2. Presbyterial Powers Exercised By The Synod

2. Presbyterial Powers Exercised By The Synod

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

2. PRESBYTERIAL POWERS EXERCISED BY THE SYNOD

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

At present no minister is admitted as a member of synod except in virtue of his belonging to some presbytery in connexion with the body. Formerly, however, the synod itself entertain applications for admission, examined, received, and even ordained members. In 1758, application was made to the synod from a Welsh congregation, praying them to ordain Mr. John Griffith; and the synod finding that he had regular certificates from Wales, and that several of their members were well acquainted with him as a man of Christian character and experience, agreed, "That the said John Griffith, though he has not the measure of school learning usually required, and which they judge to be ordinarily requisite, be ordained to the work of the ministry; and appointed the Rev. Samuel Davies, Dr. Alison, Mr. Treat, Mr.

Hunter, and Mr. Kittlestas, to be a presbytery pro re nata to ordain him tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock." This service was accordingly performed, and it was ordered that Mr. Griffith belong to the presbytery of Philadelphia.

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

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

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

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

the western parts of Pennsylvania, under the direction of the presbytery of Donegal.

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

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

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

The synod also acted more or less in a presbyterial capacity, in allowing calls from congregations to be addressed to them for particular ministers. In 1765, a call from Cattry's settlement, in North Carolina, for the Rev. Mr. Spencer, was brought into synod, and presented to him. At the same time a call from Hopewell and Centre congregations, in the same state, for the Rev. Mr. McWhorter, was introduced; but the synod apprehending that some other person might more conveniently be sent, did not present it to him.

In 1766, two calls for Mr. Nathan Ker, were brought before the synod and given him for his consideration, with the direction to report his answer to the presbytery of New York. In 1768, a call for Mr. McCreary, a candidate under the care of the presbytery of Newcastle, was brought in and read, and Mr. McCreary's answer requested. As he was not prepared to give an immediate reply, he was directed to give his answer to his presbytery, who were requested, in case he accepted the call, to ordain him as soon as convenient. In all these, and in other similar cases, the calls were from distant congregations not under the care of any particular presbytery.

The synod at times acted more in a presbyterial than a synodical capacity, when cases of discipline were referred to them. In 1771, the second presbytery of Philadelphia referred to the consideration of the synod, the case of a minister who had left his pastoral charge, whose character laboured under serious charges, and who, though twice cited, had refused to appear before the presbytery, but had requested his name to be struck from their roll. The synod instead of instructing the presbytery how to proceed, themselves took up the case, directed Dr. Rodgers to prepare a citation specifying the charges against the accused, to be signed by the moderator, and appointed a committee to prepare matters, and to cite witnesses. The accused was then informed of the time of trial, and given to understand that the citation then served was to be the last, and that the synod would proceed to hear and issue the case whether he attended or not. At the time appointed, the accused appeared before the synod and made a free confession of the crimes laid to his charge, and declared himself unfeignedly sorry, and deeply penitent, for his very offensive conduct. And the synod, after prayer to God for direction, declared their opinion that the crimes charged fully merited deposition, but in respect of his humble and penitent carriage, it was agreed to suspend him from the exercise of his ministry sine die; and they prohibited him, under pain of the highest censures of the church, from exercising the same, or any part thereof, within the bounds of the synod or elsewhere; and they discharged any inferior judicatory from taking off this

suspension, or from receiving any application for that purpose. The synod, moreover, dissolved his pastoral relation to his congregation, and suspended him from the sealing ordinances of the church, but left it to the second presbytery of Philadelphia, or any other where he might reside, to restore him to Christian communion, upon his application, when they shall see proper. It was ordered, that he should be publicly rebuked by the moderator from the chair, and that this whole sentence should be read from the pulpit of his late church on the following Lord's day. In 1772, this gentleman presented a petition to the synod to be restored to the exercise of his ministry, and the synod, after mature deliberation, determined to restore him for one year, under the particular care of the presbytery of Newcastle, and the Rev. Mr. McDowell was appointed to give him a solemn admonition with regard to his future conduct. He was accordingly called in, received the admonition, and took his seat as a member of the synod. The following year the presbytery of Newcastle reported that they had received him agreeably to the order of the synod, that he had since laboured in the work of the ministry under their direction, and behaved himself in a becoming and regular manner as far as was known to them. The synod then agreed to restore him fully to his ministry, and exhorted him to the greatest humility, circumspection, and meekness, through the remaining part of his life. And as he had the prospect of labouring principally within the bounds of the first presbytery of Philadelphia, he was joined to that body.3 This whole proceeding shows a style of presbyterianism to which we have been long unaccustomed. The synod itself proceeding to the trial in the first instance, passing sentence, forbidding any presbytery to remove that sentence, themselves first partially, and then fully restoring him to the ministry, and attaching him first to one presbytery and then to another, suppose the doctrine that the synod was a larger presbytery, and included within itself all the powers of the lower judicatories.

COMMITTEES WITH SYNODICAL POWERS

The appointment of committees with synodical powers, and sending correspondents to sit with a presbytery to aid them in any difficult business, were modes of action in which this synod conformed to the early usages of our church, and to those of the church of Scotland, to a greater extent than is now customary. In 1759, a complaint was presented against the first presbytery of Newcastle, but the matter not being ready for trial, the synod appointed the existing presbytery of Newcastle, and Messrs. Elder, Roan, John Miller, and Steel, a committee of the synod, to meet at Chesnut Level, and take such notice of the grounds of the complaint as they might judge necessary. In 1761, an appeal from a judgment of the presbytery of New York was presented by Mr. Kittletas, and the minutes of the presbytery, and their reasons in support of their judgment were read, and then the synod appointed Messrs. William Tennent, Treat, Hunter, Alison, &c. &c. a committee, to meet at Princeton, and determine the whole matter. This committee reported, the following year, that they met agreeably to their appointment, and "took the affair under consideration; and finding Mr. Kittletas was not present, who sent sufficient reasons to excuse his absence, and earnestly requested that we would endeavour to remove the difference between him and the presbytery of New York. It was unanimously resolved, that the committee could not proceed in a judicial way to determine the cause while one of the parties was absent. That it was thought proper to confer with the presbytery, and to remove all grounds of complaint between him and them if possible. It plainly appeared from what had been acknowledged both by Mr. Kittletas and the presbytery, that the presbytery in dealing with him, intended only to bear a testimony, in a moderate manner, against any thing which deserved censure or admonition, even in a brother for whom they had a very high esteem, and that in so doing they did not intend to suspend him, or remove him from their fellowship as a brother, but only to admonish him in a friendly manner, and in this the committee approve their design; and inasmuch as Mr. Kittletas desired our assistance to remove all misunderstanding, that he may live in peace and friendship with the presbytery, as well as with his other brethren, we have

requested the presbytery to grant this desire, and they have condescended to what we requested, and from henceforth do receive him into good standing with them without any further censure."

It has been often a matter of dispute among presbyterians, whether it is proper to proceed with the trial of an accused person in his absence, or to the decision of a case in the absence of one of the parties. Some have maintained that if the accused refused to attend after due citation, or withdrew during the progress of the trial, the proper method was to censure, either by rebuke, suspension, or deposition, as the case might demand, for contumacy, but not to proceed with the trial. This method of proceeding, it has been supposed, sufficiently protects the church, as unworthy members or ministers may be cut off though they refuse to submit to discipline, while it avoids the apparent violation of the principles of justice in trying a man in his absence. The practice of our church on this point does not seem to be uniform. In the case of Mr. Kennedy before the presbytery of Donegal, referred to above, the presbytery proceeded with the trial, though he refused, after a certain time, to attend. And in the case referred to the synod by the second presbytery of Philadelphia, notice was sent to the accused that the synod would proceed with the trial, whether he attended or not. In the above minute, however, we find the committee unanimously resolving that they could not proceed to a judicial hearing of the case before them in the absence of one of the parties. In this latter instance, it is true, the absence was excusable and not contumacious.

In 1762, an appeal was brought in from a decision of the presbytery of Donegal, and a committee of eleven ministers was appointed to examine into the grounds of the complaint, as contained in the appeal, with full liberty to consider the case, and determine as they should obtain light. In 1764, a certain John Harris presented an appeal from a judgment of the presbytery of Newcastle, and the synod appointed Mr. Robert Smith and

twelve other ministers to hear and try the merits of the cause, and to issue the whole affair.

In 1765, an appeal from the judgment of the presbytery of Donegal, respecting Mr. Roan and Mr. Edmiston, was presented by Mr. Edmiston, together with a reference respecting the same affair, by the presbytery; and also an appeal from the judgment of the said presbytery, by Mr. McMurdie. The synod appointed a committee of thirteen, to meet at Hanover, and to issue and determine these matters. In 1766, an appeal from a decision of the presbytery of Suffolk was presented, and after hearing the appellant and the presbytery, it was ordered that Messrs. Rodgers, Tennent, &c. &c. be a committee to meet each with an elder, at Huntingdon, and try and issue the whole affair.

In 1768, a petition was presented by the Rev. Mr. Sackett, praying the synod to take into consideration the differences between him and the presbytery of Dutchess; and also a supplication from the church at Bedford, Westchester county, praying that a committee might be appointed to settle all differences in their congregation. The synod accordingly appointed a committee of eleven ministers to meet and examine into these difficulties, and to settle all differences. The following year this committee reported, and the synod approved of their proceedings, except of so much of their judgment as disconnected Mr. Sackett from the presbytery of Dutchess, and annexed him to the presbytery of New York; which was reversed, and Mr. Sackett returned to his former presbytery.

In 1773, when the presbytery of Donegal were directed to proceed with the trial of Mr. Kennedy, they requested that some members of the synod might be joined with them on the trial; and it was ordered, that Messrs. Robert Smith, Latta, Foster, and Woodhull, be added to them for that purpose.

In 1786, the synod having been informed that several disorders had taken place within the bounds of the presbytery of Abingdon, appointed a

committee of six ministers to meet at Salem church, with power to cite such persons, subject to the jurisdiction of the synod, who had been concerned in these disorders, and if unanimous, to give judgment, otherwise to cite all parties to appear before the synod at their next meeting. Dr. Moses Hoge was the only member of the committee who attended; the excuses of the other members were sustained. The difficulties in question, however, were brought up by a complaint from the Salem church against the presbytery of Abingdon. One ground of this complaint, viz: that the presbytery had licensed a young man who was under suspension, was found upon examination to be unfounded. The synod appointed a committee to confer with the members of the presbytery who were at variance with each other, and by this means a reconciliation was effected. The synod earnestly recommended, inter alia, that so far as questions about psalmody were concerned, difference of opinion on the subject should not be made the ground of unchristian censure against either party; though they had allowed the use of Watts', they were far from disapproving of the old version. The synod at the same time found great fault with a printed letter addressed to the Rev. Mr. Balch, and ascribed to the Rev. Wm. Graham, and directed the presbytery of Lexington to cite Mr. Graham before them, and ascertain whether he was the author, and to censure or acquit him as they should see cause.

Our judicatories are sometimes so oppressed with judicial business, that it might be well, on some occasions, to resort to this old usage of our church, and appoint committees with plenary powers. Most men would be as willing to have a cause in which they were interested, decided by ten good men as by a hundred. Much time would thus be saved, and many details of evidence kept from coming before a large assembly.

THE SYNOD'S INTERCOURSE WITH OTHER CHURCHES

A liberal and catholic spirit has been characteristic of our church from the beginning. It has ever been ready to maintain Christian fellowship with all other evangelical denominations. In accordance with this spirit the synod of New York and Philadelphia, soon after its organization, sought fraternal intercourse with kindred churches both in Europe and America. At its first meeting in 1758, Messrs. Robert Cross, Gilbert Tennent, Francis Alison, and Richard Treat, were appointed a committee to correspond in the name of the synod with churches of our persuasion in Britain and Ireland, in these colonies and elsewhere. In the minutes for 1766, the churches mentioned as those with whom this correspondence was to be conducted, were those of Holland, Switzerland, the General Assembly and the Secession synod in Scotland, the ministers in and about London, the general synod of Ireland, the ministers of Dublin, New England, and the churches in South Carolina. The references to this correspondence in the records are very frequent; but as the letters written and received are not inserted, the minutes give no information on the subject, beyond the fact that a friendly intercourse with the several bodies above mentioned was maintained, particularly with the synod of North Holland, the general assembly in Scotland, and the church of Geneva, from all of which letters were received.

In 1769, at the request of several seceding ministers, Dr. Witherspoon moved in synod, that a committee be appointed to converse with them, with a view to bring about a union between them and this synod. A petition was presented at the same time from several inhabitants about Marsh creek, praying that the synod would use their endeavour to form a union with the Seceders. A committee, of which Dr. Witherspoon was chairman, was accordingly appointed for this purpose. The following year they reported, that by reason of several disappointments they had not been able to meet. In 1771, it is stated that this committee "brought in the minutes of their proceedings, and their conduct was highly approved." Certain questions had been submitted to the Associate presbytery, to which answers were reported to the synod in 1772. For want of time, however, they were not read, but

were referred to Dr. Witherspoon and others for consideration; who the next year reported, that as the Associate brethren had not given any answer to the proposal of the committee of synod made the year before, they had not thought it proper to make any further reply to those brethren, than that if any thing was to be done further towards a coalition between the Associate presbytery and the synod, the proposal must come from the former, which the committee would be ready to receive.3

This negociation does not appear to have been resumed until 1785, when the synod was informed, "that some of the brethren of the Dutch synod, and one of the members of the Associate reformed synod, had expressed a desire of some measures being taken to promote a friendly intercourse between the three synods, or for laying a plan for some kind of union among them, whereby they might be enabled to unite their interests and combine their efforts for promoting the cause of truth and vital religion; and at the same time giving it as their judgment that such plan was practicable. The synod," it is added, "were happy in finding such a disposition in the brethren of the above synods; and cheerfully concur with them in thinking that such a measure is both desirable and practicable, and therefore appoint Dr. Witherspoon, Dr. Jones, Dr. Rodgers, Dr. McWhorter, Dr. Smith, Mr. Duffield, Mr. Alexander Miller, Mr. Israel Reed, Mr. John Woodhull, and Mr. Nathan Ker, a committee to meet such committees as may be appointed by the low Dutch synod now sitting in New York, and by the Associate synod, to meet in that city next week, at such time and place as may be agreed upon; to confer with the brethren of said synods on this important subject; and to concert such measures with them for the accomplishment of these great ends as they shall judge expedient."

