Chapter XV
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
1. Commissioners
[Form of Gov., chap. xxii., sects. i. and ii.—Digest of 1873, pp. 463,
464, 466–470.]
a. The Assembly Judges the Qualifications of its Members
THE second position [taken in the "Review of Leading Measures of the Assembly of 1837, by a member of the New York bar,"] is, that the Assembly has no right to decide whether a commissioner is entitled to his seat or not; that is, it has no right to judge of the qualifications of its own members. Does this mean that the Assembly has no right to decide whether a delegate comes from a body qualified to send him, but is bound to admit him to a seat, no matter where he comes from? This is surely too absurd to be what is meant; and yet this is all the judging of qualification involved in the present case. It is not a question whether a commissioner was duly elected; or whether he himself is what he purports to be, a minister or elder. The question is not about his personal qualification, but about the right of the body giving the commission. Has the Assembly no authority to decide this point? Must it allow any and every man, from Europe, Asia, Africa or America, who may come with a commission, to take his seat as a matter of course? If a man were to rise and say to the moderator, Sir, I hold in my hand a commission from the Presbytery of North Africa; does the Assembly forfeit its existence by telling him, Sir, as we know no such presbytery, we cannot receive you? A cause must surely be desperate that requires such a right to be denied to any representative body upon earth.
It is essential to the existence of the Assembly that it should have the right to decide whether the body giving the commission has
authority to do so or not. And from this decision there is no appeal, but to the churches. Should they disapprove of the decision, they will send up delegates the next year who will reverse it. If they sanction it, the aggrieved party has no resource but submission, or revolution.
We must not be understood, however, as admitting that the Assembly has no right to judge of the qualification of delegates from presbyteries in good standing. This Reviewer says, that the commission is the only sufficient evidence of the requisite qualification of the delegate, and must, in all cases, be admitted, as it must be correct, unless the officers of the presbytery certify to "palpable lies." We think this language very incorrect. He forgets how often Congregational laymen have appeared in the Assembly bearing commissions declaring them to be ruling elders. This is certainly very wrong, but we should not like to adopt the language of this writer on the subject. Should a man with such a commission, rise and tell the Assembly that he was not an elder, there can be no question of the right of that body to say to him, then you are not entitled to a seat here. This question, however, except in the form stated above, is not involved in the present case; and we therefore dismiss it.
b. Disputed Elections
The committee of elections reported in the case of the Rev. David M. Smith, that it appeared to the satisfaction of the committee, that the Presbytery of Columbia failed to form a quorum at the time appointed for their stated spring meeting; that there were present two ministers, and ruling elders from a majority of the churches; that those present requested the Assembly to receive Mr. Smith as their commissioner, in which request two of the absent ministers have expressed their concurrence in writing; and that it is believed the appointment of Mr. Smith would have been unanimous had the
presbytery formed a quorum. In view of these facts the Assembly decided that Mr. Smith could not, agreeably to the constitution, be admitted to a seat.
On the one hand, it was urged that the presbytery, being a permanent body, might express its will, if not regularly as to form, at least substantially and effectively, even when not in session; that as the will of the presbytery constituted the essence of a commission, we have in the present case all that is essential; and that the reception of Mr. Smith could afford no precedent for the reception of commissioners when the will of the presbytery appointing them was not satisfactorily known.
On the other hand, it was contended, that although a presbytery is a permanent body, it can only act when in session; that the assent of the several members of our national congress to any legislative measure would have no force, unless that assent was given when the body was regularly convened; that the Assembly had no authority to set aside the express prescriptions of the constitution, and that all precedents which violate important principles are dangerous.
c. Irregular Commissions
As usual, several delegates appeared without the prescribed documentary evidence of their election. These cases are recorded, as they will have the force of precedents, whatever may be said to the contrary.
There are always two ways of looking at such cases. Some men are disposed to go by the letter, and others by the spirit of the law. It is the will of the presbytery duly expressed and authenticated, that gives a delegate a right to sit as a member of the Assembly. The book prescribes one definite mode in which the will of the presbytery is to
be made known. The strict legal right under the book, therefore, can pertain to those only who have commissions regularly executed. A will is no will in law, unless executed in the prescribed form; but it has full force on the conscience, if there is satisfactory evidence of any kind that it is the real will of the testator. Now, as our courts are not courts of law, but moral tribunals, representing the animus of the Church, we think it is clearly obligatory to receive as members those whom we, in our conscience, believe the presbyteries will to be members.
d. Case of an Elder who had ceased to act
Soon after the organization of the house a question arose involving the right of Dr. Freeman Edson, a ruling elder from the Presbytery of Rochester, to a seat in the Assembly. The case was brought up by an overture from the first Presbyterian Church in Wheatland, N. Y. This communication stated that that church had adopted the plan of annual election of elders; that Dr. Edson's term of service having expired, he was not re-elected (being "unacceptable to the church;") and that the Presbytery of Rochester though apprized of these facts, appointed him a commissioner to the General Assembly. The points disputed were: Is Dr. Edson a ruling member of the Church? and, if this be admitted, had he a right under these circumstances, to a seat in the house? The committee to which the case was referred, reported in the negative on both these points, asserting that the election of an elder for a limited time was invalid; and that Dr. Edson having ceased to act as an elder, because unacceptable to the Church, was not eligible as a commissioner. This report after debate was recommitted to the same committee, Drs. Ely and Junkin being added to their number. The second report of the committee admitted the validity of Dr. Edson's election and ordination as an elder, but denied his right to a seat, because he was not an acting elder in the
congregation to which he belonged. Dr. Ely, as the minority of the committee, presented a counter report.
The house seems very soon to have arrived at unanimity on the first point, viz.: that Dr. Edson having been elected and ordained as a ruling elder, he was to be recognized as such, and that neither the irregularity of his election, nor the fact of his having ceased to exercise his office in a particular church could invalidate his ordination. On the second point, viz.: the right of a man who is not an acting elder in some congregation to a seat in the Assembly, the debate was more protracted. It was argued in defence of this right, 1. That ceasing to act as an elder in any particular congregation could not deprive a man of the other functions of his office. What is an elder under our constitution, but a man entitled to rule, when requested, as a member of a session, or when appointed, as a member of presbytery, synod or General Assembly? His not having been invited to rule in a session cannot invalidate his right to rule, when properly called upon, in other judicatories. The right to rule is incident to his eldership and must continue as long as the office continues. 2. That this principle was sanctioned by precedent; elders who had ceased to act as such having often been admitted to a seat in the Assembly. 3. That it would have all the injustice of an ex post facto law now to deprive a presbytery of one of its representatives on this ground. 4. That this rule, if applicable to elders, must be applied also to ministers, and lead to the exclusion from the house of all ministers who were not pastors.
