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to adopt the Confession of Faith, why, in the course of more than a hundred years, has the adopting act never been repealed?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

It has been said that the advocates of the adoption of the Westminster Confession, designed to subject the church irrevocably to the power of the civil government, and that this design was successfully resisted by the sons of New England. This is a calumny which might safely be left to be refuted by its inherent absurdity. All sects, even the popish, are said to be tolerant, when in the minority. Yet presbyterians call upon us to believe that presbyterians, when thinly scattered over the country, with some twenty or thirty ministers; when suffering oppression in Carolina, Virginia, and New York; when under an episcopal government hostile to all their peculiarities, wished to subject the church more completely to the state, to justify their oppressors, and to deprive themselves of the poor consolation of petition and remonstrance. To make this aspersion the stronger, it is cast upon Scotchmen, upon the descendants of the men who had been struggling for two centuries for the independence of the church; who had included in their earliest confession the assertion of the right to resist unjust rulers, and whose great reproach is that they carried the liberty of the church so far as to encroach on the just prerogatives of the state. Yet their descendants in one breath are said to have come to this country with all the prejudices and principles of their fathers, and, in the next, to have been intent on establishing the doctrine their fathers had suffered the loss of all things in opposing. The authors of the overture in question had no such suicidal or insensate purpose, as to subject a feeble church to hostile magistrates, or to solicit injury from the hand of oppression. Presbyterians in this country have always been tolerant, from necessity, if not from principle. Mr. Makemie, when imprisoned in New York for preaching the gospel, must have delivered his eloquent defence with a very bad grace, had he suffered merely from the application of his own principles. It is not pretended that presbyterians were so much in advance of their generation, that they would have been free from reproach in this matter, had they been in power. This however was nowhere the case, for even where they formed the majority of the people, they were subject to episcopal rulers over whom they had no control. Had the case been otherwise, they might have been as intolerant as their neighbours, and have pushed their principles to the extreme to which they were carried in New England. There, not only all places of power and trust, but even the right of suffrage was confined to members of the church. The magistrates were clothed with power to punish for opinion’s sake; a power which they frequently exercised. It is a poor service to the puritans to deny their principles, or to vindicate their conduct on grounds which they themselves would have despised. The intolerance of the puritans, such as it was, arose out of their most cherished opinions. They came to this country to establish a society in which God should reign; where his truth should be preserved and his laws enforced. Hence all power was to be kept in the hands of the people of God. Hence the denial of the truth, or any moral offence, was regarded as a violation of the law of the land, and to be punished accordingly. Hence, too, when Roger Williams broached his doctrine of liberty of conscience, not only was he banished, but his opinions were laboriously controverted. A state founded upon such a principle, must be intolerant. Had no strangers come among them, their own children would have been disfranchised. Yet the puritans adhered to this principle, and gave it up in practice by slow and reluctant concessions. This is not said to cast a reproach upon the pious founders of New England. Far from it. Those who retain the great scriptural doctrines for whose sake they constructed their whole economy, honour their memory far more effectually than those who merely garnish their sepulchres. They were the people of God; they loved and honoured the Saviour; and this is enough to preserve them in everlasting remembrance, and to shield them from all unjust or unkind aspersions. They were not fanatical persecutors, or blinded enthusiasts, but sober-minded and devout men. They allowed themselves, however, to be fascinated with the idea of a Christian theocracy; which, beautiful as it is, cannot be carried out, in the present state of the world, without practical injustice. These men, therefore, good as they were, should not be honoured at the expense of truth, nor held up as the friends of religious liberty in contrast with the presbyterians, in order to cast odium upon the latter. The assertion, that the advocates of the adoption of the Confession of Faith had the design of subjecting the church to the state, and were only prevented by the sons of the puritans, appears still more extraordinary when it is known that they unanimously declared their rejection of the doctrine that the civil magistrates had the right to control ecclesiastical bodies, or to persecute for the sake of religion. It is certainly a very strange expedient to enforce a doctrine, openly and unanimously to renounce it. A charge, however, which is so obviously unjust does not merit even this brief refutation.

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

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

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

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

“An overture humbly offered to the consideration of the reverend synod; wherein is proposed an expedient for preventing the ingress and spreading of dangerous errors, among either ourselves or the flocks committed to our care.

“Reverend Fathers and Brethren:

“I would be heartily grieved if the following overture, or any thing in it, should, in the event, prove the occasion of any heat or contention among us. Sure I am that every thing of this kind is far from my intention, and I hope all my brethren will not only be persuaded of the peaceableness and sincerity of my intentions, but also to judge for the necessity of such an expedient, when they seriously ponder and consider these few particulars. First, that it is the unquestionable duty of every Christian, according to his station and talent, to maintain and defend the truths of the gospel against all opposition. Secondly, that this work or duty is in an especial manner incumbent on the ministers of the gospel in virtue of their office. Thirdly, that not only every Christian and minister, but also every church, as an organized body politic, methodised by order and government, is also obliged to act with Christian vigilance and sagacity in maintaining and defending gospel truth. Fourthly, that the parties aforesaid are not only obliged to maintain and defend the truth for themselves, but also to endeavour to perpetuate and propagate it unto posterity pure and uncorrupt. Fifthly, as the light of nature teaches all kingdoms, commonwealths, cities, &c., even in time of peace to prepare for war, so a principle of spiritual wisdom should direct the church of Christ to fortify itself against all the assaults and invasions that may be made upon the doctrine it professes, according to the word of God. Sixthly, that secret bosom enemies of the truth, (I mean those who being visible members of a church do not openly and violently oppose the truth professed therein, but in a secret covert way endeavour to undermine it,) are as dangerous as any whatever; and, therefore, the church should exercise her vigilance in a special manner against such, by searching them out, discovering them, and setting a mark upon them whereby they may be known, and so not have it in their power to deceive. The churches of Ephesus and Smyrna are commended for this, but Pergamos and Thyatira are reproved for the neglect of it. Seventhly, that we, the members of this synod, together with the particular congregations of professors under our care, are a church which is one entire organized body or society of Christians united together by order and government, according to the institution of the word, and therefore ought (especially when apparent dangers call for it,) to exert ourselves and the authority with which we are invested, in vindication and defence of the truths which we profess, and for preventing the ingress and spreading of error. Eighthly, that we are so a particular church as not to be a part of any particular church in the world, with which we are united by the joint exercise of church government, and therefore we are not accountable to the judicial inquiry of any superior ecclesiastical judicature upon earth, and therefore if we do not exert the authority inherent in us for maintaining the purity of gospel truth, it is not in the power of any superior ecclesiastical judicature to call us in question for our neglect, or for our errors or heresies should we be corrupted with them. Ninthly, although, I hope, there are as yet few or none among us (especially of the ministers) who are infected with any gross errors or heresies in doctrine, yet I think I may say we are in no small danger of being corrupted in doctrinals, and that even as to fundamentals, which to me seems evident from the consideration of these few particulars of our present circumstances.

“First, it seems to me that we are too much like the people of Laish, in a careless defenceless condition, as a city without walls; (or perhaps my unacquaintedness with our records may cause me to mistake.) For as far as I know, though we be an entire particular church, as has been observed, and not a part of a particular church, yet we have not any particular system of doctrines, composed by ourselves, or others, which we, by any judicial act of our church, have adopted to be the articles or confession of our faith, &c. Now a church without a confession, what is it like? It is true, as I take it, we all generally acknowledge and look upon the Westminster Confession and Catechisms to be our confession, or what we own for such; but the most that can be said is, that the Westminster Confession of Faith is the confession of the faith of the generality of our members, ministers and people; but that it is our confession, as we are a united body politic, I cannot see, unless, First, it hath been received by a conjunct act of the representatives of our church; I mean by the synod, either before or since it hath been sub forma synodi. Secondly, unless due care be, and hath been taken that all intrants into the ministry among us have subscribed the said confession, or by some equivalent solemn act, coram auctoritate ecclesiastica, testified their owning it as the confession of their faith; which how far it is observed within the bounds of our synod, I am ignorant. Now, if this be so, (for upon this supposition I speak,) I think we are in a very defenceless condition. For if we have no confession which is ours by synodical act, or if any among us have not subscribed or acknowledged the confession, ut supra, then—First, there is no bar provided to keep out of the ministry those who are corrupt in doctrinals; they may be received into the ministry without renouncing their corrupt doctrines. Secondly, those that are in the ministry among us may propagate gross errors and corrupt many thereby without being discovered to preach any thing against the received truth, because (supposito ut supra) the truth was never publicly received among us.

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

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

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

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

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

The wisdom of this proposal to adopt the Westminster Confession, has received the sanction of the church for more than a hundred years, during which time the only modifications which the adopting act has received, were intended to render it more explicit and more binding. It is, therefore, a matter of surprise, that, at first, it should have met with so much opposition, and that this opposition should have come from the source it did. Mr. Andrews, in a letter, dated April, 1729, six months before the adopting act was passed, says “I think all the Scotch are on one side, and all the English and Welsh on the other, to a man.” This he gives, as his impression, and it no doubt, in general, correctly indicates the dividing line between the friends and opposers of the measure. The expression, however, is certainly too strong. It is hardly possible that the English and Welsh members of the presbytery of Newcastle, who had been for several years in the habit of requiring the adoption of the confession by their candidates, should have opposed the synod’s doing the same thing. Besides, when dissatisfaction was manifested on account of some expressions in the adopting act, these members were among the first to render them more explicit. Still, it cannot be doubted, that the class of members to which Mr. Andrews refers, was at first opposed to the measure. How is this to be accounted for? The only reason applicable to them as a class that suggests itself is, that having been accustomed, especially those of them who came from New England, to act more as independents, without any superior judicatory having the right to question their opinions, they felt that the proposed act would be an infringement of their liberty. Whereas the Scotch and Irish members, more accustomed to presbyterianism, felt no such apprehensions. It is certain, from what followed, that the opposition did not arise from dislike of the doctrines taught in the Westminster Confession. The opposition was against all creeds, and not against that particular confession. Such at least was the ground taken by President Dickinson, the ablest and most influential member of the synod, and the most strenuous opposer of his Scottish brethren. This appears from the following abstract of his objections to Mr. Thompson’s overture. That “a joint acknowledgment of our Lord Jesus Christ for our common head, of the sacred Scriptures for our common standard both in faith and practice, with a joint agreement in the same essential and necessary articles of Christianity, and the same methods of worship and discipline, are a sufficient bond of union for the being or well-being of any church under heaven.” That “we have already all the external bond of union that the Scriptures require of us. We have, all of us, for aught I know, one faith, one Lord, one baptism, and one discipline. Subscription to one confession is indeed required of us, but does our Lord Jesus Christ require this?” That “the requiring and enjoining any unscriptural terms of union or communion is a direct and natural means to procure rents and divisions in the church.” That “we all of us know that the subscription under debate, has been scrupled by many godly, learned, and faithful ministers of Christ, that it has made horrible divisions and confusions in other churches, and that it is like to have the same sad effects among ourselves.” That “a subscription to any human composure as the test of our orthodoxy is to make it the standard of our faith, and thereby to give it the honour due only to the word of God.” That imposing subscriptions on others, is “invading his royalty who is sole king and lawgiver to his church, and practising ourselves what we so loudly condemn in others.” That imposing subscription on others, “must be done as a necessary duty, or as a thing in itself indifferent; not the former, till some scripture can be found which requires subscription to human composures. If it be in itself indifferent, who gave the synod authority to take away the liberty with which Christ has made us free?” That “in making this subscription the term of admitting candidates to the ministry,” men may be kept “out of Christ’s vineyard, whom he has sent to labour there, and qualified for glorious service in his church.”

It is obvious from the nature of these objections, that President Dickinson belonged to that small class of persons who are opposed to all creeds of human composition. The sense of the Christian world on this point is against him, and it is not known that there is a single advocate of these views in the Presbyterian Church at the present time. How many of the members of the synod agreed with him in these opinions, cannot now be ascertained. It is evident that his objections had not a very firm hold even of his own mind; for he joined in the adoption and imposition of the Westminster Confession, the very year these remarks were published. It matters not with what latitude he either received it himself or imposed it upon others. His objection was not to a long creed, or to a short one, but to any creed of human composition, and such is the Westminster Confession in all its parts, essential and nonessential.

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

“Although the synod do not claim or pretend to any authority of imposing our faith upon other men’s consciences, but do profess our just dissatisfaction with, and abhorrence of, such impositions, and do utterly disclaim all legislative power and authority in the church, being willing to receive one another as Christ has received us to the glory of God, and to admit to fellowship in sacred ordinances all such as we have grounds to believe Christ will at last admit to the kingdom of heaven; yet we are undoubtedly obliged to take care that the faith once delivered to the saints, be kept pure and uncorrupt among us, and so handed down to our posterity; and do therefore agree that all the ministers of this synod, or that shall hereafter be admitted into this synod, shall declare their agreement in and approbation of the Confession of Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, as being, in all the essential and necessary articles, good forms of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine; and do also adopt the said Confession and Catechisms as the confession of our faith. And we do also agree, that all presbyteries within our bounds shall take care not to admit any candidate for the ministry into the exercise of the sacred function, but what declares his agreement in opinion with all the essential and necessary articles of said Confession, either by subscribing the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms, or by a verbal declaration of his assent thereto, as such candidate or minister shall think best. And in case any minister of this synod or any candidate for the ministry shall have any scruple with respect to any article or articles of said Confession or Catechisms, he shall, at the time of his making the said declaration, declare his sentiments to the presbytery or synod; who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exercise of the ministry within our bounds, and to ministerial communion, if the synod or presbytery shall judge his scruple or mistake to be only about articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship, or government. But if the synod or presbytery shall judge such minister or candidate erroneous in essential or necessary articles of faith, the synod or presbytery shall declare them uncapable of communion with them. And the synod solemnly agree, that none of us will traduce or use any opprobrious terms of those that differ from us in these extra-essentials, and not necessary points of doctrine, but treat them with the same friendship, kindness, and brotherly love, as if they had not differed from us in such sentiments.”

