After
reading the preceding section, no one need be at a loss to conjecture the part
taken by the Synod in relation to the great struggle for the liberties of
America. The position in which the Presbyterians and other non-episcopal
denominations stood to the English government, naturally placed them in the
opposition. The declaration of the English parliament, “That the king’s
majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal,
and commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, had, hath, and of right
ought to have full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient
force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the
crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever” was quite as alarming in
reference to the religious as to the civil liberties of the people. No one
doubted that the English parliament believed an established church desirable, or
that the Episcopal Church was, in their opinion, the best and safest form of
religion; and no one could doubt, as they claimed the power, they would give
that church an effective establishment in every colony sufficiently under their
control. In almost every province, all denominations, except the Episcopal, were
regarded as merely tolerated in their own country, and were subject to many
unjust demands peculiar to themselves. It was impossible that the great majority
of the people could be treated as inferiors; could be denied privileges which
they considered their due; or that they could see a small minority of their
fellow-citizens regarded as standing in an alliance to the state peculiarly
friendly and close, and on that account treated with special favor, without
being discontented and uneasy. The Declaration of Independence was for all such,
a declaration of religious, as well as of civil liberty. It is not surprising,
therefore, that the non-episcopal clergy entered into the conflict with a
decision which, in many cases, would render it more easy to prove that they did
too much, than that they did too little.
If it was natural
that Presbyterians should side with America in that hour of trial, it was no
less natural that the Episcopal clergy should side with the mother country. They
had no peculiar grievances to complain of, nor any fear for the liberty of their
church. On the contrary, it was to England they looked for support, for
patronage, for legal provision, for that property and preeminence which they
thought due to them as a branch of the national church. Besides, many of them
were born, and all had been ordained in England, and personally had taken an
oath of allegiance. They were bound, therefore, by peculiar ties—ties which,
it can well be imagined, good men would find it hard to break. Instead,
therefore, of its being a matter of surprise that the majority of the Episcopal
clergy took part with England, the wonder is that so many sided with America.
Those who did so, did it at a great sacrifice. They contended against their own
apparent interests, and were either very enlightened patriots, or very
indifferent churchmen. Considering, then, the peculiar circumstances of the
Episcopal clergy at that time, so far from being disposed to make it a matter of
reproach that they adhered to their allegiance to the mother country, we are
disposed to think that, as a general rule, they were those of most moral worth,
and most entitled to respect, who took this course. This, however, must not be
considered as an injurious reflection on the patriot clergy. While some of them
took commissions in the army, others remained faithful at once to religion and
their country. The venerable Bishop White, an ornament to the church universal,
was for a long time the chaplain of Congress, and acted with deliberation, and
well considered principle in the course which he adopted.9 The laymen
of the Episcopal Church did not feel themselves trammeled in the same manner, or
to the same extent as the ministers, and hence some of the most prominent and
influential of the public leaders of the day belonged to that church.
9 In a letter to Bishop Hobart, he says, “I continued, as did all of us, to pray for the king, until Sunday (inclusively) before the fourth of July, 1776. Within a short time after, I took the oath of allegiance to the united States, and have since remained faithful to it. My intentions were upright and most seriously weighed; and I hope they were not in contrariety to my duty.”
In another place he states, “Owing to the circumstances of many able and worthy ministers cherishing their allegiance to the king of Great Britain, and entertaining conscientious scruples against the use of the liturgy, with the omission of the appointed prayers for him, they ceased to officiate, and the doors of far the greater number of Episcopal churches were closed for years. In this state there was a part of that time in which there was, through the whole extent, but one resident minister of the church in question: he who records the fact.” (See Address, &c. by William B. Reed. Philadelphia, 1836.)
_____________________________________________________________________
The part taken by
Presbyterians in the contest with the mother country was, at the time, often
made a ground of reproach, and the connection between their efforts for the
security of their religious liberty, and opposition to the oppressive measures
of Parliament, was then distinctly seen. Mr. Galloway, a prominent advocate of
the government, ascribed, in 1774, the revolt and revolution mainly to the
action of the Presbyterian clergy and laity as early as 1764, when the
proposition for a General Synod emanated from a committee appointed for that
purpose in Philadelphia. This was a great exaggeration and mistake, but it
indicates the close connection between the civil and religious part of the
controversy. The same writer describes the opponents of the government as a
“united faction of Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and smugglers.”
Another writer of the same period says, “You will have discovered that I am no
friend to Presbyterians, and that I fix all the blame of these extraordinary
American proceedings upon them.” He goes on, “Believe, Sir, the
Presbyterians have been the chief and principal instruments in all these flaming
measures; and they always do and ever will act against government, from that
restless and turbulent antimonarchical spirit which has always distinguished
them every where when they had, or by any means could assume power, however
illegally.”
As the conduct of
the Presbyterian clergy during the Revolutionary War is not a matter of dispute,
all that we are called upon to do, is briefly to exhibit the action of the Synod
in reference to this subject. One of the first exercises of the power claimed by
Parliament to impose taxes on America was the passage of the Stamp‑Act in
1764. The opposition to this measure was so general and vehement that the
British Government thought proper to repeal the act, though they accompanied the
repeal with the strongest declarations of their right to tax the colonies at
discretion. In the controversy relating to this subject, the Synod of New York
and Philadelphia publicly expressed their sympathy with their fellow citizens.
As soon as the repeal was known in this country, “An overture was made by Dr.
