E 
 5"4-0 
 
Class E-^i^.^ 
 
 Book^__rP2_\/_ai 
 
THE 
 
 SPIRITUALITY AND INDEPENDENCE 
 
 OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 A. SPEECH 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE SYNOD OF NEW YORK, 
 
 OCTOBBB 18th, ISUi. 
 
 BY HENRY J. VAN DYKE, 
 
 PASTOR OF THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, BROOKLYN. 
 
 NEW YORK, 1864. 
 

 d 
 
EXTRACTS FROM THE DELIVERANCE OF THE GENERAL 
 
 ASSEMBLY IN 1845. 
 
 [Note. — The Kev. Mr Van Dyke takes this opportunity to say that the following extracts from the Assem- 
 bly's Deliverance in 1815 contain the substance of all he Jms ever believed or taught upon the subject of slavery.] 
 
 " The Cluu'cli of Christ is a spiritual body, whose jurisdiction extends to the religious faith 
 and moral conduct of her members. She cannot legislate where Christ has not legislated, nor 
 make terms of membership which he has not made. The question, therefore, which this 
 Assembly is called to decide, is this : Do the Scriptures teach that the holding of slaves, 
 without regard to circurastaucea, is a sin, the renunciation of which should be made a condition 
 of membership in the Church ©f Christ? 
 
 " It is impossible to answer this question in the affirmative, without contradicting some of 
 the plainest declarations of the word of God. That slavery existed in the days of Christ and 
 his Apostles is an admitted fact. That they did not denounce the relation itself as sintul, a» 
 inconsistent with Christianity ; that slaveholders were admitted to membership in the Churches 
 organized by the Apostles ; that whilst they were required to treat their slaves with kindness, 
 and as rational, accountable, immortal beings, and, if Christians, as brethren in the Lord, they 
 were not commanded to emancipate them ; that slaves were required to be 'obedient to their 
 masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, with singleness of heart, as unto 
 Christ,' are facts which meet the eye of every reader of the New Testament. This Assembly 
 cannot, therefore, denounce the holding of slaves as necessarily a heinous and scandalous sin, 
 calculated to bring upon the Church the curse of God, without charging the Apostles of 
 Christ with conniving at sin, introducing into the Church such sinners, and thus bringing upon 
 them the curse of the Almighty. 
 
 " The Assembly intend simply to say, that since Christ and his inspired Apostles did not 
 make the holding of slaves a bar to communion, we as a court of Christ, have no authority to 
 do 80 ; since they did not attempt to remove it fi-om the Church by legislation, we have no 
 authority to legislate on the subject. "We feel constrained further to say, that however desir- 
 able it may be to ameliorate the condition of the slaves in the Southern and Western States, or 
 to remove slavery from our country, these objects, we are fully persuaded, can never be 
 secured by ecclesiastical legislation. Much less can they be attained by lliose indis- 
 criminate denunciations against slaveholders, without regard to their character and circum- 
 stances, which have to so great an extent characterized the movements of modern abolitionists, 
 which so far from removing the evils complained of, tend only to perpetuate and aggravate 
 them. * 
 
 " The Apostles of Christ sought to ameliorate iha condition of slaves, not by denouncing and 
 excommunicating their masters, but by teaching both masters and slaves the glorious doctrines 
 of the gospel, and enjoining upon each the discharge of their relative duties. Thus only can 
 the Church of Christ, as such, now improve the condition of the slaves in our country. 
 
 '• In view of the above stated principles and facts, 
 
 "Resolved, 1. That the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States 
 was originally organized, and has since continued the bond of union in the Church, upon the 
 conceded principle that the existence of domestic slavery, under the circumstances iu which it 
 is found in the southern portion of the country, is no bar to Christian communion. 
 
 *' 2. That the petitions that ask the Assembly to make the holding of blaves in itself a matter 
 of discipline, do virtually require this judicatory to dissolve itself, and abandon tlie organization, 
 under which, by the Divine blessing, it has long prospered. The tendency is evidently to 
 separate the northern from the southern portion of the Church ; a result which every good 
 citizen must deplore, as tending to the dissolution of the Union of our beloved country, and 
 which every enlightened Christian will oppose as bringing about a ruinous and unnecessary 
 schism between brethren who maintain a common faith. 
 
[•v 
 eidJ 
 
 ■U - fj8D- 
 
ACTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEiMBLY OF 18G4 ON THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 SLAVEliY. 
 
 After enumerating some extracts from some of the former deliverances of the Assembly on 
 the subject, the paper adopted in 18C4 proceeds and concludes as follows : 
 
 " Such were the early and unequivocal instructions of our Church. It is not necessary too 
 minutely to inquire how faithful and obedient to these lessons and warnings those to whom 
 they were addressed have been. It ought to be acknowledged that we have all much to con- 
 fess and lament as to our shortcomings in this respect. Whether a strict and careful applica- 
 tion of this advice would have rescued the country from the evil of its condition, and the dan- 
 gers which have since threatened it, is known to the Omniscient alone. Whilst we do not believe 
 that the present judgments inflicted solely in punishment for our continuance in this sin [of 
 slavery] ; yet it is our judgment that the recent events of our history, and the present condition 
 of our Church and country, furnish manifest tokens that the time has at length caine, in the pro- 
 vidence of God, when it is Mis will (hat every vestige of human slavery among us should be 
 fjfaced, and that every Christian man shoidd address himself with industry and earnestness to his 
 appropriate part in the perforinance of this great duty. 
 
 Whatever excuses for its postponement may heretofore have existed, no longer avail. When 
 the country was at peace within itself, and the Church was unbroken, many consciences were 
 perplexed in the presence of this great evil, fur the want of an adequate remedy. Slavery was 
 so formidably intrenched behind tlie ramparts of personal interests and prejudices, that to at- 
 tack it with a view to its speedy overthrow appeared to be attacking the very existence of the 
 social order itself, and was characterized as the inevitable introduction of an anarchy, worse in 
 its consequences than the evil for which it seemed to be the only cure. But the folly and weak- 
 ness of men have been the illustrations of God's wisdom and power. Under the influence of the 
 most incomprehensible infatuation of wickedness, those who were most deeply inteiested in the 
 perpetuation of slavery have taken away every motive for its further toleration. The spirit of 
 American slavery, not content with its defences to be found in the laws of the States, the pro- 
 visions of the Federal Constitution, the prejudices in favor of existing institutions, and the fear 
 of change, has taken arms against law, organized a bloody rebellion against the national 
 authority, made formidable war upon tlie Federal Union, and in order to found an empire upon 
 tlie corner-stone of slavery, threatens not only our existence as a people, but the annihilation of 
 the i)rinciplcs of free Christian government; and thus has rendered the continuance of negro 
 slavery incompatible with the preservation of our own liberty and independence. 
 
 In the struggle of the nation for existence against this powerful and wicked treason, the 
 highest executive authorities have proclaimed the abolition of slavery within most of the rebel 
 States, and decreed its extinction by military force. They have enlisted those formerly held as 
 slaves to be soldiers in the national armies. They have taken measures to organize the labor 
 of the freedmcn, and instituted measures for their support and government in tlieir new condi- 
 tion. It is the President's declared policy not to consent to the reorganization of civil govern- 
 ment within the seceded States upon any other basis than that of emancipation. In the loyal States 
 where slavery has not been abolished, measures of emancipation, in different stages of progress, 
 have been set on foot, and are near their consummation ; and propositions for an amendment 
 to the Federal Constitution, prohibiting slavery in all the States and Territories, are now pend- 
 ing in the National Congress. So that, in our present situation, the interests of peace and oi 
 social order are identified with the success of the cause of emancipation. Tlie difliculties 
 which formerly appeared insurmountable, in the providence of God, appear now to be almost 
 removed. The most formidable remaining obstacle, we think, will be found to be the unwilling- 
 ness of the human heart to see and accept the truth against the prejudices of habit and of 
 
6 
 
 interest ; and to act towards those who have been heretofore degraded as slaves, with the 
 charity of Christian principle in the necessary efforts to improve and elevate them. 
 
 In view, therefore, of its former testimonies upon the subject, the Genei-al Assembly does 
 hereby devoutly express its gratitude to Almighty God for having overruled the wickedness 
 and calamities of the rebellion, so as to work out the deliverance of our country from the evil 
 and guilt of slavery ; its earnest desire for the extirpation of slavery, as the root of bitterness 
 from which has sprung rebellion, war, and bloodshed, and the long list of horrors that follow 
 in their train : its earnest trust that the thorough removal of this prolific source of evil and 
 harm*will be speedily followed by the blessings of our Heavenly Father, the return of peace, 
 union, and fraternity, and abounding prosperity to the whole land ; and recommend to all in 
 our communion to labor honestly, earnestly, and unweariedly in their respective spheres for 
 this glorions consummation, to which human justice. Christian love, national peace and pros- 
 perity, every earlhly and every religious interest, combine to pledge them. 
 
I^ESOLXJTIOISr 
 
 OFFERED IN THE SYNOD OF NEW YORK, AT ITS MEETING IN JEU«EY 
 CITY, OCTOBER 18th, 1864, 
 
 By HElSril'Sr .T. VAN D^^ICE. 
 
 Whereas, The General Assembly of 1864, in its action on the subject 
 of Slavery, has fully endorsed " tlie President's declared Policy not to con- 
 sent to the re-organization of civil government in the Seceded States u]Jon any 
 other basis than that of E mancipation f' affirmmg that the said policy is 
 in accordance with the will of God, and that all in our communion are 
 pledged by enterj earthly and every religious interest to labor uu- 
 weariedly in their respective spheres for its consummation ; — 
 
 And Whereas, the Assembly has thus virtually exerted its influence 
 in support of that political party which has selected the President for 
 its candidate, and adopted his declared policy as its platform in the 
 approaching presidential election ; 
 
 And Whereas, in the case of the Eev. Dr. McPheeters, the Assem- 
 bly did apparently sanction the interference of the secular power with 
 the spiritual affairs of our churches, the enforcement of political test 
 oaths as a qualification for members sitting in our church courts, and 
 the proscription of christian ministers, against whom there is no charge 
 of heresy or crime, upon the ground that they entertain, or are sup- 
 posed to entertain, certain political opinions ; — Therefore, 
 
 Resolved, That this Synod, while disavowing for itself all intention of 
 entering directly or indirectly into the political contests of the day, 
 does solelmly affirm and declare ; — 
 
 1. That, according to the Word of God and the Constitution of the 
 Presbyterian Church, the General Assembly has authority "to handle 
 or conclude nothing but that which is ecclesiastical"; that it has no 
 right "to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the common- 
 wealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary, or by 
 way of advice for satisfaction of conscience, if thereunto required by 
 the civil magistrate"; (Confession of Faith, ch. xxxi: sec. 4,) that its 
 " power is wholly moral or spiritual, and tliat only ministerial and de- 
 clarative "; that the limits ^vithin which this ministerial and declarative 
 power may be lawfully exercised are clearly defined in ch. xn, of our 
 Form of Government; and that aU acts and declarations of the 
 
8- 
 
 Assembly whicli are contrary to, or aside from, these limits are null 
 and void. 
 
 2. That all interference of civil magistrates or military commanders 
 with the spiritual affairs of our churches — whether to destroy or restrict 
 the right of the people to choose their own religious teachers, to define 
 the qualification of members of our church courts, or to prescribe to 
 ministers the doctrines they shall preach to men or the prayers they 
 shaU offer to God — is a violation of the true principles of religious lib- 
 erty and an invasion of the prerogatives of Jesus Christ, who alone is 
 head of the Church. See Confession of Faith, ch. xxxiii : sec. 3. 
 
 3. That the bond of union, the measure of obligation, and the char- 
 ter of ecclesiastical rights for all the ministers and members of the 
 Presbyterian Church, is the Word of God as expounded and summed 
 up in our Confession of Faith, Form of Government, Book of Disci- 
 pline, Catechisms and Directory for "Worship; and that no minister or 
 church-member can be lawfully impeached or proscribed, except upon 
 conviction of heresy or crime according to the rules therein provided. 
 
 4. That the appropriate business of Christ's ambassadors is to preach 
 the gospel for the conversion of sinners and the edification of saints in 
 their most holy faith, and that for our ministers to devote themselves 
 unweariedly in their respective spheres to the consummation of the de- 
 clared policy of any political party, would be unwise, unscriptural, 
 injurious to the best interests of the church and of society, and a dere- 
 liction from their divine commission, in the discharge of which they 
 are taught by inspired precept and example to "know nothing but 
 Jesus Christ and him crucified." 
 
