With
regard to education, the influence of the Synod was constantly and beneficially
exerted by insisting on proper literary qualifications in the candidates for the
ministry, by patronizing schools and colleges, and by making provision for the
education of the poor. The literary institutions in which the Synod were
particularly interested, were the academy at Newark, Delaware, and the college
of New Jersey. The trustees of the former were almost all members of the Synod,
on whose application for a general collection in aid of the institution, it was
agreed to countenance the measure and to recommend the academy to the charity of
all the churches. In 1773 the Rev. Dr. Ewing and Dr. Hugh Williamson, a man
distinguished for his scientific attainments, and an elder in the Presbyterian
church, visited England to solicit benefactions in behalf of this academy.
Though it owed its origin to the Synod of Philadelphia, and though at the time
of its incorporation in 1769 all its clerical, and, it is believed, most of its
lay trustees were Presbyterians, it has of late years passed into the hands of
the Episcopalians, and is now known as Newark College. With the college at
Princeton, the connection of the Synod was far more intimate, and the efforts
made for its support were frequent and strenuous.
For
some time after the union, the arrangement which had been made between the Synod
of Philadelphia and the trustees in London, for the support of German schools,
was continued, and a committee annually appointed to dispose of the
appropriation received from that source.
In
1760 a proposition was made for the appointment and support of a professor of
divinity, which the Synod recommended to the consideration of the Presbyteries,
that some plan might be devised for the accomplishment of the object. The
following year, though the Synod agreed “to promote this good purpose, yet
from the pressure of other calls, and the want of funds, they were obliged to
defer it.” Deeply sensible, however, “that the church suffered greatly for
want of an opportunity to instruct students in the knowledge of divinity, it was
agreed that every student, after he has been admitted to his first degree in
college, shall read carefully, on this subject, at least one year, under the
care of some minister of approved character for his skill in theology, and under
his direction shall discuss difficult questions in divinity, study the sacred
Scriptures, form sermons, lectures, and such other useful exercises as may be
directed in the course of his studies. And it is enjoined likewise, that every
preacher for the first year after his licensure, shall show all his sermons to
some minister in our Presbyteries, on whose friendship and candour he depends,
written fairly, to have them corrected and amended. And as they are but young
preachers, we are persuaded that no better method can be taken in present
circumstances to improve them in Christian knowledge, and render them eminently
useful in their station. It is also enjoined that they preach as often as they
can before stated ministers, that they may correct their gestures,
pronunciation, delivery, and the like. And it is further enjoined, that all our
ministers and probationers forbear reading their sermons from the pulpit, if
they can conveniently.”
In
1768, in consequence of a request from the trustees of the college of New Jersey
that the Synod would aid in the support of a professor of divinity in that
institution, a general collection was ordered for that purpose, and fifty pounds
were appropriated towards the salary of the Rev. John Blair, who had been
elected to that office. The wants of the college at this time were so pressing
that in the following year the Synod appointed a committee in every part of the
church for the purpose of raising funds for its support. In consequence of this
application, the Presbytery of New Brunswick addressed a memorial to the
churches under their care, setting forth the condition and claims of the
college. They state that its permanent funds, though once considerable, had been
reduced by necessary expenditures to £1,300, and must be still further reduced,
as the officers could not be supported by the fees for tuition, without making
those fees so high as seriously to interfere with the usefulness of the
institution. It was urged that the college had peculiar claims on our church.
Even in 1767, there were not fewer than eighty of her sons ministers of the
gospel dispersed through the several colonies, since which time there had been
considerable addition to the number. “The eyes,” it is said, “of by far
the greater number of our vacant churches are turned to that college for a
supply of ministers, especially the churches in New Jersey and the southern
colonies. That from the principles there taught and received, we have reason to
think that useful instruments not only have been, but from time to time will be
raised up to propagate the pure evangelical doctrines of the gospel, and to make
a stand against such as might be glad to abridge our liberties, and to bring us
under the yoke of ecclesiastical power, instruments to plead the cause of
liberty and religion, and to make our church respectable.” This effort in
behalf of the college was continued for several years, with what result is not
fully known, except that it is stated that the several committees had “been
very diligent and successful.”
During
the period now under review, viz.: from 1758 to 1789, the college was under the
presidency of Mr. Davies, of Dr. Samuel Finley, and of Dr. Witherspoon. Mr.
