USA > Virginia > Sketches of Virginia : historical and biographical > Part 63
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71
On Friday afternoon, the memorial of the Convention was, after some discussion, referred to the Committee of Bills and Overtures, consisting of Rev. Messrs. John Witherspoon, Archibald Alexander, Nathan S. S. Beman, Thomas Cleland, Nicholas Murray, Andrew Todd and William Latta, with Elders David Fullerton, Isaac Coe, Thomas Keddo, and T. P. Smith. On Saturday morning, the com- mittee reported, and, after some discussion, the memorial was read to the Assembly and a large crowd of spectators. It was then referred to a special committee, Rev. Messrs. A. Alexander, W. S. Plumer, Ashbel Green, G. A. Baxter, A. W. Leland, and Elders Wal- ter Lowrie and James Lenox. On Monday morning, the 22d, an overture from the Presbytery of New Brunswick, for the abrogation of the Plan of Union - one from the Presbytery of Albany, on the state of the church - and one from the Presbytery of Lancaster, on
523
THE ASSEMBLY OF 1837.
the same general subject, were read and referred to the same com mittee. The chairman of the committee reported, in part, on the memorial, and said : " The general subjects of the memorial to the Assembly, viz : religious doctrine, church order and discipline, and . reform , on these subjects, are lawful matters of memorial to the Assembly ; and, whatever may be thought of the details, none can read the documents without feeling it comes from men who are respectful, earnest and solemn, and apprehensive of danger to the cause of truth. As one of the principal objects of the memorialists is to point out certain errors more or less prevalent in our church, and to bear testimony against them, your committee are of opinion, that, as one great object of the institution of the church was to be a depository and guardian of the truth, and as by the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church of the United States, it is made the duty of the General Assembly to testify against error - therefore, Resolved, That the testimony of the memorialists concerning doc- trine, be adopted as the testimony of this General Assembly.'
The list of errors as presented by the memorialists, with some few verbal alterations, was then offered to the Assembly. The errors in the list were fifteen in number. Some members of Assembly thought that others should be added; and the Rev. John Mines proposed four others. Dr. Beman thought the list was too long ; he had never before heard of some of them. Mr. Jessup proposed making the resolution and list the order of the day for the next morning, Tuesday, to give time for deliberation, and proposing amendments. Mr. Plumer objected to postponement. He said : "If this body will unite in their testimony against these, our troubles will be disposed of : for this'is going to the foundation. Let us agree here, and we can easily settle other matters, provided the Presby- teries will second our action." Dr. Baxter said : "These were plain points of doctrine, with which every Presbyterian should be familiar ; and he could not see how any one was qualified to preach, who could not express an opinion on them." Dr. Alexander thought .there might be postponement. After a number of speeches on each side, the consideration of the resolution and the list of errors was post- poned till nine o'clock on Tuesday morning. This postponement had the effect of changing the whole course of debate and of action, and led to unanticipated results.
In the afternoon of Monday, the 22d, the first portion of the second resolution presented by the special committee on the memorial was taken up : "That in regard to the relations existing between the Presbyterian and Congregational Churches, the committee recom- mend the adoption of the following resolutions, viz. : 1st. That between these two branches of the American Church there ought, in the judgment of this Assembly, to be maintained sentiments of mutual respect and esteem, and for that purpose no reasonable effort should be omitted to preserve a perfectly good understanding between these branches of the church of Christ." This being adopted, the next was taken up : "2d. That it is expedient to continne the plan of
524
THE ASSEMBLY OF 1837.
friendly intercourse between this Church and the Congregational Churches of New England, as it now exists." Mr. Breckenridge proposed to insert the words " at present," to read "that it is expe- dient at present." After some observations from Mr. Murray and Mr. Hitchcock, of Massachusetts, Mr. Breckenridge withdrew the amendment, and the resolution was adopted. The third resolution was then taken up, viz. : "3d. But, as the Plan of Union adopted for the new settlements in 1801, was originally an unconstitutional act on the part of the Assembly, these important standing rules having never been submitted to the Presbytery, and as they were totally destitute of authority, as proceeding from the General Association of Connecticut, which is invested with no power to legislate in such cases, especially to enact laws to regulate churches not within her limits, and as much confusion and irregularity have arisen from this unnatural and unconstitutional system of union - Therefore, it is resolved, That the act of Assembly of 1801, entitled a Plan of Union, be and the same is hereby abrogated."
