CHAPTER
XVI
GROWING
UNEASINESS IN THE CHURCH
WHILST the Plan of Union and its
resulting agencies were, gradually, but surely undermining the foundations of
the Church, voices of admonition and alarm were occasionally uttered. But they
passed unheeded. In 1814, when Ely's case was before the Assembly, a case
growing out of hostility to him, on account of his opposition to Hopkinsianism,
the Rev. Dr. Beecher was present, as a delegate from the General Association of
Connecticut. The questions before the Assembly, on this case, were purely of
constitutional interpretation, growing out of a persistent refusal of four out
of seven ruling elders, to allow a congregational meeting, in order to make out
a call for Mr. Ely, who was the choice of an overwhelming majority of the
Church. Yet on this question, so purely domestic, Dr. Beecher used all his
eloquence and influence, against Mr. Ely, and on behalf of the recusant elders.
"This," says the Rev. Thomas D. Baird, "with other things, led to
a conversation among some of the brethren, about the unconstitutionality of the
Plan of Union, and the expediency of its abrogation. We never, so far as we
recollect, knew one man defend its constitutionality; but, as the Presbyterian
Church had proved so sound and firm, in the cases of Mr. Balch, the Cumberland
Presbyterians, and Mr. W. C. Davis, it was supposed that she could not in much
danger, from this quarter; and although unconstitutional, it had better be let
alone.” Elias B. Caldwell, Esq., the Rev. James Magraw, and the Rev. Thomas D.
Baird, were among the most decided in the expression of their apprehensions.
These were thought to be sufficiently answered by retorts of, "Bigotry”
and "Intolerance !" The subject did not, however, enter into the
discussions of the Assembly.
The next year, in the Synod
of Pittsburgh, the records of the Presbytery of Grand River came up, for the
first time, for review. The committee, to which they were referred, reported
that "we doubt of their power to make Confessions of Faith, distinct from
the Confession of Faith adopted by the Presbyterian Church in the United States.
Perhaps, however, their circumstances may make it obvious, that what they have
done was both correct and necessary; and, if they can make this appear to the
Synod, we can cheerfully recommend the approbation of their records.”
The
Synod, thereupon, "heard the members of Grand River Presbytery, on the points alluded to, in the above
report, were satisfied with their explanations, and approved the Records."
The explanations were an appeal to the Plan of Union, and the assurance that the
questionable measures, were regarded as but temporary expedients, in view of the
"peculiar circumstances" of the churches in that Presbytery. Under
this representation, the Synod reluctantly approved the records; although not
without strong expressions of doubt, by members, as to the propriety of the
action of the Assembly, which was admitted to entitle the Presbytery to
exemption from censure. Such was the whole extent of the Synod's action, of
which Mr. Seward in his narrative, says that it "did ratify and confirm the
covenant, proposed and adopted by the General Assembly, in 1801."
In the General Assembly the first
“committee man” that appeared, avowedly in that capacity, was Mr. Daniel W.
Lathrop, who, in 1820, presented himself as a commissioner from the Presbytery
of Hartford, in the Western Reserve. The case was referred to a committee, the
report of which, after long discussion, and the offer of several amendments, was
recommitted to an enlarged committee. The result was the introduction and
adoption, "without opposition," of a compromise report. It recited the
objects and provisions of the "conventional agreement" of 1801, and
closed with two resolutions:
"Resolved, In order to
carry into effect the friendly object of the above agreement, that Daniel W.
Lathrop be admitted, as a member of this Assembly.
"Resolved, That it be
affectionately recommended to the brethren who compose mixed societies of this
kind, as far as expediency will allow, to conform to the letter of the
constitution of the Presbyterian Church, in making their appointments and
organizing their congregations."
Of the efficacy of such
resolutions, the subsequent history will give an illustration, in the person of
this same "committee‑man," become an ordained minister, and
active member of the New School party, without ever having taken those vows
which the Constitution prescribes.
In the Assembly of 1811, the
subject of doctrinal error was introduced, as we have seen, through the Pastoral
letter of the Synod of Philadelphia, and the attempt of the Synod to check the
prevalent tendencies to defection, was visited with the frown of the Assembly.
