congregational assemblies, that is, some of the people are inclined that way,

congregational assemblies, that is, some of the people are inclined that way,

there is satisfactory evidence that it was managed on the congregational plan, and it is very doubtful whether this was the case even there, before the settlement of Mr. Pierson in 1714.

It is, however, highly probable, that there were several churches connected with the presbytery before 1715, which were but imperfectly organized. This could hardly have been otherwise under the circumstances of the country. Perfect order and regularity are not to be expected in any rising community, whether civil or ecclesiastical. The wonder is, even on the assumption that the ministers were the strictest presbyterians, that there is so little indication of imperfect organization in the churches. The existence of such churches may be inferred from the language of Mr. Andrews in 1730. In a letter of that date, he says: "In the Jerseys there are some congregational assemblies, that is, some of the people are inclined that way, being originally from New England, yet they all submit to the presbyteries readily enough; and the ministers are all presbyterians, though most from New England." This moderate language is indeed very far from being decisive. He does not speak of congregational churches, but merely says, that "some of the people are inclined" to Congregationalism. This is just what might be expected from all other contemporary accounts. The churches there were composed of Dutch, Scotch, and New England people, and hence the moderate and correct mode adopted by Mr. Andrews of stating the amount of congregationalism among them.

A more decisive proof that there were churches imperfectly organized, in connexion with the first presbytery, upon its formation, is to be found in the following minute, adopted in 1714: "For the better establishing and settling of congregations, it is ordered and appointed, that in every congregation there be a sufficient number of assistants chosen, to aid the minister in the management of congregational affairs; and that there be a book of records kept for that effect, and that the same be annually brought here to be revised by presbytery." p. 25. The next year, there is the following minute on this

subject: "In pursuance of an act made last presbytery, appointing every minister to appoint assistants and session book, &c. and in regard divers of the ministers have not complied with the designs of said act, it was therefore ordered, that the several ministers come with said books, and perform the other ends of the said act, as it is specified therein." p. 28. Again, in 1716, when the presbytery was divided, it is said: "With respect to session books, mentioned in our last year's minutes, it is ordered that they be brought into, and revised by the respective presbyteries, to which they shall after this time, according to our preceding appointment, belong." p. 34.

It is certainly to be inferred from these minutes, that there were some congregations in 1714, which had no regular sessions. From the second minute, however, it would appear, that the difficulty related more to session-books than to the sessions themselves. It is surprising that any one should attempt to prove from this order of 1714, that there were no elders appointed in our churches before that date, when the reverse is perfectly notorious. It is not only known and admitted, that the Maryland and many of the Pennsylvania churches had elders from the beginning, but they are constantly recorded as present, as members of the presbytery. The first record is a fragment containing the minutes of an afternoon session, of December 27, 1706, when no elders are mentioned; an occurrence far too frequent, even now, to excite surprise. At the next meeting, 1707, there were present four ministers and four elders, and from that time onward there is no meeting, either of the presbytery or synod of which elders are not mentioned as constituting a part. In 1710, three ministers were admitted as new members, and it is immediately recorded: "Memorandum upon the admission of those ministers above mentioned, three more elders sat in presbytery, namely, Mr. Pierce Bray, Mr. John Foord, Mr. Leonard Van Degrift." p. 9. There is, therefore, just as much evidence that there were elders from the beginning of the presbytery, as that there were preachers. While this is an undeniable fact, it is freely admitted there were churches in

which elders were not to be found. The wonder is that such churches were not more numerous. Perfect organization, as before remarked, is not to be expected at the beginning of any community. The Presbyterian Church in this country, has never pretended to be more strict than that of Scotland. According to the theory of that church, every congregation should have its own elders. Yet knowing it was vain to try to make bricks without straw, it wisely ordered that this should not be attempted, and hence in the early period of the history of that church, there were multitudes of congregations without a session. "When we speak of the eldership of particular congregations," says the book of policy of 1581, "we mean not that every particular parish kirk can or may have their own particular eldership, specially inlandward, but we think that three, four, more or fewer, particular kirks, may have one eldership common to them all." The presbyterianism, therefore, of the Scotch and Irish ministers who came to this country, need not be very violently questioned, if after the example of their fathers, they appointed elders when they could obtain suitable persons, and where they could not, did the best they could without them.

After all, the really important question respects the principles of the founders of our church. What form of government did they aim at introducing? What were their demands? Most of the churches were regularly organized, some few were not. Was the presbytery satisfied with this? Were they willing that things should remain in this state, or that the congregational plan should be introduced? Far from it. They "ordered" those churches which, as yet, had no sessions, to choose them, to keep regular records, and to produce them annually to be revised by the presbytery. When this "act" was, in some instances, disregarded, the order was repeated again and again. It is hard to see what a set of men, though just from Scotland, could have done more. Had they been as indifferent on this subject, as the church has been for the last forty or fifty years, they would have let it alone, and allowed the several congregations to take their own course in relation to it. It is, therefore, very evident, that the original

presbytery was far more strict in regard to this point than the church has been, at least since 1801.

There is one record on the minutes which presents the opinions of the early members of our church, on this subject, in so clear a light that it must not be passed over. In 1722, Mr. Dickinson and some others introduced four articles into synod, explanatory of their principles of church government. The first of these declares, "that the power of the keys is committed to church officers and to them only." By the power of the keys is, of course, meant the power of discipline; the right to open or shut the door of the church. This right, according to Congregationalism, belongs to the brotherhood; according to presbyterianism, to church officers and to them only. This article, then, contains an explicit condemnation of the congregational method of conducting the discipline of the church, and of consequence of those churches (connected with the synod) that acted upon that plan. Yet these articles came from what may be called the New England side of the house. They were introduced in opposition to a measure proposed by one of the Scotch members, and were unanimously adopted. There was, therefore, as to this point, no diversity of opinion. Whatever irregularity in practice might, in some cases, exist, it was never sanctioned, but condemned by all parties and on all suitable occasions.

The next subject of investigation is the organization and power of the original presbytery. A presbytery, according to our present constitution, is a convention of bishops and elders within a certain district. It has, "power; to receive and issue appeals from church sessions, and references brought before them in an orderly manner; to examine and license candidates for the holy ministry; to ordain, install, remove, and judge ministers; to examine, and approve or censure the records of church sessions; to resolve questions of doctrine and discipline seriously and reasonably proposed; to condemn erroneous opinions which injure the peace or purity of the church; to visit particular churches for the purpose of inquiring into their state, and

redressing the evils that may have arisen in them; to unite or divide congregations at the request of the people, or to form or to receive new congregations, and, in general, to order whatever pertains to the spiritual welfare of the churches under their care." That the first presbytery was a convention of ministers and elders, has already been satisfactorily shown. And it is really remarkable, considering the circumstances, how large and regular an attendance of elders was obtained. In 1707, there were four ministers and four elders present; in 1708, six ministers and three elders; in 1709, seven ministers and five elders; in 1710, at first four ministers and four elders, afterwards seven of each class. Thus it continued until the formation of the synod, when the proportion of elders in attendance is generally less.

That this presbytery exercised all the powers above specified in their fullest latitude, is evident from every page of their records. With regard to the powers of ecclesiastical bodies, much confusion and misapprehension have arisen by pressing too far the analogy between them and those of similar names in civil society. Our judicatories are neither courts nor legislatures, properly speaking. They are the governing bodies in the church, and are invested with the general authority to administer its affairs. This authority no more admits of being reduced to distinct categories, than that of a parent. It is that of general direction and control; limited, as in the case of a parent, by the nature of the relation, by the word of God, and by mutual stipulations.

It is precisely such a general authority, as above stated, that we find the first presbytery exercising over the churches under its care. No congregation could either settle or dismiss a pastor without its permission. All calls then, as now, were presented to the presbytery, and if approved, were handed to the persons for whom they were designed. Thus in 1710, the call from Monokin for Mr. McNish, was presented to him by the presbytery. In the same year, Mr. Wade, having resigned his charge, it is said, "the presbytery

do henceforth allow the good people of Woodbridge to supply themselves with another pastor." In 1712, a call was presented from one of the Maryland churches for the Rev. Thomas Bratten, and forwarded to him; and he having died before his settlement, another was presented the following year from the same church to the Rev. Robert Lawson. Similar records occur in the minutes of almost every year. In 1715, we find the following: "Mr. Philip Ringo having presented a call from the people of Maidenhead and Hopewell, in West Jersey, unto Mr. Robert Orr, the presbytery called for, considered of, and approved the said Mr. Orr, his credentials as a preacher of the gospel, and likewise considered of and approved the call, which being presented by the moderator unto the said Mr. Orr, he accepted of it." On the same page, there is a record of precisely the same character, respecting a call from Baltimore county, for Mr. Hugh Conn. In the minutes for 1716, it is stated: "A call from the people of South Hampton, on Long Island, to Mr. Gelston, wherein the said people do subject themselves to us in the Lord, as a presbytery, being presented to us in the name of their representatives, we did tender it to the said Mr. Gelston, and he accepted it."

In like manner we find the presbytery dismissing pastors, with or without their consent. Mr. Wade's case is an example of the latter kind. He resigned his charge in Woodbridge in 1711, but immediately retracted his resignation, and insisted upon continuing to act as the pastor of the church. Whereupon, in 1712, the presbytery, after a recital of the grounds of their dissatisfaction with him, say, "We, therefore, in the fear and in the name of our great master, do appoint and ordain that the said Mr. Wade do no longer exercise his ministerial office in the town of Woodbridge, or among the people thereof, unless allowed by the presbytery hereafter, but that he forthwith, and without resistance directly or indirectly, give place to some other, whom God in his providence may send, and the good people of Woodbridge, or the major part of them, call and agree about." An example of an opposite kind occurred in 1718, when the synod acting in a presbyterial capacity, say: "Rev. John Hampton having petitioned for a

dismission from his pastoral relation to the people of Snowhill, they considering that the said Mr. Hampton was not able to perform the office of a pastor to that people, without manifest hazard to his life, through bodily indisposition, the synod upon mature deliberation having put the matter to vote, it was carried nemine contradicente to accept of his resignation, and to declare his congregation vacant; to the great regret of synod." In 1726, in consequence of a reference from the presbytery of Long Island, the synod determined inter alia, "That Mr. Anderson, according to his desire, be left at liberty to remove from New York, and to accept of a call from any other people, as Providence may determine, and that the people of New York be at liberty to call another minister, in an orderly way, as soon as they shall pay up what arrears appear justly due to Mr. Anderson." In the following year, Mr. Pemberton, having been called without the intervention of the presbytery of Long Island, the synod made the following minute: "As to the call and settlement of the Rev. Mr. Pemberton at New York, the synod do determine that the rules of our presbyterian constitution were not observed, in several respects, by the congregation in that matter. This also passed nemine contradicente. And it was put to vote, receive or delay the receiving of Mr. Pemberton as a member of this synod, and it was carried for delaying, which delay did not flow from disrespect to Mr. Pemberton or any fault or objection to him, but from other reasons." These examples, which are only a few of those which might be selected from the minutes for the period under consideration, illustrate the kind of authority exercised by the presbytery in relation to the calling and settling of ministers.

