The change has been equally marked as it regards discipline. Elders have been long discarded from their churches. No synod has been held in Massachusetts for more than a century. The Cambridge platform has become a dead letter; and a system differing but little from independency, has taken the place of the original discipline of their churches. It would, therefore, be a great mistake to suppose that the New England people, who before the middle of the last century associated themselves with the Presbyterian Church, brought with them the views on doctrine and discipline, which, to so great an extent, now distinguish the church in that part of our country.

It is the object of the present chapter, to ascertain and exhibit the character of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, during its forming period; that is, from 1704 or 1705 to 1729. For this purpose it will be necessary to ascertain, as far as possible, the origin of the several congregations of which the church was originally composed; and the origin and character of the members of the first presbytery; to learn what standard of doctrine was assumed by them, and what form of government they instituted and administered. This latter point can, of course, best be learned from the record of their proceedings, by ascertaining what powers the presbytery exercised over the churches, and over its own members; and what relation the synod, after its formation, assumed to the presbyteries and churches.

The first subject of investigation, then, is the origin of the early presbyterian churches. It might be inferred from the statements in the preceding chapter, that presbyterian churches would be formed nearly cotemporaneously in various parts of the country. And such in fact was the case. In a letter written by the presbytery of Philadelphia to that of Dublin, and dated 1710, it is said, “In all Virginia we have one small congregation on Elizabeth river, and some few families favouring our way in Rappahannoc and York; in Maryland four, in Pennsylvania five, in the Jerseys two, which bounds with some places in New York, make up all the bounds from which we have any members from, and at present some of these are vacant.”

Of the church on Elizabeth river little is known. It seems from commissary Blair’s report on the state of the church in Virginia, that it existed before the commencement of the last century. From the fact of Mr. Makemie’s directing in his will, that his dwelling house and lot on Elizabeth river, should be sold, it has been inferred that he had resided there before he moved to the opposite side of the Chesapeake, and that the church in question was gathered by him. If so, it must have been formed before 1690; for at that time Mr. Makemie was residing on the eastern shore. Others have supposed that the congregation was composed of a small company of Scotch emigrants, whose descendants are still to be found in the neighbourhood of Norfolk. Though reported by the presbytery, they seem to have had little connexion with that body. The name of their pastor, the Rev. Mr. Macky, never appears on the minutes as a member.

It is not easy to reconcile altogether the statements given in the presbyterial letter quoted above, with the facts recorded on the minutes. For example, it is said there were four churches in Maryland in connexion with the presbytery in 1710, whereas the minutes mention at least five. It is probable, however, that when two congregations were under the care of the same pastor, they were not counted separately. These congregations were Upper Marlborough, Snowhill, Rehoboth, Monoken, and Wicomico. The first of these was formed by a company of Scotch emigrants, who came to this country with their pastor, Rev. Nathaniel Taylor, about the year 1690. The other four churches were in Somerset county, on the eastern shore, and were the fruits of Mr. Makemie’s labours. Of this there can be no reasonable doubt, as his memory is still cherished among them, and as there is neither tradition nor record of any other presbyterian minister in that district at the date of their formation.2 Of Snowhill, Mr. Spence gives the following account: “A town to be called Snowhill, was established in Somerset, now Worcester county, by an act of the provincial legislature, passed in 1684, and I believe,” he adds, “that the presbyterian church in that place is nearly or quite as old as the town. Snowhill was settled by English episcopalians, and Scotch and Irish presbyterians; and it is certain that persons resided there at the time, or soon after the time in which the town was laid out, who were afterwards members of the presbyterian church. My ancestor, to whom I have already alluded, was a ruling elder in that church.” Of this family of churches Rehoboth is commonly considered to be the eldest. It consisted originally of English dissenters. Their first pastor was the Rev. Mr. Makemie, who, in his will, directs his executrix “to make over and alienate the lot on which the meeting house is built, in as ample manner, to all intents and purposes, as shall be required for the ends and uses of a presbyterian congregation, as if I were personally present, and to their successors for ever, and to none else but to such as are of the same persuasion in matters of religion.” It may be inferred from the terms of this bequest, and from the character of its founder, that this church was strictly presbyterian; a point which, it is believed, has never been disputed.2 The congregations of Monokin and Wicomico were under the pastoral care of Mr. McNish, and were organized before 1705, the date of his application to the court for permission to preach. It can hardly be presumed that these five presbyterian congregations with distinct church edifices, some of them within fifteen miles of each other, could, at so early a period, and in so thinly settled a part of the country, have been formed in a few years. And as they all existed prior to 1705, and as Mr. Makemie had resided and laboured in that district for near twenty years before that date, it is altogether probable that several of them were formed before the commencement of the last century. That they were all presbyterian churches never has been questioned. As early as 1723, as appears from a recorded deed, the church at Monokin had eight elders.

