Page images
PDF
EPUB

Joint Communion.-At an early period of the session of the Assembly, the Committee on Devotional Exercises reported, "That a proposition had been made to them by the Committee on Devotional Exercises of the Triennial Assembly, meeting in the First Presbyterian Church, to the effect that the two Assemblies unite in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, and recommending the adoption of the following resolution, viz :— Resolved, That the General Assembly accept the proposition of the General Assembly meeting in the First Presbyterian church, that the Assemblies unite in the celebration of the Lord's Supper; and that the Commit. tee on Devotional Exercises, in connection with the corresponding Committee of the other Assembly, make arrangements for the same."

66

The Rev. Mr Palmer, as the minority of the Committee, offered the following resolution as a counter report: Resolved, That in the judgment of this Assembly, it is inexpedient in our ecclesiastical character to accept the proposition made by the body now holding its sessions in the First Presbyterian Church in this city, in consideration of the relations which these two bodies sustain to each other, but that the whole question of intercommunion be determined by the consciences, and at the discretion of the members severally."

This was one of the most embarrassing subjects which came before the Assembly, and gave rise to a debate protracted at intervals through several days, and was finally determined by the adoption, with great unanimity, of the following minute:-"The Committee on Devotional Exercises having reported to this General Assembly a communication from a similar Committee of the General Assembly in session at the First Presbyterian Church, representing that the said Assembly has authorized its committee to confer with the committee of this Assembly, in relation to a joint celebration of the Lord's Supper by the two bodies; it was ordered that the committee respectfully acknowledge and reciprocate the courtesy of the communication, and say in reply, that while this Assembly recognises the above mentioned body as a branch of the Church of our common Lord, and for this reason would, as individuals under appropriate circumstances, unite with our brethren in the celebration of divine ordinances, yet as this Assembly has never in its corporate and of. ficial capacity, united with any other body in celebrating the Lord's Supper, it judges it inexpedient to institute a new usage at this time.

"On motion, the Committee on Devotional Exercises was directed to communicate a copy of the above minute to the Committee of the other Assembly."

As this invitation purported to come with the sanction of the unanimous consent of the Triennial Assembly, it naturally excited no little surprise. It was notorious that many members of that body held it to be unlawful to commune with slaveholders, and that one of their synods had suspended from the ministry one of their members for teaching on the subject of slavery, the very doctrine that our General Assembly had publicly avowed, the question naturally arose,

How could those members join in an invitation of this kind addressed to a body, some of whose members were known to hold slaves, and which had officially sanctioned doctrines which they had pronounced merited suspension from the ministry? The true solution of this difficulty we believe to be this. The proposition was never brought fully before that house for consideration. It was simply moved that their committee be authorised to confer with ours on the subject, and this motion was adopted without consideration or debate. Had it been brought before them as it was before us, we are bound to believe it would have met with quite as much opposition in that body as it did in ours, The Rev. A. W. Campbell, chairman of the committee on the part of the Triennial Assembly, has furnished, through the New York Observer, the true history of this matter. He says, "At Bowling Green, Ky., as I was coming on to this city, a memorial upon this subject, drawn up without my knowledge by an honoured member of the Old School Church, and signed by all the elders of both Presbyterian Churches of that place, was put in my hands. A copy of the same paper was put in the hands of the Commissioner to the other Assembly, and, if I mistake not, by him put in the hands of their Committee of Bills and Overtures. I was permitted to attend an exceedingly interesting union meeting of the two Presbyterian churches of Newark, Delaware. The elders of these churches also signed similar memorials to both Assemblies, which were placed in the hands of the lay delegate to the other Assembly, to bring to this city. After my arrival in this place, I saw in the Christian Observer a suggestion from the pen of a layman, in reference to a joint celebration of the Lord's Supper by the two Assemblies. It harmonized with my feelings. I was delighted with the suggestion. I felt as if I could return with higher conceptions of the power and glory of our common Christianity, were I permitted to see two such bodies, so venerable, so learned, so influential, and hitherto so alienated, sit down together at the Lord's table. Without committing any one, and wholly under the impulse of such feelings, I arose in our Assembly and moved that the Committee on Devotional Exercises be instructed to confer with the committee of the other Assembly upon this subject. Without debate, unanimously, and almost by acclamation, the resolution passed. Such is the origin of this matter."

It is obvious from his account, the motion, as far as the other Assembly was concerned, was a mere matter of impulse, and that as far as the real movers in the business were concerned, it was intended as preliminary to a motion for the union of the two bodies. Accordingly Mr Campbell informs us that he presented the memorial from Bowling Green upon the subject of reunion, praying the Assemblies to appoint committees of conference, and adds, "unanimously if I mistake not, the memorial was accepted, and a committee appointed, of which I had the honour to be the chairman." This is another evidence of the want of consideration with which such matters sometimes pass large bodies.

