The following year, 1739, when the records of the presbytery of New Brunswick came to be reviewed by the synod, that body declared the licensing of Mr. Rowland “to be very disorderly, and admonished the said presbytery to avoid such divisive courses for the future; and determined not to admit the said Mr. Rowland to be a preacher of the gospel within our bounds, nor to encourage any of our people to accept him, until he submit to such examinations as were appointed by this synod for those that have had a private education. This overture,” it is added, “was carried in the affirmative by a great majority.”

The presbytery seem to have anticipated this result, as they came prepared with their “Apology for dissenting from two acts or new religious laws passed at the last session of the synod.” This was a long argumentative paper, containing not merely the specific objections of its authors against the two acts in question, but a formal statement of their principles as to church government. They premise, therefore, 1. That there is a parity or equality of power among gospel ministers. 2. That a presbytery, or the smallest association of ministers, has power from Christ to ordain. 3. That consequently they have authority to judge of the qualifications of candidates for ordination. In the further exposition of their sentiments, they state, 1. That presbyteries are bound to inquire into the fitness of candidates for the sacred office, and admit or refuse them according to their best judgment. 2. That they have power to deny church communion to such, as by plain scriptural directions are unqualified for it. 3. In cases of conscience, or in cases regularly brought before them from particular congregations, they ought to give their deliberate judgment, with their best counsel and advice. 4. They have liberty to agree among themselves upon such things as appear to have a good tendency to advance religion, and to engage themselves voluntarily to the observance of these things, provided they do not encroach upon the liberties of the people, nor pretend to bind their dissenting members to observe their agreements, who may have a different view and apprehension of them. 5. That it is reasonable and useful that synods consisting of several presbyteries meet together, when matters may be brought by appeal or reference from particular presbyteries, in order to obtain the judgment and sentiments of a greater number upon them. And accordingly, it is no doubt their duty to take such cases under their consideration, and to give their best advice on them; but we think that they should not proceed with any further authority, except in such cases wherein God has given particular obvious directions in his word, which are to be exactly followed; and even then they do no more than show from Scripture, what are the mind and direction of God in such cases, and declare their own resolution to act according thereto, as far as they are concerned.

The rule relating to itinerants as it then stood, forbade any minister belonging to one presbytery to preach to a congregation belonging to another, if warned by a member of the latter presbytery that his preaching would be likely to cause division. This prohibition was to operate only until the presbytery to which the congregation belonged, could consider the case and give the itinerant liberty to preach or not, as they saw fit. To this rule the authors of this apology objected, that it had no foundation in Scripture; that it was at variance with the command which required ministers to be instant in season and out of season; that it deprived ministers and people of privileges which Christ had given them; that the exercise of the ministerial office might be suspended for a time by one man, and that not for any fault; that any minister by the aforesaid act is invested with a power to lord it over his brethren, and to inflict upon him the most grievous church censures, and that upon mere conjecture; and finally that it was inconsistent with the right which belonged to ruling elders to invite a regular member of another presbytery to preach among them one Sabbath on his travels. This remonstrance led to a modification of the rule, which was so altered as to direct that complaint should be made to the presbytery, in case any one thought the preaching of the stranger productive of evil, and that it should be left to the presbytery to decide whether he should continue to preach. In this form it passed unanimously. These brethren, however, were no better satisfied than before, and the next year the rule was repealed.

To the rule relating to the examination of candidates, they objected, 1. That it was unscriptural; there being no direction in the Scriptures, that a candidate should be examined by a committee of synod, before being examined by a presbytery. 2. That it was uncharitable, inasmuch as it supposed insufficiency or unfaithfulness in the presbyteries. 3. That it was anti-scriptural, as it hindered or impaired the exercise of the power of presbyteries in the examination of students, a duty enjoined upon them in the Scriptures. 4. That it was unjust, as it impaired a power given by Christ, against the will and conscience of its possessors. 5. That it was unnecessary; presbyteries having tried young men ever since the synod was formed. 6. That it was anti-presbyterial, and by taking from presbyteries their proper business, tended to make them useless.

Not satisfied with these specific objections, they attacked the general principle on which, as they supposed, these rules were founded. They say, “We humbly conceive that the aforesaid acts, in their present form, are founded upon a false hypothesis, namely, that a majority of synods or other church judicatories, have a power committed to them from Christ to make new rules, acts, or canons about religious matters, on this ground, viz: That they judge them to be either not against or agreeable to the general directions of the word, and serviceable to religion, which shall be binding on those who conscientiously dissent therefrom, on certain penalties, which are to be inflicted upon those who judge the acts they enforce, to be contrary to the mind of Christ, and prejudicial to the interest of his kingdom. This is, in brief, a legislative, or law-making power in religious matters, and this we do utterly disclaim and renounce.”

Against any such power as that here described, they argued, 1. That Christ has not given such authority to church judicatories, or required his people to submit to it. 2. It is an invasion of Christ’s kingly office. 3. It involves a reflexion on the perfection of the Scriptures, as though they did not contain a sufficient rule of duty. 4. It is inconsistent with Christian liberty. 5. It is incompatible with the rights of conscience and of private judgment. 6. This power supposes either that the church is infallible, or that she can make what is wrong in itself, right by commanding it. 7. If such a power belongs to the church, then the reformation and dissent from the Church of England, must be condemned. 8. Such religious laws are superstitious and uncharitable. 9. The power complained of would open a door for an intolerable bondage, and expose men to be persecuted for conscience sake.

It will appear in the sequel, that as to this latter point, viz: the power to make laws to bind the conscience, there was no dispute between the two parties. Such a power was never claimed by any presbyterian. Still this apology greatly widened the opening breach. It made the difficulty, to all appearance, one of principle instead of detail. It was no longer a question, whether a particular rule was just, but whether a church judicatory had, on any occasion, the right to bind its dissenting members. This paper seemed to allow, even in cases of appeal, nothing beyond advisory power either to synods or presbyteries. It was therefore regarded as a formal renunciation on the part of its authors, of the fundamental principles of presbyterianism. It is true, they did not so intend it, yet it was so understood, and that according to its most obvious meaning. The unfortunate character of this apology was no doubt due to Mr. Gilbert Tennent, whose impress it very distinctly bears. As a controversialist he had two prominent characteristics. The one was the habit, on all occasions, of recurring to first principles. He was not contented to object to the thing in debate, but was sure to attack the hypothesis, as he termed it, on which it was founded. This habit often got him into difficulty; for his mind, though vigorous and on many subjects well furnished, was neither discriminating nor logical. Hence, in the statement of his principles he rarely attended to those qualifications, which he himself soon found to be necessary. His controversial writings, therefore, are full of inconsistencies and contradictions, so that his authority may be fairly quoted on either side of almost every question in the discussion of which he was engaged. Another of his characteristics was a fondness for exaggeration. Every thing was stated in extremes. This was remarked by his opponents, who complained that he could not say a thing was uncharitable, but he must needs call it “a bloody, murderous charity.” Thus in the present case, he could not deny that church judicatories could bind him to what he considered unscriptural and sinful, without appearing to deny that they could bind him to any thing.

The opposition of the New Brunswick brethren led to a modification of the rule respecting the examination of candidates. Instead of this examination being conducted by a committee, it was determined that it should be performed by the synod itself or its commission. As thus modified it was adopted by a great majority. The dissentients among the ministers, were William Tennent, Sen’r., Gilbert Tennent, William Tennent, Jun’r., Charles Tennent, Samuel Blair, and Eleazer Wales. As Mr. G. Tennent declared, that he believed the rule was designed to operate against his father’s school, his opponents retorted that the opposition to it was a mere family concern. Of the six dissenting or protesting brethren, as they were commonly called, four were Tennents, the fifth a pupil and friend, and the sixth a co-presbyter and neighbour. Whatever unworthy motive may, on either side, have mingled with better feelings, there is no doubt that the majority, which included almost the whole synod, were influenced in the adoption of the rule in question, by a sincere desire to secure an adequately educated ministry, and the minority by an equally conscientious belief, that the operation of the rule would be inimical to the progress of religion in the church.

The New Brunswick presbytery having taken its stand, continued to disregard the above mentioned rule. In the course of the year 1739, they ordained Mr. Rowland sine titulo, which was then a very uncommon thing; and licensed Mr. McCrea.3 In 1740 they licensed Mr. William Robinson, and Mr. Samuel Finley;2 and in no one of these cases did they comply with the requisition of synod.

In order to a proper understanding of this period of our history, it is obviously important to have a clear idea of the merits of the controversy between the New Brunswick presbytery and the other members of the synod. Was that presbytery justifiable in disregarding the rule respecting the examination of candidates? It will be seen that all their objections to the rule in question, as presented in their apology, resolve themselves into one, viz: That since Christ has given to presbyteries the power of ordination, the rule was an unwarrantable interference with their privileges. To call this interference, under so many distinct heads, antiscriptural, uncharitable, unjust, and anti-presbyterial, does not make so many separate arguments. The single question is, was there any unwarrantable interference, on the part of the synod, with the rights of the presbyteries? Mr. Tennent disposes of this question in a very summary manner. He thought the case was settled by saying, that as the presbyteries had the right to ordain, this involved of necessity the right to judge for themselves of the qualifications of the candidate. He seems, however, to have overlooked the obvious consideration, that the powers of a presbytery acting by itself, are necessarily and justly limited, when it comes to form one body with other presbyteries. The question was not, what a presbytery considered in itself might do, but what a presbytery making a constituent part of a whole church might properly do? Among Episcopalians the right of ordination is held to belong to bishops, and that by divine right. Yet no bishop can spurn the canons of his church, which prescribe the qualifications of priests or deacons, as antiscriptural, uncharitable, and unjust, because they interfere with the free exercise of his power to ordain. If he chooses to act with other bishops, and form a part of an extended church, he must exercise his power in submission to general agreements, and all complaints of limiting his authority are unreasonable. If he wishes to be untrammelled, he must act by himself. The case is much stronger with regard to presbyteries; because when a man is ordained in our church, he becomes not merely a member of presbytery, but of the synod also. He is authorized to exercise jurisdiction over his brethren; he is one of those to whom they promise subjection in the Lord; he is entitled to sit in judgment on their character, orthodoxy, and conduct. Every member of the synod, therefore, has a right to know that he is properly qualified for such an office. If to secure this object, the synod agreed that all who are admitted to this sacred trust should have certain qualifications; all the members are bound to submit or to leave the body. It would be a strange usurpation to allow a small minority to force into membership and authority, men whom two-thirds or four-fifths of the body were unwilling to receive. Yet this was precisely what Mr. Tennent and his associates insisted upon. They claimed the right of making men members of the synod, and thus judges of their brethren, to whom they were unwilling to be subject. The synod had agreed that none but graduates of colleges, or those who had an equivalent education, should be allowed to sit as members. They believed such an education requisite in order to the proper discharge of the duties of the ministry and of synodical membership. Those who thought differently, had a right to oppose the adoption of the rule; and if they were unable with a good conscience to submit to it, they had a right to withdraw and to act on their own plan; but they assuredly had no right to insist that their brethren should admit to membership, and submit to their authority, men whom they did not think qualified, or who refused to give the stipulated evidence of their competency. This would be to make the minority rule the majority. It was in this light the matter presented itself to Mr. Tennent’s opponents. They therefore accused him of a determination to domineer over his brethren, and to have his own way in matters which concerned the whole synod, as much as the presbytery of New Brunswick. The unreasonableness of this course was so obvious, that the Tennents stood almost alone in their opposition. This is not merely inferred from the fact that the rule respecting candidates was adopted three times by “a great majority;” but it is distinctly stated that the New York presbytery, and especially Messrs. Dickinson, Pierson, and Pemberton, sided with the majority on all these questions.

It must be borne in mind that, at this period, the synod was not only the highest judicatory of the church, but it included all the presbyteries. Its determination or acts, therefore, were of the same nature with our constitutional rules when adopted by a majority of the presbyteries. They were the expression of the will of the whole church. In the particular case under consideration, all the presbyteries, without an exception, sanctioned the rule in question, because it was adopted before the organization of the presbytery of New Brunswick. And when that presbytery objected, there were four presbyteries for the rule and one against it. The conduct of the New Brunswick presbytery, therefore, was precisely analogous to that of the Cumberland presbytery, at a later period of our history, who refused to comply with the constitutional provisions as to the qualifications of candidates; or to that of any presbytery who should insist on licensing and ordaining men destitute of a knowledge of Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, or such as refused to adopt the Westminster Confession. This may indeed often happen, but when it does occur it is an obvious breach of faith; it is a violation of the compact which the presbyteries have bound themselves to observe. And when any presbytery ordains any man who has not the constitutional qualifications as to learning, orthodoxy, or experimental religion, a positive and grievous wrong is inflicted on all the other presbyteries.

It will hardly be denied that any number of presbyteries have a right to meet together and fix their terms of communion; to agree upon the rules to be observed in admitting men to the ministry, and thus investing them with a joint authority over all the members of the body. This is a right exercised by every church in the world. The Episcopalians have their canons; the Methodists their book of discipline; and even the Congregationalists their Cambridge and Saybrook Platforms. It was therefore no unusual or unreasonable proceeding on the part of the synod, embracing all the presbyteries in connexion with the church, to agree on the terms on which men should be admitted to the ministry. They had exercised this power before, and they continued to exercise it afterwards. Neither Mr. Tennent nor any of his associates objected to the act of 1729, requiring the presbyteries to make the adoption of the Westminster Confession a preliminary to ordination. Yet the presbyteries had as much reason to complain of that act, as encroaching on their prerogative to judge of the orthodoxy of their candidates, as they had to complain of the act of 1738, as interfering with the right to judge of their literary qualifications. It is a decisive proof that there was nothing in the latter rule, which transcended the acknowledged power of the synod, that when the synod of New York was formed in 1745, it was made one of their fundamental articles of agreement, that all determinations of the synod should be obeyed, whenever the body thought fit to insist upon them as necessary to the well-being of the church; and that those who could not conscientiously submit should peaceably withdraw. A similar provision was unanimously adopted by the two synods at the time of their union in 1758. What is still more to the point, in the way of acknowledgment is, that at the first conference between the commissions of the two synods with a view to the union, held in 1749, this very contested rule was proposed for adoption as one of the conditions, and assented to by every commissioner from the synod of New York; Mr. Gilbert Tennent alone objecting to synodical examination of candidates, though he assented to their being required to produce a college diploma. With this the synod of Philadelphia were perfectly satisfied.