Alison, that an address be presented to our sovereign on the joyful occasion
of the repeal of the Stamp‑Act, and thereby a confirmation of our
liberties; and at the same time proposing a copy of an address for examination,
which was read and approved,” but not recorded. The Synod also addressed a
pastoral letter to the churches, filled with patriotic and pious sentiments.
They remind the people that, after God had delivered the country from the
horrors of the French and Indian war, instead of rendering to him according to
the multitude of his mercies, they had become more wicked than ever. “The
Almighty thus provoked, permitted counsels of the most pernicious tendency, both
to Great Britain and her colonies. The imposition of unusual taxes, a severe
restriction of our trade, and an almost total stagnation of business, threatened
us with universal ruin. A long suspense whether we should be deprived of, or
restored to a peaceable enjoyment of the inestimable privileges of English
liberty, filled every breast with painful anxiety.” They express their joy
that government had been induced to resort to moderate measures, instead of
appealing to force, and call upon the people to bless God, who, notwithstanding
their sins, had saved them from the horrors of a civil war. They, finally,
earnestly exhort their people not to add to the common stock of guilt, but “to
be strict in observing the laws and ordinances of Jesus Christ; to pay a sacred
regard to his Sabbaths; to reverence his holy name, and to adorn the doctrine of
God our Saviour by good works.” “We pray you,” say the Synod, “to seek
earnestly the saving knowledge of Christ, and the internal power and spirit of
religion. Thus may you hope for the continued kindness of a gracious Providence;
and this is the right way to express your gratitude to the Father of mercies for
your late glorious deliverance. But persisting to grieve his Holy Spirit by a
neglect of vital religion, and a continuance of sin, you have reason to dread
that a holy God will punish you yet seven times more for your iniquities.”
In
this letter, as in all the public documents issued before the Declaration of
Independence, there are strong expressions of loyalty, and of the wish to
preserve inviolate the union with the mother country. In the declaration of
rights by the Congress held at New York, in October 1765, it is said, “The
members of this Congress, sincerely devoted with the warmest sentiments of
affection and duty to his Majesty’s person and government, inviolably
attached to the present happy establishment of the Protestant succession,
&c., &c., esteem it our indispensable duty to make the following
declarations of our humble opinion respecting the most essential rights and
liberties of the colonists.” The first declaration is: “That his Majesty’s
subjects in these colonies owe the same allegiance to the crown of Great
Britain, that is owing from subjects born within the realm, and all due
subjection to that august body the Parliament of Great Britain.” And the
Congress held at Philadelphia, September 1774, in their address to the people of
Great Britain, say, “You have been told that we are seditious, impatient of
government, and desirous of independence. Be assured that these are not facts,
but calumnies. Permit us to be as free as yourselves, and we shall ever esteem
an union with you to be our greatest glory and our greatest happiness; we shall
ever be ready to contribute all in our power to the welfare of the empire; we
consider your enemies as our enemies, and your interests as our own.” There is
every reason to believe that these declarations were as sincere as they were
general. The American patriots regarded separation from the mother country as a
great evil, and to the last moment cherished the hope that some accommodation
might be made which should secure them the enjoyment of their rights, and avoid
the necessity of a violent separation.
As
the indications of the coming conflict began to multiply, the Synod endeavored
to prepare their people for the trial. Almost every year they appointed days for
special prayer and fasting, and presented “the threatening aspect of public
affairs,” as one of the most prominent reasons of their observance. In 1775
the record on this subject is to the following effect: “The Synod considering
the present alarming state of public affairs, do unanimously judge it their duty
to call all the congregations under their care, to solemn fasting, humiliation,
and prayer; and for this purpose appoint the last Thursday of June next to be
carefully and religiously observed. But as the Continental Congress are now
sitting, who may probably appoint a fast for the same purpose, the Synod, from
respect to that august body, and for greater harmony with other denominations,
and for the greater public order, if the Congress shall appoint a day not
above four weeks distant from the said last Thursday of June, order that the
congregations belonging to this Synod, do keep the day appointed by Congress in
obedience to this resolution; and if they appoint a day more distant, the
Synod order both to be observed by all our communion. The Synod also earnestly
recommend it to all the congregations under their care, to spend the afternoon
of the last Thursday in every month, in public solemn prayer to God, during the
continuance of our present troubles.” This recommendation of the observance
of a day for prayer every month, was frequently repeated during the war.
In
this memorable year also, the Synod addressed a long and excellent letter to the
churches. It thus begins: “The Synod of New York and Philadelphia, being met
at a time when public affairs wear so threatening an aspect, and when, unless
God in his sovereign providence speedily prevent it, all the horrors of a
civil war throughout this great continent are to be apprehended, were of opinion
that they could not discharge their duty to the numerous congregations under
their care, without addressing them at this important crisis. As the firm belief
and habitual recollection of the power and presence of the living God, ought at
all times to possess the minds of real Christians; so in seasons of public
calamity, when the Lord is known by the judgments which he executeth, it would
be an ignorance or indifference highly criminal, not to look up to him with
reverence, to implore his mercy by humble and fervent prayer, and if possible,
to prevent his vengeance, by timely repentance. We do, therefore, brethren,
beseech you, in the most earnest manner, to look beyond the immediate authors,
either of your sufferings or fears, and to acknowledge the holiness and justice
of the Almighty in the present visitation.” The Synod then exhort the people
to confession and repentance, reminding them that their prayers should be
attended with a sincere purpose and thorough endeavor after personal and family
reformation. “If thou prepare thine heart and stretch out thine hand towards
him, if iniquity be in thine hands, put it far away, and let not wickedness
dwell in thy tabernacles.”
