Synod of the West refused to unite with Synod of the North due to 'latitudinarian opinions' on psalmody

Context

This passage describes the aftermath of the 1827 Pittsburgh Convention, where three ARP synods met to discuss potential reunion after having separated from the General Synod. Though the Synod of the South approved “all the resolutions adopted by the Convention,” the other two synods rejected the union plan for different reasons.

Extract

The Synod of the West had an overture on slavery laid before it. This was undecided; and for this reason and this alone the Synod of the West was unwilling, at that time, to unite with the Synod of the South. With the Synod of the North the Synod of the West was unwilling to unite, because of the latitudinarian opinions of some of the leading members of the Northern Synod in respect to psalmody and communion.

The Synod of the North was unfavorable to the union because it desired to be let alone, and permitted to manage its own affairs in its own way. Thus terminated the effort to reorganize the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Church.

Significance

This extract documents psalmody preventing denominational reunion at the synod level:

1. Psalmody as union-breaker: The Synod of the West explicitly refused to unite with the Synod of the North “because of the latitudinarian opinions” on psalmody—showing that psalmody concerns could block mergers, not just cause separations.

2. “Latitudinarian” as the accusation: This term (meaning loose or permissive in matters of worship) was the precise charge leveled against Watts-users—here applied even within the ARP family.

3. Psalmody vs. slavery: The passage distinguishes between the obstacles: slavery prevented West-South union, but psalmody prevented West-North union—showing psalmody was treated as seriously as the slavery question.

4. Long-term consequences: This prevented ARP reunification until 1856, nearly thirty years later—demonstrating how psalmody disputes created lasting institutional divisions.