THE REUNION
OF THE
OLD AND NEW-SCHIOOL
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHES,
BY REV. CHARLES HODGE, D.D.
Reprinted from the Princeton Repertory for July.
WITH A PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR NOTICING SO'ME OBJECTIONS.
NEW  YORK:
CHARLES SCRIBNER & CO.,
654 BROADWAY.
1867.








PREFACE.
THE object of the following article is three-fold:
First-To show that the true principle of subscription to the
Westminster Confession of Faith, requires that those who profess to adopt "the system of doctrine " therein contained, should
sincerely receive, in their integrity, all the doctrines essential to
the Reformed (or Calvinistic) system, as set forth in that Confession.
Second-cThat this is the principle adopted and insisted upon
by our Church from the beginning; and to which the Old-school
body stand solemnly pledged before the Christian world.
Thirdly-That however numerous may be the orthodox members of the New-school Presbyterian Church, that Church, as an
ecclesiastic organization, never has, and does not now adopt and
act upon that principle; and, therefore, that union between the
two Churches, under these circumstances, would be not only inexpedient, but morally wrong.
The objections to the article, so far as they have come under
the notice of the writer, do not relate to either of the first two of
the above propositions. It seems to be universally admitted, at
least among ourselves, that the principle of subscription above
stated is the correct one; and that we as a Church are bound to
adhere to it. All the objections, so far as known to the writer,
refer directly or indirectly to the third position above mentioned.
1st. It has been objected that the writer in the Princeton Review
charges thousands of his brethren with either a willingness to
commit perjury, or a readiness to sanction its commission by
others. This objection is founded upon the assumption that he
represents the advocates of a reunion of the Old and New-school
branches of our Church as willing to admit an insincere adoption
of the Confession of Faith.  The Reviewer does say, that in his
judgment the proposed plan of union practically sanctions a lax
principle of subscription, but he expressly5Vadmnits' that its advoca~'ddo n6ot so uinderstand it. His language is, that there is no
difference among Old-school men as to principles, but simply "as
to a matter of fact. Those who have assented to this plan of
union admit that the Old-school principle of subscription is right,
and ought to be adopted in the United Church, but they say the
New-school have adopted it, and therefore, and on that understanding, they are in favor of the union " (p. 36). The Reviewer,
therefore, attributes no laxness of principle to his brethren.
A second objection is, that the Reviewer makes a sweeping




4
charge of heresy against the New-school body. The Eyvangelist
says that " it is one of the main objects of the Review to show that
the New-school holds views utterly at variance with the Presbyterian Confession of Faith."  This is an entire mistake. The
writer says, " We are not laboring to prove the prevalence of
heresy in the New-school Church. We know many of its ministers whom it would be an honor to any Church to count among
its members.  We are willing to receive as true all that can be
even plausibly said as to the general orthodoxy of our Newschool brethren.  Let this be admitted.  It does not touch the
question.  That question relates to a rule of Church action, viz.,
the principle which is to govern the United Church in receiving and ordaining ministers of the gospel " (p. 36).
A third objection is, that in saying that the New-school as a
Church adopt the lax rule of interpreting the form of adopting
the Confession of Faith, we charge the members of that Church
with a grave moral offence. This does not follow. No such
charge was intended. It is one thing to disapprove of a principle of action for ourselves, and another to denounce as wicked
those who adopt it. It is notorious that in the Episcopal Church
in England, and in this country, men of the most discordant sentiments unite in subscribing the Thirty-nine Articles. Yet, who
would charge all the members of that Church with conniving at
perjury? Everything depends on the animus irnponentis. In thle
Church of England subscription came to be regarded (especially
in the case of under-graduates of the Universities), by those who
required the subscription and those who gave it, as implying
nothing more than, on the one hand, the  renunciation of
Popery, and on the other, a profession of allegiance to the Established Church.  If this was the understanding, then the subscription to those Articles meant nothing more. If President
Dickinson had succeeded in having engrafted into our Constitution the words that " every minister should adopt the Westminster Confession sofar as it contains the esential doctrines of Christianity," then it is plain that men who reject the distinctive doctrines of the Reformed Church could with a good conscience
adopt it. This qualification may come to be as generally implied
and taken for granted, as if asserted in express terms. If the
New-school see fit to adopt this rule, no man would be authorized to charge them with insincerity, much less with sanctioning
perjury. But every man would have the right to say that in his
judgment the principle is wrong; that it must work great evil to
the Church; and above all, that it is utterly inconsistent with
the principles, the pledges, and the obligations of the Old-school
body. There are no aspersions or injurious imputations in the
article in question. So far as the intention*of the writer and
the fair interpretation of his language is concerned, it does not




5
soil with a breath the character of any individual in the Newschool Church, nor that Church itself.
A fourth objection is, that the assertion that the New-school,
as an ecclesiastical organization, act upon the lax principle of
adopting the Confession of Faith, is supported " by no evidence
and no testimony."  "It rests on the mere dictum of the Reviewer." This is a most extraordinary assertion. The review
consists of nineteen pages, of which six are devoted to proving
that single point. Whether the evidence adduced be sufficient,
may be open to question; but that no proof is attempted, no
one who reads the review can affirm. The proof consists in the
following facts: 1. That in our original Synod, in 1729, the lax
principle was advocated and apparently adopted. 2. That the
chosen historiographer of the New-school Church gives it his
sanction. 3. That at the time of the disruption, in 1837 and
1838, the action of the Synod in 1729 was constantly appealed
to, as justifying a looser adoption of the Confession of Faith
than the Old-school admitted.  4. That the New-school, as a
party, before the division, always resisted the condemnation of
doctrines which, in the judgment of all Old-school men, are
inconsistent with Calvinism. 5. That since the separate organization of the New-school Church, it has never exercised discipline on those avowing such doctrines.  6. That men openly
professing those errors are freely ordained or received into the
ministry of that Church.  7. That according to the statement of
Hovey Clarke, Esq., openly made on the floor of our Assembly,
the New-school members of the Joint Committee strenuously
resisted every effort to make the doctrinal basis so definite as
to exclude the lax adoption of the Confession of Faith. 8. That
a New-school body resolved that those holding the doctrines of
Drs. Taylor and Parker must, in one united Church, be regarded
as of unquestioned orthodoxy.
But the fifth and principal objection, and that on which all
others depend, is, that it is not true, as the Reviewer asserts,
that the New-school, as a Church, receive into its ministry those
who deny any of the essential doctrines of Calvinism.  The
papers publish a letter from Dr. Hatfield, in which he asserts
that their Presbyteries uniformly demand of candidates for ordination the adoption of the Calvinistic system.  The Evanyelst
makes the same assertion. The only way in which these statements can be reconciled with notorious facts is, that their authors
have a very different idea of Calvinism from that which Oldschool men entertain.  This is not a subject on which any
trifling with words can be permitted. The simple truth is, that
Taylorism, or the New Divinity, is, in the judgment of Oldschool men, utterly inconsistent with Calvinism.  The adoption
of the one is the rejection of the other. The New-school Church




does admit into its ministry men who hold the distinctive features of Dr. Taylor's system.  Therefore itreceives men who,
in the judgment of Old-school men, reject the Calvinistic system. This is the argument. How is it met? By ridiculing the
account which the Reviewer gives of Taylorism. That account
the Evangelist pronounces loose, exaggerated, and crude. He
calls it a farrago. Very well. Let that be admitted. It is not
Taylorism, however, as characterized by the Reviewer, but
Taylorism as stated by Dr. Taylor himself, that the whole Oldschool body, and such men as Dr. Nettleton, and a host of the
holiest and best men in New England and out of it, pronounce
inconsistent with Calvinism, and hostile to evangelical religion.
We know that Dr. Taylor called himself a Calvinist. We are
fully aware that his followers claim the same designation. But
Old-school men none the less deny that Dr. Taylor's system is
consistent with Calvinism, in the sense of the word in which it
has ever been used by all theologians in Europe and America.
It is no matter what men may call themselves. The simple
fact is, that the New-school Church receive into the ministry
men who iold doctrines which Old-school men conscientiously
believe are inconsistent with that system which they are bound,
before God and man, to uphold and teach. While this is the
case the gulf between them is, or ought to be, impassable. All
forms of error are transient and perishable. The New-school
is doubtless nearer to us in doctrine than it was thirty years ago,
and all good men will hope and pray that the two Churches may
soon come to such an agreement in doctrines and order, that
their union will not only be possible, but eminently conducive
to the promotion of truth and righteousness.
However desirable may be this consummation, and however
cheering the indications of its approach, all premature attempts
at reunion must be injurious. At the time of the separation in
1837, the questions which divided the Church were-" Are certain forms of doctrines consistent with our standards and entitled to toleration in our Church? " and, "Are Congregationalists
to be allowed to sit in our judicatories?"  In these questions
the New-school took the affirmative, and the Old-school the
negative. The proposed plan of union takes sides with the NewSchool. It says these doctrines are to be tolerated, and Congregationalists are to be allowed to sit in our Sessions and Presbyteries. So, it is believed, the New-school, as a body, and multitudes of the Old-school, understand the plan.  As the Oldschool were conscientious in 1837, so they are conscientious
now; and, therefore, to insist on these terms of reunion, must
precipitate the Church into that sea of conflict out of which it
was delivered, at such great cost, thirty years ago.




REUNION
OF THE
OLD AND NEW-SCHOOL Cf1URCHES.
Froomn the Princeton Repertory, July, 1867.
REV. DR. GURLEY (Moderator), from the Committee of Conference, with a similar committee from the other branch of the
Presbyterian Church on the subject of a reunion of the two
branches, presented the following report, embodying the terms
of reunion agreed upon by the two committees:
The Joint Committee of the two General Assemblies of the
Presbyterian Church, appointed for the purpose of conferring
on the desirableness and practicability of uniting these two
bodies, deeply impressed with the responsibility of the work
assigned them, and having earnestly sought Divine guidance, and
patiently devoted themselves to the investigation of the questions involved, agree in presenting the following for the consideration, and, if they see fit, for the adoption of the two
General Assemblies:
Believing that the interests of the.Redeemer's kingdom
would be promoted by healing our divisions; that practical
union would greatly augment the efficiency of the whole
Church for the accomplishment of its divinely appointed work;
that the main causes producing division have either wholly
passed away, or become, in a great degree, inoperative; and




that two bodies bearing the same name, adopting the same
Constitution, and claiming the same corporate rights, cannot
be justified by any but the most imperative reasons in maintaining separate, and, in some respects, rival organizations;
and regarding it as both just and proper that a reunion should
be effected by the two churches as independent bodies, and on
equal terms, we propose the following terms and recommendatioins ais suited to meet the demands of the case:
1. The reunion shall be effected on the doctrinal and ecclesiastical basis of our common standards; the Confession of
Faith shall continue to be sincerely received and adopted " as
containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures," and its fair, historical sense, as it is accepted by the
two bodies, in opposition to Antinomianism and Fatalism on
the one hand, and to Arminianismn and Pelagianism on the
other, shall be regarded as the sense in which it is received and
adopted; and the Government and Discipline of the Presbyterian Church in the United States shall continue to be approved as containing the principles and rules of our polity.
2. All the ministers and churches embraced in the two bodies
shall be admitted to the same standing in the united body
which they mrnayhold in their respective connections up to the
consummation of the union; and all the churches connected
with the united body not thoroughly Presbyterian in their
organization, shall be advised to perfect their organization as
soon as is permitted by the highest interests to be consulted;
no other such churches shall be received; and such persons
alone shall be chosen commissioners to the General Assembly
as are eligible according to the Constitution of the Church.
3. The boundaries of the several Presbyteries and Synods
shall be adjusted by the General Assembly of the united
Church.
4. The official records of the two branches of the Church for the
period of separation shall be preserved, and held as making up
the one history of the Church, and no rule or precedent, which
does not stand approved by both the bodies, shall be of any
authority until reestablished in the united body.
5. The corporate rights now held by the two General Assemblies, and by their Boards and Committees, shall, as far as




9
practicable, be consolidated, and applied for their several
objects, as defined by law.
6. There shall be one set of Committees or Boards for Home
and Foreign Missions, and the other religious enterprises of the
Church, which the churches shall be encouraged to sustain,
though left free to cast their contributions into other channels,
if they desire to do so.
7. As soon as practicable after the union shall be effected,
the General Assembly shall reconstruct and consolidate the
several Permanent Committees and Boards which now belong
to the two Assemblies, in such a manner as to represent, as far
as possible, with impartiality the views and wishes of the two
bodies constituting the united Church.
8. When it shall be ascertained that the requisite number of
Presbyteries of the two bodies have approved the terms of union
as hereinafter provided for, the two General Assemblies shall
each appoint a committee of seven, none of them having an
official relation to either the Committee or Board of Publication, who shall constitute a Joint Committee, whose duty it
shall be to revise the catalogues of the existing publications of
the two Churches, and to make out a list from them of such
books and tracts as shall be issued by the united Church, and
any catalogue thus made out, in order to its adoption, shall be
approved by at least five members of each committee.
9. If at any time after the union has been effected, any of
the Theological Seminaries under the care and control of the
General Assembly, shall desire to put themselves under Synodical control, they shall be permitted to do so at the request of
their Boards of Direction; and those seminaries which are
independent in their organization, shall have the privilege of
putting themselves under ecclesiastical control, to the end that,
if practicable, a system of ecclesiastical supervision of such
institutions may ultimately prevail through the entire united
Church.
10. It shall be regarded as the duty of all our judicatories,
ministers, and people in the united Church, to study the things
which make for peace, and to guard against all needless and
offensive reference to the causes that have divided us; and in
order to avoid the revival of past issues, by the continuance of




10
any usage in either branch of the Church that has grown out
of our former conflicts, it is earnestly recommended to the
lower judicatories of the Church that they conform their practice in relation to all such usages, as far as consistent with their
convictions of duty, to the general custom of the Church prior
to the controversies that resulted in the separation.
11. The terms of reunion shall be of binding force, if they
shall be ratified by three-fourths of the Presbyteries connected
with each branch of the Church, within one year after they
shall have been submitted to them for approval.
12. The terms of the reunion shall be published by direction
of the General Assemblies of 1867, for the deliberate examination of the churches, and the Joint Committee shall report
to the General Assemblies of 1868, any modification of them
they may deem desirable, in view of any new light that may
have been received during the year.
13. It is recommended that the Hon. Daniel Haines and
IHon. Henry IW. Green, of New Jersey, Hon. George Sharswood and Hon. William  Strong, of Philadelphia, and Daniel
Lord, Esq., and Theodore Dwight, Esq., of New York, be
appointed by the General Assemblies a committee to investigate
all questions of property and of vested rights, as they may
stand related to the matter of reunion, and this committee shall:report to the Joint Committee as early as the 1st of January,
1868.
14. It is evident that in order to adapt our ecclesiastical
system to the necessities and circumstances of the united
-Church, as a greatly enlarged and widely extended body, some
changes in the Constitution will be required.
The Joint Committee, therefore, request the two General
Assemblies to instruct them in regard to the preparation of an
additional article to be reported to the Assemblies of 1868.
All which is respectfully submitted on behalf of the Joint
Committee of the two General Assemblies.
C. C. BEATTY, Chairman,
E. F. HATFIELD, Secretary.
Dr. Breed presented the report of the majority of the Commi'tee, which is as follows:




