From the time of the
Inauguration of Dri Baxter the attention of the Virginia Synod, and the
Synods further south, was turned with increasing earnestness, and
deepening interest, to the questions that were agitating the more
northern portions of the church. It became from time to time manifest
that the tendencies exhibited by the two speakers at the Inauguration
were becoming currents, whose direction and power might not be easily
defined. Delegates from the Presbyteries to the Assembly were compelled
by virtue of their office to hear the overtures, and complaints, and
appeals laid before the highest court in the Presbyterian Church, and
pass sentence as responsible officers of the Church of Christ. And, in
some of the ways recognized in the form of government, all these
subjects in dispute were laid before the assembled delegates.
1st. THE EXAMINATION OF
MINISTERS.
In the General Assembly
of 1832, the month succeeding Dr. Baxter’s inauguration, a reference
from the Synod of Philadelphia, in, relation to the right of
Presbyteries to require every minister or licentiate, coming to them by
certificate from another Presbytery, or other ecclesiastical body, to
submit to an examination before he could be received, was presented and
read, and after considerable discussion was committed to Dr. Hill, Dr.
Spring, Mr. Baird, Dr. M’Pheeters, and Mr. Wisner. Drs. Green and Beman,
were afterwards added. This committee reported and re-reported, and
after much discussion the matter was indefinitely postponed. On the one
side it was claimed that such examination was the inalienable right of
Presbytery in order to know the doctrinal opinions of those offering to
become members; and that its exercise was peculiarly necessary at a time
abounding in innovations in the doctrines, and forms, and practices of
the church. On the other side it was replied, that a certificate of
membership and good standing had hitherto been a passport from one
Presbytery to another, and a change now would be an assumption of
authority, and an expression of suspicion not called for by any of the
circumstances of the church. In 1834, this matter was brought again to
the notice of the Assembly, by a memorial sent up by sundry Presbyteries
and Sessions, and signed also by about 18 ministers, and 100 elders in
their individual capacity. The report of the committee, of which the
Rev. James H. C. Leach was chairman, was adopted, declaring — “that a
due regard to the order of the church and the bonds of brotherhood,
require that ministers dismissed in good standing by sister
Presbyteries, should be received by the Presbyteries they are dismissed
to join, upon credit of their testimonials, unless they shall have
forfeited their good standing subsequently to their dismissal.” In the
succeeding year, 1835, the same subject was brought before the Assembly
by memorial and petition, and the report of the committee of which Dr.
Miller of Princeton, was chairman, was adopted, by yeas 130, nays 78,
affirming “the right of every Presbytery to be entirely satisfied of the
soundness in the faith, and the good character in every respect, of
those ministers who apply to be admitted into the Presbytery, as
members, and who bring testimonials of good standing from sister
Presbyteries, or from foreign bodies with whom the Presbyterian Church
is in correspondence. And if there be any reasonable doubt respecting
the proper qualifications of such candidates, notwithstanding their
testimonials, it is the right, and may be the duty of such a Presbytery
to examine them, or to take such other methods of being satisfied in
regard to their suitable character, as may be judged proper; and if such
satisfaction be not obtained, to decline receiving them.” This
discussion renewed from time to time had the form of an abstraction, but
the effect was practically evincing the existence of different views of
theological subjects in the Presbyterian Church, and a growing
conviction of the necessity of drawing the line of distinction.
2nd. THE CHURCHES FORMED
ON THE PLAN OF UNION.
The plan of union between
Presbyterians and Congregationalistg in the new settlements adopted in
1801, by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, and the
General Association of Connecticut, for the convenience of the new
settlements, in forming churches and obtaining pastors, after having
been in operation about thirty years, became the subject of enquiry and
discussion in connection with the disputed matters already agitating the
Church. In 1831, the committee on commissions reported, “a commission
from Grand River for a member of a standing committee instead of a
Ruling Elder.” After considerable discussion the person named in the
commission was enrolled among the list of members. Mr. Robert J.
Breckenridge, a Ruling Elder from West Lexington Presbytery, on the
ninth day of the session, entered a protest against the decision of the
Assembly, by which the standing committee-man was admitted as a regular
member of the Assembly, and also against the right of said committee-man
to sit in that body.
This plan of union was
contained in four articles prepared for the convenience of new
settlements on the frontiers, now the heart of the State of New York;
and as the frontiers moved westwardly, by tacit consent the plan of
union, having been expressed in general terms, was applied to the
congregations gathered among emigrants, from different sections of
country, settling in the same or convenient neighborhoods.
Article 1st. It is
strictly enjoined on all their missionaries to the new settlements, to
endeavor, by all proper means, to promote mutual forbearance and
accommodation, between those inhabitants of the new settlements who hold
the Presbyterian and those who hold the Congregational form of Church
Government.
Article 2nd. In the new
settlements, any Church of the Congregational order shall settle a
minister of the Presbyterian order, that Church may, if they choose,
still conduct their discipline according to Congregational principles,
settling their difficulties among themselves, or by a council mutually
agreed upon for that purpose; But if any difficulty shall exist between
the minister and the Church or any member of it, it shall be referred to
the-Presbytery to which the minister shall belong, provided both parties
agree, to it; if not, to a council consisting of an equal number of
Presbyterians and Congregationalists, agreed upon by both parties.
Article 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 Congregationalists
and the other half Presbyterians, mutually agreed on by the parties.
Article 4th. If any
congregation consist partly of those who hold the Congregational form of
discipline, and partly of those who hold the Presbyterian form, we
recommend to both parties, that this be no obstruction to their uniting
in one Church and settling a minister; and that in this case the Church
choose a standing committee from the 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 conduct; and if the person condemned by their
judgment be a Presbyterian, he shall have liberty to appeal to the
Presbytery''; if a Congregationalist, he shall have liberty to appeal to
the body 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. 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.
The protest of Mr.
Breckenridge affirmed that the articles of agreement on which this
committee-man claimed a seat, stipulated for a seat for such a person
only in the Session and Presbytery; and as these persons were not Elders
or Bishops, they could have no constitutional right to a seat* in any
judicatory, nor any conventional right farther than the strict import of
the terms of the agreement. Without discussing the constitutionality of
the articles as interpreted — the protest declared—“if, however, they
are so construed as to place members here, who are by our constitution
forbidden to be here, or as in any degree to affect the principles of
the organization of this house as clearly defined in our books, then it
is manifest that the articles must be considered utterly null and void.”
Sixty-six members of Assembly united with Mr. Breckenridge in this
protest. Two days after, the assembly resolved, 44 That in the opinion
of the General Assembly, the appointment by some Presbyteries, as has
occurred in a few cases, of members of standing committees to be members
of the General Assembly, is inexpedient, and of questionable
constitutionality, and therefore in future ought not to be made.”
A fruitful subject of
discussion was now opened, involving deep feeling, and important
consequences to the Presbyterian Church. In 1852, a motion was made to
cite the Western Reserve Synod, to appear before the next Assembly to
answer to the charge of neglecting the Confession of Faith; that persons
were licensed to preach, and were ordained as pastors and evangelists
without being required to receive the Confession of Faith; — and for
suffering the office of Ruling Elder to go into disuse to a great extent
throughout the bounds of that Synod. "The Assembly directed that Synod
to review and examine the state of the Presbyteries and churches under
its care, and make a report to the next General Assembly, with a special
reference to these points.” The Synod reported next year that there was
no ground of complaint. In 1884, the Report of a committee, on a
memorial declaring, “ that it is deemed inexpedient and undesirable to
abrogate or interfere with the plan of union between Presbyterians and
Congregationalisms in the new settlements entered into in 1801,” was
adopted. And with regard to the habit of sending out young men to the
west and other places, to labor in the bounds of existing presbyteries,
with ordination sine titulo, the Assembly recommended earnestly to the
presbyteries to refrain from such procedure; and the ecclesiastical
bodies in connexion with the Assembly were respectfully invited to
concur.