The adopting act itself had reference only to the Confession of Faith and Catechisms; the same year, however, “a motion being made to know the synod’s judgment about the Directory, they gave their sense of that matter in the following words, viz. The synod do unanimously acknowledge and declare that they judge the Directory for worship, discipline, and government, commonly annexed to the Westminster Confession, to be agreeable in substance to the word of God, and founded thereupon, and therefore, do earnestly recommend the same to all their members, to be by them observed, as near as circumstances will allow, and Christian prudence direct.” The “substance” of the directory is of course its presbyterianism. What is not substantial about it, is its numerous directions having reference in many cases either to unimportant, or to local and temporary circumstances. A stricter adoption of the Westminster directory, in this country, was impossible. It contemplated a very different state of things from that which then existed, or which now exists among us. It directs, for example, that the ministers of London should ordain ministers for the whole country, until presbyteries were regularly established; that prayer be made for the queen of Bohemia, (sister of Charles I., a great friend of the protestants, and therefore a great favourite with the puritans;) that the candidates for the ministry, before being taken upon trial, should satisfy the presbytery as to what degrees they had taken in the university, &c. &c.

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

It will be observed that the synod, in their preamble “utterly disclaim all legislative power in the church.” It need hardly be remarked, that this must be understood in a manner consistent with the passage of this act. It is not to be presumed that the synod, in the preamble to a law, would disclaim all authority to make it. By legislative power in the church, was then understood the power to legislate about truth and duty, to make laws to bind the conscience. The disclaimer of such power is perfectly consistent with the assertion and the exercise of the right to make rules for the government of the church. To make the language above quoted include the denial of this latter right, reduces the act to so glaring an absurdity, that no set of rational men could have enacted it. There is not, in all the records of our church, a more striking example of a standing rule, or law, than this act. It was binding on all the members present or absent; it required of them the adoption of the Confession of Faith, in the manner prescribed, as a term of communion; it bound all the presbyteries, prescribing a rule by which they were to regulate themselves in all their future licensures, ordinations, and admission of members. Its validity as a law of the church, though proceeding from the sole authority of the synod, has never been questioned from that day to this. How can it then be made a matter of doubt, whether, according to our system, synods have a right to make such rules? This act was passed unanimously, from which two things may be certainly inferred; the one, that the disclaimer of all legislative power was not understood by the Scotch members, as a denial of the right of synod to make rules for the government of the church; the other, that the New England members must have acknowledged this latter right, or they would not have joined in exercising it. That the expression, “legislative power,” was always used in the sense of a power to make new laws in matters of faith or morals, is further evident from the fact that all the old-side writers at the time of the schism uniformly disclaim “all legislative power in the church,” though they insisted so strenuously upon the binding character of the acts of synod. The more extended examination of the opinions of the two parties then in the church, in reference to this subject, belongs, however, to the next period of our history.

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

What then is the meaning of this act? Did the synod intend by the words “essential and necessary articles,” articles essential to Christianity? or articles, in their estimation, essential to the system of doctrines contained in the Westminster Confession? If the former, they intended that every man, otherwise qualified, who held the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, might be admitted to the ministry in our church. If the latter, they intended that no man who was not a Calvinist, should be thus admitted. Apart from the language of the act itself, there are three sources of proof as to what was the intention of its authors; the history of the act; the subsequent declarations of the synod as to their own meaning; and the testimony of cotemporary writers.

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

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

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

It is very evident, indeed, that the act was a compromise. Both parties were very desirous to avoid a schism; yet both were anxious that their own views should prevail. Their only expedient was to find some common ground on which they could stand. Mr. Dickinson had avowed his wish to establish the “essential and necessary doctrines of Christianity” as the condition of ministerial communion. Mr. Thompson wished the explicit adoption of the Westminster Confession, to be that condition. The common ground on which they met, was the essential and necessary articles of that Confession. To make this mean exactly what Mr. Dickinson had proposed, is to present Mr. Thompson in a ridiculous position; and President Dickinson in one still less to be envied. When the synod came to explain what they meant by the necessary articles of the Confession, they made them include so much that Mr. Thompson had nothing to wish for.

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

The first document explanatory of the intentions of the synod in this measure, is found on the very same page with the act itself. In the morning the synod had resolved that they would adopt the Confession of Faith; in the afternoon they carried their resolution into effect, and the result is thus recorded: “All the ministers of the synod now present except one, who declared himself not prepared, viz: Messrs. Jedediah Andrews, Thomas Creaghead, John Thompson, James Anderson, John Pierson, Samuel Gelston, Joseph Houston, Gilbert Tennent, Adam Boyd, Jonathan Dickinson, John Bradner, Alexander Hucheson, Thomas Evans, Hugh Stevenson, William Tennent, Hugh Conn, George Gillespie, and John Wilson; after proposing all the scruples that any of them had to make against any articles and expressions in the Confession of Faith, and larger and shorter Catechisms of the assembly of divines at Westminster, have unanimously agreed in the solution of those scruples, and in declaring the said Confession and Catechisms to be confession of their faith, excepting only some clauses in the twentieth and twenty-third chapters, concerning which clauses the synod do unanimously declare that they do not receive those articles in any such sense as to suppose the civil magistrates hath a controlling power over synods, with respect to the exercise of their ministerial authority, or power to persecute any for their religion, or in any sense contrary to the protestant succession to the throne of Great Britain. The synod observing that unanimity, peace, and unity which appeared in all their consultations and determinations in the affair of the Confession, did unanimously agree in giving thanks to God in solemn prayer and praise.” What gratulations would there be in the church were there now the same unanimity, peace, and unity among her ministers! This then was what these fathers meant by adopting the Confession of Faith. They adopted all of it, except certain clauses in a certain sense, and as these clauses are no longer in the Confession, there is not an “article or expression” in that formula to which these men did not assent. Such was the latitudinarianism of those days! And it was in this sense and to this extent, that they required all new members to adopt the same Confession. That this is true, admits of proof that can neither be gainsaid or resisted.

Unfortunately, the adopting act had been printed and circulated among the churches without the minute just quoted, which might have served to explain its meaning. The question immediately arose, what do the synod mean by essential and necessary articles? May the new members object to any and all articles not essential to Christianity? This ambiguity in the act excited immediate dissatisfaction, and the synod were called upon to say explicitly how these expressions were to be understood. All this appears from the following record in the minutes for 1730. “Whereas some persons have been dissatisfied with the manner of wording our last year’s agreement about the Confession, &c.; supposing some expressions not sufficiently obligatory upon intrants; overtured, that the synod do now declare that they understand those clauses that respect the admission of intrants in such a sense, as to oblige them to receive and adopt the Confession and Catechisms, at their admission, in the same manner and as fully as the members of the synod that were then present. Which overture was unanimously agreed to by the synod.” The design of this declaration was to state explicitly the meaning of the adopting act, to let the churches know what articles of the Confession the candidates for admission might object against. The synod say that they intended, by the clauses in question, to bind the new members to adopt the Confession as fully as they themselves had done; that is, to adopt the whole of it, except certain clauses in the twentieth and twenty-third chapters. Here then is an authentic and official explanation of the act in question; proceeding from its authors, and of precisely the same authority as the act itself. Cases analogous to this frequently occur in civil governments. When an ambiguity is found to exist in an act of congress, that body passes an explanatory act, declaring in what sense the doubtful expressions are to be taken. Who, after such explanation, ever ventures to assert that the interpretation given by congress of their own act, is not the true interpretation? No candid man, therefore, in the face of this unanimous declaration of the synod that they intended one thing, can assert that they meant the opposite. The case is the stronger on account of the unanimity with which this explanation was given; and because the composition of the synod this year was, in the main, what it was the year before. What difference existed was much more favourable to a lax than to a strict interpretation of the act of 1729. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the adopting act, as understood and intended by its authors, bound every new member to receive the Confession of Faith and Catechisms, in all their parts, except certain specified clauses in chapters twentieth and twenty-third. Whether this was right or wrong, liberal or illiberal, it is what the synod unanimously declared they intended.

This explanation, explicit as it is, did not put an end to the dissatisfaction. This, no doubt, arose from the fact that the original act continued to circulate unaccompanied by either the preceding explanation, or the minute of the afternoon session of September 19, 1729. New complaints were, therefore, made to the synod, and a new demand for a public avowal of their meaning. This led, in 1736, to a declaration which seems, at least for the time, to have produced general satisfaction. In the minutes for that year it is recorded that, “an overture of the committee, upon the supplication of the people of Paxton and Derry, was brought in and is as followeth: That the synod do declare that inasmuch as we understand that many persons of our persuasion, both more lately and formerly, have been offended with some expressions or distinctions in the first or preliminary act of our synod for adopting the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, &c.; that in order to remove said offence and all jealousies that have arisen or may arise in any of our people’s minds on occasion of said distinctions and expressions, the synod doth declare that the synod have adopted and still do adhere to the Westminster Confession, Catechisms, and Directory, without the least variation or alteration, and without any regard to said distinctions. And we do further declare this was our meaning and true intent in our first adopting of the said Confession, as may particularly appear by our adopting act, which is as followeth: ‘All the ministers of the synod now present, (which were eighteen in number), except one who declared himself not prepared, after proposing all the scruples that any of them had to make against any articles and expressions in the Confession of Faith and larger and shorter Catechisms of the assembly of divines at Westminster, have unanimously agreed in the solution of those scruples, and in declaring the said Confession and Catechisms to be the confession of their faith, except only some clauses in the twentieth and twenty-third chapters, concerning which clauses the synod do unanimously declare that they do not receive those articles in any such sense as to suppose the civil magistrate hath a controlling power over synods with respect to the exercise of their ministerial authority, or power to persecute any for their religion, or in any sense contrary to the protestant succession to the throne of Great Britain.’ And we do hope and desire, that this our synodical declaration and explanation may satisfy all our people as to our firm attachment to our good old received doctrines contained in the said Confession, without the least variation or alteration, and that they will lay aside their jealousies, that have been entertained through occasion of the above hinted expressions and declarations as groundless. This overture approved nemine contradicente.”

There is no inconsistency between this declaration and those of 1729. This is, indeed, in some respects more explicit, but it is not more comprehensive. The synod adopted no more of the Confession in 1736, than they did in 1729. It is to be remarked that they call the overture adopted on the morning of September 19th, their preliminary act about adopting the Confession of Faith, and the minute of the afternoon of that day, their adopting act itself. In the former they determined that all their members shall declare first, their “agreement with the Confession, &c., in all the essential and necessary articles;” and secondly, that they “adopt the said Confession and Catechisms as the confession of their faith.” When they came to carry this resolution into effect, they did actually adopt the whole of the Confession and Catechisms, “excepting only” the specified clauses in chapters twentieth and twenty-third. The act of 1736 does the same and no more. The preliminary act merely declared the purpose of the synod to exact the adoption of the Confession in all its essential and necessary articles; the synod not then knowing what exceptions they might choose to make, but subsequently they made no exception beyond what has just been stated. This, however, was not generally known to the churches, and hence the anxiety to ascertain what the synod received and what they rejected. To satisfy this anxiety, the synod tell the churches what they had done; that they had adopted the whole of the Confession, rejecting no part of it, but simply repudiating a certain specified interpretation of a few clauses. As far as our doctrinal standards, therefore, are concerned, this declaration of 1736 is nothing more than an announcement and repetition in full of what the synod had done in 1729, by piecemeal, partly in the morning and partly in the afternoon.

It has been asserted that the ground of the dissatisfaction with the act of 1729, was the exception taken to the clauses respecting the power of the civil magistrate, and that the synod was at last forced to restore those articles, and withdraw their objection. Neither of these assertions is correct. The dissatisfaction arose from the “printed paper” which contained merely the preliminary act, which says not one word about the clauses in question. The whole difficulty arose from the distinction between essential and unessential articles, which the people did not understand, or did not know how much was rejected as unessential. Accordingly this declaration is directly solely to that point. That the objection to the clauses in chapters twentieth and twenty-third were not withdrawn, is clear from the repetition of the minute which contains those objections, and which is here repeated to remove the dissatisfaction: a very clear proof that the difficulty did not relate to that point, and that the synod had nothing to retract.

As these are official documents, emanating from the same authority as the adopting act itself, and expressly designed to declare its meaning, they must be regarded as decisive, and the question as to the true intention of that act might here be dismissed. Could it even be shown that individuals, or particular judicatories took a different view of the subject, it would prove nothing, in opposition to the unanimous and repeated declarations of the synod. Still as this is a subject of great historical interest to the members of our church, it may not be amiss to gather what additional light we can from the records of the several presbyteries, and the writings of contemporaries. How the presbytery of Newcastle regarded this matter may be inferred from the two following extracts from their minutes. The first is dated September 2, 1730, and is as follows: “Whereas divers persons, belonging to several of our congregations, have been stumbled and offended with a certain minute of the proceedings of our last synod, contained in a printed letter, because of some ambiguous words or expressions contained therein, being willing to remove, as far as in us lies, all causes and occasions of jealousies and offences in relation to that affair, and openly before God and the world to testify that we all with one accord firmly adhere to the same sound doctrine, which we and our fathers were trained up in; we, the ministers of the presbytery of Newcastle, whose names are underwritten, do, by this our act of subscribing our names to these presents, solemnly declare and testify, that we own and acknowledge the Westminster Confession and Catechisms to be the confession of our faith, being in all things agreeable to the word of God, so far as we are able to judge and discern, taking them in the true, genuine and obvious sense of the words. Signed, Adam Boyd, Joseph Houston, H. Hook, Hugh Stevenson, James Anderson, Wm. Steward, Thomas Creaghead, George Gillespie, John Thompson, Samuel Gelston, Thomas Evans, Alexander Hucheson.”