 
SPEECH 
 
 Mr. Moderator : Amid the agitations of these troublous times, the 
 Synod of New York has adhered with dignity and fidelity to its appro- 
 priate ecclesiastical business, forbearing entire]}'- "to intermeddle with civil 
 affiiirs which concern the cornmonwealtb." It has thus secured a large 
 share of veneration and respect, has done much to preserve the unity of 
 the Spirit and the bonds of peace among the churches under its care, and, 
 as I verily believe, has merited and received the approbation of Him 
 whose kingdom is not of this world. 
 
 The paper before you is not intended to disturb our peace, nor in the 
 least to divert this venerable court from the wise and scriptural course it 
 has hitherto pursued. The subjects embraced in this paper are strictly 
 epiritual and ecclesiastical. The principles it enunciates lie at the founda- 
 tion of the Church. The declarations it proposes are all within our pro- 
 vince as a court of Christ, are consistent with the course we have hitherto 
 pursued, and a vindication of that course, and, as it seems to me, are 
 imperatively demanded by our present circumstances. 
 
 You are not asked to decide or discuss any political or secular question ; 
 but simply to disavow certain acts in which the General Assembly has 
 transcended the limits of its authority as clearly defined in our standards. 
 These acts I regard as constituting both a personal grievance, and a great 
 public wrong, which, if persisted in, cannot fail to produce strife and 
 schism in the bosom of the church. With this deep seated conviction, I 
 could do no less than to present this paper to the Synod; and if it can be 
 shown that this conviction is well founded, you can do no less than to 
 make the disavowal which is desired at your hands. 
 
 The paper before you asserts that the spirituality and the independence 
 of the Church have been compromised and violated by the action of the 
 General Assembly. 
 
 . The spiriiudliiy of the Church is abundantly set forth in our standards 
 of faith and order. The language of these standards upon the subject is 
 so explicit that he who runs may read and understand it, 
 
 (1.) We have general declarations as to the nature and mission of the 
 
 -.rch, both visible and invisible. The invisible Church " consists of 
 
 . 3 whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be, gathered 
 
• 10 
 
 into one under Christ, the head thereof; and is the sponf^e, the body, the 
 fulness of him that filleth all in aU"— [Confession of Faith, Chap. 25, Sec. 
 1, 2.] The visible Church " consists of all those, throughout the world, 
 that profess the true religion, together with their children ; and is the 
 kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the houge and family of God." This 
 simple definition of the Church declares her mission, and describes the 
 limits of her work. She does not belong to any age or nation. She may 
 be partly -in the United States of America, but she is not of the United 
 States. Under the old Theocracy, she was identified for a time with the 
 Jewish nation, and her interests were temporarily bound up with the pre- 
 servation and prosperity of an earthly kingdom ; but, when the purposes 
 of this peculiar and temporary economy were accomplished, and the only 
 promises God ever made to a nation, as such, were f<n-feited by the 
 apostacy of the Jews, the Church was no longer national in any sense : she 
 is henceforth universal, composed of men of all nationalities and of all 
 varieties of human condition, united upon the simple basis of their pro- 
 fessed union to Christ, and constituting in themselves, irrespective of all 
 earthly distinctions, " a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy 
 nation." "If," said John Milton, "Church and State shall be made 
 one flesh again as under the law, let it be w^ithal considered, that God, who 
 then joined them, hath now severed them : that which was then a lawful 
 conjunction. He so ordaining, to such on either side as join again what 
 He hath severed, would be nothing now but their own presumptuous 
 fornication." The Church of Christ, as Paul argues in the third chapter 
 of the Epistle to the Galatians, is the outgrowth and fulfilment of that 
 covenant made with Abraham four hundred years before the giving of the 
 law, and which "the law could not disannul.'' Her mission in the world 
 is to bless all nations ; shining, like the sun, upon all, but being identified 
 with none. It is her simple but sublime function to preach the gospel to 
 every creature, to gather in the elect from the four winds of heaven, to 
 edify the mystical body of Christ. Accordingly, God has given her, in 
 the New Testament, a form of Government complete within itself, and 
 entirely separate from all human polities ; a kingly government, of which 
 Christ is the head, and his ministers the ambassadors and agents. Now, 
 this government is fully defined and set forth in our standards ; and I 
 challenge any man to show in these standards, or in the Bible, of which 
 we believe they are a true exponent, a single intimation that the Church 
 may lawfully extend her jurisdiction, or put forth her agency, one inch 
 beyond the preaching of the gospel to every creature and the regulation of 
 her own internal and spiritual affairs. 
 
 (2.) But our standards do not stop with these general declarations as to 
 the nature and mission of the Church. We have also very explicit state- 
 ments as to the appropriate province of our church courts. " Synods and 
 
councils are to handle or conclade nothing but that which is ecclesiastical, 
 and are not to intermeddle with civil affiiirs which concern the common- 
 .wealth," Can anything be more explicit than this? Again, "their power 
 is wholly moral or spiritual, and that only ministerial or declarative." 
 Even in regard to spiritual things they have no right to inculcate doctrines, 
 to make proclamations, or to enjoin observances of any kind, except so far 
 as they are warranted and moved thereto by the revealed will of God. 
 " They possess the right of requiring obedience to the laws of Christ?^ But 
 beyond this they may not go, to enforce any obligation which He has not 
 imposed in his written word, to conserve any interest which He has not 
 declared to be essential to his spiritual and everlasting kingdom, or even 
 to recommend any course of human conduct which they cannot establish 
 and seal by the divine sanction of " thus saith the Lord." It is not for 
 them to supplement or enlarge the statutes that " furnish the man of God 
 unto all good works," by their expositions of that mysterious Providence 
 of which God himself is the only true interpreter. They are to repeat and 
 enforce what he says ; what he intends, beyond and aside from this, it is 
 none of their business to declare. The Assembly recognized and clearly 
 expounded this organic law of all our church courts in its action on the 
 subject of Temperance in the year 1848 : " The Church of Jesus Christ is 
 a spiritual body, to which have been given the ministry, oracles, and 
 ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints in this 
 life to the end of the world. It is the great instrumentality of the Saviour 
 through which, by his eternal spirit, he dispenses salvation to the objects 
 of his love. Its ends are holiness and life, to the manifestation of the 
 riches and glory of divine grace, and not simply morality, decency, and 
 good order, which may, to some extent, be secured without faith in the 
 Redeemer, or the transforming efl&cacy of the Holy Spirit. The laws of 
 the Church are the authoritative injunctions of Christ, and not the cove- 
 nants, however benevolent in their origin and aim, which men have 
 instituted of their own will ; and the grounds of obligation which the 
 Church, as such, inculcates is the authority of God speaking in his word, 
 and not pledges of honor which create, measure, and define the peculiar 
 duties of all voluntary associations. In this Kingdom of God the Holy 
 Scriptures are the only rule of faith and manners ; and no Church judicatory 
 ought to pretend to make laws which shall bind the conscience, or to issue 
 recommendations which shall regulate manners without the warrant, explicit or 
 implied, of the Revealed will of God.'' 
 
 I call your attention especially to the last sentence of the foregoing 
 extract. The Assembly of 1848 solemnly affirms that " no church court 
 ought to pretend to issue recommendations which shall regulate manners 
 without the warrant, explicit or implied, of the revealed will of God." 
 We shall see presently how far, in the stormy days of 1864, the Assembly 
 
# 12 
 
 adhered to tlie deliberate and dispassionate judgment of the Cliurch in 
 1848. 
 
 (3.) Besides these declarations as to the appropriate province of church 
 courts in general, we have, furthermore, a clear definition of the jurisdic- 
 tion and province of the General Assembly in particular. Chapter XII, 
 sees. 4 and 5, of our Form of Government tells us exactly what the 
 Assembh^ may lawfully do. And it is to be presumed that no one here 
 will dispute the doctrine, that where there is a written law, specifically 
 defining the powers of a representative body, the body whose powers are 
 so defined cannot go beyond that law without violating its own consti- 
 tution, and breating covenant with its constituents. Now, what are the 
 powers of the General Assembly? (Read chap. XII, sees. 4 and 5 of the 
 Form of Government.) Now, Sir, these statutes speak for themselves. 
 They are so plain that it is impossible to misundorstand their meaning, 
 And I desire you to notice that in those sentences which describe the 
 Assembly's general powers — powers which, in days of excitement and 
 spiritual declension, are most liable to be stretched — there is a restricting 
 clause, designed to interpose an effectual barrier to all usurpation or abuse 
 of authority. For example, the Assembly is " to constitute a bond of 
 union, peace, correspondence, and mutual confidence among all our 
 churches ;" it is to superintend the concerns (not of the nation, but) of '* the 
 whole Church ;" it is to recommend reformation of manners, and the pro- 
 motion of charit}^ truth, and holiness through alt the Churches under its 
 care^ Not only is its power spiritual, and that ministerial and declarative, 
 confined to the simple exposition and enforcement of what God has 
 revealed in His word; but the province in which this power is to be 
 exercised is not the State, nor society in general ; it is the Cliurch, beyond 
 which her only function is to proclaim the gospd, and call men out of the 
 world into the kingdom of God's dear son. 
 
 Before attempting to show wherein the General Assembly has violated 
 these three great principles, as to the nature and mission of the Church, the 
 appropriate province of Church courts in general, and thelimitsof her own 
 constitutional authority in particular, let us dwell for a mom.ent on their 
 importance. They lie at the very foundation of the apostles and prophets, 
 of which Jesus Christ is the chief corner stone. Humanly speaking, the 
 Church never could have been established, nor could Christianity have been 
 prOpogatcd with the marvellous success which signalized her early history, 
 without their clear recognition. The city of God under the New Testament, 
 was built at the confluence of three civilizations. Greek, Eoman, and Jew 
 were jostling together in the currents of trade and the conflicts of political 
 opinion, and every interest of human society was involved in the con- 
 test. The Eoman Empire was stretching forth the mailed hand of her 
 power over rebellious provinces, and struggling in the first throes of those 
 
18 
 
 grefit revolutions which resulted in her final dissolution. Men felt then, 
 as they have felt since, that they were living in the most wonderful age of 
 the world, and that everything valuable on earth would be lost unless tJieir 
 views of governrhent and politics were carried out. 
 
 To guard the ^hurch against the strife and schism which these conflicts 
 of opinion and interest would naturally occasion, was one great object of 
 the apostles. It was the hardest task they had to perform. They performed 
 it with many tears, and often at the risk of censure and persecution from 
 their own brothren. And how did they seek to preserve the peace and 
 unity of the Church? Did they enter into the political and military con- 
 tests of the countries through which the saints were scattered abroad, or 
 undertake, inspired and infallible as they were, to decide the questions of 
 political allegiance and secular interest by which the world and christians 
 in the world were divided? Did they in anywise identify the Church of 
 Christ with the Eoman Empire on the one hand, or with the down trodden 
 but still struggling nationality of the Jews on the other? Did they seek 
 to cultivate among the christian graces, and the fruits of the spirit, that 
 patriotism^ which is confessedly one of the finest impulses of the human heart, 
 but still a purely natural affection, gathering some of its brightest trophies 
 and naost illustrious examples from the history of heathen Rome and mytho- 
 logical Greece ? If the apostles pursued any such course as this, the inspired 
 history and the records of the primitive Church have failed to record it. 
 Let those who now advocate such methods, show us their scriptural war- 
 rant. It will not do to appeal on this point to Old Testament examples. 
 In regard to the question in hand, there is no parallel between the position 
 of the Jewish prophet and that of a Christian minister ; for the Jewish com- 
 monwealth constituted in all stnges of its history a pure Theocra.cy. 
 David was anointed of God, as the type of Christ, and his kingdom was 
 the dim foreshadow of that kingdom which is not of this world. He 
 was not only King, but Prophet. When he uttered imprecatioi^s 
 upon the enemies of the Jewish State, God spake through him against 
 His enemies and the enemies of ihe Church. When he poured out his 
 passionate love for Jerusalem, his prophetic soul was enraptured with 
 the glories of the new Jerusalem coming down from God out of 
 heaven. And now, it is sheer ignorance, if it be not blasphemy, for 
 a New Testament minister, whose head Samuel has not anointed, 
 and whom God has not moved by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, to 
 seize the scepter and harp of David, and put on the mantle of Elijah, and 
 dwarfing the prophecies into mere temporal predictions, to apply them to 
 a nation whom God has never chosen as he did the Jews, or to a human 
 government which he has not set up as he did the old Theocracy. The 
 proofs we demand must be found, if found at all, in the examples of Clirist 
 and his apostles. Are there any such proofs ? Where? In the Saviour's 
 
14 
 
 wise avoidance of the snare wnich the Herodians set for him in regard to 
 the disputed question, as to the lawfulness of Cassar's government over 
 subjugated Judea? Or in his refusal to be a judge or divider over men in 
 regard to the division of an inheritance among brothreu ? Can they be 
 found in the records of the first synod or ecclesiastical council assembled in 
 Jerusalem at a time when the world was preparing to witness such 
 civil strife and wo, as never have been before, and never will be again? 
 
