CHAPTER
XXXIII
THE
CRISIS
IN the conference of the
orthodox, held during the sessions of the Assembly of 1836, some of the members
were inclined to proceed at once to extreme measures. Recoiling from the
prospect of hopeless strife and growing disorders, and startled and disgusted
with the developments of that Assembly, they were urgent for immediate division
or secession. The larger number, however, although indignant at the haughty
spirit, the clandestine management and doctrinal contradictions, of the
majority, were opposed to so extreme a step; regarding it as only justifiable
when the redemption of the Church was demonstrated to be hopeless. They proposed
a committee of correspondence, who should consult with the orthodox brethren
throughout the Church, and if it should be judged expedient, call a Convention,
preliminary to the next Assembly; so that the whole orthodox part of the Church
might be represented and consulted, and any final
measures be adopted by common
consent, after full conference and deliberation. This proposition was adopted,
and a committee accordingly appointed. It consisted of the Rev. Drs. W. W.
Phillips, Joseph McElroy, George Potts, John Breckinridge, Francis McFarland, W.
A. McDowell, and John M. Krebs; with elders, Henry Rankin, Hugh Auchincloss, and
James Lenox.
The duties of this committee were of the most responsible and delicate
nature. The crisis was pressing. The rejection of the Western
Foreign Missionary Society was not only a criminal breach of covenant, but, in
view of the facts and the arguments used, indicated a fixed purpose for ever to
exclude the Presbyterian Church, through its own organization, from the foreign
missionary field. The mutilation of the annual report of the Board of Education,
the treacherous attempts to revolutionize it and the Board of Missions, and the
denial to the Assembly of the constitutional power to erect Boards, at all, or
to organize any standing executive agency, evinced a persistent hostility to
those institutions, which threatened their utter destruction. The arbitrary
temper manifested by the leaders of the party, when they found themselves
sustained by a clear majority of the Assembly, indicated how little was to be
expected from their forbearance, if once possessed of decisive control. The
avowals boastfully and defiantly made, in the discussion of Barnes' case, of
doctrinal identification with him, of contempt for the authority of the
Constitution, and of the embrace of doctrines at variance with it, were
none the less significant, because of the zeal, afterward, so strangely aroused
and unanimously expressed for the doctrines of the Confession, by men whose
names were identified with life-long labors, in behalf of the doctrines of
the new divinity.
The attitude of the Moderate
party, and its influence in inducing the present condition of things, were,
also, subjects of painful and anxious thought. It was felt that, however
unintentionally, their influence had operated, directly and most powerfully, to
discourage, embarrass, and enfeeble the friends of the Constitution, and to
strengthen the hands of the authors of innovation; and that, unless they could,
by some means, be dislodged from their present position and brought to
co-operate actively with their brethren, the salvation of the Church was
almost beyond hope.
A few weeks after the
adjournment of the Assembly, the committee issued, in lithograph, a circular
letter to leading ministers, in all parts of the Church, designed to elicit
facts and ascertain their sentiments, as to the steps to be taken in the crisis.
Answers were solicited to the following queries:
"1. With so great a
diversity of sentiment, in regard to doctrine and order, in the Presbyterian
Church, can we continue united in one body, and maintain the integrity of our
standards, and promote the cause of truth and righteousness in the earth?
"2. If you think we
can, then please to say how the causes that, at present, distract us can be
removed.
"3. Do you believe that
there are ministers in our connection who hold errors on account of which they
ought to be separated from us
"4. If you think such
errors are held, please to name them, particularly.
"5. If you believe
that persons holding the errors you name ought to be separated from our
communion, what, in your judgment, is the best way of accomplishing it?
"6. It was repeatedly
avowed, by ministers in the last General Assembly, that they received the
Confession of Faith of our Church, only ‘for substance of doctrine,' ‘as a
system,' or, ‘as containing the Calvinistic system, in opposition to the
Arminian,’ etc. Hence, we know not how much of our standards they adopt, and
how much they reject. Is this, in your opinion, the true intent and meaning of
receiving and adopting the Confession of Faith?
"7. It is believed, by
many, that much of the evil of which we now complain has come upon us in
consequence of our connection with Congregational churches within our own bounds
and represented in our judicatories. We would ask you, whether, in your
judgment, it would not be better for us, as a Church, to have no other
connection with Congregationalists, than the friendly one which we now have with
them, as corresponding bodies?"
It has been denied, of late,
that the division of 1837 grew out of doctrinal questions. But it will be
observed, that the attention of this committee, in this confidential
development, was occupied almost wholly, with the doctrinal errors which
prevailed. It will also be seen, that, in the seventh question, they approximate
the very solution which was reached by the next Assembly.