The presbytery state in their letter that they had five congregations in Pennsylvania, in 1710. The minutes, however, furnish the names of the following places, viz. Philadelphia, Neshaminy, Welsh Tract, New Castle, White Clay, Apoquinimi, and Lewes. Welsh Tract is first mentioned in the following minute, 1710: “Upon information that David Evans, a lay-person, had taken upon himself publicly to teach or preach among the Welsh in the Great Valley, Chester county, it was unanimously agreed that the said Evans had done very ill, and acted irregularly, in thus invading the work of the ministry, and was thereupon censured.” It may be inferred from this, that Mr. Evans was in some way connected with the presbytery, but not that there was a church already organized among the Welsh. White Clay Creek, New Castle, and Apoquinimi were associated, as appears from the following record made in 1709: “Ordered that Mr. Wilson, (pastor of New Castle,) preach at Apoquinimi once a month upon a week day, and one Sabbath in a quarter till the aforesaid meeting, provided always that the Sabbath day’s sermon be taken from the White Clay Creek people their time.” These three places of preaching, therefore, were probably numbered as one congregation in the presbytery’s letter.

The first church in Philadelphia was organized about 1698. A number of English and Welsh dissenters together with some French Protestants had for some time been accustomed to assemble for religious worship, in connexion with a few baptists, in a store-house at the corner of Chestnut and Second streets, belonging to the Barbadoes company. Neither party had a settled pastor, but the Rev. Mr. Watts, a baptist minister of Pennepek, had agreed to preach for them every other Lord’s day. This gentleman says in his narrative, “that divers of the persons who came to that assembly were presbyterians in judgment; they having no minister of their own, and we having hitherto made no scruple of holding communion with them in the public worship of God.” The presbyterians, probably finding themselves unpleasantly situated, determined upon calling a minister, and invited the Rev. Jedediah Andrews, from Boston, who accepted their invitation and arrived in Philadelphia in 1698. Shortly after his arrival, dissentions arose between the baptists and presbyterians, which resulted in their separation. The former withdrew leaving the latter in possession of the store-house, where they continued to worship until 1704, when they removed to a new meeting-house on Market street.

The congregation at Neshaminy was a Dutch presbyterian church. Their pastor was the Rev. Mr. Van Cleck, from Holland, and the letter addressed to them by the presbytery is directed to the “Dutch people.” That they were regularly organized is evident from a minute recorded in 1711, which states that Mr. Van Cleck’s absence from presbytery was accounted for “by one of his elders, sent for that purpose.”

In the manuscript history of the church in New Castle, it is stated, that the first account of a presbyterian congregation in that town is about 1704, at which time the Rev. Mr. Wilson was the pastor. August 15, 1707, a deed for a lot of land was made to certain persons in trust “for the use of the presbyterian congregation in Newcastle, on which they were to build a house for public worship.” The church at Lewes was organized about the same time, though no record goes further back than 1708.

The two congregations in Jersey, were Freehold and Woodbridge. The former was constituted, principally by emigrants from Scotland, about 1692. Their place of worship was long known as the “Scotch meeting-house.” It was mentioned in the preceding chapter, that Woodbridge was settled partly by the Scotch, and partly by emigrants from New England. The congregation is first mentioned as in connexion with the presbytery, in a letter dated May 1708. In that letter, which is addressed to several New England clergymen, the presbytery say, “We find by diverse letters which have passed between you and sundry persons in Woodbridge, that you are not unacquainted with the confusions and distractions arising from the accession of Mr. Wade to be the minister of that town, and the aversion of a considerable part of the people to the accepting of him as such.” It is probable that it was the Scottish portion of the congregation that was opposed to Mr. Wade, as the first healing measure proposed by the presbytery was that Mr. Boyd, the Scotch clergyman of Freehold, should preach every third Sabbath in Woodbridge; and Mr. Wade’s accession to the presbytery in 1710, was with the view of reconciling the disaffected portion of his people. Whatever may have been the ground of the opposition, it came from the majority of the congregation.