Again, in 1822, a memorial
came up to the Assembly, "complaining of the prevalence of errors in
doctrine, and requesting the opinion and advice of the Assembly:" It was
referred to a committee, without exception, peace men; including the delegate
from Vermont, besides one or two who were themselves unsound in the faith.
The report of this
committee was adopted by the Assembly. That body could "never hesitate, on
any proper occasion, to recommend to those who, both at their licensure and
ordination, professed sincerely to receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of
this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures,
and to all other members of our Church steadfastly to adhere to that ‘form of
sound words.’” There were, however, members present in that Assembly, who,
neither at licensure nor ordination, nor at any other time, had officially
adopted that "form of sound words," nor believed the doctrines therein
taught. They, no doubt, highly approved of the rest of the reply, which declared
that the Assembly is not called upon to take up abstract cases, or act upon
remonstrances, as to points of doctrine, or the conduct of individuals, unless
they come up in regular judicial process.
The treatment of Lathrop's
case was not likely to arrest the delegation of committee‑men to the
supreme court. In 1826, Mr. Josiah Bissell, appeared in the Assembly, and
produced a commission as an elder, from the Presbytery of Rochester. A member of
that Presbytery informed the Assembly that Mr. Bissell had not been set apart,
as an elder; but that he was appointed, as was supposed by the Presbytery, in
conformity with the conventional agreement of 1801. In the discussion, it
appeared that he was not even a committee‑man. Yet, it was resolved to
admit him as a member of the Assembly.
Against this action, a
protest was entered, by forty-two members; in reply to whom, the Assembly stated
that the reasons of its action were, "1. The commission which Mr. Bissell
produced was in due form, and signed by, the proper officers of Presbytery. 2.
Every Presbytery has a right to judge of the qualifications of its own members,
and is amenable to Synod, and not to the General Assembly; except by way of
appeal or reference or complaint, regularly brought up from the inferior
judicatories; which has not been done in the present case. 3. It would be a
dangerous precedent, and would lead to the destruction of all order, in the
Church of Christ, to permit unauthenticated verbal testimony to set aside an
authoritative written document."
The admission of Mr. Bissell
was carried, by a majority of three; there being in the house, as voting
members, no less than seven delegates from the Congregational Associations of
New England! Another matter, which came before this Assembly, was even more
calculated to arrest attention to the relations and attitude of those bodies
toward our Church.
Mr. John Chambers, a candidate of the Presbytery of
Philadelphia, upon examination for ordination, was rejected, on account of his
doctrinal views. He, thereupon went to Connecticut, and was ordained by the
Association of the Western District of New Haven county; from which he
immediately obtained a dismission to the Presbytery of Philadelphia. "We
expect you to receive him as one of us," said they, in this paper.
The Presbytery submitted
these facts to the Assembly, by which a committee of three was appointed, to
visit the General Association of Connecticut and confer on this case; with
instructions further, to inquire whether any, and if any what, further articles
or alteration of the present terms of intercourse between the churches may be
expedient, "for the better protection of the parity, peace, and Christian
discipline of the churches connected with the two bodies."
The Association appointed a committee, to confer with
this delegation. They met in New York, in August, 1826; but it appeared that the
Connecticut committee had no power to do anything in relation to Mr. Chambers'
ordination. It was, however, agreed, as a rule of the correspondence of the two
bodies, to regard any such action as "irregular and unfriendly." It
was, also, agreed that the delegates of the bodies, mutually sent to each
other, should, thenceforward, have the right only to deliberate, and not to
vote.
The General Assembly, the next year, addressed a letter to the other New
England Associations, stating that the right given their delegates, to vote in
the General Assembly, was a violation of the Constitution of our Church; and
proposing that it be rescinded. The New Hampshire Association at once acquiesced
in the change. The Convention of Vermont referred it to a committee, to report
the next year. The result does not appear, on the minutes of the Assembly. The
General Association of Massachusetts declined to consent to the change; and it
was not till after four years of correspondence, that the Assembly, in 1830,
received the consent of that Association to surrender her claim, thus, to
trample under foot our Constitution, and exercise a potential control over the
internal affairs and most sacred and peculiar interests of our Church. By that
time, her attitude on this subject was no longer necessary, as a demonstration
of the fixed purpose of our New England brethren to acquire possession of the
Presbyterian Church, its institutions and resources.
