APPENDIX 2: OLD SCHOOL RULING ELDERS
Ruling elders played an important role at every level of
Presbyterian church government. They formed the majority of the session, and in
theory were to form half of each presbytery, synod and General Assembly. Every
pastor was to attend presbytery and synod, along with one ruling elder from
each congregation; while General Assembly was comprised of an equal number of
ministers and elders from each presbytery. The reality, however, varied from
time to time and place to place. In presbyteries and synods that were short on
ministers, the elders could easily outnumber the ministers, but more commonly
the ministers outnumbered the elders. But during the 1830s and 1840s ruling
elders were coming to greater prominence in the church.[1]
Most histories of presbyterianism have tended to ignore
the ruling elders. It is generally assumed that they did not play a significant
role in shaping the doctrine and practice of the church, but were shaped by
their ministers and simply voted along with those ministers with whom they
agreed.[2] Not all Old School Presbyterians would have concurred
with this portrait. There were many ruling elders who shaped the direction of
the church through their speeches and writings.[3] With the decline of the status of ministers, many men
who might have been attracted to the ministry in previous generations were now
choosing secular callings, but still desired to be involved in the church.
Further, the actions of even those quiet ruling elders who merely came and
listened to the debates and voted in the church courts could have a significant
impact. The Presbyterian observed in February of 1837, prior to the
division, that “the continued existence of the Presbyterian Church, will
depend upon the votes of a few Elders. This opinion is based upon the fact
that the two parties in the church are so nearly equal in numerical strength,
that the majority on either side will be very small, so that a few votes will
control the house.” Therefore, the author insisted that orthodox presbyteries
needed to make sure that their elders would stay for the whole
assembly–especially the southern and southwestern presbyteries, who frequently
did not send any ruling elders.[4]
The very fact that Presbyterian church government
included ruling elders as equal parties with the ministers in the rule of the
church provided a significant role for the laity in shaping the direction of
the church. Presbyterians regularly objected to any hierarchical approach to
the church which gave the clergy absolute authority over the laity.
Presbyterian public space would include both clergy and laity. But while ruling
elders were democratically elected, only those could stand for election who had
been approved by the session. While Presbyterians desired to see the laity
involved in the rule of the church, they were convinced that only those who had
the proper spiritual qualifications should exercise that public role.
Who were these elders? While a complete list of Old
School Presbyterian ruling elders is not yet available, the following
biographical chart includes over one hundred–including some of the most
prominent men in national politics and business. Many of these men would take
two or three weeks out of their busy schedules to attend, deliberate and vote
at the annual General Assembly. For instance, the 1856 Assembly included Judges
John Fine of New York, James M. Porter of Pennsylvania, D. C. Campbell of
Georgia, and Humphrey H. Leavitt of Ohio (who would rule against his fellow Old
School Presbyterian Clement Vallandigham during his infamous Civil War treason
trial),[5] along with Kensey Johns, the Chancellor of Delaware.[6] Some of these men were regular participants in the
Assembly. Fine attended seven General Assemblies, including five years
consecutively from 1853-1857. Leavitt attended ten Assemblies between 1838 and
1868, and also served for more than fifteen years on each three of the Assemblies
boards. Hamilton R. Gamble, the former governor of Missouri, attended the 1844
General Assembly and served on several of the church’s boards. Robert C. Grier,
a justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1846-1872 attended both the
1845 and 1846 Assemblies, and served on special committees for the Assembly in
the 1850s. James Lenox, one of New York’s wealthiest businessmen, attended the
crucial Assemblies of 1835, 1836, and 1837, and continued as an active member
of several denominational boards, as well as president of the American Bible
Society. Former United States Senator Walter Lowrie left his prestigious
position as secretary to the United States Senate in order to become the
secretary of the Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions in 1839–a position he
filled for thirty years, serving as a commissioner to fourteen General
Assemblies (more than any other Old School elder).
