longer be recognised as members. It is evident that this cannot be regarded
It is by no means clear how this protest was intended to operate, even by its authors. They state, 1. That those who will not conform to the constitution of the synod have no right to sit and vote as members. 2. That the New Brunswick, or former protesting brethren had violated that constitution, both by the avowal of principles inconsistent with it, and by their practice. 3. This being the case they demanded that such brethren should not any longer be recognised as members. It is evident that this cannot be regarded as a regular judicial process. The accused were not even named. They are sometimes designated as the "protesting brethren;" but that phrase would not include either Mr. Treat, or Mr. David Alexander, who were both included in the accusation. Besides this, the protest not merely presented charges, it declared the persons implicated to be guilty and determined the punishment. It could not, therefore, have been intended as the commencement of a regular process. Perhaps the protestants expected that after this solemn declaration of their sentiments, the synod would, by a formal vote, exclude the accused brethren. And this, according to Mr. Alison, was actually done. Of such vote, however, there is no record. The minutes merely state, "A protestation was brought in by Mr. Cross, read and signed by several members, which is kept in retentis. Upon this it was canvassed by the former protesting brethren, whether they or we were to be looked upon as the synod. We maintained that they had no right to sit, whether they were the major or minor number. Then they motioned we should examine this point, and that the major number was the synod. They were found to be the minor party, and upon this they withdrew. After this the synod proceeded to business." This counting of the roll Mr. Alison seems to understand as a formal vote. But it was clearly no such thing. There was no motion and no vote, but an irregular mustering of parties; after which the weaker withdrew.
It is probable that the authors of the protest had no fixed plan as to ulterior measures; that they meant merely to bring the controversy to a point, some way or other. They, therefore, made a formal declaration of their
complaints, and an avowal of their purpose, that unless the New Brunswick brethren gave them satisfaction, one party or the other must leave the synod. By what process this separation was to be effected, they left to be determined by circumstances. This seems to be implied in what is said by the authors themselves. "After reading the protest," they say, "the rejected members offered nothing like a pacific overture, or a satisfaction for said grievances, but instead of this we had unchristian reproaches. This brought the affair to that crisis that both could not sit together in one body, but one of them must withdraw," and the counting the roll was resorted to in order to determine which party was the stronger.
The actual course which matters took was not foreseen nor provided for. As far as can be gathered from the brief and contradictory accounts of this eventful meeting, which are still extant, it appears that the reading of the protest, avowing as it did a fixed determination to have either a redress of grievances, or a separation, produced a great excitement. As soon as the paper was read, it was laid on the table for the signature of the members. This threw the assembly into disorder. The Brunswick brethren considering the signing the protest as of itself the act of rejection, "were loathe to be cast out hastily, without speaking anything in their own defence; but their efforts to speak were repulsed, the house being confused, one spoke one thing, and another another, and sometimes two or more at once, so that it is hard to tell what was said." Some cried out that the brethren were "solemnly protesting gross lies before Almighty God;" others, that the "elders were subscribing what they had never heard nor considered."2 In the midst of this confusion the moderator left the chair. As soon as it was ascertained that less than a majority of the whole synod had signed the protest,4 some of the New Brunswick brethren demanded that as the protesters were dissatisfied they should withdraw, and the galleries, (for the church was crowded,) rang with the call to cast them out, for this purpose, they, (the Brunswick brethren,) counted the roll to see if they had a majority;2 when it
appeared that they were the minor party, they withdrew, followed by a great crowd.
It is plain from this statement that not even the forms of an ecclesiastical, much less of a judicial proceeding, were observed at this crisis. There was no motion, no vote, not even a presiding officer in the chair. It was a disorderly rupture. A number of the synod rise and declare they will no longer sit with certain of their brethren, unless they satisfied their complaints. The members complained of, answer, You are dissatisfied and are the minority, therefore you must go out; and then a confused rush is made to the roll to see which was the stronger party. Such was the schism of 1741.
It is presumed there can be but one opinion as to this whole proceeding. There were but two courses which those who felt aggrieved by the conduct of Mr. Tennent and his friends could properly take. The one was to appeal to reason and the word of God, and rely on those means to correct the evils of which they complained. It is true, this would at that time have been like talking to a whirlwind; still, when the storm was over, truth and reason would have resumed their sway. We have seen, in our day, examples here and there of ministers who have stood a much more vulgar, if not more violent storm of defamation, combined with new doctrines and new measures; their people carried away, their congregations broken up, and yet these same men rising in the confidence and esteem of the church, and ultimately reaping the reward of their faith and patience. This course would have required, at the time of which we speak, more self-command and selfdenial, than can be expected even of most good men. The grievances complained of were real and weighty. These opposing brethren were seriously injured in their reputation; they were regarded as enemies of practical religion, as formalists, hypocrites, or bigots. Their comfort and usefulness were for the time being destroyed. If they found themselves unable to submit to these grievances in silence, their second course was
regularly to table charges against the New Brunswick presbytery. There was the less reason for departing from this course as there was every prospect of its being successful. That presbytery had already been once censured for its irregular conduct, by a vote of the synod sustained by a great majority. As they continued their irregular course, the proper method was to repeat and increase the censure. As far as can be ascertained, there were not more than nine ministers out of forty, who approved the conduct of Mr. Tennent and his friends.2 As to the three great grounds of complaint, disobedience to the decisions of synod, his rash condemnation of his brethren without a trial, and his intrusion into settled congregations, almost all his brethren were against him. This has been abundantly proved in the preceding pages. There is, therefore, no reasonable doubt that on all these points he and his friends would have been condemned. In Scotland, in consequence of the union between the church and the state, it has been found a difficult matter to discipline a presbytery. In this country such difficulty does not exist. If a presbytery persist in violating the constitution, it may, in perfect consistency with our principles, be disowned, as was the case with the Cumberland presbytery; or dissolved, and its members attached to other presbyteries. But even if there had been no reasonable prospect of success, this would afford no justification of the aggrieved party for taking the law into their own hands. When men live under a constitution, either in church or state, they are bound to abide by it, and to seek redress only in accordance with its provisions. It is obvious that no society, civil or ecclesiastical, can long exist, whose members assume the prerogative of redressing their own grievances. In this country, more than in most others, it is important that the great duty of abiding by the law, should be graven on the hearts of the people.
