church. But granting this-and I do not see how it can well be denied the measures consequent upon the dissolution of this "Plan of Union," by the Assembly of 1837, seem to have been harsh, abrupt, and revolutionary. Time should have been allowed for the churches affected by it to adopt the Presbyterian polity in its whole extent, if they had a mind to do so, before having recourse to so severe a measure. It is obvious, in the second place, that the Presbyterian Church from the first, or nearly so, was composed of diverse elements, which could not be easily assimilated. This diversity had been increasing every year, especially within the last half century. Look at the different races that from time to time have entered into the composition of the Presbyterian Church. A large proportion of its ministers, on the one hand, are either from Presbyterian churches in Scotland and Ireland, or are descended from Scotch and Irish Presbyterians, and these naturally feel much attached to the Westminster Confession of Faith, and to the catechisms and form of government with which they have been familiar from their childhood. Another large proportion of its ministers are, on the other hand, from New England, where they received all their early impressions from the Congregational churches; so that, however much they may have respected the Presbyterian Church on entering it, and however that respect may have increased since, they can not, from the nature of things, feel as much attachment to all the details of its doctrines and government as others who, if I may so speak, were born Presbyterians. Hence the former have been more readily disposed to be satisfied with a general conformity with its doctrines and government. This led to a variation, if not in doctrines, at least in statements of doctrine, perfectly tolerable in Congregational churches, where extended creeds are unknown; and to less strictness in ecclesiastical administration: both of which were incompatible with the precision of a Church whose standards are so full on every point, and with a discipline the rules of which are laid down with so much minuteness. In the third place, the doctrinal difference lay more in philosophy than in any thing else. It originated in the attempt, not at all improper in itself, to reply to the objections which the enemies of Calvinism have ever made to its distinctive features, so repugnant to the natural heart. In these explanations of certain points, views were expressed which were deemed at variance with the doctrines of man's depravity, election, efficacious grace, etc., as they had usually been held. Nor do I think it is to be denied that some of these speculations were pushed too far, and expressed in a manner calculated to excite alarm. There was, in some cases, a needless departure from the usual theological phraseology, and this excited concern and suspicion, even when at bottom there was no real diversity of doctrine. On the other hand, a proper disposition was not always shown to estimate unessential shades of opinion, and even of doctrine, at their just value; and consequences, even when denied on one side, were too strenuously alleged on the other. Thus were differences in some cases magnified, until what was philosophical in the explanation of a doctrine, and did not change the doctrine itself, was thought subversive of it, and fraught, of course, with imminent danger to the cause of truth. In the fourth place, as to the mode of conducting the benevolent undertakings of the Church, whether by boards appointed by the General Assembly or through voluntary societies (and this, after all, was the question that helped most to produce the division), it seems clear that the brethren and churches that preferred the former of these methods ought at once to have been allowed that preference, and that it was a mistake to attempt to shut them up to the support of what they did not think the safest or most scriptural modes of promoting the extension of the Messiah's kingdom at home and abroad. Faults, in short, there were on both sides, and, as happens so often in such cases, there was not a little of man, in a matter where nothing should have been allowed to influence a single decision but a regard for the glory of God and the interests of His Church. But the division has taken place, and whatever of strife or agitation attended it is passing away. A better spirit is unquestionably prevailing, and these two powerful bodies are engaged in the only rivalry worthy of them—that of striving which shall do most for the cause of Christ throughout the world. In this each of them is now free to adopt the method it may think best. The Old School, as they are called, have their own boards of missions, domestic and foreign; of education, of publication, and of Church-extension. The New School combine their efforts with the Congregationalists of New England, and some other and smaller denominations, in supporting the American Home Missionary Society and the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. They have now, however, their own Boards of Publication and Church-extension. Both zealously support the American Bible, Tract, and Seamen's Societies, and others of a like general kind. In fact, the unwieldy bulk to which the Presbyterian Church had grown, as well as the coexistence in it of two great elements, too dissimilar to admit of harmonious action, had long made it evident to many that it must be divided; and the division that has taken place is about as fortunate a one as well could have occurred. Although it must be referred, in a considerable degree, to sectional, doctrinal, and economical questions, yet none of these have in all cases determined the present position of the parties concerned. Thus, in the New School Church we find Scotch and Irish ministers, and the descendants of emigrants from Scotland and Ireland, while New England men may be found in the Old. In the former there are men who hold the old views of Calvinistic doctrine; in the latter, there are some who hold the New England modifications of those views. Finally, the New School is not without adherents who prefer ecclesiastical boards for benevolent operations, while the Old School has some who remain attached to voluntary societies. The division, however, coincides more, if I may use the expression, with the natural line of demarcation, in the last-named particular, than in the others, and for a reason already mentioned. The relative proportions of the two bodies will appear from the following statement. In May last (1855), the Old School had under its care, 30 Synods, 148 Presbyteries, 3,079 Churches, 2,261 Ordained Ministers, 237 Licentiates, 435 Candidates,* 231,404 Communicants reported. At the same date, according to their minutes, the New School had under their care, 24 Synods, 111 Licentiates, 238 Candidates, 143,029 Communicants reported. Thus it appears that the two together, and in almost all respects they may be considered as one body, have 4,738 Churches, 3,828 Ordained Ministers, 1,021 Licentiates and Candidates, 374,433 Communicants. Regarding them as one whole, it were difficult to find in any part of Christendom a branch of the kingdom of Christ more distinguished than these Churches for general learning, zeal, enterprise, * That is, students of theology who have not yet been licensed to preach. liberality, and soundness in all essential doctrine. Their ministers present a body of three thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight men, almost without exception liberally educated, who, after all their debates, and their final separation, are more thoroughly sound Calvinists in point of doctrine than any equally numerous ministry to be found in any other country. The question is often asked, Whether they will ever unite again? That is by no means improbable; but whether they do or not seems to me of little consequence. In their separate state they will accomplish more than if united. There will soon be, indeed there is now, the most perfect intercourse between the churches and pastors. The energies of both find free and ample scope, which was never the case before with either, but particularly with the Old School, who never felt at ease, or secure as to the future. In conclusion, let me add, that the General Assembly of the New School, in its session in May, 1840, proposed to the presbyteries under its care certain important changes in its constitution, which were adopted. One was, that the General Assembly shall be held triennially instead of annually. Another was, that all appeals from the decisions of a Church Session shall not, in the case of lay-members, be carried beyond the Presbytery, or in the case of ministers, beyond the Synod. By these modifications they made the business of their General Assembly much more simple and easy, and gave more time to that body to deliberate on measures for the promotion of the best interests of the Church. But they have returned to annual General Assemblies, the triennial plan not having worked well. CHAPTER VI. THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH. THIS large and influential body holds the doctrinal opinions of the Wesleyan Methodists of England, and its ecclesiastical economy is, in all important points, identical with theirs. It took its rise in 1766, when a Mr. Philip Embury, who had been a local preacher in some of Mr. Wesley's societies in the north of Ireland, and had come over to America with a few other pious persons of the same connection, began to hold meetings for exhortation and prayer in his own house at New York. A considerable society was gradually formed in that city, which at that time, it would appear, could count but a small number, comparatively, of living and zealous Christians among its inhabitants. In a few months it was found nccessary to fit up a large hired room as a place of worship, and the congregation was further augmented by the preaching of a Captain Webb of the British army, who, having been converted under the preaching of Mr. Wesley in England, and being now stationed at Albany, paid frequent visits to the little flock at New York. It was not long, however, before similar meetings began to bę held in several places on Long Island, in Philadelphia, and at other points. In 1768, a large place of worship was erected in New York, being the first Methodist church ever built in the United States. Next year, Mr. Wesley being requested to send over two of his preachers, Messrs. Richard Boardman and Joseph Pillmore came to New York, and about the same time, Mr. Robert Strawbridge, another local preacher from Ireland, came over and settled in Frederic county, Maryland, where he held meetings at his own house, and at the houses of other pious persons in the neighborhood. This extension of the Methodists into the South was further promoted by a visit from Mr. Pillmore into Virginia and North Carolina. Pressing representations of the need of help having been made to Mr. Wesley, Mr. Francis Asbury and Mr. Richard Wright were sent over from England in 1771, and under the labors, particularly, of the former, the work went on increasing, year after year, until the commencement of the Revolution. That event greatly retarded the progress of Methodism in some places, not only by the ever untowardly influence of present war on such undertakings, but also by the suspicions attached by the revolutionists to Mr. Asbury, and several of his fellow-preachers, as being native Englishmen, who had been too short a period in the country to have its interests truly at heart. At length, with peace came independence, and thus, greatly to the encouragement of Mr. Asbury and his fellow-laborers, a wide and ef fectual door for the preaching of the Gospel was opened to them. Hitherto this attempt to revive true godliness had been confined en-. tirely to laymen of the Episcopal Church, and with it their efforts are more connected than with any other, inasmuch as none of them had at first any intention of separating from its communion. But worthy ministers of that church being hard to be found in some places, while none were to be had at all in others, both before the Revolution broke out and during its progress, Mr. Wesley was urged to send over ordained ministers, who might administer the ordinances to his followers. To this he was greatly opposed, at first, but when the Revolution was over, considering that, from the change of circumstances, he might now lawfully do what he had refused doing |