each a share in the church 
 property. Litigation over the property ensued in which it 
 was contended that the Conference had no power to divide 
 the church. The Supreme Court of the United States in the 
 case of Smith vs. Swormstedt, 16 Howard 288, decided that 
 it did have the implied power to do so. The power to con- 
 solidate seems to us less doubtful than the power to divide. 
 
 The power to consolidate with other denominations has 
 been repeatedly recognized and exercised among religious de- 
 nominations. Notable instances are the unions of the New 
 School Presbyterian Church, North, with the Old School 
 North, and the New School South with the Old School South. 
 The power has been recognized in our denomination from 
 its very inception. Four times, in 1810 to 1813, it was done 
 by Cumberland Presbytery, then the highest court of the 
 church, and ten times by the General Assembly, beginning in 
 i860 and coming down to date. Four times has the Assem- 
 bly prior to 1903 and again in 1903 acted on the assumption 
 of such a power by appointing committees to devise, if pos- 
 sible, a basis for union with other denominations. It has 
 thus repeatedly, by implication, construed our Constitution. 
 
 23 
 
An implied construction is as effectual as an express one. As 
 the highest court of the church it has jurisdiction to determine 
 its own constitutional powers just as the State Supreme 
 Courts have the power to determine theirs. Such decision is, 
 as we shall show, conclusive on civil courts. The Conference 
 of the Methodist Church in 1820 and 1878 divided the church 
 by creating separate denominations in Canada. The Supreme 
 Court of the United States in the case cited above say : 
 "These instances, together with the present division, in 1844, 
 furnished evidence of the opinions of the eminent and ex- 
 perienced men of this church, in the several Conferences, of 
 the power claimed which, if the question was otherwise doubt- 
 ful, should be regarded as decisive in its favor." 
 
 In 1856 the Associate Church and the Associate Reformed 
 Church, through their highest courts, their synods, agreed on 
 a basis of union ratified by a majority of presbyteries, in- 
 volving a surrender of the name of the former, and partly 
 adjusting the creed of the united church. Certain members 
 of the Associate Synod protested against the union, and met 
 in synodical meeting claiming to be the synod of the Associate 
 Church. Clarion Presbytery recognized the authority of this 
 synod. Unity congregation, of that presbytery, divided, and 
 fifty-eight out of one hundred and thirty-one, refusing to 
 recognize the union, sued for possession and control of 
 the church house. It will be seen that the changes in name 
 and creed were made in the same way that ours are being 
 made, by incorporating them in the basis of union. It was 
 contended that the Associate Synod and presbyteries had no 
 power to thus change its creed and to enter into the union 
 and that the presbyteries had not ratified the agreement by the 
 necessary majority. The Supreme Court held that the two 
 churches had the power to unite; that "union among churches 
 is a perfectly legitimate part of their purpose and their free- 
 dom, and mutual concession is part of the natural law of it 
 and we cannot direct nor limit it;" that the right of churchi;= 
 to unite had been recognized and exercised in Europe and 
 America since 1758; that of the terms of the union "tht 
 presbyteries and synods were the constitutional judges;" that 
 the church did not forfeit the right of property by its creedal 
 and governmental changes or change in name ; and that the 
 
 24 
 
party recognizing the union could hold the property as against 
 the party renouncing it. Watson vs. McGiimis, 41 Penn. 9. 
 
 The Constitution of the United Brethren forbade any change 
 in their Confession of Faith. The General Conference under- 
 took to amend the Constitution so as to permit a revision of 
 the Confession and at the same time to revise the Confession. 
 The same committee prepared the new Constitution and the 
 new Confession, the same Conference adopted both, both were 
 ratified by the membership at the same election and both wer-.-. 
 proclaimed by the next Conference. The Supreme Court of 
 Indiana says : 
 
 "We know no reason why the question of revision of Con- 
 fession of Faith might not be submitted with a proposition to 
 amend the Constitution. The question of construing the Con 
 stitution of 1841 was purely for the church authorities. Thc^v 
 determined that both questions could be submitted together, 
 and the Conference of i88g have adjudged that this was 
 legally done. This being a purely ecclesiastical matter, we 
 have no power to review their decision. It is binding upcm 
 us as well as upon the members of the church." Lamb vs. 
 Cain, 14 L. R. A. 529. The court further held that those 
 who adhered to the amended Constitution and Confession of 
 Faith constituted the church "while those who refused to do 
 so must be regarded as seceders." 
 
