Page images
PDF
EPUB

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE AMERICAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

(OLD SCHOOL).

THIS body met in Philadelphia, on Thursday, 21st May 1846, the same day on which the two Assemblies in Scotland meet. Such, we believe, is the usual arrangement, andit is a pleasing evidence of the feelings with which our Presbyterian brethren across the Atlantic regard the Scottish Church, that they seem to wish to have the meetings of the Supreme Courts simultaneous. It is attended, however, with this disadvantage, that it makes the course of formal correspondence long and tedious; an inconvenience experienced in the recent discussions about Slavery in this country, when some misunderstanding arose from parties not considering that the letter of the Commission of our Assembly, in August 1844, could only be answered by the American Assembly in May 1845, and that answer could only come before the Assembly here, in May 1846.

The following abstract of the proceedings of the American Assembly, is taken with abridgement (but without omitting any of the topics) from the Princeton Review for July 1846. It is a very able digest, and the topics are deeply interesting. Our readers will bear in mind that the body of Presbyterians represented by that Assembly, are the section often called the "Old School," whose theology may be said to partake, on the whole, of the character of that sounder Calvinism, of which we have so excellent a specimen in Hodge's tract on the Atonement, recently republished in this country.

I. The first subject may seem of little consequence, “What's in a name?" It was characteristic of American impetuosity, perhaps, that our friends made the attempt to rescue the word "Bishop" from the unjust prelatic monopoly of it; it is characteristic of American good sense, that they abandon it. The remarks that follow are judicious; the real matter now at issue between Prelatists and Presbyterians

being not the exclusive right of Prelates to the name of Bishops, which all intelligent Episcopalians abandon, but the title of their bishops to be called apostles.

Title of Bishop.-When the roll was read in the afternoon of the first day of the sessions of the Assembly, Dr R. J. Breckinridge moved that the word Bishop be struck out in every case where it was applied to the clerical delegates, and that the word minister be substituted in its place. This motion prevailed by a large majority. With regard to the title Bishop, there are certain points as to which all parties may be considered as substantially agreed. One is, that in the New Testament, the title is given to those officers in the Church who are appointed to rule, teach, and ordain. Another is, that the terms Presbyter and Bishop are applied to the same officers. Prelatists long contended against this position, but have at last, with common consent, conceded it. In so doing, they have conceded almost the entire ground of argument from Scripture in behalf of prelacy, and assumed the task of proving, that, though in the apostolic age a Bishop was a Presbyter, and nothing more, in the immediately succeeding age, he was a Prelate. A third point of beyond dispute is, that, though Bishop and Presbyter were convertible terms in the apostolic church, yet, as the hierarchial principle gradually gained ground, the term Bishop was appropriated to one class of the clergy, and Presbyter to another, and that the usus loquendi of the whole Church for centuries has given this restrictive meaning to the word Bishop. The question, then, is, is it desirable to change this long-established usage, and to restore the word to its Scriptural meaning. We have no hesitation in saying, that, if practicable, it would be desirable; but believing it to be impracticable, we regard the attempt as altogether inexpedient. We are glad, therefore, that the motion to substitute the word Minister for that of Bishop in the minutes of the Assembly prevailed, and we hope the matter will rest where it is.

II. The second topic is the "vexed question" of Slavery. We, of course, do not intend in this cursory way to deal with so great a subject in the way of propounding our own views. We submit, however, that the American Presbyterians are entitled to the benefit of the following calm, temperate, and manly exposition of their opinions, in any subsequent discussions in which their conduct may require to be canvassed.

Slavery. This subject was before the Assembly on several occasions. The com. mittee on bills and overtures had this matter brought before them in various ways, and submitted, in reference to it, the following report, viz.

"Overture, No. 17. A collection of memorials and petitions on the subject of slavery, containing an expression of opinion by the General Association of Massachusetts; seven petitions from a number of ministers, elders, and private members of our Church; five memorials from presbyteries, viz., the Presbyteries of Beaver, Hocking, Blairsville, New Lisbon, and Albany, and a resolution from the Synod of Cincinnati, all requesting of the Assembly to utter additional testimony on the subject of slavery, or at least to reaffirm or explain its former testimony. In view of these memorials and petitions, the committee recommended the adoption of the following minutes, viz.

"Our Church has, from time to time, dur ing a period of nearly sixty years, expressed its views on the subject of slavery. During all this period it has held and uttered substantially the same sentiments-believng that this uniform testimony is true and capable of vindication from the word of God; the Assembly is, at the same time, clearly of opinion, that it has already deliberately and solemnly spoken on the subject with sufficient fulness and clearness, Therefore,

"Resolved, That no further action upon this subject is at present needed."

