Part II
PART II
APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES
CHAPTER XI
HISTORY AND INTENT OF
CONSTITUTION
WE shall endeavour to show, from the origin, from the constitution, and from the uniform practice of the Church, that the theory of Presbyterianism here presented [see note] is altogether false.
The leading points of the case as presented in this Review, are:
1. That the General Assembly, in order to its proper organization, must embrace all the delegates in attendance who are furnished with the proper evidence of their appointment.
2. That the commissioners from presbyteries within the bounds of the four synods, were fully entitled to their seats as members of the Assembly.
3. That the Assembly has no authority to judge of the qualifications of its own members.
The first of these positions, properly explained and limited, we have no disposition to dispute. The second is the one most largely
discussed. The right of the delegates from the four synods to their seats, is founded on the assumption that certain acts of the Assembly of 1837, are nugatory. In proof of the invalidity of those acts, the reviewer argues that they are inconsistent with the principles of Presbyterianism; that they rest upon a false basis; and that they are void from uncertainty. In carrying out the first of these arguments, he lays down a new theory of Presbyterianism; the leading features of which are, 1. That our several judicatories are merely courts and advisory councils. 2. That "as to their existence and action they are entirely independent of each other." "One judicatory has no power over another," and one has no right to try or condemn another. 3. The synods and the General Assembly "are merely appellate courts and advisory councils. 4. The General Assembly has no constitutional power to abolish or dissolve a synod; nor a synod a presbytery; nor a presbytery a session. 5. Though certain acts of an inferior court may be reviewed in a higher one, yet if a presbytery recognize a church; or a synod form a presbytery; or the General Assembly erect a synod, the act is forever valid.
1. What then was the origin and history of our present constitution? It will be remembered that at the period to which it is so common to refer, as the birth-day of the great principles of civil and religious liberty, a convention of divines assembled at Westminster, who, after long deliberation, prepared and published a Confession of Faith and a Directory for Worship, Government, and Discipline. This Confession and this Directory were adopted by the Church of Scotland, and have ever since continued in authority in that Church. Under that constitution, the General Assembly of that Church has always acted as its parliament; exercising legislative, as well as judicial powers; making rules binding on synods, presbyteries, and churches, restrained by nothing but the word of God, the laws of the land, and its own written constitution. This fact is too notorious to
need proof.* A greater absurdity could not be put into words, than the assertion that in Scotland, the General Assembly is "a mere appellate court and advisory council." That American Presbyterianism was originally the same with that of Scotland is proved by two incontestible facts; first, that our Church adopted identically the same constitution as the Church of Scotland; and secondly, that under that constitution, our highest judicatory claimed and exercised the same powers with the Scottish General Assembly. The Presbytery of Philadelphia was formed about 1704; in 1716, there were four presbyteries who erected themselves into a Synod. In 1729, this Synod passed what is called the "Adopting Act," by which the Westminster Confession of Faith was declared to be the confession of the faith of the Presbyterian Church.† Various causes led to a schism in this body, in the year 1741, when two synods, one of New York, the other of Philadelphia, were formed. They continued separated until 1758. When a re-union was effected, they came together upon definite terms, both as to doctrine and discipline. The first article of the terms of union is as follows. "Both synods, having always approved and received the Westminster Confession of Faith, larger and shorter Catechisms, as an orthodox and excellent system of Christian doctrine, founded upon the word of God; we do still receive the same, as the confession of our faith, and also the Plan of Worship, Government, and Discipline, contained in the Westminster Directory; strictly enjoining it on all our members and probationers for the ministry that they preach and teach according to the Form of sound words in the said Confession and Catechism, and avoid and oppose all errors contrary thereto." In another article it was declared that no minister was to be licensed or ordained, unless he "promise subjection to the Presbyterian Plan of Government in the Westminster Directory." Digest, p. 118. [Digest of 1873, p. 49.] Here is the first formal constitution of American Presbyterians, as a united body. This constitution, both as to faith and government, was
precisely the same with that of the Church of Scotland. Has American Presbyterianism entirely lost its original character? Has the infusion of Congregationalism affected not only the principles of our members, but the essential features of our system? Do we live under an entirely different form of government, from that which was so solemnly adopted by our fathers? If this be so, if a revolution so radical has taken place, it can be, and it must be clearly demonstrated. This is not a matter to be asserted, or assumed. We shall proceed to prove that no such change has taken place.