They
considered it also a proper time to press on all of every rank, seriously to
consider the things which belong to their eternal peace, saying, “Hostilities
long feared, have now taken place; the sword has been drawn in one province; and
the whole continent, with hardly any exception, seem determined to defend their
rights by force of arms. If at the same time the British ministry shall continue
to enforce their claims by violence, a lasting and bloody contest must be
expected. Surely then it becomes those who have taken up arms, and profess a
willingness to hazard their lives in the cause of liberty, to be prepared for
death, which to many must be certain, and to every one is a possible or probable
event.
“We
have long seen with concern the circumstances which occasioned, and the gradual
increase of this unhappy difference. As ministers of the gospel of peace, we
have ardently wished that it might be, and often hoped that it would have been
more early accommodated. It is well known to you, otherwise it would be
imprudent indeed thus publicly to profess, that we have not been instrumental in
inflaming the minds of the people, or urging them to acts of violence and
disorder. Perhaps no instance can be given on so interesting a subject, in which
political sentiments have been so long and fully kept from the pulpit; and even
malice itself has not charged us with laboring from the press. But things have
now come to such a state, that as we do not wish to conceal our opinions as men
and citizens, so the relation in which we stand to you, seemed to make the
present improvement of it to your spiritual benefit, an indispensable duty.”
Then
follows an exhortation directed principally to young men who might offer
themselves as “champions of their country’s cause,” to cultivate piety, to
reverence the name of God, and to trust his providence. “The Lord is with you
while ye be with him; and if ye seek him, he will be found of you; but if ye
forsake him, he will forsake you.”
After
this exhortation, the Synod offered special counsels to the churches as to their
public and general conduct.
“First:
In carrying on this important struggle, let every opportunity be taken to
express your attachment and respect to our sovereign King George, and to the
revolution principles by which his august family was seated on the British
throne. We recommend, indeed, not only allegiance to him from principle and
duty, as the first magistrate of the empire, but esteem and reverence for the
person of the prince, who has merited well of his subjects on many accounts, and
who has probably been misled into his late and present measures by those about
him; neither have we any doubt that they themselves have been in a great degree
deceived by false representations from interested persons residing in America.
It gives us the greatest pleasure to say, from our own certain knowledge of all
belonging to our communion, and from the best means of information of far the
greatest part of all denominations in this country, that the present opposition
to the measures of administration, does not in the least arise from disaffection
to the king, or a desire of separation from the parent state. We are happy in
being able with truth to arm, that no part of America would either have approved
or permitted such insults as have been offered to the sovereign in Great
Britain. We exhort you, therefore, to continue in the same disposition, and not
to suffer oppression or injury itself easily to provoke you to any thing which
may seem to betray contrary sentiments. Let it ever appear that you only desire
the preservation and security of those rights which belong to you as freemen and
Britons, and that reconciliation upon these terms is your most ardent desire.
“Secondly,
be careful to maintain the union which at present subsists through all the
colonies. Nothing can be more manifest than that the success of every measure
depends on its being inviolably preserved; and, therefore, we hope you will
leave nothing undone which can promote that end. In particular, as the
Continental Congress, now sitting at Philadelphia, consists of delegates chosen
in the most free and unbiassed manner, by the body of the people, let them not
only be treated with respect, and encouraged in their difficult service; not
only let your prayers be offered up to God for his direction in their
proceedings, but adhere firmly to their resolutions; and let it be seen that
they are able to bring out the whole strength of this vast country to carry them
into execution. We would also advise for the same purpose, that a spirit of
candour, charity, and mutual esteem, be preserved and promoted towards those of
different religious denominations. Persons of probity and principle of every
profession, should be united together as servants of the same Master; and the
experience of our happy concord hitherto in a state of liberty, should engage
all to unite in support of the common interest; for there is no example in
history in which civil liberty was destroyed, and the rights of conscience
preserved entire.
“Thirdly,
we do earnestly exhort and beseech the societies under our care to be strict and
vigilant in their private government, and to watch over the morals of their
several members.” This duty is urged at some length, and then the letter
proceeds thus:
“Fourthly,
we cannot but recommend and urge in the warmest manner, a regard to order and
the public peace; and as in many places, during the confusion that prevails,
legal proceedings have become difficult, it is hoped that all persons will
conscientiously pay their just debts, and to the utmost of their power serve one
another, so that the evils inseparable from a civil war, may not be augmented by
wantonness and irregularity.
“Fifthly,
we think it of importance at this time, to recommend to all of every rank, but
especially to those who may be called to action, a spirit of humanity and mercy.
Every battle of the warrior is with confused noise and garments rolled in blood.
It is impossible to appeal to the sword without being exposed to many scenes of
cruelty and slaughter; but it is often observed that civil wars are carried on
with a rancour and spirit of revenge much greater than those between independent
states. The injuries received or supposed, in civil wars, wound more deeply than
those of foreign enemies. It is, therefore, more necessary to guard against this
abuse, and recommend that meekness and gentleness of spirit which is the noblest
attendant on true valour. That man will fight most bravely who never begins to
fight till it is necessary, and who ceases to fight as soon as the necessity is
over.
