Questions Of Morals And Reform

Questions Of Morals And Reform

The strict keeping of Sunday was a characteristic of New England throughout the colonial era. Between the long services of the sanctuary, two of which were held by daylight, and the pious duties of the home, the day was so largely preoccupied that there would have been little room for diversion even had it been tolerated. Outside of New England, Sunday observance was less rigidly enforced. Virginia, it is true, started out with a strict injunction on the subject. But the scattered state of the population in that province, as in much of the South, placed the conduct of the people beyond the reach of careful oversight. Moreover, there was no such grim pertinacity in this quarter, on the part of ministers and magistrates, as was needful to sustain a strict Sabbath regime. In New England it was early a question whether the sacred day should begin at sunset, or at midnight, of Saturday. "The former computation was favored in Connecticut. The latter was approved by Massachusetts law." 1 Palfrey, History of New England, ii. 44.

Theatrical plays were regarded in the earlier times of New England as little better than sacrifices to the devil. In Boston a license for such diversions was first granted after the close of the colonial period. In their opposition to the theatre the Quakers agreed with the Puritans. The early laws of Pennsylvania forbade theatrical exhibitions "as tending to looseness and immorality." It was nearly seventy years before an attempt was made to introduce them into the province, and then they encountered a strong opposition. 2 Bowden, History of the Society of Friends in America, ii. 287, 288. In New York, as well as in Philadelphia, a large party was in favor of excluding the theatre, as late as 1785. Baltimore, on the other hand, and some other places were at that date quite enthusiastic patrons of the histrionic art. 3 J. B. McMaster, History of the People of the United States, i. 83-95.

In the direction of prison reform the colonial history shows very little trace of any humanitarian impulse. Some of the prisons, in their structure, appointments, and discipline, were a disgrace to civilization, pesthouses both physically and morally. 4 Ibid., i. 98-102.

The drinking habits of the people were little to their credit. Probably excess was not very common till the closing part of the seventeenth century; but from that time the waste and wreckage of the rum traffic covered an ever-enlarging area. The social code of the times made the proffering of liquors a matter of ordinary hospitality. They were expected to grace festival occasions, and were a regular appendix to funeral solemnities.

A vital sense of the enormous evils of intemperance seems first to have been aroused near the end of the eighteenth century. We read indeed that in the early days of the colonies some effort was made to restrict the sale of the deadly fire-water to the Indians; that Governor Winthrop opposed the custom of drinking healths as being accessory to intemperance; that the laws of Connecticut placed restrictions on the drinking of spirituous liquors, forbidding that a certain quantity should be exceeded at one time, and that tippling should occur after a certain hour in the evening. 1 Elliott, New England History, i. 483. We read also that rum was a prohibited article in Georgia from the founding of the colony. But the prohibitory policy was soon abandoned in Georgia, and such restrictions as were put on record elsewhere were of little practical avail. Temperance agitation, as a thing of persistence and increasing momentum, did not begin till the last quarter of the eighteenth century. The Methodist body at this time, in harmony with the precepts of Wesley, took decided action against the traffic in ardent spirits. The Conference of 1780 voted to disown any members engaged in the traffic. Three years later the Conference enjoined the preachers to instruct the people to keep clear of the wrong of making and selling liquors and also of using them "as drams." In the "General Rules," as approved by the Conference of 1784, refraining from buying, selling, and drinking spirituous liquors was included among the necessary outward tokens of a serious Christian purpose. Near the same time the Quakers, at their Pearly Meeting in New England, obligated themselves to the maintenance of temperance principles in their Society. In 1785 Dr. Benjamin Rush, of Philadelphia, appeared as an able champion of the temperance cause in an essay entitled "The Effects of Ardent Spirits on the Human Mind and Body;" and in subsequent years his zeal for the reform was repeatedly manifested. The first temperance association in this country was formed in 1789 by two hundred or more farmers of Litchfield County, Connecticut, who pledged themselves to carry on their business without the use of distilled spirits as an article of refreshment for themselves or for those in their employ. 1 See Daniel Dorchester, Liquor Problem in All Ages; also, History of Christianity in the United States, pp. 351-355.

In a previous connection notice was taken of the spread of anti-slavery sentiments among civilians. It remains for us here to observe the advances made by such sentiments in the different religious communions.

The Quakers were among the foremost to protest against slavery, and to free themselves from all connection with the institution. As early as 1688 the German Quakers residing in Germantown, Pennsylvania, urged the inconsistency of buying, selling, and enslaving men. In 1696 the Yearly Meeting for that province advised the members of the Society to guard in the future against importing African slaves. In 1710 the Pennsylvania legislature, consisting mostly of Quakers, prohibited any further importation of Negroes. Shortly after the middle of the century, influenced by such apostles of emancipation as John Woolman and Anthony Benezet, the Quakers adopted a more decided policy. The Yearly Meeting of Pennsylvania in 1755 concluded that any member of the Society who should be concerned in importing or buying slaves ought to be reported for discipline. Three years later it was ordered that any persons buying, selling, or holding slaves should not be allowed to take part in the affairs of the Church. In 1776 it was voted to disown members who were in possession of slaves, and who would not execute proper instruments for giving them their freedom. 1 Bowden, History of the Society of Friends in America; Clarkson, Abolition of the African Slave-Trade.

The Congregationalists had come generally, before the close of the Revolutionary era, to be opposed to slavery. Samuel Hopkins of Newport bore an honorable part in stirring up conscience on the subject.

The Presbyterians at the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, in 1787, commended the interest manifested in the different States for promoting the abolition of slavery, and advised that care should be taken to educate those in bondage, so that they might be able to make a worthy use of freedom.