There was, therefore, no more interference with the rights of presbyteries in this case, than must ever take place, when several presbyteries unite and agree on what terms they will constitute one body. There was no greater interference than had been exercised by the synod on previous occasions, or than takes place now under our present constitution, which in so many ways limits the presbyteries in the exercise of their prerogatives.

This rule, however, has been objected to on another ground. It has been said that it was founded on the unwarrantable assumption on the part of the synod of the right to exercise presbyterial powers. To this two answers may be given. In the first place, the right of the synod to exercise such powers was then universally recognised. The synod was regarded as a larger presbytery, and possessed of presbyterial prerogatives. There was scarcely one of the functions of a presbytery which it did not exercise, whenever occasion called for it. It received, installed, and ordained men without the slightest objection from any quarter. This was done by the old synod before the schism, by each of the two synods during the separation, and by the united synod after the union. However inconsistent this may be with our present views and habits, it is evident that the objection just stated, could not have been consistently urged at that time by any party in the church. In the second place, this examination of candidates was not considered a presbyterial act. It was not performed by the synod in its character of a presbytery, but as the substitute of the officers of a college. After this synodical examination the candidate was examined by his presbytery, just as he was after his reception of a college diploma. He might be as freely rejected, if, in the judgment of the presbytery incompetent, his synodical certificate notwithstanding, as he could be notwithstanding his diploma. The synod did not propose to take the examination of candidates out of the hands of the presbyteries, but simply to provide something which should have the same general significance and value for the whole church, that the evidence of graduation in a regular college possessed. Hence the defenders of the rule said, “The debate is neither in whole nor in part, who are intrusted with the power of ordination; but whether the right of choosing professors for colleges, or tutors for academies, belongs to the higher or lower church judicatures; and in case there be no professors, to take the regular examination of scholars privately educated, whether the right of choosing examiners to supply the room, or want of professors in examining scholars in the useful parts of academical learning, should be entrusted to synods or presbyteries.”

We cannot but think, therefore, that the New Brunswick presbytery, at least at this stage of the controversy, were in the wrong. The synod laid claim to no power either unreasonable in itself, or inconsistent with the uniform practice and acknowledged constitution of the church, as it then existed. The claim to inordinate power was all on the other side. It was a claim of a right to act in direct opposition to the will of a society regularly expressed, and yet to continue a member of it. It was in short a claim of the minority to govern the majority.

The controversy on this subject was not confined to the floor of the synod; it soon produced difficulties in the congregations and presbyteries. In March 1738, a portion of the people of Maidenhead and Hopewell, dissatisfied with the preaching of Mr. Guild, who was not at that time settled as their pastor, applied to the presbytery of Philadelphia for liberty to hear some other candidate. This permission was readily granted. In the fall of the same year they applied to the newly erected presbytery of New Brunswick, “informing them they had liberty granted them by their presbytery to invite and receive any regular candidate from any other parts to preach among them, which also appeared by a writing from Mr. Andrews, which they adduced, and supplicating that Mr. Rowland might come among them;” and the presbytery “granted him liberty of so doing.” As soon as this fact came to the knowledge of the Philadelphia presbytery, they entered on their records the following minute: “The presbytery being informed that Mr. Rowland has not complied with the order of the last synod, relating to the examination of students by a committee of synod appointed for that end; that he was hastily passed over in his trials by the presbytery of New Brunswick, in direct opposition to the said order of synod; and that Mr. Rowland had information from Mr. Cowell of the irregularity of his licensing, advising him not to preach at Hopewell at the said time; and he not attending presbytery, although he knew of this time of its meeting; upon which considerations the presbytery unanimously concluded they cannot accept of Mr. Rowland as an orderly licensed preacher, nor approve of his preaching any more among the said people of Maidenhead or Hopewell, or in any other of the vacancies within our bounds, until his way be cleared by complying with the order of synod aforesaid.”2 This prohibition had no effect upon the dissatisfied portion of the people, nor upon Mr. Rowland, who continued to preach with the full consent of his own presbytery, as though it had not been made.

In order to free themselves from restraint on this subject, the people applied to the presbytery of Philadelphia, to be formed into a distinct congregation. This the presbytery agreed to do upon condition, that in case they could not agree with the other portion of the congregation as to the site of the new place of worship, that matter should be referred to the decision of the presbytery. To this the people assented, declaring “that they acknowledged the authority of the presbytery, and would submit to its determination.” They were accordingly constituted a church by themselves, whereupon they immediately requested to be allowed to join the presbytery of New Brunswick. To this the presbytery of course replied, that they must first fulfil the engagements into which they had just entered. Of this decision the people complained to the synod in 1739, who “judged that the people had behaved with great indecency towards their presbytery, by their unmannerly reflections, and unjust aspersions both upon the synod and presbytery, and that they had acted very disorderly in approving Mr. Rowland as a preacher among them, when they were advised by the presbytery that he was not to be esteemed and approved as an orderly candidate of the ministry. And the synod,” it is added, “do wholly disallow the said complainants being erected into a new congregation until they do first submit to the determination of the place for erecting a new meeting-house to their presbytery, as was formerly agreed upon as a condition of their being a separate congregation. This overture was approved by a great majority. And it is further ordered by the synod, that when the presbytery of Philadelphia meet at Maidenhead and Hopewell, to fix the place of a new meetinghouse, they shall call the following correspondents, Messrs. John Pierson, John Nutman, Samuel Blair, Nathaniel Hubbell, and Eleazer Wales.” There is evidence in this decision of a desire on the part of the synod to have full justice done the complainants; as all these correspondents were members of the presbyteries of New Brunswick and New York. A further proof that there was no disposition to thwart the reasonable wishes of the people as to their ecclesiastical connexions, is found in the fact that, in the following year, the request of the two congregations of Newtown and Tinicum, to be set off from the presbytery of Philadelphia to that of New Brunswick, was “readily granted.” The decision of the synod respecting the congregation of Hopewell produced no effect. The people, Mr. Rowland, and the presbytery of New Brunswick all disregarded it. Here again it must be acknowledged that the Brunswick brethren were in the wrong. The congregation of Hopewell was not within their bounds; the presbytery to which the people belonged, and whose authority they formally acknowledged, disapproved of their employing Mr. Rowland; the highest judicatory to which they appealed confirmed this decision; and yet the Brunswick presbytery went on as though no such decision had been made, and as though the congregation was regularly under their care. It was not that these brethren denied the authority of the presbytery or synod, for they uniformly acknowledged and exercised this authority; but it was that, in extraordinary cases, ecclesiastical order may be safely disregarded; or in other words, as the presbytery of Philadelphia was indifferent to the spiritual interests of their people, the presbytery of New Brunswick was authorized to take the charge off their hands.2 In thus assuming the incompetency or unfaithfulness of their brethren, and acting as though they had forfeited their usual rights as ministers or judicatories, they unavoidably occasioned alienation and contention.

The presbytery of Philadelphia had another difficulty about Mr. Rowland. When met at Neshaminy, September, 1739, a complaint was brought before them by some members of that congregation against their pastor, the Rev. William Tennent, senior, for having invited Mr. Rowland to preach for him. “Upon which Mr. Tennent was desired to say what he thought proper with relation to his conduct therein, which he accordingly did, and acknowledged that he did invite Mr. Rowland as before mentioned, and withal justified the action, and disclaiming the authority of the presbytery to take cognisance of that matter, he contemptuously withdrew. After which the presbytery had much discourse with the people who had joined with Mr. Tennent in the aforementioned action, admonishing them of the irregularity of the said conduct, and exhorting them not to encourage or consent to any like conduct for the future. They came then to consider what to do with regard to Mr. Tennent in this affair, and concluded they could not do less than condemn said conduct of Mr. Tennent, in inviting Mr. Rowland to preach as aforesaid, as irregular and disorderly, and especially when aggravated by justifying the said action, and indecently withdrawing from the presbytery.”

The opposition of the New Brunswick presbytery to the two acts of synod, relating, the one to itinerant preaching, and the other to the examination of candidates, had produced so much uneasiness in the church, that when the synod met in 1740, a general anxiety was felt to have the difficulty arranged. The former of these two acts was therefore repealed; and various efforts were made to effect such a modification of the second as should meet the views of the New Brunswick brethren. Mr. Dickinson, as mentioned in a former chapter, proposed that the matter in dispute should be referred to some ecclesiastical body in Scotland, Ireland, or England, or to the ministers of Boston. To this Mr. Tennent objected, principally because it would be difficult to draw up a statement of the case in which both parties would agree; because he and his friends had the smiles of God on the course which they were pursuing; and because of the low state of piety among those to whom the reference was to be made. After speaking of the presbyterians in Scotland, Ireland, and England, as having little of the life of religion among them, he added, “By the best information we can get, a dead formality prevails too much in Boston, and many other places in New England. Indeed, we are of opinion, that the majority of church judicatories almost every where, are dead formalists, if they have got even that length; and, therefore, we incline to make no more application to men in the affair aforesaid.”2

It was proposed by a member of the New Brunswick presbytery “that the synod might appoint two of their number to be present at the examination of candidates for the ministry; who, if they found them, (the presbyteries,) guilty of malconduct, might accuse them to the synod.” When it was asked, whether, in the case these delegates objected to the competency of the candidate his licensure would be put off, and the question referred to the synod, the Brunswick brethren declined. So that overture came to nothing.

Mr. Gillespie proposed “that every presbytery should keep a full record of the trials of candidates in the several parts of necessary learning, and exhibit the same to the synod for their satisfaction, at the time of their admission into membership in the synod. Now this, at the first reading was like to take, for it seemed to cut off all colour of plea about infringing the rights of presbyteries, and promised to the synod, at first view, the right of judging the qualifications of their own members. But in order to come to a right understanding in the matter, Mr. Dickinson proposed, whether, in case the account given of the trials of candidates, should give just ground to the synod to judge that said candidates were really deficient in some material parts of useful learning; or in case the candidates should somehow be found out to be deficient, or, upon rational grounds suspected to be so, would Mr. Tennent and his party submit such candidates to the trial or censure of synod, to receive or reject them, as they, upon a fair trial, should form a judgment of their fitness or unfitness? To this Mr. Tennent replied, that he should be willing that the presbytery should be subject to the synod’s censures, in case of maladministration in the matter, but would not consent that the young men should be produced, or be subject to the synod’s censures, when, or if found to be defective. On which the synod dropped the overture, as insufficient to secure the end aimed at in our act, for it now appeared that nothing would content Mr. Tennent, unless the synod would give up the right of judging of the qualifications of their own members.”

After all these unsuccessful attempts to effect a compromise, the question was put, whether the controverted rule should be repealed, or continued until some other expedient could be found, and it was decided that the rule should be continued in force. Against this decision the six ministerial brethren who had protested the year before against the adoption of the rule, renewed their protest, and were joined by Mr. Alexander Creaghead, of the presbytery of Donegal, and Mr. John Cross, of that of New Brunswick. Messrs. Gillespie and Hucheson, of the presbytery of Newcastle, recorded their dissent from the decision, though they did not unite in the protest.

The unhappy state of feeling in which the failure of all efforts at accommodation had left the synod, was greatly aggravated by a new proceeding on the part of Mr. Gilbert Tennent and Mr. Blair. They produced formal papers of complaint against their brethren, which were read not only before the synod, but a promiscuous audience. For this latter circumstance, however, Mr. Blair states that neither Mr. Tennent nor himself was responsible, as he proposed that the synod should be alone when the papers were read. The synod, however, said they were willing that all should hear what those brethren had to produce. Mr. Tennent then rose and read as follows:3

“Moderator and reverend brethren, I think I am obliged in duty to God and you, to present the following paper to your consideration, which contains my reasons for suspecting that a number of the members of this synod are in a carnal state.

“First, their unsoundness in some principal doctrines of Christianity, that relate to experience and practice, as particularly in the following points. 1. That there is no difference between the glory of God and our happiness; that self-love is the foundation of all obedience. These doctrines 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 on a level with him. 2. That there is a certainty of salvation connected to the labours of natural men. This doctrine supposes the greatest falsehood, viz. that there is a free will in man naturally to acceptable good; and is attended with the most dangerous consequences, viz. fixing men upon their own righteousness, and utterly overthrowing the covenant of grace. For if there is a certainty annexed to the endeavours of natural men, it must be by promise; but a promise is a debt. As these opinions are contrary to the express testimony of the Scriptures, our Confession of Faith, and Christian experience, they give me reason to suspect at least that those who hold them are rotten-hearted hypocrites, utter strangers to the saving knowledge of God and of their own hearts.

“Secondly, there be these things in the preaching of some of our members which induces me to suspect the state of their souls, namely, 1. Their preaching seems to be powerless and unsavoury. Christ preached with authority, and not as the scribes. If any object and say, How can they be known? I answer, Christ’s sheep hear his voice. Living men have sense and savour. 2. Too general, not searching sinners’ hearts so narrowly as they ought, nor giving them their different portions, according to the apostle’s directions to Timothy. 3. Soft and flattering. Some seem to be afraid to cry aloud and not to spare; afraid to use the terrors of the Lord to persuade men. This seems too like men-pleasing and fear of the cross, whatever plausible pretences are offered to palliate it, by cowardly, covetous souls, notwithstanding. 4. Legal; many are for crying up duties, duties, and urging natural men to them almost constantly, as if outward things were the whole of religion. Is not this like the foolish builders, to pretend to build a fabric without a foundation? It is true, the externals of religion are to be pressed in their place; but their insufficiency, without inward good principles, should be shown. He, sure, that would build high, must dig deep, and lay the foundation low, but I doubt there are not many among us that open the nature, and urge the necessity of our dangerous state by nature. 5. Unsuccessful, with the appearance of contentedness under it. Aaron’s rod blossomed, and brought forth almonds, while the rest of the rods were dry and barren; and by this the divine call of the tribe was manifested, while bare pretenders were blasted. God will not send ministers for nothing; no, sure, whom he sends, and who stand in his counsel, shall profit the people.

