A history of the new school, and of the questions involved in the disruption of the Presbyterian church in 1838

Front matter

liiiri"!!

PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY

Dr. J.C. Backus, Baltimore , Md,

Preface

When the Pelagian Controversy in the Presbyterian Church came " to an end, in tlie division of_1838, a history of it was announced by my father, the Eev. Thomas D, Baird. No person in the Cljurcli was more favorably situated or competent to execute the work thus undertaken. His ministry ran parallel Avith that controversy. It began in South Carolina, in 1811, amid the excitement then prevailing in connection with the case of W. C. I)ggj[is. He first sat in the General Assembly in 1814, and witnessed the beginning of agitation tliere, in connection with the case of Dr. Ely. He was a member again, in 1817, the next occasion on which the controversy came into that court. Subsequently, he sat in the Assemblies of 1826, 1832, 1837, and 1838, and was a member of the Missionary Convention, in Cincinnati, in 1831, and of the Old School Conventions of 1835, 1837, and 1838, ^f each of the latter of which he was an officer. These facts were pledges of his profound interest in the questions involved in the eontroversy, and of abundant opportunity of becoming thoroughly familiar with the facts ; whilst his integrity and candor were constantly attested by his most zealous antagonists. He had collected large materials; but had written nothing, when, on the 8th of January, 1839, he received a summons to lay off the harness ; and departed, with the song of the cherubim on his lijjs.

From my boyhood, a deeply-interested observer of the controversy, and in my youth, a witness of the Convention and Assembly of 1835, and of the Assembly of 1836, and the Old School conferences of that year, I was early led to plan the fulfillment of my father's unfinished work, and to seize every opportunity to add to the materials already collected by him. Twenty-five years have elapsed since I began to write with that view. But as my studies and researches progressed, the plan was enlarged; and for many years, it has been the cherished

A * ix

X PREFACE.

liope of my life to prepare and publisli a full history of the Presbyterian Church in this country. In tliis liope, I have been encouraged and stiuuilated by the sanction and urgency of a number of the most honored and eminent men in our Clnirch, most of whom now rest from their labors. The requisite preparations have been pretty fully made, and all that now remains to the accomplishment of the enterprise, is the enjoyment of necessary leisure to finish the composition, from materials already digested and upon plans fully matured.

In the mean time, the question now engrossing our Church, touching reunion with the New School, has developed a necessity for information, which is inaccessible to the Church at large, and which is of vital importance, in order to wise decisions and action, at the present time. I have, therefore, emj^loyed some brief leisure redeemed from laborious official engagements, — chiefly during a month's midsummer vacation, — in giving the i3resent form to a portion of my materials. Neither my time, nor situation, has been such as to enable me to give that critical revision to the style and the mimiter historical details which I should have desired. But I have no fear that the essential accuracy of the history can be successfully impeached, and the reader will make due allowance for any minor defects, which may be discovered.

There are doubtless many who will greatly deprecate the present publication, upon a principle Avhich is near akin to the Romish maxim, that ignorance is the mother of devotion. To such, I have only to say, that, if there are any lessons clearly taught in the Word of God, one of them is, the duty of the Church to live in the light of her own history, and give constant and anxious heed to the lessons of instruction aifd" admonition which it conveys. If an individual would be inexcusable, who, in circumstances of peculiar emergency, should deliberately disregard and ignore the lessons of his own experience, bearing directly upon his present case, lest they should interfere with the dictates of the moment's impulses and interests, — much more would the Church of God be guilty, should she, — entrusted with the great interests of Immanuel's kingdom, close her eyes and stop her ears, to the facts of her own past history; because they may run counter to the plans and passions of the hour. The voice of history , is the voice of God speaking by his providence ; and let him beware, who refuses to listen and to heed.