It is objected to these gentlemen, that they here adopt the whole Confession in the obvious sense of the words, without any reference to the clauses about the power of the civil magistrate. This is regarded as conclusive evidence that they were in favour of subjecting the church to the power of the state. They must have been strange men if this were the case. Most of them as members of the synod, in 1729, solemnly declared that they rejected and denied any controlling power in the civil magistrate over the church, and all authority to persecute any one on account of his religion. In 1730, they declare that no new member should be obliged to profess any such doctrine. And in 1736, they repeat their own denial of it. Do they then here, in opposition to all their other professions, assert it? It is hardly to be believed. It is to be remembered that the synod did not reject the clauses specified in chapters twentieth and twenty-third, absolutely, but “in any such sense” as taught the subjection of the church to the power of the state; “a sense, which for my part,” says the Rev. Samuel Blair, “I believe the reverend composers [never intended in them.” If then the signers of the above declaration were of the same opinion as Mr. Blair on this point, there is no inconsistency between this document and those to which they assented as members of synod.

The second record in the minutes of the presbytery of Newcastle relating to this subject, occurs under the date of December 30, 1730, and is to the following effect: “A representation of some scrupling our way of adopting the Confession of Faith; upon which the presbytery produced both the minutes of the synod and presbytery relating thereto, which seemed to give full satisfaction to the representors.” There is no record on the minutes of the synod relating to this subject except the adopting act itself, the account of the manner in which the members then present received the Confession, and the explanatory declaration of September 1730, interpreting the clauses relating to new members. If, therefore, “the representers” were fully satisfied with the synod, they must have been satisfied with the above declarations, which leave the exceptions taken to the twentieth and twenty-third chapters in full force. This proves two things, first, that those exceptions were not the ground of dissatisfaction; and secondly, that these persons must have understood the synod’s declarations in the manner in which they are represented above.

The minutes of the presbytery of Philadelphia, from 1717 to 1733 are lost. No information, therefore, relating to this subject can be gathered from the records still extant, except what may be inferred from the manner in which that presbytery admitted new members. For example, it is said, Mr. Samuel Blair, “having given his assent to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms as the confession of his faith, was licensed to preach the gospel.” p. 2. Charles Tennent, “adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, according to order of synod.” p. 19. David Cowell was ordained, “after he had adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms as the confession of his faith.” p. 28. Mr. McHenry was ordained, “adopting the Confession of Faith, &c., according to the order of synod.” p. 35. Samuel Evans, “adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith, Catechisms and Directory, according to the adopting act of synod.” p. 97. All these different forms are used as equivalent; the candidate adopted the Confession as the confession of his faith; according to the order of synod; and according to the adopting act of synod. The first is the most common, and the others merely state that the thing was done in obedience to the order, or the act of the superior judicatory.

The presbytery of Donegal was formed in 1732. Their method of subscribing the Confession of Faith was as follows: “I, having seriously read and perused the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, do declare in the sight of God and all here present, that I do believe, and am fully persuaded, that so far as I can discern and understand said Confession and Catechisms, they are, in all things, agreeable to the word of God, taking them in the plain and obvious meaning of the words; and accordingly I do acknowledge them as the confession of my faith, and do promise, through divine assistance, for ever to adhere thereto. I also believe the Directory for the exercise of worship, discipline, and government, commonly annexed to said Confession, to be agreeable to the word of God, and I do promise to conform myself thereto in my practice, as far as in emergent circumstances I can attain unto.” This is certainly strict enough.

The presbytery of New Brunswick was formed in 1738. In 1741 they were excluded from the synod. They immediately convened as a presbytery, and were joined by several members of the synod as correspondents, and determined to divide themselves into two presbyteries. Before separating they adopted the following minute: “Forasmuch as the ministers who have protested against our being of their communion, do at least insinuate false reflections against us, endeavouring to make people suspect that we are receding from presbyterian principles, for the satisfaction of such Christian people as may be stumbled by such false aspersions, we think it fit unanimously to declare, that we adhere as closely and fully to the Westminster Confession of Faith, and Catechisms, and Directory, as the synod of Philadelphia in any of their public acts.” The ministers present were Gilbert Tennent, William Tennent, Jun., Eleazer Wales, and John Rowland, members of the New Brunswick presbytery, and William Tennent, Sen., Charles Tennent, Richard Treat, Samuel Blair, David Alexander, and Alexander Creaghead, correspondents. This declaration of an adherence to the Confession and Directory, as close as had ever been professed by the synod of Philadelphia, it must be remembered, was made in 1741, after the adopting act of 1729; after the act of 1730 declaring, that new members must receive the whole Confession except the clauses specified in chapters twentieth and twenty-third; and after the thoroughgoing declaration of 1736, in which the synod say they adhere “to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Directory, without the least variation or alteration, and without any regard to the distinctions,” in the adopting act between essential and unessential articles. Such was the foundation stone of the new synod.

The records of the original presbytery of Long Island have, it is understood, perished. Those now in existence commence with the reorganization of that presbytery in 1747. It is believed also, that the early minutes of the presbytery of East Jersey are lost; at least the writer has not been able to hear of them or to gain access to them. All, therefore, that can be known of the views and practice of those bodies in reference to this subject, must be gathered from the records of the synod. It has already been stated, that Messrs. Dickinson, Pierson, and Bradner, adopted the whole of the Confession, except the often specified clauses in 1729, and that Messrs. Pierson and Pemberton were present in 1730, when the synod enacted that all new members should be required to adopt the Confession as strictly as they themselves had done. These presbyteries, as well as the others, were in the habit of reporting their new members to the synod and stating that they had adopted the Confession. Thus, in 1735, it is reported that Isaac Chalker, Simon Horton, and Samuel Blair, ordained by the presbytery of East Jersey, had adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith, Catechisms, &c., according to the adopting act of synod. And in 1738, the presbytery of New York, as the united presbyteries of Long Island and East Jersey were then called, reported that Aaron Burr and Walter Wilmot were ordained, and adopted the Westminster Confession, &c., according to the order of this synod. The form in which these reports are made is the same in all the presbyteries; the new members of Donegal and Newcastle and East Jersey, are often included in the same minute, and the statement of their assent to the Confession is made in the same terms. Thus it appears that as the synod was unanimous in their declarations in relation to this subject, so the presbyteries were in the practical interpretation which they gave to those declarations. As far as the writer is aware, there is not the slightest evidence that any of the presbyteries ever admitted, during the period under review, any minister who dissented from any of the doctrinal articles of the Confession of Faith.

Besides this documentary evidence of an official character, as to the original design and import of the adopting act, there is the testimony of cotemporary writers which remains to be considered. This, though of far inferior authority, is still not without interest and importance. A passage has already been quoted from Mr. Thompson’s Reflections, in which he expresses his gratitude to God for the passage of that act in such a manner as shows his entire satisfaction with it. Yet such were the known opinions of the man, in relation to the subject, and such his avowed design in proposing the measure, that it is perfectly incredible that he should have been satisfied with the act in question, unless it was intended in the way in which the synod subsequently explained it. The testimony of the Rev. Samuel Blair, however, is much more full and explicit. Soon after the schism in 1741, the Rev. Alexander Creaghead, one of the ejected members, renounced the Presbyterian Church and published his reasons for so doing. These reasons were reviewed and answered by Mr. Blair. Mr. Creaghead’s first reason for his secession was, that the Westminster Confession of Faith had never been adopted “in this province, either presbyterially or synodically as the confession of our faith in every article thereof, even to speak of no more at present but of the thirty three articles therein contained.” “By every article of the Confession of Faith,” says Mr. Blair, “he means every chapter of it, and therefore calls the thirty-three chapters the thirty-three articles; whereas every chapter almost contains several articles, all relating to some one general head. Now, whether Mr. Creaghead could suppose so or not, that neither synod or presbytery in this province did ever receive the Westminster Confession of Faith in every chapter of it, the thing itself is manifestly false in fact both ways. There never was any scruple, that ever I heard of, made by any member of the synod about any part of the Confession of Faith, but only about some particular clauses in the twentieth and twenty-third chapters, and those clauses were excepted against in the synod’s act receiving the Confession of Faith, only in such a sense, which, for my part, I believe the reverend composers never intended in them, but which might notwithstanding be readily put upon them. Mr. Creaghead to prove what he supposes, dwells much on what is called the synod’s preliminary act about the Confession of Faith made in 1729. But let that act be thought as insufficient as it can possibly admit, and granting that it was not sufficient for the securing of a sound orthodox ministry; yet that is no argument but the Confession of Faith has been sufficiently received by other acts. And so in fact it has been, by the synod’s act for the purpose, I think in the year 1730, [1729,] wherein the Synod declares, “all the ministers of the synod now present, &c. &c.” “Here you see,” continues Mr. Blair, “the synod have received the whole of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms as the confession of their faith, save only some clauses in the twentieth and twenty-third chapters, which clauses it seems the synod supposed might be understood as maintaining that magistrates have a controlling power over synods in the exercise of their ministerial authority; a power to persecute persons for their religion; and that the popish pretender had a right to the throne of Great Britain. And, now, if the declaration against receiving those clauses in such senses as these, be a good objection against the synod, let any sober protestant, especially presbyterian, judge.” This power of the civil magistrate, he adds, “is a great part of that unlawful supremacy and headship over the church, which the presbyterian church has always protested against, and yet Mr. Creaghead finds fault with the synod for this.” Nothing can be more explicit than this testimony, and nothing can be more unexceptionable. Mr. Blair is not a witness whose mouth can be stopped with the charge of heartless orthodoxy. He was one of the most zealous promoters of the great revival, and one of Mr. Tennent’s most prominent supporters. In further refutation of Mr. Creaghead’s unreasonable charge, Mr. Blair says: “Moreover, in the year 1736, the synod declare that they adopted and do still adhere to the Westminster Confession, Catechisms and Directory, without the least variation or alteration, and without any regard to the distinctions in the aforementioned preliminary act. It seems some people were jealous from the first preliminary act (without knowing or considering that the synod had afterwards agreed in the solutions of all scruples which any of them had concerning any articles or expressions in the Confession of Faith, and so unanimously adopted and received it, in a fixed determinate manner as before related) that the synod were about to vary and alter the Confession and Directory, and to set up new principles of religion and government contrary thereto. In answer to which jealousies, the synod declares that they adhere to the Westminster Confession, Catechisms and Directory, without the least variation or alteration, which view of the case takes away all Mr. Creaghead’s pretence for calling this declaration notoriously false. Mr. Creaghead may readily remember, that when our two presbyteries were met together, June 3, 1741, after the separation of the synod, we declared and recorded that we adhered to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Catechism, and Directory, as closely and as fully as ever the synod of Philadelphia in any of their public acts or agreements about them. He may likewise remember, that the first time our presbytery met by itself, after the separation, at White Clay creek, we did unanimously agree and declare the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms to be the confession of our faith, without any consideration of, or relation to any former act of the synod whatever.”2

Another of Mr. Creaghead’s reasons, says Mr. Blair, is, ” ‘That neither the government nor discipline of the church is rightly administered by us.’ And he proceeds to give his instances of such mismanagement; and the first is, ‘that when we were first thrust out by a part of the synod we did not begin to consider something of our principles and of some plan that we would adhere to in the government of the church.’ This is really an odd story too! As if we had our principles to seek at that time of day; as if we had to begin to consider of them what they should be. When we were unjustly and arbitrarily thrust out by a part of the synod, we had no new set of principles, nor any new plan of government then to devise. We were settled in these things long before that; we then declared adherence still to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Catechisms and Directory, as before related; we declared it to be our duty in those circumstances as ministers and rulers in God’s house, to carry on the government of the church, according to the rules of presbyterian government.” “As to the scheme and pattern laid down in the Westminster Directory for the worship of God, and the government and discipline of the church, we deny no part of it, as may be seen at large in our late declaration.”2

Another cotemporary expounder of the adopting act is, as is supposed, Rev. John Blair. The Rev. Mr. Samuel Harker, having been for several years under process by the New Brunswick presbytery for certain Arminian opinions, was finally suspended by the synod of New York and Philadelphia; whereupon he published an appeal to the Christian world. One of his grounds of complaint of the sentence against him, was that it was “in violation of an act of synod, A. D. 1729, which he calls,” says the writer, “one of the great articles of their union, and which he thought sufficiently secured the rights of private judgment, wherein it is provided that a minister or candidate shall be admitted, notwithstanding his scruples respecting any article or articles, the synod shall judge not essential in doctrine, worship and government. But in order to improve this to his purpose, he takes the words essential and necessary in a sense in which it is plain the synod never intended they should be taken. He would have them signify, what is essential to communion with Jesus Christ, or to the being of grace in the heart; and accordingly supposes that no error can be essential which is not of such malignity, as to exclude the advocate or maintainer of it from communion with Jesus Christ. But the synod say essential in doctrine, worship, or government, i.e. essential to the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith, considered as a system, and to the mode of worship, and plan of government contained in our Directory. Now what unprejudiced man of sense is there who will not readily acknowledge that a point may be essential to a system of doctrine as such, to our mode of worship, and to presbyterian government, which is not essential to a state of grace?” “That, therefore, is an essential error in the synod’s sense, which is of such malignity as to subvert or greatly injure the system of doctrine and mode of worship and government, contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Directory.”2

All that has hitherto been said refers to the former of the two questions proposed for consideration. What was the meaning of the adopting act, as originally intended? It has been shown that it never was designed to fix the necessary doctrines of the gospel as the term of ministerial communion. It has been shown that this is not necessarily, nor even, when the whole document is taken together, naturally the meaning of the words; that this interpretation is contradicted by the mode in which the synod themselves, in obedience to their own resolution, adopted the Westminster Confession and Catechisms; by the official and authoritative declaration of 1730, in which the synod state that it was their intention, in the aforesaid act, to require every new member to receive the whole of the Confession, except the clauses relating to the power of the civil magistrates in matters of religion. This interpretation is still more explicitly contradicted by the official declaration of 1736, in which the synod affirm that they received the Confession, &c. without the least regard to the distinction between essential and unessential articles, and that this was their meaning in their own adopting act of 1729. It is contradicted also by the action of the presbyteries, who, in obedience to the order of the synod, adopted the Confession of Faith. This, in no instance upon record was done by any presbytery, or by any new member, in a way to limit the assent to the necessary doctrines of the gospel. And finally, the interpretation in question is contradicted by the explict testimony of cotemporary writers.

