Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

Vistorical and Biographical.

HISTORY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ITS FOUNDERS, ITS PRINCIPLES, AND ITS ACTS.

No. VIII.

OUR last article on the history of the Presbyterian Church was in vindication of the first two measures of the great Reforming Assembly of 1837. As this number of the Magazine will be read by some who did not see the preceding volume, we will just indicate the general outline of the course of remark on the measures of 1837, without recapitulating any of the details. In examining the measures of 1837, we stated that we should take them up in their order, according to the following schedule, which exhibits the spirit and policy of the Assembly, and also our own order of vindicating its acts.

I. REPEAL OF THE PLAN OF UNION; or, Arresting the future progress of the evil. Introduced Monday afternoon, May 22. Passed Tuesday morning, May 23. Passed by a vote of 143 ayes to 110 nays.

II. CITATION OF JUDICATORIES; or, Purging from existing evils.

Introduced Thursday afternoon, May 25. Passed Friday afternoon, May 26. Passed by a vote of 128 ayes to 122 nays.

III. VOLUNTARY DIVISION; Or Separation in peace.

Introduced Saturday morning, May 27.

Laid on table by 138 ayes to 107 noes.

Tabled Tuesday morning, May 30.

IV. EXCISION OF SYNODS; or, Entire Reformation.

1. Synod of Western Reserve.

Introduced Tuesday afternoon, May 30. Passed Thursday morning, June 1. Passed by 132 ayes to 105 noes.

2. Synods of Utica, Geneva, and Genesee.

Introduced Saturday morning June 3. Passed Monday afternoon, June 5. Passed by 115 ayes to 88 noes.

It will be observed that there was a gradation in the measures from mild to severe. Some attention must be paid to each of these measures in order. We have already shown that the plan of Union was an unconstitutional and mischievous plan, and as such called for the formal repeal, enacted by the Assembly. We have also shown that the citation of judicatories, although passed by the Assembly, was abandoned as a reforming measure, principally because the New School demonstrated in their speeches that they could thwart its design until the next Assembly, when they threatened to repeal the measures already passed and to put a stop to the reformation which had been begun.

III. We now proceed to the examination of the third measure of the Old School party, which was to secure, if possible, the VOLUNTARY SEPARATION OF THE TWO PARTIES on terms of equity and peace.

This attempt at a peaceful separation originated with Dr. ROBERT J. BRECKINRIDGE, who was unquestionably the great champion and leader of the Old School Presbyterians. The Rev. Elipha White and Dr. Absalom Peters had each intimated in previous debates the possibility of a voluntary separation. Accordingly, when it was found that the New School were unwilling to carry out the objects of citation in their true spirit, the leading champion of the majority gave notice that he would propose on the following day the appointment of a committee, of equal numbers from each party, to inquire into the expediency of a voluntary division of the Presbyterian Church. Dr. Breckinridge by this measure showed his true character as a generous, high-minded christian gentleman, ready on the one hand to contend for his church with all zeal and power, and on the other to concede to his opponents whatever charity could demand. The Assembly appointed accordingly a committee of ten on the state of the Church, five from each side. The Old School were represented by Dr. Breckinridge, Dr. Alexander, Dr. Cuyler, Dr. Witherspoon, and Judge Ewing; and the New School by Dr. McAuley, Dr. Beman, Dr. Peters, Dr. B. Dickinson and Judge Jessup.

The Old School portion of the committee very wisely determined to conduct the negotiation in writing. Several papers passed between the two parties, but without any satisfactory result. Dr. Alexander, the chairman, was reluctantly compelled to report on the following day that a voluntary division could not be effected. The committee agreed substantially on two points, and disagreed on two other points, involved in a peaceable separation.

1. The committee agreed on the expediency of a division. The New School had hitherto opposed the idea, even of secession on the part of the Old School, and held it up to scorn; and least of all, had they any idea of separating into a party by themselves. The determination, however, of the Old School to carry on, if possible, a reform at this meeting of the Assembly, produced upon their minds the salutary impression that a peaceable separation was by no means to be summarily rejected. The committee, representing the minority, not only "admitted the expediency of a division," but declared that "differences of opinion in relation to important points of church policy and action, as well as theological opinion, are found to exist." They further acknowledged that a division of the Church into two separate bodies was " of vital importance to the best interests of the Redeemer's kingdom." The Old School had hitherto been much ridiculed and abused for having adopted these sentiments for some time past.