Throughout these pages, the two parties into which the Church was divided, are designated by their well-k)iown titles of Old and New

PREFACE. XI

Scliool. The titles are not only appropriate, but originated -with the New School themselves. In New England, the Edwardean Theologyearly claimed to itself the name of, the New Divinity. Dr. Dutton in his history of the North Church in New Haven, states himself to have been informed by the younger Edwards, that, in 1777, there were in Connecticut, three parties, — "Arminians, who, he said, were a small party ; the New Divinity gentlemen, of whom he was called one ; who were larger ; but still small ; and the main body of the ministers, which were Calvinistic." In March, 1826, a gentleman who spent a short time in New Haven, found the phrases, " Dr. Taylor's views," "Our views," "the New Divinity," familiarly used to indiente the theology which was afterward proclaimed from that institution.

The first use of the designations, Old and New School, in our reading of the literature- of the controversy, occurs in a writer signing himself, Zeta, in Dr. Ashbel Green's magazine, the Christian Advocate, for 1824. The editor, in a notice of a new edition of Marck's Medulla Theologise, then just out, had remarked that " the author, it is well known, was a stanch Calvinist, of the old school ;"* using the phrase, as yet free from any party significance, in a well-understood and obvious sense. Thereupon, Zeta says to the editor — " The distinction between ^a Calvinist of the Old School' and one of the New, is recognized, I see, in page 129, of your March number. You know that our Presbyterian community are in fact divided — technically, I hope, not essentially, not inimically, not toto cceIo,j- — on the subject of systematic theology. The difference is not at all so great as the common enemy would misrepresent it; nor even as some sincere brethren have supposed. It is, also, conscientious on both sides; and, therefore, piety to our common and glorious Lord, ought to constrain us to mutual forbearance. If ever there was a jDroper sphere for the exercise of this lovely grace, it exists, at present, in our Church ; and I am persuaded that in proportion as the two Schools become acquainted with each other, animosity, jealousy, and scorn, — those unlovely passions of 'the old man,' — will subside, and be gradually superseded by sensations at once more pleasant and more pure. — ' And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife between me and

thee, — FOR WE BE BRETHREN.' "J

* Christian Advocate, 1824, p. 129. t By the whole heavens.

X Ibid, p. 208.

XU PKEFACE.

Zcta, tlius commences a series of articles on the atonement, in Vi'liicli he recognizes tlie two parlies by the names here given. The articles seem to have been terminated abruptly, by the editor, at a point where -the writer began to develop a serious departure from the Confession of Faith, as to the nature of the atonement. The style of this writer, and his sentiments seem clearly to identify him with the Rev. S. H. Cox, D. D., who, in the Princeton Eeview for October, 1831, u.-es the same designations.

lu tlie discussions of the Assembly of 1831, and connected there- 's, with, these names began to be familiarly employed, and have continued, since, in general use.

One word is necessary, as to the theological stand-point from which the conti-oversy is viewed in this history. The author is not a i^hilosophienl realist, as has been assumed of late. He is simi^ly and only a disL-Iple of the theology of the Eeformation, as set forth in the standards of Westminster and the writings of the old standard divines. A firm and unwavering faith in tliose doctrines has determined the light in which every fact has been viewed, and every doctrine stated in this work.

In making quotations, it has been a rule of inflexible observance, to retain ifithout modification the emphasis of the original. Where it was desirable to call special attention to a clause in such a passage, it has been done, in a few instances, by repeating the passage with the necessary enjphasis.

As the work is designed as much for the common people of God, as for the learned, marginal translations are given of all phrases derived from the learned languages.

• Under the designation of " ITewit MS.," references are made to a volume of copies of an original correspondence with which I was favored by my late venerated friend, the Rev. Dr. Nathaniel Hewit, of Bridgeport, Connecticut.

With profound devotion to the Avelfare of our beloved Church, and prayer for the peace of Israel, this history is now submitted to the candor of the reader.

