History of the Church During the Schism
Synod of New York 

Immediately after the schism in 1741, as stated in a preceding chapter, the brethren excluded from the Synod of Philadelphia formed themselves into two presbyteries, those of New Brunswick and of Londonderry, afterwards called the Presbytery of New Castle, and resolved to meet annually as a Synod. This they did, though under the designation of “conjunct Presbytery.” The name Synod was not assumed until the Presbytery of New York united with these brethren in the formation of the Synod of New York, which met for the first time at Elizabethtown, September 19, 1745. There were twenty-two ministers present at that meeting. The ministers and elders thus assembled, considered and agreed upon the following articles as the plan and foundation of their synodical union:

1.      “They agree that the Westminster Confession of Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, be the public confession of their faith, in such manner as was agreed unto by the Synod of Philadelphia in the year 1729, and to be inserted in the latter end of this book. And they declare their approbation of the Directory of the assembly of divines at Westminster, as the general plan of worship and discipline.

2.      “They agree that in matters of discipline, and in those things that relate to the peace and good order of our churches, they shall be determined according to the major vote of the ministers and elders; with which vote every member shall actively concur or pacifically acquiesce; but if any member cannot in conscience agree to the determination of the majority, but supposes himself obliged to act contrary thereunto, and the Synod think themselves obliged to insist upon it as essentially necessary to the well-being of our churches, in that case, such dissenting member promises peaceably to withdraw from the body, without endeavoring to raise any dispute or contention upon the debated point, or any unjust alienation of affection from them.

3.      “If any member of their body supposes that he has any thing to object against any of his brethren, with respect to error in doctrine, immorality in life, or negligence in his ministry, he shall not, on any account, propagate the scandal, until the person objected against is dealt with according to the rules of the gospel, and the known methods of their discipline.

4.      “They agree that all who have a competent degree of ministerial knowledge, are orthodox in their doctrine, regular in their life, and diligent in their endeavors to promote the important designs of vital godliness, and that will submit to their discipline, shall be cheerfully admitted into their communion. And they do also agree, that in order to avoid all divisive methods among their ministers and congregations, and to strengthen the discipline of Christ in the churches in these parts, they will maintain a correspondence with the Synod of Philadelphia, in this their first meeting, by appointing two of their members to meet the said Synod of Philadelphia at their next convention, and to concert with them such measures as may best promote the precious interests of Christ’s kingdom in these parts. And that they may, in no respect, encourage any factious, separating practices or principles, they agree that they will not inter­meddle with judicially hearing the complaints, or with supplying with ministers or candidates such parties of men as shall separate from any Presbyterian or congregational churches, that are not within their bounds, unless the matters in controversy be submitted to their jurisdiction by both parties.”

No one at all acquainted with the history of the schism can fail to remark that these articles were intended to guard against the occurrence of a similar unhappy division. The principal ostensible causes of the rupture were disregarding the acts of Synod, the public denunciation of ministers in good standing, and the dividing of congregations. As to all these points, Mr. Gilbert Tennent and his immediate friends had ever been in a small minority. It was their zeal for practical religion, and not their conduct in the matters just specified, which was the ground of sympathy between them and their numerous associates in the formation of a new Synod. There is little doubt that Mr. Tennent assented to these articles as readily as any man, for it was only on the ground of the extraordinary circumstances of the times that he justified his occasional disregard of the principles which they contain.

This Synod, founded upon the above truly Presbyterian and Christian principles, and embracing so large a portion of the most fervent and able men of the church, rapidly increased in numbers and influence. In 1746, we find the following names of ministers who were not present at the preceding meeting: John Roan, John Bostwick, Thomas Arthur, John Grant, Andrew Hunter, David Brainerd, William Dean, Eleazar Wales. In 1747, the following new names occur: Jacob Green, Nathaniel Tucker, James Campbell, James Davenport, Daniel Lawrence, Samuel Sackett, Timothy Sims, Alexander Hucheson, and Samuel Davies; in 1748, Job Prudden, Thomas Lewis, and Andrew Sterling; in 1749, John Rodgers, Aaron Richards, Caleb Smith, Silas Leonard, Charles McKnight, and the whole Presbytery of Suffolk, Long Island. That Presbytery applied the preceding year to be taken into communion with Synod, and requested to be permitted to attend by delegates. This the Synod declined, but offered to receive them upon the same terms as they did other Presbyteries. This was acceded to, and Messrs. Ebenezer Prime and James Brown took their seats as members of Synod in 1749. The absent members of the Presbytery of Suffolk, as then constituted, as far as can be gathered from the minutes, were Silvanus White, Samuel Buel, and Naphtali Dagget. In 1750, the new members reported were Tim­othy Allen, Israel Read, John Brainard, Elihu Spencer, Daniel Thane, and Enos Ayres; in 1751, John Moffat, Chauncey Graham, Samuel Kennedy, Benjamin Chesnut, Alexander Cummings, Jonathan Elmore, John Campbell, John Todd, and Hugh Henry; in 1752, Conrad Wurtz, Robert Smith, and James Finley; in 1753, Evander Morrison, Samuel Harker, Alexander Creaghead (who, it seems, had left the Seceders and returned to the Presbyterian Church), Joseph Park, and Robert Henry; in 1754, John Smith, Nehemiah Greenman, Henry Martin, John Maltby, Eliphalet Ball, and John Wright; in 1755, Hugh Knox, John Brown, and John Hoge; in 1756, Nathaniel Whitaker, Benjamin Hait, Benjamin Talmage, Abner Reeves, Moses Tuttle, and John Harris; in 1757, William Ramsay, George Duffield, and Hugh McAdams; in 1758, Abraham Kettletas. The whole number of ministers reported as in connection with the Synod in 1758, the year in which the union with the Synod of Philadelphia took place, was seventy-two.

In the history of this Synod, the first subject to be considered is their missionary labors. In 1745, at their first meeting, the circumstances of Virginia were brought before them, and the opinion unanimously expressed that Mr. Robinson was the proper person to visit that colony. He was accordingly earnestly pressed to go and spend some months there. Mr. Robinson had already, as mentioned in a previous chapter, preached in Virginia with great acceptance and success in 1743, having been sent thither by the Presbytery of New Brunswick. In 1746 a supplication for a minister was presented to the Synod from Hanover, in Virginia, which was referred to the Presbyteries of New Castle and New Brunswick. Before Mr. Robinson’s visit to Virginia in 1743, besides the numerous Presbyterian emigrants who had settled in what were then the western portions of the colony, there were four or five families in Hanover, who had separated from the established church and were accustomed to celebrate public worship among themselves. For this little company Mr. Robinson preached repeatedly during a stay of four days in their neighborhood. After his departure they made repeated applications for supplies to the Presbytery of New Castle, who sent them several ministers at different times during four years, who stayed with them two or three Sabbaths at a time. During this period they were also visited by Messrs. G. and W. Tennent of the Presbytery of New Brunswick. The number of dissenters in and about Hanover had, by this time, so much increased that in 1747, when Mr. Davies was first sent to them by the Presbytery of New Castle, in compliance with their earnest request, he “found them sufficiently numerous to form one very large congregation or two small ones; and they had built five meeting-houses, three in Hanover, one in Henrico, and one in Louisa county.” They presented a most earnest call before the Presbytery for Mr. Davies to settle among them as their pastor, which he accepted in 1748. The labors of this eminent man “were very successful in every part of the country where he itinerated, much more so than he supposed; for to this day (1799), we find many seals of his ministry scattered up and down the country wherever he preached; and there are few congregations in this Presbytery (Hanover) that may not acknowledge that he was in a great measure their founder.”

In 1748 the Synod sent Mr. Cumming to Augusta county, and Mr. Hunter to the lower counties in Virginia, to spend four Sabbaths. In 1749 Mr. Davenport was directed to visit Virginia, and in 1750 the Presbytery of New Brunswick was urged to send Mr. Todd, and the Presbytery of New York Messrs. Syms and Greenman to the same field of labor. The Synod also renewed the appointment of Mr. Davenport. In 1751 “the distressing circumstances of Virginia” were again brought before the Synod, who appointed Mr. Greenman to go there and supply the congregations for some time. The same year Mr. Davies requested that an account relating to the dissenting interests in Virginia should be sent to England, and Messrs. Burr and Pemberton were appointed to prepare a representation of the circumstances of the Presbyterian congregations in that colony, to be forwarded to Dr’s. Doddridge and Avery.

As the Church of England was early established in Virginia, the Presbyterians were there legally in the position of dissenters. The colonial assembly had passed a law adopting the English toleration act as a law of the colony. It was on this ground, and not on that of its original enactment, that Mr. Davies and other Presbyterians recognized its authority and complied with its provisions. This is distinctly stated in a letter from Mr. Davies to Dr. Avery of London, dated May 21, 1752. “I am fully satisfied,” he says, “that, as you intimate, the act of uniformity and other penal laws against non-conformity, are not in force in the colonies; and consequently that the dissenters have no right, nor indeed any need to plead the act of toleration as an exemption from those penal laws. But, sir, our legislature here has passed an act of the same kind with those laws (though the penalty is less), requiring all adult persons to attend on the established church. As this act was passed since the revolution, it was necessary that protestant dissenters should be exempted from its operation, and tolerated to worship God in separate assemblies (though indeed at the time of its enaction, viz.: the fourth of Queen Anne, there was not a dissenting congregation, except a few Quakers, in the colony), and for this our legislature thought fit to take in the act of parliament made for that end in England, rather than to pass a new one peculiar to this colony. This, sir, you may see in my remonstrance to the governor and council, which I find has been laid before you. Now it is with a view to exempt ourselves from the operation of the above law, made by our legislature, that we plead it not as an English law, for we are persuaded that it does not extend hither by virtue of its original enaction, but as received into the body of the Virginia laws by our legislature. And though some pretended to scruple, and others denied that the act of toleration is in force here, even in this sense, yet now I think it is generally granted.”