“Lastly,
we would recommend to all the societies under our care, not to content
themselves with attending devoutly on general fasts, but to continue habitually
in the exercise of prayer, and to have frequent occasional voluntary meetings
for solemn intercession with God on this important trial. Those who are
immediately exposed to danger need your sympathy; and we learn from the
Scriptures, that fervency and importunity are the very characters of that prayer
of the righteous man that availeth much. We conclude with our most earnest
prayer, that the God of heaven may bless you in your temporal and spiritual
concerns, and that the present unnatural dispute may be speedily terminated by
an equitable and lasting settlement on constitutional principles.”
The
Rev. Mr. Halsey, it is recorded, dissented from that paragraph of the above
letter, which contains the declarations of allegiance. This gentleman, it seems,
was at least a year in advance, not only of the Synod, but of Congress. This
pastoral letter contains a decided and unanimous expression, on the part of the
Synod, of the side which it took in the great struggle for the liberties of
America. It certainly does them and the church which they represented, great
honor. They adhered to the last to the duties which they owed their sovereign;
they approved of demanding no new liberties; they required only the secure
possession of privileges which they were entitled to consider as their
birthright.
A
month after the publication of this letter, the Presbyterian clergymen of
Philadelphia published an address to the ministers and Presbyterian
congregations of the county of _____, in North Carolina. It seems that there
were some Presbyterians in that province who hesitated as to the course which
they ought to take in the coming conflict. This is the more to be wondered at,
as North Carolina was in advance of almost any province on the continent in its
opposition to the British authorities. They had already driven away their
governor and set up a government of their own, and on the 20th of
May, 1775, was issued the famous Mecklenburgh declaration of independence, more
than a year before Congress ventured upon that step. The name of the county is
left blank in the title page of this address. The Philadelphia ministers say to
their North Carolina brethren, “It adds greatly to our distress to hear that
you are somehow led aside from the cause of liberty and freedom, by men who have
given you an unfair representation of the debate between the parent country and
her colonies.” They make strong professions of loyalty, and appeal to the
declarations of Congress on the subject, and add, “We want no new privileges;
let us continue connected with them as we were before the Stamp‑Act, and
we demand no more.” They refer also to the pastoral letter of the Synod, which
they beg their brethren to read. They then recount the grievances of the
country, especially the claim on the part of the British Parliament, of the
power “to make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever.” “By virtue of
this power,” it is added, “they have established Popery in Quebec, and the
arbitrary laws of France, and why may they not do the same in Pennsylvania or
North Carolina?” “What shall we then do,” it is asked, “in these days of
trouble and distress? We must put our trust in God, who is a present help in the
time of trouble; but we must depend on him in the use of means; we must unite,
if possible, as one man, to maintain our just rights; not by fire and sword, or
by shedding the blood of our fellow‑subjects, unless we are driven to it
in self‑defence, but by strictly observing such resolutions neither to
export nor import goods, as may be recommended by our general Congress.”
Signed, July 10th, by Francis Alison, James Sproat, George Duffield,
and Robert Davidson.
The
Presbytery of Hanover, in a memorial presented to the Legislature of Virginia in
1776, expressed with earnestness their hearty adoption of their country’s
cause. “Your memorialists,” they say, “are governed by the same sentiments
which have inspired the United States of America; and are determined that
nothing in our power or influence shall be wanting to give success to their
common cause. We would also represent that dissenters from the Church of
England, in this country, have ever been desirous to conduct themselves as
peaceable members of the civil government, for which reason they have hitherto
submitted to several ecclesiastical burdens and restrictions, that are
inconsistent with equal liberty. But now, when the many and grievous oppressions
of our mother country have laid this continent under tire necessity of casting
off the yoke of tyranny, and of forming independent governments upon equitable
and liberal foundations, we flatter ourselves we shall be freed from all the
incumbrances which a spirit of domination, prejudice, or bigotry hath interwoven
with our political systems. This we are the more strongly encouraged to expect,
by the declaration of rights, so universally applauded for that dignity,
firmness, and precision with which it delineates and asserts the privileges of
society, and the prerogatives of human nature, and which we embrace as the magna
charta of our commonwealth, that can never be violated without endangering
the grand superstructure it was destined to sustain.”
As at the beginning, so also at the close of the
war, the Synod directed a pastoral letter to their congregations expressing
their sentiments in relation to the contest. In the letter written in 1783, they
say, “We cannot help congratulating you on the general and almost universal
attachment of the Presbyterian body to the cause of liberty and the rights of
mankind. This has been visible in their conduct, and has been confessed by the
complaints and resentment of the common enemy. Such a circumstance ought not
only to afford us satisfaction on the review, as bringing credit to the body in
general, but to increase our gratitude to God for the happy issue of the war.
Had it been unsuccessful, we must have drunk deeply of the cup of suffering. Our
burnt and wasted churches, and our plundered dwellings, in such places as fell
under the power of our adversaries, are but an earnest of what we must have
suffered, had they finally prevailed.
“The
Synod, therefore, request you to render thanks to Almighty God, for all his
mercies spiritual and temporal; and in a particular manner for establishing the
independence of the United States of America. He is the supreme disposer, and to
Him belong the glory, the victory, and the majesty. We are persuaded you will
easily recollect many circumstances in the course of the struggle, which point
out his special and signal interposition in our favor. Our most remarkable
successes have generally been when things had just before worn the most
unfavorable aspect; as at Trenton and Saratoga at the beginning, in South
Carolina and Virginia towards the end of the war.” They specify, among other
mercies, the assistance derived from France, and the happy selection “of a
commander‑in‑chief of the armies of the United States, who, in this
important and difficult charge, has given universal satisfaction, who was alike
acceptable to the citizen and the soldier, to the state in which he was born,
and to every other on the continent; and whose character and influence, after so
long service, are not only unimpaired but augmented.”