It was moved as an amendment to the resolution with which this report concludes, that a clause should be added, declaring that the decision of the Assembly of 1845 on the subject of slavery was not to be understood as contradicting or rescinding any previous testimony of the General Assembly on the subject. The majority of the house preferring a direct vote on the report, laid this amendment on the table, and the report was adopted by a large majority. Whereupon, the Rev. R. M. White gave notice of his intention to enter a protest against the above decision; and Rev. Thomas S. Thomas gave a similar notice, for different reasons. In the afternoon, however, Mr White moved the following resolution: "Resolved, That, in the judgment of this house the action of the General Assembly of 1845 [in reference to slavery] was not intended to deny or rescind the testimony often uttered by the General Assembly previous to that date." As substantially the same thing had been proposed in the morning as an amendment to the report of the committee on bills and overtures, some doubt was expressed as to whether the above resolution was in order. But as the house did not reject the amend. ment, and had not in any way expressed a judgment contrary to the sentiment which it expressed, it was pronounced in order and adopted, ayes 88, nays 32. The report of the committee was adopted by a vote of ayes 126, nays 29; but Mr White and five others subsequently declared themselves satisfied with the subsequent action of the house on this subject, the vote, therefore, should stand ayes 132, nays 23.

The results above indicated were not arrived at without a good deal of debate, which was conducted in an uniformly kind and

Christian temper. The two brethren who alone appeared as technical abolitionists, Messrs Fullerton and Thomas, we fear would lose caste with their own party, could the reasonable and mild spirit with which they presented their views be known. Whatever may be their doctrines, they certainly exhibited nothing of the animus which has distinguished and disgraced the abolitionists as a body. No one could listen to the debate on this subject without being satisfied that in our Church there is a remarkable and cordial unanimity of opinion in regard to it. Should a collision, in reference to this matter ever occur, it must arise from misunderstanding, or from a culpable want of a right spirit. It is notorious that, in this country, men are divided into three classes as regards slavery. The one hold that slaveholding is in itself a sin, and ought to be made a term of Christian communion; that every man who holds slaves, should, after due admonition, be excluded from the Church. We are not aware that this doctrine had a single advocate on the floor of the Assembly. Even the two brethren above mentioned, who claimed to be abolitionists, carefully avoided taking this ground, and so long as northern churches of any denomination repudiate this unscriptural dogma, there can be no justifiable cause of schism, as far as this matter is concerned, between them and their southern brethren.

A second class go to the very opposite extreme, and maintain that slavery is a good and desirable institution, and ought to be perpetuated; that is, since there must always be a labouring class of society, it is best in an economical, social, and moral point of view, that they should be in a state of slavery. They insist that the slaves are better off, not merely as to physical comforts, but in their moral and social condition, than the free labouring population of any nation in the world. This is a doctrine which had few if any advocates, even among men of the world, in this country, until within a few years; and we know no Presbyterian minister who has ever avowed it. This doctrine, as far as we know, is confined to certain politicians and men of the world.

The third class, which includes the great body of our Church, and of the enlightened and good men, in every part of our country, maintain the doctrine which our General Assembly has from first to last inculcated, and which was proclaimed so clearly, and with so much unanimity, last year at Cincinnati. That doctrine is:

1. That since Christ and his apostles did not make the holding of slaves a bar to communion, we have no authority to do so. The Assembly says, they cannot pronounce slaveholding a heinous and scandalous sin, calculated to bring upon the Church the curse of God.

2. That the laws of many of the states relating to slaves are unjust and oppressive; that it is sinful to traffic in slaves for the sake of gain, or for a like motive, or for the convenience of the master, to separate husbands and wives, or parents and children.

3. That the slaves have a right to religious instruction, and to be treated as rational, accountable, and immortal beings; and, consequently, that it is the duty of their masters

so to regard and treat them, performing towards them all the duties belonging to this relation specified in the Word of God. The Assembly, therefore, exhorted masters to remember that they have a Master in heaven, and that they are bound to do unto others what they would have others do unto them. Such is the obvious sense of the declaration adopted by the Assembly of 1845, which has commended itself to the judgment and conscience of the vast body of our own Church, and of true Christians in every part of the land. Such has ever been substantially the testimony of our Church on this subject.

Though there is this general agreement on this subject throughout our Church, it is very evident there is great diversity of sentiment as to what ought to be the action of the Assembly in relation to it. Some take the ground that the Assembly has no right to say a word on the subject; that slavery is a civil institution, and lies as much beyond the province of Church courts, as matters of government or politics. It is, however, as far as we know, only one here and there who take this extreme ground. It is too obviously untenable for any but excited men to

venture to assume.

