members could be conscientious in the affair, when they declared they were
Messrs. McDowell and Ewing entered their dissent from the foregoing decision, because it made the situation of the dissatisfied brethren worse than it was before; because they had unjustly been deprived of a right to vote in the case; because the presbytery of Donegal had been destroyed without allowing one of its members any voice in the affair; and because this proceeding was inconsistent with the plan of union, which provided that the presbyteries then subsisting should not be united except when it was found for edification. The next year, (1766,) Messrs. Tate and Beard presented a petition to have this decision reviewed. The synod accordingly put it to vote, whether their former judgment should be reversed, and by a great majority decided that it should stand. It was then proposed that the presbytery of Donegal, as it existed before the last synod, should be restored, those members excepted who had been set off to the Carlisle presbytery, and it was decided in the negative. Another expedient was proposed, viz: that the dissatisfied members of the old Donegal presbytery should be allowed for one year to join the second presbytery of Philadelphia. This also was rejected by a great majority. The following protest against these decisions was entered on the minutes. "We are obliged, (though with great grief,) to enter our dissent from, and declare our protest against the conduct and votes of this judicature respecting the late Donegal presbytery, for such reasons as these, '1. Because our distressed brethren always declared a scruple of conscience as the foundation of their petition and behaviour, viz: That they could not in conscience submit to the examination of the hearts or experiences of candidates in the way voted by the synod, as they esteemed it contrary to the word of God, to common sense, and the uniform practice of the protestant churches; consequently whether well or ill informed, it was a matter that could not be voted away. 2. Because it appeared very untender and unbrotherly to deny that those members could be conscientious in the affair, when they declared they were so. We cannot judge what matters will affect other men's consciences. 3. Because even the smallest matter if imposed against the rights of conscience obliges the injured to leave the communion. To exclude men
from exercising the power of ordination, unless they submit to it in a way contrary to their judgment, is such an imposition; and, therefore, the schism, in consequence hereof, is to be attributed to the imposers, and not to those who are obliged to withdraw. 4. Because by the spirit of the plan of union, presbyteries were not to be joined, unless for edification; but this modelling evidently tends to ruin and destruction. 5. Because the synod seem to act too arbitrary a part by forcing members into presbyteries without their consent, and the consent of their congregations. 6. Because these violent and precipitate votes have rent the church of Christ, alas! too much divided already, to the joy of our enemies, the grief and distress of all sincere Christians, and the reproach of the Christian name, when only exchanging a member or two in two presbyteries might have prevented the breach.'
"These reasons, together with those entered by two members, (Messrs. McDowell and Ewing,) against a judgment of the last synod respecting the alteration of presbyteries, prevail with us to enter this our protest, whereby we exonerate our consciences in order to continue in your communion, and declare before God and the world, that we are free from blame in this whole procedure. Matthew Wilson, John Ewing, Patrick Alison, Francis Alison."
In consequence of the above votes, Messrs. Joseph Tate and John Beard brought in the following document: "To the Rev. synod of New York and Philadelphia: We the subscribers humbly beg leave to show, that we much desire to be in union and friendship with this Rev. body, and would not knowingly be the real authors of any discord in the church of Christ; yet the determinations of the synod consequent on our petition presented last year, and again to this present meeting, seem so grievous and oppressive to us, and threatening to the credit and interest of religion, that we find ourselves obliged to declare to this Rev. synod that we cannot submit to them, and we hereby decline all authority and jurisdiction of this body, and that no judgment or determination thereof shall bind us or affect our persons or ministry, until these differences of sentiment be removed by better light,
and satisfactory means be found to reconcile and unite us with this Rev. body again; and as we earnestly desire and pray for this, we reserve to ourselves and expect the liberty at any time respectfully to offer such proposals as we may think likely to answer that end; and upon our satisfying the Rev. synod, or they us, to return to our enjoyment of our privileges with them. And in the mean time we shall endeavour to carry respectfully towards this Rev. synod, avoiding whatever might unnecessarily inflame unchristian passions, or tend to hinder the influence of our brethren in the gospel, and expect to be mutually treated by our brethren as ministers of Christ." They then briefly assign the reasons for their declining, which are substantially those given in support of the protest above mentioned, except the third, in which they complain that "the proceedings of the synod in this as well as in many other affairs, appear plainly calculated to bear down one part of this united synod, and suppress their influence, contrary to the equality and rights of members, and to the nature and whole professed design of our union."
The next day Messrs. Richard Treat and Read brought in an overture as a good expedient for the peace of the synod, and the satisfaction of the brethren complaining, viz: that the presbytery of Donegal should be restored to its former state, as before the last synod, with the members since settled within their bounds. The synod agreed to this proposal, and also revived the late presbytery of Newcastle, which was to meet according to its last adjournment when under the name of the presbytery of Lancaster.
Unhappily this conciliatory measure did not satisfy the discontented portion of the Donegal presbytery. In 1767, they addressed a letter to the synod saying, that they were willing to return to communion with the church, provided the synod would erect them into a presbytery by themselves. This request was refused, but in order, it is said, "to remove the uneasiness of our brethren, and to promote harmony and peace, we appoint Messrs. Buel, Rodgers, Horton, Kirkpatrick, Beatty, Blair, and Miller, a committee to
bring in an overture relative to their petition." This committee made a report in which they expressed great disapprobation of the conduct of those brethren, and yet to put an end to the schism, they proposed that they should be erected into a separate presbytery, with the proviso, that if any of them should remove out of the bounds of that presbytery, they should become members of the presbytery within whose limits they resided. This proposal, however, was rejected by a considerable majority.
In 1768, the dissatisfied brethren presented the same petition, which was again rejected by a very strong vote. The next day Mr. Tate informed the synod that though he was not authorized to make the proposal, he had no doubt his brethren would be satisfied, if the synod would distribute them among the presbyteries of Donegal, Newcastle, and the second presbytery of Philadelphia. The synod, though they expressed strong disapprobation of their past conduct, agreed to authorize the presbytery of Donegal to receive Mr. Samuel Thompson and Mr. Lang, the presbytery of Newcastle to receive Mr. S. Smith and Beard, and the second presbytery of Philadelphia to receive Messrs. Tate, Elder, Steel, and McMurdie; provided first, that this regulation should not subject any vacancies within the bounds of the presbytery of Donegal to any other presbytery, nor should such vacancies, without express permission, apply to any other presbytery for supplies; and secondly, if any of the said brethren comply with this regulation, they shall previously and expressly withdraw their declining document, entered in 1766, and without such withdrawal they shall not be received as members either of the synod or of any of the presbyteries. These provisos were just and reasonable, but it is well to remark the tone of authority in the synod which they indicate. The Rev. Mr. Strain protested against the above decision, and Messrs. John Roan, John Slemmons, Robert Cooper, and George Duffield dissented, assigning their reasons. These reasons are such as might be anticipated, viz. that the decision sanctioned the bad temper and irregular conduct of the dissatisfied brethren, set a bad precedent, tended to strengthen the second presbytery of Philadelphia, which, in the judgment of
many members of the synod ought not to exist at all, &c.2 It appears from the minutes for the following year, that this plan was carried into effect, and this second schism was thus healed. This measure was evidently carried through by the members at a distance from the scene of contention, as Mr. Strain and all the dissentients were members of the presbytery of Donegal.
In 1770, on a petition from certain members of the presbytery of Hanover, the Rev. Messrs. Hugh McCaden, Henry Patillo, James Criswell, David Caldwell, Joseph Alexander, Hezekiah James Balch, and Hezekiah Balch, were formed into a presbytery to be called the presbytery of Orange.
In 1781, the Rev. Messrs. Joseph Smith, John McMillan, James Power, and Thaddeus Dodd, were constituted the presbytery of Redstone. These were the pioneers of western Pennsylvania, and were a noble set of men.
In 1784, the Rev. Joseph Alexander, Francis Cummings, James Edmunds, John Harris, Thomas Reese, and John Simpson, were set off from the presbytery of Orange, and constituted the presbytery of South Carolina.
In 1785, at the request of Messrs. Samuel Doak, Hezekiah Balch, and Charles Cummings, the presbytery of Abingdon was formed out of the presbytery of Hanover, to be bounded by New River on the side next the presbytery of Hanover, and by the Apalachian mountains on that next the presbytery of Orange.