Besides the churches in connexion with the presbytery of Philadelphia, there were several others organized at an early date in various parts of the country. In his history of South Carolina, Dr. Ramsay says, “the presbyterians formed congregations, not only in Charleston, but in three of the maritime islands, and at Wilton, Jacksonborough, Indian-land, Port-royal, and Williamsburg.” And again, “the presbyterians were among the first settlers, and were always numerous in South Carolina. Their ministers in the maritime districts were mostly from Scotland and Ireland, men of good education, orderly in their conduct, and devoted to the systems of doctrine and government established in Scotland. In conjunction with them the independents or congregationalisls were formed into a church in Charleston about the year 1690, and after being about forty years united, they separated and formed different churches. Rev. Archibald Stobs took charge of the church in the autumn of 1700, and the Rev. William Livingston in 1704.” The presbytery of Charleston, he says, “was constituted at an early period of the 18th century, agreeably to the principles and practice of the church of Scotland.” The distance of these southern churches from those about Philadelphia, and the difficulty of communication sufficiently accounts for their being no connexion between them. A union did not take place until the year 1800, when the presbytery of Charleston connected itself with the synod of Carolina.

What “the some places in New York” were, whence the presbytery had members, as stated in their letter of 1710, does not appear from the minutes. No minister, congregation, or elder, is there spoken of as belonging to that province. There were indeed presbyterians in the city of New York, as early as 1707, who had principally emigrated from Great Britain and Ireland, but they were so few that they had neither a church to worship in, nor a minister to lead their worship. The congregation was organized, and Mr. Anderson called as their pastor in 1717. The church in Jamaica appears to have become connected with the presbytery in 1712; that of Newtown in 1715; that of Southampton in 1716.

Several of the churches mentioned as belonging to the presbytery in 1710, were not in connexion with that body at the time of its organization. This was the case in regard to Neshaminy, the Welsh tract, and Woodbridge. Of the remainder, it appears from the preceding account, that the four or five in Maryland were strictly presbyterian. Those in Pennsylvania were all composed predominantly of Scotch and Irish presbyterians, except the first church in Philadelphia. This appears from the statement of Mr. Blair, that “all our congregations in Pennsylvania, except two or three, chiefly are made up of people from that kingdom,” i.e. Ireland. This was written in 1744, when the Dutch congregation of Neshaminy, two Welsh congregations in the valley, besides the mixed church in Philadelphia, had long been connected with the presbytery. The two or three exceptions, therefore, are accounted for; the remainder, which includes all the original churches, except that of Philadelphia, were, according to Mr. Blair, composed principally of Irish presbyterians. There were, doubtless a good many Dutch and Swedes included in the congregations in the lower counties on the Delaware, as they were the earliest and principal settlers of those counties, and as the names of church members occurring on the minutes, would also seem to intimate. In Jersey, the church in Freehold was the only one at first belonging to the presbytery. As far as can be ascertained, therefore, the congregations connected with the presbytery at the time of its formation were all strictly presbyterian, unles the first church in Philadelphia be considered an exception. Up to 1710, the only presbyterian church in which there was an appreciable number of New England men, was Woodbridge, and that, unfortunately, gave the presbytery more trouble than all the rest put together. This, however, appears to have arisen quite as much, to say the least, from the character of the minister, as from that of the people. As far then as the character of the original congregations is concerned, it would be difficult to find any church more homogeneous in its materials than our own; certainly not the church of Scotland; and certainly not the churches of New England. The former contained, proportionably, more members inclined to episcopacy, and the latter more inclined to presbyterianism, than were to be found in our church inclined to congregationalism.