Similar instances might be adduced of every other power ever exercised at the present day by a presbytery, over a congregation; as that of erecting new churches; dividing congregations; appointing supplies, &c. &c. These, however, are so familiar, as to render any thing more than this general reference unnecessary. It will be more interesting to notice a few examples of a somewhat different character. As early as 1708, the people of Newcastle petitioned "that the people of White Clay creek be not suffered to

set up a new meeting-house." These early presbyterians must have had high ideas of the authority of presbytery or they never would have presented such a request. In consequence of this petition it was "ordered that the people of Newcastle, and of the country, should not be divided by setting up two separate meetings." This appears to have been not merely a refusal to divide an ecclesiastical body, but to allow the same church to have two places of worship. A similar case occurred at a somewhat later period. The presbytery of Newcastle had refused to sanction a portion of Mr. Houston's congregation on Elk river having a new meeting-house. An appeal was taken from this decision to the synod, which in 1726, unanimously approved of the conduct of the presbytery. In the meantime the meeting house was built, and the matter coming up the following year, the synod, "desirous of taking healing as well as just measures in determining that affair," judged, "First that that party be allowed to have a new meeting house in some part of their side of the congregation, yet still remain a part of the congregation, until the synod or presbytery have more encouragement for a new erection. Secondly, that in order to this the new meeting house be removed to any place above six miles distant in a direct line from the old meeting house, which said supplicants shall agree upon, and that it shall be seven miles from any other," &c. At a subsequent meeting, the synod agreed to abate one half mile of the specified distance. It is not often that we see ecclesiastical bodies quite so authoritative, in such matters, at the present day. Again it was very common for the presbytery to see that the congregations paid their pastors' salaries. Thus in 1708, it was ordered that a letter be written to Snowhill "requiring their faithfulness and care" in collecting Mr. Hampton's salary. A similar order was made the next year in relation to Mr. McNish. In like manner, as mentioned above, the New York congregation were allowed to call another minister, when they had paid what was due to Mr. Anderson. And, in 1733, (though this is rather beyond our present limits,) when the church in Philadelphia wished to call an assistant minister, they were not allowed to do it, until they had pledged themselves not to diminish Mr. Andrews' salary, on that account.

Another prerogative of a presbytery is the right to review and correct the proceedings of church sessions. That the original presbytery exercised this power has been already shown, from the order made in 1714, and twice repeated, that the sessional records should be regularly produced for examination. The authority to sit in judgment on the decisions of the lower courts, is involved in this general right of review. To the original presbytery, therefore, appeals were regularly made from church sessions. Thus in 1711, a censure inflicted upon two members of Mr. Wade's church was reversed by the presbytery, and the precise form of words prescribed, in which their decision was to be announced. There are, happily, but few cases of appeal upon record before the formation of the synod. When the church was enlarged they became more numerous. Though these cases, in one aspect, belong to the exhibition of the relation in which the synod stood to the presbyteries, yet as they serve, at the same time, to illustrate the nature of the control exercised by the presbyteries over the congregations, they may be properly referred to in this place. In 1717, Mr. Wotherspoon presented to the presbytery of Newcastle, the case of one of his members who had married the widow of his brother. "The presbytery considering some circumstances in regard of different sentiments, between us and the Dutch ministers in this affair thinks fit," as it is recorded, "to defer further consideration upon it till our next meeting; against which time we may have occasion to hear more from the Dutch ministers about this case." At the next meeting, it is said, that as the Dutch ministers were expected to be at synod, which was to meet the following week in Philadelphia, the whole matter was referred to that body. The synod decided, nem. con. that the marriage was unlawful, and that as long as the parties lived together, "they be debarred from all sealing ordinances, and that Mr. Wotherspoon make intimation hereof to his congregation in what time and manner he shall think convenient." The following year it was reported, "that Mr. Wotherspoon had, in due time observed the order of the synod concerning" this affair. In 1728, six persons who had been excommunicated by the Rev. Mr. Jones, appealed to the presbytery of Philadelphia, who referred the

matter to synod. That body decided that as the appellants confessed they had done wrong in breaking away from the communion of Mr. Jones' church, they should on a public acknowledgment of their error, "be absolved from the aforesaid censure, and so be free to join with what congregation they please."

These few examples are sufficient to show the regular operation of the system of appeals, and the supervision of the higher judicatories over the acts of church sessions, which is one of the leading features of presbyterianism. Another illustration of the nature of this general supervision over congregations may be found in the standing rule adopted in 1710, when it was "ordered that the ministers and elders of this meeting come prepared for the future, to give a true and impartial account how matters are mutually betwixt them, both with regard to spirituals and temporals." It was accordingly the custom, after this, to call first upon the ministers to give an account of the state of their congregations; and then upon the elders to say how their ministers were supported, and how they discharged their duties. Thus, in 1711, we find the following record: "Inquiry was made of the several ministers, touching the state of their congregations and of themselves in relation thereto; and also of the several elders, not only of the measures taken to support the ministers, but of the life, conversation, and doctrine of their several pastors, and report was given to our satisfaction for this time." This custom was long continued as appears from the records.

As this is an illustration, not only of the superintendence exercised by the presbytery over the churches, but also of the "watch and care" which they extended over the ministers, it naturally introduces the consideration of the authority of that body over its own members. That it exercised the right of examining, licensing, ordaining, suspending, and deposing ministers, is what might be expected from its name, as these are ordinary and acknowledged presbyterial functions. The examples of the exercise of this

power are so numerous that they need not be adduced. It will be more instructive to refer to some illustrations of a more general character. When a new member joined the presbytery, it was customary to make him promise subjection to them in the Lord. This much at least was included in Mr. Wade's voluntary submission to "our constitution," as the presbytery expressed themselves, because it was disobedience to a decision of the presbytery in continuing to preach in Woodbridge after his resignation, that led to their censure upon him. In like manner, when the Rev. Mr. Pumry was received in 1715, it is stated that, "he was heartily and unanimously accepted, he promising subjection to the presbytery in the Lord." The same formula is used upon other similar occasions. When the Rev. Mr. Powell was received in 1713, the presbytery being satisfied as to his ordination, &c., admitted him as a member, but advised him to obtain from England, more ample testimonials within a year, and "that till then it shall be free to him to exercise his ministry in all its parts, where Providence shall call him, but not fully to settle until the expiration of the said time." In the following year the presbytery resolved, "that having considered that their brother Mr. Powell had used diligence to procure further credentials, according to last year's minutes, but not having received answers from England, and we being further satisfied by such long trial and personal acquaintance, together with other considerable circumstances, and now a unanimous call being presented to us for him from the people of Cohanzy, the presbytery, after mature deliberation, did sustain the call, but withal did recommend him, as formerly, that he should procure letters from England." Such cases illustrate, both the watchfulness of the presbytery, and the authority which they exercised over their own members. Mr. Powell was admitted a member, but was forbidden to settle for a year; and at the expiration of that period, it was a matter of deliberation whether he should be allowed to accept a call or not.

It appears then, that there is no one of the functions of a presbytery, as now understood, which the original presbytery of our church did not exercise

from the beginning. It claimed the same supervision and control over churches; the same authority over its own members; and was in all respects as thoroughly presbyterian in its powers as any similar body at the present day. It may be asked, however, whether there were not some modes of action adopted by that body, more allied to Congregationalism than any thing which now occurs? So it has been said. Proof of this point has been sought in the fact, that the presbytery performed so much of its appropriate business by committees. It was very common, for example, for the presbytery to appoint a committee to examine a candidate for the ministry, and if satisfied with his qualifications, to license, ordain, or install him. Mr. Gillespie was thus ordained by a committee in 1712; Mr. Wotherspoon in 1713; Mr. Bradner in 1714; Mr. Thompson in 1716. Indeed this was the method commonly pursued. Should it even be admitted that there was a departure in this mode of procedure, from strict presbyterianism, a sufficient explanation might be found in the circumstances of the church, without assuming any tendency to Congregationalism on the part of the presbytery. It is to be remembered, that the members of that body were scattered over the country at distant intervals, from the mouth of the Chesapeake to Long Island sound. There were then no such facilities for travelling as those which we have long enjoyed. On this account the presbytery met but once a year. As it was deemed important that the candidate should be ordained in the presence of the congregation which he was called to serve, such ordinations could seldom be performed at the stated meetings of presbytery. Is it a matter of surprise then, that instead of requiring all their scattered members to be present, at a great expense of time and money, they should devolve this duty upon three or four of the neighbouring ministers, and authorize them to act in their name? Do we not constantly install by committee? And is not installation as much a presbyterial act as ordination? The founders of our church must have been formalists indeed, had they not acted as they did.

There is, however, no need of any apology in the case. The course in question is not only consistent with the strictest presbyterianism, but arose out of its strictness. The idea of inherent, in opposition to delegated power in the presbytery, is involved in this assumption of the right to delegate its authority to a committee of its own appointment. So far from such a committee resembling a congregational council, it is the opposite extreme. There is some analogy between such a council and a presbytery, considered as a convention of ministers and elders, who are representatives of the churches; but none at all between a council and a committee appointed, not by the churches but by presbytery, and by them clothed with authority to exercise one of its most important functions. It is in perfect accordance with this idea that the synod were accustomed to appoint a commission invested with all synodical powers, and to nominate committees to visit particular places and decide cases of discipline, or to adjust difficulties with the full authority of the appointing body. It was on the same principle also that the synod would name some half dozen of its members, and bid them retire, and examine and ordain a candidate; or that in matters of difficulty, they would direct two or three experienced ministers to meet with a particular presbytery as members, and assist in adjudicating a given case. All these modes of proceeding were borrowed from Scotland, and they all continued in our church as long as its original character lasted. It is rather singular that the very circumstance should be fixed upon, to prove the Congregationalism of the early members of our church, which most distinctly proves the reverse. It was certainly not Congregationalism which induced the general assembly in Scotland to appoint committees, with full powers to visit different parts of the kingdom, "to plant kirks with qualified ministers, and to depose and deprive such as be unqualified either in life or doctrine;" or to designate the presbytery of Edinburgh with eight other ministers, to summon certain Earls, Lords, Barons, and Freeholders, and institute process against them;2 or to give a commission "to certain brethren to visit and try the doctrine, life, conversation, diligence, and fidelity of the pastors within the said (i.e. all) presbyteries." Things analogous to these we

find in the early history of our church, and they savour of any thing rather than of Congregationalism. This acting then, by committees clothed with plenary powers, should never be referred to in proof of the lax presbyterianism of the founders of our church.

What renders this reference in the present case the more surprising is, that in ordaining by committee, the presbytery acted in obedience to the very letter of the Westminster Directory. It is therein ordered that, "upon the day appointed for the ordination, which is to be performed in the church where he that is to be ordained is to serve, a solemn fast shall be kept by the congregation, that they may more earnestly join in prayer for a blessing upon the ordinance of Christ, and the labours of his servant for their good. The presbytery shall come to the place, or at least three or four ministers of the word shall be sent thither from the presbytery, of which one appointed by the presbytery shall preach to the people concerning the office and duties of the ministers of Christ, and how the people ought to receive them for their work's sake." In this point, therefore, the original presbytery must stand acquitted of any want of fidelity to their own system.

There is, however, one case, and as far as is known, one only, which is not accounted for by what has now been said. The people of Cape May were without a pastor. Mr. Bradner, a candidate for the ministry, was willing to serve them, but had no authority to preach. In this emergency, three of the nearest ministers, Messrs. Davis, Hampton, and Henry, on their own responsibility examined and licensed him. This was in March; and in September the matter was reported to presbytery and received their sanction. That is, as a pro re nata meeting of the presbytery was out of the question, these gentlemen thought it better that they should act informally, than that a people should be deprived of the preaching of the gospel for six months. The presbytery said they did right; John Knox or Andrew Melvill would have said the same. It is difficult to see what this case can prove, beyond what every one must be ready to admit, that though consistent

presbyterians, the founders of our church were not bigots for matters of form. Nothing can more clearly show the character of the members of the first presbytery, than the fact that the above mentioned case is the only one, as it is believed, which can be produced from their minutes of departure from even the forms of presbyterianism.

