so large a portion of the population, that the laws were sometimes
annually. From Pennsylvania they extended themselves into Virginia and Maryland. Their settlements in Carolina were also extensive. In 1709, upwards of six hundred Germans arrived and settled Newbern, and were probably Swiss Germans, from the name which they gave their new home. Between 1730 and 1750, says Dr. Ramsay, South Carolina received large accessions from Switzerland, Holland, and Germany; Orangeburg, Congaree, and Wateree, received a large portion of the German emigrants. Numbers of Palatines arrived every year. In 1764, five or six hundred were sent over from London, and had a separate township of land assigned to them. And a few years later three hundred families, who had previously settled in Maine, removed and joined their countrymen who had fixed themselves in the south-western part of Carolina.6 Other settlements were made at an earlier period in Georgia.*
The Welsh, from their numbers, deserve particular notice. The principal settlement of them at an early period, was upon the left bank of the Schuylkill, in Pennsylvania. They there occupied three townships, and in a few years their numbers so increased that they obtained three additional townships.
The persecutions to which the French protestants were exposed during the reign of Louis XIV., consummated by the revocation of the edict of Nantes in 1685, drove hundreds of thousands of those unhappy people from their native country. They found a home in the various cities of Holland, Germany, and England, and large numbers of them came to this country. They were so numerous in Boston as to have a church by themselves in 1686. In New York, when yet under the dominion of the Dutch, they formed so large a portion of the population, that the laws were sometimes promulgated in their language as well as in that of the Hollanders.3 In Richmond county, they and the Dutch made up almost the entire population; and they were settled also in considerable numbers in the counties of Westchester and Ulster. Scattered emigrants fixed themselves, in
greater or less numbers, in the provinces of Pennsylvania and Maryland, but their principal location was in the southern states. In 1690, king William sent "a large body" of them to Virginia, where lands were assigned them on the James river; others removed to Carolina and settled on the Santee. In 1699, and the following years, six hundred more are mentioned as settling in Virginia. Soon after the settlement of Carolina, Charles II. sent two ships with about two hundred French protestants, to introduce the culture of the productions of the south of Europe. From 1685 onward, the number of French emigrants to Carolina was very considerable; "fugitives from Languedoc on the Mediterranean, from Rochelle, and Saintange, and Bordeaux, the provinces on the bay of Biscay, from St. Quentin, Poictiers, and the beautiful valley of Tour, from St. Lo and Dieppe, men who had the virtues of the English puritans without their bigotry, came to the country to which the tolerant benevolence (?) of Shaftesbury had invited the believers of every creed." This emigration continued far into the succeeding century. In 1752, it is stated upwards of sixteen hundred foreign protestants arrived in South Carolina. In 1764 two hundred and twelve arrived from France. The descendants of these numerous French protestants have become merged almost entirely, in the episcopal and presbyterian churches.
"The history of American colonization is the history of the crimes of Europe." The Scotch presbyterians had not escaped their portion of the persecutions, which all opposers of prelacy, in Great Britain, experienced during the reigns of James II. and Charles I. It was not, however, until the restoration of Charles II. that the measure of their wrongs and sorrows was rendered full. James had been educated a Calvinist and presbyterian, and when leaving Scotland to ascend the vacant throne of Elizabeth, he assured his countrymen of his love for their church, and of his determination to support it. He had, however, hardly crossed the Tweed before he began to manifest his aversion to a form of church discipline, which he regarded as essentially republican. The submissive demeanour of the English bishops, and their high doctrine as to the power of kings, confirmed a conversion
which had already taken place. The Scottish presbyters were accustomed to urge him to repent of his sins; the English bishops, on their knees, assured him he spoke by the immediate assistance of God. It is not wonderful, therefore, that James adopted the cause of the latter, and made it his own. He knew enough, however, of the people whom he had left, or had sufficient respect for their opinions, to induce him to proceed with some degree of caution in his attempts to bring the ecclesiastical polity of Scotland into harmony with that of England. His more unhappy son determined to effect at once, and by authority, what his arbitrary, but timid father was content to accomplish gradually, and with some appearance of co-operation by the church. He first ordered a book of canons to be published, and enforced on his own authority, altering essentially the constitution of the church; and then a liturgy, copied in a great measure from that of England, but altered by Laud, so as to bring it into nearer conformity with the Roman missal. This he ordered should be used by all ministers, on pain of suspension. It was resisted in all parts of the kingdom, and by all classes of the people, from political as well as religious motives. It was not merely a form of prayer, but an absolute despotism, which the people opposed. If the king, without the concurrence of the nation or the church, could introduce the English liturgy, why not the Roman mass? These arbitrary measures excited an opposition which "preserved the liberties, and overthrew the monarchy of England."
