communion on his people at the baptism of their children. 3. With
the presbytery of Donegal in reference to Mr. Blair, for intruding into the congregations of several of their members; and Mr. John Thompson was requested to go to the presbytery of Newcastle, to which Mr. Blair belonged, and call their attention to the case. The same year Mr. Alison presented a complaint on the same ground against Mr. Alexander Creaghead, which was accompanied with "a supplication from several members of Mr. Creaghead's congregation, complaining of his mal-conduct in several particulars." The presbytery met at Middle Octarara to examine these charges. Besides the complaint of Mr. Alison of the presbytery of Newcastle, Mr. Creaghead was charged by some of his own congregation, 1. With absenting himself from presbytery. 2. With imposing new terms of communion on his people at the baptism of their children. 3. With excluding a person from the communion, because he seemed to be opposed to his new methods. 4. With asserting that the ministers of Christ ought not to be confined to any particular charge. The new term of communion here complained of was, no doubt, the adoption of the solemn league and covenant, which it seems he and Mr. John Cross of the presbytery of New Brunswick, were often in the habit of imposing on their people. When the presbytery were about to proceed with this case, they "were interrupted by the people rising into a tumult, and railing at the members in the most scurrilous and opprobrious manner; so that having concluded with prayer, they were obliged to adjourn to another place."
The presbytery in their account of this trial, if trial it can be called, state that when they came to the church, they found Mr. Creaghead preaching on the text, 'Let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind:' and that his sermon was almost a continued invective against such as he called pharisee preachers, and against the presbytery in particular, asserting that they were given over to judicial hardness of heart and impenitency. After the sermon Mr. Creaghead invited the congregation, which was very large, to the tent, where they were entertained with the reading of a paper which he called his defence, containing the most slanderous reproaches against the members of
the presbytery, some of whom were mentioned by name. This paper was read by Mr. David Alexander and Mr. Samuel Finley, and the presbytery themselves were summoned to attend.
The next day, when the presbytery were about to inquire into the complaints against Mr. Creaghead, he came in, accompanied by Mr. Alexander and Mr. Finley, and insisted upon again reading his defence. The presbytery requested him first to allow the charges to be presented. This he refused to do, and insisted that the defence should be read first. Whereupon Messrs. Alexander and Finley ascended the pulpit and read the paper, which had been read to the people the day before. In the beginning of this paper Mr. Creaghead utterly declined the authority of the presbytery, and protested against their proceeding with the case, on the ground that they were all his accusers. In view of the several complaints against Mr. C., and of his contumacy and disorderly conduct, the presbytery suspended him from the ministry until their next meeting; directing, however, that if he should signify his sorrow for his conduct to any member, that member should notify the moderator, who was to call the presbytery together to consider his acknowledgment and take off the suspension.
There were, at this time, in that presbytery, together with several excellent men, a few members from Ireland, whose conduct brought a reproach upon the whole body, but who were soon suspended and discarded by their brethren. The presence of those members, unconvicted, and even unaccused as yet, could afford little justification for the course pursued by Mr. Creaghead, in absenting himself from the presbytery, disregarding their authority, and especially in reading his calumnious charges against the whole body to a promiscuous and excited audience.
