Missionary Operations of the Synod

With a field so extensive as that embraced within the bounds of the synod of New York and Philadelphia, and which was rapidly filling up with inhabitants, the burden of missionary labour which devolved upon that body was very heavy. In 1759, Messrs. Kirkpatrick, McWhorter, Latta, and Lewis, were sent to Virginia, to act under the direction of the presbytery of Hanover. Mr. John Brainerd, then the pastor of the church of Newark, applied to the synod for advice, whether he should leave his pastoral charge and devote himself anew to the service of the Indians. The synod unanimously advised him to remove, and promised him the interest of the Indian fund in the hands of the trustees of the college of New Jersey, which was at the disposal of the synod. Messrs. McKnight, Beatty, and Latta, also were directed to visit the Indians in the course of the summer. In 1760, Messrs. Duffield and Mills were sent to Virginia; and a general collection for the support of the Indian mission was ordered to be taken up. With the view of explaining the necessity for this collection, the synod state that in consequence of the application of certain pious ministers, the society in Scotland for propagating Christian knowledge had made an annual grant, which was appropriated, first to David Brainerd, and afterwards to his brother John; who had continued to labour among the Indians for seven or eight years. In consequence of the war he had relinquished his mission and settled in Newark; but when the province of New Jersey, having reserved four thousand acres of land for the Indians, requested him, by its governor, to resume his mission, he had upon the advice of the synod, given up his comfortable settlement and recommenced his missionary labours. His support, and that of the Indian school, therefore, now rested on the synod, who called on all the churches to make a collection and to send the proceeds to Mr. Jonathan Sergeant, near Princeton. President Davies was also directed to write to the society in Scotland, and request them to renew their grant.

In 1761, an overture was made by Mr. Kirkpatrick, to send a missionary to the Oneida Indians, the importance of which the synod acknowledged, but as no one could then be found to undertake the service, and as the necessary funds were not at command, the overture was declined. The synod renewed their promises to support Mr. Brainerd, and ordered a new collection for that purpose. Numerous applications were, the same year, presented for missionaries to North Carolina.

In 1762, a new order was made respecting the Indian mission; the money to be paid to the Rev. Mr. Ewing, in Philadelphia, or to Mr. Jonathan Sergeant, Princeton. Messrs. Enoch Green and William Tennent, jun’r. were directed to serve each six months under the direction of the presbytery of Hanover.4

In 1763, a new general collection was ordered for the Indian mission, and thirty pounds appropriated to the support of the school master. Mr. Occam, the missionary among the Oneida Indians, in the service of the British society, was taken under the care of the synod, and sixty-five pounds appropriated to his use. The same year a request was presented from the corporation of the Widows’ Fund, that some missionaries might be sent to the frontier settlements, to ascertain where new congregations were forming, and what could be done to promote the spread of the gospel among them, and the neighbouring Indians. The board, which held in trust a fund received from the general assembly in Scotland, for propagating the gospel in this country, offered to pay the necessary expenses of the proposed mission. In consequence of this application the synod appointed Messrs. Beatty and Brainerd to go to the west, and to report to the board the result of their researches. Mr. Green was appointed to act as a missionary within the bounds of the presbyteries of Lewes and Newcastle, and Mr. William Tennent and Jacob Ker within those of Hanover.2 A committee was also appointed to confer with the corporation of the Widows’ Fund with regard to a plan for missionary operations.

It appears from the minutes for 1764, that the mission of Messrs. Beatty and Brainerd to the frontiers, was frustrated by the breaking out of the Indian war. A new collection was ordered for the support of Mr. Brainerd, and the interest of the fund in the hands of the trustees of New Jersey college was appropriated to his use.5 The same year the synod, considering the state of many congregations in the south, particularly in North Carolina, and the great importance of having those congregations properly organized, appointed the Rev. Elihu Spencer, and Alexander McWhorter, as their missionaries for that purpose; that they might form societies, help them to adjust their bounds, ordain elders, administer sealing ordinances, instruct the people in discipline, and finally direct them in their conduct, particularly in what manner they should proceed to obtain the stated ministry. They were further directed to assure the people that the synod had their interests much at heart, and would send them candidates and supplies to the utmost of their power. This was just such a mission as that on which Timothy and Titus were sent, that they might “set in order the things that were wanting, and ordain elders in every city.” It would have been perfectly consistent with our system had Messrs. Spencer and McWhorter been authorized to ordain preaching, as well as ruling presbyters, had there been any probability of finding suitable candidates for the sacred office.

In 1765, Messrs. Nathan Ker, George Duffield, William Ramsay, David Caldwell, James Latta, and Robert McMurdie, were appointed to labour each six months in North Carolina. A collection was again ordered for the Indian mission.3

In 1766, it was ordered that every member of the synod should take subscriptions, or make collections, in his congregation, and in the neighbouring vacancies, to raise a fund for the propagation of the gospel among the destitute. It was also resolved to sustain the school under Mr. Brainerd. The synod appointed Messrs. Lewis, Caldwell, Chesnut, and Bay, to perform missionary duty at the south, and authorized Mr. C. T. Smith, to itinerate in the same quarter.5 Messrs. Beatty and Duffield were appointed missionaries to the frontiers, and directed to report to the corporation of the Widows’ Fund.

In 1767, a report was made of the result of the collections of the preceding year, for sending the gospel to the poor, when it was found that only £112 had been received. The synod expressed their great sorrow that so many of their members had paid so little regard to the authority of synod, enjoining a liberality for so pious and important a purpose. The presbytery of New York brought in an overture on the subject of missions, which was amended and adopted. This overture provided that there should be an annual collection taken up in every congregation; that every presbytery should appoint a treasurer to receive and transmit the monies thus obtained; that the synod should appoint a general treasurer to whom all these presbyterial collections should be sent; and that every year a full account of all receipts and disbursements should be printed and sent down among the churches. Mr. Richard Treat was appointed the synodical treasurer under this plan. Thirty pounds were appropriated to the support of Mr. Brainerd’s school, and twenty as an addition to his salary. A committee appointed to confer with the corporation of the Widows’ Fund, reported, “that, agreeably to an act of the general assembly of the church of Scotland, passed in the year ——, the money raised by collections in the several congregations of that church shall be disposed of by the charitable corporation, in conjunction with a committee of the united synod of New York and Philadelphia, for the support and relief of such ministers as are, or shall hereafter be called to preach the everlasting gospel among the benighted Indians, or to such congregations as cannot afford them maintenance.” The committee added, they had not been able to ascertain the sum which was at the joint disposal of the corporation and the synod; another committee was, therefore, appointed to ascertain the sum, and to assist in its appropriation.2 A petition was presented from eight congregations in North Carolina, that Mr. Spencer, Lewis, McWhorter, or James Caldwell, might be sent to settle among them, offering to contribute a hundred and sixty pounds to the support of either of them. These gentlemen, however, all declined the invitation. Petitions for supplies were at the same time received from twenty-one places in Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia. The synod appointed Messrs. Bay, Potter, Alexander, McCreary, James Latta, jun’r, Anderson, and Jackson, to visit those congregations, and spend at least six months each in their service. Messrs. Beatty and Duffield reported that they visited the frontiers, agreeably to the directions of the last synod, and found a great number of people exceedingly desirous of being formed into congregations, and ready to do all that they could to support the gospel, though they were in very distressing circumstances, in consequence of the calamities of the late war. They also visited the Indians upon the Muskingum, a hundred and thirty miles beyond Fort Pitt, whom they found anxious to receive religious instruction. The synod appointed Messrs. Brainerd and Cooper to visit the frontiers, and to spend three months among the Indians above-mentioned.2 The same year Dr. Rodgers was sent on a mission of six weeks to Albany and the neighbouring places.

In 1768, Messrs. Brainerd and Cooper reported, that in consequence of the discouraging accounts brought by the Indian interpreter, they had not performed the mission assigned them by the last synod. The usual appropriations were made for Mr. Brainerd’s mission; a committee consisting of Dr. Alison, Messrs. Reed, Treat, Ewing, W. Tennent, Rodgers, Brainerd, McWhorter, Caldwell, Dr. Williamson, Charles Thompson, and the moderator, John Blair, was appointed to meet at Elizabethtown, to prepare a general plan for propagating the gospel among the Indians. The committee appointed to confer with the corporation of the Widows’ Fund, respecting the money in their hands received from Scotland, and subject to the disposition of the synod, reported that they proposed several questions to the board and had received the following answer. “That it is the sense of this board, that though a corporate body may not, in the management of its affairs, legally associate with others not in membership, yet in regard to the limitation of the general assembly of the church of Scotland, we judge it our duty to consult with the committee, and mutually to propose and agree with one another in the uses to which the money is to be applied; provided always, that if the synod do not appoint a committee, or if that committee do not attend upon the corporation, it shall not be hindered to proceed to business;” and “that the interest of seven hundred pounds sterling is to be disposed of yearly for the time to come, if there be occasion for it, with the advice and consent of the synod.” These answers were not deemed satisfactory, as they did not state what sum had been received from the general assembly, nor what use the board had made of it since it came into their hands. Objection was also taken to the claim of the board of a right to dispose of the money without the concurrence of the synod, in case of a failure in the appointment of a committee. The synod, therefore, appointed another committee to endeavour to get this matter cleared up. Renewed supplications for supplies were presented from the frontiers of Pennsylvania, from Virginia, North and South Carolina; and the synod appointed Messrs. Bay, Tate, Anderson, Jackson, and McCreary, for missionary service in these several places.2

In 1769, the usual appropriations were made for Mr. Brainerd. Messrs. John Harris, John Clark, Jeremiah Halsey, James Latta, John Elmore, Thomas Lewis, Hezekiah James Balch, and James Anderson, were appointed as missionaries to the south. Dr. Alison, Messrs. Treat, Ewing, and Sproat, were appointed a committee to examine the credentials and to grant certificates to any licentiates or ministers from New England, who might offer themselves as missionaries to the southern provinces. The synod engaged to pay their missionaries at the rate of thirty shillings for every sabbath they preached. The presbytery of New York was directed to supply the poor vacancies on the frontiers of New Jersey and New York ten sabbaths; and the presbytery of Donegal those in Pennsylvania ten sabbaths.

In 1770, numerous applications for supplies were presented from Virginia and Carolina, and Messrs. Lewis, Roe, Close, and McCreary, were appointed to labour in those provinces. Mr. Patrick Alison was sent to Virginia, and Mr. Nathan Niles, a licentiate from Massachusetts, was directed to labour during the summer on the western frontiers of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and to spend the winter in Carolina. The synod agreed to grant the presbyteries of New York and Donegal each fifteen pounds towards the payment of supplies for the frontiers.