Unjust as was the conduct of this unfortunate monarch, it appears mild and honourable when compared with that of his son. Charles II., at the time of his father's death was a friendless fugitive. The Scotch offered to receive him as their king, on condition that he should pledge himself by oath to regard and preserve their presbyterian form of church government. To this he assented. When he arrived in the kingdom he subscribed the covenant; and again at his coronation, under circumstances of much more than usual solemnity, he swore to preserve it inviolate. The Scotch, accordingly, armed in his defence; but, divided among themselves, and led by a general very
unfit to cope with Cromwell, they were soon defeated, and Charles was again driven to the continent. When he returned in 1660, he voluntarily renewed his promise to the Scotch, by whom his restoration had been greatly promoted, not to interfere with the liberty of their church. No sooner, however, was he firmly seated on his throne, than all these oaths and promises were forgotten. Presbyterianism was at once abolished, and episcopacy established; not such as it was under James I., when bishops were little more than standing moderators of the presbyteries, but invested by the arbitrary mandate of the king, with the fulness of prelatical power. An act was passed making it penal even to speak publicly or privately against the king's supremacy, or the government of the church by archbishops and bishops. A court of high commission, of which all the prelates were members, was erected and armed with inquisitorial powers. Multitudes of learned and pious ministers were ejected from their parishes, and ignorant and ungodly men, for the most part introduced in their stead. Yet the people were forced, under severe penalties to attend the ministrations of these unworthy men. All ejected ministers were prohibited preaching or praying except in their own families; and preaching or praying in the fields was made punishable with death. Any one, though the nearest relative, who should shelter, aid, or in any way minister to the wants of those denounced, was held liable to the same penalty as the person assisted. All landholders were required to give bond that their families and dependents should abstain from attending any conventicle. To enforce these wicked laws torture was freely used to extort evidence or confession; families were reduced to ruin by exorbitant fines; the prisons were filled with victims of oppression; multitudes were banished and sold as slaves; women and even children were tortured or murdered for refusing to take an oath they could not understand; soldiers were quartered upon the defenceless inhabitants, and allowed free license; men were hunted like wild beasts, and shot or gibbetted along the highways. Modern history hardly affords a parallel to the cruelty and oppression under which Scotland groaned for nearly thirty years. And what was all this for? It was to support
episcopacy. It was done for the bishops, and, in a great measure, by them. They were the instigators and supporters of these cruel laws, and of the still more cruel execution of them. Is it any wonder, then, that the Scotch abhorred episcopacy? It was in their experience identified with despotism, superstition, and irreligion. Their love of presbyterianism was one with their love of liberty and religion. As the parliament of Scotland was never a fair representation of the people, the general assembly of their church became their great organ for resisting oppression and withstanding the encroachments of their sovereigns. The conflict therefore which in England was so long kept up between the crown and the house of commons, was in Scotland sustained between the crown and the church. This was one reason why the Scotch became so attached to presbyterianism; this too was the reason why the Stuarts hated it, and determined at all hazards to introduce prelacy as an ally to despotism.
Considering the long-continued persecution of the Scotch presbyterians, just referred to, the wonder is that they did not universally forsake their country. The hope of regaining liberty at home, however, never entirely deserted them; and in their darkest hours there were occasional glimpses of better things to come, which led them to abandon the designs of emigration which they had formed. A company of thirty noblemen and gentlemen had contracted for a large tract of land in Carolina, as an asylum for their persecuted countrymen, when the hope of the success of the English patriots, engaged in the plot for which Russel and Sydney suffered, led them to relinquish their purpose. Still, though the emigration was not so great as might, under such sufferings, have been expected, it was very considerable.
