The Disruption of the Presbyterian Church (1834–1838)

We are concerned here with the history of this great struggle only so far as this is necessary to the understanding of the part taken by Dr. Hodge at that time. He was a young man, with no influence resulting from past experience or achievement in church affairs, and for the greater part of the time involved in the struggle excluded from church courts and confined to his room and to his couch by physical pain and weakness. Nevertheless, he was the most active member of the “association of gentlemen” who edited the Repertory, and the author of the articles which attracted the chief attention and were the qbjects of the most hostile criticism by the strong party men on both sides.

The Presbyterian Church in America was founded by

Scotch and Scotch-Irish immigrants. The Congregational Churches of New England were founded by English Independents. They originally agreed in doctrine, but were radically different in their principles of organization and polity, their traditions and their tendencies. The English Independents settled the New England colonies during the first half of the 17th century, the Scotch and Scotch-Irish immigrants settled New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware in the last of the 17th and the first of the 1 8th centuries. Subsequently, for the most part, the Presbyterians moved westward and southward through Pennsylvania, the Valley of Virginia and the Valley of the Ohio, while the teeming population of New England moved westward through the State of New York, northern Ohio and the Valley of the great lakes.

The two streams mingled in northern Ohio and western New York, and the exigencies of church extension in the new settlements led to the “Plan of Union” contracted be-^ tween the General Assembly and the Congregational Association of Connecticut in 1801. This plan was designed to promote harmony and to combine the heterogeneous elements of the population in the new settlements in aggressive church extension. It proposed to effect this end not by forming a new and compromising form of church government, but by providing for the practical working together in the same congregations of ministers and people belonging to both denominations. Congregational ministers were to be pastors of Presbyterian churches, and Presbyterian ministers pastors of Congregational churches, and Presbyterian and Congregational communicants were to combine in one church, appointing a standing committee instead of a session to govern them and represent them in the Presbyterian ecclesiastical courts. The effect of this was at the same time to stop almost absolutely the multiplication of Congregational churches, and rapidly to extend the area of the Presbyterian church by the multiplication of Presbyteries and Synods, composed largely of imperfectly organized churches.

In the meantime the American Education Society, in Boston, and the American Home Missionary Society, in New York, sprang into the most active exercise of their functions, equally within the spheres of the Presbyterian and the Congregational churches. They were both purely voluntary societies, subject to no ecclesiastical control, their officers elected and their action directed by self-perpetuated “Executive Committees.” Their funds were drawn from the New England churches, and their affairs were controlled, in the larger part, by Congregationalists. New England, at this time, had in great part ceased to afford a field for home missionary effort, but on the contrary was full of energetic young men pressing into the ministry and ready to be educated and marshalled and supported in the field by the great voluntary societies above mentioned. These young men, of course, were educated as Congregationalists, and were imbued with the religious and theological sentiments at that time prevalent in New England. These sentiments may be classified as follows: (i) The old Calvinism identical with the original and constitutional orthodoxy of the Presbyterian church. (2) That variation of Calvinism styled Hopkinsianism, which, while maintaining the essentials of Calvinism, denied the imputation of Adam’s sin, the absolute inability of the sinner to repent, and a definite atonement. This type of doctrine, prevalent among Congregationalists, while foreign to the traditions, and uncongenial to the native Presbyterians, was yet never regarded as so far injurious as to be a bar to ministerial communion. (3) The heresies associated at that time with the School of New Haven, which were far more radical, imperiling, if not destroying, the church doctrines of original sin, and vicarious atonement, etc., and which were abhorred and resisted by the larger and sounder masses of Congregationalists, as well as by Presbyterians.

Thus it is evident that an immense and effective machinery was in operation for the rapid destruction of the integrity of the Presbyterian church, alike in its organic form and in the system of doctrines professed and taught. New England was the fountain; young New England missionaries the stream bearing with them Congregational church polity and New England theology; the American Education and the American Home Missionary Societies the powerful engines; and the Presbyterian church the depository into which these foreign and revolutionizing streams were poured.

These were, in general, the unquestionable historical conditions of that epoch. It is evident that, without involving any one’s fault on either side, sooner or later these conditions must precipitate a struggle for existence, and that the “fittest” must survive. Either Presbyterianism in America and Congregationalism outside of New England must alike perish, issuing in some better third form, or in ecclesiastical chaos, or they must separate and each recover its constitutional integrity. Sooner or later the time must come when the true Presbyterians must fight for the existence of their inherited system and save it by constitutional means if they can, by revolution if they must. The Old School party among the Presbyterians of that day did fight for all Presbyterians of all time, New as well as Old, and for pure Congregationalism as well. The event has vindicated them beyond question as to their general purpose.

In a very few years after the disruption the New School Presbyterians followed the same course. They, in like manner, abrogated the “Plan of Union,” formed and exclusively patronized their own ecclesiastical boards, except in the department of foreign missions, and came into the Re-union in 1870 as thoroughly organized on exclusive Presbyterian principles as the other party, and tolerating in their terms of Ministerial Communion no variations from the old orthodoxy, more extreme than that falling under the Hopkinsian or Edwardean variety, above referred to, which none of the sober-minded among the Old School had ever deliberately regarded as putting a man beyond the pale. At the same time the Congregational church emerges over the whole north-western country, as homogeneous as in New England itself. Yet there is absolutely no evidence that the same result would have been attained if the denominational consciousness of the two rival parties had not been aroused and intensified by the conflict and division of 1837-8.

On the other hand, this same result, while it vindicates the general position and aim of the Old School party in the disruption period, vindicates specifically the peculiar position of the Princeton wing of that party. The subsequent course of the New School, as a separate denomination, clearly proves that in all essentials the majority of them were sound Presbyterians, alike in principles of order and in doctrine, the recognition of which fact in those days distinguished the “Princeton” or “Middle” party. There were in those days four parties in the church: (i) Those congregations and groups of congregations which were imperfectly organized, and those ministers and people who maintained the extreme type of error they styled “Taylorism.” These occasioned all the trouble. Without them all the other parties could have coalesced together in a sufficiently homogeneous Presbyterian church. (2) The New School party as a body. These were in themselves sound Presbyterians, although somewhat tinged with the Hopkinsian quality of theology. Their peculiarity arose from the fact that from position, antecedents and associations they were disposed to prevent the discipline of those whose opinions departed further from the type of normal Presbyterianism than their own, and to oppose the abrogation of the “Plan of Union,” and the re-organization, by force of ecclesiastical authority, of the churches formed upon it; and to keep the church open to the operation of the Voluntary Societies, to the exclusion of those under ecclesiastical control. (3) The “Princeton Party” or “Middle Men.” (4) The Old School party in Pennsylvania and part of the South, who, under the leadership of Drs. Green, R. J. Breckinridge, George Junkin and others, were convinced that the crisis was imminent, that the evils were so great as to be intolerable, and who, therefore, pressed urgently the prosecution of heresy, and demanded peremptorily either the speedy abatement of these evils or the division of the church.

