E must turn now to the "Minutes of the Synod of the Associate Churches" to follow the fortunes of Thomas Campbell. Synod seems to have convened on May 18, 1808, in Philadelphia, and the name of Mr. Campbell is found as one of the ministers present. On the following day, May 19, as the fourth matter for the consideration of the Synod we read "Reasons of protest and appeal by Mr. Thomas Campbell against the Presb'y of Chartiers, in his case and particularly proceedings of a deed of said Presb'y suspending him from the office of the ministry, and Answer by Presb'y." As a fifth item there is listed "Petitions from Buffaloe, Chartiers, Mt. Pleasant and Burgettstown in favour of Mr. Campbell.

      On May 20, which was Friday, the Synod entered upon the matter between Mr. Campbell and Chartiers Presbytery.

"The Minutes of Presb'y relative thereto were read, together with a remonstrance by Mr. Campbell, given into said Presb'y. Read his reasons of protest and appeal and the Presby's answer. Adjourned. At three in the afternoon, Proceeded to read the articles of the libel upon which Mr. Campbell was tried, with his declarations relative to each article as given in the Presb'y and also the depositions of witnesses. [68] And all papers having been read, parties were heard. Delayed further consideration until next Sed."

      Saturday, May 21:

"Resumed the consideration of Mr. Campbell's cause. And agreed to proceed in the following order. 1st. To read over again the articles of the libel one by one, with Mr. Campbell's declarations relative thereto; and then consider whether the Presby's further proceedings against him might not have been obviated thereby. The first article was read and his declaration in reference to it. And after members had spoken their minds and before coming to any decision whether the declaration ought to have been rested in as satisfactory, or whether this article was proved, parties were again heard in reference to it. And after several insisting that, before proceeding further in this way, the Synod would judge of the manner in which the Presb'y entered upon and conducted the process, whether regular or not; after long conversation adjourned to meet at 9 o'clock 'Monday morning. Closed with prayer."

      At three in the afternoon of Monday, May 23:

"Resumed the consideration of Mr. Campbell's protest. And, after some conversation, resolved to read again 'Reasons of Protest and Answers Thereto,' take the judgment of Synod upon them part by part, then decide upon the articles of the libel, and afterwards, if necessary, appoint a committee to bring in an overture on the whole cause. And it appearing that Mr. Anderson had declined fulfilling an appointment by the Presb'y [69] of Chartiers to dispense the Lord's Supper at Buffaloe along with Mr. Campbell because of reports he had heard concerning him of his publicly teaching principles inconsistent with our profession, and also that the Presb'y had at their meeting at Mt. Hope sustained his excuse on that ground for doing so--the Synod disapproved of Mr. A's conduct in said instance, because he had not 1st written Mr. C. on the subject, or sought an interview with him; and likewise of the Presb'y sustaining said excuse.

      "The Synod next sustained the Presb'y answers to Mr. C's charge against them for denying appointment at said meeting, and for instituting an enquiry into the truth of reports respecting him, the fama clamosa laying a sufficient foundation for their doing so.

      "Again, it appearing to the Synod that at the meeting of Presb'y at Montour's Run in Dec. when they put the libel into Mr. Campbell's hand, an agreement had been entered into between the parties not to proceed at next meeting at Buffaloe in Feb. in the formal trial of the libel, except upon certain conditions, nor even to enter upon it, in case an accommodation of differences could be accomplished by means of free conversation; and particularly that they should not bring the trial to an issue by calling witnesses, except with consent of parties; but that, however, the Presb'y, after hearing certain witnesses on both sides, did bring the trial to an issue, without allowing the privilege he claimed of citing, or the Presby's causing to be cited, other witnesses for his exculpation, and [70] giving him opportunity for that purpose: the Synod judged the reasons advanced by the Presb'y for bringing the trial to an issue in such circumstances insufficient. [In the minutes there were two lines crossed out and there was written into the margin words seen above; i. e., 'to be cited'--to 'for that purpose.']

      "From this judgment of Synod, Messrs. Anderson & Ramsay, ministers, S. Murdoch & J. Templeton, elders, declared their dissent for reasons to be afterwards given in.