The course then, adopted by the protesting brethren, in 1741, is certainly liable to the grave objection, that it was unconstitutional. It was, moreover, inoperative as to the evils it was intended to repress. The invectives under which the authors of the protest had suffered, were only rendered the more
severe; and their churches were more than ever open to the intrusion of their rejected brethren. After the schism, those brethren seem to have thrown off all restraint as to that point, and to have established separate congregations wherever the opportunity was afforded. The situation of the protesters was, therefore, in no respect improved by the course which they pursued; on the contrary, it was worse than before. They now suffered the manifold inconveniences of having placed themselves in the wrong. The large and respectable presbytery of New York, which had hitherto sided with them, after trying for several years to effect a reconciliation, seceded from the synod and formed a new body. This threw the superiority as to numbers, character, and influence, on the other side, and was a lasting injury to the prosperity and usefulness of the old synod. From that time, if it did not actually decline, it with difficulty held its ground, while the other rapidly increased.
This unfortunate protest continued an effectual bar to the union of the parties, long after all the original grounds of difference had ceased to exist. The New Brunswick brethren resented the charges contained in the protest; they denied having held the anarchical principles therein imputed to them. Hence no union was ever effected until the protest was disowned as a synodical act.
The day after the rupture in the synod, that is, on June 2d, 1741, the presbytery of New Brunswick held a pro re nata meeting in Philadelphia, at which the following ministers were present: Messrs. Gilbert Tennent, William Tennent, jun'r. Eleazar Wales, and John Rowland, together with the following correspondents: Messrs. William Tennent, sen'r. Samuel Blair, Charles Tennent, David Alexander, Alexander Hucheson, Alexander Creaghead, and Richard Treat. Mr. Gilbert Tennent was chosen moderator, and Mr. John Rowland, clerk. The following minute was then adopted:
"Whereas, the aforementioned New Brunswick presbytery and correspondents have all along hitherto been in a state of union with the other ministers in these parts of the world of the presbyterian persuasion, as joint members with them of one united synod; and, whereas, the greater part of the other members of said synod with us in synod met, did yesterday, without any just ground, protest against our continuing members with them any longer, and so cast us out of their communion, the presbytery and correspondents thus turned off and protested against, first came together to consider how they ought to conduct themselves in their present circumstances, for the fulfilling the work committed to them by the Lord Jesus Christ, as ministers and ruling elders in his house, and they do agree to declare that the aforesaid protestation of their brethren against them, is most unjust and sinful; and do moreover agree, that it is their bounden duty to form themselves into distinct presbyteries for carrying on the government of Christ's church, and do accordingly agree and appoint that Mr. William Tennent, sen'r. and Richard Treat, be joined to the standing presbytery of New Brunswick; and that Messrs. Samuel Blair, Alexander Creaghead, David Alexander, and Charles Tennent, be a distinct presbytery, distinguished by the name of the presbytery of Londonderry. Mr. George Gillespie, though not present now, having declared to us his willingness and desire of joining with us, is likewise appointed a member of the said presbytery. Mr. Hucheson having manifested his inclination to join with the presbytery, but desiring further time for consideration, his desire was granted; and it was likewise ordered, that on his application he should be received as a member thereof.2 Appointed that the said presbytery of Londonderry meet upon the 30th of this June, at Whiteclay Creek, and that Mr. Blair open the presbytery with a sermon. It is further agreed and appointed that the said presbyteries of New Brunswick and Londonderry do meet at Philadelphia on the second Wednesday of August next, in the capacity of a synod. Mr. Gilbert Tennent was appointed to open synod with a sermon."
When the presbytery met in the afternoon, they received applications for supplies from eighteen or twenty different places, many of which were already provided with settled pastors, and almost all of them were under the care of the existing presbyteries of Philadelphia, Newcastle, and Donegal. It was, however, determined to send preachers to them all, as far as it could be done. The schism was thus effectually carried down among the congregations, and rendered permanent.
The next day the presbytery entered upon their minutes the following record:
"Inasmuch as the ministers who have protested against our being of their communion, do at least insinuate false reflections against us, endeavouring to make people suspect that we are receding from presbyterian principles, for the satisfaction of such Christian people as may be stumbled at such aspersions, we think it fit, unanimously to declare, that we do adhere as closely and fully to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Directory, as ever the synod of Philadelphia did, in any of their public acts or agreements about them.
"Mr. Blair was appointed to draw up an account of the differences in our synod for some years past, which have at last issued in this separation, against the time of our next meeting, that it may be prepared for the public if need be. Mr. Gilbert Tennent was appointed to write an answer to the protest made by our brethren, wherein things are most unjustly represented."
Thus was commenced a schism which it required seventeen years of uninterrupted effort to heal. Though the separation began in 1741, in the manner above narrated, it was not fully consummated until 1745. It is, therefore, necessary to detail the progress of events in connexion with this subject, until that time.
The synod met in 1742, and chose Mr. Dickinson moderator, and Mr. Alison clerk. There were present twenty-four clerical members, including seven from the presbytery of New York. On motion made by the moderator, it was resolved, "That the synod should hold a conference with the New Brunswick brethren that they rejected last year, in order to accommodate the difference, and make up the unhappy breach." It was thereupon agreed, "that Messrs. Dickinson, Pemberton, Pierson, Cross, Andrews, Thompson, Cathcart, David Evans, and Alison, meet with those brethren, and try all methods consistent with gospel truth, to prepare the way for healing the said breach."2 The next morning the synod resolved itself "into an interloquitur of ministers and elders to manage the conference with the rejected brethren, who were allowed, if they see cause, to bring with them the ministers that they ordained, that were never allowed to be members of this synod, and all their respective elders. After a great deal of time spent to no purpose, the interloquitur found that all attempts for a coalition were vain and fruitless, and therefore it is agreed to adjourn until three o'clock, P. M. Concluded with prayer."
In the afternoon "the synod entered upon the affair complained of by the ejected members, and the question put for managing the said affair was, Who should be the judges of the case? The ejected members would submit the business to the consideration of none as judges, but such as had not signed the protest last year; and the protesting brethren answered to the point, that they, with the members that had adhered to them after ejecting said members, were the synod, and acted as such in the rejection; and in so doing they only cast out such members as they judged had rendered themselves unworthy of membership, by openly maintaining and practising things subversive of their constitution, and therefore would not be called to an account by absent members, or by any judicature on earth, but were willing to give the reasons of their conduct to their absent brethren to consider or review it." The synod had, the next morning, another
interloquitur meeting, without coming to any conclusion; and there the matter rested for that year.