In 1835, the committee on
a memorial, Dr. Miller, of Princeton, chairman, proposed, that—"This
Assembly deem it no longer desirable that Churches be formed in our
Presbyterian connexion, agreeably to the plan of union of
1801.—Wherefore 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. And Resolved, That the annulling
of said plan shall not in any wise interfere with the existence and
lawful operation of Churches which have been already formed on this
plan.”
3d. THE CASE OF REV.
ALBERT BARNES.
In the spring of the year
1830, the Rev. Albert Barnes, pastor of the Church in Morristown, New
Jersey, was elected pastor of the 1st Presbyterian Church in
Philadelphia, to succeed Dr. J. P. Wilson, resigned. The commissioner of
the Congregation appeared before the Presbytery of Philadelphia, on the
30th of April, and asked leave to prosecute the call, in the usual way.
Dr. Ashbel Green declared that before he could give consent, he must
have some satisfactory explanation. He had read a sermon recently
published by Mr. Barnes, entitled u The Way of Salvation,” and to the
views of the doctrines of Original Sin, and of Atonement, he objected;
and also to the want of the doctrine of Justification by Faith, in a
sermon which professed to show the whole scheme of Salvation. The
discussions that followed were, in various forms^ protracted through
four days. Leave to prosecute the call was finally granted, by a vote of
21 to 12. On the 18th of June, Mr. Barnes was present at an intermediate
meeting of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, and presented his certificate
of good standing, and dismission, and recommendation, from the
Presbytery of Elizabethtown. A protracted discussion on his reception,
embracing various points of order and opinions, as to the proper method
of procedure in the present case, was decided by yeas 30, nays 16; the
charges presented against the soundness of faith of the applicant,
intended to arrest his entering on the proposed pastoral office, being
pronounced out of order, at a meeting of Presbytery called for a special
purpose; and a time was appointed, and preparations made for Mr. Barnes’
installation. At the appointed time he was inducted to the pastoral
office.
The minority complained
to the Synod of Philadelphia, of the proceedings of the Presbytery,
particularly in refusing to hear the charges against Mr. Barnes. The
Synod directed the Presbytery to hear and decide upon the objections
which the minority had to the orthodoxy of a sermon of Mr. Barnes. In
obedience to the order of Synod, the Presbytery met on Tuesday, the 30th
of November, 1830. After much discussion, a minute condemnatory of the
sentiments of the sermon was passed by a small majority; and a committee
appointed to converse with Mr. Barnes on the subject matter of the
sermon. The whole case was carried up to the General Assembly of 1831,
by appeal, by reference, and by complaint. On Thursday, the 26th of May,
Mr. Barnes’ case came before the Assembly, on the 27th—“ the whole
proceedings of the Presbytery, in the case complained of, and the
printed sermon of Mr. Barnes, entitled ‘The Way of Salvation,’ which led
to these proceedings, were read. In the P. M.—the considerations of the
complaint of the minority of the Presbytery of Philadelphia was resumed;
and their complaint was read. The parties then agreed to submit the case
to the Assembly without argument, when it was Resolved, to refer the
whole case to a select committee.” Dr. Miller, of Princeton, was
chairman; and on Monday, 30th, in the afternoon, the committee made
report— “that after bestowing upon the case the most deliberate and
serious consideration—they would recommend the adoption of the following
resolutions:”—In the first the committee say—“While it judges that the
sermon by Mr. Barnes, entitled ‘ The Way of Salvation,’ contains a
number of unguarded and objectionable passages; yet is of the opinion,
that, especially after the explanations which were given by him of those
passages, the Presbytery ought to have suffered the whole to pass
without further notice.” The second suspends further action in the
case—and the third recommends a division of the Presbytery. These
resolutions adopted by the Assembly, appeared satisfactory to both
parties generally:—on the one side, it was thought the rebuke of the
erroneous passages in the sermon was sufficient; and on the other that
the main bearing of the sermon was sustained, and the reproof fell on
unguarded expressions. And such was the harmony, that the minutes say—“
The Assembly having finished the business in relation to Mr. Barnes,
united in special prayer, returning thanks to God for the harmonious
result to which they have come; and imploring the blessing of God on
their decision.” The division of Presbytery which followed, gave rise to
the vexed question of “Elective Affinity,” which in succeeding years
found its way to the Assembly in various forms.
Mr. Barnes, in the course
of his pastoral labors, prepared and published, for the use of Bible
Classes and Sunday-schools, a short Commentary on the Gospels in
succession, and on the Acts of the Apostles. These were popular, and
widely circulated. No particular objection was made to the doctrine of
his commentaries, until the volume on the Epistle to the Romans
appeared. Great dissatisfaction was speedily expressed from various
quarters, and the proposition was earnestly discussed in every
direction, whether a book containing objectionable doctrine should be
condemned as unsound, before the author was arraigned for unsoundness;
or whether, on the other hand, the author should be judged by the
sentiments of his book, and should alone be condemned or acquitted.
After much had been said and written on the subject of the sentiments
contained in the Commentary on the Romans, Rev. George Junkin, President
of the College in Easton, Pennsylvania, under date of March 18th, 1835,
sent to the Second Presbytery of Philadelphia a letter, stating his
feelings and views generally, on the subject of difference between the
opinions of Mr. Barnes, and what he understood as the orthodox meaning
of the standards of the Presbyterian Church, and with it a series of
charges against Mr. Barnes, as teaching false doctrine; having
previously invited him to a friendly discussion on the subject, and
adjudication by Presbytery, which invitation had been respectfully
declined. The charges were ten: First. What he teaches wrong. “Rev.
Albert Barnes is hereby charged with maintaining the following
doctrines, contrary to the standards of the Presbyterian Church. That
all sin consists in voluntary action; that Adam, before and after his
fall, was ignorant of his moral relations to such a degree, that he did
not know the consequences of his sin would or should reach any further
than to natural death; that unregenerate men are able to keep the
commandments, and convert themselves to God; that faith is an act of the
mind, and not a principle, and is itself imputed for righteousness.
Second. The doctrines he denies, which are taught in the standards of
the Church: he denies that God entered into covenant with Adam,
constituting him a federal or covenant head, and representative of
natural descendants; that the first sin of Adam is imputed to his
posterity; that mankind are guilty, i. e. liable to punishment, on
account of the sin of Adam; that Christ suffered the proper penalty of
the law, as the vicarious substitute of his people, and thus took away
legally their sins, and purchased pardon; that the righteousness, i, e.
the active obedience of Christ to the law, is imputed to his people for
their justification, so that they are righteous in the eyes of the law,
and therefore justified; and Mr. Barnes also teaches, in opposition to
the standards, that justification is simple pardon.” Mr. Junkin gave
specifications from the work on the Romans, and added that Mr. Barnes
taught the first, second, third, fourth and tenth, contrary to the
Scriptures, and denied the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth,
contrary to the word of God.
The Presbytery declined
acting on this letter and the charges, in the^ absence of Mr. Junkin;
and an adjourned meeting was commenced, June 30th, for the purpose of
disposing of the business. After many preliminary discussions, the case
was argued in full, by Mr. Junkin and Mr. Barnes; Mr. Junkin arguing
that Mr. Barnes was culpable, for publishing in his book errors on those
ten particulars ; and Mr. Barnes explaining some things as having a very
legitimate meaning, in consonance with the standards; defending others,
as having no departure from sound words; and on the subject of
imputation, explaining and showing that he had made some alterations in
his book, which removed all mistake or misapprehension. The decision of
the Second Presbytery of Philadelphia was in favor of Mr. Barnes,
eighteen voting him not guilty on any of the charges, and three voting
him guilty on part, or all. “ The Presbytery therefore judge, that the
charges have not been maintained ; and they moreover judge that the
Christian spirit manifested by the prosecutor, during the progress of
the trial, renders it inexpedient that the Presbytery should inflict any
censure on him.”
From this decision, Mr.
Junkin appealed to Synod. In October of the same year, the case came up
regularly, and, after much preliminary discussion, the whole subject of
error and defence was gone over before Synod. The decision of Synod was
against Mr. Barnes; and consequently he was suspended from the office of
the ministry.
