Old School/New School Reunion In The South: The Theological Compromise Of 1864

By S. Donald Fortson III

[Donald Fortson is Assistant Professor of Church History and Practical Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, N.C.]

Any retelling of the story of nineteenth-century Southern Presbyterianism[1] must highlight the long controversy over domestic slavery and the journey to emancipation. The African question seemed to lie just below the surface of every major crisis Presbyterians in the South faced before, during, and after the War Between the States. Even after the Old School/New School schism of 1837–38, neither party could fully escape the consuming question. The New School would become stridently anti-slavery, while the Old School attempted to avoid the controversy. For both branches of the Presbyterian Church it was a festering sore that would eventually poison the unity of the church. The second half of the nineteenth century would witness American Presbyterians divided North and South rather than Old School and New School.

I. The New School South

Having endured a relentless “abolition spirit” in the New School body for many years, the southern New School men finally abandoned the New School Assembly to form their own denomination. Southern delegates to the 1857 New School General Assembly at Cleveland called for a new Assembly to be formed in the “Address of Protest” against the New School body. The address protested the “political agitation” and “ultra abolitionist sentiments” in the New School that were advocating discipline for slaveholding. The southern New School men countered that “there is not the most remote allusion to slave-holding in our standards.” Therefore, this was a “palpable violation of the spirit and letter of the Constitution of the Church.” If the church disciplined slave-holders, this would be “an ecclesiastical despotism as tyrannical as that which has distinguished the Church of Rome.. .. we consider that the Assembly has so far departed from the Constitution of the Church as to render our adherence to it undesirable and impossible.”[2]

The stated goal of these protesters was to form a new ecclesiastical body “in which the agitation of the Slavery question will be unknown.” An invitation was issued to “all Constitutional Presbyterians” throughout the land to unite with them in a new organization. The unifying principles of this new denomination would be commitment to “a common basis as to doctrine and government—and an understanding that, however we may differ in our views respecting Slavery, the subject is never to be introduced into the Assembly either by Northern or Southern men.. . .”[3]

Having declared their intent to depart the New School, then came the challenging task of determining the next course of action. Some opposed an independent course and favored returning to the New School, others desired that a new church be constituted, still others expressed hope that perhaps a reunion with the Old School body should be pursued. The southern New School churches called for a Convention to be held in August of 1857 in Washington in order to decide the future of their congregations.[4]

The Washington (Richmond) convention of 1857 adopted five resolutions: 1) Presbyteries in connection with the New School were urged to withdraw. 2) No ecclesiastical discipline could be exercised apart from the Constitution of the church. 3) The General Assembly could not judge lower judicatories without constitutional process. 4) Presbyteries opposed to the agitation of slavery were urged to appoint delegates to an Assembly to meet in April 1858 in Knoxville for the purpose of organizing “The United Synod of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.” 5) The Convention delegates resolved to “adhere to and abide by the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scripture; and that we adhere to the Form of Government and Book of Discipline of said Church.”[5]

An additional resolution was adopted at Richmond which expressed a desire for the new United Synod to pursue union discussions “with our Old School brethren, could it be effected on terms acceptable on both sides.” This had been a sentiment of some southern New School men as early as the 1840s. Now many of the churches had a strong penchant to unite with the Old School rather than form a new ecclesiastical body. Those favoring the pursuit of union with the Old School believed the divisive issues of 1837–38 had subsided.[6] Nevertheless, when the resolution on potential union came to the floor of the convention there was no little debate upon the subject. Four primary concerns were raised against reunion with the Old School: the Excision Acts that must be repudiated, questions about subscription and the reexamination of ministers, doctrinal differences, and the slavery issue. Dr. Charles Read of Richmond stated that union with the Old School would be a mistake for it was only a matter of time before southern men in the Old School Assembly would be condemned for slavery just as southern New School men had experienced in their body. A chief antagonist to union was A. H. H. Boyd of Winchester, Virginia, who told the Richmond Convention that with his theological views, it would be impossible to unite with the Old School Church.[7] Despite this strong opposition, the resolution for reunion discussions was adopted.[8]

The Old School press responded to reports of this resolution in very negative terms.9 There was little interest in pursuing reunion with New School brethren. The Central Presbyterian had an observer at the Richmond Convention and reported how “incomprehensible” it was to see such doctrinal diversity among the southern New School men. Boyd tried to answer this “incomprehensible mystery” in the Presbyterian Witness by explaining the contrasting Old School and New School methods of subscribing to the Confession of Faith. Boyd stated:

The Old School insist that the Confession of Faith must be received, not merely as a whole, but as in every part the infallible truth. It is to them the Bible transcribed. They embrace it, as one of the editors has said, ‘cover and all’—not only so, they insist that it must be understood in a certain prescribed way—they give no latitude of interpretation. Hence, the ministers are usually very careful to adopt the forms of expression common among the leaders of their sect. However wide the difference may in reality be among them in their theological views, by using nearly the same phrases, they avoid the appearance of difference. The New School, on the other hand, subscribe to the Confession of Faith as their fathers before them subscribed to it. They receive it ‘as the system of doctrines contained in the Holy Scriptures’—’for substance of doctrine’ if you please. They allow a latitude of interpretation. They have no ‘Procrustean bed.’ They do not insist that every minister in the connection shall use the same forms of expression, especially in matters not essential. It is part of their creed, that while the bones and sinews of Calvinism are preserved, each minister may use whatever drapery best suits his taste, in making them presentable to the world. True, our Old School brethren cannot always see the Calvinism in the new clothes it sometimes wears; it looks suspicious to them, because it appears without the ‘blue stockings;’ but that is their fault, not ours.[10]

New School papers were also skeptical about reunion with the Old School and listed multiple reasons why reunion with the Old School would be impossible including differences in both doctrine and the manner of receiving the Confession of Faith. Dr. Boyd wrote that the “same differences exist now” as they did in 1837. The Old School and New School preached and taught differently on the atonement, original sin, and human ability. Boyd wrote, “.. . their General Assemblies continue to publish on these subjects, the same errors against which the New School have always protested.” Boyd further objected to the Old School method of subscription: “The Old School insist on all their ministers adopting the Confession, in its very letter—’cover and all’—the doctrine of non elect infants included. The New School only receive it as a general system of doctrines, acknowledging that there are some things in it, which if rigidly interpreted, they do not believe. And this, it should be remembered, was the manner of subscription among the fathers of Presbyterianism in the earliest times.” In addition to these two key issues, Boyd listed several other reasons why he believed reunion with the Old School would be a mistake. He concluded: “Love them as followers of Christ we will, but unite with them until they repent of their treatment of us, and evince a better spirit, and return to the basis of the Constitution and the teachings of the Bible, we neither can nor will, while our present views of truth, and duty, remain.”[11]

In April of 1858 The United Synod was officially organized in Knoxville. One of its first actions was the formal adoption of the Westminster Standards, Form of Government, and Book of Discipline of the Presbyterian Church. The southern New School men declared: “The United Synod do adhere to and abide by the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures.”[12] In order to stake out her ground, the new church also adopted a “Declaration of Principles” which guided the formation of their new organization. Nine principles were enumerated, the first of which dealt with how the United Synod understood subscription to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. The statement read:

In thus adopting the Westminster Confession of Faith as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures, we adopt it in the sense in which we believe the fathers of the American Presbyterian Church received it, to wit: not as requiring an agreement in sentiment with every opinion expressed in said Confession, but a belief in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, and in the doctrines which distinguish the Calvinistic system from the Pelagian, Socinian, Arminian, and other systems of Theology. This system we understand to include the following doctrines, viz: the Trinity; the Incarnation and Supreme Deity of Christ; the Fall and Original Sin; Atonement; Justification by Faith; Personal Election; Effectual Calling; Perseverance of the Saints; Eternal happiness of the righteous, and Eternal Punishment of the wicked. Whilst various modes of stating and explaining these truths may be adopted, yet when they are received according to the usual way of interpreting language, and as they have been understood by the great body of the Presbyterian Church in this country, from the period of the adoption of the Westminster Confession, in 1729, to the present day, the requisitions of the Confession of Faith are complied with, and all such persons are to be regarded as having received as their doctrinal creed this system of doctrines taught in the Holy Scriptures.[13]

It is noteworthy that each of the so-called “five points” of Calvinism would be covered under these heads of doctrine as well as the “essential truths of Christianity,” that is, orthodox views on the Trinity and Christology.