In 1771, the usual appropriations were made for the support of Mr. Brainerd’s mission. Messrs. James Finley, Samson Smith, Schenck, Alexander Miller, Eliphalet Ball, Elam Potter, Joseph Potter, and John McCreary, were appointed as missionaries to the south and west. Fifteen pounds were again appropriated to each of the presbyteries of New York and Donegal for supplies. The committee of conference with the corporation of the widows’ fund, reported that they had made a settlement with the board, which the synod subsequently sanctioned. The corporation agreed to pay the synod annually thirty pounds, to be appropriated to the aid of poor ministers, or to the erection of churches, or the payment of missionaries within the provinces of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland. In consideration of this annual sum the synod agreed to acquiesce in and approve of such application of the money entrusted by the Scotch church for the use of the widows’ fund, and all such other pious uses as have hitherto been made of it by the corporation. The synod agreed never to break in upon the capital whence the said thirty pounds were to arise by way of interest; but if found necessary, the board were to have the right to use the capital in whole or in part. This, however, was not to be done unless the annuities due from the corporation could not otherwise be paid. The synod was to receive the interest of the remaining portion of the fund at the rate of five per centum, should the corporation at any time find it necessary to use a part of the capital. It was finally agreed, that this arrangement should put an end to all debates between the synod and the board in reference to this matter. It does not appear that the synod ever succeeded in finding out the sum originally received from Scotland; or the uses to which it had hitherto been applied. In this minute the board say they considered the fund as equal to six hundred pounds, which, as nothing is said to the contrary, probably means pounds currency, whereas three years before the sum was seven hundred pounds sterling. It is evident the corporation considered themselves as having the legal disposal of the money, and as the synod acquiesced in their measures, it is to be presumed that this was acknowledged on their part. The funds of the corporation were so much injured by the depreciation of money during the revolutionary war, that in 1782, the synod agreed to remit this fund to them to be applied to the ends of their institution.

In 1772, a new general collection was ordered; and it was directed that the monies thus raised should be appropriated for the support of missionaries, the purchase and distribution of useful books, and the promotion of the gospel among the Indians. A committee was appointed in New York and Philadelphia, to procure books and distribute them to the several presbyteries. The books to be purchased were Bibles, Westminster Confession of Faith, Vincent’s Catechism, Doddridge’s Rise and Progress of Religion, Alleine’s Alarm, A compassionate Address to the Christian world, Watts’ Divine Songs, and the Assembly’s Catechism. A pastoral letter was addressed to the churches urging the importance of the ends to be answered by the proposed collection upon their attention. Missionary appointments were, as usual, made for the south and west.

In 1773, it was reported that Mr. Brainerd’s school was discontinued the preceding year for want of a teacher; and forty-three pounds were appropriated towards his support. Twenty pounds were assigned to each of the committees in Philadelphia and New York for the purchase of books; and the presbytery of New York were allowed to appropriate fifty pounds of the money collected within their bounds towards rebuilding the presbyterian church in the Island of Saba. The presbytery of Newcastle were appointed to send certain missionaries to the south, whose credentials were to be signed by the moderator of the synod.

In 1774, the usual appropriations were made for Mr. Brainerd. Dr. Rodgers, Mr. McWhorter, and Mr. Caldwell, were appointed to visit the northern part of New York for the purpose of preaching and organizing congregations. Urgent applications for supplies were received from Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina. A representation was also presented to the synod from the Rev. Dr. Ezra Stiles and the Rev. Samuel Hopkins, respecting a mission to Africa, which brought up the subject of slavery. A committee was appointed to prepare an overture on these subjects and report to the synod. The first part of the report of this committee was adopted as follows: “The synod is very happy to have an opportunity to express their readiness to concur with and assist in a mission to the African tribes, and especially where so many circumstances concur, as in the present case, to intimate that it is the will of God, and to encourage us to hope for success. We assure the gentlemen aforesaid, we are ready to do all that is proper for us in our station for their encouragement and assistance.” The part of the report which related to slavery was deferred to the next meeting of the synod. As nothing is said of the African mission after this, it is presumed that the war, which commenced the following year, prevented the plan’s being carried into effect. Seven missionaries were sent to the south and west, and the several presbyteries were urged to render what further assistance they could.2

In 1775, Messrs. Brooks, Debow, Keith, Hunter, and Phithian, were appointed as missionaries to the south and west; and Messrs. Lewis and Ker to Albany, Charlotte, and Tryon counties, in the province of New York. Mr. Miller was directed to supply every fifth Sabbath until the next synod, in the vacancies in the neighbourhood of Schenectady.

In 1776, Messrs. McGill, White, and Carmichael, were appointed missionaries to the western part of Pennsylvania, and the presbyteries of Newcastle and Philadelphia were urged to send missionaries to the south. Nothing is said of the mission under Mr. Brainerd for several years, except the annual order that he should be paid the interest of the three hundred pounds belonging to the synod in the hands of the trustees of the college of New Jersey.

In 1777, a society of Highland Scots at Southerland, presented a petition to the synod requesting a supply of books, and that the Rev. Mr. McFarquhar might be appointed to preach and administer gospel ordinances among them. And the synod ordered a collection of books to be made for them, and appointed Mr. McFarquhar to supply them for some time.

In 1778, there was a very thinly attended meeting of the synod at Bedminster, Somerset county, New Jersey. The minutes contain no record in relation to missions.

In 1779, Dr. Witherspoon, the treasurer of the synod, reported that he had received the legacy left by the Rev. Diodati Johnson of Connecticut, for the aid of missions to the southern colonies. From a subsequent minute it appears that the money received was two hundred and eighty seven pounds and a fraction.5 A member of the presbytery of Hanover, requested that “some missionaries might be sent to the state of Virginia to preach the gospel, and especially that a few ministers of genius, prudence, and address, might spend some considerable time in attempting to form the people into regular congregations under the discipline and government of the Presbyterian Church, and to settle among them, and undertake the education of youth; representing, there appears at present, in many parts of that state, a very favourable disposition towards religion in general, and towards the presbyterian church in particular; that it is greatly for the interest of the church to pay particular attention to the southern and western parts of this continent; that congregations which may be formed there will be permanent and fixed, whereas the continual migration of the inhabitants in our interior congregations diminishes their importance and threatens their dissolution; that it is not desirable nor to be expected that that extensive country should continue long without some form of religion; that this synod has now an opportunity of promoting the interests of religion extensively, which in a few years may be utterly lost by the prevalence and preoccupancy of many ignorant and irregular sectaries.” The synod, in consequence of this representation, earnestly recommended it to all their presbyteries, to turn their attention to this subject as peculiarly interesting and important.

During the years 1780, 81, and 82, the synod was able to do but little in the service of missions. In 1783, it was ordered that every member of the synod “shall use his utmost influence in the congregation under his inspection, and in the vacancies contiguous to it, to raise contributions for the purchase of Bibles for distribution among the poor, and that Drs. Ewing and Sproat, and Mr. Duffield be a committee to receive such contributions, to purchase Bibles, and to send them to the several members of the synod, who, in conjunction with their respective sessions, shall distribute them.” This subject was afterwards repeatedly urged upon the attention of the churches.3

Action of the Synod in Reference to Education and Learning

With regard to education, the influence of the synod was constantly and beneficially exerted by insisting on proper literary qualifications in the candidates for the ministry, by patronising schools and colleges, and by making provision for the education of the poor. The literary institutions in which the synod were particularly interested, were the academy at Newark, Delaware, and the college of New Jersey. The trustees of the former were almost all members of the synod, on whose application for a general collection in aid of the institution, it was agreed to countenance the measure and to recommend the academy to the charity of all the churches. In 1773, the Rev. Dr. Ewing and Dr. Hugh Williamson, a man distinguished for his scientific attainments, and an elder in the presbyterian church, visited England to solicit benefactions in behalf of this academy. Though it owed its origin to the synod of Philadelphia, and though at the time of its incorporation in 1769, all its clerical, and, it is believed, most of its lay trustees were presbyterians, it has of late years passed into the hands of the episcopalians, and is now known as Newark college. With the college at Princeton, the connexion of the synod was far more intimate, and the efforts made for its support were frequent and strenuous.

For some time after the union the arrangement which had been made between the synod of Philadelphia and the trustees in London, for the support of German schools, was continued, and a committee annually appointed to dispose of the appropriation received from that source.

In 1760, a proposition was made for the appointment and support of a professor of divinity, which the synod recommended to the consideration of the presbyteries, that some plan might be devised for the accomplishment of the object. The following year, though the synod agreed “to promote this good purpose, yet from the pressure of other calls, and the want of funds, they were obliged to defer it.” Deeply sensible, however, “that the church suffered greatly for want of an opportunity to instruct students in the knowledge of divinity, it was agreed that every student, after he has been admitted to his first degree in college, shall read carefully, on this subject, at least one year, under the care of some minister of approved character for his skill in theology, and under his direction shall discuss difficult questions in divinity, study the sacred Scriptures, form sermons, lectures, and such other useful exercises as may be directed in the course of his studies. And it is enjoined likewise, that every preacher for the first year after his licensure, shall show all his sermons to some minister in our presbyteries on whose friendship and candour he depends, written fairly, to have them corrected and amended. And as they are but young preachers, we are persuaded that no better method can be taken in present circumstances to improve them in Christian knowledge, and render them eminently useful in their station. It is also enjoined that they preach as often as they can before stated ministers, that they may correct their gestures, pronunciation, delivery, and the like. And it is further enjoined, that all our ministers and probationers forbear reading their sermons from the pulpit, if they can conveniently.”

In 1768, in consequence of a request from the trustees of the college of New Jersey, that the synod would aid in the support of a professor of divinity in that institution, a general collection was ordered for that purpose, and fifty pounds were appropriated towards the salary of the Rev. John Blair, who had been elected to that office. The wants of the college at this time were so pressing, that in the following year the synod appointed a committee in every part of the church, for the purpose of raising funds for its support. In consequence of this application, the presbytery of New Brunswick addressed a memorial to the churches under their care, setting forth the condition and claims of the college. They state that its permanent funds, though once considerable, had been reduced by necessary expenditures to £1300, and must be still further reduced, as the officers could not be supported by the fees for tuition without making those fees so high as seriously to interfere with the usefulness of the institution. It was urged that the college had peculiar claims on our church. Even in 1767, there were not fewer than eighty of her sons ministers of the gospel dispersed through the several colonies, since which time there had been considerable addition to the number. “The eyes,” it is said, “of by far the greater number of our vacant churches are turned to that college for a supply of ministers; especially the churches in New Jersey and the southern colonies. That from the principles there taught and received, we have reason to think that useful instruments not only have been, but from time to time will be raised up to propagate the pure evangelical doctrines of the gospel, and to make a stand against such as might be glad to abridge our liberties, and to bring us under the yoke of ecclesiastical power; instruments to plead the cause of liberty and religion, and to make our church respectable.” This effort in behalf of the college was continued for several years, with what result is not fully known, except that it is stated, that the several committees had “been very diligent and successful.”2

During the period now under review, viz: from 1758 to 1789, the college was under the presidency of Mr. Davies, of Dr. Samuel Finley, and of Dr. Witherspoon. Mr. Davies entered upon the duties of his office July 26, 1759, and died February 4, 1761, so that he was president little more than eighteen months. Short as was his administration, his talents, and his devotion to his duties, rendered it eminently serviceable to the institution. His successor, Dr. Samuel Finley, entered on his duties as president, July, 1761, and died July 16, 1766. He was a native of Armagh in Ireland, but removed to this country in 1734, in the nineteenth year of his age. He was licensed by the New Brunswick presbytery in 1740, and preached with great success, especially in Pennsylvania and in the lower counties of New Jersey. In 1744, he settled at Nottingham in Maryland, where he remained for seventeen years. He there instituted an academy which enjoyed a wide and deserved reputation. “He was justly famed as a scholar, and eminently qualified as a teacher.” Dr. John Woodhull, who was one of his pupils, speaks of him as being always solemn and instructive, and often fervent in the pulpit, as extensively learned, and as greatly beloved and respected by his students. Under his administration the college was very flourishing, and his own reputation rapidly extending, when he was cut down in the prime of life. About a year after he entered on the presidency, there was an extensive revival of religion in the college, in which fifty of the students, about one half of the whole number then in the institution, were supposed to have become sincerely pious.