 Litigation over church property arose out of the- same 
 church union in the states of Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Oregon 
 and Pennsylvania. In all of them except Michigan \\'±; the 
 result the same as in Lamb vs. Cain in Indiana. One of the 
 cases in Ohio was decided by the United States C.'urt .")f 
 Appeals — Judges Lurton, Clark and Severens. In all the cases 
 except the Michigan case was it held that the civil court could 
 not go behind the decision of the church court as to the 
 latter's constitutional jurisdiction and the legality of the ec- 
 clesiastical proceeding. Such, also, was the holding is to all 
 ecclesiastical questions in Watson vs. Jones, 13 Wallace 
 (Supreme Court of United States) 679. In that case tjie 
 court says "whenever the question of discipline or fnith or 
 ecclesiastical rule, custom or law has been decided by the 
 highest of these church judicatories to which the mattei- has 
 been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such Isrisicn 
 
 25 
 
as final." The court cite to the same efifect cases in Ken- 
 tucky, South Carolina, New Jersey, Missouri and Pennsyl- 
 vania. Since then the Supreme Courts of Tennessee and 
 Texas have held the same way. The Supreme Court of the 
 United States further say : "We concede at the outset that 
 the doctrine of the English courts is otherwise. . . . And we 
 can very well understand how the Lord Chancellor of Eng- 
 land, who is in his office, in a large sense the head and repre- 
 sentative of the established church, who controls very largely 
 the church patronage and whose judicial decision may be and 
 not unfrequently is, invoked in cases of heresy and ecclesi- 
 astical contumacy, .should feel, even in dealing with a dis- 
 senting church, but little delicacy in grappling with the most 
 abstruse problems of theological controversy, or in construing 
 the instruments which those churches have adopted as their 
 rules .of government or inquiring into their customs and 
 usages." The court then proceeds to show how different it 
 is in this country Vv^here church and state are completely 
 separated. 
 
 The case of Trustees vs. Harris, TZ Conn. 217 was another 
 contest over real estate. Bishop Waldert, of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, had consolidated three congregations in 
 Norwich. His power to do so was denied. The court held 
 that no civil court had the power to pass upon that question ; 
 that by making the consolidation the bishop had impliedly 
 decided that he had the power to do so and that this decision, 
 being by an ecclesiastical court on an ecclesiastical matter, 
 whether right or wrong, was binding upon every member of 
 the church and upon the civil courts. It was, therefore, de- 
 creed that all of the property of the three congregations 
 passed to the trustees of the consolidated church. 
 
 Our church was not organized for the sake of separate 
 denominational existence. On the contrary, such separate 
 existence was the one thing which our founders deeply de- 
 plored, and strove years and years, first to prevent and then 
 to terminate by reunion. They only asked the privilege of 
 believing and teaching, within the Presbyterian Church, the 
 Westminster Confession scripturally interpreted, and they 
 were indifferent as to the mere form of the interpretation. 
 
 Our committee on union with the Presbyterian Church in 
 26 
 
the United States, in 1867, proposed as the basis of union, 
 the Presbyterian name and form of government, and, aher- 
 natively, our Confession of Faith, the Presbyterian Confes- 
 sion modified, or a new one based on the Westminster. The 
 Assembly of 1868 "accepted" the committee's report and 
 thanked its members for their "ability and faithfulness." 
 Throughout our whole history we have manifested a com- 
 parative indifference to our name and the formal statement 
 of our creed, but a consuming desire to increase to a great 
 host, by reunion as well as otherwise, those who should be- 
 lieve and practice and teach its doctrines. Can it be then that 
 reunion is contrary to our constitution when it accomplishes 
 so largely the great purposes of our existence? Can it be 
 that the church abandons herself and forfeits her property, 
 by such a realization of her fondest hopes and most prayerful 
 endeavors? No; Ewing, King and McAdow were not traitors 
 to a cause when they offered to reunite with the mother 
 church on the basis of the old Book scripturally interpreted. 
 Beard, Bird, Burney, Poindexter and Woods, and the General 
 Assembly which approved their report, were not revolution- 
 ists — did not offer to leave the church and join the Presby- 
 terians, when they offered to take the Presbyterian name 
 and Constitution and the modified Presbyterian Confession. 
 The view that the General Assembly, a majority of the pres- 
 byteries and all who do not rebel against their action, are 
 now about to leave the church and join the Presbyterians is 
 of course a view of the matter which, in the exigencies and 
 zeal of debate is to be expected, but it is a view that will 
 vanish with the smoke of the battle. 
 