It appears from the minutes of the following year, that the committees of the three synods met in New York the 5th of October, 1785, and organized themselves as a convention. Their first measure was to appoint two members from each committee to digest the several subjects to be laid

before the convention. In this sub-committee the first inquiry was, what the formulas of doctrine and worship are to which each synod respectively adheres? The answer given by the Dutch members is not recorded; that given by the members from the synod of New York was quoted on a previous page; that of the members of the Associate synod is stated to have been, "in substance, very analogous to that made by the synod of New York and Philadelphia." It was then resolved, That the formulas and standards mentioned in the respective representations are mutually satisfactory, and lay a sufficient basis for the fraternal correspondence and concord of the several synods.

"The second inquiry was, whether the corresponding synods, in order to lay the foundation of entire confidence in each other, were willing to give solemn and mutual assurances of their vigilance and fidelity, in requiring of their ecclesiastical officers, an explicit and unequivocal assent to their present formulas or standards of discipline and faith; and will take such measures as to them respectively shall seem most reasonable and effectual to secure the same fidelity and orthodoxy in all time to come? The answer was unanimously given in the affirmative. Resolved, that the nature of these assurances be left to be determined by the convention.

"The third inquiry was, whether they will agree mutually to watch over each other's purity in doctrine and discipline; and whether they will agree mutually to receive complaints that may be made by either of the others against particular members of their respective bodies, who may be supposed to be departing from the faith, or from the exactness of their church discipline? Agreed in the affirmative; but that the mode shall be referred to the General convention.

"The fourth inquiry was, whether they would mutually promise to introduce and maintain the most exact discipline that the circumstances of the country and spirit of the people will bear? Resolved, that this is an article of the utmost importance; and resolved, moreover, that it be recommended to the convention, to consider of and adopt proper means for aiding the exercise of discipline by discouraging fugitives from it, out of any of the churches; and especially by not receiving any persons to church membership without sufficient credentials of their good moral character and orderly behaviour from the church to which they now immediately belong, or have lately belonged.

"The fifth inquiry related to grievances or causes of complaint that may have arisen between the ministers or congregations of the respective synods. Resolved, that they ought to be candidly heard, and the most speedy and effectual measures taken to redress them.

"The sixth and last inquiry, or proposition, respected some mode of establishing a visible intercourse and permanent correspondence between the several synods. Resolved, that this subject be referred to the consideration of the convention, but that it be recommended to the convention to establish an annual convention of the three synods by their delegates, which may consist at least of three ministers and three elders from each; and that the general objects of this convention be to strengthen each other's hands in the great work of the gospel ministry; to give and receive mutual information of the state of religion within their respective churches; to consider and adopt the most prudent means to prevent or remedy any causes of dissention that may happen to arise between our respective congregations, agreeably to the instructions that may be given by the respective synods; and to concert measures for uniting our efforts to defend and promote the principles of the gospel, and oppose the progress of infidelity and error; and to adopt plans for effectually assisting the exercise

of discipline in our churches, and encouraging each other in its execution; and for such other purposes as the convention may think proper. Resolved, to recommend that the first meeting of the above convention shall be held the second Tuesday of October, at New York, and afterwards at such time and place as shall be appointed at the preceding convention."

When this sub-committee of six made the above report to the general committee or convention, it was approved and adopted; and the several points referred by the subcommittee to the convention, were taken up and acted upon. "On the second inquiry it was resolved, that the manner in which the synods shall give a solemn pledge to each other of the formula of their faith which they have openly professed, and of their strict attachment to the same, shall be by an act of each synod, wherein an accurate recital of such formula shall be made, with a positive declaration that it is their sincere determination before God, always to abide by the same, for which purpose they honestly pledge themselves to the two other synods; which declaration and promise shall be signed by the president or moderator of the synod, and at the first convention to be formed by delegates from the respective synods, be read and entered upon the records of the convention, and copies of all the declarations be transmitted to each synod and entered upon their respective records; which records shall remain a perpetual witness against either party that shall ever deviate therefrom. And also that each synod shall communicate, by their respective delegates, the form of testimonials or credentials given to their candidates, and of those given to ordained ministers; which copies shall also be entered on the records of the respective synods.

"Resolved, on the third inquiry, that we will mutually watch over each other's purity in doctrine and discipline, and be ready to receive complaints against any of our ministers upon these subjects; and that the mode in which such complaint shall be preferred and prosecuted shall be, either by individuals, who shall prosecute in their own names, cum periculo; or by a

classis, presbytery, or synod of a sister church: in which case it shall be taken up and prosecuted as a fama clamosa, by the classis, presbytery, or synod to which the offender, or offenders, may belong; and the whole proceedings shall be transmitted, properly authenticated by the moderator, the president, the scribe or clerk, to the informing body for their satisfaction.

"On the fourth inquiry, resolved, that in order to aid the exercise of discipline, and discourage fugitives from it, every classis, presbytery, or synod, shall officially communicate to its neighbouring presbytery, classis, or synod, the name or names of every minister or candidate subject to censure, either of a lesser or higher nature; after which such presbytery, classis, or synod, shall be held to view and treat such minister or candidate as lying under ecclesiastical censure to all intents and purposes, as if they belonged to their own body, until such person or persons shall be regularly acquitted, or restored by the judicatory who had inflicted such censure.

"With reference to the fifth inquiry, relating to such grievances as may hereafter arise in congregations under the jurisdiction of the different corresponding synods, it is determined that such differences shall be referred to the consideration of a future convention. But as it is possible that some contingencies may arise which will render a call of the convention before the stated time of meeting necessary, it is resolved, that a power be lodged in the moderator of the convention, with the consent of one member at least from each synod, by circular letters to call an extraordinary convention, provided that such call be not more than once in one year.

"The convention thought proper to amend the resolution of their committee, by agreeing to a biennial instead of an annual convention.

"On motion to ascertain and limit the powers of the convention in all time to come, resolved, That those powers shall be merely of counsel and advice, and that it shall on no account possess judiciary or executive authority, and

every subject that shall come regularly before the convention, shall, after being properly digested, be referred to the respective synods, together with the opinion of the convention, and the reasons on which it is founded, for their judicial and ultimate decision.

"Agreed, that the convention shall, when met, set apart a certain portion of their time for social prayer to Almighty God, for his blessing on their counsels and the churches which they represent; and that said convention, whenever circumstances appear to them to require public and general humiliation or thanksgiving, shall recommend to the corresponding synods to set apart the same day to be observed throughout all their churches."

When this report was laid by the committee before the synod, that body "approved of their diligence and fidelity in the matter, and agreed to appoint a committee to meet such delegates as may be appointed by the other synods, on this business, in the city of New York, on the second Tuesday of October next," the day appointed for the convention. The synod prepared the following instructions for their delegation: "The delegates, on the part of this synod, are to inform the convention that this body is about to divide itself into four synods, subordinate to a general assembly; that they have under consideration a plan of church government and discipline, which it is hoped when completed, will be sufficient to answer every query of the convention upon that head; and that the mutual assurances mentioned in the minutes of the last convention may, as far as they respect this synod, be made more properly after the intended system is finished than at present. They are to assure the convention of the readiness and desire of this body, in the mean time, to unite in a consistent manner their influence with that of the other synods, in order to promote the spiritual interests and best good of the whole. And the delegates from this synod are to enter into a friendly conference with those of the other synod, and in conjunction with them, concert such measures as shall be best calculated to diffuse harmony and brotherly love through the several churches, and promote the interest of the

Redeemer's kingdom, and to make report of the whole to this synod at their next meeting. On motion, resolved, that the Rev. Doctors John Witherspoon, John Rodgers, Alexander McWhorter, Mr. Israel Read, Mr. John Woodhull, Mr. Nathan Ker, with the moderator, (Mr. Alexander Miller,) be appointed, and they are hereby appointed, delegates on behalf of this synod for the purposes above mentioned."

The next year it is simply recorded, "That the committee appointed to meet committees from the Reformed Dutch synod, and the Associate synod made report and delivered the minutes of the convention of the committees of the three synods, which met in New York last fall, which were read." As the convention was to be biennial no new appointment was made that year; but in 1788, we find it stated, that Dr. Witherspoon, Dr. Smith, Mr. John Woodhull, Mr. Armstrong, and Mr. Monteith, were appointed delegates on behalf of this synod to meet in convention with delegates from the Low Dutch synod, and the Associate reformed synod on the first Thursday of next October.

The preceding account throws no little light upon the character of our church at this period. It is evident, not only from the known strictness of the Reformed Dutch and Associate synods, but also from the character of the professions, pledges, and guarantees, mutually exacted, that thorough orthodoxy and strict fidelity to the standards of doctrine and discipline, were a necessary preliminary to the intercourse thus established; and that the preservation of that orthodoxy was one great object which the union was designed to answer. It must excite some surprise even in the stricter sort of presbyterians, to see the unanimity and readiness with which the delegates from our synod acceded to all the demands made upon them, and even consented to place, to a certain extent, the orthodoxy of their own members under the surveillance of the other synods. This was carrying the matter too far to last long; but it shows a state of feeling in our church which has long since departed. Could an intercourse, such as was here

provided for, somewhat modified, have been preserved, it would probably have been of great service to all the corresponding bodies. We might have gained and might have imparted good, and the character of the three synods been modified and improved by their reciprocal influence; and thus these three great bodies of presbyterians been brought into a more cordial fellowship with each other, and each elevated to a higher point of ecclesiastical and Christian excellence.

In 1766, an overture was presented to the synod, proposing that they should "endeavour to obtain some correspondence between the synod and the consociated churches of Connecticut. A copy of a letter from the synod to them was also read and approved; and the Rev. Messrs. John Ewing, and Patrick Alison, and the moderator, were desired to present that letter, and confer with our brethren on this affair. And in case it shall seem meet," it is added, "to our Reverend brethren to attend to this our proposal, so far as to appoint commissioners from their body to meet with commissioners from ours; we appoint the Rev. Dr. Alison, and the Rev. Messrs. Timothy Jones, William Tennent, John Rodgers, Elisha Kent, John Smith, John Blair, and Samuel Buel, to meet with them at such time and place as the Reverend brethren of Connecticut shall agree."

In consequence of this overture a convention of delegates was held at Elizabethtown in November, 1766, and a plan of union between the congregational, consociated, and presbyterian churches, was drawn up and reported the next year to the synod, and when amended was finally adopted by both parties. This plan was very simple, it provided,

"1. That a general convention be formed of the congregational, consociated, and presbyterian churches in North America, consisting of delegates from each of their respective bodies, to meet annually, or as often as may be thought necessary, and that the first general convention be held at New Haven the day after their next annual commencement.

"2. That this general convention shall not be invested with, nor shall it at any time hereafter assume any power, dominion, jurisdiction, or authority over the churches or pastors, or any church or pastor; nor shall any counsel or advice be asked or given in this general convention, relative to any internal debates subsisting, or that may subsist in any of these bodies thus united; and it is particularly agreed, that the congregational, consociated, and presbyterian churches, shall subsist entire and independent of each other, notwithstanding this union; retaining their peculiar usages and forms of government; nor shall ever any attempts be made, nor any authority, directly or indirectly, be used by this general convention to change or assimilate the same.

"3. That the general design of this convention be to gain information of this united cause and interest; to collect accounts relating thereto; to unite our endeavours and counsels for spreading the gospel, and preserving the religious liberties of our churches; to diffuse harmony and to keep up a correspondence throughout this united body, and with our friends abroad; to recommend, cultivate, and preserve loyalty towards the king's majesty; and also address the king or the king's ministers with assurances of the unshaken loyalty of the pastors comprehended in this union, and of the churches under their care; and to vindicate them if unjustly aspersed.

"4. That summary accounts of all the information and transactions in this general convention be, from time to time, duly transmitted to all the associations, presbyteries, or any other bodies that shall accede to or be included in this union."

It was agreed that letters should be written to the ministers of the congregational and presbyterian churches in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, and to the Reverend brethren of the Reformed Dutch church, inviting them to send delegates to the convention. And accordingly the following year, the Rev. Messrs. Parsons and

McGregore of the presbytery of Boston did attend; but afterwards the convention was almost exclusively composed of delegates from the synod and the churches of Connecticut.

It will be observed that in this wise plan, there was no attempt to amalgamate two different denominations; to give the one a voice in the government of the other. Every thing of this kind was carefully provided against. It was an union only in convention, and for objects in which the two churches had a common interest. This convention of delegates continued to be regularly held every year until the revolutionary war. The great and almost the only subject which occupied their attention, was opposition to the establishment of an American episcopate. In 1768, a letter was written on this subject by the direction of the convention to the committee in London, for managing the civil affairs of the Dissenters, setting forth their reasons for believing that such a measure was in contemplation, and their strong objections to its being carried into effect. To this letter an answer was received, in which the committee state, that they were fully aware of the many civil and religious inconveniences which would attend the introduction of diocesan bishops into America, and were determined to do all they could to oppose the measure. They at the same time informed the convention that, from the best authority they were assured the English government had, at that time, no such design. The correspondence thus commenced was continued, with some interruptions, from year to year; and was conducted principally through Dr. Alison of Philadelphia, Dr. Rodgers of New York, and the Rev. Mr. Whitman of Hartford. With the same general object in view, the convention appointed from time to time committees, to ascertain and report on the religious laws in force in the several colonies; on the acts of oppression to which nonepiscopalians in any of the provinces were subject; and on the proportion which the different denominations bore to each other in different parts of the country. In consequence of these appointments, several valuable reports were presented to the convention, which unhappily have not been

preserved. In 1774, it is stated that the Rev. Mr. Halsey of New Jersey, "delivered in a valuable detail of the first settlement of North Carolina, and of the ecclesiastical circumstances of the province in its different periods to the present time." Mr. Montgomery reported, that he had made some progress in collecting materials concerning the rise and progress of religious liberty, and in ascertaining the proportion of dissenters to the established church in Maryland; and Mr. Patrick Alison was requested to fix the proportion between these two classes on the western shore of that province. Dr. Rodgers stated that he expected to be ready to report on New York to the next convention. In 1775, a full and accurate account respecting Connecticut, was received from the Rev. Mr. Goodrich; and also an account of the number of episcopalians and non-episcopalians in that colony; for which he received the thanks of the convention. The troubles of the times soon put a stop to these labours; and the convention never met after that year.

It does not lie within the scope of the present work to enter fully, either into the history or the merits of the controversy respecting an American episcopate. It will be proper, however, to say enough on the subject to enable the reader, to form a judgment of the propriety of the course taken by the presbyterian church in so decidedly opposing the measure. After several unsuccessful attempts had been made at an earlier period, to induce the English government to send one or more bishops to America, the effort was renewed by a voluntary convention of the episcopal clergy of New York and New Jersey, who prepared a petition on the subject to be forwarded to Europe, and requested the Rev. Dr. Bradbury Chandler of Elizabethtown, to write and publish an appeal to the public in behalf of the measure. This appeal was published in 1767, and presents the claims of the episcopal church in this country to the enjoyment of a complete organization with great force and ingenuity. The appeal was answered by Dr. Charles Chauncey of Boston; and the matter soon became a subject of general

controversy throughout the country; even the weekly papers were made the vehicles of vehement arguments on both sides.

According to Dr. Chandler it was proposed, "That the bishops to be sent to America shall have no authority but purely of a spiritual and ecclesiastical nature, such as is derived altogether from the church and not from the state. That this authority shall operate only upon the clergy of the church, and not upon the laity or upon dissenters of any denomination. That the bishops shall not interfere with the property or privileges, whether civil or religious, of churchmen or dissenters. That in particular, they shall have no concern with the probate of wills, letters of guardianship and administration, or marriage licenses, nor be judges of any cases relating thereto. But that they shall only exercise the original powers of their office, i.e. ordain and govern the clergy, and administer confirmation to those who shall desire it." Against a plan so reasonable as this it is difficult to see what objection could be made. As diocesan bishops are an essential part of an episcopal church, necessary to ordain, confirm, and exercise discipline, it would seem to be a hard case that the numerous churches already formed in this country, should be deprived of this part of their system; that the clergy should be without supervision; and that candidates for orders should be obliged to make a long and expensive voyage to obtain ordination. The fact, therefore, that strenuous and united opposition was made to the introduction of American bishops, needs explanation. As far as the presbyterian church is concerned, we should be sorry that it should lie under the imputation of having resisted the reasonable wishes of another denomination to the enjoyment of their own ecclesiastical system.

It should be stated then, that there would have been no opposition to the plan as above presented, had there been any reasonable prospect of its being adhered to. Against bishops who should derive their authority "altogether from the church and not from the state," no voice was raised. The convention of the synod of New York and Philadelphia and the churches of

Connecticut, say: "We would by no means have it understood as if we would endeavour to prevent an American bishop, or archbishop, or patriarch, or whatever else they might see fit to send, provided other denominations could be safe from their severity and encroachments." And Dr. Chauncy in his reply to the Appeal, says: "We desire no other liberty than to be left unrestrained in the exercise of our religious principles, in so far as we are good members of society. And we are perfectly willing that episcopalians should enjoy this liberty to the full. If they think bishops in their appropriated sense, were constituted by Christ or his apostles, we object not a word to their having as many of them as they please, if they will be content to have them with authority altogether derived from Christ. But they both claim and desire a great deal more. They want to be distinguished by having bishops on the footing of a state establishment."2 And again, "Dr. Chandler quite mistakes the true ground of our dissatisfaction. It is not simply the exercise of any of their religious principles that would give us any uneasiness; nor yet the exercise of them under as many purely scriptural bishops as they could wish to have; but their having bishops under a state establishment, which would put them upon a different footing from the other denominations, and, without all doubt, sooner or later expose them to many difficulties and grievous hardships." The same sentiment is expressed by Dr. Mayhew, in his Observations on the charter and conduct of the Society for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts; and also by the American Whig.

The opposition, therefore, was not to bishops with purely spiritual authority, but to bishops sent by the state with powers ascertained and determined by act of parliament. The mere fact that this opposition was so general, and that it was as strong, though not as universal, among episcopalians as among the members of other denominations, is a proof that it did not owe its origin to any ungenerous bigotry. If the Massachusetts legislature opposed it, so did the house of burgesses in Virginia. The former body, in a letter to their agent in London, dated January 12, 1768, say: "The

establishment of a protestant episcopate in America, is also very zealously contended for; and it is very alarming to a people whose fathers, from the hardships which they suffered under such an establishment, were obliged to fly from their native country into a wilderness, in order peaceably to enjoy their privileges, civil and religious. Their being threatened with the loss of both at once must throw them into a very disagreeable situation. We hope in God such an establishment will never take place in America, and we desire you would strenuously oppose it." In Virginia, when a convention was called to consider the propriety of petitioning for a bishop, only twelve out of a hundred ministers in the province attended, and of those twelve four protested against the decision to forward a petition. And soon after the house of burgesses, by an unanimous vote, thanked the protesters "for the wise and well timed opposition they had made to the pernicious project of a few mistaken clergymen for introducing an American bishop." If any thing more is necessary to show the character of this opposition, it may be found in the fact, that as soon as this country was separated from England, and thus all fear of the civil power of the bishops removed, all objection to their introduction was withdrawn.

This apprehension of danger to the religious liberty of the country was not a feverish dread of imaginary evils. It was even better founded than the apprehension of danger to our civil liberties from the claim of the British parliament to a right to tax the country. As the episcopal church was established in England, and as those who had the control of the government were members of that church, the episcopalians in America were naturally led to be constantly looking for state patronage and legal support. They claimed it as a right, that the support and extension of the episcopal church in this country should be made a national concern. Even Dr. Chandler, although his work was written to disarm prejudice and allay apprehensions, could not avoid letting this be distinctly seen. "It has been the practice of all Christian nations," he tells us, "to provide for and maintain the national religion, and to render it as respectable as possible in the most distant

colonies;" and, "as some religion has ever been thought, by the wisest legislators, to be necessary for the security of civil government, and accordingly has always been interwoven into the constitution of it, so in every nation that religion which is thus distinguished, must be looked upon as, in the opinion of the legislature, the best fitted for this great purpose. Wherever, therefore, the national religion is not made in some degree a national concern, it will commonly be considered as an evidence that those who have the direction of the national affairs do not esteem their religion; or that they are negligent of the duty they owe to God, and the public, as guardians of its happiness." He then proceeds to give the reasons why "the church of England in America appears not hitherto to have been made a national concern;" reasons which, he says, may account for, although not altogether excuse this neglect. It was this very thing, which Dr. Chandler considered so much a matter of course, that other denominations deprecated and dreaded. They denied the right of the British government thus to distinguish the episcopal church, especially in the northern provinces, where its members, even at this period, hardly constituted the thirtieth part of the population. They denied the fairness of its being made a national concern to the detriment and oppression of other denominations. The whole history of the country showed that the authorities in England acted constantly on the plan of giving the church of England, in this country, all the ascendency that could with safety be secured for it. In those colonies where the thing was possible, that church was established by law; in others, the public were taxed for its support, or national property assigned for its maintenance.

In South Carolina, according to Dr. Ramsay, the presbyterians were among the first settlers of the country; and, in connexion with the independents, they organized a church in 1690, and in the early part of the eighteenth century a presbytery was formed agreeably to the principles and practice of the church of Scotland. The episcopalians had no minister until 1701; and, in 1710, formed less than a half of the population; though even then several

of the French presbyterian churches had gone over to them. Yet in 1696, provision was made by law for an episcopal clergyman, in Charleston, who was to be allowed one hundred and fifty pounds sterling a year, together with a house, glebe, and two servants. As nothing was yet said of an establishment, this law excited little dissatisfaction. Soon after, however, the church of England was fully established; a salary of one hundred pounds out of the public treasury was allowed to each of its ministers, and all denominations were taxed for building its churches. In 1703, a law was passed which "required every man who should be chosen a member of the assembly to take the oaths and subscribe the declaration appointed, to conform to the religion and worship of the church of England; and to receive the Lord's Supper according to the rites and usages of that church." The proprietors inserted a clause into the constitution of the colony to the following effect: "As the country comes to be sufficiently planted, it shall belong to the parliament to take care for the building of churches, and the public maintenance of divines to be employed in the exercise of religion according to the church of England, which being the only true and orthodox, and the national church of all the king's dominions, is so also of Carolina; and, therefore, it alone shall be allowed to receive public maintenance by act of parliament."5 The result, therefore, in Carolina, of making the church of England a national concern, was, that other denominations were not only taxed for its support, but were also debarred from a seat in the legislature.

As Virginia was more of an episcopal colony from the beginning, there was less ground of complaint for the mere establishment of the English church. The severity of her ecclesiastical laws, however, admits of no justification. In 1618, it was enacted, "that every person should go to church on Sundays and holydays, or lie neck and heels that night, and be a slave to the colony the following week. For a second offence, he should be a slave for a month; and, for a third, a year and a day." In 1624, a law requiring strict conformity, as near as might be, in substance and circumstance, to the

canons of the church of England, was passed. And in 1642, it was enacted that no minister should officiate within the province who could not produce a certificate of his ordination by some English bishop, and promise to conform to the orders and constitution of the church of England; and the governor and council were authorized to compel any one who transgressed this law to depart the country. Severe laws also were passed against the quakers, and subsequently against the baptists. Even the rights guarantied by the Virginia act of toleration, were repeatedly violated in the case of presbyterians. Before the revolutionary war the dissenters had increased so much that it is said the episcopalians did not constitute more than one-third of the inhabitants of the province.3 Yet even in those parishes in which there were very few members of the established church, the dissenters were obliged to purchase glebes, build churches, and make provision for the support of the clergy. This was felt to be a great grievance in a new country, and among a poor people. It is prominently presented as an unreasonable burden in the memorial presented to the legislature by the presbytery of Hanover, in 1776. The conduct of some of the New England provinces in reference to the episcopal dissenters within their bounds, was very different. They were relieved from all payments in support of the "standing churches," when they were an inconsiderable minority of the population.

The early ecclesiastical history of Maryland is very much of a riddle. From all that appears, however, it may be fairly referred to as affording another example of the church of the minority being, by the force of the authorities in England, made the established religion of the province. Maryland, though originally settled by Roman catholics, was soon furnished with a population of a very mixed religious character. When the proprietary government was overthrown, in 1651, the first act of the legislature was to pass an intolerant law denying even protection to the Catholics, and granting liberty of conscience and worship to such as professed faith in God by Jesus Christ, provided this liberty was not extended to popery and prelacy. At this period, therefore, the episcopalians must have been in the minority. Five and twenty

years later they were still very inconsiderable in numbers. Under the date 1676, Dr. Hawks remarks: "Hitherto our narrative has been silent with respect to the protestant episcopal church in Maryland. The reason is obvious, for though there were members of that church living within the province, yet they were not numerous." Notwithstanding their fewness they complained that no provision was made by law for the support of their clergy. These complaints were referred by the bishop of London to the committee of plantations, who called Lord Baltimore, (who had before this been restored to his authority,) to account on the subject. His lordship answered, that all denominations were upon a level in Maryland, and that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get the assembly to make a law obliging any denomination of Christians to support other ministers than their own.3 "This answer," says Dr. Hawks, "did seem to satisfy the committee, for they declared that, in their opinion, there should be some maintenance for the clergy of the church, and that his lordship should propose means for the support of a competent number." The revolution of 1688, which placed William III. upon the throne of England, led to a similar revolution in Maryland. In 1691, Maryland was made a royal government; and, in 1692, the church of England was established; the country was divided into thirty parishes, and provision made for building churches, and for the support of the clergy. It can hardly be supposed that such a sudden revolution had occurred in the religious sentiments of the people, that the episcopalians, who were so few in 1676, had become the majority of the population in 1692. In 1694, the new governor "found but three clergymen on his arrival; and they," it is added, "had been able to remain, only because they were possessed of property to support them: these three had to contend with double their number of priests belonging to the church of Rome. 'There was also a sort of wandering pretenders to preaching, that came from New England and other places, which deluded not only the protestant dissenters from our church, but many churchmen themselves, by their extemporary prayers and preachments, for which they were admitted by the people, and got money of them.' " There can be little doubt, therefore, that the

episcopalians, compared to the catholics and protestant dissenters, were a minority of the people. Their connexion, however, with the government at home gave them an ascendency, and the whole province was taxed for the support of their worship.

