The Ecclesiastical Disruption of 1861 [pp. 321-351]

1876.] THE ECCLESIASTICAL DISRUPTION OF iS6i. 327
at such length, and urged with such variety and aptness of
illustration? If, on the other hand, the action at Philadelphia
was in itself sufficient to justify a separate organization not
only, but was, indeed, the sole and constraining motive thereto,
why was the political status pressed into the service so urgently,
or rather, why was it urged at all? The argument founded
upon that Philadelphia action, if good, should have prevailed,
even if the nation had not been sundered; just as the principle
alleged to be involved in it is still urged to justify continued
separation, notwithstanding the nation is now admitted by all
to be one. Indeed, we regard this presentation of the State as
a precedent for the church, a strong support, in itself, to the
position we take as to the real and prevailing cause of the
rending of the church. But when, furthermore, this feature
of the Address is sustained by corroborative evidence, in the
sentiments of the leading men in the Southern Church upon
the political affairs of the country at that time, and more
especially, when it is construed in the light of certain facts
which we shall adduce-among others, the action of Southern
Presbyteries, early in 1861, and before the meeting of the General Assembly at Philadelphia in May we think it will conclusively appear that the political situation, real and supposed,
as before stated, was the decisive element in the ecclesiastical
determination to separate, instead of the action taken by the
Philadelphia Assembly. This position, moreover, is not a little
strengthened by the candid avowal of this Address in these
words: "NVe frankly admit that the mere unconstitutionality
of the proceedings of the last Assembly is not, in itself, considered a sufficient ground of separation.'
In presenting the corroborative evidence to which we have
alluded, we shall find it necessary to mention certain honored
names. Every party, whether in church or state, has its
leaders. The Southern Church has never enrolled more distinguished names than those of Drs. Thornwell and Palmer.
During the later years of Dr. Thornwell's life he was its acknowledged leader. LIe was in the South called "the Calhoun
of the Church." It is well known that he penned the Address
of the Southern General Assembly of i86i, cited above. Dr.
Palmer was the Moderator of that Assembly, and his name is