The preceding review will serve to exhibit with sufficient clearness, the nature of the ecclesiastical system introduced by the first ministers of our church. It was presbyterianism; for there is no function of a presbytery which they did not claim and exercise as fully as is done by any similar body at the present day. There is no evidence of indifference with regard either to doctrine or order, and no relaxation of discipline for moral offences. The minutes abound with evidence of the diligence, punctuality, and zeal of the members; and of their earnest desire to promote the spiritual welfare of the people and their own improvement.

It has already been stated that in 1716, three presbyteries were constituted, who agreed to meet annually as a synod. It is therefore necessary, in order to understand the character of American presbyterianism, to ascertain the relation which this synod sustained to the presbyteries and to the churches under their care. In order to illustrate this subject it must be stated, that the first synod not only exercised all the powers which, at the present day, are claimed by such bodies, but several others which our present synods are not in the habit of assuming. To the former class belong, first, the general power of review and control of presbyteries. This, as far as the review of records is concerned, was provided for at the time the synod was constituted. It was then "ordered that a book be kept by each presbytery containing a record of their proceedings, and that it be brought every year to our anniversary synod to be revised." Accordingly, it is regularly noticed what presbyterial books were presented at each meeting, and who were appointed to examine them. Thus in 1719, it is stated, "that the presbytery book of Newcastle was revised and approved by the synod unto the end of sessio septima in page

19, as is to be seen in the margin of the said book, in the above said page. Ordered, that the presbytery of Long Island get a new well ordered book against the next synod, and that they leave marginal room for synodical corrections." Secondly, to the class of ordinary powers belongs also that of receiving and deciding appeals and references from the lower judicatories. Examples of the exercise of this power have already been given; as the reference by the Newcastle presbytery, of the case of the church member who had married his brother's widow; and of the appeal of the members of Mr. Jones' congregation, who had been excommunicated. In 1722, the presbytery of Newcastle rebuked, suspended, and deposed the Rev. Mr. Laing, "for violating the Lord's day by washing himself in a creek, and for his indiscreet carriage before the presbytery at the time of his rebuke." When the matter was brought before the synod in 1723, that body decided that, "they do judge those censures of suspension and deposition were too severe, and do therefore reverse them." The rebuke, they decided, was merited. In 1720, an appeal by certain members of Mr. Houston's congregation from a decision of the presbytery of Newcastle was tried, and the presbytery unanimously sustained. There is one order of the synod connected with this appeal, which, whether it is to be referred to the head of ordinary, or extraordinary powers, the reader must judge. The matter in dispute, as stated upon a preceding page, was the erection of a new meeting-house by a portion of Mr. Houston's congregation. The synod at last decided that they might have a new house, provided they removed it to a distance of six miles from the old one. This, it appears, they neglected to do. Whereupon the synod "ordered, that no minister preach in the said new meeting-house while in that place, where it now is." That this order was not a dead letter, appears from the following minute in the records of the presbytery of Newcastle: "The presbytery having inquired into Mr. Gelston's conduct, with respect to his violation of the synod's act relating to the new erection at New London, by his preaching within the forbidden bounds of the said act, and in the prohibited house; the presbytery having heard and considered his reasons, do judge them invalid; and that Mr.

Gelston's conduct in that affair is highly offensive and irregular. Mr. Gelston being called in, and interrogated with respect to his resolution of receding from the said practice, he acknowledged his transgression, and promised absolutely not to preach in the said house, nor elsewhere within the prohibited bounds, till either the synod or presbytery open the door for him."2 This, it might be supposed, is presbyterianism sufficiently rigid to satisfy the most sceptical as to the character both of the synod and presbytery.

To the class of ordinary powers belongs also, the right "to take effectual care that the presbyteries observe the constitution of the church." This is illustrated by such cases as the following. It seems that some doubt had arisen whether the presbytery of Long Island had proceeded regularly in the settlement of Mr. Anderson in New York. When the matter came before synod, the following record was made: "After a full hearing and long reasoning upon the case represented by Messrs. Livingston and Smith, touching Mr. Anderson's settlement in New York, the question was put, whether the proceedings of the presbytery of Long Island, in the settlement of Mr. Anderson at New York, were regular? and it was decided in the affirmative by a great majority." On the other hand, as stated above, when the question came up respecting the settlement of Mr. Pemberton, it was decided that, "the rules of our presbyterian constitution" had not been observed in his case, and the synod decline to recognise him as a member.

Finally, the synod exercised a general supervision over the churches, warning them of improper or irregular preachers, receiving and answering their petitions or complaints. Especially did it concern itself for the supply of destitute places, which was one of the principal items of its business. To select but two cases out of a multitude: in 1719, a letter was received "from the people of Potomac in Virginia, requesting the synod's care and diligence in providing them an able gospel minister." The synod accordingly directed the Rev. Mr. Magill to visit them; who reported the next year that he went to

Virginia, and after some months' continuance, "put the people into church order." This must have been one of the earliest presbyterian organizations in that part of the State. In 1723, a representation having been made of the earnest desire of some protestant dissenting families in Virginia for preaching, the synod appointed "that Messrs. Conn, Orme, and Steward, do each of them severally visit said people, and preach four Lord's days before next synod to that people; and it is recommended to Mr. Jonathan Dickinson, to preach to the said people some Sabbath days before next synod; and in case he goes thither, that then Mr. Pierson, Mr. Webb, and Mr. Moses Dickinson, do supply his congregation with preaching.… And it is further ordered, that Mr. Hucheson supply Mr. Steward's congregation during his absence in Virginia." It need hardly be remarked that the synod exercised constantly the general authority over its members of sending them to supply particular congregations or destitute places, and that an account was always demanded how the duty had been performed; and neglect was uniformly censured.

It thus appears that the original synod of our church exercised the power of review and control over presbyteries and congregations, of receiving and deciding appeals, references and complaints, and of general supervision and direction. It exhibits as perfect an example of regular presbyterian discipline, as is presented by any body of christians at the present day. There are, however, several respects in which that synod differed, in its modes of action, from what is now common among us. In the first place, it had a commission annually appointed, which was clothed with all the powers of the synod. To this commission all items of business which could not be despatched during the sessions of synod, were referred. To them all applications were made, which required immediate attention. They could suspend, censure, or dismiss ministers; decide appeals and references; and, in short, do all that the synod itself could do; and from their decisions there was no appeal. Their records were regularly presented to synod, and that body could correct any thing, which they thought had been done amiss.

Every one knows that this was in imitation of the commission of the General Assembly in Scotland, as it continues to the present time. Whatever may be thought of the wisdom of this arrangement, there can be but one opinion as to the tone of presbyterianism which it indicates. If congregationalitsts refuse to a whole synod a definitive voice in their ecclesiastical affairs, how much less would they grant such authority to a mere committee of such a body? The fact that no such commission has been appointed, since the adoption of our present constitution, is one of the many proofs that the presbyterianism of the present day is much less strict and European than that of our fathers. They had no objection to this feature of the Scottish system. It continued uninterruptedly from 1720 to 1788. It was adopted by the old synod before the schism; by both parties during the separation; and by the synod of New York and Philadelphia after the union. The original minute on this subject, as adopted in 1720, is in these words: "Overtured that a commission of synod be appointed to act in the name, and with the whole authority of the synod in all affairs that come before them; and especially that the whole affair of the fund be left to their conduct, and that they be accountable to synod. Which overture was approved by the synod. Masters, Jones, Andrews, McNish, Anderson, Dickinson, and Evans, appointed for said commission; any three whereof to be a quorum."

A second particular in which the first synod differed from ours, was the frequent appointment of plenipotentiary committees. In 1717, when the call from New York was presented to the presbytery of Newcastle for Mr. Anderson, it was referred by that body to the synod, who appointed a committee to meet at Newcastle, to receive and consider the reasons of that people against the removal of their pastor, and "to fully determine in that affair." The following year that committee reported "that they had transported him, (Mr. Anderson) to New York, having had power lodged in them by the synod, to determine that affair." In 1720, some of the elders of the church of Rehoboth having forwarded a complaint against their pastor, it was determined, nem. con. "that a committee be sent to Rehoboth, with

full powers from the synod to act in their name and by their authority, in the affair between Mr. Clement and that people, and that Mr. Clement be suspended from the exercise of his ministry until the determination of that committee." On the same page there is a record of a committee's being appointed to proceed to Snowhill "with full powers to hear, examine, and determine, about the complaints" made against the pastor.

In 1722, the presbytery had suspended a Mr. Walton, a licentiate, who thereupon complained to synod. The synod in consequence of his concessions modified the sentence, suspending him for three Sabbaths, and directing his acknowledgments to be read, at the expiration of that time, before the congregation of Newark. If Mr. Walton should then "own" those acknowledgments, Mr. Pumry, who was appointed for the purpose, was to remove the suspension. As the gentleman, however, seemed rather refractory, it was resolved: "That the synod do appoint Messrs. George McNish, James Anderson, and Samuel Pumry, or any two of them, do, in the synod's name, judicially deal with him upon information, as they shall see proper." It appears from the minutes of the following year that Mr. Pumry was prevented by illness from attending at Newark at the appointed time; and that Mr. Walton read his own acknowledgment "and absolved himself." Whereupon the synod determined that the suspension was not thereby removed, and appointed "the presbytery of Long Island, together with Mr. J. Dickinson, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Pierson, to be a committee to transact in the whole affair relating to Mr. Walton, and to remove or continue the suspension, as they shall see cause." This committee, as appears from their report, met according to appointment, and unanimously decided that the suspension should not be removed. This is an instructive record, as it shows not only the authority of the synod in modifying the sentence of a presbytery, but the peculiarity of their mode of proceeding, in appointing, in the first instance, a committee of three to proceed judicially, should occasion require it; and then naming several ministers to be associated with a presbytery in deciding the whole affair.

In 1727, "Messrs. Andrews, Morgan, Jon. Dickinson, Pierson, and Webb, were appointed a committee to meet in New York, to accommodate matters of difference between that congregation and the presbytery of Long Island, and also any other differences that may be among themselves about their church settlements, and especially to receive Mr. Pemberton as a member of the synod or not, as they shall see cause." The following year that committee reported among other things, "That Mr. Pemberton appearing before this committee, and desiring admission as a member of the synod of Philadelphia, promised upon such admission, all subjection to the synod in the Lord, the committee can see no cause why such admission should be refused or delayed, and do therefore admit him as a member of the said synod." There seems to have been some misapprehensions as to the authority meant to be conferred on this committee, for when their report was presented, the following questions were proposed to the vote of synod.

"1. Whether the committee had authority from the synod to consider the admission of Mr. Pemberton as a member of the synod, without previously considering what the presbytery of Long Island had to offer in that affair. Carried in the negative by a great majority.

"2. Whether the synod approve of the conduct of the committee with relation to the divisions of the said congregation. Carried in the affirmative, nem. con.

"3. Whether Mr. Pemberton be allowed as a member of this synod, by virtue of what the committee has done. Carried in the negative.

"4. Whether, notwithstanding of all the irregularity that was in the accession of Mr. Pemberton to New York, the synod do now accept him as a member. Carried in the affirmative, nem. con. And it is left to Mr. Pemberton and the congregation to join what presbytery they shall think fit."