II. The Reunion Proposal of 1858

The Bills and Overtures Committee of the 1858 United Synod Assembly presented a paper on a proposed basis for reunion with the Old School. The report recommended that the United Synod appoint a committee to confer with a committee from the Old School Assembly. Again, many of the New School men were reluctant to pursue union discussions with the Old School. There was significant tension, for some felt they had a mandate from the Richmond Convention to follow through with a proposal for union; and, indeed, some of the southern New School churches were expecting this move as part of their consideration for joining the United Synod.

Dr. Boyd voiced his views that neither body was ready for a reunion. Initial reactions to the reunion idea among Old School men had been very negative, and Boyd believed that New School self respect would be compromised by overtures for union. The principles adopted by the United Synod had been his convictions for 20 years and he would not compromise them. One minister stated that if New School men were to find a home in the Old School, they must let us say that “Jesus Christ tasted death for every man.” Dr. J. D. Mitchell told the Assembly that if the other branch would accept these proposed terms there ought to be a jubilee proclaimed throughout the land. “If they will agree to receive the Confession of Faith on the plan of the Adopting Act of 1729, they will have yielded the point, the great point which had divided us so long, and we can cheerfully unite with them.”[14] Several other delegates expressed their skepticism about the venture, some suggesting that only a letter be sent rather than a committee. Despite these concerns, the United Synod proceeded to adopt the report and appointed a Committee to approach the Old School with terms for reuniting the two bodies.

The “Proposed Terms of Union” in the report declared that these terms are “indispensable to an honourable union on our part.” Article one of the proposed plan said: “We agree to unite as ecclesiastical bodies by declaring, as this Synod now does, our approval of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and Larger and Shorter Catechisms, as an orthodox and excellent system of [C]hristian doctrine—and also our adherence to the plan of Worship, government, and the Discipline contained in the Westminster Directory.”[15]

The proposed doctrinal terms reiterated the stance taken in the “Declaration of Principles.” The third article stated:

Both parties agree that it is consistent with the requirements of the Westminster Confession of Faith, to receive said Confession according to the Adopting Act of 1729, to wit: as containing all the essential truths of Christianity, and also the doctrines that distinguish the Calvinistic from the Pelagian, Socianian, and Arminian systems of Theology. We agree, likewise, in believing that this system of doctrine includes the following truths, viz., the Trinity; the Incarnation and Deity of Christ; the Fall and Original Sin; Atonement; Justification by Faith; Personal Election; Effectual Calling; Perseverance of the Saints; the Eternal Happiness of the righteous, and Eternal Punishment of the wicked.[16]

Other terms in the plan prohibited ecclesiastical judicatories from condemning or excluding other judicatories without trial; stipulated that slave-holding could not be a bar to church membership; and “in effecting this union, the Presbyteries connected with this Synod shall be united as Presbyteries, and without an examination of their ministers.. . “[17] The final article (8) of the plan, stipulated that, should the Old School not favor reunion, the United Synod delegation should propose “the establishment of a mutual correspondence in the future between us as ecclesiastical bodies.” This concluding article no doubt exposed the suspicion among many New School men that their blatantly partisan plan would indeed fail. The proposal as a whole was almost exclusively New School in orientation and, as might be suspected, was met with swift rejection by the Old School press and the Old School Assembly.[18]

C. Van Rensselaer, editor of the Old School Presbyterian Magazine, gave his readers a typical Old School response when he wrote that the New School terms would be “a virtual surrender by the Old School of principles and measures, several of which are regarded by a large portion of our body, as having been the salvation of the Presbyterian Church.” He lists several items which are “unreasonable and absurd,” one of which was “that the Adopting Act of 1729, required no more explicit reception of the Confession of Faith, than a general assent, i.e., for substance of doctrine.”[19]

A desire for reunion with the New School had been expressed by some in the southern Old School Synods of Virginia and Kentucky as early as the 1840s. The subject of reunion had reemerged in 1856 when the Old School Synod of Nashville expressed its wishes to reunite with the New School Presbytery of West Tennessee upon the basis of the reunion of the Synods of New York and Philadelphia in 1758.[20] On the whole, however, southern Old Schoolers were not yet disposed to join hands with their New School brethren. The United Synod’s overture for reunion was vehemently attacked by southern stalwarts such as Robert J. Breckinridge, Moses Hoge, and Benjamin M. Palmer. Breckinridge, at the 1858 Old School Assembly, protested the United Synod’s assertion that the Old School should retract her action against the exscinded Synods, “a thing we did considerately, and prayerfully, and which has been approved by the Church, and approved by God.” Hoge objected to appointing a Committee of Conference to meet with United Synod representatives because “they propose to us to change our views” which is “indelicate and improper.”[21]

Despite these and other objections, the Committee of Conference was appointed and met with the corresponding committee of the southern New School. Having heard the United Synod’s terms of union and reporting these back to the Old School Assembly, the Assembly then officially replied that both the “terms of union” and the “declaration of principles” adopted by the United Synod “do not form a basis for Conference.” The Old School minute further stated:

[I]t can hardly be unexpected that we decline any official conference based on terms which appear to us to involve a condemnation of ourselves.. .. The subjects upon which the whole New School body differed from us, at the period of their secession from us, and the subjects upon which the two very unequal portions of that body have recently separated from each other, are questions upon which we, as a denomination, are at peace, and with regard to the whole of which we see no occasion to revise the understood and unalterable faith of our Church, or to enter upon fruitless conferences.[22]

The minute was unanimously adopted. The Old School had no desire to become entangled with the issues a reunion with the United Synod would entail.[23]

The New School proposal had seemed rather disingenuous—could the Old School be expected to yield every principle for which she had stood? It appears the United Synod’s “Terms of Union” were more about her own self identity and ecclesiastical necessity rather than a genuine overture for union. Undoubtedly, many sincerely desired to join with the Old School; however, a unilateral pronouncement of principles before negotiations began was sure to fail. Most of the New School men knew this was a futile attempt from the beginning. Despite this inauspicious beginning, just six years later the Old School and New School in the South would consummate union. By 1861 the “peaceful” Old School ranks would be abruptly divided and reunion with fellow Southern Calvinists would become more attractive.

