Constitutional Standards and Practices of the PCUSA in the Period from 1758-1788

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

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

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

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

“The rules of our discipline, and the form of process in our church judicatures, are contained in Pardovan’s, alias Stewart’s, Collections, in conjunction with the acts of our own Synod, the power of which in matters merely ecclesiastical, we consider as equal to the power of any Synod or General Assembly in the world. Our church judicatures, like those in the church of Scotland, from which we derive our origin, are Church Sessions, Presbyteries, and Synods, to which it is now in contemplation to add a national and General Assembly.

That the Synod really maintained as well as professed this Stan­dard of doctrine, is evident from the case of the Rev. Samuel Harker, to which reference has already been repeatedly made in this history. That gentleman was a member of the Presbytery of New Brunswick, and by them his case was referred to the Synod, who appointed a committee, of which Mr. Pierson was the chairman, to meet with and endeavor to convince him of his errors. This committee subsequently reported that they were happy to find, from Mr. Harker’s explanations, that his views were correct as to some of the points on which he was supposed to be erroneous, but that as to others, he had departed from our standards. The Synod considered this report so encouraging that they directed him to go to Nottingham and converse with Messrs. Samuel and James Finley, John Blair, Robert and Samson Smith, and on his return, with Messrs. Treat, Tennent, Ewing, and Alison, in Philadelphia, in hopes that his conversion might be completed.

These hopes, however, were disappointed. Mr. Harker published a book in which he set forth and defended his peculiar views. When the Synod met in 1762, they committed this book to Messrs. Spencer, Rodgers, Blair, Lawrence, McDowell, Wilson, and Robert Smith, with directions to examine it and make a report to the Synod. This report was not presented until the following year, when it appeared that Mr. Harker taught, “1st. That the covenant of grace is in such a sense conditional, that fallen mankind, in their unregenerate state, by the general assistance given to men under the gospel, have a sufficient ability to fulfil the conditions thereof, and so by their own endeavors to insure to themselves regenerating grace and all saving blessings. 2d. That God has bound himself by promise to give them regenerating grace, upon their fulfilling what he (Mr. Harker) calls the direct conditions of obtaining it; and upon the whole, makes a certain and infallible connection between their endeavors and the aforesaid blessings. 3d. That God’s prescience of future events is previous to, and not dependent on his decrees; that his decrees have no influence on his own conduct; and that the foresight of faith is the ground of the decree of election. It is further observed, that he often uses inaccurate, unintelligible, and dangerous forms of expression, which tend to lead people into false notions in several important matters; as that Adam was the federal head of his posterity, in the second covenant as well as the first; that the regenerate are not (?) in a state of probation for heaven, and such like.

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

Form of Government & Ordinary Powers  

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

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

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

In 1762, in consequence of a difference of opinion among the members of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, as to the examination of candidates for the ministry on their personal experience in religion, Messrs. Robert Cross, Francis Alison, John Ewing, John Symington, and James Latta, were formed into a Presbytery for one year, to be called the second Presbytery of Philadelphia. In 1763 the congregations of West Nottingham and Little Britain, together with the Rev. Messrs. Hunt and Strain, with their congregations, were set off from the Presbytery of New Castle to that of Donegal. The same year the Presbytery of Duchess in New York was received, as already mentioned. The question whether the second Presbytery of Philadelphia should be continued, was deferred from year to year until 1766, when it was voted to allow it to remain. Against this decision several members dissented for substantially the following reasons. 1. The decision has an obvious appearance of disunion, and has a schismatical tendency, and will be likely to perpetuate party distinctions. 2. As it is the sense of the Synod that it is the duty of Presbyteries to inquire into a candidate’s experimental acquaintance with religion, it involves this body in a self‑contradiction to erect a Presbytery which expressly refuses it. 3. While nothing is imposed on persons in point of practice, which they in their conscience judge sinful, and they are not restrained from doing their duty, the rights of conscience are not violated, though, they being a minority, a matter in judicature shall be carried against them by vote. Therefore it is vain to urge the rights of conscience in such cases. And for any to signify that they will not be subject, even in such cases, to the regulations of Synod, but if contradicted will violently break off, is to prefer the private rights of individuals to the public rights, and will destroy all governing authority in the body. 4. It is a very bad precedent which may be pleaded by others for the division of Presbyteries, and by this means congregations now united may be divided, and the formation of new societies prevented.