However burdensome upon dissenters the laws for the support of the church of England may have been, there was less ground of complaint in reference to those colonies where that church was established by colonial legislation, on the part of those dissenters who entered them after those laws were enacted. They knew what they had to expect, and acted with their eyes open. We must look to those provinces where the episcopal church was not established, and notice the claims of its members, and the conduct of the authorities of England in relation to it, if we would learn their true spirit and purpose at this period. In the provinces north of Maryland, the episcopalians, even so late as 1767, 8, when they had greatly increased, principally by the accession of proselytes, did not constitute the thirtieth of the population. In New York they were about the twentieth; or, towards the beginning of the century, the twenty-fifth. Notwithstanding this great inferiority in numbers, and notwithstanding these provinces were settled by other denominations, and with the exception of New York, were either charter or proprietary governments, yet the conduct of the royal governors, the demands of the episcopal clergy, and the action of the authorities in England, all showed a purpose to gain and secure, as far and as fast as possible, an ascendency for the church of England, and furnished abundant reason for the anxious apprehension of the people for their religious liberty.

The fundamental assumption on which the conduct of the parties above mentioned rested, was that the episcopal church was the national established church in all the king's dominions, Scotland only, and not the colonies, excepted; that other denominations were merely tolerated, and consequently were entitled to nothing more than the act of toleration allowed them; whereas the church of England was entitled to a legal

provision, to national support, and the exclusive favour and patronage of the government. This ground was taken more or less openly, on different occasions and by different persons, according to their disposition or discretion; and it was the only ground on which the language of the most cautious could be either justified or explained. At times this position was assumed with perfect plainness. A writer who stiles himself a member of the Society for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts, undertakes to demonstrate first, that the churches in New England were not, and secondly, that the episcopal church was there established. With regard to this second point he says, "Though it is undeniably manifest that the church of England is established by the act of union, (between England and Scotland,) yet it may not be so clear that this establishment actually took place before that time." To show, however, that it took place from the very settlement of the country, he quotes another episcopal writer who says, "The Christian religion, as by its evidence and intrinsic excellence, it recommended itself to the English government, so it became by law the religion of the English nation; and the church of England likewise became by law their national church; and when any part of the English nation spread abroad into colonies, as they continued part of the nation, the law obliged them equally to the church of England and the Christian religion. And the statutes for the establishment of the service, ordination, and articles of this church, made and confirmed before and at the union of the two kingdoms, settle and establish it alike in the dominions of England, and in the realm itself." This writer then quotes various acts of parliament made in the reigns of Edward VI., Elizabeth, and Charles II., in which repeated use is made of the phrase "his majesty's dominions," as fixing the limits of the established church, The great reliance, however, of these writers was upon the act of union. In the fifth year of Queen Anne, "It was enacted, that all acts of parliament then in force, for the establishment and preservation of the church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, should remain and be in full force for ever; and that every king and queen succeeding to the royal government of the kingdom of Great Britain, at his

or her coronation, should take and subscribe an oath to maintain and preserve inviolably, the said settlement of the church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established within the kingdoms of England and Ireland, the dominion of Wales, and the town of Berwick on Tweed, and the territories thereunto belonging."2 As the North American colonies were territories belonging to the kingdom of Great Britain, it was confidently inferred that the church of England was established here by this act, if never before.

The Rev. Mr. Wetmore of Connecticut, took the same ground, with equal decision and greater insolence. "Men," he says, "not only consistently with their duty may, but to discharge their duty, must be of the communion of the church of England, if they are members of the nation of England." In reference to the charge of schism, which had been brought against the episcopal proselytes in Connecticut, he says, "If the congregations, the forsaking of which is called schism, be themselves founded in schism and unjustifiable separation from the communion of the church of England; or in their present constitution must necessarily be esteemed abettors and approvers of schism, disorders, usurpation, contempt of the chief authority Christ has left in his church, or any such like crimes, then such congregations, whatever they may call themselves, and whatever show they may make of piety and devotion in their own ways, ought to be esteemed in respect of the mystical body of Christ, only as excrescences or tumors in the body natural, or perhaps as fungosities in an ulcerated tumor, the eating away of which by whatever means tends not to the hurt, but to the soundness and health of the body."2 In another place he says, on the assumption that the constitution of the national church is regular and good, "It may surely be urged on every man that is English, that belongs to this nation, and is properly a part of it, in whatever corner of it he may live, that his duty obliges him to be of the communion of the church of England." And again, "Every one who makes a part of this nation owes reverence and submission to them, (the bishops,) under Christ, and may esteem our

Saviour's words to his disciples applicable to such prelates; 'He that despiseth you despiseth me.' "4 The awful crime of schism begun in England, he argues, could not be washed away by crossing the ocean, into "a new country dependent on, and a part of the nation of England." The doctrine of this whole Tract is, that the church of England is the established church of the nation of England; the colonies are a part of that nation, and therefore are bound not only morally but legally to be of the communion of that church, or to take the benefit of the act of toleration.

This was the doctrine not merely of heated partisans, but of men in high stations and authority. It has already been stated, that the proprietors of South Carolina distinctly assumed this ground. "The church of England being the only true, and orthodox, and national church, of all the king's dominions, is so also of Carolina." And they drew from the principle the legitimate inference, when they added, "And therefore it alone shall be allowed to receive public maintenance by grant of parliament," i.e. the provincial parliament.

When Lord Cornbury was made governor of New York and New Jersey, in 1702, he was instructed and enjoined by the government, to take special care that the book of common prayer, as by law established, should be read every Sunday and holyday, and the blessed sacrament administered according to the rites of the church of England; that churches should be repaired, or built; that a competent maintenance be provided for the clergy, with a house and glebe in each parish, all at the common charge; and he was forbidden to prefer any man to any benefice who had not a certificate from the bishop of London. These instructions related to colonies in one of which the episcopalians, at that time, were six hundred to fifteen thousand, and in the other, twelve hundred to thirty thousand. Lord Cornbury acted up to these directions with a zeal which even his most determined friends must have thought indiscreet. Our limits forbid our entering upon details, which is less necessary, as the complaints and apprehensions of the non-episcopal

inhabitants of the colonies were not founded on mere specific acts of injustice or oppression, so much as upon the avowed or tacit adoption of the principle, that the English ecclesiastical laws extended to this country. This assumption was openly made when the Rev. Mr. McKemie was imprisoned by the order of Lord Cornbury for preaching in New York. On his trial, he was charged by the attorney general with contemning the queen's ecclesiastical supremacy; with using other rites and ceremonies than those contained in the common prayer book; with preaching without proper qualification, at an illegal conventicle, all which was declared to be contrary to the English statutes.

The same principle was assumed in the case of the application of the presbyterian church in New York for a charter. Their petition was opposed by the vestry of Trinity church, on the ground that it could not be granted consistently with the acts of uniformity, nor with the king's coronation oath, by which he was bound to uphold the church of England, not only in England and Ireland, but in all the territories thereunto belonging. The provincial authorities considered this too grave a question for them to decide, and therefore referred it to the government at home. The bishop of London appeared repeatedly before the committee of the privy council in opposition to the petition, and it was finally decided that, without expressing an opinion as to these legal questions, it was on grounds of general policy inexpedient to grant the presbyterians any greater privileges than they were entitled to by the act of toleration. This was virtually a decision of the whole case, for it assumed that act to be in force in New York, which, from its nature was impossible, unless the acts of uniformity, from whose penalties it provided exemption, were also in force. Hence Dr. Chauncy had good reason to say, "That decision was an alarm to all the colonies on the continent, giving them solemn notice what they might expect should episcopalians ever come to have the superiority in their influence." And what does Dr. Chandler say to this case? "How far," he says, "the grant would have interfered with the king's coronation oath, it

becomes me not to say; those to whom it was referred were the proper judges; and in their opinion the petition could not consistently be granted. It is the unquestionable duty of his majesty's most honourable privy council, to advise him against whatever is thought by them to imply a breach of the coronation oath; it is a duty more peculiarly incumbent upon any such bishops as his majesty thinks fit to call up to that high trust. If, therefore, the bishop of London, upon the above principle, was more active than others in opposing the measure, it was because his station required it. If general policy, in the opinion of the lords of trade, was also against the grant, they were obliged to discountenance it; and the petitioners, I conceive, ought to rest satisfied, especially as it was a mere favour which was requested, and more than was thought to be allowed by the laws of toleration. I have been moreover told, that, besides the reasons assigned, a particular policy with regard to the presbyterians in New York, concurred to defeat the petition. It was the belief at home, that the church of England had been treated with peculiar malevolence by some of those very persons whose names were annexed to that petition. It was, therefore, not unnatural to suspect that any additional power put into the hands of such persons, would, as opportunity should offer, be exerted against the church." This dread of power in the hands of presbyterians is peculiarly edifying, when it is remembered that the power asked for was the right to hold their church and grave-yard in their own name, instead of being obliged to vest them in the general assembly of the church of Scotland. If episcopalians, who claimed all the power and privileges granted by the English laws to the church of England, might dread such a power as that, surely presbyterians may be excused for standing a little in awe of them.

We see from the above extract that Dr. Chandler yielded a very cordial assent to the decision that the king's coronation oath bound him to consider the acts, by which the church of England was established, as extending to the colonies; and that he took it for granted the act of toleration was the measure of the liberties and privileges of the non-episcopal churches in

America. The coronation oath was founded on the act of union between England and Scotland. At the time of the union, the Scotch stipulated that the united parliament should have no power to disturb their ecclesiastical constitution; and the English stipulated that each succeeding sovereign should swear to maintain the church of England as by law established. The object, therefore, of the act in question was to protect the church of England, and not to establish it where it did not then exist. Such being its design, it will be seen how monstrous was the assumption, that it upset all the charters of the New England colonies; rendered void all the contracts with the proprietary governments; nullified all the colonial laws relating to ecclesiastical matters, and established the church of England even in Massachusetts and Connecticut, where, at the time of its passage, that church could hardly be said to have had an existence.

As another instance of the latitude of construction given by those in authority, to the English ecclesiastical laws, may be mentioned the letter of the Lords Justices in England to the Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, in 1725. A request had been made to the authorities of that province, by the pastors, to be allowed to hold a synod. When this request reached the ears of those in power in England, the justices wrote a severe letter to the governor for allowing the matter to be agitated. They say they can find no warrant for holding such a synod, "but if such synods might be holden, yet they take it to be clear in point of law, that his majesty's supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs being a branch of the prerogative, does take place in the plantations; and synods cannot be held, nor is it lawful for the clergy to assemble as in synods, without authority from his majesty." In case the synod had actually met before these instructions came to hand, the lieutenant governor "was to cause their meeting to cease, acquainting them that their assembly is against law and a contempt of his majesty's prerogative, and that they are forbid to meet any more."

A still stronger illustration is afforded by the history of New Hampshire. When that province was erected into a separate government, in 1679, it was ordered that all protestants should be tolerated, "and that those especially as shall be conformable to the rites of the church of England shall be particularly countenanced and encouraged." In 1684, an order was issued by the governor and council, requiring the ministers to admit all persons of suitable age, and not vicious, to the Lord's Supper, and their children to baptism, and enjoining, in case any one wished either of the sacraments to be administered according to the liturgy, it should be done, in pursuance to the king's command, in the colony of Massachusetts; and any minister who refused obedience to this order was to suffer the penalties of the statutes of uniformity. This declaration was not an idle threat: the Rev. Mr. Moody, of Portsmouth, having refused to administer the Lord's Supper in the form prescribed, was sentenced to six months imprisonment. The same instructions given to Lord Cornbury as governor of East and West Jersey, were given to the governor of this province, with the addition that no one from England was to be allowed to act as schoolmaster, who was not furnished with a certificate from the bishop of London, and no other person without the governor's license.

The non-episcopal denominations, therefore, in this country, had abundant cause for alarm. From South Carolina to New Hampshire, they saw the power and influence of the government exerted to give ascendency to the episcopal church. This object was constantly though cautiously pursued. It was natural that it should be so. The arguments which were adduced to prove that the church of England was entitled to this ascendency, were sufficiently plausible to command the assent of those who were anxious to be convinced. And the motives of policy in behalf of the measure, were sufficiently obvious to make all see that the English government would pursue it as far as it could be done with safety. Here, as in the contest about taxation, it was not the pressure of the particular acts of injury or indignity that produced the dissatisfaction; but the power that was claimed. The

assumption was the same in both cases, viz: that America was part of the nation of England, that the power of the king and parliament was here what it was there. Hence on the one hand, the inference that the British parliament could here levy what taxes they pleased; and on the other, that the king's supremacy in ecclesiastical matters, extended to the colonies; that every Englishman who came to America, did but remove from one part of the nation to another; that he stood in the same relation to the national church in this country, as he had done in England. It is readily admitted that as there were some English statesmen who denied the authority of parliament to tax America, so there were many distinguished men who denied that the ecclesiastical laws of England were in force in this country. But in both cases the interest, and bent, and general course of the government, were against the liberties of the colonies.

Another cause of irritation and uneasiness, was the conduct of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts. The principal complaints urged against it were, first, that instead of sending missionaries to the heathen, according to the primary object of its institution, it devoted its resources, in a great measure, to the American colonies. The society was successfully vindicated on this point by its various advocates. It was proved that its charter contemplated the colonies as a prominent if not the chief field of its labours. And when we consider the immense extent and crying destitution of this country, we shall be more disposed to wonder and complain that the society did so little, than that it did so much for its relief. A second ground of complaint was more plausible. It was urged that instead of sending their missionaries where they were really needed, they sent them to New Englend where they were not wanted. At this time there were at least five hundred and fifty educated ministers in New England, and not a town, unless just settled, without a pastor, unless it was in Rhode Island. That there was ground for this complaint against the society, is admitted by its ablest and most dignified defender, who says, "In all that I have hitherto said, I am far from intending to affirm that the society hath not laid out in

Massachusetts and Connecticut too large a proportion of the money put into their hands, considering the necessities of the other provinces."2 It is not to be wondered at that the people of New England felt irritated by having the numerous missionaries of a powerful society located among them, where their most ostensible object was not to supply the destitute, but to make proselytes from established congregations. The claims and conduct of these missionaries, in many cases, greatly increased this irritation. They spoke of all the inhabitants of the town in which they lived, as their parishioners; as bound both by the law of God and the state to be in communion with the church of England; as having no authorized ministers or valid ordinances; as belonging to churches which were mere excrescences or fungosities.