The second question proposed was, what is, and ever has been the condition of ministerial communion in our church, as it relates to points of doctrine? This, as before remarked, is a very distinct question from the one already considered. It may be admitted, though it is distinctly denied, that the act of 1729, was intended to require of new members nothing more than assent to the essential doctrines of the gospel, and yet the doctrinal standard of the church be something very different and far higher. Those who are enamoured with what they take to be the meaning of that act, forgetful of their low opinion of the power of synods, seem to regard it as unalterable. They speak as though the synod of 1729 had authority not only over inferior judicatories, but over all succeeding synods. This is certainly a strange assumption. Had the synod of 1729, made the reception of the apostle’s creed the condition of ministerial communion, that of 1730, had as good a right to require assent to every proposition in Calvin’s Institutes and Commentaries. Let the act of 1729 mean what it may, what does it prove as to the doctrinal standard of our church, unless it can be shown that the said act has never been modified or repealed? What prerogative had the synod of 1729, which was not possessed by those of 1730 and 1736? If, therefore, the original act was ever so latitudinarian, it was repealed by the act of 1730, which required all new members to receive, as the synod itself had done, the whole Confession of Faith and Catechisms, a few specified clauses excepted. Where is there any repeal of this latter act? Where is there any official explanation lowering its demands? None such is to be found on the records of the church, at least until the formation of the General Assembly. The act of 1736, re-affirmed the same standard with even still greater emphasis; greater plainness was unattainable. It remains now to be shown from subsequent official declarations, and from the administration of the discipline of the church, that the standard thus fixed was unaltered, from 1730 to 1788, and that at no period of our history and in no section of the church has assent to the essential doctrines of the gospel been made the condition of ministerial communion.

The period from 1741 to 1758, during which the church was divided, might perhaps be omitted in a review, the design of which is to ascertain the doctrinal standard adopted by the whole church. The opinions, however, of the separate portions of the church, during this period, in relation to this subject, is a matter of too much interest to be past over in silence. It is not necessary to raise the question, which of the two synods was the proper representative of the Presbyterian Church? though there can be no doubt how it should be answered. However irregular or unjust the exclusion of the New Brunswick presbytery in 1741 may have been, their rejection did not destroy the character of the synod. That presbytery and their early associates were a small portion of the whole body. Those who subsequently joined them, as for example the large presbytery of New York, continued for several years after the separation, to meet with the old synod, and to recognise its character. They finally peaceably withdrew, and with the excluded members formed a new synod.

It will hardly be doubted that the old synod, after the schism, continued to adhere to the Westminster Confession, or that they regarded the adopting act in the light in which it had previously been viewed. The separation took place at the meeting of synod in 1741. After the New Brunswick brethren had withdrawn, an overture was introduced to the following effect: “That every member of this synod, whether minister or elder, do, sincerely and heartily receive, acknowledge, or subscribe the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the larger and shorter Catechisms as the confession of his faith; and the Directory, as far as circumstances will allow in this infant church, for the rule of church order. Ordered, that every session do oblige their elders at their admission to do the same. This was readily approved nem. con.” It is a little remarkable that this synod, when all the members of the presbytery of New York were absent, (none of whom attended this year,) and when the New Brunswick presbytery and their associates were out of the house, avowed their adherence to the Confession and Directory in terms much less explicit and binding than those which had previously been unanimously adopted, when the members of both those bodies were present.

That the old synod should adhere strictly to the Confession, is what might be expected. But how was it with the new synod? It has already been shown, not only from the testimony of the Rev. Samuel Blair, who was one of their number, but from their own official statement, that all the excluded members and their associates adhered “as closely and fully to the Westminster Confession, Catechisms, and Directory, as the synod of Philadelphia in any of their public acts.” The synod of New York was formed in 1745, and consisted of the presbyteries of New York, New Brunswick, and Newcastle. At their first meeting they adopted certain articles “as the plan and foundation of their synodical union.” The first of these articles is as follows: “They agree that the Westminster Confession of Faith, with the larger and shorter Catechisms, be the public confession of their faith, in such manner as was agreed upon by the synod of Philadelphia in the year 1729, (and to be inserted in the latter end of this book,) and they declare their approbation of the Directory of the assembly of divines at Westminster, as the general plan of worship and discipline.” This of course, by itself, proves nothing as to the manner in which the synod adopted the Confession, unless it can be known how they understood the act of 1729. The opinions of Messrs. G. Tennent, William Tennent, Pierson, Pemberton, Samuel Blair, and John Blair, who were all present when these articles were formed, on this subject, have already been given, either in those explanatory acts of the synod to which they assented, or in the citation of their own words on this point. Still, were this all we knew of the ground taken by this synod in relation to this subject, it would at least remain doubtful how far they, as a body, required adherence to the Westminster Confession. It happened to them, however, as it did to the synod of Philadelphia. The public were not satisfied with this ambiguous statement, and they were called upon to explain themselves. Within a few years, the synod, in order to allay the jealousies of their neighbours, among the Dutch, say, “We do hereby declare and testify our constitution, order, and discipline, to be in harmony with the established church of Scotland. The Westminster Confession, Catechisms, and Directory adopted by them, are in like manner adopted by us.” Again, in 1754, when writing to the Scottish general assembly, they say, “That they conform to the constitution of the church of Scotland, and have adopted her standards of doctrine, worship, and discipline.” What can be more explicit than this? It would be a poor service to the authors of these declarations to prove their liberality or latitudinarianism, as the reader may consider it, at the expense of their moral character. No honest man could adopt the language just quoted, unless he used it in the sense in which we know that those to whom it was addressed would understand it. For the synod of New York to tell the church of Scotland, that they had adopted her standards of doctrine, if they required nothing more than assent to the essential doctrines of the gospel, would have been a palpable untruth. Could any man, to repeat an illustration already employed, say that he adopted the standards of the church of Rome, who assented to nothing but the doctrines of the trinity, incarnation, and atonement? It is not possible to reconcile the above cited declarations of this synod with candour and fair dealing, on any other assumption than they required a strict adherence to the system of doctrines which they professed to adopt.

Another proof that the synod of New York did not sanction the loose interpretation which has been put upon the adopting act is, that in the long negociations between them and the synod of Philadelphia, in reference to a union, there is no evidence of any difference of opinion as to the manner in which the Confession of Faith was to be received. These negociations were continued through many years, and the papers which passed between the two bodies are very voluminous. The great difficulty in the way of a reconciliation, was the protestation which led to the exclusion of the New Brunswick presbytery, and the testimony which the New York synod wished should be rendered to the genuineness of the revival. The former was the main obstacle. The Confession of Faith, or the mode of its adoption was not a matter of dispute. In the communication made by the synod of New York in 1749 to that of Philadelphia, they say, “We esteem mutual forbearance a duty, since we all profess the same Confession of Faith and Directory.” The synod of Philadelphia in their communication of 1751, use precisely the same language. “Upon these terms (viz. the terms specified in their letter) we heartily agree with the synod of New York, that since we profess the same Confession of Faith and Directory for worship, all our former differences be buried in perpetual oblivion.” One of the articles proposed in 1749, by the synod of New York was, “That every member assent unto and adopt the Confession of Faith and Directory according to the plan formerly agreed to by the synod of Philadelphia in the years ——.” This article is repeated in nearly the same form in all the subsequent proposals. Thus in 1751 the Philadelphia synod proposed, as their second article, “That every member give his consent to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Directory, according to the plan agreed on in our synod, and that no acts be made but concerning matters that appear to be plain duty, or concerning opinions that we believe relate to the great truths of religion, and that all public and fundamental agreements of this synod stand safe.” In their reply, the synod of New York do not make the slightest objection to the mode proposed of assenting to the Confession and Directory. But as the schism had arisen from the refusal of the New Brunswick presbytery to submit to an act of synod, which they said they could not in conscience obey, it was proposed that “no member or members should be obliged to withdraw from our communion upon his or their not being able actively to concur or passively submit, unless the matter be judged essential in doctrine or discipline.” To this the other party assented; a similar provision being incorporated in the terms of union finally adopted.2 With regard to the proposal by the synod of Philadelphia, that “all fundamental agreements by this synod stand safe;” the synod of New York very properly said they could not agree to it, if it was “understood to refer to agreements made by said synod [of Philadelphia] since the rupture happened.” In making such agreements they had not concurred, it was therefore unfair that they should be bound by them. This very limitation, however, shows that they were willing that such as had been made before the schism, should remain. This would leave the important acts of 1730 and 1736 relating to the mode of adopting the Confession of Faith in full force.

The decisive evidence that there was no material diversity of opinion between the two synods in reference to the point under consideration, is the fact that both bodies unanimously adopted and ratified the following article as one of the terms of their union: “Both synods having always approved and received the Westminster Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms, as an orthodox and excellent system of Christian doctrine, founded upon the word of God; we do still receive the same as the confession of our faith, and also adhere to the plan of worship, government, and discipline, contained in the Westminster Directory: strictly enjoining it on all our ministers and probationers for the ministry, that they preach and teach according to the form of sound words in the said Confession and Catechisms, and avoid and oppose all errors contrary thereto.” How decisive would this be considered if an enemy were endeavouring to fix on the two synods the imputation of rigid Calvinism! Both bodies declare that they always have received, and do still receive the Westminster Confession as the confession of their faith; the very form of adoption in use in the strict presbytery of Newcastle, in the palmy days of Mr. Thompson and Mr. Gillespie. Every minister and probationer are strictly enjoined to avoid all errors contrary to the standards thus assumed. There must be an end of all confidence among men if such language can be used by those who make assent to the essential and necessary doctrines of the gospel, the term of ministerial communion; if an Arminian, Pelagian, Roman Catholic, or Quaker, can say that he receives a strictly Calvinistic creed as the confession of his faith.

That the doctrinal standard of our church has not been changed since the time of the union of the synods of New York and Philadelphia, appears from the following official acts and declarations. In 1763, application was made by a presbytery in New York, to the east of the North river, to be incorporated with the synod. “It was agreed to grant their request provided that they agree to adopt our Westminster Confession of Faith, and engage to observe the Directory as a plan of worship, discipline, and government, according to the agreement of this synod.” The last clause can refer to nothing but the first article of the plan of union just quoted, in which the united body adopt the Confession of Faith as the confession of their faith.

In 1770, a letter was written to the presbytery of South Carolina, in answer to an application for an union between the two bodies, in which the synod say: “The conditions which we require are only what we suppose you are already agreed on, viz. That all your ministers acknowledge and adopt as the standard of doctrine, the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, and the Directory as the plan of your worship and discipline. The church of Scotland is considered by this synod as their pattern in general, but we have not as yet expressly adopted by resolution of synod, or bound ourselves to any other of the standing laws or forms of the church of Scotland, than those above mentioned, intending to lay down such rules for ourselves, upon presbyterian principles in general, as circumstances shall, from time to time, show to be expedient.” Such were the conditions which our church used to insist upon in all cases of union with foreign bodies; adherence to her standards, both as to doctrine and order. In the above record, it is not only stated that the Westminster Confession and Catechisms were the standard of doctrine in our church, and the Directory the plan of worship and discipline, but still farther, that as the General Assembly of the church of Scotland had made many standing laws suited to the circumstances of the church in that country, so the synod proposed to lay down rules suited to our circumstances. The right to make such rules is assumed as perfectly familiar and undoubted.

In 1786, a committee was appointed to meet similar committees from the synods of the Dutch, and Associate Reformed Church, with the view of negotiating some plan of union between the several bodies. When this convention met, it directed the several committees of which it was composed, to state explicitly “what the formulas of doctrine and worship are, to which each of the synods respectively adhere, and the mode in which they testify their adherence, and prevent and punish any departure from them.” “On the part of the synod of New York and Philadelphia, the reply is contained in the representation given in by their committee, articles first and fifth; viz.

“The synod of New York and Philadelphia, adopt, according to the known and established meaning of the terms, the Westminster Confession of Faith as the confession of their faith; save that every candidate for the gospel ministry is permitted to except against so much of the twenty-third chapter as gives authority to the civil magistrate in matters of religion. The presbyterian church in America considers the church of Christ as a spiritual society entirely distinct from the civil government; and as having the right to regulate their own ecclesiastical polity independently of the interposition of the civil magistrate.