These reasons were signed by Messrs. William Tennent, Charles McKnight, John Blair, William Tennent, Jun., Azael Roe, John Carmichael, Robert Smith, Jacob Ker, David Rose, Nathan Ker, and Simon Horton. Before the schism of 1741, the old-side members, so to call them, being the majority of the Synod, were the advocates of its authority, and the new-side members the remonstrants against its exercise. After the union in 1758, the new-side members, being the majority, became the advocates of authority, and the old-side members remonstrants. Of the correctness of this statement, the reader will find in the sequel many illustrations. In the present instance we find the Messrs. Tennent, Blair, &c., complaining that the governing authority of the Synod would be destroyed if its regulations might be disobeyed, except in cases in which they were deemed sinful. And as the members of the New Brunswick Presbytery before the schism pleaded conscience for their disobedience to an act of Synod, so the second Presbytery of Philadelphia made a similar plea on the present occasion.

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

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

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

In consequence of the above votes, Messrs. Joseph Tate and John Beard brought in the following document: “To the Rev. Synod of New York and Philadelphia: We the subscribers humbly beg leave to show, that we much desire to be in union and friendship with this Rev. body, and would not knowingly be the real authors of any discord in the church of Christ; yet the determinations of the Synod consequent on our petition presented last year, and again to this present meeting, seem so grievous and oppressive to us, and threatening to the credit and interests of religion, that we find ourselves obliged to declare to this Rev. Synod that we cannot submit to them, and we hereby decline all authority and jurisdiction of this body, and that no judgment or determination thereof shall bind us or affect our persons or ministry, until these differences of sentiment be removed by better light, and satisfactory means be found to reconcile and unite us with this Rev. body again; and as we earnestly desire and pray for this, we reserve to ourselves and expect the liberty at any time respectfully to offer such proposals as we may think likely to answer that end; and upon our satisfying the Rev. Synod, or they us, to return to our enjoyment of our privileges with them. And in the mean time we shall endeavor to carry respectfully towards this Rev. Synod, avoiding whatever might unnecessarily inflame unchristian passions, or tend to hinder the influence of our brethren in the gospel, and expect to be mutually treated by our brethren as ministers of Christ.”

They then briefly assign the reasons for their declining, which are substantially those given in support of the protest above mentioned, except the third, in which they complain that “the proceedings of the Synod in this as well as in many other affairs, appear plainly calculated to bear down one part of this united Synod, and suppress their influence, contrary to the equality and rights of members, and to the nature and whole professed design of our union.” The next day, Messrs. Richard Treat and Read brought in an overture as a good expedient for the peace of the Synod, and the satisfaction of the brethren complaining, viz.: that the Presbyter of Donegal should be restored to its former state, as before the last Synod, with the members since settled within their bounds. The Synod agreed to this proposal, and also revived the late Presbytery of New Castle, which was to meet according to its last adjournment when under the name of the Presbytery of Lancaster.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Regulations & Cases of Conscience  

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1762 an overture, or as it was called, a case of conscience, was introduced into Synod respecting the examination of candidates for the ministry on the subject of experimental religion, which gave rise to considerable difficulty. This was a subject of dispute between the two parties in the church before the schism, though it was never prominently presented. Both parties professed to agree as to the necessity of experimental religion as a qualification for the sacred office, and as to the duty of the Presbytery to satisfy themselves that every candidate possessed this qualification. Mr. Thompson, in his sermon on conviction of sin, says, “It is the indispensable duty of every one who would aspire to the sacred office, to pray and labor in the greatest earnest for true sanctifying grace, and all other necessary qualifications to fit him for his work; and to propose single ends and views to himself in undertaking it. And it is no less the duty of those, whose part it is to call and ordain men to that work, to take all possible care to inquire into the saving grace as well as other qualifications in the persons to be ordained; and the neglect of either is a heinous sin, and of a dreadful tendency; no doubt a graceless ministry is an awful plague and scourge to any people.” In answer to the complaint of Mr. G. Tennent and of Mr. Blair against their brethren for admitting men to the ministry “without questioning them about their Christian experience,” he says, “We are directed by the Westminster Assembly to inquire touching the grace of God in the candidate, and if he be of such holiness of life as is requisite in minister of the gospel,” and adds, “I am sure as to the practice of some Presbyteries, that it is not ordinary or habitual in their practice to neglect this part of their work.” And in stronger language, “That we allow ourselves to neglect all inquiry about the grace of God in candidates, is a downright slander and falsehood. That in some instances we may be deficient, is readily acknowledged, as well as in many other parts of our work.” And in the sixth article of the plan of union unanimously adopted by both Synods, it was agreed “that no Presbytery shall license or ordain to the holy ministry any candidate, until he give them competent satisfaction as to his learning and experimental acquaintance with religion.”