III. The Old School Schism of 1861

The Old School Assembly convened in May 1861 in Philadelphia with very few southern commissioners in attendance. An amiable spirit prevailed among the brethren, yet, the inevitable question had to emerge. After twelve days and much debate the moment of truth finally arrived when Dr. Gardiner Spring’s resolution, which declared the Assembly’s loyalty to the Federal Government, was approved 156 to 66.[24] Immediately a protest was entered by Dr. Charles Hodge and 57 other commissioners. The protest stated: “The General Assembly in thus deciding a political question, and in making that decision practically a condition of membership to the Church, has, in our judgment, violated the Constitution of the Church, and usurped the prerogative of its Divine Master.”[25] The protest was rebuffed and Southern Presbyterians, believing they had been unconstitutionally exscinded by the Assembly, began to withdraw in order to form a new and independent Assembly. Southern indignation was expressed by each Synod as it formally withdrew from the Old School Assembly over the next few months.[26] To have remained a part of the Northern Assembly would have been considered treason.[27]

All presbyteries that withdrew from the Old School north were invited to Augusta, Georgia, to participate in the organization of a new Assembly. One of the early acts of the new organization was to seek the unity of all Presbyterian and Reformed bodies in the South. At the Augusta Assembly, the Committee on Foreign Correspondence offered a report which recommended that the Southern Church “earnestly endeavor to draw closer the bonds of Christian intercourse and communion between all Churches of like faith and order in the Confederate States of America.” Citing Christ’s words, “that they all may be one,” the committee acknowledged that they were “.. . impelled by a sincere desire to meet the full measure of responsibility which devolves upon us, as a branch of Christ’s visible Church, in the accomplishment of this vastly important petition.. . .” The report was adopted, and to accomplish its end the Assembly commissioned delegates to the Associate Reformed Synod of the South, the United Synod of the Presbyterian Church, the General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, the Independent Presbyterian Church, and the German Reformed Synod. The delegates were given “full power and authority to arrange and adopt articles of permanent intercourse and correspondence, which, however, shall be submitted to the Assembly for its ratification or rejection.”[28] A new spirit of fraternity overcame these southerners who had formerly disavowed associations with Arminian Cumberland Presbyterians, unorthodox Independent Presbyterians, and the New School United Synod. Undoubtedly the war had altered perspectives on the meaning of Christian unity.

IV The Reunion Spirit

A more auspicious ecclesiastical and political context in the early 1860s set the stage for the eventual union of the Old School and New School in the Confederate States of America. The beginning of the War Between the States and the Old School schism in the year 1861 fostered a new reunion spirit. In several areas there had always been comradery between these southern men as far back as the original division of 1837–38.[29] Official movement toward reunion in the South would originate with the Old School body in 1863.

A fraternal spirit had been fostered toward the New School in the Old School Synod of Virginia as early as the mid-1850s. Out of this synod would come some of the strongest support for reuniting with the New School men. From the beginning of the 1857 New School south exodus from the northern New School, Professor Dabney, of Union Seminary in Virginia, had urged the New School men to unite with the Old School rather that pursue an independent course. Dabney asserted, “We do, however, believe that among Southern New School Presbyterians there are thousands who are sound in doctrinal views and steadfast in attachment to the standards of our church.. . we have no hesitation in avowing our conviction that a reunion with us, on the proper basis, will for them be the wisest, safest, and happiest solution of the difficulty into which our New School Brethren have been driven by the unrighteous action of their late Northern associates.”[30]

Dabney had appealed to the New School men to consider their small numbers and the dearth of ministers they would face without joining with their fellow southern Presbyterians. The Southern Presbyterian Church would not ask the New School men to “endorse the policy, the rightfulness, not even the constitutionality, of those measures of 1837.” They had fulfilled their “duty of sympathizing testimony” for the northern brethren. Many of the Old School men agreed with them but chose to remain in the Old School body and overlook this error. The main objection to union in 1857, from the New School side, was that the Old School was “tainted with abolitionism.” Dabney responded that the Old School position had satisfied southerners; yet, he admitted that the day may come when the Old School too would split over “slavery agitation.” If this occurred, Dabney asked, “Will not one, grand, mighty secession of Southern Presbyterians be better?” The final matter under question was that of examining ministers coming into new presbyteries. “How can we be suspected of anything invidious when we do just the same with our own brethren?”[31]

Dabney had assured the New School men in 1857 that they would be welcomed and accepted as equals in a united Presbyterian Church in the Southern States. He declared: “Should this union be formed, we have no humiliations to impose on our brethren commonly known as New School, no concessions to demand of them, but expect to meet them as equals.”[32] The majority of the Old School Assembly had disagreed with Dabney in the 1858 bid for union but things would soon change.

V. The Lynchburg Meeting

By 1863 the political and ecclesiastical situation had changed dramatically. Presbyterians in the South were in the mood for union. Old School/New School tensions had dissipated as both groups had joined the common cause of the Confederacy. John N. Waddel, a participant at the first meeting of representatives from both churches, described the atmosphere in the South:

Time is a wonderful softener of asperities in all things, and whatever may have been the state of feelings on the part of some on both sides of this unhappy controversy which has been in existence for more than a quarter of a century, there is now left a very small amount of bitterness on the subject in any true Southern heart. I am persuaded that the spirit of party and strife in which it originated, has sunk into the grave with some of the disputants; and has been left on the northern side of Mason and Dixon’s line with others, and that the great mass of the ministers and the people of both Churches cry out now for union.[33]

Dabney, who had favored union in 1858, reemerged as a key advocate for reunion when the 1863 General Assembly named him to the Committee of Conference (5 clergy, 2 laymen) to confer with their counterpart in the United Synod. A joint meeting was held in Lynchburg, Virginia, in July of 1863. The central concern of the two committees was to produce a plan that would satisfy both groups. In order to do this, the joint committee eventually produced a six-point plan of reunion. As the two groups gathered, Dabney was the first to break the silence. He proceeded to give an impressive speech, to which Dr. Joseph Stiles of the New School responded: “Dr. Dabney’s views are marked by entire fairness, and if the spirit of magnificent equity which breathes through them prevails in this joint committee, the breach between us is healed.. . .”[34] The two committees proceeded to discuss at length, with “full, frank and fraternal expression,” the points that had to be adjusted in order for union to occur. Waddel reports that a “spirit of harmony and brotherly love, of confiding candor and all absence of distrust or suspicion” permeated the meetings. Dr. Stiles and Dr. Dabney were appointed as a subcommittee to prepare a “declaration of principles and plan of union.”[35]

The proposed plan was communicated to the joint committee the next day and “every article calmly, maturely, and candidly considered, and amended in word and form, until it was fully and satisfactorily understood and heartily adopted by all.” The joint committee adopted, with a few modifications, the doctrinal articles which Dabney and Stiles presented. There were five additional articles dealing with ecclesiastical issues. Together with the doctrinal article, these comprised the complete Plan of Union which was presented to the 1864 Assemblies of the United Synod and the Presbyterian Church (C.S.A.).[36]

The doctrinal statements constituted Article I of the Plan of Union. There were six points in this article, each of which dealt with one of the “former grounds of debate” between the Old and New Schools. The opening paragraph declared that the doctrinal statements were necessary because “some have been supposed to hold the system of doctrines and church order in different senses.”[37] The stated purpose of the clarifications was to “manifest our hearty agreement, to remove suspicions and offences, to restore full confidence between brethren, and to honor God’s saving truth.”[38]

Under each doctrinal point a balancing of statements was included which both affirmed traditional Old School understanding as well as showed appreciation of New School concerns. Several examples make this plain. Under the heading “Fall of Man and Original Sin,” the document clearly asserted that due to Adam’s fall his “posterity are judicially condemned of God on account of that sin.” The moral corruption of Adam’s posterity is entire. Then it added: “But we equally reject the error of those who assert that the sinner has no power of any kind for the performance of duty. This error strips the sinner of his moral agency and accountableness, and introduces the heresy of either Antinomianism or Fatalism. The true doctrine of the Scriptures, as stated in our Confession, keeps constantly in view the moral agency of man, the contingency of second causes, the use of means, the voluntariness of all the creature’s sin, and his utter inexcusableness therein.” On the question of imputation, the joint committee asserted: “And we mean that the guilt of their sin, which is imputed, is, according to the constant usage of theology, ‘obligation to punishment,’ and not the sinfulness of the act itself, which latter cannot, by imputation, be the quality of any other than the personal agents.”[39]

A similar counterbalancing of Old School/New School sensibilities is evidenced in the statement on Christ’s atonement. The joint committee stated:

