productive of shameful conflicts, and was in general one of the most crying evils of the times.

Whitefield far out-did Mr. Tennent, as to this point. He admitted none of the principles which Mr. Tennent believed, in ordinary times, ought to be held sacred. He assumed the right, in virtue of his ordination, to preach the gospel wherever he had an opportunity, "even though it should be in a place where officers were already settled, and the gospel was fully and faithfully preached. This, I humbly apprehend," he adds, "is every gospel minister's indisputable privilege." It mattered not whether the pastors who thus fully and faithfully preached the gospel, were willing to consent to the intrusion of the itinerant evangelist or not. "If pulpits should be shut," he says, "blessed be God, the fields are open, and I can go without the camp, bearing the Redeemer's reproach. This I glory in; believing if I suffer it, I suffer for righteousness' sake." 2 If Whitefield had the right here claimed, then of course Davenport had it, and so every fanatic and errorist has it. This doctrine is entirely inconsistent with what the Bible teaches of the nature of the pastoral relation, and with every form of ecclesiastical government, episcopal, presbyterian, or congregational. Whatever plausible pretences may be urged in its favour, it has never been acted upon without producing the greatest practical evils.

As soon as this habit of itinerant preaching within the bounds of settled congregations, began to prevail, it excited a lively opposition. The synod of Philadelphia twice unanimously resolved that no minister should preach in any congregation without the consent of the presbytery to which the congregation belonged. As soon, however, as

3

1 Whitefield's letter to the president, professors, &c. of Harvard College. Boston, 1745: p. 17. 2 Ibid. P. 22.

See Part First of this History, p. 247.

the revival fairly commenced, Mr. Tennent and his associates refused to be bound by the rule; and, for the sake of peace, it was given up. The legislature of Connecticut made it penal for any minister to preach within the bounds. of the parish of another minister, unless duly invited by the pastor and people.1 The General Association of Connecticut, in 1742, after giving thanks for the revival, bear their testimony against "ministers disorderly intruding into other ministers' parishes." 2 The convention of ministers of Massachusetts, in 1743, declared this kind of itinerant preaching, "without the knowledge, or against the leave of settled pastors," to be "a breach of order, and contrary to the Scriptures, and the sentiments of our fathers, expressed in their Platform of Church Discipline." And the assembly of pastors held at Boston, July, 1743, in their testimony in behalf of the revival, express it as their judgment "that ministers do not invade the province of others, and, in ordinary cases, preach in another's parish, without his knowledge and consent." Notwithstanding this general concurrence among the friends of religion, in condemning this disorderly practice, it prevailed to a great extent, and resulted in dividing congregations, unsettling ministers, and introducing endless contentions and confusion.

As to lay preaching, though of frequent occurrence, it found little favour with any but the openly fanatical. 2 Ibid. vol. ii. p. 173.

1 Trumbull's Connecticut, vol. ii. p. 162.

3 Testimony of the pastors of churches in the province of MassachusettsBay, at their annual convention in Boston, May 25, 1743, pages 6, 7.

4 Some of the ministers present on that occasion signed this testimony and advice as to the substance merely, which Mr. Prince informs us, was owing principally to the clause above cited. Some of the pastors thought that it was not explicit enough against the practice which it condemned, while others thought it might "be perverted to the great infringement of Christian and human liberty."-Christian History, vol. i. p. 198.

Tennent in a letter to Edwards, written probably in the autumn of 1741, says, "As to the subject you mentioned, of laymen being sent out to exhort and teach, supposing them to be real converts, I cannot but think, if it be encouraged and continued, it will be of dreadful consequence to the church's peace and soundness in the faith. It is base presumption, whatever zeal be pretended to, notwithstanding, for any persons to take this honour to themselves, unless they be called of God, as was Aaron. I know most young zealots are apt, through ignorance, inconsideration, and pride of heart, to undertake what they have no proper qualifications for; and through their imprudence and enthusiasm the church of God suffers. I think all that fear God should rise and crush the enthusiastic creature in the egg. Dear brother, the times are dangerous. The churches in America and elsewhere are in great danger of enthusiasm; we need to think of the maxim principiis obsta." This irregularity was freely condemned also by the association of Connecticut, the convention of Massachusetts, and the assembly of pastors in Boston, in the documents already referred to. Yet it was through the influence of these lay exhorters, encouraged by a few such ministers as Davenport, and Mr. Park, of Westerly, Rhode Island, that fanaticism and false religion were most effectually promoted among the churches.