 Opponents of union cite cases as deciding that a church 
 forfeits the title to its houses of worship if it changes its creed 
 from what it was when the property was acquired. It has 
 been so held in two states, viz. : Iowa and Michigan, but these 
 cases arose in churches which had no constitutional power to 
 change their creeds. Against these stand, however, cases in 
 a number of states and in the Supreme Court of the United 
 States holding that as to no kind of church is this the law. 
 Among them are Watson vs. Jones, 13 Wallace 679; Nance vs. 
 Busby, 91 Tenn. 303 ; Baptist Church vs. Forte, 93 Texas 231 ; 
 Brundage vs. Deardorf, 92 Fed. Rep. 214, and cases therein 
 
 27 
 
cited. The well settled law is that if one gives propertj' to 
 a congregation and specifies in the deed that it is to be used 
 to propagate some named creed, a trust to that effect is 
 created and that a court of equity will by injunction prevent 
 the use of the property to propagate an antagonistic doctrine. 
 The same principle would apply if the deed specified, as the 
 doctrine to be taught, the doctrine of a particular denomina- 
 tion as it existed at the date of the deed. We do not suppose 
 a single title exists in our church where the creed is specified 
 in either of these modes. But it is everywhere decided, ex- 
 cept in the states of Iowa and Michigan, that if the deed does 
 not specify the doctrine to be taught but simply conveys the 
 property for the use of a congregation of a particular de- 
 nomination, no such trust is created, and that no change in 
 the creed will affect the title to the property. As before 
 stated, the Supreme Courts of Iowa and Michigan have held 
 to the contrary, but the Michigan decision (Bear vs. Hensley, 
 98 Mich. 279) arose under the Constitution of the United 
 Brethren which expressly forbade any change in the creed, 
 and the Iowa decision (Mt. Zion Baptist Church vs. Whit- 
 more, 83 Iowa 147) involved a Baptist Church. The Baptists, 
 Congregationalists and Christians, have, as we understand 
 their government, no Constitution, as we have, expressly 
 authorizing a change of creed. The same absence of express 
 power exists in the Free Church of Scotland, as we gather 
 the facts from the House of Lords opinion. We might con- 
 cede that as to such churches the law is as the Michigan and 
 * Iowa courts and the House of Lords decided ; although the 
 overwhelming weight of authority is the other way, still it 
 would have no application to our church. Where one conveys 
 property to a congregation under a presbyterial form of gov- 
 ernment the case is essentially different. The Supreme Court 
 of the United States and other courts so decide. The Con- 
 stitution expressly gives the General Assembly and the pres- 
 byteries the power to amend or change the confession. Who- 
 ever conveys property for the use of a congregation in such 
 a denomination does so with full knowledge that its creed is 
 changeable and must be presumed to intend, unless his deed 
 provides otherwise, that the church shall use the property in 
 any way it may, under its constitution and laws. He im- 
 
 28 
 
pliedly consents to any change in creed which may be lawfully 
 made. No case has been cited in England or America hold- 
 ing that in such a church and under such a Constitution 
 change in creed works a forfeiture of property, and the propo- 
 sition is so unreasonable that we do not hesitate to state that 
 no such decision can be found. 
 
 No court has with more emphasis and clearness, than the 
 Supreme Court of Texas, shown the absurdity of holding that 
 a church may change its creed until it becomes a property 
 owner but the very moment it acquires real estate its con- 
 stitutional power to change is gone except on pain of for- 
 feiture. Such a doctrine as the Supreme Court of Pennsyl- 
 vania says forbids, though it cannot prevent, both the decay 
 of error and the development of truth. The Primitive Bap- 
 tists of Nashville invoked it, we are glad to say unsuccess- 
 fully, in Nance vs. Busby, to perpetuate forever their anti- 
 quated custom of "foot washing" and their amazing doctrine 
 that "missionary undertakings" are unscriptural. If the de- 
 cision of five out of seven law lords in England is per- 
 mitted to stand, property valued at about $65,000,000, must be 
 used forever to propagate the political and ecclesiastical 
 heresy of church establishment and the theological enormity 
 of Predestination. But it will not stand. It overrules the 
 Scottish courts. It has aroused a storm of indignation 
 throughout England and Scotland. The House of Commons 
 has the power to veto it, and we confidently predict that 
 when that house meets six months hence it will exercise the 
 power. But in no event, as the Supreme Court of the United 
 States says, can a decision in England, where state and 
 church are united, have any weight as authority in this coun- 
 try. 
 