In 1786, an extensive remodelling of the presbyteries took place preparatory to the division of the synod and the adoption of the new constitution. The presbytery of Abingdon was divided into two parts, the one to consist of the Rev. Charles Cummings, Hezekiah Balch, John Casson, Samuel Doak, and Samuel Houston, to be known as the presbytery of Abingdon; the other to consist of Rev. David Rice, Thomas Craighead, Adam Rankin, Andrew McClure, and James Crawford, to be known as the presbytery of Transylvania. The presbytery of Hanover was divided into two parts, the
one consisting of the Rev. Richard Sanchey, John Todd, James Waddell, William Irvine, John B. Smith, James Mitchell, John D. Blair, and Daniel McCalla, to be known as the presbytery of Hanover; and the other consisting of the Rev. John Brown, William Graham, Archibald Scott, James McConnel, Edward Crawford, Benjamin Erwin, John Montgomery, William Wilson, Moses Hoge, John McCrie, Samuel Carrick, and Samuel Shannon, to be known as the presbytery of Lexington. It was also agreed that the presbytery of Donegal be divided into two, one of which to consist of the Rev. John Slemmons, James Hunt, Stephen Balch, and Isaac Keith, with Dr. Patrick Alison, of the late second presbytery of Philadelphia, and the Rev. George Luckey, from the presbytery of Newcastle, to be known as the presbytery of Baltimore; and the other to consist of the Rev. Samuel Thompson, John Hoge, Hugh Magill, Robert Cooper, James Martin, James Lang, John Craighead, John King, Hugh Vance, Thomas McFarren, John McKnight, Dr. Robert Davidson, John Black, Samuel Dougall, John Lynn, David Beard, Samuel Waugh, Joseph Henderson, Matthew Steven, and James Johnston, with the Rev. John Elder, and Robert McMurdie, from the late second presbytery of Philadelphia, to be known as the presbytery of Carlisle. The Rev. Colin McFarquhar, late of the presbytery of Donegal, was annexed to the presbytery of Newcastle. The distinction between the first and second presbyteries of Philadelphia was abolished.
GENERAL REGULATIONS: AND CASES OF CONSCIENCE
Under the head of ordinary powers of the synod is to be referred, not only the authority which it exercised of resolving questions of conscience, and of determining whether a given doctrine was consistent with our standards, but also of laying down rules of discipline. In reference to this latter point, it must be borne in mind that the right which by our present constitution is reserved to the majority of the presbyteries, of forming constitutional rules, was formerly exercised by the synod, in which all the presbyteries met as one body. Of the exercise of this right by the original synod of Philadelphia,
and by each of the two synods during the schism, many examples have already been given. In the united synod of New York and Philadelphia, this authority continued to be exercised until the last. The most common method of proceeding, was for some member, or presbytery, to submit an overture or query, for the decision of the synod; and the determination either constituted a rule for the guidance of the presbyteries, or expressed the refusal of the synod to make the overture into a rule. Thus, in the preceding pages, when speaking of the subject of education, we had occasion to notice that at one time it was determined that all candidates for the ministry should study divinity for at least one year after the completion of their academical course; at another, the proposition that they should be required to study two years, was rejected. Again, the proposal that every candidate should be required to produce a college diploma, before being taken on trial, was rejected; and, on the other hand, the proposition that a liberal education should be dispensed with, was repeatedly discarded.
In 1760, five such propositions or queries were submitted to the synod. The first inquired how many ministers must unite in a request to the moderator of the commission, or of a presbytery, in order to oblige him to call a meeting of the judicatory? The synod decided that, in case of emergency, the moderator himself might call the judicatory together; or, on the application of any two members in the case of a presbytery, or of four or five in the case of the commission, provided that due notice were given to all the members of the occasion, time, and place of the meeting.
The second related to the choice of a moderator, with regard to which the synod agreed, that no moderator had a right to preside in any of our presbyteries, except in virtue of the choice of the members then met; but that presbyteries might elect the same person for moderator from time to time, if they thought proper.