It was principally from the missionaries of this society that the demand for American bishops proceeded. It has already been stated how small a portion of the Virginia clergy concurred in the application. The origin of the plan, therefore, was not likely to recommend it to the public. For all the legitimate purposes of a bishop, such an officer was most needed where episcopalians were the most numerous. That the request came from the provinces where they were a small minority, could not fail to produce the apprehension, that the bishop's influence was to be used to give that minority still greater ascendency.

If the source whence this application emanated excited apprehension, the grounds on which it was urged did not tend to allay these fears. It is true the plan was exhibited with much plausibility in Dr. Chandler's Appeal. He frequently asserts that the power of the proposed bishop was to be derived altogether from the church and not from the state; that he was not to be received on the ground of a state-establishment. In this he was no doubt sincere; but he and his readers differed widely as to the meaning of the terms here employed. If the bishop was not to receive any power from the state, why was he to be sent by act of parliament? Dr. Chandler says, that when bishops were first proposed for this country, they were spoken of as

suffragans, whose duty it was to discharge offices merely episcopal, according to the direction, and by virtue of a commission from the diocesan. And he gives his readers to understand that such bishops were still desired. Then why did not the bishop of London consecrate and commission them without troubling parliament about the matter? There was no legislative act necessary to authorize the sending of deacons, priests, or commissaries, to this country; why then was such an act required to authorize the sending a suffragan bishop? Dr. Chandler informs us, however, that when the Society for the propagation of the Gospel first undertook this business, they "began by making all proper representations of the case to the Queen, (Anne); they proceeded to purchase a house in New Jersey for the residence of a bishop, and after duly preparing the way, obtained an order from the crown for a bill to be drawn and laid before parliament for establishing an American episcopate." He confirms his representation by the following extract from the published proceedings of the society. "A representation was humbly offered to her majesty, importing what number of bishops was expedient to be sent, where they were to be fixed, and what revenues might be thought proper for their support. To which her majesty was pleased to give a most gracious answer, highly satisfactory to the society; and a draught of a bill was ordered proper to be offered to parliament for establishing bishops and bishopricks in America." Now whatever Dr. Chandler might think on the subject, this was a plan for introducing bishops on the footing of a state-establishment. They were to be sent by the state; their residence, revenues, and powers, were to be ascertained by the state; all, or at least the last, were to be fixed by act of parliament. No one at all acquainted with the temper of that period, or who knows the power which the authorities in England were accustomed to see in the hands of a bishop, can wonder that not only the non-episcopal clergy, but also episcopal laymen rose in opposition to this plan; that the house of burgesses in Virginia unanimously protested against it. If parliament was to determine the extent of these episcopal powers, the country had good reason to be assured they would be made as large as was consistent with

safety. It was a plan to let episcopalians say how much power episcopal bishops should have over other denominations.

Though Dr. Chandler says, it was not intended to allow the American bishops to hold ecclesiastical courts, or to interfere with questions relating to wills, marriage, guardianship, &c.; yet he clearly intimates that it would be nothing unreasonable if important civil powers were to be conferred upon them. "There is not," he says, "the least prospect at present, that bishops in this country will ever acquire any influence or power, but what shall arise from a general opinion of their abilities and integrity, and a conviction of their usefulness; and of this no persons need dread the consequences. But should the government see fit hereafter to invest them with some degree of civil power worthy of their acceptance, which it is impossible to say they will not, although there is no appearance that they ever will; yet as no new powers will be created in favour of bishops, it is inconceivable that any would thereby be injured. All that the happiness and safety of the public require, is, that the legislative and executive power be placed in the hands of such persons as are possessed of the greatest abilities, integrity, and prudence; and it is hoped that our bishops will always be thought to deserve this character." If episcopalians were afraid to allow presbyterians an act of incorparation to enable them to hold their church and graveyard, lest they should use the power against the church, could presbyterians be expected to regard with indifference legislative or executive power in the hands of an episcopal bishop, especially when the nature and extent of that power were to be determined by the English government?

Another ground of apprehension related to the support of these bishops. The country had abundant reason to expect that this burden would, sooner or later, be thrown upon the public. Wherever the government were able to effect the object, they had already thrown the support of the episcopal clergy upon the community. This had been done in South Carolina, Virginia,

and Maryland. To a certain extent it had been done in New York; and the royal governors in other provinces, had orders to accomplish the same object as far as possible. With regard to the bishops, Dr. Chandler says, indeed, that there was no intention to tax the country for their support; yet he distinctly recognises both the right and reasonableness of such a tax. "Should," says he, "a general tax be laid upon the country, and thereby a sum be raised sufficient for the purpose; and even supposing we should have three bishops on the continent, which are the most that have been mentioned, yet I believe such a tax would not amount to more than four pence in a hundred pounds. And this would be no mighty hardship to the country. He that could think much of giving the six thousandth part of his income to any use which the legislature of his country should assign, deserves not to be considered in the light of a good subject or member of society." What mighty hardship to the country was a tax of three pence on a pound of tea? Yet how great a fire that little matter kindled. Dr. Chandler evidently assumed two things, which America never would quietly submit to. The one was, that the English parliament had a right to lay a general tax upon the country; and the other, that they had a right to tax the whole community for the support of the episcopal church. Here was the old error, viz: that America was part of the nation of England, and consequently that the parliament had the same power here as there; and that the episcopal church was the national church in the one country as well as in the other.

The political motives urged by Dr. Chandler in support of his plea for bishops, were not suited to conciliate special favour to the plan. "Episcopacy and monarchy," he says, "are, in their frame and constitution, best suited to each other. Episcopacy can never thrive in a republican government, nor republican principles in an episcopal church." Experience has proved this opinion to be incorrect. The episcopal church never flourished in this country so much as since the establishment of the republic. Dr. Chandler goes on to say, that as episcopacy and monarchy "are mutually adapted to each other, so they are mutually introductive of each

other. He that prefers monarchy in the state, is more likely to approve of episcopacy in the church than a rigid republican. On the other hand, he that is for parity and a popular government in the church, will more easily be led to approve of a similar form of government in the state, how little soever he may suspect it himself. It is not then to be wondered, if our civil rulers have always considered episcopacy as the surest friend of monarchy; and it may reasonably be expected from those in authority, that they will support and assist the church in America, if from no other motives, yet from a regard to the state, with which it has so friendly and close an alliance." As there was at this time a rapidly increasing dread of the power of the mother country, the consideration that the introduction of bishops would tend to increase that power, and strengthen the government was not suited to allay apprehension or to conciliate favour.

This long detail respecting a controversy now almost forgotten, may be excused since it relates to an important chapter in the history not only of our church but of the country. This controversy had more to do with the revolution than is generally supposed; and a knowledge of the leading facts in the case is necessary to free presbyterians, and other denominations, from the charge of unreasonable and bigotted opposition to a church fully entitled to confidence and affection. Before the revolution the episcopal church, from its connexion with the English government, and from its claim to be regarded as a branch of a great national establishment, was justly an object of apprehension. And this apprehension was confirmed and deepened by a long series of encroachments on the rights of other denominations. After the revolution, that church ceased to be the church of England, and became the protestant episcopal church in the United States. Since she has taken her stand on equal terms with sister churches, she is the object of no other feelings than respect and love, wherever she consents to acknowledge that equality.

THE CONDUCT OF THE SYNOD IN REFERENCE TO THE REVOLUTION

After reading the preceding section, no one need be at a loss to conjecture the part taken by the synod in relation to the great struggle for the liberties of America. The position in which the presbyterians and other nonepiscopal denominations stood to the English government, naturally placed them in the opposition. The declaration of the English parliament, "That the king's majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, had, hath, and of right ought to have full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever;" was quite as alarming in reference to the religious as to the civil liberties of the people. No one doubted that the English parliament believed an established church desirable, or that the episcopal church was, in their opinion, the best and safest form of religion; and no one could doubt, as they claimed the power, they would give that church an effective establishment in every colony sufficiently under their control. In almost every province, all denominations, except the episcopal, were regarded as merely tolerated in their own country, and were subject to many unjust demands peculiar to themselves. It was impossible that the great majority of the people could be treated as inferiors; could be denied privileges which they considered their due; or that they could see a small minority of their fellow citizens regarded as standing in an alliance to the state peculiarly friendly and close, and on that account treated with special favour, without being discontented and uneasy. The declaration of independence was for all such, a declaration of religious, as well as of civil liberty. It is not surprising, therefore, that the non-episcopal clergy entered into the conflict with a decision which, in many cases, would render it more easy to prove that they did too much, than that they did too little.

If it was natural that presbyterians should side with America in that hour of trial, it was no less natural that the episcopal clergy should side with the mother country. They had no peculiar grievances to complain of, nor any fear for the liberty of their church. On the contrary, it was to England they looked for support, for patronage, for legal provision, for that property and pre-eminence which they thought due to them as a branch of the national church. Besides, many of them were born, and all had been ordained in England, and personally had taken an oath of allegiance. They were bound, therefore, by peculiar ties; ties, which, it can well be imagined good men would find it hard to break. Instead, therefore, of its being a matter of surprise that the majority of the episcopal clergy took part with England, the wonder is that so many sided with America. Those who did so, did it at a great sacrifice. They contended against their own apparent interests; and were either very enlightened patriots, or very indifferent churchmen. Considering, then, the peculiar circumstances of the episcopal clergy at that time, so far from being disposed to make it a matter of reproach that they adhered to their allegiance to the mother country, we are disposed to think that, as a general rule, they were those of most moral worth, and most entitled to respect, who took this course. This, however, must not be considered as an injurious reflection on the patriot clergy. While some of them took commissions in the army, others remained faithful at once to religion and their country. The venerable Bishop White, an ornament to the church universal, was for a long time the chaplain of congress, and acted with deliberation, and wellconsidered principle in the course which he adopted. The laymen of the episcopal church did not feel themselves trammelled in the same manner, or to the same extent as the ministers, and hence some of the most prominent and influential of the public leaders of the day belonged to that church.

The part taken by presbyterians in the contest with the mother country, was, at the time, often made a ground of reproach; and the connexion between their efforts for the security of their religious liberty, and opposition to the

oppressive measures of parliament, was then distinctly seen. Mr. Galloway, a prominent advocate of the government, ascribed, in 1774, the revolt and revolution mainly to the action of the presbyterian clergy and laity as early as 1764, when the proposition for a general synod emanated from a committee appointed for that purpose in Philadelphia. This was a great exaggeration and mistake, but it indicates the close connexion between the civil and religious part of the controversy. The same writer describes the opponents of the government, as an "united faction of congregationalists, presbyterians, and smugglers." Another writer of the same period says, "You will have discovered that I am no friend to presbyterians, and that I fix all the blame of these extraordinary American proceedings upon them."2 He goes on, "Believe, sir, the presbyterians have been the chief and principal instruments in all these flaming measures; and they always do and ever will act against government, from that restless and turbulent anti-monarchical spirit which has always distinguished them every where when they had, or by any means could assume power, however illegally."

As the conduct of the presbyterian clergy during the revolutionary war is not a matter of dispute, all that we are called upon to do, is briefly to exhibit the action of the synod in reference to this subject. One of the first exercises of the power claimed by parliament to impose taxes on America, was the passage of the stamp-act in 1764. The opposition to this measure was so general and vehement, that the British government thought proper to repeal the act, though they accompanied the repeal with the strongest declarations of their right to tax the colonies at discretion. In the controversy relating to this subject, the synod of New York and Philadelphia publicly expressed their sympathy with their fellow citizens. As soon as the repeal was known in this country, "An overture was made by Dr. Alison, that an address be presented to our sovereign on the joyful occasion of the repeal of the stampact, and thereby a confirmation of our liberties; and at the same time proposing a copy of an address for examination, which was read and approved," but not recorded. The synod also addressed a pastoral letter to

the churches, filled with patriotic and pious sentiments. They remind the people, that after God had delivered the country from the horrors of the French and Indian war, instead of rendering to him according to the multitude of his mercies, they had become more wicked than ever. "The Almighty thus provoked, permitted counsels of the most pernicious tendency, both to Great Britain and her colonies. The imposition of unusual taxes, a severe restriction of our trade, and an almost total stagnation of business, threatened us with universal ruin. A long suspense whether we should be deprived of, or restored to a peaceable enjoyment of the inestimable privileges of English liberty, filled every breast with painful anxiety." They express their joy that government had been induced to resort to moderate measures, instead of appealing to force; and call upon the people to bless God, who, notwithstanding their sins, had saved them from the horrors of a civil war. They, finally, earnestly exhort their people not to add to the common stock of guilt, but "to be strict in observing the laws and ordinances of Jesus Christ; to pay a sacred regard to his Sabbaths; to reverence his holy name, and to adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour by good works. We pray you," say the synod, "to seek earnestly the saving knowledge of Christ, and the internal power and spirit of religion. Thus may you hope for the continued kindness of a gracious Providence; and this is the right way to express your gratitude to the Father of mercies for your late glorious deliverance. But persisting to grieve his Holy Spirit by a neglect of vital religion, and a continuance of sin, you have reason to dread that a holy God will punish you yet seven times more for your iniquities."