The presbytery had a difficulty also with Mr. David Alexander. In October 1740, he was cited to answer a complaint for preaching in a disorderly manner in Mr. Black's congregation, and for absenting himself time after
time from the presbytery, without excuse. When the presbytery met in December following, he assigned as the reasons of his absence, bodily weakness, and certain scruples which he had in reference to the conduct of the presbytery. One of these scruples was, their "opposing the work of God, in seeming to condemn the crying out of people at sermons, and opposing those ministers who seem instrumental in carrying on these things." Another was, their too superficial examination of candidates. For others, it appears, he referred the presbytery to the paper above mentioned as Mr. Creaghead's defence. He added, however, that he was still willing to consider himself a member of the presbytery. To this the presbytery replied, they would recognise him as a member, provided he "acknowledged his sinful disorder in absenting himself from presbytery on account of these scruples, without having remonstrated them to the presbytery; and provided he promised not to absent himself in future, on account of these or any other scruples, in the same manner, without previously intimating them to the presbytery in a judicial way." With these provisos he refused to comply, and the other part of the charge against him, not being immediately taken up, he left the place. The presbytery then determined to cite him to attend their next meeting, to answer for his disorderly conduct in endorsing and reading the charges against the presbytery, contained in Mr. Creaghead's defence, without the consent of the presbytery, and before a large congregation; and for leaving the presbytery after having said in a boasting manner, that the real charge against him was preaching in Mr. Black's congregation, which he acknowledged, and would do it again and again. This citation he refused to answer.2 He was cited a second time to answer the above charges, and a fama clamosa charge of intemperance. In consequence of this second call, he appeared at the meeting held May, 1741, and "by taking the pulpit prevented the moderator, who had prepared to preach." He gave as his reason for not answering the first citation, that the presbytery had cut him off from being a member; and that he told the person citing him, that he had appealed to the synod. With regard to the charge of intemperance, he said it arose from what occurred at a funeral, where he acknowledged "he had
drunk some more than was necessary." The presbytery acquitted him of the charge of intemperance to the extent reported; but on account of his acknowledged indiscretion, and of his disorderly conduct, and reproaching the presbytery, they said they could not regard him as a member "until we be satisfied as to these pieces of his disregardful conduct towards us, and refusing to submit to the government of Christ's church in our hands. At the same time we cannot but, with deep sorrow of heart, bewail the unhappy, divided, and distracted state of this poor church, through the uncharitable opposition of both ministers and people against one another."
These are melancholy scenes to occur in the midst of a great revival of religion. Such, however, was the tumult excited in the public mind, that, in various parts of the country, every thing seemed to get into confusion, and even good men were alienated from each other. A portion of the ministers of the synod having lost confidence in the majority of their brethren, did not hesitate to denounce them as unconverted men, and exhort their people to leave them. The consequence was, that many congregations were broken up, and many more divided. The synod of 1741, therefore, met under circumstances very unfavourable to peace and union. The majority felt themselves grievously injured, both in character and in their pastoral relations. It is no wonder then that they came together determined, if possible, to put a stop to the prevailing disorders; nor, considering their state of mind, is it surprising that they mistook their remedy and placed themselves in the wrong.
The synod met in Philadelphia, May 2, 1741. Mr. Pierson, the moderator for the preceding year, being absent, the sessions were opened with a sermon by Mr. Andrews, who was elected moderator, and Mr. Boyd was appointed clerk. The following ministers were in attendance, viz: From the presbytery of Newcastle, George Gillespie, Robert Cathcart, Charles Tennent, Francis Alison, Alexander Hucheson, and Samuel Blair. From the presbytery of Philadelphia, Jedediah Andrews, Robert Cross, Daniel Elmer, Francis
McHenry, Richard Treat, and William Tennent, Sen'r. From the presbytery of Lewes, James Martin, and Robert Jamison. From the presbytery of New Brunswick, Eleazer Wales, Gilbert Tennent, and William Tennent, Jun'r. From the presbytery of Donegal, John Thompson, Adam Boyd, John Elder, Richard Sanchy, Samuel Cavin, Samuel Thompson, Alexander Creaghead, and David Alexander. All the members of the presbytery of New York were absent.
