The Doctrine of Caiaphas by Rev. David Murdoch D.D.

“It is of no avail now to inquire how came things into this state, or who is responsible;” and yet original sin is one of the doctrines of our Church. The regular physician asks, What did your father die of? It is the new theology that has discarded “Adams’s sin:” but this is a step farther than the greatest heresiarchs have gone - ignoring personal responsibility. This little germ produced a great tree. In four months, the whole Presbytery of Chemung lodged in its branches.

I would here respectfully call the attention of all who may afterward be called upon to pass judgment upon the case, to this point in the controversy, and not fix the point at any later period. The question was then started by Mr. Robinson, “What are we to do with this smoking heap of sawdust?” as it was burning at this date, October 26, 1859. The Presbytery were called in, and their advice was, “Take out the running gear.” This is our advice. The only way you can save the mill. Now, common-sense could have told them to shovel the smoking heap out of the way; but instead of that, the utmost tenderness is shown to the smoldering fire, and instead of throwing a drop of water upon it, oil is poured on, which, indeed, keeps down the blaze, but renders the heat more intense. “Only put in a new wheel, and the smoking heap of sawdust will go out of itself.”

That this was Mr. Robinson’s prejudgment, notwithstanding his call for my counsel, will be seen in what follows. The meetings in view were, of themselves, admirably calculated to blow up any heap of sawdust; and if it did not smoke, the sparks that fell on all sides could not fail to set it on fire, if it had any life in it. Please to go back to October 26, 1859, and judge things not by December, 1860.

As in duty bound, I consulted with Mr. Robinson, but of course, nothing came of it. We were now on different tacks – I was holding on to the old doctrine of personal responsibility; he was trying to shut his eyes to all the past. We sat, like two chess players, studying the board, and left it where it was. I could afford to wait the next move, and it came soon; for my friend opposite had not invited me to the game without knowing where he was to put his finger. As for myself, all hopes of winning were gone, and it became apparent with me but a question of time, which I did not fail to consider in the only two positions I could take – what was the best for the people, and what was best for myself. In regard to the first, I was convinced that by prolonging the final separation till June, 1861, and looking forward to that, would so prepare the congregation, that the sore would be nearly healed, and I could be ready to execute a long cherished plan of making a visit to my native country, before I settled in some other place, a refreshed man. These were my deliberate intentions.

As I anticipated, Mr. Robinson was not long in moving when he perceived that I sat still. He called the Trustees together, when nothing new was laid before them. It is worth telling here, that this was the first time since the election of the new Trustees, H. M. Partridge and H. B. Smith ^{footnote no. 3}

^{Footnote no. 3: Lest any misconstruction should be made of my words, let me here say, that Dr. Hart, H. M. Partridge, and H. B. Smith, have not, in a single instance, shown the smallest turning aside from my wishes. They knew nothing of the letter here inserted, as coming from the Trustees as my friends. Nor have they, under that guise, ever expressed any desire that for my best interests “that I had better leave.” These advices, followed by positive acts of opposition, belong to a new code of friendship, got up to suit the doctrine of expediency.}

Rare Book Monthly

The Doctrine of Caiaphas by Rev. David Murdoch D.D.

Rare Book Monthly

Archived Articles

The Doctrine of Caiaphas by Rev. David Murdoch D.D.

Rare Book Monthly

Article Search

Archived Articles