The next subject of inquiry is the character of the ministers of which the presbytery was at first composed. The original members, as far as can be ascertained from the minutes, were Messrs. Francis Makemie, Jedediah Andrews, George McNish, John Hampton, John Wilson, Nathaniel Taylor, and Samuel Davis. To these may be added John Boyd, who became a member by ordination in 1706. Of the original members of the presbytery, Mr. Hazard says, “It is probable that all, except Mr. Andrews, were foreigners by birth, and that they were ordained to the gospel ministry in Scotland and Ireland.” The correctness of this statement can be proved by documentary evidence in regard to most of these gentlemen, and by the strongest circumstantial evidence with regard to the others.

The Rev. Francis Makemie, who is often spoken of as the father of our church, was settled in Accomac county, Virginia, anterior to the year 1690, when his name first appears upon the county records. According to some accounts he was a native of Scotland; according to Mr. Spence, of the north of Ireland. Mr. Spence thinks that he was ordained by the presbytery of Donegal. It is certain, however, that he came to this country an ordained minister, and was “in principle, and upon conviction, a thorough presbyterian.” He is represented as having been “a venerable and imposing character, distinguished for piety, learning, and much steady resolution and perseverance.” His successful labours in the eastern shore of Maryland, his imprisonment in New York for preaching in that city, and his able defence upon his trial, are familiarly known to the public. He died in 1708, leaving a large estate. In 1704, he went to Europe and returned the following year, accompanied by two presbyterian ministers from Ireland, Messrs. Hampton and McNish. The former became the pastor of Snowhill; the latter of Monokin and Wicomico, in the first instance, but removed in 1712, to Jamaica, upon Long Island.

It is probable that the Rev. Samuel Davis was another of the ministers, whom Mr. Makemie, during his last visit to Europe, induced to come to this country. The scene of his labours, from 1705 or 1706, onwards, was the churches planted by Mr. Makemie, or those in their immediate vicinity. He was appointed to take part in the installation of Mr. Hampton, at Snowhill, in connexion with Mr. McNish. And subsequently he was associated in another service with Mr. Hampton, and Mr. Henry. It appears from the minutes of 1715, that he had for some time been fixed at Lewes or its neighbourhood, as the people applied to have another minister, as Mr. Davis could not take the pastoral charge of the congregation. He finally succeeded Mr. Hampton as minister of Snowhill. All these circumstances connect him with the churches in the peninsula, all whose ministers, Makemie, Hampton, McNish, Henry, Clement, Steward, Thompson, were from Scotland or Ireland. If Davis was not, he is the only exception. In the absence of all evidence to the contrary, or of any circumstance connecting him with New England, it is in the highest degree probable that he had the same origin with his associates.

Mr. Nathaniel Taylor, as stated in the preceding chapter, was a minister from Scotland, who came to this country with his congregation and settled in Upper Marlborough, about 1690. Mr. John Wilson was the pastor of the church in New Castle. As he died in 1708, there are few memorials of him now preserved. That he was from Scotland may be inferred not only from the place of his labours and his associates, but from his being appointed to conduct the correspondence with that country. It was natural that those members of the presbytery, who came from Scotland or Ireland, should be designated to write, as occasion required, to the places from whence they came. This natural rule, it is evident from the minutes, was actually adopted. Mr. Andrews was the great penman of the presbytery, and as he lived in Philadelphia, and kept the books, a great part of the burden of conducting the correspondence of the body, which was no slight matter, was devolved upon him. Yet, it is believed, there is no instance in the early minutes of his being appointed to write to either Scotland or Ireland. This duty was assigned to Makemie, Wilson, Anderson, Gillespie, Henry. As all these are known to have been Scotch or Irish, it is hardly to be doubted, as there is not the slightest evidence to the contrary, that Mr. Wilson was also. Mr. John Boyd, the minister of Freehold, who became a member of the presbytery in 1706, was also a native of Scotland.

As far then as can be ascertained, all the original members of the presbytery were either Scotch or Irish, except Mr. Andrews. As this gentleman was among the first, so he was one of the most laborious and useful members of the presbytery. All the minutes, both of the presbytery and synod, for a long series of years are in his handwriting. He was also the treasurer of the synod, and seems to have been one of its most punctual and active members. He was probably a moderate man. His name never appears attached to any protest or counter-protest, and he says, he was often instrumental in healing differences between the brethren of conflicting views. He did not join in the protest excluding the New Brunswick presbytery from the synod, at the time of the schism, though he adhered to the ‘old side’ throughout, and took part in all their ulterior measures.

