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

Did I hold such principles as laid down in the above letter, I would despise myself: and did I believe that these were the sincere sentiments of Orrin Robinson, I would no more trust him, that I would any politician that barters his principles for success. I have ever taught that it was glorious to be beaten when on the right side. I hope ever to rank myself on the side of Him, who was beaten down on the “right” side; and had I left “quietly,” as I was advised, I never would have held up my head among honest men again, knowing that I had yielded to wrong, because I had no hope to being successful.

It is unnecessary here to go into detail. It was agreed to by me, that a paper requesting the presence of Presbytery might be presented, by the way of what lawyers call “joining issue.” This was Mr. Robinson’s own phrase, and should set all doubt at rest as to the understanding between us. To my surprise, the petition for dissolution was presented; and when Presbytery did meet, it was evident that they came with the full purpose of severing the bond. Finding that this could not be done, since no preparatory steps had been taken, they resolved themselves into an “Advisory Committee,” and did in effect what they could not do as a judicial body. People do not judge between a “judiciary” and a “committee.” Had they been dressed in full-bottomed wigs and Geneva cloaks, when they sat down to judge, and cast them aside when they became transmogrified into a Council, the spectators would then have understood that there was no more power in these plain men than in a Congregational ex parte council; but without the legal authority, they made me feel the whole weight of a judgment-seat. The Presbytery of Bath, in the famous Prattsburg case, were fools in comparison to Chemung. Could those Bath brethren but have known the art of the chameleon, and put on a Congregational color, according to the time and place, they might have done anything they chose.

And yet this Advisory Council were very scrupulous about order; the other things must be after Presbyterial rule. The power of change was wholly with themselves. On the Saturday previous to the meeting of Presbytery, the members of the Church, male and female, met, called by a regular notice from the pulpit, ordered by the officers of the Church, in which my resignation was accepted as to take place June 1, 1861. At this meeting, made up of forty-five males and eighty-eight females, resolutions were passed and published, one of which directed the whole proceedings to be put into the Moderator’s hand when Presbytery should meet; and can it be believed that this Council paid no more attention to them than to so much waste paper, upon the ground that, females being present, it was not Presbyterial, though it was agreeable to the usages of the Church?_{Footnote no. 4} Yet they utterly ignore the action of a whole church, regularly called together by their own officers, according to usage.

_{Footnote no. 4: See Mr. Robinson’s letter at the ending of the call.}

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