A difference of opinion, however, arose as to the meaning of the act. The Episcopalians were naturally desirous to restrict the privileges granted by it within the narrowest limits, and therefore contended that the law did not permit the same congregation to have more than one meeting-house, or the same minister to officiate for more than one congregation. In a letter written from Virginia to the Bishop of London, July 27, 1750, it is made a matter of complaint that “seven meeting-house, in five different counties, have been licensed by the general court, for Mr. Samuel Davies,” and, the writer adds, “I earnestly entreat the favour of your lordship’s opinion, whether in licensing so many houses for one man they have not granted a greater indulgence than either the king’s instructions, or the act of toleration, intended.” He further complains of Mr. Davies’ “holding forth on working days to great numbers of poor people, who generally are his followers. This certainly is inconsistent with the religion of labor, whereby they are obliged to maintain themselves and families; and their neglect of this duty, if not seasonably prevented, may, in process of time, be sensibly felt by the government.” In his reply, dated London, December 25, 1750, the bishop says, “As to Davies’ case, as far as I can judge, your attorney-general [Peyton Randolph, Esq.] is quite in the right, for the act of toleration confines the preacher to a particular place to be certified and entered.” It was “in­tended,” he adds, “to permit dissenters to worship in their own way, and to exempt them from penalties, but it was never intended to permit them to set up itinerant preachers to gather congregations where there was none before. They are, by the act of William and Mary, to qualify in the county where they live; and how Davies can be said to live in five different counties, they who granted the license must explain.”

As Dr. Doddridge was a friend to the Bishop of London, Mr. Davies wrote to him an account of his circumstances, requesting him to communicate to the bishop a correct representation of the case. Dr. Doddridge enclosed to the bishop a large part of Mr. Davies’ letter, and received an answer, dated May 11, 1751, containing the above extracts from the letter from Virginia, with the bishop’s reply, as containing his opinion on the matter in dispute, and adds, “If the act of toleration was desired with no other view than to ease the consciences of those who could not conform, and if it was granted with no other view, how must Mr. Davies’ conduct be justified? who, under colour of a toleration to his own conscience, is laboring to disturb the consciences of others, and the peace of a church, acknowledged to be a true church of Christ. He came three hundred miles from home, not to serve people who had scruples, but to a country where the church of England had been established from its first plantation, and where there were not above four or five dissenters not above six years ago. Mr. Davies says, in his letter to you, ‘We claim no other liberties than those granted by the act of toleration,’ so that the state of the question is admitted, on both sides, to be this: How far the act of toleration will justify Mr. Davies in taking upon himself to be an itinerant preacher, and travelling over many counties, and making converts in a country too, where, till very lately, there was not a dissenter from the church of England?”

Dr. Doddridge sent the bishop’s letter, with its enclosures, or copies of them, to Mr. Davies, who wrote a long communication to the bishop, in which he corrected his misapprehensions as to matters of fact, and showed the reasonableness of the claims which the Presbyterians had set up. He shows him that, so far from his volunteering to make dissenters where there were none before, when he first came to Virginia., they were sufficiently numerous to form a large congregation, and that he came and settled among them at their own earnest request. If they had still further increased, it was not from a spirit of proselytism on his part, for “I beg leave to declare,” he says, “and I defy the world to confute me, that in all the sermons I have preached in Virginia, I have not wasted one minute in exclaiming or reasoning against the peculiarities of the established church, nor so much as assigned the reasons of my own non-conformity.” Those, therefore, who had joined the Presbyterian church since his settlement in Virginia, had done so, not because of his efforts to make dissenters, but because of their preference for his doctrines and preaching. And in thus acting they had violated no law. These remarks were made in reference to his own immediate congregation; as to other Presbyterians equally interested in the points in debate, they had been born and educated in the Presbyterian Church, and had emigrated to Virginia, greatly to its advantage, in the confidence of enjoying the free exercise of their religion. And to this latter class the great majority of the Presbyterians within the colony belonged. He further showed that it was not only reasonable in itself, but perfectly consistent with the law and with usage, for a congregation, too widely scattered to be able conveniently to assemble in one place, to erect several houses of worship for their accommodation. This was done in all the large parishes connected with the established church, and the Presbyterians claimed, under the law, the right of doing the same thing.

It was in the midst of the controversy on this subject that Mr. Davies applied for the support of the Synod in the manner stated in the minutes for the year 1751. This subject long continued to be a matter of difficulty. In 1753 a representation was again made to the Synod “of the illegal restraints the Protestant dissenters lie under in Virginia, as to their religious liberties,” and a committee was appointed to draw up a representation to be sent to England with Mr. Davies.

Notwithstanding these obstacles, the Presbyterian Church continued to increase in the southern provinces, and the Synod almost yearly sent one or more of their number to preach the gospel in that portion of our country. In 1754, Messrs. Beatty, Bostwick, Lewis, and Thane were appointed to go to the South, particularly to North Carolina, for three months. In 1755 Messrs. Brainard and Spencer were sent to North Carolina, and Mr. Clark to Virginia. In 1756, Messrs. Duffield, Ramsay, Brainard, and Rodgers, were directed to go to the South before the winter, and Messrs. Whitaker and Hait to spend four months there. These appointments, however, as appears from the minutes for the following year, were not fulfilled. In 1757 the appointment of Mr. Halt was renewed, and the Presbyteries of New Castle and Hanover were directed each to send another missionary. In 1758, the Presbytery of New Brunswick was directed to send a candidate to North Carolina, and the Presbytery of Suffolk was earnestly recommended to send Mr. Brush to the same important vacancies. As so large a portion of the duty of supplying the new settlements was devolved upon the presbyteries, the above notices exhibit but a small part of the missionary labors of this Synod.

Our fathers were not altogether inattentive to the religious instruction of the aboriginal inhabitants of the country. In 1751, “the exigencies of the great affair of propagating the gospel among the heathen being represented to the Synod, the Synod, in order to promote so important a design, do enjoin upon all their members to appoint a collection in their several congregations once a year, to be applied for that purpose; and that the money thus collected be sent yearly to the Synod.” In 1752 it was ordered that the proceeds of the collections in behalf of the Indians be placed in the hands of Mr. Brainard. In 1755 Mr. Gilbert Tennent reported that he had received two hundred pounds sterling from England for propagating the gospel among the Indians, which, agreeably to the directions of the donor, were to be placed in the hands of the trustees of the College of New Jersey, and the interest to be employed in supporting a missionary or schoolmaster, or for the education of a heathen youth in the college, or of a young man of English or Scotch extraction as a teacher among the Indians; the Synod of New York to determine, from time to time, to which of these purposes the money was to be appropriated.

The Synod was scarcely less zealous for the promotion of learning than they were in behalf of religion. They had not indeed any public seminary immediately under their direction, but the college at Princeton really owed its existence to their efforts. It appears from the records of the province “that a charter to incorporate sundry persons to found a college, passed the great seal of the province of New Jersey, tested by J. Hamilton, Esq., President of his Majesty’s Council and Commander-in-chief of the Province of New Jersey, the 22d of October, 1746.” As this charter was never recorded, neither its provisions, nor the names of the trustees created by it, are now known. It was not acceptable to those who asked for it, and was therefore surrendered for another obtained in 1748, from George II, through the agency of Governor Belcher. It was under the former charter that Mr. Dickinson acted as president of the college until his death in 1747, when he was succeeded by Mr. Burr, who acted in that capacity until 1757. The college, no doubt, owed much of its early prosperity to Governor Belcher, a religious, able, and accomplished man, to whom the trustees often expressed their obligations. On one occasion they addressed him in the following language: “As the College of New Jersey views you in the light of its founder, patron, and benefactor, and the impartial world will esteem it a respect deservedly due to the name of Belcher, permit us to dignify the edifice now erecting at Princeton, with that endeared appellation; and when your excellency is translated to a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens, let Belcher Hall proclaim your beneficent acts for the advancement of Christianity and the emolument of the arts and sciences to the latest generations.” This honor the Governor modestly declined, and proposed the name of Nassau-Hall, in proof “of the honour we retain in this remote part of the globe to the immortal memory of the glorious King William III, who was a branch of the illustrious house of Nassau, and who, under God, was the great deliverer of the British nation from those two monstrous furies, popery, and slavery.” 

Though the college was greatly indebted to Governor Belcher, it was nevertheless the child of the Synod. All the clerical members of the board of the trustees belonged to the Synod, except Mr. David Cowell, who was a member of the Synod of Philadelphia. The funds also which founded and sustained the institution were collected by the efforts of the same body. In 1751 the trustees requested that the Rev. Mr. Pemberton might be appointed to go to Europe to solicit benefactions for the college, and the Synod accordingly commissioned Messrs. Burr, Treat, William Tennent, and Davies to proceed at once to New York to arrange the matter with Mr. Pemberton and his congregation. This committee subsequently reported that they had failed in accomplishing the object of their mission. In 1752 a general collection was appointed in behalf of the college, and it was “ordered that all other collections before appointed, be suspended on that account.”

In 1753 the trustees of the college petitioned the Synod to send two of their number to Great Britain to solicit benefactions on its behalf. This request led to the appointment of Messrs. Gilbert Tennent and Samuel Davies, who were made the bearers of an address to the General Assembly in Scotland. In this address, the Synod state that the college had already been the means of educating a number of youth then engaged in the service of the church; that after all that could be done in this country, its resources were entirely inadequate, and the trustees were, therefore, constrained through them to appeal to their friends in Europe for aid. The Synod, believing the object to be of the utmost importance to the interests of religion and learning in this infant country, proceeded to lay before the Assembly a general representation of the deplorable circumstances of the churches under their care. “There are,” it is added, “in the colonies of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and Carolina, a great number of congregations formed on the Presbyterian plan, which have put themselves under the synodical care of your petitioners, who conform to the constitution of the Church of Scotland, and have adopted her standards of doctrine, worship, and discipline. There are also large settlements lately planted in various parts, particularly in North and South Carolina, where multitudes are extremely anxious for the ministrations of the gospel, but who are not formed into congregations and regularly organized for want of ministers.” These numerous calls the Synod state they are utterly unable to satisfy, and that their only hope of being able to meet these demands is founded on the College of New Jersey, upon which the Presbyterians in the six colonies above mentioned must depend. “Your petitioners, therefore,” say the Synod, “most earnestly pray that this very reverend assembly would afford the said college all the countenance and assistance in their power. The young daughter of the Church of Scotland, helpless and exposed in this foreign land, cries to her tender and powerful parent for relief. The cries of ministers oppressed with labors, and of congregations famishing for want of the sincere milk of the word, implore assistance. And were the poor Indian savages sensible of their own case, they would join in the cry and beg for more missionaries to be sent to propagate the religion of Jesus among them.”

