by which he meant their doctrine and hypocrisy, which were both sour
With regard to the latter case he is more strenuous. "If it be lawful to withdraw from the ministry of a pious man in the case aforesaid, how much more from the ministry of a natural man? Surely it is both lawful and expedient, for the reasons offered in the doctrinal part of this discourse; to which let me add a few words more."
The additional considerations which he urges are the following. 1. It is unwise to trust the care of our souls to those who have no care of their own. 2. God does not ordinarily use the ministry of his enemies to turn others to be his friends. God has not given any promise that he will bless the labours of natural men. If he had he would be as good as his word; but I can neither see nor hear of any blessing upon these men's labours, unless it be a rare wonderful instance of chance-medley; whereas the ministry of faithful men blossoms and bears fruit, as the rod of Aaron. 3. We are commanded to turn away from such as have the form of godliness, but deny the power thereof. 4. Our Lord advised his disciples to beware of the leaven of the pharisees, by which he meant their doctrine and hypocrisy, which were both sour enough. 5. He refers to Matt. 15:12, &c. "Then came his disciples and said unto him, Knowest thou that the pharisees were offended? And he answered and said, Every plant that my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone; they be blind leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
He next considers the objections to such a course, as, 1. We are commanded to hear those who sit in Moses' seat. This only means that we are bound to obey the lawful commands of the civil magistrates. 2. Such a practice would cause contentions among the people. It may occasion them, but not properly cause them. If we give up every duty that is the occasion of contention and division, we must give up powerful religion altogether. 3. 1 Cor. 1:12, which speaks of Paul and Apollos, is not against the course recommended, for that only speaks of making sects. 4. Such a course would tend to grieve our parish minister, and to break up congregations. "If our
parish minister be grieved at our greater good, or prefer his credit before it, then he has good cause to grieve over his own rottenness and hypocrisy. And as for breaking of congregations to pieces, upon account of people's going from place to place to hear the word, with a view to get greater good, that spiritual blindness and deadness which so generally prevail, will put this out of danger. It is but a few that have got any spiritual relish. The most will venture their souls with any formalist, and be well satisfied with the sapless discourses of such dead drones." 5. Paul and Apollos are said to be nothing. True, they were nothing as efficient causes, but they were something as instruments. 6. Finally, it is objected, people do not get more good over their parish line, for they are out of God's way. There are three monstrous ingredients in this objection, a begging the question, rash judging, and limiting of God. It is a mean thing in reasoning to beg the question in debate. Let it be proved that they are out of God's way. It is rash judging to say people do not get good, when we cannot know it to be so; and it is to limit God to confine him to one mode of action.
He concludes by exhorting those who have a faithful ministry, to make a speedy and sincere use of so rare a privilege. He exhorts gracious souls to pity those who have none but pharisee-teachers. He urges "those who live under the ministry of dead men, whether they have the form of religion or not, to repair to the living, where they may be edified; let who will oppose it." He exhorts vacant congregations to be very careful in trying those whom they think of calling as pastors. "I beseech you, my brethren, to consider that there is no probability of your getting good by the ministry of pharisees; for they are no shepherds, (no faithful ones,) in Christ's account. They are as good as none; nay, worse than none on some accounts. For take them first and last, they do more harm than good. They strive to keep better men out of the places where they live; nay, when the life of piety comes near their quarters, they rise up in arms against it, as a common enemy that discovers and condemns their craft and hypocrisy. And with what art, rhetoric, and appearances of piety, will they varnish their opposition of
Christ's kingdom! As the magicians imitated the wonders of Moses, so do false apostles and deceitful workers, the apostles of Christ."
This sermon had an extensive circulation. Two editions of it were published in Philadelphia, and a third in Boston. Two of the principal grounds of complaint against Mr. Tennent and his friends, were the censorious condemnation of their brethren, and the encouragement they gave the people to separate from their pastors. Though this sermon was by no means the only ground of these complaints, it was one of the most tangible proofs of their justice, and hence was constantly appealed to in the controversies of that day. On this account a knowledge of its contents and character is necessary to a proper understanding of the history of the period now under consideration.
