One of the Old Historic Philadelphia Churches

The Arch Street Church is the successor of the Fifth Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia. This latter church was in turn a daughter-church of the Second Presbyterian Church, worshiping initially in a chapel on Locust Street on property occupied by the Musical Fund Hall. The first pastor of the Arch Street church was the Rev. George Cox, who was installed as pastor in April of 1813.  Next came the Rev. James K. Birch who was installed July 19, 1813 and released November 5th, 1816.

Rev. Thomas H. Skinner was called from the pastorate of the Second Church and installed December 1st, 1816. He remained Pastor, with the exception of a brief interregnum, until called to the chair of Sacred Rhetoric in Andover Seminary in 1832.

The present church, pictured at right, was built and the first service held in it on June 7th, 1823. The dedication sermon was preached by Rev. Samuel Miller, D.D., of Princeton. In the choice of Dr. Skinner’s successor, Rev. George Duffield, D.D., was installed as pastor on April 5th, 1835, but this brought about a division within the congregation and a large number withdrew and formed Whitefield Chapel.

Dr. Duffield was succeeded within a short time by Rev. Thomas Waterbury, who was installed in December, 1837, and released in March, 1843; Rev. M. P. Thompson was pastor from 1844 to February 15th, 1848. The Fifth Church was dissolved, and on February 6th, 1850, a committee of the Philadelphia Presbytery, of which Rev. Drs. Boardman and Lord were members, met in the Seventh Church on Broad Street to deal with that closure. The historical account is unclear at this point,  but apparently a merger of the Fifth and  Arch Street congregations  was effected, thus creating a new iteration of the Arch Street Presbyterian Church, and so the church building was purchased by this newly formed organization. It called as its first pastor the Rev. Charles Wadsworth, D.D. He was installed March 20th, 1850, and continued as pastor until April 3d, 1862. The chapel in the rear of the church was added in 1852. The Sabbath-school was organized in 1850. Rev. N.W. Conklin, D.D., was pastor from 1863 to 1868. Rev. John L. Witherow, installed December 27th, 1868, continued until September 22d, 1873. Rev. John S. Sands was installed September 19th, 1880, and his relation dissolved May 6th, 1890. The pastor at the end of the nineteenth-century was the Rev. George P. Wilson, D.D., who was installed on April 26th, 1891.

Dr. Samuel Miller on Church Buildings:
At the service of dedication for the building in 1823, the Rev. Dr. Samuel Miller brought A sermon delivered June seventh, 1823, at the opening of the New Presbyterian Church in Arch Street in the city of Philadelphia, for the public worship of God. The text of Dr. Miller’s sermon was 2 Chronicles 6:41.

Denying, in this sermon, that to any place or edifice can now be attributed intrinsic holiness, and disapproving, therefore, of the idea that a church can be “consecrated;” Miller commends, however, “the practice of opening houses of public worship with appropriate religious exercises”—that is, their “dedication;” and on the ground of the “association of ideas,” he maintains that after a house has been so opened, “it is not desirable or proper, in ordinary cases, to employ it for any other purpose,” than the worship of God. As to church-building in general, he remarks,

“To expend millions upon a single place of worship now, while thousands of poor around us are suffering for bread, and while a great majority of our race are still covered with Pagan darkness, and perishing for lack of knowledge,—appears so unreasonable and criminal, that I hope we are in no danger of going to that extreme. But another, and, perhaps, a much more common extreme, especially in our church, taken at large, is, contenting ourselves with mean and uncomfortable houses in which to worship God. No worshipper ought ever to be willing to live in a better house than that which he, with others, has devoted to his Maker and Redeemer. And while, on the other hand, that splendour and magnificence of architecture, which is adapted to arrest and occupy the mind, and to draw it away from spiritual objects, ought carefully to be avoided; and avoided, not merely on the score of expense, but of Christian edification; so, on the other hand, that simple tasteful elegance, on which the eye is apt to rest with composed satisfaction; that studious provision for perfect convenience and comfort, which is calculated to place every worshipper in circumstances favourable to tranquil, undivided and devout attention, ought to be always and carefully consulted by every congregation, that is able to accomplish what is desirable in these respects.”

In a note on the passage quoted above, Dr. Miller stated that,

“It is a law of our mental, as well as of our physical nature, that two classes of emotions cannot be in a high, certainly not in a governing, degree of exercise at the same time. Whenever, therefore, we assemble for the worship of God in situations in which we are constantly surrounded and addressed by the most exquisite productions of art, which arrest and engross the mind, we are plainly, not in circumstances favourable to true spiritual worship. Would any rational man expect to find himself really devout in St. Peter’s at Rome, even if the most scriptural service were performed within its walls, until he should have become so familiar with the unrivalled specimens of taste and grandeur around him, as to forget or cease to feel them? Or, would any one be likely to “make melody in his heart to the Lord,” while the most skillful and touching refinements of music saluted and ravished his ears? Thrilled and transported he might be; but it would rather be the transport of natural taste, than the heavenliness of spiritual devotion. There never was a sounder maxim than that delivered in the plain and homely, but forcible language of the celebrated Mr. Poole, the learned compiler of the Synopsis Criticorum,–“the more inveiglements there are to sense, the more disadvantage to the spirit.” No one, of course, will consider this maxim as intended to teach, that, in order to promote the spirit of true devotion, it is necessary or desirable to be surrounded with that which is mean, irregular, or disgusting to the mind of taste. On the contrary, the fact is, that such mean and disgusting objects tend to arrest and draw away the mind in an opposite and painful manner; and are thus, perhaps, with respect to many persons, quite as unfriendly to the exercises of calm piety, as the utmost fascinations of art can be.” [pp. 21-23]

Image Source: photograph of the Arch Street Presbyterian Church, facing page 39 in The Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia: A Camera and Pen Sketch of Each Presbyterian Church and Institution in the City. Compiled and edited by Rev. Wm. P. White and William H. Scott. Philadelphia: Allen, Lane & Scott, 1895.

An Opportunity for Vindication
by Rev. David T. Myers

<

p style=”text-align: justify;”>The letter is still preserved at the state history building in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.  Written to the Rev. William Marshall on June 6, 1786, it states simply that he, the pastor of the Scots Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, had infringed on the rights of several members of the congregation. The letter continued on to state that he had a right to answer their complaints by appearing before these men, and this is the interesting part of the letter, his appearance was “for his own vindication.”

Whether such a meeting ever took place, the records of the church do not say. But we do know that the alleged confrontation between the pastor and several men of the congregation did take place against the backdrop of a schism in that local church. It seems that half of the congregation wished to separate from the mother synod in Scotland and united with the American Presbyterian denomination.  The dissenters who desired the latter must have had the majority as Rev. Marshall and his followers were forced out of the pulpit and pew.  They relocated to another place in Philadelphia and built their church.

The original majority continued on at their place of ministry, seeking fellowship with the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in 1822. It was said that they desired this union as there would be “more catholicity of communion and more liberty of worship.” As they were closely aligned with the covenanting side of the Scottish Presbyterian church, this contributor assumed that they wished to have more fellowship as well as not being bound by exclusive psalmody.  From 1866 to 1884, the church was without a pastor and for all intents, closed. In 1883, the remaining congregation was merged with the young South Broad Street Presbyterian church, under the Scots Presbyterian name. Pictured at right is the building constructed in 1886 for the recently merged congregation. Eventually this church merged with the Old Pine Street Presbyterian Church, which today now has the oldest pre-Revolutionary Presbyterian building still in use in Philadelphia.  It is associated with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

Words to Live By: Christians in general need to think twice about how they approach the teaching elder, or pastor of their church with a critical spirit. Scripture is clear on this. Hebrews 13:17 reads, “Obey your leaders, and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.” (NASB)  And 1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13 reads, “But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another.” (NASB) Pastors need prayer more than criticisms by the congregation. When there are serious, real problems, invest much time in prayer and then follow Matthew 18:15.

For further reading : Scots Presbyterian Church, Old and New, 1766-1887, by John C. Thompson. [copies of this history may be found preserved at the PCA Historical Center (St. Louis); the New York Historical Society Library (New York City); the American Antiquarian Society (Boston); and at the Presbyterian Historical Society (Philadelphia).]

American independence has been achieved. The colonies have taken their place as free and independent States among the nations of the earth. In bringing about this the most momentous political event of the last century the ministry and laity of the Presbyterian Church bore an essential and a conspicuous part. These men were the descendants of the Huguenots whose blood, shed in the cause of religious freedom, had baptized almost every acre of France; of the Dutch, who under William the Silent, had struggled and fought against civil and religious despotism amidst the dikes of Holland; of the Scotchmen who signed the Covenant with the warm blood of their veins, and who had fought to the death under the blue banner of that Covenant; of the heroes whose valor at Londonderry turned the scale in favor of the prince of Orange and secured the Protestant succession in England—sons of the women who, during that memorable seige, carried ammunition to the soldieres, and in the crisis of the assault, sprange to the breach, hurled back the assailants and turned the tide of battle in the critical, imminent moment of the conflict.

These were not the men to be dazzled by specious pretexts, or to stand nicely balancing arguments of expediency, when issues touching human freedom were at stake. These were not the men to barter away their birthright for pottage. They who had endured so much in the cause of freedom in the Old World, who, for its sake, had left all and braved the perils of an unbroken wildernes, were not the men tamely to submit their necks to the yoke, how smoothly soever it might be fitted for them by the deft hands of king, Church or Parliament. Consequently, the Presbyterians in the colonies were almost to a man, and to a woman, patriots “indeed, in whom there was no guile.”

In a Presbyterian community not far from the spot where the first blood of the Revolution was shed, in a Presbyterian convention which had for its presiding officer a ruling elder, was framed and promulgated the Mecklenburg Declaration, which embodied the spirit and the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and which antedates that document by the space of a year and more; and even earlier than this, within the bounds of old Redstone Presbytery, the “Westmoreland Declaration” was made at Hanna’s Town, in Western Pennsylvania.

None in all the land better understood the nature of the struggle, or more thoroughly appreciated the importance of the issue, than those men. They saw in the impending conflict more than a tax on tea or a penny stamp on paper—more even than “taxation without represention.” In addition to political tyranny they perceived the ominous shadow of spiritual despotism, which threatened to darken the land to which they had fled as an asylum, and they esteemed their fortunes and their lives a cheap sacrifice at which to purchase for their posterity in succeeding generations the blessings of religous freedom.

Into the struggle, therefore, they threw themselves heart and soul. WIth enthusiastic devotion, they put at the service of their coutnry the last penny of their substance and the last drop of their blood. Wherever a Presbyterian church was planted, wherever the Westminster Confession of Faith found adherents, wherever the Presbyterian polity was loved and honored, there intelligent and profound convictions in regard to civil and religious liberty were developed as naturally as the oak grows from the acorn, and there, when the crisis came, strong arms and stout hearts formed an invulnerable bulwark for the cause of human freedom. As the Spartan defended his shield, as the Roman legions fought for their eagles, as the chivalrous knight leaped to the rescue of his sweetheart, so our Presbyterian ancestors, with a prodigal valor and an unquenchable ardor, sprang to the defence of their sacred rights.

“From the Adoption of the Presbyterian Form of Government to the Present Time,” by the Rev. Samuel J. Wilson, D.D., pages 151-215 in Centennial Historical Discourses, delivered in the City of Philadelphia, June, 1876, by appointment of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1876.

https://archive.org/details/centennialhistor00pres

The Mother of All Schisms in Presbyterianism
by Rev. David T. Myers

Old School Presbyterians . . . New School Presbyterians. You were either one or the other in the early to mid-nineteenth century in the Presbyterian Church in the United States. And the issue was not at all a light one.  The fundamentals of the faith were at stake.

First, the Old School Presbyterians held to strict subscription to the church standards, such as the Westminster Standards, with church discipline for any dissenters. The New School Presbyterians were willing to tolerate lack of subscription if evangelism was being accomplished.

Second, the Old School Presbyterians were opposed to the 1801 Plan of Union with the Congregational church, while New School Presbyterians were committed to it.

Next, the Old School Presbyterians were opposed to the false gospel methodology of a Charles Finney, for example, while the New School Presbyterians did not wish to hinder revival, regardless of a less than theological basis for revivals.

Last, there was the matter of theology. Influencing the New School Presbyterians were two “isms” like Hopkinism and Taylorism from New England, which denied original sin and gospel redemption. Old School Presbyterianism held to the Westminster Standards on both of these essentials of the faith.

For several General Assemblies, there were more New School Presbyterian delegates than Old School Presbyterian delegates. But on June 5, 1837, that majority was reversed, with the Old School Presbyterians in strength. In the assembly that week, the Assembly was able to abrogate the 1801 Plan of Union with the Congregationalists. They then proceeded to expel four largely New School synods from the church, composed of 28 Presbyteries, 509 ministers, and 60,000 members!  In one swift vote, they were no longer members of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.

But Presbyterian polity demanded that two General meetings approve of an action like this. And here the operation took on more of a shady spirit to it than would otherwise be proper for any Christian group. At the 1838 assembly in Philadelphia, Old School Presbyterian delegates arrived early and took every seat in the convention hall of Seventh Presbyterian Church. When the New School Presbyterian elders arrived, the Moderator, who was an Old School elder, simply wouldn’t recognize them as legitimate delegates. The “we don’t know you” phrase was used a lot.  When attempts were made to appeal his ruling, the appeal was put out-of-order by the moderator.

Soon the New School Assembly of Presbyterians were meeting at the back of the church, setting up their own assembly.  Eventually they went down to the First Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia for a separate assembly. An appeal by the New School Presbyterian Church was eventually made to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which declared the abrogation by the Old School Presbyterians as “certainly constitutional and strictly just.”

Presbyterian churches all over the land were in schisms. One Presbyterian church in Carlisle Pennsylvania  epitomized the false principle of “the ends justifies the means.” The session of First Presbyterian Church (Old School)  voted out of love to give $10,000 to the departing New School Presbyterians of the new Second Presbyterian Church in the same town.  When the check had cleared the bank, the Session of Elders of First Presbyterian who had voted to give the money, promptly went over to the New School Presbyterian session! Another church literally cut in two the building between the Old and New School sides. All over the land, churches were being divided or left over these important issues.

Words to Live By: Scripture commands us to use biblical means to accomplish His will. Certainly, in hindsight, there was a real apostasy in the Presbyterian church in the early nineteenth century. But Bible believers should have dealt with it according to Scriptural principles, not man’s principles.

The Seventeenth General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church convened in Greenville, South Carolina on Thursday afternoon, June 3rd, 1954. The whole of the next day, Friday, was given to worship and prayer. Following devotional exercises that morning, the Rev. Francis A. Schaeffer brought a message. Then in the afternoon, the Rev. John W. Sanderson spoke and the Synod broke out for group prayer meetings. Finally, the Rev. Robert G. Rayburn brought the concluding message that evening, followed by a united prayer meeting.

So much for what you can tell from the official Minutes.  To my knowledge there were no tape recordings made as the General Synod met that year.  If we were left with the official record, we might be impressed that they spent the day in prayer and worship, but that would be about it.  But stored away among the Buswell’s papers, in Box 283 there is a half sheet of onionskin paper with this typed report prepared by his son, the Rev. John Buswell, who was at that time the pastor of a church in Philadelphia:

From the Church Bulletin
Bible Presbyterian Church of West Philadelphia

The Pastor’s Paragraph * * * The Seventeenth General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church experienced the reality of revival in their midst. On the second day of meeting no business was allowed, and three messages were given, followed by three seasons of prayer. The morning message was concerning Reformation and Revival, the afternoon one concerning Prayer and Revival, and the evening message was on the Holy Spirit and Revival. The times of prayer were characterized first by tears of confession. Person after person got to his feet to pour out his soul in repentance before God. Then the prayers turned to praise : praise for the great and marvelous opportunity God had set before the Bible Presbyterian Church for evangelism. Then the prayers centered on the need to take advantage of that great opportunity. There settled on the Synod a great and binding hunger for greater love among God’s people; love which would unify our hearts and churches for the glory of God. Then there was a greater hunger for the compassion and love for lost souls that they might find Christ. A year passed and not enough souls had been saved by the work of the Bible Presbyterian Church. Seventeen years have passed and we stop and consider where are we going? A firm and settled conviction that the stand of the Bible Presbyterian Synod for the Word of God and the Testimony of Jesus Christ was the right one, pervaded the body of ministers ; and yet there was dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction with progress, dissatisfaction with the brightness of our testimony. We must go forward with the proper balance for the TRUTH of God and for the LOVE of God. We must maintain the purity of the Testimony and at the same time we must allow the Holy Spirit to pervade the Testimony of our church with compassion for our brethren in Christ, as well as those who are unsaved. Romans 12:5—”So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another . . .” ; Philippians 2: 15, 16—”. . . in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation among whom ye shine as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life . . . ” 

Words to Live By:
This account is particularly interesting, in that these events occurred one year prior to the division of that denomination.  In the  context of what must have been building tensions and conflicts, there was this time spent before the Lord on their faces in repentance and humiliation for their sins. If God would bless with healing and restoration, this was the way to that goal. If the Lord would sift, cleanse and refine, this was the way. May our lives be so ordered even today, that we might find true unity in the Church.