It was not, therefore, either as to the necessity of this experimental acquaintance with religion, or as to the duty of the Presbytery to examine into this point, that the difference of opinion existed. It was as to the proper method of ascertaining whether the candidate possessed this experimental knowledge or not. The one side contended that a profession of faith, a holy life and conversation, and a knowledge of the nature and evidences of experimental religion, and of the criteria between true and false religious exercises, was all that could, with propriety, be demanded. The other insisted on a detail of the exercises of the candidate’s own heart, or of his personal experience. To this it was objected that such a detail was unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it was the mere testimony of the man in his own behalf, and that it was unauthorized. “No man or judicature on earth,” says Mr. Thompson, “hath a right to know my spiritual state further than a profession of the faith of the gospel and owning subjection to its precepts go. None has a right to know the secret intercourse between me and my God, or between me and my own wicked heart and Satan’s temptations. These things are among the religious secrets which I have a right to conceal or to discover, as Christian prudence or discretion shall direct.”

It is one of the anomalies in the ecclesiastical history of this period that Mr. Tennent, who was so strenuous for the examination of candidates for the ministry, as to their own personal experience, and in whose Presbytery the difficulty on this subject arose and led to its division, and for a time threatened a new schism, was equally strenuous in his opposition to Edwards’ doctrine, that none but those who gave satisfactory evidence of true piety, ought to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper. “The terms of church fellowship,” he says, “which God has fixed, are soundness in the main doctrines of religion and a regular life.” To support his opinion, he remarks:

“The aforesaid terms that Christ has fixed may be certainly known, and therefore they are rational. But some of the novel and superstitious terms which some good men have invented, though with a pious design, are irrational, because they cannot be certainly known, unless it be supposed that churches are infallible in their determinations; a claim which the Protestants, some enthusiasts excepted, have not pretended to, at least in words; but the Bible is a stranger to such terms of communion; I know not one passage in it, that proves converting grace, or the church’s judgment of it, to be a term of Christian communion of divine appointment. If any think otherwise, let them prove it, and I will give an attentive ear and readily submit to their instruction and correction. But I humbly conceive they will find it a hard task without producing another Bible.”³ In another place he says, “Nor does our church pretend to any right or authority of excluding any from the Lord’s Supper upon the precarious foundation of their judgment concerning men’s inward experiences of a work of invisible grace. No; the compilers of our Confession had more judgment than to advance such an indefensible notion. See the answer to the one hundred and seventy-third question in the Larger Catechism: ‘May any who profess faith and desire to come to the Lord’s Supper be kept from it? Answer: Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of faith and desire to come to the Lord’s Supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament by the power which Christ has left in his church, until they receive instruction and manifest reformation.’ It is pleasant to see the amiable modesty, the necessary caution and good judgment of our church, in declining to assume the bench, and make her uncertain opinion of men’s spiritual experiences, the term of their admission either to the initiatory or confirming seal of the new covenant. No; she well understood and remembered that ancient, scriptural, rational, and equitable maxim, ecclesia non judicat de internis, that the church has no business to judge of internals, or to make her opinion of men’s spiritual experiences, the ground of her judicial proceedings towards them.” This was the doctrine which one portion of the Synod applied to the admission or rejection of candidates for ordination.  

_________________________________________________________________________

³ Irenicum Ecclesiasticum, p. 79. To the passage thus quoted, he adds the note, “I cannot find the Christians of the first three centuries made gracious experiences, or the church’s judgment about them, terms of communion. They made no inquiries about them as to baptism; and all that were baptized and free from church censure came to the sacrament.”