As Mr. Tennent and Mr. Davies were not the agents of the Synod, they made no report to that body of the success of their mission. That it was, however, by no means inconsiderable, may be inferred not only from the vote of thanks rendered to the General Assembly for their assistance, but from the address of the trustees to Governor Belcher, in which they said that the contributions obtained from England and Scotland had “amply enabled them to erect a convenient edifice for the accommodation of the students, and to lay a foundation for a fund for the support of the necessary instructors.” Of the sums received by Messrs. Tennent and Davies, there were £307 sterling given for the education of indigent young men for the ministry, the interest only of which was to be used; and the further sum of £50, the principal of which was to be applied to the same purpose. This money was given to the trustees of the college, the Synod having the right to examine and select the young men who were to receive the benefit of it. The Synod had, at an earlier date (1751), recommended “an annual collection for the support of young students whose circumstances rendered them unable to maintain themselves at learning, and for other charitable purposes.”

The facts above detailed sufficiently prove the intimate connection between the Synod and the College of New Jersey, and show that the Synod of New York was not less zealous in the cause of learning than that of Philadelphia.

It has been proved in an earlier chapter of this work that the Synod of New York adopted the same standard of doctrine as the Synod of Philadelphia, and that there was no dispute between the two bodies as to that point. With regard to their form of government, it was no less strictly Presbyterian than that of the other Synod. The Directory was as much the constitution of the one body as it was of the other. In the address to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, just quoted, the Synod declare they had adopted her standards of doctrine, worship, and discipline—a declaration which admits but of one interpretation. In 1751 the following minute was adopted on this subject: “The Synod being informed of certain misrepresentations concerning the constitution, order, and discipline of our churches, industriously spread by some of the members of the Dutch congregations interspersed among, or bordering upon us, with design to prevent occasional or constant communion of their members with our churches; to obviate all such misrepresentations, and to cultivate a good understanding between us and our brethren of the Dutch churches, we do hereby declare and testify our constitution, order, and discipline, to be in harmony with the Established Church of Scotland. The Westminster Confessions, Catechisms, and Directory, for public worship and church government, adopted by them, are in like manner received and adopted by us. We declare ourselves united with that church in the same faith, order, and discipline. Its approbation and countenance we have abundant testimonies of. They, as brethren, receive us, and their members we, as opportunity offers, receive as ours. And as the Church of Scotland and the Reformed churches abroad, agreeable to the Geneva platform, hold a ready and free communion with each other, so we desire the same with our brethren of the Dutch and French churches inter­spersed amongst and bordering upon us.”

Mr. Davies, in his letter to the Bishop of London, says, “If I am prejudiced in favor of any church, my Lord, it is of that established in Scotland; of which I am a member, in the same sense that the Established Church in Virginia is the Church of England.” As all the ministers of the Episcopal Church in this country received, at that day, ordination from the English bishops, and were under the episcopal supervision of the Bishop of London, the above declaration certainly imports a most intimate agreement and fellowship between our church and that of Scotland.

In order, however, to illustrate the true character of this interesting portion of our church, it will be necessary to refer to some of their ecclesiastical acts. The Synod exercised a general supervisory and governing power over the congregations and presbyteries, and for this purpose revised the records of inferior judicatories, and received from them appeals and references. That this examination of the records was a proper judicial inspection is evident from such minutes as the following: “The New York Presbytery book brought, revised, and approved, except a paragraph on page 149, on which the Synod has not right to determine.”

The cases of reference of judicial matters to the Synod for decision are very numerous. In 1750 the Presbytery of New Brunswick referred the case of the congregation of Tehicken, or Tinicum. It appears that the people were divided in opinion as to the proper location of their place of worship, and therefore agreed to decide the matter by lot. The disappointed party, however, refused to abide by the decision, on the ground that it had been unfairly obtained. The Synod censured both parties for resorting to the lot; but as, in their judgment, it had been fairly cast, they decided that the recusants had acted very sinfully in refusing to abide by it, and therefore “ordered that a solemn admonition be administered unto them by Mr. Pemberton, in the name of the Synod, which was accordingly done.”

In 1752 a reference was brought in from the Presbytery of New York, relating to the congregation in that city, “and the plea of all parties having been heard,” the Synod came to the following conclusions, viz.:

1.      “That the building, grounds, &c. conveyed from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, to the Presbyterian Society in New York, belong to Presbyterians without distinction of name or nation, who conform to the general plan of the Church of Scotland, as practised by the Synod of New York.

2.      “That it is not inconsistent with the Presbyterian plan of government, nor with the institution of our Lord Jesus Christ, that trustees, or a committee chosen by the congregation, should have the disposal and management of the public money raised by the said congregation, to the uses for which it was designed; provided they leave in the hands, and to the management of the deacons, what is collected for the Lord’s table, and the poor. And that ministers of the gospel, by virtue of their office, have no right to sit with, and preside over, such trustees or committee.

3.      “That it appears to the Synod, that the trustees of said church have faithfully discharged the trust reposed in them, with respect to its temporalities, much to its advantage.

4.      “That as to the articles of complaint brought against Mr. Cumming, it appears to the Synod, that he has been necessarily hindered from performing his part in public service, by his low state of health, but they judge it his duty to discharge it according to his call when his health will admit, and when he is disabled, he should desire Mr. Pemberton to officiate in his room. That his insisting on a right to sit with the trustees in their conventions about the temporal affairs of the congregation, was not a violation of his ordination vows, which respect only the work of the minis­try, although they judge he acted imprudently in so doing. That he is to be commended for insisting on persons praying in their families who present their children for baptism; but inasmuch as it appears expedient that the same form of covenanting should be used in the same church, the Synod do therefore recommend it to Mr. Pemberton and Mr. Cumming to consult with the committee hereafter to be mentioned, about a form that they can both agree in.

5.      “That the church proceed as soon as may be, to the choice of elders to join with their ministers in the government and discipline of the church, and that the committee hereafter to be appointed, do nominate the persons to be chosen, and determine the number.

6.      “That as to the methods taken to introduce a new version of the Psalms in public worship, the Synod judge it to be disorderly and always to be discountenanced, when the parties in matters in debate in a church do carry about private subscriptions.

7.      “That as to the introduction of a new version of the Psalms, the Synod hath not light at present to determine, but do empower the committee to recommend Dr. Watts’ version, if upon observation of circumstances, they think it proper.

“And the Synod do appoint the Reverend Messrs. Samuel Davies, Samuel Finley, and Charles Beatty, to be a committee to go immediately to New York, and direct and assist the Presbyterian congregation of New York in such affairs as may contribute to their peace and edification.”¹

 ____________________________________________________________________

¹ Minutes, pp. 43–46. It has already been shown (Chap. I, p. 52) that the Presbyterian congregation in New York was a regularly organized church composed principally of Scotch Presbyterians, and constantly called the Scotch church. A very influential portion of its members, however, were of English origin, who differed in their habits and preferences from their Scotch brethren. This gave rise to constant difficulty about Psalmody, the mode of managing their secular affairs, and the usage of public worship. The pamph­let entitled “The case of the Scotch Presbyterian Church in the city of New York,” referred to in a precious chapter, throws a clear light on the original character of the church, and indirectly upon the Synod with which it was connected. The object of the pamphlet is to give an account of the several attempts made to obtain a charter, and of the opposition of the Epis­copalians, by which these efforts were rendered unsuccessful.

__________________________________________________________________________________

The writers claim “that all protestant denominations in the colonies, are, in the eye of the law, upon a level,” and that this was “the necessary consequence of removing to a distant country, where no religious establishment is set up.” It was on this assumption the colonies were settled. The granting of charters, therefore, to the Dutch and Episcopalian churches, was a matter of justice and not of favor. “What shall we say then,” it is asked, “to the denial of such charters to the dispersions of the church of Scotland?” The first application was made in 1720, in the name of “the minister, elders, and deacons of the Presbyterian church in New York.” A committee of council to whom this application was referred, reported in favor of it, “but the board, to gratify the unexpected and illiberal jealousy of the Episcopalians,” desisted from all proceedings upon it. “The Presbyterians soon after renewed their application, and the Episcopalians their unreasonable opposition.” The petition was, at their suggestion, referred to the authorities in England. Though made in September 1720, it was not sent home until 1724. The Lords of Trade consulted Counsellor West, afterwards Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who gave his opinion in these words: “Upon consideration of the several acts of uniformity that have passed in Great Britain, I am of opinion that they do not extend to New York; and consequently an act of toleration is of no use in that province; and therefore as there is no provincial act of uniformity according to the church of England, I am of opinion that by law such patent of incorporation may be granted as by the petition is desired.” Still no charter was granted. “Notwithstanding all opposition, the Scotch church flourished under the long and laborious ministry of the Rev. Mr. Pemberton, who settled here in 1727.”

In 1759 a third application was made, with no better success. A fourth attempt was made in 1766, when it was thought best “to lay the case of this distant dispersion of the church of Scotland before his majesty.” When the matter came up for consideration,  “the Bishop of London appeared twice before the commissioners of trade and plantation, in opposition to the petition,” which was finally rejected. The grounds on which these applications were opposed gave more just offense than their rejection itself. It was either assumed that the acts of uniformity were in force in this country, or that the question respecting their obligation must be previously determined by the highest authority, “lest such incorporations might be considered as repugnant to the provisions of those statutes.” Such was the language of the Governor’s council on the subject, who still more plainly indicate their principles by saying in the same document that “except the charters granted to the church of England, all the instances of such incorporations within this province (four only in number), are confined to the Dutch, whose claims to this distinction are, the committee apprehend, grounded on one of the articles of capitulation, on the surrender of the colony in 1664, by which it is declared, that the Dutch here, shall enjoy the liberty of their consciences in divine worship and church discipline.” Thus it appears that the Dutch owed their liberty of conscience to an article of capitulation, and that those who could plead no such ground of distinction, were not entitled to such liberty.

Presbyterians could not avoid drawing the infer­ence from such declarations that Episcopalians in this country and in England were desirous of giving full force to the acts of uniformity. On what other ground was the distinction made between the two denominations? Why were charters granted without hesitation or delay to Episcopal churches and refused to Presbyterian ones? Why did the Lords of Trade say that it was inexpedient to grant the latter “any further privileges or immunities than they are entitled to by the laws of toleration?” The toleration act presupposed the act of uniformity. If Presbyterians owed their liberty of conscience in the colonies to the former, it was because the latter was in force in the colonies. Thus the men who had fled from the oppression of these acts in their own country found their authority asserted in the place of their asylum.