On the other side it was argued, 1. That elders are representatives of the people, and that sending up elders who are not rulers in some congregation, is divesting the lay delegation of its character as a representation of the people. 2. That the perpetuity of the office of an elder only means that a man once ordained as an elder may be
recalled to the eldership in the same or another congregation without being reordained. 3. That the cases of ministers and elders are not parallel, inasmuch as the former, although they cannot become pastors without the consent of the people, may yet, according to our system, be ordained and made members of a presbytery, without any previous election to a particular charge. After several protracted sessions, the debate was finally terminated by Dr. Miller proposing the following substitute for the committee's report, which substitute was adopted by a nearly unanimous vote:
The committee to whom was referred overture No. 1, a communication from the session of Wheatland congregation, in reference to the appointment of Freeman Edson as a commissioner to this Assembly, beg leave to present the following report, viz., Agreeably to the constitution of our Church the office of ruling elder is perpetual, (see Form of Gov. ch. 13. 6.) and cannot be laid aside by the will of the individual called to that office, nor can any congregation form rules which would make it lawful for any one to lay it aside. Your committee are of opinion that the mode of electing elders in the congregation of Wheatland for a term of years, was irregular, and ought in future to be abandoned; but cannot invalidate the ordination of persons thus elected and ordained to the office of ruling elder.
And whereas it appears that Mr. Freeman Edson was once elected to the office of ruling elder in the church of Wheatland, and was regularly set apart to that office; whereas there seems to be some material diversity of views between the Presbytery of Rochester and the Church session to which Mr. Edson once belonged, as to the manner in which, and the principle on which he ceased to be an acting elder in the said church, into which the Assembly have no opportunity at present of regularly examining, and whereas the
presbytery, with a distinct knowledge, as is alleged, of all the circumstances attending the case, gave Mr. Edson a regular commission as a ruling elder to this General Assembly; therefore Resolved, That he retain his seat as a member of the Assembly.
e. Commissioners Excluded Pending Investigation
[Form of Government, chap. xii., sec. vii.—Digest of 1873, pp. 332, 525.]
Chap. 12, 7, of the Form of Government reads: "The General Assembly shall meet at least once a year. On the day appointed for the purpose, the moderator of the last Assembly, if present, shall open the meeting with a sermon, and preside until a new moderator be chosen. No commissioner shall have a right to deliberate or vote in the Assembly until his name shall have been enrolled by the clerk, and his commission examined and filed among the papers of the Assembly." In order then to a proper organization, it is necessary that the moderator of the last Assembly, if present, should preside, until a new moderator is appointed; and secondly, that the commissions of the delegates should be examined and their names enrolled by the clerk. The constitution formerly directed that the commissions should "be publicly read;" but in 1827 the presbyteries sanctioned the striking out of those words, and the insertion of the word "examined" in their place. It was then adopted as a standing rule that the moderator should, immediately after the house was constituted with prayer, appoint a committee of commissions, to whom the commissions were to be delivered; and the Assembly was then to have a recess to allow the committee time to perform this duty and to make out the roll. See p. 40 of the Min. for 1826. In the year 1829, however, it was resolved that the permanent and stated clerks be a standing committee of commissions, to whom the
commissions were to be delivered for examination before the opening of the Assembly. See Min. for 1829, p. 384. These clerks are therefore entrusted by the constitution, by the standing rules, and the uniform practice of the house, with the formation of the roll. They are to report the names of those whose commissions are unobjectionable, who "immediately take their seats as members;" and they must further report on those commissions which are "materially incorrect" or "otherwise objectionable." See Min. for 1826, p. 39. The house is then to determine, whether the persons bearing such commissions are entitled to their seats or not. It was therefore in obedience to the constitution that Dr. Elliott, the moderator of the Assembly of 1837, took the chair, and presided until a new moderator was chosen. He decided with obvious propriety that the first business was the report of the standing committee of commissions on the roll. This decision was submitted to. The regular course of proceeding was continued by the call, on the part of the moderator, for any other commissions which might be in the house. These were to be handed to the committee, examined, and if found regular, the delegates presenting them were to be enrolled, and take their seats. When this was done, and not before, those commissions which were incorrect, or on any ground objectionable, were to be taken into consideration, and the house were to decide whether those who bore them were entitled to a seat or not. This is not only the uniform and constitutional mode of proceeding, but it is obviously proper and necessary. Until the roll is so far completed as to include the names of all the delegates present whose commissions are unquestioned, there is no house legally constituted; those who have a right to deliberate and vote are not legally ascertained. Until this process therefore was gone through with, the claims of those whose commissions had been rejected by the clerks could not be legally considered or decided upon. It was right then, when the moderator called for commissions, for Dr. Mason to rise and present those
which he actually offered; and it was right in Mr. Squire to present his own. It was however obviously correct, on the part of the moderator, to say to these gentlemen, that as the clerks have rejected these commissions, the question whether they are to be received or not cannot be submitted to the house, until the house be ascertained; until it is known who are entitled to deliberate and vote upon the question.
However improper the conduct of the clerks may have been, the house was not responsible for it until they sanctioned it. The Assembly had no official information of the ground of the rejection. They might have disapproved of it, and admitted the commissioners to their seats. The decision of the clerks is not the decision of the house; it merely suspends the right of the member until the house has decided on his claim.
It may be said that this view of the case gives the clerks a very dangerous power. It is a sufficient answer to this objection, that it is a power given by the constitution; and that it is one which they have always been permitted to exercise. Every year there are commissioners whose names the clerks refuse to enroll; and their decision is considered final until the house has considered and determined on the subject. Besides, this power is guarded from abuse, as far as the case admits of it. From the decision of the clerk, refusing to enroll a member, an appeal lies to the Assembly; and if the Assembly refuse to receive him, there is, in most cases, no redress. If the ground of this refusal be the irregularity of the commission, the presbytery suffers from the negligence of its officers. If the ground is the want of proper authority in the body giving the commission, there is a further appeal to the churches; or it may be, to the civil courts.
It is further objected that the right "of a commissioner to deliberate and vote was perfect the moment he presented his commision to the clerk for the purpose of having his name enrolled;" and the decision of the supreme court in the case of Marbury vs. Madison is appealed to in support of this position.
