Mason's 1816 Plea 'drew the dividing line between the parties... clear and distinct, and hastened their organic separation'

Context

Lathan is explaining the two causes that led to the Synod of the Carolinas’ withdrawal from the General Synod: communion and psalmody. He traces the communion controversy from its origins through Mason’s 1816 publication. This passage immediately precedes the section on psalmody, where Lathan quotes the ARP’s Directory for Public Worship prohibiting “composures merely human.”

Extract

In 1810 occasional communion, on an extraordinary occasion, was introduced by Rev. Dr. John M. Mason. The matter was brought before the highest judicatory of the church, and Dr. Mason was not censured. This action of the General Synod was interpreted by the Synods of the Carolinas and Scioto as a vote of approbation. By some congregations the practice of occasional communion was continued and the restrictions placed upon the XXVIth Chapter of the Confession of Faith were practically disregarded. In 1816 Dr. Mason vindicated this course by publishing A Plea for Sacramental Communion on Catholic Principles. This drew the dividing line between the parties, on the communion question, clear and distinct, and hastened their organic separation.

The position taken by Dr. Mason, in his Plea, is very different from that held by him in 1811. His former position, although novel, was not in glaring conflict with the Standards of the Associate Reformed Church. He was placed under extraordinary circumstances, and what would have been unlawful under ordinary circumstances, would have been in all probability allowed under his peculiar surroundings.

In his Plea, however, Dr. Mason advocated a practice which was new, not only in the Associate Reformed Church, but new in all the Presbyterian Churches in the world at that time.

Significance

This passage is critical for understanding Mason’s role in ARP division:

1. “Drew the dividing line… clear and distinct”: This echoes Lathan’s earlier language about psalmody making “the dividing line between the Associates and Covenanters, on the one hand, and the hymn-singing Presbyterians on the other, clear and distinct.” Mason’s actions drew a similar line within the ARP itself.

2. Escalation pattern: Lathan traces a clear escalation — 1810 incident → General Synod fails to censure → congregations imitate → 1816 Plea provides theoretical justification → organic separation follows. This shows how a single act of “innovation” could cascade into denominational rupture.

3. “New in all the Presbyterian Churches in the world”: Lathan frames Mason’s position as not merely innovative within the ARP but unprecedented globally — emphasizing the radicalism of his departure from received practice.

4. Parallel to psalmody dividing line: The communion controversy and the psalmody controversy operated in tandem as causes of ARP division. Mason was the central figure in both.