Dr. Finley died in July, 1766: the November following Dr. Witherspoon was unanimously elected president. Before this appointment was known, a number of gentlemen attached to that portion of the church which, before the union of the two synods, had belonged to the synod of Philadelphia, waited upon the trustees to propose the establishment of several professorships in the college, upon a plan which should unite the whole church in the support of the institution. The committee of the trustees appointed to confer with these gentlemen, reported, that their proposals being based upon the assumption, that the president’s chair was vacant, their plan had been disconcerted by the appointment of Dr. Witherspoon, and consequently they could not answer for what their constituents would do under these altered circumstances, but that they were nevertheless truly desirous to complete the proposed design. The committee inquired whether, on the supposition of the nomination of two gentlemen for professorships, viz: Messrs. Blair and McDowell, on condition that funds should be raised for their support, their constituents would be satisfied.” To this the gentlemen replied, that, however desirous they were to accomplish so excellent a design, they could not engage for the future conduct of their constituents. The board taking into consideration the above report came to the following resolution: “Whereas it is an object of the greatest concern, that union and the strictest harmony among all the friends and patrons of religion and sound literature, might be promoted by every proper method, and that this institution may have every possible advantage of increasing its reputation, and the cause of learning; and as there appears reason to expect great and happy consequences, both to the interests of religion and of this seminary, from putting into execution the general design of the proposals made, they will gladly do every thing in their power to accomplish the said end; and accordingly declare themselves greatly desirous that a sufficiency of monies by subscription or otherwise, might be obtained to accomplish this noble design; and are cheerfully willing to join in any particular method that can be devised for raising the necessary sums. For though this board would gladly proceed to the election of professors without delay, were their funds sufficient to support such an additional expense, yet they judge it by no means expedient to take that step before they have a certain medium for their support.”

The following year this negotiation was renewed. A number of gentlemen again attended the meeting of the board, and a committee was appointed to confer with them. This committee reported that they found them and their constituents still very desirous of concurring with the trustees of the college in the establishment and support of a faculty, and promising to unite their utmost endeavours to raise the necessary funds; that the said gentlemen being asked by the committee, whether the appointment of all or of any of the particular persons to professorships named and recommended in their proposals, was intended as a term of their acceding to and assisting in the establishment proposed, replied, that it was not intended to make the appointment of any particular persons named by their constituents, a term of the proposed union, but that any other gentlemen who might be deemed qualified for their offices, and indiscriminately chosen without regard to party distinctions, would be acceptable to them. The board taking the subject into consideration, were unanimously of the opinion, that the constitution of a faculty, to consist of well qualified professors, to be chosen without any regard to little party differences, would greatly subserve the interest of religion and learning in this seminary. They, therefore, determined to proceed to such an election; and accordingly the following day chose the Rev. John Blair professor of divinity and moral philosophy; Dr. Hugh Williamson professor of mathematics and natural philosophy; Mr. Jonathan Edwards professor of languages and logic; and, as Dr. Witherspoon, in consequence of the unwillingness of his wife to leave Scotland, had declined the presidency, the Rev. Samuel Blair was chosen president and professor of rhetoric and metaphysics. For the want of funds these appointments were conditional, and, with the exception of that of Mr. John Blair, were not to take effect for a year, and in the meantime, the college was to be conducted by Mr. Blair and three tutors. Before the expiration of the year the difficulty in the way of Dr. Witherspoon’s accepting the presidency was removed, and Mr. Samuel Blair, having generously withdrawn his name, Dr. Witherspoon was reelected, and arrived in this country August, 1768, and was inaugurated as president on the seventeenth of that month.

The deficiency in the pecuniary resources of the college prevented the above plan being carried into effect. Even Mr. Blair, to relieve the funds of the institution, resigned his office as professor of divinity, and devolved the duties upon Dr. Witherspoon. Under the auspices of the latter, the college soon began to flourish, its course of instruction was enlarged, its students increased, and the funds necessary for its support were supplied. The revolutionary war, however, soon put a stop to this course of improvement. The college was, in a great measure, disbanded, and though a class graduated in each year, the number of annual graduates was often not more than four or five. When peace returned, prosperity returned to the college, and it continued to reward the labours of its pious founders, by contributing largely to the supply of educated ministers to the church. The number of clergymen educated at this college before 1789, was two hundred and twenty-nine.

In 1771, a plan for the education of poor and pious young men for the ministry, was laid before the synod by the presbytery of Newcastle, which was approved. This plan provided that every vacant congregation receiving supplies, should pay two pounds towards an education fund, every minister one pound, and that voluntary subscriptions from other quarters should be solicited. Every presbytery was to appoint a treasurer, to examine candidates, to direct their studies, &c. Every beneficiary was to spend one year after licensure in the service of the presbytery by which he had been educated; and in case he did not enter the ministry, he was to give a bond to refund the money expended in his behalf within five years. It appears from the minutes for the following year, that the presbyteries of New York, New Brunswick, and the second of Philadelphia, had fully complied with the above recommendation, and that several others had done so partially.2

In 1775, the question was proposed, whether a presbytery could, with propriety, take any candidate upon trial unless furnished with a diploma from some college. The synod the following year answered, that the advantages of a public education rendered it highly expedient that all candidates should finish their academical studies in some public institution, yet as the presbyteries were the proper judges of the requisite qualifications of their candidates, it was not intended to preclude from admission to trial all who had not enjoyed those advantages.

In 1783, at the request of the presbytery of Philadelphia, the question was considered, whether a person without a liberal education may be taken on trials, or licensed to preach the gospel? which was answered in the negative. And in 1785, the same question came up in a different form, viz. whether, in the present state of the church in America, and the scarcity of ministers to fill our vacancies, the synod or presbyteries ought to relax in any degree in the literary qualifications required of intrants into the ministry? and it was carried in the negative by a great majority.” These decisions, considering the circumstances of the case, certainly reflect great credit upon the synod.

The same year it was proposed that no candidate should be taken on trial until he shall have employed two years at least in the study of divinity, after his having passed the usual course of a liberal education. This proposition, after discussion, was laid over to the following year, and then, “considering,” as the synod say, “the present circumstances of our churches, it was decided in the negative.” It was at the same time “enjoined on every presbytery to subject every candidate on trials for the ministry, to an accurate examination on the discipline of the presbyterian church.”

The attention of the synod, however, was not confined to candidates for the ministry, but “considering the education of youth, and their being early instructed in the principles of religion, as one of the most useful means of promoting the influence of religion in our churches, they resolved, that it be enjoined on every presbytery, in appointing supplies to their vacant congregations, to take order that every vacant congregation within their limits be carefully catechised at least once in every year, in the same manner as is required by the order of our church in congregations supplied with regular pastors; and that the ministers appointed to this duty be required to render an account of their fidelity in this respect.

“Resolved, also, that it be enjoined on all our congregations to pay a special regard to the good education of children, as being intimately connected with the interests of religion and morality; and that, as schools, under a bad master and careless management, are seminaries of vice rather than of virtue, the session, corporation, or committee of every congregation be required to endeavour to establish schools in such place or places as shall be most convenient for the people; that they be particularly careful to procure able and virtuous teachers; that they make the erection and care of schools a part of their congregational business, and endeavour to induce the people to support them by contributions, being not only the most effectual, but, in the end, the cheapest way of supporting them; that the presbyteries appoint particular members, or, if possible, committees, to go into vacant congregations to promote similar institutions; that the corporation, session, or committee of the congregation, visit the school or schools at least once in three months, to inquire into the conduct of the master, and the improvement of the children, and to observe particularly his care to instruct them at least one day in the week, in the principles of religion; that the presbyteries in appointing ministers to supply vacant congregations, require it as an indispensable part of their duty, to visit at the same time the schools, and require at the next meeting of the presbytery, an account of their fidelity in this respect, and of the state of the schools; and that in these schools effectual provision be made for the education of the children of the poor; and that at the visitation of the schools one or two of the most ingenuous and virtuous of the poor children be selected annually, in order to give them a more perfect education, and thereby qualify these ingenuous charity-scholars to become afterwards useful instructers in our charity-schools.”

The Standard of Doctrine in the Synod

The standard of doctrine established and maintained during this period was the Westminster Confession of Faith. In the first article of the plan of union, it is said, “both synods having always approved and received the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms as an orthodox and excellent system of Christian doctrine, we do still receive the same as the confession of our faith.” In all the presbyteries every licentiate, or new member, was required to adopt this confession. The synod allowed of no departure from this rule. In 1764, the presbytery of Suffolk were blamed for “neglecting to record their candidates adopting our public standards at licensure, though they inform us,” it is added, “that it is matter of constant practice.”

Thus also the synod itself, in receiving either a new member, or a new presbytery, insisted on the same condition. In 1765, it is recorded that the Rev. Jonathan Leavitt, “after adopting the Westminster Confession of Faith, as the confession of his faith, and having promised to conform himself to the Westminster Directory for worship and government, was received as a member of the synod, and was advised to put himself under the care of some one of our presbyteries.” In 1763, a request was presented from a presbytery in New York, to the east of the North River, to be incorporated with the synod, and it was “agreed to grant their request, provided that they agree to adopt our Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, and engage to observe the Directory as a plan of worship, discipline, and government, according to the agreement of this synod.” This presbytery complied with these stipulations, and was accordingly admitted.4 In answer to a similar application, made in 1770, from the presbytery of South Carolina, the synod replied, “the only conditions which we require, are, that all your ministers acknowledge and adopt, as the standard of doctrine, the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, and the Directory as the plan of your worship and discipline.”

That this adoption of the Confession of Faith was strict and unequivocal is strongly asserted both by presbyteries and synod. In 1768, the presbytery of New Brunswick having a missionary in Nova Scotia, had occasion to write a letter to a gentleman in that country, in which they say. “We hear that our synod has been injuriously represented in your parts, as being lax in principle and discipline. But we assure you, sir, the charge is utterly groundless. The Westminster Confession of Faith is received here without equivocation, and in the true and proper sense of the words. The doctrines of grace are truly taught, and discipline is regularly and faithfully exercised.” At the same time they wrote to the Rev. Mr. Murdock, a seceding minister in Nova Scotia, to whom they say, “We assure you, dear sir, the public standards of the church of Scotland are our standards. We receive the Westminster Confession of Faith in the true grammatical sense of the words, and are strictly Calvinistic. And the Westminster Directory is the model of our worship and government.” These letters were signed by John Blair, as moderator, and William Kirkpatrick, as clerk.

In like manner a committee of the synod, in their name and with their sanction, declared, in 1786, “the synod of New York and Philadelphia adopt, according to the known and established meaning of the terms, the Westminster Confession of Faith as the confession of their faith; save that every candidate for the gospel ministry is permitted to except against so much of the twenty-third chapter as gives authority to civil magistrates in matters of religion. The presbyterian church in America considers the church of Christ as a spiritual society, entirely distinct from the civil government, and having a right to regulate their own ecclesiastical policy, independently of the interposition of the magistrate. The synod also receive the Directory for public worship, and the form of church government, recommended by the Westminster Assembly, as in substance agreeable to the institutions of the New Testament. This mode of adoption we use because we believe the general platform of our government to be agreeable to the sacred scriptures, but we do not believe that God has been pleased to reveal and enjoin every minute circumstance of ecclesiastical government and discipline as not to leave room for orthodox churches of Christ, in these minutiæ, to differ with charity from each other.