“These things following respecting their practice, incline me to suspect their state. 1. Great stiffness in opinion, generally in smaller matters wherein good men may differ; continual pertness and confidence, as if they were infallible; which shows that the pride of their understanding was never broken, and that they feel not their need of Christ as a prophet. 2. Opposition to God’s servants and work; insisting much upon the real or supposed imprudences of God’s servants, but passing over in silence their valuable qualifications and worthy actions. This looks pharisee-and-devil like, notwithstanding all the colourings of crafty men. 3. That there is no knowing of people’s states. Though there is no infallible knowledge of the estates of some attainable, yet there is a satisfactory knowledge to be attained. Ministers crying out against this, is an evidence of their unfaithfulness in neglecting to use the properest means to convince sinners of their damnable state. It shows also their ignorance of divine things; or manifests their consciousness of their own hypocrisy and fear of discovery. 4. Letting men out into the ministry without so much as examining them about their Christian experience, notwithstanding 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 a tendency to the church of God! Is it probable that truly gracious persons would thus slight the precious souls of men? 5. More zeal for outward order than for the main points of practical religion. Witness the committee’s slighting and shuffling the late debate about the glory of God, and their present contention about the committee-act. This is too much like the zeal of the old pharisees in tithing mint, anise, and cummin, while they neglected the weightier matters of the law.

“These things, my brethren, I mention in the fear and love of God, without personal prejudice against any. That God who knows my heart is witness, that I heartily desire the conviction of those ministers whom I suspect, and that they may be as burning and shining lights in the church of God. But I am obliged in faithfulness to God and the souls of men, to make mention of these things, which are distressing to my heart, as some of the reasons why I protest against all restraints in preaching the everlasting gospel in this degenerate state of the church. Rules which are serviceable in ordinary cases, when the church is stocked with a faithful ministry, are notoriously prejudicial when the church is oppressed with a carnal ministry. Besides the remarkable success that God has given of late to Mr. Whitefield’s travelling labours, and several others in this country, makes me abhor the slavish schemes of bigots, as to confinement in preaching the blessed gospel of Christ. I am, reverend gentlemen, your well wisher and humble servant, Gilbert Tennent.”

The paper read by Mr. Blair contained the same general complaints. Though milder in its language, it probably gave quite as much offence, as he was at that time comparatively a young man, and addressed himself to men, some of whom were in the ministry before he was born, and who hath hitherto enjoyed the confidence of the church, and led lives of great labour and self-denial in her service.

This whole proceeding, though doubtless well intended, was in every point of view exceptionable. The charges were in general so vague, that they could neither be proved nor disproved; they rested on hearsay evidence, for it is not to be supposed that Mr. Tennent or Mr. Blair had many opportunities of hearing how all their brethren preached; and worst of all they were addressed indiscriminately against the body in general; thus the innocent and guilty were made to suffer alike. The synod and the large audience which crowded the house, were made to know that Mr. Tennent thought that many, or most of his brethren were in “a carnal state;” but who were intended no one could tell. Some of his charges referred specifically to many of the best men in the synod; others might be applied to any or every one, just as the hearers pleased. The other members of the synod of course expostulated with these brethren on the impropriety of this course, and “earnestly pressed and entreated them to spare no man in the synod whom they could prove to be unsound in doctrine or immoral in practice, but prayed them only to take Christ’s methods with all such, and not to condemn the innocent with the guilty.” To this Mr. Tennent replies, “we did then offer to prove the matters of charge against particular members, if the synod required it, but this was waved.”2 This is not a very fair statement. The synod very properly waved taking up Mr. Tennent’s vague charges, and themselves instituting process on the ground of them. They urged him, however, to proceed properly, “by tabling charges in a regular way, against particular persons, and not to blacken all.” Mr. Tennent and Mr. Blair “frankly owned,” that they had not “spoken with the persons intended in the said libels,” and that they had not “made any regular inquiries into the truth of said reports.” The synod then declined proceeding with the matter until the persons aimed at had been apprised of the charges, and until they “had been regularly tried in their respective presbyteries.”4 And this trial these brethren were urged to institute at once. This course was urged upon them on another occasion not long afterwards. For it is stated, that “Messrs. Gilbert Tennent, Samuel Blair, and Charles Tennent were most earnestly pressed by the presbytery of Newcastle to spare none of their number, but to table their complaints against them, if they could convict any of them of any thing unbecoming a minister of the gospel. Nay, Mr. Gillespie entreated them in open presbytery, for the Lord’s sake to do so; but all to no purpose.” Mr. Tennent’s answer to this was, “That the said proposal was matter of suprise to him; that he had no thought about any such thing before it was mentioned in the face of the judicatory; that his meeting with the presbytery was merely accidental; and that his entering on a judicial process was inconsistent with his design and appointments of itinerary preaching.”2 He certainly then ought not to have made the charges, unless he could stop to prove them. Besides, the presbytery told him they would wait his leisure; or he might “leave them an account of the matter in writing, if he could not attend their meeting; and that they would take it any way.”

The conduct of Mr. Tennent and his friends in thus condemning his brethren unheard, seems to have produced a deep and general feeling of disapprobation. Before the New York brethren would consent to join with these New Brunswick brethren, in the formation of a new synod, it was expressly stipulated, that “if any member of their body supposes that he hath any thing to object against any of his brethren, with respect to error in doctrine, immorality in life, or negligence in his ministry, he shall on no account propagate the scandal, until the person objected against is dealt with according to the rules of the gospel, and the known methods of their discipline.” And it has already been mentioned that Mr. Tennent himself, as soon as the excitement of the revival had subsided, condemned with unsparing severity the “God-provoking sin” of rashly judging men to be graceless who were sound in essential doctrines, and regular in their lives. At this time, however, as he says himself, he abhorred all confinement in preaching the gospel, and would keep no terms with any man who did not come up to the standard of his own ardent zeal.

It was in this year he preached his famous Nottingham sermon on the danger of an unconverted ministry. As this sermon may be regarded as one of the principal causes of the schism, it demands particular attention. His text was Mark 6:34. “Jesus, when he came out, saw much people and was moved with compassion towards them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd;” from which he deduces the following proposition. “The case of such is much to be pitied who have no other but pharisee-shepherds or unconverted teachers.” Under the first head of his sermon, he describes the character of the ancient pharisees, which he unfolds under the heads of pride, policy, malice, ignorance, covetousness, and bigotry to human inventions in religious matters. “Although,” he says, “some of the old pharisee shepherds had a very fair and strict outside, yet were they ignorant of the new birth. Witness Rabbi Nicodemus, who talked like a fool about it. Hear how our Lord cursed those plastered hypocrites. Matthew 23:27, 28. Ay, if they had but a little of the learning then in fashion, and a fair outside, they were presently put into the priest’s office, though they had no experience of the new birth. O sad! The old pharisees, for all their prayers and other pious pretences, had their eyes with Judas fixed on the bag. Why, they came into the priest’s office for a piece of bread; they took it up as a trade, and therefore endeavoured to make the best market of it they could. O shame!”

Under his second head, he shows why those who have no other than pharisee teachers are to be pitied. His reasons are, 1. Because natural men have no call of God to the ministry, under the gospel dispensation. 2. Because the ministry of natural men is uncomfortable to gracious souls. 3. The ministry of natural men is for the most part unprofitable. “What if some instances could be shown of unconverted ministers being instrumental of convincing sinners of their lost state? The thing is very rare and extraordinary. And for what I know, as many instances may be given of Satan’s convincing persons by his temptations. Indeed it is a kind of chance-medley, both in respect of the father and his children, when any such event happens. And is not this the reason why a work of conviction and conversion has been so rarely heard of for a long time in the churches till of late, viz: That the bulk of her spiritual guides are stone blind and stone dead.” 4. The ministry of natural men is dangerous, both in respect to the doctrines and practice of piety. “The doctrines of original sin, justification by faith alone, and the other points of Calvinism, are very cross to the grain of unrenewed nature. And though men, by the influence of a good education, and hopes of preferment, may have the edge of their natural enmity against them blunted, yet it is far from being broken or removed. It is only the saving grace of God that can give us a true relish for those nature-humbling doctrines, and so effectually secure us from being infected by the contrary.”

In answer to the objection to what he had said about the ministry of natural men, that Judas was sent by Christ, he answers, 1. That the ministry of Judas was partly legal. 2. That it was extraordinarily necessary in order to fulfil some ancient prophecies concerning him. “I fear that the abuse of this instance, has brought many Judases into the ministry, whose chief desire, like their great grandfather, is to finger the pence and carry the bag. But let such hireling murderous hypocrites take care that they dont feel the force of a halter in this world, and an aggravated damnation in the next.”

Under the third head he shows “how pity should be expressed on this mournful occasion.” 1. We should mourn over those who are destitute of a faithful ministry, and sympathize with them. 2. We should pray for them, and especially pray the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth faithful labourers into his harvest. 3. We should join our endeavours to our prayers. “The most likely method to stock the church with a faithful ministry, in the present state of things, the public academies being so much corrupted and abused generally, is to encourage private schools or seminaries of learning, which are under the care of skilful and experienced Christians, into which those only should be admitted, who, upon a strict examination have, in the judgment of charity, the plain evidences of experimental religion.”

His first inference from his subject is, “If it be so, that the case of those who have no other and no better than pharisee teachers is to be pitied, then what a scroll and scene of mourning, lamentation, and woe is opened, because of the swarms of locusts, the crowds of pharisees, that have as covetously as cruelly crept into the ministry, in this adulterous generation! who as nearly resemble the character given of the old pharisees, in the doctrinal part of this discourse, as one crow’s egg does another. It is true some of the modern pharisees have learned to prate a little more orthodoxly about the new birth, than their predecessor Nicodemus, who are, in the meantime, as great strangers to the feeling experience of it as he. They are blind who see not this to be the case of the body of the clergy of this generation.”

2. “From what has been said, we may learn that such who are contented under a dead ministry, have not in them the temper of that Saviour they profess. It is an awful sign, that they are as blind as moles, and as dead as stones, without any spiritual taste and relish. And alas! is not this the case of multitudes? If they can get one that has the name of a minister, with a band, and a black coat or gown, to carry on a sabbath-day among them, although never so coldly and unsuccessfully, if he is free from gross crimes in practice, and takes care to keep at a due distance from their consciences, and is never troubled by his unsuccessfulness, O! think, the poor fools, that is a fine man indeed, our minister is a prudent charitable man, he is not always harping upon terror, nor sounding damnation in our ears, like some rash-headed ministers.”

3. Such as enjoy a faithful ministry should glorify God on that account, and walk worthy of so distinguished a privilege.

4. “If the ministry of natural men be as it has been described, then it is both lawful and expedient to go from them to hear godly persons; yea, it is so far from being sinful to do this, that one who lives under a pious minister of lesser gifts, after having honestly endeavoured to get benefit by his ministry, and yet gets little or none, but doth find real benefit, and more benefit elsewhere, I say, he may lawfully go, and that frequently, where he gets most benefit to his precious soul, after regular application to the pastor where he lives, for his consent, and proposing the reasons thereof; when this is done in the spirit of love and meekness, without contempt of any, as also without rash anger, or vain curiosity.” He then argues at length the propriety of people leaving their pastors, first, when the pastor is pious, but of inferior gifts; and secondly, when he is unconverted. As to the former case, he says, it is matter of instinct to seek the greater good in preference to the less; we are commanded to covet earnestly the best gifts; there is diversity of gifts among ministers, and God ordinarily blesses the best gifts to the greater edification of the people; as people have a right to the gifts of all God’s ministers, they may use them as they have opportunity; Christ did not reprove John’s disciples for coming to hear himself, not only on week days, but on the Sabbath; to bind men to a particular minister against their inclination is carnal with a witness, it is a cruel oppression of tender consciences, and an infringement of Christian liberty; if the great end of hearing can be better attained elsewhere, then, “I see not why we should be under a fatal necessity of hearing our parish minister, perpetually or generally.”

With regard to the latter case he is more strenuous. “If it be lawful to withdraw from the ministry of a pious man in the case aforesaid, how much more from the ministry of a natural man? Surely it is both lawful and expedient, for the reasons offered in the doctrinal part of this discourse; to which let me add a few words more.”

The additional considerations which he urges are the following. 1. It is unwise to trust the care of our souls to those who have no care of their own. 2. God does not ordinarily use the ministry of his enemies to turn others to be his friends. God has not given any promise that he will bless the labours of natural men. If he had he would be as good as his word; but I can neither see nor hear of any blessing upon these men’s labours, unless it be a rare wonderful instance of chance-medley; whereas the ministry of faithful men blossoms and bears fruit, as the rod of Aaron. 3. We are commanded to turn away from such as have the form of godliness, but deny the power thereof. 4. Our Lord advised his disciples to beware of the leaven of the pharisees, by which he meant their doctrine and hypocrisy, which were both sour enough. 5. He refers to Matt. 15:12, &c. “Then came his disciples and said unto him, Knowest thou that the pharisees were offended? And he answered and said, Every plant that my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone; they be blind leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”

He next considers the objections to such a course, as, 1. We are commanded to hear those who sit in Moses’ seat. This only means that we are bound to obey the lawful commands of the civil magistrates. 2. Such a practice would cause contentions among the people. It may occasion them, but not properly cause them. If we give up every duty that is the occasion of contention and division, we must give up powerful religion altogether. 3. 1 Cor. 1:12, which speaks of Paul and Apollos, is not against the course recommended, for that only speaks of making sects. 4. Such a course would tend to grieve our parish minister, and to break up congregations. “If our parish minister be grieved at our greater good, or prefer his credit before it, then he has good cause to grieve over his own rottenness and hypocrisy. And as for breaking of congregations to pieces, upon account of people’s going from place to place to hear the word, with a view to get greater good, that spiritual blindness and deadness which so generally prevail, will put this out of danger. It is but a few that have got any spiritual relish. The most will venture their souls with any formalist, and be well satisfied with the sapless discourses of such dead drones.” 5. Paul and Apollos are said to be nothing. True, they were nothing as efficient causes, but they were something as instruments. 6. Finally, it is objected, people do not get more good over their parish line, for they are out of God’s way. There are three monstrous ingredients in this objection, a begging the question, rash judging, and limiting of God. It is a mean thing in reasoning to beg the question in debate. Let it be proved that they are out of God’s way. It is rash judging to say people do not get good, when we cannot know it to be so; and it is to limit God to confine him to one mode of action.

