When it is said that we adopted the Scottish system, the expression is used in its ordinary and proper acceptation. When two countries or two churches are said to have the same system of government, it is not implied that they have the same laws in all their details. We, for example, have some rules about the reception of foreign ministers, the forms of process, statistical reports, &c., which are peculiar to ourselves. The Church of Scotland has a multitude of rules relating to tithes, patronage, &c., which arise out of its peculiar circumstances. So, also, the French Churches have rules about schools and colleges which may not be found in the Scottish books. Still the Church of Scotland considers itself as adopting the same system of discipline as the protestants of France, and no authority is more frequently quoted by Scotch writers than the Ratio Disciplinae of the French churches. The question is not about any particular laws or rules, but about principles of government. Are our courts “as to their existence and action entirely independent of each other”? Are the acts of our synods, when not judicial, merely advisory? or have our judicatories the right to set down rules for the government of the church?

The power claimed for Synods, using the word in its general sense, is nothing more than what, in express terms, is said to belong to them in the Confession of Faith. It is by no means an unlimited power. It relates merely to matters of government; for all legislative powers in “matters of religion,” or in things affecting the conscience, our church has, with one voice, uniformly disclaimed. It is, moreover, restricted by our present constitution within very narrow limits, much narrower than those within which our old Synods were accustomed to move. It is in the sense thus explained, it is maintained, that our church did, from the beginning, adopt the Scottish system of government, and has maintained it ever since. It is difficult to know what is meant, when it is said, “the presbyterian systems of the French Huguenots and of South Britain, were much more mild than those of Holland and Scotland, where they had the civil authority to protect them and enforce their enactments.” Such remarks are frequently made. It is said that we adopted a system more allied to the mild form of presbyterianism prevalent among some of the Reformed Churches, than to that of Scotland.

It is a great mistake to suppose that French Presbyterianism was more mild than that of Scotland, as would abundantly appear from a review of Quick’s “Synodicon, or the Acts, Decisions, Decrees, and Canons of those famous national councils of the Reformed Churches in France.” There were twenty-nine of these Synods held at irregular intervals, in the course of a hundred years, as permission could be obtained from the government. The first was held in 1559, the last in 1659. The revocation of the Edict of Nantes, of course, put a stop to all such assemblies, and consummated that long train of persecutions, by which the Reformed Churches in France were nearly extirpated. It is said, that in ten years two hundred thousand French protestants suffered martyrdom, and about seven hundred thousand were driven from the kingdom. Few portions of the Christian church have higher claims on the sympathy and respect of protestants than the Reformed Churches of France. They were, however, rigidly Calvinistic, and strictly presbyterian, and those who do not respect these characteristics, cannot respect them. Some idea of the kind of presbyterianism which prevailed in France, may be gathered from the following facts. The provincial synods were obliged to furnish their deputies to the national synod, with a commission in these terms: “We promise before God to submit ourselves unto all that shall be concluded and determined in your Holy Assembly, to obey and execute it to the utmost of our power; being persuaded that God will preside among you, and lead you by his Holy Spirit into all truth and equity by the rule of his word, for the good and edification of his Church, to the glory of his great name; which we humbly beg of his Divine Majesty in our daily prayers.” Quick, vol. i. p. 478. On the next page is the following record: “The Confession of Faith of these Reformed Churches in the kingdom of France, was read word by word, from beginning to the end, and approved in all its articles by all the deputies, as well for themselves as for their provinces that sent them, and all of them sware for themselves and provinces, that they would teach and preach it, because they believed that it did perfectly agree with the word of God; and they would use their best endeavour, that as it had been hitherto, so it should be evermore received and taught in their churches and provinces.” This Confession contains forty articles, and occupies nine folio pages; and when it is remembered that it was drawn up by Calvin, it may be conceived what doctrines it contains. It became the custom to have the Confession read and readopted at every national synod. The record is nearly in the same form every time; it was read “word by word, and re-examined in every particular point and article;” and the deputies “swore” or “protested” for themselves and principals, “to live and die in this faith.”

That the French churches agreed with those of Holland in doctrine and discipline, is evident from the fact, that when the deputies from the Dutch Churches appeared in the national synod, held in 1583, and tendered the “Confession of Faith and body of church discipline, owned and embraced by the said Churches of the Low Countries, this Assembly,” it is recorded, “having humbly and heartily blessed God for that sweet union and agreement, both in doctrine and discipline, between the churches of this kingdom and of that republic, did judge meet to subscribe them both; and it did also request those, our brethren, their deputies, reciprocally to subscribe our Confession of Faith and body of church discipline; which, in obedience to the commission given them by their principals, they did accordingly; thereby testifying mutual harmony and concord in doctrine and discipline of all the churches in both nations.” vol. i. p. 143.

When the canons of the Synod of Dort were published, they were presented to the national synod of France, held 1620. From the record relating to this subject, the following is an extract: “This assembly, after invocation of the name of God, decreed that the articles of the said national council held at Dort, should be read in full synod, which being read accordingly, and every article pondered most attentively, they were all received and approved by a common unanimous consent, as agreeing with the word of God and the Confession of Faith of these our churches—for which reason all the pastors and elders deputed unto this Assembly, have sworn and protested, jointly and severally, that they consent unto this doctrine, and that they will defend it with the utmost of their power even to their latest breath. And this Assembly ordaineth that this very canon be printed and added to the canons of the said council, and that it shall be read in our provincial synods and universities, that it may be approved, sworn, and subscribed to, by the pastors and elders of our churches, and by the doctors and professors in our universities, and also by all those that are to be ordained and admitted into the ministry, or into the professor’s chair in any of our universities. And if any one of these persons should reject, either in whole or in part, the doctrine contained in, and decided by the canons of the said council, or refuse to take the oath of consent and approbation; this Assembly decreeth, that he shall not be admitted into any office or employment, either in our churches or universities.” Quick’s Synodicon, vol. ii. pp. 37, 38.

In the Synod, 1644–5, it was reported “by certain deputies of the maritime provinces, that there do arrive unto them from other countries, some persons going by the name of Independents, and so called, for that they teach every particular church should of right be governed by its own laws, without any dependency or subordination unto any person whatsoever in ecclesiastical matters, and without being obliged to own or acknowledge the authority of colloquies or synods, in matters of discipline or order; and that they settle their dwellings in this kingdom; a thing of great and dangerous consequence if not in time carefully prevented. Now this Assembly fearing lest the contagion of this poison should diffuse itself insensibly, and bring in a world of disorders and confusions upon us, all the provinces are therefore enjoined, but more especially those which border on the sea, to be exceedingly careful that this evil do not get footing in the churches of this kingdom,” &c. &c. p. 467.

There are many acts of these synods which would make modern ears tingle, and which prove that American Presbyterianism in its strictest form, was a sucking dove compared to that of the immediate descendants of the Reformers. To maintain truth and order in the church in those days of conflict, it required a sterner purpose and firmer conviction, than are commonly to be met with at the present time, when many are wont to change their church and creed almost as readily as they change their clothes. This account of the French church has been given because, as will appear in the sequel, there was at an early period, a strong infusion of French presbyterianism into the churches of this country, and it is well to know something of its character.

The Scottish system is now spoken of with disapprobation, and its early advocates are called “sectarian bigots.” This is certainly not the way in which our fathers were accustomed to speak on this subject. In a minute adopted in 1751, the Synod of New York say, “we do hereby declare and testify our constitution, order, and discipline to be in harmony with the established Church of Scotland. The Westminster Confession, Catechisms, and Directory for public worship and church government, adopted by them, are in like manner received and adopted by us. We declare ourselves united with that church in the same faith, order, and discipline. Its approbation, countenance, and favour, we have abundant testimonies of.” In their address to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, written in 1753, in furtherance of the efforts of Messrs. Gilbert Tennent, and Samuel Davies, in behalf of the college of New Jersey, they say, “in the colonies of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Carolina, a great many congregations have been formed upon the presbyterian plan, which have put themselves under the synodical care of your petitioners, who conform to the constitution of the Church of Scotland, and have adopted her standards of doctrine, worship, and discipline.” Again: “your petitioners, therefore, most earnestly pray that this very reverend Assembly would afford the said college all the countenance and assistance in their power. The young daughter of the Church of Scotland, helpless and exposed, in this foreign land, cries to her tender and powerful parent for relief.” Whose language is this? Not that of the “Old side” synod. If it was, it might be regarded as a matter of course. It is the language of the “New side” synod; of that body which, according to the popular representation, were opposed to the Scottish system. It is the language of the Tennents, Blair, Pemberton, Davies, Burr, Finley,2 and others. Yet it is language which those, who think they adopt their principles, will not now bear.

Both parties in our church have appealed to its early history in support of their peculiar opinions. It is the object of this work to review that history, in order to show that our church has always demanded adherence to the system of doctrines contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, as the condition of ministerial communion; and that it has ever claimed and exercised all the distinguishing powers of presbyterian government. The arguments in support of this position will be drawn from the origin, from the official declarations and constitution, and from the history of the church. As there have, at different periods, been many persons connected with the Church of England, who disliked episcopacy; so there have, doubtless, been many connected with the Presbyterian Church who disliked its principles, and were far from complying with its demands. The question, however, is not about the opinions of individuals, but the avowed principles of the church.

It is admitted, that the early history of the Presbyterian church in the United States, is involved in great obscurity. The reason of this fact is obvious. Presbyterians did not at first emigrate in large bodies, or occupy by themselves extensive districts of country. In New England the early settlers were Congregationalists. The history of that portion of our country is, therefore, in a great measure, the history of that denomination. The same remark, to a certain extent, is applicable to the Dutch in New York, the Quakers in Pennsylvania, the Catholics in Maryland. The case was very different with regard to the presbyterians. They came, as a general rule, as individuals, or in small companies, and settled in the midst of people of other denominations. It was, therefore, in most instances, only gradually that they became sufficiently numerous in any one place to form congregations, or to associate in a presbyterial capacity. It is true their increase was very rapid; partly by the aggregation of persons of similar principles, though of different origin, and partly by constant immigration. This peculiarity in the history of American Presbyterians arose, in a great measure, from the fact, that the persecution which drove so many of the early settlers to this country, fell, in the first instance, heaviest on the Independents and Quakers; and when it came upon the Presbyterians, (at least those of Scotland,) it did not drive them so generally from their own country, but led to a protracted struggle for liberty at home: a struggle which was eventually crowned with success.

Owing to the circumstances just referred to, we are obliged, in tracing the early history of the Presbyterian Church in this country, to review the colonial history of the several states, and gather from their records the scattered and imperfect intimations they afford of the origin of our own denomination. There is one preliminary remark, which must be constantly borne in mind. The Puritans were not all Congregationalists. The contrary impression has indeed become very general, from the fact that the Puritans settled New England, and that Congregationalism became there the prevalent form of church discipline. Hence it seems to be confidently inferred, that all emigrants from Old, or New England, bearing that designation, must have carried Congregationalism with them wherever they went. Hence too it is taken for granted, that if a minister came into our church from New England, he could not be a presbyterian. This is a great mistake. The Congregationalists or Independents were a mere handful, compared with the whole number of the Puritans. This term was applied to all who were desirous of a greater degree of purity, in ceremonies, discipline, or doctrine, than they found in the established church of England. The first Puritans, under Elizabeth, scrupled about the church vestments. They had no difficulty as to the doctrines of the church; they were willing to submit to episcopacy, but they could not reconcile themselves to the “idolatrous gear,” as they called it, which had so long been the distinguishing badge of the popish priesthood. This was the first cause of schism in the English Church. It is true many Puritans reluctantly submitted to the imposition of the clerical habits, and retained their standing in the Church. This was the case with Grindal himself, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury. A majority of the members actually present in the convocation, held 1562, as they were desirous of a further reformation, were stigmatized as Puritans. All the most eminent churchmen were on their side, as Jewel, Grindal, Sandys, Nowell. Archbishop Parker, and Cox, Bishop of Ely, stood almost alone on the other side; sustained, however, by the authority of Elizabeth, whose will was law.2 The hold which the Puritans had upon the people is manifest from the frequent majorities which they commanded in parliament, even during this despotic reign. The main controversy was as yet about ceremonies. “Had the use of the habits and a few ceremonies been left discretionary, both ministers and people had been easy; but it was the compelling these things by law (as they told the Archbishop) that made them separate.”4 It was thus that the first and most scrupulous class of Puritans were ejected from the church.

When Whitgift was made Archbishop, in 1583, he tightened the reigns of discipline, and of course increased the number of dissenters. He published three articles, which all who enjoyed any office or benefice in the church were obliged to subscribe. The second of these articles declared that the book of common prayer “contained nothing contrary to the word of God.” This, large numbers could not assert, and hence were suspended or deprived. Many, however, still remained in the church, who either escaped the imposition of the articles, through the favour of their bishops, or subscribed with such explanations, as satisfied their consciences. Hitherto, doctrinal matters had not entered into the controversy. The faith of the Reformers was still the faith of the church. Whitgift, the great persecutor of the Puritans, was a most strenuous Calvinist; as were Grindal before him, and Abbot after him. James I., who had sent deputies to the Synod of Dort, and had urged on the persecution of the Remonstrants, suddenly became, under the influence of a few favourite ecclesiastics, a convert to Arminianism. This, however, did not change the faith of the church or of the nation. Even “Oxford,” at this time, says Le Bas, the biographer and eulogist of Laud, “bore a greater resemblance, in many respects, to a colony of Geneva, than to a Seminary of Anglo-Catholic Divinity.” As Arminianism, from this time, became the doctrine of the high church and court party, Calvinism was identified with Puritanism. One of the earliest parliaments under Charles I., “took up the increase of Arminianism as a public grievance. It was coupled in their remonstrances with Popery, as a new danger to religion, hardly less terrible than the former.”2 Under the administration of Archbishop Laud, the Puritan party rapidly increased. It was the fate of that prelate to appear at a time when his spirit and principles were in direct opposisition to those of the people whom he attempted to govern. He was for receding to the very confines of Romanism; they were getting alienated, even from episcopacy. He laid peculiar stress on matters of ceremony; they were becoming more and more enamoured of simple forms of worship. He was most despotic in his ideas of government; they were determined to be free. Every parliament met but to demand a redress of grievances, (of which those arising from the bishops formed a prominent part,) and was dissolved only to have their burdens rendered more intolerable. This conflict ended as might have been expected. The principles of Laud brought himself and his unhappy master to the block. During all this time, opposers of the government were called Puritans; a term not expressive of any one set of opinions, so much as of one common object. Episcopalians, who refused to read the book of Sunday sports; Presbyterians, who objected to the power of the bishops; Independents, who rejected all government in the church, beyond that of a congregation over itself, were all Puritans. Subsequent events proved that the second of these classes was much the most numerous of the three. Even as early as the time of Elizabeth, a large portion of the clergy of the established church were presbyterians in principle. They were unwilling to separate from the church as long as unity could be preserved, and were willing to submit to episcopacy rather than be guilty of schism. They endeavoured, to a certain extent, to associate in presbyteries, without separating from the establishment. As early as 1572, a presbytery was formed on these principles at Wandsworth; and other associations of the same kind were instituted in different parts of the kingdom. Travers drew up in Latin a form of government, entitled “The Discipline of the Church as described in the Word of God,” which was printed at Geneva in 1574. It was subsequently translated into English, and revised by Cartwright. This discipline, which is published at length by Neal in the Appendix of his history, is completely presbyterian. It was subscribed by above five hundred beneficed clergymen, as agreeable to the word of God and to be promoted by all lawful means.2 Thus early and thus numerous was the presbyterian party in the Church of England.