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

That the synod really maintained as well as professed this standard of doctrine, is evident from the case of the Rev. Samuel Harker, to which reference has already been repeatedly made in this history. That gentleman was a member of the presbytery of New Brunswick, and by them his case was referred to the synod, who appointed a committee, of which Mr. Pierson was the chairman, to meet with and endeavour to convince him of his errors. This committee subsequently reported that they were happy to find, from Mr. Harker’s explanations, that his views were correct as to some of the points on which he was supposed to be erroneous, but that as to others, he had departed from our standards. The synod considered this report so encouraging, that they directed him to go to Nottingham and converse with Messrs. Samuel and James Finley, John Blair, Robert and Samson Smith, and on his return with Messrs. Treat, Tennent, Ewing, and Alison, in Philadelphia, in hopes that his conversion might be completed. These hopes, however, were disappointed. Mr. Harker published a book in which he set forth and defended his peculiar views. When the synod met in 1762, they committed this book to Messrs. Spencer, Rodgers, Blair, Laurence, McDowell, Wilson, and Robert Smith, with directions to examine it and make a report to the synod. This report was not presented until the following year, when it appeared that Mr. Harker taught, “1st. That the covenant of grace is in such a sense conditional that fallen mankind, in their unregenerate state, by the general assistance given to men under the gospel, have a sufficient ability to fulfil the conditions thereof, and so by their own endeavours to insure to themselves regenerating grace and all saving blessings. 2d. That God has bound himself by promise to give them regenerating grace, upon their fulfilling what he, (Mr. Harker,) calls the direct conditions of obtaining it; and upon the whole, makes a certain and infallible connexion between their endeavours and the aforesaid blessings. 3d. That God’s prescience of future events is previous to, and not dependent on his decrees; that his decrees have no influence on his own conduct; and that the foresight of faith is the ground of the decree of election. It is further observed, that he often uses inaccurate, unintelligible, and dangerous forms of expression, which tend to lead people into false notions in several important matters; as that Adam was the federal head of his posterity, in the second covenant as well as the first; that the regenerate are not (?) in a state of probation for heaven, and such like.

“The synod judged that these principles are of a hurtful and dangerous tendency, giving a false view of the covenant of grace, perverting it into a new-modelled covenant of works, and misrepresenting the doctrine of the divine decrees as held by the best reformed churches; and, in fine, contrary to the word of God, and our approved standards of doctrine.” Mr. Harker was then called in and questioned on many particulars, and the synod after referring to their several unsuccessful attempts to convince him of his errors, say that he appeared “to be rather confirmed and resolute in propagating his opinions among the people, by a variety of methods, to the great scandal of the church, seducing and perplexing the unwary and unstable; and as he has departed from the truth, and opposed this church in some important articles, and misrepresented the church of Scotland, his doctrine and practice have a schismatical tendency. On the whole, though the exclusion of a member be grievous, yet we judge that the said Mr. Samuel Harker cannot consistently be continued a member of this body, and accordingly declare him to be disqualified for preaching or exercising his ministry in any congregation or vacancy under our care; and do hereby order that all be duly warned not to receive his doctrine, nor admit his ministration, until it shall please God to convince him of his mistakes, and bring him to the acknowledgment of the truth, and recover him from the error of his ways.” As the synod was thus strict in enforcing adherence to our standards, the fact that this is the only case of discipline for erroneous doctrine recorded on their minutes, during the period from 1758 to 1789, is satisfactory proof of the general orthodoxy of the body. It is probable there never was a period of equal length in the history of our church, in which there was such a general and cordial agreement among our ministers on all doctrinal subjects.

Form of Government.—ordinary Powers

In illustrating the constitution of the synod, we shall, agreeably to the plan hitherto pursued, arrange its acts under the general heads of ordinary and extraordinary; meaning by ordinary, such as are conformed to our present usages; and by extraordinary, such as differ from them in a greater or less degree.

To the former of these classes belong of course the formation and alteration of presbyteries. The synod was called upon immediately after its formation to enter upon this business, in accordance with one of the provisions of the plan of union. It was agreed that the presbyteries of Suffolk and New York should continue as they were; that Messrs. Cowell and Guild should be annexed to the presbytery of New Brunswick; that Messrs. Cross, G. Tennent, Alison, Treat, Chesnut, Martin, Beatty, Greenman, Hunter, Ramsay, Lawrence, and Kinkead, should constitute the presbytery of Philadelphia; that Messrs. Wilson, Miller, Tuttle, and Henry, should be the presbytery of Lewes; that the first and second presbyteries of Newcastle, and the presbytery of Donegal, should, for the present, continue as they were; and that Messrs. Creaghead, Black, Craig, Miller, Davies, Todd, Henry, Wright, Brown, and Martain, should be the presbytery of Hanover.

The following year Messrs. Robert Smith, John Roan, Samson Smith, and John Hoge, were attached to the presbytery of Donegal, and the first and second presbyteries of Newcastle were united, with the provision that these changes should not interfere with the liberties of the several congregations within the bounds of those presbyteries, provided for in the plan of union.

In 1762, in consequence of a difference of opinion among the members of the presbytery of Philadelphia, as to the examination of candidates for the ministry on their personal experience in religion, Messrs. Robert Cross, Francis Alison, John Ewing, John Symington, and James Latta, were formed into a presbytery for one year, to be called the second presbytery of Philadelphia. In 1763, the congregations of West Nottingham and little Britain, together with the Rev. Messrs. Hunt and Strain, with their congregations, were set off from the presbytery of Newcastle to that of Donegal. The same year the presbytery of Dutchess in New York, was received, as already mentioned. The question whether the second presbytery of Philadelphia should be continued, was deferred from year to year until 1766, when it was voted to allow it to remain. Against this decision several members dissented for substantially the following reasons. 1. The decision has an obvious appearance of disunion, and has a schismatical tendency, and will be likely to perpetuate party distinctions. 2. As it is the sense of the synod that it is the duty of presbyteries to inquire into a candidate’s experimental acquaintance with religion, it involves this body in a self contradiction to erect a presbytery which expressly refuses it. 3. While nothing is imposed on persons in point of practice, which they in their conscience judge sinful, and they are not restrained from doing their duty, the rights of conscience are not violated, though, they being a minority, a matter in judicature shall be carried against them by vote. Therefore it is vain to urge the rights of conscience in such cases. And for any to signify that they will not be subject, even in such cases, to the regulations of synod, but if contradicted will violently break off, is to prefer the private rights of individuals to the public rights, and will destroy all governing authority in the body. 4. It is a very bad precedent which may be pleaded by others for the division of presbyteries, and by this means congregations now united may be divided, and the formation of new societies prevented. These reasons were signed by Messrs. William Tennent, Charles McKnight, John Blair, William Tennent, Jun., Azael Roe, John Carmichael, Robert Smith, Jacob Ker, David Rose, Nathan Ker, and Simon Horton. Before the schism of 1741, the old-side members, so to call them, being the majority of the synod, were the advocates of its authority, and the new-side members the remonstrants against its exercise. After the union in 1758, the new-side members being the majority, became the advocates of authority, and the old-side members remonstrants. Of the correctness of this statement, the reader will find in the sequel many illustrations. In the present instance we find the Messrs. Tennent, Blair, &c., complaining that the governing authority of the synod would be destroyed if its regulations might be disobeyed, except in cases in which they were deemed sinful. And as the members of the New Brunswick presbytery before the schism pleaded conscience for their disobedience to an act of synod, so the second presbytery of Philadelphia made a similar plea on the present occasion.

The same difference of opinion which caused this separation of the presbytery of Philadelphia, produced still greater difficulties in that of Donegal. In 1765, the synod having maturely considered the situation of affairs in that presbytery, determined to erect the members living on the west side of the Susquehanna, together with the Rev. Andrew Bay, into a new presbytery, to be called the presbytery of Carlisle, and to attach the remaining members to the presbytery of Newcastle. Against this decision the Rev. Messrs. Tate, Beard, Elder, Samson Smith, McMurdie, and Steel, members of the presbytery of Donegal, remonstrated; because it gave them no relief from the grievances of which they complained, and because it was unjust to dispose of a presbytery without consulting its members or allowing them to vote. The synod consented to review the case, but adhered to their decision, saying, that those brethren were so much interested in the matter, that they had no right to a vote in reference to it, though they ought to have been consulted on the subject. The synod further expressed the hope that they would find their grievances removed in their new connexion, and stated that the presbytery of Newcastle was so small that the members to the east of the Susquehanna ought to be joined to it, and that it should be henceforth called the presbytery of Lancaster.2

Messrs. McDowell and Ewing entered their dissent from the foregoing decision, because it made the situation of the dissatisfied brethren worse than it was before; because they had unjustly been deprived of a right to vote in the case; because the presbytery of Donegal had been destroyed without allowing one of its members any voice in the affair; and because this proceeding was inconsistent with the plan of union, which provided that the presbyteries then subsisting should not be united except when it was found for edification. The next year, (1766,) Messrs. Tate and Beard presented a petition to have this decision reviewed. The synod accordingly put it to vote, whether their former judgment should be reversed, and by a great majority decided that it should stand. It was then proposed that the presbytery of Donegal, as it existed before the last synod, should be restored, those members excepted who had been set off to the Carlisle presbytery, and it was decided in the negative. Another expedient was proposed, viz: that the dissatisfied members of the old Donegal presbytery should be allowed for one year to join the second presbytery of Philadelphia. This also was rejected by a great majority. The following protest against these decisions was entered on the minutes. “We are obliged, (though with great grief,) to enter our dissent from, and declare our protest against the conduct and votes of this judicature respecting the late Donegal presbytery, for such reasons as these, ‘1. Because our distressed brethren always declared a scruple of conscience as the foundation of their petition and behaviour, viz: That they could not in conscience submit to the examination of the hearts or experiences of candidates in the way voted by the synod, as they esteemed it contrary to the word of God, to common sense, and the uniform practice of the protestant churches; consequently whether well or ill informed, it was a matter that could not be voted away. 2. Because it appeared very untender and unbrotherly to deny that those members could be conscientious in the affair, when they declared they were so. We cannot judge what matters will affect other men’s consciences. 3. Because even the smallest matter if imposed against the rights of conscience obliges the injured to leave the communion. To exclude men from exercising the power of ordination, unless they submit to it in a way contrary to their judgment, is such an imposition; and, therefore, the schism, in consequence hereof, is to be attributed to the imposers, and not to those who are obliged to withdraw. 4. Because by the spirit of the plan of union, presbyteries were not to be joined, unless for edification; but this modelling evidently tends to ruin and destruction. 5. Because the synod seem to act too arbitrary a part by forcing members into presbyteries without their consent, and the consent of their congregations. 6. Because these violent and precipitate votes have rent the church of Christ, alas! too much divided already, to the joy of our enemies, the grief and distress of all sincere Christians, and the reproach of the Christian name, when only exchanging a member or two in two presbyteries might have prevented the breach.’

“These reasons, together with those entered by two members, (Messrs. McDowell and Ewing,) against a judgment of the last synod respecting the alteration of presbyteries, prevail with us to enter this our protest, whereby we exonerate our consciences in order to continue in your communion, and declare before God and the world, that we are free from blame in this whole procedure. Matthew Wilson, John Ewing, Patrick Alison, Francis Alison.”