The constitution, ratified at the time of the union of the two synods in 1758, continued in force about thirty years. In 1785, on motion, it was ordered, that Dr. Witherspoon, Dr. Rodgers, Mr. Robert Smith, Dr. Allison, Dr. Smith, Mr. Woodhull, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Latta, and Mr. Duffield,* with the moderator, be a committee to take into consideration the constitution of the Church of Scotland and other Protestant countries, and agreeably to the general principles of Presbyterian government, compile a system of general rules for the government of the Synod, and the several presbyteries under their inspection, and the people in their communion, and to make report of their proceedings therein at the next meeting of Synod.
In 1786, it was resolved, That the book of discipline and government be re-committed to a committee, who shall have powers to digest such a system as they shall think accommodated to the state of the Presbyterian Church in America—and every presbytery is hereby required to report in writing to the Synod, at their next meeting, their observations on the said book of government and discipline. Dr. Witherspoon was the chairman of this committee also. In 1787, the Synod having gone through the consideration of the plan of government and discipline presented by the committee appointed the preceding year, ordered a thousand copies to be printed and sent
down to the presbyteries for their consideration, and the consideration of the churches under their care.
Finally, in 1788, "The Synod having fully considered the draught of the Form of Government and Discipline, did, on the review of the whole, and hereby do, ratify and adopt the same, as now altered and amended, as the CONSTITUTION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA; and order the same to be considered and strictly observed, as the rule of their proceedings, by all the inferior judicatories, belonging to this body.
"Resolved, That the true intent and meaning of the above ratification by the Synod is, that the Form of Government and Discipline and Confession of Faith, as now ratified, is to continue to be our constitution, and the confession of our faith and practice unalterably, unless two-thirds of the presbyteries under the care of the General Assembly shall propose alterations or amendments, and such alterations or amendments, shall be agreed to and enacted by the General Assembly." Digest, p. 117, &c., [Digest of 1873, p. 51].
We may commend, in passing, this minute to the special attention of those who are so fond of appealing to the liberal Presbyterianism of our fathers. Here we see the Synod, not merely making laws, but forming a CONSTITUTION by their own authority, and ordering all inferior judicatories to make it the rule by which to govern their proceedings. This constitution was not submitted to the presbyteries, except for their observations, exactly as it was submitted to the churches. Neither acted with any authority in the matter; it was formed and ratified by the Synod.
And this is not all; this constitution was fixed UNALTERABLY, unless two-thirds of the presbyteries should propose alterations; and even then they could only propose; the alterations were to be
ENACTED by the General Assembly, then just determined upon. Here, then, at the very birth of American Presbyterianism, we have the highest toned Scottish doctrine, of which the history of the parent Church can furnish an example. What higher exercise of ecclesiastical authority can there be, than the formation of a constitution?
The first American constitution of the Presbyterian Church was formed, as already stated, in 1788. The only general principle in which it differed from that of the Church of Scotland, was the denial of the right of civil magistrates to interfere in matters of religion. Accordingly those portions of the Confession of Faith which assert magistrates to have this right were altered; and in the answer to the question in the Larger Catechism, What is forbidden in the Second Commandment? the clause, "tolerating a false religion" was stricken out. The two leading points of difference as to government between our system and the Scottish are; first, that we have no body analogous to the "Commission of the General Assembly," which continues to meet, at certain times, after the adjournment of the Assembly, and exercises all its powers, subject, however, to the review of the next General Asssmbly. Originally this feature belonged to our system. In 1774, a minute was adopted by a large majority of the Synod, declaring the powers of such a commission, in order to remove the doubts which had prevailed on this subject. In this minute it is said: The Synod "do determine that the commission shall continue, and meet whensoever called by the moderator, at the request of the first nine on the roll of the commission, or the major part of the first nine ministers, and when met, that it shall be invested with all the powers of the Synod; and sit by their own adjournments from time to time; and let it also be duly attended to that there can lie no appeal from the judgment of the commission, as there can be none from the judgment of the Synod; but there may be
a review of their proceedings and judgments by the Synod," &c. Digest, p. 45. Thus thorough-going was the conformity of American Presbyterianism in its origin to the Scottish model. This provision was not adopted in the new constitution. A second source of difference consists in the close relation which exists in Scotland between the Church and state. This has very materially modified their system. There are also various differences as to matters of detail. The ratio of representation of ministers and elders in the General Assembly is not equal, as it is with us; the universities and certain royal burghs send delegates, either ministers or elders; and ministers without charges, with a few exceptions, are not allowed to sit in presbytery. There is also considerable difference in practice between the two churches. The General Assembly here has not been accustomed, especially of late years, to interfere so much with the proceedings of the lower courts. As to all general principles and arrangements, however, the constitution of 1788 conformed to that which we had derived from Scotland. There are the same courts; the same subordination of the lower to the higher judicatories; and the same general statement of their respective powers and privileges.