The Princeton or Middle party was wholly Old School, adhering in principle and affection to the original normal type of doctrine and church polity. Of this there never was any doubt on either side. They desired to have the “Plan of Union” abrogated; to have the churches organized on that basis re-organized or cut off by constitutional ecclesiastical authority; to have all ministers holding and teaching the graver errors then known as “Taylorism” tried and excluded from office; to have new measures discouraged; and denominational Boards of Education, and of Missions, Home and Foreign, substituted in the place of the Voluntary Societies, which were really the organs of the Congregational churches. Hence, as Dr. Hodge said, their “feelings were always, and their judgment generally, in harmony with their Old School brethren and their measures of reform.” But, on the other hand, they did not wish to see the church divided either by the voluntary departure of the extreme Old School wing, which for a long time appeared imminent, or by the forcible exclusion of the great body of the New School, which the Old School leaders at least appeared to desire. The Princeton men protested against some of the Old School measures, as, for instanct, that: Plopkinsian peculiarities, which should be tolerated, were indiscriminately confused with Taylorite errors, which must be excluded; that some of the measures were unconstitutional and injurious, as the procedure by the Synod of Philadelphia to try the appeal of Dr. Junkin in the trial of Mr. Barnes while the records of the inferior court were absent; and the use of the “Act and Testimony” as a test of loyalty to Presbyterianism. They believed the measures pursued by the party men would divide the church, whereas the exigency for such a violent expedient had not arrived. The New School for several years had held sway in the General Assembly, interrupted only in 1845, and regained in 1846. If they had constituted the majority in the Assembly of 1847 the worst apprehension of the Princeton men would have been realized by the secession of the most determined of the Old School party without the succession and without the property, and the Presbyterian church would have been left predominantly New School, with a helpless Old School minority. When the Old School party found themselves in power in the General Assembly of 1837, ‘^^ “Princeton Men,” as represented by Dr. Archibald Alexander, voted for the abrogation of the “Plan of Union,” for the establishment of ecclesiastical boards, and for the excision of the Synod of Western Reserve. They regretted the peremptory excision of the three Synods in western New York yet passively acquiesced in the measure as one of “substantial justice,” but would have preferred the plan offered by Dr. Cuyler, which summoned those Synods to purify themselves, and suspended their right to representation in the General Assembly upon their obedience. The “Princeton Men” regretted exceedingly the secession of the “New School” division of the church in 1848, but rejoiced in the assurance that neither they nor the Old School majority were responsible for that division, which they (the Princeton men) had always feared and had tried so loyally to prevent.

Dr. Hodge says himself in his “Retrospect of the History of the Princeton Review,” 1871,” In all the controversies culminating in the division of the church in 1837-8, the conductors of this Rcviczu were in entire sympathy with the

THE disruption:

Old School party. They sided with them as to the right and under existing circumstances the duty, of the church to conduct the work of education and foreign and domestic missions by ecclesiastical boards instead of voluntary in-’ dependent societies. They agreed with that party on all doctrinal questions in dispute; and as to the obligation to enforce conformity to our Confession of Faith on the part of ministers and teachers of theology under our jurisdiction. They were so unfortunate, however, as to differ from many, and apparently from a majority of their Old School brethren, as to the wisdom of the measures adopted for securing a common object. In our number for January, 1837, it is said: ‘Our position we feel to be difficult and delicate. On the one hand, we respect and love the great mass of our Old School brethren; we believe them to constitute the bone and sinew of the Presbyterian church; we agree with them in doctrine; we sympathize with them in their disapprobation and distrust of the spirit and conduct of the leaders of the opposite party; and we harmonize with them in all the great leading principles of ecclesiastical policy, though we differ from a portion of them, how large or how small that portion may be we cannot tell, as to the wisdom and propriety of some particular measures. They have the right to cherish and express their opinions, and to endeavor to enforce them on others by argument and persuasion, and so have we. They, we verily believe, have no selfish end in view. We are knowingly operating, under stress of conscience, against all our own interests, so far as they are not involved in the interests of the Church of God.’

“The FIRST point of difference related to the Act and Testimony, and the measures therewith connected.

“Such departures from the standards of the church in matters of doctrine and order; such diversity of opinion as to ecclesiastical boards and voluntary societies; such alienation of feeling and agitating controversy had for years so disturbed the peace and impaired the efficiency of the church as to produce a state of things which on all sides was thought to be intqlerable. With the view to reform these evils, and secure the peace and purity of the church, a meeting of ministers and elders was held in Philadelphia, May 26, 1834. At that meeting it was determined to issue an Act and Testimony, setting forth the evils under which the church was laboring, and proposing means of redress. This document was originally signed by thirty-seven ministers and twenty-seven elders. It was sent forth among the churches, and all the friends of sound doctrine and of Presbyterian order were exhorted to sign it * We recommend,’ say the original signers, ’ all ministers, elders, Church-sessions, Presbyteries and Synods, who approve of this Act and Testimony, to give their public adherence thereto, in such manner as they shall prefer, and communicate their names, and when a church court, a copy of their adhering act’ It was further recommended ’ that on the second Thursday of May, 1835, a Convention be held in the city of Pittsburgh (where the General Assembly was to meet), to be composed of two delegates, a minister and ruling elder from each Presbytery, or from the minority of any Presbytery, who may concur in the sentiments of the Act and Testimony, to deliberate and consult on the present state of the church, and to adopt such measures as may be best suited to restore her prostrated standards.’

“Many Old School men, as zealous as any others, could not sign this document. They did not object to it as a testimony against false doctrine; nor as a means for arousing the attention of the church; nor as designed to concentrate the energies of its sounder members for the reform of existing evils; but, i. Because it contained assertions as to matter of fact, and expressions of opinion (not, however, as to matters of doctrine) in which they could not conscientiously concur. 2. Because it operated as a new, unauthorized and invidious test of orthodoxy and

THE DISRUPTION.

fidelity. Those who did not sign it were looked upon as timid and recreant. The editor of the Presbyterian (Aug. 21, 1S34) said, ‘We verily believe that every orthodox minister and elder, who refuses his signature under existing circumstances, will throw his weight into the opposite scale, and strengthen the hopes and confirm the confidence of those who aim to revolutionize the church.’ 3. Because its obvious tendency, and as the event proved, its actual effect, was to divide, instead of uniting, the friends of orthodoxy and order. The document was never signed by a moiety of the Old School body. 4. Because the issuing a document of this kind, calling for the signatures of all sound men, who, by their delegates, were to meet in convention and prepare for further action, was an extra-constitutional and revolutionary measure, which many good and true men could not approve. They believed that when evils exist in any organized community, civil or ecclesiastical, redress should be sought in the regular exercise of the constitution and laws, unless the evils be such as justify revolution. 5. From the natural tendency of the measures adopted, and from the open avowal of some of the leaders in this movement, it was believed that if the party represented by the Act and Testimony did not gain ascendancy in the church, the result would be secession and schism. There were, however, many who believed that secession, under the circumstances, would be a violation of principles and a breach of trust. They, therefore, stood aloof and abstained from taking part in measures of which, as it seemed to them, schism was the natural consequence, if not the intention. They held that so long as the standards of the church were unaltered, and its ministers were not called upon to profess what they did not believe, or prevented preaching what they believed to be true, or required to do what their conscience condemned, to withdraw from the church was the crime of schism, which the Scriptures so expressly forbid. Moreover, they regarded the funds, the institutions and the influence of the church as a trust committed to their care, which they were not authorized to throw up or to leave in the hands of those whom they regarded as likely to abuse or pervert it. To abandon the church whenever an adverse majority gained ascendancy for a time in its administration, would lead to never-ending divisions and incalculable evils. Many of the signers of the Act and Testimony disclaimed any intention to secede from the church; but others, among whom was the venerable Dr. Green, openly declared that such was their purpose-Happily, the matter was not brought to that issue. The reform of’ the church was effected without that sacrifice. Candid men, we think, will admit that the above-mentioned reasons are sufficient to justify the course of those who dissented from the Act and Testimony movement. Their conduct, at least, can be accounted for on other grounds than those of faint-heartedness or unfaithfulness.