The following protest was given in by several members: "To the Reverend Synod now sitting in Philadelphia: we the subscribers, in our own, and in the name of all that shall see meet to join with us, look upon ourselves as obliged in the most public manner to declare our opinion with respect to the division made in our synod last year by a protest delivered in by several of our members.
"First. We delare against the excluding the presbytery of New Brunswick, and their adherents, from the communion of the synod by a protest, without giving them a previous trial, as an illegal and unprecedented proceeding; contrary to the rules of the gospel, and subversive of our excellent constitution.
"Secondly. We declare and protest against the conduct of our brethren, the last year's protesters, in refusing to have the legality of their said protest tried by the present synod.
"Thirdly. We therefore declare and protest, that those members of the New Brunswick presbytery and their adherents, that were excluded by the last year's protest, are to be owned and esteemed as members of this synod, till they are excluded by a regular and impartial process against them, according to the methods prescribed in the Scriptures, and practised by the churches of the presbyterian persuasion.
"Fourthly. We protest against all passages in any pamphlets, which have been lately published in these parts, which seem to reflect upon the work of divine power and grace, which has been carrying on, in so wonderful a manner, in many of our congregations; and declare to all the world, that we look upon it to be the indispensable duty of all our ministers, to encourage that glorious work, with their most diligent and faithful endeavours. And in
like manner we protest and declare against all divisive and irregular methods and practices by which the peace and good order of our churches have been broken in upon.
"This is what our duty to God, and our regard to the peace and prosperity of his church, oblige us to protest and declare; and we desire it may be recorded in the minutes of the synod in perpetuam rei memoriam. Signed, Jonathan Dickinson, John Pierson, Ebenezer Pemberton, Simon Horton, Daniel Elmer, Azariah Horton, ministers; and Nathaniel Hazard, David Whitehead, Silas Leonard, Timothy Whitehead, elders."
To this protest, Mr. Alison gave the following answer. "I, the subscriber, do hereby desire that it may be inserted on the synod's minute book, that I judge it an open infringement of the rights of society, and particularly of our rights as presbyterians, for absent members to pretend to a right to call the body to account, and judge of the legality of the proceedings in acts, resolutions, and conclusions, made in their absence; though I firmly believe it is the duty of such a body to submit such resolutions and conclusions to a review by the next synod. And though I look on it as giving up some of our rights, yet it is my earnest desire, and what I insist on, that the merits of the cause for which the last year's synod rejected the New Brunswick brethren and their adherents, be fairly tried by this present synod, in order to manifest the justice of the said proceedings. Francis Alison."
Had a conciliatory spirit prevailed in either of the contending parties, a reconciliation might probably have been effected, under the mediation of these New York brethren. They were in a proper position to act as mediators. They had not been involved in the dispute. They enjoyed the confidence of both parties. While they complained of the irregular mode of exclusion, they recognised the right to exclude, and protested against the disorderly course which the New Brunswick brethren had pursued. It may well be doubted, however, whether the method which these gentlemen
adopted on this occasion, was judicious. It seems they demanded that the legality of the protest should be tried, and that this question should be decided by themselves and the few members present, who had neither protested, nor been protested against. Whatever view be taken of the protest, this course seems fairly liable to the objection so warmly urged by Dr. Alison. If the protesters had assumed the attitude of accusers, the New Brunswick brethren been regarded as accused, and the four remaining members of the synod the judges, by whose decision the rejected members were excluded, it would certainly be incompetent for absent members to reopen the case, and give a new trial. The only proper method would have been, for the synod, as then constituted, to remove the sentence, as in any other case of ecclesiastical censure. No one pretended, however, that the course just stated was the one actually pursued. The New Brunswick brethren were not arraigned and tried; much less were they excluded by the four non-protesting members. Of those four Mr. Andrews was the only one who decidedly took part against them. The others, viz: Messrs. Gillespie, Hucheson, and McHenry, all disapproved of the protest, and of the rupture.
The view which Mr. Alison took of the matter was this. He regarded the protest as a solemn demand upon the New Brunswick brethren for satisfaction, which they refused to give. Whereupon the synod by a formal vote cast them out. Had this been the real history of the case, the proper course would have been to move the reconsideration of that vote. This would have brought up the whole merits of the case; which Mr. Alison did not object to, and could not, therefore, have opposed. The history of the session of the 1st June, 1741, shows, however, that this view of the case is no more consistent with the facts than the one before mentioned. There was no motion to exclude, and of course no vote upon such a motion. The counting of the roll, which Mr. Alison seems to have regarded as taking the vote, was not done to decide any motion, nor was it done, to all appearance, while the moderator was in the chair.
The only proper view of the matter, seems to have been that taken by the New York brethren, viz: that the rupture was altogether violent and irregular. There was no trial, and no vote. The protest threw the synod into utter confusion, and the weaker party, as soon as it ascertained itself to be the weaker, left the house. If this is a correct account of the matter, as the withdrawing was not a voluntary secession, nor the exclusion a regular synodical act, it might have been treated as a nullity. The right of the New Brunswick brethren to their seats remained unimpaired; and when they appeared at the next meeting of the synod, the regular course was, to move that their names be added to the roll. This again would have brought up the merits of the question, and led to a formal decision one way or the other. Whatever view, therefore, be taken of the proceedings leading to the schism, the demand that the legality of the protest should be tried, and its signers excluded from voting, does not appear to have been a proper method to heal the breach.
The synod met in 1743, and was opened with a sermon by President Dickinson. There were present twenty-three clerical members, including five from the presbytery of New York. Mr. David Cowell was chosen moderator, and Mr. Alison clerk. On the sixth day of the sessions, an overture was presented to the synod from the presbytery of New York to the following effect. After lamenting the existing division in the church as dishonorable to God, scandalous to religion, injurious to the best interests of the body, and favourable to the spread of dangerous errors and delusions, they proposed, 1. That as the exclusion of the New Brunswick brethren, by a protest, without a distinct vote of the synod founded on a hearing of their case was irregular, the protest be withdrawn, and those members be allowed to take their seats. 2. As it is of the greatest importance that the education of candidates for the ministry be properly managed, they proposed that all future candidates should submit to the rule of synod relating to examinations, or else graduate as bachelors of arts in one of the New England colleges. 3. With regard to itinerant preaching, they proposed that
every pulpit should be considered open to all the regular ministers of the church, and that it should be considered unbrotherly for one minister to refuse his pulpit to another, unless for a reason which shall be approved by the presbytery, synod, or the commission; and that no divisions of the congregations, separate meetings, or attempts to alienate the hearts of the people from their pastors, should hereafter be allowed, and that every contravention of this article be looked upon as just ground of censure either by the presbytery or synod. 4. That if any minister thinks he has any ground of complaint against any of his brethren, either for doctrine, manner of preaching, or conduct, he shall first present his complaints in a private way, and if this method fail, he shall make regular charges, and bring the matter before the presbytery, synod, or commission. 5. That all past differences be buried in oblivion. 6. Considering the absolute necessity of union, they pray that this, or some other plan of union should be at once adopted; but if this could not be done, they propose that a new synod be formed, and the several members have liberty to join either at pleasure, and that these synods should send two correspondents each year, the one to the other.