The constitution of 1788, which was, in all its essential features, the same as that which had been previously in force, remained almost without alteration until the year 1804. In that year a committee appointed for the purpose, proposed a number of amendments, which they say in their report, "are of such a nature, that if the whole of them should be adopted, they would not alter, but only explain, render more practicable, and bring nearer to perfection, the general system which has already gone into use." These amendments received the sanction of a majority of the presbyteries, and may be seen in pages 56 and 57 of the printed Minutes for that year. Most of them are merely verbal correcrections, and not one makes the least alteration in any one general principle of our system.
The revision of the constitution made in 1821, resulted in very numerous alterations. These, however, related either to mere phraseology, or to matters of form and detail; or were explanatory of preceding rules; or consisted of additional directions as to forms of process. There was no alteration designed or effected in the relation of our several courts to each other, or in their general powers.— Though we do not believe that there was any intention to enlarge the power of any of the judicatories, yet it so happens that the changes made, so far as they have any significancy, tend to increase the authority of the higher courts. Thus in the section on the power of synods, which state that they have authority to take such order respecting presbyteries, sessions, and people under their care, as may be in conformity with the word of God, the clause "and not contradictory to the decisions of the General Assembly" is stricken out, and the words "the established rules" put in its place. This alteration is an obvious improvement, as it is much more definite and intelligible, since the decisions of the Assembly may not have been uniform or consistent. And again, in the section on the powers of the Assembly, the comprehensive clause, (the power) "of superintending the concerns of the whole Church" is inserted.
We are giving ourselves, however, a great deal of unnecessary trouble in proving a negative. Let those who assert that Presbyterianism has, in this country, been completely emasculated, show when, how, and by whom it was done. Let them point out the process by which one form of government, known of all men as to its essential features, was transmuted into another. This pamphlet does not contain a shadow of such proof, either from the constitution, history, or practice of the Church. It is all bald assertion; assertion unrestricted by any knowledge of the subject, or by any modesty on the part of the writer. The reference made on p. 11 to our constitution, calls for no modification of the above remark; for the passage which is there
imperfectly quoted has no relation to the point which it is cited to prove. We are told that, "The church session and presbytery alone have original jurisdiction. The synods and Assembly are merely courts of review,—appellate courts. They have none of them legislative powers. 'All Church power,' says the constitution, 'is only ministerial and declarative. The Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith and manners. No Church judicatory ought to pretend to make laws. The right of judging upon laws already made must be lodged with fallible men, and synods and councils may err, yet there is more danger from the usurped claim of making laws.' I am thus particular upon this point," adds the writer, "because the 'usurped claim of making laws' was actually set up, and these proceedings (of the Assembly of 1837) justified as legislative acts." We are far from supposing that the above passage from the constitution, printed as a continuous quotation, was garbled and patched with a design to deceive; but the fact is, that it is so garbled as to make the constitution assert the very reverse of what its authors intended, and what from their lips would be the height of absurdity. The passage stands thus in the introductory chapter, 7. "That all Church power, whether exercised by the body in general, or in the way of representation by delegated authority, is only ministerial and declarative: That is to say, that the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith and manners; that no Church judicatory ought to pretend to make laws, to bind the conscience in virtue of their own authority; and that all their decisions should be founded upon the revealed will of God. Now though it will be easily admitted that all synods and councils may err, through the frailty inseparable from humanity; yet there is much greater danger from the usurped claim of making laws, than from the right of judging upon laws already made, and common to all who profess the gospel; although this right, as necessity requires in the present state, be lodged with fallible men." What is the power which is here denied? and to whom is it denied? It is the
power "to make laws to bind the conscience" in virtue of human authority. Why? Because the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and manners. The framers of our constitution meant to deny the claim set up by the Romish, and some other Churches, to legislate authoritatively on matters of faith and morals. The power of the Church, in such matters, is merely ministerial and declarative. She may declare what, according to the word of God, truth and duty are; but she cannot make any thing a matter of duty, which is not enjoined in the Scriptures. The laws of which they speak are "common to all those who profess the gospel;" such laws the Church can neither make nor repeal, she can only declare and administer. This power is denied not merely to our judicatories, but to the Church as a body. According to this writer, however, the power denied, is that of making laws of any kind. To sustain this assertion the proposition is made general; "No Church judicatory ought to pretend to make laws;" leaving out the restrictive clause "to bind the consciences in virtue of their own authority;" thus perverting the whole paragraph from its obvious meaning and design. This introductory chapter to the Form of Government was prefixed to it in 1788, where it has stood ever since. We wonder that the absurdity did not occur to the writer, or to his clerical endorsers, of making a set of sane men gravely deny to the Church collectively, and to all of its judicatories, all legislative authority, while they were in the very act of ordaining a code of laws for the government of the Church. Is not our constitution a set of laws? Was it not enacted by the Church judicatories? Have they not the power to repeal, or modify it at pleasure? Yet they have no legislative authority! This is the kind of reasoning which we are called upon to answer.