These instances of plenipotentiary committees are all selected from the minutes of the years 1717 to 1728, the limit of the period now under consideration. Many examples of a similar kind might be taken from the records of subsequent years. It has already been shown that this mode of proceeding, though so different from our method of conducting synodical business, is in perfect accordance with that in vogue in Scotland.

The great distinction, however, between the original synod and ours, is, that the former exercised all presbyterial powers. They examined and received new members; ordained, dismissed, suspended, or deposed ministers; regulated the affairs of congregations, and in short did every thing within their whole limits, that any presbytery might properly do within its own. Thus in 1718, it is recorded that, "Mr. Wm. Tennent's affair being transmitted from the committee [of bills and overtures] to the synod, was by them fully considered; being well satisfied with his credentials, and the testimony of some brethren here present, as also they were satisfied with the material reasons which he offered concerning his dissenting from the established church in Ireland; being put to a vote it was carried in the affirmative to admit him a member of synod." On the following page it is stated, that "Mr. Samuel Young, minister of the gospel, presenting his credentials from the presbytery of Armagh met at Donaghmore in the county Down in the kingdom of Ireland, to this synod, they were cordially approved, and he admitted a member, nem. con." In the same year Messrs. Clement and Steward, probationers, presented their credentials, which were approved; and calls having been handed in for them from the eastern shore of Maryland, the synod appointed Messrs. Davis, Hampton, and Thompson, and such members of the presbytery of Newcastle as they might choose to call to their aid, to ordain them. The same year Mr. Hampton petitioned to be dismissed from his pastoral charge, which was granted, and his church declared vacant by the synod. In 1720, Mr. Orme presented his testimonials and was admitted a member of synod; Mr. John Morehead applied for admission, and was refused. The complaints made by the elders of the

church of Rehoboth against their pastor were entertained, and he suspended by the synod ad interim, and the whole matter referred to a committee of their own body. In 1726, a call from Donegal for Mr. Anderson, was presented to the synod, and by them handed to him for his acceptance. In 1728, various charges were presented by a people against their pastor, which were examined; from most of them he was acquitted, while others were referred to his presbytery for further examination. These are only a few of the examples which might be selected of the exercise of presbyterial powers by the synod. All this is very different from any thing we are accustomed to, but it is in perfect accordance with the Scotch system. The explanation is to be found in the following provision of the Book of Policy: "These assemblies, (viz. synods,) have the whole power of the particular elderships, (presbyteries,) of which they are collected." It appears, then, that the original synod of our church not only exercised all the powers, which are now recognized as belonging to such bodies, but that it went much farther, conforming in various respects to the Scottish model, in points in which we have long differed from it.

There is still one very important record, belonging to the period under review, which remains to be considered. In 1721, the Rev. Mr. Gillespie, who had been nine years a member of the synod, and was not therefore a young man just from Scotland, as has been represented, brought forward the following overture: "As we have been for many years in the exercise of presbyterian government and church discipline, as exercised by the presbyterians in the best reformed churches, as far as the nature and constitution of this country will allow, our opinion is, that if any brother have any overture to offer to be formed into an act of synod, for the better carrying on the matters of our government and discipline, he may bring it in against next synod." This overture was carried by a majority of votes, and ordered to be recorded.

"Mr. Jon. Dickinson, Mr. Malachi Jones, Mr. Joseph Morgan, Mr. John Pierson, Mr. David Evans, and Mr. Joseph Webb, entered their protestations against the above mentioned act, and the recording of it, and gave the reasons of their protest, which are in retentis. Ordered, that Mr. Magill, and Mr. McNish draw up answers to the above said protest."

At this meeting of synod there were twenty-one ministers present, viz. Messrs. Magill, Andrews, Gillespie, Anderson, Orme, Wm. Tennent, Thompson, Hook, Pumry, Davis, Cross, Steward, Gelston, McNish, Conn.; and the six protesting brethren just mentioned. Of these six, Messrs. Dickinson, Pierson, and Webb, were from New England; and Messrs. Morgan, Evans, and Jones, were probably all of Welsh origin. Though it cannot be certainly inferred that all who did not join in the protest, voted for the overture, yet it is highly probable that the above division gives a fair view of the state of parties, so to speak, in the synod. This was a subject which evidently excited much interest, with regard to which there were not likely to be many non liquets; and in the following year, we find no additional names attached to Mr. Dickinson's articles relating to this subject.

No one at all familiar with the history either of our own church, or of that of Scotland, can be at a loss as to the meaning of the phrase, "an act of synod," as used in Mr. Gillespie's overture. Any proposition containing a rule of action, enacted by an ecclesiastical body, obligatory on its members or inferior judicatories, is called an act. The records of the church of Scotland are full of such acts, which are rules remaining in force until properly repealed. The records of our own church abound with similar rules, which, especially in the earlier periods of our history, are called acts. The rule that ministers and elders should regularly report on the state of their congregations, was such an act; the rule that every church should keep sessional records, and present them annually for revision was such an act, and is so called in the minutes already quoted. Such also was the order that presbyteries should bring their minutes to be examined in synod. All these

were adopted prior to the year 1717. Even the order that no minister should preach in a particular church, is called, as we have seen, "an act of synod." Mr. Gillespie's proposition, therefore, was in strict accordance, not only with the usage of other presbyterian churches, but with the customs of our own. It was, moreover, perfectly reasonable. The church was now divided into several presbyteries. If it was to remain one body, it was evidently desirable that it should have some common rules of action with regard to the qualifications of candidates, the admission of members, &c. such as we have now embodied in our written constitution, and such as not only episcopalians and methodists have in their canons and books of discipline, but even congregationalists possess in the Cambridge and Saybrook platforms. The propriety and even necessity of this measure were so obvious, that, after a little temporary opposition, arising as is evident from misapprehension, it was cordially acquiesced in by all parties, and has been from that day to this the common understanding of the church.

It seems, however, that some members of the synod were startled at the assertion of a power in the abstract, which they had themselves already exercised, and were afraid of its being carried to an extent to which they could not willingly submit. They therefore protested. The minutes of the next year contain the following record relating to this subject: "The brethren who entered their protestation against the act for allowing any brother or member of this synod to bring in any overture to be formed into an act by the synod, for the better carrying on in the matters of our government and discipline, &c. The said brethren protestants brought in a paper of four articles, testifying in writing their sentiments and judgment concerning church government, which was approved by the synod, and ordered by the synod to be recorded in the synod-book. Likewise the said brethren being willing to take back their protestation against said act, together with their reasons given in defence of said protest, the synod doth hereby order the protest, together with the reasons of it, as also the answers at the appointment of the synod given to the reasons alleged by Mr. Daniel Magill

and Mr. George McNish, be all withdrawn, and that the said act remain and be in all respects as if no such protest had been made. The articles are as followeth:

"1. We freely grant that there is full executive power of church government in presbyteries and synods, and that they may authoritatively, in the name of Christ, use the keys of church discipline to all proper intents and purposes, and that the keys of the church are committed to the church officers and them only.

"2. We also grant that the mere circumstantials of church discipline, such as the time, place, and mode of carrying on the government of the church, belong to ecclesiastical judicatories to determine as occasions occur, conformable to the general rules in the word of God, that require all things to be done decently and in order. And if these things are called acts, we will take no offence at the word, provided that these acts be not imposed on those who conscientiously dissent from them.

"3. We also grant that synods may compose directories, and recommend them to all their members respecting all the parts of discipline, provided that all subordinate judicatories may decline from such directories, when they conscientiously think they have just reason so to do.

"4. We freely allow that appeals may be made from all inferior to superior judicatories, and that superior judicatories have authority to consider and determine such appeals.

MALACHI JONES,

JOSEPH MORGAN,

JONATHAN DICKINSON,

DAVID EVANS."

"The synod was so universally pleased with the above said composure of their difference, that they unanimously joined together in a thanksgiving prayer, and joyful singing the 133d Psalm."

It is evident from this record that these brethren, who the year before supposed themselves to differ widely in their views, found, upon mutual explanations, that they perfectly agreed. It is to be remarked that the friends of Mr. Gillespie's overture did not relinquish the ground which they had assumed. On the contrary, it was expressly stipulated, "that the said act (Mr. Gillespie's) remain and be in all respects as if no such protest had been made." The protestation and the reasons for it were withdrawn, and the matter left where it was as though no objection had ever been urged against it. There was, therefore, no concession inconsistent with the assertion of the principle contained in the overture. There is no reason to suppose that either party was overreached in this matter. It would be a gratuitous and ungracious assumption, that there was, on either side, a wish to hoodwink or cajole the other. These brethren, from all that appears or is known of their character, were honest men, and had confidence in each other. This must be presumed, unless we suppose them capable of the basest hypocrisy in thanking God for the success of a stratagem. This is not to be credited of such men as President Dickinson, and Mr. Pierson. Besides, the brethren on the other side were not likely to be easily deceived. Most of the oldest, shrewdest, and most strenuous of the Scotch and Irish members of the synod were present at this meeting, concurred in all that was done, and joined in giving thanks to God for the result. Two things, therefore, are evident; first, that there must have been some misapprehension, on the part of Mr. Dickinson and his friends, of the design of Mr. Gillespie's overture, against which they at first protested, but subsequently allowed to stand as it was; and secondly, that Mr. Dickinson's four articles must admit of an interpretation consistent with that overture, and satisfactory to its advocates. Otherwise they never would have insisted on the overture's remaining, and yet have adopted the articles. The protesting brethren seem to have

considered the proposition of Mr. Gillespie, asserting as it does in general terms and with little limitation, the right of the synod to form acts obligatory on all its members, as assuming the power "to make laws to bind the conscience." The right to make rules for the discipline and government of the church, and to frame directories, they admitted; provided these rules did not trespass on the domain of conscience. With this the friends of the overture were perfectly satisfied. It was all they ever intended or wished. Thus both parties united in letting the overture stand, in ordering the articles to be recorded, and in praising God for their agreement.

That this is the true solution of this problem in our history, is evident, in the first place, from the very facts of the case as they appear on the record. A proposition is introduced asserting the right of the synod to make rules for the government of the church. This proposition is adopted. Certain members protest; but the following year they withdraw their opposition, and acknowledge that synod may make such rules "provided such acts be not imposed upon those who conscientiously dissent from them." The question is, what is the meaning of this proviso? It is certainly ambiguous. It admits of one interpretation, which involves both parties to this transaction in glaring contradictions; but also of another, which makes them both act consistently. If by 'conscientious dissent' is meant dissent on conscientious grounds, all is plain and satisfactory. The synod never pretended to the right to impose any thing upon any man contrary to his conscience. But if by conscientious dissent is meant merely honest dissent, in opposition to what is feigned or factious, then the whole history is a riddle. The synod declare their right to make rules, and yet admit they may be regarded or disregarded at every man's pleasure! Is it to be credited that a set of Scotch and Irish presbyterians would have assented to such an exposition of a synod's power, or have joined in thanking God for its acknowledgment? It is not to be believed that any sane men would have insisted that the assertion of this right of the synod should stand uncontradicted upon the minutes, and upon the next page admit that synodical rules had no binding force: the two

assertions are contradictory, and could not have received the assent of the same men. The record itself, therefore, forces us to understand, by conscientious dissent, dissent on conscientious grounds. This interpretation docs no violence to the words, and renders the different parts of the minutes perfectly consistent.