We deny, however, the position itself. It matters not how the general principle on which it is founded may be decided; our constitution declares that the presentation of the commission is not enough. Before a delegate can deliberate and vote, his name must be enrolled by the clerk; until this is done, the right, however perfect it may be, is not legally ascertained or established.
f. Reduction of Representation
[Form of Gov., chap. xii., sec. ii.—Comp. Digest of 1873, pp. 211, 212.]
The propriety of altering the ratio of representation, so as to reduce the number of delegates forming the General Assembly, has been agitated for some time, and during the last year it has been freely discussed in our periodicals. The subject was brought before the Assembly by memorials from the Presbyteries of Greenbrier and Western District, asking the Assembly to overture to the presbyteries the expediency of reducing the ratio of representation; and also from the Presbytery of Zanesville, proposing to adopt the plan of synodical instead of presbyterial delegations. The Committee of Bills and Overtures returned these memorials to the house, recommending the following resolution, which was adopted, viz:
"Resolved, That it is not expedient to refer to the presbyteries any measure, having for its object the alteration of the existing ratio of representation."
From the small degree of interest excited by this subject in the Assembly, and from the strength of the vote on its rejection, we are led to infer that only a few individuals in our Church sympathize with the agitation kept up in the papers during the last year. There appear to be three principal reasons for desiring the proposed change.
1. It is urged that our General Assembly, as now constituted, is too large for the transaction of business in a way at once deliberate and expeditious. In an Assembly composed of so many individuals trained to public speaking, there will always be a large number anxious to deliver their views on every leading question. If all who wish to speak are fully heard, it consumes an inordinate amount of time; and if the liberty of speech, is restricted, it leads to confusion and dissatisfaction. And besides, the time of the house is often taken up by speeches on unimportant questions, while the real business is left to be hurried through, in the closing hours of the session, with a precipitancy which forbids deliberation, and endangers the wisdom of the decisions.
These are doubtless real evils; but it is urged in reply, that the proposed measure would have no tendency to obviate or abate them. All the experience of deliberative bodies goes to show that no reduction in the number of members would have the effect of diminishing the amount of speaking, unless it were carried to a point that would entirely defeat the whole principle of representation in the Assembly. Upon every question about which there is a diversity of views at all, there will be found in every such body, however small it might be made, persons representing every shade of opinion, and therefore anxious to express their opinions. Debates are terminated, not by the exhaustion of speakers, but the exhaustion of opinions and arguments on the one side, and the exhaustion of patience on the other. Now experience proves that this exhaustion takes place
sooner in a very large body, than in a moderately small one. The speaking in the former case, being mostly confined to a few of the ablest members of the body, is soon done up, and the majority refuses to hear any more. Hence there is less speaking in the British House of Commons, made up of more than six hundred members, upon great public questions, than there would be in the House of Representatives of any State in this Union, composed of one-sixth of the number.
The evils arising from the undue consumption of time by speeches seem to be inherent and incurable; at least they are incurable by any reduction of representation compatible with the character of the Assembly.
2. A second and more plausible argument for the proposed measure, is drawn from the expense of assembling so large a body from every part of the United States.
And it happens, further, from the necessities of the case, that this tax falls heaviest upon the remote and less wealthy parts of the Church.
That this is felt to be a severe grievance is manifest, from the warmth of the debate which sprang up incidentally, about the distribution of the monies collected and reported for the Commissioner's Fund. It appears that some of the richer presbyteries first pay the expenses of their delegates, and merely transfer any balance that may remain to the general fund. The effect of this, of course, is to diminish the dividend available for the other members. Cases of difficulty and hardship, and even injustice are liable to arise out of this arrangement. But the obvious answer to all this, as an argument for reducing the delegation is, that in the first place, these evils may easily be cured by more ample and equal provision on the part of the Church at large, to meet the expenses of those whom she delegates to
transact her business; and in the second place, that they would not be met by a reduction of the delegation. The most natural result of this measure would be, a corresponding reduction in the amount of the contributions to the fund. If any one will cast his eye over the statistical table, he will see at once, that the contributions to this fund are graduated not at all by the means of the churches, but simply by their estimate of its necessities. The present inadequacy of this fund ought to be held up before the churches until it is seen and felt; and no one can doubt that there is abundant means to supply the deficiency. The way to remedy the evil, is not by discussions and resolutions in the Assembly, but by spreading information, and calling to it the attention of the churches.
If the question be whether the necessary expenses of the present delegation to the Assembly are wisely laid out, or in other words, whether it is worth to the Church what it costs, we take for granted, no one would hesitate to give an affirmative answer. For in the first place it is clear that the contributions for this purpose, do not, in the least, diminish those made for benevolent purposes, or other ecclesiastical objects. This has been settled long ago in the experience of the Church. And in the second place, the obvious advantages arising from the association of the members of the Assembly, and the impressions received from the various exercises and doings of the body, immeasurably outweigh the comparatively trifling expense of its annual assemblage.
3. The third argument for the reduction of the Assembly is that it vacates unnecessarily for several weeks, so many pulpits. To this it may be answered, 1. That most of the pulpits are not necessarily, or in fact, vacant at least for the whole time. In almost every place some supplies can be procured in the absence of the pastor, either by licentiates, or unemployed or transient ministers. 2. It is often a
great relief to the minister to escape for a little while from the steady pressure of pastoral care and labor, to recruit his health, unbend his mind, and refresh his spirits by pleasant intercourse with his brethren. And, of course, the people also get the full benefit of this invigorating process, on the part of their pastor. 3. Even if there were no incidental considerations of this sort, the temporary vacancy of a few churches would be nothing, in comparison with the advantages arising from the greater wisdom and weight of the Assembly as now constituted. Any material reduction in its numbers, (and to be effective it must be material,) would not only endanger the principle of adequate representation, but essentially diminish that moral power, both conservative and efficient, which is now one of its principal functions.
2. Manner of Conducting Business
[Form of Gov. chap. xii., sec. 1.]
There appears to be a great infelicity in the manner in which the Assembly conducts its business. Everything is fragmentary. A subject is introduced one day, and partially discussed, then laid aside for something else; then resumed, and again and again laid aside. Thus the judicial case Number 1, was introduced during the first days of the sessions, and not decided before the very last days. We have known a member to be four days in delivering a speech, which would not have taken an hour, if delivered continuously; but which, being broken into fragments of ten or twenty minutes, was protracted to an insufferable length, greatly to the detriment of its effect, and to the speaker's annoyance. It is evident that this is a great evil, especially in judicial cases. The minds of the members are distracted, and the whole subject gets confused. Some hear one part, and others another
part of the evidence or argument. All this may be avoided, if, instead of making particular matters of business the order of the day for a specified time, the Assembly should determine simply the order in which the several items on the docket shall be taken up. It might determine to take up the reports of the several Boards, and dispatch each before taking up anything else. Then take up, say a judicial case, and hear it to the end, before any other topic is introduced.