In
a history designed to exhibit the character of the Presbyterian Church, some
notice of the part taken by its members, and especially by its ministers, in an
event so important as the Revolutionary War, to the religious as well as the
civil destiny of our country, could not be omitted. Enough has been said to show
that her influence was thrown upon the side of liberty, upon that side which the
most scrupulous Christian moralist, unless he denies the lawfulness of war under
all circumstances, must pronounce to be the side of justice and of human
happiness. We now turn to the more strictly ecclesiastical portion of our
narrative.
The
great increase of the church, and the manifold inconveniences consequent on all
the ministers being required to attend every year the meetings of the Synod, led
in 1786 to the adoption of the resolution: That the Synod would establish out of
its own body, three or more Synods; out of which shall be composed a General
Assembly, Synod, or Council, agreeably to a system hereafter to be adopted. A
committee was accordingly appointed to prepare a plan of division. This
committee recommended the formation of four Synods, viz.: First, the Synod of
New York and New Jersey to be composed of the Presbyteries of Dutchess, Suffolk,
New York and New Brunswick. Second, the Synod of Philadelphia to consist of the
Presbyteries of Philadelphia, Lewes, New Castle, Baltimore, and Carlisle. Third,
the Synod of Virginia to include the Presbyteries of Redstone, Hanover,
Lexington, and Transylvania. Fourth, the Synod of the Carolinas to consist of
the Presbyteries of Abingdon, Orange, and South Carolina. The committee further
recommended the formation of a General Assembly, to be composed of delegates
from the several Presbyteries in the proportion of one minister and one elder
for every six members. This report was subsequently adopted, but the proposed
division was not to take effect until the formation of the new constitution.
In
order to prepare such a constitution, the Synod appointed Dr’s. Witherspoon,
Rodgers, Sproat, Duffield, Alison, and Ewing, Mr. Matthew Wilson and Dr. Smith,
ministers, and Isaac Snowden, Robert Taggart, and John Pinkerton, elders, a
committee to examine the book of discipline and government, and digest such a
system as they should think adapted to the state of the Presbyterian Church in
America. As soon as this draught was ready, the committee were directed to have
it printed and sent down to the Presbyteries, who were required to report in
writing their observations upon it at the next meeting of the Synod. This
Committee performed the duty assigned them, and in 1787 the Presbyteries were
called upon for their observations on the plan which had been submitted to their
consideration. The plan was then discussed at much length, section by section,
and various amendments adopted. When this process was completed, the form of
government thus adopted was printed, and again transmitted to the Presbyteries
“for their consideration, and for the consideration of the churches under
their care.”
The
Synod then “took into consideration the last paragraph of the twentieth
chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith; the third paragraph of the
twenty‑third chapter, and the first paragraph of the thirty‑first
chapter, and having made some alterations, agreed that the said paragraphs as
now altered, be printed for consideration together with the draught of a plan of
government and discipline. The Synod also appointed a committee to revise the
Westminster Directory for Public Worship, and to have it, when thus revised,
printed together with the draught, for consideration. And the Synod agreed
that, when the above proposed alterations in the Confession of Faith shall have
been finally determined upon by this body, and the Directory shall have been
revised as above directed and adopted by the Synod, the said Confession thus
altered, and the Directory thus revised and adopted, shall be styled, “The
Confession of Faith and Directory for Public Worship of the Presbyterian Church
in the United States of America.”
It appears that the Synod were not entirely
unanimous, at least in the first instance, in reference to these measures. When
the proposed plan of government was transmitted to the Presbytery of Suffolk,
that body addressed a letter to the Synod, “praying that the union between
them and the Synod might be dissolved.” The Synod appointed a committee to
attend a meeting of that Presbytery, and to enter on a free conversation with
them on the nature of their difficulties. At the same time the following letter
was sent to the Presbytery in question:
“Reverend and Dear Brethren:
“We
received a letter from you, dated April 11, 1787, which both surprised and
grieved us, by informing us, ‘that you think it needful that the union between
you and us should be dissolved.’ We are surprised that a matter of so much
importance as breaking the peace and unity of the church should be so suddenly
gone into, without our receiving any information of the matter in respect to any
previous things leading to such an event. We declare that we have done nothing,
which we know of, that should be so much as a matter of offence to you, much
less a ground of withdrawment or separation. We have always supposed that you as
brethren with us, believed in the general system of doctrine, discipline,
worship, and church government, as the same is contained in the Westminster
Confession of Faith, Catechisms and Directory. You inform us ‘that your local
situation renders it inconvenient to maintain the union.’ This is the same
that ever it was, when we took sweet counsel together, strengthened each
others’ hands in the advancement of the cause of our dear Redeemer, stood firm
in opposition to the enemies of our religion, and greatly comforted and
encouraged one another.
“You
say, ‘that concurrence with the draught of the form of government and
discipline for the Presbyterian Church in North America is impracticable.’
That is only a draught or overture for amendment, and we should have rejoiced
much to have had your company and aid in pointing out those impracticabilities,
and in altering, correcting, and completing the said draught. We apprehend
that there are no principles in it different from the Westminster Directory;
only the same rendered more explicit in some things, and more conformable to the
state and circumstances of the Presbyterian Church in America.