That this is the true meaning of these articles is further proved by the uniform action of the church under them. This argument can be fully appreciated by those only who are aware of the fact that our records abound with rules, or acts of synod, many of them passed by mere majorities, to which the minorities uniformly submitted, except when they could plead conscientious scruples. To take a single example. What was the famous adopting act of 1729? Was this a mere recommendation on the part of the synod that the reception of the Westminster Confession of Faith should be demanded by the presbyteries from all candidates for the ministry? Far from it. It was an obligatory act; so regarded at the time, and so regarded, by friends and foes of the measure, from that day to this. This indeed is evident from the very form of it, as well as from the contention about it, and from the uniformity with which it was enforced. An act of synod, therefore, in the view of those who assented to these articles, was not a mere recommendation, but an authoritative rule.

This interpretation of these articles is confirmed by what took place at the time of the schism. This question was involved in that controversy. The ostensible occasion of the whole difficulty was an act of synod. That body had passed an order that candidates for the ministry, before being taken on trial by a presbytery, should be furnished with a diploma from some European university, or from some college in New England, or, wanting these, that they should be provided with a certificate of competent scholarship by a committee of the synod. This act the presbytery of New Brunswick disregarded. Their reason was not the denial of the right of the synod to make such rules, but the plea that they could not conscientiously

obey that particular rule. Their conscientious dissent was a dissent for conscience sake.

And finally, the true interpretation of these articles, or the manner in which they were understood, is manifest from the manner in which this matter was arranged upon the re-union of the two synods. As the right of the synod to make such acts had been drawn into the controversy, it was necessary that there should be some distinct agreement on the subject. Though the negotiations for a union were protracted through several years, and though much difficulty was experienced in arranging other points, that respecting the power of synod seems to have been settled at once. The reason was, there was no real difference of opinion on the subject. Both parties agreed, "that when any matter is determined by a major vote, every member shall either actively concur with, or passively submit to such determination; or, if his conscience permit him to do neither, he shall, after sufficient liberty modestly to reason and remonstrate, peaceably withdraw from our communion, without attempting to make any schism. Provided always that this shall be understood to extend to such determinations only, as the body shall judge indispensable in doctrine or presbyterian government." This is precisely the meaning of Mr. Dickinson's article on the same subject. The decisions of synod were to be binding on all those who could obey them with a good conscience. This interpretation is the only one consistent with the facts in the case; with the known and avowed opinions of those who assented to the articles; with the uniform practice of the church after their adoption; and with the more explicit declarations of the synod relating to the same subject. On the opposite interpretation these articles are completely isolated; inconsistent with all that precedes and with all that follows them, like a dead tree in a long avenue of living ones.

Such then was American presbyterianism during the forming period of our church, from 1705 or 1706 to 1728. When the presbytery was organized, there was but one congregation in New Jersey, the Scotch church at

Freehold, in connexion with it. Those in Pennsylvania and Maryland were strictly presbyterian, unless the church in Philadelphia was an exception. All the original members, except Mr. Andrews, were, as far as can be ascertained, educated and ordained in Scotland or Ireland. Such was the original body around which, as a nucleus, other churches and ministers were rapidly collected. This presbytery exercised all presbyterial functions as fully as any similar body at the present day; reviewing and controlling the exercise of discipline in the several churches; examining, ordaining, installing, and dismissing pastors, and judging their own members. The synod, after its formation, exercised a similar review and control over the presbyteries and congregations; received decided appeals, and references, and complaints from the lower judicatories, and not only exercised the various powers, now recognised as belonging to synods, but, in strict accordance with the Scottish system, all those which more immediately pertain to presbyteries. In all the particulars in which the original presbytery and synod differed from such bodies among us, they conformed to the usages of the church of Scotland. Our church was, therefore, more strictly presbyterian during the first five-and-twenty years of its history, than it has been at any period since the formation of the General Assembly.

CHAPTER III

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH FROM 1729 TO 1741

Adopting act.—Its origin.—False assumptions as to its design.—Mr. Thompson's overture.—President Dickinson's objections.—The act itself.— The true interpretation of it, as determined by its own language and avowed design.—As determined by the action of the synod.—As authoritatively

declared in 1730 and in 1736.—How acted upon by the presbyteries.—How explained by contemporary writers.—What has been the doctrinal standard in our church since 1729?—Bearing of the acts of 1730 and 1736 upon this question.—The standard assumed by the synod of Philadelphia.—The standard adopted in the synod of New York.—The standard assumed at the time of the union and ever since maintained.—Constitution of the church during the period from 1729 to 1741.—Ordinary powers of the synod.— Presbyterial powers of the synod.—Its action by committees.—Acts and Overtures.

THE most prominent event during this period of our history is the passing of the adopting act, by which assent to the Westminster Confession of Faith was required of all members of the synod, and of all candidates for admission to the presbyteries. This event forms an era in our history, and has exerted an influence on our church, which is still felt in all her borders. The origin, design, and import of this celebrated act deserve particular attention. It was stated in the preceding chapter, that the presbytery of Newcastle had begun, at least as early as 1724, to require the adoption of the Westminster Confession by their candidates for the ministry. The first record relating to this subject refers to Mr. William McMillan, who was licensed September 22, 1724, for distance service in Virginia. His subscription to the confession of faith bears the same date. What led to the adoption of this measure is not recorded; and there does not appear to have been any previous order of the presbytery that such subscription should be demanded. From this time, however, it seems to have been the common practice of the presbytery.

It is obvious that the same reasons which induced the presbytery of Newcastle to adopt this measure themselves, would lead them to wish for the concurrence of the whole church of which they were a part. No one will be surprised, therefore, to learn that the overture which led to the adopting act had its origin in this presbytery. Under the date of March 27, 1728, it is

recorded that, "an overture formerly read before synod, but which was dropped, being now at the desire of the presbytery produced by Mr. Thompson and read, the presbytery defer their judgment concerning it until next meeting." At the subsequent meeting the subject was again deferred until the sessions of the presbytery during the intervals of synod. No further mention of it is made on the minutes; and it is therefore uncertain what was the decision of the presbytery respecting it. It is probable that they referred the whole matter to the synod, without any expression of their own opinion, as it is not reported as the overture of a presbytery but of an individual, and as Mr. Thompson speaks in it, throughout, in his own name. This gentleman, who is thus prominently connected with this subject, was a native of Ireland. He came to this country as a probationer for the ministry in 1715, and was ordained over the congregation at Lewes in 1717. He had, therefore, been at this time eleven years a member of the synod. He appears to have been a man of self-command, learning, and piety. He took indeed an active, and in some respects a very mistaken part in opposition to Mr. Whitefield and Mr. Tennent; yet no one can read his writings without being impressed with respect for his character and talents. And it is a gratifying fact, that Mr. Tennent himself, after the excitement of controversy had subsided, came to speak of him in terms of affectionate regard. Indeed, were nothing known of these men, but their controversial writings, the reader could hardly fail to think, that in humility, candour, and Christian temper, Mr. Thompson was greatly superior to his opponent. It is, however, the weakest side of Mr. Tennent's ardent and impetuous character that appears in those writings, and they therefore would be a very unfair criterion of the man.

When the overture respecting the adoption of the confession of faith was introduced into synod in 1728, though it had been presented the year before, and though there were twenty-nine members present, of whom seventeen were ministers, it was deemed of so much importance that, by common consent, it was deferred to the next synod. There was, therefore, no attempt,

as has been ungenerously asserted, to take the synod unawares. The record in relation to this point is as follows: "There being an overture presented to the synod in writing, having reference to the subscribing the confession of faith, &c.; the synod, judging this to be a very important affair, unanimously concluded to defer the consideration of it till the next synod; withal recommending to the members of each presbytery to give timeous notice to the absent members, and it is agreed that the next be a full synod."

It is strange that this measure, after the lapse of a century, should still be held up to reprobation by members of our own communion. As every other church has a creed, why should not the presbyterians be allowed to have one? Why should motives the most improbable be attributed to the advocates of this measure, when reasons which the Christian world have, by their practice, pronounced sufficient, lie on the very surface of the transaction? If it was so sectarian in 1729, to adopt the Confession of Faith, why, in the course of more than a hundred years, has the adopting act never been repealed? Why do those who impute such evil designs to its authors, reject as injurious all suspicion that they are in favour of such repeal, or of any modification of the Confession itself?

It has been said that the advocates of the adoption of the Westminster Confession, designed to subject the church irrevocably to the power of the civil government, and that this design was successfully resisted by the sons of New England. This is a calumny which might safely be left to be refuted by its inherent absurdity. All sects, even the popish, are said to be tolerant, when in the minority. Yet presbyterians call upon us to believe that presbyterians, when thinly scattered over the country, with some twenty or thirty ministers; when suffering oppression in Carolina, Virginia, and New York; when under an episcopal government hostile to all their peculiarities, wished to subject the church more completely to the state, to justify their oppressors, and to deprive themselves of the poor consolation of petition and remonstrance. To make this aspersion the stronger, it is cast upon

Scotchmen, upon the descendants of the men who had been struggling for two centuries for the independence of the church; who had included in their earliest confession the assertion of the right to resist unjust rulers, and whose great reproach is that they carried the liberty of the church so far as to encroach on the just prerogatives of the state. Yet their descendants in one breath are said to have come to this country with all the prejudices and principles of their fathers, and, in the next, to have been intent on establishing the doctrine their fathers had suffered the loss of all things in opposing. The authors of the overture in question had no such suicidal or insensate purpose, as to subject a feeble church to hostile magistrates, or to solicit injury from the hand of oppression. Presbyterians in this country have always been tolerant, from necessity, if not from principle. Mr. Makemie, when imprisoned in New York for preaching the gospel, must have delivered his eloquent defence with a very bad grace, had he suffered merely from the application of his own principles. It is not pretended that presbyterians were so much in advance of their generation, that they would have been free from reproach in this matter, had they been in power. This however was nowhere the case, for even where they formed the majority of the people, they were subject to episcopal rulers over whom they had no control. Had the case been otherwise, they might have been as intolerant as their neighbours, and have pushed their principles to the extreme to which they were carried in New England. There, not only all places of power and trust, but even the right of suffrage was confined to members of the church. The magistrates were clothed with power to punish for opinion's sake; a power which they frequently exercised. It is a poor service to the puritans to deny their principles, or to vindicate their conduct on grounds which they themselves would have despised. The intolerance of the puritans, such as it was, arose out of their most cherished opinions. They came to this country to establish a society in which God should reign; where his truth should be preserved and his laws enforced. Hence all power was to be kept in the hands of the people of God. Hence the denial of the truth, or any moral offence, was regarded as a violation of the law of the land, and to be

punished accordingly. Hence, too, when Roger Williams broached his doctrine of liberty of conscience, not only was he banished, but his opinions were laboriously controverted. A state founded upon such a principle, must be intolerant. Had no strangers come among them, their own children would have been disfranchised. Yet the puritans adhered to this principle, and gave it up in practice by slow and reluctant concessions. This is not said to cast a reproach upon the pious founders of New England. Far from it. Those who retain the great scriptural doctrines for whose sake they constructed their whole economy, honour their memory far more effectually than those who merely garnish their sepulchres. They were the people of God; they loved and honoured the Saviour; and this is enough to preserve them in everlasting remembrance, and to shield them from all unjust or unkind aspersions. They were not fanatical persecutors, or blinded enthusiasts, but sober-minded and devout men. They allowed themselves, however, to be fascinated with the idea of a Christian theocracy; which, beautiful as it is, cannot be carried out, in the present state of the world, without practical injustice. These men, therefore, good as they were, should not be honoured at the expense of truth, nor held up as the friends of religious liberty in contrast with the presbyterians, in order to cast odium upon the latter. The assertion, that the advocates of the adoption of the Confession of Faith had the design of subjecting the church to the state, and were only prevented by the sons of the puritans, appears still more extraordinary when it is known that they unanimously declared their rejection of the doctrine that the civil magistrates had the right to control ecclesiastical bodies, or to persecute for the sake of religion. It is certainly a very strange expedient to enforce a doctrine, openly and unanimously to renounce it. A charge, however, which is so obviously unjust does not merit even this brief refutation.