The first matter which occasioned difficulty was the case of Mr. Alexander Creaghead. Having been suspended by his own presbytery, it would appear to be a matter of course, that he should not take his seat as a member of synod, until that sentence was reversed. He seems, however, to have been enrolled from the first as a regular member. As he had not submitted to a trial before the inferior judicatory, according to ordinary rules of proceeding, he had no right to appeal to a higher. This point, however, appears to have been waved in his favour, and the synod took up the question of his right to a seat, "and after much discourse upon it, and a paper of Mr. Creaghead being read, the synod deferred the further consideration of it." In the afternoon the case was resumed, when "Mr. Creaghead presented another paper, which was read, and after debating on that business, the synod agreed that this and the former paper be perused by the Donegal presbytery, in order for trial against to-morrow afternoon." The next minute in relation to the subject, states, that "the presbytery of Donegal, as appointed, began their reply to Mr. Creaghead's papers, in several particulars, but being late it was deferred." The next morning "the above affair continued, and a great deal of discourse maintained upon it, when the synod deferred the further consideration of it." This was on Saturday the 30th of May; on Monday the 1st of June the schism occurred, and of course the subject was dropt.
It appears there were two points which occupied the attention of the synod. The one was the difficulty between Mr. Creaghead and his presbytery, and
the other the complaint of Mr. Alison against Mr. Creaghead for intruding into his congregation. As to the former there seems to have been little progress made in adjusting the matter. It was proposed that a committee should be sent down to try the case. Mr. Creaghead insisted, if that were done, the majority of the committee should be of the "New Brunswick party." To this the other side objected, and in their turn opposed the appointment of certain individuals who had been nominated.
The other point was most disputed, and seems to have brought matters to a crisis. Mr. Alison contended, that as he had regularly tabled charges against Mr. Creaghead before the presbytery of Donegal, for intruding into his congregation, "to rend and divide it against his mind, the mind of the session, and the declared opinion of the congregation in general;" and as Mr. Creaghead had refused to submit to a trial before the presbytery, it was his undoubted right to bring the complaint before the synod and have the matter tried there. He urged this the rather because there was no need of testimony in the case, as "Mr. Creaghead publicly acknowledged the whole fact" complained of; and because an opportunity would thus be offered to the synod, and especially to the New Brunswick party, to show how far they were willing to condemn this disorderly intrusion into settled congregations, and to make proposals for peace. Mr. Tennent and his friends resisted the complaint's being entertained "merely because Donegal presbytery did not enter it on their records as a prime article." It is difficult to see the force of this objection. The complaint did not come to the synod through the presbytery of Donegal, but directly from Mr. Alison. The complaint as presented to the presbytery had proved inoperative, for though the disorder complained of was one of the several grounds on which the presbytery suspended Mr. Creaghead, yet he not only refused to answer the charge, but had disregarded their sentence. It seems rather unfair that the action of the presbytery should be considered a nullity as it regarded Mr. Creaghead, and as valid in satisfying Mr. Alison's complaint. He had applied to the presbytery for redress and had obtained none; for its authority
had been denied and its sentence disregarded. When, therefore, in due course he applied to the synod, he had reason to expect to be heard. Resisting this course on technical grounds was certainly very unfortunate, as an opportunity was thus lost of satisfying the minds of the aggrieved members, that the New Brunswick brethren would not deliberately sanction "the practice of breaking in upon and dissolving pastoral relations in such an unscriptural and anti-presbyterial way." The result of this attempt to bring up the matter in complaint, the majority of the synod say, "put us out of all hopes of obtaining peace with our brethren upon such terms as are founded on the word of God, and our presbyterian constitution."
This last effort at accommodation having failed, the Rev. Robert Cross, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, rose and read the following PROTESTATION, viz.