As before stated, the proposal for the joint

celebration of the Lord's Supper gave rise to a protracted debate. The leading speakers against accepting the invitation, wereDr J. R. Breckinridge, Dr W. L. Breckinridge, Dr McFarland, Dr Reed, Mr Wilson, Mr Palmer, Mr Torrance. Those in favour of the report of the Committee were-Mr Watt, Dr Young, Dr Musgrave, Dr J. MacDowell, Mr Baker, Dr Lindsley, Mr Backus, Judge Grier, Mr Blauvelt, Mr Todd. The reasons assigned by the speakers on either side, were very different, and no one is responsible for any reason, other than those assigned by himself. Two, and as far as we are aware, two only of the speakers objected to accepting the invitation on the principle of close communion. One, if not more of the speakers, founded his objection on the ground that the celebration of the Lord's Supper was the work of an organized Church, and could not be properly attended upon by an ecclesiastical body as such. The main objections, however, were of a very different character. The grand source of diversity of opinion as to the propriety of accepting the invitation, arose from difference of opinion as to the necessary or natural interpretation of our answer. A large portion of the Assembly thought that the only proper interpretation of an affirmative answer, would be, we recognise you as Christian brethren, and of a negative answer, we cannot thus recognise you. Those who took this view of the matter were of course in favour of accepting the invitation. Many others, however, thought that while declining the invitation, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, would not imply a denial of the Christian standing of the other Assembly, an affirmative answer would imply a great deal more than they were prepared to say. They thought it would imply that there was a state of harmony between the two bodies, whereas the fact is that in many places the two parties are in constant conflict. It was thought it would imply that we were prepared to undo all that had been done, i.e., withdraw our protest against the doctrinal errors against which we have so long lifted up our testimony. It was said that the natural inference from the two Assemblies communing together would be, that there was never any adequate reason for a separation, and that they ought now to be reunited. It is not wonderful that those who looked upon the matter in this light, should strenuously oppose the measure. doubt whether there was a single member on the floor of the Assembly, who was prepared to do anything which he regarded as a recantation of the testimony borne in years past against the prevalent errors of the New Divinity, or who regarded the union of the two churches as at present constituted, as even .possible, much less as desirable. There were again a large portion of the Assembly, who would have gladly voted for accepting the invitation, could it have been done with unanimity, but who thought it undesirable after the matter had been so much debated and opposed. The minute adopted was a compromise, satisfying no part of the Assembly entirely, yet generally agreed to as the best thing that could be done under the circumstances. That minute, by distinctly recognising the other Assembly as a branch of the church, by professing towards them Christian

We

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.

Our

IV. The last matter that we shall at present take up (reserving several particulars for our next) is the discussion in the Assembly respecting education. The following abstract of it is of the highest interest and importance at our present crisis. It will well reward an attentive perusal. readers will find in it a clear and calm statement of the arguments on both sides, upon the momentous question of the duty of Churches respecting education. We heartily rejoice in the resolutions adopted by the Assembly; and we consider the reasoning in favour of them quite unanswerable. We particularly commend the summary of that reasoning, as given in what we now submit, without farther note or comment, to the judgment of candid and Christian minds. Our American brethren have every possible inducement 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:

"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.

66

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 under their proper direction; as well as the zeal which has led individual friends of the truth to aid the same cause.

66

Resolved, 4th, That the Assembly recommends the whole subject of Parochial Education to the serious attention of the church -counselling all concerned to regard the maintenance of gospel faith and order, in the founding of new schools, the appointment of teachers, and the erection of places of education."

On motion of Dr Young, the following ad. ditional resolution was adopted.

"Resolved, That the whole subject of the report be referred to the Board of Education; that they may, from time to time, report to the General Assembly any further action that may be needed for extending through our churches a system of Parochial Schools."

The whole report was finally adopted.