Another assumption equally gratuitous is, that the overture in question had its origin in disaffection towards the New England portion of the synod. Had such disaffection existed, this was a singular way to manifest it. The Westminster Confession had long before been adopted in New England; and

the catechism was there taught as faithfully as in Scotland itself. Even had the excepted clauses, about the power of the civil magistrate, been insisted upon, what was there in those articles to startle men brought up under the Cambridge platform? New England men were not to be excluded by the adoption of their own confession, nor by the avowal of their own principles. There is, however, no ground for this suspicion. The overture itself does not contain the slightest manifestation of this sectional feeling. The presbytery of Newcastle, from the bosom of which it proceeded, was not a homogeneous body of Scotch and Irish members. It had scarcely a majority of such members; five were either originally or immediately from New England, two were from Wales, and one from England. The overture itself tells a plain story. It avows distinctly the object aimed at, and the means for its accomplishment. It states that errors of various kinds, Arminianism, Socinianism, and Deism, had begun to prevail even in the reformed churches. This was true, to some extent, of Scotland, still more alarmingly true of the north of Ireland; true of the dissenters in England, who, a few years later, looked ascant at President Davies, because he came from a church which had adopted the Westminster Confession, and are now applauded as "the friends of religious liberty" for so doing. It was true also of New England, where the Arminian declension had already begun. Is it wonderful, under these circumstances, that men who loved the truth should feel some anxiety? That being members of a church whose doors were wide open, they should be desirous to place some bar at the entrance; to exact some pledge that those who were admitted to the ministry, would not labour in the vocation of error? When motives so obvious are avowed for this measure, why should evil motives and sinister designs be raked up from the dark corners of a suspicious imagination, and gratuitously imputed to its authors?

It has been said also that the adoption of the confession of faith was the result of sectarian bigotry and heartless orthodoxy. It is very easy to excite the prejudices of the simple by such assertions. But zeal for the truth is

surely no evidence of indifference for religion. This unnatural connection does indeed sometimes occur; and where these two things are united they produce a most offensive form of human character. For any one such instance, however, the history of the church furnishes an hundred of the far more congenial union of indifference to the truth and disregard of religion. The strictest churches have been the most pious, laborious, and useful churches. And the strictest age of any particular church, has almost always been its best age. Holland is not better now than when she demanded a strict adherence to her doctrinal standards. The Socinianised presbyterians of England did not become better than Calamy, Reynolds, and other members of the Westminster Assembly, when they rejected all creeds but the Bible. The French protestants are not better now than when their noble army of martyrs and confessors, whose blood still calls to heaven for a blessing on the remnant of their children, "swore" to live and die by their confession of faith. And it may well be doubted if New England is more religious at the present time than in the days of her rigid Calvinism, when the catechism was taught at every fire-side and in every district school.

The mere adoption of the confession of faith, therefore, is not in itself an evidence of heartless orthodoxy. And there is no evidence of any other kind that the advocates of this measure were less zealous in their religion than their opponents. It may be said it was the Scotch and Irish members who were in favour of the measure, and the English members who opposed it. To a certain extent this is true. But were not the Irish members the leaders in the great revival of 1740–1744? Were not many of those leaders members of the obnoxious presbyteries of Newcastle and Donegal? On the other hand, some of those who were most averse to the adoption of the Confession of Faith, were most bitter in their opposition to the revival. These facts are referred to, to show the injustice of imputing a mere lifeless orthodoxy to the advocates of Mr. Thompson's overture, and of the assumption that it was designed to get rid of the troublesome zeal of the better members of the synod.

The design is clearly expressed in the overture itself; it was to guard against the inroads of error, which had begun to prevail upon every side. The chief apprehension was directed, not towards New England but towards Ireland. The synod had already rejected one ministerial applicant from that country, upon suspicion of unsoundness in the faith and doubtful character. A few years later, they rejected another. And again, in a few years, they cast out a third, who had gained admittance upon deceptive testimonials of orthodoxy. That the chief immediate purpose of this overture was to keep out unsound men from the Irish presbyteries, is distinctly avowed by its author, and avowed in such a way, as to leave no doubt of his sincerity. In the appendix to his work on the government of the church of Christ, published in 1741, he has some reflections on the state of the church, which were written at an earlier period. He there says: "When it pleased our glorious and almighty king Jesus, who has the hearts of the kings of the earth in his hands, that, as the rivers of water are turned, he can turn them whithersoever he pleaseth, to move the hearts of our synod, with such a remarkable degree of unanimity to adopt the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, &c., it was matter of very great satisfaction to most of us, and to myself in particular, who had been for some time before under no small fears and perplexities of mind, lest we should be corrupted with the new schemes of doctrine which for some time had prevailed in the north of Ireland, that being the part from whence we expected to be, in a great measure, supplied with new hands to fill our vacancies in the ministry, within the bounds of our synod. And I hope still, that that very step not only hath been of good effect among us already, but also will still continue to be so while it continues in force, in pursuance of the end for which it was first intended." To understand fully the design of the adopting act, the overture which led to it ought to be read, and it is therefore here inserted at length.

"An overture humbly offered to the consideration of the reverend synod; wherein is proposed an expedient for preventing the ingress and spreading

of dangerous errors, among either ourselves or the flocks committed to our care.

"Reverend Fathers and Brethren:

"I would be heartily grieved if the following overture, or any thing in it, should, in the event, prove the occasion of any heat or contention among us. Sure I am that every thing of this kind is far from my intention, and I hope all my brethren will not only be persuaded of the peaceableness and sincerity of my intentions, but also to judge for the necessity of such an expedient, when they seriously ponder and consider these few particulars. First, that it is the unquestionable duty of every Christian, according to his station and talent, to maintain and defend the truths of the gospel against all opposition. Secondly, that this work or duty is in an especial manner incumbent on the ministers of the gospel in virtue of their office. Thirdly, that not only every Christian and minister, but also every church, as an organized body politic, methodised by order and government, is also obliged to act with Christian vigilance and sagacity in maintaining and defending gospel truth. Fourthly, that the parties aforesaid are not only obliged to maintain and defend the truth for themselves, but also to endeavour to perpetuate and propagate it unto posterity pure and uncorrupt. Fifthly, as the light of nature teaches all kingdoms, commonwealths, cities, &c., even in time of peace to prepare for war, so a principle of spiritual wisdom should direct the church of Christ to fortify itself against all the assaults and invasions that may be made upon the doctrine it professes, according to the word of God. Sixthly, that secret bosom enemies of the truth, (I mean those who being visible members of a church do not openly and violently oppose the truth professed therein, but in a secret covert way endeavour to undermine it,) are as dangerous as any whatever; and, therefore, the church should exercise her vigilance in a special manner against such, by searching them out, discovering them, and setting a mark upon them whereby they may be known, and so not have it in their power to

deceive. The churches of Ephesus and Smyrna are commended for this, but Pergamos and Thyatira are reproved for the neglect of it. Seventhly, that we, the members of this synod, together with the particular congregations of professors under our care, are a church which is one entire organized body or society of Christians united together by order and government, according to the institution of the word, and therefore ought (especially when apparent dangers call for it,) to exert ourselves and the authority with which we are invested, in vindication and defence of the truths which we profess, and for preventing the ingress and spreading of error. Eighthly, that we are so a particular church as not to be a part of any particular church in the world, with which we are united by the joint exercise of church government, and therefore we are not accountable to the judicial inquiry of any superior ecclesiastical judicature upon earth, and therefore if we do not exert the authority inherent in us for maintaining the purity of gospel truth, it is not in the power of any superior ecclesiastical judicature to call us in question for our neglect, or for our errors or heresies should we be corrupted with them. Ninthly, although, I hope, there are as yet few or none among us (especially of the ministers) who are infected with any gross errors or heresies in doctrine, yet I think I may say we are in no small danger of being corrupted in doctrinals, and that even as to fundamentals, which to me seems evident from the consideration of these few particulars of our present circumstances.

"First, it seems to me that we are too much like the people of Laish, in a careless defenceless condition, as a city without walls; (or perhaps my unacquaintedness with our records may cause me to mistake.) For as far as I know, though we be an entire particular church, as has been observed, and not a part of a particular church, yet we have not any particular system of doctrines, composed by ourselves, or others, which we, by any judicial act of our church, have adopted to be the articles or confession of our faith, &c. Now a church without a confession, what is it like? It is true, as I take it, we all generally acknowledge and look upon the Westminster Confession and

Catechisms to be our confession, or what we own for such; but the most that can be said is, that the Westminster Confession of Faith is the confession of the faith of the generality of our members, ministers and people; but that it is our confession, as we are a united body politic, I cannot see, unless, First, it hath been received by a conjunct act of the representatives of our church; I mean by the synod, either before or since it hath been sub forma synodi. Secondly, unless due care be, and hath been taken that all intrants into the ministry among us have subscribed the said confession, or by some equivalent solemn act, coram auctoritate ecclesiastica, testified their owning it as the confession of their faith; which how far it is observed within the bounds of our synod, I am ignorant. Now, if this be so, (for upon this supposition I speak,) I think we are in a very defenceless condition. For if we have no confession which is ours by synodical act, or if any among us have not subscribed or acknowledged the confession, ut supra, then—First, there is no bar provided to keep out of the ministry those who are corrupt in doctrinals; they may be received into the ministry without renouncing their corrupt doctrines. Secondly, those that are in the ministry among us may propagate gross errors and corrupt many thereby without being discovered to preach any thing against the received truth, because (supposito ut supra) the truth was never publicly received among us.

"Secondly, another of our present circumstances is, that we are surrounded by so many pernicious and dangerous corruptions in doctrine, and these grown so much in vogue and fashion, even among those whose ancestors, at the beginning of the reformation, would have sealed the now despised truth with their blood. When Arminianism, Socinianism, Deism, Freethinking, &c., do like a deluge overflow even the reformed churches, both established and dissenting, to such a degree, have we not reason to consult our own safety?

Tum tua res agitur paries cum proximus ardet. "Thirdly, a third circumstance we are in, which increaseth our danger of infection by error, is partly the infancy, and partly the poverty, of our circumstances, which render us unable to plant a seminary of learning among ourselves, and so to see to the education of our young candidates for the ministry, and therefore are under the necessity of depending upon other places for men to supply our vacancies in the church, and so are in danger of having our ministry corrupted by such as are leavened with false doctrine before they come among us.

"Fourthly, I am afraid there are too many among ourselves, who, though they may be sound in the faith themselves, yet have the edge of their zeal against the prevailing errors of the times very much blunted, partly by their being dispirited, and so by a kind of cowardice are afraid, boldly, openly, and zealously to appear against those errors that show themselves in the world under the patronage and protection of so many persons of note and figure; partly by a kind of indifferency and mistaken charity, whereby they think they ought to bear with others, though differing from them in opinion about points which are mysterious and sublime, but not practical nor fundamental, such as predestination. Now, although I would grant that the precise point of election and reprobation be neither fundamental nor immediately practical, yet take predestination completely, as it takes in the other disputed points between Calvinists and Arminians, such as universal grace, the non-perseverance of the saints, foreseen faith, and good works, &c., and I think it such an article in my creed, such a fundamental of my faith, that I know not what any other articles would avail, that could be retained without it.