What rendered this case the harder was that the Dutch and English Presbyterians in the province of New York were “a great majority of the whole number of its inhabitants.” This is assorted in the petition for a charter, made in 1766, and is virtually admitted in the reply to it. Yet the minority had not only acts of incorporation, but public property granted to them to a large amount. “At this very juncture,” says the pamphlet (1773), “the society for propagating the gospel, though restrained from taking real estates at home, are asking for grants of crown land, in America in mortmain, for themselves and the Episcopal churches, to the amount of many hundred thousands of acres. In some instances they have been gratified already, and in one with circumstances too singular to be unnoticed. All the world knows the Episcopal church of the city of New York to be one of the richest ecclesiastical corporations in the king’s dominions. They own a very large portion of the very metropolis. Sixty-odd acres divided into small lots will produce, when the present leases expire, a revenue fit for a popish abbey. They had first a lease of it from the crown, which was vacated by a law procured in consequence of orders from home. Impatient under this loss, a project was devised to repeal the vacating act, and regrant it in fee, before the repealing act could be known on the other side of the water. My Lord Cornbury risked the royal displeasure, and sacrificed the crown to the church. Queen Anne repealed the repealing, and confirmed the vacating act; but the church was already possessed of the patent. ... They have lately added to their wealth a township of no less than 25,000 acres, out of the crown lands in the county of Gloucester, ... applied for by, and granted to Nathaniel Marston and others as private planters; though they took the estate not for themselves, but for the incorporated churches of which they were officers and members. Chargeable with such practices, is not their opposing the naked incorporation of the Scotch churches (who ask for no estate or lands) the most matchless effrontery? ... What marvel then that the project of erecting Episcopacy in America, excites such general apprehension in the rest of the American churches?” This assumption, therefore, that the English ecclesiastical laws were of force in this country, and that the vast majority of the people were only tolerated, was a real grievance. It was the same assumption, viz.: that America was a part of the realm of Great Britain, and was subject to the acts of parliament even in matters of taxation, that caused the revolution, and formed its justification.

The character of the church in New York is clearly set forth in their several petitions for a charter. They frequently call themselves “a dispersion of the church of Scotland,” and, in the petition presented in 1720, prayed to be incorporated for the exercise of their religion “in its true doctrine, discipline, and worship, according to the rules and methods of the established church of North Britain.” That presented in 1766, was in the name of “John Rodgers and Joseph Treat, the present ministers of the Presbyterian church of the city of New York, according to the Westminster Confession, Catechisms, and Directory, agreeable to the established church of Scotland,” and of the elders, deacons, and trustees. In the copy of the charter which they sent to England to be executed and returned, they requested the king to say, “We have thought fit to favor the pious purposes of our said loving subjects, and to secure to them, their successors, and others joining with them of the same religious persuasion, the free exercise and enjoyment of all their civil and religious rights, and to preserve to them and their successors, the liberty of worshipping God according to their consciences, and the usages of those Presbyterian churches which have adopted and do regulate themselves by, and conform to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Directory.” And again, “We do also for us, our heirs, and successors, ordain and grant that the said ministers, elders, deacons, and trustees, of the Presbyterian church of the city of New York, according to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Directory, in communion with the church of Scotland, and their successors for ever, by these presents, that this our grant shall be firm, good, and effectual, &c. &c.” As all this was said by men who had always belonged to the New-side Synod, and as the Westminster Directory related not merely to a single Congregation, but to Presbyteries and Synods, it shows very clearly that they thought their system of church government was in harmony with that of the church of Scotland, of which they called themselves a dispersion, and with which they professed to be in communion. (Minutes, p. 58.) 

This committee met, agreeably to appointment, and executed their somewhat extraordinary mission in selecting and nominating two elders, but decided that it was not expedient “judicially to recommend a change in the version of the Psalms, lest the animosities in the congregation should be the more inflamed.”

Sometimes the affairs of a congregation were brought before the Synod without the intervention of a presbytery. Thus in 1753, Mr. Pemberton and others of the congregation of New York made a representation of the painful divisions existing in that church, and requested the intervention of the Synod. Whereupon William Tennent, Samuel Davies, Aaron Burr, Caleb Smith, David Bost­wick, Elihu Spencer, Richard Treat, Charles Beatty, and John Rodgers were appointed a committee to meet at New York, “with full power and authority to transact such things with respect to said congregation, as they shall judge necessary for the healing of its divisions, and the best interests of religion therein.”

When this committee met, a paper containing a statement of the grievances of which a part of the congregation complained, was laid before them, on which they gave the following judgment:

1.      “As to the first article complaining of the neglect of ministerial visits, and examining into the lives and conversation of the people; it appears from the representation made by Mr. Pemberton, that he has made conscience of his duty in these respects, though of late he has, by reason of the divisions subsisting among his people, desisted from it: we therefore earnestly recommend his persisting in that important part of his ministerial labors; and that he be not discouraged by any disagreeable appearances among them.

2.      “As to the third article against the session concerning the new version of the Psalms, the committee cannot think it regular for the ministers and elders to introduce a new version, without the express consent and approbation of the majority of the congregation; yet since Dr. Watts’ version is introduced into this church, and is well adapted for Christian worship, and received by many Presbyterian congregations both in America and Great Britain; they cannot but judge it best for the well-being of the congregation, under their present circumstances, that they should be continued.

3.      “As to the fourth article, complaining of the neglect of the Westminster Confession, and not recommending of it in baptism, the committee conceive that the vote of the Synod, as to the latter, is sufficient; and Mr. Pemberton’s declaring his high approbation of said Confession, and publicly teaching the Westminster Catechisms, ought to be satisfying to all.

4.      “As to praying at the burial of the dead, since it is not practiced but at the request of those concerned, and all are left at liberty to request it or not, the committee think it no just matter of offence, especially as it is frequently practiced by the Presbyterian ministers in this country, and the reasons for which the General Assembly, in the early times of the reformation from popery, prohibited it, are now evidently ceased.

5.      “As to singing anthems, &c., though the committee cannot disapprove of them at proper seasons, yet lest it should tend to take off the minds of the people from the important things which they have heard in the house of God, and as it seems matter of conscience to some, the committee judge it advisable to forbear the practice on the Lord’s day.6.      “As to the article complaining of injurious and contemptuous treatment, the committee are much grieved to find there has been so much of it on both sides during the unhappy disputes that have subsisted among them, and do earnestly recommend mutual forgiveness, forbearance, and moderation towards one another, as the most likely method to promote peace and unanimity among them.”

This minute throws no little light upon the causes of the difficulties in that congregation. It shows that one portion of the people, with characteristic pertinacity and scrupulousness, were for adhering to “the rules and methods” of that church of which they all professed to be a “dispersion,” while another portion treated these scruples with very little forbearance. The version of the Psalms was changed without the consent of the people, and even anthems were sung after sermon on the Sabbath. They might as well have said mass, and expect the Scotch Presbyterians of that day to join in the service. If they wished to drive the Scotch from “the Scotch church,” this was certainly the proper method to do it, but it was not the way to obtain peace. With our imperfect knowledge of the circumstances, it is impossible to judge on which party the blame should principally be laid, but it appears from the above minute that the rulers of the congregation did not act on the principles so strenuously inculcated by the apostle of the Gentiles: “If thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.”

After the committee had rendered the decision above recorded, Messrs. Pemberton and Cumming requested to be dismissed from their pastoral relation to the church. The former assigned as the grounds of his request the divisions among the people, the appearance of dissatisfaction with himself, and the little prospect of his being useful among them; the latter urged particularly the low state of his health. A number of gentlemen, in behalf of others, earnestly remonstrated against the removal of Mr. Pemberton, and the committee decided “he should be allowed a month’s trial; and if, upon a faithful endeavor to heal the divisions, and serve the interests of Christ’s kingdom among them, he finds all his attempts vain, and still continues his desire of a dismission, they judge it best he should be left at liberty to remove from, or abide with them, as he shall think most consistent with his duty. As to Mr. Cumming, as no reasons have been offered to the committee against his dismission, the committee do judge from what has appeared to them, and for the reasons urged by him, that his pastoral relation to the Presbyterian congregation in New York should be dissolved, and it is dissolved accordingly. It is with pleasure the committee observe that there have been no objections against Mr. Cumming’s moral conduct or ministerial labors; they do, therefore, freely recommend him, if God shall please to restore his health, to any Christian congregation where Divine Providence may call him, as a man of eminent ministerial gifts and abilities, and one whom they think in many respects fitted for special service in the church of Christ.”

The affairs of this congregation were again brought before the Synod in 1755, by a reference from the Presbytery of New York concerning the removal of Mr. Bostwick from Jamaica to the church in New York, and settling the order and discipline of that church, which, after much consideration, was referred to a committee to draw up the judgment of the Synod thereon. This judgment was to the following effect: (1) That the Synod were still of the opinion formerly expressed, that the trustees had faithfully performed their duty; but as the congregation were divided in sentiment as to the propriety of having such a board, and had agreed not to elect them again in that form, the Synod approve of that agreement, and judged that if the congregation chose to have a committee to manage their secular affairs, that committee should hereafter be chosen by the ministers, elders, and deacons, with the consent of the peo­ple. (2) That as a number of the congregation were much dissatisfied with the constant use of Dr. Watts’ Psalms, “the Synod determined that the Scotch version be used equally with the other in the stated public worship on the Lord’s day.” (3) That previously to the administration of baptism, the minister shall inquire into the doctrinal knowledge and regularity of life of the parents, and exhort them to instruct their children in the doctrines and pre­cepts of Christianity as contained in the Scriptures, and comprised in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, which he shall recommend unto them. (4) That as complaint had been made of a number assuming the name of the Scotch Presbyterian Society, it shall be deemed irregular and censurable for a part of the congregation to form a party, and to consider themselves a society distinct from the rest. (5) That as to the removal of Mr. Bostwick, the people of Jamaica not having been heard on that affair, the Synod were not prepared to decide, but appointed a committee to meet at Jamaica and decide the question. That committee met accordingly, October 29, 1755, but “not having light to come to a full determination of the affair,” referred it to the commissioner of the Synod, who, after mature deliberation, decided in favor of his removal.

The long-continued difficulties in the church in New York were presented for the last time to the Synod in 1756. A paper was read from several members of the congregation, complaining of the grievances under which they supposed themselves to suffer. The Synod, after severely censuring the disrespectful terms in which that paper was couched, informed the complainants, “that, by adopting the Westminster Confession, we only intended receiving it as a test of orthodoxy in this church; and it is the order of this Synod that all who are licensed to preach the gospel, or to become members of any presbytery within our bounds, shall receive the same as the confession of their faith according to our constituting act, which we see no reason to repeal.