This atonement we believe, though by temporary sufferings, was, by reason of the infinite glory of Christ’s person, full and sufficient for the guilt of the whole world, and is to be freely and sincerely offered to every creature, inasmuch as it leaveth no other obstacle to the pardon of all men under the gospel, save the enmity and unbelief of those who voluntarily reject it. Wherefore, on the one hand, we reject the opinion of those who teach that the atonement was so limited and equal to the guilt of the elect only, that if God had designed to redeem more, Christ must have suffered more or differently. And, on the other hand, we hold that God the Father doth efficaciously apply this redemption, through Christ’s purchase, to all those to whom it was his eternal purpose to apply it, and to no others.[40]

Concerning the practical issue of promoting revivals, one again observes a carefully crafted tension. The article warned against imbalance:

.. . on the one hand, we testify, from our observation and the word of God, that it is dangerous to ply the disordered heart of the sinner with a disproportionate address to the imagination and passions, to withhold from his awakened mind scriptural instruction, and to employ with him such novel and starting measures as must tend to impart to his religious excitement a character rather noisy, shallow, and transient, than deep, solid, and scriptural. But, on the other hand, we value, cherish, and pray for true revivals of religion, and wherever they bring forth the permanent fruits of holiness in men’s hearts, rejoice in them as God’s work, notwithstanding the mixture of human imperfection. And we consider it the solemn duty of ministers to exercise a scriptural warmth, affection, and directness in appealing to the understanding, hearts, and consciences of men.[41]

On the old controversy of voluntary societies, the joint committee agreed to a position of Christian liberty:

Those who seek the world’s conversion by societies of voluntary and human origin distinct from the branches of Christ’s visible Church, therefore ought not to ask the officers and courts of the Church to relinquish these labors to them. Yet we can bid them God-speed in all their sincere efforts to diffuse the true work of God, and we concede to the members of our churches full liberty to extend to them such personal aid as their Christian consciences approve.[42]

Churches in each denomination could approve such a position which provided for a charitable spirit on a divisive issue from the 1837–38 schism. This peaceable spirit pervaded the entire document and would eventually satisfy the majorities of both parties.

The balanced doctrinal affirmations in the Plan of Union were interpreted by the joint committee as entirely consistent with adopting the Confession of Faith. The preamble of the doctrinal statements declared: “The General Assembly and the United Synod declare that they continue to sincerely receive and adopt the Confession and the Catechisms of the Presbyterian Church, as containing the system of doctrines taught in the Holy Scriptures, and approve of its government and discipline.”[43] Both committees had understood one another on these points; the “Doctrinal Basis of Union” discountenanced the extreme positions of both Old and New School that would hinder full communion. The basis was adopted by the Lynchburg joint committee unanimously.[44] Waddel, who had represented the Southern Church, described the attitude of committee members: “I would remark that the committee felt the necessity of guarding against too great laxity of terms on the one hand, and a needless stringency on the other hand.”[45]

VI. Resistance to Reunion

Immediately following the publication of the “Basis of Union” from the Lynchburg conference, questions about the plan began to emerge. Requests were made not to discuss the plan in the newspapers of the church until it could be brought to the 1864 Assembly; however, the report was presented to several of the largest and most influential synods and the controversy began. The Plan of Union was endorsed by both the Central Presbyterian and the Christian Observer. The Southern Presbyterian editor, A. A. Porter, opposed the doctrinal terms and attacked the plan in a series of editorials. Porter criticized the doctrinal statement as “equivocal, lame, incomplete.”[46] Dr. Waddel, of the committee, responded in a series of letters to the editor.

Porter expressed concern that the plan of union would “become an integral part of our standards, and to be placed on the same footing as our confession of faith.. . .” Waddel replied that the intention of the committee was to use the doctrinal points in lieu of the “examination rule” for the United Synod men and “if they adopt it, as a basis of union, then the parties coming to us are understood to embrace it only as the interpretation of the Confession of Faith, received by the church, and no man can accept that confession simply for ‘substance of doctrine,’ but it must be done ‘ex animo.’” Porter’s rebuttal was that he was willing to waive the required examination of ministers and receive United Synod brothers if they made a “simple declaration that they adopt our Confession of Faith, sincerely, in its plain sense.”[47]

Porter was convinced that the proposed doctrinal statement “settles no point controverted between Old and New School, while it opens the door for continual debate and strife.” He observed an indefinite statement on the atonement “which both the general and limited atonement men can adopt.” He was distressed about the plan’s statement on human ability which “yields to the New School theologians all they can desire.” He stated: “It does not matter much what kind of power it is the sinner has to perform his duty. If he has it, of any sort, that is enough, and the Old School doctrine is abandoned.” Waddel defended the committee’s statement on ability as a “true Calvinistic statement on this subject.” He explained that the object of affirming human ability was “simply to vindicate our Calvinism from the charge of Antinomianism, or Fatalism, so often brought against it, to how that man was not a machine, but a rational free agent.”[48]

Porter protested that the committee report was an attempt to “reconcile all differences and harmonize all parties. .. that is not after the manner of true, old fashioned Presbyterians.. . .” This view was confirmed by “the fact that men are endorsing their report, who it is unquestionable are wide as the poles apart from our Old School theology.” As an example, he pointed to the unanimous endorsement of the report by Winchester Presbytery of the United Synod wherein was the infamous Dr. Boyd, well known for his New School views.

Waddel’s explanations had been of no avail in ebbing increasing condemnation of the Plan of Union in the Southern Presbyterian. Professor Dabney, chair of the committee of conference for the Old School, wrote a long essay for the Southern Presbyterian published over four issues of the paper. Dabney resented the “temper of suspicion” that accused both committees of “uncandid concealments” with a design to cover up differences in the parties.[49]

Dabney rejected the notion that the new doctrinal declaration was unnecessary. The old formulas were accepted by both parties but a new formula was necessary “to test the existence of present differences of opinion.” This was the very method used by the Old School in the “Western Memorial” and the “Act and Testimony” at the time of the schism. “Now it is strange that the necessity and utility of such a declaration should be denied by those who have constantly rejected the assertion by the New School that they hold the same Confession was ourselves, as a sufficient proof of their doctrinal soundness.” The Confession was not going to be replaced; the doctrinal declaration was “the same old creed on some points” restated in new words.[50]

Dabney was unapologetic about acknowledging the “dishonor” done to religion by the Presbyterian schism. “A right cause can be advocated in a wrong spirit;.. . we should be willing to confess that part of the guilt is ours.” Love and harmony prevailed in the meeting of the two committees and none of “these gracious emotions were indulged at the expense of fidelity to truth.”[51]

The New School had historically assaulted the Old School for teaching man’s inability, thereby removing his responsibility. In light of this, the two committees had declared: “But we equally reject the error of those who assert that the sinner has no power of any kind for the performance of duty.” Porter decried this statement. Dabney replied that, of course, the sinner has some kind of power to perform his duty. “If he had not he would not be a religious, nor a responsible being, but only an animal.” He cited Old School theologians as well as the Confession and Catechism to demonstrate the common consent among Calvinists that a distinction is always to be made between fallen man’s inability to “will any spiritual good” and “some sort of natural power for good” as a responsible creature. The only people who discard this distinction in any sense are Pelagians who give to the sinner “ability, both of will and faculties.” Dabney added, “Every preacher of the Gospel who teaches that man is totally depraved, and yet responsible, illustrates it successfully.”[52]

The “most serious objection” was to the statement on the atonement which Porter characterized as Pelagian error. Dabney justified the distinctions made in the statement on the atonement and confessed that “the United Synod had just cause of complaint against a few Old School men” whose “ultra” views had distorted Calvinist teaching. “And all intelligent Calvinists are accustomed to teach that the limitation which attaches to the atonement, is not in its nature, but only in its design; while their enemies, Arminian and Pelagain, industriously charge upon them what they as industriously repudiate, that they teach it is limited by its nature.” It was proper for the committees to use “general terms” when referring to the nature of the atonement. “So does the Bible.”[53]

