The act of synod relating to itinerant preaching, passed in 1737.—The act relating to the examination of candidates, passed in 1738.—These acts disobeyed by the presbytery of New Brunswick.—That presbytery censured by the synod.—They present their apology in 1739.—Analysis of that apology.—The presbytery continue to disobey the synod.—The propriety of their conduct considered.—The effects of this controversy upon the congregations and other presbyteries.—The efforts made in 1740 to compromise the difficulty.—Failure of these efforts.—Mr. G. Tennent and Mr. Blair read before the synod two papers containing complaints against their brethren.—Mr. Tennent preaches his sermon on the dangers of an unconverted ministry.—Analysis of that sermon.—The complaints against Mr. Tennent and his friends for rash-judging, and for intruding into settled congregations, and promoting divisions.—These complaints brought before the presbyteries.—The cases of Mr. Alexander Creaghead, and of Mr. David Alexander before the presbytery of Donegal.—The synod meets in 1741 in the midst of these controversies.—The case of Mr. Creaghead taken up, and leads to a serious contention.—Mr. Robert Cross reads a protest against the New Brunswick brethren being allowed to sit as members of synod, which is signed by twelve ministers and eight elders.—This protest throws the synod into confusion, and leads to the irregular exclusion of nine ministers.—The proceedings of the presbytery of New Brunswick and their correspondents immediately after the schism.—The efforts made by the members of the presbytery of New York in 1742 to heal the schism; similar efforts made in 1743 and in 1745.—These efforts having failed, the synod of New York formed in September 1745.—The points of difference between the two parties considered.—The nature and extent of the opposition to the revival examined.—How far the parties differed as to the importance of learning, as to points of doctrine, and principles of church government considered.—The true cause of the schism stated.
IN order properly to understand the origin and causes of the schism, which in 1741 divided the Presbyterian Church, it will be necessary briefly to recapitulate some of the facts recorded in the third chapter of this history. It may be remembered, that in 1737, an act was passed by the synod which prohibited the members of one presbytery preaching to the congregations under the care of another presbytery, without a regular invitation. In the following year this rule was somewhat modified, and unanimously re-enacted. It was not the design of this rule to prohibit itinerant preaching; a service which its advocates every year commissioned men to perform. It was intended to prevent the irregular intrusion of one minister or presbytery upon the acknowledged bounds of another. Under ordinary circumstances such a rule would have excited no opposition. It is not surprising, therefore, that it was twice unanimously adopted. When, however, the revival had fairly begun, and a number of ministers had devoted themselves to preaching from place to place, they were unwilling to be trammelled by such rules, or to abstain from preaching in a particular congregation because “a graceless minister,” or lukewarm presbytery might take offence. They urged, that under extraordinary circumstances, such rules should be laid aside.
A more serious difficulty arose from the passage of another act. In 1738, the synod resolved that, in order to prevent the admission of uneducated men into the ministry, every candidate for the sacred office, before he was taken on trial, should be furnished with a diploma of graduation from some European or New England college, or with a certificate of competent scholarship from a committee of the synod. The same year the presbytery of New Brunswick was formed. It met for the first time August 8, 1738, and on the same day application was made by Mr. John Rowland to be taken “on trial in order to his being licensed to preach the gospel.” “The presbytery thereon entered on a serious consideration of the act of last synod, appointing that young men should be first examined by a commission of synod, and obtain a testimony of their approbation, before they are to be taken on trials by any presbytery belonging to the same; and, after much reasoning on the case, the presbytery came to this unanimous conclusion, viz: That they were not in point of conscience, restrained by said act from using the liberty and power which presbyteries have all along hitherto enjoyed; but that it was their duty to take the said Mr. Rowland upon trial, for which conclusion they conceive they have several weighty and sufficient reasons.” The presbytery, accordingly entered upon his examination, and assigned him the usual exercises to present at their next meeting. On the 7th of the following September, the presbytery having sustained his examination, and heard him profess “the Westminster Confession of Faith, to be the confession of his faith,” granted him “free license and liberty to preach the gospel of Christ.”