The case came before the
General Assembly in May, 1836, at Pittsburg, by appeal and complaint of
Mr. Barnes, and also by appeal and complaint of some others; all of
which were taken up together, as requiring but one discussion. The trial
was protracted through a large portion of the session, being discussed,
more or less, eleven days. The appeal was sustained by 134 to 96; and
the decision of the Synod of Philadelphia, suspending him from the
office of the gospel ministry, was reversed —145 to 78. The Rev. Dr.
Miller, of Princeton, proposed a resolution, the purport of which was,
that Mr. Barnes’ Notes on the Romans were at variance with the
Confession of Faith, on the subjects of original sin, the relation of
man to Adam, justification by faith, and the atoning sacrifice and
righteousness of the Redeemer; that he had controverted the language of
our standards in a reprehensible manner ; that, although he had removed
fr«m his book, or modified many reprehensible passages, Mr. Barnes be
admonished to review the book, to modify still further the statements
which have grieved his brethren, and be more careful, in time to come,
to study the purity and peace of the church. This resolution was
rejected by 122 to 109: three declined voting.
During the progress of
Mr. Barnes’ case before the different tribunals, the trial of Dr.
Beecher before the Presbytery of Cincinnati, on the charges brought by
Dr. J. L. Wilson, of Cincinnati, for heresy, slander, and hypocrisy,
took place, and the same general ground of doctrine was gone over there
in an extended discussion. Reports of these trials were widely
circulated and carefully read, and the community was deeply agitated, if
not fully informed on the doctrines involved. In the course of these
trials all the questions of order, or discipline, or doctrine, that
agitated the church, were involved, either as circumstantials or
essentials. The spirit of discussion and division, of excitement and
jealousy, spread over the whole church with more or less bitterness, and
were found in the prayer-meeting, the lecture-room, the pulpit, and the
revival. It began to be apparent to all that there must be a cessation
of hostilities by compromise and concession, or by triumph in debate, or
by division. Of the first there was little prospect; of the other two,
the latter was more probable, though difficult. Compromise, with
thanksgiving to God, in the Assembly, had been tried in vain; decision,
after debate, in Synod, had been followed by a counter decision in
Assembly, and in that highest judicatory the decision of one year, by
the delegates of the church, was followed by a counter decision, by
other delegates, in a succeeding Assembly. The discussions seemed to be
ended, or continued only in vain repetitions, and peace was looked for
in vain except in the submission of one party, or by elective affinity
divisions.
4th. THE CAUSE OF FOREIGN
MISSIONS.
From an early period of
her existence the Presbyterian Church was engaged in preaching the
gospel to the heathen tribes in America. At. times she had cause to
rejoice greatly over the measure of success granted to her efforts,
which were never equal to the importance of the cause or her own
dignity. The Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assembly, particularly
the Synod of Virginia, had taken order on the subject, and pious
individuals had come cheerfully to the work. There are many names on the
list of Indian missionaries that ought not to pass from the memory of
the church. Private associations had been formed, embracing churches,
and members of churches, of the Presbyterian denomination, in some of
its numerous divisions, whose efforts to evangelize the Indian tribes
were energetic, but not under the supervision of any judicatory of the
Presbyterian Church. The formation of the American Board of
Commissioners for Foreign Missions, by the Congregationalists of New
England, was an epoch in the history of the Church of Christ. It was the
first organized effort of the American churches to send the gospel to
the heathen of the eastern continentlv It met with great favor. Some
felt their obligations to preach the gospel to every creature, and made
donations to the Board that was sending messengers to the land of
darkness; others sympathized with what seemed a>heroic effort of
benevolence for the civilization of the race, and gave money. The
operations of the Board were enlarged, and the feelings of the church
were more deeply enlisted. The united efforts of Christian people were
called for, and given cheerfully, to carry on the annually enlarging
labors of that active and prudent Board. Wisdom in council, and energy
in action, and success in effort, marked the progress of the foreign
missionary enterprise, and won the confidence of the Congregational and
Presbyterian churches. In a series of years, there was so much to
admire, and so little to blame, in the management of the Board, that all
contributions from the Presbyterians, or nearly so, made for the spread
of the gospel in heathen nations and tribes, were sent to the American
Board. The children of the Presbyterian Church that desired the life of
a missionary, were sent forth under her direction. The different foreign
missionary associations were either dissolved or had become its
auxiliaries, and the missions among the aborigines generally committed
to its supervision.
The spirit of nationality
pervaded the Presbyterian Church in all its benevolent efforts. She
united heartily in the Bible Society, and hailed every association
formed for its aid, and shared with entire confidence the management of
its concerns with all denominations that desired to be engaged. She took
a leading part in the Colonization Society, and united on the broadest
principles with all associations for its support. She did the same with
the Tract Society, and the Sunday School. For some years this union of
effort added strength to the cause, and was a blessedness to all
engaged. The question was proposed, Could there not be a union, at least
with the Congregational and Presbyterian churches, in the cause of
education for the ministry, and in domestic missions? There were many
advocates. There were many objectors. The Assembly never relinquished
the oversight of those Christian labors, though she pursued them
languidly for some years. The American Education Society, under its
admirable secretary, Cornelius, had many warm supporters in the
Presbyterian Church; and the Home Missionary Society, under the skilful
management of an able Board in New York, aspired to be the channel of
domestic missions, as the American Board was of foreign missions. After
full discussion, the General Assembly resolved to pursue the education
cause and the domestic missionary effort with renewed zeal, and took the
proper steps to ensure success. In both these causes her progress has
been in some measure becoming the magnitude of the interests involved,
and other names besides the departed Breckenridge and M’Dowell are
embalmed in the heart of the church for everlasting remembrance.
In the progress of events
the enquiry arose, Ought not the Presbyterian Church, with her extensive
borders, her strength of numbers, and her abundant resources, to engage
in the work of preaching the gospel to every creature, in a manner more
fitting her accountability? and the universal answer from every quarter,
within and without the church, reproved her sluggishness. The next
enquiry s was, Could sha ever accomplish as much through the American
Board, with all its acknowledged excellences, as by an independent
organization ? This question was debated, with intense earnestness, by
the best, the wisest, and the weakest in the church. It became
intermingled with the excitements about doctrines, and practice, and
revivals, which were agitating the Christian community everywhere. And
the discussion about foreign missions was carried on with a temper and
spirit sufficiently energetic, but not always becoming the gospel of
love.
The Rev. John II. Rice,
Professor in Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, a man by the habits
of his mind, and his opportunities of observation while agent for the
seminary, the best qualified to understand the geographical and
doctrinal divisions prevailing, or commencing in the church, felt it
necessary to do something for the peace and unity of the professing
family of Christ. Writing to Dr. Wisner, of Boston, under date of
November 22d, 1830, he says — “But the most fearful sign of the present
times is the rising of the spirit of controversy and disputation, much
like that which broke out in the time of the Reformation. In all the
strong parts of both the Congregational and Presbyterian Churches we
see. the existence of the evil. My last journey made me sick at heart.
Both in New York and Philadelphia I was in continual pain and
mortification. I regard the human race as at this moment standing on the
covered crater of a volcano, in which elemental fires are raging with
the intensity of the Prophet ordained of old. What shall we do ? Nothing
but one strong feeling can put down another. The. church is not purified
by controversy, but by love. By knowing Christ crucified we know enough
to kindle up holy love. I have therefore brought my mind to the
conclusion that the thing most needed at this present time is a revival
of religion among churches, and especially a larger increase of holiness
among ministers.” He thus expresses his desire of accomplishing
something at the next Assembly, May, 1831, and desires his friends from
Boston to be there not to argue, but to strive to kindle a flame of
love. He proposed that something should be done in the cause of missions
to get the whole Presbyterian Church engaged. He passed through a
suffering winter, and as the time of the Assembly drew near he felt
himself approaching the grave. Turning all the energies of his mind, in
his position of solemnity and interest, to devise something for the
peace and welfare of the Presbyterian Church, as preparatory to
preaching the gospel to every creature; and believing that hearty
engagedness in that blessed work would do wonders in promoting the peace
and extending the borders of the church, he dictated his memorial to the
General Assembly on the subject of foreign missions ; a paper becoming
the closing pages of the history of his life — his last effort of
thought and affection for the church he loved, and worthy of a place in
any history of the Presbyterian Church. The fate of this memorial was
unknown to its author: he had passed to a better world. He knew that it
was read before the Assembly, and sent forward for consideration to the
American Board; but hovering on the confines of two worlds filled with
immortals that he loved, he could not ask its fate.