No doubt the strong opinions for and against the Plan of Union in the pages of the Southern Presbyterian reflected the serious tensions throughout the church. Porter concluded his long series of articles by acknowledging that his “suggestions for amending the Plan of Union” had gone unheeded; nevertheless, “We are gratified by the assurance that what we have said and done has met the approval of many of the best and most judicious men in the Church.” He admitted that the Plan of Union would probably be approved, but his efforts “at least absolve us of all responsibility for the mischief that will follow.”[54]

B. M. Palmer of New Orleans, a former South Carolinian, was one of the most outspoken opponents. He vehemendy objected to the doctrinal portion of the proposed union and responded to Dabney’s Southern Presbyterian articles in the pages of the Southern Presbyterian Review. Dr. Palmer’s first objection was to the preamble which stated that the proposed union “will glorify God by promoting peace, removing the dishonor done to religion by former separations [italics added].” He believed that this statement implied a repudiation of the “Reform Measures of 1837.” Dabney had defended the clause in question by interpreting this simply as an acknowledgment of the “unseemly heats” of the Old School in the excision and the fact that ecclesiastical separations do in fact dishonor religion. Both sides bore some guilt for the schism according to Dabney. In response, Palmer asserted that whatever may have been the intent of the committee, “the language is a virtual abjuration of all the principles so earnestly contended for in 1837.. .. As for ourselves, so far from regarding that separation a dishonor to religion, we account it one of the most beneficent and glorious reforms which grace the annals of the church.” Silence by the southern Old School on this point was “aspersing our glorious past.”[55]

Palmer pointed out that the southern New School men had joined hands with northern brethren in a denomination that affirmed doctrinal distinctives at odds with Old School theology. The United Synod separated from the northern New School without doctrinal protest, therefore implicitly being in sympathy with New School theology. He stated:

There are good reasons why the doctrinal soundness of the United Synod should be called in question.. .. It is notorious that doctrinal differences lay at the bottom of the separation in 1837.. .. It is notorious, too, that the body now known as the United Synod voluntarily went out from us, and affiliated through twenty years with these errorists; separating at last from them, not upon doctrinal grounds, but upon a political question, and not until the fanatical fury of Northern radicals no longer permitted them a seat in their ecclesiastical councils.[56]

Palmer accused the United Synod of tolerating serious error. He asked, “What are we to think of the doctrinal purity of men who, in their incomparable zeal for a mere constitutional safeguard or ecclesiastical right, are willing to see the truth of God turned into a lie, and the whole Gospel made of none effect through human traditions?”[57]

The United Synod had embraced a latitudinarian view of subscription according to Dr. Palmer. He declared:

It is moreover a suspicious fact, that the United Synod has never repudiated the partial and unsatisfactory subscription to the standards of the Church, which was one of the original grounds of offence against the New School party, with whom they have chosen to be identified. On the contrary, at their first meeting in 1858, they append to the declaration of their adherence to the Confession of Faith, a supplementary explanation which seems to us to recognize and to embody the fatal reservation of a subscription for ‘substance of doctrine.’[58]

The United Synod’s 1858 explanation of adopting the Confession is “couched in language far too indefinite.” Palmer stated:

There is the same equivocation with the words ‘system of doctrine’ which vitiated the subscription of New School men in 1837, and created such trouble in determining what was accepted and what was renounced. It is a subscription which does not bind to an agreement in all that the Confession contains, but only in certain fundamental doctrines, the reception of which is all that is meant by the phrase ‘system of doctrine taught in Holy Scriptures.’[59]

Palmer characterized the New School perspective on subscription:

.. . the Confession is not to be interpreted according to the literal and obvious import of its own terms, but according to a certain sense in which these parties believe it to be received by the body of the church; so that the appeal evermore lies from the Confession to this general sense of the church in whatever way it may be collected, instead of ascertaining the sense of the church by reference at once to its acknowledged symbols.[60]

Palmer argued for full subscription to the standards:

What we desire of these brethren is a plain, straightforward adoption of the Church standards, in their simple and obvious import, without equivocation or reservation of any sort. This is the way in which we have subscribed them, and which we require of all intrants into the sacred office. This will go further to remove our suspicions than the most elaborate attempts to fence around and to define their assent, or the best balanced basis of union which can be drawn up by joint committees of conference.[61]

For Palmer, the plan of union as a whole appeared to be a “compromise between the parties.” The balancing statements on doctrine yielded too much to New School sensitivities. He objected in principle to these doctrinal explanations, which would become the “authorized interpretation” and in effect become a “symbol superseding practically the Confession itself.” Palmer contended that the proposed doctrinal basis was unnecessary because the Confession is the “arbiter of all differences which may emerge amongst them.”[62]

Dabney had argued that the doctrinal points were necessary as declarations touching the former grounds of debate, but Palmer resisted adding anything to the statements of the Confession and Catechisms.

Additional opposition to the plan was voiced in several presbyteries in the Southern Church.[63] Professor J. B. Adger of Columbia Seminary presented a paper to the Presbytery of South Carolina denouncing the plan of union. Adger’s paper demanded that the United Synod acknowledge New School doctrinal errors; the paper was unanimously adopted. The minutes of the presbytery record:

.. . this Presbytery looks upon it as inexplicable mystery how they should never have discovered and repudiated the errors of their former associates.. .. This Presbytery does not hesitate to declare that it is finally and unalterably opposed to any union with the United Synod except upon a formal and distinct repudiation by them of every one of the new school errors which have been entertained by those with whom they so long continued to maintain the closest fellowship.[64]

VII. The Assembly of 1864

The General Assembly of the Southern Presbyterian Church convened in May 1864 in Charlotte, North Carolina. B. M. Palmer presented the report on behalf of the union committee. Debate on the proposal for reunion spread over four days. Palmer and Adger, not convinced by the plan’s supporters, continued to oppose the reunion. Adger raised some constitutional questions about the process for ecclesiastical union and voiced his skepticism about the orthodoxy of the United Synod which had recently elected A. H. H. Boyd to be a professor in its proposed seminary. Palmer said the reputation of the United Synod was mixed; some saying they were sound in the faith, others declaring they were not. And the New School men had never made an unreserved subscription to the standards.[65]

Support for reunion was widespread and many spoke out in favor of union on the Assembly floor. Several presbyters commented that Presbyterians in their entire state were supporting union with the New School. In Virginia there were already New School men supplying Old School pulpits in anticipation of the union. Dr. Moses Hoge[66] of Virginia pointed to the recent reception of the Independent Presbyterian Church. The Independent Church had been received with minor differences, yet there was “‘union in essentials.’”[67] Dabney’s able defense of the plan in the Assembly “drew forth for him the most enthusiastic admiration of the body.”[68]

After prolonged debate, with multiple participants, the Assembly sought solution to the impasse by appointing a committee to recommend a course of action on the proposed plan of union. Each Synod was represented on the committee by one elder and one minister—Adger and Dabney were both on the committee. The group deliberated and then returned to the floor of the Assembly with a recommendation which included four resolutions. The first resolution expressed appreciation to the joint committee for their labors and great satisfaction with the “brotherly love and spirit of harmony” in which the work was carried out. The second resolution asserted that “the most satisfactory terms of union” would be “the cordial adherence of the two bodies to their existing symbols of faith and order.”[69]

The third resolution involved four points where the plan should be amended to meet some of the concerns raised by opponents. Two amendments had to do with ecclesiastical process. Another amendment was the deletion of the phrase, “removing the dishonor done to religion by former separations.” The most significant recommendation had to do with the doctrinal basis. The first paragraph of Article One was to remain; it stated that both bodies “continue sincerely to receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Presbyterian Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures and approve of its government and discipline.” But the rest of the article, which described a common understanding on the controversial issues, was to be disregarded. This met the concern to unite on the basis of the standards, not an additional creed.[70]