“You
likewise add, ‘the churches in your limits will not comply therewith.’
Perhaps those churches, from some cause unknown to us, may have hastily imbibed
groundless prejudices, which by taking some pains with them, and by giving a
proper explanation of the matter, might be readily removed. We are fully of
opinion that the general principles in the said draught contain the plan of
church discipline and government revealed in the New Testament, and are
conformable (allowance being made for the differences in the states of civil
society and local circumstances) to the practices and usages of the best
reformed churches.
“Wherefore,
dearly beloved brethren, in the bowels of brotherly love, we intreat you to
reconsider the resolution expressed in your letter. You well know that it is not
a small thing to rend the seamless coat of Christ, or to be disjoined parts of
that one body of his church. We are all members one of another. There should be
no schism in the body, but we should comfort, encourage, and strengthen one
another, by the firmest union in our common Lord. We are Presbyterians, and we
firmly believe the Presbyterian system of doctrine, discipline, and church
government, to be nearer the word of God than that of any other sect or
denomination of Christians. Shall all other sects and parties be united among
themselves for their support and increase, and Presbyterians divided and
subdivided, so as to be the scorn of some and the prey of others? In order to
testify to you the high sense we entertain of the importance of union in the
Presbyterian body in America, we have appointed a committee, viz. the Rev. Dr.
Rodgers, Dr. McWhorter, Mr. Roe, Mr. John Woodhull, and Mr. Davenport, to wait
on you, to converse with you, and to endeavor to remove difficulties.
“Therefore
we request the moderator of your Presbytery to call the same together, to meet
our committee at Huntingdon on the first Wednesday in September, for these
purposes, at which time and place our committee are appointed to attend. That
you may, in a spirit of candour and love, reconsider your resolution, and
continue in a state of union with us, and that we may, by our united efforts,
advance the kingdom of our glorious Redeemer, is the earnest prayer of your
affectionate and grieved brethren.”
The
committee above named, reported the following year to the Synod that, after a
full and amicable conference with the Suffolk brethren, the latter withdrew
their request for a dismission, as appeared from the following extract from
their minutes. “The Presbytery of Suffolk met at Brook Haven, April 8, 1788,
according to appointment. Entered upon the consideration of the petition sent to
the Rev. Synod of New York and Philadelphia at their last sessions, requesting a
dismission from their body: and after deliberating on it, came to the following
conclusion, viz.: to withdraw the petition.”
It
is known also that the Rev. Matthew Wilson was far from being satisfied with the
form of government ultimately adopted. The only intimation of this fact
contained in the minutes is a record to the following effect: “A petition from
the Rev. Dr. Matthew Wilson, detained by bodily indisposition, respecting the
draught of the form of government, was presented and read. Ordered, that it lie
on the table.”10
________________________________________________________________
10
Dr. Matthew Wilson, though an old‑side man educated under Dr. Alison, was
not in theory a Presbyterian, in the ordinary sense of the term. He seems to
have held a system of
church government peculiar to himself, though very analogous to that since
published by Mr. Haldane, in Scotland. In every congregation he supposed there
ought to be a Presbytery, composed of the pastor, or bishop, and presbyters,
which presbyters were to teach or preach, if occasion called for it. He
questioned the propriety of Presbyteries constituted as ours are, and denied the
authority of such Presbyteries, and of Synods over churches and ministers. There
is extant a printed sheet containing extracts from an overture of his, presented
to the Synod in 1774, presenting twenty‑one queries, “the reasonings in
support of which had been read before the Synod.” The following selection
from these queries may serve to give an idea of
Dr. Wilson’s views.
1.
“Whether every apostolic and primitive church had not its bishop or
pastor, and deacons? The pastor his assistant presbyters, one of
whom was the catechist or doctor? The deacons their assistant widows for the
sick and poor?”
4.
“Whether, besides the preaching of
the word, &c. by the bishop or pastor, they had not, in every
congregational church, presbyters ordained to preach, when invited, in their own
or any other congregation? Acts XI. 19; 1 Pet. IV. 10, 11, &c.”
5.
“Whether
there was not a Presbytery in every church, i.e., congregation, or city,
composed of
its proper officers at least? Whether bishops or presbyters were not of the same
order essentially, having the power of
the keys in foro exterlore et
interiore? Tit. I. 5‑7; Phil. I. 1; Acts XX. 17, 19, &c.; as
contended for by Jerome, Gregory Nazianzen, &c.”
8.
“Whether Christ, or his apostles, appointed any stated judicatories or
vested any controlling authority in any bishop, or Synod, or Assembly, over
particular Churches, or Presbyteries, or pastors?”
15.
“Whether there be any other judicatures besides Presbyteries in
particular congregations, authorized in God’s word, as having powers of
ordination and discipline, censures, admission and rejection of officers and
members of the church?”
19.
“Whether the meeting of pastors and lay‑elders, one of each from
every congregation, can be a scriptural Presbytery? Does not a Presbytery act in
a church, and a church consist of persons assembled for worship, rather than
mere government? Can there be a true apostolic Presbytery, unless all the
officers at least of the church convene, and give their assent, or the majority
of them, in every affair of discipline before them?
