New England

You are currently browsing articles tagged New England.

June 24: Job Prudden

24 June, 2021 in June 2021 by archivist | No comments

JOB PRUDDEN

WAS the great-grandson of the Rev. Peter Prudden, whose ministry—in Hertfordshire, on the borders of Wales—was attended with uncommon success.  Many good people followed him, when he sailed with the first settlers for New Haven, that they might enjoy his pious and fervent ministrations.  He was of the strictest order of Independents; and when the town of Milford, Connecticut, was settled, the church was “gathered to him” and the six principal planters, as the seven pillars which “Wisdom hewed out, when she builded her house.” (Prov. ix. 1.)  “All those who had desired to be received as free planters had settled in the plantation, with a purpose, resolution, and desire that they might be admitted into church fellowship according to Christ.”  “Church members only should be free burgesses.”

When Mr. Prudden was installed, April 18, 1640, three of the pillars, by the appointment of the church, laid on hands, even as the prophets and teachers at Antioch laid hands on Barnabas and Saul, “separating them to the work whereunto the Holy Ghost called them.”  (Acts xiii. 2.)  He died in 1656, aged fifty-six.  Mather, in his “Magnalia,” describes him as “a zealous preacher, a man of excellent spirits, signally successful in reconciling and preserving peace.”  He left a large landed estate at Edgton, Yorkshire, (England,) still possessed by his descendants.  His second son, John, graduated at Harvard in 1668, and was the minister of Jamaica, Long Island, and of Newark, New Jersey, where he died, at an advanced age, in 1725.

In 1737, difficulties arose in the congregation in relation to the settlement of Mr. Whittlesey as pastor,—a respectable minority regarding his doctrine as Arminian and his preaching as un-edifying.  They urged their objections so strongly, and with such apparent concern and conscientiousness, that the majority of the Council declined to ordain.  The majority of the people, headed by Deputy-Governor Law, insisted on their rights; and it was finally agreed to ordain him, and that the minority should hear him for six months, and, if not satisfied, should settle a colleague according to their liking.  They heard him two years, but were more dissatisfied, and, in 1740, applied to the church, and then to the town, for relief according to the agreement.  But, finding them intractable, they asked for advice of the Association; but they obtained neither advice nor countenance.  They then—according to the statute for the relief of conscientious scruplers—declared “their Sober Dissent from the Standing Order” established in the colony, professing themselves to be Presbyterians according to the church of Scotland; and agreed, November 30, 1741, to set up a separate society, if thirty heads of families would unite for that purpose.  On the following Sabbath, they met for worship at the house of George Clark, Jr.; and, on the last Tuesday in January, they qualified themselves before the county court, according to the Toleration Act.  In this act thirty-nine persons took part.  The Rev. Benajah Case, of Simsbury, was fined and imprisoned for having preached for them on the 17th of the month.  Whittlesey refused his pulpit, on Sabbaths when he did not use it, to the ministers who came to preach for them.

One of them preached from the door-stone to an assembly of a thousand.

Whitefield had preached at Milford,[1] Connecticut, with an unusual success, in October, 1740, and Gilbert Tennent was there in the next spring.

The people made preparations to build a meeting-house in May, 1742; but the town refused to allow them to erect on the Common.  The county court granted them liberty to build, November 9; and, in that month, they raised it on land given by Bartholomew Sears.  The Rev. John Eels, of Canaan, preached the first sermon in it, and the constable was ordered to apprehend him; a like order was issued against the Rev. Elisha Kent, of Newtown; but they both escaped his search.

Mr. Jacob Johnson,[2] a native of Groton, Connecticut, who graduated at Yale in 1740, preached to them, having taken the necessary oaths.  Having made him a call, they applied to some members of New Brunswick Presbytery to receive them under their care, and take Mr. Johnson on trials with a view to ordination.

They constituted themselves a church, and elected ruling elders.  “Accordingly, said members did send to him pieces of trial:  a sermon on Rom. viii. 14, and a Latin exegesis,—‘An regimen ecclesiæ presbyteriale sit Scripturæ et rationi congruum?’ ”  The presbytery met, April 6, 1743, to hear the exercises, and Johnson, with the commissioners, Benjamin Fenn and George Clerk, were present; and, having taken the congregation under their care and proceeded some length in the examination, they paused, and advised that a further attempt be made towards a reconciliation with the First Church.  If this attempt should fail, then they shall be allowed to have supplies; and they sent Treat, of Abingdon, thither, to obtain further information for them.  He spent two Sabbaths in June with them, and was called July 20; but the presbytery, out of regard to the remonstrances of his people, refused to put the call in his hands.  They then requested the presbytery to send them Samuel Finley.  He preached two Sabbaths, August 25 and September 1.  For this offense he was prosecuted, tried, and condemned.  Governor Law ordered him to be transported as a vagrant—disturbing the peace of the community—by the constable, from town to town, out of the colony.  This treatment was considered, by some of the ablest civilians in Connecticut and the city of New York, to be so contrary to the spirit and letter of the British Constitution, that, had complaint been made to the king in council, it would have vacated the colonial charter.

Pomeroy, of Hebron, preached to them occasionally, and was arrested, and carried to Hartford, to answer to the General Assembly for his conduct.

In May, 1744, New Brunswick Presbytery laid before the conjunct presbytery an important affair from the Presbyterian Society of Milford.  It was probably an application for supplies; for the presbytery, in July, sent Sackett, of Bedford, Youngs, of Southold, and Lamb, of Baskingridge, thither, and advised the people to try to get Mr. Graham’s son for their minister.

Job Prudden was a native of Milford.  He graduated at Yale in 1743, and was licensed by New York Presbytery.  He was re-ceived under the care of New Brunswick Presbytery, October 10, 1746, and was called to Milford, May 19, 1747:  two commissioners attended, and he was ordained and installed at that time.  Up to May, 1750, they were taxed for the support of Whittlesey.  They were then released by the General Assembly; but not until ten years after, did the Assembly invest them with the full privileges of an ecclesiastical society.

