Review. PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, IN MAY AND JUNE, 1834. We stated in our last number, that there were three subjects of preeminent importance, discussed and decided on in the last General Assembly. Of these, the first two have already been noticed in our Review; and we now proceed to the third and last, namely; the motion for bearing testimony against certain doctrinal errors, prevalent in our country and dangerous to our church. No mention of this motion was permitted to appear on the minutes of the Assembly; but a true and accurate account of what took place on the occasion was published five days afterwards, in the "Presbyterian," and subscribed by the proper name of the author of the statement. No contradiction, known to us, has ever been given to any part of this statement; and as it was drawn up by one who was actively concerned in all the proceedings to which it refers, and immediately after the proceedings were terminated, its verity is unquestionable—It is as follows. For the Presbyterian. Mr. Editor-On the 30th of May, Mr. Jennings, of the Presbytery of Ohio, rose in his place and offered a resolution in opposition to some prevailing errors, which, being seconded, and a few remarks offered, was, on motion of Dr. Tucker, of Troy, indefinitely postponed, for the purpose of taking up the following, which was adopted with great unanimity, viz. "Resolved, That this Assembly cherish an unabated attachment to the system of doctrines contained in the standards of their faith, and would guard with vigilance against any departures from it; and they enjoin the careful study of it upon all the members of the Presbyterian church, and their firm support by all scriptural and constitutional methods." This was considered by many as an evasion of the question, and the recording of the ayes and nays, on the subject of the postponement was called for, that the original motion, as made by Mr. Jennings, might thus be put on the records. But some objection being made, the call was withdrawn, with the understanding, expressed and not refused, that the minority would have leave to enter their protest. On the 3d of June, thirty-nine members of the Assembly, over their proper signatures, offered the following PROTEST. "The undersigned would respectfully ask leave to record their solemn protest against the decision of the General Assembly, by which the following resolution was rejected, viz. Resolved, That this Assembly, in accordance with a previous resolution which allows this body to condemn error in the abstract; and in accordance with our form of government, which gives the General Assembly the privilege of warning and bearing testimony against errors in doctrine; does hereby bear solemn testimony against the following errors, whether such errors be held in or out of the Presbyterian church, viz.-That Adam was not the covenant head, or federal representative of his posterity ―That we have nothing to do with the first sin of Adam-That it is not imputed to his posterity-That infants have no moral character-That all sin consists in voluntary acts or exercises-That man, in his fallen state, is possessed of entire ability to do whatever God requires him to do, independently of any new power or ability imparted to him by the gracious operations of the Holy Spirit-That regeneration is the act of the sinner-That Christ did not become the legal substitute and surety of sinners— That the atonement of Christ was not strictly vicarious-That the atonement is made as much for the non-elect, as for the elect.' "We protest against the refusal to consider and act definitely upon the above reso lution : "1. Because the errors alluded to are contrary to the Scriptures and to our Confession of Faith, and are of a very pernicious tendency. "2. Because the Assembly was informed that such errors, to a great extent, pervade our land, and are constantly circulating through our church, in books, pamphlets, and periodicals. "3. Because in the refusal to consider, and amend, if necessary, and adopt the above resolution, this Assembly has, in our opinion, refused to discharge a solemn duty enjoined by the Confession of Faith, and loudly and imperiously called for by the circumstances of the church. "David M Kinney, James Magraw, Ashbel Green, Samuel Boyd, E. H. Snowden, Simeon H. Crane, George Morris, A. Bayless, Robert Love, H. Campbell, Alexander McFarlane, Wm. L. Breckenridge, Isaac V. Brown, James Scott, I. N. Candee, D. R. Preston, Royal Young, William Sickels, Wm. Wylie, Benjamin F. Spillman, James Blake, W. A. G. Posey, Cyrus Johnston, Benjamin M'Dowell, Edward Vanhorn, Wm. M'Comb, George Marshall, James M'Farren, S. M'Farren, Wm. Craig, James Remington, Jacob Green, C. Beers, Charles Woodward, J. Clark, Jacob Coon, John P. Vandyke, John W. Scott, James W. M-Kennan." The protest being read, a motion was made that the protest be received—which, after considerable discussion, was rejected by a vote of 56 to 42. A motion was then made to record the ayes and nays, which motion was rejected by the Moderator pro tem., as not being in order. An appeal from the chair was taken, when the house sustained the chair. Thus the General Assembly resisted every