11
The majority of the Committee to whom was referred the
Report of the Committee on Reunion with the other branch of
the Church, would respectfully recommend to the General
Assembly the following resolutions:
1. Resolved, That this Assembly has listened with grateful
and profound satisfaction to the report of the Committee on
Church Reunion, and recognizes in the unanimity of the Joint
Committee, the finger of God as pointing toward an early and
cordial reunion of the two sister Churches now so long separated.
2. Resolved, That said Committee be continued and directed
to cooperate with any similar Committee of the other branch
in furtherance of this object, and to report thereon to the next
General Assembly.
3. Resolved, That the Committee be empowered to fill all
vacancies that may occur in their body during the coming year,
whether by resignation, protracted sickness, or by death.
4. Resolved, That the necessary expenses incurred by this
Committee in the discharge of the duties assigned them, be
paid from the profits on the sale of books by the Board of Publication.
5. Resolved, That the Report of the Committee be published
in the Appendix to the Minutes, and in our religious newspapers, and commended to the careful consideration of our
whole Church, and that the Committee be directed to report to
the next General Assembly any modification of the terms of
reunion specified therein, which may appear desirable to the
Joint Committee, in view of any further light that may have
been received during the year.
6. Resolved, That the Hon. Daniel Haines, and the Hon.
HIenry WV. Green, LL.D., of New Jersey, Daniel Lord, LL.D.,
and Theodore Dwight, LL.D., of New York, and the Hon.
William  Strong and the Hon. George Sharswood, LL.D., of
Pennsylvania, be appointed a Committee to investigate all
questions of property and of vested rights as they may stand
related to the matter of reunion; and that this Committee be
requested to report to the Joint Committee as early as January
1, 1868; and that our share of the necessary expenses incurred
by this Committee be also paid by our Board of Publication
from the profits on its book-sales.




12
-Resolved, That the Joint Committee be requested to consider,
and report to the next General Assembly, any specific amendments to our church constitution, which may be required in
the government of a body so large as that of the reunited
church.                               W. P. BREED,
GEORGE MARSHALL,
C. D. MICKEE,
A. T. RANKIN.
The resolution referring to a change in the constitution was
stricken out.
Dr. Smith then read a minority report, which recommended
that the following instructions be given to the Committee of
Fifteen:
1. That they endeavor, if practicable, to secure a more
clear and definite statement of the doctrinal basis. It is well
known that the two parties differed in their interpretation of
our doctrinal standards upon points which both considered
vita], while both professed to receive them as containing " the
system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures." There is
nothing in the basis as proposed in the first article to show in
what sense, or in the sense of which party, or in what higher
sense, which is supposed to harmonize both, our standards are
to be interpreted. What is their true historical sense, is the
very question to be settled,  Both parties disclaim  all the
extremes from which they are formally distinguished: if
accepted by the two bodies in the same sense, then either can
define that sense for the other, and there can be no possible
difficulty in the way of agreement upon a clear and definite
statement as to the main points at issue, particularly the great
decisive doctrines of imputation, and the atonement as to its
nature and extent.
2. As on the basis proposed, committee-men, i. e., unordained
men, are allowed to sit in all Church courts except the General
Assembly, the Committee are further instructed to secure, if
possible, such an amendment or modification of the second
article as will insure the speedy and thorough presbyterial
organization of all the churches, and the admission of none
but ordained ministers or elders to a seat in any Church court.




13
3. The Committee are still further instructed to obtain, if
possible, a distinct and formal recognition of the right and
obligation of every Presbytery to be satisfied as to the soundness of every minister it receives. With these instructions the
minority concur in the recommendation that the Committee of
Fifteen be continued as provided for in  the report of the
majority.                              JOSEPH T. SMITH.
E. ANSON MORE.
The report of Dr. Smith was finally laid on the table by a
vote of ayes, 152; nays, 64. On motion of Dr. J. I. Brownson, an additional resolution was unanimously adopted, in the
following words:
Resolved, That in submitting the Report of the Committee
on Reunion to the consideration of the Churches and Presbyteries, the Assembly is not called upon at this time to
express either approbation or disapprobation of the terms of
reunion presented by the Committee in its details, but only to
afford the Church a full opportunity to examine the subject in
the light of all its advantages and difficulties, so that the Committee may have the benefit of any suggestions which may be
offered, before making a final report for the action of the next
Assembly.
The vote in favor of laying Dr. Smith's resolution on the
table is not to be taken as indicating the opinion of the Assembly as to the programme of the Committee. Many voted for
that motion, not because they disapproved of Dr. Smith's
report, but because they thought this Assembly was not called
upon to do anything more than to send out the report of the
Joint Committee for the consideration of the churches.  The
unanimous adoption of Dr. Brownson's resolution shows that
the Old-school General Assembly was not prepared for the
surrender at discretion which the report of the Joint Committee
calls upon it to make. General Lee, at Appomatox Courthouse, might as reasonably have called on General Grant to
lay down his arms, and concede everything to the Southern
secessionists for which we had been so earnestly contending.
The surrender, at any rate, has not yet, we are thankful to say,




14
been effected, and we greatly mistake the character of Presbyterians if the plan of the Joint Committee, when it comes to be
understood, be not nearly unanimously rejected by our branch
of the Church. We speak only of the programme of the Committee. The question of reunion, in proper terms, is a different
matter.
The Rev. Dr. Smith, in advocating the adoption of his
report, avowed himself in favor of union with our New-school
brethren and with other branches of the Presbyterian Church,
but was anxious that such union be on principles consistent
with our doctrines and obligations, and on conditions which
would produce harmony and efficiency. Of the plan of the
Committee he affirmed that "this basis of union surrenders
every principle for which we and our fiathers have been contending these last thirty years." To prove. this, he reviewed
the several articles of the proposed plan. First, as to the doctrinal basis, he showed that it leaves the matter just as it was.
The New-school before the disruption professed to adopt the
system of doctrines contained in our Confession of Faith; and
they are willing to make the same profession now. But it is
to be adopted in the "sense in which it is accepted by the two
bodies."  But all the world knows that it was accepted by the
New-school on the "broad-church " principle, which allowed of
what the Old-school conscientiously believed was the rejection
of that system. Then, secondly, as to the admission of churches
not presbyterially organized, the plan provides that such
churches may be represented in all our courts except the General Assembly. As to the latter, it proposes " that only such
persons shall be chosen commissioners as are eligible according
to the constitution of the Church." That is, it is proposed that
the constitution shall be violated in all our courts except the
highest. Honest men, who have vowed to sustain that constitution, are asked to assent to its violation. This, to say the least,
is a most extraordinary proposition.  Well might Dr. Smith say,
"Never, never, will the Old-school Presbyterian Church give
their consent to abjure all its convictions, thus to roll back the
whole tide of its history, thus to renounce everything which
had distinguished it as a religious body."
Another article provides for the appointment of a committee




15
of seven by each body to revise the catalogue of the books
published by the two churches, and no book is to be retained
on the catalogue of publications to be issued by the united
Church, which is not approved by at least five members of each
committee. Our Board of Publication have a thousand books
on their catalogue; the New-school Committee have thirty on
theirs. We are asked to agree that they should revise our list,
and strike out every book which five of their committee may
object to.  Dr. Smith regards this as saying, " Brethren, whatever is not acceptable to you; whatever is not in accordance
with the New-school theology, cast away."
Another article provides that the theological seminaries
belonging to the Old-school shall be allowed to put themselves
under the care of the Synods; and those belonging to the Newschool may, should they prefer it, remain close corporations.
We invite them to take part in the control of our institutions
for theological training, and consent that we shall have no control over theirs.
Once more, the proposed programme declares that "all ministers and churches in the two bodies shall be admitted to the
same standing in the united body which they hold in their
respective bodies up to the consummation of the union." This,
Dr. Smith argued, does away with the constitutional and natural
right of the Presbyteries to judge of the qualifications of their
own members. Every Old-school Presbytery will be bound to
receive without questioning any minister of any New-school
Presbytery who may present himself with clean papers.
The Rev. Dr. R. J. Breckinridge, as might be expected from his
antecedents, was opposed to this whole scheme of reunion. He
said he did not intend to argue the case. In his view any such
union was impossible. We cannot absorb a church as a whole.
The only method of union between the two bodies was that its
members individually should come in through the Presbyteries,
as all the rest of us had come. He insisted, also, that such an
union as that proposed would work the forfeiture of all our
endowments.
The Hon. S. Galloway, a member of the Joint Committee,
spoke earnestly in favor of the plan. IHe urged the obvious
practical advantages of reunion, and made very light of the




16
objections which had been urged against it. The New-school,
he maintained, were as orthodox as the Old-school, at least in
Ohio; and as to the admission of Congregationalists into our
Church courts, that he regarded as a trifle.
The Rev. Mr. Marshall avowed himself opposed to the programme of the Joint Committee, but regarded all discussion of
its merits as premature. It was not yet before the house.  It
is here only to be published to the churches.  In the next
Assembly the plan would come up on its merits.
Mr. HI. K. Clarke, who was also a member of the Joint Committee, made a long and forcible speech against the proposed
plan. Ile said the Committee had transcended its powers. It
was appointed to ascertain whether a union with the New-school
could be effected on the basis of agreement " in doctrine, polity,
and order." Instead of this, the Committee propose a new
basis, which provides for diversity in doctrine and order. The
Old-school Committee did all they could to induce the Committee of the New-school to agree to the basis which they proposed, which intended to provide for agreement in doctrine and
order. Every effort to that end was opposed, and what he
regarded as the broad-church principle was insisted upon, and
finally conceded. Our Committee urged that the Confession
should be adopted in its " obvious, fair, historical sense." They
insisted that it should be adopted " in the sense in which it was
received in both Churches."  It is, however notorious that the
one Church has been strict in its construction of the Confession
of Faith, and the other satisfied with its being adopted as to
substance of doctrine. The result of the whole discussion in
the Joint Committee, according to Mr. Clarke, was the adoption of the broad-church principle.
Another proposition from  the Old-school Committee was,
that no church, not presbyterially organized, should be represented in our Church courts. This, although admitted to be
just and reasonable, was, on the grounds of expediency, stricken
out. Mr. Clarke also dwelt on. the unfairness of the article
relating to the Board of Publication, and showed that it allowed
any three men on the New-school Committee to strike from the
list any book they pleased. The same inequality characterizes
the proposed plan as it regards our seminaries. Our Committee




17
proposed that seminaries which are close corporations should be
requested to place themselves under ecclesiastical control. Even
this was denied; and it is simply said, they shall have the privilege of so doing.  Mr. Clarke expressed his firm conviction
that if this plan were adopted it would lead to a division of the
Church, and increased contention instead of harmony.
Dr. Gurley, the Moderator, was requested to explain the
action of the Joint Committee as to the points to which TMr.
Clarke had referred. As to the doctrinal basis, he said that
between the extremes of Antinomianism and Fatalism on the one
hand, and Arminianism and Pelagianism on the other, there is
a system of doctrine known as Calvinism, and on that system
the plan proposes that the two Churches should unite. Anything more definite than this, he said, was unattainable and
undesirable.   As to the representation  of Congregational
churches in our courts, he admitted it to be irregular, but
regarded it as only a temporary arrangement to be tolerated
in order to secure a great good. In reference to the Board of
Publication, he said the great mass of our books were as
acceptable to our New-school brethren as ourselves. HIe did
not believe that one in a hundred would be stricken out. As
to the seminaries, their hands were tied; all they could do was
to intimate a preference for ecclesiastical control.  " Op the
subject of presbyterial examinations," he said, " we had a long
conference.  Many of the New-school Committee (Dr. Adams
among others) acknowledged that this right is among the inherent and inalienable rights of Presbytery. The only question
is as to the expediency of exercising it. And so we leave the
matter with the Presbyteries. I have never felt that it was
wise to enjoin this rule upon Presbyteries. In our Presbytery
we examine simply because the rule requires it, and the matter
is pretty much one of form. It seems to me the wisest and best
basis is to leave the matter with Presbyteries, and let them
examine, if they please —and that is just where it is left in
these terms of union.  It was the usage to receive brethren
with clean papers, and we now propose to return to the old
usage, unless convictions of duty prevent.
" The Committee is not authorized to propose changes in the
Constitution. If we are coming together, the changes can be
2




18
made by the united Church. Some change in the basis of
representation in the Assembly will be necessary; and this, I
think, will ultimately be made."
It will be observed that Dr. Gurley did not advert to any one
of the great principles involved in this question.  What he
said, however, virtually terminated the debate, and Dr. Smith's
report was laid on the table by the vote above stated.
The importance of the question submitted to the churches
by the action of the last Assembly, cannot be overestimated.
It concerns our very existence. Not the existence of a Presbyterian Church, but the existence of a church professing and
acting upon the principles which have always distinguished us
as an ecclesiastical body. We are called upon to renounce that
in which our special identity consists. It is not a mere change
of name. The term " Old-school" is not simply to be dropped
before the word Presbyterian in our designation; but the
historical reality known and revered as the Old-school Presbyterian Church will cease to exist. Another body with different
principles, as well as with a different name, will take its place.
With the opponents of the proposed union it is therefore a
matter of conscience. With its advocates it cannot be a matter
of conscience. It is a matter of expediency, or at most of
sentiment.
With regard to the great body of those who advocate the
reunion of the two great branches of the Presbyterian Church
in this country, the obviously controlling consideration is the
advantages to be expected from the union. These are great.
They are patent. They affect pressing interests in the pecuniary or business operations of the Church. Weak congregations
would be able to combine.  Energies worse than wasted in
mutual opposition might be directed to common ends. Instead
of presenting a divided front to others, and, in our view, more
or less erroneous bodies, we should form an unbroken phalanx.
The strength of the united body for good would be far greater
than of either portion separately, or even of the whole as it
now is. A great weight would be lifted from our public, and
especially from our giving men. The number of shoulders
added to the wheels of our system would cause them to revolve
easily and rapidly. We should indeed be, in the eyes of the




19
world, glorious as an army with banners. These considerations
have deservedly great weight. They ought to produce an effect.
They are specially operative in the minds of our laymen, who
cannot be expected to take into view the doctrinal and ecclesiastical principles involved in the question.  They say, "The
clergy made the quarrel. We have nothing to do with it. If
they are ready to stop fighting, so much the better. We are
for peace and cooperation."
Others are influenced by principles true in themselves, but
which are not applicable to the question which we are called
upon to decide. They insist that the visible church ought to be
one organization, that the seamless robe of Christ ought not to be
rent; that sects are a great evil and a great wrong. All this may
be readily admitted. The division of the inhabitants of the
earth into different and conflicting nationalities is a great evil.
It would be far better if all men would dwell together as one
family, under one father God, obeying his laws and promoting
each other's interests. But how worse than Utopian would be
any practical attempt to carry this scheme into operation!
Fourierism is beautiful as a social theory; but what is it in its
application in the actual state of the world? If all Christians
were really one-one in faith, one in their intelligent knowledge
of the Scriptures, one in spirit, then they might be, and should
be, externally one. But if in order to external union, we must
renounce the truth; cease to profess it, not only individually,
but collectively; then we sacrifice the substance for the shadow;
the reality for the semblance; a living man for a wooden image.
We violate conscience for expediency. We serve man rather
than God. This is a question not as to what would be right
in an ideal state of the Church, but as to what is right in
the actual condition of things; some men acting' on one set
of principles and another on the opposite; one believing that
the Church should be ruled by bishops, others that prelates are
usurpers of an unscriptural authority, and that God has committed the government of his Church to presbyters; and others
again, that all power is of divine right in the brotherhood. It
is plainly impossible that republicans and monarchists can live
and act harmoniously together. It is far better in the State that
those who agree should act together, and live peaceably with




20
others. So it is plainly impossible that Papists and Protestants,
Prelatists and Independents, should form one harmonious ecclesiastical organization.  If Old and New-school Presbyterian
bodies agree, they should be united, but if they differ in what
both conscientiously believe and feel bound to carry out into
practice, then they must either sacrifice their consciences, or
remain asunder.
There is another false stand-point taken by the advocates of
this union. They contemplate the matter as though there were
no distinct Christian churches with their peculiar creeds and
constitutional rules. They speak as though they were dealing
with the subject in thesi; and discussing the question, On what
principles should the disciples of Christ be externally organized? Should it be on a broad doctrinal platform, such as the
Apostles' Creed, which would allow all Christians to be merged
in one ecclesiastical organization?  This broadest of broadchurch principles is openly advocated even by some Old-school
men. They would have the absolutely essential doctrines of
Christianity, and nothing more, made the doctrinal basis of
church-union.
Now, admitting that this would be scriptural and wise, it is
not the question we have to deal with. We are not called upon
to decide what would have been the wisest course for the Church
in the first centuries. We may admit that it was narrow-minded
bigotry to frame a stricter creed than that of the apostles-that
the determinations of the Councils of Nice, Chalcedon, and
Constantinople were unnecessary theological niceties. Few indeed will be latitudinarian enough to take this ground, or will
undertake to censure the Church for repudiating the followers of
Pelagius, who could with good conscience repeat the Creed, the
Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments. But admitting
that the Church has ever been wrong in resisting heresy, still it
is not now the question what would have been right centuries
ago, but what is right under the existing state of things. How
are churches professing distinct and opposite systems of doctrine
and order to come together in one ecclesiastical organization?
The only honest answer to this question is, Let them alter their
creeds-let them strike from their confessions everything distinctive, retaining only what is common to all Christians, or at




21
least to all Protestants. There would be honesty and fair dealing in this. But this is not what the advocates of union have
ventured to propose. What is practically advocated is, that
men believing one creed should profess another; or that those
who do not adopt a certain system, should avow before God and
man Lhat they do adopt it. WVe have a distinctive system of
doctrine presented in our standards, the proposal is that we
should agree that all who adopt the Apostles' Creed should be
allowed to say that they adopt the system of doctrine contained
in the Westminster Confession. Others do not go quite so far.
They, however, insist that men should be allowed to say they
adopt our system, who notoriously do not adopt it. It is not a
new creed, but a latitudinarian principle of subscription which
is now urged upon us. It is a revival of the doctrine of the
famous Oxford Tract, No. 90, which asserted the propriety of
signing a creed in a " non-natural sense."
We would not knowingly or willingly do injustice to any of
our brethren. But this is actually the doctrine advocated in
some of our public papers, Old-school as well as New-school;
and what is more to the point, this is the very principle which
constitutes the sum and substance of the Plan of Union proposed in the report of the Joint Committee of Fifteen. WTe are
well aware that it is not so understood by many who signed that
report; nor by many who advocate its adoption. Nevertheless
it is its true import and spirit, and this we will endeavor as
briefly as possible to demonstrate.
Every minister at his ordination is required to declare that
he adopts the Westminster Confession and Catechism, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the sacred Scriptures.
There are three ways in which these words have been, and still
are, interpreted: First, some understand them to mean that
every proposition contained in the Confession of Faith is included in the profession made at ordination. Secondly, others
say that they mean just what the words import. What is
adopted is the " system of doctrine."  The system of the Reformed churches is a known and admitted scheme of doctrine,
and that scheme, nothing more or less, we profess to adopt.
The third view of the subject is, that by the system of doctrine




22
contained in the Confession is meant the essential doctrines of
Christianity and nothing more.
As to the first of these interpretations it is enough to say,
1. That it is not the meaning of the words. There are many
propositions contained in the Westminster Confession which do
not belong to the integrity of the Augustinian, or Reformed
system. A man may be a true Augustinian or Calvinist, and not
believe that the Pope is the Antichrist predicted by St. Paul;
or that the 1Sth chapter of Leviticus is still binding. 2. Such
a rule of interpretation can never be practically carried out,
without dividing the Church into innumerable fragments. It is
impossible that a body of several thousand ministers and elders
should think alike on all the topics embraced in such an extended and minute formula of belief. 3. Such has never been
the rule adopted in our Church. Individuals have held it, but
the Church as a body never has. No prosecution for doctrinal
error has ever been attempted or sanctioned, except for errors
which were regarded as involving the rejection, not of explanations of doctrines, but of the doctrines themselves. For example, our Confession teaches the doctrine of original sin. That
doctrine is essential to the Reformed or Calvinistic system.
Any man who denies that doctrine, thereby rejects the system
taught in our Confession, and cannot with a good conscience say
that he adopts it. Original sin, however, is one thing; the way
in which it is accounted for, is another. The doctrine is, that
such is the relation between Adam and his posterity, that all
mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, are born
in a state of sin and condemnation.  Any man who admits this,
holds the doctrine. But there are at least three ways of accounting for this fact. The scriptural explanation as given in our
standards is, that the "covenant being made with Adam not
only for himself, but also for his posterity, all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell
with him, in his first transgression." The fact that mankind fell
into that estate of sin and misery in which they are born, is
accounted for in the principle of representation. Adam was constituted our head and representative, so that his sin is the judicial
ground of our condemnation and of the consequent loss of the
Divine image, ahd of the state of spiritual death in which all




23
men come into the world.  This, as it is the scriptural, so it is
the Church view of the subject. It is the view held in the Latin
and Lutheran, as well as in the Reformed Church, and therefore
belongs to the church catholic. Still it is not essential to the
doctrine. Realists admit the doctrine, but unsatisfied with the
principle of representative responsibility, assume that humanity
as a generic life acted and sinned in Adam, and, therefore, that
his sin is the act, with its demerit and consequences, of every
man in whom that generic life is individualized. Others, accepting neither of these solutions, assert that the fact of original
sin (i. e., the sinfulness and condemnation of man at birth) is
to be accounted for in the general law of propagation. Like
begets like. Adam became sinful, and hence all his posterity
are born in a state of sin, or with a sinful nature.  Although
these views are not equally scriptural, or equally in harmony
with our Confession, nevertheless they leave the doctrine intact,
and do not work a rejection of the system  of which it is an
essential part.
So also of the doctrine of inability.  That man is by the
fall rendered utterly indisposed, opposite, and disabled to all
spiritual good, is a doctrine of the Confession as well as of
Scripture. And it is essential tothe system of doctrine embraced
by all the Reformed church.  Whether men have plenary
power to regenerate themselves; or can cooperate in the work of
their regeneration; or can effectually resist the converting grace
of God, are questions which have separated Pelagians, the later
Romanists, Semi-Pe]agians, Lutherans, and Arminians, from
Augustinians or Calvinists.  The denial of the inability of
fallen man, therefore, of necessity works the rejection of Calvinism. But if the fact be admitted, it is not essential whether the
inability be called natural or moral; whether it be attributed
solely to the perverseness of the will, or to the blindness of the
understanding. These points of difference are not unimportant;
but they do not affect the essence of the doctrine.
Our Confession teaches that God foreordains whatever comes
to pass; that he executes his decree in the works of creation
and providence; that his providential government is holy, wise,
and powerful, controlling all his creatures and all their actions;
that from the fallen mass of men, he has from all eternity, of




24
his mere good pleasure, elected some to everlasting life; that
by the incarnation and mediatorial work of his eternal Son,
our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the effectual working of his
Spirit, lie has rendered the salvation of his people absolutely
certain; that the reason why some are saved and others not, is
not the foresight of their faith and repentance, but solely
because he has elected some and not others, and that in execution of his purpose, in his own good time, he sends them the
Holy Spirit., who so operates on them as to render their repentance, faith, and holy living absolutely certain. Now it is plain
that men may differ as to the mode of God's providential
government, or the operations of his grace, and retain the facts
which constitute the essence of this doctrinal scheme. But if any
one teaches that God cannot effectually control the acts of free
agents without destroying their liberty; that he cannot render
the repentance or faith of any man certain; that he does all he
can to convert every man, it would be an insult to reason and
conscience, to say that he held the system of doctrine which
embraces the facts and principles above stated.
The same strain of remark might be made in reference to the
other great doctrines which constitute the Augustinian system.
Enough, however, has been said to illustrate the principle of
interpretation for which Old-school men contend. We do not
exl)ect that our ministers should adopt every proposition contained in our standards.  This they are not required to do.
But they are required to adopt the system; and that system
consists of certain doctrines, no one of which can be omitted
without destroying its identity. Those doctrines are, the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and the consequent infallibility of all their teachings;the doctrine of the Trinity, that there is one God subsisting in
three persons, the Father, Son, and Spirit, the same in substance and equal in power and glory; the doctrine of decrees
and predestination as above stated; the doctrine of creation,
viz., that the universe and all that it contains is not eternal, is
not a necessary product of the life of God, is not an emanation
from the divine substance, but owes its existence as to substance and form solely to his will;-and in reference to man
that he was created in the image of God, in knowledge,




25
righteousness, and holiness, and not in puris naturalibus, without any moral character; —the doctrine of providence, or that
God effectually governs all his creatures and all their actions,
so that nothing comes to pass which is not in accordance with
his infinitely wise, holy, and benevolent purposes; —the doctrine of the covenants; the first, or covenant of works, wherein
life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon
condition of perfect and personal obedience; and the second,
or covenant of grace, wherein God freely offers unto sinners
life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in
him that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all
who are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them
willing and able to believe;-th'e doctrine concerning Christ
our Mediator, ordained of God to be our prophet, priest, and
king,, the head and Saviour of his Church, the heir of all things,
and judge of the world, unto whom he did, from eternity, give
a people to be his seed, to be by him in time redeemed, called,
justified, sanctified, and glorified, and that the eternal Son of
God, of one substance with the Father, took upon him  man's
nature, so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the
Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in
one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; that
this Lord Jesus Christ, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice
of himself, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and
purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven for all those whom the Father
hath given to him;-the doctrine of free will, viz., that man
was created not only a free agent, but with full ability to
choose good or evil, and by that choice determine his future
character and destiny; that by the fall he has lost this ability to
spiritual good; that in conversion God by his Spirit enables
the sinner freely to repent and believe;-the doctrine of effectual calling, or regeneration, that those, and those only whom
God has predestinated  unto life, he effectually calls by his
word and Spirit from a state of spiritual death to a state of
spiritual life, renewing their wills, and by his almighty power
determining their wills, thus effectually drawing them to Christ;
yet so that they come most freely; —and that this effectual
calling is of God's free and special grace alone, not from any




26
thing foreseen in man;-the doctrine of justification, that it is
a free act or act of grace on the part of God; that it does not
consist in any subjective change of state, nor simply in pardon,
but includes a declaring and accepting the sinner as righteous; that it is founded not on anything wrought in us or done
by us; not on faith or evangelical obedience, but simply on
what Christ has done for us, 1.e., in his obedience and sufferings unto death; this righteousness of Christ being a proper,
real, and full satisfaction to the justice of God, his exact justice and rich grace are glorified in the justification of sinners;the doctrtne of adoption, that those who are justified are
received into the family.of God, and made partakers of the
spirit and privileges of his children; —the doctrine of sanctification, that those once regenerated by the Spirit of God are
by his power and indwelling, in the use of the appointed means
of grace, rendered more and more holy, which work, although
always imperfect in this life, is perfected at death; —the doctrine of saving faith, that it is the gift of God, and work of
the Holy Spirit, by which the Christian receives as true, on the
authority of God, whatever is revealed in his word, the special
acts of which faith are the receiving and resting upon Christ
alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life; —the
doctrine of repentance, that the sinner out of the sight and
sense, not only of the danger, but the odiousness of sin, and
apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, does with grief
and hatred of his own sins, turn from them unto God, with full
purpose and endeavor after new obedience; —the doctrine of
good works, that they are such only as God has commanded;
that they are the fruits of faith; such works, although not
necessary as the ground of our justification, are indispensable,
in the case of adults, as the uniform products of the indwelling
of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers; —the doctrine of
the perseverance of the saints, that those once effectually called
and sanctified by the Spirit, can never totally or finally fall
from a state of grace, because the decree of election is i.mmutable, because Christ's merit is infinite, and his intercession
constant; because the Spirit abides with the people of God;
and because the covenant of grace secures the salvation of all
who believe; —the doctrine of assurance; that the assurance of




27
salvation is desirable, possible, and obligatory, but is not of the
essence of faith; —the doctrine of the law, that it is a revelation
of the will of God, and a perfect rule of righteousness; that it
is perpetually obligatory on jTstified persons as well as others,
although believers are not under it as a covenant of works;the doctrine of Christian liberty, that it includes freedom from
the guilt of sin, the condemnation of the law, from a legal
spirit, from the bondage of Satan and dominion of sin, from
the world and ultimately from all evil, together with free access
to God as his children. Since the advent of Christ, his people
are freed also from the yoke of the ceremonial law.  God alone
is the Lord of the conscience, which he has set free from the
doctrines and commandments of men, which are in anything
contrary to his word, or beside it, in matters of faith or
worship; —the doctrines concerning worship and the Sabbath,
concerning vows and oaths, of the civil magistrate, of marriage,
contain nothing peculiar to our system, or which is matter of
controversy among Presbyterians.  The same is true as to
what the Confession teaches concerning the Church, of the
communion of saints, of the sacraments, and of the future state,
and of the resurrection of the dead, and of the final judgment.
That such is the system of doctrine of the Reformed church
is a matter of history. It is the system which, as the granite
formation of the earth, underlies and sustains the whole scheme
of truth as revealed in the Scriptures, and without which all
the rest is as drifting sand. It has been from the beginning
the life and soul of the Church, taught explicitly by our Lord
himself, and more fully by his inspired servants, and always
professed by a cloud of witnesses in the Church.  It has moreover ever been the esoteric faith of true believers, adopted in
their prayers and hymns, even when rejected from' their creeds.
It is this system which the Presbyterian Church is pledged to
profess, to defend, and to teach; and it is a breach of faith to
God and man if she fails to require a profession of this system
by all those whom she receives or ordains as teachers and
guides of her people. It is for the adoption of the Confession of
Faith in this sense that the Old-school have always contended as
a matter of conscience.
There has, however, always been a party in the Church which




28
adopted the third method of understanding the words " system
of doctrine," in the ordination service, viz., that they mean
nothing more than the essential doctrines of religion or of
Christianity.
That such a party has existed is plain, 1. Because in our
original Synod, President Dickinson and several other members
openly took this ground. President Dickinson was opposed to
all human creeds; he resisted the adoption of the Westminster
Confession, and he succeeded in having it adopted with the
ambiguous words, "as to all the essential principles of religion."
This may mean the essential principles of Christianity, or the
essential principles of the peculiar system taught in the Confession. 2. This mode of adopting the Confession gave rise to
immediate and general complaint. 3. When President Davies
was in England, the latitudinarian Presbyterians and other dissenters from the established church, from whom he expected
encouragement and aid in his mission, objected that our Synod
had adopted the Westminster Confession in its strict meaning.
President Davies replied that the Synod required candidates to
adopt it only as to "the articles essential to Christianity."*
4. The Rev. Mr. Creaghead, member of the original Synod,
withdrew from it on the ground of this lax rule of adoption.
5. The Rev. Mr. Harkness, when suspended from the ministry
by the Synod for doctrinal errors, complained of the injustice
and inconsistency of such censure, on the ground that the
Synod required the adoption only of the essential doctrines of
the gospel, no one of which he had called in question.
While it is thus apparent that there was a party in the
Church who adopted this latitudinarian principle of subscription, the Synod itself never did adopt it. This is plain, 1. Because what'we call the adopting act, and which includes the
ambiguous language in question, the Synod call "their preliminary act," i.e., an act preliminary to the actual adoption of
the Westminster Confession. That adoption was effected in a
subsequent meeting (on the afternoon of the same day), in
which the Confession was adopted in all its articles, except
what in the thirty-third chapter related to the power of the
* See Gillett's History of the Presbyterian Church, vol. i., p. 130.




29
civil magistrate in matters of religion. This is what the Synod
itself called its adopting act.  2. In 1730 the Synod unanimously declared that they required all " intrants " to adopt the
Confession as fully as they themselves had done. A similar
declarative act of their meaning was passed in 1736. Again,
in the reply to the complaints of Messrs. Creaghead and Harkness, it was asserted that the Synod never intended that the
Confession should be adopted only in those articles essential to
Christianity.  3. Over and over again at different periods-in
the negotiations for the union of the Synod of Philadelphia and
that of New York and New Jersey, both parties declared their
adhesion to the whole system  of doctrine contained in the
Westminster Confession.  The same thing was done in the correspondence of our Synod with that of the Dutch Reformed
Church, and in their letter to the General Assembly of the
Church of Scotland, in which that body was assured that we had
the same standard of doctrine as they had. 4. Finally, when in
1787 the General Assembly was organized, it was solemnly
declared that the Westminster Confession of Faith, as then
revised and corrected, was part of the CONSTITUTION of this
church. No man has ever yet maintained that in adopting a
Republican constitution, it was accepted only as embracing the
general principles of government, common to monarchies, aristocracies, and democracies.*
The Old-school have always protested against this broadchurch principle, 1. Because in their view it is immoral. For
a man to assert that he adopts a Calvinistic confession when he
rejects the distinctive features of the Calvinistic system, and
receives only the essential principles of Christianity, is to say
what is not true in the legitimate and accepted meaning of the
terms.  It would be universally recognized as a falsehood
should a Protestant declare that he adopted the canons of the
Council of Trent, or the Romish Catechism, when he intended
that he received them only so far as they contained the substance of the Apostles' Creed. If the Church is prepared to
make the Apostles' Creed the standard of ministerial communion,
let the constitution be altered; but do not let us adopt the de* On these subjects see the Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church, by
Charles Hodge, vol. i., chap. 3.




30
moralizing principle of professing ourselves, and requiring others
to profess, what we do not believe.
2. A second objection to the lax rule of interpretation is that
it is contrary to the very principle on which our Church was
founded, and on which, as a church, it has always professed to
act.
3. The Old-school has always believed that it was the duty
of the Church, as a witness for the truth, to hold fast that great
system of truth which in all ages has been the faith of the great
body of the people of God, and on which, as they believe, the
best interests of the Church and of the world depend.
4. This lax principle must work the relaxation of all discipline, destroy the purity of the Church, and introduce either
perpetual conflict or death-like indifference.
5. There always has been, and still is, a body of men who
feel it their duty to profess and teach the system of doctrine
contained in our Confession in its integrity. These men never
can consent to what they believe to be immoral and destructive,
and therefore any attempt to establish this broad-church principle of subscription must tend to produce dissension and division. Either let our faith conform to our creed, or mak-e our
creed conform to our faith. Let those who are convinced that
the Apostles' Creed is a broad enough basis for church organization, form a church on that principle; but do not let them
attempt to persuade others to sacrifice their consciences, or
advocate the adoption of a more extended formula of faith
which is not to be sincerely embraced.
The next point to be established in this exposition is, That
the New-school branch of the Presbyterian Church in this
country have practically adopted, and still hold this lax principle against which the Old-school have always protested.
This is not a question concerning the faith of our Newschool brethren as a class, but simply as to a rule of church
action. WTe fully believe that a very large part, perhaps a
great majority of those brethren, sincerely adopt the system of
doctrine contained in our standards, and that they understood
themselves to profess that faith at their ordination. But what
we hold to be undeniably true as a matter of history, is that
the New-school Church do not, and never have required the




31
adoption of that system as the condition of admission to their
ministry. In proof of this position we appeal —1. To the fact
already mentioned. It has been shown that a party existed in
the original Synod who desired the doctrinal basis to be, as
expressed  in the  adopting act (so  called), "essential and
necessary articles;" " essential and necessary articles of faith."
If a Presbytery deemed " the scruples or mistakes (of a candidate for reception into our ministry) to be about articles not
essential and necessary in doctrine, worship, or government,"
he was to be admitted.
This was interpreted to mean "articles or doctrines essential
to Christianity."  This mode of adopting the Confession, is
pronounced, by the Rev. E. HI. Gillett, a compromise, in which
the stricter Presbyterians yielded much to the New England,
English, and Welsh members of the Synod.  He says, further,
that "the Synod in 1736 endeavored to put a construction on
the Adopting Act which it would not bear." That construction, in the language of the Synod of 1736, is "that they
adopted the Confession of Faith and Cathechism to be the confession of their faith, except only some clauses in the twentieth
and twenty-third chapters," which relate to the civil magistrate.  These are precisely the words used by the Synod in
their real Adopting Act in 1729. The interpretation which
the Synod repudiated was that put upon the language of their
preliminary act (commonly called the Adopting Act itself), by
Presidents Dickinson, Davies, and  others, that by "essential
and  necessary doctrines"  are  to  be understood  doctrines
"'essential to Christianity," and not doctrines essential to the
Calvinistic system. These were the two methods of interpretation about which the contention arose. The Synod gave the
stricter construction, which, as we understand him, Mr. Gillett
says the Act will not bear. IIe further says that the Adopting
Act (as he interprets it), in spite of this action of the Synod,
"still stood as the fundamental and constitutional basis of the
Synod, and no possible interpretation could supersede it."
(History of the Presbyterian Church, vol. i., chap. 4.) * Of
* The Synod in 1736 say that they did at first adopt and still adhere to the
Westminster Confession, Catechisms, and Directory, "without the least variation or alteration, and without any regard to said distinctions," i. e., the dis



32
the two methods of adopting the Confession which disturbed
the original Synod, this work of Mr. Gillett, published officially
by the New-school Presbyterian Publication  Committee, advocates the lax principle as the fundamental and constitutional
basis of the Church.  The New-school as a Church is thus committed to this broad-church principle.
2. It is well known by all familiar with the controversy
attending the disruption in 1837-'38, that this was the grand
point of difference between the New and Old-school parties.
The one contending that the Confession was to be adopted as
"to  substance of doctrine " only; the other insisted upon its
strict adoption, as containing " the system of doctrine" held by
the Reformed churches.
3. The decisive proof, however, that the New-school, as a
Church, do adopt this lax principle, is to be found in the following facts: First, before the division of the Church as a party,
they uniformly and strenuously resisted the exercise of discipline
in reference to doctrines notoriously inconsistent with the Calvinistic system. The Old-school, although averse to the modified
Calvinism of New England, as represented by such men as the
late Drs. Richards and Griffin, of Newark, New  Jersey, and
many others who agreed with them; and although still more
averse to the hyper-Calvinism  of the Hopkinsians, never desired
that men adopting those views should be excluded from the
ministry in our Church. It was not until the rise of Taylorism,
or, as it was called in New England, the New Divinity, that it
was felt that fidelity to our standards demanded the intervention
of church authority.
Every one knows that the fundamental principles of the New
Divinity are, 1. That ability limits obligation, and therefore, as
man has power only over deliberate acts of the will, all sin
tinctions which had been complained of. This Mr. Gillett says was not true. It
certainly is not true that the Synod adopted the Confession literally without " the
least variation;" for they distinctly excepted parts of the twentieth and twenty-third
chapters. What the Synod, however, intended by their language is true-and that
is, that they did not intend to distinguish between the articles essential to Christianity and those not essential to it. This was the distinction complained of. This
they repudiated. That this is their true meaning, is plain from the contemporary
history of the controversy; from the explanation which they gave of the Act of 1736,
by quoting the Act of 1729; and from the whole subsequent history of the Church.




33
consists in the deliberate violation of known law. IIence, there
can be no moral character before moral action, and no moral
action until there is such a development of reason and conscience
as is the necessary condition of moral agency. If this be so,
there can be no hereditary, sinful corruption of nature; and
original sin, in the universally accepted meaning of that term,
is an impossibility. Here we have, not an explanation of the
doctrine that men.are born in a state of sin and condemnation,
but a bold denial of the doctrine itself. But the denial of that
doctrine is the rejection, not only of the theology of the Reformed churches, but of that of the whole Christian church.
2. A second principle is, that a free agent can always act in
opposition to any amount of influence which can be brought to
bear upon him, short of that which destroys his freedom. In
other words, absolute certainty is inconsistent with free agency.
From this it follows, that God cannot control the acts of free
agents in a moral system. If this be so, there can be no efficacious grace; and no purpose of election, because there is no
power to carry that purpose into effect; regeneration becomes,
and is avowed to be, not an act of God, of which the soul is the
subject, but an act of the sinner himself.
It is on the ground of the principle just mentioned the New
Divinity vindicates God in the permission of sin. He cannot prevent its occurrence in a moral system. He does all he can to
prevent all sin, to convert all men, to save every human being.
It would be a waste of time to prove that these principles are inconsistent with Calvinism. Words must lose their meaning before
there can be any dispute on this point. Unless Augustine was a
Pelagian, no man holding the above principles can believe the
system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Confession. 3. A
third fundamental principle of the New Divinity is, that a regard
to our own happiness is the ground of moral obligation. We are
bound to do whatever gives us most enjoyment. Our whole allegiance is to ourselves. If serving the world, sin, or Satan, would
make us happier than serving God, we should be bound to serve
sin. This is the system which the eminently devoted Dr. Nettleton
spent the later ye"rs of his life in denouncing and opposing.
It is an historical fact that the New-school as a party resisted
the exercise of discipline in reference to these doctrines; that
3




34
they not only refused to censure those charged with holding
them, on the ground that the charge was not sustained, but
they refused to allow the doctrines themselves to be condemned.
It is further notorious, that they freely ordained or received into
their Presbyteries men who did not hesitate to avow their adhesion to these principles. It was this more than anything else
which roused the Church to resist the encroachment of errors
which threatened its existence; just as the Dred Scott decision
and the attempt to force slavery on Kansas, roused the country
to resist the encroachments of the slave power.
A second fact which proves the point in hand is, that since
the separate organization of the New-school, the advocates of
the New Divinity have been freely admitted and ordained. In
no case has any censure been pronounced against their peculiar
views, and in no case have their advocates been subjected to
discipline. Yet it is undeniable, and we presume universally
admitted, that these doctrines are publicly avowed and taught
by not a few of their ministers.
A third fact is, as MIr. Iovey K. Clarke stated on the floor of
the Assembly, the New-school Committee on Reunion strenuously
resisted any such statement of the doctrinal basis as would
exclude the teachers of these doctrines. Nothing would have
been easier than to place this matter in a form which precluded
honest misinterpretation. We know Dr. Bushnell has said that
such is the chemistry of thought, that any form of words can
be interpreted to mean anything; and that another distinguished man has said he could sign any creed any of his opponents could write. These, however, are moral idiosyncrasies.
The great majority of good men at least act on the principles of
common honesty. As it is known that the original and main
dispute between the Old and New-school related to the principle
of subscription, it would have been easy to stipulate, 1. Negatively, that the Confession was not to be adopted only as to the
necessary or essential doctrines of religion; and 2. Affirmatively, that it was to be received in each and every article
belonging to the Calvinistic or Augustinian system, as that
system is set forth in the common standards of our Church.
What that system is, is just as certain as what Popery or Lutheranism is, Instead of anything thus definite, the programme, as




submitted to the Assembly, proposes that the Confession should
be adopted in the sense in which it is received in both branches
of the Church. This refusal to be definite, and this insisting
on ambiguity, is proof enough that the parties are not agreed
as to the terms of subscription; or rather, that it was agreed
to concede to the New-school their lax principle of interpretation.
A fourth fact bearing on this point is, that whereas before
the report of the committee, strong opposition to union was
manifested in the New-school body, as soon as it was seen that
the Old-school had surrendered everything, the proposed plan
was adopted by an unanimous vote in the New-school Assembly. What does this mean?  Why it means they have sense
enough to see that we have abandoned our principles and adopted
theirs; and they are of course willing to receive us as repentant
sinners. This has been openly proclaimed by their distinguished
speakers; and one of their Presbyteries has formally resolved
that it is, and must be understood, that men holding the doctrines
of Dr. Taylor and Prof. Park are to be received in the united
church as of undoubted orthodoxy.
We repeat what we have already said. We are not laboring
to prove the prevalence of heresy in the New-school Church.
We know many of their ministers whom it would be an honor
to any church to count among its members. We are willing to
receive as true whatever can be even plausibly said as to the
general orthodoxy of our New-school brethren. Let this be
admitted. It does not touch the question. That question relates
to a rule of church action, viz., the principle which is to govern
the united church in receiving and ordaining ministers of the
gospel.  Shall every man who denies any one of the great
constituent elements or doctrines of the Calvinistic system be
excluded from the ministry in our church? Or, shall we admit
men who deny the doctrine of original sin; of inability; of
sorer eignelection to holiness and eternal life; the perseverance
of the saints; the doctrine of the atonement as a true and proper
expiation for the guilt of sin and a real satisfaction to the law
and justice of God, and who represent it as merely didactic,
moral, or symbolical in its design and influence? This is the
question, and it is one which concerns our life.




36
We have no belief that any honest Old-school man can
approve of the proposed plan of union, if he regarded it in the
light in which we have presented it. And still further, we do
not believe that there is any real difference among us, as to the
principles set forth in the foregoing pages. The difference is not
concerning principles, but simply a matter of fact. Those who
have assented to this plan of union admit that the Old-school
principle of subscription is right, and ought to be adopted in
the united church, but they say the New-school have adopted
it, and therefore, and on that understanding, they are in favor
of the union.  They have been led into this serious mistake
because the New-school members of the committee assured them
that as for themselves they did adopt the Confession as we do.
This we doubt not is true as to them individually, but it is as
clear as day that it is not true of the New-school as a church.
This being the case, union with that Church, on the proposed
programme, would be the renunciation of a principle to which
the Old-school are pledged in honor, in conscience, and by
solemn vows.
As to the other great point in controversy, the admission of
Congregationalists to sit as members of our church courts, little
need be said. It is admitted to be unconstitutional; but it is
urged that it is a limited and temporary evil, and ought not to
stand in the way of a union which promises such advantages.
But the question is, Is it right? Is it right for a church deliberately to violate a constitution which it is solemnly pledged to
support?  In 1837 the Old-school abolished the old Plan of
Union with Congregationalists, on the ground that it was unconstitutional. They justified the exseinding acts on the ground
that it was against their conscience to allow Congregationalists
to sit as members of Presbyterian judicatories. Are they now
willing to disgrace themselves in their own eyes and in the eyes
of all other men, by saying this was a false pretence? If conscience forbade it then, it forbids it now. And it ought not to
be done. It is a great mistake to regard this as a small evil.
Every moral wrong is a great evil. And that it is morally wrong
for men deliberately to violate a constitution which they have
vowed to support, admits of no dispute. Suppose it were proposed to allow a British peer to sit as a member of the United




37
States Senate. It might be said it was a small matter, only one
member out of sixty-four, and that his presence could do no
harm. In one sense this may be true. IIe might be the wisest
and most useful member of the body; nevertheless his admission
would shake the very foundations of the government. We cannot believe that our Church will ever be brought to assent to a
plan of union which involves the surrender of the great principles
which we have conscientiously adopted, and to which we stand
pledged before God and man.
If the view of this subject given above be correct, it necessarily follows that the Old-school would be guilty not only of a
great moral wrong should it accept of the proposed plan of
union, but would forfeit the moral right to all endowments,
whether of churches, or boards, or seminaries. Those endowments were given to a church professing certain principles, and
pledged to support them. If those principles be abandoned, the
moral right to the endowments ceases to exist. We say nothing
of the legal question. That is beyond our province.  But if
property be given to a body pledged to require of its ministers
sincere faith in the grand old scriptural Augustinian theology,
which has ever been the fountain of life and strength, all moral
right to the property is gone, if that body becomes latitudinarian,
admitting to its ministry men to whom that theology is a jest or
an offence.