"Rev. Fathers and Brethren:
"We, the ministers of Jesus Christ, and members of the synod of Philadelphia, being wounded and grieved in our very hearts, at the dreadful divisions, distractions, and convulsions, which all of a sudden have seized this infant church to such a degree that unless He, who is king in Zion, do graciously and seasonably interfere for our relief, she is in no small danger of expiring outright, and that quickly, as to the form, order, and constitution of an organized church, which hath subsisted for above thirty years past, in a very great degree of order and perfect harmony until of late; we say, we being deeply grieved with these things, which lie heavy on our spirits, and being sensible that it is our indispensable duty to do what lies in our power, in a lawful way, according to the light and directions of the inspired oracles, to preserve this swooning church from a total expiration; and after the deliberate and unprejudiced inquiry into the causes of these confusions, which rage so among us, both ministers and people, we evidently seeing, and being fully persuaded in our judgments, that, besides our
misimprovement of, and unfruitfulness under, gospel light, liberty, and privileges, the great decay of practical godliness in the life and power of it, and many abounding immoralities; we say, besides these our sins, which we judge to be the meritorious cause of our present doleful distractions, the awful judgments we now suffer under; we evidently see, that our protesting brethren, and their adherents, are the direct and proper cause thereof, by their unwearied, unscriptural, antipresbyterial, uncharitable divisive practices, which they have been pursuing with all the diligence they were capable of, with any probability of success, for above these twelve months past especially; besides too much of the like practices for some years before, though not with such barefaced arrogance and boldness:
"And being fully convinced in our judgments, that it is our duty to bear testimony against these disorderly proceedings, according to our stations, capacity, and trust reposed in us by our exalted Lord, as watchmen on the walls of his Zion, we having endeavoured sincerely to seek counsel and direction from God, who hath promised to give wisdom to those who ask him in faith, yea, hath promised his Holy Spirit to lead his people and servants into all truth; and being clearly convinced in our consciences, that it is a duty we are called unto in this present juncture of affairs, "Reverend fathers and brethren, we hereby humbly and solemnly protest, in the presence of the great and eternal God, and his elect angels, as well as in the presence of all here present, and particularly of you, reverend brethren, in our own names, and in the names of all, both ministers and people, who shall adhere to us, as follows:
"1. We protest that it is the indispensable duty of this synod to maintain and stand by the principles of doctrine, worship, and government of the church of Christ, as the same are summed up in the Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Directory composed by the Westminster Assembly, as being agreeable to the word of God, and which this synod have owned,
acknowledged, and adopted, as may appear from our synodical records of the years 1729, 1730, 1736, which we desire to be read publicly.
"2. We protest that no person, minister or elder, should be allowed to sit and vote in this synod, who hath not received, adopted, or subscribed the said Confession, Catechisms, and Directory, as our presbyteries respectively do, according to our last explication of the adopting act; or who is either accused or convicted, or may be convicted before this synod, or any of our presbyteries, of holding any doctrine, or who acts and persists in any practice contrary to any of those doctrines, or rules contained in said Directory, or contrary to any of the known rights of presbytery, or orders made and agreed to by this synod, and which stand yet unrepealed; unless, or until he renounce such doctrine, and being found guilty, acknowledge, confess, and profess his sorrow for such sinful disorder, to the satisfaction of this synod, or such inferior judicatory as the synod shall appoint or impower for that purpose.
"3. We protest that our protesting brethren have at present no right to sit and vote as members of this synod, having forfeited their right of being accounted members of it, for many reasons, a few of which we shall mention afterwards.
"4. We protest, that if, notwithstanding of this our protestation, those brethren be allowed to sit and vote in this synod, without giving suitable satisfaction to the synod, and particularly to us, who now enter this protestation, and to those who shall adhere to us in it, that whatsoever shall be done, voted, or transacted by them contrary to our judgment shall be of no force or obligation to us; being done and acted by a judicatory consisting in part of members who have no authority to act with us in ecclesiastical matters.
"5. We protest, that if, notwithstanding this our protestation, and the true intent and meaning of it, those protesting brethren, and such as adhere to
them, or support or countenance them in their antipresbyterial practices, shall continue to act as they have done this last year, in that case we, and as many as have clearness to join with us and maintain the rights of this judicatory, shall be accounted in no wise disorderly, but the true presbyterian church in this province; and they shall be looked upon as guilty of schism, and the breach of the rules of presbyterian government, which Christ has established in his church, which we are ready at all times to demonstrate to the world.