 Is there in all the recorded sermons or epistles of the apostles, a single 
 decision or utterance upon questions of disputed political allegiance, or 
 governmental policy ? No sir, they cannot be found. The aposilgs left 
 Ciesar to attend to Ccesar's affairs, and devoted themselves exclusively to 
 the work Christ had commissioned them to do.^ They preserved the unity 
 of the Church amid all the changes and strifes of their day, and for many 
 generations after, by insisting on the true nature of Church unity, as per- 
 taining only to sjnrilual things. They plead for unity upon the broad b isis 
 of the gospel, and insisted upon christian liberty in regard to everything 
 aside fr-om the gospel. In their teaching they knew nothing but "Jesus 
 Christ," and him crucified. While politicians and excited multitudes cried 
 " we have no King but Coesar," they cried in the church " we have no 
 King but Jesus," And in their ecclesiastical action, they undertook to con- 
 serve no interests but the interests of Christ's spiritual kingdom. It was not 
 until these principles, and this inspired example was departed from — not 
 until the Church began to be localized and secularized — not until her min- 
 isters and courts began to intermeddle with civil affairs, and to transfer the 
 contests of the Senate and the Camp to the house of God, that the love of 
 the Church waxed cold, and the glory of her early spiritual triumphs 
 departed. 
 
 The subsequent history of the Church, in every age, fully vindicates the 
 wisdom of the apostles, and the soundness of the great principle that the 
 province of the Church is purely spiritual. 
 
 Oh, that our General Assembly, even amid the storm that was sweeping 
 over the land, had heeded the voice of our standards and the lessons of 
 history, and kept herself in a position to pour oil on the waves of party 
 passion, and bind up the wounds of civil conflict with the sweet ointment 
 and clean linen of the gospel of peace. It is the first step that costs. 
 When the Assembly of 1861 undertook to decide the question which 
 has divided statesmen and politicians ever since the United States have 
 had an existence— (the question v/hether, under the Constitution, political 
 allegiance is due primarily to the State or to the Federal Government) — 
 many of our ministers and elders protested, not against the particular deci- 
 sion which was made, but against the assumption of authority to decide such 
 questions at all They thought that if the right and the duty to decide 
 civil questions in our church courts were once conceded, this concession 
 
15 
 
 would be like the letting out oF water. That protest is one of the memo- 
 rials which future ages will honor as a landmark in the history of the 
 Church ; and, if the next four years shall be marked by the same kind of 
 progress that has characterized our ecclesiastical legislation during the four 
 years just past, it will shine as a lamp in a dark place, and be looked back 
 to by thousands with the regret that gathers around the remembrance of a 
 faithful but disregarded warning. 'Naj, it is so regarded now by rnultitudes 
 who love the Church and mourn sincerely over the conformity to this 
 world by which she has defiled her garments, and the seeds of fire she has 
 planted in her own bosom. 
 
 The action of the last Assembly on the subject of slavery is the lowest 
 depth yet attained in its course of political legislation. I know not whether 
 there is yet any lower deep to be opened. Now, on this point I will not be 
 misunderstood. There can be no valid objection to the Assembly's discus- 
 sing and making deliverances upon the subject of slavery. It is a scrip- 
 ture subject. Moses and Paul discuss it. The Bible is fall of the subject ; 
 and the great sin we have committed is, that while baptized infidels and 
 humanitarians of every grade have been insinuating their theories into the 
 mind and conscience of the Church, through a thousand channels, we have 
 been afraid to expound the Word of God as he has written it, and as 
 Christian commentators have understood it from the beginning. Neither 
 do I object now upon the ground that the A ssembly's last deliverance is 
 inconsistent with scripture or with its former declarations. Upon that 
 point I have nothing to say in the present discussion. But what I assert, 
 and propose to prove, is, that in connection with this subject of slavery, 
 and under the cover of it, the Assembly has handled and determined a 
 question whifti is purely political^ and entirely beyond its appropriate province ; 
 and that in so doing, it has transcended its authority, violated the constitu- 
 tion of the Church, and invaded the liberty wherewith, according to our 
 standards, Christ has made his people free. 
 
 Mr. Modkrator : There are in this country two great political parties, 
 each of them embracing ministers and members of our Church. Now, 
 what is the great question in dispute between the?e parties? Simply this, 
 Hie basis on which the Union shall be reconstnicted. One nai'tv, through its 
 chosen leader, has declared '"the policy not to consent to the reconstruction 
 of civil government in the seceded States upon any other basis than that of 
 emancipation." The other party insist, that this policy of emancipation is 
 revolutionary, unconstitutional, and impracticable, and adapted only to 
 protract the horrors of civil war ; that peace ought to be, and can be, 
 established only on the basis of the Union as it ivas and the Constitution as it 
 is. This is the point, and almost the only point, in dispute between the 
 two great poliiical parties, as I could easily show, if it were necossary, by 
 documentary evidence. 
 
16 
 
 Now, I do not say which party is right in this contest While T have my 
 own opinion, and mean to have it, I would deprecate and resist any declar- 
 ation from this Synod, by which its influence, as an ecclesiastical body, 
 would be arrayed on either side. But I do insist that, under our Confes- 
 sion of Faith and Form of Government, to say nothing now about the 
 Christian expediency of such a course, the General Assembly had no con- 
 stitutional right to step in between these two political parties and take 
 sides with one of them in regard to the great question by which they are 
 divided. Will any candid man deny that the Assembly has virtually, if 
 not formally, done this ? I do not presume to affirm that the gentleman 
 who introduced and advocated the deliverance on slavery with so much 
 legal tact and ability, meant thereby to advance the interests of one political 
 party to the detriment of the other ; still less do I intimate that the mem- 
 bers of the Assembly were influenced by party zeal in its adoption ; but 
 surely no one can fail to see, or will venture to deny, that it throws the 
 whole moral influence of the Assembly in favor of one political party 
 and that if its recommendations were faithfully carried out in the true spirii 
 and intent, every minister and every member of the Presbyterian Churcl 
 would be an adherent of that party. 
 
 The head and front of the document is the following sentence, which i.9 
 italicized in the Minutes of the Assembly: "It is our judgment that the 
 recent events in our history, and the present condition of our Cliurch and 
 country furnish manifest tokens that the time has at length come, in the pro- 
 vidence of God, when it is His will that every vestige of human slavery among 
 us should he efjaced, and that every Christian man should address himself with 
 industry and earnestness, to his ajjpropriaie part in the performance of this great 
 dutyy ^ 
 
 Now, upon what did the Assembly base its judgment as to the will 
 of God, and by what sign from heaven is the solemn proclamation of that 
 will authenticated ? The humblest member in the Church has a right to 
 ask this question. Jesus Christ gave the "sign of the Prophet Jonah," 
 even to " a wicked and adulterous generation.' Is it irreverent or pre- 
 sumptuous in me to demand what are the " manifest tokens" by which the 
 Assembly ascertained the will of God in regard to emancipation ? 
 
 It is not pretended that these tokens are found in the Holy Sciiptures, 
 which we acknowledge to be the only infallibli rule of faith and practice. In 
 the whole document, as adopted by the Assembly, there is not one quotation 
 of scripture, nor the most distant allusion to any such book as the Bible. 
 Now, is not this marvellous ? An Assembly, whose authority is confess- 
 edly only ministerial and declarative ; whose own solemn testimonies affirm 
 that " no Church judicatory ought to pretend to issue recommendations 
 which shall regulate manners, without the warrant, explicit or implied, of 
 the revealed will of God," this Assembly makes a deliverance, designed not 
 
17 
 
 only to " regulate manners," but to influence the policy and destiny of a 
 nation, upon a subject on wbicb God in bis boly Word has spoken 
 explicitly and repeatedly, and yet this deliverance does not contain one 
 appeal or allusion to the Bible. As though God had not spoken, or as 
 though they were authorized to supplement his revealed will, the Assembly 
 turn from what is written to the prognostication of providences not yet 
 completed. I will not trust myself to comment on this fact. It is sufTi- 
 cient to state it. The Assembly did not find the manifest tokens of God's 
 will in the Bible. 
 
 Neither can it be successfully maintained that these tokens are found in 
 the former deliverances of the Assembly. It is true that some of the 
 former testimonies are quoted in part, but the declaration that "an 
 immediate and universal emajicipaiion would be inconstent aliJce with the 
 safety and happiness of the master and the slave,^^ is omitted in the citation 
 from the action of 1818 ; and the action of 1815, the most elaborate and 
 carefully drawn of all the Assembly's deliverances on the subject, and, 
 indeed, the only one in which the word of God is fully expounded and de- 
 clared, is utterly overlooked and ignored. 
 
 Neither, again, will it be asserted that these tokens arc found in the 
 Providence of God during nearly four thousand years, from the days of 
 Abraham to the year 1861, during all which time slavery has been 
 permitted to exist, and according to the Assembly's declaration in 1845 
 has been recognized and regulated by the word of God. What, then, are 
 these "manifest tokens?" They are all of recent growth. They anpear 
 to the eyes of the Assembly through the smoke and blood of a civil war 
 still raging, and the dust and noise of a political contest not 3'ot decided. 
 They hinge upon, and must stand or fall with " the President's declared 
 policy not to consent to the reorganization of civil government in the seceded 
 States, except upon a basis of emancipation." They are such as tliese ; 
 the President's "proclamation abolishing slavery, and decreeing its extinc- 
 tion by military force;" the measures of emancipation" which are said to 
 be set on foot and near their consummation in the loyal States ; " the 
 proposition for the amendment of the Federal Constitution, prohibitin<T 
 slavery in all the States and Territories." These are among the "manifest 
 tokens" of the will of God ; and they vive politital p)arty m.easiires, every one 
 of them,. They form a part of the President's declared policy ; but whether 
 they shall be carried out is a question yet to be decided by the issues of a 
 great military and political contest. And even if they were all accom- 
 plished, it might still be a question whether they are manifest tokens of 
 anything more than ihe permissive wWl of God. This whole proceeding on 
 the part of the Assembly fills me with alarm and sorrow. I cannot but 
 ask such questions as the following : Is it wise for God's ministers to 
 declare His will in reference to matters not revealed, amid the heat and 
 
16 
 
 excitement of sno"h a time as this, and that, too, in regard to providences not 
 yet finished? If the result should be different from what they expect or 
 desire, will not religion be brought into contempt ? Ought they to take the 
 declared policy of any civil magistrate or human government for a manifest 
 token of His will, whose throne is surrounded with clouds and darkness? 
 Are not ministers and elders, like other men, liable to be biased by their own 
 interests and passions? These, however, are not the questions which this 
 synod is asked to decide. The paper before you simply affirms that the 
 Assembly transcended the limits of its authority when it endorsed, as an 
 evidence or an execution of the will of God, the declared policy of one, who 
 is not only President, but acandidate for office. 
 
 After enumerating six party measures and recogizing them as " manifest 
 tokens" of the will of God, viz.^the President's abolition proclamation and 
 " decree," the enlistment of negro soldiers, the " organization of the labor 
 of the freedmen, the Presideyii^s declared policy in regard to reconstruction, 
 the emancipation measures in progress in the Border States, and the pro- 
 posed amendment to the Constitution of the United States abolishing 
 slavery : after enumerating these measures, not one of which has yet been 
 consummated, except the enlistment of negro soldiers, the Assembly pro- 
 ceeds, from such premises, to draw this broad conclusion — " So that the 
 interests of peace and social order are 1denti?ed with the success OF 
 THE CAUSE OF EMANCIPATION." It was not necessary to go further. 
 Even the recommendations which follow are superfluous. Every politician 
 in the land, and every voter capable of reasoning, can easily construct the 
 syllogism of which the Assembly has given the major premise. 
 
 Here is the syllogism : 
 
 " The interest of peace and social order are identified with the success of 
 the cause of emancipation ; 
 
 The success of the cause of emancipation is identified with the success 
 of the Eepublican party ; 
 
 therefore the interests of peace and social order are identified with the 
 success of the Eepublican party, and every lover of peace and order is 
 bound to vote for that party. 
 