He concludes by exhorting those who have a faithful ministry, to make a speedy and sincere use of so rare a privilege. He exhorts gracious souls to pity those who have none but pharisee-teachers. He urges “those who live under the ministry of dead men, whether they have the form of religion or not, to repair to the living, where they may be edified; let who will oppose it.” He exhorts vacant congregations to be very careful in trying those whom they think of calling as pastors. “I beseech you, my brethren, to consider that there is no probability of your getting good by the ministry of pharisees; for they are no shepherds, (no faithful ones,) in Christ’s account. They are as good as none; nay, worse than none on some accounts. For take them first and last, they do more harm than good. They strive to keep better men out of the places where they live; nay, when the life of piety comes near their quarters, they rise up in arms against it, as a common enemy that discovers and condemns their craft and hypocrisy. And with what art, rhetoric, and appearances of piety, will they varnish their opposition of Christ’s kingdom! As the magicians imitated the wonders of Moses, so do false apostles and deceitful workers, the apostles of Christ.”

This sermon had an extensive circulation. Two editions of it were published in Philadelphia, and a third in Boston. Two of the principal grounds of complaint against Mr. Tennent and his friends, were the censorious condemnation of their brethren, and the encouragement they gave the people to separate from their pastors. Though this sermon was by no means the only ground of these complaints, it was one of the most tangible proofs of their justice, and hence was constantly appealed to in the controversies of that day. On this account a knowledge of its contents and character is necessary to a proper understanding of the history of the period now under consideration.

In this discourse Mr. Tennent describes the body of the ministers of that generation as letter-learned pharisees, plastered hypocrites, having the form of godliness but destitute of its power. That this description was intended to apply to his brethren in the synod, it is believed was never doubted. Considering the circumstances under which it was delivered, and his frequent avowals of similar sentiments respecting them on other occasions, it could hardly have any other application. In the sermon itself he tells the people that the reason why they had seen so few cases of conviction or conversion among them, was, that “the bulk of their spiritual guides were stone blind and stone dead.” In answer to the criticism which it occasioned, he says, “When I composed it, I expected it would be judged, by that tribe which it detected, as guilty of scandalum magnatum, as worthy of stripes and of bonds. I supposed it would be like rousing a wasp’s nest, and I have found it according to my expectations. The opposers of God’s work have dipt their tongues and pens in gall, and by their malignant invectives have endeavoured to bury its author in ruins; but peradventure it may have a resurrection to their terror and shame.” Some members of the synod had placed together in dreadful array the terms of invective contained in this discourse. In reference to which he says, “I have heard people of piety and good sense observe upon this popular paragraph, that the gentlemen who had put it together in its present form, had taken a pretty deal of pains to draw their own pictures.”2 He denies that the Nottingham sermon had been the cause of contention; “No,” says he, “the true cause is graceless ministers opposing it. Methinks it would be more to their credit, prudently to let it alone on their own account, for when they keep muttering, growling, and scolding at it, it does but give people ground to suspect, that they are of that unhappy tribe and party themselves, which is therein detected and censured.”

The Nottingham sermon, though the principal printed example of Mr. Tennent’s manner of treating his brethren, is by no means the only one. In most of his controversial writings of this period, he speaks of them as the malignant opposers of true religion, and ascribes their conduct to the most unworthy motives. In a work published in 1743, we find, for example, the following passage. “Give me leave to propose this query to Mr. Thompson and his associates, whether it was because that such as were convinced of sin had generally a less esteem for his ministry, and of some of the rest of his party, that he and some, at least, of them have so fiercely opposed the blessed operations of the Holy Ghost in alarming and convincing a secure world of sin, righteousness, and judgment? If so, is it not selfish and sordid with a witness, and a blow at the root of all piety? For my own part I must say, that I humbly conceive that to be the secret of the story of their opposition, the bottom of the mystery, the true spring of their malignant contending against vital godliness. The false and ungenerous methods, as well as long continuance of their opposition to the work of God, under so much advantage of light and evidence in favour of it, together with their dangerous errors before mentioned, free me from the just imputation or rash judging in thinking as I have expressed.”2

Mr. Tennent was so completely the soul of the party to which he belonged, that without him it never would have existed. He is often, therefore, addressed as the party itself, and his writings and declarations are referred to as speaking the language of his associates. Though the most prominent and the most violent, he was not the only one who indulged in these vehement denunciations of his brethren. Mr. Blair, though a much milder man, was scarcely less severe in his judgments; and Mr. Creaghead, Mr. Finley, and others followed in the same course. Such denunciations as we find in the Nottingham sermon and other writings of that day, cannot be excused on the plea of zeal or fidelity. Their only tendency was to exasperate. Other men as faithful as Mr. Tennent, were never guilty either of his censoriousness or violence. We never hear of any complaints against President Dickinson, Mr. Pierson, Mr. Pemberton, and other active friends of the revival. For these gentlemen the highest respect and the kindest feelings were, on all occasions, expressed by those who differed from them in opinion, as to the general character and probable results of the religious excitement which then prevailed. There can be no doubt, therefore, that Mr. Tennent’s unhappy violence was one of the principal causes of that entire alienation of feeling, which soon resulted in an open rupture. When such denunciations come from men of doubtful character or feeble intellect, they are commonly and safely disregarded. But when they are hurled by such men as Tennent, men of acknowledged piety and commanding power, they can hardly fail to shatter the society among which they fall. Mr. Tennent became fully sensible of the impropriety of this censorious spirit, and laboured hard to correct the evils it had occasioned. It is difficult to believe that the same man could write the Nottingham Sermon and the Irenicum Ecclesiasticum. The former is full of coarse invective; the latter is distinguished for mildness, liberality, and a conciliatory spirit. And what makes the case the more remarkable, the latter excuses, vindicates, and even praises the very men whom the former denounced. In the Irenicum he lays down the canon, that to declare those persons to be graceless, who are “sound in the fundamental truths of religion, and regular in life,” is a grievous offence against God and the church. Yet the brethren whom he denounced, he describes in general as letter-learned orthodox, having a fair outside, the form of godliness, and even in some cases, a great appearance of religion. They were, therefore, both sound and regular. There is no doubt, however, that he understood his brethren of the synod as coming within the scope of his rule; for it is in express reference to them that he lays it down. His object was to convince the people of his own party, that they had no right to regard those brethren as graceless, and on that ground refuse to unite with them. Mr. Tennent, therefore, being judge, the denunciation of his ministerial brethren was “an evil pregnant with pride, malice, and mischief, though perhaps not perceived or intended; an evil, which under a cloak of misguided zeal for God, Christian liberty, and superior attainments in knowledge and religion, rebelliously opposes the clearest dictates of reason and humanity, and the plainest laws of revealed religion; an evil, that under the pretext of kindness and piety, cruelly rends our neighbour’s character, saps the foundation of the church’s peace, and turns its union, order, and harmony, into the wildest confusion of ungoverned anarchy, schism, prejudice, and hate.”2

The alienation of feeling which existed among the members of the synod, is not to be attributed solely, or even principally to the denunciatory spirit of some of the leading preachers of that day. It was in a great measure due to the intrusion into the congregations of settled ministers, the exhortations given to the people to leave their pastors, when believed to be unconverted or contentedly unsuccessful, and the erection of separate meetings. This was of all grounds of complaint against the New Brunswick brethren, the one most frequently urged. There is abundant evidence that the complaint was well founded. The fact that the synod twice enacted a rule against such intrusions, is evidence that the evil was then felt; and the opposition of the New Brunswick gentlemen to the rule, shows that they “abhorred all confinement in preaching the gospel.” Mr. Blair in the paper read before the synod in 1740, said to his brethren, “Unless we can see hopeful encouraging appearances of a work of God’s converting grace among such ministers, we believe we shall find ourselves obliged in duty to our glorious Lord, to answer the invitations and desires of people groaning under the oppression of a dead unfaithful ministry, by going to preach to them wherever they are.” Mr. Tennent in his Nottingham sermon, teaches that it is both lawful and expedient for the people to forsake the ministry of unconverted men. This he confirms by various arguments, and defends from various objections, and then exhorts the people to act accordingly, saying, “Let those who live under the ministry of dead men, whether they have the form of religion or not, repair to the living.” Nearly one third of the whole discourse, six pages out of twenty, was devoted to this general subject. The presbytery of Donegal state, that in consequence of these divisive schemes, “most congregations in the country are reduced to such disorder and confusion, that the preaching of the word is despised and forsaken, the ministers of the gospel are contemned and evil spoken of, and their public ministrations, and private conduct misrepresented and traduced.”2 At the meeting of the New Brunswick presbytery, on the second day after the schism, applications were made for supplies from about eighteen places, almost all of which were out of the bounds of the presbytery, and came for the most part from fragments of old congregations. There is, therefore, no doubt that separations did extensively take place, and that they were fostered by Mr. Tennent and his friends. Indeed Mr. Tennent himself admits this. In his remarks on the Protest, he says, “That there have been some divisions consequent on our preaching in some places, we acknowledge.”

The answers which he gives to the charge of having encouraged the people to forsake their pastors, are not a little remarkable. He sometimes admits it, sometimes denies it, and sometimes evades it. During the revival he not only asserted the doctrine complained of, but was prepared to justify it. Thus in 1741, in answer to the charge of intrusion and separation, he says, “What is proper in ordinary cases may be prejudicial in extraordinaries. When a church is stocked with a sound, faithful, and lively ministry, no doubt those rules respecting ministers keeping within the bounds of their respective charges, until they are invited in an orderly manner to go elsewhere, may be of service. But on the supposition that a number of ministers are either unsound in doctrine, or unfaithful and contentedly unsuccessful in their work, then is it not lawful to suspend the aforesaid rules for a season?” Again: “No doubt there is a relation between a pastor and his people, but the design of this being to promote their good, we think it unreasonable that it should subsist to the prejudice of that which it was designed to secure. However, in ordinary cases, we think it to be the people’s duty to make regular application to their pastors to go where they can get the most benefit. But when ministers conspire to oppose the work and servants of God, in the most flagrant manner, we see no harm in this case, in their using an extraordinary method.”2 And elsewhere in still stronger language, he says, when ministers habitually oppose the revival, “I see not how any that fear God can contentedly sit under their ministrations, (if they persist as aforesaid,) without becoming accessary to their crimson guilt.” It was, therefore, at that time his opinion that when ministers were unconverted, or contentedly unsuccessful, and especially if they opposed the revival, it was the duty of their people to leave them.

When, however, he saw how these principles were operating in New England, where the separatists had begun to break off from the regular pastors, because they did not come up to their standard of zeal and fidelity, and when the Moravians had begun to make inroads upon some of the presbyterian churches, he in a measure altered his manner of speaking. In April, 1742, he preached several sermons in New York, against the Moravians, which, together with an Appendix, were soon given to the world. In these sermons he condemns many of the opinions and practices of which he had been hitherto considered the advocate. Among other things, he says, “It is an instance of pride to despise and slight ministers or people that are unconverted, or supposed to be so.” “The practice of staying at home rather than going to hear such ministers, sound in principle and regular in practice, as are judged by some to be unconverted, is unscriptural and of dangerous tendency, in my opinion, for it hangs the whole weight of the public worship of God, on the uncertain judgment of men. Though unconverted ministers are not likely to do so much good as others, yet seeing that many of them doubtless, preach the same word of God which others do, why may not a sovereign God, who permits them by his providence to come into the ministry, bless his word delivered by them to the good of mankind?” The inconsistency between these sentiments and those elsewhere advocated by Mr. Tennent, did not escape the notice of his opponents, who arrayed the conflicting assertions in parallel columns.

This attack evidently placed Mr. Tennent in considerable difficulties. The revival and the excitements by which it was attended, had not yet subsided. He was not prepared, therefore, fully and kindly to retract, as he subsequently did, either his censorious condemnation of his brethren, or his divisive principles. He was thus led to endeavour to reconcile and justify both classes of his conflicting statements. One explanation was, that in the sermons against the Moravians, he meant to condemn the practice of separating from ministers who were not only sound and regular, but also “favourers of God’s work,” i.e. the revival. But this last qualification is not found in those sermons. He condemns separation from sound and regular pastors, on the assumption of their being unconverted; and to this he exhorted the people in the Nottingham sermon. A second mode of explanation was, that he only intended, in the Nottingham sermon, to teach that the people might apply for a regular dismission from the congregation to which they belonged. As the pastor might leave the people, so the people might leave the pastor in a regular manner. He says he intended to enjoin on the people to make a regular application to the pastor and session for leave to go elsewhere, assigning their reasons for so doing. “If these reasons are not accounted valid, and the case be really so, they ought to desist. But if they are wronged they ought to appeal to a higher judicatory; but if the case should so happen, that after every appeal they can make, and the most humble and impartial examination of the affair, they firmly think they are wronged, and are conscience-bound in the matter, they ought to judge for themselves and act according to their consciences.”2 That this interpretation of his sermon is at variance with its language need hardly be remarked. It is no less obviously inconsistent with the other explanation, to wit, that the people ought not to leave their ministers, whether converted or not, provided they favoured the revival; but if they opposed it, it was a great sin to adhere to them. And it is certain the above interpretation was never put upon his sermon, either by his friends or opponents. The separatists did not wait to apply to one judicatory after another, but went off without asking or desiring leave.