In consequence of the above votes, Messrs. Joseph Tate and John Beard brought in the following document: “To the Rev. synod of New York and Philadelphia: We the subscribers humbly beg leave to show, that we much desire to be in union and friendship with this Rev. body, and would not knowingly be the real authors of any discord in the church of Christ; yet the determinations of the synod consequent on our petition presented last year, and again to this present meeting, seem so grievous and oppressive to us, and threatening to the credit and interest of religion, that we find ourselves obliged to declare to this Rev. synod that we cannot submit to them, and we hereby decline all authority and jurisdiction of this body, and that no judgment or determination thereof shall bind us or affect our persons or ministry, until these differences of sentiment be removed by better light, and satisfactory means be found to reconcile and unite us with this Rev. body again; and as we earnestly desire and pray for this, we reserve to ourselves and expect the liberty at any time respectfully to offer such proposals as we may think likely to answer that end; and upon our satisfying the Rev. synod, or they us, to return to our enjoyment of our privileges with them. And in the mean time we shall endeavour to carry respectfully towards this Rev. synod, avoiding whatever might unnecessarily inflame unchristian passions, or tend to hinder the influence of our brethren in the gospel, and expect to be mutually treated by our brethren as ministers of Christ.” They then briefly assign the reasons for their declining, which are substantially those given in support of the protest above mentioned, except the third, in which they complain that “the proceedings of the synod in this as well as in many other affairs, appear plainly calculated to bear down one part of this united synod, and suppress their influence, contrary to the equality and rights of members, and to the nature and whole professed design of our union.”

The next day Messrs. Richard Treat and Read brought in an overture as a good expedient for the peace of the synod, and the satisfaction of the brethren complaining, viz: that the presbytery of Donegal should be restored to its former state, as before the last synod, with the members since settled within their bounds. The synod agreed to this proposal, and also revived the late presbytery of Newcastle, which was to meet according to its last adjournment when under the name of the presbytery of Lancaster.

Unhappily this conciliatory measure did not satisfy the discontented portion of the Donegal presbytery. In 1767, they addressed a letter to the synod saying, that they were willing to return to communion with the church, provided the synod would erect them into a presbytery by themselves. This request was refused, but in order, it is said, “to remove the uneasiness of our brethren, and to promote harmony and peace, we appoint Messrs. Buel, Rodgers, Horton, Kirkpatrick, Beatty, Blair, and Miller, a committee to bring in an overture relative to their petition.” This committee made a report in which they expressed great disapprobation of the conduct of those brethren, and yet to put an end to the schism, they proposed that they should be erected into a separate presbytery, with the proviso, that if any of them should remove out of the bounds of that presbytery, they should become members of the presbytery within whose limits they resided. This proposal, however, was rejected by a considerable majority.

In 1768, the dissatisfied brethren presented the same petition, which was again rejected by a very strong vote. The next day Mr. Tate informed the synod that though he was not authorized to make the proposal, he had no doubt his brethren would be satisfied, if the synod would distribute them among the presbyteries of Donegal, Newcastle, and the second presbytery of Philadelphia. The synod, though they expressed strong disapprobation of their past conduct, agreed to authorize the presbytery of Donegal to receive Mr. Samuel Thompson and Mr. Lang, the presbytery of Newcastle to receive Mr. S. Smith and Beard, and the second presbytery of Philadelphia to receive Messrs. Tate, Elder, Steel, and McMurdie; provided first, that this regulation should not subject any vacancies within the bounds of the presbytery of Donegal to any other presbytery, nor should such vacancies, without express permission, apply to any other presbytery for supplies; and secondly, if any of the said brethren comply with this regulation, they shall previously and expressly withdraw their declining document, entered in 1766, and without such withdrawal they shall not be received as members either of the synod or of any of the presbyteries. These provisos were just and reasonable, but it is well to remark the tone of authority in the synod which they indicate. The Rev. Mr. Strain protested against the above decision, and Messrs. John Roan, John Slemmons, Robert Cooper, and George Duffield dissented, assigning their reasons. These reasons are such as might be anticipated, viz. that the decision sanctioned the bad temper and irregular conduct of the dissatisfied brethren, set a bad precedent, tended to strengthen the second presbytery of Philadelphia, which, in the judgment of many members of the synod ought not to exist at all, &c.2 It appears from the minutes for the following year, that this plan was carried into effect, and this second schism was thus healed. This measure was evidently carried through by the members at a distance from the scene of contention, as Mr. Strain and all the dissentients were members of the presbytery of Donegal.

In 1770, on a petition from certain members of the presbytery of Hanover, the Rev. Messrs. Hugh McCaden, Henry Patillo, James Criswell, David Caldwell, Joseph Alexander, Hezekiah James Balch, and Hezekiah Balch, were formed into a presbytery to be called the presbytery of Orange.

In 1781, the Rev. Messrs. Joseph Smith, John McMillan, James Power, and Thaddeus Dodd, were constituted the presbytery of Redstone. These were the pioneers of western Pennsylvania, and were a noble set of men.

In 1784, the Rev. Joseph Alexander, Francis Cummings, James Edmunds, John Harris, Thomas Reese, and John Simpson, were set off from the presbytery of Orange, and constituted the presbytery of South Carolina.

In 1785, at the request of Messrs. Samuel Doak, Hezekiah Balch, and Charles Cummings, the presbytery of Abingdon was formed out of the presbytery of Hanover, to be bounded by New River on the side next the presbytery of Hanover, and by the Apalachian mountains on that next the presbytery of Orange.

In 1786, an extensive remodelling of the presbyteries took place preparatory to the division of the synod and the adoption of the new constitution. The presbytery of Abingdon was divided into two parts, the one to consist of the Rev. Charles Cummings, Hezekiah Balch, John Casson, Samuel Doak, and Samuel Houston, to be known as the presbytery of Abingdon; the other to consist of Rev. David Rice, Thomas Craighead, Adam Rankin, Andrew McClure, and James Crawford, to be known as the presbytery of Transylvania. The presbytery of Hanover was divided into two parts, the one consisting of the Rev. Richard Sanchey, John Todd, James Waddell, William Irvine, John B. Smith, James Mitchell, John D. Blair, and Daniel McCalla, to be known as the presbytery of Hanover; and the other consisting of the Rev. John Brown, William Graham, Archibald Scott, James McConnel, Edward Crawford, Benjamin Erwin, John Montgomery, William Wilson, Moses Hoge, John McCrie, Samuel Carrick, and Samuel Shannon, to be known as the presbytery of Lexington. It was also agreed that the presbytery of Donegal be divided into two, one of which to consist of the Rev. John Slemmons, James Hunt, Stephen Balch, and Isaac Keith, with Dr. Patrick Alison, of the late second presbytery of Philadelphia, and the Rev. George Luckey, from the presbytery of Newcastle, to be known as the presbytery of Baltimore; and the other to consist of the Rev. Samuel Thompson, John Hoge, Hugh Magill, Robert Cooper, James Martin, James Lang, John Craighead, John King, Hugh Vance, Thomas McFarren, John McKnight, Dr. Robert Davidson, John Black, Samuel Dougall, John Lynn, David Beard, Samuel Waugh, Joseph Henderson, Matthew Steven, and James Johnston, with the Rev. John Elder, and Robert McMurdie, from the late second presbytery of Philadelphia, to be known as the presbytery of Carlisle. The Rev. Colin McFarquhar, late of the presbytery of Donegal, was annexed to the presbytery of Newcastle. The distinction between the first and second presbyteries of Philadelphia was abolished.

General Regulations: And Cases of Conscience

Under the head of ordinary powers of the synod is to be referred, not only the authority which it exercised of resolving questions of conscience, and of determining whether a given doctrine was consistent with our standards, but also of laying down rules of discipline. In reference to this latter point, it must be borne in mind that the right which by our present constitution is reserved to the majority of the presbyteries, of forming constitutional rules, was formerly exercised by the synod, in which all the presbyteries met as one body. Of the exercise of this right by the original synod of Philadelphia, and by each of the two synods during the schism, many examples have already been given. In the united synod of New York and Philadelphia, this authority continued to be exercised until the last. The most common method of proceeding, was for some member, or presbytery, to submit an overture or query, for the decision of the synod; and the determination either constituted a rule for the guidance of the presbyteries, or expressed the refusal of the synod to make the overture into a rule. Thus, in the preceding pages, when speaking of the subject of education, we had occasion to notice that at one time it was determined that all candidates for the ministry should study divinity for at least one year after the completion of their academical course; at another, the proposition that they should be required to study two years, was rejected. Again, the proposal that every candidate should be required to produce a college diploma, before being taken on trial, was rejected; and, on the other hand, the proposition that a liberal education should be dispensed with, was repeatedly discarded.

In 1760, five such propositions or queries were submitted to the synod. The first inquired how many ministers must unite in a request to the moderator of the commission, or of a presbytery, in order to oblige him to call a meeting of the judicatory? The synod decided that, in case of emergency, the moderator himself might call the judicatory together; or, on the application of any two members in the case of a presbytery, or of four or five in the case of the commission, provided that due notice were given to all the members of the occasion, time, and place of the meeting.

The second related to the choice of a moderator, with regard to which the synod agreed, that no moderator had a right to preside in any of our presbyteries, except in virtue of the choice of the members then met; but that presbyteries might elect the same person for moderator from time to time, if they thought proper.

The third was, whether a candidate might apply to what presbytery he pleased for examination and licensure. The synod decided that any student had a right, in our present situation, to study with any divine of reputation connected with the synod, according to a former act; but when he offered himself for examination, he should apply to that presbytery within whose bounds he had generally resided. For sufficient reasons, however, such student might be remitted from one presbytery to another, in which case the latter was not to receive him on a mere certificate of church membership, but should require him to produce testimonials from his former presbytery, or from several neighbouring ministers, recommending him as a candidate of exemplary piety and holiness of conversation.

The fourth question was to this effect, whether a minister ordained either abroad or by some ecclesiastical body in this country, not in connexion with our church, should be received by our presbyteries, on his producing proper testimonials, provided he adopts our Confession, and promises subjection in the Lord? This question was answered twice, first in 1764, and again in 1765. These answers differ very little from each other. The latter is as follows: “It is undoubtedly the right of presbyteries to converse with any probationer or minister from foreign parts, as far as may be necessary to give them satisfaction, and not receive him implicitly on a certificate, however fair and regular, together with his general profession of adopting the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. But if such probationer or minister shall come from a church or judicature generally suspected, or known to be erroneous, or lax and negligent with respect to the moral conduct or piety of their candidates or members; or if they shall come from any number of ministers, who may convene without any regular constitution, merely for the purpose of licensing or ordaining particular persons; in that case a certificate from such a judicature, and such a general profession of the parties respecting the Confession of Faith, are still less satisfactory and render it highly necessary for the presbytery to which such application shall be made, to be more particular and exact in examining the principles of such probationer or minister before they admit him or employ him in their bounds.”