 In conclusion we i,ay : Union involves four steps ; change 
 of name, change in statement of creed, change in statement 
 and minor changes in substance of the organic law, and con- 
 solidation of membership and judicatories. Each of these 
 steps the Assembly and presbyteries have the power to take. 
 They have been taken or are being taken in a constitutional 
 way. The consolidated church, as the legal successor of the 
 two denominations, will be legally entitled to all of the 
 property formerly owned by either. 
 
 29 
 
SEPARATION OF THE RACES. 
 
 Under the laws governing the Presbyterian Church no pres- 
 bytery or synod can occupy part of the territory of another 
 presbytery or synod. Some difficulty has been experienced 
 with this rule, growing out of the existence of churches of 
 colored persons and their ministers. It was not possible to 
 fix a territory in which all the churches should be attended 
 by white people and all the ministers be white, or a territory 
 in which all the churches should be attended by colored 
 people and all the ministers be colored. In order to put the 
 ministers and churches of the white race into one presbytery 
 or synod, and the ministers and churches of the colored race 
 into one presbytery or synod, territorial lines would have to 
 be disregarded and a presbytery composed of ministers and 
 churches of the white race occupy the same territory, or a 
 part of the same territory, as a presbytery having under its 
 charge churches and ministers of the colored race: Now, in 
 order to accomplish this, the following was proposed by the 
 Union Committee : 
 
 "It is recommended that such a change be made in the form 
 of government of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States of America as will allow additional or separate presby- 
 teries or synods to be organized in exceptional cases, wholly 
 or in part within the territorial bounds of existing presby- 
 teries or synods respectively, for a particular race or nation- 
 ality, if desired by such race or nationality." 
 
 It is conceded that ministers and churches of the colored 
 race may under such a change in the law ask for the erection 
 of a separate presbytery having in charge only colored 
 churches and ministers, yet it is doubted whether churches 
 and ministers of the white race can ask for a presbytery or 
 synod which will be exclusively composed of white churches 
 and ministers. The ground for such doubt is not readily 
 perceived. 
 
 30 
 
The purpose of the change being to allow a separation, 
 there is no more reason why the churches and ministers of 
 the colored race shall have the exclusive right to initiate the 
 movement than there is to argue that the churches and min- 
 isters of the white race shall have the sole right to initiate 
 the movement. The right being clearly giyen to organize two 
 presbyteries or two synods occupying in whole or in part the 
 same territory — one presbytery or synod to be for the white 
 race, and the other presbytery or synod to be for the colored 
 race — no distinction, either in language or reason, can be 
 drawn between the right of one race and the right of the other 
 to ask for such separate establishment. The language "par- 
 ticular race'' obviously as much refers to the white race as 
 it does to the colored race. 
 
 A simple analogy occurs. The Fifteenth Amendment pro- 
 vides : "The right of citizens of the United States to vote 
 shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by 
 any state on account of race, color or previous condition of 
 servitude." 
 
 Now, we all know that this was designed to prevent the 
 denial of the right of suffrage to persons of the colored race, 
 but the law, like all laws, upon being passed is necessarily and 
 properly put in general terms ; so that no one would deny 
 that if one of the Southern states were to come under the 
 control of colored voters it would be incompetent for such 
 state to pass any law depriving white people of the right to 
 vote. The amendment would apply in that case as well as in 
 the other case. 
 
 The illustration seems to us to be very much weaker than 
 the case before us. In our case the purpose was to allow a 
 separation and to permit that to be done which was necessary 
 to be done to accomplish a separation, namely, the organiza- 
 tion of presbyteries or synods which should be in whole or in 
 part within the territorial bounds of another presbytery or 
 synod. The language "if desired by such race or nationality" 
 would, considering the history of the case, be much more 
 certainly applicable to the white race than to the colored race. 
 It was on account of the desire of the white race to have 
 separate presbyteries or synods that the change was proposed. 
 It was expected that it would be the white race which would 
 
 31 
 
wish to organize the separate presbytery or synod. How, 
 therefore, it can be now argued that the desire must come 
 from the colored race, when it was well known that it existed 
 especially in the white race, is not perceptible. The language 
 of the Buffalo Assembly concerning separate presbyteries 
 carries out this view. Thus, speaking of the amendment, it 
 says : "Such an amendment, if adopted, would give equal 
 liberty to white and colored churches in cases in which a 
 separate presbyterial organization was deemed wise and neces- 
 sary." Now, there cannot be equal liberty to white and 
 colored churches if one of them only can ask to have a sepa- 
 rate establishment. 
 