The only point which gave rise to any debate was that contained in the second resolution, which affirms that "the doctrines of our church" ought to be mingled "with the daily teachings of the school," necessarily implying that there ought to be schools under the control of the church. This brought up the great question, whether Presbyterians ought to join with other denominations and sustain the common schools of the state, or whether they should as far as possible establish Parochial Schools under their own exclusive control. When the matter first came up, Dr R. J. Breckinridge made a sbort and effective speech against the principle of Parochial Schools; and Dr Tallmadge spoke in reply and in favour of the report. The subject was then postponed and made the order of the day for the afternoon of the following Thursday. When that time arrived, after a short debate, the discussion was again postponed, and finally the report was acted upon without having been debated to any extent according to its importance. The principal objections urged against the report were, first, that the whole spirit of the age and of our country is in favour of popular education; that spirit we cannot effectually resist, it must have its course, and therefore it is the duty of every evangelical denomination to throw its influence into the movement and give the common schools of the country as Christian a character as possible. Secondly, that since Presbyterians, in consequence of their general intelligence, have an influence disproportioned to their relative number, they are of all denominations the last which should withdraw from this general partnership; they are sure to derive more benefit from it, and to have more power in controlling it, than would be due to them on account of their numbers. Thirdly, that it must be disastrous for any body of Christians to separate themselves from the community, sitting apart as on an isolated tripod, out of communion with their fellow citizens. If they would prosper they must enter heart and hand in the common enterprises of the country, in which they have an interest, and not attempt to set up for themselves. Fourthly, that the diversity of sects to be found in all our towns and villages, renders it impossible that each church should have its own schools. Fifthly, that the plan proposed would involve a vast expenditure of men and money; millions would be required to erect and sustain a school in connection with every Presbyterian congregation in our land.

These arguments have certainly great weight, but they do not seem exactly to meet the case, nor to counterbalance the considerations on the other side. Dr Lindsley, Dr Reed, Mr Mebane, and Dr Young sustained the report, the latter speaking with great strength of argument in its support. It is a conceded point that children ought to be religiously educated; that not mere natural religion, but Christianity, and not merely Christianity in general, but in the definite form in which we believe it has been revealed by God for the salvation of men, ought to be inculcated on the infant mind, so that the rising generation shall be imbued with the knowledge of Divine truth. Secondly, it may be assumed as conceded that it is the duty of the Church to impart this religious education. This is one of the most important parts of her vocation. She received her commission to teach; she is by the will and authority of her author an institute of education, established to communicate and preserve the knowledge of God, of Christ, of the way of salvation, and of the rule of duty. Thirdly, this is a duty which the Church cannot devolve on others; she cannot throw the responsibility on the State, for it is the very work God has given her to do, and she might as well look to the State to preach the gospel, as to make disciples of the nations by teaching them. Fourthly, the only question then is, how the Church is to acquit herself of this obligation; how she is to fulfil her Vocation as teacher as far as the young are concerned? Can she safely rely upon family instruction, on Sunday schools, on the religious teaching of pastors, separately or combined? It is acknowledged that all these modes of religious education are legitimate and important, and ought to be assiduously used, but they are all inadequate. Unless therefore the Church can employ some other agency, she will not accomplish her vocation as the teacher of the people. That other agency is the common school. In all ages of the Church, and in every part of Christendom, it has been considered a first principle that religious teaching should be incorporated with the common school system.

Until the difficulty arising from diversity of sects began to be felt, it was the universal rule that the Church system, the doctrines of the gospel as held by the Church, should be sedulously taught in the schools. To meet the difficulty just suggested, the first plan proposed was to fix upon some common standard of doctrine in which the several sects could concur, and confine the religious teaching within those limits, leaving denominational peculiarities to be otherwise provided for. On this plan in Great Britain, the attempt has been made to unite not only evangelical Protestants, but even Protestants and Romanists in the same schools. This plan has satisfied no party, and though still persisted in, has proved in a great measure a failure. It is peculiarly inappropriate for this country. Because, as we are obliged to act on the principle of excluding no class of the people from the common school, this common standard of doctrine is of necessity that with which the very lowest and loosest of the sects of the country will be satisfied. It is not only the Episcopalian, Romanist, Presbyterian, Methodists, or Baptist that must be

satisfied, but Socinians, Universalists, and even Infidels. An immediate outcry is made about religious liberty, and the union of Church and State, if in a public school any religious instruction is given to which any of these parties object.

This has led to the plan of confining the instruction of the schools to secular branches exclusively, and leaving the parent or pastor to look after the religious education of the children. This is becoming the popular theory in this country. It is already difficult in many places to retain even the reading of the Scriptures in the public schools. The whole system is in the hands of men of the world in many of our States, and is avowedly secular. Now with regard to this scheme, it may be remarked that it is a novel and fearful experiment. The idea of giving an education to the children of a country from which religion is to be excluded, we believe to be peculiar to the nineteenth century. Again, it is obvious that education without religion is irreligious. It cannot be neutral, and in fact is not neutral. The effort to keep out religion from all the books and all the instructions, gives them of necessity an irreligious and infidel character. Again, the common school is the only place of education for a large class of our people. They have neither parental nor pastoral instruction to supply its deficiency or correct its influence. Again, this plan is so repugnant to the convictions of the better half of the community, that its introductiou into our colleges has been strenuously resisted.