Mr. Tennent sometimes goes still further, and denies that he ever encouraged separations. In reference to this charge, he says, “It is false; there is not a word in that (Nottingham) sermon which encourages separate meetings from any ministry, merely because they are unconverted.” Having made a similar denial before, his opponents said it was a notorious falsehood, and that the whole country knew that from the pulpit and the press he had encouraged the people to forsake their ministry. This statement, he says, “is a dreadful instance of effronted impiety. O shame! what sort of men are these who not only assert an egregious falsehood, but appeal to the whole country to prove it. To confront their charge, I do appeal to the numerous multitudes, wherever I have preached the gospel of Christ, if what they have alleged be not a groundless and crimson calumny, which those enemies of the power of religion do impute to me. It is the necessity of their wretched cause, that urges those unhappy men to take such sinful and scandalous methods, in order to cloak their horrible wickedness in opposing God’s work, which has been the real cause of the divisions subsisting among us; which they, without foundation, ascribe to me.” This denial is so hearty it is impossible to doubt its sincerity. It is, however, no less impossible to doubt the truth of the charge. His Nottingham. sermon not only teaches that it is lawful and expedient to leave the ministry of natural men, but it argues the point, enjoins it as a duty commanded by Scripture, and earnestly exhorts his hearers to the performance of it. The same thing is taught over and over in this very book, which contains the above denial.

The truth is, Mr. Tennent, like other vehement men, often said more than he meant. He acted more from feeling than from principle. When he thought of the people desirous of fervent preaching, sitting under cold and lifeless ministrations, his soul caught fire, and he urged them to leave their sapless preachers, and justified their doing so. But when he saw rash enthusiasts, who thought all persons dead but themselves, scattering the congregations of pious men, he denounced their conduct, and was obliged to lay down a canon which condemned his own course. That canon was, that we have no right to regard or treat as graceless those who are sound in essential doctrines and regular in life. Mr. Tennent and his friends had grievously offended against this rule. They not only had pronounced such men to be unconverted, but had acted on the assumption of their being so, and treated them as unfit for their offices. It may easily be conceived what a state of things would be produced by some half dozen ministers assuming the prerogative of judging of the hearts of their brethren, denouncing them as unconverted, entering their congregations, exhorting their people to leave them, and every where erecting new congregations. This the New Brunswick brethren did very extensively; and this, more than any thing else, was the cause of the schism. It was in fact schism itself, in its worst form. As might have been expected, this conduct called forth loud complaints of the arrogant assumption of power on the part of a few men, to judge and condemn their brethren; of the injustice of condemning them without a trial before a competent tribunal; and of the grievous injuries which were thus inflicted upon them and their churches.

These complaints were sometimes brought before the presbyteries, though seldom to any good purpose. Thus in 1740, a representation was made to the presbytery of Donegal in reference to Mr. Blair, for intruding into the congregations of several of their members; and Mr. John Thompson was requested to go to the presbytery of Newcastle, to which Mr. Blair belonged, and call their attention to the case. The same year Mr. Alison presented a complaint on the same ground against Mr. Alexander Creaghead, which was accompanied with “a supplication from several members of Mr. Creaghead’s congregation, complaining of his mal-conduct in several particulars.” The presbytery met at Middle Octarara to examine these charges. Besides the complaint of Mr. Alison of the presbytery of Newcastle, Mr. Creaghead was charged by some of his own congregation, 1. With absenting himself from presbytery. 2. With imposing new terms of communion on his people at the baptism of their children. 3. With excluding a person from the communion, because he seemed to be opposed to his new methods. 4. With asserting that the ministers of Christ ought not to be confined to any particular charge. The new term of communion here complained of was, no doubt, the adoption of the solemn league and covenant, which it seems he and Mr. John Cross of the presbytery of New Brunswick, were often in the habit of imposing on their people. When the presbytery were about to proceed with this case, they “were interrupted by the people rising into a tumult, and railing at the members in the most scurrilous and opprobrious manner; so that having concluded with prayer, they were obliged to adjourn to another place.”

The presbytery in their account of this trial, if trial it can be called, state that when they came to the church, they found Mr. Creaghead preaching on the text, ‘Let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind:’ and that his sermon was almost a continued invective against such as he called pharisee preachers, and against the presbytery in particular, asserting that they were given over to judicial hardness of heart and impenitency. After the sermon Mr. Creaghead invited the congregation, which was very large, to the tent, where they were entertained with the reading of a paper which he called his defence, containing the most slanderous reproaches against the members of the presbytery, some of whom were mentioned by name. This paper was read by Mr. David Alexander and Mr. Samuel Finley, and the presbytery themselves were summoned to attend.

The next day, when the presbytery were about to inquire into the complaints against Mr. Creaghead, he came in, accompanied by Mr. Alexander and Mr. Finley, and insisted upon again reading his defence. The presbytery requested him first to allow the charges to be presented. This he refused to do, and insisted that the defence should be read first. Whereupon Messrs. Alexander and Finley ascended the pulpit and read the paper, which had been read to the people the day before. In the beginning of this paper Mr. Creaghead utterly declined the authority of the presbytery, and protested against their proceeding with the case, on the ground that they were all his accusers. In view of the several complaints against Mr. C., and of his contumacy and disorderly conduct, the presbytery suspended him from the ministry until their next meeting; directing, however, that if he should signify his sorrow for his conduct to any member, that member should notify the moderator, who was to call the presbytery together to consider his acknowledgment and take off the suspension.

There were, at this time, in that presbytery, together with several excellent men, a few members from Ireland, whose conduct brought a reproach upon the whole body, but who were soon suspended and discarded by their brethren. The presence of those members, unconvicted, and even unaccused as yet, could afford little justification for the course pursued by Mr. Creaghead, in absenting himself from the presbytery, disregarding their authority, and especially in reading his calumnious charges against the whole body to a promiscuous and excited audience.

The presbytery had a difficulty also with Mr. David Alexander. In October 1740, he was cited to answer a complaint for preaching in a disorderly manner in Mr. Black’s congregation, and for absenting himself time after time from the presbytery, without excuse. When the presbytery met in December following, he assigned as the reasons of his absence, bodily weakness, and certain scruples which he had in reference to the conduct of the presbytery. One of these scruples was, their “opposing the work of God, in seeming to condemn the crying out of people at sermons, and opposing those ministers who seem instrumental in carrying on these things.” Another was, their too superficial examination of candidates. For others, it appears, he referred the presbytery to the paper above mentioned as Mr. Creaghead’s defence. He added, however, that he was still willing to consider himself a member of the presbytery. To this the presbytery replied, they would recognise him as a member, provided he “acknowledged his sinful disorder in absenting himself from presbytery on account of these scruples, without having remonstrated them to the presbytery; and provided he promised not to absent himself in future, on account of these or any other scruples, in the same manner, without previously intimating them to the presbytery in a judicial way.” With these provisos he refused to comply, and the other part of the charge against him, not being immediately taken up, he left the place. The presbytery then determined to cite him to attend their next meeting, to answer for his disorderly conduct in endorsing and reading the charges against the presbytery, contained in Mr. Creaghead’s defence, without the consent of the presbytery, and before a large congregation; and for leaving the presbytery after having said in a boasting manner, that the real charge against him was preaching in Mr. Black’s congregation, which he acknowledged, and would do it again and again. This citation he refused to answer.2 He was cited a second time to answer the above charges, and a fama clamosa charge of intemperance. In consequence of this second call, he appeared at the meeting held May, 1741, and “by taking the pulpit prevented the moderator, who had prepared to preach.” He gave as his reason for not answering the first citation, that the presbytery had cut him off from being a member; and that he told the person citing him, that he had appealed to the synod. With regard to the charge of intemperance, he said it arose from what occurred at a funeral, where he acknowledged “he had drunk some more than was necessary.” The presbytery acquitted him of the charge of intemperance to the extent reported; but on account of his acknowledged indiscretion, and of his disorderly conduct, and reproaching the presbytery, they said they could not regard him as a member “until we be satisfied as to these pieces of his disregardful conduct towards us, and refusing to submit to the government of Christ’s church in our hands. At the same time we cannot but, with deep sorrow of heart, bewail the unhappy, divided, and distracted state of this poor church, through the uncharitable opposition of both ministers and people against one another.”

These are melancholy scenes to occur in the midst of a great revival of religion. Such, however, was the tumult excited in the public mind, that, in various parts of the country, every thing seemed to get into confusion, and even good men were alienated from each other. A portion of the ministers of the synod having lost confidence in the majority of their brethren, did not hesitate to denounce them as unconverted men, and exhort their people to leave them. The consequence was, that many congregations were broken up, and many more divided. The synod of 1741, therefore, met under circumstances very unfavourable to peace and union. The majority felt themselves grievously injured, both in character and in their pastoral relations. It is no wonder then that they came together determined, if possible, to put a stop to the prevailing disorders; nor, considering their state of mind, is it surprising that they mistook their remedy and placed themselves in the wrong.

The synod met in Philadelphia, May 2, 1741. Mr. Pierson, the moderator for the preceding year, being absent, the sessions were opened with a sermon by Mr. Andrews, who was elected moderator, and Mr. Boyd was appointed clerk. The following ministers were in attendance, viz: From the presbytery of Newcastle, George Gillespie, Robert Cathcart, Charles Tennent, Francis Alison, Alexander Hucheson, and Samuel Blair. From the presbytery of Philadelphia, Jedediah Andrews, Robert Cross, Daniel Elmer, Francis McHenry, Richard Treat, and William Tennent, Sen’r. From the presbytery of Lewes, James Martin, and Robert Jamison. From the presbytery of New Brunswick, Eleazer Wales, Gilbert Tennent, and William Tennent, Jun’r. From the presbytery of Donegal, John Thompson, Adam Boyd, John Elder, Richard Sanchy, Samuel Cavin, Samuel Thompson, Alexander Creaghead, and David Alexander. All the members of the presbytery of New York were absent.

The first matter which occasioned difficulty was the case of Mr. Alexander Creaghead. Having been suspended by his own presbytery, it would appear to be a matter of course, that he should not take his seat as a member of synod, until that sentence was reversed. He seems, however, to have been enrolled from the first as a regular member. As he had not submitted to a trial before the inferior judicatory, according to ordinary rules of proceeding, he had no right to appeal to a higher. This point, however, appears to have been waved in his favour, and the synod took up the question of his right to a seat, “and after much discourse upon it, and a paper of Mr. Creaghead being read, the synod deferred the further consideration of it.” In the afternoon the case was resumed, when “Mr. Creaghead presented another paper, which was read, and after debating on that business, the synod agreed that this and the former paper be perused by the Donegal presbytery, in order for trial against to-morrow afternoon.” The next minute in relation to the subject, states, that “the presbytery of Donegal, as appointed, began their reply to Mr. Creaghead’s papers, in several particulars, but being late it was deferred.” The next morning “the above affair continued, and a great deal of discourse maintained upon it, when the synod deferred the further consideration of it.” This was on Saturday the 30th of May; on Monday the 1st of June the schism occurred, and of course the subject was dropt.

It appears there were two points which occupied the attention of the synod. The one was the difficulty between Mr. Creaghead and his presbytery, and the other the complaint of Mr. Alison against Mr. Creaghead for intruding into his congregation. As to the former there seems to have been little progress made in adjusting the matter. It was proposed that a committee should be sent down to try the case. Mr. Creaghead insisted, if that were done, the majority of the committee should be of the “New Brunswick party.” To this the other side objected, and in their turn opposed the appointment of certain individuals who had been nominated.

The other point was most disputed, and seems to have brought matters to a crisis. Mr. Alison contended, that as he had regularly tabled charges against Mr. Creaghead before the presbytery of Donegal, for intruding into his congregation, “to rend and divide it against his mind, the mind of the session, and the declared opinion of the congregation in general;” and as Mr. Creaghead had refused to submit to a trial before the presbytery, it was his undoubted right to bring the complaint before the synod and have the matter tried there. He urged this the rather because there was no need of testimony in the case, as “Mr. Creaghead publicly acknowledged the whole fact” complained of; and because an opportunity would thus be offered to the synod, and especially to the New Brunswick party, to show how far they were willing to condemn this disorderly intrusion into settled congregations, and to make proposals for peace. Mr. Tennent and his friends resisted the complaint’s being entertained “merely because Donegal presbytery did not enter it on their records as a prime article.” It is difficult to see the force of this objection. The complaint did not come to the synod through the presbytery of Donegal, but directly from Mr. Alison. The complaint as presented to the presbytery had proved inoperative, for though the disorder complained of was one of the several grounds on which the presbytery suspended Mr. Creaghead, yet he not only refused to answer the charge, but had disregarded their sentence. It seems rather unfair that the action of the presbytery should be considered a nullity as it regarded Mr. Creaghead, and as valid in satisfying Mr. Alison’s complaint. He had applied to the presbytery for redress and had obtained none; for its authority had been denied and its sentence disregarded. When, therefore, in due course he applied to the synod, he had reason to expect to be heard. Resisting this course on technical grounds was certainly very unfortunate, as an opportunity was thus lost of satisfying the minds of the aggrieved members, that the New Brunswick brethren would not deliberately sanction “the practice of breaking in upon and dissolving pastoral relations in such an unscriptural and anti-presbyterial way.” The result of this attempt to bring up the matter in complaint, the majority of the synod say, “put us out of all hopes of obtaining peace with our brethren upon such terms as are founded on the word of God, and our presbyterian constitution.”

This last effort at accommodation having failed, the Rev. Robert Cross, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, rose and read the following PROTESTATION, viz.