 But did not every man in the Assembly and out of it know that a large 
 and respectable party, embracing as good men and as sound Presbyterians 
 as there are in the Church, utterly deny and repudiate the first premise, 
 and strenuously oppose all the political measures upon which it is ba>^ed ? 
 The President's proclamation and decree is universally held by the Demo- 
 cratic party to be unconstitutional, and void *' as the Pope's bull against 
 the comet ;" the enlistment of negro soldiers is regarded by many as an 
 injur}' to the Federal arms; the so-called ''organization of the labor of 
 freedmen" is looked upon by many true friends of the negro as a new and 
 more wretched form of slavery ; the President's " declared policy" is 
 
10 
 
 denounced from every Democratic press and rostrum as the obstacle to 
 peace and order which must be removed at the coming election ; the 
 measures of emancipation in *' the loyal States" can be consummated only 
 by the overthrow of one political party in those States ; the proposed 
 alteration of the constitution, in order to abolish slavery, is an admission 
 that the constitution, as it now stands, is m the uxiy of such abolition ; 
 rnd the whole proposition, so authoritatively announced by the Assembly, 
 " that the interests of peace and social order are identified with the success 
 of the cause of emancipation," is not only a virtual endorsement of the 
 plans and purposes of the Republican party, but a virtual condemnation 
 of the whole policy and plans of the opposite party. 
 
 And yet, in the face of that opposing party, thousands of whose 
 adherents sit at our communion tables and preach in our pulpits, the 
 Assembly goes on to say that " the most formidable remaining obstacle 
 will be found to be the unwillingness of the human heart to see and accept 
 truth against the prejudices of habit and interest." 
 
 Now is this so? Is prejudice the most furmidahle remaining ohstacle to the 
 success of the caupe of emancipation os proclaimed and decreed by the highest 
 executive authorities? Is a sacred regard for that part of the Constitution 
 which it is proposed to amend a mcYQ prejudice f Is it a mere prejudice to 
 hold with many of the soundest statcmen and purest christians in our com- 
 munion, that written covenants and unrepealed statutes lie in the way of 
 the President's declared policy? Is it mere prejudice to believe, as the 
 whole Democratic party professes honestly to believe, that this whole 
 emancipation policy is delaying the dawn of the blessed day of peace and 
 union, and desolating the fjurest portions of the earth v/ith unneccessary 
 conflagration and slaughter? Is it mcvQ prejudice for a Presbyterian min- 
 ister or church member to believe now what the Assembly declared in 
 1818, that "an immediate and universal emancipation would be inconstent 
 alike with the safety and happiness of the master and the slave?" 
 
 Well, sir, if all this can possibly be mere prejudice, only God and the re- 
 velations of the judgment daj- are competent to decide that it is. It is not for 
 any uninspired Assembly thus to sit in judgment upon the hearts of a whole 
 political parly ; and especially it is not for an ecclesiastical court, whose 
 powers are clearly defined, to step out of its jurisdiction, and without any 
 warrant of the revealed will of God, to decide questions in dispute between 
 political parties, in both of which there are thousands whose christian 
 sincctity is unimpeached. 
 
 Nor did the Assembly content itself with endorsing the policy of a 
 polilical party. It goes much further, and laj-s upon " all in our com- 
 munion," upon ministers, and elders, and church members, upon every one 
 who claims to be a law-abiding Presbyterian, upon every friend of his 
 country, upon every lover of justice and humanity, a solemn rccommenda- 
 
20 
 
 tion to set forward and labor for the consummation of that policy by every 
 means in his power. It says, that " the interests of ppace and of social order 
 are identified with the success of emancipation ;" that we are pledged to labor 
 for this cause by the combined obligation of "every earthly and every 
 religious interest." That is to say, if language means anj^thing, the 
 Assembly recommends to all her ministers, under pain of being held 
 recreant to every pledge that binds them as ministers and men, to preach and 
 pray in their respective spheres for the success of the " President's declared 
 policy ;" and since that policy cannot be consummated unless he is 
 re-elected, all in our communion are virtually recommended to vote for him 
 in preference to the other candidate. 
 
 Now, sir, in the presence of God, and his Church, I put it to you, 
 whether it was kind, or wise, or lanfal, for the Assembly to do this thing? 
 Was it competent for a court of Jesus Christ, assembled in his name, for 
 the transaction of business pertaining to his spiritual kingdom — was it 
 consistent with the design and province of the Assembly, as "the bond of 
 union, pcr.ce, correspondence, and mutual confidence among the Churches" 
 (Form of Government, ch. 12, sec. 4,) to descend as a combatant into the 
 arena of political strife ? Had the Assembly a right to lay this new bur- 
 den on the conscience of its ministers, to put into the hands of those who 
 ma}' be disposed to disturb the peace of the Churches by transferring the 
 strifes of this world into the house and family of God, this new weapon 
 with which to embarrass them in their honest labors for the salvation of 
 souls ? Had the Assembly a right to direct my conduct as a minister or 
 as a man in matters concerning which the Word of God and the standard 
 of our Church have given no direction whatever? No ! The Assembly 
 transcended its legitimate powers. Might I not say, will not the dispas- 
 sionate judgment of the future say that, under the pressure of a mistaken 
 zeal, it violated the bond of peace and mutual confidence among all our 
 Churches ? 
 
 Mr. Moderator: When I adopted the Confession of Faith and Form o^ 
 Government of the Presbyterian Church, and solemnly promised, in my 
 ordination vows, to submit to my brethren in the Lord, I did not consent tha^ 
 any church court should direct me how to vote as a citizen, what political 
 policy I should sustain, or whether I should sustain any political policy ; 
 and even though the deliverances of the Assembly on such subjects should 
 correspond exactly with my own opinion, I would hold and declare them 
 to be null and void As a minister of the Presbyterian Church I owe alle- 
 giance only to my blessed and glorious king, Jesus Christ, and the charter 
 of my rights and measures of my obligations is the Word of God summed 
 up in our accepted standards of Faith and Order. 
 
 My commission, as an ambassador of Christ, is already written with 
 sufficient clearness. It needs no addition from the " declared policy" of 
 
21 
 
 any civil magistrate or political leader. " The manifest tokens" of the 
 will of God in regard to the objects for which I am to " labor honestly, 
 earnestly, and unweariedly in my appropriate sphere " were written 
 eighteen centuries ago in that gospel which I am ordained to expound and 
 proclaim. With the utmost respect for its legitimate authority, I say the 
 General Assembly has neither the right nor the ability to add to these 
 tokens, nor to enlarge these objects, by uninspired prognostications of that 
 providence in which God " plants his footsteps in the sea, and rides upon 
 the storm." Let the car of providence and of prophecy roll on, whither- 
 soever the King in Zion, in his secret councils, may direct its course; it is 
 the business of the General Assembly, as well as of the humblest member 
 of our communion, to ride behind And I say this, not as a mere matter of 
 abstract right ; but because I tremble to contemplate the scene our Church 
 would present if our ministers should carry out the instructions of the 
 Assembly to their legitimate results. We should have " confusion worse 
 confounded ;" the Sabbath-day made hideous by the strife and tumult of 
 the week, and the house of God defiled by the contests of Republicans and 
 Democrats more than it was by the presence of the money changers whom 
 Christ drove with a whip of small cords from the temple. How far this 
 result has already been reached in other Christian denominations and in 
 some of our own churches, I leave you to judge. I consider myself 
 pledged "by every earthly and every religious interest" not to do what 
 the Assembly recommends. The history of past civil wars, and the testi- 
 mony of God's faithful witnesses in former days of tribulation, warn us to 
 keep this contest out of the Church, and to devote ourselves, as ministers, 
 to the preaching of the gospel and to the cure of souls. Let me quote a 
 single specimen of the testimony to which I refer. In the year 177G, the 
 empire of Great Britain, possessing what was, at that time, " the best 
 government on the fiice of the earth," as every student of history will 
 admit, was convulsed to its centre with foreign war and internal dissension. 
 Her own colonics were in rebellion; France was preparing to strike a 
 deadly blow at her national existence ; and strife between political parties 
 was at fever heat. At this time Augustus Toplady, whom no one will 
 accuse of dislo^^alty to the State, or of extreme views in regard to the 
 spirituality of the Church, uttered these memorable words: "Few men 
 have been more prone to diibble in poliiics than some divines. And it 
 must be added that, in general, few men have acquitted themselves more 
 lamely upon that subject than those reverend daubers with untempered 
 mortar. The truth is, that those of the clergy who mostly content them- 
 selves with paddling in the shallows of a superficial morality, step much 
 beyond the line both of their ability and of their proper department when 
 they attempt to fathom the deep waters of politics. For it is well known 
 that (in past ages, at least) politics and morality have had but very slender 
 connexion with each other. As to those of us who deem it our duty to 
 preach the gospel, and to know nothing among our people but Jesus 
 
22 
 
 r 
 
 Christ and hitn crucified, we, of all persons in the world, should religiously 
 abstain from whatever may conduce to cherish the seeds and fan the tires 
 of civil discord. Shocking it is when they who profess to experience and 
 to preach tlie love of Christ, can so far prostitute the dignity and design of 
 their sacred calling as to offer fulsome incense at the shrine of aggrandizt'd 
 authority, or seek to exasperate differing parties against each other; instead 
 of laboring to preserve unity of spirit to strengthen the bonds of peace 
 and promote righteousness of life. Such bad men in black pay very little 
 attention to that solemn vow which they took at the time of their ordi- 
 nation, when they pledged themselves to God and man that they would 
 lay aside the study of the vrorld and of the flesh, and maintain and set 
 forward, as much as in thera lieth, quietness, peace, and love among all 
 Christian people. Our direct business is with the policy of an invisible 
 and better country ; even of a kingdom which is not of this world. On 
 one hand, we arc to sound the trumpet, not of secular, but of spiritual 
 alai-m ; and on the other, to proclaim unto them that mourn, and to them 
 that believe in Zion, 
 
 ' The jojful news of sins forgiven. 
 Of hell subdued, and peace with heaven,' " 
 
 Mr. Moderator, the words of Toplady are just as true and as applica- 
 ble in New York and all over the land, t j day, as they were in London 
 when our mother country was passing through the most eventful crisis of 
 her history. Dearly as I love my whole country — and I will not stop to 
 sound a trumpet before m.e oa that point ; proud as I am, and perhaps too 
 proud, of her early history ; and hopeful as I am that God will yet merci* 
 fully deliver her from the judgments our sins have provoked; I do not 
 believe, but reject as blasphemous, the sentiment so often uttered even by 
 christian ministers, that God cannot do without the United States, that the 
 Church of Christ is in anywise identified with or dependant upon our 
 national existence. According to my reading of God's covenant oath to 
 his son, (in Psahn II,) the kingdoms of this world are given to Zion's 
 King, that he " may break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces 
 as a potter's vessel." And whether it is his inscrutible purpose to dash this 
 nation in pieces or not, the foundations of the Church are secure. 
 
 Dr. Waits has given us the true interpretation of that precious lamenta- 
 tion and vow which the children of the captivity poured out by the rivers 
 of Babylon. (Psalm 137.) It was not, as some would have it, a mere ex- 
 pression of temporal allegiance and patriotic affection. It was something 
 higher and better. 
 
 " I love thy Kingdom Lord, 
 
 The house of thine abode, 
 The Ohurch our blessed Redeemer saved 
 
 With his own precious blood. 
 For her my tears shall fall. 
 
 For her my prayers ascend, 
 To her my toils and cares be given, 
 
 Till toils and cares shall end." 
 
23. 
 
 Mr. Moderator, I adopt those words as my own ; and bj my love for 
 her whom Christ loved and redeemed with bis blood, by my allegiance to 
 him "who claims the Chm-ch as his spouse pure and undefiled, I will not, 
 even at the behest of the General Assembly — I ivill not devote myself un- 
 weariedly to the consummation of " the declared policy " of any civil mag- 
 istrate, or of any candidate for political office, or even to the perpetuity of 
 any earthly kingdom. And I say this, not merely as a christian minister, 
 but as a patriot. The true peace and prosperity of nations must ultimately 
 depend upon the christian character of the individual citizen ; and minis- 
 ters can best promote the growth of whatsoever is lovely and of good re- 
 port among the people when they stand aloof from the conflicts and ex- 
 citements of political parties. 
 
 The second subject embraced in the paper before you, is the Independence 
 of the Church. 
 
 Mr. Moderator, all history shows that wherever the Church goes out 
 of its proper sphere to " intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the 
 commonwealth," the state will not be slow to return the back-handed com- 
 pliment, and intermeddle with spiritual affairs which concern the Church. 
 How can we expect it to be otherwise ? Let it once be admitted by her 
 own declarations, that the Church, as such, is the supporter and advocate 
 of any particular form of human government, the ally and counsellor of 
 any potentate or president ; and especially, let it once be admitted by her 
 own acts that she may enter into political strife, and become the supporter 
 of any party in the state, and it becomes at once the interest, and accord- 
 ing to her own admission, the duty of those in power to see that her sup- 
 port is rendered thoroughly and properly. Hence, whenever the Church 
 lias herself opened the 5oor of intrusion, the "powers that be" have 
 promptly entered; and even where the Church has invoked the aid of 
 secular power to accomplish her own purposes, like the horse in the fable, 
 she has soon found hereelf saddled by a human master whom she could 
 not easily shake off. 
 
 It is worthy of further remark, that this interference of the state has 
 always been begun in stormy times, under the plea of pressing political 
 necessity. When the S'.uarts were attempting to enforce a particular 
 form of prayer upon the 'Churches in Scotland at the point of the sword, 
 they asserted, and honesily thought that the national life was at issue in 
 the contest. So thought the Puritans, when failing to learn the true prin- 
 ciples of religious toleration from their own persecutions they banished 
 Roger Williams from Massachusetts. They were only protecting the life 
 of the infant colony. The most violent persecutors, even Phillip II, when 
 he was demolishing the Churches and hanging ministers in the Netherlands 
 — and Queen BHzabeth, when she was doing the same thing on a smaller 
 scale in England, disavowed all authority to interfere with the rights of 
 
24 
 
 conscience. They insisted that they were only protecting the State and 
 preserving the life of the nation in the hour of its peril ; they were dealing 
 with ministers as puLlic men, and with christians as subjects; they were 
 directing prayer, not as worship offored to God, but as a public service 
 which might have a powcrfal influence upon the course of public affairs 
 
 And sir, we heard but the echo of the sentiments which prevailed three 
 hundred years ago in the Escurial and the Star Chamber, when it waf 
 declared in the last General Assembly without remonstrance or rebuke 
 that iJie cliief magistrate has, hj virtue oj his office, and in times like these, ough 
 to exercise the right, to exclude any man from our pulpits whom He may con 
 sider dangerous to the commonwealth. 
 
 When I heard that declaration, I looked around in amazement to see 
 what impression it v/ould make, I waited anxiously to hear some excla 
 mation for the honor of Christ's crown and kingdom. But there was nc 
 response, except a murmur of approbation from a part of the Assembly. 
 
 '' How is the gold become dim ! how is the most fine gold changed ! the 
 stones of the sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street. 
 
 The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how are they esteemed, 
 as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter ! " 
 
 Have we forgotten the histor}-- of the contest for the headship of Christ 
 in our mother church of Scotland ; the stories of Melville, of Kutherford, 
 and of Erskine, of the Scotch secession, and of the Free Church Exodus ? 
 " In these bloody days,'' says Ebenezer Erskine, in a sermon entitled 
 " The stono rejected by the builders," preached at Perth in 1732, and 
 which contains marvellous good reading for these days, " in those bloody 
 days the headship and sovereignty of Christ was contended for by many 
 of the Lord's worthies even unto death ; and it has been the peculiar honor 
 of the Church of Scotland, particularly in these days of persecution, to bear 
 testimony to Christ as alone head and king of his Church, in opposition to 
 those dangerous and heaven -daring encroachments that were made upon it." 
 And do we think that human natu.re has grown so much better in this 
 nineteenth century, that civil magistrates and military commanders have 
 be3ome so free from corruption and unholy ambition, that the Church may 
 not only submit to, but SiCtuaWy solicit their interference in her affairs? 
 Brethren, in the excitement of their patriotic ajeal, may think that the 
 Church is in no danger ; that her purity and independence may be left to 
 take care of themselves until other interests that are in jeopardy have been 
 conserved ; but let them not sneer at nor denounce in the slang phrases 
 of politicians the honest fears of others who are jealous for Christ's author- 
 ity in his own kingdom. Mr. Moderator, I have prayed in public for my 
 country ever since I was ordained ; have obeyed habitually the injunction 
 of Scripture to make supplication for '' all in authority ;" and have reg.iilarly 
 invoked God's blessing on the President of the United States ; but if this 
 
25 
 
 were enjoined upon me by secular j)oivei% I would take go«)d care to let it be 
 known that I do not recognize any such authority iii tlio Church. Nay, if 
 the rresident and Congress, and the whole military power of the land 
 should command me to use the blessed Lord's prayer my mother taught 
 me, / would omit it for the time. I would not bow down even to the image 
 of Ei'asiianism ; I would not rest under the shadow oi lis coming; but 
 would say, with the children of the captivity, " We are not careful to 
 answer thee in this matter, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us 
 Irom the fiery furnace." 
 
 Mil. MoDERAToa: I do not believe that the true life and prosperity of a 
 nation c:in ever be preserved by the violation or suppression of any great 
 princifile of truth, much less by stretching forth profane hands to touch 
 the ark of God. That this has been done, and is now being done, in our 
 country, and that it is one of the sins for which God prolongs his judg- 
 ment, I firmly believe. IIow far those high in authority sanction the 
 interference of subordinates in the spiritual affairs of our churches, I have 
 livtle means of knowing. For one manly utterance the President deserves 
 our thanka If not the most elegant, it is nevertheless one of the soundest 
 declarations he ever made. I refer to the memorable saying that " the 
 Uniied Suites must not undertake to run the Churches." And yet, in the 
 face of this declaration, the officers of the United States are undertaking 
 ani] doing this very thing. They are running the churches, — whither it is 
 perhups not cofnpetent for me to say. Tliere are Churches on the roll of 
 the A'^eembly, wnosa ministers have been banished or imprisoned without 
 trial or accusation of crime, either civil or ecclesiastical ; — Churches in 
 which the people are allowed to have no voice whatever in the choice of 
 their own religious teachers; — Churches whose pulpits are filled under the 
 authority ot provost marshals and military commanders, by ministers who 
 report to the scuulur power the manner in which they have done Christ's 
 work on the Sabbath. And it is a singular, if not an alarming flict, that 
 sucn interference has not been attempted with Roman Catholic churches, 
 exeept in the single instance of the Bishop of Natchez. The record of 
 that ca?e may well cau.se a blush upon Protestant cheeks. I suppose the 
 story is fitmiliar to the Synod. A military order, addressed to the Bishop, 
 directed that certain prayers should be offered in all the churches of his 
 dioi:ese. The bishop mildly but firmly repelled the interference of secul.'.r 
 power with spiritual affairs. He was arrested and banished, and his 
 churches clo.sed. Bat he was soon restored to his charge, the original 
 order was rescinded, and his right to direct the spiritual affairs of his 
 churches without interference fully acknowledged. 
 
 I know not by what influences a tenderness, or rather a measure of justice 
 denied to many of our Protestant ministers was accorded to a Konian 
 Oiitlioiic, unless it was the force of truth in his own brave and faithful tes- 
 
26 
 
 timony to tlie spiritnnlity and independence of the Church. Let me rend 
 
 a part of liis letter, addressed to 
 
 ^^ Col. B. O. Fiirrar, iommandl ng at Natchez : 
 
 " lii;sP]!:cTED Sir. : Picturning to IS^atchez from a portion of my visitation 
 I have had communicated to me your 'Special Order, No. 3i, dated June 
 18th, requiring all Pastors of Churches to make a public recognition cf 
 their allegiance to the Government under which they live, and to which 
 they a'C inilel)led for protection ; to pronounce a prayer appropriate to the 
 timt's, and expressive of a proj>er spirit toward tlic Chief Magistrate of the 
 United States.' * '* * 
 
 This 'Order' requirt^s us to introduce a totally new element into our 
 sacred worship, viz: The public profession of temporal allegiances to the 
 constiiuLcd authorites, b j a prayer to be pronounced professedly for this 
 end. * * * 
 
 The chief reasons for resistence maj be reduced to these two : One is, 
 that religious worship ought to be directed exclusively by the reliiiious 
 authorities. T speak not of the negative right of other powers to suppress 
 acts of intended ■ and unmerited insult of which there is no questioning 
 here, but of the positive ordering of prayers, sermons, ceremonies, ere 
 
 The oiher reason, special to trie present case is, that Divine worship 
 being directed to God, it is not proper to introduce anything into it for the 
 purpose of exhibiting our sentiments on temporal matters. This appears 
 to be addrei^sing our devotions to men instead of God. 
 
 I need not quote to you the well known clause ol the Constitution of the 
 United States "prohibiting Congress from any interference with the free 
 exercise of religious worship." The illustrious General Jackson, when 
 President of the United States, determined as he was in the exercise of liis 
 authority to its full extent, said he had no "constitutional power " even to 
 invite the people to observe a a annual Thanksgiving day. lie was to 
 administer the civil government, and take no cognizance of the religion of 
 the people, except so far as to protect each one in following his own with- 
 out molestation from his neighbors. If later Presidents, exercising their 
 own judgments in the matter, have thought it well on special emergencies, 
 as in time of pestilence and of war, to call on all the people to oiler prayers 
 on certain days, yet, as far as I know, they have confined themselves to a 
 simple invitaticjn, and not pretended to compel any one to comply. 
 
 Once make the Church a subject of tl»e State in her spiritual functions, 
 and she is no longer a living Church of the Iloly Ghost, infusing into her 
 children the life of catholic charity. She becomes a kind of pious branch 
 of 'policed 
 
 Mil. Moderator, I know nothing of *th8 personal character or political 
 sentiments of this Bishop ; but I honor and bless him for this defence of 
 the headship of Christ. That letter would do infinite honor to any Protes- 
 tant minister. It would do no discredit to the records of the General 
 Assembly. And, if ever there was a time when the utterance of such sen- 
 timents was ajipropriate to a court of the church, it was when the case of 
 Dr. McPheeters was under consideration. I will not trepass on the 
 patience of the synod by an extended review of this case, but will content 
 mjself with brieriy showing: 1st That it did involve, in the language of 
 
27 
 
 the prenmhle to the paper before you, the interference of the secular pow- 
 er with the spiritual affairs of our Churches, tlie enforcement of political 
 test oaths as a qualification for meraLers sitting in our church courts, and 
 ihe pro-cripiion of christian minister.^, against whom there is no charge of 
 hei'csy or crime, upon the ground tliat they entertain, or are supposed 
 to entertain, certain political opiuious; and 2d. that the Assembly appar- 
 ently sanctioned these things. 
 
 Go the first point wc have documentary evidence of the most unmis- 
 takt-ablo character. Read the provosL-marshars order excluding Dr. 
 McPheclers from his pulpit and banishing him from the State. It is 
 addressed to him as Reu. Samuel B. McPheeters, pastor of ihe Fine street 
 C'litrch. It commands him "to cease, from this date, to exercise the fane- 
 tons of his office within the State of Missouri, and to deliver up to the 
 clerk of Pina street Church, all books, records, and papers belonging to 
 that church." And what are the grounds upon which this condemnation 
 and punishment are b;ised? What crime has he committed, and where 
 are the facts which prove him guilty? Why, sir, it is not alleged that 
 he has violated any law of the land. The soeoiQo charges agiin.^t him 
 related exclusively to the manner in which he has discharged his oflTicial 
 duties as a pastor, and as a member of our church courts. lie is accused, 
 not of civil crimes, but of dereliction from duty as a minister in the exer- 
 ciise of his sacred oflice. There are three, and only three, specific charges 
 in the document, which is at once his indictment, his verdict, and his sen- 
 tence of putiishin'.mt. (I) It is ch-irged that he reftised to ans'uer artaia en- 
 qnirics addref^sed t:> him bij mimhers of his church in rejard to his j^ollticciu 
 opiiiiins. Th-) provost-marshnl thinks a pastor is bound to ans.vcr suth 
 questions to the sitisfaction of those in his congregation who claim to be 
 loyal, and that if he does not, the secular power should interfere for his 
 panishmont. Why, sir, under the iron rale of Cronwell, as Maciulay 
 tells us, "the clergy of the fallen Anglican Church, (who were known to 
 be ro\ alists and secret enemies of the Commonwealth,) were suffered to 
 celebrate their worship on condition that they would abstain from preachinj 
 upon politics.'" But the condition on which C/omwell thought his political 
 enepkies might s-afely be permitted to preach — the very silence wiiich is ad 
 thnt he demanded — is now the ground of interference of the secular power 
 witVi the most sacred oifices in the Church, and one chief reason for banish- 
 ing a minister against whom his enemies, like Daniel's, can find none occa- 
 girm nor fault "concerning the kingdom," 
 
 (2) The second charge in the indictment is, that " the said McPheeters^ 
 aotiug with others of the same denomination^ has used all the influence of his 
 ministerial character to prevent thehod>jofthe Church with v)hlch lie is connected 
 from declaring or manifesting its loyaltg to the governmerd^^ i. e,. Dr. Mc- 
 Pheeters, in the General Assembly, at ColurnbuSj did just what Dr, Ilodge 
 
28 
 
 imd sixty otliers did in the Assembly, at Philadelphia ; he argued and pro- 
 tested against the Assembly's making any political deliverance, or any 
 fleclaration of allegiance to a human government. lie holds, th it llic 
 Church, as such, owes allegiance only to Christ, and that Church court j 
 ought not " to intermeddle with civil affairs, which concern the c )mraon- 
 wealth." The provost-marshal decides that this is a very disloyal an 1 
 danjrerous doctrine, so much so, that the man who maintains it in the 
 Assembly ought to be excluded, by secular power, from his pastoral 
 ofli< e. 
 