“The synod also receives the Directory for public worship, and form of church government recommended by the Westminster Assembly as in substance agreeable to the institutions of the New Testament. This mode of adoption we use, because we believe the general platform of our government to be agreeable to the sacred Scriptures; but we do not believe that God has been pleased so to reveal and enjoin every minute circumstance of ecclesiastical government and discipline as not to leave room for orthodox churches of Christ in these minutiae, to differ with charity from each other.

“The rules of our discipline and the form of process in our church judicatures are contained in Pardevan’s, alias Stewart’s Collections in conjunction with the acts of our own synod; the power of which, in matters merely ecclesiastical, we consider as equal to the power of any synod or General Assembly in the world. Our church judicatories, like those in the church of Scotland, from which we derive our origin, are church sessions, presbyteries, and synods, to which it is now in contemplation to add a national or general assembly.”

This document, considered merely as containing the testimony of competent witnesses as to the constitution of our church, is of the highest authority. It was delivered under circumstances which rendered both accuracy and fidelity indispensable. Its authors were negotiating a treaty with other churches, who had a right to know the opinions and principles of those with whom they contemplated a union. Any ambiguity of statement or want of candour would, under such circumstances, be an unpardonable offence. The above document, however, is something more than the testimony of a committee. It is that testimony approved and sanctioned by the synod. This report was presented and accepted, it was spread out upon the minutes, the conduct of the committee approved, no one of their acts or statements disallowed, and the efforts for a union still farther prosecuted.

As to the document itself, it is impossible for language to be more explicit as to all the points to which it relates. The Confession of Faith is said to be the confession of the faith of the synod, save that new members were allowed to object to certain clauses in the twenty-third chapter. The very exception greatly strengthens the case. That the new members were required to adopt the Confession, except those clauses, shows that nothing else was allowed to be rejected. This is precisely what the old synod twice, unanimously and authoritatively, in 1730 and in 1736, declared was the mode in which the Confession was to be adopted. This was the condition of ministerial communion then established, and which the synod in 1786 declared they still adhered to. The evidence as to this point is the stronger from what is said of the manner in which the Directory was adopted. The Confession of Faith was received entirely, with the single exception specified, according to the known and established meaning of the words; but the Directory was received only for substance, and the reason is given for this mode of adoption. It has already been stated, that the Directory was of such a nature, abounding so much with prescriptions relating to local and temporary circumstances, that the strict presbytery of Donegal could not adopt it more fully than the whole synod did.

It is to be remarked farther on this document, that the “acts of synod” are declared to be standing rules, regulating the administration of discipline, and the power of that body in matters merely ecclesiastical, is declared to be equal to the power of any synod or General Assembly in the world. If this is not full-grown presbyterianism, it would be difficult to know where to find it. The committee which drew up these declarations, where Drs. Rodgers, Witherspoon, McWhorter, and Samuel Smith, and Messrs. Nathan Kerr, and John Woodhull. There is no obnoxious Mr. Thompson, Anderson, or Gillespie here, to be upbraided for “swallowing the Confession whole.” Yet which of the last named gentlemen ever uttered such sweeping declarations as are here made by Drs. Rodgers and McWhorter?

Again, in 1787, the committee previously appointed for the purpose, presented the draught of a Form of Government and Discipline for the church. The same year the synod made some slight alterations in the twentieth and twenty-third chapters of the Westminster Confession; and in the following year, “the synod having fully considered the draught of the Form of Government and Discipline, did on the review of the whole, and hereby do ratify and adopt the same, as now altered and amended, as the constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, and order the same to be considered and strictly observed as a rule of their proceedings by all the inferior judicatories belonging to this body. And they order that a corrected copy be printed, and the Westminster Confession of Faith, as now altered, to be printed in full along with it, as making part of the constitution. Resolved, That the true intent and meaning of the above ratification of synod is, that the Form of Government and Discipline, and the Confession of Faith, as now ratified, is to continue to be our constitution, and the confession of our faith, unless two-thirds of the presbyteries under the care of the General Assembly propose alterations, or amendments, and such alterations and amendments shall be agreed to and enacted by the General Assembly.”

In this dying act of the synod of New York and Philadelphia, that body put forth all its power. There is not on the records of the church, unless in the analogous cases of the several adopting acts, such an illustration of the power assumed by the supreme judicatory of the church. The constitution was the work of their own hands, it was revised, corrected, adopted, and imposed by them, and made unalterable without the concurrence of two-thirds of the presbyteries and the sanction of the General Assembly. Though the draught had been circulated among the presbyteries and churches for their suggestions and advice, it was of no force but as ratified by the synod, who ordered all the inferior judicatories to make it the rule of their proceedings. It is not to be supposed that the General Assembly has fallen heir to all the power of the old synod. Far from it. The acts of the latter body were part of the constitution of the church. They adopted the Westminster Confession, and it was ever afterwards, unless the rule was repealed, to be adopted by all new members. When they saw fit they altered that Confession, and it became, as altered, part of the constitution of the church. The Assembly has no such power. It acts under a constitution which greatly limits its authority. It cannot alter or add to that fundamental code. Its great office is to see that the constitution is faithfully adhered to, both as to doctrine and order, in all parts of the church. Its acts and decisions, when they do not transcend the limits set to its authority, are of general obligation, until properly repealed or reversed. But it stands in a very different relation to the church, from that sustained by the old synod.

The present object of inquiry, however, is the doctrinal standard of our church. What light is thrown upon this point by the document just quoted? What is meant by the Westminster Confession of Faith being a part of our constitution? Who ever heard of adopting a constitution for substance? Is the constitution of the United States thus adopted or thus interpreted? It is on the contrary the supreme law of the land; and all who take office under it are bound to observe it in all its parts. If then the Westminster Confession is a part of our constitution, we are bound to abide by it, or rightfully to get it altered. Ever since the solemn enactment under consideration, every new member or candidate for the ministry has been required to give his assent to this confession, as containing the system of doctrines taught in the word of God. He assents not merely to absolutely essential and necessary articles of the gospel, but to the whole concatenated statement of doctrines contained in the Confession. This, whether right or wrong, liberal or illiberal, is the constitutional and fundamental principle of our ecclesistical compact.

Besides the above official and authoritative declarations, the actual administration of discipline in our church proves what standard of doctrine has been assumed and enforced. Ministerial communion has been repeatedly refused to those, who, though they denied no one of the essential and necessary doctrines of the gospel, yet rejected some of the doctrinal articles of the Confession of Faith. Thus, as already stated, the Rev. Mr. Harker was long under process and finally disowned for teaching, “that, according to the tenor of the covenant of grace, God has bound himself by promise to bestow saving blessings upon the faith and endeavours of unregenerate men; and that God has predestinated persons to salvation on the foresight of faith and good works, or compliance with the terms of the covenant.” Mr. Blair in his above-cited defence of the synod against Mr. Harker’s appeal to the public, says: “Mr. Harker makes no distinction between ministerial and Christian communion. ‘To admit me,’ says he, ‘to stand well in the communion with the Christian church, and at the same time to expel, and exclude me communion with the synod (as a minister as I suppose he means,) would in my opinion involve the consequence, that the synod were no Christians.’ That is, the synod must admit every one (male and female I suppose,) into the pulpit, whom they would admit to the Lord’s table.”2

In 1798, a reference was made to the General Assembly, by the synod of the Carolinas, in relation to a creed published by the Rev. Hezekiah Balch. The most important errors contained in that creed, as specified by the committee to whom it was referred, were the following: First, his “making disinterested benevolence the only definition of holiness or true religion.” Second, his “representing personal corruption as not derived from Adam; making Adam’s sin to be imputed to his posterity in consequence of a corrupt nature already possessed; and derived,” say the committee, “from we know not what; thus in effect setting aside the idea of Adam’s being the federal head and representative of his descendants; and the whole doctrine of the covenant of works.” Thirdly, “asserting that the formal cause of a believer’s justification is the imputation of the fruits and effects of Christ’s righteousness, and not the righteousness itself.” The Assembly condemned these and other minor errors, and decided that Mr. Balch could retain his ministerial standing in the church, only on the condition that he publicly renounced them.

In 1810, another reference was made by the synod of the Carolinas, to the General Assembly, requesting their attention to a late publication, entitled ‘The Gospel Plan’ by the Rev. William C. Davis. The book was referred to a committee, who reported the following, among other propositions, as contained in it. First, that the active obedience of Christ constitutes no part of the righteousness by which a sinner is justified. Second, that obedience to the moral law was not required as the condition of the covenant of works. Third, that God could not make Adam, or any other creature either holy or unholy. Fourth, that regeneration must be a consequence of Faith. Faith precedes regeneration. Fifth, that faith, in the first act of it, is not an holy act. Sixth, that if God has to plant all the principal parts of salvation in a sinner’s heart, to enable him to believe, the gospel plan is quite out of his reach, and consequently does not suit his case; and it must be impossible for God to condemn a man for unbelief; for no just law condemns or criminates any person for not doing what he cannot do. The Assembly declared all these doctrines to be contrary to the Confession of Faith of our church. Other parts of the work are censured as incautiously expressed and as of dangerous tendency. They further judged that the preaching or publishing the doctrines above stated “ought to subject the person or persons so doing to be dealt with by their respective presbyteries, according to the discipline of the church relative to the propagation of error.”

If then, explicit official declarations and the actual administration of discipline can decide the question, it is clear that our church has always required adherence to the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith as a condition of ministerial communion. From the adopting act of 1729 to the present hour, there is not a line upon our records which, either directly or indirectly, teaches that nothing beyond the essential and necessary doctrines of the gospel was to be required of its ministers. On the contrary the very ambiguity of the adopting act was the occasion of that doctrine being repudiated, and a strict adherence to the Confession enjoined with a frequency and clearness which otherwise would not have been called for. Thus, in 1730 it was declared that every new member must adopt the whole of the Confession except certain clauses relating to the power of the civil magistrate. The same declaration was made with like unanimity and still greater emphasis in 1736. In 1741, the synod repeated their unqualified adoption of the Confession, and the ejected members declared that they also adhered to it with equal strictness. The synod of New York, during the schism, declared that they had the same standards of doctrine, worship, and discipline, as the church of Scotland; and the two synods, at the time of the union, unanimously declared, without limitation or qualification, the Westminster Confession to be the confession of their faith. In 1786, a committee of synod, in negotiating with two other Christian bodies, inform them that the synod of New York and Philadelphia receive the Westminster Confession, save that every candidate is allowed to object to certain parts of the twenty-third chapter. When the General Assembly was formed, the Confession as then altered, and as it now exists, was declared to be a part of the constitution of the church. Had these facts and documents been known and regarded, the assertion that it is a constitutional principle of our church to demand of its ministers nothing more than assent to the essential doctrines of the gospel, never could have been made. If they do not ascertain and prove the condition of ministerial communion in the Presbyterian Church in the United States, to be adherence to the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession, no set of men can, in future, hope to make their intentions understood.

This question about the conditions of ministerial communion has been so much connected with the exposition of the adopting act of 1729, that it was deemed expedient to disregard, in this case, a mere chronological arrangement, and to bring together in one view, all the documents which serve either to fix the meaning of that act, or to decide what is the doctrinal standard of our church. It is hoped that the importance of the subject will be considered a sufficient apology for the length of the discussion. It is now time, however, to return to the consideration of the period which is more particularly under review.

Agreeably to the settled principle and common understanding of presbyterian government, such an act as that of 1729, when once passed, remains obligatory upon all the inferior judicatories until properly repealed. We accordingly find, that after 1729, the adoption of the Confession of Faith by all new members was regularly required by every presbytery, and regularly reported to the synod. Thus in 1730, it is recorded, that “Mr. Elmer desiring time last synod to consider of the synod’s declaring to the Westminster Confession, Catechisms, &c.; and Mr. Morgan and Mr. Pemberton being absent, do all now report that they have declared before the presbytery, and desire their names be inserted in our synodical records.” In the following year, Mr. Cross, who had been absent from the two preceding meetings of synod, was called upon to signify his opinion of the synod’s acts, &c.; “The said Mr. Cross did declare his hearty concurrence with all that the synod had done in that affair, and that he did adopt the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms as the confession of his faith.”2 In 1732, it is said of Mr. Bertram, of the presbytery of Bangor in Ireland, “after declaring his full and free assent unto the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, the synod did unanimously and cheerfully comply with his desire of admission as a member of this synod.” On the same page it is recorded, that “the Moderator (Mr. Steward) and Mr. Orme, not having opportunity before, either in presbytery or synod, did now declare their hearty assent unto the Confession of Faith and Catechisms, and adopted them as the confession of their faith.” In 1734, it was “ordered, that the synod make a particular inquiry during the time of their meeting every year, whether such ministers as have been received as members since the foregoing meeting of the synod have adopted, or been required by the synod, or by their respective presbyteries to adopt the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, with the Directory, according to the acts of the synod made some years since for that purpose; and also, that the report made to synod in answer to said inquiry, be recorded on our minutes.

“Mr. Samuel Pumry, Mr. James Martin, Mr. Robert Jamison, and Mr. Samuel Hemphill, declared for, and adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Directory commonly annexed; the former as the confession of their faith, the latter as the guide of their practice in matters of discipline, as far as may be agreeable to the rules of prudence, &c., as in the adopting acts of synod is directed.

“Pursuant to the act of synod, found upon inquiry, Mr. William Tennent, Jun., Mr. Andrew Archbold, ordained, and Mr. Samuel Blair, licensed, did each and every of them declare their assent and consent to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Directory annexed, according to the intent of the act of synod, in that case made and provided.”