“Rev. Fathers and Brethren:

“We, the ministers of Jesus Christ, and members of the synod of Philadelphia, being wounded and grieved in our very hearts, at the dreadful divisions, distractions, and convulsions, which all of a sudden have seized this infant church to such a degree that unless He, who is king in Zion, do graciously and seasonably interfere for our relief, she is in no small danger of expiring outright, and that quickly, as to the form, order, and constitution of an organized church, which hath subsisted for above thirty years past, in a very great degree of order and perfect harmony until of late; we say, we being deeply grieved with these things, which lie heavy on our spirits, and being sensible that it is our indispensable duty to do what lies in our power, in a lawful way, according to the light and directions of the inspired oracles, to preserve this swooning church from a total expiration; and after the deliberate and unprejudiced inquiry into the causes of these confusions, which rage so among us, both ministers and people, we evidently seeing, and being fully persuaded in our judgments, that, besides our misimprovement of, and unfruitfulness under, gospel light, liberty, and privileges, the great decay of practical godliness in the life and power of it, and many abounding immoralities; we say, besides these our sins, which we judge to be the meritorious cause of our present doleful distractions, the awful judgments we now suffer under; we evidently see, that our protesting brethren, and their adherents, are the direct and proper cause thereof, by their unwearied, unscriptural, antipresbyterial, uncharitable divisive practices, which they have been pursuing with all the diligence they were capable of, with any probability of success, for above these twelve months past especially; besides too much of the like practices for some years before, though not with such barefaced arrogance and boldness:

“And being fully convinced in our judgments, that it is our duty to bear testimony against these disorderly proceedings, according to our stations, capacity, and trust reposed in us by our exalted Lord, as watchmen on the walls of his Zion, we having endeavoured sincerely to seek counsel and direction from God, who hath promised to give wisdom to those who ask him in faith, yea, hath promised his Holy Spirit to lead his people and servants into all truth; and being clearly convinced in our consciences, that it is a duty we are called unto in this present juncture of affairs, “Reverend fathers and brethren, we hereby humbly and solemnly protest, in the presence of the great and eternal God, and his elect angels, as well as in the presence of all here present, and particularly of you, reverend brethren, in our own names, and in the names of all, both ministers and people, who shall adhere to us, as follows:

“1. We protest that it is the indispensable duty of this synod to maintain and stand by the principles of doctrine, worship, and government of the church of Christ, as the same are summed up in the Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Directory composed by the Westminster Assembly, as being agreeable to the word of God, and which this synod have owned, acknowledged, and adopted, as may appear from our synodical records of the years 1729, 1730, 1736, which we desire to be read publicly.

“2. We protest that no person, minister or elder, should be allowed to sit and vote in this synod, who hath not received, adopted, or subscribed the said Confession, Catechisms, and Directory, as our presbyteries respectively do, according to our last explication of the adopting act; or who is either accused or convicted, or may be convicted before this synod, or any of our presbyteries, of holding any doctrine, or who acts and persists in any practice contrary to any of those doctrines, or rules contained in said Directory, or contrary to any of the known rights of presbytery, or orders made and agreed to by this synod, and which stand yet unrepealed; unless, or until he renounce such doctrine, and being found guilty, acknowledge, confess, and profess his sorrow for such sinful disorder, to the satisfaction of this synod, or such inferior judicatory as the synod shall appoint or impower for that purpose.

“3. We protest that our protesting brethren have at present no right to sit and vote as members of this synod, having forfeited their right of being accounted members of it, for many reasons, a few of which we shall mention afterwards.

“4. We protest, that if, notwithstanding of this our protestation, those brethren be allowed to sit and vote in this synod, without giving suitable satisfaction to the synod, and particularly to us, who now enter this protestation, and to those who shall adhere to us in it, that whatsoever shall be done, voted, or transacted by them contrary to our judgment shall be of no force or obligation to us; being done and acted by a judicatory consisting in part of members who have no authority to act with us in ecclesiastical matters.

“5. We protest, that if, notwithstanding this our protestation, and the true intent and meaning of it, those protesting brethren, and such as adhere to them, or support or countenance them in their antipresbyterial practices, shall continue to act as they have done this last year, in that case we, and as many as have clearness to join with us and maintain the rights of this judicatory, shall be accounted in no wise disorderly, but the true presbyterian church in this province; and they shall be looked upon as guilty of schism, and the breach of the rules of presbyterian government, which Christ has established in his church, which we are ready at all times to demonstrate to the world.

“Reverend and dear brethren, we beseech you to hear us with patience, while we lay before you as briefly as we can, some of the reasons that move us thus to protest, and more particularly, why we protest against our protesting brethren being allowed to sit as members of this synod.

“1. Their heterodox and anarchical principles expressed in their Apology, pages twenty-eight and thirty-nine, where they expressly deny that presbyteries have authority to oblige their dissenting members, or that synods should go any further in judging of appeals or references, &c. than to give their best advice; which is plainly to divest the officers and judicatories of Christ’s kingdom of all authority, (and plainly contradicts the thirty-first article of our Confession of Faith, section three, which those brethren pretend to adopt,) agreeable to which is the whole superstructure of arguments which they advance and maintain against not only our synodical acts, but also all authority to make any acts or orders which shall bind dissenting members, throughout their whole Apology.

“2. Their protesting against the synod’s act in relation to the examination of candidates, together with their proceeding to license and ordain men to the ministry in opposition to, and in contempt of the said act of synod.

“3. Their making irregular irruptions upon the congregations, to which they have no immediate relation, without order, concurrence, or allowance of the presbyteries, or ministers to which such congregations belong; thereby sowing the seeds of division among the people, and doing what they can to alienate and fill their minds with unjust prejudices against their lawfully called pastors.

“4. Their principles and practice of rash judging and condemning all who do not fall in with their measures, both ministers and people, as carnal, graceless, and enemies of the work of God, and what not; as appears in Mr. Gilbert Tennent’s sermon against unconverted ministers, and his and Mr. Blair’s papers of May last, which were read in open synod; which rash judging has been the constant practice of our protesting brethren and their irregular probationers, for above these twelve months past, in their disorderly itinerations and preaching through our congregations, by which, alas for it! most of our congregations, through weakness and credulity, are so shattered and divided, and shaken in their principles, that few or none of us can say we enjoy the comfort, or have the success among our people, which otherwise we might, and which we enjoyed heretofore.

“5. Their industriously persuading people that the call of God, whereby he calls men to the ministry, does not consist in their being regularly ordained and set apart to the work, according to the instruction and rules of the word; but in some invisible motions and workings of the Spirit, which none can be conscious or sensible of, but the person himself, and with respect to which he is liable to be deceived, or to play the hypocrite. That the gospel preached in truth by unconverted ministers, can be of no saving benefit to souls; and their pointing out such ministers whom they condemn as graceless, by their rash judging spirit, they effectually carry the point with the poor credulous people, who, in imitation of their example, and under their patronising, judge their ministers to be graceless, and forsake their ministry as hurtful rather than profitable.

“6. Their preaching the terrors of the law in such a manner and dialect as has no precedent in the word of God, but rather appears to be borrowed from a worse dialect; and so industriously working on the passions and affections of weak minds as to cause them to cry out in a hideous manner, and to fall down in convulsion-like fits, to the marring of the profiting both of themselves and others, who are so taken up in seeing and hearing these odd symptoms, that they cannot attend to, or hear what the preacher says, and then after all, boasting of these things as the work of God, which we are persuaded do proceed from an inferior or worse cause.

“7. Their, or some of them, preaching and maintaining that all true converts are as certain of their gracious state, as a person can be of what he knows by his outward senses; and are able to give a narrative of the time and manner of their conversion, or else they conclude them to be in a natural or graceless state; and that a gracious person can judge of another’s gracious state, otherwise than by his profession and life: that people are under no sacred tie or relation to their own pastors lawfully called, but may leave them when they please, and ought to go where they think they get most good.

“For these and many other reasons we protest before the eternal God, his holy angels, and you, reverend brethren, and before all here present, that these brethren have no right to be acknowledged as members of this judicatory of Christ, whose principles and practices are so diametrically opposite to our doctrine and principles of government and order, which the great King of the church hath laid down in his word. How absurd and monstrous must that union be, where one part of the members own themselves obliged in conscience to the judicial determinations of the whole, founded on the word of God, or else relinquish membership; and another part declare they are not obliged and will not submit, unless the determinations be according to their minds, and consequently will submit to no rules in making of which they are in the negative. Again, how monstrously absurd is it, that they should so much as desire to join with us, or we with them, as a judicatory made up of authoritative officers of Jesus Christ, while they openly condemn us wholesale, and where they please apply their condemnatory sentences to particular brethren by name, without judicial process, or proving them guilty of heresy or immorality, and at the same time will not hold Christian communion with them. Again, how absurd is the union, while some of the members of the same body, which meets once a year and join as a judicatory of Christ, do all the rest of the year, what they can openly and above-board, to persuade the people and flocks of their brethren to separate from their own pastors as graceless hypocrites, and yet they do not separate from them themselves, but join with them once every year as members of the same judicatory of Christ, and oftener when presbyteries are mixed. Is it not unreasonable stupid indolence in us to join with such as are avowedly tearing us in pieces like beasts of prey?

“Again, is not the continuance of union with our protesting brethren absurd, when it is so notorious that both their doctrine and practice are so directly contrary to the adopting act, whereby both they and we have adopted the Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Directory, composed by the Westminster Assembly? Finally, is not continuance of union absurd with those who arrogate to themselves a right and power to palm and obtrude members on our synod, contrary to the mind and judgment of the body? In sum, a continued union, in our judgment, is most absurd and inconsistent, when it is so notorious that our doctrine and principles of church government, in many points, are not only diverse but directly opposite. For how can two walk together, except they be agreed?

“Reverend Fathers and Brethren, these are a part and but a part of our reasons why we protest as above, and which we have only hinted at, but have forborne to enlarge upon them as we might, the matter and substance of them are so well known to you, and to the whole world about us, that we judged this hint sufficient at present, to declare our serious and deliberate judgment in the matter, and as we profess ourselves to be resolvedly against principles and practice both of anarchy and schism, so we hope that God, whom we desire to serve and obey, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose ministers we are, will both direct and enable us to conduct ourselves in these trying times, so as our consciences will not reproach us as long as we live. Let God arise, and let his enemies be scattered; but let the righteous be glad, yea, let them exceedingly rejoice. And may the Spirit of life and comfort, revive and comfort this poor swooning and fainting church, quicken her to spiritual life, and restore her to the exercise of true charity, peace, and order.

“Although we can freely and from the bottom of our hearts, justify the divine proceedings against us in suffering us to fall into these confusions for our sins, and particularly for the great decay of the life and power of godliness among all ranks, both ministers and people; yet we think it to be our present duty to bear testimony against these prevailing disorders; judging, that to give way to the breaking down the hedge of discipline and government from about Christ’s vineyard, is far from being the proper method of causing his tender plants to grow in grace and fruitfulness. As it is our duty in our stations, without delay, to set about a reformation of the evils which have provoked God against ourselves, so we judge the strict observations of his laws of government and order, and not the breaking of them to be one necessary means and method of this necessary and much to be desired reformation. And we doubt not, but when our God sees us duly humbled and penitent for our sins, he will yet return to us in mercy, and cause us to flourish in spiritual life, love, unity, and order; though perhaps we may not live to see it, yet this testimony that we now bear, may be of some good use to our children yet unborn, when God shall arise and have mercy upon Zion. Signed, Robert Cross, John Thompson, Francis Alison, Robert Cathcart, Richard Sancky, John Elder, John Craig, Samuel Cavin, Samuel Thompson, Adam Boyd, James Martin, and Robert Jamison, ministers; and Robert Porter, Robert McKnight, William McCullock, John McEwen, Robert Craig, James Kerr, Alexander McKnight, elders.”

It is by no means clear how this protest was intended to operate, even by its authors. They state, 1. That those who will not conform to the constitution of the synod have no right to sit and vote as members. 2. That the New Brunswick, or former protesting brethren had violated that constitution, both by the avowal of principles inconsistent with it, and by their practice. 3. This being the case they demanded that such brethren should not any longer be recognised as members. It is evident that this cannot be regarded as a regular judicial process. The accused were not even named. They are sometimes designated as the “protesting brethren;” but that phrase would not include either Mr. Treat, or Mr. David Alexander, who were both included in the accusation. Besides this, the protest not merely presented charges, it declared the persons implicated to be guilty and determined the punishment. It could not, therefore, have been intended as the commencement of a regular process. Perhaps the protestants expected that after this solemn declaration of their sentiments, the synod would, by a formal vote, exclude the accused brethren. And this, according to Mr. Alison, was actually done. Of such vote, however, there is no record. The minutes merely state, “A protestation was brought in by Mr. Cross, read and signed by several members, which is kept in retentis. Upon this it was canvassed by the former protesting brethren, whether they or we were to be looked upon as the synod. We maintained that they had no right to sit, whether they were the major or minor number. Then they motioned we should examine this point, and that the major number was the synod. They were found to be the minor party, and upon this they withdrew. After this the synod proceeded to business.” This counting of the roll Mr. Alison seems to understand as a formal vote. But it was clearly no such thing. There was no motion and no vote, but an irregular mustering of parties; after which the weaker withdrew.

It is probable that the authors of the protest had no fixed plan as to ulterior measures; that they meant merely to bring the controversy to a point, some way or other. They, therefore, made a formal declaration of their complaints, and an avowal of their purpose, that unless the New Brunswick brethren gave them satisfaction, one party or the other must leave the synod. By what process this separation was to be effected, they left to be determined by circumstances. This seems to be implied in what is said by the authors themselves. “After reading the protest,” they say, “the rejected members offered nothing like a pacific overture, or a satisfaction for said grievances, but instead of this we had unchristian reproaches. This brought the affair to that crisis that both could not sit together in one body, but one of them must withdraw,” and the counting the roll was resorted to in order to determine which party was the stronger.

The actual course which matters took was not foreseen nor provided for. As far as can be gathered from the brief and contradictory accounts of this eventful meeting, which are still extant, it appears that the reading of the protest, avowing as it did a fixed determination to have either a redress of grievances, or a separation, produced a great excitement. As soon as the paper was read, it was laid on the table for the signature of the members. This threw the assembly into disorder. The Brunswick brethren considering the signing the protest as of itself the act of rejection, “were loathe to be cast out hastily, without speaking anything in their own defence; but their efforts to speak were repulsed, the house being confused, one spoke one thing, and another another, and sometimes two or more at once, so that it is hard to tell what was said.” Some cried out that the brethren were “solemnly protesting gross lies before Almighty God;” others, that the “elders were subscribing what they had never heard nor considered.”2 In the midst of this confusion the moderator left the chair. As soon as it was ascertained that less than a majority of the whole synod had signed the protest,4 some of the New Brunswick brethren demanded that as the protesters were dissatisfied they should withdraw, and the galleries, (for the church was crowded,) rang with the call to cast them out, for this purpose, they, (the Brunswick brethren,) counted the roll to see if they had a majority;2 when it appeared that they were the minor party, they withdrew, followed by a great crowd.

