coming to this country, applied to be received as a member of the synod of
Another evidence of the Calvinistic character of our church, may be found in the circumstances attending the reception of the Rev. William Tennent in 1718. That gentleman had been episcopally ordained in Ireland; but on coming to this country, applied to be received as a member of the synod of Philadelphia. That body required him to state in writing the reasons of his dissent from the episcopal church. One of the most prominent of those reasons was, that the church of Ireland connived "at Arminian doctrines." Are we then to believe that Mr. Tennent left one church because it connived at Arminianism, to join another which tolerated Pelagianism; nay, that required nothing more than assent to the absolutely essential doctrines of the gospel! Surely the synod would have had too much self-respect to insert in their minutes, a document charging it as a crime upon a sister church, that she connived at Arminianism, if they themselves did the same, and more.
The Calvinistic character of our church is further evident from the fact, that as soon as some other means than personal examination, or the testimonials of ecclesiastical bodies, became necessary to ascertain the orthodoxy of its members, subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith, was demanded and universally submitted to. As long as the church was small, and all, or a large portion of its members could be present at the admission of every new applicant, the most natural and the most effectual method to obtain a knowledge of his opinions, was personal examination. And as long as the churches with which the synod corresponded, were faithful to their own standards, their testimony was received as sufficient evidence of the soundness of the men whom they recommended. But when from the multiplication of presbyteries, the first method became impossible, and when the second was found to be unworthy of confidence, another plan was adopted. On the supposition that the church was to remain one, and that it had any zeal for its own doctrines, it was necessary that the several presbyteries should understand each other, and unite in adopting a common standard of orthodoxy. Hence arose the call for a general agreement, to make the adoption of the Westminster Confession a condition of ministerial
communion. There can be no stronger evidence of the Calvinistic character of the church, than that this new test of orthodoxy was universally admitted, and that there was not a single member of the synod who objected to any one article in the confession of faith, except that which related to the power of the civil magistrates in matters of religion. That article was, by common consent, discarded; all the others were cordially adopted. It is inconceivable that a body of men should have unanimously adopted this measure, had it been the fixing a new and higher standard of orthodoxy, and not merely a new method for ascertaining the adherence of the ministry to what had always been demanded.
Some portions of the church felt the necessity for the adoption of this measure before others. One method, as already remarked, which had been relied upon to secure the church from unsound ministers, was the demand of testimonials of orthodoxy from all applicants for admission. So long as confidence was felt in those giving such testimonials, the church was satisfied; but when suspicion arose on this point, something more was demanded. The earliest and most serious suspicions were felt with regard to the presbyteries in the north of Ireland; and hence the Newcastle presbytery, within whose bounds most of the ministers from Ireland came, was the first that insisted on something more than clean papers from the applicants for membership. As early at least as 1724, they began to require the adoption of the Westminster confession of faith.
It has been made a question, whether the presbytery of Philadelphia did from the beginning, regularly and formally adopt the Westminster Confession, or not. As the first leaf of the book of records is lost, it is impossible that this question should be satisfactorily answered. Dr. Green has argued for the affirmative with a great deal of force, and has rendered it highly probable that the first page contained some statement of the principles, both as to doctrine and discipline, on which the presbytery was formed. It is certain they had "a constitution" to which they could appeal,
and to which their members promised subjection. In a letter written by the presbytery to the people of Woodbridge, in 1712, they say that Mr. Wade "submitted himself willingly to our constitution." Whether this constitution was a written document, or a formal recognition of the standards of the church of Scotland; or whether the passage quoted merely means that Mr. Wade had submitted himself to the acknowledged principles of presbyterianism, cannot be certainly determined. The a priori probability is in favour of the supposition that the first page of the minutes contained some general recognition of the standards of the church of Scotland, as all the original members of the presbytery, as we have every reason to believe, except Mr. Andrews, had already adopted those standards at the time of their ordination.
What was on the first page of the minutes, however, is a very different question from another, with which it appears sometimes to be confounded. It may be admitted, that the presbytery, at the time of its organization, commenced its records with some preamble stating the principles upon which it was organized; but was it customary to require a formal assent to the Westminster confession as a condition of membership? That this question must be answered in the negative, appears plain from two considerations. The first is, that from 1706 to 1729 there is no mention, either in the minutes of the presbytery before 1716, or in those of the synod after that date, of such assent having been demanded or given. Whereas, after the adopting act in 1729, the record is uniformly made that the new members had adopted the Confession of Faith. This certainly seems to show that a change of custom was effected by that act; that, however some presbyteries, for their own satisfaction, had made the demand before, the original presbytery and synod had not been in the habit of making it. In the second place, the history of the adopting act itself establishes the same point. It appears that the church had hitherto relied upon other means for securing orthodoxy in its ministers, but as new dangers arose, new means of guarding against them were devised. The overture which led to the adopting
act, though of considerable length, and though reciting the reasons which called for that measure, makes no allusion to its having been previously the custom to exact assent to the Westminster Confession, but speaks of it as a new measure, designed to meet a new difficulty.
The question whether the Westminster Confession was uniformly adopted by new members, as before remarked, is one of subordinate importance. The church did not become Calvinistic by adopting that Confession; but adopted it because it already was so, and always had been. Its demands were in no respects altered, much less were they raised, by the act of 1729. That act was nothing more than a measure, arising out of the altered circumstances of the church, designed to accomplish a purpose which had hitherto been attained by other means. The New England puritans were not stricter Calvinists in 1640, when they adopted the Cambridge platform, than they were in 1620; nor had they become more rigid in 1688, when they recognized the Westminster Confession. No historical fact of the same kind admits of clearer proof, from their origin, declarations and acts, than that the founders of our church were Calvinists, and that they demanded Calvinism, and not merely faith in the absolutely essential doctrines of the gospel, as the condition of ministerial communion.
The next subject of inquiry is the form of discipline adopted, during the period under review. If, as has been proved, all the original members of the presbytery, except one, were presbyterian ministers from Scotland or Ireland, and if all the congregations, unless the first church in Philadelphia be partially an exception, were composed of presbyterians, as has also been shown, then there can be little doubt that, at least at the beginning, whatever it may have become afterwards, our church was a Presbyterian Church. These considerations, however, are merely presumptive. They are of great weight, if confirmed by other kinds of evidence, but of very little, if contradicted by the conduct or avowals of those concerned. The real question then is, what, in point of fact, was the form of government on
which the founders of our church acted? Was it presbyterianism? or was it congregationalism? or was it some anomalous system partaking of the features of both, yet belonging to neither? This point must be settled by an inspection of the records.
It is plain that, whatever these men really were, they thought themselves presbyterians. It is the name which they adopted. They called their judicatory, not an association or council, but a presbytery; they always speak of presbyterians as being "of our persuasion." In corresponding with the judicatories of Ireland and Scotland, they called themselves presbyterians, to those who were accustomed to affix a definite meaning to the term. When writing to the governor of Virginia, in order to inform him of their principles, they tell him they were "of the same persuasion as the church of Scotland." In 1721, the synod declare in the preamble to an overture which they adopted, that they had "been for many years in the exercise of presbyterian government and discipline, as exercised by presbyterians in the best reformed churches, as far as the nature and constitution of this country would allow." By presbyterians in the best reformed churches, must be understood those of Scotland, Ireland, France, and Holland; and what the presbyterianism of those countries was, is not a matter to be disputed. It is only asking then that the founders of our church should be regarded as sane and honest men, when it is asked that they should be regarded as a presbyterian, and not as a congregational or nondescript body.
Still, as actions speak louder than words, it is best to see how these men acted; how the individual congregations were organized and governed; how the presbyteries were constituted; what authority they exercised over their churches and members; and what relation subsisted between them and the synod. Presbyterianism is a mode of church government as definite and as well understood as any other form of ecclesiastical polity. Its fundamental principle is, that the government of the church rests upon the presbyteries;
that is, the clerical and lay elders. It demands, therefore, congregational, classical, and provincial assemblies of such elders, i.e. sessions, presbyteries, and synods. It establishes a regular subordination of the lower of these judicatories to the higher, giving to the latter the right of review and control over the former. And, finally, it declares the determinations and decisions of these several judicatories, relating to matters of government and discipline, to be binding upon all under their authority, when not inconsistent with the word of God, or some previous constitutional stipulation. Such is the presbyterianism of Scotland, Ireland, France, and Holland. This is the whole system, and every feature of it is found in the form of discipline of the churches of those countries. The question is, are they all found in our system as at first established? If they are, it is a mere waste of time to dispute further about the nature of the system. It is what, in all ages and countries, has been called presbyterianism, and it may safely be called so still.
How then were the individual congregations governed? It has already been shown that all the churches originally belonging to the presbytery, were regularly organized, unless the first church in Philadelphia be an exception. This is admitted to have been the case with the four or five Maryland churches organized by Mr. Makemie before 1705. There is no doubt it was the case with the Scotch church of Upper Marlborough. Of the fifteen or sixteen churches in Pennsylvania in 1730, all were Scotch or Irish but two or three; and of these three, the one in Philadelphia was the only one connected from the beginning with the presbytery. Of the remaining two, one was a regular Dutch presbyterian church. Of those in New Jersey, Freehold was Scotch; Newark was settled by English presbyterians, and had elders from the beginning, according to the best information and belief of Dr. McWhorter. Elizabethtown also must have had them under President Dickinson, unless he acted in opposition to his avowed principles. With regard to Cohanzy, and the united congregations of Maidenhead and Hopewell, the facts are not known. Woodbridge is the only church of which