 The amendment recommended by the Special Committee 
 to the Buffalo Assembly, and which was adopted by that 
 body, is as follows : "In the exceptional cases a presbytery 
 may be organized within the boundaries of existing presby- 
 teries, in the interests of ministers and churches speaking 
 other than the English language, or of those of a particular 
 race, but in no case without their consent." This was after- 
 wards amended so as to provide for separate synods also. 
 
 In one respect, as least, the amendment proposed by the 
 Special Committee of the Buffalo Assembly may be said to be 
 an improvement on recommendation No. i of the joint com- 
 mittee, for it gives to the judicatory by whose legislative 
 action the separate presbytery or synod may be organized, 
 the right to begin the proceeding necessary to effect the sepa- 
 ration without awaiting a request from either race. In other 
 words its language confers upon such judicatory authority 
 to inaugurate the movement for separation, and to determine 
 the necessity therefor, though the power to consummate it 
 cannot be exercised without the consent of the race in whose 
 interest it is inaugurated. To illustrate, the General As- 
 sembly could not consummate the organization of a separate 
 synod in the interest of the white race in a certain territory 
 without the consent of the white race in that territory, nor 
 in the interest of the colored race without the consent of the 
 colored race. The evident purpose is to prevent a separation 
 being forced on Northern presbyteries or synods where the 
 white people in that synod or presbytery might not want a 
 separation. 
 
 32 
 
There is, however, in the language of the amendment, noth- 
 ing that will interfere with the right of either race to take 
 the initiative, as either may, by memorial or other proper 
 means, carry the matter before the governing judicatory for 
 it3 action. 
 
 Upon the other hand, the language of recommendation 
 No. I apparently contemplates that in no case would the 
 governing judicatory be authorized to act, without first receiv- 
 ing from one of the races, some expression of their desire 
 for the creation of the separate presbytery or synod. 
 
 It may be asked, "What is meant by the expression 'Ex- 
 ceptional Cases?'" We might imagine the existence of many 
 conditions which would constitute an exceptional case ; but 
 where it is found that a presbytery or synod embraces terri- 
 tory containing both white and colored ministers and churches 
 that fact alone, considering the friction likely to result from 
 the affiliation of the two races, and the probability of dis- 
 turbances growing out of anything like an attempt on the part 
 of the negroes at social equality with the whites, would, 
 prima facie, constitute an "exceptional" case in the meaning 
 of the new law. Indeed, one of the first things to be done, 
 following the consummation of union, will be the arranging 
 of the presbyterial and synodical boundaries to meet the 
 changed conditions. Thus at the very beginning of the new 
 era, the matter of the presbyterial and synodical segregation 
 of the two races can and will be adjusted without friction or 
 disturbance. 
 
 It is true there is nothing in the proposed amendment that 
 will exclude presbyteries of the colored race from representa- 
 tion in the General Assembly of the re-united church, but 
 the affiliation resulting therefrom will be casual, and too re- 
 mote to be conducive of social equality, occasion disquietude, 
 or even produce actual contact. 
 
 The plan of separate presbyteries and synods here proposed 
 has long been in vogue in the Southern Presbyterian Church, 
 and we have yet to hear of any embarrassment resulting to 
 that church growing out of its relations with the colored race. 
 
 33 
 
THE PROSPECTIVE STATUS OF THE "UNDER- 
 GRADUATE" MINISTERS. 
 