Among the signers of the protest, in the Bissell case, was the Rev.
Thomas D. Baird. He had been an anxious witness of the first rising of trouble
from the East, as a member of the Assembly of 1814. He had sat in the Assembly
of 1817, and saw the indications of growing error and an increasing spirit of
false charity, tolerant of innovation, but intolerant of faithfulness in defence
of the truth. He had enjoyed abundant opportunity, as a member of the Synod of
Pittsburgh, to watch the working of the Plan of Union, there and in the Western
Reserve. In the concurring incidents of this year, he recognized a crisis in our
history. "The year 1826, was an eventful year," so he afterward
wrote," as relates to this subject. The formation of the Home Missionary
Society, in our opinion the most formidable machine for the subversion of
Presbyterianism, that was ever invented, the transfer of the missions of our
Church to the American Board, and the cases of Messrs. Chambers and Bissell,
deeply impressed the minds of some of the members of that Assembly, and soon
began to create just and well‑founded apprehensions, that there was, in
fact, a design to sap the foundations of Presbyterianism, by systematic, underground
approaches."
With
such views, Mr. Baird, upon his return from the Assembly of 1826, drafted an
overture, on the state of the Church, for the consideration of the Synod of
Pittsburgh. In this document, after a citation of some of the general
principles, which are stated in the Introduction to the Form of Government,
the dangers threatening the Church, and the remedy, were pointed out in the
following terms: "Notwithstanding the adoption and promulgation of the
above, among other general principles, with all the care that has been taken,
and all the means that have been employed, for their correct application, they
are oftentimes evaded, or violated, by the admission into this Church of
ministers, who have not given that security which its Constitution expressly
demands. Ordained ministers of other denominations, with whom we are on terms of
friendly correspondence, coming, with dismissions as ministers in good standing,
are, by a number of our Presbyteries, received, as a matter of course, without
incurring those obligations by which we ourselves are bound; nor does even the
form of installment provide for the omission. There is also abundant reason to
apprehend that the admission of such is becoming still more common; from which,
encouragement has been taken, even to require their reception, as a privilege
they have a right to demand.
"Although it is
believed that, with every correct mind, the very act of uniting with any church,
constitutes a tacit adoption of its doctrines and discipline; and ought to be
deemed prima facie evidence of the sentiments of the party being in
accordance with those of the body with which he unites; yet we are too well
aware of the evasions, which are often used on such subjects, as well as with
facts, which have transpired, not to see the absolute necessity of the most
explicit avowals, where ministerial consistency, harmony and soundness in the
faith are so deeply involved.
"It cannot, for a
moment, be supposed, that our ecclesiastical reputation, or even our strength,
depends on, or consists in, the number of our adherents; but, under the guardian
care of our Church's Head, on our unity, purity, and piety. Where, then, shall
we find a reason, or even an excuse, for the anomaly which now appears in the
Presbyterian Church? Here, we see her sons, nurtured in her bosom, fostered by
her care, and instructed in all her doctrines and rites of worship, justly
required, before entering into the ministry, by a public profession of their
faith, to give a pledge of the purity of their sentiments, and the correctness
of those doctrines they are likely to inculcate; while those who have been
raised under the influence of other principles, forms, and prepossessions, are
admitted, without any such assurance. Surely if an explicit and solemn guarantee
be requisite from those who have been instructed in all our doctrines and the
forms of our ritual, much more is it necessary from those who are in a great
degree strangers to us and to them: but if it is not proper or necessary from
the latter, then they are right who would exterminate all creeds and confessions
from the Church of God.
"We do not, therefore,
attempt to conceal our deep and growing concern under the apprehension of that
danger to which our constitutional standards, ecclesiastical instititutions, and
doctrinal purity are exposed, by receiving ministers of religion, as constituent
members of our judicatories; and committing to their government and instructions
our rising congregations, who have not incurred the same obligations by which
their brethren have plighted their faith.