In this discourse Mr. Tennent describes the body of the ministers of that generation as letter-learned pharisees, plastered hypocrites, having the form of godliness but destitute of its power. That this description was intended to apply to his brethren in the synod, it is believed was never doubted. Considering the circumstances under which it was delivered, and his frequent avowals of similar sentiments respecting them on other occasions, it could hardly have any other application. In the sermon itself he tells the people that the reason why they had seen so few cases of conviction or conversion among them, was, that "the bulk of their spiritual guides were stone blind and stone dead." In answer to the criticism which it occasioned, he says, "When I composed it, I expected it would be judged, by that tribe which it detected, as guilty of scandalum magnatum, as worthy of stripes and of bonds. I supposed it would be like rousing a wasp's nest, and I have found it according to my expectations. The opposers of God's work have dipt their tongues and pens in gall, and by their malignant invectives have endeavoured to bury its author in ruins; but peradventure it may have a resurrection to their terror and shame." Some members of the synod had placed together in dreadful array the terms of invective contained in this
discourse. In reference to which he says, "I have heard people of piety and good sense observe upon this popular paragraph, that the gentlemen who had put it together in its present form, had taken a pretty deal of pains to draw their own pictures."2 He denies that the Nottingham sermon had been the cause of contention; "No," says he, "the true cause is graceless ministers opposing it. Methinks it would be more to their credit, prudently to let it alone on their own account, for when they keep muttering, growling, and scolding at it, it does but give people ground to suspect, that they are of that unhappy tribe and party themselves, which is therein detected and censured."
The Nottingham sermon, though the principal printed example of Mr. Tennent's manner of treating his brethren, is by no means the only one. In most of his controversial writings of this period, he speaks of them as the malignant opposers of true religion, and ascribes their conduct to the most unworthy motives. In a work published in 1743, we find, for example, the following passage. "Give me leave to propose this query to Mr. Thompson and his associates, whether it was because that such as were convinced of sin had generally a less esteem for his ministry, and of some of the rest of his party, that he and some, at least, of them have so fiercely opposed the blessed operations of the Holy Ghost in alarming and convincing a secure world of sin, righteousness, and judgment? If so, is it not selfish and sordid with a witness, and a blow at the root of all piety? For my own part I must say, that I humbly conceive that to be the secret of the story of their opposition, the bottom of the mystery, the true spring of their malignant contending against vital godliness. The false and ungenerous methods, as well as long continuance of their opposition to the work of God, under so much advantage of light and evidence in favour of it, together with their dangerous errors before mentioned, free me from the just imputation or rash judging in thinking as I have expressed."2
Mr. Tennent was so completely the soul of the party to which he belonged, that without him it never would have existed. He is often, therefore, addressed as the party itself, and his writings and declarations are referred to as speaking the language of his associates. Though the most prominent and the most violent, he was not the only one who indulged in these vehement denunciations of his brethren. Mr. Blair, though a much milder man, was scarcely less severe in his judgments; and Mr. Creaghead, Mr. Finley, and others followed in the same course. Such denunciations as we find in the Nottingham sermon and other writings of that day, cannot be excused on the plea of zeal or fidelity. Their only tendency was to exasperate. Other men as faithful as Mr. Tennent, were never guilty either of his censoriousness or violence. We never hear of any complaints against President Dickinson, Mr. Pierson, Mr. Pemberton, and other active friends of the revival. For these gentlemen the highest respect and the kindest feelings were, on all occasions, expressed by those who differed from them in opinion, as to the general character and probable results of the religious excitement which then prevailed. There can be no doubt, therefore, that Mr. Tennent's unhappy violence was one of the principal causes of that entire alienation of feeling, which soon resulted in an open rupture. When such denunciations come from men of doubtful character or feeble intellect, they are commonly and safely disregarded. But when they are hurled by such men as Tennent, men of acknowledged piety and commanding power, they can hardly fail to shatter the society among which they fall. Mr. Tennent became fully sensible of the impropriety of this censorious spirit, and laboured hard to correct the evils it had occasioned. It is difficult to believe that the same man could write the Nottingham Sermon and the Irenicum Ecclesiasticum. The former is full of coarse invective; the latter is distinguished for mildness, liberality, and a conciliatory spirit. And what makes the case the more remarkable, the latter excuses, vindicates, and even praises the very men whom the former denounced. In the Irenicum he lays down the canon, that to declare those persons to be graceless, who are "sound in the fundamental truths of religion, and regular in life," is a
grievous offence against God and the church. Yet the brethren whom he denounced, he describes in general as letter-learned orthodox, having a fair outside, the form of godliness, and even in some cases, a great appearance of religion. They were, therefore, both sound and regular. There is no doubt, however, that he understood his brethren of the synod as coming within the scope of his rule; for it is in express reference to them that he lays it down. His object was to convince the people of his own party, that they had no right to regard those brethren as graceless, and on that ground refuse to unite with them. Mr. Tennent, therefore, being judge, the denunciation of his ministerial brethren was "an evil pregnant with pride, malice, and mischief, though perhaps not perceived or intended; an evil, which under a cloak of misguided zeal for God, Christian liberty, and superior attainments in knowledge and religion, rebelliously opposes the clearest dictates of reason and humanity, and the plainest laws of revealed religion; an evil, that under the pretext of kindness and piety, cruelly rends our neighbour's character, saps the foundation of the church's peace, and turns its union, order, and harmony, into the wildest confusion of ungoverned anarchy, schism, prejudice, and hate."2