When the arbitrary measures of Charles I. drove the nation into rebellion, the partisans of the court were of course episcopalian; the opposite party was, or became, in the main, presbyterian. It is not easy indeed to ascertain the proportion which the parties in the long parliament, opposed to the government when it first assembled, bore to each other. Of the presbyterians, there appear to have been two divisions; the one strenuous for their whole system, the other willing to admit Archbishop Usher’s plan, either from preference, or as a compromise. A bill was brought forward by Sir Edward Dering for the utter extirpation of episcopacy, which passed its second reading by a vote of 139 to 108.4 Yet this gentleman afterwards advocated the plan of Usher. There is no doubt that many presbyterians would have acquiesced in this scheme which was essentially presbyterian, could it have harmonized the conflicting parties in the kingdom. When all hope, however, of a compromise was at an end, they became more strenuous in advocating their own system. When the compact came to be formed with Scotland, all the members of the commons who remained at Westminster, to the number of two hundred and twenty-eight, and between twenty and thirty peers, subscribed the solemn league and covenant. This no doubt, was done by many from motives of policy; but it is to be hoped that the strong declarations in favour of presbyterianism which that covenant contains, were not insincere on the part of the great majority. When the parliament called together the Westminster Assembly of Divines, in 1643, of the one hundred and twenty clerical, and thirty lay members, of which it consisted, not more than six or seven were Independents, a few were Erastians, and the remainder, with the exception of some episcopalians, who soon retired, were presbyterians. Of these presbyterians there were the same two divisions, which were just mentioned as existing in parliament. That this Assembly was a fair representation of the state of parties among the opposers of the government, subsequent events sufficiently proved. The presbyterians became completely predominant, and their form of government was established by law, a measure to which the Independents did not object, though they insisted on freedom for themselves. That the English presbyterians were sufficiently decided, is evident from the fact that the Assembly asserted the jus divinum of presbyterianism. To this the parliament very properly demurred, and required the declaration to be put in the form in which it now stands in the Directory, viz. “that it is lawful and agreeable to the word of God, that the church be governed by congregational, classical, and synodical Assemblies.” With this the English presbyterians were as little satisfied as the Scotch. Against this declaration the London ministers, as well as the mayor and common council, earnestly remonstrated. The Independents were a small minority in parliament, among the clergy, and in the nation. Their strength was in the army. They no doubt increased greatly under Cromwell; but at his death, when the ejected members resumed their seats in parliament, the whole kingdom was in the hands of the Presbyterians. At the restoration of Charles II, “The Presbyterians,” says Neal, who was very far from being their friend, “were in possession of the whole power of England; the council of state, the chief officers of the army and navy, and the governors of the chief forts and garrisons, were theirs; their clergy were in possession of both universities and of the best livings of the kingdom.” Another proof how numerous and important the presbyterians were considered, is, that it was deemed advisable in order to conciliate them, to allow Charles II. five months after his return, to issue a declaration in which so many reductions of episcopal power, and so many reforms were promised, as to make the hierarchy very little more than it would have been, had Archbishop Usher’s plan been adopted. This declaration was designed, says Hallam, merely “to scatter dust in men’s eyes.” The motion in parliament to give it the force of law was lost by a vote of 183 to 157. Instead of compromise, the harshest measures were soon adopted. The act of uniformity was passed, which required re-ordination of those who had been presbyterially ordained; “assent and consent to all and every thing contained, and prescribed, in and by the book of common prayer,” and the profession of the doctrine of passive obedience. This the presbyterians could not submit to, and were consequently ejected from the ministry of the church, to the number of about two thousand. These, of course, were only the most conscientious, or the most decided. Multitudes who had taken the covenant, conformed, and retained their stations. This was the case with Dr. Reynolds, a man of great learning and excellence, who was made Bishop of Norwich. Among those who were ejected, were Baxter, Calamy, Manton, Bates, Meade, and many others scarcely less distinguished for their learning, piety, and zeal.

Reference is made to these familiar historical events to correct the impression that the Puritans were generally congregationalists. Every body knows, indeed, that such was not the fact, yet from our peculiar associations with the term, it is commonly taken for granted, that all who, as Puritans, emigrated to this country to avoid the persecutions which they suffered at home, were congregationalists. The truth, however, is, that as the great majority of Puritans in England were presbyterian, so no inconsiderable proportion of those who came to America, preferred the presbyterian form of church government. The question will naturally be asked, If this be so, how came congregationalism to be generally established in New England? The answer is, that the first settlers were congregationalists. They belonged to that division of the Puritans, which, departing farthest from the established church, first felt the necessity of setting up for themselves. In coming to this country, they came with the determination to carry out their principles, and thus the mould into which the additional settlers were cast, as they successively arrived, was fixed at the beginning. Again, the master-minds among the early Puritans in this country, by whom their civil and ecclesiastical polity was determined, were principally congregationalists. And, thirdly, as the Puritan presbyterians were willing, for the sake of the great ends of peace and union, to unite with the episcopalians in a modified form of episcopacy; so for the same important objects, they were willing to unite with the Independents in New England, in a modified form of Congregationalism. Such was the intimate union between church and state, established in the New England provinces, that it was hardly possible, that different ecclesiastical organizations could exist without producing confusion and difficulty. This union between presbyterians and congregationalists was, doubtless, the more readily effected, inasmuch as with the exception of the first colony from Holland, the emigrants had not enjoyed any separate ecclesiastical organization at home. They were almost all members of the established church. The ministers were with rare exceptions, beneficed clergymen of the Church of England, who had been suspended for want of conformity, generally, in relation to matters of ceremony. Whatever, therefore, might have been their individual preferences, they had not become wedded by habit to any particular system.

It might be confidently inferred from the opinions of the English puritans, as stated above, and from the circumstances which led to their emigration, during the reigns of James I. and Charles I., that many of them would bring with them a preference for presbyterianism. It is estimated that about twenty-one thousand two hundred emigrants arrived in New England before 1640. Cotton Mather tells us that previous to that same year four thousand presbyterians had arrived.2 In another place, when speaking of the union effected between the congregationalists and presbyterians in London, about the year 1690, he says, the same union and on the same terms, had subsisted between these two denominations in New England, for “many decads of years;” that is, almost from the very first settlement of the country. This mixed character of the people, seems also to be recognized in the address of Increase Mather to king William. He begged him to consider that, “in New England they differ from other plantations; they are called congregational and presbyterian, so that such a governor will not suit with the people of New Eengland, as may be very proper for other English plantations.”4 Of the two thousand presbyterian ministers cast out of the Church of England, by the act of uniformity in 1662, a considerable number, it is said, found a refuge in New England. The colony of Connecticut, in writing at an early period to the lords of trade and plantations, tell them “the people here are congregationalists, large congregationalists, and moderate presbyterians, the two former being the most numerous.” This form of expression evidently implies, that the latter class bore a large proportion to the former. The principal friends and patrons of this colony in England were presbyterians; particularly lord Say, an original patentee of the colony, to whom they often express their obligations, and to whose influence, and to that of the earl of Manchester, another leader of the presbyterian party, they were in a great measure indebted for the restoration of their charter. Trumbull, speaking of the Assembly which drew up the Saybrook platform, says, “Though the council were unanimous in passing the platform of discipline, yet they were not all of one opinion. Some were for high consociational government, and in their sentiments nearly presbyterians; others were much more moderate and rather verging on independency.”2 The result of their labours proves that the former class had greatly the ascendency.

The influence of presbyterian principles in New England is, however, much more satisfactorily proved by the nature of the ecclesiastical systems which were there adopted, than by any statements of isolated facts. These systems were evidently the result of compromise between two parties, and they show that the presbyterian was much stronger than the independent element. The two leading points of difference between presbyterianism and congregationalism, particularly as the latter exists at present, relate to the mode of government within the congregation, whether it should be by elders or the brotherhood, and to the authority of synods. As to both these points the early discipline of the New England churches approached much nearer to presbyterianism than it does at present. Elders, indeed, were a regular part of the organization of the churches of the independents, even when totally disconnected with presbyterians. A tendency, however, soon manifested itself on the part of the brethren to dispense with their services, and take the keys into their own hands. Mr. Wilson, one of the first ministers of Boston, lamented, on his death-bed, as among the sins of the people, opposition to elders, and “the making light of, and not subjecting to the authority of synods, without which the churches cannot long subsist.”2 The venerable Elliot entertained the same opinions. “There were specially two things, which he was loth to see, and yet feared he saw, falling in the churches of New England; one was a thorough establishment of ruling elders in our churches;” and the other “a frequent repetition of needful synods.” In the Cambridge platform, which was drawn up in 1648, it is said, “The ruling elder’s office is distinct from the office of pastor and teacher.” He is “to join with the pastor and teacher in those acts of spiritual rule, which are distinct from the ministry of the word and sacraments committed to them,” &c. In a subsequent synod, it was agreed, 1. “The power of church government belongs only to the elders of the Church.” 2. “There are certain cases, wherein the elders in their management of their church government, are to take the concurrence of the fraternity;” namely, in elections, and admissions, and censures. 3. “The elders of the church are to have a negative on the votes of the brethren,” &c.

As to synods, the Cambridge platform denies to them in sec. iv. ch. 16., the right to perform any act of “church authority or jurisdiction;” but adds in sec. v., “The synod’s directions and determinations, so far as consonant to the word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement therewith, (which is the principal ground thereof, and without which they bind not at all,) but also secondarily, for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his word.” This is very near the presbyterian doctrine, which teaches that the decisions of synods are binding on those voluntarily connected with them, when made in reference to things within their jurisdiction, and not contrary to the word of God, or any constitutional stipulations. The subsequent Assembly which met at Cambridge, carried the power of synods fully up to the presbyterian doctrine, if not beyond it. The second proposition on this subject, determined in that body, is in these words: “Synods duly composed of messengers chosen by them, whom they are to represent, and proceeding with a due regard to the will of God in his word, are to be reverenced as determining the mind of the Spirit concerning things necessary to be received and practised, in order to the edification of the churches therein represented.” The third proposition is, “Synods being of apostolic example, recommended as a necessary ordinance, it is but reasonable that their judgment be acknowledged as decisive, [in or of] the affairs for which they are ordained; and to deny them the power of such judgment is to render a necessary ordinance of none effect.” Here it is evident that the presbyterial element in those churches predominated.2 May it not without offence be asked, whether it would not have been better, in conformity with this doctrine, to allow the church to govern itself, instead of referring so much power to the civil magistrate, as was done by the great and pious men who founded Massachusetts? Their memory deserves to be held in perpetual veneration, and their errors should be treated as the errors of a parent. Filial piety, however, permits us to learn wisdom from the mistakes of our fathers. Those excellent men ought not to be quoted, as is so often done in our days, as the advocates of the independence of each separate congregation. They had suffered so much from the tyranny of ecclesiastical rulers at home, that they went to the extreme of denying to church courts, armed with nothing but moral and spiritual censures, their legitimate authority. But feeling the necessity for some authority superior to that of a single congregation over itself, they devolved it upon the magistrate. The Cambridge platform, which denies the binding force of the decisions of a synod, declares that not only idolatry and blasphemy, but heresy and open contempt of the word preached, “are to be restrained and punished by the civil authority.” And farther, “If any church, one or more, shall grow schismatical, rending itself from the communion of other churches, or shall walk incorrigibly and obstinately in any corrupt way of their own, contrary to the rule of the word; in such case the magistrate is to put forth his coercive power, as the matter shall require.” The very same rules, enforced by mere ecclesiastical censures, which the presbyterian synod were so much reproached for making, and which led to the schism of 1741, were made in Connecticut by the legislature and enforced by civil penalties. The controversy, therefore, between the fathers of the New England churches and those of the American Presbyterians, would be not as to the necessity of a general authority in the Church, but as to where it should be lodged.

The churches of Connecticut appear to have had, from the beginning, more of a presbyterian influence among them than those of Massachusetts. Hooker, the patriarch of Connecticut, said with great earnestness shortly before his death, “we must settle the consociation of churches, or else we are undone.” He also, it appears, laid peculiar stress on the importance of ruling elders.3 The Saybrook platform, accordingly, comes much nearer to the presbyterian model than that of Cambridge. The former declares, 1. “That the elder or elders of a particular church, with the consent of the brethren of the same, have power, and ought to exercise church discipline according to the rule of God’s word, in relation to all scandals that fall out within the same,” &c. 2. “That the churches which are neighbouring to each other, shall consociate for mutual affording to each other such assistance as may be requisite, on all occasions ecclesiastical,” &c. 3. “That all cases of scandal, that shall fall out within any one of the aforesaid consociations, shall be brought to a council of elders, and also messengers of the churches within the said circuit, i.e. the churches of one consociation, if they see cause to send messengers when there shall be need of a council for the determination of them.” Art. 5. declares, “That when any case is orderly brought before any council of the churches, it shall be heard and determined, which (unless orderly removed from thence) shall be a final issue; and all parties therein concerned shall sit down and be determined thereby.” “If any pastor or church doth obstinately refuse a due attendance and conformity to the determination of the council,” after due patience, “they are to be reported guilty of a scandalous contempt, and dealt with as the rule of God’s word in such case doth provide, and the sentence of non-communion shall be declared against such pastor and church.” In giving, therefore, the exercise of discipline to the pastor and elders, and in making the determinations of councils definitive and binding, on pain of non-communion, the Saybrook platform, unanimously approved by the Assembly which prepared it in 1708, and adopted by the legislature as the discipline of the churches established by law, comes very little short of presbyterianism. It is very evident, as this platform was a compromise between two parties, being less than the one, and more than the other wished to see adopted, that one party must have been thorough presbyterians. That they were, moreover, the stronger of the two, is evident from the platform approaching so much nearer to their system, than to that of the independents.

It is, therefore, a most unfounded assumption that the Puritans were all congregationalists, or that the emigrants from England or the New England colonies, who joined our church, as a matter of course, were disaffected to our form of government.

Though New England was the home of the Puritans, they did not confine themselves to that region of country. With the adventurous spirit which has always been one of their leading characteristics, they extended at an early period, their settlements in various directions. Long Island, from its proximity to Connecticut, was soon occupied by emigrants from the older colonies, and by settlers direct from England. The Dutch having occupied the western end of the island, these English settlements were principally towards the central and eastern portions. Before the commencement of the last century several churches had been organized, whose ministers, in many instances, were from England.

Smith, in his history of New York, written in 1756, gives the following account of the inhabitants of Long Island, at that period. In King’s county, opposite New York, “the inhabitants are all Dutch.” In Queen’s county “the inhabitants are divided into Dutch and English, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Quakers.” Suffolk county, “except one small episcopal congregation, consists entirely of English Presbyterians.”

The Puritans do not appear to have made much impression upon New York before the early part of the last century, but in East Jersey their settlements were numerous and important. In 1664, a company from the western part of Long Island purchased a tract of land and laid out the town of Elizabethtown. There were, however, but four houses in the place, when Philip Carteret, in 1665, arrived as governor of the province, from England, bringing with him about thirty settlers. The first colony, therefore, must have been small. Much about the same time, Woodbridge, Middletown, and Shrewsbury were settled, in a good degree by emigrants from Long Island, and Connecticut. Newark was settled in 1667 or 1668, by about thirty families principally from Brandford in Connecticut. As the New England Puritans were, some of them congregationalists and some presbyterians, it is not easy to ascertain to which class the emigrants to East Jersey belonged. It is probable that some preferred the one form of church discipline, and some the other. Those who settled at Newark were presbyterians. The Rev. Abraham Pierson was, it is believed, episcopally ordained in England whence he emigrated to this country with a number of followers. After several previous attempts at settlement, they fixed themselves at Brandford, in Connecticut. Being dissatisfied, however, with the union between the colonies of New Haven and Connecticut, they removed to Newark. After continuing the pastor of the church there for about twenty years, Mr. Pierson was succeeded by his son, who was subsequently appointed the first president of Yale College. “These two ministers, tradition relates, were moderate presbyterians, but the son more especially. He had imbibed moderate presbyterianism from his father, and when at Cambridge College, he had received strong prejudices against Plymothean independency; and after his father’s death he was for introducing more rigid presbyterianism into Newark.” It appears, from the narrative just quoted, that this attempt of the younger Pierson was sustained by some Scotch members of the congregation, and opposed by others recently from Connecticut, who were in favour of the Saybrook platform. It is probable that this difficulty led to Mr. Pierson’s removal. In 1715, the church of Newark appears in connexion with the Presbytery of Philadelphia.

The Puritans were not very successful in their attempts to form settlements upon the Delaware. In 1640, the colony of New Haven made a large purchase on both sides of that river and sent out about fifty families to make a settlement. As this country, however, was covered by a previous claim of the Dutch, the trading establishments of the New Haven colony were broken up by the Hollanders, and the people scattered. In 1669, application was made by New Haven to the commissioners of the united colonies to make plantations on the Delaware, but the proposal was declined; and it was left to the New Haven merchants to dispose of the land which they had purchased, or to plant it as they should see cause. Some permanent settlements, however, at a subsequent period were made upon the Jersey side of the Delaware. Fairfield, for example, was settled about 1690, by a number of persons from the town of the same name in Connecticut. This fact is ascertained from the law creating the township of Fairfield, passed in 1697. Cape May was also a puritan settlement, of which their records contain indubitable evidence.

In the southern colonies, there are here and there traces of puritan settlements, but not sufficient either in number or extent, to exert much influence on the character of the rising population. Maryland was at first a Catholic colony, but being settled upon the principles of general toleration, the number of Protestants soon greatly exceeded that of the Romanists. Lord Baltimore “invited the Puritans of Massachusetts to emigrate to Maryland, offering them land, and privileges, and ‘free liberty to religion;’ but Gibbons, to whom he had forwarded a commission, was ‘so wholly in the New England discipline,’ that he would not advance the wishes of the Irish peer; and the people, who subsequently refused Jamaica and Ireland, were not now tempted to desert the Bay of Massachusetts for the Chesapeake.” The protestant population which so soon gained the ascendency in Maryland, were no doubt of various religious sentiments. It would seem, however, that the episcopalians predominated, either in number or influence, since when the bishop of London sent over his commissary in 1692, the provincial assembly divided the colony into thirty parishes, sixteen of which were supplied with ministers and provided with livings.

Virginia was so completely an episcopal province, and the laws against all non-conformists were so severe, that we can expect but few traces of the Puritans in her early history. Unity of worship was there preserved, with few exceptions, for a century after the settlement of Jamestown. There were, however, some puritan families in the colony from the beginning, and others arrived at a later period, and there were also a few settlers from Massachusetts. As early, however, as 1633, severe laws were made for the suppression of dissenters, who had begun to appear in the colony. In 1643, it was ordered, “that no minister should preach or teach publicly or privately, except in conformity to the constitutions of the Church of England, and non-conformists were banished from the colony.” A congregational church had been gathered by the labours of ministers from New England, and increased in 1648 to the number of one hundred and eighteen persons; but the governor, who had already banished its elder, now enjoined on Mr. Harrison its pastor to depart from the country. During the time of Cromwell, a spirit of greater moderation prevailed; but on the restoration of Charles II., the assembly revived all the laws against separatists. Strict conformity was demanded, and every one was required to contribute to the support of the established church. The whole liturgy was to be read, and no non-conformists might teach either in public or private, on pain of banishment. In 1663 these laws were made still more severe. Attendance on the meetings of non-conformists was punished by severe fines, and the rich were obliged to pay the forfeitures of their poorer brethren. Ship-masters were punished if they brought dissenters into the colony. The separatists against whom these laws seem to have been mainly directed, were Quakers and Baptists. It was not until after the commencement of the eighteenth century, that other denominations than the episcopal, obtained permanent footing in Virginia, protected by the English toleration act. The presbyterian church in the Atlantic portion of the state was, in a great measure, built up by those who had been previously episcopalians; and in the portion beyond the mountains, by the Scotch-Irish emigrants from Pennsylvania.

Under the name of Carolina, Charles II. granted to the earl of Clarendon and his associates, the district of country between Virginia and Florida, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. When the first emigrants sent out by the proprietors arrived, they found a small colony of New England men already established on the south side of the Cape Fear river. This colony, however, did not prosper, and although it received some accessions from New England, the people were soon nearly absorbed in the colonies established by emigrants from Barbadoes and the Bermudas. The earliest settlers of this part of Carolina, were principally refugees from Virginia; men who endeavoured to escape from the oppressive laws of that province against all non-conformists. They were probably mostly Quakers; at least the earliest religious teachers and meetings were in connexion with their society. As puritans, when sufficiently numerous, were seldom long without the regular ministrations of the gospel, the fact that there was no stated minister in North Carolina before 1704, and no church until 1705, proves that their influence was very small.

South Carolina was settled about 1670, under the direction of the proprietors. The first colony came from England with the governor “William Sayle, who was probably a presbyterian;” the people, however, it is presumed were principally episcopalians. The country was rapidly filled up with settlers from various quarters, but no mention is made of the puritans as among the early colonists, except that a church organized in Dorchester, Massachusetts, removed in 1696 and settled on the Ashley river. Rev. John Cotton, from Plymouth, son of the celebrated John Cotton of Boston, removed to Charleston in 1698, and gathered a church there. At an earlier period, 1683, Blake, brother of the famous admiral, brought over from Somertshire a company of dissenters who settled in Charleston. To what denomination they belonged is not mentioned. The predominant influence in South Carolina, either from the number of its adherents, or from their influence was with the church of England, which in 1703 was established by law. I have thus endeavoured to trace the influence of the Puritans, beyond the limits of New England, in the early settlement of our country. It appears they were predominant on Long Island, numerous in East Jersey, few and scattered on the Delaware, and dotted at certain distant intervals along the southern coast.

The Dutch come next under consideration, for although they have been so numerous as to form by themselves, a distinct ecclesiastical organization, yet being Calvinists and Presbyterians, they have in many parts of the country entered largely into the materials of which our church is composed. It was by the Dutch that the Hudson, the Connecticut, and probably the Delaware rivers were discovered. In 1613, they erected a few huts upon Manhattan island; and in 1623, a more permanent establishment was there effected. They built a fort on the Delaware, and another on the Connecticut, laying claim to all the intervening country. In 1629 and 1630, they purchased the land on both sides of the Delaware, and commenced a settlement near Lewestown. In 1638, the Swedes arrived and purchased the land from the mouth of the Delaware to Trenton, and established themselves on Christiana creek. Several successive bodies of emigrants having arrived from Sweden, they extended their settlements as far as where Philadelphia now stands.

The few English families, emigrants from New England, who had been allured thither by the climate or the facilities for traffic with the Indians, were either driven away or submitted to the Swedes. The Dutch viewed these colonists as intruders, and in order to maintain their claim to the soil established themselves, in 1651, at New Castle. The Swedes in 1654, attacked and reduced that settlement, but were themselves in the following year conquered by the Dutch, who became complete masters of the Delaware. In the meantime the Dutch settlements were rapidly extended along the Hudson, as high as Albany and the western end of Long Island. In New Jersey they had settlements in Bergen, around Newark, on the banks of the Raritan, near Shrewsbury, and were mixed with other settlers in various parts of the eastern section of the state. When the Dutch possessions were conquered by the English, in 1664, the number of inhabitants was probably not far from ten thousand. The Dutch were also among the early settlers of Maryland. And in 1671, almost immediately after the settlement of Charleston, South Carolina, two ships arrived there with Dutch emigrants from New York, who were subsequently followed by others of their countrymen from Holland.

The German emigrants, though never forming a distinct government, as was the case, not only with the Dutch, but even with the Swedes, were far more numerous than either, and have exerted a powerful influence on the character of our country. Gov. Hunter of New York, brought over with him in 1730, three thousand German emigrants, who had fled to England to escape the persecution which they suffered in their own country. They also formed a settlement to the west of Albany, on the German Flats. Their emigration to Pennsylvania commenced as early as 1682 or 1683, when Germantown was settled by them. In subsequent years they came in such numbers, that it was estimated in 1772, that one third of the population of the province, which was then between 200,000 and 300,000, consisted of them and their descendents. In the year 1749, twelve thousand German emigrants arrived, and for several years nearly the same number arrived annually. From Pennsylvania they extended themselves into Virginia and Maryland. Their settlements in Carolina were also extensive. In 1709, upwards of six hundred Germans arrived and settled Newbern, and were probably Swiss Germans, from the name which they gave their new home. Between 1730 and 1750, says Dr. Ramsay, South Carolina received large accessions from Switzerland, Holland, and Germany; Orangeburg, Congaree, and Wateree, received a large portion of the German emigrants. Numbers of Palatines arrived every year. In 1764, five or six hundred were sent over from London, and had a separate township of land assigned to them. And a few years later three hundred families, who had previously settled in Maine, removed and joined their countrymen who had fixed themselves in the south-western part of Carolina.6 Other settlements were made at an earlier period in Georgia.*

The Welsh, from their numbers, deserve particular notice. The principal settlement of them at an early period, was upon the left bank of the Schuylkill, in Pennsylvania. They there occupied three townships, and in a few years their numbers so increased that they obtained three additional townships.

The persecutions to which the French protestants were exposed during the reign of Louis XIV., consummated by the revocation of the edict of Nantes in 1685, drove hundreds of thousands of those unhappy people from their native country. They found a home in the various cities of Holland, Germany, and England, and large numbers of them came to this country. They were so numerous in Boston as to have a church by themselves in 1686. In New York, when yet under the dominion of the Dutch, they formed so large a portion of the population, that the laws were sometimes promulgated in their language as well as in that of the Hollanders.3 In Richmond county, they and the Dutch made up almost the entire population; and they were settled also in considerable numbers in the counties of Westchester and Ulster. Scattered emigrants fixed themselves, in greater or less numbers, in the provinces of Pennsylvania and Maryland, but their principal location was in the southern states. In 1690, king William sent “a large body” of them to Virginia, where lands were assigned them on the James river; others removed to Carolina and settled on the Santee. In 1699, and the following years, six hundred more are mentioned as settling in Virginia. Soon after the settlement of Carolina, Charles II. sent two ships with about two hundred French protestants, to introduce the culture of the productions of the south of Europe. From 1685 onward, the number of French emigrants to Carolina was very considerable; “fugitives from Languedoc on the Mediterranean, from Rochelle, and Saintange, and Bordeaux, the provinces on the bay of Biscay, from St. Quentin, Poictiers, and the beautiful valley of Tour, from St. Lo and Dieppe, men who had the virtues of the English puritans without their bigotry, came to the country to which the tolerant benevolence (?) of Shaftesbury had invited the believers of every creed.” This emigration continued far into the succeeding century. In 1752, it is stated upwards of sixteen hundred foreign protestants arrived in South Carolina. In 1764 two hundred and twelve arrived from France. The descendants of these numerous French protestants have become merged almost entirely, in the episcopal and presbyterian churches.

“The history of American colonization is the history of the crimes of Europe.” The Scotch presbyterians had not escaped their portion of the persecutions, which all opposers of prelacy, in Great Britain, experienced during the reigns of James II. and Charles I. It was not, however, until the restoration of Charles II. that the measure of their wrongs and sorrows was rendered full. James had been educated a Calvinist and presbyterian, and when leaving Scotland to ascend the vacant throne of Elizabeth, he assured his countrymen of his love for their church, and of his determination to support it. He had, however, hardly crossed the Tweed before he began to manifest his aversion to a form of church discipline, which he regarded as essentially republican. The submissive demeanour of the English bishops, and their high doctrine as to the power of kings, confirmed a conversion which had already taken place. The Scottish presbyters were accustomed to urge him to repent of his sins; the English bishops, on their knees, assured him he spoke by the immediate assistance of God. It is not wonderful, therefore, that James adopted the cause of the latter, and made it his own. He knew enough, however, of the people whom he had left, or had sufficient respect for their opinions, to induce him to proceed with some degree of caution in his attempts to bring the ecclesiastical polity of Scotland into harmony with that of England. His more unhappy son determined to effect at once, and by authority, what his arbitrary, but timid father was content to accomplish gradually, and with some appearance of co-operation by the church. He first ordered a book of canons to be published, and enforced on his own authority, altering essentially the constitution of the church; and then a liturgy, copied in a great measure from that of England, but altered by Laud, so as to bring it into nearer conformity with the Roman missal. This he ordered should be used by all ministers, on pain of suspension. It was resisted in all parts of the kingdom, and by all classes of the people, from political as well as religious motives. It was not merely a form of prayer, but an absolute despotism, which the people opposed. If the king, without the concurrence of the nation or the church, could introduce the English liturgy, why not the Roman mass? These arbitrary measures excited an opposition which “preserved the liberties, and overthrew the monarchy of England.”

Unjust as was the conduct of this unfortunate monarch, it appears mild and honourable when compared with that of his son. Charles II., at the time of his father’s death was a friendless fugitive. The Scotch offered to receive him as their king, on condition that he should pledge himself by oath to regard and preserve their presbyterian form of church government. To this he assented. When he arrived in the kingdom he subscribed the covenant; and again at his coronation, under circumstances of much more than usual solemnity, he swore to preserve it inviolate. The Scotch, accordingly, armed in his defence; but, divided among themselves, and led by a general very unfit to cope with Cromwell, they were soon defeated, and Charles was again driven to the continent. When he returned in 1660, he voluntarily renewed his promise to the Scotch, by whom his restoration had been greatly promoted, not to interfere with the liberty of their church. No sooner, however, was he firmly seated on his throne, than all these oaths and promises were forgotten. Presbyterianism was at once abolished, and episcopacy established; not such as it was under James I., when bishops were little more than standing moderators of the presbyteries, but invested by the arbitrary mandate of the king, with the fulness of prelatical power. An act was passed making it penal even to speak publicly or privately against the king’s supremacy, or the government of the church by archbishops and bishops. A court of high commission, of which all the prelates were members, was erected and armed with inquisitorial powers. Multitudes of learned and pious ministers were ejected from their parishes, and ignorant and ungodly men, for the most part introduced in their stead. Yet the people were forced, under severe penalties to attend the ministrations of these unworthy men. All ejected ministers were prohibited preaching or praying except in their own families; and preaching or praying in the fields was made punishable with death. Any one, though the nearest relative, who should shelter, aid, or in any way minister to the wants of those denounced, was held liable to the same penalty as the person assisted. All landholders were required to give bond that their families and dependents should abstain from attending any conventicle. To enforce these wicked laws torture was freely used to extort evidence or confession; families were reduced to ruin by exorbitant fines; the prisons were filled with victims of oppression; multitudes were banished and sold as slaves; women and even children were tortured or murdered for refusing to take an oath they could not understand; soldiers were quartered upon the defenceless inhabitants, and allowed free license; men were hunted like wild beasts, and shot or gibbetted along the highways. Modern history hardly affords a parallel to the cruelty and oppression under which Scotland groaned for nearly thirty years. And what was all this for? It was to support episcopacy. It was done for the bishops, and, in a great measure, by them. They were the instigators and supporters of these cruel laws, and of the still more cruel execution of them. Is it any wonder, then, that the Scotch abhorred episcopacy? It was in their experience identified with despotism, superstition, and irreligion. Their love of presbyterianism was one with their love of liberty and religion. As the parliament of Scotland was never a fair representation of the people, the general assembly of their church became their great organ for resisting oppression and withstanding the encroachments of their sovereigns. The conflict therefore which in England was so long kept up between the crown and the house of commons, was in Scotland sustained between the crown and the church. This was one reason why the Scotch became so attached to presbyterianism; this too was the reason why the Stuarts hated it, and determined at all hazards to introduce prelacy as an ally to despotism.