On the third day of the
session, May 21st, 1831, the memorial, having received the approbation
of the brethren in Princeton, was read and committed to Rev. Messrs.
Armstrong, of North River, Calvert, of West Tennessee, Goodrich, of
Orange, J. M’Dowell, of Elizabethtown, and Dr. Agnew, Elder, from
Carlisle. On Tuesday, the 31st, a committee was appointed “to attend the
next annual meeting of the American Board of Commissioners of Foreign
Missions, and confer with that body in respect to measures to be adopted
for enlisting the energies of the Presbyterian Church more extensively
in the cause of missions to the heathen ; and that said committee report
the results of this conference, and their views on the whole subject to
the next Assembly.” The gentlemen chosen by ballot on nomination were —
Rev. Messrs. John M’Dowell, of Elizabethtown, Thomas M’Auley, of
Philadelphia, and James Richards, Newark, the principals; and Rev.
Messrs. A. Alexander, John Breckenridge and Elisha Swift alternates.
When Dr. Rice heard the names of the committee read to him on his sick
bed, he said smilingly, that some of the alternates he thought
understood his views better than some of the principals.
This memorial, from its
source, its author and its weighty thoughts, made an impression upon the
Assembly. The person, manner, voice and spirit of its author were
wanting to give it the thrilling influence. One expression in the
memorial— “the Presbyterian Church a Missionary Society,” fixed upon in
the study of Mr. Nevins, in Baltimore, the last visit made there by Dr.
Rice, has, from that Assembly, been the rallying call to the church. The
active young brethren of Baltimore Presbytery had resolved their
Presbytery into a foreign missionary society. And about the time the
memorial was sent to Princeton for consideration, a circular from the
Presbytery of Baltimore called the attention of the Presbytery of
Lexington to the same subject. The records of the meeting at Fincastle,
April 29th, 1831, soy — “whereas this Presbytery has received a
communication from the Presbytery of Baltimore informing us of their
purpose to engage more efficiently in the promotion of foreign missions
; and likewise urge a number of weighty considerations to show that the
Presbyterian Church generally, and Presbyterians individually, should
unite with them in this good work, in which this Presbytery fully
concur, Therefore, Resolved, That this Presbytery highly approve of the
resolutions adopted by the Presbytery of Baltimore. 2d. Resolved, That
as soon as practicable this Presbytery will engage in foreign missions.”
The memorial of Dr. Rice
was laid before the Board of Commissioners, that held its annual
meeting, in October of that year, in New Haven, Connecticut, by Messrs.
M’Dowell, McAuley and Richards. A committee of conference was appointed
by the Board consisting of Rev. Messrs. Jeremiah Day, Lyman Beecher and
B. B. Wisner. Their joint report was adopted and sent to the Assembly of
1832. The final action of the Board, as expressed in Dr. Miller’s
notice, was not known at the South, or generally any where till some
years after.
In November of the same
year, the ministers of the Synod of Pittsburg organized the Western
Foreign Missionary Society. The movement seemed to many East of the
mountains as hasty and uncalled for. To others it appeared a work of
Christian prudence and decision. Leading men in the Church East and West
of the mountains favored the formation of the Western Society, and gave
liberally to its funds; among the contributors were the Professors of
the Theological Seminary at Princeton. The reasons given by the Western
brethren for their speedy action were, that they received the great
truth, “The Presbyterian Church Missionary Society” and that the General
Assembly had not entered upon the work; that the American Board
discouraged, both in principle and in action, a separate organization
for the Presbyterian Church; and besides, that Board would not promise
“to regard with fraternal feelings,” any association formed by the
Assembly or any inferior judicatory to carry on the work of Foreign
Missions; and the churches of that Synod, and many other churches would
not any longer act cheerfully, if at all, through the American Board.
The Rev. E. P. Swift entered with great activity upon the duties of
Secretary of the new Society ; and the churches West of the Alleghany
commenced making collections and donations more liberal than those made
in the early days of the American Board.
In May 1832, the joint
report adopted by the American Board was laid before the Assembly; and
after discussion, resolved, “ That while the Assembly would express no
opinion in relation to the principles contained in the report, they
cordially recommend the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign
Missions to the affection and patronage of the churches.” This report
was widely circulated both in the annual report of the Board, and in
other ways; and was generally read. An able document, it presented in
clear, strong language the principles of the American Board, and the
reasons why they discouraged a separate organization by any
ecclesiastical judicatory. The main points of the report were, 1st. That
the American Board is, in the opinion of the committee, properly a
national institution; 2nd. The board sustains the same relation to the
Congregational, Presbyterian and Reformed Dutch Churches; and fairly
represents each of these religious denominations ; 3d. The proceedings
of the board and of the prudential committee have uniformly been in
strict accordance with that relation; 4th. There are very high
responsibilities, securing the purity and efficiency of the board and
its missions. These responsibilities are 1st. The prudential committee
is responsible to the board; 2nd. It is also responsible to the public;
3d. The board is under obligation to supply the highest ecclesiastical
bodies of the three denominations with copies of its annual report; 4th.
Missionaries in connection with presbytery, classis, or association, are
not affected in their ecclesiastical relations by coming into connection
with this Board; 5th. In raising funds, regard is had to the
ecclesiastical habits of the people. Also previous to the union of the.
United Foreign Missionary Society with the American Board in 1826, an
address was sent forth giving reasons why there should be but one
institution for foreign missions for the three denominations,
Presbyterian, Reformed Dutch and Congregational. They were, 1st. It will
save time and labor; 2nd. It will save expense; 3d. There is no
necessity for more than one institution; 4th. It will remove the danger
of collision; 5th. A single institution will greatly promote Christian
affection; 6th. A great saving of toil, expense and life, in the
research and explorations indispensable to a successful prosecution of
the work; 7th. In missions as in every important concern, experience is
the safest guide, often leading to modifications in methods of
procedure, and greatly augmenting the efficiency and success of the
enterprise; 8th. To which may be added that constitution of human nature
by which interest and motives and effort and reward correspond with the
magnitude and sublimity of the object presented.
In view of these facts
the committee of conference, “ are fully satisfied that it is wholly
inexpedient to attempt the formation of any distinct organization within
the three denominations, for conducting foreign missions; and that it is
of the highest importance to their own spiritual prosperity, and to the
existence of the Redeemer’s kingdom on the earth, that the
ecclesiastical bodies and the individual churches in these connections
should give to the American Board their cordial, united and vigorous
support.” And in regard to “measures to be adopted for enlisting the
energies of the Presbyterian Church, but two things are wanting to
secure the desired results—1st. That the prudential committee of the
American Board should take prompt and effectual measures by agencies and
in other ways to bring the subject of foreign missions, in its various
relations, before the individual congregations and members of the
Presbyterian body; and 2nd, that the General Assembly and subordinate
judicatories of the Church, give their distinct and efficient sanction
and aid to the measures that shall be adopted for that purpose.” In
consequence of this report and the recommendation of the Assembly, Rev.
B. B. Wisner, Secretary of the Board, in the fall of 1832, visited the
Synods of Virginia and North Carolina, and was instrumental in forming
the Central Board of Foreign Missions, embracing the two Synods. Rev.