“That as to the singing of Dr. Watts’ version of the Psalms, though the conduct of the congregation in adhering to them contrary to synodical appointment, without waiting for an opportunity to obtain a repeal of the said appointment, was not regular, yet as the said Psalms are orthodox, and as no particular version is inspired, and as the using them is earnestly desired by a great majority of the congregation, contrary to the view we had of the case last year, the Synod for the sake of their peace do permit the use of the said version unto them; and determine that this shall be finally decisive in this affair.” They then declare that those who refused to pay their pew-rents acted disorderly, and forfeited their pews; that reading in the desk was “a mere indifferency,” not contrary to any divine rule, or to the constitution of the church, and therefore not to be altered by authority. As to the other points brought forward in the paper, they had been already decided, to which decisions the Synod adhered.

These examples may be deemed sufficient to illustrate the controlling supervision exercised by the Synod, and it must be admitted that they exhibit a Presbyterianism sufficiently stringent. It was also in the exercise of ordinary synodical jurisdiction that this body received and formed new Presbyteries. In 1749 the Presbytery of Suffolk, Long Island, was received; in 1751 those members of the Presbytery of New Brunswick who resided in Philadelphia, and in New Jersey to the southward of that city, were formed into a new Presbytery, and called the Presbytery of Abington; in 1755 “the Synod appointed the Rev. Samuel Davies, John Todd, Alexander Creaghead, Robert Henry, John Wright, and John Brown, to be a Presbytery, under the name of the Presbytery of Hanover, and that their first meeting shall be in Hanover, on the first Wednesday of December next, and that Mr. Davies open the said Presbytery with a sermon; and that any of their members (i.e., of the Synod) settling to the southward and west­ward of Mr. Hoge’s congregation, shall have liberty to join the said Presbytery.”

The Synod were sometimes called upon to decide questions either in thesi, or with reference to some special case. Thus, in 1752, we find the following record: “Whereas a certain person pretending at Egg Harbour to be a minister regularly ordained among Presbyterians, and under that character baptised some adults and infants, and it appearing to the Synod that his pretences were false, having at that time no license or ordination; it is our opinion that all the gospel ordinances he administered under that false and pretended character, are null and invalid.”

In 1753, “it being moved to the Synod what they judge necessary as to the form or method to be used in the administration of baptism, the Synod do refer to our excellent Directory in that case. It being further moved, whether a church session hath power to introduce a new version of the Psalms into the congregation to which they belong, without the consent of the majority of the said congregation, it was voted in the negative: nemine contradicente.”

The character of this Synod is sufficiently plain from its own proceedings, but if it were consistent with the object and limits of this history to bring into view the action of the several Presbyteries within its bounds, its thorough Presbyterianism would be still more apparent. The records of the Presbytery of New Brunswick, for example, furnish as fair a specimen of regular Presbyterian government as can be presented by those of any Presbytery, at any period in the history of our church. When first constituted, through the abundance of its zeal, it paid little regard to geographical limits, and would receive congregations, or supply them with preaching, no matter to what Presbytery they properly belonged. After the revival, however, it became remarkably scrupulous on this point, and even as early as 1743, exhibited a very commendable degree of caution in this matter. This is illustrated by its conduct in reference to the church at New Milford, in Connecticut. In the month of April 1743, at a pro re nata meeting of the Pres­bytery, the following record was made: “The special occasion of the present meeting of the Presbytery is an application made to some of our members, some time past, from a society in Milford, in New England, by their commissioners, desiring the Presbytery to receive them under their care, and also to take Mr. Jacob Johnson, a candidate for the ministry, then preaching to them, under trials, in order to ordination to the gospel ministry among them; and accordingly said members did send to Mr. Jacob Johnson as pieces of trial, that he prepare a sermon on Rom. VIII. 14, and an exegesis, in Latin, upon this question: An regimen ecclesiæ presby­teriale sit Scripturæ et rationi congruum? to be delivered to the Presbytery at this time, to sit upon the said occasion. Now the Presbytery being met, pursuant to the aforementioned occasion and appointment, Mr. Jacob Johnson, together with Mr. Benjamin Fenn and Mr. George Clerk, commissioners from the aforesaid society in Milford, appeared and moved the Presbytery to proceed in their affair, as before mentioned. The Presbytery do agree to take the matter under consideration, and in order to proceed in the best and clearest manner they can, resolve to inquire in the first place, whether said society be a regular society capable of being received under their care and direction or not. And after proper inquiry and consideration of the affair, as far and as fully as at present they are able, the Presbytery doth judge, that although they cannot presbyterially judge and determine any thing as touching the original reasons and grounds of their separation from the established congregation of that town, not having sufficient evidence to proceed upon in that matter, nor does the Presbytery think that matter immediately to lie before them, yet inasmuch as the Presbytery find, upon the verbal relation of the aforesaid commissioners, con­firmed by several papers containing the narration of their proceed­ings, that said society is now a separate body of the Presbyterian denomination, constituted agreeably to, and under protection of the laws of that colony, and no objections against the present proceedings of the newly-erected society being offered to the Presbytery by the old congregation, though their design was fully known to them, the Presbytery therefore cannot see any just reason to reject the motion and request made to them by the said newly-erected society of Milford, do unanimously agree to take the said society under their care and government, and do the best they can for them towards their settlement with a minister; and so they are prepared to take the trials of Mr. Jacob Johnson, in order to judge of his qualifications for the sacred office of the ministry among them.”

The Presbytery then proceeded to the examination of Mr. Johnson, and after having made some progress, they determined to stop, and resolved (1) that the newly-erected Presbyterian Society in Milford is to be deemed a society capable to call and receive a minister for themselves; (2) that the Presbytery are grieved for the breach thereby made in the said town; (3) that it be recommended to the said society to seek a reconciliation with the old society, and that the Presbytery do not proceed to the ordination of Mr. Johnson until these further steps have been taken; (4) that in case the efforts for a union should fail, the society “be allowed” to call and settle a minister, and in the meantime to have supplies from settled ministers and approved candidates; (5) that the Rev. Mr. Treat visit Milford, and gain further information, and make a report to Presbytery. In August of the same year, a call was presented from that congregation for Mr. Treat, but his removal being opposed by commissioners from the congregation of Abington, of which he was the pastor, the Presbytery decided against his acceptance of the call. The Presbytery, however, directed Mr. Samuel Finley to visit Milford, “with allowance that he preach in other places thereabouts, where Providence may open a door for him.”

At a meeting of the Presbytery in May 1744, it is stated, “An important affair was brought before Presbytery from the Presbyterian society of Milford, New England, the determining of which being of very great consequence, and the conjunct Presbytery [i.e., the united Presbyteries of New Brunswick and New Castle] being now convened, the Presbytery think it not best to proceed in it, but to refer it to the determination of the conjunct Presbytery at their present meeting.” What this affair was, or what was done in the matter, does not appear from the records. But in 1747, a call from Milford was presented to the Presbytery for Mr. Job Prudden, and accepted by him, whereupon the Presbytery, after the usual examinations, and the adoption on his part of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, proceeded to his ordination.

This Presbytery was not less circumspect in the reception of new members. In October 1743, a request was presented from the con­gregation of Hopewell, for permission to invite the famous Mr. Davenport to preach for them, with a view to his settlement among them. “The Presbytery, in order to get light in the matter, thought it their duty to discourse with Mr. Davenport about several things they had heard of in some parts of his conduct in times past, which they could not approve of, and were pleased to hear Mr. Davenport declare his conviction of, and humiliation for some things he had been faulty in, although there be others which he cannot as yet see and condemn which the Presbytery do disapprove of. Whereupon the Presbytery cannot see that the way is clear for said people to give Mr. Davenport a call to settle among them; nevertheless that as God has begun to show him his mistakes, he may be pleased to go on in that way, and being willing to use all means to obtain so desirable an end, the Presbytery do permit the said people to improve Mr. Davenport to supply them until the second Wednesday in May next, to see what may be further done in that affair, referring it to the conjunct Presbytery, then to meet at Philadelphia, to approve or disapprove of this our conduct, and to proceed in regard to Mr. Davenport as their way shall be made clear to them.” He was not received as a member of the Presbytery until 1746, when, as the Presbytery state, “having satisfied us of his consent to the doctrines contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith, together with our plan of government, as far as he had inspected into the same,” he was admitted. In 1748, he was dismissed to the Presbytery of New York, “to act under their direction,” in relation to a call which he had received to Connecticut Farms. In 1753, he was again received by the Presbytery of New Brunswick from the Presbytery of New Castle, in order to his settlement at Hopewell. A committee was appointed for his installation, who reported that, owing “to the manifest negligence of the people, they could not proceed in that affair, whereupon the Presbytery judged the conduct of the said people to be highly abusive both to the Presbytery and Mr. Davenport; but said people having made some just reflections on their conduct, and again presenting a call to Mr. Davenport, he, after some consideration, declared his acceptance of said call”; and the Presbytery, “in consideration of the disappointment and damage sustained by the delay of the installation of Mr. Davenport, when first appointed, through the default of the people of Hopewell and Maidenhead, do order that the said people advance Mr. Davenport’s salary to seventy pounds per annum two years sooner than was recommended to them by the last Presbytery.” His situation does not appear to have been very agreeable, as in 1757 a petition was presented for his removal, the consideration of which was deferred to the next meeting, and he died in the autumn of that year before it was acted upon.

In the above record we have an example not only of the exercise of the usual presbyterial authority over a congregation, but of something beyond it, especially in the order to increase Mr. Davenport’s salary. This was a matter in which the Presbytery often interfered. In 1750 they passed a standing rule that at least once a year they would “inquire of the elders how their respective ministers were supported, and their salaries paid.” If after such inquiry the people were found deficient, the Presbytery censured them, and “ordered them to give information to the next Presbytery” what they had done to secure the payment of the pastor, or the people were “ordered to make up the deficiency before the next meeting of the Presbytery.”

The Presbytery also assumed the right of granting or refusing liberty to one or more members of one congregation to join another. Thus, “Mr. Jacob Reader, a member of the congregation of Hopewell, made a request that for the sake of the convenience of his family, the Presbytery would be pleased to dismiss him from the aforesaid congregation, that he may join with Amwell. And the Presbytery, taking into consideration said request, judge it to be reasonable, and grant it.” At another time a petition from a number of persons “to be discharged from Mr. Davenport, was presented and granted.” At the present day few members of the church would think of troubling the Presbytery with such requests, and few presbyteries would think of exercising jurisdiction in the case.