Having shown that our Church at first adopted identically the same formulas of faith and government as the Church of Scotland; and that the successive modifications of the constitution in 1788, 1804,
and 1821, left the essential principles of the system unchanged, we might dismiss this part of the subject entirely. But it is so important, and the ignorance respecting it, as it would seem, is so great and general, that we will proceed to the other sources of proof, and demonstrate from the constitution as it now stands, and from the uniform practice of the Church, the utter unsoundness of this new theory of Presbyterianism.
This theory is, that our judicatories have no legislative power; that they are severally independent of each other, as to their existence and action; and that the higher courts are merely appellate courts and advisory councils. In the 31st chap. of the Confession of Faith, sect. 2, it is said, "IT BELONGETH to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of mal-administration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his word."* It is here taught, as plain as language can speak, that synods and councils have power to set down rules for the government of the Church, which, if consonant to the word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission out of respect to the authority by which they are made. With regard to matters of faith and conscience their power is ministerial; with regard to matters of discipline and government it is legislative. "To set down rules" is to make laws, as we presume no one will deny. Let it be considered that this is not a passing declaration. It is an article of faith found in the Westminster Confession, which our Church has always adopted as the confession
of her faith; and to which every Presbyterian minister and elder has subscribed. This is the faith of the Church as to the authority of synods. Yet we are told in the very face of this first principle of our system, that synods or councils have no legislative power; that they cannot "set down rules" for the government of the Church; that their only power is judicial or advisory!
This power of the Church resides, according to our Confession, in synods or councils, and is inherent in them. This is not indeed a peculiarity of our Church; it is, with the exception of the comparatively small body of Congregationalists, the faith of the Christian world, and always has been. Provincial, national, and œcumenical synods have always claimed and exercised the right of making canons, or ecclesiastical laws, obligatory on all within their jurisdiction. In our system we have councils of various kinds, the Session, Presbytery, Synod, and General Assembly, and they all, in virtue of their very nature, as councils, have this authority, limited in all cases by the word of God, and restricted by the peculiarities of our constitution.
A Session is a parochial or congregational council charged with "the spiritual government" of a particular church. They may make what rules they see fit for the government of the congregation, not inconsistent with the constitution. This power they exercise every day; making rules about the admission of members, and other matters; which are nowhere prescribed in the constitution, and which are probably not always consistent with it. The next highest council is the Presbytery. It has charge of the government of the churches within a certain district. It makes rules binding on them; as for example, forbiding a congregation to call or to dismiss a pastor without its consent. This power is not derived from the constitution. It existed when there was but one presbytery; and would exist if all
the presbyteries were independent of each other. To them it belongs to license, ordain, install, remove and judge ministers. So far from deriving this power from the constitution, it is thereby greatly restricted. They cannot license and ordain whom they please, but those only who have certain prescribed qualifications.
The Synod is in fact a larger presbytery, and would have precisely the same authority, did not the constitution, for the sake of convenience make a distinction of powers between it and the presbyteries. A synod is not called to exercise the power of licensing, ordaining, &c. &c., because this power can better be exercised by smaller councils. It has jurisdiction not only as an appellate court, but as a court of review and control. It can order the presbyteries to produce their records; it can "redress whatever has been done by presbyteries contrary to order; and take effectual care that presbyteries observe the constitution of the Church … and generally take such order with respect to the presbyteries, sessions and people under their care, as may be in conformity with the word of God and the established rules, and which tend to promote the edification of the Church." Chap. 11. 4.