"Now the expedient which I would humbly propose you may take is as follows: First, that our synod, as an ecclesiastical judicature of Christ, clothed with ministerial authority to act in concert in behalf of truth and opposition to error, would do something of this kind at such a juncture,

when error seems to grow so fast, that unless we be well fortified, it is like to swallow us up. Secondly, that in pursuance hereof, the synod would, by an act of its own, publicly and authoritatively adopt the Westminster Confession of Faith, Catechisms, &c., for the public confession of our faith, as we are a particular organized church. Thirdly, that further, the synod would make an act to oblige every presbytery within their bounds, to oblige every candidate for the ministry, to subscribe, or otherwise acknowledge, coram presbyterio, the said confession of theirs, &c. and to promise not to preach or teach contrary to it. Fourthly, to oblige every actual minister coming among us to do the like. Fifthly, to enact, that if any minister within our bounds shall take upon him to teach or preach any thing contrary to any of the said articles, unless, first, he propose the said point to the presbytery or synod to be by them discussed, he shall be censured so and so. Sixthly, let the synod recommend it to all their members, and members to their flocks, to entertain the truth in love, to be zealous and fruitful, and to be earnest with God by prayer, to preserve their vine from being spoiled by those deluding foxes; which if the synod shall see cause to do, I hope it may, through the divine blessing, prevent in a great measure, if not altogether, our being deluded with the damnable errors of our times; but if not, I am afraid we may be at last infected with the errors which so much prevail elsewhere.

"I will only add one argument to press this, viz: It is to be feared if such an expedient be neglected, (now I hope it is in our power) ere many years pass over our heads, those, who now discern not the necessity thereof, may see it when it will be too late; when perhaps the number of truth's friends may be too few to carry such a point in the synod. Thus, brethren, I have offered to your consideration some serious thoughts, in a coarse dress. May it please the Master of assemblies to preside among us, and direct and influence us in all things, for his glory and the edification of his church. So prays your unworthy fellow labourer in Christ's vineyard."

The wisdom of this proposal to adopt the Westminster Confession, has received the sanction of the church for more than a hundred years, during which time the only modifications which the adopting act has received, were intended to render it more explicit and more binding. It is, therefore, a matter of surprise, that, at first, it should have met with so much opposition, and that this opposition should have come from the source it did. Mr. Andrews, in a letter, dated April, 1729, six months before the adopting act was passed, says "I think all the Scotch are on one side, and all the English and Welsh on the other, to a man." This he gives, as his impression, and it no doubt, in general, correctly indicates the dividing line between the friends and opposers of the measure. The expression, however, is certainly too strong. It is hardly possible that the English and Welsh members of the presbytery of Newcastle, who had been for several years in the habit of requiring the adoption of the confession by their candidates, should have opposed the synod's doing the same thing. Besides, when dissatisfaction was manifested on account of some expressions in the adopting act, these members were among the first to render them more explicit. Still, it cannot be doubted, that the class of members to which Mr. Andrews refers, was at first opposed to the measure. How is this to be accounted for? The only reason applicable to them as a class that suggests itself is, that having been accustomed, especially those of them who came from New England, to act more as independents, without any superior judicatory having the right to question their opinions, they felt that the proposed act would be an infringement of their liberty. Whereas the Scotch and Irish members, more accustomed to presbyterianism, felt no such apprehensions. It is certain, from what followed, that the opposition did not arise from dislike of the doctrines taught in the Westminster Confession. The opposition was against all creeds, and not against that particular confession. Such at least was the ground taken by President Dickinson, the ablest and most influential member of the synod, and the most strenuous opposer of his Scottish brethren. This appears from the following abstract of his objections to Mr. Thompson's overture. That "a joint acknowledgment of our Lord Jesus

Christ for our common head, of the sacred Scriptures for our common standard both in faith and practice, with a joint agreement in the same essential and necessary articles of Christianity, and the same methods of worship and discipline, are a sufficient bond of union for the being or wellbeing of any church under heaven." That "we have already all the external bond of union that the Scriptures require of us. We have, all of us, for aught I know, one faith, one Lord, one baptism, and one discipline. Subscription to one confession is indeed required of us, but does our Lord Jesus Christ require this?" That "the requiring and enjoining any unscriptural terms of union or communion is a direct and natural means to procure rents and divisions in the church." That "we all of us know that the subscription under debate, has been scrupled by many godly, learned, and faithful ministers of Christ, that it has made horrible divisions and confusions in other churches, and that it is like to have the same sad effects among ourselves." That "a subscription to any human composure as the test of our orthodoxy is to make it the standard of our faith, and thereby to give it the honour due only to the word of God." That imposing subscriptions on others, is "invading his royalty who is sole king and lawgiver to his church, and practising ourselves what we so loudly condemn in others." That imposing subscription on others, "must be done as a necessary duty, or as a thing in itself indifferent; not the former, till some scripture can be found which requires subscription to human composures. If it be in itself indifferent, who gave the synod authority to take away the liberty with which Christ has made us free?" That "in making this subscription the term of admitting candidates to the ministry," men may be kept "out of Christ's vineyard, whom he has sent to labour there, and qualified for glorious service in his church."

It is obvious from the nature of these objections, that President Dickinson belonged to that small class of persons who are opposed to all creeds of human composition. The sense of the Christian world on this point is against him, and it is not known that there is a single advocate of these

views in the Presbyterian Church at the present time. How many of the members of the synod agreed with him in these opinions, cannot now be ascertained. It is evident that his objections had not a very firm hold even of his own mind; for he joined in the adoption and imposition of the Westminster Confession, the very year these remarks were published. It matters not with what latitude he either received it himself or imposed it upon others. His objection was not to a long creed, or to a short one, but to any creed of human composition, and such is the Westminster Confession in all its parts, essential and nonessential.

When this subject was taken up by the synod in 1729, Mr. Thompson's overture was referred to a committee, who brought in a report "which, after long debate upon it, was agreed to in haec verba:

"Although the synod do not claim or pretend to any authority of imposing our faith upon other men's consciences, but do profess our just dissatisfaction with, and abhorrence of, such impositions, and do utterly disclaim all legislative power and authority in the church, being willing to receive one another as Christ has received us to the glory of God, and to admit to fellowship in sacred ordinances all such as we have grounds to believe Christ will at last admit to the kingdom of heaven; yet we are undoubtedly obliged to take care that the faith once delivered to the saints, be kept pure and uncorrupt among us, and so handed down to our posterity; and do therefore agree that all the ministers of this synod, or that shall hereafter be admitted into this synod, shall declare their agreement in and approbation of the Confession of Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, as being, in all the essential and necessary articles, good forms of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine; and do also adopt the said Confession and Catechisms as the confession of our faith. And we do also agree, that all presbyteries within our bounds shall take care not to admit any candidate for the ministry into the exercise of the sacred function, but what declares his

agreement in opinion with all the essential and necessary articles of said Confession, either by subscribing the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms, or by a verbal declaration of his assent thereto, as such candidate or minister shall think best. And in case any minister of this synod or any candidate for the ministry shall have any scruple with respect to any article or articles of said Confession or Catechisms, he shall, at the time of his making the said declaration, declare his sentiments to the presbytery or synod; who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exercise of the ministry within our bounds, and to ministerial communion, if the synod or presbytery shall judge his scruple or mistake to be only about articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship, or government. But if the synod or presbytery shall judge such minister or candidate erroneous in essential or necessary articles of faith, the synod or presbytery shall declare them uncapable of communion with them. And the synod solemnly agree, that none of us will traduce or use any opprobrious terms of those that differ from us in these extra-essentials, and not necessary points of doctrine, but treat them with the same friendship, kindness, and brotherly love, as if they had not differed from us in such sentiments."

The adopting act itself had reference only to the Confession of Faith and Catechisms; the same year, however, "a motion being made to know the synod's judgment about the Directory, they gave their sense of that matter in the following words, viz. The synod do unanimously acknowledge and declare that they judge the Directory for worship, discipline, and government, commonly annexed to the Westminster Confession, to be agreeable in substance to the word of God, and founded thereupon, and therefore, do earnestly recommend the same to all their members, to be by them observed, as near as circumstances will allow, and Christian prudence direct." The "substance" of the directory is of course its presbyterianism. What is not substantial about it, is its numerous directions having reference in many cases either to unimportant, or to local and temporary circumstances. A stricter adoption of the Westminster directory, in this

country, was impossible. It contemplated a very different state of things from that which then existed, or which now exists among us. It directs, for example, that the ministers of London should ordain ministers for the whole country, until presbyteries were regularly established; that prayer be made for the queen of Bohemia, (sister of Charles I., a great friend of the protestants, and therefore a great favourite with the puritans;) that the candidates for the ministry, before being taken upon trial, should satisfy the presbytery as to what degrees they had taken in the university, &c. &c.

Though the main subject now under consideration, is the standard of doctrine adopted by our church, reference is here made to the Directory for two reasons: First, it has a natural connexion with the adopting act; the one relating to the doctrines, the other to the order of the church. Secondly, it is generally united with the Confession of Faith in those declarations of the synod to which reference must presently be made.

It will be observed that the synod, in their preamble "utterly disclaim all legislative power in the church." It need hardly be remarked, that this must be understood in a manner consistent with the passage of this act. It is not to be presumed that the synod, in the preamble to a law, would disclaim all authority to make it. By legislative power in the church, was then understood the power to legislate about truth and duty, to make laws to bind the conscience. The disclaimer of such power is perfectly consistent with the assertion and the exercise of the right to make rules for the government of the church. To make the language above quoted include the denial of this latter right, reduces the act to so glaring an absurdity, that no set of rational men could have enacted it. There is not, in all the records of our church, a more striking example of a standing rule, or law, than this act. It was binding on all the members present or absent; it required of them the adoption of the Confession of Faith, in the manner prescribed, as a term of communion; it bound all the presbyteries, prescribing a rule by which they were to regulate themselves in all their future licensures, ordinations, and

admission of members. Its validity as a law of the church, though proceeding from the sole authority of the synod, has never been questioned from that day to this. How can it then be made a matter of doubt, whether, according to our system, synods have a right to make such rules? This act was passed unanimously, from which two things may be certainly inferred; the one, that the disclaimer of all legislative power was not understood by the Scotch members, as a denial of the right of synod to make rules for the government of the church; the other, that the New England members must have acknowledged this latter right, or they would not have joined in exercising it. That the expression, "legislative power," was always used in the sense of a power to make new laws in matters of faith or morals, is further evident from the fact that all the old-side writers at the time of the schism uniformly disclaim "all legislative power in the church," though they insisted so strenuously upon the binding character of the acts of synod. The more extended examination of the opinions of the two parties then in the church, in reference to this subject, belongs, however, to the next period of our history.

There are two questions of no small importance in relation to this adopting act which must be considered. The first is, what is its meaning? What were the terms of ministerial communion which it designed to establish? The second is, what are the terms of ministerial communion, as far as they relate to doctrine, in our church? These questions are very distinct from each other. For this act may have fixed one condition, and the synod the very next year have prescribed a different.