In this letter, as in all the public documents issued before the declaration of independence, there are strong expressions of loyalty, and of the wish to preserve inviolate the union with the mother country. In the declaration of rights by the congress held at New York, in October, 1765, it is said, "The members of this congress, sincerely devoted with the warmest sentiments of affection and duty to his majesty's person and government, inviolably attached to the present happy establishment of the protestant succession,

&c. &c., esteem it our indispensable duty to make the following declarations of our humble opinion respecting the most essential rights and liberties of the colonists." The first declaration is, "That his majesty's subjects in these colonies, owe the same allegiance to the crown of Great Britain, that is owing from subjects born within the realm, and all due subjection to that august body the parliament of Great Britain." And the congress held at Philadelphia, September, 1774, in their address to the people of Great Britain, say, "You have been told that we are seditious, impatient of government, and desirous of independence. Be assured that these are not facts, but calumnies. Permit us to be as free as yourselves, and we shall ever esteem an union with you to be our greatest glory and our greatest happiness; we shall ever be ready to contribute all in our power to the welfare of the empire; we consider your enemies as our enemies, and your interests as our own." There is every reason to believe that these declarations were as sincere as they were general. The American patriots regarded separation from the mother country as a great evil; and to the last moment cherished the hope that some accommodation might be made, which should secure them the enjoyment of their rights, and avoid the necessity of a violent separation.

As the indications of the coming conflict began to multiply, the synod endeavoured to prepare their people for the trial. Almost every year they appointed days for special prayer and fasting, and presented "the threatening aspect of public affairs," as one of the most prominent reasons of their observance. In 1775, the record on this subject is to the following effect: "The synod considering the present alarming state of public affairs, do unanimously judge it their duty to call all the congregations under their care, to solemn fasting, humiliation, and prayer; and for this purpose appoint the last Thursday of June next to be carefully and religiously observed. But as the continental congress are now sitting, who may probably appoint a fast for the same purpose, the synod, from respect to that august body, and for greater harmony with other denominations, and for the

greater public order, if the congress shall appoint a day not above four weeks distant from the said last Thursday of June, order that the congregations belonging to this synod, do keep the day appointed by congress in obedience to this resolution; and if they appoint a day more distant, the synod order both to be observed by all our communion. The synod also earnestly recommend it to all the congregations under their care, to spend the afternoon of the last Thursday in every month, in public solemn prayer to God, during the continuance of our present troubles." This recommendation of the observance of a day for prayer every month, was frequently repeated during the war.

In this memorable year also, the synod addressed a long and excellent letter to the churches. It thus begins: "The synod of New York and Philadelphia, being met at a time when public affairs wear so threatening an aspect, and when, unless God in his sovereign providence speedily prevent it, all the horrors of a civil war throughout this great continent are to be apprehended, were of opinion that they could not discharge their duty to the numerous congregations under their care, without addressing them at this important crisis. As the firm belief and habitual recollection of the power and presence of the living God, ought at all times to possess the minds of real Christians; so in seasons of public calamity, when the Lord is known by the judgments which he executeth, it would be an ignorance or indifference highly criminal, not to look up to him with reverence, to implore his mercy by humble and fervent prayer, and if possible, to prevent his vengeance, by timely repentance. We do, therefore, brethren beseech you, in the most earnest manner, to look beyond the immediate authors, either of your sufferings or fears, and to acknowledge the holiness and justice of the Almighty in the present visitation." The synod then exhort the people to confession and repentance; reminding them that their prayers should be attended with a sincere purpose and thorough endeavour after personal and family reformation. "If thou prepare thine heart and stretch out thine hand

towards him, if iniquity be in thine hands put it far away, and let not wickedness dwell in thy tabernacles."

They considered it also a proper time to press on all of every rank, seriously to consider the things which belong to their eternal peace, saying, "Hostilities long feared, have now taken place; the sword has been drawn in one province; and the whole continent, with hardly any exception, seem determined to defend their rights by force of arms. If at the same time the British ministry shall continue to enforce their claims by violence, a lasting and bloody contest must be expected. Surely then it becomes those who have taken up arms, and profess a willingness to hazard their lives in the cause of liberty, to be prepared for death, which to many must be certain, and to every one is a possible or probable event.

"We have long seen with concern, the circumstances which occasioned, and the gradual increase of this unhappy difference. As ministers of the gospel of peace, we have ardently wished that it might be, and often hoped that it would have been more early accommodated. It is well known to you, otherwise it would be imprudent indeed thus publicly to profess, that we have not been instrumental in inflaming the minds of the people, or urging them to acts of violence and disorder. Perhaps no instance can be given on so interesting a subject, in which political sentiments have been so long and fully kept from the pulpit; and even malice itself has not charged us with labouring from the press. But things have now come to such a state, that as we do not wish to conceal our opinions as men and citizens, so the relation in which we stand to you, seemed to make the present improvement of it to your spiritual benefit, an indispensable duty."

Then follows an exhortation directed principally to young men, who might offer themselves as "champions of their country's cause," to cultivate piety, to reverence the name of God, and to trust his providence. "The Lord is

with you while ye be with him; and if ye seek him, he will be found of you; but if ye forsake him, he will forsake you."

After this exhortation the synod offered special counsels to the churches as to their public and general conduct.

"First: In carrying on this important struggle, let every opportunity be taken to express your attachment and respect to our sovereign King George, and to the revolution principles by which his august family was seated on the British throne. We recommend, indeed, not only allegiance to him from principle and duty, as the first magistrate of the empire, but esteem and reverence for the person of the prince, who has merited well of his subjects on many accounts, and who has probably been misled into his late and present measures by those about him; neither have we any doubt, that they themselves have been in a great degree deceived by false representations from interested persons residing in America. It gives us the greatest pleasure to say, from our own certain knowledge of all belonging to our communion, and from the best means of information of far the greatest part of all denominations in this country, that the present opposition to the measures of administration, does not in the least arise from disaffection to the king, or a desire of separation from the parent state. We are happy in being able with truth to affirm, that no part of America would either have approved or permitted such insults as have been offered to the sovereign in Great Britain. We exhort you, therefore, to continue in the same disposition, and not to suffer oppression or injury itself easily to provoke you to any thing which may seem to betray contrary sentiments. Let it ever appear that you only desire the preservation and security of those rights which belong to you as freemen and Britons, and that reconciliation upon these terms is your most ardent desire.

"Secondly, be careful to maintain the union which at present subsists through all the colonies. Nothing can be more manifest than that the success

of every measure depends on its being inviolably preserved; and, therefore, we hope you will leave nothing undone which can promote that end. In particular, as the continental congress, now sitting at Philadelphia, consists of delegates chosen in the most free and unbiassed manner, by the body of the people, let them not only be treated with respect, and encouraged in their difficult service; not only let your prayers be offered up to God for his direction in their proceedings, but adhere firmly to their resolutions; and let it be seen that they are able to bring out the whole strength of this vast country to carry them into execution. We would also advise for the same purpose, that a spirit of candour, charity, and mutual esteem be preserved and promoted towards those of different religious denominations. Persons of probity and principle of every profession, should be united together as servants of the same Master; and the experience of our happy concord hitherto in a state of liberty, should engage all to unite in support of the common interest; for there is no example in history in which civil liberty was destroyed, and the rights of conscience preserved entire.

"Thirdly, we do earnestly exhort and beseech the societies under our care to be strict and vigilant in their private government, and to watch over the morals of their several members." This duty is urged at some length, and then the letter proceeds thus:

"Fourthly, we cannot but recommend and urge in the warmest manner, a regard to order and the public peace; and as in many places, during the confusion that prevails, legal proceedings have become difficult, it is hoped that all persons will conscientiously pay their just debts, and to the utmost of their power serve one another, so that the evils inseparable from a civil war, may not be augmented by wantonness and irregularity.

"Fifthly, we think it of importance at this time, to recommend to all of every rank, but especially to those who may be called to action, a spirit of humanity and mercy. Every battle of the warrior is with confused noise and

garments rolled in blood. It is impossible to appeal to the sword without being exposed to many scenes of cruelty and slaughter; but it is often observed that civil wars are carried on with a rancour and spirit of revenge much greater than those between independent states. The injuries received or supposed, in civil wars, wound more deeply than those of foreign enemies. It is, therefore, more necessary to guard against this abuse, and recommend that meekness and gentleness of spirit which is the noblest attendant on true valour. That man will fight most bravely who never begins to fight till it is necessary, and who ceases to fight as soon as the necessity is over.

"Lastly, we would recommend to all the societies under our care, not to content themselves with attending devoutly on general fasts, but to continue habitually in the exercise of prayer, and to have frequent occasional voluntary meetings for solemn intercession with God on this important trial. Those who are immediately exposed to danger need your sympathy; and we learn from the Scriptures, that fervency and importunity are the very characters of that prayer of the righteous man that availeth much. We conclude with our most earnest prayer, that the God of heaven may bless you in your temporal and spiritual concerns, and that the present unnatural dispute may be speedily terminated by an equitable and lasting settlement on constitutional principles."

The Rev. Mr. Halsey, it is recorded, dissented from that paragraph of the above letter, which contains the declarations of allegiance. This gentleman, it seems, was at least a year in advance, not only of the synod, but of congress. This pastoral letter contains a decided and unanimous expression, on the part of the synod, of the side which it took in the great struggle for the liberties of America. It certainly does them and the church which they represented, great honour. They adhered to the last to the duties which they owed their sovereign; they approved of demanding no new liberties; they

required only the secure possession of privileges which they were entitled to consider as their birth-right.

A month after the publication of this letter the presbyterian clergymen of Philadelphia, published an address to the ministers and presbyterian congregations of the county of ——, in North Carolina. It seems that there were some presbyterians in that province, who hesitated as to the course which they ought to take in the coming conflict This is the more to be wondered at, as North Carolina was in advance of almost any province on the continent in its opposition to the British authorities. They had already driven away their governor, and set up a government of their own; and on the 20th of May, 1775, was issued the famous Mecklenburg declaration of independence, more than a year before congress ventured upon that step. The name of the county is left blank in the title page of this address. The Philadelphia ministers say to their North Carolina brethren: "It adds greatly to our distress to hear that you are some how led aside from the cause of liberty and freedom, by men who have given you an unfair representation of the debate between the parent country and her colonies." They make strong professions of loyalty, and appeal to the declarations of congress on the subject; and add, "We want no new privileges; let us continue connected with them as we were before the stamp act, and we demand no more." They refer also to the pastoral letter of the synod, which they beg their brethren to read. They then recount the grievances of the country, especially the claim on the part of the British parliament, of the power "to make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever. By virtue of this power," it is added, "they have established popery in Quebec, and the arbitrary laws of France, and why may they not do the same in Pennsylvania or North Carolina?" "What shall we then do," it is asked, "in these days of trouble and distress? We must put our trust in God, who is a present help in the time of trouble; but we must depend on him in the use of means; we must unite, if possible, as one man, to maintain our just rights; not by fire and sword, or by shedding the blood of our fellow subjects, unless we are driven to it in self-defence, but by

strictly observing such resolutions neither to export nor import goods, as may be recommended by our general congress." Signed July 10th, by Francis Alison, James Sproat, George Duffield, and Robert Davidson.

The presbytery of Hanover, in a memorial presented to the legislature of Virginia in 1776, expressed with earnestness their hearty adoption of their country's cause. "Your memorialists," they say, "are governed by the same sentiments which have inspired the United States of America; and are determined that nothing in our power or influence shall be wanting to give success to their common cause. We would also represent that dissenters from the church of England, in this country, have ever been desirous to conduct themselves as peaceable members of the civil government, for which reason they have hitherto submitted to several ecclesiastical burdens and restrictions, that are inconsistent with equal liberty. But now when the many and grievous oppressions of our mother country have laid this continent under the necessity of casting off the yoke of tyranny, and of forming independent governments upon equitable and liberal foundations, we flatter ourselves we shall be freed from all the incumbrances which a spirit of domination, prejudice, or bigotry, hath interwoven with our political systems. This we are the more strongly encouraged to expect, by the declaration of rights, so universally applauded for that dignity, firmness, and precision with which it delineates and asserts the privileges of society, and the prerogatives of human nature, and which we embrace as the magna charta of our commonwealth, that can never be violated without endangering the grand superstructure it was destined to sustain."

As at the beginning, so also at the close of the war, the synod directed a pastoral letter to their congregations expressing their sentiments in relation to the contest. In the letter written in 1783, they say: "We cannot help congratulating you on the general and almost universal attachment of the presbyterian body, to the cause of liberty and the rights of mankind. This has been visible in their conduct, and has been confessed by the complaints

and resentment of the common enemy. Such a circumstance ought not only to afford us satisfaction on the review, as bringing credit to the body in general, but to increase our gratitude to God for the happy issue of the war. Had it been unsuccessful, we must have drunk deeply of the cup of suffering. Our burnt and wasted churches, and our plundered dwellings, in such places as fell under the power of our adversaries, are but an earnest of what we must have suffered, had they finally prevailed.

"The synod, therefore, request you to render thanks to Almighty God, for all his mercies spiritual and temporal; and in a particular manner for establishing the independence of the United States of America. He is the supreme disposer, and to Him belong the glory, the victory, and the majesty. We are persuaded you will easily recollect many circumstances in the course of the struggle, which point out his special and signal interposition in our favour. Our most remarkable successes have generally been when things had just before worn the most unfavourable aspect; as at Trenton and Saratoga at the beginning, in South Carolina and Virginia towards the end of the war." They specify among other mercies the assistance derived from France, and the happy selection "of a commander in chief of the armies of the United States, who, in this important and difficult charge, has given universal satisfaction, who was alike acceptable to the citizen and the soldier, to the state in which he was born, and to every other on the continent; and whose character and influence, after so long service, are not only unimpaired but augmented."