The fifth question was, whether it was regular for our students of divinity to go into New England or elsewhere for licensure, with the intention of returning to officiate within our bounds. To this it was answered: “Though the synod entertain a high regard for the associated churches of New England, yet we cannot but judge that students who go to them, or to any other than our own presbyteries to obtain license, in order to return and officiate among us, act very irregularly, and are not to be approved or employed by our presbyteries; as hereby we are deprived of the right of trying and approving the qualifications of our own candidates; yet if any case may happen wherein such a conduct be thought necessary for the greater good of any congregation, it shall be laid before the presbytery to which that congregation belongs and approved by them.”

In 1762, an overture, or as it was called a case of conscience, was introduced into synod respecting the examination of candidates for the ministry on the subject of experimental religion, which gave rise to considerable difficulty. This was a subject of dispute between the two parties in the church before the schism, though it was never prominently presented. Both parties professed to agree as to the necessity of experimental religion as a qualification for the sacred office; and as to the duty of the presbytery to satisfy themselves that every candidate possessed this qualification. Mr. Thompson in his sermon on conviction of sin, says, “It is the indispensable duty of every one who would aspire to the sacred office, to pray and labour in the greatest earnest for true sanctifying grace, and all other necessary qualifications to fit him for his work; and to propose single ends and views to himself in undertaking it. And it is no less the duty of those, whose part it is to call and ordain men to that work, to take all possible care to inquire into the saving grace as well as other qualifications in the persons to be ordained; and the neglect of either is a heinous sin, and of a dreadful tendency; no doubt a graceless ministry is an awful plague and scourge to any people.” In answer to the complaint of Mr. G. Tennent and of Mr. Blair, against their brethren for admitting men to the ministry “without questioning them about their Christian experience,” he says, “We are directed by the Westminster Assembly to inquire touching the grace of God in the candidate, and if he be of such holiness of life, as is requisite in a minister of the gospel,” and adds: “I am sure as to the practice of some presbyteries, that it is not ordinary or habitual in their practice to neglect this part of their work.” And in stronger language: “That we allow ourselves to neglect all inquiry about the grace of God in candidates, is a downright slander and falsehood. That in some instances we may be deficient, is readily acknowledged, as well as in many other parts of our work.” And in the sixth article of the plan of union unanimously adopted by both synods, it was agreed, “That no presbytery shall license or ordain to the holy ministry any candidate, until he give them competent satisfaction as to his learning and experimental acquaintance with religion.” It was not, therefore, either as to the necessity of this experimental acquaintance with religion, or as to the duty of the presbytery to examine into this point, that the difference of opinion existed. It was as to the proper method of ascertaining whether the candidate possessed this experimental knowledge or not. The one side contended that a profession of faith, a holy life and conversation, and a knowledge of the nature and evidences of experimental religion, and of the criteria between true and false religious exercises, was all that could, with propriety, be demanded. The other insisted on a detail of the exercises of the candidate’s own heart, or of his personal experience. To this it was objected, that such a detail was unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it was the mere testimony of the man in his own behalf; and that it was unauthorized. “No man or judicature on earth,” says Mr. Thompson, “hath a right to know my spiritual state further than a profession of the faith of the gospel, and owning subjection to its precepts go. None has a right to know the secret intercourse between me and my God, or between me and my own wicked heart and Satan’s temptations. These things are among the religious secrets which I have a right to conceal or to discover, as Christian prudence or discretion shall direct.”2

It is one of the anomalies in the ecclesiastical history of this period, that Mr. Tennent, who was so strenuous for the examination of candidates for the ministry, as to their own personal experience, and in whose presbytery the difficulty on this subject arose and led to its division, and for a time threatened a new schism, was equally strenuous in his opposition to Edwards’ doctrine, that none but those who gave satisfactory evidence of true piety, ought to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper. “The terms of church fellowship,” he says, “which God has fixed, are soundness in the main doctrines of religion and a regular life.” To support his opinion he remarks: “The aforesaid terms that Christ has fixed may be certainly known, and therefore they are rational. But some of the novel and superstitious terms which some good men have invented, though with a pious design, are irrational, because they cannot be certainly known, unless it be supposed that churches are infallible in their determinations; a claim which the protestants, some enthusiasts excepted, have not pretended to, at least in words; but the Bible is a stranger to such terms of communion; I know not one passage in it, that proves converting grace, or the church’s judgment of it to be a term of Christian communion of divine appointment. If any think otherwise, let them prove it, and I will give an attentive ear and readily submit to their instruction and correction. But I humbly conceive they will find it a hard task without producing another Bible.” In another place he says: “Nor does our church pretend to any right or authority of excluding any from the Lord’s Supper upon the precarious foundation of their judgment concerning men’s inward experiences of a work of invisible grace. No; the compilers of our Confession had more judgment than to advance such an indefensible notion. See the answer to the one hundred and seventy-third question in the Larger Catechism. ‘May any who profess faith and desire to come to the Lord’s Supper be kept from it? Answer: Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of faith and desire to come to the Lord’s Supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament by the power which Christ has left in his church, until they receive instruction and manifest reformation.’ It is pleasant to see the amiable modesty, the necessary caution and good judgment of our church, in declining to assume the bench, and make her uncertain opinion of men’s spiritual experiences, the term of their admission either to the initiatory or confirming seal of the new covenant. No; she well understood and remembered that ancient, scriptural, rational, and equitable maxim, ecclesia non judicat de internis, that the church has no business to judge of internals, or to make her opinion of men’s spiritual experiences, the ground of her judicial proceedings towards them.” This was the doctrine which one portion of the synod applied to the admission or rejection of candidates for ordination.

The question was brought up in 1761, by an overture to the following effect: “As holiness is a qualification requisite in a gospel minister: Quere, whether it be the duty of a presbytery, or possible for them to make candidates give a narrative of their personal exercises, and upon this form a judgment of their real spiritual state towards God, as the ground of admitting or rejecting them?” The consideration of this question was deferred to the following year. It was then agreed that the persons proposing a query had a right to explain it, and to state the precise point which they wished decided. The authors of the overture were accordingly allowed to present the following exposition of their views:

“A case of conscience being proposed to the synod concerning the means of obtaining competent satisfaction with candidates’ experimental acquaintance with religion, and the synod finding some difficulty in settling precisely the matter to be considered, having ordered some of us who desire the case should be examined, to bring in a distinct statement of the matter, we give the following as our sense of the article in our plan of union, relating to the affair, and of the case of conscience proposed to consideration.

“According to the sixth article of our plan of union, we think and declare that no presbytery should license or ordain any candidate, until they have competent satisfaction concerning his learning, experimental acquaintance with religion, skill in divinity and cases of conscience; and so profess ourselves against admitting any to that sacred office without such satisfaction, as to his learning, obtained by proper trials; but what these must be the article does not particularly determine.

“And as exemplary holiness is essential to the ministerial character, we declare all appointed warrantable means are to be used to secure a godly ministry, and allow none to be admitted to that important work, but such as make serious profession of their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, and give proper visible evidence of their sincerity herein, by exemplary holiness in every branch of Christian conversation, respecting God, their neighbours, and themselves, so as to adorn the doctrine of our Lord and Saviour; and so competent satisfaction as to their experimental religion should be had, as well as of their learning; though neither does said article in this define the means of obtaining it.

“We also declare, that none should be admitted to that sacred work without competent skill in divinity, and in cases of conscience, that they may be apt to teach, to show the true Scriptural marks of real converts, how far hypocrites may go, and whereby deceive themselves; what are the usual exercises of persons in the work of conversion, and after godliness; and so capable to feed the flock, direct their spiritual exercises, and speak to their several cases. And we declare against admitting to that sacred trust, or continuing in it, any who are found ignorant, unsound, unholy, or scandalous.

“And we understand the said article to require competent satisfaction in the particulars mentioned, but not at all to define the way or means by which that satisfaction must be sought; and, therefore, as to the means and grounds of this satisfaction, we think that a serious profession of faith in Christ, and obedience to him, attended with credible evidences of sincerity, in the fruits of an habitual godly, sober life, with like profession that the solemn work is not undertaken for filthy lucre, but out of desire to glorify God and promote the salvation of immortal souls, are the scriptural, prescribed, and only means of said competent satisfaction to a judicature, whose judicial sentence must be founded on things known and certain. And we think that men’s declarations of their own experience in religion, which is but their own testimony of themselves, is no commanded, warrantable, or useful means that a judicature should require, or in any measure found their judgment upon.

“From all which we conclude, that our brethren and we are agreed in adhering to the said article of our union, and insisting on the satisfaction it requires; agreed in the duty and importance of using all appointed warrantable means for securing a godly ministry; and agreed as to the means of obtaining competent satisfaction as to candidates’ experimental acquaintance with religion, and what should satisfy a judicature in this; such as serious profession, godly life, skill to direct Christian exercises and practice, and to speak to doubts and cases of conscience, &c.; excepting that some insist on requiring and using an account of the candidate’s personal exercises and experiences in religion, as a means of a judicature’s satisfaction and ground of their proceedings with him, which we disallow.

“So the case to be resolved seems only, whether a candidate’s declaration of his own personal experiences and exercises in religion, given in the way of narrative of these, or in answer to questions put to him concerning them, should be required by a judicature, as one appointed, warrantable and useful means of forming a judgment of his experimental acquaintance with religion, according to which judgment they are to receive or reject him.”

The case having been thus distinctly presented, the synod resolved itself into a committee of the whole house, and every member was called upon in order to express his views on the subject. This process having been gone through with, the synod resumed their former character, and answered the question by deciding that a declaration of the candidate’s personal experience should be required, as a proper means of forming a judgment of his experimental acquaintance with religion. There were but thirteen voices in the negative and one non liquet.

This decision gave rise to two other questions, 1. Whether the answer just rendered was a compliance with the plain sense of the sixth article of the plan of union, so often referred to, and agreeable to the order in the Westminster Directory, wherein a presbytery is directed to inquire touching the grace of God in him, i.e. in the candidate. The second question was, Whether the synod’s answer was not a direct and open violation of the sixth article of the plan of union, by which both synods were allowed to follow their own judgment for obtaining competent satisfaction as to a candidate’s learning, and experimental acquaintance with religion, “for it was well known to the synod of New York, that the presbyteries belonging to the synod of Philadelphia, did not examine a candidate’s experiences.” And in the seventh article of the union it was agreed “the presbyteries might continue to act separately, as they had done; by which agreement they confirmed the method used by the synod of Philadelphia in the licensing of candidates.”

In order to ascertain how the sixth article of the plan of union was understood, the roll was called for each member to express his sentiments. It appeared that the members of the late synod of New York, that were at the making of the union, in general agreed in understanding the article so as to enjoin such a declaration of experiences; and that the members of the late synod of Philadelphia, that were at the making of the union, in general agreed in understanding that article so as not to enjoin such declaration. And each declared they so understood it at the time of making the union.

While the synod were in great perplexity, and unable to accommodate the difficulty, an overture was presented in the name of the presbytery of New York, “who, fearing a breach in the synod on this question, chose to be absent, but sent the following proposals to maintain peace and harmony.” The substance only of these proposals is entered upon the minutes in the following words: “1. That where different presbyteries follow different methods of examining the qualifications of candidates, they shall continue to do so without censuring or blaming one another. 2. That where the members of the same presbytery differ in their sentiments respecting the examination of candidates’ experiences, it shall be determined how they shall act, by the vote of the majority. 3. They shall desire the candidate to declare in thesi what he thinks to be the experience of a real convert, and then they may ask him whether he believes that he has experienced this saving change; or, 4. If peace cannot be thus preserved, it is proposed that ministers be joined together in presbyteries, so that they may peaceably act according to the best of their judgment, and according to the dictates of a good conscience in the discharge of this important part of their ministerial duty.”