2. Another important point on which the committee agreed was in regard to the property, the names to be held by each denomination, the Records, and the Boards. The New School honourably admitted that the funds of Princeton Seminary should be transferred to the Old School; that the Old School should retain the old name whilst they themselves took that of the "American Presbyterian Church;" that the Old School should keep possession of the Records, allowing a certified copy to the other party; and that the Boards should also remain with the Old School. The balance of the funds amounting to but little, it was proposed to divide equally between the two parties. So that the financial and other preliminary obstacles seemed to be providentially removed. It ought to be here added that the Old School portion of the committee proposed, and the New School accepted, a provision that all questions should be finally settled by committees, or arbitrators, "so as in all cases to prevent an appeal by either party to the legal tribunals of the country."

What, then, was found to be in the way of the separation, thus agreed upon as important, and with the financial questions all settled?"

1. The committee disagreed on the point of keeping up the succession of the existing church. The New School wished the old homestead to be destroyed, and both parties of the divided household to erect, each, a new habitation. The Old School, however, insisted upon the propriety of preserving unimpaired the heritage of their ancestors, and of perpetuating the old succession in the line of the majority of the Assembly. Dr. BRECKINRIDGE justly remarked that "the majority should hold the corporate powers and continue to be the General Assembly. The proposition of the other side is based on the supposition that this body is to be killed that out of its ashes two new bodies are to be raised and that we are to begin a new and separate existence by killing our common parent! He could never agree to this. The General Assembly must be uninterrupted." These views seem reasonable; as the majority had the right of the succession. They had been contending all along for the old constitution and the old policy of the Presbyterian Church; and to ask them to go out and form a new Church was imposing a condition not consistent with their past struggles and their present position.

2. Another point about which the committee entirely disagreed was as to the time when the division should take place. The Old School insisted that it should begin at once, during the sessions of the Assembly. But the New School wished to postpone it for a year, or until the next Assembly. The plan proposed by the Old School portion of the committee was as follows: "The commissioners in the present Assembly shall elect which body they will adhere to, and this election shall decide the position of their Presbyteries respectively for the present; every Presbytery may reverse the decision of its present commissioners and unite with the opposite body by the permission of that body, properly expressed; that minorities of Presbyteries, if large enough, or if not, then in connexion with neighbouring minorities, may form new Presbyteries, or attach themselves to existing Presbyteries in union with either body, as shall be agreed on; that Synods ought to take order and make election on the general principles already stated; and minorities of Synods should follow out the rules suggested for the minorities of Presbyteries, as far as they are applicable." The Old School also agreed to allow individual churches and church members, as well as licentiates and candidates full liberty of deciding which church they would join.

The plan of the New School portion of the committee was for the General Assembly to send down to the Presbyteries, for their adoption as constitutional rules, the various items involved in a voluntary separation; such as, 1st, whether the body shall be divided? 2d. the mode of proceeding, which was to be, "in case a majority of the Presbyteries shall have voted to adopt the plan for organizing two General Assemblies," then each Presbytery to "direct their said commissioners to attend the meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of U. S. A., or of the American Presbyterian Church, as the case may be." The remaining items to be sent down, related to churches, licentiates, the Boards, the records and corporate property, which had been agreed to, with modifications, by the Old School.

The great points in dispute about the separation were, therefore, 1st, the propriety of perpetuating or of extinguishing the succession of the Church; and 2d, whether the separation should begin at once, or be postponed until the Presbyteries made known their views to the next Assembly. The Old School took their stand on continuing the succession of the Church and on an immediate separation of the two parties. In making their report to the Assembly, the Old School portion of the committee stated as follows:

"While the committee of the majority were perfectly disposed to do all that the utmost liberality could demand, and to use in all cases such expressions as should be wholly unexceptionable; yet it appeared to us indispensable to take our final stand on these grounds. [Above stated.]

For, first, we are convinced that if any thing tending towards a voluntary separation is done, it is absolutely necessary to do it effectually, and at once.

Secondly. As neither party professes any desire to alter any constitutional rule whatever, it seems to us not only needless, but absurd, to send down an overture to the Presbyteries on this subject. We believe moreover that full power exists in the Assembly, either by consent of parties, or in the way of discipline, to settle this, and all such cases; and that its speedy settlement is greatly to be desired.

Thirdly. In regard to the succession of the General Assembly, this committee could not, in present circumstances, consent to anything that should even imply the final dissolution of the Presbyterian church, as now organized in this country; which idea, it will be observed, is at the basis of the plan of the minority, insomuch that even the body retaining the name and institutions should not be considered the successor of this body."

The New School party, it will be noticed, smitten with a new zeal for "constitutional rules," were anxious for some delay. Their inconsistency was manifest. In the debate on the Plan of Union and in their written protests, they maintained that the Assembly might adopt, without consulting the Presbyteries, the Plan of Union, which virtually changed the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church; but now they had a great desire to consult the Presbyteries, although the constitution was to remain unaltered. The separation of the Church in all its Synods, with a definite provision for two independent organizations was evidently a measure not within "constitutional rules." It was a sort of revolution which could only be effected by a voluntary agreement, precluding in its terms a resort to law. If any body had the right to make a separation, it was the General Assembly, which is clothed with the power of executing all measures involving the peace and welfare of the Church. Not a single change was to be proposed in the Constitution, either as regards doctrine, discipline, or form of worship. It was simply a question of policy, as recited truly in the preamble of the New School report, which is as follows: "They [the New School] will unite in a report to the Assembly, stating that the committee have agreed that it is expedient that a division of the Church be effected." If effected at all, it must be by a legislative act of Assembly, growing out of an absolute necessity and in its nature extra-constitutional.

The real object of the New School, as has always been supposed, was to gain time. In the previous debates, they had boasted that they confidently expected a majority in the next Assembly.* The future yet held out to them the hope of recovering their position; and as they lost nothing by delay, but, on the contrary, expected great results from it, their policy was postponement. The Old School were equally resolved to bring matters to a crisis without loss of time.

* Dr. BEMAN said, in the debate on citing the suspected Judicatories, "They will come here and vote with the majority of the next Assembly. That is prophecy." Dr. PETERS said, in the same debate, "All the churches, involved in this decision will be declared part and parcel of the next Assembly." The New School leaders were very confident of reçeiving a majority the next year.

The following were among the reasons that influenced the Old School to insist upon immediate separation, if there was to be voluntary separation at all.

First. There was no necessity for delay. The party lines were drawn throughout the whole church; and the commissioners to the Assembly fairly represented their Presbyteries. No alterations were proposed in the constitution, and therefore there was nothing that need be sent down to the Presbyteries. The way for a separation was open; and if the New School had been anxious for such a measure, the opportunity was theirs. The Old School, who were exceedingly desirous for a division, opposed all procrastination as altogether unnecessary. And, so it was.

Secondly. There was no certainty that the proposed rules, relating to a voluntary division, would be adopted by the Presbyteries, if sent down to them. For

1. The New School, as a body, had always been opposed to a division. Having had the majority in several previous Assemblies, except that of 1835, they had trained themselves to the belief that they were the ruling powers in the church, and they were strongly in favour of keeping the body together. They were even averse to having the Old School secede, so well disposed were they to exercise lordship over them. It is not at all likely that many of their own Presbyteries, therefore, would have voted for the constitutional rules proposed by the New School portion of the general committee.

The recommendation of the New School committee would have no binding effect whatever; one of their propositions being, "the members of the minority side of the committee pledge themselves to use their influence to procure the adoption of the same (rules] by their Presbyteries." Pledges under such circumstances are worth nothing, unless the bodies concerned are predisposed to act in the direction of the pledges. We have seen that the New School generally had always been opposed to a division; and such being the case, the pledges of their commissioners would not have had much weight. Even granting that the five members on the minority side could have influenced their own individual Presbyteries-which we do not believe in reference to all of them-yet what influence would, or could, Dr. McAuley or Dickinson have in distant Presbyteries? The Methodists in the General Conference which took initiatory measures for the division of the Church, recommended all the Northern Conferences to allow to the Church South a proportion of the Corporate funds; but still the Annual Conferences refused to do any such thing. This we have reason to believe would have been the case with the New School Presbyteries.

2. Nor would the Old School Presbyteries have voted for constitutional rules, which aimed at the extermination of the Old Presbyterian Church for the purpose of forming two new ones! Dr. Breckinridge openly declared in the Assembly, "He could never agree to this." The Old School members of the committee, as a body, said in their Report, "they could not consent to any thing that should even imply the final dissolution of the Presbyterian church, as now organized. And so would have said their Presbyteries generally.

There was little probability, therefore, under the circumstances, that the constitutional rules would have received the affirmative votes of either party Thirdly. Another reason for immediate separation was the continued agitation of the Church. The whole subject would have to be debated afresh, in all the Presbyteries, throughout the length and breadth of the land; VOL. IV. No. 1.

3

« PredošláPokračovať »