Wm. J. Armstrong, successor of Dr. Rice as pastor of the Church in
Richmond, was made the corresponding secretary and general agent. By his
zealous labors the churches were awaked to their duty with the happiest
results. Mr. Armstrong became a secretary of the American Board, and was
succeeded by Rev. J. D. Mitchell; he, retiring to a pastoral charge in a
few years, was succeeded by Rev. Wm. Henry Foote, on whose resignation,
after seven years’ service, the Central Board was dissolved and the
churches commenced acting directly through the Assembly’s Board.
The Western Board of
Foreign Missions pressed on with vigor. An African mission was speedily
organized with two missionaries, Messrs. Barr and Pinney. Mr. Barr,
while making the necessary preparations for departure, suddenly died in
Richmond, Virginia. Mr. Pinney proceeded on the mission, and still
lives, having done good service for the Board, and conferred
immeasurable benefits on Africa. In 1833, the Lodiana mission embarked.
One of the members of that mission, Dr. John C. Lowrie, is now a
secretary of the Assembly’s Board, having returned from India on account
of ill-health, after some years of service in heathen lands. The
sympathies of the public were enlisted, and Presbytery after Presbytery
sought connection with the Western Board ; and the Synod of Philadelphia
united with the Synod of Pittsburg in its management. Its prosperity in
collections, and usefulness in labor went on hand in hand, and every
annual report gave richer and richer evidences of divine favor, and the
necessity of the institution became as apparent as its success. In 1834,
the advantage of having the seat of its operations on the seaboard
became apparent. And in May, 1835, the General Assembly appointed a
Committee to negotiate a transfer of the Western Board to the Assembly.
Before the close of the session, the Assembly empowered the Committee to
conclude the transfer should the way be clear, and the terms
satisfactory; and make report. At the meeting of the Synod of Pittsburg
in the fall, the terms were negotiated, and the transfer completed
according to act of Assembly. The missionaries were informed of the
transfer, and directed to expect their supplies from the Assembly’s
Board after May, 1836. All necessary preparations were made for removing
the seat of the Board; and Mr. Swift resigned his office as secretary,
choosing to remain with his congregation. At this time there were about
twenty missionaries connected with the Board; and the treasury was
entirely unembarrassed.
The anticipations of the
friends of the new Board were overthrown at the meeting of the Assembly,
in 1836. When the transfer was reported, it was committed to Rev.
Messrs. Phillips, Scovil, Skinner, Dunlap, and Mr. Ewing, “who were
authorized to review the whole case, and present it to the consideration
of the Assembly.” The majority reported in favor of accepting the
transfer, appointing a Missionary Board, and making New York the centre
of operations. The minority reported, that in consideration of the
intimate union existing between the American Board and the Presbyterian
Church, and to avoid collision — “it is inexpedient that the Assembly
should organize a separate Foreign Missionary Association.” The yeas and
nays were, for majority report, 106; for minority report, 110. This
result, connected with the agitations and discussions then afflicting
the church, was less surprising than arousing. The Western Board was
immediately reorganized; and preparations were made to carry on the work
of missions with increased vigor. Walter Lowrie, Esq., Secretary of the
United States Senate, the father of one of the missionaries to Lodiana,
was elected Secretary of the Board, and on becoming free from the
obligations of his office in Washington, entered on his duties in
Pittsburg.
Some extracts from a
letter from Dr. Miller, of Princeton, are pertinent in this case. The
letter is dated, April 15th, 183T, and appeared in the Presbyterian of
the 22d of that month, and is in reply to a communication from Rev. John
M’Uhenny, of Lewisburg, Virginia. After saying that he had been charged
with inconsistency in maintaining, in 1833, that it was better for the
Western Society not to be under the care of the Assembly, and, in 1836,
in defending the contrary opinion, he says, “ These brethren themselves,
(the New School), have had more agency in bringing about the change of
opinion of which they complain than all others combined.” In reply to
some enquiry respecting matters in which he had taken a part, he says
further, “The overture of Dr. Rice has been grievously misrepresented.
It is well known that excellent and lamented man was a warm friend to
the American Board, and yet it is manifest from the overture itself,
that he wished and expected the General Assembly as such, in some form,
to undertake and conduct Foreign Missions. I so understood the paper
when it reached Princeton, and so understanding it, gave it my hearty
support in the General Assembly of 1831, of which I happened to be a
member, and to which it was presented. It was that overture, no doubt,
which gave rise to the appointment of a Committee on the part of the
Assembly, to confer with the American Board, at New Haven in the autumn
of the same year. I was present as a member of the Board, when the Joint
Committee of the Assembly and the Board laid before the latter a report,
expressing the opinion that the General Assembly ought not to undertake
any separate action in the missionary field. When the question on this
report was about to be taken, I arose and remarked, that I could not
give an unqualified vote in favor of that report, that I was persuaded
there was a large portion of the Presbyterian Church that earnestly
wished a Board of Missions of our own church to be formed, and that, in
all probability, would ultimately form one. But that I would cheerfully
vote for the original report, provided the following addition to it
could be made, which I moved as an amendment, viz., While this Board
accept and approve the foregoing report, as expressing their firm
opinion on the subject referred to the Committee of conference: —
Resolved, That if the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, or
any of its subordinate judicatories, shall eventually think proper to
form any association for conducting Foreign Missions separately from the
American Board — this Board will regard such associations with fraternal
feelings, and without the least disposition to interfere with its
organization or proceedings.’ This amendment, however, was very
unceremoniously negatived, two other members of the Board only, as far
as I recollect, viz., Dr. Spring, of New York, and Dr. Carnahan, of
Princeton, rising in its favor.”
5th. THE ACT AND
TESTIMONY.
One other event, caused
by the divisions and distractions in the church, gave intensity to the
discussions that for about four years convulsed the church, and made its
division inevitable, the issuing of the Act and Testimony in May, 1834.
A memorial had been presented to the Assembly of 1834, signed in whole,
or in part, by about nine Presbyteries, and eight Sessions, eighteen
ministers, and ninety elders; “asking of this Assembly to apply such
remedies as may be necessary to correct the evils of which they
complain.” The committee for consideration made report nullifying the
positions of the memorial and affirming the contrary, which was adopted
by the Assembly. In consequence of this act of Assembly, which affected
many minds in a similar manner, it was thought best to address the
churches in a solemn and decisive manner. Mr. Engles proposed the laying
the matter before the ministers, and calling upon the friends of truth
to rally. Mr. Hodge, of Princeton, drew up the list of errors. Mr. R. J.
Breckenridge drew a paper which he named the Act and Testimony,
embracing his own views often expressed, and the suggestions of Mr.
Engles, and the list of errors presented by Dr. Hodge. No paper since
the protest, drawn up nearly a century before, addressed the judgment of
men with equal power to fasten attention and lead to decision.
The following extracts
contain the substance of the paper—“We adopt this Act and Testimony
first as it regards doctrines. 1st. We do bear our solemn testimony
against the right claimed by many of interpreting the doctrines of our
standards in a sense different from the general sense of the church for
years past, whilst they still continue in our communion; on the
contrary, we aver that they who adopt our standards are bound by candor,
and the simplest integrity, to hold them in their obvious accepted
sense. 2d. We testify against the unchristian subterfuge to which some
have recourse when they avow a general adherence to our standards as a
system, while they deny doctrines essential to the system, or hold
doctrines at complete variance with the system. 3d. We testify against
the reprehensible conduct of those in our communion who hold, and
preach, and publish Arminian and Pelagian heresies, professing at the
same time to embrace our creed, and pretending that these errors do
consist therewith. 4th. We testify against the conduct of those who
while they profess to approve and adopt our doctrines and order, do
nevertheless speak and publish, in terms, or by necessary implication,
that which is derogatory to both, and which tends to bring both into
disrepute. 5th. We testify against the following as a part of the errors
which are held and taught by many persons in our church.”
ERRORS.
“1st. Our relation to
Adam. — That we have no more to do with the first sin of Adam than with
the sins of any other parent. 2d. Native Depravity. — That there is no
such thing as original sin ; that infants come into the world as
perfectly free from the corruption of nature as Adam was -when he was
created; that by original sin nothing more is meant than the fact that
all the posterity of Adam, though born entirely free from moral
defilement, will always begin to sin when they begin to exercise moral
agency, and that this fact is somehow connected with the fall of Adam.