The whole subject was referred to Messrs. Treat, Finley, and Blair, with Dr. Alison, Messrs. Ewing, Alexander McDowell, and Azariah Horton, to attempt an amicable accommodation. This committee not being able to agree upon any one overture, reported several, and the synod, after “solemn prayer to God for his gracious presence and direction,” came to the following conclusion: “Whereas some members complain of two determinations of this synod, the first a resolution of a query concerning the examination of a candidate’s experience, in order to his admission or rejection; the other relating to the obvious sense of the sixth article of the plan of union, apprehending that by said determinations, the synod laid an obligation on them to act according to the sentiments expressed in them: Now to give relief, and full satisfaction, to such brethren, the synod declare they had no design by those determinations to lay the least obligation or restraint on said members with respect to their conduct, but only to express their own sense of the meaning of that article, and their sentiments of the query; and, hereupon,” it is added, “the members declared themselves satisfied, and withdrew their protest.”

The synod state further, that being “earnestly desirous that all due liberty of conscience be preserved inviolate, and that peace and harmony be maintained and promoted, they do agree that when any person shall offer himself as a candidate for the ministry to any of our presbyteries, every member of the presbytery may use that way which he in conscience looks upon as proper, to obtain a competent satisfaction of the person’s experimental acquaintance with religion, and then the presbytery, as a presbytery, shall determine whether they will take him on further trials.” This agreement, it is stated, did not satisfy a number of the synod. It was immediately after the conclusion of this affair that the synod erected those members of the presbytery of Philadelphia, who disapproved of this examination into the personal experience of the candidate for the ministry, into a presbytery by themselves. On this, as on other occasions, the synod was saved from schism by the moderation of the New York and other distant members. The new-side men of Donegal and Brunswick, as appears from their protests, were unwilling to compromise any of these difficulties.

In 1773, Mr. John Roan introduced the following overture: “Whereas there have been repeated complaints from serious persons, of the degeneracy of the presbyterian denomination in Great Britain and Ireland, and of their falling off from the great doctrines of the reformation, so that it is very possible there may be presbyteries the majority of which would not be unwilling to license, ordain, or recommend, ministers unsound in the faith; it seems to be of moment to guard against the admission of strangers into the body, before their principles and character are thoroughly ascertained. Therefore it is overtured that no presbytery be permitted to receive any stranger under the character of minister or candidate, or to give him appointments in the congregations under our care until the synod that shall meet after their arrival, that the whole testimonials and credentials offered by such persons be laid before the synod to be by them considered and judged of, in order to their admission or rejection.” This proposition was adopted by a small majority. It was afterwards agreed that the word stranger, in the above overture, “should not be extended to any person from any part of the continent of America.”

Against the adoption of this rule two protests were entered, the one by the second presbytery of Philadelphia, and the other by Messrs. Matthew Wilson, James Latta, John King, and James Lang. The reasons assigned for each are nearly the same, and are substantially as follows: 1. It is inconsistent with the rights of presbyteries, to whom it belongs to ordain and admit ministers. If they err in the exercise of their powers they are accountable to higher judicatories; but they are not to be deprived of those powers merely because they may err. 2. It rests upon the suspicion that presbyteries are unfaithful, and are not to be trusted in the matter. 3. It is uncharitable and unjust towards the foreign churches; “as if all the reformed churches solemnly subscribing or assenting to the same Confession of Faith, the same Catechisms, and the same Directory, or plan of discipline and government, were wholly corrupted in faith or practice, notwithstanding their solemn assent and subscription to the form of sound doctrine.” 4. It is unfriendly to the ministers who come among us, and tends to lead them to form presbyteries independent of the synod. 5. It sets a bad precedent, as on similar plausible pretexts the synod might take away all the rights of the presbyteries. 6. It is unnecessary, as we have rules which long experience proves to be sufficient. 7. It tends to produce contention and schism; for if the synod assumes such unscriptural powers, some of the presbyteries may be expected to withdraw from a body which they consider tyranical. 8. Because the explanatory clause added in order to exempt all ministers coming from any part of America, seems to be a mere subterfuge and equivocation. In the agreements made in 1764 and 1765, which had the same object with this new law, the New England churches were expressly mentioned, and in the course of the debates upon this overture they were repeatedly referred to, and nothing was said or even insinuated to intimate that they were to be excluded from its operation. And, therefore, now to say that they were not intended, merely to relieve “a few members of the synod,” or, (as it said in the other protest,) “some dissenting brethren” does not appear to be candid.

The above statement shows how completely the tables were now turned. These protests contain nearly the same reasons as those formerly urged by the New Brunswick presbytery against the act of which Dr. Alison and his friends were the strenuous supporters. And it must be admitted that they stand very much on the same ground. If the presbyteries in synod assembled, had a right to agree that they would not ordain any man without a college diploma or synodical certificate; they had a right to agree that foreign ministers and candidates should be subjected to the proposed probation.

In reply to these protests the synod say, that neither the overture itself nor the synod’s judgment on it, includes any claim of power inconsistent with the rights of presbyteries; that the power of licensure and ordination is not so much as named in either, and that it would be difficult for the protesters to prove that the right to admit persons already licensed or ordained, belonged exclusively to the presbyteries. They deny that the rule in question was founded upon any want of confidence in their own presbyteries, or upon the supposition that the ministry in Britain and Ireland were wholly corrupt, but only that there was such a degeneracy among them as rendered caution on our part peculiarly necessary, and that no presbytery could have the same means of information respecting those foreign ministers as the whole synod had. They further state, as the overture only held up to view the churches of Britain and Ireland, it is most unfair to infer that the explanatory clause annexed to the judgment, “seemed to be a mere subterfuge and equivocation, and calculated to relieve only a few members of the synod.”

Dr. Rodgers then moved that the operation of the above rule should be suspended until next year. This motion was subsequently withdrawn, and the following adopted in its stead. “Whereas many brethren are dissatisfied with the act of synod respecting the non-admission of ministers and candidates from foreign parts, it is proposed that the presbytery to which any such gentlemen may offer themselves, may be allowed, if they see their way clear, to employ them in their vacancies, but that they be not admitted to full membership until the next synod, when their testimonials and recommendations shall be laid before the synod.” This proposition being agreed to, the presbyteries were directed to regulate themselves accordingly.

The following year, 1774, this act was repealed, and the following adopted, by an unanimous vote, in its stead: “Whereas it is of the utmost importance to the interests of the Redeemer’s kingdom, that the greatest care should be observed by church judicatures to maintain orthodoxy in doctrine and purity in practice in all their members, this synod, in addition to the agreement on this head, of the year 1764, and further explained in 1765, do most earnestly recommend it to all the presbyteries, to be very strict and careful respecting these matters, especially in examining the certificates or testimonials of ministers or probationers who come from foreign churches; and that they be cautious about receiving them unless the authenticity of their certificates and testimonials be supported by private letters or other credible or sufficient evidence. And in order the more effectually to preserve this synod, our presbyteries and congregations from imposition and abuse, every year when any presbytery may report that they have received any minister or probationer from foreign churches, that presbytery shall lay before the synod the testimonials and all other certificates upon which they received such minister or probationer, for the satisfaction of the synod before such foreign ministers or probationers shall be enrolled as members of our body; and if the synod shall find said testimonials false or insufficient, the whole proceeding had by the presbytery in the admission, shall be held to be void; and the presbytery shall not from that time receive and acknowledge him as a member of this body or in ministerial communion with us. And on the other hand, whensoever any gentlemen from abroad shall come duly recommended as above, we will gladly receive them as brethren, and give them every encouragement in our power.” The difference between this and the former rule was, that the one forbad the presbyteries to receive a foreign minister at all until he had been approved by the synod; the other allowed them to receive them subject to that approbation. In case, however, the synod was dissatisfied, no act of the presbytery was required to dissolve the connexion between the new member and the presbytery or synod. The whole presbyterial proceeding was set aside as void. It will appear in the sequel that members admitted by the presbyteries, were, at times, thus rejected by the synod. This latter act, though passed unanimously, seems as much open to the objection of interfering with the rights of presbyteries as the former.

The propriety of ordaining ministers, sine titulo, was early brought under the consideration of the synod. In 1763, this subject was referred to the several presbyteries, that their members might be prepared to discuss it at the next meeting. Accordingly the following year, after the presbyteries had delivered their sentiments on the subject, and every member had been called upon to speak, the synod came to the following conclusion: “That in ordinary cases, where churches are properly regulated and organized, it is a practice highly inexpedient, and of dangerous consequences, not to be allowed in our body, except in some special cases, as missions to the Indians, and some distant places that regularly apply for ministers. But as the honour and reputation of the synod are much interested in the conduct of presbyteries in such special cases, it is judged that they should previously apply to the synod, and take their advice therein; unless the cases require such haste as would necessarily prevent the benefit of such mission if delayed until the next session of synod; in which cases the presbyteries shall report to the next synod the state of the case, and the reasons of their conduct.”

Agreeably to this rule the presbyteries were in the habit of applying to the synod for permission before they proceeded to such ordinations. Thus in 1766, “Suffolk presbytery desired leave to ordain two candidates, Mr. Elam Potter and Mr. Isaac Lewis, sine titulo, in order to their being sent to the southward, which was granted.” It appears, however, that in this presbytery there was some diversity of opinion on this subject, as in 1771, a letter was received from the Rev. Mr. Prime, “signifying the difficulty which he and some of his brethren laboured under, on account of an order of synod respecting the ordination of ministers sine titulo, and requesting some relief in that matter.” In their answer the synod say, that it appears that Mr. Prime, and the brethren in whose name he wrote, agreed with the synod as to the necessity of being satisfied with the piety, learning, prudence, and aptness to teach, of those sent forth to labour in Christ’s vineyard; and that they further agreed with the synod as to the propriety of making trial of candidates by hearing them preach and expound the Scriptures before ordination. The synod add, that they “are firmly persuaded, that our method of licensing them to preach by way of probation for the gospel ministry before ordination, is founded on general directions given by the apostles, that we should lay hands suddenly on no man, but should commit this charge to faithful men who are known to be able to teach others. But as Mr. Prime, and the brethren in whose name he writes, appear to differ from this synod only in the mode of making these necessary trials before ordination; the synod, after serious consideration of their request, which they are persuaded is made from a conscientious regard to what they think their duty, have agreed to lay no burden on them, or on those young men whose consciences will not allow them to preach the gospel without ordination, and therefore, though the synod cannot repeal the act referred to in the above letter respecting the ordaining ministers, sine titulo, as they judge it still expedient and useful, yet they allow the presbytery to ordain those gentlemen referred to by Mr. Prime in his letter, in case they shall be found on trial to be qualified for the work of the ministry, not doubting but they will take due care on this important head.”

The same year the presbytery of New Brunswick were directed to ordain Mr. Schenck sine titulo, in order to his going on a mission, provided they saw their way clear. In 1776, the first presbytery of Philadelphia applied to synod for their concurrence in the ordination of Mr. Keith sine titulo, provided he consented to go as a missionary to Kentucky. In 1778, the presbytery of New York reported that they had ordained the Rev. Thaddeus Dodd sine titulo, “in consequence of liberty obtained from the synod for that purpose.” In 1781, the synod “authorized the first presbytery of Philadelphia to proceed” to a similar ordination. In 1781, the presbytery of Newcastle applied for liberty to ordain Mr. Daniel Jones sine titulo, which was granted. A similar request was made in 1782, by the presbytery of Orange; and in 1785, by the presbytery of Newcastle, both of which were granted.

