129

TUESDAY AFTERNOON-4 O'CLOCK.

MR. HUBBELL'S OPENING.

Mr. Hubbell opened the case for the Respondents, as follows:

May it please the Court-Gentlemen of the Jury-You have been engaged nearly a week, in listening to a series of attacks, (so to speak,) made by the witnesses, and the counsel of the Relators, upon the party which I and my colleagues have the honour to represent; and we have been compelled, by the decorum of the court, to sit and silently endure it. I cannot flatter myself, that these attacks have made no impression prejudicial to my clients. You would be more or less than human, had they not. I only ask you now, to give me your undivided attention, while I shall endeavour to obliterate these impressions, by stating succinctly, the true history of this controversy. I engage to satisfy every candid mind, of the purity of my clients' motives, and of the justice and legality of their proceedings.

In order properly to preface our defence, it will be necessary to analyze the case made, or attempted to be made by the Relators.

It seems to have divided itself into two heads of charge or inquiry. First, The Acts of the General Assembly of 1837, called by our adversaries, affectedly and ex industria "The acts of excision," but which, according to a fairer nomenclature should be called "declarations of disconnection or disowning acts," for by these acts, certain Synods were simply pronounced to be no part of our church. Second, The process of organization of the General Assembly in 1838, by which our adversaries assert, that they have possessed themselves of the sceptre, and by which they claim to be the true succession.

As regards the first of these points, the Relators, (as far as I can gather their meaning,) consider it merely ancillary to the second, and indeed, his Honour only admitted testimony on this first point, as explanatory of that adduced, or to be adduced, on the second. In other words, the Relators have attempted to show, that certain commissioners to the General Assembly of 1838, were excluded from their seats, in furtherance of certain acts of the General Assembly of 1837, and assuming the infirmity of those acts, to deduce from thence the invalidity of this exclusion in 1838. This distinction must be carefully observed, as I shall presently demonstrate to you, that the Relators are compelled, by the necessity of their own case, to admit, that notwithstanding those acts of alleged dismemberment passed by the General Assembly of 1837, that Assembly retained its constitutional, unimpaired existence, up to the last moment of its

session.

As regards the Relators' second point, it is also to be observed, that they do not contend that the exclusion by the clerks, from the General Assembly of 1838, of the delegates, from the Presbyteries in the four Synods, violates the organization of 1838. They apparently admit that

the Assembly of 1838, like that of 1837, might have existed or lived, without the vivifying presence of those delegates. They merely contend that the exclusion was unlawful, and seek in its unlawfulness a justification for certain ulterior operations, which they now declare to have been a removal of the offending officers, but which were, as we shall show, adopted by them with a different view and purpose.

They contend that the General Assembly had a right to remove the clerks who excluded these delegates and the Moderator, who, as they assert, refused to allow the Assembly to correct the misconduct of the clerks in this particular; and although they admit that a clear majority of the members approved the conduct of the clerks and the Moderator, yet, as this majority sat indignantly silent, when Mr. Cleaveland made a disorderly motion, if motion it may be called, and treated it as a tumult and an outrage, they must have been considered to have voted affirmatively. In other words, that this was a vote of the house, setting up an opposing organization, and committing suicide upon its own.

6

When their case is divested of all extrinsic circumstances, it resolves itself into this one narrow, and truly absurd position, viz. "That the majority, when they meant No,' and declared their meaning in every possible mode, but the use of that monosyllable, must be construed to have meant Yes.'" As we conceive, all the other evidence, by which you have been wearied, is foreign to this cause; and this will be apparent, when you reflect that the power of the Assembly to remove its officers, if it exists at all, is not confined to the exigency of their misconduct, but may be exercised at the pleasure of the Assembly, with or without reason, "stat pro ratione voluntas." Our adversaries maintain that the Assembly did remove these officers: if it did, why then have days been wasted in the attempt to prove that they were deserving of removal?

They may perhaps mean to say, "These officers committed a wrong, and a majority of the members upheld them, it was therefore licensable for the minority to practice this legerdemain, although it is manifest it could only have succeeded by surprise, misconception, and error."

If the members from the disowned Synods have been injured, (which we deny) surely there was some method, by which they and their favourers might have brought this question of their right to seats in the Assembly, before the tribunals of the country, without the indecorous proceedings which took place in 1838, and without destroying the rights of those opposed to them. But, as we fear, they have been governed by another spirit, (engendered no doubt by honest but mistaken motives) and have sought to make a profit from this supposed injury. Not content with regaining their own rights, they seek to usurp those of others.