The business of the Assembly consists, besides matters of routine, of three great divisions—reports of the Boards, judicial cases, and the consideration of overtures. There might be some advantage in taking up these subjects in their order; but, at any rate, it seems to us eminently desirable, that when any one important subject is introduced, it should be finally determined before it is laid aside.
3. Power to Act by Commission
[Form of Gov., chap. xii., sec. v.—Comp. Digest of 1873, p. 564.]
Dr. Lacy, from the Judicial Committee, reported on the resolution offered by Dr. Wines, instructing the Judiciary Committee to consider some action looking to the relief of the General Assembly in judicial cases, either the appointment of a commission to hear and issue such cases, or the adoption of an overture to be sent down to the presbyteries, or some other plan.
In regard to the first suggestion, the committee reported it unconstitutional, and the second inexpedient; which conclusions the report argued at some length, and further reported by a small majority that it was inexpedient to attempt any change.
Judge Fine submitted a minority report favouring an amendment in the constitution, and proposing an overture to be sent down to the Presbyteries, asking—Shall the constitution be so amended as to terminate all judicial cases originating in Church sessions in the synod, and all originating in presbyteries, in the General Assembly?
When the subject came up for discussion, Dr. Wines moved a resolution declaring that so much of the report of the committee as pronounced the appointment of a commission by the Assembly, unconstitutional, be not approved. His argument in support of this resolution embraced the following points.
1. The General Assembly is a representative body, and does not act from powers original and primary. Its powers are not so extensive as those of the old synod, which was a meeting of all presbyteries in one body. "The General Assembly is vested only with defined powers, which it cannot enlarge without the original constituencies—the Presbyteries."
This is a very common theory, but in our opinion an erroneous one, with respect to our constitution. All legitimate Church courts act from inherent primary powers. Neither session, presbytery, synod, nor Assembly derives its powers from the constitution. The constitution is of the nature of a treaty, or compact between different portions of the Church, as to the way in which their inherent powers may be exercised. If a presbytery may ordain, or try a minister, what is to hinder a synod or a General Assembly doing so? Nothing in the world but an agreement that they will not exercise these powers. All Church councils representing the Church, are vested with all Church power. A presbytery may do all that a session may do; a synod can do all that a presbytery or session can do; and the General Assembly can do all that a synod, presbytery or session can do—except so far as
their hands are tied by a written agreement. Even a presbytery can exercise its inherent powers only according to the prescriptions of the constitution. It is not the true theory of our government, therefore, that the General Assembly has only delegated powers. It has all Church power, legislative, judicial and executive—though the exercise of these powers, as in the case of the presbytery, is limited and guided by a written constitution; and therefore it is true that our Assembly, under the limitation of the constitution, has not the powers of the original Synod, of which it is the successor. Still the distinction here stated is one of importance. Much depends on the question, whether our constitution is a grant, or a limitation of powers.
So far as we can judge from the reports of the debates, the objections to the appointment of a commission for judicial cases, were not urged with the plausibility and force with which they were presented last year by Chancellor Johns and Dr. McMasters. The great objection then urged was, that a court could not delegate its powers. What would be thought, it was asked, of the Supreme Court of the United States, if that venerable body should delegate its functions to a part of its members? The answer to this objection is, that there is no delegation of powers involved in the appointment of a commission. A quorum of a presbytery, no matter how large the presbytery may be, is the presbytery; a quorum of a synod is the synod, and a quorum of the Assembly is the Assembly. In like manner, inasmuch as a commission must embrace at least a quorum of the appointing body, a commission of a presbytery is the presbytery, a commission of the synod is the synod, and a commission of the Assembly is the Assembly. A commission, therefore, is not of the nature of a committee with powers, but it is the appointing body itself, adjourned to meet at a certain time and place, for the transaction of a specific business—with the
understanding expressed or implied, that while the whole body may convene, certain members are required to attend. When a candidate for the ministry is to be ordained, A B are appointed to take part in the exercises. It is understood that any member may be present, but in point of fact, few beyond those named are generally convened. They are the presbytery, whether any other member is present or not; and they act as such. In many cases, they examine the candidate, they judge of his qualifications and orthodoxy, they decide whether he shall be ordained or not, and if the way be clear, they ordain him. Does any body cry out against this, as a delegation of powers? or against three or four men being trusted to exercise the functions of a body consisting it may be of eighty or a hundred members? In England, the house of Lords is the court of ultimate appeal in judicial cases. When they have transacted their ordinary business, they adjourn to meet in their judicial capacity for the trial of causes, but it is with the understanding that none need attend but the law-Lords; and, in point of fact, few others ever do attend. What constitutional principle, then, forbids a presbytery or synod, when their ordinary business is transacted adjourning to meet for the trial of a judicial case, with the understanding, that, (as in the case of an ordination,) while the whole body may convene, certain specified members are obligated to attend? It may, however, be objected, that the presbytery and synods are permanent bodies, and the Assembly is an annual one, and is dissolved and not adjourned. The Assembly, however, may sit a whole year. It may sit a month, and then adjourn to meet at any time within the year it may see fit to appoint. We are, therefore, unable to see any constitutional objection to the appointment of a judicial commission. It is well known that our ecclesiastical courts have often appointed such bodies, and that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland annually appoints a commission, to which all unfinished business is referred. It is said that this is because the session of that body is limited by law to ten days. This, however, does
not apply to the Free Church. Besides, what difference does it make? If it is anti-presbyterial to act by a commission, the law of the State cannot make it presbyterial. It is no presumption, therefore, to say that a mode of action which has been adopted for centuries by the most stringent and influential Presbyterian Church in the world, of its own free will, is not inconsistent with the principles of Presbyterianism.
It is, therefore, a mere question of expediency. Something must be done to relieve the Assembly of the pressure of judicial cases. To make appeals stop with the synod, violates an essential principle of our system, and must tend to the dissolution of the Church. The appointment of a commission is a long tried and approved method of relief, and we hope it will be ultimately adopted, not only by the Assembly, but by synods and presbyteries.