21. “Finally, whether, from Scripture or the primitive Christian churches, those councils met in the name of Christ, for the purpose of promoting union, love, peace, and edification, in the way of mutual communion, and agreeable holy conversation of all the churches together, have any church power at all properly so called; such as has too often been claimed by our Synods, &c. over any churches, their members, officers, Presbyteries, temporalities, as to receiving or rejecting members, making acts, laws, and canons, assuming the power of Presbyteries to admit or reject pastors, modelling Presbyteries, fixing their limits, ordering one church to one, and another to another; preventing young presbyters going to any church or Presbytery which they may choose, and where they are called in providence. I say, whether all these, and a thousand other acts of church power, are not altogether ordinances of men, and as really anti‑Christian additions to the apostolic church regimen and order as diocesan Episcopacy itself? 2 Cor. I. 24.”
The overture containing these queries was presented by Dr. Wilson just after the difficulty in the Synod about the rule respecting foreign ministers, and the settlement of Mr. Duffield in Philadelphia; on both which occasions, Dr. Wilson protested against the action of the Synod in the premises.
_________________________________________________________________________________
It does not appear
that this dissatisfaction extended to any considerable number of the members; at
least there is not the slightest intimation on the minutes of the want of
perfect unanimity. It is there recorded that the “synod having fully
considered the draught of the form of government and discipline, did, on a view
of the whole, and hereby do ratify and adopt the same as now altered and
amended, as the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, and as the
rule of their proceedings by all inferior judicatories belonging to this body.
And they order that a correct copy be printed, and the Westminster Confession of
Faith, as now altered, be printed in full along with it, as part of the
Constitution.
“Resolved, That the true intent and meaning of the above
ratification by the Synod is, that the Form of Government and Discipline, and
the Confession of Faith, as now ratified, are to continue to be our constitution
and confession of faith and practice unalterably, unless two thirds of the
Presbyteries, under the care of the General Assembly, shall propose alterations
or amendments, and such alterations or amendments shall be agreed to and enacted
by the General Assembly.”
The
Synod having also “revised and corrected the Directory for Worship, did
approve and ratify the same, and do hereby appoint the said Directory, as now
amended, to be the Directory for the public worship of God in the Presbyterian
Church in the United States of America. They also took into consideration the
Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and having made a small amendment of
the Larger, did approve, and do hereby approve and ratify the said Catechisms,
as now agreed on, as the Catechisms of the Presbyterian Church in the United
States. And the Synod order that the said Directory and Catechisms be printed
and bound up in the same volume with the Confession of Faith and Form of
Government and Discipline, and that the whole be considered as our standard of
doctrine, government, discipline, and worship, agreeably to the resolutions of
the Synod at its present sessions.
“Ordered,
that Dr. Duffield, Mr. Armstrong, and Mr. Green, be a committee to superintend
the printing and publishing of the above said Confession of Faith and
Catechisms, with the Form of Government and Discipline, and the Directory for
the worship of God, as now adopted and ratified by the Synod, as the
Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America; and
that they divide the several parts into chapters and sections properly
numbered.”
After
this work was finally accomplished, it was resolved unanimously “that this
Synod be divided, and it is hereby divided into four Synods, agreeably to an act
made and provided for in the sessions of Synod in the year 1786, and this
division shall commence on the dissolution of the present Synod.
“Resolved, That the first meeting of the General Assembly to be
constituted out of the above Synods be held, and it is hereby appointed to be
held on the third Thursday of May, one thousand seven hundred and
eighty‑nine, in the Second Presbyterian Church in the City of
Philadelphia, at eleven o’clock, a.m.;
and that Dr. Witherspoon, or, in case of his absence, Dr. Rodgers, open the
General Assembly with a sermon, and preside until a moderator be chosen.”
After
appointing the time and place of meeting of the several Synods, the Synod of New
Fork and Philadelphia was dissolved, and the session was concluded with prayer.
Thus closed the career of this venerable Synod, after an existence of thirty years actively and usefully employed. During this period the church had rapidly increased. The Synod had received an accession of about two hundred and thirty new members; it had grown from eight to sixteen Presbyteries, and had under its care above four hundred and twenty congregations.11 Of these about forty were in the State of New York, and three hundred and eighty in the Middle and Southern States. Nothing could prove more decisively the origin and general character of the great mass of our church up to this period. The overwhelming majority of its members were located in those portions of the country which had been settled by Scotch and Irish Presbyterians.
_____________________________________________________________________
11 It appears from a printed list of the ministers and congregations, published in 1788, that there were then one hundred and seventy‑seven ministers connected with the Synod, and four hundred and nineteen congregations reported, as follows: Suffolk Presbytery, thirteen congregations; Dutchess, nine; New York, thirty-nine; New Brunswick, twenty-six; Philadelphia, twenty-two; New Castle, twenty-seven; Lewes, nineteen; Baltimore, twelve; Carlisle, fifty‑six; Redstone, twenty-seven; Lexington, twenty-seven; Hanover, twenty-one; Orange, seventy-one; Abingdon, twenty-five; South Carolina, forty-five; Transylvania, no report—as this Presbytery consisted of five ministers, it had probably ten congregations under its care. As the Presbytery of New York then included the territory now embraced within the limits of the Presbyteries of Newark and Elizabethtown, nineteen or twenty of its congregations were in New Jersey, leaving the number of congregations in the State of New York forty-one or forty-two.
________________________________________________________________________
With
regard to the Synod it may be remarked that it consisted, in the general, of
liberally educated men. Of the two hundred and thirty new members, more or less,
received after the union in 1758, about one hundred and twenty were graduates of
the College of New Jersey, and from twenty to twenty‑five graduates of
Yale. Of the residue many were educated in Europe, or at the University of
Pennsylvania, or at the Newark Academy in Delaware, or at Pequea, or during the
latter part of the period under review, at Hampden‑Sydney College, or at
the Washington Academy in Virginia. It hence appears that the great body of our
ministers, as well as of our people, were born and educated within the bosom of
the Presbyterian Church.