___________________________________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case having been thus distinctly presented, the Synod re­solved itself into a committee of the whole house, and every mem­ber was called upon in order to express his views on the subject. This process having been gone through with, the Synod resumed their former character, and answered the question by deciding that a declaration of the candidate’s personal experience should be required, as a proper means of forming a judgment of his experimen­tal acquaintance with religion. There were but thirteen voices in the negative and one non liquet.⁴  

______________________________________________________________________

⁴ The number of votes in the affirmative is not stated. It appears from the minutes that there were forty ministers and twenty-three elders present at this meeting of the Synod. If all voted on this occasion, the result was 54 yeas, 13 nays, one non liquet.

_______________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under this head of general regulations, may be properly introduced a plan, originally proposed by certain elders in Philadelphia, and which, having been sanctioned by the Synod, was repeatedly urged upon the churches and Presbyteries under the name of “The Plan of the Lay Elders.” It proposed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Supervision  

The Synod exercised a general supervision over their members and Presbyteries, designed to secure adherence to the rules of the church, and the proper discharge of ecclesiastical duties. The nature of this supervision may be inferred from the few following illustrations: The Rev. Mr. Leonard having absented himself for several years from the meetings of Synod, a letter was written to inform him that unless he either attended, or gave satisfactory reasons for his absence, he should be disowned as a member. The Rev. Mr. Bay, having removed from the bounds of the Presbytery of New Castle to within those of the Presbytery of Dutchess, without transferring his presbyterial relation, the Pres­bytery of Dutchess were directed to call upon him to procure a regular dismission from the Presbytery of New Castle, and to connect himself with their body. In 1773 the second Presbytery of Philadelphia received the Rev. Hugh Magill, who had been suspended from the ministry in Ireland by the Associate Presbytery of which he was a member. The Synod, thinking that the Philadelphia Presbytery had not sufficient evidence of the grounds of his suspension to authorize them to disregard it, or sufficient tes­timonials in favor of the applicant, reversed the judgment by which he was received, and refused to recognize him as a member. This gentleman afterwards satisfied the Synod of his good character and was regularly received. The same year the Presbytery of Donegal reported that they had received the Rev. Messrs. David McCuer and Levi Frisby; but as it appeared that they were in the service of the board of correspondents from the society in Scotland, and appointed to an Indian mission, and had not been dismissed from the ecclesiastical council by which they were ordained in New England (and which probably ceased to exist as soon as the ordination was effected), the Synod reversed the judgment of the Presbytery receiving them to full membership, but approved of their taking them under their care while they were laboring occasionally within the bounds of the Presbytery.

In 1783 the Presbytery of New York reported that they had left the name of the Rev. William Woodhull out of their list of members because, on account of feeble health, he had relinquished his ministerial duties. The Synod, deeming this reason to be insufficient, directed his name to be restored to the roll. A similar case was brought up in 1785. The Presbytery of New Castle reported that, as the Rev. Joseph Montgomery, from bodily indisposition, was unable to preach, and had accepted an office under the civil authority, they had struck his name from their roll. The Synod disapproved of the omission of the name and recommended “to all Presbyteries, when any ministers under their inspection resigned their charge, or discontinued the exercise of their office, while they remain in the same bounds, to pass a regular judgment on the reasons given for such conduct; and to continue their inspection of those who shall not have deserved to be deprived of the minis­terial character, though they may be laid aside from immediate usefulness.”  

Appellate Jurisdiction  

The Synod, as the highest judicatory in the church, was frequently called upon to decide references, complaints, or appeals from the lower courts. Some of these cases are interesting as matters of history, or instructive on account of the principles which they involve. In 1759 the Presbytery of Philadelphia referred to the Synod the decision of a question relating to a call from the First Presbyterian Church in that city, for the Rev. Harry Munro. The Synod, after due consideration, decided that although some confusion had attended the vote of the congregation in relation to this matter, yet, as the great majority of the people were in favor of the call, the vote ought to be considered so far legal, that the Presbytery be allowed to present it to Mr. Munro. The Synod, however, expressed great disapprobation of the insulting and in­jurious manner in which they had been treated by some of the persons prosecuting the call, and exhorted the minority of the congregation to acquiesce in the wishes of the majority. It does not appear that this call was ever prosecuted any further.