Such, gentlemen is the case of the relators. We have endeavoured to restrict them to what we consider the true issue formed by the pleadings. His Honour, however, has not sustained these endeavours, and we have submitted, as we hope with grace, to his decision, although it entails upon us the necessity of being as discursive as the relators have been.

This unhappy Church has been for years a house divided against itself. Its dismemberment might therefore have been predicted long before the catastrophe occurred. This division is not a mere logomachy, or war of words, as the counsel for the relators has asserted, but a wide variance in

Tenets so dissimilar, that like liquids of different gravity and consistency, they cannot be commingled. It is a substantial difference on some of the most affecting subjects of human consideration.

Our party are for a strict adherence to the doctrinal standards of the Church. Their party accept them only for substance of doctrine. They cannot and do not dispute our Presbyterianism, but theirs is of a more equivocal character, though they decline from the standards in different degrees of departure. Some of them are nearly right, others are widely wrong.

Our doctrines are taught at the Seminary of Princeton, in all their purity. That Institution has, from its origin, been the principal seat of orthodoxy. There it is taught with fidelity, defended with zeal, and adorned with learning. The other party have their seminaries, where their peculiar views are inculcated, and from whence they are diffused with indefatigable diligence.

Permit me to point out a few fundamental differences of tenet.

One principally to be marked, for it is the root of many others, is an abstract opinion in regard to theology itself. We maintain that it emanated from the Almighty, in his revelations, in a state of entire perfection. That it sprung from the mind of the Deity in its full-developed, adult proportions, and knew no infancy, or youth. Our adversaries, on the contrary, maintain that theology is an advancing, improvable science. That the old formularies of the Christian faith are too antiquated for this enlightened age!

Another subject of difference is the effect of Adam's sin, or fall, upon his posterity. Our party maintain that the sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity that it is made their sin. We subject our mere human reason to the unequivocal teachings of holy writ, and for an explanation humbly wait the great teacher Death. Our adversaries on the contrary maintain that the sin of Adam is not imputed to his posterity, and made their sin, but, that by Adam's fall, it is made absolutely certain and necessary (in some incomprehensible manner) that each and all his posterity will sin.

Another subject of difference is one which no human being, whether Philosopher, or Christian, can contemplate with indifference. It is the power of the Deity over our moral nature. Our party maintain that he' is Almighty, not only over the physical, but the moral constitution of man, and that by a single act of his will he can make his creature good, how deeply soever that creature may be immersed in depravity and crime. The other party have sought to limit Omnipotence, and say, "Thus far shalt thou go but no farther." They maintain that a man may be bad against the will of the Deity, and the only means by which he can change him is by moral suasion; or by the inciting exhibition of motives.

Another great subject of difference is the nature of the sacrifice upon Calvary the true understanding of the Atonement, and the effect of the sufferings of Christ. We maintain that it was a satisfaction of the violated. law; a tribute to Divine justice, by which a righteous God was propitiated. That Christ became our substitute, and underwent death for us. That the merits of Christ, his obedience, in the fulfilment of the law by his voluntary death, is imputed to our race through faith; that is to the believers of our race, in the same manner that the sin of Adam was imputed to us.

On the other hand, our adversaries deny the doctrine of imputation, and contend, that he was always a placable God, and ready to bestow pardon as soon as govermental justice would permit. They deny that his law required an infinite victim, or that Christ yielded himself as such a victim, or bore the penalty of the law. They maintain that justification is merely pardon, and the condition, faith.

Another great topic of difference is the subject of regeneration or conversion, or the precise process or plan by which the heart of the sinner is changed. We maintain that it is merely an act of Omnipotence. That the sinner has no ability of his own to concur in that work; that his change is an act of God's grace, and that it may be instantaneous. They, on the contrary, maintain, that since the atonement of Christ, the sinner is competent to his own regeneration, and that the process is gradual.

Such, gentlemen, are the summa vestiga, or general outlines of this great dispute which has caused the separation of this Church. A cordial re-union is impossible. A separation has been effected and should be made permanent for the sake of peace and religion. This is that great dispute which has abrupted friendships, divided families, and engendered strifes. It is in your power to rebuke this heaving tumult of the passions, and bid them be tranquil for ever!

Such, gentlemen, was the state of the parties, and such the distractions of this Church, when the session of 1837 commenced. It was well known throughout the land, that a great struggle would occur at this session. The parties, therefore, put forth their strength at the election, and the decided majority of the Old-school party on the floor of this Assembly, leaves no doubt that they were and are the predominant party in this Church; and that the principles of theology, which they acknowledge, are the true tenets, in the opinion of a majority of true worshippers in this Church, and that the doctrines of their adversaries are heretical. Nor was this majority accidental, for it was even more decided in the Assembly of 1838, when, the relators will admit, every nerve had been strained by both parties, to acquire the mastery of numbers.

I say that a great struggle was anticipated. For it was known that two systems of theology existed in the Church, and both could not be permitted to be taught in an institution expressly formed to preserve uniformity of creed. This Church having adopted a standard of faith or a system of holy truths, it admits no double construction of them. They can have but one meaning, and if there be doubt as to what that meaning may be, the constitution of the Church refers that doubt to its great council, which has power authoritatively to settle that doubt, and to declare what the Church shall teach as the true construction of the standards. Form of Government, Chap. XII. Sect. 5. "To the General Assembly belongs the power of deciding in all controversies respecting doctrine and discipline; of reproving, warning, or bearing testimony against error in doctrine."

From the decision of this great council there is no appeal, and when the General Assembly declares a doctrine heretical, it must no longer be heard in a Presbyterian church. Its maintainers must either conform to this decision, or go elsewhere and form new associations; of which they may, at their pleasure, make what are heresies when compared with our standards, the orthodoxal canons. This decision of the General Assem

bly, is the decision of the majority of that Assembly, and hence it results, (however harsh it may seem,) that the construction which the majority put upon the standards is orthodoxy, and that of the minority is heresy. This power is necessary to, and inherent in every Church establishment, or it ceases to be a Church, call it what you please. This decision may be given either in the process of a judicial trial, and be the sentence upon an individual heretic, or it may be an abstract declaration of the Assembly, or "bearing of testimony" against heretical doctrines.

In whatever form this declaration of the Assembly may be given against a particular opinion, that opinion is heresy and must be abandoned by the faithful. The mal-contents have no alternative but submission or secession.

This uniformity of opinion is neither impracticable nor difficult. This Church itself existed nearly half a century, in harmonious and halcyon. repose. The two parties which now distract it are, (each being contemplated by itself) of homogeneous materials, and capable of forming a peaceful Church.

That nothing might be left undone which Christian charity seemed to require, upon a proposition emanating from a member of our party, a committee was appointed, consisting of five members from each party, for the purpose of negotiating an amicable separation. The effort failed by the fault of our adversaries, for although they admitted that "the experience of many years has proved that this body is too large to insure the purposes contemplated by the Constitution," and that "in the extension of the Church, over so great a territory, embracing such a variety of people, difference of view in relation to important points of Church policy and action, as well as theological opinion, are found to exist," and that "a division will be of vital importance to the best interests of the Redeemer's kingdom"-I cite their language, Minutes of 1837, page 432-yet they imposed one condition, to which no true lover of the Church could submit: viz. that the Church should be destroyed, and two new Churches created from its fragments! We allowed them their own terms in regard to their share in the property of the Church, nay, had they asked it all, it would have been given to them, but as the majority, as the possessors and representatives of all the old seats of Presbyterianism, as the party who confessedly and rigidly adhered to her standards, we asked to be allowed. to maintain the succession of our fathers! Our adversaries would only grant us peace, upon the condition, that we should destroy all for which we had hitherto been contending!

It will now be my duty to explain to you the real character of the much abused transactions of 1837, by a studied misnomer, called, the acts of excision, viz. the resolution of the Assembly of that year, declaring the Synods of the Western Reserve, Utica, Geneva, and Genesee, to be no part of the Presbyterian Church.

When the great controversy, which I have described, was at its height, attention was drawn to an imposthume which had long afflicted the church, but which, being filmed over and disguised, had, hitherto, escaped detection. I mean New England Congregationalism, which had insidiously undermined the Presbyterian constitution, and was the fatal source of all these errors in doctrine which afflicted our Church.

The New-school party is emphatically a New England party, it being