So much stress has been laid upon the origin of the founders of our church, and is in reality due to it, that the preceding investigation cannot be deemed superfluous. If all, or any large proportion of them had been previously congregationalists, the presumption would undoubtedly be, that the form of government which they instituted, was more or less allied to Congregationalism. And, on the other hand, if they were all, with one exception, Scotch or Irish presbyterians, the presumption is equally strong, that the system which they adopted was in accordance with that to which they had been accustomed. It is, however, but a presumption in either case. The decisive evidence must be sought in their declarations and acts.

The increase of the church after the organization of the presbytery, was rapid, and arose principally from the constant immigration of presbyterians, ministers as well as people, from abroad, and from the organization of those already scattered through the country. In 1707, the number of ministers was eight, all but one from Scotland or Ireland. In 1716 the whole number was twenty-five, of whom seventeen were still living and in connexion with the presbytery. In that year it was determined to form four presbyteries; the first to consist of the following members: viz. Messrs. Andrews, Jones, Powell, Orr, Bradner, and Morgan, and to meet at Philadelphia or elsewhere; the second of Messrs. Anderson, Magill, Gillespie, Wotherspoon, Evans, and Conn, to meet at New Castle; the third to consist of Messrs. Davis, Hampton, and Henry, to meet at Snowhill; and the fourth of Messrs. McNish and Pumry, on Long Island, who were directed to endeavour to induce some of the neighbouring ministers to associate with them in forming a presbytery. The presbytery of Snowhill does not appear ever to have met. Most of its members became attached to that of Newcastle. Of the above seventeen ministers, Mr. Andrews and Mr. Pumry are the only two of whom there is any evidence that they were from New England, and the latter had joined the presbytery the preceding year. Almost the whole amount of New England influence, therefore, in the presbytery, from the time it was formed until after the constitution of the synod, rests with Mr. Andrews. Of the two other New England members, Mr. Smith never met the presbytery but once, and Mr. Wade but twice.

From 1716 to 1729, the proportion of New England ministers was considerably increased; several of the most prominent and useful members of the synod were from that section of the country. They formed, in 1728, from a fourth to a third of the whole body. This review shows the great injustice of representing the Scotch and Irish members as mere intruders, and the New England or congregational portion as the true original presbyterian church. As far as the character of the body may be inferred from that of its founders, it was a purely presbyterian church from the beginning. It was not founded upon congregationalism, nor by congregationalists. It was founded by presbyterians, and upon presbyterian principles, and those who subsequently joined it, joined it as a presbyterian body. Mr. Andrews was the only minister from New England, who had any permanent connexion with the church before 1715, and he so far from being a congregationalist, was an “old side” presbyterian. Of the six or seven additional New England members who joined the synod before 1729, some were among the strictest presbyterians of the whole body; and not one of them was either a congregationalist, or inclined to Congregationalism, if any dependence is to be placed upon their declarations or acts.

Having taken this view of the origin of the Presbyterian Church, during its forming period, in order to ascertain its character, as far as it may be inferred from the materials of which it was composed, it is time to inquire more particularly into its doctrines and discipline, during the same period. As it regards doctrines, the point to be ascertained is, whether the Presbyterian Church was a Calvinistic body, and required adherence to that system of doctrine as a condition of ministerial communion, or whether it demanded nothing more than assent to the essential doctrines of the gospel. The latter position, as was shown in the introductory chapter, has been unequivocally assumed. That this assumption is incorrect, and that our church has from the beginning required adherence to Calvinism as a condition of ministerial communion, can be made very clearly to appear. It is admitted that the presbytery required of its members, what it considered soundness in the faith, or orthodoxy. The only question then is, what was orthodoxy, in the estimation of the founders of our church? Was it faith in the essential doctrines of the gospel? or was it faith in that system of doctrines, which, for convenience sake, has obtained the name of Calvinism? This is the only important question. The method which they adopted to decide upon the orthodoxy of a member, is of very subordinate consequence. Whether it was by personal examination; by satisfactory testimonials; or by assent to a prescribed formula of doctrines, is comparatively of but little moment. The question is, what did they require? Not, how did they satisfy themselves? It seems a matter of supererogation to prove, that men educated, towards the close of the seventeenth, or the beginning of the eighteenth century, in Scotland, Ireland, or New England, regarded Calvinism as the true doctrine of the Scriptures, and considered any essential deviation from it, as a disqualification for the work of the ministry. Is the faith of the church of Scotland at that period a matter of doubt? Was she not still reeking with the blood of her children, martyrs for her faith and discipline? Were men who had suffered so much in their own persons, or in those of their friends, for presbyterianism, likely to cast it away, the moment they got to a place of perfect security? It has never yet been made a question, what was the faith of the Puritans, who first settled New England, or what was the standard of orthodoxy among her churches. No one has ventured to assert that Christianity in the general, adherence to doctrines absolutely fundamental, was all that was there required of ministers of the gospel. And why not? Not because there is documentary evidence that every candidate for ordination was required to sign a particular formula, but because the opinions of those puritans are a matter of notoriety. Their opinions, however, were neither more pronounced, nor more notorious than those of the churches of Scotland or Ireland. Why then should it be assumed that the ministers of the latter were so latitudinarian, as soon as they reached this country, when no such assumption is made with regard to the former?