As the principal grounds of complaint against the ejected members were disregarding the rule of synod relating to the examination of candidates, intruding into the congregations of settled ministers and causing divisions among their people, and the condemnation of their brethren without trial, there is little doubt, that had these proposals been made before the schism they would have been gladly acceded to; as it was, however, strange to say, they were unanimously rejected. It may serve to account for the decided rejection of propositions apparently so reasonable, if it is remembered that the schism did not put a stop to the evils by which it was occasioned. Mr. Tennent's denunciations of his brethren were at this time more bitter than ever, and divisions in congregations were now fostered without any restraint. It is, therefore, probable that the synod thought there was little probability that these proposals, emanating from the New York, and not from the New Brunswick brethren, would be adhered to. They insisted,
therefore, that there should be a distinct acknowledgment made by these last mentioned brethren, that the course they had hitherto pursued was wrong. It must be confessed that it was very unlikely that Mr. Tennent and his friends would have acceded to the terms proposed in the above overture. So far from opening their pulpits to all their brethren, there were some of them, and those very good men too, with whom some of their number would not even commune. And as to the separate meetings which had already been set up in many congregations, Mr. Tennent says, he and his friends must have "bowels of adamant" to refuse to take them under their care. There were, therefore, practical difficulties in the way of a union, which the New York brethren, living most of them in East Jersey, remote from the scene of conflict, could not so well appreciate.
The reasons assigned by the synod for rejecting the overture above mentioned, are contained in a paper recorded in the minutes for the following year. On the first article of the overture they remark, that they still think that the exclusion of the New Brunswick brethren by the protestation, is sufficiently justified by the reasons specified therein, which reasons are further strengthened by the conduct of the said brethren ever since; and therefore they say, it is altogether inconsistent with duty and a good conscience to withdraw the protest, or to recede from it; and further, that the only possible expedient in order to a re-union is for the New Brunswick brethren to let the synod know, under their own hands, how far they can or will comply, to give the synod satisfaction for the offences complained of, by acknowledging their past misconduct, and by giving satisfactory security against the fears of the like offences for the future.
On the second article they say, that if the New Brunswick brethren would once give satisfaction for their disregarding the rule about the examination of candidates, it is not unlikely that that matter might be adjusted.
On article third they remark, that in their judgment, to open their pulpits to every itinerant preacher, would be the very way to promote divisions; that it would be better to leave the matter to the discretionary agreement of the ministers concerned; and that no preacher should travel abroad for preaching sake without an actual order from his own presbytery, and the concurrence of the presbytery within the bounds of which he was to preach. As to separate meetings, it was not enough that they should not be encouraged for the future; all proper means should be taken to heal the divisions already occasioned.
To the fourth article they make no objection, except that complaints against ministers ought not, in the first instance, to be brought before the synod, but the presbytery.
The fifth article they also approved of, on the supposition that a satisfactory union was effected. As to the formation of a new synod, they say, that as it would be to perpetuate schism, they could not sanction it by a synodical act; but if, contrary to their judgment and inclination, the New York brethren should determine to form such a body, they hoped "by the grace of God to cultivate a truly Christian and charitable disposition towards them."
When the synod rejected the New York overture, a paper "was given in by Mr. Jonathan Dickinson, in his own name, and in the names of Messrs. Ebenezer Pemberton, John Pierson, and Aaron Burr, having previously declared that they complained of no unfriendly or unbrotherly treatment from the synod in relation to themselves, but that their conduct in this affair may be liable to misrepresentations; which said paper is as follows: As I look on myself to be a member of the synod of Philadelphia, and have a continued right to sit and act in the same as such, so I look upon the New Brunswick presbytery, and those brethren that adhere to them, and are therefore shut out of synod on that account, to be as truly members of this synod as myself, or any others whatsoever, and have a just claim to sit and
act with us. I cannot, therefore, at present see my way clear to sit and act as though we were the synod of Philadelphia, while the New Brunswick presbytery, and the other members with them, are kept out of the synod as they now are."
In place of the overture from New York, the following plan of accommodation was sent to the New Brunswick gentlemen, through the hands of Mr. Aaron Burr: "Forasmuch as we are informed that the New Brunswick brethren are willing and desirous of reconciliation and union with this synod, and to know on what terms this may be obtained; that the said brethren may be fully persuaded that we have no delight in division for its own sake, but on the contrary, are sincerely desirous of peace and union on reasonable terms, so that on our cordial agreement there be a foundation laid, that, through God's blessing, may prevent the havock and destruction of the church threatened by our common enemies. Therefore we propose,
"1. That as they desire to be received and treated as members of our synod, they will submit to the determinations and conclusions of our judicatories, even in those cases wherein they are negatives in giving their votes, and so allow a determination to be by a majority, or else no longer plead a right of membership. And that they renounce their principles delivered in their Apology, especially that whereby they declare that presbyteries and synods have no power to make any agreements, or come to any determinations by votes, which shall bind any members who do not give their consent to those conclusions or determinations; for without this recantation they can never be members of this synod, seeing they put in a claim for arbitrary power to destroy and overturn all our agreements, and to despise and disregard our censures, as they have already professedly done in licensing and ordaining so many men for the work of the ministry.
"2. If they profess they will use all endeavours to secure a learned ministry, we desire that they will testify this by desisting from licensing or ordaining
men for the work of the ministry who have not complied with the synod's agreement, or the alternative proposed in the last year's conference with these brethren; and that they give up all those persons that they have heretofore licensed or ordained in opposition to our public agreement, to be examined and tried by the synod, whether they have suitable ministerial qualifications, or that they will not maintain ministerial communion with any of them for the future, who refuse to be examined by the synod, or who upon examination are found deficient, until they give suitable satisfaction.
