gularly in the settlement of Mr. Anderson; and the Presbytery, on the other side, complained that "the Trustees of New Haven College had sent missionaries to erect a new separate congregation in New York." The Trustees requested a Committee of Synod to meet and consult with a Committee of their body "on the state of religion in general, and the state of the congregation of New York in particular." The Synod appointed the Presbytery of Long Island, whose proceedings they approved, to be the Committee on their part. Conferences were held and letters written, but all these proceedings proved utterly abortive. At length a Committee of Synod met at New York, after Mr. Pemberton was irregularly established there, and made an arrangement, which appears to have been a compromise between the parties-Mr. Anderson resigned the congregation to Mr. Pemberton, and a long and violent contention about the property of the church, in which a Dr. Nicoll had acted a conspicuous part, was terminated, by the parties agreeing and subscribing to five articles, drawn up by the Commit tee; the first of which (the others being little else than an arrangement of details) is as follows"That Masters Hiddel, Blake and Ingliss, as soon as with convenience it can be done, make over and convey all their right, title and interest, in the Presbyterian Church, or meeting house in New York, to the Rev. Masters Wm. Mitchell, Wm. Wishart, Wm. Hamilton, Miller, and

Hart, ministers in Edinburgh, in North Britain, and to Dr. John Nicoll abovesaid, in trust for the use of the Presbyterian congregation in New York, and to and for no other use whatsoever: and that by the same instrument of conveyance, they authorize and empower the Presbytery of Edinburgh for the time being, and from time to time

and at any time hereafter, to appoint and put in trust, under their hands and seals, whomsoever they shall think proper, in the room and place, and with the full power and authority of any of the said gentlemen abovementioned, upon his or their death, and of all of them successively upon their decease."

Thus it appears that the Congregational party succeeded in getting rid of Mr. Anderson, and in obtaining the man of their choice, Mr. Pemberton, in his place; and the Presbyterian party succeeded in getting the property, which had long been in controversy, permanently secured for the use of a Presbyterian congregation in New York, by having it conveyed in trust to the Presbytery of Edinburgh. Yet all this did not extinguish the embers of controversy, which continued to glow, sometimes with less and sometimes with greater ardour, for many successive years. Mr. Pemberton left this congregation in 1753, and returned to Boston.He was succeeded by the Rev. David Bostwick, whose eminent piety and popular eloquence was greatly influential in promoting harmony among the divided people. was of Scotch extraction, and was originally settled at Jamaica, on Long Island, whence he was removed to New York.

He

It is when speaking of the times now under review, that professor M. says "The Congregational part of the ministers generally, opposed with warmth the adoption of a Confession of Faith, both from the pulpit and the press. The venerable President Dickenson, of Elizabeth Town, took the lead in this opposition, and was an able writer on the subject." That the Congregational part of the ministers were generally and ardently opposed to the adoption of a Confession of Faith there can be no doubt; and we suppose professor M. has documents or testimony, wholly unknown to us, that they opposed such an adoption from the pulpit and the press. But till we read his statement, we were not aware that the opposition had been so open and avowed that a Confession of Faith had ever been preached against, or opposed in printed publications. No intimation of the kind is apparent on the records of the Synod. We shall trace its origin and progress as it there appears. In the year 1721, we have the first indication of the general controversy which ensued, in the following minute:

"The overture upon Mr. Gillespie's 2d paper was resumed [the consideration ofit, without stating what it was, had been repeatedly deferred] which was as follows, viz.

"As we have been for many years in the exercise of Presbyterian government and church discipline as exercised by the Presbyterians in the best reformed churches, as far as the nature and constitution of this country will allow; our opinion is, that if any brother have an overture to of fer, to be formed into an act by the Synod, for the better carrying on in the matters of our government and discipline, that he may bring it in against next Synod. This overture was carried in the affirmative by a majority of votes, and ordered by vote to be recorded.

"Mr. Jonathan Dickinson, Mr. Mal. Jones, Mr. Jos. Morgan, Mr. John Pierson, Mr. David Evans, and Mr. Jos. Webb, entered their protestation against the abovementioned act, and the recording of it, and gave the reasons of their protest,

which are in retentis."

The records of the next year, (1722,) contain the following long and extraordinary minute, relative to this subject, viz.

"The brethren who entered their protestation against the act for allowing any brother or member of this Synod to bring in any overture, to be formed into an act of the Synod for the better carrying on the matters of our government and discipline, &c. The said bretheren, Protestants, brought in a paper of four articles, testifying in writing their sentiments and judgment concerning Church Government, which was approved by the Synod, and ordered by the Synod to be recorded in the Synod Book. Likewise the said bretheren being willing to take back their protestation against said act, together with their reasons given in defence of said protest, the Synod doth hereby order that the protest, together with the reasons of it, as also the answers, at the appointment

of the Synod, given in to the reasons alleged, by Mr. Daniel Magill, and Mr. George M'Nish, be all withdrawn, and that the said act remain and be in all respects as if no such protest had been made. The articles are as followeth:

1. We fully grant that there is full executive power of Church Government in Presbyteries and Synods, and that they may authoritatively, in the name of Christ, use the keys of church discipline, to all proper intents and purposes, and that the keys of the church are committed to the

church officers, and them only.