The fourth resolution, however, explained the rationale behind the recommended exclusion of the doctrinal section:

That the Assembly proposes the omission of the doctrinal proposition of article I on the following ground solely, viz., That, believing the approval of those propositions by the Committees of Conference, and extensively among both bodies, has served a valuable purpose, by presenting satisfactory evidence of such harmony and soundness of doctrinal views as may ground an honorable union, the Assembly does yet judge that it is most prudent to unite on the basis of our existing standards only, inasmuch as no actual necessity of other declarations of belief in order to a happy union now exist.[71]

The compromise plan met with the hearty approval of the Assembly. Both sides had a degree of victory—the joint committee had accomplished its task by bringing the Old School and New School men together in a moderate statement of Calvinism; the opponents of union had gained their prize of preserving the Westminster Standards, without interpretation, as the sole standard of doctrine in the Presbyterian Church.[72] The final vote on reunion in the Southern Church was 53 yeas and 7 nays. The opposition entered their reasons upon the record of the Assembly. Adger said that reunion is “a total letting-down of the Church’s testimony in 1837; and on the ground of its tendency to give rise to future troubles and divisions in our Church.” Palmer stated that he voted against the report “on account of the 4th resolution”; four others also listed the fourth resolution as the reason for their dissent. Commissioner Angus Johnson wrote: “I voted against the reception of the United Synod on the following grounds: 1st. For want of confidence in the doctrinal soundness of the entire body. 2d. Because the doctrinal basis agreed upon by the committees in conference is not sufficiently explicit.”[73] It is clear from these explanations that the Assembly implicitly was endorsing the doctrinal explanations of the original plan as sound.

In addition to the doctrinal issue there were a few minor modifications to the plan by the Southern Church. These changes were acceptable to the United Synod which unanimously adopted the amended plan of union in August of 1864.[74] Despite the overwhelming support for reunion, the Presbytery of South Carolina took one parting shot. At the 1864 fall meeting of the presbytery, a “Testimony and Memorial” was adopted. This statement was chiefly directed at two issues: the constitutionality of the union and New School errors. The South Carolina men were still convinced that the General Assembly had no right in the Constitution to ratify a union with another denomination. On the doctrinal question, the presbytery gave this testimony:

Against the effect of this union, forcing us as it does, into the endorsement of the Theology of men, whose unsoundness has not been denied by their associates in the United Synod. .. that avowedly maintained the errors, condemned by the Assembly in 1837, and that severed their connection with these latter, not because they repudiated their errors and had borne testimony against them, but, merely, because they had been by them condemned as guilty of the sin of slavery. Again, we cannot but regard this measure, as almost tantamount to a reversal of the glorious testimony borne by our beloved Church in 1837, and, as opening the door for controversies in the future, which may cause to be re-enacted the struggles of ‘34, 5, 6, 7 and 8.[75]

South Carolina had no spirit for compromise. The doctrinal discussions between the two denominations had demonstrated a mutual recognition of one another as orthodox Calvinists. The fourth resolution, to which Adger, Palmer, et al. had objected, explicitly stated this fact. Most of the Presbyterians in the South, Old and New School, had a broader vision of Presbyterianism and had moved beyond the old divisions of the 1830s. Thomas Cary Johnson described the 1864 reunion, “This union was honorable to both parties, and has been a source of great blessing to Southern Presbyterianism.”[76]

VIII. Theological Compromise among Brethren

The reunion of 1864 demonstrated the moderate spirit of the Southern Old School majority that warmly embraced the New School. While Southern New School men were generally of a more conservative stripe, they were New School men nonetheless. The 1858 “Declaration and Principles” clearly espoused both the New School view of subscription and the traditional doctrinal positions associated with the New School. The reunion of 1864, just six years later, was not a repudiation of New School doctrine but rather a clear affirmation of a broader Calvinism. The doctrinal statement issued by the two committees acknowledged the validity of New School interpretations as orthodox Calvinism. The strict Calvinist party recognized this and resisted the reunion to the end.

The proposed reunion plan had reached out in fraternal charity to New School sensitivities. Voluntary societies were declared worthy of the church’s support and persons should have liberty of Christian conscience on the matter. Revivals were to be supported notwithstanding their emotional excesses on occasion. Distinctive New School articulation of the doctrines of inability and atonement were affirmed. The New School could ask no more concessions than these. These New School perspectives were affirmed as consistent with the Calvinistic “system of doctrine” in the Westminster Standards.

Some argue that the Old School/New School reunion in the South was made purely on the basis of the strict Old School position.[77] This view is not sustained by the empirical data. The New School gave hearty approval to the reunion plans because the doctrinal statements had satisfied them fully. To suggest that the United Synod had entirely compromised its conscience, so unabashedly proclaimed in the 1858 “Declaration of Principles,” is inconceivable for human nature and contrary to the historical record of the doctrinal discussions. New School men considered themselves free to preach their distinctive New School Calvinism within the cordial bonds of the Presbyterian Church in the South.

The amended Southern reunion plan, just as the later 1869 reunion platform in the North, simply asked for adoption of the Standards without explanation. The history of the negotiations in Southern reunion discussions makes it abundantly clear that there had been a meeting of the minds on the nature of that subscription. The fourth resolution of the amended plan explicitly stated as much, notwithstanding the protest of the “ultra” party. Within this context of charitable balancing of viewpoints, the 1864 reunion was desirable and honorable for both branches of the Presbyterian Church in the South.

In the end it was deemed safest to append no doctrinal explanations to the Westminster Standards lest a new creed be in force de facto. Both parties agreed to this as the best method for reunion. The old creed of Presbyterians would alone be sufficient for they had understood one another on the issues that had divided them for almost thirty years. Neither party was asked to compromise its conscience on deeply held convictions. All embraced the Westminster Standards, and they agreed that in that common Calvinism was room for diversity of expression. There were still some vocal advocates of strict subscription within the Southern Church who vehemently opposed any compromise with the “latitudinarian” New School party. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of Southern Old School Presbyterians had been in favor of joining with the New School and rejected this extremism.

Due to the moderate spirit of mainstream Southern Presbyterianism, the Old School/New School schism in Dixie was healed in 1864. Old School/New School compromise among Northern Presbyterians would be similarly consummated in the reunion of 1869—70.[78] Unfortunately the sectional divide ran much deeper for Presbyterians. What perpetually separated American Presbyterian bodies in the final decades of the nineteenth century was not Old School/New School theological tension but the residual pain from the war and reconstruction. Northern and Southern Presbyterians would remain separate denominations; however, both bodies had emphatically embraced a broad vision of American Presbyterianism which valued the contributions of both Old and New School Calvinism.