"3. That for the future they will desist from either acting or preaching, or sending their missionaries into the bounds of our presbyteries or fixed pastoral charges as heretofore. That they will not encourage new separate societies in congregations as hitherto, nor supply with preaching the societies they have made or occasioned among the people under our care, but declare that all such practices are of pernicious tendency and inconsistent with the presbyterian plan.
"4. That they will not publicly nor privately, endeavour to diminish the character of any minister as graceless, or unconverted, or unworthy of his office, until he be tried by a proper judicature and censured; and that they claim no right to judge of men's spiritual estate toward God, so as to determine whether they be gracious or graceless, if sound in the faith, and of a gospel life and conversation; and that they condemn all such practices.
"5. That they renounce all such tenets or doctrines that have been advanced in Mr. Tennent's Nottingham sermon, which are contrary to our presbyterian plan, subversive of gospel order, and a floodgate to let in divisions and disorders into the churches; such as an allowance to church members, to guess at the spiritual estate of their pastors, and upon this guess, without further trial, to leave them as graceless and unconverted; the asserting an inward call to the ministry, in opposition and contradiction to the outward call or ordaining to the gospel ministry. All who maintain them, (i.e. the
above doctrines,) can be no members of a presbyterian society or church, because they take all government out of the hands of a synod or presbytery, and give it to any person that hath ignorance or impudence enough to bring God's house into confusion.
"6. That they acknowledge that too many of them have been guilty in all these points, and, notwithstanding, whatever zeal and intention to promote a work of grace, they might have been influenced by, yet now they are convinced that such practices have had a dreadful tendency to promote and spread the divisions and confusions which perplex and disturb this church.
"7. We propose that if they have any ground of complaint against any of our members, with respect to their doctrines, conversation, or diligence in the ministry, they shall be welcome to table the charge against them in a proper judicatory, whether they comply with these terms or not; and that if they satisfy us in these points, and accept their seats in our synod, all other grounds of complaint shall be removed, either by public trial, or such other method as they and we in conjunction shall determine. And we declare that if all or any of those brethren accept these terms, or any other, that they and we can devise or agree to, that will lay a foundation to secure these important rights of society, a learned and pious ministry, and to prevent errors and divisions, in a way agreeable to God's word, and the presbyterian constitution, we are heartily willing to receive them. And we desire that they may give us their answer to these heads as soon as they can conveniently."
To this paper the following answer was returned. "Upon a paper sent to us from the ministers that protested against us, proposing certain terms of union; this conjunct meeting of the presbyteries of New Brunswick and Newcastle, does judge that there can be no regular methods of proceeding toward the compassing a stable union between them and us, until their illegal protest be withdrawn, that so they and we may both stand on an
equal footing in the regular trial of the differences between us; that their paper contains sundry misrepresentations and unreasonable demands; and that we have several charges against them to be satisfied in before we could come into a settled union with them."
In 1744, no member of the New York presbytery appeared in synod, and no new effort was made to heal the schism. In 1745, Messrs. Dickinson, Pemberton, and Pierson, were present and enrolled as members. On the second day of the sessions, those gentlemen, "in the name of the presbytery of New York, and by a commission from them, desired the synod to appoint a committee to try whether an overture could be prepared, removing any grounds of dissatisfaction or difference between them and the synod." Whereupon it was "ordered that Messrs. Andrews, Cross, Alison, Thompson, Boyd, Gillespie, McDowell, Samuel Evans, and the moderator, (Cathcart,)" be that committee. As this committee did not succeed in preparing an overture, the whole synod was resolved into a committee of conference. After much consultation, Messrs. Thompson, Alison, Steel, and McDowell, were appointed to draw up a plan of union, and report it at the next meeting. The following day this committee accordingly reported their plan. Before it was read, the New York gentlemen were asked, "whom of the New Brunswick brethren they alleged to be members, whether all who are now of that party, or only such of them as enjoyed membership before? And they declared they account only such of them as have been members and had their seats, to be now members and no others. The overture drawn up by the committee was twice read and this vote put—Whether it was a proper plan of accommodation to propose? and it was voted proper to propose it, and it is as follows:
"1. The glory of God and the advancement of Christ's kingdom, by the persuading souls to embrace the Lord Jesus Christ on gospel terms, and by preserving peace, truth and good order in the churches, ought to be the grand design of all Christians, and of the ministers of the gospel in
particular. But to our great concern and sorrow, the disorderly intrusions into the pastoral charges of ministers, and surmises that were raised to blacken their characters as carnal and unconverted; the bold violation of our synodical acts and regulations, and the new method of itinerant preaching, where there is a stated gospel ministry, have, in a great measure, marred this noble design, by rending the churches of Christ, and filling the minds of the people with uncharitable thoughts of one another. To check these evils, prevailing by means of some claiming to themselves a privilege under pretence of extraordinaries, to trample under foot all rights of mankind, to destroy all pastoral relation, and to lay aside, at least for a season, that form of government and discipline that was practised and used in our churches; a number of the synod of Philadelphia protested against those illegal disorderly practices in 1741; and being wearied out with fruitless attempts to redress these delusive unscriptural methods of proceeding, determined to withdraw from synodical communion, unless those who were guilty of such practices gave proper satisfaction according to gospel rules. The majority of the synod then present made this protest their act, and declared that those brethren should either give such satisfaction or withdraw from membership, on which they chose to withdraw.
"This method of procedure was complained of next year as contrary to the method of proceeding in our churches, by some members that were absent when this separation was made; upon which it was proposed, that the whole affair should be reviewed by the synod then met, and if any thing was found illegal it should be redressed. But these brethren could find clearness to do nothing until those disorderly brethren who withdrew, should again be allowed to take their seats as members, which the majority of the synod could not comply with. Upon which they entered a declaration against the method of proceeding the year before. At our next synod they proposed methods for healing the breach between those brethren that withdrew and the synod; which occasioned the synod to send them proposals of peace, which they rejected, and still continued their divisive practices of
counteracting the synod's regulations, and crumbling of congregations to pieces, erecting altar against altar, to the great scandal of religion and the ruin of vital piety. Those brethren from the presbytery of New York, who were dissatisfied at the method by which that party stand excluded, having on this occasion laboured to have their own scruples removed, and at the same time to have peace and unity restored among all that were ever members of the synod, all the synod now met heartily concur with them in this noble undertaking, if it can be obtained in such a method as may and will maintain sound doctrine, and preserve the peace and good order of the church.