It is said, that probably not more than forty members would attend a commission of the Assembly, and then we should have a body not more than one-half as large as an ordinary Synod, acting as the supreme judicatory of the Church—with its two thousand ministers and two hundred thousand communicants. It is said also, that if the decisions of such a body were not to be reviewed, its power would be alarming, and if reviewed, it would be of no use. It is further said, the Church would have no confidence in the judgment of such a body. It is evident that these objections are addressed to the imagination, and not to the understanding. Fourteen members are a quorum of the Assembly, and may constitutionally act as the supreme judicatory of the Church. Seven members are a quorum of a synod, and may act for the whole body. Three are a quorum of a presbytery, even if it consists of an hundred members. The United States' Court consists of some eight or ten judges, and lays down the law for twenty millions of freemen. A dozen law-Lords make decisions affecting all
the subjects of Great Britain. It is a mere chimera, that a commission would be a monstrum horrendum. Respect and confidence follow competency and fidelity, not numbers.
4. Decisions and Deliverances on Doctrines
[Form of Gov., chap. xii., sec. v.; Digest of 1873, p. 218 ff.]
a. General Remark
We cannot refrain from making a remark on the extreme delicacy of calling on deliberative bodies, and especially on the highest judicatories of a Church to affirm or deny doctrinal propositions. It would be well to remember with what sedulous care and frequent debate and comparison of views the Westminster Assembly revised and determined on the language employed in our standards. Luther and the other Wittemberg divines, when called upon to furnish the diet with a brief statement of the points of agreement and difference between them and the Romanists, utterly refused on the ground that it was too difficult and serious a matter to be done in a few days, which was all the time which could then be commanded. We see, however, that in our Assembly no hesitation is felt in moving on the spot, that such and such doctrinal propositions be approved or condemned.
b. Testimony against Erroneous Publications
The second resolution on the [Pittsburgh] Memorial declares it to be the right of the judicatories of the Presbyterian Church to bear testimony against erroneous publications, whether the author be a
member of the judicatory passing sentence or not. This resolution was opposed on the following grounds:
1. On account of peculiar and embarrassed phraseology, and its blending subjects very different from each other. The case of a book published in a foreign country, or by an author not connected with the Presbyterian Church, is very different from that of a book published by a member of our own judicatories, and with his name attached to it. There can be no objection to any body warning those under its care against a book likely to do them harm, whose author was not amenable to them in any way; but the case is very different when the author is under the control of that body. The resolution reaches both classes of such cases. 2. It is inconsistent with our book of discipline, and with the universally recognized principles of justice and brotherly love. Because it is to all intents and purposes a trial of the author without an accuser, without the liberty of explanation and defence. It is a condemnation of a man first, and the trial of him afterwards. He is thus deprived of all chance of a fair hearing. A minister may be arraigned before his own presbytery, on the ground of a certain publication, and, while the cause is pending, a superior judicatory to which this very case may be brought by appeal, may be called upon to decide it in the abstract; thus prejudicing his cause in the court below, and prejudging in the court above. Is this justice? It is inconsistent also with the tenderness due to a brother's character and usefulness, to pronounce his book erroneous or injurious, without giving him the opportunity of explanation or defence. 3. The mode of proceeding sanctioned by the resolution is unnecessary. The constitution points out another and fairer way of reaching the case. If a man has published heresy, let him be arraigned and have a fair trial. In this way, if his book is erroneous, it can be condemned and the people warned. 4. Such condemnations of books may do more
harm than good, by increasing their notoriety and extending their circulation.
The resolution was supported on the following grounds: 1. It was denied that the trial and condemnation of a book was a trial and condemnation of the author. The opinion expressed upon the book might be given by a presbytery to which the author was not amenable, and could not prejudice his having a fair trial before his own body. The opinion did not affect his standing or rights; his liberty to explain and defend his sentiments was not impaired. 2. There are two different methods by which our judicatories may operate to correct the evils arising from erroneous books; the one is by disciplining their authors, the other examining and condemning the books themselves. Sometimes justice and propriety may demand the one course and sometimes the other. Because a judicatory may sometimes adopt the latter course, when it should have adopted the former, is no reason why the latter should be in all cases prohibited, because there are many cases in which it is the only proper or practicable method of meeting the evil. A book published in a distant part of the country may be circulating within the bounds of a particular presbytery and doing much injury. They certainly have a right to express their opinion of the work, without waiting until the presbytery to which the author belongs think proper to call him to an account. Or, supposing that the author's presbytery thinks there is nothing seriously erroneous in the book, are all other presbyteries, though they may think very differently, to be forced to allow it to circulate among them without the power of saying a word on the subject? Again, the sentiments of a book may be erroneous and yet not heretical, or the author may by his explanations satisfy those concerned that he does not hold the errors which his book may, in the judgment of others, inculcate. A tract in defence of slavery, or of Church establishments, or against temperance societies, or voluntary
associations, might be so written as to do much evil, without perhaps justly subjecting their authors to ecclesiastical censure. Against such publications, or any other which they deem injurious, Church courts have a right to protest, and to warn their people. All that the resolution asserts is the right. That it may be unwisely or unkindly exercised no one doubts, but this does not invalidate the right itself. —3. This right has ever been claimed and exercised in the Church. In the constitution, chap. 10, sect. 8, it is expressly stated, that among the powers of the presbytery is that of condemning "erroneous opinions, which injure the purity or peace of the Church." The import of this declaration is rendered perfectly plain by the reference, in support of this right, to Acts 15:22–24. That passage does not contain an example of the disciplining of a heretic, but of the condemnation of an erroneous opinion in the abstract. The council at Jerusalem pronounced the opinion of the false brethren, who had crept in unawares, to be erroneous and injurious. The General Assembly itself once appointed a committee to examine a certain book, (Davis's Gospel Plan) and the report of that committee condemned it, and then directed the presbytery to proceed against its author. See Digest, p. 144, [Digest of 1873, p. 222.] Not only in the Presbyterian Church, but in all ages and parts of the Christian world, ecclesiastical bodies have, from time to time, warned the people against erroneous publications—4. There is little danger of this power being abused. The danger is rather on the other side. In this age and country at least, the evil is that the Church is disposed too much to overlook both books and men who teach erroneous doctrines.
The resolution was carried.
c. Church Commentary on the Bible
Dr. Breckinridge offered a minute to provide a Commentary on the Scriptures which shall be in accordance with the Westminster doctrines of this Church, as follows:
Inasmuch as the want of a sound, godly, and thorough commentary on the whole word of God, composed in the sense of the constant faith of the Church of God, as that is briefly set forth in the standard of the Westminster Assembly, held by the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, has long been felt to be a grievous want, whereby a great lack of due service to God and to his truth occurs, and whereby constant danger arises to men of needless ignorance on one side, and of dangerous misguidance on the other, therefore be it.