In 1763 an appeal was presented by the Second Church in Philadelphia, from a decision of the Presbytery of Donegal, respecting the removal of Mr. Duffield. The Synod finding that the con­gregations of Carlisle and Big Spring, of which Mr. Duffield was then the pastor, had not had due notice in the case, remitted the affair to the Presbytery, directing them to meet at Carlisle upon a given day and decide the matter. As all parties acquiesced in the decision of the Presbytery, the case was not again brought before the Synod. A few years afterwards, this same congregation appealed from a decision of the Presbytery of Suffolk, unfavorable to the removal of Mr. Mills from Jamaica to Philadelphia. After hearing all the parties, the Synod affirmed the decision of the Presbytery.

In 1765 the people of New Castle and Christiana Bridge appealed from a decision of the Presbytery of New Castle, respecting their call to Mr. Megaw. “All parties being long and patiently heard, the Synod,” it is said, “on the whole do judge that the said Presbytery have acted a very cautious and Christian part in making such a stand against bigotry and party spirit in those congregations, and striving so long to prevent a breach of a solemn union stipulated between those societies, and therefore cannot but highly disapprove and condemn the indecent language of their appeal, and their bitter insinuations of injustice from that our worthy Presbytery. And as it appears there was at least a very considerable opposition made against presenting said call, the Presbytery might prudently delay it, with a view, if possible, to obtain a greater union in Mr. Megaw, or some other person. However, as more light in the course of the trial has been thrown on the affair than was given by the congregation to the Presbytery, it now appears the call had better be presented to Mr. Megaw; and as the Presbytery assure us that they never intended to meddle with the civil property of their meeting‑houses, even in the alternative proposed to those societies, which was only for the sake of peace, we leave them to settle that matter according to their own articles of union, and to determine the qualifications of their own voters; earnestly recommending it to both parties, in the spirit of meekness, to compromise their own differences, to maintain their union inviolable, and to follow the things which make for peace and edification.”

The same year a reference was brought in from the Presbytery of New Castle, requesting their judgment whether the Rev. John Rodgers should be removed from St. George’s to New York, in compliance with a call from the latter place. After hearing the commissioners from both congregations, the Synod decided that Mr. Rodgers should remove, and accordingly “declared his pastoral relation to the congregation of St. George’s to be dissolved.”

In 1771, the Third Presbyterian church of Philadelphia, in Pine Street, presented a call for the Rev. George Duffield, of Carlisle, to the second Presbytery of Philadelphia, with the request that might be forwarded to the Presbytery of Donegal, to be placed in Mr. Duffield’s hands. The Presbytery, after much consideration, refused permission for the prosecution of the call. The principal reasons assigned in their minutes for this judgment are that the whole session were opposed to the call, and cautioned the people against proceeding in the business; that the call was never read to the people, nor made out at public meeting, but handed about and signed by the people separately; that in virtue of a compact be­tween the First church in Market Street and the Pine Street church, their ministers were to preach in rotation at the two houses, and in case of a vacancy in either, a new pastor was not to be chosen by one church without the concurrence of the other, “or at least the vacant church should study to choose a minister who should be generally agreeable to a majority of the members of each house”; yet in the present case the Market Street congregation had not been consulted, and had appeared before the Presbytery and remonstrated against the prosecution of the call. The Presbytery therefore decided that they had no right to set aside the agreement between the two congregations, or to decide the claim of property advanced by the Market Street people in the Pine‑street building; and therefore could not allow the call to be forwarded. They, however, earnestly exhorted the two congregations to meet and endeavor to remove the difficulty; and in case this was done, the Presbytery promised to meet as soon as requested, and send the call to the Presbytery to which Mr. Duffield belonged.