"In order to accomplish this, these brethren proposed it as an expedient to remove their scruples and heal all our divisions, that every person that is or has been a member, shall now voluntarily subscribe the essential agreements on which our synod formerly was established, and which are the general approved agreements of our churches. And as we think that a subscription of these articles will be a renouncing disorder and divisive practice, and will, when obtained, lay a foundation for maintaining peace, truth, and good order, which was what was desired in the protest, by which the New Brunswick brethren stand excluded; we, therefore, in compliance with the request of these brethren, and in order to remove all scruples, propose that all that are now or ever have been members of this synod, shall subscribe the following fundamental articles and agreements, as their acts, and all who will do so shall be members of this synod.
"1. That in all prudential acts for the regular management of the affairs of the church of God among us, every member shall either actively concur, or passively submit to and not counteract, such things as are determined by the majority as being founded upon God's word; or if any do declare that they have not freedom of conscience to comply, they shall withdraw, and no more be acknowledged as members of this synod, unless they afterwards find clearness, and so return and comply.
"2. That if any member suppose he has reason of complaint against any of his brethren for unsound doctrine, irregularities of life, or unfaithfulness in his pastoral office, he shall proceed in a Christian way according to the rules of God's word, and our known methods of discipline, and shall not in public or private, spread his surmises, offences, or scandals, without proceeding as aforesaid, or else be accounted guilty of unchristian conduct, and liable to censure. Accordingly we look upon such practices to be contrary to the gospel, and of pernicious tendency to the church of Christ.
"3. That no member of this synod shall preach in the congregation of another brother, without judicial appointment, or being invited by his brother to preach for him, and whoever acts contrary shall be deemed guilty of unbrotherly treatment and divisive practice, and be censured accordingly. And the same way, no presbytery shall invade the charge and rights of other presbyteries; and all erections within the bounds of regulated congregations that have been or shall be set up by such itinerant preaching and divisive practices, shall be deemed contrary to the peace and good order of this church, and consequently shall not be maintained or supported by any member belonging to us.
"4. We agree that none who have not heretofore enjoyed membership in this synod, shall be admitted thereto without submitting to the manner of admission determined by our former acts, and such as may and shall be provided in that case, and complying with these general articles now agreed upon. And all such as upon proper trial shall be duly qualified with respect to learning, soundness in the faith, and a gospel conversation, shall, upon agreeing to these articles, and submitting to our method of church government, be cordially admitted to synodical communion.
"5. We agree that each member of this synod shall keep a day of public and solemn fasting, and thereupon confess and bewail the prevailing evils of infidelity, profaneness, the untenderness and barrenness of professors, and
the decay of religion in general, and particularly the debates, divisive practices, uncharitable censures, and unbrotherly treatment that have torn and divided the church of Christ in these parts, to the dishonour of God, the hurt of practical piety, the offence and scandal of the weak, and the hardening the wicked, and the opening the mouths of the profane; and deprecate the divine displeasure, and implore the blessing of God upon this and all other proper means for the advancement of pure and undefiled religion, and the maintaining and propagating the great truths of the gospel, and the peace, unity, and increase of this infant church."
The New York brethren immediately refused to accede to this plan of union. This result must excite surprise, when it is remembered how nearly identical the terms here offered are with those which those brethren had previously proposed. The plan happily avoided the necessity of concession on either side, by placing both parties on the same ground, and commencing de novo, with a renewed subscription of their original principles of agreement. It is difficult to see to which of the above articles exception could have been taken. Certainly not to the first, for that was adopted almost verbatim as one of the fundamental principles of the new synod. Not to the second, for that was borrowed from the previous proposals made by the New York presbytery. Not to the former part of the third, for the right of a minister to his own pulpit could hardly be seriously questioned. It is probable that the difficulty was with the latter part of the third article, which required that the new congregations formed by separatists from the older ones, should be given up. This was a real difficulty, and embarrassed the negotiations for a union at a much later period. These congregations had now been formed for some years; and the people were doubtless unwilling to return to their old pastors. Under these circumstances the men by whose influence they had been induced to separate, could hardly be expected to give them up. Some years after this, when Mr. Tennent was earnestly desirous of a re-union, he found his greatest difficulty with these people, and wrote his Irenicum principally to answer their objections and allay their
feelings. Some of them never would come in, but when, after a schism of seventeen years, the two synods were united, left the church and joined the Scotch seceders.
Whatever may have been the grounds of objection, the New York brethren immediately rejected the plan above mentioned, and proposed that "it be mutually agreed that they be allowed, with the consent of this body, to erect another synod, under the name of the synod of New York." To this proposal the following answer was returned: "The unhappy divisions which have subsisted among us for some years, cannot but deeply affect all that wish the welfare of Zion; and it particularly affects us that some of our brethren of New York do not at present see their way clear to continue in synodical communion with us. And though we judge that they have no just ground to withdraw from us, yet seeing they propose to erect themselves into a synod at New York, and now desire to do this in the most friendly manner possible, we declare, if they or any of them do so, we shall endeavour to maintain charitable and Christian affections towards them, and show the same upon all occasions, by such correspondence and fellowship as we shall think duty, and consistent with a good conscience."
The schism was thus consummated, and the synod of New York met as a separate and independent body, at Elizabethtown, September 19, 1745.
The above narrative will disclose the real causes of the schism. It was not diversity of opinion as to doctrine or discipline, but loss of confidence and alienation of feeling arising from the different views entertained of the revival which then prevailed. The same causes, which at this period divided the churches of New England, rent asunder the Presbyterian Church. Opposition to the revival was the standing charge against the one party, and was the uniform apology for the denunciations, intrusions, separations, and disobedience to the synod, which formed the grounds of complaint against the other. Was this opposition to the revival an opposition to evangelical
religion, or merely to extravagance and disorder? On the part of some few individuals, it is to be feared it was the former; characteristically and generally it was the latter. This appears, in the first place, from the fact that the opposition did not commence until the extravagances and disorders made their appearance. This change of sentiment is made a matter of reproach by Mr. Tennent. "What is the reason," he asks, "that our protesting brethren were so full in favour of the work of God last year, in their speeches and acknowledgments, and that they make no honourable mention of it in their protest this year? Has a little space of time altered the nature of things?" The same men also who were most active in their opposition to the revival, under the form which it assumed in Pennsylvania, approved and rejoiced in all they saw of its effects in Virginia.