“The SECOND point on which the Old School men were divided, was the proper grounds of ecclesiastical discipline. Our ministers and elders are required to adopt the Confession of Faith, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures. No doctrine, therefore, inconsistent with the integrity of that system is the proper ground of discipline. It is not enough that the doctrine be erroneous, or that it be dangerous in its tendency; if it be not subversive of one or more of the constituent elements of the reformed faith, it is not incompatible with the honest adoption of our Confession. It cannot be denied that ever since the Reformation more or less diversity in the statement and explanation of the doctrines of Calvinism has prevailed in the reformed churches. It is equally notorious that for fifty or sixty years such diversities have existed and been tolerated in our own church; nay, that they still exist and are avowed by Old School men. If a man holds that all mankind, since the fall of Adam, and in consequence of his sin, are born in a state of condemnation and sin, whether he accounts for that fact on the ground of immediate or mediate imputation, or on the realistic theory’, he was regarded as within the integrity of the system. If he admitted the sinner’s inabihty, it was not considered as a proper ground of discipHne that he regarded that inabihty as moral, instead of natural as well as moral. If he taught that the work of Christ was a real satisfaction to the justice of God, it was not made a breaking point whether he said it was designed exclusively for the elect, or for all mankind, etc., etc.

“We do not say that the diversities above referred to are unimportant. We regard many of them as of great importance. All we say is that they have existed and been tolerated in the purest Calvinistic churches our own among the rest.

“But within the last forty years other doctrines came to be avowed. Men came to teach that mankind are not born in a state of sin and condemnation; that no man is chargeable with either guilt or sin until he deliberately violates the known law of God; that sinners have plenary ability to do all God requires of them; that regeneration is the sinner’s own act; that God cannot certainly control the acts of free agents so as to prevent all sin, or the present amount of sin in a moral system; that the work of Christ is no proper satisfaction to divine justice, but simply symbolic or didactic, designed to produce a moral impression on intelligent agents; that justification is not judicial, but involves a setting aside of the law, as when the Executive remits the penalty incurred by a criminal. The doctrines of this latter class were regarded as entirely inconsistent with the ‘system of doctrine’ taught in our Confession of Faith. In the General Assembly (O. S.) of 1868 a protest was presented against the adoption of the plan of union then before the churches, urging as an argument against the union the alleged fact that such doctrines were tolerated in the other branch of the Presbyterian church.

The majority of the Assembly, in their answer to that protest, denied that allegation. They pronounced it to be incredible, on the ground that such doctrines were so obviously subversive of our whole system, that no church professing to be Calvinistic could tolerate them within their borders.

“When in 1830, and the years immediately following, church discipline was invoked to arrest the progress of error, the Presbyteiy of Philadelphia included among the doctrines to be condemned those belonging to the first as well as those belonging to the second of the classes above mentioned. This was objected to by a large class of Old School men, and by the conductors of this Review, among their number, i. Because, if the errors in question do not affect the integrity of the system, they were not the proper grounds of discipline. One of these doctrines was ’ that faith is an act and not a principle.’ But surely a man may hold this opinion and yet be a Calvinist. The immediate imputation of Adam’s sin we regard as a very important doctrine; not so much on its own account as on account of the principle of representative accountability on which it is founded, which principle runs through the Bible, and is involved in the vital doctrines of atonement and justification. Nevertheless, it is notorious that the doctrine of immediate imputation has not been considered by our church as essential to the integrity of the Calvinistic system.

“2. It was considered unreasonable and unfair to condemn one man for errors which had been, and continued to be tolerated in others.

“3. This course was deemed unwise because it could not fail to embarrass the administration of discipline and to divide the friends of truth and order in the church. It was impossible that they could be brought with unanimity to concur in sustaining charges so heterogeneous, embracing doctrinal statements with which only a small minority of the church could agree. We are constrained to say, with great respect for the Presbytery of Philadelphia, that the censures which that body pronounced in 1830 on the sermon entitled ‘The Way of Salvation,’ contained doctrinal principles which we do not know a single minister in the Presbyterian church who is willing to adopt. It makes the penal character of the sufferings of Christ to depend on their nature and intensity, and not on the design for which they were inflicted. We think that any candid man will admit that those who disapproved of such a judicial judgment did not deserve, on that account, to be deemed lacking in fidelity or zeal for the truth.

“We do not wish to intimate that the books on which the Presbytery, and afterwards the Synod of Philadelphia, founded their judicial action did not contain errors which called for the exercise of discipline. We believe they did contain propositions which, according to the unanimous judgment of the Assembly of 1868, any minister should be required to retract as the condition of his remaining in connection with the Presbyterian church. The complaint is that matters were included in the charges which even the friends of sound doctrine could not regard as proper grounds of discipline.

“The THIRD point about which Old Schoolmen differed was the wisdom of some of the acts of the Assembly of 1837. When that Assembly met, it was found that the Old School had a decided and determined majority. The opportunity had occurred to rectify some of the abuses which had so long and so justly been matters of complaint. It was not to be expected or desired that the opportunity should be lost. The abuse which was more immediately under the control of the Assembly was the admission of Congregationalists as constituent members of our church courts. This was as obviously unreasonable and unconstitutional as the admission of British subjects to sit as members of our State or National Legislature. To put an end to this abuse, the Assembly adopted the following report of their committee: ‘In regard to the relation between the Presbyterian and Congregational churches, the committee recommend the adoption of the following resolutions:

*” I. 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 two branches of the Church of Christ.

“’ 2. That it is expedient to continue the plan of friendly intercourse between this church and the Congregational churches as it now exists.

“‘3. But as the ‘Plan of Union’ adopted for the new settlements in 1801 was originally an unconstitutional act on the part of that Assembly, — these important standing rules having never been submitted to the Presbyteries — and as they are totally destitute of authority, as proceeding from the General Association of Connecticut, which is invested with no power to legislate in such cases, and especially to enact laws to regulate churches not within its limits; and as much confusion and irregularity has arisen from this unnatural and unconstitutional system of union, therefore, it is resolved that the Act of the Assembly of 1801, entitled a ‘Plan of Union ’ be, and the same is hereby abrogated.’

“These resolutions were carried by a vote of 143 yeas to 1 10 nays. Dr. Archibald Alexander, and all the other delegates from the Presbytery of New Brunswick, voted for their adoption.

“The question then arose, How was the above resolution to be carried into effect? In other words. How was the Congregational element to be eliminated from our body? Three methods were proposed. First: To cite the judicatories, charged with this and other irregularities, to appear at the bar of the next Assembly. This was actually adopted, but afterwards abandoned as likely to be cumbersome and interminable.