Notes

1. The term “Southern Presbyterian” will be used broadly to refer to antebellum Presbyterians located in the southern states (both Old School and New School) as well as the later separate denomination, The Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America (1861–1865) and The Presbyterian Church in the United States (1865–1983).
2. Presbyterian Historical Almanac and Annual Remembrancer of the Church for 1858–1859 (Philadelphia: Joseph M. Wilson, 1859), 135–36.
3. Ibid.
4. Harold M. Parker, The United Synod of the South (Presbyterian Historical Society, 1988), 158–62.
5. Presbyterian Historical Almanac, 1858–59, 138. See also Parker, United Synod of the South, 173.
6. Parker, United Synod of the South, 164–67. For a detailed account of the debate see Central Presbyterian, September 5, 1857.
7. Thomas Cary Johnson, A Brief Sketch of the United Synod of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (American Church History Series 8; repr., American Society of Church History, 1894), 16–17. Andrew Hunter Holmes Boyd, D.D., a Princeton Seminary graduate, was licensed to preach by the Presbytery of Winchester in 1837. From 1842 to 1865 he served as pastor of the New School Presbyterian Church in Winchester, Va.
8. The final vote was 10 in favor and 9 against the resolution according to Dr. Breckinridge of the Old School. He was opposed to any discussions with the New School and told the Old School Assembly that he agreed with the nine New School men! See George Howe, “The General Assembly of 1858,” Southern Presbyterian Review 11 (1859): 326.
9. See Parker, United Synod of the South, 169–70.
10. Andrew Boyd, Presbyterian Witness, November 24, 1857. Boyd confesses, “To us, it is no matter of surprise that members of the Richmond Convention did not use the same expressions in explaining their theological views. They would hardly have been New School if they had.”
11. Boyd, Presbyterian Witness, March 16, 1858. Boyd’s additional objections included: differences in constitutional principles, wide dissimilarity of temper, Old School required reexamination of ministers, and Old School unsoundness on slavery.
12. Minutes of the United Synod of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, 1858 (ms, Montreat, Presbyterian Historical Society), 7–11. The 1858 manuscript of Minutes of the United Synod may also be found in Presbyterian Historical Almanac, 1858–59, 143–45.
13. For the full text see Minutes of the United Synod, 1858, 7–11; Presbyterian Historical Almanac, 1858–59, 146–47; Parker, United Synod of the South, Appendix B, 312–17. The remainder of the “Declaration of Principles” deals with the constitutional authority of the church and with slavery.
14. Presbyterian Magazine, May 1858, 213–16.
15. For the full text of the reunion proposal see Minutes of the United Synod, 1858, 14–15; Presbyterian Historical Almanac, 1858–59, 146–47.
16. Minutes of the United Synod, 1858, 14–15; Presbyterian Historical Almanac, 1858–59, 146–47.
17. Minutes of the United Synod, 1858, 14–15; Presbyterian Historical Almanac, 1858–59, 146–47.
18. See Minutes of the General Assembly, 1858 (O.S.), 289–90.
19. Presbyterian Magazine, May 1858, 216. Van Rensellaer along with Dr. Palmer and a third presbyter were appointed as representatives of the Old School to meet with the New School committee and officially receive their reunion proposal.
20. See Parker, United Synod of the South, 164–65. When the Synod of Nashville’s Minutes came up for review by the General Assembly, the Assembly noted that this proposed union was an exception because it was imperative that presbyteries “examine all who make application for admission into their bodies.. . .”
21. Howe, “The General Assembly of 1858,” 326.
22. Minutes of the General Assembly, 1858 (O.S.), 230. Howe says that this Old School Assembly minute with amendments was authored by Breckinridge. See Howe, “General Assembly of 1858,” 329–30.
23. Thomas Cary Johnson reports an underlying unspoken reason for Old School resistance to union discussions. He describes the Old School attitude: “She was not only tenacious of reputation for strict construction in theology, she had in the main kept clear of partisan and Un-Biblical discussion of the relation of slavery. She did not propose to excite such discussions at once by taking into her own communion a body with such a history as the United Synod had.” This obstacle would be removed by 1861 with Southern secession from the Old School body, thus helping pave the way for reinvigorated union discussions. See Johnson, A Brief Sketch of the United Synod, 27.
24. See Minutes of the General Assembly, 1861 (O.S. North). E. T. Thompson describes the volatile atmosphere surrounding the Gardner Spring resolution: “To pass the resolution, it was recognized, would force the withdrawal of the Southern presbyteries; to refuse to do so, it was argued, might provoke secessions in the North. Heavy pressure was brought to bear from outside—by visitors in the balcony, by letters and telegrams from ‘back home.’ One morning a clerical-looking effigy was found hanging upon a tree opposite the church where the sessions of the Assembly were held, with a shingle attached to its feet upon which was inscribed, ‘Death thus to clerical traitors.’” E. T. Thompson, Presbyterians in the South (3 vols.; Richmond: John Knox Press, 1963–73), 1:564.
25. Ibid., 339-41.
26. For example, the Synod of North Carolina stated: “.. . whereas, by the tyranny and usurpation of the Government at Washington, the safeguards of the constitution have been broken down, threatening all that is dear in civil liberty and all that is precious in the inheritance received from our fathers; and whereas the several Presbyteries composing this Synod have in view of these deeds, as well as in view of the extraordinary endorsement of them by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, requiring us and our Churches to approve and pray for the success of measures so tyrannical and iniquitous, have formally and solemnly dissolved all connection with said General Assembly. . .” (Minutes of the Synod of North Carolina, 1861, 18–19).
27. Thompson, Presbyterians in the South, 2:14.
28. Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederates States of America, 1861, 13.
29. Parker cites three “bases for union” in which the Old School and New School men in the South had broad consensus even in 1837: protest against the Excinding Acts, the position on slavery, and the fact that no southern New School minister had signed the Auburn Declaration. “Thus was preserved their doctrinal integrity intact.” From Parker’s perspective, the 1864 reunion had its genesis in these issues from the 1830s. See Parker, United Synod of the South, 250–51. Likewise, Johnson points out how the New School southerners had been essentially conservative. “Indeed the New School people in the South seem never to have been generally charged with a prevalent leaning toward New School doctrines. They went with the New School party at the split of 1838 because of their friend ship for New School men; because of the peculiar ecclesiastical moves of the Old School men, 1837–1838; and because of the extreme and unjustifiable representations made of the New School party by such men as Drs. Plummer and Breckinridge” (A Brief Sketch of the United Synod, 29).
30. Robert F. Dabney, “Our Position,” Central Presbyterian, July 11, 1857; see also Dabney, Discussions: Evangelical and Theological (2 vols.; Richmond: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1890–1892; repr., London: Banner of Truth, 1967), 177.
31. Dabney, Discussions, 178–82.
32. Ibid., 182.
33. John N. Waddel, “Meeting of the Committees of the Conference of the General Assembly and of the United Synod of the South,” Southern Presbyterian, August 13, 1863.
34. Thomas Cary Johnson, The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney (Richmond: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1903; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977), 286; Johnson cites these words from Dr. McGuffey of the University of Virginia. Dr. Stiles had been elected as the Professor of Systematic and Pastoral Theology at the United Synod’s new seminary which never materialized. Dr. Boyd was also to have been a professor according to Johnson, A Brief Sketch of the United Synod, 36.
35. Waddel, Southern Presbyterian, August 13, 1863.
36. Ibid. Johnson comments on the integrity of the doctrinal articles: “This doctrinal statement passed easily through the Committee’s hands. It teaches clearly the kind of Calvinism taught in the Westminster standards and tacitly repudiates that false Calvinism which offends by extreme statement.” Johnson (Brief Sketch of the United Synod, 31) says Dabney already had doctrinal articles written out when he came to the meeting.
37. The “different senses” in which some were believed to “hold the system of doctrine” was the crucial question for union as stated here in the preamble to the doctrinal articles. The joint committee’s succinct statements provided common ground for understanding the Calvinistic sense of the Confession.
38. Presbyterian Almanac and Annual Remembrancer of the Church for 1865 (vol. 7; Philadelphia: Joseph M. Wilson, 1865), 316.
