f 
 
^■^cilcxA- ^"^^ n ' - f • '^' i^-^' 
 
DR. SKINiNER^S ANSWER TO DR. MORRIS. 
 
 To the Editor of the Cincinnati Gazette: 
 
 The question raised between Dr. Morris and myself, the discussion 
 of which you have kindly permitted, is one of the greatest interest to 
 many of your readers, and I ask a place in your columns in order to 
 reply to his letter of the 21st inst. If it affords the Doctor pleasure to 
 call hard names, and invoke partisan and political odium, and he thinks 
 it will help his cause, I make no objection to his method. It is not a 
 mode of argument that suits me, and I will carefully avoid it. Many 
 gratuitous allegations, strained and exaggerated, many personalities and 
 inuendoes unworthy of this discussion, I pass by, preferring to let 
 them speak for themselves. They ought never to have been made. 
 
 The repeated appeals for sympathy, and the effort to invoke preju- 
 dice against me, while the question is purely one of law and order, 
 sound doctrine, fealty to our own constitution, observance of vows by 
 professing Christians, and comity among the Churches, do not disturb 
 me. Dr. Morris asks why I "pass by" Messrs. Morey, White, and 
 McCune, " to accuse and arraign " him ? My answer is, first, I did not 
 " pass by " his co-Presbyters ; and, second, if to say that certain con- 
 duct is inconsistent with ordination vows and loyalty to the Presbyte- 
 rian Church, is accusation and arraignment, I plead guilty with a de- 
 cidedly good conscience. 
 
 But now to the main business. 
 
 After his preliminaries. Dr. Morris reduces all he has to say to four 
 practical questions, rather to one general question, with four particulars 
 arranged under it, viz.: " Was it right, wise, or commendable in it- 
 self? " 
 
 (a). To form the Lhnvqpd and Mt. Lookout Church? 
 
 (b). For this church as formed to call a pastor, and for a Presbyte- 
 rian minister to accept the call and settle among them ? 
 
 (c). For a council, such as met, to recognize the church and install 
 its pastor ? 
 
 (d). And for Dr. Morris to sit in that council, re-examine Mr. Mc- 
 Cune, and preach the installation sermon under all the known circum- 
 stances of the case ? 
 
 Dr. Morris takes the bold, open, and positive ground, that it was 
 "right, wise, and commendable" for him and other Presbyterian min- 
 isters to do these things, and that there was nothing therein Lnconsis- 
 
 hi-^ ,^it- '^'^'^ ."^'- 
 
 -^Z ^} . r 'iir "w.n M 7<\ 's ^^.. 
 
 / 1 S/' 
 
tent with fealty to the faith and order of the Presbyterian Church. 
 Let us look at this position. 
 
 In November, 1874, "an address to all Christian ministers and 
 churches in North America," devised in Cincinnati, was issued in the 
 interest of a new, undenominational organization of the whole church 
 of Christ. Next, a "Christian Union Convention" was held in this 
 same interest, in Suffolk, Va., May, 1875, a "basis of union" and 
 " declaration" being published to the world, the topmost signature ap- 
 pended to which is that of Rev. W, 0. McCune, which had been 
 "unanimously adopted and signed, October 2, 1874, at the Rooms of 
 the Young Men's Christian Association, Cincinnati, Ohio." A similar 
 convention was next held in Cincinnati. The style and title of th& 
 new denomination was the "Union Christian Churches of North Amer- 
 ica." That this so-called anonymous undenominational denomination 
 is nevertheless a veritable denomination, is clear from these facts: 
 
 1. It adopts a distinctive name. 
 
 2. It appeals to all to join it. 
 
 3. It posits a creed and basis of union. 
 
 4. It receives ministers. 
 
 5. Its aim is, like Aaron's rod, to swallow up all the "sects." 
 
 6. It claims to be the primitive ^ew Testament pattern of the Church 
 of God. 
 
 Its anti-denominational animus and broad liberalism is the central 
 reason for its existence. It arraigns existing evangelical denominations 
 as "essentially sinftd," "condemned in express terms by Scripture," 
 "wrong," "displeasing to the head of the Church," "injurious to the 
 Church," "putting stumbling blocks in the path, and ready excuses in 
 the mouths of sinners." The " remedy " it proffers for this gigantic 
 evil is the abolition of all denominations, by their absorption into the 
 new organization. "All vexed questions" as to doctrine and order, it 
 commits to the " broad and free domain of Christian Liberty." Dis- 
 tinctive principles it calls "divisive," seeks to sink them and to exalt 
 every possible point of unity. 
 
 The L. and M. L. Church is the legitimate outgrowth of this'move- 
 ment, as Dr. Morris was well aware. It was not a mere casual associ- 
 ation of persons grouped together from necessity, and with no other 
 design than simply to worship God, as Dr. Morris would have us be- 
 lieve. It was the practical result of this new anti-denominational ef- 
 fort ; its special aim was perfectly understood. It was a new thing, to 
 the genesis and birth of which Mr. McCune had devoted himself. A 
 " declaration " of its principles had been published previously, and 
 sent to those who were invited to the council, in which the position is 
 
taken that Christ has left on record " no provision in the New Testament 
 for the organization of different denominations." The sophism was 
 used that, because "the inspired apostles never organized different de- 
 nominations," therefore, no evangelical denomination has any Scriptural 
 right to exist; a sophism refuted long ago by Chillingworth, when de- 
 fending the Reformers and the Reformation. The Churches of Chris- 
 tendom are expressly called "needless denominational churches," "'a 
 manifest reproach to the cause of Christ," and their creeds, as such, 
 " directly contrary to Scripture." With these facts fully before him 
 in print — I have these words from Dr. Morris himself — " I think we 
 can safely take part in the council by which this Church is to be or- 
 ganized, and as safely install Brother McCune as its pastor." 
 
 And now, in reply to Dr. Morris' general question, " Was it right, 
 wise, and commendable" for him and others to do what was done 
 under these circumstances, in the organization and recognition of the 
 L. and M. L. Church, I shall first state Avhat is not exceptionable,, 
 and then what is exceptionable, in this Avhole subject, and what was, 
 in my judgment, inconsistent, not only^f jr him, but for the three other 
 Presbyterian ministers of Cincinnati to countenance. 
 
 I — What is not exceptionable : 
 
 1. Any minister of Christ has a perfect I'ight to preach the doctrine 
 of Scriptural union, spiritual and ecclesiastical fellowship, charity and 
 good will to all, and all that is involved in the communion of saints, 
 and to strive after more blessed and closer relations with all Christians, 
 and no Presbytery nor "Presbyterian Bishop, self-sent and irregular," 
 can take it away. 
 
 2. Any number of Christians have a perfect right to leave their 
 churches whenever they deem it best for their own good and the glory 
 of Christ, and, having first taken their letters of dismission, then 
 unite to organize another church on a Scriptural foundation, and no 
 one has a right to object. 
 
 3. Any Presbyterian minister has a perfect right to sit in a council 
 of evangelical ministers, called together by an evangelical church or 
 churches, and contribute his presence to their deliberations in the pr- 
 ganization and recognition of a church, provided the church to be 
 organized and recognized stand in its polity and creed upon a Scrip- 
 tural f jundation ; and any Presbyterian minister has a right, having 
 first obtained consent of his Presbytery, to accept a call from such a 
 church and be installed as its pastor. 
 
 II — Now as to what is really exceptionable : 
 
 1. No minister has a right, while under vows to his own denom- 
 ination and remaining in it, to teach or preach that it has no Scrip. 
 
tural warrant for its existance ; that all evangelical denominations, as 
 now existing, are "needless." "divisive," "essentially sinful," and a 
 " manifest reproach to the cause of Christ." He may go out from it 
 and do this, but to remain in it while so doing, is to condemn himself, 
 his brethren, and his order, together with all the churches of Christ in 
 the world. It is openly to repudiate his own engagements to maintain 
 its integrity, its doctrine and polity, its peace, unity, and purity. The 
 manifest result, should all act on this principle, would be the instant 
 dissolution of every church in existence. 
 
 2. No Presbyterian minister has a right to teach or preach, that the 
 distinctive doctrines of his church are "divisive" of the body of 
 Christ, or that they stand in the way of that spiritual unity for which 
 Christ prayed, or that these distinctive doctrines should be "dropped 
 off whenever it may be practicable," or pushed into the background, 
 for the sake of coming to his standard of ecclesiastical or non-ecclesi- 
 astical uniformity, or for the phantom of a general undenominational 
 organization. 
 
 3. No Presbyterian minister has a right to share in either the (n-- 
 ganization or recognition of a society which builds itself upon any of 
 the above principles, or declares that its mission is a protest against 
 the distinctive creed and polity of his own church. To do so, is to 
 protest against himself and his own church, and to teach all church 
 members to undervalue the very things he was solemnly ordained to 
 esteem and defend. 
 
 4. No Presbyterian minister has a right to recognize as Scripti^-al 
 officers in the Church of Christ any men who have been appointed as 
 "overseers" by an ordinary motion and vote of the people, or even 
 by an election, who are yet without Scriptural ordination and bound 
 by no vows whatever to any defined .system of church government. 
 Only very recently the Reunited Presbyterian Church has uttered its 
 unanimous protest against the recognition of mere " committee men " 
 as having any power of jurisdiction whatever in the house of God, 
 
 5. No Presbyterian minister has the right, in the "interim" or out 
 of the " interim" of the meetings of his Presbytery, formally to accept 
 a call to any church whatever, or to be formally i'.istalled over it as 
 pastor, except by leave of the Presbytery. The reasons for this are 
 perfectly obvious, and need not be stated ; and no alleged instance of 
 the violation of this organic law can be pleaded in its justification. 
 
 6. No Presbyterian minister has a right to install a co-Presbyter 
 upon a creed and over a church which holds as matter of indifference 
 the peculiar and distinctive tenets of his own church as to the orders 
 of the ministry, baptism, the Lord's supper, the form of church gov- 
 
ernnient, discipline, and mode of worship; all which tenets he has 
 pledged himself to defend and maintain. 
 
 7. No minister of any denomination has a right to teach that a 
 voluntary society, without ordained officers, is a scripturally organized 
 church of Christ. And no Presbyterian minister has a right to 
 organize any church whatever without the permission of his Presbytery, 
 or take refuge, for this purpose, behind an irresponsible council con- 
 voked through his instrumentality. To organize a church is a function 
 reserved solely to the Presbytery, to be effected, either directly by 
 the whole body, or indirectly by a committee or an individual ; in 
 both these cases, however, under express authority. The so-called 
 organization of the L. and M. L. Church was effected either under the 
 supervision of Mr. McCune himself, the so-called "overseers" being 
 appointed, but not ordained ; or by the council met to recognize the 
 so-called church and install the i\istor. No church officers were 
 ordained in either case. To call such a society a scriptural church 
 organization, then solemnly re-examine Brother McCune to give him 
 a new indorsement, then install him as a Presbyterian minister to be 
 its pastor, and then solemnly to recognize and commend this unorgan- 
 ized alliance as a scripturally organized church of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, was a farce, to say the least of it, at which sober men might 
 well smile. How could Dr. Morris and his Presbyterian brethren 
 perpetrate such an absurdity? 
 
 8. No Presbyterian minister has a right to belong to two different 
 denominations at the same time, especially when one of these is a 
 standing protest against the existence of the other as unscriptural, and 
 its avowed aim is to sink the distinctive tenets of the other for the 
 sake of union. This is too self-evident to require enlargement or 
 illustration. 
 
 9. No church member has a i-ight, while remaining undismissed 
 from his own church and in covenant therewith, to disregard his 
 solemn vows and enter into another church organization for any 
 purpose whatever. His solemn engagement to the new one is a 
 renunciation of his sacramental vows to the old. And no Presbyterian 
 minister has a right to countenance such irregular procedure; and yet 
 this is what was done in the formation and recognition of the L. and 
 M. L. Church. 
 
 10. No church member ha« a right to belong to two different 
 churches at the same time, especially when the second is a standing 
 protest against the Scriptural right of the first to exist. He can not 
 be faithful in his duties to both, nor can he be the subject of two 
 conflicting jurisdictions. This also is too plain to need illustration. 
 
11. No set of Christians, least of all undismissed cluirch-members, 
 have any right whatever to organize a society of any kind and baptize 
 it as a church of Christ, while they ignore the fundamental principles 
 of church polity as laid down in the sacred Scriptures. The L. and 
 M. L. society has no ordained officers of any kind whatever, and we 
 challenge any one to show us a scripturally organized church without 
 such officers in it. The reason for the course of procedure among the 
 L. and M. L. people is very manifest. According to Mr. McCune's 
 published statement in the Gazette of the 24th inst., he went among 
 them, he and they "mutually concurring" to form just such an 
 abnormal society as has been created. Either to have ordained elders^ 
 or to have asked permission from his Presbytery to do this thing, was 
 not "nominated in the bond" among so many confederate and con- 
 flicting beliefs as to church polity. It vvould have been " distinctive,'' 
 "divisive," and " denominational." Dr. Morris would have us believe 
 that only "provisional arrangements" in the interim of Presbytery 
 were effected Strange conception ! Let him look at liis own pub- 
 lished declaration in the council, that the L. and M. L. people " have 
 now resolved to organize themselves permanently as a Church of Christ.' 
 Pray, what is it to "provisionally" organize "permanently," or "per- 
 manently" organize "provisionally?" These arrangements were of the 
 very essence and enduring substance of the whole scheme. Viewed 
 from whatever angle, there is no Scriptually organized church there at 
 all, while yet it is recognized as such by Dr. Morris and hit* co-Presbyters. 
 That Mr. McCune, therefore, while a member of the Presbytery/of 
 Cincinnati, did form a new society in its very bosom, as a standing 
 protest against his own and all other denominations as "needles, sinftd,' 
 and a reproach to the cause of Christ," and form it with a mere 
 committee, complimented as "overseers," and called it a church 
 organization, and joined himself to it without leave of his Presbytery, 
 and that Dr Morris and other Presbyterians did assist to install their 
 own co-Presbyter over it as pastor, also without leave of Presbytery, and 
 bid it God-speed, is transparently clear as the cloudless sun at noon. 
 And it is just as clear that the L. and M. L. society has not been 
 authoritively recognized by any Church of Christ in existence, or by 
 any council representing any Church of Christ, or that Mr. McCune 
 has been re-examined by any such. It is about time that men should 
 cease abusing this word " represent," and that ministers should under- 
 stand that they do not "represent" the denominations to which they 
 belong, when they voluntarily go as individuals to attend conventions 
 and meetings of one sort or another. 
 
 And now, then, in direct answer to the question of Dr. Morris, "Was 
 
it right in itself, wis-e, and coniniendable" to do such things, or to 
 countenance the doing of them? I answer, emphatically, thrice over, 
 No ! Was it for the peace, unity, and purity of the Presbyterian 
 Church? I answer a hundred times iVo/ Was it consistent with sol- 
 emn vows taken to maintain and defend the doctrine and order of the 
 Presbyterian Church as the true doctrine and order of the house of 
 God? I answer ten thousand times No ! 
 
 Some Presbyterian defenders of modern liberalism aud broad-church- 
 ism, are welcome to assert that the position I take would be "high- 
 church even at Rome," which, in plain English, is to say, that the 
 Presbyterian order they would have vowed to support, surpasses the 
 Papacy itself in il liberality and despotic power. I do not wonder they 
 desire a new denomination, but that my friend. Dr. Morris, being a 
 representative of the Presbyterian Church in two of its high places of 
 trust, should even countenance by his presence the revolutionary con-^ 
 duct which has evoked this discussion, is, in my judgment, inconsistent 
 with our ordination vows. And that in more than two closely printed 
 columns of a secular paper he should lay out his strength to palliate or 
 justify the irregularities and unconstitutional acts above mentioned, 
 and appeal to the general public for sympathy in the same, is, to me. 
 a matter of great regret. If the masters of the house do so, in what 
 may not the humbler servants indulge ? If the captains of the Lord's 
 hosts speak so, what language may we not soon hear from the lips of 
 the rank and iile ? 
 
 I trust I am liberal in my spirit as any man can be, but, with me, 
 the truth of God's word, and fidelity to my engagements, can never be 
 thrown aside to encourage that phantom of union which, if we are to 
 be logical, the L. and M. L. Church symbolizes as the " best contri- 
 bution to millenial unity," and, after eighteen centuries, as the only 
 instance, yet extant, of the fulfilment of our Lord's intercessory prayer.. 
 And I hold, as strongly as any one can, that it is the imperative duty 
 of the followers of Christ to aim at bringing about a true union of all 
 the different parts of the household of faith upon a Scriptural basis. 
 But that such a union may be effected by the abolition of the evangel- 
 ical denominations, or the assertion that they are all " essentially sin- 
 ful," or that the L. and M. L. Church is a forelight of millennial 
 glory, I can never believe. 
 
 Dr. Morris says: " The real question is whether the Christian senti- 
 ment of Cincmnati will condemn this little band of believers for what 
 they themselves have done for the honor of Christ and the establish- 
 ment of His (jospel among them?" In the light of what has been 
 said as to the origin, nature, and aim of this organization, and of what 
 
has been actually done, how utterly inadequate a statement Is this? 
 No, this is not the " rail qaesfion." The real question is whether min- 
 isters and members of the Presbyterian Church may combine to coun- 
 tenance the proclamation to the world, that their own denomination 
 has no scriptural right to exist. The real question is, whether they 
 may be encouraged in such procedure, and what is to be the harvest 
 in years to come of such seed sown now ? The real question is, whether 
 a latitudinarian union is to be held superior to ministerial vows, and 
 wliether tiie prayer of Christ is a prayer for such union as is- illustrated 
 in the organization and recognition of the Jj, and M. L. Church? 
 
 Dr. Morris endeavors to show that the new movement is not antl- 
 denominational, though jwidenominational. In ray humble apprehen- 
 sion, it Avould require a genius more gifted than Aristotle to furnish 
 any solid reasons why Christians should secede from existing denom- 
 inations for the express purpose of creating a new undenominational 
 organization, unless it were that they were "anti" as well as " uu "- 
 denominational in their principles. What earthly reason can be given 
 for being tmdenominational, unless it is that they are a?i^'-denomina- 
 tional ? But their publi'^hed declarations are already decisive and con- 
 clusive on this point. Surely, if, as is asserted in the " address' and 
 "declarations" alluded to, denominational churches are "needless," 
 " divisive," " essentially sinful," "a manifest reproach to the cause of 
 Christ," and "displeasing to the Head of the Church," how ridicu- 
 lous a figure would men cut who claim to be not aHii-denominati(jmal, 
 but jsro-denominational while yet-ioidenominational? Or are they to 
 be left, like Mahomet's coffin, swinging in the air between wind and 
 water, neither cmti nor jjro, but simply unf Beyond all question, the 
 merest consistency compels them to be opposed to all denominations 
 whatever, and this is the only possible meaning that «;)denominational 
 can bear. 
 
 And all this would be true, even if the war record of Dr. Stuart 
 Robinson had been identical with that of Dr. Morris, or if Beauregard 
 had danced w'ith a Southern army to Boston, as Sherman did with a 
 Northern one to Savannah. What logical value is there in the al- 
 - lusion to Dr. Robinson, when he is known not to be the author of the 
 articles in the Christian Observer reflecting on Dr. Morris' course ? 
 
 In conclusion, I answer once more the question of Dr. Morris four 
 times repeated, viz.: " Was it right, wise, and commendable," etc., 
 by saying. No. And no plea based upon the blessed communion of 
 saints, and no argument urged from considerations of brotherly love, 
 the broad spirit of the Gospel, and the fellowship of all wlio are one 
 in Christ, can avail in the least to change this answer. After every 
 
9 
 
 plea has l)ceii mudc, the questiou still returns, Are we faithful as 
 Presbyterian ministers to our ordination vows to maintain the doctrine 
 and order of the Presbyterian Church, if we countenance such decla- 
 tions and proceedings as those which have emerged into history in the 
 organization and recognition of the M. and M, L. Church ? No em- 
 phasizing of the principles of Christian fellowship can sink this ques- 
 tion out of sight. 
 
 Already seven or more public journals have planted themselves 
 squarely on the ground I have taken, and I am sure it is impregnable. 
 No man loves Christian fellowship more than myself, and none more 
 earnestly desires that the young men under Dr. jNIorris' instruction 
 should have large and liberal hearts to all whom Christ has received. 
 But if the distinctive principles of faith and order they are soon to 
 vow solemnly to defend, are to be held up as "divisive" of the body 
 of Christ, and they are to be taught to "drop off all differences, 
 whenever they find it practicable," and to countenance and multiply 
 such organizations as this new one, I would myself prefer they should 
 either not take their consecration vows, or, having taken them, should 
 as speedily as possible relieve themselves of the same. 
 
 Presbyterians can not be too loyal to their church in this day of lat- 
 itudinarian tendencies and broad-churehism, when the cry of union, 
 indiscriminate and unreflecting, has become the watchword of so many. 
 Evermore, truth is before union, and not union before truth, and if 
 there is one fact clear and outstanding in the history of the church, it 
 is that the mutilation of her doctrines, and the schisms ihat have fol- 
 lowed, have been the result in every case of the lax use of the power 
 of the keys. 
 
 With such a sentiment as this, and with the profound conviction 
 that in our time, when the "spirit of the age" is crying "progress 
 and reform " on every hand, we need to be intensely careful as to the 
 truth of God and the order of our church. And so, with the kindest 
 personal regard for those who differ from rne, I subscribe myself, very 
 sincerelv yours and theirs, in tiie bonds of the grand old Presbyterian 
 Church^ THOMAS H. SKINNER. 
 
t" 
 
DEFENSE 
 
 V/- 
 
 
 <^ 
 
 riii|r 
 
 .i^wO'-.^^iniTST TXIE 
 
 FALSEUmONIllLIBERllLllOFTHEMS, 
 
 By THOMAS H. SKINNER, 
 
 Pastor of the Second I'ttsbyteriau Chuich, Cincinnati, O. 
 
 ' I have dared to lift up the'Banner that, is fallen down."— John Calvin. 
 
 CINCINNATI : 
 
 GAZETTE COMPANY PRINT, N. E. COR. FOURTH AND VINE STS. 
 
 1876. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ^^-^HE history of the publication of this Suppressed Speech can 
 ^1 K ^® ^^^^^ ^" ^ ^"^^ words. The Presbytery of Cincinnati met 
 ^PJ*'! 12th and 13th instants, at Glendale, Ohio, in its regular 
 ^^ Spring meeting. Under a conviction of duty, and having 
 received many letters from distinguished ministers in our church ex- 
 pressive of their sense of the need of speedy action by the Presbytery 
 in reference to the Lin wood and Mt. Lookout organization, and the 
 principles of Mr. McCune in which it was founded, and having been 
 virtually challenged to bring the matter before the Presbytery, I 
 introduced the following Preamble and Resolution, as coming under 
 the Episcopal power of the Presbytery, provided for in the Form of 
 Government, chap. 10, sec. 8, in the clause " to resolve questions of 
 doctrine or discipline seriously and reasonably proposed, and to con- 
 demn erroneous opinions which injure the purity or peace of the 
 church;" a function distinct from the exercise of elaborate forensic 
 process involved in the same section, viz, of "judging ministers." The 
 object of the paper was simply to officially discountenance the theories 
 and practices of- Mr. McCune, and the irregularities connected there- 
 with, and declare them inconsistent with official membership in the 
 Presbyterian Church. 
 
 " Whereas, It is well known to members of this Presbytery that the 
 Rev. W. C. McCune, a member of this body, has for years past 
 preached and published, by book and pamphlet, and articles in the 
 religious and secular press, certain principles antagonistic to the faith 
 and oi'der of the Presbyterian Church; and, 
 
 "Wiereas, It is well known that for the avowed purpose of carrying 
 these principles into practical effect, Mr. McCune has been instru- 
 mental in promoting the organization of a new church within the 
 bounds of this Presbytery, out of undismissed members, and upon the 
 foundation of these principles, and has been re-examined by an irres- 
 ponsible Council, accepted a call to become the pastor of the new 
 church, and has been installed, as such, by this Council, all without 
 leave of his Presbytery ; and. 
 
" Wiereas, The newly organized LinM'ood and Mt. Lookout Church is 
 one of a series of independent churches, associated on a common basis, 
 confessedly " to re-organize the New Testament Church," and to 
 maintain, among other things, the " essential sinfulness" of existing 
 Presbyterian and all other evangelical denominations, as such; and, 
 also, to maintain the non-enforcement of denominational law, and of 
 non-subscription, by the ministry, to denominational creeds; and, 
 
 '' Whereas, Mr, McCune has joined himself to this new independent 
 association, being chairman of one of its conventions, and all without 
 dismission from his Presbytery; therefore, 
 
 "Eesolved, That this Presbytery rejects the principles of Mr. McCune, 
 as contrary to the established principles of the Presbyterian Church, 
 as to doctrine and order ; and that the course pursued by Mr. McCune 
 in promoting the organization of the M. and M. L. Church to pro- 
 pagate these principles, and to receive and send out ministers of the 
 Gospel ; his accepting a call to become the pastor of the new church, 
 and so joining himself to this new movement, all without application 
 to, leave of, or dismission from his Presbytery, is unprecedented in 
 the history of the Presbyterian body, is in contravention of its organic 
 law, and is inconsistent with membership in this Presbytery." 
 
 The paper was duly seconded ; upon which I rose to speak to the 
 subject matter involved. Having reached the place marked (*) on 
 page 8, Mr. McCune interrupted my speech, alleging that the Pre- 
 amble and Resolution w^ere both out of order, as being a personal 
 attack upon himself, and an informal preferrihg of charges, giving him 
 no opportunity for defense. This point of order was not made by any 
 member of the body wdien the paper itself was offered and seconded". 
 The moderator decided that Mr. McCune's point was not well taken, 
 and that the Resolution being in order was debatable. Appeal was 
 taken, and the chair was not sustained. It was evident that the effort 
 was to throw my speech out of the Presbytery. It was also stated that 
 members of the Presbytery did not " well know" what was recited in 
 the paper.. To meet this scruple I changed the Preamble and Resolu- 
 ution, inserting the words, "it is reported" instead of "it is well 
 known," and moved the following form, whic-h was seconded : 
 
 ''Whereas, It is reported that the Rev. W. C. McCune, a member of 
 this body, has for years past preached and published by book and 
 pamphlets and articles in the religious and secular press, certain 
 principles antagonistic to the faith and order of the Presbyterian 
 Church; and, 
 
 " Whereas, It is reported, that for the avowed purpose of carrying 
 these principles into practical effect, Mr. McCune has been instrumen- 
 
tal in promoting the organization of a new church within the bounds 
 of this Presbytery, out of undismissed members, and upon the founda- 
 tion of these principles, and has been re-examined by an irresponsible 
 Council, accepted a call to become the pastor of the new church, and 
 has been installed as such by this Council, all without leave of his 
 Presbytery ; therefore, 
 
 "Re&olved, That a committee of three be appointed to inquire into 
 the facts of the case, and report to the Presbytery what action, if any, 
 is necessary in the premises." 
 
 No point of order was raised until I had proceeded again in my 
 speech to the line marked (f) on page 9, when I was again interrupt- 
 ed, and again the point of order was raised, and the Preamble ruled 
 out. All that was left was the Resolution for a committee of inquiry. 
 Under this it was contended that I had no right to speak to the merits 
 of the case, the Preamble having been turned out of doors, and nothing 
 left for the " case " and the " premises" in the Resolution to refer to ! 
 At this juncture, Dr. Montfort introduced an amendment (I) to the 
 effect, that a committee of conference have a 'personal intervieiv (/) with 
 Mr. McCune, and report at the fall meetmg.H To this I objected, 
 because it did not include an examination into the facts of the case. 
 Dr. Morris suggested that Dr. Monfort's Resolution was insufficient, 
 whereupon it was so amended as to include an examination into the 
 facts, and a committee was appointed to report next fall, on a matter 
 which required prompt and immediate action ; especially as Mr. 
 McCune had just been enrolled as "Pastor" on the minutes of the 
 General Assembly, thereby acknowledging the validity of his installa- 
 tion by an irresponsible Council. 
 
 Thus was I twice put down, and my Preamble and Resolution and 
 Speech turned out of the house. I conceive this to be altogether 
 wrong. As a free Presbyter, under the banner of our Constitution, I 
 claim to have the right, under the Episcopal power of the Presbytery, 
 to introduce a Preamble and Resolution reciting the points in which 
 the faith and order of my church have been publicly assailed, and in 
 the open discussion of which, through the press, leading members of 
 this Presbytery have taken a part. And this, I claim, whether the 
 Resolution may have been adopted or not. If the faith and polity of 
 the church may be publicly assailed, outside the Presbytery, by long 
 articles in the newspapers, I certainly have the right, upon the floor 
 of the Presbytery, to call attention to the fact, recite the grounds and 
 reasons for my motion, and defend the same, holding myself personally 
 responsible for whatsoever I might utter. The objection that a com- 
 
.6 
 
 mittee of inquiry will report amounts to nothing, for the committee 
 may report that no action is necessary in the case. 
 
 Besides, every member of a deliberative body has a right guaranteed 
 to him, by written parliamentary law, to speak to the merits of every 
 Resolution that is debatable ; and every Resolution is debatable that 
 is in order ; and this Resolution was declared out of order, simply on 
 the ground that it entered into the merits of the case on which the 
 committee was to report; a position wholly indefensible, because par- 
 liamentary law can not be set aside under cover of a point of order ; 
 nor can the Episcopal power of the Presbytery, as above stated, be set 
 aside by its judicial power. 
 
 Aware that wrong motives have been imputed to me, I publish 
 what I had to say in Presbytery, and which Presbytery would not 
 hear. Mr. McCune thus speaks in the Cincinnati Commercial of Feb. 
 15, 1876 — " Dr. Skinner, without any earthly provocation, has made 
 a determined assault upon my ministerial reputation, and inasmuch as 
 I am advocating no sentiments now that I have not openly proclaimed 
 for ten years, the evidence is conclusive that his attack upon me is a 
 mere pretext in order to damage the present Moderator of the Presby- 
 terian General Assembly. And then, when his real object and his 
 sophistries and misquotations are exposed, he begins to whine about 
 gross personalities." I think my speech will show how utterly un- 
 founded is this unworthy view of Mr. McCune, and how nothing but 
 an earnest desire to defend the time honored principles of my church 
 has prompted me to the course I have taken. 
 
 The defeat of the exercise of the Episcopal power of the church, by 
 confounding a constitutional right with a mere deliberative point of 
 order, so wrenching from church courts one of their chiefest functions^ 
 and, in times of trouble, either flooding the church with a stream ol 
 formal forensic prosecutions, or compelling faithful men to sit silent, 
 while a counter stream of corruption advances unchecked, has a history 
 not soon to be forgotten. It is enough here simply to note, that from 
 the very beginning of the Presbyterian Church until the year 1822, 
 this Episcopal power was not only undisputed, but constantly exercised 
 by all the church courts. Presbyteries, Synods and Assemblies, and 
 preeminently in our Supreme Court in the years 1758, 1762, 1763, 1798, 
 1806, 1810, 'l830, 1835, and 1837. (Baird's Digest, pp. 621, 626, 632, 
 642, 647, 649, 652, 662, 664, 665, (89, 2). The attempt first to "evade" 
 it in 1822, then to "deny" it in the memorable 1834, led to troubles 
 which have required forty years to heal them. Enough to say, that 
 the Presbyteries of the Undivided Church affirmed by their delegates 
 in the Assemblies of 1835 and 1837 the importance and constitutionality 
 
of this Episcopal power, and so firmly had it become established, after 
 a short but sharp contest, that even the minority in 1837 recog- 
 nized it as just and entered into it. (Baird's Digest, pp, 666, 674, 
 679, 681, 683, 688, 692, 713, 745, 749, 764, 767.) The root 
 question was simply this, "Is it competent to any Presbytery to 
 take up and examine any printed publication and to pronounce it 
 to be erroneous, or dangerous, if they so found it, without, in 
 the first place, commencing a formal prosecution of the author, 
 even be it known and admitted that the author is a member of its 
 own body." — (Baird's Digest, p. 665). The evasion and denial of this 
 right sundered the Presbyterian Church. It will do so again if per- 
 sisted in. It is time for Presbyteries to learn that a constitutional 
 right, inscribed in the organic law of the church, and fenced by writ- 
 ten parliamentary rule, cannot, with impunity, be swept away under 
 cover of a point of order, suddenly raised by a momentary majority, 
 and pushed through under the plea that the grounds and reasons of 
 action cannot be discussed until either a committee of inquiry report, 
 or a forensic process is begun. 
 
 With these explanations, I submit the speech to the attention of the 
 Presbyterian public, in general, and to ray ministerial bretheren in 
 particular. 
 
IDEP^E2^TSE 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINE AND ORDER 
 
 AGAINST THE 
 
 FALSE UNIONISM AND LIBERALISM OF THE TIMES. 
 
 Mr. Moderator and Brethren of the Presbytery : 
 
 (^ll^l^l design to offer sorae considerations in support of this resolution. 
 Its subject matter is pressed upon us from many sides. The 
 demand urged upon this Presbytery for action of some sort, 
 is both loud and earnest. The " ripple '' has become a tidal 
 wave. From the South and from the North, from the East and from 
 the West, we are called upon to bear our testimony, and perform our 
 duty in the premises. As has been remarked, " the most conspicuous 
 church on the Ohio, at this time, is one of the smallest. It is called 
 ' The Union Christian Church of Liu wood and Mt. Lookout.' " (*) Tl^ 
 wide-spread discussion concerning this movement, as to its nature and 
 aim, the interest taken in it by the press, by individuals, by the church 
 at large, and the prmciples and practices involved in it, are such that 
 this Presbytery can not afford to pass it by. From the relations into 
 which I have been brought in connection with this whole matter, I feel 
 it my duty to present it formally before this body. I therefore respect- 
 fully submit to my brethren of the Presbytery the following facts and 
 considerations in support of the resolution I offered : 
 
 THE PRINCIPLES INVOLVED. 
 
 I. The Rev. Mr. McCune, being a member of Cincinnati Presby- 
 tery, and still under the common ordination vows that bind us all, 
 holds and teaches that the Presbyterian Church, in so far as it is a 
 distinctive denomination, framed by denominational law to maintain 
 
 * Here, I was arrested, the first time, and Preamble, Revolution, and 
 Speech, ruled out. (See Introduction, p. 4.) T. H. S. 
 
its distinctive and peculiar " doctrines, ordinances and church polity," 
 has no scriptural " right to exist." (f) And this he does, first, by a 
 general and sweeping condemnation of all existing evangelical denom- 
 inations, as such, and second, by a condemnation, in particular, of the 
 Presbyterian denomination, as such. 
 
 1. In general, he holds and teaches publicly that *' existing denom- 
 inational divisions," and "the organization of different denominations," 
 limiting universal organic unity, by the principle of particular exclu- 
 sion of ministers not subscribing to particular denominational creeds, 
 are without warrant from either "Christ" or "His inspired Apostles," 
 and are, therefore, " unscriptural," "anti-scriptural," opposed to the 
 "precept" of Christ, "sectarian," "essentially sinful," "a manifest 
 reproach of the cause of Christ," "a lasting excuse for the irreligious, 
 careless, and worldly," an "enforcing" of creeds which" require 
 their members to receive as truth, and perform as duty, what is no 
 part of the common faith," " bewildering sincere inquirers," an 
 "advantage to Popery and Infidelity," "directly contrary to Scrip- 
 ture," "hindering the conversion of the world," and a "usurpation of 
 Christ's prerogative." All this is predicated, not merely of " supernu- 
 mary churches" multiplied in small localities, nor merely of the im- 
 perfections of denominations, but of denominational divisions, as such, 
 i. e., of the separate organization of the visible Church of Christ into 
 distinctive denominational parts. His language is, "ive shall aim to 
 show the anti-scriptural, wasteful, enfeebling nature of existing denom- 
 inational divisions, and persuade Christians eventually to organize instead 
 but one church in one place." — (The Christian Unity, editorial, Nov. 
 8, 1873). And again, "The Lord Jesus Christ has left on record 
 no provision in the New Testament for the organzation of different 
 denominations." — (Declaration, p. 3.) And again, "Inspired Apos- 
 tles never organized different denominations in any community." — 
 (Hid. p. 3). And again, " God in his providence urgently calls 
 upon all of Christ's disciples to make immediate prayerful prepara- 
 tion for the united New Testament organization of the church in every 
 place." — (Editorial, Nov. 3, 1873.) See also Prospectus, pages 1, 2, 3.) 
 
 2. In particular. He holds and teaches publicly that the Presby- 
 terian Church, being a distinctive organization, or "sect," as he calls 
 it, built on denominational law, and limited in ministerial fellowship 
 by virtue of that law, is an organization, in so far as it is separate and 
 distinct from others in its peculiar doctrine and polity, justly obnoxious 
 to the whole catalogue of criticisms above named, and therefore having 
 
 tiiere, I was arrested, the second time, and Preamble and Speech, ruled 
 out. (See Introduction, p. 5.) T. H. S. 
 
10 
 
 no scriptural right to exist as such. It is included, manifestly, among 
 the others whose denomiuationalism is so forcibly condemned. Not- 
 withstanding its common Christianity, which he admits to be the 
 common substance of all evangelical churches, yet, in so far as it is a 
 peculiar denomination built for the maintenance of what is peculiar 
 and distinctive in Presbyterianism, as such, it also is anti-scriptural, 
 sectarian, essentially sinful, a manifest reproach to the cause of Christ, 
 and everything else of this character already quoted, and applied to 
 all denominations in general. Upon a false interpretation of the 
 expression, "Receive ye one another, as Christ also received us, to the 
 glory of God," Rom. 15 : 7 a dictum probans, indeed, for open com- 
 munion, enjoining also the fellowship of Jews and Gentiles in the one 
 church of Christ, and introduced by the Apostle as the practical 
 conclusion of a discussion on things purely indifferent, but having no 
 reference to ecclesiastical courts or public teachers, upon this he erects 
 what he calls, in his work on Organic Union, " the Divine law of organ- 
 ization f (Organic Union p. 123,) a law which, (Declaration, p. 4,) is 
 emphasised as a "precept" that "regmres'' the admission of every 
 minister of Christ, of whatever denomination, into any Presbytery or 
 church court in the world, where he may choose to apply for admission. 
 This precept, he says, " applies in the case of mhiisters as well 
 as in the case of members, and no one who gives scriptural evidence 
 that he is a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ should be excluded 
 from membership in any Presbytery, Conference, etc., by any denom- 
 inational law." That is, he holds that this passage necessitates th^ 
 destruction of existing denominations, as such, and the amalga- 
 mation of all into external ecclesiastical uniformity. Toleration 
 in the same body of all denominational differences, free unhindered 
 proclamation of the same, inclusion of Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, 
 Episcopalian, Lutheran, and Congregational ministers, in the same 
 ecclesiastical court, backed by the right of private judgment and 
 guarantee of free speech, and sheltered by Christian forbearance, this, 
 he says, is the meaning of Rom. 15: 7, and is, what he calls, "the 
 Divine law of organization" for the Church of Christ, in all ages. More 
 explicitly, he asserts that no denomination has aiiy right to exist as a 
 "distinct organization," if not founded on this alleged "Divine law of 
 organization." I quote his words, " ten years " old : " A denomination 
 has no right to exist as a distinct organization, unless she is organized 
 according to the Divine law of organization." (Organic Union, p. 123 ) 
 What this law of organization is, we have already seen and quoted 
 from the Declaration p. 4. It is nothing more or less than non-exclu- 
 sion, i. e. it is Mr. McCune's interpretation of Rom. 15: 7, as applied 
 
11 
 
 to ecclesiastical courts and public teachers in their relation to the 
 preservation of the truth of God. In brief, Mr. McCune makes 
 non-exclusion from ecclesiastical courts and pulpits one of the nec- 
 essary marks of a true scriptural organization, and of the true church. 
 This is a novelty indeed. Each evangelical denomination must receive 
 the ministers of every other similar denomination, Avith all their antag- 
 onisms, and so destroy the distinctive character of all denominational law. 
 Any evangelical minister, no matter how opposed to Presbyterian faith 
 and order, has a perfect right to be a pastor in any Presbyterian pulpit, 
 and a standing member of any Presbyterian court in the land. 
 
 But now, according to Mr. McCune, the Presbyterian Church is not 
 a Union church of this stamp, but insists upon her denominational law, 
 not receiving to her ecclesiastical courts those who can not sincerely 
 approve and subscribe the Westminster standards. She requires, there- 
 fore, more than Mr. McCune's "Divine law of organization " demands, 
 and by consequence, in the very language of Mr. McCune, " has no 
 right to exist as a distinct organization," because not "organized accor- 
 ding to the divine law of organization." " I do not believe," says Mr. 
 McCune, "that the Presbyterian Churches are Christian Union organi- 
 zations ; I believe they ougJit to be ; I believe that any minister, on 
 application, should be received as a member of the Presbytery and 
 who gives to Presbytery satisfactory scriptural evidence that Christ 
 has received him as His minister. The Presbyterian Church requires 
 more than this," (Commercial, February 9, 1876.) Therefore he objects. 
 The conclusion is simply irresistible that, according to Mr. McCune's 
 convictions, the Pi'esbyterian denomination, as a denomination, built 
 on its .distinctive constitution, and fortified by its distinctive denom- 
 inational law, "has no right to exist." " Denominationalism," he tells 
 us, is "sectarianism;" because a "sect" is an organization that 
 " excludes" any one Christian minister while a "not sect" is the church 
 that "includes" every Christian minister. " Sectarianism," says Mr. 
 McCune, " is a hurtful excrescence. I am opposed to denominationalisra, 
 or to use a more expressive term, I am utterly opposed to all sectari" 
 anism, and I am just as much opposed to Presbyterian sectarianism as 
 to any other. I am opposed to the division of the church into denom- 
 inations." (Commercial, Feb. 9, 1876). The Presbyterian Church, 
 therefore, being a "denomination," built upon denominational law, 
 with denominational standards, carries upon her face, and in her body, 
 " a hurtful excrescence," in so far forth as she is distinctively Presby- 
 terian. She has a right to exist as a Christian Union Church, if she 
 will, without the peculiarities of her organic constitution, but no right 
 to exist with them, for she thus becomes "auti-scriptural," "essentially 
 
12 
 
 sinful," a " manifest reproach to the cause of Christ" and " a usurper 
 of Christ's prerogative." The essence of her crime is that "she enforces' 
 her " peculiarities, contrary to conscience, as a matter of sectarian 
 law." (Gazette, January 11, 1876). What adds importance to these 
 views, is the fact that Mr. McCune, in his reply of November 15, 1873, 
 to Dr. Montfort's strictures in the Herald and Presbyter, affirms that 
 his (Mr. McCune's) views "are not peculiar," as charged, but are 
 "the same views on this subject which are held by a large number of the 
 members of Dr. Montfort's own Presbytery, including some of its 
 most influential members." (Christian Unity, November 15, 18-73, 
 p. 4,) views Avhich he says, he proclaimed for "ten years" and the 
 " liberty" to teach which he "enjoyed unquestioned until Dr. Skinner 
 made," what he calls, " his attack." (Commercial, February 9, 1876). 
 These views Mr. McCune holds to be just as important as the salvation 
 of souls. Speaking of himself in this book on "Organic Union," he 
 says, " the writer of these pages can never consent to preach the 
 gospel in any denomination upon condition that he shall not advocate 
 certain principles which he believes in his heart are the truths of the 
 gospel. He believes tliat the great principles upon which the Organic 
 Union of the church must be consummated are just as important as tlie 
 salvation of precious souls.'' (Organic Union p. 150). 
 
 For the sake of these he seeks a destruction of Presbyterian denom- 
 inational law by a revision of the Presbyterian standards, or a new 
 Book. Justifying his position, he says, " I regard the Presbyterian 
 Church with no popish veneration, I do not consider her standards in- 
 fallible. I deem it lawful to propose revision, &c. I regard it perfectly 
 ruleable to propose changes in her standards in the interest of Christian 
 Union, to memorialize the General Assembly to this end, and to seek 
 to imbue the whole denomination with the doctrines of the New Test- 
 ament on the subject of Christian Union. I am in favor of a plain 
 explicit creed, that shall be unmistakably evangelical as a condition 
 of ministerial fellowship." (Gazette January 11,1876). What this 
 means, every Presbyterian will understand in the light of the quota- 
 tions already made. It simply means the destruction of the distinc- 
 tive constitutional principles of the Presbyterian- Church. It aims at 
 no less than the abolition of the peculiarities of her creed, government 
 and discipline, the overthrow of her polity, for the sake of Pan-Union, 
 before which even Pan-Presbyterianism must fade away. It means 
 the repeal of her denominational law, requiring subscription to the 
 Westminister standards as a term of ecclesiastical fellowship ; it 
 means no right to "enforce" her distinctive creed; 'it means an ec- 
 clesiastical court without check or controlment of its members; it 
 
13 
 
 means a protest against the administration of Presbyterian discipline 
 and law ; it means the proscription of any creed beyond a mere min- 
 imum statement of a few common truths which nearly every heretic 
 might accept, and which it is impossible to dispute without denying 
 the very existence of Christianity ; it means that the church has no 
 right to increase her creed by any brief statement framed to meet and 
 transfix any overshadowing error, that may arise to threaten her faith. 
 " No true Protestant," says Mr. McCune, "needs to be convinced of 
 the fahity of every argument which is framed to prove that it has become 
 necessary to enlarge the creed of the Primitive Church." (Org. Un., 
 p. 47). In short, it means that the Presbyterian Church has no right 
 to enact or enforce any terms of fellowship, that would exclude from 
 her pale any Christian Minister who believes it to be his duty to sup- 
 press, drop off, or fight against the distinctive differences of her con- 
 fession and government. 
 
 THE PRACTICES INVOLVED. 
 
 II. And now, Mr. McCune, being still a member of Cincinnati 
 Presbytery, and not merely for " local convenience," as some sup- 
 pose, but for the avowed " purpose" (Declaration p. 5) of carrying into 
 practical effect the foregoing principles, has been instrumental in 
 ''permanently" organizing, as a standing protest against the " essen- 
 tial sinfulness" of the Presbyterian and all other evangelical denom- 
 inations as such, a new Non-Presbyterian, Non-Congregational, and 
 anti-denominational society at Linwood and Mt. Lookout, in the bosom 
 of Cincinnati Presbytery. 
 
 This organization was effected on November 7th, 8th, 10th and 24th, 
 1875, in violation of the organic law of the Presbyterian Church, in 
 the following particulars, to-wit : 
 
 1. By "mutually concurring" with certain persons to promote and 
 form the Linwood and Mt. Lookout Society, prepare and publish to 
 the world its creed, basis, preliminary statements, declaration and 
 regulations of expediency, by givmg his presence and counsel at the 
 dates of organization above mentioned, and by " desiring that such 
 organization might be effected." (Phil. Presbyterian, Feb. 26, 1876). 
 
 2. By recognizing as members of the new church, members of five 
 different evangelical denominations still undismissed, and in covenant 
 with their respective churches. 
 
 3. By dropping off the Constitutional titles, "elders" and "dea- 
 cons," and countenancing the appointment of mere unordained com- 
 mitteemen, complimented with the title of "overseers," to exercise 
 
14 
 
 spiritual jurisdiction in the so called church, and for deacons " certain 
 other brethren" having a "treasurer," 
 
 4. By substituting for the Westminster standards the general creed 
 of the World's Evangelical Alliance, laying down a new " basis of fel- 
 lowship " in reference to the reception of ministers, adopting certain 
 " regulations of expediency " in place of the Westminister form of gov- 
 ernment, and announcing in a " Declaration " the principles on which 
 the new society is founded and which it is intended to maintain. 
 Every thing distinctively Presbyterian has been thrown overboard. 
 
 5. By formally accepting a call to become the Pastor of the new 
 society without the leave of his Presbytery. 
 
 6. By adopting a new distinctive title, "the Union Christian 
 Church of Linwood and Mt. Lookout," and claiming it to be in its 
 organization and principles after the pattern of the Apostolic Church. 
 
 7. By convoking December 10, 1875, through his instrumentality, 
 an irresponsible council of ministers of different denominations, un- 
 delegated by any evangelical churches, to convene on December 15, 
 1875, in order to re-examine him in Theology, but not in church gov- 
 ernment, and install him as pastor over the new society of his own 
 creation, without leave of his Presbytery, and thus secure a public 
 recognition of the new society as a scripturally organized church of 
 the Lord Jesus Christ. "Basis" passim: Account of council in 
 Gazette, December 18, 1875, Herald and Presbyter, January 5, 1876. 
 Gazette, January 10, 12 and 14, and February 7, 8 and 10, 187^ 
 Invitation to council December 10, 1875. 
 
 What adds to the gravity of this procedure, is the fact that not only 
 in its inception, nature and aim, is it a violation of the principles of 
 our government and discipline, and of the decisions of our supreme 
 tribunal, but that it was a premeditated plan, and has been encour- 
 aged and countenanced by members of Cincinnati Presbytery, some 
 of whom even sat in the council and sympathized with the movement. 
 There is evidence to show that many people of L, and Mt. L. refused 
 to join in the heterogenous mixture — evidence to prove that Mr, Mc- 
 Cune and others "mutually concurred" to work up just such an ab- 
 normal institution a year before it was begun. There is most decisive 
 evidence to show that it was not a "provisional" but a "permanent" 
 organization, the latter word having been substituted for the former 
 by the council at Mr. McCune's request. There is proof that the or- 
 ganization was a standing protest against the right of evangelical 
 denominations, as such, to exist. It was the fruit of the anti-denom- 
 inational convention of Suffolk, Va., May 1875, of which Mr. McCune 
 was Chairman, and previously of the Cincinnati Convention, October, 
 
15 
 
 1874, and it was framed upon the "Basis" there adopted in the ad- 
 dress to all Christian ministers and churches in North America, the 
 topmost signature to which is that of Mr. McCune himself. 
 
 What adds still further importance to this new movement is the /Arj- 
 fact that it has been openly paUiated by the Herald and Presbyter. "7^, 
 Dr. Monfort, (H. and P., January 5, 1876) patronizes the new depart- ■ 
 ure of Mr. McCune, saying pacifyingly : "In all this there is not much 
 cause jor alarm!" and adding, "Independent churches are no new 
 things under the sun in this country, even independent Presbyterian 
 churches," as if there ever was any thing under the sun like this new 
 society in this country, or in any other ! It is not a " Congregational 
 Church," for it ignores the Westminster confession, which is in force 
 in the Congregational Churches, so that distinctive doctrine is not 
 sacrificed. " It is not an independent Presbyterian church," for it has 
 thrown the standards and the eldership overboard. The L. and Mt. L. 
 church, says Mr. McCune, " is not a Presbyterian church and is not 
 under Presbyterian law at all."— (Commercial Feb. 9, 1876.) It is 
 sui generis, and a protest by a Presbyterian minister against his own 
 denomination, and gotten up in violation of the organic law of his 
 church. ' ' There is no harm" says Dr. Monfort, " in 3fr. Mc Cune's taking 
 charge of such a church! Moreover, his peculiar vieivs are not new with 
 /iim."— (H. and P., January 5, 1876). And this, after saying (H. and 
 P., November 6, 1873) that Mr. McCune's views are " very peculiar," 
 and that he " aims at a great change in the churches." 
 
 If anything further is needed to show what importance is to be 
 attached to this • procedure, and whither we are drifting, it will be 
 enough to quote from the CampbelUte Chridian Quarterly Review, of 
 January, 1876, the following passage, which one might take for the 
 ipsisima verba of Mr. McCune himself: "Every effort to build up de- 
 nominations is a positive and open violation of the law of God, for 
 which there can be no adequate apology, and such effort must finally 
 meet its due reward. ^ * * * The whole system of de- 
 nominationalism is wrong. It is a pity that another should ever unite 
 with them. Better that all outside of these should continue outside, 
 etc., entirely independent of these organizations, than they should 
 strengthen the existing divisions. Christ never formed the various 
 denominations, on their various and conflicting creeds. What remains 
 to be done then to obey the law of Jesus, 'Let there be no divisions 
 among you,' is to abandon all sectarian names, and dissolve all secta- 
 rian organizations, and to organize as a church of Christ and assume 
 that name."— (pages 104, 110). 
 
16 
 
 COMDEMNATION OF THE PRINCIPLES. 
 
 III. But I proceed, now, in the third place, to show that the prin- 
 ciples of Mr. McCune are iu open contravention of the standards of 
 the Presbyterian Church, and her binding decisions, as to doctrine, 
 government and discipline. 
 
 1. As to Mr. McCune's union principles, the "system of union," 
 which the Presbyterian Church holds, repudiates his theory. She be- 
 gins her standards by announcing to the world "the system of union, 
 and form of government and discipline" she has adopted, and gives 
 lier reasons for the same. In her chapter on "preliminary principles," 
 she recognizes the right of different evangelical denominations to 
 exist as such, and does it upon the broad ground of the rights of con- 
 science, and of private judgement, imperfection of knowledge, room 
 for differences of interpretation, lack of perfect light, and duty at the 
 same time to maintain the peace, unity and purity of the church, and 
 to forbear with each other in charity. The very arguments Mr. McCune 
 takes to prove evangelical denominations unwarranted and essentially 
 sinful, the Presbyterian Church takes to prove their scriptural exped- 
 iency and propriety, and their moral right to exist. Listen to her 
 words, as she exhibits her "system of union:" 1. "God alone is 
 Lord of the Conscience, etc." 2. " Every Christian Church or Union, 
 or Association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms 
 of admission into its own communion, and the qualifications of^its 
 ministers and members, as well sts the whole system of government 
 which Christ hath appointed." 3. "There are truths and forms, With 
 respect to which men of good character and principles may differ," and 
 as to these, "it is the duty of both private Christians and Societies to 
 exercise mutual forbearance," and so on. In accordance with this she 
 recognizes as more or less agreeable to the scriptures various orthodox 
 denominations, while maintaining that the Presbyterian Church, 
 wherein it differs distinctly from the doctrine and order of all others, is 
 nearer the full truth of Christ in his revealed word, and nearer the 
 true form of Apostolic organization. — (Form .of Gov. Book I, Cap. 1, 
 sees. 1, 2, and 5. Cap. 8, sec. 1. Moore's Digest, pp. 43, 44, 51, 120.) 
 The rights of conscience are not to be sacrificed to mere external Pan- 
 union, nor for the sake of these rights, on the other hand, is the 
 church to be turned into a Babel of conflicting beliefs, or a common 
 pool of indifference to all belief. 
 
 2. Tlie denominational law of the Presbyterian Church is directly 
 opposed to Mr. McCune's so called "Divine law of organization." It 
 puts truth before union, and not union before truth; conscience before 
 
17 
 
 indiflerence, and not indifference before conscience. It does not con- 
 found, as some do, the doctrine of the "communion of saints" with 
 external organization. The Presbyterian Church, while holding to the 
 first, still insists upon her denominational law, and properly excludes 
 from official trust within her pale all who are conscientiously op])osed 
 to her distinctive faith and order, which she as conscientiously believes 
 is the nearest and the best expression of the Truth of God. There- 
 fore does she say: " Although we are willing to receive all whom Christ 
 has received to the glory of God, and admit to fellowship in sacred 
 ordinances all such as we have grounds to believe Christ will at last 
 admit to the kingdom of Heaven ; yet we are undoubtedly obliged to 
 take care that the faith once delivered to the saints be kept pure and 
 uncorrupt among us, and so handed down to our posterity." — 
 (Digest, p. 47). And so does she demand that " no Presbytery shall 
 license or ordain to the work of the ministry any candidate, until, etc. 
 
 * * * and he declare his acceptance of the Westminster 
 confession and catechisms, as the confession of his faith, and promise 
 subjection to the Presbyterian plan of government, and the Westmin- 
 ster directory." Solemn voavs to this end she imposes on all her minis- 
 ters, elders, and deacons, which they are required to take. — (Form of 
 Gov. book I, Cap. 13, Sec. 4; Cap. 14, Sec. 7; Cap. 15, Sec. 12.) Min- 
 isters who cannot adopt her standards are not to be received. — (Digest, 
 p. 57.) Tiiose who grow tired of her system and join other bodies are to 
 'be "stricken from the roll.'— (Digest pp. 169, 617). She says her creed 
 and polity are " absolutely requisite to the settled peace oi the church, 
 and to the happy and orderly existence of Christain communion," 
 and that " without the aid of the confessions. Christian fellowship can 
 only exist in a very limited degree, and the disorder of the Corin- 
 thian Church, condemned by the Apostle, would be realized ; / am of 
 Pavl, and I of Apollos."' — (Digest, p. 54.) She further declares that 
 if her ministers traduce her standards they shall be subjected to that 
 salutary discipline which hath for its object the peace and purity of 
 the chui-ch."— (Digest, p. 54.) This is iier denominational law, which 
 Mr. McCune would instantly put out of the way, if he could. 
 
 To crown all, from the very first, in every period of her history, and 
 in every proposition for union with other bodies, she has held aloft 
 this organic law, as the indispensible condition upon which union could 
 be effected, just because she believed her peculiar standards to be dis- 
 tinctive of the truth of God's word as to faith and order, as no other 
 standards are. They rest in her heart as the latest, ripest, clearest, most 
 precious fruit of the Reformation. A palmary argument it is that the 
 late Reunion between Old and New Schools was after long battle con- 
 
18 
 
 summated on the adoption of her standards, "pure and simple," which 
 Mr. McCune has now thrown overboard from the church of his own 
 creation. 
 
 Signal and emphatic is her declaration that " the Confession of Faith 
 shall continue to be received and adopted, etc.," and that the govern- 
 ment and discipline of the Presbyterian Church in the United States 
 shall he approved as containing the principles and rules of our polity." — 
 (Digest, p. 91), announcing at the same time that neither Antinom- 
 ianism, nor Arminiauism, nor Fatalism, nor Pehigianism in Doctrine, 
 nor Prelacy, in Polity, shall find a place to flourish in her fold ; all of 
 which Mr. McCune would allow to enter, and the defense of the teach- 
 ing of which he would protect in the same court, under his non-exclud- 
 ing "Divine law of organization.'' 'J he "basis of Reunion," viz, the 
 standards pure and simple, she has solemnly declared to be of "bind- 
 ing force,"— (Dig., p. 96), and raised f 5, 000,000, besides uncounted 
 anthems of praise, as a token of gratitude to God for the triumph of her 
 denominational law. — Dig., pp. 45, 51, 54, 96). She " binds " herself 
 irrevocably to old "ancestral Calvinism." — (Dig., p. 85), and, to com- 
 pose the fears of any who anticipated movements hereafter, for either 
 "revision" or a "new confession," her joint committee reported to the 
 assembly that "neither branch of the church desires a new Confession of 
 Faith." — (Dig., p. 73.) Thus did the Reunion, vocal with the conspiring 
 voices of 250 Presbyteries, plant itself upon the enforcement of denom- 
 inational law, including all who sincerely approved her glorious symbols, 
 and excluding all who could not in conscience and good faith teach ^nd 
 practice her distinctive doctrine and order. And thus did the grand 
 old Presbyterian Church trust herself, with clasped hands, to the truth- 
 fulness and fidelity of the men who entered into that solemn com- 
 pact. 
 
 It is this basis and this organic law, recorded as very title-deeds 
 on our statute books, and the enforcement of our distinctive j)eculiar-. 
 ities, that Mr. McCune's " Divine law of organization" arraigns and 
 denounces as ''divisive," "sectarian," and "exclusive," in an odious 
 sense. It is this he throws aside, while still a member of the Presby- 
 tery, wrecking both the Eldership and the Standards in his new soci- 
 ety for the sake of "committeemen," a minimum creed, and some 
 " regulations of expediency ;" and this, too, in the face of the out- 
 standing fact, that at the very time of the Reunion the Reunited 
 Church, of which he was a member, "enforced" her denominational 
 law, and " ordered" that mere ordained committee men, complimented 
 as overseers, and not under vows to her standards, should disappear 
 entirely from her organization within five years, and that no churches 
 
19 
 
 having such unscriptural substitutes for oflficers should be " re- 
 ceived."— (Dig., pp. 63, (2) 92, II (2). And yet, with these facts 
 before hitn, and in full view of Mr. McCune's contravention of them 
 all, Dr. Monfort says : " there's not much harm in all' this !" Not much, 
 we admit, if solemn covenants are only a rope of sand ! 
 
 CONDEMNATION OF THE PRACTICE. 
 
 IV. But the practice as well as the principles of Mr. McCune is in 
 contravention of our denominational law. The Presbyterian Church 
 affirms that her ministers have, 
 
 1. No right to go and organize a church Avithout her authority; 
 least of all, one designed to be a protest against the validity of her 
 own distinctive existence as a denomination. — [Form Gov. Cap. 10, 
 sec. 8. Dig., pp. 107, 173. 
 
 2. No right to accept a call to any church without her permission. — 
 [Form Gov. Cap. 16, Sec. 1, Cap. 15, Sec. 9. 
 
 3. No right to be installed as pastor over any church without her 
 permission. [Form Gov., Cap. 16, sees. 3, 4. Dig. pp. 149, 417, 418. 
 
 4. No right to drop off, in a church organization, offices and officers 
 " whom Christ has appointed and given " to every church, or fail to 
 ordain such, or substitute therefor unordained committeemen who are 
 not scriptural officers and have no right of juri-sdiction in the house of 
 God. [Form Gov., Cap. 3, sec. 2, Cap. 5, Cap. 1, sec. 3. Dig. p. 44, 
 (6) pp. 63, 92, p. 108, (d), Com. of Faith, Cap. 25, sec. 3. 
 
 5. No right to displace the Westminster standards and substitute 
 for them another Confession, Form of Government and Discipline. 
 Every minister, elder, and deacon, is uuder solemn ordination vows to 
 maintain these standards now sealed again by the terms of Reunion. 
 [Form, Gov., Cap. 14, sec. 7, Cap. 15, sec. 12. Dig. p 44, (8), p. 54, 
 (3, ll,)p. 73, p. 57, (14), p. 91, (3). 
 
 6. No right to substitute a new denominational name for any church 
 he may organize while still remaining in his own denomination. [Dig. 
 p. 42, Title, Form, Gov., Cap. 15, sec. 13, (3, 4). 
 
 7. No right to form a new church out of undismissed members. 
 [Dig., p. 107. 
 
 8. No right to teach that the Presbyterian Church has no scriptural 
 right to exist as a separate denomination. [Form, Gov., Pi*elim, 
 Principles, Cap. 1 sees. 1, 2, 5, Cap. 15, sec. 12, (3, 4,) Cap. 14, 
 sec. 7, (3, 4). 
 
 9. No right to encourage members of Presbyterian Churches, who 
 
20 
 
 desire to form another cliurch, to ignore tlie customary petition to 
 Presbytery to organize them. [Dig., p. 108, (2). 
 
 10. No right to remain in the fellowship of the Presbyterian Church 
 and do any of these things. [Dig., p. 57, (14). 
 
 And now, the contravention of every one of the above principles of 
 our denominational law Mr. McCune has carried out steadily, persist- 
 ently, successively, and pubUcly claims to have the " tacit consent " 
 of his Presbytery for his new anti-denominational denomination. 
 (Commercial, February 7, 1876.) Thus has he theoretically and prac- 
 tically denied her "right to exist " as a separate distinctive organiza- 
 tion. He has substituted another creed for the Westminster standards. 
 He has rejected the ordained eldership, substituting therefor committee- 
 men. Instrumental in organizing a new society and calling a council 
 to recognize it, he has accepted a call to become its pastor, been 
 reexamined and installed, all without leave of his Presbytery, and 
 against advice to the contrary. He has encouraged undismissed 
 members, and would encourage, according to the principles of the 
 Suffolk Basis, undismissed ministers to join the new society for the 
 propagation of these principles, and yet at the same time retain the 
 old ecclesiastical relations, while working in a new and antagonistic 
 interest. ('"'Address etc.," p. 19, Declaration.) He has adopted a new 
 name for his new society, claiming that it is after the pattern of the 
 Apostolic Church. He has made provision for the reception and 
 sending forth of ministers to preach the Gospel, and calls with trumpet 
 note to all the churches of North America to fall in and march with *lie 
 new movement. He is, by his own act, a member of another ecclesi- 
 astical association of independent bodies. There is not one distinctive 
 principle of the Government and Discipline of the Presbyterian Church 
 left uncontravened in the interest of the new society. What avails 
 the excuse that the "Declaration of principles" are not "terms of 
 fellowship,"" when it is manifest that the society itself originated in 
 those principles, under Mr. McCune's lead, and its purpose is to stand 
 upon and propagate them? (Gazette, January 12, 1876.) 
 
 ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS. 
 
 V. But in addition to what I have said, bearing upon the duty of 
 this Presbytery to discountenance this organized reaction against her 
 own standards, there are other weighty considerations, prompting us to 
 oppose our faces to the central doctrines, so zealously propagated by 
 Mr. McCune viz., the essential sinfulness of Protestant evangelical de- 
 nominations, as such, nou-subscription to an extended creed, and non- 
 enforcement of denominational law. 
 
21 
 
 REVIVAL OF Rome's doctrine. 
 
 1. They are a Eevival in our midst of the Assault of Rome upon the 
 Reformers and Reformed churches, who, seceding from Papal Catholicism 
 and Romish Ecclesiastical Uniformity, built themselves, for the sake 
 of " the Heavenly Truth," as Calvin calls it, upon distinctive denomina- 
 tional law, guarding that truth by distinctive creed statements Ac- 
 cording to Rome and Mr. McCune, the churches of Luther and Calvin 
 and Knox, Cranmer and Ridley, had no right to exist as separate denom- 
 inations. The huge unity of the Papal church is to be balanced now in 
 Christendom by a huger unity of Protestant conglomeration. 
 
 We have here an illustration of the old maxim that "extremes meet." 
 The absolutism of Popery and the unfenced liberalism of Independency 
 alike declare that all denominations, as such, except their own, are 
 without right of existence ! 
 
 WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES. 
 
 2. They are a condemnation of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, 
 who, from the tumult of civil and ecclesiastical rebellion and Papal 
 intrigue, and all the anarchy of Cromwellian times, crowned with the 
 memories of Marston Moor and Naseby, rescued the faith and order of 
 the Church of Christ from ruin: — an assembly which declared, "that 
 the doctrine, worship, and government of the house of God are to be 
 taken from God's word alone," and that " Christ hath appointed a definite 
 Form of Government for His Church, and has not left it to the wisdom 
 and caprice of men ; " and so formulated our peerless Confession and 
 Polity, and established that scriptural rule of the church which has be- 
 come our heir-loom, inheritance, and historic glory. Mr. McCune would 
 be wiser than the Westminster Assembly, in which even Milton said, 
 "Piety, learning and wisdom were housed;" — "composed," said 
 Baxter, "of men of eminent learning, godliness, ability and fidelity," 
 and "than which, since the days of the Apostles, the world has never 
 had one more excellent;" — an assembly, according to the celebrated 
 Judge Hailes, "orthodox, evangelical, and probably since the days of 
 the Apostles, a more learned, judicious, and pious Assembly of Divines 
 never convened." 
 
 MARTYR-HISTORY. 
 
 3. They are a condemnation of the Martyr-History of the Pres- 
 byterian Church. These noble men, of whom the world was not wor- 
 thy, and whose march from the prison to the scaffold and the stake 
 
22 
 
 were stages in the attainment of Presbyterian faith and order, and 
 whose creeds have come down to us, are hereby reproached as "oppressors 
 of the conscience." In okl Grey Friars' church-yard, in Edinburgh, 
 stands a time -soiled tomb-stone, chapped and mouldy, " Sacred to 
 the memory of eigliteen thousand Scottish martyrs." In the cem- 
 etery of Stirling, a granite monument rises, built by Presbyterian 
 hands, inscribed to the " Rock of Ages, " a memorial of what God 
 did for Scotland by martyrs such as young Hamilton, and men 
 like Henderson, Knox, Melville, Gillespie, and the Erskines, the 
 descendants of the martyrs. What would Mr. McOune's ancestors, 
 who were hunted by the brutal Claverhouse and his dragoons, like 
 partridges on the mountains of Scotland; — what would Cameron, who, 
 in the days of persecution, used to go by moonlight and weep over the 
 grave of his friend, and sigh, " ! to be with thee, Ritchie! " — say, to 
 the doctrine that the enforcement of their denominational law, and the 
 maintenance of their Presbyterian creed, and the existence of the Pres- 
 byterian denomination, as such, were an "oppression of the conscience," 
 "sinfully sectarian" and a "reproach to the cause of Christ?" What 
 would the Albigenses say? What Coligny and the thirty thousand 
 Huguenots, massacred in the bloody St. Bartholomew carnival, whose 
 bells awoke the vengeance of Heaven and brought down the I'rench 
 Revolution as a judgment from God? What the Waldenses, those 
 
 " Slaughtered Saints, whose bones, 
 Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold, ^' 
 
 E'en them who kept God s truth so pure of old," 
 
 and who with " mother and child " were hurled from the top of the 
 rocks upon the pd^es of the " triple tyrant" below because they loved 
 the Presbyterian faith and order? What would the " Never-Surrender 
 Apprentice -Boys of Derry" say? What would all this noble army of 
 the Martyrs say, could they rise from their tombs now, and just take 
 a look at Mt. Lookout, then read the Herald and Presbyter to find in 
 it these words, " there is not much harm in all this ! " 
 
 CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 
 
 4. They are a condemnation of that enduring vigilance by which 
 the principles of civil and religious liberty have been alike secured to 
 Christendom as against despotic power in both Church and State, and 
 by which the rights of man and the truth of God have been preserved 
 pure on earth, 
 
 " Oppression of the conscience," forsooth I Who does not know that 
 this is the old cry raised against John Calvin in Geneva, and John 
 
23 
 
 Knox in Scotland, when, with unswerving fidelity, they guarded and 
 fenced, by catechisms, formularies, confessions, and denominational 
 law, the truth and order of God's house so dearly won ? Who does 
 not know that the founders of civil and religious liberty have been 
 abused as tyrants and oppressors of the conscience by men whom im- 
 partial history has noted on its pages as " Tolerationists," " Libertin- 
 ists," and " Sectaries ;" who larded their assaults with pleas of " Union," 
 "Freedom," "Conscience," because the enforcement of denomina- 
 tional law baffled their efforts to uproot the foundations laid by the 
 "Restorers of paths to dwell in?" The genealogy of civil and relig- 
 ious liberty is traced along the very line of enforcement of denomina- 
 tional law and adherence to the " distinctive" peculiarities of Presby- 
 terian Faith and Order, 
 
 The world is indebted to the church for everything noblest and best 
 in her free institutions. Freedom is under perpetual obligations to 
 her. Enforcement of organic law must exist, whether in church, 
 state, or nation ; otherwise every thing rushes to ruin in all society. 
 It is the glory of the Calvinistic Church, and not her reproach, that she 
 "enforced" her denominational law in favor of Presbyterian "Doc- 
 trine, Order and Worship," giving thereby to the nations their most 
 precious inheritance. " By these," says even Mr. Buckle, " the dying 
 spark of freedom was kindled into a blaze." "To John Knox," says 
 Froude, "England owes a debt for liberty it can not pay." " Calvin's 
 principles," says Henri, " are immortal and immoveable in both Gov- 
 ernment and Doctrine." " Thousands were debtors to him," says the 
 judicious Hooker, "as touching Divine Knowledge, yet he to none 
 but only to God— a founder of the French Church, incomparably the 
 wisest it ever had since the hour it enjoyed him " " Geneva," says 
 Montesquieu, "' is the mother of modern Republics, and should cele- 
 brate with festivity the day on which Calvin entered the city," "Cal- 
 vin," says Bunsen, "spoke for all times and all men;" and in the 
 language of Motley, "Europe owes her political liberty to Calvinism." 
 "The Institutes," says Guizot, "are one of the noblest edifices ever 
 erected by men." Even Bancroft, a New England Unitarian, declares 
 that "Calvin, bowing to no patent of nobility, but that of the elect 
 of God, made Geneva the impregnable fortress of popular liberty ; " 
 and adds that the very "first voice" raised for liberty in this land, 
 both civil and religious, " came from Presbyterians," and that " he 
 who will not honor the memory and influence of Calvin knows but 
 little of the origin of American Liberty." Is it in John Calvin we 
 glory? God forbid ; but in God we glory, who gave us John Calvin. 
 
 ^Vhat kind of argument is it that would impeach all this glorious 
 
24 
 
 record as an "oppression of the conscience " through "sectarian law?" 
 Pray who set the conscience free from the commandments and 
 traditions of men and the rigors of despotic power in the church of 
 God and in the iState, if not Eldership, Puritans and Presbyterians, by 
 the enforcement of denominational law? 
 
 INDIVIDUALISM AND INDIFPERENTISM. 
 
 5. The central doctrines of Mr. McCune's position exalt extreme 
 Individualism, Indifferentisra, and Subjective Looseness, above obedi- 
 ence to Organic Law and true Christian Unity. If Mr. McCune may 
 use his efforts to organize a new society without leave of his Presbytery, 
 or with leave of it, as a standing protest against the right of his own 
 denomination to exist, as such, against the right to enlarge her creed 
 statement in case of necessity, and against the enforcement of the dis- 
 tinctive faith and order of his church upon the conscience and conduct 
 of her official teachers ; if he may throw overboard the standards of his 
 church in a new organization, and call upon all " the churches of 
 North America " to rally to his help, every one else may claim the 
 same privilege. Individualism can not deny to the next man its own 
 principle of independent action and self evolution. 
 
 Indifferentism can not help suppressing a great part of the revealed 
 word and will of God, The residuum, however dear, will not only be 
 insufficient to save what is distinctive in faith and order, but by very 
 disjunction from it must become corrupted, if not finally fade away from 
 the consciousness and the creed of the church. A thousand heresies, now 
 excluded from Evangelical bodies, wdl creejD back to find a nest in tlie 
 bosom of individual churches. It is tiiis indifierence to the •' distinctive" 
 doctrine and order of the Presbyterian Church, and the denial of her 
 right from Christ to "enforce" the teaching of them on her official 
 ministry, except under the reproach of being "divisive and schismatic," 
 that constitutes the ground of our earnest protest. Even the "common 
 faith," reduced of late to a few vague propositions, will be narrowed still 
 more, till scarcely a ray of the ' ' faith once delivered to the saints " is left. 
 " Kevision" and " change," or substitution of a New Book, will reopen 
 the sluice gates of uncontrollable contention. Even tlie " Auburn 
 Declaration,'' if it could be exalted, as some would have it, into a semi- 
 official gloss upon the standards, would not heal the breach. The habit of 
 disregarding ordination vows will be followed by the habit of disregarding 
 covenant engagements on the part of church members. Conflicting inter- 
 ests will seek to control every dollar of vested funds the church possesses 
 in the interest of an indiscriminate unionism. Bonds of confidence 
 
25 
 
 will be broken and disintegration threaten the church. Religion must 
 suffer, for government and discipline will rest under the ban of non- 
 enforcement. The tower of Babel will be rebuilt, only to be con- 
 founded of God. 
 
 The whole tendency of this non-enforcement theory goes simply to 
 the contempt of church authority, derived from the crown of Christ. 
 It transmutes official courts into mere voluntary societies. The mass 
 meeting vote, the irresponsible extemporized council, the unorganized 
 society, independency rampant over constitution and law, quiet nullifi- 
 cation, tolerated revolution— it is simply the world's communism 
 transferred to the Church of Christ, and piously hallowed with the 
 oiutment of the Savior's intercessory prayer. It is the "social com- 
 pact theory" of Rousseau brought into Israel — a Darwinian develop- 
 ment of ecclesiastical Fourierism, or Broad-Churchism, as one minister 
 has Avellsaid, under the conceit of "Progress" and the "Spirit of the 
 Age," — a Philistine mode of carrying the Ark of Grod on a " netv caii,'" 
 Uzzah-like, and not " upon the shoulders of the Levites" — a seeking 
 of God " not after the due order."— (1 Chron., 15, 13). What wonder if 
 Uzzah dies at the. Mercy-Seat, even striving to avert the disaster his 
 presumption provoked ? or that instead of God's glory being brought to 
 Zion, it should be turned aside to tarry in the house of some faithful 
 Obed — Edom ? All because of the non-enforcement of Israel's denomina- 
 tional law ! 
 
 UNITY AND SCHISM. 
 
 6. The principles of Mr. McCune rest upon a misconception of the 
 Scriptural ideas of Unity and Schism. They make the "Body "of 
 which the Apostle speaks mean the totality of massed denominations 
 in external organic uniformity ; or else, an inorganic atomistic array of 
 undenominational individual churches, ecclesiastically disunited. By 
 self-contradiction, they make unity inconsistent with plurality of 
 organized parts in which the unity dwells, and confound internal 
 "Schism" with external separation of the mass into parts. This is 
 Rome's doctrine precisely. But the "Body" of which the Apostle 
 speaks is the plural unit of all who are spiritually joined to Christ by 
 individual faith, no matter by what name they are called — the mys- 
 tical "body" into which all believers are baptised by one spirit. Its 
 Unity, for which Christ prayed, and whose prayer has ever 
 been heard throughout all the ages, is a Spiritual Unity, a Unity 
 of faith and love, and in — being in God, and the keeping of 
 his words. ''One as ive are!" "lam in them, and Thou in 
 Me!" " The luords I have given them they have kept!" Its "Com- 
 
26 
 
 munion" is the " Coramuniou of Saints" of every name and clime, 
 unbroken by death, everlasting, and perfectly consistent with plurality 
 of denominations. The "Schisms," or "Divisions," (Schismata, 1 
 Cor. 1, 10, 11, 18, 19, 12, 25), the Apostles reproves, are the conten- 
 tions, personal preferences, and oppositions of belief, actually present 
 in the Apostolic Church itself, which Mr. McCune himself confesses 
 was externally one denomination at the very time it was torn by these 
 very divisions and schisms; and not the separation of the mass of 
 believers into different denominations. The Schism was "in" the 
 body. Denominational union, even under Apostolic care, did not 
 prevent "Schism in the Body," at that very time externally 
 one. The "Unity," therefore, of which the Apostle speaks, and 
 for which Christ prayed, is, manifestly, in the light of the Scrip- 
 ture record itself, not secured by external denominational one- 
 ness, nor is the "Schism" which they deprecated averted in the 
 least thereby. Separation of the mass into parts, where, through 
 want of clearer light, there is room for honest and conscientious dif- 
 ference of judgment, is justified for the sake of peace, upon Paul's 
 great law of expediency, and upon this ground evangelical denomin- 
 ations are vindicated, while the spiritual unity in Christ their head 
 remains unbroken, "Now we see in part and know in part" — and this 
 was the argument of the Reformers. " Let there be no strife between 
 me and thee." " Union " is not " Unity." The one Body of Christ 
 is not an external union of aggregated atoms or individual churches. 
 It is an organic spiritual unity,' divided into many members, of which 
 Christ is the head, a tree into many branches, of which Christ is the 
 root, a building into many rooms, of which Christ is the founda- 
 tion. Atomistic cohesion is not unity. Conglomeration is not unity. 
 Disintegrated independent individualism of churches is neither unity 
 nor organic union. To separate into different rooms the contending 
 scholars of one school is not schism; to put them all into the same 
 room is not unity. Mass all the denominations together, it will not 
 produce the unity Christ prayed for, or Paul preached. Schism is only 
 to be healed by the enlightening and sanctifying grace of Christ in the 
 soul, leading to clearer apprehension of truth, and more perfect faith, 
 love and obedience. And never, " till we all come, in the unity of 
 the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, wito a perfect man, 
 unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ," will our unity be 
 perfect ; nor will the destruction of denominations contribute so much 
 as an iota to this glorious result. 
 
27 
 
 TOLERATION. AND CREEDS. 
 
 7. Mr. McCune's principles proceed upon false views of Toleration 
 and Creeds. In his work on Organic Union his argument is, that be- 
 cause "soul-destroying" and "damnable heresies" existed in the 
 Apostolic Church, and the church was not denominationally divided 
 on this account, therefore external union of all denominations ought 
 to take place now, notwithstanding equally grievous heresies in doc- 
 trine and order developed during eighteen hundred years. He af- 
 firms that " the Apostles regarded their brief creed (!) as a sufiicient pro- 
 tection against these perversions," and that the same ci'eed is "suffi- 
 cient" now; — the creed of "a few fundamental doctrines" — not 
 dreaming that the Apostolic letters to the Koman, Corinthian, Thes- 
 salonian, Colossian, Galatian, Ephesian, and other churches, to the 
 Avhole extent of the epistles, were an extended creed and polemic 
 against the errors of the time. He confounds the simple confession 
 required of unofficial persons when becoming members of the church, 
 with the system of doctrine and order and the doctrines and order of 
 the system the Apostle imposes, in extenso, upon all public teachers, 
 and which he commands to be " committed to faithful men who shall 
 be able to teach others also." Of the imagined brief creed of the 
 Apostle he says, "it efficiently excluded heresy then, so it will now" — 
 a statement contradicted by every page of history, sacred and profane. 
 (Org. Unity pp. 48, 49.) Hence his doctrine of toleration, underlying 
 his non-enforcement principle. The " enlargement of the creed," 
 as he calls it, is " an unblushing assumption of prerogative in the Pro- 
 testant church." (Org. Unity p. 49.) Hence the throwing overboard 
 of the Westminister standards is a logical necessity, as is also his pole- 
 mic against the denominational law by which they are "enforced." 
 To one Avho has read the epistles of Paul, how extravagant the state- 
 ment that the Apostles had only a "brief creed I" Mr. McCune's 
 theory rests upon churchly indifferentism to certain truths deemed 
 relatively of less importance than others — as for instance, predestina- 
 tion than atonement, the doctrine of the sacraments than eternal pun- 
 ishment—and seeks, for union's sake, to reduce what he calls the " few 
 fundamentals" to a very minimum of evangelical belief, simply " as- 
 sented to" by ministers, but not "enforced" by denominational law. 
 And this minimum is emphasized as that whole body of truth known 
 in history as the "common faith." It contracts the necessary articles 
 of the church's faith, Avhich are as well the articles of her peace, to 
 the smallest compass, and expands the spirit of toleration in the opposite 
 direction to include the utmost possible number. Within the limits of 
 
28 
 
 this toleration and creed contraction, Semi-Arianisra, Semi-Pelagianism, 
 Arminianism, Antinoraianism, Fatalism, Baptismal Regeneration, 
 Sacramental Grace, Consubstantiation, Independency, Prelacy and 
 Presbyterianism, may all find a place and be alike protected and 
 defended in tlie same Presbytery or pulpit. They are the toleranda of 
 the " Union Christian Church ; " a church with ill defined doctrines, 
 lax-coherence, discordant customs, and almost boundless license, a 
 spectacle abhorrent to the mind of Paul and to the Prayer of Christ. 
 It would be difl&cult for Mr. McCune to show, upon his principle of 
 toleration, why Semi-Arianism has not as much right to be tolerated 
 in the Presbyterian church as Semi-Pelaginism, or Prelacy as Inde- 
 pendency, or Consubstantiation and the Papal doctrine. If not, then the 
 the line between error and truth can only be drawn by a church creed so 
 explicit that the creed-statement of the truth will itself refute the 
 opposing error, and the enforcement of denominational law is the only 
 way by which that truth can be preserved. The idea seems to have 
 escaped Mr. McCune's mind, that the ivltness-bearing character of the 
 Church of Christ to the truth of God requires her to testify in her own 
 language her own understanding of that truth, as against the false 
 glosses of errorists and sectaries. Hence the propriety of her extended 
 creeds and confessions, as barriers against unsound doctrine. 
 
 But where does the Church of Christ find authority to reduce "the 
 faith once delivered to the saints" to a minimum of doctrine and 
 order, and so leave both unprotected ? Nowhere ! Whence does 
 she derive a right to say that one doctrine is relatively more import- 
 ant than another, when all are of absolute and infinite importance, 
 being the inspired word of God, not one jot or tittle of which shall 
 pass away? Squarely did the Presbyterian Church plant herself against 
 this false toleration theory in her terms of Reunion, when she declared 
 what doctrines she would enforce upon her ministry, even her own 
 confession for all time, and squarely did she shut the gates upon the 
 self-ordained and irresj)onsible umpires of toleranda, when she refused 
 to legalize the vague proposition about " various modes of stating, ex- 
 plaining, and illustrating" her doctrines, and bound her ministers to 
 the standards " pure and simple." At bottom, this whole theory of 
 non-enforcement rests upon a revolt against the legitimate power of 
 the church delegated to her by Christ, in her use of the " Keys." 
 But either the Church of Christ is a God-built Society, not by a will 
 of her own, nor founded on human compact, but bearing vice-regal 
 unctions derived from the crown of her Lord, into the exercise of 
 which, for " the heavenly doctrine's sake," her ministry is inducted, and 
 for which she is accountable under the most awful sanctions for faith- 
 
29 
 
 fulness herein — either this, or she is the most blasphemous pretender 
 that ever trod the earth. The toleration that would refuse to bind 
 the " whole counsel of God " by denominational law upon the Chris- 
 tian ministry, or fail to protect it by an adequate creed, is a tolera- 
 tion that would beckon a boundless brood of heresies to come in, sac- 
 rifice the warfare of the church to a stagnant peace, and to the phantom 
 of a mere external uniformity. It is a toleration that would make the 
 battle for truth, and the victory of Christ, alike impossible, and strike 
 the name of "Conqueror" from the titles that adorn and blaze in the 
 diadem of our King. What must we think of the principle that the 
 church of Christ may not formulate an article in her creed so long as 
 any " one " Christian minister objects to the same ; or if she does, it is 
 an "oppression" of the conscience? — (Org. Vanity, pp. 38, 40, 48.) 
 What must we think of the position, that a creed, formed by the whole 
 church, less one minister's assent, is a " sectarian creed ? " Or that the 
 consciences of all are to be oppressed for the sake of the conscience of 
 one? 
 
 CHARACTER LEFT DEFENSELESS. 
 
 8. Mr. McCune's principle of non-enforcement strikes a blow at 
 all the guarantees of protection to personal and official character, 
 secured by denominational law to ministers and members of the 
 Presbyterian Church. 
 
 Under the reign of non-enforcement, every member and minister of 
 the Church is left defenseless, and becomes a victim to the capricious 
 will of any prejudiced and concerted majority. Constitution and 
 laws, ordained to protect the rights of individuals and minorities, 
 against the oppression of inexorable lawlessness and arbitrary will, and 
 against the unconstitutional legislation, voice, and decision, of excited 
 majorities deaf to the call of justice, are trampled in the dust, and the 
 tyranny of cliques, rings," conclaves, and coteries, combined for the 
 advancement of their own policies and opinions, is installed upon the 
 prostrate form of every sacred right guaranteed, under solemn coven- 
 ant, to the humblest member and minister of the Presbyterian Church. 
 Appeal to law is vain. Arbitrary power spurred on by private under- 
 standings to defeat the plainest claims of Justice, this is the tyranny 
 that usurps the seat of judgment in every court where the principle 
 of non-enforcement of statute laws obtains. Under its sway the most 
 atrocious slanders may be poured upon the head of the innocent ; the 
 darkest conspiracies crowned with success, and injuries irreparable per- 
 petrated with impunity. Name, influence, honor, family, character, 
 and usefulness may be destroyed, and crimes which even the ungodly 
 
30 
 
 would abhor, left not only unpunished, but shielded in the kingdom of 
 Christ. How long will the enforcement of denominational law as to 
 morals survive the non-enforcement of denominational law as to doc- 
 trine f Not an hour! The principle that tolerates for peace and 
 union's sake false doctrine, will tolerate for peace and union's sake 
 a wicked practice ; the two go hand in hand, and he is blind as the 
 blindest who cannot see that the influence which palliates non- 
 enforcement of organic law as to matter of faith, is the very influence 
 which conspires to destroy the enforcement of law as to matter of morals, 
 wrests from the injured his most sacred securities and rights of defense, 
 and shields the guilty at the expense of justice and truth. Universally, 
 where organic law ends, there personal tyranny begins, and the courts of 
 Christ can only become, in their measure, rivals of the Star-Chamber 
 of England, the Inquisition of Spain, or the Vehmic courts of Ger- 
 many, where the only law was the will of the tyrants who ruled them. 
 
 ETHICS AND STRATEGY. 
 
 9. The ethics of this new movement are exceptionable, "Decently 
 and in order" all things are to be done according to the Apostle's rule. 
 But, in my judgment, there is a savor of sti-ategy which seems to me 
 neither right, wise, nor commendable in this whole matter. 
 
 Were Mr. McCune and his new society both outside of Presbytery, 
 nothing is more clear than that neither could be admitted to our fel- 
 lowship after the announcements of doctrine both have proposed to 
 the world. Denominational law would not "receive" them. (Dig. 
 pp. 57 (14), 63 (2), 92, II. (2). The Linwood and Mt. Lookout 
 Church is not a Congregational Church, "like that of the church of 
 the Pilgrims in Brooklyn, or First Congregational Church, Philadel- 
 phia," or any other such churches in the land. It has repudiated the 
 Confession of Faith which those churches retain. Knowing well that 
 Presbytery's permission to organize such a church from undismissed 
 members received "on profession," with mere committeemen as over- 
 seers, could never be obtained, Mr. McCune encourages the organiza- 
 tion of it himself without leave of his Presbytery. The palliators of 
 the movement plead "usage" in violation of law, when such usage is 
 not even an "excuse." He preaches a sermon against organizing a 
 Presbyterian Church at Linwood and Mt. Lookout. He draws up 
 for it its new creed, basis, and regulations of expediency. Knowing 
 as well that Presbytery would never recognize it, either as to its or- 
 ganization, principles, or aim, he secures an irresponsible council un- 
 called by evangelical churches to do this, and to re-examine and install 
 
31 
 
 him also without leave of his Presbytery. That is, he just acts in- 
 dependently from tvithin the Presbyterian fold, and according to the 
 "Suffolk Basis," both as to undismissed members and undismissed minis- 
 ters. JMr. McCune's attitude, therefore, is not that of a Presbyterian 
 minister maintaining the Confession of Faith, and preaching by leave 
 of his Presbytery to a Congregational Church holding the (^octrines 
 of the same Confession, but it is that of an ultra Brownist Independ- 
 ent, in revolt against Presbyterial organization, and installed in con- 
 travention of the organic law by which he is bound, over a new cre- 
 ation of his own, as a standing protest against the " essential sinfulness" 
 of all existing evangelical denominations, as such, against extended 
 creeds, and against the enforcement of denominational law. (Neal's 
 Puritans, I. 149, 150). Thus is acquired a status for himself and the 
 new movement which could never have been acquired in an orderly 
 manner, and a quasi imprimatur of the Presbytery is given to the 
 whole affair, Mr. McCune proclaiming to the public that he has his 
 Presbytery's "tacit consent." Yea, more; Mr. McCune, Avith an air 
 of nonchalance, declares "any petty question about the formality of 
 first asking leave may interest hair-splitting ecclesiastical lawyers 
 whose vocation it is to tithe mint anise and cummin. If Presbytery 
 says the thing done is right, I will be content. If she says I should 
 have first asked leave, Iivill plead ignorance and indifference.'' (Presby- 
 terian, Feb. 12, 1876.) Comment on this sentence is unnecessary. 
 
 I say the ethics of this whole movement are exceptionable. Re- 
 maining under vows to maintain and defend the Presbyterian stand- 
 ards, Mr. McCune throws them overboard in his new organization, 
 denies the right of. Presbytery to "enforce" her peculiar tenets as to 
 faith and order, as a term of office, and pleads in this behalf, " con- 
 science" and "union." Conscience, with Mr. McCune, has rights 
 against conscience. The conscience that throws overboard the stand- 
 ards as a "hurtful excrescence" in the new church, has rights against 
 the same conscience that "sincerely approves and adopts" them as 
 good in the old church ! He has two different exercises of the same 
 "private judgment" in reference to the same public thing; two dif- 
 ferent subscriptions, two different Confessions, two different organiza- 
 tions ! In the one he is antagonistic to the other, yet he professes to 
 be loyal to both. Is not this " Schism in the body? " Any minister," 
 says the Suffolk basis, " who has adopted this Basis, but who does not 
 deem it expedient to sever existing denominational relations shall, at his re- 
 quest, be enrolled ryoiwithstanding." (Addre&s p. 19, Dec. signed by Mr. 
 McCune.) This is the key that solves not only the reception of " undis- 
 missed ministers" into the new movement, but also of " undismissed 
 
32 
 
 members" into the new society in contravention of denominational 
 law. I submit that such ethics are not the ethics of the scriptures. 
 And that all this should be done under the shield of the World's 
 Evangelical Alliance creed, which never was meant to be a basis for a 
 particular church organization, is a grievous misrepresentation of the 
 nature and aim of that noble movement. Read the masterly papers 
 of those great and good men, Drs. Hodge, Smith, Bedell, Marston, 
 Conrad, Cook, Muhlenburg, Stoughton, Davis and Noel, representing 
 English, French and American denominations. (Evan. All. Proceed- 
 ings 1873, pp. 139-197). They all repel both the principles and the 
 practices against which I have here spoken. It is well to remember 
 that the Evangelical Alliance is not a church organization. It is sim- 
 ply a voluntary association of individuals, merely for testimony and 
 cooperation in Christian work. 
 
 CAUSES OF TROUBLE. 
 
 10. The principles advocated by Mr. McCune, associated, as they are, 
 with oppostion to Church creeds, the overthrow of the eldership, the 
 encouragement of an irresponsible ministry, and other measures that 
 bring no good to the church, are nourished by the very same influences 
 which, in days past, have occasioned a world of trouble to the people 
 of God. One of the branches of the divided Church, the first year 
 after the division, when reviewing and deploring the past, and hum- 
 bling itself before God, on account of its unfaithfulness, traced the 
 causes of the trouble in the Presbyterian Church to three thmgs: 
 I. The lax use of the powers of the Keys, so that discipline was put 
 in abeyance. II. The licentiousness of the religious press, propagating 
 false doctrine. III. The bold and unwarranted interpretation, by am- 
 bitious men, of .particular passages of the Scripture, in favor of some 
 preconceived theory. " Our great error," it said, "has been a want of 
 fidelity to the fundamental principles of our ecclesiastical compact. Many 
 have been allowed publicly to avow opinions subversive of its distin- 
 guishing doctrines. Who does not know that as against want of 
 fidelity in church courts there is no remedy but revolution ? " Again, 
 " We are convinced that the diflficulties in which our beloved Church 
 has been involved have been in no small degree owing to the periodical 
 press, and we confidently believe that unless more care be taken to 
 guard against the circulation of unsuitable papers in our churches, the 
 same evils from which we have escaped will again come in upon us, 
 notwithstanding all the efforts of the pulpit to counteract them." And 
 again, " There are few things more alarming than the bold and unau- 
 
33 
 
 diorized interpretations put on certain passages of the word of God by 
 serious persons, in order to maintain some favorite principle adopted 
 by them, and which, before they begin their inquiries, they confi- 
 dently presume can not be contrary to the word of God." — (Baird's 
 Digest, pp, 583, 584, 588, 589). When the disorganizers in the rad- 
 ical New Light movement, which, in the begining of the present cen- 
 tury, spread through Virginia, the Carolinas, Teimessee, Kentucky, 
 Ohio, and other States, vexed the church under the cry of liberality 
 and union, progress and reform, their work ended only in division and 
 destruction. Three prime principles promulgated by pamphlets, newspa- 
 pers, and irresponsible preachers, were the sail* of the movement : First, 
 the right of any person, educated or uneducated, authorized or unauth- 
 orized, to preach the Gospel : Secondly, non-exclusion from churches 
 and church courts ; Thirdly, opposition to church creeds. Against 
 the first our church planted herself upon her time-honored and well- 
 tried ground, saying: "It cannot be reasonably denied, that it is dis- 
 orderly for any person to preach the word, or to administer the ordinances 
 of the gospel, who is not clothed with ministerial authority." Against the 
 second, she said : "If we attend to their sentiment in church government 
 and discipline, we will find them no less anti-Scriptural and subversive 
 of all good order in Christ's Kingdom. Their own declaration is ' Chris- 
 tians have no power over one another to cut off or exclude.' " Against the 
 third, she said : " (Consider, dear brethren, the pernicious tendency of the 
 present disorganizing plan. Under the specious pretense of honoring the 
 Scriptures, they would persuade you to reject all written or printed creeds 
 and forms of discipline, alleging that those who adopt such substitute 
 them for Divine Inspiration." — (Baird's Digest, pp. 638, 639). History 
 repeats itself! What have we in all these quotations but faces of the 
 past answering to faces of the present, — a record of facts and prin- 
 ciples which have substantially gathered around the formation of the 
 M. and M. L. Society, and which have been so forcibly condemned by 
 our church, but for the approval of which, Mr. McCune avers, he has 
 the " tacit consent" of his Presbytery. And what is the relation of 
 some of our papers and church courts, under the cry of union and 
 liberality, to these and such like things? If the past is a light, the 
 present an omen, and the signs are so thick in the heavens, and so 
 many acknowledged seers have an "open vision," it needs no Cassandra, 
 foreboding the future, to point her finger, or sing her prophecy, con- 
 cerning what is to come ! 
 
34 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 11. Finally, however much members of the Presbytery may desire 
 to distinguish between the organic union principles, proclaimed by 
 Mr. McCune to the whole church on the one hand, and the many ir- 
 regular ecclesastical acts accompanying them on the other, or be 
 wiiHng to act with reference to the latter alone, Avhile ignoring the 
 former, it can not be done. The two are inseparable. The last is the 
 legitimate fruit of the first, animated by the principle of non-enforce- 
 ment of denominational law. Even had the L. and M. L. Church 
 never existed, Presbytery can not be silent while hearing her ministers 
 teach that the Presbyterian and all other evangelical denominations, 
 as such, are "essentially sinful" and a "manifest reproach to the 
 cause of Christ," or that the Presbyterian Church has "no right to 
 exist " because not built upon Mr. McCune's " Divine law of organ- 
 ization," or that she is an "oppressor of the conscience" if enjoining her 
 organic law upon her ministry. Better dissolve this Presbytery at 
 once, and inaugurate the right of Brownism, while sailing under the 
 Westminster standards, than allow this false theory of toleration to 
 go on until we dissolve and die by inches. The organization of the L. 
 and M. L. church is, in itself considered, the smallest part of the 
 great question before us, and derives its importance only from the 
 principles which gave it birth. It is simply the cropping out of the 
 first blade from the dangerous root below. Every principle of Pres- 
 byterianism is at stake in this bold and open stand of Mr. Mc^une, 
 and on this issue. Our system of union, our distinctive tenets of doc- 
 trine and polity, our denominational law, the decisions of our supreme 
 court, our ordinatiou vows, the conduct of our members and ministers, 
 our whole ecclesiastical constitution, the confidence of brother in 
 brother, our public example, the peace unity and purity of the churchy 
 and the respect due to ourselves, all are at stake. 
 
 Mr. Moderator, and brethren of the Presbytery, I have spoken in 
 this day of latitudinarian laxity according to the dictates of my con- 
 science and my vows. I have sought to discharge a duty which I felt 
 incumbent upon me as a Presbyterian minister, loyal to the standards 
 of my church and to the terms of the late reunion. To Mr. McCune 
 and all concerned in this matter who differ from me, I have nothing 
 but the kindest feelings. I have endeavored to substantiate the posi- 
 tions I have taken by genuine quotations, actual history, and reference 
 to the organic law of the church. From many persons, high in dis- 
 tinction in the Presbyterian Church, and of ripe experience, come 
 notes of foreboding and alarm. For myself, I would fain do what in 
 
35 
 
 me lies to forestall any unpropitious result, by meeting in time the 
 tendencies which threaten our peace. I fain would use what ability 
 Grod has given me, little though it be, to buttress the walls and towers 
 of our Zion ; to "enforce" upon the consciences of my brethren the 
 distinctive principles of our fiiith and order; to urge all to "study the 
 things that make for peace; ' to stand firm upon the traditions, pre- 
 cedents, usages, deliverances, and constitution of the Presbyterian 
 Church, and secure the ripe fruit of those fond hopes of the future, 
 our reunion so warmly ind^ilged. With these concluding remarks, I 
 submit to the consideration of the Presbytery what I have spoken in 
 support of my resolution. 
 
REP L Y 
 
 / 
 
 i^e^. J. 0-- 2>^03>T:FOisrr, id.id. 
 
 In his Editorial of May 17, 1S76. 
 
 C I N C I N N AT I : 
 
 GAZETTE CO.. PRINTERS, FOURTH AND VINE STREET: 
 1876. 
 
IK IE :e=^ I-i "2". 
 
 AeV. J. G. MONFORT, D. D., 
 
 Dear Sir : — As my reply to your editorial of the 17tli inst, has 
 been taken off and delayed, and by your own action prevented from 
 appearing in the issue of your paper immediately succeeding the 
 one in which your editorial was published, I resume my pen to 
 write this answer. If my former article reaches me before 
 this is finished, I shall use such parts of it as I may deem proper.^ 
 With what seems to me a strange impropriety, you have ac- 
 cepted a position as Chairman of the Committee, to report next 
 Fall on Mr. McCune's case, having already given two contrary 
 decisions thereupon. And now, being Chairman, you have, by 
 what seems to me an equally strange impropriety, devised an 
 editorial, compounded of both the above named decisions, while 
 affecting to be ignorant of the "facts" in the case, saying that 
 when you wrote your editorial of Jan. 5, 1876, defending Mr. 
 McCune's course, you gave the facts as you " supposed them to 6e," 
 (/), notwithstanding two opposite and previous editorials of Nov. 
 8, 1873, and Aug. 18, 1875, when you wrote the facts as they 
 were known by you to be, and quoted from Mr. McCune in both 
 instances, in proof of your knowledge of the same. Finally, in 
 your editorial of May 17, 1876, you say "^f Dr. Skinner is right 
 in his facts, there is much harm in many things, but if the facts are 
 as we stated in the extract above, we still say ' there is not much 
 harm in all this." You then add, as if affectino; to be ig-norant 
 of the facts, "As to what the facts are, Ave shall soon know." 
 Your present editorial. May 17, 1876, is directed, after these three 
 irreconcilable attitudes of pro, anti, and neutrum, yes, no, aiid 
 neither, plus a petition for "suspense" of public judgement, to a 
 ustification of yourself chiefly, of the Presbytery subordinately, 
 
 * Dr. Monfoi't has written four special editorials on this subject; one Nov. 8. 1373, an- 
 other Aug. 18, 1875; both against Mr. McCuue; the third .'an. .''>, 187i;, for Mr. McCune, after 
 the couiicil had met; the fourth May 17, 187(3, in suspeu.^e, and which 1 here review. T. II. S. 
 
[4] 
 
 and to a condemnation of me, making a concluding dash at what 
 you are pleased to call " Dr. Skinner's high sectarian position," 
 thus adopting the favorite expression of Mr. McCune as your 
 own. 
 
 In reply, therefore, to your editorial of May 17, 1876, I pro- 
 pose to show, (1), what you well knew as to the facts, better than 
 myself, and which justified your editorials of Nov.8, 1873, and Aug. 
 18, 1875, both adverse to Mr. McCune's course, and the answer 
 which Mr. McCune made to you in both cases; and (2), that, 
 knowing these facts, you carefully avoided them in your editorial 
 of Jan. 5, 1876, written to defend the L. and M. L. organizations, 
 Mr. McCune's course, and the course of Messrs. Morris, Morey, 
 and White, who sat in the undelegated and irresponsible Council, 
 to re-examine and install Mr. McCune, without leave of Presby- 
 tery, in contravention of Presbyterian law and order; and (3), to 
 consider such other points of the editorial, as time and space 
 permit. 
 
 I. You well knew Mr. McCune's views. I briefly quote them : — 
 (1). As to denominations in general. " The Lord Jesus Christ 
 has left on record no provisions in the New Testament for the 
 organization of different denominations." ' I am entirely opposed 
 to the division of the church into denominations.' 'They are 
 essentially sinful, and a manifest reproach to the cause of Christ." 
 (2). As to the divine non-excluding Law of Organization, 
 grounding cJiurch order in a text, relating to things jiurely in- 
 different, Receive ye one another, &c., Rom. xv, vii. "This is a 
 precept that applies to ministers as well as members." "Any 
 Christian minister has a right to membership in any Conference 
 Association or Presbytery in Christendom." 
 
 (3). As to reorganization of the Neiv Testament church. "God, 
 in his Providence, urgently calls upon ail Christ's disciples to 
 make immediate prayerful preparation for the Ncav Testament 
 organization of the church, in every place." 
 
 (4). As to extended church creeds. " The enlargement of the 
 creed is an unblushing assumption of prerogative, in the Protestant 
 church." 
 
 (5). As to ordination vieivs. "The Presbyterian church only 
 asks men at their ordination, what their present views are, and 
 
[5] 
 
 never pledges tliem not to change their views." "No true Prot- 
 estant needs be convinced of the falsity of every argument that 
 is framed to prove that it has become necessary to enlarge the 
 creeds of the primitive church." 
 
 (6.) As to plurality of Official Membership ! How to he anti- 
 denominational, and yet deiiominational ! Sow to he separate, and 
 yet not separate ! Hoio to he a unity, and yet d\iality ! " Any 
 minister who has adopted this basis, (the new basis), but who 
 does not deemit expedient to sever existing denominational relations, 
 shall, at his request, be enrolled notwithstanding ^ " All ministers 
 and churches adopting this basis, including all who may not 
 have severed heretofore existing denominational relations, are in- 
 vited to attend this Convention." (Suffolk, Va., 1875.) 
 
 (7). As to denominational 'peeidiaritlei in the reception of ministers. 
 "We require 7io assent to any denominational peculiarity, as a 
 condition of fellowship." 
 
 (8). As to the covenant of God with believers, in behalf of their off- 
 spring. '■'■1 utterly repudiate the doctrine of infant church mem- 
 bership." " Such a thing may linger among certain High 
 Churchmen." 
 
 (9). As to a definition of the New Testament church. "It consists of 
 believers, and believers o)ily." " Some would add, and also includes 
 the children, but this is no part of the common faith." 
 
 (10). As to Infant Baptism. " The Presbyterian Church has 
 ceased to enforce Infant Baptism ! " 
 
 (11). As to admitting Unhaptised persons to full Communion. 
 " I would vote to receive any who can give satisfactory evidence, 
 that he is a true Christian and cheerfully grant him forbearance, 
 as a fellow member in the church, although he has the views of the 
 " Friends " concerning Water Baptism.''^ 
 
 (12). As to the Term of Church Membership, excluding Bap- 
 tism and pledge of obedience to the church. " Faith in Christ is 
 the 07dy New Testament requirement for Church Membership.''^ 
 
 (13). As to Roman Catholic Membership. " I would most cer- 
 tainly admit Roman Catholics as members of my congregation." 
 
 Such are the views and principles Mr. McCune has taught, and 
 which Dr. Montfort well knows, and knew when he wrote his 
 editorials. Of these Mr. McCune says, " I am advocating no 
 
sentiments, now that I have not openly proclaimed for ten pears. 
 I enjoyed unquestioned liberty to teach them until Dr. Skinner 
 made his attack." Dr. Monfort in his editorial of Nov. 8, 1873, 
 takes Mr. McCune to task, saying, Mr. McCune's views are pecu- 
 liar in some respects ! Perhaps the following extracts from his 
 first issue may furnish our readers with a key to his scheme.^' 
 Again, it will be seen that Brother McCune aims at a great 
 change in the churches.'''' -"Again; there is a wide difference 
 of opinion among evangelical Christians as to what is Christian 
 unity and what is demanded in the matter of organic Christian 
 Union." To this criticism by Dr. Monfort, Mr. McCune replies 
 Nov. 15, 1873, saying, "we think there is no occasion at all for 
 alann!" "It. will not injure the chnrhces at all to conform to the will 
 of Christ in this matter! " My views on this subject are the same 
 views which are held by a large number of the members of Dr. Mon- 
 forfs oion Presbytery, including some of the oldest and most in- 
 f.uential 'members ! " " The statement that Mr. McCune's views 
 are peculiar in some respects, will, wherever it is believed, create 
 a serious and unjust prejudice, and therefore, we ask the Herald 
 and Presbyter to make suitable correction!'" Chr. Un., Nov. 15, 
 1873. I ask, now, in view of these statements whether you knew 
 or did not know the " facts " as to Mr. McCune's views, and 
 whether they are not as I stated in my Preamble, antagonistic to 
 the faith and order of our church ? I ask you if the ministers in 
 this region did not know them also ? 
 
 II. When after temporary suspension, the Christian Unity, re- 
 appeared Aug. 1, 1875, with Messrs. Melish, Wellons and McCune 
 as conjunct editors, and while Mr. McCune was actually working 
 up the L. and M. L. organization and only three months before 
 it was born, and only four before the Council met, you thus spoke 
 again, quoting expressions from Mr. McCune. 
 
 (1). " We dontknow the meaning of "Organic Christian Unitv," 
 a "Home and Place for Worship and Work," " one body as well as 
 one spirit," "organization and co-operation," which are expressions 
 used by these editors in regard to their project, unless they are 
 now, or expect to be, a separate body from the sects, as they call 
 others," H. and P., Aug. 18, 1875. 
 
 (2). Again, you speak with no uncertain tone in condemnation 
 
[7] 
 
 of Mr. McCune's course. " Mr. McCune is a public minister 
 subject to Presbytery, as yet, which moreover is an unauthorised 
 body according to his views announced above; Mr. Melish is a 
 Baptist and a member of a Baptist Church, and Dr. Wellons is 
 connected with a church called Christian. If these bretheren are 
 either /or organization and association, or are ahead)/ organized 
 and associated, the external bond being the Convention which met 
 in New York, 1873, in Cincinnati, 1874, in Suffolk, Va., 1875, 
 loe are at a loss to understand how Mr. McCune or Mr. Melish- can he will- 
 ing to retain a connection with the Presbyterian or Baptist Church ! We 
 should suppose that each would pass at once from an old organization 
 that is unauthorized and extra scriptural to a new one on a New Testa- 
 ment Basis!'' H. and P., Aug. 18, 1875. I respectfully ask 
 again, did you know or did you not know the " facts " when you 
 penned this criticism ? That you could not be an uninterested 
 spectator is manifest from the reply which Mr. McCune ad- 
 dressed to you on this occasion inviting you also, in turn, to take 
 leave of the Presbytery. " You suggest," says Mr. McCune, 
 " that inasmuch as I am an advocate of Organic Christian Union, 
 there is something dishonorable, if not sinful, in my continuance 
 as a member of the Presbytery of Cincinnati. " Your columns 
 have contained pleas for a Union with Cumberland Presbyterians, 
 who certainly could not accept the Westminster Confession at 
 all. If the advocacy of Union is an iniquity to be punished by 
 the judges, 'S<;e are at a loss to understand," what right you have to 
 be a member of Cincinnati Presbytery ! When the Christian 
 Unity first appeared, you declared, you felt a profound interest 
 in ^^ Christian Unity," and you said, " u'e have given and expect to give, 
 much space to it in our paper." "Now my hrother, I proj^ose that 
 my name shall stand on the roll of Presbytery as long as I re- 
 main in Cincinnati and vicinity.^' " You could remedy the mat- 
 ter, so far as you personally are concerned, by asking for yourself 
 a letter of dismissal ! The true practical remedy, if your conscience 
 will not allow you to extend ministerial fellowship to me in Vrea- 
 hjter J is for you yourself to withdraw I And if you should take no 
 measures in Presbytery to break the fellowship hitherto exist- 
 ing, J sliall conclude that you really have no conscience in the matter V 
 Christian Unity, Oct., 1875. Again I ask, did you know the " facts," 
 
[8] 
 
 when Mr. McCune politely invited you out of your own church, 
 as you had politely invited him out of the same ? All this was 
 only six weeks before the L. and M. L. organization ! 
 
 And noAV, Mr. McGune persisting in his work, with your own 
 knowledge, and having published and spread broadcast his new 
 creed, basis, preliminary statements, terms of fellowship and regu- 
 lations of expediency, and I having received from his committee- 
 men an invitation to sit in the extemporised council to re-ex- 
 amine and install Mr. McCune, and recognize his new church, and 
 having been solicited by Dr. Morris to take part in the same, I 
 addressed to Dr. Morris the following friendly interposition and 
 declinature. I deem it proper to insert this in order to " protect' 
 myself now against " erroneous impressions " and '• serious ani- 
 madversions." It is as follows : 
 
 Cincinnati, Dec. 14, 1875. 
 
 Dear Bro. Morris — Ton must act in the matter of the " Union Christian 
 Church" -without my concurrence. I wrote to Bro. McCune, declining his 
 invitation to participate in its "recognition," and used these words — "The 
 principles involved in your organization, would, if I understand them, be des- 
 tructive of the Presbyterian Church, were they successfully and generally 
 carried out. Marching, as I do, under the banner of this church, and sacredly 
 pledged, as I am, to ^'^ study its peace, unity and purity," 1 can not reconcile it 
 with my conscience or sense of honor, to put my imprimatur on your course, 
 while you are still a member of the Presbytery. * * Had I thought or felt 
 as you have done on the subject of church polity and creeds, before 1 acted in 
 the organization of a church within the bonds of the Presbytery, and yet out 
 of its jurisdiction, I would have dissolved my connection with the Presbytery, 
 and so have been released from my vows of fealty and service to the Presby- 
 terian Church." The reading of your letter in no way changes my views. 
 One expression in it suggests the ground on which I have found myself in op- 
 position to some of my brethren on other matters since I have been in Cincin- 
 nati. "This is better than * » * * to involve issues on points not 
 vital." Obsta principiis is an old and useful maxim, and if we are to allow 
 and favor departures from the faith and order of our church until ''vital" 
 points are assailed, our vows and covenants with the church are of little 
 worth. A wide door is thus opened to irregularities and contentions, which 
 is hardly consistent with '^ sticdy'mg" the "peace, unity and purity" of the 
 body. Bro. McCune is a member of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, under the 
 same vows with the other members, and if liberty and sanction were given to 
 us all to go and do likewise, the Presbytery would soon be disorganized and 
 destroyed. His whole movement is in direct contravention of Presbytorianism, 
 To join with him in the circumstances, and in the manner proposed, is a very 
 different thing from sitting in a Cougregational Council, or serving at the in- 
 
[9] 
 
 stallation of a minister in a body with whom wc hold official fraternal rela- 
 tions. I think your action will impress our church at large very unfavorably. 
 Your position as Moderator of the last Assembly, and Professor of Theology, 
 is such as to call attention to your connection with this enterprise. I was told 
 yesterday, b/ one who ought to know, that your name would be used in the 
 " Union " organ as a sanction to their whole movement. Four or five of our 
 brethren, whom I casually met, without the least load on my part in the mat- 
 ter, took precisely the view I do; and I have been congratulated on being 
 with them now, though parted from them on other questions. An outside 
 minister, an elder, and a leading Presbyterian citizen, have expressed similar 
 sentiments. If this experience of a single day is any sign of the feelings that 
 will be aroused when the thing is fully known, I think we will have some dis- 
 cussion in the papers upon the binding character of Presbyterial vows, and of 
 the validity of the Presbyterian organization. The Union Christian Church, 
 at Linwocd, &c., is organized, recognized, and a pastor installed by one or 
 more Presbyterian ministers in the bounds of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, 
 "without permission or direction from the Presbytery," — a church which ex- 
 ists professedly as a standing protest against the Presbyterian and all other 
 evangelical denominations. To say that the published principles that accom- 
 panied our invitation are " no part of the basis of the church," is of no avail, 
 when the church itself originated in those principles, and its purpose is to 
 stand upon and propagate them. Bro. McCune, notoriously their earnest pro- 
 mulgator and defender, is to be its pastor. But I must not say more. I have 
 given you some of the reasons why I can not unite with you in the services of 
 to-morrow. 1 have been equally frank with Bro. McCune. 
 
 Yours in the love of truth and order, 
 
 Thomas H. Skikner. 
 
 Having informed you of this correspondence, in your own office, 
 I ask you again did you know the " facts ?" 
 
 The organization out of five different denominations was com- 
 pleted, yourself, myself, and others, in your own office, discussing 
 both the principles of Mr. McCune, the character and aim of the 
 new church, and the points of Presbyterian law that Avould be 
 violated. These points we all know. (1.) The Eldership was 
 thrown aside, and the Diaconate, for mere committeemen. (2.)Their 
 official titles were thrown aside, (3.) Ordination was thrown 
 aside. (4.) The authority of the Presbytery over Mr. McCune, 
 and his co-presbyters assisting him, was throAvn aside. (5.) The 
 Westminster standards were thrown aside. (6.) The Presbyterian 
 name was thrown aside. In ten particulars, organic law was 
 violated, notwithstanding brotherly advice to the contrary. See 
 my Pamphlet pp. 19, 20. In the installation sermon preached by 
 
[10] 
 
 JDr. Morris on the occasion when these things occurred, Dr. 
 Morris used the following language, knowing the " facts " in 
 common with the rest of his brethren. " It may be that the best 
 contribution which we in this preparatory age can make to the 
 grand Millenial Unity that is surely coming will be found in such 
 fellowship as this ; in the dropping oif of differences wherever 
 we find it practicable, etc." Gazette, December 17, 1875. And so 
 the aifair was consummated, Messrs. Morris, Morey, and McCune 
 of the Presbytery of Cincinnati assisting, notwithstanding your 
 two editorials of August 18, 1875, and November 8, 1873. I ask 
 again, did you know the " facts ?" Believing you will answer 
 affirmatively and will say that you gave the "facts" in your editorial 
 of January 5, 1876, saying, " we will first give the facts," 
 I now invite your attention to the important circumstance, that 
 like Micaiah son of Imlah, prophet of Samaria, tuning his voice 
 to suit the time, you suddenly sang a contradictory decision, 
 to all the above, and as suddenly awoke a complete defense of 
 Mr. McCune's views and his new movement. Among other things, 
 you say of the whole affair, 
 
 (1.) " In all this there is not much cause for alarm." Precisely 
 what Mr. McCune said ; " there is no occasion at all for alarm !" What 
 cause, then, I ask Avas there for your editorials against Mr. McCune 
 previous to the 'organization, in which you charge him with 
 " peculiar vieivs" and aiming at a " great change in the churches" 
 and calling his Presbytery an "tinauthorked body?" 
 
 (2.) You palliate again, saying " Independent churches are no 
 new thing under the sun in this country, even Independent Pres- 
 byterian churches like the church over which Mr. McCune has 
 been placed !" Why then did you say, that you were " at a loss 
 to understand " how Mr. McCune could retain his connexion with 
 the Presbytery, if he was either for organization or had already 
 organized, and invite him to pass out ? 
 
 (3.) You say, " the Observer's article professes to find Dr. Morris 
 assisting in the establishment of an undenominational organization, 
 while he only accepted an invitation to take part in a council 
 invited by an organized church ?" And was this all, in view of 
 the correspondence with Dr. Morris before the council met ! Was 
 this all, in view of the " ten years " aim of Mr. McCune, and of 
 his position that the Presbytery of Cincinnati was an "unauthorized 
 
['ll ] 
 
 body ?" You say you knew the "facts," and reprove the Observer's 
 " lame attempt " as you call it, to give an account of Mr. McCune's 
 views and course. Was there nothing then after all " very pec2i- 
 liar," no ^^ great change" after all? 
 
 (4.) You say again, "Mr. McCune is regarded by all who 1 now 
 him, as honest and humble. Moreover his peculiar vieivs are not 
 new to him !" Why then did you invite him to leave the Pres- 
 byterian Church, solely on account of his "peculiar" views and 
 aim, even before the organization ? 
 
 (5.) You say, " Presbytery do not believe that Mr. McCune has 
 taken charge of L. and M. L. for the purpose of waging a Avarfare 
 against Presbyterian order, which he has sworn that he approves !" And 
 this you say, knowing the facts that in no less than teyi particulars 
 this very Presbyterian order was put under foot by Mr. McCune 
 assisted by three co-presbyters, and that Mr. McCune regarded 
 his Presbytery as an ^^unauthorized body F' Is not this a defense of 
 the whole affair, the oncoming shadow of which you previously 
 twice condemned? 
 
 (6). You say "there is a general expectation that Mr. McCune will 
 not use his present position to agitate his peculiar notions in the 
 way of a crusade against the denominations united in his church. 
 If he does, sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof !" That is, 
 after Mr. McCune has given bodily form to his peculiar notions as to 
 union and organization and the thing was already done, you say, 
 "if he shall do siich a thing, it Avill be time to attend to his case. 
 What is this but suppressio veri, as the logicians call it ? And 
 what has become of the fabled general expectation ?" " We are 
 at a loss to understand " why you do not invite him to '■'■pass 
 at once" from his relations, now that his peculiar views have taken 
 bodily form, when you invited him to do so before such form was 
 assumed? 
 
 (7). You say Mr. McCune is in good standing and his new 
 church has adopted standards which are more like or less unlike 
 ours than the doctrinal standards of any other evangelical people 
 and the same is true of their mode of organization.'' Hung be 
 the heavens with black ! Thunder does not more astound 
 than such a proposition as this ! Let the reader turn to 
 Mr. McCune's peculiar views given above, and to the violations 
 
[12] 
 
 of Presbyterian law in this whole affair, and then weigh Dr. 
 Monfort's estimate "of more like" and "less unlike!" 
 
 Such is the defense you have made for Mr, McCune and his 
 organization and views in your editorial of Jan. 5, 1876, an edi- 
 torial you reproduced, by quotations, in your paper of May 17, 
 1876, after omitting all the essential facts in the case, which 
 you knew all the time, and giving only the outward appearance 
 of things, so as to enable you to say '■Hhere is not much harm in 
 all this r You resurrect your own carefully prepared and de- 
 fective statement, from which any mention of the peculiar views 
 and violations of law is studiously eliminated, as testimony in 
 the case, and then say, "these are the facts as we supposed them 
 to be," and tliey did not furnish much cause for alarm." Sup- 
 posed them to be ! I have shown that you knew them to be more 
 than what you supposed to be, and the discussions between your- 
 self, myself, and others, in your own editorial rooms, both before 
 and after the organization, are also proof of this. When ^you 
 wrote the words "m all this there is not much cause for alarm." 
 ^^ There 8 not much harm in all this." "There is not much harm in Mr. 
 3fcCune's taking charge of s^ich a church." "Moreover his peculiar views 
 arenotnew with him." — when you wrote this, you were aware what 
 Mr. McCune's views were and had been for "ten years,'' and what 
 the violations of Presbyterian law Avere, in the birth of his new 
 Society. You Avere aware that Mr. McCune viewed his own 
 Presbytery as an "unauthorized body," that you had warned 
 him to leave the Presbyterian Church, and that he had as po- 
 litely returned you the compliment. You were aware that he 
 said, if you took no measures to break the fellowship, he should 
 conclude that you really '%ad no conscience in the matter." You were 
 aware that Mr. McCune's aim was to drop off the distinctive 
 principles of Presbyterianism. In short, you were aware that 
 every line in my preamble was true to the letter, and that all 
 these views and violations of law were commom talk throughout 
 the bounds of the Presbytery, and you say in your editor- 
 ial of May 17, 1876, that "the reports were 7wt as de- 
 scribed in his (my) Preamble, and the Presbytery was not willing 
 for Dr. S. to declare and discuss his alleged reports in advance 
 of the proposed investigation," and in addition to all this, affect 
 
[13] 
 
 to be ignorant of the facts, saying, "PFe shall soonhnow ivhat the facts 
 aver 
 
 Thus have you assumed three distinct positions in this whole 
 matter. The first adverse, the second favorable, the third in sus- 
 pense. The first time knowing the facts and condemning, the 
 second time knowing the facts and avoiding and defending, the 
 third time averring that the knowledge of the facts was mere sup- 
 position, and compounding an editorial out of the adverse and favor- 
 able decisions already given, while holding yourself ready, as 
 Chairman of the Committee, to give another decision when the 
 time shall come. 
 
 I think most persons would prefer the consistent, frank, and 
 manly course of Mr. McCune, even in an indefensable cause, to 
 the double and triple method and policy of pro, anti, and neutritm, 
 adopted in your editorials. 
 
 III. As to some other points in your editorial. 
 
 1. Your present and alleged reason for the non publication of 
 the article I offered you is utterly different from the one and 
 only reason you personally gave me at the time you rejected it. 
 I trust you will observe that the section of the Discipline to 
 which you refer now as a reason for your action then, did not 
 occur to you at that time, and that, moreover, it has no relation 
 to the case. It is quoted from the chapter on "private offences," 
 Avhereas this was a '■'■fama clamosa." 
 
 2. In answer to my position as to my constitutional right 
 which was overslaughed by turning it into a point of order, you 
 again carefully omit any allusion to the law of the church, and to 
 the abundant references I have made. You set up a man of 
 straw, then demolish it, by a quotation of purely forensic charac- 
 ter inapplicable to the case, and think you have answered my 
 proposition in reference to the general supervisory Episcopal 
 power of the church, which has nothing to do with formally "ac- 
 cused" persons, and which Mr. McCune was not. 
 
 3. The paper you say you had "prepared" and "thought of 
 offering," you also thouo;lit of not offering. It was after my speech, 
 preamble and resolution had been turned out of doors, I asked 
 you if you intended to offer said paper, to which you responded, 
 "I think not;" whereupon I answered, "then I will offer my pa- 
 
[14] 
 
 per," and made my second attempt to speak, the defeat of which 
 had been already secured by yourself, Dr. Morris, and others. 
 You say you drew your paper in view of the rule of discipline, 
 which provides for a private conference " with an accused person." 
 You are aware that rule had nothing to do with the question, for 
 it is taken from the chapter which pertains to " actual process ;" 
 and that the term ^'•accu^ed'' is a forensic term, and could not re- 
 late to Mr. McCune. 
 
 4. With an air of authority, you say " we (J. G. Monfort, D.D.) 
 were careful to pledge for ourjPresbytery, that disloyalty to our form 
 of our government would not be toleratep." This is generous, and 
 deservs the thanks of that body. The sponsorship Avas not less re- 
 markable than the fulfilment. Mr. McCune says, notwithstanding 
 such pledge, that he had indoctrinated the resbytery for ''ten years" 
 in his ''peculiar views" and that the "same views"\fere held by not a few 
 in his Presbytery. Have you forgotten that Mr. McCune was told 
 by you to step out of his church because of these vietvs, or that he 
 regarded his Presbytery as an "unauthorized body," and his denom- 
 ination as "anti-scripturar and "essentially sinful,' or that he con- 
 tinued to preach, publish, and propagate the same, and finally or- 
 ganized a new enterprise, overriding the entire standards of his 
 church'? Are you ignorant of the fact, that at a regular adjourned 
 meeting of the Presbytery, immediately after the organization, I 
 proposed an interlocutory in reference to Mr. McCune's case, and 
 Presbytery could have acted if it had so desired. Are you 
 ignorant that Dr. Morris affirmed that if Presbytery should take 
 any action at its last meeting reflecting on Mr. McCune he would 
 take it as a " personal aff"ront " to himself, and did what he could 
 to prevent action, notwithstanding his amendment to Dr. Monforts 
 motive for a personal interview with Mr. McCune ? Are you 
 ignorant ofthe fact that notwithstanding your pledge, the Pres- 
 bytery still tolerated Mr. McCune in face of your two editorials 
 adverse to him, and even yet more, actually enrolled him as 
 a " pastor " at its last meeting, thereby giving sanction to his 
 relation to the L. and M. L. Church, and recognizing the 
 validity of his installation ? Of what value, then, are your 
 pledges? What does "to/frafe" mean, or what does '^disloyalty'' 
 mean ? What can they mean in \our judgment, except that Mr. 
 
[15] 
 
 McCune's course has been "right, wise, and commendable" as 
 Dr. Morris alleges, and that "there is not much cause for alarm 
 in all this," as you yourself say — a saying which is only the echo of 
 the words of Mr. McCune," there is no occasion at all for alarm!" 
 
 (5.) You say that Mr. McCune denies much that Dr. Skinner 
 charges. Certainly. And did he not deny much that you said 
 also, asking you to make " suitable correction." Of what value 
 then is this statement ? You say " the committee will spare no 
 pains to get at the facts." Your work will not be very great. 
 My pamphlet and present reply will I trust facilitate your labors. 
 You add that my speech " reflects severely upon the Presbytery 
 and upon several individual members of it." I am sorry for 
 this, but see no way to help it. Has it never occurred to you 
 that your editorial of Aug. 18, 1875, reflects severely upon Mr. 
 McCune, a member of this Presbytery, and, by consequence, 
 upon the Presbytery itself, for its indulgence of Mr. McCune, 
 perhaps not any more severely than you will regard this reply as 
 reflecting on yourself? 
 
 In conclusion, I understand that you, with others, have taken 
 umbrage, because my resolution states that Mr. McCune's views 
 and course are "inconsistent with membership in the Presby- 
 tery." How indignant, then, must both you and they be, at the 
 recollection of your own editorial of Aug. 18, 1875, when, as Mr. 
 McCune says, you suggested to him that there was something 
 ^' dishonorable, if not sinfid,'' in his ^'continuance as a mevxber of the 
 Presbytery of Cincinnati" and invited him, with somewhat of a cool 
 and sarcastic tone, to "pass at once from his old, unauthorized extra- 
 scriptural organization, to a new one on a New Testament basis !!'' Will 
 you kindly permit me to suggest that " ive are at a loss to understand" 
 how that which is proper for you to do, should be improper for 
 me to imitate? The parable of David and the ewe lamb occurs 
 to us, unbidden but not unwelcome. 
 
 I respectfully suggest that it is neither " right, wise nor com- 
 mendable " for you to hold up, as you do, in your editorial, to 
 which this reply is written, the Organic law of the Presbyterian 
 Church to invidious judgment, by expressing your want of sym- 
 pathy with, what you call in common with Mr. McCune, Dr. 
 Skinner's high sectarian position ! " It is not at me you strike 
 
[16] 
 
 but at jour own church and its constitution, which you and Mr. 
 McCune have both " sivorn that you approve ! " My " position '" 
 is simply upon the Organic Law of our denomination. I submit 
 that no editor, nor minister, nor ekler, under solemn ordination 
 vows, and no session, presbytery, synod, nor assembly, has any 
 right to disparage, in public or private, the Organic Law of the 
 church as " high sectarian" by disparaging the " position " of 
 those who fiiithfuUy seek to maintain it. 
 
 Yours for truth and order, ■ 
 
 Thomas H. Skinner. 
 
THE COMPLAIN 
 
 •^OliiG. 
 
 Rev. Thomas H. Skinner, 
 
 .^a-.^^JE^Tsa: t^ce 
 
 \^ 
 
 M 
 
 w^lgif I fff 
 
 AT ITS FALL MEETING, 1876, 
 
 WITH THE 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 CINCINNATI: 
 
 GAZETTE COMPANY PRINT, FOURTH AND VINE STREETS, 
 1876. 
 
^I^NTRODUCTION 
 
 WITHIN less than a year I have been, three several times, deprived 
 of my constitutional rights as a free Presbyter under the very 
 banner of the Constitution itself. I have earnestly sought amid dis- 
 organizing movements to maintain our standards, and the peace, 
 purity, and unity of the Church, in matters of grave moment to 
 every lover of the truth and order of the Presbyterian Church. A 
 just Complaint having been regularly brought by me before the Synod 
 of Cincinnati, and reported as " in order" by the Judicial Committee, 
 and the Synod having voted to hear the Complaint, it was, without even 
 a reconsideration of the vote, turned out of doors, under the pretense 
 of postponement. I, therefore, present to the attention of my brethren 
 the merits of the specific case upon which I asked the Synod to adjudi- 
 cate. The imputation, gratuitously and injuriously made by the Pre- 
 amble to the Resolution of the Synod, whereby my Complaint was prac- 
 tically ejected from the House, abundantly justifies me in publishing 
 the Complaint itself and the Argument I had prepared in its support. 
 Neither of them would the Synod even hear. Whether it touches the 
 case of Mr. McCune, every reader may judge for himself. My brethren 
 will decide whether I had just cause of complaint against the Presbytery 
 and whether the Synod could honorably, as a Court of Christ, excuse 
 itself for refusing the hearing I demanded as my right, at its last 
 meeting. They will judge upon whom rests the responsibility of the 
 causes of complaint to the General Assembly. 
 
 It has been truly said by one well versed in our ecclesiastical law, 
 " it may be doubted whether a similar arbitrary unconstitutional pro- 
 ceeding can be found in all ecclesiastical jurisprudence of the Presby- 
 terian Church." The law of our Church, publicly cited, repeated, and 
 urged in the Synod itself, declares that " where there is a rlrjht to 
 appeal and complain, there is positive obligation on the part of the 
 judicatory to receive and issue such appeals and complaints ;" and that 
 "where ecclesiastical rights of individuals or bodies are concerned 
 
4 
 
 there is no discretion ; all such rights are guarded by the constitution 
 by which every church court is bound," bound not only to " receive" 
 and " issue," but to " seasonably issue," during the very same meeting 
 of the judicatory, to which the complaint or appeal has been made, the 
 case having been reported '*in order," and the records and parties 
 being present. Nothing but "an act of God," unforeseen, or one or 
 other of the grounds of postponement specified in our Digest, none of 
 which existed in this case, is held to justify any departure from this 
 constitutional law. No man may be robbed of his constitutional 
 rights by arbitrary power. Even on the supposition that the McCune 
 case had been pending before the lower court, yet this gave no right 
 for the Synod to eject my Complaint from the house. The Synod 
 had prior jurisdiction. Our Digest tells us that when the pending 
 of one case is set up to defeat another, "the case must be the same; 
 There must be the same parties, or at least such as represent the samp 
 interests, there must be the same rights asserted, and the same relief 
 prayed for. The identity in these particulars should be such that, 
 if the pending case had already been disposed of, it could be pleaded in 
 bar, a5 a former adjudication of the same matter, between the same 
 parties." And yet, in violation of these clear principles of righteous- 
 ness, the arbitrary power of the Synod was used in derogation of 
 my vested ecclesiastical rights, and the Synod ejected my Complaint 
 by an indefinite postponement, upon the excuse of a perhaps, which 
 neither civil nor ecclesiastical law would tolerate for a moment. Was 
 nut this a living and practical illustration of the doctrine, officially set 
 in circulation by order of the Synod in 1870, that "organic enactments, 
 denominational laws, are the apples of discord and wedges of division 
 in the Christian Church," and ought not to be "enforced?" The 
 end sought was gained, just as the ends sought had been gained in the 
 Presbytery. Nothing is left but to complain to the Assembly. The 
 conduct of the Presbytery for six months, the twice taking from me 
 njy right and compelling a complaint to Synod, then the repetition by 
 the Synod of the very offense it was bound to rebuke, and the com- 
 pulsion again of a Complaint to the Assembly, tells its own story and 
 siiows where the responsibility rests. I might plead that the Synod's 
 action was either a prejudice in favor of Mr. McCune, or against my- 
 self, or both. I leave this for others to determine. 
 
 A generation ago, the Presbyterian Church was torn by the very 
 principles and course of action which have agitated our ministry and 
 Churches within the bounds of the Synod of Cincinnati, giving rise to 
 excesses and disorganizing movements for years past, in connection, 
 among other things, with temperance crusades, women's preaching, un- 
 
licensed evangelism, and anti-denominational organic union. These 
 excesses and movements, and the practical destruction of a part of 
 our Presbyterian government, with tendencies antagonistic to the whole 
 of it, I felt myself called upon, with others, in conscience and loyalty 
 to our Church, publicly to oppose. 
 
 Therefore, to relieve myself of what I deem an unjust imputation, 
 implied in the resolution passed by the Synod, and to vindicate my 
 own honor, in the character of my Complaint against the Presbytery, 
 to that body, all the more that the Presbytery is now about to enter 
 upon Mr. McCune's case, I publish my own Complaint and Argument 
 for the consideration of all concerned, as also for the information of 
 the Church. I append my protest against the Synod's action, and my 
 Complaint against the Synod to the General Assembly. 
 
 T. H. S. 
 
^OMPLAINT TO THE ^YNOD. 
 
 The undersigned respectfully complains to the Synod of Cincinnati 
 against the following action of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, during its 
 sessions at its stated fall meeting, at Mt. Auburn, September 13 to 15, 
 inclusive, and at Cincinuati, October 3 to 5, inclusive, to wit : 
 
 I. In sustaining the decision of the Moderator, whereby my Preamble 
 and Resolutions upon the case of Mr. McGwie were ruled as out of order, be- 
 cause they were assumed to be unconstitutional. The "point of order" 
 (so called) was raised by Dr. Morris, as follows : " That the Preamble 
 and Resolutions just presented by Dr. Skinner can not be considered 
 by this body, on the ground that such consideration would be in vio- 
 lation of the constitutional rights of the Rev. W. C. McCune, and 
 would be a virtual trial of the said Mr. McCune, without due regard 
 to the forms provided for in our constitution." "The Moderator re- 
 turned to the Chair and announced his decision of the point of order, 
 as follows: 'The point of order is well taken, and the Preamble and 
 Resolutions are not in order.' The decision was appealed from, and 
 the Moderator sustained." 
 
 My reasons of complaint against this action are : 
 
 1. It was a repudiation by Presbytery of its vested constitutional right 
 (Form of Government, Chapter X, Section 8) " to condemn erroneous 
 opinions which injure the purity or peace of the Church," apart from 
 judicial process against the author. 
 
 2. It was a violation of parliamentary rule, in derogation of ray con- 
 stitutional right to introduce said Preamble and Resolutions, and to 
 discuss the merits of the same after they were seconded, and I was en- 
 titled to the floor, no matter what their fate might have been on the 
 final vote, after discussion. 
 
 3. Said decision of the Moderator, sanctioned and sustained by 
 Presbytery, was an exercise of the most responsible prerogative re- 
 
served to the General Assembly, viz.: that of deciding upon questions 
 of constitutional law, and binding its interpretation on the court as a 
 rule of action. 
 
 4. It was turning a constitutional question into a parliamentary rule 
 of order, so inventing a new rule, in derogation of my constitutional 
 and parliamentary rights. 
 
 II. In accepting, and thereby making official documents of, the Special 
 Report and Collaterals of ilw Committee of Investigation in the case of Mr. 
 McCune, without any action whatever to amend or to rectify datementSj judg- 
 ments, and personalities, therein contained, at variance with righteotisness]and 
 triiih. The Report accepted, Record, p. 217. 
 
 My reasons of complaint against this action are : 
 
 1. The Report opens with, and its recommendations rest upon, state- 
 ments contrary to truth. 
 
 2. It steps out of its way to raise a new case, instead of confining 
 itself to the terms of the resolution under which the committee was 
 appointed. 
 
 3. It implies a censure upon the undersigned, and recommends the 
 Presbytery to pass a judgment which also implies a censure. 
 
 4. Part of the Collaterals indulge in gross personalities against the 
 undersigned, which would not be tolerated a moment in debate, and 
 ought not to be tolerated in an official document. 
 
 III. For adopthig an answer to the pi'otest of the undersigned, Septeamher 
 15, 1876, Mt. Auburn, without rectifying its erroneous statements and the 
 fake impression it is calculated to make. 
 
 My reasons for complaint against this action are : 
 
 1. Said answer does not accurately represent the facts of the case. 
 
 2. It represents the undersigned as being out of order and furnishing 
 reasonable ground for the annoyances and unlawful interruptions un- 
 der which he was forced to retire from the floor of the Presbytery. 
 
 3. No withdrawal of the protest, for alteration, on account of mis- 
 i*epresentations in the answer, could make the protest " more agree- 
 able" to the " views'' of the undersigned. 
 
 This Complaint is respectfully submitted, with the request that it 
 may be prosecuted immediately, according to the discipline of our 
 Church. 
 
 Thomas H. Skinner. 
 
 Cincinnati, October 14, 1876. 
 
$HE § 
 
 Mr. Moderator, this Complaint limits itself, specifically, to two 
 things: (1.) To the denial of my constitutional and parliamentary 
 riglits as a Presbyter, guaranteed to me by the standards of our 
 Church and our accepted rules of parliamentary order, (2,) To the 
 impeachment of my conduct and character as a man and as a minister 
 while in the public defense of these rights, as also in the public defense 
 of our Presbyterian faith and order. It impinges, in no respect, upon 
 the vierits of the case of the Rev. Mr. McCune, now in judicial pro- 
 cess before the Presbytery of Cincinnati. It relates solely to myself 
 and the Presbytery. This Complaint, Mr. Moderator, needs no apol- 
 ogy. The utmost effort has been made, by various parties, to try and 
 degrade the great cause of Truth and Order, out of which this Com- 
 plaint has sprung, to the aspect of a mere personal quarrel, "The 
 Address to all the Churches of North America," by the advocates of 
 anti-denominational organizations; the wide-spread advocacy of the 
 principles involved herein by so-called Christian Church Union jour- 
 nals, to which the names and influence of many Presbyterian minis- 
 ters are given ; the existence and character of a new organization of 
 this kind in the very bosom of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, with its 
 published Declaration and Basis ; the multiplied utterances of the 
 press throughout the land, both secular and religious, and the action 
 of the Presbytery itself instituting inquiry into the raei-its of this 
 movement, are an abundant answer to so gratuitous a conception. I 
 need, therefore, say no more on this point. There are three separate 
 counts in the Complaint I bring before you: (1.) As to my constitu- 
 tional and parliamentary rights. (2.) As to the acceptance of the 
 Committee's Report and its Collaterals. (3.) As to the adoption of 
 the answer to a protest. I complain, first, that my rights have been 
 wrested from me; second, that my conduct and character are im- 
 peached in accepted and official documents of the Presbytery, contrary 
 • to all precedent. Such is my Complaint. 
 
I. The first point of the Complaint is against Presbytery's action 
 " in sustaining fhe decision of the Moderator, whereby my Preamble 
 and liesolutions upon the case of Mr. McCune were ruled as out of or- 
 der, because they were assumed to be unconstitutional" (1.) The first 
 reason in support of this first point is that such action, assuming such 
 unconstitutionality, was "a repudiation" by Presbytery of its veded eoa- 
 itltutloival right (Form of Government, Chapter X, Section 8) " to con- 
 demn erroneous opinions which injure the purity and peace of the 
 Church, apart from judicial process against their author." 
 
 I wish it to be distinctly understood by the Synod, that the ground 
 on which the Presbytery's action rested was not the mere inexpediency 
 of the application of non-forensic or episcopal power to the condemna- 
 tion of Mr. McCune's errors and irregularities, but it was the denial 
 that such episcopal power, so to do, did exist by the constitution. If the 
 constitutional power to condemn widely-spread errors, apart from 
 judicial process, had been recognized, no ground would have existed 
 on which to raise a " point of order," or decide any one " out of order" 
 who sought to persuade Presbytery to exercise that power, and save a 
 tedious, unnecessary and vexatious litigation. The only question that 
 could have arisen, was, is it " wise, equitable, and for the edification 
 of the Church," to exercise this power, and to this point my Preamble, 
 Resolution, and x\rgument were directed; i. e., to a discussion of the 
 merits of the case, in view of the Committee's ofiicial report, furnishing 
 the "facts" in the case by order of the Presbytery, after five months' 
 investigation. If deemed contrary to the constitution, irregular, unwise, 
 inequitable, and not for edification, after hearing my argument, to 
 exercise this power, it was competent to vote down my motion, or lay it 
 on the table ; but I assert it was an outrage upon all my rights to shut 
 my moutli, a second time, upon a debatable motion, duly seconded and 
 read, absolutely in order, and on which I had already proceeded to 
 speak. At the Glendale Presbytery, April 13, 1875, the plea of 
 official ignorance was made. The information I came forward to offer 
 was declined. It was said I could not speak on the merits of my 
 Preamble until the "/acfe" were brought in by a Committee. The 
 Committee of Investigation, consuming the summer, reported tlie 
 "facts" September 13, 1875, indorsing Mr. McCune's course at 
 Lin wood and Mt. Lookout, and although themselves disapproving sonw 
 of his views, yet reccommending no disapproval by the Presbytery, but 
 suggesting process against myself for slander. The report was not 
 adopted, but accepted. It was a discussion of the merits of the case by 
 Mr. McCune and the Committee. I then took the official documents, 
 and sought by a Preamble and Resolution, to have Presbytery disap- 
 
10 
 
 prove both the views and course of Mr. McCune, and forbid their 
 continuance. My mouth was a second time stopped, oh the merits of 
 the case, although having the floor, under a debateable motion and per- 
 fectly in order. What was accorded to a Committee and to Mr. McCune 
 apart from judicial process, was denied to me. To support what policy, 
 and in whose interest all this was done, I lea-ve others to judge. The 
 refusal to "consider" my Preamble and Resolutions was an oppression. 
 To accomplish this, it was necessary to find some ground on which to 
 raise a "point of order." I announce to the Synod that the very con- 
 stitution itself was declared unconstitutional, and on that ground I was ■ 
 pronounced out of order, and my rights to discuss tho merits of the 
 case, after Mr. McCune had discussed them several hours before Pres- 
 bytery, and the Committee's report had discussed them, was wrested 
 from me. It is of this injustice I complain, all the more that the Com- 
 mittee itself had intimated to the Presbytery not to have "a judicial 
 trial," and had not even recommended a disapproval of Mr. McCune's 
 "views," and had actually indorsed his "course" at Linwood and Mt. 
 Lookout. It alters not the injustice of the proceeding, that, after 
 much effort to throw this grave matter out of court, and suggest action 
 against myself for the public defense of my rights and the honor of my 
 Church, it was finally considered expedient to institute process against 
 Mr. McCune. The ground on which I was ruled " out of order" was 
 not the inexpediency of exercising the non-judicial power of the Pres- 
 bytery in condemnation of the errors before us, but the denial of that 
 power altogether, and on that ground wresting from me my right of 
 discussion. The reactionary half-recognition of the episcopal power 
 of the Presbytery came later, only in order to furnish a basis for the 
 opinion of its non-applicability to the case in hand, and a justification 
 of judicial process, but not to allow me any right of discussion on the 
 merits of my Preamble and Resolutions. My Complaint, I think, is un- 
 derstood. I shall show that the Presbytery has the very power it repu- 
 diated, that I was in order, and that the action of the Presbytery 
 was an appression, twice repeated. 
 
 Has the Presbytery the constitutional power to condemn erroneous 
 opinions and irregularities of practice, which disturb the tranquility 
 of the Church, apart from tedious and extreme forensic process ? My 
 conviction is clear that it not only has this right, but it is in duty bound 
 to exercise it for the edification of the body of Christ ; and 1 think I 
 shall be able to justify this conviction, deep-seated and ineradicable as it 
 is, by the best of evidence and sound argument. I shall adduce in 
 support of my first reason the organic law of the Church itself, estab- 
 lished precedents, approved, selected, and recorded since the reunion, 
 
11 
 
 in our Digest, for our guide, and by the recognized practice of nil courts 
 in their interpretation of constitutional law. 
 
 The whole power of jurisdiction and order, vested by Christ in the 
 Church of God on earth, and iu every branch and denomination of 
 it wherever found, is of divine right and origin, and is limited alone 
 by the sovereign authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is for the 
 edification of His spiritual body and not for destruction. Supervisory 
 and authoritative, it is broad as the inspection and control of the whole 
 Church and adequate to all her wants and necessities. Its exercise is 
 directed to two things, the preservation of the heavenly doctrine in 
 its purity, and the guardianship of the Christian conduct ; in other 
 words, to faith and morals. Take these two things away, truth and 
 duty, and neither Form of Government nor Code of Discipline has 
 any value. The written Constitution of the Presbyterian Church, with 
 its system of doctrine and polity, we declare to be "agreeable to the 
 Word of Grod," and vow to maintain and enforce it as the law of the 
 Church, just because we so believe. Ministerial and declarative alone, 
 and unfettered by human commandments, and neither legislating nor 
 binding by virtue of human authority, nor against the revealed will 
 of God, it is the vice-regal function of the Church, derived from the 
 crown of Him on whose shoulders is the government, who holds the 
 key of David, and who has said, "I give to you the keys of the king- 
 dom. Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, 
 and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." It 
 is an awful and solemn trust, and not a "popish usurpation," to be 
 executed in view of our accountability to Christ for the manner in 
 which we defend the heavenly doctrine and the order of the heavenly 
 house. 
 
 The most general, or the generic, name of this power is ^'Episco- 
 pal." It is the exercise of that watch and control which are given to 
 those whom Christ has appointed and the Holy Ghost has chosen to be 
 ordained "overseers" (Episcopoi. Acts xx. 28; 1 Tim. iii. 1, 2) and 
 " shepherds " in the Church. It is sometimes called " Paternal " power, 
 in allusion to 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5. Modified as to the method of its exer- 
 cise, in certain extreme cases, by judicial forms and rules of procedure, 
 it is called " Judicial " or " Forensic." It is the broadest, most compre- 
 hensive, and far-reaching function of government and administration 
 that exists'; the most indispensable to the very existence of the Church 
 itself. It is the character of all her action. Deny to the Church of 
 Christ episcopal power, and she is stripped at once of the very means 
 of her self-preservation ; her oversight and control are alike wrecked, 
 and not even a shadow is left on which to shape her judicial. But this 
 
' 12 
 
 is so plain I need not argue it. Enough to say that it is by virtue of 
 this episcopal power alone, apart from judicial forms, the power of 
 supervision or inspection, declarative and authoritative, and put by 
 Christ in ordination and the laying on of hands upon the shoulders of 
 every presbyter-bishop, whether teaching or ruling, and vested in every 
 ministerial court, the Church of Christ executes nearly the whole of 
 her divine commission. By this she preaches the gospel, administers 
 sacraments, admits members and ministers into the Church and dis- 
 misses them, examines, licenses, puts, or refuses to put, calls into the 
 hands of her ministers, elects, installs, ordains, translates, and removes 
 both ministers, elders, and deacons. By this she forms and dissolves 
 pastoral relations, organizes, visits, unites or divides, and commands 
 Churches, redresses evils, and does whatever pertains to their welfare. 
 By this she requires candidates to pursue certain studies and report 
 their progress to her courts, aud calls upon her ministers to give ac- 
 count of their work in the vineyard of the Lord. By this she erects 
 aud convenes her courts, frames rules, and subjects to review and con- 
 trol their records and proceedings. She warns against transgression, 
 by this same power, admonishes, reproves, rebukes, exhorts, entreats, 
 enjoins, defends the faith, directs the conduct, decides cases of con- 
 science, suppresses schismatical controversies, arrests lawless practices 
 against her polity, resolves questions of doctrine and discipline reason- 
 ably proposed, condemns erroneous opinions, and bears public testi- 
 mony against whatever she regards as injurious to the faith and order 
 of God's house, and to good manners, charity, truth, and holiness. 
 And all this simply by preamble and resolution, motion and overture, 
 act, testimony, and deliverance, memorial, recommendation, and , 
 injunction ; — not by process and verdict. Valid documentary evidence 
 and present undeniable facts, in her own court, have the sanctity and 
 force of a true witness. Moderator, who is it that denies the episcopal 
 power of the Church of Christ ? or the episcopal power of every court 
 in it? As well deny that the sun shines in the heavens! Why sir, 
 what kind of power was it the Committee of the Presbytery exercised, 
 in approving the "course" of Mr. McCune, and disapproving his 
 "views" apart from judicial process, and under a Preamble and 
 Resolution of Investigation? What kind of power is it that the editor 
 of the Herald and Fre&hyter exercised? And is any one so forgetful of all 
 consistency as to aver that the Presbytery itself has less power than a 
 mere Committee, the creature of its own appointment, or than the indi- 
 vidual editor of a religious newspaper, both using, in full, the name of 
 the author, and affirming a judgment upon the merits of the case? How 
 preposterous to think that in the grave matters that so often engage her 
 
13 
 
 attention in a wicked world, where the adversary ever works to corrupt 
 her faith and destroy her order, the Presbyterian Church is tied, by 
 every considerable transgression, to an extreme forensic process, that 
 may consume a year for its issue, and in the end the remedy prove 
 worse than the disease ! What a harvest of practice for the contentious 
 and obstinate, unwilling to be reclaimed by milder means! What a 
 premium on discord ! What a plight for the Church of Christ in the 
 hands of him who, abhorring ''judiciaV power and crying for " peace 
 and safety'' in the midst of fast coming calamities, denies the " Epkco- 
 pal" power too! Then, what is left but fire and stubble? Moderator, 
 the compass of 1834 will not do for either you or me to steer by in pres- 
 ent or coming storms ! It is a question if the anchor of Reunion will 
 hold us, for the gale is strong ! 
 
 But the Church is not so bound. The recognition of this episcopal 
 power is inscribed in the constitution, in express terms. " It belong- 
 eth," says our admirable Confession, Chapter XXXI, Section 2, "to 
 Synods and Councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith 
 and cases of conscience, to set down rules and directions for the wor- 
 ship of God, and government of His Church, which decrees and deter- 
 minations, if consistent with the Word of God, are to be received with 
 reverence and submission, not only for the agreement with the Word, 
 but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance 
 of God, appointed thereunto in his Word." The same episcopal power 
 is expressed again in our Form of Government, Chapter X, Section 8, 
 which recognizes the "power" vested by Christ in the Presbytery, not 
 merely to " issue appeals, from church sessions and references brought 
 before them," nor merely to "judge ministers" by forensic process, but 
 also, and by a discriminating clause, "to resolve questions of doctrine or 
 discipline, seriously and reasonably proposed, to condemn erroneous 
 opinions which injure the purity or peace of the Church, * * and 
 to order whatever pertains to the spiritual welfare of the churches un- 
 der her care.'' x\.gain, with unmistakable emphasis does our Book 
 of Discipline, Chapter I, Section 5, revolt against the idea that the 
 Church is tied to extreme forensic process in the exercise of her power, 
 when it declares that, "the exercise of discipline in such a manner as 
 to edify the Church, requires not only much of the spirit of piety, but also 
 much prudence and discretion. It becomes the rulers of the Church, 
 therefore, to take into view all the circumstances which may give a 
 different character to conduct, and render it more or less offensive ; 
 and which may, of course, require a very different mode of proceeding in 
 similar crises, at dfferent times, for the att-ainment of the same end." 
 What could be more explicit? Again, the same power, apart from 
 
14 
 
 judicial process, is recognized as belonging to our Greneral Assembly. 
 Form of Government, Chapter XII, Section 5 : "To the General Assem- 
 bly also belongs the power of deciding in all controversies respecting doc- 
 trine and discipline ; of reproving, warning, or hearing testimony against 
 error in doctrine, or immorality in practice, in any Church, Presbytery 
 or Synod; of suppressing schismatical contentions and disputations," 
 etc., etc. Thus is this episcopal power common to all our courts, 
 without exception, for the Presbytery is only a larger session, and the 
 Synod a larger Presbytery, while the Assembly is the crown of all. 
 Will any one say that before error in doctrine and practice, in any 
 member of a Presbytery, can be condemned, or the Presbytery arrest 
 lawless movements and condemn erroneous views of its members, or 
 bear testimony against error rife in the Presbyterian Church, forensic 
 process against their author must be commenced and concluded? It is 
 not the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church. The best interpretation 
 of any organic instrument or statute is the practice of its framers in the 
 generation contemporaneous with and succeeding its adoption, and the 
 best evidence of that practice is the action of the administering courts 
 themselves, and the decrees and determinations of the supreme court 
 of the Church, which have all the force of constitutional law. " Coa- 
 temporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege" — contemporaneous 
 exposition is the best and strongest interpretation in law ; this is a 
 maxim of acknowledged validity, universal and conclusive. The con- 
 struction of the constitution by the courts contemporaneous with its 
 enactment is the surest construction, and next to this, the practice of 
 the courts succeeding. Such judicial interpretation obtains the force 
 of constitutional law itself. 
 
 I appeal, therefore, to five celebrated cases in our Digest which 
 testify to the practice of the Church from its very beginning in this 
 land, following the practice of its parent source and which remains 
 alike for all future time, notwithstanding the momentary obscurations 
 of 1822 and 1834, which only prepared the way for an intenser bright- 
 ness. And all the more I do this, again, at this time, inasmuch as it 
 has been wildly asserted in the lower court, that the exceptional 
 decisions of 1822 and 1834 are to day accepted law by "ninety-nine 
 hundredths of the Reunited Church.'' I need only advert to them 
 briefly; they are the cases of Harker, Davis, Balch, Craighead and 
 Barnes. All these began with the direct exercise of episcopal power, 
 apart from judicial process; some of them began, continued, and were 
 concluded by that power alone; while others, which beginning with that 
 power and failing by this milder means to secure the peace and purity 
 of the Church, were concluded by forensic adjudication. 
 
15 
 
 1. RarJcer. — Moore's Digest, p. 218; Baird's Digest, p. 604. In 
 conformity with the early practice of the Church, a non-judicial refer- 
 ence was made to the Synod by Presbytery respecting Mr. Marker, 
 who had "imbibed and vented certain erroneous doctrines." "In 1761, 
 Mr, Harker printed and published his views, and Synod appointed a 
 committee to examine the book, who reported next year. The Synod 
 proceeded to consider Mr. Barker's principles, collected from his booh by 
 the committee, which are in substance as follows." After examination, 
 the Synod passed the following judgment, without any judicial process 
 whatever. "The Synod judge that these principles are of a hurtful 
 and dangerous tendency, giving a false view of the covenant of grace, 
 etc., etc., and that they are contrary to the Word of God and our 
 approved standards of doctrine." On the further consideration of the 
 case, the Synod made the following judgment, to wit: "That Mr. 
 Harker has for several years past been dealt with in the tenderest 
 manner, etc., etc., but that instead of succeeding in these attempts, 
 he appeared to be rather confirmed and resolute in propagating his 
 opinions among the people, etc., etc. On the whole, though the 
 exclusion of a member be grievous, yet we judge that the said Mr. 
 Samuel Harker can not be consistently a member of this body, and 
 accordingly declare him disqualified for preaching and exercising his 
 ministry," etc. Such was the case. The fathers of the Church exer- 
 cised their episcopal power in " condemning erroneous opinions," and 
 finally excluded a contumacious member, apart from judicial process. 
 
 2. Balch.— Moore's Digest, p. 220 ; Baird, p. 614. Mr. Balch, in 
 1797, having imbibed Hopkinsian doctrines, propagated them, causing 
 a schism in the Church, and the erection of a new independent organi- 
 zation. The "creed" of Mr. Balch, gathered by a commission, was 
 referred- to the General Assembly, without any judicial process against 
 its author, asking that the author be required to "acknowledge before 
 the Assembly that he was wrong in the publication of his creed, 
 renounce the errors pointed out, engage to teach nothing hereafter of 
 a similiar nature, and that the Moderator admonish him," etc. Mr. 
 Balch acknowledged his errors: "I do fully acknowledge," etc., did 
 " cheerfully renounce them," did "solemnly and sincerely engage," etc.. 
 did "cheerfully submit himself to admonition," and was declared "in 
 good standing in the Church." It was an exercise of episcopal power 
 by the fathers of the Church, under the organic law of the Church. 
 
 3. Z>aOTS.— Moore's Digest, p. 222; Baird, p. 634. The Second 
 Presbytery of South Carolina, in the exercise of its episcopal power, . 
 "represented" to the Synod that Mr. Davis, belonging to the First 
 Presbytery, was permitted to " pass without censure, though known to 
 
16 
 
 teach erroneous doctrines on some fundamental points." Synod required 
 the Presbytery to "attend to this matter." After various efforts, 
 charges were tabled by the Second Presbytery, and abandoned, Mr. 
 Davis being excused from censure, on the ground of " liberty of opinion." 
 Synod then commenced a "judicial investigation," and, finally, referred 
 the matter to the Assembly. The Synod's action was declared irregular 
 in proceeding to such judicial investigation, when there was "no refer- 
 ence and no appeal," and the next Assembly refused to " reconsider." 
 This action was just, because the Synod was not a court of original 
 jurisdiction over a minister. It, however, considered an " overture'' from 
 the Synod of the Carolina?, "requesting their attention to a late 
 publication of the Rev. W. C. Davis, denominated the Gospel Plan." 
 The finding upon the overture was, that the doctrines of Mr. Davis are 
 " contrary to the Confession of Faith and the Word of God," "of very 
 dangerous tendency," and the "Assembly do judge, and do hereby 
 declare, that the preaching or publishing them ought to subject the 
 person or persons so doing, to be dealt with by their respective Presby- 
 teries according to the discipline of the Church relativ^e to the propa- 
 gation of errors." Judicial process was commenced in a new Presbytery, 
 to which Mr. Davis was attached, his former Presbytery having 
 been dissolved. Mr. Davis declrned jurisdiction and was deposed from 
 the ministry. The fact is patent that by episcopal power the errors and 
 course of Mr. Davis were condemned, upon overture alone, apart from 
 the conduct of a regular judicial trial. 
 
 4. Crai^?ieaci— Moore's Digest, p. 223; Baird, p. 638. Mr. Craig- 
 head having preached a Pelagianizing sermon before Synod, in 1806, 
 " the things he uttered before the Synod were immediately submitted 
 to that court by the Committee of Bills and Overtures." (Princeton 
 Review, October, 1847, p. 196.) He was admonished on the spot, 
 formally by the Synod, in the exercise of its episcopal power, through 
 the Moderator, to abstain from the propagation of his views. He "set 
 at naught the admonition" of the Synod, determined to keep oit in his 
 way, and published the sermon. Judicial process was afterward 
 resorted to. In the course of it, the Assembly said, in 1824, " The 
 Synod might have proceeded instantly to condemn the errors of Mr. 
 Craighead's book, as the Assembly did the " Gospel Plan" of W. C. 
 Davis," that is, even without judicial process. (Baird, 642.) It recog- 
 nized the right to exercise episcopal power, not only in the condemna- 
 tion of error, but for a " lofty and independent spirit, that would not be 
 controlled by authority," from " a bold and confident controvertist, 
 who sets his opponents at defiance." 
 
 5. Barnes.— Moore's Digest, p. 226; Baird, p. 650. In 1829, Mr. 
 
17 
 
 Barnes preached the " Way of Salvation," the sermon causing public 
 discussion. Next year the Presbytery of Philadelphia allowed a call 
 from the First Church of Philadelphia to be placed in his hands. A 
 minority protested and complained that the proper consideration 
 of his views was suppressed, and the right of the Presbytery to 
 pronounce upon those views, apart from judicial process, denied. 
 Synod sustained the complaint of the minority, and enjoined Pres- 
 bytery " to hear and decide on their objections to the orthodoxy of 
 the sermon of Mr. Barnes, and to take such order on the whole sub- 
 ject as is required by a regard to the purity of the Church and its ac- 
 knowledged doctrines and order." Obedient to this injunction. Pres- 
 bytery, apart from judicial process, "entered into an examination of 
 Mr. Barnes' sermon^ and decided as follows: Presbytery, etc., "are of 
 the opinion that it contains speculations of dangerous tendency," etc. 
 (reciting the points), and, "on the whole, express their deep regret 
 that Mr. Barnes should have preached and published a discourse so 
 highly objectionable," etc., "and earnestly recommend to Mr. Barnes 
 to reconsider and renounce the erroneous matter," etc., and appointed 
 a committee to wait upon Mr. Barnes, and report the result of their 
 interview at the next meeting. Mr. Barnes refused to hear the com- 
 mittee, resisted the exercise of the episcopal power of the Presbytery, 
 pronouncing " the whole proceeding unconstitutional " This was fall- 
 ing back, not on the early practice of the Church, but upon a new in- 
 terpretation of the constitution given in 1822. The whole matter was now 
 referred directly to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, 
 with the following question, viz. : " Whether, by the constitution, it is 
 competent to any Presbytery to take up and examine any printed pub- 
 lication, and to pronounce it to be erroneous or dangerous, if they so 
 find it, witlmut in the first place commencing a formal prosecution of the 
 author, even supposing it to be known and admitted that the author is 
 a member of its own body ; or whether a Presbytery, in every such 
 case, must, when disposed to act on the same, forthwith commence a 
 forensic prosecution of the author of the publication which is believed to 
 contain erroneous and dangerous opinions or doctrines ? " Baird, pp. 
 654, 655. It is the question of episcopal power, as to its extent, raised 
 in 1831, notwithstanding the previous and uniform practice of the 
 Church, save once, in 1822, which was counteracted by the action of 
 1824. 
 
 The following correspondence with one well qualified to judge in the 
 matter presented, I here insert : 
 
18 
 
 Cincinnati, October 15, 1876. 
 
 Bro. Baikd : Will you be so kind as to give ine your opinion in re- 
 spect to the five cases — Balch, Davis, Harker, Craighead and Barnes — 
 named in the Digest, and state whether they are cases in which the 
 episcopal power of the Presbytery, in so far as it may b^ distinguished 
 from judicial or forensic process, was exercised. 
 
 Yours fraternally, etc., 
 
 Cincinnati, October 16, 1876. 
 
 Dear Brother: By "judicial or forensic process" I understand 
 you to mean, proceedings implying the presence of a prosecutor and 
 defendant and forms, the essential features of which are stated in our 
 book, in the chapter on Actual Process. 
 
 Episcopal jurisdiction, as contrasted with this, must mean that au- 
 thority by wliich, without an intervening prosecutor, or the forms of 
 actual process, Church courts act immediately and of their own knowl- 
 edge for the correction of disorders, the reclaiming of wanderers, and 
 the protection of the Church and its doctrines. 
 
 Of proceedings of this kind, respecting which you inquire, the rec- 
 ords of the Church exhibit a number of memorable examples. Con- 
 spicuous among them are the cases of Harker, Balch, Davis, Craighead 
 and Barnes. In each of these cases the episcopal authority was em- 
 ployed in examining and censuring the published opinions of the par- 
 ties. In the Harker case, the Synod, without any of the forms of ac- 
 tual process, having first censured Marker's book, eventually excluded 
 him from the ministry for contumacy and persistency in error. In the 
 other cases, the episcopal function was exercised in censure of the pub- 
 lications, and its action was followed, more or less directly, by meas- 
 ures of forensic or judicial process. 
 
 Two other signal examples of episcopal jurisdiction you will find in 
 the New Light and Cumberland Schisms. In both instances the Sy- 
 nod of Kentucky asserted direct episcopal authority over unsound min- 
 isters, citing them to its bar, examining them as to their opinions and 
 conduct, and suspending them from their ministry. And in both cases 
 the General Assembly, after mature inquiry into the whole proceed- 
 ings, fully approved them. 
 
 I could mention other instances, but these may serve you as exam- 
 ples of the whole. In fact, it is, I think, beyond question that in all 
 periods of the history of our Church, from the beginning until a com- 
 paratively recent date, the episcopal function was in constant exercise, 
 and its righteousness unquestioned by any. 
 
 Yours, very truly, 
 
 Samuel J. Baird. 
 
 The fortunes of this new movement, that sought to confirm a novel 
 and unwarranted interpretation of our organic law, I need not recount. 
 
19 
 
 They are spread at length hi Baird's Digest, pp. 650 to 733, to which 
 Moore's Digest, p. 226, refers, traversing a painful conflict of seven 
 years. It was a time of trouble. Must the author of every erroneous 
 and dangerous sentiment be put on trial before the errors of his publi- 
 cations, whether by book, or pamphlet, or newspaper, and his irregu- 
 larities, be condemned ? To what, in troublous times, would the Church 
 be reduced, save a police court or an arena of interminable strife? 
 
 The answer of the Assembly of 1834 to the above question, an an- 
 swer which led directly to the disruption of the Church, because it de- 
 nied to the Church her right to condemn erroneous opinions apart from 
 the arraignment of the author, was in these words : "That in the opin- 
 ion of this Assembly, to take up, and try, and condemn, any printed 
 publications as heretical and dangerous, is equivalent to condemning the 
 author as heretical ; that to condemn heresy in the abstract can not be 
 understood as the purpose of such trial ; that the results of such trial 
 are to bear upon, and seriously to affect, the standing of the author ; 
 and the fair and unquestionable mode of procedure is, if the author 
 be alive and known to be of our communion, to institute process against 
 him, and give him a fair and constitutional trial." Baird, p. 669 (8). 
 The peculiar introduction of the word "try," in its technical meaning, 
 and in an illegitimate application to the phrase, "printed publications," 
 as though any court could ever dream of instituting forensic process 
 against a book, an opinion, or a thing, is evidently inappropriate. The 
 protest to this answer was this : " We protest, because in our judgment 
 this decision not only establishes a principle erroneous in itself, but 
 does in fact the very thing which it imputes to the memorialists ; it 
 casts censure on a 'former Greneral Assembly for examining and con- 
 demning a heretical book before the author was tried and condemned 
 by his Presbytery. We here refer to the case of W. 0. Davis." 
 Baird, 671. 
 
 I gladly and thankfully pass over the history. Would there were 
 nothing here to recall the past! In 1834 the exercise of the episco- 
 pal power, in this respect, was denied. In 1835, and in 1837, it was 
 triumphantly reaffirmed by the Presbyteries in Greneral Assembly. I 
 quote the action of the Assembly of 1835: ''Resolved tliat, in the 
 judgment of this General Assembly, it is the right, and may be the 
 duty, of a?i?/ judicatory of our Church to take up, and, if it sec cause, 
 to bear testimony against any printed publication which may be circu- 
 lating in its bounds, and which in the judgment of that judicatory may 
 be adapted to inculcate injurious opinions, and this whether the author 
 be living or dead, whether he be in the communion of this Church or 
 not, whether he be a metnher of the judicatory o ).'ss;l ng the opinion, or of 
 
20 
 
 some other. * * * Xo deny to our judicatories, as guardians of the 
 churches, this right, would be to deny to them one of the most precious 
 and 'powerful means of hearing testimony against dangerous sentiments, 
 and guarding the children of the Church against "that instruction 
 which causeth to err." No counter decision to this has ever been 
 made. The action of the Assembly of 1836, of which my own fiither 
 was the author, and which I well understand, did not antagonize with 
 the definitive action of 1835, which is a precedent that can not be set 
 aside in the Reunited Church. Just what the Assembly of 1836 did, 
 was simply to maintain that, to episcopally condemn the -errors of a 
 publication, which errors the Assembly had already decided not to be 
 errors, after the formal judicial trial of their author for the same, was 
 improper, and in contravention of the rights of the author, as also a 
 reversal of its own decision upon the merits of the errors themselves. 
 Baird's Digest, p. 694 (3, 4, 5). Whatever difference of opinion 
 might have existed as to the errors themselves, there can be no doubt 
 that the position taken was correct, and in this view I have the sanc- 
 tion of my father himself. 
 
 What then, Moderator, is the result we have reached? It is no less 
 than this: (1.) That the express letter of our constitution asserts the 
 right of every one of our Presbyteries and of other courts to condemn 
 error in doctrine and irregularity in practice arising therefrom, apart 
 from judicial arraignment of the author. (2.) That our earlier and 
 later assemblies and inferior courts have done this very thing, not 
 merely " in the abstract" as in the cases of Universalism and Socinian- 
 ism, etc., but in the concrete, in any publication, whether book, ser- 
 mon, or pamphlet, set on foot by any one, dead or .alive, member of a 
 Presbytery or not, and referring to the publication by title and to the 
 author of the publication by name. (3.) That five memorable his- 
 toric precedents or actual cases in court confirm aod illustrate this 
 exercise of episcopal power ; and (4.) That judicial process against 
 the author, or, in other words, the judicial arrest of the person, whether 
 by responsible prosecutor or by common fame, instead of the examina- 
 tion and disapproval of the thing, is not the first but always the last 
 resort ; and this I afiirm is the genius of our constitution, an instru- 
 ment framed and fraught alike with the spirit of wisdom and charity, 
 conservative alike of its doctrine and order and the standing of our 
 ministry, the best possible means to save both the Church and her 
 public teachers from defection and destruction. 
 
 And now, Moderator, this is the law of our Church, its established 
 law, by the perpetual power of the standards, by memorable exposi- 
 tions and precedents in all our courts, contemporaneous with and sue- 
 
21 
 
 ceediiig the enactment of our constitution, and by the hitest as well as 
 earliest deliverances of our supreme court. I advance now to say, 
 that it is the law of our Church, established triumphantly also by the 
 maxims of common law and common sense, as well as by the univer- 
 sally recognized rules and decisions of all civil courts, where contradic- 
 tory decisions have existed in the same court upon questions of la\T 
 over which the court has proper jurisdiction. It has been confidently 
 asserted in the Presbytery that the decision of 1834 is the law of the 
 Presbyterian Church, and so regarded by 'ninety-nine hundredths" of 
 the reunited body — a marvelous assertion, truly ! Certainly the novel 
 interpretation of 1822 was slain by the latter contrary interpretation 
 of 1824. Upon what principle, may I ask, is that of 1834 exalted 
 in force above the still later and contrary interpretation of 1835 in 
 the undivided Church ? Not, certainly, upon any principle of legal 
 interpretation, either literal, rational, historical, or mixed. Not, cer- 
 tainly, upon the ground of the early practice of the Church, uninter- 
 rupted until 1822. Such logic is in face of all reason, all law, all 
 sense, and is repugnant to the rule accepted by all judges and enfoi-ced 
 in all civil courts. '•' Stare decisis et quieta non movere " — to stand by the 
 decisions and not to disturb rights and principles at rest — is an ac- 
 knowledged rule. Judicial interpretations of the constitution, con- 
 temporaneous with its enactment and giving the sense of its framers, 
 will be upheld. The construction of the law by the courts having 
 jurisdiction in the case, at the time and afterward, is the surest and 
 best construction, and no modal limitation is to be inferred which may 
 defeat the plain intent of the law. A principle once established and 
 continued, under the construction of the supreme court which has 
 jurisdiction over questions of constitutional law, is to be maintained 
 as the law of the land. The construction of the court obtains the 
 force and acquires the sanction of constitutional law itself. While the 
 constitution remains unchanged the construction remains unchanged 
 also. ""Stare decisis" — abide by the decisions. Otherwise a change 
 of construction, in the interest of any excitement, strikes at the foun- 
 dation of all principles and all rights confirmed under the previous 
 construction and opens the door to interminable strife. The Assem- 
 blies of 1822 and 1834 violated this wholesome maxim. They did not 
 "abide by the decisions." They did disturb the "principles and 
 rights at rest." They uttered contradictory decisions to the old, and 
 paved the way for what followed. Contemporaneous exposition was 
 against them. An uninterrupted practice until 1822 was against 
 them. It was incumbent on the Assemblies of 1835 and 1837, in the 
 yet undivided Church, to reclaim and reinstate the early and true 
 
22 
 
 constructiou of the clause in our constitution, which acknowledges the 
 vested right of Presbytery " to condemn erroneous opinions which 
 injure the peace and purity of the Church," and set aside the interpre- 
 tation of 1834, or else allow the new construction, antagonistic to the 
 plain intent of the law and the whole spirit of our constitution. For 
 who does not know that, where contradictory decisions exist, the " last 
 decision" is always in force until reversed. Again I invoke the ac- 
 knowledged maxims of law by which the courts of law are governed : 
 " Juclicia 230steriora sunt in lege fortiora" — the later decisions are the 
 stronger in law ; " Judiciis poster ioribas fides est adhibenda " — full taith is 
 to be had in the later decisions; " Judicia posteriora priora abrogant''' — 
 later decisions annul the earlier contrary ones. Nothing is more settled. 
 The last decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on a question 
 of constitutional law will stand and be respected as against any former 
 contradictory one, and the same is true of the last decision of the 
 General Assembly, the supreme court of the Church, in its construc- 
 tion of the clause in question. Just as in legislation a later statute 
 repeals the former contradictory one, so in adjudication the later judg- 
 melit of the court annuls the prior ones in conilict therewith ; and 
 this is true in cases both of original and appellate jurisdiction. The 
 last decision of the Greneral Assembly is final, authoritative, and bind- 
 ing on all inferior courts over which it has jurisdiction, whether Synods, 
 Presbyteries, or Sessions. 
 
 By what right, then, Moderator, inlaw, in logic, in reason, in sense, 
 or history, can any one assert that the decision of 1834 is of superemi- 
 nent authority and binding force, as against the later decision of 1835, 
 which occurred in the undivided Church? Does opposition to the- 
 decision of 1835 constitute law, especially when no counter subsequent 
 decision of the Assembly is to be found? All the more, again, by what 
 right, when, by the very terms of our Reunion, we accept as law that 
 which was legally established antecedent to the division of 1838, and 
 our "Concurrent Declarations" affirm that the rules and precedents of 
 each branch of the Church, only subsequent to that division, shall not be 
 regarded as law, unless "approved by both the bodies" and "re-estab- 
 lished in the united body ? " 
 
 The use, by Presbytery, of an author's name, or of his publication, 
 in condemning erroneous doctrines, publicly propagated by book, 
 pamphlet, newspaper, and circulated over the author's own signature, 
 or preached from the pulpit, advocated in special lectures on the plat- 
 form, and advertised from place to place, can form no valid matter of 
 objection to the exercise of episcopal power. It is only what occurs 
 in ever}' public discussion and literary criticism of the works of 
 
23 
 
 theologians and moralists. Tlie author uses it himself, and is well 
 known. The position that to condemn the erroneous opinions or doc- 
 trines of a man is to condemn the man himself as a heretic, is un- 
 charitable, unhistoric, unscriptural and illogical; — ^uncharitable to thu 
 court, for it subjects the court to the imputation of an attempt to 
 secure, by indirection, a censure of the author, which it may fail to 
 gain by judicial action, so forcing a construction of the act of the 
 court that can not be justified ; — uncharitable, also, to the author, for it 
 labors to carry over to the author, who is always more and better than 
 his errors, a disapproving judgment that bears against the error.< 
 alone. It is unhistoric and unscriptural, for, in all ages of the Church, 
 apostolic and post-apostolic, and under all forms of discipline, only he 
 is called a " heretic " wdio obstinately and contumaciously declines to 
 hear the admonition of the Church. So Bingham shows, as I shall 
 hereafter quote. So the Apostle instructs^us: "A man that is a heretic, 
 after the first and secojid admonition, reject." It is illogical on many 
 accounts, for it assumes that a judgment against erroneous doctrine i« 
 a judgment against the person, character, and standing, of the author. 
 And yet, in the same breath, severe judicial process is invoked t« 
 secure the very end apparently so iiSuch deplored! This is inconsistent, 
 for surely the exercise of authoritative non-judicial power is milder 
 and more tender than the exercise of forensic procedure, — for while a 
 judgment against the author, by judicial process, aims at the person, 
 character, standing and usefulness of the man, a judgment against th« 
 thing alone, leaves the person, character, standing, usefulness un- 
 touched. Pride may object, but neither justice nor reason can. 
 Peter's standing was not impaired by Paul's reproof at Antioch. 
 neither were the churches of Cilicia and Syria injured by the injunc- 
 tion of the Jerusalem Council. 
 
 The objection, moreover, assumes that because the author of error 
 is under the jurisdiction of some Presbytery, therefore no judgment 
 can emerge against his error, except upon judicial process. Formal 
 verdict of "guilty," as in the case of "crime," must be found and 
 formally declared. The whole man and his opinions must be s») 
 chained together, under the categories of moral guilt and crime, that 
 no admonition may be allowed, and no injunction b;? imposed, except 
 upon a personal conviction. That. is, the mere fiict of jurisdiction, or 
 jurisdiction, ipso facto, compels extreme forensic process. But this 
 is a petitio. Jurisdiction does not, ex yiecessitate, compel forensic pro- 
 cess against the author. It is simply a dictio juris, or saying of the 
 law, that both the man and his doctrines are amenable to the authority 
 of some particular court, to be dealt with in any one of the different 
 
24 
 
 constitutional modes deemed best for the edification of tlie Church. 
 Jurisdiction imposes no necessity for this, rather than that, procedure. 
 Such necessity rests on other grounds. 
 
 The objection still further assumes that the clause, Form of Govern- 
 ment, Chap. X, Sec. 8, means only a condemnation of error in thesl, — m 
 other words, the Presbytery is shut up either to judicial arraignment 
 of the author, or to a deliverance against an abstraction. But what 
 is the character of this abstraction ? Where shall we find it ? Where 
 there is jurisdiction in cases of erroneous doctrine, it binds to judicial 
 process, it is alleged. The logical consequence of this is, there can 
 be no such thing as a condemnation of error in the abstract inside of 
 the Presbyterian Church, no matter how wide-spread or rife it may be, 
 for all persons inside the Presbyterian Church are nnder its jurisdiction , 
 and where there is jurisdiction over error, judicial process, it is argued, 
 must obtain. Fate is not more inevitable than the logical conclusion 
 from these premises, that " error in the abstract '"" means error outside of 
 the Presbyterian Church, that is, outside of its jurisdiction. The 
 Presbyterian Church, therefore, can condemn erroneous opinions, rife in 
 her own bosom, in no other way than by the judicial trial, in detail, of 
 every man who holds them, because every man is under her jurisdic- 
 tion ! Condemnation of error in thesi, therefore, means condemnation 
 of error outside of the Presbyterian Church ! And this is what is 
 meant by the clause in Form of Government, Chapter X, Section 81 
 The whole authoritative character of the Presbytery, in relation to 
 error in doctrine, inside of the Church, is reduced to judicial process. 
 To such absurdity are we brought by objecting to the use of a name ! 
 See Baird's Digest, p. 669 '(8); 672, §120; 730, §168; 731 (4). - 
 Against such illogical position the decision of 1835 Avas directed ; a 
 decision still of binding foice. It is gratuitous to say that the clause. 
 Form of Government, Chapter X, Section 8, means only condemna- 
 tion in thesi, whether inside or outside our jurisdiction. The book 
 does not say so. The interpretation is a gloss, not an exposition ; a 
 modal limitation upon the law, imported into the text, not drawn 
 from it ; a restriction of its broad intent, which no jurist would decree 
 as just. Action in thesi is included, but the vested power of the 
 Presbytery, under that clause, is not limited thereto. The criticism, 
 that the exercise of episcopal power against error would cast some 
 reflection on the author, is sentimental. It is the duty of Diotrephes, 
 Alexander the coppersmith, Demas, Hymeneus and Philetus, to make 
 such reflection impossible. But what is the reflection in this case com- 
 pared with it in cases judicial? 
 
 The objectien, moreover, is theologically untenable. Nothing is 
 
25 
 
 clearer in the doctrine of Christ, than tliat the errors and sins of a be- 
 liever are constantly condemned before God and the world, while to 
 the person and standing of the believer there is "no condemnation" 
 whatever. This one fact alone is conclusive proof of the incorrectness 
 of the position that the condemnation of error is equivalent to tlie 
 condemnation of its author. Were such a position true, in itself, or 
 relatively, it would not be possible for God to condemn sin, in the 
 believer, without condemning the person of the believer at the same 
 time. It is bad theology. It is as bad polity. The spirit of the 
 polity of Christ is in harmony with the spirit of tlie doctrine of Christ, 
 and not against it. It is the grace of the gospel -doctrine that inter- 
 venes to protect the person of the believer, while it condemns his sins. 
 It is the same grace of gospel-polity that intervenes to protect the 
 not yet contumacious person of the teacher, while yet it condemns 
 his errors. It is lawful, right, wise and expedient, to condemn 
 the error and irregularity of any member of Presbytery, without 
 arraigning his person in formal trial before a judicial bar. 
 
 Thus, the whole objection is uncharitable, unhistorical, unscriptural, 
 and rests upon prejudices, assumptions, sentitnentalisras, importations, 
 illogical inferences, and irrelavent conclusions — all confronted by the 
 letter of the constitution, the nature of the power vested in the 
 Chui'ch, by apostolic example, by the precedents of our court, and by 
 the doctrine of the Gospel itself. 
 
 The fundamental false postulate upon which the whole objection 
 rests, and to which every argument of the objecter returns, is the 
 denial, outright, of. the authoritative character of episcopal or pater- 
 nal power, confining that authority to judicial determinations, and 
 restricting the idea of "discipline" to forensic process. It divests 
 the testifying function of the Church of its whole authoritative value, 
 reducing her witness for the truth of Christ, to mere advice, to be 
 rejected or received, at will. It denies the binding nature of that tes- 
 timony. It makes it simply moral suasion, man's word, not God's 
 demand. In dealing with error everything not judicial is called advi- 
 sory. It is a compromise with Independency — pure Brownism. It 
 denies that the Church is the steward of God invested by Christ, min- 
 isterially, to rule the understanding, conscience, and belief of man, 
 and dictate, according to God's Word, what shall be maintained as 
 truth and what condemned as error, apart from judicial process. It 
 asserts that, save in a case of judicial process, the authority of the 
 Church in reference to error amounts to a mere power of advice, in 
 other words, no authority whatever — a power binding none, but a mere 
 opinion, to be entertained or not, at pleasure. It lifts the voice of 
 
26 
 
 remonstrance against the authoritative exercise of the very power 
 Christ has delegated to His Church, as an invasion of the rights of 
 ministers and men, a power so abundantly illustrated by the Church, 
 in all ages. It exclaims against authority where forensic forms are 
 wanting. It relegates public offenses against the truth to the category 
 of private ones, then challenges the right of court, or minister, to 
 prosecute, unless some private injury has been received. It deems a 
 private conference and explanation, with liberty abundant still to 
 teach the error, an all-sufficient satisfaction to the Church and to the 
 truth. It holds that ^idmonition and injunction can never be employed 
 for the arrest of error, till all judicial forms have been exhausted. Its 
 tendency is evil. It disintegrates, demoralizes. It mars the sense of 
 solemn obligation, creates indifference to vows, hostility to creeds, 
 invites debates on things forever settled ; degrades the ministry, 
 destroys its influence, corrupts the Church, depreciates the truth of 
 God, disputes the law of Christ, and grieves the Spirit of all grace. It 
 ends, at last, in open insubordination, and resistance to all authority, 
 judicial and ejjiscopal alike. History repeats itself, and wisdom may 
 take lesson from the past. 
 
 But, IModerator, in addition to all I have said, I would emphasize 
 the fact, already alluded to, that the whole episcopal power the Pres- 
 bytery possesses to condemn error in doctrine and practice, apart from 
 forensic forms, so far from being unconstitutional, is grounded in that 
 solemn evangelical commission which Christ, the Head of the Church, 
 gave to His apostles, and, through them, to the gospel ministry for all 
 time. In four passages of the New Testament (Matthew xvi. 19 ; 
 Matthew xviii. 18; Matthew xxviii. 19, 20; John xx. 21-23j, the 
 charter for the whole disciplinary power of the Church is contained. 
 It relates, not to extraordinary and rniraculous endowment, peculiar to 
 apostolic times, but to ordinary and perpetual functions, durable to the 
 world's end. This plenary power, thus delegated by Christ to the 
 apostles, each minister possesses to its whole extent. Will any one be 
 so foolish as to say that, under such a charter, a Presbytery, Synod, or 
 General Assembly possesses less power, less authority, than is given by 
 Christ to each one of the individual members composing it, or that 
 such power is only to be exercised under judicial forms, for the pre- 
 servation of truth and the suppression of error? Was it forensic pro- 
 cess, think you, of which the Saviour spoke when He lifted up His hands 
 on Olivet to bless His chosen, while His feet parted from the mountain 
 and a cloud received Him out of their sight? Sir, it was a gift of 
 episcopal power from the "chief Shepherd and Bishop" of our souls, 
 bequeathed to ordained overseers of the flock, and adequate to all the 
 
27 
 
 necessities of the Church lienceforth and for evermore— an authorita- 
 tive power of instruction, inspection, and government, to be executed 
 in His name. And well did the first princes in the Church understand 
 their commission. Were Simon Magus, or the incestuous Corinthian, 
 served with an ecclesiastical libel, and allowed a year and a half, or 
 two years, of judicial process, through ascending appelate courts, be- 
 fore a conclusive sentence overtook them? Were the erroneous opin- 
 ions of Judaising and Gnosticising teachers, who ventilated their soul- 
 aubverting words and walked disorderly, tabulated into formal accusa- 
 tions, witnesses cited, cross-examinations had, wranglings perpetuated, 
 two appeals taken, and bitter parties formed, before the errors them- 
 selves were condemned? Did Paul sist Peter in a judicial process at 
 Antioch for his half Christian conduct and time-serving dissimulation? 
 Was Titus commanded to institute judicial investigation against publie 
 offenders before he dared to "admonish" them, or "rebuke them 
 sharply" and "before all," that they might be "sound in the fiiith?" 
 Think you the apostle reluctated to mention the names of Hymeneus 
 and Philetus, Alexander and Demas, Hermogenes and Phygellus, or 
 note by special designation the "unruly and vain talkers and deceivers 
 of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert 
 whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for fiithy/lucre's 
 sake?" Was there any " reflection" here'} Or think you that the 
 Lord Jesus himself, in glory, deemed it "unconstitutional" and "out 
 of order" to spot " that woman Jezebel" in the church at Thyatria, or 
 name the Balaamites in Pergamos, before a responsible prosecutor had 
 stood up, or formal, charges had been preferred ? No, Moderator, it 
 was an exercise of episcopal power, as I have said, by the chief Shep- 
 herd and Bishop of our souls, who walked unseen among the golden 
 candlesticks and said, " I know thy works." 
 
 The Thessalonian Church was enjoined to " warn them that are un- 
 ruly." Must judicial process be commenced by the Presbytery of 
 Thessalouica? The Corinthian Church is enjoined "not to company 
 with" the gross offenders named by the apostle. Must the offenses be 
 first proved by judicial process against the offenders? The Ephesian 
 Church is enjoined " to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works 
 of darkness, but rather reprove them." Was it that Presbytery must 
 meet and institute a judicial process before admonition or injunction 
 could go forth? Timothy and Titus are ordered to "rebuke openly, 
 before all, them that sin, that others may fear." Has a Presbytery 
 less power than Timothy or Titus? "A man that is a heretic, after the 
 first and second admonition, reject." Did the Presbytery refuse to ad- 
 monish or reject until after judicial process ? The Roman Church was 
 
28 
 
 enjoined " to mark them which cause divisions and offenses, contrary 
 to the doctrine" they had learned, and "avoid them." Was it to be 
 done only after judicial process? John enjoins the whole Church not 
 to " receive into the house," nor salute, a corrupter of the truth. 
 Was it an injunction to institute judicial process? The truth is that 
 the administration of godly discipline for the preservation of the truth 
 and morals of the Church is by episcopal function, apart from forensic 
 forms, except in the last resort. It is of the same nature as that of a 
 father over his own house, who, having learned to rule well therein, 
 *' knows how to take care of the Church of God.'" 
 
 Who were the "some among you "in the Corinthian Church who 
 denied the resurrection ? Were they not as distinctly marked by these 
 discriminating words as were the Cretan " slow-bellies and liars" them- 
 gelves ? What kind of power was it the Jerusalem Council exercised 
 under a non-judicial reference from Antioch, against "certain men" 
 well known, who accounted circumcision more than Christ and His 
 cross, and preached without restraint their soul-subverting doctrine ? 
 Was it error only "in the abstract " that council condemned — error, 
 evasive of all allusion to its propagators, or its reported relation to the 
 particular Church at Antioch ? Was forensic process ordered to be in- 
 stituted against the Judaizers or those who had imbibed their false 
 teaching ? No, Episcopal power was invoked, thfe power of the Je- 
 rusalem Presbytery, as such, and exercised to its oecumenical extent. 
 Error in doctrine and practice was condemned. The emissaries of 
 Judaism, from their headquarters at Jerusalem, "false brethren, un- 
 awares brought in, wlio came in privily to spy out the liberty" of Gen- 
 tile Christians in "Christ Jesus, that they might bring them into 
 bondage," were put under the ban. The Churches in Antioch, Syria, 
 and Cilicia were all admonished and enjoined, apart from forensic pro- 
 cedure. Verse 24th of the fifteenth of Acts is a simple preamble; 
 verse 29th is simply a resolution of injunction. 
 
 If we do but read the Scriptures carefully, we shall find that the 
 discipline of the Apostolic Church confined itself to admonition first of 
 all, solemnly and twice repeated, before procedure to greater severities. 
 We shall next detect the more impressive warning that followed ; then 
 the sharp rebuke and the authoritative injunction against both error in 
 doctrine and practice, by the sole exercise of episcopal power, vested 
 by Christ in His chosen ministry, apart from all judicial process. We 
 shall then learn that it was contumacy against such admonition, warn- 
 ing, rebuke, and injunction, that paved the way for excommunication. 
 If judicial process ever entered it was only after all other means had 
 been exhausted. Surely, if in the case of notorious error, like that of 
 
29 
 
 Simon Magus, or notorious practice, like that of the "incestuous" 
 man of Corinth, the notoriety of the fact, or what was *' commonly- 
 reported " and known to all as true, made the offender, ipso facto, liable 
 to excommunication, what folly it is to deny tlie Church's right of 
 mere admonition and injunction when common fame and documentary 
 evidence in court, bright as daylight, make the case beyond dispute ! 
 
 The history of the sub-Apostolic Church, long before the existence 
 of Theodosian and Justinian codes with civil penalties for error, only 
 confirms the interpretation I have given of the exercise of episcopal 
 power. Errors in doctrine and practice were condemned, uniformly, 
 befoi'e extreme process was instituted against their authors. " The 
 directions," says Bingham (Antiquities, II, p. 891), "were drawn up 
 upon the models of those rules of the Apostles which forbade Christians 
 to give any countenance to notorious offenders." " Errorists are they 
 who, when they are reproved for their unsound opinions, contuma- 
 ciously resist" (II, 981). The offenders were named, their errors con- 
 demned, and the Churches were warned and enjoined as well as the 
 offender himself, who was admonished or rebuked. It is the doctrine 
 of the Presbyterian Church, framed upon the Apostolic model, in all 
 times and countries, and signal examples of which are found in all her 
 history. "It thus appears," says Sir Henry Wellwood Moncrief, con- 
 vener of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, ■' that 
 the Free Church, by retaining the old form of process as part of her 
 law, would restrain a Presbytery from instituting or entertaining a regular 
 process against any minister until all means have been exhausted for pre- 
 venting the necessity of such a process being entered on." (Practice of the 
 Free Church, Edinburg, 1871, p. 118.) It is the assertion of episcopal 
 power as lodged in the Presbytery, and precisely to the same end is 
 the comment of Stewart of Pardovan, the Blackstone of the Presby- 
 terian Church, in his " Methodised Observations" upon the clause in 
 our Form of Government, Chapter X, Section 8, giving power to the 
 Presbytery to "condemn erroneous opinions whicli injure the purity 
 or peace of the Church" — upon which he says that the Presbytery has 
 not only the power of "censiiring ministers," of "rebuking gross or con- 
 tumacious sinners," but also the power "of answering of questicms, cases 
 of conscience, solving of difficulties in doctrine or discipline, with peti- 
 tions from their own or those in other Presbyteries, examining and 
 censuring according to the Word of God any erroneous doctrine which hath 
 been publicly or more privately vented within their bounds, and the 
 endeavoring, the reducing, and conversion of any that remain in error 
 and schism." (Obser. Method., Book I, Title XII, Section 4.) 
 
 How different from our practice, that would do nothing except 
 
30 
 
 resort to judicial process ia the veiy start! Deprive the Church 
 of Christ of her right to bear testimony against and condemn error 
 in doctrine and practice, vented in her own bosom, apart from judicial 
 process, to admonish, warn, reprove, rebuke, enjoin ; deny to Presby- 
 tery this right, a right accorded to every pastor and elder by the Word 
 of God, and enforced in every Apostolic letter, and the mission of the 
 Church, as a witness for the Truth, its pillar, ground, and guardian, is 
 concluded forever. With this, therefore, I close the discussion of the 
 first reason to the first point of my Complaint, by affirming that the 
 action of the Presbytery of Cincinnati was a repudiation of the right 
 vested in it by the Head of the Church, to condemn erroneous opinions 
 which injure its peace and purity, a right guaranteed by the constitu- 
 tion itself and protected by parliamentary rule. 
 
 (2.) The second reason in support of my first point of Complaint is, 
 that the action of Presbytery, sustaining the decision of the Moderator 
 (see first point of Complaint), was "a violation of parUamentary rule, in 
 derogation of my constitutional right to introduce my Preamble and Reso- 
 lutions, and to discuss the merits of the same after they were seconded, 
 and i was entitled to^the floor, no matter what the result might have 
 been on the final vote, after discussion." 
 
 I claim, Moderator, that, when I was interrupted on the floor of 
 the Presbytery by DV. Morris, who rose to a " point of order," assert- 
 ing that my Preamble and Resolutions were unconstitutional, and, 
 therefore, that even the " consideration" of them was not to be enter- 
 tained, and when the Moderator of the Presbytery decided that the 
 point was "well taken," and the Presbytery sustained, on appeal, this 
 decision, I was perfectly "in order." The rules «» order in both 
 houses of Congress, in our State Legislatures, and in deliberative 
 bodies in general, are derived from the British Parliament, and modi- 
 fied to suit our various circumstances. The rules of order for our 
 Church judicatories have the same origin. We have thus acquired a 
 system of parliamentary regulations, prescribing and defining a cer- 
 tain fixed mode of procedure in the course of deliberative business. 
 Our general rules oC order, which form no part of the Constitution of 
 the Presbyterian Church, as the Constitution of the Presbyterian 
 Church forms no part of them, are inscribed in our Digest, pp. 204 to 
 208, and are forty-three in number. As to the order prescribed in 
 "judicial process," I do not hear speak. It belongs to the process 
 itself, Presbytery acting as a court, and not as a deliberative and parlia- 
 mentary body. According to Rule of Order XIV, whenever a motion is 
 made, seconded, written, and read aloud, and the mover addresses the 
 Moderator (Rule XXXI), being entitled to the floor, he conforms to 
 
31 
 
 the rules of order laid down for the guidance of our courts. My Pre- 
 amble and Kesohition were in writing; they were duly seconded ; no 
 other business was before the house, and I was entitled to the floor by 
 the Moderator's decision, none dispuling it ; I addressed the chair ; I 
 was respectful to my brethren. The Investigating Committee had re- 
 ported, and the official documents necessary to sustain ray Preamble 
 and Resolutions were upon the table, subject to the call of myself or 
 any member of the body. I had not only a constitutional right to 
 introduce a Preamble and Resolutions, the object of which was to 
 disapprove erroneous opinions already disapproved of by the Com- 
 mittee itself, but also a parliamentary right to debate the Preamble 
 and Resolutions themselves upon their merits. There are two classes 
 of motions, both of which are in order, but only one of which is in 
 order to be discussed upon their merits; in other words, there are 
 motions tfebateable and it/idebateable. In conformity with all parlia- 
 mentary manuals, our rules of order specify both. (See Rule XVIII.) 
 The motions ^mdebatable on their merits are : " to lay on the table," 
 " to take up business," " to adjourn," and " the call for the previous 
 question." All other motions, without exception, are debateable on their 
 merits. No power can deprive a man of his right to debate a debate- 
 able motion. My Preamble and Resolutions, therefore, were not only 
 "in order," according to our rules, but debateable on their merits by 
 the same rules ; and this is a universal rule. (See the Manuals of Jef- 
 ferson, Cushing, Roberts, and Warrington, on "Motions.") I was " in 
 order." I had violated no pari ia men tar}^ rule of procedure in busi- 
 ness. The action of the Presbytery, sustaining the Moderator and 
 declaring me " out of order," was, therefore, itself, a violation of par- 
 liamentary rule in derogation of my constitutional rights of free dis- 
 cussion on the merits of the case before us. It was abundantly com- 
 petent for the Presbytery, after I had been heard, to make their 
 assumed unconstitutionality of ray motion their reason, if they .saw 
 fit, for voting down my motion, and putting ray Preamble and Reso- 
 lutions out of the house. But, i submit that such assumed unconsti- 
 tutionality was no reason whatsoever why, when perfectly " in or- 
 der," I should have been pronounced " out of order," as at a previous 
 Presbytery, and thus twice be denied both my constitutional and par- 
 liamentary rights to debate the merits of my motion. I shall return 
 to this again. 1 was perfectly "in order." 
 
 (8.) The third reason in support of my first point of Complaint (see 
 first point of Complaint) was, that "said decision of the Moderator, 
 sustained and sanctioned by the Presbytery, was an exercise of the 
 most responsible prerogative reserved to the General Assembly, viz. : 
 
32 
 
 that of deddmg questions of constitutional law and binding its interpretation 
 on the court as a rule of action." Individual Presbyteries or Synods 
 have no right to bind their interpretations of constitutional law as a 
 rule of action on the court, much less, where Ihe supreme court itself 
 has, after a sharp contest, announced a definitive decision, and appli- 
 cable precisely to such cases as the one referred to in my Preamble 
 and Resolutions. It matters not, that a person, charged with teaching 
 erroneous opinions, denies the opinions charged, or even his own writ- 
 ten langivage. This is no bar to deliberation. " Allegans contraria 
 nan est audiendus." It rather concludes the case against him. A 
 man may multiply denials and self-contradictions perpetually. This 
 may be a reason why preamble and resolutions should not be 
 adopted, upon a final vote, but it is no reason why they should 
 be declared as " out of order," nor is it any reason in support of 
 the Presbytery's assumption of the Assembly's prerogative to decide 
 constitutional law and bind it as a rule of action on the court. Again, 
 I appeal to the acknowledged maxim of law, "Ejus est interpretari, cujus 
 est condere,"— it belongs to that power to interpret the law, whose ofiice 
 it is to settle and establish it. To the General Assembly, therefore, 
 composed of the representatives of Presbyteries, or in other words, to 
 Presbyteries in Assembly by means of their representations, but not 
 to Presbyteries individually, pertains this high prerogative. Other- 
 wise, our Church would become a very Babel of multiplied and con- 
 tradictory decisions upon questions of constitutional law, confusion worse 
 confounded. The interpretation of the Assembly is binding law, and 
 not the interpretation of the individual Presbytery. 
 
 The Presbytery's action assumed to interpret the clause in ourForra 
 of Government, Chapter X, Section 8, "to condemn erroneous opin- 
 ions," etc., as meaning, that no court can condemn such opinions 
 except by judicial arraignment of their author. But this exception is 
 an interpolation of the constitution. It is an addition, an unauthor- 
 ized gloss, not only in the face of a previous and discriminating clause 
 as to "judging ministers," a clause involving both the person and the 
 judicial jyrocess together, but directly in face of contrary and binding 
 decisions of our supreme court itself. AVhere does the constitution 
 say, Moderator, that Presbyteries have no power to condemn errone- 
 ous opinions, except by the modal limitation of judicial process? No- 
 where. That limitation defeats " the plain intent of the law," and is 
 a mere obiter dictum, without the least authority. Not less unauthor- 
 ized is the assertion that " the exercise of episcopal power is a usurpa- 
 tion of the judicial without submitting to its limitations." This is to 
 deny both the letter of the constitution and the decisions of our 
 
33 
 
 supreme court. Judicial process is always the last resort and not the 
 first. The Presbytery had no right to put Us interpretation upon the 
 constitution in face of the Assembly's interpretation of our law, already 
 given. 
 
 And this was the doctrine of the very Assembly of 1834 itself. In 
 the most express terms that Assembly affirmed, that to the General 
 Assembly alone it belongs to interpret the constitution. It said these 
 words, " the Form of Government vests the right of deciding questions 
 of constitutional law, not in Synods, but in the General Assembly." 
 Moore's Digest, p. 263 (3). According to this announcement, no in- 
 ferior court and no moderator may assume this prerogative and bind a 
 new interpretation on the court as a rule of action. The thing to be 
 specially remarked, just here, is this, that the very Assembly of 1834, 
 which gave a wrong iriterpretation of the clause, " to condemn errone- 
 ous opinions which injure the peace and purity of the Church," by 
 construing said clause with an unauthorized limitation, was the very 
 Assembly which yet maintained that the Supreme court alone is compe- 
 tent to interpret the constitution and bind that interpretation as a rule 
 of action on all our courts. 
 
 Precisely the same doctrine was reaffirmed by the Old School Gen- 
 eral Assembly of 1844, six years after the division. It said these 
 words: "What interest has the Synod more than other Synods or 
 Presbyteries in giving a wrong exposition of our book. When we in- 
 terpret our constitution, the voice of the whole Church should be heard." 
 (Moore's Digest, p. 598 (3). Thus, both the Old School and the New 
 School brethren agreed in this, that the prerogative of interpreting 
 our constitution and binding the interpretation upon all the courts, as a 
 rule of action, belongs to the General Assembly alone. And all the more 
 is this evident as we learn, from our supreme decisions, that no com- 
 plaint will lie, in any case, against a court for declining to usurp this 
 function of the Assembly (Moore's Digest, p. 598 (4), but that it will 
 lie against the exercise of this function. (Moore's Digest, p. 593 (4). 
 Thus, the general law maxim, " Ejus est interpretari cujus est condere,'' 
 the constitution itself, in its literal, rational and historical construction, 
 brethren of both Old and New School alike, with the binding de- 
 cisions of our Digest and its historical precedents, all show that the 
 Cincinnati Presbytery, in the action I complain of, usurped the high 
 prerogative of the General Assembly. 
 
 (4.) The fourth reason in support of my first point of Complaint is 
 (see first point of Complaint), " that the action of Presbytery was the 
 turning of a constitutional question into a parliamentary rule of order, so 
 inventing a new rule in derogation of my constitutional and parlia- 
 mentary rights." 
 
34 
 
 Moderator, what do we mean when we use the expressions "law" 
 and "order?" Is each one pleonastic of the other? Or, is there a 
 well-defined and settled distinction between them ? True, in a general 
 and wide sense, law is a rule of action. But when we use it in the 
 expression, "law and order," what is it we mean by law, and what by 
 order, each as distinguished from the other, in deliberative bodies? 
 The conceptions are totally different. By " law" we mean, our consti- 
 tution, an organic statute, or a decision of the supreme court. Our 
 Confession of Faith, Form of Government, Book of Discipline, Cate- 
 chisms, Directory of Worship, and the decisions of the General Assem- 
 bly, are what we call "Imv." By "order" we mean, conformity to a 
 prescribed mode of procedure in business in a deliberative body, and 
 nothing more. When we say law, the mind goes straight to the con- 
 stitution and its authorized interpretation. When we say order, the 
 mind goes straight to parliamentery rules of procedure in business. 
 The termini of the two conceptions, and the contents of the two, are 
 totally different. The one relates wholly to tiie constitution and its 
 interpretation, the other relates whoDy to the general rules of our judi- 
 catories for procedure in business — it relates to "proceedings" — and 
 such is the definition of lexicographers and parliamentarians. Mr. 
 Webster's definition of "order" is as follows: "Adherence to the 
 point in discussion according to established rules of debate ; as the 
 member is not in order, i. e., he wanders from the question." " Estab- 
 lished mode of proceeding ; — the motion is not in order." " Eegular- 
 ity ; settled mode of operation." The definition in Jefferson's Manual 
 is as follows : " Order in conformity with the rules of order laid down. 
 Departure from the rules, is a breach of order." In that majestic vol- 
 ume of a thousand pages by Mr. Cushing, on the " Law and Practice 
 of Legislative Assemblies," founded on Hatsell's celebrated precedents, 
 we have the following clear and unambiguous words : "All questions 
 of order are determined by reference to the rules of order. Any mem- 
 ber, rightfully in possession of the house, his motion having been sec- 
 onded, is in order." "And it is the right of members to originate 
 propositions, at their pleasure, for the consideration of the house ; and 
 any member, in possession of the house, may make any motion he 
 thinks proper." 
 
 Now, Moderator, where in all our rules of order is the interpretation 
 of the constitution according to the Assembly of 1834 to be found ? 
 Where is our constitution found in the rules of order ? Where are any 
 of the decisions of any of our General Assemblies found in the rules 
 of order? And by what right did the Presbytery of Cincinnati make 
 its interpretation of the constitution a rule of order, and, upon that 
 
35 
 
 ground, rule my Preamble and Resolutions as ^' out of order f" The 
 thing is too evident to require discussion. Nothing is a ^' point of order" 
 in parliamentary debate ivhich does not relate to accepted rules of order pre- 
 scribed for procedure in business. 1 was perfectly in order, according to 
 the rules of our court, as I have already shown. I violated no parlia- 
 mentary regulation, either at Glendale or at Cincinnati. My paper 
 was before the house, written and seconded, no other business being 
 before the body, and was just as much in order as the papers of Dr. 
 Morris or those of Messrs. Ritchie, Hills, and Stanton. A man is in 
 order, if he conforms to the parliamentary rules of procedure in busi- 
 • ness. He may be perfectly in order, while his motion may be per- 
 fectly unconstitutional, and his motion may be perfectly constitutional, 
 while he himself is as perfectly "out of order." Therefore it was a 
 usurpation of my rights, when a question of constitutional law was 
 turned into a "point of order," entertained by the Moderator, and 
 sustained by the Presbytery, so taking from me, both my constitu- 
 tional and parliamentary rights to discuss my Preamble and Resolu- 
 tions on their merits, and to adduce in their support the "facts" 
 which had been introduced into the house by the official report of its 
 own committee. 
 
 But it has been said, there are such things as "constitutional rules," 
 and we have a right, therefore, to turn questions of constitutional law 
 into "rules of order." The logic of this reasoning is as fallacious as 
 the intuition of the facts is obscure. No calculus, known to mathe- 
 matics to-day, is able to fix the amount of power necessary to draw 
 such an enormous conclusion, and no logical harness, yet made, is 
 strong enough to. endure the strain. For, "constitutional rules" 
 relate to polity, and are parts of the constitution itself. They are 
 actual amendments to, or interpretations of, the Articles of Govern- 
 ment and Discipline, in every case, however, "excluding alteration 
 of the doctrine and fundamental principles of the Church." (Moore's 
 Digest, p. 328.) Proposed to all the Presbyteries and adopted, upon 
 overture, by two thirds of them, they are then, formally, declared by 
 the Assembly to be laiv, and are irrepealable, henceforth, by the As- 
 sembly itself or by any subordinate court. They are legislative acts 
 of the whole Church. Presbytery can not make them, nor unmake 
 them ; neither can Assembly. As part of the constitution, they 
 have the whole force of constitutional law. These rules are of the 
 nature of judicial order of proceeding definitely defined, which, though 
 not parliamentary rules of order, are defined order itself. Clearly, a 
 motion against any of these could not be entertained, for here law and 
 order are made identical. Where the constitution itself, as in judicial 
 
36 
 
 proces?, assumes the feature of a mandate, au express "shall," it is 
 then settled order itself, and no motion can be entertained against it, 
 making it out of order. The ground of refusal to entertain such mo- 
 tion, is not that the motion is unconstitutional, however true that may 
 be-, but that it is against order itself, and no motion is in order that is 
 out of order. 
 
 Nor are our Rules of Order part of our Constitution. In express 
 terms our Digest says : " The following rules, not having been sub- 
 mitted to the Presbyteries, mahe no paH of the Constitution of the Pres- 
 byterian Church." (Moore's Digest, p. 204.) And even if they did, yet, 
 such a rule as the one the Cincinnati Presbytery has legislated into 
 existence, on the basis of 1834, has no place in the catalogue. But 
 now, we have been suddenly presented with a new rule of procedure, 
 we may call it Rule XLIV, added to the list, and it will read this way : 
 " No Presbytery shall consider any motioii, 'preamble or resolution, condemning 
 erroneous opinions wider its jurisdiction which injure the peace and purity of 
 tlie Church, unless after judicial process of the author of said opinions.^' The 
 odor of it. Moderator, savors very much of an attack upon the consti- 
 tution indeed, but then, you know, it is only a "rxile of order!" I 
 admit. Moderator, that under such an enactment, my Preamble and 
 Resolutions would have been out of order, but I deny that the Assem- 
 bly has made such an enactment, or bound such a rule upon the court. 
 Where is such a rule to be found, even in our constitutional rules ? 
 Where is the Presbytery's right to turn a question of constitutional 
 law, in face of the binding decision of the Assembly, into a rule of 
 order? It is pure legislation, an assumption, by Presbytery, of the 
 function of the General Assembly ; a violation of the dearest and 
 most sacred rights of motion and discussion, guaranteed to every 
 Presbytery by the constitution of the Presbyterian Church, and Ijy " '" 
 parliamentary rule. How often must it be repeated before we under- 
 stand it, that nothing is a "point of order" which does not relate to 
 established rules of order prescribed for procedure in business. 
 
 But now. Moderator, granting that all I have said goes for nothing; 
 admit, for the sake of argument^ the unconstitutionality of my Pre- 
 amble and Resolutions ; allow that the Presbytery's construction of tiie 
 constitution was right, as against the binding decisions of the General 
 Assembly ; grant that there is no such thing as non-judicial power to 
 condemn error ; grant everything that the brethren opposed to my motion 
 maintained, or might maintain, I still deny that a man is " out of order" 
 simply because his motion or preamble and resolutions either are, or 
 assumed to be, " unconstitutional." You may lay them on the table, 
 or vote them down, after they have been moved, seconded and dis- 
 
37 
 
 cussed, even though they declare that the constitution itself is uncon- 
 stitutional. But the mover is " in order," and has both a constitutional 
 and a parliamentary right to be heard on their merits. 
 
 In support of this position I adduce the testimony of several gen- 
 tlemen of eminent authority in parliamentary experience. The first 
 I mention is the Hon. J. F. Follett, late Speaker of the House of 
 Representatives of the State of Ohio. 
 
 Cincinnati, O., October 9, 187G. 
 Hon. J. F. Follett: 
 
 Dear Sir — The constitution of the Presbyterian Church, Form of 
 Government, Chapter X, Section 8, gives a Presbytery the "power to 
 condemn erroneous opinions that injure the peace and purity of the 
 Church. Suppose I offer the following : 
 
 " Whereas, A. B. has taught and teaches so and so, which is 
 "erroneous'" (here I quote the proofs of error in language of the 
 author), therefore, 
 
 " Resolved, That A. B, is in error in said opinions, and is hereby en- 
 joined not to propagate them. 
 
 I. Is this preamble and resolution "out of order" if it is duly 
 moved, seconded, and the mover has the floor, and there is no other 
 business before the house ? 
 
 II. Suppose some one rises to what he chooses to call a "point of order," 
 viz.: That according to his interpretation of the constitution, the above 
 clause excludes the condemnation of error, except in the abstract, and 
 that forty General Assemblies have so decided, and therefore it is 
 ''out of order" even to "consider" the preamble and resolution, is the 
 the mover "out of order" on that account? 
 
 Is any interpretation of the constitution, pro or con, to be made a 
 parliamentary rule for procedure in business? Admit that the Pre- 
 amble and Resolution are against the constitution itself, most clearly, 
 does that make their mover " oiit of order," and close his mouth on the 
 merits of the case? 
 
 Suppose a member of the legislature moves to burn up the constitu- 
 tion of the State, or to secede from the Union, and the motion is 
 seconded, and the mover has a right to the floor, is he "out of order" 
 because he is unconstitutional? Is he not entitled to speak to the full 
 merits of the case, even though the house will vote down his resolutions 
 instantly ? 
 
 I hold that the "constitution" is one thing and "order" is another. 
 Order in a deliberative hiAj, is conformity to a prescribed mode of 
 procedure in business and relates wholly to parliamentary rule, while 
 
38 
 
 constitution or organic law is a wholly different thing, and no inter- 
 pretation of it may be made a parliamentary rule under which to 
 declare a resolution opposed to that interpretation as " out of order," 
 if it is duly seconded and the member has a right to the floor and no 
 other business is before the house? Please inform me, is my view 
 right or wrong ? ^ 
 
 Truly yours, etc., etc., 
 
 ^^ I have no Jiesltation in sayitig your view is right. 
 
 John F. Follett." 
 
 1. Does the unconstitutionality of a motion or preamble and resolu- 
 tion make said motion or preamble and resolution, ipso facto, "oat 
 of order f" 
 
 " It does not. 
 
 J. F. Follett." 
 
 2. Is an unconstitutional motion, preamble or resolution, if duly 
 seconded, no other business being before the house, "in order," and 
 debateable on its merits? 
 
 " It is. Very truly, 
 
 J. F. Follett." 
 
 I also add the following answer from my respected friend, Hon. 
 Rufus King, President of the late convention of the State of Ohio, 
 assembled for the revision of its Constitution ; — an answer written to the 
 same communication addressed to the Hon. Mr. Follett : 
 
 " Cincinnati, O., October 8, 1876. 
 " My Deae Sir — Unless precluded by some special rule of order, the 
 Presbytery was bound to entertain such a motion as yours. I do not 
 see how it can even be questioned. Nothing which has relation to the 
 laws, powers, or duties of the body, can be out of order, if not expressly 
 forbidden by the rules of order. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 Rufus King." 
 
 I add also the following correspondence had with the Hon. Schuyler 
 Colfax, formerly Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Presi- 
 dent of the Senate, of the United States : 
 
 Cincinnati, O., November 1, 1876. 
 Hon. Schuyler Colfax : 
 
 Dear Sir — Allow me to ask your decision, as a parliamentarian, 
 upon the following questions : 1. Is it the province of a presiding 
 officer, or of any deliberative body, acting under written parliamentary 
 
39 
 
 " Rules of Order," to make this or that assumed or real interpretation 
 of the Constitution a "point of order," or a "rule of order," when 
 said interpretation is no part of the "Rules of Order?" 2. Does the 
 unconstitutionality of a proposition make it, ipso facto, "out of order?" 
 3. Is any motion. Preamble, or Resolution, even if unconstitutional, 
 debateable on its merits, if duly offered and seconded, and not excluded 
 by the specified class of "undebateable motions" known as such to 
 parliamentarians? Please be so kind as to give me your opinion. 
 
 Very truly yours, etc., etc., 
 
 ^ * '-ic * 
 
 " South Bend, Ind , November 7, 1876. 
 "Dear Sir — Your letter has just reached me. In Congress, the 
 presiding officers do 7iot rule out questions on any grounds of uncon- 
 stitutionality. This practice is supposed to be the true inference from 
 the British rule laid down in Jefferson's Manual, Sec. 35. " If an amend- 
 ment be proposed inconsistent with one already agreed to, it is fit ground 
 for its rejection by the House; but it is not within the competence 
 of the speaker to suppress it, as if it were against order ; for were 
 he permitted to draw questions of consistence within the vortex of order, 
 he might usurp a negative on important modifications and suppress 
 instead of subserve the legislative will." 
 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 Schuyler Colfax.'' 
 
 lakoaddthefollowingcorrespondence with the Hon. Ed ward McPher- 
 son, for many years- Clerk of the National House of Representatives 
 and a universal authority on parliamentary law and precedent through- 
 out the country. 
 
 Cincinnati, O., October 9, 1876. 
 Hon. Edward McPherson: 
 
 Dear Sir — Our Form of Government, Chap. X, Sec. 8, with which 
 you are well acquainted, gives Presbytery the "power," among other 
 things, " to condemn erroneous opinions which injure the purity or 
 peace of the Church." This is a function of Episcopal power, as I 
 take it, discriminated from the function of Judicial power, which is 
 involved in the previous clause, viz., of "judging ministers." My 
 question is this, would a Preamble or, in other words, a proposition, 
 introduced into Presbytery, reciting erroneous doctrines or views 
 propagated by any of its ministers, with the necessary proofs therefor, 
 taken from official documents on the table, or otherwise, and an 
 appended Resolution condemning the error and enjoining its new 
 propagation, be "out of order" or "unconstitutional?" And would 
 an amendment, unconstitutional in itself, be "out of order" on that 
 ground? To what extent does the jurisdiction of a parliamentary 
 ofiicer go? May any proposition or motion duly made and seconded 
 be debated on its merits, if Avithin the rules as to debateable motions? 
 A brief answer to these interrogations will place me under obligations 
 to your kindness. 
 
 Very sincerely yours, etc., 
 
 * H^ ^ 
 
40 
 
 " Gettysburg, Pa., Nov. 10, 1876. 
 " Dear Sir — I have been from home for several weeks and your 
 letter of the 9th October did not reach me till after the 19th. 
 
 "Please excuse the delay of this reply. I believe I understand 
 your point. 
 
 "As to the amendment. An amendment to a pending proposition, 
 germane to it, is in order, without any regard to the alleged unconsti- 
 tutionality. A presiding officer never undertakes to pass upon the 
 effect of an amendment. His jurisdiction is wholly confined to the par- 
 liamentery questions of germaneness, degree, etc. 
 
 "As to the proposition. Any proposition duly oflTered and properly 
 pending is subject to debate upon its merits, within the rules, as well 
 if it be clearly unconstitutional, or if only presumably so. To deny 
 this would be seriously to fetter all deliberative proceedings. 
 With great respect. 
 
 Truly yours, 
 
 Edward McPherson."* 
 
 Fortified by such testimony as the above, I maintain, therefore, (1.) 
 That by ''order"'' is meant conformity to prescribed ''rules of oi'der'" 
 for procedure in business ; (2.; That nothing is a "'point of order "' which 
 does not relate to these rules ; (3.) That our parliamentary rules of order 
 are no part of our constitution ; (4.) That constitutional rules are no part 
 of the rules of order ; (5.) That Presbytery had no right to interpret 
 the constitfltion, bind its interpretation upon the court, and turn it 
 into a rule of order ; (6.) That Presbytery had no right to legislate a 
 new rule into existence conflicting with the binding decision of the 
 Assembly; (7.) That a man is t^lways " in order" when he conforms 
 to the rules of order, and only "out of order" when he departs from 
 the same; (8.) That a man may be perfectly "in order" when his 
 motion is utterly zwiconstitutional, and his motion may be perfectly 
 co?i,stitutional, when the man himself is utterly " out of order." 
 
 I need say no more on this first point of complaint. I complain that 
 the dearest right of a Presbyterian minister, protected by a true con- 
 struction of the constitution and by parliamentary rules, to both 
 which I conformed, were taken from me, on the floor of the Presby- 
 tery, by an arbitrary decision of that body, and this action I submit 
 to the judgment of the Synod. 
 
 II. The second point of Com^aint is against the Presbytery's action, 
 in accepting, and thereby making official documents of, the Special 
 Report and collaterals of the Committee of Investigation in the case of 
 
 * The communications from Mr. Colfivx and Mr. McPherson I did not receive 
 till after the meeting of Synod. I have taken the liberty to insert them in the 
 speech. T. H. S. 
 
41 
 
 Mr. McCiine, " ivithout any action ivhatever to amend or to rectify statements, 
 judgments, and personalities therein contained, at variance ivlth Righteous- 
 ness and Truth." This, of course, relates wholly to myself and the Pres- 
 bytery. I complain of no statements, judgments, or personalities, in 
 reference to any one else. 
 
 (1.) The first reason in support of this second point of Complaint is, 
 "That the Report opens with, and its recommendations rest upon, 
 statements contrary to truth.'" 
 
 (a.) It says, my Resolution, offered at Glendale, and printed in my 
 pamphlet, was a "Resolution censuring Mr. McCune." This is not 
 true. The Resolution simply asked Presbytery to "reject the princi- 
 ples" Mr. McCune has advocated, and to say that the '' course pursued" 
 is in ^'contravention" of our law, and ^^ inconsisteyit" with membership 
 in our body. It relates wholly to things, proper to be acted upon by 
 the episcopal power of the body. It proposes no " censure " of the 
 person, not even an admonition. It implies no censure whatever. It 
 is just what our Church has done scores of times, without censure, 
 and repeats every time upon "review and control" of Records, and 
 in public deliverances whenever necessary. 
 
 (6.) It says my pamphlet made " light of the Committee and its 
 work." In no paragraph, sentence, or clause of my pamphlet, can a 
 syllable be found authenticating such a charge, or reflecting in the 
 slightest degree upon the " the Committee and its ivork." The statement 
 is wholly gratuitous. 
 
 (c.) It says, that my pamphlet "contains the staple and axdhority fw 
 the rumors existing against Mr. McCune.'^ This also is untrue. My 
 pamphlet was itself the product of "rumors,'' and of various publica- 
 tions, as also of previous discussions, long before the pamphlet Was 
 born ; and this was well known to the Committee. It was neither the 
 staple, nor the authority, ^^for the rumors existing," at the time of its 
 publication, nor at the time of Presbytery's appointment of its Com- 
 mittee. And none knew this better than the draftsman of the Report, 
 Dr. J. G. Montfort. The pamphlet was published about two weeks 
 after the Presbytery arose at Griendale, April 13, 1876. Now then. 
 Moderator, I affirm that Mr. McCune's book on " Organic Union " was 
 published in 1866, and has since been fully circulated. The " Chris- 
 tian Unity," edited by Mr. McCune, appeared in November, 1873. 
 Dr. Monfort's adverse criticism upon the principles of that paper ap- 
 peared in the same month, saying : "It will be seen that Bro. 
 McCune aims at a great change in the Churches." In August, 1875, 
 this same widely-circulated paper contained an editorial by the drawer 
 of the report. He says, in that editorial, among other things: " If 
 
42 
 
 these brethren are for organization and association, or are already or- 
 ganized and associated, the external bond of union being the conven- 
 tion or association which met in New York in 1873, in Cincinnati in 
 1874, and in Suffolk, Va., in 1875, tve are at a loss to understaiid how 
 Mr. McCune or Mr. Mellish can be willing to maintain connection 
 with the Presbyterian or Baptist Church. We should suppose that 
 each would pass at once for an old organization that is unauthorized 
 and extra-scriptural to a new one on a New Testament Basis." 
 "The Address to all Christian Ministers and Churches in North 
 America" was issued in 1874. A long debate between Mr. McCune 
 and the Christian Standard occurred in 1875 and the earlier part of 
 1876. The L. and M. L. "Declaration and Basis," and the Council 
 were in the latter part of 1875; and the Herald and Presbyter 
 published the proceedings, as did other papers. Public discussions by 
 Messrs. McCune, Morris, Skinner, and Layman, besides, occurred in 
 the Cincinnati Gazette, Commercial, and Times, also discussions in the 
 Christian Observer, the United Presbyterian, Interior, the Presbyterian, 
 the Journal and Messenger, the North-western Christian Advocate, 
 and other papers, all which I present as evidence for the point I make, 
 before ever the Glendale Presbytery met, or my pamphlet saw the 
 light. An interlocutory meeting had even been proposed in reference 
 to this matter. The opening sentences of my pamphlet are themselves 
 a refutation of the Committee's statement. The resolution of the 
 Presbytery under which the Committee was appointed, and beginning 
 thus, " Wheras, for some time pad there have been current rumors," etc., 
 — a form of expression penned by the drawer of the report himself, — 
 seals the allegation of the Committee as untrue. With what con- 
 science, then, or with what sense of justice or of truth, could the 
 drawer of the report and the Committee base their report upon the 
 false statement that my*pamphlet was the "staple and authority for 
 the rumors existing," in "timspast," and into which they were appointed 
 to inquire, before the pamphlet was born ? On this I need say no more, 
 except that nothing could be more unjust or untrue than the attempt 
 to make me the author of Common Fame; a device contrived (1), 
 to cut away any Presbyterial action on the ground of Common Fame 
 in the case, and (2) to lay the ground that I be required to become a 
 responsible prosecutor. Thus does the report of the Committee open 
 with, and its recommendations rest upon, three unfounded statements. 
 (2.) The second reason in support of the second point of Complaint 
 is, that this accepted report steps out of its way to raise a new case, 
 instead of confining itself to the terms of the resolution under which 
 the Committee was appointed." This policy, in the light of the pre- 
 
43 
 
 ceding untruthfulness, was evidently to ray damage before the public 
 and was beyond the province of the Committee. Tiie terms of that 
 resolution were, to have a ''full conference with Mr. McCune," 
 and to inquire into all the ''facts" bearing on the "case"" of Mr. 
 McCune, and report to Presbytery. Under these instructions the 
 Committee assumes to pronounce upon me personally and upon the 
 publication of ray pamphlets, written in defense of ray rights as a 
 Presbyter, and of the faith and order of the Church, a condemnatory 
 judgment. It recommends that I be dealt with for publishing the 
 pamphlet. My mouth having been closed in the Glendale Presby- 
 tery, I am to be dealt with for opening it outside of the Presbytery, 
 and then have it closed again on the merits of the case when the Pres- - 
 bytery met thereafter. It recommends that Presbytery take action 
 to the effect that I either " prove or retract" certain picked state- 
 ments by Mr. McCune, and that I "ought'' so to do, in default of 
 which, it suggests a prosecution for "slander.'' Was this, Moderator, 
 the work the Committee was sent to do under the terms of the reso- 
 lution, recommending no action whatever in the case it was appointed 
 to examine, and the material "facts" of which case it was required to 
 present to the Presbytery. It turned aside to do as I have intimated. 
 I submit that this was an unlawful exercise of the functions of the 
 Committee, in the interest of a personal attack upon myself. And 
 yet Presbytery accepted all this without a word of rebuke or official 
 correction. 
 
 (3.) The third reason in support of the second point of Complaint is, 
 "That it implies a censure on the undersigned and recommends the 
 Presbytery to pass a judgment which also implies a censure." Cen- 
 sure for publication, censure in case I declined to " prove or retract." 
 It says I "ought" to do one or the other, that is, I am under moral 
 obligation to do this, and in case I do not, then a prosecution for 
 "slander" may be the next appropriate step! What is all this, Mode- 
 rator, but an implied "censure" of me personally? All this, I affirm, 
 was beyond the province of the Committee under the terms of its 
 instructions ; and against this unprecedented liberty I complain, as also 
 against the formal acceptance of such a report, giving it the sanction of 
 an official document. I hold as firmly as any man can, that a public 
 slanderer " ought" to prove or retract, and that no apologies short of 
 this "ought" to be accepted. Ministerial character is too precious to 
 be trifled with. 
 
 (4.) The fourth reason in support of the second point of Complaint 
 is, " That part of the Collaterals of the Report indulge in gross person- 
 alities against the undersigned, which would not be tolerated for one 
 
44 
 
 moment in debate, and ouglit not to be tolerated in an official docu- 
 ment." 
 
 The Collaterals are specified by the Committee in their Special Re- 
 port, and are expressly said by them to be a '-part of our report." 
 What they contain was well known to Dr. Monfort, the Chairman of 
 the Committee, and to the Committee itself. I think it will be difficult 
 for any one to show wherein I personally have violated the first prin- 
 ciples of Christian courtesy or gentlemanly respect, by the use of 
 opprobious and vituperative epithets against any one. I have sought 
 simply to defend the faith and order of my Church, in a manly and 
 Christian way. But the Report of the Committee has introduced into 
 the Presbytery an array of gross personalities, the parallel to which 
 can not be found in any official document, secular or political, in the 
 country. Collateral No. 1, p. 5, "violent, unlawful and slanderous 
 assault;" "attacked and villified," p. 6 ; " unrighteous attempt," p. 6 ; 
 '•proposed to reach this high-handed and tyrannical result," p. 7; 
 " assailing me with a great mass of quotations of garbled phrases," 
 p. 7; " shameful unfairness," p. 7 ; " flagrantly unjust," " slanderous," 
 " defiant," "disrespectful to the lawful jurisdiction of the Presbytery," 
 "frantic outcry," p. 8; " slanderous charges," "crying injustice," p. 
 10; "unprecedented in the history of slander," p. 5. Collateral No. 
 4, "violent, unlawful and contumacious assault," p. 1; "recklessly 
 and officiously asserts," p. 5; "defamatory pamphlet," "tyrannical 
 and false assumption," p. 5 Collateral No. 5, "untrue and slander- 
 ous statements," p. 3; "defamer," "shamefully untrue statements," 
 p. 4; "shameful and outrageous wrong," p. 12; "violently contuma- 
 cious and defamatory statements," p. 26. 
 
 Moderator, I blush for my Church. I blush for the degeneracy of 
 manners that prevails in our midst, and for that demoralization of 
 Christian sentiment and propriety which could allow our ears to be 
 shocked by such things in a court of the Lord Jesus Christ. I hang 
 my head in shame. I complain righteously to this body. Personalities, 
 sir, are the order of the day, and it is time that the Church of Christ 
 set its face like a flint against the enormity. It pleased my ear, I must 
 say it in justice to some of my brethren, to hear their expressions of 
 indignation at the character of the Report, styling it " outrageous," 
 " horrid," and " unparalleled in the history of the Church." But that 
 the Presbytery itself, under the lead of those who controlled it, 
 should tolerate and accept such a Report without rebuke, tells its own 
 story. 
 
 III. The third point o? Complaint is against the action of Presby- 
 tery, in "adopting an answer to the protest of the undersigned, Sep- 
 
45 
 f 
 
 teinber 15th, 1876, Mt. Auburn, without rectifying its erroneous state- 
 ments and the false impression it is calculated to make.'" 
 
 (1.) My first reason in support of this third point of Complaint is, 
 "That said answer does not accurately represent the facts of the ease:' 
 My second reason in support of the third point is, that "it represents 
 the undersigned as being out of order and furnishing reasonable grounds 
 for the annoyances and unlawful interruptions under which he was 
 forced to retire from the floor of the Presbytery." My third reason 
 is, " that no ivithdraival of the protest for alteration, on account of mis- 
 representation in the answer, could make the protest " more agree- 
 able '• to the "views" of the undersigned." I take these three reasons 
 together, and for the first two of them adduce the public reports of 
 the occurrences at Mt. Auburn, certified to, as correct reports, by the 
 gentlemen of the press who made them. I also present my Protest 
 and the Answer of the Presbytery to the same. (Here read the 
 Gazette and Commercial reports.) 
 
 Now, Moderator, I make the following points: (1.) I was ruled as 
 ill order, by the Chair, when reading the Special Report of the Inves- 
 tigating Committee. (2.) I never traversed that report with " unlim- 
 ited " range, as the protest insinuates. I confined myself, in the 
 first place, strictly to the Sjjecial Report ; and in the second place, 
 closely to one paragraph of that report, printed as No. 2 in the Ga- 
 zette, reading it from the print. I had read precisely one inch and 
 three quarters by actual measurement, during over an hour's patient 
 and protracted eflx)rt to go on under the ruling of the Moderator. I 
 sought to read nothing else, and I will read now just what I read then. 
 (Here read.) This is all,' sir. There is nothing else in that report 
 that touched the question in hand. It is therefore untrue that I was 
 indulging in "unlimited reading,"' or that the Moderator called me 
 to order on that account. (3.) All Mr. McCune's objections and in- 
 terruptions were directly to the point, that I had no right to read that 
 part of the report which the Moderator ruled I had a right to read, in 
 order to show that the Committee was as much bound to prosecute 
 Mr. McCune as I was. (4.) I was never called to order once by the 
 Moderator, or as ruled out of order. The Moderator's remarks, that I 
 would^ confine myself to the question and the paper, were remarks 
 made in the midst of boundless confusion, not as calls of myself to order, 
 but as simple repetitions and assurances to the court that, in what I 
 should say and read, I must confine myself to the paper and to the ques- 
 tion, both which I did, not that I had transgressed in a single instance. 
 (5.) The inch and three quarters that I did read was germane to the 
 matters involved in the motion under discussion, as the whole para- 
 
46 
 
 gx'aph was, and this I svas proceeding to show, but was prevented by 
 persistent interruptions, which were not restrained. They coincided with 
 "the particular matters" complained of, but I was not allowed to go on 
 and show this fact. (6.) The drawer of the Keport affirmed to me per- 
 sonally, in my study, after the Presbytery was over, that I had a perfect 
 right to read that whole paragraph, which is six inches long in print, and 
 that I ought to have been allowed a still larger range. It is not true, 
 therefore, as I have shown, that I sought an " unlimited " range, or that 
 I was out of order, or that I wandered from the question, or that I did 
 anything not pertinent to the discussion, or that I trespassed the ruling of 
 the Chair, or that my conduct gave any just ground for the unlawful in- 
 terruptions to which I was subjected, or that in nearly or quite every 
 instance, the Moderator found it necessary to warn me to keep within 
 his ruling, all which the answer to the protest alleges as true, and the 
 contrary of which I allege. The simple fact is this, the determination 
 on the part of several individuals was, that that part of the Commit- 
 tee's report which I was reading should not be read and I was forced 
 to retire, under protest that I was not protected in my rights. And 
 now, in face of such allegations as the above, in the answer to the 
 protest, it must be evident to every one, that no ivithdraival of my pro- 
 test by myself, could make it "more agreeable"' to my " views" or to 
 the facts in the case, or to my vindication against the false impeach- 
 ments of the answer, by any alteration that I might make, and there- 
 fore my only resort is, to complain to this body against the injustice 
 that has been done. 
 
 And thus do I sum up the whole case of which I complain : A case 
 of grievous injustice against a man who has simply sought to draw the 
 notice of his Presbytery, in these days of demoralization in this region, 
 to endangering error and practice, under the disguise of a false 
 unionism and liberalism, which repels the distinctive tenets of our 
 creed, and the enforcement of denominational law. Injustice in vio- 
 lation of my 'constitutional and parliamentary rights, both which have 
 been twice wrested from me on the floor of the Presbytery, bound to 
 protect me in the same ; injustice in accepting the Committee's Re- 
 port, which opens with, and rests upon, three separate statements of 
 untruth ; injustice in seeking to make m6 the author of the " rumors " 
 which, "in time past," had spread over the country, before even my 
 pamphlet was born ; injustice in turning aside to institute a new case, 
 and pronounce on the basis of those untruths a censuring judgment 
 against me personally, as also against the public defense of my rights 
 as a Presbyter, and of the faith and order of the Presbyterian Church ; 
 injustice in asserting that I was under moral obligation either to 
 
47 
 
 " prove or retract ; " injustice in recommending a judicial investigation 
 of certain selected statements, on Mr, McCune's representation alone, 
 as if my quotations or argument were false on that account; injustice 
 for suggesting a prosecution for " slander" in case I declined to accede 
 to the imputation in the judgment, that I ought to " prove or retract;" 
 injustice in accepting collaterals to the report, and making them offi- 
 cial documents, when they abounded in gross personalities and multi- 
 plied vituperative epithets, not tolerated even in the councils of uncon- 
 verted men ; injustice in representing me as a persistent breaker of 
 the order of my Presbytery, a constant trespasser upon the ruling of 
 the Chair, and the author of the very disorder and confusion under 
 which 1 was forced to retire from the floor of the Presbytery ; a 
 twelve-fold injustice, repeated, protracted, accumulated, and which I 
 here bring and lay before the bar of this Synod, and upon which I 
 ask the judgment of my brethren, and all this injustice, oppression 
 and wrong, in an effort to avoid and delay the bounden duty of the 
 Presbytery, to attend to the disorders which, by common fame, had 
 been circulated through the country. 
 
 But, Moderator, high over all personal injustice and wrong, looms 
 the great question of the Episcopal or Paternal Power of the Presby- 
 tery to condemn error in doctrine and practice, apart from judicial 
 process, and so conserve the faith and order of the Church. This 
 power, expressly vested in the Presbytery, and in all our courts, by 
 Christ, the Head of the Cliurch, and engraved in the constitution 
 itself, Cincinnati Presbytery has repudiated. It is a dangerous re- 
 lapse. To the Presbyterian Church, to-day, as ever, belongs the 
 whole power of the apostolic Church, save its miraculous and extra- 
 ordinary to oversee and govern the flock of Grod, a plenary power ad- 
 ministered in fidelity centuries before our forms of "actual process'' 
 were recorded. To each minister of the Presbyterian Church belongs 
 the whole ordinary power of the apostles, to watch, govern and direct, 
 to reprove, rebuke and exhort with all, long suffering and doctrine, 
 apart from judicial forms. Who will say that the Presbytery has not 
 the inherent power which belongs inherently to each minister and 
 elder who composes it? Sir, it is more than a fallacy to say that the 
 doctrine and order of the house of God can not be protected under 
 our constitution, except by forensic process. The proph^ets contradict 
 it. The New Testament contradicts it. The apostolic example con- 
 tradicts it. The practice of the Church in every age contradicts it. 
 Every apostolic epistle is a loud protest against it. The history 
 of the Presbyterian, and every other Evangelical Church in Chris- 
 tendom, contradicts it. And woe to the Church of Christ, the 
 
48 
 
 day when she puts herself at the mercy of every tenacious inventor of 
 doctrine, or every reviver of heresies exploded a thousand times, who 
 makes use of her standards to shackle her freedom, and dares her to 
 move one step in vindication of her creed, unless at the expense of 
 perpetual judicial war. Sir, my heart and my head alike are in this 
 gi-eat matter ; I want to save the anchor. I would have my brethren 
 pause, in this our great Church, whose limits extend so wide, and re- 
 member that maxim consecrated by so much illustration : " times of 
 
 UNION ARE TIMES OF PERIL FOR THE TRUTH." Aud I WOuld have 
 
 them consider, too, the significance of tliat other maxim, printed so 
 clearly and legibly on the page of church history, viz.: " That every 
 schismatic demands a trial ! " But, Moderator, if the genius of our 
 constitution is eminent in anything, it is in this, that the mission, of, 
 the Church is to bear testimony to the truth of Christ, and that it is 
 the bounden duty of the Presbytery, apart from forensic forms, to 
 condemn errors in doctrine and practice, under its own jurisdiction, 
 which injure the unity, peace and purity of the Church. The failure 
 to do this was the source of either increasing corruption on the one 
 hand, by reason of neglect, or of perpetual war on the other, by rea- 
 son of effort herein. First and last, it is the " heavenly doctrine" and 
 " heavenly order" we prize above all. Condemn the error in doctrine 
 and the irregularity in practice by the episcopal power vested by 
 Christ in the ministry of His Church. Rebuke and exhort, admonish 
 and warn. Enjobi all not to propagate what is fatal to truth and 
 order. If contumacy follows, the remedy is at hand, without years of 
 contention, agony, resistance, and regret. 
 
 Moderator and brethren, I tliank you ; I feel I have discharged a 
 sacred duty to God, to my Church, to Christ, to you, in bringing this 
 matter before you. My conscience is at rest. My heart beats warm 
 in hope that God will bring good out of this contest. Were it in my 
 hand to do it, I would arrest every unnecessary judicial process for 
 false doctrine, everywhere,- and I would call upon every court of the 
 Lord Jesus to stand to its responsibility in the exercise of legitimate 
 episcopal power, condemning erroneous opinions and pi-actices, so pre- 
 serving to the Church her noble polity and creed, and, at the same 
 time, her unity, purity and peace. 
 
 PROTEST. 
 
 '^ To the Synod of Cincinnati: 
 
 "Dear Brethren — The undersigned hereby protests against the 
 action of the Synod of Cincinnati, taken at its annual session, October 
 23, 1876, in adopting the following preamble and resolutions, to wit : 
 
49 
 
 " Whereas, The issuing of tlie complaint of Dr. Skinner, a.« rorora- 
 mended by the Judicial Committee, may prejudice the ease now known 
 as the McCunecase, at present pending beiore the Cincinnati Presby- 
 tery; therefore, 
 
 " Eesolved, That the consiafraiion of the report of the Judicial 
 Committee upon the said coniphiint of Dr. Skinner, be and is hereby 
 podponed until the issue of the case of Mr. McCune by said Presbytery." 
 
 My reasons for this protest, are : 
 
 "1. Because my rights to a present hearing upon the merits of my 
 particular case, which I have closely and carefully discriminated fron^ 
 any possible relation to the possible case of Mr. McCune, not yet 
 framed, and belonging to another court, is guaranteed to me by the 
 provisions of the constitution, all the conditions necessary as to this 
 having been by me fulfilled. 
 
 "2. Because theargument of the Preamble, that the present hearing of 
 my complaint in this court, utterly distinct from a case not yet framed, 
 noi- presented to another and lower court, would be just as good in the 
 lower court against the hearing of Mr. McCune's case, when it shall 
 be presented, if any such connexion exists between them as the 
 Preamble assumes. Each case must stand upon its own merits, and 
 each court must judge for itself. 
 
 "3. Becauee the Synod had no official knowledge of my complaint, 
 while its character was misrepresented by individuals, the complaint 
 itself never having been so much as read, and equally, has no official 
 knowledge of the case, yet to be, of Mr. McCune. The Judicial 
 Committee, in neither of its reports, either described my complaint, or 
 made a solitary quotation from it. 
 
 "4. Because the Judicial Committee had unanimously reported that 
 my complaint was 'in order,' and had been regularly conducted, and 
 recommended that it be taken up by the Synod, and the Synod voted 
 to take up my complaint. 
 
 "5. Because even a refusal to consider the Judicial Committee's 
 'report,' as the resolution has it, and which declared that my complaint 
 was * in order,' is not only a refusal by the Synod to hear now my 
 complaint, and to which hearing I have a perfect right, but is a refusal 
 to decide, even now, ivhether there is any complaint at all by me regnlarhj 
 in order before this body, and entitled now to be heard. It was a practical 
 ejection of my complaint from the Synod. 
 
 " 6. Because it is a repetition, now the third time during six months, 
 of the very thing of which I complain to this body as previously twice 
 practiced upon me in the court below, viz: The setting aside of my 
 present constitutional rights by the exercise of an assumed discretion- 
 ary power, excluded by the provisions of the constitution itself in all 
 cases where such rights are involved. 
 
 '' For these reasons I repectfully protest, and give notice of com- 
 plaint to the General Assembly. 
 
 "Yours fraternally, 
 
 "Thomas H. Skinner." 
 "Lebanon, O., Oct. 24, 1876." 
 
50 
 
 NOTICE OF COMPLAINT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 
 
 " To tli3 Moderator of the Sijiiod of Cincinnati : 
 
 " The undersigned hereby respectfully gives notice of his complaint 
 to the General Assembly, against the following action of the Synod of 
 Cincinnati, October 23, 1876, to wit : 
 
 " ' Whereas, The issuing of the complaint of Dr. Skinner, as recom- 
 mended by the Judicial Committee, may prejudice the case, now known 
 as the McCune case, at present pending before the Cincinnati Pres- 
 bytery; therefore, 
 
 " ' Besolved, That the consideration of the report of the Judicial 
 Committee upon the said complaint of Dr. Skinner be, and hereby is, 
 postponed until the issue of the case of Mr. McCune by said Presbytery.' 
 
 " My reasons for this complaint are : 
 
 " First, Because the above action excluded the undersigned from 
 a hearing on his complaint to which he was entitled both by constitu- 
 tional and parliamentary law. 
 
 " Second, Because the preamble specifying the ground of the Synod's 
 action offered no good and sufficient showing for setting aside the vested 
 ecclesiastical rights of the undersigned. 
 
 " Third, Because such action is an encouragement of insubordination 
 in the lower courts, and is destructive, not only of individual rights, 
 but of the peace, purity^ and unity of the Church. 
 
 " October 27, 1876. " Thomas H. Skinner." 
 
 " The undersigned unite with the Rev. T. II. Skinner, D, D., in the 
 above complaint to the General' Assembly. 
 
 " T. Charles Thomas, Nathanial West, 
 
 " W. B. Spence, R. H, Leonard, 
 
 " Henry W. Biggs, Edward H. Camp, 
 
 "J. Gamble, E. D. Ledyard. 
 " L. H. Long, 
 
 action of the session of the second PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 
 
 " ' Resolved, that the session of the Second Presbyterian Church of 
 Cincinnati, in full sympathy with our Pastor in his eff^orts to maintain 
 the faith and order of the Presbyterian standards, and to secure respect 
 by the lower courts for vested ecclesia,stical rights, unite with him in 
 his complaint to the General Asembly." 
 
 "October 30, 1876." 
 
 "J. Burnet Jr., Clerk of Session. 
 " James Taylor, Wm. H. Neff, 
 " Wm. H. Allen, S. J. Broadwell, 
 "E. H. Pendleton, Wm. H. Mussey." 
 
51 
 
 ACTION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES. 
 
 " Eesolved, That we, the undersigned, Trustees of the Second 
 Presbyterian Chnrch of Cincinnati, being in full accord and sympathy 
 with our Pastor in his efforts to maintain the faith and order of the 
 Presbyterian standards, and to secure respect by the lower courts for 
 vested ecclesiastial rights, unite with him in his complaint to the 
 General Assembly. 
 
 "November 6, 1876. 
 
 " Wm. Woods, John Shillito, President. 
 
 " Geo. Wilshire, Thornton M. Hinkle, Sec. 
 
 "John A. Murphy, A. S. Winslow." 
 " G. P. Griffith, 
 
 ACTION OF THE DEACONS. 
 
 "Resolved, That the Deacons of the Second Presbyterian Church, of 
 Cincinnati, in full sympathy with the Session, the Trustees and the 
 Pastor, do cordially unite with the Pastor in the above complaint to 
 the General Assembly. 
 
 " D. B. LuPTON, 
 " H. P. Lloyd, 
 " Wm. Hubbell Fisher, 
 " Geo. a. Prichard," 
 November 6, 1876. 
 
 *• The undersigned, members and Elders of other Presbyterian 
 Churches of the city of Cincinnati, also unite in the above complaint. 
 
 " F. T. LocKWOOD, W. W. Scarborough, 
 
 " Francis Ferry, H. Stewart, 
 
 " Alex. M. Johnson, Geo. W. McAlpjn, 
 
 " Hugh McBirney, Wm. Clendenin, 
 
 " Richard Smith, M.W.Oliver, 
 
 "Theo. Kemper, Ira. Haynes, 
 
 "John W.Caldwell, J. C. Bradford. 
 
THE PROCESS, 
 
 TESTIMONY AND OPENING ARGUMENT 
 
 OF THE PROSECUTION, 
 
 VOTE AND FINAL MINUTE, 
 
 JUDICIAL TRIAL OF REV. W. C. McCUNE 
 
 THE PEESBYTERY OP CINCINNATI, 
 
 FROM MARCH 5 TO MARCH 27, 1877. 
 
 CINCINNATI: 
 EOBEET CLAEKB & CO., PEINTERS. 
 
 1877. 
 
PREFATORY NOTE. 
 
 The testimony and the argument in the following pages, in 
 the judieial case of the Presbyterian Church versus Eev. W. C. 
 McCune, are published herewith at the earnest solicitation of 
 many Presbyterians, and for the information of those who are 
 interested in the study of the trial. It is only necessary here to 
 mention the following things : 
 
 1. That the testimony of the prosecution has never yet ap- 
 peared — as the testimony for the defense has appeared — in any 
 of the daily or weekly issues of the press, whether secular or re- 
 ligious. 
 
 2. That from the beginning to the end of the trial, the testi- 
 mony for the prosecution remained intact, complete in its integ- 
 rity, undamaged, and admitted by the defendant. It is to this 
 day undisputed and unchallenged testimony, and it remains for 
 every reader to judge whether it supports the specifications and 
 the charges. 
 
 3. The vote of the Presbytery upon each specification and f> hi^K.* 
 uj^on both the charges is appended, under each, respectively. ^ j^ 
 
 4. With the testimony thus nninvalidated and unbroken, the ^^0^ 
 
 Presbytery, by a verdict of 29 to 8, declared the charges not svs- — 
 
 tained. '? ^ > / 
 
 5. Of the specifications, the Presbytery, at the same time, 
 voted that the specifications 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 11, under Charge 
 
 I were 7wt sustained by the proofs ; and that 6, 7, 8, and 10 were * 
 sustained. Also, under Charge II, the specification 2 was sus- 
 tained, and specification 1 was not sustained. 
 
 6. The final minute of the Presbytery, which is printed at the 
 close of the argument, reports specification 10, under Charge I, 
 as not sustained, whereas said siDecification was sustained by a vote 
 
 (ill) 
 
[4] 
 
 of 21 to 17, the law of the assembly being, that to "sustain in 
 part" (9), and to "sustain" (12), are always to be counted to- 
 gether. 
 
 7. The Presbytery has decided that nothing taught or done 
 by Mr. McCune, in any or all of the proofs of the case, was in 
 contravention of his ordination vows, nor impaired the integrity 
 of our system of doctrine, nor was disloyal to the Church, nor, 
 if generally pei-sisted in by our ministers, would subvert the 
 Presbyterian denomination. 
 
 8. The opening argument of the prosecution is given to the 
 public at the request of many members of our Church, and 
 others not members of the Church. 
 
 THOMAS H. SKINNEE. 
 Cincinnati, April 10, 1877. 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE CHARGES. 
 
 The Prosecuting Committee appointed by Presbytery, 
 October 4, 1876, to take in liand and digest all the papers 
 and documents relating to the case of the Rev. W. C. 
 McCune, and prepare and conduct judicial process upon 
 the same, herewith submit the charges. 
 
 They deem it proper to state that they have given dili- 
 gent attention to the labor assigned them. During the 
 progress of their labors they have been deeply impressed 
 with the gravity of the case, not alone in relation to the 
 defendant, but also to the Presbytery itself and to the 
 whole Presbyterian Church. In all cases of prosecution 
 where " Common Fame" is the accuser, " the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States of America" is the "prosecu- 
 tor," appearing in defense of its peace, purity, and unity 
 by its " Committee of ^prosecution" acting in its name, and 
 duly appointed by a court of legitimate jurisdiction, before 
 whom the cause is to be originally tried. The Presbytery, 
 jealous of its solemn attitude and function as a court of 
 impartial adjudication, and detaching itself from the Com- 
 mittee of Prosecution, thus refusing to assume the attri- 
 butes of both prosecutor and judge in the premises, acts 
 purely in a judicial character, and intrusts the whole con- 
 duct and course of the case to the Committee of Prosecu- 
 tion. Such is the provision of our (general Pule XLIL 
 Rule XLI was expressly originated in the year 1819 to be 
 
 applied to references, complaint and appeal cases before the 
 
 (5) 
 
[6] 
 
 General Assembly (Digest, 214), and afterward extended in 
 1822 to cover all such cases in the lower judicatories as 
 well, but not applicable to the institution of original pro- 
 cess, as is shown by Rule XLII, enacted at the same time. 
 By this Rule the Presbytery's Committee of Prosecution 
 is, ipso facto, disfranchised from the bench of judgment by 
 the Presbytery's own act, and thrown upon their own re- 
 sponsibility for the management of the whole case. Under 
 a sense of this responsibility thus laid upon them, the pros- 
 ecution, as representing the Presbyterian Church, its con- 
 stitution and laws, have felt that nothing should be done 
 which the Presbyterian Church forbids, and all should be 
 done that the Presbyterian Church requires, and also that, 
 in the Spirit of the Gospel and the "Book," every advan- 
 tage possible to be accorded to the defendant, consistent 
 with justice, should be scrupulously ascertained and liber- 
 ally bestowed, though going beyond what strict justice 
 itself might claim. The offense charged, therefore, is pre- 
 sented as one in its general nature, precisely as made by 
 "General Rumor" itself,, viz : Disloyalty to the Presbyte- 
 rian Church, assuming a two-fold form, precisely as it as- 
 sumed in the same " Rumor," the first relating to the doc- 
 trines, principles, and views of the defendant, this being 
 Charge I ; the second relating to the practical course of the 
 defendant, this being Charge II. The description of the 
 ofiense, moreover, has followed the language of the Pres- 
 bytery's resolution of April 13, 1876, at Glendale, and the 
 Title of the " Special Report" of Presbytery's Investigating 
 Committee, accepted at Mt. Auburn, September 13, 1876. 
 The Specifications under the first charge are eleven in 
 number- ujider the •second charge, two. The Committee 
 copfined therpselves entirely to a plain, direct, and unam- 
 biguous statement of what the matter of fact in the papers 
 and writings of the defendant will, in their judgment, jus- 
 
[7] 
 
 tify. Still further, in order to give the defendant the ut- 
 most possible advantage, as well as reduce the case and 
 save the time of Presbytery, they have agreed to present 
 the whole case of the prosecution in one paper at this time. 
 To this end they have not restricted themselves to a simple 
 reference to the objectionable language in the writings of 
 the defendant, merely noting the page and sentences or 
 paragraphs, but have furnished to the defendant the lan- 
 guage itself, upon which they rely to support the several 
 Specifications. They have given the name and page of the 
 document, and the date as to year, month, and day, thus 
 basing the several allegations upon the words of the de- 
 fendant himself, these being again supported in part by 
 other testimony, including the testimony of the Presby- 
 tery's Committee of Investigation in their special report. 
 If there is seeming redundancy, it is not because the evi- 
 dence is exhausted, but only that no injustice may be done 
 the defendant, and that Presbytery itself may be satisfied 
 on this point, inasmuch as the testimony is the essence ot 
 all judicial cases. In the same interest of advantage to the 
 defendant, the Committee have annexed to each Specifica- 
 tion the several references to the Standards of the Church 
 with which they deem the views and course of the defend- 
 ant to be in conflict. Thus the defendant is furnished in 
 advance with the whole testimony of the prosecution and 
 all the law points in the case. Every advantage the Com- 
 mittee could give has been given ; every right carefully 
 guarded; every benefit readily accorded. The Specifica- 
 tions are appended to support the Charges, the Proofs are 
 added to support the Specifications, and the references to 
 the Standards are subjoined to support the fact that the 
 matter charged is an ofl:ense against the Presbyterian 
 Church. The prosecution have no personal witnesses to 
 cite. The evidence is entirely documentary. The testi- 
 
[8] 
 
 mony aDd the law are s^iven with the Charges. The Com- 
 mittee desire to add that they have made apphcation to the 
 officers of the Liuwood and Mt. Lookout Church for access 
 to their official records reUiting to the organization of the 
 Church, but said officers have declined to accede to their 
 request. 
 
 With this explanation, and the statement that the Pros- 
 ecuting Committee, after careful examination and deliber- 
 ation, have come to a united judgment upon the presenta- 
 tion of the charges, specifications, testimony, and law of the 
 case, we respectfully submit the case to the Presbytery, 
 and ask that it may be prosecuted according to the consti- 
 tution of the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 Thomas H. Skinner, 
 E. D. Ledyard, 
 S. J. Thompson, 
 
 Committee of Prosecution. 
 Cincinnati, December 18, 1876. 
 
JUDICIAL PROCESS. 
 
 THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 
 
 versus 
 THE REV. W. C. McCUNE, 
 
 In the Court op the Presbytery op Cincinnati. 
 
 Action brought by Common Fame, for Disloyalty to the Pres- 
 byterian Church. 
 
 Process instituted by Presbytery. 
 
 Eev. Messrs. Thomas H. Skinner and E. D. Ledyard and 
 Elder S. J. Thompson, Prosecuting Committee. 
 
 Offense : DiMoyalty to the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 CHAKGE I. 
 
 That the Rev. W. C. McCune, being a minister of the 
 Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, and 
 a member of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, has, for years 
 past, in contravention of his vows of loyalty to the distinc- 
 tive faith and order of the Presbj'terian Church, as also in 
 opposition to the terms of the doctrinal and ecclesiastical 
 Basis of union adopted, unanimously, by the Presbytery of 
 Cincinnati (O. S,), at Avondale, September 8, 1869, Mr. 
 McCune being present and voting for the same, and adopted 
 by the whole Presbyterian Church (0. S. and N. S.), and in 
 joint convention November 12, 1869, declared as of binding 
 force, openly proclaimed and persistently advocated doc- 
 trines, principles, and views, not only at war with the stand- 
 ards of the Presbyterian Church, but, if generally accepted, 
 
 (9) 
 
[10] 
 
 totally subversive of its constitution and of the very exist- 
 ence of the Presbyterian denomination itself. 
 
 This Charge rests upon the following specifications, to wit : 
 
 SPECIFICATION I. 
 
 LaiD of Organization. 
 
 As to the Divine Law of Organization for t^e Christian 
 Church. — In this, that the divine Law of Organization for 
 the Christian Church, in all time, is found in Romans xv. 
 7, and not only forbids the existence of different evangelical 
 denominations, as such, and any exclusion of Christian 
 members or ministers in one denomination from full fellow- 
 ship in another, but requires oneness of visible external 
 organization, and immediate preparation for the reorgani- 
 zation of the Presbyterian and whole Christian Church on 
 a IlTew Testament basis ; moreover, according to this law, 
 the Church may cut off from its communion no one who is 
 not, first of all, assumed, or proved, to be unregenerate. 
 
 Proof 1. — Christian Unity, December 6, 1873, p. 5 : " "We 
 claim that many express precepts of the Kew Testament 
 require organic Christian Union. 1. The precept in Ro- 
 mans XV. 7 : ' Receive ye one another, even as Christ also 
 received us to the glory of God,' requires ministers and 
 members everywhere to receive all into church relations, 
 whom they acknowledge Christ has received." Again, 
 Christian Standard, iNTovember 13, 1875, p. 362 : " The great 
 law of Christian Union is tersely and comprehensively ex- 
 pressed, Romans xv. 7 : ' Wherefore receive ye one another, 
 etc.'" Again, repeated in the Standard, E"ovember 20, 
 1875, p. 370. Again, Declaration from Lin wood and Mt. 
 Lookout, p. 4: "We are also convinced that we find the 
 law requiring visible Christian Union in Romans xv. 7, as 
 well as in other scriptures: 'Wherefore receive ye one an- 
 other as Christ also received us to the glory of God.' We 
 likewise believe that the precept applies in the case of minis- 
 ters^ as well as in the case of members, and that no one who 
 gives scriptural evidence that he is a minister of the Lord 
 
[11] 
 
 Jesus Christ should be excluded frotn membership in any 
 Presbytery, Conference, or association of ministers whatso- 
 ever, by any denominational law." Again, Christian Unity, 
 January 31, 1874, p. 4: "The New Testament /or^ic/s de- 
 nominational divisions, and requires visible union." Again, 
 Christian Unity, January 3, 1874, p. 4: " Christ prayed for 
 such oneness as necessardy involves visible unity." Again, 
 Christian Unity, November 15, 1873, p. 4: "God, in his 
 providence, urgently calls upon all Christ's disciples to make 
 immediate prayerful iweparation for a united Neiv Testament 
 organization of the Church in every placeJ" Again, Christian 
 Unity, August 1, 1875, p. 5r: " And were it not for the ac- 
 tive and prejudiced resistance made by sectarian managers 
 and 2'>l(ice-m.ei}, and for the eftbrt always necessary and gen- 
 erally painful, to pass from an old organization that is un- 
 authorized and extra-scriptural to a new one on a New Testa- 
 ment basis, there is a great host of living Christian hearts, 
 now separated by mere human sectarian walls, that would 
 gladly unite to-morrow on the basis of the unity of the spirit 
 loith forbearance in love." 
 
 Proof 2.— Christian Unity, March 14, 1874, p. 4 : " The 
 Apostles received all Christians into the fellowship of the 
 Church. They never excluded a disorderly person in order 
 that he might org-anize another denomination." Again : " Re- 
 port on Christian Union, read in the Presbyterian Synod of 
 Cincinnati, October 22, 1870, and ordered to be printed," 
 W. C. McCune, Chairman of Committee, p. 14 : " It may 
 indeed be needful that he should be made the subject of 
 some brotherly forms of discipline, of admonition, of re- 
 proof, or even of temporary suspension, but .he may not be 
 finally excommunicated and forced to establish another denom- 
 ination of his own, in order to attain membership) in the visible 
 Church of Christ." Again, p. 12 : " Paul gave directions to 
 exclude incestuous persons from the communion of the 
 Church, but not with the view to the establishment of another 
 denomination in which incest should be ruleable and respect- 
 able." Again, Organic Union, p. 74: "He (Dr. P.) assumes 
 that the ' brother ' in the text (2d Thess. iii. 6), was a Chris- 
 tian brother, and that as a Christian brother he was to be 
 
[12] 
 
 excluded from the Chiirch; and the inference is that it can 
 not be the law of the Church that the mere evidence that a 
 man is a Christian brother does not entitle him to member- 
 ship." Again, p. 74 : " It would be necessary to show that 
 the Apostles in some case had actually excommunicated a man 
 who gave evidence that he was a true believer. But there is 
 no such case on record. There is no proof whatever that 
 the ' brother ' mentioned in the precept above was a brother 
 Christian." 
 
 How contrary to the standards of the Church the above 
 is, see Moore's Digest, p. 45 (2), 307 (6), 674 (iii, 1, 2), 675 
 (5, 6), 676 (7), 677 (10), 678; 44 (ii, v, vi), 48 (i), 49 (vi), 50 
 (6), 54 (11, 12), 57 (14), 63 (2), 92 (ii, 2), 91 (2), 120 (i), 147 
 (5), 169 (8, c), 191 (iv), 620 (7). Also the whole Form of 
 Government and Book of Discipline in their structure, cap- 
 tions, and provisions, and all the decisions of the approved 
 Digest bearing upon the reception or exclusion of ministers 
 and members, particularly the references in Digest Index, 
 p. 709, under " Excommunication ;" Title, Censure, and Di- 
 gest, pp. 679 to 681, 704 (2), 85 (4), 73 ; also Princeton Re- 
 view, January, 1876, p. 39. 
 
 ISTOTE. 
 
 [Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did??,o^ sustain 
 this specification. The vote was : 
 
 Not sustained. — Caton, Possiter, Cortelyou, Cushman, 
 Pitchie, Camp, Dudley, Beecher, Maxwell, Chidlaw, James, 
 Chester, Hawley, Jones, White, Morris, Hills, Schwenck, 
 Johnston, McGechan, Ilyndmau, Dallas, Mansfield, Ken- 
 nett. Conn— 25. 
 
 Sustained. — Lichstenstein, Long, Leonard, Babbitt, West, 
 Wright, Winuess, Gamble — 8. 
 
 Sustained in part. — Kumler, Morey, Monfort, Evans — 4.] 
 
 SPECIFICATION II. 
 
 Anti-denomination. 
 
 As to the essential sinfulness of the Presbyterian and all oth- 
 er existing evangelical denominations as such. — In this, that 
 the Presbyterian and all other evangelical denominations, as 
 
[13] 
 
 such, i. e., in their peculiar character as distinct organiza- 
 tions, apart from their common Christianity, and framed 
 b}^ denominational law to maintain and enforce their pecu- 
 liar and distinctive creed as to doctrine and polity, are es- 
 sentially sinful, are not churches, and have no scriptural 
 right to exist. 
 
 Proof 1. — Organic Union, p. 123 : " A denomination has 
 no right to exist as a distinct organization, unless she is or- 
 ganized according to the divine law of organization." Again, 
 Christian Unity, November 15, 1873, p. 4 : " We shall aim to 
 show the anti-scriptural, wasteful, and enfeebling nature of 
 existing denominational divisions, and to persuade Chris- 
 tians, eventually, to organize, instead, but one church in one 
 
 . place." Again, Christian Unity, January 31, 1874, p. 8: "De- 
 nominational divisions in the church are wholly destitute of 
 scriptural authority" Page 4 : " We have a clear, profound 
 conviction that denominational divisions are unscriptural." 
 Proof 2. — Cincinnati Commercial, February 11, 1876 : " I 
 am opposed to denoniinationalism, or, to use a more expres- 
 sive term, I am utterly opposed to all sectarianism, and I 
 am just as much opposed to Presbyterian sectarianism as 
 any other. Denominational Christian Churches are char- 
 acterized by two things : first, their Christianity ; secondly, 
 their sectarianism. On account of the first, I maintain they 
 have a right to exist. The second thing, their sectarianism, 
 is sinful, unscrijHural, and has 7io right to exist." "Secta- 
 rianism is a hurtful excrescence." 
 
 Proof 3.— Commercial, February 11, 1876: "Dr. Skin- 
 ner's second statement, that I claim I am opposed ' only to 
 
 . supernumerary churches, in small towns or villages' is 
 wholly untrue. I never said so. I am opposed to dividing 
 of the Church into denominations out of which they grow." 
 "I condemn sectarianism as essentially sinful and do not 
 
 .rejoice in it." "I do not believe that the Presbyterian 
 Churches are Christian Union organizations. I beheve 
 they ought to be. I believe that as the Presbyterian Church 
 receives all, as members, whom she believes Christ receives, 
 so she should receive all as ministers, whom she believes 
 
[14] 
 
 Christ receives. I believe that any minister, on applica- 
 tion, should be received as a member of Presbytery, and 
 who gives to Presbytery, satisfactory scriptural evidence 
 that Clirist has received him, as His minister. The Presby- 
 terian Church requires more than this." Again, Declaration, 
 p. 4 : " We further maintain that, if Christians, living in 
 any place, unite themselves together as a Church of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, receiving all as ministers, and as members, 
 who give scriptural evidence that Christ has received them, ^ 
 such a Church is not a sect, in any sense whatever. A sect 
 is an organization that cuts off, or excludes, from its fellow- 
 ship those whom Christ confessedly receives. But the 
 Church that welcomes all who give credible evidence that 
 they belong to Christ, can not be a sect" 
 
 Proof 4. — Christian Standard, February 26, 1876, p. 66 : 
 " The leading Protestant denominations all have their pecu- 
 liarities, which they hold not merely as individual belief, 
 but which they profess to enforce as denominational law." 
 . . . *' It is evident that the sin of sectarianism does not 
 consist in the open, candid statement of what their secta- 
 rian organic laws are, but on the actual enactment and en- 
 forcement of these sectarian laws." " It frequently occurs 
 that churches that frankly avow their peculiarities, in a 
 creed, in the lapse of time cease to enforce them. The Pres- 
 byterian Church has ceased to enforce Infant Baptism." 
 Again, Christian Standard, March 4, 1876, p. 74: "The 
 mischief does not lie in the open, manly publication of sec- 
 tarian terms of fellowship, but in the actual holding and 
 enforcing of them." . 
 
 ■Proofs. — Commercial, May 10, 1876: "It follows that 
 the Presbyterian, Lutheran and Methodist denominations, 
 taken as a whole, do not either of them constitute a Church, 
 using the word in the singular number, but it would be 
 heartily conceded that the congregations of believers of 
 which these denominations are composed, is, each one, a , 
 Church." Again, Christian Standard, September 18, 1875, 
 p. 298: "It is well known that I publicly maintain that 
 the Presbyterian Church does not occupy Christian Union 
 ground, and that I seek to persuade her to occupy that 
 
[15] 
 
 ground, just as I would the Disciples." Again, Gazette, 
 January 12, 1876: " I regard her (the Presbyterian Church) 
 with no popish veneration. I do not consider her standards 
 infallible. I deem it lawful to propose revision. ... I 
 regard it as perfectly ruleable in the Presbyterian Church 
 to propose changes in her standards in the interest of Chris- 
 tian Union, to memorialize the General Assembly to this end, 
 and to seek to imbue the whole denoynination with the doc- 
 trines of the New Testament on the subject of Christian 
 Union." 
 
 Proof 6. — Organic Union, p. 11: "The Romish Church 
 teaches all the children in her schools that tlie true Church 
 is organically one, and that she is one while the Protestant 
 Church is divided; slie is therefore the true church. And 
 ice too admit that the true Church should be thus united^ 
 
 How contrary to the standards of the Church the above 
 is, see Moore's Digest, p. 44 (ii, v, vi), 45 (2), 50 (6), 54 (11, 
 12), 57 (14), 91 (2), 120 (i), 147 (5), 191 (iv), 620 (7), 623 
 (^, 4). . 
 
 Note. 
 
 [Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did not sustain 
 this specification. The vote was: 
 
 Not sustained. — Caton, Rossiter, Cortelyou, Cushman, 
 Ritchie, Camp, Beecher, Kumler, Maxwell, Chidlaw, James, 
 Chester, Ilavvlej^, Morey, White, Morris, Hills, Evans, 
 Schwenk, Joiinston, McGechan, Hyndmau, Mansfield, Ken- 
 uett, Conn— 24. 
 
 Sustained. — Lichstenstein, Long, Leonard, West — 4. 
 
 Sustained in part. — Babbitt, Dudley, "Wright, Winness, 
 Jones, Monfort, Gamble, Dallas — 8.] 
 
 SPECIFICATION III. 
 
 Creeds. 
 
 As to the . sinfulness of Framing and Requiring Assent to 
 Human Creeds. — In this, that everything distinctive in 
 creeds should be given up, or struck out, and no human in- 
 ference or deduction from divine truth be allowed ; that the 
 Bible itself is an all-sufficient and the only proper creed for 
 
[16] 
 
 all time; that the construction of an extended creed, be- 
 yond the Scripture statement of a /e?/; leading doctrines, the 
 most, otherwise discordant, will accept, is a usurpation of 
 the divine prerogative, and the enforcement of distinctive 
 tenets upon the official ministry an oppression of the con- 
 science. 
 
 Proof 1. — Organic Union, pp. 48, 49: "As they (the 
 Apostles) demanded of applicants for membership a saving 
 faith in Christ, which necessarily included all other saving 
 graces, and thereby excluded all fatal heresies, when this de- 
 mand was actually met, so this demand, made now and met 
 now, will now in like manner exclude all fatal heresy. If a 
 brief and simple creed, embracing a feio of the leading fun- 
 damental doctrines of the Bible, was sufficient then, so it is 
 sufficient now. If it most wisel}'' guarded against perversions 
 of Scripture then, so it will now. If it most effectually ex- 
 cluded heresy then, so it will now^. It is evident that an ar- 
 gument to prove the necessity for enlarging the creed, based 
 on present perversions of Scripture, and the prevalence of 
 error, is as weak as it is popish." Again, same page : 
 "Unblushing assumption of prerogative in the Protestant 
 Church." Again, p. 115 : " Could not the Church of Rome 
 be built on this foundation? Wherein does this principle 
 differ from the rotten basis on which she stands ?" Again, 
 pp. 37, 38 : " If he (Dr. P.) meant simply to affirm that the 
 luhole Church of the living God, including all, of every name, 
 who give satisfactor}' scriptural evidence that they are born 
 of the Spirit and all true disciples of Christ, would have the 
 right to put in her creed her interpretation of every truth of 
 the Bible, concerning which they could unanimously agree, 
 this creed would be a Catholic creed, neither would it op- 
 press any Christian's conscience, nor exclude any true disciple 
 from the Church, or from the Lord's table." Again, p. 47 : 
 "IN^o true Protestant needs to be convinced of the falsity of 
 every argument which is framed to prove that it has become 
 necessary to enlarge the creed of the primitive church." 
 Again, Cincinnati Gazette, January 12, 1876 : " Christian 
 Union does not require the surrender of any pecuharities, 
 
[17] 
 
 either of faith or practice. It simply requires that mere 
 'peculiarities he vot enforced, contrary to conscience, as a matter 
 of sectarian hTw." Again, Christian Unity, Jan. 17, 1874 : 
 " Did the Apostolic Church demand assent to tlie Presbyte- 
 rian Confession of Faith'? And if he admits it did not, 
 should we follow apostolic example?" Again, Christian 
 Standard, September 18, 1875 : " I maintain that no creed, 
 written or unwritten, should contain anything that is human. 
 It should not contain any human inference or deduction of 
 any kind whatever. Everything human in creeds I opimse."" 
 Again, Christian Standard, February 26, 1876, p. QQ : " We 
 affirm that the Bible is the only jpr oyer creed, and that it is 
 a sufficient creed for every church on earth." Again, Chris- 
 tian Standard, August 7, 1875, p. 252 : " We affirm most 
 heartily and positively that it (the Bible) is a sufficient 
 creed, and the only true creef/, for all true Christians, and all 
 ministers, and all churches." Again, Christian Standard, 
 March 4, 1876, p. 74 : "A human creed, in whole or in part, 
 is always objectionable ; but is a purely gospel creed ob- 
 jectionable ? A sectarian creed is always mischievous and 
 sinful, but is a genuine jSTew Testament creed to be con- 
 demned ?" 
 
 Proof 2. — " Address to all the Christian Ministers and 
 Churches in North America, with Basis of Union," Octo- 
 ber, 1874, Cincinnati, Rooms of Young Men's Christian 
 Association, p. 5 : " In regard to the ordination and exam- 
 ination of ministers, the Basis teaches that no other tests 
 should be applied than tlie common faith wdiich Christians 
 have held everywhere, and in all ages- of the Avorld, as a 
 common heritage." Again, p. 6: "As to all vexed ques- 
 tions at issue among evangelical believers, concerning man's 
 relation to God's sovereignty, forms of making religious profes- 
 sion, modes of worship, subjects of baj)tism, methods of organi- 
 zation, kinds and functions of church officers, we believe they 
 should all be committed to the broad and free domain of 
 Christian liberty, until God shall, in his infinite goodness, 
 vouchsafe to his church greater light." Signed by Mr. Mc- 
 Cune and others. Again, p. 17: " Neither do we require 
 any assent to any denominational peculiarity, as a condition 
 
[18] 
 
 of fellowship.''' Again, "Address to all," etc., p. 17: 
 " We distinctly disclaim all intention to require an assent 
 to amj human modificaiion of these Scriplures, or atiy human 
 inferences tlterefrom, and we affirm it to be our purpose oiily 
 to require an assent to God's own truth, expressed in God's 
 own language, as it has been commonly received hy all 
 Christ's ministers and people in all times, and in all places." 
 Again, Linwood and Mt. Lookout Basis, etc., " Preliminary 
 Statements," November, 1875, p. 5 : " We deem it wise and. 
 practicable, and at the same time both unsectarian and 
 evangelical, to select the truths held in common by evangeli- 
 cal ministers, as lyroper tests of somidness in the faith on the 
 part of those who ask our recognition as ministers of Christ. 
 The Basis of the VJorUCs evangelical alliance is a statement of 
 this common faith." Again, p. 9 : "77ie Evangelical Minis- 
 terial Association of Cincinnati has also, on two occasions, 
 made a statement of this common faith of all evangelical 
 ministers." 
 
 Proof 3.— Christian Unity, March 28, 1876 : " Mr. Frost's 
 proposition. (1.) Agree to adopt and practice whatever we 
 mutually agree that the Bible teaches. (2.) Agree to give up 
 and strike out of our respective creeds whatever causes di- 
 vision, and ivhic/t lue ourselves do not regard as essential to the 
 truth. (3.) Agree to give up and strike out of our respec- 
 tive creeds whatever causes divisions among us, and for which 
 we can not give a plain precept or example in the Word of 
 God." Answer by Mr. McCune. " The first and third of 
 these principles seem to us to be sound, and good, as far as 
 they go. But we .would very much prefer to state the 
 third principle thus, Agree to strike out of our creeds, as a 
 matter of law, everything which those whom we acknowledge as 
 fellow Christians can not see to be law in Scripture. That 
 would, meet the case aud. secure union. To the second, 
 principle we object most decidedly" — "on account of its 
 vagueness." Again, Christian Unity, Aug. 1, 1875, p. 1, 
 " The plan of organization of the Texas Convention, April 
 30, 1875, at Somerville." The third principle, (3.) " That 
 churches of Christ ought to have no authoritative creed or dis- 
 cipline but the Holy iScrijHures." Note by the Rev. Mr. 
 
[19] 
 
 Melish, co-editor with Mr. McCune. "This plan of organ- 
 ization, it will be noted, is very substantially like our own, 
 etc. We therefore claim these good brethren to be one with 
 us, genuine lovers of organic Christian unity, on the right 
 platform," etc., etc. 
 
 How contrary to the standards of the Chnrch the above 
 is, see Moore's Digest, p. 45 (2), pp. 54-57, 81-86, 147 (5), 
 191 (iv), 304 (8), Baird's Digest, 638, Conf. of Faith, chap, 
 i, sec. vi. 
 
 ITOTE. 
 
 [Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did not sus- 
 tain this specification. The vote was : 
 
 Not sustained. — Caton, Rossiter, Cortelyou, Cushman, Rit- 
 chie, Camp, Dudley, Beecher, Kumler, Maxwell, Chidlaw, 
 James, Chester, Hawley, Morey, White, Monfort, Morris, 
 Hills, Evans, Schweuk, Johnston, McGechan, Hyndman, 
 Dallas, Mansfield, Kennett, Conn — 28. 
 
 Sustained. — Lichsteustein, Long, West, Wright, Potter. 
 —5. 
 
 Sustained in part. — Leonard, Babbitt, Winness, Jones, 
 Gamble — 5.] 
 
 SPECIFICATION'IV. 
 
 Vows of Ordinatioyi. 
 
 As to Ordination Vows. — In this, that Presbyterian min- 
 isters, under the obligation of solemn ordination vows, 
 may change the old views of doctrine and polity they ap- 
 proved and pledged themselves to maintain, at the time of 
 their ordination, and preach, publish, and advocate their 
 new views, claiming, meanwhile, that those who object to 
 this should themselves leave the Presbytery, while the ad- 
 vocates of the new views may remain in the body for the 
 sake of good standing, without renouncing their departures 
 from the standards. 
 
 Proof 1.— Christian Standard, September 18, 1875 : " The 
 Presbyterian Church only asks men at their ordination, 
 what their present views are, and never pledges them not 
 to change their views." 
 
[20] 
 
 Proof 2.— Gazette, August 27, 1875 : " Yon (Dr. Monfort) 
 seem to suggest that, inasmuch as I am an advocate of or- 
 ganic Christian Union, there is something dishonorable, if 
 not sinful, in my continuance as a member of the Presbytery 
 of Cincinnati. If the advocacy of Union is an ' iniquity 
 to be punished by the judges,' we ' are at a loss to under- 
 stand ' what right you have to be a member of the Pres- 
 bytery of Cincinnati !" " You could possibly, remedy the 
 matter, in so far as you are personally concerned (and I 
 trust that you are the only one that feels aggrieved), by ask- 
 ing yourself for a letter of dismissal, and by uniting with 
 some body of ministers in which there are no Christian 
 Union men, if any such body can now be found." " I wish 
 my name to remain on the roll of the Presbytery, as an in- 
 dorsement of my standing as a Christian minister." " It is 
 useless to make any intimations to me on this subject. I 
 propose that my name shall stand on the roll of Pres- 
 bytery lis long as I remain in Cincinnati or vicinity !'' 
 
 Proof 3. — Organic Union, p. 136 : " To ask a man not to 
 advocate what he conscientiously believes to be God's truth, 
 is to ask him to obey m«u rather than God." 
 
 Proof 4. — Commercial, October 17, 1876 : " It is proposed 
 that I shall give assurance in writing that I will not further 
 the principles which I am clearly convinced are the truth of 
 God. My inexpressibly solemn obligation, as a minister of 
 Christ, to preach His truth as I believe it in my heart, I am 
 to be required to renounce. Presbytery is to be placed in 
 God's stead over me. She is to be ' seated in the Temple 
 of God,' and to show herself that she is God over my con- 
 science." 
 
 Proof 5. — Organic Union, p. 150 : " The writer of these 
 pages can never consent to preach the gospel, in any de- 
 nomination, upon condition that he shall not advocate cer- 
 tain princij^les, which he believes in his heart are the truths 
 of the gospel. He believes that the great princij^lcs upon 
 which the Organic Union of the Church must be consum- 
 mated, are just as important as the salvation of precious 
 souls — as the conversion of the world, for the world will 
 never believe till the Chruch is one." 
 
[21] 
 
 Proof 6. — Mr. McCune's statement of Christian Union 
 principles, ^iven to Presbytery's Committee of Investiga- 
 tion, and read in Presbytery at Mount Auburn, September 
 13, 1876. Collateral of the Committee's Report, No. 4, p. 6 : 
 ^' I have publicly advocated, and propose to advocate, the fol- 
 lowing principles on the subject of Christian Union. I 
 make verbatim extracts from a report read in the Synod of 
 Cincinnati in 1870, which was published at that time by the 
 authority of the Synod and widely circulated." See Re- 
 port, from p. 7 to p. 12, inclusive, and inserted bj^ Mr. Mc- 
 Cune in the Collateral above specified ; especially this : 
 "We speak not of voluntary usage, of prevailing customs, 
 or of mere recommendations, for Mese things never produce 
 denominational divisions. We speak of organic enactments^ 
 of denominational laius ; for it is these and these only,i\\sX 
 divide the Church. These are the apples of discord and the 
 wedges of division in the Christian Church. It is these pe- 
 culiar, distinctive denominational laws which give visible form 
 atid sharp outline, and repellant and perpetuating power to 
 divisions." 
 
 How contrary to the standards of the Church the above 
 is, see Moore's Digest, p. 399 (vii, 2, 3), 410, 411, (2, 3, 6); 
 45 (2), 48 (2), 49 (vi), 54 (11, 12), 55 (13 h\ 57 (14), 191 (iv), 
 144 (8), 218 (v),.231 (2,3); Baird's Digest, 662 (88); 
 Moore's Digest, 540 (v) ; 541 (vi) ; 548 48 (ii), 223 ; Baird's 
 Digest, 649 (72), 651 (3, 4) ; Moore's Digest, 221, 222 ; 
 Baird's Digest, 664. 
 
 Note. 
 
 [Presbyter}^ voted that the foregoing proofs did not sus- 
 tain this specification. The vote was : 
 
 Not Sustained. — Caton, Rossiter,- Cortelyou, Cushman, 
 Babbitt, Camp, Dudley, Wright, Beecher, Kumler, Max- 
 well, Chidlaw, James, Chester, Hawley, Morey, Jones, 
 White, Monfort, Potter, Morris, Hill, Evans, Schwenk, 
 Johnston, McGechan, Hyndman, Dallas, Mansfield, Ken- 
 nett. Conn — 31. 
 
 Sustained. — Lichstenstein, Long, West, Gancible — 4. 
 
 Sustained in part. — Leonard, Ritchie, AVinness — 3.] 
 
[22] 
 
 SPECIFICATION V. 
 
 Plurality of Official Membership. 
 
 «f As to Plurality of Official Membership. — In this, that Pres- 
 byterian and other evangelical ministers may belong at the 
 same time to two difierent ecclesiastical denominations, 
 antagonistic in their principles, and subscribe allegiance to 
 both. 
 
 Proof 1. — Commercial, February 11, 1876 : " I do not be- 
 lieve that the Presbyterian Churches are Christian Union 
 organizations. I believe they ought to be." 
 
 Proof 2. — " Address to all Christian ministers and 
 Churches in North America, with a Basis of Union, p. 6 : 
 ' In this Basis, which we submit to your serious and prayer- 
 ful attention, we have suggested what we believe must be 
 the initial step, viz : to receive every Christian into our fel- 
 lowship, and every Christian minister who teaches the common 
 faith of the gospel; trusting in Divine Providence, that, if 
 we take this step, God will vouchsafe us light and wisdom 
 for the next.' ' Brethren, this is an attempt to induce 
 Christians to unite on .the basis of their agreements, as the 
 experience of centuries has shown that they can not unite 
 on their disagreements.' ' We ask every minister, who ap- 
 proves it, to say so, and to accept a cordial invitation to at- 
 tend the Christan Union Convention which is to meet at 
 Sufl'olk, Virginia, on the first Wednesday of May, 1875, at 
 10 o'clock, A. M. Signed by W. C. McCune and others. 
 Again, ' Address,' etc., p. 19 : ' All ministers and Churches 
 adopting this Basis will be recognized and enrolled as Union 
 Christian ministers and Churches, to be kyiown as the ' Union 
 Christian Churches of America.' " 
 
 Proof 3. — "Address," etc., p. 19 : '''■Any minister who has 
 adopted this Basis, but does not deem it expedient to sever ex- 
 isting denominational relations, shall, at his own request, be en- 
 rolled, notwithstanding . Churches desiring to take action 
 concerning this Basis are requested to give public notice of 
 a meeting for that purpose. When the Church is con- 
 
[23] 
 
 vened, it is suggested that the Basis be read, and that then 
 a vote be taken on the two following questions : Fir^t, ' Do 
 you approve the Union Christian Basis?' Second, 'Do 
 you adopt the Union Christian Basis?' All Churches, 
 either approving or adopting this Basis, are requested to 
 send one or mq^e delegates to attend a general Convention 
 of the Union Christian Churches, at Suffolk, Va,, on the 
 first Wednesday of May, 1875. All -ministers adopting this 
 Basis, including those who may not have severed heretofore ex- 
 isting denominational relations, are also invited to attend the 
 Convention, to take counsel concerning the promotion of 
 Christian Union, and the conversion of the world." 
 "Unanimously adopted and signed, October 24, 1874, at 
 the Rooms of the Young Men's Christian Association, 
 Cincinnati, Ohio." Signed by W. C. McCiine, Thomas J. 
 Mehsh, and others. Again, Christian Unity, August 1, 
 1875, p. 2 : " We do not ask either ministers or Churches to 
 change their denominational relations. Therefore, we are not 
 laboring to build up a new sect." Editorial of Thomas J. 
 Melish, co-editor with Mr. McCune of "The Christian 
 Unity." 
 
 Proof 4. — " Basis of Fellowship of the Union Christian 
 Church of Linwood and Mount Lookout," Hamilton Co., 
 Ohio, Cincinnati, November, 1875, including " Declaration,^^ 
 pp. 3-6; Preliminary Statements, pp. 6-11; "Basis of Fel- 
 lowship," and " Regulations of Expediency," pp. 11-16. 
 Page 5 : " We, giving to each other evidence that we are 
 Christ's disciples, propose, by the help of God, to organize a 
 ^ Union Christian Chm^ch,' in accordance- with the precepts 
 and examples of the New Testament." Page 6 : " We will, 
 on scriptural evidence, cordially receive all Christians into 
 the fellowship of this Church." " We will receive, as min- 
 isters, all who give us scriptural evidence that they are in 
 fact ministers of the Lord Jesus Christ." " JS'either do we 
 deem it practicable to inquire of a candidate for the ministry 
 concerning the sense in which he receives every verse of 
 scripture from the beginning of the Bible to the end of it." 
 Page 10 : " Having invited Christian ministers, of good re- 
 pute for soundness in the faith, to aid us and counsel with us,. 
 
[24] 
 
 we deem it sufficient to select from the Bible, for the occa- 
 sion, the great truths of the gospel concerning which evan- 
 gelical ministers are agreed, both as to their fundamental 
 character and as to their true sense, or that we should use 
 some clear and competent statement of the common faith 
 already prayerfully and deliberately made, s^ch as the Basis 
 of the World's Evangelical Alliance, as the subject of con- 
 ference with any whom loe are about to send out into the world 
 to preach the everlasting gospel." Page 14: "We deem it 
 expedient to elect certain of our number for one or more 
 years, to whom we will especially commit the spiritual 
 oversight of this Church, in conjunction with the pastor 
 (the Eev. Mr. McCune)." "A request of a majority of the 
 members voting, at a meeting duly called for that purpose, 
 that an oflicer shall resign, must be granted." Basis and 
 Regulations, " unanimously adopted at Linwood, ISTovem- 
 ber 7, and Mt. Lookout, November 8, 1875." 
 
 Proof 5. — Gazette, January 12, 1876: "Dr. Skinner 
 seems to make a painfully elaborate efibrt to prove, by some 
 rather confusing quotations, that the Church of Linwood 
 and Mt. Lookout is responsible for the publication of the 
 Declaration and Preliminary Statements which accompany 
 the Basis of Fell oiv ship '.of the Union Christian Church of 
 Linwood and Mt. Lookout. Certainly; who ever thought 
 otherwise? His ulterior object seems to be to make me cilso 
 responsible. I will gladly relieve him of any further trouble 
 in this direction. I hereby declare that I heartily approve 
 of the Declaration and Preliminary Statements accompa- 
 nying the Basis of Fellowship of the Union Christian 
 Church of Linwood and Mt. Lookout, and respectfully 
 commend them to the attention of the Christian public." 
 
 Proof 6. — Christian Unity, August 1, 1875 : " The Chris- 
 tian Unity begins (again) its career with fixed purposes and 
 aims. It will earnestly contend that, in examining candi- 
 dates for the ministry, all tests shall be laid aside except such 
 as develop the faith common to the evangelical family of 
 Christians, etc. Again, Prospectus of the Christian Unity 
 ("monthly"), date near August, 1875: "When earnest 
 practical men propose to obey the Christian Union precepts 
 
[25] 
 
 of the New Testament, hy organizing an actual visible oneness, 
 Mr. Thrall joins those who are themselves sectarian and are 
 not ashamed to be in the cry : O, you Christian union men 
 are about to establish a new sect, etc." Again, Christian 
 Unity, August 1, 1875, p. 2: "We propose to hold an an- 
 nual convention, in different parts of the United States in 
 the month of May, to which we invite all ministers who 
 approve our Basis to come, and all Churches wiio accept it 
 to send delegates.'^ Again, Christian Unity, August 1, 1875, 
 p. 5 : " It' the union movement is to [)rove a sucess, we must 
 organize, band ourselves together as ministers and Churches, 
 advocating with freedom and earnestness our peculiar princi- 
 ples. Tliat was meant in New York in October, 18TS, at 
 Cincinnati in October, 1874, and at Suffolk in 1875. Let 
 the work of organization go on." By Rev. W. B. Wellons, 
 co-editor with Mr. McCune. Again, Christian Unity, Au- 
 gust 1, 1875, p. 1. The plan of the Texas Convention, at 
 Somerville, April 30, 1875. The third of its principles is: 
 (3.) '' That Churches of Christ ought to have no authorita- 
 tive creed or discipline but the Holy Scriptures." "This 
 plan of organization it will be noted is very substantially 
 like our own, etc. We, therefore, claim these good brethren 
 to be one with us, genuine lovers of organic Christian unity 
 on the right platform, etc." 
 
 How contrary to the standards of the Church the above 
 is, see Moore's Digest, p. 494 (e), 625 (iii, 2, 3, 4), 626 (6), 
 620 (7), 169 (8). 
 
 Note. 
 
 [Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did not sus- 
 tain the specification. The vote was: 
 
 J\^ot sustained. — Caton, Cortelyou, Leonard, Cnshman, 
 Ritcljie, Babbitt, Camp, Dudley, Wright, Beecher, Kumler, 
 Maxwell, Chidlaw, James, Winness, Chester, Hawley, 
 Morey, Jones, White, Monfort, Potter, Morris, Evans, 
 Schwenk, Johnston, McGechan, Hyudmau, Dallas, Mans- 
 field, Kennett, Conn — 32. 
 
 Sustained. — Lichstenstein, Long, West, Gamble — 4. 
 
 Sustained in part. — Rossiter, Hills — 2.] 
 
[26] 
 
 SPECIFICATION VI. 
 
 Terms of Ministerial Fellowship. 
 
 As to the Terms of Ministerial Fellowship. — In this, that 
 no Presbytery has a right by any terms of fellowship to ex- 
 clude from its ecclesiastical brotherhood, or constituent 
 official membership, any evangelical minister of any other 
 evangelical denomination, but that such minister is, ipso 
 facto, entitled to a pastorate in any Presbyterian Church, 
 to a seat in any Presbytery in Christendom, to the exercise 
 of jurisdiction and control in our highest courts, eligible to 
 the chair of instruction in Presbyterian colleges and semi- 
 naries, and should be protected in the right of private judg- 
 ment and free speech. 
 
 Proof 1, — Declaration, p. 4: "iVo one who gives scriptural 
 evidence that he is a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ 
 should be excluded from membership in any Presbytery, 
 Conference, or association of ministers whatever, by any 
 denominational law." Again, Gazette, August 27, 1875: 
 " I believe that any Christian minister has a right to mem- 
 bership in any Conference, Association, or Presbytery in 
 Christendom; and when the right is conceded, visible 
 Christian Union can be attained, the Saviour's prayer an- 
 swered, and the world saved." Again, Christian Unity, 
 February 28, 1874, p. 4 : " If a Baptist sincerely and intelli- 
 gently invites me into his pulpit as a minister of Christ, 
 what right has he-^o vote me out of his Association f If a 
 Methodist invites me into his pulpit, what consistency is 
 there in voting me out of his Conference ? If a Presbyterian 
 invites a Methodist, as an ambassador of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, to preach, in view of the infinite responsibilities of 
 preaching, how can he refuse him ministerial fellowship) in his 
 Presbytery? Has Christ one standard for gospel ministers 
 and Presbytery another?" Again, Christian Unity, May 2, 
 1874, p. 4 : " Dr. Monfort will say I believe Mr. Baumes is 
 one of Christ's ministers, but I can never vote to fellowship 
 him as a minister in this Presbytery. I admit he is Christ's 
 
[27] 
 
 minister, but my conscience will not permit me to receive 
 him as a minister in this Presbytery of ministers, organized 
 according to Christ's authority. Beautiful consistency! 
 Delightful fellowship !" 
 
 Proof 2. — Mr. McCune in " The Church Union " of Sep- 
 tember 12, 1874, p. 4 : ^'■Every minister who can give satis- 
 factory evidence that he is one of Christ's ministers, should 
 be received as such in every Presbytery, Conference, and 
 association of ministers, as a member in good and regular 
 standing, entitled to every privilege and eligible to every posi- 
 tion which such membership implies.''^ 
 
 Proof 3. — " Basis of Fellowship of the Union Christian 
 Church of Linwood and Mt. Lookout," ITovember, 1875, p. 
 13: "We will concede the right of private judgment and 
 liberty of speech alike to all whom we do receive." Again, 
 Organic Union, p. 136 : " To ask a man not to advocate what 
 he conscientiously believes to be God's own truth, is to ask 
 him to obey men rather than God; and if he complies, he 
 places erring sinful man on the throne of the Lord God om- 
 nipotent." Christian Standard, April 22, 1876, p. 130: "I 
 do claim the right of private judgment for all men absolutely, 
 without exception." * >i< * "And further, any views a 
 Christian entertains before he comes into the Church he has 
 a right to hold and -advocate after he com.es in." 
 
 How contrary to the standards of the Church the above 
 is, see Moore's Digest, p. 399 (vii, 2, 3, 4), 410, 411, (2, 3, 
 4), 44 (ii), 45 (2), 48 (ii), 49 (vi), 54 (11), 55 (1, 2), 57 (14), 
 63 (2), 85 (4), 91 (2), 92 (ii, 2), 148 (8), 620 (7), 169 (8), 191 
 (iv), 218 (v). Cases of Harker, Balch, Davis, Craighead, 
 Barnes. 
 
 I^OTE. 
 
 [Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did ^BiSi sus- 
 tain this specijB.cation. The vote was: 
 
 Sustained. — Lichstenstein, Long, Leonard, Ritchie, Bab- 
 bitt, Camp, Dudley, West, Wright, Maxwell, James, Win- 
 Dess, Jones, Monfort, Potter, Gamble, Conn — 17. 
 
 Sustained in part. — Caton, Cortelyou, Ciishman, Beecher, 
 Kumler, Chidlaw, Chester, Morey, White, Morris, Evans, 
 Schweuk, Johnston, Hyndman, Dallas, Mansfield, Kennett 
 —17. 
 
 J^ot sustained. — Hossiter, Hawley, Hills, McGechan — 4.] 
 
[28] 
 
 SPECIFICATION VII. 
 
 Infant Church Membershi'p Denied. 
 
 As to the . Constituent Membership of the New Testament 
 Church. — In this, that the doctrine of infant church-mem- 
 bership, grounded in the covenant of God with believers, 
 in behalf of their offspring, is to be repudiated as a High- 
 chnrch theory, and that the true definition of the l^ew 
 Testament Church is that it consists of Christians only, 
 believers only — not their children — an assembly or company 
 of the regenerate alone. 
 
 Proof 1. — Cincinnati Commercial, May 9, 1876: "The 
 Presbyterian tlieory concerning a local Church is expressed 
 in the Presbyterian Form of Government, Chapter II, Sec- 
 tion 2 : ' The universal Church consists of all those persons 
 in every nation, together icith their children., who make a pro- 
 fession of the holy religion of Christ and of submission to 
 his laws.' In Section 4 we have the definition of a local 
 or particular Church, as follows: 'A particular Church 
 consists of a number of professing Christians, with their off- 
 spring, voluntarily associated together for divine worship 
 and godly living, agreeably to the Holy Scriptures, and 
 submitting to a certain form of government.' By ' pro- 
 fessing Christians ' in this definition, we presume, is meant 
 those who make a credible profession of faith in Christ, 
 of repentance, of obedience, of being born again, of being 
 new creatures in Christ Jesus; in a word, those who give 
 evidence that they are Christians. But what is meant by 
 the declaration that the ^offspring' of professing Christians 
 are included in the Church is not so clear." ^ * " We 
 believe it may be truly afiarmed in fact, and in actual prac- 
 tice, Presbyterians have not corrupted their churches by the 
 admission to practical and efiicient membership of a multi- 
 tude of unbelieving, unconverted children, although such a 
 theory may still linger among certain High-churchmen, 
 Neither does the denial of membership to children conflict 
 
[29] 
 
 with the doctrine of infant baptism^ unless the saerameiita- 
 rian dogma is admitted that baptism is the ' door into the 
 church/ which not one single text of Scripture affirms." 
 Again, further on: "It is essential to a local Christian 
 Church that it should be composed of Christians, so far as 
 we are able to judge. Some would add, ' and also includes 
 their children,' but this is not a part of the common faith." 
 '■'■A Christian Church is a Church of Christians, an assembly 
 of believers, a company of regenerate soulsJ^ 
 
 Pkoof 2.— Christian Standard, April 22, 1876 : ''i utterly 
 repudiate the doctrine of infant church-membership." Again, 
 Commercial, October 17, 1876 : " It has been said by those 
 hostile to this great principle of Church Union, thus formu- 
 lated, that it would exclude cdl baptised children from church- 
 member ship, who can not give satislactory scriptural evidence 
 that they are Christians. I unhesitatingly admit thai this is 
 true." 
 
 Proof 3.— Christian Standard, February 26, 1876 : ''The 
 Presbyterian Church has ceased to enforce infant baptism." 
 
 How contrary to the standards of the Church the above 
 is, see Moore's Digest, p. 107 (ii, iv), 108 (2, a, b, d), 497, 
 (vi), 671 (ix, i), 705. Conf. of Faith, xxv (li), xxviii (iv). 
 Larger Cat., Q. 62, 166. Shorter Catechism, Q. 95. Conf. 
 of Faith, xxv (v), xxix (viii). 
 
 ISTOTE. 
 
 [Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did sustain 
 this specification. The vote was : 
 
 Sustained. — LichvSten stein, Long, Leonard, Ritchie, Bab- 
 bitt, Camp, West, Wright, Beecher, Kumler, Winness, 
 Morey, White, Monfort, Potter, Hills, Gamble, Evans, Dal- 
 las, Conn — 20. 
 
 Sustained in part. — Bossiter, Cortelyoii, Cushman, Dud- 
 ley, James, Hawley, Jones, Morris, Schwenk, Kennett — 10. 
 
 Not sustained. — Caton, Maxwell, Chidlaw, Chester, Johns- 
 ton, McGechau, Hyndmau, Mansfield — 8.] 
 
[30] 
 
 SPECIFICATION VIII. 
 
 Admission of Unbaptised Persons. 
 
 As to the Admission of Unbaptised Persons to Church Mem- 
 bership. — In this, that unbaptised persons who deny, or 
 scruple to admit, the necessary and perpetual obligation of 
 water-baptism, as instituted by Christ, and the Ordinance of 
 Baptism itself as a covenant sign and seal, and initiatory 
 rite of entrance, for believing adults, into the Christian 
 Church, may, notwithstanding, be admitted to church 
 membership ; and that the one condition and requirement 
 for entrance into the visible church is credible evidence of 
 faith in Christ. 
 
 Pkoof 1.— Christian Standard, April 22, 1876 : " I would 
 vote to receive any one who can give satisfactory evidence 
 that he is a true Christian, and cheerfully grant him for- 
 bearance as a fellow member in the church, although he has 
 the views of the ^Friends' concerning water-baptism." Again, 
 Commercial, October 17, 1876 : " It has been further stated 
 that this principle (Christian Union) would admit a 'Friend' 
 who could give satisfactory scriptural evidence that he waa 
 a Christian, but who could not conscientiously be baptised 
 with water, I admit this also." 
 
 Proof 2. — Eeport of Presbytery's Investigating Com- 
 mittee; Collateral No. 4, pp. 15, 16 : "It has been said, in 
 eft'ect, that this doctrine can not be true, because, if it is, it 
 would admit to chur<;h fellowship every member of the soci- 
 eties, commonly called Quakers, who can give scriptural 
 evidence that they have been savingly renewed by the 
 Holy Ghost, and who make a credible profession of their 
 faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and who at the same time 
 deny the perpetual obligation of water-baptism. I cordially 
 admit that members of the society of 'Friends' can give 
 this evidence, and that this great principle of church fel- 
 lowship would concede to therri all the fellowship they will 
 accept." 
 
 Proof 3.— Christian Standard, April 22, 1876, p. 130 : 
 
[31] 
 
 *' The ' Quaker gun ' never alarmed me. And I have all 
 the time maintained, just as I do now, that faith in Christ 
 is the only New Testament requirement for membership^' 
 " In the exceptional case of a Christian who does not be- 
 lieve in water-baptism at all, his faith in Christ entitles him 
 to membership nevertheless." Again, Christian Standard, 
 E'ov. 13, 1875, p. 362: "We maintain that faith in Christ 
 is not merely the great condition, but the only condition." 
 
 Again, Christian Standard, p. 362 : "We add, that when 
 we say that faith in Christ is the ' one essential condition 
 of entrance,' we mean that is the only condition." 
 
 How contrary to the standards of our Church the above 
 is, see Conf. of Faith, xxviii (i, ii). Larger Catechism, Q. 
 165, 166, 176. Moore's Digest, 677 (10) (iv) ; 678, 129 (4) ; 
 430 (5), 671 (ix, i), 674 (iii,^l, 2), 675 (5, 6), 676 (7). 
 
 Note. 
 
 [Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did sustain 
 this specification. The vote was : 
 
 Sustained. — Lichsteustein, Long, Leonard, Ritchie, Camp, 
 West, Wright, Beecher, Kumler, Chidlaw, James, Win- 
 jiess, Morey, White, Monfort, Potter, Hill, Gamble, Evans, 
 Schwenk, Mansfield, Kennett, Conn — 23. 
 
 Sustained in part. — Caton, Rossiter, Costelyou, Cushraaa, 
 Babbitt, Dudley, Hawley, Jones, Morris, Dallas — 10. 
 
 Not sustained. — Maxwell, Chester, Johnston, McGechan, 
 Hyndman— 5.] 
 
 SPECIFICATION IX. 
 
 Saving Faith, What Is It ? 
 
 As to saving Faith in Christ and in the Word of God. — 
 In this, that a person may have true and saving faith in 
 Christ, and in God's Word, without believing either that 
 Christ was true man or that the Word of God is truly in- 
 fallible, and that true and saving faith, ipso facto, excludes 
 all fatal heresy. 
 
 rKOOF 1.— Christian Unity, January 31, 1874, p. 4: "We 
 believe that a man may be a Christian and not believe in the 
 infallibility of the Bible, although ' almost ' all Christiana 
 
[32] 
 
 do believe the Bible to be infallible." " We believe that a 
 man may be a Christian and not believe in the j:)r op er hu- 
 manity of Christ, although ' alniost ' all Christians do be- 
 lieve that Jesus was true yuan as well as God." 
 
 Pkoof 2. — Organic Union, pp. 48, 49: "As they, the 
 Apostles, demanded of applicants for membership a saving 
 faith in Christ, which necessarily^ included all other saving 
 graces, and thereby excluded all fatal heresies, when this de- 
 mand was actually met, so this demand, made now, and 
 met now, will now in like manner exclude all fatal heresy." 
 Again, Christian Unity, January 31, 1874: "Regenerate 
 souls are all orthodox." 
 
 How contrary to the standards of the Church the above 
 is, see Conf. of Faith, chap, xiv (i, ii), chap, i (v, x), Shorter 
 Catechism, Q. 86; Conf. of Faith, chap, viii (ii) ; Larger 
 Catechism, Q. 36, 37, 39. 
 
 Note. 
 
 [Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did not sus- 
 tain tliis specification. The vote was: 
 
 JSot sustained. — Caton, Rossiter, Cortelyou, Cushman, 
 Babbitt, Camp, Dudley, Wright, Beecher, Kumler, Max- 
 well, Chidlaw^ James, Chester, Ilawley, Morey, Jones,. 
 White, Monfort, Morris, Hills, Evans, Johnston, McGechan, 
 Hyndman, Dallas, Mansfield, Kennett, Conn — 29. 
 
 Sustained. — Lichstenstein, Long, West — 3. 
 
 ISustaiyied in part. — Leonard, Ritchie, Winness, Potter, 
 Gamble, Schwenk — 6.] 
 
 SPECIFICATION X. 
 
 Time of Advocating His Views. 
 
 As to Persistance in Advocacy of the foregoing Doctrines^ 
 Principles, and Views. — In this, that for many years last 
 past, the Rev. W. C. McCune, being a member of the Pres- 
 bytery of Cincinnati, has regularly persisted, as lecturer, 
 editor and pastor, to openly proclaim, publish and advocate, 
 the aforesaid Christian Union doctrines, principles and 
 views ; that since the appointment of the Presbytery's 
 Committee of Investigation, he has continued to do the 
 same in the public secular press, May 9, 1876, before the 
 
[ 33 ] 
 
 Presbj^tery's Investigating Committee, Jane 26, 1876, and 
 openly in Presbytery itself, October 4, 1876, and again in 
 tbe secular press, October 17, 1876, subsequent to the ap- 
 pointment of the Prosecuting Committee ; having an- 
 nounced his purpose to pursue in future, as in the past, the 
 the advocacy of the same principles of Christian Union. 
 
 Proof. — Commercial, February 11, 1876 :" I have been 
 perfectly candid and outspoken on this subject, for many 
 years." " I do not believe the Presbyterian Churches are 
 Christian Union organizations. I believe they ought to 
 be." " If the Presbytery is not willing to allow me the 
 liberty I have enjoyed unquestioned till Dr. Skinner made his 
 attack, tljat is a matter for her to determine." Again, Com- 
 mercial, February 15, 1876 : '■'■I am advocating no sentiments, 
 now, that I have not openly iwoclaimed for ten years back." 
 Again, Commercial, May 9, 1876 : Article in full, read be- 
 fore " The Evangelical Ministerial Association " of Cincin- 
 nati. Again, Collateral No. 4 of the Report of the Pres- 
 bytery's Investigating Committee, June 26, 1876. Again, 
 Commercial's Report of Presbytery's Proceedings, October 
 5, 1876. Again, Commercial, Mr. McCune's Protest, Oc- 
 tober 17, 1876. Again, Collateral No. 4, pp. 20, 21 : "I 
 have written largely for the press, secular and religious, as 
 an editor and contributor, in the last twenty years." Again, 
 p. 6 : "I have publicly advocated and projjose to advocate 
 the following principles on the subject of Christian Union, 
 etc." 
 
 How contrary to the standards of our Church the above 
 is, see Moore's Digest, p. 48 (2), 54 (3), 55 (2), 304 (8), 57 
 (14); Cases of Ilarker, B.alch, Davis, Craighead, and 
 Barnes. 
 
 Note. 
 
 [Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did sustain 
 this specification. Tbe vote was : 
 
 Sustained. — Lichstenstein, Long, Leonard, Cushman, 
 Babbitt, Camp, Dudley, West, Wright, Winuess, Potter, 
 Hill— 12. 
 
[34] 
 
 Sustained in part. — Caton, Rossiter, Ritchie, Kumler,. 
 James, Hawley, Morey, Jones, "White — 9. 
 
 Not sustained. — Cortelyou, Beecher, Maxwell, Chidlaw, 
 Chester, Monfort, Morris, Gamble, Evans, Scliwenk, John- 
 ston, McGechan, Hyndman, Dallas, Mansfield, Keunett, 
 Conn— 17.] 
 
 SPECIFICATION XI. 
 
 Common Fame. 
 
 As to the Common Fame in reference to the Whole Charge. — 
 In this, that in addition to evidence involved in the forego- 
 ing proofs, attached to the specifications, many newspapers 
 have published articles concerning it, and the Presbytery 
 of Cincinnati appointed a Committee of Investigation, April 
 13, 1876, "to confer with Mr. McCune and examine into 
 certain rumors touching his loyalty to the Presbyterian 
 Church, and report to the Presbytery." Said Committee 
 having so conferred and examined, and so reported at Mt. 
 Auburn, September 13, 1876. 
 
 Proof 1. — Herald and Presbyter, N^ovember 8, 1873 ; 
 August 18, 1875; January 5, 1876; March 22, 1876. 
 Christian Observer, December 22, 1875 ; January 19, 1876 • 
 January 26, 1876. Journal and Messenger, January 19, 
 1876; January 26,1876. Christian Standard, many arti- 
 cles from July 1875 to April, 1876. The Presbyterian 
 Weekly, January 20, 1876 ; February 3, 1876. Christian 
 Union, January 26, 1876. Cincinnati Gazette, August 27, 
 1875; December 17, 1875; December 30, 1875; January 
 11, 12, 21, 24, 25, 1876. Cincinnati Commercial, February 
 8, 9, 10, 11, 1876 ; February 5, 1876. Christian News, Feb- 
 ruary, 1876. The Interior, February 10, 17, 26, 1876; 
 March, 2, 16, 1876. Central Presbyterian, February 9, 
 1876, quoting the United Presbyterian, North-western 
 Christian Advocate, February, 1876. New York Evan- 
 gelist, March 9, 1876. The Presbyterian, January 19 and 
 22, 1876 ; February 12, 1876. 
 
 Proof 2. — Action of the Cincinnati Presbytery, at Glen- 
 dale, April 13, 1876 : " Whereas, for some time fast, there 
 
. [35] 
 
 have been current rumors in regard to the views and course 
 of Rev. W. C. McCune, a member of this Presbytery, in- 
 volving the question of his loyalty to the order of the 
 Presbyterian Church, and whereas, there seems to be some 
 difference of opinion in regard to the subject; 
 
 " Therefore, Resolved, that a Committee of three minis- 
 ters and two ruling elders be appointed to have a full con- 
 ference with Mr. McCune, and to inquire into all the facts 
 bearing on the case and report to Presbytery at the next 
 stated meeting." 
 
 Proof 3. — Special report of the Investigating Committee 
 of Presbytery, published in Gazette, September 14, 1876 : 
 Mr. McCune's scheme " denies, in effect, the right of every 
 Evangelical Church to testify in favor of any peculiar doc- 
 trine of its system, whether Arminian or Calvinistic, 
 Baptist or P?edo-Baptist, Prelatical, Presbyterial, or Con- 
 gregational. It allows no system of doctrines, no order of 
 worship, no form of government, for it claims union upon 
 what is common to Evangelical Churches, and these 
 churches have in these respects nothing common. They 
 may be said to agree in requiring faith and regeneration, as 
 evidences of conversion, but they may differ widely, and do 
 differ in regard to the nature of faith and the work of the 
 Holy Ghost. The system makes a call to the ministry the 
 only bond of ministerial fellowship in Organic Church 
 Union, while Evangelical Churches differ on the question, 
 what is a call to the ministry. It misinterprets the Savior's 
 prayer that his people 'may be one' as fulfilled only by 
 Organic Church Union. Mr. McCune, with his usual 
 frankness, acknowledges that under his system, which re- 
 quires that all churches should receive to membership all 
 whom they believe Christ has received, he would admit 
 orthodox Friends who deny the outward rites of Baptism 
 and the Lord's Supper. This does not accord with our 
 standards, which teach that baptism admits the party bap- 
 tized into the visible church ; that it is a great sin to neglect 
 or contemn this ordinance, and that this ordinance is in- 
 tended to put a visible difference between those that belong 
 to the church and the rest of the world. To us it seems 
 
[36] . 
 
 very plain, that a church without sacraments can not be re- 
 garded as a part of the visible church, although true 
 Christians in it may be part of the 'household of faith,' 
 and may have fellowship with any branch of the visible 
 church in prayer and in Christian work. Our assembly has 
 decided that a person having scruples in regard to infant 
 baptism may nevertheless be received to membership in our 
 Church ; but this forbearance can not be extended to any 
 one in regard to his own baptism. There are many things 
 that a disciple may learn in regard to duty after his recep- 
 tion into the Church, but his own baptism is essential to his 
 reception and the completion of it, if he has not been bap- 
 tized in infancy. Any system of Christian Union which 
 contravenes these principles and ignores the command of 
 Christ, ' Go teach all nations, baptizing them,' etc., if held 
 and practiced by our office bearers, must be damaging to 
 the purity and unity of th(i Church. If we understand Mr. 
 McCune's paper, his views are also erroneous in regard to 
 the relations of the baptized children of believing parents. 
 He professes to believe in infant baptism, but he denies in- 
 fant membership. The baptism of infants gives them, as 
 he holds, no advantage over the unbaptized in their relation 
 to the Church. He does not admit that they are even 
 minors in the Commonwealth of Israel. This we .regard 
 as erroneous, and as bringing infant baptism into disrepute. 
 According to this system, Orthodox Friends may be ad- 
 mitted to the visible Church without baptism, while infants 
 may be baptized and yet have no connection with the 
 Church. Either view is a denial that baptism admits the 
 party baptized into the visible Church, and any one who 
 holds these views can not be expected to teach that it is a 
 great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance." 
 
 How contrary to the standards of thfr Church the above 
 is, see Moore's Digest, p. 499 (iv, v). See also Resolution 
 of Presbytery of Glendale, appointing Committee of In- 
 vestigation in the case of Mr. McCune, April 13, 1876. 
 Special Report of Investigating Committee, Mt. Auburn, 
 September 13, 1876. 
 
[37] 
 
 Note. 
 
 [Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did not sustain 
 this specification. The vote was : 
 
 Not sustained. — Caton, Kossiter, Cortelyou, Cushman, Rit- 
 chie, Babbitt, Camp, Dudley, Wright, Beecher, Kaniler, 
 Maxwell, Cbidhiw, James,Winness, Chester, Hawley, Morey, 
 Jones, Wliite, Montort, Morris, Gamble, Evans, Schwenk, 
 Johnston, McGecliau, Hyndman, Dallas, Mansfield, Ken- 
 nett. Conn — 32. 
 
 Sustained. — Lichstenstein, Long, Leonard, West, Potter 
 — 5. 
 
 Sustained in part. — Hills — 1.] 
 
 Note as to the Charge. 
 
 Presbytery voted that none of the specifications which 
 they did sustain, and none of the proofs under any of the 
 specifications which they did not sustain, proved the truth 
 of the matter of this Charge I. The vote was : 
 
 Not sustained. — Caton, Cortelyou, Cushman, Ritchie, 
 Babbitt, Camp, Dudley, Beecher, Kumler, Maxwell, Chid- 
 law, James, Chester, Hawley, Morey, Jones, White, Mon- 
 fort, Morris, Hills, Evans, Schwenk, Johnston, McGechan, 
 Hyndman, Dallas, Mansfield, Kennett, Conn. — 29. 
 
 Sustained. — Lichstenstein, Long, Leonard, West, Wright, 
 Winness, Potter, Gamble — 8. 
 
 Offense: Disloyalty to the Presbyterian Church. 
 CHARGE IL 
 
 That the Rev. W. C. McCune, heing a minister of the 
 Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, and 
 a member of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, has, in contra- 
 vention of his vows of loj-alty to the distinctive government 
 and discipline of the Presbyteriati Church, and for the pub- 
 licly avowed purpose of carrying into practical efi'ect the 
 doctrines, principles, and views specified under Cliarge I, 
 been instrumental in advising, promoting, and encouraging 
 
[38] 
 
 the new anti-denominational association of the " Union 
 Christian Churches of America;" and, also, the new anti- 
 denominational organization at Linwood and Mount Look- 
 out, founded on these doctrines, principles, and views, his 
 course herein being, if generally allowed, totally subversive 
 of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church, and of its 
 very existence as a distinctive denomination. 
 
 This Charge rests upon the following specifications, 
 to wit : 
 
 SPECIFICATION I. 
 
 General Association. 
 
 As to the " Union Christian Churches of America." — In 
 this, that the Rev. W. C. McCune, during certain years last 
 past, has advocated and promoted the new anti-denomi- 
 national association of independent " Union Christian 
 Churches of America," b}'' editing the "Christian Unity" 
 in Cincinnati, by lecturing at large upon the subject of or- 
 ganic union, by issuing an " Address to all the Christian 
 ministers and churches in !North America with a Basis of 
 Union," by joining himself to this Association, calling upon 
 all in sympathy with the new movement to adopt the basis, 
 enroll themselves in the new association, send delegates to 
 attend its annual conventions, and to advocate the peculiar 
 principles of organic union. 
 
 Proof 1. — The first editorial of the Christian Unity, pub- 
 lished by Rev. W. C. McCune, Vol. I, Ko. 1, Cincinnati, 
 November 8, 1873.. Also, the three first editorials of the 
 Christian Unity (resumed), published by its three joint ed- 
 itors, Revs. W. B. Wellons, D. D., Thos. J. Melish, and W. 
 C. McCune, at Sufiblk, Va., and Cincinnati, Ohio, August 
 1, 1875. 
 
 Proof 2. — See, under Charge I, Specification V,' the quo- 
 tations in Proofs 2, 3, 6. 
 
 Proof 3.— Christian Unity, December, 1873, p. 4: " The 
 editor of this paper has for eighteen or twenty years pro- 
 posed, that when it should seem evident that a fit time had 
 come, he would devote himself to the advocacy of the vis- 
 
[39] 
 
 ible unity of all true Christians. And he has always sup- 
 posed that the most efficient instrumentalities for furthering 
 Christian Union were public oral addresses and the press. 
 And when he began, on the eighth of November, to issue 
 this i)aper, he at tlie same time began to deliver lectures on 
 the subject of Christian Unity. And now, by request, he 
 will give a brief account of this part of his work. He has 
 spoken at Butler, and Boston, and ISTewport, in Kentucky; 
 and in Groshen and South Salem, nnd at Parrot's School- 
 house, and Linden, and in Springfield and Urbana, at Buck 
 Creek Church, and in New Richmond and Hillsboro', in 
 Ohio; and on last Saturday' evening he spoke at Madison, 
 near Middletown ; on Sabbath morning in the Presbyte- 
 rian Church in Middletown, of which Rev. J. W. Clokey 
 is pastor; on Sabbath afternoon in a school-house near the 
 village of Astoria; on Sabbath evening in Jacksonburg, in 
 the church of which Rev. J. Ernerick is pastor; and on 
 Monday evening in the Baptist Church in Middletown, of 
 which Rev. Mr. Booth is pastor. In all, he has spoken in 
 eighteen different places." 
 
 How contrary to the standards of the Church the above 
 is, see Moore's Digest, p. 304 (8), 44 (ii, v),411 (3,4, 6), 399 
 (vii, 3), 57, 54 (3),^55 (12, 2 and 13 6), 93 (10), 95 (32, 1), 96. 
 Baird's Digest, 626, 630, 631, 638, 648, 651, 686, 692. 
 Moore's Digest, 122, 123. Baird's Digest, 704. 
 
 Note. 
 
 [Presb3'tery voted that the foregoing proofs did not sus- 
 tain this specification. The vote was : ■ 
 
 Not siist'tined. — Caton, Ritchie, Camp, Dudley, Beecher, 
 Kumler, Maxwell, Chidlaw, James, Chester, Hawley, 
 Morey, Jones, White, Monfort, Morris, Evans, Schwenk, 
 Johnston, MeGechan, Hyudman, Dallas, Mansfield, Ken- 
 nett. Conn — 25. 
 
 Sustained. — Lichstenstein,Long, Babbitt, West, Winness, 
 Potter— 6. 
 
 Sustained in part. — Rossiter, Cortelyou, Leonard, Cash- 
 man, Wright, Hill, Gamble— 7.] 
 
[40] 
 
 SPECIFICATION II. 
 
 Linwood and Mt. Lookout. 
 
 As to the Organizatio7i of the Linwood and 3lount Lookout 
 Church. — In this, that the Rev. W. C. McCiine actively co- 
 operated in organizing, and desired to organize, and agreed 
 with others to organize before and daring N(wember, 1875, 
 for the avowed purpose of putting into practice hisOrganic 
 Union principles, the new organization at Linwood and Mt. 
 Lookout, preparing and commending to the public tiie 
 Declaration and Preliminary Statemeiits accompanjdng its 
 Basis of Fellowship, thus promoting a new society which 
 receives all Christians, whether dismissed or undismissed, 
 and all evangelical ministers without exception, provides 
 for the examination of candidates for the ministry, and for 
 sending forth ministers to preach the gospel ; and has joined 
 himself hereto, accepting a call and becoming its first pas- 
 tor, being examined in theology and installed by an irre- 
 sponsible, because undelegated. Council, and all this without 
 leave of, or dismission from his Presbytery, and against 
 advice to the contrary, and is, at present, pastor of said 
 society. 
 
 Proof 1. — As to the organization of Linwood and Mt. 
 Lookout Church — Declaration, Basis, Candidates, Ministry 
 — see, under Charge I, Specification V, the quotations in 
 Proofs 2, 4, 5. 
 
 Proof 2. — Joined himself to this Society. Commercial, 
 February 8, 1876 : " I pass on to direct attention to the fact 
 that Dr. Skinner's article abounds in naked assertions. He 
 says : * The L. and Mt. L. Society has no ordained ofiicers 
 of any kind whatever,' etc. Does he deny that / am an 
 officer, then, or does he den}' my ordination ? Which?" 
 
 Proof 3. — Time of Organization. Basis of Fellowship, 
 p. 13. The distinctive title, " Union Christian Church at 
 Linwood and Mount Lookout." Again, Collateral N'o. 2, 
 of Presbytery's Investigating Committee's Report: "The 
 Church was organized November 8 and 10, 1875." Again, 
 
[41] 
 
 Herald and Presbj^ter, January 5, 1876 : " The Church was 
 established or organized at Llnwood, November 7, and at 
 Mt. Lookout November 8." Again, The Presbyterian, 
 February 26, 1876 : "This organization was completed No- 
 vember 24, 1875. The Rev. Mr. McCune, 7iow its pastor, was 
 present at the meeting, but did not act officially. ' He acted 
 merely in the capacity of a Christian, desiring that such or- 
 ganization might be effected, liis position as a minister only 
 giving him somewhat greater prominence in the matter than any 
 other of the brethren' Thus testifies one of the members of 
 the Church." Again, Gazette, January 24, 1876: "I ac- 
 cepted the invitation to preach at Linwood and Mount 
 Lookout a year before the Union Church was organized, 
 but it was mutually agreed that we should look toward the 
 organization of a Union Church." Again, see, under 
 Charge I, Specification V, the Proof 5. Again, Collateral 
 No. 4, p. 3 : " I did approve of the movement, and after 
 they had sent for me to preach for them, I counseled and 
 co-operated with those who did organize this Church." 
 
 P:^oor 4.— The Presbyterian, February 26, 1876 : " It has 
 been charged that this Church, at its organization, received 
 persons as members who were still members of other 
 Churches and without letters. The fact is, that several of 
 these persons were Baptists or Episcopalians. It was taken 
 for granted that, in their case, to apply for letters would be 
 useless. A few were Presbyterians. These persons should 
 doubtless have pursued a more orderly course. Their com- 
 ing with the rest on profession was an irregularity." * * 
 " It has been charged that Mr. McCune was a member of 
 the Presb3'tery of Cincinnati at the time of his installation 
 over this Church, and that he had never asked the permis- 
 sion of his Presbytery to form these new relations. Such 
 is the fact, and here is another irregularity." 
 
 Proof 5. — Accepting a call and being installed. Collat- 
 eral No. 3, p. 2 : " In the second place, the Church further 
 requested the Council to instal as its pastor the Rev. AV. C. 
 McCune, who had been unanimously called to that office." 
 Again, Collateral No. 4, pp. 1,2: "I have accepted the pas- 
 torate of the Union Christian Church at Linwood and 
 
[42] 
 
 Mount Lookout." Again, Collateral l^o. 4, p. 4 : " J have 
 violated no Presbyterian law whatever in accepting wy present 
 pastorate, nor in anything I have done pertaining to the 
 Union Christian Church of Linwood and Mt. Lookout. If 
 there is any Presbyterian law requiring a minister to first 
 gain the consent of his Presbytery before accepting a pas- 
 torate outside of Presbyterian jurisdiction, I have no knowl- 
 edge of it." Again, The Presbyterian, February 12, 1876 : 
 "Has a Presbyterian minister a right to accept a }yastorate 
 outside . Presbyterian jurisdiction ? Any petty question 
 about the formality of first asking leave may interest hair- 
 splitting ecclesiastical lawyers, whose vocation it is to tithe 
 mint, anise, and cummin. If Presbytery says the thing done 
 is right, 1 will be content. If she says I should have first 
 asked leave, 1 vnll plead ignorance and indifference.'" "And 
 has he a right to advocate such Union, as I do? This 
 might have been a fair question eight or ten years ago, in my 
 case, but it is certainly too late now" 
 
 Proof 6. — The Council, Examination, and Installation, 
 Collateral No. 3, p. 1 : " The Council was composed of ten 
 ministers, connected with four evangelical, denominations. 
 Letters of sympathy were received from several others, who 
 for various reasons were .unable to be present. Those in 
 attendance were not delegated by any ecclesiastical bodies, but 
 came simply as indinduals upon the invitation of the 
 Church, in accordance with a familiar Congregational 
 usage. They consequently did not assume, in any sense, 
 to represent their respective denominations, but acted en- 
 tirely on their own responsibility as Christian men." Again, 
 Gazette, December 17, 1875: "After a full examination as 
 to his doctrinal soundness, and his motive in undertaking 
 the pastoral oflice in connection with this Church, it was 
 
 '■'•PesoUed, That we recognize in Rev. W. C. McCune an 
 intelligent and thoughtful expositor of the Scriptures, and 
 a reliable teacher on all vital points of doctdne," etc., etc. 
 
 " The installation of Eev. W. C. McCune took place at 
 half-past seven o'clock, in Linwood Hall, before a large 
 number of citizens of Linwood, according to the programme 
 adopted at the Council in the afternoon." 
 
[43] 
 
 Proof 7. — Against advice. Letter of Rev, Thomas H. 
 Skinner to Rev. W. C. McCune: 
 
 Cincinnati, December 11, 1875. 
 Rev. W. C. McCuNE : 
 
 31y dear Brother — Your invitation to me, to take part 
 with others in the recognition of the " Union Christian 
 Church," at Linwood and Mt. Lookout, reached me this 
 morning. I must decline its acceptance. My reasons for 
 so doing lean not now state in detail; yet a few things I 
 will say, which, I think, will sufficiently reveal my views. 
 I am a Presbyterian minister, and owe my standing and 
 protection to the Presbyterian organization. I received 
 ordination, and have retained it, because I solemnly and 
 publicly received and adopted the Westminster Confession 
 of Faith as containing the system of doctrine taught in the 
 Holy Scriptures, approved of the Government and Dis- 
 cipline of the Presbyterian Church in these United States, 
 and promised to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the 
 purity and peace of said Church. I do not think that by 
 taking part in the services to which I am invited, I would 
 evince either zeal or fidelity in maintaining the purity and 
 peace or the unity of the Church. The principles involved 
 in your organization would, if I understand them, be de- 
 structive of the Presbyterian Church, were they successfully 
 and generally carried out. Marching as I do under the 
 banner of this Church, and sacredly pledged as I am to 
 " study its peace, unit}'', and purity," I can not reconcile it 
 with my conscience or sense of honor to put my imprimatur 
 on your course while you are still a member of the Presby- 
 tery. Our General Assembly has declared that "it is not 
 the prerogative of a minister of the gospel to organize 
 Churches without the previous action of some Presbytery 
 directing or permitting it;'' the exceptions made having no 
 reference to such a case as that of the Linwood Church. 
 (Moore's Digest, p. 173.) Had I thought and felt as you 
 have done on the subject of Church polity and creeds, be- 
 fore I acted in the organization of a Church iu the bounds of 
 the Presbytery and yet out of its jurisdiction, I would have 
 dissolved my couuectiou with the Presbytery, and so have 
 
[44] 
 
 been released from my vows of fealty and service to the 
 Presbyterian Church. I know you will pardon me this frank 
 expression of my views. 
 
 Fraternally yours, 
 
 Thomas H. Skinner. 
 
 Proof 8. — Pastor now. See Minutes of the General 
 Assembly for 1876, p. 233. Also, Records of Presbytery of 
 Cincinnati, Mt. Auburn, September 13, 1876. 
 
 How contrary to the standards of the Church the above 
 is, see Moore's Digest, p. 173, 107 (1, a), 57 (14), 409 (ix), 
 416 (i, ii); 107 {1, b) ; 169 {S,c,d); 416 (i), 409 (ix); 417 
 (iii); 418 (iv), 149 (10, 12) ; 616 (i), 619 (4). 
 
 / 
 
 ITOTE. 
 
 [Presbytery voted that the foregoing proofs did sustain 
 this specification. The vote was : 
 
 Sustained. — Lichstenstein,Long, Leonard, West, Winness, 
 Potter, Gamble — 7. 
 
 Sustained in jjart. — Caton, Rossiter, Cortleyou, Cushman, 
 Babbitt, Dudley, Wright, Maxwell, Cliidlaw, James, Chester, 
 Hawley, Jones, Hills, Schweiik, Dallas, Kennett, Conn — 18. 
 
 Not sustained. — Ritchie, Camp, Beecher, Kumler, Morey, 
 White, Monfort, Evans, Johnston, McGechan, Hyndman, 
 Mansfield— 12. Excused— Morris.] 
 
 In conclusion, as stated in the preceding Charges, the 
 views and course of the Rev. W. C. McCune are in con- 
 travention, to wit : 
 
 1. Of his ministerial vows. Digest, p. 410, xii (2), (3), 
 (4), (6) ; p. 399, vii (2), (3), (4). Installation of Rev. W. C. 
 McCune, at Lincoln Park Church. See Records of Pres- 
 bytery. 
 
 2. Of the terms of the doctrinal and ecclesiastical Basis 
 of Union adopted by the Cincinnati Presbytery (O. S.), 
 Avondale. See Records of Cincinnati Presbytery (0. S.), 
 September 8, 1869. Digest, p. 91, ii, iii; p. 92, ii. 
 
[45] 
 
 3. Of the Rev. W. C. McCune's vote adopting said Basis 
 at said Presbytery. See Record of vote iu Cii)ciiitiati 
 Presbytery (O. S.), September 8, 1869. 
 
 4. Of the Basis of Union adopted by the whole Presby- 
 terian Church, O. S. and IST. S., and declared adopted in 
 Joint Convention at Pittsburg, Pa., November, 12, 1869. 
 See Digest, p. 95 (32), (33), p. 96 (33), (34). 
 
 Respectfully submitted by the Presbytery's Committee of 
 Prosecution. 
 
 Thomas H. Skinner, 
 E. D. Ledyard, 
 S. J. Thompson, 
 
 Committee. 
 
 Note as to the Charge. 
 
 Presbytery voted that neither the second specification, 
 which it did sustain, nor any of the proofs under either of 
 the specifications, the first of which it did not sustain, proved 
 the truth of the matter of this Charge. 'The vote was the 
 siinie as on the foregoing Charge, except that the Rev. Mr. 
 Wright voted not sustained, and the Rev. Mr. Babbitt voted 
 sustained. 
 
 SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE. 
 
 • I. The two general Charges, or rather one Charge in two- 
 fold form. 
 
 II. The Specifications under each Charge to support the 
 same. 
 
 III. The Proofs under each Specification. 
 
 IV. The References to the Standards as contravened by 
 Mr. McCune's teachings and course. 
 
 V. The reference to the ministerial Yows of Mr. Mc- 
 Cune. 
 
 YI. The Reference to the adoption of the Basis of Re- 
 union, by the Whole Presbyterian Church, the Presbytery 
 of Cincinnati, and by Mr. McCune. 
 
OPENING ARGUMENT 
 
 FOR THE PROSECUTION, 
 
 BY 
 
 REV. THOS. H. SKINNER. 
 
ARGUMENT FOR THE PROSECUTION. 
 
 May it jjlcase the Court, 3Iodcrator, and Brethren of the Pres- 
 bytery of Cincinnati : 
 
 The Presbyterian Church is a foundation not to be de- 
 stroyed. " God is in the midst of her, she shall not be 
 moved." " The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even 
 thousands of angels; the Lord is among them as in Sinai, 
 in the holy place. Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast 
 led captivity captive, thou hast received gifts for men, yea, 
 for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might dwel- 
 among them." Ps. 67: 17, 18. "Wherefore He saith, 
 when He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and 
 gave gifts to men. And He gave some, apostles; and some, 
 prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and 
 teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of 
 the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ ; till we 
 all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of 
 the Son of God, unto a perfect man, nnto the measure of 
 the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we henceforth be 
 no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with 
 every wiiid of doctrine, by the sleight of men and cunning 
 craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but, speak- 
 ing the truth in love, may grow up into Him in all things, 
 who is the head, even Christ ; from whom the whole body, 
 fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every 
 joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the 
 measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto 
 the edifying of itself in love." Eph. 4 : 8, 11-17. 
 
 Upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus 
 Christ liimself being the chief corner-stone, the Presbyte- 
 rian Church has built her house. Her historic doctrine and 
 order, written by a divine finger, and consecrated by the 
 
 (49) 
 
[60] 
 
 breath of inspiration, baptized witli martyr- blood, and 
 tested in the flame, all are dear to us beyond any earthly 
 treasure. He that toucheth it, toucheth the apple of our 
 eye. We make no vain boast, crying, " The temple of the 
 Lord, the temple of the Lord are we !" We embrace in the 
 spirit of Christian charity all other evangelical denomina- 
 tions, cliifering.frora us on many points and in many ways. 
 But what we do hold as distinctive and peculiar, we en- 
 grave on our hearts and unfold on our Presbyterian banner, 
 not ashamed to maintain that it is the truth of God, nor 
 backward to defend it against every assault, whether from 
 friendly foes without, or feigned friends within. 
 
 Therefore, in the name of " The Presbyterian Church in 
 the United States of America," whose constitution and 
 whose law^s have been assailed, traduced, despised — whose 
 honor has been wounded, name denied, and peace and 
 unity and purity disturbed, does the prosecution, advanced, 
 by your order, to its high responsibility, come into the court 
 of this Presbytery to vindicate the doctrine and the rights 
 of said church against the erroneous teaching and the rev- 
 olutionary course of the defendant impleaded at your bar. 
 This is "judicial process." The question is. Ham we a 
 " right to exist f 
 
 The case before us is of no ordinary importance. Its 
 gravity outweighs that of all other cases put together, 
 throughout the whole period of the history of the Presby- 
 terian Church. It involves, not only the truth of her fun- 
 damental doctrines, but the foundation also of her whole 
 ecclesiastical edifice, with the structure itself built thereon. 
 In other cases, the most that has been put in question by 
 any of her sons has beeu some _ special phases of some 
 special doctrines, or some particulars of polity. This, puts 
 in question her very right to hold distinctive doctrines, her 
 very right to build her Presbyterian house. The issues 
 raised by the defendant, contemplate no less an outcome, in 
 the future, than the overthrow of her whole superstructure, 
 and the tearing up of her^whole foundation as a distinctive 
 denomination, and the re-organization of the Presbyterian 
 and all other denominations after the pattern of the new- 
 
[ 51 ] 
 
 born institute at Linwood and Mount Lookout. Iler Pres- 
 byterian organization, government, discipline, creed, de- 
 nominational enactments, her ordinances, terms of fellow- 
 ship and ministry, her vows of ordination, covenant, and 
 right to live — all are put in question. " The form of the 
 house and the fashion thereof, and the goings-out thereof, 
 and the comings-in thereof, and all the laws thereof — upon 
 the top of the mountain, the whole limit thereof, round- 
 about" — the absolute " law of the house" — all is called in 
 question. That apostolic pattern of the Church of Christ, 
 which reforminof hands have saved from travesties and de- 
 formations of fifteen hundred years, and summoned to a 
 new exhibition at the call of the reforming angel, " Rise, 
 and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them 
 that worship therein" — the gospel church, its miuistr}^ its 
 doctrines, ordinances, fellowship, and form — must now be 
 substituted by a new pattern shown in Mount Lookout 
 towering over Horeb, higher than the new Jerusalem ! The 
 symbols of Westminster, last and ripest fruit of eighteen 
 hundred years of conflict, gathering to themselves the truth 
 upon the doctrine and the order of the house of God, must 
 be remanded to the dust of mediseval manuscripts, the dingy 
 alcoves of some old monastery, or, like Ephesian books of 
 sorcery, be committed to the fire to p^lease the "spirit of 
 the age," the tone and temper of " organic union." 
 
 To the advocacy of such liberalism as this, have we come 
 within a semi-decade from the date of our reunion. Its 
 toleration was impossible for thirty years last past in either 
 branch. After long struggle to reach, some authoritative 
 declaration upon a subject of such vast importance to the 
 Church, this Court is here convened at last judicially to say 
 whether the doctrinal and ecclesiastical basis of our com- 
 mon standards, upon which the reunion was effected, shall 
 endure, respected by our officers and people, or whether 
 the Presbyterian denomination, as such, is a foundation to 
 be destroyed for the sake of organic union. The Presby- 
 terian Church asserts her scriptural authority, that is, her 
 divine right to exist, precisely as she is to-day, under her 
 distinctive standards as a separate denomination, protected 
 
[52] 
 
 by her own denominational enactments and pledged to the 
 enforcement of her doctrine and discipline. The defendant, 
 a member of this Presbytery, asserts a counter-claim no 
 less than this, that the Presbyterian denomination, as snch, 
 like all other evangelical denominations, built upon distinc- 
 tive creeds, has no right whatever to exist, but should de- 
 sist at once from the enforcement of her distinctive doctrines 
 and her order, and plant herself upon organic union ground. 
 Such is the issue plainly put, clear and unmistakable. 
 
 The charges and specifications presented by the pros- 
 ecution are in your hands. They speak for themselves. 
 The general charge, in twofold form, is disloyalt}' to the 
 Presbyterian Church in contravention of ordination vows. 
 The specifications support the charges. The proofs support 
 the specifications. The law points are appended to evince 
 the fact that what is charged is an offense against the 
 peace, the unity, and tlie purity of the Presbyterian 
 Church, and a violation of the ordination vows. The 
 prosecution call for the reading of the specifications seria- 
 tim, leaving the general charge, in its twofold form, to be 
 read at the close of the argument. 
 
 SPECIFICATION I. 
 
 Law of Organization. 
 I proceed to consider Specification first. Mr. McCune 
 asserts " the divine law of organization," the law of organic, 
 visible Christian union, is tersely and comprehensively 
 stated in Pom. xv, 7: "AVherefore receive ye one another, 
 as Christ has received us, to the glory of God." Nothing 
 is clearer than that this text relates wholly to personal 
 Christian fellowship and spiritual communion among those 
 who were already members of the church at Rome, but 
 among whom internal dissensions or schisms in the body 
 had arisen on account of meats and drinks, festivals and 
 ceremonies. It is the conclusion of an argument on things 
 indifferent, commenced in chapter xiv, 1: "Him that is 
 weak in the faith {i. e. in moral conviction as to duty in 
 the premises, for this is the meaning of ^pistis' here) re- 
 ceive ye, but not to doubtful disputations." The word 
 translated "receive" (proslaiyibanesthe), the same word used 
 
[53] 
 
 Rom. XV, 7, occurs twelve times in the New Testament, 
 and signifies (1) taking nourishment, and (2) personal com- 
 panionship and friendship. The "weak brother" is a 
 church member, already troubled with scruples of con- 
 science, for this is the use of the term '^ adelphos" in the 
 whole argument. " Take to your heart" and "treat kindly" 
 your " weak brother," — not weak in the personal trust or 
 saving faith of his heart toward Christ, but weak in moral 
 casuistry, or cases of conscience, destitute as to a true con- 
 viction of what is morally permissible or not permissible, 
 under the law of Christ, to do or not to do. The question 
 in debate was not as to the organization of the Christian 
 church nor as to terms of admission to membership, though 
 it is a legitimate inference that difterences about things in- 
 different are not to be made grounds of exclusion or non- 
 reception, nor as to external visible oneness, nor as to denom- 
 inations, nor as to church-union, nor as to terms of ministerial 
 fellowship, nor as to ecclesiastical courts. All this is not ex- 
 egesis, but eisegesis — a pure gratuitous importation into 
 the text. It was not a question as to the admission of 
 members into the church, but wholly as to the fellowship 
 of members already admitted — that is, the receiving " o?ie 
 another'' to mutual personal Christian communion, and ter- 
 minating strife, alienation, and profitless disputation con- 
 cerning things indifferent. The "weak" were not to slan- 
 der those who were "strong" in moral conviction of duty ; 
 the "strong'' were not to despise the "weak." It was a 
 question of fraternal relations purely, among brethren in 
 the same house, not of organic union hetw^een members of 
 different organizations. It was the adiaphoristic contro- 
 versy of the Reformers of the sixteenth century, waged in 
 the apostolic age — a controversy renewing itself in every 
 period, more or less, in the church of Christ, as to things 
 indifferent; i. e., neither ^'arjatha," nor '■'■ kaka," but ^'adia- 
 phora," neither per se right nor per se wrong, but either 
 right or wrong per accidens, or according to circumstances 
 — a question the most difficult of all in Christian morals. 
 Paul's argument is a final arbitration of the whole dispute. 
 Every man must be fully persuaded in his own mind, for 
 
[54] 
 
 "whatsoever is not of conviction is sin." We must abstain 
 from action if we conscientiously entertain any doubt as to 
 the rectitude of our course. Where no objective precept 
 exists, the subjective persuasion of tlie believer is the rule 
 of action, and on this each one stands or falls to his Master. 
 ''Wherefore," sa3's the apostle, concluding the whole argu- 
 ment, "take to your hearts one another, as Christ also has 
 taken us, to the glory of God." Lay aside all wrangling, 
 and bitterness, and wrath, and slander, and contempt, Jew" 
 and Gentile, be reconciled to each other, in the unity of the 
 spirit and bond of peace, even as Christ has reconciled us 
 to himself, and God has been glorified. 
 
 By what right of interpretation, diverting the passage 
 from its context and sense, does Mr. McCune apply to 
 things essential, a precept the Holy Ghost applies only to 
 things indifferent, or conclude tljat evangelical denomina- 
 tions, as such, are essential!}" sinful, and that the Presbyte- 
 rian denomination, with the rest of them, has no scriptural 
 right to exist? Rom. xv, 7, is his main and oft -repeated 
 text. He finds in it what he calls a "divine, non-excluding 
 law of organization." In the first place, it has no reference 
 to " organization" whatever. In the next place, even if it 
 had, the non-exclusion hp-s reference to things merely in- 
 diferent, but no reference to things essential which belong 
 to organization. The church may not exclude an appli- 
 cant, who thinks he has a right, if he chooses, to eat meat 
 or drink wine offered to idols; but it is a preposterous in- 
 ference that slie may not exclude an applicant who refuses 
 to be bound by Christ's command as to baptism, the Lord's 
 supper, and obedience to the discipline of the eldership, or 
 who does not believe that Christ is truly man, or the Bible 
 truly infallible. The sophisms of the interpretation are 
 glaring. Mr. McCnne confounds internal relations of per- 
 sonal Christian fellowship with, external organization, Chris- 
 tian unity with church union, the spiritual with the eccle- 
 siastical, the inner substance with the outward form, unity 
 from within with union from without, essential terms of ad- 
 mission to membership, with rules of conduct for members 
 already admitted concerning things indifl'erent, unity with 
 
[55] 
 
 union, and the word of God in relation to things about 
 which differences are no bar to membership with the word 
 of God in relation to things about which differences are a 
 bar to membership. Conscience as to meats offered to idols, 
 wines, ceremonies, festivals, and social parties, is certainly 
 a very different thing from conscience as to prelacy and 
 independency, elders and no elders, creed and no creed, 
 baptism and no baptism, the covenant of God with believ- 
 ers, terms of ministerial fellowship, and whether an un- 
 baptized person may be admitted to church membership 
 and come to the Lord's supper. "Would Paul treat these 
 last matters as things indifferent, and class them in the same 
 category wdth the first? Would he tell us to drop our 
 differences as to essential things for the sake of organic 
 union, and act in reference to matters concerning which he 
 has laid down the most authoritative and unbending rules 
 and precepts, as though we were left here to subjective 
 persuasion as the only law in the case? Truth is worth 
 something, worth more than all outward church union ; 
 and the head of the Church, the builder of his own house, 
 will split an indifferent external church union, making an 
 idol of her boasted uniformity, into a thousand fragments, 
 to find one that will be loyal to his truth. He has done it 
 more than once, and will do it again. By what right does 
 Mr. McCune ground the law of church organization in a 
 text relating wholly to things indifferent f Are the order 
 of the house of God, its structure, ordinances, government 
 and discipline, its officers and constitution, matters of in- 
 difference f Are ministers of every kind, because deemed 
 evangelical according to some minimum standard of texts 
 nakedly quoted and differently interpreted, and adjudged 
 to be called to the ministry, some by one text, some by an- 
 other, all to be received into one common ecclesiastical 
 court as ministers of Christ? As to private members, does 
 a " credible" profession of faith in Christ bind the church to 
 admit a professor who refuses to obey the command of 
 Christ to be baptized? Is our expedienc}' to set at naught 
 Christ's authority? Or, again, is the church restrained 
 from exclusion, except upon evidence of unregeueracy ? 
 
[56] 
 
 Or does she enjoy the right to admit in a case of disobedi- 
 ence to Christ's command ? And yet such is the exegesis 
 of Rom. XV, 7, by Mr. McCune. 
 
 The Presbyterian Church condemns the doctrine of Mr. 
 McCune. She denies, outright and officially, his interpre- 
 tation of Romans xv : 7, upon which he builds his theory. 
 As to her reception of members, I shall discuss the question 
 further on. As to the application of Romans xv : 7, to the 
 reception of ministers, she says. Digest, p. 45 (2) : although 
 " we are willing to receive one another, as Christ has received 
 lis, to the glory of God, and admit to fellowship in sacred or- 
 dinances all such as we have grounds to believe Christ will at 
 last admit to the kingdom of heaven, yet ive are undoubtedly 
 obliged to take care that the faith once delivered to the saints be 
 kept pure and uncorrupted among us, and so handed down to 
 our posterity." So, again, she declares, while thus asserting 
 her riffht to exclude from her ecclesiastical courts all min- 
 isters who can not hold the truth as she holds it, that "the 
 terms of communion adopted in our church have ever been 
 in accordance with the divine command that we should re- 
 ceive one another as Christ has received us. We fully 
 recognize the authority of the command " Him that is weak 
 in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations." 
 The application of this conmiand is entirely confined to private 
 membership in the Church. It has no reference to the admission 
 of men to ojfices in the house of God, or to the qualifications for 
 admission into the office of the ministry.'^ She asserts her 
 perfect right " to declare the terms of admission into her 
 communion, and th.e qualification of her ministers and 
 members, as well as the whole system of internal govern- 
 ment which Christ has appointed." Digest, p. 44 (2). She 
 " enjoins on all her members and probationers for the min- 
 istry that they teach and preach according to the form of 
 sound words in said confession and catechisms, and avoid 
 and oppose all contrary errors thereto'." Digest, p. 48 (1). 
 She refuses to " license or ordain to the work of the min- 
 istry any candidate, until he give them competent satisfac- 
 tion as to his learning and experimental acquaintance with 
 religion, and skill in divinity and cases of conscience ; and 
 
[57] 
 
 (declare his acceptance of the "Westminster Confession and 
 Catechisms as the confession of his faith, and promise sub- 
 jection to the Presbyterian plan of government in the "West- 
 minster Directory." Digest, p. 49 (6). She demands of all 
 her officers, deacons, elders, and ministers, by most solemn 
 ordination vows, that they "sincerely adopt" and "ap- 
 prove" her standards. Digest, pp. 346, 399, 411. She 
 declares that her Confession of Faith is not only " neces- 
 sary and expedient," but "absolutely requisite to the settled 
 peace of the Church, and to the happy and orderly exist- 
 ence, of Christian communion;" and subjects to discipline 
 any in her communion who "traduce"' it. Digest, p. 54 
 (11). Ministers who can not adopt her standards she will 
 not receive. Digest, p. 57. Those who are hostile to creeds 
 and confessions she rejects. D'igest, p. 55. She requires 
 those who change their doctrinal views to " peaceably 
 withdraw." Digest, p. 48 (11). Ministers who come to her 
 from other denominations, she enjoins " to teach in the 
 manner required by our standards." Digest, p. 148. Those 
 who " withdraw to other denominations " she commands 
 to be " stricken from the roll." Digest, pp. 169, 620. 
 " Churches" that refuse to be organized according to her 
 principles of government, she will not receive. Digest, pp. 
 92 (2), 63 (2). She will unite, ecclesiastically, with none, 
 except on the basis of her Westminster standards, and 
 would only reunite her own divisions on the same basis, 
 pure and simple. Digest, pp. 45, 48, 58, 61, 62, 71, 91. Her 
 whole organic constitution she asserts to be " agreeable to 
 Scripture and the practice of the primitive Christians." 
 Digest, p. 120. And makes express provision that her 
 courts shall enforce and observe " the Constitution of the 
 Church." She " strictly enjoins on her presbyteries to 
 " promote the diffusion and wider circulation of the Con- 
 fession of Faith and Book of Discipline of the Presbyterian 
 Church ;" recommends her congregations to " supply the 
 poor " with the same and the catechisms ; and urges pastors 
 to " induce every family in our connection to supply them- 
 selves with a copy of the Standards of our Church." Baird's 
 Digest, p. 45. All this is what Mr. McCune calls " Presby- 
 
[ 58 ] 
 
 terian sectarianism," a " hurtful excrescence," and to be 
 condemned. The "common faith" of the Church of 
 Christ she regards as something more than the minimum 
 collation of a few texts, undefined by modern organic 
 Unionists. She regards it as the consensus of the symbols 
 of the Reformation. Digest, pp. 56, 71. Such is the honor 
 she pours upon the martyr-won and glorious doctrinal 
 banner of her faith and order. 
 
 In reference to the reception of private Church members, 
 she presumes not to sit in judgment on the heart of any. 
 She requires not only a credible profession of faith in 
 and love to Christ, but also some proper knowledge of 
 Christ, of the nature of the Lord's supper, and pledge 
 of obedience not only to Christ but to those whom lie 
 has set to rule in His Church, and exercise discipline for 
 their spiritual good. These are her terms of communion. 
 Therefore, without judging the heart, or deciding that they 
 are without faith in Christ, she refuses to admit professed 
 Universalists. Digest, 674. She makes it a question of 
 expediency, to be determined, in all cases, by the session, 
 whether to receive those who object to the baptism of 
 children, or those who are connected, in any way, with the 
 manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. Digest, pp. 
 674, 675. Those who pursue any secular avocation on the 
 Sabbath are not to be admitted. Digest, p. 678. They 
 who refuse to be themselves baptized, or to pledge submis- 
 sion to her discipline, she forbids an entrance. Digest, pp. 
 676, 677. In all these cases, without assuming to decide 
 that those she declines to receive are without faith, and be- 
 lieving in some cases that faith may exist, she asserts her 
 right to so decline, for reasons founded on the word of God. 
 It is clear, therefore, that the Presbj^terian Church does ex- 
 clude from her membership certain individuals whose per- 
 sonal faith in Christ she does not assume to question, and 
 certain ministers whose professed acceptance of a " few 
 leading doctrines" she does not pretend to dispute. She 
 declares, by her Supreme Court, that Romans xv: 7 does 
 not forbid, as Mr. McCune asserts it does forbid, such ex- 
 clusion from her own pale. She affirms that she is " entitled 
 
[69] 
 
 to declare the terms of admission " into her ecclesiastical 
 communion, and the " qualilications of her ministers and 
 members," and that her terms of communion have always 
 been " in accordance with the divine conmiand that we 
 should receive one another as Christ has received us" — that 
 is in perfect accordance with Romans xv : 7. Mr. McCune 
 tells her that her utterance is untrue. She declares that 
 terms of Church-membership are one thing, and terras of 
 salvation are another, and that every church has the right 
 to declare its own terms, and that in some respects these 
 may be different from each other. Mr. McCune denies 
 this. She asserts that the force of the precept in Romans 
 XV : 7 relates wholly to things indifferent — to the personal 
 relations of private members — and that it has no reference 
 to ministerial qualifications, to the reception or exclusion of 
 ministers, or to things essential to organization, such as a 
 Divinely-established order, sacraments, ordinances, or non- 
 toleration of false doctrine. Mr. McCune tells us she is 
 blind. He is in complete antagonism, as a Presbyterian 
 minister, with the faith and order of his Church on this 
 whole matter. 
 
 And as to the excommunication of church members, the 
 Presbyterian Church does not base this excommunication 
 upon the judgment that they are unregenerate. " Gross 
 ofi'enders who will not be reclaimed by the private or public 
 admonitions of the Church are to be cut off," Christians or 
 no Christians. Digest p. 513. They may in some cases be 
 children of God whom only such punishment can be the 
 means of reclaiming from the snare of Satan. They may 
 be children of the wicked one. The Church does not decide. 
 Enough, that, whether from ignorance, pride, perversity, 
 temptation, or theories of church power, or hostile judg- 
 ment, or contumacy, he who refuses to " hear the Church," 
 or submit to her discipline, is to be as a " heathen man and 
 a publican.*' The authority of Christ's house is to be 
 maintained. The Church, without sitting in judgment on 
 the heart of any, excludes from her communion those guilty 
 of long and wilful absence, and violation of solemn covenant 
 engagements. Digest, p. 494. For grossly heretical views 
 
[60] 
 
 she excommunicates. Digest, p. 128. For unlawful divorce 
 or marriage, and for breach of marriage vows by wilful ab- 
 sence, which she accounts a breach of the seventh command- 
 ment. Digest, p. 494 Larger Cat. Q. 139. Also for persist- 
 ence in improper language (p. 569), for slander, fraud, theft, 
 neglect of the Lord's supper — in short, for any "gross 
 offense," continued against the admonition of the Church. 
 Pier discipline deals with conduct alone. It demands a con- 
 versation becoming the Gospel of Christ. The Presbyterian 
 Church believes that a man may be a Christian and yet be 
 guilty of " gross ofienses," as w^ere Abraham and Lot, 
 Jacob and Samson, David and Peter. For such offenses, 
 unrepented of, excommunication will ensue. Her purity 
 depends upon it. She has no infallible term of admission, 
 no infallible term of exclusion. A credible profession be- 
 fore men may be a false one before God. An excommu- 
 nicated person may yet be regenerate, though delivered, for 
 the time, to Satan. Her act of exclusion from membership 
 does not depend on her judgment of the regeneracy or un- 
 regeneracy of the excluded. Search the standards from be- 
 ginning to end. ITot a clause can be found intimating any 
 such doctrine as that of Mr. Mc Cane, but everything to the 
 contrary. Nowhere does the Church teach that excommu- 
 nication proceeds upon the assumption or proof that the 
 ofi'ender is unregenerate. Nor does the Scripture, to which 
 Mr. McCune appeals, state, in any case, that the excom- 
 municate either was or was not a Christian. It calls him a 
 " brother," that is, a church member, for that is the mean- 
 ing of the term " adelphos.'' There is no proof that he was 
 not a Christian. "Disorderly walk" is no more a proof — 
 ipso facto, of unregeneracy, than faultless conduct is a proof, 
 ipso facto, of holiness. However clear may be the gross 
 inconsistency between disorderly conduct and divine grace, 
 yet it is a humiliating fact that some of God's children do 
 lie, and slander, and deceive, and steal, and practice in- 
 justice, and commit grievous crimes, and persist for a long 
 time in the same, and give occasion to the enemies of God 
 to blaspheme. While it is true that the court, in inflicting 
 excommunication, does virtually review and reverse the 
 
[61] 
 
 judgment already had upon the qualifications for member- 
 ship of the applicant at th,e time of his reception, yet it is 
 false to infer, either that the original decision to receive 
 settled the question of his regeneracy, or that its reversal, 
 hy excommunication, settles the question of his unregeu- 
 eracy. All that it does settle is that, as it was only upon a 
 credible profession of faith (not credible evidence of regen- 
 eracy), he could be received, so it is for want of that 
 credible profession he is, at last, excluded. He is excluded 
 because of the existence of that which, had it appeared at 
 first, would have prevented his immediate reception. It 
 is " not necessary to show" that the apostles excluded real 
 Christians, before the Church may exclude a disorderly 
 member. Our Book recognizes no such doctrine. The 
 theory of excommunication advocated by Mr. McCune is 
 a legitimate outgrowth of his organic union principles. It 
 is not the doctrine of the standards of our Church. Our 
 courts judge conduct. God alone judges the heart. 
 
 I have presented the doctrine of Mr. McCune and the 
 doctrine of the standards. Zenith and nadir are not more 
 opposed. I have shown the falsity of his interpretation of 
 Rom. xv;7, and the official denial of that interpretation by 
 the General Assembly, twice over — a denial fortified by the 
 whole frame-work- of our polity, and wrought throughout 
 the whole web of our history. On Mr. McCune's theory 
 our standards ought to be burned Tip, our whole form of 
 government, and book of discipline, their structure, cap- 
 tions, and provisions, and all our decisions built thereupon, 
 destroyed, for all are utterly irreconcilable with his non- 
 excluding " divine law of organization." When, therefore, 
 he teaches such doctrine and propagates such views, and 
 calls upon Presbyterians and all other evangelical Christians 
 to rally for a reconstruction of the whole Church of Christ 
 upon his Linwood and Mount Lookout basis, the prosecu- 
 tion aflirms, in the name of the Presbyterian Church, that 
 he advocates principles and views, not only at war with the 
 standards of the Church, but which, if generally accepted, 
 would totally subvert our constitution, and blot out the very 
 existence of the Presbyterian denomination itself. His so- 
 
[62] 
 
 called '• divine law of organization " is simply a misinter- 
 pretation of the scripture. • 
 
 SPECIFICATION II. 
 
 Anti-denomination. 
 
 I proceed to the second specification. In it Mr. McCnne 
 affirms the essential sinfulness of all evangelical denomina- 
 tions, as such, and this includes the Presbyterian denomi- 
 nation. JSTone have any right to exist, because not formed 
 on his " divine law of organization." " The Presbyterian 
 Church requires more" than Mr. McCune's law requires, 
 and, not being built upon this law, has no scriptural right 
 to exist, as a denomination. The Christianity held in com- 
 mon with other denominations he does not assail. The 
 distinctive peculiarities of Presbyterianism, in her doctrine 
 and polity, all that differentiates her from other churches, 
 and the teaching which she enforces upon her official min- 
 istry; in brief, her distinctive denominationalism, he con- 
 demns as " sectarianism," " essential!}' sinful," " an excres- 
 cence," "anti-scriptural," " unscriptural," "mischievous," 
 and " destitute of scriptural authority." He is opposed, 
 utterly, to denominations as such. They are " sinful." Of 
 course, if this is the fact, the quicker they are done away 
 with, the better. 
 
 The Presbyterian Church does not so believe. She re- 
 gards her government, discipline, organization, creed, cov- 
 enant, terms of admission and laws of fellowship as essen- 
 tiall}' righteous. The very things which distinguish her as 
 a denomi nation, and constitute her peculiarities, she cherishes 
 with becoming pride and gratitude to God, and claims her 
 historic heirloom as evidence that, as a distinctive denom- 
 ination, she is, in her peculiar doctrine and order, nearer 
 the Word of God than any other denomination on earth. 
 The proof of this is abundant .as the pages of her standards, 
 and multiplied as the leaves of her history. In her " system 
 of union," portrayed in the principles preliminary to her 
 form of government, and elsewhere, she recognizes the right 
 of all evangelical denominations to exist, equally as her 
 own, and upon the very same grounds, grounds of conscience, 
 charity, forbearance, peace and unity, grounds of expedi- 
 
[63] 
 
 ency and propriety. She calls them " orthodox churches of 
 Christ," "societies," "particular societies," "associations 
 of particular churches," "denominations," "protestant de- 
 nominations," and affirms their right to exist, and to declare 
 their own terms of communion. Digest, pp. 44, 51, 147. 
 She acknowledges room for honest differences of opinion 
 as to "truths and forms." Pp. 44, 50. She insists upon de- 
 nominational confessions and creeds, as " absolutely requisite 
 to the settled peace of the Church, and to the happy and 
 orderly existence of Christian Communion," P. 54. She 
 excludes from her own denomination " all Ministers and 
 Churches who can not relinquish their peculiarities with a 
 good conscience," and will not tolerate their antagonisms in 
 her own bosom. P. 57. Slie says : " We are Presbyterians, 
 and we firmly believe the Presbyterian system of doctrine, 
 discipline, and church government to be nearer to the Word 
 of God than that of any other sect or denomination." 
 Baird's Digest, p, 38, She has made her confession and discip- 
 line a basis, and the only basis, of her re-united existence. 
 Moore's Digest, p. 91 [2]. She declares her distinctive or- 
 ganization is " agreeable to Scripture and the practice of 
 primitive Christians," and in full consistency with this be- 
 lief she yet " embraces in the spirit of charity all who differ 
 from her in opinion and practice on these subjects." P. 
 120 [1], This toleration of the rights and institutions of 
 others, so far from prompting her to self-dissolution for the 
 sake of organic union, leads her to engrave in her standards 
 the perpetual provision that her courts shall "take effect- 
 ual care" that her peculiar constitution shall be preserved 
 and enforced. P. 141 [IV]. Nor will she allow any min- 
 ister belonging to another denomination to retain official 
 membership in her own. P. 620. I need not quote further. 
 The Presbyterian Church may be either deplorably blind, 
 or bigoted, or criminal in Mr. McCune's eyes, for her esti- 
 mate of her own importance, and the exercise of Christian 
 charity towards all other evangelical denominations ; but sin 
 and holiness are not more opposed than are the contradic- 
 tory positions of Mr. McCnne and his Church. It is not 
 possible that any loyal Presbyterian could indulge the Ian- 
 
[64] 
 
 _s:nage of Mr. McCune, or sincerely adopt and approve the 
 Westminster standards. ISTor is it possible that any Pres- 
 byterian minister, having the honor, peace, unity and purity 
 of the Presbyterian Church at heart, more than his own 
 theories or purposes, could be so far forgetful of his solemn 
 ordination vows, as to countenance, encourage, palliate, de- 
 fend, or even tolerate, the continued propagation of a stand- 
 ing libel upon his own Church, proclaiming to the world 
 the " essential sinfulness " of its denominational character, 
 and denying to it, as well as to all other evangelical denom- 
 inations, even the right of existence. 
 
 Mr. McCune's anti-denominational law rests upon a doc- 
 trine in irreconcileable conflict with the doctrine of the 
 Presbyterian Church and the Scriptures as to the '' Body of 
 Christ." He not only misinterprets God's Word as to things 
 indifferent; he likewise misinterprets it as to things essential. 
 He blunders into the papal artifice of identifying the "Body 
 of Christ" with the " visible Church," or the whole company 
 of professing Christians. The Ch urch on earth, he tells us, is 
 an external and unitous organization of regenerate souls. The 
 " Communion of Saints " is, therefore, an ecclesiastical com- 
 munion. Membership in the visible Church is membership 
 in the " Body of Christ." The separation of the visible 
 Church into denominations is the rending of the " Body 
 of Christ," and a sinful breach of the " Communion of 
 Saints." Hence his anti-denominationalism. Hence his 
 declaration that denominations, as such, are " essentially 
 sinful " and have no right to exist. Hence his new " divine 
 law of organization " and " non-exclusion " of any Chris- 
 tian minister or member from any particular denomination. 
 Hence his practical denial of what our standards expressly 
 af&rm, viz: that each society has the right to declare its 
 own terms of ministerial fellowship. Hence the glaring 
 fallacy in the opening sentence of the Linwood " Declara- 
 tion," and all through the "Address" to the Churches of 
 l^orth America, confounding the " One Body " with the 
 Visible Church, denouncing denominations as a disruption 
 of the Body and a dividing of Christ. Hence the unen- 
 durable sentiment that so long as denominations exist our 
 
[65] 
 
 Savior's intercessory prayer is not fully realised, as though 
 the doctrine of union to Christ and the Communion of 
 Saints depended for its perfection upon external oneness of 
 Church organization. Hence the external oneness he so 
 zealously advocates. It is Home's theory and Rome's unity. 
 But the Church visible is not the "Body of Christ;" nor 
 is external church communion the " Communion of Saints;" 
 nor is external oneness the unity of the " One Body " de- 
 scribed by Paul; nor is Church Union Christian Unity. 
 Our Standards discriminate, clearly, the Communion of 
 Saints from Church Communion. The latter is the exter- 
 nal fellowship of the visible Church in ordinances and 
 ecclesiastical membership, restricted by the right of every 
 particular Church to declare its own terms of communion ; 
 the former is the inward, spiritual, and unlimited fellowship 
 of the whole "Body of Christ" in earth and in Heaven 
 in the life, sufierings, death, resurrection, grace, and glory, 
 of its adorable Head. It is spiritual, "ol in them, and 
 Thou in me ! " " That they may be one as we are." It rests 
 upon the indissoluble spiritual conjunction of the living 
 members with the living Head, each member in inseparable 
 communion with every other, no matter how outwardly 
 separated by time, place, or name, all common members of 
 the one spiritual " Body of Christ." Form of Gov., chap. I 
 (II). Conf. of Faith, chap. XXVI. Larger Cat. Q. 60, 82, 
 83, 86. The external symbol or pledge of this " Com- 
 munion of Saints" is not any common external church- 
 membership, but the sacramental scene and solemnity of 
 the Lord's Supper. Conf. of Faith, chap. XXIX (I). No- 
 where in our Standards is the " One Body," or the " Body 
 of Christ" applied to the visible Church. Nowhere is ex- 
 ternal oneness of organization classed among the privileges 
 or marks of either the visible or invisible Church. No- 
 where is the Communion of Saints confounded with exter- 
 nal organic union. Nowhere is outward oneness of 
 organization, this side of eternal glory, implied as a neces- 
 sary demand or involved result of this " Communion of 
 Saints." Everywliere the doctrine runs through all de- 
 scriptions and definitions that the Communion of Saints, 
 
[66] 
 
 founded on the spiritual oneness for which oar Saviour 
 prayed — a prayer ever fullilled from the hour it was poured 
 at Gethsemane's gate — is as consistent with the existence 
 of five hundred denominations as with one. Nowhere is it 
 possible to draw the conclusion that evangelical denomina- 
 tions, as such, are a breach of Christian unity, whatever 
 they may be of an outward, all-absorbing external Ro- 
 manistic Babel of Indifierentism and Church Union. Who 
 does not know that " Rome's Organic Union," so called, is 
 a carnal caricature and Satanic aping of the Spiritual union 
 between Christ the "Head" and the mystical "Body?" 
 Upon such a theory of union, anti-denominationalism rests. 
 It is Rome's argument, and in Proof 6, Mr. McCune admits 
 it. The external and spiritual are confounded. The logic 
 is that the outward church must be visibly one because the 
 invisible church is spiritually one. The theory leads 
 inevitably to an external visible Head, the Pope. The 
 Reformers denied the theory, and lifted to notice the clear 
 distinction in God's Word between the visible church and 
 the " Body of Clirist." The doctrine of Mr. McCune is a 
 denial of this fundamental truth, and a consequent denial 
 of the Scripture right of the Reformed denominations to 
 exist. He charges that they violate the external oneness 
 and Communion of Saints. Protestantism never fathered 
 such a mediaeval monstrosity or jumble of confusion as 
 this, and then sought to justify its separation from Rome. 
 Reformed Symbolism could not embody it, and justify the 
 separation from Lutheranism. Much less could the West- 
 minster Standards assert the doctrine and justify the dis- 
 tinctive, peculiar, and Divine right of the Presbyterian 
 Church to exist. It is not the doctrine of the Presbyterian 
 Church that evangelical denominations, as such, are esssen- 
 tiall}' sinful. It is not the doctrine of the Scriptures. It 
 is anti-Protestant and pro-Roman. Mr. McCune has yet to 
 learn that tiie guilt of Schism and Sectarianism rested not 
 upon the Reformers, but upon Rome; on the English Es- 
 tablishment, and not upon the two thousand ejected non- 
 conformist ministers; on the Scotch Establishment, and 
 not on the Eree Church movement. He has yet to learn 
 
[67] 
 
 what all History teaches, that God raises up denorainatious 
 for liis own glory and the good of His Church, and, that, 
 in every case of importance, the outward Bahel of Or- 
 ganic Union has been broken up for the sake of the Peace 
 and Truth of God, of more value than any externalism 
 down from the Signal Mound on Shinar's plain struck by 
 lightning, to the last theological Institute for " Candidates" 
 and " Ministers" at Linwood and Mt. Lookout. 
 
 " The Church," says Dr. Bannerman in his admirable 
 work, "is described as the 'Body of Christ,' all the mem- 
 bers of which are united to Him as the Head of life, in- 
 fluence, and grace to them ; a description not applicable to 
 any body of professing Christians, made up of any or all com- 
 munions, but only to be realized in that great multitude 
 which no man has seen or numbered, who make up the 
 invisible Church of the Redeemer, and whose names are 
 written in Heaven." " To apply interchangeably, and as if 
 properly convertible, what is spoken in Scripture of ti:ie in- 
 visible Church, to the visible, and vice versa, is a frequent 
 and favorite resource of Romanist Controversialists." 
 Church of Christ, Vol. I, pp. 8, 39. It is precisely what 
 Mr. McCune has done. It is the basis of his anti-denom- 
 inationalism. It rests on an utterly false view of the nature 
 of the Church. " Romanists teach," says Dr. Hodge, "that 
 the Church is essentially an external organized community, 
 as the commonwealth of Israel." " Protestants teach, iu 
 exact accordance with the doctrine of Christ and His 
 apostles, (1) that the Church, as such, is not an external 
 organization, and (2) that all true believers, in whom the 
 Spirit of God dwells, are members of tliat Church which is 
 the 'Body of Christ.' " Syst. Theol. Vol. I, pp. 131, 135. 
 
 This is the view of our Standards. They deny that the 
 "Body of Christ," the "One Body" means the visible 
 Church, and so deny Mr. McCune's second fundamental 
 interpretation of Scripture. They deny that the oneness 
 of the "Body of Christ" is external oneness, and so con- 
 tradict Mr. McCune's doctrine that denominations are a 
 crime against the " One Body," the " Body of Christ," and 
 a crime against the " Communion of Saints." Denying 
 
[68] 
 
 tins, they deny that denominations are " essentially sinful," 
 and affirming the Divine right or Scriptural authority for the 
 existence of the Presbyterian denomination, as such. They 
 take the same ground, in reference to Mr. McCune's third 
 fuudmental misinterpretation, viz., that of our Savior's inter- 
 cessary prayer as necessitating external oneness, and also 
 in reference to his fourth misinterpretation of the Scripture 
 referring to the "schisms and divisions'" in the Corinthian 
 Church which he interprets as external separations to be 
 avoided, whereas they were internal disorders in the spiritual 
 "Body of Christ," personal alienations of believers, divi- 
 sions of mind, party pireferences and strifes, " Schism m 
 the Body." The Sectarianism Paul deplored was not a 
 charitable denominationalism. It was a party spirit in the 
 " One Body," a sinful breach of spiritual fellowship, not of 
 Church membership. It was not two peaceful denomina- 
 tions, working nobly for the master, and bearing with each 
 other's conscientious differences, he rebuked, but one 
 organic denomination, depreciating the truth of Christ, 
 wasting its energies in strife and alienations about Paul, 
 Apollos, Cephas, and Christ, and marring its own spiritual 
 life, unit}^, and communion by sinful contention. Well has 
 Dr. Errett, the gifted, editor of the Standard, said, in his 
 controversy with Mr. McCune : "It is easy to say hard 
 things about Sectarianism, and to profess great abhorrence 
 of it. But the farther men get from Christ, the more 
 liberal can they afford to be in giving away His IVuth, and 
 in the popular sense of the word Charity, the men of the 
 largest charity are the men who hold at the very cheapest 
 rate the truth that Jesus taught." Standard, December 18, 
 1875. 
 
 Mr. McCune exclaims, both hands uplifted, against the 
 "sin" of "enforcing" upon the official ministry a distinc- 
 tive denominational creed. He smites it as a crime against 
 the Communion of Saints. Presbyterian Sectarianism, as 
 he calls it, he hates. I have already quoted the constitu- 
 tional provisions of the Presbyterian Church requiring the 
 enforcement of her Standards upon all her office-bearers, 
 ministers, elders, and deacons. I need not quote them 
 
[69] 
 
 again. Enactment of denominational laws, and enforce- 
 ment of denominational creeds, he accounts an oppression 
 of the conscience. Whose conscience does it oppress? 
 ]!!^ot his who sincerely approves it. It is a protest against 
 his own ordination vows, a declaration that he is not in 
 fact, what he professed himself to be, and that he does not 
 sincerely adopt and approve our Standards. He denies the 
 right of the Presbyterian Church to present to him the 
 alternatives of either teaching the distinctive doctrines of 
 her systeoi, or leaving her communion. The issue is plain 
 and unmistakable. It is the proclamation of independency 
 while yet remaining in the bosom of the Church. He has 
 given us abundant illustration of it. For "ten years" he 
 has denied her right to exist, or enforce her creed. He 
 protested against the appointment of a Committee of In- 
 vestigation. He protested aojainst the exercise of episcopal 
 power. He protested against the institution of judicial 
 process. He declared, at first, he would not receive the 
 judicial charges from the prosecution. He is opposed to 
 the enforcement of our denominational law. He denounces 
 it as a "sin."" He tells us he proposes to teach in future 
 the doctrines he has taught in the past. And to fortify his 
 claim to exercise himself in this imperial way, he, formally, 
 announces to all whom it may concern that " the Presby- 
 terian Church has ceased to enforce Infant Baptism.^' He 
 longs and labors for the day when she will cease to enforce 
 all her distinctive tenets. He would like to see them 
 either dropped off or hung up as a dried curiosity iu some 
 library, or metamorphosed by revision into the likeness of 
 the Linwood and Mt. Lookout Manual, with a " Basis of 
 ■Fellowship" for a Creed, and some " Kegulations of Ex- 
 pediency " for a Polity. 
 
 Moderator, the doctrine of non-enforcement is not the 
 doctrine of our Standards, whatever our lax practice may 
 be. It is the doctrine of covenant-breaking, anarchy, and 
 revolution, the doctrine of the tyranny of liberalism, and 
 the despotism of arbitrary power, trampling every constitu- 
 tional right of the individual under foot, and every guaran- 
 tee for the defense of the truth and order of the House of 
 
[70] 
 
 God, and for the protection of personal character of 
 ministers and members. It is the doctrine of disobedience 
 to vows. It is treason to the Presbyterian Church. It is 
 nullification. It abolishes the Constitution to meet a con- 
 tingency, build up an interest, or further a scheme. It 
 keeps no faith with brethren. Promises are pretences. 
 Compacts are nullities. Majorities are riders. Engagements, 
 sealed by prayer, are mockeries. It invokes the repudiation 
 of discipline — ofiers a premium on policy adverse to truth, 
 and bids for a human expediency adverse to Divine right- 
 eousness. It means liberty to do and to teach as one 
 pleases, under the euphonious nomenclature of "forbear- 
 ance in love" — license to circulate assaults upon Presby- 
 terian doctrine and polity — toleration to print manuals of 
 organic union, and to organize at Linwood and Mt. Look- 
 out. 'Need I ask, is it possible for a Presbyterian minister 
 sincerely to approve the government and discipline of the 
 Presbyterian Church, and be zealous and faithful in study- 
 ing her peace, unity, and purity, and yet advocate the non- 
 enforcement of her distinctive doctrine and order? Is this 
 loyalty ? 
 
 Once more, Mr. McCune asserts, not only that the Pres- 
 byterian denomination has no right to exist, but denies her 
 right, as such, to be called a *' Church." His plea that this 
 is the Congregational view amounts to nothing. This may 
 appear to some a little thing, but it is great. It means 
 more than the childish truism that one particular Church is 
 not njany particular Churches, or that many particular 
 Churches are not a single particular Church. Pompey, 
 couching at the door, knows that one is not forty, and forty 
 not one. It means that the term " Church " can not be ap- 
 plied to a plurality of congregations, organically held under 
 one rule. It is a lever to "upheave our whole polity. Be- 
 lieve that statement, and Presbyterianism melts out of 
 eight. The Presbyterian standards maintain that the term 
 " Church" has a five-fold Scriptural application. It means 
 (1) the "Body of Christ," i. e. the whole body of believers 
 on earth and in heaven, the plural unit of all who are 
 joined to Christ by individual faith, the Invisible Church ; 
 
[71] 
 
 (2) the whole body, or plural unit of professing Christians 
 on earth, together with their^children, i. e. the outward Visi- 
 ble Church ; (3) the whole body, or plural unit of professed 
 believers in any particular spot, i. e. the particular congre- 
 gation ; (4) the whole body, or plural unit of associated 
 congregations organically connected together under one ec- 
 clesiastical order or rule, i. e. the particular denomination ; 
 (5) the whole bench, or plural unit of representatives, or 
 office-bearers, as distinguished from the congregation or 
 the people, i. e. a particular court. Mr. McCune denies two 
 of these definitions in whole, the 4th and 5th, and two in 
 part, the 2d and 3d. He holds that the term " Church " is 
 applicable, " in the singular number," (1) to the Body of 
 Christ, and (2) to a particular congregation, minus tiie in- 
 fants of believers. He denies that it is applicable to a 
 plurality of congregations organically connected under one 
 ■ecclesiastical rule, with superior representative Courts of 
 review and control, i. e. he denies Presbytery and asserts 
 Independency. A Presbytery for him is "an unauthorized 
 and unscripturul " body, a S^niod, the same, a General As- 
 sembly, the same. The necessary result is that the Presby- 
 terian denomination, as such, is no " Church " at all. It 
 follows from his argument on the definition of a Church. 
 This denial strikes at the root of our whole polity. Every 
 Presbyterian knows, perfectly well, that, the peculiar and 
 ■distinctive mark of Presbyterianism, as a polity, is not the 
 eldership, for the early congregationalists all had their bench, 
 of elders, and John Owen's celebrated treatise on tlie" True 
 Nature of a Gospel Church," abundantly establishes this 
 fact; but it is (1) the doctrine of a plurality of congrega- 
 tions organically held together in subordination to one com- 
 mon ecclesiastical rule, and (2) an ascending series of courts 
 built upon that rule. These in their totality constitute a 
 Church. This is Presbyterianism as opposed to the indi- 
 vidualistic idea of Independency. Mr. McCune retires 
 from the Hall of Westminster, with the Independents, una- 
 ble to stand beside the Presbyterians, and maintain the pro- 
 position "the Scripture doth hold forth that man}' particu- 
 lar congregations may be under one Presbyterial govern- 
 
[ 72 ] 
 
 ment." Gillespie's "Armor " he throws aside. His theory 
 repudiates an asceucling series of courts. Distinctive Pres- 
 byterian polity can not survive his denial of the application 
 of the term Church "in the singular number " to a plurality 
 of associated congregations organically held under one ec- 
 clesiastical rule. The Presbyterian denomination is, there- 
 fore, " not a Church." " Admit," says Dr. Bannerman, 
 "the narrow position taken by the Independents in regard 
 to the true meaning and nature of the Church, as defined 
 in Scripture, restrict the term to one or other of the two 
 significations of either the invisible Church at large, or a 
 single congregation of believers in a particular locality, 
 and you, in fact, concede every principle that is necessary 
 for them to establish their views as to the form of the 
 Church and the nature of its government." It is precisely 
 just what Mr. McCune has done. It is not possible for a 
 man sincerely to adopt and approve our Presbyterian polity 
 and advocate the views of Mr. McCune. I aflirm again, 
 upon his own testimony, that Mr. McCune is an Indepen- 
 dent in polity, and not a Presbyterian. It is not possible 
 for a man with such convictions to be at rest, or study the 
 peace, unity, and purity of the Church. The first advening 
 opportunity he will either seek or create an independent 
 pastorate where his particular local Church " in the singular 
 number " will exist " outside Presbyterian jurisdiction," as 
 at Lin wood and Mt. Lookout, while he himself still hangs 
 on to his" unauthorized," " extra-Scriptural" Presbyterian 
 organization, for the sake of " good standing" and public 
 "indorsement" by a body whose character he denounces as 
 " sectarian,";,whose distinctive creed he traduces as an " ex- 
 crescence,'^ whose "right to exist" he denies, and whose 
 name as a "Church" he rejects, and with a boldness un- 
 paralleled he informs us that his purpose is to remain in the 
 Presbyterian Church, spread abroad his doctrines and " im- 
 bue the whole denomination with them," and agitate and 
 seek " revision" of the standards in the interest of his 
 scheme. Is this loyalty ? Is it honor ? I aflirm that it is 
 disloyalty and treason of the most glaring character, delib- 
 erate, intentional, and persistent to the Church, as well aa 
 
[73] 
 
 persistent misrepresentation of Scripture, and that, as a se- 
 cular editor has well said, " a charge of nitro-glycerine un- 
 der a nine inch wall, would not be more destructive to the 
 wall than McCuneism is, if allowed, to tlie Presbyterian 
 denomination." In answer to Mr. McCune's allegation that 
 the Presbyterian denomination is not a Clmrch, I present 
 her legal title, under which she is incorporated and which 
 flames on the frontlet of her standards he professes to ap- 
 prove, " The Presbyterian Church in the United States of 
 America.^' I pass to the third specification. 
 
 SPECIFICATION III. 
 
 Creeds. 
 If Mr. McCune's views have amazed us, already, on ac- 
 count of their gross perversions of Scripture,'and point-blank 
 contradiction of our standards, they will, under this speci- 
 fication, make us almost doubt our own eyes, and compel 
 us to read again the proofs, finger on every line. What is 
 it we see ? The sight of a Presbyterian minister, who hav- 
 ing professed sincere adoption of the Westminster stand- 
 ards, yet lifts up the voice of remonstrance and declares to the 
 church that he is utterly opposed to all human creeds ; that 
 the only creed he will accept is a " genuine ISTew Testament 
 creed," i. e. a syllabus of unexplained texts, a " few leading 
 truths," or what he calls " the common faith " " expressed in 
 God's'own language" as "commonly received," " without any 
 human inferences," " deductions," or " modifications ;" that 
 he would " strike out " of every creed, had he the power, 
 everything all Christians could " not see to be law in Scrip- 
 ture ;" that " the Bible" (he does not say whether in He- 
 brew or Greek or English) is the " only true, proper, and 
 sufficient creed for all ministers;" that human creeds are 
 sectarian creeds and " always mischievous and sinful;" that 
 every argument to prove the need of an enlarged creed is 
 a " falsity ;" that no creed tests are to be allowed in the 
 examination or ordination of ministers (an illustration of 
 which was had in the "Council" that examined and in- 
 stalled Mr. McCune over the new institute that requires 
 " no assent to any denominational peculiarity !") ; that " no 
 surrender" of any peculiarity, and free speech, with no 
 
[74] 
 
 "enforcement" of any peculiarity and free speech is the 
 Gospel style of things, and that before the Church has any 
 right to make a creed at all, she must be either unanimously 
 orthodox, or unanimously heretical, in order that no man's 
 conscience may be oppressed ! The reason for all this, he 
 tells us, [is, first, that " Saving Faith," and second, "a few 
 leading fundamental doctrines" (he does not say how 
 many) efiectuallj' " exclude all fatal heresy" (not saying 
 whether he means fatal to salvation, or fatal to the truth 
 of God, which is the means of salvation); and that herein 
 the blessed apostles were an example to us, and to all secta- 
 rian Protestantism, versus our own " unblushing assumption 
 of divine prerogative," which difi'ers nothing, he assures us^ 
 from the "rotten basis on which Rome stands." "If," in 
 the language of Mr, McCune, " the whole Church of the 
 living God, including all, of every name, who give satis- 
 factory scriptural evidence that they are born of the Spirit," 
 had only entertained, from the beginning, similar senti- 
 ments to these, what a literature had been spared, how ab- 
 breviated the theological curriculum had been, what a 
 saving of funds unnecessarily wasted on seminaries, and of 
 toil in laboriously writing the career of the Church, and 
 how multiplied prototypes of the Council at Mount Look- 
 out would have dazzled in history, instead of the dnll Spec- 
 tacles of l^ice, Chalcedon, Dort, and Westminster ! 
 
 Our Standards set their face against the doctrine of Mr. 
 McCune and repudiate it as dangerous and false. They do 
 it in the declaration that every Christian Church has the 
 right to declare its. own terms of communion. They do it 
 not only in affirming the right of private judgment, but the 
 Church's right, as the Steward of the mysteries of God, to 
 declare to the world in her own- language, as a witness on 
 the stand, speaking in his own words, what she believes 
 the Word of God means, and what she understands thereby. 
 " Understandest thou what thou readest? How can I ex- 
 cept some man should guide me ?" Acts 8 : 30. " The 
 meaning of the Bible," says Cecil, "zs the Bible." "The 
 sense of Scripture," says Waterland, " is Scripture.'^ The 
 Presbyterian Church affirms that " Confessions of Faith, 
 
[75] 
 
 containing formulas of doctrine and rules for conducting 
 the discipline and worship proper to be maintained in the 
 house of God, are not only recognized as necessary and ex- 
 pedient, but, as the character of human nature is continually 
 aiming at innovation^ absolutely requisite to the settled peace 
 of the Church, and to the happy and orderl}'- existence of 
 Christian Communion." Digest, p. 54. She believes her 
 creed "can not be abandoned without abandonment of the 
 "Word of God," p. 54. She enforces it, by solemn vows, 
 upon all her ministers, elders, and deacons, pp. 399, 410. 
 They who " traduce" it are amenable to discipline, j)p. 54, 
 55. " Ministers who can not adopt the standards are not 
 to be received," p. 57. Those who change their views are 
 to " peaceably withdraw," p. 48. Others, who come to her 
 from other bodies, are " to teach in the manner required by 
 our standards," p. 148. She repudiates any and every doc- 
 trine that would " impair the integrity of the Calvinistic 
 system," p. 85. She appends the apostles' creed at the end 
 of her own, and recommends the Heidelberg Catechism as 
 one of a number of reformed symbols, as maintaining " the 
 faith once delivered to the saints," p. 56. She expressly 
 forbids the teaching of any doctrine " inconsistent with the 
 sacred Scriptures as explained and summarily taught in the 
 doctrinal standards of our Church" p. 304. As to '" human 
 deductions and inferences," which Mr. McCune will not 
 tolerate, she says " that the whole counsel of God, concern- 
 ing all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, 
 faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or 
 by good and necessary consequence may he- deduced from Scrip- 
 ture." Conf. of Faith, ch. 1, sec. 2. She charges the Synod 
 "to take eiiectual care that Presbyteries observe the Con- 
 stitution of the Church," p. 191, and warns, in the most 
 earnest language, against any one who, " under the specious 
 pretense of honoring the sacred Scriptures, would persuade 
 you to reject all written or printed creeds, and forms of dis- 
 cipline, alleging that those who adopted such, substitute 
 them for divine inspiration." Baird's Digest, p. 638. Such 
 is the law of the church to which Mr. McCune belongs ; its 
 denominational law ; its enactment. He denounces it as an 
 
[76] 
 
 "excrescence," a "sin," a "sectarian oppression," and 
 wishes it were out of the way. Do you believe he " sin- 
 cerely adopts " our Confession, or " sincerely approves " our 
 government and discipline ? He does no such thing. He 
 disparages and traduces both, and inquires, with a triumph- 
 ant air, " Did the Apostolic Church demand assent to the Pres- 
 byterian Confession of Faith f 
 
 Mr. McCune's theory is as ridiculous as it is dangerous 
 and sophistical. He thinks that, because " the Word of 
 God is the only infallible rule of faith and practice " — one 
 human deduction, at least, that he accepts — therefore a 
 creed declaring and defining what is the sense of that rule 
 is unnecessary. A man, not believing the Bible infallible, 
 comes to Mr. McCune and applies for admission to his 
 church. Mr. McCnue repeats the " human deduction " 
 that " the Word of God is the only infallible rule of faith 
 and practice." No " human deductions," exclaims his 
 friend; "confine yourself to the language of God as com- 
 monly received." Mr, McCune appeals to the naked text. 
 Who shall decide now whether the Bible is infallible or 
 not? Or is a decision needed on so non-essential a matter? 
 If a decision is made, the statement is a " human deduc- 
 tion " — a veritable creed. But no human creeds are allow- 
 ed, and Mr. McCune's friend, while accepting the texts, 
 understands them in a diflterent way. Will you receive me 
 in Linwood and Mount Lookout, to the glory of God, as 
 Christ has received me? cries his friend. Not if you don't 
 believe the Bible infallible, responds Mr. McCune. But, 
 replies the other, Christ has received me; I believe in Christ, 
 and my walk and conversation are as good as your own. 
 Besides you have taught that a man may be a true Chris- 
 tian and " not believe the Bible infallible." I had forgotten 
 that, responds Mr. McCune; but come in, you give satis- 
 factory scriptural evidence that Christ has received you, 
 and though we differ in minor matters, we will extend to 
 you " forbearance in love," and not enforce our " mere 
 peculiarities, contrary to conscience, as a matter of sectarian 
 law." Come in. Another steps up "for admission, confess- 
 ing, however, he does not believe in the true and proper 
 
[77] 
 
 humanity of Christ. Will yon receive me, to the glory of 
 God.? enquires his second friend. " The Son of God," says 
 Mr. McCune, "became man by taking to himself a true 
 body and a reasonable soul." No "human deductions," 
 replies his friend; "confine yourself to the language of 
 God, as commonly received." But that's what it means, 
 says Mr. McCune. No "human modifications," again his 
 friend insists. Mr. McCune appeals to the naked texts. 
 His friend receives them, but understands them differently, 
 and adds. You have taught, Mr McCune, that a man may 
 be a true Christian and not believe in the humanity of 
 Christ. Will you receive me? Christ has received me. 
 Come in, says Mr. MCune, I had forgotten that article of 
 our belief, but come in ; you give satisfactory scripture 
 evidence that Christ has received you, and though we differ 
 on non-essentials, we will treat you " with forbearance in 
 love." Next comes a friend who has doubts as to the 
 Deity of Christ, and whom Mr. McCune refuses to call 
 evangelical. Will you receive me, says he, to the glory of 
 God, at Linwood and Mount Lookout? "Christ," says 
 Mr. MCune, " was very God as well as very man." No 
 "human deductions," retorts the Unitarian. Christ has re- 
 ceived me. I believe the Bible is infallible, but understand 
 it ditferently from you. Mr. McCune appeals to the texts. 
 The Unitarian accepts the " language of God." Will you 
 receive me? he cries. You are not "evangelical," says Mr. 
 McCune. " Evangelical," exclaims his friend. If you ad- 
 mit one who does not believe in the humanity of Christ, 
 how refuse me because I do not believe in the Deity of 
 Christ? I believe 'in Christ without any human deduc- 
 tions, or inferences, or modifications. I understand the 
 language of God differently from you. I believe with the 
 Semi-Arians and three-fourths of the Christian Church in 
 the fourth century. Will you receive me? Just at this 
 point a Universalist steps up to solicit the same favor of 
 admission to the church on the Mount. " They who die 
 impenitent are lost forever," says Mr. McCune. No " hu- 
 man deductions," cries the Universalist. I believe that 
 Christ has received me, and that none will be finally lost. 
 
[78] 
 
 I accept all your texts ; you need not repeat them. "Will 
 you receive me ? 
 
 By what right, on what ground, I ask, granting Mr. 
 McCune's creed of unexplained texts, can he refuse to re- 
 ceive the Unitarian and Universalist, while he cordially 
 admits the man who neither believes the Bible is infallible, 
 nor that Christ was truly and properly man ? Is it because 
 Mr. McCune's human deductions are different from theirs ? 
 But he has no right to any deductions in this matter what- 
 ever. Is it because they dispute those deductions ? But 
 they accept the language of God. Is it because they don't 
 accept the language of God as " commonly received ? " 
 But neither does he who does not believe the Bible infalli- 
 ble, nor the true humanity of Christ, and yet Mr. McCune 
 would receive them. Is it because they have no genuine 
 New Testament creed ? They all say " the Bible is my 
 creed." Is it because they are in a minority ? So was 
 Athanasius and the Orthodox of the fourth century. I 
 affirm, there is not an errorist in the list of them all, for 
 eighteen centuries, that Mr. McCune's creed-theory can 
 consistently reject, and I present the phenomenon of Mr. 
 McCune as a Presbyterian minister for " ten years," advo- 
 cating these views and announcing his purpose to continue 
 their advocacy. 
 
 Mr. McCune's whole doctrine about creeds, is the doc- 
 trine of ever}' heresiarch from the days of Arius and Pe- 
 lagius to the present time. " The Bible is my creed," is 
 the standing word in the mouth of every perverter of its 
 truth. The Unitarian, the Socinian, the Universalist, the 
 Swedenborgian all say, " the Bible is my creed." Every 
 one of them will accept the naked texts without what Mr. 
 McCune calls " human deductions." Mr. McCune's denial 
 of the right of the Church to " enlarge " her creed, is the 
 denial of her right to make any creed at all, for the right 
 to make a creed involves the right to enlarge it, and the 
 denial of the right to make is the denial of the right to 
 enlarge. But what is the nature of this denial ? It is the 
 denial of the church's right to make, as a church, a public 
 confession of her faith in Christ, for the right to make a 
 
[79] 
 
 creed is grounded in the right of confession. The Church 
 must confess Christ, Mr. McCune will say, but she must 
 not confess her faith in Christ, or tell what that faith is. 
 She must confess distributively, i. e., by her individual 
 members, but not collectively and ofHcially througli her 
 ministry, except in " the language of God." It is tjje de- 
 nial of her right, as steward of the heavenly mysteries, to 
 authoritatively decide, under the influence of a guiding 
 Spirit, between w^hat is truth and what is falsehood in the 
 public teaching of her ministry, and to authoritatively 
 bear witness in her own words, or testify on the stand as a 
 witness-bearer does in his own language, what her under- 
 standing and belief are concerning the doctrine of God. It 
 assails the office of the Church as a public teacher, witness 
 and confessor of the truth ; for the relation of the Church 
 to the Bible is more than that of the preserver and guardian 
 of the volume, and her mission, as a witness and instructor 
 to the world, is more than that of a compiler of a few un- 
 explained texts, or a minimum quid statement, the lowest and 
 least expression on which a sinner may be saved. Her 
 office is to furnish the maximum quid of her faith, the 
 largest possible expression of her religious consciousness 
 and belief, and to have relation, in her whole confession 
 before men, not merely to the simple conditions of personal 
 salvation, but to the whole compass of the divine plan, the 
 whole sphere of the heavenly doctrine, and the whole ex- 
 tent of her work as a light in the world. The diadem of 
 titles that adorn the brow of Christ, he has placed ou the 
 brow of his church. She is with'him, her Divine Lord, 
 the light, the witness, the prophet, the priest, the king, the 
 life of the world. 
 
 Mr. McCune has not yet learned that the Bible is not a 
 creed, and never can be any man's creed, and that this is 
 the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church, as it is of all Evan- 
 gelical Protestantism. The case was never yet known in 
 history, where a man boasted " the Bible is my creed," 
 that the boast was not used as a shield of unevangelical 
 views and doctrines, or a cloak for indifferentism and toler- 
 ation of error. The Bible is no man's creed, and can be 
 
[80] 
 
 no man's creed, for the Bible is the expression of God's 
 will, whereas a creed is the expression of man's faith. 
 Splendidly has Dr. Schaff, following the Reformed Divines, 
 said, " The Bible is the word of God to man ; the creed is the 
 answer of man to God. The Bible is the only sufficient Rule 
 of Faith ; the Creed is the Rule of public doctrine derived 
 from the Bible." It is no exaltation of human authority 
 over the Divine word, but a subjection of the human under- 
 standiiig' and faith to Divine truth, for the creed is ever and 
 only, in the language of Reformers, mensura meiisurata — 
 the rule ruled — while the Bible is mensura mensurans — the 
 rule ruling. So Dr. Krautb, in his " Conservative Reforma- 
 tion." Tlie Rule of Faith is God's voice to us. Faith is 
 the henring of that voice. The Confession is our reply. 
 To confess Christ is to confess ivhat is our faith in Him. As 
 the creed is not, and can not be, the Rule of Faith, but its 
 confession, so the Bible, because it is the Rule of Faith, is, 
 of necessity, not its confession. The Bible can no more be 
 any man's creed than the stars can be any man's astron- 
 omy." This is the doctrine of our standards, underlying 
 every expression I have quoted from them. It is not Mr. 
 McCune's doctrine. And as to the outcry of Mr. McCune 
 against the growth and enlargement of a creed, so far from 
 this being a " Popish usurpation," and every argument in 
 its defense a " falsity," and the thing itself " an unblushing 
 assumption of Divine prerogative," if he will but read the 
 Scriptures, he will find not only human-made Christian 
 creeds in abundance, but, as Dr. Bannerman has well 
 shown, that, even during the Apostolic age, " on three me- 
 morable occasions, the Church was compelled to recast and 
 exhibit in new forms of language the truth formerly held, and 
 compelled to do this because of the perversion to error and 
 heresy of the terms formerly employed to set forth the 
 truth}' The Church of Christ, Vol. I., p. 292. What, 
 then, becomes of the assertion of Mr. McCune, contradicted 
 by every leaf of histor}'^, sacred and profane, that saving 
 faith, ipso facto, excludes all fatal heresy, and that as the 
 " brief creed " (!) of the Apostles was sufficient to exclude 
 it in their day, " so it is sufficient now !" If it is answered 
 
[81] 
 
 that inspired Apostles might make a creed, but not unin- 
 spired men, let Mr. McCune remember that the stream be- 
 tween Jerusalem and Gaza beheld the Abyssinian baptized 
 by Piiilip upon the Abyssinian's own human-made creed; 
 and let him further remember that not the tact of inspira- 
 tion, but the pressing need of the Church, was the ground 
 for creed-enlargement and restatement in Apostolic days, 
 a need existing subsequently as well as then, and its sup- 
 ply warranted in every age by Apostolic practice. What 
 had become of pure doctrine, on Mr. McCune's principle 
 of no iiuman creed, in the fourth century, when the Church, 
 to use the words of Jerome, " woke up to lind itself Arian?" 
 or again, woke up to find itself Pelagian ? or, in the six- 
 teenth century, woke up to find itself Pagan ? Were Athan- 
 asius, Augustin, Luther, Calvin, " unblushing usurpers uf 
 the Divine prerogative ?" So teaches a Presbyterian minis- 
 ter who subscribes the Westminster Confession. 
 
 Mr. McCnne charges the Presbyterian Church, in com- 
 mon with all other evangelical denominations, as being an 
 oppressor of the conscience, because, by denominational 
 law, she recognizes conformity to her standards, and binds 
 them on her ofiicial ministry. It is a severe charge. But 
 whose conscience is oppressed? Kot mine. Not the con- 
 science of any who sincerely adopt the standards. Does 
 she oppress the conscience of the members of this Presby- 
 tery ? Are what Mr. McCune calls her human deductions 
 and inferences "contrary" to the word of God? She de- 
 clares they are " agreeable to the word or God," and Mr. 
 McCune has professed sincerely to adopt them as such. Has 
 he yet to learn that what is deduced by good and necessary 
 consequence from Scripture is Scriptural? Concede, if you 
 will, that all other creeds are an oppression of the con- 
 science, is our own amenable to that charge? The funda- 
 mentals of the Presbyterian Church are her creed, her stan- 
 dards, and nothing less, all professedly adopted and ap- 
 proved by Mr.AlcCune. Again, I ask, whose conscience is op- 
 pressed ? The allegation betrays the fact of Mr. McCune's 
 practical and avowed abandonment of the distinctive Creed, 
 Government, and Discipline of the Presbyterian Church, 
 
[82] 
 
 while yet remaining ia her bosom, an abandonment began 
 years ago. The Presbyterian Church repels the libel from 
 the lips of her own son, to whom she has yielded almost 
 boundless license, that she is an oppressor of the conscience. 
 ITever once bus she interfered with his right of private 
 judgment, even when insisting on her own rights of au- 
 thoritative instruction, and on her right to interfere and re- 
 strain his public conduct. N"everonce has she said to any 
 man, you shall adopt my creed, you shall submit to my gov- 
 ernment. What she has said is, if you can honestly and 
 sincerely adopt and approve the Standards, then welcome 
 here. If you can not, then let us remain apart in peace. 
 The applicant for ministerial office can find another home 
 more congenial among the people of God. But if the 
 proposal is accepted, she demands that good faith shall be 
 kept, and no " Trojan Horse " introduced within her walls 
 to betray her. Mr. McCune pleads rights of conscience. 
 Rights of conscience are not rights of membership. Rights 
 of conscience are not rights to profess one thing and 
 practice another. He pleads the right of private judgment. 
 The right of private judgment is not the right of belonging 
 to this Presbytery and advocating " no creed " and a polity 
 at war with our Constitution. Detraction is not a right of 
 private judgment. The Arian's right of private judgment 
 gives him no right here. A man may hav^ the right of private 
 judgment and not be able to tell the diflerence between 
 Presbyterian ism and Popery. He may be a simpleton. 
 The possession of the right does not confer the thing. A 
 beggar may have a right to be rich and a foolish man to be 
 wise, and yet the one remain poor, and the other a simple- 
 ton, all their days. A man may have the right to be a Pres- 
 byterian and yet be a Cardinal or Pope. Does the right of 
 private judgment make him a Presbyterian, or does it give 
 him a right to profess to be what he is not? or to be where 
 he has no right to be? The right to membership in this 
 Presbytery does not rest on the right of private judgment, 
 nor on the right of conscience. It rests upon sincere and 
 honest adoption and approval of her Standards, and upon 
 the zealous and faithful maintaining the peace, purity, and 
 
[83] 
 
 unity of the Church, It rests upon the solemnity of a per- 
 sonal vow that the man is a Presbyterian by conviction, and 
 in heart, and not a mere wearer of the name, one-third Pres- 
 byterian, one-third Papal, and one-third Independent in his 
 theories. A Presbyterian minister is a man whose Rule of 
 Faith is the Word of God, and whose creed is the West- 
 minster Standards. Is this Mr. McCune's description? I 
 aver that if the ministry of the Presbyterian Church were 
 allowed to teach and to do as Mr. McCune has been 
 allowed to teach and to do, in reference to the question of 
 creeds alone, and to traduce the denominational enactments 
 and laws of their own Church as "sectarian," and as an op- 
 pression of the conscience, and publicly recommend the 
 "striking out" of every thing that all other Christians 
 " can not see to be law in Scripture," a generation would 
 not pass away until the treacherous hand of organic union, 
 preferring Union before Truth, had laid it in its grave. 
 Already, by public utterance, he remands to what he calls 
 " the broad and free domain of Christian liberty," under 
 her no-creed system, every thing distinctively settled in the 
 Presbyterian Standards, as to " man's relation to God's 
 sovereignty, forms of making religious profession, modes of 
 worship, subjects of Baptism, methods of organization, kinds 
 and functions of Church-officers." He is looking for "greater 
 light." Is this loyalty to the Presbyterian Church ? Is this 
 maintenance of her doctrine and order? " Strike out" all 
 that, and how much is left of the Standards ? I pass to the 
 fourth Specification. 
 
 SPECIFICATION IV.. 
 
 Vows of Ordination. 
 
 This Specification asserts the teaching of Mr. McCuue to 
 be that Presb3^terian ministers, under solemn vows to study 
 the peace, unit}^ and purity of the Church, are yet free to 
 advocate views antagonistic to those they have vowed to 
 maintain, and still remain in their ecclesiastical connexion, 
 while they who object, should themselves retire from the 
 body, if not content to indulge such liberty. The ever- 
 varying axis of rotation for elders, ministers, and deacons, 
 
[84] 
 
 upon such a principle, would reverse the ecclesiastical poles 
 themselves. The ecclesiastical orbit, uuder such a theory, 
 may be a circle, an ellipse, a parabola, or an infinitely un- 
 returning hyperbola, and the minister himself become, in 
 doctrine, like the comet-forms that sail and sweep the in- 
 terplanetary spaces. According to Mr. McCune, a Presby- 
 terian minister is at liberty, after his ordination, to hold 
 "any views" he held before his ordination, and advocate 
 the same. His doctrine is that ministerial vows are not 
 binding. Under the manifestly "sophistical form of expres- 
 sion, " the Church only asks men, at their ordination, what 
 ihexY 'present views are, and never pledges them not to change 
 their views" he teaches that every Presbyterian minister 
 may face about to the full extent of his own variations 
 and yet remain in the body for the sake of indorsement 
 and good standing. The clearly implied assertion is that 
 such liberty is consistent with ministerial obligations. He 
 suggests to an objector to his " views," " course," " scheme,'^ 
 " project," and " aim," that the proper solution of the objec- 
 tion is for the objector himself to retire. He proposes, 
 with a cool temperature, that his name ^^ shall stand on the 
 roll of tJje Presbytery " as long as he is in its bounds. He 
 declares that to ask a man not to advocate what he, an in- 
 dividual, believes to be God's truth, is to ask him to dis- 
 obey God, and that if Presbytery requires him to renounce 
 opinions and ways destructive in her judgment to the 
 peace, unity, and purity of the Church, she will sit " in the 
 Temple of God," and show herself "as God" over his 
 conscience. He announces definitely for all time that he 
 will never submit to such " usurpation of the Divine pre- 
 rogative," and informs the court that he " proposes " still 
 to advocate his peculiar views. He pleads the prestige 
 his doctrines have won from the official circulation of them 
 ordered by the Synod of Cincinnati in 1870, the first Synod 
 after the Heunion, and seeks shelter behind that body as 
 the ecclesiastical indorser of his Organic Union principles. 
 He pleads the countenance and concurrence of this Pres- 
 bytery. He says : " It is susceptible of proof that the ad- 
 vocacy of these Christian Union doctrines has been with 
 
[85] 
 
 the knowledge and by the permission of the Presbytery of 
 Cincinnati, and by the consent and with the co-operation 
 of the Synod of Cincinnati, and that this advocacy is not 
 in violation of any Presbyterian law whatever." Collateral 
 'No. 4. Such is the ground on which he establishes his 
 claim to teach and preach his peculiar views, and advocate 
 their necessary and legitimate consequences. Briefly stated, 
 his doctrine is that ordination vows do not bind Presbyter- 
 ian ministers, while remaining under them, not to become 
 anti-Presbyterian, nor to abstain from the public proclama- 
 tion of their new departures froru the faith and order of the 
 Church. 
 
 It is not the first time such license has been proclaimed 
 in the world, but it is the first time, in the history of the 
 Presbyterian Church, that any Presbyterian minister has 
 ever dared publicly to utter such sentiments and remain un- 
 challenged either by his Presbytery or Synod for " tea 
 years." It is a feature of our times. It is non-enforce- 
 ment, the result of the new non-excluding law of organ- 
 ization. 
 
 The vows of Mr. McCune are solemn and unambiguous. 
 They are the vows of every Presbyterian minister, elder,. 
 and deacon — a solemn covenant between himself and the 
 whole Presbyterian- Church, and every individual officer in 
 it, before which he stands charged to-day for breach of that 
 covenant, Christ, his brethren, the Church, and the world,, 
 being witnesses. The vows of Mr. McCune in the United 
 Presbyterian Church, of which he was a member, and 
 which he took, expressly bound him to " adhere to the 
 "Westminster Standards, so long as he remained in that 
 body. The vows of our own church bind to the same ad- 
 herence every one of its ministers. Their education is to 
 this end, as also their examinations, trials, licensure, ordi- 
 nation, and installation. They not only declare that they 
 " sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith as con- 
 taining the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scrip- 
 tures," and that they " approve of the government and dis- 
 cipline of the Presbyterian Church in these United States," 
 but they vow solemnly before God and the Presbytery ta 
 
[86] 
 
 <' study the peace, unity, and purity of the Church," and to 
 be " zealous and faithful " in maintaining the same. Di- 
 gest, pp. 399, 410, 411. All this, replies Mr. McCune, does 
 not involve continued adherence to views professed at the 
 time of ordination. He claims that "any views" a man 
 may have entertained '•'■before " he comes into the Church, 
 lie has a right to hold and advocate after he comes in." 
 (Spec. YI, Proof 3.) Moderator and brethren, all this 
 pleading is worse than a quibble. It is evasion and bad 
 faith. It is inconsistent with honor, truth, the precepts of 
 the gospel, and loyalty to the Presbyterian Church. True, 
 the Church does not pledge any minister " not to change his 
 meivs," but she does pledge him, in his vows of ordination, 
 to '^ study" her "peace, unity, and purity," to be " zealous 
 and faithful in maintaining" these, as also in his vow to 
 " submit " to her authority, to respect her " denominational 
 laws," and her " organic enactments," which not only re- 
 quire the teaching of her doctrine and polity, but forbid the 
 teaching of anything contrary thereto. He is not at lib- 
 erty publicly to exclaim against her distinctive tenets and 
 laws as sinful sectarianism, and deny her right of distinctive 
 existence. He is not at liberty to advocate the dropping 
 ofi" of her Presbyterian peculiarities for the sake of " Or- 
 ganic Union." They are not " mere peculiarities;" they are 
 vital to her system and to the truth of God. JSTo. Vows 
 do not bind any man " not to change " his views, but a change 
 of views does bind every honorable man to ask a re- 
 lease from the vows he took to advocate the old views he 
 has now abandoned, and not to advocate the new ones he 
 has embrace'd. Apply Mr. McCune's views of liberty to 
 the oaths of Federal and State officers to support the Na- 
 tional Constitution, and to our Theological Professors to 
 maintain the Standards of the Church, and then imagine 
 the result ! The doctrine is treason in both cases. It was 
 for the purpose of binding to adherence and non-departure 
 from sound doctrine our Standards were adopted by the 
 fatliers of the Presbyterian Church in this land. It was in 
 the overture of John Thompson, a sire, for aught I know, 
 -of the respected elder you have put on this Committee of 
 
[ 87 ] 
 
 Prosecution, and at a time when the infant Church hnd no 
 written Constitution, in 1728, preliminary to the Adopting 
 Act, that he besought the General Synod "to publicly and 
 authoritatively adopt the "Westminster Confession and Cat- 
 echisms," and then " to oblige every Presbytery within 
 their bounds to oblige every candidate for the ministry to 
 acknowledge, coram Presbyterio, the said Confession of 
 Faith, and next, " to promise not to teach or 'preach anything 
 contrary to it." Baird's Digest, 29. Did this mean non- 
 adherence ? The Constitution was adopted and the vows 
 were taken. Is contemporaneous exposition an authority? 
 Is the uniform practice of the Church an authority ? ]^on- 
 adherence! What means the act of 1758, "strictly enjoin- 
 ing it on all our members and probationers for the ministry 
 that they preach and teach according to the form of sound 
 words in said Confession and Catechism, and avoid and oppose 
 all errors contrary thereto," and if their consciences will not 
 permit them to allow any matter determined bj'^ the major 
 vote of the Presbyterian Church, to " peacably withdraw." 
 Digest, p. 48. What means the solemn pledge which, in 
 1819, the Presbyterian Church imposed upon her Theolog- 
 ical Professors, to whom she was about to intrust the train- 
 ing of her ministry? Was it consistent with non-adher- 
 ence ? Does it allow Professors to drop off the distinctive 
 features of Presbyterian doctrine and polity in their in- 
 struction, or encourage her ministry in a disorganizing 
 course she would not herself tolerate for a moment ? I 
 will repeat it. " In the presence of God and of the Direc- 
 tors of this Seminary, I do solemnly and ex animo adopt, 
 receive, and subscribe the Confession of Faith and Cate- 
 chisms of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of 
 America as the Confession of my Faith, or as a summary 
 and just exhibition of that system of religious belief which 
 is contained in Holy Scripture, and therein revealed by 
 God to man for his salvation ; and I do solemnly, ex animo, 
 profess to receive the Form of Government of said Church 
 as agreeable to 'the inspired oracles. And I do solemnly 
 promise and engage not to inculcate, teach, or insinuate 
 anything which shall appear to me to contradict or contra- 
 
[88] 
 
 vene, either directly or impliedly, anything taught in the 
 said Confession of Faith or Catechism, nor to oppose any 
 of the fundamental principles of Presbyterian Church Gov- 
 ernment, while I shall continue a Professor in this Semi- 
 nary." Digest, p. 377. Why bind her instructors so 
 strictly unless that she might also have a ministry trained, 
 without equivocation, to the faithful maintenance of her 
 Standards? What means the act of 1825, that " ministers 
 who manifested a decided hostility to ecclesiastical creeds, 
 confessions, and formularies," shall also " withdraw ?" Di- 
 gest, p. 55. Does it mean non-adherence? What means 
 the vested right of the Presbytery, inscribed in the Consti- 
 tution, " to condemn erroneous opinions which injure the 
 purity or peace of the Church," i. e., which conflict with 
 the solemn vows to study and maintain that purity and 
 peace, in matters of doctrine and order, if it does not mean 
 adherence to the Standards ? What means that other pos- 
 itive obligation on the Synod to compel the Presbyteries to 
 "preserve" and enforce the Constitution, which is the sole 
 bond of our union ; and that other of the Assembly to 
 deal with every Presbytery and Synod derelict herein ? Di- 
 gest, pp. 144, 191, 218. But I forbear to expand the law 
 references on this point; 
 
 The doctrine of Mr. McCune as to non-adherence, with 
 liberty to remain in the body, is twin-sister of his doctrine 
 of non-enforcement. It is disloyalty to the Presbyterian 
 Church, intensilied by the lordly utterance, "It is useless to 
 make any intimations to me on this subject. I propose that 
 my name shall stand on the roll of this Presbytery so long 
 as I remain in Cincinnati or vicinity." 
 
 One other remark germane to this point. It is the habit 
 of the advocates of so-called " liberty " in teaching the Pres- 
 byterian faith and order, to plead that in their vows of or- 
 dination they only subscribe to a " system " of doctrine as 
 " contained " in the confession. The emphasis is put upon 
 the word "system." Mr. McCune has used it abundantly. 
 It is a grievous misfortune for Mr. McCune in the first place 
 that even this shelter for his new doctrines will not avail 
 him, for he holds that denominations, as such, are " essen- 
 
[89] 
 
 tially sinful," and have no scriptural right either to a dis- 
 tinctive " system " of doctrine or to a distinctive existence. 
 Upon his own showing, he has no right even to take a vow 
 to maintain a distinctive " system " of doctrine, let alone 
 objecting to the doctrines of the system ! He is utterly op- 
 posed to " human deductions," system or no system. To 
 plead that he will maintain the distinctive system he de- 
 clares has no right to exist, because the denomination it 
 represents has none, is simply to convict himself of self- 
 contradiction. If he maintains the " system " has a right 
 to exist, then the denomination built on that system has a 
 right to exist also. If he maintains the denomination, as 
 such, has no right to exist, then the system goes along with 
 it. Either way the interpleader is vain. 
 
 But, granting Mr. McCune the benefit of his contradic- 
 tion, how can ordination vows bind to maintain the " sys- 
 tem " of doctrine, and not bind to maintain the "doctrines 
 of the system?" A " system of doctrine" is a science of 
 doctrine,,all whose parts are organically related, each one 
 of whose doctrines is necessary to the integrity of the sys- 
 tem, and all which are inseparabl}' linked with the funda- 
 mental principles and facts on which it rests. The system 
 of doctrine in its integrity is the sum total of the doctrines 
 of the system organically bound together,* To explain 
 away the doctrines, is to impair the integrity of the system. 
 To impair the integrity of the doctrines is to impair the in- 
 tegrity of the system. How can Mr. McCune advocate the 
 doctrines he holds, and yet claim that he holds to the sys- 
 tem of doctrine, and so keep his vows inviolate? It is im- 
 possible. If, by non-adherence, you take away one doctrine, 
 
 you may take away two; if two, you may take away ten; 
 
 . : ■ ■ 
 
 *■ It was argued, and confidently asserted, by Mr. McCune and many 
 others in Presbytery, that the last twelve chapters of our Confession do not 
 belong to, and make no part of our "system of doctrine," and that Dr. 
 Charles Hodge, of Princeton, so teaches, in the Princeton Eeview; and 
 that, therefore, Mr. McCune's peculiar views about the Nature of the Church, 
 the Covenant of God with believers, Infant Baptism, Infant Church-mem- 
 bership, the binding and perpetual obligation of the Sacraments, etc., etc., 
 did not impair the integrity of our nysteml I deem it but just to the name 
 of Dr. Hodge, to append this note, by way of protest against the perversioa 
 of his words so persistently made in order to find a shelter and defense for 
 Mr. McCune. T. H. S. 
 
[90] 
 
 if ten, the whole. Can a man who denies that a plurality 
 of congregations, organically bound under one ecclesiastical 
 rule, is " a church," maintain the integrity of our system o± 
 polity ? He denies the polity itself. Can a man who holds 
 that the " body of Christ " is the " visible church," that infants 
 of believers are not members of the church, that infant bap- 
 tism as a covenant transaction is to be repudiated, that un- 
 baptized persons may become members of the church, that 
 a man may be a christian and not believe either the infalli- 
 bility of the Bible or proper humanity of Christ, or who 
 remands to the broad domain of liberty, " modes of worship, 
 subjects of baptism, methods of organization, kinds and 
 functions of church officers," and denies the scriptural right 
 of Presbyterianism, as such, can such an one, when called 
 to account, put in the interpleader, Oh ! I did not bind my- 
 self " not to change my views," I vowed only to maintain 
 the system of Presbyterian doctrine, not everything in the 
 confession? Moderator, he neither holds the system of 
 doctrine, nor the doctrines of the system. And it. is a vain 
 excuse to plead conscience,^private judgment, and a liberty 
 "unchallenged" for a decade of years. I can not forbear 
 to quote the admirable words of Dr. Krauth on this subject. 
 *' If a man," says he, '^ were examined as a candidate for a 
 chair of astronomy in a university, and were asked, ' What 
 is your astronomical system ?' and were to answer, 'I ac- 
 cept the teaching of the stars,' the reply would be, 'You 
 may think you do ; so does the man who is sure that the 
 stars move round the world, and that they are not orbs, but 
 gimlet holes to let the glory through ! We wish to know 
 what you hold the teaching of the stars to bef Do you re- 
 ceive, as in harmony with them, the results reached by Co- 
 pernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Kewtbn, Laplace, and Herschel, 
 or do you think the world one great flat, and the sun and 
 moon mere pendants to it?' ' Gentlemen,' replies the in- 
 dependent investigator, ' the theories of astronomers are 
 human-made systems — man-made theories. I go out every 
 night on the hills and look at the stars, as God made them, 
 through a hole in my blanket, with my own good eyes, not 
 •with a man-made telescope or fettered by a man-made 
 theory; and I believe in the stars and in what they teach 
 
[91] 
 
 me, but if I were to say or write what they teach me, that 
 would be a human-made creed, and I am opposed to all creeds.' 
 'Very well,' reply the examiners, ' we wish you a good pair 
 of eyes, and feel it unnecessary to go any further. If you 
 are unwilling to confess your faith, we will not tax your 
 conscience with the inconsistency of teaching tiiat faith, nor 
 tax our own with the hazard of authorizing you to set 
 forth, in tiie name of the stars, your own ignorant assump- 
 tions about them." Conservative Reformation, p. 167. 
 Think of an astronomer pledged to teach the Newtonian 
 system, pleading Mr. McCune's argument! Think of a 
 Presbyterian minister pledged to teach the " old ancestral 
 Calvinism," the Standards, " pure and simple," the Calvin- 
 istic system, asserting that he does teach that " system,'' 
 and so keeps his ordination vows, while yet pleading "the 
 Bible is my creed," "I have a right to change my views," 
 and still remain unchallenged on the roll of the Presbytery ! 
 Were commercial business to be transacted on such inter- 
 pretations of promises to pa}', the whole community would 
 be wrecked. There is not a business man in tlie world 
 who would loan to another an amount of money, under such 
 a liberty of interpretation, and ever expect one dollar of it 
 to return to his hands. I pass to the fifth specification. 
 
 SPECIFICATION V. 
 
 Plurality of Official Membership. 
 This specification reveals a new planet in the ecclesias- 
 tical heavens, and one of baneful omen. It is an admitted 
 fact that every planet in our system aflects the motions of 
 every other planet, and the same is true of eveiy denomi- 
 nation. When Uranus was discovered, it was found there 
 was something still aflecting its motions, and the sugges- 
 tion was made that a planet beyond itself was in existence. 
 Thaiiks to the observations of Adams and Le Vercier, and 
 the superior Berlin star-map, Keptune was discovered 
 w^iirling his way in the skies, only two billion seven hun- 
 dred thousand miles away from the central sun. Tlie dis- 
 turbances of our Presbyterian planet here have awakened 
 similar suspicions, and all eyes have been on the Lookout 
 to discover, if possible, the reason of the perturbations. 
 
[92] 
 
 Your Committee of Prosecution announce that a new de- 
 nomination exists, much nearer to ours than ]!Teptune to 
 the sun, and that its singular and contradictory law of 
 motion is this, that it moves in the orbits of every other 
 while yet claiming to move in one of its own. "Anti- 
 denomination" is its denomination. "Official Plurality" 
 is its law. It is an ecclesiastical phenomenon. 'Never 
 before, in history, was such a thing known — never before 
 in morals. It is an absorber and disorganizer; an absorber 
 in that it feeds upon all the rest — a disorganizer in that it 
 denies their right to exist, accounting all creeds but its 
 own heretical and schismatical. It moves in the hazy at- 
 mosphere of " Organic Church Union." One of its chief 
 creators in these parts is Mr. McCune. If not a creation 
 ex nihilo, it is a development ex materia prceexistente, and is 
 claimed to be the Darwinian fittest to survive. The stride 
 of progress is immense, wider than the steps of Homer's 
 gods in space. The inhabitants of all other church planets 
 are called upon to keep one foot in their own denomina- 
 tion and plant the other in the new, claiming still that they 
 are lawful denizens of both. If any choose to make the 
 full spring at once, all well; but dismissed or undismissed, 
 it makes no difierence. .For private members and public 
 ministers, two consciences, two private judgments, two con- 
 flicting obligations, two communions, two creeds, two op- 
 posing jurisdictions, two antagonizing denominations, plu- 
 rality of membership and plurality of office. This is the 
 doctrine publicly advocated by Mr. McCune. It is the law 
 of a strange progeny, bad in ethics, self-ruinous in prac- 
 tice, condemned in [Scripture. It is the central device of 
 the new movement whereby its advocates hope to forestall 
 the recoil of tlieir own principle upon themselves; an in- 
 genious hold-on-and-let-go expedient of defense against the 
 reproach of disorganization ; a last-born plea wherewith to 
 refute or parry the charge, that while professing to oppose 
 all distinctive denominations they are caught in the very 
 act of adding one more to the list. In the case of Mr. 
 McCune, it is the profession of adherence while practicing 
 non-adherence to the Presbyterian faith and order — a 
 quicksand foundation on which to build his claims to 
 
[93] 
 
 remain on the roll of his Presbytery while still teaching 
 that it is an unauthorized and extra-scriptural body. 
 The mystery of the organization of the Linwood and 
 Mt. Lookout church of undismissed church members, and 
 the equal mystery of the claim of Mr. McCune, as an en- 
 rolled member of the new anti-denominational association 
 of ministers and independent churches, to not sever his 
 denominational relations, is completely solved. This double 
 back-acting and forward-acting motion at one and the same 
 step is the law of the new enterprise and a fact in eccle- 
 siology unknown before. 
 
 The fact of a new oriranization is abundantly evinced 
 by the proofs under the specification. The extensive ap- 
 peal signed by Mr. McCune and his co-laborators in organic 
 union, and madeto"all the Christian ministers and chnrches 
 iu Il^orth America," to begin the organization of tlie New 
 Testament Church, is now in court, and on your table. The 
 evidence of the call and action of three general conventions 
 at New York, Cincinnati, and Sufiblk, Va., in this interest, 
 over one of which Mr. McCune presided as chairman, is 
 here. The additional evidence of organization atid subscrip- 
 tion to the "New Basis," is taken from Mr. McCune's own 
 paper, the work done in that behalf being left for consider- 
 ation under the Second Charge. The recognition of the 
 Texas "plan of organization" as one with the Cincinnati 
 and Suffolk movement, establishes the fact of "organiza- 
 tion" beyond a question. You will observe caref'ull}^ the 
 dates, and the progress of the -work : first, the "Address 
 to all Christian Ministers and Churches in North America," 
 signed by Mr. McCune and otliers, Oct., 1874, page 13 of 
 the case ; second, the three general conventions respectively 
 at New York, Cincinnati, and Suffolk, Va., Oct., 1873, 
 1874, and 1875, page 15 of the case ; third, the language of 
 the Christian Unity, resumed under the triple editorship of 
 Dr. Wellons, Mr. McCune and Mr. Melish, saying, " The 
 Christian Unity begins its career (again) with fixed purposes 
 and aims, etc.," and '•'■we must organize, band ourselves together 
 as ministers and churches, etc.,'' Aug. 1875, p. 15 of the case; 
 fourth, the response of Mr. McCune to Mr. Thrall admit- 
 ting the ^^organizing by actual visible oneness," Aug. 1875, page 
 
[9i] 
 
 15 of the case ; fifth, the actual, visible organization of Lin- 
 wood and Mt. Lookout Church, and the publication of its 
 basis to the world, Dec. 1875, pp. 14 and 27 of the case. 
 The "project," scheme and " aim," and actual " organiza- 
 tion" are beyond a peradventure, both as to a General As- 
 sociation of Ministers and Churches, and as to a particular, 
 actual and visible organization, where all evangelical Chris- 
 tians were to be received, of every denomination, the Gos- 
 pel preached, candidates trained for the ministry, and ministers 
 sent out into the world. I have established the fact. I have 
 given the data of the approach and visible outstanding exist- 
 ence of the new planet in our hemisphere. The remainder 
 of the testimony I need not go over. The " initial step" 
 of the visible embodiment of the organic union principles 
 in the new anti-denoniinational denomination is expressly 
 shown to be the actual reception of Christians into a sepa- 
 rate, independent and particular society. 
 
 The law of this organization is as already described. 
 Ministers, dismissed or undismissed from their old denom- 
 inational relations, are received. "Any minister who has 
 adopted this Basis, but does not deem it expedient to sever ex- 
 isting denominational relations^ shall, at his own rr quest, be en- 
 rolled., notwithstanding." , Such is the law. " Notwithstand- 
 ing " what ? !N'otwithstanding his solemn vows and obli- 
 gations to the denomination where he belongs: Signature to 
 the Basis, and enrollment, constitute him, ipso facto, a stand- 
 ing member in the new Association. But signatures and 
 enrollments have already -been made. The organization, 
 the " banding ourselves together," with the " Basis," as a 
 bond of union, is a historical fact. What shall I call this 
 law of plurality, of individual ministerial membership in 
 two antagonizing organizations — this double allegiance, gen- 
 uine in the one case and spurious in the other ? Will historic 
 congregational " usage," or Dexter, or the Boston platform, 
 cover it? IsTot exactly. Is it the new Oberlin departure 
 of 1871 abandoning its "Westminster banner precisely for 
 such a thing as this ? Then we know indeed what the char- 
 acter of that new departure is. Is it anarchy ? Will Pres- 
 byterian usage cover it ? Not exactly. The same limita- 
 tions are found here also. Will " Independent Presbyter- 
 
[95] 
 
 ianism " cover it ? Not exactly. The thing is a phenomenon. 
 What shall I call it, this advocacy of plural and antagonizing 
 responsibilities, the profession of loyalty and sincerity in all, 
 while the last aim at the ruin of the first ? When I say it 
 is a " Trojan Horse " introduced into this Presbytery, I say 
 all that need be said. The moral character of that trans- 
 action speaks for itself. " Timeo Daiiaos et dona fereiites! " 
 When I affirm that such a law of double and conflicting 
 jurisdiction is advocated by a Presbyterian minister, with 
 the express aim of depreciating the distinctive peculiarities 
 of his own denomination,! affirm that it is morally wrong, 
 and no ingenuity can harmonize it wdth an honest and sin- 
 cere adoption of our Standards. It is disloyalty to the 
 Presbyterian Church. Whetlier in the case of nunisters or 
 private members, to act upon such a principle is to break 
 covenant, and violate both ordination and sacramental 
 vows. 
 
 But this claim to double-membership, whether official or 
 private, is ridiculous, as well as morally w^rong. If a com- 
 municant may be a member of two churches at the same 
 time, the same principle will allow him to be a member of 
 three, and of as many more as he pleases, provided, always, 
 the new divine law of organization, "Receive ye one an- 
 other,'" is understood by all according to Mr. McCune's 
 interpretation ! If a minister may belong to two different 
 organizations at the same time, he may belong to a dozen. 
 If he may join the new organic union organization of 
 " Christian Union Churches," he may become a standing 
 member in the house of Bishops, one in the Methodist 
 Conference as well, one in the Baptist Association too, and 
 a member of the Presbyterian General Assembly besides. 
 There is no limit. His blooming honors thick upon him, 
 he may run and radiate through the whole circle of denomi- 
 nations, provided, always, they would " receive" him, as he 
 would " receive" them. If ejected from one, his standing 
 would be good in all the rest. Besides, once in, they have 
 no right to exclude him. He can remain on their roll. It 
 is such a privilege Mr. McCune advocates — the privilege 
 that a United States senator should be a member of the 
 British Parliament, of the Reichsrath of King William, 
 
[96] 
 
 and of the French Chambers at the same time ; the privi- 
 lege that the autocrat of all the Russias should be Presi- 
 dent of the United States, King of Italy, Sultan of Turkey, 
 and Hospodar of Bosnia, all under different oaths, laws, 
 and governments, and yet advocating allegiance and obe- 
 dience to all at the same time. True, he has the prevision 
 that under the operation of such a rule, denominations 
 would soon disappear ; but, meanwhile, till that millennium 
 comes, this plurality of contrary membership is to be in- 
 dulged, in hope that thus the Savior's prayer may soon be 
 answered, the world converted, and denominations be ready 
 to vanish away. 
 
 But the Presbyterian Church will not allow this duplicity 
 of membership, self-contradictory and suicidal to the church, 
 its individual members and ministers together. Ministerial 
 and sacramental vows, moral consistency, covenant obliga- 
 tions, the already quoted organic enactments of the church, 
 which I need not repeat, are all against it. In the case of 
 private members, "willful absence" from the regular minis- 
 trations to attendance on which they are solemnly pledged, 
 the absenting themselves from and refusing to support the 
 church to which they belong, "is a disciplinable offense? 
 and upon its occurrence discipline is enjoined." Digest, 
 p. 494. The confession of a "change of views" is no de- 
 fense against the sin of " having violated covenant by con- 
 tinued absence from the ordinances of the church." p. 494. 
 Attendance upon another church is no excuse, for the de- 
 linquent is still a member. The plea that he has joined 
 another church, without dismission, in the region where 
 his own exists, is not allowed, for it is a disorderly with- 
 drawal and an irregular connection. " No church member 
 can ever properly cease to be such, except by death, exclu- 
 sion, a regular dismission, or an orderly withdrawing to join 
 some other denomination." p. 625. " To withdraw from a 
 use of his privileges as a member, cither by irregularly con- 
 necting himself with another denomination, or by going to a 
 distant part of the world, etc., without making known his 
 removal to the church session, and asking for a certificate 
 for the purpose of enjoying occasional communion else- 
 where, or of dismission to join some other church, is itself a 
 
[97] 
 
 censurable violation of the principles of church fellowship, 
 and may infer suspension from its privileges." pp. 625, 626. 
 The law of our church is very clear, and its application to 
 the principle and case before us is inevitable. For church 
 members to join another organization without dismission 
 from the church to which they belong, so absenting them- 
 selves willfully from the organization and ministrations 
 they are under covenant obligations to support, is an evil 
 example, a breaking of covenant, a censurable violation of 
 the principles of church fellowship, an offense upon which 
 discipline is enjoined, and may infer suspension from the 
 church. These are some of the " denominational laws" 
 and "organic enactments" Mr. McCune would like to have 
 out of the way. Double-membership is not allowed. If 
 the parents do this, what will the children do? What kind 
 of a church shall we have the next generation ? 
 
 In the case of a public minister, the argument is a for- 
 tiori. If a private church member may not be guilty of 
 such license, much more a Presbyterian minister may not 
 encourage him in the same. If the Standards of the church 
 condemn it, the officer under vows to maintain the Stand- 
 ards may not be a party to the propagation of doctrines at 
 variance herewith, nor a party to the censurable irregular- 
 ity. If a private- individual may not assume a double- 
 membership, much more a public officer under vows to 
 exercise discipline in such cases may not himself be guilty 
 of advocating or doing the same. If not in the member, 
 much more not in the minister. The Presbyterian Church 
 orders that any of her ministers who have joined another 
 ecclesiastical association or another denomination are to be 
 " stricken from the roll, if not chargeable with fundamental 
 error in doctrine or immorality in life." Digest, pp. 109, 
 620. She will not allow ministers of another association 
 to belong to her own at the same time, nor her own to 
 belong to another. Others who come to her fold must 
 bring letters of dismission and good standing. Plurality 
 of official membership in different denominations she will 
 not permit. The plea of " non-withdrawal" from her own 
 body, while uniting with another, she will not tolerate, and 
 
[98] 
 
 could not, for it is the very gravamen and core of the trans- 
 gression itself. It is a plea for double and conflicting juris- 
 diction, double and conflicting allegiance, under creeds, 
 laws, vowg, and obligations mutually contradictory, and 
 destructive of her peace, unity, and purity as a church ; 
 and putting out of sight altogether the question of a pas- 
 toral relation to a particular church "outside of her juris- 
 diction," the personal presence in Presbytery and non-with- 
 drawal of a minister, himself under two distinct allegiances 
 — one Presbyterian, the other Independent — mutual con- 
 tradiction in polity, a regular officer in one denomination 
 standing and claiming the right to be enrolled in another, 
 is no argument in his vindication. It is the very substance 
 and essence of the ofiense itself, making the violation of 
 obligations of loyalty to the distinctive faith and order of 
 his church its own justification. He says to the one organ- 
 ization, "I'm on your side," and to the other organization, 
 "I 'm on your side." He cannot be true to both. Plu- 
 rality of official relation here is insincerity. He can not 
 sincerely "adopt," "approve," and "maintain" the dis- 
 tinctive faith and order of the Presbyterian Church with a 
 good conscience or " singleness of heart," either toward 
 God or man. Such double dealing, were it generally ac- 
 cepted as a rule of action by our ministers, would bring the 
 Presbyterian Church, first to contempt and at last to ruin. 
 It is the natural fruit and legitimate consequence of the 
 newly invented "divine law of organization." The or- 
 ganic unity that gives birth to a principle like this is sim- 
 ply organic duplicity. The tree is bad. It is known by 
 its fruits. Men do not gather grapes of thorns or figs of 
 thistles. 
 
 I pass to the sixth specification. • 
 
 SPECIFICATION VI. 
 
 Terms of Ministerial Memhershi'p. 
 
 The doctrine charged in this specification is that no 
 Presbytery has any right to exclude from its official mem- 
 bership any Christian minister, no matter to what denomi- 
 
[99] 
 
 nation he belongs, but that every Christian minister is, ipso 
 facto, entitled to a seat in any Presbytery, to a pastorate in any 
 church, and to any position of oflS.ce and trust the church 
 may have to offer. This title is said to rest upon a " right " 
 to official membership. This " right " is said to rest upon 
 the simple fact that a man is a " Christian minister." His 
 call to the ministry is assumed as the ground of the right, 
 and no other test of ministerial qualification is allowed, 
 save assent to a "few leading truths," "expressed in God's 
 own language," without any "human deductions" or " in- 
 ferences" therefrom, or any human " modifications." The 
 simple fact that he assents to a few unexplained texts, as 
 his creed, is a Christian man, and wants to be in the Pres- 
 byterian Church, is enough. He must be admitted to the 
 Presbytery. If he is an Independent, denying our ascend- 
 ing series of courts, and the right of one ecclesiastjcal rule 
 over many congregations organically bound together, and 
 the right of such organization to be called " a church," he 
 is nevertheless to be admitted. If he is a Prelate, asserting 
 apostolical succession, three orders in the ministry, repu- 
 diating the parity of the clergy, and disputing the ordi- 
 nation of his brethren, he must be admitted. If he is a 
 Lutheran, proclaiming consubstafitiation and the ubiquity 
 of Christ's body, he must be admitted. If he is a Baptist, 
 denying infant baptism, infant church membership, and 
 asserting immersion, he must be admitted. If he is a 
 Quaker, repudiating external sacraments as signs and seals 
 of the covenant of grace, he must be admitted. If he is a 
 Semi-Pelagian or Arminian, the one advocating a theology 
 that starts from the principle of human agency and only 
 introducing the Divine as a synergistic help to the sinner, 
 the other advocating a theology that denies the absolute 
 election of men to eternal life, and affirming their salvation 
 only on the condition of foreseen good works and faith, 
 both must be admitted. Apollinarian, admitting that 
 Christ had a human bod}' and soul, but denying that he had 
 a human spirit; Nestorian, sundering the natures of Christ 
 and teaching a double personality; Eutychian, absorbing 
 the human in the Divine and compounding a new person- 
 
[ iOO ] 
 
 ality — all must be admitted. The Calvinistic Church has 
 no right to distinctively exist as a separate denomination. 
 The distinctive tenets of faith and order, achieved after 
 long conflict, consecrated in the Westminster Standards, 
 and bound upon the oflicial ministry of our church, are to 
 be remanded to the category of indifierence because the 
 " new divine law of organization " is grounded in a text 
 that relates to things indifferent. In other words, and pre- 
 cisely, denominations are " essentially sinful," and should 
 be abolished, the Presbyterian with the rest, the Court of 
 Christ turned into a plain of Shinar with a new Babel as 
 its tower, no man surrendering anything, each one enjoying 
 free speech, the rights of conscience accorded and exer- 
 cised to the last breath, a " Concordia Discors" of mutual 
 " forbearance in love," a " Camjms Martins'^ of conflicting 
 beliefs and policies, an amphitheater of belligerent priest- 
 hood, anointed for the combat, but not with Aaron's oil, 
 " brethren " dwelling together in " Organic Unity," where no 
 dew of Hermon descends, and where the Lord commands no 
 blessing, but spiritual death forevermore. Behold! Is it 
 "good and pleasant," this Organic Church Union? It is 
 built on a " new divine law of organization," which en- 
 titles every Christian minister, ipso facto, to a seat in any 
 Presbytery or conference in Christendom. It is like the 
 under world, the Grave, as Blair describes it : 
 
 "'T is here all meet: 
 The shivering Icelander and sunburnt Moor, 
 Men of all climes that never met before, 
 A7id of all creeds." 
 
 Its name is "Legion," for it is many. Multitude is its 
 motto. Indifference its creed. It is the toleration of the 
 Grave. It is the warfare of the shades. It is the extrava- 
 ganza of supreme folly. 
 
 Have the committee misrepresented the defendant? 
 Read the proofs. Read the bold declaration, dogmatic and 
 authoritative, squarely made in face of the excluding law 
 of our Standards, that "any Christian minister has a right 
 to membership " in this or any other Presbytery, no matter 
 what his peculiar creed; that he is both "eligible" and 
 
[101] 
 
 "entitled" to "every privilege" and "every position" im- 
 plied in such membership, wlietlier pastor, teacher of theol- 
 ogy or church government, with free speech unchecked, 
 and full power to " imbue the whole denomination" with 
 his views, and that any one who dares to ask him not to 
 advocate his antagonisms to our Standards usurps the 
 " Throne of the Lord God Omnipotent." Kead the double 
 mocker^'' of a liberalism that scorns to even respect the 
 vow that binds to reverence and defense of our organic 
 law, and sneers at our " beautiful consistency " and " de- 
 lightful fellowship." Is this loyalty to the Presbyterian 
 Church? Is there "some difterence of opinion" here? 
 How long would the church survive were such a course 
 generally allowed? Is the claim of a plenary indulgence 
 to spread abroad unchallenged for " ten years," such palpa- 
 ble contradiction of the Presbyterian Church, by sermon, 
 paper, lecture, and debate, while receiving thousands from 
 herYunds, and subverting her order, an argument in defense 
 of loyalty to the church and to ministerial vows? Is the 
 license of unrebuked abuse against members of this Pres- 
 bytery who have sought by milder measures to arrest this 
 revolutionary liberty, so long indulged, or the plea that a 
 personal defense of our faith and order against such doc- 
 trine was a persecution of the defendant, or that conscience 
 consecrates the right of a Presbyterian officer to revolt 
 against his standard and yet remain undisciplined, is this a 
 demonstration that our terms of ministerial fellowship are 
 sinfully sectarian and should be blotted out? Moderator 
 and brethren, your Committee are of one mind that our 
 denomination, and our ministry, have been brought into 
 contempt by the necessity that has demanded this judicial 
 process. 
 
 The doctrine of ministerial non-exclusion from the Pres- 
 byterian Church, advocated by Mr. McCune, rests, as I have 
 said, upon what he calls a "right" of inclusion, and that 
 so-called right rests upon the simple fact that the applicant 
 is a Christian minister. In other words, an assumed call 
 to the ministry, ijjso facto, entitles to membership in this 
 Presbytery. Under the toleration, in our midst, of such a 
 
[ 102 ] 
 
 sentiment, and with the old rule for the examination of 
 ministers suppressed, who may not now knock at our door, 
 or if knocking be refused admission ? Is this our boasted 
 Reunion ? The doctrine of Mr. McCune is that, precisely 
 as a private Christian has, ij^so facto, a right to be in any 
 Presbyterian Church, no matter what his opposition to 
 Presbyterianism may be, and no matter how calculated, by 
 talent or otherwise, to make trouble in our house, so any 
 Christian minister has, ipso facto, a right to be in this Pres- 
 bytery, no matter how opposed to our Standards. The 
 plain English is, our Standards have no right to exist. It 
 is no misrepresentation of the defendant. The doctrine 
 has been publicly advocated for ten years, and is well 
 known. The proofs are abundant and specific. Our polity 
 is sinful — that's what it means. It is a "Wedge of Di- 
 vision," an " Apple of Discord," an " Achan in the Camp." 
 It will be enough that your Committee refer, without 
 comment, to our law which Mr. McCune has so persistently 
 opposed. The Presbyterian Church condemns the doc- 
 trines of Mr. McCune, and affirms that, as a guardian of 
 the Truth of God, she has a right to exclude from her min- 
 isterial communion any minister who refuses to adopt the 
 standards she has declared to be agreeable to the Word of 
 God. In most express language, she declares her own in- 
 ability to depart from the same, unless by " abandonment" 
 of the Word of God itself. Her convictions are unaltera- 
 ble. Her judgment is the latest and ripest conclusion of 
 all the contests in the Church of Christ for eighteen mem- 
 orable centuries. She affirms, in common with every other 
 branch of the Church, from which in many things she dif- 
 fers, that she is " entitled to declare the terms of admission " 
 into her own communion, and the '■'qualifications^' of her 
 own ministers, and in such manner "that the faith once de- 
 livered to the saints be kept pure and uncorrupt among us, 
 and so handed down to our posterity." Digest, pp. 44, 45. 
 She does it all for the sake of the " Heavenly Doctrine," of 
 more value than any organic union in earth or Heaven, and 
 under a profound sense of her responsibility to Christ, the 
 Head of the Church. She does exclude, and this is part of 
 
[103] 
 
 her fidelity, historic glory, and hlessiiig. She has iiiscrihed 
 her terms of admission in her standards, hy requiring a 
 sincere adoption, approval, and zealous maintenance of 
 those standards, and of her peace, unity, and purity, bound 
 up with such adoption, approval, and maintenance. Digest, 
 pp. 48 (1), 49 (6), 55 (1, 2, 3). She is not a voluntary asso- 
 ciation, nor a Christian Commission, nor an irresponsible 
 Council. She is a Divine Foundation, under law to Christ, 
 accountable for the light she diffuses, or the darkness she 
 spreads upon the world. She imposes solemn vows on all 
 her officers, ministers, elders, and deacons to adhere to what 
 she believes God's word to be. Digest, pp. 399, 410, 411. 
 She therefore excludes all ministers who can not accept her 
 standards, p. 57 (14). Churches that repudiate her polity 
 can not be received or retained, pp. 62 (2), 92 (II, 2). She 
 binds herself to the Calvinistic system, p. 85 (4.) By her 
 Reunion covenant she makes her Confession of Faith a per- 
 petual bond, and demands a positive approval of her polity, 
 p. 91 (2). She requires that all her ministers shall teach 
 according to her standards, p. 148. She strikes from her 
 roll all those that join other denominations, pp. 620 (7), 
 169(8.) She insists upon the "enforcement" of her stand- 
 ards, p. 191 (IV). She subjects to discipline all who traduce 
 them. p. 54. She repudiates Mr. McCune's "human de- 
 duction," drawn from the language of God. Rom. 15:7, 
 p. 45. She wants no new Confession, p. 73. She will unite 
 with none, organically, except upon the " Basis of the 
 Standards." pp. 45-48. Is it possible for her to be more 
 explicit in her condemnation of the doctrine of Mr. Mc- 
 Cune, a doctrine which is a point-blank impeachment of the 
 very terras of fellowship on which he was received into her 
 ministerial communion ? I place the responsibility where 
 it belongs. I submit that a bolder assault upon the Pres- 
 byterian Church, or a more defiant propagation of errors, 
 destructive of her existence as a denomination, a more in- 
 telligently aimed stroke at her fundamental and vital doc- 
 trine, by any of her ministers, never was known in all her 
 history. No other cases in the Digest will compare with it. 
 The disastrous effect of this propagation for " ten years " 
 
[104] 
 
 in this region can not be calculated. I appeal to living 
 proof. It has been almost as much as a minister's reputa- 
 tion is worth to dare to stand up and resist the spirit under 
 which this liberalism and lawlessness enjoyed their triumphal 
 march. And with their eyes full upon the facts, and open- 
 ing wider with astonishment at every step, your Committee 
 are of one mind, that such a doctrine as the one in this 
 single specification, and so clearly proved, and pregnant 
 with such measureless consequences, is, of itself, amply 
 strong to sustain the weight of the whole general charge. 
 I pass to the seventh specification. 
 
 SPECIFICATION VII. 
 
 I7}fant Church Membership Denied. 
 
 This specification charges Mr. McCune with the public 
 denial of the doctrine of infant church membership, and 
 the aflirmation of the counter-doctrine, that the visible 
 Church on earth is simply a company of regenerate believ- 
 ers. He holds that the doctrine of infant church-member- 
 ship is to be repudiated as a High Church theory, the child 
 of a sacramentarian dogma, w4iich mediates the grace of 
 Christ through an apostolic succession and the outward 
 performance of sacramental rites and ceremonies. The 
 "offspring" of believers, or of professing Christians, are 
 thrown outside of God's covenant with the Church, and 
 upon which the Church rests. "A Christian Church," says 
 he, " is a Church of Christians, an assembly of believers, a 
 company of regenerate souls." The inclusion of their 
 " children," he tells us, " is not a part of the common 
 faith." His principle of Organic Union, built upon his in- 
 terpretation of Rom. 15 : 7, " excludes all baptized children 
 from church-membership who can not give satisfactory 
 scriptural evidence that they are Christians ;" i. e., it ex- 
 cludes all infants. His language is as unmistakable here as 
 elsewhere. He says : '•^ I utterly repudiate the doctrine oj in- 
 fant church memhership." " Unbelieving, unconverted chil- 
 dren" are not members of the visible Church, even though 
 their parents are in church covenant with God. It is " a 
 
[ 105 ] 
 
 High Church theory." lie would baptize an infant, but not 
 recognize that Baptism as a covenant sign and seal of grace, 
 nor the infant as having any Church right to Baptism. 
 Baptism, as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, is only 
 to be administered to regenerate souls, and this not upon a 
 credible profession of their faith, but upon a credible " evi- 
 dence" of faith ; i. e., evidence regarded as "satisfactory" 
 to human judgment that a person is truly regenerate. To 
 crown all, and strengthen his assertions, he assumes to 
 speak authoritatively, and declare to the world that " the 
 Presbyterian Church has ceased to enforce Infant BajHism." 
 These views of Mr. McCune betray, in an unmistakable 
 manner, his true position, both as to doctrine and order. 
 They rest u[)on a mutilation of the Abrahamic covenant, 
 an identification of the "visible Church" with the " Body 
 of Christ," an actual expulsion of the offspring of believers 
 from their rights, the substitution in the case of adults of 
 "credible evidence of faith" for a "credible p7-ofession of 
 faith," and the theory that the terms of visible church-mem- 
 bership are identical with the terms of salvation, or mem- 
 bership in the "Body of Christ." 
 
 Before passing to the law of our Standards, I desire to 
 quote the singularly appropriate words of Dr. Bannerman, 
 to whose admirable work I have already referred. Having 
 established the clear distinction between the visible and in- 
 visible Church, or the "visible Church " and the " Body of 
 Christ," he says : "The principles in regard to the visible 
 and invisible Church, already indicated, have a very impor- 
 tant bearing on the question of the lawfulness or unlawful- 
 ness of Infant Baptism." "The doctrine of the visible 
 Church and its external relationship to Christ lays the foun- 
 dation for those view^s of church-membership which justify 
 us in regarding the infants of professing Christians to share 
 in the communion and privileges of the Church," " The 
 Independent view, which insists on the possession of a sav- 
 ing faith in Christ as the only footing on which church- 
 membership can be conceded, and the only title to the en- 
 joyment of church ordinances, tends very directly, if 
 consistently carried out, to deprive the infants of professing 
 
[ 106 ] 
 
 Christians of their right to be regarded as members of the 
 Church, or to claim the benefits of its ordinances." Again, 
 speaking of the Presbyterian terms of Communion, "a 
 credible profession of faith," and a " corresponding life and 
 conduct," he says : "The Independents demand something 
 more than this. Positive evidence of a credible kind that 
 a man is a true believer, and savingly united to Christ, is 
 alone held to be sufficient warrant to admit him to a Chris- 
 tian Society, the work of grace effected in his saul being 
 accounted the only ground and condition of church-member- 
 shijJ. The difference between the principles of Presbyte- 
 rians and Independents is broad and fundamental. With 
 Independents, a saving belief in Christ is the only title of 
 admission to the Christian Society. With Presbyterians, 
 on the other hand, an intelligent profession of belief in the 
 gospel is the title to admission to church-membership. The 
 Independent system of church-membership is founded on a 
 denial of the distinction between the visible and invisible 
 Church of Christ." Church of Christ, Vol. I, pp. 36, 73. 
 I think these quotations from so standard an authority, 
 taken in connection with Mr. McCune's words, leave no 
 room for doubt that Mr. McCune is not a Presbyterian, but 
 an Independent, under a Presbyterian name, and can not, 
 and does not, either adopt the system of doctrine in our 
 Confession, or the system of polity in our Discipline. 
 Brownism is not more radical. 
 
 Mr. McCune can not plead ignorance of our standards, 
 however much he may plead "indifference," for he has 
 studied them on this point, only to deny their doctrine, 
 publicly, before the Evangelical Ministerial Association of 
 Cincinnati, and spread the denial broadcast through the 
 Commercial of May 9, 1876, even after the Presbytery had 
 appointed its Investigating Committee, April 13, 1876, at 
 Glendale. See Proof and Spec. XI., Proof 2. lie quotes 
 the standards only to assail them before others, and affirm 
 that on this question they are no part of the common faith. 
 Our law asserts that the "universal church consists of all 
 those persons, in every nation, together with their children, 
 who make profession of the hoi}' religion of Christ, and of 
 
[107] 
 
 submission to his laws." Digest, p. 107. " A particular 
 church " it defines to " consist of a number of professing 
 Christians, ivith their offspring, voluntarily associated to- 
 gether for divine worship and godly living, agreeably to 
 the Holy Scriptures, and submitting to a certain form of 
 government." p. 107. "Children born within the pale of the 
 visible church, and dedicated to God in baptism, are under 
 the inspection and government of the Church." p. 108 
 (2, 6). " ISTot only those who do actually profess faith in, 
 and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both 
 believing pare7its are to be baptized." p. 108 (2, d). " All bap- 
 tized persons are members of the church, are under its care, 
 subject to its government and discipline, and when they 
 have arrived at the years of discretion, they are bound to 
 perform all the duties of church members." p. 497. The 
 same doctrine is declared, p. 671, and the confirmation of it, 
 p. 705. The same again in Conf. of Faith, Chap. XXY, 
 Sec. II, and XXVIIl"^ Sec. IV. Larger Cat. p. 62. Our 
 Church forbids Mr. McCune to administer baptism " to any 
 that are outside of the visible church," and therefore to infants, 
 if he regards them as not members, for '■'■all bap)tized persons 
 are members of the Church." Larger Cat. Q. 166. Digest, 
 p. 497. Shorter Cat. Q. 95. The visible church she de- 
 clares not to be exclusively an assembly of believers and 
 company of regenerate souls, but an assembly of baptized 
 professors of the true religion with their unregenerate offspring. 
 "The purest churches under iieaven," she declares, "are 
 subject to both mixture and error, and some have so degen- 
 erated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues 
 of Satan." Conf. of Faith, Chap. XXV, Sec. V. "Igno- 
 rant, wicked, and ungodly men," she says, " do receive the 
 outward elements in the sacrament," " are unfit to enjoy 
 communion with Christ," "unworthy of the Lord's table," 
 and are " guilty of the body and blood of the Lord to their 
 own damnation." Conf. of Faith, Chap. XXIX, Sec. VIII. 
 Such is our definition of the i^ew Testament Church, cor- 
 responding with our Saviour's illustrations in His parables 
 of the tares and the wheat, the sheep and the goats, the 
 good fish and the bad, the wise and the foolish virgins. 
 
[108] 
 
 Both classes are included and sit under the means of grace, 
 profess Christ, partake of the Lord's table, and meet to- 
 gether at the judgment seat, to be forever separated — some 
 on the right hand, welcomed to life eternal, the rest, on the 
 left, going away into everlasting punishment. Mr. Mc- 
 Cune would be wiser than the Master. He says the New 
 Testament Church is an " assembly of belieoers, a company 
 oi regenerate souls." His organic union church desires to 
 be an improvement, in this dispensation, on the Master's 
 plan. Peter's sheet, let down from heaven, had in it "all 
 manner of four-footed beasts and creeping things." Mr. 
 McCune's would contain only regenerate doves. Peter's 
 net at Pentecost inclosed Ananias and Sapphira; Mr. Mc- 
 Cune's at Mount Lookout would gather only such as Ste- 
 phen, Paul, and Cornelius. 
 
 I dwell upon this specification, because of the fearful lat- 
 itudinarianism of our times, with a host of lay preachers, 
 who never refer to the covenant of God as the foundation 
 of the visible Church, who regard the individual as its ulti- 
 mate unit, and not the family, and who judge the title to 
 membership in the church to be exclusively experiences 
 and evidejice, to fallible judgment, of regeneracy, and with 
 whom, nevertheless, the doctrine of repentance has a small 
 place in their preaching, while the mistake of emotional 
 excitement for a work of grace has a wide berth — all this, 
 with the increasing neglect of infant church-membership, 
 baptism, and family training for God — threatens to sweep 
 us away from our moorings. Organic union principles 
 work in the same direction. 
 
 It is not true that the " offspring of believers," are not 
 members of the visible church, and to be treated as such. 
 They are born within the pale of the church. Tiiey were 
 never outside of it. The first breath they draw, and the 
 first light they see are covenant breath and light. The 
 arms that press them first to a mother's breast, and the 
 tears that fall upon them, and the soft kiss that blesses 
 their infant cheek, are arms and tears and kiss of covenant 
 love. Their birthright in the church is the result of a 
 promise of grace made to Abraham and his seed. Their 
 
[109] 
 
 first home on earth is in the church of God. Thej^ helong 
 to it as truly as did Isaac in Sarah's arms, or Jacob in Re- 
 becca-'s. The church covenant is a household covenant. 
 " 1 will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee."" The Y)ronnise 
 is made to the children as well as to the parents. " It is to 
 you and to your children." God never made a covenant that 
 did not include tlie children, all of whom had a rio^ht to its 
 sign and seal. The covenant with Adam involved his pos- 
 terity. Tlie race-covenant with Noah involved the human 
 family, and its radiant seal still spans the heaven in every 
 storm. The Sinai covenant took in the children. The 
 church covenant with Abraham does the same. The unity 
 of Old and N^ew Dispensations is so vital to the doctrine of 
 the Church, and was so well understood, that special pre- 
 cepts under the ISTew, for requiring the signs and seals of 
 the covenant to be given to all included in it, were not re- 
 quired. The covenant with Abraham was confirmed in 
 Isaac, in Jacob, and in Christ, at last, the Promised Seed, in 
 whom all believers and their offspring were represented. 
 "For if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs 
 according to the promise." It is under the general provi- 
 sions of grace made to Abraham, who is " the father of all 
 them that believe," that believing parents now present their 
 children to God in. Baptism upon the sacrifice and service 
 of their faith, taking hold of God's covenant in behalf of 
 their seed, and pleading with Him for the gracious fulfill- 
 ment of its promises, all which are " Yea and Amen in 
 Christ Jesus." It is because the children are included in 
 that household covenant on which the Church of God rests, 
 they are to be baptized. Mr. McCune says, the doctrine of 
 infant church-membership is " no part of the common 
 faith." Astounding declaration, if he knows what the 
 " c(mimon faith " means! In the Roman Catholic Church, 
 in the Greek Communion, in all the authoritative creeds of 
 the Protestant Reformation, Lutheran and Reformed, ortho- 
 dox Puritan and Presbyterian, as in the Apostolic Church, 
 there is no other doctrine. " Foederati sunt baptizandi" is 
 the consecrated motto, " the federate or covenanted are to 
 be baptized," and only such. Has Mr. McCune yet to 
 
[110] 
 
 learn, in express language, Paul assures us that baptism 
 takes the place of circumcision, which signified regenera- 
 tion, or the putting away of the sins of the flesh, the new 
 uncarnal birth, eftected by the Holy Ghost, whose work is 
 symbolized by water ? Col. ii : 11, 12 ; Rom. vi : 3, 4. Is 
 he a Master in Israel, and has he yet to learn that, in God's 
 constitution and economy, all church-membership rests 
 upon the prior fact and condition of covenant relationship, 
 that in the case of infants it is this stipulated inclusion of 
 them in the church covenant, which is a household cove- 
 nant, that guarantees the right of membership and right of 
 Baptism, its sign and seal ; and that in the case of adults, 
 outside of the covenant, their interest herein is to be at- 
 tained, as Abraham's was, by faith ? Has ye yet to learn 
 that it was because all this was so well understood in early 
 times, Lydia and her house, and the jailor and his house, 
 and the household of Stephanus were baptized, the believing 
 parents upon their ow^n faith, the children on the faith of 
 the parents in a covenant confirmed to them and to their 
 seed after them? Or were they the adult domestics and 
 workhands called in from the field, or Roman slaves, who 
 imagined it would be a good thing to be baptized too, be- 
 cause their masters and mistresses. commanded it? Is Mr. 
 McCune ignorant of the fact that in the New Testament 
 there is more historic proof of household baptism, than 
 there is of the celebration of the Lord's Supper ? Mod- 
 erator, the reason Mr. McCune assails infant church-mem- 
 bership is because he either assumes that the grace of God 
 does not reach the infant's heart, in infant measure, and 
 abide there as a living seed, or if it did, 3'et membership 
 shall be denied because of infant incapacity to speak. Sir, 
 the presumption is that grace does come to the children of 
 believing parents, until that presumption is destroyed by 
 evidence of scandal in their lives, and positive refusal to 
 believe in Christ. Our Presbyterian law is built on this, 
 when it requires all the baptized children of believing pa- 
 rents, when they have reached the years of understanding, 
 to come to the Lord's table. The reproach Mr, McCune 
 suggests, of admitting to external membership " a multi- 
 
[Ill] 
 
 tude of unbelieving, unconverted children," is a reproach 
 against God's covenant, for they are born " unholy and 
 unclean" y&t federally " clean." " Else were your children 
 unclean, but now they are holy." The efficacy of divine 
 grace is not tied to sacramental administration in the Pres- 
 byterian doctrine of Infant Baptism, and it is a false charge 
 to say that our doctrine involves it. The sacramental 
 union that exists between the sign and the thing signified, 
 is not a realistic but symbolical ordained relation, whereby 
 the sign both represents and seals the grace proposed, upon 
 declared conditions, on the parent's part, without a limita- 
 tion as to time or ceremony. The Lord's Supper does not 
 cleanse from guilt, but only Christ. Baptism does not 
 purify, or create anew, but only the Holy Spirit. The first 
 may be administered only to believing adults because a 
 Public Object is proposed therein to faith, Christ crucified, 
 whom the believer must know. The second may be ad- 
 ministered to unconscious infants, because it represents a 
 Spiritual Agent's power behind the human consciousness, 
 unseen and secret in his work. 
 
 I would gladly dwell longer on this, but other subjects 
 demand co»sideration. I affirm that for a Presbyterian 
 minister to say, or any one to say, " I utterly repud'iaie the doc- 
 trine of infant church-rnembership," is to deny God's covenant 
 in Christ with all believers, and for believers and their seed ; 
 to deny the very foundation of the Christian Church itself, 
 and the ground of all church-membership, and prostitute the 
 sacred ordinance of Baptism to a mere profane festhetic art 
 of fixing to a child a name. And yet " ten years " of this we 
 have had, blown in every direction with a flourish of trum- 
 pets in the interest of Organic Union ! Is it the doctrine 
 of our standards? Is it loyalty to our system of doctrine? 
 It is disloyalty to the sacred truth of Christ and to the 
 Presbyterian Church, a public violation of most solemn 
 ordination vows. Grant this license for "ten years" to all 
 our ministers. Allow the liberalism of the limes to rush in 
 like a flood. Proscribe the men who dare to- lift their 
 voices against the palliation of ruinous encroachments, and 
 what then? Shall we wonder why a covenant God who 
 
[112] 
 
 has said " I will pour water on him that is thirsty, and 
 floods on the dry ground; I will pour my Sfiirit on thy 
 seed, and my blessing on thine offspring," has left our fleece 
 dry, and seemed to us as though His promise failed forever- 
 more? Vows have lost their sanctity, and the phantom of 
 organic union, caressed too long, like some Delilah, has 
 grieved away the Spirit of all grace. We have risen up to 
 shake ourselves as at other times, and "wist not that the 
 Lord was departed from us !" I pass to the eighth specifi- 
 cation. 
 
 SPECIFICATION VIII. 
 
 Admission of Unbaptised Persons. 
 
 This specification brings to notice a doctrine of Mr. 
 McCiine, worthy to stand beside his mutilation of God's 
 covenant with believers in behalf of their ofispring. I show^ 
 you the abstraction of membershiD from a helpless infant, 
 the dowry God has given it, and charging it unjustly to 
 the credit of a man whom Christ forbids to take it. I show 
 you the tearing of the seal from the official deed conveying 
 to the child its own inheritance, and giving it the seal with- 
 out the parchment, and then the giving of the parchment 
 to the adult without the seal. Such is the administration 
 and stewardship of the mysteries by organic union, and 
 such is the account kept in its bank. Is it the part of a 
 faithful and wise steward whom his Lord makes ruler over 
 His household to give them their portion in due season? 
 Mr. McCune refuses to children of believers their covenant 
 title to church-menibership, and yet baptizes them, aflixing 
 the sign and seal of their abstracted right. Mr. McCune 
 gives to adults the official deed itself, and covenant inher- 
 itance, conveyed to them without the sign and seal of its 
 possession. The testamental seal he gives to one from whom 
 he takes away the testament itself. The testament he 
 passes to the other whom he lets reject the testament seal. 
 Christ has made baptism an essential condition of external 
 church-membership, though not an essential condition of 
 membership in the " one Body " of Christ. Mr. McCune 
 will not have it so. Jerusalem below must shine in the 
 
[113] 
 
 prerogatives of Jerusalem above. The outer palace wall 
 shall be coufounded with the Bride herself who sits within 
 the secret chamber. Israel, external, shall have the privi- 
 leges of Israel, within. The Church invisible and visible 
 shall be melted into one. Mr. McCune declares that the 
 jpossession of saving faith, the door of entrance to the church 
 invisible, shall be the door of entrance to the church visi- 
 ble, and that Christian Baptism, on the profession of that 
 faith, shall not. He will admit unbaptized possessors of that 
 faith to church membership. Such is Mr. McCune's Organic 
 Union — a bid for Quaker suffrage to his scheme, just as the 
 denial of infant church membership is a bid to Baptists for 
 their suffrage too; just as the denial of organic rule over a 
 plurality of congregations is a bid to Independents for their 
 vote ; while the administration of the rite of baptism to 
 infants is a sop to Presbyterians, the Prelatic posture of a 
 minister without an Eldership a crumb to all Episcopalians, 
 and creeds, condemned to dungeons and to chains, a sound 
 of liberty to all Disciples ! Moderator, what kind of a thing 
 is baptism upon Mr. McCune's theory? Our book tells us 
 that it is a covenant ordinance, a sign and seal of covenant 
 blessing. With Mr. McCune it is neither. Having de- 
 stroj^ed the covenant relation, baptism becomes nothing 
 more than if one. man should throw water into the face of 
 another, and profanely pronounce upon him the name of 
 the Trinity. "With us baptism is an " ordinance,'" with him 
 it is a handful of water. And must we spend our time here, 
 in judicial process and trouble for a year, before such non- 
 sense and such disloyalty to our confession and our vows 
 can be arrested, and our Church's peace secured ? 
 
 Mr. McCune is bold to tell us what he would do, and 
 what he has done in this respect. He would, he says, 
 "receive any one" whom he judges to be regenerate, 
 "although" such one has the views of the " Friends " con- 
 cerning water baptism. Let the Presbytery observe, not 
 only every member of the societies commonly called 
 Quakers, who he judges " make a credible profession," and 
 therefore, as he concludes, are regenerate, but "any one" 
 though not among " Friends," yet having their " same 
 
[ 114 ] 
 
 views," as to water baptism, he will receive. In other 
 words, all credible professors who," ipso facto, are decided to 
 be credible possessors of saving faith, and yet " ivho at the 
 same time deny the perpetual obligation of water bap)tism," he 
 would "receive." He breaks down the door of entrance 
 into the visible church, already made by Christ, and makes 
 another for himself. And then he pretends, while pleading 
 his broad principle, that it is only an " exceptional case." 
 Christ's command is absolute. Our Standards bind it on 
 the conscience of Mr. McCane. If one may enter unbap- 
 tized, ten thousand may. No " exceptional case" is allow- 
 ed by Christ. None by our Standards. When writing his 
 book on Organic Union, and trying to establish the pro- 
 position that none may be excommunicated, except upon 
 the previous judgment that they are unregenerate, he 
 lays down the doctrine that if a man refuses to obey the 
 words of Christ, he is not a Christian. He asks, " Can a 
 man refuse to obey the words of our Lord Jesus Christ and 
 still be a Christian ?" The judgment of charity would lead 
 us to say, *' Yes," for Mr. McCune's sake, when we re- 
 m.ember that he is under orders from Christ himself to 
 baptize all nations. He asks again, " Can a man refuse to 
 obey the inspired apostles and be a Christian ? " The same 
 judgment of charity inclines us to answer " Yes," for 
 the sake of Mr. McCune's "Friends," for the Apostles 
 "commanded" believers to "be baptized in the name of the 
 Lord." Acts 10 : 48. Organic Union, pp. 77, 78. Many a 
 "proud" and many an "ignorant" man is a Christian, and 
 can say and do many bad things. Mr. McCune, defending 
 his new " divine law " as to excommunication, not only re- 
 fuses to admit to membership, but excludes from member- 
 ship, as unregenerate, the man who refuses to obey a 
 known "command" of Christ and His Apostles. But 
 when expounding his new " divine law " again, he assures 
 us, ^^2in hesitatingly," that he will judge to be regenerate, 
 and receive to membership " every " man, " any " man, 
 anywhere, who refuses to obey what Mr. McCune himself 
 acknowledges to be a perpetual command of Christ and 
 His Apostles, and be baptized. On his own confession, 
 
[115] 
 
 therefore, his net takes in a whole swarm of un regenerate 
 souls, believing unbelievers, who not only repudiate 
 Baptism, but both the sacraments together, and makes 
 mere membership " all the fellowship they will accept." 
 How then, on his own showing, is the Christian Church a 
 "company of regenerate souls?" By his own definition 
 every unbaptized man is unregeuerate, because he disobeys 
 a divine command in refusing to be baptized. Mr. Mc- 
 Cune's "Friends "have no occasion to thank him for his 
 argument. He makes them uncoverted. Tbe '■'■Quaker 
 gun" may be heard resounding, "Friend, if what thee 
 eayest is true, we don't need thee ; if what thee sayest is 
 false, we don't want thee !" And the Baptist gun may yet 
 explode a flood that will immerse a creed that can't hold 
 water even for sprinkling, and leave not one of all the new 
 communion unbaptized. It avails nothing for Mr. McCune 
 to say, many interpret the command spiritually. "No hu- 
 man deductions!" We want the command ^^ expressed in 
 God^s own language." " The Bible is the only true creed for all 
 true Christians, and all ministers, and all churches" '■^ Every 
 thing human in creeds I oiipose" With what consistency 
 can Mr. McCune ejaculate such sentiments, and then pro- 
 pose liis own " deduction " in face of an express command 
 of Christ and His apostles? — a deduction denying the per- 
 petual and necessary obligation of water-baptism, as a door 
 of entrance to the visible Church ? — and then, like Sir 
 Oracle, thunder in our ears, "We maintain that faith in 
 Christ is not merely the great condition, but the only con- 
 dition." " When we say that faith in. Christ is the orie 
 essential condition of entrance, we mean that it is the only 
 condition." And so the Organic Union "creed — no creed," 
 woven like Joseph's coat of many colors, goes on, and tlie 
 piebald anti-pro-denomination pleads an "Apostolic pedi- 
 gree ! Pray, moderator, what Apostle was it who fathered 
 such a creed? I am sure it was not Peter who said, 
 " Repent and be baptized." I am sure it was not Paul who 
 tells us, " We are buried with Christ, by Baptism, into His 
 Death !" "If I seek to please men, then I am not the servant 
 of Christ." Christ's command is supreme though a thou- 
 
[ 116 ] 
 
 sand Presbyteries or Synods are willing parties to its trans- 
 gression. Broad and bold is the utterance of the Presby- 
 terian Church that her whole power in Christ's Kingdom 
 is simply "declarative and niinisterial," and she dare no 
 more dispense with Christ's command tliau Gabriel dare 
 dispute an order from the Throne. By what authority does 
 Mr. McCune leave it for the applicant to decide what the 
 commands of Christ are, what His sacraments are, and how 
 these are to be observed? Such an argument is a destruc- 
 tion of the authority of the Church as a teacher and wit- 
 ness of the Truth, and abdication of the functions of the 
 ministry. If one applicant may decide according to his 
 notion, another may decide a different way, and every com- 
 mand of Christ be trampled under foot. The Standards, 
 moderator, which Mr. McCune has vowed that he sincerely 
 adopts, approves, and will maintain, declare and teach in 
 the most express language the perpetual and necessary 
 obligation of water-baptism. The ordinance is "to be con- 
 tinued in the Church till the end of the world." Conf. of 
 Faith, chap, xxviii, sec. 1; "continued in the Church of 
 Christ until His second coming." Larger Cat. Q. 176. 
 "To neglect or contemn this ordinance is a (jreat sin." 
 Conf. of Faith, chap, xxviii, sec. v. It is to despise Christ's 
 command. " Can the Church answer to her great Ilead, if 
 this neglect of duty be not mourned over and corrected?" 
 Digest, p. 673. This ordinance is, for uncovenanted adults, 
 the door of entrance into the visible Church, the gate " where- 
 by the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible 
 Church." Larger Cat. Q. 165. Here "JJo Ammi" and ^^Lo 
 Ruhamah " enter — Hosea i : 9, 10. It is part and parcel of a 
 credible profession of faith in Christ. " When unbaptized per- 
 sons apply for admission into the Church," after satisfactory 
 examination, and, in ordinary cases, making a public profes- 
 sion, " they shall, thereupon^ be baptized." Digest, p. 677, 
 (iv). " In the practice of our Church, and according to her 
 Standards, baptism is manifestly regarded as a part of the 
 general profession of faith and obedience to Christ." Digest, 
 p. 678. By no vote of any session, nor of any committee- 
 men, nor of any court on earth can an unbaptized person be 
 
[ 117 ] 
 
 allowed membership in the Church. Mr. McCune is taught, 
 by our Standards, "that the administration of baptism, ac- 
 cording to the "Word of God, must be involved in and at- 
 tendant upon" any vote of reception, p. 129 (4), Ex- 
 pressly is it stated, " The vote of a session does not entitle 
 any unbaptized person to the privileges of the Church, for 
 the reason that baptism, as our Confession of Faith declares, 
 (Chap, xxviii, sec. 1), is declared to be a sacrament /or the 
 solemn admission ofthepartij baptized into the visible Church:' 
 p. 130. "The imblic profession of one's faith may be omit- 
 ted," but baptism may not be omitted, for the "exceptional 
 case" as it is called, has no respect whatever to the omis- 
 sion of baptism, but only to the omission of a imblic profes- 
 sion, when, for good reasons, it can not be made. So our 
 Standards : " The public profession of one's faith may, for 
 sufficient reasons, as our Directory of Worship allows, be 
 omitted ; but the exceptional case does not respect baptism., 
 which precedes the admission of the party to the Lord's 
 table." p. 130. The vote of the session or of any court 
 admitting persons to church-membership, " must be condi- 
 ditioned upon baptism, and can, in no case, be a substitute 
 for the sacrament itself (baptism), p. 130. Twenty years 
 ago, lorjg before Mr." McCune came into the Presbyterian 
 Church where he now is, the General Assembly settled 
 that question. It settled also the question as to the admis- 
 sion of the "Friends" by referring to the answers of the 
 Larger Catechism, Q. 166, and Shorter Catechism, Q. 95, the 
 undeniable doctrine of which is that they are not to be 
 admitted into the Presbyterian Body while holding their 
 peculiar views. Is Mr. McCune so blind, are we so blind, 
 as not to see that to tolerate the omission of either sacra- 
 ment, is to deny the perpetual and necessary obligation of 
 both, and unchurch the Church? Is anything plainer in 
 the world than that Mr. McCune's profession of obedience 
 to Christ, as a minister of the New Testament, is a dis- 
 obedience even greater than to the solemn vows he has 
 taken to support the Standards of the Presbyterian Church ? 
 or are Mr. McCune's views, the views of the Friends ? Has 
 he yet to learn that although some scruples, by applicants, 
 
[ 118 ] 
 
 in reference to infant baptism may be tolerated, in hope 
 that sound instruction in the word, and loving reverence 
 for Christ's command, and God's covenant, will remove 
 them, yet no scruples as to their own baptism, upon profes- 
 sion of their faith, are or can be tolerated for a single mo- 
 ment? The Church is under law to Christ, and every ap- 
 plicant must come under law to the Church. He must 
 "submit" to be bound by the Church on earth, binding 
 by the Word of Christ alone, as she hopes to have her ad- 
 ministrative acts bound in heaven. There must be submis- 
 sion to Christ's laws. Digest, pp.' 675, 676 (7), 107, (ii, iv). 
 Moderator and brethren, all this Mr. McCune knows. He 
 is not ignorant of the Standards. It is by no fault of logic 
 he has been betrayed into his chosen position. The logic 
 is bad enough, but the " I propose" is worse. His Organic 
 Union Eosinante rides rough-shod over the Standards, and 
 delights to prance and caper under the spurs of her Don, 
 upon those very spots where the truth especially comes into 
 contact with his scheme. He dismounts and lays his Or- 
 ganic Union ax not " at," but " to " the root of the Presby- 
 terian tree ; the tree of the visible Church ; the tree of the 
 covenant of God ; the tree of Church Confessions ; the tree 
 of Baptism ; the tree of Church polity, and leaves nothing 
 unchopped. His motto would seem to be, '■'■After me the 
 Deluge ;" or ^^ After me the Millennium !" He strikes down the 
 whole distinctive system of Presbyterian doctrine and order. 
 If an unbaptized person may be a member, he may be an 
 officer; if an officer, he may be a minister. If the title of 
 elders maj'^be thrown away, the title of ministers may be also. 
 Ifhe may dispense with ordination by the laying on of hands 
 in the one case, he may do so in the other. There is noth- 
 ing in the principles of his creed-no-creed to prevent an 
 unordained, unbaptized ministry, called " leaders of the 
 meeting," preaching to a church of unbaptized professing 
 Christians who, having voted to dispense with the observ- 
 ance of one sacrament, are ready at the next meeting to 
 dispfense with the observance of the other. Under Mr. 
 McCune's polity, which makes or unmakes anything by a 
 vote of a mongrel congregation, under no constitution, he 
 
[ 119 ] 
 
 may do anything he pleases and plead immunity on the 
 ground that he is " outside Presbyterian jurisdiction." The 
 organization, as such, that would be left, acting on the 
 principles of the new " divine law," would not be worth 
 the while for Satan to tempt or Christ to save. If he may 
 dispense with the Sacraments, he may dispense with the 
 Word ; if he may dispense with the Wprd, he may dispense 
 with the Master. Moderator, such Organic Union, under 
 the guise of Christianity, is verily a "great sin" against 
 Christ, His Cross, and His Crown! " Ten years ?" Tell 
 it not in Gath ! I pass to the ninth specification. 
 
 SPECIFICATION IX. 
 
 Saving Faith — What is it ? 
 
 This specification, and the proofs under it, show what 
 Mr. McCune thinks of Saving Faith, the one condition of 
 external Church-membership. It also measures the liber- 
 ahty of judgment allowable in the ministerial determina- 
 tion of what constitutes credible evidence of regeneracy in 
 a suppliant for Church ordinances and privileges. As a 
 result of the minimum quid creed, we have the minimum 
 quid faith, and the maximum quid liberality upon qualifica- 
 tions for Church-membership. Briefly, while it is vastly 
 important that all Christians should believe in the infalli- 
 bility of the Word of God, upon the unfailing certainty of 
 whose promises in and testimony concerning Christ all sal- 
 vation hangs, and the whole assurance, comfort, peace, light, 
 hope, and life of a believing soul, yet such a faith as this is 
 not essential to being a Christian, and if so then clearly not 
 essential to salvation. The conviction or inner-conscious be- 
 lief that the Bible can not fail, is not even essential to true 
 and saving faith itself. To sa}' that a part may be infallible, 
 and a part not, is no help here. It is enough that " the 
 Bible is my creed," without believing it infallible. " We 
 believe," says Mr. McCune, " that a man may be a Chris- 
 tian and not believe in the infallibility of the Bible, although 
 ' almost' all Christians do believe the Bible to be infallible." 
 So, again, while it is vastly important that the testimony as 
 
[120] 
 
 to Christ's proper humanity should itself be true, and all 
 Christians believe it, yet such a faith is not essential 
 to being a Christian, and, by consequence, not essential to 
 salvation. The attempt to find a shelter for these views by 
 a reference to Luther, as the defendant has already inti- 
 mated, and to plead the name of Dr. Hodge, in addition, is 
 vain. The shelter of ubiquitarianism, and the criticism of 
 Luther on some parts of the Canon, will not help the de- 
 fendant to maintain statements so broad and flat-footed as 
 these. It is an after-thought. Did Luther deny the infal- 
 libility of the Bible? Did he deny the proper humanity of 
 Christ? The conviction or inner-conscious belief that 
 Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Mary, the Son of David, the 
 Son of Abraham, the Son of Adam, the Son of God, was, 
 and is, my true Elder Brother, whose soul and body were a 
 sacrifice to God for human guilt, is not essential to true and 
 saving faith itself, according to Mr. McCune. It is enough 
 that " Jesus is my Saviour," as " the Bible is my creed," 
 without believing in His proper humanity. " We believe," 
 says Mr. McCune, " that a man may be a Christian and 
 not believe in the inoper humanity of Christ" Such is the es- 
 sential nature of Organic Union Saving Faith. It is the 
 acceptance of a testimony concerning whose certainty the 
 soul remains in doubt. It is the repose of the soul upon 
 the word of One who claims to be the sinner's substitute, 
 but whose proper humanity the Christian calls in question. 
 It opens the door for the old exploded Christological here- 
 sies. The Bible may be infallible, but the Christian need 
 not be sure that it is so. Christ ^/ia?/ be properly human, 
 but the Christian need not be sure that He is so. The anguish 
 of the loving heart, " They have taken away my Lord and 
 I know not where they have laid Him," can never pierce 
 a soul to whose Saving Faith no certainty that He. is prop- 
 erly man, nor that His word of grace can ever fail, are 
 needed. The miraculous office of this Organic Union Sav- 
 ing Faith is (1) that, ii^so facto, \t excludes all fatal heresy, 
 and (2) it makes regenerate souls all orthodox ; the one a 
 negative pole of virtue, the other a positive. " A Saving 
 
[121] 
 
 Faith in Christ," says Mr. McCune, " excludes all fatal 
 heresies." Again, "Regenerate souls are all orthodox." 
 
 I beg of my brethren in the ministry to note to what 
 direful lengths one false principle lodged in the human 
 mind will lead, one false interpretation of God's word ! To 
 observe how a man devoted to it is borne, he knows not 
 whither, and stands " amazed," abashed, confounded, when 
 confronted with his own dauguerreotype. To Mr McCune's 
 new non-excluding " divine law of organization," which 
 puts Union before Truth, and not Truth before Union; In- 
 difference before Conscience, and not Conscience before Indif- 
 ference, is all this dark perversion to be traced. Organic 
 Union calls for sacrifice, the sacrifice of Truth, her abdica- 
 tion of her throne. The sacrifice is made, and Toleration 
 is the cry. The necessary articles of the Christian Faith 
 are reduced to the smallest possible compass, in order to in- 
 clude the utmost possible number. The interpretation of 
 the Scripture is put in abeyance only to make room for the 
 encroachments of Infidelity. The doctrinal results of 
 eighteen centuries, embodied in our peerless Standards, the 
 martyr-testimony, crown, and heir-loom of our noble Church, 
 with all its barriers, guards, and chosen words, bright like 
 glittering armory, and all their histories, recounting where 
 and how the Truth was saved on many a hard-fought bat- 
 tle-field, all are thrown away. And what is given us here 
 instead ? The doctrines of Rome, against which the Re- 
 formers fought, and over which they triumphed. Uncer- 
 tainty as to God's word! Uncertainty of the believer's salva- 
 tion ! Room for Tradition to come in here ! Room for 
 salvation by works here ! Room for the calm scornful 
 smile of the Archbishop of Cincinnati ! Room for the 
 mantling cheek of shame in the Presbyterian Church ! The 
 Standards a shuttlecock, within five years after Reunion, 
 struck by the battledore of Romanism to the one side, 
 struck back by the battledore of Independency to the other ; 
 both in the hands of Mr. MCune. Or is it the spirit of Modern 
 Liberalism, the Sceptical free-thinking " Spirit of the Age," 
 breathing through Organic Union, the Serpent, in the garb 
 of light, lurking in our Eden, and whispering doubt as to 
 
[ 122] 
 
 God's truth, saying: " Yea, hath God saidf and doubt as 
 to Christ's proper humanity, saying : " Has He come in the 
 flesh ?" 
 
 "Ithuriel and Zephon ! with winged speed, 
 
 Search through this garden ; leave unsearched no nook; 
 
 There tells of some infernal Spirit seen, 
 
 Hitherward bent (who could have thought?), escaped 
 
 The bars of hell, on errand bad, no doubt; 
 
 Such, when ye find, seize fast, and hither bring." 
 
 Moderator, the Presbyterian Standards, Mr. McCune has 
 vowed to maintain, teach that no man can be a "Christian," 
 and "??.o^ believe in the infallibility of the Bible ; " that no man 
 can be a "Christian," and 7iot believe in the yro'per humanity 
 of Christ, and that saving faith carries in its bosom, by ne- 
 cessity, the assurance that the Word of God is infallible, 
 and that Christ is properly man. Our Confession of Faith, 
 chap. XIV, sees. 1, 2, declares that Saving Faith is a 
 "grace," "the work of the Spirit of Christ in the heart," 
 and that " by this faith a Christian believeth to be true, 
 whatever is revealed in the word, for the authority of God 
 Himself sj^eaking therein." "He that believeth not God 
 hath made Him a liar." It teaches, chap. I, sec. 5, that this 
 faith is "our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible 
 truth and Divine authority thereof," and that this persua- 
 sion and assurance are ^^from the inward work of the Holy 
 Spirit, bearing witness with and by tlie Word in our hearts." 
 This is what the Holy Ghost does when He makes a 
 " Christian." He enlightens the soul to know that the 
 Bible is infallibly true. The believer learns that the " Su- 
 preme Judge " in all- doubt, is " the Holy Spirit speaking in 
 the Scripture." It is not possible for a man to be a 
 "Christian," such an one as the Holy Ghost makes, and not 
 believe in the infallibility of the Bible. It is not possible 
 for him to have Saving Faith and doubt the Word of God. 
 The ground for his confidence is gone. To doubt its infalli- 
 bility is to doubt its Inspiration, for it is the Inspiration 
 that makes it Infallible. Faith is reduced to mere opinion 
 or conjecture, which is not saving. The only possible argu- 
 ment by which to avoid the force of these conclusions, is 
 to aflirm that the " Bible " is not the "Word of God " and 
 
[123] 
 
 that the "Word of God " is not the "Bible." Moderator, 
 our Standards have settled this matter for all Tresbyteriaa 
 ministers, and no one in our Church has a right to teach 
 any such doctrine. Our standards expressly declare that 
 the Bible is all the Books of the Old and New Testaments, 
 and enumerates them in order. Our Confession says, "Under 
 the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, 
 are now contained all the Books of the Old and New Test- 
 aments, which are these," and every Presbyterian minister 
 solemnly affirms that he receives them as the "Word of 
 God," and the " only infallible rule of faith and practice." 
 The " Bible " is the " Word of God," and the " Word of God" 
 is " the Bible," all whose books our Standards affirm are 
 "given by inspiration of God." And so as to our Lord's 
 proper humanity. Our Shorter Catechism tells us that 
 Saving Faith " is a. Saving Grace whereby we receive and 
 rest upon Christ alone for salvation, as He is offered to us in 
 the gospel." Q. 86. And how He is offered to us in the 
 gospel we are told in these words, "Christ, the Son of God, 
 became mail, by taking to Himself a true body and a reason- 
 able souV Q. 22. Also Large Cat. Q's. 36, 37, 39, where 
 His humaanity is declared to be a necessity iov our salvation. 
 The object of Saving Faith is not a phantom, not a picture 
 in the mind, not an ideal Jesus, not a work of imagination, 
 but the Son of God in flesh; i. e., human nature, ^^ proper 
 humanity" a " Than" who is also God. Deity, apart from 
 humanity, is no object of Saving Faith. Humanity, apart 
 from Deity, is none. Saving Faith must believe in both, 
 or it can not be saving, because it dqes not receive Christ 
 "as He is offered to us in the gospel." It is the mark of an- 
 cient as of modern Anti-Christianity, to deny that "Christ 
 has come in the flesh." It is next door to it to "not believe" 
 that He has so come, and not far from it to question His 
 proper humanity. It is not possible for the Holy Spirit to 
 work in a sinner's soul Saving Faith in Christ, and allow 
 him " not to believe in the proper humanity of Christ." 
 Without that humanity there is no sacrifice, no atonement, 
 no death, no resurrection, no ascension. To not believe in 
 the infallibility of the Bible, is to not believe in its inspi- 
 
[124] 
 
 ration. To not believe in the proper humanity of Christ 
 is to not believe in his true Incarnation. "When Inspira- 
 tion and Incarnation are thrown into doubt, where is the 
 saving faith ? If a Christian need not believe that Christ 
 was properly man, he need not believe that He died on the 
 cross or rose from the dead. The organic-union-liberal- 
 possible Christian is simply an infidel. And yet Mr. Mc- 
 Cune would receive him, and informs us that such saving 
 faith as leaves the "Word of God, and the work of 
 Christ in doubt, ijyso facto, " excludes all fatal heresies " ( !), 
 and that the possession of such faith is " credible evidence " 
 of regeneration (!!), and that "regenerate souls are all 
 orthodox|( ! ! ! ) What fatal heresy does it not include ? It 
 is fatal heresy itself. Who are the " regenerate ? " They 
 are unbelievers. Who are the " orthodox ? " The doubt- 
 ers of God's Word and Christ's proper-humanity. All this 
 Mr. McCune will tolerate in others, even though he may 
 try to explain it away for himself. Is this the justifying 
 faith of the gospel, defined from its source, the Spirit; from 
 its seat, the heart ; from its food, the Word ; from its object, 
 Christ ; and from its end, salvation ? Sir, it is just like the 
 loyalty, in face of the doctrine of our Standards which 
 teaches that the number of the elect is "so certain and 
 (iefinite that it can not be increased or diminished," the loy- 
 alty that teaches in Mr. McCune's language, there are " mul- 
 titudes in the pit of despair who might have been blessedly 
 and eternally saved " if only organic union had existed 
 from the beginning. Christian Standard, July 31, 1875, p. 
 245. Is this the orthodoxy of our Standards ? Is it loy- 
 alty to the Presbyterian Church ? " Ten years." Publish 
 it not in Askelon ! I pass to the tenth specification. 
 
 SPECIFICATION X. 
 
 Time of Advocating His Views. 
 
 This specification, with its appended proofs, establishes 
 the fact beyond question of the sincerity of Mr. McCune in 
 the advocacy of his peculiar views. They are his abiding 
 convictions, formed after mature deliberation, and during 
 
[ 125 ] 
 
 protracted and various discussion, and nourished with as- 
 siduous care. They are no transient misjudgments, slips 
 of the pen, unreiterated statenaents, words hastily spoken, 
 or positions thoughtlessly taken. The Prosecution could 
 have overburdened the Court with a still more redundant 
 testimony. They are the result of a consistent scheme, 
 built on the boundless license of the new " divine law of 
 organization," a scheme revolutionary of all existing de- 
 nominations but its own. " Ten years " have testified to 
 its propagation, within the bounds of this Presbytery, in 
 every way possible for a propagation to be made. The time, 
 therefore, as the manner of this advocacy, is a demonstra- 
 tion of Mr. McCune's sincerity herein. " Ten years " of 
 unchallenged liberty, he numbers, as if establishing his 
 right to continue the advocacy as long as he chooses. He 
 pleads five of these ten, the period since the official order 
 of the Synod of Cincinnati to circulate his views of organic 
 union, as a special period of encouragement, enough to jus- 
 tify a double protest against the Presbytery's right to bring 
 both them and himself under formal adjudication. "I 
 am," says he, " advocating no sentiments now (Feb. 15, 
 1876), which I have not oj^enly 'proclaimed for ten years 
 back.''' It is the truth. He affirms that the liberty he has 
 enjoyed in the Presbytery for all these years remained offi- 
 cially " unquestioned until Dr. Skinner raadej" what he 
 calls "his attack upon him ;" i. e. until the time of the 
 Council that installed him at Mt. Lookout, Dec. 1875. His 
 convictions are sincere, if time is an evidence of sincerity. 
 He proposes still to advocate them. " I have publicly ad- 
 vocated," says he to the Committee, " and propose to advo- 
 cate the following principles on the subject of Christian 
 Union, etc," principles declaring all denominational enact- 
 ments, and distinctive creed statements, as "wedges of divis- 
 ion," " apples of discord," "Achan in the camp," and their 
 enforcement as " essentially sinful." Thus, for " many 
 years," last past, as propagandist and Apostle of Organic 
 Union on such a Basis, he has diftused his teachings 
 throughout the Christian community, as editor in his paper, 
 as minister in his pulpit, as debater in the press, as lecturer 
 
[ 126 ] 
 
 in the country, in all possible ways, invoking the cry of 
 "Sectarianism," " Bigotry," " Popery," against those who 
 have dared to oppose him. Under the claim of "Con- 
 science," " Toleration," and " Liberty," he has espoused 
 and crusaded a doctrinal communism, and an ecclesiastical 
 phalanstery, of which Brown, Fourier, St. Simon, and 
 Robert Dale Owen might be proud. 
 
 It is a fair question. Moderator and brethren, how much 
 time a teacher of error may be allowed in the Presbyterian 
 Church for the advocacy of views destructive of her Con- 
 stitution and her very existence? If Mr. McCune may be 
 allowed " ten years," the rest of us may be allowed the 
 same. Paul, at Antioch, yielded, " no, not for an hour, that 
 the truth of the gospel might remain." Evidently he did not 
 favor any Organic Union scheme the Judaizers proposed, 
 or Peter compromisingly winked at for the time. A " Plan 
 of Union," enacted in 1801, endured a generation, and was 
 brought to its close by legislative enactment in 1838, in 
 order to save the Standards. For several years past, more 
 than a hundred Presbyterian ministers allow their names 
 to be appended, in a religious paper, published at Brooklyn, 
 and devoted to Organic Church Union, to a "brief creed," 
 which Unitarians, or . Semi-Pelagians, or Arminians, or 
 Prelatists, or Independents, could readily subscribe. "Tea 
 years " may make a revelation. " Vereor quorsum evadat ! " 
 Thirty-eight years ago was the following utterance made; 
 " We have in our Church many men w^io are avowed anti- 
 sectarians, who think the barriers which separate the differ- 
 ent denominations of Christians should be broken down. 
 It is a possible case that men of these opinions should have, 
 on some occasion, an accidental majority in the General 
 Assembly. Suppose they should avail themselves of the 
 opportunity to enact a plan of Union, by which, not the 
 favored Congregatioualist only, but the Episcopalian, the 
 Baptist, and even the Papist, should be allowed to sit and 
 vote in all our Presbyteries. This would be hailed with de- 
 light by many as the commencement of a new era, as the 
 adoption of a principle which could stand the test of the 
 millenium." Princeton Essays (Second Series), p. 281. It 
 
[127] 
 
 is possible that in " ten years " from now something of this 
 nature might be attempted. It was not possible for thirty- 
 years past, in either branch of our Church. But as things 
 now go with so many, and " Union" is put before ^^ Truth" 
 and things allowed in the Reunion that never would have — 
 been tolerated in either branch during a generation past, it 
 is fair to ask, how long, now, may a man be permitted to 
 propagate views and principles, which not only strike at our 
 standards of doctrine and order, but also at the very truth of 
 God itself, and at the very existence of the Presbyterian 
 Church? The ancient watchword of historic Presbyterianism 
 was"J'r?;iA before Union." The Reformers valued it more 
 than all else. They abandoned the boasted Organic Union of 
 Rome, in order to save the Organic Truth of God. " The 
 Paulickian line of witnesses took " Heavenly Truth " for 
 their motto. The Waldensian line held aloft in the Alps 
 and in the valleys of Piedmont their Valdic "Lucerna," a 
 lighted candlestick amid surrounding darkness, inscribed 
 with the words '■'■Lux tucet in Tenebris " — " the light shineth 
 in the darkness," although the fields were as green, and the 
 sky as blue, and the sun as bright as they are now. They 
 put '^ Truth before Union." Calvin's motto was Paul's, 
 '• Let God be true and every man a liar." " We can do 
 nothing against the Truth," not even Organic Union. But 
 now the times are changed, and we with them. "7e?i 
 years" to ply the misinterpretation of Rom. 15: 7. "I'ew 
 years" to teach that our Lord's intercessory prayer neces- 
 sitates the breaking up of all the evangelical denominations 
 as such, and the non -enforcement of the denominational 
 laws of the Presbyterian Church. " Ten years " for a Pres- 
 byterian minister to exclaim against Church creeds and 
 confessions, and denounce his own, among the rest, as " sec- 
 tarian." '■'■Ten years" to harp on the word "Evangelical," 
 as though it were a word, not of shades and degrees, but of 
 absoluteness in its application. '^," 7 en years" to mutilate 
 and deny God's covenant in Christ, with believers, in be- 
 half of their children, and take away the covenant founda- 
 tion of the Church itself. "Ten years" to advocate doc- 
 trines and views antagonistic to the very essence of our 
 
[128] 
 
 Eldership polity. " Ten years " to preach that the visible 
 Church is the " Body of Christ," and break down the apos- 
 tolic distinction Rome destroyed, and the Reformers re- 
 claimed, as they searched for the Truth. '■'■Ten years" to 
 deny infant church-membership, advocate the admission of 
 unbaptized professors to full communion, and permission to 
 dispense with the sacraments of the Church. '-Ten years'' 
 to proclaim the right of a Presbyterian minister to be under 
 two different creeds and antagonizing allegiances at the 
 same time, and church members under two conflicting ju- 
 risdictions. '■''Ten years'' to herald non-excluding terms of 
 ministerial fellowship, '■'■Ten years" to maintain that ordi- 
 nation vows do not bind, or bind only to what each minis- 
 ter chooses to teach. " Ten years " to assert that the Presby- 
 terian law is an oppression of the conscience, and that the 
 time has come to wake up and begin a reorganization of 
 the whole IN'ew Testament Church! " Ten years" of set 
 purpose and assiduous labor to "imbrue the whole denom- 
 ination " with these organic union principles ; and now the 
 word that " eight or ten years ago " it might have done to 
 raise the point whether such liberty and such advocacy 
 might be questioned, " but now it is too late ! " There is some 
 force in this. How long may a Presbyterian minister go on 
 in this way, and how long " propose " still to go on ? 
 
 Moderator and Brethren, I present it as a case of Unpar- 
 alleled license and persistence, on the part of any minister, 
 in the history of the Presbyterian, or any other denomina- 
 tion, whose respect for its own honor, and the honor of re- 
 ligion and truth has not yet departed, and on whose eccle- 
 siastical walls " Ichabod " has not yet been written. And 
 I present the additional aggravation of an utter disregard 
 of the conscientious feelings of his brethren in the minis- 
 try, and of the respect due to this Court, and of the peace 
 of the Church, as also a disregard of the proprieties and 
 duties incumbent upon him in the circumstances, — a disre- 
 gard no less manifest than that displayed toward the Stand- 
 ards and the Presbyterian Church itself, — persisting with 
 more than indifference to the action of the Presbytery in 
 the public propagation of his views, without restraint, even 
 
[129] 
 
 after his course had been brought to official notice, and his 
 case put under official examination. 
 
 It was on April 13, 1876, the Presbytery's resolution of 
 inquiry was passed. Respect for that action should have 
 prompted Mr. McCune to abstain from the further propa- 
 gation of his views until an official judgment had been 
 reached by his brethren. Instead of this, we find him, 
 May 8, 1876, only a little over three weeks after the Pres- 
 bytery's action, publicly advocating again his views on De- 
 nominations, the Church of God, Infant Baptism, Terms of 
 Communion, Admission of the Unbaptized, his whole 
 scheme, precisely as before, in presence of the General 
 Ministerial Association of Cincinnati. This was contempt, 
 if not contumacy. Again, his views are spread abroad in 
 the public press. May 9, 1876. IsTot less confident does he 
 appear June 26, 1876, in presence of the Presbytery's In- 
 vestigating Committee, to whom he oflters a paper, given 
 back, however, to be substituted by one less convicting, but 
 still replaced by another, informing the committee that he 
 "proposes" to keep on just as before, and declaring that 
 " it is susceptible of proof that the advocacy of this Chris- 
 tian union doctrine has been with the knowledge and by 
 the permission of the Presbytery of Cincinnati and by the 
 consent and with the co-operation of the Synod of Cincin- 
 nati, and that this.advocacy is not in violation of any Pres- 
 byterian law whatever." Nor less naarked was the public 
 disrespect to the Presbytery and his brethren, by again the 
 third time reiterating his views to the public in a formal 
 protest against the action of the Presbytery, published Oc- 
 tober 17, 1876, in the Commercial, replete with such gross 
 personalities, as would bar it from a place on the official 
 records, yet published to the world before presentation of it 
 to this body. I present it. Moderator, as unexampled in 
 the history of our Church. May it please the Court, that 
 " ten years" of such advocacy be the extreme limit of the 
 indulgence ! 
 
 The Presbyterian Church, stirred by Common Fame, and 
 grieved at such persistence, comes into Court with a right- 
 eous plaint in her mouth, making solemn averment that 
 
[130] 
 
 she receives but damage and demoralization, by such lib- 
 erty, assumed either by ministers or elders. She pleads that 
 she can not build while buiieted by her own sons, or main- 
 tain either her prestige or honor, while her name is denied, 
 her distinctive enactments and organic law traduced, and 
 her authority treated with contempt; and that the doc- 
 trines, principles, and views of Mr. McCune, like the man- 
 ner of their advocacy, are not only at war with her stand- 
 ards, but, if generally accepted, would be subversive of her 
 constitution and of her very existence as a distinctive de- 
 nomination. 
 
 The prosecution does not dwell upon the law, but simply 
 refers to it. Not one hour is allowed for such a license, not 
 one moment, by our statute. It is disloyalty. Our Church 
 requires her ministry " to teach and preach according to 
 the form of sound words in the Confession and Catechisms, 
 and avoid and oppose all errors contrary thereto." Digest, p. 
 48 (II). To " traduce " her Standards is a call for " that 
 salutary discipline which hath for its object the mainte- 
 nance of the peace and purity of the Church under the 
 government of her Great Master." p. 43 (3). They who 
 can not accept her denominational laws are invited to 
 " peaceably withdraw." p. 48 (I). Strong is the injunc- 
 tion of our Supreme CouVt, signed by the Moderator, the 
 mentor of his day : " Let no doctrine inconsistent with the 
 Sacred Scriptures, as explained and summarily taught in the 
 doctrinal Standards of our Church, be promulgated or 
 favored in any of our Churches" " He who teaches 
 any doctrine, pal.pably and plainly inconsistent with the 
 evident meaning of our excellent formularies, should 
 be regarded as an errorist by Presbyterians, whom they 
 ought not to encourage, but ■ discountenance, reject, and 
 avoid." p. 304 (8). This is our law. It remains to be 
 seen whether our -' Reunion" will respect it. I pass to the 
 eleventh specification. 
 
[131] 
 
 SPECIFICATION XI. 
 
 Common Fame. 
 
 This specification, with its proofs, establishes the fact of 
 the Common Fame of Mr. McCune's disloyalty to the 
 Presbyterian Church, loudly proclaiming that, in contra- 
 vention of his vows, he was the public advocate of prin- 
 ciples and views at war with our standards, and subversive, 
 if generally accepted, of our Doctrines, Constitution, and 
 very existence ; a fame accompanied not only with strong 
 presumption of its truth, but living demonstration, as al- 
 ready shown, during a period of " ten years;" an offense 
 striking at vital truths of Divine Revelation, and the very 
 foundations of the Presbyterian Church, and calling for 
 action by this Court. The Court will note that of the 
 many articles in the thirteen different secular and religious 
 papers enumerated in Proof 1, under this Specification, 
 some forty or more of which are editorial, most of them 
 condemning in the strongest possible manner Mr. McCune's 
 views, and some of them his course, not one was pub- 
 lished subsequent to April 13, 1876, the date of the Presby- 
 tery's resolution at Glendale, when the views and course of 
 Mr. McCune were, for the first time, formally brought to 
 the notice of the Presbytery, and the following Preamble 
 and Eesolution were passed : " Whereas, for some time past, 
 there have been current rumors in regard to the views and 
 course of Rev. W. C. McCune, a member of this Presby- 
 tery, involving the question of his loyalty to the order of 
 the Presbyterian Church, and whereas there seems to be 
 some difference of opinion in regard to the subject, 
 
 " Therefore, resolved, that a Committee of three minis- 
 ters and two elders be appointed to have a full confer- 
 ence with Mr. McCune, and to inquire into all the facts 
 bearing on the case, and report to Presbytery at the next 
 stated meeting." The Common Fame as to the charge 
 was not only co-extensive with the jurisdiction of both the 
 Presbytery and the Synod, not merely co-extensive with 
 the bounds of neighboring Synods, but with those of the 
 
[ 132 ] 
 
 Presbyterian Church itself, North and South, East and 
 West, long before the Presbytery met April 13, 1876. The 
 Court will also notice that all this superabundant evidence 
 of Common Fame is only adduced by the prosecution as 
 additional or supplementary to what is already manifest from 
 the dates 'in the proofs already given. It is added to show 
 the ample ground for action by the Presbytery. The Presby- 
 terian Church, therefore, conducts her process properly on 
 the ground of Common Fame, and this Court is abundantly 
 justified in ordering up the prosecution for this reason. It 
 will also be noted, by a comparison of dates, that the reso- 
 lution of the Glendale Presbytery, April 13, 1876, was not 
 taken until Jive months after the claimed and reputed organ- 
 ization of the Linwood and Mt. Lookout Church, Novem- 
 ber, 1875. That part of the Investigating Committee's Re- 
 port, which episcopally condemns the views of Mr. McCune, 
 is quoted in Proof 3 of the specification, in order to show 
 that the presumption of the truth of Common Fame was 
 a true presumption, even apart from the documentary evi- 
 dence spread broadcast in the editorial cohimns and public 
 discussions antecedent to April 13, 1876. On that portion 
 of the evidence the prosecution make no comment. Our 
 Church recognizes that Common Fame may be common 
 falsehood, and is ready to mete to it the condemnation it 
 deserves. But that any Presbyterian minister should'pur- 
 sue such a course as, by his own acts, to intensify the 
 truth of Common Fame, charging him with disloyalty to 
 the Faith and Order of his Church, such that the scandal 
 can not be removed without the action of the Court, and 
 for the honor of religion, our Book accounts a " sin." Di- 
 gest, pp. 521 (V.VI), 499 (IV.V). 
 
[ 133 ] 
 
 Offense : Disloyalty to the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 CHARGE II. 
 
 The character of this Charge is that the Rev. W. C. Mc- 
 Cune, for the avowed purpose of carrying into practical 
 eftect the doctrines, views, and principles specified under 
 Charge I, bent his energies to the work of advising, pro- 
 moting, and encouraging the New Anti-Denominational 
 Association, called distinctively the " Union Christian 
 Churches of America" and also the Anti-Denominational 
 Organization at Linwood and Mt. Lookout, both these or- 
 ganizations being founded on the doctrines, principles, and 
 views aforesaid. The gravamen of this charge is the same 
 as that of Charge I, viz., that such course of conduct, if 
 generally allowed, would totally subvert our Constitution 
 and destroy the Presbyterian Denomination. 
 
 SPECIFICATION I. 
 
 General Association. 
 
 The first Specification calls attention to the means Mr. 
 McCune has employed in this work. The Prosecution note 
 that, immediately after the New York Convention, October 
 1873, met to " make immediate and prayerful preparation 
 for the reorganization" of the whole " Christian Church," 
 the '■'■Christian Unity" appeared in Cincinnati, under the 
 sole editorship of Mr. McCune, its first number bearing 
 date Cincinnati, November 8, 1873. That number is here- 
 with presented. Then began the work in earnest. "Life 
 is short, and time is fleeting." The editor tells us " when 
 he began the 8th of November to issue this paper, he, at 
 the same time, began to deliver lectures on the subject of 
 Christian Unity." His "most efficient instrumentalities" 
 were " public oral addresses and the press." The tone of 
 the editorials and addresses, together, reveal the fact that 
 he was hopeful, and not in the least appalled by the mag- 
 nitude of the undertaking. He saw " a great host of living 
 Christian hearts, now separated by mere human sectarian 
 
[134] 
 
 walls," who, " but for sectarian managers and place-men, 
 would gladly unite to-morrow in the new movement!" 
 With the 'zeal of an Apostle he addresses himself to the 
 work. John in the desert crying, "Prepare ye the way of 
 the Lord," was not more in earnest. Proof 2, under the 
 Specification, shows us Mr. McCune in the field; how by 
 lecturing at large, traversing the bounds of the Synod, and 
 outside of it, he discoursed on Organic Union at Butler, 
 Boston, and IS'ewport in Kentucky; in Goshen, South 
 Salem, and at Parrott's School House, in Ohio ; how Lin- 
 den and Springfield, Urbana and Buck Creek, New Rich- 
 mond and Hillsboro, woke their echoes to his voice; how 
 Madison and Middleton hearkened attentive on Sabbath 
 morning to the new " divine law of organization," and the 
 afternoon bore the accents to Astoria, while the shades of 
 eveni ng that fell around Jacksonburg were illumined with the 
 shimmeFmg light of the advancing millennium ! " Eighteen " 
 different places within one month, between ITovember 8 
 and December 13, all led listening to the music of Organic 
 Union, as when Orpheus charmed the woods with his lyre — 
 a zeal Apostolic, worthy of Loyola and St. Xavier ! And 
 so the work went on. Next comes the wide sweeping 
 " Address to all the Christian Ministers and Churches in North 
 America, with a Basis of Unio7i," issued from Cincinnati, 
 October 1874, th~e topmost signature to which is thkt of Mr. 
 McCune, calling on all sympathizing ministers and mem- 
 bers, everywhere, to range themselves under the banner of 
 the new Anti-Denominational Association, to be known as 
 the " Union Christian Churches of America" adopting the 
 Basis and enrolling their names; how, in order to avoid the 
 charge of forming a " new sect," they were to hold on and 
 let go at the same time, if they " c^o not deem it expedient to 
 sever existing denominational relations;" to remain as min- 
 isters and members in the old "extra-scriptural" organi- 
 zation and yet enter the new one " on a New Testament 
 Basis," after the true Apostolic style ; that ministers will 
 be asked no questions except whether they agree to a few 
 unexplained texts, " expressed in God's own language as 
 commonly received," and which they are told constitute the 
 
[ 135 ] 
 
 " common faith," " once for all delivered to the saints ;" to 
 be sure and send " delegates " to attend the impending Gen- 
 eral Convention at Sufl'olk, Virginia, on the first Wednes- 
 day of May, 1875, and, in particular, to advocate the prin- 
 ciples of Organic Union as set forth in the Basis. (See 
 Specification V, Proofs 2, 3, 6). What fortunes attended 
 the call we know not. The Convention at Sufiblk was held. 
 
 Temporarily suspended, the '■''Christian Unity'' is again 
 resumed, not upon the principle of non-enforcement, but 
 upon the principle of re-inforcement, the paper appearing 
 August 1, 1875, under the joint triple editorship of the 
 Eev. W. B. Wellons, D.D., Thomas J. Melish, and W. C. 
 McCune, issued both at Cincinnati, Ohio, and Sufiblk, Vir- 
 ginia. A copy is herewith presented. Again the " pro- 
 ject," "scheme," and "aim" are manifest. The ring of 
 determination travels through the tri-editorials. The 
 " Christian Unity,'' says Mr. McCune, " begins its career 
 with fixed purposes and aims. It will earnestly contend 
 that in examining candidates for the ministry all tests shall 
 be laid aside except such as develope the faith common to the 
 evangelical family of Christians." (Specification V, Proof 
 6). In the "Prospectus" Mr. Thrall is already taken to 
 task for shrinking from a substantial, realistic, and bodily 
 oneness of actual visible organization to the movement! 
 The co-editor of Mr. McCune exclaims, " We must organ- 
 ize, band ourselves together as ministers and churches; this 
 was what was meant in New York in October 1873, at Cin- 
 cinnati, October 1874, and at Snflfolk in. 1875. Let the loork 
 of orga:nization go on !" The kingdom of God was now to 
 " come with observation." Some Texans meet in Conven- 
 tion at Somerville, April 30, 1875, and adopted the Organic 
 Union plan. Dr. Wellons sweetly writes; " Lo there ! " 
 Linwood and Mt. Lookout loom in the horizon shortly 
 after ; Mr. McCune as sweetly murmurs, " Lo here ! " Was 
 it not part and parcel of the same movement? 
 
 And now. Moderator and Brethren, can there be a doubt 
 on the mind of the Court that Mr. McCune is actually a 
 member of a new anti-denominational association of min- 
 isters, organized under a Special Basis, for the express pur- 
 
[136] 
 
 pose of striking at Denominationalism, and beginning a re- 
 construction of the Christian Church ? I have shown you 
 the first fact, under Specification Y, Proofs 2, 3, 6, when 
 exhibiting Mr. McCune's Plurality theory of membership, 
 that a new independent church-organization does exist, 
 *' known as the Union Christian Churches of America" — pro- 
 claiming that it is no "sect," because it receives all Chris- 
 tians, but is modeled after the apostolic type, on a non -ex- 
 cluding " divine law of organization," as Mr. McCune calls 
 it, or on " a New Testament Basis." I have shown you the 
 second fact, that " any minister " who " adopts " this Basis 
 of independent association, and asks to be " enrolled," is 
 " enrolled at his own request " into the new fellowship, and 
 is henceforth an integral part of the new organization, and 
 is known as a " Union Christian minister," ministerially 
 identified with that body, and that " project," " scheme," 
 and " aim." I have shown you the third fact, also, that 
 Mr. McCune's name is the topmost signature in the list of 
 names appended to the " Basis of Union " addressed to all 
 the ministers and churches of JSTorth America, — a Basis 
 " devised " in Cincinnati, and adopted and signed October 
 24, 1874, at the "Rooms of the Young Men's Christian As- 
 sociation, Cincinnati, Ohio," where the Convention met, and 
 confirmed at the Suflblk Convention, May, 1875. Signed, 
 "W. C. McCune and others. The fourth fact is irresistible, 
 viz., that Mr. McCune has been "enrolled " upon that list, 
 " at his own request," because he has complied with the 
 conditions of entrance into the new organization, viz., 
 adoption of the Basis. He may have enrolled himself for 
 aught we know, for the Basis hails from the Rooms of the 
 Young Men's Christian Association, in Cincinnati, where it 
 was unanimously adopted. He is, therefore, by his own 
 act, a member of the new organization, for the purposes 
 aforesaid. He has, by his own act, become subject to the 
 jurisdiction of independent Councils and Conventions in 
 general, an advisory jurisdiction, as is the case among all 
 independent organizations, and, as I shall show, has become 
 subject to the particular jurisdiction of an individual con- 
 gregation, whose polity and creed he prepared for their 
 
[ 137 ] 
 
 adoption upon this Basis, and in view of his own election 
 as its pastor, — the minister being always, according to the 
 independent polity, a Vnember of the congregation, and eli- 
 gible, by the congregation, to a seat in any Council or Con- 
 vention, only as a " delegate^' of the people. Having denied 
 to the Presbyterian Denomination, as such, her right to be 
 called " a Chiuxh "—that is, having denied the root princi- 
 ple of Presbyterianism, the right of one ecclesiastical rule 
 over a plurality of Congregations organically bound under 
 that rule, and having, by consequence, denied the right of 
 all courts built upon that rule, and again, by consequence, 
 the right of this Presbytery to say whether he shall accept 
 a call or not, and be re-examined and installed or not, and 
 whether he may belong to the new Anti-Denominational 
 Association or not, he has flung his Presbyterianism to the 
 winds, thrown our authority back in our faces, and chosen 
 Independenc}^ as his polity. All this he has done, yet 
 claiming his right to remain on the roll of this Presbytery 
 for "indorsement" and "good standing." There is a 
 bravery in all this, which could only be developed where a 
 corresponding undervaluation or neglect by Presbyterians 
 themselves exists in reference to their own Government 
 and Discipline. The course of Mr. McCune is utterly un- 
 accountable on any other hypothesis. He is, and has been, 
 for years, an actual and active member of the new Associa- 
 tion of Independent Union Christian Ministers and Churches 
 in America. It is thus he has felt at perfect liberty, un- 
 challenged, " unquestioned," while a member of this body, 
 to carry on a crusade, even in its own bosom, and in the 
 bounds of the Synod, as in the bounds of the neighboring 
 Synod of Kentucky, against the doctrines and polity of the 
 Presbyterian Church. Moderator, it is not true " there is not 
 much harm in all this." It is disloyalty to the Church, whose 
 Standards of doctrine and order he has sworn to support, if 
 his vows were not a mental reservation, '■^Juravi lingua, 
 mentem injuratam gero ! " 
 
 And now, Moderator, what avails it that Mr. McCune, 
 only three days before this Court assembled, appears again, 
 in public print four columns long. Commercial, December 
 
[ 138 ] 
 
 30, 1876, to plead his case before the public, and, by desper- 
 ate effort, seek to produce the impression, in advance, that he 
 belongs to no anti-denoniinational association at all ? that 
 neither he nor the signers of the new Anti-Denominational 
 " Basis of Union " are members of a distinct Association, de- 
 signed to be permanent, with independent jurisdiction, under 
 rules and laws and a creed and polity of their own construc- 
 tion and adoption ? What avails it to say now, as judicial 
 traverse comes on, that the " Basis of Union" was only a 
 " tentative " platform for transient annual meetings, like 
 Sunday School or Temperance Conventions, and nothing 
 more was meant ? Was, then, Mr. McCune's paper edited 
 only for the sake of a Convention ? Was his missionary 
 propagandism in behalf of Organic Union, upon such prin- 
 ciples as he advocated, only for the sake of a Convention? 
 Sir, the apology is too thin, the disguise " too gauzy !" The 
 " Basis of Union " is a Basis of church-fellowship, upon 
 a special creed, upon a special polity, and for a special end, 
 the reorganization of the whole Church of Christ, as the 
 sounding language goes on. But now a metamorphosis 
 occurs. Ovid tells us of Callisto changed to a bear, Ac- 
 taeon to a stag, Jupiter to the form of Diana, and the sis- 
 ters of Phaethon to weeping trees. Bossuet changes the 
 dragon to a " milk-white hind !" Mr. McCune changes a 
 Denomination to a " Convention," " a mere Convention !" 
 Well, Sir, allow me to ask, when the Convention adjourns, 
 where do the "Union Ministers and Churches" belong? 
 Where is the " Union ?" The Convention is expressly 
 called " a Convention of the Union Christian Churches." 
 There is an organization behind the Convention, and of 
 which the Convention is a representative by " delegation" 
 from the " Union." It is a vain excuse. In that Union 
 Association, banded together upon its distinctive " Basis of 
 Union" are two classes of ministers and members ; those 
 who have already severed their previous denominational 
 relations, and those who " do not deem it expedient to 
 sever existing denominational relations." Where, Moder- 
 ator, when the Convention adjourns, do those who have 
 severed their previous denominational relations belong ? 
 
[139] 
 
 They belong where Mr. McCnne and the others who have 
 not so done belong; they belong to the new Association 
 of "Union Christian Churches and Ministers," into whose 
 Organic Union bosom all the delegates retire upon adjourn- 
 ment. They are under the didio juris of that Association, 
 i. e., under the jurisdiction of its creed, laws, polity, aim, 
 and counsel. They have one jurisdiction in their Organic 
 Church-fellowship. Mr. McCune has tivo, distinct and 
 conflicting, a distinct " membership," a distinct "Church- 
 fellowship." The organization is expressly said to be ef- 
 fected by " adoption " of a written " Basis of Union " and 
 " enrollment" as members, the way in which every human 
 organization is effected. Its ^^ initial step " is expressly de- 
 clared to be (1) the mutual voluntary reception of " each 
 other," the first foundation, and (2) the reception of others. 
 Is it only a Convention, with no Organic Union behind it 
 of any Cliristian ministers, that presumes to posit a creed, 
 a polity, and terms of admission into the visible Church? 
 Is it a Convention that says, " We require no assent to any 
 denominational peculiarity as a bond of fellowship f And 
 that '•'•we will receive every Christian into our fellowship y 
 and every Christian minister who teaches the couimon 
 faith of the gospel." Who are the "We and Oiirf Are 
 they " delegates " simply to a Convention from no Associ- 
 ation? " Fellowship " of what? Is it " fellowship " of a 
 " Convention " whose members, after all, are not delegates? 
 Is the " attempt to induce Christians to unite on the basis 
 of their agreements " only an attempt to hold a Conven- 
 tion ? Is the boasted Organic Union, after all, only the 
 dissolving feature of an annual " Convention ?" What, 
 then, meant the cry, "We must organize; organize! Band 
 ourselves together as ministers and Churches!" The des- 
 perate pleading of Mr. McCune only establishes with in- 
 vincible demonstration the fact the prosecution assert and 
 prove, that he is, by his own act, a member of a new Or- 
 ganic Union Church organization, whose purpose is the de- 
 struction of denominations, as such, and the reconstruc- 
 tion of the whole Church on a New Te.stament Basis. The 
 prosecution submit that the proof is redundant to sustaia 
 
[140] 
 
 the specification before any Court in the world, that Mr. 
 McCuue ha6 iiclvocated and promoted the new anti-denom- 
 inational association of independent "Union Christian 
 Churches of America," of which he is a member, precisely 
 as the specification sets forth — a movement utterly antag- 
 onistic in its principles to the Standards of the Presby- 
 terian Church Mr. McCune has vowed to support. 
 
 The prosecution will not dwell on all the law points. They 
 have ah^eady been quoted. The reference Digest, p. 304 (8), 
 expressly forbids such conduct. The reference, p. 44 (II. V), 
 asserts the right of the Presbyterian Church to have her 
 own distinctive terms of communion, and her own polity, 
 without subjection to a crusade against them by her own 
 ministers. The references, pp. 411, 399, exhibit the vows 
 of Mr. McCune to maintain the Standards, the truths, of 
 the Gospel, and study the peace, unity, and purity of the 
 church. The reference, p. 55 (6), requires him "to teach 
 and preach according to the form of sound words in our 
 confession and catechisms, and avoid and oppose all error 
 contrary thereto," which he has not done in this new 
 movement. The reference, Baird's Digest, p. 626, disquali- 
 fies from ministerial fellowship in the Presbyterian Church, 
 the man who is ^^ confirmed and, resolute in 'pro'pagating his 
 (erroneous) opinions among the people by a variety of methods, 
 to the great scandal of the church, seducing and perplexing" 
 the unwary and unstable," departing from the truth and 
 opposing his church. The reference, p. 630, Baird's Digest, 
 expresses the pain of the General Assembly " that novel 
 opinions, or at least opinions presented in a novel dress and 
 appearance, have been openly and extensively circulated, and 
 excited unusual alarm, while at the same time they have 
 given rise to much contention ;" and takes occasion to declare 
 its " uniform adherence to the doctrines contained in our 
 Confession of Faith, in their plain and intelligible form, 
 and its own firm determination to maintain them against 
 all innovations," earnestly entreating that "nothing sub- 
 versive of these doctrines may he suffered to exist or to be cir- 
 culated amongst the churches." IsTeither ministry. Presbytery, 
 or Synod may indulge such license, or be guilty of such 
 
[141] 
 
 departure from our denominational law, and no minister 
 may plead in justification of his course the transgression 
 of any of the courts of the church, or encouragement by 
 any of their members. The reference, p. 638, bids us 
 "consider the pernicious tendency of the present disorgan- 
 izing 'plan " of those who, under the specious pretense of 
 honoring the Sacred Scriptures, would persuade you to '■'■re- 
 ject all loritten or printed creeds and forms of discipline," and 
 whose polity is that "Christians have no power over one 
 another to ct(< off, or exclude, or unite.^' It is the scheme of 
 Mr. McCune drawn to the life and condemned. The refer- 
 ence, p. 648, delivers the unambiguous judgment of the as- 
 sembly that the propagation of such doctrines " ought to 
 subject the person or persons so doing, to be dealt with by 
 their respective Presbyteries according to the discipline of the 
 church relative to the propagation of errors," especially, p. 
 651 (77), if either he or they " manifest a lofty mind and 
 independent spirit that will not be controlled by authority." 
 It is not possible, Moderator, for our church more thor- 
 oughly to condemn the course of Mr. McCune, nor is it 
 possible for him more thoroughly to set at naught the 
 Standards, or renounce the vows that bind him to subjec- 
 tion, and the study of the church's peace, unity, and purity. 
 Such conduct generally allowed would be subversive of the 
 constitution of the church, and destructive of its very ex- 
 istence. I pass to the second specification. 
 
 SPECIFICATION II. 
 
 Linwood and Mt. Lookout. 
 
 This specification unfolds for us the next important fact 
 in the progress of organic union in our midst. It was not 
 enough for Mr. McCune that the Synod of Cincinnati, in 
 1870, should authorize his peculiar views and princijiles to 
 be circulated throughout its bounds, nor that its [lulpits 
 should welcome their advocacy before the people, nor that 
 Mr. McCune should be enrolled as a member of the new de- 
 nomination. A particular, visible incorporation of differing 
 ecclesiastical views and differing doctrinal beliefs must be 
 
[142] 
 
 experimented into organic oneness in the bosom of the 
 Presbytery of Cincinnati. Undismissed members who be- 
 longed to five different denominations must unite under Mr. 
 McCune's lead in a new organization, on Mr. McCune's Or- 
 ganic Union Basis, prepared by him for their adoption. The 
 new organization is effected. The fiveness becomes extinct 
 in the oneness, and the oneness emerges by organic evolution 
 from the fiveness. The unity in which the flock dwells, is 
 not an inward unity, for "local convenience," upon a mi7ii- 
 mum quid examination. It matters not, at any time, whether 
 suppliants for entrance can bring certificates, or whether 
 they do not believe the Bible infallible, or Christ properly 
 human. If they have "Saving Faith" without this, all 
 well. The undismissed members go in " on profession." 
 With most of them we have nothing to do. It is " outside 
 our jurisdiction " as rulers in the house of God. It is with 
 Mr. McCune, in this movement, we are concerned. The 
 more we contemplate the movement, as it took shape under 
 his hands, the more our wonder is challenged. It is a the- 
 ological seminary and asylum. It trains and examines 
 " candidates for the ministry." Specification V, Proof 4. It 
 receives " all Christians," and all " ministers" too. (Ibid.) 
 It is liberal moreover. A candidate for the sacred office is 
 not required to explain " the sense in which he receives 
 every verse of Scripture from the beginning of the Bible to the 
 end of it." The exercise would be too long. Few would 
 take orders at this rate ! It is presumable, however, that 
 those who do, like Ezra, the scribe of old, ^^ give the sense" 
 on the few texts submitted to their consideration, give it so 
 as not to get outside the limits of the " common faith," i. e., 
 outside the points on which all agree as to personal salva- 
 tion, while differing on everything else. ISTothing more is 
 needed. Theology is a dry subject. The day of" dogma" 
 is gone. The hour of Organic Union has come. There is 
 a slight departure here, a little inconsistent with the anti- 
 creed rule that no " human deductions " are allowable, and 
 that all that is needed is assent to words " expressed in God's 
 own language" as that language is " commonly received." 
 The new organization informs us that it is actually "about 
 
[143] 
 
 to send out into the world " on a few well selected texts, or 
 on the Basis of the Evangelical Alliance, either, the candi- 
 date ma}"^ choose which, " those who are to preach the ever- 
 lasting gospel," i. e., the " common faith " as defined. It is 
 evidently a parent society, though an infant yet! Mr. 
 McCune's five in one have swept the whole compass of de- 
 nominational activities, and gathered all the functions into 
 unity. The whole " General Association" is mirrored in 
 microcosm at Mt. Lookout. As to its ofiicers, its polity 
 speaks on this wise, that any one of them can be hopelessly 
 turned out of office, without appeal, by a simple "request" 
 of a "majority of the members voting at a meeting, duly 
 called Jor that purpose." This is one of the " Regulations 
 of Expediency." As to discipline, the whole body simply 
 " withdraw " from an offender. See Specification V, Proof 
 4. That Mr. McCune is the veritable father of this Linwood 
 and Mt. Lookout " Union Christian Church,'' the preparer 
 and publisher of its Declaration, Preliminary Statements, 
 Basis of Fellowship, and Regulations of Expediency, that 
 lie " actively co-operated in organizing it," " desired " to 
 organize it, and " agreed with others " to organize it, and 
 for the expressly avowed purpose of putting into 'practical em- 
 bodiment his Organic Union Principles, and that this was 
 what he meant, among other things, in his editorial of Aug. 
 1, 1875, three mouths only before the organization, saying 
 he had "fixed aims and purposes," and what his co-editor 
 meant, among other things, saying same date, "we must 
 organize, hand ourselves together as ministers and churches, 
 Let the work of organization go on !" and what the rebuke 
 to Mr. Thrall meant, same date (Specification Y, Proof 6), 
 will, I think, become evident to the Court. Its Declar- 
 ation and Regulations of Expediency all flowed from the 
 ink of Mr. McCune's pen. If the preparation of these 
 by Mr. McCune is denied, the prosecution will introduce 
 and submit additional testimony, which, however, they 
 prefer not to submit unless by necessity. The Linwood 
 and Mt. Lookout Manual was sent to many members of 
 Presbytery previous to the installation of Mr. McCune, 
 It is here upon your table. It needs no signature. It is 
 
[144] 
 
 one large signature itself. " Dr. Skinner," says Mr. Mc- 
 Cune, January 12, 1876, six weeks after the organization, 
 " seems to make a painfully elaborate effort to prove, by 
 some rather confusing quotations, that the Church of Lin- 
 wood and Mt. Lookout is responsible for the publication of 
 the Declaration and Freliminary Statements which accom- 
 pany the Basis of Fellowship of the Union Christian Church 
 of Linwood and Mt. Lookout. Certainly ; who ever 
 thought otherwise ? His ulterior object seems to be to make 
 me also responsible. I will gladly relieve him of any further 
 trouble in this direction. I hereby declare that I heartily 
 approve of the Declaration and Preliminary Statements ac- 
 companying the Basis of Fellowship of the Union Christian 
 Church of Linwood and Mt. Lookout, and respectfully 
 commend them to the attention of the Christian public." I 
 am sure every court would decide, especially a moral court, 
 these words to be a veritable evidence of the Authorship of 
 the Manual. The Prosecution is relieved of any doubt what- 
 ever. If the court, however, is not satisfied, we will intro- 
 duce what will remove any doubt at once. Proof 4, Speci- 
 fication V, Charge I, reads thus: "We, giving to each other 
 evidence that we* are Christ's disciples, 'propose, by the help 
 of God, to organize a \Union Christian Church,' in accord- 
 ance with the precepts and examples of the l^ew Testa- 
 ment." " We will, on scriptural evidence, cordially receive 
 all Christians into this Church." " We will receive as 
 ministers all who give us scriptural evidence that they are 
 in fact ministers of the Lord Jesus Christ, etc." " We will ; 
 we will ; we deem, etc." What can be plainer from all these 
 utterances than that Mr. McCune did thoroughly identify 
 himself with those who proposed to form a new church, 
 and was as truly one of their number in this whole work 
 as any other person in that number ? He himself is one of 
 the " we " who propose to do this thing, and the attempt to 
 evade this identification b}^ pleading that he did not 
 organize the Church is utterly vain. If the " we " organized 
 it, then he also organized it, for he was one of the " we." 
 The installation over, and the charge being made that be- 
 cause no elders had been ordained, the society had no 
 
[145] 
 
 ordained officers of its own, Mr. McCune exclaims, " Does 
 he deny that I am an officer, then, or does he deny my 
 ordination ? which ?" Proof 2, Specification II, Charge 11. 
 Our ordination of Mr. McCune does not make him an officer 
 in that church. Installation over an Independent or Con- 
 gregational Church does make him an officer in that 
 church, and does bind him to the administration^ of law 
 and order in the house of God according to the special rules 
 of that congregation. He is himself under those rules, not 
 above them. He is a de facto member of the Church itself. 
 In a congregation organized from five diflferent denomina- 
 tions, by the agency of a Presbyterian minister, expressly 
 throwing the Westminster Standards overboard, as the whole 
 Congregational Body in this country had now done, and de- 
 nouncing all human-made creeds, and the enforcement of 
 denominational laws and enactments as essentially sinful, and 
 even dispensing with one or both of the sacraments, if any 
 object to receive them, mere danger has already passed into 
 open destruction of the truth and order of Christ's House. 
 To plead historic congregational "usage" here, is to plead 
 a nonentity. In 1871, in National Ecumenical Council at 
 Oberlin, Ohio, the witness, Mr. Halley, tells us that con- 
 gregational historic usage was thrown to the winds with 
 the Westminster Standards for the sake of a " new depar- 
 ture " in the interest of the Oberlin platform of liberalism 
 that would receive, tolerate and fellowship the Lin wood and 
 Mt. Lookout Church, just as it is, with all its enormities. 
 To such a church as this, organized on such a foundation, 
 by Mr. McCune and others, Mr. McCune has joined himself. 
 Repelling the charge, made by myself, that the spiritual 
 government of the Church was in the hands of unordained 
 committee-men, and that the Church had no ordained 
 officers, and was, therefore, not scripturally organized, he 
 exclaims, as I have said, " Does he deny that I am an 
 officer then, or does he deny my ordination ?" The question 
 was not whether Mr. McCune was ordained, but whether 
 that particular society had of itself, and claiming as its own, 
 any ordained " officers " of the body. Mr. McCune comes 
 forward, therefore, upon the fact of his installation, to affirm 
 
[146] 
 
 the further fact that he is an "officer" of that particular 
 society as well as an " officer" in his own. He is subject to 
 its creed, laws, polity, and aim, such as they have been 
 voted to be, and such as he specially prepared for the new 
 " Christian Union Church at Linwood and Mt. Lookout." 
 He is under that " dictio juris^' of that vote of adoption by 
 that society. He is bound by it, and must conform to it. 
 He made the whole thing himself. 
 
 Proof 3 shows the time claimed for the so-called organiza- 
 tion, and the distinctive title of the new society, as given 
 above. The month of November, 1875, is the general date. 
 The 7th, 8th, 10th and 24th are testified to as the special dates, 
 by the Herald and Presbyter, the Presbytery's Investigating 
 Committee, and a member of the organization whose testi- 
 mony is given in the Presbyterian. It is expressly stated in 
 that testimony, that although Mr. McCune was not a 
 pastor, at that time, i. e. not acting " officially," yet he was 
 present at the so-called organization "desiring" that just 
 fluch an organization as it is, on precisely such a Basis as 
 he made for it, " might be effected." How strong that 
 desire was, and with what aims, we all know. Furthermore, 
 upon his own confession, he was laboring a whole "year" 
 among the people before the so-called organization took 
 place, a people who were of various denominations, and who, 
 for some time, had been holding union services, in the ordi- 
 nary way, in such cases. It was a grand, a favorable oppor- 
 tunity, under the plea of uniting merely for "local conveni- 
 ence," to now venture the experiment of an " Organic Union 
 Christian Church," on an anti-denominational Basis. It was 
 "mutually agreed," he tells us, himself," that we would look 
 toward the organization of a Union Church." So much the 
 worse if such a Church, on such a Basis, was the meditation of 
 hiamind for a whole "year" before the so-called organiza- 
 tion took place. Utterly beside the question it is, if he means 
 to say, it was some other kind of " Union Church " than the 
 one that finally emerged. Utterly beside the question, if 
 he means to say that the Linwood and Mt. Lookout people 
 are chargeable with the dangerous views and principles 
 into which he indoctrinated them, or whether he inocu- 
 
[ 147 ] 
 
 lated them, or they inoculated him. It is of no sort of con- 
 sequence to, this Presbytery, in this case, how many or how 
 few worked up the movement with Mr. McCune. He is 
 the preparer and the author of its Declaration and its 
 Creed, its Basis and its Polity. He has been trying to do 
 for Ohio what some others did for Virginia and North 
 Carolina — organize a Christian Church for himself, on his 
 own plan, and call it Apostolic ! He says " I ajjproved the 
 movement," as though he were a bystander looking on and 
 giving his opinion ! He did more than approve it. He 
 says " I counseled it," as though his advice had simply been 
 sought. He did more than " counsel it." He says, " I co- 
 operated with those who did organize this church," as though 
 he did not organize it himself. This is his manner of state- 
 ment. Moderator, he did more than " co-operate " in the 
 organization. He " operated " the organization itself, if any 
 organization took place before the Council met. Mr. Mc- 
 Cune devised and projected the whole movement from be- 
 ginning to end, in the shape it took. He molded it to his 
 will. He organized it himself, as truly as, and more truly 
 than ever did any committee of Presbytery organize any 
 church within our bounds, if it ever was organized before 
 the Council met. The people who ivere organized into the 
 organization did not organize it. The material molded 
 into shape is not the molder. The original constituent ele- 
 ments out of which a thing is composed is not the plastic 
 hand that imposes the form. I^o, sir. This ecclesiastical 
 protoplasm is the work of Mr. McCune alone as the sole 
 Organizer of the Organic Union Church of Linwood and 
 Mt. Lookout, if it was organized at all before the Council 
 met. He told us, August 1, 1875, only three months before, 
 that he meant work, he meant business ! And he has kept 
 his word. Mt. Lookout answered to the call of Suffolk, 
 " Organize!" Listen to the testimony of an officer of the 
 Congregation (Proof 3) : " Mr. McCune acted merely in the 
 capacity of a Christian, desiring that such organization 
 might be effected, his position only giving him somewhat 
 greater prominence in the matter than any other brethren." 
 Oh, Mr. Moderator, it is a vain excuse, this word " merely" 
 
. [ 148 ] 
 
 this word '•'■ only^^ this word ^^ somewhat.'^ And is the po- 
 sition of a Presbyterian minister of twenty years' standing, 
 one who claims as an ambassador of Christ, by virtue of 
 Christ's call to him, to bear rule in His house, only '■'-some- 
 what^' greater than that of unorganized individuals? 
 ^'■Somewhat'' more "prominent!" Moderator and breth- 
 ren, Mr, McCune is the creator of that organization such 
 as it was. It is his workmanship, absolutely, so far as its 
 ecclesiastical creed and form are concerned. It is the le- 
 gitimate outgrowth of his Organic Union principles, the 
 fruit of Organic Union Seed, planted a "year" before, his 
 outstanding and embodied "project," "scheme," and 
 " aim," the realization of his ardent hopes after long years 
 of zealous advocacy and toil. It is the body of which Mr. 
 McCune is the head, and it stands to-day, the creation of a 
 member of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, upon principles 
 destructive of his own and all other evangelical denomi- 
 nations. Mr. McCune's friends may seek to provide a 
 shelter for his responsibility, by denying to this Presbytery, 
 upon its Committee's request, the courtesy of the inspection 
 of the records of their so-called organization, but that one 
 fact will shine, in the trial of this case, as a demonstration, 
 clear and convincing, that the Organic Union movement 
 " co-operates " with ministers in disrespect of their own 
 denominational laws and organic enactments, and secretes 
 the evidence from the Court to which their pastors belong. 
 That one act of refusing a courtesy, shall I not say a moral 
 right, which no so-called " Sectarian " denomination would 
 refuse to another, is sufficient ground for this Presbytery's 
 order to Mr. McCune to cease his labors at that place. 
 Were a foreign government to so act toward the United 
 States, in the case of a civil minister, recalled to answer for 
 transgression of the Constitution and laws, we know what 
 the result would be. Such is the beauty of two jurisdic- 
 tions, one. for the pastor, another for the church ! But the 
 evidence is ample. And, as a Presbyterian minister, I 
 solemnly aver, that no minister of the Presbyterian Church 
 has any right to, either create, operate, co-operate, counsel, 
 approve, or even lend his countenance for any plea, under 
 
[149] 
 
 any consideration of any kind, to the organization or rec- 
 ognition of a church built on the principles Mr. McCune 
 devised for the Linwood and Mt. Lookout Society. 
 
 The Specification alleges that, Mr. McCune having " co- 
 operated" in this so-called organization, accepted a "call" 
 to become its pastor, was examined, and installed by an ir- 
 responsible, because undelegated " Council," loithout leave of, 
 or dismission from Ms Presbytery, and against advice, and is, 
 at present, the pastor of the Linwood and Mt. Lookout 
 Church. The evidence of the acceptance of the call is 
 taken from collaterals JNos. 3 and 4 of the Investigating 
 Committee's Report, No. 3 being the statement of certain 
 members of the " Council" that installed Mr. McCune, and 
 from JSTo. 4, being the statement of Mr. McCune himself, 
 both afhrraing the fact. The evidence of the examination 
 and installation of Mr. McCune by an irresponsible, be- 
 cause undelegated Council, is taken from collateral JSTo. 3, 
 being the statement of four out of " ten ministers connected 
 with four evangelical denominations," also from the account 
 of the proceedings of the installation service, published 
 December 17, 1875, in the Cincinnati Gazette. The evi- 
 dence that all this w^as done without leave of, or dismission 
 from the Presbytery is taken from collateral No. 4, found 
 in Mr. McCune's own words : " If there is any Presbyterian 
 law requiring a minister to first gain the consent of his Fres- 
 bytery, before accepting a pastorate outside of Presbyterian 
 jurisdiction, I have no knowledge of it." " If there is such 
 a law," he says^ " I will plead ignorance and indifference ! " 
 Proof 5. The evidence, like most of it already furnished, 
 is unnecessary, for the facts are officially before this Court 
 already. The public indorsement hy the Council of Mr. 
 McCune, as "an intelligent and thoughtful expositor of the 
 Scripture, and a reliable teacher on all vital points of doctrine,'' 
 is also given, together with notice of his installation, ac- 
 cording to the programme of the Council. The advice 
 given to Mr. McCune was advice given by myself in the 
 letter which I addressed to Mr. McCune, upon receipt of his 
 invitation, or the published invitation of the Committeemen 
 of Linwood and Mt. Lookout, to be present and give sane- 
 
[150] 
 
 tion and encouragement to the undertaking. The evidence 
 that Mr. McCune is pastor, at present, of the Linwood and 
 Mt. Lookout Church, is referred to as upon record in the 
 Minutes of the General Assembly, put there by order of the 
 Presbytery, and also to the Records of the Presbytery at 
 Mt. Auburn, September 13, 1876, then inserting the omitted 
 order of Mr. McCune's enrollment as "Pastor" on the sta- 
 tistical report of the clerk, April 13, 1876, at Glendale, to the 
 then oncoming General Assembly, thereby giving official 
 sanction to the installation of Mr. McCune by said Council, 
 and to his present pastoral relation. 
 
 But, Moderator, before passing to the law of our church 
 condemning this whole procedure of Mr. McCune, I must 
 refer to the attempt of the defendant to shelter himself 
 under the wing of Congregationalism, which, at Oberlin, 
 Ohio, in 1871, abandoned the Westminster Standards in 
 order to make room for just such doctrinal organizations 
 as that of Linwood and Mt. Lookout. This we have had 
 in express terms in the testimony before us from the de- 
 fense. It is true, and can not be denied, that in the pre- 
 amble to the resolution of the council, the church of Lin- 
 wood and Mt. Lookout is carefully and precisely announced 
 to the world as an " undenominational" church, and there- 
 fore not Congregational. It is true that Mr. Melish has 
 testified that the Congregational body is a " sect," a " di- 
 vision" or " separation" from the " Body of Christ," one, 
 among others, causing " an essentially sinful state of things." 
 It is true that Mr. McCune himself is a member of another 
 of these "sinful denominational divisions" and insists on 
 standing upon its roll ; but all this matters not in the des- 
 perate emergencies and exigencies of the defendant. If 
 he can only show that the Linwood and Mt. Lookout 
 church is what it is not, a Congregational church, a "sect," 
 an " antiscriptural and sinful" separation from the "Body 
 of Christ," he thinks he has saved his cause and can escape 
 the charge that he is opposed to denominations, as such. I 
 therefore occupy a little time in considering the Congrega- 
 . tional mode of organizing a church. 
 
 This mode is based upon the fundamental principle of 
 
[ 151 ] 
 
 Congregationalism, which differences it from bald Inde- 
 pendency. That principle is, ecclesiastical affiliation, fra- 
 ternity, and fellowship, not merely spiritual or moral. No 
 individual church is a Congregational church. It stands 
 alone, a pure and absolute separatist, without any church 
 fellowship whatever. The word Congregationalism does 
 not mean the association of individual members in any 
 particular church. It means the ecclesiastical affiliation 
 and association of many similarly organized churches by 
 means of a council common to all. The word Congrega- 
 tional relates to the fact of a number of congregations in 
 ecclesiastical fellowship. Congregational churches are 
 congregated, " affiliated and fraternized" churches, not 
 merely Independent. Dexter on Congregationalism, p. 344. 
 Now, their whole law of organization is based on this 
 principle, and no churches are lawfully organized Congre- 
 gational churches that are destitute of this formal asso- 
 ciation. The assertion of this principle necessitates the 
 following things as essential to a regularly organized Con- 
 gregational church : 1. There can be no such church apart 
 from a regularly organized council ; 2. There can be no 
 regularly organized council apart from direct authority 
 delegated from affiliated churches; 3. A regular church 
 organization is effected by, with, and through the instru- 
 mentality of a regularly delegated council only, whether 
 that council consists of pastors alone, or of pastors and 
 laymen. In Congregational usage and polity, to organize 
 a church regularly there must be a "Letter Missive" from 
 a committee of those proposing to form the church, di- 
 rected, not merely to individuals, but to neighboring Con- 
 gregational churches, to formally meet, appoint, and send 
 delegates, bearing "full credentials," (1) to justify the exist- 
 ence of the j9ro re nata council itself, (2) to consult with the 
 members as to the expediency of the movement, and (3) to 
 form the church if the way be clear. This council, thus 
 called, can not organize itself as a council except by read- 
 ing the "letter missive" to the churches and the credentials 
 of the delegates. The examination of the letters of dis- 
 mission, the basis, and the suitableness of the parties, comes 
 
[152] 
 
 next. If the way be clear, the council then votes to advise 
 the persons named in the list to proceed to form the pro- 
 posed church, not yet formed, and makes arrangement for 
 public services by the council to promote this end — to wit, 
 the sermon, reading of the basis, prayer of recognition, 
 giving through the council the right hand of fellowship 
 from the churches invited to the members about to form 
 the new church, address to the church, prayer, and bene- 
 diction. After the reading of the basis, the special act by 
 which the new church is constituted, is the solemn public 
 rising and assent of the parties named in the list to the 
 basis read there and then in the council. After this, and 
 not before, it is competent for the new church to elect its 
 officers, and choose and call its pastor. 
 
 Such is the Congregational polity and usage, upon the 
 authority which Mr. McCuno and Mr. Halley present to 
 this Court as competent testimony in the case. Dexter, pp. 
 162-166. Anything else than this is bald Independency. 
 It is not Congregationalism because it lacks the fundamen- 
 tal principle of " affiliation " of churches, the existence of 
 the Council, and the actual presentation and reception, by 
 delegated authority, of the right hand of fellowship, l^ow, 
 Mr. Moderator, a cloudless sun, in mid heaven, on the fourth 
 day of July, is not more clear than the fact that the Lin- 
 wood and Mt. Lookout organization was as gross a viola- 
 tion of Congregational polity and usage, as it was of Pres- 
 byterian law itself. That polity and usage are pleaded in 
 its justification. I affirm that neither one nor the other 
 lends a shadow of right to such an abnormal and nondescript 
 performance as that was. Mr. McCune claims that the organ- 
 ization was effected before the Council met. I affirm that, 
 when a Council is possible. Congregational polity requires 
 the formation of the Church, its very inception as a Church, 
 to take place at the time and in the very presence of a regu- 
 larly delegated and regularly organized Council. I say that 
 according to Congregational polity, every member of the Lin- 
 wood and Mt. Lookout Council helped to organize that 
 Church, on the very principles on which it was founded, Mr. 
 McCune himself, and all the Presbyterians who were present. 
 
[153] 
 
 I further affirm, on the very testimony introduced here by 
 the defendant, that that Council was a usurpation in every 
 particular, a novelty, an innovation, that even Independency 
 itself would reject. It was an unauthorized, new -thing 
 under the sun, destitute of ecclesiastical authority through- 
 out. It was a " voluntary club of men," I care not 
 whether the organization is claimed to have been made 
 either before the Council or at the Council, it was in the 
 face of Congregational polity. There was no affiliation of 
 Churches. No letter missive was sent to any Church what- 
 ever. E^o credentials from any Church were presented, 
 and any right hand of fellowship that was extended was 
 simply the right hands of the individuals of the Council, 
 who, if they deem themselves to be each one a Church, are 
 the strangest churches this world has ever seen, being pas- 
 tor, people, committee-men, deacons, trustees, choir, sex- 
 ton, and church-edifice, all in each person. Moderator, 
 they have no right to otter a right hand of fellowship. 
 They had none to offer. The ceremony was a delusion. 
 And whether we regard Mr. McCune's relations to the 
 "we" who proposed to form the Church, and who, he says, 
 did form the Church, or to the Council, he is still, on the 
 evidence adduced in this Court, one of the parties in that 
 transaction. 
 
 But still further, while there is abundance to show that 
 the organization of this Church was in violation of Con- 
 gregational polity, there is enough to show also that the 
 real organization of that Church, unauthorized as it was, 
 did actually take place at the time of the Council, and not 
 before. The special act by which a Congregational Church 
 is constituted is declared by Dr. Dexter, who is one of the 
 witnesses of the defendant, to be the public formal assent, 
 before the Council, of the members named in the list, to 
 their Basis of Faith and Covenant, read to them by the 
 Council. Let it be carefully observed that the recognition 
 of a new Church, and the constituting of a new Church, 
 and the address to the new Church thus constituted, all 
 occur during the same Council. Upon evidence in Court, 
 these things did occur, viz., the list of members forming 
 
[154] 
 
 the Church presented to the Council, the appointment of 
 special services, the reading of the Basis, the recognition, 
 the sermon, and the right hand of fellowship. Let it be 
 further observed that the Preamble of the Resolution ofi'ered 
 in Council states that the parties to be organized had '■'■now 
 resolved to organize themselves permanently as a Church of 
 Jesus Christ ;" that they had " resolved upon an undenom- 
 inational organization;" that the members of the Council 
 were present to give them " fraternal counsel and aid in the 
 undertaking in which they were about to engage;" and the 
 Resolutior), as adopted, declares that they were thereupon 
 recognized as a Church.* 
 
 Now, Sir, what have we in this matter? We have (1) the 
 indubitable fact that the Linwood and Mt. Lookout Church 
 was not organized previous to the Council, and that all 
 argument to the contrary is mere special pleading, and a 
 vain attempt at escape. We have (2) the fact that the mere 
 appearance of Congregationalism, without its authority and 
 regular mode of procedure, was given to the petitioners, 
 and that was all. To have called a Council regularly, and 
 to have proceeded regularly, would have been '■'■denomina- 
 tional,^^ and this was just what this new movement proposed 
 not to be in any sense, whatever. The demonstration is 
 complete that the Society was veritably organized at that 
 time, and not before. But in either case, whether before 
 
 * It is notorious, as every member of that Council knows, that instead of 
 the expression "permanently organize," the expression ^^provisionally or- 
 ganize" was used in the Preamble, as read to that Council, and that Dr. 
 Morris himself, upon theinsistance of Mr. McCune, erased the word ^^pro- 
 visionally''' and inserted the word ^^ permanently^' in that Preamble. This 
 is proof conclusive that the Church had not been organized either "pro- 
 visionally" or "permanently" before the Council met. Furthermore, the 
 invitation I received from Dr. Morris, dated December 13, 1875, only two 
 days before the Council convened, used these words: "I think we can 
 safely take part in the Council by which this Church is to be organized, and as 
 safely instal Brother McCune as its pastor;" adding that he intends to 
 "preach at his installation, and share in the work of organizatio7i." Fur- 
 ther evidence could have been supplied, but the Presbytery, under the re- 
 marks of Dr. Morris, denied to the Prosecution the right to introduce testi- 
 mony rebutting the allegations of the defendant, who gathered up his wit- 
 nesses from day to day, as he needed them for his case. 
 
[155] 
 
 or at the time, it is no organization at all, even according 
 to Congregational polity, but simply an independent asso- 
 ciation of individuals, like any other independent society, 
 whether medical, botanical, chemical, or agricultural. The 
 defendant pleads that this is an exceptional case, and that 
 the Congregational polity makes allowance for exceptional 
 cases, and that the Church did organize itself before the 
 Council met. The authority of Dr. Dexter and other testi- 
 mony is relied upon to show that in an exceptional case in- 
 dividuals may organize themselves into a cliurch, but this 
 is no more Congregationalism than it is Presbyter! anism or 
 Methodism, for all these denominations allow the same 
 thing. Does this mean that the exception is the rule? that 
 a Church not Congregation ally organized is congrega- 
 tionally organized, or not Presbyterially organized is 
 Presbyterially organized ? 'No, Sir, the exceptional 
 church is not a Congregational church, and can not be, 
 because it is the exception. It is a purely independent 
 church. Moreover, what constitutes the exception ? It is 
 not peculiarity of views. It is not variety of views. It is 
 not even the impossibility of having a denominational 
 church. It is the impossibiliti/ of calling a council, arising 
 out of the tact that no sister Congregational churches are 
 near or within reach. In other words, that the persons to 
 be organized are so far from the Congregational "aque- 
 duct," as Dr. Dexter calls it, that the people have to "dig 
 down" anywhere in the sand to iind "living water." Dex- 
 ter, p. 238. I quote him as Mr. Halley quoted him. It is 
 only when the people are "grouped upon some far Pacific 
 slope, hundreds of miles from any church, of any name, 
 with communication almost interdicted by the distance and 
 peril of the way ;" when they can not " put themselves into 
 communication with the rest of the world ;" when they 
 would be subjected "to delay, trouble, expense, often disap- 
 pointment and dispersion ;" when they are " abnormal and 
 incomplete;" when they are "in some extreme border wil- 
 derness;" and when it is "impossible to secure the counsel 
 and co-operation of existing Congregational churches in 
 the act of their formation." Dexter, pp. 238, 239, and 162» 
 
[156] 
 
 To what desperate argument is the defendant compelled to 
 resort in his plea that the Mt. Lookout church is an excep- 
 tional case, tbat its peculiar organization was an independ- 
 ency forced upon it by necessity of position and circum- 
 stance impossible to be avoided ? Could the defendant 
 himself, so near the Vine Street, Seventh Street, and Co- 
 lumbia Street Congregational aqueducts, and so near so 
 many other churches, plead that a " letter missive" could 
 not be sent to those churches to convene and send delegates 
 to organize his new enterprise? Will any one say that 
 Linwood and Mt. Lookout, in the suburbs of Cincinnati, 
 are like some isolated spot, some Sahara desert, or Pacific 
 slope, or far ofl' island in the sea, or extreme border wilder- 
 ness, or Himalaya plain, utterly beyond the possibility of 
 calling a regular Congregational council, and obliged by 
 force of circumstances to extemporize an independent, un- 
 authorized club of ministers and laymen to meet and form 
 and recognize the new church? Moderator, the very na- 
 ture of the defense is the strongest argument against it. Such 
 was the common fame as to this new movement, in connec- 
 tion with Mr. McCune's name, and such the opposition of 
 the best part of our community, that none of our churches 
 would have answered his letter missive except by respectful 
 negation. It was not an exceptional case. By no dint of 
 argument can such character be adduced to justify the 
 council, the formation of the church such as it is, or any- 
 thing connected with it. It is a new type of Independ- 
 ency, a new movement, and nothing else — the assertion of 
 extremest liberalism and individualism. It is organic 
 unionism, in defiance of all scriptural polity, and of the 
 polity of every organized denomination on earth. If our 
 Congregational brethren choose to father, foster, receive, 
 and fellowship the McCune enterprise, with its doctrines 
 and its principles and its violation of even their own ex- 
 ception, it is their Lookout and not our Lookout. The 
 Oberlin platform of 1871 will gain no credit by the addi- 
 tion. 
 
 But now, Mr. Moderator, the Prosecution cares not a 
 farthing whether this entire performance was Congrega- 
 
[ 157 ] 
 
 tionalism or not. Mr. McCune may have a shadow of 
 Congregationalism over hie church and over himself as its 
 pastor; but if he had both shadow and substance, it would 
 not help him in the least degree in the case before us. The 
 true question is, not whether Mr. McCune has complied 
 with Congregational polity and usage, but whether he has 
 complied with Presbyterian polity and usage, in accordance 
 with his solemn ordination vows ; whether he has not ad- 
 vocated principles and doctrines, and put those principles 
 and doctrines into practical form at Linwood and Mt. 
 Lookout in each and every of the particulars specified, 
 which, if generally allowed, would utterly subvert Presby- 
 terian law and order, and destroy the Presbyterian denom- 
 ination itself, and turn it into the new departure of the 
 Oberlin platform of 1871. 
 
 That this whole procedure of Mr. McCune was in contra- 
 vention of the organic law of the church, by which every 
 Presbyterian minister is bound, is evident by reference to the 
 standards. 1. As to the organization. No Presbyterian minis- 
 ter has a right to organize any church whatever, either inside 
 or outside the jurisdiction of the Presbytery, without leave 
 granted or permitted by the Presbytery. Organization of 
 Churches is a function reserved, to the Presbytery by the 
 Constitution, and no minister may usurp that function upon 
 any pretext whatever, nor for any reason. " The Presby- 
 tery has power to form,, or receive, new congregations." 
 Digest, p. 144. " Except in frontier and destitute settle- 
 ments, where it is made a part of the business of evangel- 
 ists to organize Churches witliout the previous action of 
 some Presbytery directing or [»ermitting it, etc., since in 
 Chap. IV. (Form of Gov.) no mention is made of any such 
 power being lodged in the hands of an individual minister." 
 p. 173 (49). With the above exceptions, the rule is abso- 
 lute. It is not limited to the formation of Churches merely 
 within Presbyterian jurisdiction. If a minister may not 
 usurp the Presbytery's function within her jurisdiction, he 
 may not outside of it. The function of organization, in- 
 side or outside, does not pertain to the individual, in any 
 case, by virtue of his ministerial office. Organization is the 
 
[158] 
 
 exercise of a joiut or several power, and only exercised, 
 individually, by express delegation, for unavoidable reasons, 
 like that of the Pacific slope, or extreme border wilderness. 
 It is no part of potestas ordinis, but solely of potestas juris- 
 dictionis. Even Presbytery can only exercise it where she 
 has jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction is excited by "appli- 
 cation " of petitioners desiring organization. But if a 
 Presbytery may not organize outside of her jurisdiction, a 
 fortiori, a minister may not, who has neither jurisdiction 
 nor function to that end. Least of all may a minister or- 
 ganize, within the very bosom of his own Presbytery, and 
 under the very eyes of his brethren, a society founded on 
 principles destructive of his own Church's faith and order; 
 much less morally approve, counsel, co-operate, or create 
 such an enterprise. Palpabh^, in any case, outside or inside, 
 the jurisdiction of the Church was the breach of comity 
 and order in the manner of the organization. The general 
 rule for procedure in organization is that, " at the time ap- 
 pointed for the purpose, after prayer for Divine direction 
 and blessing, the presiding minister or committee should 
 first receive from those persons to be organized into the 
 new Church, if they have been communicants in otlier 
 Churches, letters of dismission and recommendatio7i ; and 
 next examine and admit to a profession such persons as 
 may oft'er themselves, and may be judged suitable to be re- 
 ceived on examination." p. 107 (6). And this is the very 
 rnle Dexter himself has laid down. Picture the scene at 
 Linwood and Mt. Lookout, on the representation here 
 brought in. A company of church-members undismissed, 
 voting the paper " we, giving to each other evidence that 
 we are Christ's disciples, propose, by the help of God, to 
 organize a Union Christian Church, etc.," thus attempting 
 to become, ipso facto, a Church of Christ, Mr. McCune, a 
 Presbyterian minister, presiding, and then the Council after- 
 wards again receiving these names and recognizing the 
 transaction ! The undismissed members "joining on profes- 
 sion ! " Joining what? And Mr. McCune justifying his 
 course because it was " outside of our jurisdiction." I 
 will not trust myself, Moderator, to speak what I feel, or 
 
[ 159 ] 
 
 what I think of such a transaction, so in violation of any 
 decent rule in any so-called " sectarian " denomination, and 
 so in the face of that apostolic precept, " Let everything be 
 done decently and in order." But, then, it is " Or- 
 ganic Union," a gleam of the millennium ! 2. As to accept- 
 ing a pastoral call. No Presbyterian minister may accept 
 a call to become a pastor anywhere, except by leave of his 
 Presbytery. The wisdom of this rule, as well as of the 
 first, is the shield of the Presbyterian Church. " The call " 
 from any Church, inside or outside our jurisdiction, "shall 
 be presented by the Presbytery under whose care the per- 
 son or persons called shall be." " 'No minister or candidate 
 shall receive a call but through the hands of the Presljy- 
 tery." Digest, p. 409. " No minister shall be translated 
 from one Church to another, nor shall he receive any call 
 for that pnrpose, but by permission of the Presbytery." p. 
 410. The rule is absolute, without any exceptions. In 
 every case, " Commissioners properly authorized " must 
 represent to the Presbytery the reasons for the call, then 
 Presbytery will judge whether it shall be placed in his 
 hands. Inside or outside her jurisdiction, this is the law. 
 It is not difficult to see why no application from any per- 
 sons in Linwood and Mt. Lookout was made to the Presby- 
 tery of Cincinnati; nor is it credible that Mr. McCune, 
 having been for twenty years a Presbyterian minister, 
 should not well understand that, had any such application 
 been made, it would have run at least the hazard of rejec- 
 tion. Besides, it would have been utterly inconsistent with 
 the principles of Mr. McCune and his new enterprise to ask 
 any favors of, or recognize " distinctive," " denomin- 
 ational laws." It was the same principle of resistance 
 to such enactments, and whereby Mr. McCune was embold- 
 ened to usurp the Presbyterian power of organization, 
 even where the Presbytery had no jurisdiction, that repeated 
 itself in the acceptance of a call to a pastoral charge in the 
 very bosom of the Presbytery, without her permission. Inde- 
 pendency and Organic Union simply determined to treat with 
 indifierence and disrespect, the laws of the Presbyterian' 
 Church, as well as of the Congregational Church, in the 
 
[ 160 ] 
 
 case of her own ministers. Mr. McCune was intelligent in 
 all this, and acted consistently with his independent polity. 
 His plan was indexed from the lirst. 3. As to the Council, 
 Examination, and Installation. It was a purely voluntary, 
 extemporized, and undelegated affair, convened not accord- 
 ing to Congregational usage. The exceptional case had no 
 existence here. It represented nobody. There was not a 
 delegate in it. No sister churches sent or accredited any 
 representatives to it. It was not countenanced by any duly 
 organized or actually recognized Church whatever. The 
 Linwood and Mount Lookout Church is, to this hour, 
 without ecclesiastical recognition from any denominations 
 or churches whatever. It was the expedient of Mr. McCune 
 and his friends. Any company of ministers gathered on the 
 street, at any time, and turning aside to any room, to vote 
 and do anything they pleased, upon the personal request 
 of anybody, would be as genuine a Church Council as was 
 this. It was no Church Council whatever. It was an Or- 
 ganic Union " Convention," met to indorse Mr. McCune's 
 enterprise, and give it the " right hand of fellowship," from 
 nobody but themselves, as also to give Mr. McCune himself an 
 indorsement, and form a pastoral relation between himself 
 and Linwood and Mount Lookout Church. It was known, 
 well known, that Mr. McCune had not obtained leave of 
 his Presbytery, for it was a common conversation when the 
 invitation to the Council and the Manual were transmitted 
 to certain persons of the Presbytery. Our Standards, and 
 our practice as a Church, recognize no such proceeding as 
 that one of our ministers may, by indirection, secure an in- 
 stallation for himself in such a way. We have allowed our 
 ministers, under special circumstances, to take part in or- 
 thodox Congregational Councils, when they are properly 
 called, and in a rare case to be installed over an orthodox 
 Congregational Church. What we shall do since the Ober- 
 lin "New Departure" remains to be seen. But we do not 
 allow them to sit in Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, or 
 Quaker Councils, much less in a Council called by no 
 Churches, and extemporized for the purpose of giving the 
 right hand of fellowship to an enterprise built upon a Basis 
 
[161] 
 
 and a Creed so destructive as that of Lin wood and Mount 
 Lookout. Mr. McCune's resort to such an expedient, for 
 the purpose of securing installation, was an aggravated vi- 
 olation of our law requiring him not to receive any call, 
 anywhere, without leave of his Presbytery. The liberty 
 that will allow Mr. McCune's course, in this matter, is a 
 liberty that will allow any member of this Presbytery to 
 go and organize With others, or co-operate in organizing, a 
 Baptist Church, or an Episcopalian, or a Quaker Church, 
 or any kind of a Church on any kind of Basis, just as well. 
 There is no limit to such liberty. Any minister may be 
 instrumental in calling any number of his brethren to- 
 gether, at any time, and to constitute themselves into a so- 
 called " Council," do what they choose, responsible to none, 
 and call themselves " delegates " or representatives of 
 Churches, when they represent no Churches, because dele- 
 gated by none. It is boundless license. Under such aus- 
 pices, Mr. McCune was installed. The testimony is clear. 
 " Those in attendance were not delegated by any ecclesiastical 
 bodies, but came simply as individuals," upon the invitation 
 of Mr. McCune's Church, organized out of undismissed 
 members, and after its own fashion. This is not in " accord- 
 ance with a familiar congregational usage." Congrega- 
 tional usage never knew of such an instance. Everything 
 was done " entirely on their own responsibility," and the fact 
 that members of that Council were " Christian men " does 
 not help the matter. By a Council, composed in this way, 
 Mr. McCune secured his installation, having first been re- 
 examined, and then indorsed as " an intelligent and thought- 
 ful expositor of the Scriptures, and a reliable teacher on all 
 points of doctrine." That Mr. McCune again violated 
 the law of the Presbyterian Church is clear. If he may 
 not accfept a call, without permission of the Presbytery, he 
 may not be instrumental in organizing a Church on a new 
 Basis, and then instrumental in developing a new kind of 
 Council to recognize that Church, and then again to re-ex-' 
 amine and install him on a call he had no right to accept, 
 a call made out by undismissed members belonging to other 
 churches still. Mr. McCune was as much bound to ask 
 
[162] 
 
 leave of his Presbytery to be installed as to accept a call. 
 He knew tbis well in his experience as a pastor. If it be- 
 longs to Presbytery " to examine " and " install " ministers, 
 it belongs to Presbytery to permit them, or forbid them to 
 be installed by any Council, or by any court in the world. 
 Digest, p. 144 (VIII). But it was all part and parcel of 
 Mr. McCune's Organic Union scheme to act in this way. 
 The conviction, in his soul, that the enforcement of " de- 
 nominational laws " and " organic enactments " is an op- 
 pression of the conscience, and a deprivation of Christian 
 and ministerial liberty, and his determination to ex- 
 hibit his Organic Union freedom to the world, prompted 
 him to violate the whole law of his Church in 
 one bold movement, proclaim his doctrines, start a 
 "Union Christian Church," receive a call, get up a 
 council, be re-examined, re-indorsed, and installed over the 
 church, all without dismission from or leave of his Presby- 
 tery. It was a bold move, an intelligent move. All that 
 remained to be done, in order to make the triumph com- 
 plete, was to oflficially enrol him as " Pastor," so affixing 
 the imprimatur and sanction of the Presbytery to his in- 
 stallation, under all the circumstances, and so confirming 
 his relation to the Linwood and Mt. Lookout church, an 
 act formally done by the Presbytery at Glendale, April 13, 
 1876. And this, too, in face of the public discussion be- 
 tween himself and the Herald & Presbyter, the latter warn- 
 ing him in the following words, when speaking of what it 
 calls his " project," " scheme," " aim," viz. : " We are at 
 loss to understand how Mr. McCune can be willing to re- 
 tain a connection with the Presbyterian Church ! We should 
 suppose that he would pass at once from an old organiza- 
 tion that is unauthorized and extra^Scriptural to a new one 
 on a N"ew Testament Basis ! " (Proof 6.) The Presbyterian 
 Church of the Reunion, in the name of her Standards, 
 lifts her voice of remonstrance against the course pursued 
 by Mr. McCune herein. Boldly, Mr. McCune steps forth 
 to say : " I have violated no Presbyterian law whatever, in ac- 
 cepting yny present pastorate, nor in anything I have done per- 
 taining to the Union Christian Church at Linwood and Mt. 
 
[163] 
 
 Lookout !!!" He does more. He challenges the right of 
 this court to call him to account for the propagation of his 
 principles. Appealing to the progress of organic union 
 views, and Oberlin Congregationalism within the last de- 
 cade, and the encouragement received since his connection, 
 ten years ago, with this Presbytery, he says : " This might 
 have been a fair question eight or ten years ago, but it is cer- 
 tainly too late now !" (Proof 5.) Under cover of the plea 
 that, because the Linwood and Mt. Lookout church is 
 ^^ outside Presbyterian jurisdictio?!," therefore, he, a minister 
 of the Presbyterian Church, is not required to get permis- 
 sion from his Presbytery to accept a call and be installed, 
 he says: ^^ Any petty question about the formality of first 
 asking leave, may interest hair-splitting ecclesiastical 
 lawyers, whose vocation it is to tithe mint, anise, and cum- 
 min. If Presbytery says the thing done is right, I will be 
 content. If she says I should have first asked leave, I will 
 plead ignorance and indifference " (Proof 6); in plain Saxon, 
 " I will say, I didn't know, and I don't care ;" this shall 
 be my plea. This was said, in the Presbyterian, February 
 12, 1876. The Presbytery's official enrollment of Mr. Mc- 
 Cune liS "Pastor" of Linwood and Mt. Lookout Church 
 was April 13, 1876, just two months after ! He judges that, 
 because the church is " outside " of jurisdiction, he has a 
 right to act as if he were outside of jurisidctiou also! that 
 jurisdiction over the person and conduct of a minister de- 
 pends upon jurisdiction over the particular church with 
 which he is connected, whereas it rests upon these two facts 
 alone (1), that he is himself a member of the Presbytery, 
 no matter where his church may be, and (2), that the laws 
 transgressed pertain to the minister, and not to the church. 
 Mr. McCune can not divest himself, at pleasure, of his 
 ordination vows, nor relieve himself of obedience to these 
 laws on the plea that his church is "outside of Presbyterian 
 jurisdiction," or on the plea of ignorance ; ignorantia juris 
 non excusat. Outside or inside, it is all the same so far as 
 his membership and these laws, made for ministers, and 
 not for churches, are concerned. Any dispute of this 
 fundamental doctrine, he calls a " petty question." Any 
 
[164] 
 
 defense of it, a " hair-splitting vocation of ecclesiastical 
 lawyers, tithing mint, anise, and cummin." If arraigned 
 for violating it, he says, " I don't know, and I don't care." 
 Such is Organic Union ! 
 
 Moderator, I am well aware that, as against the posi- 
 tions the Prosecution here take, and as against the organic 
 enactments of the Presbyterian Church, the plea of 
 " Usage" has been advanced, and may yet be advanced in 
 the present case. I am aware the argument for non-en- 
 forcement of denominational law, and for the grant of 
 liberty according to the " Spirit of the Age " is crowned 
 with the argument of "Usage " in reference to the permis- 
 sion given some ministers, under rare circumstances, to be 
 installed as pastor over orthodox Congregational Churches. 
 Mr. McCune has made that plea. Others have made that 
 plea. I deem it, therefore, a part of my duty to meet that 
 argument, and vindicate the Presbyterian Church against 
 its influence and effect wherever made. Especially do I 
 deem it loyalty to our " Reunion " that, here and now, it 
 should be met. It has assumed a latitude it never dared 
 to measure any time before. I regard the use of that argu- 
 ment of usage as fatal to the peace, unity, and purity of 
 our church. It is a dangerous plea to make. If usage 
 consecrates the right of Mr. McCune to do as he has done, 
 " usage " will consecrate the ruin of the Presbyterian 
 Church. I concede that a continuous custom, or practice, 
 grown up under an express law, is the best exposition of 
 that law, for the law itself is the basis on which the usage 
 rests. The usage has prescription to support it. I concede 
 also, that where there is no law, usage may itself grow to 
 a general law which it might be mischievous to abate. But 
 neither of these cases is the case before us. liTot the first, 
 for the Presbyterian Church has no law, no prescription 
 upon any such usage as that Mr. McCune claims is founded. 
 There is no statute for such a thing to rest upon. IlTot the 
 second, for we have express laws of our denomination 
 forbidding the very things that Mr. McCune has done^ 
 whether as to propagating his Organic Union views, 
 practicing an independent polity, organizing a Church, 
 
[165] 
 
 accepting a call, or being re-examined and installed by an 
 undelegated or other Council, without permission of 
 his Presbytery. Moreover, before usage may be pleaded, 
 where no law exists, it must be shown to be established 
 well by time, without interruption, peaceably enjoyed, and 
 consistent with the public good. But all these tests of 
 usage are violated here. The practice claimed by Mr. Mc- 
 Cune never was established by time ; it never has been un- 
 interrupted; it never was peaceably enjoyed; it never con- 
 duced to the peace and good of the Presbyterian Church. 
 Apart from the Linwood and Mt. Lookout accompaniments, 
 it began about the beginning of the present century, and 
 was a compromise even with Congregationalism, it has been 
 severely interrupted, it was never peaceably enjoyed, though 
 acquiesced in for a period, and it produced only " harm" to 
 the Presbyterian Church. With the Linwood and Mt. 
 Lookout accompaniments, I think it may safely be said, it 
 never was known in all the history of the Church on earth. 
 It has no prescription. May it never become a precedent ! 
 The usage as to Congregational Churches, our allowing 
 Presbyterian ministers to receive their call and be installed, 
 never dispensed with jurisdiction over such ministers, nor 
 allowed them to receive such call or be installed, but by 
 permission of the Presbytery. The usage rested on the 
 Plan of Union of 1801. It was a bad prescription, and was 
 abrogated, as unconstitutional from the beginning, in 1838. 
 All the force, and all the right, the usage had, in reference 
 to Congregational Churches, and guaranteed by the Union 
 plan of 1801, fell, when it fell in 1838. If the usage did 
 once exist, it yet came from a prescription now gone. It 
 grew out of that plan, Our Reunion has called us back 
 again to the " old paths," the "good old ways" antecedent 
 to the time of those sad controversies of which that bad 
 prescription was the seed. We are cautioned not to make 
 any "needless or offensive" reference to the past, much 
 more not to revive the practices that gave the Church her 
 trouble. "It is the duty of all our Church judicatories, 
 ministers and people of the united Church," say our Cou- 
 curreut Resolutions, " to avoid all needless and offensive re- 
 
[166] 
 
 ference to the causes that divided ns; and, in order to avoid 
 the revival of past issues, by the continuance of any usage in 
 in either branch of the Church that has grown out of former 
 conflicts, it is earnestly recommended to the lower judica- 
 tories that they conform their practice in relation to all such 
 USAGES, so far as is consistent with their convictions of 
 duty, to the general custom of the Church prior to the con- 
 troversies that resulted in the separation." Digest, p. 93. 
 Those controversies began soon after the plan of 1801. 
 Again, where any " usage " is thus related to the conflicts 
 of the past, a " usage asserted and defended by some, denied 
 and discarded by others," its " abolition " is demanded. And 
 this Mr. McCune and this Presbytery have voted for. I 
 submit. Moderator, that by the Terms of our Reunion, no 
 -man is entitled to plead Congregational " usage," and ap- 
 peal to some few yet existing instances of it, as shown by 
 our Assembly Minutes, much less under the Oberlin "New 
 Departure." These are the remnants of a " usage " against 
 which the assembly has advised our ministers and all our 
 courts. Least of all can these cases be pleaded as an argu- 
 ment for Mr. McCune's course at Linwood and Mt. Lookout. 
 The enterprise of Mr. McCune and his whole course herein 
 is -without prescription,' and without a shadow of defense 
 from " usage " of any kind whatever in our Body as to 
 Congregational Churches. It is a pure inception, an in- 
 novation, a. "new thing under the sun," a "sore evil" to 
 the Church of Christ. It is without a parallel. It rests its 
 -claim on no analogy that can be cited, as allowed, in the 
 whole history of the Presbyterian Church. It is a new de- 
 velopment of the times. To lean for support on the 
 " usage " of the past is to lean on a tree with its roots cut 
 away, upon a custom that produced disaster and disruption. 
 It is proposed that we fraternize with this Organic Union 
 movement by the recognition of this enterprise, and by the 
 plea that "usage" justifies the toleration, by this Pres- 
 bytery, of the double, contradictory, anomalous, and anti- 
 pro-denominational subscription and allegiance of its pastor. 
 Moderator and Brethren, it is our bounden duty, not merely 
 as Presbyterians, but as Christian ministers and elders, to 
 
[167] 
 
 resist this bad inceptioE. Soon, indeed, if not already, as 
 Mr. McCune suggests, it may he "too late!" 
 
 " Principiis obsia ; sero medicina paratur." The course of 
 Mr. McCune herein is utterly at war with all his ordination 
 vows and the true deportment of all ministers. How can 
 the Presbyterian Church allow a minister to have jurisdic- 
 tion over all her churches, when even the inspection of the 
 records of his own is formally denied ? How permit one 
 minister to ignore, in theory and in practice, our whole 
 Form of Government and Book of Discipline, and even the 
 fundamental doctrines of our system, and publicly teach 
 contrary to the same? By what right send such a minister 
 to our General Assembly " which represents in one body all 
 the particular churches of this denomination " (Digest, p. 
 200), when he represents a church not of " this denomina- 
 tion?" Is it ingenuous to plead the "usage" of the past, 
 now interdicted, for an enterprise that rests on no prescrip- 
 tion ; when such past usage had prescription and permis- 
 sion both ? To plead that argument is vain. What has no 
 prescription is an innovation. 
 
 The argument of usage may be, in these times, the ruin 
 of our peace and unity and purity. It is another name for 
 the non-enforcement of our Standards. It is the destruction 
 of our true liberties and rights. Charles I pleaded usage 
 for the exaction of money from his subjects. We know 
 what came of that. Henry VIII did the same thing. We 
 know what came of that. Usage made Magna Charta a 
 dead letter, just as usage may make our Presbyterian Con- 
 stitution here the same. Were Hampden, Cromwell, and 
 Sydney wrong? Once the Presbyterian Church allowed 
 corresponding members to deliberate and vote in our Courts. 
 We know what came of that. Under the usage, grounded 
 in the plan of 1801, a host of troubles came. It should be 
 enough for us to know, when pleading usage, that no usage 
 can be pleaded against a positive Constitution to the con- 
 trary. Nothing against the church's peace and welfare 
 may be tolerated. " Contra Bempublicam, priveligium non 
 valet" And where a bad practice arises, it must be 
 abolished. What in the beginning was vicious, does not 
 
[168] 
 
 become valid by lapse of time. So is the maxim of com- 
 mon law as true, more true for the Church than for the 
 State. Whatever is contrary to law may not be done by 
 circumvention. 'No Court may decide against the Consti- 
 tution. A bad usage never avails to bar the valid plea of 
 a constitutional objection, or the welfare of the Church. We 
 have no " Toleration Act" for Mr. McCune, no "Custom of 
 the King " to plead, no " usage." To make usage, where 
 it is a violation of law, an argument for its own continu- 
 ance, is to make transgression its own defense. Brethren, 
 let us stop this plea. " Stand in the ways and see and ask 
 for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, 
 and ye shall find rest to your souls." " Sure I am," says 
 Lord Bacon, " that Stare decisis is a good principle, and an- 
 tiquity hath its wisdom. Stare super vias antiquas, stand 
 upon the old ways. The very word and style of Reforma- 
 tion used by our Savior, ab initio non fuit sic, was applied 
 to Church matters, and those of the highest nature." It 
 will be our life, and strength, and peace, and unity, and pu- 
 rity, and historic glory, in future as in past, if we observe 
 to do what our ordination vows bind us to do, not as op- 
 pressed, but as free, loyal, and loving Presbyterians. 
 