The alienation of feeling which existed among the members of the synod, is not to be attributed solely, or even principally to the denunciatory spirit of some of the leading preachers of that day. It was in a great measure due to the intrusion into the congregations of settled ministers, the exhortations given to the people to leave their pastors, when believed to be unconverted or contentedly unsuccessful, and the erection of separate meetings. This was of all grounds of complaint against the New Brunswick brethren, the one most frequently urged. There is abundant evidence that the complaint was well founded. The fact that the synod twice enacted a rule against such intrusions, is evidence that the evil was then felt; and the opposition of the New Brunswick gentlemen to the rule, shows that they "abhorred all confinement in preaching the gospel." Mr. Blair in the paper read before the synod in 1740, said to his brethren, "Unless we can see hopeful encouraging
appearances of a work of God's converting grace among such ministers, we believe we shall find ourselves obliged in duty to our glorious Lord, to answer the invitations and desires of people groaning under the oppression of a dead unfaithful ministry, by going to preach to them wherever they are." Mr. Tennent in his Nottingham sermon, teaches that it is both lawful and expedient for the people to forsake the ministry of unconverted men. This he confirms by various arguments, and defends from various objections, and then exhorts the people to act accordingly, saying, "Let those who live under the ministry of dead men, whether they have the form of religion or not, repair to the living." Nearly one third of the whole discourse, six pages out of twenty, was devoted to this general subject. The presbytery of Donegal state, that in consequence of these divisive schemes, "most congregations in the country are reduced to such disorder and confusion, that the preaching of the word is despised and forsaken, the ministers of the gospel are contemned and evil spoken of, and their public ministrations, and private conduct misrepresented and traduced."2 At the meeting of the New Brunswick presbytery, on the second day after the schism, applications were made for supplies from about eighteen places, almost all of which were out of the bounds of the presbytery, and came for the most part from fragments of old congregations. There is, therefore, no doubt that separations did extensively take place, and that they were fostered by Mr. Tennent and his friends. Indeed Mr. Tennent himself admits this. In his remarks on the Protest, he says, "That there have been some divisions consequent on our preaching in some places, we acknowledge."
The answers which he gives to the charge of having encouraged the people to forsake their pastors, are not a little remarkable. He sometimes admits it, sometimes denies it, and sometimes evades it. During the revival he not only asserted the doctrine complained of, but was prepared to justify it. Thus in 1741, in answer to the charge of intrusion and separation, he says, "What is proper in ordinary cases may be prejudicial in extraordinaries. When a church is stocked with a sound, faithful, and lively ministry, no
doubt those rules respecting ministers keeping within the bounds of their respective charges, until they are invited in an orderly manner to go elsewhere, may be of service. But on the supposition that a number of ministers are either unsound in doctrine, or unfaithful and contentedly unsuccessful in their work, then is it not lawful to suspend the aforesaid rules for a season?" Again: "No doubt there is a relation between a pastor and his people, but the design of this being to promote their good, we think it unreasonable that it should subsist to the prejudice of that which it was designed to secure. However, in ordinary cases, we think it to be the people's duty to make regular application to their pastors to go where they can get the most benefit. But when ministers conspire to oppose the work and servants of God, in the most flagrant manner, we see no harm in this case, in their using an extraordinary method."2 And elsewhere in still stronger language, he says, when ministers habitually oppose the revival, "I see not how any that fear God can contentedly sit under their ministrations, (if they persist as aforesaid,) without becoming accessary to their crimson guilt." It was, therefore, at that time his opinion that when ministers were unconverted, or contentedly unsuccessful, and especially if they opposed the revival, it was the duty of their people to leave them.
When, however, he saw how these principles were operating in New England, where the separatists had begun to break off from the regular pastors, because they did not come up to their standard of zeal and fidelity, and when the Moravians had begun to make inroads upon some of the presbyterian churches, he in a measure altered his manner of speaking. In April, 1742, he preached several sermons in New York, against the Moravians, which, together with an Appendix, were soon given to the world. In these sermons he condemns many of the opinions and practices of which he had been hitherto considered the advocate. Among other things, he says, "It is an instance of pride to despise and slight ministers or people that are unconverted, or supposed to be so." "The practice of staying at home rather than going to hear such ministers, sound in principle and
regular in practice, as are judged by some to be unconverted, is unscriptural and of dangerous tendency, in my opinion, for it hangs the whole weight of the public worship of God, on the uncertain judgment of men. Though unconverted ministers are not likely to do so much good as others, yet seeing that many of them doubtless, preach the same word of God which others do, why may not a sovereign God, who permits them by his providence to come into the ministry, bless his word delivered by them to the good of mankind?" The inconsistency between these sentiments and those elsewhere advocated by Mr. Tennent, did not escape the notice of his opponents, who arrayed the conflicting assertions in parallel columns.