From this decision the congregation appealed. The Presbytery entered the appeal, only requiring that due notice should be given them “whether it was to be prosecuted before the Synod or the commission.” When the case came before the Synod, in 1773, the judgment of the Presbytery was reversed by a great majority, and it was voted that the Third church should be allowed to prosecute their call befor­e the Presbytery of Donegal. From this decision Messrs. Alexander McDowell, Matthew Wilson, John Miller, and James Latta dissented, and assigned substantially the following reasons: 1. Because a vote to prosecute a call, without any concurrence of eldership, and in direct opposition to their solemn caution, and all made when not half the people were present, is a new mode of proceeding among us, and a dangerous precedent, and cause of anarchy and confusion. 2. Because the decision affected the inte­rests of the Market Street congregation, and yet their commissioners were not heard in the case. 3. It was, moreover, inconsistent with the solemn compact between the two congregations. This strange judgment of the Synod was founded on the erroneous assumption that the aforesaid compact gave one society a domination over the other; whereas it appears, the ministers were to preach in rotation, and to be chosen by a majority of both congregations. 4. The votes of the Synod in the present case were directly the reverse of those passed in the case of New Castle and Christiana, which was of a similar character, and therefore the judgment ap­peared partial. 5. The decision was hurried through in a precipitate and unusual manner. 6. The Synod’s decision tended to in­jure the right of property of the Market Street congregation in the Pine Street church, which they began and carried on at a great expense.

To these reasons the Synod replied that though the dissenting brethren had a right to record their reasons in their own words, the Synod had a right to say that they proceeded on a mistaken view of the facts, and have misrepresented the same, particularly as to the dissolving contracts, and deciding questions of property. The commissioners from the First church remonstrated against this decision, and requested to know whether it was final, and whether the call to Mr. Duffield “was to their church in Pine Street, as a minister to officiate in that church.” The Synod replied very briefly that they considered their minutes a sufficient answer to both questions, and recommended to the parties, if they had disputes about property, not to go to law, but to submit the matter to arbitration. The session of the church in Pine Street then applied to the Synod for their advice whether they should continue to act as elders in that congregation. The Synod advised them to continue in the exercise of their office, unless their sense of duty prevented “their acting on the decision of the Synod.” In that case they might “resign and allow the congregation to choose elders who may have freedom to act according to the determination of the Synod.”

At the next meeting of the Synod, in 1773, Mr. Duffield introduced a complaint against the second Presbytery of Philadelphia, because “they had, by one of their ministers, obstructed his entrance to a church in this city under their care, to which he had accepted a call; and had also refused to receive him as a member, although he was dismissed from, and recommended by, the Presbytery of Donegal.” The minutes of the second Presbytery of Philadelphia⁵, assigning their reasons for their conduct, were read, and also “a petition from the incorporated committee (trustees) of Presbyterian churches in Market and Pine streets, setting forth that Mr. Duffield, by the assistance of a part of the congregation Pine Street, had taken forcible possession of their church in Pine Street, on the 27^th day of September last, and praying us to afford them such relief as the nature of the case required from us.” The Pine Street congregation also presented their account of the matter, and after all the parties were fully heard, the Synod decided “that Mr. Duffield had just cause of complaint against the judgment of the second Presbytery of Philadelphia, who ought to have admitted him and allowed him a fair trial; therefore we declare him to be minister of Pine Street, or Third Presbyterian congregation in this city [without installation or Presbyterial induction?], and order that he be put on the list of the aforesaid Presbytery.” This may have been all right, but it is certainly pretty high Presbyterianism for these new-side brethren. The question whether the Presbytery would obey the order of the Synod to place Mr. Duffield’s name on their list of members, was not brought to an issue, as at the joint request of himself and the congregation, they were disconnected from second, and attached to the first Presbytery of Philadelphia.

_____________________________________________________________________

⁵ There is a chasm in the records of this Presbytery from 1772 to l781. That portion of the minutes was never transcribed into the Presbytery book, and the original papers, it is stated, were lost, at the time of Dr. Alison’s death, in whose possession they were. The reasons, therefore, offered by the Presbytery to justify their opposition to Mr. Duffield’s settlement, cannot now be learned.  

______________________________________________________________________

In 1772 the Presbytery of New Castle presented a complaint against the second Presbytery of Philadelphia, for licensing a candidate “who was properly under their care, and in regard to whose character they were engaged in making inquiries. Both Presbyteries were fully heard in the case, and the Synod decided that the Presbytery of New Castle should lave power to cite the candidate in question, hear all the charges against him, and issue the affair in a regular manner, and that the second Presbytery of Philadelphia be prohibited employing him until a final decision of the case.