“The second method was that proposed by the Rev. Dr. Cuyler, the substance of which was a direction to the judicatories embracing Congregational churches to require them to become Presbyterially organized, or to withdraw from our connection; and refusing to such judicatories the privilege of being represented in the General Assembly until this elimination of Congregationalism had been effected.

“The consideration of these resolutions was postponed to await the report of a committee, consisting of five members, from either side of the house, to consider the question of the amicable separation of the church. That committee reported that they unanimously agreed, ist, That in the present state of the church such a separation was desirable. 2d, They agreed as to the terms on which it should be effected; but 3d, They disagreed as to the time when it should be accomplished, and as to the legal succession. The committee representing the majority insisted that the separation should be accomplished at once, during the sessions of that Assembly; the committee on the part of the minority insisted that it should be deferred for a year, by a reference of the matter to the Presbyteries.

“On the failure of this attempt, the Assembly, instead of taking up the resolutions of Dr. Cuyler, proceeded to effect the separation from Congregationalism by its own authority. This was done by what are called the ‘Abscinding Acts.’ It was resolved, first, ‘That by the operation of the abrogation of the Plan of Union of 1801 the Synod of the Western Reserve is, and hereby is declared to be, no longer a part of the Presbyterian church in the United States of America.’

“And subsequently it was resolved ‘That in consequence of the abrogation by this Assembly of the Plan of Union of 1801 between it and the General Association of Connecticut, as utterly unconstitutional, and therefore null and void from the beginning, the Synods of Utica, Geneva and Gen-

1837-] THE DISRUPTION, ^OI

esee, which were formed and attached to this body under and in execution of the said Plan of Union be, and are hereby declared to be, out of the ecclesiastical connection of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, and that they are not in form or in fact an integral portion of said church.’

“It was stated on the floor of the Assembly that less than one in four of the churches in the Synod of the Western Reserve was Presbyterian, We do not see how any one can censure the Assembly for refusing to recognize that Synod as a Presbyterian body when three-fourths of the churches of which it was composed were Congregational. Dr. Alexander, who had voted for the abrogation of the Plan of Union, felt free, therefore, to vote for the disowning of the Synod of the Western Reserve as a constituent part of the Presbyterian Church. For the resolution disowning the three Synods in Western New York he could not vote.

“The grounds on which the majority of the conductors of this Review dissented from the Act of the Assembly disowning the three Synods of Utica, Geneva and Genesee were: 1st, That it was not a legitimate consequence of the abrogation of the Plan of Union that those Synods, with all their Presbyteries and churches, were out of connection with the Presbyterian Church in the United States, and neither in form nor in fact an integral part of that church. Even if originally formed on the Plan of Union, if they had become, and so far as they had become, Presbyterian in their organization, and had been duly recognized, they were entitled to be regarded and treated as Presbyterian churches and judicatories. This is all the constitution required. This the Assembly itself admitted, as it promised to recognize any of the constituent churches or judicatories of those Synods, as soon as they reported themselves as constitutionally organized. But if Presbyterial organization entitled them to recognition it was a valid reason why they should not be disowned.

“2. The presence of a few Congregationalists in a church court did not destroy its character nor afford a reasonable ground for refusing to recognize it as in connection with the church. Committee men (/. e. Congregationalists) have been allowed to sit as members of the General Assembly; and so were the delegates from the several Associations in New England. If their presence rendered the Assemblies in which they sat unconstitutional bodies, then all the acts of those bodies were null and void, and we have lost our legal succession.

“It is to be remembered that the excision of the Synods in question was not an act of discipline; it was not founded on the prevalence of error in doctrine, or of “new measures.” This the Assembly expressly disclaims. In answer to the protest of the commissioners from those Synods it is said, ‘There is no judicial process instituted.’ ‘Without impeaching the character or standing of the brethren composing those Synods, this Assembly, by a legislative act, merely declares them, in consequence of the abrogation of the Plan of Union of 1801, no longer a constituent part of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church in the United States.’

“The objection to this action is, that the presence of a small minority of Congregationalists in a church court did not so vitiate its character as to justify its being disowned.

“3. There were Presbyteries within the bounds of the Synods of Albany and New Jersey composed in part of Congregational churches, and yet the General Assembly did not disown either those Synods or the delinquent Presbyteries. This was an admission that the presence of Congregational members did not destroy the character of those bodies as Presbyterian organizations.

“4. The action of the Assembly in disowning the Synods of Western New York was not necessary to secure the reform of the church. That end would have been attained by the due operation of the abrogation of the Plan of Union. The legitimate effects of that abrogation were: ist, To prevent the reception of any new churches formed upon that plan. 2d, To render it obligatory on all the Presbyteries to require the churches within their bounds to adopt an organization in accordance with our constitution, and to refuse to allow the representatives of Congregational churches to sit and act as elders. 3d, To justify, and it may be to render it obligatory on future General Assemblies to refuse to allow Presbyteries continuing their connection with Congregationalism to be represented in those bodies. This would have effectually accomplished the reform contemplated by the abrogation of the Plan of Union of 1801. After having allowed for more than thirty years this union of Congrcgationalists and Presbyterians in our church courts, all that the Assembly had the right to do was to require that such union should forthwith and thenceforth cease. This was the ground taken by Dr. Alexander and the majority of the conductors of this Reviezu in 1837, and on which the few of their number who still survive (in 1870) still stand. What, however, was regarded as very lukewarm Old-Schoolism in 1837 has now come to be looked upon as obsolete and narrow-minded. The Assembly of 1869, by a vote nearly unanimous, not only admitted (the abrogation of the Plan of Union notwithstanding) that Presbyteries do not forfeit their connection with the Presbyterian Church, although they include Congregational churches, but authorized, as far as it could do so, their being represented in the General Assembly for at least five years to come.”

It was suspected and has been since charged that the gentlemen at Princeton were not perfectly at one with regard to the various questions which emerged during the contest, and that Dr. Hodge was responsible for separating them from the more extreme Old School leaders. It is, however, certain that they were cordially agreed on all points as far as any men of independent minds could be on so wide a range of subjects. If there was any difference it was that Dr. Hodge was more urgently impelled to speak out his whole mind, while others at times counselled reticence for prudential reasons. That they were at one is certain: — from the public action of Dr. Miller in the General Assembly of 1836, where he voted to sustain the appeal of Mr. Barnes, and then to condemn the errors contained in his book; and the public action of Dr. Alexander in the Assembly of 1837, where he voted to abrogate the Plan of Union and to exscind the Synod of Western Reserve, but voted against the exscision of the three Synods of Western New York; from the uniform assertions of Dr. Hodge to the end of his life, confirmed by the assertions of Dr. James W. Alexander, one of the actors in the scenes, in his Memoirs of his Father, p. 480, and by the assertion of Rev. Dr. Samuel Miller, Jr., in his Memoirs of his Father, p. 271; from the fact that the article entitled “The Present State and Prospects of the Presbyterian Church” {Bib. Rep. Jan., 1835,) is claimed alike by the representatives of Dr. A. Alexander and Dr. Miller, and was certainly written by one of them. This article is, at least, as decidedly and offensively opposed to the extreme action of the Old School leaders as anything written by Dr. Hodge.