      "Tuesday, May 24. The Synod met and was opened with prayer by the Mod'r. Members present as above. Read the minutes of the last sitting. Reasons of dissent, of which said minutes, were given and read and are as follows: 'We dissent from the judgment of the Synod last evening determining that the Presb'y of Chartiers acted unjustly and contrary to their agreement with Mr. Campbell at Monteur's Run in bringing his affairs to an issue at their next meeting at Buffaloe for the following reasons.' [Here follow two paragraphs in which the committee covered the issues of what the minutes of the Presbytery had allowed them to do and alleged that they had acted as they had engaged to do, and again that Presbytery was at no fault in not allowing Mr. Campbell time and opportunity to bring in witnesses from Conemaugh, for he had already been condemned by witnesses from elsewhere.] Messrs. Shaw and Bullion, together with the Moderator, were appointed a committee to present an answer to the 'Reasons of [71] Dissent' presented by persons from Chartiers Presbytery.

      "A motion was made and seconded that in consideration of the Synod's judging that the proceedings of the Presb'y of Chartiers in the trial of Mr. Campbell were in the instance specified irregular, they find it necessary to lay aside any further consideration of the trial as brought before them by his protest and appeal, that notwithstanding they highly approve of the care shown by Presb'y to check the appearance of a departure in any minister under their inspection from our received principles, yet, on the ground of the aforesaid irregularity, they reverse the sentence of suspension passed by them on Mr. C., and order a new trial, or deal with Mr. C. himself. The motion, after discussion, was adopted and the said sentence accordingly reversed. Against which deed of reversal Mr. Ramsay in his own name (and) of all who should adhere to him offered a verbal protest. He was directed to put his protest in writing, which he agreed to do. After deliberating whether they should order a new trial, or deal with Mr. C. themselves, the Synod resolved on this last. And after some conversation on the mode of proceeding, 1st to consider his written declaration on the several articles of libel given in to the Presb'y, to see whether they were satisfactory or not, and in the event of their being found not satisfactory, or found to infer censure, to determine accordingly, or otherwise to require further explanation by interrogatories. His [72] declaration on the 1st article was read and conversed upon at considerable length. And, likewise on the 2d; after conversing on which the Synod adjourned to meet at 3 p. m.

      "At 3 p. m. proceeded in reading and considering Mr. C's declarations relative to articles of libel, particularly 3rd, 4th and 6th, after which a Com. was appointed to bring in an overture expressive of the mind of the Synod in regard to the declaration read and considered, taken in connection with what Mr. C. states in his paper of 'Reasons and Protest'--Messrs. Pringle, Hamilton & McCullock to be said Com."

      On Wednesday, May 25, the report of the committee was called for as to Mr. Campbell's declarations on the articles of libel, and it was given and read and considered article by article. Says the record:

"With a view to some alteration in it, Synod agreed to recommit said report. Answers to reasons of dissent given in by Messrs. Anderson, &c. against a Judgment of Synod: 1. It is to be observed that the dissenters have withheld a very material part of the minutes of the Presb'y of Chartiers to which they refer in their dissent and have founded their first reason of dissent upon a partial view of said minute. In the reason of dissent it is said that according to the minute, the Presb'y engaged themselves to make use of the testimony of witnesses on both sides in order to bring the affair to, an issue at next meeting. But here a very important clause in the Presby's minute is altogether omitted, which is, 'that they were to [73] proceed only so far as the parties agree.' Now in a subsequent page of the Presby's book it is declared that Mr. Campbell objected to the Presby's proceeding to decide upon the articles of libel, because there might be witnesses found who would prove the contrary of what Mr. Wilson had deposed concerning Mr. C. The fact then is what Mr. C. stated to the Synod; namely, that he did not consent to the trial being issued at the meeting of Presb'y at Buffaloe, alluded to, and the dissenters are doing injustice to Synod in blaming them for proceeding according to Mr. C's assertions, as it plainly appears from the book of Presby's records, that he asserted nothing but what was well warranted by the Presby's minutes. 2. It seems strange that the dissenters should object as they do in the 1st part of their 2d reason to a sentence of Synod, sustaining an objection to Mr. C's to the Presby's procedure, when the minutes of Presb'y bears clearly that the trial was to proceed only as far as parties could agree. In consistency with their own resolution, the Presb'y were bound to stop proceedings at that time, if Mr. C. was pleased to object, and yet the P'b'y blame a sentence of Synod containing an objection which the P'b'y themselves ought to have sustained, according to previous agreement. But putting affair of mutual consent out of the question, we reckon an adherence to judicial forms of process essential to the obtaining of justice, necessary for maintaining the honor and authority of the court, [74] for preventing all contest about the validity of its sentence, and that the accused may not have any pretext whatever for alledging that they have been cruelly or unjustly treated.