The same year the Presbytery of Donegal made a complaint against the same Philadelphia Presbytery for sending a Mr. Kennedy to preach within their bounds. The Synod decided that this complaint was founded on misapprehension, and directed Mr. Kennedy to put himself under the care of the Donegal Presbytery until they could hear and decide upon any charges which might be brought against him. After some difficulty on his part, the case was finally brought to trial before that Presbytery, who decided to prohibit his preaching any longer as a candidate, on account of the errors in doctrine, and schismatical and objectionable conduct of which they found him guilty. Mr. Kennedy subsequently presented to the Synod a complaint against the Presbytery, which was dismissed as frivolous.

In 1774 an appeal was presented from a decision of the Presbytery of New Castle, relating to a call for the Rev. Joseph Smith. After an ineffectual attempt to compromise the difficulty, the Synod decided that Mr. Smith should be allowed to accept the call put into his hands by the Presbytery, which call was to be described as from the Second church in Wilmington united with Brandywine; and that he be directed to preach half his time in the city and half in the country, taking care that his days of preaching in town should not interfere with the appointments of the Rev. Mr. McKennan; and the members of that Presbytery were earnestly exhorted to cultivate peace, and to strengthen each other’s hands.

In 1776 the Rev. Mr. Bay appealed from a decision of the Presbytery of New York, by which the pastoral relation between himself and congregation had been dissolved. The Synod affirmed the decision of the Presbytery, except so far as it interfered with questions of property, which they said ought to be referred to arbitrators.

In 1782 the Rev. James Finley appealed from a judgment of the Presbytery of New Castle respecting his removal from his congr­egation. The Synod, having heard all the parties, decided “that the pastoral relation between Mr. Finley and his congregation might to be dissolved, and they do accordingly dissolve it.”    

Extraordinary Powers  

The Commission  

It appears from this review that all the functions of a Presbyterian Synod were performed by this body as regularly as by any similar judicatory during any period of our history. In this, as in the preceding cases, however, we find this Synod conforming to the usages of the Scottish church, in the use of a commission, in the exercise of Presbyterial powers, and in the appointment of committees with synodical authority. In 1758, when the union took place, it was resolved “that the commissions appointed here by the two Synods, with the present moderator, be together the commission of this Synod for the present year.” Such a body continued to be regularly appointed until the formation of our present constitution. In 1774 “it was moved and seconded, whether a commission shall be appointed and their powers defined, or whether the practice should be discontinued?” In answer to this query, the Synod adopted the following minute: “Whereas there have arisen doubts in the minds of some members respecting the ability and powers of what is called by us The Commission, the Synod proceeded to take this matter into consideration, and after due deliberation, in order to remove any scruple upon this head, and prevent all future difficulties in this matter, do determine that the commission shall continue, and meet whensoever called by the moderator, at the request of the first nine in the roll of the commission, or a major part of the first nine ministers, and when met, that it shall be invested with all the powers of the Synod, and sit by their own adjournments from time to time; and let it be also duly attended to, that there can be no appeal from the judgment of the commission, as there can be none from the judgment of the Synod; but there may be a review of their proceedings and judgments by the Synod; and whensoever this is done, those who sat as members of the commission shall be present and assist in form­ing all such judgments as the Synod may think proper to make upon any such review.”  

Presbyterial Powers Exercised by the Synod  

The examples of the exercise of Presbyterial powers on the part of the Synod are very numerous. Besides acting as a missionary body, the Synod did not hesitate to appoint supplies for particular congregations, whenever occasion demanded it. Thus in 1760, it was “ordered that Mr. Laurence supply Mr. Beatty’s pulpit the first and second Sabbaths of June; Mr. Treat the third Sabbath; Mr. Ramsay the fourth and fifth Sabbaths”; and so on for several months. In 1763 Mr. Gilbert Tennent, in consequence of the state of his health, requested the Synod to supply his pulpit during the summer, and the Synod accordingly appointed supplies from all the neighboring Presbyteries. When the Synod sent any settled minister on any special mission, they either themselves appointed supplies for his pulpit, or directed his Presbytery to do it; and not unfrequently directed one Presbytery to supply within the bounds of another. In 1765, for example, it was “ordered that the Presbytery of Lewistown supply Mr. Ramsay’s congregation (which belonged to the first Presbytery of Philadelphia) eight Sabbaths; Mr. J. Finley and Mr. McKennan (of the Presbytery of  New Castle), each one Sabbath; and the first Presbytery of Philadelphia the rest of the time. Ordered, that the Presbytery of New Brunswick supply Mr. Latta’s pulpit (who belonged to the Second Presbytery of Philadelphia) sixteen Sabbaths, and the Second Presbytery of Philadelphia the rest of the time,” and so on.

