The General Assembly [pp. 511-546]

General Assembly.
In the report of the proceedings it is added that "this resolution called out an earnest and animated discussion, in which
its passage was advocated by Messrs. Robinson, Rice, and
others, and opposed by Messrs. Matthews, Hopkins, Hill, and
others. The motion was finally adopted without a count."
I recognize the absolute freedom of the Presbytery in the
choice of its Commissioners. I acknowledge the right of the
Presbytery to see that its mind is represented in the Assembly
-whether by positive instruction, or by making known its
wishes, and controlling the subject in some other way. I disown all claim to a seat in the next Assembly in virtue of my
position as Moderator of the last, except such as may arise
from the usage of the Presbyteries, and the courtesy which is
due to the General Assembly and to a minister who has not
forfeited the respect and confidence of his brethren. The duty
imposed upon me by the will of the last Assembly, of opening
the next with a sermon, and presiding until another Moderator
shall be chosen, is subject to the pleasure of the Presbytery;
and by the Presbytery I mean the actual majority in a lawful
meeting, whether that majority be accidental, or whether it
truly express the mind of the persons who properly and
usually compose the body.
There is a very clear and wide distinction to be taken
between the action of the Assembly of 1859 and that of the
Assembly of 1848, cited by the Presbytery. The latter declares that the church has no power to require of its members
the support of the societies in question; while it asserts the
right, and, on occasion, the duty of the church to favour or
oppose them, according to its judgment of their merits. This
view of the subject I do heartily approve. I trust that I shall
be ready at all times to defend and support it.
But the action of the Assembly of 1859 denies to the church
all right to have anything to do with such institutions. Believing this view of the subject to be false in its principles, narrow
in its spirit, and every way hurtful in its influence, I do heartily
condemn it, and I can do nothing, under any circumstances, to
support it. It is plainly in conflict with the sentiments and
usages of our branch of the church, from the beginning. I
think it has been justly described as setting forth a "new and
544
[JULY