Dr. Green said he was in the Assembly when the union was formed, and gave a short history of the Plan; that it was well designed, had done all the good it ever would, was not working well, and did not answer the desired end. On Tuesday morning, the 23d, the order of the day, to consider the memorial, being postponed, Dr. Green was called upon to explain more fully the Plan of Union and its influence. Having done so, he pointed out the evils arising from it, particularly that it brought men into the judicatories of the Pres- byterian Church who had never received its doctrines, or subscribed to its form of government, or discipline of the church. Committee men were permitted to act as elders, and took their seats in Presby- teries and Synods and Assembly ; and men, that had never adopted the Confession of Faith, voted on subjects of doctrine and order and discipline of the Presbyterian Church ; and it was easy to see that fundamental questions might be decided by men ignorant of the principles of the church, or at least not adopting them.
Dr. Alexander said he was a member of the Assembly of 1801, though a young one. The Union was adopted as a temporary arrangement. At that time there were no suspicions of danger, no suspicions respecting persons, for all were agreed on doctrinal points. Dr. Edwards, a Presbyterian, though brought up a Congregation- alist, proposed it, from his great solicitude for the welfare and the increase of the Church in the State of New York. But the plan was working illy, and ought no longer to be tolerated. As to the Churches formed on this plan, he supposed time would be given them to deter- mine to which body they would adhere ; whether they would adopt fully the Confession of Faith, and be Presbyterians, or would prefer the Congregational plan, and form associations.
Mr. Junkin argued, from the past, the danger to the Churches from the existence of the Plan of Union. It was not making Pres- byterian Churches ; the Churches formed did not adopt the Confes- fession of the Presbyterian Church, nor, in the present state of things,
525
THE ASSEMBLY OF 1837.
was there any probability they ever would; and yet they possessed in our highest judicatories, to whom were referred matters of vital interest, the same privileges and powers as those who were truly Presbyterians. They exercised these powers to the damage of the Presbyterian Church ; and judging from the vote they gave on Dr. Miller's resolution last year, if ever our Book is put aside, and our system crushed, it will be by the agency of those Churches; their vote will make the majority that does the work.
A number of commissioners to the Assembly from districts where the Plan of Union had been in operation, having spoken in its favor, Dr. M'Auley said he had been a missionary as early as 1799; and gave a history of the new settlements as he saw them. He thought the influence of the Plan of Union had been good; and would not call it unwise or unnatural, for it had sprung from the necessities of the times. He would not defend the Union on the ground of the Constitution ; but he could not vote for the resolution. If time were given for the Churches to change their forms, say three years, he would not be so much opposed.
Mr. Elepha White said he considered the resolution as virtually a division of the Presbyterian Church, and designed as such. He con- ceded that the plan was not constitutional ; but he opposed the expe- diency of the abrogation, and dreaded the results. If the question were for a committee of division of the Presbyterian Church, his heart and hand would go with it.
Mr. Plumer spoke for the abrogation, and urged its inutility for good, and its effectiveness for evil. Dr. Peters spoke against the abrogation as unjust, and unkind, and unnecessary. Mr. Plumer answered the objections to the resolutions ; and Dr. Peters replied. The debate was continued through Tuesday morning; and in the afternoon the question was taken, for the resolution 143; against it 110.
On Wednesday afternoon, the 24th of May, the Assembly proceeded to the resolution, postponed from Monday to Tuesday, and then to Wednesday, viz. : the resolution respecting the doctrinal errors brought to the notice of the Assembly by the memorial, and then by the committee. The motion to amend by adding certain other errors was discussed for some time. A motion was made to indefinitely postpone the amendment; and while this was under discussion the Assembly adjourned.
