Mason's Cedar Street congregation shared worship space with Romeyn's Presbyterians, leading to intercommunion and psalmody violation
Context
Lathan narrates in detail how Mason’s intercommunion and psalmody violation arose from practical circumstances. After resigning his Cedar Street pastorate in May 1810, Mason took a small colony to form a third ARP congregation in New York. Unable to find a meeting space, they accepted the use of Dr. Romeyn’s Presbyterian church at non-conflicting hours. The physical proximity led to mutual attendance, affection, and eventually shared communion — an unprecedented act in ARP history.
Extract
Dr. Mason and his colony experienced considerable difficulty at first in obtaining a house of worship. In the midst of their strait, the trustees of the Presbyterian church in Cedar street generously tendered them the use of their house, at such times as it was not occupied by themselves.
The Rev. Dr. John B. Romeyn was, at the time, pastor of the congregation. The hours of worship were so arranged that Dr. Mason immediately succeeded Dr. Romeyn. A large number of Dr. Romeyn’s congregation remained and formed a part of Dr. Mason’s constant hearers.
At no time in all his life were the pulpit powers of Dr. Mason so manifestly felt. He exerted himself. His whole soul was in the work. His hearers were interested, delighted and moved.
By force of circumstances, the two congregations became acquainted with each other, and having become acquainted, they formed for each other a mutual attachment. Practically, they were, only for the time being, one congregation.
[Mason’s own words, quoted by Lathan:]
The invitations were as cordially accepted as they were frankly given. The bulk of the members of both churches, as well as some belonging to correlate churches, mingled their affections and their testimony in the holy ordinance. The ministers reciprocated the services of the sacramental day; and the communion thus established has been perpetuated with increasing delight and attachment, and has extended itself to ministers and private Christians of other churches.
[Mason acknowledged the unprecedented nature:]
“Such an event, it is believed, had never before occurred in the United States.”
[When Mason preached for Romeyn, he used Presbyterian worship practices — including their psalmody — which the committee investigating the matter described as a “clear violation of law,” distinguishing it from the communion question:]
It is almost certain that Dr. Mason and the Rev. J. X. Clarke would have been censured; the former for using a psalmody forbidden by the church, and the latter for practicing a communion not occasional, but clearly irregular.
Significance
This extract provides the detailed origin narrative for the Mason controversy:
Circumstantial origins: The intercommunion began not from theological conviction but from shared physical space — a practical arrangement that dissolved denominational boundaries through proximity and personal affection. This humanizes the controversy.
Mason’s own words: “Such an event, it is believed, had never before occurred in the United States” — Mason knew he was breaking new ground, and Lathan confirms that “so far as the Associate Reformed Church was concerned, no such event had ever occurred.”
Psalmody as the clear violation: While the communion question was debatable (ARP standards technically allowed “occasional communion”), the psalmody violation was unambiguous — Mason used “a psalmody forbidden by the church.” This makes psalmody the sharper denominational marker.
Narrative parallels with Rankin: Both Rankin and Mason generated crises from specific local situations (Rankin’s Kentucky pastorate, Mason’s shared worship space) that escalated into denomination-wide conflicts. Both cases show how practical circumstances could force latent theological tensions into open rupture.