This Presbytery moreover exercised the right of deciding how a minister’s time should be apportioned between the several branches of his congregation, and whether new places of worship should be erected or not. In 1752 “a petition was presented from Kingwood for liberty to build a meeting‑house for their own convenience; and after hearing said affair, and deliberating thereupon, the Presbytery,” it is said, “do grant their petition and order that henceforth that half of Mr. Lewis’ time which has been hitherto spent in the Western Branch be equally divided between Bethlehem and Kingwood, and that each part pay in proportion to their time.” In those days the villages of Kingston and Princeton, three miles apart, formed one parish, and the people of Princeton wished to have a separate place of worship, and a certain portion of the pastor’s time, but their requests were repeatedly disallowed. In 1755 a motion was again “made in behalf of Princeton for supplies; and for liberty to build a meeting-house there,” and the Presbytery, it is said, “do grant liberty to the people of the said town to build a meeting-house.”

The control exercised by the Presbytery over its own members was no less strict. An example has already been given of the Presbytery’s deciding what portion of a minister’s time should be given to each of the several congregations under his care. We find, too, that licentiates, if they wished to officiate out of the bounds of the Presbytery to which they belonged, obtained special permission for that purpose. Thus in 1755, the Presbytery gave “Mr. Hait free liberty to officiate within the bounds of the New Castle Presbytery as much of the time before next commencement, as he inclines to improve for that purpose.” This permission was granted in consequence, it is stated, “of an earnest request from our Reverend brethren of the New Castle Presbytery, that we would assist them with respect to the vast number of vacant congregations under their care in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, besides fourteen congregations in North Carolina, who have applied to them for gospel ministers, whose circumstances are peculiarly distressing and dangerous; in which letter is also a particular request that Mr. Benjamin Hait may be allowed to join them, or at least to help them this summer.” It is, therefore, a great mistake to suppose that these Presbyteries were distinguished for a loose form of ecclesiastical government. They carried out the principles of Presbyterianism much further than is now common among us.

The character of the Synod of New York may be still further illustrated by a reference to the fact that they conformed to the Scottish usage, as thoroughly as the old Synod of Philadelphia. In the first place, after the manner of the church in Scotland, they had a commission, which sat during the intervals of Synod, clothed with full synodical powers. This commission was appointed regularly every year.

In the second place they frequently appointed committees with plenary powers to decide particular cases. Thus in 1750, when the German church at Rockaway applied to be taken under the care of the Synod, Messrs. Pierson, Burr, Arthur, Smith, and Spencer, were appointed a committee to visit the place, ascertain the facts, and decide upon the application. In 1753 the committee sent to New York, received the request of the ministers to be dismissed from their pastoral charge, and decided against the immediate removal of Mr. Pemberton, but dissolved the connection between Mr. Cumming and that congregation. In 1755 a com­mittee was appointed with authority to dismiss Mr. Bostwick from Jamaica, with a view to his removal to New York; they referred the matter to the commission by whom the transfer was effected. In the Presbyteries this method of acting by committees was still more frequently resorted to. Men were licensed, ordained, and dismissed by committees specially appointed for the purpose. It was not competent, however, for these committees to assume pres­byterial powers except for the special purpose of their appointment. Hence in 1750, when application was made to the committee appointed to license Mr. Todd, to make arrangements for the ordination of Mr. Campbell, it was decided “that being only a committee they cannot proceed to the ordination of Mr. C. or make any appointment therefore.”

In the third place, the Synod frequently acted in a presbyterial capacity. The most common occasion for the exercise of such powers was the appointment of supplies for vacant congregations. This was done by the Synod, not merely in its character of a missionary society, but in that of a large Presbytery, having the over­sight over all the churches, and the direction of all its members. Thus in 1753, they appointed Mr. Blair, Mr. Bay, Mr. Henry, Mr. Finley, and Mr. Rodgers to supply Mr. Davies’ congregation during his absence, and then appointed supplies for the congregations of those ministers. In like manner, Mr. Treat, Mr. William Ten­nent, Mr. Beatty, Mr. Burr, Mr. Pemberton, and Mr. Cumming were directed to preach, each four sabbaths for Mr. Gilbert Ten­nent’s congregation. In 1754, an application being received from Hanover for further supplies, the Synod sent Mr. Greenman to them and directed Mr. Clark, a candidate under the care of the Presbytery of New York, to preach for Mr. Greenman during his absence. In 1756 the committee of Synod sent to Jamaica to decide on Mr. Bostwick’s removal; though they did not dismiss him, directed him to preach most of the winter in New York, and then appointed supplies for his congregation. And the commission did the same thing when they decided on his final removal to New York. It was a common practice, when the Synod sent any of their members on a distant mission, for them to take upon themselves the duty of making provision for their congregations. And even when there was no special reason for it, applications were made directly to the Synod. Thus in 1757, a commissioner from Newark requested supplies for that congregation, and the Synod appointed Mr. Treat to preach for them for three sabbaths, and as much more as he could. Sometimes one Presbytery was directed to supply the congregations within the bounds of another. Thus “in order to supply the congregations,” it is said, “of those ministers who are gone to the southward, the Synod appoint the Pres­byteries of New Brunswick and Abington to supply within the bounds of New York Presbytery, each four sabbaths; and the Presbytery of Suffolk to supply either New York or Jamaica, as need shall be, each member two sabbaths.”

Even calls for ministers and applications from congregations to be taken under the care of the Synod were at times directed immediately to them and not to a Presbytery. In 1748, “a call was brought into Synod from Falling Spring and New Providence, for Mr. Byram, the acceptance of which he declined.” The German congregation of Rockaway applied immediately to the Synod to be taken into connection with our church, and they entertained the application. The whole action of the Synod, in reference to the congregation in New York, was presbyterial rather than synodical. A committee of the Synod selected and nominated elders; received and decided complaints against the pastors, one of whom, at his own request, they dismissed conditionally, and the other definitively. The Synod, or its commission, moreover decided what version of the Psalms should be used, and transferred Mr. Bostwick from one church to another. Some of these cases were indeed brought up, by reference from the Presbytery, but in most of them the Synod exercised original jurisdiction.

It appears, then, from this review, that the Synod of New York was a strictly Presbyterian body. They not only declared the Church of Scotland to be their mother church, and claimed to be united with her “in the same faith, order, and discipline,” having adopted her standards both of doctrine and government, but in all their measures and modes of action they adhered to the Presbyterian system. There was not only the regular exercise of sessional, presbyterial, and synodical supervision, but the control exercised over ministers and churches was more direct and extended than that to which we are accustomed. And further, in the regular appointment of a commission, in the frequent use of committees with full powers, and in the exercise of presbyterial functions, this Synod conformed to the usages of the church of Scotland, more nearly than our church has ever done since the formation of our present constitution.

This Synod was no less distinguished for its zeal for sound learning and evangelical religion. It embraced a very large proportion of the best educated, as well as of the most fervent and pious ministers of the church. The field which they had to cultivate was so extensive, and was so rapidly filling with inhabitants, that it required the most laborious exertion to keep it even tolerably supplied. The members of the Synod were therefore obliged to make long and frequent journeys, and to give themselves up to their work with a devotion which would now be deemed extraordinary. Perhaps there is no ecclesiastical body to which our church and country are more indebted than to this Synod of New York.

It only remains to give an account of the negotiations which led to the union of the two Synods. The first overtures were made by the Synod of New York in 1749, when it was carried, “by a great majority of votes,” that the following proposals should be sent to the Synod of Philadelphia, viz.:

“The Synod of New York are deeply sensible of the many unhappy consequences that flow from our present divided state; and have, with pleasure, observed a spirit of moderation increasing between many members of both Synods. This opens a door of hope, that if we were united in one body, we might be able to carry on the designs of religion in future peace and agreement, to our mutual satisfaction. And though we retain the same sentiments of the work of God which we formerly did, yet we esteem mutual forbearance our duty, since we all profess the same Confession of Faith and Directory for worship. We would, therefore, humbly propose to our brethren of the Synod of Philadelphia, that all our former differences be buried in perpetual oblivion; and that, for the time to come, both Synods be united in one, and that henceforth there be no contentions among us, but to carry towards each other in the most peaceable and brotherly-manner, which we are persuaded will be for the honour of our Master, the credit of our profession, and the edification of the churches committed to our care. Accordingly we appoint the Rev. Messrs. John Pierson, Gilbert Tennent, Ebenezer Pemberton, and Aaron Burr, to be our delegates to wait upon the Synod of Philadelphia with these proposals; and if the Synod of Philadelphia see meet to join with us in this deign, and will please to appoint a commission to meet for that purpose, we appoint the Rev. Messrs. John Pierson, Ebenezer Pemberton, Aaron Burr, Gilbert and William Tennent, Richard Treat, Samuel and John Blair, John Roan, Samuel Finley, Eben­ezer Prime, David Bostwick, and James Brown (whom we appoint a commission of the Synod for the ensuing year) to meet with the commission of the Synod of Philadelphia, at such time and place as they shall choose, to determine the affair of the union agreeably to the preliminary articles determined upon by this Synod. And it is agreed that any other of our members, who shall please to meet with the commission, shall have liberty of voting and acting in said affair equally with the members of said commission. Which articles proposed as a general plan of union, are as follows, viz.:

1.      “To preserve the common peace, we would propose that all names of distinction, which have been made use of in the late times, be for ever abolished.

2.      “That every member assent unto and adopt the Confession of Faith and Directory, according to the plan formerly agreed to by the Synod of Philadelphia, in the years _____.

3.      “That every member promise that, after any question has been determined by the major vote, he will actively concur, or passively submit to the judgment of the body. But if his conscience permit him to do neither of these, that then he shall be obliged peaceably to withdraw from our synodical communion, without any attempt to make a schism or division among us. Yet this is not intended to extend to any cases but those which the Synod judge essential in matters of doctrine or discipline.

4.      “That all our respective congregations and vacancies be acknowledged as congregations belonging to the Synod, but continue under the care of the same presbyteries as now they are, until a favorable opportunity presents for an advantageous alteration.

5.      “That we all agree to esteem and treat it as a censurable evil to accuse any of our members of error in doctrine, or immorality in conversation, any otherwise than by private reproof, till the accusation has been brought before a regular judicature, and issued according to the known rules of our discipline.”

The Synod of Philadelphia having acceded to the proposal for a conference, the commissioners of the two Synods met at Trenton, October 5, 1749. From the minutes of this meeting, it appears that “the commissioners of the Synod of New York, considering the protest of the Synod of Philadelphia, whereby they excluded from their communion the Presbytery of New Brunswick and their adherents, as one principal bar to an union, waiving all other mat­ters, immediately insisted that said protest should, by some authentic and formal act of the Synod of Philadelphia, be made null and void. The debates on this head rose very high, and there appearing no prospect of accommodation, the commissioners of both Synods came unanimously into this conclusion, viz.: that whereas certain difficulties arose in the conversation of the commissioners of both Synods, they came finally unanimously into this agreement, that both Synods at their next sessions do more fully prepare proposals for an accommodation, and interchange said proposals; and that, in the mean time, there be a mutual endeavor to cultivate a spirit of candour and friendship. At the same time, these principal things were especially recommended to the consideration of their respective Synods: 1. The protest. 2. That paragraph about essentials. 3. Of Presbyteries.”