It is to be remembered that the great majority of the early ministers of our church were either ordained or licensed before they became connected with it. The very testimonials which they brought with them, if they came from Scotland or Ireland, stated explicitly that they had adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith; if they came from New England they brought evidence of their Calvinism just as unequivocal. No doubt could be entertained what was meant by ‘orthodoxy’ in certificates given by men, who expressed so much alarm lest ‘the churches of God, should suspect that New England allowed such exorbitant aberrations’ as the denial that Christ bore the penalty of the law. It was just as natural, and as much a matter of course, for the presbytery of Philadelphia to receive with confidence men coming from the Scotch and Irish presbyteries, as it is for one of our presbyteries to receive the members of another. The moment, however, it was discovered that these certificates deceived them, they began to adopt other methods to ascertain the Calvinism of those whom they admitted.

The single consideration, then, that all the early ministers of our church came from places where Calvinism not only prevailed, but where it was strenuously insisted upon, is, in the absence of all evidence to the contrary, sufficient to prove that they were not so singular, or so much in advance of the spirit of their age, as to bring down their demands to the low standard of absolutely essential doctrines. It is not, however, merely the origin, but the known opinions of these ministers, which are relied upon to prove the Calvinistic character of our church. There is not a single minister, whose sentiments are known at all, who was admitted to the church, or allowed to remain in it during the period under review, who is not known to have been not only a Calvinist, but a rigid one. This was the case with the members of the strict presbytery of Newcastle, the men who are now reproached for sectarian bigotry for their zeal for this very subject. It was the case with Jonathan Dickinson, Gilbert Tennent, and every other minister, connected with the church, before 1729, who has left any memorials of his opinions. It is contrary to all experience, and to the principles of human nature, that men, who have been accustomed to one standard of doctrines, should suddenly lower their demands, unless they themselves were disaffected towards those doctrines.

Another evidence of the Calvinistic character of our church, may be found in the circumstances attending the reception of the Rev. William Tennent in 1718. That gentleman had been episcopally ordained in Ireland; but on coming to this country, applied to be received as a member of the synod of Philadelphia. That body required him to state in writing the reasons of his dissent from the episcopal church. One of the most prominent of those reasons was, that the church of Ireland connived “at Arminian doctrines.” Are we then to believe that Mr. Tennent left one church because it connived at Arminianism, to join another which tolerated Pelagianism; nay, that required nothing more than assent to the absolutely essential doctrines of the gospel! Surely the synod would have had too much self-respect to insert in their minutes, a document charging it as a crime upon a sister church, that she connived at Arminianism, if they themselves did the same, and more.

