(2.) And look at the results in another point of view. Noah invested all he had in the ark. It is not likely he had much left when that was done. Now, was all this property lost? Were all his time and labour thrown away? On the contrary, was it not a most profitable investment? And in this respect are not the results all that could be desired? Why, if he had any property left after building the ark, it was all carried away by the flood; so that all he saved was just what he used in building and provisioning the ark; all he saved was what he spent in this work; all he saved was what he used; the rest, if he had any, was all lost! In this view it was profitably invested. But look a little farther, and you will begin to have a sight of the splendid results of this investment of time and money, the ark just carried Noah over the flood from the old world to the new, and when he reached that world, he was lord of the whole of it! He had it all; there was none to dispute his right; he might just divide it among his sons, and make them all as rich as they need desire to be! So that Noah not only saved his house, but enriched his house. What he spent on the ark saved their lives, and made them rich. Such were some of the results of Noah's work of faith. W. J. M. [To be continued.] Vistorical and Biographical. HISTORY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ITS FOUNDERS, ITS PRINCIPLES, AND ITS ACTS. No. IX. IV. THE fourth measure of the Reform Assembly was the dissolution of the four Synods. As soon as it was ascertained that the New School party wished to postpone to another year the question of a peaceable division of the Church, the Assembly dismissed the consideration of the subject. The time for decisive action had come. DR. PLUMER* arose, and offered a resolution, which was passed, declaring that by the abrogation of the Plan of Union, the Synod of Western Reserve was no longer a part of the Presbyterian Church. A few days afterwards, a similar resolution was passed in reference to the Synods of Utica, Geneva, and Genessee. These acts are commonly known by the name of "Excision Acts," especially in the nomenclature of our New School brethren; but their object was simply to separate the Congregational and mixed churches from our body and to give to the real Presbyterian Churches the opportunity of re-organizing on the good old platform. In our remarks upon these acts, we shall exhibit their true nature, maintain their constitutionality, and specify some considerations which relieve their apparent harshness, and justify the time, place, and circumstances of the legislation which called them forth. * By an oversight, the name of DR. PLUMER was omitted in an enumeration of the principal champions of the Old School, given in a preceding number. Dr. Plumer rendered great service to the cause of truth in the Assembly of 1837; and next to DR. BRECKINRIDGE, no man wielded a greater influence in debate. THE NATURE OF THE EXCISION ACTS. FIRST. What was the TRUE NATURE OF THE EXCISION ACTS? Our New School brethren, who are well versed in controversy, endeavour to gain an advantage by representing themselves to have been tried and condemned without a hearing, and by affirming that the Assembly passed a judicial sentence without the regular forms of process. Let us examine this point with candour. The excision acts will be found to be not judicial, but legislative, or administrative. 1. These acts were certainly not judicial in their letter. Their language is not a criminal sentence but an authoritative declaration of a fact. "Resolved, That by the operation of the abrogation of the Plan of the Union of 1801, the Synod of the Western Reserve is, and is hereby declared to be, no longer a part of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America." 1. "Resolved, That in consequence of the abrogation by this Assembly of the Plan of Union of 1801, between it and the General Association of Connecticut, as utterly unconstitutional, and therefore null and void from the beginning, the Synods of Utica, Geneva and Genesee, which were formed and attached to this body under and in execution of said "Plan of Union," be, and are hereby declared to be out of the ecclesiastical connexion of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, and that they are not in form and in fact an integral portion of said Church." 2. That the solicitude of this Assembly on the whole subject, and its urgency for the immediate decision of it, are greatly increased by reason of the gross disorders which are ascertained to have prevailed in those Synods, (as well as that of the Western Reserve, against which a declarative resolution, similar to the first of these, has been passed during our present sessions,) it being made clear to us, that even the Plan of Union itself was never consistently carried into effect by those professing to act under it. 3. That the General Assembly has no intention, by these resolutions, or by that passed in the case of the Synod of the Western Reserve, to affect in any way the ministerial standing of any members of either of said Synods; nor to disturb the pastoral relation in any Church; nor to interfere with the duties or relations of private Christians in their respective congregations; but only to declare and determine according to the truth and necessity of the case, and by virtue of the full authority existing in it for that purpose, the relation of all said Synods, and all their constituent parts to this body, and to the Presbyterian Church in the United States. 