From the report of the commissioners made to the Synod of Philadelphia, relating to this meeting, it appears that “the delegates from the Synod of New York agreed to the following concessions and amendments in the aforementioned proposals, which, according to the references in them, are as follows: “1. Though great and good men have been of different opinions [about the revival]. 2. Always reserving a liberty for such dissenting member to lay his grievances before Synod in a peaceable manner. N. B. What remains of the sentence to be erased. [This amendment relates to article three, in the New York proposals.] 3. That there be no intrusions into the bounds of Presbyteries or pastoral charges, against the inclination of the Presbyteries or pastors. 4. That all candidates for the work of the sacred ministry either be examined and approved by the Synod or its commission, previous to their admission upon trials by any of our Presbyteries, or else that they be obliged to obtain a college diploma, or a certificate from the president or trustees of the college, that they have been examined and found qualified. Mr. Gilbert Tennent only objected against the synodical examination.”

The Synod of New York received, in May 1750, the report of their commissioners, of the failure of the conference at Trenton, and deferred further action on the subject until their meeting in the autumn. Proposals were then prepared which differed but little from those at first offered. The first article provides for the adoption of the Confession and Directory. The second relates to the decisions of the Synod, and is nearly in the same words as the former article relating to the same subject. The third is against rash judging. The fourth provides “that no candidate shall be taken upon trials by any Presbytery without a degree, or certificate from the president and a sufficient number of tutors or trustees of some college, testifying to the sufficiency of his learning, except in cases extraordinary, in which the Presbyteries shall be accountable to the Synod for their conduct.” The fifth was “that it shall be treated as irregular for any minister or candidate to preach, or perform other ministerial offices in the congregations of other ministers belonging to our body, contrary to their minds. On the other hand, it shall be esteemed unbrotherly for any minister to refuse his consent, without weighty reasons, when amicably desired.” The sixth provides for the Presbyteries and congregations remaining as they then were. The seventh requires “that the protestation made in the Synod of Philadelphia, in the year 1741, be declared henceforth void and of none effect; and that the proposed union shall not be understood to imply an agreement or consent to said protestation on the part of this Synod.” And finally, “forasmuch as this Synod doth believe, as they have before declared, that a glorious work of God’s Spirit was carried on in the late religious appearances; though we doubt not but there were several follies and extravagancies of people, and artifices of Satan intermixed therewith; it would be pleasing and desirable for us, and what we hope for, that both Synods may come so far to agree in their sentiments about it, as to give their joint testimony thereto.”

To these proposals the Synod of Philadelphia replied (1) that it was unreasonable to make the declaration that the protest of 1741 was void, a term of communion, since the Synod of Philadelphia had declared that they would act towards their brethren of New York as though that protest had never been made. If anything more was intended by declaring it void, they were not prepared for it, as they believed it had been made on sufficient and justifiable grounds; (2) they objected to the Presbyteries remaining as they then were, as they considered it essential to the peace of the church that the distinction between old and new-side Presbyteries should be done away; (3) they objected to making a testimony to the revival a term of communion, as the commissioners from New York had admitted that great and good men differed on that subject; and as the Synod itself acknowledged that it was mixed with extravagancies, and artifices of Satan. Before such a testimony could be given, it must be known what was regarded as genuine, and what as spurious; (4) they agreed that all the members of the Synod of New York should be members of the united Synod, but they thought that where ministers had unjustly intruded into their congregations, and rendered them too feeble to support their pastors, something should be done to rectify the evil.

For a further exposition of their views, they refer the Synod of New York to the proposals sent to them after the Trenton conference, but before the reception of those above stated from New York. They particularly refer the Synod of New York to the article respecting the decision of affairs by majority of votes. “We apprehend,” they say, “it is strictly Presbyterian and reasonable, and are not convinced the alteration in that article proposed by you, about what is essential and what is not, is necessary; nay, we apprehend that such an alteration as stated by you has a bad aspect, and opens a door for an unjustifiable latitude in prin­ciples and practices.” They express their satisfaction at the pro­posal that candidates should bring a college certificate; and, as that answered every purpose, they withdrew their alternative about synodical examination.

The proposals sent from the Synod of Philadelphia to that of New York, before the reception of those to which the above objections refer, were substantially as follows: (1) that all names of distinction be abolished; (2) that the Confession of Faith and Directory be adopted “according to the plan agreed on in our Synod, and that no acts be made but concerning matters which appear plain duty, or concerning opinions that we believe relate to the great truths of religion, and that all public and fundamental agreements of this Synod stand safe”; (3) makes the usual provision for conscientious dissentients; (4) against rash judging; (5) relates to intrusions and reception of candidates. On these three points the two Synods were already agreed; (6) it was proposed that Presbyteries should be made up of the ministers who lived contiguous to one another, but if any minister was dissatisfied, he might join what Presbytery he pleased; (7) with regard to the divided congregations, or new erections, as they were called, it was proposed that where each party was able to support a minister, both should continue; where neither was thus able, efforts should be made to unite them; and where new erections have been made to the prejudice of the former standing congregations, and said erections supplied with ministers, said ministers be removed, and all proper methods be taken to heal the breach.”

These proposals were received by the Synod of New York in 1751, who made to them the following objections: (1) “Though the Synod make no acts but concerning matters of plain duty or opinions relating to the great truths of religion; yet as every thing that appears plain duty and truth unto the body, may appear at the same time not to be essential; so we judge that no member or members should be obliged to withdraw from our communion upon his or their not being able actively to concur or passively submit, unless the matter be judged essential in doctrine and discipline”; (2) they objected of course to the public acts of the Synod of Philadelphia, made since the schism, being binding on the united body; (3) they thought it would not be for peace or edification in any measure to coerce the union of divided congregations; (4) as they had a college, there was no need of the alternative plan, of synodical examination of candidates.

The letter from the Philadelphia Synod, above mentioned, containing strictures on the New York proposals, was not received by the Synod of New York until 1752, when, on account of the pressure of other business, they returned a very short reply, in which they say, “We shall endeavor to give it a calm and deliberate consideration, and hope we shall return you such an answer as shall give you convincing evidence that we entertain the most affectionate desires of peace and union upon such a bottom as may contribute to the peace and comfort of all our churches.” This answer they gave at their next meeting in 1753. They justify their insisting on the protest being declared void, on the ground that if it was a judicial act, it must stand in full force and virtue, unless it be repealed by an equal act; and that their uniting with them without its repeal would be an implicit approbation of it. They insisted that Presbyteries and congregations should remain as they were, as it would produce but a jarring concord to force people together faster than they have clearness to go. As to the joint testimony to the revival previously proposed, it was not designed as a term of communion, but a desirable thing; as they hoped that upon friendly conference the difference on that subject would not be found to be as great as it had seemed. That no dissenting member should be obliged to withdraw from their communion, unless the matter be judged by the body essential in doctrine and discipline, they say, appeared to them to be strictly Christian and scriptural, as well as Presbyterian, and not liable to the objection of unjustifiable latitude, as the Synod had the power of judging what is essential and what is not.

This latter point does not appear to have been again adverted to, or to have given any further trouble. Neither Synod was disposed to make “every truth or duty” a term of communion; and each had made the adoption of the Westminster Confession of Faith a condition of admission into the sacred office. The article in question indeed did not relate to the admission of members, but to their exclusion; and is therefore analogous to those provisions of our present constitution which declare that, in case of process against a minister, “errors should be carefully considered, whether they strike at the vitals of religion, and are industriously spread, or whether they arise from the weakness of the human understanding, and are not likely to do much injury,” and which direct, “That a minister under process for heresy or schism should be treated with Christian and brotherly tenderness. Frequent conferences ought to be held with him, and proper admonitions administered. For some more dangerous errors, however, suspension may become necessary.”

It has already been proved that this Synod did not make adherence to the mere essential doctrines of the gospel the condition of ministerial communion. This is indeed evident from the form of expression adopted in the article itself, which speaks of what is essential “in doctrine or discipline.” The discipline intended is the discipline adopted by the Synod, and the doctrine intended is the system of doctrine which they had adopted. This interpretation is expressly asserted to be the meaning of this language by the members of the Synod themselves; and it is the only one at all consistent with the official declarations of the body, that they bad adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith “as the test of orthodoxy” among them, and that they had the same standard of doctrine as the church of Scotland. At the very time that these negotiations were going on, the Synod of New York had the Rev. Mr. Harker under process for teaching doctrines which had an Arminian tendency, and for which, after the union of the two Synods, he was suspended. “That therefore,” says Mr. John Blair, “is an essential error in the Synod’s sense, which is of such malignity as to subvert or greatly to injure the system of doctrine and mode of worship and government contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Directory.”

In 1754, a letter was sent from the Synod of Philadelphia to that of New York, which is not on record, containing a request for a renewed conference. A committee was consequently appointed to attend the Synod of Philadelphia at their next meeting. The result of this conference was that the Philadelphia brethren proposed that all previous differences should be dropped, and the two Synods should unite “as two contiguous bodies of Christians agreed in principle, as though they had never been concerned with one another before, nor had any differences.” The New York brethren, however, were not satisfied with this proposal, but insisted that “the protestation made in 1741 should be withdrawn.” When this result was communicated to the Synod of Philadelphia, they said they saw not what they could propose further. As to the protest, they had frequently declared they would act in case of a union as though it never had been made, that as every member had a right to protest, the judicature could neither forbid it, nor annul or withdraw such protest when made; it was solely in the power of the protesters. As some members of the Synod of New York felt aggrieved by the protest, so some of their members felt themselves greatly injured by the conduct of some of the New York brethren, and unless mutual concessions were made, a union was out of the question.