Stauxton, Va., July 30, 1868.

r

Introduction

The New School controversy arose from the introduction into the Church of new doctrines, wliich threatened the overthrow of the whole system of saving faith, contained in our standards. Strictly^and iundamentally, the issue was doctrinal. The question dependent was not, indeed, as to the truth or falsehood of the theology of the New School. Upon that issue, the number of adherents of the party would have been comparatively small. But it was, as to the allowance of those doctrines, in the Church. In this light, it was viewed by the Old School, from the beginning, and set forth in their various documents, particularly in the Memorial and Testimony of 1837. It was in this light that, during the controversy, the subject was treated by the New School, always, and officially expounded in their "Declaration" of 1839. It was upon this issue of doctrinal toleration, that they were able to rally the whole strength of the party, in every instance, for the defence of those who were impeached of unsoundness in the faith. The disorders introduced by the Plan of Union were held in comparatively light regard, viewed as mere departures from the order of our Church. It was, as the means of introducing and giving currency to doctrinal error, that they became the occasion o? anxiety and alarm. The question between the boards and institutions of our Church and those of voluntary origin and constitution, originated, and derived its- whole significance, from the fact that the former were set for the promulgation and defence of the gospel as exhibited in our standards ; whilst the latter were devoted to the propagation of the undefinable principles of /' liberal Prenbyterianism. "

Z INTRODUCTION.

For a number of j'ears after the division, the distinctness with which these facts were recognized, and the \dvid memories cherished of the unhappy' scenes of controversy, inevitably consequent upon such doctrinal diversities as existed, precluded any idea of reunion, unless ui)on coiidition of an agreement in doc trinal sentiments and policy, which all felt to be, for the present generation, beyond hope.

But, as years rolled on, the actors in the controversy have i generally passed off the stage. The memories of false doctrines and their unhappy consequences have faded away ; and the separation of the two bodies has prevented that intimacy of intercourse, by which a knowledge would have been retained in the common mind of the Church, of current errors, still cherished and disseminated, as of old. On the contrary, the pressure of embarrassments resulting, in various respects, from the division, has been increasingly felt ; inducing a growing disposition to disparage the grounds of separation, and to exalt the desirableness, and insist upon the practicability, of a reunion.

In consequence, the subject had been, from time to time, presented, with more or less earnestness, to the consideration of the Assembly. At length, in 1866, it came under consideration, in the Committee of Bills and Overtures, in consequence of meujorials received from the Presljyteries of Leavenworth, Muncie, New Lisbon, Madison. Erie and Oxford. If the proper time had come for action on the subject, the resolutions reported by the committee were unexceptionable, and the principles therein stated were such as must commend themselves to every true friend of the Church and of the cause of Christ.

"L This Assembly expresses its ft'aternal affection for the other branch of the Presbyterian Church, and its earnest desire for reunion, at the earliest time consistent with agreement in doctrine, order and policy, on the basis of a common standard and the prevalence of mutual confidence and love, which are so necessary to a happy union, and to the permanent peace and prosperity of the united Church.

"2. That it be recommended to all churches and church courts, and to all ministers, ruling elders, and communicants, to clierish fraternal feelings, to cultivate Christian intercourse, in the worship of God, and in the promotion of the cause of Chriist, and to avoid all needless controversies and contentions.

" 3. That a committee of nine ministers and six ruling elders be appointed, provided that a similar committee be appointed by the other Assembly, now in session in this city, for the purpose of conferring in regard to the desirableness and practicability of reunion ; and if, after conference and inquiry, such reunion shall seem to be desirable and practicable, to suggest suitable measures for its accomplishment, and report to the next General Assembly."

To these resolutions, the Rev. Dr. Van Dyke proposed an amendment, to include in the negotiations the Southern Presbyterian Church, The amendment was laid on the table and the resolutions were adopted.

The committee, appointed by the Moderator, in pursuance of these resolutions, consisted of the Rev. Drs. J. M. Krebs, C. C. Beatty, J. T. Backus, P. D. Gurley, J. G. Monfort, W. D. Howard, W. E. Schenck, V. C. Reed, and F. T. Brown, and Elders J. M. Ray, R. McKnight, S. Galloway, H. K. Clarke, G. P. Strong, and 0. Beatty.