"Although we can,
without any dereliction of principle, or reluctance of feeling, cherish the most
friendly sentiments toward those who differ from us in many particulars, and
cultivate a friendly intercourse with them, we do not, therefore, believe, that
either principle, prudence, or
courtesy, requires us to invest them with the direction of our ecclesiastical
concerns; and the harmony, order, and beauty of this branch of the Zion of God
imperiously forbid it. Indeed, when our judicatories shall have been, in a great
measure, composed, as, from the present practice, may, at no distant period, be
realized, of those who have not submitted to our regulations, do not feel our
obligations, and whose attachments to our doctrines may frequently and justly be
questioned, we may see our schools, our funds, and all our resources transferred
to other hands, and employed for other purposes than those for which they have
been bestowed and accumulated, and we may, in vain, regret the apathy which has
been indulged, while surrendering, inch by inch, the very foundations on which
our ecclesiastical institutions are based.
"To guard, therefore,
as far as practicable, against consequences of so serious a character as those
to which we have adverted, the Synod of Pittsburgh, respectfully, yet most
earnestly recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of the following, or
some other, adequate rule, for the more effectual application of the ‘general
principles' avowed and published in the Constitution of our Church.
"Resolved,
1.
That it shall, henceforth, be the duty
of every Presbytery under the care of this Assembly, to keep a book, in which
shall be transcribed the obligations required of ministers of this Church, at
their ordination; which shall be subscribed, in the following form, viz.: ‘I,
A. B., do, ex animo, adopt, receive,
and subscribe, the above obligations, as a just and true exhibition of my
principles and faith; and do resolve and promise to exercise my ministry in
conformity thereto.'
"2. That every minister
of the Presbyterian Church shall be required to subscribe the above obligations;
and that every individual, who shall hereafter become a minister of this Church,
whether by ordination or admission from any other ecclesiastical body, shall,
before taking his seat in Presbytery, in like
manner, subscribe the same.
"3. That the books or
catalogues, thus formed, shall be annually submitted to the inspection of the
respective Synods, as the other minutes of Presbytery are; and the Synods shall
form the rolls of their members from the catalogues, thus formed, and laid
before them.
"4. That, as, in the
opinion of this Assembly, no minister of this Church, who is not unfriendly to
our doctrines and discipline; will refuse to subscribe the above obligations, it
is the manifest duty of all who cannot conscientiously enter into these
engagements, promptly and peaceably to withdraw."
This overture was adopted,
by the Synod of Pittsburgh, nemine
contradicente (no one dissenting),"
and ordered to be sent up to the General Assembly. When the Assembly of 1827
met, the paper was placed in the hands of the Committee of Bills and Overtures.
The Rev. Dr. Francis Herron, of Pittsburgh, was Moderator of the Assembly. He
called together the commissioners from the Synod, and proposed to them to
suppress the overture. This they declined to do. He, thereupon, assumed,
personally, the responsibility, of withdrawing it from the Committee, on which
there were members whom that paper would have excluded from the Presbyterian
Church.
Some years after the
controversy had ended, in the division of the Church, and when the author of the
overture was sleeping in the dust, it was the privilege of the writer of this
history to meet with the venerable Herron. He, at once, referred, in terms of
affection, to the memory of Mr. Baird, and remarked, "Had I and others
possessed the same appreciation of the condition of things, and the same clear
forecast, which, at an early day, Mr. Baird displayed, our Church might have
been saved from years of distraction and strife, and final division."
The above overture was
revived by the Synod of Pittsburgh, in 1831, with some modifications, and again
sent up to the Assembly. That body had, at its preceding meeting, adopted an
order, upon the motion of Dr. Green, that licentiates and ministers, coming from
corresponding denominations, into the Presbyterian Church, should be required to
answer, affirmatively, the same questions, respectively, which are proposed to
our own candidates for licensure and ordination.
The Synod, highly approved
this measure; yet, observing that it made no provision for the cases of the
large numbers who had already gained unconstitutional admittance into our
Church, and for other prevalent disorders, urged the Assembly to take further
action. It stated that "common fame loudly proclaims, that in some of the
congregations and Presbyteries, constituting the Synod of Western Reserve, and
in some other sections of our Church, our constitutional forms and
constitutional obligations are disregarded, in the organization of churches, and
in the admission of members of Presbyteries; and that there is reason to fear
that there are but few exceptions, in such regions, to this remark."