      "It is immaterial in point of right whether what Mr. C. was to produce was positive or not. Exculpatory evidence, we presume, ought in no case, to be precluded, and in ordinary cases, is the first evidence that ought to be completely heard according to form of process. Wherefore although it were granted to the Dissenters that the accusations were sufficiently proven, yet as the P'b'y had not appointed a formal trial to take place at Buffaloe, as Mr. C. objected and alledged that he was grievously injured, by not allowing him the legal time to produce witnesses, which, he said, might be found to prove the contrary of what the witnesses on the part of P'b'y testified against him, and as it is possible that the witnesses Mr. C. proposed to bring might, if not totally, yet partially have exculpated, and so lessened the degree of criminality, we can not but think that the P'b'y withheld from him those rights to which he had a just claim, and those means of clearing himself, which every court of justice, more especially an ecclesiastical court, ought always to, grant to the accused. The Synod therefore do not seem to have proceeded, as the dissenters alledge, upon a mere pretense, but to have been actuated by a desire to support their character as a Court of Christ, for justice, honour and impartiality and so impress upon the mind of the accused a sense of the purpose [75] of Synod to do justice between him and the P'b'y of Chartiers, freely blaming wherever they found cause."

      "Minutes of Associate Synod" for May 26:

The Com. appointed on Mr. Campbell's affair gave in their report which was read, and, after discussion adopted as follows:

      "'1st article contains a charge that Mr. C. affirms that a person's appropriation of Christ to himself as his own Saviour does not belong to the essence of saving faith.' In the judgment of the Com. there are strong grounds to conclude that Mr. C. does not believe in the appropriation of assurance of faith, at least in the sense in which the term is used by the Associate Church. For (1) in his written declaration on this subject to the P'b'y of Chartiers in which it was his design to give satisfaction on this head, he declines giving that description of justifying and saving faith which he knew would be a full vindication of himself against the charge; for Mr. C. in saying that faith 'is a looking to, embracing and leaning upon Christ for salvation,' says nothing more than those would affirm concerning it, who deny the doctrine of appropriation. Besides the same thing may be concluded from a clause in Mr. C.'s Reasons of Protest where he affirms that to believe that Christ shed his blood for us in particular, and that we in particular shall be saved through him, is a false and dangerous definition of faith. Now there is evidently an ambiguity in the first part of this proposition. For if it mean that to believe that [76] Christ intentionally shed his blood for us in particular, and that this is the first thing in order to be believed, then it is indeed a very improper definition of saving faith. But if it mean that Christ as crucified and slain for our salvation, is ours in the offer of the gospel, and by hearty acceptance, consent and appropriation becomes ours in possession, and in this order the believer is warranted to conclude that Christ died intentionally for him; and that he shall assuredly and everlastingly be saved, then it is a true and just definition of faith; and agreeable to the 68th section of the 10th article of our Declaration and Testimony concerning faith, which runs thus: 'We testify all who deny that any persuasion, assurance or confidence, that we in particular, thro' the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, shall be saved belongs to the nature of saving faith. And also agreeable to the Act concerning the doctrine of Grace, which teaches, that faith consists in believing 'that what Christ did for the redemption of sinners, he did it for us, and that we shall be saved thro' him': The Com. considers it as extremely improper in Mr. Campbell to affirm that the above definition of faith is false and dangerous, without specifying and explaining in what sense he considers it false and dangerous. And by comparing this clause of Mr. C's Reasons of Protest, namely that it is false and dangerous to say that faith includes in it a persuasion or belief, that we in particular shall be saved thro' him, with his declaration wherein he speaks of the assurance of faith, it is evident [77] that whatever he may mean by assurance of faith, he can not mean that it includes in it an assurance that we shall have life and salvation by Christ. Which the Com. thinks a material acknowledgement of the point at issue between P'b'y and Mr. C. For notwithstanding that he speaks of the confidence and assurance of faith, yet it is plain from the tenor of the sentence, and especially from the concluding part of it, that he does not mean to assert that assurance belongs to the nature of faith, but to a high degree of it; for he expressly concludes the sentence thus: 'Wherefore the assurance is not of the essence of faith.' Which words, if they have any direct relation to the point in contest, concerning which he intended to explain himself to P'b'y, clearly mean that assurance does not belong to the lowest degree or very nature of faith; but to a high degree of it. For this and this alone was the precise point in contest between the P'b'y and Mr. C. And the declaration was intended as a correct explanation of Mr. C's mind on that point and that point alone. On this ground it is considerably evident that Mr. C. in his declaration denies the very doctrine which the P'b'y was affirming.