Resolved, By the General Assembly, that the Board of Publication shall, and it is hereby directed to proceed with all convenient despatch to have such a commentary composed, prepared for the press and published. And in the execution of this great work, the following rules and orders, together with such further as may be adopted from time to time by the General Assembly, shall be carefully observed by the Board of Publication, and by all others in any ways engaged in the execution of any part thereof.
1. The commentary shall be prepared exclusively by the members of this Church, and in the preparing of it they shall have all such indulgence as to time as they shall respectively demand. And for their own compensation and their heirs, shall receive, for the legal term of twenty-eight years, a fair per centum on the price of the work sold, which shall be settled in advance by the Board of Publication, and which shall be uniform, and in lieu of all claims and cost of every sort in any way connected with their said work.
2. The said commentary shall be fitted for common use by all men, and in the preparation of it free use may be made of all material that
may exist; the design being to procure not so much what may be original, as what may be best in the way of enlightening and saving men. It shall not be prolix, but so arranged that the whole may be embraced in five or six royal octavo volumes, of good print, containing, besides commentary, the English text in full, together with the usual accessories thereof, and such other suitable helps to its understanding as plain people need. And the text used in it shall be strictly that of the version prepared by the translators appointed by James the First, King of England.
3. In order to secure the fittest men for this great work, the Board of Publication shall make special application to the general synods of our Church at the next stated meetings respectively, and the said synods shall, upon careful consideration, nominate to the said Board of Publication any number of their own members, not to exceed five from any one synod, of such as they shall consider qualified to undertake the work, and the Board of Publication may add not more than four, in addition to the whole number thus nominated to it, and it shall communicate the list of names thus obtained by sifting the Church, to the General Assembly, at its next stated meeting in May of next year, making, at the same time, and from year to year thereafter, report of its doings under and by virtue of this minute.
4. The General Assembly of 1859 will take such further order in the premises, especially with regard to selection of persons out of the list communicated to it, to the distribution of the work amongst them, and to all things needful for its effectual prosecution, as shall seem most expedient.
It is evident, from the very nature of this proposal, as well as from the arguments of its advocates, that it contemplates an exposition of the whole Scripture, to which shall be given the sanction of Church
authority. If the mere suggestion of such an idea does not strike a man dumb with awe, he must be impervious to all argument. It is a fearful thing to give Church authority even to articles of faith gathered from the general sense of Scripture. How large a part of the Church universal, or even of the Church of England, can conscientiously adopt the Thirty-Nine Articles in their true sense? How do we get along with our more extended Confession? We could not hold together a week, if we made the adoption of all its propositions a condition of ministerial communion. How is it with the marriage question? If it is not only difficult but impossible to frame a creed as extended as the Westminster Confession, which can be adopted in all its details by the ministry of any large body of Christians, what shall we say to giving the sanction of the Church to a given interpretation of every passage of Scripture? This is more than all the popes, who ever lived, merged in one, would dare to propose. It is a thousand fold more than Rome, when most drunk with pride, ever ventured to attempt. Where is there such a thing? who has ever heard of such a thing as a Church Commentary? There must be some mistake about this matter. The proposition cannot mean what it appears to mean, and what some at least, both of its advocates and opponents, understood it to mean. We cannot persuade ourselves that any one, having the least idea of the nature of the work, any apprehension of what it is, to come to a clear conviction, even for oneself, what is the true interpretation of thousands of texts of Scripture, how many questions of philology, of grammar, of logic, of geography, history, antiquities, of the analogy of faith and of Scripture, which such decision involves, could, for a moment, dream of the possibility of a Church exposition of the whole Bible. The proposal on the part of any man, or any body of men, to give an authoritative interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy, of the visions of Ezekiel, Zechariah, Daniel, and John, would be proof that God had given him or them up to strong delusion. No amount of inspiration
ever granted to man would justify such an assumption. The prophets themselves did not understand their own predictions. The apostles, though rendered infallible in what they taught, were as ignorant, it may be, as other men of what they did not teach. The Scriptures were as much an unfathomable sea of Divine knowledge to them as they are to us.
It will no doubt be said, that the view above given of the design of the proposed commentary is exaggerated and distorted. It is very probable that the proposition lies in the minds of its advocates in a very different form from that which it presents to others. We are speaking of it as it lies in the record, and as it was exhibited in the speeches of those who urged its adoption. Some may say that there is no great harm in the Board of Publication publishing a commentary on the Bible. Certainly not, and simply because the Board of Publication is not the Church, and therefore no special authority belongs to any of their publications. They may print the commentaries of Henry or Scott, or Dr. Jacobus's Notes on the Gospel, with impunity, because no one is responsible for the correctness of the expositions given but their authors. Who ever dreams that the Church is responsible for Dr. Scott's interpretation of Ezekiel's wheels? Who thinks of attributing Church authority to Dr. Jacobus's exposition of our Lord's discourses? These works pass for what they are intrinsically worth, and for no more. But here it is proposed to pursue the same course in making a commentary, as was adopted in making our Catechisms and compiling our Hymn Book. The Church, as such, is responsible for the doctrinal correctness of every hymn in the collection. The people do not know who were the writers or who the compilers. They take the book on the authority of the Church, and the Church is fully committed to its correctness. This must be the case in regard to any commentary written by men selected and appointed by the Church, reporting their work from
time to time, as they proceed, and receiving as essential the imprimatur of the Church to what they write. This of necessity commits the Church; and this purpose was clearly avowed. It was said that the Westminster Confession has a sense, and the Church has a clear conviction of what that sense is; and according to these principles the commentary is to be constructed. That is, the Church is to see to it, that the commentary is orthodox and correct; therefore the Church must be responsible. When this commentary is quoted in controversy, it will come not with the authority of Luther, or Calvin, or Scott, or Jacobus, but of the Presbyterian Church. All Presbyterians will go to it, not as to the other publications of the Board, written by private individuals, but as to a book having authority, as being written or compiled by the Church. The plan proposed is much the same as that pursued by our Baptist friends in the preparation of their new version. If that work should be completed, it will be the Baptist version, not Dr. Conant's or Professor Hackett's version, but the Baptist version—one to which the Baptists as a denomination stand committed. So the proposed commentary will be the Presbyterian commentary, not the commentary of Mr. A. or of Dr. B., and it must of necessity be clothed with Church authority. This was evidently contemplated by those who urged that the exposition of Scripture should be kept under the vigilant eye of the Church, and who pleaded the promise of the Holy Spirit to the Church as a reason why the work should not be referred to the Board of Publication, but decided upon and carried out by the Church itself, the Board being only her agent, as in the preparation of the Hymn Book. This is a fatal objection to the whole scheme, for the Church will never submit, unless God has withdrawn from her the spirit of wisdom and of a sound mind, to have imposed upon her the interpretations of any man, as of authority in the reading of the Scriptures.