2. We also grant that the mere circumstantials of church discipline, such as the time, place and mode of carrying on in the government of the church, belong to ecclesiastical judicatories, to determine, as occasions occur, conformable to the general rules the word of God that require all things to be done decently and in order. And if these things are called acts, we will take no offence at the word, provided that these acts be not imposed upon such as conscientiously dissent from them.

3. We also grant that Synods may compose directories, and recommend them to all their members respecting all the parts of discipline, provided that all subordinate judicatories may decline from such directories, when they conscientiously think they have just reason so to do.

4. We freely allow that appeals may be made from all inferior to superior judicatories, and that superior judicatories have authority to consider and determine such appeals. Malachi Jones, Joseph Morgan,

Jonathan Dickinson, David Evans.

The Synod was so universally pleased with the abovesaid composure of their difference, that they unanimously joined together in a thanksgiving prayer and joyful singing the 133d Psalm."

No attentive and intelligent reader of this singular minute can fail to remark, that it amalgamates Presbyterianism and Congregationalismin about equal proportions, and that by doing so, it deteriorates both. The third and fourth articles seem to nullify each other; for the third grants that Synods may compose and recommend Directories and systems of Discipline, but provides for their being declined, that is, disregarded, by subordinate judicatories, at their pleasure. Yet if appeals be made from these subordinate judicatures by members who might be dissatisfied with any of their doings, the fourth article provides that the superior judicature

Confession or Catechisms, he shall, at the time of his making said declaration, declare his sentiments to the Presbytery or Synod, who shall notwithstanding admit him to the exercise of the ministry within our bounds and to ministerial communion, if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge his scruple or mistake to be only about articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship, or government. But if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge such ministers or

candidates erroneous in essential and necessary articles of faith, the Synod or Presbytery shall declare them uncapable of communion with them. And the Synod do solemnly agree, that none of us will traduce or use any opprobious terms of

those that differ from us in those extraessential and not necessary points of doctrine, but treat them with the same friendship, kindness, and brotherly love, as if they had not differed from us in such sentiments."

In the afternoon of the day on which the foregoing act was adopted in the morning, all the members of the Synod then present, with the exception of one who declared himself not prepared,

"After proposing all the scruples that any of them had to make against any articles and expressions in the Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at Westmin

ster, unanimously agreed in the solution of those scruples, and in declaring the said Confession and Catechisms to be the Confession of their Faith, excepting only some clauses in the 20th and 23d chapters; concerning which clauses the Synod do unanimously declare that they do not receive those articles in any such sense as to suppose the civil magistrate hath a controlling power over Synods with respect

to the exercise of their ministerial authority, or power to persecute any for their religion, or in any sense contrary to the Protestant succession to the throne of

Great Britain.

"The Synod observing that unanimity, peace and unity which appeared in all their consultations and determinations re

lating to the affair of the Confession, did unanimously agree in giving thanks to God, in solemn prayer and praise."

We consider the foregoing adopting act as one of the most curious compositions that we ever read. It seems to us to give and take, say and unsay, bind and loose, from the beginning to the end. There is, as we think, an abortive attempt to lay down a rule to which all

were to conform, with a provision that any one who should plead conscience might refuse, and yet be treated with the same friendship, kindness, and brotherly love, as if he had not differed from the sentiments of those who conscien

tiously kept close to the rule. It plainly put it in the power of any Presbytery to declare as many articles of the Confession of Faith

and Catechism as they might choose, to be "not essential and necessary in doctrine, government, or worship," and to receive members who rejected these articles, into fellowship and good standing in the church at large. Thus one corrupt Presbytery might corrupt the whole church. In the religious act with which the Synod again concluded their attempt to heal their differences, we doubt not their sincerity, or their belief, at the time, that "unanimity, peace, and unity" had marked their proceedings in this interesting concern; and yet the minutes of the very next year show, "that some persons had been dissatisfied at the manner of wording the last year's agreement about the Confession." Explanation, indeed, soothed and satisfied those individuals who were then present in the Synod; but Professor Miller's statement is wide of the fact, when he says that this adopting act "was, at length, peaceably acquiesced in by all." Some immediately left their former connexion, and joined the Secession church, in consequence of this act. Such, we have been well informed, was the case with a pious ancestor, (who we believe was a ruling elder) of the late and present Doctor Hoge; and the family remained in that connexion up to the time when the late Doctor Hoge returned to the church from which his father, or grandfather, had departed. From a manuscript now before us, prepared by the late venerable Dr. Rodgers, of New-York, giving a