attempt to have the motion of Mr. Jennings recorded. Against the recording of the protest it was argued-That the constitution of the church provides for recording the protests of a minority against acts done by the Assembly, and not against its refusal to act; that the minutes should not be burdened; that the newspapers were accessible, and would circulate the protest; that it was not judicious. By some it was asserted that they believed, and should vote, if called to vote, on the subjects referred to, with those who signed the protest, but they thought an expression on these subjects, at this time, was not called for. One individual of high standing in the church, opposed the protest because some of the sentiments mentioned in the resolution of Mr. Jennings as errors, he believed to be truth, stated in the abstract, and he would maintain them, and was willing to answer to his Presbytery for maintaining them. He also declared, in reference to the sentiments of the resolution, "If this be heresy, I freely declare that I so worship the God of my fathers." In favour of recording the protest it was argued-That the rejected motion should have been put on the minutes-that when the request for the ayes and nays was withdrawn, it was on the express condition that there should be a protest entered-that the hearing of the motion, and its postponement to take up a substitute were acts of this Assembly, and as such should have been recorded, but whether recorded or not, were distinct and definite acts, subject constitutionally to protest-that the protest was brief and respectful-that those who signed it were conscientious in the discharge of this duty, and wished, if the right was doubted, that courtesy might be so extended to them-that they did not wish to use the journals of the day to circulate their protest, as it was not their design to spread their grievances before the world, and thus induce an extended controversy, but merely to send the acts and doings of the Assembly to the churches and Presbyteries, through the more certain and less public medium of the minutes-that there were serious differences and dangerous varieties of sentiment in the church, and that a refusal to record this protest in the minutes would be considered, by both friends and opponents of our Confession of Faith, as an expression of this Assembly in favour of those who speak lightly of our system of doctrines, and who do not preach in accordance with this "form of sound words"-that error always springs up in the church, and is fostered under the protection of "free interpretation," liberty of thought," "freedom of speech," "philosophical distinction," "the spirit of the age," ," "variety in modes of expression," and other popular sentiments-and that if we oppose error, we are instructed by history, that we must follow it through all its windings, in all its various forms of expression, of interpretation, and of philosophical distinction, and must expose it in every variety it may assume. There was manifested throughout the sessions of the Assembly, a peculiar sensitiveness when points of doctrine were approached, and the effort on the part of the majority to exclude every thing which would call forth an expression of doctrinal sentiment, was unremitting. But, notwithstanding the persevering and combined effort to exclude all expressions on doctrines, still so important and vital a subject could not be entirely suppressed. On this subject, there were in the Assembly evidently three classes. The first class is comprised of those who receive and maintain the doctrines of our church, as expressed in her standards, in the obvious sense of the language, and who are opposed to innovations in the manner of stating the fundamental truths of our religion. This class embraces about one-third of the Assembly. The second class profess not to differ essentially from the former, but take the liberty to use language very different from that used in the Confession and Catechisms. They maintain the right of interpretation for themselves, and of expressing their sentiments in any language they may choose, however variant from the language of the Confession; and still wish to be considered in good standing; simply on their professed reception of the system of doctrines. One of these at least, publicly declared that he embraced, in the abstract, some of the sentiments alluded to in the resolution on which the protest was founded. Others, less publicly, expressed similar sentiments. But, as before remarked, every thing which would bring them to a public and distinct expression of doctrinal sentiment was sedulously avoided, or quickly voted out of the house. The third class embraces those who professed cordially to receive the doctrines as expressed in the Confession of Faith, in the obvious meaning of the language. They expressed an entire agreement in doctrine with the first class, and a dissent in doctrine from the second class. But still they were unwilling, by any resolution, protest, or other act, or matter of record, to send down to the churches any expression of opinion on existing differences in doctrine. This class professed heartily to believe with the first class, and yet they, with apparent cordiality, voted with the second class. The relative strength of those two classes could not be determined, as they almost uniformly voted together. From this brief statement of facts, made necessary by the refusal of the Assembly to record the protest, it manifestly appears, 1. That there is error in the church at least to some extent, error bold enough to brave the Assembly, as well as the inferior judicatories. 