Read an Excerpt
Unity in Christ and Country
American Presbyterians in the Revolutionary Era, 1758-1801
By William Harrison Taylor The University of Alabama Press
Copyright © 2017 University of Alabama Press
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-8173-1945-8
CHAPTER 1
Foundations of Interdenominationalism, 1758–1765
According to the Book of Matthew, following Jesus Christ's resurrection, he met his remaining disciples on a mountain near Galilee and gave them their final instructions. Christ told them, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you." As Christianity spread and endured, each generation was responsible for this "Great Commission." The eighteenth-century American Presbyterians were no exception. In 1758, in the midst of the French and Indian War, the Presbyterians humbled themselves before a God they believed to be disciplining them for their sin. Their sin, they knew, was the recent schism in their church. This division hindered the progress of Christianity. The universal church was unable to properly attend to Christ's last command. To make amends, the denomination reunited and publicly repented in 1758. The reunion meant more than this, however, as the Presbyterians revealed that their renewed efforts toward the "Great Commission" would be interdenominational in nature. The transition to a more cooperative church, however, did not go smoothly, as various internal and external distractions in subsequent years slowed the denomination's progress toward its interdenominational goals. Both the ideals set forth in 1758 and the trials that immediately followed lay the foundation for the interdenominational quest that brought the Presbyterian Church both blessings and strife for the rest of the century.
This period in the church's history is generally characterized by the religious and political conflict that plagued the Presbyterians. Following the argument in Leonard J. Trinterud's book The Forming of an American Tradition: A Re-examination of Colonial Presbyterianism, historians have concluded that these experiences helped to shape the church into an American denomination. These arguments are not confined to just the Presbyterian Church; generally, historians have focused on the multitude of conflicts, both social and religious, that marked the period and preoccupied churchgoers. Historians have written too little on denominational attempts at Christian unity and what those meant for both the individual groups and the collective American Christian experience. Certainly conflicts existed between churches, and this historical perspective is indispensable for any understanding of the eighteenth century. However, the picture is incomplete. Religiously motivated attempts between churches to cooperate, such as the interdenominational journey begun by the Presbyterian Church during the French and Indian War, offer a useful corrective for the general understanding of the period. In the midst of the Americanization process, the Presbyterians crafted a plan and started a journey to strengthen Christendom that would also one day help define what it meant to be an American. Interdenominationalism served as the foundation for this plan, and although the Presbyterians became embroiled in religious and political controversies that diverted their attention, the goal was established and never completely forgotten.
The schism that troubled the Presbyterians in 1758 began in 1741 amid the excitement of the Great Awakening. A three-tiered government oversaw the Presbyterian Church at this time. The uppermost was the Synod of Philadelphia (which met annually), composed of representatives from every church under its care. Directly below the synod were the presbyteries, which also consisted of representatives from all the member churches. Finally there was the individual congregation, overseen by the minister and elected elders. During the Great Awakening, a debate rose concerning the requirement that ministerial candidates show evidence of experimental religion before ordination. The ordination of ministers was the responsibility and privilege of the presbyteries, which, in the 1730s, were largely controlled by Old Lights, who disapproved of such subjective ordination requirements and favored instead the objectivity of a strong academic grounding. Outnumbered and outvoted in the regional presbyteries, the New Light ministers — those favoring evidence of experimental religion and the revivals — petitioned the synod to form a new presbytery. In 1738, this request was granted and the newly formed New Brunswick Presbytery immediately made experimental religion mandatory for future ministers within its bounds. Troubled by this development, the Old Lights mustered their strength in the synod and stamped out this New Light initiative by granting the synod the final say in the ordination of ministers. The New Brunswick Presbytery protested this encroachment on its authority and continued to ordain its own ministers. Rankled by the lack of deference, the synod passed the Protestation, which, in its denunciation of the upstart presbytery, questioned rhetorically, "Is not continuance of union absurd with those who would arrogate to themselves a right and power to palm and obtrude members on our Synod, contrary to the minds and judgment of the body?" Neatly and quickly, the Old Light synod drove out the insubordinate New Brunswick churches. The exiled presbytery, however, was not without its friends and supporters. Soon other New Light churches, primarily from the New York Presbytery, joined it, and together they formed the Synod of New York.
Little thought was given to reconciliation until the mid-1750s, when it appeared that God was punishing the churches for their divisive indiscretion. The divine retribution did not come in the form of slacking membership. In fact, in terms of congregational membership, the Presbyterian schism had little adverse effect. Both the Old Light Synod of Philadelphia and the New Light Synod of New York increased their membership during the years of separation, although the New Lights far outgained the Old Lights. No, war was the righteous judgment chosen for the Presbyterians, not deplete or stagnant membership. In 1754, fighting resumed between the British and French in North America and by 1756 the conflict had officially become a war — the French and Indian War. Early in the contest, western Pennsylvania, Virginia and Maryland, largely home to Scots-Irish Presbyterians, were devastated by France's Indian allies, resulting in the death or imprisonment of seven hundred colonists. Confronted with the violence, bloodshed, and loss that accompanied the war, both the Old Light and New Light Presbyterians looked to their recent rift as the cause of their misfortune. Reunion was no longer an unimaginable prospect.