On Thursday, 25th, a motion to resume the unfinished business of Wednesday, viz. : the postponement of the amendment to the resolution of the committee, was decided in the negative. The mode- rator had decided that the motion to take up must be without debate ; an appeal from his decision was, by the house, decided in favor of the chair. The majority of the Assembly determined in this stage of the business not to discuss this part of the memorial. It had been the expectation that the force of the discussion would be on the reso- lution respecting the errors; and these being disposed of, a platform would be presented for future action. It had been supposed that
526
THE ASSEMBLY OF 1837.
in the condemnation of these doctrines, marked as errors, or in the approbation of them, a construction of the Confession of Faith, of permanent authority, would be given. This course had been desired by the memorialists until this day. At this time they very unani- mously voted to postpone decision and discussion. The reasons for this procedure were, that many errors would be" proposed for adop- tion, as part of the list to be condemned, about which there could be no doubt that they were errors, but of which the Church was not complaining in any part of her borders; and when the list was completed, if it ever was, and a decision of Assembly given, it would appear to be a decision against things that did not exist, and nothing would be settled by the memorial or the resolution. That it was the design of those opposed to the memorial to take this course, in hopes of rendering the list condemned, altogether ineffi- cient, and also with the hopes of dividing the memorialists on some matters of opinion not connected necessarily with the memorial, but tending to division, was evident to the memorialists at the time ; and openly avowed by the opposition before the adjournment of the As- sembly. And until there should be time for consultation how to avoid the evils impending, the memorialists preferred waiving the decision respecting the errors to a future day. The consequence of these repeated postponements, as will be seen, was entirely different from the anticipations of either the memorialists, or their opposers. Other subjects came up for discussion ; the current of events and actions took an unexpected course ; and the final and decisive action of the Assembly was taken on subjects not anticipated, by any one at the time of postponement.
After it was decided on Thursday, the 25th, not to take up or resume the discussion on the amendment to the resolution on the list of errors, Mr. Plumer presented the following resolutions, "1st, That the proper steps be now taken, to cite, to the bar of the next Assembly, such inferior judicatories as are charged by common fame with irregularities. 2nd. That a special committee be now appointed to ascertain what inferior judicatories are thus charged by common fame, prepare charges and specifications against them, and to digest a suitable plan of procedure in the matters ; and that said committee be requested to report as soon as practicable. '3d. That as citation on the foregoing plan is the commencement of a process involving the right of membership in the Assembly ; therefore, resolved, that agreeably to a principle laid down, Chapter 5th, Sect. 9th. of the Form of Government, the members of said judicatories be excluded from a seat in the next Assembly, until their case be decided.
In support of these Mr. Plumer read Book of Discipline, Chapter 5th, Sect. 9th; Form of Government, Chapter, 12th, Sect. 5th ; Book of Discipline, Chapter 7th, Sect. 1st, sub-sections 5 and 6. From these he argued that when common fame alleged the existence of grievance in inferior judicatories, the Assembly had the right of citation and trial; and until this was done, the persons charged might be denied their seats in the Assembly. Mr. Jessup opposed
527
THE ASSEMBLY OF 1837.
the resolutions as unconstitutional ; that the right to arraign belongs to the judicatory next above the body charged; Presbyteries may cite Sessions, Synods may cite Presbyteries, and the Assembly Synods ; and that the right of issuing all appeals from Presbyteries is in the Synod. Mr. Breckenridge replied, that it was conceded that Synods might be arraigned and of course disciplined, and on whom could the effect fall but all the lower judicatories, more par- ticularly infected. The Assembly would appoint committees to visit every Presbytery and arraign the unsound members, and on appeal bring them to this bar. That there were great difficulties in the way of carrying out the process was true. But the straight was the safe way. Mr. Elepha White' did not concede to the As- sembly the right to cite a Synod. The Assembly has power to judge of ministers only in case of appeals regularly brought up. These resolutions were leading to consolidation in the General Assembly, depriving Synods and Presbyteries of their reserved rights.