Others again, who readily admit that the Assembly has the right to speak on this as on other subjects involving questions of duty, still hold that the less that is said the better; that such is the state of mind of southern men that they receive with impatience the annunciation even of truths which they themselves are ready to avow, when that annunciation comes from non-slaveholders, and that more good would be done by allowing the matter to rest in southern hands. There may be some foundation for such remarks, but it must be remembered that the General Assembly is not a northern body, it is the representative of the whole Church, of the south as well as the north. It should be remembered too, that the Church is one; it has a common character and common responsibility. If false doctrine, or evil practice prevail in one part of the Church, it is the sin of the whole, and of course the obligation to correct the evil lies on the whole. The general Assembly, therefore, as representing the whole Church, has not only the right, but is bound to declare the duties of her members, wherever they may live. To the General Assembly, therefore, other churches have a right to look, and, in fact, ever have looked for a testimony on this subject.

III. We the rather direct the attention of our readers to the next extract, as explaining a proceeding which has been somewhat misconstrued. It so happened this year, that the Triennial Assembly of the other section of Presbyterians, (who are sometimes called "The New School,"-though they disown that appellation, and claim to be considered the "Constitutional" body), met at the same time, and in the same town, with the Annual General Assembly, whose actings are now before us. A proposal was made

by the former to the latter, that they should join together in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. The proposal was declined: and the declinature has been represented as illiberal and uncharitable. We sincerely regret to find Dr Cox, who belongs to what he calls the "Constitutional Assembly," -in a letter addressed by him to the Editor of the Presbyterian Review, dated Edinburgh, 23d July 1846,— [Presb. Review for October,] indulging in a strain of observation, upon this inconsistent subject, certainly very with the spirit in which his "Constitutional Brethren" professed to make the proposal. Dr Cox was on his way

to the Evangelical Alliance when he passed through Edinburgh. We trust he would not have penned the paragraphs to which we refer on his way home again from the Alliance. He surely must see, upon reflection, that the tone of triumph which he assumes, on the score of greater liberality, and the sharp and unbrotherly terms in which he speaks of the hesitation of the other party-are rather apt to foster, than to allay, the suspicion, that some, at least, of the liberals might go into the proposal with the more complacency from their perceiving that it might put their stricter and more strait-laced brethren " in a fix." We do not allege this: nor does the writer of the following explanation assert it. He calmly gives the view which his own Assembly took of the matter, which certainly places their conduct in a different light from that in which Dr Cox represents it. For ourselves, we give no opinion on the point, either of the propriety and seasonableness of the proposal being made, or of the warrantableness of its being declined. We may observe, however, that we are somewhat afraid of an artificial and scenic use of this holy ordinance, as it were, ad captandum, or for effect; to make a display of closer union than ordinary church-fellowship allows; and to cover over differences and divisions which the parties thus joining still regard as of magnitude enough to require continued separation, and even mutual protest.

Slavery. This subject was before the Assembly on several occasions. The committee on bills and overtures had this matter brought before them in various ways, and submitted, in reference to it, the following report, viz.

"Overture, No. 17. A collection of memorials and petitions on the subject of slavery, containing an expression of opinion by the General Association of Massachusetts; seven petitions from a number of ministers, elders, and private members of our Church; five memorials from presbyteries, viz., the Presbyteries of Beaver, Hocking, Blairsville, New Lisbon, and Albany, and a resolution from the Synod of Cincinnati, all requesting of the Assembly to utter additional testimony on the subject of slavery, or at least to reaffirm or explain its former testimony. In view of these memorials and petitions, the committee recommended the adoption of the following minutes, viz.

"Our Church has, from time to time, during a period of nearly sixty years, expressed its views on the subject of slavery. During all this period it has held and uttered substantially the same sentiments-believng that this uniform testimony is true and capable of vindication from the word of God; the Assembly is, at the same time, clearly of opinion, that it has already deliberately and solemnly spoken on the subject with sufficient fulness and clearness, Therefore,

"Resolved, That no further action upon this subject is at present needed."