Besides this, the object aimed at is not only inconsistent with the liberty of believing, but it is utterly impracticable. It is said the Bible is to be interpreted according to the Church's sense of the Westminster Confession. But who is to tell us the Church's sense of the Confession? It is notorious, that as to that point we are not agreed. In the second place, even as to points in which the sense of the Confession is plain, there is want of entire concurrence in its reception; and what is the main point, there is no such thing as the sense of the Westminster Confession as to the true interpretation of thousands of passages of Scripture. The standard is an imaginary one. What does that Confession teach of the dark sayings of Hosea, of the baptism for the dead, or the sense of Gal. 3:20, concerning which an octavo volume has been written, giving no less than one hundred and fifty distinct interpretations? It is plain that there is not, and that there cannot be a standard for the interpretation of the Scriptures in detail; and therefore the Church must either submit to have the opinions of some one man enacted into the laws to bind the reason and conscience of all other men, or she must give up the idea of having a Church exposition of the Bible.
Admitting, however, that such a work is desirable, and that it is practicable, where are the men to be found to execute the task? It is proposed that each synod should nominate five of its own members for the work, some one hundred and sixty in all. We venture to say, that instead of our Church being able to furnish a hundred men fit for such a work as this, it does not contain, and never has contained, any one such man. It is bad enough for any poor sinner, after all his study, to undertake to present his own private judgment as to the meaning of Scripture, and to state the reasons for his opinion, leaving all other men to judge for themselves, to receive or reject his interpretation as they may see fit. But to assume to act as the mouthpiece of the Church in this matter, to say what the Church
believes as to the meaning of each text of Scripture, and what all its members, therefore, are bound to receive as its meaning, is a task which none but an idiot or an angel would dare to undertake.
5. Superintendence
[Form of Government, chap, xii., sec. v.]
a. Disposal of the Members of a Dissolved Presbytery
[Comp. Digest of 1873, p. 263.]
Resolutions were introduced in relation to the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia, which, as modified by the mover, were adopted in the following form, viz.
"Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America,
"1. That the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia be, and it hereby is, dissolved.
"2. The territory embraced in this presbytery is re-annexed to those to which it respectively appertained before its creation. Its stated clerk is directed to deposit all their records, and other papers, in the hands of the stated clerk of the Synod of Philadelphia, on or before the first day of the sessions of that synod, at its first meeting after this Assembly adjourns.
"3. The candidates and Foreign Missionaries of the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia are hereby attached to the Presbytery of Philadelphia.
"4. The ministers, churches, and licentiates in the presbytery hereby dissolved are directed to apply without delay to the presbyteries to which they most naturally belong, for admission into them. And upon application being so made, by any duly organized Presbyterian church, it shall be received.
"5. These resolutions shall be in force from and after the final adjournment of the present sessions of this General Assembly."
Yeas 70, nays 60.
These resolutions were advocated on the ground of the unconstitutionality of the act of the Assembly by which this presbytery was constituted, and of the evils which had resulted, and were likely still farther to result from its existence in its present form.
We do not question the right of the Assembly to act in this case, and to dissolve the presbytery which they themselves had formed, but we cannot see the propriety of the manner in which it was done. It was said, that the Assembly has no authority to attach any minister to a presbytery without its consent. This, as a general rule, may be true. But in those cases in which the Assembly undertakes to assign limits to presbyteries, or to constitute or dissolve such bodies, they must determine who shall and who shall not belong to them. The great difficulty arises from the anomalous position in which this act places the members of this presbytery. By the act of dissolution their presbytery ceases to exist. They are then members of no presbytery, and yet Presbyterian ministers. They are indeed directed to apply for admission into the presbyteries to which they most naturally belong. Suppose, however, these bodies refuse to receive them. In what condition are they then? Are they in or out of the Presbyterian Church? Is a minister turned out of the Church by the refusal of a particular presbytery to receive him? This cannot be assumed as a
constitutional mode of getting rid of a man. And if he is still a minister within the Church, what is he to do? Is he to apply to some other presbytery to take him in? Or is he to remain unattached to any ecclesiastical body? It seems to us that the only proper method of disposing of this case, if it was taken up at all, was either to refer the whole matter to the synod, or at once to attach the members, as was done in the case of the foreign missionaries, to one or the other of the existing presbyteries.
b. Exclusion of the Synod of Western Reserve
[Comp. Digest of 1873, pp. 263–267, 525.]
Mr. Plumer presented the following resolution: Resolved, That by the operation of the abrogation of the plan of 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.
This resolution was opposed by Messrs. Jessup, M'Auley, Cleaveland and Peters. It was supported by Messrs. Baxter, Plumer, Junkin, Ewing and Anderson. The debate occupied the attention of the house the greater part of the time from Tuesday morning, until the close of the session on Thursday morning, when the question was put and decided in the affirmative—yeas 132, nays, 105.†
The opponents of the resolution argued thus. 1. This measure is professedly based on the assumption of the unconstitutionality of the plan of union. We deny, however, that the plan is unconstitutional, because no provision of the constitution was violated.* We admit it was not purely presbyterial in its character. And that the plan itself professes. It was, what it professes to be, neither more nor less, a scheme to promote union and harmony and piety among a class of inhabitants who were gathered together from different quarters, and
with different views of Church government. But we are now thrown upon such an age of new light, as to be told that a plan to promote piety and harmony is beyond the powers of our Presbyterian constitution. If this plan is unconstitutional, because it was not submitted to the presbyteries, then the acts to establish the Princeton Seminary, and your Boards of Missions and Education are also unconstitutional. There is not a particle of provision in your constitution for these acts, and they were never sent down to the presbyteries for approval. If there should come a change in the balance of power in this Assembly, and we believe it will come, you are preparing a fine weapon to be used by your opposers; one which these hawk-eyed Yankees, it is to be feared, will use in their turn when they have the power. They will take your hated trio, the Seminary and the two Boards, and lay them on the block, and by a single fall of your patent, cut off the three heads at a single blow. And, if they ever do it, they will plead the precedent you are now about to set, as a full apology for such a stretch of power. Again, if the plan of union is unconstitutional, because not sent down to the presbyteries, the adoption of the Scotch Seceder churches was unconstitutional, for that was not sent down, and that act is both ipso facto void, and all that has been done under it, is void ab initio, and they are not in the Presbyterian Church.