The General Assembly is the highest judicatory of the Presbyterian Church, and "represents, in one body, all the particular churches of this denomination." To it belongs, therefore, the power which the Confession of Faith ascribes to all synods, restricted by the provisions of the constitution. It can make no regulation infringing on the privileges of the lower courts; nor can it in any way alter or add to the code of constitutional rules. But its power as the supreme court of appeals, review and control continues. It is charged with "superintending the concerns of the whole Church," and with "suppressing schismatical contentions and disputations." See chap. 12. "It may send missions to any part to plant churches, or to supply
vacancies; and, for this purpose, may direct any presbytery to ordain evangelists, or ministers, without relation to particular churches." Chap. 18. This would be strange language in reference to a mere advisory council! The power, here recognised as belonging to the General Assembly, will appear to be the greater, if we remember that the ordination of any minister sine titulo was considered as hardly consistent with presbyterial principles; and that the presbyteries were very adverse to admit it. Yet the Assembly is acknowledged to have the power to direct them to do it.
In exercising the right of supervision and control, the higher courts, depend, in general, on the regular means of information which they possess in the review of the records of the inferior judicatories, and in the exercise by those aggrieved of the right of appeal, reference and complaint. In case, however, of neglect, unfaithfulness, or irregularity of a lower court, a higher one has the right, when well advised of the existence of these evils, "to take cognizance of the same; and to examine, deliberate and judge in the whole matter, as completely as if it had been recorded, and thus brought up by the review of records."* That is, it is incumbent on them, as the constitution expresses it, to take effectual care that the lower judicatories observe the constitution of the Church.
Such is Presbyterianism as laid down in our Confession of Faith and Form of Government. Such it was in the days of our fathers, and such we trust it will long continue to be. We shall now proceed to adduce some small portion of the overwhelming evidence with which our records abound, that this has always been the interpretation put upon our system of government; and that this modern theory of mere appellate jurisdiction and advisory power is unsustained by the practice, as it is by the standards of the Church.
No one can open the records of the proceedings either of the old Synod, or of the General Assembly, without being struck with the fact that the phraseology adopted is inconsistent with the idea that those bodies claimed merely advisory powers. It is competent to a body having authority to command, to recommend or advise; but it is not competent to a body having power only to give advice, to "direct," "order," or "enjoin." Yet such language is used from the beginning to the end of our records. These orders relate to all manner of subjects, and are given not only when the higher judicatory acted as a court of reference or appeals, but also in its character of the superintending and governing body. It is not worth while, however, to adduce evidence of this kind, because this phraseology will be found incorporated in passages cited for a more important purpose; and because it is so settled that we find even the New School Assembly, at their late meeting, resolving, 1. "That presbyteries are hereby REQUIRED to cause each church and congregation under their care and jurisdiction to make an annual contribution to the contingent fund of the General Assembly. 2. That the presbyteries are ENJOINED to send a copy of the above preamble and resolution to the several churches under their care, &c." This is certainly strange language in which to convey advice.
The examples we shall cite of the exercise of authority on the part of the higher judicatories, do not admit of being arranged under distinct heads. The same example will often prove all the several points in dispute; the legislative power of Church courts; the authority of the higher over the lower; and the right of the supreme judicatory to take effectual care that the constitution be observed in all parts of the Church.
In 1758, by a joint act at the time of their union, the old synods of Philadelphia and New York, ordered "That no presbytery shall
license or ordain to the work of the ministry any candidate, until he give them competent satisfaction as to his learning, and experimental acquaintance with religion, and skill in divinity and cases of conscience, and declare his acceptance of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and Catechisms, as the confession of his faith, and promise subjection to the Presbyterian plan of government in the Westminster Directory," Digest p. 119. [Digest, of 1873, p. 49.] As this resolution, which was one of the terms of union between the two synods, was adopted first by one synod and then by the other; and then unanimously by the two united, there could hardly have been a man in the Church who denied the legislative and controlling power of the higher courts.
In 1764, the Synod of New York and Philadelphia "established a rule," giving particular directions to the presbyteries, with regard to candidates for the ministry; in 1792, the Assembly confirmed it, by enjoining, "in the most pointed manner, on the Synod of Philadelphia, to give particular attention that no presbytery under their care depart, in any respect, from that rule of the former Synod of New York and Philadelphia, which is," &c. Then follows the rule, p. 63.
In the same year the old Synod adopted another rule, which we commend to the attention of those who long for the Presbyterianism of former times: "Though the Synod entertain a high regard for the Associated Churches of New England, yet we cannot but judge, that students who go to them, or to any other than our own presbyteries, to obtain license, in order to return and officiate among us, act very irregularly and are not to be approved or employed by our presbyteries; as hereby we are deprived of the right of trying and approving of the qualifications of our own candidates; yet if any cases shall happen, where such conduct may be thought necessary
for the greater good of any congregation, it shall be laid before the presbytery to which the congregation belongs, and approved by them." p. 65.