In the minutes for 1735, it is recorded that, “inquiry being made according to the order of last synod, whether those admitted into any of our presbyteries since last synod, have adopted the Westminster Confession, Catechisms, &c., according to the adopting act of the synod, it was found that Messrs. Isaac Chalker, Simon Horton, and Samuel Blair, ordained by the presbytery of East Jersey, and Mr. Hugh Carlisle admitted into the presbytery of Newcastle have done it, according to the order aforesaid,” Similar entries appear after this almost every year.2

With regard to the administration of the discipline and government of the church, the same characteristics which marked the preceding period, are to be found also in that from 1729 to 1741. As might be expected, the synod continued to exercise all the ordinary synodical powers. The records of the several presbyteries were regularly called for and revised, and approved or censured, as the occasion demanded. Appeals, references, and complaints were received and decided. For example, in 1736, “an appeal from a part of the Rev. William Tennent’s people from the judgment of the presbytery of Philadelphia was brought in and read, together with a supplication of said persons to the presbytery of Philadelphia, and their judgment upon it. After that Mr. Tennent, the appellants, and the members of the presbytery were heard at length, at last all parties were ordered to remove; and the synod entered upon a debate upon the affair, and at last agreed in the following unanimous judgment, viz: ‘That it appears evident to the synod, that Mr. Tennent having in all respects acted and been esteemed and looked upon, not only by this synod, but also by the congregation of Neshaminy, and particularly by the appellants themselves, as the minister and pastor of the people of Neshaminy, that he is still to be esteemed the pastor of that people, notwithstanding the want of a formal installation among them, (which omission, though the synod doth not justify, yet it is far from nullifying the pastoral relation between Mr. Tennent and the said people,) and consequently that the synod doth justify the judgment of the presbytery of Philadelphia in reference to the matter; and that the appellants had no just cause of complaining against, or appealing from the said judgment of the presbytery.’ ”

It was also in the exercise of the usual powers of such bodies, that the synod erected new presbyteries or divided old ones, as occasion required. In 1732, “it being overtured by the committee of overtures, that an erection of a new presbytery in Lancaster county should be appointed by the synod, it was voted by a great majority, that Masters, Anderson, Thompson, Orr, Boyd, and Bertram, be members of a presbytery by the name of Donegal presbytery.” In 1733, an overture was presented by the committee for a division of the presbytery of Philadelphia, which was approved, and it was “agreed that Messrs. Andrews, Morgan, Evans, Tennent, Treat, Elmer, Gould, and Wales, be the presbytery of Philadelphia, and that the rest of the members now in said presbytery be the presbytery of East Jersey.” In 1735, a request was made by Messrs. Hook, Jamison, Stevenson, and Martin, that they might be set off from the presbytery of Newcastle, “and erected into a presbytery by themselves; the synod do agree that they become a presbytery under the name of the presbytery of Lewestown, and do order them to meet and constitute the 19th day of November next, at Lewestown.” In 1738, it is recorded that “the presbytery of Long Island being reduced so that a quorum cannot statedly meet about business, ‘tis ordered that they be united with the presbytery of East Jersey, and be henceforth known by the name of the presbytery of New York.” The same year, “upon a supplication of some members of the presbytery of New York, to be erected into a new presbytery, with some members of the Presbytery of Philadelphia; overtured that their petition be granted, and all to the northward of Maidenhead and Hopewell unto the Raritan river, including also Staten Island, Piscatawa, Amboy, Boundbrook, Baskingridge, Turkey, Rocksitius, Minisinks, Pequally, and Crosswicks, be the bounds of that presbytery, and that the said presbytery be known by the name of the presbytery of New Brunswick, and that the time of their meeting be the second Tuesday of August next at New Brunswick. This overture was approved.”

It was stated in the preceding chapter, as one of the peculiarities of our first synod, that, in accordance with the Scottish system, it exercised all presbyterial powers. The examples of the exercise of such powers, during the period under review, are very numerous. The synod was in the habit, for example, of receiving and disposing of ministers and candidates, who had not connected themselves with any of our presbyteries. In 1730, Mr. John Peter Miller, a Dutch probationer, recently arrived in the country, was received, and left to the care of the Philadelphia presbytery. In 1732 the Rev. Mr. Bertram was received from the presbytery of Bangor in Ireland. In 1736, Mr. John McDowell presented his credentials from the presbytery of Temple Patrick in Ireland, and “was received by the synod as a probationer,” and recommended to any presbytery to which he might choose to apply. The synod likewise ordained, censured, removed, and suspended ministers without the intervention of a presbytery. Thus, in 1735, “a supplication being brought into synod from the people of Goshen, and also a letter from Mr. Tudor, a candidate for the ministry there, both signifying that he is ready to adopt the Westminster Confession of Faith, &c., and to submit to presbyterial rules; and also desiring synod would, as soon as possibly may be, send a committee to the said place to attend the ordination of Mr. Tudor there, “the synod” it is said “do accordingly appoint Mr. Robert Cross, Mr. Pumry, Mr. Webb, Mr. Nutman, Mr. John Cross, and Mr. Chalker, to meet at Goshen, the last Wednesday of the next month, October, to attend to the said ordination, and that Mr. Robert Cross preside in the said affair. And the synod do further appoint for the trials of Mr. Tudor, that he make an exegesis in Latin upon that question, An lex naturae sit sufficiens ad salutem? and that he preach a popular sermon upon Rom. 2:6.” The following year, the above committee reported that they did not ordain Mr. Tudor “because of his insufficiency.” In 1735, the Rev. Mr. Hemphill was tried by the commission of synod for false doctrines, and the case upon their report came before the synod, who passed the following sentence: “The synod from the consideration of his contumacy in his errors; his disregard of the censures of the commission; and rejecting our communion; do declare him unqualified for any further exercise of his ministry within our bounds, and that this be intimated to all our congregations, by each respective minister. Approved nem. con.”

The synod also frequently acted in reference to the congregations in the capacity of a presbytery. Thus, in 1733, “Mr. Andrews made a motion to the committee of overtures that an assistant be allowed unto him in the work of the ministry in this city, and the committee after discoursing upon it, having recommended the consideration thereof to the synod, upon the proviso, that if the said motion be allowed or approved, there be first a sufficient provision made for an honourable maintenance of Mr. Andrews, during his continuance among this people, and the synod entered upon the consideration of the said motion … and it was carried in the affirmative, nem. con.” It was then overtured “that the congregation be allowed to call an assistant to Mr. Andrews,” which was also agreed to. In 1734, it appears an application was made to the commission for the removal of Mr. Robert Cross from Jamaica to Philadelphia. The matter was thus brought before synod, when the commissioners from the two congregations interested in the business, were heard, and after public notice had been given to the people of the first church, that if any of them had “any thing to object against Mr. Cross’ being settled here in Philadelphia, they may appear and offer what they had to say in the affair,” synod decided against his removal. The following year it is recorded that “a supplication being brought into the synod from one part of the presbyterian congregation of Philadelphia, desiring Mr. Robert Cross to be granted for their minister; also another paper to strengthen the supplication; and also another supplication from another part of the said congregation desiring Mr. Jonathan Dickinson to be their minister, the synod not having time to issue that affair at present, do defer the consideration of it till to-morrow morning.” The following day, however, a petition was presented by the friends of Mr. Cross to be erected into a new congregation, which was deferred for future consideration. The next morning the motion for a new erection “was carried in the affirmative by a great majority. Mr. John Smith of Bethlehem, in the Highlands of New York, desired that his dissent might be entered on our minutes.” This decision having produced dissatisfaction, it was reconsidered in the afternoon, and re-affirmed. Messrs. Dickinson, Pemberton, Webb, Elmer, Chalker, and Wales, dissenting. The synod then declared that they did not intend by their decision “to oblige the said people to erect themselves into a new congregation, but only that the synod allowed them to do so.” The following summer, a new congregation was formed by the synod’s commission; and in 1737, “a call from the new erection in this city,” it is said, “to the Rev. Mr. Robert Cross, together with a supplication to the synod containing arguments to move the synod to concur with the designs of the said call, were read.” The call was handed to Mr. Cross and his sentiments desired in relation to it. In answer to which he said ‘that he was clearly convinced and persuaded in his judgment, as things now appear, that it is his duty to remain with the people of Jamaica, and he thought the synod could not determine this matter until his people be apprized thereof, and have opportunity to declare themselves concerning it.’ The synod then agreed that “the clerk and Mr. Elmer, each of them by himself, should endeavour to prepare an overture upon the affair to be brought in the afternoon, to be considered by the synod.” This overture, which was unanimously adopted, proposed to defer the question of Mr. Cross’ removal until the next meeting of the synod; that in the meantime he should preach two months for the new congregation; that the synod should appoint supplies for the people of Jamaica during Mr. Cross’ absence, &c. &c. In 1737, a supplication was again presented to the synod for Mr. Cross, “the purport whereof was to invalidate what was offered in the supplication from Jamaica.” Mr. Cross having submitted himself wholly to the judgment of the synod; after considerable debate, and “after solemn calling upon God for light and direction, it was decided nem. con., to transfer Mr. Cross to Philadelphia.” In the following year it was reported to the synod “that the Rev. Robert Cross was installed since our last meeting, according to the synod’s appointment, and that the two congregations in Philadelphia were since united.” In all this protracted business, neither the presbytery of New York to which Mr. Cross belonged, nor that of Philadelphia with which the congregation was connected, is so much as named. So com pletely did the synod act on the Scottish principle, that the higher court has all the powers of the lower ones.

The synod continued to transact much of its business by committees, which was sometimes designed merely to collect information, but most commonly were clothed with full powers. Thus, in 1731, some difficulty having occurred between Mr. Bradner of Goshen and one of his church members, the synod “appointed a committee to go to Goshen, with the full power of the synod, to hear and determine that business.” In 1734, “an appeal being brought in by Mr. John Kirkpatrick and Mr. John Moor from the presbytery of Donegal, the synod appointed that Messrs. Andrews, William Tennent, Treat, Alexander Hucheson, George Gillespie, Thomas Evans, and Henry Hook, be a committee to meet on the first Wednesday in November next to hear the said appeal, and determine it by the authority of synod, and that they bring an account of their transactions therein to the next synod. And the synod do also empower the said committee to hear any matter de novo, that shall be brought before them by the said John Kirkpatrick and John Moor, with relation to the affair aforesaid, and authoritatively to determine thereupon; appointing also that if either party shall appeal from the determination of the said committee, they shall enter their appeal immediately, that it may be finally determined by the next synod.” In 1737, we find the following record: “Overtured on Mr. Morgan’s affair, that inasmuch as it would be both difficult and tedious for the synod to make a particular inquiry into the whole affair, the synod appoint the presbyteries of Philadelphia and East Jersey to meet as a committee at Maidenhead and judge of the said affair, and absolve Mr. Morgan from the censure he lies under, if he appear suitably penitent, and no new accusations be advanced against him; and Mr. Morgan to continue under suspension until the said committee meet, and that at least three members of each presbytery be a quorum. The first Wednesday of August next to be the time of meeting; and it is ordered that every minister do endeavour to bring an elder with him. Approved nem. con.”

The following minute affords an illustration of one other peculiarity in the mode of action adopted by the synod. A reference was made in 1738 by the presbytery of Philadelphia of some difficulty between them and the congregation of Hopewell and Maidenhead. The synod censured the conduct of the people, and “wholly disallowed the said complainants being erected into a new congregation, until they do first submit the determination of the place for erecting a new meeting-house to their presbytery, as was agreed upon between them and their neighbours, as a condition of their being a separate congregation. This overture was approved by a large majority. And it is further ordered by the synod, that when the presbytery of Philadelphia meet at Hopewell and Maidenhead, to fix the place of a new meeting-house, they shall call the following correspondents: Messrs. John Pierson, John Nutman, Samuel Blair, Aaron Burr, Nathaniel Hubbell, and Eleazer Wales.”