Questions connected with the subject of psalmody were repeatedly presented to the synod. In 1763, a question was introduced in these words: “As sundry members and congregations within the bounds of our synod judge it most for edification to sing Dr. Watts’ imitation of David’s Psalms, do the synod so far approve said imitation as to allow such ministers and congregations the liberty of using it?” The synod answered, that as many of their body had never particularly examined the book in question, they were not prepared to answer the question; but as it was approved by many members of the synod, they had no objection to its use until the matter of psalmody be further considered. And it was recommended to the members to examine the subject, and to come prepared the next year to give their views upon it. In 1764, the matter was again postponed; and in 1765, it was referred to Dr. Finley and Mr. M’Dowell, who made the following report upon it, which was adopted. “The synod judge it best, in present circumstances, only to declare that they look on the inspired Psalms in Scripture to be proper matter to be sung in divine worship, according to their original design, and the practice of the Christian churches; yet will not forbid those to use the imitation of them, whose judgment and inclination lead them so to do.”

In 1773, the subject was again brought up by an appeal entered by certain members of the second presbyterian church in Philadelphia, from a decision of their presbytery. After the several parties had been heard, the synod declared that though the judgment of the presbytery seemed to be drawn up with great caution and tenderness, they did not think it proper finally to decide upon it at that time, but appointed Dr. Witherspoon, Dr. Rodgers, Mr. Strain, and Mr. McWhorter, a committee to converse with the parties in the congregation who differed about psalmody, and to make a report to the synod. This committee reported, that the synod ought not to judge the merits of the appeal, so as to affirm or disapprove the several propositions laid down by the presbytery; and as there was not time then to consider the several versions of the Psalms in question, and as congregations had been allowed to settle this matter according to their own choice, the synod ought not to make any order to forbid the practice now begun, but should exhort the different parties to moderation and peace. This report was adopted.

In 1785, the following overture was presented to the synod: “Whereas the nearest uniformity that is practicable in the external modes of divine worship is to be desired, and the using different books of psalmody is matter of offence not only to presbyterians of different denominations, but also to many congregations under our care; it is queried, whether the synod may not choose out, and order some of their number to take the assistance of all the versions in our power, and compose for us a version more suitable to our circumstances and our taste than any we yet have.” The proposition involved in this query having been assented to, the synod appointed Dr. Patrick Alison, Dr. Davidson, Dr. Ewing, Mr. Blair, and Mr. Ewing, to make the proposed selection. The following year this committee reported progress and was continued; and, in 1787, the synod adopted the following resolution: “The synod did allow, and do hereby allow, that Dr. Watts’ imitation of David’s Psalms, as revised by Mr. Barlow, be used in the churches and families under their care.”

Questions of conscience, relating to marriage, gave the synod no little trouble. At their first meeting they were called upon to decide, whether a man who had married his half-brother’s widow, might lawfully live with her as his wife. It was deferred from year to year until 1761. In the mean time another question had arisen, viz. whether a man could lawfully marry the sister of his deceased wife? With regard to this latter case the synod, in the first instance, adopted the following minute; “Though the majority of the synod think that the marriage is incestuous, and contrary to the laws of God and the land, and agree that it is sinful, and of dangerous tendency; yet, inasmuch as some learned men are not so clear in this point, it is agreed to resume the consideration hereof the next year.” Accordingly, in 1761, they included the two cases in the following decision: “That, as the Levitical law, enforced by the civil laws of the land, is the only rule whereby we are to judge of marriages, whoever marry within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden therein, act unlawfully, and have no right to the distinguishing privileges of the church; and as the marriages in question appear to be within the prohibited degrees, they are to be accounted unlawful, and the persons suspended from special communion, while they continue in this relation.”

The synod, however, did not abide by the above decision. In 1779, the presbytery of Newcastle referred the case of a man who had married the sister of his former wife, with the query, whether he could properly be admitted to church privileges? As the synod deferred from year to year answering the question, the person interested presented, in 1782, a petition that he might no longer be debarred from the privileges of the church on account of his marriage. And after full and deliberate discussion, the question was put, Shall Anthony Duchane and his wife be capable of Christian privileges, their marriage notwithstanding? which was carried in the affirmative by a considerable majority. Against this decision the Rev. James Finley and Robert Cooper protested; and Alexander Millet, John King, John Creaghead, Colin McFarquhar, and James Power dissented.

The following year remonstrances were sent in from several congregations, requesting the synod to reverse the above judgment. The synod accordingly resumed the case, and, “declared their dissatisfaction with all such marriages as are inconsistent with the Levitical law, and that persons marrying within the degrees of consanguinity prohibited in that law ought to suffer the censures of the church; and they further judged, that although the marriage of a man to two sisters successively, viz. to one after the death of the other, may not be a direct violation of the express words of that law, yet as it is contrary to the custom of the protestant churches in general, and an evidence of great untenderness towards many serious and well disposed Christians, and may, through the prejudices or generally received opinions of the members of our church, be productive of very disagreeable consequences, the persons contracting such marriages are highly censurable, and the practice ought to be disallowed in express terms by the synod; and we do, therefore, condemn such marriages as imprudent and unseasonable. Yet as some things may be done very imprudently and unseasonably, which when done ought not to be annulled, we are of opinion that it is not necessary for the persons whom this judgment respects to separate from one another; yet they should not be received into the communion of the church, without a solemn admonition at the discretion of the congregation to which they belong. And the synod publicly recommend it to all their members to abstain from celebrating such marriages, and to discountenance them by all the proper means in their power.” The Rev. James Finley entered his dissent from this judgment, as being substantially the same as that rendered the year before.

In 1760, the case where “a brother’s and sister’s relicts had married together,” was considered, and the synod decided, “That however inexpedient such a marriage may be, yet as we can not find it prohibited by the Levitical law, it is not to be condemned as incestuous.”

The first presbytery of Philadelphia in 1770, referred to the synod for their decision the question, whether a man may lawfully marry his wife’s brother’s daughter? The question was not answered until 1772. when the following minute was adopted in relation to it. “After mature deliberation, the synod declare their great dissatisfaction with all such marriages as are inconsistent with the Levitical law, which in cases matrimonial, we understand to be the law of our nation; and that persons intermarrying in these prohibited degrees, are not only punishable by the laws of the country, but ought to suffer the censures of the church. And further judge that though the present case is not a direct violation of the express words of the Levitical law, yet as it is contrary to the custom of protestant nations in general, and an evidence of great untenderness, and so opposite to such precepts of the gospel as require Christians to avoid things of ill report, and all appearance of evil, and what is offensive to the church, that the persons referred to in this instance ought to be rebuked by the church session, and others warned against such offensive conduct. And in case these persons submit to such rebuke, and are in other respects regular professors, that they be not debarred Christian privileges.”

In 1785, the following question was referred to the synod by the presbytery of Donegal, viz: “Whether on full proof of adultery by one party, the presbytery has a right to declare the marriage so far void, as that the innocent party may marry again without being liable to church censure?” This question was decided in the affirmative by a small majority.

In 1786, the presbytery of Donegal presented as a case of conscience the following question: Whether Christian masters or mistresses ought in duty to have such children baptized as are under their care, though born of parents not in communion with any Christian church? To this it was answered, that the synod are of opinion that Christian masters and mistresses, whose professions and conduct are such as to give them a right to the ordinance of baptism for their own children, may and ought to dedicate the children of their household to God in that ordinance, when they have no scruple of conscience to the contrary.

A second question was: Whether Christian slaves having children at the entire direction of unchristian masters, and not having it in their power to instruct them in religion, are bound to have them baptized? and whether a gospel minister in such circumstances ought to baptize them? The synod answered both questions in the affirmative.

Under this head of general regulations, may be properly introduced, a plan, originally proposed by certain elders in Philadelphia, and which, having been sanctioned by the synod, was repeatedly urged upon the churches and presbyteries under the name of the plan of the lay elders. It proposed,

“1. That in every congregation a committee be appointed, who shall twice in every year collect the minister’s stipend, and lay his receipts before the presbytery preceding the synod; and that ministers at the same time give an account of their diligence in visiting and catechising their people.

“2. The synod recommends that a glebe, with a convenient house and necessary improvements be provided for every minister.

“3. That the church sessions and committees appointed, take special care of their poor or distressed widows and orphans, and administer all the relief and assistance they can.

“4. The synod recommends to the church sessions and committees aforesaid, that they endeavour to prevent all unnecessary lawsuits; and if possible, to have all differences of a civil nature decided by arbitration.

“5. The synod enjoin that exact registers of births, baptisms, marriages, and deaths, be regularly kept in each congregation.

“6. That special care be taken of the principles and character of school-masters, that they teach the Westminster Catechism and psalmody, and that the ministers, church sessions, and aforesaid committees, (where they consistently can,) visit the schools, and see these things be done. And where schools are composed of different denominations, that said committees and sessions invite proper persons of said denominations, to join with them in such visitations.

“7. That as the too great use of spirituous liquors at funerals, in some parts of the country, is risen to such a height as greatly to endanger the morals of many, and is the cause of much scandal, the synod earnestly enjoin that the several sessions and committees shall take the most effectual methods to correct these mischiefs, and discountenance by their example and influence, all approaches to said practices, and all ostentatious and expensive parade, so inconsistent with such mortifying and distressing occasions.”

This plan was proposed in 1766, and adopted in 1767; and the clerk was directed to send a copy to the moderator of each presbytery, to be communicated to the people, and the presbyteries were directed to take all proper means to carry it into execution. And year after year inquiry was made how far the business had been attended to.

To this head also belongs an overture on the subject of slavery, presented to the synod in 1787. It was in the following words: “The Creator of the world having made of one blood all the children of men, it becomes them as members of the same family to consult and promote each other’s happiness. It is more especially the duty of those who maintain the rights of humanity, and teach the obligations of Christianity, to use such means as are in their power to extend the blessings of equal freedom to every part of the human race.

“From a full conviction of these truths, and sensible that the rights of human nature are too well understood to admit of debate; overtured that the synod of New York and Philadelphia recommend, in the warmest terms to every member of their body, and to all the families and churches under their care, to do every thing in their power, consistent with the rights of civil society, to promote the abolition of slavery, and the instruction of negroes whether bond or free.”

On this overture the synod passed the following judgment. “The synod of New York and Philadelphia, do highly approve of the general principles iin favour of universal liberty which prevail in America, and the interest which many of the states have taken in promoting the abolition of slavery: Yet inasmuch as men introduced from a servile state to a participation of all the privileges of civil society, without a proper education, and without previous habits of industry, may be in many respects dangerous to the community; therefore they earnestly recommend it to all the members belonging to their communion, to give those persons who are at present held in servitude, such good education as to prepare them for the better enjoyment of freedom. And they moreover recommend that masters, whenever they find servants disposed to make a just improvement of the privilege, would give them a peculium, or grant them time and sufficient means of procuring their own liberty at a moderate rate; that thereby they may be brought into society with those habits of industry that may render them useful citizens. And finally they recommend it to all their people to use the most prudent measures consistent with the interests and the state of civil society, in the countries where they live, to procure eventually the final abolition of slavery in America.”