"Reverend and dear brethren, we beseech you to hear us with patience, while we lay before you as briefly as we can, some of the reasons that move us thus to protest, and more particularly, why we protest against our protesting brethren being allowed to sit as members of this synod.
"1. Their heterodox and anarchical principles expressed in their Apology, pages twenty-eight and thirty-nine, where they expressly deny that presbyteries have authority to oblige their dissenting members, or that synods should go any further in judging of appeals or references, &c. than to give their best advice; which is plainly to divest the officers and judicatories of Christ's kingdom of all authority, (and plainly contradicts the thirty-first article of our Confession of Faith, section three, which those brethren pretend to adopt,) agreeable to which is the whole superstructure of arguments which they advance and maintain against not only our synodical acts, but also all authority to make any acts or orders which shall bind dissenting members, throughout their whole Apology.
"2. Their protesting against the synod's act in relation to the examination of candidates, together with their proceeding to license and ordain men to the ministry in opposition to, and in contempt of the said act of synod.
"3. Their making irregular irruptions upon the congregations, to which they have no immediate relation, without order, concurrence, or allowance of the presbyteries, or ministers to which such congregations belong; thereby
sowing the seeds of division among the people, and doing what they can to alienate and fill their minds with unjust prejudices against their lawfully called pastors.
"4. Their principles and practice of rash judging and condemning all who do not fall in with their measures, both ministers and people, as carnal, graceless, and enemies of the work of God, and what not; as appears in Mr. Gilbert Tennent's sermon against unconverted ministers, and his and Mr. Blair's papers of May last, which were read in open synod; which rash judging has been the constant practice of our protesting brethren and their irregular probationers, for above these twelve months past, in their disorderly itinerations and preaching through our congregations, by which, alas for it! most of our congregations, through weakness and credulity, are so shattered and divided, and shaken in their principles, that few or none of us can say we enjoy the comfort, or have the success among our people, which otherwise we might, and which we enjoyed heretofore.
"5. Their industriously persuading people that the call of God, whereby he calls men to the ministry, does not consist in their being regularly ordained and set apart to the work, according to the instruction and rules of the word; but in some invisible motions and workings of the Spirit, which none can be conscious or sensible of, but the person himself, and with respect to which he is liable to be deceived, or to play the hypocrite. That the gospel preached in truth by unconverted ministers, can be of no saving benefit to souls; and their pointing out such ministers whom they condemn as graceless, by their rash judging spirit, they effectually carry the point with the poor credulous people, who, in imitation of their example, and under their patronising, judge their ministers to be graceless, and forsake their ministry as hurtful rather than profitable.
"6. Their preaching the terrors of the law in such a manner and dialect as has no precedent in the word of God, but rather appears to be borrowed
from a worse dialect; and so industriously working on the passions and affections of weak minds as to cause them to cry out in a hideous manner, and to fall down in convulsion-like fits, to the marring of the profiting both of themselves and others, who are so taken up in seeing and hearing these odd symptoms, that they cannot attend to, or hear what the preacher says, and then after all, boasting of these things as the work of God, which we are persuaded do proceed from an inferior or worse cause.
"7. Their, or some of them, preaching and maintaining that all true converts are as certain of their gracious state, as a person can be of what he knows by his outward senses; and are able to give a narrative of the time and manner of their conversion, or else they conclude them to be in a natural or graceless state; and that a gracious person can judge of another's gracious state, otherwise than by his profession and life: that people are under no sacred tie or relation to their own pastors lawfully called, but may leave them when they please, and ought to go where they think they get most good.