This attack evidently placed Mr. Tennent in considerable difficulties. The revival and the excitements by which it was attended, had not yet subsided. He was not prepared, therefore, fully and kindly to retract, as he subsequently did, either his censorious condemnation of his brethren, or his divisive principles. He was thus led to endeavour to reconcile and justify both classes of his conflicting statements. One explanation was, that in the sermons against the Moravians, he meant to condemn the practice of separating from ministers who were not only sound and regular, but also "favourers of God's work," i.e. the revival. But this last qualification is not found in those sermons. He condemns separation from sound and regular pastors, on the assumption of their being unconverted; and to this he exhorted the people in the Nottingham sermon. A second mode of explanation was, that he only intended, in the Nottingham sermon, to teach that the people might apply for a regular dismission from the congregation to which they belonged. As the pastor might leave the people, so the people might leave the pastor in a regular manner. He says he intended to enjoin on the people to make a regular application to the pastor and session for leave to go elsewhere, assigning their reasons for so doing. "If these reasons are not accounted valid, and the case be really so, they ought to desist. But if they are wronged they ought to appeal to a higher judicatory; but if the case should so happen, that after every appeal they can make, and the most
humble and impartial examination of the affair, they firmly think they are wronged, and are conscience-bound in the matter, they ought to judge for themselves and act according to their consciences."2 That this interpretation of his sermon is at variance with its language need hardly be remarked. It is no less obviously inconsistent with the other explanation, to wit, that the people ought not to leave their ministers, whether converted or not, provided they favoured the revival; but if they opposed it, it was a great sin to adhere to them. And it is certain the above interpretation was never put upon his sermon, either by his friends or opponents. The separatists did not wait to apply to one judicatory after another, but went off without asking or desiring leave.
Mr. Tennent sometimes goes still further, and denies that he ever encouraged separations. In reference to this charge, he says, "It is false; there is not a word in that (Nottingham) sermon which encourages separate meetings from any ministry, merely because they are unconverted." Having made a similar denial before, his opponents said it was a notorious falsehood, and that the whole country knew that from the pulpit and the press he had encouraged the people to forsake their ministry. This statement, he says, "is a dreadful instance of effronted impiety. O shame! what sort of men are these who not only assert an egregious falsehood, but appeal to the whole country to prove it. To confront their charge, I do appeal to the numerous multitudes, wherever I have preached the gospel of Christ, if what they have alleged be not a groundless and crimson calumny, which those enemies of the power of religion do impute to me. It is the necessity of their wretched cause, that urges those unhappy men to take such sinful and scandalous methods, in order to cloak their horrible wickedness in opposing God's work, which has been the real cause of the divisions subsisting among us; which they, without foundation, ascribe to me." This denial is so hearty it is impossible to doubt its sincerity. It is, however, no less impossible to doubt the truth of the charge. His Nottingham. sermon not only teaches that it is lawful and expedient to leave
the ministry of natural men, but it argues the point, enjoins it as a duty commanded by Scripture, and earnestly exhorts his hearers to the performance of it. The same thing is taught over and over in this very book, which contains the above denial.
The truth is, Mr. Tennent, like other vehement men, often said more than he meant. He acted more from feeling than from principle. When he thought of the people desirous of fervent preaching, sitting under cold and lifeless ministrations, his soul caught fire, and he urged them to leave their sapless preachers, and justified their doing so. But when he saw rash enthusiasts, who thought all persons dead but themselves, scattering the congregations of pious men, he denounced their conduct, and was obliged to lay down a canon which condemned his own course. That canon was, that we have no right to regard or treat as graceless those who are sound in essential doctrines and regular in life. Mr. Tennent and his friends had grievously offended against this rule. They not only had pronounced such men to be unconverted, but had acted on the assumption of their being so, and treated them as unfit for their offices. It may easily be conceived what a state of things would be produced by some half dozen ministers assuming the prerogative of judging of the hearts of their brethren, denouncing them as unconverted, entering their congregations, exhorting their people to leave them, and every where erecting new congregations. This the New Brunswick brethren did very extensively; and this, more than any thing else, was the cause of the schism. It was in fact schism itself, in its worst form. As might have been expected, this conduct called forth loud complaints of the arrogant assumption of power on the part of a few men, to judge and condemn their brethren; of the injustice of condemning them without a trial before a competent tribunal; and of the grievous injuries which were thus inflicted upon them and their churches.
These complaints were sometimes brought before the presbyteries, though seldom to any good purpose. Thus in 1740, a representation was made to