In 1764, the old Synod also adopted a rule for the government of Presbyteries in the reception of foreign ministers and licentiates. This rule was explained in 1765; and in 1774 they adopted a set of regulations which were unanimously approved. The following is an extract: "In order more effectually to preserve this Synod, our presbyteries and congregations from imposition and abuse, every year, when any presbytery may report that they have received any minister or probationer from a foreign Church, that presbytery shall lay before the Synod the testimonials and other certificates, upon which they received such minister or probationer, for the satisfaction of the Synod, before such minister or probationer shall be considered as a member of our body. And if the Synod shall find such testimonials false or insufficient, the whole proceedings held by the presbytery on the admission shall be held to be void; and the presbytery shall not, from that time, receive or acknowledge him as a member of this body, or as in ministerial communion with us," p. 286. Let it be observed that these regulations were unanimously approved; and yet what power do they suppose the Synod to possess over the presbyteries; denying to the lower courts the right of judging for themselves whether a member was qualified or not; and pronouncing their decision void ab initio, if it should meet the approbation of the higher court.
In 1794, at the request of the Synod of Philadelphia, the Assembly divided the Presbytery of Carlisle; in 1802 the Presbytery of Albany requested to be divided, which request the Assembly granted (see pp. 55, 57); and in 1805 the Assembly divided the Presbytery of Oneida, constituting the one portion into the Presbytery of Geneva, and the
other into the Presbytery of Oneida, directing them where to hold their first meeting, &c. See Minutes, vol. II. p. 82. We do not pretend to give more than specimens of the jurisdiction and power unhesitatingly exercised by the Assembly in former days.
In 1795, a request was overtured that the synods of Virginia and the Carolinas have liberty to direct their presbyteries to ordain such candidates as they may judge necessary to appoint on missions to preach the gospel; whereupon, "Resolved, That the above request be granted. The synods being careful to restrict the permission to the ordination of such candidates only as are engaged to be sent on missions," p. 48.
In 1798, the Synod of the Carolinas presented to the Assembly certain references and inquiries relating to a creed published by the Rev. H. B.; which were referred to a committee, of which Dr. M'Whorter, of Newark, was chairman. This committee made a report, stating that Mr. B. is erroneous "in making disinterested benevolence the only definition of holiness," and that he "has confounded self-love with selfishness." On the third article the committee remark, "that the transfer of personal sin or righteousness has never been held by any Calvinistic divines, nor by any person in our Church as far as is known to us; and therefore that Mr. B.'s observations on this subject appear to be either nugatory or calculated to mislead." They condemn, however, his doctrine of original sin, as "in effect setting aside the idea of Adam's being the federal head or representative of his descendants, and the whole doctrine of the covenant of works." They say also, "that Mr. B. is greatly erroneous in asserting that the formal cause of a believer's justification is the imputation of the fruits or effects of Christ's righteousness, and not that righteousness itself." These are the principal errors specified. The committee recommend, "that Mr. B.
be required to acknowledge before the Assembly that he was wrong in publishing his creed; that in the particulars specified above, he renounce the errors therein pointed out; that he engage to teach nothing hereafter of a similar nature, &c. &c.; and that if Mr. B. submit to this he be considered in good standing with the Church." This report was adopted,* and Mr. B. having been called before the Assembly, and allowed time for consideration, made a declaration containing the required acknowledgments, retractions, and engagements, and was then pronounced in good standing. Digest, pp. 129–134, [Digest of 1873, pp. 220–222.]
This case is cited as an illustration of the kind of supervision formerly exercised by our supreme judicatory. On the mere reference by a lower court, in relation to a certain publication, it is taken up and examined, certain erroneous propositions extracted, and the author immediately called up and required to retract them on the penalty of being turned out of the Church.
In 1799, a committee presented a report containing sundry recommendations and injunctions respecting the qualifications of candidates for the ministry; the support of ministers; contributions to missions, &c. This report being read it was resolved, "That it be approved and adopted; and ordered that the several synods, presbyteries, and individual churches, as far as they are respectively concerned, govern themselves accordingly." p. 81.