3d. Imputation. — That the doctrine of imputed sin and imputed
righteousness is a novelty, and is nonsense. 4th. Ability. — That the
impenitent sinner is by nature, and independently of the aid of the Holy
Spirit, in full possession of all the powers necessary to a compliance
with the commands of God; and that if he labored under any kind of
inability, natural or moral, which he could not remove himself, he would
be excusable for not complying with God’s will. 5th. Regeneration. —
That man’s regeneration is his own act; that it consists merely in the
change of our governing purpose, which change we must ourselves produce.
6th. Divine influence.—
That God cannot exert
such an influence on the minds of men as ' shall make it certain that
they will choose and act in a particular manner without destroying their
moral agency; and that in a moral system God could not prevent the
existence of sin, or the present amount of sin, however much he might
desire it. 7th. Atonement.— That Christ’s sufferings were not truly and
properly vicarious. Which doctrines and statements are dangerous and
heretical, contrary to the gospel of God and inconsistent with our
Confession of Faith.”
After bearing testimony
against disorders in discipline,—and disorders in the government of the
Church, it proceeds to Recommendations to the Churches. “ Dear Christian
Brethren, you who love Jesus Christ in sincerity, and in truth, and
adhere to the plain doctrines of the cross as taught in the standards
prepared by the Westminster Assembly, and constantly held by the true
Presbyterian Church, to all of you who love your ancient and pure
Constitution, and desire to restore our abused and corrupted Church to
her simplicity, purity and truth, we, a portion of yourselves, ministers
and elders of your churches, and servants of one common Lord, would
propose most respectfully and kindly, and yet most earnestly :—“1st.
That we refuse to give countenance to ministers, elders, agents, editors
and teachers, or to those who are in any other capacity engaged in
religious instructions or effort, who hold the preceding or similar
errors. 2d. That we make every lawful effort to subject all such
persons, especially if they be ministers, to the just exercise of
discipline by the proper tribunals. 3d. That we use all proper means to
restore the discipline of the Church, in all the courts, to a sound,
just, Christian state. 4th. That we use our endeavors to prevent the
introduction of new principles into our system, and to restore our
tribunals to their ancient purity. 5tli. That we consider the
presbyterial existence, or acts of any Presbytery or Synod, formed upon
the principles of Elective Affinity, as unconstitutional, and all 1
ministers and churches voluntarily included in such bodies as having I
virtually departed from the standards of our Church. 6th. We f recommend
that all ministers and elders, Church sessions, Presbyteries and Synods,
who approve of this act and testimony, give their f public adherence
thereto in such manner as they shall prefer, and communicate their
names, and when a Church court, a copy of their adhering act. 7th. That
inasmuch as our only hope of improvement and reformation in the affairs
of our Church depends on the interposition of Him who is the King in
Zion, that we will unceasingly and importunately supplicate the throne
of grace for the return of that purity and peace, the absence of which
we now sorrowfully deplore. 8th. We do earnestly recommend that on the
2d Thursday of May, 1835, a Convention be held in the city of Pittsburg,
to be composed of two members, a minister and 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 be
best suited to restore our prostrated standards.
“And now, Brethren, our
whole heart is laid open to you and to the world. If the majority of our
Church are against us, they will, we suppose, in the end, either see the
infatuation of their course, and retrace their steps, or they will at
last attempt to cut us off. If the former, we shall bless the God of
Jacob; if the latter, we are ready, for the sake of Christ, and in
support of the testimony now made, not only to be cut off,' but, if need
be, to die also. If, on the other hand, the body be in the main sound,
as we would fondly 'hope, we have here, frankly, openly, and candidly,
laid before our erring brethren the course we are, by the grace of God,
irrevocably determined to pursue. It is our steadfast aim to reform the
Church, or to testify against its errors and defections, until testimony
will be no longer heard, and we commit the issue into the hands of him
who is over all, God blessed forever, Amen.”
This paper produced great
excitement, or rather directed existing excitement into a new channel.
In some sections of the Church it received numerous signatures. Very few
names were given in Virginia. The general feeling in the Synod was, that
however true the paper might be in principle, it was not required in the
circumstances. It however called all men to thought and reflection.
The Convention met in
1835, and was fully attended : no delegate from Virginia or North
Carolina appeared. A strong memorial was prepared for the Assembly, and
handed in the 2d day of the session. The committee, of which Dr. Miller
was chairman, with Messrs.. Hoge, Edgar, Elliot, Mcllhenny, Stonetreet,
and Banks, reported; and eight resolutions, after long discussion, and
some amendments, were adopted by the Assembly:—The 1st, affirming the
right of a Presbytery to be entirely satisfied of the soundness of faith
of those applying for admission; 2d, affirming the right, and, in some
cases, the duty of a judicatory of the Church, to bear testimony against
any printed publication, whether the author be living or dead; 3d,
affirming that the erection of Presbyteries, or other courts, not on
geographical principles, but by diversities of doctrinal belief, is
Contrary to the constitution; 4th, the Church courts thus formed in and
around Philadelphia to be dissolved; 5th, that the first duty of the
Presbyterian Church is to sustain her own boards, without prohibiting
the action of voluntary boards in her bounds; 6th, that the annulling of
the plan of union of 1801 is desirable; 7th, that correspondence with
the associations of the Congregational Churches ought to be preserved;
and 8th, that all such opinions as are not distinguishable from Pelagian
or Arminian, ought to be condemned.
The same Assembly
proposed the transfer of the Western Foreign Missionary Society, and
that efforts ought to be made to supply the world with the Bible in
twenty years.
The Assembly of 1836,
also held in Pittsburg, was of a different complexion from its
predecessor, and proceeded to enactments contrary in spirit and letter
to the doings of 1835. The decisions of the Synod of Philadelphia, in
the case of Mr. Barnes, were reversed, and he was restored to the
ministry; the proposition of Dr. Miller to condemn parts of Mr. Barnes’s
book was rejected; the transfer of the Western Foreign Missionary
Society was set aside; and the principle of carrying on missions in a
church capacity voted down. Dr. Wilson withdrew his appeal from the
decision of the Synod of Cincinnati, believing a trial would be a
needless consumption of time.
The minority appointed a
committee of correspondence to act till the next Assembly, with powers
to call a convention to be held in May, 1837, should a convention be
thought desirable. Such convention was called; and the anxious question
in Virginia was, Shall we go into it? Can toe keep back any longer from
the contest waging? Can neutrality be preserved?
6th. THE SUBJECT OF
SLAVERY.
In some form, this vexed
question was before the Assembly and in public prints : an annual
firebrand, in form of memorial, or petition, or reference, was thrown
into the highest court of the Church. The Southern members could not
avoid voting upon it, after hearing much that was offensive. The whole
subject was discussed in the various forms and attitudes it might be
made to assume — the right to hold slaves 'politically — the right to do
so religiously — the advantages and disadvantages, both politically and
religiously — the right of slave-holders to church fellowship, as
ministers or as private members, and, finally, the necessity of
discipline, even to excommunication, of all slave-holders, minors
excepted. This exciting subject was mingled with the other causes of
irritation, from year to year, till it became exasperating. Neither the
attack nor defence could be cool. On the one side was assault, without
offer of quarter; and, on the other, a resolute and fiery defence,
without compromise. This question alone would have brought the
Presbyterian Church to the verge of disruption, as it has done the
Methodist Episcopal; and, unless the assailants paused, would have rent
it asunder. The Presbyterian Church is but a fraction of the South; and,
of that fraction, many are females and- minors. The few Christian men,
were they convinced of the necessity of such a move as abolition, could
do nothing in the body politic. They must let the subject rest, or
emigrate.
LASTLY, A DIVISION OF THE
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
A correspondent of the
Southern Religious Telegraph, of June 24th, 1836, speaking of the
Assembly of which he had been a member, says: “I hope that such another
Assembly will never meet but once again; and then only with full and
delegated powers amicably to separate, in order that each party may
prosecute its own view’s and plans in its own way. On the slavery
question, the Assembly did all that they could do as conscientious men.
