[Form of Government, chap, xii., sec. v.]
a. Disposal of the Members of a Dissolved Presbytery
[Comp. Digest of 1873, p. 263.]
Resolutions were introduced in relation to the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia, which, as modified by the mover, were adopted in the following form, viz.
“Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America,
“1. That the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia be, and it hereby is, dissolved.
“2. The territory embraced in this presbytery is re-annexed to those to which it respectively appertained before its creation. Its stated clerk is directed to deposit all their records, and other papers, in the hands of the stated clerk of the Synod of Philadelphia, on or before the first day of the sessions of that synod, at its first meeting after this Assembly adjourns.
“3. The candidates and Foreign Missionaries of the Third Presbytery of Philadelphia are hereby attached to the Presbytery of Philadelphia.
“4. The ministers, churches, and licentiates in the presbytery hereby dissolved are directed to apply without delay to the presbyteries to which they most naturally belong, for admission into them. And upon application being so made, by any duly organized Presbyterian church, it shall be received.
“5. These resolutions shall be in force from and after the final adjournment of the present sessions of this General Assembly.”
Yeas 70, nays 60.
These resolutions were advocated on the ground of the unconstitutionality of the act of the Assembly by which this presbytery was constituted, and of the evils which had resulted, and were likely still farther to result from its existence in its present form.
We do not question the right of the Assembly to act in this case, and to dissolve the presbytery which they themselves had formed, but we cannot see the propriety of the manner in which it was done. It was said, that the Assembly has no authority to attach any minister to a presbytery without its consent. This, as a general rule, may be true. But in those cases in which the Assembly undertakes to assign limits to presbyteries, or to constitute or dissolve such bodies, they must determine who shall and who shall not belong to them. The great difficulty arises from the anomalous position in which this act places the members of this presbytery. By the act of dissolution their presbytery ceases to exist. They are then members of no presbytery, and yet Presbyterian ministers. They are indeed directed to apply for admission into the presbyteries to which they most naturally belong. Suppose, however, these bodies refuse to receive them. In what condition are they then? Are they in or out of the Presbyterian Church? Is a minister turned out of the Church by the refusal of a particular presbytery to receive him? This cannot be assumed as a constitutional mode of getting rid of a man. And if he is still a minister within the Church, what is he to do? Is he to apply to some other presbytery to take him in? Or is he to remain unattached to any ecclesiastical body? It seems to us that the only proper method of disposing of this case, if it was taken up at all, was either to refer the whole matter to the synod, or at once to attach the members, as was done in the case of the foreign missionaries, to one or the other of the existing presbyteries.
b. Exclusion of the Synod of Western Reserve
[Comp. Digest of 1873, pp. 263–267, 525.]
Mr. Plumer presented the following resolution: Resolved, That by the operation of the abrogation of the plan of union of 1801, the Synod of the Western Reserve is, and is hereby declared to be, no longer a part of the Presbyterian Church in the United States.
This resolution was opposed by Messrs. Jessup, M’Auley, Cleaveland and Peters. It was supported by Messrs. Baxter, Plumer, Junkin, Ewing and Anderson. The debate occupied the attention of the house the greater part of the time from Tuesday morning, until the close of the session on Thursday morning, when the question was put and decided in the affirmative—yeas 132, nays, 105.
The opponents of the resolution argued thus. 1. This measure is professedly based on the assumption of the unconstitutionality of the plan of union. We deny, however, that the plan is unconstitutional, because no provision of the constitution was violated.* We admit it was not purely presbyterial in its character. And that the plan itself professes. It was, what it professes to be, neither more nor less, a scheme to promote union and harmony and piety among a class of inhabitants who were gathered together from different quarters, and with different views of Church government. But we are now thrown upon such an age of new light, as to be told that a plan to promote piety and harmony is beyond the powers of our Presbyterian constitution. If this plan is unconstitutional, because it was not submitted to the presbyteries, then the acts to establish the Princeton Seminary, and your Boards of Missions and Education are also unconstitutional. There is not a particle of provision in your constitution for these acts, and they were never sent down to the presbyteries for approval. If there should come a change in the balance of power in this Assembly, and we believe it will come, you are preparing a fine weapon to be used by your opposers; one which these hawk-eyed Yankees, it is to be feared, will use in their turn when they have the power. They will take your hated trio, the Seminary and the two Boards, and lay them on the block, and by a single fall of your patent, cut off the three heads at a single blow. And, if they ever do it, they will plead the precedent you are now about to set, as a full apology for such a stretch of power. Again, if the plan of union is unconstitutional, because not sent down to the presbyteries, the adoption of the Scotch Seceder churches was unconstitutional, for that was not sent down, and that act is both ipso facto void, and all that has been done under it, is void ab initio, and they are not in the Presbyterian Church.