In a history designed to exhibit the character of the presbyterian church, some notice of the part taken by its members, and especially by its ministers, in an event so important as the revolutionary war, to the religious as well as the civil destiny of our country, could not be omitted. Enough has been said to show that her influence was thrown upon the side of liberty; upon that side which the most scrupulous Christian moralist, unless he denies the lawfulness of war under all circumstances, must pronounce to be

the side of justice and of human happiness. We now turn to the more strictly ecclesiastical portion of our narrative.

FORMATION OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION

The great increase of the church, and the manifold inconveniences consequent on all the ministers being required to attend every year the meetings of the synod, led in 1786 to the adoption of the resolution: That the synod would establish out of its own body, three or more synods; out of which shall be composed a general assembly, synod, or council, agreeably to a system hereafter to be adopted. A committee was accordingly appointed to prepare a plan of division. This committee recommended the formation of four synods, viz: First, the synod of New York and New Jersey to be composed of the presbyteries of Dutchess, Suffolk, New York, and New Brunswick. Second, the synod of Philadelphia to consist of the presbyteries of Philadelphia, Lewes, Newcastle, Baltimore, and Carlisle. Third, the synod of Virginia to include the presbyteries of Redstone, Hanover, Lexington, and Transylvania. Fourth, the synod of the Carolinas to consist of the presbyteries of Abingdon, Orange, and South Carolina. The committee further recommended the formation of a general assembly to be composed of delegates from the several presbyteries in the proportion of one minister and one elder for every six members. This report was subsequently adopted, but the proposed division was not to take effect until the formation of the new constitution.

In order to prepare such a constitution, the synod appointed Drs. Witherspoon, Rodgers, Sproat, Duffield, Alison, and Ewing, Mr. Matthew Wilson and Dr. Smith ministers, and Isaac Snowden, Robert Taggart, and John Pinkerton, elders, a committee to examine the book of discipline and government, and digest such a system as they should think adapted to the state of the presbyterian church in America. As soon as this draught was ready, the committee were directed to have it printed and sent down to the

presbyteries, who were required to report in writing their observations upon it at the next meeting of the synod. This committee performed the duty assigned them; and in 1787, the presbyteries were called upon for their observations on the plan which had been submitted to their consideration. The plan was then discussed at much length, section by section, and various amendments adopted. When this process was completed, the form of government thus adopted was printed, and again transmitted to the presbyteries "for their consideration, and for the consideration of the churches under their care."

The synod then "took into consideration the last paragraph of the twentieth chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith; the third paragraph of the twenty-third chapter, and the first paragraph of the thirty-first chapter, and having made some alterations, agreed that the said paragraphs as now altered, be printed for consideration together with the draught of a plan of government and discipline. The synod also appointed a committee to revise the Westminster Directory for public worship, and to have it, when thus revised, printed together with the draught, for consideration. And the synod agreed, that when the above proposed alterations in the Confession of Faith shall have been finally determined upon by this body, and the Directory shall have been revised as above directed and adopted by the synod, the said Confession thus altered, and the Directory thus revised and adopted, shall be styled, The Confession of Faith and Directory for public worship of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America."

It appears that the synod were not entirely unanimous, at least in the first instance, in reference to these measures. When the proposed plan of government was transmitted to the presbytery of Suffolk, that body addressed a letter to the synod, "praying that the union between them and the synod might be dissolved." The synod appointed a committee to attend a meeting of that presbytery, and to enter on a free conversation with them on

the nature of their difficulties. At the same time the following letter was sent to the presbytery in question.

"Reverend and dear Brethren:

"We received a letter from you dated, April 11, 1787, which both surprised and grieved us, by informing us 'that you think it needful that the union between you and us should be dissolved.' We are surprised that a matter of so much importance as breaking the peace and unity of the church should be so suddenly gone into, without our receiving any information of the matter in respect to any previous things leading to such an event. We declare that we have done nothing, which we know of, that should be so much as a matter of offence to you, much less a ground of withdrawment or separation. We have always supposed that you as brethren with us, believed in the general system of doctrine, discipline, worship, and church government, as the same is contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Directory. You inform us 'that your local situation renders it inconvenient to maintain the union.' This is the same that ever it was, when we took sweet counsel together, strengthened each others' hands in the advancement of the cause of our dear Redeemer, stood firm in opposition to the enemies of our religion, and greatly comforted and encouraged one another.

"You say, 'that concurrence with the draught of the form of government and discipline for the presbyterian church in North America is impracticable.' That is only a draught or overture for amendment, and we should have rejoiced much to have had your company and aid in pointing out those impracticabilities, and in altering, correcting, and completing the said draught. We apprehend that there are no principles in it different from the Westminster Directory; only the same rendered more explicit in some things, and more conformable to the state and circumstances of the presbyterian church in America.

"You likewise add 'the churches in your limits will not comply therewith.' Perhaps those churches, from some cause unknown to us, may have hastily imbibed groundless prejudices, which by taking some pains with them, and by giving a proper explanation of the matter, might be readily removed. We are fully of opinion that the general principles in the said draught contain the plan of church discipline and government revealed in the New Testament, and are conformable, (allowance being made for the differences in the states of civil society and local circumstances,) to the practices and usages of the best reformed churches.

"Wherefore, dearly beloved brethren, in the bowels of brotherly love, we intreat you to reconsider the resolution expressed in your letter. You well know that it is not a small thing to rend the seamless coat of Christ, or to be disjoined parts of that one body his church. We are all members one of another. There should be no schism in the body, but we should comfort, encourage, and strengthen one another by the firmest union in our common Lord. We are presbyterians, and we firmly believe the presbyterian system of doctrine, discipline, and church government, to be nearer to the word of God than that of any other sect or denomination of Christians. Shall all other sects and parties be united among themselves for their support and increase, and presbyterians divided and subdivided, so as to be the scorn of some and the prey of others? In order to testify to you the high sense we entertain of the importance of union in the presbyterian body in America, we have appointed a committee, viz: the Rev. Dr. Rodgers, Dr. McWhorter, Mr. Roe, Mr. John Woodhull, and Mr. Davenport, to wait on you, to converse with you, and to endeavour to remove difficulties.

"Therefore we request the moderator of your presbytery to call the same together to meet our committee at Huntingdon on the first Wednesday in September, for these purposes, at which time and place our committee are appointed to attend. That you may, in a spirit of candour and love, reconsider your resolution, and continue in a state of union with us, and that

we may, by our united efforts, advance the kingdom of our glorious Redeemer, is the earnest prayer of your affectionate and grieved brethren."

The committee above named, reported the following year to the synod, that after a full and amicable conference with the Suffolk brethren, the latter withdrew their request for a dismission, as appeared from the following extract from their minutes. "The presbytery of Suffolk met at Brook Haven, April 8, 1788, according to appointment. Entered upon the consideration of the petition sent to the Rev. synod of New York and Philadelphia at their last sessions, requesting a dismission from their body; and after deliberating on it, came to the following conclusion, viz: to withdraw the petition."

It is known also, that the Rev. Matthew Wilson was far from being satisfied with the form of government ultimately adopted. The only intimation of this fact contained in the minutes is a record to the following effect: "A petition from the Rev. Dr. Matthew Wilson, detained by bodily indisposition, respecting the draught of the form of government, was presented and read. Ordered, that it lie on the table."

It does not appear that this dissatisfaction extended to any considerable number of the members; at least there is not the slightest intimation on the minutes of the want of perfect unanimity, It is there recorded, that the "synod having fully considered the draught of the form of government and discipline, did, on a view of the whole, and hereby do ratify and adopt the same as now altered and amended, as the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, and as the rule of their proceedings by all inferior judicatories belonging to this body. And they order that a correct copy be printed, and the Westminster Confession of Faith, as now altered, be printed in full along with it, as part of the constitution.

"Resolved, That the true intent and meaning of the above ratification by the synod is, that the Form of Government and Discipline, and the Confession of Faith, as now ratified, are to continue to be our constitution and

confession of faith, and practice unalterably, unless two thirds of the presbyteries, under the care of the general assembly, shall propose alterations or amendments, and such alterations or amendments shall be agreed to and enacted by the general assembly."

The synod having also "revised and corrected the Directory for Worship, did approve and ratify the same, and do hereby appoint the said Directory, as now amended, to be the Directory for the public worship of God in the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. They also took into consideration the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and having made a small amendment of the Larger, did approve, and do hereby approve and ratify the said Catechisms, as now agreed on, as the Catechisms of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. And the synod order that the said Directory and Catechisms be printed and bound up in the same volume with the Confession of Faith and Form of Government and Discipline, and that the whole be considered as our standard of doctrine, government, discipline, and worship, agreeably to the resolutions of the synod at its present sessions.

"Ordered, that Dr. Duffield, Mr. Armstrong, and Mr. Green, be a committee to superintend the printing and publishing of the above said Confession of Faith and Catechisms, with the Form of Govornment and Discipline, and the Directory for the worship of God, as now adopted and ratified by the synod, as the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America; and that they divide the several parts into chapters and sections properly numbered."

After this work was finally accomplished, it was resolved unanimously, "That this synod be divided, and it is hereby divided into four synods, agreeably to an act made and provided for in the sessions of synod in the year 1786, and this division shall commence on the dissolution of the present synod.

"Resolved, That the first meeting of the general assembly to be constituted out of the above synods be held, and it is hereby appointed to be held on the third Thursday of May, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine, in the Second Presbyterian church in the city of Philadelphia, at eleven o'clock A. M.; and that Dr. Witherspoon, or, in case of his absence, Dr. Rodgers open the general assembly with a sermon, and preside until a moderator be chosen."

After appointing the time and place of meeting of the several synods, the synod of New York and Philadelphia was dissolved; and the session was concluded with prayer.

Thus closed the career of this venerable synod, after an existence of thirty years actively and usefully employed. During this period the church had rapidly increased. The synod had received an accession of about two hundred and thirty new members; it had grown from eight to sixteen presbyteries, and had under its care above four hundred and twenty congregations. Of these about forty were in the state of New York, and three hundred and eighty in the middle and southern states. Nothing could prove more decisively the origin and general character of the great mass of our church, up to this period. The overwhelming majority of its members were located in those portions of the country which had been settled by Scotch and Irish presbyterians.

With regard to the synod it may be remarked that it consisted in the general, of liberally educated men. Of the two hundred and thirty new members, more or less, received after the union in 1758, about one hundred and twenty were graduates of the college of New Jersey, and from twenty to twenty-five graduates of Yale. Of the residue many were educated in Europe, or at the University of Pennsylvania, or at the Newark academy in Delaware, or at Pequea, or, during the latter part of the period under review, at Hampden Sydney college, or at the Washington Academy in Virginia. It

hence appears, that the great body of our ministers, as well as of our people, were born and educated within the bosom of the Presbyterian Church.

The members of this synod were, to a remarkable degree, harmonious in their doctrinal views. There is no indication of diversity of opinion on any important subject; there were no doctrinal controversies, and but one instance of the infliction of censure for erroneous opinions. Besides this negative evidence, we have the positive proof to be found in the frequent declarations of the adherence of the synod to the Westminster Confession, and the unanimous adoption of that formula as a part of the new constitution.

The strictly presbyterian character of the synod is manifest from its records, which may challenge, as to this point, a comparison with those of any similar body. The men who professed to derive their ecclesiastical "origin from the church of Scotland;" who declared that they "adopted her standards of doctrine, discipline, and worship," and whose ecclesiastical proceedings are so fully in accordance with their professions, cannot be suspected of a want of presbyterianism.

A much more interesting point is the religious character of the synod. On this subject little can be learned from the minutes. The impression, however, made by the plan of union adopted in 1758; by the tone and sentiments of the numerous documents having reference to practical subjects; by the frequent appointment of days for special religious observance; by the care taken to promote the religious education of the young, and to maintain a high standard of piety in the ministry; and by the efforts made to extend the blessings of the gospel to the destitute, is that, as a body, the synod of New York and Philadelphia was distinguished for its piety. And this impression is confirmed by the fact, that so large a number of its members are still held in grateful remembrance as devoted servants of God.

As to the state of religion throughout the church during this period, neither the limits of this work, nor the materials at the command of the writer, admit of its being here fully considered. It is known that, in general, the gospel was faithfully preached, that many new churches were organized, and old congregations were enlarged. It is known, also, that in many parts of the church there were revivals to a greater or less extent. Under the administration of Dr. Finley, there was, as already mentioned, a revival in the college of New Jersey, during which about fifty of the students became members of the church. There were frequent seasons of this kind also in Pennsylvania, especially under the ministry of Mr. McMillan, Mr. J. Smith, and Mr. Powers. With regard to Virginia, it is stated, "that from the consitution of the Hanover presbytery, (1755,) to the removal of Mr. Davies, (1759,) the progress of religion was more rapid than from that time to the division of the presbytery, (1770.) In the latter of these periods, it appears to have been declining as to the life and power of it, in those places where before it was most flourishing; but it spread to other places, and the church was extended much further during this period. And though there was no remarkable revival of religion, it was gradually taking root in a few in many places." The period from the division of the presbytery until the formation of the general assembly, was marked by several revivals. That which occurred within the bounds of the presbytery of Hanover, "was begun and carried on principally under the ministry of the Rev. J. B. Smith, who had charge of the congregations of Cumberland and Briery. The word at this time appeared to have a peculiar effect on the minds of the people. All who attended seemed to feel in some measure; and many were deeply affected, turned from their wicked practices, and earnestly engaged in seeking the favour of God. Some of these impressions soon wore off, but generally they continued for some time. A considerable number of those that were awakened obtained a comfortable hope of their acceptance with God, and joined the church. The manner of the Spirit's operation was similar to what has been known in revivals, very various, yet producing the same effects in essential points. This work seemed to go on for several years, without any

abatement of the fervour which appeared at first; but, as might be expected, this at length subsided."2 It is further stated, that, "at this time a greater attention to religion than usual prevailed through the whole country."