The only point as to which it is known that the conductors of the Repertory differed among themselves was with reference to the action of the Assembly of 1837 in exscinding the three Synods of Western New York. They habitually met in Dr. Hodge’s study to discuss every article of importance. With regard to this difference of opinion, Dr. Hodge has left a clear statement, drawn up at the time.

Note in Dr. H’s Journal. — “July 19, 1837. — The conductors of the Repertory met a second time to decide on the article on the Assembly. Drs. Miller and Breckinridge approved of the action of the Assembly respecting the three (New York)

Synods in toto. Prof. McLean and Dr. A. Alexander thought it might be justified, although not on the grounds upon which the Assembly placed it, and would have preferred Dr. Cuyler’s plan (this plan was stated above). Professors James W. Alexander, Dodd and Hodge disapproved the Assembly’s action, and would have preferred Dr. Cuyler’s plan, and they wished this idea to be expressed in the Repertory. It was decided to leave out that portion of the article (written by Dr. Hodge) containing this expression, leaving it, as it was supposed, undecided how the conductors viewed the matter. To this course all ultimately assented, except Dr. Hodge. He objected on the ground that the impression it would make, as it now stands, would be that the conductors decidedly sustained the measure in question. Dr. Alexander, Prof Dod, and ultimately Prof J. W, Alexander thought that such an inference could not be fairly drawn from the language employed. The disapproval of the action of the Assembly in relation to the third Presbytery of Philadelphia was sustained by all the conductors, except Dr. Breckinridge. Profs. J. W. Alexander, Dod and Hodge were afterwards strongly in favor of inserting a note of explanation.”

With reference to these questions Dr. Hodge wrote the following letters to his brother:

DR. HODGE TO HIS BROTHER.

Nov. 21, 1834. My Dear Brother: — As to church matters, I know not what to think, .and you would find yourself in chaos were you to attempt an analysis. The Act and Testimony is doing what was from the first apprehended — splitting the Old School portion of the church. How far this will go it is hard to say. The Philadelphia men, Dr. Green, &c., &c., are driving matters to an extremity, and if they succeed we shall be ruined for the next ten or twenty years. That is if by their ultraism a portion of tke Old School party is broken off, it will leave the remainder completely in the power of the New School men and give them the command of our Seminaries, Boards and Education and Missions, &c., &c. I still hope this consummation will be avoided. It was to guard against it, and to warn the Old School party of the evil and danger of thus splitting the church that the article on the Act and Testimony in the Repertory was written. It has had the effect of making whole classes of signers declare that they do not wish nor look for a schism in the church. But on the other hand, the obvious tendency of the measure and the avowed design of some of its authors are to that result. That article has given prodigious offence to the Philadelphia men. The Synod passed a vete which amounts to a formal declaration of want of confidence in the Seminary. They propose transferring their patronage to Pittsburgh, or to found a new institution. I do not believe this will hurt anybody but themselves. No person here regrets as yet the publication of our article. We all think it will do good on the whole. As far as I know, the Synod of Philadelphia is the only one in the whole church which is what we call ultra. It is the only one, I am persuaded, which would have entertained for a moment the proposition about a new seminary on the grounds then urged, and therefore I feel a strong hope that they will find themselves in so small a minority as to be induced to keep quiet.

Your brother,

Charles Hodge.

DR. HODGE TO HIS BROTHER.

Princeton, June 11, 1837. My Dear Brother: — I have at once to prepare a history of the doings of this momentous Assembly, in which the New School have experienced a Waterloo defeat. Their only resource is now to the law, which I suspect will give them small consolation. I think substantial justice has been done, though there may, in some cases have been some informality in the mode of doing it. I have little doubt the public sentiment of the church and of other denominations will sustain the proceedings of the Assembly as soon as they are fairly understood. The simple truth is, that the church has tolerated the Congregationalized portion of the body until its very existence was in danger, and it has aroused and shaken them off. I presume that the New School will form themselves into an American Presbyterian Church, and we shall have two denominations. I am very sorry the Assembly dissolved the third Presbytery of Philadelphia, and that in an unconstitutional manner. It looks badly, and was done by a very small vote.

Your brother, C. H.

DR. HODGE TO HIS BROTHER.

Princeton, July 26, 1837.

My Dear Brother: — Dod seems to have produced a great commotion among the gentlemen of the Old School party in Philadelphia. They sent a message up to entreat and expostulate, besides a multitude of letters filled with lamentations and prophecies of coming evil. These letters were, some of them, from very moderate men, such as Mr. &c., &c. I presume Dod stated clearly enough how the matter stood to the few persons he spoke to, but the accounts were doubtless greatly magnified as they diffused themselves abroad. I do not believe that what I wished to do would have done any harm or have given any offence. The fact is that we are all agreed as to all the principles involved in the questions before the Assembly, and agreed also as to their application, except as to one case (the case of the three Synods of Western New York). With regard to this some were satisfied, and some were not (/. e. by the action of the Assembly). The Beper/ory, speaking the language of all the conductors, could not say anything which a portion of us could not assent to. My difficulty was that I believed the article, as altered by the majority of the conductors, did, at least impliedly, express approbation of the act of the Assembly in reference to the three Synods. I had no right to say that it should not do so, but I certainly had a right to say that the majority should not make me say so. I therefore insisted on stating in a note that some of the conductors, meaning Dod, J. W. Alexander and myself, felt that we had not as yet a sufficient knowledge of the facts in the case to enable us to see the propriety of this measure. This was resisted with great earnestness by some one or two as likely to do great harm. It was, however, a point which I could not yield, and which those who agreed with me were also unwilling to give up, The note was finally thrown into a form by J. W. Alexander, to which Breckinridge assented, and to which 1 agreed, though with a good deal of reluctance. It is less explicit than I wished it, and yet may be understood to mean more than even I wanted to express, and it now speaks the language of the whole and not of a part. After saying in the text that the summary plan of exclusion was undoubtedly constitutional in its application to all those Synods which could be clearly proved to be irregularly organized, we add in a note, that as the facts in regard to the three Synods in New York are in a constant process of disclosure, the full discussion of this question is deferred to a future occasion.

I had two reasons for assenting to this. The first was that all I wished was to satisfy my conscience, and not to be made to saw

3o8 ATTITUDE OF THE” PRINCETON MEiVr [1837.

what I did not believe. This note answers this purpose by saying that though satisfied as to the principles, we must wait for more facts before we can say anything as to their application. My second reason was, that I really believe, or rather expect that facts will soon be brought forward which will show the substantial justice of the action of the Assembly. How far this evidence was before the Assembly I do not know, and therefore cannot say, how far they acted in the dark. But if substantial justice has been done, that is the main point.

I never had such a time in my life. On the one hand my own views of duty and propriety and even expediency were clear and unwavering. On the other hand the opinion of almost all my friends, and the vehement expostulations, appeals, and forebodings of a good many of them. Dr. Alexander did just what he ought to have done. He said he could not see the grounds of my scruples, and thought the thing inexpedient, but gave his cheerful assent to my saying in the note just what I pleased. You may depend upon it it is very hard for a man to act upon his own opinion, when opposed not only to the opinion of those he has been accustomed to reverence, but to the ardent expostulations and dreadful forebodings of others. I believed, to be sure, it was all nonsense; that no such terrible consequences would follow. However, I feel thankful the thing is arranged without producing a breach, and that I have still a good conscience. Dod and Maclean both think that the note, as it now stands, is a great deal worse for the Old School than what I wanted to say. You will wonder when you see it, how little a matter has kindled such a flame. The Repertory will not be made a party concern I am persuaded. Its conductors would rather see it die. Your affectionate brother, C. H.