 The basis of union secures for all ministers of our church 
 full ecclesiastical standing and all the formal recognition in 
 the united church, which is accorded them in our church now. 
 The second of the Concurrent Declarations, which ought to 
 meet every reasonable demand, reads as follows : "All the 
 ministers and churches included in the two denominations 
 shall be admitted to the same standing in the united church 
 which they have held in their respective connections up to 
 the consummation of the reunion.'.' This insures for all min- 
 isters of our church who are in good and regular standing at 
 the time of the consummation of the union, equal ecclesiastical 
 standing and recognition with the most honored and most 
 widely known ministers of the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 There is absolutely nothing in the practices of the Presby- 
 terian Church to warrant the assumption that our ministers 
 "who have never rubbed their backs against a college wall" — 
 to borrow the inelegant phrase of another — will be dis- 
 criminated against. In the first place, we have very few 
 ministers in active service to whom this description applies. 
 Not one of our ministers need feel that the door of oppor- 
 tunity to service will be closed against him. A larger per 
 cent than most of us think, of the active ministers in the 
 Presbyterian Church would be greatly embarrassed if they 
 were required to produce college and seminary diplomas. 
 They do not possess them. That church has succeeded better 
 than some others in maintaining a high standard of minis- 
 terial education, but its practice has been to give the fullest 
 recognition to ministerial efficiency regardless of the processes 
 through which such efficiency may have been acquired. It 
 would be easy to name very efficient Presbyterian ministers 
 in all sections of the country whose preparation for the min- 
 
 34 
 
istry has not squared in every particular with the require- 
 ments of the Constitution. After all, the final test of stand- 
 ing in the ministry in that church, as in our own, is not the 
 possession of a diploma or two, or the right to attach a string 
 of terminal initials to one's name, but, in high places as well 
 as in low places, it is efficiency. 
 
 It would be an easy matter to cite numerous instances in 
 which men who were rendering only mediocre service in our 
 church have gone into the Presbyterian Church and have 
 stood in far more representative positions and rendering much 
 wider service than would have been possible if they had re- 
 mained with us. Few comparatively of these have been col- 
 lege-bred men. Some of the great pulpits of the Presby- 
 terian Church are bemg filled by them. In the most striking 
 instances of this sort the ordination of these men had been, 
 even with us, rather "extraordinary cases." It must not be 
 forgotten that our own standard of ministerial education is 
 not lowered every time a prominent candidate for ordination, 
 who has not met the requirements, appears upon the scene. 
 
 It is not an exaggeration to say that there is scarcely 
 another church in America in which it is so difficult to achieve 
 and maintain success in the ministry as in the Cumberland 
 Presbyterian Church. Account for it as we may, the fact is 
 nevertheless true that the opportunities for ministerial service 
 open to uneducated men are comparatively few and these are 
 becoming less numerous every day. Our more prominent con- 
 gregations now insist very strenuously upon adequate educa- 
 tional preparation, as well as spiritual qualification, for those 
 whom they invite to their pulpits. 
 
 Opportunities for ministerial service in our church are re- 
 stricted. Outside the country and village congregations the 
 field is comparatively small. Though we have very nearly 
 reached the centennial anniversary of our organization and we 
 occupy territory in which scores of cities have sprung up, 
 we are strangers in the greater number of these cities. In 
 a few we have struggling, hard-pressed congregations. In 
 cities of 100,000 and upward our chief effort seems to be to 
 "hold our own." Really in no proper sense of the word are 
 we prosecuting a mission work in cities that is really mis- 
 sionary in its character. Our part, therefore, in solving the 
 
 35 
 
vexed problems which these congested centers of population 
 present, is infinitesimal. Among the vast hordes of for- 
 eigners who are coming to our shores we are practically un- 
 known. In a small way a very humble beginning has been 
 made in work among our 3,000,000 of American highlanders. 
 From many great fields of religious effort the Cumberland 
 Presbyterian minister is practically excluded. Over against 
 this condition of things there should be set out plainly before 
 us the great variety of effort in which we shall be glad to 
 share after the consummation of Presbyterian union. This 
 varied effort among all classes and conditions of men, in the 
 farming communities, in the villages, in the great cities — 
 both "uptown" and "downtown," among the vast destitute 
 mountain people, in behalf of the millions of foreigners, 
 makes it possible for the reunited church to use every atom of 
 talent that offers itself for service. One witness that we have 
 to these facts is the action of the Presbyterian General As- 
 sembly of 1903 in providing for the work and licensure of 
 "local evangelists," who, after four years of approved service 
 in the ministry, ma}' become eligible to ordination though 
 they may not have "rubbed their backs against college walls." 
 
 36 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 ANIJ AFTER THE UNION, WHAT? 
 