Considering the long-continued persecution of the Scotch presbyterians, just referred to, the wonder is that they did not universally forsake their country. The hope of regaining liberty at home, however, never entirely deserted them; and in their darkest hours there were occasional glimpses of better things to come, which led them to abandon the designs of emigration which they had formed. A company of thirty noblemen and gentlemen had contracted for a large tract of land in Carolina, as an asylum for their persecuted countrymen, when the hope of the success of the English patriots, engaged in the plot for which Russel and Sydney suffered, led them to relinquish their purpose. Still, though the emigration was not so great as might, under such sufferings, have been expected, it was very considerable.

What portion of the four thousand presbyterians who, according to Mather, came to New England before 1640, were from Scotland or Ireland, his account does not enable the reader to determine. At a later period, a hundred families from Ireland settled Londonderry in New Hampshire. They brought with them the Rev. James McGregore as their pastor, “who remained with them until his death, and his memory is still precious among them. He was a wise, faithful and affectionate guide to them both in civil and religious concerns.” In 1729, a church was organized in Boston, composed of Scotch and Irish, which continued presbyterian until 1786. The Rev. Mr. Moorhead was their first pastor, “an honest, faithful, and laborious minister.” Other emigrants settled at Pelham and Palmer. There was a church also at Hampton.3

At what time the Scotch and Irish began to emigrate to New York, it is not easy to ascertain. Smith says, the inhabitants of the city in 1708, were “Dutch Calvinists, upon the plan of the church of Holland, French refugees on the Geneva model, a few English episcopalians, and a still smaller number of English and Irish presbyterians.” Having increased in numbers, they “called Mr. Anderson, a Scotch minister, to the pastoral charge of their congregation: and Dr. John Nicolls, Patrick McKnight, Gilbert Livingston, and Thomas Smith, purchased a piece of ground and founded a church.” (p. 209.) That the members of that congregation were principally Scotch may be inferred from the following facts. Of the four gentlemen who were the original purchasers of the ground for the erection of the church, Dr. Nicolls was a native of Scotland, he had the principal and almost exclusive control of the pecuniary affairs of the church, and is spoken of by Mr. Pemberton, “as one of its principal founders, and its greatest benefactor.” Mr. Patrick McKnight was from the north of Ireland; Mr. Gilbert Livingston, was Scotch by birth or immediate descent;2 Mr. Thomas Smith’s origin is not known. The Rev. Mr. Anderson, their first pastor, settled in 1717, was a Scotch minister, ordained by the presbytery of Irvine. In 1720, a petition was presented to the president of the council for an act of incorporation, and would probably have been granted, but for the active opposition of the vestry of Trinity church, as the council to whom the president referred the application, reported in its favour. This application was made by “Mr. Anderson, presbyterian minister, and Patrick McKnight, John Nicolls, Joseph Leddel, John Blake, and Thomas Inglis, in behalf of themselves, and the rest of the presbyterian congregation in the city of New York.” The petition states, that the applicants had purchased a piece of ground and erected a convenient house for the worship of God, “after the manner of the presbyterian church of North Britain.” It further details the inconvenient way in which they were obliged to vest the title to their property in certain individuals, to be held by them until the congregation should be incorporated “as one body politic in fact and in name, for carrying on their said pious intentions, and the free use and exercise of their said religion in its true doctrine, discipline and worship, according to the rules and method of the established church of North Britain.” They therefore pray the president, “by letters patent under the great seal of this province, to incorporate them by the name of the ministers, elders, and deacons of the presbyterian church in the city of New York.” The account which was published of their long and fruitless efforts to obtain an act of incorporation, is entitled “Case of the Scotch Presbyterians,” &c. There can, therefore, be no doubt as to the origin and early character of this congregation. A portion of the people being dissatisfied with Mr. Anderson’s strictness as a presbyterian, were, by the trustees of Yale College, erected into a separate congregation. This interference gave great umbrage to the presbytery of Long Island, and much is said in reference to it in our early records. This new congregation did not long continue. Most of its members, it is believed, returned to the old church. At a subsequent period, about 1756, when the majority of people determined, with permission of the synod, to introduce the use of Watts’ hymns, a portion of the Scotch members withdrew, and formed the church of which the Rev. John Mason became the pastor.

Holmes mentions the arrival of between four and five hundred emigrants from Scotland at New York, in 1737. The county of Ulster, in 1757, was inhabited by “Dutch, French, English, Scotch, and Irish, but the first and last the most numerous.” The north side of Orange county, Smith states, was inhabited by Scotch, Irish, and English presbyterians; and he mentions a settlement of Scotch-Irish in Albany county.

The Quakers having made extensive settlements in West Jersey, became desirous of extending their influence through the eastern portion of the state. This induced Wm. Penn, and eleven other members of the society of friends, in 1682, to purchase East Jersey from the devisees of Sir George Carteret. In order to avoid exciting the jealousy of other denominations, these new proprietors connected with themselves twelve associates, many of whom were natives of Scotland, “from which country the greatest emigration was expected.” To induce the Scotch to emigrate, a favourable account of the province was circulated among them, and the assurance given that they should enjoy that religious liberty, which was denied them in their own country. ” ‘It is judged the interest of the government,’ said George Scot of Pitlochie, apparently with the sanction of men in power, ‘to suppress presbyterian principles altogether, the whole force of the law of this kingdom is levelled at the effectual bearing them down. The rigorous putting these laws in execution, has, in a great part, ruined many of those who, notwithstanding hereof, find themselves in conscience obliged to retain these principles. A retreat, where by law, a toleration is allowed, doth at present offer itself in America, and is no where else to be found in his majesty’s dominions.’ This is the era at which East New Jersey, till now chiefly colonized from New England, became the asylum of Scottish presbyterians.” “Is it strange” asks the author just quoted, “that many Scottish presbyterians of virtue, education, and courage, blending a love of popular liberty with religious enthusiasm, came to East New Jersey in such numbers, as to give to the rising commonwealth a character which a century and a half has not effaced?“2 “The more wealthy of the Scotch emigrants, were noted for bringing with them a great number of servants, and, in some instances, for transporting whole families of poor labourers, whom they established on their lands.” In a letter from the deputy-governor, dated, Elizabethtown, 1st month 2, 1684, it is said, “the Scots and William Dockwras people, coming now and settling, advance the province more than it hath advanced these ten years.”

It is evident from these and similar testimonies which might be collected, that the emigrants from Scotland to East Jersey, were numerous and influential. In some places they united with the Dutch and puritan settlers in the formation of churches, in others they were sufficiently numerous to organize congregations by themselves. The church in Freehold, one of the largest in the state, was formed chiefly by them. It was organized about 1692. Their first pastor was the Rev. John Boyd, from Scotland; who died, as appears from his tombstone, in 1708. Subsequently the Rev. William Tennent became their minister and continued with them forty-four years.

It was, however, to Pennsylvania, that the largest emigrations of the Scotch and Irish, particularly of the latter, though at a somewhat later period, took place. Early in the last century they began to arrive in large numbers. Near six thousand Irish are reported as having come in 1729; and before the middle of the century near twelve thousand arrived annually for several years.4 Speaking of a later period, Proud says, “they have flowed in of late years from the north of Ireland in very large numbers.” Cumberland county, he says, is settled by them, and they abound through the whole province. From Pennsylvania they spread themselves into Virginia, and thence into North Carolina. A thousand families arrived in that state from the northern colonies in the single year 1764. Their descendants occupy the western portion of the state, with a dense and homogeneous population, distinguished by the strict morals and rigid principles of their ancestors. In 1749, five or six hundred Scotch settled near Fayetteville; there was a second importation in 1754; and “there was an annual importation, from that time, of those hardy and industrious people.”

A considerable number of Scotch also settled in Maryland. Col. Ninian Beall, a native of Fifeshire, having become implicated in the troubles arising out of the conflict with episcopacy, fled first to Barbadoes, and thence removed to Maryland, where he made an extensive purchase of land, covering much of the present site of Washington and Georgetown. He sent home to urge his friends and neighbours to join him in his exile, and had influence enough to induce about two hundred to come over. They arrived about 1690, bringing with them their pastor the Rev. Nathaniel Taylor, and formed the church and congregation of Upper Marlborough.

As early as 1684, a small colony of persecuted Scotch, under Lord Cardross, settled in South Carolina, and a colony of Irish under Ferguson. In 1737, it is said “multitudes of labourers and husbandmen” from Ireland embarked for Carolina. In 1764, “beside foreign protestants, several persons from England and Scotland, and great multitudes from Ireland settled” in that state. Within three years before 1773, sixteen hundred emigrants from the north of Ireland, settled in Carolina. Dr. Ramsay says, “of all other countries none has furnished the province so many inhabitants as Ireland. Scarcely a ship sailed from any of its ports for Charleston that was not crowded with men, women, and children.”5 These were almost entirely presbyterians. There was no catholic place of worship in Charleston before 1791. In another place the same author says, “the Scotch and Dutch were the most useful emigrants … to the former South Carolina is indebted for much of its early literature. A great proportion of its physicians, clergymen, lawyers, and schoolmasters were from North Britain.” Edisto Island was settled by emigrants from Scotland and Wales.7 The inhabitants were either presbyterians or episcopalians, the former were the more numerous. The time of the organization of the presbyterian church there is not known. But in 1705, Henry Brown obtained a grant for three hundred acres of land, which in 1717 he conveyed to certain persons in “trust for the benefit of a presbyterian clergyman in Edisto Island.” In 1732, another donation was made for the benefit of a minister “who owns the Holy Scriptures as his only rule of faith and practice, and who, agreeably to the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, shall own the Westminster Confession of Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms as a test of his orthodoxy, and that before the church session for the time being, before his settlement there as the rightful minister of the aforesaid church or congregation.” (Vol. ii. p. 558.) The Scotch and Irish were also among the early settlers of Georgia.

From this slight and imperfect view of the several classes of people by whom our country was settled, it is evident that a broad foundation for the Presbyterian Church was laid from the beginning. The English puritans were all Calvinists and many of them presbyterians. The Dutch were Calvinists and presbyterians; a moiety, at least, of the Germans were of the same class. All the French protestants were Calvinists and presbyterians, and so, of course, were the Scotch and Irish. Of the seseveral classes, the Dutch and Germans formed distinct ecclesiastical organizations, and subsist as such to the present time. In a multitude of cases, however, their descendants mingled with the descendants of other presbyterians, and have entered largely into the materials of which our church is composed. The same remark applies to the descendants of the French protestants, who have generally joined either the episcopal or presbyterian church. The early influence of the New England puritans was, as has been seen, nearly confined to Long Island and East Jersey. Of those who settled in Jersey, a portion were, no doubt, inclined to congregationalism, others of them were presbyterians. All the ministers, according to Mr. Andrews, were of the latter class. The strict presbyterian emigrants, Scotch, Irish, Dutch, and French, laid the foundation of our church in New York, East Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas, through which provinces, as has been shown, they were early extended in very great numbers.

This review accounts for the rapid increase of the presbyterian church in this country. In about a century and a quarter, it has risen from two or three ministers to between two and three thousand. This is no matter of surprise, when it is seen that so large a portion of the emigrants were presbyterians. As they merged their diversities of national character into that of American citizens, so the Scotch, Irish, French, English, Dutch, and German presbyterians became united in thousands of instances in the American Presbyterian Church. Having the same views of civil government, our population, so diversified as to its origin, forms a harmonious civil society; and agreeing in opinion on the government of the church, the various classes above specified, formed a religious society, in which the difference of their origin was as little regarded as it was in the state.

The review given above of the settlement of the country shows also, that nothing but a sectional vanity little less than insane, could lead to the assertion that Congregationalism was the basis of presbyterianism in this country, and that the presbyterian church never would have had an existence, except in name, had not the congregationalists come among us from New England. The number of puritans who settled in New England, was about twenty-one thousand. If it be admitted, that three-fourths of these were congregationalists, (which is a large admission,) it gives between fifteen and sixteen thousand. The presbyterian emigrants who came to this country by the middle of the last century, were between one and two hundred thousand. Those from Ireland alone, imperfect as are the records of emigration, could not have been less than fifty thousand, and probably were far more numerous. Yet the whole Presbyterian Church owes its existence to the mere overflowings of New England! It would be much nearer the truth to say, that presbyterians have been the basis of several other denominations. Half the population of the country would now be presbyterian, had the descendants of presbyterians, in all cases, adhered to the faith of their fathers.

It is to be remembered, that the emigration of New England men westward, did not take place, to any great extent, until after the revolutionary war; that is, until nearly three-fourths of a century after the Presbyterian Church was founded and widely extended. At that time western New York, Ohio, and the still more remote west was a wilderness. Leaving that region out of view, what would be, even now, the influence of New England men in the Presbyterian Church? Yet it is very common to hear those, who formed a mere handful of the original materials of the Church, speaking of all others as foreigners and intruders. Such representations would be offensive from their injustice, were it not for their absurdity. Suppose the few (and they were comparatively very few) congregationalists of East Jersey, had refused to associate with their Dutch and Scotch presbyterian neighbours, what great difference would it have made? Must the thousands of presbyterians already in the country, and the still more numerous thousands annually arriving, have ceased to exist? Are those few congregationalists the fathers of us all? The truth is, it was not until a much later period that the great influx of congregationalists into our church took place, though they are now disposed to regard the descendants of its founders as holding their places in the church of their fathers only by sufferance.

Sectional jealousies are beginning to threaten the safety of our country. They surely ought not to be brought into the church. They cannot be avoided, however, if arrogant and injurious assumptions on either side are allowed. The above remarks are made with the view of suppressing such prejudices. This can be effected in no other way, than by preventing unjust and irritating claims. Justice is the only stable foundation of peace. It is the peculiar characteristic of America, that it is the asylum of all nations. The blood of the Huguenots, of the Puritans, of the Dutch, of the Germans, of the Scotch, and of the Irish, here flows in one common stream. A man, therefore, must fight against himself who would contend for any one of these classes against all others.

---

Contents · Chapter II. Presbyterian Church from 1705 to 1729 →