To obviate these disorders,
the Synod proposed to the Assembly the adoption of the following regulations:
"Resolved,
That every church session, and Presbytery, under the care of this
General Assembly, shall be, and hereby is, required to keep a book, in which the
following formula shall be recorded, viz.: ‘I, A. B., do sincerely receive and
adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Presbyterian Church in the
United States of America, according to the plain and obvious meaning of the
words in which they are expressed, as a just and candid exhibition of my
principles and faith; and I do promise and oblige myself to exercise my
ministry, (or eldership, as the case may be,) in conformity thereto. I do, also,
approve the Form of Government and Discipline of the said Church, and do promise
to exercise and perform my official duties according to the principles and rules
therein contained.’”
The other regulations of
this overture were, also, essentially the same as those of 1826, except the
last, which anticipated the disowning acts of 1837. "Resolved, That any
Synod, Presbytery, Minister or Elder, refusing to comply with the above
conditions, or such other adequate provision as may be adopted by the General
Assembly, shall be considered as renouncing the jurisdiction of the Presbyterian
Church, and consequently no longer to be considered in connection with that
body."
The answer of the General
Assembly to this overture, assumed two directions. On subscription to the
Confession of Faith, the Assembly declared no further action necessary. It,
however, decided that subscription includes the Catechisms. As to the Synod of
the Western Reserve, it was, by the Assembly, directed to review the state of
its churches, and report to the next Assembly, touching any existing disorders.
In the Assembly of 1831, the
question respecting committee‑men again came up, upon occasion of the
delegation of Clement Tuttle who was designated in his commission, a
"committee‑man," from the Presbytery of Grand River. The
Committee on Elections, to whom the case was referred, declined to express any
opinion, on the constitutional question. The Assembly, however, determined to
enroll him as a member.
Against this decision, a
protest was entered, by R. J. Breckinridge, and sixty‑six others. Mr.
Daniel W. Lathrop, now a minister, reported a reply, which was adopted. This
reply admits that the case involves "an appearance of departure from the
letter of the Constitution;" but not its spirit; because the definition of
Ruling Elders, in the Form of Government, chapter v., describes exactly the
character of the committee‑men. To have refused the committee‑man a
seat would have been to violate “a solemn compact,”—the Plan of Union—
“as that instrument has been construed and acted on by the Assembly, during
the last ten years. To refuse such commissioners a seat, would also be to wrest
from the Presbytery a constitutional right to a representation in the Assembly;
inasmuch as the practice of the Assembly for the last ten years, afforded a full warrant to Presbyteries to expect that a representative of this
character would be received as a member." "The conventional agreement
expressly provides that laymen, of the character there contemplated, shall be
admitted to the Presbyteries, on an equality with elders. If, therefore, there
is, in connection with this subject, an infraction of the Constitution, it is,
in the treaty itself ; and the only proper
remedy for the supposed evil, would be, in a regular proceeding to amend or
annul the said treaty."
Toward the close of this
Assembly, the withdrawal of members, upon leave of absence, gave a majority to
the Old School, and a resolution was submitted, as follows:
"Resolved, 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
General Assembly, is inexpedient, and of questionable constitutionality; and,
therefore, ought not in future to be made."
In the discussion on this
subject, Dr. Spring showed that the Plan of Union never contemplated the right
of Presbyteries sending committee-men to sit in the Assembly. He pointed out the
evils resulting from the system, and stated that these Presbyteries sometimes
send delegates to the Assembly who are not even committeemen; that there might
be a number of them on this floor, and but for their influence, in the decisions
of this house, we might this day be at peace. He intimated that he did not speak
upon surmise; and being called upon for facts, he appealed to the Rev. Dr.
Snodgrass, who rose, and named a member of the Assembly, who was represented in
his commission as an elder, but who had confessed himself to be not even a
committee‑man. This was in that famous Assembly of 1831, in which. Dr.
Beman presided. He wished the privilege of taking part in this discussion. But
his suggestion being opposed was withdrawn. The resolution was then adopted, by
a vote of eighty-one to fifty-three.
But the great controversy, the history of which is here traced, concerned not only, the doctrinal purity of the Church, and the maintenance of the divine order of God's house. It, also, involved the evangelic office of the Church, itself, her right and duty, with her own hands, to minister to the wants of the needy, and carry the gospel of salvation to a perishing world. To that topic we shall next address ourselves.
