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

1876.] THE ECCLESIASTICAL DISRUPTION OF i86i. 32~
Rev. N. West, D.D., of Cincinnati, is our next witness. For a
i%w days imme~iately after the adjournment of the Indianapolis Assembly of 1859, Dr. Thornwell was the guest of Rev. Dr.
`vest at Cincinnati, occupying his pulpit, and discussing with
him and others the great questions of the day. The following
three poi~its were emphasized to Dr. West by Dr. Thornwell:
{i) That while disapproving the horrors of the "middle passage," the African slave-trade was, nevertheless, in essence,
only the application of the principle of emigration to a de~~raded people, too lazy to emigrate for their own good;" (2.)
That "slavery is national, protected by the Constitution and the
flag, and we shall never be satisfied until the Dred Scott decision is applied to all the States as well as to the Territories;"
~3.) That "the Northern vote for Fremont has so shaken the
confidence of the South in the Union, that we are already organizing to go out of it, and mean to go out, in the event of
the election of a sectional President." To the question of
Dr. Thon~well, "You are opposed to the extension of slavery.
Tell me, as you know, is this sentiment of opposition only that
of the insignificant abolition party North, or is it the sentiment of the Northern people generally? How high, deep, and
broad is it?" Dr. West answered: "Doctor, you may begin
~Vhile we do not question what Dr. Hodge here says of Dr. Thornwell, that, in
1859, "he wished to prevent the division of the church, as consequent upon the d~vision of our National Union," yet subsequent facts show (as will be seen in subse.
~uent pages of this article), that, after the presidential election in i86o, and during
`~e winter of i86i, the leaders of the church in the South, and Dr. Thornwell
among them, took other ground, and determined on a disruption of. the church as
"consequent upon" what had then taken place, the "secession" of several States.
It may be further true, that the reason why the "resolution" presented by Dr.
Hodge in the General Assembly of i86o (declaring against the "new doctrine"),
was "adopted by a unanimous vote "-even Dr. Thorn well not voting against itwas because the leaders had, at that early day, determined to divide the church if
the Union should be divided; and the proof that they expected the latter event to
occur beyond a doubt, and aided it with all their might, may be found in this article.
[One of the Editors of this R~vi~w has published, in the July No. for 1873, p.
509, that Dr. Thornwell said to him, during the sessions of the 0. 5. Assembly at
Rochester in iS6o, in substance, that he (Dr. T.) "was especially earnest and
anxious that the view of the Boards he was advocating should be adopted by the
church, because he expected the disruption of the nation, and he desired to have
the church organized on such a basis, that it could remain unbroken after the country should be divided." That is still his distinct recollection. ~Ve think the conersation occurred early in the session.-L. H. A.]