The members of this Synod were, to a remarkable degree, harmonious in their doctrinal views. There is no indication of diversity of opinion on any important subject; there were no doctrinal controversies, and but one instance of the infliction of censure for erroneous opinions. Besides this negative evidence, we have the positive proof to be found in the frequent declarations of the adherence of the Synod to the Westminster Confession, and the unanimous adoption of that formula as a part of the new constitution.12
____________________________________________________________________
12 In an interesting letter written by the Rev. Dr. King of Franklin County, at the beginning of the war, there is a strong testimony to the unanimity of the Synod in reference to matters of doctrine. He tells his correspondent, “I think that our Synod will be very cautious, as they have hitherto been, with respect to the admission of ministers from Europe, and especially from such places as are suspected of encouraging Arminianism, &c., and where they are so lax as to the admission of candidates. It is a particular happiness for us as yet, that we have been cautious, and Divine Providence has favoured our endeavours; for I do not know that any minister belonging to our Synod can be reasonably suspected of leaning to any but the Calvinistic scheme.” This letter was written in answer to one dated April 13th, 1775. (See Pittsburgh Herald, April 22d, 1836.) (Vol. II—27.)
_______________________________________________________________________________
The
strictly Presbyterian character of the Synod is manifest from its records, which
may challenge, as to this point, a comparison with those of any similar body.
The men who professed to derive their ecclesiastical “origin from the Church
of Scotland,” who declared that they “adopted her standards of doctrine,
discipline, and worship,” and whose ecclesiastical proceedings are so fully in
accordance with their professions, cannot be suspected of a want of
Presbyterianism.
A
much more interesting point is the religious character of the Synod. On this
subject little can be learned from the minutes. The impression, however, made by
the plan of union adopted in 1758, by the tone and sentiments of the numerous
documents having reference to practical subjects, by the frequent appointment of
days for special religious observance, by the care taken to promote the
religious education of the young and to maintain a high standard of piety in the
ministry, and by the efforts made to extend the blessings of the gospel to the
destitute, is that, as a body, the Synod of New York and Philadelphia was
distinguished for its piety. And this impression is confirmed by the fact that
so large a number of its members are still held in grateful remembrance as
devoted servants of God.
As
to the state of religion throughout the church during this period, neither the
limits of this work, nor the materials at the command of the writer, admit of
its being here fully considered. It is known that, in general, the gospel was
faithfully preached, that many new churches were organized, and old
congregations were enlarged. It is known, also, that in many parts of the church
there were revivals to a greater or less extent. Under the administration of
Dr. Finley, there was, as already mentioned, a revival in the College of New
Jersey, during which about fifty of the students became members of the church.
There were frequent seasons of this kind also in Pennsylvania, especially under
the ministry of Mr. McMillan, Mr. J. Smith, and Mr. Powers. With regard to
Virginia, it is stated, “that from the constitution of the Hanover Presbytery
(1755), to the removal of Mr. Davies (1759), the progress of religion was more
rapid than from that time to the division of the Presbytery (1770). In the
latter of these periods, it appears to have been declining as to the life and
power of it, in those places where before it was most flourishing; but it spread
to other places, and the Church was extended much further during this period.
And though there was no remarkable revival of religion, it was gradually
taking root in a few in many places.” The period from the division of the
Presbytery until the formation of the General Assembly was marked by several
revivals. That which occurred within the bounds of the Presbytery of Hanover
“was begun and carried on principally under the ministry of the Rev. J. B.
Smith, who had charge of the congregations of Cumberland and Briery. The word at
this time appeared to have a peculiar effect on the minds of the people. All who
attended seemed to feel in some measure, and many were deeply affected, turned
from their wicked practices, and earnestly engaged in seeking the favor of God.
Some of these impressions soon wore off, but generally they continued for some
time. A considerable number of those that were awakened obtained a comfortable
hope of their acceptance with God, and joined the Church. The manner of the
Spirit’s operation was similar to what has been known in revivals, very
various, yet producing the same effects in essential points. This work seemed to
go on for several years, without any abatement of the fervor which appeared at
first; but, as might be expected, this at length subsided.” It is further
stated that “at this time a greater attention to religion than usual prevailed
through the whole country.”
Nearly
at the same time there “was a very considerable revival within the bounds of
the Lexington Presbytery. It began, and continued to prevail most, in the
congregations of Lexington and New Monmouth, which were under the pastoral care
of the Rev. William Graham, but extended more or less into all the congregations
within the bounds of the Presbytery. It prevailed considerably in Washington
Academy, so that many who were at that place, have since been licensed to preach
the gospel of Christ, and are now settled in the congregations of this and the
adjoining Presbyteries.”
The effects of the Revolutionary War on the state of our Church was extensively and variously disastrous. The young men were called from the seclusion of their homes to the demoralizing atmosphere of a camp; congregations were broken up; churches were burnt, and in more than one instance pastors were murdered; the usual ministerial intercourse and efforts for the dissemination of the gospel were in a great measure suspended, and public morals in various respects deteriorated. From these effects it took the church a considerable time to recover, but she shared, through the blessing of God, in the returning health and prosperity of the country, and has since grown with the growth, and strengthened with the strength, of our highly favored nation.