 Merely increased activity and usefulness, that is all. Union 
 will not affect in any way hurlfully any zealous Cumberland 
 Presbyterian, individual or congregation. Preachers will go 
 on preaching the same doctrines they have always preached, 
 and will continue seeking the salvation of the lost just as they 
 have been doing, the only difference being that more fellow- 
 members of the same church will be in prayerful sympathy 
 with them than before. In a few instances local churches 
 will be merged, but not without their consent and never until 
 the presbyteries act. In most of our denominational territory 
 Cumberland Presbyterians far outnumber the Presbyterians 
 with whom it is proposed to unite ; and the control of the 
 united church in such localities will not even "change hands.'" 
 Cumberland Presbyterians will become Presbyterians in name 
 as they already, since the revision, are Presbyterians in faith ; 
 but former Cumberland Presbyterian churches can continue 
 to employ their old pastors without the slightest interference 
 from the outside ; and former Cumberland Presbyterian min- 
 isters will in no case be required by anybody or any authority 
 either to change their ecclesiastical standing or pastoral 
 charges. The same members will constitute the churches and 
 church sessions ; the same pastors and elders, with a few 
 white ministers and elders from the Presbyterian Church 
 added, will compose the presbyteries and synods, the very 
 names of the churches, presbyteries and synods being retained 
 with but few exceptions along the northern, western and 
 eastern borders of the denomination. The same schools will 
 continue to live and grow ; the same missions and missionaries 
 will be supported, except where co-operation is for the evident 
 benefit of the cause of religion ; — in a word union will make 
 no important change that is not for mutual advantage, and 
 
 37 
 
for the manifest glory of God. It -.vill require no emigra- 
 tions and call for no immigrations. No compulsory moving is 
 to be attempted, and no humiliation of any kind is to be suf- 
 fered by Cumberland Presbyterian. Changing the name of a 
 house does not mean that the inmates must move out or that 
 others unbidden will move in. 
 
 Union will call for the removal of no necessary wheel from 
 any church's machinery — it will simply take away hindering 
 friction. 
 
 38 
 
p:ndorsement supplement 
 
 The following names have Ijeen received since the foregoing pages went 
 to press: 
 
 MINISTERS. 
 
 J. H. 
 .Ino. 
 L. J. 
 J. B. 
 M. E 
 S. H. 
 J. A. 
 L.N. 
 W. .1 
 
 WoPFORD, Denison, Tex. 
 T. Price, R. R. 6, Columbia, Tenn. 
 Coats, South McAlester, I. T. 
 
 Latimer, Benedict, Kan. 
 . Gabard, Santa Fe, Tenn. 
 
 Buchanan, Stephenville, Tex. 
 
 Ward, Stanford, Tex. 
 
 . Montgomery, Louisiana, Mo. 
 
 . Fisher, San Francisco. Cal. 
 
 F. .1. Stowe, Lebanon, Tenn. 
 L. B. Gray, West Point, Miss. 
 W. J. Willis, Bethany, Mo. 
 W. D. Wear, Ft. Worth, Tex. 
 .JosKHiius Lathom, Dexter, Mo. 
 W. H. BuNTiN, Nesbit, Miss. 
 T. N. Hunt, Clarendon, Ark. 
 K. N. Ai.i.EN, Portland, Gre. 
 
 RULINC; ELDERS. 
 
 L. M. Rice, Louisville, Ky. 
 E. P. .Jones, South McAlester, I. T. 
 W. G. D. Hinds, South McAlester, I. T. 
 M. H. Braly, South McAlester, I. T. 
 W. .J. Hopkins, West Point, Miss. 
 Warrie Kilpatrick, West Point, Miss. 
 Chas. E. Freeman, Alton, 111. 
 J. G. Richmond, College Mound, Mo. 
 Dr. J. C. McClurkin, Elvansville, Iiul. 
 W. B. .Johnson, Stamford, Tox. 
 M. W. Neal, Louisville. Ky. 
 
 .James White, Stamford, Tex. 
 
 D. E. Wilson, Nesbitt, Mi.«s. 
 B. Mosely, West Point, Miss. 
 
 T. M. Mosely, West Point, Miss. 
 
 E. E. Beard, I.ebanon, Tenn. 
 W. I'i. Settle, Frankfort, Ky. 
 W. A. McRae, College Mound, M< 
 W. P. Black, Crider, Ky. 
 
 L. M. BtiiE, Stamford, Tex. 
 .J. E. Moody, Stamford, Tex. 
 .L H. Merney. Santa Fe, Tenn. 
 
 39 
 
/2.,'2-%.0?- 
 
 1^^ PRINCETON, N. J. ^^ 
 
 Presented by~~^v-'<S-3\^^e'VA-V \ c7.-WoN-\ 
 
 Division 
 Sec/ion