The Calvinistic character of our church is further evident from the fact, that as soon as some other means than personal examination, or the testimonials of ecclesiastical bodies, became necessary to ascertain the orthodoxy of its members, subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith, was demanded and universally submitted to. As long as the church was small, and all, or a large portion of its members could be present at the admission of every new applicant, the most natural and the most effectual method to obtain a knowledge of his opinions, was personal examination. And as long as the churches with which the synod corresponded, were faithful to their own standards, their testimony was received as sufficient evidence of the soundness of the men whom they recommended. But when from the multiplication of presbyteries, the first method became impossible, and when the second was found to be unworthy of confidence, another plan was adopted. On the supposition that the church was to remain one, and that it had any zeal for its own doctrines, it was necessary that the several presbyteries should understand each other, and unite in adopting a common standard of orthodoxy. Hence arose the call for a general agreement, to make the adoption of the Westminster Confession a condition of ministerial communion. There can be no stronger evidence of the Calvinistic character of the church, than that this new test of orthodoxy was universally admitted, and that there was not a single member of the synod who objected to any one article in the confession of faith, except that which related to the power of the civil magistrates in matters of religion. That article was, by common consent, discarded; all the others were cordially adopted. It is inconceivable that a body of men should have unanimously adopted this measure, had it been the fixing a new and higher standard of orthodoxy, and not merely a new method for ascertaining the adherence of the ministry to what had always been demanded.

Some portions of the church felt the necessity for the adoption of this measure before others. One method, as already remarked, which had been relied upon to secure the church from unsound ministers, was the demand of testimonials of orthodoxy from all applicants for admission. So long as confidence was felt in those giving such testimonials, the church was satisfied; but when suspicion arose on this point, something more was demanded. The earliest and most serious suspicions were felt with regard to the presbyteries in the north of Ireland; and hence the Newcastle presbytery, within whose bounds most of the ministers from Ireland came, was the first that insisted on something more than clean papers from the applicants for membership. As early at least as 1724, they began to require the adoption of the Westminster confession of faith.

It has been made a question, whether the presbytery of Philadelphia did from the beginning, regularly and formally adopt the Westminster Confession, or not. As the first leaf of the book of records is lost, it is impossible that this question should be satisfactorily answered. Dr. Green has argued for the affirmative with a great deal of force, and has rendered it highly probable that the first page contained some statement of the principles, both as to doctrine and discipline, on which the presbytery was formed. It is certain they had “a constitution” to which they could appeal, and to which their members promised subjection. In a letter written by the presbytery to the people of Woodbridge, in 1712, they say that Mr. Wade “submitted himself willingly to our constitution.” Whether this constitution was a written document, or a formal recognition of the standards of the church of Scotland; or whether the passage quoted merely means that Mr. Wade had submitted himself to the acknowledged principles of presbyterianism, cannot be certainly determined. The a priori probability is in favour of the supposition that the first page of the minutes contained some general recognition of the standards of the church of Scotland, as all the original members of the presbytery, as we have every reason to believe, except Mr. Andrews, had already adopted those standards at the time of their ordination.

What was on the first page of the minutes, however, is a very different question from another, with which it appears sometimes to be confounded. It may be admitted, that the presbytery, at the time of its organization, commenced its records with some preamble stating the principles upon which it was organized; but was it customary to require a formal assent to the Westminster confession as a condition of membership? That this question must be answered in the negative, appears plain from two considerations. The first is, that from 1706 to 1729 there is no mention, either in the minutes of the presbytery before 1716, or in those of the synod after that date, of such assent having been demanded or given. Whereas, after the adopting act in 1729, the record is uniformly made that the new members had adopted the Confession of Faith. This certainly seems to show that a change of custom was effected by that act; that, however some presbyteries, for their own satisfaction, had made the demand before, the original presbytery and synod had not been in the habit of making it. In the second place, the history of the adopting act itself establishes the same point. It appears that the church had hitherto relied upon other means for securing orthodoxy in its ministers, but as new dangers arose, new means of guarding against them were devised. The overture which led to the adopting act, though of considerable length, and though reciting the reasons which called for that measure, makes no allusion to its having been previously the custom to exact assent to the Westminster Confession, but speaks of it as a new measure, designed to meet a new difficulty.

The question whether the Westminster Confession was uniformly adopted by new members, as before remarked, is one of subordinate importance. The church did not become Calvinistic by adopting that Confession; but adopted it because it already was so, and always had been. Its demands were in no respects altered, much less were they raised, by the act of 1729. That act was nothing more than a measure, arising out of the altered circumstances of the church, designed to accomplish a purpose which had hitherto been attained by other means. The New England puritans were not stricter Calvinists in 1640, when they adopted the Cambridge platform, than they were in 1620; nor had they become more rigid in 1688, when they recognized the Westminster Confession. No historical fact of the same kind admits of clearer proof, from their origin, declarations and acts, than that the founders of our church were Calvinists, and that they demanded Calvinism, and not merely faith in the absolutely essential doctrines of the gospel, as the condition of ministerial communion.