It is plain from this statement that not even the forms of an ecclesiastical, much less of a judicial proceeding, were observed at this crisis. There was no motion, no vote, not even a presiding officer in the chair. It was a disorderly rupture. A number of the synod rise and declare they will no longer sit with certain of their brethren, unless they satisfied their complaints. The members complained of, answer, You are dissatisfied and are the minority, therefore you must go out; and then a confused rush is made to the roll to see which was the stronger party. Such was the schism of 1741.

It is presumed there can be but one opinion as to this whole proceeding. There were but two courses which those who felt aggrieved by the conduct of Mr. Tennent and his friends could properly take. The one was to appeal to reason and the word of God, and rely on those means to correct the evils of which they complained. It is true, this would at that time have been like talking to a whirlwind; still, when the storm was over, truth and reason would have resumed their sway. We have seen, in our day, examples here and there of ministers who have stood a much more vulgar, if not more violent storm of defamation, combined with new doctrines and new measures; their people carried away, their congregations broken up, and yet these same men rising in the confidence and esteem of the church, and ultimately reaping the reward of their faith and patience. This course would have required, at the time of which we speak, more self-command and self-denial, than can be expected even of most good men. The grievances complained of were real and weighty. These opposing brethren were seriously injured in their reputation; they were regarded as enemies of practical religion, as formalists, hypocrites, or bigots. Their comfort and usefulness were for the time being destroyed. If they found themselves unable to submit to these grievances in silence, their second course was regularly to table charges against the New Brunswick presbytery. There was the less reason for departing from this course as there was every prospect of its being successful. That presbytery had already been once censured for its irregular conduct, by a vote of the synod sustained by a great majority. As they continued their irregular course, the proper method was to repeat and increase the censure. As far as can be ascertained, there were not more than nine ministers out of forty, who approved the conduct of Mr. Tennent and his friends.2 As to the three great grounds of complaint, disobedience to the decisions of synod, his rash condemnation of his brethren without a trial, and his intrusion into settled congregations, almost all his brethren were against him. This has been abundantly proved in the preceding pages. There is, therefore, no reasonable doubt that on all these points he and his friends would have been condemned. In Scotland, in consequence of the union between the church and the state, it has been found a difficult matter to discipline a presbytery. In this country such difficulty does not exist. If a presbytery persist in violating the constitution, it may, in perfect consistency with our principles, be disowned, as was the case with the Cumberland presbytery; or dissolved, and its members attached to other presbyteries. But even if there had been no reasonable prospect of success, this would afford no justification of the aggrieved party for taking the law into their own hands. When men live under a constitution, either in church or state, they are bound to abide by it, and to seek redress only in accordance with its provisions. It is obvious that no society, civil or ecclesiastical, can long exist, whose members assume the prerogative of redressing their own grievances. In this country, more than in most others, it is important that the great duty of abiding by the law, should be graven on the hearts of the people.

The course then, adopted by the protesting brethren, in 1741, is certainly liable to the grave objection, that it was unconstitutional. It was, moreover, inoperative as to the evils it was intended to repress. The invectives under which the authors of the protest had suffered, were only rendered the more severe; and their churches were more than ever open to the intrusion of their rejected brethren. After the schism, those brethren seem to have thrown off all restraint as to that point, and to have established separate congregations wherever the opportunity was afforded. The situation of the protesters was, therefore, in no respect improved by the course which they pursued; on the contrary, it was worse than before. They now suffered the manifold inconveniences of having placed themselves in the wrong. The large and respectable presbytery of New York, which had hitherto sided with them, after trying for several years to effect a reconciliation, seceded from the synod and formed a new body. This threw the superiority as to numbers, character, and influence, on the other side, and was a lasting injury to the prosperity and usefulness of the old synod. From that time, if it did not actually decline, it with difficulty held its ground, while the other rapidly increased.

This unfortunate protest continued an effectual bar to the union of the parties, long after all the original grounds of difference had ceased to exist. The New Brunswick brethren resented the charges contained in the protest; they denied having held the anarchical principles therein imputed to them. Hence no union was ever effected until the protest was disowned as a synodical act.

The day after the rupture in the synod, that is, on June 2d, 1741, the presbytery of New Brunswick held a pro re nata meeting in Philadelphia, at which the following ministers were present: Messrs. Gilbert Tennent, William Tennent, jun’r. Eleazar Wales, and John Rowland, together with the following correspondents: Messrs. William Tennent, sen’r. Samuel Blair, Charles Tennent, David Alexander, Alexander Hucheson, Alexander Creaghead, and Richard Treat. Mr. Gilbert Tennent was chosen moderator, and Mr. John Rowland, clerk. The following minute was then adopted:

“Whereas, the aforementioned New Brunswick presbytery and correspondents have all along hitherto been in a state of union with the other ministers in these parts of the world of the presbyterian persuasion, as joint members with them of one united synod; and, whereas, the greater part of the other members of said synod with us in synod met, did yesterday, without any just ground, protest against our continuing members with them any longer, and so cast us out of their communion, the presbytery and correspondents thus turned off and protested against, first came together to consider how they ought to conduct themselves in their present circumstances, for the fulfilling the work committed to them by the Lord Jesus Christ, as ministers and ruling elders in his house, and they do agree to declare that the aforesaid protestation of their brethren against them, is most unjust and sinful; and do moreover agree, that it is their bounden duty to form themselves into distinct presbyteries for carrying on the government of Christ’s church, and do accordingly agree and appoint that Mr. William Tennent, sen’r. and Richard Treat, be joined to the standing presbytery of New Brunswick; and that Messrs. Samuel Blair, Alexander Creaghead, David Alexander, and Charles Tennent, be a distinct presbytery, distinguished by the name of the presbytery of Londonderry. Mr. George Gillespie, though not present now, having declared to us his willingness and desire of joining with us, is likewise appointed a member of the said presbytery. Mr. Hucheson having manifested his inclination to join with the presbytery, but desiring further time for consideration, his desire was granted; and it was likewise ordered, that on his application he should be received as a member thereof.2 Appointed that the said presbytery of Londonderry meet upon the 30th of this June, at Whiteclay Creek, and that Mr. Blair open the presbytery with a sermon. It is further agreed and appointed that the said presbyteries of New Brunswick and Londonderry do meet at Philadelphia on the second Wednesday of August next, in the capacity of a synod. Mr. Gilbert Tennent was appointed to open synod with a sermon.”

When the presbytery met in the afternoon, they received applications for supplies from eighteen or twenty different places, many of which were already provided with settled pastors, and almost all of them were under the care of the existing presbyteries of Philadelphia, Newcastle, and Donegal. It was, however, determined to send preachers to them all, as far as it could be done. The schism was thus effectually carried down among the congregations, and rendered permanent.

The next day the presbytery entered upon their minutes the following record:

“Inasmuch 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 at such aspersions, we think it fit, unanimously to declare, that we do adhere as closely and fully to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Directory, as ever the synod of Philadelphia did, in any of their public acts or agreements about them.

“Mr. Blair was appointed to draw up an account of the differences in our synod for some years past, which have at last issued in this separation, against the time of our next meeting, that it may be prepared for the public if need be. Mr. Gilbert Tennent was appointed to write an answer to the protest made by our brethren, wherein things are most unjustly represented.”

Thus was commenced a schism which it required seventeen years of uninterrupted effort to heal. Though the separation began in 1741, in the manner above narrated, it was not fully consummated until 1745. It is, therefore, necessary to detail the progress of events in connexion with this subject, until that time.

The synod met in 1742, and chose Mr. Dickinson moderator, and Mr. Alison clerk. There were present twenty-four clerical members, including seven from the presbytery of New York. On motion made by the moderator, it was resolved, “That the synod should hold a conference with the New Brunswick brethren that they rejected last year, in order to accommodate the difference, and make up the unhappy breach.” It was thereupon agreed, “that Messrs. Dickinson, Pemberton, Pierson, Cross, Andrews, Thompson, Cathcart, David Evans, and Alison, meet with those brethren, and try all methods consistent with gospel truth, to prepare the way for healing the said breach.”2 The next morning the synod resolved itself “into an interloquitur of ministers and elders to manage the conference with the rejected brethren, who were allowed, if they see cause, to bring with them the ministers that they ordained, that were never allowed to be members of this synod, and all their respective elders. After a great deal of time spent to no purpose, the interloquitur found that all attempts for a coalition were vain and fruitless, and therefore it is agreed to adjourn until three o’clock, P. M. Concluded with prayer.”

In the afternoon “the synod entered upon the affair complained of by the ejected members, and the question put for managing the said affair was, Who should be the judges of the case? The ejected members would submit the business to the consideration of none as judges, but such as had not signed the protest last year; and the protesting brethren answered to the point, that they, with the members that had adhered to them after ejecting said members, were the synod, and acted as such in the rejection; and in so doing they only cast out such members as they judged had rendered themselves unworthy of membership, by openly maintaining and practising things subversive of their constitution, and therefore would not be called to an account by absent members, or by any judicature on earth, but were willing to give the reasons of their conduct to their absent brethren to consider or review it.” The synod had, the next morning, another interloquitur meeting, without coming to any conclusion; and there the matter rested for that year.

The following protest was given in by several members: “To the Reverend Synod now sitting in Philadelphia: we the subscribers, in our own, and in the name of all that shall see meet to join with us, look upon ourselves as obliged in the most public manner to declare our opinion with respect to the division made in our synod last year by a protest delivered in by several of our members.

“First. We delare against the excluding the presbytery of New Brunswick, and their adherents, from the communion of the synod by a protest, without giving them a previous trial, as an illegal and unprecedented proceeding; contrary to the rules of the gospel, and subversive of our excellent constitution.

“Secondly. We declare and protest against the conduct of our brethren, the last year’s protesters, in refusing to have the legality of their said protest tried by the present synod.

“Thirdly. We therefore declare and protest, that those members of the New Brunswick presbytery and their adherents, that were excluded by the last year’s protest, are to be owned and esteemed as members of this synod, till they are excluded by a regular and impartial process against them, according to the methods prescribed in the Scriptures, and practised by the churches of the presbyterian persuasion.

“Fourthly. We protest against all passages in any pamphlets, which have been lately published in these parts, which seem to reflect upon the work of divine power and grace, which has been carrying on, in so wonderful a manner, in many of our congregations; and declare to all the world, that we look upon it to be the indispensable duty of all our ministers, to encourage that glorious work, with their most diligent and faithful endeavours. And in like manner we protest and declare against all divisive and irregular methods and practices by which the peace and good order of our churches have been broken in upon.

“This is what our duty to God, and our regard to the peace and prosperity of his church, oblige us to protest and declare; and we desire it may be recorded in the minutes of the synod in perpetuam rei memoriam. Signed, Jonathan Dickinson, John Pierson, Ebenezer Pemberton, Simon Horton, Daniel Elmer, Azariah Horton, ministers; and Nathaniel Hazard, David Whitehead, Silas Leonard, Timothy Whitehead, elders.”

To this protest, Mr. Alison gave the following answer. “I, the subscriber, do hereby desire that it may be inserted on the synod’s minute book, that I judge it an open infringement of the rights of society, and particularly of our rights as presbyterians, for absent members to pretend to a right to call the body to account, and judge of the legality of the proceedings in acts, resolutions, and conclusions, made in their absence; though I firmly believe it is the duty of such a body to submit such resolutions and conclusions to a review by the next synod. And though I look on it as giving up some of our rights, yet it is my earnest desire, and what I insist on, that the merits of the cause for which the last year’s synod rejected the New Brunswick brethren and their adherents, be fairly tried by this present synod, in order to manifest the justice of the said proceedings. Francis Alison.”

Had a conciliatory spirit prevailed in either of the contending parties, a reconciliation might probably have been effected, under the mediation of these New York brethren. They were in a proper position to act as mediators. They had not been involved in the dispute. They enjoyed the confidence of both parties. While they complained of the irregular mode of exclusion, they recognised the right to exclude, and protested against the disorderly course which the New Brunswick brethren had pursued. It may well be doubted, however, whether the method which these gentlemen adopted on this occasion, was judicious. It seems they demanded that the legality of the protest should be tried, and that this question should be decided by themselves and the few members present, who had neither protested, nor been protested against. Whatever view be taken of the protest, this course seems fairly liable to the objection so warmly urged by Dr. Alison. If the protesters had assumed the attitude of accusers, the New Brunswick brethren been regarded as accused, and the four remaining members of the synod the judges, by whose decision the rejected members were excluded, it would certainly be incompetent for absent members to re-open the case, and give a new trial. The only proper method would have been, for the synod, as then constituted, to remove the sentence, as in any other case of ecclesiastical censure. No one pretended, however, that the course just stated was the one actually pursued. The New Brunswick brethren were not arraigned and tried; much less were they excluded by the four non-protesting members. Of those four Mr. Andrews was the only one who decidedly took part against them. The others, viz: Messrs. Gillespie, Hucheson, and McHenry, all disapproved of the protest, and of the rupture.

The view which Mr. Alison took of the matter was this. He regarded the protest as a solemn demand upon the New Brunswick brethren for satisfaction, which they refused to give. Whereupon the synod by a formal vote cast them out. Had this been the real history of the case, the proper course would have been to move the reconsideration of that vote. This would have brought up the whole merits of the case; which Mr. Alison did not object to, and could not, therefore, have opposed. The history of the session of the 1st June, 1741, shows, however, that this view of the case is no more consistent with the facts than the one before mentioned. There was no motion to exclude, and of course no vote upon such a motion. The counting of the roll, which Mr. Alison seems to have regarded as taking the vote, was not done to decide any motion, nor was it done, to all appearance, while the moderator was in the chair.

The only proper view of the matter, seems to have been that taken by the New York brethren, viz: that the rupture was altogether violent and irregular. There was no trial, and no vote. The protest threw the synod into utter confusion, and the weaker party, as soon as it ascertained itself to be the weaker, left the house. If this is a correct account of the matter, as the withdrawing was not a voluntary secession, nor the exclusion a regular synodical act, it might have been treated as a nullity. The right of the New Brunswick brethren to their seats remained unimpaired; and when they appeared at the next meeting of the synod, the regular course was, to move that their names be added to the roll. This again would have brought up the merits of the question, and led to a formal decision one way or the other. Whatever view, therefore, be taken of the proceedings leading to the schism, the demand that the legality of the protest should be tried, and its signers excluded from voting, does not appear to have been a proper method to heal the breach.