There is not much in the powers granted to the commitee, in the following illustration, beyond what is now customary; but the case is interesting and instructive. In 1738, “Mr. Gilbert Tennent represented to the committee that there had been differing sentiments in some points of doctrine, between himself and Mr. David Cowell, upon which there had been sundry large letters passed between them, concerning which it is overtured: That this affair be considered by a committee appointed by the synod, who shall be directed to converse with Mr. Tennent and Mr. Cowell together, that they may see whether they so widely differ in their sentiments as is supposed, and if there be necessity, distinctly to consider the papers, that Mr. Tennent and Mr. Cowell be both directed to refrain all public discourse upon the controversy, and all methods of spreading it among the populace, until the committee have made their report to the synod; and that no other member take notice of, or divulge the affair. The above mentioned committee were Messrs. J. Dickinson, Pierson, Pemberton, Thompson, Anderson, Boyd and the moderator (Richard Treat.)” It would be thought rather singular for any synod in our day thus to lay an interdict upon theological controversy. In the afternoon of the day on which they were appointed, the committee reported that they had heard Mr. Tennent and Mr. Cowell explain themselves on the points in debate, and requested to be allowed to report to the next synod. This request was granted, and Mr. Robert Cross was added to the committee. The next year they “brought in the following overture, which being read, the synod had the great satisfaction to find that the contending parties fully agreed in their sentiments on the point in controversy, according to the doctrine contained in the said overture, viz. Though they apprehend that there are some incautious and unguarded expressions used by both the contending parties, yet they have ground to hope that the principal controversy between them flows from their not having clear ideas of the subject they so earnestly debate about, and not from any dangerous errors they entertain, since they both own that the glory of God is the great ultimate end of all things. And as the point under debate concerns an important doctrine of religion, we would take the liberty to express our thoughts with respect to it, in a few words, which we hope will be agreeable to the sentiments of the synod, and readily agreed to by the parties concerned in this dispute. We apprehend that the glory of God was the only motive that influenced him to all his external operations. For since nothing else had an existence, nothing certainly could influence him from without himself. By his declarative glory we mean the manifestation of his essential and adorable perfections for the great and excellent ends he designed in this manifestation. It is the indispensable duty of every creature, according to its utmost capacity, to aim at the same end, which the blessed God has in view; and to endeavour to direct all his actions unto it. The method in which the great God has required us to prosecute this end is by conformity to his image and example, and a sincere and universal obedience to his laws. In his infinite and astonishing grace he has been pleased inseparably to connect our happiness with the prosecution of this end. This obedience which we are to pay to the divine law, and by which alone we can glorify him, must be performed by us, not only because it is the way to happiness, but because it is infinitely just and reasonable in itself, agreeable to the blessed God, whom we are under indissoluble obligations to obey, and carry on the same design which he has been pleased to propose in all his actions. And these designs of the glory of God and our own happiness are so inseparably connected that they must never be placed in opposition to each other. For in all cases, he that actively glorifies God promotes his own happiness, and by a conformity to the divine statutes and laws, which is the only way to happiness, we, in the best manner we are capable of, glorify God.” This is surely sound doctrine. The glory of God is the ultimate end of all things. To promote that glory is the highest duty, and should be the governing purpose of all intelligent beings; and their own happiness is inseparably connected with their aiming at this end, and being governed by this motive. This, no doubt, was the doctrine which Mr. Tennent had so much at heart. He was satisfied with the synod’s assertion of it, though he was, or at least became, greatly dissatisfied that the opposite doctrine, that happiness was the grand end of existence, and its attainment the proper governing motive of all rational creatures, which he supposed Mr. Cowell to hold, was not more pointedly condemned.

That Mr. Tennent was not pleased with the issue of this dispute is evident from the fact, that when the minutes were read at the next meeting of the synod, he moved that all the papers relating to the controversy should be read, and the whole subject be considered by the synod. This motion after considerable debate was rejected by a large majority. This no doubt increased his dissatisfaction. The following year, 1740, when from various causes he felt constrained to read before the synod a paper containing his reasons for thinking that a large portion of his brethren were unconverted men, he assigned as the first reason “Their unsoundness in some of the principal doctrines of Christianity that relate to experience and practice; as particularly in the following points; First, that there is no distinction between the glory of God and our happiness; that self-love is the foundation of all obedience. These doctrines” he says, “do in my opinion entirely overset, if true, all supernatural religion; render regeneration a vain and needless thing; involve a crimson blasphemy against the blessed God, by putting ourselves upon a level with him. Secondly, that there is a certainty of salvation annexed to the labours of natural men. This doctrine in my opinion supposes the greatest falsehood, viz. that there is a free will in man naturally to acceptable good.… As these opinions are contrary to the express testimony of holy Scripture, our Confession of Faith and Christian experience, they give me reason to suspect, at least, that those who hold them are rotten-hearted hypocrites, and utter strangers to the saving knowledge of God, and of their own hearts.” The first of these doctrines was the one involved in his controversy with Mr. Cowell. Why he should charge it upon the synod, seeing they so explicitly teach the opposite doctrine in the minute above-cited, does not appear. As to the second point, Mr. Thompson in his reply to Mr. Tennent, says he did not know a single man in the whole synod whom he even suspected of holding it. How strongly Mr. Tennent felt on this subject is still more evident from a subsequent charge against the synod, viz. that they had so much “more zeal for outward order than for the main points of practical religion. Witness the committee slighting and shuffling the late debate about the glory of God, and their present contention about the committee-act;” (that is the act for the examination of candidates by a committee of synod.) Considering the composition of the committee against whom this complaint is directed, and the character of their award, it must be regarded as a little singular. Had this good man lived in our day, his ardent temper could hardly have kept within bounds, when he saw the doctrines that “self-love is the foundation of all obedience,” and that “there is a free will in man to acceptable good,” made the key-stone of a whole system of theology.

There is scarcely any period in the history of our church more prolific in acts and overtures than the one now under consideration. These acts proceeded in nearly equal proportions from each of the two parties into which the synod now began to be divided. Neither party questioned the right of the synod to make such acts, as both freely availed themselves of the power. Several of the most important of these measures are so intimately connected with the great schism of 1741, that they will be more properly considered in detail, in connexion with that event, though chronologically belonging to the present period.

In the minutes for 1733, there is the following record: “Upon an overture to the synod in pursuance of an order of the committee to that purpose, viz. to use some proper means to revive the declining power of godliness, the synod do earnestly recommend it to all ministers and members to take particular care about ministerial visiting of families, and press family and social worship, according to the Westminster Directory; and they also recommend it to every presbytery at proper seasons, to inquire concerning the diligence of each of their members in such particulars. This overture was approved nem. con. Ordered, that each presbytery take a copy of said overture, together with this order and insert the same in their presbytery books.”

In 1735, “Mr. Gilbert Tennent brought some overtures into the synod with respect to trials of candidates both for the ministry and for the Lord’s supper, that there be due care taken to examine into the evidences of the grace of God in them, as well as of their other necessary qualifications. The synod doth unanimously agree, ‘That as it has been our principle and practice, and as it is recommended in the Directory for worship and government, to be careful in this matter, so it awfully concerns us to be most serious and solemn in trying both sorts of candidates above mentioned. And this synod does, therefore, in the name and fear of God, exhort and obtest all our presbyteries to take special care not to admit into the sacred office, loose, careless, and irreligious persons, but that they particularly inquire into the conversation, conduct, and behaviour of such as offer themselves to the ministry; and that they diligently examine all the candidates for the ministry in their experience of a work of sanctifying grace in their hearts; and that they admit none to the sacred trust that are not, in the eye of charity, serious Christians. And the synod does also seriously and solemnly admonish all the ministers within our bounds to make it their awful, constant, and diligent care to approve themselves to God, to their own consciences, and to their hearers, serious, faithful stewards of the mysteries of God, and of holy and exemplary conversation. And the synod does also exhort all the ministers within our bounds to use due care in examining those whom they admit to the Lord’s supper. This admonition was approved by the whole synod. And the synod further recommends unanimously to all our presbyteries, to take effectual care that each of their ministers is faithful in the discharge of his awful trust. And in particular, that they frequently examine with respect to their members, into their life and conversation, their diligence in their work, and their method of discharging their ministerial calling; particularly that each presbytery do, at least once a year, examine into the manner of each minister’s preaching; whether he insists in his ministry upon the great articles of Christianity, and in the course of his preaching recommends a crucified Saviour to his hearers as the only foundation of hope, and the absolute necessity of the omnipotent influences of divine grace to enable them to accept of this Saviour; whether he does, in the most solemn and affecting manner he can, endeavour to convince his hearers of their lost and perishing state whilst unconverted, and put them upon the diligent use of those means necessary, in order to obtain the sanctifying influences of the Spirit of God; whether he does, and how far he does discharge his duty towards the young people and children of his congregation, in a way of catechising and familiar instruction; whether he does, and in what manner he does visit his flock and instruct them from house to house. And the synod hereby orders, that a copy of this minute be inserted in the books of each of our presbyteries, and be read at each of their presbyterial meetings; and a record of its being read be minuted at the beginning of every session, and that there be also an annual record in each presbytery book of a correspondence with this minute. And in case any minister within our bounds shall be found defective in any of the aforementioned cases, he shall be subject to the censure of the presbytery; and if he refuse subjection to such censure, the presbytery are hereby directed to report his case to the next synod. And the synod recommends to each of the ministers within our bounds, to be as much in catechetical doctrines as they in prudence may think proper.”

It is obvious that neither the knowledge nor power of evangelical religion could be dead in a church which was willing and able to issue such admonitions as the above. There may have been, and probably was a great declension in practical religion, but there was no denial of evangelical principles. The public sentiment of the church must have been in favour of genuine experimental godliness. The above overture so far illustrates the relation in which the synod stood to its own members and the several presbyteries, as it contains not only the solemn admonitions of the governing body, insisting upon the performance of specific duties, but directions as to the mode of their performance, and requisitions with which the presbyteries were called upon to comply. That these bodies felt these orders to be obligatory upon them, is obvious from their obedience. This overture is recorded at length in the presbytery book of Philadelphia, and in the minutes of their next subsequent meeting it is stated, “The minute of synod ordered to be recorded in the presbyteries, was read according to order of synod, and by proper inquiries of the several members, it was found that the design of the said minute was in a good degree complied with.” A nearly similar entry is made frequently in the minutes for subsequent years. That the presbytery of East Jersey complied with the above directions appears from the following record in the synodical book: “There having been a complaint made by some members of the presbytery of East Jersey, that the presbytery are incapable to comply with the excellent design of the act of the last synod with respect to the trials of candidates for the ministry, and of the fidelity of their own members in the discharge of their ministerial trust, by reason that several of their members, and Mr. John Cross in particular, neglect to attend the stated meetings of the presbytery; and that Mr. John Cross has, without the concurrence of the presbytery, removed from one congregation to another: the synod do declare that the conduct of such ministers as do neglect attendance on the meetings of the presbytery without necessity, or that take charge of any congregation without the presbytery’s concurrence, to be disorderly, and justly worthy of presbyterial censure, and do admonish said Mr. Cross to be no further chargeable with such irregularities for the future.”

How Mr. Tennent regarded this matter, and what authority he attributed to the act of synod, may be inferred from what he says in the paper read to that body in 1740, and before referred to. He therein complains of some of his brethren for “setting out men to the ministry without so much as examining them about their Christian experiences, notwithstanding of a late canon of this synod enjoining the same. How contrary is this practice to the Scriptures, and to our Directory, and of how dangerous tendency to the church of God! Is it probable that truly gracious persons would thus slight the precious souls of men?”

In the year 1734, the following order was inserted on the minutes: “The synod determines that no minister of our persuasion, in the government of Pennsylvania, or the lower counties, from this time forward, marry by any license from the government, till the form of them be altered and brought into a nearer conformity to those of the neighbouring governments of New York and New Jersey, and particularly till they are altered in such a manner as hath no peculiar respect to the ministers of the church of England, nor oblige us to any of the forms and ceremonies peculiar to that church. And we do further agree to refer it to the presbyteries of Newcastle and Donegal, to make what regulations they see cause for upon the affair of licenses with respect to their own members.” In 1735, it is recorded that “upon reading last year’s minutes relating to marriages by licenses, it is supposed there may be some exempt instances, wherein the restraints of that act may be found too severe. The synod, therefore, order that each particular presbytery shall have full liberty to determine upon, and direct in such exempt cases, as they shall think convenient, provided always, that no minister within our bounds shall be allowed to marry by license any members of our established congregations, or others known to be of our communion, without certificates from the ministers of such congregations; or in case of the absence of the minister, or of the congregation’s being without a minister, from some other substantial persons, that such marriage is regular, and that there is no just bar in the way of it.” The synod it seems felt no hesitation in assuming the right to control all its members in the exercise of one of their official functions; or, when the rule prescribed was found too strict, to order that the several presbyteries “should have full liberty” to determine what cases should be exempted from its operation.

In the following year we find a still more extraordinary record. “Upon motion made by a member, the synod do agree that if any of our members shall see cause to prepare any thing for the press upon any controversy in religious matters, before such member publish what he hath thus prepared, he shall submit the same to be perused by persons appointed for that purpose, and that Messrs. Andrews, Dickinson, Robert Cross, Pemberton, and Pierson, be appointed for this purpose in the bounds of the synod to the northward of Philadelphia; and Messrs. Anderson, Thomas Evans, Cathcart, Stevenson, and Thompson, in the bounds of the synod to the southward of Philadelphia. Approved.” Here then is an actual censureship of the press. This is almost equal to the presbyterianism of France; where the national synods made and enforced similar regulations.2 All the gentlemen above-named, except Mr. Pierson, were present at this meeting of the synod; and yet no protest against what we should regard as a most extraordinary stretch of synodical power is even hinted; and no refusal of Mr. Andrews, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Evans, or Mr. Pemberton, to act on such a committee; and thus sanction the legality of its appointment. Surely they must be under a delusion, who, in their aspirations after advisory councils, long for the return of the early days of our church.

The same year, (1736,) a long overture was introduced, no doubt, judging from the style and sentiments, by Mr. Thompson, against heresy. It alludes particularly to the case of Mr. Hemphill, who had been unanimously disowned by the synod, as before stated. It urges “that seeing we are likely to have most of our supply of ministers to fill our vacancies, from the north of Ireland, and seeing it is too plain to be denied or called in question that we are in danger of being imposed upon by ministers and preachers from thence, though sufficiently furnished with all the formalities of presbyterial credentials,” the adoption of various expedients for guarding against the danger. It also testifies against the custom of some of the Irish presbyteries of ordaining men sine titulo before they come to this country, thus depriving the presbyteries here of their right of judging of their fitness for the sacred office. In consequence of this overture it is recorded: “The synod do agree that no minister ordained in Ireland sine titulo be received to the exercise of the ministry among us, until he submit to such trials as the presbytery among whom he resides shall think proper to order and appoint, and the synod do also advertise the general synod in Ireland, that their ordaining any such sine titulo before their sending them hither for the future, will be very disagreeable and disobliging to us. And the synod do appoint Messrs. Robert Cross, John Thompson, and Joseph Houston to send the above overture and appointment to the general synod in Ireland inclosed in a proper letter unto them.” On a subsequent page it is stated that “inquiry being made of the several presbyteries whether they had complied with an order of synod touching the admission of foreign ministers and candidates that come from Europe, it was found that the order has been complied with.” It is evident from the above overture, and from various other sources, that the Irish members in their zeal against error were not actuated by any sectional jealousies. Their efforts were directed against their own countrymen. There was no desire to gain or confirm an ascendency in the synod for men of their own origin. The very persons most prominent in these measures, are found writing urgent letters to New England for suitable ministers to supply their vacant churches. Under these circumstances it is impossible to question either the sincerity of their professions, or the purity of their motives.