"For these and many other reasons we protest before the eternal God, his holy angels, and you, reverend brethren, and before all here present, that these brethren have no right to be acknowledged as members of this judicatory of Christ, whose principles and practices are so diametrically opposite to our doctrine and principles of government and order, which the great King of the church hath laid down in his word. How absurd and monstrous must that union be, where one part of the members own themselves obliged in conscience to the judicial determinations of the whole, founded on the word of God, or else relinquish membership; and another part declare they are not obliged and will not submit, unless the determinations be according to their minds, and consequently will submit to no rules in making of which they are in the negative. Again, how monstrously absurd is it, that they should so much as desire to join with us, or we with them, as a judicatory made up of authoritative officers of Jesus
Christ, while they openly condemn us wholesale, and where they please apply their condemnatory sentences to particular brethren by name, without judicial process, or proving them guilty of heresy or immorality, and at the same time will not hold Christian communion with them. Again, how absurd is the union, while some of the members of the same body, which meets once a year and join as a judicatory of Christ, do all the rest of the year, what they can openly and above-board, to persuade the people and flocks of their brethren to separate from their own pastors as graceless hypocrites, and yet they do not separate from them themselves, but join with them once every year as members of the same judicatory of Christ, and oftener when presbyteries are mixed. Is it not unreasonable stupid indolence in us to join with such as are avowedly tearing us in pieces like beasts of prey?
"Again, is not the continuance of union with our protesting brethren absurd, when it is so notorious that both their doctrine and practice are so directly contrary to the adopting act, whereby both they and we have adopted the Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Directory, composed by the Westminster Assembly? Finally, is not continuance of union absurd with those who arrogate to themselves a right and power to palm and obtrude members on our synod, contrary to the mind and judgment of the body? In sum, a continued union, in our judgment, is most absurd and inconsistent, when it is so notorious that our doctrine and principles of church government, in many points, are not only diverse but directly opposite. For how can two walk together, except they be agreed?
"Reverend Fathers and Brethren, these are a part and but a part of our reasons why we protest as above, and which we have only hinted at, but have forborne to enlarge upon them as we might, the matter and substance of them are so well known to you, and to the whole world about us, that we judged this hint sufficient at present, to declare our serious and deliberate judgment in the matter, and as we profess ourselves to be resolvedly against
principles and practice both of anarchy and schism, so we hope that God, whom we desire to serve and obey, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose ministers we are, will both direct and enable us to conduct ourselves in these trying times, so as our consciences will not reproach us as long as we live. Let God arise, and let his enemies be scattered; but let the righteous be glad, yea, let them exceedingly rejoice. And may the Spirit of life and comfort, revive and comfort this poor swooning and fainting church, quicken her to spiritual life, and restore her to the exercise of true charity, peace, and order.
"Although we can freely and from the bottom of our hearts, justify the divine proceedings against us in suffering us to fall into these confusions for our sins, and particularly for the great decay of the life and power of godliness among all ranks, both ministers and people; yet we think it to be our present duty to bear testimony against these prevailing disorders; judging, that to give way to the breaking down the hedge of discipline and government from about Christ's vineyard, is far from being the proper method of causing his tender plants to grow in grace and fruitfulness. As it is our duty in our stations, without delay, to set about a reformation of the evils which have provoked God against ourselves, so we judge the strict observations of his laws of government and order, and not the breaking of them to be one necessary means and method of this necessary and much to be desired reformation. And we doubt not, but when our God sees us duly humbled and penitent for our sins, he will yet return to us in mercy, and cause us to flourish in spiritual life, love, unity, and order; though perhaps we may not live to see it, yet this testimony that we now bear, may be of some good use to our children yet unborn, when God shall arise and have mercy upon Zion. Signed, Robert Cross, John Thompson, Francis Alison, Robert Cathcart, Richard Sancky, John Elder, John Craig, Samuel Cavin, Samuel Thompson, Adam Boyd, James Martin, and Robert Jamison, ministers; and Robert Porter, Robert McKnight, William McCullock, John McEwen, Robert Craig, James Kerr, Alexander McKnight, elders."