That is not the body of men to settle, this matter; nor need the South
ever look for peace and rest from any of its decisions on this point.
And now it becomes a grave and serious question, whether the Southern
section of our Church will any more, or again, expose its
representatives to the scoffs and taunts, and jeers and
misrepresentations, and excommunications and maledictions of the
abolitionists, both male and female.”
To this the Editor added:
“We fully concur with our correspondent, that a crisis has come; and
that if there can be no compromise, division must be tried. If the South
cannot look for peace and rest in the Assembly, on the slavery question,
is it not time for all the Southern Presbyteries to refuse unanimously
to send representatives to that body?”
The Presbytery of
Concord, North Carolina, at its fall meeting in 1886, expressed itself
strongly: “The friends of orthodoxy throughout our country should, with
deliberation and firmness, cooperate in every prudent effort to secure
what true Presbyterians cannot surrender; and that to guard against all
precipitancy, and afford ample space for the repentance and reformation
of erring brethren, it be respectfully recommended to await the decision
of another General Assembly. Rather than surrender the truth, or
perpetuate the present distracting agitation, we will feel bound to
submit to a division of the Church, upon any plan which may be found
most conducive to peace and good order.”
The Presbytery of South
Carolina resolved, “ That, in the view of this Presbytery, the Old
School and the New have got so wide apart, in-sentiment and feeling,
that for the future there can be no hope of friendly co-operation united
in one body. That for the sake of peace, and the better promoting the
interests of Christ’s kingdom, the parties ought to separate. But, in
case of separation, we will closely adhere to the standards of the
Presbyterian Church.”
Position of the Virginia
Synod.
At the meeting of Synod
at Petersburg, November, 1836, a paper was presented by George A.
Baxter, William Hill, S. B. Wilson, William S. Plumer and James M.
Brown, appointed for the purpose, drawn up by Dr. Baxter, expressive of
the position the Synod then held.
Act of the Virginia
Synod,
Unanimously adopted in
Session at Petersburg, Nov. 7th, 1836.
“Whilst,we enjoy, within
the bounds of this Synod, a great measure of peace and unanimity, and
soundness in theological views, some other parts of our denomination are
divided and distracted to such a degree as calls upon the church for
deep humiliation and humble prayer to Almighty God for the removal of
the evils by which we are afflicted. The prominent causes of our
disturbance consist in the tendency to error, the spirit of angry
controversy with which that tendency has been met, and the great loss of
Christian affection and brotherly confidence between the parties which
have arisen in the contest. We believe that the causes, which appear
most prominent now, are not the original cause of the evils by which we
are surrounded. Our church must have departed from God before He gave us
over to the unhappy state of things in which we find ourselves involved;
and deep humiliation, repentance, and the doing of our first works, must
precede the removal of those things by which we are afflicted.
“One thing which presses
with peculiar force on the Presbyterian Church, in the South, is the
spirit of abolition, as lately developed in some parts of the country.
This spirit, we believe, is entirely contrary to the word of God. It is
well known that the apostles ministered and planted churches in
countries in which slavery abounded, and that of a more aggravated form
than ours; and yet masters and slaves were members of those churches,
and equally under the acknowledged authority of the same spiritual
teachers. In this way the inspired apostles had the subject of slavery
fully before them; and they gave directions, without any appearance of
reserve, for the mutual duties of the relation, leaving the whole
subject of slavery to the benign and gradual operation of the gospel.
These facts should convince us that the apostolic directions in the New
Testament ought to form the rules for the government of our conduct in
this matter. If, after this, the master is criminal, it cannot be by
sustaining the relation of master, according to the rules given by
divine inspiration, but by the violation of those rules. There is,
however, one passage of Scripture which not only shows the criminality
of abolition doctrines, but also so plainly and fully prescribes our
duty in relation to them, that we think it proper to quote it at length.
It is in 1st Timothy, 6th chapter, 1-5 verses — ‘ Let as many servants
as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that
the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have
believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren;
but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved
partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man
teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to
godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and
strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth,
supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. We think
it is as plain as words can make anything, that modern abolition
principles and spirit constitute the case of those men who teach
otherwise than the apostle approves, and from the class from which he
commanded Timothy to withdraw himself. The apostle’s teaching was, that
servants should count their masters worthy of all honor, and do service
to believing masters, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers
of the benefit. Certainly the modern abolitionist teaches otherwise than
Paul taught, and if he cannot be convinced of his error, the only
Scriptural remedy is to withdraw from such.
"Another view of the
case, which we think important, is this:— When the General Assembly was
formed, a large majority, if not all the Churches and Presbyteries out
of which it was formed, were in slaveholding states. The attempt to make
slaveholding a bar to communion or to fair ministerial standing now, is
changing the constitution of our church, and the original terms of
communion. This we cannot permit. Therefore, the Synod solemnly affirm
that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church have no right to
declare that relation sinful, which Christ and his apostles teach to be'
consistent with the most unquestionable piety; and that any act of the
General Assembly which would impeach the Christian character of any man
because he is a slaveholder, would h>e a palpable violation of the just
principles on which the union of our church was founded, as well as a
daring usurpation of authority, never granted by the Lord Jesus. Lest
the sentiments just expressed should be misunderstood, Synod would add
that the likelihood of the necessity of any geographical division
through the operation of this fanatacism, is not so great as it was some
time ago. Yet, on this subject, be the danger small or great, a
vigilance corresponding to the exigencies of the times is our manifest
duty.
“In the next place, we
would observe that certain errors have been lately exhibited, which we
think furnish just ground of alarm to the church. We will not undertake
to say how much of this error may consist in unusual phraseology, nor
how far it may arise from incorrect theological views. The mysticism of
words has often been sufficient to raise separatory walls between
brethren. Yet whether the error consist principally in words or things,
it is not to our churches a matter of indifference. Words are understood
to stand for things, and the erroneous phraseology of a writer or
speaker is calculated to lead his, readers or hearers wrong, and if
generally adopted must subvert the faith of the purest churches. The
points of error which we think the most dangerous to us, relate to
original sin, regeneration, justification by the righteousness of
Christ, and the ability of the creature. The doctrine of the
Presbyterian Church touching original sin has always been, that our
first parents, by their first act of disobedience, fell from their
original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in
sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties of soul and body; and they
being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and
the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all descending
from them by ordinary generation; and that from this original
corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made
opposite to all good, and inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual
transgressions. "We deeply regret to see a phraseology used on this
subject which is calculated to subvert the doctrine of our confession of
faith, and, as we believe, of the Sacred Scriptures. Such as, original
sin is no sin, but a mere tendency to sin, which in itself is not
sinful; the posterity of Adam are in no sense guilty of, or liable for,
his first sin; and that men are born innocent and without any moral
character, &c. Whatever explanations may be given of such language by
those who use it, we cannot but view it as calculated to introduce
ruinous error into our church, if used by Presbyterian ministers. ,
“On the subject of
regeneration, Synod must testify against all modes of expression which
imply that regeneration consists in a change of the governing purpose by
the creature, or in a holy act, or series of acts of the creature, and
not in the mighty working of the exceeding greatness of the divine power
in new creating the soul, and enabling it to put forth holy exercises —
or that regeneration is in any proper sense the work of any creature but
of God only.
“We are very much,
grieved by observing a tendency in many modern writings to introduce
something like the Unitarian doctrine of justification; a doctrine which
supposes that the death of our Saviour made no proper satisfaction to
the claims of the divine law, and that the justice of heaven did not
require such satisfaction to be made; but that God was always placable,
and willing to justify the sinner by a mere act of sovereign pardon as
soon as the sinner would turn to him with penitence and submission. We
consider this doctrine as one of the most insidious and dangerous errors
which has. ever corrupted the Church of Christ. It sometimes assumes the
plausible, but deceitful phraseology that Christ has made our atonement;
has purchased our redemption, and that we are saved through his merits;
while it denies, and is intended to deny the imputation of our Saviour’s
righteousness as the vicarious propitiation for our sins.