It was moved as an amendment to the resolution with which this report concludes, that a clause should be added, declaring that the decision of the Assembly of 1845 on the subject of slavery was not to be understood as contradicting or rescinding any previous testimony of the General Assembly on the subject. The majority of the house preferring a direct vote on the report, laid this amendment on the table, and the report was adopted by a large majority. Whereupon, the Rev. R. M. White gave notice of his intention to enter a protest against the above decision; and Rev. Thomas S. Thomas gave a similar notice, for different reasons. In the afternoon, however, Mr White moved the following resolution: "Resolved, That, in the judgment of this house the action of the General Assembly of 1845 [in reference to slavery] was not intended to deny or rescind the testimony often uttered by the General Assembly previous to that date." As substantially the same thing had been proposed in the morning as an amendment to the report of the committee on bills and overtures, some doubt was expressed as to whether the above resolution was in order. But as the house did not reject the amend. ment, and had not in any way expressed a judgment contrary to the sentiment which it expressed, it was pronounced in order and adopted, ayes 88, nays 32. The report of the committee was adopted by a vote of ayes 126, mays 29; but Mr White and five others subsequently declared themselves satisfied with the subsequent action of the house on this subject, the vote, therefore, should stand ares 182, nays M

The results abore indicated were not ar rived at without a good deal of debate, which was conducted in an uniformly kind an

Christian temper. The two breth
alone appeared as technical abo
Messrs Fullerton and Thomas, we f
lose caste with their own party.
reasonable and mild spirit with
presented their views be known.
may be their doctrines, they cer
bited nothing of the animus v
tinguished and disgraced the a
a body. No one could listen
on this subject without being
in our Church there is a rema
dial unanimity of opinion
Should a collision, in refer.
ter ever occur, it must arise
standing, or from a culpable
spirit. It is notorious that
men are divided into three
slavery. The one hold th
in itself a sin, and ought
of Christian communion
who holds slaves, should
tion, be excluded from t
not aware that this doct
vocate on the floor of
the two brethren ab
claimed to be abolition
taking this ground, ar
churches of any dene
unscriptural dogma,
able cause of schism
concerned, between
brethren.

Joly Inte Wisbyterian A second class g The elders treme, and maint similar memoand desirable in hich were placed perpetuated; the egate to the other be a labouring this city. After my an economical saw in the Christian view, that they from the pen of a layvery. They in to a joint celebration of off, not merely by the two Assemblies. It in their morath my feelings. I was defree labouring the suggestion. I felt as if I the world. with higher conceptions of the if any advo glory of our common Christiworld, in permitted to see two such boyears; and able, so learned, so influential, ter who h to so alienated, sit down together as far as ed's table. Without committing liticians wholly under the impulse of The th ngs I arose in our Assembly and body of at the Committee on Devotional and goo be instructed to confer with the mainta of the other Assembly upon this Without debate, unanimously, and by acclamation, the resolution Such is the origin of this matter." vious from his account, the motion, the other Assembly was concerned,

[graphic]
[graphic]

y

Tate

reas

par

thought d to un

draw our rors against our testimony. rence from the together would y adequate reason they ought now to wonderful that those . matter in this light, We

se the measure.

was a single member on mbly, who was prepared ich he regarded as a recan

ony borne in years past valent errors of the New Diregarded the union of the two at present constituted, as even

less as desirable. There were rge portion of the Assembly, who ..ave gladly voted for accepting the

n, could it have been done with unabut who thought it undesirable after matter had been so much debated and 1.

The minute adopted was a compro

, satisfying no part of the Assembly entirely, yet generally agreed to as the best thing that could be done under the circumtances. That minute, by distinctly recognising the other Assembly as a branch of the church, by professing towards them Christian

courtesy and fellowship, and by placing the refusal of the invitation upon the ground of usage, deprived the refusal of everything that could wound the feelings either of the other Assembly or the Christian community.

The last matter that we shall up (reserving several ext) is the discusMeeting educapet of it is

nportance vill well rerusal. Our clear and calm ments on both entous question of nes respecting eduartily rejoice in the pted by the Assembly; ter the reasoning in faquite unanswerable. We commend the summary of oning, as given in what we bmit, without farther note or nt, to the judgment of candid Christian minds. Our American thren have every possible induceent and temptation to acquiese in the plan of mixed and miscellaneous education. They have also had a trial of it. And their testimony in favour of the same system, substantially that the Free Church of Scotland is seeking to carry out, is peculiarly impressive and emphatic.

Parochial Schools.-A committee, of which the Rev. Dr James W. Alexander was chairman, appointed by the last Assembly, made an important report on the subject of Parochial Schools, which was read and ordered to be printed for the use of the members. The report closed with the following resolutions, viz:

[ocr errors]

Resolved, 1st, That, in the judgment of the General Assembly, any scheme of education is incomplete which does not include instruction in the Scriptures, and in those doctrines of grace which are employed by the Holy Spirit in the renewal and sanctification of the soul.

"Resolved, 2d, That, in consideration of the blessings derived to us, through our forefathers, from the method of mingling the doctrines of our church with the daily teachings of the school, the Assembly earnestly desire as near an approach to this method as may comport with the circumstances of this country.

"Resolved, 3d. That the Assembly regards with great approval, the attempt of such churches as have undertaken schools u' their proper direction; as well as which has led individual friends of to aid the same cause.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »