house." It was mentioned in the preceding chapter, that Woodbridge was
The congregation at Neshaminy was a Dutch presbyterian church. Their pastor was the Rev. Mr. Van Cleck, from Holland, and the letter addressed to them by the presbytery is directed to the "Dutch people." That they were regularly organized is evident from a minute recorded in 1711, which states that Mr. Van Cleck's absence from presbytery was accounted for "by one of his elders, sent for that purpose."
In the manuscript history of the church in New Castle, it is stated, that the first account of a presbyterian congregation in that town is about 1704, at which time the Rev. Mr. Wilson was the pastor. August 15, 1707, a deed for a lot of land was made to certain persons in trust "for the use of the presbyterian congregation in Newcastle, on which they were to build a house for public worship." The church at Lewes was organized about the same time, though no record goes further back than 1708.
The two congregations in Jersey, were Freehold and Woodbridge. The former was constituted, principally by emigrants from Scotland, about 1692. Their place of worship was long known as the "Scotch meetinghouse." It was mentioned in the preceding chapter, that Woodbridge was settled partly by the Scotch, and partly by emigrants from New England. The congregation is first mentioned as in connexion with the presbytery, in a letter dated May 1708. In that letter, which is addressed to several New England clergymen, the presbytery say, "We find by diverse letters which have passed between you and sundry persons in Woodbridge, that you are not unacquainted with the confusions and distractions arising from the accession of Mr. Wade to be the minister of that town, and the aversion of a considerable part of the people to the accepting of him as such." It is probable that it was the Scottish portion of the congregation that was opposed to Mr. Wade, as the first healing measure proposed by the presbytery was that Mr. Boyd, the Scotch clergyman of Freehold, should preach every third Sabbath in Woodbridge; and Mr. Wade's accession to the presbytery in 1710, was with the view of reconciling the disaffected portion
of his people. Whatever may have been the ground of the opposition, it came from the majority of the congregation.
Besides the churches in connexion with the presbytery of Philadelphia, there were several others organized at an early date in various parts of the country. In his history of South Carolina, Dr. Ramsay says, "the presbyterians formed congregations, not only in Charleston, but in three of the maritime islands, and at Wilton, Jacksonborough, Indian-land, Portroyal, and Williamsburg." And again, "the presbyterians were among the first settlers, and were always numerous in South Carolina. Their ministers in the maritime districts were mostly from Scotland and Ireland, men of good education, orderly in their conduct, and devoted to the systems of doctrine and government established in Scotland. In conjunction with them the independents or congregationalisls were formed into a church in Charleston about the year 1690, and after being about forty years united, they separated and formed different churches. Rev. Archibald Stobs took charge of the church in the autumn of 1700, and the Rev. William Livingston in 1704." The presbytery of Charleston, he says, "was constituted at an early period of the 18th century, agreeably to the principles and practice of the church of Scotland." The distance of these southern churches from those about Philadelphia, and the difficulty of communication sufficiently accounts for their being no connexion between them. A union did not take place until the year 1800, when the presbytery of Charleston connected itself with the synod of Carolina.
What "the some places in New York" were, whence the presbytery had members, as stated in their letter of 1710, does not appear from the minutes. No minister, congregation, or elder, is there spoken of as belonging to that province. There were indeed presbyterians in the city of New York, as early as 1707, who had principally emigrated from Great Britain and Ireland, but they were so few that they had neither a church to worship in, nor a minister to lead their worship. The congregation was organized, and Mr. Anderson
called as their pastor in 1717. The church in Jamaica appears to have become connected with the presbytery in 1712; that of Newtown in 1715; that of Southampton in 1716.
Several of the churches mentioned as belonging to the presbytery in 1710, were not in connexion with that body at the time of its organization. This was the case in regard to Neshaminy, the Welsh tract, and Woodbridge. Of the remainder, it appears from the preceding account, that the four or five in Maryland were strictly presbyterian. Those in Pennsylvania were all composed predominantly of Scotch and Irish presbyterians, except the first church in Philadelphia. This appears from the statement of Mr. Blair, that "all our congregations in Pennsylvania, except two or three, chiefly are made up of people from that kingdom," i.e. Ireland. This was written in 1744, when the Dutch congregation of Neshaminy, two Welsh congregations in the valley, besides the mixed church in Philadelphia, had long been connected with the presbytery. The two or three exceptions, therefore, are accounted for; the remainder, which includes all the original churches, except that of Philadelphia, were, according to Mr. Blair, composed principally of Irish presbyterians. There were, doubtless a good many Dutch and Swedes included in the congregations in the lower counties on the Delaware, as they were the earliest and principal settlers of those counties, and as the names of church members occurring on the minutes, would also seem to intimate. In Jersey, the church in Freehold was the only one at first belonging to the presbytery. As far as can be ascertained, therefore, the congregations connected with the presbytery at the time of its formation were all strictly presbyterian, unles the first church in Philadelphia be considered an exception. Up to 1710, the only presbyterian church in which there was an appreciable number of New England men, was Woodbridge, and that, unfortunately, gave the presbytery more trouble than all the rest put together. This, however, appears to have arisen quite as much, to say the least, from the character of the minister, as from that of the people. As far then as the character of the original
congregations is concerned, it would be difficult to find any church more homogeneous in its materials than our own; certainly not the church of Scotland; and certainly not the churches of New England. The former contained, proportionably, more members inclined to episcopacy, and the latter more inclined to presbyterianism, than were to be found in our church inclined to congregationalism.
The next subject of inquiry is the character of the ministers of which the presbytery was at first composed. The original members, as far as can be ascertained from the minutes, were Messrs. Francis Makemie, Jedediah Andrews, George McNish, John Hampton, John Wilson, Nathaniel Taylor, and Samuel Davis. To these may be added John Boyd, who became a member by ordination in 1706. Of the original members of the presbytery, Mr. Hazard says, "It is probable that all, except Mr. Andrews, were foreigners by birth, and that they were ordained to the gospel ministry in Scotland and Ireland." The correctness of this statement can be proved by documentary evidence in regard to most of these gentlemen, and by the strongest circumstantial evidence with regard to the others.
The Rev. Francis Makemie, who is often spoken of as the father of our church, was settled in Accomac county, Virginia, anterior to the year 1690, when his name first appears upon the county records. According to some accounts he was a native of Scotland; according to Mr. Spence, of the north of Ireland. Mr. Spence thinks that he was ordained by the presbytery of Donegal. It is certain, however, that he came to this country an ordained minister, and was "in principle, and upon conviction, a thorough presbyterian." He is represented as having been "a venerable and imposing character, distinguished for piety, learning, and much steady resolution and perseverance." His successful labours in the eastern shore of Maryland, his imprisonment in New York for preaching in that city, and his able defence upon his trial, are familiarly known to the public. He died in 1708, leaving a large estate. In 1704, he went to Europe and returned the following year,
accompanied by two presbyterian ministers from Ireland, Messrs. Hampton and McNish. The former became the pastor of Snowhill; the latter of Monokin and Wicomico, in the first instance, but removed in 1712, to Jamaica, upon Long Island.
It is probable that the Rev. Samuel Davis was another of the ministers, whom Mr. Makemie, during his last visit to Europe, induced to come to this country. The scene of his labours, from 1705 or 1706, onwards, was the churches planted by Mr. Makemie, or those in their immediate vicinity. He was appointed to take part in the installation of Mr. Hampton, at Snowhill, in connexion with Mr. McNish. And subsequently he was associated in another service with Mr. Hampton, and Mr. Henry. It appears from the minutes of 1715, that he had for some time been fixed at Lewes or its neighbourhood, as the people applied to have another minister, as Mr. Davis could not take the pastoral charge of the congregation. He finally succeeded Mr. Hampton as minister of Snowhill. All these circumstances connect him with the churches in the peninsula, all whose ministers, Makemie, Hampton, McNish, Henry, Clement, Steward, Thompson, were from Scotland or Ireland. If Davis was not, he is the only exception. In the absence of all evidence to the contrary, or of any circumstance connecting him with New England, it is in the highest degree probable that he had the same origin with his associates.
Mr. Nathaniel Taylor, as stated in the preceding chapter, was a minister from Scotland, who came to this country with his congregation and settled in Upper Marlborough, about 1690. Mr. John Wilson was the pastor of the church in New Castle. As he died in 1708, there are few memorials of him now preserved. That he was from Scotland may be inferred not only from the place of his labours and his associates, but from his being appointed to conduct the correspondence with that country. It was natural that those members of the presbytery, who came from Scotland or Ireland, should be designated to write, as occasion required, to the places from whence they
came. This natural rule, it is evident from the minutes, was actually adopted. Mr. Andrews was the great penman of the presbytery, and as he lived in Philadelphia, and kept the books, a great part of the burden of conducting the correspondence of the body, which was no slight matter, was devolved upon him. Yet, it is believed, there is no instance in the early minutes of his being appointed to write to either Scotland or Ireland. This duty was assigned to Makemie, Wilson, Anderson, Gillespie, Henry. As all these are known to have been Scotch or Irish, it is hardly to be doubted, as there is not the slightest evidence to the contrary, that Mr. Wilson was also. Mr. John Boyd, the minister of Freehold, who became a member of the presbytery in 1706, was also a native of Scotland.
As far then as can be ascertained, all the original members of the presbytery were either Scotch or Irish, except Mr. Andrews. As this gentleman was among the first, so he was one of the most laborious and useful members of the presbytery. All the minutes, both of the presbytery and synod, for a long series of years are in his handwriting. He was also the treasurer of the synod, and seems to have been one of its most punctual and active members. He was probably a moderate man. His name never appears attached to any protest or counter-protest, and he says, he was often instrumental in healing differences between the brethren of conflicting views. He did not join in the protest excluding the New Brunswick presbytery from the synod, at the time of the schism, though he adhered to the 'old side' throughout, and took part in all their ulterior measures.
So much stress has been laid upon the origin of the founders of our church, and is in reality due to it, that the preceding investigation cannot be deemed superfluous. If all, or any large proportion of them had been previously congregationalists, the presumption would undoubtedly be, that the form of government which they instituted, was more or less allied to Congregationalism. And, on the other hand, if they were all, with one exception, Scotch or Irish presbyterians, the presumption is equally strong,
that the system which they adopted was in accordance with that to which they had been accustomed. It is, however, but a presumption in either case. The decisive evidence must be sought in their declarations and acts.
The increase of the church after the organization of the presbytery, was rapid, and arose principally from the constant immigration of presbyterians, ministers as well as people, from abroad, and from the organization of those already scattered through the country. In 1707, the number of ministers was eight, all but one from Scotland or Ireland. In 1716 the whole number was twenty-five, of whom seventeen were still living and in connexion with the presbytery. In that year it was determined to form four presbyteries; the first to consist of the following members: viz. Messrs. Andrews, Jones, Powell, Orr, Bradner, and Morgan, and to meet at Philadelphia or elsewhere; the second of Messrs. Anderson, Magill, Gillespie, Wotherspoon, Evans, and Conn, to meet at New Castle; the third to consist of Messrs. Davis, Hampton, and Henry, to meet at Snowhill; and the fourth of Messrs. McNish and Pumry, on Long Island, who were directed to endeavour to induce some of the neighbouring ministers to associate with them in forming a presbytery. The presbytery of Snowhill does not appear ever to have met. Most of its members became attached to that of Newcastle. Of the above seventeen ministers, Mr. Andrews and Mr. Pumry are the only two of whom there is any evidence that they were from New England, and the latter had joined the presbytery the preceding year. Almost the whole amount of New England influence, therefore, in the presbytery, from the time it was formed until after the constitution of the synod, rests with Mr. Andrews. Of the two other New England members, Mr. Smith never met the presbytery but once, and Mr. Wade but twice.
From 1716 to 1729, the proportion of New England ministers was considerably increased; several of the most prominent and useful members of the synod were from that section of the country. They formed, in 1728, from a fourth to a third of the whole body. This review shows the great
injustice of representing the Scotch and Irish members as mere intruders, and the New England or congregational portion as the true original presbyterian church. As far as the character of the body may be inferred from that of its founders, it was a purely presbyterian church from the beginning. It was not founded upon congregationalism, nor by congregationalists. It was founded by presbyterians, and upon presbyterian principles, and those who subsequently joined it, joined it as a presbyterian body. Mr. Andrews was the only minister from New England, who had any permanent connexion with the church before 1715, and he so far from being a congregationalist, was an "old side" presbyterian. Of the six or seven additional New England members who joined the synod before 1729, some were among the strictest presbyterians of the whole body; and not one of them was either a congregationalist, or inclined to Congregationalism, if any dependence is to be placed upon their declarations or acts.
Having taken this view of the origin of the Presbyterian Church, during its forming period, in order to ascertain its character, as far as it may be inferred from the materials of which it was composed, it is time to inquire more particularly into its doctrines and discipline, during the same period. As it regards doctrines, the point to be ascertained is, whether the Presbyterian Church was a Calvinistic body, and required adherence to that system of doctrine as a condition of ministerial communion, or whether it demanded nothing more than assent to the essential doctrines of the gospel. The latter position, as was shown in the introductory chapter, has been unequivocally assumed. That this assumption is incorrect, and that our church has from the beginning required adherence to Calvinism as a condition of ministerial communion, can be made very clearly to appear. It is admitted that the presbytery required of its members, what it considered soundness in the faith, or orthodoxy. The only question then is, what was orthodoxy, in the estimation of the founders of our church? Was it faith in the essential doctrines of the gospel? or was it faith in that system of doctrines, which, for convenience sake, has obtained the name of
Calvinism? This is the only important question. The method which they adopted to decide upon the orthodoxy of a member, is of very subordinate consequence. Whether it was by personal examination; by satisfactory testimonials; or by assent to a prescribed formula of doctrines, is comparatively of but little moment. The question is, what did they require? Not, how did they satisfy themselves? It seems a matter of supererogation to prove, that men educated, towards the close of the seventeenth, or the beginning of the eighteenth century, in Scotland, Ireland, or New England, regarded Calvinism as the true doctrine of the Scriptures, and considered any essential deviation from it, as a disqualification for the work of the ministry. Is the faith of the church of Scotland at that period a matter of doubt? Was she not still reeking with the blood of her children, martyrs for her faith and discipline? Were men who had suffered so much in their own persons, or in those of their friends, for presbyterianism, likely to cast it away, the moment they got to a place of perfect security? It has never yet been made a question, what was the faith of the Puritans, who first settled New England, or what was the standard of orthodoxy among her churches. No one has ventured to assert that Christianity in the general, adherence to doctrines absolutely fundamental, was all that was there required of ministers of the gospel. And why not? Not because there is documentary evidence that every candidate for ordination was required to sign a particular formula, but because the opinions of those puritans are a matter of notoriety. Their opinions, however, were neither more pronounced, nor more notorious than those of the churches of Scotland or Ireland. Why then should it be assumed that the ministers of the latter were so latitudinarian, as soon as they reached this country, when no such assumption is made with regard to the former?
It is to be remembered that the great majority of the early ministers of our church were either ordained or licensed before they became connected with it. The very testimonials which they brought with them, if they came from Scotland or Ireland, stated explicitly that they had adopted the Westminster
Confession of Faith; if they came from New England they brought evidence of their Calvinism just as unequivocal. No doubt could be entertained what was meant by 'orthodoxy' in certificates given by men, who expressed so much alarm lest 'the churches of God, should suspect that New England allowed such exorbitant aberrations' as the denial that Christ bore the penalty of the law. It was just as natural, and as much a matter of course, for the presbytery of Philadelphia to receive with confidence men coming from the Scotch and Irish presbyteries, as it is for one of our presbyteries to receive the members of another. The moment, however, it was discovered that these certificates deceived them, they began to adopt other methods to ascertain the Calvinism of those whom they admitted.
The single consideration, then, that all the early ministers of our church came from places where Calvinism not only prevailed, but where it was strenuously insisted upon, is, in the absence of all evidence to the contrary, sufficient to prove that they were not so singular, or so much in advance of the spirit of their age, as to bring down their demands to the low standard of absolutely essential doctrines. It is not, however, merely the origin, but the known opinions of these ministers, which are relied upon to prove the Calvinistic character of our church. There is not a single minister, whose sentiments are known at all, who was admitted to the church, or allowed to remain in it during the period under review, who is not known to have been not only a Calvinist, but a rigid one. This was the case with the members of the strict presbytery of Newcastle, the men who are now reproached for sectarian bigotry for their zeal for this very subject. It was the case with Jonathan Dickinson, Gilbert Tennent, and every other minister, connected with the church, before 1729, who has left any memorials of his opinions. It is contrary to all experience, and to the principles of human nature, that men, who have been accustomed to one standard of doctrines, should suddenly lower their demands, unless they themselves were disaffected towards those doctrines.