Davies entered upon the duties of his office July 26, 1759 and died February 4,
1761, so that he was president little more than eighteen months. Short as was
his administration, his talents and his devotion to his duties rendered it
eminently serviceable to the institution. His successor, Dr. Samuel Finley,
entered on his duties as president, July 1761, and died July 16, 1766. He was a
native of Armagh in Ireland, but removed to this country in 1734, in the
nineteenth year of his age. He was licensed by the New Brunswick Presbytery in
1740, and preached with great success, especially in Pennsylvania and in the
lower counties of New Jersey. In 1744 he settled at Nottingham in Maryland,
where he remained for seventeen years. He there instituted an academy which
enjoyed a wide and deserved reputation. “He was justly famed as a scholar, and
eminently qualified as a teacher.” Dr. John Woodhull, who was one of his
pupils, speaks of him as being always solemn and instructive, and often fervent
in the pulpit, as extensively learned, and as greatly beloved and respected by
his students. Under his administration the college was very flourishing, and his
own reputation rapidly extending, when he was cut down in the prime of life.
About a year after he entered on the presidency, there was an extensive revival
of religion in the college, in which fifty of the students, about one half of
the whole number then in the institution, were supposed to have become sincerely
pious.
Dr.
Finley died in July 1766; the November following, Dr. Witherspoon was
unanimously elected president. Before this appointment was known, a number of
gentlemen attached to that portion of the church which, before the union of the
two Synods, had belonged to the Synod of Philadelphia, waited upon the trustees
to propose the establishment of several professorships in the college, upon a
plan which should unite the whole church in the support of the institution. The
committee of the trustees appointed to confer with these gentlemen reported
that, their proposals being based upon the assumption that the president’s
chair was vacant, their plan had been disconcerted by the appointment of Dr.
Witherspoon, and consequently they could not answer for what their constituents
would do under these altered circumstances, but that they were nevertheless
truly desirous to complete the proposed design. The committee inquired whether,
on the supposition of the nomination of two gentlemen for professorships, viz.:
Messrs. Blair and McDowell, on condition that funds should be raised for their
support, their constituents would be satisfied. To this the gentlemen replied
that, however desirous they were to accomplish so excellent a design, they
could not engage for the future conduct of their constituents. The board, taking
into consideration the above report, came to the following resolution:
“Whereas it is an object of the greatest concern, that union and the strictest
harmony among all the friends and patrons of religion and sound literature,
might be promoted by every proper method, and that this institution may have
every possible advantage of increasing its reputation, and the cause of
learning; and as there appears reason to expect great and happy consequences,
both to the interests of religion and of this seminary, from putting into
execution the general design of the proposals made, they will gladly do every
thing in their power to accomplish the said end; and accordingly declare
themselves greatly desirous that a sufficiency of moneys by subscription or
otherwise, might be obtained to accomplish this noble design; and are cheerfully
willing to join in any particular method that can be devised for raising the
necessary sums. For though this board would gladly proceed to the election of
professors without delay, were their funds sufficient to support such an
additional expense, yet they judge it by no means expedient to take that step
before they have a certain medium for their support.”
The
following year this negotiation was renewed. A number of gentlemen again
attended the meeting of the board, and a committee was appointed to confer with
them. This committee reported that they found them and their constituents still
very desirous of concurring with the trustees of the college in the
establishment and support of a faculty, and promising to unite their utmost
endeavors to raise the necessary funds; that the said gentlemen being asked by
the committee, whether the appointment of all or of any of the particular
persons to professorships named and commended in their proposals, was intended
as a term of their acceding to and assisting in the establishment proposed,
replied that it was not intended to make the appointment of any particular
persons named by their constituents, a term of the proposed union, but that any
other gentlemen who might be deemed qualified for their offices, and
indiscriminately chosen without regard to party distinctions, would be
acceptable to them. The board, taking the subject into consideration, were
unanimously of the opinion that the constitution of a faculty, to consist of
well‑qualified professors to be chosen without any regard to little
party differences, would greatly subserve the interest of religion and learning
in this seminary. They therefore determined to proceed to such an election,
and accordingly the following day chose the Rev. John Blair professor of
divinity and moral philosophy, Dr. Hugh Williamson professor of mathematics and
natural philosophy, Mr. Jonathan Edwards professor of languages and logic, and,
as Dr. Witherspoon, in consequence of the unwillingness of his wife to leave
Scotland, had declined the presidency, the Rev. Samuel Blair was chosen
president and professor of rhetoric and metaphysics. For the want of funds these
appointments were conditional, and, with the exception of that of Mr. John
Blair, were not to take effect for a year, and in the meantime, the college was
to be conducted by Mr. Blair and three tutors. Before the expiration of the
year, the difficulty in the way of Dr. Witherspoon’s accepting the presidency
was removed, and Mr. Samuel Blair having generously withdrawn his name, Dr.
Witherspoon was re-elected, and arrived in this country, August 1768, and was
inaugurated as president on the seventeenth of that month.
