66

been concentrated upon his duties as a theological professor. His earliest work, which was published about five years after his admission to the ministry, was upon the subject of Frequent Communion. For many years, in fact since the days of prelatic persecution, the Scottish churches were accustomed to observe the sacrament of the Lord's Supper not more than twice a year, and in some cases only once. Besides the usual preparation sermon, the sacrament Sabbath was invariably preceded by a fast day on the Thursday, and succeeded by a thanksgiving day upon the Monday. Palpably opposed as this was to the spirit of the Directory, which declares that "the Lord's Supper is frequently to be observed," the church had become so wedded to these days," that it was deemed by many almost a profanation of the sacrament to celebrate it without them. Dr. Mason set himself to oppose these additions to the New Testament Passover, as he well knew that its frequent observance was impossible so long as they were continued; his "Letters," addressed to the members of the Associate Reformed Church, were the means of working the desired change in many congregations, though in some parts of the church "the days" are observed even to the present time. But the great work of Dr. Mason is his masterly treatise on "Catholic Communion," published in 1816. The circumstances which gave rise to this important work are given in the work itself, and need not be here repeated. It is a singular coincidence that its appearance was contemporaneous with that of the treatise of Mr. Robert Hall of Leicester on the same subject, and in which substantially the same principles are defended. Previous to the appearance of Dr. Mason's work, the practice of the Associate Reformed Church, in common with the other branches of the Scottish Church in this country, had been that of exclusive communion. We say that such was her practice, and it furnished a sad illustration how the practice of a church which glories in her orthodoxy, may be in palpable contradiction to her own standards. In the days of the Westminster Assembly the doctrine of exclusive communion was condemned, especially by Baillie and Rutherford, two of the greatest lights of their age, as one of the peculiar errors of the Independents, who would neither commune with other Christians, nor allow others to commune with them. The Confession of the Scottish Church asserts in the plainest terms the duty of communing with all, in every place, who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, as God in his providence gives the opportunity. But at an early period in the history of the Scottish Secession an unchristian spirit of exclusiveness began to manifest itself; new terms of communion were framed, which had

never before been heard of in the Christian church; they assumed ground which was a virtual unchurching of all other denominations of Christians; and they were forced to put a construction upon the language of their own Confession relative to the communion of saints, at war with the well-known sentiments of the Westminster divines, and almost too absurd to need refutation. The great aim of Dr. Mason's work was to expound and defend the doctrine of the church on this subject, and to bring the practice of the church into a correspondence with her own authorized standards. On this account, as well as for the influence which it was the means of exerting, it deserves an honourable notice in the history of the church. The appearance of this work gave great offence to those in our own and some other denominations, who either could not or would not see the difference between catholic communion and promiscuous communion, and an attempt was made to answer it; still it was the means of producing a happy change in the practice of a considerable portion of the church of which its author was a member. But candour requires the statement, that in some other parts of the church, the doctrine of exclusive communion is taught and practised. The discussion of this subject, connected as it was in point of time with an attempt to introduce a new version of the Psalter, greatly helped to increase those sectional jealousies which had existed for some years before. All the great interests of the church languished; the Seminary was becoming involved in pecuniary difficulties-a fact however no way surprising, when it is considered how sadly its pecuniary affairs were mismanaged. The ministers in the western States made loud complaints against what they deemed innovations on the ancient order of the church; these proving-as might have been expected from the very manner in which they were made-ineffectual, the entire Synod of Scioto at length, in 1820, withdrew from the superintendence of the General Synod. This was a step in palpable violation of the essential principles of Presbyterianism; it was a causeless dismemberment of the church. Those who adopted it did not pretend that the General Synod had sanctioned heresy; they could not pretend that their interests were neglected, for quite as large a number of those educated in the seminary at New York were settled in the western States, as in any other portion of the country. The only thing which furnished them with a show of complaint was the act of the General Synod allowing the use of a different version of the Psalms from that which had been in use in the Associate Reformed Church. But no attempt was made to force a new version upon unwilling congregations. Now it must be manifest to all that if

secession, or, in other words, the dismemberment of a denomination, be warrantable on such grounds, the foundation of such a body must be exceedingly insecure. All the old and sound Presbyterian writers, as Rutherford, Durham and Baillie, are agreed in maintaining, that the only proper grounds of separation are, the authoritative sanctioning of gross heresy, or the positive interference with the rights of conscience; nor will even these justify it, until faithful though unavailing efforts have been made to remove the grievance. The eminent writers whose names have been given, unite in declaring, that to secede merely because the supreme judicatory tolerates something which one party deems to be an evil, while perfect freedom is allowed to testify against it, is to be guilty of schism. The truth is, that the schism of which we have spoken is to be traced to that absurd longing after an absolute uniformity in the mere externals of Divine worship, which Scottish Presbyterianism derived from the Westminster Assembly; this, we are persuaded, more than any other cause, has cramped the energies and hindered the advancement of the Associate Reformed Church in the United States.