The Presbytery of Cumberland having "licensed and ordained a number of persons not possessing the qualifications required by our book of discipline, and without explicit adoption of the Confession of Faith," it was for these and other irregularities dissolved by the Synod of Kentucky, and the irregularly ordained ministers suspended without process. When these facts came up before the
Assembly, on a review of the records of the synod, the Assembly addressed that judicatory a letter, in which their zeal and decision were commended, but the opinion expressed that the suspension of ordained ministers without process, was "at least of doubtful regularity." This letter was written in 1807. We find no mention of this case in 1808, either in the Digest or in the printed Minutes for that year. But in 1809 there is a record to this effect: "That the Assembly took into consideration a letter from the Synod of Kentucky; and having carefully reviewed the same, and also having read another letter from their records, which by accident was detained from the last Assembly," &c., they declared themselves "perfectly satisfied with the conduct of the synod, and thank them for their firmness and zeal." p. 140. Here then is a synod receiving thanks for dissolving a presbytery, which, according to the new theory of Presbyterianism, was entirely independent of it, and for exercising the right of suspending, instanter, ministers irregularly ordained.
In 1809, the Assembly resolved, "That it be again solemnly enjoined on all presbyteries and synods within the bounds of the General Assembly, on no account to interfere with the instructions given by the Committee of Missions to missionaries." p. 50. What a controlling superintendence and authority is assumed in this resolution!
In 1809 the Assembly resolved "That it be and is hereby required of all presbyteries within the bounds of the General Assembly, annually to call up and examine the sessional records of the several churches under their care, as directed in the book of discipline." In the following year "the presbyteries were called upon to report what attention they had severally paid to the order of the General Assembly in relation to sessional records. Upon inquiry it appeared
that the presbyteries had almost universally complied with the order." A committee was appointed to consider this subject, who brought in a report, which was read and adopted, and is as follows: "The Assembly, after seriously reviewing the order of the last Assembly, can by no means rescind the said order; inasmuch as they consider it as founded on the constitution of the Church, and as properly resulting from the obligation on the highest judicatory of the Church, to see that the constitution be duly regarded, yet as it is alleged that insisting on the rigid execution of this order with respect to some church sessions would not be for edification, the Assembly are by no means disposed to urge any presbytery to proceed under this order beyond what they may consider prudent and useful." p. 73. It is here taken for granted, and appealed to as a justification for a particular act, that the obligation rests on the highest judicatory of the Church "to see that the constitution be duly regarded."
In 1810, the Presbytery of Hartford requested leave to ordain Mr. Robert Sample sine titulo, whereupon the Assembly resolved "That said presbytery be permitted to ordain Mr. Sample, if they judge it expedient."
Page 214 of the Digest contains this record. "The following extract from the minutes of the Presbytery of Oneida was overtured, viz.: 'Ordered that our commissioners to the next General Assembly be instructed to request the Assembly (risum teneatis amici) to permit this presbytery to manage their own missionary concerns.' " Was this humble request granted? Not at all. The presbytery was referred to the Board of Missions! This was so recently as 1818, and proves how much of the old spirit of Presbyterianism was still alive in the Church. So rapidly and so completely has the spirit of our Church changed, that we do not believe there is now a presbytery in our land, which would not consider itself insulted by a proposal that they
should request permission to manage their own missionary concerns.
The whole history of this subject of missions is full of instruction as to the relation in which the Assembly was regarded as standing to the Church. That judicatory, for a long time, appointed the missionaries by name, assigned them their field of labor; if they were pastors, the Assembly either appointed supplies for their pulpits, during their tour of duty, directing such a minister to preach on such a Sabbath, or they directed the presbytery to make the requisite appointments for this purpose.* In short they exercised without let or contradiction, a superintending control of the whole Church, ordering synods, presbyteries and individual ministers as familiarly as any presbytery ever does its own members.