In the second place, all the objections urged in any of the writings which had any claim to represent the opinions of the party, were directed against what was really objectionable. In 1740, there was a paper presented to the presbytery of Newcastle, containing complaints against Mr. Whitefield, in the form of queries, and hence called the Querists. It consisted principally of various extracts from Mr. Whitefield's writings, which were deemed objectionable. Its authors, for example, find fault with him for saying that man at his creation was "adorned with all the perfections of the Deity;" that the believer "washes away the guilt of sin by the tears of a sincere repentance, joined with faith in the blood of Jesus Christ." They charged him with denying the covenant of grace, and running into antinomianism in his letter against the book called the Whole Duty of Man. They objected to his saying that men were baptised "into the nature of the Father, the nature of the Son, and the nature of the Holy Spirit;" that the believer depends on "the righteousness of Christ imputed to, and inherent in him." They were offended with his claiming immediate inspiration in such passages as the following: "There will certainly be a fulfilling of those things which God, by his Spirit, has spoken in my soul," and, "There are many promises to be fulfilled in me." They did not know how to understand his saying, "Now
know I that I have received the Holy Ghost at the imposition of hands. For I feel it as much as Elisha did, when Elijah dropped his mantle. Nay others see it also." They objected also to his saying of the Quakers, "I think their notions about walking and being led by the Spirit right and good."
Mr. Thompson specifies the things of which he and his friends complained in the advocates of the revival. 1. Their bold and uncharitable condemnation of their brethren as graceless. 2. Their unwearied industry to possess the people with prejudices against their pastors. 3. Their irregular intrusions into other men's charges. 4. Their teaching that every true Christian is sure of his own conversion, and that no adult can be converted without undergoing legal, ungracious, preparatory convictions. As to the effects of their preaching he objected, 1. To the crying out during worship, to the falling down, and convulsions which were encouraged by them. 2. To the despairing terrors, which flow from unbelief. 3. To the delusions of some of their followers; as that they had seen Christ, or a great light, during their devotions. 4. To the censorious spirit with which they seem to be immediately affected. "It is," he adds, "a downright calumny and slander to allege that we prejudice the people against the work of God, because we sometimes declare our judgment against such particulars as these, which we verily are persuaded are not the work of God either in ministers or people." He admits that "a great many have been stirred up to more serious thoughts about their souls' concerns than ever before, which is a thing truly to be rejoiced in; and many, it is said, are much reformed in several particulars of moral practice, which also, is just matter of satisfaction."2
The testimony of Mr. Tennent, as to the nature and extent of the opposition of his brethren to the revival, will, doubtless, be regarded by many, as of more weight than their own declarations. He then testifies distinctly, that the opposition was not to experimental religion, but to the extravagances and disorders which at that period so much prevailed. "I cannot but believe," he says, "that reverend brethren upon both sides of the question, had sincere
and good designs in the different parts which they bore in the late controversy. While some were earnestly contending for the credit of the late extraordinary religious appearances, with design that they might spread far and wide; others were strenuously contending for the order and government of Christ's kingdom, lest they should suffer and be quite unhinged in the uncommon situation and ferment that obtained among the churches. But though the things controverted, considered calmly and in a true distinct light were small, yet the heat of debate about them run very high. This, together with evil surmisings, severe censurings, and rash judgings of each other, encouraged and inflamed by misrepresentations, carried to and from by the unwearied industry of tale-bearers and tattlers, who are generally busy on such occasions, increased mutual prejudices and suspicions to a melancholy crisis, and occasioned the unhappy rupture of the church's union, which has subsisted among us for some years."
In the body of the work just cited, he still more explicitly denies that the essentials of religion were involved in the controversy. "What is it," he asks, "that is disputed? Is it the necessity of conversion to God in order to salvation? No; that is freely acknowledged on both sides of the question. Is it the nature of conversion proposed in the Scriptures and in our excellent Confession of Faith agreeable thereto? No; for that is likewise acknowledged by both the contending parties. Is it the marks and signs of conversion mentioned in the Scriptures? No; for these are also confessed by persons of both sides. Is it the reality of those instances of conversion contained in the Bible? No; the divine authority of the sacred Scriptures is equally asserted by both parties in controversy. Is it whether some have been converted in the successive ages of the Christian Church from the apostles' times to the present day; and whether some have not been converted in this age, and in this part of the world, and whether good has not been done, and some effectually changed, to all appearance, during the late revival of religion? No; for these are also acknowledged. What then is it that is controverted? Why our opinion respecting the religious experiences
of some in the late times, and concerning the number of such. It has been disputed whether those experiences were of a saving kind, and whether the number is so great as is concluded by some. And is our opinion concerning what we cannot certainly know a great matter, think ye? Or, are we infallible in our judgment about these things which are hidden from the view of mortals? If not, why is all this heat and flame about uncertainties?"
Again, "I must in justice add to what has been offered, that the reverend brethren, who cast us out of synodical communion, do deny the charge of endeavouring to prejudice the people against the power and grace of God in the conversion of sinners, wherever there is any hopeful appearance of it. Mr. John Thompson, in their name, observes on this head as follows, 'It is true, there are some things in our brethren's conduct which we cannot but condemn, and have condemned and spoken against both in private and public; and some things also which are the frequent effects of their preaching on many of their hearers, which we cannot esteem of as highly as both they and their admirers do.' Among which he mentions crying out aloud in the midst of the congregation in the time of public worship, and others falling down half dead, or working like persons in convulsion fits. And in another paragraph, he speaks in the following candid, charitable strain, to the honour of the late revival of religion, and to the honour of the ministers he opposed." Mr. Tennent then quotes from Mr. Thompson the passage cited above, and several others to the same effect,2 and adds, "Seeing the Rev. Mr. John Thompson appeared as the apologist of the present synod of Philadelphia, it may reasonably be presumed that he speaks the mind at least of the majority of that body; and therefore it is evident from the aforesaid passages, that they were far from opposing, (with design,) the late revival of religion; that on the contrary, they expressly acknowledged it, rejoiced in it, and prayed for its increase; yea, in several instances, as humbly as publicly acknowledged their own imperfections in relation to the present debate. Do not the aforesaid passages breathe the candid, humble spirit of true Christianity? Why, therefore, is the string of
acknowledgments so much harped upon? Pray, have we done in this as much as our brethren? or are we, forsooth, absolutely perfect and infallible, even in a time of temptation and debate?" In several other passages he vindicates the synod from the charge of opposing the revival of religion, properly so called, and shows that their opposition was confined to the extravagances and disorders above specified.2
It is, indeed, hard to believe that this is the same Mr. Tennent, who, a few years before, denounced these same brethren as the enemies of all religion, as men willing to resort to any falsehood or calumny to cloak their "horrible wickedness in opposing God's work." Mr. Thompson was frequently specified by name as an example of the class of unconverted pharisee preachers, and his opposition to the work of God ascribed to the worst motives. What makes this case the more remarkable, and the more instructive, is, that the work which Mr. Tennent, in 1749, could see "breathed the candid and humble spirit of true Christianity," was published by Mr. Thompson in 1741, that is, during the very heat of the debate. It contained then, all the evidence of a Christian spirit that it did seven years afterwards. Yet Mr. Tennent at that time could see nothing good either in it or its author. This, though a striking, is not a solitary illustration of the fact that, during times of religious excitement, the evil as well as the good feelings even of true Christians, are often brought into vigorous exercise. It appears then, as well from the testimony of the men themselves, as from that of their opponents, that the opposition to the revival of which so much complaint was made, was an opposition to the extravagance and disorder which marked its course, and not an opposition to evangelical religion.