4. That inasmuch as there are reported to be several churches and ministers, if not one or two Presbyteries, now in connexion with one or more of said Synods, which are strictly Presbyterian in doctrine and order, be it, therefore, further resolved, that all such churches and ministers as wish to unite with us, are hereby directed to apply for admission into those Presbyteries belonging to our connexion which are most convenient to their respective locations; and that any such Presbytery as aforesaid, being strictly Presbyterian in doctrine and order, and now in connexion with either of said Synods, as may desire to unite with us, are hereby directed to make application, with a full statement of their cases, to the next General Assembly, which will take proper order thereon. * If the words and language of acts are any indication of their nature, it must be evident that there is no judicial sentence here. 2. These acts were not judicial in their spirit and aim. One or two allusions are indeed made to disorders and to errors in doctrine, but only as grounds of solicitude and of urgency to action. The whole spirit and aim of the measures are legislative. Special provision is made by the fourth * We wish Dr. Judd had copied these resolutions in his history, just as they stand, and in their order and connexion. Indeed we do not find the third resolution in Dr. Judd's book, any where! He copies the second twice. Is it because the second looks "judicial," and the third is so "legislative?" -Ed. resolution for the re-admission into the Church of all ministers, churches, and Presbyteries, "sound in doctrine and in order," who desire to return, and a cordial invitation is given to them to do so. The speakers, who took part in the debate in favour of the resolutions, supported them on constitutional grounds and renounced the idea of judicial proceedings. The citation of Judicatories, preliminary to a trial, had been abandoned as a reforming measure; and it was determined to resort to legislation. Let us observe the animus of the principal speakers, who had an agency in passing the acts. DR. BAXTER said, "The measure was not designed to give offence; it was not to be regarded in the light of an excommunication; it was not fixing upon those affected by it, a mark of reprobation; it was a simple declaration, without any impeachment of character, that these men and churches were not Presbyterian. Not that they were excluded from the Church at large; but that, although they were still acknowledged as Christian brethren, they were not a portion of the Presbyterian Church." DR. PLUMER replied to one of the members, "The gentleman also designates this measure as a cutting off; but it is in fact the mere interpretation of a common law; it is not discipline but a declaration concerning them, as of other denominations, that they are not a part of our Church." DR. JUNKIN remarked, "Now, is it a question of discipline, strictly so called? It proposes not at all to interfere with pastoral or ministerial relations of any brother, except as to his connexion with us. Here, too, I complain of our brethren that they still represent it as if we were desirous of driving them from the ministry, and eldership, and communion." JUDGE EWING said, "I will lay out of this question every thing that relates to discipline. It is not a question of discipline at all.... You do not deprive any of these ministers or churches of any of their appropriate rights; their ministers are still ministers, and if they and their churches wish to be in the Presbyterian Church, they can easily get into it by knocking at the right door." SAMUEL C. ANDERSON, Esq.,* remarked, "It seems to me that the true question here has been misunderstood. What is the question? Is it one of cutting off a Synod? No sir. If that Synod is rightly in the Church, you cannot cut them off. But we allege that the Synod, according to our constitution, never was in the Presbyterian Church. This is an answer to every allegation of our inhumanity, oppression, &c., and the hardships to which the Synods will be subjected. These churches can organize as Presbyterian Churches, if they wish to do so, and come back next week, asking to be received among us." DR. R. J. BRECKINRIDGE† said, "We make the distinction between the Church of Christ at large and the Presbyterian Church; and in reference to these churches * This gentleman, a ruling elder from Virginia, is generally acknowledged by both sides to have made the most effective speech on the pending resolution. The writer of this note, in conversing a few weeks ago with Dr. Elliott, the Moderator of the great reforming assembly of 1837, inquired about the effect of Mr. Anderson's speech. Dr. Elliott replied that it carried the house by storm, and that it was wonderful for its solid argument, its kind spirit and its eloquent and even splendid delivery. Dr. Elliott said, that Mr. Anderson, in one of the preceding meetings, had unravelled a difficult point of order, which attracted his attention as Moderator, and that he noticed his interest in the question relating to the excision acts, and was delighted to see him rise to take part in the debate. † Dr. BRECKINRIDGE did not speak on the resolution about the Western Reserve Synod, but he made the motion and opened the debate about the New York Synods. His speech was so effective that, at its close, JUDGE JESSUP arose, and offered a substitute to cite the Judicatories before the next assembly. That matter, however, had been already disposed of; and it was now too late to renew the proposal. DR. BRECKINRIDGE in his speech again offered terms of peaceable and voluntary separation, "He would say to these Synods, even after they should be declared out of the Church, if you will accept the terms of separation first offered, YOU SHALL STILL HAVE THEM; but if you refuse, we must go on." The great object of Dr. Breckinridge and of the Old School body, was to secure peace on constitutional principles. VOL. IV. No. 2. 6 we deny nothing to them but their Presbyterian character, and without injuring or unchurching them, we merely say, "Stand aside." The provisions of the Reform acts and the spirit of the men, who had an agency in framing and passing them, show that they were never designed to be judicial in their character. 