 And so may it please the Court ! The prosecution pre- 
 sent to you these charges and this argument, asking of the 
 Court, in the name of the Presbyterian Church, a definitive 
 judgment upon the allegations here made, and if regarded 
 as proved, a definitive condemnation of those doctrines 
 and that course, which are not only at war with the stand- 
 ards of the Presbyterian Church, but which — the one if 
 generally accepted, the other if generally allowed — would 
 be totally subversive of her constitution and of her very 
 existence as a distinctive denomination. The prosecution 
 ask, in the name of the Church, still more, — a definitive 
 arrest of the propagation of such errors, and a positive in- 
 junction that they shall not be taught by any minister 
 under our jurisdiction, nor allowed to be taught in any of 
 
[ 169 ] 
 
 our churches. For what further action may be necessary 
 in view of the present relations of Mr. McCune to the 
 Lii;iwood and Mt. Lookout Church, and to the General 
 Association of "Union Cliristian Churches" of which he 
 is an active member, the Prosecution refer the Court to the 
 law of our denomination, already so abundantly cited. 
 
 The hour is a momentous one for the Presbyterian 
 Church, if the interest taken abroad in this case is any 
 sign, and if the omens in the church at large are fraught 
 with any lesson ! Never before in all our history has there 
 been such a disposition to put " Union before Truth" as 
 there is to-day. Who knows not that times of Union are 
 times of peril to the Truth of Christ? And what loyal 
 minister of the 'Presbyterian Church is ignorant that the 
 truth of Christ and the order of the heavenly house may 
 not be sacrificed for any external fellowship, however great, 
 nor for any considerations of expediency or economy? It 
 is time the appeal to " conscience," " liberty," " private 
 judgment," " usage," all perverted as it is, were hushed. 
 Conscience has no rights against conscience. Liberty 
 under law has no rights of disobedience to the law itself. 
 Vows of allegiance to the Presbyterian Church have no 
 rights of reservation, none of revolution, against the en- 
 forcement of her .doctrine and her order. Truth in the 
 inward parts, sincerity adopting and approving her stand- 
 ards as "agreeable to the word of God," has no right to 
 traduce those standards as "sectarian." Private judgment 
 has no rights of public transgression. Usage has no rights 
 against the welfare of the church. Allow such license to 
 goon " unquestioned," let Presbyterian ministers indulge 
 it everywhere, and the muse of history, now in this Court, 
 will write the epitaph '■^ Fuit Ecclesia Preshyteriana" over 
 the grave of the Presbyterian Church before this genera- 
 tion shall have passed away ! We know the progress of 
 error, and the arts she practices to twine herself around the 
 human understanding. " Toleration" first, and only tolera- 
 tion, is all she asks. Grown to greatness, she next de- 
 mands '■'•Equality of Rights" with the Truth itself, and then 
 the contest comes. Last of all, " Supremacy," the crown 
 
[170] 
 
 upon her head, and Truth dethroned ! Allow your minis- 
 ters and elders to pursue the course of Mr. McCune, and 
 claim subscription to your standards as a valid plea, for 
 resting on your roll, then measure, if you can, the march 
 of error! So the Rationalistic Lutherans of Germany all 
 signed the Augsburg Confession. So the Socinians of 
 Geneva, after Calvin's day, all signed the Calvinistic Sym- 
 bols. So the subscribers to the Heidleberg Catechism be- 
 came Pantheists, Deists, and Unitarians. So Broad Church 
 Anglicans subscribe the thirty-nine articles. So some Mo- 
 hammedans subscribe the I*Ticene Creed. So Mr. McCune 
 subscribes the standards and preaches the doctrines of Or- 
 ganic Union, invoking the cry of "toleration" in his own 
 favor and "sectarianism" against his owii denomination. 
 Moderator, sectarianism and ecclesiastical denominations 
 are not synonymous and identical terms. Presbyterianism 
 is not " sectarianism." It is a Divine Testimony. The 
 Presbyterian Church is not a " sect." It is a Divine Foun- 
 dation. And well may it stand, if the best assaults of all 
 its foes are found to be but misinterpretations of the Word 
 of God, and vain theories spun from their own imagina- 
 tions. But a worse than Galatiau bewitchment has touched 
 I know not how many ministers of Christ, I know not how 
 many true Christians. " Union before Truth" is the popular 
 accent of the day. The music goes sounding through all 
 our Paradise. " Down with dogmatism" is the cry. It 
 means unquestioned toleration. It is not hard to tell its 
 source. If you will but follow Ithuriel and Zephon in their 
 search, you. shall soon find the lurking " spirit of the age," 
 spotted with indifi'erence to the Truth of God, whispering 
 through Organic Union, 
 
 ^^ Squat like a toad, at the church's ear, 
 Assaying by its cunning art to reach 
 The organs of her fancy, and with them forge 
 Illusions as it lists, phantasms and dreams, 
 Vain hopes, vain aims, inordinate desires. 
 Blown up with high conceits engendering pride." 
 
 God speed the day when the Presbyterian Church again, 
 as of old, shall enforce her constitution and her laws! God 
 
[ 171 ] 
 
 speed the day when all her ministers shall be loyal and 
 true — priests whose " lips shall keep knowledge, and the 
 people learn the law at their mouth," for they are "mes- 
 sengers of the Lord of hosts ;" when, strong in the confi- 
 dence of sound doctrine and a heavenly order, they shall 
 be ready to confront with apostolic zeal those " whose 
 mouths must be stopped," who "subvert whole houses, 
 teaching things which they ought not ;" when they shall 
 " give heed to themselves and the doctrine, and continue 
 in it, knowing that in doing this they shall "save both 
 themselves and them that hear them." Such a ministry 
 the Presbyterian Church has enjoyed before, in the days of 
 her martyr-witness for the truth. May the genius of those 
 hours return ! when all shall " stand fast in one spirit, with 
 one mind, striving for the faith of the gospel ;" men "like- 
 minded," " earnestly contending for tlje faith once delivered 
 to the saints," — the truth of Christ, "the whole truth, and 
 nothing but the truth." And God speed the day, when, 
 once more, the Presbyterian Church, in the "Reunion," 
 shall not let down her colors from the mast, nor give her 
 ministers the right to raise some tattered remnant of her 
 faith upon the top of some new mountain ; but lifting high 
 her symbol to the gallant, unfurling it on every temple 
 spire and on every court, to float in every breeze, shall rally 
 round her own time-honored, battle-worn, and broad blue 
 banner, emblem of the faith, believed in, loved, and felt 
 through all her blood — the ensign of her glory and her 
 strength ! 
 
[172] 
 
 THE FIXAL MliTUTE OF THE PRESBYTERY. 
 
 The Committee to whom was referred the matter of pre- 
 paring a minute for the adoption of the Presbytery in the 
 case in which Rev. W. C. McCune was the defendant, have 
 not thought it proper to make prominent in the same their 
 individual or even collective views. They have deemed it 
 their simple duty, by a faithful and patient analysis of the 
 different votes, and by an earnest endeavor to recall the 
 differing opinions expressed, to make up a judgment and 
 finding which should fairly and fully represent the mind of 
 the Court. "With this explanation of their conception of 
 the task assigned them, the Committee beg leave to submit 
 the following minute, viz : 
 
 The Presbytery has given patient attention to the whole 
 matter. The trial lasted thirteen days. Both the Com- 
 mittee of Prosecution and the accused had the amplest op- 
 portunity to present their testimony and to comment on the 
 same: 
 
 JSTo rules of procedure were adopted beyond what were 
 necessary to the proper and full investigation of the case. 
 
 The general charge of disloyalty to the Presbyterian 
 Church was presented in two specific charges, the first hav-. 
 ing reference to the defendant's opinions, and the second to 
 his acts. 
 
 On both of these charges the defendant was acquitted by 
 the decisive vote of 29 to 8, and in the judgment of this 
 Court his character and standing as a Presbyterian minis- 
 ter are uuimpeached. He also carries away from this pain- 
 ful traverse of his case our commendation of him as a 
 faithful and self-denying minister of Jesus Christ, as well 
 as their respect for his manly and Christian demeanor 
 throughout the trial. 
 
 The general ofi'ense of disloyalty was regarded as not 
 substantiated by the proof adduced under the various speci- 
 fications. The reasons for this judgment of the Court in 
 
[ 173 ] 
 
 detail are as follows, looking first to the several items of the 
 first charge : 
 
 Although these charges were presented by common fame, 
 in the name of the Presbytery, it was decided by a vote of 
 32 to 5, with one to sustain in part,'that the eleventh speci- 
 fication, afiirming the existence of such common fame, had 
 not been proved by the evidence adduced by the Prose- 
 cuting Committee. The basis of the action was thus, after 
 careful hearing of the evidence, invalidated in the judgment 
 of the Presbytery itself. 
 
 The tenth specification, as to the length of time, affirm- 
 ing that the defendant had persisted for many years in ad- 
 vocating his opinions, was not sustained, by a vote of 17 to 
 12, with 9 in part, chiefly for the reason that the statute of 
 limitation forbids the instituting of process in the case of 
 any person for such protracted period, " unless it (the crime) 
 shall have recently become flagrant." 
 
 Of the nine specifications relating to the opinions of the 
 accused, supposed to be at variance with our doctrinal 
 standards, six were declared by decisive majorities to be 
 not sustained. The first specification, affirming what the 
 defendant taught respecting the " Divine Law of Organi- 
 zation of the Christian Church," was not sustained, by a 
 vote of 25 to 8, with 4 in part. The second specification, 
 *'As to the essential sinfulness of the Presbyterian and all 
 other existing evangelical denominations, as such," was not 
 sustained, by a vote of 25 to 4, with 8 in part. Tlie third 
 specification, "As to the sinfulness of framing and requiring 
 assent to human creeds," was not sustained by a vote of 28 
 to 5, with 5 in part. The fourth specification, asserting 
 that the defendant taught that Presbyterian ministers might 
 change old views of doctrine and polity, and still remain in 
 the Presbytery, was not sustained, by a vote of 31 to 4, 
 with 3 in part. The fifth specification, as to the defend- 
 ant's alleged opinion that Presbyterian and other evangeli- 
 cal ministers might belong to two diflerent denominations 
 at once, was not sustained, by a vote of 32 to 4, with 2 in 
 part. The ninth specification, asserting that the defendant 
 
[ 174 ] 
 
 taught what was heretical as to the subject of saving faith, 
 was not sustained, by a vote of 29 to 4, with 5 in part. 
 
 In the investigation of the evidence as to these specifi- 
 cations, it became apparent that the opinions of the de- 
 fendant had been misapprehended, and that he did not 
 hold these doctrines, as alleged. Some of the specifications 
 were inferential, such as the idea of a plurality of official 
 membership, and as to the right to remain within a de- 
 nomination while pursuing courses intended to subvert it. 
 On these the Presbj^tery was precluded from passing con- 
 demnation by the instruction of the General Assembly, in 
 the Craighead case, 1824. (Digest 224.) The specification 
 in regard to saving faith was thrown aside in view of the 
 frank disavowals of the defendant (see same case. Digest, 
 224), and of the confidence felt by nearly all in his personal 
 loyalty to the doctrine of our Church, as set forth in the 
 Confession of Faith, chapter xiv. While the proofs under 
 these above-named specifications disclose some things in 
 language and expression which are to be deprecated, and 
 some things which the Presbytery does not approve, there 
 is not to be found in them, in the judgment of the Court, 
 atiy support for the charge of disloyalty. 
 
 In reference to three of the nine specifications, the large 
 majority of the Presbytery were agreed to sustain, or to 
 sustain in part. The vote on the sixth specification, "As. 
 to the terms of ministerial fellowship," was to sustain, 17; 
 in part, 17, and not to sustain, 4. The seventh specification, 
 charging a denial of " Infant Church Membership," was 
 sustained by the following vote : to sustain, 20 ; in part, 10, 
 and not to sustain, 8. The eighth specification, having ref- 
 erence to " the admission of unbaptized persons to church 
 membership," was also sustained, the vote being, to sustain, 
 23; in part, 10, and not to sustain, 5. 
 
 The teachings of the defendant on these topics are ap- 
 parently corollaries of his theory of Organic Union, or the 
 combination of all believers in one Church, without refer- 
 ence to difterences in doctrine, order or worship. The 
 Presbytery does not regard this theory as either established 
 by the Scriptures or as warranted by the doctrine of our 
 
[175] 
 
 Confession respecting the communion of saints. (Chap- 
 ter 26.) 
 
 In the judgment of the Presbytery, the defendant has 
 been led by his theory into exti*eme positions on the three 
 special topics named. And while the establishing of these 
 three specifications is not of itself sufficient to prove the 
 charges of disloyalty, the Presbytery in sustaining these 
 specifications does express a decisive judgment adverse to 
 the opinions thus maintained. We believe that it would 
 be dangerous to recognize exceptions to the rule that per- 
 sons who will not submit to so plain and Scriptural a sac- 
 rament as baptism should not be admitted into the visible 
 Church. We believe that, whatever diflacnlties may arise 
 from the ambiguity of the term " membership," as applied 
 to infants, there is a just and precious relation or connec- 
 tion established by the covenant in the Christian family as 
 a divine institution, and certified by baptism, which ought 
 never to be ignored or lightly regarded by the ministers of 
 our Church, We hold also to the entire Scriptural legiti- 
 macy of separate denominations, such as our own, in which 
 peculiarities of doctrine as well as the general evangelical 
 doctrine, and also peculiarities of order or modes of wor- 
 ship, may be recognized and maintained without impairing 
 the true spiritual unity of the whole Church of Christ. We 
 consequently regard the limitation of ministerial fellow- 
 ship, so far as organization is concerned, as being entirely 
 proper, and as being eminently desirable. The views of 
 the defendant on these points are not such as the Presby- 
 tery can approve. 
 
 In view of the teaching of our Confession of Faith as to 
 the Communion of Saints and the Sacraments, we regard 
 the expression of such views by the defendant as are set 
 forth in these three specifications as calculated to excite 
 anxiety and distrust in the minds of Christian brethren, 
 and as furnishing ground for earnest caution against all 
 teaching which tends to induce conflict and division either 
 within our own circle or in the Church at large, and for 
 solemn counsel to wait more patiently upon the leadings of 
 
, [i76] 
 
 Divine Providence as to any more visible union of the 
 people of God. 
 
 The second charge is one of disloyalty in conduct, and 
 is made to rest upon two specifications, which may be 
 briefly summarized as (1) confederating with others in ad- 
 vocating and promoting " the new anti-denominational 
 association of Independent ' Union Christian Churches of 
 America,'" and (2) actively co-operating in organizing the 
 Linwood and Mt. Lookout Church. 
 
 The Presbytery, by a vote of 25 to 6, with 7 in part, did 
 not sustain the first specification. The court, as is thus 
 manifest, failed to see any adequate proof of unfaithfulness 
 to his own Church in the labors and fellowship of the de- 
 fendant, with various other parties, in publishing papers, 
 holding conventions, etc., in the interest of Christian union. 
 The question whether such affiliations and co-operations 
 were wise is very different from the question whether en- 
 gaging in them is evidence of a spirit of disloyalty. Even 
 though such a course be not approved, it nevertheless lies 
 in the category of acts where individual liberty is allowed 
 and ecclesiastical authority should not be invoked. It has 
 not been shown that the defendant intended to break down 
 the denomination to which he had honestly declared his 
 allegiance; or that he had entered consciously on an enter- 
 prise the ultimate issue of which was the revolutionary sub- 
 version of all existing sects. 
 
 The second specification (relating to the course of the 
 defendant in connection with the Linwood and Mt. Lookout 
 Church, his influence in its organization, and his installation 
 as pastor of the same), received the following vote, viz. : 
 To sustain, 7; not to sustain, 12 ; and to sustain in part, 18. 
 The judgment of the Presbytery on this second point, 
 therefore, is less decisively favorable to the defendant than 
 in reference to the first. It is in evidence that the defend- 
 ant was not the originator of this church, but, on the con- 
 trary, that such organization had been contemplated some 
 time before he came to the field. It is clear also that the 
 original intention was to provide for the religious wants of 
 a growing community, where as yet no one denomination 
 
[ 177 ] 
 
 was strong enough to maintain the ordinances of the Gospel. 
 The enterprise had, in our judgment, no connection what- 
 ever, at least in its earlier stages, with what is called the 
 Christian Union movement. Nor is there any clear evi- 
 dence that the defendant intended to pervert or divert it 
 into any anti-denominational use, or to make it the first 
 step in a process of destruction of existing sects. In pub- 
 lishing the Basis of Fellowship, and accompanying papers, 
 preceding the call of the Council, he did not intend to 
 make the church responsible, nor did the church ever in- 
 tend to become responsible for his peculiar opinions therein 
 contained. 
 
 In regard to the defendant's acceptance of and entrance 
 on the pastoral office in this church without the consent of 
 the Presbytery, we are constrained to say that such a course 
 can not be regarded in any other light than as an irregu- 
 larity. He ought to have consulted with and obtained the 
 consent of the Presbytery. The proper course for all mem- 
 bers of the Presbytery who resign or accept pastoral 
 charges, or who leave the ministry for any other profession, 
 such as teaching or editing, or who practically devote 
 themselves to any form of secular employment, should be 
 obviously to obtain permission from that body to which 
 primarily their official allegiance is due. This is a proper 
 part of that submission to our brethren in the Lord which 
 we have individually promised. It is an accountability to 
 which every loyal minister will, on consideration, cheer- 
 fully submit himself, and while we regret the departure in 
 this instance from a rule, the propriety of which is so obvi- 
 ous, we are obliged to temper our judgment with mercy in 
 view of the fact that the rule has not heretofore been 
 strictly enforced. Our own negligence so far condones the 
 ofiense as to render it unjust in us to inflict censure on ac- 
 count of it in the case before us. 
 
 The second charge, therefore, of disloyalty in conduct, 
 the Presbytery, in like manner as with the first, by the em- 
 phatic vote of 29 to 8, regards as not sustained ; while the 
 vote on the second specification of the same shows no dis- 
 position to approve the irregularities therein mentioned. 
 
[178] 
 
 And, neither charge being sustained, the defendant stands 
 acquitted at our bar, and is still commended to the churches 
 as a brother minister of Jesus Christ, faithful and beloved. 
 In recording thus at length our judgment on all the 
 points specified in the charges, the Presbytery has earnestly 
 and honestly sought to know the truth and to do the right. 
 And with the conviction that this, our finding, is, in every 
 substantial particular, according to justice, both to the 
 Church and to the defendant, we may express the hope 
 and earnest wish that it will also be promotive of peace, 
 and that the harmony of the Church at large may not be 
 further disturbed by the appearance of this case in any 
 form before the higher courts. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 O. A. Hills, 
 
 J. P. E. KUMLER, 
 
 J. E. Wright, 
 Frederick Dallas, 
 John Kennett, 
 
 Committee. 
 
 As will be seen from the above minute, the Presbytery 
 decided, 
 
 1. That there was no proof adduced, under any or all the 
 Specifications, to show disloyalty to the Presbyterian Church, 
 nor contravention of ordination vows, nor any impairing of 
 our system of doctrine, nor any war upon the Standards, 
 nor any Common Fame. 
 
 2. That Specification X, under Charge I, was not sus- 
 tained, whereas it was sustained by a vote of 21 to 17. 
 
 3. That the Statute of Limitation could be applied to bar 
 process against a continuous offense of ten years. 
 
 4. That the proofs under the Specifications ^'- not sus- 
 tained" were no competent proofs at all. 
 
 5. That the Prosecution "misapprehended" the opinions 
 of Mr. McCune. 
 
 6. That some of the Specifications were "inferential," 
 whereas there is not one such in all of them. 
 
[ 179 ] 
 
 7. That the " Craighead " rule operates to " not sustain " 
 the fact of proven language, whereas the Assembly used it 
 only in mitigation of judgment upon the language proved, 
 giving the defendant the benefit of his claimed interpreta- 
 tion, if deemed to be not an evasion. 
 
 8. That in all Mr. McCune has taught, there are only a 
 few expressions to be deprecated, but nothing whatever to 
 show any disloyalty. 
 
 9. That the Specifications which they did sustain are 
 "corollaries" of " his theory of Organic Union," and at 
 the same time voted that there was no proof to show that 
 he held any such theory, and that there was no Common 
 Fame about it. And yet again, that he did hold such a 
 theory, while they voted down the Specifications which as- 
 sert that he held it. And still, again, that his theory and 
 corollaries merit a "decisive, adverse judgment" because 
 they are " dangerous," and are " not such as Presbytery can 
 approve," being " calculated to excite anxiety and distrust," 
 tending " to induce conflict and division," and deserving 
 " solemn counsel," and yet are no evidence of any disloy- 
 alty, and were allowed to pass without even an admonition. 
 
 10. That there is no evidence to prove that Mr. McCune 
 was the originator of the Linwood and Mt. Lookout Church 
 in the shape it took, as charged in the Specifications, and 
 that in all his course herein he was guilty of only a little 
 pardonable irregularity. 
 
 11. That he is a faithful, sound, loyal, unimpeached Pres- 
 byterian minister, worthy of commendation, and that the 
 Presbytery's " own negligence " of its duty, for years past, 
 makes it improper for it to censure anything he has said or 
 done, and this it declares to be a finding according to jus- 
 tice, both to the Church and defendant, and promotive of 
 peace. 
 
'^ 
 
 JUDICIAL OPINION, 
 
 '''^''ii'diwu-'-'i^ 
 
 IN THE CASE OF 
 
 THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 
 
 veh&vs 
 
 The Rev. W. C. McCune. 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE PRESBYTERY OE CINCINNATI 
 
 ONLY IN PART, FOR WANT OF TIME, 
 
 JVL-A-iaOH 22, 1877. 
 
 / 
 By the Rey. LEANDER H. LONG, 
 
 Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Lebanon, Ohio. 
 
 CINCINNATI: 
 
 PRINTED BY THE GAZETTE COMPANY. 
 1877. 
 
JUDICIAL OPINION. 
 
 May it please the Moderator and Members of the Court : 
 
 The Committee of Prosecution, and the defendant, will excuse me 
 in not wasting time in the way of indulging in complimentary ex- 
 pressions toward them, for their deportment during the progress of 
 this trial, as it is our desire, to get at the case at once. In my 
 sympathies, if I have any, one way or the other, I might be presumed 
 to be with the defendant, as he and I were born, baptized, trained, 
 educated, licensed, and ordained in the good old psalm-singing, close 
 communion Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. By her, our 
 mother, we were, when young, nourished on the sincere milk of the 
 Word, and as we grew in stature, we were given the strong meat of her 
 feith, and her order, so that I would have supposed that the defendant, 
 from the training he received in the old church, would have been of 
 full age, and by reason of use would have had his senses exercised, at 
 the time he changed his ecclesiastical connection and became a minister 
 in the church, which now complains of him, to have discerned, that 
 the doctrines, principles and views, advocated by him, as he says, for 
 the last twenty years, are at war with her standards, and if generally 
 accepted, Avould totally subvert her constitution, and destroy her very 
 existence as a Presbyterian denomination. 
 
 Mr. Moderator and brethren of the court, there are three elements 
 in this case, and only three: the law, under which the defendant is 
 being tried, the charge, upon which he is being tried, and the proof, 
 upon which the charges, and specifications are to be sustained; and it is 
 a mere waste of time, a useless expenditure of brain power, to look at 
 anything beyond these elements of the case, in the trial of the case, 
 and our solemn obligation, as an ecclesiastical court, limits us to a fair 
 and impartial consideration of the law, the charge, and the proof — 
 these, and nothing more. 
 
 The law to which the defendant is amenable, and under which he is 
 now being tried, what is it? It seems to me that there has been on 
 
this branch of the case some confusion of tongues, and it may be, that 
 my tongue may only add to the bable. We will endeavor, however, 
 to find out just what the hiw is, so that in the trial we may do justice 
 to the complainant, the Presbyterian Church, and no injustice to the 
 defendant. The law under which the defendant is being tried is not 
 the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, for he is not charged 
 W'ith disloyalty to these. It is not the law as set forth in the basis 
 agreed upon by the Evangelical Alliance, for he is not charged with 
 not being true to this basis of evangelical truth. It is not the law as 
 embodied in what is called the Auburn declaration, for he is not 
 charged with not being in accord with this deliverance. It is not the 
 law as found in anything that a Dr. Hodge, or Knox, or Crosby, or 
 Thomas, or Skinner, may have said, or written on the subject of 
 Christian Union, Organic Union, or any other kind of union, for he is 
 not charged with not being in harmony with these distinguished 
 divines. It is not the law, which some members of the court claim, 
 has been given by Dr. Hodge, who is represented in defining the 
 system of doctrine contained in our standards, as cutting in two that 
 system, presenting the one part as being essential, and the other not 
 essential to the system, for he is not charged with not being in accord 
 with this mutilated system, that is claimed to be the work of the 
 great Princeton Professor as to what the system of doctrine is, that is 
 received and adopted, when the hands of the Presbytery are laid upon 
 our heads. The defendant is not being tried under any of these laws, 
 but under the law, to wit : the system of doctrine and polity taught 
 in the Holy Scriptures, and contained in the confession of faith of the 
 Presbyterian Church. This is the law, to which he as a Presbyterian 
 minister is amenable for having received and adopted it sincerely, 
 which he says he has, and no one questions it, he is now under charge 
 of not being true to the Presbyterian Church, in that he is not true in 
 his teaching and practice to the faith and polity of the Presbyterian 
 Church, contained in her confession of faith, and upon this charge the 
 trial is proceeding ; but it seems to me that this is not clearly appre- 
 hended by some members of the court, else we had had less oratorical 
 girations round and about the case, being careful not to come in actual 
 collision with the case, at any time. 
 
 But there is some trouble as to what the system of doctrine taught 
 in the Scriptures, and contained in the confession of faith of the Pres- 
 byterian Church, is. Here again, there seems to be a confusion of 
 tongues, when there is no necessity for it. In listening to some of my 
 brother members of the court, it seemed to me that the system of 
 doctrine, in their judgment, is a kind of system within a system, a 
 
wheel within a wheel, a shell and a kernal within, and to get at the 
 exact thing, the system to be received and adopted, we must take off the 
 outer system and receive the inner system, remove the outer wheel and 
 adopt the inner wheel, break the shell and find in the kernal wnthin, 
 the faith and polity of the Presbyterian Church. What brilliant 
 nonsense! Here we might inquire as did one of old, "Who is this 
 that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge." 
 
 "System of doctrine," what does this mean? It means that the sys- 
 tem, is a system, not of figures, or fancies, or follies, but of doctrines. 
 The doctrines, then, of the system is the system itself, and to know what 
 these doctrines are we go to the system that coi tains and enumerates 
 them, and here we find enumerated thirty-three distinct and well 
 defined doctrines, and these thirty-three doctrines make up " this 
 system of doctrine," that cliaracterizes and distinguishes the Presby- 
 terian body, from every other ecclesiastical organization under tlie sun. 
 Now, when w'e receive and adopt the "system of doctrine," what do 
 we receive and adopt? why the thirty-three doctrines contained in, 
 and which make up this system, and from wdiich, if you should 
 strike out a single one of the thirty-three, it would not then be the 
 system of doctrine, which has been received and adopted from the be- 
 ginning, by every minister in the Presbyterian Church. It must not 
 be forgotten, that the " system of doctrine " in question, with its 
 thirty-three specific chapters, is the "s3^stem of doctrine' of the 
 Presbyterian Church, and that the whole thirty-three are essential, 
 not to salvation, for all are not, but are essential to the Presbyterian 
 system of doctrine, which the Presbyterian Church believes is taught 
 in the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 Dr. Hodge has been appealed to, to settle this (luestion, as to what 
 the "system of doctrine" is, that is received and adopted, by the party 
 upon whose head, the hands of the Presbytery are laid in his ordina- 
 tion. Just as if Dr. Hodge had taught, or could teach, that some other 
 "system of doctrine," other than the thirty-three doctrines contained 
 in the confession of faith, is received and adopted upon induction into 
 the ministerial office in the Presbyterian Church. Dr. Hodge has 
 told us just what the system of doctrine is, tiiat it embraces just the 
 thirty-three chapters contained in the confession, no more and no less, 
 and then he tells us ju,st what he ought to tell us, :md what every 
 one ought to know, without being told by Dr. Hodge or any other 
 Gamaliel, that some twenty of these doctrines of the system are pecu- 
 liar and controverted, while the remainder are not peculiar and not con- 
 troverted, and from this distinction which the Dr. draws between the 
 peculiar and t.he non-peculiar, the controverted and the non-contro- 
 
verted doctrines of the system, some members of the court, and some 
 of these, the former students of the old Princetonian Professor have 
 drawn, without any warrant, as we think, the conchision, that his 
 distinetioitof peculiar and non-peculiar, controverted and non-contro- 
 verted, is a distinction of what is essential to the system and what is 
 not, that some twenty of its doctrines are essential, and that the 
 remainder are not, and therefore, in receiving and adopting the system, 
 we receive and adopt what is essential to the system, and assume no 
 obligation to what is non-essential to the system. As to this, all we have 
 to say, is, that those brethren of the court who have made Dr. Hodge 
 teach a something that he never did teach, had better not go to him, 
 and say to his face, what they have said here behind his back. What? 
 Dr. Hodge throw out of the "system of doctrine" of the Presbyter- 
 ian Church, as not being essential to the system, some thirteen doc- 
 trines, among which are the doctrines of worship, the Sabbath, oaths 
 and vows, the church, communion of saints, baptism, the Lord's Sup- 
 per, the resurrection of the dead and the last judgment — never. 
 This will certainly be news to him, as he certainly has not done any 
 such thing, at any time, or anywhere. 
 
 But in claiming that the system of doctrine is the same as the 
 thirty-three chapters of doctrine contained in the confession, do we 
 claim at the same time, that every sentence and clause is to be assented 
 to, at ordination, when the system is received and adopted? By no 
 means, for a sentence, or clause, or proposition, found in one or more of 
 the thirty-three chapters of the system, may be stricken out without 
 the slightest injury to the chaptfer or chapters from which they may 
 be cast out, and when thrown out, the system with its thirty-three 
 doctrines will remain as a system intact, and without any impairment' 
 of its integrity. 
 
 The law under which the defendant is being tried, being the system 
 of doctrine, and the system of polity, contained in the confession of 
 faith of the Presbyterian Church, which she believes to be taught in 
 the Holy Scriptures, we now proceed to look at the charge, which is the 
 second element in the case, and which is set forth in the two following 
 declarations : 
 
 " That the Rev. W, C. McCune, being a minister of the Presbyterian 
 Church of the United States of America, and a member of the Pres- 
 bytery of Cincinnati, has, for years past, in contravention of his vows 
 of loyalty to the distinctive faith and order of the Presbyterian Church, 
 as also in opposition to the terms of the doctrinal and ecclesiastical 
 Basis of Union adopted, unanimously, by the Presbytery of Cincinnati 
 (O. S.), at Avondale, September 8, 1869, Mr. McCune being present 
 
and voting for the same, and adopted by the whole Presbyterian 
 Church (O. S. and N. S.), and in joint convention November 12, 18&9, 
 declared as of binding force, openly proclaimed and persistently 
 advocated doctrines, principles, and views, not only at war with the 
 standards of the Presbyterian Church, but, if generally accepted, 
 totally subversive of its constitution, and of the very existence of the 
 Presbyterian denomination itself." 
 
 "That the Rev. W. C. McCune, being a minister of the Presbyterian 
 Church of the United States of Amferica, and a member of the Pres- 
 bytery of Cincinnati, has, in contravention of his vows of loyalty to 
 the distinctive government and discipline of the Presbyterian Church, 
 and for the publicly avowed purpose of carrying into practical effect 
 the doctrines, principles and views specified under Charge I, been 
 instrumental in advising, promoting and encouraging the new Anti- 
 denominational Association of the "Union Christian Churches of 
 America; " aufj, also, tlie new anti-denominational organization at 
 Linwood and Mount Lookout, founded on these doctrines, principles 
 and views, his course herein being, if generally allowed, totally 
 subversive of the constitution of the Presbyterian Church, and of its 
 very existence as a distinctive denomination.'' 
 
 The charge or the offense always relates to the law, and were not 
 the system of doctrine, and the system of polity, contained in the 
 confession of faith of the Presbyterian Church, the law to govern her 
 ministers in what they teach, and do, then, there could be no charge 
 against the defendant. But this being the law of the church, and pub- 
 lished as her system of doctrine, and as her form of government, book of 
 discipline and directory for worship, the defendant then stands charged 
 with "disloyalty to the Presbyterian Church," and pray what does 
 this mean? Why simply, that having upon his ordinati'on and installa- 
 tion in a Presbyterian pastorate, assumed the obligation to preach the 
 faith and practice the polity of the Presbyterian Church, as set forth 
 in her standards, he has turned away from this faith and this polity, 
 and advocated doctrines, principles, and views, which are claimed to 
 be, not only at war with the standards of the Presbyterian Church, 
 but, if generally accepted, totally subversive of its constitution. 
 
 This teaching, and this practice, is called by the Committee of 
 Prosecution, "disloyalty,"' and thecommittee has been severely criticised 
 for thus characterizitig the offense as "disloyalty to the Presbyterian 
 Church," as the offense of the defendant, if he be guilty of any offense 
 does not reach, as it is said, 1o that height of infamy which the term dis- 
 loyalty conveys, and of which, if he should be convicted, he would deserve 
 to be hung higher than Hajman. It matters little, we apprehend, what 
 
the caption of the offense is, or what terms are employed to indicate it, 
 if the caption, or the terms, truly express the nature of the offense. 
 Does the term disloyalty truly do this ? Let us see : disloyalty can 
 never be predicated of any one, except that one is owing allegiance, 
 and then" it can only be charged against that one, as that one has 
 ignored or broken his allegiance. Now, in this case, the defendant owed 
 allegiance to the Presbyterian Church, in having received and adopted 
 her confession of faith, and having approved of her government and 
 discipline; and having done this, he is charged with advocating 
 doctrines, principles, and views, at war with her standards, and 
 tending to the destruction of her constitution, and existence as a 
 denomination, and this the Committee of Prosecution have called 
 "disloyalty to the Presbyterian Church;" and, now, is this a misnomer? 
 We think not, but the very term that expresses more fully, perhaps, 
 than any other term could possibly do, the nature of the offense, 
 with which the defendant stands charged. Still, the committee might 
 have said in speaking of the offense of the defendant, that he had not 
 been true to his ministerial allegiance, or that as a minister in the 
 Presbyterian Church he had not been, and was not now in accord with 
 her faith and polity, which would have been saying precisely the same 
 thing which they do say, when they express it as disloyalty to the 
 Presbyterian Church. But why waste time in answer to a mere quibble 
 about the terra the committee have used to express the nature of the 
 offense charged upon the defendant ? Let us proceed. 
 
 Here let us inquire into the extent of the obligation assumed by 
 the defendant, when he, by the reception and adoption of the Presby- 
 terian standards, became a minister in the Presbyterian Church. The 
 committee call this obligation a solemn vow, and for this they are 
 promptly criticised, and for other things said and done by them, until 
 sometimes we were in doubt, as to who was the culprit — the committee 
 or the defendant.. The committee, say the defenders of the defendant, 
 should have spoken of his obligation simply as a promise, and not as a 
 solemn vow, seeming to intimate that to violate a solemn vow, is a 
 much greater offense than to violate a solemn promise. Well, 
 call it what you may, a promise or a vow, a solemn promise or a 
 solemn vow, it is, in itself, of the nature of an obligation, assumed in 
 the sight of God and before men, and is, therefore, an intensely solemn 
 thing, be it the one or the other — a solemn vow or a solemn promise, 
 and when broken, is nothing more nor less than disloyalty to the person 
 or thing to whom, or to what the alliegiance was due, and, as in this 
 case, it was due to the Presbyterian Church, the defendant having re- 
 ceived and adopted her standards of faith and polity, he is, therefore, 
 
in departing from this faith and this polity, if it be true that he has, 
 properly chargeable with "disloyalty to the Presbyterian Church." 
 But, let us leave this quibble and hair-splitting of the defense as to 
 the nature of the obligation assumed by the defendant, and proceed, 
 for what we wanUrto get at just now, is, the extent of the vow or the 
 promise, which he made when he become a minister in the Presby- 
 terian Church. 
 
 The extent of the obligation is seen in this, that in the ordination, 
 as well as in the pastoral installation of any one in the Presbyterian 
 Church, affirmative answers are made to the following questions : 
 "Do you sincerely receive and adopt the confession of faith of this 
 church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy 
 Scriptures ? " " Do you approve of the government and discipline of 
 the Presbyterian Church in these United States ? " This obligation 
 now relates to all that is distinctive and peculiar in the faith of the 
 church, and in the government and discipline of the church, to all 
 that distinguishes the Presbyterian Church from any other church, to 
 all that is denominational in her, as well as to all that is evangelical 
 in her. It is an obligation to honestly preach the faith, keep the order, 
 and enforce the discipline of the Presbyterian Church. And how well 
 the defendant may, or may not have done this, we will see, when we 
 come to look at the proof. 
 
 Now, in answer to this, it is said by a number of the members of 
 the court, that the obligation taken, has nothing in it, binding the in- 
 dividual assuming it, never to change his views ; and, then, to fix and 
 fasten this idea, our brother member of the court, Ritchey, tells us 
 that the only two aijimals who are never known to change their views, 
 are a fool and a mule. Is this so ? and if so, that a man who never 
 changes his views, is either a fool or a mule, what kind of an animal 
 must that man be — a fool or a mule— who, having changed his views, 
 then refuses to change his relations, so as to be in his relations con- 
 sistent with his views ? Will the brother answer ? It has been said, 
 too, in. defense of the defendant, that the Presbyterian Church is a 
 church of liberty ; why, certainly it is. A more liberal church is 
 nowhere to be found. She binds no man's conscience. She compels 
 no man to come into her ; and she forces no man to remain in her 
 contrary to his will. Her invitation to those who would be ministers 
 in her, is, if any man will, let him come and receive and adopt the 
 standards of her faith and her order, and, as long as he remains true 
 to these, he is at liberty to remain ; but, when he fails in his fidelity 
 to these standards, he is at liberty to go out of her, and no man will 
 seek to compel him, to remain in her. Is not this liberty enough ? 
 
10 
 
 The liberty of the Presbyterian Church is the liberty of law ; the 
 liberty of her standards, and not the liberty to do whatsoever seemeth 
 right in the eyes of any one. Not the liberty to openly and persist- 
 ently advocate doctrines, principles, and views, not only at war with 
 her standards, but, if generally accepted, would totally subvert her 
 constitution and destroy her denominational existence. This, cer- 
 tainly, is not the liberty, which my brother members of the court 
 claim may be exercised by Presbyterian ministers, for this would be 
 nothing more, nor less than the commission of denominational suicide, 
 and this, is not what the Presbyterian Church is prepared to do just 
 now. 
 
 Having seen what the law of the case is, to wit : The standards of 
 the Presbyterian Church, her system of doctrine, her form of govern- 
 ment, her book of discipline, her directory for worship, all contained, 
 or set forth in her confession of faith, and having seen what the charge 
 in the case is, to wit : "Disloyalty to the Presbyterian Church," in this, 
 that the defendant had been for many years past, openly and persist- 
 ently, advocating doctrines, principles, and views, not only at war 
 with the standards of the Presbyterian Church, but, if generally ac- 
 cepted, would totally subvert her constitution and destroy her exist- 
 ence as a denomination ; we will now proceed to examine the proof 
 in the case, in its application under the-law to this charge 
 
 The charge is presented under two forms, so as to make two charges, 
 the one relating to the faith of the church, and the other to the polity 
 of the church, and these charges are exhibited under thirteen speci- 
 fications, eleven pertaining to the first charge, and two pertaining to 
 the second charge, and each and every specification is accompanied 
 with tlxe proof which is relied upon to sustain them, and the charges, 
 and iniless there is something in the proof, adduced by the defendant, 
 to nullify the proof adduced by the Committee of Prosecution, every 
 specification under both charges must certainly be maintained. 
 
 To understand the proof in its application to the truth of the speci- 
 fications under the charges against the defendant, we must, if we can, 
 clearly un'derstand just what the defendant has taught, and has done, 
 being at the same time a minister in our Presbyterial denomination. 
 What he has taught, and done, has been called a scheme, a system, a 
 theory; and now, what is this, his scheme, system or theory? 
 
 It IS, so far as we can gather it from his teaching and practice, that 
 a denomination, so far as it is evangelical in its faith and in its polity, 
 is authorized, is scriptural, and has a right to exist, but in so far as it 
 is denominational, it is unauthorized, wholly unscriptural, and has no 
 right to exist. His theory is, that there may not be, in or about a 
 
11 
 
 Christian church, anything of the nature of denominational law, or 
 denominational enactments, or if there be, this law, or these enact- 
 ments, while they may be preached, must not be in any case enforced. 
 If this be his scheme or theory, and we think it is, and if we have not 
 misrepresented the defendant in stating his scheme, or theory, and we 
 think we have not, then his scheme, or theory, obliges him to teach, 
 and to do, the very things which he is charged, with teaching and do- 
 ing in the specifications, under the charges against him. And to be 
 consistent with his scheme, or theory, is to be utterly inconsistent with 
 the standards of the Presbyterian Church, heretofore received and 
 adopted by him. 
 
 Let us now go to the proof, accompany each specification, carefully 
 examine it, and see whether what is cited against the defendant in the 
 specifications, as being taught and done by him, and as being contrary 
 to the faith and polity of the Presbyterian Church, is sustained by the 
 proof. 
 
 The first specification is, "As to the Divine Law of Organization for 
 the Christian Church, in this, that the Divine Law of Organization for 
 the Christian Church ; in all time, is found in Romans xv. 7, and not 
 only forbids the existence of difierent evangelical denominations, as 
 such, and any exclusion of Christian members or ministers in one 
 denomination from full fellowship in another, but requires oneness of 
 visible external organization, and immediate preparation for the reor- 
 ganization of the Presbyterian and whole Christian Church on a New 
 Testament basis ; moreover, according to this law, the church may 
 cut off from its communion no one who is not, first of all, assumed, or 
 proved, to be unregenerate." 
 
 And now, what is the proof that he has taught the above ? The 
 proof is this, for the defendant says, "we are convinced that we find 
 the law requiring visible union iji Romans xv. 7, as well as in other scrip- 
 tures," " that the New Testament forbids denominational divisions 
 and requires visible union," and this is the same as organic oneness, 
 " that God calls upon all Christ's disciples to make immediate prepara- 
 ti(m for a united New Testament organization of the church in every 
 place," and " that were it not for sectarian managers, and placemen. 
 Christian hearts, now separated by mere human sectarian walls, would 
 gladly unite in visible union," or in organic oneness. Es this, the faith 
 as taught by the defendant, the faith of the Presbyterian Church ? 
 Is this the gospel which the Presbytery, when it laid its hands upon 
 his head, in his ordination, authorized and directed him to preach? 
 Is this, to wit, organic oneness, found anywhere in the system of doc- 
 trine of the Presbyterian Church, and received and adopted by the 
 defendant, upon his installation into a Presbyterian pastorate ? 
 
12 
 
 That such teaching is at war with the standards of the Presbyterian 
 Church we shall not stop to show, for we are speaking to those who 
 are familiar with the standards, and who must therefore know that it 
 is not, and the court will therefore vote, and certainly can not vote 
 otherwise, than to sustain the first specification. 
 
 The second specification is, "As to the essential sinfulness of the Presby- 
 terian and all other existing evangelical denominations as such. — In this, that 
 the Presbyterian and all other evangelical denominations, as such, i. e., 
 in their peculiar character as distinct organizations, apart from their 
 common Christianity, and framed by denominational law to maintain 
 and enforce their peculiar and distinctive creed as to doctrine and 
 polity, are essentially sinful, are not churches, and have no scriptural 
 right to exist. 
 
 The proof under, and intended to sustain this second specification, 
 what is it? The defendant says that "denominational divisions in the 
 church' are wholly destitute of scrii^tural authority." "We have a 
 clear, profound conviction that denominational divisions are unscrip- 
 tural." " I do not believe that the Presbyterian Churches are Christian 
 Union organizations, I believe they ought to be." " I condemn sec- 
 tarianism as essentially sinful," and what the defendant means here by 
 sectarianism is denominational law, or enactment, and its enforcement, 
 and this is essentially sinful. It is enough just here simply to inquire 
 whether anything of this kind is found anywhere in the standards of the 
 Presbyterian Church, received and adopted by the defendant. If it is, 
 then we have sadly misapprehended, what is contained in the standards 
 of our church. The issue is not what the standards ought to be, not 
 what they ought to contain, but is organic oneness a doctrine in otir 
 system of doctrine, and if not, and as it is not, then the doctrine, the 
 princij>le, the view of organic oneness as taught by the defendant, 
 under this second specification, is not only at war with the standards of 
 the Presbyterian Church, but if generally accepted would totally 
 subvert her presbyterial or constitutional existence, and the court will 
 therefore, beyond the possibility of a question, sustain this second 
 specification ; and so let us pass to the third. 
 
 The thii'd specification, is, As to the sinfulness of Framing and Requiring 
 Assent to Human Creeds. — In this, that everything distinctive in creeds 
 should be given up, or struck out, and no human inference or deduction 
 from divine truth be allowed; that the Bible itself is an all-sufficient 
 and the only proper creed for all time ; that the construction of an 
 extended creed, beyond the Scripture statement of a few leading 
 doctrines, the most, otherwise discordant, will accept, is a usurpation 
 of the divine prerogative, and the enforcement of distinctive tenets 
 upon the official ministry, an oppression of the conscience." 
 
13 
 
 The defendant is not opposed to a creed. It is only the length of 
 the creed that he strikes at. It is what it should contain that he con- 
 tends fpr. He is as much in favor of a creed as any of us, but our 
 creed — to wit: the creed of the Presbyterian Church — is not his creed. 
 He takes the standards of the Presbyterian Church, the system of 
 doctrine, the form of government, the book of discipline, the directory 
 for worship, all of which make up her creed, and strikes out of it all 
 human inferences or deductions from divine truth, strikes out of it all 
 Scripture statements, except a few leading doctrines ; and, having done 
 this, then, pray tell me, what is left of our denominational existence. 
 Here let me say, that among the members of this court we seem to 
 hear an uncertain sound on the subject of creeds ; a confounding of the 
 Bible with a creed, and a creed with the Bible. The Bible is not a 
 creed, nor is a creed the Bible. AVhat, then, is the Bible, and what 
 is a creed ? The Bible is God's Word, and is contained in the sixty- 
 six books of the Old and New Testaments, just as our system of doc- 
 trine is contained in the thirty-three chapters of our confession of 
 faith, and this Bible, God, by inspiration, gave to all men, to be the 
 infallible rule of their faith and life. Now, a creed is just our under- 
 standing of what the Bible teaches on any given subject, and this un- 
 derstanding is expressed in human language; and, therefore, a creed 
 is a human thing, in contradistinction to God's Word, or the Bible, which 
 is a divine thing. ' The creed, therefore, of the Presbyterian Church is 
 not the Bible, nor is the Bible the creed of the Presbyterian Church, 
 nor of any other church on earth. If, then, the Bible be not our 
 creed, nor our creed the Bible, what is the latter in contradistinction 
 to the former? The former remains to us as a church, and to all 
 churches as well as to all individuals, the infallible rule of faith and 
 practice ; while the latter, our creed, remains to the Presbyterian 
 Church as her understanding of what the Bible teaches concerning 
 doctrine, government, discipline and ivorship in . the house and family of 
 God. Were it a new, or original question, as to how long or how short 
 our creed ought to be, what it ought, or ought not to contain, as com- 
 pared with what it now embodies, we might change and modify it, 
 might strike out many things now in it, and put many things in it 
 that are not now in it. But, this is not a question in this trial, and 
 we may, thei'efore, not dwell upon it. The question of the trial is, 
 under this third specification, has the defendant, on the subject of 
 creeds, taught a doctrine, advocated a principle, maintained a view, 
 which, if generally accepted, would destroy our denominational life? 
 What has he taught on the subject of creeds which is at war with the 
 standards of the Presbyterian Church? His teaching is, " Uhat a sec- 
 
14 
 
 tarian creed" (that is, a denominational creed) "is always mischievous 
 and sinful; " that " every matter in our creed, which our fellow Chris- 
 tians of other churches can not see to be law in Scripture, should be 
 stricken out;" that " the churches of Christ ought to have no au- 
 thorized creed or discipline but the Holy Scriptures." We need quote 
 the proof no further, for this is enough ; and with this proof under the 
 tliird specification, standing as it does unimpeached and unimpaired, 
 the court must, of necessity, and will sustain the specification. 
 
 The fourth specification is, ''As to OrdinationVoivs.— In this, that Pres- 
 byterian ministers, under the obligation of solemn ordination vows, 
 may change the old views of doctrine and polity they approved and 
 pledged themselves to maintain at the time of their ordination, and 
 preach, publish, and advocate their new views ; claiming, meanwhile, 
 that those who object to this should themselves leave the Presbytery, 
 while the advocates of the new views may remain in the body for the 
 sake of good standing, without renouncing their departures from the 
 standards." 
 
 This specification being so thoroughly dwelt upon at length, and in 
 detail by Bro. Ledyard, one of the Committee of Prosecution, we 
 shall not take up your time in again calling attention to it, except to 
 say, that it far surpasses our comprehension, and, I think, also the 
 comprehension of the court, how a Presbyterian minister can array 
 himself against everything that is denominational in the body of 
 which he is a minister, and put into practical effect his opposition to 
 its denominationalism, as the defendant has done at Linwood and Mt. 
 Lookout, and then insist in remaining in the body, as an indorsement 
 of his ministerial standing. What does he say? "I have publicly' 
 advocated, and propose to advocate" what? that denominational en- 
 actments "are th.e apples of discord, the wedges of division in the 
 Christian church," and while thus advocating, he insists in remaining, 
 in that church, in which these apples and these wedges, are doing 
 nothing but producing discord and divisions. His declaration of re- 
 mainmerit is, "I wish my name to remain on the roll of the Presby- 
 tery as an endorsement of my standing as a Christian minister ; " and, 
 again, "It is useless to make any intimations to me on this subject, as 
 I propose that my name shall stand on the roll of Presbytery as long 
 as .1 remain in Cincinnati or vicinity." Instead of this claim to remain, 
 this cry, that his name shall stand on the roll of the Presbytery, it 
 seems to me that another, and a diflTerent cry should come from the de- 
 fendant, to wit : "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death ? " 
 the denominationalism of Presbyterianism, this unauthorized and 
 " unscriptural thing," " this hurtful excresence," this " that is essentially 
 
15 
 
 sinful," these "apples of discord,'' these " wedges of division.'' But, 
 enough, the court, in view of the proof under this specification, must and 
 will sustain the specification, and cannot, we think, do otherwise. 
 
 The fifth specification is, "^.s to Plurality of Official Membership. — In 
 this, that Presbyterian, and other evangelical ministers, may belong, 
 at the same time, to two different ecclesiastical denominations, antag- 
 onistic in their principles, and subscribe allegiance to both." 
 
 This would seem to be a strange doctrine. What? Serve two 
 masters. The thing can't be done, for our Great Master has said, " No 
 man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one, and love 
 the other, or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other," and 
 we will not add, "ye cannot serve God and mammon," but will add, 
 and say to the defendant, ye cannot serve the Linwood and Mt. Look- 
 out Church, which is one of the ' ' Union Christian Chu rches of America," 
 and at the same time the Presbyterian Church in these United States. 
 Here are two jurisdictions, antagonistic in their faith, and in their 
 polity ; here are two masters, and as both cannot be served at the 
 same time, the attempt, if it be made, must result in hating the one, 
 and loving the other, or in holding to the one, and despising the other. 
 Has the "Union Christian Churches of America" no basis, or bond of 
 fellowship? If not, then it has no jurisdictional existence ; but if it has 
 a bond of union, a basis of fellowship, regulations of expediency, then 
 it has a jurisdictional existence ; and as the defendant is by his own 
 confession connected with the " Union Christian Churches of America," 
 he is therefore under the jurisdiction of the " Union Christian Churches 
 of America," whatever this jurisdiction may be. Now, here is one 
 ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the defendant having signed the bond, or 
 basis of fellowship of the "Union Christian Churches of America," was 
 thereby enrolled a minister in the church, known as the " Union 
 Christian Church of America," and this enrollment was in view of the 
 invitation which the "Christian Union Convention," whicli met at Suf- 
 folk, Virginia, on the first Wednesday of May, 1875, at ten o'clock A. 
 M., gave, to wit : "All ministers and churches adopting this basis will be 
 recognized and enrolled as Union Christian ministers and churches to 
 be known as the 'Union Christian Churches of America.'" The other 
 jurisdiction, is the jurisdiction of the Presbyterian Church in these 
 United States, and the defendant, by subscription of its standards, is 
 under this jurisdiction, amenable to its faith and its order, as his name 
 now stands enrolled on the roll of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, one of 
 the Presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church in these United States. 
 The only proof that need be referred to, as establishing the truth of 
 this specification, that a Presbyterian minister may belong at the same 
 
16 
 
 time to two different ecclesiastical jurisdictions, antagonistic in their 
 principles, and subscribe allegiance to both, is found in the "Christian 
 Unity" of August 1st, 1875, page 5, a paper co-editorially published 
 by the defendant, in which it is said, " if the union movement is to 
 prove a success we must organize, band ourselves together as min- 
 isters and churches, advocating with freedom and eai-nestness our 
 peculiar principles." This is enough, the court certainly can and will 
 sustain this specification, and therefore we will hasten on. 
 
 The sixth specification is, ".4s to the Terms of Minuterial Fellowship. — 
 In this, that no Presbytery has a right by any terms of fellowship to 
 exclude from its ecclesiastical brotherhood, or constituent official 
 membership, any evangelical minister of any other evangelical denom- 
 ination, but that such minister is, ipso facto, entitled to a pastorate in 
 any Presbyterian Church, to a seat in any Presbytery in Christendom, 
 to the exercise of jurisdiction and control in our highest courts, 
 eligible to the chair of instruction in Presbyterian colleges and semi- 
 naries, and should be protected in the right of private judgment and 
 free speech." 
 
 The seventh specification is, "As to the Constituent Membership of the 
 New Testament Church. — In this, that the doctrine of infant church- 
 membership, grounded in the covenant of God with believers, in behalf 
 of their offspring, is to be repudiated as a High-church theory, and 
 that the true definition of the New Testament church is, that it 
 consists of Christians only, believers only — not their children— an 
 assembly or company of the regerierate alone." 
 
 The eighth specification is, ''As to the Admission of TJnbaptized Persons 
 to Church Membership. — In this, that unbaptised persons who deny, or 
 scruple to admit, the necessary and perpetual obligation of water 
 baptism, as instituted by Christ, and the ordinance of baptism itself 
 as a covenant sign and seal, and initiatory rite of entrance for believing 
 adults into the Christian church, may, notwithstanding, be admitted 
 to church membership ; and that the one condition and requirement 
 for entrance into the visible church is credible evidence of faith in 
 Christ." 
 
 From the opinions of members of the court already given, it is 
 evident that the above specifications will all be sustained, and as I 
 concur with them in sustaining these specifications, I will not stop to 
 dwell upon them, but will proceed. 
 
 The ninth specification is, "As to saving faith in Christ and in the 
 Word of God.— In this, that a person may have true and saving faith 
 in Christ, and in God's Word, without believing either that Christ was 
 true man, or that the Word of God is truly infallible, and that true 
 and saving faith, ipso facto, excludes all fatal heresy." 
 
17 
 
 This specification might be, I think, submitted without argument, 
 for certainly it will be sustained. Can any member of the court say 
 that the defendant, or any otlier Presbyterian minister, may preach 
 on the subject of saving faith, that which is cited in this specification, 
 and which is so clearly another gospel, and then claim, and have it 
 claimed for him, as it has been here, that he is not disloyal to the 
 Presbyterian Church ? Will any member of this court, so far forget the 
 faith of his church, as to say that the defendant, or any other Presby- 
 terian minister, may admit into the Presbyterian Church, any one not 
 believing in the infallibility of the Bible, or any one not believing in 
 the proper humanity of Christ, that he was " Immanuel," "God with 
 us," "bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh," and then claim, and 
 have it claimed for him, as it has been here, that he is not untrue to 
 the standards of our faith? As to this specification, the proof is, in 
 the language of the defendant, " We believe that a man may be a 
 Christian,, and not believe in the infallibility of the Bible, although, 
 'almost,' all Christians do believe the Bible to be infallible." 
 Again, " We believe that a man may be a Christian, and not believe 
 in the proper humanity of Christ, although, ' almost,' all Christians 
 do believe that Jesus was true man, as well as God." Again, " Sav- 
 ing faith in Christ necessarily includes all other saving graces, and 
 thereby excludes all fatal heresy;" and, again, " Regenerate souls are 
 all orthodox." What does the defendant mean in all this? He means, 
 we presume, by the declaration that "regenerate souls are all ortho- 
 dox," the same that he means by the declaration, that "saving faith 
 excludes all fatal heresy," and if he means by this, what the Apostle 
 Paul means, when he says, "There is therefore now no condemnation 
 to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but 
 after the spirit," then he would be in accord with the faith of the 
 Presbyterian Church. But what does the defendant mean by these 
 declarations, connected with the declarations that a man may deny the 
 "infallibility of the Bible," and the " proper humanity of Christ," and 
 yet be a Christian. If he mean anything, it must be, that to deny 
 the infallibility of the Bible is not a fatal heresy, nor is it a fatal 
 heresy to deny the proper humanity of Christ, and that as neither of 
 these denials is a faT»^ heresy, a man therefore may deny both and yet 
 be a Christian. But the question here, what is it? It is not, that the 
 man is regenerate, and therefore must be orthodox, or that he has saving 
 faith in Christ, and he'is therefore safe from all fatal heresy, but is this, 
 whether a man claiming or professing to have saving faith in Christ, and 
 at the same time denying the infallibility of the Bible and the proper 
 humanity of Christ, ought to be received into the Presbyterian Church ? 
 
18 
 
 and now to this question, the standards of the Presbyterian Church 
 emphatically say, no; and the defendant in receiving the deniers of 
 the "infallibility of the Bible," and "proper humanity of Christ/' 
 into the Presbyterian Church, would be at war with her standards, 
 however consistent it might be with the standards of the Linwood and 
 Mt, Lookout Church to do so. The ninth specification, in view of 
 the proof, the court will without any hesitancy sustain. 
 
 The tenth specification is, JlS to Persistance in Advocacy of the forego- 
 ing Doctrines, Principles, and Vieivs. — In this, that for many years last 
 past, the Rev. W. C. McCune, being a member of the Presbytery of 
 Cincinnati, has regularly persisted, as lecturer, editor and pastor, to 
 openly proclaim, publish and advocate, the aforesaid Christian Union 
 doctrines, principles and views ; that since the appointment of the 
 Presbytery's Committee of Investigation, he has continued to do the 
 same in the public secular press, May 9, 1876, before the Presbytery's 
 Investigating Committee, June 26, 1876, and openly in Presbytery 
 itself, October 4, 1876, and again in the secular press, October 17, 
 1876, subsequent to the aj)pointment of the Prosecuting Committee; 
 having announced his purpose to pursue in future, as in the past, the 
 advocacy of the same principles of Christian Union. 
 
 The question here is the length of time the defendant has been ad- 
 vocating the doctrines, principles and views, that are claimed to be at 
 war with the standards of the Presbyterian Church, and if generally 
 accepted, would subvert her constitution and destroy her existence as 
 a denomination. Under this, as under all the other specifications, the 
 defendant himself furnishes all the proof. He says : "I have been 
 perfectly candid and outspoken on this subject for many years," and 
 this subject he states to be as follows: " I do not believe the Presby- 
 terian churches are Christian Union churches ; I believe they ought 
 to be;" and again, " I am advocating no sentiments now that I have 
 not openly proclaimed for ten years;" and again, "I have publicly 
 advocated, and propose to advocate, the following principles on the 
 subject of Christian Union ;" and these princij)les which he has advo- 
 cated, and proposes still to advocate, are such as necessarily leads the 
 defendant in their advocacy, to denounce all denominational laws and 
 enactments of the Presbyterian Church, as '-unauthorized," " wholly 
 unscriptural," a " hurtful excrescence," "essentially sinful," "apples of 
 discord," and " wedges of division." 
 
 In the face of the proof, that the defendant has, as he says, for the 
 last ten years been persistent and faithful in advocating his views, and 
 proposes still to advocate them, the statute of limitation has been 
 pleaded in his behalf; and, therefore, as the statute has ceased to run, 
 
19 
 
 he should go acquitted. The offense, it is chiimed, if committed at 
 all, was committed more than a year, prior to the date of the com- 
 mencement of this judicial process. If this were true, then the statute 
 of limitation would avail, and no one more readily than myself, would 
 vote for the acquittal of the defendant. But the fact is, the offense is 
 an offense, with a continuendo. It has been from the beginning, ten 
 years ago, a continuous thing, a patient, persevering matter Avith the 
 defendant, committed over and over again, tlirough all these years, 
 down to the date of the institution of this judicial process, and com- 
 mitted again and again, even after the process began, down to and 
 during the progress of the trial, in giving expression to the same doc- 
 trines and principles and views, for which he is now under trial. It 
 is therefore utterly useless, for any one to plead in behalf of the defen- 
 dant the statute of limitation, and on this ground ask for his acquittal. 
 And it seems to me, perhaps it may be a misapprehension of mine, 
 that members of the court, feeling themselves utterly unable to meet 
 and dispose of the evidence against the defendant, must needs have 
 something to say in his defense, and so they resort to, and plead in his 
 behalf, the statute of limitation. But this plea will avail nothing, the 
 specification will be sustained. 
 
 The eleventh specification is, ^'As to the Common Fame in reference to 
 the Whole Charge. — In this, that in addition to evidence involved in 
 the foregoing proofs, attached to the specifications, many newspapers 
 have published articles concerning it, and the Presbytery of Cincinnati 
 appointed a Committee of Investigation, April 13, 1876, 'to confer 
 with Mr. McCune. and examine into certain rumors touching his 
 loyalty to the Presbyterian Church, and report to the Presbytery.' 
 Said Committee having so conferred and examined, and so reported at 
 Mt. Auburn, September 13, 1876." 
 
 This specification is not, that the defendant is guilty of common 
 fame, but relates to the ground of his prosecution. It relates to the 
 accuser in the case, and if it can be shown, that there was no common 
 fame existing at the time these judicial proceedings were commenced, 
 charging the defendant, as he now stands charged, then we must all, 
 of necessity, vote not to sustain this specification, and this will be the 
 end of the whole case. Members of the court have claimed in behalf 
 of the defendant, that there was no common fame to justify this 
 prosecution, at least no such common fame as the Book of Discipline 
 contemplates, and which is described to be, a '• rumor specifying some 
 particular sin or sins, being general or widely spread, not transient but 
 permanent, rather gaining strength than declining, and must be accom- 
 panied with strong presumption of truth." Let us now see, whether the 
 
20 
 
 fame, which is the accuser in this case, was such a rumor as the book 
 contemplates, and upon which it was right, and proper to commence R 
 judicial proceeding against the defendant, A rumor, like everything 
 - else, must have a beginning, and it becomes a common rumor, or a 
 common fame, just as it passes from mouth to mouth, whether it be 
 the mouth of the press, or the mouth of an individual, and, as it 
 continues to pass from lip to lip, until it is known to more than a few^ 
 it then begins to be general, and if it is not stopi>ed in its passage, it 
 soon becomes widely spread, and therefore a common fame. Now, 
 whp.t is the fact as to the fame in the case of the defendant, being a 
 common fame. It had a beginning, and it specified a particular 
 offense, for the rumor was that the defendant was advocating certain 
 doctrines, principles and views, at war witli the standards of the Pres- 
 byterian Church, calculated to subvert her constitution and destroy 
 her denominational existence. This rumor passed from mouth to 
 mouth, until it was known to more than a few. The subject, to wit: 
 the defendant, not being true to the faith and order of his church was 
 discussed in many newspapers circulating throughout, the church, and 
 the country, until the rumor of his disloyalty to the Presbyterian 
 Church became general, and widely spread, extending beyond not 
 only the limits of his Presbytery, but the boundaries of his Synod, 
 and into the regions far beyond. The rumor was not transient^ 
 appearing for a day and then passing away, but permanent and gaining 
 in strength, as the defendant continued to advocate, without cessation, 
 his Organic Union doctrines, principles and views, which were the 
 subject of the rumor. It was accompanied, too, with strong presumption 
 of truth, so much so, as to necessitate the Presbytery at its meeting in 
 Glendale, April 13, 1876, to raise a committee under the following 
 preamble and resolution of instruction : 
 
 "Whereas, for sometime past, there have l?een current rumors in 
 regard to the views and course of Rev. W. C. McCune, a member of 
 this Presbytery, involving the question of his loyalty to the order of the 
 Presbyterian Church, and whereas, there seems to be some difference 
 of opinion in regard to the subject ; * 
 
 "Therefore, Resolved, that a Committee of three ministers and two 
 ruling elders be'appointed to have a full conference with Mr. McCune, 
 and to inquire into all the facts bearing on the case and report to 
 Presbytery at the next stated meeting." 
 
 This committee reported, and concerning the facts about which they 
 were to inquire, their report shows that there were in existence current 
 rumors in regard to the views and course of the defendant, involving 
 the question of his loyalty to the Presbyterian Church. These curi-ent 
 
21 
 
 rumors were, as reported by the committee, that the defendant denied 
 the right of the Presbyterian Church to maintain and enforce her 
 standards so far as they were denominational ; that he was not true to 
 our standards on the subject of ministerial fellowship, as well as on the 
 subject, as to the grounds of membership in the church— the defendant's 
 "scheme," as the committee call it, admits into the church those who 
 deny the outward rights of baptism and the Lord's Supper; that he was 
 not true to our standards, as to the relation, to the church, of the 
 baj)tized children of believing parents; and then the committee 
 conclude and say, that "any system of Christian Union which contra- 
 venes these principles, and ignores the command of Christ, ' Go teach 
 all nations, baptizing them,' etc., if held and practiced by our office 
 bearers, must be damaging to the purity and unity of the church," 
 Now, in view of this report, and in view of all that had appeared in the 
 press, on the subject of the defendant's views in relation to the organic 
 oneness of the church, who can consistently say, that there were no 
 current rumors, no common fame as to the defendant's loyalty to the 
 Presbyterian Church. The rumor in this case, if it had been manu- 
 factured to order, and whh. the view of meeting the requirements of 
 the book, could not possibly have met these requirements, more 
 fully than did the rumor in the case of the defendant, which did specify 
 a particular offense, was general or widely spread, was not transient 
 but permanent, and rather gaining strength than declining, and was 
 accompanied with strong presumption of truth, the very things that 
 render an offense, proper for the cognizance of a judicatory. It w^as 
 therefore a poor defense, a weak defense, a last resort, a catching at a 
 straw, for members of the court, and notably Dr. Morris, to claim, and 
 to argue, that there Avas no common fame, such as the Book contem- 
 plates for this judicial process against the defendant, and that, therefore, 
 he must go acquitted. 
 
 Let us now proceed to the second charge and specifications. 
 
 Having concluded what we have to say on the first charge and 
 sj)ecifications, we come now to the second charge, and the specifications 
 under it. 
 
 The oflTense here is, disloyalty to the Presbyterian Church, and re- 
 lates to the order or polity of the church, as the first relates to the 
 faith of the church. The charge is, that the defendant, " being a 
 minister in the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, 
 and a member of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, has, in contravention 
 of his vows of loyalty to the distinctive government and discipline of 
 the Presbyterian Church, and for the publicly avowed purpose of car- 
 rying into practical effect the doctrines, principles and views specified 
 
22 
 
 under Charge I, been instrumental in advising, promoting and en- 
 couraging the new Anti-denominational Association of the ' Union 
 Christian Churches of America;' and, also, the new anti-denomina- 
 tional organization at Linwood and Mount Lookout, founded on these 
 doctrines, principles and views, his course herein being, if generally 
 allowed, totally subversive of the constitution of the Presbyterian 
 Church, and of its very existence as a distinctive denomination." 
 
 This charge is developed in two specifications, with the proofs ac- 
 companying each specification, in view of which, the specifications are 
 expected to be sustained. 
 
 The first specification is, that the defendant, " during certain years 
 last past, has advocated and promoted the nfew Anti-denominational 
 Association of independent "Union Christian Churches of America," 
 by editing the "Christian Unity," in Cincinnati, by lecturing at large 
 upon the subject of Organic Union, by issuing an "Address to all the 
 Christian ministers and churches in North America, with a basis of 
 union," by joining himself to this association, calling upon all in sym- 
 pathy with the new movement to adopt the basis, enroll themselves in 
 the new association, send delegates to attend its annual conventions, 
 and to advocate the peculiar principles of Organic Union. 
 
 Did the defendant do all the things cited in this specification ? 
 And, if so, was it in contravention of his obligation to the Presby- 
 terian Church which he took upon himself, when he answered, aflirma- 
 tively, the following question, propounded to him by the Presbytery 
 at his ordination, and again at his installation in a Presbyterian pas- 
 torate? "Do you approve of the government and discipline of the 
 Presbyterian Church in these United States ? " And was it for the 
 publicly avowed purpose of carrying into practical effect his peculiar 
 views on the subject of the organic oneness of all Christian churches ? 
 And, in doing all these things, was he instrumental in creating the new 
 Anti-denominational Association of the " Union Christian Churches 
 of America," in that he advised, promoted and encouraged the same ? 
 The proof must determine the answer to all these questions ; and now 
 let us turn to the proof, and hear what answers, yes or no, it has to 
 make. As to his editing the paper called the " Christian Unity," and in 
 this way advocating and promoting the new Anti-denominational As- 
 sociation of Independent "Union Christian Churches of America," 
 and as to his lecturing, and in this way advocating and promoting the 
 Anti-denominational " Union Christian Churches of America," the 
 proof is, and we give it in the language of the defendant himself. 
 He says : " The editor of this pai^er has, for eighteen or twenty years, 
 proposed, that when it should seeme vident that a fit time had come, 
 
23 
 
 he would devote himself to the advocacy of the visible unity of all 
 true Christians. And he has always supposed that the most efficient 
 instrumentality for furthering Christian Union Avere public oral ad- 
 dresses and the press. And when he began, on the eighth of Novem- 
 ber (1873) to issue this paper, he at the same time began to deliver 
 lectures on the subject of Christian Unity. And now, by request, he 
 will give a brief account of this part of his work. He has spoken at 
 Butler and Boston and Newport, Kentucky; and in Goshen and South 
 Salem, and at Parrot's School House and Linden, and in Springfield 
 and Urbana, at Buck Creek Church, and at New Richmond and Hills- 
 boro, in Ohio; and on last Saturday evening he spoke at Madison, 
 near Middletown ; on Sabbath morning in the Presbyterian Church 
 in Middletown, of which Rev. J. Closkey is pastor ; on Sabbath after- 
 •noon in a school-house, near the village of Astoria ; on Sabbath even- 
 ing in Jacksonburg, in the church of which Rev. J. Emerick is pastor ; 
 and on Monday evening in the Baptist Church in Middletown, of 
 which Bev. Mr. Booth is pastor. In all, he has spoken in eighteen 
 different places." This is the proof, and if any proof ever clearly 
 sustained any thing, this proof, without the shadow of a doubt, clearly 
 sustains the specification that the defendant, by editing the " Chris- 
 tian Unity," in Cincinnati, and by lecturing at large upon the subject 
 of Organic Union, did advocate and promote the new Anti-denomina- 
 tional Association of Independent " Union Christian Churches of 
 America." And that this was in contravention of his vows of loyalty 
 to the distin&fcive government and discipline of the Presbyterian 
 Church, we will not stop to argue, as that would imply, that the intelli- 
 gence of the court is not such, as to clearly see it, without argument, 
 and we will, therefore, not insult the intelligence of the court in any 
 argument, that what the specification specifies the defendant to have 
 done in this matter, was, as stated in the charge, in contravention of 
 his vows of loyalty to the distinctive government, and discipline of the 
 Presbyterian Church. The specification cites further, that the defend- 
 ant advocated and promoted the new Anti -denominational Association 
 of Independent " Union Christian Churches of America," by issuing 
 an "Address to all the Christian ministers and churches in 
 North America, with a basis of union," by joining himself to this asso- 
 ciation, calling upon all in sympathy with the new movement to accept 
 the basis, enroll themselves in the new association, send delegates to 
 attend its annual conventions, and to advocate the peculiar principles 
 of Organic Union. Did the defendant do what he is here declared to 
 have done ? Did he issue an address to all the Christian ministers 
 and churches in North America, with a basis of union? Did he join 
 
24 
 
 himself to the new Anti-denominational Association of Independent 
 "Union Christian Churches of North America?" Did he, in the 
 address that was issued, call upon all in sympathy with the new move- 
 ment to adopt the basis, enroll themselves in the new association, 
 send delegates to attend its annual conventions, and to advocate the 
 peculiar principles of Organic Union? Did the defendant do all this? 
 Let the proof speak. Let the testimony be heard. What we now 
 read is from the address, styled : "Address to all Christian ministers 
 and churches in North America, with a basis of union ; " signed by 
 the defendant and others. "Li this basis, which we submit to your 
 serious and prayerful attention, we have suggested what we believe 
 must be the initial step, namely, to receive every Christian into our 
 fellowship, and every Christian minister who teaches the common 
 faith of the gospel." " Brethren, this is an attempt to induce Chris- 
 tians to unite on the basis of their agreements." "We ask every min- 
 ister who approves it, to say so, and to accept a cordial invitation to 
 attend the Christian Union Convention, which is to meet at Suffolk, 
 Virginia, on the first Wednesday of May, 1875, at 10 o'clock A. M." 
 "All Christian ministers and churches adopting this basis, and enrolled 
 as Union Christian ministers and churches, to be known as the 'Union 
 Christian Churches of America.'" "As earnest, practical men, we 
 propose to obey the Christian Union precepts of the New Testament, 
 by organizing an actual visible oneness." "If the union move- 
 ment is to prove a success, we must organize, band ourselves together 
 as ministers and churches, advocating with freedom and earnestness 
 our peculiar princij)les." Tlie above is the proof, with much more, 
 that we might read from the great mass of testimony accompanying 
 the specification, that the defendant did do all the things, which, in 
 the specification, he is claimed to have done. And now, that all this 
 done by the defendant, was in contravention of the order and polity 
 of the Presbyterian Church, no Presbyterian, ordinarily familiar with 
 the polity of his church, need be told. Indeed, this specification, with 
 its proofs, as well as the entire case, might have been confidently 
 submitted without argument, and without even a doubt, as to every 
 specification and charge being fully and fairly sustained ; and now, 
 believing that this specification must be, and will be, sustained by the 
 court, we will pass on to the second specification. 
 
 The second specification is, "that the defendant co-operated in organ- 
 izing, and desired to organize, and agreed with others to organize, 
 before and during November, 1875, for the avowed purpose of putting 
 into practice his Organic Union principles, the new organization at 
 Linwood and Mt. Lookout, preparing and commending to the public 
 
25 
 
 the declaration and preliminary statement, accompany its basis of 
 fellowship, thus promoting a new society, which receives all Christians, 
 whether dismissed or undismissed, and all evangelical ministers, with- 
 out exception ; provides for the examination of candidates for the 
 ministry, and for sending forth ministers to preach the gospel ; and 
 has joined himself hereto, and accepting a call, and becoming its first 
 pastor, being examined in theology, and installed by an irresponsible, 
 because undelegated council, and all this without leave of, or dismis- 
 sion from, his Presbytery, and against advice to the contrary, and is 
 at present pastor of said society." 
 
 If this specification be true, then, what the defendant has done is so 
 utterly inconsistent, so fearfully in contravention of the polity of the 
 Presbyterian Church, that we are amazed that any Presbytery could 
 stand by and witness it, without resorting to its episcopal power to put 
 a stop to it, and then, if persisted in, to proceed judicially against the 
 defendant, for disloyalty to the Presbyterian Church. But is the speci- 
 fication in all its details true? Let the proof answer. The church in 
 question was organized November 8th and 10th, 1875, and now did 
 he prior to this, desire, and agree, and co-operate with others to organize 
 the church in question, for the avowed purpose of putting into prac- 
 tice his Organic Union principles, etc., as stated in the specification. 
 Here is the proof. The defendant says: "I accepted the invitation 
 to preach at Linwood and Mt. Lookout for a year, before the Union 
 Church Avas organized ; but it was mutually agreed that we would 
 look toward the organization of a Union Church." And again, he 
 says : " I did approve of the movement, and after they had sent for 
 rae to preach for them, I counseled and co-operated with those who 
 did organize this church." 
 
 It will be remembered, as it is in testimony, that the defendant, 
 when released some years ago from the pastorate of the Lincoln Park 
 Presbyterian Church, asked his release on the ground that he 
 desired to give his time exclusively to the advocacy and propagation 
 of Organic Union principles, and upon this ground the relation was 
 dissolved, and how the Presbytery did dissolve the relation on this 
 ground, is a mystery to me, and must be to every true Presbyterian. 
 Then, upon the dissolution of this relation, the defendant went to work 
 publishing the ''Christian t//i('i?/," a paper devoted exclusively to the 
 advocacy of Organic Union principles ; then he is heard of here, and 
 there, all over the country, delivering addresses on the same theme, 
 claiming at the same time, as he did, that public oral addresses and 
 the press were Che most efficient instrumentalities in furthering his 
 scheme or system, as it has been called ! and the strangest of all 
 
26 
 
 things is, that in the face of all this noise, from public oral addresses 
 and the press, sounding throughout the bounds of the Presbytery and 
 . the Synod, and far beyond, members of the court, who ought to know 
 better, claim that the common fame on which this prosecution is 
 grounded, had no existence. Leaving off public oral addresses and 
 the press, as efficient instrumentalities in promoting organic oneness, 
 where next is the defendant found, and what is he doing ? We find 
 him at Linwood and Mt. Lookout, acting in the capacity of a stated 
 supply to a Presbyterian Church ? whose faith and order he had obli- 
 gated himself to maintain — not at all, but to several Baptists and 
 Episcopalians, and a few Presbyterians, who were, from the teachings 
 of the defendant, convinced of the essential sinfulness of their denomi- 
 nationalism, and would now come together on the ground of their 
 common agreements and organize the " Union Christian Church at 
 Linwood and Mt. Lookout," and this movement, the defendant says, 
 he approved, and that when they had sent for him to preach to them, 
 he did then counsel and co-operate with them, in and about the organ- 
 ization of that church, and did thus put into practice his Organic 
 Union principles, ui)on a basis of fellowship excluding all God's truth, 
 beyond the statement of a few leading truths, leaving the balance, 
 which is "profitable for doctrine for reproof, for correction, for in- 
 struction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thor- 
 oughly furnished unto all good works," out in the cold, without recogni- 
 tion, or practice, and did thus commend to the public this minimum 
 basis, with its declaration and preliminary statements, and so did. pro- 
 mote a new society, which receives all Christians, whether dismissed 
 or undismissed, whether baptized or unbaptized, whether believing in 
 or not believing in the infallibility of the Bible, or in the proper hu- 
 manity of Christ, which receives all evangelical ministers without ex- 
 ception, examines candidates for the ministry, and sends them forth 
 to preach the gospel, especially the gospel of organic oneness. Did 
 he then join himself to this new society? Then accept a call, and be- 
 come its first pastor? Then was he examined in theology, and in- 
 stalled by an irresponsible council? And then was all this without 
 leave of, or dismission from his Presbytery, and against advice to the 
 contrary? And is he, at present, pastor of said society? 
 
 The testimony is, that defendant was present at the organization of 
 the new society, and while not acting in an official capacity, yet desired 
 that it should be organized, and upon its organization, it is in proof, 
 that the defendant was unanimously called to be its pastor, and as to 
 his acceptance he himself says, " I have accepted the pastorate of the 
 Union Christian Church at Linwood and Mount Lookout." And as to 
 
27 
 
 his installation, and the irresponsibility of the council installing hira, 
 the proof is, that "the installation of Rev. W. C. McCune took place 
 at half past seven o'clock, in Linwood Hall, before a large number of 
 ■citizens of Linwood, according to the programme adopted at the 
 council iu the afternoon," and as to the irresponsibility of the council 
 installing hira, the proof is, that the council was composed of ten 
 ministers belonging to four different evangelical denominations, they 
 were not delegated by any ecclesiastical bodies, but came simply as 
 individuals upon the invitation of the church, and did not assume in 
 any sense to represent their respective denominations, but acted 
 entirely on their own responsibility, and after a full examination by 
 this council as to the defendant's doctrinal soundness, and his motive 
 in undertaking the pastorate office, the pastoral relation between the 
 defendant and the " Union Christian Church at Linwood and Mount 
 Lookout" was constituted, and so far as the defendant is concerned, all 
 that he did do, in and about the organization of the new society, and 
 his becoming its pastor, was done contrary to the advice of one of his 
 brother members of the Presbytery, as may be seen in the letter of 
 Rev. Thomas H. Skinner to hira, declining an invitation given by 
 •defendant, to take part with others in the recognition of the " Union 
 Christian Church" at Linwood and Mount Lookout. 
 
 And now the question is, has the defendant, in view of all the facts, 
 connecting him with the organization, and his installation as pastor of 
 the new society, which is not a Pi-esbyterian Church, not a Baptist 
 Church, not an Episcopal Church, not a Methodist Church, not a 
 Congregational Church, but is, if anything, an anti and undenomi- 
 national society, intended to exhibit, in the judgment of the defendant, 
 the model i^ew Testament church organization, been true to the 
 standards of the Presbyterian Church, which he received and adopted, 
 and in doing this, took upon himself the obligation to teach and to 
 practice the same — the same, not only as to all the fundamentals of 
 our Presbyterian faith and order, but as to all the details that make 
 complete our system of faith and polity, the mint and anise and 
 cummin, as well as the weightier matters ; the latter being what the 
 defendant ought to have done, while the former he ought not to have 
 left undone. We have no zeal in this matter beyond what we conceive 
 to be according to knowledge. AVe have no personal feeling either 
 for, or against the Committee of Prosecution, or for, or against the 
 defendant. We have looked simply at the law of the case, the charge 
 in the case, and the proof in the case, and are satisfied, that not the 
 shade even of a reasonable doubt exists, as to both charges, and all the 
 specifications being sustained by the proof, that our brother, the 
 
28 
 
 defendant, has for years past, been teaching and practicing "doctrines, 
 principles and views, not only at war with the standards of the Pres- 
 byterian Church, but if generally accepted, totally subversive of its 
 constitution, and of the very existence of the Presbyterian denomina- 
 tion itself" 
 
 Mr. Moderator ay4 brethren of the court, we submit the case. 
 

 Date Due 
 
 
 FAC0L1 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 FAniiLTV 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f