No. 2.

Abrogation of the plan of union.

In the digest of the Assembly's acts, on pages 297-299 is printed the famous plan of union, whose abrogation by the last assembly, had so prominent a place in its acts, and will undoubtedly exert so great an influence on the future destinies of the Presbyterian church in the United States. We print the plan itself, that our observations on it may be more simple and intelligible.

Plan of Union between Presbyterians and Congregationalists in the new settlements adopted in 1801.

The report of a committee appointed to consider and digest a plan of government for the churches in the new settlements, was taken up and considered, and after mature deliberation on the same, approved, as follows:

Regulations adopted by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church in America, and by the General Association of the State of Connecticut, (provided said Association agree to them,) with a view to prevent alienation and promote union and harmony, in those new settlements which are composed of inhabitants from these bodies.

1st. It is strictly enjoined on all their missionaries to the new settlements, to endeavour by all proper means to promote mutual forbearance and accommodation between those inhabitants of the new settlements who hold the Presbyterian and those who hold the Congregational form of church government.

2nd. If in the new settlements, any church of the Congregational order shall settle a minister of the Presbyterian order, that church, may if they choose, still conduct their discipline according to congregational principles, settling their difficulties among themselves or by a council mutually agreed upon for that purpose. But if any difficulty shall exist between the minister and the church or any member of it, it shall be referred to the Presbytery to which the minister shall belong, provided both parties agree to it; if not, to a council of an equal number of Presbyterians and Congregationalists agreed upon by both parties.

3d. If a Presbyterian church shall settle a minister of congregational principles, that church may still conduct their discipline according to Presbyterian principles; excepting that if a difficulty arise between him and his church, or any member of it, the cause shall be tried by the association, to which the said minister shall belong, provided both parties agree to it; otherwise by a council, one half Congregationalists and the other half Presbyterians, mutually agreed on by the parties.

4th. If any congregation consists partly of those who hold the congregational form of discipline, and partly of those who hold the Presbyterian form; we recommend to both parties, that this be no

obstruction to their uniting in one church and settling a minister; and that in this case, the church choose a standing committee, from the communicants of said church, whose business it shall be, to call to account every member of the church, who shall conduct himself inconsistently with the laws of Christianity, and to give judgment on such conduct; and if the person condemned by their judgment be a Presbyterian, he shall have liberty to appeal to the Presbytery; if a Congregationalist, he shall have liberty to appeal to the body of the male communicants of the church; in the former case the determination of the Presbytery shall be final, unless the Church consent to a further appeal to the Synod, or to the General Assembly; and in the latter case, if the party condemned shall wish for a trial by mutual council, the cause shall be referred to such council. And provided the said standing committee of any church shall depute one of themselves to attend the Presbytery, he may have the same right to sit and act in the Presbytery, as a ruling elder of the Pres byterian Church.

On motion, Resolved, That an attested copy of the above plan bê made by the Stated Clerk, and put into the hands of the delegates of this Assembly to the General Association; to be by them laid before that body for their consideration; and that if it should be approv ed by them it go into immediate operation.--Vol. I. p. 261, 262.

SECT. 6. Adopted by the Association.

The Delegates to the last General Association of Connecticut, reported that they all attended the Association during the whole of their sessions and were received and treated with great cordiality and friendship:

That the regulations submitted by the last Assembly respecting the establishment of churches in the frontiers, consisting of mem bers partly of the Presbyterian and partly of the Congregational denomination, were unanimously adopted by the Association.-Vol. p. 276.

1.

One of the large business committees of the General Assembly of 1837 submitted a report, of which the following is a portion:

In regard to the relation existing between the Presbyterian, and Cons gregational churches; the committee recommend the adoption of the following resolutions, viz:

1. That between these two branches of the American church, there ought, in the judgment of this Assembly to be maintained sentiments of mutual respect and esteem, and for that purpose no reasonable efforts should be omitted to preserve a perfectly good understanding between those branches of the church of Christ.

2. That it is expedient to continue the plan of friendly inter course between this Church and the Congregational churches of New England, as it now exists.

3. But as the "plan of union" adopted for the new settlements in 1801, was originally an unconstitutional act on the part of the Assembly, these important standing rules having never been submit ted to the Presbyteries, and as they were totally destitute of author

ity as proceeding from the General Association of Connecticut, which is invested with no power to legislate in such cases, and especially to enact laws to regulate churches not within her limits; and as much confusion and irregularity have arisen from the unnatural and unconstitutional system of union, therefore it is

Resolved, That the act of Assembly of 1801, entitled "A Plan of Union," be and the same is hereby abrogated.-(See Digest. pp. 297-299.)

4. That our delegates to the bodies representing the Congregational churches, be instructed to explain to them the reasonableness and even necessity of the foregoing measure.

On the 23d of May these 'resolutions were adopted by a vote of 143 to 110. It is the object of this paper to illustrate the justice, propriety and necessity of this vote."

They who will consider the past history of the Presbyterian and Congregational churches in this country, will see abundant reason for the close sympathy which has always united them to each other-and the cordial good understanding which has so long existed between them. Our sincere desire is, that our congregational brethren may not allow themselves to be hurried into measures in the present crisis, which shall have any tendency to break up this state of things. And that the sound Presbyterians of the present day, are actuated by no unfriendly feelings towards Congregationalism in itself considered-nor towards those who prefer that system, is abundantly manifest from the resolutions printed above. Let each party manage its own affairs in its own way; and let the other have the delicacy, to mind only its own affairs. And when such Congregationalists as those at New Haven, and those of the Evangelist, become hot partisans of an erroneous and evil spirited minority in our church, let them be discountenanced by all pious men in their sect, who do not wish to inflame the whole land by a controversy on the radical principles of the two denominations. Presbyterianism seeks no controversy with any branch of the true church of God: but it should be borne in mind, that she has and can have no cause on her own account, to fear any.

The Taylorite Congregationalists, and the New School Presbyterians are very bold in declaring themselves the true descendants of the Puritans. "We are Smithfield men❞—was the repeated and most shameless boast of Dr. Peters and Dr. Breman-in the last Assembly. "A Puritan therefore (says Daniel Neal; History of the Puritans, vol. 1. p. vii, of the preface, to the London edition of 1822)-a Puritan therefore was a man of severe morals, a Calvinist in doctrine, a non-conformist to the ceremonies and discipline of the church, though they did not totally separate from it." Now to which part of this description may the two classes we have named above honestly pretend? Are they men of "severe morals?" Yes; if it be so, to swear to a creed-which one does not believe. Yes; if it be so, to enter a church only to revolutionise it, and at the same moment swear to study its unity, purity and peace.-Are they "Calvinists?" Yes; if it be so to deny, revile, and studiously characature some of the fundamental truths af Calvinism-and zealously contend for opposite and irreconciliable errors.-Are they "non-conformists" through conscience? Yes; if he is a non-conformist

through conscience-who conforms for convenience, from ambition -or through carnal self-seeking to one system, when he so decidedly prefers another-that even a bastard one, between the two, is precious as life, compared with the one to which he immorally conforms. When men sacrifice principle-there is little wonder if they give up sense and knowledge also.

The truth is however, that the Congregational denomination in this country, was much more really the descendants of the Puritans -than their Independent brethren in England; and therefore they were perhaps as nearly a kin to Presbyterianism as to Independency. The church spoken of in the sentence above extracted from Neal -was the established Episcopal church of England; and the nonconformist party, was that which became the Presbyterian body of England, after the formation of the Westminster standards; was the same which carried England almost in solid phalanx for the league and covenant; the same which amidst the fiery trials which attended them before the rise of the English commonwealth, sent out many of those colonies, and ministers-who laid the foundation of the New England churches. These churches were indeed Puritannon-conformists, Calvinistic, and severely moral. Their principles, in all essential respects, and their creed-almost in terms-were those that formed the basis of the Westminster standards. Hence, while the English independents to the present hour, are upon the mere and absolute Brownist or pure Congregational foundation, and universally reject all creeds-and authority above a church: the so called Congregationalist churches of this country-and especially those in Connecticut, (with whom the plan we are now discussing was formed)-became united under systems widely departing from the English model of the present day-and not only adhered to creeds, and for a long time to perfectly sound ones-but use them until now, with a profuseness unparalelled in the history of the church.

Whilst therefore many principles were common to us and the churches of New England, and our creed almost identical, it is not wonderful that good men in both churches, sought for closer union

and loved to get as near together as possible. In this spirit, the plan of union was formed; and we are inclined to think that if it had been executed in its own true intention—and with fidelity on the other side, it might possibly have continued for an indefinite period. But as we shall show the plan itself, at first not consistent with the real principles of either party--was speedily and entirely perverted in practice. The Congregational churches on their part, tended to change in two most important respects, either of which would have been fatal to the plan of union. They have gradually departed from the doctrines of their ancestors; and they have gradually inclined their systems more and more towards independency; in both respects, becoming more and more unlike to us, and us to them. A plan, which was hard to manage at the best,-became intolerable under these perversions;-and left the injured party no alternative but its abrogation. But let us go a little into detail.

1. It is perfectly clear to our minds on the mere perusal of the plan itself that it was meant only for new settlements, and weak churches there. It makes provision only for such. Therefore the

moment frontier settlements became thickly peopled-and churches permanently established, the plan should have ceased to operate in that region; and the churches there formed, become fully Presbyterian or fully Congregational. As long as new and frontier settlements existed, the plan would exist there. But it was never intended to be constant, in such a way as to erect a new sect, bastard between the two parents-and finally capable of destroying both.

2. It is equally evident that the plan never contemplated the formation of Synods out of churches absolutely heterogenious in at least four respects, set forth in the paper itself; still less was it ever supposed that these motley churches should be represented in the General Assembly by persons neither ministers nor elders; and least of all could it be imagined from the examination of the plan, that it could ever be made the ground of a system of organization, by means of which persons who never adopted our standards, and churches which did not believe them, should absolutely hold the balance of power in our entire body, and so use that influence as to threaten a total revolution in the doctrine and discipline of the church.

3. There is no evidence at all, that where a Presbyterian minister served a Congregational church, this should justify that church in calling itself Presbyterian, and sending some private person as an elder to our church courts; nor that when a Congregational minister served a Presbyterian church, that this should justify him in calling himself a Presbyterian and sitting in our tribunals: nor when a church consisted partly of Presbyterians and partly of Congregationalists, that any member of it should have the rights and privileges of a ruling elder, in all cases merely, because he was a standing committee man, None of these things were ever intended. Yet they were all done to the ruin of both Presbyterian and Congregational discipline and order.

We assert therefore that the plan itself was never executed according to its own obvious meaning; that the matters in which it was perverted and misapplied were entirely contrary to the principles and constitution of our church; and that the influence thus produced in our body illegally and contrary to the plan itself-was constantly evil and constantly increasing. But the plan itself in its own real and obvious intent was originally contrary to the constitution of the Presbyterian church; and even if it had been faithfully executed from the beginning, it never was and never could have been compatable with our standards. Moreover, the General Association of the state of Connecticut never had any, the slightest power to execute on its part, such a plan, in any of its parts. For:

1. Every Presbyterian minister has the right to be tried by his own presbytery, when any difficulty exists between him and his church, or any member thereof; and this right is most explicitly secured by our standards. But the second article of the plan, deprives him of this right, and directs such cases to be referred to a certain mixed commission, utterly unknown to our system.

2. Every private member of our churches, has the same right to have all his church difficulties examined by his session, as our ministers have to bring theirs before the Presbyteries. But the third