What portion of the four thousand presbyterians who, according to Mather, came to New England before 1640, were from Scotland or Ireland, his account does not enable the reader to determine. At a later period, a hundred families from Ireland settled Londonderry in New Hampshire. They brought
with them the Rev. James McGregore as their pastor, "who remained with them until his death, and his memory is still precious among them. He was a wise, faithful and affectionate guide to them both in civil and religious concerns." In 1729, a church was organized in Boston, composed of Scotch and Irish, which continued presbyterian until 1786. The Rev. Mr. Moorhead was their first pastor, "an honest, faithful, and laborious minister." Other emigrants settled at Pelham and Palmer. There was a church also at Hampton.3
At what time the Scotch and Irish began to emigrate to New York, it is not easy to ascertain. Smith says, the inhabitants of the city in 1708, were "Dutch Calvinists, upon the plan of the church of Holland, French refugees on the Geneva model, a few English episcopalians, and a still smaller number of English and Irish presbyterians." Having increased in numbers, they "called Mr. Anderson, a Scotch minister, to the pastoral charge of their congregation: and Dr. John Nicolls, Patrick McKnight, Gilbert Livingston, and Thomas Smith, purchased a piece of ground and founded a church." (p. 209.) That the members of that congregation were principally Scotch may be inferred from the following facts. Of the four gentlemen who were the original purchasers of the ground for the erection of the church, Dr. Nicolls was a native of Scotland, he had the principal and almost exclusive control of the pecuniary affairs of the church, and is spoken of by Mr. Pemberton, "as one of its principal founders, and its greatest benefactor." Mr. Patrick McKnight was from the north of Ireland; Mr. Gilbert Livingston, was Scotch by birth or immediate descent;2 Mr. Thomas Smith's origin is not known. The Rev. Mr. Anderson, their first pastor, settled in 1717, was a Scotch minister, ordained by the presbytery of Irvine. In 1720, a petition was presented to the president of the council for an act of incorporation, and would probably have been granted, but for the active opposition of the vestry of Trinity church, as the council to whom the president referred the application, reported in its favour. This application was made by "Mr. Anderson, presbyterian minister, and Patrick McKnight, John Nicolls,
Joseph Leddel, John Blake, and Thomas Inglis, in behalf of themselves, and the rest of the presbyterian congregation in the city of New York." The petition states, that the applicants had purchased a piece of ground and erected a convenient house for the worship of God, "after the manner of the presbyterian church of North Britain." It further details the inconvenient way in which they were obliged to vest the title to their property in certain individuals, to be held by them until the congregation should be incorporated "as one body politic in fact and in name, for carrying on their said pious intentions, and the free use and exercise of their said religion in its true doctrine, discipline and worship, according to the rules and method of the established church of North Britain." They therefore pray the president, "by letters patent under the great seal of this province, to incorporate them by the name of the ministers, elders, and deacons of the presbyterian church in the city of New York." The account which was published of their long and fruitless efforts to obtain an act of incorporation, is entitled "Case of the Scotch Presbyterians," &c. There can, therefore, be no doubt as to the origin and early character of this congregation. A portion of the people being dissatisfied with Mr. Anderson's strictness as a presbyterian, were, by the trustees of Yale College, erected into a separate congregation. This interference gave great umbrage to the presbytery of Long Island, and much is said in reference to it in our early records. This new congregation did not long continue. Most of its members, it is believed, returned to the old church. At a subsequent period, about 1756, when the majority of people determined, with permission of the synod, to introduce the use of Watts' hymns, a portion of the Scotch members withdrew, and formed the church of which the Rev. John Mason became the pastor.
Holmes mentions the arrival of between four and five hundred emigrants from Scotland at New York, in 1737. The county of Ulster, in 1757, was inhabited by "Dutch, French, English, Scotch, and Irish, but the first and last the most numerous." The north side of Orange county, Smith states, was
inhabited by Scotch, Irish, and English presbyterians; and he mentions a settlement of Scotch-Irish in Albany county.
The Quakers having made extensive settlements in West Jersey, became desirous of extending their influence through the eastern portion of the state. This induced Wm. Penn, and eleven other members of the society of friends, in 1682, to purchase East Jersey from the devisees of Sir George Carteret. In order to avoid exciting the jealousy of other denominations, these new proprietors connected with themselves twelve associates, many of whom were natives of Scotland, "from which country the greatest emigration was expected." To induce the Scotch to emigrate, a favourable account of the province was circulated among them, and the assurance given that they should enjoy that religious liberty, which was denied them in their own country. " 'It is judged the interest of the government,' said George Scot of Pitlochie, apparently with the sanction of men in power, 'to suppress presbyterian principles altogether, the whole force of the law of this kingdom is levelled at the effectual bearing them down. The rigorous putting these laws in execution, has, in a great part, ruined many of those who, notwithstanding hereof, find themselves in conscience obliged to retain these principles. A retreat, where by law, a toleration is allowed, doth at present offer itself in America, and is no where else to be found in his majesty's dominions.' This is the era at which East New Jersey, till now chiefly colonized from New England, became the asylum of Scottish presbyterians." "Is it strange" asks the author just quoted, "that many Scottish presbyterians of virtue, education, and courage, blending a love of popular liberty with religious enthusiasm, came to East New Jersey in such numbers, as to give to the rising commonwealth a character which a century and a half has not effaced?"2 "The more wealthy of the Scotch emigrants, were noted for bringing with them a great number of servants, and, in some instances, for transporting whole families of poor labourers, whom they established on their lands." In a letter from the deputy-governor, dated, Elizabethtown, 1st month 2, 1684, it is said, "the Scots and William