What then is the meaning of this act? Did the synod intend by the words "essential and necessary articles," articles essential to Christianity? or articles, in their estimation, essential to the system of doctrines contained in the Westminster Confession? If the former, they intended that every man, otherwise qualified, who held the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, might be admitted to the ministry in our church. If the latter, they intended

that no man who was not a Calvinist, should be thus admitted. Apart from the language of the act itself, there are three sources of proof as to what was the intention of its authors; the history of the act; the subsequent declarations of the synod as to their own meaning; and the testimony of cotemporary writers.

It must be admitted that the language of the act leaves the intention of its authors a matter of doubt. When they say that they adopt the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms as the confession of their faith, their language admits of but one interpretation. This was the very form in which the subscription was made in the strict presbytery of Newcastle. To make this mean that they adopted only so much of the Confession as is essential to the gospel, would be to suppose a use of language such as never before was made, at least by honest men. If a man says he adopts the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England as the articles of his faith; is he ever understood to mean that he adopts those portions of them merely which are essential to the gospel? Or if another says, he adopts the Decrees of the Council of Trent, can he honestly mean, that he adopts so much as is not inconsistent with the Augsburg confession? Such a use of language would be inconsistent with the least confidence in the intercourse of life. It is not the meaning of the terms, and cannot honestly be made their meaning. Again, when the synod say that every candidate must declare "his agreement in opinion with all the essential and necessary articles of the said confession," there is but one meaning that can be fairly put upon their language. The essential parts of a confession are those parts which are essential to its peculiar character. No man receives all the essential articles of a popish creed, who receives no more than is consistent with protestantism. All such subscriptions are mockery and falsehood. If the synod intended by the essential articles of the Confession, the essential articles of the gospel, why mention the Confession at all? The presbyteries, surely, could pick out the necessary doctrines of the gospel from the Bible as easily as from the Confession. The interpretation, therefore, which would

make the synod mean by the expressions just quoted, that they adopted, and required others to adopt, those articles merely of the Confession which are essential to the gospel, is inconsistent with all just and honest use of language. Thus far then this act admits of but one interpretation consistent with candour and fair dealing on the part of its author.

What follows is more ambiguous. It is said that a candidate, at the time of his adopting the Confession, may state his scruples with regard to any article or articles, and that the presbytery shall, notwithstanding, admit him if they judge that his scruples relate to "articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship or government." Articles not essential in doctrine might well, in any other context, be understood to mean articles not essential to the gospel. But as the worship here spoken of is the presbyterian mode of worship, and the government intended is presbyterian government, so the doctrine referred to is the doctrine of the presbyterian church. It was not the intention of the synod to exclude those only who denied every form of church government, but those also who rejected any essential feature of presbyterianism. In like manner, they intended to reject all who denied any essential feature of the system of doctrine which they had adopted. It is not intended that this is the necessary meaning of the words, taken by themselves. But it is a natural interpretation, expressing a sense which the words will readily admit. And if it is the only interpretation which will save the act from the charge of direct contradiction, it must be assumed to be the true one. In the preceding clauses the synod had declared that they adopted the Westminster Confession as the confession of their faith, and that every new member must, in like manner, adopt it, in all its essential and necessary articles. Did they then immediately declare that he might reject these articles, no matter how essential a part of the Confession they might be, provided they were not absolutely necessary to Christianity? If the sense of the former clauses is clear, it must determine the interpretation of the latter.

No impartial judge could hesitate to decide that this was the real meaning of the synod, who took into view the history of the act and the character of the men who adopted it. It has already been shown that the act was introduced to guard against Arminianism, as well as Socinianism. This was its design. Its language, therefore, must be interpreted in reference to this design; especially as it is known that those who had this object in view were perfectly satisfied with it. Is it to be believed that Mr. Thompson, who had specified the doctrine of election as one which he would not venture to call fundamental, yet as one the denial of which ought not to be allowed, would have been contented with the act, had it made provision for the admission of ministers who not only denied that doctrine, but any and all others not absolutely essential to the gospel? Such an interpretation of the act would place its authors in a most extraordinary light. It must be remembered that the advocates of Mr. Thompson's overture were not thwarted; they were not voted down by their more liberal brethren, and forced to submit to a measure to which they were opposed. On the contrary, they had the power in their own hands. Mr. Andrews says he had no doubt of their ability to carry just what they wished. Yet they were satisfied with this act, and joined in praising God when it was passed. It must, therefore, be understood in a manner consistent with the avowed object of its introduction.

It is very evident, indeed, that the act was a compromise. Both parties were very desirous to avoid a schism; yet both were anxious that their own views should prevail. Their only expedient was to find some common ground on which they could stand. Mr. Dickinson had avowed his wish to establish the "essential and necessary doctrines of Christianity" as the condition of ministerial communion. Mr. Thompson wished the explicit adoption of the Westminster Confession, to be that condition. The common ground on which they met, was the essential and necessary articles of that Confession. To make this mean exactly what Mr. Dickinson had proposed, is to present Mr. Thompson in a ridiculous position; and President Dickinson in one still less to be envied. When the synod came to explain what they meant by the

necessary articles of the Confession, they made them include so much that Mr. Thompson had nothing to wish for.

This is one hypothesis for accounting for the acknowledged ambiguity of this act, and supposes that both parties understood it in the same way. Another, and perhaps more probable one is, that in the mutual anxiety to have the act express their peculiar views, they at last got it into a shape in which each could adopt it, as being substantially what each desired. However this may be, it is perfectly clear, from subsequent events, that the synod as such, never intended the act to fix as the condition of ministerial communion, the acknowledgment of the necessary doctrines of Christianity, whatever may have been the wishes of some few of its members.

The first document explanatory of the intentions of the synod in this measure, is found on the very same page with the act itself. In the morning the synod had resolved that they would adopt the Confession of Faith; in the afternoon they carried their resolution into effect, and the result is thus recorded: "All the ministers of the synod now present except one, who declared himself not prepared, viz: Messrs. Jedediah Andrews, Thomas Creaghead, John Thompson, James Anderson, John Pierson, Samuel Gelston, Joseph Houston, Gilbert Tennent, Adam Boyd, Jonathan Dickinson, John Bradner, Alexander Hucheson, Thomas Evans, Hugh Stevenson, William Tennent, Hugh Conn, George Gillespie, and John Wilson; after proposing all the scruples that any of them had to make against any articles and expressions in the Confession of Faith, and larger and shorter Catechisms of the assembly of divines at Westminster, have unanimously agreed in the solution of those scruples, and in declaring the said Confession and Catechisms to be confession of their faith, excepting only some clauses in the twentieth and twenty-third chapters, concerning which clauses the synod do unanimously declare that they do not receive those articles in any such sense as to suppose the civil magistrates hath a controlling power over synods, with respect to the exercise of their

ministerial authority, or power to persecute any for their religion, or in any sense contrary to the protestant succession to the throne of Great Britain. The synod observing that unanimity, peace, and unity which appeared in all their consultations and determinations in the affair of the Confession, did unanimously agree in giving thanks to God in solemn prayer and praise." What gratulations would there be in the church were there now the same unanimity, peace, and unity among her ministers! This then was what these fathers meant by adopting the Confession of Faith. They adopted all of it, except certain clauses in a certain sense, and as these clauses are no longer in the Confession, there is not an "article or expression" in that formula to which these men did not assent. Such was the latitudinarianism of those days! And it was in this sense and to this extent, that they required all new members to adopt the same Confession. That this is true, admits of proof that can neither be gainsaid or resisted.

Unfortunately, the adopting act had been printed and circulated among the churches without the minute just quoted, which might have served to explain its meaning. The question immediately arose, what do the synod mean by essential and necessary articles? May the new members object to any and all articles not essential to Christianity? This ambiguity in the act excited immediate dissatisfaction, and the synod were called upon to say explicitly how these expressions were to be understood. All this appears from the following record in the minutes for 1730. "Whereas some persons have been dissatisfied with the manner of wording our last year's agreement about the Confession, &c.; supposing some expressions not sufficiently obligatory upon intrants; overtured, that the synod do now declare that they understand those clauses that respect the admission of intrants in such a sense, as to oblige them to receive and adopt the Confession and Catechisms, at their admission, in the same manner and as fully as the members of the synod that were then present. Which overture was unanimously agreed to by the synod." The design of this declaration was to state explicitly the meaning of the adopting act, to let the churches know

what articles of the Confession the candidates for admission might object against. The synod say that they intended, by the clauses in question, to bind the new members to adopt the Confession as fully as they themselves had done; that is, to adopt the whole of it, except certain clauses in the twentieth and twenty-third chapters. Here then is an authentic and official explanation of the act in question; proceeding from its authors, and of precisely the same authority as the act itself. Cases analogous to this frequently occur in civil governments. When an ambiguity is found to exist in an act of congress, that body passes an explanatory act, declaring in what sense the doubtful expressions are to be taken. Who, after such explanation, ever ventures to assert that the interpretation given by congress of their own act, is not the true interpretation? No candid man, therefore, in the face of this unanimous declaration of the synod that they intended one thing, can assert that they meant the opposite. The case is the stronger on account of the unanimity with which this explanation was given; and because the composition of the synod this year was, in the main, what it was the year before. What difference existed was much more favourable to a lax than to a strict interpretation of the act of 1729. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the adopting act, as understood and intended by its authors, bound every new member to receive the Confession of Faith and Catechisms, in all their parts, except certain specified clauses in chapters twentieth and twenty-third. Whether this was right or wrong, liberal or illiberal, it is what the synod unanimously declared they intended.

This explanation, explicit as it is, did not put an end to the dissatisfaction. This, no doubt, arose from the fact that the original act continued to circulate unaccompanied by either the preceding explanation, or the minute of the afternoon session of September 19, 1729. New complaints were, therefore, made to the synod, and a new demand for a public avowal of their meaning. This led, in 1736, to a declaration which seems, at least for the time, to have produced general satisfaction. In the minutes for that year it is recorded that, "an overture of the committee, upon the supplication of

the people of Paxton and Derry, was brought in and is as followeth: That the synod do declare that inasmuch as we understand that many persons of our persuasion, both more lately and formerly, have been offended with some expressions or distinctions in the first or preliminary act of our synod for adopting the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, &c.; that in order to remove said offence and all jealousies that have arisen or may arise in any of our people's minds on occasion of said distinctions and expressions, the synod doth declare that the synod have adopted and still do adhere to the Westminster Confession, Catechisms, and Directory, without the least variation or alteration, and without any regard to said distinctions. And we do further declare this was our meaning and true intent in our first adopting of the said Confession, as may particularly appear by our adopting act, which is as followeth: 'All the ministers of the synod now present, (which were eighteen in number), except one who declared himself not prepared, after proposing all the scruples that any of them had to make against any articles and expressions in the Confession of Faith and larger and shorter Catechisms of the assembly of divines at Westminster, have unanimously agreed in the solution of those scruples, and in declaring the said Confession and Catechisms to be the confession of their faith, except only some clauses in the twentieth and twenty-third chapters, concerning which clauses the synod do unanimously declare that they do not receive those articles in any such sense as to suppose the civil magistrate hath a controlling power over synods with respect to the exercise of their ministerial authority, or power to persecute any for their religion, or in any sense contrary to the protestant succession to the throne of Great Britain.' And we do hope and desire, that this our synodical declaration and explanation may satisfy all our people as to our firm attachment to our good old received doctrines contained in the said Confession, without the least variation or alteration, and that they will lay aside their jealousies, that have been entertained through occasion of the above hinted expressions and declarations as groundless. This overture approved nemine contradicente."

↑ Back to top