“The ability of the
sinner is sometimes rashly and erroneously exhibited, as if he were able
to convert himself, and make himself a new heart independently of the
sovereign, regenerating and converting grace of God. This doctrine, when
carried out, goes to the subversion of our whole creed, and as we
believe, to the subversion of the whole system of the gospel. Yet on
this point we feel called on to say that there is on the other side an
error which leads to an extreme equally dangerous and subversive of the
Christian faith. We mean the error of those who assert that the sinner
has no power of any kind for the performance of duty. This error strips
the sinner of his moral agency and accountableness, and introduces the
heresy of either Antinomianism or Fatalism. The true doctrine of our
confession, and as we believe of the Scriptures, keeps continually in
view the moral agency of man — the contingency of second causes — the
use of means, and the utter inexcusableness of the creature; whilst at
the same time it places all our dependence for salvation, on the
sovereign power and grace of God, in the regeneration and justification
of the sinner. Therefore, whilst Synod do constantly affirm that by the
fall the human understanding has been greatly darkened, the faculties of
the soul greatly impaired, and through the depravity of the heart the
human will is entirely deprived of freedom to that which is good, and is
free only to that which is evil, and that continually ; yet they do
assert that they cannot approve of any language which in its fair
interpretation deprives man of his moral agency — denying that his
enmity is voluntary, or teaching that it is in any wise excusable.
“Respecting the question,
what class of organizations we shall employ for carrying on the great
enterprizes of the church in the day in which we live, Synod would state
that in the education of young men for the ministry, and in the work of
domestic missions, our Presbyteries are now happily united with the
Boards of the General Assembly. In the work of foreign missions we are
in connection with the Synod of North Carolina, most pleasantly united
in the Central Board. All these organizations are ecclesiastical and
Presbyterian. In the work of supplying the world with Bibles,
evangelical books and tracts, and in some other branches of benevolence,
our churches have long co-operated with the national societies
instituted for these several objects. Towards these, and every other
voluntary association in our country, which has for its object the
spread of pure and undefiled religion, the Synod entertains no other
than friendly sentiments. The Lord bless them all, and make them all
blessings. Synod cannot, however, refrain from expressing their deep
conviction that it would be wrong for the more exclusive friends of
either mode of organization to refuse to any respectable portion of our
Church, facilities which they desire for conducting the foreign
missionary enterprize ; it being always distinctly understood that such
a^ organization as they desire, should confine its efforts to the bounds
of those churches or ecclesiastical bodies which desired cooperation
with them; and equally wrong for the friends of either of the particular
organizations in any wise to cripple the operations of the other by
unkind interferences.
“In the foregoing
sentiments we are unanimous. And now we solemnly call on all our
members, and the friends of Zion within our bounds, in maintaining the
unity of the spirit in the bonds of peace, to beware of a liberality
which in any wise disregards the distinction between truth and error —
to cultivate the spirit of fraternal kindness and confidence — to watch
against the spirit of angry controversy— to pray for the peace of
Jerusalem — to hold fast the form of sound words — to obey the truth and
follow holiness, without-which no man shall see the Lord.”
George A. Baxter, D. D.
Wm. Hill, D. D.,
S. B. Wilson,
Wm. S. Plumer,
James M. Brown.
A Convention Called.
In January, 1837, the
Committee of Correspondence, after conferring verbally and by letter
with brethren in different parts of the Church, sent forth a call,
saying—u That the real friends of the doctrines and constitution of our
Church are now satisfied that the present state of things ought not
longer to continue; and that the time has come when effectual measures
must be taken for putting an end to those contentions which have for
years agitated our Church.” The committee then recommended — “That
Presbyteries friendly to the doctrines and institutions of our Church
instruct their Commissioners to the next General Assembly to meet in
Philadelphia on the second Thursday of May ensuing, together with such
delegates as may be appointed by minorities of Presbyteries, in order
fully and freely to compare views, and to unite upon such constitutional
measures of remedying exciting evils as it may be judged expedient to
submit to the consideration of the Assembly.”
The Virginia Presbyteries
determine to go into Convention.
The ministers in Virginia
contemplated the appointed Convention, and the succeeding Assembly of
1837, with the anxiety of men caring for the interests of their Lord’s
kingdom. It seemed to many, if not all of them, that then and there
would be the arena of the final inevitable conflict. They appeared to
dread the coming contest more than any other portion of the Church.
Baxter, who since the death of Rice and Speece, had no peer in the Synod
in theological influence or metaphysical talent, trembled at the crisis.
Hill, not accustomed to tremble at any danger or conflict, was all
anxiety. Personal friends, and cheerful co-actors in all matters
hitherto concerning the Virginia Synod — standing shoulder to shoulder
in all conflicts that in the remotest degree endangered her integrity or
her honor—all alive to her present position and duty— their sympathies
were running in different directions at the present crisis. Agreeing on
the principles of the Synod’s paper they had prepared — agreeing on the
subject of revivals and ministerial requirements— they began to diverge
on the question, What course shall the Virginia ministers now pursue ?
The parties agitating the Assembly were so equally divided in numbers,
talents, wealth and intelligence, that the Southern vote, hitherto
pledged on neither side, would give the desired and decisive majority in
the Assembly. Baxter’s sympathies were with the Old school, while he
disliked much that he read and heard of their spirit and doings ; Hill
sympathized with the New, while he disapproved much that came to his
knowledge. But neither Baxter nor Hill wished the Virginia Synod to
follow in the wake of either of the dominant parties; both were resolved
on some third course yet to be found out.
Baxter, among the bravest
of men, trembled for the ark of God. Separation from those he had
counted brethren, entangled by their circumstances, or willingly bound
to the party he most disapproved, was a strange work, to which he turned
his thoughts with sorrow. Hill contemplated separation from other
brethren with equal dissatisfaction. The associates in sympathy went
with these elder brethren in trembling and prayerfulness. The spring of
’37 had come before Baxter had decided upon his course. Hill was decided
from the issuing of the call for a Convention. Late in the winter, a
student of Theology at the Seminary asked Dr. Baxter what he, thought of
two articles in the Presbyterian, giving the reason for a Convention. He
had not read them, and could not answer. The question aroused his mind;
he read; he pondered; he decided that the most prudent course for the
Virginia brethren, and in fact for all the South, was to be represented
in the Convention. His reasons satisfied the brethren of West Hanover;
and at the spring meeting he was appointed delegate to the Convention
and to the Assembly. This example was followed by the other
Presbyteries, and delegates were appointed by all. This was thought to
be the best way of uniting the Southern church in her future course.
Until the action of the
Assembly of 1836, Dr. Baxter had contended that the expressions used by
the New School in setting forth their theological opinions, were capable
of a construction harmonizing with the confession as understood in
Virginia, and ought, according to their repeated demand, to be so
interpreted. The resolutions in the case of Mr. Barnes, caused him to
abandon that ground; and he was prepared to go with the Old School in
their Theology, excepting that he feared there might be a leaning in
some brethren to Antinomian tenets. Hill was not effected by the
decisions of that Assembly, and felt confident that the Old School were
on the high road to Antinomianism.
While all were
anticipating some division, or revolutionary movement to put an end to
the difficulties in the church, it is n<3t probable any one thought of a
division in the manner it actually took place, or of the division of
Virginia Synod in any manner. The great mass of Virginia, it was
supposed, would go together. A few, perhaps, "might find themselves a
peculiar little secession.” Some were saying, “If Rice were alive we
should all go together; his sweet spirit, with the clearness and
strength of Baxter, would pilot us through these difficulties by the
blessing of God.” The Virginia delegation felt the delicacy of their
situation. The peace of the Synod, and of the church at large, the
progress of truth, freedom of conscience, were all at stake. How should
they maintain them? They hoped, by going into Convention, to agree with
the brethren from other parts of the church, upon some decisive
movement, that might commend itself to all as the best the condition of
the Church permitted. |