On Friday, 26th, Dr. Beman spoke at length against the consti- tutionality of the resolutions ; and on the impossibility of execut- ing them according to the book of discipline, if the attempt were made; and moreover that there would be strong resistance by the Presbyteries and churches. Dr. Baxter thought these resolutions necessary as a subsequent action ; and that the Assembly had full powers according to Chapter 12th, of Form of Government, Sect. 5th, viz .: "to the General Assembly also belongs the power of de- ciding in all controversies respecting doctrines and discipline; of reproving, warning, or bearing testimony against error in doctrine, or immorality in practice in any Church, Presbytery or Synod, of suppressing schismatical contentions and disputations." When the action of the Synod of Kentucky, in cutting off a Presbytery was put before the Assembly, the decision was against the Synod by four votes; on the second presentation, the Assembly sanctioned the Synod. When common fame originates a process the Assembly may authorize the excision of the whole Synod. Presbyterians are not Congregationalists, and if the two are compelled to live under the same forms, they will certainly be in confusion. And is there not now war ? Both parties, with separate organizations, would be more efficient and would have mutual attachments, that do not now exist. Mr. Dickerson objected to the resolutions, on account of the want of definiteness in the terms; that the facts were not fully be- fore the Assembly ; that the plan of operation was unconstitutional; that the strongest discipline was proposed before the preliminary steps were taken ; and that odium was cast on one half the Presby- terian Church. Mr. Plumer replied at large to Dr. Beman, Mr. Dickerson and Mr. Jessup, maintaining his positions from the con- stitution, and the necessity there was for some action as proved by documents in hand. In the afternoon, Dr. M'Auley and Dr. Peters spoke against the resolutions. The vote stood, ayes 128, nays 122. On Saturday morning the committee to carry into effect these reso- lutions, were named, viz. : Cuyler, Breckenridge, Baxter, Baird and
528
THE ASSEMBLY OF 1837.
M'Kennan. As soon as the debate was closed on Friday, Mr. Breckenridge gave notice that he should bring in a resolution for the voluntary division of the Church.
The debate for and against citation was the most exciting of the forensic efforts made in all the sessions of the Assembly. In it were specimens of logical reasoning of all grades, from the purest abstract reasoning to the sophistical. There was declamation cogent, and light and wordy ; "the retort courteous and the reply valiant ;" earnest appeal and rapid consecutive reasoning from facts ; mental strength in making statements, and mental power in weaving a tissue of argument and fact. All the speakers were handsome specimens of their peculiar manner and style. Of the opposing parties in the debate, without disparagement of the different speakers, the palm of superiority was yielded to Dr. Beman in the opposition, and Mr. Plumer, the mover of the resolutions; each excelling in his charac- teristic style. Mr. Plumer, in his opening speech on the resolutions, stated simply the necessity of the citation, the authorities, and the outlines of the evils to be removed, with no effort but to be heard, and understood clearly. Dr. Beman attacked the resolutions. He bore himself gracefully as an orator; his elocution was charming ; his appeals strong; his sarcasm severe. He rose as one conscious of power and certain of victory. He chose his position near the pulpit, on the moderator's right, so that he faced the house easily without turning from the moderator uncourteously. To an Old-School man whose seat was near, he says, " Oh move away, I shall blow you all away." He was listened to with great attention. His declama- tion was often splendid. It was said he drew tears from the audi- ence in the gallery. He argued the unconstitutionality of the cita- tions ; the want of necessity for such a procedure if it were con- stitutional ; and the havoc the proceeding would do; and the impos- sibility of carrying them into effect. He was much complimented for his speech by admirers of fine speaking; and by those that sympathised with him. On the impossibility of carrying the reso- lutions into effect, he was very able. The array of difficulties alarmed many of the Old-School who believed in the constitutionality of citation, and the great necessity of reform. The difficulty, if not utter impossibility set forth by Dr. Beman, inclined many to think citation a useless expense of labor, and time and feeling. Those that thought citation unnecessary, and those that for a time thought it useless, made at the conclusion of Dr. Beman's speech, the majority of the house.
In this state of the debate Mr. Plumer took the floor. Those who knew him well, saw that he was oppressed. His friends were moved, lest his anxiety should destroy his composure. His first few sentences were not particularly interesting. Like the skiff putting off into the eddies of the river, heading one way and then another, till by a dexterous stroke of the paddle it shoots to the main cur- rent, and then sweeps down the stream. The whole house was off its guard. Suddenly he struck the current, and was carrying us all
529
THE ASSEMBLY OF 1837
along with him before we could be aware; and the flow of the stream went on broader and deeper. His great effort was to do away the effect of Dr. Beman's speech upon that part of the house that were wavering. He first sought out all the weak spots in his adversary's armor, and hurled his darts with appalling directness into the open joints of his harness. His declamation was powerful. His lan- guage was varied ; sometimes terse, sometimes flowing, sometimes quaint almost to obscurity, and sometimes florid almost to super- fluity. Intermingled all along were anecdote and sarcasm, till the weaker points of his opponent seemed to have swallowed up the stronger. He then repeated the constitutional argument, and the causes of the action, and from the greatness of the difficulties in the way, showed the absolute necessity of a great reform. He produced a profound impression, that a great evil was to be boldly met, and speedily met, and no better means yet appeared than citation. His speech changed the fate of the question.
The sense of the Assembly on the list of errors was supposed to be clearly expressed by the vote on these resolutions. The majority thought that the churches and ministers holding such errors ought to be brought to the bar of the Assembly, and that there were such in the bounds of the Presbyterian Church. The minority was com- posed of those who thought there were no such errors in the church, or that some at least on the list were not really errors, or that this was not the best way to reach the errors in existence.
On Saturday morning, the 27th, Mr. Breckenridge, in consequence of a proposition made by Dr. Peters, brought forward his resolution for an amicable division of the church, which, amended and adopted, was -" That a committee of ten members, of whom an equal num- ber shall be from the majority and minority of the vote on the reso- lutions to cite inferior judicatories, be appointed on the state of the church." Rev. Messrs. Breckenridge, Alexander, Cuyler, and Witherspoon, with Mr. Ewing, were appointed for the majority ; and Rev. Messrs. M'Auley, Beman, Peters, and Dickerson, with Mr. Jessup, on the minority. The committee was, on each side, entirely agreeable, being named by a committee from the majority and mi- nority, each choosing those they desired. It was understood that the object of this committee was to promote amicable division of the church. This was expressed in the original motion of Mr. Breck- enridge, according to his notice on Friday. The form adopted appeared most parliamentary.
On Monday, 29th, the report of the committee on the right of Presbyteries' to examine ministers applying for admission, was amended and adopted, viz. :- "That the constitutional right of every Presbytery to examine all seeking connexion with them was settled by the Assembly of 1835. (See minutes of 1837, p. 27.) And this Assembly now render it imperative on Presbyteries to examine all who make application for admission into their bodies, at least on experimental religion, didactic and polemic theology, and church government." 34
530
THE, ASSEMBLY OF 1837.
On Tuesday, May 30th, Mr. Breckenridge, from the committee on the state of the church, reported that the committee could not agree, and asked to be discharged. Both parts of the committee then made their reports of propositions. From these it appeared that both parts had agreed upon propositions and terms as follows : 1st. The propriety of a voluntary separation of the parties of the church, and their separate organization. 2d. As to the names to be held by the two bodies : one to be called, The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America; and the other, The General Assembly of the American Presbyterian Church. 3d. That the records of the church remain with the General As- sembly of the Presbyterian Church, and that an attested copy, made by the present stated clerk, at the joint expense of the two, bodies, be delivered to the Moderator of the American Presbyterian Church. 4th. That the corporate funds of the church for the, Theological Seminary at Princeton remain the property of, the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America; and other funds to be equally divided between the two bodies. But the parts of committee disagreed about the time of making this division, and the manner of: making it. The committee of the majority insisted, that the Com- missioners in the present Assembly elect the body to which they will adhere, and that the division be made at once; it being understood that any Presbytery may reserve the choice of its Commissioner, and that large minorities of Presbyteries, or a number of small ones united, may form new Presbyteries, and these shall be attached to the Assembly of their choice. The committee of the minority in- sisted that the plan of division and organization be submitted to the Presbyteries ; and if the majority were for division, then the Com- missioners to take their seats as directed by their Presbyteries. An immediate amicable division not being practicable, the whole matter was laid on the table, yeas 138, nays 107.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.