The synod met in 1743, and was opened with a sermon by President Dickinson. There were present twenty-three clerical members, including five from the presbytery of New York. Mr. David Cowell was chosen moderator, and Mr. Alison clerk. On the sixth day of the sessions, an overture was presented to the synod from the presbytery of New York to the following effect. After lamenting the existing division in the church as dishonorable to God, scandalous to religion, injurious to the best interests of the body, and favourable to the spread of dangerous errors and delusions, they proposed, 1. That as the exclusion of the New Brunswick brethren, by a protest, without a distinct vote of the synod founded on a hearing of their case was irregular, the protest be withdrawn, and those members be allowed to take their seats. 2. As it is of the greatest importance that the education of candidates for the ministry be properly managed, they proposed that all future candidates should submit to the rule of synod relating to examinations, or else graduate as bachelors of arts in one of the New England colleges. 3. With regard to itinerant preaching, they proposed that every pulpit should be considered open to all the regular ministers of the church, and that it should be considered unbrotherly for one minister to refuse his pulpit to another, unless for a reason which shall be approved by the presbytery, synod, or the commission; and that no divisions of the congregations, separate meetings, or attempts to alienate the hearts of the people from their pastors, should hereafter be allowed, and that every contravention of this article be looked upon as just ground of censure either by the presbytery or synod. 4. That if any minister thinks he has any ground of complaint against any of his brethren, either for doctrine, manner of preaching, or conduct, he shall first present his complaints in a private way, and if this method fail, he shall make regular charges, and bring the matter before the presbytery, synod, or commission. 5. That all past differences be buried in oblivion. 6. Considering the absolute necessity of union, they pray that this, or some other plan of union should be at once adopted; but if this could not be done, they propose that a new synod be formed, and the several members have liberty to join either at pleasure, and that these synods should send two correspondents each year, the one to the other.

As the principal grounds of complaint against the ejected members were disregarding the rule of synod relating to the examination of candidates, intruding into the congregations of settled ministers and causing divisions among their people, and the condemnation of their brethren without trial, there is little doubt, that had these proposals been made before the schism they would have been gladly acceded to; as it was, however, strange to say, they were unanimously rejected. It may serve to account for the decided rejection of propositions apparently so reasonable, if it is remembered that the schism did not put a stop to the evils by which it was occasioned. Mr. Tennent’s denunciations of his brethren were at this time more bitter than ever, and divisions in congregations were now fostered without any restraint. It is, therefore, probable that the synod thought there was little probability that these proposals, emanating from the New York, and not from the New Brunswick brethren, would be adhered to. They insisted, therefore, that there should be a distinct acknowledgment made by these last mentioned brethren, that the course they had hitherto pursued was wrong. It must be confessed that it was very unlikely that Mr. Tennent and his friends would have acceded to the terms proposed in the above overture. So far from opening their pulpits to all their brethren, there were some of them, and those very good men too, with whom some of their number would not even commune. And as to the separate meetings which had already been set up in many congregations, Mr. Tennent says, he and his friends must have “bowels of adamant” to refuse to take them under their care. There were, therefore, practical difficulties in the way of a union, which the New York brethren, living most of them in East Jersey, remote from the scene of conflict, could not so well appreciate.

The reasons assigned by the synod for rejecting the overture above mentioned, are contained in a paper recorded in the minutes for the following year. On the first article of the overture they remark, that they still think that the exclusion of the New Brunswick brethren by the protestation, is sufficiently justified by the reasons specified therein, which reasons are further strengthened by the conduct of the said brethren ever since; and therefore they say, it is altogether inconsistent with duty and a good conscience to withdraw the protest, or to recede from it; and further, that the only possible expedient in order to a re-union is for the New Brunswick brethren to let the synod know, under their own hands, how far they can or will comply, to give the synod satisfaction for the offences complained of, by acknowledging their past misconduct, and by giving satisfactory security against the fears of the like offences for the future.

On the second article they say, that if the New Brunswick brethren would once give satisfaction for their disregarding the rule about the examination of candidates, it is not unlikely that that matter might be adjusted.

On article third they remark, that in their judgment, to open their pulpits to every itinerant preacher, would be the very way to promote divisions; that it would be better to leave the matter to the discretionary agreement of the ministers concerned; and that no preacher should travel abroad for preaching sake without an actual order from his own presbytery, and the concurrence of the presbytery within the bounds of which he was to preach. As to separate meetings, it was not enough that they should not be encouraged for the future; all proper means should be taken to heal the divisions already occasioned.

To the fourth article they make no objection, except that complaints against ministers ought not, in the first instance, to be brought before the synod, but the presbytery.

The fifth article they also approved of, on the supposition that a satisfactory union was effected. As to the formation of a new synod, they say, that as it would be to perpetuate schism, they could not sanction it by a synodical act; but if, contrary to their judgment and inclination, the New York brethren should determine to form such a body, they hoped “by the grace of God to cultivate a truly Christian and charitable disposition towards them.”

When the synod rejected the New York overture, a paper “was given in by Mr. Jonathan Dickinson, in his own name, and in the names of Messrs. Ebenezer Pemberton, John Pierson, and Aaron Burr, having previously declared that they complained of no unfriendly or unbrotherly treatment from the synod in relation to themselves, but that their conduct in this affair may be liable to misrepresentations; which said paper is as follows: As I look on myself to be a member of the synod of Philadelphia, and have a continued right to sit and act in the same as such, so I look upon the New Brunswick presbytery, and those brethren that adhere to them, and are therefore shut out of synod on that account, to be as truly members of this synod as myself, or any others whatsoever, and have a just claim to sit and act with us. I cannot, therefore, at present see my way clear to sit and act as though we were the synod of Philadelphia, while the New Brunswick presbytery, and the other members with them, are kept out of the synod as they now are.”

In place of the overture from New York, the following plan of accommodation was sent to the New Brunswick gentlemen, through the hands of Mr. Aaron Burr: “Forasmuch as we are informed that the New Brunswick brethren are willing and desirous of reconciliation and union with this synod, and to know on what terms this may be obtained; that the said brethren may be fully persuaded that we have no delight in division for its own sake, but on the contrary, are sincerely desirous of peace and union on reasonable terms, so that on our cordial agreement there be a foundation laid, that, through God’s blessing, may prevent the havock and destruction of the church threatened by our common enemies. Therefore we propose,

“1. That as they desire to be received and treated as members of our synod, they will submit to the determinations and conclusions of our judicatories, even in those cases wherein they are negatives in giving their votes, and so allow a determination to be by a majority, or else no longer plead a right of membership. And that they renounce their principles delivered in their Apology, especially that whereby they declare that presbyteries and synods have no power to make any agreements, or come to any determinations by votes, which shall bind any members who do not give their consent to those conclusions or determinations; for without this recantation they can never be members of this synod, seeing they put in a claim for arbitrary power to destroy and overturn all our agreements, and to despise and disregard our censures, as they have already professedly done in licensing and ordaining so many men for the work of the ministry.

“2. If they profess they will use all endeavours to secure a learned ministry, we desire that they will testify this by desisting from licensing or ordaining men for the work of the ministry who have not complied with the synod’s agreement, or the alternative proposed in the last year’s conference with these brethren; and that they give up all those persons that they have heretofore licensed or ordained in opposition to our public agreement, to be examined and tried by the synod, whether they have suitable ministerial qualifications, or that they will not maintain ministerial communion with any of them for the future, who refuse to be examined by the synod, or who upon examination are found deficient, until they give suitable satisfaction.

“3. That for the future they will desist from either acting or preaching, or sending their missionaries into the bounds of our presbyteries or fixed pastoral charges as heretofore. That they will not encourage new separate societies in congregations as hitherto, nor supply with preaching the societies they have made or occasioned among the people under our care, but declare that all such practices are of pernicious tendency and inconsistent with the presbyterian plan.

“4. That they will not publicly nor privately, endeavour to diminish the character of any minister as graceless, or unconverted, or unworthy of his office, until he be tried by a proper judicature and censured; and that they claim no right to judge of men’s spiritual estate toward God, so as to determine whether they be gracious or graceless, if sound in the faith, and of a gospel life and conversation; and that they condemn all such practices.

“5. That they renounce all such tenets or doctrines that have been advanced in Mr. Tennent’s Nottingham sermon, which are contrary to our presbyterian plan, subversive of gospel order, and a floodgate to let in divisions and disorders into the churches; such as an allowance to church members, to guess at the spiritual estate of their pastors, and upon this guess, without further trial, to leave them as graceless and unconverted; the asserting an inward call to the ministry, in opposition and contradiction to the outward call or ordaining to the gospel ministry. All who maintain them, (i.e. the above doctrines,) can be no members of a presbyterian society or church, because they take all government out of the hands of a synod or presbytery, and give it to any person that hath ignorance or impudence enough to bring God’s house into confusion.

“6. That they acknowledge that too many of them have been guilty in all these points, and, notwithstanding, whatever zeal and intention to promote a work of grace, they might have been influenced by, yet now they are convinced that such practices have had a dreadful tendency to promote and spread the divisions and confusions which perplex and disturb this church.

“7. We propose that if they have any ground of complaint against any of our members, with respect to their doctrines, conversation, or diligence in the ministry, they shall be welcome to table the charge against them in a proper judicatory, whether they comply with these terms or not; and that if they satisfy us in these points, and accept their seats in our synod, all other grounds of complaint shall be removed, either by public trial, or such other method as they and we in conjunction shall determine. And we declare that if all or any of those brethren accept these terms, or any other, that they and we can devise or agree to, that will lay a foundation to secure these important rights of society, a learned and pious ministry, and to prevent errors and divisions, in a way agreeable to God’s word, and the presbyterian constitution, we are heartily willing to receive them. And we desire that they may give us their answer to these heads as soon as they can conveniently.”

To this paper the following answer was returned. “Upon a paper sent to us from the ministers that protested against us, proposing certain terms of union; this conjunct meeting of the presbyteries of New Brunswick and Newcastle, does judge that there can be no regular methods of proceeding toward the compassing a stable union between them and us, until their illegal protest be withdrawn, that so they and we may both stand on an equal footing in the regular trial of the differences between us; that their paper contains sundry misrepresentations and unreasonable demands; and that we have several charges against them to be satisfied in before we could come into a settled union with them.”

In 1744, no member of the New York presbytery appeared in synod, and no new effort was made to heal the schism. In 1745, Messrs. Dickinson, Pemberton, and Pierson, were present and enrolled as members. On the second day of the sessions, those gentlemen, “in the name of the presbytery of New York, and by a commission from them, desired the synod to appoint a committee to try whether an overture could be prepared, removing any grounds of dissatisfaction or difference between them and the synod.” Whereupon it was “ordered that Messrs. Andrews, Cross, Alison, Thompson, Boyd, Gillespie, McDowell, Samuel Evans, and the moderator, (Cathcart,)” be that committee. As this committee did not succeed in preparing an overture, the whole synod was resolved into a committee of conference. After much consultation, Messrs. Thompson, Alison, Steel, and McDowell, were appointed to draw up a plan of union, and report it at the next meeting. The following day this committee accordingly reported their plan. Before it was read, the New York gentlemen were asked, “whom of the New Brunswick brethren they alleged to be members, whether all who are now of that party, or only such of them as enjoyed membership before? And they declared they account only such of them as have been members and had their seats, to be now members and no others. The overture drawn up by the committee was twice read and this vote put—Whether it was a proper plan of accommodation to propose? and it was voted proper to propose it, and it is as follows:

“1. The glory of God and the advancement of Christ’s kingdom, by the persuading souls to embrace the Lord Jesus Christ on gospel terms, and by preserving peace, truth and good order in the churches, ought to be the grand design of all Christians, and of the ministers of the gospel in particular. But to our great concern and sorrow, the disorderly intrusions into the pastoral charges of ministers, and surmises that were raised to blacken their characters as carnal and unconverted; the bold violation of our synodical acts and regulations, and the new method of itinerant preaching, where there is a stated gospel ministry, have, in a great measure, marred this noble design, by rending the churches of Christ, and filling the minds of the people with uncharitable thoughts of one another. To check these evils, prevailing by means of some claiming to themselves a privilege under pretence of extraordinaries, to trample under foot all rights of mankind, to destroy all pastoral relation, and to lay aside, at least for a season, that form of government and discipline that was practised and used in our churches; a number of the synod of Philadelphia protested against those illegal disorderly practices in 1741; and being wearied out with fruitless attempts to redress these delusive unscriptural methods of proceeding, determined to withdraw from synodical communion, unless those who were guilty of such practices gave proper satisfaction according to gospel rules. The majority of the synod then present made this protest their act, and declared that those brethren should either give such satisfaction or withdraw from membership, on which they chose to withdraw.

“This method of procedure was complained of next year as contrary to the method of proceeding in our churches, by some members that were absent when this separation was made; upon which it was proposed, that the whole affair should be reviewed by the synod then met, and if any thing was found illegal it should be redressed. But these brethren could find clearness to do nothing until those disorderly brethren who withdrew, should again be allowed to take their seats as members, which the majority of the synod could not comply with. Upon which they entered a declaration against the method of proceeding the year before. At our next synod they proposed methods for healing the breach between those brethren that withdrew and the synod; which occasioned the synod to send them proposals of peace, which they rejected, and still continued their divisive practices of counteracting the synod’s regulations, and crumbling of congregations to pieces, erecting altar against altar, to the great scandal of religion and the ruin of vital piety. Those brethren from the presbytery of New York, who were dissatisfied at the method by which that party stand excluded, having on this occasion laboured to have their own scruples removed, and at the same time to have peace and unity restored among all that were ever members of the synod, all the synod now met heartily concur with them in this noble undertaking, if it can be obtained in such a method as may and will maintain sound doctrine, and preserve the peace and good order of the church.