The Methodist Conference of 1780 pronounced slavery "contrary to the laws of God, man, and nature, and hurtful to society." It voted also to advise all Methodists to give freedom to their slaves. The General Conference of 1784 went still farther, and assumed to command instead of merely advising. In States where the laws allowed of manumission, it required every member, as a condition of continued fellowship, to emancipate, within a prescribed term of years, all slaves in his possession, and ordered that in the future no slaveholder should be counted eligible to membership. 1 Leroy M. Lee, Life and Times of Jesse Lee, pp. 165, 166; H.N. McTyeire, History of Methodism, pp. 377, 378. It was found, however, very difficult to carry through so heroic a measure. A large majority of Methodists were at that time residents of States in which slaveholding was a common practice. So strong an opposition was raised to the requisition of emancipation that the ministers felt that its execution was impracticable, and before the close of 1785 notice was given that a future Conference would consider the requisition in question, its immediate enforcement being waived, a retreat having once been made, it was no easy task to regain the former ground. In its "General Rules," however, the Methodist Church never ceased to keep on record a protest against slavery.

Strong ground was taken against slavery by the Baptist associations in Virginia (1787, 1789). They declared hereditary bondage a "violent deprivation of the rights of nature." 2 History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Virginia, pp. 79, 303, 304. In the practical application of such views, however, the Baptists were subject to much the same embarrassments as the Methodists.

At the first Convention of Universalists, held in Philadelphia in 1790, the following resolution was adopted: "We believe it to be inconsistent with the union of the human race in a common Saviour, and the obligations to mutual and universal love which how from that union, to hold any part of our fellow-creatures in bondage. We therefore recommend a total refraining from the African trade, and the adoption of prudent measures for the gradual abolition of the slavery of the Negroes in our country." 1 Eddy, Universalism in America, i. 301.

The record shows unmistakably that opposition to slavery, on moral and religious grounds, was very widespread in the American churches in the years immediately following the declaration and the achievement of the country's independence.

Lutherans

Lutherans

THE LUTHERANS, --The Swedes who began their settlement on the Delaware in 1637 were the first Lutherans in America who could boast of a complete church organization and house of worship. It is probable, however, that representatives of Lutheranism were found among the Dutch in New York prior to the planting of the Swedish colony. The Jesuit Jogues noticed their presence during his stay in the province (1642, 1643). But, while they were early on the ground, they were not in condition to make much advancement. The Dutch Reformed were of the opinion that the Augsburg Confession was not entitled to any hospitality in a territory which had been consecrated to the sacred theology of Dort. Scant privileges were therefore allowed to the Lutherans; and when their first pastor arrived, in 1657, he was ungraciously ordered back. This extreme of intolerance was indeed corrected some years later by the home authorities. Still it was not till the English occupation that the Lutherans in New York obtained pastoral oversight.

A few years after the surrender of New York by the Dutch, a detachment of Lutherans proceeded to the Carolinas. Of their religious history in their southern abode next to nothing is known till the eighteenth century. In the course of that century the Lutheran community in the Carolinas was augmented by emigrants from Germany and Switzerland.

The expatriation of the Salzburgers brought a considerable community of Lutherans to Georgia in the first years of its history. In 1741 they numbered not less than twelve hundred. Among all the immigrants professing the Lutheran faith none gave more careful heed to the claims of religion than this community.

A very large influx of German Lutherans, from Würtemberg, the Palatinate, Hesse-Darmstadt, and other German principalities, occurred in the first sixty years of the eighteenth century. The greater portion of them settled in Pennsylvania. Being generally very poor, and receiving no aid from the father-land, they were left for a time in strange destitution as regards religious ministrations, the number of pastors in the country being utterly inadequate to the demand. At length the cry of the more earnest for messengers of the gospel found a sympathetic response in Pietistic Halle. Heinrich Melchior Muhlenberg, who arrived from that institution in 1742, proved to be the forerunner of an efficient company of ministers from the same source.

In a few years the Lutheran interest presented a more organized and progressive aspect. The first Synod was constituted in 1748, with Lancaster and Philadelphia as the places of meeting, a second Synod was formed at Albany in 1786. The Revolutionary War intervened as a disturbing agency. Advance was also retarded by the ultra conservatism of a large party in maintaining the use of the German language for all church purposes. Still, assisted by a continuous stream of immigration, the Lutheran Church was destined in the next century to exhibit a very large growth. 1 See E. J. Wolf, The Lutherans in America.

Methodists

Methodists

METHODISTS. --The Wesleys at the time of their brief sojourn in Georgia, represented the High Church, ascetic, Oxford stage of their religious development. Methodism in its proper character they did not represent. Whitefield at his coming was possessed by the evangelical spirit of the great revival, and in this view may be regarded as a genuine exponent of Methodism. But Whitefield followed simply the vocation of an evangelist. He left others to gather up the fruits of his labors, and those labors inured mainly to the benefit of the Calvinistic communions. Methodism in its Arminian phase, and as a distinctly organized movement, was due to agents who had received their religious impulse from a different source.

In the order of time these agents followed the apostle of Calvinistic Methodism. Whitefield was on the way to his last triumphant tour in America and to his grave in Newburyport, when the first missionaries sent out by John Wesley were crossing the Atlantic. The arrival of Richard Boardman and Joseph Pilmoor at Philadelphia, in October of the year 1769, preceded by only a few weeks the completion of Whitefield's final voyage.

While Boardman and Pilmoor were the first immediate representatives of Wesley and the English Conference in this country, the founding of Methodism here, as is well known, is not to be ascribed to them. They came in fact at the urgent call of an already existing Methodism. Several laborers preceded them, by at least a few years. In 1766 Philip Embury, belonging to a family which had emigrated from the Palatinate to Ireland, began to minister as a local preacher to a small congregation in New York City. The next year his efforts were seconded by Captain Webb, a military evangelist, who, as John Adams testifies, knew how to wield effectually the sword of the Spirit as well as to handle carnal weapons. Displaying in a new form the soldierly character which he had exhibited at Louisburg and Quebec, he not only inspirited the little band at New York, but helped also to carry the Methodist standard into New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. About the same time that Embury commenced to preach in New York, or shortly before, as some writers contend,

1 A sentence of Asbury can be quoted on the side of this conclusion. Speaking of Pipe-Creek, he says: "Here Mr. Strawbridge formed the first society in Maryland--and America." (Journal, April 30, 1801.)

Robert Strawbridge, a native of Ireland, inaugurated a work that soon manifested its fruitfulness in the sending forth of a number of Methodist evangelists. Robert Williams also preceded the arrival of those who were directly commissioned for the American field, though only by a very brief interval. To him belongs the distinction of having founded Methodism in Virginia.

An appreciable impetus was given to Methodist evangelism by the arrival of Francis Asbury in 1771. So large was Wesley's confidence in the ability and devotion of this disciple that he appointed him the next year, though but twenty-seven years of age, to the oversight of the American societies. In 1773 he was relieved of this office by the arrival of Thomas Rankin; but in a few years he resumed the leadership which was to serve as a prominent factor in the ecclesiastical history of this country.

Before the close of the Revolutionary War, the societies in America were regarded as an adjunct of the Episcopal or Established Church. This was their theoretical position; but practically they held a very loose relation to the Establishment. Most of the Episcopal clergy had no sympathy with the Methodist preachers, and reckoned them antagonists rather than allies. One distinguished exception, nevertheless, may be noted. The Virginian clergyman, Devereux Jarratt, emulated the revival zeal of the Methodists, and gladly employed their services in his neighborhood, at least for a time. "He was the first," says Asbury, "to receive our despised preachers, when, strangers and unfriended, he took them to his house, and had societies formed in his perish. Some of his people became traveling and local preachers amongst us." 1 Journal, April 19, 1801.

The dates given above may serve to indicate that at the time when American Methodism was planted, the storm-cloud of the Revolution was already ascending the horizon. So great a political crisis naturally was a source of no small embarrassment. The foremost of the Methodist preachers were fresh from England, acting under the orders of John Wesley, and uncertain of the length of their stay in the country. They had therefore but a moderate incentive to ally themselves with the cause of the colonies. Asbury, it is true, showed early an aptitude to become Americanized, and was not without sympathy with the struggle for independence. The majority of the Methodist laity shared in the patriotic ardor of their countrymen. But the English preachers in general, while they observed in most instances a prudent reserve, were not ready to renounce their relation with the mother country. Unavoidably their position exposed them to much suspicion, and this was increased by the imprudence of Wesley in publishing a tract against the political demands of the colonies (1775). Wesley, it is true, acted in a manner as the advocate of the colonies. Near the time that the tract was published, he sent a communication to the ministers of State (June, 1775), wherein he warned them that the attempt to settle American affairs by coercion would probably end in failure. But very little, if any, account was made of this, and the item that was blazoned abroad was Wesley's disparagement of the colonial cause. The result could not be otherwise than unfavorable to the interests of Methodism in America Asbury soon found himself deserted by all his English co-laborers, and for an interval was subject to some restraint. Advance was checked by these great difficulties. Nevertheless, there was not a complete standstill, and the Methodist societies at the end of the Revolutionary War were able to exhibit a considerable increase. The number of members in 1784 was 14,988. Of these the great majority were in the South. Only 1,607 were north of Mason and Dixon's line.

The independence of the country, while it did not necessarily separate the societies from Wesley's leadership, left them quite beyond the pale of the Church of England. It lay, to be sure, in their option to seek an association with the Episcopal churches which became organized into the Protestant Episcopal Church. But there was no adequate motive for overtures in that direction. They were practically aliens from the Episcopal body, and had no reason to think that union could be obtained, except upon obnoxious terms. Moreover, the national crisis had served to beget an inclination to independence. The retirement of the English laborers from the field had left the control to native Americans, who had no share in Wesley's attachment to the Establishment, and only a qualified attachment to his person. In 1779 the Conference held in Virginia virtually declared for an independent status by providing for the administration of the sacraments in the societies. Earnest entreaty and the interests of unity caused indeed that this provision should be placed in abeyance for the time being. Still it was a clear token that the societies were advancing to an irrepressible demand for proper church organization. Wesley was therefore recognizing the inevitable when, in 1784, he sent over a scheme of government and the agents who should put it into execution. As noticed in another connection, these agents were Thomas Coke, Richard Whatcoat, and Thomas Vasey,- the first holding the rank of superintendent, and commissioned to ordain Asbury to the same; the others prepared to exercise the functions of elders.

In the explanatory letter which Wesley sent with his representatives, he used this language: "As our American brethren are now totally disentangled both from the State and the English hierarchy we dare not entangle them again either with the one or the other. They are now at full liberty simply to follow the Scriptures and the primitive Church. And we judge it best that they should stand fast in that liberty wherewith God has so strangely made them free." Evidently this language implies complete ecclesiastical independence. There is no hint of any sort of organic connection with any other religious communion. Wesley, if he knew how to use the English language, must have designed at that time full independence, not indeed of himself in his personal capacity, but of the Anglican and every other ecclesiastical organization.

The intent of Wesley has of course only a biographical significance. Whatever parts of his proposals were accepted became of constitutional force, not because he had proposed them, but because they were accepted by the Methodist preachers in America acting as a legislative body. The Christmas Conference of 1784 was the primary source of constitutional authority. The members of this Conference, it is true, voted to regard themselves as still sons of Wesley, and to give heed to his commands. But this was a voluntary expression of courtesy and dutifulness. It was not regarded as a contract proper; and in fact the concession was withdrawn three years later, when there seemed to be some hazard of an inconvenient interference from abroad.

While an episcopal organization was undoubtedly contemplated, the highest officials were at first called simply superintendents, and the term "episcopal" was attached to the organization. "It was agreed," says Asbury, "to form ourselves into an episcopal church, and to have superintendents, elders, and deacons." 1 Journal, Dec. 18, 1784. But in the course of a few years the episcopal title was carried over to the chief officers, -- an eminently consistent procedure, inasmuch as the church was entitled to be called episcopal only because it had bishops. The change of name involved no change of conception; and continuously the conception was free from the infection of prelatical notions. Wesley, influenced doubtless by the complications of his position in England, was not pleased with the change of name. But the scheme which he had proposed really contemplated a more emphatic type of episcopal authority, a more autocratic relation of the superintendent to the preachers, than that which in fact was admitted.

1 Thomas ware testifies that one reason for cancelling, in 1787, the declaration of submission to Wesley was the evident preference of Wesley to have matters decided by the superintendents rather than by vote of Conference. (John Atkinson, Centennial History of American Methodism, p. 66.)

Some prominent features in the present constitution of the Methodist body were not considered in the Christmas Conference of 1784. No specific mention was made of presiding elders, and the office was not instituted except in germ. It required, however, but a brief interval for its development. A number of the ministers were ordained elders; and naturally they were intrusted with a certain oversight of the junior ministers on a circuit, as well as with the administration of the sacraments. The number of elders being limited, there was a demand for them to administer the sacraments on more than one circuit. Accordingly, the whole field came to be divided into districts, and the function of the presiding elder was outlined with tolerable distinctness. The office was recognized by the General Conference of 1792. For a time there was no determinate scheme of Conferences. Definite boundaries were first assigned to the Annual Conferences in 1796, and the General Conference first took the character of a delegated body in 1812. A special anomaly in the early Methodist constitution was the lack of any provision for the co-operation of laymen with the ministers in the higher councils of the Church. While the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church included lay representatives, a Methodist Conference was a purely ministerial body. The arrangement, however, seems not to have provoked comment. Wesley's practice had not been such as naturally to bring the subject of lay representation into view.

The Conference of 1784 considered a project for denominational education. Three years later Cokesbury College was opened at Abingdon, Maryland. The building having been destroyed by fire in 1795, Baltimore was made the site of the college, where it was soon visited again with the fiery ordeal. Such a cumulation of misfortune could hardly fail to put a check for a season upon the enterprise of collegiate education.

From the time of its organization into a distinct communion, Methodism rapidly advanced. Its class system and its itinerancy gave it a special adaptation to pioneer work. The one feature enabled it easily to plant the nucleus of a church in the midst of a meagre settlement, and the other qualified it to reach with marked rapidity every quarter that was in need of gospel privileges. Within six years from the first General Conference it had more than trebled its numbers. In 1792 its membership was reckoned at 65,980. The O'Kelly schism,

1 The immediate cause of O'Relly's disaffection was the rejection of his proposition to limit the appointing power of the bishop, by allowing a right of appeal to the Conference. The party of O'Relly at first took the name of "Republican Methodists," later that of the "Christian Church."

which occurred in that year, checked progress for an interval, but a rapid increase was again manifest after a few years.

No small portion of this advance was due to Bishop Asbury. In mental fertility he was not the equal of John Wesley. But in devotion and industry he was not at all his inferior, and in faculty for administration he was scarcely second.

1 Coke wrote: "I exceedingly reverence Mr. Asbury; he has so much wisdom and consideration, so much meekness and love; and under all this, though hardly to be perceived, so much command and authority." (Journal, Nov. 14, 1784.)

The American field he understood vastly better than did Wesley, and he managed its interests with almost uniform discretion. By example and by counsel, through a long period of years, he nurtured a truly militant spirit in the ranks of the Methodist ministers. Under his direction they were marshaled into effective co-operation. The impress of his hand may be seen more or less in the vigor and precision which have characterized the forward march of Methodism ever since his day.

Among the coadjutors of Asbury an eminent place belongs to Jesse Lee. Of good presence and gentlemanly bearing, an adept in repartee, dowered with thorough self-command and courage, sympathetic and persuasive in discourse, he was well qualified for the self-imposed task of planting Arminian Methodism in New England. Before his invasion, this reputed stronghold of Puritan orthodoxy had been avoided by the Methodist itinerants. Boardman had indeed made a brief visit to Boston in 1772. But no one followed up his effort, and all visible result had faded away. The regions beyond the borders of New England were sooner cultivated, a successful work baring been undertaken in Nova Scotia by Freeborn Garrettson (1785-1787). Two years after the return of Garrettson, or in 1789, Lee began his evangelistic tour in New England. The next summer he introduced himself to Boston in the historic sermon on the common. In 1791 the first house dedicated to Methodist worship in New England was built at Lynn. Lee was often reminded that he had left Southern hospitality behind, and moved some degrees toward the north pole. Still, he appreciated the good qualities of the people, contented himself with the reflection that he was better received than could have been expected, and pressed forward with a sunny pertinacity.

Quakers or Friends

Chapter VII. -- Quakers or Friends

THE QUAKERS OR FRIENDS. --The decade falling between 1656 and 1666 was the era of special persecution for the Quakers in America, as it was the era of their arrival in Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia. While the two latter colonies did not reach the full measure of severity which was exemplified in the first, they endeavored to shut out the restless evangelists by stringent laws, and left upon a number of them the marks of a sharp chastisement.

As has already been noticed, this kind of tuition was not at all effective in teaching the Quakers the art of keeping away. They pressed into nearly all the colonies at an early date. Soon after persecution had spent its fierceness, they were represented by some able missionaries who journeyed extensively along the Atlantic coast. Here belong in particular the names of John Burnyeat and William Edmundson, not to mention the eccentric founder himself, George Fox, who started upon a colonial tour in 1671.

Maryland was visited shortly after the first envoys of the Society had advertised their presence in America. In the population of the Carolinas the Quakers were an element from the first years of the settlements. John Archdale, one of the Proprietors, who became governor in 1695, was a member of the Society.

The special domain of the Quakers, however, was West Jersey and Pennsylvania. The former passed into the hands of Quaker proprietors in 1674, and the latter was colonized under the patronage of William Penn in 1682. In both territories the members of the Society formed a large proportion of the people for the space of a generation; but the rapid influx of immigrants of other persuasions left them probably in the minority as early as the death of Penn (1718). One element in the Pennsylvania community testifies that the missionary activity of the Society in continental Europe had not been wholly fruitless. "During 1686 many Friends from Germany and Holland arrived in the province. Most of the Germans settled at Germantown, about six miles from Philadelphia, where some of their countrymen had already located." 1 James Bowden, History of the Society of Friends in America, ii. 33,

In conformity with the fundamental principles of the Quakers, there was no preferred party in Pennsylvania as respects religion, but all stood on an equality before the law. The code which Penn prepared for the colony, if not up to the radical position of Roger Williams, was still exceptionally tolerant. It used this language: "That all persons living in this province who confess and acknowledge the one Almighty and Eternal God to be the Creator, Upholder, and Ruler of the world, and that hold themselves obliged in conscience to live peaceably and justly in civil society, shall in no wise be molested or prejudiced for their religious persuasion or practice in matters of faith and worship; nor shall they be compelled at any time to frequent or maintain any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever."

The strong aversion of the Quakers to ecclesiasticism, carried to the point of repudiating a paid ministry, did not cause them wholly to neglect organization. They provided in fact a tolerably complete system of government through a hierarchy of assemblies. Above the individual congregation was the Monthly Meeting; above that, the Quarterly Meeting; highest of all, the Yearly Meeting. The lack of a meeting which should represent the whole Society was met in part by the deference paid to the parent Yearly Meeting at London, and also by a very general acknowledgment of a common set of principles. The first Yearly Meeting in America was organized in Rhode Island in 1661. A second was established at Burlington, New Jersey, twenty years later. In 1683 a Yearly Meeting was held at Philadelphia. According to an arrangement made in 1685, Philadelphia and Burlington were to be alternately the seat of the Yearly Meeting for Pennsylvania and the Jerseys.

The theological teaching of the Quakers continued through the colonial period to correspond to the exposition which had been given by Robert Barclay. They believed in the Bible as the Word of the Lord, but gave the primacy to the Holy Spirit in His direct working upon the soul. They were in sympathy with the doctrine of the Trinity, though preferring to speak upon the subject in Biblical language rather than in that of the creeds. In their explanation of justification they slighted the judicial aspect, and laid the whole stress upon an inward birth or sanctification. The sacraments they regarded as savoring of an undue externalism. In accordance with their emphasis upon the inward working of the Spirit, and the independence of that working from all externals, they entertained a more generous hope respecting the salvation of the heathen than was common in that age.

It has been noticed on a previous page that the Memnonites agreed with the Quakers in their opposition to oaths and to war. Pennsylvania, therefore, naturally afforded them a congenial retreat. Some of them early responded to the invitation of William Penn to settle in that quarter.

Baptists

Chapter VII. -- Baptists

THE BAPTISTS. -- Reference was made in the preceding section to the first Baptists in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Outside of these colonies the Baptist era dates from the closing part of the seventeenth century or the early part of the eighteenth. Before the close of the former century Baptist churches were organized in Maine, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. It should be noted, however, that the congregation in Maine was soon dispersed, and that nearly a century elapsed before the work of organizing Baptist churches in that region was again undertaken. "In 1688 the Baptist denomination in North America comprised thirteen churches only. Seven were in Rhode Island, two in Massachusetts, one in South Carolina, two in Pennsylvania, and one in Mew Jersey." 1 J. M. Cramp, Baptist History, p. 471. In Connecticut, Virginia, and New York the Baptists acquired an organized existence in the first quarter of the eighteenth century. They had a church in North Carolina in 1727, in Maryland in 1742, in New Hampshire in 1750, or shortly thereafter; in Georgia in 1772. The middle and latter part of the century was a time of rapid growth in the country as a whole. "In 1740 the number of churches was thirty-seven, with less than three thousand members, but in 1790 there were eight hundred and seventy-two churches, containing 64,975 members." 1 Cramp, p. 527.

The great revival which began in the fourth decade of the eighteenth century gave to the Baptists an impulse of far-reaching consequence. One of the immediate fruits of that revival in New England was a number of congregations which were led to take an independent position in relation to the "standing order," either because they considered the local pastor too intolerant of religious excitement, or wished for more stringent terms of fellowship than were maintained where the half-way covenant prevailed. Not a few of these congregations mentioned as Separatists, and sometimes as New Lights -- became associated with the Baptists.

From this source an effective evangelistic agency was provided for North Carolina and Virginia. In 1754 Shubal Stearns, who had become identified with the Separatists, proceeded with some members of his congregation to Virginia. The next year he passed across the border into North Carolina, where his labors resulted in gathering a very flourishing congregation. Soon Stearns and others who had imbibed a kindred zeal began to preach in Virginia after the manner of itinerant evangelists. As indicated above, they were not the first representatives of Baptist principles in Virginia. A company of Baptists from England had been organized as a church in the southern part of the province in 1714, and in 1743 immigrants from Maryland had established a congregation in the northern part, the nucleus of the Regular Baptists in that section of the country. However, before the arrival of the new-comers, who were called Separate Baptists, no great progress had been made. The revival methods whish they employed with marked earnestness proved to be very efficacious in attracting attention and winning converts. At the same time they were equally efficacious in provoking the animosity of the clergy and the magistrates belonging to the Establishment. In the course of the persecution about thirty ministers, besides many subordinate laborers, were imprisoned, some of them more than once. Opposition in this form, however, rather helped than hindered success. Before the end of the century Virginia had become a stronghold of the Baptists. In 1793 the denomination in the State was able to boast of 227 churches, 272 ministers, and 22,793 communicants, or nearly one third of the whole number of Baptists to be found at that time within the limits of the United States. 1 Thomas Armitage, History of the Baptists, p. 735. Six years previously the different branches--Separates, Regulars, and Independents --had agreed to be known under the common title of United Baptist Churches of Christ in Virginia.

In theology the tendency among American Baptists was to enthrone Calvin. Nevertheless Arminianism had its representatives. It is understood that this was the creed of the first Baptists who settled in the southern part of Virginia, though communication with others eventually corrupted, or perfected, their faith into Calvinism. 2 R. B. Semple, History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Virginia, p. 348. Arminian Baptists were found in Rhode Island and Connecticut, and in 1729 an Association of their churches was formed at Newport. Speaking of the time when the Warren Association was organized (1767), a Baptist writer says of the New England churches, "Some of them were frankly Arminian in doctrine." 1 Armitage, History of the Baptists, p. 717. Several of the leading preachers in Virginia espoused the Arminian position. In 1780 Benjamin Randall founded a denomination, the Free Will Baptists, which made the Arminian doctrines of grace a distinctive feature, as well as open communion.

Various eccentricities in usage and polity made their appearance. A number of these are summarized in the following appeal for charitable judgment: "If the churches composing the Sandy Creek association in North Carolina were tenacious of the kiss of charity, the laying on of hands upon members, the appointment of elderesses, and such things; if a large Baptist body in Virginia was so mistaken as to choose in 1774 three of their number, and designate them 'apostles,' investing them with power of general superintendence; and if in some respects the fervency of New Light feelings got the better of discretion and decorum, we must bear in mind the peculiarities of the times." 2 Cramp, Baptist History, p. 545. To this enumeration should be added the eccentricity which is represented in the Seventh Day Baptists. In Rhode Island those who advocated the keeping of the seventh day were formed into a separate church in 1671. This was the beginning of the denomination in America.

3 Backus mentions William Hiscox and six others as primarily composing the church. Soon afterwards a family, or several families, by the name of Rogers, joined them; but these new members seem ere long to have fallen into an independent position, thus giving rise to a party known as Rogerenes. With the keeping of the seventh day they combined Quaker phraseology and the renunciation of medicines. (History of New England, i. 324, 325 381; ii. 11, 501.)

An offshoot of the German Baptists, or Dunkers, who settled in Pennsylvania between 1719 and 1729, also maintained the obligation to sanctify the seventh day.

A considerable proportion of Baptist preachers in colonial times were men of but moderate education. The leaders of the denomination, however, were far from being indifferent to learning. In 1764 a memorial of their enlightened zeal was provided through the founding of Rhode Island College, known later as Brown University. A principal part in this enterprise was taken by James Manning and Morgan Edwards, who may be ranked, along with Isaac Backus and Hezekiah Smith, among the eminent representatives of the denomination in that period.

Presbyterians

Presbyterians

A section of Presbyterian history, it must be allowed, came under the régime of an establishment. But it was only a small section, that which included the progress of the Dutch Reformed Church in New York for a little more than a generation before the English occupation. American Presbyterianism, as a whole, has not been the subject of specific State recognition and patronage. The heading, therefore, which has been given to this division of our subject involves only a moderate trespass against accuracy. In a general glance the religious bodies enumerated may be classified as non-established communions.

1. PRESBYTERIANS. --From continental Europe there were three considerable classes of immigrants who had been wonted to a Presbyterian polity. These were the Dutch, the German, and the French representatives of the Reformed Church, or that group of communions which took its pattern from Zurich and Geneva. A large proportion of the German Reformed came from the Palatinate on the Upper Rhine. These as well as the Dutch were sufficiently numerous and concentrated to maintain, with comparative ease, a distinct organization. The French Reformed, or Huguenots, on the other hand, in their scattered condition tended toward absorption in other religious bodies. 1 On the important contribution which this element made to the country, see the preceding volume, p. 513.

At the time of the surrender of New York to the English (1664), the ministers of the Dutch Reformed Church numbered seven. Though this was no large supply for ten thousand people gathered into a number of towns, it suffered a reduction, and for an interval the resident pastors were only three. In the later years of the century a valuable accession was received in Dominie Selyns. "He was the chief of the early ministers to enlarge the usefulness of the Church, and to secure for it a permanent and independent foundation. He was of a catholic spirit, when liberality was not so common, speaking kindly of other denominations and rejoicing in their success. His amiable character endeared him to all around him. He was on terms of friendship with the heads of government, and in correspondence with distinguished men in the neighboring colonies. He was also a poet, versifying in both Dutch and Latin." 1 E. T. Corwin, Manual of the Reformed Church in America, 3d ed., p. 16.

Somewhat of an era was marked by the arrival of Jacob Frelinghuysen in 1720. Imbued with the spirit of pietism, and an earnest foe of mere formality, he figured in some measure as a forerunner of the revival which was inaugurated under Edwards, Whitefield, and the Tennents. He gave also a fresh impulse to his communion in the enterprise of training young men for the ministry.

The headship of the Dutch Reformed Church in the colonial period was vested in the Classis of Amsterdam. This Classis took the responsibility of supplying ministers, and though it allowed ordinations occasion ally to take place in this country, it expected that this would occur only by special permission. Near the middle of the eighteenth century some of the ministers began to feel that a larger measure of self-government ought to be enjoyed by the churches on this aide of the Atlantic. They were not fully reconciled to the idea that the Coetus which was organized in 1747 should have nothing more than an advisory function. As a minority were for leaving full control to the Classis, there was a division of sentiment. Another cause for partisan feeling also found entrance, inasmuch as the conservative wing favored taking an interest in King's College, while the advocates of a relative independence, believing that that institution would be thoroughly dominated by Episcopalian influence, concluded that they ought to provide for ministerial education in a seminary of their own. The result was a rupture. This continued till 1771, when the discreet mediation of the able minister John H. Livingston prepared a reunion. The plan of agreement which was adopted gave little less than complete self-government to the colonial Church. Twenty-one years later the consummating act was taken. The constitution adopted in 1792 placed the Dutch Reformed Church upon an independent basis.

The German Reformed Church had its largest growth in Pennsylvania. Like the Dutch it recognized the headship of the Classis of Amsterdam. This occurred with the consent and advice of the Church in the Palatinate, which was not in condition to render the needed assistance. From 1730--or shortly after the labors of Weiss and Boehm had gathered the first Reformed congregations in Pennsylvania-to 1792 a close relation was maintained with the Amsterdam Classis.

In its earlier years the progress of the German Reformed Church was much hindered by lack of ministerial supply, and of adequate organization. A partial remedy to these defects was provided by the zeal and industry of Michael Schlatter, who came in 1746, and for several years fulfilled the office of general superintendent. Larger results might have been attained by him, had not his attempt to found free schools with the aid of English and Scotch charity provoked a race prejudice which drove him in 1757 from his official oversight.

Among the young men who came over with Schlatter was William Otterbein. In 1775 Baltimore became the field of his labor. Broad in his sympathies, and laying the chief stress upon heart piety, he was quite ready to pass over denominational lines where favorable opportunities were presented for friendly co-operation in Christian work. Such features of Methodism as the class system and the revival meeting commanded his appreciation. He cherished a friendly regard for Asbury, and assisted at his ordination in 1784. Asbury, on his part, greatly admired the learning and piety of the stalwart German, and spoke of him as "the great and good Otterbein." As several of his countrymen, among whom Martin Boehm was perhaps the foremost, joined zealously in the pietistic enterprise, it grew to considerable dimensions. Many were enlisted who had no special connection with the German Reformed Church, and as that body was not inclined to adopt the movement, it soon issued in a separate communion bearing the name of United Brethren in Christ. This result was not designed by Otterbein. He continued in fact to regard himself as still within the pale of the old communion. His relation to the German Reformed Church was quite analogous to that of Wesley with the Church of England. 1 J. H. Dubbs, Rhetoric Manual of the Reformed Church in the United States.

One having in mind the broad area of Presbyterianism in Scotland, England, and Ireland, in the middle portion of the seventeenth century would naturally expect to find distinct tokens of an overflow in the presence of a large Presbyterian body in America. Doubtless a considerable number of Presbyterians from the British Isles had entered the colonies at an early date; but they were not aggregated. They came to regions where a different element was dominant. We have therefore to pass across the border of the eighteenth century before we find the communion which bears distinctively the name of "Presbyterians." The first presbytery which was instituted, that of Philadelphia, dates from 1706. In a letter from this presbytery to that of Dublin, in 1710, the extent of Presbyterianism in America was described as follows: "In all Virginia we have one small congregation on Elizabeth River, and some few families favoring our way in Rappahannoc and York; in Maryland four, in Pennsylvania five, in the Jerseys two, which bounds, with some places in New York, make up all the bounds which we have any members from, and at present some of these are vacant." 1 Quoted by Charles Hodge, Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church in America, pt, i., pp. 65, 66.

From this point a rapid growth ensued. In 1716 the single presbytery had become a synod, with three subordinate meetings or presbyteries. Soon after the middle of the century the Presbyterians had passed all rivals in the three States, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. When the General assembly was organized in 1788, the seventeen presbyteries, ranging from New York to the Carolinas, included four hundred and nineteen churches. C. A. Briggs, American Presbyterianism.

As respects theological teachings, the Presbyterian body in America remained sufficiently homogeneous throughout the colonial period. There was no such drift here as that which carried away the Presbyterian Church in England, and moved also a section of the Irish body from the old moorings. Still the American Presbyterians had early an occasion to deal with a subject which was a source of disturbance and division to both their English and their Irish brethren. The agitation on the subject of subscription which convulsed the meeting at Salter's Hall in 1719 had its counterpart in this country. It was not indeed a very exact counterpart. The party of non-subscribers here were not so stiff in their opposition to the requirement of subscription as were their confrères in England. They differed also from the latter as not including in their ranks any who were properly amenable to the charge of laxity in their personal creed. Still the question of subscription assumed at one time a rather serious import.

The initiative in the discussion was taken by the New Castle Presbytery. In 1724 this presbytery began to require candidates for the ministry to give a formal assent to the Westminster Confession. Not content with this advance towards stringency in their own practice, representative men of the presbytery began to press for synodal action, by which the whole body of ministers might be securely anchored to the great Calvinistic creed. Their overture was not acceptable to all the ministers, a minority at least were opposed to the demand for subscription; and their cause received weight from the fact that their leader was a man of eminent character and ability. He has been described indeed as "the ablest man in the American Presbyterian Church in the colonial period." 1 Briggs, American Presbyterianism, p. 216. Compare E. H. Gillett, History of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, i. 39, 40 This was Jonathan Dickinson, a native of Massachusetts, and a graduate of Yale College. So far as his own belief was concerned, Dickinson was as well content, probably, as any of his brethren with the Westminster Confession. But he did not believe in binding upon men the shackles of any elaborate creed. To use his own words, he held that "a joint acknowledgment of our Lord Jesus Christ for our common head, of the sacred Scriptures for our common standard both in faith and practice, with a joint agreement in the same essential and necessary articles of Christianity, and the same methods of worship and discipline, are a sufficient bond of union for the being or well-being of any Church under heaven." 1 Hodge, Constitutional History, pt. i. p. 144.

Had Dickinson been a man of belligerent temper, a sharp antagonism might have resulted. But he was blessed with a superior degree of moderation and practical wisdom. Under his guidance the mooted question was brought to an adjustment which gave general if not universal, satisfaction for the time being. The expedient chosen was that of qualified subscription. In the so-called Adopting act of 1729 the demands upon the subscriber were thus formulated: "Although the Synod do not claim or pretend to any authority of imposing our faith upon other men's consciences, but do profess our just dissatisfaction with, and abhorrence of, such impositions, and do utterly disclaim all legislative power and authority in the Church, being willing to receive one another as Christ has received us to the glory of God, and admit to fellowship in sacred ordinances all such as we have grounds to believe Christ will at last admit to the kingdom of heaven, yet we are undoubtedly obliged to take care that the faith once delivered to the saints be kept pure and uncorrupt among us, and so handed down to our posterity, -- and do therefore agree that all the ministers of this Synod, or that shall hereafter be admitted into this Synod, shall declare their agreement in, and approbation of, the Confession of Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, as being, in all the essential and necessary articles, good forms of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine, and do also adopt the said Confession and Catechisms as the confession of our faith. And we do also agree that all the presbyteries within our bounds shall always take care not to admit any candidate of the ministry into the exercise of the sacred function but what declares his agreement in opinion with all the essential and necessary articles of said Confession, either by subscribing the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms, or by a verbal declaration of their assent thereto, as such minister or candidate shall think best. And in case any minister of this Synod, or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any scruple with respect to any article or articles of said Confession or Catechisms, he shall at the time of his making said declaration declare his sentiments to the Presbytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exercise of the ministry within our bounds, and to ministerial communion, if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge such scruple or mistake to be only about articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship, or government. But if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge such ministers or candidates erroneous in essential and necessary articles of faith, the Synod or Presbytery shall declare them incapable of communion with them. And the Synod do solemnly agree that none of us will traduce or use any opprobrious terms of those that differ from us in these extra-essential and not necessary points of doctrine; but treat them with the same friendship, kindness, and brotherly love, as if they had not differed from, us in such sentiments." 1 Briggs, pp. 217-220. Hodge and Gillett also give the text. In South Carolina the dispute over subscription was not so happily settled, and a division resulted.

Seven years later the Synod passed a declaration, which, if it did not directly limit the liberty which is naturally inferred from the language of the Adopting Act, is understood to have been in the interest of strict subscription. Perhaps the scanty attendance of the liberal party at the Synod of 1736 my have facilitated the passage of the declaration.

Before the question of subscription had passed out of consideration a cause of deeper agitation intervened. As early as 1730-52 the preaching of John Tennent at Freehold, New Jersey, had been attended with tokens of revival. Like effects followed the preaching of William Tennent in the succeeding years. Gilbert Tennent, a brother of the preceding, contributed still more to the awakening, being a man of stirring eloquence and aggressive force. Meanwhile the father of these preachers, through his school for ministerial training, known as the Log College, was preparing a number of young men to take the part of earnest evangelists. Accordingly, when Whitefield arrived, in 1739, he found that the spirit of revival had made much progress, and that a party was at hand which was ready to lend a zealous support to his type of religious enterprise.

But revival methods were not agreeable to all. A few probably were at so low a point in their own religious life that they felt a species of repulsion toward any manifestation of earnest religion. A larger number entertained an aversion for the disorders of the revival. They were sensitive to the violation of ecclesiastical order. They looked upon the entrance of itinerant preachers into fields already under pastoral charge as a rude and unwarranted intrusion. The somewhat headlong censoriousness with which Gilbert Tennent and others commented on unconverted ministers provoked in them a greater or less resentment. Since those who felt thus were a considerable party, they took pains to raise some bars against their more ardent brethren. Measures were passed by the Synod (1737, 1738), which were designed to check the practice of itinerating, and to transfer the power of licensing ministers from the local authority; or Presbytery, to the central body. The covert aim of the last measure was understood by its opponents to be the exclusion of candidates who might serve as spirited and effective preachers, but perchance could not meet a severe technical requirement as respects scholastic attainments.

The advocates of the revival were not a little aggrieved by these acts, and showed a pronounced disinclination to acquiesce in them. In their view the paramount duty was to bring to all men the vital and saving message of the gospel. They considered the action of the Synod an unwarrantable attempt to bind the Word of the Lord. This feeling was especially rife in the Presbytery of New Brunswick, where the influence of the Tennents was paramount. In the matter of licensing candidates this Presbytery overrode the restriction imposed; and, as it would not render the desired satisfaction on this and other points, its delegation was denied a place in the Synod (1741). Had the ejection occurred by due process, the Synod would have had the advantage of legal right on its side. But that was not the fact; the New Brunswick presbyters were dismissed in an arbitrary fashion. Thus a schism was precipitated, and "Old Side" and "New Side" became competing bodies. Many who were friendly at once to the revival and to good order considered that the New Brunswick Presbytery had been dealt with unwarrantably, and joined with it after failing to obtain an accommodation from the Synod. The result was that the Synod of New York, as a rival of that of Philadelphia, was constituted in 1745.

The schism continued till 1758. During the interval the Old Side remained comparatively stationary. The New Side, on the other hand, or the party of the revival, made large advances. One noteworthy trophy of its activity was a successful missionary project in Virginia. In laying the foundation of Presbyterianism in this province, a prominent part was taken by Samuel Davies, who ranks with Dickinson among the foremost of the Presbyterian divines of the colonial era. Other achievement was the founding of New Jersey College in 1747. Princeton became the seat of the college in 1756.

In arranging the terms of the reunion which was effected in 1758, it was necessary to recur to the subject of subscription. In the view of those who ought to be competent interpreters the solution arrived at was substantially a reaffirmation of the principle of the Adopting Act which had been passed in 1729.

1 Briggs, pp. 319-321; Gillett, i. 78, 79. The latter writer says: "The systematic in contradistinction from the ipsissima verba subscription was re-established at the reunion in 1758"

Alongside the main orb of American Presbyterianism there were a few of the lesser luminaries to which Scotch pertinacity, or conscientiousness, or both, had given origin. Not far from the middle of the eighteenth century representatives of the Covenanters (or Reformed Presbyterian Church) and of the associate Presbytery obtained definite organization. In 1782 a large part of the former body united with the latter, thus giving rise to the associate Reformed Church.