2. That there is among the professedly, and it is believed truly orthodox, a very great sympathy for those who depart, at least in language, from what has generally been held as scriptural truth in the Presbyterian church.. 3. That while this sympathy with error exists, there is but little hope for the due exercise of discipline in Presbyteries; for, while the General Assembly refuses to warn the churches against error, it is not to be expected that it will sustain an inferior judicatory in its discipline of the man who publishes or preaches that error. 4. That it is high time that the friends of truth should awake, not to angry controversy, but to an enlightened and a united effort in maintaining in their purity the doctrines and order of our church. They must not shrink from duty. Zion's king would marshal the soldiers of the cross. He requires a united and untiring effort, an humble and quenchless zeal, unwavering firmness, a meek and quiet spirit, mutual forbearance, with wisdom, faith, and prayer, holding fast the form of sound words which we have received of our Lord and Master, and which we have vowed to maintain as embodied in our Confession and Catechisms. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but spiritual, and, through God, shall prove mighty to the pulling down of strong holds. Our confidence is not in man. In Jehovah of hosts is our help. Yours in the bonds of the Gospel, Philadelphia, June 4. DAVID M'KINNEY, A Member of the Assembly. We consider the above paper, taken in connexion with the known acts of the Assembly, and the protests and remarks inserted in the foregoing parts of our Review, as forming a mass of solid and impregnable evidence, proving conclusively that the facts and allegations contained in the Act and Testimony are true; and of course, that the making of an appeal to the church at large, was a measure urgently demanded of the friends of sound doctrine and ecclesiastical order and discipline as set forth in our Standards; because, in so doing, they would avail themselves of the best means left in their power, to save the church from utter ruin, and restore it to its primitive state-To show this has been our main and ultimate object in the whole of our Review; and we shall now advert to the most plausible objections to the Act and Testimony that have come to our knowledge, and endeavour to prove that they are destitute of all solidity. To no part of the document in question have we heard more objections, than to the very first sentence-it is as follows-" BRETHREN BELOVED IN THE LORD: In the solemn crisis to which our church has arCh. Adv.-VOL. XII. 3 T rived, we are constrained to appeal to you, in relation to the alarming errors which have hitherto been connived at, and now at length have been countenanced and sustained by the acts of the supreme judicatory of our church." The first part of this sentence consists of an assertion, and the following parts contain the allegations on which the assertion is made-The assertion is, that the signers of the "Act and Testimony," were constrained, in consequence of the crisis which had arrived, to appeal to the churches; the allegations to support the assertion are that alarming errors have hitherto been connived at, and now at length have been countenanced and sustained by the acts of the supreme judicatory of the church. Let us first consider the allegations; for, if they are just, the truth of the assertion can hardly be denied, that the signers of the Act and Testimony were constrained, by an existing crisis, to appeal to the church at large. Johnson's definition of the verb to connive, is "1. To wink.* 2. To pretend blindness or ignorance; to forbear; to pass uncensured." Now we think that the English language does not contain another term so descriptive of the manner in which error has been treated in the Presbyterian church, for a number of years past, as that which is employed to describe it in the Act and Testimony. Let us examine this matter a little. We believe that there is not an individual among the Old School Presbyterians, (we certainly have never known or heard of one,) who does not admit and lament, that grievous and dangerous errors have of late greatly and openly prevailed in our Christian denomination. Among those also who are called moderate, or peace men, there is nearly the same opinion; as appears, not only by their admissions in debate in the judicatories of the church, but by their adopting, in many instances, the Testimony against error contained in the paper under consideration, while they refuse to subscribe it as a whole. They may, and do differ, as to the degree in which avowed error exists, but that it exists to a considerable extent, they all admit. Now, the Act and Testimony men, and the peace men, taken