It was inevitable, under all the conditions of the case that the excited leaders of the Old School majority in these conflicts should have been annoyed by the independent position of the “Princeton gentlemen” and those who agreed with them. This annoyance naturally led to hard thoughts and derogatory language. No one at any time doubted their doctrinal soundness, but the entire class of men, wherever resident, was called the- “Princeton Party” in order to belittle it. They were characterized as “moderates,” “trembling brethren,” “compromisers.” They were suspected of want of courage, if not of a supreme regard to their supposed temporal interests. Some New School men held them as weakly succumbing to the will of the Old School majority when, after protesting against the earlier steps in the controversy, they afterwards consented to the abrogation of the Plan of Union and the excision of the Synods. Some of the Old School charitably excused them on the ground that as secluded professors they were necessarily less perfectly informed as to the actual condition of affairs than active pastors.*

However natural these derogatory representations were at the time, they were absurdly untrue. The accuracy and wide extent of their knowledge of the state of the church, and the wisdom of their judgment has been vindicated abundantly by the events which, after thirty years, led to re-union. That they were right in voting to abrogate the Plan of Union a.nd establish denominational Boards has been established by the action of the New School Assembly itself while a separate denomination. That they were right in resisting the confusing of the lesser with the graver doctrinal errors, and in believing that the latter were not prevalent among the majority of those acting in the New School party, has been demonstrated in re-union and its consequences. That they were eminently brave and disinterested is abundantly proved by the very fact complained of, that instead of sheltering themselves in the mass of either conflicting army, they chose to expose themselves to the conspicuous and unsupported position of independent

*The Presbytery of Newton, ‘of the Synod of New Jersey, appointed a committee February, 1835, “to confer, by letter or otherwise, with the Professors of the Theo. Sem. in Princeton” with regard to their stand against the Act and Testimony. And in the autumn of 1836 “a company of gentlemen were designated by a large and respectable number of the Old School to proceed in a noiseless and unobserved manner to wait on the Professors at their homes, to reason and remonstrate with them, if possible, to concur with their brethren in the public actions of the church.” These gentlemen met in the study of Dr. Hodge. Their appeals were respectfully heard, but little effect was ever attributed to them.

3IO ATTITUDE OF THE ‘’ PRINCETON MEN.” [1837.

soldiers, following reason and conscience without regard to the pleasure or displeasure of men. That they were not inconsistent with their past convictions or pledges when they finally consented to the abrogation of the Plan of Union and the exscision of the Synod of Western Reserve has been shown plainly above.

Dr. E. H. Gillett, in his account of these events, (vol. ii., p. 496) sneeringly says: “The Princeton Review of July of that year (1836) still pleaded for union... Only a few weeks after the Review had denounced division. New Brunswick Presbytery (to which all the Professors belonged) unanimously declared themselves unable to see any prospect of good in the continued union of the discordant parts of the church.”

This inuendo is borrowed from “A Plea for Voluntary Societies, and a Defense of the Decisions of the General Assembly of 1836 against the Strictures of the Princeton Reviewers, New York, 1837,” in which the conductors of the Repertory are charged with insincerity because their Presbytery so ,soon made a deliverance inconsistent with the spirit and professed aim of their article, and made it by a vote reported to be unanimous. This might have been a natural suspiciorf in the excitements of 1837, but it is an inexcusable insinuation as coming from Dr. E. H. Gillett, the professed historian of the Presbyterian Church in 1864. The explanation was in his hand in an article in the Repertory for January, 1837, reviewing “The Plea for Voluntary Societies,” aforesaid: “Of the eight ministers resident in Princeton only one of them was present at that meeting of their Presbytery, or knew anything of the resolutions until after they were passed... But we have still further to remark, that the only one of their number (‘Association of Gentlemen in Princeton’) who was present when these resolutions were adopted exerted all his influence to have them reduced to the standard which he and his friends had already adopted.”

I834-] HIS RELATION TO THE’’ ACT AND TESTIMONY.” 31 I

Out of* the attitude assumed by the conductors of the Repertory towards the Act and Testimony there sprang a personal misunderstanding. In the month of May, 1834, in the height of his physical affliction, Dr. Hodge stayed for a few days with his friend, Professor Dod, at the house of his brother, in Philadelphia. While there Dr. R. J. Breckinridge, the author of the Act and Testimony, with whom he was on terms of intimate friendship, called to see him, and consulted him on the subject of the character of the document he was preparing. From this” it came to be currently rumored that Dr. Hodge was one of the authors of the Act and Testimony, and hence much painful surprise was felt by many when his articles appeared in the Repertory in October, 1834, and Januaiy, 1835, vigorously criticising that document, and opposing the use to which it was applied by its friends. In his “Plain Statement” in the Presbyterian, April 16, 1835, Dr. R. J. Breckinridge affirms “That Dr. Hodge dictated, with the aid of the manuscript put into his hands by me, and drawn in part from Dr. Miller’s letters, then recently published, the very words and letters now found under the head of ‘Errors ’ in the Act and Testimony... And so far from his making any general objections, such as he has since reiterated, I left him, confidently hoping that he would favor, if not actually sign, the Act and Testimony.” It was a question of “impression” and “hopes,” which must always depend largely upon subjective conditions of opinion and feeling and temperament. Under all the circumstances, it is not wonderful that Dr. Breckinridge should have misunderstood Dr. Hodge. But that he did entirely misunderstand him, and hence that this “Plain Statement” misrepresents him, is absolutely certain. Dr. Hodge, in his address to the “Christian Public,” in the Presbyterian, April 30, 1835, says:” The facts of the case, to the best of my recollection and belief, are briefly these: During my short stay in Philadelphia, in May last, I received a note from a friend that he would call upon me in

3 I 2 HIS RELATION TO THE” ACT AND TESTIMONY:’ [1834.

company with Dr. R. J. Breckinridge on important business, but without any more special reference to the object of his visit. At the hour appointed they came. The first annunciation of their special object was in nearly these words; ‘Brother Hodge, we want you to draw up a statement of the doctrinal errors prevailing in the Presbyterian Church.’ I answered that this was work for a month; that I was incompetent to the task, it being out of my line, and that I was to leave town the next morning for the sea-shore, I was, of course, at this time entirely ignorant of the purpose for which the statement was wanted. In order to make known this purpose, and that I might understand precisely what was desired of me, Mr. Breckinridge stated that there had been a meeting on the preceding evening of the minority of. the General Assembly, and of some other gentlemen, at which he was appointed the chairman of a committee to draft an address to the churches. This address he then read, and said he wished to introduce into it a statement of the prevailing errors, and that it was in preparation of this statement he desired my assistance. This led to a conversation especially as to the class of errors which it would be proper to notice. In this conversation Professor Maclean, Mr. Breckinridge, his friend and myself, all took part. It was agreed that the statement ought to be confined to errors of the more important kind. After this Mr. Breckinridge took his pen and with the aid of his notes previously made, wrote down the several specifications in the form which, after mutual consultation, was thought to be the best. In this point there was generally a coincidence of views: as to one of the articles, however, that respecting imputation, Mr. Breckinridge differed from his friends, and wrote it down as it now stands, in opposition to their judgment. This was the whole of my agency in the business. It was not only unsolicited on my part, but was entirely unexpected; it was performed as an office of friendship, and it was neither different nor greater than I 1834.] HIS RELATION TO THE“‘ACT AND TESTIMONY.” 313

both could and would, under similar circumstances, perform at the present moment, and with my present views and feelings respecting the Act and Testimony.