The overture was accepted bj'- the New School Assembly, and a like committee appointed. When the committees met-, they seem to have ignored altogether the primary object of their appointment, which was, "to confer in regard to the desirableness and practicability of reunion." Only after ascertaining these points, upon conference and inquiry, were they authorized " to suggest suitable measures for its accomplishment." But the committee seem to have jumped, at once, to the conclusion, that the consummation was both desirable and practicable ; and thereupon proceeded to enter into the constructing of a treaty of union.

Nor, in the provisions of the plan adopted, did the committee paj'- any more regard to the instructions under which it was appointed, than with respect to the preliminary question. Those instructions contemplated union, only upon condition of " agreement in doctrine, order, and policy, on the basis of the common standards." A very different basis was adopted by the committee. "" ^

When the two committees met, that of the Old School proposed as the basis of union, a strict conformity to the standards, in doctrine and order. This basis was urged, with great earnestness, upon the New School members ; but was j&rmly and utterly repudiated by them. The Old School insisted that the Confession of Faith should be adopted in its obvious, fair, historical sense. The New School claimed that it should be adopted in the sense in which it has heretofore been received in the two churches.

Finding that this, and nothing less, would be acceptable to the New School, it might have been supposed that the Old School members would accept this as a demonstration that, for the present, reunion is impracticable ; and so report to the Assembly. But, instead of this, the New School conditions were accepted, and a plao^of union formed, on thatJ^sis. During the controversy, whilst the charges of Arminianism and Pela^iaiiism were brought home with demonstration, to New School divines, the attempt was once or twice feebly made, by way of foil to these charges, to impeach the Old School of Antinomianism and Fatalism ; although no case was ever specified, and no proof ever attempted. Deriving the suggestion of its language from these facts, the committee recommended the following as the doctrinal basis of union, in its report of 1867.

"1. The reunion shall be effected on the doctrinal and ecclesiastical basis of our common standards; the Confession of Faith shall continue to be sincerely received and adopted ' as contain- \ ing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures;' and Y^^-. its fair, historical sense, as it is accepted by the two bodies, in lJ opposition to Antinomianism and Fatalism on the one hand, and 7^ _^; to Arminianism and Pelagianism, on the other, shall be regarded as the sense in which it is received and adopted." If, the fact that, in the joint committee, this paper was adopted after, and because of, the refusal of the New School members to accept the standards strictly, and the very language of this article, itself, were together insufficient to prove that its intent was to establish in the united Church the "liberal" principles of subscription contended for by the New School, it was only further necessary to point to the fact that these precisely were the terms of subscription set forth by Mr. Barnes, on his trial, and sanctioned by the New School in his acquittal* The historical sense in which the two parties have respectively adopted the Confession, will very fully appear in the following pages; the Old School always insisting upon the strict maintenance of the doctrines of that formulary, and the New, from the first, claiming an indefinite liberty of divergence from it. '''

The terms of union provided for consolidating the Boards and committees of the two churches. In doing this, the lists of the Boards of Publication were to be examined by a joint committee of seven from each body ; and if three of either committee objected to any publication, it should be stricken from the list. That is, in the committee of fourteen, all the Old School members, and four out of seven of the New School, might vote to retain Boston's Fourfold State. But if a minority of three of the New School committee should happen to dislike the emphasis therein given to the doctrine of imputation, and object to the book, it could not be retained ; — a scheme well adapted to render the publications of our Church as indefinite, ' ' catholic' ' and valueless, asjthose of any "unsectariau" voluntary society in the land.

Bespecting the Seminaries of the Church, it was provided that those of the General Assembly should be permitted to place themselves under Synodical control, if at any time, they should desire it. Those belonging to the New School were, also, to be allowed, when they choose, to place themselves under ecclesiastical control. It will be found, in the following history, that the New School seminaries originated in jealousy of ecclesiastical control, and in opposition to the doctrinal strictness enforced upon those established by the Assembly. The plan, in fact, provided that they should retain that independence, unless they should see fit voluntarily to surrender it. In other words, the Old School seminaries were to come, at once, under the joint control of the New School ; and they were authorized to retain exclusive control of the others, as long as they chose.

One additional point, of fundamental importance, was provided for, in the treaty. During the controversy, the right and

* See below, p. 480. 1*

6 INTRODUOriON.

duty of the PresbyterievS to be fully satisfied as to the qualifications of ministers, coming to them for admission, even though bringing "clean papers," or regular testimonials, were insisted upon by the Old School, and denied by the New School. The cases of Messrs. Barnes and Beecher, gave signal interest and importance to the question. The doctrine of clean papers was eiFectually employed by Dr. Peters to fill the Presbytery of Cincinnati, with the supporters of the American Home Missionary Society. Prior to tlie^rise of the controversy, the right of Presbyteries, though unquestioned, was seldom exercised for lack of occasion. Tlie cases, however, of the Cumberland and New Light heresies in Kentucky, illustrated the pnncii)le held by our Church from the JDCginning.* (Q'he constitutional right of Presbyteries to make examination of applicants for admission, was denied by the New School Assembly of 1834, but reaffirmed, in 1835. i In 1837, it was made imperative on Presbyteries " to examine all making application for admission into their bodies, at least, on experimental religion, didactic and polemic theology, and church government." Such has continued to be the law and practice of our Church, ever since.

No sooner, however, did the New School separate themselves from the Assembly, in 1838, than they decreed, that "Whereas, it is the inherent right of Presbyteries to expound and apply constitutional rules touching the qualifications of their own members, therefore, —

"Resolved, That the action of the last General Assembly, making it imperative on the Presbyteries to examine all who make ai)plication for admission to their bodies, not excepting ministers coming from other Presbyteries, is null and void."t

If the doctrine of this resolve be true, that of the Form of Government is false, which expressly assigns to the Assembly the prerogative of " deciding in all controversies respecting doctrine and disciphne." Should any Presbytery see fit to fill up tlie ranks of its ministry with Pelagians. Arians and Socinians, and its eldership with unordained ^' committee-men," it would, according to this act, be in the exercise of its "inherent

* See below, p. 136; and Baird's Assembly's Digest, pp. 633, 641. f Moore's "New Digest/' p. 117.

INTKODUCTION. 7

right,! '^iind ua superior court would be entitled to interfere. The doctrine is, in fact, Presbyterial Independencj^ ; and is much nearer akin to Congregationalism than to the system of our standards, Si^ch is the theory ; and the practice, as experience has fully illustrated, enables one unsound Presbytery, at its own discretion, to infuse poison into the whole Church.

On this subject, the treaty of union was couched in general terms, which, however, to those who understood the history, were profoundly significant. It provided that, "in order to avoid the revival of past issues, b3' the continuance of any usage in either branch of the Church, that has grown out of our former conflicts, it is earnestly recommended, to the lower judicatories of the Church, that they conform their practice, in relation to all such usages, as far as consistent with their convictions of duty, to the general custom of the Church, prior to the controversies that resulted in the separation."

It was not pretended that this very adroitly phrased paragraph had reference to any other question than that of the examination of ministers; and when reduced to plain EngHsh, it was a provision that, "in order to avoid the revival of that issue," the Old School should surrender the point.

Such were the essential points in the plan of reunion, submitted to the Assembly of 1867. By the Assembly, the plan was sent down to the Presbyteries, without any expression of approbation or disapprobation, in order to afford the Church "a full opportunity to examine the subject, in the light of all its advantages and difficulties, so that the committee may have the benefit of any suggestions which may be offered, before making a final report for the action of the next Assembly."

Already, it was evident that, on this subject, there were two I parties in the Church ; — one composed of those who hold the union to be of paramount importance, and the maintenance of Old School principles of altogether secondary consideration; and the other, embracing those who admitted the eminent desirableness of union ; but regarded it as proper and justifiable, only upon condition that it could be accomplished, without the sacrifice of the distinctive principles maintained by the Old School, during and since the controversy. It was, further, evident, that,v whatever might be the private sentiments of the members of the conmiittee, there was not one of them, whom the latter class could regard as a reliable representative of their views and principles. When, therefore, the Moderator was about to fill a vacancy in the committee, occasioned by the illness of Dr. Krebs, it was hoi)ed that the claims of this party would be regarded, and a name was suggested, of one of the most worthy and respected pastors in the Church, as a representative of that class. The suggestion, however, was disregarded, and the committee retained its one-sided character.

By a strong majority of the Presbyteries, the Plan of reunion was disapproved, as involving a surrender of sacred principles, for the defence of which our Church has been set by the King of Zion.

The joint committee again assembled, and spent several daj^^s in consultation. Upon the adjournment, it was announced that the conclusions arrived at would not be published until laid before the two x\ssemblies. It was, however, soon rumored abroad, that, for two or three days, the Old School members of the committee had insisted upon terms, in accordance with the mind of the Church, as ascertained by the action of the Presbyteries. Such terms had been utterly refused, by the New School, and the committee was about to adjourn, in despair; when the same hand by Mdiich was written the doctrinal basis of 1867, again proposed a doctrinal article, upon which all united. The terms thus proposed were submitted to the Assemblies of 1868, and are now before the churches for acceptance or rejection. The doctrinal article is in the following words: —

"1. The reunion shall be effected on the doctrinal and ecclesiastical basis of our common standards ; the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments shall be acknowledged to be the inspired word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice ; the Confession of Faith shall continue to be sincerely received and ado))ted, ' as containing the sj'stem of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures,' it being understood that this Confession is received in its proi)er historical, that is, the Calvinistic or Reformed sense; it is also understood that various methods of viewing, stating, explaining, and illustrating the doctrines of tlie Confession, whicti do not impair the integritj' of the Refoinied or Calvinistic sj'stem, are to be freely allowed in the united Churcli, as they have hitherto been allowed in the separate churches; and^ie "(Jovernnient and Discipline of the PresByterian Church in the United States shall be approved as containing the principles and rule of our polity."

The reader will find, upon comparing this with the doctrinal basis of 1867, that it is precisely the same thing, couched in different phrases ; this being, if possible, more precise and unequivocal in repudiating the Old School, and adopting the New School, principles and phraseology. The basis of 1867, conforms to the platform of Mr. Barnes' "Defence," as we have already seen. That of 1868, covers the same ground, but is conformed, rather, to the position of the New Haven professors, as set forth in their " Statement" on the subject.*

On the disposition of the Seminaries and Boards, the new terms corresponded with those of the preceding year. Respecting the publications of the two churches, it was referred to the Board of Publication of the united Church, to revise them, "and perfect a catalogue for the joint Church, so as to exclude invidious references to the past. ' '

As to the examination of intrant ministers, there is a seeming improvement, by which, however, nothing is gained to the cause of sound doctrine.

"10. It is agreed that the Presbyteries possess the right to examine ministers api)lying for admission from other Presbyteries ; but each Presbytery shall be left free to decide for itself when it shall exercise the right. '

"11. It shall be regarded as the duty of all our judicatories, ministers, and people, in the united Church, to study the things which make for peace, and to guard against all needless and offensive references to the causes that have divided us ; and, in order to avoid the revival of past issues, by the continuance of any usage in either branch of the ChuVch that has grown out of our former conflicts, it is earnestly recommended to the lower

* See below, p. 209.

judicatories of the Church, that they conform their practice in lelation to all such usages, as far as is consistent with their convictions of duty, to the general custom of the Church prior to the controversies that resulted in the separation."

Of no value, for the maintenance of the doctrinal purity of the ministry, will be the abstract right, thus acknowledged in the Presbyteries; a i-ight thus expressly rempved from the category of duties, and from the right of supervision and enforcement by the higher courts ; whilst it is stigmatized with odium, by this fundamental law of the Church, and discountenanced, as in such circumstances, it would be, by the common custom of the Church. The basis of 18G7 recommended the Presbyteries to waive their prerogative. That of 1868, deprives the Assembly of all power over the subject.