Nearly at the same time there "was a very considerable revival within the bounds of the Lexington presbytery. It began, and continued to prevail most, in the congregations of Lexington and New Monmouth, which were under the pastoral care of the Rev. William Graham, but extended more or less into all the congregations within the bounds of the presbytery. It prevailed considerably in Washington Academy, so that many who were at that place, have since been licensed to preach the gospel of Christ, and are now settled in the congregations of this and the adjoining presbyteries."

The effects of the revolutionary war on the state of our church were extensively and variously disastrous. The young men were called from the seclusion of their homes to the demoralizing atmosphere of a camp; congregations were broken up; churches were burnt, and in more than one instance pastors were murdered; the usual ministerial intercourse and efforts for the dissemination of the gospel, were in a great measure suspended, and public morals in various respects deteriorated. From these effects it took the church a considerable time to recover; but she shared, through the blessing of God, in the returning health and prosperity of the country, and has since grown with the growth, and strengthened with the strength, of our highly favoured nation.

A LIST

OF THE

MEMBERS OF THE SYNOD OF NEW YORK AND PHILADELPHIA,

FROM 1758 TO 1788, INCLUSIVE

The years as given in the list, indicate the first appearance of the names of the new members on the minutes, which was in many cases some years after their ordination. The letter P. is placed after the names of the graduates of the college at Princeton, New Jersey; Y. after those of the graduates of Yale; and H. after the graduates of Harvard. The word "received," is placed after the names of those who were admitted as ordained ministers from other churches; and the place whence they were received is mentioned, whenever it was stated on the minutes.

1758.

Presbyteries.

Philadelphia, Gilbert Tennent, ʺ Charles Beatty, ʺ Richard Treat, Y. ʺ Henry Martin, P. ʺ Robert Cross, ʺ Francis Alison, ʺ Benjamin Chesnut, P. ʺ Andrew Hunter, ʺ Nehemiah Greenman, Y. ʺ William Ramsey, P. ʺ David Laurence, ʺ John Kinkead, ʺ John Griffiths, New Castle, George Gillespie,

ʺ John Rodgers, New Castle, Adam Boyd, ʺ Samuel Finley, ʺ Hector Alison, ʺ Daniel Thane, P. ʺ Charles Tennent, ʺ William McKennan, ʺ Alexander McDowell, ʺ James Finley, ʺ John Blair, ʺ Alexander Hucheson, ʺ Andrew Sterling, ʺ Andrew Day, New York, David Bostwick, ʺ Andrew Kittletas, Y. ʺ Aaron Richards, Y. New York, Nathaniel Whitaker, P. ʺ Caleb Smith, ʺ Alexander Cummings, ʺ John Brainerd, Y. ʺ John Pierson, Y. ʺ Timothy Jones, Y. ʺ Jacob Green, H. ʺ Jonathan Elmore, Y. ʺ Simon Horton, Y. ʺ John Smith, ʺ Chauncy Graham, Y. ʺ Enos Ayres, P. ʺ John Moffat, P. ʺ John Darby, ʺ Timothy Allen, Y. ʺ John Maltby, Y.

ʺ Hugh Knox, P. ʺ Silas Leonard, Y. Suffolk, Ebenezer Prime, Y. ʺ Benjamin Talmagc, ʺ Abner Reeves, Y. ʺ James Brown, Y. ʺ Sylvanus White, ʺ Samuel Buel, Y. ʺ Samuel Sackett, ʺ Eliphalet Ball, Y. ʺ Thomas Lewis, Y. New Brunswick, William Tennent, ʺ Samuel Kennedy, P. ʺ Charles McKnight, ʺ Benjamin Hait, P. ʺ David Cowell, H. ʺ John Guild, H. ʺ Job Pruddren, Y. ʺ Israel Read, P. ʺ Elihu Spencer, Y. ʺ James McCrea, ʺ Conradus Wurtz, ʺ Samuel Harker, Donegal, Joseph Tate, ʺ George Duffield, P. ʺ John Steel, ʺ John Rowan, ʺ John Elder, ʺ Samson Smith, ʺ Robert McMurdie, ʺ Samuel Thompson, ʺ Robert Smith,

ʺ John Hoge, P. Lewes, Matthew Wilson, ʺ John Miller, ʺ Hugh Henry, P. ʺ Moses Tuttle, Y. ʺ John Harris, P. Hanover, Samuel Davies, ʺ Robert Henry, P. ʺ Alexander Creaghead, ʺ Samuel Black, ʺ John Craig, ʺ Alexander Miller, ʺ John Wright, ʺ John Brown, P. ʺ John Martin, ʺ Hugh McCadden, P. ʺ Richard Sankey, ʺ John Todd, P.

1759.

Suffolk, Moses Baldwin, P. New York, Abner Brush, P. ʺ Benjamin Woodruff, P. Hanover, Henry Patillo, ʺ William Richardson.

1760.

New Castle, John Ewing, P. Philadelphia, James Latta, New Brunswick, William Kirkpatrick, P. ʺ Alexander McWhorter, P.

1761.

New Brunswick, James Caldwell, P. ʺ John Clark, P. ʺ James Hunt, P. ʺ John Hanna, P. Philadelphia, John Simonton, ʺ John Beard, New Castle, John Strain, P. ʺ John Carmichael, P. Suffolk, Ezra Reeves, Y.

1762. New York, Azel Roe, P. New Brunswick, Samuel Parkhurst, P. ʺ Joseph Treat, P. ʺ William Mills, P. Lewes, Joseph Montgomery, P.

1763.

New Brunswick, William Tennent, jun'r. P. ʺ Enoch Green, P. Hanover, James Waddel, Dutchess, Elisha Kent, Y. in 1729. ʺ Solomon Mead, Y. ʺ John Peck.

1764.

Suffolk, Thomas Payne, Y. received. New Brunswick, Amos Thompson, P. ʺ Jacob Ker, P.

ʺ Nathan Ker, P. ʺ Thomas Smith, P. Suffolk, Nehemiah Baker, Y. in 1742.

1765.

Suffolk, Samson Occam, an Indian, ʺ Benjamin Goldsmith, Y. New York, Francis Peppard, P. New Brunswick, James Lyon, P. ʺ John Roseborough, P. ʺ Jonathan Leavitt, Y. received from New England. Hanover, David Rice, P. Lewes, Alexander Houston, P.

1766.

Donegal, John Slemons, P. ʺ Robert Cooper, P. Philadelphia, John Murray, New Castle, Samuel Blair, P. Suffolk, David Rose, Y. New Brunswick, David Caldwell, P. 2d Philadelphia, Patrick Alison, Dutchess, Samuel Dunlap, ʺ Wheeler Case, P.

1767.

Suffolk, Elam Potter, Y. ʺ John Close, P. New York, Jedediah Chapman, Y.

1768.

New Brunswick, Jeremiah Halsey, P. Donegal, John Craighead, P. 2d Philadelphia, James Lang, Lewes, Thomas McCrackin, P. ʺ John Bacon, P.

1769.

1st Philadelphia, Alexander Mitchell, P. ʺ James Sproat, Y. received from New England, New Castle, John McCreary, P. ʺ William Foster, P. ʺ Joseph Smith, P. ʺ Daniel McClealand, received. New York, James Tuttle, P. New Brunswick, John Witherspoon, received from Scotland. Hanover, James Creswell, ʺ Charles Cummings, ʺ Joseph Alexander, P. ʺ Thomas Jackson, ʺ Samuel Leake, P. Lewes, John Brown.

1770.

1st. Philadelphia, James Boyd, P. ʺ James Watt, P. Donegal, John King, New York, William Woodhull, P. Donegal, Hezekiah James Balch, P.

Hanover, Hezekiah Balch, P. 2d. Philadelphia, Samuel Eakin, P.

1771.

New Castle, John Woodhull, P. ʺ Josiah Lewis, P. New York, Alexander Miller, P. ʺ Oliver Deeming, Y. ʺ Jonathan Murdock, Y. Donegal, Joseph Rhea, received from Ireland.

1772.

New Castle, Thomas Read, ʺ James Wilson, P. ʺ James Anderson, Suffolk, Joshua Hart, P. New Brunswick, Alexander McLean, ʺ William Schenck, P. New York, Amzi Lewis, Y. New Brunswick, Jacob Vanartdalen, P. Donegal, Hugh Vance, P. Dutchess, Benjamin Strong, Y. received from New England. ʺ Ichabod Lewis, Y. ʺ Samuel Mills, Y.

1773.

Donegal, William Thom, ʺ Robert Hughes, received from Ireland. ʺ *David McClure, received from New England. Donegal *Levi Frisbie, Dart. received from New England.

1774.

1st. Philadelphia, William Hollingshead, New Castle, Thomas Smyth, P. Hanover, William Irwin, Orange, James Campbell, received from South Carolina. ʺ Thomas Reese, P. ʺ John Simpson, P. ʺ James Edmonds, received from South Carolina. 2d. Philadelphia, Robert Davidson.

1775.

1st. Philadelphia, Nathaniel Irvin, P. ʺ Daniel McCalla, P. Suffolk, John Davenport, P. New York, Matthias Burnet, P. ʺ Joseph Grover, Y. New Brunswick, James Gourly, received from Scotland. Donegal, Thomas McPherrin, P. ʺ Colin McFarquhar, received from Scotland. Dutchess, David Close, Y. ʺ Blackleech Burnet.

1776.

1st. Philadelphia, Israel Evans, P. ʺ William Linn, P. New Brunswick, John Debow, P. Donegal, Samuel Dougal, ʺ John Black, P. 2d. Philadelphia, Hugh McGill, received from Ireland.

1777.

1st. Philadelphia, Robert Keith, P. New Castle, James Power, P. New York, Ebenezer Bradford, P. New Brunswick, John Warford, P. Donegal, John McMillan, P. ʺ John McKnight, P. Hanover, Samuel Stanhope Smith, P. Lewes, Ebenezer Brooks.

1778.

New Castle, James F. Armstrong, P. New York, Andrew King, P. ʺ Thaddeus Dodd, P.

1779.

1st. Philadelphia, James Grier, P. ʺ Andrew Hunter.

1780.

1st. Philadelphia, Isaac Keith, P. New Castle, William Smith, P. New Brunswick, Philip Stockton, ʺ George Faitoute, P. Hanover, John Blair Smith, P. ʺ Caleb Wallace, P. ʺ Samuel Doak, P. ʺ Edward Crawford, P. ʺ James McConnell, P.

Lewes, John Rankin, ʺ Samuel McMasters. Orange, Samuel McCorkle, P. ʺ Robert Archibald P.

1781.

New Castle, Daniel Jones, New York, John Joline, P. Donegal, David Bard, P. ʺ Samuel Waugh, P. ʺ John Linn, P.

1782.

Orange, Thomas H. McCall, P. ʺ James Hall, P. ʺ Thomas Creaghead, P. ʺ James Templeton, P. ʺ James McRee, P. ʺ John Cosson, New Castle, Nathaniel W. Semple, P. ʺ John E. Finley, P. ʺ James Dunlap, P. Donegal, John Henderson, P. Orange, Daniel Thatcher, ʺ William Hill, 1st. Philadelphia, William Mackey Tennent, P. received from Connecticut.

1783.

Donegal, Matthew Woods, P. ʺ Stephen Balch, P.

Orange, John Hill, ʺ David Barr.

1784.

1st. Philadelphia, Simeon Hyde, Y. Orange, Francis Cummings, ʺ James Frazier.

1785.

1st. Philadelphia, William McRee, received from Ireland. New Brunswick, Joseph Rue, P. ʺ Peter Wilson, P. ʺ William Boyd, P. ʺ Joseph Clark, P. ʺ George Luckey, P. Donegal, James Johnston, ʺ Matthew Stephens, received from Ireland. New Castle, James Munro, received from Scotland.

1786.

1st. Philadelphia, John Johnston, received from Ireland. ʺ William Pickels, received from England. New Castle, John Burton,† Suffolk, Joshua Williams, Y. ʺ Nathan Woodhull, Y. New York, John McDonald,† ʺ James Wilson, received from Scotland. ʺ James Wilson, jr.† ʺ James Glassbrook, received from England. New Brunswick, James Muir, received from Bermuda.

Hanover, William Graham, P. ʺ Moses Hoge, ʺ Samuel Carrick, ʺ John Montgomery, P. ʺ William Wilson, ʺ Benjamin Irwin, P. ʺ John McCue, ʺ Samuel Shannon, P. ʺ Andrew McClure, ʺ James Mitchell, ʺ John D. Blair, P. Hanover, Samuel Houston, ʺ Adam Rankin, New Castle, Samuel Barr,‡ Orange, Jacob Leake.

1787.

South Carolina, Robert Hall, ʺ Robert Finley, ʺ Lobert Mecklin, New York, James Thompson, received from Scotland. New Brunswick, Walter Monteith, Philadelphia, Ashbel Green, P. Carlisle, Charles Nesbit, received from Scotland.

1788.

North Carolina, Nathan Grier, Suffolk, Noah Wetmore, Y. in 1757. ʺ Aaron Woolworth, Y. received from New England. New York, Samuel Fordham, New Brunswick, Ira Condict, P.

ʺ Asa Dunham, Carlisle, Samuel Wilson, P. ʺ Hugh Morrison,‡ ʺ James Snodgrass, Suffolk, Thomas Russel.

-----

MONERGISM BOOKS

The Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church, by Charles Hodge Copyright © 2026

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. By downloading this file, you have been granted the nonexclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the express written permission of Monergism Books.

ePub, & .pdf Editions. May 2026. Requests for information should be addressed to: Monergism Books, PO Box 491, West Linn, OR 97068

↑ Back to top