39. Ibid. Dabney points out that the Westminster Divines did not commit themselves on the debated question of mediate or immediate imputation. He says, “The race sinned in Adam, and fell with him. But the Assembly [Westminster] will give no metaphysics, nominalistic or realistic, to explain the awful fact, because Scripture gives none.” See Robert L. Dabney, “The Doctrinal Contents of the Confession: Its Fundamental and Regulative Ideas, and the Necessity and Value of Creeds,” in Memorial Volume of the Westminster Assembly (ed. Francis R. Beattie et al.; Richmond: The Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1897; repr. as The Westminster Confession and Creeds [Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1983]), 13. Pagination refers to the reprinted edition.
40. Presbyterian Almanac for 1865, 317
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid., 316.
44. One of the representatives from the Southern Presbyterian Church, E. T. Baird, had been unable to attend the Joint Committee on Union due to the war. He sent a communication to the General Assembly stating that “the doctrinal articles are Calvinistic and true”; nevertheless, he had reservations that “in probably three places, the language is liable to misapprehension and might become the cause of trouble among ourselves.” He further said that he did not “believe that any series of doctrinal articles could be framed which would not be obnoxious to the same objection.” His main concern was not making anything but the constitution itself the basis of union. For the full text of the letter see Presbyterian Almanac for 1865, 319–20.
45. Southern Presbyterian, August 13, 1863.
46. Southern Presbyterian, August 20, 1863; October 1, 1863.
47.  Southern Presbyterian, September 10, 1863.
48. Southern Presbyterian, August 13, 1863; October 1, 1863.
49. Robert L. Dabney, “Dr. Dabney on the Plan of Union,” Southern Presbyterian, December 10, 1863; Dabney’s essay was published serially in these four issues: Nov. 19, 1863; Nov. 27, 1863; Dec. 3,1863; Dec. 10,1863. At the conclusion of Dabney’s articles are “remarks” by Porter that attempt to refute Dabney.
50. Southern Presbyterian, November 19, 1863.
51. Ibid.
52. Southern Presbyterian, November 26, 1863.
53. Southern Presbyterian, December 3, 1863.
54. Southern Presbyterian, December 10, 1863.
55. B. M. Palmer, “The Proposed Plan of Union,” Southern Presbyterian Review 3 (April 1864): 264-72.
56. Ibid., 272-73.
57. Ibid.
58. Ibid., 274.
59. Ibid., 275. Palmer appears to associate the “substance of doctrine” view with an “essentials of Christianity only” subscription, rather than a more explicit “system of doctrine” position which the United Synod had articulated in the 1857 “Declaration of Principles.” The system of doctrine in the Confession, as understood by the United Synod, was Calvinism as over against a Pelagian or Arminian system and not merely “certain fundamental doctrines” as Palmer indicated. The United Synod’s stance was identical with the position taken by the northern New School branch in the reunion discussions with the Old School north. For the New School north perspective see Henry B. Smith, “Presbyterian Reunion,” American Presbyterian and Theological Review V (October 1867): 624-65. Smith’s article was a response to Charles Hodge of Princeton who had criticized loose New School subscription. Smith’s article corrected Hodge’s misperception and displayed the consensus New School position that adopting the “system of doctrine” in the Confession meant the “Reformed or Calvinistic system.” Hodge later admitted: “The Old School have never demanded more than this. And they have no right to demand more.” Charles Hodge, “Presbyterian Reunion,” Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review XL (January 1868): 78.
60. Palmer, “The Proposed Plan of Union,” 275, author’s italics. Palmer notes that while the United Synod speaks of the errors of Pelagians, Socinians, and Arminians, there is a “studied silence” about the errors of Hopkinsians and Taylorites. Samuel Hopkins (1721–1803) and Nathaniel Taylor (1786–1858) were New England theologians who had modified traditional Calvinist teaching and influenced some in the New School ranks; however, their influence had never been as widespread as Old School conservatives had suspected.
61. Ibid., 276.
62. Ibid., 278-82.
63. See Parker, United Synod of the South, 255–57; and Thompson, Presbyterians in the South, 2:120.
64. Minutes of the Presbytery of South Carolina, Spring 1864, 483–87; quoted in Thompson, Presbyterians in the South, 2:120–21.
65. Parker, United Synod of the South, 258–59.
66. Dr. Moses Hoge was pastor of the Old School Second Presbyterian Church in Richmond for 50 years.
67. Parker, United Synod of the South, 256–59. The debate was covered by the Christian Observer, May 26 and June 2, 1864. See also Morton H. Smith, Studies in Southern Presbyterian Theology (Amsterdam: Drukkerij en Uitgeverij Jocob van Campen, 1962), 196–201. For discussion of the 1863 reunion with the Independent Presbyterian Church, see Harold M. Parker, “The Independent Presbyterian Church and the Reunion in the South, 1813–1863,” Journal of Presbyterian History 50 (Summer 1972): 89-110.
68. Johnson, A Brief Sketch of the United Synod, 35.
69. Minutes of the General Assembly, PCCSA, 1864, 271.
70. Ibid.
71. Ibid., 273, italics added. This statement was essential for candidly explaining the deletion as not discountenancing the common doctrinal understanding of the two parties. The paragraph admitted that the doctrinal points had met with the approval of the vast majority of both churches. The Old School and New School in the South had understood one another and recognized each other as orthodox Calvinists according to the public explanations that were given by the committees from both churches. Johnson points out the widespread acceptance of the joint doctrinal statement: “Prior to the meeting of the General Assembly in 1864, Synods and Presbyteries in both the Churches had adopted the proposed plan of union sent forth by the Committees of Conference” (A Brief Sketch of the United Synod, 37).
72. Parker says: “That a compromise had been worked out in the committee is without question. Both Dabney and Palmer had won their points. Palmer had raised sufficient questions about the possibility of looser interpretation of the doctrinal statement, and had objected to adding it as an additional doctrinal standard of the Church. He was thus responsible for its defeat as a part of the basis for reunion. Dabney won his point in having the total revised Plan approved” (United Synod of the South, 260).
73. Minutes of the General Assembly, PCCSA, 1864, 277. It was known that the New School body contained several men appearing to have somewhat Arminian tendencies. Johnson gives this characterization of those under suspicion by the Old School: “Dr. J. D. Mitchell preached Arminianism and now Calvinism. He was very inconsistent; but without doubt believed that his theology differed from the Old School. In a letter to Dr. A. H. H. Boyd of Winchester, Va., he referred to his Church’s having for its doctrinal basis an unlimited atonement. Dr. A. H. H. Boyd held a view of the atonement akin to that taught by Dr. John Brown of the Secession Church in Scotland—a view that the atonement was for all in such a sense as that all may have life. He was, says Dr. Dabney, ‘frankly a semi-Pelagian.’. .. When Dr. Frederick A. Ross taught Arminianism it was probably from lack of accurate knowledge. He did not know what he was doing; he seems to have regarded himself as a Calvinist. The few other men who in its early years had been known for teaching New Theology were Northerners destined in the early years of the war to betake themselves North” (A Brief Sketch of the United Synod, 28–29). Johnson’s picture may be accurate; nevertheless, it should be noted that these men were considered among the key leaders of the United Synod. Mitchell and Ross were both appointed to the reunion committee; Boyd was the author of the “Declaration of Principles,” unanimously adopted when the United Synod was established. It would be inaccurate to suggest these men did not represent their church’s theology.
74. Due to the exigencies of the war only 7 of the 14 presbyteries of the United Synod were represented at the 1864 Lynchburg General Assembly. The presbyteries in Tennessee, which had been unable to attend, were still divided on union with the Southern Church. See Thompson, Presbyterians in the South, 2:121.
75. Minutes of Presbytery of South Carolina, Fall Session, Oct. 3, 1864, 21–29.
76. Thomas Cary Johnson, A History of the Southern Presbyterian Church (New York: The Christian Literature Co., 1894), 438; and idem, A Brief Sketch of the United Synod, 38.
77. Morton H. Smith says that the New School “united with the Old School Southern Assembly on the latter’s terms and without any hesitancy regarding subscription to the Standards in the strict sense.” Smith, Studies in Southern Presbyterian Theology, 35; see also Smith, “Presbyterians of the South—II,” WTJ (1965): 155.
78. For a comprehensive discussion of reunion negotiations and debate over subscription in the northern church see the author’s work, “The Presbyterian Creed: Old School/New School Reunion and Confessional Subscription” (Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 2003).