Every major nineteenth-century American denomination
could no doubt claim a similar list of leading citizens. But Presbyterians
prided themselves on being the only denomination that gave these laymen an
equal voice with the ministers in the government of the church. These men were
not merely members of the church, but active participants in shaping the
direction of the church.[7]
Why did these prominent citizens take part in the
government of the church? At least in part because they believed that the
church had a crucial role in shaping the nation. When some Presbyterians
objected to placing a new seminary next to Thomas Cooper’s South Carolina
College in 1829, two elders, Joseph Cumming and Bayard E. Hand, convinced the
synod to locate the seminary at Columbia, insisting upon “the power of the
gospel in pulling down strong holds.”[8] Similar confidence was exhibited thirty years later
by ruling elder and wealthy Chicago businessman Cyrus McCormick when he
single-handedly funded an Old School seminary, newspaper and two churches out
of the conviction that the preaching of the gospel was the best hope for the
maintenance of the Union (see chapter eight).
The following is not a list of the “best” elders in the
Old School, but of those who were also influential in business, law, medicine,
politics or education. Many of the finest elders in the church were humble
farmers or clerks. At the same time, this is not a list of the most eminent
laymen in the church. While presidents John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, James
K. Polk, James Buchanan, and Abraham Lincoln were all pew holders or members of
Old School churches, they are not found in this list because they were not
ruling elders. General Assembly attendance and participation, along with
service on the boards of General Assembly or other Presbyterian institutions
are the main ecclesiastical criteria, while political, civic, intellectual or
economic contributions are considered as social criteria. I have attempted to
include representatives from various parts of the country.
(The chart may someday be
placed on the web, but is not in a form conducive to html)
[1]One
ruling elder claimed that it was becoming less common for ministers to treat
elders as their assistants rather than their equals. A Ruling Elder, “Ruling
Elders. Their Condition as It Is, and as It Should Be,” Spirit of the XIXth
Century 2.5 (May, 1843) 293-302.
[2]One
valuable exception is Julius Melton, “A View from the Pew: Nineteenth-Century
Elders and Presbyterian Worship,” American Presbyterians 71:3 (Fall
1993) 161-174.
[3]The most
powerful speech of the 1837 Assembly, which was still remembered 20 years later
as one of the most significant events of that Assembly, came from Samuel C.
Anderson, a ruling elder from Virginia.
[4]Witherspoon,
“The Eldership and the Next General Assembly,” Presbyterian 7.8 (Feb 25,
1837).After the division, the Watchman and Observer observed that the
ministers in one synod voted to leave the Old School in 1838, but the synod was
retained by the Old School through the vote of the ruling elders, 10-1. L. L.,
“Should the Synod of Virginia Be Divided?” W&O 1.30 (March 12, 1846)
116. L. L. comments: “We see from this fact that the dignity, stability and
purity of Synod, may depend in particular cases upon the presence of lay
members.”
[5]Leavitt
was also the U.S. Circuit Court Judge from the District of Ohio who ruled in
the case of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, when it attempted to gain a
portion of the funds of the Western Book Concern in 1849. His ruling in favor
of the northern Methodist church was based upon the principle of the decision
in the Old School/New School property case of 1840, that “any individual or
section may withdraw from the church but can take with them no right to share
in the property they enjoyed as members.” Quoted in Richard Carwardine, “Trauma
in Methodism: Property, Church Schism, and Sectional Polarization in Antebellum
America,” God and Mammon: Protestants, Money, and the Market, 1790-1860 (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2002) 204.
[6]“The Late
General Assembly,” PH 25.41 (June 12, 1856). The Kentucky correspondent
commented: “It seemed almost incredible, among all the political strifes and
fierce encounters of the day, to see a body of men from every section of the
country. . . moving on from day to day in undisturbed tranquility of temper and
harmony of sentiment. Where on earth shall we find another like it?”
[7]At this
time there was not a single model for electing ruling elders. In some
congregations all baptized members could vote, while in others it was limited
to communicant members, or to those persons to who contributed to the support
of the church. The 1822 and 1830 General Assemblies declared that it was
desirable to have only communicants voting, but did not require that practice.
In 1855 the Assembly went a step further and declared that it was most
consonant with the Form of Government to allow only communicants to vote. And,
as the 1859 Assembly affirmed, there were no age limits in voting. The call of
a minister was a somewhat different procedure. Since there was a financial
commitment involved, the Form of Government gave a vote to all
those who attended regularly and promised to support the church financially–a
right which the Assembly affirmed as late as 1867. (See William E. Moore, The
Presbyterian Digest (Philadelphia: PBP, 1873).
[8]“The
Seminary at Columbia,” Southern Presbyterian 7.41 (July 27, 1854)
162.