As this year the Synod of New York met in the autumn, this minute came before them the same year, viz.: 1755, and they replied to it by saying that they were fully sensible that peace and union were of the utmost importance in the church of Christ, and that their being dissatisfied with the mere general proposal to drop all former differences, and to unite on scriptural and reasonable terms, and their insisting on particulars, arose simply from the desire to render the union effectual. They admitted that their demand to have the protest annulled, could have no propriety but on the assumption that the Synod of Philadelphia had approved and adopted it; and consequently if they would say “that in their synodical capacity they do not adopt it,” all difficulty would be removed on that score. “As the protest,” they add, “appears to be a principal obstruction to the union of the two Synods,” they proposed that in case the Synod of Philadelphia admitted it not to be officially their act, the two Synods should unite on the terms previously proposed, and immediately “proceed to hear and deter­mine the differences between the protesters and those protested against, if needful.”

In 1756, the Synod of Philadelphia replied, “We desire to unite on the same terms on which the ministers of the two Synods were united, when one body; and we are glad to join with the Synod of New York in any expedient to cut off all debates about the protestation made in 1741. We allow the protesters the right of private judgment; and you will allow we can neither disannul nor withdraw their protestation; but in our synodical capacity, at your desire, we declare and do assure you, that we neither adopted nor do adopt said protestation as a term of ministerial communion. It was never mentioned to any of our members as a term of com­munion, more than any of the other protestations delivered into our Synod on occasion of those differences. We only adopt and desire to adhere to our standards, as we agreed formerly when one body, we adopt no other.”

The above declaration respecting the protest is historically correct. It was not a synodical act, but the act of certain members in their individual capacity. It was never officially adopted or sanctioned by a vote of the Synod, though it was often spoken of with approbation.

The Synod appointed their commission to meet such committee as the Synod of New York might name, to prepare the terms of union. This latter Synod accordingly, in September 1756, appointed a committee to meet the commission of the Synod of Philadelphia in 1757.

When this joint committee met, “the commissioners of the Philadelphia Synod declared for themselves, and doubted not but their Synod would also readily declare that they do not look upon the protest as the act of their body nor adopt it as such.” And as there was an agreement on all other points formerly proposed as necessary to a union, it was agreed to propose to their respective Synods to have their next meeting at the same time and place. This proposal was acceded to on both sides, and the commissions of the two Synods were directed to meet in Philadelphia the Monday before the day appointed for the meeting of the Synod, in order “to prepare matters for their happy union.” The two Synods accordingly met in Philadelphia in 1758. The commissions reported the plan of union, which was unanimously adopted by each Synod, who agreed to meet as one body at four o’clock, May 29, 1758. The plan of union was then read over in joint meeting and unanimously approved, and is as follows:

“The Synods of New York and Philadelphia, taking into serious consideration the present divided state of the Presbyterian church in this land, and being deeply sensible that the division of the church tends to weaken its interests, to dishonour religion, and consequently its glorious author; to render government and discipline ineffectual, and, finally, to dissolve its very frame; and, being desirous to pursue such measures as may most tend to the glory of God, and the establishment and edification of his people, do judge it to be our indispensable duty to study the things that make for peace, and to endeavor the healing of that breach which has for some time existed among us, that so its hurtful consequences may not extend to posterity, that all occasion of reproach upon our society may be removed, and that we may carry on the great designs of religion to better advantage than we can do in a divided state. And since both Synods continue to profess the same principles of faith, and adhere to the same form of worship, government, and discipline, there is the greater reason to endeavor to compromise the differences which were agitated many years ago, with too great warmth and animosity, and unite in one body.

“For which end, and that no jealousies or grounds of alienation may remain, and also to prevent future breaches of like nature, we agree to unite in one body, under the name of the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, on the following plan:

1.      “Both Synods having always approved and received the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, as an orthodox and excellent system of Christian doctrine, founded on the word of God, we do still receive the same as the profession of our faith, and also adhere to the plan of worship, government, and discipline, contained in the Westminster Directory, strictly enjoining it on all our members, and probationers for the ministry, that they preach and teach according to the form of sound words in said Confession and Catechisms, and avoid and oppose all errors contrary thereto.

2.      “That when any matter is determined by a major vote, every member shall either actively concur with, or passively submit to such determination; or, if his conscience permit him to do neither, he shall, after sufficient liberty modestly to reason and remonstrate, peaceably withdraw from our communion, without attempting to make any schism; provided always, that this shall be understood to extend only to such determinations as the body shall judge indispensable in doctrine, or Presbyterian government.

3.      “That any member or members, for the exoneration of his or their conscience before God, have a right to protest against any act or procedure, of our highest judicature, because there is no further appeal to another for redress; and to require that such protestation be recorded in their minutes. And as such a protest is a solemn appeal from the bar of the judicature, no member is liable to prosecution on account of his protesting. Provided always, that it shall be considered irregular and unlawful to enter any protest against any member or members; to protest facts or accusations instead of proving them, unless a fair trial be refused, even by the highest judicature. And it is agreed, that such protestations are only to be entered against the public acts, judgments, or determinations, of the judicature with which the protester’s conscience is offended.

4.      “As the protestation entered in the Synod of Philadelphia, Anno Domini 1741, has been apprehended to have been approved and received by an act of the Synod, and on that account was judged a sufficient obstacle to an union, the said Synod declare that they never judicially adopted the said protestation, nor do account it a synodical act; but that it is to be considered as the act of those only who subscribed it; and therefore cannot, in its nature, be a valid objection to the union of the two Synods, especially considering that a very great majority of both Synods have become members since the said protestation was entered.

5.      “That it shall be esteemed and treated as a censurable evil to accuse any member of heterodoxy, insufficiency, or immorality, in a calumniating manner, or otherwise than by private brotherly admonition, or by a regular process, according to our known rules of judicial trial in cases of scandal. And it shall be considered in the same view if any Presbytery appoint supplies within the bounds of another Presbytery without their concurrence; or if any member officiate in another’s congregation without asking and obtaining his consent, or the session’s in case the minister be absent. Yet it shall be esteemed unbrotherly for any one, in ordinary circumstances, to refuse his consent to a regular member when it is requested.

6.      “That no Presbytery shall license or ordain to the work of the ministry any candidate, until he give them competent satisfac­tion as to his learning, and experimental acquaintance with religion, skill in divinity and cases of conscience, and declare his acceptance of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms as the confession of his faith, and promise subjection to the Presbyterian plan of government in the Westminster Directory.

7.      “The Synods declare it is their earnest desire that a complete union may be obtained as soon as possible, and agree that the united Synods shall model the several Presbyteries as shall appear to them most expedient. Provided, nevertheless, that Presbyteries where an alteration does not appear to be for edification, continue in their present form. As to divided congregations, it is agreed that such as have settled ministers on both sides be allowed to continue as they are; that where those of one side have a settled minister, the other, being vacant, may join with the settled minister, if a majority choose to do so; that where both sides are vacant, they may be at liberty to unite together.

8.      “As the late religious appearances occasioned much speculation and debate, the members of the Synod of New York, in order to prevent any misapprehensions, declare their adherence to their former sentiments, in favor of them, that a blessed work of God’s Holy Spirit, in the conversion of numbers was then carried on; and for the satisfaction of all concerned, this united Synod agree in declaring, that as all mankind are naturally dead in trespasses and sins, an entire change of heart and life is necessary to make them meet for the service and enjoyment of God; that such a change can be only effected by the powerful operations of the Divine Spirit; that when sinners are made sensible of their lost condition and absolute inability to recover themselves, are enlightened in the knowledge of Christ, and convinced of his ability and willingness to save; and, upon gospel encouragements, do choose him for their Saviour; and renouncing their own righteousness in point of merit, depend upon his imputed righteousness for justification before God; and on his wisdom and strength for guidance and support; when upon these apprehensions and exercises their souls are comforted, notwithstanding their past guilt, and rejoice in God, through Jesus Christ; when they hate and bewail their sins of heart and life, delight in the laws of God without exception, reverently and diligently attend his ordinances, become humble and self-denied, and make it the business of their life to please and glorify God and to do good to their fellow men—this is to be acknowledged as a gracious work of God, even though it should be attended with unusual bodily commotions, or some more exceptionable circumstances, by means of infirmity, temptations, or remaining corruptions. And wherever religious appearances are attended with the good effects above mentioned, we desire to rejoice in and to thank God for them.

“But, on the other hand, when persons seeming to be under a religious concern, imagine that they have visions of the human nature of Jesus Christ, or hear voices, or see external lights, or have faintings and convulsion-like fits, and on the account of these, judge themselves to be truly converted, though they have not the scriptural characters of a work of God above described, we believe such persons to be under a dangerous delusion; and we testify our utter abhorrence of such a delusion, wherever it attends any religious appearances in any church or time.

“Now, as both Synods are agreed in their sentiments concerning the nature of a work of grace, and declare their desire and purpose to promote it, different judgments respecting particular matters of facts ought not to prevent their union; especially as many of the present members have entered into the ministry, since the time of the aforesaid religious appearances.

“Upon the whole, as the design of our union is the advancement of the Mediator’s kingdom, and as the wise and faithful discharge of the ministerial functions is the principal appointed means for that glorious end; we judge that this is a proper occasion to manifest our sincere intention unitedly to exert ourselves to fulfil the ministry we have received of the Lord Jesus. Accordingly we unanimously declare our serious and fixed resolution, by divine aid, to take heed to ourselves that our hearts be upright, our discourse edifying, and our lives exemplary for purity and godliness; to take heed to our doctrine that it be not only orthodox, but evangelical and spiritual, tending to awaken the secure to a suitable concern for their salvation, and to instruct and encourage sincere Chris­tians; thus commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God; to cultivate peace and harmony among ourselves, and to strengthen each other’s hands in promoting the knowledge of divine truth, and in diffusing the savour of piety among our people.

“Finally, we earnestly recommend it to all under our care, that instead of indulging a contentious disposition; they would love each other with a pure heart fervently, as brethren who profess subjection to the same Lord, adhere to the same faith, worship, and government, and entertain the same hope of glory. And we desire that they would improve the present union for their mutual edification, combine to strengthen the common interests of religion, and go hand in hand in the path of life; which we pray the God of all grace would please to effect, for Christ’s sake. Amen.” 

This noble declaration is for our church what the Declaration of Independence is for our country. It is a promulgation of first principles—a setting forth of our faith, order, and religion, as an answer to those who question us. It is the foundation of our ecclesiastical compact, the bond of our union. Those who adhere to the principles here laid down are entitled to a standing in our church; those who desert them, desert not merely the faith but the religion of our fathers, and have no right to their name or their heritage. It is with grateful exultation we read that this declaration was unanimously adopted, that every member of the united Synod set his hand to this testimony in behalf of truth, order, and evangelical religion. If our church will faithfully bear up this standard, then shall she look forth as the morning; then shall she arise and shine, and the glory of the Lord shall be seen upon her.