The conviction, we are persuaded, is fast taking possession of the minds of good people that the common school system is rapidly assuming, not a mere negative, but a positively anti-Christian character; and that in self-defence, and in the discharge of their highest duty to God and their country, they must set themselves against it, and adopt the system of parochial schools; schools in which each church shall teach fully, fairly, and earnestly what it believes to be the

truth of God. This is the only method in which a religious education has hitherto ever been given to the mass of the people of any country, and the novel experiment of this age and country is really an experiment to see what will be the result of bringing up the body of the people in ignorance of God and his Word. For if religion is banished from the common school, it will be excluded from the whole educational training of a large part of the population. It is an attempt to apply to the whole country what Girard has prescribed for his college. Under these circumstances, the Church of every denomination is called upon to do its duty, which is nothing more or less than to teach the people Christianity, and if this cannot otherwise be done thoroughly and effectively, as we are persuaded it cannot, than by having a school in connection with every congregation, then it is the duty of the Church to enter upon that plan, and to prosecute it with all her energy It is often said that we cannot argue from the case of European countries to our own. But the Free Church of Scotland has taught us that it is not only in established churches that the system of parochial schools is feasible. The devoted men who are laying the foundation of the new system in Scotland, never imagined that their duty would be done if they planted a pastor and a church in every parish. They at once, and with equal strength of conviction and purpose, set about establishing a school in connexion with every church. It is as much a part of their system as having ministers or elders. And it should be ours also. A school of this kind, established and controlled by the session of the church, becomes a nursery for the church, the ministry, and the whole land. Its blessings are not confined to any one denomination. The people are so anxious to get a good education for their children, that they will not hesitate to send them to a Presbyterian school, if that is the cheapest and best.

ASPECTS OF THE EDUCATIONAL QUESTION.

"Register, Register, Register," was the earnest battle-cry of the Conservative leader, when the Reform Bill seemed to have completed that rout of his party which the Roman Catholic Relief bill had begun. The war of the registrations was fought accordingly; the broken ranks of Toryism were rallied; the Liberals, novices in government, and divided among themselves, gave way, and power again rested in the hands that had been wont to wield it.

"Educate, Educate, Educate," is the burden of the song now. It is at least a more respectable watchword than the other. It is the watchword, too, of the winning, rather than of the losing side; and Free Trade being now happily conceded-there being also, as it would appear, a sort of under standing that existing establishments are not to be touched, and that the agitation of an appropriation clause, or a suppression of bishopricks, or such like, is not again to be risked,—the Liberal stock in trade is very greatly reduced; and scarcely any move in the cards remains, except Popish endowments and national education.

It is a move, as regards both of these objects, in which each of the great political parties is anxious to have the advantage and of the eclat of anticipating its rival. Apparently, at present, the Whigs or Liberals have got the start. They have the command of Parliament and of the public purse; and what more obvious than to take the sense of the one, and the substance of the other, in favour of an indiscriminate largess to all sects alike, and for the support of schools and schoolmasters so neutral as to give offence to none? At the sametime, we cannot but suspect that it is their opponents after all, and in the long run, who will be found the best at playing this game, as well as the former; for whether it be that the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light-or from whatever other causewe greatly fear that it is the friends of

the High Church—or of the Church and State-systems, who can turn to most account, for their own ends, any increase of government patronage that may take place, or any profuse expenditure of the national resources.

We have sometimes asked ourselves what the result might have been, if our Liberal statesmen, during their former tenure of office, under the Grey and Melbourne administrations, had been enlightened enough to frame and follow out a generous and comprehensive plan of ecclesiastical and educational reform. The time seemed favourable for a bold experiment, if made in good faith and upon high principle. Men of large minds and large hearts might have attempted great things, and achieved great things. Both in Scotland and in England evangelical opinions were exerting a growing influence over the Established Churches; measures of improvement were in progress; and the minds of men were prepared for extensive changes in the constitution, or at least, in the management of all existing institutions. It seems beyond a question, that

had the Liberal Government bent their energies in the prime and strength of their first possession of power, to the support of the reforming party in the Church of Scotland-the prompt settlement of the tithe and church-rate questions in Englandthe more equal distribution of the Church's revenues-the correction of the abuses of Church patronage, and the enormous anomalies of the ecclesiastical courts-the redress of grievances oppressive to the Protestant Dissenters-the revision of scholastic and academic foundations—the encouragement of sound Scriptural education and other kindred improvements;—and had they been sagacious, decided, and bold enough to announce and carry out their measures without too sensitive a sensibility to the fluctuations of the popular breeze :—they might have strengthened materially their own position, and proved signal

« PreviousContinue »