conjointly, certainly constitute a large majority of the Presbyterian church, who are united in the opinion, that for years in succession, hitherto, fundamental unsoundness in doctrine has existed, and been openly taught in the Presbyterian church. But, it may be asked-are there not a considerable number who deny this altogether? Certainly there are; and we have seen, that to "pretend blindness or ignorance," may be an act of connivance; and this only shows the accuracy with which the term has been used in the Act and Testimony. "Why should not you see, what every body else sees" said Dr. Johnson to Dr. Goldsmith, when the latter affirmed, on a certain occasion, that he did not see, what the former had explained to the satisfaction of all the rest of the company present. When the great majority of a church, comprising numbers of the most discerning, and the most candid and conscientious men that belong to it, perceive and mourn over the prevalence of alarming and soul-ruining error, and those who have the same means of information with themselves, declare that they can see nothing, or very little of the kind, it is no breach of charity to charge on them that species of connivance which consists in pretending ignorance, or blindness. There is, indeed, in the present case, one consideration which will save the honesty of these men; and we are perfectly willing they should avail This first sense refers literally to the motion of the eyes, and therefore is inapplicable to the case before us. themselves of it-nay, we seriously think they are entitled to its benefit-They have themselves adopted the errors which others condemn; and holding these errors as truth, they do not see them to be what in fact they are-" They put darkness for light, and bitter for sweet," and are honest heretics-if, indeed, the connecting of these terms be not in itself a solecism. But the definition before us teaches, that when men forbear to condemn what is wrong, and suffer it to pass uncensured, they may be truly said to connive at it; and, if ever there was an accurate and comprehensive description of a course of conduct, this is so, of the very manner in which error has been treated of late in the Presbyterian church, by those whose duty it was to meet it with a silencing rebuke. Is it not as notorious as the sun in the firmament, that Arminian and Pelagian errors of the grossest kind, have been preached in many of our pulpits, and published in pamphlets and religious newspapers, throughout our country; and that in most instances they have been forborne with, in many have passed wholly uncensured, and scarcely in a single instance have been visited with efficient discipline? Has not the third Presbytery of New York, within the present year, whitewashed, ordained, and installed a man, whom a neighbouring Presbytery, just before, had declared to be too ignorant and too heretical, to be a pastor in the church of Christ? Did not the Synod of New York, a few years since, sit and hear the preacher of the opening sermon of the judicatory, endeavour to prove, by an elaborate argument, and in pointed opposition both to our Confession of Faith and the plain word of God, that in regeneration, strictly so called, man is active-thus maintaining that man regenerates himself, and virtually denying the new creating influence of the Holy Ghost, in the sinner's renovation? And did not that Synod forbear, and suffer to pass wholly uncensured, this abominable morsel of heresy, thrown right in their teeth, and afterwards sent forth, through the press, to the world? Did not the General Assembly of 1831, as we have repeatedly shown, utterly refuse to decide on a series of specifications, in which the Presbytery of Philadelphia had found a printed sermon of Mr. Barnes' to be in pointed conflict with certain portions of our Confession of Faith and Catechisms, which were quoted in contrast? Did not that Assembly refuse to bring a trial, formally and orderly commenced, to a constitutional termination, that they might evade a decision on the specifications of the Presbytery-thus most injuriously depriving the Presbytery of a constitutional right? Did not the same Assembly, when constituted as an ecclesiastical court according to our constitution, convert itself into a Congregational Association, and in this form sanction the report of a committee, in which the whole concern at issue was disposed of, in a number of faltering and insipid generalities, not satisfactory to any body-as a leading member of the committee declared to us, immediately after the transaction? And yet, was not this strange procedure followed with an act of professed thanksgiving to God, for the harmonious and happy manner in which the whole case had been issued? It has not been, we confess, without a degree of impatience, that we have lately heard it repeated and inculcated, over and over again, both by peace men and New School men, that unsound doctrine may and ought to be censured, and put down, by a regular process in our ecclesiastical courts-as if this course had not been tried, and found to be utterly unavailing and abortive. We do verily believe, that no one of the last four General Assemblies of our church, would have sanctioned |