WE shall endeavour to show, from the origin, from the constitution, and from the uniform practice of the Church, that the theory of Presbyterianism here presented [see note] is altogether false. The leading points of the case as presented in this Review, are: 1. That the General Assembly, in order to its proper organization, must embrace all the delegates in attendance who are furnished with the proper evidence of their appointment. 2. That the commissioners from presbyteries within the bounds of the four synods, were fully entitled to their seats as members of the Assembly. 3. That the Assembly has no authority to judge of the qualifications of its own members. The first of these positions, properly explained and limited, we have no disposition to dispute. The second is the one most largely discussed. The right of the delegates from the four synods to their seats, is founded on the assumption that certain acts of the Assembly of 1837, are nugatory. In proof of the invalidity of those acts, the reviewer argues that they are inconsistent with the principles of Presbyterianism; that they rest upon a false basis; and that they are void from uncertainty. In carrying out the first of these arguments, he lays down a new theory of Presbyterianism; the leading features of which are, 1. That our several judicatories are merely courts and advisory councils. 2. That “as to their existence and action they are entirely independent of each other.” “One judicatory has no power over another,” and one has no right to try or condemn another. 3. The synods and the General Assembly “are merely appellate courts and advisory councils. 4. The General Assembly has no constitutional power to abolish or dissolve a synod; nor a synod a presbytery; nor a presbytery a session. 5. Though certain acts of an inferior court may be reviewed in a higher one, yet if a presbytery recognize a church; or a synod form a presbytery; or the General Assembly erect a synod, the act is forever valid.
- What then was the origin and history of our present constitution? It will be remembered that at the period to which it is so common to refer, as the birth-day of the great principles of civil and religious liberty, a convention of divines assembled at Westminster, who, after long deliberation, prepared and published a Confession of Faith and a Directory for Worship, Government, and Discipline. This Confession and this Directory were adopted by the Church of Scotland, and have ever since continued in authority in that Church. Under that constitution, the General Assembly of that Church has always acted as its parliament; exercising legislative, as well as judicial powers; making rules binding on synods, presbyteries, and churches, restrained by nothing but the word of God, the laws of the land, and its own written constitution. This fact is too notorious to need proof.* A greater absurdity could not be put into words, than the assertion that in Scotland, the General Assembly is “a mere appellate court and advisory council.” That American Presbyterianism was originally the same with that of Scotland is proved by two incontestible facts; first, that our Church adopted identically the same constitution as the Church of Scotland; and secondly, that under that constitution, our highest judicatory claimed and exercised the same powers with the Scottish General Assembly. The Presbytery of Philadelphia was formed about 1704; in 1716, there were four presbyteries who erected themselves into a Synod. In 1729, this Synod passed what is called the “Adopting Act,” by which the Westminster Confession of Faith was declared to be the confession of the faith of the Presbyterian Church. Various causes led to a schism in this body, in the year 1741, when two synods, one of New York, the other of Philadelphia, were formed. They continued separated until 1758. When a re-union was effected, they came together upon definite terms, both as to doctrine and discipline. The first article of the terms of union is as follows. “Both synods, having always approved and received the Westminster Confession of Faith, larger and shorter Catechisms, as an orthodox and excellent system of Christian doctrine, founded upon the word of God; we do still receive the same, as the confession of our faith, and also the Plan of Worship, Government, and Discipline, contained in the Westminster Directory; strictly enjoining it on all our members and probationers for the ministry that they preach and teach according to the Form of sound words in the said Confession and Catechism, and avoid and oppose all errors contrary thereto.” In another article it was declared that no minister was to be licensed or ordained, unless he “promise subjection to the Presbyterian Plan of Government in the Westminster Directory.” Digest, p. 118. [Digest of 1873, p. 49.] Here is the first formal constitution of American Presbyterians, as a united body. This constitution, both as to faith and government, was precisely the same with that of the Church of Scotland. Has American Presbyterianism entirely lost its original character? Has the infusion of Congregationalism affected not only the principles of our members, but the essential features of our system? Do we live under an entirely different form of government, from that which was so solemnly adopted by our fathers? If this be so, if a revolution so radical has taken place, it can be, and it must be clearly demonstrated. This is not a matter to be asserted, or assumed. We shall proceed to prove that no such change has taken place.