This is a formidable array of evils. Yet as the friends of the revival testify to their existence, no conscientious historian dare either conceal or extenuate them. There was too little discrimination between true and false religious feeling. There was too much encouragement given to outcries, faintings, and bodily agitations, as probable evidence of the presence and power of God. There was, in many, 1 Life of Edwards, p. 153. ? See Gillies, vol. ii. p. 292.

too much reliance on impulses, visions, and the pretended power of discerning spirits. There was a great deal of censoriousness, and of a sinful disregard of ecclesiastical order.

The disastrous effects of these evils, the rapid spread of false religion, the dishonour and decline of true piety, the prevalence of erroneous doctrines, the division of congregations, the alienation of Christians, and the long period of subsequent deadness in the church, stand up as a solemn warning to Christians, and especially to Christian ministers in all times to come. It was thus in the strong language of Edwards, the devil prevailed against the revival. "It is by this means that the daughter of Zion in this land, now lies in such piteous circumstances, with her garments rent, her face disfigured, her nakedness exposed, her limbs broken, and weltering in the blood of her own wounds, and in nowise able to rise, and this so soon after her late great joys and hopes." 1

Though this, being true, should be known and well considered, that the guilt and danger of propagating false religion and spurious excitement, may be understood, yet we are not to forget or undervalue the great good which was then accomplished. In many places there was little of these evils, especially in New Jersey and Virginia. Dickinson and Davies successfully resisted their inroads within the sphere of their influence. And in many other places the soundness of the doctrines taught, the experience detailed, and the permanent effects produced, abundantly attest the genuineness of the revival. To the Presbyterian Church particularly, it was the commencement of a new life, the vigour of which is still felt in all her veins.

1 Preface to his Treatise on the Affections, written in 1746.

123

CHAPTER V.

THE SCHISM, 1741.

The act of synod relating to itinerant preaching, passed in 1737.—The act relating to the examination of candidates, passed in 1738.-These acts disobeyed by the presbytery of New Brunswick.-That presbytery censured by the synod.-They present their apology in 1739.-Analysis of that apology. The presbytery continue to disobey the synod.-The propriety of their conduct considered.-The effects of this controversy upon the congregations and other presbyteries.-The efforts made in 1740 to compromise the difficulty.-Failure of these efforts.-Mr. G. Tennent and Mr. Blair read before the synod two papers containing complaints against their brethren. Mr. Tennent preaches his sermon on the dangers of an unconverted ministry.-Analysis of that sermon.-The complaints against Mr. Tennent and his friends for rash-judging, and for intruding into settled congregations, and promoting divisions.-These complaints brought before the presbyteries.-The cases of Mr. Alexander Creaghead, and of Mr. David Alexander before the presbytery of Donegal.-The synod meets in 1741 in the midst of these controversies.-The case of Mr. Creaghead taken up, and leads to a serious contention.-Mr. Robert Cross reads a protest against the New Brunswick brethren being allowed to sit as members of synod, which is signed by twelve ministers and eight elders.-This protest throws the synod into confusion, and leads to the irregular exclusion of nine ministers.-The proceedings of the presbytery of New Brunswick and their correspondents immediately after the schism.-The efforts made by the members of the presbytery of New York in 1742 to heal the schism; similar efforts made in 1743 and in 1745.-These efforts having failed, the synod of New York formed in September 1745.—The points of difference between the two parties considered.-The nature and extent of the opposition to the revival examined.-How far the parties differéd as to the importance of learning, as to points of doctrine, and principles of church government considered.-The true cause of the schism stated.

IN order properly to understand the origin and causes of the schism, which in 1741 divided the Presbyterian Church,