2. If we even admit that the plan was and is unconstitutional, it would not follow that the abrogation act sweeps away every thing which rests upon that plan. The principle that all the rights vested under an unconstitutional law are invalidated, and fall as soon as the law is abrogated, is monstrous: it would break all the ligaments of society, and destroy all the vested rights of property. If it should be applied to the present case, then all the licensures, ordinations, and titles to Church property, under the plan of union, were thrown to the winds. Your vote can never make it true; wise men and Christians
will see the injustice; and half the state of New York will be involved in it. To show the unsoundness of this principle, we appeal to the opinion of one of the most eminent jurists that ever lived. Chief Justice Marshall, in giving the opinion of the supreme court in the Yazoo-land case, assumed the position, that as the state of Georgia was a party to the contract conveying those lands, that state could not disannul its own contract for any reason whatever. We admit that the decision of the court in the case itself, as between those parties, did not turn on this point, respecting the constitutionality of the act, but on the charge of bribery in the legislature. But in giving the opinion of the court, the venerable judge has incidentally laid down a principle, which bears directly on the case before us. "For a party," he says, "to pronounce its own deed invalid, whatever cause may be assigned for the invalidity, must be considered a mere act of power, which must find its vindication in a course of reasoning not often heard in a court of justice." Cranch's Reports, vol. vi. p. 135. Are we wrong then in assuming that if the law of the state of Georgia, conveying these lands, had been unconstitutional, the legislature that made the law, and then repealed it, could not by this take advantage of its own wrong, and proceed to annihilate contracts made and rights vested under the rule which they themselves had made? Again, the judge says, "When a law is, in its nature a contract, when absolute rights have vested under that contract, a repeal of the law cannot divest those rights." Let us suppose, for illustration, that Congress should pass a law which is in fact unconstitutional, supposing it to be constitutional, and the thing goes on for thirty-six years, and under its operation various rights have vested, and various institutions, commercial, literary or political, have grown up, for instance, in the state of Pennsylvania. Now, at the end of thirtysix years, the law is pronounced unconstitutional, what would be the effect of such a decision? We venture to affirm that no court or Congress of the nation would ever attempt to carry out the decision,
in the manner we are doing, to crush, not merely the institutions formed, but the state of Pennsylvania in which they have existed. Why, sir, what do you propose? By the very principle assumed, you have only power to annihilate the institutions formed under the plan of union. But you propose to annihilate a whole synod regularly and constitutionally formed. If this is justice, it is justice with a vengeance. Let us take another case. Suppose the state of Georgia had, thirty-six years ago, invited the missionaries to come and labour for the benefit of the Indians, assuring them of protection, and by an unconstitutional law, had granted certain rights and privileges to the missionaries and the Indians, on the strength of which houses and towns had been built; and then after the process of civilization had been going on for thirty-six years, there was a decision, not of Chief Justice Marshall of glorious legal memory, but of a majority in a vacillating legislature, that is chosen every year, and changes as often, that the law is unconstitutional. Could they then take advantage of their own wrong, and immediately send out the sheriff, without process or trial, to imprison the missionaries, break up their settlements, and hang the poor Indians, for no other crime than that of exercising the rights which had been granted to them by a former legislature?
3. We may, however, admit every thing that is claimed, 1. That the plan of union is unconstitutional; 2. That the abrogation act sweeps away every thing which rests upon it, and what follows? Why you cannot touch one synod or presbytery; you merely sweep away the churches which are of a mixed character. There are many good and honest men on the other side of the house, whose minds are so filled with rumours that they have hardly room to receive the truth, who are therefore prepared to say aye to this resolution, supposing they are going to cut off a synod formed on an unconstitutional basis. But this is not the fact. Our book says that a presbytery consists of all the
ministers within a certain district, and a ruling elder from each church. The presbyteries out of which this synod was formed were regularly organized by the Synod of Pittsburg, and by the General Assembly of 1825 the presbyteries were regularly formed into a synod, which has been recognized ever since. Now admitting there are churches among them formed on the plan of union, and that this plan is unconstitutional and void, how does this affect the standing of Presbyterian ministers and churches, or the standing of the presbyteries or synod? A minister becomes, by his ordination, a member of presbytery, and a constituent part of the Presbyterian Church. How is his relation to the Church affected by your pronouncing the plan of union unconstitutional? His standing is not on that plan, and therefore he does not fall, even though the plan be annihilated. You allow your ministers to be editors, teachers, farmers and merchants, without disowning them; are they necessarily out of the Church the moment they become the pastors of Congregational or mixed churches? It must be remembered that many of these ministers were regularly ordained by other presbyteries, about whose regularity there is no question. And yet you propose to declare them to be no part of the Presbyterian Church, merely because there are some churches connected with the Presbyteries to which they now belong, whose organization you choose to pronounce irregular.
4. Whatever name may be given to this proceeding, it is to all intents an act of discipline. Upwards of a hundred ministers and churches are to be condemned without a trial. If there are irregularities and disorders within the bounds of this synod which it refuses to correct, your proper course would be to cite them to your bar; to ascertain, by judicial process, the real state of the facts, and if they refuse to abate these evils, to deal with them as the case may demand. But this resolution cuts them off without the show of a legal process. It virtually excommunicates them without the form of a trial.
5. The consequences of the principle on which this measure is based reach much farther than many seem to imagine. You cannot consistently stop short after the excision of the Synod of the Western Reserve. If that synod is no part of the church, because the plan of union is unconstitutional, then all those synods and presbyteries embracing churches formed on that plan must also be disowned. What then will become, not only of the synods of Western New York, but of Albany and New Jersey? Why, there were in the Albany Synod, as late as the year 1808, and by the authority of the General Assembly too, things which you will acknowledge to be a great deal worse than the plan of union ever was. By the express command of the General Assembly, they were required to have, and did have, on the floor of the synod, as members, A WHOLE CONGREGATIONAL ASSOCIATION. And now what will you do? We go yet further. That same Albany Synod has controlled the acts of this body, and has furnished no less than five or six moderators in the seat which you now occupy. On the arguments of these brethren the Presbyterian Church is unsound to the core; this congregational gangrene has seized upon the very vitals of the body, and you cannot cut it out without destroying your own life.