The
deficiency in the pecuniary resources of the college prevented the above plan
being carried into effect. Even Mr. Blair, to relieve the funds of the
institution, resigned his office as professor of divinity, and devolved the
duties upon Dr. Witherspoon. Under the auspices of the latter, the college soon
began to flourish, its course of instruction was enlarged, its students
increased, and the funds necessary for its support were supplied. The
Revolutionary War, however, soon put a stop to this course of improvement.
The
college was, in a great measure, disbanded, and though a class graduated in each
year, the number of annual graduates was often not more than four or five. When
peace returned, prosperity returned to the college, and it continued to reward
the labors of its pious founders by contributing largely to the supply of
educated ministers to the church. The number of clergymen educated at this
college before 1789 was two hundred and twenty-nine.
In
1771 a plan for the education of poor and pious young men for the ministry was
laid before the Synod by the Presbytery of New Castle, which was approved. This
plan provided that every vacant congregation receiving supplies should pay two
pounds towards an education fund, every minister one pound, and that voluntary
subscriptions from other quarters should be solicited. Every Presbytery was to
appoint a treasurer, to examine candidates, to direct their studies, &c.
Every beneficiary was to spend one year after licensure in the service of the
Presbytery by which he had been educated; and in case he did not enter the
ministry, he was to give a bond to refund the money expended in his behalf
within five years. It appears from the minutes for the following year that the
Presbyteries of New York, New Brunswick, and the second of Philadelphia, had
fully complied with the above recommendation, and that several others had done
so partially.
In
1775 the question was proposed, whether a Presbytery could, with propriety, take
any candidate upon trial unless furnished with a diploma from some college. The
Synod the following year answered that the advantages of a public education
rendered it highly expedient that all candidates should finish their academical
studies in some public institution, yet as the Presbyteries were the proper
judges of the requisite qualifications of their candidates, it was not intended
to preclude from admission to trial all who had not enjoyed those advantages.
In
1783, at the request of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, the question was
considered, whether a person without a liberal education may be taken on trials,
or licensed to preach the gospel, which was answered in the negative. And in
1785, the same question came up in a different form, viz.: whether, in the
present state of the church in America, and the scarcity of ministers to fill
our vacancies, the Synod or Presbyteries ought to relax in any degree in the
literary qualifications required of intrants into the ministry? And it was
carried in the negative by a great majority.” These decisions, considering the
circumstances of the case, certainly reflect great credit upon the Synod.
The
same year it was proposed that no candidate should be taken on trial until he
shall have employed two years at least in the study of divinity, after his
having passed the usual course of a liberal education. This proposition, after
discussion, was laid over to the following year, and then, “considering,” as
the Synod say, “the present circumstances of our churches, it was decided in
the negative.” It was at the same time “enjoined on every Presbytery to
subject every candidate on trials for the ministry, to an accurate examination
on the discipline of the Presbyterian Church.”
The
attention of the Synod, however, was not confined to candidates for the
ministry, but “considering the education of youth, and their being early
instructed in the principles of religion, as one of the most useful means of
promoting the influence of religion in our churches, they resolved that it be
enjoined on every Presbytery, in appointing supplies to their vacant
congregations, to take order that every vacant congregation within their limits
be carefully catechized at least once in every year, in the same manner as is
required by the order of our church in congregations supplied with regular
pastors; and that the ministers appointed to this duty be required to render an
account of their fidelity in this respect.
“Resolved, also, that it be enjoined on all our congregations to pay a special regard to the good education of children, as being intimately connected with the interests of religion and morality; and that, as schools, under a bad master and careless management, are seminaries of vice rather than of virtue, the session, corporation, or committee of every congregation be required to endeavor to establish schools in such place or places as shall be most convenient for the people; that they be particularly careful to procure able and virtuous teachers; that they make the erection and care of schools a part of their congregational business, and endeavor to induce the people to support them by contributions, being not only the most effectual, but, in the end, the cheapest way of supporting them; that the Presbyteries appoint particular members, or, if possible, committees, to go into vacant congregations to promote similar institutions; that the corporation, session, or committee of the congregation, visit the school or schools at least once in three months, to inquire into the conduct of the master, and the improvement of the children, and to observe particularly his care to instruct them at least one day in the week, in the principles of religion; that the Presbyteries, in appointing ministers to supply vacant congregations, require it as an indispensable part of their duty, to visit at the same time the schools, and require at the next meeting of the Presbytery, an account of their fidelity in this respect, and of the state of the schools; and that in these schools effectual provision be made for the education of the children of the poor; and that at the visitation of the schools one or two of the most ingenuous and virtuous of the poor children be selected annually, in order to give them a more perfect education, and thereby qualify these ingenuous charity-scholars to become afterwards useful instructors in our charity-schools.”