In 1737, an overture was introduced and approved in reference to itinerant preachers. This act forbad a licentiate to preach in any vacant congregation without the order of the presbytery to which he belonged, or of the presbytery under whose care the congregation was placed. It forbad also the congregations to invite any minister or probationer without the concurrence of their presbytery; &c. In the following year this order was so modified as to forbid any minister belonging to the synod “to preach in any congregation belonging to another presbytery,” after being warned by any member of the presbytery that his so preaching would be likely to cause division. To this was added the explanation, that this prohibition by one member was to be merely temporary. If the presbytery to which the congregation belonged gave the stranger liberty to preach, he might do so. Thus explained, it was agreed to nemine contradicente. In 1739, it is stated that “The act made last year with respect to ministers preaching out of their own bounds being taken under a review, the synod determine that if any minister in the bounds of any of our presbyteries judge that the preaching of any minister or candidate of a neighbouring presbytery has had a tendency to promote division among them, he shall complain to the Presbytery in whose bounds the said congregation is; and that the minister who is supposed to be the cause of the aforesaid division shall be obliged to appear before them, and it shall be left to them to determine whether he shall preach any more in the bounds of that congregation; and he shall be bound to stand to their determination, until they shall see cause to remove their prohibition; or the synod shall have an opportunity to take the affair under cognizance. Approved nem. con.” In 1740, the synod say that although this agreement had at the time it was passed met with universal acceptance, yet as some of the brethren had become dissatisfied with it, and some of their people misinterpreted it, supposing it to be intended against all itinerant preaching, they agreed to repeal it, and thus avoid all contention on the subject.

This act is not so much an illustration of the power of the synod, as it is a declaration, and enforcing the rights of presbyteries. It merely provided that no man should preach in any congregation against the will of the presbytery under whose care such congregation was placed. This is a principle fully recognised in our present constitution. If a congregation is vacant, it applies to the presbytery for supplies, or obtains permission to fill its own pulpit. That the presbytery has the right to watch over and provide for the religious instruction of its churches is one of the most familiar principles of our form of government. It very clearly shows at once the agitation existing in those days, and the moderation of synod, that they were willing to waive this principle, though twice unanimously sanctioned, for the sake of peace. The opposition to this rule seems to have proceeded principally from Mr. Tennent. No man was, under ordinary circumstances, more disposed than that gentleman to enforce the obligation of such rules, and even to push them to extremes. But when he thought they stood in the way of the interests of religion, he trampled them under his feet. To create a division in the congregation of a converted pastor, or to preach against his consent within his bounds, was, in his eyes, a high ecclesiastical offence. But to preach the gospel to the people of a graceless minister, in despite of his remonstrances, was a matter of duty; and he would have done it, in despite of all the synods in the world. In this he was clearly right, as far as the principle is concerned. There are obligations superior to those of mere ecclesiastical order; and there are times when it is a duty to disregard rules, which we admit to be legitimate both in their own nature, and in respect to the authority whence they proceed. It was on this principle that the apostles and the reformers acted. It is analogous to the right of revolution in civil communities; and consequently the cases are very rare in which it can be resorted to, with a good conscience. Because the reformers rightfully trampled on the ecclesiastical authorities to which they were subject, it does not follow that every wandering evangelist, who thinks that he is a better man or better preacher than his brethren, may properly enter into parishes, divide congregations, and unsettle pastors at pleasure. Whether Mr. Tennent was right in applying his principle in the way he did, is a very difficult question, which belongs properly to a subsequent period of our history.

It is worthy of remark that the same circumstances which called forth this act of the synod, under the different system of the Connecticut churches, led to the interference of the civil authorities. In May 1742, the General Assembly of Connecticut passed a law, in which, after a long preamble, they enacted that any settled minister, who should preach within the parish of another minister, unless invited by the latter and by the major part of the people, should be deprived of all the benefit of the law for the support of the clergy; that if any one, not a minister or licentiate, should teach or exhort in any parish, without being properly invited, he should be bound over in the penal sum of one hundred pounds; and if any stranger not an inhabitant of the colony should transgress in like manner, he was to be sent as a vagrant from constable to constable out of the bounds of the colony.

In the year 1738, the presbytery of Lewes brought in an overture respecting the examination of candidates for the ministry. After reciting the various disadvantages under which such candidates then laboured in the prosecution of their studies, and the dangers arising from the admission of uneducated men into the ministry, it proposed that the synod should agree that all the presbyteries should require every candidate, before being taken upon trial, to be furnished with a diploma from some European or New England college; or in case he had not enjoyed the advantage of a college education, he should be examined by a committee of synod, who should give him a certificate of competent scholarship, when they found him to merit it. This overture was approved by a great majority; and Messrs. John Thompson, George Gillespie, James Anderson, Thomas Evans, Henry Hook, James Martin, and Francis Allison, were appointed the committee of examination for the presbyteries to the south of Philadelphia; and Messrs. Andrews, Robert Cross, G. Tennent, E. Pemberton, J. Dickinson, D. Cowell, and J. Pierson for the presbyteries to the north of Philadelphia.

In 1739, “the New Brunswick presbytery having brought a paper of objections against the act of last year, touching the previous examination of candidates, the synod consented to review that act, and upon deliberation agreed to the following overture, which they substitute in the place of it, viz. It being the first article in our excellent Directory for the examination of candidates for the sacred ministry, that they be inquired of what degrees they have taken in the university, &c.; and it being oftentimes impracticable for us in these remote parts of the earth, to obtain an answer to these questions of those who propose themselves for examination, many of our candidates not having enjoyed the advantage of an university education; and it being our desire to come to the nearest conformity to the incomparable prescriptions of the Directory that our circumstances will admit of; and after long deliberation of the most proper expedients to comply with the intentions of the Directory where we cannot exactly fulfil the letter of it, the synod agree and determine that every person who proposes himself for trial as a candidate for the ministry, and who has not a diploma or the usual certificate from an European or New England university, shall be examined by the whole synod, or its commission, as to those preparatory studies which are generally passed through at the college, and if they find him qualified, shall give him a certificate which shall be received by our respective presbyteries as equivalent to a diploma or certificate from the college. This, we trust, will have a happy tendency to prevent unqualified men from creeping in among us, and answer, in the best manner our present circumstances are capable of, the design which our Directory has in view, and to which by inclination and duty we are all bound to comply to our utmost ability. This was agreed to by a great majority.”

Against the above act Messrs. Gilbert Tennent, William Tennent, Sen., William Tennent, Jun., Charles Tennent, Samuel Blair, and Eleazer Wales, together with four elders, protested. It is stated in the minutes of the next year, that various proposals were made with the view of reconciling these protesting brethren. As these efforts were not successful, “the synod,” it is said, “still desiring that that unhappy difference may be accommodated, recommend it to any brethren of the synod to consider any further expedient to that end, to be brought in at the next sederunt.” What these expedients were, the records do not inform us. Two of them may be learned from other sources. Mr. Dickinson proposed that “there should, by consent of both parties, be drawn up a fair representation of the state of the case debated, and sent to the General Assembly of the church of Scotland or their commission; to the general synod of Ireland or their commission; or to the ministers of our profession in London or Boston to obtain their judgment or advice.” This proposal was rejected by Mr. Tennent, because, besides other reasons, the persons specified were mostly “dead formalists.”2 Another expedient was suggested by Mr. Gillespie, which at first seemed likely to succeed. He proposed, “that if a presbytery admit a man, they shall report his trials to the synod for their satisfaction on his taking his seat. When Mr. Tennent was asked by Mr. Dickinson, whether, in case of the synod’s dissatisfaction, he would allow a re-examination or censure? he said, No. He would consent to the presbytery being censured, but not to the candidate being examined or censured. The matter was then dropped, as Mr. Tennent claimed the right of imposing what members he pleased upon the synod.” After these and other efforts for an accommodation had failed, “it was put to vote whether the said agreement (about candidates) should be repealed, or continued until some other expedient could be found to the synod’s satisfaction; and it was voted that it continue at present. The protesting brethren renewed their former protest,” and were joined by Mr. John Cross and Mr. Alexander Creaghead, ministers, and eleven elders. The Rev. George Gillespie and the Rev. Alexander Hucheson dissented. The synod then passed the following explanatory declaration: “That they do not hereby call in question the right of inferior presbyteries to ordain ministers, but only assert their own right to judge of the qualification of their own members; and though they do not deny but that such as are brought into the ministry contrary to this agreement, may be truly gospel ministers, yet, inasmuch as they cannot but think the said agreement needful to be insisted on in order to the well being of this part of the Church of Christ, they cannot admit them, when so brought into the ministry, to be members of this synod, until they submit to the said agreement, though they do consent that they be in all other respects treated and considered as ministers of the Gospel; any thing that they be otherwise construed in any of our former proceedings notwithstanding.”

As this act was the immediate occasion of the schism which occurred in 1741, the consideration of it, as a constitutional question, must be reserved until the causes and merits of that great controversy come to be examined. It may, however, be remarked here, what indeed cannot fail to attract the reader’s attention, that the opposition to this measure was not so much of an ecclesiastical as of a religious character; that is, it did not arise so much from difference of opinion as to the power of the synod, as from the supposed bearing of the act upon the interests of religion. This is evident from the character of its opponents. They were all, unless Mr. Wales be an exception, Irishmen or Scotchmen. That the New England members took side with the majority in all this matter, appears from the absence of their names from the list of either protestants or dissenters; from the open effort of Mr. Dickinson to conciliate Mr. Tennent’s consent to some compromise; and especially from the fact that when the synod of New York was formed, to which the New England members in the general attached themselves, it was made one of its fundamental principles, that the synod should be obeyed. This provision, which has already been referred to, and which subsequently was incorporated into the terms of union between the two synods, was evidently intended to meet just such cases as the present. It stated that if any member could not with a good conscience, either actively concur in, or passively submit to, any determination of the synod, he should peaceably withdraw, without attempting to make any schism, provided the synod insisted upon their determination as essential to their doctrine or government. In reference to the act about itinerant preachers, the synod, though the matter had twice been unanimously concurred in, and though clearly in the right, declined to insist, when they saw the opposition springing up among some of their members and people. In relation to the act about the examination of candidates, they first adopted a modification, then proposed one expedient after another for a compromise, but refused to give it up. As the other party thought they could not, with a good conscience, yield, a division became inevitable, and it therefore took place, though not in the Christian manner, in which the article just referred to afterwards provided for. This schism, however, never would have taken place, neither party would have been so unyielding, had they not, in a great measure, lost their confidence in each, and become embittered in their feelings.

The motive therefore of Mr. Tennent’s opposition to this act was not dislike of the ecclesiastical principle on which it was founded, but dislike of the object at which he thought it aimed. He believed it was adapted, and probably designed, to keep evangelical men out of the ministry, and therefore he would not submit to it. The arguments by which he and his friends justified their opposition; the ecclesiastical principles which they advocated, how far these differed, or whether they differed at all from those of their opponents, are questions which belong to a subsequent period of our history. It would be strange if Gillespie, Hucheson, and Creaghead, who sided more or less with Mr. Tennent, held a more lax system of presbyterianism than Dickinson, Pemberton, and Pierson, who, as far as appears, were on the other side. The reader will not, of course, confound the question as to the validity of the act respecting the examination of candidates, with the propriety of the exclusion of the New Brunswick presbytery, by a simple protest. Many who sanctioned the former measure, remonstrated against the latter.

The review of the whole period which has now been passed over, must, it is believed, lead the reader to at least the three following conclusions.

First, that the presbyterian church in the United States does not owe its existence to congregationalists. From the middle of the seventeenth, to the middle of the eighteenth century, presbyterians were the most numerous class of emigrants to this country, and probably more numerous than all other classes combined. Our church is but one branch of this extended presbyterian family, and owes its origin to the English, Scotch, and Irish presbyterians, who sought on these shores a refuge from the persecutions or penury which awaited them at home. The congregationalists who associated with them, who were few in number, ceased to be congregationalists. They entered the church under the name and with the profession of presbyterians, promising “to submit to presbyterian rules.”

Second, that our church was, during this whole period, strictly and properly presbyterian. There was less irregularity in the organization of the congregations than among the churches of Scotland during the corresponding period of their history. The great majority of our ministers were presbyterially educated and ordained. The presbytery and synod not only exercised uniformly and without opposition all the powers which are now recognised as belonging to such bodies, but in many respects greatly exceeded them. In all the particulars in which they differed from the presbyteries and synods of the present day, they conformed to the principles and usages of the Church of Scotland.

Third, that assent to the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith, has always been a condition of ministerial communion in the Presbyterian Church. Before 1729, this was, in effect, the case; after that time, it was the publicly asserted and uniformly enforced condition of admission into the ministry in our communion.

---

← Chapter II. Presbyterian Church from 1705 to 1729 · Contents · Chapter IV. The Great Revival of Religion, 1740–45 →