      "Mr. C. is charged in the 2nd place with teaching that a church has no divine warrant for confessions of faith, as terms of communion. Comparing what Mr. C. has advanced upon this article in his declarations with what he says in the introduction to his Reasons of Protest, the Com. are of opinion that he has materially acknowledged the [78] charge. The manner in which he speaks in his declarations is evasive and equivocal. Fewer words than he has employed would have given an explicit and satisfactory answer. But instead of saying 'I believe that there is a divine warrant for confessions of faith as terms of communion, he says 'I believe that the church has all the divine warrant for such exhibitions of the truth, which our Confession and Testimony adduce for that purpose,'--a declaration which he might have made in full consistency with the truth of the charge. And that Mr. C. is opposed to the approbation of Confessions of Faith as a term of admission to the fellowship of the church, there are the strongest grounds to believe from the introduction to his reasons of protest, in which he declares that it was not only his opinion, but that he had taught publicly 'that an agreement in what is expressly taught and enjoined in the New Testament, either in express terms or by an approven precedent, should be deemed sufficient in point of unity and uniformity, and that nothing should be made a term of communion in the Christian Church, which is not as old as the New Testament; or that is not expressly revealed and enjoined therein.'

      "On the 3d article, the Com. remarks that if Mr. C. means by ruling elders exhorting publicly in vacant cong'ns, their doing so as what belongs to their office, which indeed appears to be his mind, his encouraging such a practice is inconsistent with preserving the Scripture distinction between the duties of the teaching and ruling elder. [79]

      "On the 4th article, which refers to Mr. C's asserting that it is lawful for people of our communion to hear ministers that are in a stated opposition to our Testimony, the Com. remarks that Mr. C. in his declaration plainly teaches that 'it is lawful for them, in the absence of their own minister to hear other ministers when the worship was not corrupted with matters of human invention. And here they may be allowed to add their opinion that it is altogether unwarrantable for a min'r belonging to this Synod to advise his hearers to attend the public administration of those in different communions; the propriety of min'rs doing which however, Mr. C. in his speeches in Synod, has plainly avowed. Upon the whole the Com. are of opinion that Mr. C's answers to the two first articles of charge, especially, are so evasive, unsatisfactory and highly equivocal upon great and important articles of revealed religion as to give ground to conclude that he has expressed sentiments very different upon these articles from the sentiments held and professed by this church; and are sufficient ground to infer censure.' Before agreeing to the concluding paragraph of the report, Mr. C. begged to be heard. He was heard accordingly. The question was then put, Agree to the concluding paragraph or not, and it was agreed to. To this Mr. C. declared his dissent for reasons to be offered in due form. Adjourned to meet at three o'clock." (Closed with prayer.)

3 o'clock p. m. . . .      

"Resumed the consideration of Mr. C's cause. [80] And after some conversation about what censure was due to Mr. C. for what was found against him, a motion was made that Mr. C. be rebuked and admonished, and, if further satisfaction be not received by the Synod, that he be suspended from his office. "

      "Minutes of Associate Synod," page 192:

"Before taking up this motion it was proposed and agreed to that he should be heard more fully by way of answer to questions or otherwise. Among other questions, the following was put to him, Whether he agreed in sentiment with that passage of the Declaration and Testimony, Art. 13, Sect. 6. 'We testify against all who deny that any persuasion, assurance or confidence, that we in particular, thro' the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved, belongs to the nature of faith.' And he answered in the affirmative. In the course of a long conversation, Mr. C. gave such explanations as the Synod considered pretty satisfactory in regard to the 1st, 2d and 3rd articles. On the 4th article, the Synod judged his explanations not satisfactory; and agreed to require that whatever different sentiments he might have on the subject of occasional hearing from the rest of the Synod, he should abstain from teaching them in public or private. He declared his purpose to avoid giving offence on this head as much as possible. On the ground of the above explanations and resolution, the Synod proceeded to consider in what manner the affair should be issued. A motion that it should be by rebuke and admonition. To which an [81] amendment was offered, that it should be by admonition only. After some conversation was put, Rebuke and admonish Mr. Campbell, or admonish only, and it carried. Rebuke and admonish. Mr. C. wished the Synod to delay passing censure, and the Synod delayed until to-morrow. Adjourned to meet at half past 8 o'clock this evening. Closed with prayer.