 (;-{) The third and last specific charge in the document is, that Dr. Mc- 
 Pheeters " has refused to observe, in their ohuious meaning and intent, ike 
 recommendations of the Presidmt of the Unit'xl States to the various Churches.''^ 
 I know not what particular "recommendations" are here referred to, nor 
 what may be considered "their obvious meaning;" but I do knojv, and 
 dare assert, that no recommendation of the President to the Cnui'ches has 
 any binding force of law, human or divine ; and that where Churches 
 choose, in the exercise of that liberty which both the Word of God and the 
 law of the land secure to them, to accept such recommendations, it i^ not 
 for any officer, civil or military, it is not for a chief magistrate himself to 
 sit in judgment upon the minister in regard to the manner of carrjnng oat 
 those recommendations. For these three things, and ihey inclu^le all the 
 alledged facts, Dr. McPheeters and his wife and little ones were publicly 
 and icmominiously exiled from the State. The subsequent modi2c;ition oi 
 the order, at the instigation ot the President, revokmg his banishment 
 but leaving him still excluded from the "exercise of the functions of his 
 ofiTice," only makes the interference of secular power with the Caurch stil] 
 more glaring. lie is declared to be free in the exercise of all his civil 
 rights. Ho is pronounced no longer dangerous as a citizen ; bat he is 
 held to be unfit to preach. The secular authorities say to him, in elR-ct— 
 " You may go where you will, but you must not enter the pulpit ; 
 you may do what you will, within the limits of the law— you may 
 buy, and sell, and vote ; but you must not preach. You must not tell 
 sinners the way to salvation, nor baptize the children of the covenant, nor 
 minister the consolations of religion to God's suffering people, nor go into 
 Christ's banqueting house to distribute the sacred emblem of the Saviour's 
 love." The State has no charge of crime against him ; the courts of the 
 Church hare never impeached him ; but the provost-marshal adjudges him 
 unfit for "the exercise of the functions of his ofiice m the Slate of Missouri." 
 Nor does the interference end here. The Church, which had recieved him 
 as Christ's ascension gift and loved him for his work sake, must be rebuked 
 for thus loving and adhering to him. Their continued affection for the 
 ministry of a man who will not answer the questions of politicians, nor vote 
 for political deliverances in the General Assembly, shows that they are not 
 
Of 
 
 9 
 
 fit to manrif^'C tlioii' owrt affair.'. The elders find trustees must be set aide, 
 and the congreg;ition mast be excluded from all voice in the choice of 
 another minister." 
 
 "It it further ordered, that the church edifice, boolcs, and papers, at tlie 
 corner of Eleventh and Pine streets, be placed under the control of tiiree 
 loyal members of Pine street Church, namely, George P. Strong, Jnmcs 
 M. Corbitt, and John M. Ferguson, who shall sec that its pulpit bo filled 
 by a lojal minister of tne gospel." 
 
 Now, Sir, is not this very much like " the abomination of desolation 
 spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place?" Since the 
 days when Ilerod set up a Roman eagle over the gate of the Temple, has 
 tho secular power ever exercised or claimed a more absolute control over 
 the spiritual affairs of the Church ? If a civil magistrate or military officer 
 may sir in judgment upon a minister for the manner in which he discharges 
 his dudes as a pastor and a presbyter, may interfere to settle controversies 
 in a congregation, may exclude a pastor from his pulpit, and that without 
 the form of a trial before any tribunal, or even the accusation of any crime 
 known to the law, may vest all the franchises of God's people and the 
 whole government of a church in a committee appointed by and dependant 
 upon the secular power — what becomes of the religious liberty for which 
 the fathers of the reformation contended, and where are the crown rights 
 of the Ilead of the Church for vrhich our Presbyterian martyrs have ever 
 stood ready to sacriilce their lives? 
 
 But you are ready to ask for the proof that the General Assembly 
 sanctioned these things. I affirm that the Assembly appareutli/ sanc- 
 tioned them by its silence. Other cases of interference by the secular 
 power v.'ith the spiritualities of the Church, though made familiar to the 
 people until thcj^ have ceased to excite surprise, have not been brought 
 directly to the Assembly's notice; but the ivhoh history of this case was 
 spread out hefore H. The documents to which I have referred were read 
 and justified in the course of the debate ; the claim to secular jurisdiction 
 involved in these documents was repeatedly asserted ; and yet, with ihe 
 exception of a few mnnly utterances, such as fell from the lips of Dr. 
 McLean and Dr. Jutdcin, no caveat was entered against the validity of 
 the monstrous claim, no rebuke uttered against the exercise of such 
 dangerous powers, no protest recorded against the repetition and extension 
 of the abominable precedent. Surely the Assembly did not remain silent 
 because it was afraid to speak — timidity in the defence of fundamental 
 truth has not hitiierto been a characteristic of Presbyterians ; n(;r because 
 Its members were opposed to making delivonmces upon matters v/hich 
 concern the commonwealth — tho scruples of the Church on that point iiave 
 grown "small by degrees" if not "beautifully less" ever since the 
 Assembly of ISGi ; nor because there was any fear that its loyalty to the 
 
80 
 
 government v;as in danger of boing compromised — its own deliverances 
 have put that question beyond the reach of controversy. Why, then, was 
 the Assembly silent when the evidences that the independence of the 
 Church was in jeopardy were thrust upon its attention and justified at its 
 bar? The world will think, and will have a right to think, that its silence 
 gives consent ; that, in the excitement of its zeal for the attainment of 
 other objects, our Church is willing, for the time, to sacrifice her control 
 ^ over her own spiritual affairs, or at least to share it as an ally with the 
 secular pov/er. 
 
 But our proof 'is not merely of this negative and constructive kind. In 
 regard to " tlie enforcement of military test oaths as a qualification for 
 members citting in our church courts," it is positive and flagrant. One 
 chief point in the case, if, indeed, it were not the hinge upon which it 
 turned, was whether the Presbytery which carried out the views of the 
 provost-marshal, by dissolving the pastoral relation of Dr. McPheeters in 
 opposition to the well-known wishes of the great majority of his people, 
 was ^.Jree Presbytery, and therefore competent to act in the premises, when 
 the m.'ijority of its members were kepc away from the meeting by the 
 injunction of a political test oath. In its final act'on on the case, the 
 Assembly declares that the " resignation of the pastoral relation, and the 
 distracted stare of the Church, seemed plainly to call for the action of the 
 Presbytery, and being on the ground, and conversant with all the circumstances 
 and demands of the case, they seem most competent to understand and decide 
 upon tuhut thai action shoidd Z/e." Now, sir, this pounds to me like grim 
 sarcasm. I say nothing about the fiict that the resignation of the 
 Pa^^tor, which was made in a moment of distraction, was attempted to 
 be recalled upon more mature deliberation, and that the Presbytery 
 refused to grant that privilege. Let that pass. I call your attention 
 to the statement which no reasonable man will dispute, that thoy " who 
 were on the ground," the co-presbyters and associates of Dr. McPhceters, 
 t!ie ministers and ciders who were familiar with the character of his 
 Ministry and tlie condition and wants of his Chuich, *" were most com- 
 l^etent to understand and decide npon the case." 
 
 Now did these competent judges decide the case? Did ^//ey make or 
 ap[)iovc the decision which the Assembly ratifies? Why, sir, there was 
 the record before the Assembl}', showing that the Presbytery of St. Loais 
 consists of about sixty members ; that the resolution to dissolve Dr. Mc- 
 Pheeters pastoral relation, was carried by eleven vcAes, being a majority of 
 three of those present at the meeting; that of these eleven votes eight 
 were given by Ministers, only two of whom were Pastors. And there, 
 too, was a memorial on the table of the Assembly, signed by a largo 
 majority of the Ministers and Elders of St. Louis Presbytery, protest- 
 ing against the action of the Presbytery as unexpedient and unjust, and 
 
ai 
 
 hesescliing tlic Assembly not to sustain it. In what light then are wc to 
 regard the dedaration of the Assembly, that ihey " who were on the 
 ground and c >nversant with all the circumstances and demands of the case, 
 were most competent to understand and decide it?" But it will be said, 
 that these memorialists erred in not attending the meeting of Presbytery, 
 and so according to a strict construction of law, forfeited their right to a 
 voice in the decision of the case. Suppose we grant this — what then? 
 \Vould it have been a great stretch of kindnCvSS, or even of justice towards 
 these mistaken brethren, to remand the case to them that they might have 
 an opportunity to correct their error? Was the Assembly, after all, un- 
 willing that the case should be decided by these most competent judges? 
 If i/iezr judgment were really respected or desired in the premises, it would 
 not have b^cn difficult to obtain it. Their opinion v/os already known to 
 the Assembly, and utterly disregarded in the decision of the case. But the 
 question occurs, why was not that opinion given and recorded by their 
 votes in Presbjtery ? They tell you the reason. They told it to the 
 A'^sembly. And when we consider their testimony, the action of the As- 
 sembly may well crimson the cheek of every one who loves the free com- 
 monwealth of Jesus Christ. The General commanding in the department 
 of Missouri, had issued an order commonly known as " the Church order." 
 By this order, ecclesiastical courts, before organizing, are required to ascer- 
 tain who had, and who had not taken a certain oath prescribed in the order 
 Rs necessary to make the members eligible; a provost marshall is required 
 to be preseiit at the organization, and see the order enforced ; and a ftdluro 
 to comply on the part of the court, or any of its members, is marie a mili- 
 tary offence. Now, a majority of the members of the Presbytery of St. 
 Louis, believed that they could not carry out this order without ignoring 
 the headships of Christ in his Church, and violating their ordination vows. 
 Ilear their own language in a letter addressed to the commanding General, 
 and laid before the Assembly in their memorial: 
 
 " We, the undersigned, hereby certify that we have each taken the oath 
 of allegiance to the Provisional Government of Missouri and to the Govern- 
 ment of the United States of America. 
 
 " We also solemnly affirm that we will support the Constitution and 
 laws thereof, and that we will not give aid and comfort to the enemies of 
 either. We desire and purpose to conduct ourselves in all respects as good 
 citizens, and to " be subject to the powers that be," in accordance with the 
 teachings of God's word. 
 
 " As a matter of principle, however, and because we recognize the head- 
 ship of Jesus Christ alone in his Church, we can not allow any human auiho- 
 liiv to determine the qualifications of members who compose our Ecclesias- 
 tical Courts. 
 
 " Wc, therefore, respectfully request the Commanding General to allow 
 us, as loyal citizens, to assemble without let or hindrance, in order to trans- 
 act business connected only with the Redeemer's Kingdom, and without 
 
requiring us to oboy Or>ler No. 61, that seeais, at least, to interfere with 
 the liberty and purity of the Church. 
 
 " We assure you, General, that our request is not dictated by a captious 
 or {;\ult-finding spirit, and in proof of this assurance we shall not nisi-st 
 your auihority, but quietly rem lin at hornj instead of attending the Eccle- 
 siastical Cjurt which is about to coaveue at Kirkvvood, uulcis our request 
 can be granted." 
 
 To this humble petition, the Commanding General has never condescend- 
 ed to give an answer, unless it has been done since the meeting of the 
 Assembly.* For this reason, Dr. ]\rcPheeters and the majority of his Pre-> 
 bytery felt themselves to be excluded fj'orn the meeting in which his cas^e 
 was decided. Nov/ we put it to any candid man, did riot the Assembly 
 sanction the enforcement of that political test oath as a qualification for 
 membors fitting in our Church courts? To put the truth m the mildest 
 form, the Assembly did " a/)^ja;'5?i% sanction it," ar.d that not merely by 
 abstaining from all testimony against it, but by rcctgnizmg the court 
 from which these memorialists were excluded as a free aud competent 
 Presbyleiy. 
 
 But, Air. Moderator, there is a still plainer and more grievous aspect of 
 this co?e. The Af^sembly not only sanctioned but itself took part in " tho 
 pro.^criptiim of a Christian minister against whom there is no accusation of 
 her sy or crime, upon the ground that he is supposed to enterLain certain 
 political opinions." 
 
 In its final action upon the case the Assembly declares "the question of 
 the pa -tor's loyalty to his national government, which seemed to be so 
 largely a distuibing element in the Cnurch, has not been prcy;e?7y before 
 the Assembly, as it v;as not pronounced upon in any Presbytcrial aciion." 
 Tliis appears to ine like another grim sarcasm. It is true, indeed, that Dr. 
 McPiiccter's loyalty v/as not properly before the Assembly ; but, as ev^ry 
 one of us knows, and as I shall presently demonstrate by the testimony of 
 a groat cloud of witnesses, this was the qiteUion upon which the decision of 
 the case turned, in both the Presbytery and the Asseuibly, All the 
 documents in tlie case, and the whole discussion of it, from t!ie mecin-^ of 
 church members who undertook to catechise their pislor about his political 
 views, to its consummation in the Assembly, show conclusively that it 
 turned and was decided upon informal charges not inoperly before the 
 court: i e., not before it according to the rules prescribed in our form 
 
 * Since writinc; the above, I have received a letter from a prominent mnn in St. Lonis, from 
 winch the foUouing is an extract : " ISome time ago, application was ma.le to General llosecr.inz 
 60 to modify liia''(Jliiirch Onier" that our Presbytery could meet. If this request hid been 
 granted, we intend' d t > meet and j-ut to riglits, net oiily t!ie affairs of Pine street Chnroh, but 
 many other matters connected ^\ith the I're-bytery for the last two years. General llosL-cranz 
 Enid he lui 1 no objecions to making tiie modification required to give satisfaction ; at the same 
 time he remarket that Dr. Hodge had fully endorsed his order and he could not see why iuiy 
 objection wjis made when such men a])pruved of it. We waited day alter day, and week after 
 Wtek, but uo mudiiica ion has been made." 
 
S3 
 
 of government, and guaranteed to the meanest criminal by tlie prin- 
 ciples of common law. And we desire your special attention to the nature 
 of these charges. It waa not pretended that Dr. McPheelers had done or 
 said anything disloj'-al — anything for which it was possible to try him 
 before any tribunal, civil or ecclesiastical. The testimony on this point is 
 of the highest and most explicit kind. The President of the United States, 
 after talking with him, writes a letter to his subordinate in authority, 
 wliich was laid before the Assembly, in which he sa3\s, "The quesiion 
 remains whether such a man (>f unquestioned good moral character^ who has 
 taken such an oath as he has, and cannot even be charged ivith violating it^ 
 and ivho cannot he charged loith any other specific act or omission^ can with 
 safety to the government he exiled upon the suspicion of Jiis secret symjMthies.''^'^ 
 The elder who prosecuted the case through all its stages declared in the 
 Assembly, " I do believe that he (Dr. McPheeters) faithfully endeavored 
 to keep his oath of allegiance as he understood it." It was admitted on 
 all hands, by those who took part in the debate in the Assembly, and 
 proclaimed by some in terms of the highest eulogy, that Dr. McPheeters 
 was sound in the faith, and unimpeachable, so fiar as word and deed are 
 concerned, in all the relations of life. And yet, it is as plain as the 
 light of day that this good minister of Christ — this sincere and upright 
 man — was pronounced b}'' his Presbytery unfit to be the pastor of one of 
 our Churches, and that decision was ratified by the Assembly, upon the 
 ground that he is stijyposed to erdertain certain political opinions, not consistent 
 with the standard of political loyalty which his accusers have set up for 
 theraselve:5. Fortunately we are cot left on this point to suspicion or 
 conjecture, to the general impression on the public mind, or even to our 
 own fallible memory. The debates in the Assembly are reported and 
 published, and they furnish a mass of information and evidence to which 
 we believe the future historian of our Church will turn with a sad heart 
 ■when tracing back the course of events to their fountain head. 
 
 I will not trespass upon your patience by reading all the extracts I 
 have made from the debates of the Assembly ; showing; on the one hand, 
 that the members who voted to sustain the complaint did so upon the 
 ground that the disloyalty of the complainant had not been^:>?-oyec?; and, 
 on the other hand, that his assumed disloyalty justified the Presbytery in 
 the course it had pursued. It will be sufficient to cite a few witnesses 
 whose competency will not be disputed. 
 
 Dr. RiCi3 said : " That we have virtually a minister on trial — virtually on 
 trial ; visited too with the severest penalties that could result from a trial ; 
 and yet he is on trial without charges, without citation, without specifi- 
 
 • Nevertheless, the President did not order the release of Dr. McPheeters, In the conclusion 
 of his letter he tells liis subordinates that the whole matter is left to their disposal, according 
 to their own judgment, Thus, ia effect, he say a — "/find no fault in himj but take ye him/ 
 
34 
 
 cations tabled, -without a list of wit.nes.=!es ; in short, without any of those 
 formulitics and precautions by which our constiiution guarrls \he sacred 
 rights of accused ministers. Ah, f^ir, it is a sad state of things when a 
 minister can be put on trial for his character and ministerial lile, without 
 allowing him any of the means of protecting himself that the constiiution 
 guarantees. The real charge brought against Dr. McPheeters was disloyalUj ; 
 on this the opposition of the minority of his church was based ; on this the 
 allegation of loss of usefulness was founded ; on this charge the Presbytery 
 proceeded. This is manifest in all the pleadings there, and in all the 
 pleadings here. This was a charge affecting his moral character ; for dis- 
 lo3'alty is a sin. Ilad the Presbytery a right to punish him for this sin, 
 and to fix tin's blot upon his character, without arraigning him, and tabling 
 charges, and giving him an opportunity of defence? lie (Dr. Eice) did 
 not know whether that brother is loj-al or not That was what the Pres- 
 bytery ought to have found out before they punished him. When asked 
 upon the subject, he said he had taken an oath of allegiance, and kept it. 
 This was enough up to the point at which they were ready to try him. What 
 more did they warn? The great principle which lies at the f )u;)dation of 
 the unity of the Church is this: that the degree of unity of faith and prac- 
 tice required for membership is that which is specified in the Confession 
 of Faith, Government, and Discipline of the Church. The terms of mem- 
 bership are all inside of the Book: all oatside of it does not belong to the 
 terms of union and communion. Dr. Breckinridge believes in the pre- 
 millenial advent of Christ — the speaker does not. We must be lelt to do 
 as we ])!ease in regard to matters outside of the Book ; if not, the terms of 
 communiorl are violated, and the unity of the Church destroyed. You 
 must alter the Book before you can punish me for what is outside of it. 
 Where there is no law, there is no transgression. If a man can stand the 
 ordeal of a military vigilance for a year or more, the hue and cry of popu- 
 lar claiuor, and the je;dousy of public suspicion, with an elder after him 
 all the time, pursuing him even to strange cities, he must be pure, indeed, 
 if he stand the test. But this brother has done it. No fault has been 
 proven ; and he is found a pure man, even his enemies being judges. 
 Why, sir, Dr. Hodge, in the Assembly of 1861, took quite as strong 
 ground as Dr. McPheeters has ever taken, in favor of non-intervention of 
 the Church in political matters. Is he disloyal? The Svnod of Kentueky 
 passed strong resolutions against such interference, Dr. P. J. Breckinridge 
 taking the lead in them. Is Dr. Breckinridge disloyal? If a man can 
 speak seven hours, with entire license to say uhat he pleased, as Mr. 
 Strong did, and yet not adduce the remotest proof, or make any show of a 
 case against his pastor's loyalty, it is surely evidence that the case is not 
 very capable of being made." 
 
 The Eev. Dr. Jumktn said — " It was Erastianism — Erastianism of the 
 direst type — the Erastianism of the sword, to punish the minister for the 
 imagined political errors of the man ; whilst the man, the ciiiznn, was lelt 
 to all his civd franchises I Sir, it is amazing that logical minds cannot^ 
 and that religious minds minds ivill not see this distinction, so iinportant 
 in \\s, bearings upon the question of religious liberty and the rights of con- 
 science I He thanked God that we had a President at the head of our 
 governtneut, who understands the principles of religious liberty, the rights 
 of conscience, and the relations between the Church and State, belter than 
 
85 
 
 some Doctors of Divinity with whom he had conversed on this subject. 
 The President saw the bhindcr liis subordinates hud committed, and with 
 the perspicacitj of a clear head, and the candor of an honest heart, he 
 npplied the remedy. In his own pithv and pregnant style he tells his sub- 
 ordinates that he would not himself undertake, nor would he permit them 
 to " run the churches," Would to God the members of this Assembly, 
 and our preachers generally, would learn wisdom from that admirable letter 
 of our President; and whilst he wisely refrains from "running the 
 churches," let ihc Church refrain from attempts to run the State. 
 
 Now, the entire ecclesiastical proceedings, resulting in the substantial 
 removal of this confessedly godly, gifted, and faithful man from the minis- 
 try, were based n]-jon the inilitary infliction of an ecck-iash'cal sentence. 
 Instead of defending this broth^T against the oppression of the mail- 
 clad hand of military power by entreaty, and such influence as might have 
 stayed that hand, his Presbytery made that oppression a pretext lor dis- 
 solving his pastoral relation. They dissolved this man's pastoral relation 
 on account of trouble in the church — trouble that arose, as he alleges, on 
 account of a false accusation of disloyalty against him ; and this point is 
 conceded by the Presbytery." 
 
 The Eev. Dr. Ceavkn said — "If this Assembly shall refuse to sustain 
 these appeals and complaints, and refuse to listen to the memorial of the 
 St. Louis brethren, they will send forth a brother, universally admitted to 
 be a man of groat piety and purity of character, virtually branded with the 
 charge of disloyalty, and also of contumacy. The susriicion of disloyalty 
 was the real ground of the action of the St. Louis Presbytery. I do not 
 stand here to deferid Dr. McPiieeters from this insinuation or charge. It 
 is not in evidence l^eforc us, nor was it before the Presbytery of St Louis, 
 as courts, whether he was loyal or disloyal, contumacious or otherwise. He 
 and his church both challenge investigation ; and now, if we refuse to 
 sustain these appeals, we do virtually give a judicial seuteuce without 
 evidence." 
 
 Judge Lixx, ruling elder, said — " There seemed to be but one single 
 question before us here, and that is the loyalty of Dr. McPheeters. It is 
 said that there is no evidence of his disloyalty — that this issue had never 
 been fairly tried. But the Presbyterian Church expects her ministers not 
 only to be negatively loyal, but to preach loyalty to the people by precept 
 and example. " Let your light so shine before men that they may seeyoar 
 good works," is a scripture precept; and when disloyalty is abroad in the 
 land, it. is the duty of the ministry to preach against it; and the silence of 
 Dr. McPheeters proves to us that his loyalty is of a very technical kind. 
 It had been asked m the Judicial Committee, how could tins case come 
 before this bv>dy ? and he had acquiesced in the manner in vvliich it was 
 presented. But now it is pleaded that this question of loyalty is not before 
 us. Js it possible, sir, that a wrong can exist without a remedy/ Must 
 this man be allowed to preach there, and prevent the growth and harmony 
 of that church ? It ought not to be. lie argued that the Presbytery had 
 power, under chap, x, sec. 10, to right all wrongs that impaired the 
 spiritual welliire of the churches under their care. He cared not whether 
 ttie J'reshytery acted regularly or irregularly. He took direct aim at the 
 justice of the case, and he believed the Presbytery had a power of injunc- 
 tion ; and it is here before us to iuq^uiro whether this Proibytcry had a right 
 
86 
 
 to interpose with the power of injuction. It seems to be left out of view 
 that they have such a power ; but they have, and this is the reason why 
 the question of loj^alty was entertained. They felt that they had a riglit to 
 enjoin a disloyal minister not to preach. lie thought the loyalty of the 
 Presbyterian Church requires that the ministry t^adi loyalty, pray loyalty, 
 live loyalty. AVhen great questions are trembling in the balance, it is no 
 time to put our light under a bushel. If dislo3'alty is a sin, loyalty is a 
 virtue ; and is there any Christian virtue that ought not to be taught in the 
 pulpit?" 
 
 Dr. Wm, L. Breckenridge said — "This brother is not on trial in form, 
 but he is in fact on trial, not only for his relation to his people as a pastor, 
 but for his character as a minister of Christ and a steward of the mysteries 
 of God. It has been attempted to thrust him out of his work an^mg the 
 flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made him overseer, and to brand 
 into him a mark of dishonor, with the allegation of that which on all sides 
 is called a crime — and yet in violation of the wishes, and against the 
 remonstrances of the great bodj'- of his people and of his brethren ; with no 
 charge that he might answer; with no responsible accusers whom he might 
 confront; with no witnesses on oath whom he might question, and whose 
 testimony he might disprove ; in the face of their absolute and unquestioned 
 deniid of their accusations ; in the absence of the merest suggestion of an 
 overt act, winch alone could establish the allegation ; upon a base suspi- 
 cion, wholly negative in its most plausible pretences. lie is called. a dis- 
 loyal man — not true to the country ; and on this clamor, it is attempted to 
 drive him from his work in the church. But he declares, atid it is not 
 denied, that he has freely taken astringent oath of allegiance to the country. 
 lie insists that he took it in all good conscience — before God. lie declares, 
 on the faith of a Christian, and the honor of a gentleman, that he has kept 
 it. No man insinuates that he hns broken it. Ilis Oj)posers themselves 
 being judges, he is a man of blameless manners — of purest life, of exem- 
 plary godliness." 
 
 The Bev. Thomas H. Clelland said — '"As judges, we are sworn to try 
 the accused according to the principles of our charter, and not according 
 to the law of the commonwealth. All the disloyalty, which as an ecchsi- 
 aslical court we are competent to try, is ecdesiaadcal disloyalty. If Dr. 
 McPiieeters h'ls committed an ecclesiastical offence, let us try and condemn 
 him lor it by and according to ecclesiastical law. If guilty of civil offence, 
 let us turn him over to civil authorities; if guilty of both, let him be tried 
 by both. Let us try him by our own law, and let the civd authorities try 
 him by their law. We cannot try a Presbyterian for purely civil offence; 
 if we do, we violate our solemn ordination. As jurymen, we have nothing 
 to do in making the laws, nor to allow eitlier our prejudices or secret coa- 
 victions of the guilt of the accused to iniiuenco us in our decisions. To 
 the law and to the testimony. By our law he must stand or fall. Dr. M-j- 
 Pheeters is either guilty or innocent. If disloyal to his government, that 
 government is competent to judge him as a citizen. If disloyal to the 
 principles of his Church, he is entitled to a fair and impartial trial, brought 
 up to this highest court by regular appeal This court has no right to 
 originate and decide such a prosecution. So, in any, and in every way, a 
 merely political question has nothing to do with this matter. And if we 
 allow such consideralions, even secretly, to bias our djcisions, so vital to 
 
87 
 
 the Chnrch and all conoerned, it violates our orfllnation vow. Our hearts 
 at'e deceitful, and we uiioonsoiouslyare influenced by secret niotives. T^ie 
 barrel that includes the m-iiuspring of a watch does not propel the 
 Tnaehiner)^ but only conceals the power that does. 
 
 Whatever may bo the secret yiews and feelings of Dr. McPheeters, so 
 long as he does nothing to violate his ordination vows, or any other obli- 
 gation, which, as a Presbyterian, he is bound to obey, we cannot, and dare 
 not toucli a hair of his head. 
 
 And now, sir, is there the slightest evidence that Dr. McPheeters has 
 l)f>en convicted of a violation of a single statute of the Presbyterian 
 Church? Instead of this, as a Presbyteiian, a minister, a pastor, a Chris- 
 tian, a citizen, a gentleman, he is endorsed in the very highest term^, even 
 by liis accusers. In a speech of seven mortal hours, vvhic!i, had it all been 
 exhausted on one man, instead of being distributed among two hundred, 
 would have been 1400 hours long, there was not produced the slightest 
 hint that Dr. JMcPheeters was guilty of anything which could affect his 
 standing in the Presbyterian Church. It is true, ho is complained of for 
 not vociferously clamoring for the present alniinistration ; but we maintain 
 that there is no lavv in our Constitution, civil or ecclesiastical that obliges 
 any man to avo.v his political principles. To make such a demand of Dr. 
 Mcl'hceters, specially placed in such a tlelicate situation, requiring the wis- 
 dom of a serpent and the harnilessness of a dove, is more than Erastianism, 
 and is the vdcst species of Jacobinism. The spirit of such a demand has 
 b en belbre expressed in thiinQ words— -'' We have a law, and by ovr law 
 he must die.' " 
 
 PiEV. Dr. Maclean, Pi'esident of Princeton College said — " It can be 
 cle:irly shown that this was not a tree i'resbytory, and, therefore, its actJ 
 were not valid. lie quoted from Stuart of Pardovan, the opinions of 
 Henderson, and others, that the Assemblies of 1SG3, and others that were 
 held when a portion of the members vv'cro in duress, were not free and 
 valid Assemblies. And he quoted a passage penned by Dr. P. J. Breckin- 
 ridge, to show that it has always been the settled doctrine, that the right 
 to assemble in church courts is divine; not dependent upon the civil 
 power; and that where the civil or military arm is thrust in so as to 
 restrain members from attending, it vitiates the freedom and the validity 
 of tlie body so restrained, llad he been a member of that community, he 
 would have maintained the supremacy of the Church, and attended Church, 
 and attended without military permission, or not at all. It is said there 
 was nothing to hinder the majority from attending, if they would take the 
 oath. But the right to impose that oath was the very matter in dispute. 
 Are we to submit to an oath imposed at the discretion or the whim of a 
 military commander, as a test and qualhcation of membership of a court of 
 Jc.-us Christ? Shall we thus place his kingdom in a position of subordin- 
 ation to military authority? Shall we surrender the indepondenco of 
 Chria's crown? iS'ever, sir, never! As a member of civil society, ho 
 would take all oaths legally imposed. lie had taken an oath of allegiance, 
 in the course of his official life, six times, and as a citizen had no objection 
 to taking it. But when it was thrust; upon him as a qualfioation for olfice 
 in a court of the indepeudent kingdom of Jesus Curist, it was another 
 matter. 
 
 It was not needful for him to express his views of the rebellion — they 
 
38 
 
 "Were well enough understoorl, and he regretted the dread of public opinion, 
 that was ever forcing men to declarations of lo^ya'ty — be left his own record 
 to speak. But this Presbytery vvas not a free Prcsbylorj'-, and therefore no 
 Presbytery. The appeal was made— it arrested proc<;etlings — and Dr. 
 McPbeeters is the pastor of Pine street Church ; and this Pre-^byter7 had 
 no power to reach over the head and autliorlty of the Synod, and by an 
 exercise of naked absolute power, remove a pastor from his flock, without 
 trial or investigation." 
 
 The last witness is Eev. Dr. Musgrave — a father in Israel, a leader in 
 the Assembly, a member of the committee winch drafted the llnal minute 
 in the case, in which it is dcjlared that the question of Dr. McPheeters' 
 loyalty " v/as not properly before the Assembly." I know not how far 
 that word i^roperly may prove his own and the Assembly's consistency 
 but hear his testimony • 
 
 '* lie (Dr. MusGRAVii)) fully justified the Government in all they had done, 
 in the way of military ariests, orders, and restraints. We ate struggling for 
 the nation's life, and any means thought nei^cssary to pi-eserve it are justi- 
 fiable, lie approved of the suspension of the w;-it of habeas corpus. The 
 whole northern country had willingly yielded these precious rights for a, 
 time, in order to f^reserve tliis Grovernment. If this Governt>ierit is 
 destroyed, what will become of the Church of GofI ? We are called upon, 
 then, by our love for the Church, to sup{)ort the Govei'nment. 
 
 Although Dr. McPheeters complains only of this last act <>f the Presby- 
 tery, and pleads that this act was barred by the operation of the appiiai to 
 Synod, he (Dr. Musgrave) was of opinion that the com')laint to the Assem- 
 bl}'- biought up the whole case here; and we can act upon the entire case. 
 So that what brethren regard as irrelevant, is strictly relevant. We have 
 taken bim at bis woid. And the question is, had the Presbytej-y a riuht 
 to dissolve the pastoral relation, and was it expedient to do so? I'he 
 speaker thought that both these questions could be answered in the affir- 
 mative. They had the power, and his disloyalty made it expedient. 
 
 MoDEt^ATOR, if the man is loyal, why does he not say soV Sir, in this 
 crisis of our country's history, every minister of the gospel ought to speak 
 out. lie has but to say that he considers secession a wicked rebelliou — 
 that he abhors it ; and then he will not be suspected. He (Dr. Musgrave^ 
 had many private fiiends in Baltimore, and he had been astoni.-hed beyond 
 measure to hear them in:-iist that they were loyal, v/hilst they gave the b-st 
 evidence that they were not. On one occasion one of tiieiu was in his 
 (Dr. Musgrave's) house, when news unfavorable to tlie Federal cause was 
 received. This friend could not conceal his joy ; but wiien, by-and-by, 
 the news changed its aspect, and it turned out to be a Union success, lie 
 was chop-fallen, and could not disguise it. lie (Dr. Musgrave) would vote 
 not to sustain." 
 
 Mr. Moderator. I submit to you and to every candid man in the 
 Synod, that I have made out my case. The Assembly not only sanctioned 
 but participated in the proscription of a Christian minister, against 
 whom there is no charge of heresy or crime, upon the ground that he is 
 supposed to entertain certain political opinions." Stript of all forms and 
 
S9 
 
 tedinicnlities, and regarded, as it would appear in a court of equity, upon 
 its real merits, the whole proceeding, from its inception to its consumma- 
 tion, amounts to this, that a minority of a congregation, urged on by poli- 
 tical zeal and abetted by the interference of the secular power, has been 
 al'le to deprive the majority of the minister of their choice, whom even his 
 enemies admit to be a faithful and able servant of Christ, proscribing and 
 branding him as a disloyal man, simply because he is supposed to entertain 
 political opinions about which the Bible and our standards have nothing 
 to say. ^Yhether he docs entertain these opinions I do nolhioiu, and so far 
 as this case is concerned 7 do not care. I love him as a minister of Christ 
 I feel the wrong he has suffered as a personal grievance. I do believe and 
 feel that the whole case presents a story of persecution for opinions sake, 
 which if told of some by-gone age would excite the indignation of us all ; 
 and which will remain in the ages to come a blot on the once fair fame of 
 the Presbyterian Church. Let not the members of Synod be offended that 
 I use the word persecuiion. We are accustomed to associate that word 
 with the scaffold, the stake, and the dungeon ; but I tell j^cu there is a tooth 
 that enters the soul sharper than the steel that the pierces the flesh ; sense 
 of injury and wrong, received in the bouse of our friends, more burnino- 
 than fire, more torturing to an honorable and loving heart than a crown of 
 thorns. 
 
 Dr. MePheeters is not the only one who has endured ihis crucifixion of 
 the soul. There are other ]\Iini£ters who have grown grey in the service 
 of the Church, and the Church's Maslcr, who have been thrust out of their 
 own pulpits, and wliom most of us dare not ask into ours, who are frowned 
 upon and virtually cast out by bretlren witli whom they once took sweet 
 counsel in the liouse of God, and made to feel like strangers in the Church 
 they love as their mother, and would v.'illingly lay down their lives to 
 defend. And all this, not because they are guilt}', or even accused of any 
 heresy or crime known to any law hunian or divine; but simpl/ because 
 in matters not revealed in the Bible, they claim the liberty to think and 
 be silent. Now what I want to know, and have a right to know, is this; 
 if I decline to labor for the success of the declared policy of anv civil mag- 
 istrate or human govenmient — yet, wliile I love Christ and adore him as 
 my only King, and adhere to all the doctrines and requirements of our 
 standards of F.dth and order, am I to be held, accordiuG: to the teachino-s 
 3f the Assembly as an opponent of the wdl of God, and a violator of all 
 the pledges which grow out every earthly and every religious interest, and 
 vvill my brethren, with whom I am ready to go all lengths in laboring for 
 the gospel of Christ and the salvation of souls, practically exclude me from 
 their fellowship? These are no idle questions. You know they are not 
 And it is time tiiey were answered. It is time for the Church to vindicate 
 her own character as the spouse of Christ; and to give her troubled and 
 
40 "^ 
 
 mourning sons, some new assurances 'that the old landmarks of Church 
 fellowship and ecclesiastical rights are not to bo swept away. I 
 
 1 ask 3'ou to make the declaration of principlcj contained in the paper 
 before jon, as a measure of peace, as a standard against the enemy that 
 cometh in upon us like a flood, . ■ a balm for wounds in the body of 
 Christ, dcfpseatcd and rankling. If, when the smoke of civil war passes 
 away, and the stream of fraternal blood dries up, v/e would have the 
 Church in the position of a comforter to men of all parties, keeping the 
 peace in her own bosom after politicians have made peace in the fState, 
 and realizing in the future that gloiious unity in which there is neither 
 "Greek nor Jew, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all and 
 in all," v>^e mxust remove from her record all trace of political passion and 
 sectional hatred. We must purge her reputation from all v/cll grounded 
 suspicion of political partizanslii[), and bid her go forth v.'ith her gar- 
 ments unspotted hy the world, the cross of Christ the only symbol on her 
 banner, and the gospel of peace the only proclamation on her lips. 
 
 But you may rest assured that she cannot retain the confldence and 
 adherence of her own ministers and members, nor prevent discord and 
 disunion in her own bosom, if such legislation as that of the last Assembly 
 Stands uurebukcd. 
 
 -/.^' 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 703 282 A