When Norwalk[3] called William Tennent, Jr., in 1765, to be colleague with Moses Dickinson, he expressed to the presbytery his desire to remain in connection with them.  They accordingly appointed his father, Hait, Prudden, and Kirkpatrick, to install him.  The town, under a misapprehension[4] of the design of the presbytery, resolved to withdraw the call unless Tennent united with the Association and conformed to the Standing Order.  In this state of things Tennent succumbed.

Prudden[5] was a laborious, prudent, and faithful pastor, sound in doctrine, and experiemental in his preaching.  His people were entirely and universally satisfied with his talents, meekness, pru-dence, and piety.  They increased in numbers under his ministry, and lived down the rancorous opposition of misguided men.

He died June 24, 1774, aged fifty-nine, having taken the small-pox while visiting a sick person.  He gave one hundred pounds to “his Society’s” fund, and bequeathed to it all his real and personal estate.

[1] History of Milford.

[2] Johnson graduated at Yale in 1740, and settled at Groton, Connecticut.  He was employed as a missionary among the Indians at Canojoharie; and, for his zeal in ferreting out the evidence of the Connecticut title to the Susquehanna purchase, he was styled by Conrad Weiser, the Pennsylvania agent, “that wicked priest.”  He was called to Westmoreland, now Wilkesbarre, and was the minister there for a number of years.  Was this “New England over the mountains,” to which Abingdon Presbytery sent supplies?

[3] MS. Records of New Brunswick Presbytery.

[4] Dr. Hall’s History of Norwalk.

[5] Trumbull.

Tags: , , ,

June 17: Debate on the Convention’s Memorial

17 June, 2021 in June 2021 by archivist | No comments

The Charleston Observer, Vol. XI, No. 24 (June 17, 1837), page 93

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Debate on the Memorial of the Convention, touching the citation of Inferior Judicatories—as reported by the Editor of the Presbyterian.

Mr. Plumer moved to bring up this business under the following resolutions :

  1. That the proper steps be now taken to cite to the bar of the next Assembly such inferior judicatories as are charged by common fame with irregularities.
  2. That a special committee be now appointed to ascertain what inferior judicatures are thus charged by common fame, prepare charges and specifications against them, and to digest a suitable plan of procedure in the matter, and that said committee be requested to report as soon as, practicable.
  3. That as citation on the foregoing plan is the commencement of a process involving the right of membership in the Assembly :

Therefore,

Resolved, That agreeably to a principle laid down, Chap. V. Sec. 9th, of the Form of Government, the members of said judicatories be excluded from a seat in the next Assembly, until their case shall be decided.

He then read from Book of Discipline, Chap. V. 9, on the discretionary right of a church judicatory to exclude one under process from the privilege of deliberating and voting.  Also, from Form of Government, Chap. XII. 5, on the powers of the General Assembly in relation to controversies and errors. Also, from the Book of Discipline, Chap. VII. Sec. 1, sub. Sec. 5 and 6, in relation to powers of review and control.—These quotations went directly to the proof that the Assembly had all the powers of interference contemplated in the resolutions before the house.  When common fame alleged the existence of grievance in inferior judicatories, they had the right of citation and trial, and until this was done, the persons charged might be denied their seat in the Assembly.

Mr. Jessup rose to oppose the adopt of the resolutions, on the ground that they infringed the constitution.  The language of the instrument has not left it to implication, what are the precise powers of the Assembly—they are all specified.  He had no doubt that it had the power to cite Synods to its bar.  This has been exercised ; one Synod (Western Reserve) had thus been cited, had appeared, and had answered satisfactorily.  But Synods, as such, cannot be excluded from this floor ; Presbyteries are represented here, and we cannot reach Presbyteries except by a constructive power.  It is not competent to the Assembly to carry on an impeachment against a Presbytery, for this is the province of a Synod.  The doctrine is advanced that the right of reproving, implies right to cite and try, for how can they be reproved before trial.  When, however, gross irregularities or erroneous doctrines prevail in a Presbytery, a testimony may be borne against them, and they may be reproved.—It is not necessary to this, that a citation should be issued ; this is a power which does not belong to the Assembly, in relation to a Presbytery,as it is expressly delegated to another body.  It is not implied in “suppressing schismatical contentions” that we may arraign Presbyteries or individuals, and try them as if it were for their lives.  Consult your book on actual process, and see to whom is intrusted the power of commencing it. . . .

Mr. Breckinridge regarded the subject as one of great importance, as well as of difficulty.  The speaker who preceded him, had probably given the strongest views which could be given on that side of the question.—What is contemplated in the resolutions, is entirely within the jurisdiction of the Assembly ; nay, they could do much more than this. . . . .

Mr. White.  He admired the talent of the last speaker, but he had, as he himself had acknowledged assumed unconstitutional grounds.  . . . .

Adjourned.

Friday Morning, May 25.

Dr. Beman.  In remarking on this subject he noticed the opposite grounds assumed by gentlemen.  One (Mr. Plumer) says, the measure proposed carries out the constitution, and another (Dr. Breckinridge) says, we should proceed on the ground, that necessity knows no law.  He would be led to notice both positions.  The first point he would insist on, was in reference to the power of the Assembly in relation to inferior judicatories.  The question was, had the General Asssembly any right to originate process, involving deposition ; he contended that it had not, and he appealed to the Book. . . . .

Page 96

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[Debate—Continued from first page]

Mr. Plumer. He differed from Mr. Jessup on the extent of authority vested in the General Assembly.  The 5th sub. sec. of 1st sec. chap. vii. in the Book of Discipline, gives the Assembly ample control over Synods which fail to perform their duty, and the
interference is not only justified by the case of the Synod of Kentucky already quoted, but by the settled practices of the Scottish Church, to which we are so greatly indebted for our present Constitution.

[Mr. Plumer here quoted largely from Steuart’s Collections in proof, that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, directly and through their commissions, exercised authority in the suppression of error, by the citation of refractory Presbyteries and Ministers.]  This he deemed very high authority.

He was amused and surprised to hear one gentleman (Dr. Beman) so eloquently contend for the eternal rights of Presbyteries, and he was led to think what could be the meaning of the gentleman.  Were the rights of which he spoke eternal a parte ante, or a parte post?  If it was the former, then the Presbyterian form of government was much more ancient than he had ever imagined, for he had never dreamed of tracing it further back than to the time that Ezra arranged the Synagogue worship ; if it were the latter, that Presbyterianism was to be perpetuated in heaven, then it was singular enough considering the quarter from which it came that we should have the eternally divine right of Presbyterianism so strongly maintained—it was high-churchism of a truth.

The gentleman’s metaphors were also remarkable ; first we had a big trumpet emptying its sounds into another trumpet, and it in its turn emptying itself into a dish, and then the dish filled with northern gales and southern breezes, presented to regale the General Assembly.  Such a dish reminded him of an anecdote of a Minister’s servant who was very clever in making inferences ; on one occasion he was asked what inference he would draw from this text, “a wild Ass that snuffeth up the wind at pleasure,” and his answer was, that he would infer that he might snuff a good while before he would grow fat on it.  So he would say of this dish which the gentleman had prepared for the Assembly, in all likelihood they would never grow fat on it.  Having thus disposed of the salmagundi dishes, he would turn to other matters.

It was indeed pleasant to hear it acknowledged by gentlemen on the other side, that there were in the Church two systems of theological views, [Mr. Dickinson explained that he meant two systems of explaining doctrines.]  Well, that is even plainer ; there are two distinct and different systems of explaining the doctrines of religion ; that point is now settled, and it is fully conceded.  Then again he was surprised that the same gentleman from Lane Seminary, should undertake to compare the differences which existed in the Presbyterian Church in 1820, with those now existing.

The subjects of difference were totally different as he should have known, and the points now in dispute were not agitated then.  It was laid down as a principle by all writers on the laws of nations, that when a privilege was granted by one nation to another, every thing was included, which was necessary to the enjoyment of the privilege.  Thus, if an army had permission to pass through a certain territory, it was certainly implied that they might cut down trees to make bridges, if it should be necessary on their march.  So, if the right of citation is given to the Assembly, it includes the right of calling for persons and papers.  They may appoint a commission to carry their citation into effect, and this commission may send for men and papers ; they may require the records of Presbyteries and Sessions.

Mr. Jessup had said, that no power of the Assembly could reach the records of his Presbytery ; but if refused, it would be under the penalty of contumacy, and if this were not so, the whole thing would be no better than a consummate farce ; if testimony could not be demanded, then we might as well go home at once.  It had been acknowledged, that we had the power to reprove, but how could this be done, unless there was some way of getting at the proof?  The changes had been rung on “trampling the constitution under our feet ;” but there were two senses in which the constitution might be brought under our feet.  We might place our feet on it as we would on the rock of Gibraltar, as a secure foundation, and in this way the brethren who acted with him had it under their feet ; and in another sense, it might be trampled under foot with scorn, the way in which it was treated by some others.  One gentleman had solemnly averred, that the constitution had provided only for process against an individual, and yet there was the Book expressly providing for the citation of
judicatories!  It was rendered incumbent on the superior judicatory to take this course, and if it had power to call for records.  He was glad to hear the gentleman from Lane Seminary acknowledge, that reform was necessary, but the remedy he proposed was inefficient : mere advice and exhortation would not do ; the stronger measure which was now proposed, was the only one that was adequate.

Two things he would now state as a tribute to charity; and the first was, that there was no contention between old-school men and Congregationalists as such.  There was no war on New England and its old theology.  When the late Dr. Porter was spending a winter to the south, he was invited to deliver a course of lectures in an old-school Theological Seminary : that was no proof of hostility to New England; and the name of Nettleton and others of similar stamp, was held in reverence by old-school men.  It should be known then, that we wage no war against the Congregationalism of New England or the theology of Edwards.

And again, he would say, that we have no contest with other denominations ; we cherish for them the most fraternal feelings, and extend to them our Christian regards.  On the contrary, it is for the order, the constitution, the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church, that we contend.

Adjourned.

Friday Morning, May 26.

Dr. Peters. The first resolution under consideration, proposes the citation of inferior judicatories ; and the proceeding is extraordinary ; it should not be entered on, unless the common fame is definite and attaches to persons.  If the individuals were named who are charge, then we would go the work.  It is most extraordinary that this great court of errors, should lay aside its regular judicial business, to hunt after a criminal ; there is no provision in the book for this.  He would again call attention to the powers of the Assembly as laid down in the form of Government, Chap. XII. sec. 5. and here there was not a word said as to the mode of exercising the power.  Mr. Plumer goes for authority to the Scotch Church, but he would go to the book of Discipline, Chap. VII, 1,2, for the mode.  There it is provided that cases must go from lower to higher judicatories, and the process must be against individuals.  The power of citation is admitted, but it is not for trial, as as you do not know that there will be ground for trial, but merely that the matter may be remitted.  It is for a mere inquiry, to know what they have done or left undone ; then you may issue an order, and if they refuse obedience, then you may cite again for trial, and although the old Book does not exactly specify what is to be done, yet you unquestionably have the right
of trial.  There is another way of testifying against errors, if we could only get them within the rules of this house.  He could not consent to cite, because he did not know what judicatories were to be cited, and it was to him an unparalleled departure from dignity in this house to go out to hunt for criminals.—As to excluding members from their seats, he thought we were legislating beyond our bounds, when we legislated for another Assembly.  Dr. Baxter has taken the position that the ministers of Congregational churches have no right to seats in this house, and that the measures now before you are a continuation of the work already accomplished ; but he would reply, that the churches formed under the union were lawfully formed agreeably to the stipulations between the Presbyterian Church and the association of Connecticut.  Can we now say that the union was unconstitutional? One half hour before its abrogation, these churches were regular, but now it is said they are irregular ; if so, why not now discipline them and they may yet become regular.  He felt no alarm at the abrogation of the resolutions as they could not affect the churches, which had been formed under the Assembly’s rule.  Your abrogation is a nullity ; it only prevents other churches from being formed on this principle.  You are bound to protect these churches and not rashly and rudely to break up their foundations.  Are you going to exclude ministers because they are pastors of Congregational Churches?  Why a Presbytery consists of all the ministers within a certain district, with a ruling elder from each church, and although one may be a tobacconist, another a book merchant, and a third a seller of cotton and purple, yet you do not interfere or vitiate their standing.  To cut off immediately has been the doctrine avowed on this floor and in the Convention, and it is certainly very convenient to say that because there is a common fame against them, they should be excluded ; this is the shortest way, and therefore, said to be the best.  Mr. Plumer quotes Scotch authority for this, although he has no idea of the rule applying to the South.  We were told yesterday, very logically, that as no system provides for its own dissolution, that therefore, we must adopt unconstitutional measures, lest the Assembly should stultify itself.  He had pleasure in referring to the mere pacific remarks of Dr. Baxter, who supposed that two families under the same roof would come into collision, and that peace would be promoted by a separation.  But divisions cannot be ; the constitution binds us together ; and if any are dissatisfied, they can retire and plant their flag outside.  If, however, a proposition to this effect were kindly made, it would be received in the same spirit ; an amicable division might take place, but we are not to be driven from this blessed constitution.  We have no proposition for division to make, but if it should come from another quarter, he would promote it by any proper means ; for he was persuaded, that the sooner the parties were apart, the sooner the atmosphere between them would be clarified, and they be prepared to unite on higher grounds.

Dr. McAuley, would not commence by stating, as many had, that he had but “a word” to say, and then speak half an hour, which time, however he certainly would not speak.  He was unwell ; and desired only to administer a corrective to some of his friends who quoted authorities from the church of Scotland.  He would read from the “Compend” of the Laws of that Church, to show what was the power of the commissions which are integral parts of the constitution of the Scotch Church.

[Dr. McAuley then read, and commented on various parts of the book for the space of half an hour, to show that the Church of Scotland was in union with the state, and of course, that the acts of that Church were of no authority in interpreting our constitution.]

Dr. McAuley then alluded to the constitution of the Church which, he contended, did not authorize the General Assembly to institute these proceedings.  He went on further to argue, that if this Assembly could exclude members from the next house by these resolutions, the Presbyteries to which they belonged could not even elect Commissioners to the Assembly,—nor perform any of the acts appropriate to the offices of the ministry and eldership.  He hoped there was good sense and loyalty enough to prevent the passages of these resolutions ; which, while he would condemn heresy, he considered an unlawful method of attaining a right end.  That end would be obtained at the proper time, if we adhered to the constitution.  God is long suffering to usward, and he would be so to erring brethren.  Bear with them, and you may reclaim them.

In allusion to Presbyterian Ministers preaching to Congregational Churches, he contended, that this was as proper, as for such ministers to abandon the preaching of the Gospel, to engage in merchandise, or edit miscalled religious newspapers—but who were nevertheless allowed to sit in our judicatories.  Every minister who has taken our Book,—not “for substance of doctrine,” but sincerely and fully, is a duly qualified minister, and may sit in the General Assembly.  I believe, that we may reach errorists another way than by these resolutions.  Every man, who is not a sound Presbyterian, ought to go out from us, or to be turned out.

He did not know, that any of the doctrines specified in the list presented by the Committee on the Memorial, existed in the Church ; and until it was proved, that the ministers who were to be excluded really did hold these or similar errors, they must be allowed all their constitutional rights.

A few words as to common fame.  I am incredulous as to the existence of any common fame.  But, I am asked, “What, have you not read the religious newspapers?”, I look at my book, which defines common fame, and it says, that rashness, censoriousness or malice, in the individual raising a general rumour invalidates it.  It is not common fame at all.  A man may get the control of a religious paper, and use it for the purpose of attacking the character of ministers, and then call this common fame.  But this is nothing but common fame against the propagator.  Such men ought to be censured for publishing such a dreadful common fame.  Before we go forward in this business let us see who common fame is, and what it says.

There is but a paltry gain, as three years will show, to be made by pursuing the plan of these resolutions.  Let us not, for such an end, incur the great expense, which it involves.

There was then a call for the previous question, which was agreed to ; the main question was then put, and the ayes and noes being called, the question was carried in the affirmative, as follows :

Yeas—Platt, Leggett, J.R. Johnson, R. J. Crawford, Wilkin, Frame, Owen, Edwards, Sturges, Goldsmith, Potts, S. Boyd, Lenox, Murray, McDowell, Ogilvie, Dr. A. Alexander, Yeomans, W. Wilson, Woodhull, Junkin, Lowe, King, J. Wilson, Dorrance, Harris, Green, Latta, Fahnestock, Symington, Cuyler, Darrach, Davie, Hamilton, Penny, Breckinridge, Hickson, M.B. Patterson, Creigh, McKeenan, Fullerton, Williamson, Long, J.H. Crier, J.B. Boyd, Hughes, Cook, Annan, Ewing, Slagle, Baird,, Kiddoo, Gladden, J.W. Johnston, Lowrie, Mitchel, Hannah, Stratton, Adair, Tait, McCrackin, Van Deman, W. Patterson, S. Wilson, R. Miller, Beer, McCombs, Torrance, Turner, Crane, Osburn, Golladay, James Coe, Marquis, H. Patton, M.J. Smith, Blythe, Marshal, McKennan, Stafford, J.H. Rice, W.K. Stewart, Bailey, Hopkins, C.S. Todd, C. Stuart, Irwin, A. Todd, Hendren, Morrison, Moore, J. Alexander, W.H. Foote, Baxter, Hart, Anderson, Plumer, Dunn, Graham, Caruthers, McQueen, Potter, Pharr, Andrews, Watts, Dr. Brown, Conkey, Galbraith, Patton, Sloss, Leatch, Hodge, J. Greer, Ross, Simpson, J. Witherspoon, Coit, Leland, Pratt, Howard, Goulding, J.S. Witherspoon, Morgan, D. Johnson, Van Court, Banks, J. Smylie, N. Smylie—128.

Nays—C. Cutler, Southworth, Holt, Burnap, Beman, Hayden, Wickware, Rand, Wood, Griswold, Macgoffin, Porter, Cone, etc.—122.

Tags: , , ,

May 14: Makemie

14 May, 2021 in May 2020 by archivist | No comments

1908—On May 14, a handsome monument was erected to Makemie’s mem­ory, at Makemie Park, Accomac County, Va. On this occasion Dr. Henry vanDyke, famous Presbyterian preacher and author, wrote the following sonnet:

FRANCIS MACKEMIE, PRESBYTER TO CHRIST IN AMERICA, 1683-1708.

To thee, plain hero of a rugged race,
We bring a meed of praise too long delayed. Thy fearless word and faithful work have made
The path of God’s republic easier to trace
In this New World: thou hast proclaimed the grace
And power of Christ in many a woodland glade,
Teaching the truth that leaves men unafraid
Of tyrants’ frowns, or chains, or death’s dark face.

Oh, who can tell how much we owe to thee,
Makemie, and to labors such as thine,
For all that makes America the shrine
Of faith untrammelled and of conscience free?
Stand here, gray stone, and consecrate the sod
Where sleeps this brave Scotch-Irish man of God!

Francis Makemie is considered by Maryland Presbyterian historians to have been the first Presbyterian minister definitely commissioned to come to America under regular appointment by presbytery and with au­thority to establish churches in the new world. It was to the southern section of the Maryland Eastern Shore that he originally came, arriving in 1683. There, in what was then Somerset County (whose territory in­cluded all of the three present counties of Somerset, Worcester and Wi-comico), he proceeded at once to organize along  strictly Presbyterian lines at least three congregations of Dissenters (composed, no doubt, principally of settlers of original Presbyterian persuasion) which he found already in existence—one being located at Rehoboth, on the west bank of the Pocomoke river, a few miles from its mouth; one at Snow Hill; and one at the head of the Manokin river, where now stands the town of Princess Anne. All of these organizations still exist, with active congregations.

It is believed also that in this same year two other church organiza­tions were effected, one at Pitts Creek, which was the forerunner of the present Presbyterian Church at Pocomoke City, and the other on the Wicomico, the mother church of the present congregation at Salisbury.

As Francis Makemie is regarded by Maryland Presbyterians as the leading spirit in the assembling of the first presbytery in America, which was organized in 1705 or 1706, and as the Makemie churches of the southern Eastern Shore of Maryland became charter members of that presbytery and formed a large portion of its constituency, many his­torians agree in dating the beginnings of organized Presbyterianism on this continent from the year of Makemie’s arrival in America.

On this same ground also many authorities concede to the Makemie churches the right of being regarded the first Presbyterian churches in America certainly known to have been constituted according to strict Presbyterian principles of government. Thus Maryland, within whose bounds many other Christian denominations of this country had their foundation, considers herself the cradle also of the organization of the Presbyterian Church in the western world as we know it today.

On the basis of these historical facts, Presbyterians from many parts of the United States, with the General Assemblies of both the National and Southern Churches officially cooperating, will gather— October 4—on the “Makemieland” of Maryland’s Eastern Shore for a celebration of the two hundred and fiftieth year of their church’s cor­porate development.

The celebration will take the form of a pilgrimage among the five churches first organized by Makemie. A visit will also be made to the grave of Makemie, located on what was his own home plantation just across the Maryland line, in Accomac county, Virginia—addresses being made at various of these points by outstanding leaders of both the National and Southern bodies of the denomination.

In 1665—one year before the county of Somerset, Md., was organized —Col. William Stevens had patented a large plantation on the west bank of the Pocomoke river, which he called Rehoboth (“There is room”), and on which he built his home. In the years that followed he became one of the outstanding leaders of his county. He was a member of the Gov­ernor’s Council, and was judge of the court of Somerset county. Though a vestryman of the Episcopal (Church of England) parish in his com­munity, he was singularly broad-minded for his day, and was not only tolerant, but cordial toward members of other faiths. He had invited George Fox, the Quaker, to hold services at his house.

When the new Presbyterian immigrants came to his locality as neigh­bors, he proffered to them the use of his home as a meeting place for their congregations, and in 1680 he wrote to the Presbytery of Laggan, in the province of Ulster, Ireland, requesting that they send ministers to care for their flocks.

When this letter was read before Laggan Presbytery there happened to be present a young man who was nearing the completion of his course of preparation for the Presbyterian ministry. He was Francis Makemie, a native of Rathmelton, in the county of Donegal, Ireland. He had re­ceived his education at the University of Glasgow and he was at that time about 22 years of age. He must have been strongly stirred by the appeal in behalf of the Presbyterians in America, for when (in 1682) he received his ordination by presbytery he set out at once for this continent.

Makemie arrived at Rehoboth probably in the spring of 1683. And as a congregation of Presbyterian worshipers already existed there it has seemed logical to assume that the first Presbyterian church to be formally organized by Makemie was at Rehoboth. In quick succession, however, he must have visited the other localities nearby where other Presbyterian congregations were accustomed to assemble, and where— with the full authority with which he had unquestionably been invested by presbytery—he constituted them into regular Presbyterian churches.

The exact dates and the order of organization of these churches can only be conjectured, as the churches possess no records of their own of the first decades of their history. It is generally believed that the min­utes of the sessions of the first churches were lost when the residence of Rev. William Stewart, in Princess Anne, was destroyed by fire some time prior to 1734—Mr. Stewart being at the time pastor of the Manokin, Rehoboth and Wicomico churches. Random references to the churches in Somerset county records and from other sources furnish a framework of information about them, however, and historians feel that they have very solid grounds for their conclusions that they received their full organization in the year 1683—the year of Makemie’s arrival in America. At any rate, out of the recordless shadows of those early years have emerged churches concerning whose Simon-pure Presbyterianism there has never been any question, even to this day.

The first building of the Rehoboth church is believed to have been located a little farther down the river than the present site. But. in 1706, a second edifice was erected—of brick—and this is the structure that con­tinues in use by the congregation to the present, being considered the oldest Presbyterian church building now existing in America.

The Snow Hill Church, whose claim to priority of organization has rivaled closely that of Rehoboth, has the distinction of having been the first Presbyterian church in America known to have prosecuted in due form a call for a pastor before an American presbytery. This was in 1707, when a call was presented to the recently organized Presbytery of Philadelphia for the pastoral services of the Rev. John Hampton.

The Manokin Church at Princess Anne is the only other one of the original Makemie churches—besides Rehoboth—whose present building extends back to the Colonial period, the edifice now in use having been erected in 1765, though enlarged and improved in more recent years.

After having visited and preached among these congregations on the Maryland Eastern Shore, and having established their churches, upon a full ecclesiastical basis, Makemie—probably in the late summer of the year 1683—visited the colony of Presbyterian dissenters on the Eliza­beth river, in Virginia, and journeyed also into the Carolinas. Return­ing to the Elizabeth river section in the fall of that year, he apparently established his home there for the next few years, while he ministered to the congregation in that locality.

In the meantime the Rev. William Trail, who was the stated clerk of the Presbytery of Laggan at the time Col. William Stevens’ letter was received, had also, in 1684, come to America and was serving the church at Rehoboth. Contemporaneously with him, a Thomas Wilson and a Samuel Davis, both Presbyterian ministers—possibly members of Laggan Presbytery also—had come to the Maryland Eastern Shore, where for many years they ministered as pastors of the Manokin and Snow Hill churches, respectively.

By 1689, however, records of Accomac county, Virginia, show that Makemie was residing on a plantation of his own on the Matchatank river, on the Virginia Eastern Shore. And as William Trail recrossed the Atlantic to become the pastor of the Presbyterian church in Borthwick, Scotland, in 1690, Makemie became at this time, apparently, the pastor of the church at Rehoboth, continuing this relation to it until his death in 1708.

The affection which he came to bear toward this congregation—his conceded first church organization in America—is revealed in the fact that in his will he bequeathed them a lot which he owned in Rehoboth, adjoining the church, stating that it was to be “for the ends and use of a Presbyterian congregation, as if I were personally present, and to their successors forever, and none else, but to such of the same persuasion in matters of religion.”

To say that organized Presbyterianism in America had its beginning with the coming of Makemie is not to be interpreted as meaning that until his arrival there was no appreciable number of Presbyterians in America, nor even that, until his own organizations had been formed, there were no congregations of Presbyterian worshipers to be found. Makemie’s work of integration, which was finally to develop into the present wide-flung organization of the Presbyterian churches, was done only with material which he found at hand in ample quantity, and upon founda­tions which had already been laid in all the colonies.

Even in Maryland many Presbyterians were evidently among the inhabitants as early as 1649. When, in that year, the Act of Religious Toleration was passed by the Provincial Assembly, Presbyterians were one of the religious sects against which any kind of derogatory remarks were specifically forbidden.

Lord Baltimore also, in a paper which he read in London before the Lords of Trade and Plantations on July 19, 1677, mentions “Pres­byterians”  (among other denominations)  who maintained by voluntary contributions  congregations for worship “according to their per­suasion.”

The Presbyterians of England, Scotland and Ireland, along with the English Independent Puritans (a large proportion of whom were Congregationalists), had felt the heaviest blows of persecution under the Stuart monarchs. From the very beginning of the colonization of America many of them had sought refuge and religious freedom in the New World.

It is a matter of record that, during the first forty years or so of the Virginia colony’s development, many of the settler s were Puritans, including several ministers. And as the term “Puritan” was applied freely to both independents and Presbyterians, it is quite likely that some of this number were Presbyterians.

Likewise, there is every indication that many who held the Pres­byterian viewpoint as to doctrine and church polity were among the first colonists who came to the shores of New England. Indeed, the Rev. John Robinson, who had been the devoted pastor of the little band of pilgrims who came over in the Mayflower, was originally a Presby­terian and claimed that his organization at Leydon conformed to the rule of the French Presbyterian Church.

Another strong Presbyterian element was introduced into the New England section only a few years after the arrival of the first Pilgrim fathers when, under the encouragement of “the Presbyterian leaders in the south of England and also in I ondon,” the founding of a Pres­byterian colony in the Cape Cod region of Massachusetts Bay was under­taken. Patton, in “A History of the Presbyterian Church,” says: “The first installment of colonists [for this enterprise] came in 1625, but the perfect organization did not take place till 1629, after a second and quite a large company of immigrants arrived, when a Presbyterian church was fully constituted.”

But New England very early became predominantly Congregation-alist, and strict Presbyterianism soon became submerged under the preponderating influence of the larger church’s “independent” system. Even the strongly Presbyterian character of the early church at Ply­mouth was from the first considerably modified by the presence and zeal of many independents in the congregation.

Near the middle of the seventeenth century many independents, together with some of the Presbyterians who clung somewhat more tenaciously to their own denominational convictions, began a migration from New England into the Dutch province of New York and into New Jersey. Before the end of that century, records show the existence of a number of well-established independent or Presbyterian congregations (variously referred to by contemporaries under both names) in both of these provinces. On Long Island especially several churches which were strongly Presbyterian in constituency and organization were founded during this period. Of these latter, the two most notable were at Hemp-stead and Jamaica.

The Rev. Richard Denton had come to America in 1630 and had labored originally at Watertown, Mass.    Being opposed by certain Con-

14gregationalists because of his Presbyterianism, he removed first to Con­necticut, and about 1644—followed by a large number of his congre­gation, he moved again to Hempstead, L. I., where he established a Pres­byterian church which survives today in the Christ Presbyterian Church of that place.

On this account priority has been claimed for the Hempstead church as the first organized Presbyterian church in America. While there is no question that the original organization was very largely Presbyterian in character—and most historians accord to the church full credit for this fact—it is nevertheless likely that there was a blend of Presby­terians and independents in the congregation, with the probable result that its government was an adapted form of Presbyterianism, rather than the strictly constituted type. Also, after the return of Richard Denton to England in 1659, some of the ministers by whom the church was served during the next fifty years or so were no doubt Congregation-alists, whose influence brought about a further modification of the church’s Presbyterian administration.

The greatest distinction of this church from the Presbyterian point of view is the fact that from the first it has always born the name Presbyterian. Accordingly, when the church in 1894 celebrated the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of its founding by Denton, the follow­ing statement, as quoted by Patton, was made in their published “Souvenir of the 250th Anniversary”: “Our claim is not that the Hemp­stead Church is the oldest Protestant and presbyterial in form in the churches of America . . . but that it is the oldest of the denomination which has always been called by the name Presbyterian.”

A similar claim of priority has been made for the First Presbyterian Church of Jamaica, Long Island, N. Y., which was organized some time prior to the year 1670. It is known, however, that, during the* first thirty years or more, the church at Jamaica was served largely by Congrega-tionalist ministers, and it no doubt had a large percentage of independ­ents in its congregation. In 1700 the church called the Rev. John Hubbard to be its pastor, and, reverting to the original character of its formation, voted that he should be ordained “in the Presbyterian way.”

McDonald, in his “History of the Presbyterian Church of Jamaica, L. I.,” labors to show that the Jamaica church is the oldest existing Pres­byterian church in America. Yet Vesey, an Episcopalian minister in New York city about the beginning of the eighteenth century, speaks of the church as one of the Scotch independents. Even MacDonald, further along in his history, concedes, as Dr. Bowen points out in “Makemieland Memorials,” that George Macnish is to be regarded as the “father of the Presbyterian church on Long Island.” George Macnish, however, was one of the ministers brought to America in 1705 by Francis Makemie; he first served the Manokin Presbyterian Church on the Maryland Eastern Shore for six years and did not go to Long Island until 1711. It was not until after Macnish had become its pastor that the church came into con­nection with the presbytery which had been formed in 1705-6.

As the number cf congregations in the colonies multiplied, Makemie, who was passionately devoted to the principles of a pure Presbyterian

15

order, became the leader in a movement to complete the denomination’s organization. A foundation having been laid in his own strictly consti­tuted organizations, a small group of earnest men assembled, at his invi­tation, in the new Presbyterian church on High (now Market) street, near Second, in Philadelphia, and the first presbytery of America was organized.

This was in 1705 or 1706, and the tradition is that Makemie was the presbytery’s first moderator. Other congregations entered into the mem­bership of this presbytery, so that, by 1717, it had grown to such propor­tions that four presbyteries were created, and the first synod in America was formed. This synod, in turn, developed into the first General Assem­bly, which was constituted in 1788.

The Presbyterian Messenger, of Dubuque, Iowa, official organ of the Presbyterian Synod of the West, editorially commented concerning the approaching celebration as follows:

“In 1683 the Rev. Francis Makemie founded the first of a group of Presbyterian churches, in the eastern parts of the country, and he is gen­erally considered the father of Presbyterianism in America. This fall special observance will be made by Presbyterians in many parts of the country of his 250th anniversary. This is right and the faithful pioneer is worthy of our honor and grateful remembrance. The name of Francis Makemie will ever shine in the history of American Presbyterianism as one of the bright and noble names which the church delights to honor.

“But in a letter from the Presbyterian Historical Society of Phila­delphia it is pointed out that while the honors due to Francis Makemie should not be lessened, it should also be remembered that ‘Presby­terianism in America antedates the year 1683 by a long period, being practically contemporaneous with the very first colonists who came to these shores. A number of congregations were scattered among the earliest settlements ministered unto by Presbyterian pastors, but not all organized along strictly Presbyterian lines.’

“The question of the first Presbyterian churches and preachers, after all, is of minor importance. That there were Presbyterian churches and ministers in the colonies from the earliest days seems well established. That Francis Makemie was the great pioneer through whom Presby­terianism was finally and organically established is admitted by all and his share in the history of the church deserves proper recognition and worthy celebration. Honors enough for all, and the church will best honor their memory by devoting itself anew to the great task to which they gave their lives—viz. the preaching of the Word of God for the salvation of sinful men and the coming of the Kingdom of God.”

Tags: , , ,

November 30: Jonathan Parsons [1705-1776]

30 November, 2015 in November 2015 by davidtmyers | No comments

One More Presbyterian Minister Stands for Liberty
by David T. Myers.

“Men of America,” the Presbyterian minister in Massachusetts preached, “citizens of this great country hanging upon the precipice of war, loyalty to England lies behind you, broken by the acts of the mother country – a cruel mother, deaf to the voice of liberty and right; duty to freedom, duty to your country, duty to God is before you; your patriotism is brought to the test; I call upon those ready to volunteer for the defense of the provinces against British tyranny to step into the ‘broad aisle.’” Those who did step into that church aisle became the first volunteers to join the Continental Army and fight in the Battle of Bunker Hill. A political liberty became his emphasis in those days.

Such rhetoric was more commonly found among Presbyterian pastors than any other denomination in the days and years of the American Revolution. It was no wonder that the Revolutionary War was characterized in England as the Presbyterian Rebellion. And one of those Presbyterian ministers leading the charge was Jonathan Parsons.

Born November 30, 1705, he was the youngest son of church deacon Ebenezer Parsons and his wife Margaret Marshfield of Springfield, Massachusetts. This line of Parsons could be traced back hundreds of years in England and later, equally forward for a long time in America. Jonathan Parsons was influenced by the Rev. Jonathan Edwards to enter Yale, which he did at age twenty. Edwards, along with others, taught him theology as he prepared for the ministry.

Graduating in 1729, Parsons entered first into the pulpit of the Congregational Church of Lyme, Connecticut in 1731. Married to Phebe Griswold, the oldest daughter of the town’s leading family, Jonathan gained much in the material realm in the first decade of his ministry. And he lived that advantage to the fullest. It was said that “he had a passion for fine clothes, for gold and silver, and for lacy ruffled shirt fronts.”

All this came into direct confrontation with the effects of the Great Awakening in America. Suffering doubts regarding the reality of his own personal conversion, he struggled long and hard in his own mind until “the doctrine of salvation by faith burst on his mind.” The result was that his pulpit preaching became marked by greater earnestness and simplicity as he expounded the sufferings of Christ and His undying love for sinners. Rev. Parson’s ministry was now characterized by a spiritual vigor and a renewed freedom in preaching the Gospel of grace.

This embrace of the Great Awakening was enhanced by his meeting and subsequent cooperation with George Whitefield in the 1740’s. The latter entered his pulpit in Lyme twice. While reviving many with the doctrines of grace proclaimed without reservation, eventually the congregation suffered a schism. And so it was that Parsons was dismissed from the Congregational pulpit in 1745.

With help from Whitefield, Jonathan Parsons became the pastor of the Old South Presbyterian Church in Newburyport, Massachusetts. He would serve the Lord for thirty years, in which time the congregation became one of the largest churches in New England. It was to this congregation that George Whitefield would visit in 1770, and indeed Whitefield breathed his last and was translated to heaven there in the parsonage of Jonathan Parsons. His body was laid beneath the pulpit of that church, and though later moved a short distance, Whitefield’s remains are still there. Yet a few more years and Whitefield was joined on July 19, 1776 with the passing of his friend Jonathan Parsons.

Words to Live By:
Jonathan Parsons is a good example of what happens when the Gospel of the Lord Jesus fills our hearts and minds by the power of the Holy Spirit. Strive to so live and breathe that you always remain close to your Lord and Savior. Then watch to see how the Lord will indeed use you to His glory, in His kingdom.

Tags: , , ,

October 13: The Ordination of Adam Boyd

13 October, 2015 in October 2015 by archivist | No comments

What follows provides us with an interesting insight into the process of licensure and ordination for ministerial candidates nearly 300 years ago. Here too, our readers find out where our masthead comes from, namely the source of today’s post: Historical Discourse of the 150th Anniversary of the Upper Octorara Presbyterian Church, by J. Smith Futhey, Esq.

This section appears on pages 42-45 of the above volume:

“The Rev. Adam Boyd, who was the first regular pastor of this Church, was born in Ballymena, county Antrim, Ireland, in 1692, and came to New England as a probationer [in this context, the word means that he was licensed to preach] in 1722 or 1723. While there, he preached at Dedham. After remaining there for a time, he concluded to return to his native country, and was furnished by the celebrated Cotton Mather—who esteemed him well—with a certificate of his good character in this country, dated June 10, 1724. He, however, had formed an attachment to a daughter of Rev. Thomas Craighead, one of the pioneers of the Irish Presbyterians of New England, and, relinquishing his design of returning home, came to Pennsylvania, whither Mr. Craighead and his family had shortly preceded him, bringing with him the commendatory letter of Cotton Mather, as well as credentials from Ireland, and was received under the care of New Castle Presbytery. The following is the minute of Presbytery on the occasion of his reception: “July 29, 1724. The testimonials of Mr. Adam Boyd, preacher of the gospel, lately come from New England, were read and approved, and he being interrogated by the moderator, whether he would submit to this Presbytery, he answered that he would, during his abode in these parts .” Mr. Craighead had been received as a member of Presbytery on January 28, 1723-24.

“On the same day on which Mr. Boyd became a member of Presbytery, he was sent as a supply to Octorara, with directions to collect a congregation also at Pequea, and take the necessary steps towards its organization. He was so acceptable to the people that at the next meeting of Presbytery, September 14, 1724, a call was presented for his services as a pastor by Cornelius Rowan and Arthur Park, representatives of the people at Octorara and Pickqua. This call was accepted by him on the 6th of October, and at the urgent request of the commissioners who presented it, that an early day should be fixed for his ordination, the Presbytery met at the “Ackterara Meeting House” on the 13th of October, 1724, for that purpose.

“At this meeting of Presbytery—the first held on this spot—there were present as members, Thomas Craighead, of White Clay creek, George Gillespie, of Head of Christiana, Henry Hook, of Drawyers, Thomas Evans, of Pencader, and Alexander Hutchinson, of Bohemia, ministers, and Peter Bouchelle, elder. Mr. Craighead presided as Moderator.

“Mr. Boyd having passed the usual examination, the minutes of Presbytery record that “Proclamation being made three times by Mr. George Gillespie, at the door of the meeting house of Octorara, that if any person had any thing to object against the ordaining of Mr. Adam Boyd, they should make it known to the Presbytery now sitting, and no objection being made, they proceeded to his ordination, solemnly setting him apart to the work of the ministry, with prayer and imposition of the hands of the Presbytery. Mr. Henry Hook preaching the ordination sermon, and presiding in the work.”

Words to Live By:
To those of our readers who are not ordained teaching elders, the setting aside of qualified men to the office of the ministry in our Presbytery meetings may indeed sound foreign. But in another sense, those who are not ordained and not attenders of your regional Presbytery meetings still have the written record of Holy Scripture, such as 1 Timothy 4:14, where Paul wrote to young pastor Timothy and said, “Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.” (NASV)  The laying on of the hands of the presbytery  in our regional meetings have a biblical basis to them! It may indeed be a worthwhile day for you to attend as a layman or laywoman the proceedings of your local Presbytery some Saturday, or whenever they meet during the week. Visitors are welcome. Just talk to your pastor or a ruling elder for information on the next meeting.  It will enable you to pray more for your church, see the work of the Spirit in other nearby churches, and realize anew the biblical basis for being a Presbyterian!

Tags: , , ,

« Older entries