      "Half past 8 o'clock p. m., Synod met, and in the absence of the Mod'r was constituted with prayer by Mr. Laing, last Mod'r. Immediately after prayer, the Mod'r took the chair. Members present as above, together with Mr. Murdoch. Read the minutes of last sitting. A protest with reasons against the deed of Synod reversing the sentence of suspension passed by the P'b'y of Chartiers on Mr. Campbell by Messrs. J. Anderson, Jas. Ramsay, Min'rs, S. Murdock, S. Templeton, Elders, was given in and read. Messrs. Pringle and Shaw were appointed a committee to prepare answers to s'd reasons of protest against next meeting of Synod. Mr. Armstrong wished some instructions to the committee on the petition concerning slavery. Some general conversation ensued, expressive of the unanimous sense the Synod had of the evil of slave-holding. Mr. Campbell gave in a paper called 'A Remonstrance,' stating that he could not submit to censure as proposed because he could not acknowledge the charge found against him, while he was willing to submit to an admonition on the score of imprudence; and requesting the Synod to reconsider their deed concerning him. After some [82] conversation the Synod agreed to reconsider. Adjourned to meet tomorrow morning at 6 o'clock. Closed with prayer."

      "Frid., 27, May. Synod met and was opened with prayer by the Mod'r. Members present, except Mr. Campbell and Mr. Murdoch, the latter having leave of absence. A letter from Mr. C. to the Mod'r was received and read, containing grievous charges against the Synod, for their judging him guilty of evasion and equivocation, charges of partiality and injustice, and informing the Synod that he declined their authority. The Synod agreed to summon him to appear immediately to answer for bringing such charges, and for declining their authority. Read the minutes of all the preceding sittings. Mr. C., attending according to summons, was conversed with on the contents of his letter and required to retract the charges against the Synod and submit to their authority. He took back the letter, acknowledging his rashness in bringing such charges and declining the authority of Synod. Adjourned to meet at half past 9 o'clock. Closed with prayer."

      "Half past 9 o'clock a. m. Synod met and was open'd with prayer by the Mod'r. Members present as above, except Messrs. Anderson and Laing, Min'rs; Gosman, Murdoch, Templeton and Wallace, Elders, absent on leave. The Synod reconsidered their judgment in the case of Mr. Campbell, finding his answers in the two first articles of charge evasive, unsatisfactory and highly equivocal. A motion was made that the word 'evasive' be erased, [83] and, after some conversation, was agreed to. The question was then put, Adhere to the Synod's deed respecting the censure; namely, Rebuke and admonition or not, and it was carried, Adhere. Mr. C. was then asked if he was ready to submit to censure. After a few remarks he declared his submission. And a brother having been employed in prayer, he was accordingly rebuked and admonished by the Mod'r. And in this manner the affair was issued."

      "In the representation made by the members of P'b'y of Chartiers, in regard to the benefit likely to result from the measure, the Synod agreed to divide the s'd P'b'y into two; the one, to be called by the present name, the Ass. P'b'y of Chartiers, and to consist of the ministers, together with ruling elders, from the respective sessions of the following Ass. Cong'ns of' Cannonsburg, Mt. Hope and Cross Greek, Piny Creek & Monture's Run. And it was appointed that the several Ass. vacancies presently existing or which may hereafter arise, to the east of the Ohio, together with the vacancies of Rockbridge, Virg., should belong to s'd P'b'y; the other to be called the Ass. P'b'y of Ohio, and to consist of the min'rs, together with a ruling elder from the respective sessions of the following Ass. Cong'ns." [Here on the page of the minutes was left a blank space for the writing in of the names of the said congregations, but it remains blank to this day.]

      On pages 198 and 199 of "Minutes of the Associate Synod" for 1808 there is found the list of [84] appointments, and, last of all, in "Mr. Th. Campbell Phil'a, Jun., July, then in Chartiers till next meeting." So it was thought that the trial for heresy was ended. We have no word as to the activities of Mr. Campbell in Philadelphia during the two months of June and July, 1808. [85]

[TCSCUA 68-85]