Shortly before the two synods began negotiating the terms for reunion, the Synod of New York, the New Light contingent, issued a pastoral letter to the congregations under its care. On behalf of the synod, Robert Treat wrote that the ruling body saw itself "bound, not only as members of the community, but [also as part of] the whole Church of God" to implore repentance. "We have been warned and chastised," Treat wrote, "first more gently, then more terribly; but not returning to him that smites us, his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still. Judgment yet proceeds, the prospect becomes darker and darker, and all things respecting us are loudly alarming." The tool, according to the synod, that God had chosen for this was the army of the French and their Native American allies — "a potent, prevailing and cruel enemy." Driven by fear of a wrathful God, the estranged Presbyterians agreed to meet in Philadelphia to negotiate in May 1758. A few days before their efforts came to fruition that May, two ministers — representing the conciliatory groups within the Old Light and New Light camps — spoke to the two ruling bodies assembled. The orations of Francis Alison and David Bostwick reveal more than the desire of the synods to renew the bonds of fellowship; they also illustrate the hopes many Presbyterians had for this reunion in terms of aiding the universal church.
Speaking before the joint meeting of the synods on May 24, Alison recommended "peace and union." However, the peace and unity Alison proposed was not to be limited to his fellow Presbyterians. Summarizing Alison's work, the anonymous author to the preface of the published account wrote that Alison "uses no endeavours to promote favorite systems, and gain proselytes to party-tenets: He has sublimer things in view! Namely, to enforce those opinions that tend to render GOD more beloved and feared, and mankind more in peace and charity." The author also added "that if all mankind were actuated by the same liberal and christian spirit that appears in this discourse, not only the members of the particular church to which the author belongs, but even ALL who name the NAME OF CHRIST, would unite in the most essential parts of their holy profession." Alison's scriptural basis for his sermon, Ephesians 4: 1–7, attests to the truth of the preface's assertion. Utilizing the apostle Paul's encouragement to early Christians "to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace," Alison offered his vision for interdenominational activity within the reunited Church.
"GOD, is the God of PEACE" Alison stated, "Christ Jesus is the prince of PEACE ... and to follow PEACE, and to love one another, is the distinguishing characteristic of his disciples." Hitherto, Alison lamented, Christians had "so notoriously failed in this main point." He called on his fellow Presbyterians to remedy the situation. "We have all one father," he said, we are of "the same family" and "to bite and devour one another, is indecent and unbecoming." The Christian union Alison promoted was not to be used to stifle the liberty of their brethren. There was to be freedom in "the lesser matters of religion," so that their agreement on the fundamental principles and the subsequent cooperation would "promote the honor of God; the good of mankind, and the pure and holy religion of our lord and master." Alison concluded his address by reminding his audience, "THERE IS ONE BODY AND ONE SPIRIT ... christians are represented as one august body, whereof CHRIST is the HEAD. And this consideration must be a powerful motive to union, love and concord."
Following Alison's lead, David Bostwick's sermon the following day also promoted a Christian union based on the fundamental principles. Bostwick believed that the primary stumbling block was mankind's innate love of "SELF" and that was what "men live for." As Christians they were to renounce their "Self," but Bostwick assured his listeners that did "not imply a total disregard to our reputation and character among men, for on this, the success of our ministry, and consequently the advancement of the REDEEMER's kingdom, may, in some measure, depend." A proper Christian made "JESUS CHRIST ... the SUBJECT MATTER" of his life, and it was this fundamental principle that any union needed. "Let us ever remember," Bostwick concluded, "'we are not our own,' and therefore have no business to live to ourselves, or regard our interest or reputation, any further than the honor of CHRIST, and the interest of religion is concerned."
Four days after Alison and Bostwick addressed the ruling bodies with their hopes for the proposed reunion, the Old Lights and New Lights put aside their differences and reunited the church on May 29, 1758. The newly formed Synod of New York and Philadelphia published an account of the reunion with the hopes that the end of the sinful schism would help appease an angry God who had visited them with the French and Indian War, and bolster the spirits of their fellow colonists. Given the stature of Dr. Alison and Reverend Bostwick, the resulting document largely reflected their sentiments and those of the conciliatory parties from both camps. Fittingly, this account was penned by Alexander McDowell, a minister who had taken part in the separation, and who was, therefore, fully aware of the damage done to Christendom through the Presbyterian schism. Through McDowell's hand, the synod explained that it had been convicted of its sin against God and his church by "the present divided State of the Presbyterian Church in this Land." The ruling body realized "that the Division of the Church tends to weaken it's [sic] Interests, to dishonour Religion, and consequently it's glorious Author," and so they pledged "to endeavor the Healing of that Breach ... so it's hurtful Consequences may not extend to Posterity." As their sin had such an impact on the universal church, the Presbyterians made their apology a public one. Conscious of how the church was perceived and how that perception affected Christianity, the synod recognized a publicized reunion as necessary to counteract the dishonor it had already caused their "glorious Author." In this penitent act, the Presbyterians were motivated by the welfare of all Christians, living and unborn; it was the "Establishment and Edification of his [God's] People" that compelled them.
This reunion account, however, was more than an act of contrition. The Presbyterian synod also outlined how it intended to "carry on the great Designs of Religion" through "the Advancement of the Mediator's Kingdom." Yet, to fulfill this goal the Presbyterians needed to lay a foundation on which they could craft a framework to overcome the most challenging issues they had yet encountered and one they could rely on to serve the same purpose in future crises. Here the Presbyterians leadership looked no further than the trusted "orthodox and excellent" Westminster Standards to establish peace and rest within the divided church and support them in the years to come.
The Westminster Standards — collectively, the Confession of Faith, the Shorter Catechism, the Longer Catechism, the Directory of Public Worship, and the Form of Church Government — were the statements of faith and practice written by the Westminster Divines between 1643 and 1653. The Long Parliament assembled the Divines to create a new identity and path for the Church of England, and within a decade they had fulfilled their calling. Although the English government's acceptance of their work proved to be short-lived, the Westminster Standards would be embraced by the Presbyterian churches in Scotland and America, which considered them "orthodox and excellent" statements of biblical truths. Yet, despite being deemed invaluable for preserving the purity of the ministry, they were viewed as "subordinate standards" to scripture. Supporting this approach, the Divines themselves explained that "the whole Councell of God concerning all things necessary for his own Glory; mans salvation, Faith and Life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture." Clarifying their position, the Divines stressed that that "The Supream Judg by which all Controversies of Religion are to be determined, and all Decrees of Councels, Opinions of Ancient Writers, Doctrines of men and private spirits are to be examined; and in whose sentence we are to rest; can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures." Not only did they confirm the supremacy of the Bible in all matters but the Divines also further noted that rest, elusive in the midst of spiritual controversies, should and could only be found in the scriptural pronouncements. Rest was exactly what the American Presbyterians desperately sought in 1758.
Believing themselves firmly grounded, the Presbyterian leadership then explained to the colonial reading world the basic infrastructure of their new union. Among the details of how divided congregations and presbyteries would be brought in to the new Synod of New York and Philadelphia, the necessity of the Westminster Standards, and the rules of order for delegates of the synod, the ruling body discussed the issues that originally divided them. They explained that the physical and spiritual manifestations of experiential religion were only indicators of the "gracious work of God" if they were coupled with "the Scriptural characters of a work of God." Here, as in all matters, scripture was to be the ultimate guide for living their faith, and without satisfying this requirement no ministerial candidate could be ordained by the local presbyteries. An often-overlooked component of the reunion plan was the safeguard established to protect liberty of conscience. The synod noted that "any member or members, for the exoneration of his or their conscience before God, have a right to protest any act or procedure" of the synod and "to require such protestation be recorded in their minutes." To ensure this right, the synod agreed that "no member is liable to prosecution on the account of his protesting." Finally, although the Presbyterian leadership hoped that by adopting this thorough reunion plan its congregations "would love each other with a pure heart fervently," it knew that its past troubles could continue to haunt the church. To this end the leaders bluntly concluded "that all former differences and disputes are laid aside and buried, and that no future inquiry or vote shall be proposed in this Synod concerning these things." If this was not deterrent enough, they added that any attempts to exhume these skeletons would "be deemed a censurable breach of this agreement, and be refused, and he [the instigator] be rebuked accordingly."
For the reunited Presbyterian leadership, the divisive issues of the past had been resolved and, as the divine visitors had instructed Lot upon leaving Sodom, no one was to look back. The ruling body sought more than a fresh start. This demand revealed how destructive the leadership perceived those issues and any like them to be. The poisonous root that connected these concerns was the lure of increasingly hostile and unflagging debate, a result of no clear biblical or confessional answers. There was no equivalent of "you shall not murder" for questions such as which ruling body had ultimate authority to ordain ministers. Engaging such questions might ultimately lead to another sinful schism, perhaps one that could not be repaired. Or worse still, a division that no one wished to mend. Considering this threat, when setting the foundation of the union, the Presbyterian leadership did not rely on their own or their descendants' ability to reason; they set the church firmly on scripture and the Divines.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Unity in Christ and Country by William Harrison Taylor. Copyright © 2017 University of Alabama Press. Excerpted by permission of The University of Alabama Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
