The history of the Presbyterian controversy, with early sketches of Presbyterianism

CHAPTER I. Early Sketches of Presbyterianism— Westminster Assembly

CHAPTER II. Union of Presbyterians and Congregationalists-^Primitive and Liberal Policy of American Presbyterianisro,

CHAPTER III. the Controversy a.nd Schism of 1741.

CHAPTER IV. The Policy of the Presbyterian Church in the struggle for National Independence.

CHAPTER V. Plan of Union of 1801.

CHAPTER VL The Hopkinsian Controversy.

CHAPTER VII. The Home Missionary Controversy- Old School Circular — New School Disavowal — Dfs. Green and Beman — Cincinnati Convention.

CHAPTER VIII. Voluntary Societies nnd Ecclesius:;. cal Boards.

CHAPTER IX. Assembly of 1831— Mr. Barnes' Ctm

— Re-examination — Elective Affinity. CHAPTER X. The Act and Testimony.

CHAPTER XL General Assembly of 1885.

CHAPTER XII. The Foreign Mission Question— Assembly of 1836.

CHAPTER XIII. Mr. Barnes' Case again— Secret Circular.

CHAPTER XiV. Policy of the two Parties in reference to the Division of the Church,

CHAPTER XV. Old School Convention of 1837.

CHAPTER XVI. The General Assembly of 1837.

CHAPTER XVII. Operation of the Excinding Acts- Arguments of the Parties for, and against Excision— The true character of the Excinded Synods — The Policy of the Reformers.

CHAPTER XVIII. The Controversy about Doctrines. CHAPTER XIX. The Auburn Convention.

CHAPTER XX. The Assembly of 1838— The Division of the Church — The tumult in the organization of

the Assembly.

CHAPTER XXL The Policy of the New Basis Assembly.

CHAPTER XXII. The great reform Ordinance of 1838.

CHAPTER XXIII. Unsuccessful efforts for an amicable adjustment.

CHAPTER XXIV. Results of legal investigation.

The opinion of the venerable Dr. Cleland, in regard to the merits of this work, is here inserted:

The ''History of the Presbyterian Controversy," by the Rev. H. Woods, I have carefully read, and with no small interest and gratification. It embodies, in a succinct form, a large amount of matter founded on facts and evidences, contained in official and historical documents, not to be successfully controverted. It will serve admirably as a book of reference for the present generation, as well as a little storehouse of information for posterity, to whom it is especially commended. As for the style, it is familiar and agreeable, exhibiting a perspicuity and accuracy rarely to be found in similar modern productions, which makes the work at once both valuable and desirable of attainment, I cordially wish it a hearty patronage and extensive circulation.

THOMAS CLELAKD^

Preface

The history of the controversy and schism of the Presbyterian Church embraces a very eventful period m the annals of the American Church, After the division, I was induced to undertake the task of writing a brief history of this whole matter. The work was accomplished with some labor and with great care. The statements made rest mainly upon documentary evidence ; and their correctness has not been controverted, though submitted to the public, through the "Presbyterian Sentinel,," during, the years 1841 and 1842.

The reason why I originally undertook this work wasto gratify a very general desire to know what caused the division of the Presbyterian Church, and what separates the two parlies. This anxiety for information was not confined to the Presbyterian Church. The members of other churches, and the people of the world were anxiousto understand the subject.

I thought it best to present briefly some early sketches of Presbyterianism, as introductory to the main object. And especially did I deem it necessary to present some sketches of primitive American Presbyterianism, seeing this question runs through all the controversy i Which party is the oldest, and which has departed most vndely from the principles upon which the American Presbyterian Church was founded ? The so called New School party professes to be as old as the so called Old School party* vm

The New School also urge that they stand upon the foundation of primitive American Presbyter ianism f and that the measures that resulted in the dismemberment of the Church were the new or reform measures of the Old School. To settle questions of this nature, it was necessary to examine our early history, to see upon what principles the American Church was founded.

The history of so important a period, in the annals of our Church, should not only be presented to those now living, but should also be handed down to coming generations, that their curiosity may be gratified, and that they may learn wisdom from our sad experience.

Where I have relied on historians so correct, in gene* ral, as Moshiem and Neal,I have not burdened the history by minute references. This was unnecessary, as what I have said of Presbyterianism prior to the organization of the Church in Ameiica, will not be controverted by any one. But as my statements in relation to the history of our Church in America may be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny, I have not only quoted good authorities, but have made my references sufficiently ample.

I have only to add, that I have written these chapters as I trust, in the fear of God. I have written them with an expectation that they will be read, and with a hope that they will promote the advancement of truth and righteousness.

THE AUTHOR-

Glasgow, Ky. 1843.

THE PRESBYTERIAN CONTROVERSY,

CHAPTER I,

EARLY SKETCHES OF PRESBYTERIANISM - WESTMIN- STER ASSEMBLY.

The Church of Christ, before its alliance, in the fourth century, with the State under Constantine, flourished without the aid of civil power. Then the way seemed to be open, for a more extensive propagation of the gospel, than at any former time. But the advantages of this union were not real. Religion suffered by coming in contact with civil power and seculiar arrangements. The purity and simplicity of Christianity were corrupted ; forms and ceremonies were multiplied: a worldly policy controlled the ministers of religion-, and soon the kingdom of Christ became a kingdom of this world.

From the fourth to the close of the fifteenth century, a long night of eleven cen-turies, the Church was in a deplorable condition, if we except the VValdenses, who, during that long period, seemed to stand aloof from the establishment. We no more expect to find a correct system of Church Government among the Roman Catholics, than a correct system of faith* And we know so little of the history of the Waldenses, that we ought not to say what form of Church government they maintained.

About the beginning of the sixteenth century, the li^ht of the reforrrjatipn began to dawn upon the world.

The Protestants all condemned the government of the Papists as well as their doctrines. But they could not agree among themselves. A very respectable portion believed, that the primitive form of Church government was Presbyterian. Among the advocates of this form of government was Calvin, who lived in the beginning of the sixteenth century. Moshiem says of him : "He maintained, that the church wa& to be governed, like the primitive Church, only by Presbyteries and Synods, that is, by assemblies of oldersy composed both of the clergy and laity; and he left to a civil magistrate little more than the privilege of protecting and defending the Church, and providing for what related to its external exigencies and concerns. Thus this eminent reformer introduced into the Republic of Geneva, and endeavored to introduce into all the reformed churches, throughout Europe, that form of ecclesiastical government, which is called Presbyterian, from ifa neither admitting the institution of bishops, nor any subordination among the clergy; and which is founded on this principle, that "all ministers of the gospel are, by the law of God, declared to be equal in rank and authority. "

The Presbyterian form of church government, which was adopted by Calvin, became the model for the reformed churches in many countries of Europe. Frederick 111., elector of Palatine, in 1560, removed from their pastoral charge the Lutheran doctors, and filled their places with those who favored the doctrines and discipline of Calvin. This form of ecclesiastical government was embraced by his subjects and became the established institution. The Republic of Bremen adopted the same form of government. Other German Styles also regulated their faith and forms of government by that of Geneva.

The French Protestants, though they differed among themselves, were generally under the influence of the Swiss divines. This is easily accounted for from their proximity to Geneva, and the efforts of those zealous and eminent men, Calvin, Farel and Beza. Thus, before the middle of the sixteenth century, the French Protestants entered into the bonds of fraternal communion with the church of Geneva. It is therefore clear, that the Protestants of France were Presbyterians. They were however, called by their enemies, Huguenots — a term of reproach.

II

The church of Scotland was founded by John Knox, & disciple of Calvin ; and from that time down to the present., Presbyterians have always been the most numerous.

The Presbyterian form of government was more reluctantly embraced in England than Scotland. Yet afterthe death of Henry VIII. the doctrines of Calvin were embraced by the ministers and churches of England., And in the reign of Edward VI. Geneva was acknowledged as a sister church, and the doctrines of Calvin were adopted^ and rendered the public rule of faith. The form of government, however, then established was not Presbyterian. Yet the Presbyterians were a numerous body,, But they were divided among themselves. Some were disposed to observe the ritual established by Edward. But others were conscientiously opposed to that form of government, and the rites and ceremonies enjoined,. To such persons the name of Puritans was given, on account of their contending for a more pure worship than the liturgy set up by Edward.

A large portion of those called puritans were Presbyterians, yet among the Puritans were reckoned the Independents and Baptists.

In the history of the English Church, it will be remembered, that the Presbyterians were called by different names — Puritans, Nonconformists, Dissenters — names common to all who oppose the discipline and forms of the established church.

The Congregationalists, were called Independents. The same names were often applied to them as to Presbyterians; They agreed in articles of faith ; and the difference between the two bodies, in their views of church gQV.crn* - ment, was at times deemed so unimportant, that they lived upon terms of correspondence and communion.

In Ireland, the reformation was not general, Yet from an early period there were Presbyterians there, and large and respectable churches.

At the commencement of the reformation in the Belgian Provinces, the people hesitated whether they would fashion their faith and discipline after Luther or Calvin. But after the middle of the sixteenth century, they publicly adopted the system of Calvin.

Trie reputation of this great Reformer, and of the Collogo at Geneva, together with the indefatigable zeal of the Swiss in extending their system of doctrine and government, will readily account for the prevalence of this system, not only among the reformed churches of France, but those of Belgium and other States near to France.

This system of faith and discipline found its way into Saxony, Poland, Prussia, Denmark, and nearly all the countries of Europe, and was extensively embraced at an early period c-f the reformation.

Though the Presbyterian system was extensively embraced, yet it is not to be inferred that there was a perfect uniformity. Moshiem says : "This universal conformity was, indeed, ardently desired by the Helvetic doctors ; but their desires, in this respect, were far from being accomplished." . »

On the intricate doctrine of Predestination — the primary cause of the salvation of the elect — or the ruin of the reprobate, some adopted one view and some another. And it was so in reference to some other deep subjects in theology.

There were differences in their form of discipline. Some were for a General Assembly, and others not. Some ordained elders for life; and some were for one year. Some believed in the divine right of Presbytery and others not. Some were for the toleration of other sects, and others not. That period of the world, however, was strongly marked by bigotry and intolerance. And in an age of so much intolerance, we are almost surprised to learn, that, at an early period of the reformation, this maxim, having a tendency to promote concord, was pretty generally adopted, viz,: "That Jesus Christ has left upon record no express injunctions with respect to the external form of government that is to be observed in his church." But this maxim was not carried into effect. The world had been so long accustomed to a union of church and State, that the great mass seemed never to think of any thing but an establishment. And men of learning and piety, in every sect, seemed to think their party was the only true church.

Upon a review of the feelings and policy of our ancestors, the English, Scotch and Irish, we find much to admire, They wero the firm friends of the reformation, the bold and courageous defenders of their liberties, the patrons of learning and of morals. But in their history, we find much to condemn. They were too rigid and uncompromising in things indifferent ; too intolerant towards others, and too fond of the aid of civil power.

Indeed, the honor of the christian religion demands the concession long since made, that "all parties of christians^ ichen in power ', have been guilty of persecution for conscience sake" and that "it is unsafe and dangerous to trust any sort of clergy with the sword."

In England and Scotland, our Presbyterian ancestors, as well as others, were for one mode of worship, and one form of church government for the whole nation, to which all must conform. Perfect uniformity was attempted in Queen Elizabeth's reign ; uniformity too, in many respects, about things indifferent, according to the opinions of the party in power. The contest was then mainly about unity of apparel. Those who refused the gown, cap, &c. did so because they regarded them as the garments of Popery. But for this refusal, ministers were cut off from the church and imprisoned, and families ruined. The cries of the people for preachers reached the court. But it pleased the bishops to let the people do without the means of grace, unless their preachers would take the surplice and cap !

Upon this fatal rock of perfect uniformity the Church of England split. Neal says : "The rigorous pressing of this act was the occasion of all the mischiefs that befell the church for above eighty years/'

In consequence of their persecutions, the Puritans, in the reign of Charles I., began to make rapid settlements in North America. One remarkable instance^— the celebrated John Cotton, a popular preacher, cf meek and gentle disposition. He became a non-conformist, and omitted some of the ceremonies of the Church. He was informed against. He applied to the Earl of Dorset to befriend him. But the Earl sent him word, that, "if he had been guilty of drunkenness, uncleanness, or any such lesser fault, he could have got his pardon, but the sin of Puritanism and non-conformity is unpardonable, and therefore you must fly for your safety." Upon this he traveled to 2

'London in disguise', and took passage for New England, where he spent the remainder of his life.

In this reign, the Presbyterian Establishment of Scotland was made to quake. During the reign of Elizabeth and James I., the Presbyterians in the North were free •from the troubles of their brethren in England. But when Charles I., in 183,7, attempted to force upon them the liturgy of -the English Establishment, jtfrey rallied under their Solemn 'League and Covenant, and finally triumphed over every attempt to subvert their system. Could we persuade ourselves that a union of Church and State is right, we would say that the Scotch deserve the greatest praise for their valor and conscientiousness in battling for their Establishment. Yet, during the reign of Charles I., the sitting of the long parliament, the protectorate of Cromwell, and the civil wars, the conduct -of the ..Scotch Presbyterians was, in many cases, highly reprehensible. In some things they were as much to blame as .those who desired to oppress them. B.shop Burnet says.: ." that the King and the Scots desired uniformity in church government, but with different views—the King was for bringing thsm to the English standard ; whereas," the Scots intended to bring the English Jo theirs.'' And Neal says, the Scots insisted that "there should be uniformity between the two nations. 19

fn the contest between diaries J. and his Parliament, the Scotch and English Presbyterians, and the Independents generally sided with the latter.

In 1643, the Westminster Assembly met, according to an ordinance of the Lords and Commons, in parliaments This was a convocation, neither according to Episcopacy or Presbytery. The parliament chose all the members, with a view to have: their advice in settling the doctrine and government of the Church of England. They appointed in England thirty laymen — ten lords and twenty movers— and one hundred And twenty-one divines.; from Scotland, six laymen and five divines. More than onn hundred met. Some were Episcopalians, some English Presbyterians, some Scotch Presbyterians, some Erastiana, and" some .Independents. Few Episcopalians appeared, and soon withdrew, because of lay representation,

j the number of men of puritanical stamp, and. other

■ 15

reasons. Baxter says* that they who composed the As-' sembly "were men of eminent learning; godliness, minis-' terial abilities, and fidelity. °

The Assembly, after a long and animated debating, went through their work. They agreed upon a Confession of Faith and Form of Government, and signed the Solemn* League and Covenant, sent there from Scotland, with some slight alterations. The Solemn League and Covenant, though a short document, exerted a powerful influence, and- proved eventually for England and for Presbyte nan ism , as impoHtijnsiV\\Rs intolerant. It consisted jf six-' articles, to the second of*' which there was the greatest objection, it reads as follows: u That we shalU in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavor the extirpation of popery, prelacy, (that is, church government by archbishops, bishops their chancellors and commissaries,* deans, deans and chapters, archdeacons and all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy) superstition, heresy, schism, profaueness, and whatever shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine, and the power of godliness-; lest we partnke in other men's sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of" their plagues; and that the Lord may be one, and his nam p one, in the three kingdoms."

This document was subscribed, not only by the Westminister Assembly, but by the parliament. The Committee of States in Scotland, ordered- it to be subscribed in that kingdom,.- on penalty of. the confiscation of goods*, and rents- and other punishments. All the lords of the Council were required to sign it, and those who did not, were declared enemies- to religion* aid to their king and country. Orders were issued te seize their goods- and apprehend their persons, upon which they fled into England, In England, all persons over trie age of eighteen were ordered to subscribe it.,

To the League and Covenant,, there were many and weighty objections. It was regarded as a religious and civil test act, subjecting any one- who did not sign it, to be proceeded against as a "malignant" — an enemy to religion and to his country. It was also opposed by some, because it bound them to acts of persecution — "/Ae extirpation " of tho^e who might be called heretics or schismatics. From the doeumenUve can easily sec* that Episcopalians

Independents and others would not be very hearty in subscribing it. But it was subscribed by multitudes of all •needs and classes. Some took the Covenant, because they thought the Protestant religion in danger; some, in obedience to the parliament; some because they wanted the assistance of Scotland, which was to be had on no oilier terms, and some to avoid danger.

It was not, however, to be supposed, that in so large an Assembly as that of Westminister, there was a perfect uniformity of views on ail points. Neal says: "It is not to be wondered, that so many parties, with different views, should entangle the proceedings of this venerable body, iind protract the intended union with the Scots. "

There was some jarring when they came to sign the League and Covenant. Dr. Featly objected to one article. Dr. Burges objected to several, and was persuaded to subscribe, after he had been suspended. The Scotch were for abjuring episcopacy as unlawful, but the English divines were against it. The English Commissioners were for a cicil league, but the Scotch would have a religious one, to which Bishop Burnet says, "the English were obliged to yield, taking care at the same time to leave a door open for a latitude of interpretation." Thus, iu the first article, they bound themselves to defend and preserve the reformation of religion, "in doctrine, worship, discipline and government according to the word of God, and the example of the best reformed churches." Here was a latitude, that would suit all. The Episcopalian would have it "according to the word of God." But the Presbyterian would go a little farther, and have it also according to "the example of the best reformed churches." Thus, says Neal, "the wise men on both sides endeavored to outwit ench other in wording the articles."

It would indeed be something strange, if there were not different views of doctrine and church government, among men who belonged to different sects — Scotch, English Presbyterians, Erastians, and Independents. The majority, at first, wore in favor of such an episcopacy as they supposed existed in the early ages of the church. Put for ihe sake of the alliance with the Scotch they declared for the Presbyteriai form.

On the mode of baotism, there was at first some d.fit

ference. One half were for excluding dipping. The other half, though they believed that affusion was the lawful mode, were unwilling to vote that dipping was not a valid baptism.

The Directory, in reference to prayer, was not well re* -eived by the Independents. Mr. Fuller says: "the independents in the Assembly,- were hardly persuaded to consent to it, for ftar-of infringing the liberty of prayer, yet being admitted to qualify some things in the preface, they complied."

On the subject of the keys and oj en communion, there was difference of opinion. Neal sa\s; "The Presbyterians were for giving the power of the keys into the hands of the ministers and elders, as the Independents were, to the whole brotherhood ; but L ; ghtfoot, Selden, Coleman and others, were for an open communion to whom the parliament were most inclinable." These latter were Eras* tians.

There were other points about which the members of the x^ssembly differed. Some objected to certain expressions relative to reprobation, the imputation of Christ^ obedience, &c. But they at last agreed upon the Confession of Faith and Book of Discipline, as the best thing they could get, though all were not pleased with them. And that Confession, as-si nee modified, certainly ranks, in the opinion of good judges, among the best systems of diviuity ever published. Yet r from the history of those times, we learn that there was no small degree of dissatisfaction about the Confession of Faith, Neal, speaking of the Baptists, who were not represented in the Assembly, says: "These, joining with the Independents in the point of discipline and toleration* made them the more considerable, and encouraged their opposition to the Presbyterians, who were for establishing their own discipline,, without regard to such as differed from them." In this,- the Presbyte-' rians grealy erred, and manifested an intolerant spirit. Even the good Mr. Baxter avowed that, "he abhorred unlimited liberty, or toleration of all."

The great question about the divine right of Presbytery

was warmly debated during the sitting of the Assembly,

as well as afterwards. Mr. Coleman was bold against

this doctrine. He declaimed against it, not only in the

2*

Assembly, but in the pulpit, "apprehending Presbytery would prove as arbitrary and tyrannical as prelacy, if it came in on the foot of a divine cluim."

Here also the Independents erred: for in opposing the divine rigid of Presbytery, they advocated "a divine right of their own scheme." But, in the Assembly, the Presbyterians carried their point, by a large majority voting for the divine right. But the Independents entered their dissent in writing, and complained to the world "of the unkind usage they met with in the Assembly: that the papers they offered were not read ; that they were not allowed lo state their own questions," &c.

But when the matter came before the House of Commons, the Independents were joined by the Era strand When the vote was there taken, the Commons voted against the divine right. Neal says, that "the disappointment of the Scotch Commissioners and their friends, at this vote in parliament, is not to be expressed."

Indeed, the entire book, as it came from the Assembly, and has been published to the world, never was approved by the English parliament. The parliament, however, made some concessions to the majority of the Assembly, but with such provisios, that it was evident they did not Intend to part with the sw&rd, or subject the civil powers to the church, which was very offensive to the Scotch and their adherents.

But when Parliament had now established the Presbyterial form of government, no one party of Christians was satisfied. The Episcopalians and Independents were excluded ; and because the parliament would not come fully up to the Scotch notions of divine right, they were not pleased. And yet it is clear that what was done, was in a great degree to please the Scotch Commissioners. Bish- ( p Rennet observes, that "the settling Presbytery was supported by the fear and love of the Scotch army, and that when they were gone home, it was better managed by the English army, who were for independency and a principle of toleration." In this divided state of affairs in England, the Scotch felt that they held the balance of power, and they seemed determined to impose their form of government upon the English.

Here was the grand error of our Scotch and English

Presbyterian ancestors. They were not satisfied with any thing short of covenant uniformity and the divine right of Presbytery. Of this Mr. Baxter, who was a Presbyterian, was in some degree sensible. He says, "that the Prestbyerian ministers were so little sensible of their own infirmities, that they would not agree to tolerate tho?e who were not only tolerable, but worthy instruments, and members in the church, prudent men, who were for union in things necessary, for liberty in things unnecessary, and for charity in all."

Though the Independents were the advocates of toleration, yet their foundation was not very generous. They plead only for the toleration of themselves, the Baptists, and such as agreed in the fundamentals of religion.

Though no two denominations were more alike than the Presbyterians and Independents, yet in the latter part of the reign of Charles I., during the revolution, and protectorate of Cromwell, they had bitter strifes,, growing out of the doings of the Westminister Assembly, attempts at uniformity, &c. Sectarian jealousy and rivalry rose high in the days of Cromwell, who inclined to independency. Therefore, the rigid Presbyterians were not satisfied with his government. And when he was succeeded by his son Richard, seeing no prospect of restoring the Covenant or obtaining uniformity, they united with the Royalists and Episcopalians to restore Charles II. which took place in 1660. In this the Scotch united, and sent the Earls of Crawford and Landerdale to Holland, "humbly to put his majesty in mind, that the Kirk of Scotland expected protection upon the footing of the Presbyterian establishment, without indulgence to sectaries." The profligate Charles II. agreed with the Presbyterians, to come to the throne upon their terms. Like promises he made to the Episcopalians and the Catholics. Thus, says Neal, "the credulous Presbyterians were gradually drawn into the snare, and made to believe, that Presbytery was to be the established government of the Church of England, under King Charles II." In uniting with the Royalists and Episcopalians, for the restoration of Charles, the most solemn promises were made them. But, says the historian just quoted, "the reader will judge hereafter, who were most to blame? the Episcopal party, for breaking through so many solemn vows and protestations; or the Presbyterians, for bringing in the king without a previous treaty, and trusting a set of men, whom they knew to be their implacable enemies. 1 can think of no decent eX* cuse for the former; and the best apology that can be made for the latter is, that most of them lived long enough to see their error and heartily repent it."

With the restoration of Charles II., the old constitution was restored, together with the Episcopal Church. By establishing Episcopacy, the king expected the great body of the nation, Presbyterians, Independents, &c. would be dissatisfied ;- thai they would demand a general toleration,- and thus he would open the door for the Roman Catholics* But soon the Presbyterian ministers were made to suffer. Though men of gravity, and far advanced in years, they were rallied in the pulpits under the opprobrious names of schismatics 'and fanatics ; exposed to insults ; assaulted by mobs, and forced to go in disguise. The old penal laws for non-conformity were executed with severity.

The hardships and poverty attending non-conformity, tempted some few to conform contrary to their judgment ; but the great body of dissenters stood firm to their principles.

The sufferings of the non-conformists were great. Many were sent to prison and to death. In the history of the Puritans, it is estimated, that between the restoration and the revolution, seventy thousand families were ruined, and that eight thousand persons suffered death upon the scaffold and in prison. This happened in the short reign of Charles II. It is also stated, that "besides those who suffered in their own country, great numbers retired to the plantations of New England, Pennsylvania, and other parts of America."