“To the best of my recollection, there was but one other prominent topic of remark, and that was the article respecting Elective Affinity bodies. To this I strongly objected on the grounds afterwards urged in the Biblical Repertory!’

Professor, now ex-President Maclean, wrote to the Presbyterian, April 17, 1835. “In the Presbyterian of last week allusion is made by the Rev. R. J. Breckinridge that I was present at the interview which took place between him and Rev. Professor Hodge, on the subject of the Act and Testimony. I feel constrained to let the readers of the Presbyterian know that my impression with regard to the views then entertained and expressed by Professor Hodge, differs entirely from Dr. Breckinridge’s. Both Professor Hodge and myself expressed our apprehension that the measures suggested were to say the least of doubtful tendency, and that they might be productive of serious difficulties. ... I recollect that after Mr. Breckinridge had expressed his determination to have the document under discussion sent forth, by the minority of the last Assembly and their friends, as an official paper declarative of their views and course of action. Professor Hodge observed that if it were a settled point that the Act and Testimony was to be issued, it was important that the statement should be limited to serious and important errors, and that particular care should be used in specifying these errors, so that the same errors should not be presented in different forms, and that those clearly related should be classed with each other.

“Mr. Breckinridge then avowed that his object in reading the paper to Professor Hodge was to get his aid in doing this very thing. Prof Hodge consented to aid him, not, as I understood the matter, that he would, upon these alterations being made, be willing to give his countenance to the measures proposed, but merely because he wished

3 1 4 THE NE W SCHO OL SE CESS/0 JV. [ 1 838.

the Act and Testimony to be as free as possible from objection, and because he felt a disposition to aid a friend, as far as he could do it conscientiously. Yours,

John Maclean.”

Also on the same day Professor Albert B. Dod wrote to the Presbyterian.

“During the time that Dr. Hodge was in Philadelphia last spring, I lodged at the same house with him. In the evening of the same day on which the Rev. R. J. Breckinridge called upon Dr. Hodge to consult him in relation to the Act and Testimony, I had much conversation with him on the subject of this interview, and of the character and probable effects of the instrument. The opinions and views which he then expressed were substantially the same with those that have since been published in the Biblical Repertory. I cannot be mistaken in my recollection of the nature of his remarks, as they had a decided influence in forming my own views of the Act and Testimony, and in leading me to decline, before leaving Philadelphia, to affix my signature to it.”

In consequence of the “Exscinding Acts” passed by the General Assembly of 1837, the stated clerk, in making up the roll of the members of the Assembly of 1838, omitted the names of all the delegates from the Presbyteries comprised in the exscinded synods. Motions to recognize them were declared by the Moderator, Rev. Dr. David Elliott, to be out of order until after the Assembly was duly constituted by the making out of the roll. Mr. John P. Cleveland, of the Presbytery of Detroit, then read a paper, of the nature of a protest and declaration of the necessity of revolutionary methods. In spite of being called to order by the constitutionally presiding officer, he nominated Dr. Beman to the chair. Dr. Beman took his station in the aisle of the church, and put the motion whereby Drs. E. Mason, and E. W. Gilbert were proposed for clerks, and

1838.] niE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT. 315

Dr. S. Fisher for Moderator. These gentlemen, with their sympathizers, then withdrew to the First Presbyterian Church, where they formed the New School Assembly.

The trustees of the General Assembly had been incorporated under a charter from the Legislature of Pennsylvania, approved March 28, 1799. The funds entrusted to their care had been raised in by far the largest part by the adherents of the Old School party, and fully four-fifths belonged to Princeton Theological Seminary. The New School Assembly, on the assumption that they carried the legal succession, necessarily chose new trustees in the place of those of the existing body adhering to the other party. Just as necessarily the existing members of the Board of Trustees, holding that the other Assembly carried the true succession, refused to recognize the new appointments of the new Assembly. Hence the New School applicants brought suit for the establishment of their rights as trustees, and hence for the legal settlement of the question of succession from the historical line of General Assemblies, before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

The trial was brought in the first instance before Judge Rogers at Nisi Prius and a special jury, March 4, 1839. Under the ruling of the judge the jury brought in a verdict in favor of the New School trustees and Assembly. The Old School trustees appealed to the Supreme Court in Banc for a new trial, when the case was heard and decided by all the supreme judges together. On May 8th, 1839, Chief Justice Gibson, read a judgment in which all the judges except Judge Rogers concurred, which reversed the finding of the lower court. They affirm that “the apparent injustice of the (exscinding) measures arises from the contemplation of it as a judicial sentence pronounced against parties who were never cited nor heard; which it evidently was not. Even as a legislative act, it may have been a hard one, though certainly constitutional and strictly just.” “We hold that the Assembly which met in the First Presbyterian Church was not the legitimate successor of the Assembly of 1837; and that the defendants (Old School trustees,) are not guilty of the usurpation with which they are charged.”

This bare statement of facts is sufficient to explain the following letters:

DR. HODGE TO HIS BROTHER.

Princeton, N. J., March 27, 1839. My Dear Brother: — As you may well suppose, the decision of the protracted law-suit against us has taken us altogether by surprise. No one here considered such a result as more than possible. We thought it probable the jury would not agree, and should not have been astonished at an unfavorable verdict. But that the Judge should be against us, and that with bitterness, never appeared as even possible. All our friends, legal and clerical, had perfect confidence in our ultimate success up to the moment when the Judge pronounced his opinion. Our opinion of the justice of our cause, of course, remains unchanged. Whatever errors may have been committed in

1837, the assumption that the New School Assembly, organized in

1838, was regularly organized appears perfectly preposterous, and therefore the Judge’s decision is a mystery. I have long taken pains to find out what disinterested and intelligent persons thought on this subject, and I have never seen or heard of one who expressed a doubt upon it.

I regard the decision as a very great calamity, and as a very severe judgment of God, and bow to it accordingly. I firmly believe the New School party, as a party, to be the promoters of error and disorder; that the interests of religion are deeply involved and greatly endangered by the weight of power and influence which this decision will give them. God will doubtless bring good out of evil, as he will make the success of the Unitarians in New England, and the Hicksites in the Middle States, ultimately a blessing. His bringing good out of evil is his great prerogative, but the evil still remains evil.

I have very great fears as to the result to the Old School party. If they had cohesion enough to hang together, and act together with vigor, they might soon recover from this blow. But there are so many geographical and sectional causes of disunion that I am very much afraid that if once deprived of the bond of a common and ven- crated name, and of common property, we shall be split into insignificant fragments. We are, in the eye of the law, a secession from our

1S39.] CORRESPONDENCE ON THE SUBJECT. 317

own church; the New England men have succeeded in getting that church to themselves.

A re-union appears out of the question; and I can hardly conceive of any arrangement by which the Seminary can be preserved should the decision of Judge Rogers be confirmed by the Judges in banc. I trust our leaders in Philadelphia will be preserved from rashness and imprudence and all evil speaking. A dark cloud is hanging over us, and our ways seem to be hedged up. It is very painful to think of Princeton Seminary going to ruin; for it must go to ruin in the hands of New School men. They have a Seminary in New York, and cannot possibly supply both with students. Still, the Lord reigns, and He will do all things well.

Your brother, C. Hodge.

DR. HODGE TO DR. HENRY A. BOARDMAN.

Princeton, Feb. 28, 1839. My Dear Sir. — “W^q important crisis in our church’s history is just at hand. Its importance constantly rises in my view. The funds and institutions, though matters not to be slighted, are but a portion of the great interests at stake, and to have these interests committed to twelve men, taken up at random, is a very serious matter. It seems to be one of God’s purposes in this dispensation to make us feel that we are completely in His hands. The decision of a jury in such matters is very little different from the casting of the lot; and I should feel nearly as I feel now if the great question at issue were to be decided on Monday by the throwing of dice. I hope this will make us all feel disposed to wait upon God, and earnestly to plead with Him to plead our cause and sustain the right. And should the cause be decided in our favor I trust there will not be one word of exultation uttered from any quarter.

DR. HODGE TO DR. HENRY A. BOARDMAN.

Princeton, March 28, 1839. My Dear Sir: * * * * I hope soon to get through with my revision of the Commentary on the Romans to prepare it for translation into French, and will then go at my History. Perhaps it is now more important than ever that the work should be done, if, as I hope may be the case, it will tend to increase the respect and affection of Presbyterians for the church of their fathers. We shall need now every bond to keep us together; we must increase in mutual love and zeal for the truth, and for the order of our church, and for its real usefulness. The danger is that if we lose our old name and standing and common property we shall break into little fragments and cease to have much power to do good.

I hope God may guide by his wisdom the brethren who are now to decide on our course. The interests at stake are far too momentous to be abandoned while there is any prospect of saving them. Taylorism never received such a mighty impulse as when Judge Rogers pronounced the New School Assembly the true General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, and if that judgment is confirmed I shall think God has sore judgments in store for our land. This unexpected blow, after all our confident hopes, I trust will make us humble and lead us to submit to God without murmuring at Him or complaining of one another or of the opposite party.

If the Old School could hang together now and do their duty we should, with God’s blessing, soon recover from this severe stroke.

Let me hear soon what has been determined upon; and if the cause goes to the Judges in banc, when it is likely to be heard.

Yours affectionately, C. Hodge.

DR. HODGE TO DR. HENRY A. BOARDMAN.

Princeton, April 13, 1839.

My Dear Sir: — I want to say a few things to you about the present position and prospects of our church, in which, I presume, you and I will not differ much.

There can be no doubt that the present is one of the most trying periods in our whole history. It will try not only the principles but the graces of the church. And our future prospects depend, under God, very much upon the manner in which we shall now act. The great object is to produce unanimity; to prevent any such diversity in counsels or measures as shall cause a division in our own ranks. You do not appear to fear this as much as I do. 1 have heard, however, so many and such discordant expressions of confident opinions and purposes that I shall regard it as a special indication of God’s power if the Old School party are led to act harmoniously and to keep their ranks unbroken. This can be effected in no other way than by humility and mutual concessions. No one man, and no few men, ought to attempt to decide what course the church should pursue in this emergency. We should remember that we are brethren, and that no one has a right to dictate to others, but that subjection to our brethren in the Lord is part of our ordination vows. As this is the case, I think we ought to keep ourselves uncommitted and unpledged until the meeting of the Assembly. It is impossible to know till then what the church generally will think right, and the way ought to be left

1839.] CORRESrONDEXCE ON THE SUBJECT. 319

open for it to take that course which the great body of the brethren shall deem to be right. It is on this account that I regret to see our papers, the Presbyterian and Watchman, pronounce so confidently what the party will or will not do; and the latter even denouncing beforehand any who should advocate union with the opposite party even for an hour. 1 doubt not there will be found a large portion of sound Old School men who, on the supposition of an ultimate decision against us, will be in favor of a temporary union of the two parties with a view to such a separation as shall prevent litigation and secure our property and legal standing. We have heard here that Messrs. Alexander Henry, Bevan, Newkirk, Chauncey, Kane, Bayard, are all in favor of this course.” Mr. Musgrave is in favor of it; and I was told that a clergyman who was among his friends in Western Pennsylvania, when the news of the decision arrived, said that was the general feeling there. It will be found, also, I suspect, the general feeling in New York. Now, what a spectacle shall we exhibit if we go to denouncing each other; if difference of opinion as to the best means of attaining the same end be made a breaking point among us.

My own opinion is that this plan will be found impracticable. It obviously cannot be done at all unless there is a general unanimity in favor of it. Of this I have very little expectation; and therefore think that those who would prefer it ought by all means to give way to their brethren. Even if a considerable minority were opposed, it could not be urged. Still, I think it unfortunate that it should be decided and given out beforehand, that we can and will in no case and for no purpose go back. This is the very position that the New School papers are driving us by taunts and insults to take. We are playing into their hands, therefore, by joining in this cry that the Old School cannot go back. They do not want us back; they ought to feel that they are not quite secure from such visitation.

A second plan is to stand aloof and claim to be the true church. This is beset with difficulties. We shall be seceders in the eye of the law, in Pennsylvania at least, and all titles to church property will be unsettled. In the second place, it will give rise, in all probability, to protracted litigation in all parts of the country, to the great scandal of the church and injury to religion; and it will be voluntarily throwing in the hands of the friends of error and disorder immense advantages.

A third plan is a legal compromise. This seems to me so obviously necessary and desirable for both parties that I do not believe the mass of the New School could be brought by their leaders to oppose it. There may be legal difficulties in the way which I cannot appreciate. It has occurred to me, however, that it might be effected by some such plan as this: According to our present charter, the General Assembly has two rights in relation to the Board of Trustees — first, to appoint its members; and second, to control the application of the funds. Why may not the charter be so altered as to confer these rights on the two Assemblies? Let each have nine trustees in the Board, and each be authorized to direct the application of the funds, which, according to mutual agreement, shall be recognized as belonging to each. Such a contract could not be broken when once made, and our funds would be entirely under our own control. Neither party would then be in the position of seceders, and all litigation would be prevented throughout the country. The more I have thought of this plan the more does it appear to be practicable and desirable. I wish you would consult Mr. Chauncey and others on the subject. I have mentioned it to several brethren, who seem to think it would be wise. Among others, I talked with Dr. Nott about it, who was here yesterday, and who went from here to Philadelphia. The Doctor, I suspect, feels that the Philadelphia brethren have not as much confidence in him as he feels he deserves. But I am convinced that his aims are right, and that he could be of immense service to the church in adjusting our present difficulties to the satisfaction of all parties, if they would but confide in him.

We, of course, are looking forward with great anxiety to the result

of the argument next week.

Yours truly, C. Hodge.