The issue oŁ this paper elicited a burst of indignation
from the New School leaders, by whom it was stigmatized as a secret conspiracy
against the peace of the Church. It,
however, accomplished the end had in view, by developing a vast amount of
information, as to the precise nature and extent of the evils complained of, and
the mind of the most judicious men in the Church, as to the crisis.
Predicated upon the light
thus obtained, the
committee then published “An Address to the ministers, elders, and members of
the Presbyterian Church," in a pamphlet of 41 pages. In this
publication, as introductory to the main design, it was maintained "that
the prosperity of the Church, and her efficiency, in securing the great objects
of her institution, depend, under God, on the purity of her faith."
"That to the successful maintenance of the truth of God, to union of effort
in its maintenance, creeds, confessions of faith are indispensable;" and,
that the Confession is not to be received "for substance," nor
"as a system;" but sincerely as "containing the system of
doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures.”
As illustrative of a
different view of this subject, the Address then proceeded to a review of the
case of Mr. Barnes. This was followed by an exhibition of the missionary
question, as discussed and determined in connection with the repudiated treaty
with the Synod of Pittsburgh.
The result of the whole
survey was expressed, in one word. "Fathers, Brethren,
Fellow-Christians, whatever else is dark, this is clear, We cannot
continue in the same body. We are not agreed, and it is vain to attempt to
walk together. That those whom we regard as the authors of our present
distractions will retrace their steps, is not to be expected; and that those who
have hitherto rallied around the
standards of our Church, will continue to do so, is both to be expected and
desired. In some way or other, therefore, these men must be separated
from us.” How this should be effected, the committee did not venture to
suggest.
In fact, a feeling of discouragement and despondence began
to infect the ranks of the orthodox, and
to beget a disposition to seek peace and a pure gospel and scriptural order, in
the bosom of the Reformed Dutch Church. Particularly disheartening was the attitude maintained by
the Princeton professors, who, while they were recognized as doctrinally with
the Old School, were found in opposition to almost every measure proposed or
attempted by it, for the reformation of the Church. So serious was the
embarrassment hence resulting, that "a company of gentlemen were designated
by a large and respectable number of the Old School; to proceed in a noiseless
and unobserved manner, to wait upon the professors at their homes, to reason and
remonstrate with them, on the subject of their position, and, if possible, to
induce them to concur with their brethren, in the public action of the Church.
These gentlemen, agreeably to the arrangement made for them; assembled at
Princeton, in the autumn of 1836, and met the professors, in Dr. Hodge's study,
whither they had been invited to repair. At this, conference, the three
professors of the Seminary attended; and the Rev.
J. W. Alexander was also present. The following members of the Old School
deputation were in attendance: Rev. Dr. James Blythe, of South Hanover, Indiana;
Dr. C. C. Cuyler, of Philadelphia; Dr. George
Junkin, of Easton, Pennsylvania; Dr. W. W. Phillips, of New York; and last and
least, the humble penman of these pages,” the Rev. Dr. Isaac V. Brown.
"Nothing important or
decisive was exhibited in this interview. The parties, respectively, with much
moderation, stated their views, but without any decisive result. In the course
of these remarks, a gentleman in company took liberty to observe that, to him
there did not appear to be any great or serious obstacles between them; and that
it really seemed very deplorable that so great an interest should be left in
suspense, when the only difference appeared to be a mere matter of church
policy. After an interim of silence, perhaps five minutes in duration, the Rev.
James W. Alexander, then, comparatively, a young man, in a very unassuming and
respectful manner, repeated the suggestion, that there was really very little
difference or distance between the parties; and manifested a strong desire that
an entire reconciliation should take place. He urged, very gently, that the
parties both desired the same thing; and they differed merely as to the best
manner of accomplishing it. This, said he, is not a sufficient ground upon which
to jeopardize so great an interest. Wise men do not act in this manner. In a
strain somewhat like this, and of very little greater extent, the remarker did
more, probably, toward adjusting the difficulty, than any one who had preceded
him. The tone, as well as the temper, of his remarks, seemed a little above his
years; and that gave to them a peculiar emphasis.”
In connection with this
Princeton conference, Dr. Brown relates a fact which illustrates the extremity
of the situation and the nature of the apprehensions felt by the best men in the
Church. He states that, in New York, at this time, lived a wealthy, intelligent,
and devoted ruling elder. In common with many others, he was apprehensive that, in
consequence of the mistaken course of the moderate men, the policy of the New
School party was about to acquire permanent control over the Church and its
institutions. He
was, therefore, anxious to ascertain, through the committee of conference,
whether the Princeton gentlemen were determined to persist in the active
opposition heretofore maintained by them to the reforming policy of the Old
School. He was opposed to scandalizing the cause of religion, by
protracting a hopeless controversy; and unless some favorable indications
could be elicited from that quarter, "he,
and others like-minded, had resolved to abandon Princeton, immediately, to
the control of the adversary, and take measures to establish another seminary,
on ground entirely out of their reach. For this purpose, the money was ready in
bank; a beautiful site, with appropriate grounds and edifices, was selected; the
principal officers of the institution were designated, from among the most
prominent in our Church, and everything ready for action. But the
delegates did not, upon the whole, consider the condition of the seminary at
Princeton, exposed as it was, sufficiently desperate to warrant so great a
sacrifice, and so decisive a change, at that time. In this feeling, our highly
respected friends in New York cordially acquiesced." The ruling elder here
referred to was Robert Lenox Esq., the father of that eminent servant of Christ
and benefactor of our Church, James Lenox, Esq., of New York.
The
Committee of Conference left Princeton, greatly
disheartened at the seeming failure of their mission. And yet the result showed
that they had not labored in vain. Influenced, no doubt, partly, by the
considerations urged in this conference, and partly, by convictions,
subsequently reached, as to the plans and policy of the New School, Dr.
Alexander was found among the foremost in the next Assembly, in devising and
executing the measures, which brought deliverance to the Church.
It was about this time, that New York Union Theological
Seminary was founded, upon a plan expressly devised to keep it out of the
control of the General Assembly, should a majority of that body, at any time,
prove to be Old School. "It was felt
that, sustained by the patronage and confidence of the pastors and churches of
the city of New York, and those who sympathized with them, throughout the
Church, the proposed institution might be competently endowed, ably officered
and well sustained. It would, at least, in the hands of directors independent of
the Assembly, remain under the control of men who would promote its interests,
without reference to an accidental majority in the Assembly. It was
consequently, established and placed under the care of a Board of Directors
appointed by its founders."
The institution was
projected in 1835. In October of that year, nine persons met at a private house,
to consult as to the proposition, four ministers, of whom Erskine Mason was one,
and Dr. Thomas McAuley and Henry White, probably two of the others; and five
laymen. The institution was founded in January, 1836, and went into operation
before the close of the year.
The original faculty were
Dr. Thomas McAuley, President and Professor of Pastoral Theology and Church
Government; Henry White, Professor of Theology; Dr. Edwin Robinson, Professor of
Oriental and Biblical Literature; Dr. Thomas H. Skinner, Professor of Sacred
Rhetoric; Dr. I. S. Spencer, Professor of Biblical History and its Connections;
and Dr. Erskine Mason, Professor of Ecclesiastical History. George
Bush was temporarily engaged to supply the place of Dr. Robinson.
As the time approached when
the General Assembly must again convene, the most anxious thought and
expectations were directed to its deliberations and their probable results; as
all felt that, for weal or woe, its decisions would and ought to be final. Should
the New School party prove to be in the majority, those who had so long and
faithfully contended against their innovations were determined to withdraw from
the Church and erect, on independent ground, the same standard, around which
they had always rallied. Should the Old School have a majority, their purpose
was fixed, to adopt such decisive measures as would terminate controversy, and
put an end to the schemes of innovation.
In fulfillment of the design
of their appointment, the Committee of Correspondence, on the 12th of January,
issued a call for a convention, to meet in Philadelphia, on the second Thursday
of May, 1837, one week preceding the meeting of the Assembly. In their
circular, the committee stated the result of their correspondence to be "a
conviction that the real friends of the doctrines and of the institutions 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,
by removing the causes in which they originated." As to the measures to be
adopted to accomplish this object, the committee declined making any
suggestions. They, however, recommended "ministers
and churches that mourn over the false doctrines so industriously propagated,
by many in our connection, the contentions, and strife thereby engendered, and
the consequent withdrawal of the influences of the Holy Spirit, to observe
the second Thursday of May, next, as a day of fasting, humiliation and prayer,
in view of these evils, and to implore the Divine direction in the present
crisis."
This call was published in all the old School papers; and full warning
was thus given to all parties, of the momentous issues depending upon the
decisions of the approaching Assembly.
In the mean time, publications made by such men as Dr. Miller, of
Princeton, Dr. John Breckinridge, and Dr. Francis McFarland, and the editors of
the Princeton Review, men of the mildest spirit and most moderate sentiments,
attested the reality and greatness of the danger, indicated the modified views
of Princeton, and did much to unite men of like sentiments and spirit, in
approval and support of the decisive measures which were about to be employed
for the reformation of the church.