The power of the Assembly to make rules for the government of the Church, is assumed, in the clearest manner, in that section which forbids their making "constitutional rules" without the consent of the presbyteries. That section, in the old book, is labeled "Restriction of the power of the Assembly." Why restrict the exercise of a power which does not exist? Why say the Assembly shall not make a particular class of rules, if it can make no rules at all? There is however an authoritative exposition of the meaning of this section which establishes the legislative power of the Assembly beyond dispute. In 1798 the General Assembly adopted certain "regulations intended to embrace and extend the existing rules, respecting the reception of foreign ministers and licentiates." These regulations* effectually control the action of the presbyteries, forbidding them to receive any foreign minister or probationer "on a mere certificate of good standing;" prescribing the kind of trials to which he shall be subjected; directing that he should be received in the first instance, only on probation, and not be allowed to vote in any judicatory, or
accept of any call for settlement; requiring this probation to continue for at least one year; directing the presbytery then to take up the case, renew the examination, and determine "to receive him, to reject him, or to hold him under further probation." In case the applicant was received, the presbytery was to report the case with all the evidence to the synod or General Assembly, who were "to come to a final judgment, either to receive him into the Presbyterian body agreeably to his standing, or to reject him," notwithstanding his reception by the presbytery. Here then is the exercise of legislative authority over the whole Church; here is control of presbyteries as to the exercise of their own rights; here is an instance of the way in which the supreme judicatory felt authorized to take care that the constitution should be observed in all parts of the Church. Was this exercise of power sustained? We shall see. In the following year, that is, in 1799, the Presbytery of New York objected to these regulations, and requested the General Assembly to rescind them. This request was refused. The principal objection urged against them by the presbytery was, that the constitution provides that before any standing rules should be obligatory on the churches, they must be submitted to the presbyteries. To this the Assembly answered; that "standing rules," in the sense of the Book, were "articles of the constitution, which when once established are unalterable by the Assembly." Such rules the Assembly cannot make. But to say that it cannot make of its own authority any rules binding on the churches, "would be to reduce this Assembly to a mere committee to prepare business upon which the presbyteries might act. It would undo, with few exceptions, all the rules that have been established by this Assembly since its first institution.… Besides standing rules, in the evident sense of the constitution, cannot be predicated of any act made by the Assembly, and repealable by it, because they are limited from their very nature to the duration of a year, if it please the Assembly to exert the power inherent in it at all times to alter or
annul them, and they continue to be rules only by the Assembly's not using its power of repeal." In order to prevent all doubt on this subject in future, the Assembly proposed to the presbyteries this article of the constitution for "their interpretation," and advised them to strike out the word standing and to insert the word constitutional. This alteration the presbyteries accordingly made; and the expression "constitutional rules" remains to this day.* Can there be a clearer proof than this of the legislative authority of the Assembly, or of its official acknowledgment by the presbyteries? Let it be remembered that this was no new claim on the part of the Assembly of 1798. The same power had been always claimed and exercised by the old Synod and by the General Assembly from its first institution.
It is time, however, to bring these citations to an end. We should have to transcribe the records of the Church bodily, if we were to exhibit all the evidence which they contain on this subject. The origin, the constitution, the uniform practice of our Church, therefore, prove that our judicatories are not independent of each other; that the higher bodies are not mere courts of appeal and advisory councils; but that it belongs to them to set down rules for the government of the Church, which, if consonant with the word of God, and our written constitution, are to be received with reverence and submission out of regard to the authority of these courts. It is their duty to take effectual care that the constitution is observed in all parts of the Church.
The doctrines of this pamphlet are not only inconsistent with the origin, constitution and practice of the Church, they are moreover absolutely destructive of its character. According to the constitution, the General Assembly is the bond of union and confidence between all the churches. It makes us one denomination. It is such a bond, by
enabling the whole Church, of which it is the representative, to take effectual care that the constitution, as to doctrine and order, is observed within all our bounds. But according to the new theory, we are not one denomination; we are an aggregate of a number of independent presbyteries. "If a presbytery license, ordain, or receive a minister, or organize or acknowledge a church,**** the act must be forever valid, however ill-advised or censurable it may be." p. 9.† The whole Church then is completely at the mercy of one presbytery. Certain presbyteries in the northwest have formed or acknowledged some three or four hundred Congregational churches; and in spite of the constitution, in spite of the contract between the presbyteries, in defiance of the authority of the General Assembly, these churches must forever remain invested with all the privileges of Presbyterian congregations; thus introducing into our judicatories and into the constituency of the General Assembly, three or four hundred men who do not adopt our standards either of doctrine or government. On this principle, if the Third Presbytery of New York, in the excess of its liberality, were to acknowledge all the Baptist churches of its own city, or all the Unitarian churches of Boston, the act would be valid, and these churches be forever entitled to representation in the Presbyterian body. Or if a presbytery become Socinian there is no help for it. They would not sustain charges against their own members; and they cannot be tried, dissolved or disowned as a body. Neither synod nor General Assembly has power to enforce the constitution. They can only look on in silence, and see this presbytery increase year after year, and sending Socinian ministers and elders to the General Assembly of a Calvinistic Church. It is enough to awake the ashes of our fathers to have such doctrines set forth as Presbyterianism, in the bosom of the Church which they founded with so much care, and guarded with so much strictness. This is not Presbyterianism; and those who maintain these opinions are not Presbyterians.