The next subject of inquiry is the form of discipline adopted, during the period under review. If, as has been proved, all the original members of the presbytery, except one, were presbyterian ministers from Scotland or Ireland, and if all the congregations, unless the first church in Philadelphia be partially an exception, were composed of presbyterians, as has also been shown, then there can be little doubt that, at least at the beginning, whatever it may have become afterwards, our church was a Presbyterian Church. These considerations, however, are merely presumptive. They are of great weight, if confirmed by other kinds of evidence, but of very little, if contradicted by the conduct or avowals of those concerned. The real question then is, what, in point of fact, was the form of government on which the founders of our church acted? Was it presbyterianism? or was it congregationalism? or was it some anomalous system partaking of the features of both, yet belonging to neither? This point must be settled by an inspection of the records.

It is plain that, whatever these men really were, they thought themselves presbyterians. It is the name which they adopted. They called their judicatory, not an association or council, but a presbytery; they always speak of presbyterians as being “of our persuasion.” In corresponding with the judicatories of Ireland and Scotland, they called themselves presbyterians, to those who were accustomed to affix a definite meaning to the term. When writing to the governor of Virginia, in order to inform him of their principles, they tell him they were “of the same persuasion as the church of Scotland.” In 1721, the synod declare in the preamble to an overture which they adopted, that they had “been for many years in the exercise of presbyterian government and discipline, as exercised by presbyterians in the best reformed churches, as far as the nature and constitution of this country would allow.” By presbyterians in the best reformed churches, must be understood those of Scotland, Ireland, France, and Holland; and what the presbyterianism of those countries was, is not a matter to be disputed. It is only asking then that the founders of our church should be regarded as sane and honest men, when it is asked that they should be regarded as a presbyterian, and not as a congregational or nondescript body.

Still, as actions speak louder than words, it is best to see how these men acted; how the individual congregations were organized and governed; how the presbyteries were constituted; what authority they exercised over their churches and members; and what relation subsisted between them and the synod. Presbyterianism is a mode of church government as definite and as well understood as any other form of ecclesiastical polity. Its fundamental principle is, that the government of the church rests upon the presbyteries; that is, the clerical and lay elders. It demands, therefore, congregational, classical, and provincial assemblies of such elders, i.e. sessions, presbyteries, and synods. It establishes a regular subordination of the lower of these judicatories to the higher, giving to the latter the right of review and control over the former. And, finally, it declares the determinations and decisions of these several judicatories, relating to matters of government and discipline, to be binding upon all under their authority, when not inconsistent with the word of God, or some previous constitutional stipulation. Such is the presbyterianism of Scotland, Ireland, France, and Holland. This is the whole system, and every feature of it is found in the form of discipline of the churches of those countries. The question is, are they all found in our system as at first established? If they are, it is a mere waste of time to dispute further about the nature of the system. It is what, in all ages and countries, has been called presbyterianism, and it may safely be called so still.

How then were the individual congregations governed? It has already been shown that all the churches originally belonging to the presbytery, were regularly organized, unless the first church in Philadelphia be an exception. This is admitted to have been the case with the four or five Maryland churches organized by Mr. Makemie before 1705. There is no doubt it was the case with the Scotch church of Upper Marlborough. Of the fifteen or sixteen churches in Pennsylvania in 1730, all were Scotch or Irish but two or three; and of these three, the one in Philadelphia was the only one connected from the beginning with the presbytery. Of the remaining two, one was a regular Dutch presbyterian church. Of those in New Jersey, Freehold was Scotch; Newark was settled by English presbyterians, and had elders from the beginning, according to the best information and belief of Dr. McWhorter. Elizabethtown also must have had them under President Dickinson, unless he acted in opposition to his avowed principles. With regard to Cohanzy, and the united congregations of Maidenhead and Hopewell, the facts are not known. Woodbridge is the only church of which 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 I. Introduction · Contents · Chapter III. Presbyterian Church from 1729 to 1741 →