At present, no minister is admitted as a member of Synod except by virtue of his belonging to some Presbytery in connection with body. Formerly, however, the Synod itself entertained application for admission, examined, received, and even ordained members. In 1758 application was made to the Synod from a Welsh congregation, praying them to ordain Mr. John Griffith; and the Synod finding that he had regular certificates from Wales, and several of their members were well acquainted with him as a man of Christian character and experience, agreed “that the said John Griffith, though he has not the measure of school learning usually required, and which they judge to be ordinarily requisite, be ordained to the work of the ministry; and appointed the Rev. Samuel Davies, Dr. Alison, Mr. Treat, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Kittletas, to be a Presbytery pro re nata to ordain him to‑morrow morning at eleven o’clock.” This service was accordingly performed, and it was ordered that Mr. Griffith belong to the Presbytery of Philadelphia.

In 1765 the Rev. Jonathan Leavitt, after adopting the West­minster Confession of Faith and promising to conform himself to the Westminster Directory, was received by the Synod and advised to put himself under the care of some one of our Presbyteries.

In 1777 the Rev. James Wharton of the Associate Presbytery of Pennsylvania applied to be received as a member, and the Synod, having conversed with him and heard at considerable length his sentiments on the doctrines of the gospel and terms of Christian and ministerial communion, and having had sufficient testimonials of his moral character and of his good standing in the ministry in the church of which he has been a member, unanimously agreed to receive him and appointed him a member of the Presbytery of Donegal.

In 1774 the Rev. Samuel Blair, formerly in connection with the Synod, requested to be enrolled as a member, which request was granted, and he accordingly took his seat; and the Synod desired Mr. Blair to connect himself with some Presbytery as soon as convenient.

The case of the Rev. Mr. Magill also belongs to this head. In 1773 he was received by the second Presbytery of Philadelphia, but the Synod reversed their judgment. In 1775 he presented additional testimonials, and the Synod decided “that they could not at present receive him as a member,” but being anxious to do all they could for his relief, appointed Dr. Rodgers to endeavor to obtain light as to his case from the Associate Presbytery of Monaghan in Ireland, and Dr. Witherspoon from the Associate Synod in Edinburgh. In 1776 the Synod received him as a member of the second Presbytery of Philadelphia, and appointed him to supply for eight months in the western parts of Pennsylvania, under the direction of the Presbytery of Donegal.

In 1785 the Rev. John Hiddleson, from the Presbytery of Belfast, in Ireland, presented his credentials, and requested to be received as a member of Synod. A committee was appointed to examine his credentials, and “to converse with the young gentleman,” and to report their opinion of his case. That committee reported that, in their judgment, he “ought not at present to be annexed as a minister to any Presbytery belonging to the Synod; but, if he chooses, he may commit himself to the care of some Presbytery, who shall proceed with him as they may judge best, and make report to the Synod at their next meeting.” This report was adopted.

In 1786 the testimonials of the Rev. James Thom, of the Presbytery of Dundee, in Scotland, were laid before the Synod and approved. Whereupon he was admitted to join himself to any Presbytery belonging to this body, and, being present, he was invited to sit as a correspondent.

In 1787 “the testimonials of Mr. John Young, a probationer from the Presbytery of Irvine, in Scotland, accompanied by corroborating evidential letters, were laid before the Synod and approved, and he had leave to put himself under the care of the Presbytery of New York.”

The Synod also acted more or less in a presbyterial capacity, in allowing calls from congregations to be addressed to them for particular ministers. In 1765 a call from Catry’s settlement, in North Carolina, for the Rev. Mr. Spencer, was brought into Synod and presented to him. At the same time, a call from Hopewell and Centre congregations, in the same state, for the Rev. Mr. McWhorter, was introduced; but the Synod, apprehending that some other person might more conveniently be se