3. Nor were they judical in their operation. The Reform acts were never pratically regarded by any one, as disciplinary. The New School, notwithstanding all their outcry about being cast out without a trial and virtually excommunicated, have been always considered Christian ministers, in regular standing, by the Old School, by Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, and every other denomination. They have never shown any signs of being deposed from the ministry or of being injured in their official and private character. In like manner, their churches have always been acknowledged as Christian churches. It is only when a discussion arises about the Reform acts of 1837, that our New School brethren raise the cry of excommunication, discipline, judicial sentence, &c. Good DR. JUDD strikes up this strain whenever he comes in sight of the great acts, emblazoned on our constitutional standard; and the monotony of the Synodical book is relieved by the martial strain of reproach against the Old School Tribunal, followed by the dirge of "excommunication." Our brethren must see that this evasion of the true issue as it appears to us, not to them-cannot be successfully practised upon the public. It answered a good purpose in keeping themselves together, and in pleading before a secular jury; but the device has had its day and must cease to carry conviction, in the light of all the facts of the case. CHIEF JUSTICE GIBSON, well remarked: "The apparent injustice of the measure arises from the contemplation of it as a judicial sentence, pronounced against parties which were neither cited, nor heard; which it evidently was not... Though deprived of Presbyterial organization, the Presbyterian parts were not excluded from the Church, provision being made for them by allowing them to attach themselves to the nearest Presbytery." If, then, the Reform acts in reference to the Synods, were not judicial in their nature, what were they? They were simply what their language, spirit, and operation prove them to be-LEGISLATIVE ACTS. Their object was to undo the unconstitutional arrangements growing out of the previous legislation of 1801, when the Plan of Union was adopted. That Plan came into existence by legislation, it was repealed by legislation, and legislation declared the effect of that repeal. But, say our New School brethren, "We are out of the Church, and what more could a judicial sentence do? Where is the difference?" The difference is just that which exists between an enactment of constitutional law, involving no impeachment of character, and the decision of a Court rendering judgment against the guilty. Both may agree in some of their results; as for example, in either case, the New School would be outside of the Church; but in the one case, their mere position in relation to the Presbyterian organization was determined; in the other case, their character in relation to Christian morals would have been affected. It makes a great difference whether a man is ordered out of an assembly because he has no right to sit in it, or whether he is expelled on account of immoral conduct, although in both cases he actually gets out. But enough on this point. We presume that all impartial, candid readers will see that the excision acts were not judical, but legislative acts, whose object, instead of judging character, was to expound the constitution and carry its provisions into effect. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE EXSCINDING ACTS. We have now reached the main question. Had the Assembly a right to declare the four Synods to be no part of the Presbyterian Church? Were the Reform Acts constitutional? It will scarcely be denied that the GENERAL ASSEMBLY was the PROPER BODY, if any, to legislate in the case. The Plan of Union had been formed by the Assembly, and no other judicatory could reach the disorder and apply the remedy. The General Assembly is the bond of union among the churches, and in an important sense their representative. It has the right to "superintend the concerns of the whole Church," "to suppress schismatical contentions and disputations," and to exercise the general powers of legislation, within constitutional limitations. Of course, the Assembly was the proper body to act in a matter involving the general welfare, and to arrest the evils resulting from an inconsiderate and unconstitutional measure of its own previous legislation. The unconstitutionality of the Plan of Union has been noticed in a preceding number. Again, The General Assembly had the right to carry out its action THROUGH SYNODS. The Assembly's right to operate directly either upon Presbyteries or churches has always been a matter of doubt and dispute, but its authority over Synods is unquestionable. Let it be remembered, however, that the Assembly has never claimed the power of cutting off regular Synods. Its right to declare the four Synods out of the Church, is owing to the irregularity of their organization. As Chief Justice Gibson remarked, "the power which constituted the Plan might fairly repeal it, and dissolve the bodies which had grown out of it, whenever the good of the Church should seem to require it. Could the Synods, however, be dissolved by a legislative act? I know not how they could be legitimately dissolved by any other." Thus far, then, it is clear, first, that the Assembly had a right to act, and secondly, to act through the Synods. We further maintain that the Assembly had a right to act through the Synods, AS IT DID. What was that action? It was a repeal of the Plan of Union, and then a declaration as to the effect of that repeal. In the judgment of the Assembly, the effect of the repeal was the dissolution of the Synods. The real question now is, whether the repeal of the Plan of Union involved the disseverance of the Synods from the Presbyterian Church. The whole case depends upon this point. It is perfectly futile to attempt to evade the issue. (1.) By declaiming, as Dr. Judd does, about a judicial decision. Such declamation is the most useless sort of supererogation; it has, in truth, nothing to go upon. It is destitute alike of faith and works, of sense and fact. (2.) Or by assuming that there was a violation of a compact. There was really no compact at all, and much less any power in the Assembly to make such a compact. We have already remarked upon these points. (3.) Or by talking of an ex post facto law and of retrospective operations. No rights can grow up under unconstitutional acts. Quod ab initio non valet, tractu temporis non convalescit. In the language of D. Baxter, "No principle was better established than this, that when an unconstitutional law was abrogated, all that had grown up under that law was swept away with it." Time gives no title to wrong. (4.) Of course, the kindred plea that the Church had acquiesced in the Plan of Union, that the mixed Presbyteries had voted to amend the Constitution, &c., all passes for nothing. Mere acquiescence, especially in ignorance of facts, cannot subvert constitutional rights. A part of one of the beautiful squares of Philadelphia had been occupied for one hundred years by a German congregation, who held it |