With regard to the importance of learning in the ministers of the gospel, there was no real difference of opinion between the two parties. As the synod's object in the act about the examination of ministers, was to secure an adequately learned ministry, and as Mr. Tennent opposed that act, he brought himself under the suspicion of slighting the importance of learning.
This suspicion was increased by the manner in which he sometimes allowed himself to speak of letter-learned pharisees, "who came out, no doubt, after they had been the usual time at the feet of Gamaliel, and according to the acts, canons, and traditions of the Jewish church;" by the avowal of his determination to oppose the design of the synod to establish a public seminary;3 and the hasty manner in which his presbytery sometimes passed over the trials of their candidates.
Mr. Tennent's opposition, however, to the synod's act, requiring a college diploma of candidates for the ministry, did not arise from a disregard of learning, but from want of confidence in the existing colleges. The same motive influenced him in his opposition to the plan of the synod respecting a seminary. It was not to learning, but to a school under the control of the synod that he objected. In his sermons against the Moravians, published in 1742, he insisted upon the necessity of learning in the ministers of the gospel, with all his characteristic ardour. "In order to preserve ourselves and our posterity," he says, "from the infection of error, I think it is needful to use, in our proper sphere, all suitable means to obtain a godly, learned, and regular ministry. When ignorant novices are admitted into the ministerial order, they are apt to be puffed up, to the church's great prejudice, as well as their own; and to spread error, when they know it not. To say that these qualifications may be ordinarily attained without human learning, is notoriously enthusiastical and foolish. In short, either human learning is necessary, or there must be inspiration to supply the want thereof." The efforts which he and his friends made to establish the college of New Jersey, show that he fully appreciated the importance of this subject.
There was also an essential agreement between the two parties on points of doctrine. This is proved by the explicit testimony of Mr. Tennent. "Upon the one hand," he says, "the nature and necessity of conversion to God, as represented in the Scriptures, and in our Confession of Faith, according to them, were acknowledged, and only the opinion of some concerning the
reality or number of some late instances of conversion, (or respecting both together,) disputed and contradicted; so upon the other hand, the nature and necessity of order and government in the church of Christ, as they are represented in the holy Scriptures, and our Directory, according to them, were also acknowledged, and only some prudential rules and acts, not expressed in the sacred Scriptures, or our Directory, for worship and government, disputed and opposed. The substance of the points in dispute was freely acknowledged by reverend brethren upon both sides of the question, viz. the nature and necessity of conversion, as held forth in the Scriptures, and in our Confession of Faith; and the nature and necessity of church discipline, (in all essentials,) as represented in the holy Scriptures, and in our Directory, so that the controversy, in my apprehension, turns entirely upon circumstantials."
A more important evidence is to be found in the "Declaration of the conjunct presbyteries of New Brunswick and Newcastle," issued immediately after the schism. Those presbyteries say: "We think it proper, for the satisfaction of all concerning us, and as a due testimony to the truth of God, to declare and testify to the world our principles and sentiments in religion, according to which we design, through divine grace, ever to conduct ourselves, both as Christians, and as ministers, and as ruling elders.
"And first, as to the doctrines of religion, we believe with our heart, and profess and maintain with our lips, the doctrines summed up and contained in the Confession of Faith, and Larger and Shorter Catechisms, composed by the reverend assembly of divines at Westminster, as the truths of God revealed and contained in the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; and do receive, acknowledge, and declare, the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms to be the confession of our faith; yet so as that no part of the twenty-third chapter of said Confession shall be so construed as to allow civil magistrates, as such, to have any ecclesiastical authority in synods, or church judicatories, much less the power of a negative voice
over them in their ecclesiastical transactions; nor is any part of it to be understood as opposite to the memorable revolution and the settlement of the crown of the three kingdoms in the illustrious house of Hanover." Exceptio probat regulam. The exception here made to certain parts of the twenty-third chapter, proves the adoption of all the rest. This is as strict an adoption of the Confession of Faith as was ever made by any synod in our church. Besides this decisive declaration, reference might be made to the fact, that during all the protracted negotiations for a union, there was not a word said about doctrinal differences. Each synod spoke of the other as holding the same system of doctrines.
Though there was this substantial agreement, there were several points, which, while the excitement lasted, were matters of keen dispute. It has already been mentioned that Mr. Tennent had a doctrinal controversy with David Cowell, a New England gentleman, pastor of the church in Trenton. The subject of dispute, it will be remembered, was, whether the glory of God or the happiness of the agent, was the ultimate ground of moral obligation. Mr. Tennent, in the paper presented to the synod in 1740, charged his brethren with holding false doctrine on this subject. With respect to this charge, it may be remarked, 1. That we never hear of it again. It was never renewed, and never became a matter of discussion between the two parties. 2. That the charge, as far as it bore on the members of the synod at all, bore particularly upon the committee of which President Dickinson was chairman, and of which other gentlemen were members, who are known to have repudiated the doctrine imputed to them. 3. That the synod, by an unanimous vote, condemned the doctrine that self-love is the ultimate foundation of moral obligation. The synod, therefore, are clear in this matter. Mr. Cowell is the only member to whom even suspicion can attach in relation to it.
A subject much disputed at this time, was the nature of conviction. Mr. Thompson published a sermon under the title, "The Doctrine of Conviction