In 1821, the Synod of the Carolinas petitioned the General Synod to be erected into an independent Synod. The ground on which it was made was the great distance of the Synod from the place at which the General Synod usually assembled, and the consequent impossibility of their being represented in the supreme council of the church. The request was granted. For many years after that event, the Southern Synod could hardly be said to have grown; but within the last few years a more enterprising spirit has been diffused among its members, and the prospects of increase are more promising than at any previous period. The increase of the Western Synod may be said to have kept pace with the rapid strides with which the Western States have advanced in population and in wealth. At the time of their separation in 1820, the number of ministers did not exceed twenty; now it is more than one hundred. The details of their statistics we shall leave to the close of our article. Both the ministers and membership of the Western Synod are very strenuous advocates of what they denominate a "Scriptural Psalmody," by which they understand not merely a psalmody based upon the Scriptures, but the Book of Psalms, to the exclusion of all imitations such as that of Dr. Watts, and even of all translations of other portions of the Sacred Word. Not only are there congregations confined to the use of the Scots' version (as it is sometimes called) in the worship of God, but their ministers also are compelled to use this version when called to officiate in the pulpits of other denominations. Whether this subject

does not receive an undue prominence among them, is a question which it might be deemed improper for one to determine, who is in a great measure unacquainted with the circumstances of that branch of the church. However this may be, it is very certain that psalmody forms the standing topic of discussion in all the periodicals connected with the Western Synod, and is the theme of not a few sermons. They are also very strongly opposed to the doctrine of catholic communion; though it would probably be doing many of them injustice to affirm that they hold to the doctrine of exclusive communion in the strongest sense of the phrase. We are not indeed aware that the Synod, as such, has ever given forth any positive deliverance upon the subject of communion; but there can be no doubt that the practical sentiment of the majority of ministers and members is in favour of the exclusive system. Of late years the Synod has also taken very decided ground against slavery; in many of the congregations, we are informed, that, not only are actual slaveholders excluded from their communion, but even those who have ceased to be such, are refused, unless they express sorrow for their past sin in the matter. These remarks apply to the southern branch of the church also, except in relation to the subject of slavery. In the Northern Synod, on the other hand, while there are some who entertain the views just expressed on the subjects of psalmody and communion, yet the majority of its members hold to a more liberal way of thinking.

About the time of the separation of the Western Synod, a proposal was made to unite the Associate Reformed and the Reformed Dutch Churches, under the name of "The Reformed Protestant Church of North America." The cause of the failure of this projected union has never been very satisfactorily explained. In the report of the committee of the Associate Reformed Church, the coldness with which the proposal was received by some few of the classes of the Dutch Church, is given as the reason for their recommendation not to prosecute the business. But there must have been some more potent agency than this at work; it is well known that the pride of one very distinguished member of the committee of the Associate Reformed Church was, in some way, wounded in the prosecution of the affair, and there are those who ascribe to this circumstance-whether properly or not the writer cannot positively determine-the unhappy termination of the project. At the very same meeting of General Synod at which it was resolved to be inexpedient to prosecute the attempt at union with the Dutch Church, on account of the coldness of a few of her classes, a proposition of union was received from the General Assembly. A joint committee was immediately appointed,

and a basis of union was very hastily framed, and it having received the approval of the two bodies, was sent down to their respective Presbyteries for their action. Those under the care of the Assembly do not appear to have ever had the thing before them; at all events they never acted upon it.

At the next meeting of the General Synod, in 1822, it appeared that a large majority of the Presbyteries and Congregations were most decidedly opposed to the projected union. Yet, strange to relate, those very men whose consciences had been so scrupulous about the coldness of a few of the Dutch classes, as to deem it necessary to drop the project of union (a union be it observed worthy of the name) with that church, had got so completely rid of their scruples, that they resolved to proceed with another proposal of union, in the face of the expressed negatives of a majority of their own Presbyteries. The subject was debated for some days; when the vote was taken, there were for union seven, against it six, and silent four. The majority immediately declared the Synod dissolved; and in palpable violation of the constitution of the Presbyterian Church, they were at once admitted as members of an Assembly to which they had never been chosen. Within a week after this secession from the Associate Reformed Church, her valuable library was with singular expedition removed from New York to Princeton. We venture to affirm that a more disgraceful proceeding is not to be found in the annals of the American Church. The actors in this scene, besides having the expressed mind of the church of which they were the representatives, knew that their scheme would have been completely frustrated if all the delegates to the Synod had been present; they knew, at the very time the vote was taken, that several of these delegates from a distant part of the church were on their way. The indecent haste with which the library was removed from New York, and the silent manner in which it was effected, proved that these seceders were themselves conscious that their doings would not bear investigation. It is deeply to be lamented that the proposed union of 1822 was managed in the manner described. To an unprejudiced mind there appears no reason, on the score of principle, why these two branches of the Presbyterian Church should maintain a separate existence; their standards, their government, and their discipline are the same, and while there is a difference in some of their forms of worship, yet, as this would be no just cause for originating a separation, it cannot be a just reason for continuing it. Had the proper preparatory steps been taken, had due time been allowed the ministers and congregations of the Associate Reformed Church to consider the subject: