Dat he ena 
 eA AT REALE St eB SRS 
 Mats a hwy Cathe a atts SNe, 
 AF STERN ah ig ec mT is he Be ns FT arts 
 Rae he THIN Dn ete Se 
 * . we 
 
 ie Phase, hers Tans Ne ine Aa Rae tae ate Pas 
 Sc Ra tee a Laas Re eh ea EL fase 
 oat Rh Stee eit MEIN 
 
 Bb OS Eng PEARS ree 
 
 “sian tusstase ne eats eatas: 
 aie alta TS e 
 
 RaBa?, * — Te te hea Erde Pia at ant ee 
 ry ears 2 oe oe SMD gee aoa Pe ve el oF 
 aPete®. Tames : 58S 
 
 eS aS SI SEARS R Se 
 
 nein Sata 
 
 AT Tia WF char Meni essim rt, 
 oR ate 8 ot 2 
 
 : Poh : ied ac a eB MAT Mie 
 Pate an, 
 
 Farting tee 
 
 So 
 
 aa A: 
 
 $i, 
 ara) 
 
 iy 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 : v Me tg ce Tape ER a csticiscnaah oe 
 
 : - ‘ be * ; toF ti rey SO usrisr z 50 ee . erst . st SP ae cD co Pind 
 
 : ~ hw - men es . ane +x rier! . a © * ; ~*. : a sey 3 
 : : bien a ~ - - * 3 “ = sd 
 

 
 ~~ 
 - SS 
 “EOLoGiCAL SENS 
 
 BR 520 .H75 1924 
 
 Humphrey, Edward Frank, b. 
 (SW SS. | 
 
 Nationalism and religion in 
 America 
 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2022 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/nationalismreligoO0hump 
 
Ne A? 
 coe ind 
 
 ny 
 | a : 
 
 A, . r ay } 
 ‘ : _ on f 
 = o 
 ST] 7 
 
 
 
NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 IN AMERICA 
 
 1774—1789 
 
 BY 
 EDWARD FRANK HUMPHREY, Pu.D. 
 
 NORTHAM PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE, TRINITY 
 COLLEGE, HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, AUTHOR OF “POLITICS 
 AND RELIGION IN THE DAYS OF AUGUSTINE” 
 
 BOSTON 
 CHIPMAN LAW PUBLISHING COMPANY 
 1924. 
 
wv 
 4 
 
 7 
 
 wo 
 
 en 
 
 e 
 
 
 
TO 
 Christine Dera 
 AND 
 
 Zobn James Pumpbrep 
 
 Carissimi liberi erepti 
 Quasi flores aratro tacti 
 
‘Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, 
 religion and morality are indispensable supports.” George Washington, 
 Farewell Address, 1796. 
 
 “Pro Ecclesia et Patria.’ Motto of Trinity (Washington) College, 
 1823. 
 
 “There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains 
 a greater influence . . . . . than in America. . . . . It must be 
 regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country.” 
 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835. 
 
 “Christianity is in fact understood to be, though not the legally 
 established religion, yet the national religion . . . . . Religion and 
 Conscience have been constantly ‘active forces in the American Com- 
 monwealth..... by which moral and political evils have been held 
 at bay, and in the long run generally overcome.” James Bryce, American 
 Commonwealth, 1888. 
 
AB Lr: One GO uN i BENT S 
 
 Girt pri leh INTRODUCTION. © Ua ed eae ES Pattie etea ics 1 
 
 Baavhe Taal 
 
 RELIGIOUS ELEMENTS OF THE AMERICAN 
 REVOLUTION 
 
 CHapter 2: Tue Protestant EpiscopaL CHURCH IN THE 
 VOLO TION Pe eee TERA ee Euan b acer) ries LO 
 
 CHAPTER 3: THE CoNGREGATIONAL CHURCH IN THE REVOLUTION 48 
 CHAPTER 4: THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE REVOLUTION . 66 
 
 Craprer 5: Tue DutcH REFrorMED, GERMAN REFORMED, LUTH- 
 ERAN, Baptist, METHODIST, AND RoMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHES IN 
 THERE ELV OLUTION Yn aa Ah tea os ce oh ce Re ee aes sk ox LOS 
 
 Cuaprer 6: THE QuAKER AND MoraviAN CHURCHES IN THE 
 EVOLUTIONS oe Bota re eee Gs Ls Gi ae dae t Meet ok kok 
 
 PART It 
 NATIONALIZATION OF THE AMERICAN CHURCHES 
 Cyaprer 7: Tue Mersopist Eriscopan CuurcH in AMERICA 167 
 
 Crapter 8: Tue Protestant Episcopal CHURCH IN THE UNITED 
 TES OMA MEBICA TAD Aero GH kc ToOtbs Ail tek eee ett eelkod 
 
 Cuapter 9: Tur Roman Carsouic CuurRCcH IN THE UNITED 
 ee pte 8 gl AN ire A A Cot) Se, nn a a eRe. 27 
 
 CHAPTER 10: Tue PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STaTES 260 
 
 Cuaprer 11: Tue Dutch RerormMep, GERMAN REFORMED, 
 Lurueran, Moravian, QUAKER, AND UNITARIAN CHURCHES 
 OVEDA MERIC ATMIR I oc ee. le Peni ameincrdie) ROL) aM Sep msl ke sth Matar wee 283 
 
 CHaprTer 12: Tue Baptist AND CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES IN 
 ENP CT TE 0d Si Lig MIMO Mera BEC ec i A SE 
 
Vill TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 PART III 
 THE STATE AND RELIGION 
 CHAPTER 13: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 
 CHAPTER 14: CONTINENTAL CONGRESS AND RELIGION’ 
 CHAPTER 15: THE CHURCHES AND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 
 
 CHAPTER 16: ‘‘AMERICAN Civit CuourcH Law” IN THE STATE 
 CONSTITUTIONS 
 
 CHAPTER 17: AMERICAN CHURCHES GREET THE NEw NATIONAL 
 GOVERNMENT 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 
 
 INDEX. 
 
NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 IN AMERICA 
 
 CAHFACR ALE Riel 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 What part did religion play in the creation of American 
 nationalism, — not merely in the formation of an American 
 state but more in the moulding of the still deeper spirit of ° 
 American unity which underlies nationalism? The follow- 
 ing study, Nationalism and Religion in America, 1774 to 
 1789, is undertaken with the hope that it may throw 
 some light on that subject. 
 
 A nation may be defined as a group of free people held 
 together by ties such as race, language, religion, manners 
 and customs, traditions, history, geographical surround- 
 ings, commerce, laws, etc. The elements entering into 
 * the compound nationality are numerous and their relative 
 importance varies with each separate nation. Obviously 
 no definite history of the birth of American nationalism 
 can be written until all of the elements which make for 
 nationalism have been listed and evaluated. Religion 
 was one of the more potent factors in the making of 
 The United States of America. 
 
 It is to be noted at the outset that we are dealing with 
 the forces of Nationalism and Religion, and that we are in 
 no sense confining ourselves to the narrow limits which 
 would be imposed were we to treat of the usual terms 
 
Q NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 State and Church. Separation of Church and State in 
 America has tended to divert attention from the more 
 important factors, Religion and Nation. The American 
 nation has limited the powers of its government. For 
 political purposes we have divorced the Church and the 
 State, thereby placing decided limitations upon each. 
 But this is a governmental limitation. In America there 
 is a distinct recognition_of the fact that there is a nation 
 above the state; the nation created the state and can make 
 and unmake its laws and government. Quite different 
 was the Teutonic conception of the state as a supreme 
 and all powerful individuality, possessed of a soul which 
 autocratically ruled a subordinate nation. 
 
 The American conception allows for national character- 
 istics that are independent of the state. So we are a 
 Christian nation even though Christianity is not a feature 
 of the American state. The adoption of the American 
 concept of the limited state resulted in the ideal of a free 
 church in a free nation, the present American ideal of 
 religious freedom. As a corollary to this we have the 
 ideal of a state freed from ecclesiastical control. Numerous 
 treatises have: dealt with the relations of church and 
 state in the formative period of American history, but 
 we purpose to follow the trend of events in connection 
 with nationalism and religion. 
 
 The formative period of American nationalism was 
 from 1774 to 1789. During those fifteen years separate 
 colonial institutions were superseded by national ones and 
 the process was accompanied by the awakening of an 
 American national conscience. The first Continental 
 Congress assembled in 1774 to petition for a redress of 
 grievances; its members protested their loyalty as British 
 colonists. These American colonies of Great Britain had 
 
INTRODUCTION oD 
 
 existed up to the time of the Revolutionary War as 
 thirteen separate and distinct political units. Nor had 
 they seriously attempted to break down the social, 
 economic, educational or religious barriers which separated 
 them. They seemed to dread unification; they were 
 more afraid of consolidation than was their mother 
 country. So strong was this feeling that even devout 
 members of the Church of England worked against the 
 introduction of an American Episcopacy ‘lest it might 
 prove the beginning of a development which would 
 ultimately produce a complete autocratic hierarchy 
 with centralized authority.1 The Church of England 
 was at a disadvantage in America just because it possessed 
 a traditional centralized organization; dissenting sects 
 possessed an advantage in organization more In harmony 
 with the American spirit of local autonomy.” Anyone or 
 any organization which stood for unification was suspect 
 in America before 1774. 
 
 The Second Continental Congress is commonly credited 
 with the creation of an American nation. It did produce 
 the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Con- 
 federation and the Federal Constitution. But these 
 acts, great as they were, did not jointly or separately con- 
 stitute a nation. The Declaration of Independence did 
 not, as so commonly supposed, “bring forth on this 
 
 1 Hawks, Efforts to obtain a Colonial Episcopate before the Revolution, 
 in Protestant Episcopal Historical Society Collection, vol. i, pp. 136-357. 
 Cross, The Anglican Episcopate and the American Colonies, in Harvard 
 Historical Studies, vol. ix. 
 
 2Henry Caner to the Archbishop of Canterbury, January 7, 1763, 
 “We are a Rope of Sand, there is no union, no authority among us; we 
 cannot even summon a Convention for united council and advice, while 
 the Dissenting Ministers have their Monthly, Quarterly, and Annual 
 Associations, Conventions, Etc., to advise, assist, and support each other 
 
 in any measures which they shall think proper to enter into.” Quoted 
 from Perry, Historical Collections, vol. iii, Mass., pp. 489-491. 
 
4 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Continent a new nation.” Far from creating new insti- 
 tutions or a new spirit of unity, it merely freed the then 
 existing institutions from British control. The spirit 
 of Thomas Jefferson, its author, was not a creative one. 
 Independence was his mania: “‘the less government the 
 better” according to his political creed. The Declaration 
 of Independence but cleared the way for the creation of 
 whatever spirit or form of institutions the colonists 
 might elect to produce. The Articles of Confederation 
 and the Federal Constitution represent efforts on the 
 part of the colonists to give political form to their con- 
 ception of a nascent nationalism. 
 
 Where did the spirit of nationalism originate? This 
 study shows that religious forces play an important réle 
 in the formation of a national spirit and even in the 
 shaping of national institutions according to model 
 furnished by prior American efforts at ecclesiastical 
 organization. 
 
 At that time the pulpit-was the most powerful single 
 force in America for the creation and control of public 
 opinion. This fact must not be lost sight of when we are 
 trying to trace the development of the growth of a popular 
 consciousness of Americanism. Nobody in America 
 approached George Washington in the early control of 
 public opinion. An important paragraph of his Farewell 
 Address to the People of the United States, September 7, 
 1796, admonishes attention to the forces of morality and 
 religion as political factors in the life of the American 
 people. Washington said: 
 
 “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, 
 Religion and Morality are indispensable support. For in vain would 
 that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert 
 these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties 
 
INTRODUCTION 5 
 
 of Men and Citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, 
 ought to respect and to cherish them. A Volume could not trace all their 
 connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, 
 where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of 
 religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investi- 
 gation in courts of justice? And let us, with caution indulge the suppo- 
 sition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may 
 be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar 
 structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national 
 morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles. 
 
 It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring 
 of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less 
 force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to 
 it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of 
 the fabric.” 
 
 Washington recognized the religious element in the 
 American history of his time but unfortunately the his- 
 ‘torian of his day was sufficiently skilled neither in historical 
 analysis nor in critical exposition, to chronicle events 
 and forces clearly. The part played by religious forces 
 in the development of American nationalism remains 
 to be written; and it remains to be written in an age 
 which has departed far from Washington’s standards of 
 appreciation of religion and morality as historic forces. 
 In fact this essay is undertaken at a time when a foremost 
 American educator has just characterized Washington's 
 Farewell Address with the Ten Commandments as “ex- 
 cellent documents in their days.” 
 
 Separation of church and state early in the develop- 
 ment of American nationalism led, perhaps inevitably, 
 to the almost complete elimination of the religious element 
 from works on American political history. Certainly 
 the American historian carefully omits the religious 
 element from our constitutional history from the time 
 of the achievement of independence. And now even the 
 religious element of the earlier periods is being belittled. 
 
6 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 A modern review of the Pilgrims finds that they came to 
 America not primarily for religious freedom but for 
 gain;! and Puritanism is fast becoming a trade corpora- 
 tion rather than a religious movement. 
 
 One searches in vain through the narrowly political 
 histories of the period covered by this treatise for an appre- 
 clation of religious events and influences. Yet this very 
 period marked a turning point in the politico-religious 
 history of the world. It gave to the world America’s 
 Magna Charta of religious freedom: 
 
 “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office 
 or public trust under the United States.” (Article VI, section 3 of the 
 
 Constitution.) 
 “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 
 or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (First Amendment.) 
 
 Thus the first great experiment in religious liberty is 
 surely a political event of no lesser magnitude for the 
 state than for the churches of America. It fixed a dis- 
 tinctive character to both, well described by Philip 
 Schaff as, “A free church in a free state, a self-supporting 
 and self-governing Christianity in independent but 
 friendly relation to the Civil Government.’’? 
 
 Religion does not disappear in America with the es- 
 tablishment of religious liberty, it is not even eliminated 
 as a political force. Careful observers of American 
 institutions have always found it a powerful element in 
 our political life. Alexis de Tocqueville, one of the most 
 
 1 Usher, The Pilgrims. 
 
 2Schaff, “Church and State in the United States’? in American 
 Historical Association Papers, vol. ii, no. 4, p. 9. ‘This relation of 
 Church and State marks anepoch.... . I know of no ecclesiastical 
 or secular history or special treatise, which gives a satisfactory account of 
 it; and the works on the Constitution of the United States touch only on 
 the legal aspect of the religious clauses, or pass them by altogether.” 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 7 
 
 philosophical foreign observers that has ever visited 
 America, wrote in the presidency of Van Buren: 
 
 “There is no country in the whole world in which the Christian 
 religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, 
 and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to 
 human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the 
 most enlightened and free nation of the earth . . . . In the United 
 States religion exercises but little influence upon the laws and upon the 
 details of public opinion, but it directs the manners of the community, 
 and by regulating domestic life, it regulates the state . . . . . Religion 
 in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must, 
 nevertheless, be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of 
 that country, for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the 
 use of free institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens 
 or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and: to every rank of 
 society. I am certain they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance 
 of republican institutions.” ! 
 
 The ablest analysis and description of American insti- 
 tutions yet written was done by James Bryce in the first 
 administration of Grover Cleveland. He found that: 
 
 “Tt was religious zeal and the religious conscience which led to the 
 founding of the New England Colonies two centuries and a half ago — 
 those colonies whose spirit has in such a large measure passed into the 
 whole nation. Religion and conscience have been a constantly active 
 force in the American commonwealth ever since, not indeed strong 
 enough to avert many moral and political evils, yet at the worst time 
 inspiring a minority with a courage and ardor by which moral and 
 political evils have been held at bay, and in the long run generally 
 overcome. . 
 
 A perusal of the literature which the ordinary American of the educated 
 farming and working class reads, and a study of the kind of literature 
 which those Americans who are least colored by European influences 
 produce, lead me to think that the Bible and Christian theology alto- 
 gether do more in the way of forming the imaginative background to an 
 average American view of the world of man and nature than they do 
 in Modern Protestant Europe. 
 
 1 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, translated by Henry 
 Reeve, N. Y., 1838, vol. i, p. 285 sq. 
 
8 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 It is an old saying that monarchies live by honor and republics by 
 virtue. The more democratic republics become, the more the masses 
 grow conscious of their own power, the more do they need to live, not 
 only by patriotism, but by reverence and self-control, and the more 
 essential to their well-being are those sources whence reverence and 
 self-control flow.” ! 
 
 The religious element has always been a powerful 
 factor in American history and just at present there 
 exists a special need for its restoration to the pages of 
 historical narratives. We are again awake to the problems 
 of the social organism; the disruptive influences of the 
 World War have made us re-examine the elements of our 
 nationalism; we are asking ourselves, “What is Ameri- 
 canism?” We find countless books descriptive of our 
 constitutional form of government; but they are cata- 
 logues of details, descriptions of mechanics, rather than 
 evaluations of the American spirit. Recently a new 
 conception of history has crept into the works of such 
 men as President Lowell, Public Opinion and Popular 
 Government, Herbert Croly, The Promise of American 
 Life, or Walter Lippmann, Preface to Politics. Human 
 society is no longer considered as an organism or a mechan- 
 ism, but rather as the action of men in association, and 
 the state is no longer power or force, but “‘the will to 
 live together.” Dr. J. N. Figgis’ book, Churches in the. 
 Modern State, has become one of the forces in present-day 
 social theory. And the English Guild Socialist, G. D. R. 
 Cole, finds that at present there are ‘“‘three live sources 
 of social theory — the Church, industry, and history.’’? 
 Human nature is being restored to our political concepts. 
 
 1 Bryce, American Commonwealth, vol. ii, Chapter civ, ‘Influence of 
 religion,” pp. 571-583. Also see ‘“‘Democracy and Religion,” Chapter 
 ix, vol.i. Modern Democracies. ‘- 
 
 * Cole, Social Theory, p. 10. 
 
INTRODUCTION 9 
 
 A decade ago it had begun to look as though everything 
 human would be eliminated for social consideration and 
 that men must be considered merely as automatons in 
 a mechanistic state. Individuality, morality, patriotism, 
 freedom, and all things spiritual were eliminated in 
 order to prove an economic determinism. Woodburn 
 could write in 1892, Causes of the American Revolution, 
 “T have not attempted an appreciation of the deep under- 
 lying moral causes of which the Revolution has appeared 
 to many but the natural outcome.”! This method pro- 
 duced, in 1913, An Economic Interpretation of the Consti- 
 tution of the United States, by Charles A. Beard, which 
 concluded: 
 
 “The movement for the Constitution of the United States was origi- 
 nated and carried through principally by four groups of personalty 
 interests which had been adversely affected under the Articles of Con- 
 federation: money, public securities, manufactures, and trade and shipping. 
 
 The direct, impelling motive (for the adoption of the Constitution) . . 
 was the economic advantages which the beneficiaries expected would 
 accrue to themselves first, from their actions. 
 
 The Constitution was essentially an economic document based upon 
 the conception that the fundamental private rights of property are 
 anterior to government and morally beyond the reach of popular 
 majorities.”’ 2 
 
 In 1918, The Colonial Merchants and the Revolution, by 
 A. M. Schlessinger, analyzed with minute care the eco- 
 nomic elements which produced the Revolution.* 
 
 1 Woodburn, Causes of the American Revolution, in Johns Hopkins 
 University Studies, tenth series, vol. xii, p. 608. 
 
 2 Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, pp. 18, 324. 
 
 3 Schlessinger, The Colonial Merchants and the Revolution, in Columbia 
 University Studies, vol. Ixxviii, no. 182. Mcllwain, The American 
 Revolution: A Constitutional Interpretation, thinks that the economic 
 historians themselves have performed a valuable service in dispelling 
 the view that the colonists were trying to throw off a heavy and oppres- 
 sive burden. He contends that the economic historians have read them- 
 selves out of court and that the Revolution was primarily a political 
 constitutional struggle. 
 
10 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 These works by Beard and Schlessinger are invaluable 
 guides for the period of history covered by the present 
 study. There is no intention on the part of the author to 
 minimize the value of the economic factor in determining 
 the early character of Americanism. Its influence was 
 profound, but no more weighty than that of morality, 
 religion, education, patriotism, or countless other elements. 
 Who would estimate the quantitative value of each? 
 Yet in the consideration of relative values several things 
 should be borne in mind. In the first place we are dealing 
 with a period in which the pulpit to a very large extent 
 controlled public opinion; at that time the preacher was 
 the leading politician. Moreover, in the eighteenth 
 century the Industrial Revolution had not yet affected 
 American institutions; and, consequently, the economic 
 forces of 1776 were vastly different from those of the 
 present time, the modern industrial democracy of 1924. 
 In the second place the beginning of a separation of 
 church and state was not made until 1785 and the alliance 
 of church and state was still most powerful, nationalism 
 and religion were everywhere considered as_ interde- 
 pendent. “God and Country,” “Pro Ecclesia et Partia,”’ 
 were typical slogans. To Washington of that age re- 
 ligion and morality were “the indispensable props”’ of 
 political prosperity. “‘With the exception of some parts 
 of Scotland,” says Lecky, “‘no portion of the British 
 Islands was animated with the religious fervor of New 
 England, and no sketch of the American Revolution is 
 adequate which does not take this influence into account.”’! 
 
 It will be found that the relation between religious and 
 political movements in America during the Revolutionary 
 and Critical periods, 1774 to 1789, was intimate. This was 
 
 1 Lecky, History of England in the Eighteenth Century, vol. iii, p. 484. 
 
INTRODUCTION 1] 
 
 the epoch of the appearance of American nationalism. 
 It is true that the germs and origins of most phases of 
 American nationalism may be traced both to the earlier 
 colonial period of American history and indeed even 
 farther back to English habits; yet the fact remains that a 
 consciously open Americanism appears at this time. 
 Independence was the first step toward this Americanism, 
 and we purpose to follow the actions of the various 
 churches of America in their contributions to political 
 independence. This will constitute the first part of the 
 book. 
 
 But independence entailed a reorganization of the 
 churches themselves; they were compelled to adopt new 
 national organism, the churches themselves were national- 
 ized, new church constitutions were formed. The second 
 portion of this book deals with the nationalization of the 
 churches. This process counted much in the creation of a 
 national American conscience; just how much, is the 
 difficult question encountered by this study. Church and 
 state undergo a parallel development in the evolution 
 of American unity. For both a necessity for union and 
 centralization sprang from the separation from Great 
 Britain; the threat of anarchy impelled union for self- 
 preservation, for strength, and general welfare. 
 
 The enthusiasm with which different denominations 
 undertook the work of reformation and the character of 
 the American institution produced, differ greatly, though 
 the phenomenon appears in every one of them. Some, 
 such as the Congregationalists and the Baptists, were 
 already so “independent” that they took naturally to 
 the new régime. In fact, the state seems to many merely 
 to be following a lead which these denominations had 
 already marked. But with them, even, competition with 
 
12 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 the other disestablished bodies, so independent too, and 
 stronger in numbers and discipline, compelled a strengthen- 
 ing of the national bonds; mere independence no longer 
 was a guarantee of strength. The Dutch Reformed and 
 the Presbyterian churches had already organized them- 
 selves on a quasi-national basis as a means of combating 
 foreign spiritual control; these denominations were obliged 
 to strengthen rather than to alter their form of organiza- 
 tion. Some few denominations, the German Reformed, 
 the Moravians and the Quakers, were content to remain 
 for years in a position of subordination to foreign ecclesias- 
 tical control. They refused to profit by the lesson of 
 American independence; they missed a part of the spirit 
 of American nationalism and suffered thereby a conse- 
 quent retardation in their development. ‘Three com- 
 munions, — Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, and Metho- 
 dists — found it imperative that they address them- 
 selves immediately and seriously to the task of a complete 
 ecclesiastical reorganization. They seem alive to all of 
 the possibilities of the situation and it is not surprising 
 to find that they go even so far in certain instances as to 
 accompany ecclesiastical reorganization with efforts at 
 theological alterations which they feel will be more in 
 keeping with the American spirit. It is the more aggres- 
 sive denomination that most vitally affects the corre- 
 sponding political movements for nationalism. 
 
 There is no question but that various churches in- 
 fluenced the formation of our political institutions. 
 Republicanism was well established in the institutions 
 of the Presbyterian and Congregational Churches; its 
 roots may be traced to Calvin. Many members of the 
 Federal Constitutional Convention were trained in their 
 practices of government. The Protestant Episcopal 
 
INTRODUCTION 13 
 
 Church and its near relative, the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, worked out their American Constitutions in 
 advance of the Federal Constitution. The Protestant 
 Episcopal Church was numerically one of the most 
 important churches in America? and certainly it was the 
 most important politically. Many of the men who 
 participated in the Federal Convention had just gone 
 through the process of national constitution-making in 
 the conventions of that church. One cannot help being 
 struck with the similarity of its organization to that of 
 our national government. In like manner, it will be 
 clearly evident to anyone who will compare the two 
 ‘stitutions that to the Roman Catholic College of 
 Cardinals we owe our system for the election of President 
 and Vice-President, — the electoral college. 
 
 American education had a great deal to do with the 
 relative importance of the various denominations in their 
 influence upon institutional development. American 
 colleges had trained a sufficient number of leaders for the 
 American state and for American churches in most 
 denominations. Harvard, William and Mary, King’s 
 College, Brown, Rutgers, Princeton, etc., were church 
 colleges, every one of them, their dual task for America 
 
 1 Baird, Religion in America, pp. 103-104, gives the following estimate 
 
 of the number of ministers and churches of each denomination in America 
 at the time of the Revolution: 
 
 Episcopal 250 clergy 300 churches 
 Presbyterian 177 417 
 Congregational 575 700 
 
 Baptist 4Q4 471 
 Methodist Not a separate body 
 
 Lutheran 25 60 
 
 German Reformed Be 2 Hae 
 
 Dutch Reformed 30 82 
 Associate 13 20 
 Moravian 12 6 or 8 
 
 Roman Catholic 26 59 
 
14 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 was to train both preachers and statesmen. Some of the 
 American churches were handicapped by not possessing 
 colleges on this side of the Atlantic. 
 
 The general character of American ecclesiastical insti- 
 tutions was determined by the development of the period 
 under discussion. All of the churches worked out their 
 national institutions under the stress of mutual jealousies. 
 No one or two sects were strong enough to maintain ex- 
 ceptional pretensions over the others when in combination, 
 and French philosophic thought as interpreted by the 
 searching deistic criticism of such men as Benjamin 
 Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, kept them on their mettle 
 and made them justify every act. All of the churches seem 
 to have felt the effects of the prevalent doctrinaire political 
 theories of Rousseau, Montesquieu, and their contempo- 
 raries. So we find American ecclesiasticism, like the 
 American political state, stamped with the contract theory 
 of government, with the doctrine of separation of powers, 
 and with the ideal of the consent of the governed. These 
 theories we find combined with the more distinctive 
 American principles, which had grown from the early 
 independent movement, — equality of all religious com- 
 munions before the law and non-interference on the part of 
 the state with religion. Above all the Revolution com- 
 pelled distinctively American churches to a complete 
 independence from foreign ecclesiastical control. 
 
 The influence of certain powerfully organized religious 
 bodies, exerting a political influence through the Con- 
 stitutional Convention, where they forced through certain 
 measures which were being opposed by some of the most 
 
 ! Schaff, ‘‘ Church and State in the United States or the American Idea 
 of Religious Liberty and its Practical Effects” in Papers of the American 
 Historical Association, vol. ii, no. 4. 
 
INTRODUCTION 15 
 
 powerful economic interests in America, demonstrates the 
 power of the church at this period. The Anti-slavery 
 clauses of the Constitution may be attributed to the 
 “religious fanaticism”’ of Quakers, Methodists, Baptists, — 
 and various other church organizations. 
 
 It is comparatively easy to recognize religious influences 
 where they have produced tangible institutional results, 
 but we must always hold in mind the more difficult prob- 
 lem of forming an estimation of the influence which they 
 had in the formation of an American spirit. Independence 
 cleared the way for tue Americanization of all the forces of 
 American life. Before a real nation could be produced, 
 each of the elements must be brought into harmony with 
 national ideals. Nationalization is the chief feature of all 
 institutional development for the period under discussion. 
 Uncertainty as to its outcome makes of this a “critical 
 period.” Possibly the relative importance of the national 
 movement among the American churches is disclosed by 
 the priority of its achievement. Church unity, attained, 
 exerted a great influence, through its almost complete 
 control over public opinion, in inducing nationalization 
 along other lines. Alexander Hamilton was able to produce 
 American financial unity only after he had assisted at the 
 unification of first his church and then his political govern- 
 ment. 
 

 
BAK DOWN E 
 
 RELIGIOUS ELEMENTS OF THE AMERICAN 
 REVOLUTION 
 
iia | 
 iis i 
 ee 
 
 Af 
 
 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN 
 THE REVOLUTION 
 
 It is exceedingly dangerous to fix formulae representa- 
 tive of the conduct of the various religious denominations 
 of America with respect to the Revolution. It has been 
 attempted and we read that Quakers were “non-combatant 
 and inactive,” that Episcopalians were “pro-English,” 
 and that Methodists “‘imitating John Wesley, denounced 
 the revolting Americans.”! Such phrases are misleading 
 and true only for certain specific cases. Quakers seceded 
 in order to form a militant party, “‘Free Quakers,” 
 Anglicans accepted positions of danger and responsibility 
 with the revolting colonies and Methodists volunteered in 
 great numbers for active service. Clergy and laity of 
 every denomination were in confusion as to their patriotic 
 and religious duties. 
 
 To a Lutheran clergyman, Dr. Helmuth, the situation in 
 Philadelphia, as he observed it, was as follows: 
 
 “Throughout the whole country great preparations are making for 
 the war, and almost every person is under arms. The ardor manifested 
 in these melancholy circumstances is indescribable. If a hundred men 
 are required, many more immediately offer, and are dissatisfied when 
 they are not accepted. I know of no similar case in history. Neigh- 
 borhoods, concerning which it would have been expected that years 
 would be required to induce them voluntarily to take up arms, became 
 
 1De Witt, First General Assembly or Thomson, The Presbyterian 
 Churches in the United States, p. 56, “The Congregationalists, Presbyter- 
 ians, Reformed, Lutherans and Baptists as a whole were on the patriotic 
 side, while the Episcopalians and the Methodists in the main sided with 
 the mother-country, which also possessed the sympathy and quiet co- 
 operation of the majority of the Friends.”’ 
 
20 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 strongly inclined for war as soon as the battle of Lexington was known. 
 Quakers and Mennonites take part in the military exercises, and in great 
 numbers renounce their former religious principles. The hoarse din of 
 war is hourly heard in our streets. The present disturbances inflict no 
 small injury on religion. Everybody is constantly on the alert, anxious 
 like the ancient Athenians, to hear the news, and, amid the mass of 
 news, the hearts of men are, Alas, closed against the Good Word of God. 
 The Lord is chastening the people, but they do not feel it . 
 
 In the American army there are many clergymen, who serve both as 
 chaplains and as officers. I know two, one of whom is a colonel, and the 
 other a captain. The whole-country is in perfect enthusiasm for liberty. 
 The whole population, from New England to Georgia, is of one mind, and 
 determined to risk life and all things in defence of liberty. The few who 
 think differently are not permitted to utter their sentiments. In Phil- 
 adelphia the English and German students are formed into military 
 companies, wear uniforms, and are exercised like regular troops. Would 
 to God that men would become as zealous and unanimous in asserting 
 their spiritual liberty, as they are in vindicating their political freedom.” ? 
 
 And John Adams wrote to his wife from Philadelphia: 
 
 “Does Mr. Wibird preach against oppression and the other cardinal 
 vices of the time? Tell him the clergy here of every denomination, not 
 excepting the Episcopalians, thunder and lighten every Sabbath. They 
 pray for Boston and Massachusetts. They thank God most explicitly 
 and fervently for our remarkable successes. They pray for the American 
 Army.” ? 
 
 Among all sects in America there was a religious en- 
 thusiasm for Liberty; the religious temper of America 
 was one of the prime causes of the Revolution. Edmund 
 Burke so informed Parliament. The Americans, he said, 
 were not only Protestants, but Protestants against 
 Protestantism itself. They were dissenters from the 
 Church of England; they were Puritans, Congregationalists, 
 Presbyterians, Baptists, and Quakers. Their ancestors, 
 persecuted in England, had fled to America and they hated 
 
 1 Schmucker, Retrospection of Lutheranism in the United States quoting 
 a letter in the Hallische Nachrichten, pp. 1367-8; Baird, op. cit. pp. 102- 
 
 103. 
 2 Letters of John Adams, Addressed to his Wife, vol. i, p. 50. 
 
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH Q)1 
 
 the English Church. In their religious beliefs and prac- 
 tices, they had advanced beyond all other Protestants in 
 the liberty of the Reformation. They had rejected so 
 many dogmas and sacraments that they were more free 
 in their religion than most of the people of Europe. 
 They had trained and accustomed themselves to the 
 freest and most subtile debate on all religious questions, 
 regardless of priests, councils, or creeds; and they had 
 encouraged this individualism until even the women 
 thought for themselves, and it was said that every man’s 
 hat was his church. Such simple church organization 
 as they possessed was democratic like that of the Baptist 
 and Congregationalists, or republican like that of the 
 Presbyterians. The people had learned to elect their 
 own religious leaders, — called them and also dismissed 
 them when they failed to please the majority. Such 
 religious liberty naturally led to extreme political liberalism; 
 why should the right of private judgment allowed for 
 religious matters be denied in things political? 
 
 Perhaps these characteristics applied more uniformly to 
 New Englanders or to Scotch-Irish Presbyterians of the 
 frontier but we find churchmen of Virginia as ardent for 
 independence as the most fiery frontier Scot. Anglican 
 Americans such as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, or 
 Mason had outgrown any religious autocracy, and the 
 Roman Catholics such as the Carrolls had imbibed the 
 same spirit of liberty.! 
 
 True, there remained in America a party, Tory in the 
 extreme, more reactionary than could be found in the old 
 world, to whom all democratic or republican doctrines 
 were anathema and who would restore religious along 
 with political autocracy. It worked openly for the ad- 
 
 1 Fisher, Struggle for American Independence, vol. i, pp. 18-19. 
 
29 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 advancement of such policies, and fear that their efforts 
 might be crowned with success was a potent cause in 
 bringing on the war. An ever impending threat of 
 “Kcclesiasticism” was one of the chief grievances of 
 New England.! The Agents of France in the colonies of 
 America, such as DeKalb and Bon Vouloir, found in the 
 religious situation such an element of disaffection towards 
 the mother country that they counseled the French 
 government to foster this as the surest force capable of 
 arousing public opinion to such a degree as to produce a 
 rupture with Great Britain.? 
 
 The charge of “Ecclesiasticism”’ prevented the mass of 
 Americans from understanding the position of the Ameri- 
 can Anglicans. The colonial branches of the Church of 
 England were without local authority; they were entirely 
 dependent on the Bishop of London and the Society for 
 the Propagation of the Gospel. Consequently at frequent 
 intervals they would agitate the establishment of an 
 episcopate in America. It never seems to have been 
 recognized by their opponents in America that this was 
 in reality a step toward independence, that therein the 
 Episcopalians were indulging the American desire for 
 ‘Home Rule”. Every effort of theirs in this direction met 
 with vigorous opposition from their Presbyterian and 
 Congregational fellow countrymen. In fact we find these 
 two sects held joint conferences between the years 1766 and 
 1775 with the avowed main object, “to prevent the 
 establishment of an Episcopacy in America.”2 
 
 ‘“Ecclesiasticism,”’ however, to these sects was a real, 
 not a fictitious, peril. The joint assemblies which it 
 
 ‘Supra, p. 3; Chamberlain, John Adams, pp. 17-45. 
 
 * Cornelis De Witt, La Vie de Thomas J efferson; Abbé Robin, A New 
 Journey in North America; Correspondence of De Kalb. 
 
 3 Infra, pp. 68-71. 
 
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 23 
 
 instigated did much to forward the union of the colonies, — 
 even indirectly political union. As Pre-Revolutionary 
 national gatherings of colonies, they influenced for union 
 to a greater degree than any other body, not excepting the 
 transient Albany Congress which is so stressed in all our 
 histories. They afforded a training in the utilization of 
 national institutions and they repeatedly asserted that 
 they existed, not for narrowly religious motives, but to 
 oppose the introduction into America through bishops, 
 of those political powers which the clergy in England 
 possessed. 
 
 In A View of the Causes and Consequences of the American 
 Revolution, by Jonathan Boucher, a reprint of thirteen 
 discourses preached in North America between the years 
 1763 and 1775, published in London 1797 and dedicated 
 to George Washington, we possess an excellent exposition 
 of the mind of the extreme Anglican Tory clergyman on 
 the eve of the Revolution. To the Reverend Mr. 
 Boucher: 
 
 “A leveling republican spirit in the church naturally leads to republi- 
 canism in the State.”! . . . . “God forbid any of us should live to 
 see the day when we may be convinced of the truth of King James’ 
 maxim — ‘No bishop, no king’ and when this dominion, now the fair 
 image of one of the best governments upon the earth, shall be so degene- 
 rate and mean as to become the ape of New England in her civil insti- 
 tutions, and therefore too likely to follow the same wretched model in 
 what the people of New England call the platform of religion. And when 
 it is recollected, that till now, the opposition to an American episcopate 
 has been confined chiefly to the demagogues and independents of the 
 New England provinces, but that it is now espoused with much warmth 
 by the people of Virginia, it requires no great depths of political sagacity 
 to see what the motives and views of the former have been, or what will 
 be the consequences of the defection of the latter.’’ 2 
 
 1 Boucher, A View of the Causes and Consequences of the American 
 Revolution, p. 104. 
 2 Ibid., pp. 102-103. 
 
Q4 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 These views were expressed in America In a sermon, 
 “On the American Episcopate,” delivered in 1771. In 
 editing this isgLondon in 1797, he added: 
 
 “Tt by no means follows that episcopacy was thus opposed from its 
 having been thought by these trans-Atlantic oppositionists as in any 
 respect in itself proper to be opposed; but it served to keep the public 
 mind in a state of ferment and effervescence; to make them jealous and 
 superstitious of all measures not brought forward by demagogues; and, 
 above all, to train and habituate the people to opposition . . . . . 
 
 That the American opposition to episcopacy was at all connected with 
 that still more serious one so soon afterwards set up against the civil 
 government was not indeed generally apparent at the time; but it is now 
 indisputable, as it also is that the former contributed not a little to render 
 the latter successful. As therefore this controversy was clearly one great 
 cause that led to the revolution, the view of it here given, it is hoped, will 
 not be deemed wholly uninteresting. 
 
 Hardly was their independence gained before an episcopate was applied 
 for and obtained; an episcopate in every point of view as obnoxious as 
 that which the same men, who were now its chief promoters, and who 
 were also the most forward in the revolution, had just before so violently 
 resisted.” ! 
 
 Tiffany thinks that “‘the sudden collapse of all such 
 opposition after the Revolution . . . . . shows that 
 the popular objection to the introduction of bishops was 
 chiefly political.”? Certainly it was a widespread oppo- 
 sition. In Parliament Lord Chatham remarked, “‘ Divided 
 as they are into a thousand forms of polity and religion, 
 there is one point in which they all agree: they: equally 
 detest the pageantry of a king and the supercilious hypoc- 
 risy of a bishop.”? John Adams wrote to Dr. Jedediah 
 Morse, December 2, 1815: 
 
 ‘‘ Where is the man to be found at this day, when we see Methodistical 
 bishops, bishops of the Church of England, and bishops, archbishops, and 
 
 ‘Boucher, op. cit., pp. 149-151; Chamberlain John Adams, p. 37; 
 Perry, American Episcopal Church, vol. i, p. 425, note 4. 
 
 Tiffany, Protestant Episcopal Church, p. 277. 
 
 > Quoted in Perry, American Episcopal Church, vol. i, p. 412. 
 
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 95 
 
 Jesuits of the Church of Rome, with indifference, who will believe that the 
 apprehension of the Episcopacy contributed fifty years ago, as much as 
 any other cause, to arouse the attention not only of the inquiring mind, 
 but of the common people, and urge them to close thinking on the con- 
 stitutional authority of Parliament over the Colonies? This, neverthe- 
 less, was a fact as certain as any in the history of North America. The 
 objection was not merely to the office of a bishop, though even that was 
 dreaded, but to the authority of Parliament, on which it must be founded 
 
 . There is no power or pretended power, less than Parliament, 
 that can create bishops in America. But if Parliament can erect dioceses 
 and appoint bishops, they may introduce the whole hierarchy, establish 
 tithes, forbid marriages and funerals, establish religions, forbid dissenters, 
 make schism heresy, impose penalties extending to life and limb as well as 
 to liberty and property.” ! 
 
 Loyal Episcopalian sermons for the period are rare; 
 they were delivered under difficulties and their preserva- 
 tion is hardly to have been expected. The Reverend 
 Boucher informs us of some of the difficulties attending 
 their delivery: 
 
 “T received letters threatening me with the most dreadful conse- 
 quences if I did not desist from preaching at all. All the answers I gave 
 to these threats were in my sermons, in which I declared I could never 
 suffer any human authority to intimidate me from doing what I believed 
 to be my duty to God and His church; and for more than six months I 
 preached, when I did preach, with a pair of loaded pistols lying on the 
 cushion; having given notice that if any one attempted, what had long 
 been threatened, to drag me out of the pulpit, I should think myself 
 justified in repelling violence by violence. Some time after, a public fast 
 was ordained; and on this occasion my curate, who was a strong republi- 
 can, had prepared a sermon for the occasion, and supported by a set of 
 . factious men, was determined to oppose my entering my own pulpit. 
 When the day came, I was at my church at least a quarter of an hour be- 
 fore the time of beginning; but, behold, Mr. Harrison was in the desk, and 
 was expected, I was soon told, to preach. In addition to this, I saw my 
 church filled with not less than two hundred armed men under the 
 command of Mr. Osborne Sprigg, who soon told me I was not to preach. 
 I returned for answer that there was but one way by which they could 
 keep me out of it, and that was by taking away my life. At the proper 
 
 1 John Adams, Works, vol. x, p. 185; Morse, Annals of the American 
 Revolution, pp. 197-203. 
 
26 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 time, with my sermon in one hand and a loaded pistol in the other, like 
 Nehemiah I prepared to ascend my pulpit, when one of my friends, Mr. 
 David Cranford, having got behind me, threw his arms round me and 
 held me fast. He assured me that he had heard the most positive orders 
 given to twenty men picked out for that purpose, to fire on me, the 
 moment I got into the pulpit, which therefore he never would permit me 
 to do, unless I was stronger than himself and some others who stood close 
 to him. I maintained that once to flinch was forever to invite danger; 
 but my well-wishers prevailed, and, when I was down, it is horrid to 
 recollect what a scene of confusion ensued. Sprigg and his company 
 contrived to surround me and to exclude every moderate man. Seeing 
 myself thus circumstanced, it occurred to me that there was but one 
 way to save my life, — this was by seizing Sprigg, as I immediately did, 
 by the collar, and with my cocked pistol in the other hand, assuring him 
 that if any violence were offered to me, I would instantly blow his 
 brains out. I then told him he might conduct me to my house, and I 
 would leave them. This he did, and we marched together upwards of a 
 hundred yards, guarded by his whole company — whom he had the 
 meanness to order to play the rogues’ march all the way we went. Thus 
 ended this dreadful day, which was a Thursday. On the following Sunday 
 I again went to the same church, and was again opposed, but more 
 feebly than before. I preached the sermon I should have preached on 
 the Thursday, with some comments on the transactions of the day.” ! 
 
 Boucher’s sermons thoroughly illustrate the aristocrat’s 
 contempt for the American doctrine of equality. He 
 pontificated in opposition thereto as follows: 
 
 “that the whole human race is born equal; and that no man is naturally 
 inferior, or in any respect subjected to another; and that he can be made 
 subject to another only by his own consent. The position is equally ill- 
 founded and false; both in its premises and conclusions. In hardly any 
 sense that can be imagined, is the position strictly true; but, as applied to 
 the case under consideration, it is demonstrably not true. Man differs - 
 from man in everything that can be supposed to lead to supremacy and 
 subjection . . . . . Without government, there can be no society; 
 nor, without some relative inferiority and superiority, can there be any 
 government.” ? “It surely was something more than ridiculous, when. 
 
 ' Boucher, “‘Autobiography”’ in Notes and Queries, 5th series, vol. i, 
 pp. 103-104; quoted Tyler, Literary History of the American Revolution, 
 vol. 1, pp. 318-320. 
 
 * Boucher, A View of. the Causes and Consequences of the American 
 ™~solube, np. 514-515. 
 
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH QT 
 
 not long since, a popular candidate at one of our elections solicited your 
 suffrages in his favor, on the plea of his being, as to his political tenets, a 
 Whig, and the advocate of revolution principles, and in religion a Low- 
 churchman. If folly can ever excuse audacity, this man’s utter ignorance 
 of the terms he used, may be admitted as some apology for his presump- 
 tion. 94 
 
 The Reverend Boucher was a clergyman of Virginia. 
 
 Hawkes states of Episcopalians of this colony, 
 
 “The clergy were generally friends to the mother country — attached 
 to it by the circumstances of birth, and bound as they were individually 
 by the oath of allegiance. A portion of the laity adopted their opinions; 
 it was, however, very small, for the great mass of the population in 
 Virginia was opposed to England. Nor were all the clergy loyalists; 
 they numbered in their ranks some sturdy republicans, though these 
 formed a minority, including not quite one-third of the whole body 
 
 . . . Bishop Madison, Messers Bracken, Belmaine, Buchanan, 
 Jarratt, Griffith, Muhlenberg, Thurston and Davis. Of the laity were 
 General Washington, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, F. L. Lee, 
 Mason, Pendleton, Lyons, Grayson, Harrison, Carrington, Fleming, 
 Nelson, Randolph, Meade, Mercer and hundreds of other names, 
 deservedly dear to Virginia.” ? 
 
 The clergy of New England and New York were more 
 inclined to loyalty to the mother country than were their 
 Southern brethren. Dr. Leaming wrote from Norwalk, 
 
 Connecticut: 
 
 “The missionaries being placed in this clones is not only very service- 
 able in a religious, but in a civil sense. In the north-east of this colony 
 there have been most rebellious outrages committed on account of the 
 Stamp Act, while those towns where the Church has got a footing, have 
 calmly submitted to civil authority. It is said that Mayhew, the day 
 before the mob pulled down the Deputy-governor’s house, preached 
 sedition from these words; ‘I would they were even cut off that trouble 
 you!’ He has abused the Church with impunity, and perhaps he thinks 
 he may escape in abusing the State also.’ ® 
 
 Mr. Beach wrote from the same Colony: 
 
 “T have of late, taken pains to warn my people against having any 
 concern in the seditious tumults with relation to the Stamp-duty, en- 
 
 1 Boucher, A View of the Causes, etc., p. 98. 
 2 Hawks, Ecclesiastical H istory of the United States, vol. i, pp. 135-137 
 3 Beardsley, Episcopal Church in Connecticut, vol. i, p. 240. 
 
Ys NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 joined upon us by the Legislature at home; and I can with truth and 
 pleasure say, that I cannot discover the least inclination toward rebel- 
 lious conduct in any of the church people here . . . . . I wish I 
 could say the same of all sects in these parts.” ? 
 
 While Mr. Lamson sent word from Fairfield: 
 
 “Tn a time of anarchy and disloyalty in this country, the professors of 
 the Church of England have in general, throughout the Province of New 
 England, distinguished themselves by a peaceable submission and quiet 
 deportment. The missionaries have exerted themselves upon the occasion 
 in exhorting their own congregations and others to peace, and a due sub- 
 mission to authority; by which means we have been exposed to the 
 calumny and insult of the enemies of the Church and State. Some of us 
 have been threatened with having our houses pulled down over our 
 heads, though as yet they have kept themselves, in this part of the 
 country, from acts of open violence.” ” 
 
 The Memoir of the Reverend John Stuart, D.D., of 
 New York states: 
 
 “No class was so uncompromising in its loyalty as the clergy of the 
 Church of England in this State; and they in consequence did not fail 
 to experience the bitter effects of their own unwise resolution.” $ 
 
 An illuminating description of the position of the 
 colonial clergy of the Church of England comes from the 
 Reverend Charles Inglis, of Trinity Church, New York, 
 under date of October 31, 1776, in a report submitted to 
 the Venerable Society relative to conditions in the colonies, 
 but with particular reference to Trinity Parish: 
 
 ** All the Society’s Missionaries, without excepting one, in New Jersey, 
 New York, Connecticut, and, so far as I can learn, in the other New 
 England Colonies, have proved themselves faithful, loyal subjects in 
 these trying times; and have, to the utmost of their power, opposed the 
 spirit of disaffection and rebellion which has involved this continent in 
 the greatest calamities. I must add, that all the other clergy of our 
 Church in the above Colonies, though not in the Society’s service, have 
 
 1 Beardsley, op. cit., vol. i, p. 241. 
 2 Tbid., vol. 1, p. 242. 
 3 Documentary History of New York, vol. iv, p. 508. 
 
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 99 
 
 observed the same line of conduct, and, although their joint endeavors 
 could not wholly prevent the rebellion, yet they checked it considerably 
 for some time, and prevented many thousands from plunging into it, who 
 otherwise would certainly have done so. 
 
 You have, doubtless, been long since informed by my worthy friends, 
 Dr. Chandler and Dr. Cooper, to what an height our violences were 
 risen so early as May 1775, when they were both obliged to fly from 
 hence, and seek protection in England. These violences have been 
 gradually increasing ever since; and this, with the delay of sending over 
 succors, and the king’s troops totally abandoning this province, reduced 
 the friends of government here to a most disagreeable and dangerous 
 situation, particularly the Clergy, who were viewed with peculiar envy 
 and malignity by the disaffected; for, although civil liberty was the 
 ostensible object, the bait that was flung out to catch the populace at 
 large and engage them in the rebellion, yet it is now past all doubt that 
 an abolition of the Church of England was one of the principal springs of 
 the dissenting leaders’ conduct; and hence the unanimity of dissenters in 
 this business. Their universal defection from government, emancipating 
 themselves from the jurisdiction of Great Britain, and becoming inde- 
 pendent, was a necessary step towards this grand object. I have it from 
 good authority that the Presbyterian ministers, at a synod where most 
 of them in the middle colonies were collected, passed a resolve to support 
 the continental congress in all their measures.! This and this only can 
 account for the uniformity of their conduct; for I do not know one of 
 them, nor have I been able, after strict inquiry, to hear of any, who did 
 not, by preaching and every effort in their power, promote all the meas- 
 ures of the congress, however extravagant. 
 
 The Clergy, amidst this scene of tumult and disorder, went on steadily 
 with their duty; in their sermons, confining themselves to the doctrines of 
 the Gospel, without touching on politics; using their influence to allay 
 our heats and cherish a spirit of loyalty among the people. This conduct, 
 however harmless, gave great offence to our flaming patriots, who laid 
 it down as a maxim, ‘That those who were not for them were against 
 them.’ The Clergy were everywhere threatened, often reviled with the 
 most opprobrious language, sometimes treated with violence. Some 
 have been carried prisoners by armed mobs into distant provinces, where 
 they were detained in close confinement for several weeks, and much 
 insulted, without any crime being even alleged against them. Some have 
 been flung into jails by committees for frivolous suspicions of plots, of 
 which even their persecutors afterwards acquitted them. Some who were 
 obliged to fly their own province to save their lives have been taken 
 prisoners, sent back, and are threatened to be tried for their lives be- 
 
 1 Infra., p. 76. 
 
30 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 cause they fled from danger. Some have been pulled out of the reading 
 desk because they prayed for the king, and that before independency was 
 declared. Others have been warned to appear at militia musters with 
 their arms, have been fined for not appearing and threatened with im- 
 prisonment for not paying those fines. Others have had their houses 
 plundered, and their desks broken open under pretence of their con- 
 taining treasonable papers. 
 
 Thus matters continued; the clergy proceeding regularly in the dis- 
 charge of their duty where the hand of violence did not interfere, until 
 the beginning of last July, when the congress thought proper to make an 
 explicit declaration of independency . ae 
 
 This declaration increased the embarrassments of the clergy. To 
 officiate publicly, and not pray for the king and royal family according 
 to the liturgy, was against their duty and oath, as well as dictates of their 
 conscience; and yet to use the prayers for the king and royal family 
 would have drawn inevitable destruction on them. The only course 
 which they could pursue, to avoid both evils, was to suspend the public 
 exercise of their function, and shut up their churches. 
 
 This, accordingly was done. It is very remarkable that, although the 
 clergy of those provinces I have mentioned did not, and, indeed, could 
 not consult each other on this interesting occasion, yet they all fell upon 
 the same method in shutting up their churches. The venerable Mr. 
 Beach, of Connecticut, only is to be excepted, if my information be 
 right, who officiated as usual after independency was declared . 
 
 All the churches in Connecticut (Mr. Beach’s excepted... . . ) as 
 well as those in this province, except in this city, Long Island, and Staten 
 Island, where his Majesty’s arms have penetrated, are now shut up. 
 This is also the case with every church in New Jersey; and I am informed 
 by a gentleman lately returned from Pennsylvania, who had been a 
 prisoner there for some times, that the churches in the several missions of 
 that province are shut up, one or two excepted, where the prayers for the 
 king and royal family are omitted. The churches in Philadelphia are 
 open. How matters are circumstanced in the more southerly colonies, 
 I cannot learn with any certainty; only that the provincial convention of 
 Virginia have taken upon themselves to publish an edict, by which some 
 collects for the king are to be wholly omitted in the liturgy, and others 
 altered, the word ‘commonwealth’ being substituted for the ‘king’. For 
 my part, I never expected much good of those clergy among them who 
 opposed an American episcopate. If such should now renounce their 
 allegiance, and abandon their duty, it is no more than what might 
 naturally be looked for. There are, however, several worthy clergymen 
 in those provinces, some of whom I hear have taken sanctuary in England, 
 particularly from Maryland. This province, although the most loyal and 
 
 a 
 
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 31 
 
 peaceable of any of the continent, by a strange fatality is become the 
 scene of war, and suffers most. This city, especially, has a double 
 portion of the calamities brought on by the present rebellion; and per- 
 haps a brief detail of our situation for some months past, may gratity 
 curiosity, and convey to the Society the clearest idea of the state of 
 things here. Upon General Howe’s departure from Boston to Halifax, 
 early in the last spring, the rebel army was drawn to this city, which they 
 fortified, in the best manner they could, expecting it would be attacked. 
 
 Dr. Auchmuty, the rector, being much indisposed during the spring 
 and summer, retired with his family to Brunswick, in New Jersey; and 
 the care of the churches, in his absence, of course devolved on me, as the 
 oldest assistant —a situation truly difficult and trying in such times, 
 especially as the other assistants were young and inexperienced, though 
 very loyal, and otherwise worthy young men. 
 
 About the middle of April, Mr. Washington, commander-in-chief of 
 
 the rebel forces, came to town with a large reinforcement. Animated by 
 his presence, and, I suppose, encouraged by him, the rebel committees 
 very much harassed the loyal inhabitants here and on Long Island. 
 They were summoned before those committees, and, upon refusing to 
 give up their arms and take the oaths that were tendered, they were 
 imprisoned or sent into banishment. An army was sent to Long Island. 
 to disarm the inhabitants who were distinguished for their loyalty. 
 Many had their property destroyed, and more were carried off prisoners. 
 It should be observed, that members of the Church of England were the 
 only sufferers on this occasion. The members of the Dutch church are 
 very numerous there, and many of them joined in opposing the rebellion; 
 yet no notice was taken of them nor the least injury done to them . 
 At the present time, there are many hundreds from this city and province 
 prisoners in New England; and among these the mayor of New York, 
 several judges and members of his Majesty’s council, with other re- 
 spectable inhabitants. 
 
 Soon after Washington’s arrival, he attended our church; but on the 
 Sunday morning, before divine service began, one of the rebel generals 
 called at the rector’s house (supposing the latter was in town,) and not 
 finding him, left word that he came to inform the rector that ‘General 
 Washington would be at the church, and would be glad if the violent 
 prayers for the king and royal family were omitted.’ This message was 
 brought to me, and, as you may suppose, I paid no regard to it. 
 
 On seeing that general not long after, I remonstrated against the un- 
 reasonableness of his request, which he must know the clergy could not 
 comply with; and told him further, that it was in his power to shut up 
 our churches, but by no means in his power to make ‘the clergy depart 
 from their duty.’ This declaration drew from him an awkward apology 
 
32 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 for his conduct, which I believe was not authorized by Washington. 
 Such incidents would not be worth mentioning, unless to give those who 
 are at a distance a better idea of the spirit of the times. 
 
 May 17th was appointed by the congress as a day of public fasting, 
 prayer, and humiliation throughout the continent. At the unanimous 
 request of the members of our Church who were then in town, I consented 
 to preach that day; and, indeed, our situation made it highly prudent, 
 though a submission to an authority that was so far usurped was ex- 
 ceedingly grating and disagreeable. In giving notice the preceding 
 Sunday, I only mentioned that there would be a sermon on the ensuing 
 Friday, which was the 17th, without saying anything of the reason, or by 
 what authority. It was exceedingly difficult for a loyal clergyman to 
 preach on such an occasion, and not incur danger on the one hand, or not 
 depart from his duty on the other. I endeavored to avoid both, making 
 peace and repentance my subject, and explicitly disclaimed having any- 
 thing to do with politics. This sermon, in the composition of which I 
 took some pains, I intend to publish for various reasons, should I be able 
 to recover it from the place where it now is, with all my books and papers, 
 in the country. The several churches in this province (except two, where 
 the clergymen thought they might without danger omit service), and so 
 far as I can learn, through all the thirteen united colonies, as they are 
 called, were opened on this occasion. 
 
 Matters became now critical here in the highest degree. The rebel 
 army amounted to near 30,000. All their cannon and military stores 
 were drawn hither, and they boasted that the place was impregnable- 
 The mortifications and alarms which the clergy met with were innumer- 
 able. I have frequently heard myself called a Tory, and traitor to my 
 country, as I passed the streets, and epithets joined to each, which de- 
 cency forbids me to set down. Violent threats were thrown out against 
 us, in case the king were any longer prayed for. One Sunday, when I was 
 officiating, and had proceeded some length in the service, a company of 
 about one hundred armed rebels marched into the church, with drums 
 beating and fifes playing, their guns loaded and bayonets fixed, as if 
 going to battle. The congregation was thrown into the utmost terror, 
 and several women fainted, expecting a massacre was intended. I took 
 no notice of them, and went on with the service, only exerted my voice, 
 which was in some measure drowned by the noise and tumult. The 
 rebels stood thus in the aisle for near fifteen minutes, till, being asked into 
 pews by the sexton, they complied. Still, however, the people expected 
 that, when the collects for the king and royal family were read, I should 
 be fired at, as menaces to that purpose had been frequently flung out. 
 The matter, however, passed over without any accident. Nothing of this 
 kind happened before or since, which made it more remarkable. I was 
 
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 83 
 
 afterwards assured that something hostile and violent was intended; 
 but He that stills the raging of the sea, and madness of the people, over- 
 ruled their purpose, whatever it was. 
 
 In the beginning of July, independency was declared: as this event was 
 what I long had expected, I had maturely considered, and was determined, 
 what line of conduct to pursue. General Howe had arrived some time 
 before from Halifax, as did Lord Howe from England. They had taken 
 possession of Staten Island, where the fleet lay in sight of this city, at 
 the distance of nine miles; and only waited the arrival of the fleet from 
 England, to make a descent and reduce New York. This circumstance 
 pointed out still more clearly what part I should act. However, I thought 
 it was proper to consult such of the vestry as were in town, and others of 
 the congregation, and have their concurrence; and I must do them the 
 justice to say, that they were all unanimous for shutting up the Churches; 
 and chose rather to submit to that temporary inconvenience, than, by 
 omitting the prayers for the king, give that mark of disaffection to their 
 sovereign. To have prayed for him, had been rash to the last degree — 
 the inevitable consequence had been a demolition of the churches, and 
 the destruction of all who frequented them. The whole rebel force was 
 collected here, and the most violent partizans from all parts of the con- 
 tinent. A fine equestrian statue of the king was pulled down, and 
 totally demolished, immediately after independency was declared. 
 All the king’s arms, even those on signs of taverns, were destroyed. 
 The committee sent me a message, which I esteemed a favor and in- 
 dulgence, to have the king’s arms taken down in the church, or else the 
 mob would do it, and might deface and injure the churches. I im- 
 mediately complied. People were not at liberty to speak their sentiments, 
 and even silence was constructed as a mark of disaffection. 
 
 Things being thus situated, I shut up the churches. Even this was 
 attended with great hazard; for it was declaring, in the strongest manner, 
 our disapprobation of independency, and that under the eye of Washing- 
 ton and his army. The other assistants now went to their respective 
 friends in the country . . . . . I remained in the city, to visit the 
 sick, baptize children, bury the dead, and afford what support I could to 
 the remains of our poor flock, who were much dispirited; for several, 
 especially of the poorer sort, had it not in their power to leave the city. 
 After we had ceased to officiate publicly, several of the rebel officers sent 
 to me for the keys of the churches, that their chaplains might preach in 
 them; with these requisitions I peremptorily refused to comply, and let 
 them know that, ‘if they would use the churches, they must break the 
 gates and doors to get it.’ Accordingly, I took possession of all the 
 keys, lest the sextons might be tampered with; for I could not bear the 
 thought that their seditious and rebellious effusions should be poured out 
 
34 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 in our churches. When those requisitions were repeated with threats, my 
 answer was, ‘that I did what I knew to be my duty, and that I would 
 adhere to it, be the consequences what they would.’ Upon this they 
 desisted, and did not occupy the churches. 
 
 T cannot reflect on my situation at that time, without the warmest 
 emotions of gratitude to Divine Providence for preserving me. I was 
 watched with a jealous, suspicious eye. Besides the imputation of being 
 notoriously disaffected — an imputation which had flung others in jail 
 without any other crime, — I was known and pointed at as the author 
 of several pieces against the proceedings of the congress. In February 
 last, I wrote an answer to a pamphlet entitled, ‘Comon Sense,’ which 
 earnestly recommended and justified independency. It was one of the 
 most virulent, artful, and pernicious pamphlets I ever met with, and 
 perhaps the wit of man could not devise one better calculated to do 
 mischief. It seduced thousands. At the risk, not only of my liberty, but 
 also of my life, I drew up an answer, and had it printed here; but the 
 answer was no sooner advertised, than the whole impression was seized 
 by the sons of liberty and burnt. I then sent a copy to Philadelphia, 
 where it was printed, and soon went through the second edition. This 
 answer was laid to my charge, and swelled the catalogue of my political 
 transgressions. In short, I was in the utmost danger, and it is to the 
 overruling hand of Providence that I attribute my deliverance and safety. 
 With difficulty I stood my ground till about the middle of August, when 
 almost all who were suspected of disaffection were taken up and sent 
 prisoners to New England. I therefore found it necessary to return to 
 Flushing on Long Island; but I had not sooner left that place, than the 
 committee met, and entered into a debate about seizing me. This 
 obliged me to shift my quarters, and keep as private as possible, till the 
 27th of that month, when General Howe defeated the rebels on Long 
 Island, which set me and many others at liberty. 
 
 On Sunday, the 15th of September, General Howe, with the king’s 
 forces, landed on New York Island, four miles above the city; upon 
 which the rebels abandoned the city, and retired towards King’s Bridge, 
 which joins this island to the continent. Early on Monday morning, 
 the 16th, I returned to the city, which exhibited a most melancholy ap- 
 pearance, being deserted and pillaged. My house was plundered of 
 everything by the rebels. My loss amounts to near 200 pounds this cur- 
 rency, or upwards of 100 pounds sterling. The rebels carried off all the 
 bells in the city, partly to convert them into cannon, partly to prevent 
 notice being given speedily of the destruction they meditated against the 
 city by fire, when it began. On Wednesday, I opened one of the churches, 
 and solemnized Divine Service, when all the inhabitants gladly attended, 
 
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 35 
 
 and joy was lighted up in every countenance on the restoration of our 
 public worship; for very few remained but such as were members of our 
 Church. Each congratulated himself and others on the prospect of re- 
 turning peace and security; but alas! the enemies of peace were secretly 
 working among us... .. . On Saturday... . . . they set fire to 
 the city . . . . . We had three churches, of which Trinity Church was 
 the oldest and largest. It was a venerable edifice, had an excellent organ, 
 which cost 850 pounds sterling, and was otherwise ornamented. This 
 church, with the rector’s house and the charity school, — the two later, 
 large expensive buildings, — were burned. St. Paul’s Church and King’s 
 College had shared the same fate, being directly on the line of fire, had I 
 not been providentially on the spot, and sent a number of people with 
 water on the roof of each . . . . . The Church corporation has 
 suffered prodigiously, as was evidently intended. Besides the buildings 
 already mentioned, about 200 houses, which stood on the church ground, 
 were consumed; so that the loss cannot be estimated at less than 25,000 
 pounds sterling. This melancholy accident, and the principal scene of 
 war being here, will occasion the clergy of this city to be the greatest 
 sufferers of any on the continent by the present rebellion. 
 
 Upon the whole, the Church of England has lost none of its members by 
 the rebellion as yet, — none, I mean, whose departure from it can be 
 deemed a loss; on the contrary, its own members are more firmly at- 
 tached to it than ever. And even the sober and more rational among 
 dissenters, — for they are not all equally violent and frantic — look with 
 reverence and esteem on the part which Church people here have acted. 
 I have not a doubt but, with the blessing of Providence, his Majesty’s 
 arms will be successful, and finally crush this unnatural rebellion. In 
 that case, if the steps are taken which reason, prudence, and common 
 sense dictate, the church will indubitably increase, and these confusions 
 will terminate in a large accession to its members. Then will be the 
 time to make that provision for the American Church which is necessary, 
 and place it on at least an equal footing with other denominations by 
 granting it an episcopate, and thereby allowing it full toleration. If 
 this opportunity is let slip, I think there is a moral certainty that such 
 another will never again offer; and I must conclude, in that case, that 
 Government is equally infatuated with the Americans at present . 
 And I may appeal to all judicious persons, whether it is not as contrary 
 to sound policy, as it certainly is to right reason and justice, that the 
 king’s loyal subjects here, members of the national Church, should be 
 denied a privilege the want of which will discourage and diminish their 
 numbers, and that merely to gratify the clamors of dissenters, who have 
 now discovered such enmity to the constitution, and who will ever 
 
36 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 clamor against anything that will tend to benefit or increase the Church 
 here.” ! 
 
 This Reverend Inglis, whose report to the Venerable 
 Society we have just followed, was one of the chief propa- 
 gandists for the Tory party in America. He is supposed to 
 have written the Letters of Papinian, addressed to John 
 Jay and to the people of North America, setting forth 
 “the conduct, present state and prospects of the American 
 Congress.”” These denounced what the author considered: 
 
 “The tremendous assumption of power made by the Revolutionary 
 leaders; the gross tyrannies practised by them upon the common people, 
 the fallacious hopes with which they had fed their credulous followers, 
 and the delusions which they had spread through the land respecting 
 the character and purpose of the co-called movement for American 
 rights and liberties.”” “You will find,” he continued, “these pretended 
 enemies of oppression the most unrelenting oppressors and their little 
 fingers heavier than the king’s loins.”’? ‘‘ There is more liberty in Turkey 
 than in the dominions of the Congress . . . . . The rebellion, begun 
 by unprincipled and selfish men, has been without justification in any 
 public necessity; it is therefore wicked; it is without prospect of success; 
 it is destined to bring disaster upon all who continue to support it.” 
 
 Dr. Inglis had also, as he informs us, replied to Paine’s 
 Common Sense, with a pamphlet entitled, The True 
 Interest of America Impartially Stated in Certain Strictures 
 on a Pamphlet entitled Common Sense, by An American, 
 Philadelphia, 1776.4 
 
 The Dr. Chandler of Elizabeth, New Jersey, mentioned 
 by Dr. Inglis in the above report to the Venerable Society, 
 had published in 1774, A Friendly Address, to point out the 
 dangerous consequences of resisting Parliament, and 
 ‘ Hawkins H astorical Notices of the Missions of the Church of England 
 in the American Colonies Previous to the Independence of the United 
 States, pp. 328-341; Ecclesiastical Records of the State of New York, vol. 
 Vi, pp. 4292-4300; Documentary History, vol. iii, pp. 637-646. 
 
 * Inglis, Letters of Papinian, p. 6; Tyler, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 73. 
 
 * Inglis, op. cit., p. 21. 
 
 ‘Inglis, The True Interest of America Impartially Stated. 
 
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH of 
 
 another pamphlet under the title What Think Ye of The 
 Congress Now? At one time he was erronously thought to 
 be the “Westchester Farmer.” It is not surprising that 
 he found it expedient to leave the country.! 
 
 The Venerable Society was also in receipt of a similar 
 report of about the same date December 29, 1776, from the 
 Reverend Samuel Seabury, of New York. This ran (in part): 
 
 “T hope my conduct will be approved by the Society. I assure them 
 I have done everything in my power to retain the people in their duty, 
 nor did I shut up the church, or leave the Mission, while it was practi- 
 cable for me to do duty in either. I must also observe, that but few of my 
 congregation are engaged in the rebellion. The New England rebels used 
 frequently to observe, as an argument against me, that the nearer they 
 came to West Chester, the fewer friends they found to American liberty— 
 that is, to rebellion; and, in justice to the rebels of East and West Chester, 
 I must say, that none of them ever offered me any insult, or attempted to 
 do me any injury, that I know of. It must give the Society great satis- 
 faction to know that all their Missionaries have conducted themselves 
 with great propriety, and on many occasions with a firmness and stead- 
 iness that have done them honor. This may, indeed, be said of all the 
 clergy on this side the Delaware, and, I am persuaded, of many on the 
 other. But the conduct of the Philadelphia clergy has been the very 
 reverse. They not only rushed headlong into the rebellion, themselves, 
 but perverted the judgment, and soured the tempers, and inflamed the 
 passions of the people, by sermons and orations, both from the pulpit 
 and the press. Their behavior hath been of great disadvantage to the 
 loyal clergy. Messers. Babcock, Townsend and James Sayre were 
 seized by the rebels some time in October, and I have not heard of their 
 being discharged. 
 
 Mr. Veits is a close prisoner in Hartford jail, and has been in irons. 
 He is to be tried for his life, some say for assisting the royalists, who were 
 confined in Simsbury mines, in breaking out; others for concealing those 
 unhappy people after they had broke out, and for helping them to make 
 their escape. 
 
 Mr. Beardsley has been obliged to leave his Mission . . . . Mr. 
 Leaming has been taken up by the rebels, but was dismissed in a few 
 hours.” ? 
 
 1 Hawkins, op. cit., pp. 160-161. 
 2Seabury’s Original Letters, vol. xix, 1, 190; Hawkins, op. cit., pp. 
 303-308. 
 
388 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 No Tory minister in America had a stormier career than 
 did this Reverend Samuel Seabury. He exonerates the 
 rebels of Chester, East and West; but he does not relate 
 the experiences of the preceding year. November 22, 
 1775, while engaged in his pastoral duties, he had been 
 suddenly seized by a band of armed men, who, first having 
 pillaged his desk and house, forced him to mount and 
 accompany his captors to New Haven. He was borne 
 through the street of that city in triumph and committed 
 to prison under heavy guard and denied visits from friends 
 or the use of pen, ink or paper, except for the purpose of 
 writing to his family and then only under inspection. 
 The principal charge against him was that he had written 
 the pamphlets of the “Westchester Farmer,” a charge 
 undoubtedly true but which at that time could not be 
 substantiated. At the end of more than a month’s im- 
 prisonment, in default of evidence, he was dismissed. 
 Thenceforth he had to avoid public appearance and to 
 have faithful friends constantly on guard to warn him of 
 approaching danger. At one time, under stress of extraor- 
 dinary danger, he and his friends, Chandler of New 
 Jersey, and Myles Cooper, President of King’s College, 
 were forced to flee for their lives; and, for several days and 
 nights, they lay in a secret room. After the battle of 
 Long Island, Seabury fled to the British lines. A troop of 
 cavalry was quartered in his rectory, and consumed all 
 the produce of his glebe; the pews of the church were 
 burned for firewood; the church turned into a hospital. 
 Seabury became a chaplain in the British Army and was 
 assigned to a regiment of American Loyalists. 
 
 The series of pamphlets by the ‘‘ Westchester Farmer” 
 was begun in 1774 with the appearance of Free Thoughts 
 on the Proceedings of Continental Congress. “Will you,” 
 
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 39 
 
 he asks, ‘‘submit to this slavish regulation?” “You must,” 
 he replies, “our sovereign lords and masters, the high and 
 mighty delegates, in Grand Continental Congress assem- 
 bled, have ordered and directed it!’ ‘Will you be the 
 instruments in bringing the most abject slavery on your- 
 selves?” “Do as you will, but by Him that made me, I 
 will not! No, if I must be enslaved, let it be by a King at 
 least, and not by a parcel of upstarts, lawless committee- 
 men... . . Renounce all dependence on Congress 
 and committees. They have neglected and betrayed 
 your interests.”! Other pamphlets from the same 
 “Westchester Farmer” were: The Congress Canvassed,* 
 A View of the Controversy between Great Britain and her 
 Colonies,3 An Alarm to the Legislature of the Province of 
 New York,4 and The Republican Dissected.° 
 
 The attitude of Inglis and Seabury was offensive to a 
 considerable body of the New York Episcopalians. Dr. 
 Samuel Provoost, who was to become the first bishop of the 
 state, bore arms in the patriotic cause and on patriotic 
 erounds became a bitter enemy of Samuel Seabury.® 
 It was an Episcopalian layman, Alexander Hamilton, 
 trained in the Episcopalian King’s College (Columbia), 
 who rebutted the Westchester Farmer in the pamphlets: 
 A Full Vindication of the Measures of Congress from the 
 Calumnies of their Enemies;’ and The Farmer Refuted.® 
 This was the young Hamilton who saved his college 
 
 1 Seabury, Free Thoughts on the Proceedings of the Continental Congress. 
 
 2Seabury, The Congress Canvassed. 
 
 3Seabury, A View of the Controversy between Great Britain and her 
 Colonies. 
 
 4Seabury, An Alarm to the Legislature of the Province of New York. 
 
 ’ Seabury, The Republican Dissected. 
 
 6 Perry, Bishop Seabury and Bishop Provoost. 
 
 7 Hamilton, A Full Vindication of the Measures of the Congress. 
 
 8 Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted. 
 
4.0 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 president, President Cooper, from the fury of the patriotic 
 mob. New York Episcopalianism was to furnish the 
 Revolutionary cause with such leaders as Jay, Duane, and 
 Morris. It should not be judged solely or even primarily 
 by the conduct of Inglis, Seabury or Cooper. 
 
 Seabury, however, was quite correct when he stated that 
 the general tone of Philadelphia Episcopalianism was 
 more revolutionary than that of New York. In the 
 ministers, Duché, Coombe, and Smith, Philadelphia 
 possessed three of the most powerful exponents of Amer- 
 ica’s cause. Indeed, Christ Church where they preached 
 has been styled “the cradle of the Country as it is the 
 cradle of the American Church.”’! 
 
 The Reverend William Smith, Provost of the College of 
 Philadelphia, long concealed his identity under the simple 
 title, “A Lover of his Country.” At the commencement 
 exercises of May 1766, immediately following the repeal 
 of the Stamp Act, he expressed the following sentiments: 
 
 “O happy America! if now we but know how to prize our happiness. 
 The unguarded sallies of intemperate zeal will soon be forgotten; but the 
 steadfast, the noble, the patriotic efforts of cool and good men, in the 
 vindication of native and constitutional rights, will more and more claim 
 the regard of all the free, in every clime and age, and perhaps be conse- 
 crated by time into one of the brightest transactions of our story; assert- 
 ing our pedigree and showing that we were worthy of having descended 
 from the illustrious stock of Britons.”’ 2 
 
 Smith’s most notable patriotic utterance was the 
 sermon, On the Present Situation of American Affairs, 
 preached in Christ Church, June 23, 1775, two days after 
 the departure of Washington to take command at Cam- 
 bridge, in the presence of Congress. It contained the 
 
 ' Perry, Influence of the Clergy in the War of the Revolution, p. 3. 
 2 Four Dissertations, pp. 9-10. 
 
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 41 
 
 boldest words on the question of the day that had as yet 
 been spoken in America from an Anglican pulpit.! Perry 
 says of this sermon: 
 
 “It would appear that to this discourse more perhaps than to any 
 other printed document, the clear understanding of the position of our 
 fathers in the view of English and American sympathizers was due. 
 The sermon was republished in almost countless editions at home and 
 abroad. It was translated into various languages — German, Swedish, 
 Welsh—and so convincing was its logic, and so lucid was its style, that 
 the chamberlain of the City of London, was at the charge of an edition 
 
 of ten thousand copies which were circulated broadcast throughout 
 Great Britain.” 2 
 
 Smith’s sermon for the Public Fast Day of July 20, 
 1775, was less fiery. He was opposed to independence 
 and under the name of Cato composed a series of eight 
 essays to counteract Common Sense and the spirit which 
 it aroused. From 1776 on he ceased to lead in Pennsyl- 
 vania politics; though he did accept independence as 
 inevitable and though he continued a leader in Episco- 
 palian affairs. 
 
 Thomas Coombe, assistant minister at Christ Church 
 and St. Peter’s, preached a sermon on the day set apart by 
 Congress for a National Fast Day, July 20, 1775, in which 
 he fully justified the course of the colonies up to that 
 point in their opposition to ministerial encroachments.° 
 Coombe, however, was one of the first to refuse to follow 
 the development of the American cause. 
 
 So prominent was Jacob Duché in the early American 
 struggle and so profound was the effect of his desertion to 
 
 1Smith, Works of, vol. iii, pp. 252-286. 
 
 > Perry, Influence of the Clergy in the War of the Revolution, pp. 2-3. 
 
 3Smith, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 112-126. 
 
 4 Ibid, vol. i, p. 575. . 
 
 5 Coombe, Thomas Edwin, A Sermon, preached July 20th, 1775. 
 Philadelphia, 1775. 
 
42 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 the British that he may well be styled “The Benedict 
 Arnold of the American Clergy.” Accepting the Chap- 
 lainey of Continental Congress for three years he inspired 
 it with his fiery sermons; no preacher in America exercised 
 greater influence for freedom than did Duché during his 
 tenure of that office, 1774 to 1776. And though he was 
 weak enough to be won back to the British cause during 
 their occupation of Philadelphia, he, nevertheless, left 
 sermons which are classics in the cause of American 
 liberty. The Duty of Standing Fast in our Spiritual and 
 Temporal Liberties! was also preached in Christ Church, 
 July 7, 1775, before the First Battalion of the City and 
 Liberties of Philadelphia and was dedicated “To His 
 Excellency George Washington Esquire, General and 
 Commander in Chief of all the Forces of the United Col- 
 onies in North America.” The text was Galatians, v. 1, 
 “Stand fast, therefore, in the Liberty wherewith Christ 
 hath made us free!’ Duché invoked Deity to ““Remove 
 far from his (the king’s) Royal Person all those, who would 
 seek to change his government into oppression, and to 
 gratify their own licentious desires at the expense of the 
 blood and treasure of his subjects.’’ This sermon was 
 published both in Philadelphia and in London. 
 
 July 20, 1775, marks the first general fast ever kept in 
 America. On that date Continental Congress “‘in view of 
 the critical ‘and calamitous state | 7). /eforwalletne 
 English colonies on this continent as a day of public 
 humiliation and prayer” assembled at their usual place of 
 meeting at half-past nine and went in a body “to attend 
 divine service at Mr. Duché’s church.”2 Mr. Duché took 
 
 ‘Duché, Jacob, The Duty of Standing Fast in our Spiritual and Tem- 
 poral Liberties. A Sermon, in Christ Church, Philadelphia, July 7, 1775, 
 before the First Battalion, etc. Philadelphia, 1775. 
 
 ? Journals of Congress, vol. ii, pp. 81, 87, 192; Infra, p. 412. 
 
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 43 
 
 for his subject The American Vine. He spoke of himself 
 and his countrymen as “injured and oppressed”’ and as 
 ‘“‘unmeriting the harsh and rigorous treatment” they were 
 receiving from the mother country; and he thrilled his 
 hearers with fresh indignation and horrors at this un- 
 natural severity. “‘’Tis not now,” he exclaimed, “foreign 
 enemy, or the savages of our own wilderness that have 
 made the cruel and unrighteous assault; but it is even, 
 thou, Britain, that with merciless and unhallowed hands 
 wouldst cut down and destroy this branch of thine own 
 vine.’’! 
 
 Duché’s influence was great. John Adams listened to 
 him and confessed that he had never listened to better 
 praying, such pronunciation, such fervor, such earnestness 
 and pathos and in language so elegant and sublime “as 
 was delivered by this Episcopalian clergyman for the 
 American cause.”’2 It gave this staunch Congregationalist 
 just the lesson he needed and worked for a rapprochement 
 between the two most numerous and influential denom- 
 inations in America. John Adams was won from a violent 
 opposition to an earnest support of the cause of an Ameri- 
 can episcopacy. He became one of the leading instru- 
 ments in the procurement of the consecration of the 
 American bishops White and Provoost, by the British 
 clergy at Lambeth Palace. Later he came to boast of this 
 as one of his most important services to America.? 
 
 The consistent leader among Episcopalians to champion 
 the American cause was the Reverend William White, 
 later Bishop White. Coolly judicious, he arrived at his 
 conviction slowly and then, quite in contrast to the 
 
 1 Duché, The American Vine. A Sermon preached before Congress, 20 
 July, 1775. Philadelphia, 1775. 
 
 2 Letter of John Adams, vol. i, pp. 23-24. 
 
 2 Infra, p. 220. 
 
44. NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 impetuous Duché, he followed through consistently patri- 
 otic to the end. He thus recounts his course: 
 
 = lacontined same ar to pray for the king until Sunday (in- 
 clusive) before the fourth of July, 1776. Within a short time after, I 
 took the oath of allegiance to the United States and have since remained 
 faithful to it. My intentions were upright and most seriously weighed; 
 and I hope they were not in contradiction to my duty.” 
 
 At the darkest moment of the Revolution, William 
 White was offered the Chaplaincy of Congress; his brother- 
 in-law, Robert Morris, warned him that to accept was to 
 offer his throat to be cut, yet he accepted. He continued in 
 that office until independence had been fully established. ? 
 
 A friend to Washington and the other patriotic leaders, 
 we shall see later how this consistent Americanism was to 
 aid in fixing upon the American Episcopalian Church an 
 American character.? 
 
 Dr. Samuel Provoost, first Bishop of New York, was a 
 patriot and bore arms in the strife, as did Dr. John Croes, 
 first Bishop of New Jersey. Madison, first Bishop of 
 Virginia, and President of William and Mary College, 
 stood for the American cause, as did their first bishop- 
 elect, David Griffith. Dr. Edward Bass, the first Bishop 
 of Massachusetts, had his missionary stipend withdrawn 
 by the Venerable Society for the Propagation of the 
 Gospel for alleged sympathy with the “rebellion.” Robert 
 Smith, the first Bishop of South Carolina, was an active 
 combatant and this was recognized by his acceptance as an 
 original member of the Society of the Cincinnati in that 
 state.4 3 
 
 The most powerful and the most unrelenting of the 
 
 1 Wilson, Memoir of William White, p. 51. 
 2 Infra., pp. 414-415. 
 
 3 Infra., ch. viii. 
 * Perry, Influence of the Clergy in the War of the Revolution, p. 4. 
 
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 45 
 
 Tory satirists was Jonathan Odell, Rector of St. Mary's 
 parish, Burlington, New Jersey. He fled to the British 
 lines about the beginning of the year 1777, from whence 
 he issued his characterizations of Americans and the 
 American cause. Of Dr. Witherspoon he writes: 
 
 ‘Known in the pulpit by seditious toils, 
 Grown into consequence by civil broils, 
 Three times he tried, and miserably failed, 
 To overset the laws — the fourth prevailed. 
 Whether as tool he acted, or as guide, 
 Is yet a doubt — his conscience must decide. 
 Meanwhile unhappy Jersey mourns her thrall, 
 Ordained by vilest of the vile to fall; 
 To fall by Witherspoon! — O name, the curse 
 Of sound religion, and disgrace of verse. 
 Member of Congress, we must hail him next: 
 ‘Come out of Babylon,’ was now his text. 
 Fierce as the fiercest, foremost of the first, 
 He’d rail at kings, with venom well-nigh burst. 
 Not uniformly grand — for some bye-end, 
 To dirtiest acts of treason he’d descend; 
 I’ve known him seek the dungeon dark as night, 
 Imprisoned Tories to convert, or fright; 
 Whilst to myself I've hummed, in dismal tune, 
 I'd rather be a dog than Witherspoon. 
 Be patient, reader — for the issue trust; 
 
 His day will come — remember, Heaven is just.” } 
 
 The following lines indict Washington: 
 
 “Hear thy indictment, Washington, at large; 
 Attend and listen to the solemn charge; 
 Thou hast supported an atrocious cause 
 Against thy king, thy country, and the laws, 
 Committed perjury, encouraged lies, 
 Forced conscience, broken the most sacred ties; 
 Myriads of wives and fathers at thy hand 
 Their slaughtered husbands, slaughtered sons, demand. 
 
 1 Loyalist (The) Poetry of the Revolution, pp. 17-18. 
 
46 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 What could, when halfway up the hill to fame 
 Induce thee to go back and link with shame? 
 Was it ambition, vanity or spite 
 
 That prompted thee with Congress to unite? 
 Or did all three within thy bosom roll, 
 
 ‘Thou heart of hero with a traitor’s soul’? 
 Go, wretched author of they country’s grief, 
 Patron of villainy, of villains chief; 
 
 Seek with thy cursed crew the central gloom, 
 Ere Truth’s avenging sword begin thy doom; 
 Or sudden vengeance of celestial dart 
 Precipitate thee with augmented smart.” 4 
 
 All of Odell’s work as an Anti-American political satirist 
 is embraced in four poems: “The Word of Congress, ”’? 
 “The Congratulation,’ “The Feu de Joie,’* and “The 
 American Times.’’® 
 
 Up to the very last battle of the Revolution, and while 
 there was a British soldier on American soil, Doctor Odell 
 maintained his confidence that the “‘rebellion’’ would be 
 crushed. When America won, he retired to Nova Scotia, 
 where he lived in poverty, an unreconstructed loyalist to 
 the end. 
 
 Perry finds that two-thirds of the signers of the Declar- 
 ation of Independence belonged to the Episcopal Church 
 and that six of them were either sons or grandsons of 
 Episcopalian clergymen,—Francis Lewis, William Hooper, 
 Caesar Rodney, George Ross, George Taylor and 
 Samuel Chase.°® | 
 
 Sufficient evidence has been adduced to show that 
 American Episcopalianism was pretty much divided in 
 
 ' Loyalist (The) Poetry of the Revolution, pp. 9-12; Tyler, op. cit., vol. 
 ll, pp. 124-125. 
 
 ? Loyalist (The) Poetry of the Revolution, pp. 38-55. 
 
 ° Loyalist (The) Verses of Joseph Stansbury and Doctor Jonathan Odell, 
 relating to the American Revolution, pp. 45-50. 
 
 4 Thid., pp. 51-58. 
 
 5 Loyalist (The) Poetry, pp. 1-37. 
 
 6 Perry, The Faith of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence and 
 Influence of the Clergy in the War of the Revolution, p. 6. 
 
THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 47 
 
 its allegiance. As a generalization, we may conclude 
 that the Southern and Middle States were generally 
 patriotic while the North favored the British. Perry 
 finds that “‘the larger number of the Clergy in the Southern 
 and Middle States”’ were “‘patriots,” “‘as well as not a 
 few in the North.”! While for both laity and clergy, 
 Dean Hodges claims that, “Outside of New England, the 
 leaders of the new nation were mostly of our (Episcopalian) 
 communion.’ 
 
 Perhaps, in retrospect, this denomination is to be 
 censured for not throwing its entire and undivided support 
 to the American cause. Division in its ranks caused it to 
 lose in popular opinion some of that glory which accrued to 
 the Congregationalists of New England and to the Presby- 
 terians of the Middle States for their reputed whole- 
 hearted and undivided allegiance. Also Episcopalians 
 can point to no official acts wherein their church came to 
 the support of the Revolution. Here, however, it must be 
 borne in mind that this church was possessed of no 
 official organization of the nature of a synod, conference, 
 or coetus,—the legislative bodies of Presbyterian, 
 Reformed, or Baptist Churches; in fact, they were even 
 deprived of their hierarchy. Possessing no organization 
 for expressing collective opmion, they were thrown back 
 upon individual convictions. And here, the reputations 
 of certain active individual Tory ministers have, quite 
 unjustly, tended to brand American Episcopalians in 
 general as pro-British. This for a sect which counted 
 among its members such sturdy leaders as George Wash- 
 ington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Patrick 
 Henry, John Marshall, Benjamin Franklin, Robert 
 Morris, John Jay, James Duane, and Alexander Hamilton. 
 
 1 Perry, Influence of the Clergy, p. 4. 
 2 Hodges, Three Hundred Years of the Episcopal Church in America, 
 p.1(5. 
 
CoE AGE. Di Ras isial 
 
 THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH IN THE 
 REVOLUTION 
 
 The importance of Congregationalism in the Revolution 
 was about equal to the weight of the New England in- 
 fluence, minus Rhode Island. In all the New England 
 states except the latter it was the established religion and a 
 Puritan theocracy was waging the Revolution. Ezra 
 Stiles, president of Yale, still taught that religion was the 
 primary concern. In his election sermon of 1783, before 
 the Connecticut Assembly, he remarked: 
 
 “Tt is certain that civil dominion was but the second motive, religion 
 the primary one, with our ancestors, in coming hither and settling this 
 land. It was not so much their design to establish religion for the benefit 
 of the state, as civil government for the benefit of religion, and as sub- 
 servient, and even necessary, towards the peaceable enjoyment and un- 
 
 molested exercises of religion — of that religion for which they fled to 
 these ends of the earth.” ! 
 
 Ecclesiastical domination on the part of the Congrega- 
 tionalists has done much to distort the New England con- 
 ception of the Revolution. Thornton concludes from his 
 study, The Pulpit of the American Revolution, that “To the 
 Pulpit, the Puritan Pulpit; we owe the moral force which 
 won our independence.” But Thornton confines his 
 study almost exclusively to Congregational sermons; for 
 to him “the unanimity and efficient service of the Puritan 
 clergy in the war of the Revolution”? was in direct con- 
 trast to “the zeal of the Episcopalian ministers and 
 
 ‘Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution, or the Political 
 Sermons of the Period, of 1776, p. xix. 
 
THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH 49 
 
 ‘missionaries’ in their hostility to it.”! Thornton appre- 
 ciates only Congregationalism. 
 
 Certainly when Boucher remarked that ‘‘In America, 
 as in the Great Revolution in England, much execution was 
 done by sermons,” he was not thinking exclusively of the 
 established clergy of New England; he realized the power 
 of the rebellious clergy in the South. A New England 
 loyalist has left us an estimate of the power of the Northern 
 clergy, “what effect must it have had upon the audience 
 to hear the same sentiment and principles which they had 
 before read in a newspaper delivered on Sundays from the 
 sacred desk, with religious awe, and the most solemn 
 appeal to heaven, from lips which they had been taught 
 from their cradles to believe could utter nothing but 
 eternal truths.’’? 
 
 The New England clergy were generally consulted by 
 the civil authorities; and not infrequently political sug- 
 gestions, emanating from the pulpit on election days, days 
 for “fasting and humiliation,’ “Thanksgiving” days, 
 and the like, were enacted into law. The “Election 
 Sermon’’ which had been instituted in 1633 was one of 
 the most effective instruments imaginable for the creation 
 of public opinion. Preached before the Governor and the 
 entire law-making body of the colony in solemn assembly, 
 it was immediately published and circulated throughout 
 the colony. No appeal could have been devised which 
 could have reached more directly both the governed 
 and the governors. 
 
 William Gordon, the Puritan historian of the Revolu- 
 
 1 Thornton, op. cit., pp. XXXVill, XXXi. 
 
 2 Boucher, “‘Autobiography”’ in Notes and Queries, 5th series, vol. vi, 
 p. 142. 
 
 3 Novanglus et Massachusettensis, p. 51. 
 
50 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 tion, gives us the following summary of the character and 
 influence of the New England ministry: 
 
 “Ministers of New England, being mostly Congregationalists, are 
 from that circumstance, in a professional way, more attached and 
 habituated to the principles of liberty than if they had spiritual Superiors 
 to lord it over them,! and were in hopes of possessing, in their turn, 
 through the gift of government, the seat of power. They oppose arbitrary 
 rule in civil concerns from the love of freedom, as well as from a desire of 
 guarding against its introduction into religious matters. The patriots, 
 for years back, have availed themselves greatly of their assistance. Two 
 sermons have been preached annually for a length of time, the one on 
 general election day, the last Wednesday in May, when the new General 
 Court have been used to meet, according to charter, and elect counsellors 
 for the ensuing year; the other, some little while after, on the artillery 
 election-day, when the officers are selected, or new officers chosen. On 
 these occasions political subjects are deemed very proper; but it is expected 
 that they be treated in a decent, serious, and instructive manner. The 
 general election preacher has been elected alternately by the Council and 
 ' House of Assembly. The sermon is styled the Election Sermon, and is 
 printed. Every representative has a copy for himself, and generally one 
 or more for the minister or ministers of his town. As the patriots have 
 prevailed, the preachers of each sermon have been the zealous friends of 
 liberty; and the passages most adapted to promote the spread and love of 
 it have been selected and circulated far and wide by means of news- 
 papers, and read with avidity and a degree of veneration on account of the 
 preacher and his election to the service of the day. Commendations, both 
 public and private, have not been wanting to help on the design. Thus, 
 by their labors in the pulpit, and by furnishing the prints with occasional 
 essays, the ministers have forwarded and strengthened, and that not a 
 little, the opposition to the exercise of that parliamentary claim of right 
 to bind the colonies in all cases whatever.” 2 
 
 Robert Treat Paine called Dr. Jonathan Mayhew, 
 “The Father of Civil and Religious Liberty in Massa- 
 chusetts and America.”” To John Adams, Mayhew was 
 ‘“‘a Whig of the first Magnitude,”’ and Bancroft speaks of 
 him as “the boldest and most fervid heart in New Eng- 
 
 1On this point see sermon of Rev. John Wise, Democracy is Christ’s 
 Government in Church and State, republished in 1772. 
 * Quoted by Thornton, Pulpit of the American Revolution, p. xxv-xxvi. 
 
THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH 51 
 
 land.” His sermon of January 30, 1749, A Discourse 
 concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the 
 Higher Powers ,1 has been spoken of as the “morning gun of 
 the American Revolution.”2 It was Dr. Mayhew who 
 suggested to James Otis the idea of Committees of Corre- 
 spondence, on the Lord’s Day, June 8th, 1766, ‘‘ Would it 
 not be proper and decorous for our assembly to send 
 circulars to all the rest . . . . . expressing a desire to 
 cement and perpetuate union among ourselves . . . . . 
 cultivating a good understanding and _ hearty friendship 
 between these colonies appears to me so necessary a part 
 of prudence and good policy.”? Dr. Mayhew was proba- 
 bly the strongest opponent of the introduction of episco- 
 pacy into America. In the very last of his sermons on 
 
 ‘Mayhew, Discourse concerning Unlimited Submission and Non- 
 Resistance to the Higher Powers, Boston, 1750. 
 
 ® Thornton, op. cit., p. 43. James Truslow Adams, Revolutionary 
 New England, pp. 195-196, cites Jonathan Mayhew to establish a thesis 
 that “In the mid-years of the century, commercial and political interests 
 did rapidly supersede those of religion in the minds of the mass of even 
 New England people . . . . . So greatly, indeed, had the situation 
 altered by 1750 that Jonathan Mayhew, when he delivered a political 
 sermon . . . . . felt called upon to defend himself against the possible 
 charge that it was ‘out of character for a Christian minister to meddle 
 with such a subject’.”” Had Mr. Adams quoted more freely from his 
 source such an implication could not have been deduced for Mayhew 
 remarked, “It is hoped that but few will think the subject of it an im- 
 proper one to be discoursed on in the pulpit, under a notion that this 
 ism prcacning | politics, winsteadi of © Christi!) .00) 6 Why ii. ao. 
 should not those parts of Scripture which relate to civil government be 
 examined and explained from the desk, as well as others? Obedience 
 to the civil magistrates is a Christian duty; and if so, why should not 
 the nature, grounds, and extent of it be considered in a Christian assem- 
 bly? Besides, if it be said that it is out of character for a Christian 
 minister to meddle with such a subject, this censure will at last fall upon 
 the holy apostles. They write upon it in their epistles to Christian 
 churches; and surely it cannot be deemed either criminal or impertinent 
 to attempt an explanation of their doctrine.” Thornton, op. cit., pp. 
 47-48. 
 
 3 Bradford, Life of Mayhew, pp. 428-430; Tyler, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 
 139-140. 
 
52 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 public questions, Mayhew avowed that he had ‘“Jearnt 
 from the holy scriptures, that wise, brave and virtuous 
 men were always friends to liberty; that God gave the 
 Israelites a king, or absolute monarch, in his anger, be- 
 cause they had not sense and virtue enough to like a free 
 commonwealth, and to have Himself for their King; 
 that the Son of God came down from heaven to make 
 us ‘free indeed’; and that ‘where the spirit of the Lord 
 is, there is liberty’.”! Jonathan Mayhew was the 
 leading representative of those preachers who, in the 
 first years of the Revolution, educated public opinion 
 for its bold doctrines and duties on “freedom” and 
 “liberty.” 
 
 One of the “purest and most undaunted public char- 
 acters to confront us on the threshold of this period,” is 
 Charles Chauncy, pastor of the First Church in Boston, 
 preacher, author and political monitor for the Revolution. 
 Chauncy brought to its support an invincible confidence 
 in its final triumph. “‘Our cause is so just,” said he again 
 and again, “that if human efforts should fail, a host 
 of angels would be sent to support it.”? With the Revo- 
 lutionary movement, in every stage and phase of it, 
 particularly as interpreted by the radical politicians of 
 New England, he was in perfect sympathy. Perhaps his 
 most characteristic contribution to its development was 
 made through the part he took in controversy over the 
 projected introduction of Anglican bishops. From year to 
 year, however, during this whole period, there was scarcely 
 any aspect of the struggle, upon which Chauncy did not 
 utter some notable comment, giving his imperiled country- 
 
 1 Mayhew, The Snare Broken, A Thanksgiving Discourse, preached at 
 the Desire of the West Church in Boston, N. E., Friday, May 23, 1776, 
 occasioned by the Repeal of the Stamp Act, p. 35. 
 
 2 Tudor, Life of James Otis, p. 148; Tyler, op. cit., vol. 11, pp. 279-281. 
 
THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH 53 
 
 men the most ample help in the form of counsel, warning 
 and reproof. 
 
 In 1766 he delivered a Discourse on “The Good News 
 froma Far Country,” on the day of public thanksgiving for 
 the repeal of the Stamp Act. In this he discussed the 
 whole problem of Anglo-American relations, with the 
 tone of a man of affairs as well as of a cloistered 
 thinker and divine.!. In 1770 he preached on Trust 
 in God, the Duty of a People in a Day of Trouble;? in 
 1774 he published A Letter to a Friend, giving an 
 account “of the hardships and sufferings the town of 
 Boston . . . . . must undergo in consequence of the 
 late act of the British parliament.”? And in 1778 he 
 published his sermon The Accursed Thing (sordid avarice) 
 must be taken away from among the people, if they would 
 reasonably hope to stand before their Enemies.* 
 
 Samuel Langdon, president of Harvard College, was 
 another of the Congregational leaders of the Revolution. 
 He addressed the provisional government at Watertown, 
 May 31, 1775, on “government corrupted by- vice,” calling 
 them to their duty. ‘‘We have lived to see the time,” he 
 said, ‘“‘when British liberty is just ready to expire; when 
 
 1Chauncy, A Discourse on the Good News from a Far Country. De- 
 livered July Twenty-fourth, a Day of Thanksgiving to Almighty God, 
 throughout the Province of Massachusetts-Bay in New England, on occasion 
 of the Repeal of the Stamp Act; appointed by his Excellency, the Governor of 
 said Province, at the Desire of its House of Representatives, with the advice 
 of his Majesty's Council. Boston, 1766. 
 
 2Chauncy, Trust in God, the Duty of a People in a Day of Trouble. 
 A Sermon preached May 30, 1770. Boston 1770. 
 
 3 Chauncy, A Letter to a Friend, giving a concise but just Representation 
 of the Hardships and Sufferings the Town of Boston is exposed to, and must 
 undergo, in consequences of the late Act of the British Parliament. Boston, 
 1774. 
 
 4Chauncy, The Accursed Thing must be taken away from among the 
 People, if they would reasonably hope to stand before their Enemies. A 
 Sermon preached at the Thursday-Lecture in Boston, September 3, 1778. 
 Boston, 1778. 
 
54 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 that constitution of government which has so long been 
 the glory and strength of the English nation, is deeply 
 undermined and ready to tumble into ruins; when America 
 is threatened with cruel oppression, and the arm of power 
 is stretched out against New England, and especially 
 against this colony, to compel us to submit to the arbitrary 
 acts of legislators who are not our representatives, and 
 who will not themselves bear the least part of the burdens 
 which without mercy they are laying upon us.”! Wash- 
 ington’s Army around Boston, not having been properly 
 supplied with chaplains, President Langdon voluntarily 
 for months undertook that work, and was later rewarded 
 by Congress for his patriotic services. 
 
 Politically, the most influential of the Congregational 
 preachers was Samuel Cooper, pastor of the Brattle 
 Street Church in Boston. Cooper was on intimate terms 
 with the men of affairs of New England, and was a writer 
 for the press on all matters of current interest. His 
 Lhe Crisis published in 1754 was in opposition to a pro- 
 posed colonial excise.? During the Revolution he is said 
 to have written for the Boston Gazette, many of the most 
 fearless articles that appeared in that influential journal. 
 
 Samuel Cooper was selected from all the preachers of 
 Massachusetts to deliver the sermon before the Governor 
 and Legislature of that state upon the occasion of the 
 inauguration of the new government under its first written 
 constitution in 1780. This sermon is, in reality, a treatise 
 
 on political philosophy, and pictures the mission of this 
 new nation.® 
 
 ‘Langdon, A Sermon before the Congress are at Watertown, 
 May 31,1775. Watertown, 1775, pp. 5-7; Thornton, op. cit., pp. 227-258. 
 
 * Cooper, The Crisis. 
 
 ? Cooper, A Sermon, October 25, 1 780, on the Commencement of the 
 Constitution and Inauguration of the New Government. 
 
THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH 55 
 
 It would be impossible to list all of the Congregational 
 ministers who aided the Revolutionary cause: — all were 
 called to the service of their states. The First Provincial 
 
 Congress of Massachusetts issued the following appeal in 
 1774: 
 
 “Reverend Sirs: — 
 
 When we contemplate the friendship and assistance our ancestors, the 
 first settlers of this province (while overwhelmed with distress) received 
 from the pious pastors of the churches of Christ, who, to enjoy the 
 rights of conscience, fled with them into this land, then a savage wilder- 
 ness, we find ourselves filled with the most grateful sensations. And we 
 cannot but acknowledge the goodness of Heaven in constantly supplying 
 us with the preachers of the gospel, whose concern has been the temporal 
 and spiritual happiness of this people. 
 
 In a day like this, when all the friends of civil and religious liberty are 
 exerting themselves to deliver this country from its present calamities, we 
 cannot but place great hopes in an order of men who have ever dis- 
 distinguished themselves in their country’s cause; and do, therefore, 
 recommend to the ministers of the gospel in the several towns and other 
 places in the colony, that they assist us in avoiding that dreadful slavery 
 with which we are now threatened, by advising the people of their 
 several congregations, ‘as they wish their prosperity, to abide by, and 
 strictly adhere to, the resolutions of the Continental Congress, as the 
 most peaceable and probable method of preventing confusion and 
 bloodshed, and of restoring that harmony between Great Britain and 
 these colonies, on which we wish might be established not only the rights 
 and liberties of America, but the opulence and lasting happiness of the 
 whole British Empire. 
 
 Resolved, That the foregoing address be presented to all the ministers 
 of the gospel in the province.” ! 
 
 If we may judge by the sermons printed and preserved, 
 the ministry of Massachusetts nobly responded. Certain 
 it is that they have left us a notable series of election 
 sermons. 
 
 Gad Hitchcock, pastor of a church in Pembroke, 
 Massachusetts, preached in 1774 on the text (Proverbs, 
 
 Quoted from Thornton, Pulpit of the American Revolution, pp. 
 XXXVH-XXXVII1. 
 
56 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 xxix, 2), ‘When the righteous are in authority, the people 
 rejoice; but when the wicked rule, the people mourn.” 
 It is filled with counsel. ‘The people are the only source 
 of civil authority on earth.” “‘With respect to rulers of 
 evil dispositions, nothing is more necessary than that they 
 should believe resistance in some cases to be lawful.” 
 “All lawful rulers are the servants of the public.” ‘‘The 
 happy union and similarity of sentiment and measures 
 which take place thro’ the continent in regard to our 
 common sufferings, and which have added weight to the 
 American cause, must be cherished by every prudent and 
 constitutional method, and will, we trust, meet with your 
 countenance and cultivation.” “If I am mistaken in 
 supposing plans are formed and executing subversive of 
 our natural and charter rights and privileges, and in- 
 compatible with every idea of liberty, all America is 
 mistaken with me.! 
 
 We have already mentioned the sermon of President 
 Langdon, delivered at Watertown in 1775.2 In that he 
 announced this doctrine, prophetic of the Declaration of 
 Independence. “Every nation, when able and agreed, 
 has a right to set up over themselves any form of govern- 
 ment which to them may appear most conclusive to their 
 common welfare.” “By the law of nature any body of 
 people, destitute of order and government, may form them- 
 selves into a civil society according to their best prudence, 
 and so provide for their common safety and advantage. 
 When one form is found by the majority, not to answer the 
 grand purpose in any tolerable degree, they may by com- 
 mon consent put an end to it, and set up another; only as 
 
 1 Hitchcock, Election Sermon... .. May 25, 1774. Boston 
 1774. 
 2 Supra., p. 53. 
 
THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH a7 
 
 all such great changes are attended with difficulty, and 
 danger of confusion, they ought not to be attempted 
 without urgent necessity, which will be determined always 
 by the general voice of the wisest and best of the com- 
 munity.” “It must be ascribed to some supernatural 
 influence on the minds of the main body of the people 
 through this extensive continent, that they have so 
 universally adopted the method of managing the important 
 matters necessary to preserve among them a free govern- 
 ment, by corresponding committees and congresses, con- 
 sisting of the wisest and most disinterested patriots 
 in America, chosen by the unbiased suffrages of the people 
 assembled for that purpose, in their several towns, coun- 
 ties, and provinces . . . . . The judgment and advice 
 of the Continental Assembly of Delegates have been as 
 readily obeyed, as if they were authentic acts of a long 
 established parliament.”’ 
 
 William Gordon, pastor of the Third Church in Rox- 
 bury, Massachusetts, and historian of the Revolution, 
 preached the sermon in 1775. His text is an abundant 
 exposition of its content . . . . . Jeremiah xxx, 20, 21: 
 “Their children also shall be as afore-time, and their 
 congregation shall be established before me, and I will 
 punish all that oppress them: and their nobles shall be of 
 themselves.”’! 
 
 Samuel West, from a church in Dartmouth, devoted the 
 greater part of the 1776, May 29, sermon to the question 
 of church and state. Later, in 1788, West was to act as a 
 member of the Convention which ratified the Federal 
 Constitution. 
 
 “The law of self-preservation will always justify opposing a cruel and 
 tyrannical imposition, except where opposition is attended with greater 
 
 1 Gordon, Election Sermon, Preached. . .. . July 19, 1775. 
 
58 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 evils than submission; which is frequently the case where a few are 
 oppressed by a large and powerful majority. This shows the reason why 
 the primitive Christians did not oppose the cruel persecutions that were 
 inflicted upon them by the heathen magistrates; They were few compared 
 with the heathen world and for them to have attempted to resist their 
 enemies by force would have been like a small parcel of sheep endeavoring 
 to oppose a large number of ravening wolves and savage beasts of prey; 
 it would without a miracle have brought upon them inevitable ruin and 
 destruction. Hence the wise and prudent advice of our Saviour to them 
 was, ‘When they persecute you in this city, flee to another’. } 
 
 Samuel Webster of Salisbury preached in 1777 from 
 Ezekiel xlv, 8, 9;7 and Phillips Payson of Chelsea in 1788 
 from Galatians iv, 26, 31, “But Jerusalem which is above 
 is free, which is the mother of us all. So then, Brethren, we 
 are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.’ 
 In this sermon Payson argues against separation of Church 
 and State, “Let the restraints of religion once be broken 
 down, as they infallibly would be by leaving the subject of 
 public worship to the humors of the multitude, and we 
 might well defy all human wisdom and power to support 
 and preserve order and government in the state.”” The 
 sermon of 1779 was assigned to a Baptist minister, Rev. 
 Samuel Stillman, pastor of the First Baptist Church of 
 Boston.* Simeon Howard, pastor of the West Church in 
 Boston, preached in 1780 from Ezodus xvii, 21, “Thou 
 shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear 
 God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such 
 over them to be rulers.’ 
 
 1 West, Election Sermon . . . . . May 24,1776; Thornton, op. cit., 
 pp. 259-322. 
 
 ? Webster, Election Sermon... . . May 28, 1777. 
 
 * Payson, Election Sermon... . . May 27, 1778; Thornton, op. 
 
 cit., pp. 323-353. 
 
 4 Infra., pp. 119-120. 
 
 ®> Howard, Election Sermon.... . May 31, 1780; Thornton, 
 op. cit., pp. 355-396. 
 
THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH 59 
 
 Of more than ordinary interest is the sermon of 1781 by 
 Jonas Clark, pastor of a church in Lexington and author of 
 A Brief Narrative of the Principal Transactions of that Day 
 (April 19, 1775),! this sermon being for the first General 
 Election after the inauguration of the new government 
 under the new constitution. The text was Psalms xlvii, 
 8, 9, “God sitteth upon the throne of His holiness: The 
 Princes of the people are gathered together; even the 
 people of the God of Abraham; for the shields of the earth 
 belong unto God: He is greatly exalted.’’ The sermon con- 
 tained the following doctrines: 
 
 “It remains with the community, state, or nation, as a public, political 
 body, at any time, at pleasure to change, alter or even totally dissolve the 
 constitution, and return to a state of nature, or to form anew, as to them 
 shall seem meet. 
 
 A people have an unalienable right to know the constitution they enjoy, 
 the government they are under, the laws they are subject to, and what 
 ‘is justly expected and required of them as subjects. 
 
 A sacred regard to the constitution, a cheerful obedience to the laws, 
 and a reverend submission to the authority of those who are vested with 
 the powers of government, are as much the duty of subjects, even in free 
 states, as it is of rulers to be faithful to the trust reposed in them by the 
 people. The obligations are mutually binding, equally indispensable, and 
 equally necessary to the liberty, safety, prosperity and happiness of 
 society. 
 
 The subjection here enjoined is not absolute, or that passive obedience 
 and non-resistance, so absurdly preached up, in the darker ages of the 
 world; but that obedience and subjection to good and faithful rulers, 
 which the social compact and the laws of the land require. And without 
 this, government is at anend . . . . . Ina word, religion among a 
 people, in its power, purity and governing influence, is the guardian of 
 liberty, the strength of government, the energy of laws, the bond of 
 society, and both the glory and defence of the state. 
 
 The wisdom of the counsels, the firmness of the resolution, and the 
 equity of the measures of the United States, in Congress assembled; and 
 in the states respectively; — The exertions that have been made, in the 
 cause of. liberty and mankind; and the success which hath attended: — 
 
 1 Clark, A Sermon preached at Lexington, April 19, 1776. 
 
60 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 The Articles of Confederation which have been formed and completely 
 ratified by all the states, as the basis of freedom and mutual support; 
 And the glorious revolution, that hath taken place in America; as they 
 do honor to human nature, and engage the attention of an admiring 
 world; being transmitted by the pen of the faithful historian, will be a 
 subject of most pleasing contemplation to all true lovers of liberty and 
 the rights of mankind in succeeding generations. 
 
 Standing armies are abhorrent to the first principles of freedom, and 
 dangerous to the liberties of a free Commonwealth. The sword, in the 
 hands of the free citizens, is the protection of society, and the safety and 
 defence of a people truly brave, truly free. — May I be permitted to ask, 
 Whether the sword is in the hands of all the inhabitants of this 
 Commonwealth? — Whether all the people have arms? — Or, Whether, 
 having arms, they are taught the art — military, and the use of their 
 arms, so as to be effectually prepared to oppose an invading enemy, 
 
 upon the shortest notice?” 4 
 
 Zabdiel Adams of Lunenburg, a cousin of John Adams, 
 preached in 1782 from Ecclesiastes viii, 4, “Where the 
 word of a king is, there is power; and who may say unto 
 him what doest thou?” 
 
 “Rumors of accommodation are circulating through the air. Great 
 Britain, it is said, holds out the olive branch, and makes overtures of 
 peace. If the terms are not insiduous; if our independence can be 
 secured; and treaties formerly made with our illustrious ally, the King 
 of France, kept sacred, then it must be with the wish of every good man 
 in America to have the horrors of war speedily closed with such a peace. 
 But of this our rulers in Congress must be the judge in the dernier resort. 
 With them it lays to make peace or prolong the war, and in them we 
 should confide. We are now in sight of the promised land. How hu- 
 miliating it would be to have our Independence, just brought to the 
 birth, fail for want of strength to be delivered. 
 
 A few more campaigns will determine the event of the present struggle, 
 and doubtless land us on the rock of independence, security and peace. 
 
 The ruling power of every state or kingdom should be elected by the 
 body of the people. 
 
 The legislative body is superior in power to the executive.” ? 
 
 1 Clark, Election Sermon, Preached . .. . . 1781, Boston, 1781. 
 2 Adams, Election Sermon, Preached . . . . May 29, 1782. Boston, 
 1782. 
 
THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH 61 
 
 There is the note of triumph and prophecy to be ex- 
 pected in the sermon of Mr. Guming, pastor of the church 
 in Billerica, of 1783, from Peter v, 5: 
 
 “Yea, all of you be subject to one another, to behold . . . . . the 
 future glory, grandure and magnificance of America! To behold her 
 raised superior ‘to all her enemies; extending her friendly arms for the 
 support and protection of other states and nations against the attacks of 
 restless encroaching ambition; and (while none dare to distrust or 
 affront her) offering a refuge and asylum, in her bosom, to the injured 
 and oppressed of the human race in all quarters of the globe. 
 
 Though the land now rests from war and we daily expect to hear that 
 the definite treaty of peace is completely ratified, yet it would be ex- 
 ceedingly unsafe for people to lay by their arms, and neglect all military 
 matters. Our country affords so many objects to excite the ambition of 
 other nations . . . . . that we can have no security of a lasting 
 peace, or of enjoying long the blessings of freedom if we should totally 
 withdraw our attention from the arts of war and be unprovided with the 
 means of defence. Standing armies in a time of peace are indeed danger- 
 ous to liberty; but a well furnished and well disciplined militia is of great 
 importance to a state . . . . . The public welfare requires that our 
 militia be kept on such a respectable footing, as shall render us secure at 
 home, and formidable abroad. 
 
 In order to preserve the union between the states and establish it upon 
 a permanent basis, whatever is inconsistent with the principles, which 
 upon the maturest deliberation, have been adopted, as the grand cement 
 of it, must be carefully avoided; and a proper attention paid to the 
 interest and welfare of the whole.” } 
 
 The Congregational ministers of Connecticut possessed 
 a central body known as the General Association which 
 illustrates concerted action on the part of Congregation- 
 alism. At the session of this body held at Mansfield, 
 June 1774, a committee, the Reverends Waterman, 
 Drummond, and Baldwin, were appointed to draw up a 
 letter of condolence to the ministers of Boston. The 
 following strongly patriotic communication was accordingly 
 
 1Guming, Election Sermon, Preached . .... . May 28, 1788, 
 Boston, 1783. 
 
62 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 forwarded from the General Association of Connecticut 
 to the Boston ministers: 
 
 “Reverend and Dear Sirs; — 
 
 We your brethren of the colony of Connecticut met by delegation 
 from the several counties in general association, at our annual meeting, 
 cannot but feel deeply impressed with the present melancholy threatened 
 situation of America in general and the distressed state of the Town 
 of Boston in particular, suffering the severe resentment of the British 
 Parliament by which the subsistence of thousands is taken away. We 
 readily embrace this opportunity, to manifest our hearty sympathy with 
 you in your present distresses. We consider you as suffering in the 
 common cause of America; in the cause of civil Liberty, which, if taken 
 away, we fear would involve the ruin of Religious Liberty also. Gladly 
 would we contribute everything in our power for your encouragement and 
 relief; however, our situation enables us to do little more than to express 
 our sincere, affectionate concern, and with fervent addresses to com- 
 mend your cause, and the cause of America — the cause of liberty and 
 above all of religion, to the Father of Mercies, who can. easily afford 
 effectual relief, who hath the hearts of all at his disposal and can turn 
 them as he pleases. We feel deeply sensible what a load must lie upon the 
 minds of the ministers of Boston — enough to sink their spirits unless 
 armed with vigor, Christian fortitude and resolution. In hopes that 
 it may afford you some consolation, we assure you of our sincere con- 
 dolence and unremitted prayers in your behalf ; and we shall in every 
 way suitable to our character and station use our influence with the good 
 people of this Colony to concur in every proper measure calculated to 
 afford relief to America in general, and the distressed Town of Boston in 
 particular. We pray that the ministers of Boston may be inspired by 
 the Great Head of the Church with wisdom sufficient for their direction 
 in such a critical day as the present. And we cannot but hope the 
 united prayers of America may obtain that audience in Heaven which 
 will ensure salvation to us; and that God will give them and their people 
 firmness, unanimity, patience, prudence, and every virtue which they need 
 to support them under their heavy trials, and enable them to stand firm 
 in the glorious cause of liberty, express such a temper and exhibit such an 
 example as shall be well pleasing to God, and recommend them to the 
 compassion and favor of their fellow men. We earnestly pray that God 
 
 would humble us all under a deep sense of 
 and criminal declensions, show us the absolute necessity of repentance 
 and reformation, humble us under his mighty hand and pour out a spirit 
 of fervent supplication on you, on us, and all the people of this Land.” 1 
 
 1 Records of the General Association, etc., pp. 75-78. 
 
 our numerous transgressions 
 
THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH 63 
 
 This was by no means the first action of a patriotic 
 nature taken by this body in the interest of the struggle 
 with Great Britain. In 1768 the thanks of the body were 
 voted to Dr. Chauncy of Boston and to William Living- 
 ston of New York, in the former case “for the good 
 service he had done to the cause of religion, liberty and 
 truth, in his judicious answer to the appeal for an American 
 episcopate and in his defence of the New England church 
 and colonies against the unjust reflections cast upon them 
 in the bishop of Landaff’s sermon before the society for 
 propagating the gospel in foreign parts’; in the latter 
 case “for his late vindication of the New England churches 
 and planters against the injurious reflections and unjust 
 aspersions cast upon them in the bishop of Landaff’s 
 later sermon... . .. contained in his manly and 
 spirited letter to his lordship.” ! Copies of these votes were 
 transmitted to the men commended and they were also 
 ordered to be published in the Boston and New York 
 papers respectively. 
 
 In 1769 the General Association took “into serious 
 consideration the dark and threatening aspect of divine 
 Providence upon our Nation and Land in regard to their 
 civil liberties and public interest,” and held that it would 
 be ‘“‘desirable that a day be set apart for public fasting 
 and prayer” and accordingly “agree for ourselves and 
 recommend it to the Brethren in the Ministry, to our own 
 churches and the churches throughout the colony to set 
 apart the last Thursday of August next for the purpose 
 aforesaid, earnestly desiring both ministers and people, 
 unanimously to join in the seasonable, solemn and im- 
 portant duty.”? 
 
 1 Records of the General Association etc., pp. 63-64. 
 2 Ihid., pp. 66-67. 
 
64. NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Their most important patriotic pronunciamento was 
 issued by the Cornwall meeting, June 18, 1776: 
 
 “An Address of the General Association to the Consociated Pastors 
 
 and Churches in the Colony of Connecticut. 
 Reverend and Beloved: 
 
 Deeply impressed with a sense of the calamitous state in which our 
 Land is involved: reduced by the arbitrary edicts of the British Parlia- 
 ment, and the cruel and inhuman methods used to enforce them to the 
 sad necessity of defending by force and arms those precious privileges 
 which our fathers fled into this wilderness quietly to enjoy: declared 
 rebels by the British King and Parliament: not only the power of Britain, 
 but a large army of foreign mercenaries, hired at a most extravagant 
 price, employed to dragoon us into obedience or rather abject sub- 
 mission to Tyranny: our foreign trade almost annihilated: many of our 
 towns ruined and destroyed: our children, our friends, our dearest 
 connections called from our bosoms to the field of battle: and some of 
 them captivated and enslaved by our cruel and insulting foes: detestable 
 parricides interspersed among us, aiming to give a fatal stab to the 
 country which gave them birth, and hath hitherto fostered them in her 
 indulgent bosom: and in many places both at home and abroad de- 
 plorable sickness wasting away the inhabitants of our land: deeply im- 
 pressed with a view of these dire calamities, we are lead anxiously to 
 enquire what sins and iniquities prevalent in our land have called down 
 these heavy judgments of Heaven upon us.” 
 
 (Here follows a list of sins; intemperance, profanity, injustice, fraud, 
 exaction, etc. etc.) 
 
 “A want of love of our Country, and of a disposition to prefer the 
 great interests of the community to the little private interests of our 
 own—a disposition to anarchy while struggling for Liberty—impatience 
 under lawful and necessary restraint. 
 
 ‘“Tenderly concerned for both the temporal and spiritual interests of 
 our dear country, and fully convinced of the necessity of our being 
 deeply humbled under a sense of our sins, and of a general reformation 
 taking place, in order to obtain and secure these invaluable blessings; we 
 hope we shall obtain the serious attention of our brethren in the gospel 
 ministry, and their and our respective churches, while we endeavor to 
 
 unite our voice with that of our civil fathers in bearing our testimony | 
 
 against these Heaven-provoking sins, and in resolving against them . 
 
 And as the future hopes both of the temporal and spiritual! prosperity 
 of our country are so much founded upon the rising generation, we would 
 be importunate with the youth of our churches and congregations 
 heartily to join in this necessary and important work of reformation — 
 
 a e 
 
THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH 65 
 
 that they would seriously consider they have a greater interest in the 
 prosperity of their country, than those more advanced in years; That 
 the important betrustment now lodged with their parents of trans- 
 mitting the blessings of Pain ane liberty to posterity will soon 
 devolve upon them... . ..” 
 
 DeWitt says of the Congregational ministers that they 
 “gave to the cause of the Colonies all that they could 
 give of the sanction of religion.’’? 
 
 1 Records of the General Association etc., pp. 89-96. 
 2 DeWitt, First General Assembly, p. 19. 
 
CHAPTER DV 
 
 THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE 
 REVOLUTION 
 
 No one should question the loyalty of the Presbyterians 
 to the Revolutionary cause, but it is possible to take ex- 
 ception to the enthusiasm of those who would credit this 
 denomination with a monopoly of patriotism.! Their 
 sturdy Republicanism did, however, give them an influence 
 over the course of the Revolution out of all proportion to 
 their numbers. During the colonial era Professor Andrews 
 finds, that “Of all. . . . . denominations the most 
 powerful and influential were the Congregational and the 
 Anglican.”? The Revolution advanced other sects and 
 preéminently the Presbyterians. They already possessed 
 the most powerful intercolonial organization on the con- 
 tinent in their yearly Synod, — prototype of so many 
 American republican national federal assemblies. To 
 this centralized organism the cause of political republi- 
 canism added just that enthusiasm which made American 
 Presbyterians a host of crusaders for independence.? 
 
 The bed-rock principle of Presbyterianism was consti- 
 tutional republicanism. The church was a ‘federated 
 Christian commonwealth, not a hierarchy and not an 
 aggregation of petty democracies. In the former respect 
 it differed from Anglicanism and Catholicism; in the latter 
 from Baptists and Congregationalists. The church was 
 
 ‘Ford, The Scotch-Irish in America. | 
 
 * Andrews, Colonial Folk-Ways, p. 163. 
 
 * Blaikie, Presbyterianism in New England, p. 171 sq. notes two 
 OR ministers of that section who went over to the British 
 ines. 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH | 67 
 
 governed by assemblies, — congregational, classical or 
 synodic; not by church officials individually considered. 
 The Presbyterian official possessed no “prerogative.”! 
 The form of the political organization under which we now 
 live, commonly called constitutional republicanism, has 
 been traced to the social organism instituted by Calvin 
 himself.? 
 
 The writing and testimonies before Parliament of 
 Joseph Galloway, a loyalist of the province of Pennsyl- 
 vania, have furnished the chief authority for those who 
 would ascribe a paramount Presbyterian origin to the 
 American Revolution. Galloway enumerates the op- 
 ponents of the British government in 1774 as “‘Congre- 
 gationalists, Presbyterians and smugglers.” Testifying 
 before a committee of the House of Commons in 1779 he 
 maintained that not one-fifth of the people of America had 
 independence in view and that in the army established by 
 the Continental Congress “there were scarcely one-fourth 
 natives of America, — about one-half were Irish and the 
 other fourth were English and Scotch.”3 
 
 Galloway’s summary is as follows: 
 
 “In the beginning of the year 1764, a convention of the ministers and 
 elders of the Presbyterian congregations in Philadelphia wrote a circular 
 letter to all the Presbyterian congregations in Pennsylvania, and with it 
 
 1 Breckinridge, Presbyterian Government not a Hierarchy, but a Com- 
 monwealth. 
 
 2 Balch, Thomas, Calvinism and American Independence, Philadelphia 
 1909. Laveleye, Essais et Etudes, Premiere Series, essays on “Le Pro- 
 testantisme et le Catholicisme dans leur rapports avec la liberte et la pros- 
 perite des peuples,” and ‘‘De Vinfluence de la religion sur les formes de 
 gouvernement, Smith, Presbyterianism and the Revolution. 
 
 3 Galloway, The Examination of Joseph Galloway, Esq., late Speaker 
 of the House of Assembly of Pennsylvania, Before the House of Commons, 
 in a Committee on the American Papers: O’Brien, M. J., A Hidden Phase 
 of American History: Ireland’s Part in America’s Struggle for Liberty; 
 Hartigan, The Irish in the American Revolution. 
 
68 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 enclosed the proposed articles of union. The reasons assigned in them are 
 so novel, so futile, and absurd, and the design, of exciting that very 
 rebellion, of which the Congregationalists of New England, and the 
 Presbyterians in all the other Colonies are at this moment the only 
 support, is so clearly demonstrated that I shall make no apology for 
 giving them to the Reader at full length, without any comment: 
 
 The Circular Letter and Articles of ‘Some Gentlemen, of the Pres- 
 byterian Denomination’ in the Province of Pennsylvania. 
 
 Philadelphia, March 24, 1764. 
 Sir; — 
 
 The want of union and harmony among those of the Presbyterian 
 denomination has been long observed, and greatly lamented by every 
 public-spirited person of our society. Notwithstanding we are so 
 numerous in the province of Pennsylvania, we are considered as nobody, 
 or a body of very little strength and consequence, so that any encroach- 
 ments upon our essential and charter privileges may be made by evil 
 minded persons who think that they have little fear from any opposition 
 that can be made to their measures by us. Nay, some denominations 
 openly insult us as acting without plan or design, quarreling with one 
 another, and seldom uniting together even to promote the most salutary 
 purposes; And thus they take occasion to misrepresent and asperse the 
 whole body of Presbyterians, on account of the indiscreet conduct of 
 individuals belonging to us. 
 
 {t is greatly to be wished that we could devise some plan that would 
 cut off even the least grounds for such aspersions, that would enable us to 
 prevent the bad conduct of our members, and that would have a tendency 
 to unite us more closely together; so that, when there may be a necessity 
 to act as a body, we may be able to do it whenever we may be called to 
 defend our civil or religious liberties and privileges, which we may en- 
 joy, or to obtain any of which we may be abridged. 
 
 A number of gentlemen in this city, in conjunction with the clergymen 
 of our denomination here, have thought the enclosed plan may be sub- 
 servient to this desirable purpose, if it be heartily adopted and prosecuted 
 by our brethren in this province, and three lower counties; and in this 
 view we beg leave to recommend it to you. It cannot possibly do any 
 hurt to us, and it will beyond doubt make us a more respectable body. 
 We, therefore, cannot but promise ourselves your hearty concurrence 
 from your known public spirit, and desire to assist anything that may 
 have a tendency to promote the union and welfare of society, and the 
 general good of the community to which we belong. 
 
 We are yours, etc. 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 69 
 
 The Plan of Articles 
 
 Some gentlemen of the Presbyterian denomination having seriously 
 considered the necessity of a more close union among ourselves, in order 
 to enable us to act as a body with unanimity and harmony have unani- 
 mously adopted the following plan viz: 
 
 Ist. That a few gentlemen in the city of Philadelphia with the 
 ministers of the Presbyterian denomination there, be chosen to corre- 
 spond with their friends in different parts, to give and receive advices, and 
 to consult what things may have a tendency to promote our union and 
 welfare, either as a body, or as we are connected together in particular 
 congregations, so far as it will consist with our duty to the best of Kings, 
 and our subjection to the laws of Government. 
 
 2nd. That a number of the most prudent and public-spirited persons 
 in each district in the province, and those lower counties, be chosen with 
 the ministers in said districts, to correspond in like manner with one 
 another, and with the gentlemen appointed for this purpose in Philadel- 
 phia; or 
 
 3rd. That the same be done in each congregation or district where 
 there is no minister; a neighboring minister meeting with them as often 
 as it is convenient and necessary. 
 
 4th. That a person shall be appointed in each committee, thus 
 formed, who shall sign a letter in the name of the committee, and to 
 whom letters shall be directed, who shall call the committee together, 
 and communicate to them what advice is received, that they may con- 
 sult together what is best to be done. 
 
 5th. That one or more members be sent by the Committee in each 
 county or district, yearly or half-yearly, to a general meeting of the 
 whole body, to consult together what is necessary for the advantages of 
 the body, and to give advice in any affairs that relate to particular con- 
 gregations, and that the stated meetings of said delegates be on the last 
 Tuesday of August yearly. 
 
 6th. That the place of the general meeting be at Philadelphia or 
 Lancaster on the last Tuesday of August, 1764. 
 
 7th. That each committee transmit to the committee in Philadelphia 
 their names and numbers, with what alterations, may at any time be 
 made in them. 
 
 8th. That the committee in town consist of the ministers of the 
 Presbyterian denomination in this city, and Mr. Treat, together with 
 (here follows a list of 27 names). 
 
 In consequence of this letter, a union of all the Presbyterian congre- 
 gations immediately took place in Pennsylvania and the Lower Counties. 
 A like confederacy was established in all the Southern Provinces, in 
 pursuance of similar letters wrote by their respective conventions. 
 
70 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 These letters were long buried in strictest secrecy. Their design was not 
 sufficiently matured, and therefore, not proper for publication. Men 
 of sense and foresight, were alarmed at so formidable a confederacy, 
 without knowing the ultimate extent of their views; however, at length, 
 in the year 1769, the letters from the conventions of Philadelphia and 
 New York were obtained and published. 
 
 A Union of Presbyterian forces being thus established in each Proy- 
 ince, these projectors then took salutary steps (as they were called in a 
 letter from one of the Committee at Philadelphia to his friend) to get the 
 whole Presbyterian interest on the Continent more firmly united. These 
 steps ended in the establishment of an annual synod at Philadelphia. 
 Here all the Presbyterian congregations in the Colonies are represented by 
 their respective ministers and elders. In this synod all their general 
 affairs, political as well as religious are debated and decided. From here 
 their orders and decrees are issued throughout America; and to them as 
 ready and implicit obedience is paid as is due to the authority of any 
 sovereign power whatever. 
 
 But they did not stop here; the principal matter recommended by the 
 faction in New England, was a union of the Congregational and Presby- 
 tertan interests throughout the colonies. To effect this, a negotiation 
 took place which ended in the appointment of a standing committee of 
 correspondence with powers to communicate and consult, on all occasions, 
 with a like committee appointed by the congregational churches in New 
 England. Thus the Presbyterians in the Southern Colonies who while 
 unconnected in their several congregations, were of little significance, 
 were raised into weight and consequence, and a dangerous combination 
 of men, whose principles of religion and polity were equally averse to 
 those of the established Church and Government was formed. 
 
 United in this manner throughout the Colonies those republican secre- 
 taries were prepared to oppose the Stamp Act, before the time of its 
 commencement, and yet sensible of their own inability without the aid of 
 others, no acts or pains were left unessayed to make converts of the rest 
 of the people, but all their industry was attended with little success. 
 The members of the Church of England, Methodists, Quakers, Lutherans, 
 Calvinists, Moravians, and other dissenters were in general averse to 
 every measure which tended to violence. Some few of them were, by 
 various arts, and partial interests prevailed on to unite with them, and 
 those were either lawyers or merchants, who through their professional 
 business would be affected by the act, or bankrupt planters, who were 
 overwhelmed in debt to their British factors. But the republicans, 
 predetermined in their measures, were unanimous. It was these men 
 who excited the mobs, and led them to destroy the stamped paper; who 
 compelled the collectors of the duties to resign their offices, and to 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 71 
 
 pledge their faith that they. would not execute them; and it was those 
 men who promoted, and for a time enforced the non-importation agree- 
 ment and by their personal applications, threats, insults, and inflam- 
 matory publications and petitions, led the Assemblies to deny the 
 authority of Parliament to tax the Colonies, in their several remon- 
 strances.”’ 1 
 
 This report probably afforded the average Englishman 
 of that day his conception of the causes of the Revolution; 
 it certainly raises a clear spectre of Presbyterian Republi- 
 canism. But how distorted or glaringly inaccurate are its 
 facts. The organization of a united Presbyterianism for 
 America long ante-dates 1764, for by 1758, we find the 
 amalgamation of the two great synods of Philadelphia 
 and New York. We know that the organization of this 
 national body was primarily for religious rather than for 
 political purposes. The still further union of the Congre- 
 gationalists with the Presbyterians was not effected until 
 1766 and then it was to combat, not taxation, but the 
 introduction of an American episcopacy. 
 
 No wonder the well informed John Witherspoon re- 
 marked, in a letter dated March 20, 1780: “I have read 
 lately your parliamentary enquiry into the causes of your 
 want of success in America. The examination of Galloway 
 in particular is a curiosity. I know that he, and such as 
 he, are blinded and stupefied to an almost incredible 
 degree, by their prejudices; and yet it is hard to suppose 
 that he thought as he said in all points.”? Regarding his 
 own conduct, Witherspoon declared, in a sermon before his 
 own congregation, May 17, 1776, “You are all my 
 
 1 Galloway, Historical and Political Reflections on the Rise and Progress 
 of the American Revolution; Breed, Presbyterianism and the Revolution, 
 Philadelphia, 1876. Smith, Presbyterianism and the Revolution, 1845; 
 Smith, The Real Origin of the Declaration of Independence, Columbia, 
 1847. Ford, op.cit., pp. 583-587. 
 
 ? Witherspoon, Works, vol. iv, p. 382. 
 
G2 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 witnesses, that this is the first time of my introducing any 
 political subject into the pulpit.”! And the Synod of 
 1775 officially went on record as opposing a complete 
 break with the mother country? and recorded that “It is 
 well known to you (otherwise it would be imprudent indeed 
 thus publicly to profess) that we have not been instru- 
 mental in inflaming the minds of the people, or urging 
 them to acts of violence and disorder. Perhaps no 
 instance can be given on so interesting a subject, in which 
 political sentiments have been so long and so fully kept 
 from the pulpit, and even malice itself has not charged us 
 with laboring from the press.’’? 
 
 Galloway’s statement does represent the true feeling of 
 British officialdom in America that there was an intimate 
 connection between Presbyterian religion and all things 
 political. From the beginning the agents of the crown 
 noted a Presbyterian opposition to the oppressive meas- 
 ures of the government. John Hughes, the stamp dis- 
 tributor for Pennsylvania, wrote Benjamin Franklin, 
 September 25, 1765, relative to his appointment, “‘ When it 
 is known that I have received my commission, I fancy I 
 shall not escape the storm of Presbyterian rage!’ And in 
 his Report, October 12, 1765, he records, “Common 
 justice calls upon me to say, the body of the people called 
 Quakers, seem disposed to pay obedience to the Stamp 
 Act, and so do that part of the Church of England and 
 Baptists, that are not some way under Proprietary in- 
 fluence. But Presbyterians and Proprietary minions 
 spare no pains to engage the Dutch and lower class of 
 people, and render the royal government odious.’’4 
 
 1 Infra., p. 90. 
 
 2 Infra., p. 75., for text of this important Pastoral Letter. 
 ° Records of the Presbyterian Church, pp. 466-469. 
 
 * Hughes, Report, October 12, 1765; Ford, op. cit., p. 466. 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 13 
 
 That Tory Episcopalian of Trinity Church, New York, 
 whose position we have already noted, wrote on October 
 lems 10: 
 
 “T have it from good authority that the Presbyterian ministers, at a 
 Synod where most of them in the middle colonies were collected, passed 
 a resolve to support the Continental Congress in all their measures. 
 This, and this only, can account for the uniformity of their conduct; for 
 I do not know one of them, nor have I been able, after strict inquiry, to 
 
 hear of any, who did not, by preaching and every effort in their power, 
 promote all the measures of the Congress, however extravagant.”’? 
 
 Fortunately, the records of the Presbyterian Synods for 
 this period are complete and we can determine the official 
 position of American Presbyterianism relative to each of 
 the various controversies. They show that official action, 
 relative to the Stamp Act, came only after its repeal, but 
 that the spirit of Presbyterianism had been hostile to it 
 from its inception. At the Synod of 1766, an overture 
 was advanced by Dr. Alison, “that an address should be 
 made to our sovereign, on the joyful occasion of the repeal 
 of the Stamp Act, and thereby a confirmation of our 
 liberties,’ and at the same time he proposed a copy of an 
 address for examination, ‘“‘ Which was read and approved.””* 
 The following pastoral letter was also prepared: May 30, 
 1766: 
 
 **We think it our indispensable duty, not only in our particular charges, 
 but in this united and more public capacity, to direct you to some 
 suitable reflections upon the late remarkable and merciful steps of Divine 
 Providence, and to inculcate a becoming improvement of an event, the 
 most interesting and important to the people of this continent. For, not 
 only in the word of God should we attend his Divine Will, but also mark 
 his hand in that Providence by which he directs the course of human 
 affairs with invariable wisdom and paternal goodness. 
 
 1 Documentary History of New York, vol. ii, pp. 1050-1051; Hawkins, 
 Historical Notices, pp. 328-329. 
 2 Records of the Presbyterian Church, p. 360. 
 
74 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 The faithless French, and their savage allies, were lately the rod of 
 Divine displeasure for our many provocations. Under the calamities of 
 war, and the wasting ravages of Indian cruelty, we were repeatedly 
 brought to approach the throne of Grace, with solemn fasting and prayer; 
 and thereby openly professed our resolution to forsake the ways of sin, 
 and turn unto the Lord. But, alas! we rendered not to God according to 
 the multitude of his tender mercies, for no sooner was the rod removed, 
 and the blessings of peace restored, but we became more vain and disso- 
 lute than before. 
 
 The Almighty thus provoked, permitted counsels of the most per- 
 nicious tendency, both to Great Britain and her colonies. The imposition 
 of unusual taxes, a severe restriction of our trade, and an almost total 
 stagnation of business, threatened us with inevitable ruin. A long sus- 
 pense, whether we should be deprived of, or restored to, the peaceable 
 enjoyment of the inestimable privilege of English liberty, filled every 
 breast with the most painful anxiety. A gloomy cloud thickened over our 
 heads, ready to burst upon us in a desolating storm. Had our gracious 
 Sovereign, the present ministry, and the British Parliament been less 
 wise, just, and good; had they, instead of yielding to a spirit of modera- 
 tion, unhappily recurred to force, we shudder at the very thoughts of the 
 consequences. We cannot look down the precipice on the brink of which 
 we stood, without horror. We were not without reason apprehensive that 
 the tumultuous outrages, which in some places attended a determined 
 opposition to the disrelished statute, might provoke the resentment of 
 the British legislature. 
 
 While we thus call upon you to fear God, you will not forget to honor 
 your king, and pay a due submission to his august parliament. Let this 
 fresh instance of royal clemency increase the ardor of your affection to 
 the person, family, and government, of our rightful and gracious sover- 
 eign. This you will manifest by a cheerful and ready obedience to 
 civil authority. A spirit of liberty is highly laudable when under proper 
 regulations, but we hope you will cheerfully distinguish between liberty 
 and. licentiousness. 
 
 We most earnestly recommend it to you to encourage and strengthen 
 the hands of government, to demonstrate on every proper occasion your 
 undissembled love for your mother country, and your attachment to her 
 true interest, so inseparably connected with our own. 
 
 That thus you may become wise and good, as well as free and happy, 
 and that while you enjoy liberty, civil and religious, you may not be the 
 servants of sin and Satan, is the fervent prayer of those who watch for 
 your souls, as men who must give an account.” 1 
 
 1 Records, ed. 1904, pp. 362-363. 
 
 - 
 
 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 75 
 
 In 1769 the Synod appointed a day for special prayer 
 and fasting in view of “the threatening aspect of public 
 affairs.”! The same was repeated in 1771 “in considera- 
 tion of the aspect which matters both civil and religious, 
 bear.”2 This reappears in 1774 for “the dark and threaten- 
 ing aspect of public affairs, both civil and religious.’’? 
 They would do the same in 1775 
 
 ‘“considering the present alarming state of public affairs... . But 
 as the Continental Congress are now sitting and may appoint a fast for the 
 same purpose, the Synod, from respect to that august body, and for the 
 greater harmony with all other denominations, and for the greater public 
 order, if the Congress shall appoint a day not above four weeks distant 
 from the said last Thursday in June, order that the congregations be- 
 longing to this Synod do keep the day appointed by the Congress . 
 and if they appoint a day more distant, the Synod order both to be ous 
 served by all our communion. The Synod also earnestly recommend it 
 to all the congregations under their care to spend the afternoon of the 
 last Thursday in every month in public solemn prayer to God, during 
 the continuance of our present troubles.” 4 
 
 The Synod of 1775 appointed Dr. Witherspoon, Dr- 
 Rodgers, Messrs. Caldwell, Halsey, Smith, Kerr, and 
 Ogden to draft a pastoral letter which after a few altera- 
 tions was approved and ordered to be printed, and is as 
 follows: 
 
 “Very dear Brethren — The Synod of New York and Philadelphia 
 
 being met at a time when public affairs wear so threatening an aspect, 
 and when (unless God in his sovereign Providence speedily prevent it) 
 all the horrors of a civil war throughout this great Continent are to be 
 apprehended, were of opinion, that they could not discharge their duty 
 to the numerous congregations under their care, without addressing 
 them at this important crisis . ‘ 
 
 “The Synod cannot help thinking ibe this is a proper time pressing 
 all of every rank, seriously to consider the things that belong to their 
 eternal peace. Hostilities, long feared, have now taken place; the sword 
 has been drawn in one province, and the whole continent, with hardly 
 
 1 Records, p. 398. 3 Ibid., p. 460. 
 2 Ihid., p. 420. 4 Jbid., pp. 464-465. 
 
76 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 any exception, seem determined to defend their rights by force of arms. 
 If, at the same time, the British ministry shall continue to enforce their 
 claims by violence, a lasting and bloody contest must be expected. 
 Surely then, it becomes those who have taken up arms, and profess a 
 willingness to hazard their lives in the cause of liberty, to be prepared for 
 death, which to many must be certain, and to every one is a possible or 
 probable event. 
 
 We have long seen with concern, the circumstance which occasioned, 
 and the gradual increase of this unhappy difference. As ministers of the 
 gospel of peace, we have ardently wished that it could, and often hoped 
 that it would have been more early accommodated. It is well known to 
 you, (otherwise it would be imprudent indeed thus publicly to profess), 
 that we have not been instrumental in inflaming the minds of the people, 
 or urging them to acts of violence and disorder. Perhaps no instance can 
 be given on so interesting a subject, in which political sentiments have 
 been so long and so fully kept from the pulpit, and even malice itself has 
 not charged us with laboring from the press; but things are now come to 
 such a state, that as we do not wish to conceal our opinions as men and 
 citizens, so the relation we stand in to you seemed to make the present 
 improvement of it to your spiritual benefit an indispensable duty. 
 
 Suffer us to lay hold of your present temper of mind, and to exhort, 
 especially the young and vigorous, by assuring them that there is no 
 soldier so undaunted as the pious man, no army so formidable as those 
 who are superior to the fear of death . : 
 
 Let it not be forgotten, that though for the wise ends of his Providence 
 it may please God, for a reason to suffer his people to lie under unmerited 
 oppression, yet in general we may expect, that those who fear and serve 
 him in sincerity and truth, will be favored with his countenance and 
 strength . 
 
 After this exhortation, which we thought ourselves called upon to 
 give you at this time, on your great interest, the one thing needful, we 
 shall take the liberty to offer a few advices to the societies under our 
 charge, as to their public and general conduct; and, . .. . : 
 
 First. In carrying on this important struggle, let every opportunity 
 be taken to express our attachment and respect to our sovereign King 
 George, and to the revolution principles by which his august family was 
 seated on the British throne. We recommend, indeed, not only allegiance 
 to him from duty and principle, as the first magistrate of the empire, but 
 esteem and reverence for the person of the prince, who has merited well 
 of his subjects on many accounts, and who has probably been misled into 
 the late and present measures by those about him; neither have we any 
 doubt that they themselves have been in a great degree deceived by 
 false information frora interested persons residing in America. It gives 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH vere 
 
 us the greatest pleasure to say, from our own certain knowledge of all 
 belonging to our communion, and from the best means of information, 
 of the far greatest part of all denominations in this country, that the 
 present opposition to the measures of administration does not in the 
 least arise from disaffection to the King, or a desire of separation from 
 the parent state. We are happy in being able with truth to affirm, that no 
 part of America would either have approved or permitted such insults as 
 have been offered to the sovereign in Great Britain. We exhort you, 
 therefore, to continue in the same disposition, and not to suffer oppression, 
 or injury itself, easily to provoke you to anything which may seem to 
 betray contrary sentiments: let it ever appear, that you only desire the 
 preservation and security of those rights which belong to you as freeman 
 and Britons, and that reconciliation upon these terms is your ardent 
 desire. 
 
 Secondly. Be careful to maintain the union which at present sub- 
 sists through all the colonies: nothing can be more manifest than that the 
 success of every measure depends on its being inviolably preserved, and 
 therefore, we hope that you will leave nothing undone which can promote 
 this end. In particular, as the Continental Congress, now sitting in 
 Philadelphia, consists of delegates chosen in the most free and unbiased 
 manner, by the body of the people, let them not only be treated with 
 respect, and encouraged in their difficult service — not only let your 
 prayers be offered to God for his direction in their proceedings — but 
 adhere firmly to their resolutions; and let it be seen that. they are able 
 to bring out the whole strength of this vast country to carry them into 
 execution. We would also advise for the same purpose, that a spirit of 
 candor, charity, and mutual esteem, be preserved and promoted towards 
 those of different religious denominations. Persons of probity and 
 principle of every profession, should be united together as servants of the 
 same master, and the experience of our happy concord hitherto in a state 
 of liberty should engage all to unite in support of the common interest; 
 for there is no example in history, in which civil liberty was destroyed, and 
 the rights of conscience preserved entire. 
 
 Third . .. . . It is with the utmost pleasure we remind you, 
 that the Continental Congress determined to discourage luxury in 
 living, public diversions, and gaming of allkinds . . . . . The greatest 
 service which magistrates, or persons in authority can do, with respect 
 to the religion or morals of the people, is to defend and secure the rights 
 of conscience in the most equal and impartial manner. 
 
 Fourthly. We cannot but recommend, and urge in the warmest 
 manner, a regard to order and public peace; and as in many places 
 during the confusions that prevail, legal proceedings have become diffi- 
 cult, it is hoped, that all persons will conscientiously pay their just 
 
78 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 debts, and to the utmost of their power serve one another, so that the 
 evils inseparable from a civil war may not be augmented by wantonness 
 and irregularity. 
 
 Fifthly. We think it of importance, at this time, to recommend to all 
 of every rank, but especially to those who may be called to action, a 
 spirit of humanity and mercy. Every battle of the warrior is with con- 
 fused noise, and garments rolled in blood. It is impossible to appeal to 
 the sword without being exposed to many scenes of cruelty and slaughter; 
 but it is often observed, that civil wars are carried on with a rancour and 
 spirit of revenge much greater than those between independent states. 
 The injuries received, or supposed, in civil wars, wound more deeply 
 than those of foreign countries, it is therefore, the more necessary to 
 guard against this abuse, and recommend that meekness and gentleness 
 of spirit, which is the noblest attendant on true valor. That man will 
 fight most bravely, who never fights till it is necessary, and who ceases to 
 
 fight as soon as the necessity is over. 
 ok 
 
 * * 
 
 We conclude with our most earnest prayer, that the God of heaven 
 may bless you in your temporal and spiritual concerns, and that the 
 present unnatural dispute may be speedily terminated by an equitable 
 and lasting settlement on constitutional principles. 
 
 New York, May 22nd, 1775 
 N. B. The stated clerk is to insert the pastoral letter from the printed 
 copy. The Synod agree that five hundred copies of said pastoral letter 
 be printed . . . . . Mr. Halsey dissents from that paragraph of said 
 letter which contains the declaration of allegiance.” 
 
 The first body of clergy in America openly to recognize 
 the Declaration of Independence and identify themselves 
 with the cause of freedom was the Presbytery of Hanover 
 in Virginia. It memorialized the Virginia Assembly as 
 follows, October 24, 1776: 
 
 “To the Honorable the General Assembly of Virginia. The Memorial 
 of the Presbytery of Hanover humbly represents: 
 
 That your memorialists are governed by the same sentiments which 
 have inspired the United States of America, and are determined that 
 nothing in our power and influence shall be wanting to give success to 
 their common cause. We would also represent that dissenters from the 
 Church of England in this country have ever been desirous to conduct 
 
 * Records of the Presbyterian Church, pp. 463, 466-469; American 
 Archives, fourth series, vol. ii, pp. 1846-1847. 
 
 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 79 
 
 themselves as peaceable members of the civil government, for which 
 reason they have hitherto submitted to various ecclesiastical burdens and 
 restrictions that are inconsistent with equal liberty. But now, when the 
 many and grievous oppressions of our mother-country have laid this 
 Continent under the necessity of casting off the yoke of tyranny, and of 
 forming independent governments upon equitable and liberal foundations, 
 we flatter ourselves, that we shall be freed from all the encum- 
 brances which a spirit of domination, prejudice, or bigotry has inter- 
 woven with most other political systems. This we are the more strongly 
 encouraged to expect by the Declaration of Rights, so universally ap- 
 plauded for that dignity, firmness, and precision with which it delineates 
 and asserts the privileges of society, and the prerogatives of human 
 nature; and which we embrace as the Magna Charta of our common- 
 wealth, that can never be violated without endangering the grand 
 superstructure it was designed to sustain. Therefore, we rely upon this 
 Declaration, as well as the justice of our honorable Legislature, to secure 
 us the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of our consciences; 
 and we should fall short in our duty to ourselves, and the many and 
 numerous congregations under our care, were we, upon this occasion, to 
 neglect laying before you a statement of the religious grievances under 
 which we have hitherto labored, that they may no longer be continued in 
 our present form of government. 
 
 It is well known that in the frontier counties, which are justly supposed 
 to contain a fifth part of the inhabitants of Virginia, the dissenters have 
 borne the heavy burdens of purchasing glebes, building churches and 
 supporting the established clergy, where there are very few Episcopalians, 
 either to assist in bearing the expense, or to reap the advantage; and that 
 throughout the other parts of the country there are also many thousands 
 of zealous friends and defenders of our State, who, besides the invidious, 
 and disadvantageous restrictions to which they have been subjected, 
 annually pay large taxes to support an establishment from which their 
 consciences and principles oblige them to dissent: all which are confessed- 
 ly so many violations of their natural rights; and in their consequences, a 
 restraint upon freedom of inquiry, and private judgment. 
 
 In this enlightened age, and in a land where all of every denomination 
 are united in the most strenuous efforts to be free, we hope and expect 
 that our representatives will cheerfully concur in removing every species 
 of religious, as well as civil bondage. Certain it is, that every argument 
 for civil liberty, gains additional strength when applied to liberty in the 
 concerns of religion; and there is no argument in favor of establishing the 
 Christian religion, but what may be pleaded, with equal propriety, for 
 establishing the tenets of Mohammed by those who believe the Alcoran; 
 or, if this be not true, it is at least impossible for the magistrate to 
 
 “er 
 
80 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 adjudge the right of preference among the various sects that profess the 
 Christian faith, without erecting a claim to infallibility, which would 
 lead us back to the Church of Rome. 
 
 We beg leave farther to represent, that religious establishments are 
 highly injurious to the temporal interests of any community. Without 
 insisting upon the ambition and the arbitrary practices of those who are 
 favored by government, or the intriguing, seditious spirit which is com- 
 monly excited by this, as well as by every other kind of oppression, such 
 establishments greatly retard population, and, consequently, the pro- 
 gress of arts, sciences, and manufactures. Witness the rapid growth and 
 improvement of the Northern provinces compared with this. No one 
 can deny that the more early settlement, and the many superior ad- 
 vantages of our country, would have invited multitudes of artificers, 
 mechanics, and other useful members of society, to fix their habitation 
 among us, who have either remained in their place of nativity, or pre- 
 ferred worse civil governments, and a more barren soil, where they 
 might enjoy the rights of conscience more fully than they have a prospect 
 of doing in this. From which we infer that Virginia might have now been 
 the capital of America, and a match for the British arms, without de- 
 pending on others for the necessaries of war, had it not been prevented by 
 her religious establishment. 
 
 Neither can it be made to appear that the Gospel needs any such civil 
 aid. We rather conceive that, when our blessed Saviour declares his 
 
 - kingdom is not of this world, he renounces all dependence upon state 
 
 power; and as his weapons are spiritual, and were only designed to have 
 influence on the judgement and heart of man, we are persuaded that if 
 mankind were left in the quiet possession of their inalienable religious 
 privileges, Christianity, as in the days of the Apostles, would continue to 
 prevail and flourish in the greatest purity by its own native excellence, 
 and under the all-disposing providence of God. 
 
 We would also humbly represent, that the only proper objects of 
 civil government are the happiness and protection of men in the present 
 state of existence; the security of the life, liberty, and property of the 
 citizens, and to restrain the vicious and encourage the virtuous by whole- 
 some laws, equally extending to every individual; but that the duty 
 which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can only 
 be directed by reason and conviction and is nowhere cognizable but at 
 the tribunal of the universal Judge. 
 
 Therefore, we ask no ecclesiastical establishment for ourselves; neither 
 can we approve of them when granted to others. This, indeed, would be 
 giving exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges to one set of men, 
 without any special public services, to the common reproach and injury of 
 every other denomination. And, for the reasons recited, we are induced 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 81 
 
 earnestly to entreat that all laws now in force in this commonwealth, 
 - which contenance religious domination, may be speedily repealed; that 
 all, of every religious sect may be protected in the full exercise of their 
 several modes of worship; exempted from all taxes for the support of any 
 Church whatsoever, farther than what may be agreeable to their own 
 private choice or voluntary obligation. This being done, all partial and 
 invidious distinctions will be abolished, to the great honor and interest of 
 the State, and every one be left to stand or fall according to his merit, 
 which can never be the case so long as any one denomination is established 
 in preference to others. 
 
 That the great sovereign of the universe may inspire you with unanim- 
 ity, wisdom, and resolution and bring you to a just determination on 
 all the important concerns before you is the fervent prayer of your 
 memorialists.”’ ! 
 
 The Synod of 1777 renewed its appointment of a day of 
 public humiliation, fasting, and prayer, considering “the 
 low and declining state of religion among us, and the 
 abounding of iniquity, for which an holy and jealous God 
 yet continues to visit our country with righteous judge- 
 ments.”2 The year 1778 saw the British in possession 
 of Philadelphia and the Synod was held at Bedminster. 
 It resolved that: 
 
 “The Synod, taking into their most serious consideration, that the 
 lamentable decay of vital piety, for which we have had so much reason 
 to mourn for several years past, still continues; that gross immoralities 
 are increasing to an awful degree; and that the calamities of war are yet 
 permitted to afflict our land, do therefore agree to renew the recom- 
 mendation of last Synod to all our congregations, to spend the last 
 Thursday of every month, or a part of it, in fervent prayer to God, that 
 he would be pleased to pour out his Spirit on the inhabitants of our land, 
 and prepare us for deliverance from the chastenings he hath righteously 
 inflicted upon us for our sins; that he would graciously smile on our 
 arms, and those of our illustrious ally, by land and sea; and grant a 
 speedy and happy conclusion to the present war. And it is earnestly 
 recommended to the several Presbyteries, to take care that this recom- 
 
 mendation be complied with . . ... .3 
 
 1 Foote, Sketches of Virginia, pp. 323-324. 
 2 Records., p. 478. 
 3 [bid., pp. 481-482. 
 
82 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Adjourned to meet at Philadelphia on the third Wednesday of next May 
 at 10 o’clock, A. M. — but if that place be in the enemy’s hand, then to 
 meet here.” 
 
 The Synods of 1779, 1780 and 1781, meeting in Philadel- 
 phia, repeated practically the same formula.! Official 
 interest in the fate of the American cause was never 
 lacking, and the weight of the Synod was thrown into the 
 scales where it appeared to them it would avail most. 
 
 A very large percentage of. the individual leaders of 
 the Revolution were Presbyterians. Education for spir- 
 itual leadership accounts in large part for the prominence 
 of individual Presbyterians. Their college, The College 
 of New Jersey (Princeton), thus early, clearly recognized 
 the important connection between religious education and 
 politics. It was to furnish a larger number of men to act 
 as leaders in the political movements of the times than 
 
 any other American college. Nine of its alumni were ~ 
 
 members of the Federal Constitutional Convention in 
 1787; namely, Alexander Martin of North Carolina, 
 Luther Martin of Maryland, Oliver Ellsworth of Connecti- 
 cut, William Patterson of New Jersey, Gunning Bedford 
 of Delaware, James Madison of Virginia, William Davie of 
 North Carolina, and Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey; 
 Edmund Randolph of Virginia had also been a student at 
 the college. Joseph Reed, Washington’s Military Secre- 
 tary, was another alumnus. The college president, John 
 Witherspoon, was closely identified with all the political 
 movements of the times. In fact, Witherspoon’s keen 
 interest in things political gave to the College of New 
 
 Jersey the character of a training school of political science. 
 
 But all Presbyterians were. interested in politics. 
 Prominent among the non-Princeton Presbyterian element 
 
 1 Records, pp. 483, 488, 491. 
 
 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 83 
 
 to be found in the Federal Constitutional Convention 
 were the following: 
 
 William Livingston of New Jersey, a member of the First and Second 
 Continental Congresses, and Governor from 1776 to 1780. 
 
 James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and later 
 a justice of the United States Supreme Court. 
 
 Thomas McKean, a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly from 
 1765 to 1782. 
 
 Charles Thomson, characterized by John Adams as ‘“‘the Sam Adams 
 of Philadelphia, the life of the cause of liberty,’’ and the secretary to 
 Continental Congress from 1774 to 1789. 
 
 The most powerful single ‘‘Princeton”’ influence in the 
 Revolution was President John Witherspoon, styled by 
 John Adams, the “animated Son of Liberty.” 
 
 Although Witherspoon did not arrive in America until 
 1768, so quickly did he enter into the spirit of this new 
 world, so completely did he identify himself with its 
 modes and aspirations, and so powerfully did he con- 
 tribute to its intellectual leadership that we must con- 
 cede him the foremost place among the leaders of 
 Revolutionary American Presbyterianism.t A_ direct 
 descendant of John Knox, Witherspoon had inherited the 
 militant political ecclesiastical tradition of Scotland; and 
 he was trained for ecclesiastical politics and practiced them 
 until he was called from Scotland to Princeton in 1768. 
 His fame had already been established. 
 
 At Princeton he was to gain even greater repute as a 
 statesman and a patriot. He guided with uncommon 
 success the course of education in this institution until the 
 Revolution suspended its functions. His reputation at- 
 tracted to it some of the brightest and noblest of America’s 
 youth. Bancroft tells us, “It was from Witherspoon of 
 
 1 Sprague, Annals, vol. iii, p. 289; Sanderson, The Signers, vol. v. pp. 
 
 116-157. ‘‘President Witherspoon in the American Revolution,” 
 American Historical Review, vol. 1. No. 4, pp. 671-679. 
 
84 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 New Jersey that Madison imbibed the lesson of perfect 
 freedom in matters of conscience.”! At the memorial 
 service for Witherspoon, at Princeton in 1795, Rev. 
 John Rodgers, asserted that “more than thirty members 
 of the Congress of the United States, since the formation 
 of that illustrious body, have been sons of the College of 
 New Jersey.”2 To Witherspoon’s instruction America 
 owes many of her most distinguished patriots and legislat- 
 ors. He was the first of that long line of American 
 college presidents who illustrate in a high degree the 
 possibilities of college service for political leadership. 
 
 Under Witherspoon’s guidance or influenced by his 
 teachings, was formed a large proportion of the early clergy 
 of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. Later 
 we shall note his great influence in shaping the organiza- 
 tion of the American Church.*? Even greater were his 
 achievements as a practical politician, a member of 
 the Continental Congress. The closing of his college 
 transferred the educator to the world of active politics. 
 In 1774 he met with the Committee at New Brunswick and 
 with William Livingston labored to instruct their delegates 
 that the tea should not be paid for. The matter was left 
 to the general congress, but William Livingston was 
 selected as delegate.* 
 
 The provincial congress of New Jersey in session to 
 frame a new constitution, opened, June 11, 1776, with a 
 prayer by John Witherspoon, a regularly chosen member 
 of that body, and from then until the close of the Revolu- 
 tion, Witherspoon was busy applying the Presbyterian 
 theories of republicanism to the constitution of new civil 
 
 1 Bancroft, op. cit., vol. v, p. 123. 
 
 > Rodgers, The Faithful Servant Rewarded, pp. 1-3. 
 
 3 Infra, pp. 260-282. 
 
 * Bancroft, History of the United States, vol. iv, p. 33. 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 85 
 
 governments. Judge Elmer tells us that, “It has always 
 been understood that the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon . 
 took an active part in preparing it (the constitution of New 
 Jersey, adopted July 2, 1776). There were two eminent 
 lawyers, Jonathan Dickinson Sergeant, and John Cleves 
 Symmes, on the committee to draft the constitution, but 
 the chairman was the Rev. Jacob Green, the Presbyterian 
 minister of Hanover, and the instrument bears quite as 
 prominent marks of clerical as of legal authorship.’’! This 
 same provincial congress resolved to reénforce the army 
 of New York with thirty-three hundred of the New Jersey 
 militia. 
 
 Five friends of independence were elected to represent 
 New Jersey in Continental Congress; Richard Stockton, 
 Abraham Clark, John Hart, Francis Hopkinson, and John 
 Witherspoon. New Jersey exerted great weight in the 
 final contest for independence. On July 1, 1776, near the 
 end of the debate on the subject, John Witherspoon rose 
 and in a short speech remarked that though he had not 
 heard all the discussion in that body, yet he had not 
 wanted ample sources of information; and that, in his 
 judgment, the country was not only ripe for independence, 
 but was in danger of becoming rotten for want of it, if its 
 declaration were longer delayed.? In a letter of March 
 20, 1780, to a friend in Scotland, Witherspoon remarked, 
 “Were our condition ten times worse than it is, nothing 
 short of the clear independence of this country would be 
 accepted.’’ Witherspoon was a signer of the Declaration 
 of Independence, and continued a member of Congress 
 till 1783. 
 
 1 Elmer, Reminiscences of New Jersey; Bancroft, op. cit., vol.iv, p.431~ 
 432. 
 
 2 Bancroft, op. ct., vol.iv, p. 440; Breed Presbyterians and the Revolution, 
 p. 166; Smyth, Presbyterians in the Revolution, p. 31. 
 
86 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Witherspoon signed the Articles of Confederation on 
 behalf of his state, November 26, 1778. In discussing the 
 articles in 1776 he said, “All agree that there must be a 
 confederation for this war; in the enlightened state of 
 men’s minds, I hope for a lasting one. Our greatest danger 
 is of disunion among ourselves. Nothing will come before 
 congress but what respects colonies and not individuals. 
 Every colony is a distinct person; and, if an equal vote be 
 refused, the smaller states will be vassals to the larger.’’! 
 But Witherspoon soon came to realize that a stronger 
 union was needed than that provided for by the Article, 
 particularly as to control of Commerce and Revenues. 
 In Congress on February 3, 1781, he proposed to clothe 
 that body with authority to regulate commerce and to lay 
 duties upon imported articles. The idea was accepted and 
 it was agreed that it was indispensably necessary for the 
 states to vest in Congréss a power to levy a duty of five 
 per cent on imports of articles of foreign growth and 
 manufacture. But as the separate approval of each of the 
 thirteen states was necessary before this could become a 
 law, it was never adopted.? 
 
 Witherspoon in Congress was a member of the com- 
 mittee on foreign affairs, a member of the board of war, a 
 member of the secret committee, also of the committees 
 of finance, supplies for the army, and various special 
 committees. In November 1776, one of the darkest 
 periods of war, when our armies had retreated to Jersey, 
 discouraged and poorly supplied, with enlistments ex- 
 piring, he was made one of a committee of three to repair 
 to the Headquarters of General Washington to consult, 
 
 * Secret Journals of Congress, vol. i, pp. 290-315; Bancroft, op. cit., 
 VOL. ov, pin3: 
 
 ? Bancroft, op. cit., vol. v, p. 453. 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 87 
 
 and to render assistance in recruiting the regiments whose 
 terms had expired or were about to expire, and also to 
 “inquire into and redress to the utmost of their power the 
 just grievances of the soldiers.”” On December 9, 1776, 
 he was placed on a committee with Richard Henry Lee 
 and Samuel Adams “to prepare an address to the in- 
 habitants of America and a recommendation to the several 
 states to appoint a day of fasting, humiliation, and 
 prayer.” In 1778, with three others, he was appointed to 
 prepare a manifesto on the brutal treatment of American 
 prisoners by the British. Their report was adopted by — 
 Congress. 
 
 Perhaps his greatest work was in connection with the 
 finances of the country. In 1778 he was put on the com- 
 mittee on finances with Robert Morris, Elbridge Gerry, 
 Richard Henry Lee, and Gouverneur Morris. Every 
 emission of paper currency, after the first or second, he 
 opposed. He even hazarded his popularity for a time by 
 the vigor of his opposition. Afterwards, at the insistence 
 of some of the very gentlemen who had opposed him in 
 Congress, he published his ideas on the nature, value and 
 uses of money in a most clear and judicious essay, Essay on 
 Money, as a medium of commerce; with remarks, on the 
 advantages and disadvantages of paper admitted into general 
 circulation, by a citizen of the United States.1  Wither- 
 spoon’s conception of the basis of a sound financial policy 
 for the United States ante-dates those of Alexander 
 Hamilton. | 
 
 Witherspoon served as a member of the Provincial 
 Assembly of New Jersey in 1776, as a member of the state 
 
 1 Witherspoon, Essay on Money as a Medium of Commerce; with re- 
 marks on the advantages and disadvantages of paper admitted into general 
 circulation; by a citizen of the United States. Philadelphia, 1786. 
 
88 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 senate in 1780, as a member of the state assembly in 
 1783, and as a member of the Constitutional assembly in 
 
 1789. 
 His literary remains furnish us with a wealth of sound 
 
 patriotism.! Noteworthy are the following: 
 
 “For my own part, of property I have some, of reputation more: 
 that reputation is staked, that property is pledged, on the issue of this 
 contest. And although these grey hairs must soon descend into the 
 sepulchre, I would infinitely rather that they should descend thither by 
 the hand of the executioner than desert at this crisis, the sacred cause of 
 my country.” 2 (This quotation is inscribed on the Witherspoon monu- 
 ment in Fairmount Park, Philadelphia.) 
 
 ‘There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost, 
 and religious liberty preserved entire. If, therefore, we yield up our 
 temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into 
 bondage.’ 3 
 
 “The question then is: Shall we make resistance with the greatest 
 force, — as rebel subjects of a government which we acknowledge or as 
 independent states against an usurped power which we detest and abhor.” 4 
 
 “Can any person of a liberal mind wish that these great and growing 
 countries should be brought back to a state of subjection to a distant 
 power? And can any man deny that, if they had yielded to the claims of 
 the British Parliament, they would have been no better than a parcel of 
 tributary states, ruled by lordly tyrants, and exhausted by unfeeling 
 pensioners, under the commission of one too distant to hear the cry of 
 ae and surrounded by those who had an interest in deceiving 
 him. 
 
 “Is there a probable prospect of reconciliation on constitutional 
 principles? What are those constitutional principles? Will anybody 
 show that Great Britian can be sufficiently sure of our dependence, and 
 yet be sure of our liberties?” 6 ; 
 
 “It ought, therefore, in my opinion, to meet with the cordial appro- 
 bation of every impartial person, as I am confident it will of posterity, 
 
 ‘Works of John Witherspoon, D.D., LL.D., To Which is prefixed an 
 pe of the author's life. By Rev. Dr. John Rogers. 9 vols. Edinburg, 
 
 2 Proceedings and Addresses at the Laying of the Corner-Stone and at the 
 unveiling of the statue to John Witherspoon on Fairmount Park, Philadel- 
 phia. Compiled by the Rev. William P. Breed, D.D., Philadelphia. 
 
 3 Works, vol. v, p. 203. 5 Ibid., vol. v, p. 224. 
 
 * [bid., vol. ix, p. 92. 6 Tbid., vol. ix, p. 97. 
 
 a 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 89 
 
 that they have united for common defence, and resolved that they will 
 be both free and independent, because they cannot be the one without 
 the other.” 4 
 
 ““As to American Independence, I mean to show, — 1. That it was 
 necessary. 2. That it will be honorable and profitable. And 3. That 
 in all probability it will be no injury, but a real advantage, to the island 
 of Great Britain.” 2 
 
 “T am much mistaken if the time is not just at hand when there shall 
 be greater need than ever in America for the most accurate discussion of 
 the principles of society, the rights of nations, and the policy of the 
 states. For only by making a people ‘virtuous’ can they be made 
 “invincible’.”’ 
 
 “For what would it signify to risk our possessions and shed our blood 
 to set ourselves free from the encroachments and oppression of Great 
 Britain, with a certainty, as soon as peace was settled with them of a 
 more lasting war, a more unnatural, more bloody, and more hopeless 
 war, among the colonies themselves.” + 
 
 “Tt is not impossible, that in future times all the states on one quarter 
 of the globe, may see it proper by some plan of union, to perpetuate 
 security and peace: and sure I am, a well planned confederacy among the 
 states of America, may hand down the blessings of peace and public order 
 to many generations.” ® 
 
 The greatest of all the Witherspoon utterances in point 
 of influence was the sermon which he preached at Prince- 
 ton, May 17, 1776, this “Being the General Fast Ap- 
 pointed by the Congress throughout the United Colonies,” 
 on the subject The Dominion of Providence over 
 the Passions of Men. This sermon gives a calm and 
 striking statement of the reasons for America’s demand of 
 the right to control her own affairs. It was much read on 
 both sides of the Atlantic; and at Glasgow it was sent 
 forth embellished with notes of indignation wherein 
 the author was called a rebel and a traitor.© The sermon 
 
 1 Works of John Witherspoon, vol. v, p. 224. 
 2 Thid., vol. v, p: 224. 
 
 el bid. Vol.1x;, ps 231: 
 
 4 Tbid., vol. iv, p. 348. 
 
 be) Did, a VOL IVb pan oo L- 
 6 Sprague, Annals, vol, ili, pp. 293-294. 
 
90 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 bears the following dedication: “To the Honorable John 
 Hancock, Esq., President of the Congress of the United 
 States of America; in Testimony of the Highest Esteem 
 for his personal character and public Conduct the following 
 sermon is humbly inscribed by his most obedient humble 
 servant the Author.”’! 
 
 “We are now putting on the harness, and entering upon an important 
 contest, the length of which it is impossible to foresee and the issue of 
 which it will perhaps be thought presumptuous to foretell. But as the 
 truth, with respect to God’s moral government, is the same and un- 
 changeable; as the issue, in the case of Sennacherib’s invasion, did but 
 lead the prophet to acknowledge it; our duty and interest conspire in 
 calling upon us to improve it. 
 
 The ambition of mistaken princes, the cunning and cruelty of oppres- 
 sive and corrupt ministers, and even the inhumanity of brutal soldiers, 
 however dreadful, shall finally promote the glory of God, and in the 
 meantime, while the storm continues, his mercy and kindness shall 
 appear in prescribing bounds to their rage and fury. 
 
 What ground there is to give praise to God for his favors already 
 bestowed on us, respecting the public cause. It would be a criminal 
 inattention not to observe the singular interposition of providence 
 hitherto, in behalf of the American colonies. It is, however, impossible 
 for me in a single discourse, as well as improper at this time to go through 
 every step of our past transactions . . . . . How many discoveries 
 have been made of the designs of enemies in Britain and among ourselves, 
 in a manner so unexpected to us as to them, and in such season as to 
 prevent their effect? What surprising successes have attended our en- 
 counters in almost every instance? Has not the boasted discipline of 
 regular and veteran soldiers been turned into confusion and dismay before 
 the new and maiden courage of freemen in defence of their property and 
 their right? . . . . . The shameful flight of the army and navy of 
 Britain, was brought without the loss of a man. To all this we may add, 
 that the counsels of our enemies have been visibly confounded, so that 
 I believe I may say with truth, that there is hardly any steps which 
 they have taken, but it has operated strongly against themselves, and 
 been more in our favor than if they had followed a contrary course. 
 
 I look upon ostentation and confidence to be a sort of outrage upon 
 
 1 The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men, A Sermon 
 preached at Princeton on the 17th of May, 1776, by John Witherspoon. 
 Philadelphia, 1776; Works, vol. v, pp. 176-216. 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 9] 
 
 providence, and when it becomes general, and infuses itself into the spirit 
 of a people, it is a forerunner of destruction. 
 
 I do not mean to speak prophetically, but agreeably to the analogy 
 of faith, and the principles of God’s moral government. Some have 
 observed that true religion, and in her dominion, riches, literature, and 
 arts, have taken their course in a slow and gradual manner, from East to 
 West since the earth was settled after the flood, and from thence forebode 
 the future glory of America. I leave this as a matter rather of conjecture 
 than certainty, but observe, that if your cause is just, if your principles 
 are pure, — and if your conduct is prudent, you need not fear the multi- 
 tude of opposing hosts. 
 
 You are all my witnesses, that this is the first time of my introducing 
 any political subject into the pulpit. At this season, however, it is not 
 only lawful but necessary, and I willingly embrace the opportunity of 
 declaring my opinion without any hesitation, that the cause in which 
 America is now in arms, is the cause of justice, of liberty, and of human 
 nature. So far as we have hitherto proceeded, I am satisfied that the 
 confederacy of the colonies, has not been the effect of pride, resentment, 
 or sedition, but of a deep and general conviction, that our civil and 
 religious liberties, and consequently in a great measure the temporal and 
 eternal happiness of us and our posterity depended on the issue . 
 
 There ts not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost ane 
 religious liberty preserved entire. If, therefore, we yield up our temporal 
 property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into bondage. 
 
 You shall not, my brethren, hear from me in the pulpit, what you have 
 never heard from me in conversation; I mean railing at the king per- 
 sonally, or even his ministers and the parliament, and people of Britain, 
 as so many barbarous savages. Many of their actions have probably 
 been worse than their intentions. That they should desire unlimited 
 dominion if they can obtain or preserve it, is neither new nor wonderful. 
 I do not refuse submission to their unjust claims, because they are cor- 
 rupt or profligate, although probably many of them are so, but because 
 they are men, and therefore liable to all the selfish bias inseparable from 
 human nature. I call this claim unjust of making laws to bind in all 
 cases whatsoever, because they are separated from us, independent of us, 
 
 and have an interest in opposing us. Would any man who could prevent 
 it, give up his estate, person, and family, to the disposal of his neighbor, 
 although he had liberty to choose the wisest and the best master? Surely 
 not! This is the true and proper hinge of the controversy between 
 Great Britain and America. It is, however, to be added, that such is their 
 distance from us, that a wise and prudent administration of our affairs is 
 as impossible as the claim of authority is unjust. Such is and must be 
 their ignorance of the state of things here, so much time must elapse be- 
 
92 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 fore an error can be seen and remedied, and so much injustice and par- 
 tiality must be expected from the arts and misrepresentation of interested 
 persons, that for these colonies to depend wholly upon the legislature of 
 Great Britain, would be like many other oppressive connections, injury 
 to the master, and ruin to the slave. 
 
 The management of the war itself on their part, would furnish new 
 proof of this, if any were needful. Is it not manifest with what absurdity 
 and impropriety they have conducted their own designs? We have 
 nothing so much to fear as dissension, and they have by wanton and 
 unnecessary cruelty forced us into union. At the same time to let us 
 see what we have to expect, and what would be the fatal consequences of 
 unlimited submission, they have uniformly called those acts Lenity, 
 which filled this whole continent with resentment and horror. The 
 ineffable disdain expressed by our fellow subjects, in saying, “That he 
 would not hearken to America, till she was at his feet,’ has armed more 
 men, and inspired more deadly rage, than could have been done by 
 laying waste a whole province with fire and sword. Again, we wanted 
 not number, but time, and they sent over handful after handful, till we 
 were ready to oppose a multitude greater than they had to send. In 
 fine, if there was one place stronger than the rest, and more able and 
 willing to resist, there they made the attack, and left the others till they 
 were duly informed, completely incensed, and fully furnished with every 
 instrument of war. 
 
 I mention these things . . . . . as decisive proofs of the impossi- 
 bility of these great and growing states, being safe and happy when every 
 part of their internal polity is dependent on Great Britain. If, on ac- 
 count of their distance, and ignorance of our situation, they could not 
 conduct their own quarrel with propriety for one year, how can they 
 give direction and vigor to every department of our civil constitutions 
 from age to age? . . . . . There is a certain distance from the seat 
 of government, where an attempt to rule will either produce tyranny and 
 helpless subjection, or provoke resistance and effect a separation. 
 
 I have said, if your principles are pure. The meaning of this is, if 
 your present opposition to the claims of the British ministry does not 
 arise from a seditious and turbulent spirit, or a wanton contempt of legal 
 authority; from a blind and factious attachment to particular persons or 
 parties, or from a selfish, rapacious disposition, and a desire to turn 
 public confusion to private profit — but from a concern for the interest 
 of your country, and the safety of yourself and your posterity. On this 
 subject I cannot help observing, that though it would be a miracle if 
 there were not many selfish persons among us, and discoveries now and 
 then made of mean and interested transactions, yet they have been com- 
 paratively inconsiderable both in number and effect. In general, there 
 
 “eh 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 93 
 
 has been so great a degree of public spirit, that we have much more 
 reason to be thankful for its vigor and prevalence, than to wonder at the 
 few appearances of dishonesty and disaffection. It would be very 
 uncandid to ascribe the universal ardor that has prevailed among all 
 ranks of men, and the spirited exertions in the most distant colonies to 
 any thing else than public spirit. Nor was there ever perhaps in history 
 so general a commotion from which religious differences have been so 
 entirely excluded. Nothing of this kind has as yet been heard, except of 
 late in the absurd, but malicious and detestable attemps of our few re- 
 maining enemies to introduce them. At the same time, I must also for 
 the honor of this country observe, that though government in the ancient 
 forms has been so long unhinged, and in some colonies not sufficient care 
 taken to substitute another in its place; yet has there been, by common 
 consent, a much greater degree of order and public peace, than men of 
 reflexion and experience foretold or expected. From all these circum- 
 stances, I conclude favorably of the principles of the friends of liberty, 
 and do earnestly exhort you to adopt and act upon those which have been 
 described, and resist the influence of every other. 
 
 Once more, if to the justice of your cause, and the purity of your 
 principles, you add prudence in your conduct, there will be the greatest 
 reason to hope, by the blessing of God, for prosperity and success. J have 
 chiefly in view union, firmness and patience. Everybody must perceive 
 the absolute necessity of union. It is indeed in everybody’s mouth, and 
 therefore instead of attempting to convince you of its importance, I will 
 only caution you against the usual causes of division. If persons of every 
 rank, instead of implicitly complying with the orders of those whom they 
 themselves have chosen to direct, will needs judge every measure over 
 again, when it comes to be put in execution; if different classes of men 
 intermix their little private views, or clashing interests with public 
 affairs, and marshal into parties, the merchant against the landowner, 
 and the landlord against the merchant; if local provincial pride and 
 jealousy arise, and you allow yourselves to speak with contempt of the 
 courage, character, manners, or even language of particular places, you 
 are doing a greater injury to the common cause, than you are aware of. 
 If such practices are admitted among us, I shall look upon it as one of 
 the most dangerous symptoms and if they become general, a presage of 
 approaching ruin. 
 
 By firmness and patience, I mean a resolute adherence to the duty, and 
 laying your account with many difficulties, as well as occasional dis- 
 appointment. In a former part of this discourse, I have cautioned you 
 against ostentation and vain glory. Be pleased farther to observe that 
 extremes often beget one another, the same persons who exult extrava- 
 gantly of success, are generally most hable to despondent timidity on 
 
94 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 every little inconsiderable defeat. Men of this character are the bane and 
 corruption of every society or party to which they belong, but they are 
 especially the ruin of an army, if suffered to continue in it. Remember 
 the vicissitude of human things, and the usual course of providence. 
 How often has a just cause been reduced to the lowest ebb, and yet when 
 firmly adhered to, has become finally triumphant. I speak this now while 
 the affairs of the colonies are in so prosperous a state, lest this prosperity 
 itself, should render you less able to bear unexpected misfortunes... . 
 The sum of the whole is . . . that the blessing of God is only to be looked 
 for by those who are not wanting in the discharge of their duty . 
 * * * * * 
 
 A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for 
 some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be 
 ineffectual, and slavery must ensue. On the other hand, when the man- 
 ners of a nation are pure, when true religion and internal principles 
 maintain their vigor, the attemps of the most powerful enemies to 
 oppress them are commonly baffled and disappointed. 
 
 * * * * * 
 
 He is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active 
 in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the 
 greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality. 
 
 * * * * co 
 
 We have sometimes taken the. liberty to forebode the downfall of the 
 British Empire, from the corruption and degeneracy of the people. 
 Unhappily the British soldiers have been distinguished among all the 
 nations in Europe, for the most shocking profanity. 
 
 * * * * * 
 
 I exhort all who are not called to go into the field, to apply themselves 
 with the utmost diligd Ye to works of industry. It is in your power by this 
 means not only to supply the necessities, but to add to the strength of 
 your country. Habits of industry prevailing in a society, not only in- 
 crease its wealth, as their immediate effect, but they prevent the intro- 
 duction of many vices, and are intimately connected with sobriety and 
 good morals . . . . . The active farmer who rises with the dawn and 
 follows his team or plow, must in the end be an overmatch for those 
 effeminate and delicate soldiers, who are nursed in the lap of self- 
 indulgence, and whose greatest exertion is in the important preparation 
 for, and tedious attendance on, a masquerade, or midnight ball. 
 
 * * * * * 
 
 In the last place, suffer me to recommend to you frugality in your 
 families, and every other article of expense. This the state of things 
 among us renders absolutely necessary, and it stands in the most immedi- 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 95 
 
 ate connection both with virtuous industry, and active public spirit 
 Temperance 1 in meals, moderation and decency in dress, furniture and 
 equipage, have I think, generally been characteristics of a distinguished 
 patriot. And when the same spirit prevades a people in general, they are 
 fit for every duty, and able to encounter the most formidable enemy. 
 The general subject of the preceding discourse has been the wrath of man 
 praising God. If the unjust oppression of your enemies, which with- 
 holds from you many of the usual articles of luxury, and magnificence, 
 shall contribute to make you clothe yourselves and your children with the 
 works of your own hands, and cover yor" tables with the salutary pro- 
 ductions of your own soil, it will be a ne illustration of the same truth, 
 and a real happiness to yourselves and y »ur country. 
 * * * 4 * 
 
 Upon the whole, I beseech you to make a wise improvement of the 
 present threatening aspect of public afiairs, and to remember that your 
 duty to God, to-your country, to your families, and to yourselves, is the 
 same. True religion is nothing else but an inward temper and outward 
 conduct suited to your state and circumstances in providence at any 
 time. And as peace with God and conformity to him, adds to the sweet- 
 ness of created comforts while we possess them, so in times of difficulty 
 and trial, it is in the man of piety and inward principle, that we may 
 expect to find the uncorrupted patriot, the useful citizen, and the in- 
 vincible soldier . . . . God grant that in America true religion and civil 
 liberty may be reepernble. and that the unjust attempts to destroy 
 the one, may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of 
 both.” . 
 
 Text: Psalm |xxvi, 10. “Surely the wrath of Man shall praise thee; 
 the remainder of Wrath shalt thou restrain.”’ 
 
 How fortunate it’ was for the American cause that this 
 clear-headed thinker, this expert in the art of popular 
 expression, this moulder of public opinion was in full 
 sympathy with those deep human currents of patriotic 
 thought and feeling that then swept towards an inde- 
 pendent national life for this land. Capable beyond most 
 ‘men of seeing the historic and cosmopolitan significance of 
 the movement, he had the moral greatness to risk even his 
 own great favor with the American people, by telling 
 them that the acquisition of independence was not every- 
 thing, that even greater perils than Red-Coats and 
 
96 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Hessians were to be met with in the form of shallow and 
 anarchical politics, unscrupulous partnership, incompe- 
 tence, selfishness, and disregard of moral obligations. 
 Under such leadership the churches of America were the 
 great stabilizers of political institutions during that period 
 of disruption and anarchy which followed the breakdown of 
 British control. Law and order prevailed through the 
 efforts of the moral leadership of the churches. 
 
 Another power in Presbyterian Revolutionary leader- 
 ship was George Duffield, one of the chaplains of Continen- 
 tal Congress, pastor of the Third Presbyterian Church 
 in Philadelphia. His staunch opinions touching the 
 great dispute drew to his church many of the leaders of the 
 Revolutionary movement. John Adams attended, June 
 11, 1775, and wrote home to his wife, “I have been this 
 morning to hear Mr. Duffield, a preacher in this city, 
 whose principles, prayers, and sermons more nearly re- 
 semble those of our New England clergy than any that I 
 have heard. His discourse was a kind of exposition on 
 the thirty-fifth chapter of Isaiah. America was the wilder- 
 ness, and the solitary place, and he said it would be glad, 
 ‘rejoice and blossom as the rose.’ He labored ‘to strength- 
 en the weak hands and confirm the feeble knees.’ He said 
 to them that were of a fearful heart, ‘Be strong, fear not. 
 Behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God 
 with a recompense; he will come and save you’ 
 
 He applied the whole prophecy to this country, and gave us 
 as animating an entertainment as I ever heard. He filled 
 and swelled the bosom of every hearer.”! About six 
 weeks later, Adams wrote again,. “This day I have heard 
 my parish priest, Mr. Duffield, from 2 Chronicles, xv, 
 I, 2. This gentleman never fails to adapt his discourse to 
 ‘Familiar Letters of John Adams and His W: afe, p. 65. 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Q7 
 
 the times. He pressed upon his audience the necessity of 
 piety and virtue, in the present times of adversity, and 
 held up to their view the army before Boston as an ex- 
 ample .... . You may well suppose that this 
 language was exceedingly pleasing to me.’’! 
 
 On the National Fast Day, May 17, 1776, Duffield drew 
 a parallel between George HI and Pharaoh. He joined the 
 army around New York as chaplain for the summer of 
 1776, remaining with them throughout the whole of that 
 disastrous campaign.” Returning to Philadelphia in the 
 fall, just before Trenton, he publicly ‘rebuked his people 
 because there were so many men in the house, saying 
 there “would be one less to-morrow, and no lecture on 
 Wednesday evening’.’’? 
 
 The Tory satirist, Odell, thus describes Duffield: 
 
 **A saint of old, as learned monks have said, 
 Preached to the fish — the fish his voice obeyed. 
 The same good man convened the grunting herd — 
 Who bowed obedient to his powerful word. 
 
 Such energy had truth, in days of yore; 
 Falsehood and nonsense, in our days, have more. 
 Duffield avows them to be all in all, 
 
 And mounts or quits the pulpit, at their call. 
 
 In vain ‘New Light’ displays her heavenly shine, 
 In vain attract him oracles divine: 
 
 Chaplain of Congress give him to become, 
 
 Light may be dark, and oracles be dumb. 
 
 It pleased Saint Anthony to preach to brutes —- 
 To preach to devils best with Duffield suits.” * 
 
 Duffield was a preacher rather than a publicist; only one 
 of his sermons is extant, a sermon preached in his own 
 
 1 Familiar Letters, p. 90; Tyler, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 313. 
 2 Sprague, Annals, ii, p. 191. 
 
 3 Webster, Presbyterian Church in America, p. 672. 
 
 4 The Loyalist Poetry, pp. 40-41. 
 
98 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 church on the 11th of December, 1783, the day of national 
 thanksgiving for deliverance and peace.! 
 
 John Rodgers, pastor of the old Wall.Street Presby- 
 terian Church, is another shining example of the patriotic 
 Presbyterian preacher.” He served in turn as Chaplain of 
 General Heath’s brigade, Chaplain of the Convention of 
 the State of New York, Chaplain of the Council of Safety, 
 and Chaplain of the First Legislature of New York State. 
 This evidences his popularity as a preacher. He was a 
 trustee of the College of New Jersey and was selected to 
 preach the memorial sermon for its late president, in 
 1795.2 Next to Witherspoon he was the most notable 
 figure in American Presbyterianism. He numbered among 
 his parishioners: : 
 
 Peter Van Burg Livingston, a brother of William Livingston, a founder 
 of the College of New Jersey, a member and president of the First 
 Provincial Congress of New York, 1775, and a member of the Second 
 Provincial Congress, 1775-1776. 
 
 Alexander McDougal, author of A Son of Liberty to the Betrayed In- 
 habitants of the Colony, president of the meeting in 1774, that elected the 
 delegates to the first Continental Congress, Colonel, Brigadier General 
 and Major General in the Continental Army, a member of Continental 
 Congress, 1781-1782 and 1784-1785, elected Minister of Marine, thereby 
 becoming our first Secretary of Navy, and New York State Senator, 
 1783-1786. 
 
 Dr. Rodgers’s most famous sermon was the one of 
 December 11, 1783, the day of public national thanks- 
 giving, on The Divine Goodness Displayed in the Ameri- 
 can Revolution,* from the text, Psalms exxv, 3: “The 
 
 ‘Duffield, A Sermon Preached in the Third Presbyterian Church in 
 the city of Philadelphia, Thursday, December 11, 1783. Philadelphia, 
 1784. Reprinted in The Patriotic Preachers of the American Revolution, 
 pp. 344-368. 
 
 * Miller, Samuel, Memoir of the Rev. John Rodgers, Philadelphia, 1840. 
 
 3 Supra, p. 83. 
 
 * Rodgers, John, The Divine Goodness Displayed in the American 
 Revolution, A Sermon preached December 11th, 1783, A Day of public 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 99 
 
 Lord hath done great things for us, whereof we are glad.” 
 There are two noteworthy features of this sermon, its 
 indictment of the British war on American churches and 
 its vision of the future of America: 
 
 “It is much to be lamented, that the troops of a nation that has 
 been considered as one of the bulwarks of the Reformation, should act 
 as if they had waged war with the God whom Christians adore. They 
 have, in the course of this war, utterly destroyed more than fifty places 
 of public worship, in these states. Most of these they burnt, others they 
 leveled to the ground, and in some places left not a vestige of their 
 former situation; while they have wantonly defaced, or rather destroyed 
 others, by converting them into barracks, jails, hospitals, riding schools, 
 etc. Boston, Newport, Philadelphia, and Charleston, all furnished 
 melancholy instances of this prostitution and abuse of the house of God; 
 and of the nineteen places of public worship in this city (New Y«rk) 
 when the war began, there were but nine fit for use, when the British 
 troops left it. . 
 
 It is true, Trinity Church, and the old Lutheran, were destroyed by 
 fire, that laid waste so great a part of the city, a few nights after the 
 enemy took possession of it; and therefore, they are not charged with 
 designedly burning them, though they were the occasion of it; for there 
 can be no doubt, after all that malice has said to the contrary, but the 
 fire was occasioned by the carelessness of their people, and they prevented 
 its more speedy extinguishment. But the ruinous situation in which 
 they had left two of the Low Dutch Reformed Churches, the three 
 Presbyterian Churches, the French Protestant Church, the Anabaptist 
 Church, and the Friends new meeting house, was the effect of design, 
 and strongly marks their enmity to those societies . 
 
 * * * * * 
 
 We have under the auspices of his holy providence, risen into existence, 
 and taken our station among the nations, and the empires of the earth. 
 An event of such magnitude, that it forms a new era in the history of 
 mankind. 
 
 The eyes of the nations of the earth, and particularly the eyes of all 
 Europe, are upon these States, to see what use they will make of the 
 great things God has done forus . . . . . Would you reap the fruits of 
 your toils, your losses and your blood; it is indispensably necessary that 
 the federal union of these States be cemented and strengthened — that 
 the honor of the Great Council of the nation be supported, and its 
 
 thanksgiving. N. Y., 1783. Reprinted in Patriotic Preachers of the American 
 Revolution, pp. 312-343. 
 
100 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 salutary measures carried into execution, with unanimity and dispatch 
 without regard to partial views, or local interests — that the credit of this 
 new empire be established on the principles of strictest justice and its 
 faith maintained sacred and inviolable, in whatever way, or to whatever 
 description of persons it has been pledged, or may at any time be pledged. 
 Alas! that its glory has suffered so much already, by the failure of our 
 currency. Let us carefully repair this waste of honor, if we cannot re- 
 pair the waste of property, by the most sacred adherence to our COE o 
 ments in all future time. 
 
 You will please to remember farther, that the virtue I recommend, both 
 political and moral, is essential to the preservation of the clear-earned 
 privilege in which we rejoice this day. This is especially the case in a 
 democratic government and the more democratic the government, the 
 more necessary.” 
 
 Jacob Green, a graduate of Harvard in 1744, pastor of 
 the Presbyterian Church of Hanover, New Jersey, was an 
 early and fearless champion of independence. He not 
 only preached it from his pulpit, but he is reputed to 
 have published a pamphlet thereon. Green was made 
 chairman of the committee which drafted the constitution 
 of the state of New Jersey in 1776, and doubtlessly in- 
 fluenced the nature of that document considerably.! 
 
 John Miller of Dover preached, before the Declaration 
 of Independence, from the text “We have no part in 
 David, nor any inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your 
 tents, O Israel!’ Robert Davidson of the First Presby- 
 terian Church of Philadelphia, preached from the text, 
 “For there fell down many slain because the war was of 
 God.” Other patriotic Presbyterian preachers to be 
 noted are: Patrick Alison of Baltimore, John Blair and 
 James Waddell of Virginia. 
 
 Then there were the fighting elders: Generals Morgan 
 and Pickens at Cowpens, and Colonels Campbell, Williams. 
 Cleaveland, Shelby, and Sevier at King’s Mountain. 
 
 1 Sprague, Annals, vol. ili, p. 138; Tyler, op cit., vol. ii, p. 294: 
 Bancroft, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 432. 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 101 
 
 Alexander McWhorter of Newark, an alumnus of the 
 College of New Jersey, was chaplain of Knox’s brigade and 
 was with Washington at the crossing of the Delaware. He 
 was known as “one of the most able, learned and useful 
 ministers in the American church.” James Hall of North 
 Carolina was a captain of cavalry as well as chaplain of a 
 regiment. James Armstrong was of the Second Mary- 
 land brigade, Adam Boyd of the North Carolina brigade; 
 and Daniel McCall was with the Canadian expedition.! 
 , Among the Pennsylvania troops under Washington was 
 a chaplain, named Hugh Henry Brackenridge, who was of 
 the Class of 1771 of the College of New Jersey, with James 
 Madison and Philip Freneau. He won fame for his 
 patriotic essays: 
 “The Battle of Bunker Hill,” a tragedy written in 1776. 
 “The Death of General Montgomery,” 1777. 
 “Six Political Discourses Founded on Scripture,” 1778, under the 
 following sub-titles: 
 “The Bloody Vestiges of Tyranny.” 
 “The Nature and Artifice of Toryism.”’ 
 “The Fate of Tyranny and Toryism.” 
 “The Agency of Heaven in the Cause of Liberty.” 
 “The Blasphemy and Gasconade and Self-dependence in a 
 
 Certain General.” 
 “The Great Wrath of the Tyrant and the Cause of it.” 
 
 These essays are choice specimens of imprecation accord- 
 ing to the style of the Old Testament: 
 
 “Woe unto them, for they have rejected the frequency and humility of 
 our petitions. They have been deaf to all entreaty, and the softest 
 words of soft expostulation. They have pursued, without remorse, the 
 dire intention to destroy us. They have pursued it in a cruel manner. 
 They have warred with a rage unknown to civilized nations. They have 
 mangled the bodies of our heroes on the field of battle. They have 
 burned houses of religious worship. They have stabbed and shed the 
 
 1 Gillette, op. cit., pp. 186 sqq.; Briggs, op. cit., p. 91 sq.; Blaikie, 
 op. cit., p. 175 sq; Smythe, op. cit., p. 32 sq. 
 
102 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 blood of unarmed and supplicating clergymen. This they have done to 
 persons of the same language and religion with themselves. Woe unto 
 them, for they have shed a brother’s blood. They have gone in the way 
 of Cain.”? 
 
 The supreme knight and the great martyr of Presbyter- 
 lanism, was pastor James Caldwell of the Presbyterian 
 Church of Elizabeth, New Jersey, “the Rebel High 
 Priest,” “the Fighting Chaplain.”’? He has been made 
 famous by the story, “Give ’em Watts!” It is told that 
 at the Springfield engagement when the militia ran out of 
 wadding for their muskets, Parson Caldwell, galloped to 
 the Presbyterian Church, and returning with an armful of 
 hymn-books, threw them on the ground, exclaiming, 
 “Now, boys, give ’em Watts! Give ’em Watts!” 
 Whether or not this legend is authentic, its currency re- 
 flects the influence of Caldwell. He was the pastor of 
 one of the leading Presbyterian churches of New Jersey. 
 His congregation was a famous one. 
 
 William Livingston was. its chief .personage.? As the 
 editor of the “Watch Tower”’ section of the New York 
 Mercury, he established an organ for the Presbyterian 
 sentiments of America. In opposition to the establish- 
 ment of an American episcopate, he wrote an open Letter 
 to the Right Reverend Father in God, John Lord, Bishop of 
 Llandaff (1768). He edited and in a large measure wrote 
 the “American Whig” columns in the New York Gazette 
 (1768-1769). His estate in New Jersey was known as 
 
 1 Brackenridge, Six Political Discourses, p. 13. 
 
 * Caldwell and the Revolution, a historical sketch of the First Church 
 of Elizabeth prior to and during the war of the Revolution. Being a dis- 
 course delivered on Sunday, January 25th, 1880. The Centennial Anniver- 
 sary of the Burning of the Church Edifice of the First Presbyterian Church of 
 Rea BG Jersey. By Rev. Everard Kempshall, D.D., Elizabeth, 
 
 * Sedgwick, Life of William Livingston; Livingston, The Livingstons of 
 Livingston Manor. 
 
 ee ee tii: a 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 103 
 
 “Liberty Hall.” He represented New Jersey in the first 
 and second Continental Congresses (1774-1776), and was 
 chosen first governor of the state, which office he filled 
 until his death in 1790. He was a delegate to the Federal 
 Constitutional Convention (1787) and there supported 
 the New Jersey plan. 
 
 Elias Boudinot of Caldwell’s congregation was deputy to 
 the Provincial Congress of New Jersey from May to 
 August 1775, and from May 1777 to July 1778 he was 
 commissary-general of prisoners, with the rank of colonel, 
 in the Continental Army. He was a member of Continen- 
 tal Congress in 1778, and from 1781 to 1783, — from 1782 
 to 1783 he was president of that body. For a short time 
 he acted as Secretary of Foreign Affairs. From 1789 to 
 1795, he was a member of the national House of Repre- 
 sentatives, and from 1795 to 1805 Director of the United 
 States Mint at Philadelphia. He was a founder of the 
 American Bible Society and served as a trustee of the 
 College of New Jersey. He published The Age of Revelation 
 (1790) in reply to Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason. As 
 president of the Continental Congress he officially signed 
 the Treaty of Ratification of the Peace of Paris. He was a 
 brother-in-law of Richard Stockton. ! 
 
 Pastor Caldwell’s congregation also contained Abraham 
 Clark, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, mem- 
 ber of the Provincial Council of New Jersey in 1775, 
 member of Continental Congress, 1776-1778, 1781-1783, 
 1785-1788, delegate to the Annapolis Convention in 1786, 
 and member of Congress 1791-1794. Then too there was 
 Jonathan Dayton, a graduate of the College of New 
 Jersey, member of the New Jersey Assembly, 1786-1787, 
 
 1 Boudinot, The Life, Public Services, Addresses and Letters of Elias 
 Boudinot. Infra. pp. 515-516. 
 
104 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 member and speaker, 1790, member of the New Jersey 
 Senate, 1789-1790, delegate to the Constitutional Con- 
 vention, 1787, member of Congress, 1791-1799 and its 
 speaker 1795-1799, and United States Senator, 1799- 
 1805. Fully forty commissioned officers of the Continen- 
 tal Army were from this congregation. 
 
 To add to the fame of Caldwell, the British made 
 martyrs of both himself and his wife. General Knyphau- 
 sen’s expedition took Elizabeth in 1780, burning Caldwell’s 
 church and shooting his wife. Later they shot Caldwell 
 himself, claiming that it was by mistake.! 
 
 Dr. Inglis might well say, “I do not know one Presby- 
 terlan minister, nor have I been able, after strict inquiry, 
 to hear of any, who did not by preaching and every effort 
 in his power promote all the measures of the colonial 
 congress, however extravagant.”? The Presbyterians 
 themselves at the close of the war expressed officially their 
 gratification at the part they had played therein. The 
 “Pastoral Letter’? of the Synod of 1783, composed by 
 Witherspoon, Spencer and Smith, read: 
 
 “We cannot help congratulating you on the general and almost 
 universal attachment of the Presbyterian body to the cause of liberty and 
 the rights of mankind. This has been visible in their conduct, and has 
 been confessed by the complaints and resentment of the common enemy. 
 Such a circumstance ought not only to afford us satisfaction on the re- 
 review, as bringing credit to the body in general, but to increase our 
 gratitude to God, for the happy issue of the war. Had it been unsuccess- 
 ful, we must have drunk deeply of the cup of suffering. Our burnt and 
 wasted churches, and our plundered dwellings, in such places as fell 
 under the power of our adversaries, are but an earnest of what we must 
 have suffered, had they finally prevailed. The Synod, therefore, request 
 you to render thanks to Almighty God, for all his mercies, spiritual and 
 
 temporal, and in particular manner for establishing the Independence of 
 the United States of America.” 3 
 
 Bret Harte, Caldwell of Springfield, a poem. *Supra., p. 29. 
 * Records of the Presbyterian Church, pp. 499-500; Briggs, op. cit., p. 357. 
 
GAETEAS ELE Hay, 
 
 THE DUTCH REFORMED, GERMAN REFORMED, 
 LUTHERAN, BAPTIST, METHODIST AND 
 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHES IN 
 THE REVOLUTION 
 
 The situation of the Dutch Reformed Church during 
 the Revolution was similar to that of its near relative, the 
 Presbyterian Church; its republican principles were the 
 especial target of British hatred. Subjected to a British 
 animus, the like of which had destroyed Presbyterian 
 churches and martyred its ministers, the Dutch Reformed 
 Church experienced increased indignities because of its 
 location, chiefly in New York City and the Hudson River 
 Valley, the strategic position which the British sought to 
 gain and to hold.!.- Dutch Reformed congregations were 
 driven from their homes; pastors and flocks were separated 
 and scattered; churches were desecrated and destroyed. 
 New York’s most beloved pastor, Archibald Laidlie, died in 
 exile. 
 
 Dr. John H. Livingston, that most temperate teacher 
 and the leader of this denomination, tells us in a sermon of 
 July 4, 1790, at the re-opening of the Middle Dutch Church 
 in Nassau Street: 
 
 “] dare not speak of the wanton cruelty of those who destroyed this 
 temple, nor repeat the various indignities which have been perpetrated. 
 It would be easy to mention facts which would chill your blood! A 
 recollection of the groans of dying prisoners, which pierced this ceiling; 
 
 or the sacrilegious sports and rough feats of horsemanship exhibited 
 within these walls might raise sentiments in your mind, perhaps, not 
 
 1 Todd, Centennial Discourse. 
 
106 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 harmonizing with those religious affections, which I wish, at present, to 
 promote, and always to cherish.”’ 
 
 It is not surprising then that the Dutch Reformed 
 Church supported the Revolution in every possible way, 
 enlistments, days of fast, humiliation, thanksgiving and 
 prayer, — a truly patriotic denomination. The Reverend 
 Dr. Miller informs us that: “‘ For a considerable time before 
 this crisis arrived, Dr. Rodgers and several other clergy- 
 men of this city (New York), among whom were Dr. 
 Mason and Dr. Laidlie, had been in the habit of holding 
 weekly meetings, for cultivating friendship with each 
 other and for mutual instruction, ‘Toward the close of 
 1775 the gentlemen concerned, agreed to suspend their 
 usual exercises at these meetings, and to employ the time, 
 when they came together, in special prayers for a blessing 
 upon the country, in the struggle on which it was entering. 
 This meeting . . . . . was kept up, until the ministers 
 composing it, and the great mass of the people under their 
 pastoral care, retired from the city, previous to the arrival 
 of the British forces.”’! 
 
 The following minute from the Records of Trinity 
 Church shows that a Dutch Reformed congregation 
 remained in the city: 
 
 “October 29, 1779, It being represented to this corporation by one of 
 its members that the Old Dutch Church in this City is at present used as 
 a hospital for His Majesty’s troops: The Board impressed with a grateful 
 remembrance of the former kindness of that Ancient Church in per- 
 mitting the use of their Church to the members of the Church of England, 
 when they had no proper edifice of their own for that purpose, offer to the 
 
 members of the Ancient Dutch Church the use of St. George’s Chapel for 
 the celebrating their worship.” ” 
 
 ‘Miller, Memovr of the Late Venerable Dr. Rodgers, quoted by Gunn, 
 Memoir of Rev. John H. Livingston, pp. 250-251. 
 
 ? Ecclesiastical Records, vol. vi, pp. 4304-4305: Records of Trinity 
 Church, vol. i, p. 140. 
 
THE REFORMED CHURCHES 107 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Inglis, Rector of Trinity Church, re- 
 ported to the Venerable Society, November 26, 1777: 
 
 “The members of the Dutch Church in this City have always lived in 
 the utmost harmony with the members of our Church . . . . . The 
 loyal Dutch continued in the City after it was reduced by the King’s 
 troops; and a loyal minister (Rev. Garrett Lydekker) officiated for them. 
 But the commandant was under the necessity of taking their Church 
 lately for an hospital, and the Dutch Congregation signified their incli- 
 nation that we should assist them. I immediately called my vestry and 
 after maturely considering all circumstances we judged it advisable for 
 many reasons to let them have the use of one of our Churches. Accord- 
 ingly their Minister now officiates . . . . . in St. George’s Chapel.” ! 
 
 Upon regaining their own church from the British, the 
 Ancient Dutch Congregation, April 8. 1780, thanked 
 Trinity Church for the use of St. George’s Chapel, saying: 
 
 “The Christian-like behavior and kind attention shown . . . in 
 our distress by members of the Church of England will make a lasting j 
 impression on the mind of the Ancient Reformed Dutch Congregation, 
 
 who have always considered the interests of the two churches insep- 
 arable.” ? 
 
 The General Synod of 1775 records, Article xi, a recom- 
 mendation “to all the Reformed Churches 
 in the two Provinces of New York and New Jersey, to set 
 apart Wednesday, 7th May next, as a day of solemn 
 humiliation, with fasting and prayer . . . . . taking to 
 heart the present sad state and perilous condition of our 
 land.’’? In the years 1776 and 1777, the Reverend Body 
 was prevented from convening by the war. 
 
 The Synod of 1778, held at New Platz, “with sorrowful hearts contem- 
 plate the pitiful condition of land and Church: some of our cities being 
 
 desolated, our villages, and boroughs subverted, many of our houses of 
 worship, and their furniture burned, desecrated, plundered, and cast to 
 
 ! Ecclesiastical Records, vol. vi, pp. 4303-4305. 
 2 Ecclestastical Records, vol. vi, p. 4305. 
 3 Acts and Proceedings of the General Synod, vol. 1, p. 57. 
 
108 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 the ground; many dear pledges of the loving Jesus, together with the faith- 
 ful ambassadors of His Cross, driven from their peaceful homes and com- 
 pelled to roam through the land, so that, with respect to those once 
 flourishing congregations, we may, even weeping, take up the lamentation 
 of the Church of old, and say; ‘The ways of Zion do mourn because none 
 come to the solemn feasts; all her gates are desolate; her priests sigh, her 
 virgins are afflicted, and she,is in bitterness’. !_ November 12 was set 
 apart as a day of humiliation and prayer. 
 
 The Synod of 1780, at New Platz, in October, clearly 
 and explicitely recognized the new government in the 
 following address: 
 
 “To his Excellency, George Clinton, Esquire, Governor of the State 
 of New York, General and Commander-in-chief of all the Militia, and 
 Admiral of the Navy of the same, and to the honorable the Senate and 
 House of Assembly of the said State: 
 
 The Memorial and Petition of the Reverend Synod of the Low Dutch 
 Reformed Church in America humbly sheweth, 
 
 That the beneficent Ruler of the Universe has, at divers times and 
 occasions, given the most indubitable proofs of his Divine and benevolent 
 interposition for the good of these United States, and this State in 
 Dartictlanae ee 
 
 That the unwearied exertions of these’ United States, and of this 
 State in particular, and especially the unparalleled perseverance of the 
 American army exhibited in the prosecution of the present just and 
 necessary war, from whatever personal motives it may otherwise proceed, 
 cannot but be considered as national virtues; such as have usually been 
 owned and accepted of by the Deity in the issue. 
 
 That the Magistrates and other officers of Government have from time 
 to time exerted their influence and authority for obtaining the end which 
 an overruling Providence so evidently pointed out as worthy of the best 
 efforts of the citizens of those States, which as far as we know have been 
 answered with equal alacrity by a great part of our fellow-citizens being 
 subjects of these States.’ 2 
 
 The Synod at New Millstone, October 1782, decided 
 that it was time to effect an understanding between church 
 and state, as to their mutual obligations in respect to sins 
 and their punishments. Article ix, section three, enquires 
 
 l Acts and Proceedings, vol. 1, p. 68. 
 * Ibid., vol. i, pp. 84-86; Ecclesiastical Records, vol. vi, pp. 4307-4308. 
 
THE REFORMED CHURCHES 109 
 
 “Whether it would not be advisable, in order to prevent further corrup- 
 tion of morals among the rising generation and others, that this Reverend 
 Body, present to the honorable government an exposé, setting forth 
 briefly, but distinctly, the sins and disorders punishable by the civil 
 magistrates, with the accompanying desire, that their Excellencies 
 please to take such order in relation to this point, that the salutary laws of 
 the land may be faithfully executed for the suppression of such evils, and 
 the avoidance of further and greater judgments of the Most High. 
 
 This Reverend Body approves the proposition but desiring that the 
 other Particular Bodies also represent their wishes, postpone a decision 
 until the next General Meeting.” * 
 
 At the close of the war the Domine Rubel was deposed 
 for certain immoralities and for his Toryism. Among the 
 sturdy Dutch Reformed patriots we find the names of 
 Schuneman, Hardenbergh, Foering, Romeyn, Westerlo, 
 Du Bois, and Leydt, ministers of their gospel.* 
 
 The record of the German Reformed Church throughout 
 the Revolution was, on the whole, decidedly patriotic. 
 Several prominent military officers were from its ranks: 
 General Nicholas Herkimer, “the hero of Oriskany,” 
 Baron Frederick William Von Steuben; and the ministers 
 appear generally to have been earnest advocates of inde- 
 pendence. At the beginning of the war the Reverend 
 John H. Weikel got into trouble for preaching from the 
 text, “Better is a poor and a wise child, than an old and 
 foolish king, who will no more be admonished.” The 
 Reverend C. D. Weyberg, of Philadelphia, was im- 
 prisoned for his patriotism and his church was occupied by 
 the British soldiers. On the first Sunday after his libera- 
 tion he preached on the words, “O God, the heathen are 
 come into thine inheritance; thy holy temple have they 
 defiled.” The Reverend J. C. A. Helffenstein of Lancaster, 
 
 preached to the Hessian prisoners there on the text, “Ye 
 
 1 Acts and Proceedings, vol. i, p. 198. 
 2 Corwin, Manual of the Reformed Church in America, p. 66. 
 
110 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 have sold yourselves for naught; and ye shall be redeemed 
 without money,” and again from, “If the Son therefore 
 shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” To the 
 American soldiers departing for conflict he preached 
 from, ‘If God be for us, who can be against us?”’ Schlatter 
 was imprisoned for his sympathy with the American 
 cause; Hendel was accompanied by armed men when he 
 preached in Lykens Valley, the guards standing at the 
 door to protect him; the Reverend John Conrad Boucher 
 frequently preached to the soldiers in camp. 
 
 On the other hand there was considerable British senti- 
 ment manifested by German Reformed clergy. The 
 Reverend John Michael Kern of New York, was an en- 
 thusiastic loyalist, who believed that in America neither 
 church nor state was prepared for independence. At the 
 close of the war he migrated to Nova Scotia. The most 
 prominent German opponent of the American cause, was 
 Dr. John Joachim Zubly, of Savannah, Georgia, one of the 
 most prominent members of his church. He was granted 
 the degree of Doctor of Divinity by the College of New 
 Jersey in 1770. Early in the struggle he took a prominent 
 part with the Sons of Liberty. In 1769, under the name 
 “A Freeholder of South Carolina,” he published a pam- 
 phlet entitled, An Humble Enquiry into the Nature of 
 Dependency of the American Colonies upon the Parliament 
 of Great Britain and the Right of Parliament to lay Taxes on 
 the Said Colonies. In 1775 in an address to the Earl of 
 Dartmouth, prefixed to a sermon on The Law of Liberty, 
 which he had preached at the opening of the provincial 
 congress of Georgia, he discussed the parliamentary 
 
 ‘Zubly, An Humble Enquiry into the Nature of the Dependency of the 
 American Colonies upon the Parliament of Great Britain and the Right of 
 Parliament to lay Taxes on the Said Colonies, by a Freeholder of South 
 Carolina. N. P., 1769. 
 
THE REFORMED CHURCHES ne 
 
 position of the right “to bind the colonies in all cases 
 whatsoever.” Dr. Zubly asserted: 
 
 ““My lord, the Americans look upon this as the language of despotism 
 in its utmost perfection. What can . . . . . an emperor of Morocco 
 pretend more of his slaves, than to bind them in all cases whatsoever.” ! 
 
 ““My lord, the Americans are no idiots, and they appear determined 
 not to be slaves. Oppression will make wise men mad; but oppressors, 
 in the end, frequently find that they were not wise men. There may 
 be resources, even in despair, sufficient to render any set of men strong 
 enough not to be bound “in all cases whatsoever .”’ ” 
 
 “The bulk of the inhabitants of a continent extending eighteen 
 hundred miles in front of the Atlantic, and permitting an extension in 
 breadth as far as the South Sea, look upon the claim ‘to bind them in 
 all cases whatsoever,’ as unjust, illegal and detestable. Let us suppose 
 for a moment, that they are grossly mistaken; yet an error imbibed by 
 millions, and in which they believe the all of the present and future 
 generations lies at stake, may prove a very dangerous error. Destroying 
 the Americans, will not cure them; nor will any acts that condemn them to 
 starve or be miserable, have any tendency to persuade them that these 
 acts were made by their friends.” * 
 
 “My lord, the violence of the present measures has almost instan- 
 taneously created a continental union, a continental currency, a contin- 
 ental army; and before this can reach your lordship, they will be as equal 
 in discipline, as they are superior in cause and spirit, to any regulars. 
 The most zealous Americans could not have effected in an age, what the 
 cruelty and violence of administration has effectually brought to pass in 
 a day.” * 
 
 “Tn this respect, as well as in the strong sense of liberty, and in the use 
 of firearms, almost from the cradle, the Americans have vastly the 
 advantage over men of their rank almost everywhere else. From the 
 constant topic of present conversation, every child unborn will be im- 
 pressed with the notion — it is slavery to be bound at the will of another 
 ‘in all cases whatsoever’. Every mother’s milk, will convey a detestation 
 of this maxim. Were your lordship in America, you might see little ones 
 acquainted with the word of command before they can distinctly speak, 
 
 1 Zubly, The Law of Liberty: A Sermon on American Affairs, preached 
 at the opening of the Provincial Congress of Georgia, Philadelphia, 
 1775, vi; Tyler, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 484. 
 
 2 Thid., vi-vii. 
 
 3 Tbid., ix-x. 
 
 4 [bid, xiii-xiv; Tyler, op. cit., vol. 11, p. 484. 
 
112 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 and shouldering the resemblance of a gun before they are well able to 
 walk.” ! 
 
 At the beginning of the Revolution there was no man in 
 Georgia more influential than Dr. Zubly. On the fourth 
 of September, 1775, he, with four others, was selected to 
 represent the colony of Georgia in the Continental Con- 
 gress. He accepted the appointment with the consent of 
 his congregation which agreed “‘to spare their minister for 
 a time for the good of the common cause.” | 
 
 Dr. Zubly, like so many others, was working for a 
 redress of grievances and could not accept the idea of 
 independence. He wrote a Reply to Paine’s Common 
 Sense in which occurs the following sentence, “The 
 author looks upon an entire separation not as a last remedy, 
 but as a new and dangerous disease; and earnestly prayeth 
 that America, in that connection, may soon and forever 
 enjoy that constitution and freedom which the representa- 
 tives so justly claim.” As early as June 1766, on the repeal 
 of the Stamp Act, he had said in a sermon in Savannah, 
 with reference to any man who would divide British 
 America from Great Britain, “‘let him be accursed by 
 both.”* And in 1775, before the provincial congress of 
 Georgia, he declared: 
 
 “The idea of separation between America and Great Britain is big with 
 so many and such horrid evils, that every friend to both must shudder 
 at the thought. Every man that gives the most distant hint of such a 
 wish, ought instantly to be suspected as a common enemy. Nothing 
 would more effectually serve the cause of our enemies, than any proposal 
 of this kind. All wise men, and all good men, would instantly speak, 
 
 write, and act against it. Such a proposal whenever it should be made, 
 would be an inlet to greater evils than any we have yet suffered.” # 
 
 ‘Zubly, The Law of Liberty, xv; Tyler, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 484-485. 
 
 *Lubly, The Stamp Act Repealed, A Sermon preached at Savannah, 
 June 25, 1766, p. 19. South Carolina reprint, Charleston, 1766. 
 
 * Zubly, The Law of Liberty, p. 25; Tyler, op. cit., vol. i, p. 485. 
 
THE REFORMED CHURCHES T13 
 
 For about four months Dr. Zubly occupied a seat in the 
 Continental Congress; but it soon became evident that 
 his sentiments were objectionable to the majority of that 
 body. Early in 1776, when the question of independence 
 was being debated, Samuel Chase arose and_ publicly 
 accused Zubly of treasonable correspondence with Sir 
 James Wright, colonial governor of Georgia. Soon there- 
 after, Dr. Zubly left Congress, and returned home for the 
 purpose of using his influence against separation. But his 
 popularity had vanished and he was treated with great 
 harshness. In 1777 he was banished from Savannah, with 
 the loss of half of his estate. He did later return with the 
 re-establishment of the royal government and he was there 
 at the time of his death in 1781. The Church which he 
 founded is known as the Independent Presbyterian 
 Church. 
 
 The official assembly of the German Reformed Church, 
 the Pennsylvania Coetus, resolved at its meeting in 1775, 
 May 10-11: 
 
 “In consideration of the great troubles and sad conditions under which 
 wenowlive..... that on the last Wednesday of next June, a day 
 of general fasting, repentance and prayer shall be held in all our con- 
 gregations.’ ! 
 
 A Coetal letter was despatched to the Synods and Classes 
 on the subject, May 12.” 
 
 The spirit of this body is well illustrated in the following 
 minute of 1783, May 14: 
 
 Bitappeared >... 3 as if a special joy and cheerfulness of spirit was 
 to be seen in the ministers and also in the faithful elders, on account of the 
 blessed times of peace, whereby the Lord crowned the physical and 
 spiritual struggle of true Republicans. To us, as American ministers, 
 
 1 Minutes and Letters of the Coetus of the German Reformed Congrega- 
 tions in Pennsylvania, 1747-1792, p. 350. 
 el bidesp 302. 
 
114 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 under the supervision of the Reverend Fathers of Holland, this change 
 of our government must be especially welcome, on account of the closer 
 union with the Reverend Classis of Amsterdam and the Reverend 
 Synods, which can be expected on account of the unrestricted fellowship 
 now open to the two republics, which God may further bless.” 4 
 
 In 1775 the Reformed and Lutherans united in the 
 publication of an appeal to the German citizens of New 
 York and North Carolina, urging them to support the 
 measures of Congress and the cause of American freedom. 
 In this the Germans of Pennsylvania are represented as 
 doing everything to substain the measures of Congress, in 
 organizing militia companies and corps of Yeagers ready 
 to march whenever and wherever commanded.” 
 
 The Germans of America in 1775 were not well organ- 
 ized and in no distinctively German denomination was 
 there unanimity of sentiment relative to the Revolution. 
 This was as true for German Lutherans as for German 
 Reformed. Fortunately for Lutherans they possessed the 
 family of their patriarch Muhlenberg to give them a loyal 
 American complexion. The father, Henry Melchoir 
 Muhlenberg, practically occupied the position of overseer 
 of all the Lutheran churches from New York to Georgia, 
 though unfortunately his contact with the various units 
 was of the slightest. Throughout the war he and his sons 
 occupied prominent positions as patriots. Muhlenberg 
 the elder devoted his time to ecclesiastical affairs; his 
 sons served their country.? 
 
 The son, John. Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg, was pastor of 
 a church at Woodstock, Virginia, at the opening of 
 hostilities. When the news of Bunker Hill reached Vir- 
 ginia, he reminded his congregation that there was a time 
 
 1 Minutes and Letters, p. 383. 
 
 * Seidensticker, First Century of German Printing, p. 91. 
 3 Mann, William J., Life and Times of Henry Melchoir Muhlenberg. 
 
THE LUTHERAN CHURCH 115 
 
 to preach and a time to pray; as for him, the time to 
 preach was past. “It is now,” he cried, “the time to 
 fight’; and throwing off his vestments he stood forth in the 
 garb of a Virginia colonel. 
 
 His brother having remonstrated with him for his en- 
 listment, he wrote: 
 
 “You may say that as a clergyman nothing can excuse my conduct. 
 I am a clergyman, it is true, but I am a member of society as well as the 
 poorest layman, and my liberty is as dear to me as any man. I am called 
 by my country to its defence. The cause is just and noble. Were I a 
 DishOpwe 4 oh). I should obey without hesitation; and as far am I 
 from thinking that I am wrong, I am convinced it is my duty so to do — 
 a duty I owe to my God and my Country.” ! 
 
 In February, 1777, John Muhlenberg became a brigadier- 
 general in the Continental Army; in September 1783, 
 he was breveted major-general. He took part in the battles 
 of Brandywine, Germantown, and Monmouth; at York- 
 town he commanded the first brigade. He was a member 
 of the Virginia Convention of 1776; later he was vice- 
 president of the supreme-executive council of Pennsyl- 
 vania and he represented that state both in the House and 
 in the Senate of the United States.? 
 
 A brother, Frederick Augustus Conrad Muhlenberg, 
 was pastor of Christ German Lutheran Church of New 
 York, 1773 to 1776. He fled at the approach of the 
 British in 1776 and was assistant to his father at New 
 Hanover, 1777 to 1779. From 1779 to 1780 he was a 
 member of Continental Congress; from 1780 to 1783, of the 
 Pennsylvania General Assembly, and in 1789 of the state 
 constitutional convention. He was president of the 
 Pennsylvania Convention which ratified the federal consti- 
 
 1 Perry, Influence of the Clergy in the War of the Revolution, p. 5. 
 2 Muhlenberg, Life of John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg. 
 
116 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 tution, and from 1789 to 1797 he was a member of the 
 national House of Representatives. 
 
 It is fortunate for Lutheranism in America that it 
 possessed the Muhlenberg family to establish its reputa- 
 tion for loyal Americanism; many Lutherans were actively 
 pro-British. When Frederick Augustus Conrad Muhlen- 
 berg was driven from his church in New York, but one 
 Lutheran minister remained in the city, Hausihil, pastor of 
 Trinity Church, an ardent loyalist, prominent in social 
 circles and a trustee of King’s College. His church had 
 been burned in the conflagration of 1776. Upon the evacu- 
 ation of the city by the British, he, with the larger part of 
 his congregation, left for Nova Scotia, settling near Halifax. 
 He received “orders” from the Church of England. 
 In Georgia, the Reverend Triebner sympathized with the 
 British and left with their troops for England at the close 
 of the war. 
 
 President Washington could write to the Baptists in 1789: 
 
 *T recollect with satisfaction that the religious society of which you 
 are members, have been throughout America, uniformly and almost 
 unanimously the firm friends to civil liberty, and the persevering 
 promoters of our glorious revolution.” 
 
 There is no disputing the zeal of this denomination for 
 the cause of independence. By principle it was thoroughly 
 democratic and endowed with the spirit of liberty. 
 Heavily oppressed by the English law, as interpreted in 
 America, it was almost to a man favorable to the political 
 revolution, as a by-product of which they played for 
 religious liberty. Armitage, the Baptist historian, claims, 
 “that we have no record of so much as one thorough 
 British Tory.”* James proves? that the “Baptists were 
 
 1 Writings of Washington, Spark’s edition, vol. xii, p. 154. 
 * Armitage, History of the Baptists, p. 177. 
 3 James, Struggle of Religious Liberty in Virginia, p. 197. 
 
THE BAPTIST CHURCH 117 
 
 the first and only religious denomination that struck for 
 independence from Great Britain, and the first and only 
 one that made a move for religious liberty before inde- 
 pendence was declared.” 
 
 It is not surprising that the Baptists of Rhode Island 
 favored the Revolution. Nor are we surprised that the 
 British took possession of Newport and also landed at 
 Warren, burning the meeting-house and parsonage, and 
 carrying the Baptist minister away a prisoner. During this 
 period the Americans made Providence a military post and 
 occupied the college buildings as barracks. It may, how- 
 ever, seem strange that those of other New England 
 states should have supported their Congregational op- 
 pressors rather than to have essayed to secure the support - 
 of England through disloyalty to the American cause. 
 
 In Massachusetts Backus informs us, “The Baptists 
 were so generally united with their country in the defence 
 of their privileges, that when the General Court at Boston 
 passed an act, in October 1778, to debar all men from re- 
 turning into their government, whom they judged to be 
 their enemies, and named three hundred and eleven men as 
 such, there was not one Baptist among them.””! 
 
 This same Isaac Backus, agent and historian for the 
 New England Baptists, gives us the following reasons why 
 they joined the Revolutionary cause: 
 
 1. The Episcopalians, wherever they are in power, allow less liberty 
 than the Baptists of New England enjoy. In England all are taxed and 
 none admitted to civil office. “In Virginia they cruelly imprisoned 
 Baptist ministers, only for preaching the gospel to perishing souls without 
 license from their courts, until the war compelled them to desist.” 
 
 2. The worst treatment received by the Baptists comes from the same 
 principles and persons that the American war did. 
 
 1 Backus, Church History of New England, edition of 1871, vol. ii, p. 
 247; abridged edition 1804, p. 213. 
 
118 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 3. The first Baptist minister in America held to the compact theory. 
 4. The British claims are absolutely unjust. 
 5. The deliverance of America might return Baptist invaded rights. ! 
 
 The Warren Association, met at Medfield September 
 13, 1774, agreed to send Mr. Backus, their agent, to 
 present their grievances to Continental Congress at 
 Philadelphia and they furnished him with the following 
 certificate: 
 
 “To the Honorable Delegates of the several Colonies in North America, 
 met in a General Congress in Philadelphia: 
 
 Honorable Gentlemen: As the Antipaedobaptist churches in New 
 England are most heartily concerned for the preservation and defence 
 of the rights and privileges of this country, and are deeply affected by 
 the encroachments upon the same, which have lately been made by the 
 British parliament, and are willing to unite with our dear countrymen, 
 vigorously to pursue every prudent measure for relief, so we would beg 
 leave to say that, as a distinct denomination of Protestants, we conceive 
 that we have an equal claim to charter-rights with the rest of our fellow- 
 subjects, and yet have long been denied the free and full enjoyment of 
 those rights, as to the support of religious worship. Therefore, we, the 
 elders and brethren of twenty Baptist churches, met in Association at 
 Medfield, twenty miles from Boston, September 14, 1774, have unani- 
 mously chosen and sent unto you the reverend and beloved, Mr. Isaac 
 Backus as our agent, to lay our case, in these respects, before you, or 
 otherwise to use all the prudent means he can for our relief. 
 
 JoHN Gano, Moderator, 
 Hezexian Smita, Clerk.” 2 
 
 In a subsequent chapter? we shall note the methods 
 whereby the New England leaders in Continental Congress 
 prevented any recognition whatsoever of this matter by 
 that body. Thwarted in Philadelphia, the Warren 
 Association returned to the Massachusetts fight and 
 memorialized the Provincial Assembly at Watertown, 
 
 ' Backus, op. cit., edition of 1871, ii, pp. 197-8; edition of 1784, vol. ii, 
 pp. 299-300. 
 
 * Backus, op. cit., edition 1784, vol. ii, pp. 302-303, edition of 1871, 
 vol. ii, p. 200; Hovey, op. cit., p. 202; Guild, op. cit., p. 236. 
 3 Infra, pp. 137-138. 
 
THE BAPTIST CHURCH 119 
 
 September, 1775;! and addressed a letter to all the Baptist 
 Churches on the Continent, “stating the true nature and 
 importance of religious liberty”? and proposing a general 
 meeting of delegates from all the societies to consult upon 
 the means by which this liberty might be secured.” 
 
 The Baptists were defeated in their endeavors to have 
 religious freedom incorporated as a part of the Revolu- 
 tionary constitution of Massachusetts. But they did 
 secure a certain amount of recognition for their cause 
 through their patriotic support of the more general cause 
 of liberty. Samuel Stillman, pastor of the First Baptist 
 Church in Boston, was selected to deliver the election 
 sermon in 1779, May 26, and speaking before the Council 
 and Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massa- 
 chusetts Bay, he was enabled to place before the people 
 of Massachusetts, an official statement of the Baptist 
 principles of religious freedom. His text was, Matthew, 
 xxii, 21, “‘Render, therefore, unto Caesar the things 
 which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are 
 God’s.”.. He dealt first with the duties which the people 
 owe to the civil magistrates and then with the duties 
 which these same magistrates owe to the people. He 
 endeavored to draw the line between the things that 
 belong to Caesar and those things which belong to God. 
 The foundation of civil society is ““The consent of the 
 governed.” The authority of civil magistrates is, under 
 God, derived from the people. The constitution is that 
 by which, in all good governments, the authority of the 
 magistrates and the rights of the people are determined 
 with precision. Therein lies the indispensable necessity for 
 a Bill of Rights, drawn up in the most explicit language, 
 
 1 Backus, op. cit., vol. 11, 203. 
 2 Hovey, Life and Times of Backus, pp. 226-231 for text of the letter. 
 
120 TATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 previously to the ratification of the constitution, which 
 should contain its fundamental principles and which no 
 person in the state, however dignified, should dare to 
 violate except at his peril. Election ought to be free and 
 frequent. Representation should be as equal as possible. 
 Some of the natural rights of mankind are inalienable, 
 and subject to no control but that of Diety. Such are 
 the Sacred Rights of Conscience which in a state of 
 nature, and of civil ‘society are exactly the same. They 
 can neither be parted with nor controlled by any human 
 authority whatever. We should leave nothing to human 
 virtue, that can be provided for by law or the constitution. 
 The jurisdiction of the magistrate neither can nor ought 
 in any manner to be extended to the salvation of souls. 
 The very men who were appointed guardians and con- 
 servators of the rights of the people have dismembered the 
 empire; and, by repeated acts of injustice and oppression, 
 forced from the bosom of their parent country, millions 
 of Americans. “Where is now the boasted freedom of the 
 British government? Bribery and corruption seem, nearly 
 to have accomplished the prediction of the great Montes- 
 quieu. Nor is such an event to be wondered at, while we 
 reflect on the inequality of their representation, and the 
 base methods that are used in their elections of members 
 of the house of commons, together with the length of time 
 they are suffered to continue in their places.” “The 
 voice of the people is that the government should pay 
 their first attention to the war.”! Thus at the time 
 when Jefferson was introducing his Bull for Religious 
 Freedom into the Virginia Assembly, Stillman was placing 
 the same principles before the Massachusetts Assembly. 
 
 1Stillman, Election Sermon, preached... . . May, 26) 1779: 
 Boston, 1779. 
 
THE BAPTIST CHURCH 121 
 
 In Virginia “An Address from the Baptists in this 
 colony’’ was presented to the Convention, August 16, 
 1775, and read, setting forth that however distinguished 
 from the countrymen, by appellations and sentiments of a 
 religious nature, they nevertheless considered themselves 
 as members of the same community in respect to matters of 
 a civic nature, and embarked in the same common cause; 
 that, alarmed at the oppression which hangs over America, 
 they had considered what part it would be proper for 
 them to take in the unhappy contest, and had determined 
 that in some cases it was lawful to go to war, and that they 
 ought to make a military resistance against Great Britain, 
 in her unjust invasion, tyrannical oppression, and _ re- 
 peated hostilities; that their brethren were left at dis- 
 cretion to enlist, without incurring the censure of their 
 religious community; and, under these circumstances 
 many of them had enlisted as soldiers, and many more 
 were ready to do so.! 
 
 In October 1777, the House passed An Act for Speedily 
 recruiting the Virginia Regiments, etc., which contained 
 the following provisions, ““And whereas there are within 
 this community some religious societies, particularly 
 Baptists and Methodists, the members of which may be 
 averse to serving in the same companies or regiments with 
 others, and under officers of different principles, though 
 they would willingly engage in the defence of their country 
 under the command of officers of their own religion: Be it 
 enacted, That such persons may raise companies, and if 
 enough companies are raised, may form regiments having 
 their own field officers, chaplains, and so on.”? A preacher, 
 
 1 Journal of House, August 16, 1775; James, op. cit., pp. 51-53; 218- 
 219; Infra. p. 373. 
 2 Hening, Statutes, ix, p. 348. 
 
122 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Thomas McClanahan, raised a company of Baptists in 
 Culpepper County, and took them into service. There 
 is extant no more fascinating account of the war-record of a 
 Revolutionary preacher than the Biographical Memoirs of 
 the Late Rev. John Gano. When the war broke out, 
 Gano had arrived at a very respectable situation for a 
 Baptist minister, being in charge of the work in New York 
 City. Driven from the city by the coming of the British, 
 he entered the service of his country. He served through- 
 out the war in various capacities, chaplain in Col. Charles 
 Webb’s regiment from Stamford, chaplain to the brigade of 
 General Clinton, etc. For years he lived the camp life. 
 In one instance he tells us, “General Washington moved 
 his army (to Virginia). This movement was so sudden and 
 unexpected to me, that I was totally unprepared for it. 
 I had with me only one shift of linen of which I informed 
 General Clinton, requesting leave of absence to get more; 
 but to this he objected, and said I must go on with them, 
 at all events. When we arrived at Newark, I found an 
 old lady, who had been a member of my church in New 
 York. I told her my situation, and she furnished me with 
 what was needed for the campaign.’’! 
 
 Then came peace and “The Army was soon after dis- 
 banded, and we poor ruined Yorkers returned to our 
 disfigured houses. My house needed some repairs and 
 wanted some new furniture; for the enemy plundered a 
 great many articles. We collected of our church, about 
 thirty-seven members out of upwards of two hundred. 
 Some were dead and others scattered into almost every 
 part of the union.”? In this situation, the Rev. John 
 Gano himself decided to take up again the life of a pioneer 
 
 1 Memoirs of John Gano, p. 104. 
 10102 ae LLG} 
 
THE METHODIST CHURCH 123 
 
 missionary and removed to Kentucky where he spent the 
 rest of his life. 
 
 Revolutionary Methodists have been branded, rather 
 unjustly, as an unpatriotic body. Though many gave 
 support to their country, their dependence upon Angli- 
 ecanism and John Wesley and his assistants, mostly 
 foreigners, rendered them, officially, incapable of apprecia- 
 tion of independence. Their foreign connection tarred 
 them with Anti-Americanism. 
 
 Till well into the year 1775 John Wesley disapproved of 
 the repressive measures of the British government. In 
 1768 he wrote Free Thoughts on the Present State of Public 
 Affairs, in which he remarked, “I do not defend the 
 measures which have been taken with regard to America; 
 I doubt whether any man can defend them either on the 
 foot of law, equity, or prudence.”! And on receiving news 
 of the Battle of Lexington, he felt that silence on his part 
 would be a sin against God, against his country, and 
 against his own soul, so waiting but one day, he wrote 
 separately to Dartmouth and Lord North, June 15. 
 Had the contents of this letter been known in America, 
 it would have softened criticism of his followers for in it 
 he says: 
 
 “T cannot avoid thinking these, an oppressed people, asked for nothing 
 more than their legal rights, and that in the most modest and inoffensive 
 manner that the nature‘of the thing will allow... . . 
 
 Is it common sense to use force towards America? They are as strong 
 men; they are as valiant as you; they are one and all enthusiasts, — 
 enthusiasts for liberty; they are calm, deliberate enthusiasts. 
 
 They are terribly united; they think they are contending for their 
 wives, children, and Liberty.”’ 2 
 
 1 Buckley, History of Methodists, p. 158; McTyeire, History of Metho- 
 
 dism, pp. 290-291. 
 2 Stevens, History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. i, pp. 283-284. 
 
124 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 In 1775 Wesley read Dr. Samuel Johnson’s Taxation No 
 Tyranny and was convinced by its arguments. He 
 abridged these and issued, in the Autumn of 1775, A Calm 
 Address to the American Colonies. This caused a sensation 
 even in England, but in America, where it was printed by 
 thousands, it created a rabid hostility towards Wesley’s 
 followers. In 1776, Wesley followed this up with a long 
 pamphlet entitled Some Observations on Liberty, in which 
 he compared John Hancock to a felon, contended against 
 every proposition by which the Americans supported their 
 cause, and called upon them to lay down their arms.” 
 
 In Virginia, the Methodists rushed to the defense of the 
 established church. Nearly all of their missionaries were 
 natives of Great Britain and in general they acted in- 
 discreetly. Rodda distributed copies of the King’s procla- 
 mation; Rankin talked too freely; while even that most 
 liberal Francis Asbury refused to take the oath in Mary- 
 land and sought a retreat with Judge White in Delaware.? 
 Two years after the Declaration of Independence, Asbury 
 alone of all the clergy remained in America and he was in 
 forced retirement. Thus Wesley and his missionaries were 
 responsible for the un-American stigma which was at- 
 tached to their faith. 
 
 A goodly part of the Methodists refused to follow the 
 leadership of the Englishmen and rallied to the support of 
 Liberty. The native ministers, Watters, Gatch, Garrett- 
 son, Morrell, Ware, and others, were true Americans and 
 consistently loyal. But even their patriotism was not 
 
 1 Buckley, op. cit., pp. 158-168; McTyeite, op. cit., p. 290; Tyerman, 
 Infe and Times of John Wesley, vol. ill, pp. 186- 187. 
 
 * Wesley, Works, vol. vi, pp. 300-321. 
 
 3 McTyeire, op. cit., p. 289. In 1801 in reply to the taunt that he was 
 an Englishman, Asbury replied that he was not ashamed of it for “ Heaven 
 was his Country’’. 
 
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH 125 
 
 sufficient to redeem the reputation of their society and 
 Methodism suffered severe persecutions. Ministers were 
 beaten, whipped, jailed, and tarred and feathered. . 
 
 President Washington, in response to a letter of con- 
 eratulation from the Roman Catholics, spoke thus of their 
 part in the Revolution, “I presume your fellow-citizens 
 will not forget the patriotic part which you took in the 
 accomplishment of their revolution.””! 
 
 Catholics were not numerous in America, except in the 
 provinces of Maryland and Pennsylvania, nor were they 
 well organized at the outbreak of the Revolution. ‘Their 
 influence grew as the contest advanced; and more 
 especially after the recognition of the United States by the 
 Catholic countries, France and Spain. They were of 
 ereat aid in the campaigns along the Gulf and in the 
 Ohio Valley. 
 
 Boucher wrote of them (1797) : 
 
 “Catholics had not the fortitude to withstand a rebellion which was 
 already begun; but, with all the bad principles respecting civil govern- 
 ment so frequently imputed to them, they are clear of any suspicion of 
 having begun that in America... . . 
 
 The Catholics of Maryland . . . . . seemed to hesitate and to be 
 unresolved what part they should take in the great commotions of the 
 country, which were then beginning. Their principles, no doubt, led 
 them to side with government; whilst their inclinations, and . 
 their interest, made it their policy to be neutral; but it soon became easy 
 to foresee that neither they, nor any others, would long be permitted to 
 enjoy neutrality . . . . . The persons in America who were the most 
 opposed to Great Britain, had also, in general, distinguished themselves by 
 being particularly hostile to Catholics; but then, though dissenters and 
 republicans were their enemies, the friends of government could hardly 
 be said to be their friends! In America, if they joined governent, all 
 they had to look for was to be bitterly persecuted by one party, and to 
 be deserted by the other. Hence, for some time, they appeared to be 
 wavering and undetermined. This irresolution drew on them many 
 suspicions, censures and threats. 
 
 1 Infra, p. 504. 
 
126 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 At length a Catholic gentleman, of good abilities, who was possessed of 
 one of the first fortunes in that country (in short, the Duke of Norfolk of 
 Maryland), actuated, as was generally thought, solely by his desire to 
 become a public man, for which he was unquestionably well qualified, 
 openly espoused the cause of Congress. Soon after, he became a member 
 of that body. This seemed to settle the wavering disposition of the 
 Catholics of Maryland: under so respectable a leader as Mr. Carroll, 
 they all soon (at least in appearance) became good Whigs, and concurred 
 with their fellow revolutionists in declaiming against the misgovernment 
 of Great Britain; nay, they must have concurred in those very declara- 
 tions which adduced the Quebec Act, by which the Papists in that 
 province (almost the whole of its inhabitants) were tolerated, as a flagrant 
 instance of her despotism and tyranny . . . . . Their leader, indeed, 
 has been a member of Congress, and was once employed on an embassy: 
 a relative of his, moreover, is now the Popish Bishop in the State.” ! 
 
 It is undoubtedly true, as Boucher states, that the 
 Carroll influence was great in determining the course of 
 Catholics with respect to the Revolution. They certainly 
 personally furnished the cause with a whole-hearted 
 support. Archbishop Carroll later wrote: 
 
 “Their (Catholic) blood flowed as freely, in proportion to their num- 
 bers, to cement the fabric of independence as that of any of their fellow- 
 citizens. They concurred with perhaps greater unanimity than any 
 other body of men in recommending and promoting that government 
 from whose influence America anticipates all the blessings of justice, 
 peace, plenty, good order, and civil and religious liberty (the Constitu- 
 tion). The Catholic regiment, ‘Congress’ Own’, the Catholic Indians 
 from St. John, Maine. under the chief Ambrose Var, the Catholic Pen- 
 obscots under the chief Orono, fought side by side with. their Protestant 
 fellow colonists. Catholic Officers from Catholic lands, — Ireland, 
 France and Poland, came to offer their services to the cause of liberty.” 2 
 
 The Reverend Francis Louis Chartier de Lotbiniére of 
 the Order of Malta was commissioned chaplain of “‘Con- 
 gress’ Own” regiment and served with his regiment in the 
 
 ' Boucher, op. cit., pp. 243-244. 
 *O’Gorman, The Roman Catholics, pp. 255-256; Shea, op. cit., vol. ii, 
 pp. 352-3538. 
 
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH 127 
 
 advance on Canada.! Both Maryland and Pennsylvania 
 furnished many men and officers to the American army.” 
 
 Shortly after assuming office as Commander-in-chief of 
 the American forces, Washington was furnished with an 
 occasion for showing his regard for the Catholics of 
 America. On November 5, 1775, he issued official orders 
 for the abolition of “Pope Day,” the New England substi- 
 tute for Guy Fawkes’ Day, as follows: 
 
 “As the Commander-in-chief has been apprised of a design for the 
 observance of that ridiculous and childish custom of burning the effigy of 
 the Pope, he cannot help expressing his surprise that there should be 
 officers and soldiers in this army so void of common sense as not to see 
 the impropriety of such a step at this juncture; at a time when we are 
 soliciting, and have really obtained the friendship and alliance of the 
 people of Canada, whom we ought to consider as brethren embarked in 
 the same cause —the defence of the liberty of America — At this 
 juncture, and under such circumstances, to be insulted in their religion, is 
 so monstrous as not to be suffered or excused; indeed instead of offering 
 the most remote insult, it is our duty to address public thanks to these 
 our brethren, as to them we are indebted for every late success over the 
 common enemy.” ? 
 
 Catholic France and Spain were the first foreign nations 
 to ally themselves with the American cause, — the one in 
 1778 and the other in 1779. The arrival of a French 
 ambassador in Philadelphia was followed by a public 
 Catholic recognition of American independence. Mr. 
 Gerard, the ambassador, sent out the following invitation, 
 July 2, 1779: 
 
 “You are invited by the Minister Plenipotentiary of France to attend 
 the Te Deum, which will be chanted on Sunday the fourth of this month, 
 
 at noon, in the new Catholic Chapel, to celebrate the Anniversary of the 
 Independence of the United States of America.” * 
 
 1Shea, Life of Archbishop Carroll, vol. ii, p. 144. 
 
 2 Tbid., vol. ii, p. 153; McSherry, History of Maryland, pp. 379 sqq. 
 3 Shea, Life and Times of Archbishop Carroll, vol. 11, pp. 147-148. 
 
 ef DUG Ole 1. P11. , 
 
128 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 The President and Members of the Continental Congress 
 were invited to this ceremony and a sermon was preached, 
 which began as follows: 
 
 “We are assembled to celebrate the anniversary of that day which 
 
 Providence had marked in his Eternal Decrees, to become the epocha of 
 liberty and independence to thirteen United States of America.” ! 
 
 The Count d’Estaing, upon his arrival in America, 
 published an address to the Canadians, exhorting them in 
 the name of the King to join their fellow-countrymen in the 
 fight against the English, urging them thereto in the name 
 of their common blood, common language, common 
 customs, laws and religion.2 The effect of Catholic in- 
 fluence (propaganda) upon the Indians, the French and 
 the Spanish, especially in the West and South, is well set 
 forth by Shea in his Life and Times of the Most Reverend 
 John Carroll.? 
 
 When the news of Cornwall’s surrender at Yorktown 
 reached Philadelphia, the French Ambassador, Mr. 
 Gerard, invited Congress, and the Supreme Executive 
 Council and Assembly of Pennsylvania to attend divine 
 service and thanksgiving in the Roman Catholic Church. 
 M. de Bandol again preached. His sermon was as follows: 
 
 ‘““A numerous people assembled to render thanks to the Almighty for 
 his mercies, is one of the most affecting objects, and worthy the attention 
 of the Supreme Being. While camps resound with triumphal accla- 
 mations, while nations rejoice in victory and glory, the most honorable 
 
 office a minister of the altars can fill is to be the organ by which public 
 gratitude is conveyed to the Omnipotent. 
 
 ' Discours pronouncé le 4 Juillet, jour de P Anniversaire de Ul Inde- 
 pendence, dans, l Englise Catholique, par le Reverend Pere Seraphin Bandol, 
 Recollet, Aumonier de son Excellence Mr. Gerard, Ministre Plenepotentiaire 
 de France auprés de Etats Unis de l Amerique Septentrinale. 
 
 > D’Kstaing, A Declaration addressed in the Name of the King of 
 France to all the ancient French in North America. Boston, 1779. 
 
 * Shea, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 179-198. 
 
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH 129 
 
 Those miracles which He once wrought for his chosen people are re- 
 newed in our favor; and it would be equally ungrateful and impious not 
 to acknowledge, that the event which lately confounded our enemies and 
 frustrated their designs, was the wonderful work of that God who guards 
 your liberties. 
 
 And who but He could so combine the circumstances which led to 
 success? We have seen our enemies push forward amid perils almost in- 
 numerable, amid obstacles almost insurmountable, to the spot which was 
 designed to witness their disgrace; yet they eagerly sought it as their 
 theatre of triumph. 
 
 Blind as they were, they bore hunger, thirst, and inclement skies, 
 poured their blood in battle against brave republicans, and crossed 
 immense regions to confine themselves in another Jerico, whose walls were 
 fated to fall before another Joshua. It is He, whose voice commands the 
 winds, the seas and the seasons, who formed a junction on the same day 
 in the same hour, between a formidable fleet from the South, and an 
 army rushing from the North, like an impetuous torrent. Who but He 
 ~ in whose hands are the hearts of men could inspire the allied troops with 
 the friendships, the confidence, the tenderness of brothers? How is it that 
 two nations once divided, jealous, inimical, and nursed in reciprocal 
 prejudices, are now become so closely united as to form but one? World- 
 lings would say, it is the wisdom, the virtue and moderation of their 
 chiefs, it is a great national interest which has performed this prodigy. 
 They will say that to the skill of the generals, to the courage of the troops, 
 to the activity of the whole army, we must attribute this splendid 
 success. Ah! they are ignorant, that the combining of so many fortunate 
 circumstances is an emanation from the all perfect mind: that courage, 
 that skill, that activity bear the sacred impression of Him who is divine. 
 
 For how many favors have we not to thank Him during the course of 
 the present year? Your union, which was at first supported by justice 
 alone, has been consolidated by your courage, and the knot which ties you 
 together is become indissoluble by the accession of all the states, and the 
 unanimous voice of all the confederates. You present to the universe the 
 noble sight of a society, which, founded in equality and justice, secures to 
 the individuals who compose it, the utmost happiness which can be 
 derived from human institutions. This advantage, which so many other 
 nations have been unable to procure, even after ages of efforts and misery, 
 is granted by divine providence to the United States; and His adorable 
 decrees have marked the present moment for the completion of that 
 memorable happy revolution, which has taken place in this extensive 
 continent. While your counsels were thus acquiring new energy, rapid 
 multiplied successes have crowned your arms in the Southern states. 
 
 We have seen the unfortunate citizens of these states forced from their 
 
130 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 peaceful abodes; after a long and cruel captivity, old men, women and 
 children, thrown without mercy into a foreign country. Master of their 
 lands and their slaves, amid his temporary affluency, a superb victor re- 
 joiced in their distresses. But Philadelphia has witnessed their patience 
 and fortitude; they have found here another home, and though driven 
 from their native soil they have blessed God, that He has delivered them 
 from their presence, and conducted them to a country where every just 
 and feeling man has stretched out the helping hand of benevolence. 
 Heaven rewards their virtues. Three large states are at once wrested 
 from their foe. The rapacious soldier has been compelled to take refuge 
 behind his ramparts, and oppression has vanished like those phantoms 
 which are dissipated by the morning ray. 
 
 On this solemn occasion, we might renew our thanks to the God of 
 battles, for the success he has granted to the arms of your allies and your 
 friends by land and by sea, through the other parts of the globe. But let 
 us not recall those events which too clearly prove how much the hearts of 
 our enemies have been obdurated. Let us prostrate ourselves at the 
 altar, and implore the God of mercy to suspend His vengeance, to spare 
 them in His wrath, to inspire them with sentiments of Justice and modera- 
 tion, to terminate their obstinacy and error, and to ordain that your 
 victories be followed by peace and tranquillity. Let us beseech Him to 
 continue to shed on the counsels of the King your ally, that spirit of 
 wisdom, of justice and of courage, which has rendered his reign so glorious. 
 Let us entreat Him to maintain in each of the states that intelligence by 
 which the United States are inspired. Let us return Him thanks that a 
 faction, whose rebellion He has corrected, now deprived of support, is 
 annihilated. Let us offer Him pure hearts unsoiled by private hatred or 
 public dissention, and let us, with one will and one voice, pour forth to 
 the Lord that hymn of praise by which Christians celebrate their gratitude 
 and His glory.’ ! 
 
 * Pennsylvania Packet, November 27, 17 81; Pennsylvania Advertiser, 
 November 27, 1781. 
 
 a ee 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE QUAKERS AND MORAVIANS IN THE 
 REVOLUTION 
 
 The Quakers, that sect of “Conscientious Objectors,”’ 
 occupied the attention of governmental authorities — 
 local, state and national, to a greater extent than did any 
 other denomination; also, their line of conduct engaged an 
 equal amount of solicitude from their own church officials. 
 
 Quakers had at times tried to follow the injunction of 
 George Fox to keep clear of the ““commotions” involved in 
 government; but like Fox they had never succeeded in 
 doing this. In Pennsylvania, their American stronghold, 
 they had indulged in the dangerous game of politics until 
 they were past masters in the art of governing. The 
 state had been ruled by a Quaker oligarchy until about 
 1750. 
 
 Non-resistance was not a Quaker doctrine. They be- 
 lieved in a forceable preservation of their rights, up to the 
 point where force might become criminal. Certain meth- 
 ods of resistance were contrary to their beliefs. They held 
 that differences could generally be settled by common 
 sense and forebearance; that moral resistance,-to its 
 fullest extent, was better than suffering iniquity to pre- 
 vail; and that a citizen’s duty was to oppose vigorously, 
 and, if need be, suffer bravely, rather than to condone 
 wrong in others, or to do it himself. They had achieved a 
 memorable triumph in England the previous century and 
 secured, with some completeness, their civil and religious 
 rights, by methods demanding great endurance and strenu- 
 ous resistance to persecution; they were convinced that 
 
* 1382 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 similar methods would succeed in America. They stopped 
 at war, because they considered it a crime which could not 
 be justified by any results gained thereby. 
 
 Quakers supported the resistance policy of the early 
 Revolution as it was championed by John Dickinson. 
 They drew back as independence and aggressive military 
 policies were espoused. They then officially assumed a 
 policy resembling neutrality, a middle course position 
 which was to prove absolutely untenable. The American 
 cause involved such moral issues as to make non-partici- 
 pation in the struggle appear unrighteous, hence impossible 
 to many Quakers; to governmental officials the Quaker 
 position was treasonable. 1 
 
 Backus thinks the Revolution weakened the Quakers 
 greatly. He writes: 
 
 “At the same time an event took place which weakened the society of 
 Quakers more than anything had done before, since they first came into 
 existence. With much art and labor, their church had become numerous 
 in England and America, which they held to be but one church, and that 
 all their children were born in it, and they did not allow them to hear any 
 teachers but their own . . . . But after our war began, one of their 
 most noted ministers published a pamphlet, to persuade them to pay 
 what they were taxed for the war to defend America against Britain. 
 Upon which they dealt with him as a transgressor of the rules of their 
 church, and they expelled him from it in 1778. But this caused a division 
 
 among them, and it reached Philadelphia, and it opened a door for their 
 children to go to hear other teachers.” 2 
 
 The Revolution did split their church, but the question 
 over which division came was one of religious principle 
 and not one of pro-British or anti-American sympathies. 
 In fact the more violent advocates of non-militarism con- 
 sidered themselves the better advocates of Americanism. 
 Quakers resisted war but the majority were anti-British. 
 
 ‘Sharpless, Quakerism and Politics, p. 55. 
 * Backus, op. cit., p. 55, abridged edition 1804, p. 213. 
 
THE QUAKERS 133 
 
 Some four hundred members of the church were disowned 
 for participation in the war efforts of the colonies, while 
 but a half dozen were disciplined for helping the British. 
 Many of the pro-American Friends followed the principles 
 of James Logan, that military resistance to aggression was 
 justifiable, and supported the war to their utmost. They 
 broke with the orthodox and founded what was known as 
 “Free Quakers” or “Fighting Quakers,’ pledged to per- 
 form all civil and military duties. For a time these 
 schismatic Quakers were of considerable importance; 
 Washington and Franklin subscribed to a fund for pro- 
 viding them with a meeting house. Of course with the 
 end of the war they gradually disappeared; the last of the 
 original members of the band of “‘Free Quakers” to die 
 was Betsy Ross, maker of the first United States “Stars 
 and Stripes.’’? 
 
 Brissot de Warville records the following impressions of 
 
 the revolutionary Quakers, the results of his travels in 
 America, 1788: 
 
 “It was at this epoch (Revolution) particularly that an animosity was 
 excited against them (Quakers) which is not yet entirely allayed. Faith- 
 ful to their religious principles, they declared they could take no part in 
 the war, and disavowed or excommunicated every member of their 
 Society who served with either the American or the British Army . . 
 Notwithstanding my principles, I do not the less think that the arene 
 persecution of the Quakers for their pacific neutrality was essentially 
 wrong. 
 
 If their refusal had been the first of its kind; if it had been dictated 
 solely by their attachment to the British cause; if it had only served them 
 to conceal the secret proofs which they might have given of this attach- 
 ment, certainly they had been culpable and perhaps persecution had been 
 lawful. But this neutrality was enjoined upon them by the religious 
 opinions which they profess, and which they have practiced from their 
 origin. But exclusive of this, whatever prejudiced or ill-informed 
 
 1 Sharpless, Political Leaders in the Province of Pennsylvania, p. 210. 
 2 Wetherill, History of the Free Quakers. 
 
134 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 writers may have asserted, the truth, which I have taken great pains to 
 obtain, is that the majority of the Quakers did not incline more to one 
 party than to the other; and that they did good indifferently to both, and 
 in fact to all those who stood in need of assistance. If some of the 
 Society of Quakers served in the British Army, there were some likewise 
 who served in the American Army, and among others may be men- 
 tioned-the names of General Greene, Mifflin and Lecy; but the Society 
 excommunicated indifferently all those who took up arms . . . . . 
 
 I have heard no one speak more impartially of the Quakers than this 
 celebrated man (Washirigton) whose spirit of justice is particularly 
 remarkable. He acknowledged to me that in the course of the war he had 
 entertained an unfavorable opinion of the Society; he, in fact, knew little 
 of them because at that period there were few members of the sect in 
 Virginia. He attributed to their political sentiments what was the effect 
 of their religious principles. When he encamped in Chester County, 
 principally inhabited by Quakers, he supposed himself to be in the 
 enemy's country, as he could not induce a single Quaker to act for him 
 in the character of a spy. But no one served as a spy against him in the 
 employ of the British Army . oe 
 
 George Washington, having since better understood the spirit of the 
 Society, concludes by esteeming them. He acknowledged to me that, 
 on considering the simplicity of their manners, their fondness of economy, 
 excellence of their morals, and the good example they afforded, joined to 
 the attachment they showed for the Constitution, he regarded them as the 
 best citizens of the new government, which required a great degree of 
 obedience and the banishment of luxury.’’! 
 
 The call between religion and duty to country makes it 
 difficult to tell where many of the Quaker community 
 stood as regards the faith. John Dickinson, from 1764 to 
 1776, “the rising hope of the defenders of American rights,” 
 illustrates this. He was of Quaker stock, though it is not 
 certain that he was ever an active member in good standing, 
 yet his identification with Friends was so close, that he 
 was usually considered one of them. His Farmer’s 
 Letters, published in 1768, gave the legal and _ historic 
 basis for America’s claims to liberty. Following each 
 other in rapid succession (14 in all) and read by all classes, 
 
  Brissot (de Warville), J. P., Citoyen Francais, Noveau Vi oyage dans 
 les Etats-Unis del Amerique Septentrional fait en 1788. 
 
THE QUAKERS 135 
 
 they solidified and systematized the gathering opposition 
 to Great Britain. They proved the justice of the American 
 position and propounded a theory for unity of action. 
 They proved by English law that constitutional resistance 
 was legal and held out the hope that legal remedies might 
 restore colonial rights. Boston voted, “that the thanks of 
 the town be given to the ingenious author of a course of 
 letters published at Philadelphia, and in this place, 
 signed ‘A Farmer’ wherein the rights of American sub- 
 jects are clearly and fully stated and fully vindicated.” 
 Princeton granted him an honorary LL.D. 
 
 As a member of Continental Congress Dickinson wrote 
 nearly every important state paper during the preliminary 
 stages of the Revolution; appeals to the King, and Parlia- 
 ment, to the British, Canadian, and American peoples, etc. 
 He, however, would not follow the radical in forcing inde- 
 pendence, and here for a time his popularity and influence 
 waned. Later he entered the army. The family resi- 
 dence at Fair Hill was burned by the British during their 
 occupation of Philadelphia in 1777. By 1782, Dickinson 
 was returned to favor and became president of the supreme 
 executive council. In 1787 he was a member of the Con- 
 stitutional Convention from Delaware. He wrote a 
 series of articles signed ‘“‘Fabius”’ in explanation and 
 support of the Constitution, and Delaware and Pennsyl- 
 vania, Quaker strongholds, were the first states to ratify.! 
 
 One of the first Friends to be excommunicated for war 
 activities was Thomas Mifflin of Philadelphia. Thomas 
 Mifflin was a graduate of the College of Philadelphia 
 (University of Pennsylvania) and his services to his 
 country were distinguished; — member of the Pennsyl- 
 
 1 Sharpless, op. cit., essay on ‘“‘ John Dickinson;”’ Dickinson, John, The 
 Writings of, Edited by Paul Leicester Ford. 
 
136 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 we 
 
 vania House of Representatives, 1772-1775; member of 
 the First Continental Congress, 1774; aide-de-camp to 
 General Washington; Quartermaster General; Brigadier 
 General; Major General; member of the Board of War; 
 delegate to Continental Congress, 1782-1784; its president, 
 1783-1784; Speaker of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, 
 1785-1788; member of the Federal Constitutional Con- 
 vention; Chief Executive . of -Pennsylvania, 1788-1790; 
 president of the Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention, 
 1789-1796, and first governor of that state from 1790 to 
 1799.1 Jie 
 
 Of nearly equal rank was the excommunicated Nathaniel 
 Greene of Rhode Island, member of the Rhode Island 
 Legislature, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1775, member of a committee 
 of the assembly to revise the militia laws, Brigadier 
 General, Major General, Quartermaster General (succeed- 
 ing Mifflin), and Commander-in-chief of the southern 
 armies, and one of the early champions of independence. 
 (He urges separation in his letters of October 1775, and 
 January 1776, to Samuel Ward, the Rhode Island delegate 
 to Continental Congress.)? 
 
 Quakers supported the pre-war stages of the Revolution- 
 ary struggle; some fifty of them, including the Pembertons 
 and the Whartons, signed the non-importation agreement 
 to defeat the Stamp Act in 1765;3 and they wrote to the 
 London Friends an explanation and defense of their 
 position. | 
 
 ‘Rawle, “Sketch of the Life of Thomas Mifflin” in Memoirs of the 
 Historical Society of Pennsylvania, vol. ii, part 2; Merrill, Memoranda 
 relating to the Mifflin Family. ' 
 
 ? Greene, Life of Nathaniel Greene. 
 
 * Sharpless, op. cit., p. 209; Bowden, The History of the Society of 
 Friends in America, vol. ii, p. 296; Thomas, History of the Friends in 
 America, 5th Edition, 1919; Jones, The Quakers in the American Colo- 
 nies, Chapter ix, “The Friends in the Revolution.” 
 
THE QUAKERS tor 
 
 If Quakers as a whole inclined to the American cause at 
 its inception, they soon were propelled in the opposite 
 direction. The episode of The Charming Polly seems to 
 have disclosed to them that the populace in the main 
 ‘were incapable of judging prudently on a matter of so 
 great Importance” and that they might be called upon to 
 exert force in the execution of their agreement. Accordingly 
 the monthly Meeting for Sufferings for Philadelphia ad- 
 vised Friends to have nothing to do with non-importation 
 measures. ! 
 
 Some claim that the Friends turned from the patriotic 
 cause less from religious principles than on account of 
 economic interests. They quote a letter of Henry Drinker, 
 a prominent Philadelphia Quaker merchant, December 9, 
 1769, which reads, “Interest all powerful interest, will 
 bear down Patriotism . . . Romans we are not as they 
 were formerly, when they despised Riches and Grandure, 
 abode in extreme poverty and sacrificed every pleasant 
 enjoyment for love and service of their country.’’? 
 
 The Quaker state of Pennsylvania was of vital im- 
 portance to the Americans. It had grown more rapidly in 
 wealth and material advantages than had any other 
 colony; its internal affairs had been managed with greatest 
 wisdom; its taxes were light; and Philadelphia was the 
 largest, best lighted, best paved and best policed city in 
 America. New England realized the value of Quaker 
 support and sought it in its troubles of 1774. Paul 
 Revere reached Philadelphia, May 19, with the Boston 
 letter, and Thomas Mifflin, Charles Thomson, Joseph 
 Reed, and John Dickinson immediately got together and 
 
 1Sharpless, op. cit., pp. 77-80; Lincoln, Revolutionary Movement in 
 Pennsylvania, p. 151. 
 2 Pennsylvania Magazine, vol. xiv, p. 41. 
 
138 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 devised a scheme for winning Quaker support. A meeting 
 of several hundred citizens was assembled and such men as 
 Thomas Wharton and Dr. Smith! helped to carry the 
 pre-conceived motion “for an immediate declaration in 
 favor of Boston.’’ A committee of nineteen was named to 
 answer the Boston letter. This committee called in for 
 informal consultation six representatives from each of the 
 religious societies in the city. This body, in turn, agreed 
 upon a mass meeting, being careful, however, to pick its 
 president and speakers in advance; also to supervise the 
 manuscript for the speeches, to prepare the resolutions to 
 be adopted, and finally, to adopt a slate for a new com- 
 mittee.2 This new committee consisted of seventeen 
 from the old committee together with twenty-seven 
 added for the respective religious organizations; Dickinson 
 was to be its chairman. 
 
 No congress of religions, of the character devised by the 
 political leaders of Pennsylvania, was to arrange the war 
 course of the Pennsylvania Quakers. By the time Con- 
 tinental Congress met, the Friends had decided to oppose 
 the resumption of non-intercourse. On May 30, 1774, 
 the day before the Boston Port Bill went into effect, the 
 several meetings of the society in Philadelphia joined in 
 declaring that, if any Quakers had countenanced or en- 
 couraged the proposal for suspending business on June 1, 
 “they have manifested great inattention to our religious 
 principles and professions, and acted contrary to the 
 rules of Christian discipline established for the preserva- 
 tion of order and good government among us.’’3 
 
 1 Supra, p. 138. 
 
 Stille, Life of Dickinson, p. 244 in Thomson’s “ Account”’; Wharton’s 
 “Account” in Pennsylvania Magazine, vol. xxxiii, pp. 436-437; Dr.Smith’s 
 
 ‘Notes and Papers” in Pennsylvania Historical Society’s Manuscript. 
 > American Archives, fourth series, vol. i, pp. 365-366. 
 
THE QUAKERS 139 
 
 At the June Meeting in 1774: 
 
 “A considerable time was spent in this meeting, in a weighty considera- 
 tion of the fluctuating state of people’s minds. In the situation of public 
 affairs, it appeared to be the sense of the meeting, that it would be the 
 safest, and most consistent for us, as a religious Society, to keep as much 
 as possible from mixing with the people in their human policy and con- 
 trivances, and to forebear meeting in their public consultation. Snares 
 and dangers may arise from meetings of that kind, however well disposed 
 individuals may be to mitigate and soften the violent disposition too 
 prevalent; it being a season in which it is abundantly needful to seek best 
 Wisdom, to guide and preserve in safety and in consistency of conduct 
 with our religious profession.” 1 
 
 The Yearly Meeting held in Philadelphia, while Con- 
 tinental Congress was in session there, issued a letter of 
 advice to the Friends throughout the whole of North 
 America. In part this ran: 
 
 “Our forefathers and predecessors, were raised to be a people in a time - 
 of great commotions, contests, and wars, begun and carried on for the 
 vindication of religious and civil liberty, in which many of them were 
 zealously engaged, when they received the knowledge of the truth; 
 but through the influence of the love of Christ in their minds, they ceased 
 from conferring with flésh and blood, and became obedient to the heaven- 
 ly vision, in which they clearly saw that all wars and fighting proceeded 
 from the spirit of this world, which is enmity with God, and that they 
 must manifest themselves to be the followers of the Prince of Peace, by 
 
 9 
 
 meekness, humility, and patient sufferings.” 2 
 
 Joseph Reed wrote, November 6, 1774, “They act their 
 usual part. They have directed their members not to 
 serve on the committee and mean to continue the same 
 undecisive, neutral conduct until they see how the scale 
 is like to preponderate . . . . . But American liberty 
 in the meantime must take her chance with them.’’? 
 December 15, the Meeting for Sufferings at Philadelphia 
 
 1 Bowden, History of the Society of Friends in America, vol. ii, pp. 
 297-298. 
 
 2 Bowden, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 298. 
 3 American Archives, fourth series, vol. i, 963-964. 
 
140 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 appointed a committee to wait on the Quaker members of 
 the Provincial Assembly and reprimand them for having 
 given their votes to a resolution ratifying the doings of the 
 Continental Congress five days earlier. 
 
 When the Continental Congress met in Philadelphia in 
 1774 John Adams and his Congregational colleagues from 
 New England were strangely upset by an encounter with 
 Israel Pemberton and his fellow Quakers. The New Eng- 
 land delegates had come to enlighten others on the question 
 of political liberty; Backus came also and in conspiracy 
 with Pemberton and other friends of religious freedom, 
 they enticed the Congregationalists to a meeting at 
 Carpenters’ Hall. Pemberton very plainly affirmed that 
 the “Friends had a concern about the condition of things 
 in Massachusetts; that they had received complaints from 
 some Anabaptists, and some Friends against certain laws 
 of that Province restrictive of liberty of conscience. 
 
 The laws of New England and particularly of Massa- 
 chusetts, were inconsistent with liberty of conscience, for 
 they not only compelled men to pay for the building of 
 churches and the support of ministers, but to go to some 
 known religious assembly on First-days; and that his 
 friends were desirous of engaging us to assure them that 
 our state would repeal all the laws and place things as 
 they were in Pennsylvania.”2 The quotation is from 
 John Adams’s diary. This turning of the tables was a sad 
 blow to the complacency of the delegates of the “Sons of 
 Liberty.” They disclaimed the enforcement of such laws 
 in recent years but insisted “that they might as well hope 
 to turn the heavenly bodies out of their annual and 
 diurnal course as the people of Massachusetts at the present 
 
 1 Sharpless, op. cit., p. 107. 
 2 Supra, p. 118; Sharpless, op. cit., pp. 212-213. 
 
THE QUAKERS 141 
 
 day from their Meeting House and Sunday laws.” They 
 also tried to explain how such laws were compatible with 
 liberty of conscience, but Pemberton called out, 
 “Don’t urge liberty of conscience in favor of such laws.” 
 Unquestionably the Quaker had the better of the 
 argument, and he was far too aggressive a_ pacifist 
 not to carry the cause as far as his ammunition would 
 reach. 
 
 Israel Pemberton had been styled by people in general, 
 “King of the Quakers,” and John Adams speaks of him as 
 “the head of the Quaker interests.””’ He was in many 
 respects the most influential of three brothers, Israel, 
 James, and John. We shall see later how he was perse- 
 cuted for his sympathy towards the British cause. 1 
 
 The Meeting for Sufferings of Pennsylvania and New 
 Jersey, held at Philadelphia, January 5, 1775, disapproved 
 the measures that were being prosecuted against Great 
 Britain and members were requested to avoid joining in 
 such measures as inconsistent with their religious prin- 
 ciples.2, The following exhortation was issued to those 
 who might hold political offices: 
 
 “As divers members of our religious Society, some of them without 
 their consent or knowledge, have been lately nominated to attend on and 
 engage in some public affairs, which they cannot undertake without 
 deviating from these our religious principles; we therefore earnestly 
 beseech and advise them, and all others to consider the end and purpose 
 of every measure to which they are desired to become parties, and with 
 great circumspection and care, to guard against joining in any for the 
 assertion and maintaining of our rights and liberties, which, on mature 
 deliberation, appear not to be dictated by that ‘wisdom which is from 
 
 9993 
 
 above; which is pure, peaceable, gentle, full of mercy and good fruits’. 
 
 1 Infra., pp. 146-151; Sharpless, op. cut., p. 210. 
 
 2 American Archives, fourth series, vol. i, pp. 1093-1094, 1176-1177; 
 New York Gazette, January 30, 1775. 
 
 3 Bowden, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 299-300. 
 
142 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Their public declaration of policy was as follows: 
 
 “The Testimony of the People Called Quakers, Given forth by a Meeting 
 of the Representatives of said people, in Pennsylvania and New Jersey at 
 Philadelphia, the 24th Day of the First Month, 1775. 
 
 Having considered, with real sorrow, the unhappy contest between the 
 legislature of Great Britain and the people of these colonies, and the 
 animosities consequent thereon; we have, by repeated public advices and 
 private admonitions, used our endeavors to dissuade the members of our 
 religious Society from joining with the public resolutions promoted and 
 entered into by some of the people, which, as we apprehended, so as we 
 now find, have increased contention, and produced great discord and 
 confusion. j 
 
 The Divine principle of grace and truth which we profess, leads all who 
 attend to its dictates, to demean themselves as peaceable subjects, and 
 to discountenance and avoid every measure tending to excite disaffection 
 to the King, as supreme magistrate, or to the legal authority of his 
 government; to which purpose many of the late political writings and 
 addresses to the people appearing to be calculated, we are led by a sense 
 of duty to declare our entire disapprobation of them — their spirit and 
 temper being not only contrary to the nature and precepts of the gospel, 
 but destructive of the peace and harmony of civil society, disqualify 
 men in these times of difficulty, for the wise and judicious consideration 
 and promoting of such measures as would be most effectual for recon- 
 ciling differences, or obtaining the redress of grievances. 
 
 From our past experience of the clemency of the king and his royal 
 ancestors, we have grounds to hope and believe, that decent and respect- 
 ful addresses from those who are vested with legal authority, representing 
 the prevailing dissatisfactions and the cause of them, would avail towards 
 obtaining relief, ascertaining and establishing the just rights of the people, 
 and restoring the public tranquillity; and we deeply lament that contrary 
 modes of proceeding have been pursued, which have involved the colonies 
 in confusion, appear likely to produce violence and bloodshed, and 
 threaten the subversion of the constitutional government, and of that 
 liberty of conscience, for the enjoyment of which, our ancestors were 
 induced to encounter the manifold dangers and difficulties of crossing the 
 seas, and of settling in the wilderness. 
 
 We are, therefore, incited by a sincere concern for the peace and wel- 
 fare of our country, publicly to declare against every usurpation of 
 power and authority, in opposition to the laws and government, and 
 against all combinations, insurrections, conspiracies and illegal assemblies: 
 and as we are restrained from them by the conscientious discharge of our 
 duty to Almighty God, ‘by whom kings reign, and princes decree justice,’ 
 we hope through His assistance and favor, to be enabled to maintain our 
 
 2 
 
THE QUAKERS 143 
 
 testimony against any requisitions which may be made of us, inconsistent 
 with our religious principles, and the fidelity we owe to the king and his 
 government, as by law established; earnestly desiring the restoration of 
 that harmony and concord which have heretofore united the people of 
 these provinces, and been attended by the divine blessing on their 
 labors. 
 Signed in and on behalf of the said meeting, 
 JOHN PEMBERTON, Clerk at this time.” ! 
 
 On Friday, October 27, 1775, a committee from the 
 Quakers waited on the Pennsylvania Assembly and 
 presented “An Address”’ in behalf of that society, express- 
 ing deep concern and affliction over the state of the 
 province but asserting that “for conscience sake’’ they 
 “could not bear arms, nor be concerned in warlike prepar- 
 ations, either by personal service or by paying fines, 
 penalties, or assessments imposed 1 in consideration of . 
 exemption from such service.’? This called forth a 
 remonstrance from “The Committee of the City of 
 Philadelphia.’’? 
 
 Talk of independence caused the Friends to take a still 
 more decided position. At their Meeting for Sufferings, 
 January 20, 1776, it was resolved: 
 
 “That the benefits, advantages, and favors we have experienced by 
 our dependence on and connection with the king and government . 
 appear to demand from us the greatest circumspection, care, and con- 
 stant endeavors to guard against every attempt to alter, or subvert, that 
 dependence and connection.”’ Accordingly they urge Friends to unite 
 firmly “in the abhorrence of all such writings and measures as evidence a 
 desire and design to break off the happy connection we have hitherto 
 enjoyed with the Kingdom of Great Britain, and our just and necessary 
 
 subordination to the king, and those who are lawfully placed in authority 
 under him.”’ 4 
 
 1 Bowden, op. cit., vol. u,, pp. 300-302; American Archives, fourth 
 series, vol. i., pp. 1176-1177. 
 
 2 American Archives, fourth series, vol. ili, pp. 1777-1779. 
 
 Slbide,, Vol ii, ipp..1781-1783: 
 
 4 Tbid., vol. iv, pp. 785-787; Sharpless, op. cit., pp. 125-128; Phila- 
 delphia Ledger, January 27, 1776; Bowden, op. cit., vol. 11, pp. 306-307. 
 
144 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 This reads as though it might have been written by the 
 patrictic John Dickinson; it certainly represents the view 
 of that leader of the early Congress. Such a decided stand 
 on a vital current political question was hardly in con- 
 formity with the Fox advice, to keep clear of the commo- 
 tions involved in government. Also it would be extremely 
 difficult to convince the public that this expressed a pro- 
 American attitude. Nor would Friends submit to the 
 will of the majority when independence was finally voted, 
 but soon thereafter, December 20, 1776, the Meeting for 
 Sufferings issued the following proclamation: 
 
 “To our Friends and Brethren in Religious PRESTO, in these and 
 Adjacent Provinces, 
 
 Dearly Beloved Friends and Brethren, — Our minds being renewedly 
 impressed with a fervent religious concern for your spiritual welfare, and 
 preservation in the love and fellowship of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, the Prince of Peace, by the constrainings of his love, we are 
 engaged to salute you in this time of deep exercise, affliction, and diffi- 
 culty; earnestly desiring that we may, by steady circumspection, and care, 
 in every part of our conduct and conversation, evidence, that under the 
 close trials which are and may be permitted to attend us, our faith and 
 reliance is fixed on Him alone for protection and deliverance; remember- 
 ing his gracious promise to his faithful followers, ‘Lo, I am with you 
 always, even unto the end of the world.’ And as ‘it became Him for 
 
 whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons. 
 
 unto glory,’ to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through 
 suffering, ‘let us not be dismayed, if we are led into the same path’. As we 
 keep in the Lord’s power and peaceable Truth, which is over all, and 
 therein seek the good of all, neither sufferings, persecutions, nor any out- 
 ward thing that is below, will hinder or break our heavenly fellowship in 
 the light and spirit of Christ. 
 
 Thus we may, with Christian firmness and fortitude, withstand and 
 refuse to submit to the arbitrary injunctions and ordinances of men, who 
 assume to themselves the power of compelling others, either in person or 
 by other assistance, to join in carrying on war and of prescribing modes of 
 determining concerning our religious principles, by imposing tests not 
 warranted by the precepts of Christ, or the laws of the happy constitu- 
 tion, under which we and others enjoyed tranquillity and peace. 
 
 We therefore, in the aboundings of that love which wisheth the spiritual 
 
 es 
 
THE QUAKERS 145 
 
 and temporal prosperity of all men, exhort, admonish, and caution all 
 who make religious profession with us, and especially our beloved youth, 
 to stand fast in that liberty, wherewith, through the manifold sufferings 
 of our predecessors, we have been favored, and steadily to bear our 
 testimony against every attempt to deprive us of it. 
 
 And, dear Friends, you who have known the truth, and the powerful 
 operations thereof in your minds, adhere faithfully thereto, and by your 
 good example and stability, labor to strengthen the weak, confirm the 
 wavering, and warn and caution the unwary against being beguiled by 
 the snares of the adversaries of truth and righteousness. Let not the 
 fear of suffering, either in person or in property, prevail on any to join 
 with or promote any work in preparations for war. 
 
 Our profession and principles are founded on that spirit which is 
 contrary, and will in time put an end to all wars and bring in everlasting 
 righteousness; and by our constantly abiding under the direction and 
 instruction of that spirit, we may be endued with that ‘wisdom from 
 above, which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle and easy to be entreated, 
 full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.’ 
 That this may be our happy experience is our fervent desire and prayer. 
 Signed in and on behalf of the Meeting for Sufferings held in Philadelphia, 
 for Pennsylvania & New Jersey, the 20th day of the 12th. Month, 1776. 
 
 Joun Pemperron, Clerk.” ! 
 
 Things went very badly for the Quakers in 1777. In 
 that year Quaker affairs became a national scandal, and 
 as such it occupied the attention of Congress. General 
 Sullivan forwarded to Congress some “supposedly ” 
 seized Quaker letters and documents.2 It is now quite 
 certain that these were forgeries, “The Spanktown 
 Forgeries, ”’? but that was not then apparent. A committee 
 of Congress, consisting of John Adams, Mr. Drew, and 
 Richard Henry Lee, reported; “That the several testi- 
 monies which have been published since the commence- 
 ment of the present contest between Great Britain and 
 America, and the uniform tenor of the conduct, and 
 
 1 Bowden, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 309-310; American Archives, fifth series, 
 vol. iii, p. 1309. 
 
 2 Journals of Congress, viii, 688; Papers of the Continental Congress, 
 No. 78 ii, Folio 233. 3 “Spanktown,” Rahway, New Jersey. 
 
146 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 conversation of a number of persons of considerable 
 wealth, who profess themselves to belong to the society of 
 people commonly called Quakers, render it certain and 
 notorious, that those persons are, with much rancor and 
 bitterness, disaffected to the American cause; that, as 
 these persons will have it in their power, so there is no 
 doubt it will be their inclination, to communicate intelli- 
 gence to the enemy, and, in various other ways, to injure 
 the counsels and arms of America: 
 
 That, when the enemy, in the month of December, 
 1776, were bending their progress towards the city of 
 Philadelphia, a certain seditious publication, addressed 
 ‘To our friends and brethren in religious profession in 
 these and adjacent provinces, signed ‘‘John Pemberton, 
 in and on behalf on the Meeting for Sufferings, held at 
 Philadelphia, for Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the 20th 
 of the 12th month, 1776’,’ was published, and, as your 
 committee is credibly informed, circulated amongst many 
 members of the society called Quakers, throughout the 
 different states: 
 
 That, as the seditious paper aforesaid, originated in the 
 City of Philadelphia, and as the persons whose names are 
 under mentioned, have uniformly manifested by their 
 general conduct and conversation, a disposition highly 
 inimical to the cause of America, therefore, — 
 
 Resolved, That it be earnestly recommended to the 
 Supreme Executive Council of the State of Pennsylvania, 
 forthwith to apprehend and secure the persons of Joshua 
 Fisher, Abel James, James Pemberton, Henry Drinker, 
 Israel Pemberton, John Pemberton, John Jones, Samuel 
 Pleasants, Thomas Wharton Senior, Thomas Fisher (son 
 of Joshua), and Samuel Fisher, together with all such 
 papers in their possession as may be of a political nature. 
 
THE QUAKERS 147 
 
 And whereas, there is strong reason to apprehend that 
 these persons maintain a correspondence and connection 
 highly prejudicial to the public safety, not only in this 
 State, but in the several states of America. 
 
 Resolved, That it be recommended to the executive 
 power of the respective States, forthwith to apprehend and 
 secure all persons, as well among the people called Quakers 
 as others, who have, in their general conduct and con- 
 versation, evidenced a disposition inimical to the cause of 
 America: and that the persons so seized be confined in 
 such places, and treated in such manner, as shall be con- 
 sistent with their respective characters and security of 
 their persons: 
 
 That the records and papers of the Meetings for Suffer- 
 ings in the respective States, be forthwith secured and 
 carefully examined, and that such parts of them as may 
 be of a political nature, be forthwith transmitted to 
 Congress.’’! 
 
 This report was agreed to and on motion it was “Or- 
 
 dered: 
 
 That the Board of War remove, under guard, to a place of security 
 out of the State of Pennsylvania, the honorable John Penn, Esq., and 
 Benjamin Chew, Esq., and that they give orders for having them safely 
 secured, and entertained agreeable to their rank and station.” 2 
 
 Minutes of the various Meetings for Sufferings were 
 seized according to these resolutions but as they were 
 found to contain nothing stronger than appeals to mem- 
 bers to remain faithful to their principles, they were soon 
 returned. 
 
 September 3, 1777, a letter from the Vice-President of 
 
 1 Bowden, op. cit., vol. 11, pp. 315-316. 
 2 Journals of Congress, vol. ili, pp. 694-695. 
 
148 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania informed 
 Congress that: 
 
 “In consequence of the recommendation of Congress, and their own 
 persuasion of the propriety and necessity of the measure, the council have 
 taken up several persons inimically disposed towards the American 
 states (of the forty, only half were Friends, but among them were 
 the three Pembertons); that few of the Quakers among these are 
 willing to make any promise of any kind; and desiring the advice of 
 Congress, particularly whether Augusta or Winchester in Virginia, would 
 not be suitable places in which to secure these persons.”’ 
 
 Whereupon it was resolved: 
 
 “That Congress approve of the Quaker prisoners being sent to Virginia, 
 and, in the opinion of Congress, that Staunton, in the county of Augusta, 
 is the most proper place in the State of Virginia for their residence and 
 security; and with regard to the other prisoners mentioned in their 
 letter, Congress leave it to the Supreme Executive Council to do with 
 them as their wisdom shall think best.” 4 : 
 
 It was also resolved, “That the Supreme Executive 
 Council be informed that Congress has no objections to 
 the enlargement of such persons now confined in the 
 Lodge as will swear or affirm allegiance to this State.’’? 
 
 A remonstrance was received at this time from the 
 Pembertons, Fishers, Drinker, Pleasants and Wharton and 
 read. This was taken into consideration and it was 
 resolved, September 6, “That it be recommended to 
 the Supreme Executive Council of the State of Pennsy]- 
 vania, to hear what the said remonstrants can allege, to 
 remove the suspicion of their being disaffected or dangerous 
 to the United States, and act therein as the said council 
 judge most conducive to the public safety.’? Congress 
 was plainly already aware that it had acted precipitously, 
 and was seeking to shift responsibility to the shoulders of 
 
 1 Journals of Congress, vol. viii, p. 707. 
 
 2 iid. vo nus pails. 
 3 Iind., vol. viii, pp. 714, 718. 
 
THE QUAKERS 149 
 
 the state of Pennsylvania. Yet it had to carry the matter 
 farther. A letter from the Council of Pennsylvania with a 
 list of the persons arrested in pursuance of the resolve of 
 Congress was read, September 8, also a letter from Thomas 
 Wharton, Junior, president of the Council of Pennsylvania. 
 Whereupon it was: 
 
 “Resolved, That it would be improper for Congress to entertain any 
 hearing of the remonstrants or the other prisoners in the Lodge, they 
 being inhabitants of Pennsylvania; and, therefore, as the Council de- 
 clines giving them a hearing, for the reasons assigned in their letter to 
 Congress, that it be recommended to the said Council to order the im- 
 mediate departure of such of the said prisoners as yet refuse to swear or 
 affirm allegiance to the State of Pennsylvania, to Staunton in Virginia.” ! 
 
 It was thus, in accordance with orders from the national 
 government that the Pennsylvania Quakers were perse- 
 cuted. Without trial, despite urgent appeals and pro- 
 tests to the State Council, to Congress and to the People 
 of Pennsylvania, and under conditions of great harshness, 
 a large number of Quakers were imprisoned. 
 
 A Protest, signed by 113 Friends, and addressed “To 
 the President and Council of Pennsylvania,” September 9, 
 1777, stigmatized the whole proceedings against the 
 Quakers as “an alarming violation of the civil and re- 
 ligious rights of the community” and set forth: 
 
 “The remonstrance and protest of the subscribers, herewith; That your 
 resolve of this day was this afternoon delivered to us; which is the more 
 unexpected, as last evening your secretary informed us, you had referred 
 our business to Congress, to whom we are about to apply. 
 
 In this resolve, contrary to the inherent rights of mankind, you con- 
 demn us to banishment unheard. 
 
 You determine matters concerning us, which we could have disproved, 
 had our rights to a hearing been granted. 
 
 The charge against us, of refusing ‘to promise to refrain from corre- 
 
 sponding with the enemy’, insinuates that we have already held such 
 correspondence, which we utterly and solemnly deny. | 
 
 1 Journals of Congress, vol. vill. p. 723. 
 
150 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 The tests you proposed, we were by no law bound to subscribe, and 
 notwithstanding our refusing them, we are still justly and lawfully 
 entitled to all the rights of citizenship of which you are attempting to 
 deprive us. 
 
 We have never been suffered to come before you to evince our in- 
 nocence, and to remove suspicions, which you have labored to instill into 
 the minds of others; and at the same time knew to be groundless; although 
 Congress recommended you to give us a hearing,! and your President 
 assured two of our friends this morning we should have it. 
 
 Upon the whole, your proceedings have been so arbitrary, that words 
 are wanting to express our sense of them. We do therefore, as the last 
 office we expect you will now suffer us to perform for the benefit of our 
 country, in behalf of ourselves and those freemen of Pennsylvania who 
 have any regard for liberty, solemnly remonstrate and protest against 
 your whole conduct in this unreasonable excess of power exercised by you. 
 
 That the evil and destructive spirit of pride, ambition, and arbitrary 
 power with which you have been actuated, may cease and be no more; 
 and ‘that peace on earth and good will to men’, may happily take the 
 place thereof, in your and all men’s minds, is the sincere desire of your 
 oppressed and injured fellow citizens.” 2 
 
 The prisoners had been sent off to Virginia on Septem- 
 ber 11. Congress could truthfully declare then, Septem- 
 ber 28, “They (Friends) are, with much rancor and bitter- 
 ness, disaffected to the American cause.’? But it was 
 not proud of its part in the proceedings and soon essayed 
 to cover its complicity in the matter. January 29, 1778, 
 Congress passed a resolution for the discharge of the 
 prisoners on their taking an affirmation of allegiance to 
 the State of Pennsylvania, as a free and independent 
 State.* This the Friends declined to do. Congress then 
 resolved March 16, 1778, to place them at the disposal of 
 the Council of Pennsylvania. The Council decided, 
 April 8, 1778, to set them free, providing, ‘That the whole 
 
 1 Journals of Congress, September 6, 1777; Bowden, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 
 317-318. 
 
 2 Bowden, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 319-320. 
 
 3 Journals of Congress, vol. x, p. 98. 
 
 4 Bowden, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 325. 
 
THE QUAKERS 151 
 
 expense of arresting and confining the prisoners sent to 
 Virginia, the expenses of the journey, and all other inci- 
 dental charges, be paid by the said prisoners.”! According 
 to this resolution the prisoners were brought North and 
 discharged. Some, however, including the “King of the 
 Quakers,”’ Israel Pemberton, had died as a result of con- 
 finement. 
 
 Upon the return of the Americans to Philadelphia in 
 1778, after its evacuation by the British, two Quakers, 
 Roberts and Carlisle, were hanged on the charge of 
 treason.” 
 
 The whole matter had been a test and, as it were, a 
 vindication of Quaker principles. The Meeting for 
 Sufferings at Philadelphia, August 8, 1778, addressed to the 
 Assembly of Pennsylvania a clear restatement of these 
 principles: 
 
 “They respectfully represent that the government of the consciences of 
 men is the prerogative of Almighty God, who will not give His glory to 
 another; that every encroachment on this His prerogative, is offensive in 
 His sight, and that He will not hold them guiltless who invade it, but 
 will sooner or later manifest His displeasure to all who persist therein. 
 These truths will, we doubt not, obtain the assent of every considerate 
 mind. The immediate occasion of our applying to you is (that) we have 
 received accounts from different places, that a number of our friends are 
 and have been imprisoned, some for refusing to pay the fines imposed in 
 lieu of personal services in the present war, and others for refusing to 
 take the test prescribed by some laws lately made. 
 
 The ground of our refusal is a religious scruple in our minds against 
 such compliance, not from obstinacy, or any other motive than a desire 
 of keeping a conscience void of offence towards God, which we cannot, 
 without a steady adherence to our peaceable principles and testimony 
 against wars and fightings, founded on the precepts and example of our 
 
 1 Bowden, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 326; Thomas Gilpin, “Exiles in Vir- 
 ginia.”’ 
 
 2 Jones, Sharpless and Gummere, The Quakers in the American Colo- 
 nies; Bowden, op. cit., Chapter xii, “‘Difficulties of the Friends during 
 the War of Independence.’ Windsor, vol. vi, pp. 393, 417; Hildreth, 
 vol. iii, p. 195. Gordon, Am. Rev., vol. iv, p. 377. 
 
152 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace; by conformity to which, we are 
 bound to live a peaceable and quiet life, and restrained from making any 
 declaration or entering into any engagements as parties in the present 
 unsettled state of public affairs.” ! 
 
 They are seeking now redress from local persecution and 
 express the desire that “the laws which have a tendency to 
 oppress tender consciences may be repealed”? and pro- 
 vision made for the release of those in “‘bonds for the 
 testimony of a good conscience, and which may prevent 
 others hereafter from suffering in like manner.” Records 
 for five Quarterly Meetings show nine thousand five 
 hundred pounds distraint. 
 
 The Quaker position was improving but it was by no 
 means as yet entirely a happy one. A new law of the 
 Pennsylvania Assembly had shut them out from teaching, 
 so an appeal from Meeting for Sufferings, November 11, 
 1779, to the Assembly was carried: 
 
 “Our predecessors, on their early settlement in this part of America, 
 being piously concerned for the prosperity of the colony, and the real 
 welfare of their posterity, among other salutary institutions, promoted at 
 their own expense the establishment of schools for the instruction of 
 their youth in useful and necessary learning, and for their education in 
 piety and virtue, the practice of which forms the most sure basis for 
 perpetuating the enjoyment of Christian liberty and essential happiness. 
 By the voluntary contributions of the members of our religious Society 
 schools were set up, in which their children were taught; and careful at- 
 tention hath been given to the instruction of the children of the poor, not 
 of our Society only, but our liberality hath been extended to poor children 
 of other religious denominations generally, great numbers of whom have 
 partaken thereof; and these schools have been in like manner continued 
 and maintained for a long course of years. 
 
 Duty to Almighty God made known in the consciences of men, and 
 confirmed by the Holy Scriptures, is an invariable rule, which should 
 govern their judgment and actions. He is the only Lord and sovereign of 
 conscience, and to Him we are accountable for our conduct, as by Him 
 all men are to be finally judged. — By conscience we mean, the appre- 
 
 1 Bowden, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 330-331. 
 * Ihid., loc. cit. 
 
THE QUAKERS 153 
 
 hension and persuasion a man has of his duty to God; and the liberty of 
 conscience we plead for, is a free open profession and unmolested exercise of 
 that duty — such a conscience, as under the influence of Divine Grace, 
 keeps within the bounds of morality, in all the affairs of human life, and 
 teacheth to live soberly, righteously, and godly in the world. 
 
 The matters we have now freely laid before you are serious and import- 
 ant, which we wish you to consider wisely as men, and religiously as 
 Christians: manifesting yourselves friends to true liberty, and enemies to 
 persecution, by repealing the several penal laws affecting tender con- 
 sciences, and restoring to us our equitable rights, that the means of 
 education and instruction of our youth, which we conceive to be our 
 reasonable and religious duty, may not be obstructed, and that the 
 oppressed may be relieved. In your consideration whereof we sincerely 
 desire that you may seek for, and be directed by that supreme ‘wisdom, 
 which is pure, peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy 
 
 > 994 
 
 and good fruits’. 
 
 This was referred by the Assembly to the Committee 
 on Grievance, who proposed March 4, 1780, a series of 
 questions to the society, in writing. These related to the 
 acknowledgment of the American Government, the 
 validity of its laws, paper money, etc., and concluded, 
 *“As you are especially associated together, though not 
 incorporated in Law, and issue public letters and recom- 
 mendations, and promulgate opinions not only on religion, 
 but political subjects, or at least uniting them together, 
 you are requested to communicate the letters and testi- 
 monies which have been published from time to time for 
 seven years past, and signed by the clerks of your General 
 or Quarterly Meetings of this city, to be sent to other 
 meetings, or to persons of your Society.’’? 
 
 The Society did not comply with this request of the 
 Assembly but replied as follows: 
 
 “To the Committee of Grievances, 
 
 Your paper directed to Isaac Zane and others, propounding divers 
 questions to our religious Society, hath been considered, and, agreeable to 
 
 1 Bowden, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 332-333; Thomas, op. cit., p. 117. 
 * Bowden, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 333-334. 
 
154 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 the advice of an eminent Apostle to his Christian brethren, it become 
 us ‘to be always ready to give an answer to every man that asketh a 
 reason of the hope that is in us with meekness and fear,’ so also we think 
 it necessary, according to their practice, after the example of their Lord 
 and Master, to adapt the answer to the nature and tendency of the 
 question proposed. 
 
 On reviewing the Memorial presented to the Assembly, and our 
 address to you, they appear to us to contain matter of such importance, 
 and so clearly point out the sentiments and practice of our religious 
 Society, in the various changes and revolutions which have occurred in 
 civil government since we were distinguished from other Christian pro- 
 fessions, that a weighty, impartial attention to them, and a willingness 
 to remove the cause of oppression complained of, would, we apprehend, 
 sufficiently enable you, to represent to the House, the justice and ex- 
 pediency of relief, on the principles of Christianity and civil liberty. 
 
 Our religious meetings were instituted for the laudable intention of 
 inculeating in our fellow-members, worship to Almighty God, benevo- 
 lence to mankind, and to encourage one another in a steadfast, upright 
 conduct, according to the pure principles of the Gospel; and have been 
 continued for those Christian purposes for more than a century past; 
 nor hath the original design of their institution been perverted to the 
 purpose of political disquisitions, or anything prejudicial to the public 
 safety: we therefore, conceive the queries you have proposed to us in a 
 religious capacity, are improper, and a mode of redressing grievances new 
 and unprecedented, and such an inquisition made on a religious Society, 
 as we have not known nor heard of in America: nevertheless, we may 
 briefly repeat what has been already declared on behalf of our religious 
 Society, to revive the important subject of the. Memorial in your view; 
 which we think is still worthy of very serious and unbiased considera- 
 tion. 
 
 Our Friends have always considered Government to be a divine 
 ordinance, instituted for the suppressing of vice and immorality, the 
 promotion of virtue, and protection of the innocent from oppression and 
 tyranny. And they esteem those legislators and magistrates, who make 
 the fear and honor of God the rule of their conduct, to be worthy of 
 respect and obedience. And that it is our duty to live a godly, peaceable, 
 and quiet life. It is also our firm belief that conscience ought not to be 
 subject to the control of men, or the injunctions of human laws; and every 
 attempt to restrain or enforce it, is an invasion of the prerogative of the 
 Supreme Lord and Lawgiver . 
 
 As our Christian principle leads mate a life of sobriety and peace, so it 
 restrains us from taking active part in the present contest or joining with 
 any measures which tend to create or promote disturbance or commotion 
 
THE QUAKERS 155 
 
 in the government under which we are placed; and many of our brethren, 
 from a conviction that war is so opposite to the nature and spirit of the 
 Gospel, apprehend it their duty to refrain in any degree from voluntarily 
 contributing to its support; some of whom, for a considerable number of 
 years past on former occasions, have not actively complied with the pay- 
 ment of taxes raised for military services; and divers, from conscientious 
 motives, have now avoided circulating the currency which hath been 
 emitted for the immediate purpose of carrying on war; although on these 
 accounts, they have been, and still are, subjected to great inconvenience, 
 losses, and sufferings. It hath been the uniform practice of our religious 
 Society, after the example of other Christian churches in every age, to 
 issue epistles of counsel and admonition to their members as occasion re- 
 quired; those and the testimonies you allude to, contain seasonable 
 exhortations to observe a godly conduct, consistent with the peaceable 
 principles of our Christian profession; and the papers and records of some 
 of our meetings were seized and detained in the Ninth Month, 1777, and 
 after undergoing a scrutiny and examination, nothing seditious or pre- 
 judicial to the public good being found in them, they were returned. 
 
 In whatever mistaken or unfavorable light our religious Society may 
 be held, by those who are unacquainted with us and our principles, or 
 prejudiced against us, we hope to manifest by our conduct, that we are 
 true friends to all men, and sincerely desirous to promote and inculcate 
 such a temper of mind in our fellow-professors in general, as to enable us 
 to forgive them who evilly entreat us, and pray for them who persecute us. 
 
 Signed on behalf of the Committee of the people called Quakers, who 
 waited on the Assembly of Pennsylvania, with a memorial and address, in 
 the Eleventh Month, 1779. Isaac ZANE.” ! 
 
 There is little more to be recorded of the Revolutionary 
 position of the American Quakers; the local Pennsylvnaia 
 situation did not improve. In fact the Yearly Meeting of 
 1781 wrote to the London Yearly Meeting: “The sufferings 
 of Friends in these parts have much increased, and con- 
 tinue increasing, in a manner which, to outward prospect, 
 looksruinous . . . . . Our two brethren who have been 
 long imprisoned in Lancaster jail, are still under con- 
 finement there, although their innocence of any crime is 
 acknowledged by those who detain them.” And the 
 
 1 Bowden, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 334-336. 
 TUG sav Olells DaOo lime . 
 
156 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Meeting for Sufferings in Philadelphia complained to the 
 London Brethren in that same year, “Various are the 
 trials and sufferings of Friends on this Continent, and in 
 many instances very grievous: men actuated by the 
 spirit of war, prejudiced and blinded by party fears and 
 animosities, are unwilling to understand our peaceable 
 Christian testimony, .as anything more than a political 
 enmity against them; and thus precluding themselves 
 from the candid exercise of their own reason as men, 
 they treat Friends in some cases with great rigor and 
 inhumanity.’’! 
 
 Some of the rigors of 1781 were due to Friends refusing 
 to celebrate the glorious victory of Yorktown. Outrages 
 and violence were committed on their personsand property, 
 by individuals and by companies of lawless people who 
 paraded the streets of Philadelphia.? 
 
 The Meeting for Sufferings of Philadelphia in this year 
 addressed another solemn appeal “To the President and 
 Executive Council and General Assembly of Pennsylvania, 
 and others whom it may concern: 
 
 We are not incited by party views or vindictive motives in this repre- 
 sentation, but to awaken your cool and dispassionate attention to our 
 multiplied sufferings, and the abuses we have received; knowing that 
 magistracy is intended for a terror to evil-doers, and an encouragement 
 to the virtuous; but where the necessary care and exertions are not used 
 for the prevention and suppression of profanity, tumults, and outrage, 
 and a virtuous part of the community are oppressed and insulted, the 
 true end of government is neglected, and anarchy, confusion, contempt of 
 authority, and insecurity to persons and property will succeed; and 
 although public fasts may be proclaimed, and days under the name of 
 humiliation reeommended and appointed, and confession of sin and trans- 
 gression verbally made, yet unless these be a true and sincere fasting 
 
 from ambition, strife, ill-will, animosities, infidelity, fraud, luxury, 
 revelling, drunkenness, oppression, and all manner of evil, it cannot be 
 
 2 Bowden, op. cit., vol. 11, pp. 336-337. 
 3 Tbid., vol. ii, p. 341. 
 
THE MORAVIANS 157 
 
 a fast, or acceptable day to the LORD, nor can we have a well-grounded 
 hope, that the scourge with which the inhabitants have been visited will 
 be removed, and days of peace and tranquillity restored. 
 
 The dispensation of war, bloodshed, and calamity, which hath been 
 permitted to prevail on this continent, is very solemn and awful, demand- 
 ing the most serious and heartfelt attention of all ranks and denomina- 
 tions among the people, individually to consider and examine how far we 
 are each of us really and sincerely engaged to bring forth fruits of true 
 repentance and amendment of life, agreeable to the spirit and doctrine of 
 the Gospel. And although we have been exposed to great abuses and 
 unchristian treatment, we wish to be enabled, through the assistance of 
 Divine Grace, to cherish in ourselves, and inculcate in others with whom 
 we have an influence, that disposition of forgiveness of injuries, enjoined 
 by the precepts and example of Christ our holy lawgiver; and to manifest 
 our destres and endeavors to promote the real good of our country.” } 
 
 Here at last we have an expression from the Quakers of 
 their desire to assist in the work of establishing “Our 
 Country.” They came to be champions of the Constitu- 
 tion and Brissot de Warville asserts that Washington 
 “regarded them as the best citizens of the new govern- 
 ment.’’? 
 
 The attitude of the Moravian Brethren toward the 
 Revolution was to be sadly misunderstood by both sides 
 and their lot was to prove far more pitifully tragic than 
 that of their fellow conscientious neutrals, the Quakers. 
 Opposed as they were to an oath in any form, the first 
 effect of hostilities was to terminate their evangelistic 
 itinerancies. No one who refused to take the American 
 test oath was allowed to proceed North or East of Easton, 
 Pennsylvania. This in effect shut the body of their 
 church off from their greatest field of activities, missions 
 among the frontier Indians. Then too communication 
 with the church authorities in Europe became very 
 uncertain. 
 
 1 Bowden, op. cit., vol. li, pp. 341-343. 
 2 Supra, p. 134. 
 
158 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Though cheerfully responding to requisitions for sup- 
 plies, their conscientious refusals to bear arms involved 
 them in serious difficulties and brought financial penalties. 
 They were notified that unless all males above sixteen 
 years of age presented themselves for military duty on a 
 certain day, they would be taxed three pounds and three 
 shillings for each man under fifty. This tax they paid. 
 As time wore on, however, some of the younger men 
 accepted the new order. 
 
 Devoted hospital service tended to correct the bad 
 impressions created by non-military service. The general 
 hospital of the American Army was located at Bethlehem, 
 Pennsylvania, their stronghold, from December 1776 to 
 March 1777, and from September 1777 to June 1778. 
 At another time their buildings at Lititz were requisi- 
 tioned for a similar purpose. 
 
 At the Bethlehem hospital John Ettwein, one of their 
 leaders, later created bishop, acted as army chaplain. 
 Throughout the Revolution he received, in the name of 
 the church, the many distinguished visitors that flocked to 
 that town. His sturdy courage and strong good sense won 
 for him the friendship of such men as Henry Laurens, 
 Samuel Adams, John Hancock and General Washington; 
 which friendships were in later trying times to prove of 
 great value to the Brethren as a denomination. Though a 
 Tory in his earlier sympathies, Ettwein was induced by 
 his co-religionist, Von Schweinitz, to accept the independ- 
 ence of the colonies as an act of providence. Upon 
 becoming Bishop in 1784, he was to find his American- 
 ism of great service in fitting his church to the new 
 nation. In 1787 he founded the “Society for the Propa- 
 gation of the Gospels among the Heathen,” which society 
 speedily secured incorporation from the Pennsylvania 
 
THE MORAVIANS 159 
 
 Assembly, and large endowments from the national 
 government. ! 
 
 It was chiefly in their Indian missions that the Moravi- 
 ans influenced the course of the Revolution, and para- 
 doxically it was there that they most seriously suffered 
 from the effects of the Revolutionary war-hysteria. In 
 1772 Ettwein had led the Christian Indians from the 
 valley of the Susquehanna to the Tuscarawas in Ohio. 
 There three prosperous civilized villages had been founded, 
 the centres of the missionary activities of six Moravian 
 missionaries, chief of whom was David Zeisberger. It was 
 his influence in the councils of the Iroquois and Delawares 
 that restrained these nations from war activities in those 
 gloomy years of war, when their power might have 
 proven a serious menace to the American cause. 
 
 Three Indian departments had been organized by 
 Congress in July 1775, and through Chief White Eyes, 
 Congress immediately approached the Delaware tribes.” 
 The Delawares, in council, decided to abide by the 
 Moravian church, and the leadership of Zeisberger. 
 Zeisberger becomes a far more powerful figure in Revolu- 
 tionary Delaware annals than their Chief White Eyes. . 
 
 It has been computed that the Indians of New York, 
 Ohio, and the Lake regions could muster, at the beginning 
 of the Revolution, not less than ten thousand warriors. 
 If the British had succeeded in establishing, as they tried, 
 an offensive confederation among these Indian tribes 
 the results would have been fearful. While Samuel Kirk- 
 land secured the neutrality of the Oneidas and Tuscaroras, 
 so that the Iroquois were divided, Zeisberger prevented 
 
 1 Transactions of the Moravian Historical Society, Series UH, pp. 247- 
 263; Hamilton, J. T., A History of the Unitas Fratrum, or Moravian 
 Church in the United States of America, p. 472. 
 
 2 Infra, pp. 421-422. 
 
160 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 the Delawares from taking up the hatchet, in the earlier 
 years of the war. If the greater part of the Delawares 
 eventually went over to the enemy, it was when the 
 State had gained a decisive victory over the forces of 
 Burgoyne and when French aid made their cause more 
 hopeful. It was in the gloomy years of the war that 
 Zeisberger kept back the Western hordes. In his Manu- 
 script History of the Indians, Zeisberger says, “If the 
 Delawares had taken part against the Americans in the 
 present war, America would have had terrible experiences; 
 for the neutrality of the Delawares kept all the many 
 nations that are their grandchildren neutral too, except 
 the Shawenese.”! The importance of this service was 
 acknowledged by such men as Generals Butler, Hand, 
 Brodhead, Gibson, Irvine, and Neville. The following 
 is the testimony of General Butler, ‘Had the chiefs of the 
 Delaware nation, together with the Christian Indians, 
 pursued a different course than that which they adopted, 
 all joined the enemy, and taken up the hatchet against 
 the Americans, it would have cost the United States much 
 blood and treasure to have withstood and checked their 
 progress besides weakening our already feeble armies on 
 _ the sea-board, by draining them of troops for the Western 
 service, and this might have proved fatal to the cause.’’2 
 
 The Christian Indians were placed between the two 
 frontier centres of influence, Pittsburgh for the Americans 
 and Detroit for the British. Their neutrality exposed 
 them to hostilities from both sides. And yet the Pittsburgh 
 forces were enabled to secure an attitude of benevolent 
 
 * De Schweinitz, Life and Times of David Zeisberger, p. 444. 
 
 > Note 2, p. 444, De Schweinitz, Life and Times of David Zeisberger 
 quoting from Heckewelder’s Report of the Mission to the Socrety for 
 
 Propagating the Gospel in the archives of the Moravian Society at Bethle- 
 hem. 
 
THE MORAVIANS 161 
 
 neutrality. By an Indian Treaty entered into at Pittsburgh, 
 September 17, 1778, it was stipulated that, 1, The Ameri- 
 cans should at any time be allowed to march troops 
 through the Delaware country, and erect a fort within 
 their territory, in return for which, 2, The Delawares 
 should be admitted to a perpetual alliance and confedera- 
 tion with the United States.! This treaty was to prove 
 a blunder for it gave the Indians nothing tangible and 
 raised false hopes on both sides. | 
 
 The non-militant Christian Indians frequently were 
 able to persuade war-parties to turn back and by request 
 of the Delaware council they wrote letters to the com- 
 mandant at Pittsburgh informing him of projected raids. 
 These acts were not performed as American spies, nor in 
 the interest of the American cause politically considered, 
 they were in the name of humanity. But unfortunately a 
 position such as this, was incomprehensible to the British 
 - authorities; the Moravian missionaries became to them, 
 not the upholders of humanitarian principles, but the 
 abettors of the American rebellion, on a par with its 
 frontier scouts.” 
 
 In August 1781, a force of a hundred and fifty Whites 
 and Indians, under British officers, soon augmented to 
 over three hundred by the Indians, appeared and, after 
 plundering their homes, forced the Missionaries and their 
 Christian Indians to enter the British lines at Sandusky. 
 They were deserted in October practically without food. 
 Their leaders, including Zeisberger, were summoned to 
 Detroit for trial as American spies. This trial resulted in 
 complete acquittal, but the disaster to the mission could 
 not be remedied with a word. A dreadful winter was 
 
 1 De Schweinitz, op. cit., pp. 468-469. 
 2 Thid., pp. 488-489. 
 
162 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 spent on the Sandusky, a pint of corn becoming the 
 allowance for each member of the mission family. At 
 length about a hundred and fifty of the converts obtained 
 permission to return to the Tuscarawa Valley to secure 
 whatever of the unharvested corn might remain. But 
 here they were to experience a calamity of misplaced 
 American indignation. 
 
 Although the Christian Indians had repeatedly shown 
 their consistent adherence to non-combatant principles, 
 they were mistakenly identified with the perpetrators of 
 border raids and massacres that had horrified the border 
 settlements during the preceding winter. To avenge these 
 wrongs about ninety men under Colonel Williamson had 
 set out from Monongahela. These militiamen arrived 
 among the Christian Indians on the evening before they 
 were to have commenced their return journey, and were 
 hospitably received because the Indians felt that the 
 Americans had come to deliver them from the trouble 
 that had originated at Detroit. The next morning 
 Williamson’s force herded the Indians into two buildings, 
 wantonly named the “slaughter-houses” and there, in 
 cold blood, butchered ninety Christian Indians and six 
 heathen visitors; included in the number were five assistant 
 missionaries. Only two lads escaped to tell the tale. A 
 part of the original band located some distance away 
 escaped to the Sandusky, only to find upon their arrival 
 there, that Zeisberger and his associates had again been 
 summoned to Detroit on a renewal of the old charge. ! 
 
 At Detroit Zeisberger was again successful in establish- 
 ing his innocence and finally was able to conduct the 
 
 ‘ Zeisberger, Diary, March 1782, pp. 78-82; De Schweinitz, op. cit., 
 pp. 530-557; Taylor, History of Ohio; Heckewelder, English Narrative of 
 
 the Massacre (Bethlehem Archives); Heckewelder, History of the Mission; 
 Pennsylvania Archives, vol. ix; Howell, Atlantic M onthly, vol. 22, p. 95. 
 
THE MORAVIANS 1age 
 
 remnant of his flock by way of Lake St. Clair and the 
 Huron River to the Chippewa country in Michigan, 
 where he founded New Gnadenhutten. After peace had 
 been concluded, and Ettwein had secured from Congress 
 the grant of land in the Tuscarawas Valley, a party of one 
 hundred and seventeen converts set out for their old 
 homes. But they halted at Pilgerruh, on the Cuyahoga, on 
 account of the inveterate hostility of border American 
 public sentiment. At length, after various wanderings 
 caused by Indian wars, Goshen, Ohio, was settled in 1798 
 and Zeisberger ministered here. 
 
Li 
 
 ed 
 =o 
 
 
 
PACK DTW: O 
 
 NATIONALIZATION OF THE AMERICAN 
 CHURCHES 
 

 
CHA PTE R VEL 
 
 THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 IN AMERICA 
 
 The first church in the United States to work out an 
 independent, national form of ecclesiastical organization 
 and discipline was the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 Moreover, the change which it thereby effected was more 
 revolutionary in character than was that accomplished by 
 any other denomination. As soon as the colonies became 
 free from the mother country, the Methodist societies 
 broke with their parent in England. With them separa- 
 tion and reorganization were the work of but a few months. 
 The year 1784, following the signing of the Peace of Paris, 
 saw the New Methodist Episcopal Church fully organized, 
 though not in its final form; complete separation from 
 dependence on the Church of England, revision of the 
 founder’s conception of complete dependence upon his 
 authority, and an adoption of the American ideal of a 
 republican commonwealth government through a general 
 conference. That the Methodist Episcopalians thus 
 anticipated other sects in the work of constitution-making, 
 resulted from several peculiarities of their situation. 
 
 Colonial Methodism was in every sense of the word a 
 part of Anglicanism. Its congregations were not a church; 
 its missionaries and preachers were not a clergy. It was 
 but a series of clubs for the promotion of holiness; places 
 of assembly were but “Meeting Houses”’ or “Chapels.” 
 Its places of worship were always open to the regular 
 Anglican clergy for preaching or the administration of the 
 
168° NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 sacraments.' Preachers were simply unordained lay 
 missionaries, dependent upon the Anglican clergy for the 
 administration of the sacraments and _ strictly warned 
 against the sacrilege of administering the ordinances of 
 baptism and the holy supper. So vital was this inde- 
 pendence that in Virginia, where their greatest colonial 
 strength lay, we find them fighting shoulder to shoulder 
 with the Church of England, for the preservation of the 
 established church.? 
 
 The war temporarily disrupted the Church of England 
 in the colonies; establishments were abolished, the clergy 
 fled, and the church itself was looked upon as a part of the 
 government with which the United States was at war.? 
 This left the Methodists destitute of the ordinary Christian 
 ceremonials. Mr. Wesley complains of this situation in 
 a letter of September 10, 1784, as follows: “In America 
 there are none (bishops with a legal jurisdiction), and but 
 few parish ministers; so that for some hundred miles to- 
 gether there is none either to baptize or to administer the 
 Lord’s Supper.’’4 
 
 The Methodist missionaries themselves were largely 
 Englishmen. All ten of the preachers who composed the 
 first American conference in 1773 had been of English or 
 Trish origin, not one of them was a native American. 
 And within two years of the signing of the Declaration of 
 Independence, Francis Asbury was the only one of 
 English preachers remaining in America. Connection 
 _ between English and American Methodism had been 
 _ shattered. 
 
 ‘Minutes of the Annual Conferences of the Methodist Church for the 
 Years 1773-1823, edition of 1840, pp. 11-13. 
 
 * Journal of the House of Delegates, October 28, 1776. 
 
 3 Supra, chapter ii. 
 * British Minutes of 1785, ed. 1812, pp. 179-181. 
 
» 
 THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 169 
 
 A yearly conference for the colonial Methodists had 
 existed since 1773. This had accustomed the preachers 
 to governmental procedure even previous to the Decla- 
 ration of Independence and the flight of the English ,, 
 assistants.! The stress of the situation in 1778 caused this 
 body to assume temporary governmental powers and at 
 the close of the War it had gained a very definite concep- 
 tion of the part which a representative assembly might 
 and, as they thought, should play in any form of govern- 
 ment. 
 
 American Methodism throve throughout the period of 
 the war and reconstruction. The First Conference of 
 1773 had reported ten preachers and 1166 members of the 
 denomination; the Conference of 1784 revealed 83 preach-, 
 ers and 14,998 members.2 The old order was entirely 4 
 inadequate to the needs of such expansion. 
 
 The ministers were all young and enthusiastic. Coke 
 says of the Conference of 1784, ““They were indeed a body , 
 of devoted, disinterested men, but most of them young.’’? 
 William Watters was but twenty-seven years of age, when 
 he presided over the Conference of 1778; Francis Asbury 
 was thirty-three at that time; Thomas Coke was thirty-one. . 
 They were filled with the spirit of youth; they were outto 
 conquer a continent. They were progressives wishing to 
 construct American Christianity in terms of the future 
 rather than to follow blindly those Anglican traditions 
 which all realized to be historically weak in spots. 
 
 The vision of John Wesley was a vital element in the 
 working out of definite plans to meet the American 
 situation. No one was more conscious of the dilemma 
 
 1Tipple, Francis Asbury, p. 117, “This was the first steps towards 
 separation.” 
 
 2 Minutes, 1773 and 1784. 
 
 3 Coke, Journal. 
 
170 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 of the American branch of Methodist Episcopalianism 
 than was its founder. He seems to have been the first 
 to realize the effects of independence on the old order. 
 The new church was built solidly upon a foundation pro- 
 
 scribed by Wesley himself. ‘It is true that he seems never ° 
 ‘ to have realized fully the new spirit of the younger men. , 
 
 The church used his foundations but the superstructure 
 was to belong to the younger generation. Not all the 
 vision was his. 
 
 Few people in England knew the intricacies of eccles- 
 iastical politics better than did John Wesley. It is clear 
 that he realized that other plans were afoot in Great 
 Britain for the reorganization of American Episcopacy. 
 Samuel Seabury had arrived in England in 1783 seeking 
 consecration as Bishop of Connecticut. There is no doubt 
 but that Mr. Wesley hoped to and did forestall all others 
 by the organization of his American Methodist Episco- 
 palian Church. Wesley’s first ‘Superintendent’ or 
 “ Bishop” had been set apart to his task by the laying on 
 of hands and had reached America, and was already per- 
 forming his Episcopal functions when at last, on November 
 14, 1784, Samuel Seabury was consecrated by the Scottish 
 bishops at Aberdeen. 
 
 And why shouldn’t Methodist Episcopalianism become 
 the American form of Episcopalianism? Wesley considered 
 Anglicanism as distinctly a national religion, to be sure 
 the very best form;! but why not a new form more in 
 keeping with primitive Christianity and nearer to the 
 needs of primitive American surroundings. It seemed 
 more than doubtful whether the United States would 
 ever consent to the presence of any church dependent 
 upon a foreign authority. Episcopalianism of the sort that 
 
 ' British Minutes of 1785, pp. 179-181. 
 
 al 
 
THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH ail 
 
 had existed in the colonies had been civil as well as 
 ecclesiastical. Now Wesley’s Methodist Episcopalianism 
 was to be Episcopalian both as to form and _ tradition. 
 Prompt action might install it as American Episco- 
 palianism. John Wesley was not the man to let oppor- 
 tunity pass him by. He acted quickly;! and for a brief 
 period American Methodists may have felt that they 
 were actually the complete Episcopal Church of America. 
 
 That Wesley’s church failed to become the national 
 church of the United States resulted primarily from the 
 American spirit of abhorrence of any establishment. 
 The American religious spirit was one of “religious * 
 liberty”’; and the converse of King James’ dictum, “No 
 Bishop, No King,”’ seemed to hold, —‘“‘No King, No 
 Bishop.” It is not surprising then that the “Methodist” 
 part of Wesley’s institution has been emphasized to the 
 neglect of its Episcopalian character. Then too there was 
 the fatal question about the orthodoxy of Wesley’s 
 power to institute “Superintendents” or “Bishops.” 
 In addition free America resented the conception of the 
 “prerogative” of the traditional bishop. And the poli- 
 ticlans in the Virginia General Assembly persisted in 
 regarding the Protestant Episcopal Church as the legal 
 successor to the Established Church. 
 
 John Wesley’s plans contemplated an American Church 
 dependent upon his authority during his life and after that 
 upon the authority of his lawfully designated successor; 
 the spirit of America was repelled by the plans which Mr. 
 Wesley handed to them in 1784, and erected thereon a 
 church in which these plans and traditions were inter- 
 preted in terms of the future of American Christianity. 
 
 1 McConnell, American Episcopal Church speaks of this as “secession”’ 
 begun in 1784 from the Protestant Episcopal Church. 
 
é 
 
 172 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 ~ 
 
 They read into them a great deal that Wesley could not 
 approve; they transformed his plans for an Episcopacy 
 exercising a very limited degree of autonomy, delegated 
 from his plethora of autocracy, into a democratic republican 
 institution, governed by its own general conference and 
 electing its own bishops. Those same forces which caused 
 Methodism to effect.reorganization in advance of its 
 rivals in America, also, as we shall see, stamped upon it a 
 most distinctly American character. They created a 
 church marked by independence, liberality, progressive- 
 ness, self-reliance, and representative democracy. 
 
 At the outbreak of the Revolution the Methodists in 
 the English colonies were for strictest adherence to 
 Anglican traditions. Mr. Wesley instructed them in a 
 letter dated March 1, 1775, to observe strictest neutrality: 
 
 ‘““My dear Brethren: You were never in your lives in so critical a 
 situation as you are at his time. It is your part to be peace makers; . . . 
 
 to addict yourself to no party. In spite of all solicitations . . . . . say 
 not one word against one or the other side.” ! 
 
 These instructions the Conference of 1775 resolved to 
 follow implicitly; as Rankin, Wesley’s first-assistant, says, 
 “We came unanimously to this conclusion, to follow the 
 advice that Mr. Wesley and his brother had given us, 
 and leave the event to God.’’? Strict neutrality did not 
 prevent their agreeing to “A general fast for the prosperity 
 oi the work, and for the Peace of America, on Tuesday, 
 .the 18th of July.”? It did, however, prevent their taking 
 any notice of American Independence when that came. The 
 term “United States” does not appear in the minutes of 
 their meetings until the Baltimore Conference of 1783.’’4 
 
 1 Wesley, Works, American edition, vii, 7, 8. 
 
 2 [bid., vii, p. footnote. 
 
 * Minutes, edition of 1795, pp. 13-15, edition of 1840, pp. 6-7. 
 * Tbid., edition of 1840, pp. 17-19. 
 
THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 173 
 
 The very complexion of American Methodism made its 
 attitude of neutrality impossible. All of Wesley’s assist- 
 ants were native Englishmen; so were a majority of the 
 preachers. We have already noted,! that in Virginia 
 where nearly two-thirds of the Methodists were located,” 
 they in 1776 officially: 
 
 ‘Beg leave to declare they are a religious society in communion with 
 the Church of England, and do all in their power to strengthen and 
 support the said church, and... . . pray that the Church of 
 England, as it ever hath been, may still continue to be the established 
 
 church.” 3 
 
 Events in America moved so rapidly that not even a 
 religious organization was to be allowed the attitude of 
 neutrality. The people could not overlook that Methodist 
 preachers were mostly Englishmen with British sympa- 
 thies; that they were all communicants of the Church. of 
 England. Methodists as a body were subject to the not 
 unreasonable suspicion of being disaffected to the cause 
 of American Independence. ‘They were subjected to 
 annoyance, mob violence, and military arrests. Times 
 were too strenuous for a continuance of Methodist neu- 
 trality. It became apparent that the Britishers must be 
 sent home and that an American control should replace 
 British. 
 
 The Conference of 1777 realized this necessity and took 
 action. William Watters, who as an American participant 
 was deeply interested in the outcome, has left us an account 
 of the proceedings. He says: 
 
 “There appearing no probability of the contest between Great Britain 
 and this country ending shortly, several of our European preachers 
 thought that if an opportunity should offer, they would return to their 
 
 1 Supra, p. 124 
 2 Stevens, History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol. ii, p. 42. 
 3 Journal of the House of Burgesses, October 28, 1776. 
 
174 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 homes in the course of the year. To provide against such an event five of 
 us, Gatch, Dromgoole, Ruff, Glendenning, and myself, were appointed a 
 committee to act in the place of the general assembly in case they should 
 all go before the next conference. It was also submitted to the considera- 
 tion of this Conference whether in our present situation, of having but 
 few ministers left in many of our parishes to administer the ordinances of 
 baptism and the Lord’s supper, we should not administer them ourselves 
 
 : . In fact we considered ourselves, at this time, as belonging to 
 ries Church of England, it being before the separation and our becoming 
 a regularly formed Church. After much conversation of the subject, it 
 was unanimously agreed to lay it over for the determination of the next 
 Conference, to be held in Leesburg, the 19th of May.” ! 
 
 Asbury was very blue over the outlook. His Journal 
 informs us that, ““When the time of parting came, many 
 wept as if they had lost their first-born sons. They 
 appeared to be in the deepest distress, thinking, as I 
 suppose, they should not see the faces of the English 
 preachers any more.” The lot of the Englishmen was to 
 be as was feared. Rankin, Wesley’s general-assistant, 
 who had presided over the conference of 1777, returned 
 to England in March 1778; Asbury himself having refused 
 to take the Maryland State oath was for two years a 
 refugee, in Delaware; for a time he seriously considered 
 leaving the country. Interest in the controversy of 1779- 
 1780 caused him to stay on and he alone of all “The 
 Britishers’’ remained throughout the Revolution. 
 
 Watters, an American, —in fact the “first native 
 itinerant, ’’ had been placedat the head of “thecommittee” 
 by the Conference of 1777. As the first American chief of 
 administration he exercised, in fact if not in name, the 
 superintendency during this period of the Revolution. 
 The Conference had designated its own leader. As 
 Tigert says, 
 
 ‘Watters, Christian Experiences and Ministerial Labours, 1806, pp. 
 56-57. 
 
 2 Asbury, Journal, p. 186. 
 
THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH iD 
 
 la 
 
 “Thus closed the first period of close connection with England and of the 
 occupancy of the Conference Chair by Mr. Wesley’s appointed delegate 
 and representative. The War effectually cut off communication with 
 the home office; and with the Conference of 1778, William Watters, the 
 American in the Chair, begins a new era, which continues till 1784, when 
 Mr. Wesley’s hand again appears and his control asserts itself.” ! 
 
 “Having no old preachers with us, we were as orphans 
 bereft of our spiritual parents; but though young and 
 inexperienced in business, the Lord looked graciously 
 upon us,’? says William Watters, who at twenty-seven 
 years of age presided over the Leesburgh Conference of 
 1778. Bereft of English guidance, the members of this 
 Conference were to learn in a way that they would never 
 forget, the potentialities of the conference as a governing 
 body. Wesley’s temporal contro] having vanished, Ameri- 
 can Methodism learned how to rely solely upon its own 
 powers of self-government as a means of interpreting and 
 administering the spiritual inheritance which it had re- 
 ceived from Wesley. Never again, as in 1776,° shall we 
 find it working for a temporal establishment. 
 
 The years of 1779 and 1780 disclosed a schism in the 
 ranks of American Methodists. A Conservative North 
 faced a Progressive South. The North represented the 
 orthodox English system; the South undertook a pro- 
 gramme of radical reorganization. The North could 
 claim regularity from the point of view that it held the 
 Wesleyan authority through the person of Asbury. 
 From his place of retirement, Asbury led the North. The 
 South possessed the regularly constituted organization of 
 American Methodism, led by William Watters. The North 
 
 in their Conference of 1779 in Delaware, dominated by 
 
 1Tigert, J. J., Constitutional History of American Episcopal Metho- 
 dism, p. 93. 
 
 2 Watters, op. cit., p. 68. 
 
 SUPT Dp. Lio. 
 
176 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Asbury, decided to follow Episcopalian traditions; the 
 South, assembled in Virginia, deliberately erected them- 
 selves into a self-governing presbyterial organization. 
 
 The Delaware Quasi Conference (Northern) was in the 
 nature of a “Snap Convention”’; irregularly called and 
 composed of merely a few of Asbury’s immediate dis- 
 ciples. In as much as Asbury couldn’t go to the regular 
 conference, an irregular conference came to him. Southern- 
 ers were not even invited to attend. To be sure, Watters 
 did hear of the projected meeting and appeared thereat in 
 person. As the champion of orthodoxy, this conference 
 took several steps of vast consequences for American 
 Methodism. It designated Asbury as General Assistant 
 in America: 
 
 “Question 12. Ought not brother Asbury to act as General Assistant in 
 America? Answer. He ought: Ist, on account of his age; 2nd, because 
 originally appointed by Mr. Wesley: 3rd, being joined with Messrs. 
 Rankin and Shadford, by express orders from Mr. Wesley.” . 
 
 Having provided for a General Assistant the Conference 
 then vested him with power. “‘No helper,” reads the 
 Minutes, “is to make any alteration in the circuit, or 
 appoint preaching in any new place, without consulting 
 the Assistant: every exhorter and local preacher to go by 
 the directions of the Assistant where, and only where they 
 shall appoint.” This assumption of authority on the 
 part of Asbury is not a pleasing act for an American of 
 today to contemplate.? 
 
 Such were the decisions of this highly irregular meeting 
 of a very small minority of the Methodist preachers in 
 America. Yet the sixteen present, because they stood 
 for orthodox traditions and had with them the only person 
 
 1 Minutes, ed. 1795, pp. 27-29. 
 * Faulkner, The Methodists, pp. 67-69. 
 
THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 177 
 
 in America who could claim to represent Wesley, styled 
 themselves a conference and assumed absolute legislative 
 functions. Without waiting to consult the sentiments of 
 the majority of the ministers, or the opinion of the regular 
 conference, they decided the sacramental question abso- 
 lutely and finally, — Methodist preachers must not 
 administer the sacraments; they designated “Brother 
 Asbury” General Assistant for America and conferred on 
 him ‘“‘the right of determination for and against what is in 
 debate.”’ It is small wonder that Asbury again took 
 interest in America, and decided to remain on this side of 
 the water. This conference hoped to forestall and counter- 
 act action which they anticipated from the regular 
 Southern Conference. It did, and furnished doctrinal 
 controversies which lasted until the American Methodist 
 Episcopalian constitution was finally completed. 
 
 The regular Conference of 1779 met at Fluvanna in 
 Virginia. It was presided over by a member of the com- 
 mittee of control, Philip Gatch; it represented the majority 
 of the circuits, preachers and members of the American 
 Methodists. It took no notice of the Northern Conference 
 or of the election of Asbury. It appointed a new Commit- 
 tee of Control. The following illustrations taken from 
 the questions and answers show the radical steps taken by 
 the Southerners: 
 
 “Question 14. What are our reasons for taking up the administration of 
 the ordinances among us? Answer. Because the Episcopal establish- 
 ment is now dissolved, and, therefore, in almost all our circuits the mem- 
 bers are without the ordinances, — we believe it to be our duty. 
 Question 19. What form of ordination shall be observed, to authorize 
 any Preacher to administer? Answer. By that of a Presbytery. 
 Question 20. How shall the Presbytery be appointed? Answer. By a 
 majority of the Preachers. 
 
 Question 22. What power is vested in the Presbytery by this choice? 
 Answer. 1. To administer the ordinances themselves. 2. To authorize 
 
178 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 any other Preacher or Preachers, approved by them, by the form of 
 laying on of hands.” ! 
 
 Philip Gatch, Reuben Ellis, and James Foster were ap- 
 pointed a presbytery: “First to administer the ordinances 
 themselves, second to authorize any other preacher or 
 preachers, approved of by them, by the form of laying on 
 of hands.”’ 
 
 Both conferences had acted boldly; and both extra- 
 legally. A schism seemed imminent. The North had 
 constructed an essentially Episcopalian form of govern- 
 ment and discipline, but without proper Episcopalian 
 authorization. The South had departed far from the 
 recognized principles of Episcopalianism and had adopted 
 a presbyterial system. But if either body ceased to be 
 Episcopalians in a little more than five years, John Wesley 
 himself, was to follow them therein. How much their 
 actions influenced the measures of Wesley in his plan for 
 reorganization of American Methodism cannot be esti- 
 mated. Both sections did anticipate points in his new 
 system. 
 
 The Conference of 1781 shows that an agreement had 
 been reached between North and South. Asbury wrote, 
 “Tuesday (April) 24... . . All but one (preachers 
 from Virginia and North Carolina) agreed to return to 
 the old plan, and give up the administration of the ordin- 
 ances: our troubles now seem over from that quarter.’’2 
 
 The first question of this Conference was: 
 
 “What preachers are now determined, after mature consideration, close 
 
 observation, and earnest prayer, to preach the old Methodist doctrine, 
 and strictly enforce the discipline as contained in the Notes, Sermons, 
 
 “Philip Gatch’s Manuscript Journal” as quoted by Dr. L. M. Lee, 
 Infe and Times of Jesse Lee, pp. 79-81; McTyeire, op. cit., pp. 316-317. 
 2 Asbury, Journal, i, p. 328. 
 
THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 179 
 
 and Minutes, published by Mr. Wesley, so far as they respect both 
 preachers and people, according to the knowledge we have of them, and 
 the ability God shall give and are firmly resolved to discountenance a 
 separation among either preachers or people? 
 
 Tradition and authority appear to have triumphed. The 
 Conference of 1782 decided who was to enforce both: 
 “the brethren in Conference unanimously choose brother 
 Asbury to act to Mr. Wesley’s original appointment, and 
 preside over the American Conference and the whole 
 work.”2 But new American principles had been asserted 
 by both sections of the Society and the mere assertion 
 had established tradition which was to win Asbury to a 
 more democratic point of view. It was only through 
 Republican principles that Asbury could hope to rule in 
 
 America and “beyond a shadow of a doubt . . . . As- 
 bury during those months of study and _ reflection (in 
 seclusion) . . . . . had arrived at the conclusion that 
 
 separation from Mr. Wesley was inevitable, and that a 
 new organization of the societies in America must be 
 effected.’’? 
 
 The war closed in 1783 and Mr. Wesley immediately 
 turned his attention to the problems of his American 
 followers. His first act was to reassert control. This he 
 did by recognizing as General Assistant, Mr. Asbury+ 
 who had been elected to that office by the Conference. 
 At the same time he formally recognized the Conference 
 itself. His letter of October third, 1783, enjoined: 
 
 “1. Let all of you be determined to abide by the Methodist doctrine 
 and discipline, published in the four volumes of Sermons, and the Notes 
 upon the New Testament together with the Large Minutes of the Con- 
 ference. 
 
 1 Minutes, edition 1795, p. 41. 
 
 2 Ibid., edition of 1840, pp. 15-17. 
 3 Tipple, Francis Asbury, p. 132. 
 4 Asbury, Journal, p. 367. 
 
180 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 3. Neither should you receive any preachers, however recommended, 
 who will not subject to the American Conference and cheerfully conform 
 to the Minutes of the English and American Conferences. 
 
 4. I do not wish our American brethren to receive any who make any 
 difficulty of receiving Francis Asbury as the General Assistant.” 1 
 
 American Methodism being again under his care, he 
 proceeded to constitute for it an organization suitable to 
 independent America. Almost every incident in the 
 process by which the constitution of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church for the United States was evolved, — 
 from the ordination of Coke to the adjournment of the 
 Christmas Conference,— has been the subject for vigorous 
 and bitter partisan controversy. The certainty of the 
 following fundamental point seems established: 1. That 
 an Episcopal Church was planned and established; 2. That 
 through the laying on of hands the leaders were made 
 as near “regular” bishop as was considered necessary for 
 the establishment of a “moderate episcopacy”; 3. That a 
 ministry in three grades, ‘‘superintendendents”’ or bishops, 
 elders and deacons were permanently provided for; 
 4. That the Christmas Conference and Mr. Wesley were in 
 agreement; 5. That Mr. Wesley was not imposed upon by 
 the “ambition” of either Coke or Asbury; 6. That the 
 Christmas Conference did not foist a “spurious episco- 
 pacy,’ never designed by the founder or intelligently 
 accepted by the church, upon American Methodism; 
 7. That Mr. Wesley approved what Dr. Coke, his envoy 
 and representative, had done.? 
 
 It was an important day in the history of the American 
 church that second day of September, 1784, when Wesley, 
 
 1 Lee, Jesse, History of Methodists, p. 85-86; Bangs, History of The 
 Methodist Eqscopal Church, vol. i, pp. 148-149. 
 
 > Tigert, Constitutional History of American Episcopal Methodism, 
 pp. 204-205. 
 
THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 181 
 
 assisted by other Presbyters of the Church of England, 
 laid hands upon the head of Thomas Coke and com- 
 mended to him the superintendency of the Methodist work 
 in America as colleague with Francis Asbury. 
 
 In the previous February, Wesley had called Coke into 
 his private chamber in London, and there introduced the 
 subject of providing for American Methodists. The sub- 
 stance of his remarks was: that as the revolution had 
 separated the United States from the mother country, and 
 the Episcopal establishment was utterly abolished, the 
 societies had been represented to him as being in a most 
 deplorable condition; that an appeal had been made to 
 him by Mr. Asbury, in which he was requested to provide 
 for them some form of church government suited to their 
 exigencies; and having long and seriously revolved the 
 subject in his thoughts, he intended to adopt the plan 
 which he was about to unfold; that, as he had invariably 
 endeavored, in every step he had taken, to keep as closely 
 to the Bible as possible, so, on the present occasion, he 
 hoped he was not about to deviate therefrom; that, 
 keeping his eye on the conduct of the primitive church in 
 the age of unadulterated Christianity, he had much ad- 
 mired the mode of ordaining bishops, which the church 
 of Alexandria had practiced; that, to preserve its purity, 
 that Church would never suffer the interference of a 
 foreign bishop in any of its ordinations, but the Presbyters 
 of that venerable apostolic church, on the death of a 
 bishop, exercised the right of ordaining another for their 
 own body, by the laying on of their hands; that this 
 practice continued among them for two hundred years, till 
 the days of Dionysius; and finally, that, being himself a 
 Presbyter, he wished Dr. Coke to accept ordination from 
 his hands and to proceed in that character to the continent 
 
182 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 of America, there to superintend the societies in the 
 United States.! 
 
 Dr. Coke consented and “‘on September first, 1784, at 
 Bristol, England, the Rev. John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and 
 James Creighton, Presbyters of the Church of England, 
 formed a Presbytery and ordained Richard Whatcoat and 
 Thomas Vasey deacons. On September second, by the 
 same hands Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey were 
 ordained elders and Thomas Coke, D.D., was ordained 
 Superintendent for the Church of God under our care in 
 North America.”? Wesley’s own statement is, “On 
 Wednesday, September first, being now clear in my own 
 mind, I took a step which I had long weighed, and ap- 
 pointed Mr. Whatcoat and Mr. Vasey to go and serve 
 the desolate sheep in America. Thursday, the second, I 
 added to them three more.”? Or as Coke later (April 24, 
 1791) wrote to Bishop White, “He did, indeed, solemnly 
 invest me, as far as he had the right so to do, with 
 Episcopal authority.* 
 
 Upon this occasion Mr. Wesley presented Dr. Coke with 
 the following credentials: 
 
 “To All to whom these present shall come, John Wesley, late Fellow 
 of Lincoln College in Oxford, Presbyter of the Church of England, 
 sendeth greetings. 
 
 Whereas many of the people in the southern provinces of North 
 America, who desire to continue under my care, and still adhere to the 
 doctrines and discipline of the Church of Engand, are greatly distressed 
 for want of ministers to administer the sacraments of baptism and the 
 Lord’s Supper, according to the usage of the said Church; and whereas 
 
 ‘Drew, Life of Coke, pp. 71-72, quoted Tigert, op. cit., p. 167; Me- 
 Tyeire, op. cit., p. 341. 
 
 > Whatcoat, Journal, quoted Tigert, op. cit., pp. 172-173. 
 
 * Minutes, edition of 1812, vol. i, p. 173, Tigert, op. cit., p. 173. 
 
 * White, Memoirs, 1820, p. 424. 
 
THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 183 
 
 there does not appear to be any other way of supplying them with 
 ministers: 
 
 Know all men, that I, John Wesley, think myseif to be providentially 
 called, at this time, to set apart some persons for the work of the ministry 
 in America. And, therefore, under the protection of Almighty God, and 
 with a single eye to His glory, I have this day set apart as Superintendent, 
 by the imposition of my hands, and prayer (being assisted by other 
 ordained ministers), Thomas Coke, doctor of civil law, a Presbyter of the 
 Church of England, and a man whom I judge to be well qualified for that 
 great work. And I do hereby recommend him to all whom it may con- 
 cern, as a fit person to preside over the flock of Christ. 
 
 John Wesley.” ! 
 
 Having thus constituted his ministry in three orders, 
 Wesley thereupon abridged the thirty-nine Articles, — 
 omitting the third, eighth, thirteenth, seventeenth, eight- 
 eenth, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-third, thirty-fifth, 
 thirty-sixth, and thirty-seventh; also parts of the sixth, 
 ninth, and nineteenth; and introducing verbal changes in 
 others, —to constitute a doctrinal basis for the new 
 organization, and from the Book of Common Prayer he 
 framed a liturgy for public worship. These he embodied 
 in a work, which he entrusted to Coke’s custody, entitled, 
 The Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America, 
 With Occasional Services, London 1784. This contained 
 the forms of prayer, the form and manner of making and 
 ordaining Superintendents, Elders, and Deacons, and the 
 Articles of Religion. Backus writes: 
 
 “He (Wesley) and his followers reduced the Thirty-nine Articles of 
 the Church of England to twenty-four, with new forms of worship and 
 order, and published them in London, in 1784, and called them *The 
 Sunday service in North America’; thus they undertook to be law givers 
 
 for all North America, and to form a church therein that never had any 
 existence until the year 1784.” ? 
 
 1'Tigert, Constitutional History of American Episcopal Methodism, 
 p. 174; Drew, op. cit., p. 66; McTyeire, op. cit., p. 342. 
 2 Backus, op. cit., edition of 1796, vol. ili, pp. 24-25. 
 
184 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Wesley’s part in the establishment of American Metho- 
 dist Episcopalianism is well stated by Abel Stevens: 
 
 _ “Whatever view we take of the subject we are compelled to one con- 
 clusion: that Wesley did create and establish the American Methodist 
 Kpiscopacy . . . . . the organization on scriptural principles of the 
 first (and therefore at that time the one) Episcopal Church on the Amer- 
 ican continent. Hitherto the American Methodists had received the 
 sacraments from the English clergy resident in the colonies, and re- 
 garded themselves as members of that Church. In 1784, when the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church in America was organized, neither the Eng- 
 lish nor the Protestant Episcopal Church existed here in legal complete 
 form. The American Methodists, by the help of Mr. Wesley, therefore, 
 organized themselves into an American Episcopal Church, taking the 
 name and style already indicated. They regarded themselves as the 
 successors of the old Church, then defunct, and entered upon their 
 work accordingly. The Methodist Episcopalians still adhered to the 
 doctrines and discipline of the Church of England?) 4). nhe 
 Methodist bishops were the first Protestant bishops, and Methodism was 
 the first Protestant Episcopal Church of the New World; and as Mr. 
 Wesley had given it the Anglican articles of religion (omitting the 
 seventeenth, on predestination), and the liturgy wisely abridged, it be- 
 came, both by its precedent organization and its subsequent numerical 
 importance the real successor to the Anglican Church in America. As for 
 schism or separation, the thought never so much as entered the heads of 
 such conscientious Episcopalians as Asbury: the thing itself was im- 
 possible, as there then existed in America no organized Episcopal Church 
 from which to separate.” ! 
 
 Fortified with Wesley’s certificate of ordination and 
 equipped with his form of service and ritual, —a com- 
 missioner with extraordinary powers,— Coke, accompanied 
 by Whatcoat and Vasey, landed in New York, November 
 3, 1784. That night he preached in the John Street 
 Chapel. On Sunday, the seventh, he filled the pulpit of 
 St. Paul’s in Philadelphia. Drs. McGraw and White 
 (later the first Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 
 ‘Stevens, History of Methodism, ii, p. 215: Tigert, Constitutional 
 History of American Episcopal Methodism, p. 207; Tigert, The Making 
 of Methodism: Studies in the Genesis of Institutions. 
 
 i A i 
 
THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 185 
 
 in Pennsylvania) called on him on Monday and Dr. 
 White offered the use of his church for the next Sunday’s 
 service. On Sunday, the fourteenth of November, he 
 went from the house of Judge Bassett to that famous 
 meeting with Asbury at Barratt’s Chapel in Delaware. 
 On this same Sunday, Samuel Seabury was consecrated 
 Bishop of Connecticut at Aberdeen, Scotland. Mr. 
 Wesley had succeeded in establishing his organization in 
 America before a rival could secure episcopal orders. 
 
 At that memorable first interview between Coke and 
 Asbury at Barratt’s Chapel, Asbury, cordially supported 
 by the American preachers present, proposed the calling 
 of an American Conference to accept the constitution sent 
 over by Wesley. Coke accepted the proposal. Now Mr. 
 Wesley had never included in his plans the assembling of 
 the American preachers to pass judgment upon his pro- 
 posals. Herein American Methodism was destined to 
 work a form of government not contemplated by its 
 founder. It had, during the period of separation,! tasted 
 the sweets of Independence and Self-Government: it 
 demanded its General Conference. And Francis Asbury 
 championed the American Method. ‘“‘He had witnessed 
 the stirring struggle for American Independence; he had 
 imbibed the spirit of democracy, . . . . he could not 
 consent to the proposals of Mr. Wesley, until they had 
 been considered by the preachers in Conference.” 
 
 It was the germ of Conference authority, manifesting 
 itself in the Annual Conferences, that gradually separated 
 the American Methodists from the English Methodists, 
 that declined to elect the nominee of Wesley himself to 
 
 1 Supra, pp. 173-178. . 
 2 Tipple, Francis Asbury, pp. 142-143; Coke, Journal, p. 16; Asbury, 
 Journal, vol. i, p. 484. 
 
186 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 the American episcopate, that omitted Wesley’s name from 
 the minutes, that dropped the title of “Superintendent ”’ 
 and took that of “Bishop.” The unexpected organization 
 of the Christmas Conference opposed itself as a barrier 
 to any autocracy on the part of Wesley and ultimately 
 gave the American Church independence from the English 
 Conference. ‘The Conference was to become the most 
 American part of Methodism. 
 
 The Conference was not, however, responsible for the 
 separation of the Methodist Episcopalians of America 
 from the authority of the Church of England; any bonds 
 between these two bodies that had survived the revolution 
 had been severed by Wesley himself. 
 
 Dr. Coke was always uneasy about the part which he 
 played in the establishment of the conference; he seems to 
 have regretted yielding to American ideals, though he 
 never questioned his own ordination. The conference had 
 never entered into Wesley’s consideration; Dr. Coke in 
 a letter to Bishop White, 1791, admits that he probably 
 went further in the organization of the American Church 
 than Mr. Wesley had intended.! 
 
 As originator of the United Societies, Wesley had been 
 the fountain of authority, both legislative and executive, 
 for England and, up to this time, for America as well. 
 He doubtlessly intended that Coke and Asbury, as general 
 superintendents, should exercise in America his delegated 
 powers; — to make regulations and to enforce them; to 
 distribute preachers according to their own judgments, — 
 subject to his final authority. He held himself to be head 
 of the whole Methodist connection, a scriptural bishop and, 
 by appointment of Divine Providence, its patriarch and 
 
 ‘White, Memoirs, pp. 424-429; McTyeire, op. cit., p. 348; Southern 
 Quarterly Review, July 1885, p. 377. 
 
 Fi 
 
THE. METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 187 
 
 apostle. If Asbury had known and accepted the Wesley 
 conception there would have been no independent Ameri- 
 can conference, ever. It was due to the sagacity and far- 
 sightedness of Francis Asbury that a General Conference 
 was subsequently incorporated into the fundamental 
 organism of American Methodism. 
 
 Very great indeed is the debt that American Christianity 
 owes to Francis Asbury, certainly as great as to any man 
 of his generation. It may reasonably be doubted whether 
 any one clergyman, from the foundation of the Methodist 
 society in America till now, has achieved more from his 
 works. It is very certain that Wesley himself, with his 
 despotic temper and his High-Church and Tory principles, 
 could not have guided the Methodist movement in the 
 New World through the perils of its infancy to so eminent 
 a success as that which was reaped by Asbury. Questions 
 of the utmost difficulty and of vital importance arose in 
 the first years of its organization. They would not have 
 been decided so wisely for the country and the church if 
 Asbury had not been governed by the ministry and the 
 members of the society. Perhaps unwillingly at first, but 
 of a fixed purpose later, Francis Asbury, more than any 
 other person worked to make the Methodist Societies of the 
 United States an American Church. In spite of the sturdy 
 dictum of Wesley, “We are not republicans, and do not in- ° 
 tend to be,” the changes necessary to accommodate the 
 forms and practices of the church to the habits and temper 
 of a free people were initiated by Asbury. This he was con- 
 sciously striving to do, even at this, the first meeting under 
 the new Wesleyan plan of organization. The Methodist 
 Church owes constitutional government to Francis Asbury. ! 
 
 1Tipple, Francis Asbury, The Prophet of the Long Road. New York, 
 1916. Strickland, The Pioneer Bishop; Janes, E. L., The Character and 
 
188 | NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Coke had agreed to Asbury’s aie for a conference and 
 American Methodism met accordingly in Philadelphia, 
 December 24th, 1784. This was a meeting of epochal 
 significance; “the most important conference of Methodist 
 Preachers ever held in America.”! It ratified Wesley’s 
 Magna Charta of religious rights; it fixed the form of 
 government and discipline, and the order of worship for 
 the new American Church. That the members of the 
 Conference were fully conscious of the importance of their 
 labors is evidenced by the writings of one of their number, 
 Wiliam Phoebus, who wrote, “We assembled at the city of 
 Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, and received Thomas 
 Coke, LLD., with his testimonials from the greatest man 
 in the world. He proceeded to form the first church that 
 ever was organized under a pure republican government, 
 and the first that was ever formed in this happy part of the 
 world.’’2 
 
 The minutes as published for 1785 contain this pre- 
 liminary notice, “As it was unanimously agreed at this 
 Conference that circumstances made it expedient for us 
 to become a separate body, under the denomination of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, it is necessary that we here 
 assign some reasons for so doing. 
 
 The following extract of a letter from Rev. John Wesley 
 well affords as good an explanation as can be given on this 
 subject.”? They may well be styled the Magna Charta 
 of American Methodism. 
 
 Career of Francis Asbury; Briggs, Bishop Asbury; Smith, Life and Labors 
 of Francis Asbury. 
 
 1 Tipple, ines Asbury, p. 145. 
 
 * Myles, Chron. History of Methodists p. 202. 
 
 * Watters, op. cit., “We became, instead of a religious society, a 
 separate Church.” British Minutes of 1785, edition of 1812, vol. i, pp. 
 179-181. 
 
THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 189 
 
 “Bristol, September 10, 1784. 
 To Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our brethren in North America: — 
 
 1. By a very uncommon train of Providences, many of the provinces 
 of North America are totally disjoined from the British Empire, and 
 erected into independent states. The British government has no author- 
 ity over them, either civil or ecclesiastical, any more than over the states 
 of Holland. A civil authority is exercised over them, partly by congress, 
 partly by the state assemblies. But no one either exercises or claims any 
 ecclesiastical authority at all. In this peculiar situation, some thousands 
 of inhabitants of these states desire my advice; and in compliance with 
 their desire I have drawn up a little sketch. 
 
 2. Lord King’s account of the primitive church convinced me, many 
 years ago, that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and, conse- 
 quently, have the same right to ordain. For many years I have been 
 importuned, from time to time, to exercise this right, by ordaining part of 
 our travelling preachers. But I still refused, not only for peace’s sake, 
 but because I was determined as little as possible to violate the estab- 
 lished order of the national church, to which I belonged. 
 
 3. But the case is widely different between England and North 
 America. Here are bishops who have a legal jurisdiction. In America 
 there are none, and but a few parish ministers; so that for some hundreds 
 of miles together there is none either to baptise or to administer the 
 Lord’s supper. Here, therefore, my scruples are at an end; and I con- 
 ceive myself at full liberty, as I violate no order, and invade no man’s 
 right by appointing and sending laborers into the harvest. 
 
 4. Ihave, accordingly, appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asbury 
 to be joint superintendents over our brethren in North America; as also 
 Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey to act as elders among them by 
 baptising and administering the Lord’s Supper. And I have prepared a 
 liturgy, little differing from that of the Church of England (I think the 
 best constituted national church in the world), which I advise all the 
 travelling preachers to use on Lord’s Day in all congregations, reading the 
 litany only on Wednesday and Friday, and praying extempore on all 
 other days. I also advise the elders to administer the Supper of the 
 Lord on every Lord’s Day. 
 
 5. If any one will point out a more rational and scriptural way of 
 feeding and guiding those poor sheep in the wilderness, I will gladly em- 
 embrace it. At present I cannot see any better method than that I have 
 taken. 
 
 6. It has indeed been proposed to desire the English Bishops to 
 ordain part of our preachers for America. But to this I object. 1. I de- 
 sired the Bishop of London to ordain one only, but could not prevail. 
 2. If they consented, we know the slowness of their proceedings but the 
 
190 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 matter admits of nodelay. 3. If they would ordain them now, they would 
 likewise expect to govern them. And how grievously would this en- 
 tangle us! 4. As our American brethren are now totally disentangled, 
 both from state and from the English hierarchy, we dare not entangle 
 them again either with the one or the other. They are now at full liberty 
 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 strange- 
 ly made them free. 
 John Wesley.” ! 
 
 The Conference Minutes notes: 
 
 “Therefore at this Conference, we formed ourselves into an inde- 
 pendent church; and following the counsel of Mr. John Wesley, who 
 recommended the episcopal mode of church government, we thought it 
 best to become an episcopal church, making the episcopal office elective, 
 
 and the elected superintendents, or bishops, amenable to the body of 
 ministers and preachers.” 2 
 
 Francis Asbury declined ordination to the superin- 
 tendency, unless in addition to the appointment by Wesley, 
 his brethren should formally elect him to that office, 
 which they did. He has left us the following concise 
 statement of what was done: 
 
 “It was agreed to form ourselves into an Episcopal Church, and to 
 have superintendents, elders, and deacons. When the Conference was 
 seated, Dr. Coke and myself were unanimously elected to the superin- 
 tendence of the church and my ordination followed, after being pre- 
 
 viously ordained deacon and elder . ae 
 Twelve elders were elected and solemnly set apart.” 2 
 
 The Conference adopted the first Discipline of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church under the title, “Minutes of 
 several conversations between the Rev. Thomas Coke, 
 LLD., the Rev. Francis Asbury, and others, at a Con- 
 ference begun in Baltimore in the State of Maryland on 
 Monday the 24th of December, in the year 1784. Compos- 
 
 ' Wesley, Works, vol. vii, pp. 311-312. 
 
 * British Minutes of 1785, edition of 1812, vol. i, pp. 179-181; McTyeire, 
 
 op. cit., pp. 343-344. 
 * Asbury, Journal, vol. i, pp. 377-378. 
 
THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 191 
 
 ing a Form of Discipline for the Ministers, Preachers, and 
 other Members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
 America.” ! 
 
 The Answer returned to Question Three of this discipline 
 was, “We will form ourselves into an Episcopal Church, 
 under the direction of superintendents, elders, deacons, 
 and helpers, according to the forms of ordination annexed 
 to our Liturgy, and the Form of Discipline set forth in 
 these minutes.’ 
 
 But in assuming this power of self-government, the 
 Conference voluntarily limited its exercise by what is 
 known as the “Engagement Clause,’ Question Two and 
 Answer: 
 
 “During the life of Rev. Mr. Wesley, we acknowledge ourselves his 
 sons in the gospel, ready, in matters belonging to church government, to 
 obey his commands. And we do engage, after his death, to do every- 
 thing we judge consistent with the cause of religion in America, and the 
 political interests of these States to preserve and promote our union 
 with the Methodists in Europe.” ® 
 
 And to make sure that this question of the “political 
 interests” was properly noticed, to the twenty-four 
 Articles (so reduced from thirty-nine by Wesley) the Con- 
 ference added this, 
 
 ‘The President, the Congress, the General Assemblies, the Governors, 
 and the Councils of State, as the Delegates of the People, are the Rulers 
 of the United States of America, according to the division of power made 
 to them by the Constitution of the United States, and by the Constitu- 
 tions of their respective States. And the said States are a sovereign and 
 independent Nation, and ought not to be subject to any foreign juris- 
 diction.” 4 
 
 1Emory, History of Discipline, p. 25. 
 
 TEES Oe ae 
 
 3 Ibid., p. 3; Schaff, Creeds, vol. 111, pp. 807 sqq. 
 4 Buckley, History of Methodism, vol. 1, p. 297. 
 
192 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 The ten days’ work of this Christmas Conference has 
 been before the world for more than a century. and as a 
 constitution for Methodist Episcopalianism it may well 
 challenge comparison with the results of the Philadelphia 
 Federal Constitutional Convention, which three years 
 later framed a political government for the United States 
 of America, both from the point of view of independent 
 nationalism and republican self-government. 
 
 The “Engagement Clause,” just mentioned, proved too 
 binding and the Conference of 1787 annulled it. At this 
 time they asserted a surprising degree of disregard for 
 their founder. They refused his nominee, Freeborn 
 Garrettson, a superintendency for the British Dominion in 
 America; and they substituted the title of “Bishop” for 
 Wesley’s “Superintendent.’”! 
 
 Wesley’s nominal authority lasted till his death in 1791. 
 A General Conference, properly so-styled, met the follow- 
 ing year, — the first of those Quadrennial General Con- 
 ferences, which were thereupon instituted as the supreme 
 legislative tribunal of American Methodism. The Christ- 
 mas Conference was as we have noted, not properly 
 speaking a General Conference, but rather a General Con- 
 vention, embodying those principles which were to char- 
 acterize the formal constitutional conventions of the 
 America of this period. A formal constitution for American 
 Methodist Episcopalianism was not adopted till 1808. 
 
 The year 1784, however, had seen the organization by 
 Methodists of the first national church society in America, 
 with modes of thought suited to independent American. 
 opportunity. Upon leaving the convention, Asbury im- 
 mediately took up the work of his superintendency. His 
 first tour, starting from Baltimore took him as far South as 
 
 ‘McTyeire, op. cit., chapter xxviii. 
 
THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 193 
 
 Charleston, and back to Mount Vernon, where he called 
 on General Washington. Soon thereafter, we find him in 
 Delaware with his friend, Richard Bassett, who was to 
 represent American Methodism in the Federal Constitu- 
 tional Convention. Asbury’s tireless itineracy did much to 
 unify the church. He travelled an average of six thousand 
 miles a year, usually on horseback; and visited every state 
 in the union many times.! 
 
 Methodism was organized to win a continent. Mission- 
 ary work was begun in Connecticut in 1787 and their first 
 society there was founded at Stratford in 1789.2 “The 
 Book Concern” was established in 1789 to publish the 
 necessary devotional books of the church, such as hymnal, 
 discipline, theological works, religious experience, and 
 magazines and papers. 
 
 1 Tipple, -E. S., Francis Asbury, The Prophet of the Long Road, N. Y., 
 1916. 
 
 2Stevens, Abel, Memorials of the Introduction of Methodism into the 
 Eastern States, Boston, 1852 pp. 45 sqq. 
 
CHAE TEA Reeve lie 
 
 THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States 
 of America is a product of the American Revolution and 
 the Reconstruction period which followed. As a colonial 
 institution of all the churches in America the Church of 
 England was nearly, if not quite, the most powerful. 
 The Revolution had divided it seriously in relation to 
 political loyalty, yet, independence secured, loyalty to the 
 church remained. Hence the pressing problem of American- 
 ization by which the Anglican Church was transformed 
 into the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States 
 of America. The change was speedily effected, in fact 
 so expeditiously that the national constitution of the 
 church antedates that of the state government; Episco- 
 palianism became a pioneer in the movement for unity in 
 America, and thereby gained a prestige of leadership 
 which extended far beyond religious matters. 
 
 _ It was only after a bitter partisan struggle, involving 
 
 nearly all the issues which were later to play parts in state 
 politics that Dr. William White put through his plan for 
 a church constitution. But so thoroughly suited was this 
 to the spirit of America in reconciling liberty with author- 
 ity through constitutional government under a bicameral 
 legislative body and an executive with carefully pre- 
 scribed delegated powers, that it harmonized conflicting 
 interests and effected true unity. This opened the way for 
 similar action on the part of the state authorities. And 
 
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 195 
 
 the influence of the former on the latter was not merely 
 one of abstract spiritual leadership; the actual personnel 
 of the two conventions which framed church and state 
 constitutions show that a remarkable number of federal 
 statesmen were trained in earlier Episcopalian politics. 
 
 Numerous elements of the situation urged immediate 
 unification. Foremost was the absence of church govern- 
 ment and church support. Even previous to the Revolu- 
 tion the authority of the Bishop of London in America had 
 faded to such a pale tradition, that, in spite of laws 
 establishing the Church of England, which still remained 
 on the statute-books of some of the colonies, a contempo- 
 rary historian was justified in stating broadly that there 
 was really no provincial church government.' Bishop 
 White has left us a summary of some of the reasons for 
 reorganization, In a sermon, 
 
 “The Past and the Future: A Charge on Events Connected with the 
 Organization of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of 
 America and the Lessons they Inculcate, delivered before the F iftieth Con- 
 vention of the Diocese of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, 1834. 
 
 During our colonial state, the tie which connected our congregations 
 was the superintendence of the Bishops of London, under delegation from 
 the Crown. That being withdrawn, every congregation was independent 
 of all exterior control, either in England or in America. There remained, 
 however, the principles inherited by them from the mother church, in 
 doctrine, in worship, and in ecclesiastical constitution. These were 
 materials, giving reason to hope that there might be raised from them a 
 religious communion, resembling that from which we were descended, as 
 nearly as local circumstances could permit. 
 
 What aggravated the exigency, was the very small number to which 
 our ministry was reduced; partly by death, and partly by the migration 
 of some to Great Britain, and of others to the colonies on this continent. 
 It will probably be new to the greater number present, to be informed 
 that, for a short time, he who addresses you was the only Episcopalian 
 clergyman in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and that when he was 
 
 1 Douglas, Swmmary, vol. i, p. 230; Cross, The Anglican Episcopate, 
 p. 247. 
 
196 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 elected to the Episcopacy there were only three of his brethren present and 
 voting. ! 
 
 In addition to the privation, there was the withdrawal of much of the 
 pecuniary supply for ministerial support. In all the colonies to the 
 north of Maryland, with the exception of the larger cities, the clergy were 
 missionaries, in the service of the Society for the Propagation of the 
 Gospel in Foreign Parts. Their salaries ceased with the acknowledg- 
 ment of our independence, and an addition to the migration of our 
 clergy was the consequencé. The withdrawing of the stipends ought not 
 to attach blame to the Venerable Society, whose charter limited their 
 operations to the dependencies of the British Crown: so that there 
 remains the debt of gratitude for the fostering care extended to us in 
 our infancy. ? 
 
 In the midst of the discouragements, measures were put into operation, 
 for the organizing of our church, in the states individually and in the 
 United States. Some, with the best intentions as to the object, did not 
 approve of this as an incipient step; but after a while the general opinion 
 was in its favor; especially as it appeared, by information relied on from 
 the quarter to which we looked for the completing of the orders of our 
 ministry, that there was nothing to be expected in virtue of an appli- 
 cation from our clergy in their individual characters, and without its 
 carrying with it evidence of the concurrence of our Episcopal population, 
 who, as well as the clergy, possessed an interest in the favor to be solicited. 
 The information received, gave great encouragement to the endeavors 
 which had been begun . oe 
 
 The prejudices gradually declined, under the weight of more correct 
 statements, and especially under the irresistible conviction, that the 
 obtaining of the episcopal order was essential to the keeping of us together 
 as a branch of the christian church; that a great proportion of our 
 population would have adhered to a constitution which they knew to 
 have been from the beginning, had prevailed universally during fifteen 
 hundred years, and had been transmitted to them by a church, considered 
 in the character of a parent, although now severed from them by a 
 revolution, which had turned on questions of civil polity and duties. 
 
 ‘Tiffany, op. cit., pp. 288-289; White, op. cit., p. 81, “‘there were 
 (1783) very few Episcopalian pulpits in the United States”; Hawks, 
 op. cit., vol. i, pp. 153-154., “(in Virginia) 23 of 95 parishes had become ex- 
 tinct and 34 were vacant; and only 28 of her 91 clergy remained in the 
 Colony.” 
 
 ? Perry, Journals, vol. iii, p. 10, Letter of Rev. Abraham Beach to 
 Wim. White, “Mar. 22) 1784. “°To Save the church of whichis are 
 members from utter Decay and consequently to promote the real Happi- 
 ness and Prosperity of the Country.” 
 
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 197 
 
 The privilege of acting for themselves in this matter, was secured by the 
 liberal constitution of these states; and if there should be any organized 
 opposition to the design, there was no other alternative, than either con- 
 formity to the views of their more cons'stent brethren, or of their relin- 
 quishment of communion with them. It was easy to perceive that, in 
 the latter event, the dissentients must have become merged in the many 
 
 societies marked by discrepant principles, and abounding within our 
 civil union.” } 
 
 Then too competition was keen in the new religious 
 atmosphere in America; the Episcopalians must take steps 
 to maintain their prestige, or,— so critical was the situ- 
 ation, —to regain a fast vanishing leadership. In this 
 scramble for converts the Roman Catholic Church im- 
 mediately exhibited such powers that it furnished cause 
 for Episcopalian concern. Dr. White wrote to Charles 
 Miller, December 3, 1785: 
 
 “Let me Sir, entreat you to recollect how much more serviceable it will 
 be to the common cause of Christianity, if we can accomplish a great and 
 liberal plan for connecting in one system the members of our widely 
 extended communion: rather than for every congregation to be in all 
 respects selfgoverning: or, if this cannot be, that we may at least con- 
 tinue one in each state. I am amazed that the importance of this is not 
 more seen, in relation to guarding against the progress of a church as yet 
 scarcely known in your country. When the church of Rome claims the 
 subjection of all Christendom to St. Peter’s chair, the rise of her power 
 is too well known for the pretention to have weight; but when she shall 
 talk of the unity of the members of the church in the same neighborhood 
 or district, and of their being linked together under one common head, 
 antiquity will be so much on her side, that I am afraid it will make 
 many take the less exception to her erroneous doctrines. Of all the 
 members of the Protestant body, the Church of England has been 
 thought the strongest bulwark against her, from the circumstance of re- 
 taining more than others of those ancient institutions which were prior 
 to her corruption. I cannot bear the thought of our communion’s losing 
 in the new world what has been our glory in the old.” 2 
 
 1 White, The Past and the Future: A Charge on Events Connected with 
 the Organization of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of 
 America and the Lessons they Inculcate. Philadelphia, 1834. 
 
 2 Wilson, Memoir of the Life of the Right Reverent William White, pp. 
 326-327. 
 
198 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Nor was the Roman Catholic Church the only denomina- 
 tion to be feared. The Reverend Jeremiah Leaming 
 wrote to Bishop White, June 16, 1788: 
 
 
 
 pe Hen (te bree Priestly) has contrived it to make this country 
 all Unitarians; for, to accomplish that, he must demolish the Church 
 in these states. 
 
 Perhaps you will say, you cannot think there is any such scheme on 
 foot. It will not be long before you will find that what I have told you is 
 fact. The Presbyterians are employed by —————— to fill all the 
 Southern States with their sort of Ministers, before the Church is supplied 
 with Episcopal Clergymen. Where people have no principles about the 
 nature of a Christian Church, a man ordained by the Laity is as good as 
 any. Andaman who professes to believe no creed, but only this, that he 
 believes not in any creed, is as good a Christian as any man can be. By 
 this scheme the Unitarian doctrine is to take place . . . . . If true 
 Christianity is not preserved by the Episcopal Church, it will soon take 
 its flight from these States, for Unitarians will be the whole.” ! 
 
 It was also evident that some sort of supervision and 
 control was necessary in order to effect that moral uplift 
 of which the Episcopal clergy was so sadly in need. James 
 Madison wrote to Robert Walsh, “On the subject of the 
 negro slavery, of moral character, of religion, and of 
 education in Virginia, as affected by the Revolution, and 
 our public institutions’’; in which he remarked on 
 
 “the indolence of most and the irregular lives of many of the established 
 clergy, consisting, in a very large proportion, of foreigners, and these in no 
 inconsiderable proportion, of men willing to leave their homes in the 
 parent country where their demerit was an obstacle to a provision for 
 them, and whose degeneracy here was promoted by their distance from 
 the controlling eyes of their kindred and friends, by the want of ecclesi- 
 astical superiors in the colony, or efficient ones in Great Britain who might 
 maintain a salutary discipline among them, and finally by their inde- 
 pendence both of their congregations and of the civil authority for their 
 stipends.” ? 
 
 1 Perry, op. cit., vol. 111, pp. 367-368; Wilson, op. cit., pp. 103-105. 
 2 Writings of James Madison, vol. viii, pp. 425-433. 
 
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 199 
 
 There is abundant evidence for the charges against the 
 colonial clergy. The Bishop of London said of the colonial 
 clergy in a letter to Dr. Doddridge, 1743, “Of those who 
 are sent hence, a great part are of the Scotch or Irish, who 
 can get no employment at home, and enter into the service 
 more out of necessity than choice. Some others are willing 
 to go abroad to retrieve either lost fortune or lost char- 
 acter.” ! Bishop Meade said of them, “‘ Many of them had 
 been addicted to the race-field, the card-table, the theatre— 
 nay, more to drunken revel.’? Dr. Hawks writes, they 
 ‘could babble in a pulpit, roar in a tavern, exact from 
 their parishioners, and rather by their dissoluteness destroy 
 than feed the flock.”* And one of the first acts of the 
 Virginia Assembly in 1776 was, “Be it further enacted by 
 this Grand Assembly, and by the authority thereof, that 
 such ministers as shall become notoriously scandalous by 
 drunkenness, swearing, fornication, or other heinous and 
 crying sins, and shall thereof be lawfully convicted, shall, 
 for every such their heinous crimes and wickedness, ete.’”* 
 
 Unbecoming conduct on the part of the clergy did not 
 cease with American independence; it had to be eradicated. 
 One of the earliest acts of the semi-organized national 
 Episcopalian Church had to do with this matter. The 
 Convention of 1786 refused to give a testimonial to Bishop- 
 elect William Smith of Maryland on moral grounds; 
 it was alleged that he had been intoxicated at the New York 
 Convention.®> This action by the national body prevented 
 his confirmation and illustrates the value of supervision by 
 higher authority as a factor in determining the morals of 
 the clergy, one of the first fruits of nationalization. 
 
 1 Quoted, James, op. cit., p. 28. 
 
 2 Meade, Old Parishes and YP amilies of Virginia, vol. i, pp. 118, 385. 
 3’ Hawks, op. cit., p. 64-65. 
 
 4 Hening, Statutes, vol. ii, p. 384. 5 Infra, p. 225 
 
200 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Deprived of state control the church must organize its 
 own direction and control. Religious freedom in the 
 United States was giving to each denomination the full 
 power to form its own ecclesiastical government, discipline 
 and worship; also the means of promoting its own welfare. 
 The Episcopalian church had been deprived of, or released 
 from, its old world canon law, a system complicated, 
 dilatory, expensive and corrupt; it was necessary to develop 
 a new set of canons. If the church was to have a well 
 regulated, orderly existence in America it must constitute 
 a legislature and proceed to formulate canons. 
 
 The forces opposed to unification were numerous and 
 powerful; in fact the struggle for nationalism within the 
 church seems to have brought to light a great many of 
 those issues which were to play so important a part in 
 party politics within the new nation. 
 
 First and foremost came the spirit of sectionalism, that 
 ever present menace to a unified America. In the Episco- 
 palian struggle we find it in The East vs. The West or 
 The North vs. The South. Revolutionary Episcopalianism 
 had been found most patriotic where it was strongest, 
 namely in the Southern and Middle colonies; in the North 
 the church had been too weak, too dependent upon Eng- 
 land for support, to feel that it could join the American 
 cause. Dr. William White represented the Southern 
 element. “East” vs. “West” is but another way of 
 speaking of “North” vs. “South.’’} 
 
 The “States-rights” issue, personal animosities, liberal- 
 ism vs. conservatism, and even crooked politics, were 
 other points at isssue.? 
 
 1 Perry, op. cit., vol. il, pp. 319-320; White, Memoirs, p. 7 
 2 Ind., vol. ili, pp. 370-371, where the Rev. Dr. Purcell -halleoees the 
 legality of the Wilmington Convention, charging that the meeting was 
 
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 201 
 
 A doctrinal basis was found in the question of relative 
 powers of clergy and laity. The North seemed to empha- 
 size the episcopal power; the South inclined to magnify the 
 power of the laity. South Carolina seems to have gone 
 farthest in opposition to the clergy and was inclined to 
 oppose the introduction of any bishop at all. Of course the 
 patriotic question comes in here, for so many of the clergy 
 had been Tory that even in post-Revolution days, they 
 seemed still to carry the odium of submission to a foreign 
 jurisdiction. Fear of foreign influences certainly played an 
 important part in the opposition to unification under any 
 kind of bishops, Scotch or English, in their ordination. 
 
 The Reverend Samuel Seabury, the younger, in the 
 memorial sermon for Bishop White which he delivered at 
 St. Luke’s Church, in New York, 1836, A Brief View of the 
 Origin and Results of Episcopacy in the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the United States of America, has left us an 
 excellent near view of the conflicting interests: 
 
 “The extraordinary man whose death has now spread a universal 
 gloom through our communion, was the chief instrument, under God, in 
 effecting our deliverance. So peculiarly, indeed, was he qualified for the 
 task, that he seems to have been specially raised up by Providence for the 
 purpose. In his political views and feelings he had been, during the 
 Revolutionary struggle, on the American side, and was thus calculated to 
 inspire confidence where doubt and suspicion existed. As Chaplain of 
 Congress, he had had intercourse with leading men, from different 
 sections of the country, who were engaged in political life, and was thus 
 enabled to prepossess them favorably in regard to the Church, and on 
 some occasions to enlist their kind offices in her favor. (John Adams, the 
 one time arch-enemy of Episcopacy, even stood sponsor for White and 
 Provoost at their consecration at Lambeth Palace.)! To illustrate this 
 
 crisis of our affairs, and to reconcile what might else seem incongruous in 
 the statement, it should be observed that a difference of opinion pre- 
 
 held by Dr. White, after an adjournment sine die. A majority of the 
 States being unrepresented, while a minor and an unbaptized layman 
 were called on to act as delegates. 
 
 1 Infra, pp. 219-220. 
 
202 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 vailed, on some important points, between Episcopalians at the North 
 and at the South. In the North, Episcopalians, almost without exception, 
 believed in what are termed the distinctive principles of our church. In 
 the South, on the contrary, many of them, clergy as well as laity, dis- 
 carded these principles, and deemed a presbyter, in all the essentials of 
 his office, the same as a bishop: and in the conflict for independence, the 
 former class had generally sided with the mother country, while the latter 
 had espoused the American cause. Thus it happened, that when the 
 former made a movement towards obtaining the episcopacy, it was 
 thought to be an indication of their monarchical preferences; it was 
 loosely argued that the Church might take an independent ground, and 
 appoint bishops for herself. Such a step would manifestly have been fatal 
 to our ecclesiastical existence; ! for if the presbyters had a right to ap- 
 point bishops, the people had an equal right to appoint presbyters; so that 
 the operation of this principle would have been for every body of men to 
 make ministers according to their fancy, and thus we would have had 
 the seeds of dissension and schism sown throughout the church. (Rever- 
 end Samuel Provoost of New York in his violent opposition to the Rever- 
 end Samuel Seabury on the grounds of. his disloyalty to America 
 illustrates this.) But when such a man as William White, whose attach- 
 ment to the American cause had been thoroughly proved, went to Eng- 
 land to receive episcopal consecration, less prejudice or hostility was 
 excited; and the same episcopacy which in one individual was thought 
 to exhibit the odious features of monarchical deformity, appeared in 
 another to be invested with the charms of republican beauty. 
 
 But if the influence of Bishop White was felt in procuring a favorable 
 introduction for the episcopacy into the American Church, it was much 
 more felt in organizing the Church after the episcopacy was obtained.” 
 (Note here that our author reverses the historical order of events; he has 
 the Northern bias. Actually White advocated an American organization 
 first, then bishops with proper English consecration, if they could be 
 obtained.) ‘‘All that is essential to the unity of a Church which is 
 sound in faith is, that it have duly authorized bishops. It might have 
 happened therefore, after bishops were obtained, that churches would 
 exist, in the several states, bound together by the general ties of Catholic 
 unity, without being compacted, as they are now, in one organized body. 
 Our Catholic unity, by which we are members of the Universal Church of 
 Christ, is one thing: our constitution, by which we are rendered one 
 consolidated body, known as the Protestant Episcopal Church of the 
 United States, is another. We might have had the former blessing, and 
 post the latter, and it was in the procurement of the latter blessing, that 
 
 * This was just the step that the Methodist branch of the Church of 
 England did adopt. Supra, p. 186. 
 
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 203 
 
 the services of Bishop White were chiefly conspicuous. And this was in- 
 deed a work of delicacy and magnitude, the difficulties and dangers of 
 which it is almost impossible to estimate. Here was to be laid the founda- 
 tion of that influence which, as a United Church, we were to exert for the 
 salvation of our country and of mankind. In this work a mistake would 
 have been fatal: for in it were to be combined either the elements of future 
 discord and dissolution, or of harmony and prosperity. And here it was that 
 the genius of Bishop White shone forth. He brought to the task an ac- | 
 curate knowledge of the principles of civil and ecclesiastical legislation, 
 habits of cool deliberation, and sound judgment, great foresight and dis- 
 cretion, promptitude and perseverance in action, blended with bland 
 and conciliatory manners, learning that was ever respected, and a 
 singleness and dis-interestedness of purpose that were never im- 
 peached . oy 
 
 At that time civil and religious matters were so intermingled that it was 
 impossible to separate them, they (Clergy) sorely differed also in their 
 political sentiments. The clergy at the North carried their views of 
 episcopal prerogative so far as to contend that the Church was to be 
 governed by bishops alone: while those at the South, . .. . . i- 
 clined to the other extreme, and advocated the episcopal office simply as a 
 prescriptive usage, or on grounds of human expediency. This difference 
 alone made it difficult to adjust many points of the Prayer-book, such as 
 the office of ordination, and the administration of the communion, to the 
 mutual satisfaction of both sides. It led also to collision in regard to the 
 rights and influence of the laity, whom a portion of the clergy were for 
 excluding from all legislation in the councils of the Church, while the 
 laity in other instances, showed themselves in turn apprehensive of the 
 clerical ascendancy. Now it was the peculiar feature of Bishop White’s 
 agency that he was admirably qualified to become the bond of union to 
 dissentient brethren. His own views were understood, both on political 
 and religious questions, to coincide generally with those of the Southern 
 clergy; but his mind was capacious and liberal, and his temper concilia- 
 tory, while his simplicity and integrity of character procured for him the 
 confidence of all. Thus while he took that prominent part in the work of 
 legislation, which his singular discretion and learning so well qualified 
 him to act, his influence was even more felt in smoothing asperities as 
 they arose, and in harmonizing discordant materials. Bio him, therefore, 
 under God, are we mainly indebted for that ecclesiastical constitution by 
 which we are exhibited to the world in the attitude of one undivided 
 church.” ! 
 
 1 Seabury, Samuel, A Brief View of the Origin and Results of Episcopacy 
 in the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, pp. 14- 
 20. 
 
204 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Bishop White himself gives us some of the points at 
 issue in his sermon, The Past and the F uture, delivered in 
 Philadelphia, 1834. He says: 
 
 “It may be thought, that after the establishment of American inde- 
 pendence, and, of course, the ceasing of the dangers supposed to result 
 from an episcopacy subject to the English hierarchy, the dread of en- 
 croachments on the liberties of our citizens had ceased. It is true, that the 
 grounds of the former fear of evils, whether real or imaginary, was done 
 away: so that to have opposed exterior hindrances to what we were con- 
 templating, would have been an avowed persecution, not likely to be 
 countenanced by popular opinion. If this laid a restraint on any, we may 
 hope that, among our fellow citizens generally, it was a Christian spirit 
 which caused them to refrain from all agency in our concerns. Notwith- 
 standing this advantage, however, it happened that in the heat of the 
 foregoing controversies, Episcopacy, even in its general character, and 
 independently of what might have rendered it unacceptable by incidental 
 associations, had been exhibited as exceedingly adapted to alarm. It had 
 been described as in itself hostile to civil liberty, as nourishing pride and 
 arrogancy in those elevated to the station, as the means of acquiring more 
 wealth than was salutary to the church, and as indulgent to idleness and 
 expensive living. All these charges were contended to be verified in the 
 persons of the English bishops; and it was often in vain to plead, in 
 addition to the absence of proof, that in every age from that of the re- 
 formation, records had been left by many of them, not only of dis- 
 tinguished piety and of unblemished lives and conversation, but of 
 prominence in every branch of learning, especially of the theological. 
 Had the allegations been true, as certainly was not the case, they were 
 evidently irrelative to the merits of the subject, and imputable to an 
 indiscreet or else corrupt organization. 
 
 The prejudices gradually declined, under the weight of more correct 
 statements, and especially under the irresistible conviction, that the 
 obtaining of the episcopal order was essential to the keeping of us to- 
 gether, as a branch of the Christian church; that a great proportion of our 
 population would have adhered to a constitution which they knew to 
 have been from the beginning, had prevailed universally during the 
 fifteen hundred years, and had been transmitted to them by a church, 
 considered in the character of a parent, although now severed from them 
 by a revolution, which had turned on questions of civil policy and duties. 
 The privilege of acting for themselves in this matter, was secured by the 
 liberal constitution of these states; and if there should be any organized 
 opposition to the design, there was no other alternative, than either con- 
 formity to the views of their more consistent brethren, or of their 
 
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 205 
 
 relinquishing of communion with them. It was easy to perceive that, in 
 the latter event, the dissentients must have become merged in the many 
 societies marked by discrepant principles, and abounding within our 
 civil union. 
 
 While the hindrances within ourselves were decreasing, under the 
 force of argument and of expediency, we were not insensible of the un- 
 certainty of success in the contemplated application to the English pre- 
 lacy. We had knowledge of the restraint to which they were subjected by 
 the civil enactments of their kingdom. In the endeavors for an American 
 Episcopacy made before the war, it had been held, that nothing more 
 than the royal consent was required for the accomplishment of the 
 object. This opinion had been decidedly expressed by the excellent 
 Archbishop Secker, who, of all the English prelates, was the most promi- 
 nent in exertions for the supply of the wants of what was called ‘The 
 Church of England in America.’ Under such a sanction he certainly 
 would not have hesitated to proceed in the good work. But the case had 
 become materially altered by the transfer of the allegiance of the former 
 colonies. The laws of England did not then, and do not now, except 
 conformably to the act provided for our case, warrant her bishops to 
 extend their powers of office beyond the limits of the laws of the land. 
 This matter had been remarkably visible in the instances of portions of 
 the episcopal chapels in Scotland, in which the worshippers, not uniting 
 with the bishops of that country, because of their disallowance of a 
 right to the crown in the reigning dynasty, presented an anomaly similar 
 to that, which, for a few years, characterized our communion on a much 
 larger scale, of bodies of professed episcopalians severed from all Episco- 
 pal superintendence. The inconsistency has been since done away, by 
 their joining themselves to the bishops of that land, on the ceasing of the 
 ground of the non-juring scruples, in which they had persevered through 
 so long a tract of time. That the three estates of Great Britain, having 
 cautiously avoided what might have proved an interference offensive to 
 the Scottish establishment, for the remedy of a privation so near, and 
 cause by adherence to the existing government, would be less scrupulous 
 in regard to another so distant, and under governments which might take 
 umbrage at the measure, was at best uncertain. What added to the 
 danger of a refusal was, that the power to be applied to, having but 
 lately made a peace with their former colonies, with the irritations 
 remaining of a protracted war, might be the more apprehensive of offence 
 to the new authorities which had been established by them. This 
 hesitation had been foreseen, and was therefore met by written 
 assurances from the individuals who had been elected to the chief magis- 
 tracies, in the states in which were designated the men intended for the 
 Episcopacy, that compliance with the request of our church would not 
 
206 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 be inconsistent with the constitution or the laws of the said several 
 states, or with those of the United States . . . . . The enlargement 
 of the narrative has been owing to the pretence, not only sedulously 
 propagated at the time, but to this day affirmed and believed in some 
 districts of our country, that our American bishops are in subjection to 
 the hierarchy of England, and of course to its head, in the sovereignty of 
 that country. 
 
 After determination on the measure of applying to the English bishops 
 for consecration, there occurred a point of difficulty and delicacy in the 
 consequent procedure. We were rendered uneasy by an opinion, con- 
 fidently maintained and propagated, that the Right Reverend persons 
 whom we had addressed could not but be offended, by its not merely 
 being implied through the whole tenor of the application, but expressed in 
 plain although in respectful language in the beginning of it, that we were 
 a church competent in the point of right to government of ourselves 
 being now separated from that by which we had been fostered, and of 
 which we had been so long a part. This may be classed as another 
 difficulty; for although we were aware that it was founded on error, yet 
 the tendency of it was to weaken our hands in the work before us. Ac- 
 cordingly, it was a great relief, when we found in the first letter from our 
 former superiors, that they not only noticed as ‘Christian’ and ‘brother- 
 ly’ the address which had been pronounced by some among ourselves to 
 be contumacious, but avoided whatever might have seemed to dictate; 
 or rather, they so expressed themselves as might be considered to admit 
 our claim of independence in its extent. 
 
 There was another source of embarrassment generated among our- 
 selves. It was the question of including the laity in our ecclesiastical 
 legislature. The first movements to the point were made in this state. 
 Although the example was soon followed in several of the other states, yet 
 there was strong repugnancy against it in certain respectable members 
 of our ministry. This must have been owing to their not having duly 
 considered the constitution of the church from which we are descended. 
 In construing the canons of that church, a distinction is always taken 
 in the courts of law between those which are binding ‘proprio vigore’ as 
 being the ancient canon law of the realm, and so applying, like common 
 law, on the footing of immemorial usage, and other canons, enacted by 
 the convocation only. The latter are held to be binding on the clergy, but 
 no further; not having had the sanction of the laity in parliament. It is 
 not so, in regard to the liturgy and its rubrics. Those possesss the con- 
 currence of the said authority, and it is held that the same is necessary to 
 any alterations which may be thought expedient in future. This point 
 is ably handled by the Reverend Richard Hooker, in his immortal work 
 on Ecclesiastical Polity, in which he defends the sanction given by the 
 
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 207 
 
 parliament, as the only form in which the laity can consent to laws by 
 which they are to be governed: a circumstance which the sagacious man 
 contends for, as what ought to be attached to every provision intended 
 to have the force of law. Certain it is that the English bishops never 
 found fault with our lay representation, which met their eyes in our 
 proceedings. It was probably owing to this, added to more mature 
 consideration, that the prejudice gradually died away, until now it no 
 longer shows its head, except as at present, in notice taken of it in the 
 light of an historic fact. 
 
 There was the danger of a more important hindrance to our expecta- 
 tions in the right which we claimed, and which we exercised in the form 
 of a ‘Proposed Book,’ recommended to our American churches; of the 
 making of alterations in the articles and in the liturgy; not only accom- 
 modated to the change of our civil relations, but further, as in our 
 judgments expediency had rendered eligible; there being still an adherence 
 to the doctrines of the Gospel as held by the mother church. So far as the 
 subject, either of the articles or of the liturgy was a matter of human 
 judgment and discretion, the English bishops did not manifest any 
 disposition to interfere. But they were jealous for the integrity of their 
 faith, our invasion of which had been affirmed to them by persons whom 
 they could not but respect, but whose political attachments had be- 
 trayed them into unfounded suspicions and reports. The bishops, on 
 receiving the details of our transactions, were satisfied of our orthodoxy; 
 and although a few points were thought to require reconsideration, yet 
 their suggestions to this effect were complied with, consistently with the 
 not surrendering of any right on our side, and the not relaxing of Christian 
 vigilance on theirs.” 4 
 
 The process by which a national American ideal was 
 worked into the constitution of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the United States is outlined in the minutes of 
 the various conferences and conventions by which this was 
 effected. 
 
 Dr. White inaugurated the movement although the 
 Reverend Abraham Beach of Brunswick, New Jersey, was 
 the first to propose to the several states the advisability 
 of a joint meeting to consider the matter. 
 
 1 White, The Past and the Future: A Charge on Events Connected with the 
 Organization of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of 
 
 America, and the Lessons they Inculcate. Delivered before the Fiftveth Con- 
 vention of the Diocese of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, 1834. 
 
208 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 We have noted the patriotic activities of Dr. White.! 
 In line with his political activities, before he had heard of 
 the prospects of peace, he began to advocate the Ameri- 
 eanization of his church. ‘“‘Despairing,” as he says in a 
 letter to Bishop Hobart, “of a speedy acknowledgment of 
 our independence . . . . . and perceiving our ministry 
 gradually approaching to annihilation,’ he published, 
 anonymously, in 1782, a pamphlet which was republished 
 in 1783, The case of the Episcopal Churches in the United 
 States Considered. ‘To make new articles of faith and 
 doctrine, no man thinketh rt lawful: new laws of government, 
 what commonwealth or church is there which maketh not at 
 one time or another’. In this he proposed: 1. A church free 
 from spiritual jurisdiction connected with the temporal 
 authority of any foreign state; 2. A provisional govern- 
 ment “‘to? procure the union of all the Episcopal Churches 
 in the United States in one body” under a “‘superinten- 
 dent”’ or “Overseer”’; 3. An organization consisting of the 
 following units, — nation, province, and diocese; 4. A 
 triennial national convention; 5. Clerical and lay repre- 
 sentation; 6. An immediate organization, not awaiting 
 the presence of regularly ordained bishops.? Such was the 
 earliest proposal for the organization of the American 
 Protestant Episcopalian Church, fathered by Dr. White.* 
 In 1783 he proposed such a plan at a meeting of his church 
 as a means of effecting a state organization in Pennsylvania. 
 
 1 Supra, pp. 43-44. 
 
 * White, The Case of the Episcopal Church in the United States Con- 
 sidered. Philadelphia, 1783; Wilson, op. cit., p. 81. 
 
 3 Perry, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 11; Wilson, op. cit., p. 81. 
 
 * On March 25th, 1783, ten of the fourteen remaining priests in Connec- 
 ticut met at Woodbury in a “Voluntary Convention” and chose for 
 their bishop Dr. Samuel Seabury. Perry, History of the American 
 Episcopal Church, vol. ii, p. 49. This meeting was not in that series which 
 developed the church constitution. 
 
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 209 
 
 The Reverend Abraham Beach in a letter to Dr. White, 
 dated January 26, 1784, suggested the first inter-state con- 
 ference, advocating a preliminary meeting for the purpose 
 of reviving the Society for the Support of Widows and 
 Children of Deceased Clergymen.! He added, “If any- 
 thing should occur to you as necessary to be done, in 
 ‘order to put us upon an equal footing with other denomina- 
 tions of Christians, and cement us together in the Bonds of 
 Love, I shall be happy in an opportunity of assisting in it.” 
 The Philadelphia churches resolved in response to this 
 proposal, March 29, 1784, “that the subject ought to be 
 taken up with the general concurrence of the Episco- 
 palians of “The United States’. The Reverend Beach 
 approached Provoost and Moore of New York. They 
 approved, though James Duane wished the meeting to take 
 place in New York. 
 
 Beach also took up with White the questions of publicity, 
 lay representation and the necessity for receding from 
 ancient usages. In a letter of April 23, 1784, he writes: 
 ‘*T wish you would be so good as to advertise it (the Brunswick Meeting) 
 in one of your News Papers, with an invitation to all clergymen of the 
 Episcopal Church, and perhaps you may think it proper to invite 
 respectable characters of the laity, as matters of general concern to the 
 Church may probably be discussed . . . . . 
 
 “T had the pleasure of reading it (White’s pamphlet) . . . . and 
 am happy to agree with you in every particular, excepting the necessity of 
 
 receding from ancient usages. If this necessity existed in time of war, I 
 cannot think that it does at present.” ? 
 
 The first argument to be used against White’s plan was 
 that of the conservative. White’s was no radical pro- 
 gram. He tells us that his “expedient (an ecclesiastical 
 representatve body . .. . . to make a declaration 
 
 1 Perry, Journals, vol. ii, pp. 8-9. 
 2 Ihnd., vol. ii, p. 11. 
 
210 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 approving of episcopacy, and professing a determination to 
 possess the succession when it could be obtained, but . 
 to carry the plan into immediate act) was sustained by 
 the plea of necessity and by opinions of various authors of 
 the Church of England, acknowledging a valid ministry 
 under circumstances similar to those of the existing case, 
 although less imperious.’’! 
 
 The Preliminary Conference was held in New Bruns- 
 wick, May 11, 1784. Ten clergymen from New Jersey, 
 New York, and Pennsylvania, members of the Corporation 
 for the Relief of Widows and Orphans of the Clergy,? 
 were present and “there happened to be in town, on civil 
 business, some lay-gentlemen, who being represented by 
 the clergy from New York and New Jersey as taking an 
 interest in the welfare of the church, were requested to 
 attend.” Pennsylvania communicated resolutions from 
 a meeting of the clergy and laity “‘tending to the organiza- 
 tion of the church throughout the union.’ This called for 
 Committees of Correspondence; “it is expedient to appoint 
 a standing committee of the Episcopal Church in this 
 state, consisting of clergy and laity; that the said com- 
 mittee be empowered to correspond and confer with 
 representatives from the Episcopal Church in the other 
 states, or any of them; and assist in framing an ecclesi- 
 astical government; that a constitution of ecclesiastical 
 government, when framed, be reported to the several 
 congregations.”” The first resolution of instruction, — on 
 fundamental principles for the guidance of the delegates,— 
 was “the Episcopal Church in these states, is, and ought 
 to be independent of all foreign authority, ecclesiastical 
 
 ‘Wilson, op. cit., p. 81-85. 
 _ ? This corporation, founded by Dr. Smith, was the only general institu- 
 tion of the colonial Episcopal Church. 
 
 * Perry, Journals, vol. iii, p. 11; White, Memoirs, p. 78. 
 
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH mul 
 
 or civil.” This last was going too fast for the Northerners. 
 White was taken aside by Moore of New York, “who ex- 
 pressed the wish of himself and others, that nothing should 
 be urged on the subject, as they had joined the clergy of 
 Connecticut in their application for the consecration of a 
 bishop. The clergy from Philadelphia had up to this 
 point been in ignorance of the fact that Dr. Seabury had 
 sailed for England just before the evacuation of New York 
 by the British, carrying with him a petition to the English 
 bishops for his consecration.’’! 
 
 A committee was named to canvass the three states and 
 it was instructed to propose “‘a proper substitute for the 
 State Prayers in the Liturgy” to be adopted for temporary 
 use. We have no evidence that they ever complied with 
 the latter injunction. A delegation was appointed to seek 
 co-operation from Connecticut, “in such measures as may 
 be deemed conducive to the union and prosperity of the 
 Episcopal Churches in the States of America.” Com- 
 mittees of Correspondence were chosen to interest the 
 clergymen and members of the scattered churches in a 
 proposed meeting in New York. Also it was recommended 
 that a committee of Clerical Examiners be appointed in 
 each State to consider the applications of persons desirous 
 of officiating as lay readers, and the congregations were 
 advised not to suffer any layman to officiate in their 
 churches without the certificates of these Examiners. 
 
 This New Brunswick Conference showed clearly that 
 union would not be effected without a struggle. Dr. 
 White observed that, 
 
 “notwithstanding the good humor which prevailed... . . the 
 more Northern clergymen were under apprehension of there being a 
 
 1 White, op. cit., p. 78; Perry, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 6-12. 
 2 Perry, op. cit., vol. iil, p. 7. 
 
212 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 disposition on the part of the more Southern, to make material deviation 
 from the ecclesiastical system of England, in the Articles of Church 
 Government.” At the same time he wondered, “that any sensible and 
 well informed persons should overlook the propriety of accommodating 
 that system, in some respects, to the prevailing sentiments and habits of 
 the people of this country; now become an independent and combined 
 commonwealth . . . . . When the crisis presented a subject of 
 deliberation entirely new, it was difficult to detach it in the minds of 
 many, from a past habitual train of thinking. Some were startled at the 
 very circumstance, of taking the stand of an independent Church. 
 There was a much more common prejudice, against the embracing of the 
 laity in a scheme of ecclesiastical legislation. Besides these things the 
 confessed necessity of accommodating the service to the newly established 
 civil constitution of the country, naturally awakened apprehensions of 
 unlimited license.’ ! 
 
 and Duane of New York; Smith of Maryland; Parker for 
 Massachusetts and Rhode Island; Ogden from New Jer- 
 sey; and White and Peters of Pennsylvania. White, 
 Moore, Parker, and Provoost later became bishops; 
 Ogden, Smith and Griffith were elected though never 
 consecrated to that office. 
 
 As the delegates had been variously and irregularly 
 chosen and as they possessed no delegated authority, the 
 meeting could only act in a recommendatory capacity. 
 Dr. White presided and a committee of four clergymen: 
 Parker, Provoost, Smith, and White; and four laymen: 
 Clay, Clarkson, Dr. Hart, and Duane, “to essay the 
 fundamental principles of a general constitution,” re- 
 ported the following program: 
 
 “The body now assembled recommend to the Clergy and the Congre-- 
 
 gations of their Communion, in the States represented as above, and 
 propose to the States not represented, That as soon as they shall have 
 
 * White, op. cit., pp. 79, 81-82; Perry, op. cit., vol. iii, Dalz, 
 
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 913 
 
 organized or associated themselves in the States to which they respective- 
 ly belong, agreeably to such Rules as they think proper, they unite in a 
 general ecclesiastical Constitution, on the following fundamental Prin- 
 ciples. 
 
 I. That there shall be a General Convention of the Episcopal 
 Church in the United States of America. 
 
 IJ. That the Episcopal Church in each State send Deputies to the 
 Convention, consisting of Clergy and Laity. 
 
 Ill. That associated Congregations in two or more States may send 
 Deputies jointly. 
 
 IV. That the said Church shall maintain the Doctrines of the 
 Gospel, as now held by the Church of England; and shall adhere to the 
 Liturgy of the said Church as far as shall be consistent with the American 
 Revolution and the Constitution of the respective states. 
 
 V. That in every State where there shall be a Bishop duly conse- 
 crated and settled, he shall be considered as a member of the Con- 
 vention, ex officio. 
 
 VI. That the Clergy and Laity assembled in Convention shall de- 
 liberate in one Body, but shall vote separately; and the concurrence of 
 both shall be necessary to give validity to every measure. 
 
 VII. That the first Meeting of the Convention shall be at Philadelphia 
 the Tuesday before the Feast of St. Michael next; to which it is hoped and 
 earnestly desired, That the Episcopal Churches in the respective States, 
 will send their Clerical and Lay Deputies, duly instructed and authorized 
 to proceed on the necessary business, herein proposed for their delibera- 
 tion.” 1 
 
 This New York Preliminary Conference of 1784 in 
 proposing a constitutional convention, closely parallels in 
 points of purpose and procedure the Annapolis Convention 
 which met preliminary to the Federal Constitutional 
 Convention at Philadelphia. It is noteworthy though, 
 that the Church worked out its method two years in 
 advance of the national body, — October 1784 as against 
 October 1786. 
 
 In the meantime state churches were organizing. 
 Maryland inaugurated this movement in 1783, when her 
 clergy drew up the first declaration of rights of any of the 
 
 ! Perry, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 12-13; vol. ili, pp. 62-66; White, op. cit., pp. 
 79-81. 
 
2914 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 American churches, ‘‘A Declaration of Certain Fundamen- 
 tal Rights and Liberties.” In this they took the name, 
 “Protestant Episcopal Church, ”— the first public assump- 
 tion of that title by a representative body of the Church;— 
 they asserted ‘ecclesiastical and spiritual independence”; 
 and they announced -that the “Church when duly organ- 
 ized, constituted, and represented in a Synod or Con- 
 vention of her ministers and people”’ was “competent to 
 revise her Liturgy, Forms of Prayer, and Public Worship 
 in order to adapt the same to the late revolution and other 
 local circumstances of America.” Here we have an 
 authoritative recognition of the right of the laity to 
 admission to the councils of the Church.! 
 
 Pennsylvania organized, May 1785, providing for an 
 annual convention of clergy and laity wherein each congre- 
 gation should have one vote, the clergy and laity deliber- 
 ating as one and voting as two bodies, — a concurrence 
 being necessary for action. They appointed delegates to 
 the Philadelphia General Convention. 
 
 The Constitutional Convention of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church of the United States of America, their 
 first General Conference, met in Christ Church in Phila- 
 delphia from September 27 to October 7, 1785,7 — the 
 Federal Constitutional Convention was to meet in the 
 same city two years later, 1787. Sixteen clergy and 
 twenty-six laymen were present. New York, New Jersey, 
 Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and South 
 Carolina were represented. Prominent among the dele- 
 gates were the following: 
 
 William White, unanimously chosen president of the Convention. 
 David Griffith, of Virginia, elected Vice-President. 
 
 1 White, op. cit., pp. 92-96. 
 2 Perry, Journals, vol. i, pp. 14-29, ili, pp. 69-212; Handbook of the 
 General Convention, pp. 8-42; White, Memoirs, pp. 22-24; 96-111. 
 
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 915 
 
 Samuel Provoost, of New York, a King’s College man, and at the time 
 Chaplain of Continental Congress. 
 
 James Duane, mayor of New York 1783-1789, one of the most in- 
 
 fluential members of the Convention in New York to ratify the Federal 
 Constitution. 4 
 
 Richard Peters, of Pennsylvania, a Philadelphia College man, member 
 of Continental Congress, secretary of the Pennsylvania War Board, 1776- 
 1781; later District Judge, 1792-1828. 
 
 Edward Shippen, of Pennsylvania, later Chief Justice of the Supreme 
 Court of that state. 
 
 John Page, of Virginia, a framer of the Virginia Constitution, 1776; 
 member of the Virginia Committee of Public Safety; Congressman from 
 Virginia, 1789-1797; and Governor, 1802-1805. 
 
 Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, prominent in the Federal Consti- 
 tutional Convention, 1787. 2 
 
 The New England States were unrepresented. The 
 Reverend John Bowden could write, “It is much to be 
 feared, that there will be a separation of the Eastern and 
 Western Churches. The former, steadfast in Episcopal 
 Principles, would send no delegates to the grand Con- 
 vention at Philadelphia last September, because, the year 
 preceding, the Convention held at New York, departed 
 from the Principles of the Church, in regard to govern- 
 ment.”? Moreover, Bishop Seabury, having been duly 
 consecrated, their church was already fully organized. 
 
 The work of the Convention was preformed largely 
 through a committee composed of two members from 
 each state, one lay and one cleric, appointed to draft “an 
 Ecclesiastical Constitution for the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in the United States of America”? and “to alter 
 the Liturgy as shall render it consistent with the American 
 Revolution and the Constitutions of the respective 
 states; with such further alterations in the Liturgy as it 
 
 1 Infra., p. 453. 
 2 Infra., p. 454. ‘a 
 3 Perry, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 319-320, 
 
216 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 may be advisable for this Convention to recommend to 
 the consideration of the Church here represented;! while 
 later this committee was charged with reporting a plan 
 for obtaining the consecration of bishops, together with an 
 address to the Most Reverend the Archbishops, and the 
 Right Reverend the Bishops of the Church of England for 
 that purpose.” 
 
 The committee began its work on Tuesday; on Saturday, 
 October 1, they reported on the Constitution and Liturgy. 
 This report was considered article by article and on the 
 next Tuesday it was adopted; on Wednesday, the new 
 Prayer-book was ordered printed. On Friday, the con- 
 vention adjourned after a session of ten days. Few legisla- 
 tive bodies have accomplished so much in so short a time. 
 A general constitution had been produced which the church 
 as a whole proceeded to act under immediately though it 
 was not finally ratified until another session of the Con- 
 vention, in 1789. 
 
 This constitution was but the acceptance of Dr. White’s 
 principles. The more important provisions of this General 
 Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church in _ the 
 United States of America are as follows: 
 
 ‘Whereas, in the course of Divine Providence, the Protestant Episco- 
 pal Church in the United States of America is become independent of all 
 
 And whereas, .... . Clerical and Lay Deputies have been duly 
 appointed from the said Church in the States of New York, New Jersey, 
 Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina: 
 
 The said Deputies being now assembled, and taking into consideration 
 the importance of maintaining uniformity in doctrine, discipline, and 
 worship in the said Church, do hereby determine, and declare, 
 
 1. That there shall be a General Convention of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in the United States of America, which shall be held 
 
 1 Perry, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 18-19. 
 2 Thids, VON apaeo: 
 
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH O17 
 
 in the city of Philadelphia on the third Tuesday in June, in the year of our 
 Lord 1786, and for ever after once in three years, on the third Tuesday of 
 June, in such place as shall be determined by the Convention; and special 
 meetings may be. held at such other times and in such place as shall be 
 hereafter provided for; and this Church, in a majority of the States 
 aforesaid, shall be represented before they proceed to business; except 
 that the representation of this Church from two States shall be sufficient 
 to adjourn; and in all business of the Convention freedom of debate 
 shall be allowed. 
 
 2. There shall be a representation of both Clergy and Laity of the 
 Church in each State,’ which shall consist of one or more Deputies, not 
 exceeding four, of each Order; and in all questions, the said Church in 
 each State shall have one vote, and a majority of suffrages shall be con- 
 clusive. 
 
 3. In the said Church in every State represented in this Convention, 
 there shall be a Convention consisting of the Clergy and Lay Deputies of 
 the Congregation. 
 
 4. “The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacra- 
 ments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the 
 use of the Church of England,” shall be continued to be used by this 
 Church, as the same is altered by this Convention, in a certain instrument 
 of writing passed by their authority, entitled, “Alterations of the Liturgy 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, 
 in order to render the same conformable to the American Revolution and 
 the Constitutions of the respective States.” 
 
 5. In every State where there shall be a Bishop duly consecrated 
 and settled, and who shall have acceded to’ the articles of this General 
 Ecclesiastical Constitution, he shall be considered as a member of the 
 Convention ex officio. 
 
 6. The Bishop or Bishops in every State shall be chosen agreeably to 
 such rules as shall be fixed by the respective Conventions; and every 
 Bishop of this Church shall confine the exercise of his Episcopal office to 
 his proper jurisdiction, unless requested to ordain or confirm by any 
 church destitute of a Bishop. . 
 
 7. A Protestant Episcopal Church in any of the United States not 
 now represented, may at any time hereafter be admitted, on acceding to 
 the articles of this union. 
 
 8. Every clergyman, whether bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, shall 
 be amenable to the authority of the Convention in the State to which he 
 belongs, so far as relates to suspension or removal from office; and the 
 Convention in each State shall institute rules for their conduct, and an 
 equitable mode of trial. 
 
 9. And whereas it is represented to this Convention to be the desire 
 
218 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church in these States, that there may be 
 
 further alterations of the Liturgy than such as are made necessary by the 
 
 American Revolution; therefore the Book of Common Prayer and Ad- 
 
 ministration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the 
 
 Church, according to the use of the Church of England, as altered by an 
 
 instrument of writing passed under the authority of this Convention, 
 
 entitled, Alterations in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of 
 the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to’ 
 the use of the Church of England, proposed and recommended to the Pro- 
 
 testant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, shall be used in 
 
 this Church when the same shall have been ratified by the Conventions 
 
 which have respectively sent Deputies to this General Convention. 
 
 10. No person shall be ordained or permitted to officiate as a minster 
 in this Church, until he shall have subscribed the following declaration: 
 ‘I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be 
 the word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I 
 do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrines and worship of the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church, as settled and determined in the Book of 
 Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, set forth by the 
 General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in these United 
 States.’ 
 
 11. This General Ecclesiastical Constitution, when ratified by the 
 Church in the different States, shall be considered as fundamental, and 
 _ shall be unalterable by the Convention of the Church in any State.” ! 
 
 Dr. White was chairman of the committee which 
 drafted this constitution. James Duane was’ on the 
 committee on revision.2 
 
 The above mentioned Alterations in the Book of Common 
 Prayer, contained startlingly radical proposals and was 
 destined to threaten trouble for the Church, so much so 
 that very little of the revision was retained. Dr. Smith 
 was chairman of the committee that produced this re- 
 vision. Among other alterations were the reduction of the 
 thirty-nine articles to twenty (afterwards to seventeen) 
 and the omission of the ‘descended into Hell” clause from 
 
 1 Perry, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 21-23; vol. iil, pp. 69-212; White, op. cit., pp. 
 12-24, 96-111; Perry, Handbook of the General Convention, pp. 8-42. 
 * Sprague, Annals of the American Pulyit, vol. v, p. 160. 
 
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 219 
 
 the Apostles’ Creed, and the total suppression of the 
 Nicene and the Athanasian Creeds. Of course it was 
 necessary to legislate on the subject of prayers for the 
 American Holidays; two services were accordingly added, 
 one for the Fourth of July and one for Thanksgiving. It _ 
 was resolved, “That the Fourth of July shall be observed — 
 by this Church forever, as a day of thanksgiving to 
 Almighty God for the inestimable blessings of religious 
 and civil liberty vouchsafed to the United States.”! And 
 further, “that the first Tuesday in November in every 
 year forever shall be observed by this church as a day of 
 general Thanksgiving to Almighty God for the fruits of 
 the earth, and for all the other blessings of His merciful 
 providence.”* The forms of Prayer were accordingly 
 prepared for these days. 
 
 It was moreover resolved; ‘‘that a committee be 
 appointed to publish the Book of Common Prayer and 
 that the Committee be authorized to publish . 
 such of the reading and singing Psalms and such a Calendar 
 of proper lessons for the different Sundays and Holy 
 Days ... . . as they may think proper.’ 
 
 This same committee was also charged with reporting 
 “a plan for obtaining the consecration of Bishops, to- 
 gether with an address to the Most Reverend the Arch- 
 bishops, and the Right Reverend the Bishops of the Church 
 of England for that purpose.’’4 
 
 Immediately, without awaiting ratification by the 
 various state churches, the address of the Convention as 
 prepared by this committee was presented to the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury through John Adams, the American 
 
 1 Perry, Journals, vol. i, p. 23. 
 2 Iiid., vol. i, p. 24. 
 *1hidwivola ip.2s; 
 
 4 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 19. 
 
290 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Minister to the Court of St. James. In connection with 
 this matter, Adams later wrote to Bishop White, October 
 29, 1814, “‘ There is no part of my life on which I look with ~ 
 more satisfaction, than the part I took . . . . . in the 
 introduction of Episcopacy into America.” 
 
 The proceedings of. the Episcopalian movement in 
 America was of more than local import. Our Minister to 
 the French Court, Thomas Jefferson, was kept informed 
 relative to the actions of the various meetings. His 
 letter to Edmund Randolph, July 26, 1785, thanks him for 
 a copy “‘of the ecclesiastical journal,” possibly a reference 
 to the minutes of the Virginia state convention of 1785. 
 John Page forwarded him a copy of the journal of the 
 national convention of 1786. 
 
 A second session of the Constitutional Convention was 
 held in Philadelphia, June 20-26, 1786 and at Wilmington, 
 Delaware, October 10-11.! It read the proposed consti- 
 tution a second time and effected some alteration therein: 
 Bishops were always to preside at a General Convention 
 if present; and the requirement for ratification was changed 
 so that the Constitution was to go into effect when 
 accepted “by the Church in a majority of the states 
 assembled in general convention with sufficient power 
 for the purpose of ratification.” 
 
 The Wilmington session was chiefly concerned with the 
 question of bishops. Strong political opposition had be- 
 come manifest to the recognition of the validity of the 
 consecration of Samuel Seabury of Connecticut (Nov- 
 ember 14, 1784), partly on the grounds that it had been 
 performed by Scottish bishops at Aberdeen, which pro- 
 ceedings might place American bishops under canonical 
 subjection to Scotland, partly because of Seabury’s Tory 
 
 1 Perry, Handbook, pp. 43-62; Journals, vol. i, pp. 31-62. 
 
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 291 
 
 war record, and partly because there seemed to be excellent 
 prospects that American bishops might regularly and 
 speedily be consecrated from England itself.' And of 
 course the Seabury question was made to involve all the 
 other points of difference that were to be found in Episco- 
 palian circles. 
 
 Letters which had been received from the Archbishops 
 of England were spread upon the minutes. They showed 
 that the mother church was eager to recognize the new 
 national church and to accommodate the situation to the 
 interests of the daughter in America. They desired, 
 however, assurance that the American church would con- 
 tinue the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the parent 
 church. The following is indeed a sort of Concordat be- 
 tween the two churches: 
 
 “Letter from the Archbishops to the Committee of the General Con- 
 vention at Philadelphia. 
 
 It was impossible not to observe with concern, that if the essential 
 doctrines of our common faith were retained, less respect, however, was 
 paid to our Liturgy than its own excellence, and your declared attachment 
 to it, had led us to expect. Not to mention a variety of verbal altera- 
 tions, of the necessity or propriety of which we are by no means satisfied, 
 we saw with grief that two of the Confessions of our Christian faith, 
 respectable for their antiquity, have been entirely laid aside; and that 
 even in that called the Apostles’ Creed, an article is omitted, which was 
 thought necessary to be inserted, with a view to a particular heresy, in 
 a very early age of the Church, and has ever since had the. venerable 
 sanction of universal reception. Nevertheless, as a proof of the sincere 
 desire which we feel to continue in spiritual communion with the mem- 
 bers of your Church in America, and to complete the Orders of your 
 Ministry, and trusting that the communications which we shall make to 
 you, on the subject of these and some other alterations, will have their 
 desired effect, we have, even under these circumstances, prepared a Bill 
 for conveying to us the powers necessary for this purpose. It will in a 
 few days be presented to Parliament, and we have the best reasons to 
 hope that it will receive the assent of the Legislature. This Bill will 
 
 1 Perry, Bishop Seabury and Bishop Provoost. 
 
222 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 enable the Archbishops and Bishops to give Episcopal consecration to the 
 persons who shall be recommended, without requiring from them any 
 oaths or subscriptions inconsistent with the situation in which the 
 late Revolution has placed them; upon condition that the full satis- 
 faction of the sufficiency of the persons recommended, which you offer to 
 us in your address, be given to the Archbishops and Bishops. You will 
 doubtless receive it as a mark both of our friendly disposition toward 
 you, and of our desire to avoid all delay on this occasion, that we have 
 taken this earliest opportunity of conveying to you this intelligence, and 
 that we proceed (as supposing ourselves invested with that power which 
 for your sakes we have requested) to state to you particularly the several 
 heads upon which that satisfaction which you offer will be accepted, and 
 the mode in which it may be given. The anxiety which is shown by the 
 Church of England to prevent the intrusion of unqualified persons into 
 even the inferior offices of our Ministry, confirms our own sentiments, and 
 points it out to be our duty, very earnestly to require the most decisive 
 proofs of the qualifications of those who may be offered for admission to 
 that Order to which the superintendence of those offices is committed. 
 At our several Ordinations of a Deacon and a Priest, the candidate sub- 
 mits himself to the examination of the Bishop as to his proficiency in 
 learning; he gives the proper security of his soundness in the Faith by the 
 subscriptions which are made previously necessary; he is required to 
 bring testimonials of his virtuous conversation during the three preceed- 
 ing years; and that no node of inquiry may be omitted, public notice of 
 shis offering himself to be ordained is given in the Parish Church where he 
 resides or ministers, and the people are solemnly called upon to declare if 
 they know any impediment, for the which he ought not to be admitted. 
 At the times of Ordination, too, the same solemn call is made on the 
 congregation then present. 
 
 Examination, subscription, and testimonials are not indeed repeated at 
 the consecration of an English bishop, because the person to be conse- 
 crated has added to the securities given at his former ordinations, that 
 sanction which arises from his having constantly lived and exercised his 
 ministry under the eyes and observation of his country. But the objects 
 of our present consideration are very differently circumstanced; their 
 sufficiency in learning, the soundness of their faith, and the purity of their 
 manners, are not matters of notoriety here. Means, therefore, must be 
 found to satisfy the Archbishop who consecrates, and the Bishops who 
 present them, that, in the words of our Church, ‘They be apt and meet 
 for their learning and godly conversation, to exercise their ministry duly 
 to the honor of God and the edification of His Church, and to be whole- 
 some examples and patterns to the flock of Christ.’ 
 
 With regard to the first qualification, sufficiency in good learning, we 
 
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 293 
 
 apprehend that the subjecting a person, who is to be admitted to the 
 office of a Bishop in the Church, to that examination which is required 
 previous to the ordination of Priests and Deacons, might lessen that 
 reverend estimation which ought never to be separated from the Episco- 
 pal character: we therefore do not require any further satisfaction on this 
 point, than will be given to us by the forms of testimonials in the an- 
 nexed paper, fully trusting that those who sign them will be well aware, 
 how greatly incompetence in this respect must lessen the weight and 
 authority of the Bishops and affect the credit of the Episcopal Church. 
 (The forms of testimonials were spread on the minutes of the Con- 
 vention.) 
 
 Under the second head, that of subscription, our desire is to require 
 that subscription only to be repeated which you have already been 
 called upon to make by the Tenth Article of your Ecclesiastical Constitu- 
 tion: but we should forget the duty which we owe to our own Church, and 
 act inconsistently with that sincere regard which we bear to yours, if we 
 were not explicit in declaring, that, after the disposition we have shown 
 to comply with the prayer of your address, we think it now incumbent 
 upon you to use your utmost exertions also for the removal of any 
 stumbling block of offence which may possibly prove an obstacle to the 
 success of it. We, therefore, most earnestly exhort you, that previously 
 to the time of your making such subscription, you restore to its integrity 
 the Apostles’ Creed, in which you have omitted an article, merely, as it 
 seems, from misapprehension of the sense in which it is understood by our 
 Church; nor can we help adding, that we hope you will think it but a 
 decent proof of the attachment which you profess for the services of 
 your Liturgy, to give the other two Creeds a place in your Book of 
 Common Prayer, even though the use of them should be left discretional. 
 We should be inexcusable, too, if, at the time when you are requesting the 
 establishment of Bishops in your Church, we did not strongly represent to 
 you that the Eighth Article of your Ecclesiastical Constitution, appears to 
 us to be a degradation of the Clerical, and still more of the Episcopal 
 character. We persuade ourselves, that in your ensuing Convention, some 
 alteration will be thought necessary in this article, before this reaches you; 
 or, if not, that due attention will be given to it in consequence of our 
 representation. 
 
 On the third and last head, which respects purity of manners, the 
 reputation of the Church, both in England and America, and the interest 
 of our common Christianity, is so deeply concerned in it, that we feel it 
 our indispensable duty to provide, on this subject, the most effectual 
 securities. It is presumed, that the same previous public notice of the 
 intention of the person to be consecrated, will be given in the Church 
 where he resides in America, for the same reasons, and therefore, nearly in 
 
994, NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 the same form with that used in England before our ordinations. The 
 call upon the persons present at the time of consecration, must be deemed 
 of little use before a congregation composed of those to whom the person 
 to be consecrated is unknown. The testimonials signed by persons living 
 in England, admit of reference and examination, and the characters of 
 those who give them are subject to scrutiny, and in cases of criminal 
 deceit to punishment. In proportion as these circumstances are less 
 applicable to testimonials from America, those testimonials must be 
 more explicit, and supported by a greater number of signatures. We 
 therefore think it necessary that the several persons, candidates for Epis- 
 copal consecration, should bring to us, both a testimonial from the 
 General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church, with as many 
 signatures, as can be obtained, and a more particular one, from the 
 respective Conventions in those States which recommend them. It will 
 appear from the tenor of the letters testimonial used in England, a form 
 of which is annexed, that the ministers who sign them bear testimony to 
 the qualifications of the candidates of their own personal knowledge. 
 Such a testimony is not to be expected from the members of the General 
 Convention of the Episcopal Church in America on this occasion. We. 
 think it sufficient, therefore, that they declare they know no impediment, 
 but believe the person to be consecrated is of a virtuous life and sound 
 faith. We have sent you such a form as appears to us proper to be used 
 for that purpose. More specific declarations must be made by the 
 members of the Convention in each State from which the persons offered 
 for Consecration are respectively recommended; their personal knowl- 
 edge of them there can be no doubt of; we trust, therefore, they will have 
 no objection to the adoption of the form of a testimonial which is an- 
 nexed, and drawn upon the same principles, and containing the same 
 attestations of personal knowledge with that above mentioned, as re- 
 quired previously to our Ordinations. We trust we shall receive these 
 testimonials signed by such a majority in each Convention that recom- 
 mend, as to leave no doubt of the fitness of the candidates upon the minds 
 of those whose consciences are concerned in the consecration of them. 
 
 Thus much we have thought it right to communicate to you, without 
 reserve, at present, intending to give you farther information as soon as we 
 are able. In the meantime, we pray God to direct your counsels in this 
 very weighty matter, and are 
 
 Mr. President and gentlemen 
 Your affectionate Brethren 
 
 J. CANTUAR. 
 W. Exsor.” ! 
 
 ‘White, Memoirs, pp. 303-307; Perry, Journals, vol. i, pp. 51-54. 
 
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 995 
 
 ~~ ~~ 
 
 The spirit of the English clergy was appreciated by the 
 Americans. The words “‘He descended into Hell’? were 
 restored to the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed was 
 re-inserted in the Book of Common Prayer. The Anthan- 
 asian Creed was rejected by the following vote; nays, New 
 York, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina; New Jersey and 
 Delaware divided. In accordance with the actions of 
 their respective state conventions, Drs. White, Griffith, 
 and Provoost were certified as Bishops-elect from the states 
 of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and New York respectively. 
 It does not so appear on the Journals but the applica- 
 tion of the Reverend William Smith, Bishop-elect for 
 Maryland, was refused certification on the grounds of 
 conduct. New York, through Dr. Provoost, tried to 
 pledge the Convention “not to consent to any act that 
 may imply the validity of Dr. Seabury’s ordinations.’’? 
 Dr. White tells us, “The question of the Scottish Episco- 
 pacy gave occasion to some warmth... .. The 
 convention did not enter into the opposition to the 
 Scottish succession. A motion, as may be seen on the 
 Journals, was made to the effect, by the Reverend Mr. 
 Provoost, seconded by the Rev. Robert Smith of South 
 Carolina; who only, of the clergy were of that mind. But 
 the subject was suppressed as the Journal shows 
 by the previous question; moved by the Rev. Dr. Sata 
 and seconded by the author.’’? <A resolution was carried 
 unanimously 
 
 s« 
 
 recommending this church in the States here represented, not to re- 
 ceive to the pastoral charge within their respective limits, clergymen 
 professing canonical subjection to any Bishop in any State or Country, 
 other than those Bishops who may be duly settled in the States repre- 
 
 1 Perry, Journals, vol. i, pp. 334-341. 
 21d Nolo i, p. 97. r 
 3 White op. cit., pp. 115-116; Perry op. cit., vol.i, p. 37, vol. iil, p. 312. 
 
296 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 sented in this Convention.” This resolution was offered to meet the 
 allegation made on the floor of the Convention that Bishop Seabury re- 
 quired a pledge of canonical obedience from those who receive Holy 
 Orders at his hands, wherever they might reside. But the charge was 
 denied by a deputy who had been ordained by the Bishop of Connecticut, 
 and since, as Bishop White expressly states, there was never “‘any 
 ground” for this apprehension, the resolution was carried without 
 opposition. ! 
 
 Embarrassment had arisen from the rejection ot the 
 proposed Book of Common Prayer published by the 
 committee in 1786, in some of the states, and its use in 
 others, so the expedient was adopted of “letting matters 
 
 9399 
 
 remain for a time in the present state.’’? 
 
 Before adjournment the Committee of Correspondence 
 was appointed as follows: David Griffith, William White, 
 William Smith, Samuel Provoost, James Duane, Samuel 
 Powell, Francis Hopkinson, and John Jay.? John Jay 
 was one of the most influential lay men of the State of New 
 York. Later as one of the authors of The Federalist he was 
 to exert great influence in securing the ratification of 
 the Federal Constitution. Francis Hopkinson of New 
 Jersey, was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, 
 a delegate to Continental Congress and one of the drafters 
 of the Articles of Confederation. 
 
 No one can deny that this Convention did great work 
 for the unity of the Protestant Episcopal Church. — Its 
 spirit and influence must have reacted upon the country at 
 large. Dr. White tells us that it “‘assembled under cir- 
 cumstances, which bore strong appearances of a dissolution 
 
 1 White, op. cit., p. 116; Wilson, op. cit., pp. 112-113; Perry, op. cit., 
 vol. i, pp. 37-38; vol. ili, pp. 312-313. Connecticut Church Documents, 
 vol. 11, p. 300. 
 
 2 White, op. cit., p..115. 
 
 *'Perry, 0p. ctt., volo, pi 43: 
 
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH Q97 
 
 of the union, in this early stage of it.”! Certainly the 
 issues within the church were no less conducive of dis- 
 union than those with the nation, “interfering instruc- 
 tions from... . . different states, embarrassment 
 over the proposed Book, the Scottish Episcopacy and the 
 demur of the English Bishops.’ That they were solved 
 so successfully was due to the prevalence of a firm 
 conciliatory spirit of independence. Not one iota of 
 American independence was thus sacrificed. In fact Dr. 
 White tells us of a letter to the English clergy which Dr. 
 Smith had drafted but which was “considerably altered on 
 a motion of the Hon. John Jay, Esq., who thought the 
 draft too submissive.”? The alterations in the con- 
 stitution were made “before the receiving of the objec- 
 tions made against it, on the part of the English bishops,’’? 
 and ‘‘without even an opposition.”? “The silence of it 
 (the Concordat) in regard to the including of the laity, 
 gave a great advantage over those of the clergy, who were 
 representing the introduction of that order as in oppo- 
 sition to correct principles of ecclesiastical government. ’’* 
 “The moderation which governed in this convention, 
 must be conspicuous. One principal reason, was the 
 moderation of the English prelates. They who were 
 thought the least devoted to the Episcopal Regime, 
 acknowledged the great forebearance in there being no such 
 high notions of the subject, as had been avowed by some 
 of the clergy on our side ot the Atlantic. Added to this, 
 there was noticed the absence of the most distant intima- 
 tion of offence taken at the presumed independency of the 
 American church. For although the bishops could not 
 
 1 White, op. cit., p. 115. 
 2 Ibid., p. 116. 
 Pl bids Dilla 
 lind. p.119. 
 
298 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 have denied this, consistently with the known principles 
 of their own church; yet it had been reckoned on, as a 
 source of difficulty.”! The spirit of accommodation 
 which was manifested in this Convention was to solve the 
 various and vexation problems which still STONES the 
 American Episcopacys 
 
 Bishops-elect White and Provoost, upon adjournment 
 of the convention, proceeded to England for consecration; 
 Bishop-elect Griffith was unable to go at this time. On 
 reaching London they were introduced ‘“‘to his Grace the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, by his Excellency Mr. Adams, 
 who, in this particular, and in every instance in which his 
 personal attention could be either of use or an evidence of 
 his respect and kindness, continued to manifest his con- 
 cern for the interests of a church, of which he was not a 
 member.” Drs. White and Provoost were ordained and 
 consecrated bishop at the Archiepiscopal Palace of Lam- 
 beth by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. John Moore, 
 February 4, 1787, in the presence of the Archbishop of 
 York, and the Bishop of Bath and Wells and the Bishop of 
 Peterborough. 
 
 The first Triennial Convention of the Protestant Episco- 
 pal Church assembled July 28, 1789. It completed the 
 episcopacy, it ratified the constitution of 1785, and it 
 formulated certain canons forthe American Church. 
 The session for the ratification of the constitution of the 
 church was held in the State House, in the very sameroom 
 in which the Federal Constitution had previously been 
 signed.? 
 
 The first question of importance was the perpetuation of 
 
 1 White, op. cit., p. 119. 
 LOU OP. Ci, Duet. 
 
 3 [bid. » pp. 28-30, 140-171; Perry, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 63-144; vol. iil, pp. 
 392-416. 
 
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH QAO 
 
 the succession. This matter presented considerable 
 difficulty. Dr. Griffith had not been ordained; his resigna- 
 tion and death left but two bishops in America of English 
 consecration. The clergy in Massachusetts and New 
 Hampshire had elected the Rev. Edward Bass their 
 bishop, and had addressed a letter to the bishops of Con- 
 necticut, New York, and Pennsylvania, praying them to 
 unite in consecrating him. White laid the letter addressed 
 to him before the convention, “‘intimating his sincere wish to 
 join in such measures as they might adopt, for the forming 
 of a permanent union with the churches in the Eastern 
 states, but at the same time, expressing his doubt of its 
 being consistent with the faith impliedly pledged to the 
 English prelates, to proceed to any consecration, without 
 first obtaining from them the number held in their Church 
 to be canonically necessary to such an act.”! The 
 convention concurred in this sentiment but voted their 
 opinion in favor of the validity of Bishop Seabury’s 
 consecration. In order to carry the sentiments of the 
 convention into effect, they signified their request to the 
 two bishops consecrated in England, that they would 
 unite with Bishop Seabury in the consecration of Mr. Bass; 
 and they framed an address to the archbishops and 
 bishops of England, requesting their approbation of the 
 measure, for the removing of any difficulty or delicacy 
 which might remain on the minds of the bishops whom they 
 had already consecrated. The difficulty, however, was to 
 be removed in another way; the Virginia convention 
 elected the Rev. Dr. James Madison, President of William 
 and Mary College, their bishop and he was consecrated in 
 England. 
 
 An invitation was extended to Bishop Seabury and their 
 
 1 White, op. cit., pp. 28, 29. 
 
230 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 brethren in the eastern states to meet with them on the 
 twenty-ninth of September, which was accepted. 
 
 At the July session the constitution was remodeled so as 
 to provide for two houses, the house of bishops, and the 
 house of cleric and lay deputies, who must vote, when re- 
 quired by either cleric or lay representation from any state 
 by orders. Also the time of the stated meetings was to be 
 the second Tuesday in September every third year. 
 
 The Constitution provided that as soon as three bishops 
 should belong to the convention, that body should arrange 
 itself into two houses. This accordingly was effected at the 
 September session, the bishops forming a ‘“‘House of 
 Revision.” All measures passing the Convention were to 
 receive the sanction of this House of Revision before be- 
 coming effective. A veto of the House of Revision might 
 be overruled by a majority of three-fifths (later four-fifths) 
 of the General Convention. But the House of Revision 
 must approve or disapprove in writing within two days 
 (later three days) of the passage of an act, — failing which 
 the act became a law. 
 
 An amending clause finally agreed upon read, 
 
 “This Constitution shall be unalterable, unless in General Convention 
 by the church of a majority of the states which may have adopted the 
 same; and all alterations shall be first proposed in General Convention, 
 
 and made known to the several state conventions, before they shall be 
 finally agreed to or ratified in the ensuing General Convention.” ! 
 
 The national constitution for the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church of the United States of America, having been duly 
 ratified by the Convention of 1789, it was then engrossed 
 and signed. Thereupon the delegates proceeded to their 
 work as the legislature of the federated episcopalian body 
 by adopting ten canons. The two houses entered on a 
 
 1 Perry op. cit., vol. i, p. 100. 
 
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 231 
 
 review of the Liturgy, both houses proposing alterations. 
 The result was the Book of Common Prayer, which has 
 ever since been used.! 
 
 Bacon thus describes the form of Constitution effected: 
 
 “The extreme feebleness of Episcopalianism in the several states con- 
 spired with the tendencies of the time in civil affairs to induce upon the 
 new organization a character not at all conformed to the ideal of episcopal 
 government. Instead of establishing as the unit of organization the 
 bishop in every principal town, governing his diocese at the head of his 
 clergy with some measure of authority, it was almost a necessity of the 
 time to constitute dioceses as big as kingdoms, and then to take security 
 against excess of power in the diocesan by overslaughing his authority 
 through exorbitant powers conferred upon a periodical mixed synod, 
 legislating for a whole continent, even in matters confessedly variable 
 and unessential. In the later evolution of the system, this superior 
 limitation of the bishop’s powers is supplemented from below by magni- 
 fying the authority of representative bodies, diocesan and parochial, 
 until the work of the bishop is reduced as nearly as possible to the 
 merely ‘ministerial’ performance of certain assigned functions ac- 
 cording to prescribed directions. Concerning this frame of government it 
 is to be remarked: 1. That it was quite consciously and confessedly de- 
 vised for the government of a sect, with the full and fraternal under- 
 standing that other ‘religious denominations of Christians’ (to use the 
 favorite American euphemism) ‘were left at full and equal liberty to 
 model and organize their respective churches’ to suit themselves. 
 2. That judged according to its professed purpose, it has proved itself a 
 particularly good and effective government. 3. That it is in no proper 
 sense of the word an episcopal government, but rather a classical and 
 synodical government, according to the common type of the American 
 church constitutions of the period.” ? 
 
 Dean George Hodges, of the Episcopal Theological 
 School at Cambridge, Massachusetts, gives us the follow- 
 ing analogy between the constitutions of the new national, 
 federal constitution and the new, national, Episcopalian, 
 church constitution: 
 
 1Schaff, Creeds, vol. iii, pp. 487-516 gives Anglican and American 
 Articles in parallel Columns. Preface to the American Book of Common 
 
 Prayer, 1789. 
 2 Bacon, American Christianity, pp. 210-211. 
 
939 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 “Each was founded on a written constitution. By adopting this con- 
 stitution, thirteen independent ecclesiastical provinces became the-dio- 
 ceses of one church, as thirteen independent colonies had become the 
 states of one nation. Diocesan conventions answered to State con- 
 vention, and the General Convention to the Congress of the United 
 States. The House of Clerical and Lay Deputies was like the House of 
 Representatives; and the House of Bishops was like the Senate except 
 in the matter of tenure .of office. The principles of representative 
 government controlled the Church as they controlled the State. The 
 congregation elected the vestry; the vestry, sometimes with the formal 
 approval of the congregation, selected the rector. The rector and certain 
 elected deputies from the congregation represented the parish in the 
 diocesan convention. These representatives jointly chose the bishop. 
 The bishop and certain elected deputies, clerical and lay, from the 
 diocesan conventions represented the diocese in the General Convention. 
 In that convention no change could be made in the constitution or in the 
 Prayer-book unless it were first enacted by one General Convention, then 
 reported back to all the dioceses, and then at the next General Conven- 
 tion reenacted. In one respect, the Church was more democratic than 
 the State; it gave no man executive authority. There was a presiding 
 bishop, but no president. This likeness of the administration of the 
 Church and the State came naturally from the fact that the same men 
 were engaged in the two transactions.” ! 
 
 The Reverend Samuel Seabury, the younger, gave the 
 
 following estimation of the value of the constitution 
 effected: 
 
 “The value of this constitution the experience of nearly fifty years has 
 served to illustrate and confirm. For a long time its effects were not 
 obvious. But, when the generation which had been educated under a 
 different régime had passed away, and a new generation arose, whose 
 views and character were formed upon its model, then its fruits were 
 manifested. The union of clerical and lay influence in our councils has 
 been attended with the happiest effects. Representation has been so 
 wisely ordered, and ecclesiastical power so happily balanced as to lead to 
 most harmonious results. The excellence of our laws in discouraging the 
 spirit of caprice and innovation without repressing a prudent zeal — in 
 investing executive officers with well-defined powers, and thus preventing 
 the abuses of arbitrary and irresponsible authority, in guarding the sacred 
 
 * Hodges, Three Hundred Years of the Episcopal Church in America, pp. 
 95-97. 
 
THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 233 
 
 rights of private judgment from invasion by the ministry, and at the same 
 time checking its licentious operation by the silent influence of collective 
 wisdom embodied in a primitive and catholic Liturgy, is becoming more 
 and more a theme of eulogy . . . . . Our constitution is acknowledged 
 to have worked well where other systems have failed. Had legislation 
 been more minute, it would probably have led to disruption. As it is, it is 
 certain that the spirit which once charged us with want of piety has 
 itself launched out into the wildest extravagances, and that the whole- 
 some restraints of our discipline, far from checking the flow of piety, have 
 served rather to guide it in channels of peace and order. Under this 
 system our church has become the asylum in which a calm and unob- 
 trusive piety has sought a refuge from the excesses of fanaticism; our 
 members have been multiplied, and our energies evolved, till, at the 
 present time, our missionaries, bishops as well as presbyters, are found in 
 the distant extremes of both hemispheres, and our theological seminaries 
 send out every three years a larger number of clergy than, at the distance 
 of thirty years since, our whole church contained. These blessings, it is 
 true, are primarily owing to the possession of the word of God and the 
 Church of God, in the union in which they were first instituted, and to 
 the prevailing conviction that the existing order, in its great outlines, is 
 a divine appointment, and as such is universally, imperatively and per- 
 petually obligatory: a conviction which goes far to settle the mind of our 
 Communion, and to arrest the tendency to innovation, and check the 
 love of experiment so characteristic of our age and country. In a second- 
 ary sense, however, they may be ascribed to that judicious organization 
 which the illustrious prelate (Bishop White), was mainly instrumental in 
 effecting.” } 
 
 1 Seabury, A Brief View of the Origin and Results of Episcopacy in the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, pp. 20-23. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE 
 UNITED STATES 
 
 Dr. William White in 1785 had wished for a strongly 
 organized Protestant Episcopal Church in America as a 
 means of “guarding against the progress of a church 
 (Roman Catholic) as yet scarcely known” in America. 
 Their numbers at that time surely were not large enough 
 to cause any concern; the official Relation on the State of 
 Religion in the United States, presented to the Holy See by 
 the Prefect Apostolic, John Carroll, shows that there were 
 in 1785 only about 18,200 Catholids in the United States, 
 exclusive of an unascertainable number destitute of 
 priests in the Mississippi Valley, and that their clergy 
 totalled twenty-four, mostly former members of the 
 Society of Jesus. It was not numbers but organizing 
 ability that Dr. White feared. The few Catholics of 
 America had been quick to note the possibilities of the 
 American ideal that “All men are created equal.’’ They 
 were early at work to Americanize their institutions so as 
 to meet the requirements of the new nation. 
 
 The Catholics of the colonies had long fought for 
 religious toleration in America. Their own fight for the 
 right to exist had thoroughly imbued them with the 
 American ideal of separation of church and state_as a 
 political theory. Herein they were distinctly in advance of 
 the Episcopalians, since in many colonies the later church 
 had, till 1776, enjoyed considerable prestige as an estab- 
 lished religion. Maryland and Pennsylvania, where 
 
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH 235 
 
 Catholicism was strongest, had been the first of the 
 English speaking colonies in the New World to permit the 
 legal existence of Catholicism. The Roman Catholics 
 had but to transfer their efforts for colonial toleration to a 
 fight for federal recognition of religious liberty. This 
 effort was one of the major forces in effecting a speedy 
 nationalization of American Catholicism. 
 
 But if the Roman Catholics possessed and championed 
 an American ideal in the separation of church and state, 
 they were at the same time working for a distinctly most 
 un-American and undemocratic church organization. 
 Republican government was to be the most distinctive 
 feature of the United States. Thomas Hooker phrased one 
 of its leading principles in a sermon before the Connecticut 
 General Court in 1638, when he declared that “‘the choice 
 of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God’s 
 own allowance” and that “they who have the power to 
 appoint officers and magistrates, it is in their power, also, 
 to set the bounds and limitations of the power and place 
 unto which they call them.” Roman Catholic govern- 
 ment in America was not to originate in the governed; it 
 was secured by petition from a foreign supreme authority. 
 Dr. White was able to convince the Episcopalians that to 
 be American their government must be derived from a 
 popularly representative body, an assembly of delegates, 
 composed of laymen and clergy. The Catholics did secure 
 an American church capable of electing its own bishops but 
 the authority for the system was the Supreme See in 
 Rome. 
 
 But though the organism of Roman Catholicism in 
 America was to correspond less closely than does that of 
 the Episcopal Church to the ideals of political democracy 
 in America, it was not to follow that foreign authority was 
 
936 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 to weaken the Catholic spirit for American unity. The 
 Americanized Roman Catholic Church became one of the 
 strongest of the politico-religious forces of the critical con- 
 stitution-making period of our history, and its power was 
 consistently used to strengthen American national unity. 
 
 American independence found a very weak Roman 
 Catholic Church. We have noted! how few were their 
 numbers. Even the vaunted organism of the Roman 
 Catholic hierarchy was gone. By the bull, Dominus ae 
 Redemptor, Clement XIV had suppressed the Society of 
 Jesus in July, 1773. This act deprived the colonies of all 
 their Jesuit missionaries by transforming them into dios- 
 cesan priests. When John Carroll, a former member of the 
 suppressed order, returned to Maryland in 1774, he found 
 there “no public Catholic Church.” To add to the dis- 
 order resulting from the suppression of the Jesuits, with 
 the recognition of American independence, the Vicar- 
 Apostolic of London disclaimed further jurisdiction over 
 the United States. Left to themselves the nineteen 
 American fathers formed a legal corporation for the pur- 
 pose of securing the property of the former Society of 
 Jesus, but they made no attempt to restore their de- 
 pendence on the Vicar-Apostolic of London, lest this 
 might excite prejudice among their fellow colonists. 
 Rather they began negotiations to secure a local superior 
 chosen from themselves and directly subject to the Holy 
 See. The Carroll family led this movement. 
 
 The Carroll family had performed great deeds for 
 America during the struggle for independence. The 
 Reverend John Carroll had acted as one of the com- 
 missioners sent by Congress to Canada in 1776.2 His 
 
 1 Supra., p. 234. 
 * Shea, J. G., Life and Times of the Most Reverend John Carroll. 
 
@ 
 
 THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH Dow, 
 
 brother Daniel Carroll, was a member of the Maryland 
 Assembly, president of the Maryland Senate, and a 
 member of Continental Congress. Later this Daniel 
 Carroll was to help frame the Federal Constitution. Their 
 cousin, Charles Carroll, was perhaps Washington’s most 
 ardent supporter; another of the committee sent to Canada 
 in 1776, member of the Maryland Assembly, member of 
 the Maryland Constitutional Convention, member of 
 three different provisional committees, member of Con- 
 tinental Congress, and a member of the War Board 
 charged with the conduct of the war, he had been the first 
 man to sign the Declaration of Independence, also, he was 
 the richest man to sign it, and the last of the signers to 
 die.1 The present national capitol, Washington, is 
 located upon what was the estate of the Carrolls. 
 
 The religious views of this family were as well known as 
 was their Americanism. They had long fought the fight 
 for religious freedom in Maryland, and their views were 
 influential in determining the final character of American 
 religious liberty. 
 
 The treatment of Roman Catholics is an unsavory 
 subject in Maryland history. During the French and 
 Indian Wars every possible pretext for infringement of 
 their liberties was used by the Legislature. Protests were 
 made against their appointment to responsible positions as 
 “favors shown to Catholics”; charges were made in the 
 House that they were in collusion with the French. In 
 1756, when the vote of 40,000 pounds was passed, a 
 double tax was placed upon the lands of the Roman 
 Catholics; their petition to Governor Sharpe to veto the 
 bill and their threats to appeal to the King in Council had 
 
 1 Leonard, Lewis A., Life of Charles Carroll of Carrolton, New York, 
 1918. 
 
938 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 no effect. In the same year it was even proposed in the 
 Assembly to disarm all Roman Catholics in the province 
 and the opposition to this prevailed only by a slender 
 majority of one.! 
 
 During a period of religious persecution in 1773, just on 
 the eve of the Revolution, Charles Carroll thus expressed 
 himself in an open letter which appeared in the Maryland 
 Gazette: 
 
 “T am as averse to having a religion crammed down people’s throats, as 
 a proclamation. These are my political principles, in which I glory; 
 principles not hastily taken up to serve a turn, but which I have always 
 avowed since I became capable of reflection. I bear not the least dislike 
 to the Church of England, though I am not within her pale, nor indeed 
 to any other church; knaves and bigots, of all sects and denominations, 
 I hate and despise. 
 
 ‘For modes of faith let zealous bigots fight, 
 His can’t be wrong, whose life is in the right.’ — Pope. 
 
 Papists are distrusted by the laws, and laid under disabilities. They 
 cannot, I know (ignorant as I am), enjoy any place of profit or trust 
 while they continue Papists; but do these disabilities extend so far as to 
 preclude them from thinking and writing on matters merely of a political 
 nature? Antillon would make a most excellent inquisitor, he has given 
 some striking specimens of an arbitrary temper; the first requisite — He 
 will not allow me freedom of thought or speech . . . . . To what 
 purpose was this threat thrown out, of enforcing the penal statutes by 
 proclamation? Why am I told that my conduct is very inconsistent with 
 the situation of one, who ‘owes even the toleration he enjoys to the favor 
 -of the government?’ If, by instilling prejudices into the governor, and 
 
 . . you can rouse the popular resentment against certain religionists, 
 and thus bring on a persecution, it will then be known whether the toler- 
 ation I enjoy be due to the favor of the government or not. That you 
 have talents admirably well adapted .. . to stoop to the basest, is 
 too true.” 
 
 The Carrolls had been contending for religious freedom 
 in Maryland for years before the Revolution; the gaining of 
 independence imposed on them the greater task of securing 
 
 1 Proceedings of the Maryland Assembly, Sept., 1756; Black, Mary- 
 
 land’s Attitude in the Struggle for Canada, vol. vii, of the tenth series of 
 Johns Hopkins University Studies, pp. 370-371. 
 
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH 239 
 
 from the new federal government a continuance of the 
 war policy of Continental Congress. They were to be 
 largely instrumental in reading into the Federal Constitu- 
 tion a principle of religious freedom drawn from that 
 phrase of the Declaration of Independence that “‘AIl] men 
 are created equal and endowed by their Creator with 
 certain inalienable rights.” 
 
 But before they could work effectively for a recognition 
 of their rights under the new government, it was necessary 
 that they create for themselves centralized national 
 ecclesiastical institutions. The Reverend John Carroll 
 led the movement for an organized American Roman 
 Catholic Church, and it was extremely fortunate both for 
 the church and for the young republic that he did, for he 
 was a man not only versed in the theology and the polity 
 of the church, but also imbued with American principles 
 and feelings. 
 
 Six Roman Catholic priests met at Whitemarsh, 
 Maryland, June 27, 1783, and there drew up a plan of 
 government which they submitted to the priests of Mary- 
 land and Pennsylvania. In the same year a meeting of 
 seven clergymen of the Southern District met at Newton, 
 September 23, and suggested ammendments. Priests of 
 the Middle States, November 6, revised this Plan and 
 Rules but deferred adoption thereof to a future meeting. 
 A committee was appointed to petition the Pope to consti- 
 tute Reverend John Lewis as “Superior” with power to 
 administer confirmation, bless chalices and impart facul- 
 ties to the priests in the mission. The petition read: 
 
 “We . . . . : missionary priests, residing in the Thirteen United 
 States of North America, assembled together from the neighboring 
 stations to take counsel for the good of the missions, our fellow-priests 
 residing in the more remote parts of this mission agreeing herein and 
 
240 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 approving by letter, in our name and in the common name of our breth- 
 ren, with all respect represent to your Holiness, that we, placed under the 
 recent supreme dominion of United America, can no longer have re- 
 course, as formerly, for necessary spiritual jurisdiction to the Bishops and 
 Vicars-Apostolic residing in different and foreign states (for this has very 
 frequently been intimated to us in very positive terms by the rulers of 
 this Republic), nor recognize any one of them as our ecclesiastical 
 Superior, without open offense to this supreme civil magistracy and 
 political government. Wherefore we, placed in this difficult position, 
 have recourse to your Holiness, humbly beseeching you to vouchsafe to 
 confirm anew the ecclesiastical superior whom we now have, namely John 
 Lewis, a priest already approved and confirmed by the Vicar-Apostolic of 
 London, to whom this whole mission was subject before the change of 
 political government, and to delegate to him the power of granting the 
 necessary faculties to priests coming into these missions, as it shall seem 
 expedient; that said superior may delegate this power to at least one or 
 more of the most suitable missionaries as the necessity and distance of 
 time and place may require. 
 
 Moreover, as there is no Bishop in these regions, who can bless the 
 holy oils, of which we were deprived for several years during the con- 
 fusion of the war, no one to bless the chalices and altar stones needed, no 
 one to administer the sacrament of confirmation, we humbly beseech 
 your Holiness to empower the said John Lewis, priest, Superior, to per- 
 form these things in the present necessity, and until otherwise provided 
 for this mission by your Holiness, that our faithful, living in many 
 dangers, may be no longer deprived of the Sacrament of Confirmation nor 
 die without Extreme Unction according to the rite of the Church. 
 
 Moreover, we also pray your Holiness to bestow on this mission the 
 indulgences of the Jubilee, and to extend to the missionaries the ample 
 faculties which may seem seasonable in these vast and remote regions 
 racked by a long bitter war, where on account of the constant military 
 movements, neither the Jubilee on the exaltation of your Holiness to the 
 See of Peter, nor the Jubilee of the year 1775, could be promulgated, 
 much less celebrated or enjoyed. 
 
 This, Most Holy Father, is what we the aforesaid petitioners, mission- 
 ary priests in these regions of the United North America, humbly solicit 
 
 from your Holiness’ supreme wisdom and providence for the good of the 
 Catholic religion.” ! 
 
 John Carroll was commissioned to transmit this petition 
 to the Holy See and in doing so he accompanied it with 
 
 Shea, Life and Times of Archbishop Carroll, vol. ii, pp. 209-210. 
 
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH QA 
 
 the following letter, explanatory of the American situa- 
 tion: 
 
 “You are not ignorant that in these United States our religious 
 system has undergone a revolution, if possible, more extraordinary than 
 our political one. In all of them free toleration is allowed to Christians 
 of every denomination; and particularly in the States of Pennsylvania, 
 Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, a communication of all civil rights, 
 without distinction or diminution, is extended to those of our religion. 
 This is a blessing and advantage which it is our duty to preserve and 
 improve, with the utmost prudence, by demeaning ourselves on all 
 occasions as subjects zealously attached to our government and avoiding 
 to give any jealousies on account of any dependence on foreign juris- 
 dictions more than that which is essential to our religion, an acknowledg- 
 ment of the Pope’s spiritual supremacy over the whole Christian world. 
 You know that we of the clergy have heretofore resorted to the Vicar- 
 Apostolic of the London District for the exercise of spiritual powers, but 
 being well acquainted with the temper of Congress, of our assemblies and 
 the people at large, we are firmly of opinion that we shall not be suffered 
 to continue under such a jurisdiction whenever it becomes known to the 
 public. You may be assured of this from the following fact. The clergy 
 of the Church of England were heretofore subject to the Bishop of 
 London, but the umbrage taken at this dependence was so great, that 
 notwithstanding the power and prevalence of that sect they could find 
 no other method to allay jealousies, than by withdrawing themselves as 
 they have lately done, from all obedience to him. 
 
 Being therefore thus circumstanced, we think it not only advisable in 
 us, but in a manner obligatory, to solicit the Holy See to place the episco- 
 pal powers, at least, such as are most essential, in the hands of one amongst 
 us, whose virtue, knowledge, and integrity of faith, shall be certified by 
 ourselves. We shall annex to this letter such powers as we judge it 
 absolutely necessary he should be invested with. We might add many 
 very cogent reasons for having amongst them, a person thus empowered, 
 and for want of whom it is impossible to conceive the inconvenience 
 happening every day. If it be possible to obtain a grant from Rome 
 vesting these powers in our superior pro tempore, it would be most 
 desirable. We shall endeavor to have you aided in this application by a 
 recommendation, if possible, from our own country and the minister of 
 France. You will know how to avail yourself of so favorable a Russian 
 minister at Rome; and if Mr. Thorpe will be pleased to undertake the 
 management of the business there, we will with cheerfulness and gratitude 
 answer all expenses which he may incur in the prosecution of it. He will 
 be the judge, how and whether the annexed petition ought in prudence to 
 
Q49 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 be presented to His Holiness, but at all events the powers therein con- 
 tained are those which we wish our Superior to be invested with.” 1 
 
 The Memorial of the American Clergy having been 
 referred to the Congregation de Propaganda Fide, the 
 Cardinal Prefect sought more light relative to the American 
 situation. The Apostolic Nuncio wrote John Carroll, May 
 125 1784: 
 
 “The interests of religion, Sir, requiring new arrangements relative to 
 the missions in the United States of North America, the Congregation of 
 the Propaganda direct me to request from you a full statement of the 
 actual condition of those missions. In the meantime, I beg you will 
 inform me what number of missionaries may be necessary to serve them, 
 and furnish spiritual aid to Catholic Christians in the United States; in 
 what provinces there are Catholics, and where there is the greatest 
 number of them; and lastly, if there are among the natives of the country, 
 fit subjects to receive holy orders, and exercise the functions of mission- 
 aries. You will greatly oblige me personally by the attention and industry 
 which you will exercise in procuring for me this information.” 2 
 
 Accompanying this was the following: 
 
 “Extract of a Memorandum. 
 
 1. To have exact statements of the conduct and capacity of the 
 ecclesiastics and missionaries who are in the different states of North 
 America; who among them might be the most worthy, and at the same 
 time, agreeable to the members of the assembly of those provinces to be 
 invested with the character of bishop in partibus, and the quality of 
 Vicar-Apostolic. It is thought that it will be convenient for him to 
 fix his residence where there is the greatest number of Catholics. 
 
 2. If among these ecclesiastics there is a native of the country, and he 
 should be among the most worthy, he should be preferred to all others of 
 equal merit. If otherwise, choice should be made of one from some 
 other nation. In default of a missionary actually residing in those 
 provinces, a Frenchman will be nominated, who will go to establish him- 
 self in America, in the state above designated. 
 
 3. To know the probable number of the ecclesiastics and missionaries, 
 as well as how many that of the Catholics in the different states, and their 
 
 1 Shea, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 211-212, 
 * [bid., vol. ii, p. 221. 
 
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH Q43 
 
 standing would render necessary; we think that it is in Pennsylvania and 
 Maryland there is the greatest number — it would be to the purpose to 
 know if there are also any in the other states. 
 
 4. 'To know whether there are schools in these states where Latin is 
 taught; such that the young men of the country who might wish to 
 prepare for the ecclesiastical state could study their humanities, before 
 passing to France or Rome, there to enter at once on their philosophical 
 and theological studies.” ! 
 
 Without waiting for a reply from John Carroll, the 
 Secretary of the Congregation of the Propaganda pre- 
 sented to the Pope, Pius VI, a report on the Church in the 
 United States and the Sovereign Pontiff ratified the 
 appointment of Reverend John Carroll as Superior of the 
 Mission in the Thirteen United States of North America 
 and conferred upon him the power to administer the 
 sacrament of confirmation during his Superiorship. This 
 decree was issued June 9, 1784 and read: 
 
 “The Sacred Congregation on the report of the Rev. Stephen Borgia, 
 its Secretary, declared Superior of the missions in the thirteen United 
 States of North America, the Rev. John Carroll, secular priest, with 
 authority to exercise the functions which regard the government of the 
 missions, according to the tenor of the decrees of the Sacred Congre- 
 gation, and of the faculties granted to him, and not otherwise, nor in 
 a different manner.” 
 
 ‘Audience of the Most Holy Father, held June 6, 1784. Our Most 
 Holy Father, by divine Providence, Pope Pius VI, on the report of the 
 undersigned, secretary of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, 
 granted to the Rev. John Carroll, Superior of the Mission in the thirteen 
 United States of North America, the faculty of administering the sacra- 
 ment of Confirmation, in the said provinces during his superiorship — 
 the said faculty to be executed in accordance with the rules prescribed in 
 the instruction published by order of the Congregation on the 4th of May, 
 1784. 
 
 SrrEpHEN Borata, Secretary of the Sacred 
 Congregation de prop. fide.” ? 
 
 1Shea, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 221-222; Campbell, Life and Times of 
 Archbishop Carroll; United States Catholic Magazine, vol. iii, p. 378. 
 2 Tbid., vol. ii, p. 224. 
 
Q44 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 British jurisdiction was thus officially terminated for 
 the Roman Catholic Church in the United States and a 
 native American officially appointed to undertake its 
 direction. The formal announcement of his appointment 
 which reached John Carroll, through Dr. Franklin, 
 November 26, 1784, eontained the statement that he had 
 been appointed, among other reasons, “to please and 
 gratily many members of the Republic and especially 
 Mr. Franklin, the eminent individual who represents the 
 same Republic at the Court of the Most Christian King.’’? 
 
 This appointment had been made without any considera- 
 tion of the wishes of the American priests. When the 
 Chapter opened its first session, October 11, 1784, John 
 Carroll attended as a simple delegate; no official notice 
 of his promotion was taken. The important action of this 
 Chapter was the adoption of “The Form of Government % 
 and the “Rules for the particular Government of Mem- 
 bers belonging to the Body of the Clergy,”’ thus com- 
 pleting the work inaugurated at the Whitemarsh gathering. 
 This new government was declared to be “binding on 
 all persons, at present composing the Body of the Clergy 
 in Maryland and Pennsylvania.”’ The Rev. John Aston 
 was elected Procurator General of the Chapter. 
 
 Under the new system, the priests in Maryland and 
 Pennsylvania were to form a body corporate to hold, until 
 the restoration of the Society of Jesus, the property formerly 
 held in the names of individual members of that order. 
 The affairs of the corporation were to be managed by a 
 chapter composed of two deputies from each of the three 
 districts, to be chosen by the priests belonging to the 
 corporation stationed therein. 
 
 The Chapter was to meet every three years, and was to 
 
 1 Shea, op. cit., vol. ii, p, 244. 
 
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH DAS 
 
 appoint a Procurator-General, who was to take general 
 charge of the property. It was empowered to make 
 rules, which were to take effect only when approved by the 
 districts or at a subsequent meeting of the Chapter. It 
 could hear and determine complaints and appeals. At 
 the triennial meeting the Procurator-General was to report 
 on the condition of each estate, so that the Chapter might 
 examine into the general state of its temporal affairs. 
 
 The self-governing character of the Chapter is shown 
 in the following articles: 
 
 “XIII. When any person not before incorporated into the Body of 
 the Clergy desires to be admitted therein, the Superior in Spiritualibus 
 on being well certified of his doctrine, morals and sufficient learning, shall 
 propose him to the members of Chapter of the district where his services 
 are wanted, and in case of his being accepted by them, some member of 
 Chapter in that district shall lay before him the general regulations of the 
 Body of Clergy, and require him to sign his submission thereunto: direct 
 him to repair to the place allotted for his residence. But if the members 
 of Chapter do not agree to receive him into their district, then the 
 said Superior is to propose him to any other where there is need, and 
 proceed in the same manner as above. If no district will admit him, he is 
 to be informed, that he does not belong to the Body of Clergy, that he 
 owes no services to, and consequently is not entitled to any provision 
 from them; and when any member of the Body of Clergy through 
 discontent leaves his former place of residence without the approbation 
 of lawful authority and applies for another place he is not to be imposed 
 on any district without their consent expressed by the members of 
 Chapter.” 
 
 Priests seeking admission into the Body of the Clergy were 
 required to subscribe to the following formula: 
 
 “T promise to conform myself to the forms and regulations established 
 for the government of the clergy residing in Maryland and Pennsylvania 
 so long as I expect maintenance and support from them.” 
 
 XIV. With respect to members actually forming part of the Body 
 of the Clergy there shall be no arbitrary power of removing them at will, 
 or for greater convenience; but when a vacancy happens which the good 
 of religion requires to be supplied, the members of Chapter of the district 
 in which the vacancy lies, shall endeavor to prevail upon the person they 
 
246 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 judge fittest to accept of the vacant charge, application having been 
 first made to the Superior in Spiritualibus. 
 
 XVI. When the Superior in Spiritualibus has withdrawn his faculties 
 from any clergyman, on account of his misconduct or irregularity of life, 
 the Procurator-General shall have power to deprive him of any mainte- 
 nance from the estates of the clergy. 
 
 XIX. The person invested with spiritual jurisdiction in the country 
 shall not in that quality have any power over or in the temporal prop- 
 erty of the clergy.” ! 
 
 The Superior in Spirituals was, however, to receive from 
 the Chapter an annual salary of one hundred pounds, with 
 a servant, a chaise, and a horse. 
 
 Tt was decided and a committee was appointed to draw 
 up a pelition to the Pope that a “bishop is at present 
 unnecessary,” but that a superior with power to give 
 confirmation, bless oils, grant faculties and dispensations, 
 was sufficient; and they resolved: 
 
 “That if one (bishop) be sent it is decided by the majority of the 
 Chapter, that he shall not be entitled to any support from the present 
 estates of the clergy.” ? 
 
 It is clear that the American clergy aimed at an indepen- 
 dent control of their own membership and finances. One 
 of the bitterest controversies of the early American church 
 was to arise over this issue.? 
 
 Though the Rev. John Carroll accepted his appoint- 
 ment when it reached him, November 26, 1784, it was 
 not until after he had carefully weighed the important 
 points at issue. 
 
 Accompanying the appointment was the following 
 letter from Cardinal Antonelli, dated June 9, 1784: 
 
 “In order to preserve and defend Catholicity in the Thirteen United 
 
 States of North America, the Supreme Pontiff of the Church, Pius VI., 
 and his Sacred Congregation, have thought it extremely proper to desig- 
 
 | Shea, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 239-241. 
 2 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 242. 
 3 Infra., pp. 253-254. 
 
eS “ec 
 
 THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH Q47 
 
 nate a pastor who should, permanently and independently of any ecclesi- 
 astical power, except the same Sacred Congregation, attend to the 
 spiritual necessities of the Catholic flock. In the appointment of such a 
 pastor, the Sacred Congregation would have readily cast its eyes on the 
 Rev. John Lewis if his advanced age and the labors he has already under- 
 gone in the vineyard of the Lord, had not deterred it from imposing on 
 him, a new and very heavy burden; for he seems to require repose rather 
 than arduous labor. As then, Rev. Sir, you have given conspicuous proofs 
 of piety and zeal, and itis known that your appointment will please and 
 gratify many members of that Republic, and especially Mr. Franklin, 
 the eminent individual who represents the same Republic at the court of 
 the Most Christian King, the Sacred Congregation, with the approbation 
 of his Holiness, has appointed you Superior of the Mission in the Thirteen 
 United States of North America, and has communicated to you the 
 faculties, which are necessary to the discharge of that office; faculties 
 which are also communicated to the other priests of the same States, ex- 
 cept the administration of confirmation which is reserved for you alone, 
 as the enclosed documents will show. 
 
 These arrangements are meant to be only temporary. For it is the 
 intention of his Holiness soon to charge a Vicar-Apostolic, invested with 
 the title and character of bishop, with the care of those states, that he 
 may attend to ordination and other episcopal functions. But, to accom- 
 plish this design, it is of great importance that we should be made ac- 
 quainted with the state of the orthodox religion in those thirteen states. 
 Therefore we request you to forward to us, as soon as possible, a correct 
 report, stating carefully the number of Catholics in each state; what is 
 their condition, their piety and what abuses exist; also how many mission- 
 ary priests labor now in this vineyard of the Lord; what are their qualifi- 
 cations, their zeal, their mode of support. For though the Sacred 
 Congregation wish not to meddle with temporal things, it is important 
 for the establishment of laborers, that we should know what are the 
 ecclesiastical revenues, if any there are, and it is believed there are some. 
 In the meantime for fear the want of missionaries should deprive the 
 Catholics of spiritual assistance, it has been resolved to invite hither two 
 youths from the states of Maryland and Pennsylvania, to educate them 
 at the expense of the Sacred Congregation in the Urban College; they will 
 afterwards, on returning to their country, be substitutes in the mission. 
 We leave to your solicitude the care of selecting and sending them . 
 Such are the things I had to signify to you; and whilst I am confident you 
 will discharge the office committed to you with all zeal, solicitude and 
 fidelity, and more than answer the high opinion we have formed of you, 
 I pray God that He may grant you all peace and happiness.” * 
 
 1 Shea, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 243-245. 
 
QAS NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 American Catholics were very much disturbed over the 
 character of this appointment. They disliked the tempo- 
 rary nature of the arrangement, the absolute dependence 
 on the Society of the Propagation of the Faith, and the 
 extremely limited powers granted to the Superior. The 
 American way called for complete independence from any 
 foreign jurisdiction, even dependence on the Sacred 
 Congregation might give offence to ultra-Americans. 
 
 John Carroll expressed his disquietude over these 
 matters in a circular letter, the first which he prepared for 
 the priests of America. He discusses at length the de- 
 pendence on the Propaganda: 2 
 
 “T consider powers issued from the Propaganda, not only as improper, 
 but dangerous here. The jealousy in our governments of the interference 
 _ of any foreign jurisdiction is known to be such, that we cannot expect, 
 and in my opinion, ought not to wish that they would tolerate any other 
 than that which being purely spiritual, is essential to our Religion, to 
 wit, an acknowledgment of the Pope’s spiritual supremacy, and of the 
 See of St. Peter being the centre of the Ecclesiastical Unity. The ap- 
 pointment, therefore, by the Propaganda of a Superior for this country, 
 appears to be a dangerous step, and by exciting the jealousy of the 
 government here, may tend much to the prejudice of Religion, and 
 perhaps expose it to the reproach of encouraging a dependence on a 
 foreign power, and giving them an undue internal influence by leaving 
 with them a prerogative to nominate to places of trust and real import- 
 ance, and that ‘ad suum beneplacitum’. 
 
 The Congregation of the Propaganda, if I understand its institution, 
 was’ formed only for the government and superiptendence of missions, 
 etc.; and I observe, that they affect in their commission to me and other 
 acts, to call our ecclesiastical state here a mission; and the laborers therein 
 missioners. Perhaps this denomination was heretofore proper enough; 
 but it cannot now be so deemed. By the constitution, our religion has 
 acquired equal rights and privileges with that of other Christians; 
 we form not a fluctuating body of laborers in Christ’s vineyard, sent 
 hither and removable at the will of a Superior, but a permanent body of 
 national clergy, with sufficient powers to form our own system of internal 
 government, and I think, to choose our own superior and a very just 
 claim to have all necessary spiritual authority communicated to him, on 
 his being presented as regularly and canonically chosen by us. We have 
 
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH Q49 
 
 further a reasonable prospect, which I soon hope to see realized, of form- 
 ing an establishment for educating and perpetuating a succession of 
 clergy among ourselves; and as soon as that measure is in a promising 
 forwardness, we shall have a right to a diocesan Bishop of our own choice. 
 (Steps were taken for the organization of Georgetown University in 
 1786.) “Ought not the immense territory possessed by the United States 
 to have an Ecclesiastical Superior as independent as the Bishop of 
 Quebec?’ says one of our zealous friends in England. 
 
 I am, moreover, advised by Cardinal Antonelli, that his Holiness 
 intends to appoint hereafter (but no term mentioned or even insinuated) 
 a Vicar-Apostolic with Episcopal character, and with such powers as 
 may exempt this country from every other ecclesiastical dependence, 
 beside that on the aforesaid Congregation. But not the slightest intima- 
 tion is given of the person designed for that preferment. 
 
 We shall in a few years stand in absolute need ofa Bishop, but that of 
 a Bishop Vicar-Apostolic would give great umbrage, on account of 
 his entire dependence, both for his station and conduct, on a foreign 
 jurisdiction; he must be a diocesan Bishop, and his appointment must 
 come neither from his Holiness, for that would create more jealousy in 
 our government, than even in France, Germany or Spain, nor from the 
 Assemblies or different Executives . . . . . but he should be chosen 
 by the Catholic clergy themselves.” ! 
 
 Urged to do so by his fellow-Catholics in America, Rev. 
 John Carroll decided to accept the appointment but in so 
 doing he was not one to conceal from his superiors the 
 views which he held and which he had already expressed 
 to his subordinates. February 27, 1785, he wrote a long 
 personal letter to Cardinal Antonelli, explaining why “no 
 Vicar Apostolic dependent on the pleasure of the Sacred 
 Congregation (should) ever be appointed for Republican 
 America.” Accompanying this letter was the Relation on 
 the State of Religion in the United States which the Cardinal 
 had requested. 
 
 In his letter he was careful to point out that nothing 
 should be done for the Church in the United States until 
 the actual conditions were clearly understood. The 
 
 1 Carroll, Very Rev. J., Draught of a Circular Letter Announcing his 
 Appointment as Prefect; Shea, op. cit., vol. 11, pp. 249-251. 
 
250 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Revolution had emancipated the Catholics of America. 
 “In most places, however,” he wrote, “they are not ad- 
 mitted to any office in the State unless they renounce 
 all foreign jurisdiction, civil or ecclesiastical.’’ Then he 
 continues: 
 
 “But how long we are to enjoy the benefits of this toleration or equal 
 rights, I would not dare to assert. Many of our people especially in Mary- 
 land, fear that we shall be absolutely excluded from holding office; for 
 my own part, I have deemed it wiser not to anticipate evils, but to bear 
 them when they come. I cherish the hope that so great a wrong will not 
 be done us; nay more I trust that the foundations of religion will be so 
 firmly laid in the United States, that a most flourishing part of the 
 Church will in time be developed here, to the great consolation of the 
 Holy See. 
 
 The Church of England had been the dominant body, directed by 
 ministers dependent on the Bishop of London, but after the war they 
 were not allowed to depend on an English or any foreign bishop. They 
 were free to appoint and elect bishops of their own, as they had in fact 
 done, although none had yet been consecrated according to their rites. 
 They have adopted a form of government for their church, and desire it to 
 be called and to be national, in that it admits no foreign Superior, that 
 they may be freed from such fear for the future as many Catholics felt. 
 
 - . .. . . The Catholic body . ... . think that some favor 
 should be granted to them by the Holy Father, necessary for their 
 permanent enjoyment of the civil rights which they now enjoy, and to 
 avert dangers which they fear. From what I have said, and from the 
 framework of public affairs here, your Eminence must see how objection- 
 able all foreign jurisdiction will be to them. The Catholics therefore de- 
 _ sire that no pretext be given to the enemies of our religion to accuse us of 
 depending unnecessarily on a foreign authority; and that some plan 
 may be adopted by which hereafter an ecclesiastical Superior may be 
 appointed for this country, in such a way as to retain absolutely the 
 spiritual jurisdiction of the Holy See, and at the same time remove all 
 ground of objecting to us, as though we held anything hostile to the 
 national independence. Many of the leading Catholics thought of laying 
 this before his Holiness in a general Memorial, especially those who have 
 been either in the Continental Congress or the legislature of Pennsylvania 
 and Maryland: but I induced them to refrain from any such step at 
 least for the present. The Holy Father will perhaps see more clearly 
 what is to be done in this matter, if he considers the Sixth of the Articles 
 of perpetual Confederation between the States, which enacts that no 
 
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH 251 
 
 one who holds any office under the United States, shall be allowed to 
 receive any gift, office or title of any kind whatsoever from any king, 
 prince or foreign government, and though this prohibition seems to ex- 
 tend only to those who are appointed to offices in the republic, it will 
 perhaps be wrested by our opponents to apply also to ecclesiastical 
 offices. 
 
 We desire therefore, Most Eminent Cardinal, to provide in every way, 
 that the faith in its integrity, due obedience towards the Apostolic See 
 and perfect union should flourish, and at the same time that whatever 
 can with safety to religion be granted, shall be conceded to American 
 Catholics in ecclesiastical government; in this way we hope that the 
 distrust of Protestants now full of suspicion will be diminished, and that 
 thus our affairs can be solidly established. 
 
 You have indicated, Most Eminent Cardinal, that it was the intention 
 and design of His Holiness to appoint a Vicar-Apostolic for these States, 
 invested with the episcopal character and title. While this paternal 
 solicitude for us has filled us with great joy, it also at first inspired some 
 fear; for we knew that heretofore American Protestants never could be 
 induced to allow even a Bishop of their own sect, when the attempt was 
 made during the subjection of these provinces to the King of England; 
 hence a fear arose that we would not be permitted to have one. But some 
 months since in a convention of Protestant ministers of the Anglican, or, 
 as it is here called, the Episcopal Church, they decreed, that as by author- 
 ity of law they enjoyed the full exercise of their religion, they therefore 
 had the right of appointing for themselves, such ministers of holy things, 
 as the system and discipline of this sect required; namely bishops, 
 priests, and deacons; this decision on their part was not censured by the 
 Congress appointed to frame our laws. As the same liberty in the exercise 
 of religion is granted to us, it necessarily follows that we enjoy the same 
 right in regard to adopting laws for our government. 
 
 While the matter stands thus, the Holy Father will decide, and you, 
 Most Eminent Cardinal, will consider whether the time is now opportune 
 for appointing a bishop, what his qualifications should be, and how 
 he should be nominated. On all these points, not as if seeking to obtain 
 my own judgment, but to make this relation more ample, I shall note a 
 few facts. 
 
 First, as regards the seasonableness of the step, it may be noted, that 
 there will be no excitement in the public mind, if a bishop be appointed, 
 as Protestants think of appointing one for themselves; nay, they even 
 hope to acquire some importance for their sect among the people from 
 the episcopal dignity; so too we trust that we shall not only acquire the 
 same, but that great advantages will follow; inasmuch as this church will 
 then be governed in that manner which Christ our Lord instituted. On 
 
952 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 the other hand, however, it occurs that as the Most Holy Father has 
 already deigned to provide otherwise for conferring the sacrament of 
 confirmation, there is no actual need for the appointment of a bishop, 
 until some candidates are found fitted to receive holy orders; this we hope 
 will be the case in a few years, as you will understand, Most Eminent 
 Cardinal, from a special relation which I purpose writing. When the 
 time comes, we shall perhaps be better able to make a suitable provision 
 for a bishop, than from our ‘Slender resources we can now do. 
 
 In the next place, if it shall seem best to his Holiness to assign a bishop 
 to this country, will it be best to appoint a Vicar-Apostolic or an ordinary 
 with a see of his own? Which will conduce more to the progress of 
 Catholicity, which will contribute most to remove Protestant jealousy of 
 foreign jurisdiction? I know with certainty that this fear will increase 
 if they know that an ecclesiastical superior is so appointed as to be re- 
 movable from office at the pleasure of the Sacred Congregation ‘de 
 Propaganda Fide’, or any other tribunal out of the country, or that he 
 has no power to admit any priest to exercise the sacred function, unless 
 that Congregation has approved and sent him to us. 
 
 As to the method of nominating a bishop, I will say no more, at 
 present, than this, that we are imploring God in his wisdom and mercy 
 to guide the judgment of the Holy See, that if it does not seem proper to 
 allow the priests who have labored for so many years in this vineyard of 
 the Lord to propose to the Holy See, the one whom they deem most fit, 
 that some method will be adopted by which a bad feeling may not be 
 excited among the people of this country, Catholic and Protestant.” ! 
 
 In the Relation on the State of Religion in the United States, 
 which accompanied this letter, John Carroll reported that 
 there were 15,800 Catholics in Maryland, 1,500 in New 
 York, 7,000 in Pennsylvania, and 200 in Virginia. The 
 number in the Mississippi territory was unascertainable. 
 Formerly they had been under the jurisdiction of the Bishop 
 of Quebec. “I donot know,” writes Carroll, “‘whether he 
 wishes to exercise any authority there now that all these 
 parts are subject to the United States. The small number 
 of priests is cause why the Catholics here cannot attend 
 worship, receive the sacraments, hear the Word of God, as 
 frequently as they should, or as is customary in Europe. 
 
 1 Shea, op. cit., vol. 11, pp. 251-256. 
 
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH 953 
 
 There are nineteen priests in Maryland and five in Penn- 
 sylvania. They are maintained chiefly from the proceeds 
 of the estates held by the clerical corporation. There is 
 no ecclesiastical property held by the church as such.”’! 
 
 Thus John Carroll accepted his “very delicate” and 
 ‘very laborious” position. So fearful was he that trouble 
 would arise if its nature were public property that he did 
 not publish the documents relative thereto but communi- 
 cated them to the priests in each district. 
 
 In reply to Dr. Carroll’s communications, Cardinal 
 Antonelli informed him in a letter dated July 23, 1785, that 
 it had been the intention of the Pope to appoint him as the 
 first bishop. The erection of a Vicariate or See was, 
 however, in accordance with the wishes of the American 
 clergy, deferred, and they were to be permitted to nominate 
 their candidate.” 
 
 The Very Rev. John Carroll went about his visitation. 
 The General Chapter at its meeting at Whitemarsh, 
 November 13, 1786, adopted resolution concerning the 
 institution of a school, the first step toward the founda- 
 tion of Georgetown College.? This meeting also decided 
 that a diocesan Bishop, depending directly on the Holy 
 See, was alone suited to the American Church and that the 
 selection ought to be made by the clergy on the mission. 
 
 In 1787 a conflict arose in New York to vex the domestic 
 calm of the American Catholic Church. The Catholics of 
 New York City, then the capital of the United States, in- 
 cluding the Catholics of the Spanish and French legation, 
 had been incorporated in 1785 as the “Trustees of the 
 Roman Catholic Church in the City of New York,” 
 
 6 
 
 1 Shea, op. cit., vol. u, pp. 257-261. 
 PI bideevolei, pixie o- 
 3 Thid., vol. u, pp. 301-303. 
 
Q54 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 and had erected a church in Barclay Street. Then they 
 placed in charge thereof a priest of their own selection. 
 They held that the congregation had the right not only to 
 choose its pastor but to dismiss him at pleasure, and that 
 the ecclesiastical superior had not the right to interfere. 
 In taking this stand, they lost sight of the contervailing 
 principle, that if they had a right to do as they would with 
 their building, the bishop, as representative of the supreme 
 authority in the church, had a like right to do as he would 
 with his clergy. The building was theirs, but the superior 
 controlled the clergy and communion; these had not been 
 brought under local authority. Superior Carroll wrote to 
 the trustees of the New York church: 
 
 “Tf ever such principles (as yours) should become predominant, 
 the unity and catholicity of our church would be at an end: and it would 
 be formed into distinct and independent societies, nearly in the same 
 manner as the Congregational Presbyterians. Your misconception is 
 that the officiating clergyman at New York is a parish priest, whereas 
 there is yet no such office in the United States. I cannot tell what 
 assistance the laws might give you; but allow me to say that you can 
 
 take no step so fatal to that responsibility in which as a religious society 
 you wish to stand, or more prejudicial to the Catholic cause.” 
 
 Accordingly Dr. Carroll removed the offending priest 
 and restored order in the New York congregation. When 
 he laid the matter before the Body of the Clergy it became 
 evident that it was now time to solicit a bishop and the 
 erection of a see in America. The following petition was 
 prepared, addressed to the Most Holy Father: 
 
 “We, the undersigned, petitioners approaching the Apostolic See with 
 all due veneration, and prostrate at the feet of your Holiness, humbly set 
 forth the following: That we are priests who have been specially deputed 
 by our fellow priests, exercising with us the religious ministry in the 
 United States of America, in order that we may, in the first place, return 
 unbounded thanks to your Holiness for the truly paternal care, which 
 you have deigned to extend to this remote part of the Lord’s vineyard; 
 
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH 955 
 
 and in the next place, to mainifest that we all had been stimulated by this 
 great care, to continue and increase our labors to preserve and extend the 
 faith of Christ our Lord, in these States, which are filled with the errors of 
 all the sects. In doing so, we are convinced that we not only render meet 
 service to God, but also render a pleasing and acceptable homage to 
 common Father of the faithful . 
 
 . Inasmuch as his Eminence Cardinal Antonelli intimated to 
 one of your petitioners, in a letter dated July 23, 1785, that it was the 
 design of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide to appoint a 
 Bishop, Vicar-Apostolic, for these States as soon as possible, whenever 
 the said Sacred Congregation understood that this would be seasonable, 
 and desired to be informed as to the suitable time for that appointment, 
 by the priest to whom the said letter was addressed, we declare, not he 
 only but we in the common name of all the priests laboring here, Most 
 Holy Father, that in our opinion the time has now come when the Episco- 
 pal dignity and authority are very greatly desired. To omit other very 
 grave reasons, we experience more and more in the constitution of this 
 very free republic, that if there are even among the ministers of the 
 sanctuary, any men of indocile mind, and chafing under ecclesiastical 
 discipline, they allege as an excuse for their license and disobedience, that 
 they are bound to obey bishops exercising their own authority and not a 
 mere priest exercising any vicarious jurisdiction. This was the boast of 
 the men who recently at New York sought to throw off the yoke of 
 authority, and alleged this pretext, which seemed most likely to catch the 
 favor of Protestants, in that more than in any other State, contending 
 forsooth that the authority of the ecclesiastical superior whom the 
 Sacred Congregation has appointed for us, was forbidden by law, because 
 it not only emanates from a foreign tribunal, but is also dependent on it 
 for its duration and exercise. We refrain from setting out all this more 
 at length to your Holiness, inasmuch as we have learned that certain 
 original documents have been transmitted to Rome, from which it can 
 be more clearly seen, with what powers the person should be invested, 
 to whom the ecclesiastical government of those States is confided. 
 
 With this view, we represent to the Supreme Pastor of the faithful on 
 earth, that all the grounds on which the authority of the Superior as now 
 constituted may be rendered odious, will have equal weight against a 
 bishop to whom the powers of a vicar and not of an ordinary, are granted. 
 
 Therefore, Most Holy Father, we express in the name and by the wish 
 of all, our opinion that the political and religious condition of these states 
 requires that form of ecclesiastical government, by which provision may 
 be most efficaciously made in the first place for the integrity of faith and 
 morals, and consequently for perpetual union with the Apostolic See, and 
 due respect and obedience towards the same, and in the next place, that 
 
256 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 if any bishop is assigned to us, his appointment and authority may be 
 rendered as free as possible from suspicion and odium to those among 
 whom we live. Two points, it seems to us, will contribute greatly to this 
 end; first, that the Most Holy Father, by his authority in the Church of 
 Christ, erect a new episcopal see in these United States, immediately 
 subject to the Holy See; in the next place, that the election of the 
 bishop, at least for the first time, be permitted to the priests, who now 
 duly exercise the religious ministry here and have the cure of souls. 
 This being established, your most vigilant wisdom, Most Holy Father, 
 after hearing the opinions of our priests of approved life and experience, 
 and considering the character of our government, will adopt some course 
 by which future elections may be permanently conducted.” 
 
 This petition was promptly acted upon and Dr. Carroll 
 could write to his friend, Rev. Charles Plowden: 
 
 “Communicating freely with you as I do, you would not forgive me, 
 were I to omit informing you, that a grant had been made to allow our 
 officiating clergy to choose one of their body, as bishop; and it is left to 
 our determination whether he shall be an ordinary taking title from some 
 town of our appointment, or a titular bishop, by which I understand, a 
 bishop constituted over a country without the designation of any particu- 
 lar See.’ 2 
 
 Cardinal Antonelli’s letter was as follows, J uly 12, 1788: 
 
 “Inasmuch as all the laborers in this vineyard of the Lord agree in 
 this, that the appointment of one bishop seems absolutely necessary to 
 retain priests in duty and to propagate more widely piety and religion — 
 a bishop who can preside over the flock of Christians scattered through 
 these States of Confederate America, and rule and govern them with the 
 authority of an ordinary, Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius VI, with the 
 advice of this holy congregation, has most benignly decided that a 
 favorable consent should be given to your vows and petitions. By you 
 therefore, it is first to be examined in what city this episcopal see ought 
 to be erected, and whether the title of the bishopric is to be taken from 
 the place of the see, or whether a titular bishop only should be established. 
 This having been done, his Holiness as a special favor and for this first 
 time, permits the priests who at the present time duly exercise the minis- 
 try of the Catholic religion and have care of souls to elect as bishop a 
 person eminent in piety, prudence, and zeal for the faith, from the said 
 clergy, and present him to the Apostolic See to obtain confirmation. And 
 the Sacred Congregation does not doubt but that you will discharge this 
 
 1 Shea, vol. ii, pp. 326-329. 
 *Tbid., op.,cit., Vol, ii, p2333. 
 
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH Q57 
 
 matter with becoming circumspection, and it hopes that this whole 
 flock will derive not only great benefit but also great consolation from 
 this episcopate. It will then be for you to decide both the proper designa- 
 tion of a see, and the election of a bishop, that the matter may be further 
 proceeded with.” ! 
 
 A meeting of the Body of the Clergy at Whitemarsh, 
 New Jersey, cast twenty-four of its twenty-six votes for 
 John Carroll as first bishop in the United States. It de- 
 cided on Baltimore as the See. On September 14, 1789, the 
 Cardinals constituting the Sacred Congregation, after 
 reading the letter of the American clergy selecting Balti- 
 more as the See, and the Very Rev. John Carroll as their 
 choice for Bishop, approved the nomination. They so 
 formally reported to the Pope on the seventeenth. Pope 
 Pius VI issued a Bull to this effect, November 6, 1789: 
 
 “We... . . having nothing more at heart than to ensure success 
 to whatever tends to the propagation of true religion, and to the honor 
 and increase of the Catholic Church, by the plenitude of our apostolic 
 power, and by the tenor of these presents, do establish and erect the . 
 town of Baltimore into an Episcopal See forever, for one Bishop to be 
 chosen by us in all future vacancies; and we, therefore, by the apostolic 
 authority aforesaid, do allow, grant and permit to the Bishop of the said 
 city and to his successors in all future times, to exercise episcopal power 
 and jurisdiction, and every other episcopal function which Bishops 
 constituted in other places are empowered to hold and enjoy in their 
 respective churches, cities and dioceses, by right, custom, or by other 
 means, by general privileges, graces, indults and apostolical dispensa- 
 tions, together with all preeminences, honors, immunities, graces and 
 favors, which other Cathedral Churches, by right or custom, or in any 
 other sort, have, hold and enjoy. We moreover decree and declare the 
 said Episcopal See thus erected to be subject or suffragan to no Metro- 
 politan right or jurisdiction, but to be forever subject, immediately to 
 us and to our successors the Roman Pontiffs, and to this Apostolic See. 
 And till another opportunity shall be presented to us of establishing 
 other Catholic Bishops in the United States of America, and till other 
 dispositions shall be made by this Apostolic See, We declare, by our 
 apostolic authority, all the faithful of Christ, living in Catholic com- 
 munion, as well ecclesiastics as seculars, and all the clergy and people 
 
 1 Shea, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 333-334. 
 
258 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 dwelling in the aforesaid United States of America, though hitherto 
 they may have been subject to other Bishops of other dioceses, to be 
 henceforward subject to the Bishop of Baltimore in all future times; 
 And whereas by special grant, and for this first time only, we have allowed 
 the priests to elect a person to be appointed Bishop by us, and almost 
 all their votes have been given to our beloved son, John Carroll, Priest; 
 We being otherwise certified of his faith, prudence, piety and zeal, for as 
 much as by our mandate he hath during the late years directed the 
 spiritual government of souls, do therefore by the plenitude of our 
 authority, declare, create, appoint and constitute the said John Carroll, 
 Bishop and Pastor of the said Church of Baltimore, granting to him the 
 faculty of receiving the rite of consecration from any Catholic bishop 
 holding communion with the Apostolic See, assisted by two ecclesiastics, 
 vested with some dignity, in case that two bishops cannot be had, first 
 having taken the usual oath according to the Roman Pontifical. 
 
 And we commission the said Bishop elect to erect a church in the said 
 city of Baltimore, in form of a Cathedral Church, inasmuch as the times 
 and circumstances may allow, to institute a body of clergy deputed to 
 divine worship, and to the service of said church, and moreover to estab- 
 lish an episcopal seminary, either in the same city or elsewhere, as he 
 shall judge most expedient, to administer ecclesiastical incomes, and to 
 execute all other things which he shall think in the Lord to be expedient 
 for the increase of Catholic faith and the augmentation of the worship 
 and splendor of the new erected church. We moreover enjoin the said 
 Bishop to obey the injunctions of our venerable brethren, the Cardinals 
 Directors of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, to transmit to 
 them at proper times a relation of his visitation of his church, and to in- 
 form them of all things which he shall judge to be useful to the spiritual 
 good and salvation of the flock trusted to his charge. We therefore 
 decree that these our letters are and ever shall be firm, valid and effica- 
 cious, and shall obtain their full and entire effect; and be observed 
 inviolable by all persons whom it now doth or hereafter may concern; and 
 that all judges ordinary and delegated, even auditors of causes of the 
 sacred apostolical palace, and Cardinals of the holy Roman Church, must 
 thus judge and define, depriving all and each of them of all power and 
 authority to judge or interpret in any other manner, and declaring all to 
 be null and void, if any one, by any authority should presume, either 
 knowingly or unknowingly, to attempt anything contrary thereunto. 
 Notwithstanding all apostolical, general or special constitutions and 
 ordinances, published in universal, provincial and synodical councils, 
 and all things contrary whatsoever.” ! 
 
 ' Shea, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 337-343; A Short Account of the Establish- 
 
 ment of the new See of Baltimore, in Maryland, and of consecrating the 
 Right Rev. Dr. John Carroll, etc. London, 1790. 
 
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH 259 
 
 Dr. Carroll accepted the new responsibilities of the 
 appointment and proceeded to England where he was 
 consecrated in the chapel of Lulworth Castle, August 
 15, 1790. The Rev. Charles Plowden preached the sermon 
 of the day wherein he sat forth that “the earliest and 
 most precious fruit’ of the American Revolution, “had 
 been the extension of the kingdom of Christ, the propaga- 
 tion of the Catholic religion, which, heretofore fettered by 
 restraining laws, is now enlarged from bondage, and 1s left 
 at liberty to exert the full energy of divine truth.’’! 
 Certainly the Catholics of the United States were now in 
 a more favorable position than were their fellow-Catholics 
 in England, where they still remained under the direction 
 of Vicars-Apostolic. 
 
 On September 27, 1791, Bishop Carroll officially sum- 
 moned the priests of his diocese to a convocation, and 
 November 7, 1791, he opened the first Synod. Here 
 statutes were adopted relative to baptism, confirmation, 
 holy eucharist, collections, charity, instruction, penance, 
 matrimony and extreme unction. Regulations were also 
 drawn up for divine offices, and for the life and support 
 of the clergy. The acts of this Synod form the first body 
 of laws adopted for the government of the Roman Cath- 
 olic Church in this country. 
 
 1 Shea, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 361. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE 
 UNITED STATES 
 
 The making of a constitution for the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States of America, was less the 
 work of a single individual than was the case with most 
 of the other denominations; rather, it was effected through 
 the agency of certain powerful committees composed of the 
 leaders of American Presbyterianism. The church was 
 possessed of many well-educated and prominent leaders 
 such as: President John Witherspoon of the College of 
 New Jersey; John Rodgers of New York, probably the 
 most popular minister in the American church; Dr. 
 Ewing of Philadelphia, Provost of the University of 
 Pennsylvania; Dr. George Duffield of Philadelphia, a 
 Chaplain of Continental Congress; Dr. Patrick Alison of 
 Baltimore; Dr. Alexander McWhorter of Newark; Latta, 
 Smith, Blair, Wilson, Balch, and others. Dr. Witherspoon 
 was the most prominent of the group because of the 
 combination of ancestry, education and position. Breed 
 says of him, “‘He saw the Presbyterian church organized on 
 a national basis.”' Committee responsibility is one of 
 the striking features of constitution-making with American 
 Presbyterianism. 
 
 Because of the unanimity with which this denomination 
 had supported the American cause of independence its 
 movement for ecclesiastical nationalism was much simpler 
 than that of most sects. There was enthusiasm for an 
 
 1 Breed, Witherspoon, p. 78. 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 261 
 
 independent American church, though there developed 
 strenuous objection to unification through centralization. 
 This arose largely because the proposed General Assembly 
 was an innovation: and even the former synodical govern- 
 ment had tended to override its strictly delegated powers. 
 The demand for nationalization was so strong that it 
 triumphed. All that the opponents of a strongly central- 
 ized church organization could do was to strive to modify 
 the demands of the federalist through pleas for the 
 preservation of some of the traditional local autonomy. 
 
 An American ministry had grown up, largely educated 
 in American Colleges, and filled with the distinctive spirit 
 of America. In fact the union of the various national 
 elements in the American ministry even tended to a 
 distinctly new American type. DeWitt finds that: 
 
 “The formation of a national General Assembly under the constitution 
 of the Church was the product of the very spirit that governed the 
 Constitutional Convention of the Colonies, which met in the same city 
 during the same period. The Presbyterian ministers of 1789, brought 
 
 this national spirit into the councils of the church. It dominated and 
 even depressed . . .. . local and ancestral pride.” 4 
 
 This American spirit stood for the widest ecclesiastical 
 liberty. When they came to change the political sections 
 of the Westminister Confession, they recognized the civil 
 magistrates only as protectors of the church and they | 
 expunged that phrase from the catechism which asserted 
 that ‘“‘to tolerate a false religion” was a sin forbidden in 
 the second commandment. This was adding a new spirit - 
 to Presbyterianism, and the problem of the various con- 
 ventions was to maintain that this was in the interest of the 
 true faith. 
 
 1 DeWitt, The First General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States of America, p. 20. 
 
262 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 To survive in the midst of independent, competitive 
 denominations organization was essential. A minute of the 
 Synod of 1787, May 18, gives strength and unity against 
 other sects, as the cause for reorganization: 
 
 “We are all members one of another; there should be no schism in the 
 body, but we should comfort, encourage and strengthen one another by 
 the firmest union in our common Lord. We are Presbyterians, and we 
 firmly believe the Presbyterian system of doctrine, discipline and church 
 government, to be nearer to the word of God, than that of any other 
 sect or denomination of Christians. Shall all other sects and parties be 
 united among themselves for their support and increase, and Presbyterians 
 
 divided and sub-divided, so as to be the scorn of some and the prey of 
 others?” ! 
 
 Great increase in the size of the church added to the 
 inconvenience consequent on the obligation of each minis- 
 ter to attend each yearly synod and made the adoption of 
 some form of representative (Republican) government 
 imperative. 
 
 The ministry was progressive; it realized that it was 
 working in a critical and formative period, that it had to 
 think in terms of the future. It was out to conquer a 
 continent, to rescue it from the wilderness and the foe of 
 Christianity. | 
 
 We have noted that Joseph Galloway asserted before 
 a parliamentary committee that the Presbyterians of 
 America caused the Revolution.? Politically this is really 
 disapproved; religiously or spiritually there are grounds for 
 the charge. Officially the church had not interfered in 
 the political controversy yet, independence was the key- 
 note of Presbyterianism and the American church had 
 gone far in exhibiting that spirit even with regard to their 
 fellow Presbyterians in Great Britain and Ireland. An 
 
 1 Records, p. 533. 
 2 Supra, pp. 66-71. 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 263 
 
 overture of the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, May 
 24, 1773, illustrates this: 
 
 “Whereas there have been repeated complaints from serious persons of 
 the degeneracy of many of the Presbyterian denomination in Great 
 Britain and Ireland, and their falling off from the great doctrines of the 
 Reformation, so that it is very possible there may be Presbyteries the 
 majority of which would not be unwilling to license, ordain or recommend 
 ministers unsound in the faith; it seems to be of moment to guard against 
 the admission of strangers into this body, before their principles and 
 character are thoroughly ascertained: Therefore, it is overtured, that 
 no Presbytery be permitted to receive any stranger under the character 
 of minister or candidate, or to give him appointments in the congregation 
 under our care, until the Synod that shall meet next after their arrival, 
 that the whole testimonials and credentials offered by such persons be 
 laid before the Synod, to be by them considered and judged of, in order 
 to their admission or rejection.” ! 
 
 The overture was voted but thereafter vigorous oppo- 
 sition caused first its suspension and then its modification. 
 Two main objections to the act appeared: first, it tended to 
 break with the British and Irish Churches, and second it 
 was a high-handed usurpation of power on the part-of the 
 Synod, — so much so as to be unconstitutional. Dissent 
 was entered upon the minutes as follows: 
 
 “Because . . . . . this overture evidently tends to stigmatize 
 and throw scandal on the British and Irish Churches, to the breaking the 
 bonds of peace, union, charity and mutual love between them and us. 
 
 Because it takes away from the Presbyteries some of their essential 
 rights, restraining them from performing the duties of ordaining and 
 admitting ministers agreeably to the scriptures and the constitution, 
 and practice of the Presbyterian Church.” 
 
 Because the precedent hereby established is not only wrong in itself, as 
 it divests our Presbyteries of their inherent rights, but extremely perni- 
 cious in its consequences. If the Synod is allowed this power with respect 
 to ministers or probationers from Europe, why may it not at any time 
 be pleaded with respect to those from every other part of the world? 
 Why may not the Synod, claiming thus far, extend their authority to the 
 ordination of all our American probationers under some plausible 
 
 1 Records, pp. 442-443, 
 
264 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 pretences, such as, that the Synod is more faithful, or more learned, or 
 fitter to judge of the piety of those who are to be received? 
 
 A Synod... . . is only a voluntary association of different 
 Presbyteries, or a council to give advice in difficult matters, and to secure 
 peace, orthodoxy, edification and mutual confidence, and has not power 
 to make any arbitrary decisions. 
 
 If the Synod will assume these high, unscriptural powers, it may be 
 expected that some Presbyteries will resign their connection with a 
 power they esteem tyrannical, and returning to their original state claim 
 the enjoyment of their own inherent privileges.” ! 
 
 The constitutional objection is seen far to outweigh 
 any fear of the break with Great Britain and. Ireland. 
 Because of the feeling which had developed in opposition to 
 the overture, it was modified. First an explanation was 
 adopted that “‘it should be put on record that the word 
 strangers . . . . . should not be extended to any 
 persons from any part of the continent of America.” 
 Then it was agreed “‘that the Presbytery to which any 
 such gentlemen may offer themselves, may be allowed, if 
 they see their way clear, to employ them in their vacan- 
 cies, but that they be not admitted to full membership 
 until the next Synod, when their testimonials and recom- 
 mendations shall be laid before the Synod.”* The 
 constitutional objection had been met, that of inde- 
 pendence seems to have been affirmed. 
 
 _ At the Synod of 1774, May 20, it was moved to recon- 
 
 sider the foregoing action. Dr. Witherspoon, Dr. Duffield, 
 and others opposed reconsideration but it was voted. 
 Whereupon Dr. Rodgers, and the Rev. Messrs. Treat and 
 MeWhorter, brought in the following overture which was 
 unanimously accepted: 
 
 ‘“Whereas, it is of the highest importance to the interest of the Redeem- 
 er’s Kingdom, that the greatest care be observed by church judicatures to 
 
 ' Records, pp. 443-445. 
 2 Thid., p. 445. 3 Tbid., p. 448. 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 265 
 
 maintain orthodoxy in doctrine, and purity in practice, in all their 
 members, this Synod do earnestly recommend it to all their Presbyteries 
 to be very strict . . . . . in examining the certificates and _testi- 
 monials of ministers and probationers who come from foreign churches; 
 and that they be very cautious about receiving them, unless the authen- 
 ticity of their certificates and testimonials be supported by private 
 letters, or other credible and sufficient evidence; and in order more 
 effectually to preserve this Synod, our Presbyteries, and congregations 
 from imposition and abuse, every year when any Presbytery may report 
 that they have received any ministers or probationers from foreign 
 churches, that Presbytery shall lay before the Synod the testimonials, and 
 all other certificates upon which they received such ministers or pro- 
 bationers, for the satisfaction of the Synod, before such foreign ministers 
 or probationers shall be enrolled as members of our body; and if the 
 Synod shall find the said testimonials false or insufficient the whole pro- 
 ceedings had by the Presbytery in the admission shall be held to be void; 
 and the Presbytery shall not from that time receive or acknowledge him as 
 a member of this body, or in ministerial communion with us. And, on the 
 other hand, whensoever any gentlemen from abroad shall come duly 
 recommended, as above, we will gladly receive them as brethren, and 
 give them every encouragement in our power.” ! 
 
 The controversy was thus settled, but not to the com- 
 plete satisfaction of everybody. Direct offense to Great 
 Britain and Ireland, had been avoided, but the serious 
 constitutional question of the relative authority of local 
 and central government had been raised and not settled, — 
 merely postponed. Accordingly, another overture was 
 brought in, May 23, 1774, “Respecting the power by 
 which the Synod makes such acts to restrain Presbyteries 
 from acting to the best of their judgment in things, that 
 before these acts were allowed to be lawful, and not 
 forbidden by the word of God.”’? Action upon this was 
 deferred until the next Synod. Meanwhile on May 26, 
 1774, the Reverend Matthew Wilson proposed “‘a method 
 to secure the lasting union and credit of the Presbyterian 
 body,” and the Synod recommended it to its members to 
 
 1 Records, p. 455. 
 2 Ihid., pp. 456-457. 
 
266 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 make themselves well acquainted with the fundamental 
 principles of the Presbyterian Constitution.! The 
 outbreak of the Revolution further postponed the work 
 of constitution-making which events seem otherwise to 
 have ‘forecast as inevitable for the Synod of 1775, even 
 before the outbreak of the Revolution. 
 
 During the Revolution Synods were sparsely attended; 
 yet they kept in close touch with the spiritual direction of 
 American affairs, and took full advantage of their oppor- 
 tunities. We have seen how they supported the American 
 cause and assumed guidance in civil matters.2. The church 
 was growing rapidly; new presbyteries were being formed: 
 Orange, 1770; Redstone, 1781; South Carolina, 1784; 
 Abingon, 1785; Transylvania, Lexington, and Carlisle, 
 1786. Two hundred and thirty new ministers were 
 ordained between the years 1758 and 1789. Missionary 
 work and education were attended to. Missionaries were 
 appointed and supported; collections of books were sent 
 out; and legacies were accepted for the support of missions. 
 A minute of 1779, May 21, records the attitude of the 
 church: 
 
 “An application by a member of Hanover Presbytery praying that 
 some missionaries might be sent into the state of Virginia to ‘preach the 
 gospel, and especially that a few ministers of genius, prudence, and 
 address might spend some considerable time in attempting to form that 
 people into regular congregations, under the discipline and government of 
 the Presbyterian Church, and to settle among them, and undertake thé 
 education of their youth, representing that there appears at present in 
 many parts of that state, a very favorable disposition towards religion in 
 general, and towards the Presbyterian church in particular; that it is 
 greatly for the interest of the church to pay particular attention to the 
 Southern and Western parts of this continent; that congregations which 
 
 may be formed there will be permanent and fixed, whereas the continued 
 migration of the inhabitants of our interior congregations, diminish their 
 
 1 Records, p. 460. 
 2 Supra, Cha bva 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 267 
 
 importance and threaten their dissolution; that it is not desirable, nor to 
 be expected that that most extensive country should continue long with- 
 out some form of religion; that this Synod has now an opportunity of 
 promoting the interest of religion extensively, which in a few years may 
 be utterly lost by the prevalency and preoccupying of many ignorant and 
 irreligious sectaries; the Synod do, therefore, earnestly recommend it to 
 all their Presbyteries to turn their attention to this object, as peculiarly 
 interesting and important; and if it is by any means possible, to furnish 
 some missions to the state of Virginia, and such especially as shall en- 
 deavor to form congregations, and to effect a settlement among them, 
 having respect to the popular talents as well as piety of such missionaries, 
 and to their capacity for directing the education of youth.” ! 
 Expansion was bound up with the question of procuring 
 a suitable ministry for the work. Of the 250 new ministers 
 (mentioned above) admitted between the years 1758 and 
 1789, one hundred and twenty came from the College of 
 New Jersey; Yale furnished about two score; others came 
 from the University of Pennsylvania, Newark Academy, 
 Hampden Sydney College, Washington Academy and 
 elsewhere. And still there was a dearth of educated men 
 to fill vacancies. The Synod of 1783, May 23, answered in 
 the negative a query from the Presbytery of Philadelphia 
 as to “whether a person without a liberal education may be 
 taken on trials, or be licensed to preach the gospels.’ 
 The Synod of 1785, May 21, by a large majority, again 
 reaffirmed their opposition on a question as to 
 “‘whether in the present state of the church in America and the scarcity of 
 ministers to fill our numerous congregations, the Synod or Presbyteries, 
 ought to relax, in any degree, the literary qualifications required of 
 intrants into the ministry.” * 
 In fact a counter-proposal was made to raise the require- 
 ments and to add a two-year divinity course to the liberal 
 arts standard; but this was laid over for the year and was 
 rejected in 1786. 
 
 1 Records, pp. 484-485. 
 2 Thid., p. 499. SAN hee Vee ta 1 
 
268 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 The Synod of 1785, May 23, adopted the following 
 minute relative to education: 
 
 “The Synod considering the education of youth, and their being early 
 instructed in just principles of religion, as one of the most useful means 
 of promoting the influence of the gospels in our churches . Nee, 
 Resolved . . . . . that it.be enjoined on all congregations to pay 
 a special regard to the good education of children, as being intimately 
 connected with the interests of morality and religion; and that, as schools 
 under bad masters and a careless management, are seminaries of vice 
 rather than of virtue, the session, corporation or committee of every 
 congregation, be required to endeavor to establish one or more schools in 
 such place, or places, as shall be most convenient for the people, that they 
 be particularly careful to procure able and virtuous teachers; that they 
 make the erection and care of schools a part of their congregational 
 business, and endeavor to induce the people to support them by con- 
 tribution, being not only the most effectual, but eventually, the cheapest 
 way of supporting them; that the Presbyteries appoint particular 
 members, or if possible committees, to go into vacant congregations to 
 promote similar institutions; that the corporation, session, or committee 
 of the congregation, visit the school, or schools, at least once in three 
 months, to inquire into the conduct of the master, and the improvement 
 of the children, and to observe particularly his care to instruct them, at 
 least one day in the week, in the principles of religion; that the Presby- 
 teries, in appointing ministers to supply vacant congregations, require it 
 as an indispensable part of their duty, to visit at the same time the 
 schools; and require at the next meeting of the Presbytery, an account of 
 their fidelity in this respect, and of the state of the schools; and that, in 
 these schools effectual provision be made for the education of the children 
 of the poor; and that, at the visitations of the schools, one or two of the 
 most ingenious and virtuous of the poor children be annually selected, in 
 order to give them a more perfect education, and thereby qualify these 
 ingenious charity scholars, to become afterwards useful instructors in 
 our congregational schools.” ! 
 
 The nation recognized the importance of Presbyterian- 
 ism in assigning one of the Chaplaincies of Continental 
 Congress to Dr. George Duffield. Elder Robert Aitken of 
 
 Philadelphia was appointed to issue the first American 
 edition of the Bible and Congress officially commended his 
 
 1 Records, p. 513. 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 269 
 
 work to the public. In 1782, May 18, the Synod appointed 
 ‘“‘a committee to prepare an address to the minister of 
 France, congratulating him on the birth of a dauphin, 
 son and heir to the crown of his royal master, expressing 
 the pleasure the Synod feel on this happy event.’’! 
 
 The Synod of 1783, May 21, announced its American 
 principle in reference to the numerous other sects within 
 the country: 
 
 “Tt having been represented to Synod, that the Presbyterian Church 
 suffers greatly in the opinion of other denominations, from an appre- 
 hension that they hold intolerant principles, the Pynod do solemnly and 
 
 member of civil society as to be eae in the full and exercise 
 of their religion.” ? 
 
 Active constitution-making was begun for America. by 
 the Synod of 1785. On motion, it was ordered, May 23: 
 
 “That Dr. Witherspoon, Dr. Rodgers, Mr. Robert Smith, Dr. Alison, 
 Dr. Smith, Messrs. Woodhull, Cooper, Latta, and Duffield, with the 
 moderator, Mr. Wilson, be a committee to take into consideration the 
 constitution of the Church of Scotland, and other Presbyterian Churches 
 and agreeably to the general principles of the Presbyterian government, 
 compile a system of general rules for the government of the Synod, and 
 the several Presbyteries under their inspection, and the people in their 
 communion, and to make report of their proceeding herein at the next 
 Synod.” ’ 
 
 But views were already at hand for the organization of 
 the administration and without waiting for the report of 
 the committee, an overture was immediately brought in: 
 
 “That for the better management of the churches under our care, this 
 Synod be divided into three Synods, and that a General Synod, or 
 Assembly, be constituted out of the whole. The Synod agreed to enter 
 on the consideration of this overture, on the first Friday after their next 
 
 1 Records, p. 495. 
 2 Ihid., p. 499. 
 2] biden pmo Le: 
 
270 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 meeting, and appoint Dr. Smith to transmit a copy of this overture to such 
 of the Presbyteries as are not at present represented in Synod, and 
 earnestly urge their attendance at our next meeting.” ! 
 
 Also it was thought wise to consider the form of services 
 to be used in the churches; the following motion was 
 affirmed, on that same day. 
 
 ““Whereas the nearest uniformity that is practicable in the external 
 modes of Divine worship is to be desired, and the using different books 
 of psalmody is matter of offence, not only to Presbyterians of different 
 denominations, but also to many congregations under our care; it is 
 queried, if the Synod might not choose out, and order some of their 
 members to take the assistance of all the versions in our power, and 
 
 compose for us a version more suitable to our circumstances and tastes 
 than any we yet have.”’? 
 
 Dr. Alison, Dr. Davidson, Dr. Ewing, Mr. Blair, and Mr. 
 Jones were appointed to report at the next Synod. 
 
 The question of publicity and the extent to which the 
 church in general should be informed of acts of the Synod 
 was involved in the following motion of the same date: 
 
 “It was moved and seconded, that the Synodical clerk be required to 
 transmit annually to each Presbytery belonging to the Synod, an attested 
 copy of all general regulations of Synod, as well as of those that more 
 immediately regard any Presbytery in particular, and that each Presby- 
 tery be required to enjoin on their clerk to furnish each member of the 
 Presbytery with an authentic copy of the same, that by a general in- 
 telligence of the acts of the supreme judicature being thus communicated 
 
 to all, the whole body may be brought to operate with concert and vigor, 
 and that none may have ingorance as a plea for neglect of duty.” 
 
 Consideration of this matter was deferred to the next 
 meeting. It is not surprising that a feeling of reserve was 
 thus exhibited by the Synod; the Federal Constitution of 
 the same period shunned “pitiless publicity’? and was 
 made in complete secrecy, nor were the various state con- 
 stitutions of popular origin or approval. 
 
 1 Records, p. 518. 
 2 Ibid., pp. 513-514. LOU, Daole 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Q71 
 
 _Constitution-making was complicated by an effort that 
 was being made to join together the various presbyterial 
 sects of America. At the 1785 Synod, May 19, it was 
 recorded, 
 
 “The committee appointed by the Synod last year, to meet with the 
 committee of the Low Dutch Reformed Synod of New York and New 
 Jersey, report, that they were disappointed of meeting by a mistake, and 
 one of the members of the committee informing the Synod that some of 
 the brethren of the Dutch Synod, and one of the members of the Associate 
 Reformed Synod, had expressed a desire of some measures being taken 
 for promoting a friendly intercourse between the three Synods, or laying 
 a plan for some kind of union among them, whereby they might be 
 enabled to unite their interests, and combine their efforts, for promoting 
 the great cause of truth and vital religion; and at the same time giving 
 it as their judgment, that such plan was practicable: The Synod were 
 happy in finding such a disposition in the brethren of the above Synods 
 and cheerfully concur with them in thinking that such a measure is both 
 desirable and practicable, and therefore appoint Drs. Witherspoon, Jones, 
 Rodgers, McWhorter, Smith, Messers. Martin, Duffield, Miller, Read, 
 Woodhull and Kerr, a committee to meet with such committees as may be 
 appointed by the Low Dutch Synod now sitting in New York, and by the 
 Associate Synod, to meet in that city next week, at such time and place 
 as may be agreed upon, to confer with the brethren of said Synods on this 
 important subject, and to concert such measures with them for the 
 accomplishment of these great ends as they shall judge expedient, and 
 report the same to the next meeting of this Synod.” ! 
 
 Consideration of the action of this joint convention for 
 church unity occupied a large part of the thought of the 
 Synod of 1786. Of great note is the “representation” as 
 to the formulae of doctrine and worship which their 
 committee had made to the New York meeting and which 
 was reported back to the Synod; which were: 
 
 “Article 1; The Synod of New York and Philadelphia adopt, according 
 to the known and established meaning of the terms, the Westminister 
 Confession of Faith as the confession of their faith, save as every candi- 
 
 date for the gospel ministry is permitted to except against so much of the 
 twenty-third chapter as gives authority to the civil magistrates in matters 
 
 1 Records, p. 508. 
 
972 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 of religion. The Presbyterian Church in America considers the Church of 
 Christ as a spiritual society, entirely distinct from the civil government, 
 having a right to regulate their own ecclesiastical policy, independently of 
 the interposition of the magistrate. 
 
 The Synod also receives the directory for public worship and the form 
 of church government recommended by the Westminster Assembly as in 
 substance agreeable to the institutions of the New Testament. This 
 mode of adoption we use, because we'believe the general platform of our 
 government to be agreeable to the sacred Scriptures; but we do not 
 believe that God has been pleased so to reveal and enjoin every minute 
 circumstance of ecclesiastical government and discipline as not to leave 
 room for orthodox churches of Christ, in these minutiae, to differ with 
 charity from one another. 
 
 Article 5; The rules of our discipline and the form of process in our 
 church judicatures, are contained in Pardovan’s (alias Stewart’s), 
 collections in conjunction with the acts of our own Synod, the power of 
 which, in matters purely ecclesiastical, we consider as equal to the 
 power of any Synod or General Assembly in the world. Our church 
 judicatures, like those in the church of Scotland, from which we derive 
 our origin, are Church Session, Presbyteries and Synods, to which it is 
 now in contemplation to add a National and General Assembly.” ! 
 
 A committee appointed to draw up instructions to 
 govern the conduct of the delegates, to meet with the 
 Dutch Reformed and Associate Reformed delegates in 
 October, laid them before the Synod and, as amended, they 
 contained the following, May 23: | 
 
 “The delegates on the part of this Synod are to inform the convention 
 that this body is about to divide itself into four Synods, subordinate to a 
 General Assembly. That they have now under consideration a plan of 
 church government and discipline, which it is hoped will, when completed 
 be sufficient to answer every query of the convention upon that head; 
 and that the mutual assurances mentioned in minutes of the last con- 
 vention, may, as far as they respect this Synod, be made with much 
 more propriety after the intended system is finished than at present.” 2 
 
 Thereupon to advance their own constitution-making, 
 the Synod resolved, May 23, that: 
 
 “the book of discipline and government be recommended to a com- 
 mittee to meet in the city of Philadelphia on the second Tuesday of 
 
 1 Records, pp. 518-519. * Ibhid., pp. 524-525. 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OTS 
 
 September next, who shall have powers to digest such a system as they 
 shall think to be accommodated to the state of the Presbyterian Church in 
 America, that they shall procure three hundred copies to be printed and 
 distributed to the several Presbyteries in proportion to the number of 
 their members under the engagement of this Synod, to have the expense of 
 printing and distribution reimbursed to the committee at their next 
 meeting; and every Presbytery is hereby required to report, in writing, to 
 the Synod at their next meeting, their observations on the said book and 
 discipline. 
 
 The committee appointed to attend to the above business, were Drs. 
 Witherspoon, McWhorter, Rodgers, Sproat, Duffield, Alison, Ewing, and 
 Smith and Messrs. Wilson, Snowden, Taggert, and Pinkerton, elders.” ! 
 
 The committee that had been appointed to prepare a 
 selection from the different versions of the psalms re- 
 ported May 20, that it had not yet completed its work and 
 was continued.” It was decided to proceed with the 
 matter of division of the Synod and it was so overtured, 
 May 19: 
 
 “The Synod, considering the number and extent of the churches under 
 their care, and the inconvenience of the present mode of government by 
 one Synod, resolved, that this Synod, will establish out of its own body, 
 three or more subordinate Synods, out of which shall be composed a 
 General Assembly, Synod, or Council, agreeably to a system hereafter 
 adopted.” 8 
 For this matter the following committee was named: Drs. 
 Rodgers, Smith, Duffield and Alison, and Messrs. Latta, 
 Martin, Wilson, Graham, Houston, Finley, and Hall. 
 Their report, May 22, decided to increase the number of 
 the Presbyteries from twelve to sixteen and to group them 
 into four Synods, with a provision as to the number of 
 ministers and of ruling elders each Presbytery should 
 elect annually to a General Assemble of the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States of America. The Synod 
 adopted the report of its committee “‘so far as respects the 
 
 ! Records, pp. 524-525. Odea Lie 
 elbidsap-o 220s 4 Ihid., pp. 522-524; infra., p. 279. 
 
WTA NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 - arranging of Presbyteries . . . . . The consideration of 
 the remaining part of the report was deferred till our next 
 stated meeting, at which time the several Presbyteries are 
 desired to attend prepared to determine respecting it.’’! 
 
 The special committee appointed to digest a church 
 government met as directed in September, 1786, and 
 prepared and published A Draught of a Plan of Govern- 
 ment and Diserpline for the Presbyterian Church in North 
 America, Proposed by a committee Appointed for that 
 Purpose. ‘This outlined a government to consist of congre- 
 gations, presbyteries, synodical assemblies and a general 
 council, but enjoying no civil jurisdiction and incapable of 
 inflicting civil penalties. It was to function through 
 Church Sessions, Presbyterial Assemblies, Synodical 
 Assemblies and a General Council; the former bodies were 
 so well known as to require little mention, the latter were 
 carefully outlined as to jurisdiction. The entirely new 
 body, the General Council, was described. The report out- 
 lined modes of ordination, election, licensing, installation, 
 translation, resignation, etc., as well as forms of processes. 
 in Presbyterial judicatures. 
 
 Synodical Assemblies were to judge appeals from Presby- 
 teries, review the presbytery books, redress orders of the 
 presbytery contrary to their rights, see that presbyteries 
 observed the constitution of the church and propose 
 measures to the General Council. 
 
 The General Council was to review the minutes of every 
 Synod, —to approve or censure; give advice and in- 
 struction in all cases submitted to them, — determine in 
 cases of conscience, consult, reason and judge in contro- 
 versies of doctrine and discipline, reprove, warn and bear 
 testimony against errors in doctrine or immorality of 
 
 1 Records, p. 526. 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Q75 
 
 practices in any church or presbytery: correspond with 
 foreign churches; put a stop to schismatical contentions or 
 disputations; recommend reformation of manners; promote 
 charity, truth and holiness; and erect new Synods: when 
 they judge necessary. 
 
 It was to be composed of an equal delegation of ministers 
 and elders from each presbytery, called commissioners to 
 the general assembly, according to the following apportion- 
 ment; one minister and one elder for six ministers in a 
 presbytery; two of each for from six to twelve ministers; 
 three each for from twelve to eighteen. Fourteen 
 commissioners of whom one half were ministers was 
 to constitute a quorum.! 
 
 The Synod of 1787 held in Philadelphia, \ was busy 
 debating and amending the reports of its various com- 
 mittees at the very same time that the Federal Constitu- 
 tional Convention was in session in the same city. It 
 made considerable progress in matters of faith and dis- 
 cipline; governmental organization, however, was. still 
 uncompleted. 
 
 The Synod allowed that Dr. Watts’s imitation of 
 David's Psalms, as revised by Mr. Barlow, be sung in the 
 churches and families under their care.? 
 
 The Synod took into consideration the last paragraph of 
 the twentieth chapter of the Westminister Confession of 
 Faith; the third paragraph of the twenty-third chapter; 
 afd the first paragraph of the thirty-first chapter; and 
 having made some alterations, agreed that the said 
 paragraphs, as now altered, be printed for consideration, 
 
 1A Draught of a Plan of Government and Discipline for the Presbyterian 
 Church in North America, Proposed by a Committee Appointed for that 
 Purpose. Philadelphia, 1786. 
 
 * Records, p. 535. 
 
276 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 together with the draft of a plan of government and disci- 
 pline.! The alterations suggested were finally adopted by 
 the Synod of 1788; they aimed to eliminate the principle 
 of established church and religious persecution and to 
 proclaim the religious liberty and legal equality of all 
 Christian denominations. In chapter xx, section 4, the 
 last sentence, “‘and by the power of the civil magistrates” 
 was omitted, so as to read, “they (offenders) may lawfully 
 be called to account, and proceeded against by the cen- 
 sures of the Church.” The original text of chapter xxiii, 
 section 3 (1647 A.D.), “Of the Civil Magistrates” had 
 read: 
 
 “The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of 
 the Word and Sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of 
 heaven; yet he hath authority, and it is his duty to take order, that unity 
 and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure 
 and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruption 
 and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the 
 ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the 
 better effecting whereof he hath power to call Synods, to be present at 
 them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according 
 to the mind of God.” 
 
 As revised by the American Church this reads: 
 
 “Civil Magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration 
 of the Word and Sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of 
 heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of Faith. Yet, as nursing 
 fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our 
 Common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of 
 Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons 
 whatever shall enjoy the full, free and unquestioned liberty of dis- 
 charging every part of their several functions without violence or danger. 
 And, as Jesus Christ has appointed a regular government and discipline 
 in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let or 
 hinder the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any 
 denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. 
 It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of 
 
 3 Records, p. 539. 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OTT 
 
 all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, 
 either upon pretence of religion or infidelity, to offer any indignity, 
 violence, abuse or injury to any other person whatsoever, and to take 
 order that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without 
 molestation or disturbance.” 
 
 The original text of chapter xxxi, 1647, “Of Synods and 
 Councils,” was as follows: 
 
 “1. For the better government and further edification of the church, 
 there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called Synods or 
 Councils. 
 
 2. As magistrates may lawfully call a Synod of ministers and other 
 fit persons to consult and advise with about matters of religion; so, if 
 magistrates be open enemies to the church, the ministers of Christ, of 
 themselves, by virtue of their office, or they with other fit persons, upon 
 delegation from their churches, may meet together in such assemblies.” 
 
 The American text for the same chapter xxx1, reads: 
 
 “ . For the better government and further edification of the church, 
 there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called Synods or 
 Councils. 3 
 
 And it belongeth to the overseers and other rulers of the particular 
 churches, by virtue of their office, and the power which Christ hath given 
 them for edification, and not for destruction, to appoint such assemblies; 
 and to convene together in them, as often as they shall judge it expedient 
 for the good of the Church.” ! 
 
 The Synod, having gone through the consideration of 
 the draft of a plan of government and discipline, appointed, 
 May 28, 1787, Drs. Rodgers and McWhorter and Messrs. 
 Miller and Wilson, Jr., a committee to have a thousand 
 copies thereof printed as now amended, and to distribute 
 them among the Presbyteries for their consideration, and 
 the consideration of the churches under their care.” 
 This committee was also instructed to revise the West- 
 minister Directory for public worship and to have it when 
 thus revised, printed together with the draft for considera- 
 
 
 
 1Schaff, Church and State in the United States, p. 49. 
 2 Records, p. 539. 
 
278 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 tion. It was agreed that when the above proposed alter- 
 ations in the Confession of Faith should have been finally 
 determined on by the body, and the Directory should 
 have been revised as above directed, and adopted by the 
 Synod, the said Confession, thus altered, and the Directory . 
 thus revised and adoptéd would be styled, “The Confession 
 of Faith, and Directory for Public Worship, of the Presby- 
 terian Church in the United States of America.’’! 
 
 The Synod of 1788, marks_an epoch in the history of 
 American Presbyterianism. It completed the process of 
 constitution-making; it organized the General Assembly; 
 it promulgated the constitution of the church; it ratified 
 and adopted the Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism 
 and the Shorter Catechism; and it divided and distributed 
 the Presbyteries into Synods. Organization of the church 
 was completed with this meeting. 
 
 On May 28, 1788, the Synod, having fully considered 
 the draft of the form of government and discipline, did, 
 on a review of the whole, ratify and adopt the same, as 
 altered and amended, as the Constitution of the Presby- 
 terian Church in America, and did order that the same be 
 considered and strictly observed as the rule of their pro- 
 ceedings, by all the inferior judicatures belonging to the 
 body. They also ordered that a correct copy be printed, 
 and that the Westminister Confession of Faith, as altered, 
 be printed in full along with it, as making a part of the 
 constitution.” Furthermore it was resolved, that the 
 true intent and meaning of the above ratification by the 
 Synod was, that the Form of Government and Discipline 
 and the Confession of Faith, as ratified, was to continue to 
 be the Constitution and the Confession of Faith and 
 
 ! Records, pp. 539-540. 
 2 Supra., pp. 276-277; Thomson, op. cit., p. 348. 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 279 
 
 Practice, unalterable, unless two-thirds of the Presbyteries 
 under the care of the General Assembly should propose 
 alterations or amendments, and such alterations or amend- 
 ments should be agreed to and enacted by the General 
 Assembly.! 
 
 On May 29, it was resolved unanimously: 
 
 of Synod in the year 1786; and that this division shall commence on the 
 dissolution of the present Synod.” 2 
 
 The act of 1786 which is affirmed by the above over- 
 tures read: 
 
 “Your committee beg leave . . . . . to report, that they conceive it 
 will be most conducive to the interests of religion that this Synod be 
 divided into four Synods, and therefore submit to the Synods the follow- 
 ing plan for dividing the Synod of New York and Philadelphia into four 
 Synods, subordinate to a General Assembly to be constituted out of the 
 whole.” 
 
 Here followed the details by which the Presbyteries, 
 sixteen in all, were distributed among the four Synods; 
 
 1. The Synod of New York and New Jersey. 
 
 2. The Synod of Philadelphia. 
 
 3. The Synod of Virginia. 
 
 4. The Synod of Carolinas. 
 
 “Out of body of these Synods a General Assembly shall be constituted 
 in the following manner, viz: That every Presbytery shall, at their last 
 stated meeting preceding the meeting of the General Assembly, depute 
 to the General Assembly commissioners in the following proportion; each 
 Presbytery consisting of not more than six ministers shall send one 
 minister and one elder; each Presbytery consisting of more than six 
 ministers and not more than twelve, shall send two ministers and two 
 elders, and so in the same proportion for every six ministers. And these 
 commissioners or any fourteen of them whereof seven to be ministers, 
 being met on the day and at the place appointed, shall be competent to 
 
 1 Records, pp. 546-547. 
 2 Ibid., p. 547. 
 
280 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 enter upon business. And the judicatory thus constituted, shall bear the 
 style and title of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States of America.” ! 
 
 The Synod took into consideration the draft of a direc- 
 tory for the worship of God, as reported by the committee 
 appointed for that purpose in 1787. Drs. Witherspoon and 
 Smith, together with the moderator, were appointed, May 
 29, a committee to revise the chapter of the draft respecting 
 the mode of inflicting church censures, and to lay this, as 
 then revised, before the General Assembly at their first 
 meeting, to be by them considered and finally enacted.? 
 The same three were appointed to revise that part of the 
 draft which respected public prayer, and prayers to be 
 used on other occasions, and to prepare it for printing 
 with the constitution. May 29, the Synod, having revised 
 and corrected the draft of a directory for worship, did 
 approve and ratify the same, and appoint the said directory 
 to be the directory for the worship of God in the Presby- 
 terian Church in the United States of America. 
 
 The Synod also took into consideration the West- 
 minister Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and having 
 made a small amendment to the larger, approved and 
 ratified the said Catechisms as the Catechisms of the 
 Presbyterian Church in the United States. In Question 
 109 of the Larger Catechism, they struck out the words, 
 “tolerating a false religion’? among the sins forbidden in 
 the second Commandment. 
 
 The Synod ordered that the said Directory and Cate- 
 chism be printed and bound up in the same volume with 
 the Confession of Faith and Form of Government and 
 
 1 Records, p. 522-524. 
 
 2 Ihid., p. 547. 
 3 [bid., p. 547, Thompson, op. cit., pp. 348-349 
 
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 281 
 
 Discipline, and that the whole be considered the standard 
 of Presbyterian doctrine, government, discipline, and 
 worship in the United States, agreeably to the resolutions 
 of the Synod in this session. It was ordered that Dr. 
 Duffield and Messrs. Armstrong and Green be a committee 
 to superintend the printing and publishing of the above- 
 said Confession of Faith and Catechism with the Form of 
 Government and Discipline and the Directory for the 
 Worship of God, adopted and ratified by the Synod as 
 The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
 States of America, and that they divide the several parts 
 into chapters and sections properly numbered.' 
 
 We have noted that the constitution-making period for 
 the Presbyterian Church extended from 1785 to 1788. 
 The slowness of the procedure was due in part to a desire 
 to conserve Presbyterian principles, but mostly to a 
 realization that local opposition was to be successfully 
 overcome only through a cautious advance. The case 
 of the Presbytery of Suffolk illustrates the method by 
 which the Synod won the good-will of rebellious elements. 
 This presbytery in May, 1787, prayed the Synod on its 
 part for a dissolution of its union with the Synod. To 
 which the Synod replied: 
 
 “You say ‘that concurrence with the draft of the form of government 
 and discipline for the Presbyterian Church in North America is impracti- 
 cable.’ That is only a draft or overture for consideration and amend- 
 ment, and we should have rejoiced much to have your company and aid 
 in pointing out those impracticabilities in altering, correcting and com- 
 pleting the said draft. We apprehend there are no principles in it different 
 from the Westminister Directory, only the same rendered more expedient 
 in some things and more conformable to the state and circumstances of the 
 
 Presbyterian Church in America... . . 
 We are fully of opinion that the general principles in said draft contain 
 
 1 Records, p. 547; Drake, Acts and Proceedings of the Synod of New York 
 and Philadelphia, A. D. 1787 and 1788. Philadelphia, 1788. 
 
282 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 the plan of church discipline and government revealed in the New Testa- 
 ment, and are conformable (allowance being made for the differences in 
 the states of civil society and local circumstances), to the practices and 
 usages of the best reformed churches. 
 
 You well know that it is not a small thing to rend the seamless coat 
 of Christ, or to be disjoined parts of one body his Church. We are all 
 members one of another; there should be no schism in the body, but we 
 should comfort, encourage, and strengthen one another by the firmest 
 union in our common Lord. We are Presbyterians, and we firmly believe 
 the Presbyterian system of doctrine, discipline and church government, to 
 be nearer to the word of God than that of any other sect or denomination 
 of Christians. Shall all other sects and parties be united among them- 
 selves for their support and increase and Presbyterians divided and sub- 
 divided, so as to be the scorn of some and the prey of others?” ! 
 
 The Presbytery of Suffolk withdrew its request in 
 1788. ? 
 
 As a final step in surrendering its jurisdiction over the 
 Presbyterians of America, the Synod of New York and 
 Philadelphia fixed upon Philadelphia and the third 
 Thursday of May; 1789, as the time and place for the 
 meeting of its successor, the first General Assembly; also 
 they selected Dr. Witherspoon, or in his absence, Dr. 
 Rodgers, to open this General Assembly with a sermon, 
 and to preside till a moderator be chosen. They arranged 
 similar meetings for the four Synods at New York, 
 Philadelphia, New Providence (Virginia), and Center 
 Church (Roan County, North Carolina). Their Consti- 
 tution had been established. 
 
 1 Records, p. 532-533. 
 
 2 Tbid., p. 544. 
 3 Iind., p. 548. 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 THE DUTCH REFORMED, GERMAN REFORMED, 
 LUTHERAN, MORAVIAN, QUAKER, AND 
 UNITARIAN CHURCHES OF 
 AMERICA 
 
 The tasks of unification and Americanization in the 
 Dutch Reformed Church in the United States fell largely 
 to one man, the Reverend John H. Livingston. Dr. 
 Livingston was especially well qualified for his work. Of 
 an old American family, he had been graduated from Yale 
 in 1762. To qualify himself for the ministry, he went to 
 Holland for theological studies. He was the last of the 
 American youth to take this orthodox method of qualifying 
 through a Dutch education and ordination. He spent the 
 four years, 1766 to 1770 in Holland. Two great problems 
 confronted him upon his return to America as pastor of 
 the Fulton Street Church in New York in 1770; first, the 
 healing of a schism which had rent the church for sixteen 
 years, and secondly the problem of constitution-making 
 which so speedily developed as a result of the new Ameri- 
 canism. 
 
 A sad division had existed in the Dutch Reformed 
 Church in America, since 1755. It is known as the Coetus 
 and Conferentie controversy, and involved a variety of 
 issues. The American Church had labored under crippling 
 ‘conditions because of its subjection to the Classis of 
 Amsterdam. Under a constantly increasing sense of this 
 disadvantage, — ministers had to resort to Holland for 
 
 1Gunn, Alexander, Memoir of Rev. John H. Livingston, 1829, second 
 edition, 1856. 
 
Q84 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 ordination and no colonial ecclesiastical officials possessed 
 authority to call to account delinquent ministers, etc.,— 
 efforts were made to secure a delegation of powers from 
 the Classis. After long pleading the Conferentie was 
 partially successful. Meanwhile the Coetus or American 
 Classis continued to exercise independent powers, 
 although it continued in constant correspondence with the 
 Classis of Amsterdam. It examined and ordained young 
 men as opportunity permitted. A pamphlet controversy 
 developed between the two parties led by Ritzema of New 
 York and Leydt of New Brunswick, centering mainly 
 around the question of the right to organize independently 
 to meet spiritual conditions in new surroundings. Contests 
 and suspensions took place. A strong argument for inde- 
 pendence was found in the oath of allegiance to Great 
 Britain which was considered as inconsistent with subor- 
 dination to the foreign state church of Holland. The 
 matter was complicated by the introduction in 1763, of 
 preaching in the English language. There arose a triangu- 
 lar issue of independence, dependence on the mother 
 church in Holland, and_ political allegiance to Great 
 Britain. The Classis of Amsterdam vacillated, and 
 threatened to abandon both parties. 
 
 Dr. John Witherspoon had visited Holland in 1768 and 
 a Plan of Union was drawn up similar to the one finally 
 adopted but providing that the American Dutch youth 
 studying for the ministry should be educated at the College 
 of New Jersey. When the scheme was brought back to 
 America, the Coetus opposed the union with the College of 
 New Jersey and the Conferentie rejected the whole 
 scheme. Education was a prominent issue. Previous to 
 this efforts had been made to make an arrangement with 
 King’s College in New York. 
 
THE REFORMED CHURCHES Q85 
 
 The Coetus obtained a charter for Queen’s (now Rutgers) 
 College in 1770. The repressive and expensive routine of 
 the educational policy of the Conferentie had paralyzed 
 extension, and had left vacant about two-thirds of the 
 pulpits in the church. The preamble to the charter of 
 Queen’s College stated that the people of the Reformed 
 Faith and Discipline, were very numerous, and were 
 desirous of a learned and well-qualified ministry, and 
 therefore desired a college not only for the usual reasons, 
 but especially that young men might prepare for the 
 ministry; that the inconveniences were many and the 
 expenses heavy in procuring ministers from Europe, or 
 sending young men thither for education; that there was a 
 great necessity for an increased number of ministers, and 
 that a charter was necessary for the preservation of collegi- 
 ate funds. The institution was designed “to promote 
 learning for the benefit of the community, and the advance- 
 ment of the Protestant religion of all denominations; and 
 more especially to remove, 2s much as possible, the necessity 
 our said loving subjects have hitherto been under of 
 sending their youth intended for the ministry to a foreign 
 country for education, and of being subordinate to a 
 foreign ecclesiastical jurisdiction.” ? 
 
 Efforts to heal the schism seemed hopeless; churches 
 and even families were divided and religion was in dis- 
 erace.2 To find a remedy for this condition was to be 
 the first labor of Dr. Livingston. Through his efforts the 
 ecclesiastical authorities in Holland were induced to act. 
 When he returned to America in 1770 he brought with him 
 a plan. He had obtained from the Synod of North Holland 
 
 1 Corwin, Manual, p. 38. 
 2 Corwin, The Reformed Church, Dutch, pp. 157-158; Corwin, Manual of 
 the Reformed Church. 
 
286 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION - 
 
 the reference of the whole subject of union of the contend- 
 ing factions in America to the Classis of Amsterdam with 
 power. This Classis had endorsed the plan which he had 
 brought with him. It was discussed privately and by 
 correspondence for a year, and then proposed to a general 
 convention of the churches, summoned by the New York 
 Consistory for October 1771. 
 
 The Union Convention met in New York, October 15, 
 1771. ‘Twenty-two ministers were present. Of these 
 eight were Europeans, nine had been ordained in America, 
 and five had gone to Holland for ordination; seven were 
 classed as Conferentie ministers; ten favored the Coetus, 
 and five were neutral. The church at the time was com- 
 posed of thirty-four ministers for over a hundred churches. 
 Action was accomplished through a committee of twelve, 
 three from each faction, with an equal number of ministers 
 and elders represented. Livingston, Westerlo, Roosevelt, 
 and Gansevoort were neutrals on the committee. 
 
 A plan, brought from Holland but undoubtedly the work 
 of Livingston, was presented and with slight amendment 
 unanimously adopted. The preamble acknowledged a 
 bond of union with the church in Holland, but stated that 
 certain misunderstandings had grown up respecting it. 
 To prevent future misunderstandings and in accordance 
 with the advice of the Classis, they now united and 
 pledged themselves to regulate their ecclesiastical govern- 
 ment and union with the mother-church in Holland in the 
 following manner. They would abide by the doctrines of 
 the Netherland Reformed Church and its constitution as 
 established in the Synod of Dort. One General Meeting 
 and five Particular Bodies, three for New York and two 
 for New Jersey, were to be organized which were to meet 
 annually. ‘The General Meeting was to assume the long- 
 
THE REFORMED CHURCHES Q87 
 
 desired privilege of licensing and ordaining men to the 
 ministry; but the names of all such, together with the 
 names of all newly called ministers, and of such as changed 
 their vocations, were to be transmitted to Holland for 
 registration, together with a copy of their acts from year 
 to year. Appeals concerning doctrines, depositions, etc., 
 might be carried to Holland. One or more professors were 
 to come from the Netherlands with the advice of the 
 Classis, but they were to have no connection with any 
 English academies. ! 
 
 A second convention of 1772 received a letter of ap- 
 proval from the Classis of Amsterdam for this plan.? 
 Thus ended the sixteen-year feud during which the Coetus 
 had ordained but nine men and the Conferentie but one. 
 The church in America was reunited but it still remained 
 a dependent organization. The Articles of Union asserted, 
 “We organize . . . . . such ecclesiastical bodies as are 
 consistent with the Government and Constitution of the 
 Church of the Netherlands and our relation to the same.’’? 
 It was to take twenty-one years before the Dutch Re- 
 formed Church was to achieve a thoroughly American 
 constitution, a result of the American Revolution. 
 
 At the close of the Revolution, Dr. Livingston wrote the 
 Reverend Dr. Westerlo, October 22, 1784: 
 
 “The revolution in our political interests has made a change in the 
 general fact of our American world, and as it has removed some diffi- 
 culties which were taken into consideration in our former plan, so it has 
 introduced others which deserve a very weighty and impartial dis- 
 cussion. The common enemy to our religious liberties is now removed; 
 
 1 Acts and Proceedings, vol. i, pp. 1-20; Gunn, Memoirs of the Reverend 
 J. H. Livingston, pp. 225-237; Ecclesiastical Records, vol. vi, pp. 4210- 
 4297. 
 
 4Gunn, op. cit., p. 238. 
 
 3 Acts and Proceedings, vol. i, p. 9. 
 
288 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 and we have nothing to fear from the pride and domination of the 
 Episcopal Hierarchy .... . 
 
 Our correspondence with our mother churches in Holland, and the 
 possibility of being increased by emigrations from thence, should at 
 least incline us to remain as pure and unsuspected of any mixture as 
 possible — unless some generous and proper plan, formed by a genius 
 equal to the task, should be drawn for uniting all the Reformed Churches 
 in America into one national church — which, notwithstanding the 
 seeming difficulties in the way, I humbly apprehend will be practicable 
 and, consistent with the outlines drawn by Professor Witsius for King 
 William the Third, I yet hope to see accomplished.” ! 
 
 The task of fitting the Dutch Reformed Church to an 
 independent United States of America was commenced in 
 1784, at the first meeting after the close of the War. The 
 Reverend Body determined to leave to the notice of the 
 civil magistrates the conduct of the Tory Rubel and to 
 consider only “that during the war, he was frequently 
 carried away by unchristian passions, and often from the 
 pulpit and other places cursed the inhabitants of this 
 land who were opposed to him, declaring with foul, irre- 
 ligious and unbecoming expressions, that he would show 
 that they would all go to everlasting destruction.”2 
 It elected Dr. Livingston as its Professor of Theology. 
 But most important, at the Fall Meeting it was decided to 
 nationalize the organization, a step which was to bring it 
 into difficulties with the parent Holland church. This was 
 effected by merely altering the status of its governing 
 bodies, by giving them national titles. The Meeting 
 adopted the following article (xxiii): 
 
 “Since the names of the respective Bodies have associated with them 
 many difficulties and inconveniences in the use of them, especially in the 
 Minutes, and are also to an extent unintelligible to other persuasions, 
 
 and have thus tended to the discredit of our otherwise respectable 
 Church, the Reverend Body .... . have seen fit to change the 
 
 1 Gunn, op. cit., pp. 257-264. 
 > Acts and Proceedings, vol. i, pp. 108-110. 
 
THE REFORMED CHURCHES 289 
 
 ‘same in accordance with the provision made in the Article of the Plan 
 of Union, and henceforth to apply to the General Body the name of 
 Synod, and to the Particular Bodies the name of Classis; under this 
 restriction, however, that this change shall in no measure be prejudicial 
 to the Articles of Union, which this Reverend Body solemnly declare 
 shall remain inviolable.” ! 
 
 They were rendered distinctly conscious of the peculiar 
 position which an American church held in the new state 
 by a controversy which had arisen respecting ownership of 
 church properties. Objections were raised at the Meeting 
 of 1784 to an Act of the Legislature of the State of New 
 York “to enable all the religious denominations in this 
 State to appoint Trustees, who shall be a body corporate 
 for the purpose of taking care of the temporalities of their 
 respective congregations, and for other purposes.” 
 The Reverend Body advised the respective churches not 
 to be hasty in accepting the said act but to abide a more 
 particular consideration of the subject at its next meeting 
 of the Synod.? 
 
 The Synod of 1785, —the first to use the title of 
 “Synod,”’ resolved, Article xv: 
 
 ‘Since it has become further apparent to the Reverend Body that 
 there are highly objectionable features in the Act of Ecclesiastical 
 Incorporation, passed by the Legislature of the State of New York, the 
 Reverend Body determine to appoint a committee both from the congre- 
 gations in the State of New York and those in New Jersey, to solicit of 
 the Supreme Magistrates of the respective states the right and privilege 
 by means of an Act, or change of Act or Acts already passed, to incorpo- 
 rate the Ecclesiastical Societies of the same according to the State and 
 Constitution of the Reformed Dutch Churches, and agreeably to the 
 manner and mode in which some of the same, as those of New York and 
 
 Albany, Hackensack, New Millstone and others, have already been 
 long actually incorporated.” + 
 
 1 Acts and Proceedings, vol. 1, p. 128. 
 2 Gunn, op. cit., p. 284. 
 
 3 Acts and Proceedings, vol. i, p. 129. 
 4 Tbid., vol. i, pp. 141-142. 
 
290 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 The committee was appointed, and prepared a petition to 
 their Excellencies, the authorities, together with a plan 
 which would make each Consistory, for the time being, a 
 legal Board of Trustees. This recommendation was 
 approved by the Synod at its October meeting in 1786.1 
 
 Doctor Livingston was quite concerned about the 
 character of the control over churches which the new 
 government was seeking to assume, — it was much too 
 Republican to suit his Dutch tradition. He wrote Dr. 
 Romeyn, March 1786: 
 
 “The business of our incorporations, I found was not properly under- 
 
 stood by some, and very warmly opposed by others. The ideas adopted 
 by the authors of the incorporation act, were to keep the temporalities of 
 all churches perfectly distinct from spirituals. For this reason, without 
 adverting to the customs or discipline of any religious denomination, the 
 body corporate in one and all of them was to be formed in a new mode, 
 and this mode be adopted by every congregation. In this plan, there are 
 many of our great folks so established, that I despaired of any opening for 
 redress in our case. I applied, however, constantly to some leading 
 members in both houses, and at last obtained their consent to a bill . 
 But, even as to this bill, it is suggested to me, that it will be insisted upon, 
 and probably a clause for that purpose added to the bill, that our Elders 
 and Deacons shall be chosen at large by the people, and not by the 
 Consistories, as at present, being, as they say, more republican. Should 
 this last be urged, I would rather. drop the whole application, as that 
 remedy would be worse than the present disease, and would infallibly 
 bring confusion into our Churches.” 2 
 
 Not having been able to achieve their ends by the time 
 of the May meeting of 1787, it was decided to try political 
 pressure from the church at large, — petitions, Article 
 
 XIil: 
 eat he Reverend Synod, having learned from the Reverend Professor 
 
 J. H. Livingston, that there has already been presented to the supreme 
 authority of the State of New York a petition for the incorporation of 
 
 ' Acts and Proceedings, vol. i, pp. 150. 
 > Gunn, op. cit., pp. 285-286. 
 
THE REFORMED CHURCHES 29] 
 
 Consistories as Trustees of the property of the churches, in accordance 
 with the Constitution of the Netherland Church, but that the same has 
 not yet been answered, judge that, for the further promoting and effecting 
 the object of said petition, there shall also be received a request from the 
 respective members of the various congregations, to be presented at the 
 next session, in accordance with the form on the subject drawn and 
 approved by the present Synodical Meeting; of which a copy shall be 
 taken and presented to the respective Classes, that the same may be 
 subscribed by all the congregations in a uniform manner, before the 
 coming session of the honorakle Assembly of the State of New York, in 
 such a way as the respective Consistories shall judge most suitable.” ! 
 
 Political pressure from the influential Dutch Reformed 
 
 members was finally partially effective and a law was 
 obtained, 
 
 “that the Minister or Ministers, and Elders and Deacons, and, if 
 during any time, there be no Minister, then the Elders and Deacons, 
 during such time, of every Reformed Protestant Dutch Church, or 
 congregation, now or hereafter to be established in this State, and elected 
 according to the rules and usages of such Churches within this State, shall 
 be the Trustees for every such Church or Congregation.” 2 
 
 Internally the Reverend Body and the church at large 
 was experiencing increasing difficulties in trying to run 
 according to the old order. The Meeting of 1786 raised the 
 question of the use of an English Psalmody. The matter 
 was referred to the next meeting but before it was finally 
 settled it was to involve a reconstruction of the whole 
 constitution of the church.? 
 
 The Synod of 1787 decided to act in the matter, Article 
 xx1; 
 
 “The Reverend Body, convinced of the necessity for another and 
 better version of the Psalms of David, than the congregations as yet 
 
 possess in the English language, which is continually increasing in our 
 churches, to be used for their benefit in public worship (no congrega- 
 
 1 Acts and Proceedings, vol. i, pp. 156-157. 
 
 2 Gunn, op. cit., p. 287; Revised and Session Laws of the State of New 
 York, edition of 1802, section 2, chapter 79. 
 
 3 Acts and Proceedings, vol. 1, p. 151. 
 
 Pe 
 
@> 
 
 20909 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 tion, however, to be obliged thereto, where that of the New York Consis- 
 tory is in use), have determined as speedily as possible to form such a 
 new versification out of other collections of English Psalms in repute and 
 received in the Reformed Churches. As a committee for this purpose 
 are appointed . . . . . Livingston, Westerlo, * Linn, Hardenbergh, 
 Romeyn, Froelich, and Blauvelt who are requested to engage in the work 
 with all practicable speed, and lay it before this Synod for ecclesiastical 
 approval.” ! 
 
 Dr. Livingston soon came to a realization that a much 
 larger problem than that of securing a suitable English 
 version of the psalms was involved. In March 1788, he 
 wrote: 
 
 ‘“Thave digested only from the first psalm to the fiftieth inclusive . 
 
 I suppose it will be proper, when we get the new Psalms printed, to have 
 the Catechism, Articles of Faith, and Liturgy, printed and bound up with 
 some of the books, and leave it to the purchasers to get the Psalm-book 
 either with or without those additions . . . . . Buta fair opportunity 
 will now be offered to publish with our articles and liturgy, the form of 
 our discipline and government. The Churches in America are all assum- 
 ing a new complexion. From being the appendages of national churches 
 in Europe, they now become national Churches themselves in this new 
 Empire. All denominations of any importance in America, have con- 
 sidered themselves in this new light, and have made regulations accord- 
 ingly: and it deserves our attention to see what ought to be done with 
 respect to ourselves in this particular and how far we may proceed con- 
 sistent with the relation we yet claim to our mother church in Holland. 
 We are not represented, and we cannot have representation in the 
 Churches in Holland, — as such, we have already formed ourselves into 
 an independent Synod, and we have sufficient proof that some of our 
 brethren in Amsterdam would rather we had not done this, but their 
 views are contracted and cannot be our rule. It is necessary we should 
 revise some articles in our fundamental agreement respecting our church 
 government of 1771, and see whether some of those articles do not militate 
 against our independent state.” 2 
 
 The Synod of 1788 resolved, Article xxi, relative to the 
 work of arranging the psalms: 
 
 “The Reverend Body, learning from some of the gentlemen appointed a 
 committee ad hance rem, that this work is not yet sufficiently executed to 
 
 ' Acts and Proceedings, vol. i, p. 167. 2 Gunn, op. cit., pp. 298-299. 
 
THE REFORMED CHURCHES 293 
 
 enable the committee to make a full report, but that progress has been 
 made, ordain, upon mature deliberation: 
 
 1. That the same committee be continued. 
 
 2. That in the performance of this work, the committee limit them- 
 selves to the known Psalm-books of the New York congregation, of 
 Tate and Bracy, and of Watts; from which three books a complete 
 Psalm-book shall be drawn, as nearly approaching and agreeable to the 
 original Psalms as is possible, consistently with the rules of English 
 poetry. 
 
 3. That inasmuch as there may, in the judgment of the committee, be 
 found in said books some Psalms which are not expressed in accurate 
 agreement with the Confession of Faith in our churches, the committee 
 shall have liberty to supply this lack from some other authors of 
 acknowledged orthodoxy. 
 
 4. That the committee (by reason of the urgent necessity of the 
 churches, which cannot suffer long delay without great danger of con- 
 fusion) are hereby also empowered, as soon as the majority agree in 
 relation to this compilation, to forward said Psalm-book to the press, 
 that the Reverend Synod may, if practicable, be able at their next 
 meeting to present it in the most discreet and suitable manner to the 
 congregations. 
 
 5. And since it is regarded necessary that some well-composed 
 spiritual hymns be connected as a supplement with this new Psalm-book, 
 it is ordained that the committee also have a care over this matter, and 
 print such hymns in connection with the Psalms. 
 
 6. And lastly, it is deemed necessary that the Heidelberg Catechism, 
 Confession of Faith, and Forms of our Church as translated into the 
 English language and printed in the present New York Psalm-book, be 
 reprinted and inserted in the new edition.” ! 
 
 Dr. Livingston announced the completion of this work, 
 March, 1789. 
 
 “T have received answers from all the gentlemen of the commitee, 
 and am authorized and requested by them to proceed with the printing. 
 . As to the translations, and what respects our Church discipline 
 and government, these, I suppose, may be brought in such readiness as to 
 enable us to make some report in the Synod of May, and take such 
 further steps, as to lay the whole before the Synod of October.” ? 
 
 1 Acts and Proceedings, vol. 1, p. 182. 
 2 Gunn, op. cit., p. 299. 
 
204 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 At the October meeting in 1789, Article xix: 
 
 ‘The Reverend Committee upon this subject report, that said book is 
 already committed to the press, and they expect ere long the satisfaction 
 of beholding its issue.’’ ! : 
 
 And at the October meeting in 1790, Article xxxi: 
 
 ‘The Reverend Synod perceive with much satisfaction that the English 
 Psalms, together with the selection of Hymns formerly approved by 
 Synodical decrees, have been happily committed to the press, and are 
 printed and already in use in many congregations; and the present 
 Synod cannot on this occasion omit publicly to render thanks in the 
 name of the Church to the gentlemen composing the committee on this 
 subject, and especially to the Reverend Professor Livingston, who 
 particularly has lent his hand and help. They observe, likewise, in 
 addition, that the Dutch churches are not restricted to the versification by 
 Petrus Dathenus, as recently a new translation and versification of the 
 Psalms has been introduced into the Netherland Churches; and that, 
 according to the intention of the Synod of Dordrecht, hymns which have 
 been approved by a Synod should not be excluded from the churches.” 2 
 
 The October Meeting of 1792 again referred to Dr. Living- 
 ston’s work, Article xvii: 
 
 ‘The Reverend Body direct that Professor Livingston be thanked for his 
 services in compiling and editing, as well as procuring a copy-right of the 
 English versification of the Psalms; and said Professor is hereby ap- 
 pointed, in the name of this Reverend Body, to do whatever further 
 pertains to this subject.” 4 
 
 By 1788 it had become evident that the whole church 
 order must be overhauled in order to fit American con- 
 ditions. It was accordingly resolved, Article xxvii: 
 
 “Since the circumstances of our churches, especially in relation to the 
 general protection of the civil authorities in freedom of worship, neces- 
 sarily demand that not only the Confession of Faith, but also the order 
 of our Church and its Form of Church Government, should be made 
 known to our countrymen in the English language, by the press, as has 
 
 ' Acts and Proceedings, vol. i, pe 199. 
 * [bid., vol. i, p. 212. 
 3 Ibid., vol. i, p. 239. 
 
THE REFORMED CHURCHES 295 
 
 already been done by all the chief persuasions in our American States: 
 and since the English language is our national tongue, and is making 
 progress, and has already been adopted wholly or in part in worship in the 
 most of our congregations, and the rising generation seem to be little 
 acquainted with the Dutch tongue: the Synod therefore feel themselves 
 bound, both as regards our fellow-citizens and the civil government in 
 general, and also for the preservation of our Dutch Church and the 
 instruction of its adherents, and of the children in particular, to attend 
 to this subject. Whereupon, it is resolved to appoint a committee 
 to translate into the English language the Articles of Church Govern- 
 ment of the National Synod, held at Dordrecht, 1618 and 1619, which 
 being accompanied by such articles taken from the proceedings of this 
 Reverend Body as have particular reference to the circumstance of the 
 Church in this country will exhibit the true nature and form of govern- 
 ment of our Dutch Churches in America. And it is further resolved, that 
 the Reverend Committee endeavor to have this collection and translation 
 in readiness to lay before this Reverend Synod at its next ordinary con- 
 vening, in order that the same, with our standards may as speedily 
 as practicable, consistently with all prudence, be given to the public 
 by the press. Messrs. Livingston, Westerlo, Linn, Meyer, Romeyn, 
 Hardenbergh, Rysdyk, and Peter Low were appointed the committee.” 4 
 
 Theirs was to be a work of no mean magnitude and it 
 was not until the Synod of 1790 that the report of the 
 committee was presented. It was thereupon resolved, 
 Article xx: 
 
 “1. That the distinct translations of the Articles of Church Order of 
 the Reverend Synod of Dordrecht in the years 1618 and 1619, and of the 
 Plan of Union adopted 1772, both made in English by Drs. Dirck Romeyn 
 and Ejil. Westerlo, be referred to a committee, who shall carefully com- 
 pare the same with the original Dutch, and alter and amend all such 
 English words and phrases as either are not pure, or do not actually and 
 appropriately express the true and literal meaning. 
 
 2. ‘That the same committee likewise prepare some observations upon 
 the articles of Church Order, to be incorporated among them, in which 
 the proper sense and meaning of them, if necessary, shall be briefly 
 declared, or sufficient reasons be assigned why some articles are not 
 inserted, or cannot be carried out in our American churches. 
 
 3. That the Reverend Ministers of the congregation of New York, as 
 residing in close proximity to each other, and most conveniently situated 
 
 1 Acts and Proceedings, vol. i, pp. 184-185. 
 
296 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 readily to confer together, be appointed a committee on the subject by 
 this Synod. 
 
 4. That in the coming Spring, an extra Synod be convoked in order 
 to revise said Plan of Union, and with common consent enlarge it, by 
 inserting or adding some further rules, made in subsequent General 
 Convenings or Synods, and thus, upon previous investigations, approving 
 Synodaliter the aforesaid translation and observations. 
 
 5. That if necessary, the following Autumn, a General Ecclesiastical 
 Meeting be solicited, calmly to weigh the whole subject, and determine 
 finaliter, whether the same shall be issued in full or in part, and in what 
 language, or whether both in Dutch and English, for the special benefit of 
 our congregations.” ! 
 
 In March 1791 Dr. Livingston wrote: 
 
 “T have not been able, until within a few days, to take up the subject 
 of our constitution and discipline. Upon considering the design of the 
 publication, I am fully of your opinion, that there is no necessity of 
 adhering strictly to a translation totidem verbis, of the Synod of Dort: 
 nor even of giving every article, as many of them are local and only appli- 
 cable to the Netherlands. - It is not a history of the Dutch Church as it 
 is in Europe, which we are to compile, but a true and regular detail of the 
 constitution of the Reformed Dutch Church in America. As our charters 
 and our discipline refer us to the Synod of Dort, we must show that 
 we build upon that basis, with such deviations as time and circum- 
 stances have rendered unavoidable. We have two sources from whence 
 we draw our present constitution, — one, the Synod of Dort; — and the 
 other, the resolutions and fundamental articles agreed upon by our 
 Churches, and ratified by the Classis of Amsterdam, in the name of the 
 Synod of North Holland. From these and some subsequent acts of our 
 own Synod, our discipline is formed. . . . . . To this end, suppose a 
 title like this was made. The Constitution and Form of Government of the 
 Reformed Dutch Church in America, as established in the Synod Nat: of 
 Dort, 1618-19; and agreed wpon in the Assembly held at New York, 1771- 
 1972, by and with the approbation of the Classis of Amsterdam, and finally 
 ratified in Synod, held at New York, October 1791. This, or some shorter, 
 which may comprehend these ideas, will justify us in making such 
 extracts from each of these sources as shall, altogether, bring forward one 
 complete system. This will show to the world what our present consti- 
 tution is, and sufficiently prove our connection and adherence to the 
 Synod of Dort.’’? 
 
 ' Acts and Proceedings, vol. i, pp. 210-211. 
 2Gunn, op. cit., pp. 313-315. 
 
THE REFORMED CHURCHES 297 
 
 Considerable progress had been made by the time 
 of the May meeting of 1791. Their resolutions show, 
 Article ix: 
 
 “The gentlemen appointed a committee to specify the subjects to be 
 included in the Constitution of the Reformed Dutch Churches of America, 
 to be issued in accordance with the intentions of Synod report, that 
 after mature deliberation, it appears to them that such publication 
 should be entirely restricted to what constitutes the Doctrine, Liturgy, 
 and Government of said churches, that it may not only not form an 
 unnecessarily large volume, but also not perplex the English reader, by 
 the introduction of anything that does not essentially pertain to our 
 ecclesiastical regulations; that therefore, all that relates to the Church in 
 the Netherlands, and especially to the agency of the magistrate in ecclesi- 
 astical matters in that country, is not properly included in the regula- 
 tions which are the basis of the government of our churches in America. 
 The committee further remark, that the Proceedings of the National 
 Synod, held at Dordrecht, are the basis of the government of all Reformed 
 churches throughout the world, and that all charters which have been 
 given to the Dutch churches in the States of New York and New Jersey, 
 are also founded thereon; that yet, since in these proceedings many 
 things occur which have particular reference to the Netherlands, the 
 Dutch churches in other portions of the world have been necessitated 
 to adapt them to their particular circumstance, as was also done by our 
 churches in America in the general meetings held in New York in the 
 years 1771 and 1772, when a Plan of Church Government was formed 
 and adopted, which was also approved by the Reverend Classis of 
 Amsterdam, as appointed for that purpose, by the Supreme Synod of 
 North Holland, and this plan has been enlarged and amended by subse- 
 quent Synodical Acts. The committee, therefore, judge it advisable that 
 the Reverend Synod further direct and authorize their committee upon 
 this subject to frame out of said proceedings a suitable plan which shall 
 constitute the whole ecclesiastical discipline and government of the Dutch 
 Reformed churches in America, as now situated, and which shall be the 
 only rule by which such churches are directed to abide, and by which they 
 shall be known and distinguished as Dutch churches. This, in our 
 estimation, will answer the expectations of the public, satisfy the desires 
 of the civil government, and serve for the direction of all the members of 
 our Church; since it will likewise appear from this, plan, that the pro- 
 ceedings of the National Synod of Dordrecht are the basis of the govern- 
 ment of the Dutch churches in America, cordially received and carefully 
 adapted to its particular circumstances in this country; and that thus, the 
 different charters may be ratified, and the attachment of the members of 
 
298 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 said churches to the Reformed Dutch churches in the Netherlands may 
 be fully confirmed. 
 
 The Reverend Synod, having deliberated upon this report, resolved, 
 that the committee be requested to frame a draft of Church Government 
 and Discipline, agreeably to the principles stated in the report, and lay 
 an accurate copy if practicable, before the Reverend Synod, at their next 
 meeting. In order, however, also to secure the counsel and assistance 
 of all their members in this weighty matter, it is likewise ordained, that 
 the President of this Synod communicate to each of the respective 
 Classes the request of this Synod, that each and every minister, with an 
 elder (besides those who are appointed by the Reverend Classes as 
 delegates to Synod), please to appear at the meeting in New York, on the 
 first Wednesday in the ensuing October, so that the Synod may be able 
 to avail themselves of the presence and counsel of the whole body of 
 ministers and elders in issuing their Ecclesiastical Constitution, as also in 
 relation to the Professorship and other weighty matters.” ! 
 
 At the October meeting of 1791, Article xxiii: 
 
 “Professor Livingston, as one of the committee on the subject, reported 
 to this Reverend Body that he had adapted, as was deemed necessary, 
 the English translation of the rules for the regulation of Dutch churches 
 ordained in the Synod of Dort, to local and other circumstances, and now 
 presented it for approval at the table of the Reverend Body; whereupon 
 the Reverend Body proceeded to revise the same, article by article, which 
 being done, it seemed fit to them to appoint a committee to revise them 
 anew, and present them at the Extra Meeting of Synod in the next 
 Spring. The Reverend Professor Livingston and Drs. Linn and Kuypers, 
 
 9 
 
 each with one of their Elders were appointed the committee.” 2 
 
 At the May Meeting, Article v, 1792: 
 
 ‘Professor Livingston reports, in the name of the committee, that upon 
 mature consideration of this subject, it appears to them that, besides a 
 translation of the articles Synod Dort, it will be necessary to add some 
 articles in explanation of the way and manner in which said Church 
 Order of Dort is put into practice, agreeably to the Articles of Union 
 ordained 1771, to the end that thus from one or the other the people in 
 general may be able to form a correct conception of our mode of Church 
 Government. He further informed the Reverend Body, that not only 
 was the translation of said articles Synod National completed, but in 
 part, also, the draft of the explanatory articles; and Deo volente, they 
 
 1 Acts and Proceedings, vol. i, pp. 217-219. 
 * Thid., vol. i, pp. 226-227. 
 
THE REFORMED CHURCHES 299 
 
 would be ready to be presented for approval at the next Synod in October. 
 Resolved, That the Reverend Body in the highest manner approve of 
 such mode of exhibiting their form of Church Government, and will 
 expect that all the papers pertaining thereto will be carefully presented at 
 the Synod which is to be held at New York the coming October.” ! 
 
 In October, 1792, Article vii: 
 
 “Professor Livingston reported, that he had completed the work in- 
 trusted to him at the Extra Synod on Church Order, and brought to the 
 table a draft of explanatory articles for Synodical approval; whereupon, 
 Synod were pleased to appoint a committee carefully to examine said 
 draft, and report thereon, stante Synodo. Professor Livingston, Linn, 
 Romeyn, Froelich, Basset, Studiford, Smith, Duryee, Schuyler, Van 
 Veghten, Bunn and Wortmen, Elders, were appointed. 
 
 The Reverend Committee brought in the following report, which 
 was made a Synodical decree: 
 
 The Reverend Body, taking up this Lemma, find that it originated in 
 the year 1778 (Article xxiii), since which time it has been continued, and 
 has been made a subject of action from time to time, until the present 
 session, when we have the happiness of seeing all the branches pertaining 
 to this weighty subject completed and brought to the table. 
 
 The Reverend Body having inspected the same, and read it article by 
 article, and approved both the translation of the ecclesiastical regulations 
 of the Synod of Dort, in the years 1618 and 1619, and the explanatory 
 articles relative to the same, showing how they are applied to the Re- 
 formed Church in this country, agreeably to the Articles of Union, of 
 the years 1771 and 1772, all the Reverend Brethren formally and solemnly 
 recognized said articles as a just exposition of the nature and mode of the 
 government and discipline received and established in said churches; and 
 the same are to that end in the most earnest manner commended to all 
 the members of their widely extended congregations, as the ecclesiastical 
 rule of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America; and Professor 
 Livingston and Dr. William Linn, and the Elder, Mr. Peter Wilson, are 
 appointed a committee to issue said work, who shall exercise care over 
 its phraseology, without assuming to attempt the least change in its 
 sense and meaning.” ? 
 
 The October meeting of 1793 finally enacted, Article v1: 
 
 “The issuing of the Constitution of the Reformed Dutch Churches in 
 America having been regarded as a matter of great importance, and 
 
 2 Acts and Proceedings, vol. i, p. 229. 
 1 Thid., vol. i, pp. 235-236. 
 
300 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 measures having been taken by many successive Synods to carry the 
 same into execution; and the proposal of Professor Livingston, made in 
 the Extra Synod of May 1792, to embrace, in certain explanatory 
 articles, a general account of the government and discipline of the 
 Dutch churches, as well as the particular manner in which the regula- 
 tions adopted in the last National Synod, held in Dordrecht, are to be 
 followed, and applied to local circumstance in America, having been like- 
 - wise received, and said explanatory articles placed upon the table of the 
 General Synod, held in New York, in October 1792; the translation also 
 of the Ecclesiastical Rules of said Synod of Dordrecht having been 
 unanimously, approved, and orders given that the whole should be 
 committed to the press: Professor Livingston, in the name of the com- 
 mittee, reported to this Body, that the same had been happily completed, 
 and exhibited the book containing the Liturgy and Government of the 
 Church, embraced in the Ecclesiastical Rules, and Explanatory Articles 
 of the Reformed Churches in America. Agreeably to the foregoing reso- 
 lutions of the Synod, Synod received the same full approbation, and with 
 thanksgiving to the Lord Jesus Christ, on whose shoulders is the govern- 
 ment of the Church, and who has hitherto preserved and blessed the 
 Reformed Church, and enabled its members to present their Constitution 
 in a manner which they regard acceptable to Him, and not without 
 expectation that the same will be contemplated with satisfaction by other 
 persuasions, being convinced that it will subserve the promotion of 
 piety and good order in the respective congregations. The Reverend 
 Synod, therefore, with all earnestness, recommend this publication to all 
 their congregations, and cannot, at the same time, refrain from testiyIng 
 their thankfulness to the members of the committee appointed to carry 
 forward this work.” 4 
 
 In 1789 the title of the church was altered. Article xxv 
 ordered: 
 
 “By reason of the happy extension of our church far beyond its former 
 limits, it is seen fit by the Reverend Synod that henceforth, in all their 
 Keclesiastical Acts, North America shall be substituted for New York 
 and New Jersey; and that in all translations of our proceedings into the 
 English language, which by reason of circumstance must frequently 
 
 occur, in place of ‘De Hoog Eerw’ (The Highly Reverend), ‘The Most 
 Reverend’ shall be employed.” 2 
 
 2 Acts and Proceedings, vol. i, pp. 245-246. 
 1 Ibid., vol.i) p. 201. 
 
THE REFORMED CHURCHES 301 
 
 This whole proceedings had resulted in the preserving of 
 the eighty-four Articles of Dort on Church Order, with an 
 _addition of seventy-three Explanatory Articles, showing 
 how the former were to be applied to the American Dutch 
 Church. 
 
 The Explanatory Articles particularly enlarged on the 
 subject of candidates, their qualification, the manner of 
 their entering the ministry, and the privileges which 
 belonged to them as such: a formula to which licentiates 
 must subscribe was also incorporated, as well as a formula 
 for the subscriptions of ministers before ordination. The 
 present form of call was prepared and inserted. The 
 particular powers and duties of the Classes were more 
 fully defined. The power of examining students was given 
 to the Classes, although a student or licentiate could yet 
 be examined by the ParticularSynod if he so preferred. The 
 deputies of the Synod were always to be present at exam- 
 inations by the Classes, and to report to the Synod (Article 
 xxxvii). Article xli of Dort, directed the president of the 
 Classis to inquire of the respective members “ whether church 
 discipline be exercised; whether the poor and the schools 
 be properly taken care of; and whether they stand in need 
 of the advice and assistance of the Classis in anything re- 
 specting the regulations of their churches”; and Article 
 xliv directed each Classis to appoint visitors, “whose 
 business it shall be to enquire whether the ministers, 
 Consistories, and schoolmasters do faithfully discharge 
 their offices; whether they adhere to sound doctrines; 
 whether they observe in all things the received discipline, 
 etc.” Explanatory Article xliv expounded these, “Once 
 every year the Classis shall direct what shall be deemed 
 necessary and practicable with regard to the visitation of 
 the churches within their respective jurisdiction, and 
 
302 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 report the same to the Synod. For the more uniform and 
 proper execution of this important duty, such particular 
 questions and inquiries as shall be agreed upon in any 
 General Synod, for that purpose shall be inserted in the 
 book of records of every Classis, and by the visitors be 
 faithfully proposed to the ministers, elders, and deacons of 
 every Congregation in their respective visitations.” 
 
 The particular powers and duties of the General Synod 
 and of Particular Synods were more fully defined. The 
 latter were to be representative bodies, consisting of 
 two ministers and two elders from each Classis. They 
 might yet examine and license students. They were “‘to 
 exchange every year a copy of their acts with the Synod of 
 North Holland, and express in their letters the desire of 
 the Reformed Church in America to preserve a connection 
 and cultivate a correspondence which they esteem and 
 have found to be beneficial (Explanatory Article 1). 
 
 It had been found impracticable in Holland to hold a 
 triennial General Synod (notwithstanding Article | of 
 Dort so directed), owing chiefly to certain civil complica- 
 tions. Hence the several Particular Synods in Holland 
 exercised each the power of a General Synod within their 
 respective local jurisdictions, and adopted a mutual cor- 
 respondence. The General Synod in Holland, according 
 to the above article, was to consist of two ministers and 
 two elders from every Particular Synod both of the Dutch | 
 and Walloon Churches. But in America it was determined 
 that the General Synod should be conventional, consisting 
 of all the ministers in the church and an elder from each 
 congregation. It was to meet triennially. The General 
 Synod, however, was given the privilege of changing 
 its conventional character to a representative one by 
 resolution. 
 
THE REFORMED CHURCHES 303 
 
 The First General Synod was organized, June 3, 1794, 
 and the old Synod became a Particular Synod. An 
 American organization had been achieved. 
 
 In the meantime relations with Holland were anything 
 but satisfactory. Though the customary relations were ~ 
 supposed to have survived the Revolution, yet the Church 
 in Holland completely ignored the alterations which, 
 beginning in 1784, actual conditions forced on the American 
 Church. This placed the self-constituted ““Synod” in an 
 embarrassing position and led to many attempts to secure 
 some sort of recognition from abroad. In 1786 the Synod 
 records, Article vi: 
 
 “There was delivered at the table of this Body, by the Deputatus, 
 J. H. Livingston, a letter from the Reverend Classis of Amsterdam, of 
 the 10th January of this year, with the Acts of the Synod of North 
 Holland, of the years 1784 and 1785. The Reverend Body rejoice in the 
 highest degree in this new token of unbroken union and edifying fellow- 
 
 ship, and return thanks to the Reverend Classis of Amsterdam for their 
 
 continued fraternal care in transmitting the above mentioned Synodical 
 ACLS. Go 
 
 The Synod of 1787 also noted the receipts of a letter from 
 the Reverend Classis of Amsterdam together with the 
 Acts of the Synod of North Holland.? But these com- 
 munications were not to the satisfaction of the American 
 branch of the church. Dr. Livingston thus expressed his 
 disapproval of them: 
 
 “The letter accompanying the acts of Synod, I have not opened, 
 but have only taken notice of the address, in which I find they implicitly 
 deny our being a Synod, by giving us the same title we had before our 
 present organization; and this is one thing I wish to know your senti- 
 ments upon; whether it would not be proper for us by some article in 
 
 our minutes, or by some clause in our letter, to express our sensibility 
 upon their silence respecting our present judicatories; for, if we correspond, 
 
 1 Acts and Proceedings, vol. i, p. 145. 
 2 Ihid., vol. 1, pp. 160-161. 
 
304 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 it ought to be continued upon the footing of mutual respect, or it 
 may, in its consequences, soon be productive of some disagreeable events. 
 Perhaps we have been too remiss in not taking notice of this before, or 
 it is possible that silence may be the most prudent and eligible.” 
 
 Matters grew steadily worse. The Synod of 1788 had 
 recelved no word? and that of 1789 noted: 
 
 “No letter of the Reverend Classis of Amsterdam nor Acts of the 
 Reverend Synod of North Holland, which would be to the Reverend 
 Synod like good news from a far country, and, in the midst of all the 
 pressing evils under which the churches of this land continue to sigh, like 
 cold water to a thirsty soul, have been received. The Reverend Synod 
 long, and pant ere long to be gladdened with those agreeable tokens of 
 paternal remembrance on the part of the highly honored churches of the 
 Netherlands.” ’ 
 
 The Synod of 1790 is beginning to wonder at the long 
 silence, Article vi: 
 
 “No letter from the Reverend Classis of Amsterdam nor Acts of the 
 Reverend Synod of North Holland have been received. The Reverend 
 Synod are greatly surprised at this long delay, not comprehending what 
 can be the reason thereof, except that our letters and acts have not been 
 received. The Synod, not being inclined to break off the correspondence, 
 desire the Deputati to prepare a letter of inquiry to the Reverend 
 Classis of Amsterdam, and lay it before this Synod for approval.” 4 
 
 The Synod of 1791 records, Article vi: 
 
 “The Deputatus reports that agreeably to the resolution of the last 
 Ordinary Meeting, a letter was sent to the Reverend Classis of Amster- 
 dam, to which no answer has yet been received. The Reverend Body 
 therefore continue to entertain expectation of a favorable reply.’’® 
 
 But such was not received. The Synods of 1792 and the 
 First General Synod which met in. 1793 still continue to 
 lament the silence of the parent church. 
 
 1 Gunn, op. cit., pp. 296-297. 
 
 2 Acts and Proceedings, vol. i, p. 176. 
 SI Did AVOlo isp AL OG. 
 
 4 Tbhid., vol. i, pp. 204-205. 
 
 > [hid., vol. i, pp. 221-222. 
 
 8 Tbed., vol. i, p. 236. 
 
 7 Ibhid., vol. i, p. 248. 
 
THE REFORMED CHURCHES 305 
 
 The General Synod of 1793 signalized the completion of 
 the Constitution of the American Dutch Reformed Church 
 in America. This had been accomplished without the 
 least advice or assistance from abroad. ! 
 
 Nationalization of the German Reformed Church in 
 America progressed much more slowly and less inde- 
 pendently than was the case with the Dutch Reformed 
 Church. The years immediately succeeding the Revolu- 
 tion are historically unimportant for the German Re- 
 formed sect. It is true that the members of the Coetus 
 occupied a position which for local dignity and influence 
 has seldom been equaled in the Reformed Church. There 
 were, however, few signs of growth or advancement. 
 Apparently they were incapable of adapting themselves to 
 the spirit of independent America. Every year the minis- 
 ter received his proportion of a Holland stipend, amount- 
 ing to a couple hundred of dollars; and as this fact was well 
 known the people did not interest themselves greatly in the 
 support of their religion. The condition of the church 
 was peaceful but there was no consciousness of a special 
 mission. The connection with Holland was a burden and 
 there was no Livingston in the German Reformed Church 
 to loose them from their load. 
 
 As early as 1771, when the Dutch Reformed Churches 
 were about to assume a somewhat American form of 
 government, they invited the German Reformed Churches 
 to unite with them but the German Coetus declined on the 
 ground of their affection for the fathers in Holland. Their 
 love for the Dutch in Holland was much greater apparently 
 than for American Dutch; they were much more inclined 
 to mingle with other German sects in America than with 
 
 1 Constitution of the Reformed Dutch Church in the United States, New 
 York, 1793. 
 
 + 
 
 ee 
 
306 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Dutch Reformed congregations. Arrangements with 
 German Lutherans for the use of union churches became 
 
 numerous; and in some instances where both congrega- 
 
 tions were weak and poor a single pastor was called, and 
 
 the congregations thus united were known as “ Evangelical”’ 
 r “Protestant.” 
 
 In 1787 an attempt was made in South Carolina to 
 ~ establish an ecclesiastical body, which was officially known 
 as Corpus Evangelicum or Unio Ecclesiastica. It consisted 
 of five Lutheran and two Reformed ministers, together 
 with delegates from fifteen churches. This union, how- 
 ever, was short lived.! 
 
 Out of the association of the two German denominations 
 grew the desire to found a German college; it is impossible 
 to say which first suggested the idea. The honor may be 
 divided between four ministers: Helmuth and Muhlen- 
 berg, Lutherans; and Weyberg and Hendel, German 
 Reformed. The new institution was opened in June 
 1787, and named Franklin College in honor of Benjamin 
 Franklin, the largest individual contributor to its endow- 
 ment. Its first president was Dr. Muhlenberg, and Dr. 
 Hendel was vice-president. 
 
 In the Coetal letter of 1789 the German Reformed 
 Church announced to its parent in Holland that it realized 
 that steps must be taken to meet the new American 
 situation: 
 
 “Since the new Constitution and established government of the 
 country bring changes with them, we notice, among other things, that 
 the several denominations throughout the States unite, form Classes, and 
 then Synods. This will also become necessary for us, the German Re- 
 formed, and then the name, Coetus of Pennsylvania, would be too 
 
 limited. In this matter we await the opinion of the Reverend Fathers. 
 As the establishment, growth, and reputation of the Reformed religion 
 
 1 Bernheim, History of the Lutheran Church in the Carolinas. 
 
THE REFORMED CHURCHES 307 
 
 was always the chief aim of your noble exertions, we hope that the in- 
 formation concerning the union of the High German Reformed Churches 
 throughout the extensive American States will be most agreeable and 
 desirable to the Most Reverend Fathers.” ! 
 
 The Reverend Fathers in Holland ignored this appeal as 
 they had in the case of the Dutch Reformed church; the 
 American church could not wait, so in 1791, adopted their 
 declaration of independence, Article 11: 
 
 “Resolved, That the Coetus has the right at all times, to examine and 
 ordain those who offer themselves as candidates for the ministry, without 
 asking or waiting for permission to do so from the Fathers in Holland.” ? 
 And it was further resolved, Article iv, to send to Holland, 
 “report of their proceedings, accompanied by suitable 
 explanations, when it is necessary.”® It is noteworthy 
 that these proceedings were sent merely as a matter of 
 explanation or courtesy and not as formerly for revision, 
 and that Articles iii and iv were not sent at all. 
 
 Having taken the first step the Coetus of 1792 went 
 forward with the business of organization. At Phila- 
 delphia in May, Article 1: 
 
 “It was moved that a committee be chosen to prepare such fundamental 
 rules as would make closer the bond of union in the Reverend Coetus, 
 each member of the Committe to draw up his ideas in writing, in order 
 
 to compare them later on. The following were appointed on this com- 
 mittee: Drs. Hendel, Pomp, and Blumer.” 4 
 
 No answer came from Holland. In 1793 the Synod held 
 its first meeting at Lancaster, where, by the adoption of 
 the Synodalordnung, it became an independent body con- 
 sisting of about 178 congregations and 15,000 communi- 
 cants.° In the preamble to the Synodalordnung, it is said 
 
 1 Minutes and Letters of the Coetus of the German Reformed Congrega- 
 tions in Pennsylvania, p. 431-432. 
 
 2 Ilnd., p. 446; Dubbs, op. cit., p. 323. 
 
 3 Thid., p. 446. 
 4 Thid., p. 449. 5 Dubbs, op. cit., p. 323. 
 
308 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 to have been established by “all the Evangelical Re- 
 formed churches of Pennsylvania and certain neighboring 
 States”’; but in the first article it is declared that the body 
 which has hitherto been known as the Coetus of Pennsyl- 
 vania shall hereafter be entitled the “Synod of the Re- 
 formed German Church in the United States.”’ Ministers 
 who had been sent to America by the Synods of Holland, 
 or who might hereafter be sent, were entitled to member- 
 ship, those who came from other parts of Europe were 
 required to present certificates of ordination and testi- 
 monials of good conduct. For one year all ministers 
 received from a foreign country remained honorary mem- 
 bers, without a seat or vote. Candidates for the ministry 
 were required to be well grounded in the ancient languages, 
 except in special cases when the applicant was more than 
 twenty-five years of age and was otherwise well qualified 
 for the office. Delegated elders were entitled to a seat and 
 vote in Synod, except that elders representing vacant 
 charges had no vote. The powers of the president were 
 carefully guarded, but he seems to have been an influential 
 personage. It was not only made his duty to reprimand 
 delinquents, but under certain circumstances to suspend 
 them from office until the next meeting of Synod. Pastors 
 were required to present annual reports of their ministry, 
 which were read in open Synod; and the elders were then 
 questioned, not only formally, but minutely. At every 
 session of the Synod a private meeting was to be held, at 
 which orthodoxy of the sermons which had been preached 
 during the convention was discussed, and private diffi- 
 culties between the members considered and settled. 
 
 In 1800 additional series of rules were adopted, by 
 which the Synod was made to consist of ordained ministers, 
 licentiates, and catechists. Catechists were not to ad- 
 
THE REFORMED CHURCHES 309 
 
 minister the sacraments, in fact they were merely candi- 
 dates for the ministry. Licentiates were authorized to 
 administer the sacraments and could serve congregations, 
 but licensures were annually renewed. 
 
 As for a hymn-book, the Coetus had used the Marburg 
 which contained the Heidelberg Catechism, Psalms and 
 Hymns, Morning and Evening Prayers, Gospel and Epistle 
 Lessons, and an account of the destruction of Jerusalem. 
 In 1793 the Synod adopted the following resolution: 
 “Resolved, That a hymn-book be prepared, of which the psalms shall be 
 taken from Lobwasser and Spreng’s improved version, and that the 
 Palatinate hymn-book shall form the basis of the hymns, with this 
 
 difference only: that some unintelligible hymns be exchanged for better 
 ones.” 
 
 The committee on the hymn-book was: Hendel, Hell- 
 frich, Blumer, Wagner, Pauli, and Mann. The resultant 
 work is often called Hendel’s Hymn-book. The preface 
 Says: 
 
 ‘“We have chosen the most edifying and best known hymns in the 
 Marburg and Palatinate hymn-books, composed by Joachim Neander, 
 Frederich Adolph Lampe, Casper Zollikofer and other godly men among 
 the Protestants. To these we have added a number of edifying spiritual 
 songs taken from hymn-books recently published in various parts of 
 
 Germany. The meters are arranged throughout according to the 
 Palatinate hymn-book.” 
 
 The Heidelberg catechism was not reissued until 1795; 
 the first edition published in Pennsylvania in English was 
 in 1810. 
 
 The Synod of 1793 suggested that whenever a number 
 of ministers — not less than three — resided at so great a 
 distance from the center of the church as to render it 
 inconvenient to attend the meetings of Synod, it was com- 
 petent for them to organize a Classis, to be represented in 
 Synod by one or more delegates. In 1819 the Synod 
 
310 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 divided itself into eight districts or Classes. With the 
 establishment of the Classis, the organization of the 
 German Reformed Church in America was completed. 
 
 It was unfortunate for the Lutheran Church in America 
 that its membership in general, and indeed even its 
 leaders, did not seem to equal Henry Melchoir Muhlenberg 
 in their grasp of the problem presented to their church by 
 this period. We have previously quoted Dr. Helmuth’s 
 supremely disinterested view of the early course of the 
 Revolution.! Contrast with this the words and actions 
 of the Muhlenberg family? and you have an excellent 
 picture of the two extremes of the church. Muhlenberg 
 would Americanize immediately; other leaders would 
 remember their German nationality. 
 
 Henry Melchoir Muhlenberg wrote in 1783: 
 
 “Tt would be a most desirable and advantageous thing if all the 
 Evangelical Lutheran congregations in the North American States were 
 united with one another, if they all used the same order of service, the 
 same hymn-book, and, in good and evil days, would show an active 
 sympathy and fraternal correspondence with one another.” 3 
 
 This was but an aspiration on the part of Muhlenberg, at 
 that time in the last years of his life, looking upon a church 
 divided into “five or six different, distinct and uncon- 
 nected synods,’’* which were to remain independent until 
 1820. 
 
 Muhlenberg had spent a large part of his time in America 
 working for an organized church. His favorite motto was 
 Ecclesia plantanda. He would transform the congrega- 
 tional organism, which he found upon his arrival in America 
 
 1 Supra., p. 19. 
 
 2 Supra., pp. 114-116. 
 
 > Mann, Life of Henry Melchoir Muhlenberg, p. 501. 
 
 *Schmucker, 5. S8., Retrospect of Lutheranism in the United States, 
 p. 16. 
 
THE LUTHERAN CHURCH O11 
 
 in 1742, into a church. He did during the period of , 
 his ministry (1742-1786) effect the beginnings of a synodical 
 organization. 
 
 The first stage in the completion of an organized 
 church was reached when Muhlenberg effected the 
 Ministerirum of Pennsylvania in 1761, with the title of 
 The Annual Preachers’ Assembly of the United Swedish 
 and German Munisterium. Earlier synods had_ been 
 attempted but with varying degrees of success. 
 
 In 1760 Muhlenberg sent out the call for a convention 
 to deliberate concerning a future plan. Among the topics 
 which he proposed for discussion were the following: 
 1. Whether it be necessary and useful to continue an 
 annual convention of the ministers and elders in the 
 United German congregations? 2. What are the impedi- 
 ments to such fraternal convention and union? 3. At 
 what place should the annual conventions. be held? 
 8. Whether a president should be elected annually and 
 such provision should be made that he should make a 
 visitation in all the United Congregations, and should 
 attend the meeting of the Swedish Synod as a delegate? 
 Twelve pastors and catechists responded to his call; 
 laymen were also present from Philadelphia, New York, 
 and Lancaster. 
 
 In 1761 the convention assumed the title mentioned 
 above. In 1763 it was decided to ask pastors for annual 
 reports of baptisms, confirmations and deaths. A synodi- 
 cal constitution gradually grew up which was tran- , 
 scribed into the minute-book begun in 1781 as a definite 
 constitution. 
 
 The main features of this Constitution were as follows: 
 The name was “The Evangelical Lutheran Ministerium in 
 North America.” The president “is to be respected and 
 
312 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 honored as having the oversight, both during the meeting 
 of the synod and at other times (ii, 1).”” Only “the fittest 
 and most learned”’ were eligible to the office of secretary 
 (ii, 2). Pastors were pledged not to declare themselves 
 independent of the synod as long as they served in North 
 America (iy, 6. 2). Lay delegates were to be heard at the 
 beginning of the sessions and then dismissed to their 
 homes (v, 14 sq.). The ministers, thereupon, proceeded to 
 the consideration of congregational affairs and questions of 
 conscience, committees of the elder pastors being ap- 
 pointed to recommend action (v, 21). This finished, they 
 conferred concerning the blessings and difficulties of their 
 labors, reported concerning baptisms, confirmations, 
 funerals and communicants, and listened to the reading 
 of the diaries of the licensed candidates (v, 25). Ordina- 
 tions at special conferences were forbidden, unless so 
 directed by the synod (v, 31). Every pastor pledged him- 
 self to endeavor to introduce into his congregation con- 
 stitutions corresponding as nearly as possible to those 
 then in use and harmonizing with that of the ministerium 
 (vi, 1). Every minister was required to use the liturgy 
 introduced (vi, 3), and to pledge himself in writing to that 
 effect (vi, 6. 2). Any one absenting himself for three years 
 without excuse was to be expelled (vy, 4).4. From the 
 synod of 1760 on there was no break in the meetings of 
 the Pennsylvania Ministerium; Henry Melchoir Muhlen- 
 berg had effected a church organism for that state. 
 
 His son Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg was to project 
 the Evangelical Ministry for New York State in 1774 
 according to the constitution of the Pennsylvania Minis- 
 terlum. But, due to the war, and other causes, it was 
 
 1 Translation of this constitution in Lutheran Church Review, vol. ix, 
 pp. 225-269; Jacobs, op. cit., pp. 261-262. 
 
THE LUTHERAN CHURCH 313 
 
 left to Dr. Kunze to effect a permanent organization of that 
 body in 1786. 
 
 As organized in 1786 the New York ministerium com- 
 prised three pastors and the congregations of New York 
 and Albany. At least eight regular Lutheran pastors 
 within its territory, with their congregations, stood aloof. 
 Such was the strength of the congregational tradition 
 among Lutherans. During the first ten years of its 
 existence it comprised but thirteen pastors, four of whom 
 came from the Ministerium of Pennsylvania. 
 
 Muhlenberg early complained of the variety of hymn- 
 books is use among the congregations. Of these, though, 
 the Marburg gained precedence and an American edition 
 was published in 1762. This contained, in addition to 
 more than six hundred hymns, the litany, a number of 
 prayers, the Small Catechism, the gospels and epistles, with 
 a collect for each Sunday and festivals, and the history of 
 the destruction of Jerusalem. 
 
 This hymn-book was supplanted generally by one pre- 
 pared for the Ministertum of Pennsylvania in 1786, by a 
 committee composed of Drs. H. M. Muhlenberg, Helmuth, 
 Kunze, and,H. E. Muhlenberg. They were instructed to 
 follow the order of the Halle Hymn-book, to omit none 
 of the standard hymns of Luther and Paul Gerhardt, but 
 to omit the gospels and epistles for the apostles’ days and 
 other festivals, also the history of the destruction of 
 Jerusalem, the prayer-book and the catechism. A new 
 prayer-book was prepared for the appendix by Dr. Hel- 
 muth. Muhlenberg’s contribution to this work was 
 merely the preface and a participation in the selection of 
 the hymns.! 
 
 The liturgy of 1786 was essentially the same as that of 
 
 1 Jacobs, op. cit., pp. 336-337. 
 
314 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 1748, with certain striking alterations. These were 
 chiefly the work of Dr. Helmuth, president of thé Minis- 
 terilum after Muhlenberg had ceased to attend its sessions. 
 Dr. B. M. Smucker, remarks that these changes were 
 “all of a piece.” “‘Every one of them,” according to Dr. 
 Smucker, “is an injury to the pure Lutheran type of the 
 old service.”! A new general prayer was substituted for 
 the one of 1748, one article of which throws a clear light 
 on the question of the relation which Dr. Helmuth and 
 his disciples were to maintain with regard to “nation- 
 alism.”’ The prayer read: 
 
 ‘And since it has pleased Thee chiefly, by means of the Germans to 
 transform this State into a blooming garden, and the desert into a 
 pleasant pasturage, help us not to deny our nation, but to endeavor that 
 
 ' our youth may be so educated that German schools and churches may not 
 only be sustained but may attain a still more flourishing condition.” 2 
 
 It was with this spirit that Dr. Helmuth, assisted by 
 Dr. Kunze, revised the Synodical Constitution of the 
 Pennsylvania Ministerium in 1792. The corporation of 
 Zion’s and St. Michael’s in Philadelphia had petitioned the 
 Ministerium for lay representation in the synod. Drs. 
 Helmuth and Kunze were appointed a committee to pre- 
 pare a plan whereby this could be effected. The result was 
 a thorough revision of the constitution. The synod 
 became The Evangelical Lutheran Ministerium in Penn- 
 sylvania and Adjacent States. An office of “senior” was 
 instituted as distinct from that of “‘president.” Three 
 orders of ministers were established; ordained ministers, 
 licensed candidates and catechists. All confessional tests 
 were eliminated and all reference to the Augsburg Con- 
 fession or to the other symbolic books vanished. But 
 
 Lutheran Church Review, vol. i, p. 22. 
 * Jacobs, op. cit., p. 338. 
 
THE MORAVIANS 315 
 
 most important for the solution of the question which we 
 are seeking, the reconstructed Ministerium was to be 
 officially ‘“‘German.”’ 
 
 The eighteenth General Synod of the Moravian Breth- 
 ren held at Marienborn, 1769, had confirmed the principle 
 that the British and American provinces of the Unity were 
 to be regarded merely as outlying subordinate branches, 
 seml-missionary in Charter. They were to be managed 
 by boards known as Provincial Helpers, appointed by and 
 responsible to the Unity’s Elders Conference and not to 
 the congregations whose general interests they superin- 
 tended. The representative principle was hardly recog- 
 nized. Fora period of about eighty years from this time no 
 American Provincial Synod was empowered to convene— 
 this in a land where the national life was becoming domi- 
 nated by the spirit of independence and self-government, 
 a disastrous state of affairs. A complicated financial 
 arrangement was suffered to link the several congre- 
 gations and the provinces as such with the Unity as a 
 whole. Rules. demanded, possibly, by the vexatious 
 alliance of church and state in Europe were made binding 
 in the land of religious liberty, and became shackles on the 
 church. An excessive application of the use of the lot, 
 consequent upon an exaggerated conception of the head- 
 ship of Christ over the church, and the ascetic regulations 
 of the choir system intensified a spirit of aloofness and 
 exclusiveness; the abnormal dread of incurring the charge 
 of proselytism led to a refusal to follow natural and lawful 
 methods of church extension. Early in the seventies a 
 commission from the general board had solved the most 
 difficult problems involved in the Unity’s former ownership 
 of the real estate in America. This seemed at the time the 
 greatest difficulty of the church. With a foothold in no 
 
316 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 less than nine of the colonies, the church should have 
 risen to its opportunities and become a valuable factor in 
 the national life. It did not, and hardly held its own.! 
 
 Bishop John Frederick Reichel, a member of the 
 Unity’s Elders Conference, officially visited the American 
 Congregations in the spring of 1779. A most important 
 transaction of a conference of ministers over which he 
 presided in April 1781, previous to his return to Europe, 
 was the adoption of the Brotherly Agreement, as the basis 
 of the statutes of the various congregations. 
 
 By the General Synod of 1782, at which no American 
 delegates were present, the connection of the American 
 congregations with the governing board in Germany was 
 strengthened and the dominance of European, especially 
 German, Moravian conceptions confirmed. 
 
 With the abrogation of the Test Act and the assured 
 separation of church and state in the United States, there 
 was no reason why the Brethren in America, after recovery 
 from the financial distress of the war, should not have 
 entered upon a period of new life and extension. But 
 operations were cramped by unwise retention of regula- 
 tions out of keeping with the national life. Painfully 
 minute attention was given to the development of sub- 
 jective phases of piety in the exclusive settlements, to the 
 cramping of the church’s energies in other directions. 
 The financial demands of the church’s work were met by 
 the proceeds of business enterprises carried on for its 
 benefit, rather than by the voluntary gifts of the people. 
 The use of the German language in worship was perpetu- 
 ated, to the loss of members in the cities and the keeping 
 of strangers at a distance. Persons who lived away from 
 the settlements, but sought the fellowship of the church, 
 were formed into societies sustaining only quasi- 
 
 1 Hamilton, op. cit., pp. 468-469. 
 
THE MORAVIANS 317 
 
 connection with it, and not into regular congregations — 
 a usage that had little meaning or purpose in a land free 
 from governmental ecclesiasticism. The laymen had prac- 
 tically no voice in the general management. There was a 
 deficiency of well-qualified ministers. Men of mature 
 years, who were sent from Europe, however scholarly, 
 could not readily adjust themselves to the conditions and 
 spirit of American institutions or appreciate the oppor- 
 tunities which were offered here. Administrative affairs of 
 highest importance had to be referred to a foreign execu- 
 tive board. The whole conduct of Moravian affairs for this 
 period illustrates the folly of opposition to Americaniza- 
 tion. This church is perhaps the most striking example 
 of the self-destructive policy which opposed nationalization 
 in ecclesiastical affairs. 
 
 There was, however, a slight national movement even 
 amongst the Moravians. In 1787 their missionary 
 society was revived under the title of the “Society of the 
 United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel among the 
 Heathen.” Its headquarters were at Bethlehem; Ettwein 
 was its president, Von Schweinitz its treasurer, and Van- 
 Vleck its secretary. A charter was obtained from the 
 Assembly of Pennsylvania in February, 1788. Ettwein 
 communicated to General Washington an account of the 
 organization of the society, and received in reply the 
 following appreciation. 
 
 **So far as I am able of judging, the principles upon which the Society is 
 founded, and the rules laid down for its government, appear to be well 
 calculated to promote so laudable and arduous an undertaking; and you 
 will permit me to add that if an event so long and so ardently desired as 
 that of converting the Indians to Christianity and consequently to 
 
 civilization can be effected, the Society at Bethlehem bids fair to bear a 
 very considerable part of it.” ! 
 
 1 Mss. letter in Bethlehem Archives, quoted in Hamilton, op. cit., 
 p. 476. 
 
318 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 The spirit of independence which caused and accom- 
 panied the War for Independence resulted in the establish- 
 ment of the Unitarian Church in America. Long before 
 the war Arianism had showed itself in numerous separate 
 localities in America, but it had not been organized into 
 any definite set of ecclesiastical institutions or beliefs. 
 
 By the middle of the eighteenth century many Congre- 
 gational ministers in New England were tainted with 
 Unitarian beliefs and their thought was reflected in the 
 teachings of Harvard University. Dr. Sprague in his 
 Annals of the American Pulpit, records the lives of forty- 
 nine ministers of known Unitarian beliefs settled in Con- 
 gregational churches during this century. The most 
 prominent of them was Jonathan Mayhew, of the West 
 Church in Boston, 1747-1766.1 Dr. Mayhew preached the 
 strict unity of God, the subordinate nature of Christ, and 
 salvation by character. Charles Chauncy of the First 
 Church of Boston, 1727-1787, as the chief opponent of 
 Jonathan Edwards exhibits both Unitarian and Univer- 
 salist beliefs.2 Others classed as Unitarians by Dr. 
 Sprague were: Ebenezer Gay of Hingham, styled ‘“‘The 
 Father of American Unitarianism’’; Samuel West of New 
 Bedford; Thomas Barnard of Newbury; John Prince and 
 William Bentley of Salem; and Aaron Bancroft of Worces- 
 ter. The Reverend William Hazlitt visited the United 
 States in 1783-1785 and published the fact that there were 
 Unitarians in Philadelphia, Boston, Charleston, Pitts- 
 burgh, Hallowell, on Cape Cod and elsewhere. 
 
 The first official organization of Unitarianism in America 
 resulted from the Revolution. Mr. James Freeman, a 
 graduate of Harvard, was called to fill the vacancy in 
 
 ' Supra., pp. 50-52. 
 2 Supra., pp. 52-53. 
 
 
 
THE UNITARIAN CHURCH 319 
 
 King’s Chapel (Episcopalian) in Boston, caused by the 
 flight of the loyalist rector. At first he officiated as lay- 
 reader but later the question of his ordination arose. In 
 1782 the congregation decided to settle him in his ministry. 
 In 1785 they proceeded to revise their Prayer Book into 
 a mild Unitarian Liturgy. By a vote of twenty to seven 
 it was decided to strike out from the order of service 
 whatever taught or implied the Doctrine of the Trinity. 
 Freeman himself published a Scripture Confutation of the 
 Thirty-nine Articles. It is not, then, surprising that both 
 Bishops Seabury and Provoost should refuse to ordain 
 Mr. Freeman. ‘Thereupon on November 18, 1787, 
 representatives of King’s Chapel Congregation proceeded 
 “to set Freeman apart to his office.” Thus the first 
 Episcopalian Church in New England as a result of the 
 American Revolution was turned into the First Unitarian 
 Church in America. 
 
 On the whole very little change was effected in the 
 organization of American Quakerism by the independence 
 of the United States. It still continued to hold its Yearly 
 Meetings and to maintain the same close connections with 
 the Mother Church in England. We find ten Quakers 
 from America present at the London Yearly Meeting 
 which followed the establishment of Peace, 1784. 
 
CHEAPER eR aexe Lae 
 
 THE BAPTIST AND CONGREGATIONAL 
 CHURCHES IN AMERICA 
 
 _ It may seem strange to speak of the nationalization of 
 the Baptists, those apostles of “local independence.” 
 This of itself stamps the Baptists with a most distinctive 
 American character; which they have preserved through 
 most trying circumstances. There was a time, during this 
 “Critical Period”? of the organization of American 
 institutions when it looked as though the Baptist organi- 
 zation might take the form of an efficient, centralized 
 republic. The difficulties of the struggle for their American 
 principles forced upon the Baptists in Virginia and in New 
 England centralized state organisms. For a very short 
 time it seemed as though these State organisms might be 
 welded into a national unity, as it became necessary to 
 carry their fight for religious freedom to a national issue. 
 But there the victory was so speedily won that a national 
 form of government for Baptists did not have time to 
 mature. ‘Then even in state affairs, the instant that 
 victory was achieved the cry that the organization was 
 violating fundamental principles of Baptist polity, re- 
 sulted in partial discarding of the centralized machinery. 
 The Baptist fight from 1774 to 1789 was, however, long 
 enough and strenuous enough to develop a national 
 spirit, a national Baptist tradition and a national Baptist 
 College, even if the organization which had been utilized 
 was largely transient. The Baptists were chiefly instru- 
 mental in establishing the American principle of the non- 
 interference of the state with religion, Religious Liberty. 
 
THE BAPTIST CHURCH oul 
 
 Other sects, notably the Presbyterians, were energetic and 
 effective in demanding their own liberties; the Quakers and 
 the Baptists agreed in demanding liberty of conscience and 
 worship, and religious equality before the law, for all 
 alike. But the active labor in this cause was mainly done 
 by the Baptists. It is to their consistency and constancy 
 in the warfare against the privileges of the powerful 
 “standing Orders”? of New England and of the moribund 
 establishments of the South, that we are chiefly indebted 
 for the final triumph, of the principle of separation of 
 church and state, —- one of the largest contributions of the 
 New World to the cause of civilization and Christianity. ! 
 
 The period of 1774 to 1789 was a great period for 
 American Baptists, a period of organization and growth. 
 Organization took the form of Associations. Of these, 
 three chief regional sets were formed, those of New Eng- 
 land, those of the Middle States, and those of Virginia and 
 the South. It has been pointed out that in the history of 
 American Baptists their rapid growth is exactly con- 
 terminous with the development of associations in their 
 churches. Certainly associations became powerful imple- 
 ments for the advancement in evangelizing the new 
 regions opened up for settlement in the first years of 
 peace. 
 
 It has sometimes also been conjectured that Baptists 
 borrowed their idea of association from the Yearly Meet- 
 ings of the Quakers. Some of these clearly antedate the 
 Baptists Associations of this country. Yet the Quaker 
 meeting more nearly resembles a Presbyterian Synod. 
 
 The oldest of the associations was that of Philadelphia, 
 organized in 1707. This was the parent association and 
 to it, American Baptists, to a large degree, owe the form 
 
 1 Supra., p. 6. 
 
322 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 of their faith as well as the principles upon which later 
 Associations grew. The earliest known copy of its minutes 
 is that for 1769 which show that it then consisted of 34 
 churches and 34 pastors, situated in Pennsylvania, New 
 Jersey and New York.! 
 
 In 1742 the Philadelphia Association had adopted the 
 Articles of Faith, since known as the Philadelphia Con- 
 fession. These were little more than a revision of the 
 Westminister Confession, consisting of thirty-four articles 
 and an appendix. The distinctive article was, “We 
 believe that laying on of hands with prayer, upon baptized 
 believers, as such, is an ordinance of Christ, and ought 
 to be submitted unto by all persons that are admitted to 
 partake of the Lord’s Supper.”? -This confession of faith 
 has served as the basis of probably the majority of the 
 Baptist churches of this country; and it is still, with the 
 omission of the article on the laying on of hands and 
 revisions here and there, in no wise affecting its substance, 
 the confession that generally obtains in the Baptist 
 Churches of the Southern and South-Western States.? 
 The adoption of this strongly Calvinistic Confession was 
 the turning point in the early history of American Bap- 
 tists, and fixed the character of the denomination for all 
 time. 
 
 From 1742 the influence of the Philadelphia Association 
 in matters of Dogma was paramount. Its missionary 
 zeal was great; men closely connected with this body, 
 and fully believing its confession, became preachers in 
 New England, New York, and the Carolinas. By the 
 close of the century the Calvinistic party was in the 
 
 ' Minutes of the Philadelphia Association. 
 2 Ibhid., p. 46. 
 * Vedder, History of the Baptists in the Middle States, pp. 92-100. 
 
 
 
THE BAPTIST sCHURCH D2O 
 
 ascendency everywhere; it had completed its triumph by 
 capturing the stronghold of Arminianism, the First 
 Baptist Church of Providence, through the establishment 
 of the Warren Association and the Rhode Island College 
 under President Manning.! 
 
 Another debt must be added by American Baptists to 
 this Parent Philadelphia Association, — for the definite 
 settlement by this body of the associational form of 
 constitution. In 1767 it was called upon to decide, 
 “Whether an appeal from any member of the associated 
 churches, or from one excommunicated from any said 
 churches, may be made to the Association?” It was ruled 
 “That the word appeal was not quite proper, as the 
 Association claims no jurisdiction, nor power to repeal 
 anything settled by any church; but if, before settlement, 
 parties agree to refer matters to the association, then to 
 give their advice.’’? 
 
 In 1751 the Charleston Association (S. C.) was formed, 
 consisting of four churches. This organization is directly 
 traceable to the Philadelphia body. Mr. Hart, the pastor 
 of the Charleston church, had seen in the Philadelphia 
 Association, the happy consequences cf union and regular 
 intercourse among churches maintaining the same faith 
 and organization. He turned for aid to the Philadelphia 
 Association in 1755 when his association had authorized 
 him to engage a suitable person for missionary work; he 
 visited the parent association and prevailed upon the 
 Reverend John Gano to undertake the task. 
 
 Associations spread rapidly in the Southern, Middle, and 
 
 1 Guild, op. cit. pp. 43-62; Backus, op. cit., vol. i, chapt. 18; Hovey, 
 op. cit., pp. 151-156. 
 
 2 Gillette, Minutes, pp. 90, 101, 105; Edwards, Materials, vol. i, pp. 
 123-124. 
 
324 
 
 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Northern States. The following list indicates the spon- 
 taneity of the movement: 
 
 1751 
 1758 
 1765 
 1766 
 1767 
 1770 
 VFI 
 17%,2 
 1776 
 1776 
 1776 
 1780 
 1781 
 1782 
 1783 
 1783 
 1783 
 1784 
 1784 
 1785 
 1785 
 1785 
 1785 
 1786 
 1787 
 1788 
 1789 
 1790 
 1790 
 1790 
 1791 
 1792 
 1792 
 1792 
 1793 
 17938 
 1793 
 1794 
 1794 
 1795 
 1795 
 
 Charleston Association, S. C. 
 
 Sandy Creek Association, N. C. 
 
 Kehukee Association, N. C. 
 
 Ketocton Association, Va. 
 
 Warren Association, R. I. and Mass. 
 Rapidan or the General Association of Separate Baptists, Va. 
 Congaree Association, S. C. (Bethel Association after 1789). 
 Stonington Association, Conn. and R. I. 
 Strawberry Association, Vt. 
 
 Redstone Association, Pa. 
 
 Brentwood Association, Me. and N. H. 
 Shaftsbury Association, Vt., Mass. and N. Y. 
 Holston Association, Tenn. 
 
 Salisbury Association, Md. 
 
 Woodstock Association, N. H. 
 
 Dover Association, Va. 
 
 Middle District Association, Va. 
 
 Georgia Association. 
 
 New Hampshire Association. 
 
 Vermont Association. 
 
 Groton Union Conference, Conn., R. I. and Mass, 
 Elkham Association, Ky. 
 
 Salem Association, Ky. 
 
 Shaftsbury Association, Vt. 
 
 Bowdoinham Association, Me. 
 
 Roanoke Association, Va. 
 
 Meredith Association, N. H. and Vt. 
 Portsmouth Association, Va. 
 
 Danbury Association, Conn. and Mass. 
 Yadkin Association, S. C. 
 
 Warwick Association, N. Y. 
 
 Goshen Association, Va. 
 
 Baltimore Association, Md. 
 
 Shilo Association, Va. 
 
 Lyden Association, Mass., N. H. and Vt. (New Windham). 
 New River Association, Va. 
 
 Tates Creek Association, Ky. 
 
 Hepziba Association, Ga. 
 
 Neuse Association, N. C. 
 
 Richmond Conference, Vt. (Fairfield). 
 Ostego Association, N. Y. 
 
 4 
 
 
 
THE BAPTIST CHURCH 325 
 
 1796 Rensselaerville Association, N. Y. 
 
 1796 New District Association, Tenn. 
 
 1796 Chemung Association, Penn. 
 
 1796 Fairfield Association, Vt. 
 
 1797 Miami Association, O. 
 
 1798 Mayo Association, N. C. 
 
 1798 Sparta Association, Ga. 
 
 1799 Cumberland River Association, Ky. 
 
 By 1800 the Baptists had established nearly fifty associa- » 
 tions, active in the work of evangelization and powerful 
 in promoting the unity, piety and mutual communion 
 among their churches, systematizing their efforts and 
 provoking others to: good works.! They had proceeded 
 from a single parent, center, the Philadelphia Association, 
 mother of them all. They were based on common prin- 
 ciples, possessed a common form of organization and similar 
 aims. Their mutual relations were friendly, and a bond of 
 unity had been provided for the American Baptist 
 Churches. All that was now necessary for the creation of a 
 national church was a common danger or a common para- 
 mount interest. This was furnished by the questions of 
 education, missionary activities and the struggle for 
 religious liberty in America. 
 
 Their national educational endeavor centered around 
 the College of Rhode Island (Brown University).? This, 
 the first Baptist College in the world, was conceived by 
 James Manning, a graduate of the College of New Jersey 
 and a member of the Philadelphia Association. Backus 
 gives us the following account of its origin: 
 
 “On a voyage to Halifax, in July 1763, he (Manning) called in at 
 Newport, and proposed the affair (to a number of Baptist gentlemen), 
 
 1 Vedder, op. cit., pp. 95-100; Burrage, H.S., History of the Baptists in 
 New England, pp. 80-103; Nippold, Handbuch der neusten Kirchenge- 
 schichte, vol. iv, p. 51. 
 
 * Guild, Life, Times and Correspondence of James Manning and the 
 Early History of Brown University. 
 
326 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 who liked it well; and though they met with some opposition, yet they 
 obtained a charter for a college, in February 1764, from their legislature, in 
 ‘vhich the president was always to be a Baptist, and so were the majority 
 of the corporation, though some of the Episcopal, Quaker, and Congre- 
 gational denominations were to be of it. No religious test was ever to be 
 
 imposed upon the scholars, though great care was taken about their 
 morals. 
 
 And no government on earth ever gave anything towards said building, 
 or for the college fund; though vast sums had been given by the govern- 
 ments of Massachusetts and Connecticut to their colleges. But the 
 buildings, library, and funds of this college were all produced voluntarily, 
 and chiefly from the inhabitants of Providence, many of whom sprung 
 from the planters of the first Baptist Church in America.’ ! 
 
 From the first this college was considered a national 
 affair by all sections, and we find that the Philadelphia 
 Association in 1774 approved the plan already adopted by 
 the Charleston and Warren Associations to request every 
 Baptist to pay six pence annually for three successive 
 years to their elders or some suitable person, the money 
 to be paid to the treasurer of Rhode Island College.2 
 
 Possessed of Dr. Manning and Rhode Island College, 
 together with Isaac Backus, the Warren Association 
 assumes very great Importance in the nationalization 
 movement of this the constitution-making epoch of the 
 church. As Backus, their historian, phrased it, they did 
 “much to defend their privileges, as well as to unite and 
 quicken each other in religion.’3 
 
 This association was formed in 1767 by Dr. Manning 
 with the assistance of the Rev. John Gano, from the 
 Philadelphia Association, his brother-in-law,4 who was 
 made moderator, and the Rev. Isaac Backus who was 
 made clerk. Four churches joined the association at 
 
 1 Backus, op. cit., pp. 183-184. 
 2 Vedder, op. cit., p. 212. 
 
 3 Backus, op. cit., p. 192. 
 
 * Supra., pp. 122-123. 
 
 
 
THE BAPTIST CHURCH 327 
 
 that time. In 1769 a plan of organization, drawn up by 
 Dr. Manning, was adopted. " 
 The aims and advantages of association were stated tobe: 
 
 “1. That such a combination of churches is not only prudent, but useful, 
 as has appeared even in America by the experience of upwards of sixty 
 years. Some of the uses of it are: union and communion among our- 
 selves; maintaining more effectually the order and faith once delivered to 
 the saints; having advice in cases of doubt, and help in distress; being 
 more able to promote the good of the cause, and becoming important 
 in the eyes of the civil powers, as has already appeared in many instances 
 on this Continent. 
 
 2. That such an Association is consistent with the independency and 
 power of particular churches, because it pretends to be no other than an 
 advisory council, utterly disclaiming superiority, jurisdiction, coercive 
 right, and infallibility.” 4 
 
 The form of organization was as follows: 
 
 “1. The association to consist only of messengers chosen and sent by 
 the churches. These messengers to be their ministers . . . . . to- 
 gether with some judicious brethren. Their expenses to be borne by the 
 churches which send them. 
 
 2. With the messengers the churches send letters addressed to the As- 
 sociation. In those letters mention is made of the messengers, and 
 their authority to act for their churches; also of the state of the churches 
 touching their peace; their increase by baptism, and by letters 
 dismissive and commendatory from other churches; touching their 
 diminution by death, excommunication and dismission to other churches, 
 and the present number of members. If any questions are to be put to 
 the Association, any advice to ask, or business to propose, these are 
 expressed in the said letters. 
 
 3. All matters to be determined in this Association by the suffrage of 
 the messengers, except what are determinable by Scripture; such 
 matters are never put to the decision of votes. All that speak are to 
 address the moderator, who is to take care that none be interrupted 
 while speaking, and that no other indecorum take place. 
 
 4. Churches are to be received into this Association by petitions 
 setting forth their desire to be admitted, their faith, order and willingness 
 to be conformable to the rules of the associated body. When a petition 
 is read, and the matter ripened for a vote, the moderator states the 
 question. Suffrage being given in favor of the petition, the said moderator 
 
 1 Guild, op. cit., p. 78. 
 
328 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 declares that such a church is received into the Association, in token 
 of which he gives the messengers the right hand of fellowship, and bids 
 them take their seats. 
 
 5. The Association to meet annually, at Warren, on Tuesday next 
 after the first Wednesday in September, at two o’clock in the afternoon, 
 and to continue till business be finished. It is to be opened with divine 
 service; after which a moderator and clerk are chosen; the letters from 
 the churches are read; the names of the messengers are written, that they 
 may be called over at after meetings; then business is attended to, and 
 minutes thereof made; a circular letter to the churches is prepared and 
 signed, and a copy of it sent to every church, containing the minutes of 
 the Association, the state of the churches, when and by whom vacancies 
 are to be supplied, who is to preach the next Association sermon, and 
 whatever else is needful for the churches to know. 
 
 6. A connection to be formed and maintained between this Association 
 and that of Philadelphia, by annual letter and messenger from us to 
 them and from them to us. 
 
 7. The faith and order of this Association are expressed in confession 
 put forth by upwards of a hundred congregations in Great Britain, in the 
 year 1689, and adopted by the Association of Philadelphia, 1742. Some 
 of the principles in said confession are: The imputation of Adam’s sin to 
 his posterity; the inability of man to recover himself; effectual calling by 
 sovereign grace; justification by imputed righteousness; immersion for 
 baptism, and that on profession of faith and repentance; congregational 
 churches and their independency; reception into them upon evidence of 
 sound conversion.” ! 
 
 At this meeting of 1769 three brethren from Philadelphia 
 were present. Petitions to the General Courts of Massa- 
 chusetts and Connecticut were prepared and a committee 
 chosen to present them. ‘‘Many of the letters from the 
 churches,” says Backus, “mentioned grievous oppres- 
 sions and persecutions from the ‘standing order’, especi- 
 ally the one from Ashfield, where religious tyranny has 
 been carried to great lengths.”? Accordingly the follow- 
 ing plan to collect grievances was read and approved: 
 
 “Whereas, complaints of oppressions, occasioned by a non-conformity 
 to the religious establishment in New England have been brought to 
 
 1 Guild, op. cit., 79-80. 
 * Backus, op. cit., edition of 1784, vol. ii, p. 253; Guild, op. cit., p. 80. 
 
THE BAPTIST CHURCH 329 
 
 this Association; and whereas the laws obtained for preventing and 
 redressing such oppressions have, upon trial, been found insufficient 
 (either through defect in the laws themselves or iniquity in the execution 
 thereof) and whereas humble remonstrances and petitions have not 
 been duly regarded, but the same oppressive measures continue: This is to 
 inform all the oppressed Baptists in New England that the Association of 
 Warren (in conjunction with the Western or Philadelphia Association) 
 is determined to seek remedy for their brethren where a speedy and 
 effectual one may be had. In order to pursue this resolution by petition 
 and memorial, the following gentlemen are appointed to receive well- 
 attested grievances, to be by them transmitted to the Rev. Samuel 
 Stillman of Boston; namely, Rev. Hezekiah Smith of Haverhill, Rev. 
 Isaac Backus of Middleborough, Mr. Richard Montague of Sunderland, 
 Rev. Joseph Meacham of Enfield, and Rev. Thomas Whitman of Groton 
 in Connecticut.” ! 
 
 Guild observes: 
 
 “Gradually the Association won the confidence of the denomination, 
 until in a few years it had extended over New England. By its means 
 mutual acquaintance and harmony were promoted; the weak and the 
 oppressed were relieved; errors in doctrine and in practice were exposed 
 and guarded against; warnings against false teachers in religion were 
 published; feeble and destitute flocks were provided with preachers; the 
 college was materially aided and strengthened; students were en- 
 couraged to study for the ministry, and the gospel was preached in 
 the wilderness. During the period of the Revolution it presented able 
 addresses in behalf of civil and religious freedom to the Governments 
 of Massachusetts and Connecticut and to the Continental Congress.” 2 
 
 A collection was made at the annual meeting for the 
 widows and children of poor ministers. A society was 
 incorporated to collect money to assist pious youths in 
 obtaining learning, with a view to the ministry. A 
 missionary society was founded to collect money to support 
 travelling ministers and to instruct them and to direct 
 them. Its benefits soon became visible to everybody. 
 
 Such activity led to rapid expansion. At the outbreak 
 of the Revolution it extended well over Massachusetts and 
 
 1 Guild, op. cit., p. 81. 
 2 Ibid., pp. 81-82. 
 
330 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Rhode Island and into neighboring states. It included 27 
 churches with 393 members. Its activities throughout 
 the Revolution were such as to encourage its growth and 
 by 1783, it possessed 44 churches and 570 members. 
 
 The outstanding feature of its work and the one which 
 caused the rapid growth of all Baptist communities in 
 America was its championship of the cause of religious 
 Freedom for America. To this end it collected grievances, 
 appointed committees to compile them, addressed agents, 
 committees, memorials, and petitions to the various 
 political agents who either were responsible for the 
 persecution or from whom redress and justice might be 
 obtained. Isaac Backus was chairman of the committee 
 on grievances from 1772 to 1782 and, in addition, he was 
 agent for the Warren Association and various others 
 before the courts and other governmental bodies. In him 
 the Baptists developed a very efficient and, for them, 
 a surprisingly autocratic official. 
 
 New England Baptists felt that the Revolution furnished: 
 them with their great opportunity for religious freedom. 
 At the College Commencement in 1774, Dr. Manning, 
 Hezekiah Smith, John Gano, and others proposed to Mr. 
 Backus that he officially represent their church before 
 Continental Congress. We have already! cited the 
 official credential with which the Warren Association 
 delegated Mr. Backus to present their position with 
 respect to the Revolution. 
 
 Upon his arrival in Philadelphia, Mr. Backus imme- 
 diately conferred with President Manning, with leading 
 Quakers, and with the Philadelphia Association, then in 
 session in that city, and a course of action was maped out. 
 On the evening of October 14th, says Backus, 
 
 1 Supra., p. 118. 
 
 
 
THE BAPTIST CHURCH $31 
 
 “there met at Carpenter’s Hall, Thomas Cushing, Samuel Adams, 
 John Adams and Robert Treat Paine, Esqrs., delegates from Massa- 
 chusetts; and there were also present James Kinzie of New Jersey, 
 Stephen Hopkins and Samuel Ward of Rhode Island, Joseph Galloway 
 and Thomas Miflin, Esqrs., of Pennsylvania, and other members of 
 Congress. Mr. Rhodes, Mayor of the city of Philadelphia, Israel and 
 James Pemberton, and Joseph Fox, Esqrs., of the Quakers, and other 
 gentlemen; also Elders Manning, Gano, Jones, Rogers, Edwards, etc., 
 were present. The conference was opened by Mr. Manning, who made a 
 short speech, and then read the memorial which we have drawn up.” ! 
 
 The Baptist memorial, copies of which were afterwards 
 delivered to every member of Congress, together with Mr. 
 Backus’s Appeal to the Public,? which had been printed 
 the year previous, was as follows: 
 
 “Tt has been said by a celebrated writer in politics, that but two 
 things were worth contending for, — Religion and Liberty. For the 
 latter we are at present nobly exerting ourselves through all this extensive 
 continent; and surely no one whose bosom feels the patriotic glow in 
 behalf of civil liberty, can remain torpid to the more ennobling flame 
 of Religious Freedom. 
 
 The free exercises of private judgment, and the unalienable rights of 
 conscience, are of too high a rank and dignity to be submitted to the 
 decrees of councils, or the imperfect laws of fallible legislator. The merci- 
 ful Father of mankind is the alone Lord of conscience. Establishments 
 may be enabled to confer worldly distinctions and secular importance. 
 They may make hypocrites, but cannot create Christians. They have 
 been reared by craft or power, but liberty never flourished perfectly 
 under their control. That liberty, virtue, and public happiness can be 
 supported without them, this flourishing province (Pennsylvania) is a 
 glorious testimony; and a view of it would be sufficient to invalidate all 
 the most elaborate arguments ever adduced in support of them. Happy 
 in the enjoyment of these undoubted rights, and conscious of their high 
 import, every lover of mankind must be desirous, as far as opportunity 
 offers, of extending and securing the enjoyment of these inestimable 
 blessings. 
 
 1 Backus, op. cit., edition of 1871, vol. ii, pp. 200-202; Hovey, op. cit. 
 pp. 200-214; 349-351. 
 
 2 Backus, Isaac, An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, against 
 the oppressors of the present day. “Brethren, ye have been called unto 
 liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one 
 another.” Gal. v. 13. Boston, 1773. 
 
332 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 These reflections have arisen from considering the unhappy situation 
 of our brethren, the Baptists, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, for 
 whom we now appear as advocates; and from the important light, in 
 which liberty in general is now beheld, we trust our representation will be 
 effectual. The province of Massachusetts Bay, being settled by persons 
 who fled from civil and religious oppression, it would be natural to 
 imagine them deeply impressed with the value of liberty and nobly 
 scorning a domination over conscience. But such was the complexion 
 of the times, they fell from the unhappy state of being oppressed, to the 
 more deplorable and ignoble one of becoming oppressors. 
 
 But these things being passed over, we intend to begin with the 
 charter obtained at the happy restoration. This charter grants, ‘that 
 there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God, to all 
 Christians except Papists, inhabiting or which shal! inhabit or be resident 
 within this province or territory’.” 
 
 Hereupon follows a history of the struggle of dissenters 
 for liberty in Massachusetts and in conclusion the me- 
 morial sets forth: 
 
 “Men unite in society, according to the great Mr. Locke, with an 
 intention in every one the better to preserve himself, his liberty and 
 property. The power of the society, or Legislature constituted by them, 
 can never be supposed to extend any further than the common good, but 
 is obliged to secure every one’s property. To give laws, to receive 
 obedience, to compel with the word, belong to none but the civil magis- 
 trate; and on this ground we affirm that the magistrate’s power extends 
 not to the establishing any articles of faith or forms of worship, by force 
 of laws; for laws are of no force without penalties. The care of souls can- 
 not belong to the civil magistrate, because his power consists only in 
 outward force; but pure and saving religion consists in the inward 
 persuasion of the mind, without which nothing can be acceptable to God. 
 
 It is a just position, and cannot be too firmly established, that we can 
 have no property in that which another may take, when he pleases, to 
 himself; neither can we have the proper enjoyment of our religious 
 liberties, (which must be acknowledged to be of greater value), if held 
 by the same unjust and capricious tenure; and this must appear to be the 
 case when temporary laws pretend to grant relief so very inadequate. 
 
 It may now be asked — What is the liberty desired? The answer is; 
 as the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, and religion is a-concern 
 between God and the soul with which no human authority can inter- 
 meddle; consistently with the principles of Christianity, and according to 
 the dictates of Protestantism, we claim and expect the liberty of wor- 
 
THE BAPTIST CHURCH 333 
 
 shipping God according to our consciences, not being obliged to support 
 a ministry we cannot attend, while we demean ourselves as faithful sub- 
 jects. These we have an undoubted right to, as men, as Christians and 
 by charter as inhabitants of Massachusetts Bay.” ! 
 
 The outcome of the conference was unsatisfactory, for, 
 as John Adams expressed it, “they might as well turn the 
 heavenly bodies out of their annual and diurnal courses, 
 as the people of Massachusetts at the present day from 
 their meeting-houses and Sunday laws.’? Samuel 
 Adams intimated that “the complaint came from en- 
 thusiasts who made it a merit to suffer persecution.’’3 
 
 The meeting had not succeeded in establishing the 
 Baptist cause as a national political grievance, and 
 Backus and his supporters were obliged to. carry the 
 matter back to Massachusetts. But here they had at 
 least upset the equipoise of the Bostonians and _ their 
 Connecticut allies. Dr. Manning, in a letter dated Decem- 
 ber 2, 1774, quotes the Rev. Ezra Stiles as saying: 
 
 “That the Baptists had made an application to the Congress against 
 the Massachusetts Bay; that the delegates of that province expected 
 only a private interview with some of the Baptists; but instead of that, 
 when they came they found a house full, ete.; that they were attacked 
 and treated in the most rude and abusive manner; that the Baptists 
 pretended they were oppressed, but, after all their endeavors, they 
 could only complain of a poor fourpence; that they were ashamed. of 
 their errand, and gave up their point, except one or two impudent 
 fellows, who, with Israel Pemberton, abused them in a most scandalous 
 
 manner; that all the delegates present were surprised at and ashamed of 
 them, and thought they complained without the least foundation.” 4 
 
 When the General Court of Massachusetts met a few 
 weeks latter Backus was there with a memorial, November 
 22, 1774, in which the wrongs of his people were rehearsed 
 
 1 Hovey, op. cit., pp. 204-210. 
 2 Works of John Adams, vol. i, pp. 397-399. 
 
 3 Burrage, op. cit., p. 112. 
 4 Hovey, op. cit., p. 215. 
 
834 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 and their demands for religious liberty fully insisted on. 
 The Provincial Congress, through its president, John 
 Hancock, notified Mr. Backus, December 9, 1774, of 
 their Resolution: 
 
 “That the establishment of civil and religious liberty to each denomina- 
 tion in the province, is the sincere wish of this Congress. But being by 
 no means vested with powers of civil government, whereby they can 
 redress the grievances of any person whatever, they therefore recommend 
 to the Baptist churches, that when a General Assembly shall be convened 
 in this colony, they lay the real grievances of said churches before the 
 same, when and where this petition will most certainly meet with all 
 that attention due to the memorial of a denomination of Christians so 
 well disposed to the public weal of their country.” ? 
 
 Following this advice another memorial was presented 
 to the Assembly at Watertown in 1775. This was re- 
 ferred to a committee of seven, three of whom were 
 Baptists. The report of the committee being favorable, it 
 was ordered that Dr. Asaph Fletcher, —a Baptist 
 member of the committee, have liberty to bring in a bill 
 for the redress of such grievances as he apprehended the 
 Baptists to be under. The bill was reported and read 
 once, but no action resulted.2 Puritanism was too 
 strongly entrenched in New England to yield to assault, 
 even in the rear; the Baptists must win their fight 
 elsewhere. 
 
 Meeting with no success before Continental Congress 
 or the Massachusetts Assembly, the Warren Association 
 next turn to a united Baptist Church of America, for 
 relief. The Meeting of 1775, 
 
 “Agree that our agent and committee be desired to draw up a letter 
 
 to all the Baptist societies on this continent, stating the true nature and 
 importance of religious liberty, and signifying that we think that a 
 
 1 Hovey, op. cit., pp. 215-221. 
 2 [bid., pp. 222-223. 
 > Ihid., pp. 226-228. 
 
THE BAPTIST CHURCH 335 
 
 general meeting of delegates from our societies in every colony is expedi- 
 ent, as soon as may be to consult upon the best means and methods of 
 obtaining deliverance from yarious encroachments which have been 
 made upon that liberty, and to promote the general welfare of our 
 churches, and of all God’s people throughout the land; and to desire that 
 our friends in each Colony would communicate their sentiments con- 
 cerning the design, and time and place of meeting, with all convenient 
 speed.” ! 
 
 In accordance with this direction an address was _pre- 
 pared: 
 
 “To all Christian people in the American Colonies, and especially to 
 
 those who are of the Baptist denomination.” * 
 
 But a national convention of American Baptists did not 
 result from this plea of the Massachusetts Baptists; 
 the Virginia Baptists were to meet with success in their 
 state struggle and a national organization was too gigantic 
 a movement for Baptists as a whole to follow. 
 
 Missionary zeal was the third great force which tended 
 to nationalize American Baptists. Here again we find 
 the New Englanders in the van. In 1778 the Warren 
 Association requested three of its members to visit “the 
 Northern parts of our country.”” In 1779 a report of their 
 labors was made, when “very agreeable accounts were 
 received of their free reception in many places, and some 
 instances of very remarkable and glorious effects of the 
 gospel.” The Philadelphia Association in 1778 “voted to 
 raise a fund for the particular and express purpése of 
 preaching the Gosepl among the back settlements.”* 
 The struggle for liberty was not to continue long enough to 
 nationalize Baptists, the fields of education and missions 
 were. Other New England Associations took up the 
 
 1 Hovey, op. cit., pp. 228-229. 
 2 Tbid., pp. 229-231. 
 3 Burrage, op. cit., pp. 134-154. 
 
336 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 mission work! and the Massachusetts Baptist Missionary 
 Society held its first meeting in the First Baptist Church 
 of Boston, May 26, 1802. A national society was achieved 
 in 1814 when delegates met in Philadelphia “‘to organize 
 a plan for electing, combining and directing the energies of 
 the whole denomination in one sacred effort for the send- 
 ing the glad tidings of salvation to the heathen and to 
 nations destitute of pure gospel light.” This meeting 
 organized ‘The General Missionary Convention of the 
 Baptist Denomination in the United States of America 
 for foreign Missions.” 
 
 The effect of the War and independence upon the 
 organization of Baptists can best be traced in Virginia 
 where it appears most clear cut, in the leading Baptist 
 union, The General Association of the Separate Baptists, 
 and the organization into which this society grew. 
 
 The first meeting of the Virginia Separate Baptist 
 Association was held in Craig’s Meeting-house in May 
 1771. A moderator and a clerk were chosen and the 
 following agreements were entered into: 
 
 “1. It is unanimously agreed that the association has no power or 
 
 authority, to impose anything upon the churches; but that we act as an 
 advisory council. 
 2. We believe we have a right te withdraw ourselves from any church 
 that may neglect to correspond with us, and justify their conduct. 
 3. (Constitution of Churches). Any number of members that live at 
 a distance too far to assemble with ease . . . . . at their monthly 
 meeting, having first obtained leave from their church, have a right to 
 petition any ordained minister of the same faith and order . . . . . to 
 on into their stability, and if found ripe, to constitute them achurch . . 
 4. (Ordination). Every ordained minister of the same faith . . 
 may administer the sacraments among them and with the help Br thels 
 church ordain their elders anddeacons . .. . . and in case they 
 have made choice of a minister whom they desire to be examined and 
 ordained, they may petition neighboring ministers to proceed in said 
 
 1 Vedder, op. cit., p. 135. 
 
THE BAPTIST CHURCH 337 
 
 work, and on special occasions . . . . . one ordained minister with 
 an ordained elder or elders may proceed in the ordination. 
 
 7. All matters brought before the association for their advice to be 
 Ce te by a majority of voices. 
 
 . It is agreed, that an itinerant minister may be ordained without 
 sista to the association, by a presbytery of ministers . 
 upon their examination and a recommendation of his doctrine “afl 
 manner of life, from the church he is a member of. 
 
 9. It is agreed that a circular letter be sent by the Association to each 
 church, informing them something of the heads of their business . . .”! 
 
 The Association of 1773, Dover, Goochland county, 
 represented 34 churches and 3,195 members. It appointed 
 four ministers to visit the Kehukee Regular Association 
 and churches in order to investigate and report on their 
 standing.” 
 
 The nationalizing movement is well exhibited in the 
 1774 meeting at Walker’s Meeting-house in Amelia 
 county. <A letter was received from the Philadelphia 
 Association together with a copy of their minutes; likewise 
 the minutes of the Charleston Association were received 
 and read. A radical effort at centralization was also 
 attempted; Samuel Harris, for the Southern District, 
 and John Waller and Elijah Craig, for the Northern 
 District, were appointed “Apostles”? to superintend the 
 churches and report to the next Association. Semple 
 gravely observes: 
 
 “The Apostles made their report to the next Association rather in 
 discouraging terms, and no others ever were appointed. The judicious 
 reader will quickly discover that this is only the old plan of bishops, etc., 
 under a new name. In the last decision it was agreed that the office of 
 Apostles, like that of prophets, was the effect of miraculous inspiration, 
 and did not belong to ordinary times.” 3 
 
 1 Semple, History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Virginia, 
 pp. 49-53. 
 
 2 Ibid., pp. 54-55. 
 
 AM Ting Wee 
 
338 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Thus the Virginia Baptists essayed a form of bishop and 
 discarded this means of centralization, a form correspond- 
 ing to the New England “Agent.” This was radical 
 procedure but they were preparing for great things; in 
 1775 they were to begin their campaign with the General 
 Assembly for religious liberty.! 
 
 Committees were found effective and for a time the 
 Association acted through such agencies. ‘“‘A committee 
 of seven members was appointed to take into considera- 
 tion the civil grievances of Baptists, and make report,” 
 at the October meeting, 1778, Dupuy’s Meeting-house, 
 Powhatan county.2 They noted certain abuses and 
 recommended, “that two persons be appointed to wait on 
 the next General Assembly and lay these grievances 
 before them.”’ 
 
 Further unification was also urged by this meeting, 1778, 
 in a resolution, 
 
 “That a society of churches combined to seek the mutual good of the 
 whole is desirable: That it also promotes acquaintance among brethren, 
 and affords opportunity to consult, respecting the best modes of counter- 
 ' acting national grievances: But Assoications are not to interfere with the 
 
 internal concerns of churches, except where their advice is required by 
 any church, in the way of query.” 
 
 Herein is advocated a means of “‘national’’ action.? 
 
 In 1779 upon the report of the associational delegate to 
 the General Assembly, Jeremiah Walker, it was; “Ordered, 
 That our approbation of the said bill (For Religious 
 Freedom), be transmitted to the public printers, to be 
 inserted in the gazette.”4 The association was beginning 
 to realize how much might be accomplished through 
 
 1 Supra., pp. 334-335; Infra, p. 364. 
 2Semple, op. cit., p. 64. 
 
 S TiidS.p 0a: 
 4 Ibid., p. 65; infra, p. 388. 
 
THE BAPTIST CHURCH 339 
 
 memorial, petition and effective lobbyist. Jeremiah 
 Walker, Reuben Ford, John Waller, and John Leland 
 seem to have fulfilled all the requirements of the latter. 
 
 The October meeting at Sandy Creek Meeting-house in 
 1780 received a letter from a committee of the Regular 
 Baptists, requesting that a similar committee be appointed 
 by this, the Separate Association, to consider national 
 grievances, in conjunction. Reuben Ford, John Williams, 
 and E. Craig were accordingly appointed. ! 
 
 A delegate from the Strawberry Association, Robert 
 Stockton, was in attendance at the October meeting at the 
 Dover Meeting-house, Goochland county, in 1782.2 
 At this meeting it was decided that “having already 
 secured their most important civil rights, they would 
 hold only one more General Association, and then divide 
 into districts but “to form some plan, to keep a standing 
 sentinel for political purposes.” 
 
 The Last General Association met at Dupuy’s Meeting- 
 house, Powhatan county, in October 1783. The war was 
 over and it seemed essential that a new form of govern- 
 ment be instituted; a General Committee was accordingly 
 substituted for the General Association. It was resolved: 
 
 “That our General, or Annual, Association cease, and that a General 
 Committee be instituted, composed of not more than four delegates from 
 each district association; to meet annually, to consider matters that may 
 be for the good of the whole society, and that. the present association be 
 
 divided into four districts: Upper and Lower Districts, on each side of 
 the James River.” ? 
 
 A motion was made by John Williams: “That as they 
 were now about to divide into sections, they ought to 
 adopt a confession of faith; by way of affording a standard 
 
 1 Semple, op. cit., p. 66. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 67. 
 3 Ibid., p. 68. 
 
340 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 of principles to subsequent times.”’ It was then agreed to 
 adopt the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, upon the 
 following explanation: 
 
 “To prevent its usurping a tyrannical power, over the consciences of 
 any; we do not mean that every person is to be bound to the strict ob- 
 servance of everything therein contained, nor do we mean to make it, 
 in any respect superior or equal to the Scriptures, in matters of faith 
 and practice; although we think it the best human composition of the 
 kind now extant; yet it shall be liable to alterations, whenever the 
 General Committee, in behalf of the Association, shall think fit.’’ 4 
 
 The General Committee of the Virginia Baptists was 
 in existence from 1784 to 1799. It was at first composed 
 of delegations from four associations; it was organized with 
 a moderator and clerk and it adopted the following plan 
 of government: 
 
 “1. The General Committee shall be composed of delegates, sent from 
 all the district associations, that desire to correspond with each other. 
 
 2. No Association shall be represented in the General Committee by 
 more than four delegates. 
 
 3. The Committee thus composed, shall consider all the political 
 grievances of the whole Baptist Society in Virginia, and all references 
 from the district associations, respecting matters which concern the 
 Baptist society at large. 
 
 4. No petition, memorial or remonstrance, shall be presented to the 
 General Assembly from any Association in connection with the General 
 
 Committee, — All things of that kind shall originate with the General 
 Committee.” ? 
 
 It appears that the General Committee was very well 
 satisfied with the results of tts modes of procedure as a 
 rule. At its August meeting at Anderson’s Meeting- 
 house, Buckingham county, 1786, “‘“Reuben Ford, who 
 was appointed to wait upon the Assembly, with a memorial 
 and petition against the bill for a general assessment; 
 Reported, that he waited on the house of Assembly 
 
 * Semple, op. cit., pp. 68-69. 
 Ll Tind:pRi70! : 
 
 a 
 
 es 
 
THE BAPTIST CHURCH 341 
 
 according to appointment; that the law for assessment did 
 not pass; but, on the contrary, an act passed explaining the 
 nature of religious liberty.” “‘The Committee concurred 
 in the report and declared themselves well pleased with 
 the law above mentioned.”! 
 
 The Ketocton or Regular Baptist Association sent 
 delegates to this General Committee at this Anderson’s 
 Meeting-house gathering and they were received upon 
 equal footing with those from the other associations. 
 This gave rise to the following recommendation: 
 
 “Tt is recommended to the different Associations to appoint delegates 
 
 to attend the next General Committee, for the purpose of forming a 
 9 
 
 union with the Regular Baptists.” 2 
 
 Agreeable to appointment, the subject of the union of 
 the Regular and Separate Baptists was taken up at the 
 Dover Meeting-house session of the General Committee 
 in August 1787. A happy and effectual reconciliation 
 was accomplished and the distinction between Regulars 
 and Separates disappeared, — all became the United 
 Baptist Churches of Virginia. 
 
 Objections to the union on the part of the Separates 
 related chiefly to matters which concern the communion. 
 The Regulars complained that the Separates were not 
 sufficiently explicit in their principles, having never 
 published or sanctioned any confession of faith, and that 
 they kept within their communion many who were pro- 
 fessed Arminians. 
 
 Terms of the union were entered on the minutes in the 
 following record: 
 
 “The committee appointed to consider the terms of union with our 
 
 Regular Brethren, Reported; that they conceive the manner in which the 
 
 2 Semple, op. cit., p. 72. 
 1b a Dato: 
 
342 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Regular Baptist Confession of Faith has been received by a former 
 association, is the ground work for such union. 
 
 To prevent the confession of faith from usurping a tyrannical power 
 over the conscience of any, we do not mean, that every person is bound 
 to the strict observance of every thing therein contained; yet that it 
 holds forth the essential truths of the gospel and that the doctrine of 
 salvation by Christ and free unmerited Grace alone, ought to be believed 
 by every Christian and maintained by every minister of the Gospel. Upon 
 these terms we are united, — and desire hereafter that the names Regular 
 and Separate, be buried in oblivion; and that, from henceforth, we should 
 be known by the name of the United Baptist Churches in Christ in 
 Virginia.” 1 
 
 The fame and power of the General Committee was 
 increasing rapidly. At the March meeting of 1788 held in 
 Williams’ Meeting-house, Goochland county, the follow- 
 ing religious political subjects were taken up: 
 
 ““1. Whether the new Federal Constitution, which had now lately 
 made its appearance in public, made sufficient provision for the secure 
 enjoyment of religious liberty; on which, it was agreed unanimously, that, 
 in the opinion of the General Committee, it did not. 
 
 2. Whether a petition shall be offered to the next General Assembly, 
 praying the sale of the vacant glebes, . . . . as being public property; 
 and accordingly, four persons were chosen from the General Com- 
 mittee to present their memorial, viz., Eli Clay, Reuben Ford, John 
 Waller, and John Williams. (This object was gained in 1799). 
 
 3. Whether a petition should be offered to the General Assembly, 
 praying that the yoke of slavery may be made more tolerable. Referred 
 to the next session.” 2 
 
 It appears from the minutes of this session that a 
 letter had been received from the Rev. Asa Hunt of 
 Massachusetts, and the Rev. Lemuel Powers of New York, 
 proposing a correspondence between the General Com- 
 mittee and the Northern Associations, to which proposal 
 the General Committee readily agreed, and appointed 
 Mr. Leland to visit as many of them as he could con- 
 
 1 Semple, op. cit., p. 74. 
 2 [hid., pp. 76-77. 
 
THE BAPTIST CHURCH 843 
 
 veniently. Letters of correspondence were also prepared. 
 Hopes were entertained by some, about this time, of 
 forming a general meeting to be composed of delegates 
 from all the states in the union. This session also proposed 
 the publication of A History of the Rise and Progress of the 
 Baptists i Virginia. 
 
 The August session of the General Committee, Dupuy’s 
 Meeting-house, Powhatan county (1788), received a letter 
 from the Rev. James Manning, President of Rhode Island 
 College, recommending and encouraging the Baptists of 
 Virginia to erect a seminary of learning. This subject was 
 taken up and the following decision was reached: 
 
 “Resolved, That a committee of five persons on each side of the James 
 River, be appointed to forward the business respecting a seminary of 
 learning; accordingly Samuel Harris, John Williams, Eli Clay, Simeon 
 Walton and David Barrow were appointed on the South; and Robert 
 Carter, John Waller, Wm. Fristoe, John Leland and Reuben Ford on the 
 North side of the said river.” 2 
 
 The year of the establishment of the federal government 
 for the United States marks the high-water influence of 
 the General Committee. The August session of that year 
 met in Richmond. Delegates from several associations 
 were present. Letters and minutes of correspondence were 
 received from various quarters. The usefulness of this 
 General Committee in keeping up intercourse among the 
 Baptists throughout the United States was recognized as 
 inconceivable. From Georgia to Massachusetts they were 
 known and they received occasionally from some and 
 statedly from others, letters, minutes and other tokens of 
 unity. The General Committee did in a sense represent 
 the united Baptists of America. And in that capacity, 
 
 1 Semple, op. cit., p. 77. 
 SOU aD ton 
 
344 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 in fact if not officially, they prepared their address to the 
 newly elected President of the United States and through 
 them President Washington replied to the Baptists in 
 general of the United States.! 
 
 This session proceeded with its plans for a seminary of 
 learning and for the collection of documents of its history. 
 Furthermore it legislated on the question of slavery as 
 follows: 
 
 “Resolved, That slavery is a violent deprivation of the rights of nature, 
 and inconsistent with a republican government, and therefore recom- 
 mend it to our brethren, to make use of every legal measure to extirpate 
 this horrid evil from the land; and pray Almighty God that our honorable 
 legislature may have it in their power to proclaim the great jubilee con- 
 
 9 
 
 sistent with the principles of good policy.” 2 
 
 The prestige of the General Committee fell much more 
 rapidly than it had been created, the prey to the jealousy 
 of fundamental Baptist principles. Baptist centralization 
 throve on persecution by external enemies; these once 
 removed, it was destroyed by internal forces. 
 
 The first business of the Nuckol’s Meeting-house session 
 in May 1791, Goochland county, was to consider whether 
 they had not departed from their former plan. This 
 question produced a long debate and it was determined 
 that they had deviated from their original plan; that the 
 original design was to consider only religious political 
 grievances, and to seek for their redress. Therefore it was 
 Resolved, That that part of the third article which con- 
 tains these words, “‘And all references from the district 
 associations respecting matters that may concern the 
 whole body,” be struck out. 
 
 This decision proved fatal to the rising prosperity of the 
 General Committee. For from this session it declined in 
 
 ! Infra., pp. 507-508. 
 2 Semple, op. cit., pp. 79-80. 
 
THE BAPTIST CHURCH 345 
 
 power so rapidly, that it was finally dissolved in 1799. 
 This decision also seems the more mysterious as the 
 Nuckol session was the fullest and the most respectable 
 of any that had been held; all of the greatest of the 
 Virginia Baptist preachers were present iu addition to two 
 or three from Georgia. ! 
 
 The Tomahawk Meeting-house session of May 1792, 
 Chesterfield county, completed the work of destruction 
 begun by the Nuckol session. It was made a question 
 whether tne last meeting had not cramped the General 
 Committee by the amendment to the constitution. In 
 order to decide this point a committee was appointed to 
 frame a resolution, which after some amendments, was 
 adopted in the following words: 
 
 After maturely deliberating on a variety of circumstances, your com- 
 mittee suppose that the business of the General Committee is to con- 
 sider all the political grievances of the whole Baptist Society in Virginia, 
 and all references from associations; as also other circumstances, which 
 
 evidently relate to the external interest of the whole body of Baptists, and 
 no other concerns whatever.” 2 
 
 After this self-denying ordinance there is no need to 
 follow the Virginia Baptists further. They had built up a 
 most powerful state politico-religious organism. This in 
 
 turn had assumed considerable national power. Apparently 
 it was the jealousy of the states-rights idea as applied to 
 religion that caused the destruction of the General Com- 
 mittee. It continued to function feebly until 1799, when as 
 a last act its Waller’s Meeting-house session, Spottsylvania 
 county, recommended to the associations that they form a 
 plan for a general meeting of correspondence, to promote 
 and preserve union and harmony among the churches.® 
 
 1 Semple, op. cit., pp. 80-83. 
 
 2 Ibid., pp. 83-84. 
 3 Tind., p. 86. 
 
346 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Semple observes, ““The War, though very propitious to 
 the liberty of the Baptists, had an opposite effect upon the 
 life of religion among them. As if persecution was more 
 favorable to vital piety, than unrestrained liberty, they 
 seem to have abated in their zeal, upon being unshackled 
 from their manacles . . . . . God sent them liberty, 
 and with it, leanness of soul.’’! 
 
 Congregationalists must be classed in the same 
 “independent” group as Baptists. 
 
 To speak of the “nationalization” of denominations so 
 “independent”? in character may seem a Hiberianism. 
 From the very earliest days of America’s settlement, 
 Puritanism was styled by the English observers ‘‘Inde- 
 pendency or The American Way.” This shows that even 
 in the very spirit of individual congregational autonomy 
 there lay an American or national characteristic. Con- 
 gregational nationalism did not work itself out in hier- 
 archical centralized institutions but in the new United 
 States the New England Way grew into An American 
 Way, no less loyal to the State than were the more braced- 
 up centrally managed organizations. We will find, more- 
 over, that nationalism caused a strengthening of central 
 institutions even with Congregationalism. 
 
 No one has better phrased the New England view of 
 centralization in religion than did Nathaniel Emmons in 
 1803. Emmons stands with Jonathan Edwards the Young- 
 ger, John Smalley, and Timothy Dwight as the leaders of 
 Congregational thought for this period. A native of 
 East Haddam, Connecticut, Emmons was graduated from 
 Yale in 1767. From 1773 to 1827 he was pastor of the 
 Congregational Church at Franklin, Massachusetts. 
 During this period he trained more than a hundred young 
 
 1 Semple, op. cit., p. 35. 
 
THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH 347 
 
 men for the ministry. No man of the period exerted a 
 greater influence on New England’s religious thought. 
 In opposing the establishment of State Associations for 
 Massachusetts similar to those of Connecticut, in 1803, 
 he said: 
 
 “Association leads to Consociation; Consociation leads to Presby- 
 
 terianism; Presbyterianism leads to Episcopacy; Episcopacy leads to 
 Roman Catholicism; and Roman Catholicism is an ultimate fact.” 
 
 He declared that a Congregational Church was a “pure 
 democracy,’ which placed every member of the church 
 upon the same level, and gave “perfect liberty with 
 order.” The pastor was “but a mere moderator”; and, 
 in respect to a voting, “stands upon the same ground as a 
 private brother.” ‘One church has as-much power as 
 another”’ and ‘“‘there is no appeal from the authority of a 
 particular church to any higher ecclesiastical tribunal.” 
 
 The Reverend Philips Payson of Chelsea thus stated 
 the theological basis of Congregational individualism, in 
 debate on the subject of religious tests before the Massa- 
 chusetts convention for ratifying the Federal Constitution, 
 in 1788: 
 
 “The great object of religion being God Supreme, and the seat of 
 religion in man being the heart or conscience, that is, the reason God has 
 given us, employed on our moral actions, in their most important conse- 
 quences, as related to the tribunal of God, hence I infer, that God alone 
 is the God of conscience, and, consequently, attempts to erect human 
 
 tribunals for the consciences of men are impious encroachments upon the 
 prerogatives of God.” ! 
 
 This theory, however, did not lead New England Congre- 
 gationalism to complete individualism or even to an 
 advocacy of the separation of church and state. It did 
 not even reduce in any way the exalted position of the 
 1 Debates in Convention, p. 148; Backus, op. cit., edition of 1871, p. 336. 
 
348 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 ministry. For according to the Reverend Ezra Stiles, 
 President of Yale College, “the pastors are orderly and 
 regularly set apart to the ministry by the laying on of the 
 hands of the presbytery, or of those who have regularly 
 derived office power, in a lineal succession, from the 
 apostles and Jesus Christ.”! Individualism might prevail 
 as to dogma or rather as to lack of dogma, but the church 
 continued to remain an established state institution. 
 With the state as its sponsor there was not much need for 
 a separate strong centralized institution. The Reverend 
 Isaac Backus, that New England Baptist apostle of 
 religious liberty, could complain, “Great Britain has lost 
 all her power here and our rulers have sworn to renounce 
 all foreign power over America, and yet they compel the 
 people to support ministers (Congregational) who claim 
 a power of office from England. How shocking is this.’’? 
 He adds, “In the year 1784, . . . . . laws were made 
 in Connecticut to force people to support such ministers, 
 and the lke was soon done in Massachusetts. The 
 chief rulers of New Hampshire, for many years, were not 
 of the Congregational denomination, and therefore the 
 people did not suffer so much from them, as they did in 
 Massachusetts and Connecticut, and so I have passed 
 them over.’’3 
 
 When Emmons was arguing against centralism for the 
 church in Massachusetts, he was but opposing institu- 
 tions similar to those which the Connecticut clergy had 
 used for a great many years. At the “Synod” of Say- 
 brook in 1708 there had been adopted an organization con- 
 sisting of “‘parishes” grouped into “‘consociations” for 
 
 1Stiles, Ezra, Election Sermon, Preached M ay 8, 1783, pp. 58-61; 
 ‘Thornton, op. cit., pp. 474-475. 
 
 ? Backus, op. cit., abridged edition of 1804, p. 217. 
 
 * Backus, op. cit., abridged edition of 1804, p. 218. 
 
 6 
 
THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH 349 
 
 mutual counsel and help. The ministers were to meet in 
 “Associations” for consultation, licensure, ordination 
 and recommendation. Associations elected delegates to 
 the annual “General Association,’’ representative of the 
 entire colony. True, the legal establishment of this 
 Saybrook Platform was silently but finally repealed in the 
 1784 revision of the statute book, and the individual 
 churches left free to adopt whatever scheme of doctrine, 
 discipline, or organization they might severally elect and 
 to alter the same at discretion. This did not much change 
 the traditional state of Congregationalism. The organism 
 remained as before, the establishment was continued 
 until 1818. | 
 
 Even the doctrines of the church were under the control 
 largely of their central educational institution, Yale 
 College, ““The School of Prophets.” In 1783 Ezra Stiles 
 saw the power of Yale; he observed, “The colleges have 
 been of singular advantage in the present day. When 
 Great Britain withdrew all her wisdom from America, 
 this Revolution found above two thousand in New 
 England only, who had been educated in the colonies, 
 intermixed among the people, and communicating knowl- 
 edge among them.”’! 
 
 Each year in an election sermon the clergy told the 
 legislators of the state what the Church would expect of its 
 lawmakers; as it were, a religious petition was annually 
 presented to the legislature, and the most powerful kind 
 of a petition, —so much is exhortation greater than a 
 written petition. And yearly the ministers of the state 
 were called together at Yale College to listen to a sermon, 
 the conscio ad clericum, representative of the latest wisdom 
 of the beacon of congregationalism. 
 
 1 Thornton, op. cit., p. XXxiv. 
 
350 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 We find the General Association of Connecticut, in 
 its post-Revolutionary anxiety about religion, taking 
 thought to this conscio ad clericum. At Norwich in 1785 
 the following minute was adopted: 
 
 “Upon representation that the lecture the day after commencement at 
 New Haven is not attended upon by ministers in general and thereby the 
 design thereof is much frustrated, the opinion of this association is 
 asked, whether it is advisable, said lecture be continued? This Associa- 
 tion taking into consideration the general design thereof, are unwilling it 
 should be discontinued; therefore would earnestly recommend it to the 
 particular associations to desire those of their body who may attend 
 commencements, not to suffer any little inconveniences to prevent their 
 attendance upon a service designed for their profit; lest they give occasion 
 to its being said that ministers are as unmindful of obligation to attend 
 religious services as others.” ! 
 
 And at Berlin in 1787 it was, 
 
 “Voted that it be a standing rule that the preacher of the conscio ad 
 clericum at Yale College, the day after commencement, be appointed in 
 that association where the General Association shall set the preceding 
 June.” 2 
 
 In 1770 the General Association of Connecticut “earn- 
 estly recommend it to the several Associations to prosecute 
 such measures zs they shall think most expedient to 
 revive brotherly watchfulness and Church Discipline,’’? 
 and in 1771, “finding that no return from any association 
 hath been made... . . and being desirous of pro- 
 moting so good a design and observing with grief and 
 concern the declining state of our church for want of 
 Gospel Discipline, do recommend to the several associa- 
 tions to take this matter into serious consideration; and 
 desire they would send to the next General Association 
 
 ' Records of the General Association, p. 18. 
 2 Ibid, p. 128. 
 3 Ibid., p. 68. 
 
THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH 351 
 
 their resolutions or opinion on the following questions, 
 VIZ: 
 Whether it is not the indispensable duty of Christian churches to 
 
 maintain Gospel discipline? 
 What can be done to restore Gospel discipline in our churches?” ? 
 
 Action was slow; in 1772 “but three of them have 
 returned answers.’* However in 1773 “papers were 
 read on the subject . . . . . sent in from several of the 
 particular associations,” and a committee was voted 
 “to collect some general things into form from said 
 papers or exhibits, and prepare the same to be laid before 
 the next General Association.”* The report of the 
 committee was read at the 1774 General Association‘ 
 and another committee was appointed to “draw up some- 
 thing upon the subject . . . . . to be recommended to 
 the several churches of this colony.”® The report of this 
 committee was soon ready, and upon being read was 
 ordered filed.6 Another committee was then appointed 
 to draw up a Draft upon Church Government, to be 
 presented to the General Association at an adjourned 
 meeting in September.‘ 
 
 The report on Church Discipline was brought in by the 
 committee at the special meeting at New Haven in 1774;5 
 and the General Association adopted certain “thoughts 
 upon that subject’? and recommended their practice to 
 the churches. Chief of these was in the fourth section of 
 their recommendations which reads, 
 
 “We propose, that each church choose a small number of the Brethren 
 as a Committee of Inspection, Inquiry and Information, to act with or by 
 
 1 Records of the General Association, p. 70. 
 
 2 Thid., Pails 
 *{bid., pp. 73-74. 6 [bid., p. 76. 
 rl Didaaa anc o. (LOE Dee U0: 
 
 § Iind., pp. 75-76. AMIN AN Cpatee 
 
352 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 direction of the Pastor, who upon hearing anything of their members, 
 which they apprehend to be matter of scandal and church censure, are to 
 consider themselves as under obligations to make inquiry, examine 
 
 evidence, /ete.7.) 44.5) sult theyannduit NeCessaryi.4) ee Lome xe 
 exhibit a formal written complaint to the church and support the charge 
 with . . . . . light and evidence . . . . . that the church may 
 
 proceed against such offenders according to the Laws of Christ’s King- 
 dom.” ! : 
 
 The sum total of all the activity of the General Associa- 
 tion in four years of agitation (1770-1774) on the subjects 
 of church discipline and government was a mild recom- 
 mendation to the several churches and pastors. The 
 condition of the churches was not improved thereby; and 
 the matter was soon again before the body for considera- 
 tion. 
 
 In 1779, “A motion from the West Association in New London County, 
 was... . . laid before the association by their delegates to this 
 effect, “Considering the dark aspect upon our churches in the discourage- 
 ment lying upon candidates entering into the ministry, and the present 
 distress and difficulties of them that are already in office — from whence 
 we fear these churches may be left without lights in the candlestick — 
 we instruct our delegates to lay our sentiments before the General Associ- 
 ation, and join (if it be thought proper) to call a convention of the clergy 
 of the state, appointing time and place where it may be thought most 
 convenient to deliberate upon these subjects. Two things have been 
 upon our minds: viz, That an address be made to the rulers and people of 
 this state, showing our apprehension of the danger and the propriety of 
 some exertion to save the churches from ruin, or that a modest, dutiful 
 representation be made to the Honorable Assembly of this state, in their 
 next session in October, of these our apprehensions, praying their honors 
 to take the same into consideration and do as wisdom may direct.” 2 
 
 This motion was considered and after much discussion 
 
 a proposal for a convention of the clergy of the state was 
 
 negated:? and it was decided “‘that they make an address 
 
 to the people at large” and a committee was named to 
 * Records of the General Association, pp. 81-84. 
 
 a LOC, Ded O2: 
 3 Ibid., p. 103. 
 
THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH 393 
 
 prepare this. The committee reported and their draft 
 was approved, and it was ordered that it be printed, and 
 it was recommended that it be publicly read in the several 
 congregations of the state.1_ Also a committee was ap- 
 pointed to draft an address in the General Assembly.? 
 Inet 783; 
 
 “The General Association is . . . . . of opinion that the matter is 
 
 of so great and serious importance as to require the attention of ministers 
 and people in general, and therefore the General Association appoint. 
 a committee to consider the matter at large. The committee is desired to 
 obtain the best advice they can of ministers and other gentlemen of 
 character in this state, as to what further measures may be expedient, 
 and make report to the next General Association. The first meeting of 
 the committee is appointed to be at Yale College, in New Haven, the 
 day after Commencement.” ? 
 
 Again as earlier, the result of all this deliberation was 
 but a feeble recommendation made by the General 
 Association in 1784: 
 
 “This association, after deliberating and conversing largely upon the 
 subject, is of opinion, that in cases where there may be reason to appre- 
 hend a faulty neglect of proper endeavors, in any destitute church to 
 settle a minister over them in the Lord, it is the duty of those pastors, 
 who are in the vicinity, to take with them some respectable characters 
 from among the brethren of their churches, and obtain a conference with 
 - the members of such destitute church, and in a candid Christian manner 
 enquire into the causes of their neglect; and if they shall find them guilty 
 of censurable negligence, to inculcate upon them the importance of 
 Gospel ordinances, and (if possible) to persuade them to pay a proper 
 attention to the matter and if such measures should prove ineffectual, 
 and said church continue criminally negligent, after due pains taken, that 
 it is the duty of such neighboring pastors and brethren, to exhibit a 
 complaint against such church to the moderator of the Consociation to 
 which it belongs, if consociated, that 1t may be dealt with as walking dis- 
 orderly, and cut off from the Body if irreclaimable; and if said church be 
 unconsociated that it is the duty of the churches in communion with it, to 
 
 1 Records of the General Association, p. 103, 
 2 Ibid., p, 108. 
 3 Thid., pp. 114-115. 
 
354 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 withdraw communion from it, if found pertinaciously offending against 
 the Laws of Christ in the above particular. But that those individuals 
 of such offending church, as appear disposed to walk orderly, if any such 
 there be, ought to be taken under the protection of neighboring sister 
 churches, or the consociation, if consociated.”” ! 
 
 Apparently the Congregationalists would do very little 
 to strengthen their existing central organization. It is 
 in the line of missionary activity alone, that such a move- 
 ment is evidenced as successful. Here again Connecticut 
 was in the lead through its General Association. At the 
 Mansfield meeting of 1774 the following minute was 
 recorded, 
 
 “The Association taking into consideration the state of the Settlements 
 now forming in the wilderness to the Westward and Northwestward of 
 us, who are most destitute of a preached Gospel, many of which are of our 
 Brethren Emigrants from this Colony, think it advisable that an attempt 
 should be made to send missionaries among them, and for obtaining 
 a support for such missionaries would recommend it to the several 
 ministers in this colony to promote a subscription among their people 
 for this purpose. Upon which it was voted that the preceding conclusion 
 
 together with the form of subscription be printed and sent to the several 
 ministers in this colony.” ? 
 
 A missionary organization was established by the 
 special session of the General Association at New Haven 
 in the Fall. It was decided that two pastors go for a 
 tour of from five to six months :+. +). ) “if*theveom= 
 mittee are able to provide for their support so long.” 
 “That one person be appointed in each county to receive 
 the subscription or donation made, . . . . . and give 
 their receipt to the person from whom they receive them.” 
 “That a committee of three persons be appointed to 
 receive these donations from the receivers in the several 
 counties, and to give their receipts therefor. This com- 
 
 1 Records of the General Association, pp. 116-117. 
 27) Odes Os 
 
Jt 
 
 THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH 30 
 
 mittee to appoint to the missionaries their support; to pay 
 such sums to them, as they may see proper to appoint from 
 the donations received by them; to direct the missionaries 
 in any thing they shall judge necessary where not particu- 
 larly directed by the General Association; (to) appoint 
 other missionaries in case of the failure of any appointed 
 Dyeethis body:1:... . 2. tos account to: the General 
 Association yearly for the disposal of the monies received 
 by them; to lay before this body the proceedings of the 
 missionaries . . ... . theirsuccess . ... . thestate 
 of the place wherein they may discharge their mission, 
 etc. This committee to continue during the pleasure of 
 the Association.”! Receivers were named, the committee 
 appointed, and three missionaries were named, ‘“‘any two 
 to go as missionaries as agreed.”’ According to instruction 
 given by the General Association; 
 
 “These missionaries are directed to travel through the Settlements in 
 the wilderness to the Northwestward of this colony; but not to proceed 
 further Northward than the Northern boundary of the Province of New 
 York, where they shall judge their services may be most likely to be 
 beneficial, excepting so far as they shall be more particularly instructed 
 by this committee. They are directed to perform all parts of the minis- 
 terial office as Providence shall open the door. They are directed to set 
 out upon their mission sometime next Spring... . . to keep an 
 exact journal of their proceedings, and give as accurate an account as 
 possible of the state of the several places they pass through that the 
 
 General Association may be better able to determine where to send their 
 missionaries in coming times.” ? 
 
 It was moreover, “Voted that the following advertise- 
 ment be published in the several newspapers in this 
 colony’ wherein the names of the various authorized 
 agents for collection of the funds were designated.’’? 
 
 1 Records of the General Association, pp. 79-80. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 80. 
 3 Ibid., p. 81. 
 
356 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Concord and Lexington interfered seriously with this 
 prerevolutionary plan for missions. At various times 
 during the war and immediately thereafter the matter 
 was mentioned in the General Association, but it was not 
 until 1788 that there was serious thought given to active 
 resumption of the effert. Then it is recorded that, — 
 *“A committee (was appointed) to take into consideration the address 
 of the Association of the Western District in New Haven County, 
 respecting the state and circumstances of the New Settlements in the 
 States of Vermont and New York, with respect to the preaching of the 
 Gospe!, and the necessity of there being some measures taken to send 
 suitable missionaries to preach the Gospel, gather churches, and ad- 
 
 minister Gospel ordinances among them; and to report what is proper to 
 be done thereon.” ! 
 
 In 1791 a missionary was approved; in 1798 the General 
 Association organized a Missionary Society; and in 1802 
 this was chartered by the Connecticut legislature. Even 
 that champion of extreme Congregationalism, Emmons, 
 succumbed to the force of the movement and in 1799 
 accepted the presidency of the Massachusetts Missionary 
 Society. 
 
 1 Records of the General Association, p. 125. 
 
DeeaN RG IE IP ahd ae tea 
 
 THE STATE AND RELIGION 
 

 
CHAR ERY Xe rT 
 SEPARATION. OF CHURCH AND STATE 
 
 Separation of Church and State is one of America’s 
 greatest contributions to modern religion and _ politics. 
 The adoption of this as a political principle marks an 
 epoch in the history of mankind. Previously at least half 
 the wars of Europe and half the internal troubles since the 
 founding of Christianity had had a religious basis.! 
 America put an end to religious wars: for herself through 
 the acts of the period on constitution-making; for the world 
 at large through the power of the example thus set. 
 
 The epochal significance of this can only be grasped 
 when one stops to realize that Christianity was thereby 
 surrendering a privilege which it had held for nearly 
 fifteen hundred years. In 1786 Christianity in Virginia 
 voluntarily renounced a state position which had existed 
 for Christianity at large ever since Constantine in 313 
 A.D. had admitted Christianity into the “Trust of State 
 Religions.” 
 
 It should not be thought that this separation of state 
 and church was in any way a blow aimed at American 
 religion, although this has frequently been asserted. 
 Baird holds that, ‘“‘now none of Mr. Jefferson’s admirers 
 will consider it slanderous to assert that he was a very 
 bitter enemy to Christianity, and we may even assume 
 that he wished to see not only the Episcopalian Church 
 separated from the state in Virginia, but the utter 
 overthrow of everything in the shape of a church 
 
 1 Bryce, American Commonwealth, 1st edition, vol. u, p. 554. 
 
360 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 throughout the country.! It was not through hostility 
 to religion but because of a new phase of religious con- 
 viction that the issue rose in America. It resulted from 
 the rivalry of many religious enthusiasts, all of whom 
 were Christians. Judge Story was of the opinion that: 
 “The real object of the amendment (first) was not to 
 countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or 
 Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to 
 exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent 
 any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should 
 give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national 
 government. It thus sought to cut off the means of 
 religious persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), 
 and the power of subverting the rights of conscience in 
 matters of religion, which have been trampled upon 
 almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age.’’? 
 Separation of church and state was to promote’ the 
 Christian character of the American nation. Here again 
 we must recall that “nation” is greater than “state” and 
 that “religion” is above “church”. The separation was 
 merely intended to keep the church out of politics and_ 
 vice versa. 
 
 Many seem to think that separation was a natural and 
 inevitable result of the separation of the colonies from the 
 mother country. But the establishments in America had 
 always been‘ colonial rather than imperial. The political 
 connections of the churches were with the colonial govern- 
 ments rather than with the mother country. Their 
 political ties with England were incidental, resulting from 
 the fact that the colonies themselves were supposed to 
 
 ' Baird, op. cit., p. 106. 
 F 2Story, Commentary on the Constitution, abridged edition, 1833, pp. 
 701-702. 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 361 
 
 operate under English law. So when the colonies became 
 independent states, the alliance that had subsisted be- 
 tween certain colonies and certain churches was not 
 necessarily affected. Churches remained, as previously, 
 part and parcel of those states, and we have the spectacle 
 of fights for religious freedom going on not only in the 
 various states but also in the nation as a whole. | 
 
 Dissolution of the connections between church and 
 state was not primarily an act of the national govern- 
 ment; rather it fell chiefly within the province of state 
 jurisdiction. As we shall see Continental Congress evaded 
 the issue of religious freedom when it was first presented. ! 
 In fact even after the Federal Constitution had been 
 adopted, the matter of the place of religion was still un- 
 decided. The Magna Charta of religious freedom in 
 America, in so far as it affects the nation as a whole, is to 
 be found in the first amendment to the Constitution. 
 This was the price for ratification demanded by certain 
 states, where the issue had already been met in its state 
 form. It came in response to the demand that the Central 
 Government should not have the power to interfere with ° 
 that religious freedom which had already been extorted 
 from the State Government. In a sense the guarantee 
 contained in the Federal Constitution is a negative one, as 
 it protects against interference only on the part of the Cen- 
 tral Government; it does not guarantee religious freedom 
 to the individual, each state is left at liberty to adopt 
 whatever policy it wishes relative to the question. There 
 is still nothing in the Federal Constitution to prevent the 
 individual states from establishing religion if they so 
 desire. 
 
 Separation of church and state was not exclusively or 
 
 1 Infra, pp. 415-416. 
 
362 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 even principally the work of Thomas Jefferson, as is so 
 often stated. Jeffersonians are apt to appropriate the 
 works of others to their patron saint; and his enemies have 
 at times charges him with this as a crime.! Jefferson was 
 himself a skillful phrase-maker and composed his own 
 epitaph, “Here was. buried Thomas Jefferson, author 
 of the Declaration of Independence, of the statute of 
 Virginia for religious freedom, and father of the University 
 of Virginia.” This still does not constitute Jefferson the 
 foremost champion of religious freedom in America. It 
 is true that the Virginia law was the first of its kind in 
 America, — even in Christendom; it is equally true that 
 it'was phrased by Jefferson. But as students of historic 
 origins, we will find that the issue of “religious liberty ”’ 
 was brought forward by James Madison in Virginia. 
 And even Madison, rather than originating the idea, 
 learned it from his Baptist neighbors of Orange County, 
 Virginia. He had witnessed their persecution, had 
 listened to their pleas for freedom, and had decided to 
 champion their cause. Primarily then, separation of 
 church and state in America, resulted from the initial 
 efforts of small bodies of persecuted sects; Baptists, Presby- 
 terians, Catholics, Quakers, ete., who made use of the 
 spirit of the Revolution to demand religious freedom in 
 exchange for another, — to the majority a more important 
 natural right, political freedom. 
 
 1 Baird, op. cit., p. 111, ascribes authorship of this act to Jefferson but 
 imputes his interest therein to the basest motives: “It (the Act) gave 
 its author great satisfaction, not because it embodied the principle of 
 eternal justice, but because, by putting all religious sects on an equality, 
 it seemed to degrade Christianity, and ‘to comprehend’, to use his own 
 words, ‘within the mantel of protection the Jew and the Gentile, the 
 Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denom- 
 ination, It was this that made the arch-infidel chuckle with satisfaction— 
 not, we repeat, that the great principles imbodied in the measure were - 
 right.” 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 3638 
 
 To the Baptists of Massachusetts and Rhode Island 
 belongs the glory of initiating the American conflict for 
 religious liberty. The most serious advocate of religious 
 freedom in America, and the man to make the first on- 
 slaught for it, was Isaac Backus, Agent for the Baptists of . 
 ‘Massachusetts and Rhode Island. We have already! 
 told of his assault upon Continental Congress, and of the 
 methods employed by the skillful Massachusetts poli- 
 ticlans to prevent any official notice being taken of the 
 matter. But even though no Congressional action re- 
 sulted, the Baptists had, indeed, succeeded in giving to the 
 cause of religious freedom in America a_semi-official 
 national political standing. ; 
 
 Evaded in Philadelphia, Backus took his fight back to 
 the stronghold of Congregationalism. Early in 1774 he 
 had expressed his views as follows in a letter to John 
 Adams, January 19, 1774 
 
 “T fully concur with your grand maxim, that it is essential to liberty 
 that representation and taxation go together. Well, then, since people 
 do not vote for representatives in our legislature from ecclesiastical 
 qualifications, but only, by virtue of those which are of a civil and worldly 
 nature, how can representatives thus chosen have any right to impose 
 ecclesiastical taxes? Yet they have assumed and long exercised such a 
 power. For they assume a power to compel each town and parish in 
 this Province to settle a minister, and have empowered the majority of 
 the inhabitants to give away as much of their neighbor’s estates as they 
 please to their minister; and if they refuse to yield it to them, then to take 
 it by force. And I am bold in it that taxes laid by the British Parliament 
 upon America are not more contrary to civil freedom, than these taxes 
 are to the very nature of liberty of conscience, which is an essential 
 article in our character . . . . . Two thousand dollars will not make 
 good the damages that the Baptists in this Province have sustained with- 
 in these ten years, by being taxed to the other party, and by suing for 
 their rights before judges and jurors who were of that party.” 2 
 
 1 Supra., pp. 117-120, 330-334. 
 2 Hovey, op. cit., pp. 196-197. 
 
364 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 The Provincial Congress at Cambridge, December 9, 
 1774, “on reading the memorial of the Rev. Isaac Backus, 
 Agent to the Baptist churches in this government: Re- 
 solved, That the establishment of civil and _ religious 
 liberty, to each denomination in the province, is the 
 sincere wish of this Congress; but being by no means vested 
 with powers of civil government, whereby they can redress 
 the grievances of any person whatever; they therefore 
 recommend to the Baptist churches, that when a General 
 Assembly shall be convened in this colony, they lay the 
 real grievances of said church before the same, when and 
 where this petition will most certainly be met with all 
 that attention due to the memorial of a denomination of 
 Christians, so well disposed to the public weal of their 
 country. 
 
 (Signed) By order of the Congress, 
 JoHn Hancock, President.’’! 
 
 Backus came before the regular Congress of Massa- 
 chusetts in 1775 again with his Memorial; which Memorial 
 was submitted to the Assembly, read, and referred to a 
 committee. The committee’s report was favorable and a 
 time was set for a second reading; but other more pressing 
 matters of 1775, crowded it out and nothing more was 
 done about the matter. Whereupon the Warren Associa- 
 tion sent out an address “To all Christian people in the 
 American Colonies, and especially to those who are of the 
 Baptist denomination.’’? 
 
 The Baptists of Massachusetts, led by Backus, con- 
 tinued their fight for years. The constitution of 1778 
 
 1 Journal of Each Provincial Congress of Massachusetts in 1774 and 
 1775, edition of Lincoln, Boston, 1838, pp. 65-67; Hovey, op. cit., pp. 
 222-293. 
 
 2 Hovey, op. cit., pp. 229-231; supra, pp. 334-335. 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE °— 3605 
 
 contained as its thirty-fourth article, ““The free exercise 
 and enjoyment of religious profession and worship shall 
 forever be allowed to every denomination of Protestants 
 in this state.” This constitution was rejected by a 
 large majority. The constitution of 1779, adopted what 
 we may consider the Massachusetts principle, which 
 “withheld authority for the legislature, and asserted 
 the right and duty of the legislature to authorize and require 
 the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies, 
 politic, or religious societies to make suitable provision at 
 their own expense, for the instruction of the public worship of 
 God.” Baptists continued to protest; the Warren Associa- 
 tion asserted, September 1780, “We . . . . . enter our 
 protest against the power claimed in the Third Article of 
 the declaration of rights in the new plan of government, 
 introduced among us.”’! 
 
 The Massachusetts form of establishment was not given 
 up until 1833. Massachusetts’ Baptists had fought a 
 good fight but the honor of working out the principle of 
 separation of church and state was to belong to Virginia. 
 Backus was to envy the completeness of the triumph of 
 the Baptists over Virginia Episcopalians. Writing from 
 Middleborough, Massachusetts, for the July-October, 1 
 
 . number of the Rippon Register he said: 
 ey ONO their power is so gone that Episcopalian worshippers 
 are but a small sect in that state, and have no power to 
 demand a farthing from any man for the maintenance of 
 their ministers; nor has any tax been gathered by force to 
 support any denomination of Christians for three years 
 past. Equal Liberty of Conscience is established as fully 
 as words can express it. O! when shall it be so in New 
 England! However, God is working wonders here.”’? 
 
 1 Backus, edition of 1871, op. cit., p. 229. 2 Rippon Register, p. 94. 
 
$66 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 The American principle of separation of church and 
 state was first adopted by the state of Virginia. There 
 were numerous main reasons for this separation. 
 
 First and foremost as a cause for disestablishment was 
 the prevalence of dissent even in Virginia; it has been 
 estimated that from one-half to two-thirds of the popula- 
 tion were non-Episcopalians. 
 
 Again, the official clergy were not even in harmony with 
 their own laity. In the first place the clergy were, as some 
 one remarked, “‘a gentlemen’s club,” which remained 
 Tory, attached to the mother country, “by the circum- 
 stance of birth and: bond). +9) "% . by the” oathwor 
 allegiance,”! while the laity was preponderately patriotic. 
 Also the religion and morality of many of the clergy was 
 repellent to the high type of Virginia manhood. “Had the 
 doctrines of the Gospel,’ wrote the Reverend Samuel 
 Davis, a Presbyterian clergyman in Virginia, “‘been 
 solemnly and faithfully preached of the Established 
 Church, I am persuaded there would have been but few 
 dissenters in these parts of Virginia; for their first ob- 
 jections were not against the peculiar rites and ceremonies 
 of that Church, much less against her excellent articles, 
 but against the general strain of the doctrines delivered 
 from the pulpit, in which the articles were opposed, or 
 (which was more common) not mentioned at all; so that, 
 at first, they were not properly dissenters from the original 
 constitution of the Church of England, but the most 
 strict adherents of it, and only dissented from those who 
 had forsaken it.2 Reverend Davis does not condemn 
 quite all of the clergy. “I have reason to hope,”’ he writes, 
 
 1 Hawks, op. cit., p. 135-136. 
 2 Davis, Narrative of the State of Religion among Dissenters in Virginia, 
 p. 6. 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 367 
 
 “there are and have been a few names in various parts of 
 the colony, who are sincerely seeking the Lord, and grop- 
 ing after religion in the communion of the Church of 
 England.”! The historian of the early Virginia Church, 
 Hawks, gives an excellent exposition of the low morality 
 of the clergymen of the colony. While a law passed by the 
 assembly of 1776 read: “‘that such ministers as shall 
 become notoriously scandalous by . . . . drunkenness, 
 swearing, fornication, or other heinous and crying sins, 
 and shall thereof be lawfully convicted, shall for each 
 such heinous crime and wickedness, etc.’? Distrust of 
 their clergy undoubtedly aided disestablishment. It went 
 even farther; in the post-Revolutionary reorganization of 
 Episcopalianism the Southerners were to be the champions 
 of the layman, lay-representation even to the point where 
 it practically eliminated the clergy. 
 
 Baptist polity aided its Americanization case. The 
 Baptist organization was the most democratic of the 
 Protestant bodies. Each church was a little republic in 
 which each member possessed and maintained equal rights 
 with his fellow. Such a system appealed powerfully to the 
 political instincts of the Virginia leaders, Henry, Mason, 
 Jefferson, and Madison. Baptists had inherited the will to 
 freedom. They were the first and only religious denomin- 
 ation to strike for independence from Great Britain and 
 for religious liberty previous to the declaration of national 
 independence. + 
 
 This honor has been claimed for the Presbyterians of 
 Virginia; Baird writes, “The first body of clergymen of 
 
 1 Davis, op. cit., p. 5; ef. Muzzey, Thomas Jefferson, p. 61. 
 
 2 Hawks, Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia, pp. 64-65; Hening, 
 op. cit., vol. 11, p. 384. 
 
 3 Supra, p. 201. fe 
 4 James, Struggle for Religious Freedom in Virginia, p. 197. 
 
368 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 any denomination in America that . . . . . identified 
 themselves with the cause of freedom, and independence 
 was the comparatively numerous and very influential 
 Presbytery of Hanover in Virginia in a memorial recom- 
 mending the separation of Church and State.”! Virginia 
 Presbyterians, previous to the Declaration of Independence 
 contented themselves with a demand for their rights 
 under the Act of Toleration; it was not until the Revolution 
 had been accomplished and Virginia had thrown off her 
 allegiance to Great Britain that they united with the 
 Baptists in an effort to pull down the establishment. 
 Even this they did in an opportunistic manner for when 
 they thought they saw a chance for themselves to 
 become a part of an establishment they wavered, and 
 for the moment deserted the cause of religious liberty. 
 This delayed the achievement of the ultimate victory. 
 But this wavering is not surprising in view of Pres- 
 byterian polity which since the days of Calvin had 
 heartily approved of an establishment, providing they . 
 were it. 
 
 Establishment had been accompanied in Virginia by 
 heresy laws of such extreme severity as to defeat their 
 own ends. ‘They could not be enforced, and they were the 
 best possible object lesson of the dangers of establishment. 
 Had they been enforced they would have brought Thomas 
 Jefferson to the stake. To deny the Trinity was pun- 
 ishable with three years imprisonment and a Unitarian 
 or Free-thinker was an unfit custodian for his own children. 
 
 The Baptists especially had been subject to violent per- 
 secutions. During the co-called “Period of the Great 
 Persecution,” 1768 to 1774, they had_ been whipped, 
 beaten, arrested, fined, imprisoned (sometimes on bread 
 
 * Baird, Religion in America, p. 106; supra, pp. 78-81. 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 369 
 
 and water), and in other ways shamefully abused. The 
 evidence for this is overwhelming. Semple, the Baptist 
 historian records, 
 
 “The rage of the persecutors had in no wise abated (1771); they seemed 
 sometimes to strive to treat the Baptists and their worship with as much 
 rudeness and indecency as was possible. They often insulted the preach- 
 ers in time of service, and would ride into the water and make sport when 
 they administered baptism. They frequently fabricated and spread the 
 most groundless reports, which were injurious to the character of the 
 Baptists.” “But,” he adds, “it is worthy to remark, that generally the 
 
 Baptist cause has flourished most extensively where it met with most 
 severe opposition.” ! 
 
 Some were whipped by individuals, several fined. ‘“They 
 (Chesterfield County) kept up their persecution after 
 other counties had laid it aside.”? It seems by no means 
 certain that any law in force in Virginia authorized the 
 imprisonment of any person for preaching. The law for 
 the preservation of peace, however, was so interpreted, 
 as to answer this purpose, and accordingly, whenever, 
 the preachers were apprehended, it was done by a peace 
 warrant.’ 
 
 Fristoe writes, ““The enemy, not contented with ridicule 
 and defamation, manifested their abhorrence to the 
 Baptists in another way. By a law then in force in Vir- 
 ginia, all were under obligations to go to church, several 
 times in the year; the failure subjected them to fine. 
 Little notice was taken of this omission, of members of the 
 Established church; but so soon as the ‘New Lights’ were 
 absent, they were presented by the Grand Jury, and fined 
 according to law.’* ‘When persecutors found religion 
 
 ‘Semple, History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Virginia, 
 p. 19. 
 
 ?Semple, op. cit., p. 207. 
 
 3 Ibtd., p. 14. 
 
 * Fristoe, History of the Ketocton Baptist Association, p. 69. 
 
BAL NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 could not be stopped in its progress by ridicule, defamation, 
 and abusive language, the resolution was to take a different 
 step and see what that would do; and the preachers in 
 different places were apprehended by magisterial authority, 
 some of whom were imprisoned.”! “‘They were charged 
 with design . . . . when once they supposed them- 
 selves sufficiently strong, that they would fall on their 
 fellow subjects, massacre the inhabitants and take pos- 
 session of the country.’’? 
 
 Leland notes that, “About thirty of the preachers were 
 honored with a dungeon, and a few others besides. Some 
 of them were imprisoned as often as four times, besides 
 all the mobs and perils they went through.”? And we are 
 informed by Dr. Bailey that, “the father of Henry Clay 
 was thus imprisoned.’’4 
 
 The Journals of the House of Delegates disclose, Novem- 
 ber 14, 1778, a petition from Jeremiah Walker, one of the 
 most prominent Baptist preachers, praying for the 
 reconsideration of “his being taxed with prison charges”’ 
 for his time in jail “‘for preaching.” To which the Com- 
 mittee for Religion responded with a resolution, Novem- 
 ber 20; “That the petition be rejected as Walker’s offence 
 had been a breach of the Peace.’’5 
 
 The Episcopalian, Hawks, admits that, “‘No dissenters 
 in Virginia experienced for a time harsher treatment than 
 did the Baptists. They were beaten and imprisoned; 
 and cruelty taxed its ingenuity to devise new modes of 
 punishments and annoyance.”’® ~~ 
 
 1 Fristoe, op. cit. pp. 79-80. 
 
 a1 bids 00. 
 
 3 Leland, Writings, p. 107. 
 
 * Bailey, The Trials and Victories of Religious Liberty in America. 
 ° Journals of House of Delegates, Nov. 14 and 20, 1778. 
 
 6 Hawks, op. cit., p. 121. 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 371 
 
 One of the most convincing indictments of the estab- 
 lishment was written by James Madison, January 24, 
 1774, in a letter to a college classmate, Bradford of 
 Philadelphia, of the New Jersey College (Princeton). 
 This letter is evidence of why Madison, the neighbor of 
 the persecuted Baptists of Brown County, became the 
 early champion of “religious liberty.” 
 
 “If the Church of England had been the established and general 
 religion in all the Northern colonies, as it has been among us here, and 
 uninterrupted tranquillity had prevailed throughout the continent, it is 
 clear to me that slavery and subjection might and would have been 
 gradually insinuated among us. Union of religious sentiments begets a 
 surprising confidence, and ecclesiastical establishments tend to great 
 ignorance and corruption; all of which facilitates the execution of mis- 
 chievous projects . we 
 
 I want again to breath your freeair . . . | Poverty and luxury pre- 
 vail (in Virginia) among all sorts: pride, ignorance, and knavery among 
 the priesthood, and vice and wickedness among the laity. This is bad 
 enough, but it is not the worst I have to tell you. That diabolical, hell- 
 conceived principle of persecution rages among some; and, to their eternal 
 infamy, the clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such business. 
 This vexes me the worst of anything whatever. There are at this time 
 in the adjacent county not less than five or six well-meaning men in close 
 jail for publishing their religious sentiments, which, in the main, are very 
 orthodox. I have neither patience to hear, talk, or think of anything 
 relative to this matter; for I have squabbled and scolded, abused and 
 ridiculed, so long about it, to little purpose, that I am without common 
 
 patience. So I must beg you to pity me, and pray for the liberty of 
 conscience.” ! 
 
 The Baptists were not slow to discover the advantageous 
 position in which the political situation had placed them. 
 Their numerical strength was such as to make it important 
 for either side to secure their influence. Fristoe writes, 
 “The business then (1776) was to unite, as an oppressed 
 
 ‘Writings of James Madison, edition of 1865, vol. 1, pp. 1-12; 
 
 Hunt edition, vol. i, pp. 19-21; Rives, Infe and Times of Madison, 
 vol..i, p. 43. 
 
372 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 people, in using our influence and give our voices in elect- 
 ing members of the State Legislature — members favor- 
 able to religious lhberty and the rights of conscience. 
 Although the Baptists were not numerous, when there was 
 anything near a division among other inhabitants in a 
 country, the Baptists; together with their influence, gave 
 caste to the scale, by which means many a worthy and 
 useful member was lodged in the House of Assembly and 
 answered a valuable purpose.”! To the Church of 
 England the course of the Baptists seemed vindictive 
 and relentless; yet it was but the relentless vindictiveness 
 of the logic of the situation, the battle for religious 
 freedom. 
 
 The establishment fortified itself behind the barricade of 
 “religious toleration’? which had been granted only a few 
 years previously through the efforts of the Presbyterians, 
 1763-1768.2 To be sure it was not a liberal toleration but 
 under certain onerous conditions dissenters might obtain 
 legal toleration. From 1758 to 1775, efforts were made to 
 liberalize this act of coleration. A new bill was brought 
 forward in the assembly of 1772; from 1772 to 1775 Vir- 
 ginia waged a war of petitions, for and against this new 
 toleration bill. But among all the petitions presented, up 
 to 1775, not one asked for the abolition of the establish- 
 ment; not one protests state taxation for the support of 
 religion; not one sought religious liberty. Plainly the 
 struggle for “Religious Liberty” resulted from the 
 struggle for “ Political Freedom.’ No amount of ingenious 
 argument can make of the Hanover Petition, November 
 1774, “Praying that no bill may pass into a law but 
 such as will secure to the petitioners equal liberties and 
 
 1 Fristoe, op. cit., p. 90. 
 * Mcillwaine, Struggle for Religious Toleration in Virginia. 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 373 
 
 advantages with their fellow subjects,”! an attack on 
 the establishment or a memorial for religious liberty. 
 
 In 1775 the Church of England was most carefully 
 guarded by the statutes of Virginia. Acts of the Assembly 
 provided for: services according to the laws and orders of 
 the Church of England; a ministry conformable to the 
 canons; compulsory attendance upon services; regulation 
 of non-conformists; glebe lands for the support of the 
 clergy; vestries, empowered to levy tithes for the salaries of 
 the ministers; vestrymen who should subscribe to the 
 doctrines and discipline of thé Church and bound by the 
 oath of supremacy. Vestries were closed corporations and 
 irresponsible; they were charged with the support of the 
 poor and they fixed the assessments for that purpose as 
 well as for general church expenses. 
 
 The first breach in the exclusive privileges of the 
 Anglican establishment and the first step toward religious 
 equality came with the organization of the Revolutionary 
 Army. The Convention at Richmond in 1775, granted to 
 each denomination of dissenters the privilege of per- 
 forming divine service for its respective adherents in the 
 army, ‘for the ease of such scrupulous consciences as may 
 not choose to attend divine services as celebrated by the 
 chaplain.’ This much was accomplished by the Baptists 
 in 1775, “the first step towards placing the clergy for all 
 denominations upon an equal footing in Virginia.”? 
 At the meeting of their Association at Dupuy’s Meeting- 
 house, Powhatan County, in August they resolved to 
 petition for the abolition of the establishment and to 
 send a patriotic address to the convention, offering their 
 
 1 Journal of the House of Delegates, June 5, 1775; Henry, Life of Patrick 
 Henry, calls this “the advance guard of ..... remonstrance, 
 
 which so vigorously attacked the establishment.” 
 2 Hawks, op. cit., p. 138; Journal of Convention, August 16, 1775. 
 
374 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 services for the army, and requesting that their ministers 
 be allowed to preach to the soldiers. Semple gives us the 
 following account of this important meeting: 
 
 “It seems that one great object of uniting together the two districts (of 
 Baptists in Virginia) at this time was to strive together for the abolition 
 of the hierarchy, or church establishment, in Virginia. The discontents in 
 America, arising from British oppression, were now drawing to a crisis; 
 most of the colonies had determined to resist, and some were for inde- 
 pendence. This was a very favorable season for the Baptists. Having 
 been much ground under by the British laws, or at least by the interpre- 
 tation of them in Virginia, they were to a man favorable to any revolution 
 by which they could obtain freedom of religion. They had known from 
 experience that mere toleration was not a sufficient check, having been 
 imprisoned at a time when that law was considered by many as being 
 in force. It was, therefore, resolved at this session to circulate petitions 
 to the Virginia Convention, or General Assembly, throughout the State, 
 in order to obtain signatures. The prayer of these was that the church 
 establishment should be abolished, and religion left to stand on its 
 own merits; and that all religious societies should be protected in the 
 peaceable enjoyment of their own religious principles and modes of 
 worship. They appointed Jeremiah Walker, John Williams, and George 
 Roberts to wait on the Legislature with these petitions. They also 
 
 determined to petition the Assembly for leave to preach to the army, 
 which was granted.” ! 
 
 The petition did not reach the Convention this year, 
 but the committee arrived with the address from the 
 Association. The records of the Convention show, 
 August 16, 1775, that: 
 
 “An address from the Baptists in this colony was presented and read 
 setting forth that, however distinguished from the body of their country- 
 men by appellations and sentiments of a religious nature, they, neverthe- 
 less, considered themselves as members of the same community in respect 
 to matters of a civil nature, and embarked in the same common cause; 
 that, alarmed at the oppression which hangs over America, they have 
 considered what part it would be proper to take in the unhappy contest, 
 and had determined that in some cases it was lawful to go to war; and 
 that they ought to make a military resistance against Great Britain in 
 her unjust invasion, tyrannical oppression, and repeated hostilities; that 
 
 ‘Semple, op. cit., p. 62. 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 375 
 
 their brethren were left at discretion to enlist without incurring the cen- 
 sure of their religious community; and, under these circumstances, many 
 had enlisted as soldiers, and many more were ready to do so, who had an 
 earnest desire that their ministers should preach to them during’ the 
 campaigns; that they had, therefore, appointed four of their brethren to 
 make application to this Convention for the liberty of preaching to the 
 troops at convenient times; without molestation or abuse, and praying 
 the same may be granted to them. 
 
 Resolved, That it be an instruction to the commanding officers of the 
 regiments of troops to be raised, that they permit the dissenting clergy- 
 men to celebrate divine worship, and to preach to the soldiers, or exhort, 
 from time to time, as the various operations of the military service may 
 permit, for the ease of such scrupulous consciences as may not choose to 
 attend divine services as celebrated by the chaplains.” ! 
 
 The year 1776 was a great one for religious liberty as it 
 was for political emancipation. The Virginia Convention 
 incorporated into the organic law of the state the philoso- 
 phy of religious liberty; the first Legislature assembled 
 under the new republic, declared against all laws punishing 
 men for religious opinions, and exempted dissenters from 
 taxation for the support of the establishment. 
 
 The philosophy of religious liberty was incorporated into 
 the Virginia Bill of Rights by the Constitutional Con- 
 vention at Williamsburg. It was the work of James 
 Madison, taught as we have noted? by the sufferings of 
 his Orange County neighbors. The original article (16) 
 drawn by George Mason was as follows: 
 
 “That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of 
 discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, and not 
 by force or violence; and, therefore, that a!l men should enjoy the fullest 
 toleration in the exercises of religion, according to the dictates of con- 
 science, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate, unless, under 
 the color of religion, any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or the 
 
 safety of society; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian 
 forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.” 3 
 
 1 Journal of the Convention, August 6, 1775. 
 2 Supra, p. 371. , 
 3 Rowland, Life of George Mason, vol. i, appendix x. 
 
376 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Upon the motion of James Madison, June 12, 1776, in 
 the ““Committee of the Whole,” this article was amended 
 to read: 
 
 “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the 
 manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, 
 not by force or violence; and.therefore, all men are equally entitled to the 
 free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience; and that 
 it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and 
 charity towards each other.” ! 
 
 Madison had changed “toleration” to “‘equality.” 
 Thus originated the “Religious Freedom” clause of the 
 Bill of Rights of Virginia. | 
 
 A petition from the Baptists of Prince William County 
 brought to the attention of the legislature, the question of 
 the practical application of this philosophy of religious 
 equality. The problem was stated as follows; June 20, 
 1776: 
 
 “A petition of sundry persons of the Baptist church, in the county of 
 Prince William, . . . . . was presented to the Convention, and read, 
 setting forth that at a time when this colony, with others, is contending 
 for the civil rights of mankind, against the enslaving schemes of a power- 
 ful enemy, they are persuaded the strictest unanimity is necessary among 
 ourselves and that every remaining cause of division may, if possible, be 
 removed, they think it their duty to petition for the following religious 
 privileges, which they have not yet been indulged with in this part of the 
 world — to wit: That they be allowed to worship God in their own way, 
 without interruption; that they be permitted to maintain their own 
 ministers, and none others; that they be married, buried, and the like, 
 without paying the clergy of other denominations; that, these things 
 granted they will gladly unite with their brethren, and to the utmost of 
 their ability promote the common cause. 
 
 “Ordered, That the said petition be referred to the Committee of 
 Propositions and Grievances; that they inquire into theallegations thereof 
 and report the same, with their opinion thereupon to the Conven- 
 tion.’ 2 
 
 1 Hening, Statutes, vol. ix. pp. 111-112; Bitting, Strawberry Association, 
 p. 18. 
 2 Journals of the Convention, June 20, 1776. 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 377 
 
 Thus the practical issue was phrased. From the fact that 
 it begs religious indulgences, we may infer that the 
 petitioners had drawn the document before they were 
 familiarized with Madison’s “religious equality”? phrase of 
 the Bill of Rights. The questo vexata for the next three years, 
 1776-1779, was to be the one of “‘support of the clergy.” 
 
 When the first republican legislative assembly met, 
 October 7, 1776, petitions came pouring in from all 
 denominations; Anglicans and Methodists supported the 
 establishment whilst Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans 
 and others prayed for its abolition. 
 
 The petitioners, in gefieral, argued against the church 
 on the grounds: that they had been living in ecclesiastical 
 bondage, under restrictions inconsistent with equal 
 rights, especially in that they must pay for the support of 
 a church which they could not conscientiously attend:! 
 that even in the frontier settlements where very few 
 Anglicans were to be found, glebes and church support 
 were to be provided;? that the temporal interest of the 
 country would be advanced by making “Virginia an 
 asylum for free inquiry, knowledge and the virtuous of 
 every denomination; that Christianity might safely be 
 left to its own force for its preservation; that only the 
 Creator himself could prescribe the mode of worship;* 
 and that such severity as had been practiced was unworthy 
 of a Christian people. 
 
 Arguments advanced by the proponents of the estab- 
 lishment cited the justice, wisdom, and expediency of the 
 
 1 Journal of the Convention, Oct. 22, 1776, Petitions of Various Dis- 
 senters, Albemarle, Amherst & Buckingham Counties. 
 
 2 Tbid., Oct. 24, 1776, Petition of Presbytery of Hanover, Nov. 9, 1776, 
 Petition of August County. 
 
 3 Ibid., Oct. 11, 1776, Petition of Prince Edward County. 
 
 4 Ibid, Petition from Presbytery of Hanover, Oct. 24, 1776. 
 
378 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 existing polity. “It would be inconsistent with justice 
 either to deprive the present incumbents of parishes or of 
 any right or profits they hold or enjoy, or to cut off from 
 such as are now in orders and unbeneficed those expecta- 
 tions which originated from the laws of the land.” It 
 would be unwise-to change because of “the experience of 
 150 years, during which . . . . . order and internal 
 tranquillity, true piety and virtue have prevailed.” “A 
 religious establishment is conducive to . . . . . peace 
 and. happiness 07 4... virtue: #/ 9405 2 candmsriavas 
 And as a matter of practical politics, “the hardships 
 which such a regulation might impose on individuals, or 
 even bodies of men, ought not to be considered,” that 
 “the mildness of the church establishment has heretofore 
 been acknowledged by those very dissenters who now aim 
 at its ruin,” and finally “‘they cannot suppose, should all 
 denominations . . . . . be placed upon a level, that 
 this equality will continue . . . . . and they dread the 
 ascendancy of that religion which permits its professors to 
 threaten destruction to the Commonwealth, in order to 
 serve their own private ends.”! 
 
 Thomas Jefferson wrote, 
 
 “The first republican legislature . . . . . was crowded with peti- 
 tions to abolish . . . . . spiritual tyranny. These brought on the 
 severest contests in which I have ever been engaged. Our greatest 
 opponents were, Mr. Pendleton and Robert Carter Nicholas, honest 
 men, but zealous churchmen. The petitions were referred to the 
 Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Country; and, 
 after desperate contests in that committee almost daily from the 11th 
 of October to the 5th of December, we prevailed so far only as to 
 repeal the laws which rendered criminal the maintenance of any re- 
 ligious opinions (other than those of the Episcopalians), the forbearance 
 of repairing to (Episcopal) Church, or the exercise of any (other than the 
 
 ' Journal of Congress, Nov. 8, 1776, Memorial from clergy of the 
 Established Church. 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 379 
 
 Episcopal) mode of worship; and further, to exempt dissenters from 
 contributions to the support of the Established Church; and to suspend, 
 only until the next session, levies on the members of that church for the 
 salaries of their own incumbents. For, although the majority of our 
 citizens were dissenters . . . . . . a majority of the Legislature were 
 churchmen. Among these, however, were some reasonable and liberal 
 men, who enabled us, on some points, to obtain feeble majorities. But 
 our opponents carried, in the general resolutions of committee of Novem- 
 ber 19th, a declaration that religious assemblies ought to be regulated, and 
 that provision ought to be made for continuing the succession of the clergy and 
 superintending their conduct. And in the bill now passed, was inserted an 
 express reservation of the question whether a general assessment should 
 not be established by law on every one to the support of the pastor of his 
 choice; or whether all should be left to voluntary contribution: and on 
 this question, debated at every session from 1776 to 1779, (some of our 
 dissenting allies, having now setured their particular object, going over to 
 the advocates of a general assessment), we could only obtain a suspension 
 from session to session until 1779, when the question against a general 
 assessment was finally carried and the establishment of the Anglican 
 Church entirely put down.” ! 
 
 The bill which repealed the laws which made heresy or 
 absence from worship a crime and forced dissenters to 
 contribute to the support of the church, was adopted as 
 resolutions of the Committee of the Whole House on 
 November 19, and was passed by the House, December 
 5, 1776. It read: 
 
 “1. Resolved, As the opinion of this Committee, that all and every 
 act or statute, either of the Parliament of England or of Great Britain, 
 by whatever title known or distinguished, which renders criminal the 
 maintaining any opinions in matters of religion, forbearing to repair to 
 church, or the exercising any mode of worship whatsoever, or which 
 prescribes punishment for the same, ought to be declared henceforth of 
 no validity or force within this Commonwealth. 
 
 2. Resolved, That so much of an act of Assembly made in the fourth 
 year of the reign of Queen Anne, intitled, ‘An act for the Effectual Sup- 
 pression of Vice, and Restraint and Punishment of Blasphemous, wicked, 
 and dissolute Persons,’ as inflicts certain additional penalties on any 
 
 1 Works of Thomas Jefferson, Ford edition, vol. i, pp. 53-54. Washing- 
 ton edition, vol. 1, pp. 9-40. Cf. Foote, Sketches of Virginia, pp. 322- 
 323. 
 
380 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 person or persons convicted a second time of any of the offences 
 described in the first clause of the said act, ought to be repealed. 
 
 3. Resolved, That so much of the petitions of the several dissenters 
 from the church established by law within this Commonwealth as de- 
 sires an exemption from all taxes and contributions whatever towards 
 supporting the said church, and the ministers thereof or towards the 
 support of their respective societies in any other way than themselves 
 shall voluntarily agree, is reasonable. 
 
 4. Resolved, That, although the maintaining any opinions in matters of 
 religion ought not to be restricted, yet that public assemblies of societies 
 for divine worship ought to be regulated, and that proper provision 
 should be made for continuing the succession of the clergy and superin- 
 tending their conduct. 
 
 5. Resolved, That the several acts of Assembly making provision for 
 the support of the clergy ought to be repealed, securing to the present 
 incumbents all arrears of salary, and to the vestries a power of levying 
 for performance of their contracts. 
 
 6. Resolved, That a reservation ought to be made to the use of the 
 said church, in all times coming, of the several tracts of glebe lands 
 already purchased, the churches and chapels already built for the use of 
 the several parishes, and of all plats belonging to or appropriated to the 
 use of the said church, and all arrears of money or tobacco arising from 
 former assessments; and that there should be reserved to such parishes as 
 have received private donations for the support of the said church and 
 its ministers the perpetual benefit of such donations.” ! 
 
 Dissenters were but slightly mollified by this act; they 
 wanted religious equality; religious liberty would not 
 suffice. So for the next three years petitions continued to 
 roll in, from Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists and Pres- 
 byterians, Presbyteries, Parishes and Associations, by 
 counties and by groups, from dissenters and from sup- 
 porters of the general assessment. Finally, November 15, 
 1779, the House, 
 
 ““Ordered. That leave be given to bring in a bill for ‘repealing so much of 
 the act of Assembly entitled, “An Act for the Support of the Clergy, 
 etc.” as relates to the payment of salaries heretofore given to the clergy 
 of the Church of England; and that Messrs. Mason, Strother and Ran- 
 
 > 33:9 
 
 dolph, do prepare and bring in the same’. 
 
 1 Journal of House, November 19, December 5, 1776. 
 2 Ibid., November 15, 1779. 
 
 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 381 
 
 Mr. Mason presented the bill, November 18, 1779. It 
 was read and ordered read a second time. On the next 
 day it was given a second reading, and turned over to the 
 Committee of the Whole House. December 11, it was 
 ordered engrossed. December 13, it was passed to a 
 third reading and the following act was carried, 
 
 “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That so much of the act 
 entitled — ‘An Act for the Support of the Clergy, and for the regular 
 collecting and paying the Parish Levies,’ and of all and every other Act 
 or Acts providing salaries for the Ministers, and authorizing the vestries 
 to levy the same, shall be, and the same is hereby repealed.” ! 
 
 The question had been decided against the system of a 
 general assessment, and the establishment was finally 
 put down. Its purse strings had been cut and the im- 
 portant economic bond between church and state in 
 Virginia was severed. 
 
 Hawks tells us that, “The Baptists were the principal 
 promoters of this work, and in truth aided more than 
 any other denomination in its accomplishment.”? And 
 Semple explains, 
 
 “Tt is said, however, and probably not without truth, that many 
 of the Episcopalians who voted for abolishing the Establishment did 
 it upon an expectation that it would be succeeded by a general assess- 
 ment; and, considering that most of the men of wealth were on that 
 side, they supposed that their funds would be lessened very little. 
 This, it appeared in the sequel, was a vain expectation. The people 
 having once shaken off their fetters, would not again permit themselves 
 to be bound. Moreover, the war now rising to its height, they were in 
 too much need of funds to permit any of their resources to be devoted to 
 any other purpose during that period; and we shall see that when it was 
 attempted, a few years after the expiration of the war, the people set 
 their faces against it.” 8 
 
 1 Hening, Statutes, x, p. 197; Journal of House, November 18, 19, and 
 December 11 and 13, 1779. 
 
 2 Hawks, Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia, p. 152. 
 
 3 Semple, op. cit., p. 27. 
 
382 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Virginia Baptists in their politico-religious semi- 
 yearly associations had by 1779 discovered new points of 
 religious equality. While the Assembly was threshing over 
 the assessment bill, the Baptists had discovered other 
 points wherein religious equality was being denied them. 
 At this General Association of 1777: 
 
 “A committee was appointed, charged with the duty of examining the 
 laws of the Commonwealth and designating all such as were justly con- 
 sidered offensive; of recommending the method to be pursued to obtain 
 their removal from the statute book; to propose in form such laws, to be 
 laid before the Legislature, as should firmly establish and maintain 
 
 ‘religious freedom’ in all its extent and bearings, and to report at the 
 earliest moment practicable. 
 
 In that report numerous laws were designated as _ offensive, 
 prominent among which was the law which required all marriages to be 
 performed by Episcopal clergymen, with the ceremonies of the Estab- 
 lished Church, and made all otherwise performed illegal and void; 
 and all the laws establishing the Episcopal Church as the religion of 
 the State, and providing for its support from the public purse. As the 
 best method to procure their removal from the statute book, continued 
 agitation among the people, and petitions to the Legislature were recom- 
 mended; and, as expressive of such government action as was desired, a 
 law was drawn up in form and reported, entitled, ‘Act for the Establish- 
 ment of Religious Freedom’ to be presented to the Legislature, with an 
 earnest petition that it might be adopted as a law of the state. 
 
 This report was received, amply discussed, and adopted. An address 
 was prepared, embodying all the suggestions of the report, especially the 
 proposed law to establish religious liberty; commissioners were appointed, 
 to whose fidelity it was confided, and they were instructed to remain with 
 the Legislature and give their attention to these interests during the 
 approaching session.” ! 
 
 The Baptists had learned the expediency of petitions, 
 publicity, agitation, commissions and lobbying. 
 Continuous agitation was not without results. In 
 October 1777, Virginia decreed that Baptists and Metho- 
 dists might raise their own companies, troops, regiments, 
 
 1 Howell, Early Baptists in Virginia, p. 164. 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 383 
 
 or other units of soldiery and provided them with their 
 own field-officers, chaplains, etc.! 
 
 At the May meeting of the General Association of the 
 Baptists in 1778, the committee “appointed to enquire 
 whether any grievances existed in the civil laws that were 
 oppressive to the Baptists,” reported on the marriage 
 laws as “partial and oppressive.” “Upon which it was 
 agreed to present to the next General Assembly a memorial 
 praying for a law affording equal privileges to all ordained 
 ministers of every denomination.” 
 
 The October meeting of this association, held at Dupuy’s 
 Meeting-house “recommend that two persons be appointed 
 to wait on the next General Assembly and lay these 
 grievances before them.” Jeremiah Walker and Elijah 
 Craig (and in case of the failure of either), John Williams 
 were appointed to attend the General Assembly.” 
 
 The bill “declaring marriages solemnized by dissenting 
 ministers lawful” was presented on December 5, and 
 read a first time. Two days later the bill was rejected.* 
 But the Baptists were not dismayed, they went on marry- 
 ing and trusting that their political activities would 
 ultimately win. In fact they seem deliberately to have 
 augmented the number of these illegal marriages as an 
 argument for their legalization. 
 
 At the October meeting of 1779, Nottoway in Amelia 
 County, the following entry was agreed to unanimously : 
 
 “Tt seems that many of the Baptists preachers, presuming upon a 
 future sanction, had gone on to marry such people as applied for marriage. 
 
 It was determined that a memorial should be sent from this Association 
 requesting that all such marriages should be sanctioned by a law for 
 
 1 Hening, Statutes, 1x, p. 348. 
 
 2 Semple, op. cit., p. 64. 
 
 3 Jind.. p. 64. 
 
 4 Journal of the House, December 5 and 7, 1778. 
 
384 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 that purpose . . . . . For a set of preachers to proceed to solemnize 
 the rites of matrimony without any law to authorize them, might at 
 first view appear incorrect and indeed censurable; but we are informed 
 that they were advised to this measure by Mr. Patrick Henry, as being 
 the most certain of obtaining the law. It succeeded.” ! 
 
 The petition from the Baptist Association, “praying 
 that an act may pass to declare such marriages (those 
 solemnized by dissenting ministers) lawful’? was read in 
 the House on October 25, 1779. On the 25th, Mr. Henry 
 accordingly presented a bill but again this failed.2, Where- 
 upon the Baptists fairly flooded the 1780 General Assem- 
 bly with petitions upon the subject. | 
 
 On December 2, 1780, the Committee for Religion 
 reported a bill declaring “what shall be a lawful marriage” 
 which was passed on the 18th. It was as follows: 
 
 “For encouraging marriage and for removing doubts concerning the 
 validity of marriages celebrated by ministers other than the Church of 
 England, be it enacted by the General Assembly — That it shall and 
 may be lawful for any minister of any society or congregation of Chris- 
 tians, and for the Society of Christians called Quakers and Mennonites, to 
 celebrate the rites of matrimony, and to join together as man and wife, 
 those who may apply to them agreeable to the rules and usage of the 
 respective societies to which the parties to be married respectively 
 belong, and such marriages, as well as those heretofore celebrated by 
 
 dissenting ministers, shall be, and they are hereby, declared good and 
 valid in law.” 3 
 
 This act, clogged with “‘provisos”’ as it was, marks an 
 advance in religious liberty; the solemn vows to live 
 together as husband and wife might now be uttered in 
 words and with forms agreeable to the consciences of the 
 contracting parties. 
 
 Then the Baptists had machinery for remedying 
 
 ‘Semple, op. cit., pp. 55-66; Howell, op. cit., p. 167. 
 
 2 Journal of House, 1779, October 25, 26, November 29. 
 
 * Hening, Statutes, x, pp. 361-362; Journal of House, November 21, 
 December 2, 18, 1780. 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 385 
 
 unsatisfactory laws. By 1784, the restrictive features of 
 the act of 1780 had been removed. 
 
 In 1782 the Committee on Religion reported favorably 
 on petitions, the first of which asked for “the repeal of that 
 part of the law defining lawful marriages which kept dis- 
 senting ministers from marrying people beyond the limits 
 of their own counties’’; and the second of which called for 
 “the repeal also of the clause limiting the number of 
 dissenting ministers who were to be licensed in each 
 county to perform the marriage ceremony.”’! 
 
 In response to a petition “to authorize marriage by 
 civil authorities” for ‘“‘the relief of settlers on Western 
 waters,” a bill for “Marriages in certain cases”? was 
 passed June 27, 1783.2 This provided that county 
 courts on the Western waters might license “sober and 
 discreet laymen” to perform the marriage ceremony in 
 the absence of accessible ministers under certain con- 
 ditions, and it legalized all such marriages previously 
 made. 
 
 In 1783 the Assembly received numerous memorials 
 and petitions for the repeal and amendment of parts of 
 the marriage act.2 The Baptist General Association in 
 1784 sent a commissioner, Reuben Ford, to the General 
 Assembly to attend to this and other matters for them* 
 and the General Assembly was deluged with petitions.® 
 
 Accordingly on December 16, a bill amending the Acts 
 Concerning Marriage, passed the house and soon became 
 alaw. This provided, “It shall and may be lawful for any 
 ordained minister of the Gospel in regular communion 
 
 1 Journal of House, November 22, 1782. 
 2 Ibid., 1783, May 30, June 25 and 27. 
 3 Tbid., 1783, May 30, 31, June 19, November 6. 
 
 4 Fristoe, History of the Ketocton Association, p. 92. 
 > Journal of House, 1784, May 24, 26, June 8, Nov. 11, ete. 
 
8386 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 with any society of Christians, and every such minister 
 is hereby authorized to celebrate the rites of matrimony 
 according to the forms and customs of the Church to 
 which he belongs.”! Freedom had been achieved in 
 another point of religious ceremonial. 
 
 Baptists next assaulted the vestries, Episcopalian 
 closed corporations. A petition from Amelia County, 
 May 12, 1780, prayed ‘“‘that vestries be dissolved.’’? — 
 A bill for dissolving several vestries and electing overseers 
 of the poor became a law, July 5, 1780.2 But the Baptists 
 wanted a root and branch policy; November 8, 1780, the 
 General Association petitioned for the abolition of the 
 existing vestry law;* and a petition in 1781, November 22, 
 asks that “‘all vestries be dissolved by Act of Assembly, 
 and new ones elected by the body of the community at 
 large, dissenters to be equally competent with conformists 
 to the post of vestrymen, and the sole proviso to be 
 attachment to the present form of government.”°? The 
 vestry question was swallowed up in the climax of the 
 struggle for religious freedom which developed in the 
 years 1784 and 1785: the petition just mentioned was 
 rejected by the next assembly, June 9, 1782. 
 
 The close of the Revolutionary War in- 1783, left 
 religion in Virginia in a deplorable state and was followed 
 by a grand effort at revival. Revival for the Churchmen 
 took the form of an effort at restoration of the establish- 
 ment. The parties thereto were the Churchmen against 
 the Baptists. In the struggle the Presbyterians wavered, 
 
 1 Hening, op. cit., xi, p. 503. 
 
 > Journal of the House, May 12, 1780. 
 
 3 Hening, op. cit., vol. x, p. 288. 
 
 4 Journal of House, November 8, 1780. 
 
 5 Ihd., November 22, 1781; June 9, 1782; May 30, 31, 1783; Novem- 
 ber 6, 15, 1783; May 24, 26 and June 8, November 11, 17, 1784. 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 387 
 
 and for a time supported the Anglicans. Every effort was 
 put forth on both sides; the adoption of Thomas Jefferson’s 
 statute of Religious Freedom was the final outcome. 
 Jefferson has left us his own account of the steps which led 
 up to the adoption of this bill: 
 
 ative = seein thessession pon l7?Gen 15. ge lymoved.and 
 presented a bill for the revision of the laws, which was passed on the 
 twenty-fourth day of October, and on the fifth of November, Mr. Pendle- 
 ton, Mr. Wythe, George Mason, Thomas Lee and myself were appointed 
 a committee to execute the work . . . . . Wemet ... . . onthe 
 thirteenth of January 1777. The first question was whether we should 
 propose to abolish the whole existing system of laws and prepare a new 
 and complete Institute, or preserve the general system, and only modify 
 it to the present state of things. Mr. Pendleton, contrary to his usual 
 disposition in favor of ancient things, was for the former proposition in 
 which he was joined by Mr. Lee . . . . . This last was the opinion of 
 Mr. Wythe, Mr. Mason and myself. When we proceeded to the dis- 
 tribution of the work, Mr Mason excused himself, as, being no lawyer, 
 he felt himself unqualified for the work, and he resigned soon after. 
 Mr. Lee excused himself on the same ground, and died indeed in a short 
 time. The other two gentlemen, therefore, and myself divided the work 
 amongus . . . . . We were employed in this work from that time to 
 February, 1779, when we met at Williamsburg... . . and meeting 
 day by day, we examined critically our several parts, sentence by sen- 
 tence, scrutinizing and amending, until we had agreed on the whole. 
 We then returned home, had fair copies made of our several parts which 
 were reported to the General Assembly, June 18th, 1779, by Mr. Wythe 
 and myself, Mr. Pendleton’s residence being distant, and he having 
 authorized us by letter to declare his approbation. We had in this work 
 brought so much of the Common law as it was thought necessary to 
 alter, all the British statutes from Magna Charta to the present day, and 
 all the laws of Virginia, from the establishment of our Legislature, in the 
 4th Jac 1 (James 1) to the present time, which we thought should be 
 retained, within the compass of one hundred and twenty-six bills, making 
 a printed folio of ninety pages only. Some bills were taken out, oc- 
 casionally, from time to time and passed; but the main body of the 
 work was not entered on by the Legislature, until after the general peace, 
 in 1785, when by the unwearied exertions of Mr. Madison, in opposition to 
 the endless quibbles, chicaneries, perversions, vexations and delays of 
 lawyers and demi-lawyers, most of the bills were passed by the Legis- 
 lature, with little alteration. 
 
388 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, 
 to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of 
 reason and right. It still met with opposition, but with some mutilations 
 in the preamble, it was finally passed.” } 
 
 The fight over Mr. Jefferson’s bill lasted from 1779 to 
 1786. Other bills weré offered and considered, as those of 
 Messrs: Harvie, Mason, and Baker of June 12, 1779,2 
 and of Patrick Henry, of October 25, 1779.2 The whole 
 matter was given fullest publicity and the various religious 
 assemblies considered it carefully and worked for its 
 acceptance or rejection, accordingly as it met their ideas. 
 
 The meeting of the Baptist Association held at the 
 Nottoway Meeting-house, Amelia County, October 1779, 
 decided that the report of Jeremiah Walker, as delegate to 
 the General Assembly, was highly gratifying. Upon which 
 the following entry was unanimously agreed to, 
 
 “On consideration of the bill establishing religious freedom, agreed: 
 That the said bill, in our opinion, puts religious freedom upon its proper 
 basis, prescribes the just limits of the power of the State with regard to 
 religion, and properly guards against partiality towards any religious 
 denomination; We, therefore, heartily approve of the same, and wish 
 
 it may pass into a law. Ordered, That this our approbation of the said 
 bill be transmitted to the public printers to be inserted in the Gazettes.”’ 4 
 
 November 1, the House records a petition from Amherst 
 county for the passage of the bill of the last Assembly for 
 Religious Freedom.® November 10, “Divers of the free- 
 holders and other free inhabitants of Amherst,’ who after- 
 wards describe themselves as ““composed of Church of 
 England men, Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists,” 
 
 ! Jefferson, Works, Ford edition, vol. i, pp. 58-62. 
 
 2 Journal of House, 1779, June 4, 12, 14. * 
 
 3 Tbid., 1779, October 25, 26, ete. 
 
 4 Semple, op. cit., p. 65. 
 
 > Journal of House, November 1, 1779; October 29, 21, 22, 27. Novem- 
 ber 3, 10. 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 389 
 
 “unanimously and with one voice, declare their hearty assent, con- 
 currence, and approbation of the Act of January, 1779, declaring all 
 
 church laws null, and the Act of Religious Freedom the true exposition 
 of the Bill of Rights.” ! 
 
 The bill for Religious Freedom was to be greatly con- 
 fused with another bill, dealing with the question of the 
 church property. November 15, 1779, the bill concerning 
 religion was put off till the first of the next March, and 
 Messrs. Mason, Henry, and General Nelson, were ordered 
 to bring in a bill “For saving and securing the property 
 of the Church heretofore by law established.”? The 
 deplorable state of the country without religion was caus- 
 ing a mass of petitions relative to the subject. One from 
 Essex was read, October 22, 1779, to the effect that: 
 
 “The great confusion and disorder that hath arisen, and is likely to 
 continue in this county on account of Religion, since the Old Establish- 
 ment has been interrupted, convinces us of the great and absolute neces- 
 sity there is for the Legislative body of this State, to take it under their 
 most serious consideration . . . . . A General Assessment for the 
 support of Religious worship would be most agreeable to your Petitioners, 
 that all licensed and Itinerate Preachers be forbid collecting or Assembling 
 of Negroes and others at unseasonable times. That every Minister of 
 every Christian Denomination have his stated place of Worship. That 
 no insults, or interruptions be suffered to any Christian Congregation 
 assembled at proper times for Worship. That no doctrine be permitted 
 to be preached, which may tend to subvert Government or disturb Civil 
 Society. That there be a general Election of Vestry Men in every Parish, 
 and that they may have power to assess or levy upon the Tythables of 
 their respective Parishes, what they may think reasonable for the support 
 of the Ministers of every Denomination and to be paid to any profession 
 that the occupiers of such Tythes may think proper.’’ 3 
 
 From 1780 to 1783 the engagement between the forces 
 of religious freedom and those of religious support was but 
 desultory. The General Assembly did but little for or 
 
 1 Journal of House, 1779, November 10; Thom, op. cit., pp. 66-67. 
 2 Ibid., November 15, 1779. 
 3 Thid., October 22, 1779; Eckenrode, op. cit., pp. 57-58. 
 
390 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 against these respective causes; it merely listened re- 
 spectfully to the memorials and petitions of the parties. 
 Throughout these were numerous, showing that interest 
 in the matter had not waned. At the 1780 meeting of the 
 Presbytery of Hanover, ““A memorial to the Assembly of 
 Virginia . . . . . to abstain from interfering in the 
 government of the church,” was prepared, “and being read 
 in Presbytery, is appointed and directed to be transmitted 
 to the House. The Presbytery to request Colonel McDowell 
 and Captain Johnson to present their memorial to the 
 Assembly, and to second it by their influence, and Mr. 
 Wadell and Mr. Graham are appointed to inform these 
 gentlemen of the request of Presbytery.”! 
 
 The General Assembly ordered, June 4, 1780; That leave 
 be given to bring in a bill “for saving the property of the 
 church heretofore by law established,” and that the com- 
 mittee appointed to prepare and bring in a bill “for 
 religious freedom” do prepare and bring in the same. 
 On the 14th a “bill for establishing religious freedom was 
 read a second time.” Its third reading was deferred till 
 August. On that same date a bill “for saving the property, 
 etc.”” was read a second time.? On July 5, a bill for dis- 
 solving several vestries and electing overseers of the poor 
 was passed; it became a law on the 11th.# 
 
 At the Fall Assembly the Baptist Association pe- 
 titioned for the abolition of the existing vestry law.° 
 Buckingham, Prince Edward and Cumberland Counties 
 request the silencing of all non-jurors and a double tax on 
 them. This continues to be the situation; in 1783, 
 
 1 Foote, op. cit., p. 332. 
 
 2 Journal of House, June 4, 1780. 
 
 3 Ihid., June 14, 1780. 
 
 4 Ibid., July 5, 11; Hening, op. cit., x. p. 288. 
 > Tbid., November 8, 1780. 6 Tbid., November 7, 10, 23. 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 391 
 
 November 6, “the ministers and messengers of the several 
 Baptist churches petition for religious freedom! while 
 requests come from Lunenburg and Amherst counties for 
 “‘a general and equal constitution for the support of the 
 clergy.” 
 
 In 1784, the War being over, the twin questions of 
 support of religion and religious freedom were attacked in 
 earnest. The Assemblies of that year were flooded with 
 petitions from both sides. One from Amelia county, read 
 on November 8, recited: 
 
 “That your Petitioners have with much concern observed a general 
 Declension of Religion for a number of years past, occasioned in Part, we 
 conceive by the late war, but chiefly by its not being duly aided and 
 patronized by the Civil Power; that should it decline with nearly the 
 same rapidity in the Future, your Petitioners apprehend consequences 
 dangerous, if not fatal to the Strength and Stability of Civil Govern- 
 
 ment... . . Were all Sense of Religion rooted out of the Minds of 
 Men, scarce anything would be left on which human laws would take 
 hold . . . . . Your Petitioners therefore think that those who legis- 
 
 late, not only have a right, founded upon the Principle of Public Utility, 
 but as they wish to promote the Virtue and Happiness of their Constitu- 
 ents and the Good People of the State in general; as they wish well to 
 the strength and Stability of Government, they ought to aid and patron- 
 ize Religion. . . . . As every man of the state partakes of the 
 Blessings of Peace and Order . . . . . (so) every man should con- 
 tribute as well to the support of Religion, as that of Civil Government; 
 nor has he any Reason to complain of this, as an Encroachment upon his 
 religious Liberty, if he is permitted to worship God according to the 
 dictates of his Conscience.” ® 
 
 Similar petitions for the support of religions were received 
 from Warwick county, the Isle of Wight, etc.4 
 The opposition to this idea of a renewed general assess- 
 ment was best expressed by the Baptists. When their 
 1 Journal of House, November 6, 1783. 
 2 Ibid., 1783, November 8, 27. 
 
 3 Ibid., 1784, November 8; Eckenrode, op. cit. p. 84. 
 4 Journal of House, 1784, May 15, 27, November 4, 12. 
 
392 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 General Committee met in October it drew a memorial to 
 the General Assembly and “Resolved to oppose the law for 
 a general assessment and that for the incorporation of 
 religious societies, which are now in agitation. 
 
 First, it was contrary to their principles and avowed sentiments, the 
 making provision for the support of religion by law; that the distinction 
 between civil and ecclesiastical governments ought to be kept up without 
 blending them together; that Christ Jesus hath given laws for the 
 government of his Kingdom and direction of his subjects, and gave in- 
 struction concerning collections for the various purposes of religion, and 
 therefore needs not legislative interference. 
 
 Secondly, should a legislative body undertake to pass laws for the 
 government of the church, for them to say what doctrines shall be 
 believed, in what mode worship shall be performed, and what the sum 
 collected shall be, what a dreadful precedent it would establish: for when 
 such a right is claimed by a legislature, and given up by the people, by the 
 same rule that they decide in one instance they may in every instance. 
 Religion in this is like the press; if government limits the press, and says 
 this shall be printed and that shall not, in the event it will destroy the 
 freedom of the press; so when legislatures undertake to pass laws about 
 religion, religion loses its form, and Christianity is reduced to a system 
 of worldly policy. 
 
 Thirdly, it has been believed by us that that Almighty Power that 
 instituted religion will support His own cause; that in the course of 
 divine Providence events will be overruled, and the influence of grace 
 on the hearts of the Lurd’s people will incline them to afford and con- 
 tribute what is necessary for the support of religion, and therefore there 
 is no need for compulsory measures. 
 
 Fourthly, it would give an opportunity to the party that were numer- 
 ous (and, of course, possessed the ruling power) to use their influence and 
 exercise their art and cunning, and multiply signers to their own favorite 
 party. And, last, the most deserving, the faithful preacher, who in a 
 pointed manner reproved sin and bore testimony against every species 
 of vice and dissipation, would, in all probability, have been profited very 
 little by such a law, while men-pleasers, the gay and fashionable, who can 
 wink at sin and daub his hearers with untempered mortar, saying, 
 ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace, who can lay out his oratory in 
 dealing out smooth things mingled with deception, the wicked, it is 
 clear, would like to have it so; and it follows the irreligious and carnal 
 part of the people would richly reward them for their flattery, and the 
 undeserving go off with the gain.” ! 
 
 1 Fristoe, op. cit., p. 92. 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 393 
 
 A similar petition against the assessment was received 
 from Rockingham county. ! | 
 
 June 8, 1784, the Committee on Religion reported to the 
 House, “That . . . . . so much of the memorial from 
 the clergy of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and the 
 United Clergy of the Presbyterian Church in Virginia, as 
 relates to an incorporation of their Societies is reasonable; 
 and that a like incorporation ought to be extended to all 
 other religious Societies within this Commonwealth which 
 may apply for the same.’’? A bill was accordingly ordered, 
 but it was put off until the November session of the legisla- 
 . ture. On November 11, it was resolved in the Committee 
 of the Whole, “That the people of this Commonwealth, 
 according to their respective abilities, ought to pay a 
 moderate tax or contribution annually for the support of 
 the Christian religion, or of some Christian Church, 
 denomination, or communion of Christians, or of some 
 form of Christian worship;’® and a special committee 
 with Patrick Henry as chairman was appointed to draft a 
 bill, the vote being 47 to 32. 
 
 November 17, the House ordered bills brought in 
 regulating the laws as to marriage and the vestries and also 
 one to incorporate the clergy of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church. It also adopted a resolution, “that acts ought to 
 pass for the incorporation of all societies of the Christian 
 religion, which may apply for the same.’’* Patrick Henry 
 voted for this bill, James Madison against it. On Decem- 
 ber 20, the Senate finally passed the amended bill for the 
 incorporation of the Protestant Episcopal Church. By 
 this act each vestry could hold property up to the value 
 
 1 Journal of House, November 18, 1784; Eckenrode, op. cit., pp. 95-96. 
 
 > Journal of House, June 8, 16, 25, 1784. 
 
 3 ITbid., November 11, 1784. 
 4 Ibid., November 17, 1784. 
 
394 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 of a certain yearly income, could sue and be sued, like any 
 other corporation, and could retain the glebe lands and 
 the churches. 
 
 *“A Bill establishing a provision for the teachers of the Christian 
 religion, or a general assessment bill,” was brought in, December 2, 
 1784. On the third, it was fead a second time and recommitted to the 
 Committee of the Whole House. Its preamble stated: “‘ Whereas the 
 general diffusion of Christian knowledge hath a natural tendency to 
 correct the morals of men, restrain their vices, and preserve the peace of 
 society, which cannot be effected without a competent provision for 
 learned teachers, who may be thereby enabled to devote their time and 
 attention to the duty of instructing such citizens as from their circum- 
 stances and want of education cannot otherwise attain such knowledge; 
 and it is judged such provision may be made by the Legislature, without 
 counteracting the liberal principle theretofore adopted and intended to be 
 preserved, by abolishing all distinctions of pre-eminence amongst the 
 different societies or communities of Christian.” ! 
 
 Then followed the provisions that a general assessment 
 was to be established and persons in giving in taxes should 
 declare the denomination to which they wished their 
 assessment to go. If no such a declaration were made, the 
 money would go to encourage seminaries of learning in their 
 respective counties. December 24, by a vote of 45 to 38, 
 the engrossing of this bill was postponed to the fourth 
 Thursday of November, 1785. In the interim the bill 
 together with the vote thereon was to be printed and 
 distributed in order that the sentiments of the people 
 might be ascertained. 
 
 As a part of this discussion, James Madison drew up 
 and circulated his famous Memorial and Remonstrance 
 against Religious Assessments. To the Honorable the 
 General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 
 
 “We, the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having 
 taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session 
 
 1 Journal of House, November 17, December 2, 3, and 4, 1784. 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 395 
 
 of General Assembly, entitled, ‘A Bill establishing a provision for Teach- 
 ers of the Christian Religion,’ and conceiving that the same, if finally 
 armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, 
 are bound as faithful members of a free state, to remonstrate against it, 
 and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate 
 against the said Bill, 
 
 1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, ‘that 
 religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the Manner of 
 discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by 
 force or violence.’ The Religion then of every man must be left to the 
 conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man 
 to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalien- 
 able right. It is unalienable; because the opinions of men, depending 
 only on evidence contemplated by their own minds, cannot follow the 
 dictates of other men: It is unalienable also; because what is here a right 
 towards men. is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every 
 man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes 
 to be acceptable to Him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time 
 and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any 
 man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be con- 
 sidered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of 
 Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always 
 do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority; much more 
 must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, 
 do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We 
 maintain, therefore, that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged 
 by the institution of Civil Society, and that religion is wholly exempt 
 from its cognizance. True, it is, that no other rule exists, by which any 
 question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined than 
 the will of the majority; but it is also true, that the majority may trespass 
 on the rights-of the minority . . 
 
 4. Because the bill violates that a lavelies which ought to be the basis 
 of every law, and which is more indispensable, in proportion as the 
 validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. ‘If 
 all men are by nature equally free and independent,’ all men are to be 
 considered as entering into Society, on equal conditions; as relinquishing 
 no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another of their 
 natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an 
 “equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of 
 conscience. Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to 
 profess, and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine 
 origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not 
 yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be 
 
396 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 abused, it is an offence against God, not against man. To God, therefore, 
 not to man, must an account of it be rendered . 
 
 5. Because the bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate i is a compe- 
 tent Judge of Religious truth, or that he may employ Religion as an 
 engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretention falsified by the 
 contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: 
 the Second, ‘an unhallowed_perversion of the means of salvation! 
 
 6. Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for 
 the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contra- 
 diction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a 
 dependence on the powers of this world. It is a contradiction to fact; 
 for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not 
 only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition 
 from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long 
 after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Provi- 
 dence: Nay, it is a contradiction in terms: for a Religion not invented by 
 human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported before it was 
 established by human policy. It is, moreover, to weaken in those who 
 profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the 
 patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it a sus- 
 picion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust to its own 
 merits. 
 
 7. Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, 
 instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a 
 contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries, has the legal 
 establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? 
 More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance 
 and servility in the laity; in both, superstitution, bigotry and persecution. 
 Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared 
 in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its 
 incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive 
 state in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their 
 flocks; many of them predict its downfall. On which side ought their 
 testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their 
 interest? 
 
 8. Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the 
 support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support 
 of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it 
 be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the 
 former. If Religion be not within cognizance of Civil Government, how 
 can its legal establishment be said to be necessary to civil government? 
 What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil 
 Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual 
 
 a aie 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE BO 
 
 tyranny on the ruins of Civil authority; in many instances have they been 
 seen upholding the thrones of politica] tyranny; in no instance have they 
 been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished 
 to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established clergy con- 
 venient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetu- 
 ate it, needs them not. Such a government will be best supported by 
 protecting every citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same 
 equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither in- 
 vading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those 
 of another. 
 
 9. Because the proposed establishment is a departure from that 
 generous policy, which, offering an asylum to the persecuted and op- 
 pressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, 
 and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark 
 is the Bill of sudden degeneracy! -Instead of holding forth an asylum to 
 the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the 
 equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend 
 to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be, in its present 
 form, from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the 
 first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The magnani- 
 mous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the 
 Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, 
 where liberty and philanthropy in their due extent may offer a more 
 certain repose from his troubles . ; 
 
 12. Because, the policy of the bill is dyer to the diffusion of the 
 light of Christianity. The first wish of those who ought to enjoy this 
 precious gift, ought to be, that it may be imparted to the whole race of 
 mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it 
 with the number still remainging under the dominion of false Religions; 
 and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen 
 the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers 
 to the light (of revelation) from coming into the Region of it; and coun- 
 tenances, by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting 
 out those who might convey it to them. Instead of leveling as far as 
 possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of truth, the Bill with 
 an ignoble and unchristian timidity would cireumscribe it, with a wall 
 of defence against the encroachments of error . 
 
 15. Because, finally, ‘the equal right of every citizen to ine free exercise 
 of his religion according to the dictates of conscience,’ is held by the same 
 tenure with all our other rights. It we recur to its origin, it is equally the 
 gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if 
 we consult the Declaration of those rights ‘which pertain to the good 
 people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of government,’ it is 
 
398 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather with studied emphasis. 
 Either, then, we must say, that the will of the Legislature is the only 
 measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, 
 they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or that they are bound 
 to leave this particular right untouched and sacred. Either we must say 
 that they may control the freedom of the press, may abolish the trial by 
 jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; 
 nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect 
 themselves into an independent and hereditary assembly; or we must say, 
 that they have no authority to enact into a law the Bill under. con- 
 consideration. We the subscribers say, that the General Assembly of 
 this Commonwealth have no such authority: And that no effort may be 
 omitted on our part against so dangerous a usurpation, we oppose to it, 
 this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the 
 Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is 
 addressed, may on one hand, turn their councils from every act which 
 would affront His holy prerogative or violate the trust committed to 
 them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be 
 worthy of His blessing, redound to their own praise, and establish more 
 firmly the liberties, the prosperity, and the happiness of this Common- 
 wealth.” ! 
 
 Madison, writing to James Monroe from his home in 
 Orange, April 12, 1785, could say, “The only proceeding of 
 the late Session of Assembly which makes a noise through 
 the country is that which relates to a General Assessment. 
 The Episcopal people are generally for it, though I think 
 the zeal of some of them has cooled. The laity of the 
 other sects are equally unanimous on the other side. So 
 are all the Clergy, except the Presbyterian, who seem as 
 ready to set up an establishment which is to take them in 
 as they were to pull down that which shuts them out. I 
 do not know a more shameful contrast than might be 
 found between their memorials on the latter and former 
 occasion.” ? The Presbyterian clergy could not hold out 
 
 1Writings of James Madison, edition of 1865, vol. '1, pp. 162-169; 
 Hunt edition, edition of 1865, vol. ii, pp. 183-191. 
 2 Ihid., edition of 1865, vol. i, p. 144; Hunt edition, vol. ii, pp. 181-132. 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 399 
 
 against the protests of their laity and all the other dis- 
 senters. By May 29, Madison could write to Monroe, 
 “The Presbyterian clergy, too, who were in general 
 friends of the scheme, are already in another tone, either 
 compelled by the laity of that sect, or alarmed at the 
 probability of farther interference of the Legislature, if 
 they once begin to dictate in matters of Religion.! And 
 on August 20, he wrote to Jefferson, 
 
 “The Presbyterian clergy have at length espoused the side of the op- 
 position, being moved either by a fear of their laity or a Jealousy of the 
 Episcopalians. The mutual hatred of these sects has been much in- 
 flamed by the late Act incorporating the latter. I am far from being 
 sorry for it, as a coalition between them could alone endanger our 
 religious rights, and a tendency to such an event had been suspected.” ? 
 
 The Baptists stood firm as usual. Their General Com- 
 mittee, August 13, 1785, heard with alarm through the 
 report of their Agent, Reuben Ford, of the engrossing of 
 the bill for a general assessment, and; 
 
 “Resolved, That it be recommended to those counties which have not 
 yet prepared petitions to be presented to the General Assembly against 
 the engrossed bill for a general assessment for the support of the teachers 
 of the Christian religion, to proceed thereon as soon as possible; that it is 
 believed to be repugnant to the spirit of the Gospel for the Legislature 
 thus to proceed in matters of religion, that no human laws ought to be 
 established for this purpose, but that every person ought to be left en- 
 tirely free in respect to matters of religion; that the Holy Author of our 
 religion needs no such compulsive measures for the promotion of His 
 cause; that the gospel wants not the feeble arm of man for its support; that 
 it has made, and will again through divine power, make its way against all 
 opposition; and that, should the Legislature assume the right of taxing 
 the people for the support of the Gospel, it will be destructive to religious 
 liberty. Therefore, This Committee agrees, unanimously, that it will be 
 expedient to appoint a delegate to wait on the General Assembly with a 
 
 1 Madison, op. cit., edition of 1865, vol. i, p. 154, Hunt edition, vol. 11, 
 p. 145; Rives, op. cit., vol. i, p. 630. io ; 
 
 2 Madison, op. cit., edition of 1865, vol. i, p. 175; Hunt edition, vol. i, 
 De Lis. 
 
400 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 remonstrance and petition against such assessment. Accordingly, the 
 Reverend Reuben Ford was appointed.” 4 
 
 The Presbytery of Hanover, May 19, 1785, decided, 
 unanimously, in opposition to the measure;2 and the 
 Convention of the Presbyterian Church in Virginia, 
 August 10, approved this stand. On the thirteenth, the 
 Convention adopted the following Memorial: 
 
 “To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of 
 Virginia: 
 
 The Ministers and Lay Representatives of the Presbyterian Church 
 in Virginia, assembled in convention, beg leave to address you . poet 
 The engrossed bill for establishing a provision for the teaching of the 
 Christian religion and the act for incorporating the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church, so far as it secures to that church, the churches, glebes, etc.. 
 procured at the expense of the whole community are not only evidence of 
 this but of an impolitic partiality which we are sorry to have observed so 
 long. We therefore in the name of the Presbyterian Church in Virginia, 
 beg leave to exercise our privilege as freemen in remonstrating against the 
 former absolutely, and against the latter under the restrictions above 
 expressed. 
 
 We oppose the Bill: Because it is a departure from the proper line of 
 legislation; Because it is unnecessary, and inadequate to its professed 
 end — impolitic, in many respects —and a direct violation of the 
 Declaration of Rights. 
 
 The end of civil government is security to the temporal liberty and 
 
 property of mankind, and to protect them in the free exercise of religion. 
 Legislators are invested with powers from their constitutents, for this 
 purpose only, and their duty extends no farther. Religion is altogether 
 personal, and the right of exercising it unalienable; and it is not, cannot, 
 and ought not to be, resigned to the will of the society at large; and much 
 less to the Legislature, which derives its authority wholly from the 
 consent of the people, and is limited by the original intention of civil 
 associations. 
 
 We never resigned to the control of government, our right of determin- 
 ing for ourselves, in this important article; and acting agreeably to the 
 convictions of reason and conscience, in discharging our duty to our 
 Creator. And therefore, it would be an unwarrantable stretch of 
 prerogative, in the legislature, to make laws concerning it, except for 
 
 1 Semple, op. cit., p. 71. 
 * Foote, op. cit., p. 341. 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 401 
 
 protection. And it would be a fatal sympton of abject slavery in us, 
 were we to submit to the usurpation . : 
 
 We farther remonstrate against the bill as an enone measure; 
 
 It disgusts so large a proportion of the Citizens, that it would weaken 
 the influence of government in other respects, and diffuse a spirit of 
 opposition to the rightful exercises of constitutional authority, if enacted 
 into law. 
 
 It partially supposes the Quakers and Mennonites to be more faithful 
 in conducting the religious interests of their societies, than the other 
 sects, which we apprehend to be contrary to fact. 
 
 It unjustly subjects men who may be good citizens but who have not 
 embraced our common faith, to the hardship of supporting a system they 
 have not as yet believed the truth of; and deprives them of their property, 
 for what they do not suppose to be of importance to them. 
 
 It establishes a precedent for further encroachments, by making the 
 Legislature judges of religious truth. If the Assembly have a right to 
 determine the preference between Christianity, and the other systems of 
 religion that prevail in the world, they may also, at a convenient time, 
 give a preference to some favored sect among Christians. 
 
 It discourages the population of our country by alarming those who 
 may have been oppressed by religious establishments in other countries, 
 with fears of the same in this: and by exciting our own citizens to emi- 
 grate to other lands of greater freedom. 
 
 It revives the principle which our ancestors contested to blood, of 
 attempting to reduce all religions to one standard by force of civil 
 authority. 
 
 And it naturally opens a door for contention among citizens of different 
 
 creeds, and different opinions respecting the extent of the powers of 
 Government.” ! 
 
 Washington could see no harm in the bill. He wrote to 
 Mason, 1785: “Although no man’s sentiments are more 
 opposed to any kind of restraint upon religious principles 
 than mine, yet I confess, I am not among the number of 
 those who are so alarmed at making men pay toward the 
 support of that which they profess.” 
 
 When the Fall session of the Assembly met, October, 
 1785, the mass of petitions received indicated the in- 
 tensity of the feeling relative to the question. Fifty-five 
 
 1 Sketches of Virginia, pp. 342-343. 
 
402 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 were hostile to the measure; these represented forty-eight 
 counties. Twenty-two counties sent no petitions; only 
 seven counties favored the bill. Yet so strong was 
 ecclesiasticism that Dr. Foote informs us the General 
 Assessment Bill was defeated only by a majority of three 
 votes.!. This indicates the magnitude of the strategic 
 victory involved which apparently would have been won 
 on no other issue than that of the assessment. 
 
 As a fruit of this victory the Jefferson’s “Bill for 
 Establishing Religious Freedom” which had been under 
 consideration since 1779 was passed, December 17, 1785, 
 and signed by the Speaker of the House, January 19, 1786, 
 as an enrolled bill: 
 
 “Section 1. Well aware that the opinions and beliefs of men depend 
 not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to 
 their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and mani- 
 fested his supreme will that it shall remain by making it altogether 
 insusceptible of restraints; that all attempts to influence it by temporal 
 punishments, or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget 
 habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of 
 the holy author of religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet 
 chose not to propagate it by coercion on either, as was in his Almighty 
 power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the 
 impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, 
 who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed 
 dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes 
 of thinking as the only true, and infallible, and as such endeavoring to 
 impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions 
 over the greatest part of the world and through all times; that to compel 
 a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions 
 which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the 
 forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion 
 is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to 
 the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose 
 powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from 
 the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an appro- 
 bation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest 
 and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil 
 
 1 Foote, op. cit., p. 431. 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 403 
 
 rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than on 
 opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the prescribing any 
 citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an inca- 
 pacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess 
 or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of 
 those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow 
 citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles 
 of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly 
 of worldly honors and emoluments those who will externally profess and 
 conform to it; that though indeed those are criminal who do not with- 
 stand such temptations, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait 
 in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil govern- 
 ment, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to 
 intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession 
 or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a 
 dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he 
 being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of 
 judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they 
 shall square with or differ from his own; that it is enough for the rightful 
 purposes of Civil Government for its officers to interfere when principles 
 break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and, finally, that 
 truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and 
 sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict 
 unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free 
 argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is per- 
 mitted freely to contradict them. 
 
 Section 11. We, the General Assembly of Virginia, do enact that no man 
 shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or 
 ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested or burdened 
 in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious 
 opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument 
 to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall 
 in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. 
 
 Section mr. And though we all know that this Assembly, elected by 
 the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to 
 restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal 
 to our own, and that, therefore, to declare this act irrevocable would be of 
 no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the 
 rights hereby asserted are of the nature of natural rights of mankind, 
 and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to 
 narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.” ! 
 
 ' Report of Committee of Revisors appointed by the General Assembly 
 of Virgin’a in 1776, published by order of the General Assembly, Rich- 
 mond, 1784; Hening, op. cit., vol. xii, p. 84-86; Journal of the House 
 December 17, 1785. January 19, 1786. 
 
AOA NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 By this the “Act of 1785,” as it is generally known, 
 Virginia became the first government in the world to 
 establish the absolute divorce of Church and State, “the 
 greatest distinctive contribution of America to the sum of 
 Western Christianized Civilization.”! Thomas Jefferson 
 was our minister to France when this bill finally became a 
 law. He clearly foresaw its importance to the European 
 world. He had it printed both in English and in French 
 and circulated as a part of that pamphlet literature which 
 was so influential in advancing the French Revolution. 
 
 In a letter to James Madison, December 16, 1786, he 
 wrote: 
 
 “The Virginia Act for Religious Freedom has been received with in- 
 finite approbation in Europe, and propagated with enthusiasm. I do 
 not mean by the governments, but by the individuals who compose them. 
 It has been translated into French and Italian, has been sent to most of 
 the courts of Europe, and has been the best evidence of the falsehood of 
 those reports which stated us to be in anarchy. It is inserted in the new 
 Encyclopedia, and is appearing in most of the publication respecting 
 America. In fact, it is comfortable to see the standard of reason at 
 length erected, after so many ages during which the human mind has 
 been held in vassalage by kings, priests, and nobles; and it is honorable 
 for us to have produced the first legislature who had the courage to 
 declare that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his 
 
 9 
 
 own opinions.” 2 
 
 In the following year, 1787, we find Count Mirabeau 
 discussing this act in his essay on Moses Mendelssohn and 
 the Political Reform of the Jews. French Jews addressed 
 the French National Assembly as follows, January 29, 1790: 
 
 “America, to which politics will owe so many useful lessons, has re- 
 jected the word toleration from its code, as a term tending to compromise 
 
 individual liberty and to sacrifice certain classes of men to other classes. 
 
 To tolerate is, in fact, to suffer that which you could, if you wish, prevent 
 and prohibit.” 
 
 ‘Thom, Struggle for Religious Freedom in Virginia, p. 73. 
 * Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Ford edition, vol. iv, p. 334. 
 
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 405 
 
 With the passage of the “Act of 1785” the real struggle 
 for religious freedom had been won, —the principle of 
 “Religious Liberty” had assumed legal form. Yet, re- 
 ligious strife was not at an end for, even in Virginia, there 
 were still points for friction. The General Assembly of 
 1787 repealed the Act incorporating the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church but provided, January 9, that each 
 religious society should be secured in its property and 
 authorized to regulate its own discipline.! The Assembly 
 still regarded the Protestant Episcopal Church as the 
 legal successor to the Established Church and entitled to 
 its property. However, this was partly remedied in 1799 
 when the Assembly, January 24, passed “An Act to 
 Repeal Certain Acts and to Declare the Construction of 
 the Bill of Rights and Constitution Concerning Religion.” 
 This act recites that the acts of 1776, 1779, 1784, ete. 
 “do admit the church established under the regal govern- 
 ment to have continued so, subsequently to the Constitu- 
 tion; have asserted a legislative right to establish any 
 religious sect, and have incorporated religious sects, all of 
 which is inconsistent with the principles of the Constitu- 
 tion and of religious freedom, and manifestly tends to the 
 establishment of a national church.” The Act of 1799, 
 accordingly, repealed the acts mentioned; but it con- 
 tained no order for the sale of the glebes.? 
 
 It was not until 1802 that the General Assembly 
 repealed all the laws relative to the late Protestant 
 Episcopal Church, and declared a true exposition of the 
 principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution respecting 
 the same to be contained in the act entitled, “An act for 
 Establishing Religious Freedom (Jefferson’s Law of 
 
 1 Hening, op. cit., vol. xii, p. 266; Semple, op. cit., p. 74. 
 2 Code of Virginia, Articles under ‘‘Churches”’. 
 
 < 
 
406 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 1785)”; thereby recognizing the principle that all property 
 formerly belonging to the said Church, of every description, 
 devolved on the good people of this Commonwealth on 
 the dissolution of the British Government here in the same 
 degree in which the right and interest of the said Church 
 was therein derived from them; and that although the 
 General Assembly had the right to authorize the sale of all 
 such property indiscriminately, yet being desirous to 
 reconcile all the good people of this Commonwealth, it was 
 deemed inexpedient at that time to disturb the present 
 incumbents. Accordingly it was enacted that in any 
 county where any glebe was or should become vacant, the 
 overseers of the poor should have full power to sell the 
 same. The proceeds were to be appropriated to the poor 
 of the parish, or to any other object which a majority of 
 freeholders and housekeepers in the parish might by 
 writing direct, provided, that nothing should authorize an 
 appropriation of it, “to any religious purpose whatever.” 
 The church buildings with the property contained in them, 
 and the churchyards were not to be sold under the law, 
 neither were any private donations made before the year 
 1777 to be sold, if there were any person in being entitled 
 to hold property under the original donor. Gifts of any 
 kind made after the year 1777 were left untouched. ! 
 
 The Episcopalian historian Hawks can write, “The 
 warfare begun by the Baptists seven-and-twenty years 
 before was now finished.” Religious Freedom had 
 triumphed in Virginia, whence it spread to the nation. 
 The principles of the “Act of 1785” were to be made a part 
 also of the national Bill of Rights by the First Amendment 
 to the Constitution. 
 
 _ | Code of Virginia, “Churches”; Fristoe, op. cit., p. 95; Semple, op. 
 
 cu., p. TA. 
 * Hawks, op. cit., p. 233. 
 
 2a 
 
GHA ies EEE Rape Le, 
 CONTINENTAL CONGRESS AND RELIGION 
 
 Separation of Church and State had been effected only - 
 at the close of the period under consideration; throughout 
 the period, 1774 to 1789, Religion was one of the chief 
 concerns of the State. From the first meeting of a com- 
 mittee working for American rights through to the final 
 session of Continental Congress, we find the political 
 assemblies imbued with a profound appreciation of their 
 religious responsibilities. The founders of the republic 
 invoked God in their civil assemblies, sought guidance for 
 their political actions from their religious leaders and 
 recognized the precepts of their Bible as sound political 
 maxims. 
 
 The proclamations and other state papers of Continen- 
 tal Congress are so filled with Biblical phrases as to 
 resemble Old Testament ecclesiastical documents. They 
 unabashedly exhibit a belief in a Protestant Christianity 
 and they invoke, as a sanction for their acts, the name of 
 “God,” “Almighty God,” “Nature’s God,” “God of 
 Armies,” ‘Lord of Hosts,” ‘““His Goodness,’ “God’s 
 Superintending Providence,” “Providence of God,” 
 “Providence,” “Supreme and Universal Providence,” 
 “Overruling Providence of God,” “Creator of All,” 
 “Indulgent Creator,”’ ““Great Governor of the World,” 
 “The Divinity,” “Supreme Judge of the Universe,” 
 “Supreme Disposer of All Events,” “Holy Ghost,” 
 ‘“‘Christian Religion,” “Jesus Christ,” “God and the 
 
 Constitution,” and ‘‘Free Protestant Colonies.” Their 
 
408 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 extreme insistence upon the religious sanction may be 
 explained in part by the fact that the Government was 
 without definite legislative authority; this deficiency could 
 be remedied in no other way so well as by a reliance upon 
 religion. 
 
 Just as there was no legally limited authority for their 
 acts, so too there was no constitutional limitation upon the 
 scope of their legislation. We find them legislating upon 
 such subjects as morality, sins, repentance, humiliation, 
 divine service, fasting, prayer, reformation, mourning, 
 public worship, funerals, chaplains, true religion, and 
 Thanksgiving. The Sabbath is recognized to a degree 
 rarely exhibited in other countries; Congress adjourns, and 
 all official business is suspended. 
 
 Almost every denomination was represented in Congress; 
 Episcopalians by Washington, Jay, Duane, Randolph; 
 Congregationalists by the Adamses; Quakers by Mifflin and 
 Dickinson; Lutherans by Muhlenberg; Baptists by 
 Manning and Ward; Presbyterians by Witherspoon, etc. 
 Clergy as well as laymen were represented; in Zubly, 
 Manning, Muhlenberg and Witherspoon. In fact the 
 preéminence of some of them seems to have given cause 
 for uneasiness and we find an effort being made to exclude 
 them from participation in the civil affairs of the nation. 
 On July 25, 1778, ““a motion was made, that the sense 
 of the house be taken, whether it is proper that Congress 
 should appoint any person of an ecclesiastical character 
 to any civil office under the United States.”! It is evi- 
 dent that little support was found for the motion as when 
 the previous question was put it was carried and the matter 
 was never again brought forward. It is not difficult, how- 
 ever, to see how the commanding influence of such men as 
 
 1 Journals of Congress, vol. xi, p. 718. 
 
CONGRESS AND RELIGION 409 
 
 Manning, Witherspoon and Muhlenberg might have 
 caused a feeling to have arisen that the clergy were a 
 dominating power in Congress. 
 
 In so far as Congress was possessed of any delegated 
 authority it was empowered to deal with religious matters. 
 The credentials of the first delegates from Massachusetts 
 Bay instructed them “to deliberate and determine upon 
 wise and proper measures . . . . . for the recovery and 
 establishment of their just rights and liberties, civil and 
 religious.”! And the Suffolk Resolutions which that 
 colony placed before Congress on September 17, 1774, 
 resolved among other things: | 
 
 “1. That it is an indispensable duty which we owe to God, our Coun- 
 try, ourselves, and posterity, by all lawful ways and means in our power 
 to maintain, defend and preserve those civil and religious rights and 
 liberties, for which many of our fathers fought, bled and died, and to 
 hand them down entire to future generations. 
 
 10. That the late act of Parliament for establishing the Roman 
 Catholic religion and the French laws, in that extensive country, now 
 called Canada, is dangerous in an extreme degree to the Protestant 
 religion and to the civil rights and liberties of all America: and, there- 
 fore, as men and Protestant Christians, we are indispensably obliged to 
 take all proper measures for our security. 
 
 17. That this country, confiding in the wisdom and integrity of the . 
 Continental Congress, now sitting in Philadelphia, pay all due respect 
 and submission to such measures as may be recommended by them to 
 the colonies for the restoration and establishment of our just rights, civil 
 and religious.” 2 
 
 These resolutions were addressed to Gage personally 
 with a dedication, “We are resolved, by Divine assistance, 
 never to submit.”? Congress replied to the resolutions 
 with a vote of sympathy. In describing this vote John 
 Adams wrote to his wife, “These votes were passed in full 
 
 1 Journals of Congress, vol. i, p. 16. 
 
 2 Ibid., vol. i, pp. 33-36 
 2 Thid;, vol. 1p. 38: 
 
410 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Congress with perfect unanimity ... . . the fixed 
 determination . . . . . was enough to melt a heart of 
 stone. I saw the tears gush into the eyes of the old, grave 
 pacific Quakers of Pennsylvania.” ! 
 
 The First Continental Congress assembled September 
 Dy al/ {ae Lnemiextecda.y, Cushing of Massachusetts moved 
 that the daily sessions be opened with prayer. To this an 
 objection was made by John Jay of New York and another 
 by Rutledge of South Carolina, on the ground that, proper 
 as the act would be, it was rendered impractical by the 
 diversity on religious sentiments and usages of the mem- 
 bers of Congress, — some being Congregationalists, some 
 Presbyterians, some Anabaptists, some Episcopalians, 
 some Quakers, etc. Whereupon Samuel Adams spoke, 
 “Tam no bigot. I can hear a prayer from a man of piety 
 and virtue, who is at the same time a friend of his country. 
 I am a stranger in Philadelphia, but I have heard that Mr. 
 Duché deserves that character; and therefore I move 
 that Mr. Duché, an Episcopalian clergyman, be desired to 
 read prayers to the Congress tomorrow morning.” 
 This motion prevailed and it was “‘Resolved: That the 
 Reverend Mr. Duché be desired to open the Congress, 
 tomorrow morning with Prayers, at the Carpenters’ 
 Hall, at 9 o’clock.”3 Mr. Adams later explained the 
 politics of his motion as follows: “‘As many of our warmest 
 friends are members of the Church of England, I thought 
 it prudent, as well on that as on some other accounts, to 
 move that the service should be performed by a clergy- 
 man of that denomination.’’* 
 
 The first religious service of Continental Congress 1s 
 
 1 Journals of Congress, vol. i, p. 39. 
 
 Letters of John Adams, vol. i, p. 23. 
 
 3 Journals of Congress, vol. i, p. 26. 
 
 4 Ibid., vol. i, p. 26, footnote gives letter of Adams to John Warren. 
 
CONGRESS AND RELIGION 411 
 
 well worth recounting in detail. Peyton Randolph, the 
 president of Continental Congress, waited upon the 
 Reverend Jacob Duché, rector of the united parishes of 
 Christ Church and St. Peter’s, who readily acceded to the 
 wishes of Congress. The following morning the rector 
 “appeared with his clerk and in his pontificals and read 
 several prayers in the established form, and read the 
 collect (Psalter) for the seventh of September, which was 
 the thirty-fifth (also thirty-sixth) Psalm, ‘Plead thou my 
 cause, O Lord, with them that strive with me.’ ‘Bring 
 forth the spear and stop the way against them that perse- 
 cute me. Let them that imagine mischief for me be as dust 
 before the wind. Who is like unto thee, who deliverest the 
 poor from him that is too strong for him? Lord, how long 
 wilt thou look on? Awake, and stand up, to judge my quar- 
 rel; avenge thou my cause, My God and my Lord.’ ““You 
 must remember,” continues John Adams, whose descrip- 
 tion of the event we are quoting, “‘this was the next morn- 
 ing after we heard the horrible rumor of the cannonade of 
 Boston (Putnam’s Express had brought word that the 
 British had opened fire on the city). I never saw a greater 
 effect upon an audience. It seemed as if Heaven had or- 
 dained that Psalm to be read on that morning. After this, 
 Mr. Duché, unexpectedly to everybody, struck out into 
 an extemporary prayer, which filled the bosom of every 
 man present. I must confess, I never heard a_ better 
 prayer, or one so well pronounced . . . . . Dr. Cooper 
 himself never prayed with such fervor, such ardor, such 
 earnestness and pathos, and in language so elegant and 
 sublime, for America, for the Congress, for the Province of © 
 Massachusetts, and especially the town of Boston. It 
 has had an excellent effect upon everybody . . . . . Mr. 
 Duché is one of the most ingenious men, and the best 
 
412 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 characters, and greatest orators, in the Episcopalian 
 order upon this continent — yet a zealous friend of liberty 
 and his country.’’! 
 
 Mr. Duché continued in his post as chaplain of Congress 
 for about three years; upon the Declaration of Indepen- 
 dence his appointment was renewed.” His official duties 
 were numerous. July 7, 1775, he preached in Christ 
 Church before the First Battalion a sermon on The Duty of 
 Standing Fast in our Spiritual and Temporal Liberties, 
 which, was published both in Philadelphia and in 
 London.? 
 
 July 20, 1775, marks the first general fast ever: pro- 
 claimed for America. On that day Continental Congress, 
 ‘considering the present critical, alarming and calamitous 
 state . . . . . for the English colonies on this con- 
 tinent, as a day of public humiliation, fasting and prayer”’ 
 assembled at their usual place of meeting at half-past nine 
 and went in a body “to attend divine service at Mr. 
 Duché’s church.”* Mr. Duché took for his subject 
 “The American Vine.” In the afternoon they attended 
 divine service at Doctor Alison’s Church. ® 
 
 In notifying Mr. Duché of his re-election to the chap- 
 lainey in 1776, John Hancock stated that it was because of 
 his “piety” and “uniform and zealous attachment to the 
 rights of America.” ® Mr. Duché’s prayer upon the morrow 
 
 ' Letters of John Adams, vol. i, pp. 23-24. Journals, vol. i, p. 27. 
 
 2 Journals of Congress, vol. v, p. 530, vol. vi, pp. 886-887, 911. 
 
 3 Duché, Jacob, The Duty of Standing Fast in our Spiritual and Tem- 
 poral Laberties. A Sermon in Christ Church, Philadelphia, July 7, 1775, 
 before the first Battalion, etc., Philadelphia, 1775. 
 
 4 Journals of Congress, vol. ii, pp. 81, 87, 192. 
 
 *Duché, Jacob, The American Vine. A Sermon Preached before 
 Congress, 20 July 1775. Philadelphia, 1775. 
 
 6 Pennsylvania Magazine, vol. ii, p. 67 for reprint of the letter of John 
 Hancock. 
 
CONGRESS AND RELIGION ; 413 
 
 of this reappointment was a strong plea for America. It 
 ran, In part: 
 
 “Look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American 
 States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor, and thrown 
 themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth de- 
 pendent only on Thee. To Thee do they now look up for that coun- 
 tenance and support which Thou alone canst give. Take them therefore, 
 Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care. Give them wisdom in 
 council, and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel 
 adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their cause; and if 
 they still persist in their sanguinary purposes, Oh! let the voice of Thine 
 own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to 
 drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of 
 battle.” } 4 
 
 Mr. Duché possessed a gift of oratory but his enthusiasm 
 for liberty lost its novelty and his resignation as chaplain 
 of Congress was accepted, October 17, 1776. ‘Mr. 
 Duché,” so reads the Journal, “having, by letter, in- 
 formed the president, that the state of his health, and _ his 
 parochial duties, were such as obliged him to decline the 
 honor of continuing Chaplain to the Congress, Resolved, 
 That Mr. President be desired to return the thanks of this 
 house to Mr. Duché, for the devout and acceptable manner 
 in which he discharged his duty during the time he offici- 
 ated as Chaplain to it; and that $150 be presented to him, 
 as an acknowldgement from the house for his services.’’? 
 Mr. Duché, by letter to the president acknowledged his 
 obligation for the kind manner in which Congress had 
 expressed its approbation of his services and requested, 
 “as he accepted their appointment from motives per- 
 fectly disinterested, that the $150 voted to him, may be 
 applied to the relief of the widows and children of such of 
 
 1 Sabine, Lorenzo, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American 
 
 Revolution, with an Historical Essay, vol. i, p. 389. 
 2 Journals of Congress, vol. vi, pp. 886-887. 
 
414 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 the Pennsylvania officers, as have fallen in battle in the 
 service of their country.’”! 
 
 Duché’s resignation was the prelude to a still greater 
 defection; he was to become the Benedict Arnold of the 
 American clergy. When the British occupied Philadelphia 
 in 1777 he remained in that city, opened his church to 
 them and restored to the service such portions of the 
 Prayer Book as he had recently omitted.2 Soon he 
 addressed a letter to his former friend, George Washington, 
 the commander-in-chief of the American Army, exhorting 
 him by all that was sacred and prudent, “to represent to 
 Congress the indispensable necessity of rescinding the 
 hasty and ill-advised Declaration of Independence.”’ 
 “Your interposition and advice,” he continued, “I am 
 confident, would meet with a favorable reception from 
 the authority under which you act; if it should not, you 
 have an infallible recourse left — negotiate for your 
 country at the head of your army.”? General Washington 
 promptly referred this letter to Congress; Duché was 
 ruined. He went to England with Lord Cornwallis and 
 the defeated British army and only returned to his native 
 country in 1792, — old, paralytic and harmless. 
 
 A resolution of December 21, provided, “That two 
 Chaplains be appointed.”® On December 23, 1776, the 
 Reverend Mr. P. Alison and the Reverend Mr. William 
 White were selected. The former having declined the 
 appointment, the Reverend Dr. George Duffield was 
 
 ' Journals of Congress, vol. vi, p. 911. 
 
 2 Pennsylvania Magazine, vol. ii, p. 69. 
 
 3 Washington's Writings, vol. vi, p. 114; Sparkes, Jared, Correspondence 
 of the American Revolution, vol. i, pp. 448-458. 
 
 * Journals of Congress, vol. iv, p. 822. 
 
 5 Ihid., vol, vi, p. 1033. 
 
 § [hid., vol. vi, p. 1034. 
 
CONGRESS AND RELIGION 415 
 
 elected in his stead, and accepted the honor.! These 
 two, Dr. White, an Episcopalian,? and Dr. Duffield, a 
 Presbyterian,*? were both Philadelphia clergymen. They 
 continued in the service of Congress for some time, con- 
 ducting services for its dead, preparing and delivering 
 sermons and memorials for days of fast, prayer, humilia- 
 tion and thanksgiving, assisting in patriotic celebrations, 
 supervising the preparation and publication of an Ameri- 
 
 can Bible, — in general acting as spiritual guides to the 
 new nation, the officially constituted leaders of American 
 Christianity. - 
 
 In 1784 the Reverend Mr. Daniel Jones was elected 
 chaplain of Congress,* and it was resolved that appoint- 
 ments be made annually.®° But nothing seems to have 
 gone regularly and according to law in the later days of 
 Continental Congress. Mr. Jones was reélected in 1784 
 for 1785;® but he having resigned in January, 1785, 
 Mr. Provoost was elected.“ Later in that same year the 
 Rev. Mr. Provoost and the Reverend Dr. Rodgers were 
 elected.8 They continued to be reélected until the 
 termination of Congress.? In 1788 an effort to regularize 
 their offices was made by the provision for an annual 
 salary of “not to exceed three hundred dollars.”!° 
 _ The Baptists of New England sent their representative, 
 the Reverend Isaac Backus, to Philadelphia to interest the 
 First Continental Congress in the question of: religious 
 
 1 Journals of Congress, vol. vill, pp. 756, vol. ix, 822. 
 
 2 Supra., pp. 43-44. 
 
 3 Supra, pp. 96-98. 
 
 * Journals of Congress, vol. iv, p. 331 (Washington edition 1898). 
 5 Iiid., vol. iv, p. 454. 
 
 6 Toda vol. iv, p. 456. 
 
 7 Ibid., vol. iv, p. 462. 
 
 8 Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 461-607. 
 °Iind., vol: iv, pp. 720, 811. 10 Jind., vol. iv, p. 811. 
 
416 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 freedom. We have already noted how the political skill 
 of the Massachusetts politicians prevailed over the Bap- 
 ‘tists and Quakers! and prevented the discussion from 
 reaching the floor of Congress. The question of the 
 relinquishment of control over religious matters did not 
 come before Continental Congress. 
 
 In fact Congress acted as though it possessed plenary 
 powers in matters touching religious questions. The non- 
 importation agreement of October 14, 1774, demanded that 
 Parlament speedily and absolutely repeal certain abuses, 
 prominent among which was the following, “Also the Act 
 passed in the same session for establishing the Roman 
 Catholic Religion in the Province of Quebec.”? The 
 Act of Association, October 20, 1774, reiterated as a cause 
 for union, “‘an act for extending the Province of Quebec 
 
 thus . . . . . to dispose the inhabitants 
 rs act with hostility against the free Protestant colonies.’3 
 The Address to the People of Great Britain, October 21, 
 1774, stated, 
 “That we think the Legislature of Great Britain is not authorized by the 
 Constitution to establish a religion fraught with sanguinary and impious 
 tenets . . . . . in any quarter of the globe . 
 
 And by another Act the dominion of. Canada is to ine so extended, 
 modelled, and governed, as that by being disunited from us, detached 
 from our interests, by civil as well as religious prejudices, that by their 
 numbers daily swelling with Catholic emigrants from Europe, and 
 by their devotion to an administration, so friendly to their religion they 
 might become formidable to us, and on occasion be fit instruments in the 
 hands of power, to reduce the ancient free Protestant Colonies to the 
 same state of slavery with themselves. 
 
 Nor, can we suppress our astonishment, that a British Parliament 
 should ever consent to establish in that country a religion that has 
 
 deluged your island in blood, and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution, 
 murder and rebellion throughout every part of the world. 
 
 1 Supra., pp. 117-120, 330-334, 361, 363. 
 2J ournals of Congress, Ford edition vol. i, p. 72. 
 elbid:.vol,y in paige 
 
 . 
 
CONGRESS AND RELIGION 417 
 
 Admit that the Ministry, by the powers of Britain, and the aid of our 
 Roman Catholic neighbors, should be able to carry the point of taxation, 
 and reduce us to a state of perfect humiliation and slavery . 
 remember the taxes from America, the wealth and, we may add, the men, 
 and particularly the Roman Catholics of this vast continent will then be 
 in the power of your enemies.” ! 
 
 The Memorial to the Inhabitants of the Colonies, 
 October 21, 1774, contained similar clauses: 
 
 “Duty to Almighty God, the creator of all, requires 
 
 In the session of parliament last mentioned, an act was seat) for 
 changing the government of Quebec, by which act the Roman Catholic 
 religion, instead of being tolerated, as stipulated by the treaty of peace, is 
 established . 
 
 The authors of itn arbitrary arrangement flatter themselves, that the 
 inhabitants, deprived of liberty, and artfully provoked against those of 
 another religion, will be proper instruments for assisting in the oppression 
 of such as differ from them in modes of government and faith. 
 
 Wes... +) cannot’... . 4 be persuaded. that they (the 
 people of England), the defenders of true religion, and the asserters of the 
 rights of mankind, will take part against their affectionate Protestant 
 brethren in the colonies, in favor of our open and their own secret 
 enemies, whose intrigues, for several years past, have been wholly 
 exercised in sapping the foundations of civil and religious liberty.” 2 
 
 In their Petition to the King, October 26, 1774, they 
 complain, that: 
 
 “Tn the last session of parliament an act was passed . . for 
 extending the limits of Quebec, abolishing the English and Aoshi 
 the French law, whereby great numbers of the British freemen are 
 subjected to the latter, al establishing an absolute government and 
 the Roman Catholic religion throughout those vast regions.”’ 3 
 
 At the same time that Congress was composing the 
 foregoing addresses, memorials and _ petitions, it was 
 drawing up a Letter to the Inhabitants of Quebec.’ This 
 letter appears to the American historian, Bancroft, “a 
 
 1 Journals of Congress, vol. i, pp. 83-88. 
 
 2 [hid., vol. i, pp. 90-100. 
 ST btd.s Vol. 1, pi bb?: 
 
418 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 masterly address, drawn by Dickinson;”! and to the Eng- 
 lish historian, Lecky, “‘an ingenious address . . . . . to 
 alienate (the Canadians) from England.’? It contains 
 the following articles with respect to the religious question: 
 
 “These are the rights you.are entitled to and ought at this moment in 
 perfection, to exercise. And what is offered to you by the late Act of 
 Parliament in their place? Liberty of Conscience in your religion? 
 No. God gave it to you; and the temporal powers with which you have 
 been and are connected, firmly stipulated for your enjoyment of it . . . 
 Such is the precarious tenure of mere will, by which you hold your lives 
 and religion. The Crown and its Ministers are empowered as far as they 
 could be by Parliament, to establish even the Inquisition itself among 
 you. 
 
 We are too well acquainted with the liberality of sentiment distin- 
 guishing your nation, to imagine, that differences of religion will preju- 
 dice you against a hearty amity with us. You know, that the transcen- 
 dent nature of freedom elevates those, who unite in her cause, above all 
 such low-minded infirmities. The Swiss Cantons, furnish a memorable 
 proof of this truth. Their union is composed of Roman Catholic and 
 Protestant States, living in the utmost concord and peace with one 
 another, and thereby enabled, ever since they bravely vindicated their 
 freedom, to defy and defeat every tyrant that has invaded them. 
 
 That Almighty God may incline your minds to approve our equitable 
 and blessed measures, to add yourself to us, to put your fate... . . 
 on the consolidated powers of North America . . . . . is the fervent 
 prayer of us, your sincere and affectionate friends and fellow-subjects.” @ 
 
 The foregoing series of documents relative to American 
 Catholicism is not so disingenuous as it might seem on 
 first reading; certainly they did not give offense to that 
 body of Catholics in the Colonies led by Charles Carroll. 
 American Catholicism had been fighting -a battle for the 
 principles of “freedom” as against the English principle 
 
 ' Bancroft, op. cit., vol. vii, p. 159. 
 
 * Lecky, England in the 18th Century, vol. iii, p. 446. 
 
 § Journals of Congress, vol. i, pp. 108-117; Cobb, Rise of Religious 
 Inberty, p. 490, says of this address, ‘“‘ This was the sole reference to the 
 subject of religion until the Convention of 1787, embedded in the Federal 
 Constitution, the principle of full religious liberty.” Bancroft, op. cit., 
 vol. vu, p. 159. 
 
CONGRESS AND RELIGION 419 
 
 of an establishment which had “dispersed impiety, bigotry, 
 persecution, murder, and rebellion.” 
 
 The temper of the Second Continental Congress, which 
 met May 10, 1775, was far different from that of the First 
 Congress; American blood had been shed at Lexington. 
 This new body was assembled to carry on active warfare 
 and to organize a nation for victory. Even in this temper 
 they were not unmindful of their reliance on Diety. On 
 their opening day it was ordered, “That Mr. Duché be 
 requested to open the Congress with prayers to-morrow 
 morning.”! ‘This he did, agreeable to the desire of the 
 Congress, with an “excellent prayer so well adapted to 
 the present occasion.” 
 
 On June 7, it was resolved, “That Thursday the 20th 
 of July next, be observed throughout the twelve United 
 Colonies (Georgia has not as yet sent delegates to the 
 Congress), as a day of humiliation, fasting and prayer: 
 and that Mr. Hooper, Mr. J. Adams, and Mr. Paine, be a 
 committee to bring in a resolve for that purpose.’’? 
 As supplications to Divine Providence continue a fre- 
 quent recourse of Continental Congress it is well to note 
 carefully the character of this its first one: 
 
 “As the great Governor of the World, by his supreme and universal 
 Providence, not only conducts the course of nature with unerring wisdom 
 and rectitude, but frequently influences the minds of men to serve the 
 wise and gracious purposes of His providential government; and it being 
 at all times, our indispensable duty devoutly to acknowledge his superin- 
 tending providence, especially in times of impending danger and public 
 calamity, to reverence and adore his immutable justice as well as to 
 implore his merciful interposition for our deliverance: 
 
 This Congress, therefore, considering the present critical, alarming and 
 calamitous state of these colonies, do earnestly recommend, that Thurs- 
 
 1 Journals of Congress, vol. ii, p. 12. 
 S110 Vol lly pp wL3.12e- 
 elhidsesvolei, p2ol- 
 
420 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 day, the 20th day of July next, be observed, by the inhabitants of all the 
 English colonies on this continent, as a day of public humiliation, fasting 
 and prayer; that we may, with united hearts and voices, unfeignedly 
 confess and deplore our many sins; and offer up our joint supplications to 
 the all-wise, omnipotent, and merciful disposer of all events; humbly be- 
 seeching Him to forgive our iniquities, to remove our present calamities, 
 to avert those desolating judgments, with which we are threatened, and 
 to bless our rightful sovereign, King George the Third, and inspire him 
 with wisdom to discern and pursue the true interest of all his subjects, 
 that a speedy end may be put to the civil discord between Great Britain 
 and the American colonies, without farther effusion of blood: And that 
 the British nation may be influenced to regard the things that belong 
 to her peace, before they be hid from her eyes: That these colonies may 
 be ever under the care and protection of a kind Providence, and be 
 prospered in all their interests; That the divine blessing may descend 
 and rest upon all our civil rulers, and upon the representatives of the 
 people, in their several assemblies and conventions, that they may be 
 directed to wise and effectual measures for preserving the union, and 
 securing the just rights and privileges of the colonies: That virtue and 
 true religion may revive and flourish throughout our land; And that all 
 America may soon behold a gracious interposition of Heaven, for the 
 redress of her many grievances, the restoration of her invaded rights, a 
 reconciliation with the parent state, on terms constitutional and honor- 
 able to both; And that the civil and religious privileges may be secured 
 to the latest posterity. 
 
 And it is recommended to Christians, of all denominations, to assemble 
 for public worship, and to abstain from servile labor and recreation on 
 said day. 
 
 Ordered, That a copy of the above be signed by the President and 
 
 attested by the Secretary and published in the newspapers, and in hand 
 bills.” 4 ; 
 
 Congress renewed its appeal to Canada, May 29, 1775, 
 saying, ““We perceived the fate of the Protestant and 
 Catholic colonies to be strongly linked together.” A 
 thousand copies of this were sent to Canada to be dis- 
 persed among the inhabitants.2 The Congressional 
 Address to their constituency, July 8, was an invocation: 
 “Let us entreat Heaven to avert our ruin, and the 
 
 1 Journals of Congress, vol. ii, pp. 87-88. 
 2 Ihd., vol. ii, pp. 68-69. 
 
CONGRESS AND RELIGION 421 
 
 destruction that threatens our friends, brethren, and coun- 
 trymen.”! The Declaration setting forth the causes and 
 necessities for taking up arms reads: 
 
 “Our cause is just. Our union is perfect . . . . . We gratefully 
 acknowledge, as signal instances of Divine favor towards us, that His 
 Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy 
 until . ou 
 
 With an humble confidence in the mercies of the supreme and im- 
 partial Judge and Ruler of the universe, we most devoutly implore His 
 Divine Goodness.” ? 
 
 In An Address to the People of Ireland, they assert their 
 determination, “to enjoy that degree of Liberty, to which 
 God and the Constitution have given them an undoubted 
 right.’’? 
 
 Religion proved an excellent weapon with which to keep 
 the Indians friendly. Captain White Eyes, a Delaware 
 Chief, who had come down with the Commissioners for 
 Indian Affairs in the Middle Department, was introduced 
 into Congress. Whereupon the President addressed him 
 in the following manner: 
 
 **Brother White Eyes . 
 
 We have heard of your friendship for your Brethren, the White People, 
 and how useful you have been in preserving peace and harmony between 
 your nation and us . tae . 
 
 We are pleased that the Delawares intend to embrace Christianity. 
 We will send you, according to your desire, a minister and a schoolmaster 
 to instruct you in the principles of religion and other parts of useful 
 knowledge.” 4 
 
 { 
 
 In pursuance of this promise Congress resolves, April 10, 
 7 7 
 
 “That the commissioners for Indian Affairs, in the Middle Department, 
 or anyone of them, be desired to employ, for reasonable salaries, a minister 
 
 1 Journals of Congress, vol. 11, pp. 163-170. 
 2 Ihid., vol. 11, pp. 140-157. 
 
 3 Jind., vol. 1, p. 217. 
 
 4 Thid., vol. ii, p. 433. 
 
422 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 of the gospel, to reside among the Delaware Indians, and instruct their 
 youth reading, writing, and arithmetic; and also, a blacksmith to do the 
 work of the Indians in the Middle Department.” ? 
 
 Chief White Eyes had entered upon this negotiation 
 without authorization from his tribe, —he had _ trans- 
 eressed an Indian law.. The Delawares when they learned 
 of these plans, feared that a minister of some denomination 
 other than the Moravian Brethren might be placed over 
 them. White Eyes had acted independently of Zeisberger 
 and his Christian Indians. The Council of the Indians 
 accordingly disapproved of such action and the new 
 Indian agent for the Middle Department was informed 
 that the Delawares would abide by the Moravian Church.” 
 
 While providing for the Delawares, Congress at first 
 refused aid to Dartmouth College for its work with the 
 Indians, saying that “‘Although the prosperity of Dart- 
 mouth College... . . is a desirable object, it is 
 neither seasonable nor prudent to contribute towards its 
 relief or support out of the public treasury.”’* However, 
 later, January 21, 1778, the Board of War brought 
 in another report on Indian Affairs, which contained 
 a clause to the effect, “that the Commissioners be 
 authorized, and directed, to comply with Mr. Wheelock’s 
 request, as to the maintenance and education of the 
 Indian children.” And on December 18, 1778; 
 
 “A report of the Board of Treasury was read: Whereupon, Congress 
 came to the following order and resolution: Whereas Dr. Wheelock has 
 incurred expense in supporting a number of Indian youths, of the Caghna- 
 wage tribe, at his school, which in times past. has been the means of 
 
 conciliating the friendship of that tribe: Ordered, That a warrant be 
 issued on the treasurer in favor of Lieutenant Colonel Wheelock for nine 
 
 1 Journals of Congress, vol. iv, pp. 267-269. 
 2 De Schweinitz, op. cit., pp. 431, 436-439. 
 3 Journals of Congress, vol. iv, p. 267. 
 
 4 Ibid., vol. xii, p. 1230. 
 
CONGRESS AND RELIGION 423 
 
 hundred and twenty five dollars, for the use of the said Dr. Eleazar 
 Wheelock.” ! 
 Thenceforth, appropriations for Dartmouth College are 
 regular Congressional expenses.2 Dr. Witherspoon also 
 was emboldened to seek similar support for his College 
 of New Jersey (Princeton).? New England missionaries 
 seem to have been especially effective in alienating 
 Indians from British allegiance.* 
 
 The interest of Congress in religion and education kept 
 on the increase and in 1778, October 12, we find that: 
 
 “Congress came to the following resolution: Whereas true religion and 
 good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness: 
 Resolved, That it is, hereby earnestly recommended to the several 
 states, to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof, 
 and for the suppression of theatrical entertainments, horse racing, and 
 such other diversions as are productive of idleness, dissipation, and 
 general depravity of principles and manners. Resolved, That all officers 
 in the Army of the United States, be, and hereby are, strictly enjoined 
 to see that the good and wholesome rules provided for the discounten-_ 
 ancing of prophaneness and vice, and the preservation of morals among 
 the soldiers, are duly and punctually observed.” > 
 Opposition developed to the first clause of this resolution, 
 but New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 
 Connecticut, New Jersey, and South Carolina supported it; 
 Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Georgia were divided on the 
 subject, and Maryland and North Carolina were the only 
 two states wholly opposed. It was accordingly adopted 
 and may be considered as the original federal educational 
 action which was to assert itself next in the “religion and 
 education” clause of the North-West Ordinance. ® 
 
 1 Journals of Congress, vol. x, p. 106. 
 
 2 Ihid., vol. xvi, pp. 162-163. 
 
 3 Ibid., vol. xxi, pp. 820, 841, 1051. 
 
 4 Washington's Works, vol. iti, p. 495; Documents Relating to the 
 Colonial History of New York, vol. viii, pp. 656-657. 
 
 > Journals of Congress, vol. xii, p. 1001. 
 6 Infra., p. 438. 
 
424, NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 In the matter of army organization and regulation 
 Congress kept a religious point of view well to the fore. 
 Chaplains were provided for with a pay equivalent to that 
 of Captains.! The Articles of War, as agreed to June 30, 
 1775, provided: 
 
 “Article 2. It is earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers, 
 diligently to attend Divine Service; and all officers and soldiers who shall 
 behave indecently or irreverently at any place of Divine Worship, shall, if 
 commissioned officers, be brought before a court martial, there to be 
 publicly and severely reprimanded by the President; if non-commissioned 
 officers or soldiers, every person so offending, shall, for the first offence, 
 forfeit one sixth of a dollar, to be deducted out of his next pay; for the 
 second offence, he shall not only forfeit a like sum, but be confined for 
 twenty-four hours, and for every like offence, shall suffer and pay in like 
 manner; which money so forfeited, shall be applied to the use of the sick 
 soldiers of the troop or company to which the offender belongs. 
 
 Article 3. Whatsoever non-commissioned officer or soldier shall use 
 any profane oath or execration, shall incur the penalty expressed in the 
 second article; and if a commissioned officer be thus guilty of profane 
 cursing or swearing, he shall forfeit and pay for each and every such 
 offence, the sum of four shillings, lawful money.” ? 
 
 The revised Articles of War, as adopted by Congress in 
 1776, reaffirm these provisions, merely changing the fine to 
 one sixth of a dollar. But they add the following article 
 on Chaplains: 
 
 “Section 1, article 4: Every Chaplain who is commissioned to a 
 regiment, company, troop, or garrison, and shall absent himself from 
 the said regiment, company, troop, or garrison (excepting in case of 
 sickness or leave of absence), shall be brought to a court-martial, and be 
 fined not exceeding one month’s pay, besides the loss of his pay during 
 his absence, or be discharged, as the said court-martial shall judge most 
 proper.” ? 
 
 The Rules for the Regulation of the Navy as agreed 
 upon November 28, 1775, decreed: 
 
 “Tf any shall be heard to swear, curse, or blaspheme the name of God, 
 the Commander is strictly enjoined to punish them for every offence, by 
 
 1 Journals of Congress, vol. ii, pp. 220. 2 Ihid., vol. ii, p. 111. 
 3 Ilnd., vol. v, p. 789. 
 
CONGRESS AND RELIGION 425 
 
 causing them to wear a wooden collar, or some other shameful badge or 
 distinction, for so long time as he shall judge proper. If he be a com- 
 missioned officer, he shall forfeit one shilling for each offence, and a 
 warrant or inferior officer six pence.” } 
 
 The navy chaplain was to receive the same pay as a navy 
 captain, a rate slightly higher than that paid in the army. 
 We have reason to doubt the effectiveness of army and 
 havy regulations respecting profanity, morality or re- 
 ligion. John Gano, the Baptist chaplain, records, 
 
 “We lay here on the fourth of July, and the officers insisted on my 
 preaching, whichI did. ... . On this occasion, the soldiery behaved 
 with the most decency that I ever knew them to, during the war. Some 
 of them usually absented themselves from worship on Lord’s-day, and 
 
 the only punishment they were subjected to, was the digging up of 
 stumps, which in some instances, had a good effect.” 2 
 
 And the candid Baptist historian, Semple, tells us, 
 “Jeremiah Walker and John Williams, being appointed by 
 the Association, went and preached to the soldiers, when 
 encamped in the lower parts of Virginia; they, not meeting 
 with much encouragement, declined it after a short 
 time.’ 
 
 We have noted that the Roman Catholics remained 
 firm in the allegiance to the cause of liberty even at the 
 time when Congress was addressing anti-Catholic procla- 
 mations. A striking example of their service is to be 
 found in the mission to Canada in 1776. The members 
 first chosen for this commission were Dr. Benjamin 
 Franklin, Mr. Samuel Chase and Mr. Charles Carroll. It 
 was also resolved: “That Mr. Carroll be requested to 
 prevail on Mr. John Carroll (a priest, later to be the first 
 Catholic bishop in the United States) to accompany the 
 
 1 Journals of Congress, vol. iii, p. 378. 
 
 * Biographical Memoirs of the Late Rev. John Gano, p. 104. 
 3 Semple, op. cit., p. 62. 
 
426 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 committee to Canada, to assist them in such matters as 
 they shall think useful.”! The Reverend John Carroll 
 accepted the commission and the committee thus com- 
 posed proceeded to Canada, under the injunctions from 
 Congress, dated March 20, 1776, the religious part of 
 which was as follows: 
 
 “You are further to declare, that we hsld sacred the rights of con- 
 science, and may promise to the whole people, solemnly in our name, the 
 free and undisturbed exercise of their religion; and, to the clergy the 
 full, perfect, and peaceable possession and enjoyment of all their estates; 
 that the government of everything relating to their religion and clergy 
 shall be left entirely in the hands of the good people of that province, and 
 such legislature as they shall constitute; Provided, however, that all 
 other denominations of Christian: be equally entitled to hold offices, and 
 enjoy civil privileges and the free exercise of their religion, and be 
 totally exempt from the payment of any tythes or taxes for the support of 
 any religion. 
 
 Inform them, that you are vested by this Congress with full powers to 
 effect these purposes.” ? 
 
 We note, from the multitude of proclamations which 
 Congress composed, the great part which propaganda 
 played in the War for American Independence; in fact, it 
 was the first great war in which this element played its 
 full part. Since the Protestant Revolt of the sixteenth 
 century, the churches had known the use of this element 
 of warfare, as a means of breaking or creating morale. It 
 is not surprising to find the new state relying largely 
 upon the religious element as an instrument of propa- 
 ganda and upon the churches as means of promulgating 
 the same. 
 
 On August 14, 1776, a committee appointed to devise a 
 plan for encouraging the Hessians, and other foreigners, to 
 
 1 Journals of Congress, vol. iv, p. 152. 
 2 Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 215-218. 
 
CONGRESS AND RELIGION 427 
 
 desert the British service, brought in a report which re- 
 sulted in the adoption of the following resolution: 
 
 ““Whereas it has been the wise policy of these states to extend the 
 protection of their laws to all those who should settle among them, of 
 whatever nation or religion they might be, and to admit them to a 
 participation of the benefits of civil and religious freedom; and, the 
 benevolence of this practice, as well as its salutary effects, have rendered 
 it worthy of being continued in future times . 
 
 Resolved, Therefore, that these states will receive Al such foreigners 
 who shall leave the armies of his Britannic majesty in America, and 
 shall choose to become members of any of these states; and that they 
 shall be protected in the free exercise of their respective religions.” ! 
 
 Congress was to learn that assumption of ecclesiastical 
 powers entailed responsibilities and might ultimately 
 raise difficulties which were hard to settle. We have seen 
 how their actions with relation to the Quakers tended to 
 convince them that it would be just as well to leave some 
 religious matters to state jurisdictions.2 This episode 
 contributed not a little toward the ultimate willingness 
 with which the Federal Government renounced those 
 powers over religious matters which it had assumed 
 during the Revolutionary period. 
 
 Then too not all questions of religious policy could meet 
 with unanimous decisions. April 2, 1777, Mr. Gouverneur 
 Morris moved, “that as this day is Good Friday, the 
 House adjourn until tomorrow, agreeable to the former 
 practice in the years 1776 and 1777.3 This motion 
 was carried: Muhlenberg, John Jay, Samuel Adams, and 
 Morris voted for it, Witherspoon against it. It is quite 
 evident from the fact that business was usually suspended 
 on Good Friday that the champions of that holiday were 
 numerous in Congress. 
 
 1 Journals of Congress, vol. v, p. 653. 
 2 Supra., pp. 145-151. 
 3 Journals of Congress, vol. xiii, pp. 409-410. 
 
428 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 In March 1781, the Articles of Confederation, duly 
 ratified by the States, were put into effect through the 
 Declaration of Congress which began: 
 
 “The delegates of the States, in promulgating the Articles of Confeder- 
 ation, do for themselves make the following acknowledgment: 
 
 And whereas, it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to 
 incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, 
 to approve and to authorize us toratify thesaid . . . . . ie 
 
 One of the first acts of Congress under the Articles was 
 the procurement of an American Bible. No edition of the 
 Bible in the English language had been published in 
 America up to the time of the Revolution. Ministers 
 experienced a shortage of Bibles for their services as a 
 result of the war and Congress had accordingly been 
 petitioned to secure the publication of the book. A 
 resolution was adopted, October 26, 1780, ““That it be 
 recommended to such of the States who may think it 
 convenient for them that they take proper measures to 
 procure one or more new and correct editions of the Old 
 and New Testament to be printed and that such states 
 regulate their printers by law so as to secure effectually 
 the said books from being misprinted.’’? 
 
 In the meantime Robert Aitken of Philadelphia had 
 gone ahead on his own initiative and finished an edition of 
 the Bible. He accordingly memorialized Congress for an 
 official endorsement of his work. 
 
 On September 12, 1782, the committee consisting of 
 Mr. Duane, Mr. McKean, and Mr. Witherspoon, to whom 
 had been referred the memorial from Robert Aitken, 
 dated January 21, 1781, respecting an edition of the 
 Holy Scriptures, reported: 
 
 “That Mr. Aiken has at a great expense now finished an American 
 edition of the Holy Scriptures in English; that the committee have, 
 
 1 Journals of Congress, vol. xix, p. 221. 
 2 Ibid., vol. xxii, pp. 572-577. 
 
 a 
 
CONGRESS AND RELIGION 429 
 
 from time to time, attended to his progress in the work; that they also 
 recommend it to the two chaplains of Congress to examine and give 
 their opinion of the execution, who have accordingly reported thereon. 
 The recommendation and report being as follows: 
 
 Philadelphia, September 1, 1782. 
 Reverend Gentlemen, Our knowledge of your piety and public spirit 
 leads us without apology to recommend to your particular attention the 
 edition of the Holy Scriptures publishing by Mr. Aitken. He undertook 
 this expensive work at a time, when from the circumstances of the war, 
 an English edition of the bible could not be imported, nor any opinion 
 formed how long the obstruction might continue. On this account 
 particularly he deserves applause and encouragement. We therefore 
 wish you, reverend gentlemen, to examine the execution of the work, and 
 if approved, to give it the sanction of your judgment and the weight of 
 your recommendation. We are With every great respect your most 
 obedient humble servants. 
 JAMES DuaANng, Chairman. 
 
 Rev. Dr. White and Rev. Mr. Duffield, chaplains of the United 
 States in Congress assembled 
 Report September 10, 1782. 
 
 Gentlemen. Agreeably to your desire, we have paid attention to Mr. 
 Robert Aitken’s impression of the Holy Scriptures, of the Old and New 
 Testament. Having selected and examined a variety of passages 
 throughout the work we are of opinion, that it is executed with great 
 accuracy as to the sense, and with as few grammatical and typographical 
 errors as could be expected in an undertaking of such magnitude. Being 
 ourselves witnesses of the demand for this invaluable book, we rejoice in 
 the present prospect of a supply, hoping that it will prove as advan- 
 tageous as it is honorable to the gentleman, who has exerted himself to 
 furnish it at the evident risk of private fortune. We are, gentlemen, 
 your very respectful and humble servants. 
 
 WILuiAM WHITE 
 
 GEORGE DUFFIELD 
 
 Whereupon it was resolved: That the United States in Congress 
 assembled, Lighly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. 
 Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion as well as an instance 
 of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above 
 report, of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they 
 recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United 
 States and hereby authorize him to publish this recommendation in the 
 manner he shall think proper.” ! 
 
 1 Journals of Congress, vol. xxiii, pp. 572-574. 
 
430 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 After the edoption of the Articles of Confederation and 
 the close of the war the usefulness of Congress rapidly 
 declined. Its two greatest achievements were the Treaty 
 of Peace with Great Britain and the North-West Ordi- 
 nance. Both of these documents disclose a Congress still 
 reliant upon Christianity. 
 
 The Treaty of Peace was proclaimed January 14, 1783, 
 “In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity,” 
 and its opening phrase was, “It having pleased the Divine 
 Providence to dispose the hearts.’’! 
 
 Congress, through its diplomatic agents, was forced to 
 take a stand on the religious questions as it affected 
 foreign relations. No sooner was peace established than 
 the Papal Nuncio at Paris, July 28; 1783, addressed to 
 Benjamin Franklin the following note, in which the idea 
 of a French superior for American Catholicism is clearly 
 advocated and in which the question of the government 
 of American Catholicism is viewed as a matter to be 
 settled by the King of France and Congress. 
 
 “The Nuncio Apostolic has the honor to transmit to Mr. Franklin the 
 subjoined note. He requests him to cause it to be presented to the 
 Congress of the United States of North America, and to support it with 
 his influence. 
 
 Note, — Previous to the revolution which has just been completed in 
 the United States of North America, the Catholics and missionaries of 
 those provinces depended, in spiritual matters, on the Vicar-Apostolic 
 residing in London. It is now evident that this arrangement can be 
 no longer maintained, but, as it is necessary that the Catholic Christians 
 of the United States should have an ecclesiastic to govern them in mat- 
 ters pertaining to religion, the Congregation de Propaganda Fide, existing 
 at Rome, for the establishment and preservation of missions, have come 
 to the determination to propose to Congress to establish, in one of the 
 cities of the United States of North America, one of their Catholic 
 brethren, with the authority and power of Vicar-Apostolic and dignity of 
 
 1 Treaties and Conventions Concluded between the United States of 
 America and Other Powers, Since July 4, 1776, p. 375. 
 
CONGRESS AND RELIGION 431 
 
 Bishop, or simply with the rank of Apostolic Prefect. The institution of a 
 Bishop-Apostolic appears the most suitable, inasmuch as the Catholics of 
 the United States may have within their reach the reception of Con- 
 firmation and Orders in their own country. And as it may sometimes 
 happen that among the members of the Catholic body in the United 
 States, no one may be found qualified to undertake the charge of the 
 spiritual government, either as Bishop or Prefect-Apostolic, it may be 
 necessary under the circumstances, that Congress should consent to 
 have one selected from some foreign nation on close terms of friendship 
 with the United States.” 4 
 
 Dr. Franklin seems to have been willing to lend his 
 support to the plan. On December 15, 1783, he wrote the 
 Count de Vergennes: 
 
 ‘Sir: —I understand that the Bishop or Spiritual persons who 
 superintends or governs the Roman Catholic clergy in the United States 
 of America, resides in London, and is supposed to be under obligations to 
 that Court, and subject to be influenced by its Ministers. This gives 
 me some uneasiness, and I cannot but wish that one should be appointed 
 to that office, who is of this nation and who may reside here among our 
 friends. I beg your Excellency to think a little of this matter and to 
 afford me your counsels upon it.” ? 
 
 The memorandum of Vergennes on this matter shows 
 that he was keener than Franklin as to national character 
 of American Catholicism. He wrote: 
 
 “Mr. Franklin represente que |’Evéque de la direction du clergé 
 Catholique, en Amerique résidant a Londres, il est de notre interret de 
 nommer a cette place une personne qui puisse demeurer dans les Etats 
 nis. 
 
 We have no record, though, that Franklin did more than 
 to transmit to the Continental Congress, without per- 
 sonal comment, the documents submitted to him. Un- 
 fortunately at that moment Congress contained no 
 Catholics as both Daniel Carroll and Thomas Fitz- 
 
 1 Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution, vol. iv, pp. 
 158-159. 
 
 2 Shea, Life and Times of Archbishop Carroll, vol. ii, pp. 214-215. 
 3 [bid., vol. ii, p. 216. 
 
432 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 simons had retired. The reply of Congress was without 
 the knowledge of American Catholics; it does, however, 
 embody a great American principle. 
 
 ‘Resolved, That Doctor Franklin be desired to notify to the Apostolic 
 Nuncio at Versaille, that Congress will always be pleased to testify their 
 respect to his sovereign and.state; but that the subject of his application 
 to Doctor Franklin, being purely spiritual, it is without the jurisdiction 
 
 and powers of Congress, who have no authority to permit or refuse it, 
 these powers being reserved to the several states individually.” ! 
 
 As Professor W. F. Johnson points out, “The importance 
 and value of this action, to all the subsequent history of 
 the nation, are scarcely to be overestimated . . .. . It 
 was a priceless precaution against our being drawn into 
 complications with alien powers in which, — as at that 
 time was all but universally the case, — church and state 
 were united to the detriment of both.’’2 } 
 
 An American principle had been established by this 
 action but this does not preclude the possibility of diplo- 
 matic influence working along religious lines. A very 
 delicate international problem was presented by the 
 American desire for Anglican ordination for their bishops; 
 and it was managed with tact to a successful issue, thanks 
 to the discretion of several American officials, both civil 
 and ecclesiastical. 
 
 The Episcopalian Convention of 1785, in agreeing to a 
 plan for obtaining consecration through addressing the 
 Archbishops and Bishops of England, decided, October 5, 
 1785: | 
 
 “In order to assure their Lordships of the legality of the present pro- 
 
 posed application, that the Deputies now assembled be desired to make 
 a respectful address to the civil rulers of the States in which they 
 
 ' Secret Journals of the Acts and Proceedings of Congress, vol. iii, p. 493. 
 * Johnson, America’s Foreign Relations, vol. i, pp. 135-136. 
 
CONGRESS AND RELIGION 433 
 
 respectively reside, to certify that the said application is not contrary to 
 the Constitutions and laws of the same.” ! 
 
 In the address to the English clergy they inserted the 
 ‘following significant passage: 
 
 “It may be of consequence to observe, that in these States there is a 
 separation between the concerns of policy and those of religion; that, 
 accordingly, our civil rulers cannot officially join in the present applica- 
 tion; that, however, we are far from apprehending the opposition or 
 even displeasure of any of those honorable personages; and finally, that in 
 this business we are justified by the Constitutions of the States, which 
 are the foundations and control of all our laws.” ? 
 
 American Episcopalians-were far too skilled in the 
 politics of church and state not to utilize whatever in- 
 fluence there was available. The Episcopalian members 
 of Congress were able to procure unofficial aid from the 
 officials of the national government. William White 
 wrote to Dr. Smith, November 1, 1785: 
 
 “Mr. Provoost has enclosed to me a Copy of a Letter from the Presi- 
 dent of Congress to the Minister at the Court of Great Britain. After 
 stating our late proceedings and the political hinderances on a former 
 occasion, he says, that if our application to the Bishops should come 
 before the King and Ministry, it is the wish of ‘the Church of England 
 Members of Congress’ that Mr. Adams may assure them of our right to 
 
 take the said step and that the granting our petition would not be an 
 -intermeddling in the affairs of these states.” % 
 
 The governors of several of the states were induced to 
 intercede. Upon the adjournment of the Episcopalian 
 Convention on 1785 the Pennsylvania delegates, com- 
 posed the following: 
 
 “To the Honorable the Supreme Executive Council of the Common- 
 
 wealth of Pennsylvania. 
 The petition of the subscribers, late Deputies of the Protestant Episco- 
 
 1 Perry, Journals, vol. pp. 24-25. 
 2 Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 26-27. 
 3 [bid., vol. ii, p. 138. 
 
434 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 pal Church in the said Commonwealth to a general ecclesiastical Con- 
 vention of the said church, held in this City: 
 
 Humbly sheweth; 
 
 That the said Church has taken sundry measures for the obtaining 
 within itself the powers of ordination, agreeably to its ancient institu- 
 tions of usage, in order that it may exist independently of all foreign 
 authority, civil or ecclesiastical; 
 
 That for the accomplishing of this purpose the said ecclesiastical con- 
 vention have addressed the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of 
 England, requesting them to confer the Episcopal character on such 
 persons, as shall be chosen and sent to their Lordships by the said church 
 in any of the United States; a copy of which address your petitioners 
 now lay before your Honorable Council. 
 
 That the said ecclesiastical convention had received undoubted in- 
 formation (which your petitioners are ready to lay before the Honorable 
 Council) that the English prelates, on a similar application from the 
 clergy of the said church in one of the United States, were not able to take 
 measures for the granting of the request, because the British Ministry 
 were apprehensive that might be offensive to the civil authority of the 
 said state; 
 
 That in consequence of the above information, the said ecclesiastical 
 convention instructed the deputies composing their body, that on their 
 return to their respective states, they should make a respectful applica- 
 tion to their civil rulers requesting them to certify, that the said Address 
 to the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England is not con- 
 trary to our laws or constitutions, and that a compliance with it will not 
 be offensive to the civil powers under which we live; and 
 
 That your petitioners do accordingly now make the said application to 
 your honorable body, and as it has been uniformly the endeavor of the 
 Episcopal Church in this State, and in the other states represented in the 
 late convention, so to form their ecclesiastical system, as that it may 
 harmonize with our civil duties and the interests and happiness of the 
 United States; so they trust, that your Honorable Body will condescend 
 to their request; and think it not unworthy of your wisdom or beneath 
 your dignity to remove the political obstacle which may prevent their 
 obtaining the Episcopal Succession in a way, which they hope will be 
 thought reputable to themselves and safe to their country.” ! 
 
 A document similar to this had been furnished by the 
 governor of Maryland, upon the application of Dr. 
 Smith. Certificates of the desired form were obtained 
 
 1 Perry, op. cit., vol. ill, pp. 279-280. 
 
 ‘ 
 1 
 j 
 
 
 
CONGRESS AND RELIGION 435 
 
 from the chief officers of Pennsylvania, New York and 
 Virginia. 
 The Pennsylvania certificate is as follows: 
 
 “The Supreme Executive Council of the Commonwealth of Pennsyl- 
 vania, do hereby certify and make known to all whom it may concern, 
 that agreeable to the frame of government and laws of this Common- 
 wealth, — the clergy and others, members of the Church of England 
 in Pennsylvania, are at liberty to take such means as they may think 
 proper for keeping up a succession of religious teachers — Provided only, 
 that the measures they adopt for this purpose do not induce a subjection 
 to any foreign jurisdiction, civil or ecclesiastical.” ! 
 
 The New York certificate, signed by Governor George 
 Clinton read: December 28, 1785: 
 
 “To All to Whom these Presents Shall Come or May Concern. 
 
 It is certified and made known that by the constitution of the said 
 state, it is ordained and declared that the free exercises and enjoyment 
 of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, 
 shall forever be allowed within this state to all mankind, and that there 
 is nothing in the said constitution, or in any of the laws of the said state, 
 to prohibit the clergy and others of the Episcopal Churches or of any 
 other church in the said state, to take such measures as they shall judge 
 proper, for keeping up a succession of religious teachers, Provided, that 
 the means they may adopt for this purpose be not inconsistent with the 
 peace or safety of the state and do not induce a subjection or allegiance 
 to any foreign jurisdiction er power, civil or ecclesiastical whatever.” ” 
 
 At the request of Dr. Griffith, Patrick Henry, the 
 Governor of Virginia, furnished the certificate from that 
 state as follows: June 1, 1786: 
 
 “Tt is certified and made known to all whom it may concern — That 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church is incorporated by an Act of the 
 Legislature of this Commonwealth, for that purpose made and provided: 
 that there is no law existing in the Commonwealth, which in any manner 
 forbids the admission of Bishops, or the exercise of their office; on the 
 contrary, by the 16th Article of the Declaration of Rights, it is provided 
 in the words following, viz., — ‘That religion, or the duty which we owe 
 to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by 
 
 1 Perry, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 281. 
 2 Ibhid., vol. iii, pp. 281-282. 
 
436 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men are 
 equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates 
 of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian 
 forbearance, love and charity towards each other,’ — which said Article 
 is now in full force.’’ 4 
 
 Dr. Provoost wrote to Dr. White, November 7, 1785: 
 
 “The Address was sent by the Packet with recommendatory letters 
 from the President of Congress and John Jay, Esqr., who have interested 
 themselves much in our business.”’ 2 
 
 Mr. Adams wrote to John Jay the following account of 
 his activities in this matter, January 4, 1786: 
 
 “Dear Sir: A day or two after the receipt of your letter of November 
 1, and that of President Lee which came with it, I wrote to the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, by Col. Smith, for an hour when I might have the 
 honor to pay my respects to his Grace, and was answered very politely 
 that he would be glad to have the honor of seeing me next day, between 
 11 and 12. Accordingly I went yesterday, and was very agreeably re- 
 ceived, by a venerable and candid prelate, with whom I had before only 
 exchanged visits of ceremony. 
 
 I told his Grace, that at the desire of two very respectable characters in 
 America, the late President of Congress, and the present Secretary of 
 State for the Department of Foreign Affairs, I had the honor to be the 
 bearer to his Grace, of a letter from a convention of delegates from the 
 Episcopal Churches in most of the Southern States, which had been 
 transmitted to me open, that I might be acquainted with its contents. 
 That in this business, however, I acted in no official character, having no 
 instructions from Congress, or indeed from the convention, but that I 
 thought it most respectful to them, as well as to his Grace, to present 
 the letter in person. The Archbishop answered. that all that he could say 
 at present was that he was himself very well disposed to give the satis- 
 faction desired, for he was by no means one of those, who wished that 
 contentions should be kept up between the two countries, but on the 
 contrary was desirous of doing everything in his power to promote 
 harmony and good humor. 
 
 I then said that if his Grace would take the trouble of reading two 
 letters, from Mr. Lee and Mr. Jay, he would perceive the motives of 
 those gentlemen in sending the letter to my care. I gave him the letters 
 which he read attentively and returned, and added that it was a great 
 satisfaction to him to see, that gentlemen of character and reputation 
 
 1 Perry, op..cit., vol. ili, pp. 281-282. 
 2 Tbid., vol. iii, pp. 283-284. 
 
CONGRESS AND RELIGION 437 
 
 interested themselves in it, for that the Episcopalians in the United 
 States could not have the full and complete enjoyment of their religious 
 liberties without it, and he subjoined that it was a great satisfaction to 
 him to have received this visit from me upon this occasion — and that 
 he would take the liberty to ask me, if it were not an improper question, 
 whether the interposition of the Episcopal bishops would not give un- 
 easiness and dissatisfaction in America. I replied that my answer could 
 be only that of a private citizen, and in that capacity, I had no scruple 
 to say that the people of the United States, in general were for a liberal 
 and generous toleration, I might employ a stronger word and call it a 
 right and the first right of mankind to worship God according to their 
 consciences; and therefore, I could not see any reasonable ground for 
 dissatisfaction, and that I hoped, and believed there would be none of 
 any consequence. 
 
 His Grace was then pleased to ‘say, that religion in all countries, 
 especially in a young one, ought to be attended to, as it was the founda- 
 tion of government. He hoped the characters which should be recom- 
 mended would be good ones. 
 
 I replied, that there were in the churches in America able men, of 
 character altogether irreproachable, and that such and such only, I 
 presumed, would be recommended. I then rose to take my leave, and 
 his Grace, then asked me, if he might be at liberty to mention that I 
 had made him this visit on this occasion. I answered, certainly, if his 
 Grace should judge it proper. Thus, Sir, I have fulfilled my commission 
 and remain as usual, etc.” 
 
 Mr. Adams had previously interested himself in ob- 
 taining ordination for several candidates for orders in the 
 Episcopalian Church who, after the acknowledgment of 
 American independence, had found difficulty in obtaining 
 it from the Bishop of London. Mr. Adams had taken 
 the matter up with the Danish minister, who had suc- 
 ceeded in obtaining a promise from Denmark that they 
 would gladly perform the ceremony. The proceedings in 
 this matter were made known by Mr. Adams in letters to 
 the president of the Continental Congress and to Dr. 
 White.2. And when Doctors White and Provoost reached 
 London for their consecration, they immediately waited 
 
 1 Perry, op. cit., vol. 11, pp. 191-193... 
 2 White, Memoirs of the Church, pp. 20-21; Tiffany, op. cit., p. 351. 
 
438 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 on Mr. Adams, November 29, 1786. The next day he 
 accompanied them to Lambeth and presented them to the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury. Thus we see that though all 
 of it was done unofficially, yet American public officials 
 played a very important part in the diplomatic ceremonies 
 whereby the American Episcopal Church re-established 
 connections with its parent in Europe. 
 
 The North-West Ordinance, July 13, 1787, pledged the 
 government to a permanent support of religion in that 
 territory in the following manner: 
 
 “And for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious 
 liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and 
 constitutions are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the 
 kasis of all laws, constitutions and governments, which forever hereafter 
 shall be formed in the said territory . ae 
 
 It is hereby ordained and declared, . . . . . That the following 
 articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original 
 States and the people and the States in said territory, and forever remain 
 unalterable unless by common consent, to wit: 
 
 Article 1. No person demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly 
 manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or 
 religious sentiments in the said territory. 
 
 Article 3. Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good 
 
 government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of 
 education shall forever be encouraged.” ! 
 
 For a long time it was the prevailing opinion that these 
 articles were perpetually binding on the states formed out 
 of the North-West territory; court decisions, however, 
 have not always held uniformly to this point of view. 
 There should be no doubt that the United States pledged 
 itself and also required the people of this territory to 
 compact to promote “religion, morality and knowledge.’’? 
 
 Congress also proceeded to make reparations to the 
 Christian Indians who had been so grievously maltreated 
 
 1 Journals of Congress, (edition of 1823), vol. iv, p. 753. 
 ? Cornelison, Religion and Civil Government in the United States, p. 113. 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
CONGRESS AND RELIGION 439 
 
 by the federal troops during the Revolution. In 1783 
 Ettwein delivered to Charles Thomson, the secretary of 
 Congress, a memorial, setting forth the claims of these 
 Indians. Ettwein appeared personally before Congress in 
 1785 and in 1786, on the report of a committee consisting 
 of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Symmes and Mr. Manning, to whom 
 was referred a letter from Lieutenant-Colonel Harmar to 
 the Secretary at War, together with another letter from 
 Mr. Ettwein to the Secretary of Congress, both relative 
 to the Moravian Indians, it was resolved: 
 
 “That the Secretary at War give orders to Lieutenant-Colonel Harmar 
 that he signify to the Moravian Indians, lately come from the River 
 Huron to Cayahoga, that it afford pleasure to Congress to hear of their 
 arrival, and that they have permission to return to their former settle- 
 ment on the Muskingum, where they may be assured of the friendship 
 and protection of the United States.”’! And the Board of the Treasury 
 ruled ‘“‘that each of the three towns should be allotted 4,000 acres of land, 
 and that each tract might be surveyed in an oblong square, twice as long 
 
 as broad; and that a free deed without any expense should be given to the 
 society.” ? 
 
 We have noted the extent to which Congress depended 
 upon religion for its sanction, and we have considered the 
 phraseology and content of its more important acts. It 
 is clear that Congress rested heavily upon a religious 
 authority and intended in every way possible to promote 
 as a basis for a well-ordered government a dependence 
 upon Protestant Christianity. There is no evidence that 
 it for a moment contemplated a possible separation of the 
 state and religion. This makes all the more intense the 
 process by which, so soon after the adoption of the Federal 
 Constitution and its new government, separation of 
 church and state became a national characteristic. 
 
 1 Journals of Congress, (Washington edition of 1823,) vol. iv, p. 688. 
 2 Archives of the Moravian Church at Guadenhiitten, Ohio. Supra, p. 163. 
 
CHAPTER XV 
 
 THE CHURCHES AND THE FEDERAL 
 CONSTITUTION 
 
 Enthusiasm for ecclesiastical nationalism helped to 
 develop a zeal for political nationalism on the part of the 
 leaders of the churches of America; many of these leaders 
 found time to engage actively in those political battles 
 which were to create a real government for the state. 
 The championing of the cause of “strong government”’ 
 by such men as Witherspoon, Manning, Rodgers, Muhlen- 
 berg, and the Carrolls did a great deal toward saving the 
 day for American political nationalism. 
 
 Presbyterianism and politics have always been notor- 
 lously intermingled, and it is not surprising that after 
 independence had been won the Presbyterian leaders 
 actively undertook the next logical step, — the creation 
 of a real government for the independent people, and that 
 
 a unified central government. We cannot but repeat that 
 
 the centralized governing body of the Presbyterian Church 
 in America during the colonial period, the Synod of New 
 
 York and Philadelphia, was the most influential of all 
 
 colonial institutions towards the development of a cen- 
 tralized national conscience. 
 
 We have noted that, at the outbreak of the war, one of 
 the first official acts of this body was directed against: that 
 reign of anarchy which the fall of the old government must 
 entail. “We cannot but recommend,” ran their official 
 pastoral letter of 1775, “‘“and urge in the warmest manner, 
 a regard to order and public peace; and as in many places, 
 
 EO 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION 4A : 
 
 during the confusions that prevail, legal proceedings 
 have been difficult, it is hoped, that all persons will con- 
 scientiously pay their just debts, and to the utmost of 
 their power serve one another, so that the evils inseparable 
 from a civil war may not be augmented by wantonness and 
 irregularity.””! 
 
 As a member of Continental Canis: John Witherspoon, 
 the premier of American Presbyterianism, was among the 
 first to realize the defects of the articles and to work for a 
 stronger government. “For what,” said he, “would it 
 signify to risk our possessions and shed our blood to set 
 ourselves free from the encroachments and oppressions 
 of Great Britain, with a certainty, as soon as peace was 
 settled with them, of a more lasting war, a more unnatural, 
 more bloody, and much more hopeless war, among our- 
 selves.” In Congress on the third day of February, 1781, 
 he proposed to clothe that body with authority to regulate 
 commerce and to lay duties upon imported articles. 
 Congress accepted this idea and it was agreed that it was 
 indispensably necessary for the states to vest a power in 
 Congress to levy a duty of five per cent on imports of 
 articles of foreign growth and manufacture. Butas the con- 
 currence of all of the thirteen states was, under the Articles 
 of Confederation, necessary before any act of Congress 
 could become a law, Witherspoon’s bill for strengthening 
 the central government failed of acceptance.? 
 
 Witherspoon was one of the earliest champions of a 
 sound financial policy for the nation. As a member of 
 Congress he opposed every emission of paper currency, 
 after the first or second, and after he had retired from that 
 body, at the instance of his opponents, he published his 
 
 1 Supra., p. 77. 2 Works of Witherspoon, vol. iv, p. 348. 
 3 Bancroft, op. cit., vol. v, p. 453. 
 
442 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 ideas on the nature, value and uses of money, ip, his 
 Essay on Money, as a Medium of commerce, with remarks on 
 the advantages and disadvantages of paper admitted into 
 general circulation, by a citizen of the United States. 
 (Philadelphia, 1786.) His biographer, Breed, says that, 
 “He pronounced inefficacy upon it (the general govern- 
 ment). But he complained and remonstrated in vain.’’! 
 Fruitless as were his concrete proposals, the ideas which 
 they involved prevailed and his championship added 
 great weight to the cause of strong central government. 
 
 Dr. John Rodgers, that powerful leader of New York 
 Presbyterianism, was another of the early champions of a 
 stronger central government. In a sermon preached 
 December 11, 1783, on The Divine Goodness displayed in 
 the American Revolution, he said: 
 
 “The eyes of the nations of the earth, and particularly the eyes of all 
 Europe, are upon these States, to see what use they will make of the 
 great things God has done for us . . . . . . Would you reap the 
 fruits of your toils, your losses ‘and your blood; it is indispensably neces- 
 sary that the federal union of these States be cemented and strengthened — 
 that the honor of the Great Council of the nation be supported, and its salutary 
 measures carried into execution, with unanimity and dispatch without 
 regard to partial views, or local interests — that the credit of this new 
 empire be established, on the principles of strictest justice — and its 
 faith maintained sacred and inviolable, in whatever way, or to whatever 
 description of persons it has been pledged, or may at any time be pledged. 
 Alas! that its glory has suffered so much already, by the failure of our 
 currency. Let us carefully repair this waste of honor, if we cannot repair 
 the waste of property, by the most sacred adherence to our engagements, 
 in all future time. 
 
 You will please to remember farther, that the virtue I recommend, 
 both political and moral, is essential to the preservation of the clear- 
 earned privileges in which we rejoice this day. This is especially the 
 case in a democratic government, and the more democratic the govern- 
 ment, the more necessary.” ? 
 
 1 Breed, Witherspoon, p. 35. 
 2 Rodgers, J., The Divine Goodness displayed in the American Revolution. 
 A Sermon preached December 11, 1783. 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION 443 
 
 As official Presbyteriandom had aided the colonial 
 cause of independence, so it contributed to the formation 
 of that more perfect and perpetual union under the con- 
 stitution. It championed strong government for state as 
 well as for church. Its influence was especially noticeable 
 in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the West. 
 
 Baptists, owing to the nature of their ecclesiastical 
 polity, may object to having a single individual named as 
 their leader. But the very nature of their organization, 
 without centralization, made for greater power in the case 
 of their spiritual and intellectual leader, Dr. James 
 Manning, President of the College of Rhode Island. No 
 other man stood so close to the whole body of American 
 Baptists. He was a member of the Philadelphia Associa- 
 tion as well as of the Warren Association and he regularly 
 attended the annual meetings of both, where he filled at 
 various times the offices of moderator, clerk and preacher. 
 Then too he was seeking the support of all American 
 Baptists for their national college. Dr. Manning’s in- 
 fluence was great in winning Baptists to a support of 
 centralized institutions, — hardly an orthodox Baptist 
 point of view. His chief Baptist opponent was Isaac 
 Backus, a New England exponent of the principle of 
 complete local autonomy,—a Baptist Anti-Federalist. 
 
 In 1786 Dr. Manning accepted an appointment from 
 his state as delegate to Continental Congress. This 
 brought him into direct contact with the national political 
 problem. To his religious co-worker, the Rev. Dr. Smith, 
 he wrote, May 17, 1786: 
 
 “The savages have begun their barbarous depredations on our Western 
 TeOniicrere a ahs 3 The wretched, deranged finances of the Federal 
 Government, will allow us, if disposed, to afford these people but feeble 
 
 aid. 
 
4.44 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 I am treated with respect by Congress and the heads of departments. 
 The present Congress possesses great integrity, and a good share of 
 ability; but for want of more States on the floor the public and important 
 business is from from day to day neglected. We are, however. in daily 
 expectation of a fuller delegation. If personal matters could be so ad- 
 justed that I were not disquieted, I should be very happy in my situation 
 here; for I commonly preach once or twice on Lord’s Day, either in 
 town, on Long or Staten Island, or in the Jerseys.” } 
 
 Dr. Manning’s correspondence with his absent colleague, 
 Brigadier General Nathan Miller, gives an incisive view of 
 the state of Congressional affairs. He wrote, June 7, 1786: 
 
 “Dear Sir: I think if for a moment you would figure to yourself my 
 situation, alone here for more than a month, reduced to the very last 
 guinea and a trifle of change (which is the case); my lodging, washing, 
 barber’s, hatter’s, tailor’s bills, etc., not paid; without the favor of a single 
 line from you advising me whether you mean to come or not, or sending 
 forward the one hundred dollars on hand, which you proposed doing from 
 the election if you were not likely to follow me soon, —if, 1 say, you 
 would but realize my situation, you could not but pity me from your 
 heart. I wrote you long since. I begged an answer from you, one way 
 or another, that I might know what measures to take. But as I am 
 now situated, I can neither stay nor go, except to the new City Hall, if 
 my creditors exact it; and strangers have no more compassion on me than 
 the State that appointed me. I must interest you to forward that sum of 
 one hundred dollars, if no more can be had, by the first opportunity, with 
 a line advising me of your real intentions. Matters highly interesting to 
 this Confederacy, and indeed I think the question whether the Federal 
 Government shall long exist, are now before Congress, and there are 
 not States sufficient to transact the necessary business, as we now have 
 barely nine States on the floor. Our affairs are come very much to a 
 point, and if the States continue to neglect keeping up their delegations in 
 Congress, the Federal Government must 7pso facto dissolve. I have 
 written the Governor on these subjects, and desired his answer, whether 
 we should keep up our delegation, or not. I shall wait till a reasonable 
 time for an answer from you, and quit if I do not receive it. Send me by 
 the post or packets. Frank your letters by the post. I shall impatiently 
 wait the event, and with sentiments of esteem, I have the honor to be 
 sir, ete., etc.” ? 
 
 1Guild, Life, Times and Correspondence of James Manning, and the 
 Early History of Brown University, p. 390. 
 2 Guild, op. cit., pp. 391-392. 
 
 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION 4A5S 
 
 This letter was followed by a much sharper one, June 12: 
 
 “Sir: — Yours of the 27th ult. came to hand two days ago. Am 
 mortified exceedingly that you have not come forward, nor sent on the 
 money on hand; for I am reduced to but a few shillings, and my bills 
 are not paid. My situation — without a colleague, without money, and 
 without any instructions or favorable prospects from the government — 
 is painful. Rhode Island has not many more strides to make to complete 
 her disgrace and ruin too; but that is not all. She is likely to hold a dis- 
 tinguished rank amongst the contributors to the ruin of the Federal 
 Government. Never probably was a full delegation of the States more 
 necessary than now, for you may rest assured that in the opinion of 
 every member of Congress, and in the several departments, things are 
 come to a crisis with the Federal Government. You say you think the 
 present House do not want a Congress; they may, it is more than probable, 
 very soon see the accomplishment of their wishes; for without a speedy re- 
 form in the policy of the States, the Federal Government must be no 
 more. The flagrant violations of the public faith, solemnly plighted, in 
 the late emission of paper money, on the conditions on which it is emitted, 
 is here considered as the completion of our ruin as a nation: but I wrote 
 you before on this subject; it is too painful to repeat. Pray send me on 
 the money on hand, or come and bring it yourself, without loss of time; 
 at least write me by every vessel. With sentiments of esteem, etc., etc.” ! 
 
 Dr. Manning had come to hold a very low regard for the 
 attitude of the Rhode Island legislature towards its fellow 
 states; upon his return to his college duties, we find him 
 writing to the Rev. Dr. Smith, January 18, 1787: 
 
 “The paper money of this State has run down to six for one, notwith- 
 standing which the Legislature continue it as a tender, and means to do 
 so, and to pay off all the State debts with it, be it as bad as it may. At 
 the last session I petitioned them to pay my advances, and the re- 
 mainder of my salary as delegate, amounting to upwards of four hundred 
 dollars. This they offered to do in their paper, but in no other way. 
 Besides, they have ordered all the import orders brought in and ex- 
 changed at the treasury for paper at par, so that I must lose five sixths 
 of my salary so paid to me. A more imfamous set of men under the 
 character of a legislature, never, I believe, disgraced the annals of the 
 world. And there is no prospect of a change for the better . 
 Confusion in State matters seems to increase.” ? 
 
 1 Guild, op. cit., p. 392. 
 2 Tbid., pp. 398-399. 
 
446 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 It was General Varnum, one of Dr. Manning’s gradu- 
 ates from the College of Rhode Island, Class of 1769, who 
 won the first victory in the fight for sound money in that 
 state. Contending for the illegality of the paper currency 
 act, he won the case of Trevett vs. Weeden wherein the 
 Rhode Island court adjudged the amended acts of the 
 state legislature unconstitutional and void. And it could 
 hardly have been in opposition to the wishes of President 
 Manning that Nathaniel Lambert at the Commencement 
 of 1787 delivered the oration, “The Present Appearance 
 of Public Affairs in the United States of America, por- 
 traying the superior advantages to be enjoyed by this 
 country and the public happiness rationally to be ex- 
 pected, in case the States harmoniously agree on the great 
 federal measures necessary for the good of the whole, 
 whereon the convention had been for some time deliber- 
 ating at Philadelphia, and recommending industry, the 
 manufactures of our country and the disuse of foreign 
 goods; and soliciting the fair daughters of America to set 
 the patriotic example by banishing from their dress costly 
 gewgaws and articles of foreign production.” ! Under Dr. 
 Manning Rhode Island College and its alumni stood for 
 a stronger national government. 
 
 In Connecticut the election sermons, delivered before 
 the magistrates and general assembly annually, give a 
 convincing picture of the national political sentiments of 
 Congregational Clergy. Next after Presbyterians, they 
 had had the greatest colonial national experience. For 
 together with their Presbyterian brethren, they had known 
 the power of unity as expressed in the Congregational- 
 Presbyterian Confederation of the years 1766 to 1775. 
 Timothy Dwight began a correspondence looking toward 
 the renewal of this organization in 1788. The General 
 
 1 Guild, op. cit., pp. 400. 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION 447 
 
 Association of Connecticut spoke of this as a “Scheme for 
 Union of the Presbyterians in America.” Dwight’s 
 plan resulted in an agreement between the General 
 Assembly of the Presbyterians and the Connecticut 
 General Association of the Congregationalists to the effect 
 that delegates from each body be sent regularly to the 
 sessions of the other. At the request of the Presbyterians, 
 in 1794 these representatives were given full power of 
 voting in the meetings to which they were accredited. 
 Similar exchange relations were effected between the Pres- 
 byterian General Assembly and the Congregational state 
 organizations in Massachusetts, Vermont, and New 
 Hampshire and continued in force until 1837. The spirit 
 of cooperation and consolidation exhibited in the organ- 
 ization of these national unions was reflected in the election 
 sermons wherein the Congregational clergy advised the 
 state officials as to their politico-religious duties. 
 
 Samuel Wales, D.D., Professor of Divinity in Yale 
 College, delivering the sermon in 1785, spoke on “The 
 Dangers of our National Prosperity.’ In addressing the 
 Clergy present he remarked, “No order of men have 
 equal advantages with you, to warn the people against the 
 encroachment of power on the one hand, and the evils of 
 anarchy on the other; and at the same time to instruct them 
 in all those various duties which they owe to civil rulers and 
 to their country.’’! 
 
 ‘““National Justice’ is the theme of the sermon of 1784 
 by Joseph Huntington, D.D., from the text, “God ruling 
 the Nations for the most glorious end.” Dr. Huntington 
 observed: 
 
 “Your Honors know what demands on this state, and on the nation 
 are justly made, by those who have lent us their livings to support the 
 
 1 Wales, Samuel, D.D., The Dangers of our National Prosperity. A 
 Sermon delivered . ... . May 12th, 1785. Wartford, 1785. 
 
448 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 war, or have served in it. You know likewise what just obligations we 
 are under to nations beyond the water who have lent us their aid. Most 
 certainly it is high time this state, and every state, and all in conjunction, 
 so far as demands are national, make full provision to pay every honest 
 
 debt, and till this is done public guilt lies uponus . . . . . Those who 
 fought our battles for us are our brethren . . . . . To be just, right- 
 eous and faithful is humanity . . . . . A state ora nation ought to be 
 
 as upright and faithful, in dealing with individuals or a community, as 
 one neighbor with another. It lies with your Honors to concert effectual 
 measures, that this state, and, as far as to us appertains, the whole 
 nation may ke so.’’! 
 
 This ideal of “justice” is repeated by Dr. Wales in the 
 election sermon of 1785, mentioned above: 
 
 “ Another particular evil into which we have fallen, and by which we 
 are endangered, is injustice, injustice to the best and most deserving 
 friends of our country. Those certainly are to be esteemed some of the 
 most deserving friends of the country, who have willingly lent her either 
 their lives or their property in the late important struggle. To such 
 persons we are under obligations not only of gratitude but of justice. 
 Their voluntary sacrifices have, through divine blessing, purchased for us 
 our lives and fortunes, our liberties, our independence, our peace, and in 
 a great measure all our temporal happiness . Law 
 
 The least that we can do for them, according to strict justice, is to 
 afford them a reward equal to the full import of our promises. Gladly 
 would I draw a veil over this part of our national conduct, were it 
 possible, and could it be done with propriety. But it cannot be done, it 
 ought not to be attempted. The best and wisest thing which we can 
 now do with regard to this matter, is to reprobate our own conduct and 
 reform it for the future . . . | . Our public injustice is attended with 
 Consequences most deplorable and alarming . . .. . It tends to 
 render public faith contemptible and is highly injurious to our national 
 character. It gives too much countenance to the reproach of our enemies 
 who have stigmatized us with the character of a knavish, faithless people; 
 covering the most iniquitous designs under the garb of liberty and the 
 cloak of religion . Swe 
 
 This public injustice-destroys some of the most important ends of 
 civil society; such as the equal administration of justices) saa 
 tends to destroy all confidence in the Public and to create a distrust 
 of Government . . . . . It isa fatal influence upon the morals of the 
 people at large. 
 
 ‘Huntington, Joseph, D.D., National Justice. A Sermon delivered 
 May 18th, 1874. Wartford, 1784. 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION 449 
 
 By true patriotism I mean a real concern for the welfare of our whole 
 country in general . . . . . There is danger that our union will not 
 be so great as will be necessary for the general good . . . . . In this 
 view we may see how much it concerns us to support our grand bond of 
 union, or, in other words, to maintain the rights of our honorable Congress, 
 and even to enlarge their power, should thi: be proved necessary . . . 
 
 Fellow Citizens and Fellow Christians! Great are the benefits of onl 
 government. But let us not imagine that these benefits are to be expected 
 by us, unless, as a people and as individuals, we are willing to perform 
 those duties which we owe to our civil rulers and to the public in 
 general.”’ ! 
 
 Levi Hart, A. M., Pastor of a Church in Preston, gave 
 the election sermon of 1786 on the subject “A Description 
 of a Good Character Attempted and Applied to the Sub- 
 ject of Jurisdiction and Civil Government.” He observed: 
 
 “Through the good of our God upon us, in the peace of 1783, our 
 freedom and independence are recognized, by the British court . 
 
 We rank among the other nations . . . . . have an immense territory 
 extending through a variety of climates . . . . . a wide field is opened 
 for the cultivation of the arts of peace . . . . . and opportunity for 
 
 perfecting and perpetuating the most happy constitution of government, 
 in the federal union. And, by the divine blessing on proper civil and 
 military discipline, we shall be secure from the attacks, or, at least, 
 from the ravages of an enemy. 
 That we may enjoy the proffered blessings much is yet to be done . 
 
 the various and complicated interests of the state are to be fixed and 
 secured. The energy of the government, enfeebled by the revolution, and 
 other causes, is to be restored . . . . . the principles of union im- 
 proved, andconfirmed . . . . . the public credit established . : 
 and the whole system of the finances placed on a wise and respectable 
 footing.’ 2 
 
 “The Principles of Civil Union and Happiness considered 
 and recommended” was the subject of the 1787 sermon by 
 Elizur Goodrich, D.D., Pastor of the Church of Christ in 
 
 1 Supra., p. 447. 
 
 2 Hart, ee A.M., Description of a Good Character Attempted and 
 Applied to the Subject of Jurisdiction and Civil Government. A Sermon 
 delivered . . . - . May 11th, 1786. Hartford, 1786. 
 
450 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Durham, from the text, “Jerusalem is builded as a city 
 that is compact together,” Psalms cxxii, 3: 
 
 “Its (Jerusalem’s) inhabitants were not a loose, disconnected people, 
 
 but most strictly united, not only among themselves, but with all the 
 tribes of Israel, into a holy nation and commonwealth . . . . . We 
 enjoy all the privileges of a free government, the blessings of the gospel of 
 peace, and the honors of the Church of God. Thisis our Jerusalem . 
 Civil Government . . . . . must have for its foundations the princi- 
 ples of laws, of truth, justice, and righteousness. Civil society can exist 
 no longer than while connected by its laws and constitution . 
 Regular support of authority is the only security a people can have 
 against violence and injustice, feuds and animosities. . . . . . Hence 
 the very end of civil society demands that the orders of government be 
 enforced . . . . . the state defended against all internal and foreign 
 violence. 
 
 I exhort the several orders of men present, that in their several places 
 they use their best and most faithful endeavors for promoting the public 
 peace and prosperity that this and the United States may be ‘builded as a 
 city compact together’. 
 
 Never was union in counsel and in public exertions more necessary in 
 America than at the present day . . . . . If we forget the God of our 
 Salvation, and neglect the means of virtue and religion, with which we are 
 favored above any people on earth, if we are divided and contend about 
 every plan devised for strengthening the national union and restoring 
 the national honor and safety, — if the several states, losing sight of the 
 great end of the confederation, are influenced by mere local and partial 
 motives, and if, in their respective and distinct jurisdictions, they forsake 
 the paths of righteousness, we shall become the scorn and contempt of 
 foreign nations, a prey to every bold invader; or fall by intestine divisions, 
 till we sink into general ruin, and universal wretchedness. 
 
 If the national union by concentrating the wisdom and force of America 
 was the means of our salvation from conquest and slavery —if the 
 existence, liberty and independence of these states, and their national 
 character, importance and glory depend still upon their united firmness 
 and strength — if this union be necessary for the decision of controversies, 
 which might otherwise endanger war among ourselves, and be the only 
 probable means of their safety and defence against foreign nations . 
 
 If these things are true . . . . . certainly there are no objects of 
 greater magnitude and importance, more loudly calling the attention of 
 America, than the national union, the necessity of supporting the 
 national honor, and to give the federal government energy at home and 
 respectability abroad . . . . . I own, Gentlemen, I am concerned for 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION 451 
 
 the national honor and happiness and were I to consult my own feelings, 
 I might hold up to your view, the dying languors of the national union, as 
 forboding ruin, division, or some dreadful convulsion to these states. 
 
 My most sincere prayer is that heaven . . . . . would collect and 
 unite the wisdom and patriotism of America, in the proposed convention 
 of the States, in some just and equal system of federal subordination.” ! 
 
 These excerpts from various election sermons will 
 suffice to illustrate the broad national concern of the 
 Congregational Church in Connecticut. The clergy advise 
 the legislators that stronger federal union is essential to 
 the honor, justice, peace, security, law, order and general 
 welfare of the country. In general we may say that they 
 were federalists. In Massachusetts at the time of Shays’ 
 Rebellion they were able to exert considerable influence 
 on the side of the Government. ? 
 
 We have noted the political activity of certain members 
 representing Presbyterian, Congregational, and Baptist 
 denominations. These sects were perhaps the most 
 openly active in the interest of a stronger central govern- 
 ment. There were good reasons why the clergy of the 
 Quakers, Methodists and Episcopalians would shun active 
 participation in politics. Wilson in his Memovr of the 
 Life of William White, thus summarizes the attitude of 
 that leader of American Episcopalianism. Speaking of the 
 local situation in Pennsylvania in 1776 he remarks: 
 
 “Dr. White’s own sentiments were favoralle to the republican party, 
 though maintained with moderation and calmness. He was independent 
 in forming his political opinions, and reflected upon them for himself. 
 
 And though he freely expressed: them, with his reasons for maintaining 
 them, and also constantly, and from a sense of duty as a citizen, gave his 
 
 ! Goodrich, Elizur, D.D., The Principles of Civil Union and Happiness 
 Considered and Recommended, A Sermon delivered . . . . . May 10th, 
 1787. Hartford, 1787. 
 
 2 Morse, Federal Party in Massachusetts, p. 95; Jefferson's Writings, 
 Ford edition, vol. vili, p. 48; Robinson, Jeffersonian Democracy in New 
 England, in Yale Historical Publications, Miscellany vol. iu. 
 
452 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 vote at elections, he would never condescend to become an active political 
 partisan; much less to make religious profession an instrument of policy. 
 He was decidedly opposed to the combination of religion with politics, 
 and desired that the members of the Episcopal church should harmo- 
 niously unite, in conducting their ecclesiastical affairs, without regard to 
 their differences in political opinions.” ! 
 
 Dr. White leaves us the following letter of January 31, 
 1783, addressed to General Joseph Reed, President of the 
 Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania. 
 
 “TI hope that you will not think me impertinent in requesting your 
 attention to a distinction, which was perhaps obscurely expressed in my 
 last, between your being opposed, on account.of your religious pro- 
 fession, and the opposition on this principle proceeding principally, if not 
 exclusively, from the members of the Episcopal churches: the former, I 
 told you, I had no reason to believe, though it was not my intention to 
 remark on it; and the latter, I was sure, you never meant to assert; the 
 reason for both was my observing among the opponents of the late 
 administration, many members of the Presbyterian church, and my 
 knowing many of its advocates in the churches with which I am con- 
 nected. There never existed a dispute, in this state or province, in which 
 these societies were, as such, in opposition. 
 
 I believe that you abhor the introduction of religious ideas into politics, 
 and can add, with truth, that so do I. No doubt, it is necessary, in 
 public elections, to have a mixture of men of different religious societies; 
 but this is to avert the evil which we abhor; because we know there are 
 men of every society, who, if they had the power, would apoint none but 
 those of their own to places of power and profit . as 
 
 Having always endeavored, in my ecclesiastical employment, to 
 impress the idea of an agreement, in religious concerns, wheré differences 
 exist as to the civil, and having observed our church members of opposite 
 parties harmoniously promoting the good of our communion, it hurt me 
 to see even an apparent imputation of mixing religion and _ politics, 
 applied chiefly, if not only, to this quarter; for the churches which I serve 
 contain a great majority of the Episcopalians in this city; the only part 
 of the state in which any considerable society of them is to be found.” ? 
 
 Following the lead of Bishop White the clergy of the 
 Episcopalian church seem to have avoided politics, but the 
 
 1 Wilson, Memovr of the Life of William White, p. 75. 
 2 Ihd., pp. 76-77. 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION 453 
 
 laity of this denomination more than made up for any 
 inactivity on the part of their religious leaders; Episco- 
 palians were not esteemed non-political beings, as the 
 names of Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Duane, Jay, 
 etc., testify. Even in Connecticut, the historian Robinson 
 finds them to be the balance of power in early politics; 
 he says, “While the dissenters were numerous and active 
 the Federalists had the support of the strong Episcopalian 
 body, and until they had alienated that support were 
 able to hold their ground.”! The Episcopalians of that 
 state were wealthy and of_the same social class as the 
 Congregationalists,? and even the bigoted Dwight can 
 make a complimentary reference to Episcopalian min- 
 isters.? 
 
 The Constitutional Convention which met in Phil- 
 adelphia, May 25 to September 17, 1787, put into form the 
 governmental theories which the new nation was developing. 
 At various times fifty-five delegates were in attendance, 
 though but. thirty-five signed the completed consti- 
 tution. These men were sufficiently representative of the 
 various religious interests of the United States. There was 
 that “religious enthusiast, lately turned Methodist,” 
 Richard Bassett of Delaware, friend of Wesley.* ‘There 
 were the Quakers, Thomas Mifflin of Pennsylvania® 
 and John Dickinson of Delaware.® Catholics were repre- 
 sented by Daniel Carroll of Maryland, brother of Bishop 
 Carroll,?7 and Thomas Fitzsimons of Pennsylvania. 
 Presbyterian influence was strong, as we should expect to 
 
 1 Robinson, op. cit., p. 148. 
 
 2 Greene, Religious Liberty in Connecticut, pp. 405, 417, 441, 444. 
 3 Dwight, Travels, vol. i, p. 177. 
 
 4 Supra., p. 185. 
 
 > Supra., pp. 135-136. 
 
 6 Supra., pp. 134-135. 7 Supra., p. 237. 
 
454 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 find it, keeping in mind the politico-religious activities of 
 their College of New Jersey, Representing that institution 
 were Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, James Madison of 
 Virginia, Edmund Randolph of Virginia, Gunning Bedford 
 of Delaware, William Patterson of New Jersey, William 
 Davie of North Carolina, and Luther Martin of Maryland.! 
 
 Besides these college men were that ex-preacher, Hugh 
 Wilhamson of North Carolina and Governor William 
 Livingston of New Jersey, Thomas McKean and Charles 
 Thomson, both of Pennsylvania.? William C. Houston 
 of Georgia was later to be appointed a professor at the 
 College of New Jersey. 
 
 Of course not all of the students of the College of New 
 Jersey were Presbyterians. James Madison and Edmund 
 Randolph were Episcopalians and Oliver Ellsworth was 
 a Congregationalist. In addition to Madison and Ran- 
 dolph, Episcopalianism was represented by General 
 Washington, John Blair, George Wythe, and George 
 Mason in the Virginia delegation, by C. C. Pinckney of 
 South Carolina and by Charles Pinckney of that same 
 state who had assisted in the formation of the national 
 Episcopalian constitution,? and by Alexander Hamilton 
 of New York, a King’s College man. Perhaps the most 
 learned man of the convention was the Episcopalian 
 Wilham Samuel Johnson of Connecticut. A son of the 
 Reverend Samuel Johnson, the Tory president of King’s 
 College, he had received his education at Yale and Oxford. 
 For a time he had worked for the Society for the Propa- 
 gation of the Gospel. During the war he had remained at 
 home, at its close he became the first president of the 
 re-opened Columbia (King’s) College.4 
 
 SUNT DwOs: SUPT. Demo. 3 Supra., p. 215. 
 4 Beardsley, Life of William Samuel Johnson, Boston, 1876. 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION 455 
 
 Congregationalism was represented by delegates from 
 states as far apart as Georgia and New Hampshire. 
 Abraham Baldwin of Georgia was an alumnus of Yale. 
 New Hampshire was represented by Nicholas Gilman and 
 John Langdon; Massachusetts by Caleb Strong, Elbridge 
 Gerry, Nathaniel Gorham, and Rufus King. Rhode 
 Island, the seat of the Baptist political influence, was 
 unrepresented. The Connecticut delegation was divided 
 between Congregationalism and Episcopalianism. 
 
 Edmund Randolph speaks from the experience of sitting 
 with the representatives of these various sects when, 
 arguing for freedom of religion before the Virginia Con- 
 vention for Ratification, he remarked, ““How many differ- 
 ent sects will be in Congress? We cannot enumerate the 
 sects that may be in Congress.”’! 
 
 Diversity of religious beliefs made the Convention 
 cautious about the introduction of any subject that might 
 tend to raise purely religious controversy, while at the 
 same time it led to the very broadest possible point of view 
 when the question of the politico-religious powers of 
 Congress had to be established. 
 
 Benjamin Franklin nearly precipitated a religious con- 
 troversey when, June 25, he proposed the employment of 
 prayers and a chaplain for the Convention. He made the 
 following plea: 
 
 “Mr. President! The small progress we have made after four weeks’ 
 close attendance and continual reasoning with each other; our different 
 sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as 
 many noes as ayes, is, methinks, a melancholy proof of the imperfection 
 of the human understanding. We indeed seem to feel our want of political 
 wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have 
 
 gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined 
 the different forms of those republics, which having been formed with 
 
 1 Farrand, Records, vol. iii, p. 310. 
 
456 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 the seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer exist. And we have 
 viewed modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Consti- 
 tutions suited to our circumstances. 
 
 In this situation of this Assembly, groping, as it were, in the dark, to 
 find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to 
 us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of 
 humbly applying to the Father of Light to illuminate our understandings. 
 In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible 
 of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. 
 Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. All of 
 us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent 
 instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind 
 Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the 
 means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now for- 
 gotten that powerful friend? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the 
 longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God 
 governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground 
 without His notice, is it probable that an Empire can arise without His 
 aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the 
 Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it’. I firmly believe 
 this, and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed 
 in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. We 
 shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be 
 confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and by-word 
 down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from 
 this unfortunate instance, déspair of establishing governments by human 
 wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. 
 
 I, therefore, beg leave to move that hereafter prayers, imploring the 
 assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in 
 this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one 
 or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service”. ! 
 
 Mr. Sherman seconded Franklin’s motion. Hamilton 
 and several others expressed apprehension that, however 
 proper such a resolution might have been at the beginning 
 of the convention, it might at this late day, in the first 
 place, bring on it some disagreeable animadversions; and in 
 the second place, lead the public to believe that the em- 
 barrassments and dissentions within the convention had 
 suggested the measure. It was answered by Dr. Franklin, 
 Mr. Sherman and others that the past omission of a duty 
 
 ‘ Farrand, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 450-452, 457-458; Schaff, op. cit., p. 423. 
 
 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION 457 
 
 could not justify a further omission; that the rejection of 
 such a proposition would expose the convention to more 
 unpleasant animadversions than the adoption of it; and 
 that the alarm out of doors that might be excited for the 
 state of things within would at least be as likely to do good 
 as ill.t Mr. Williamson observed that the true cause 
 of omission could not be mistaken: the convention had no 
 funds. Mr. Randolph proposed, in order to give a favor- 
 able aspect to the measure, that a sermon be preached at 
 the request of the convention on the fourth of July, the 
 Anniversary of Independence, and thenceforth prayers, 
 etc., be read in the convention every morning. Dr. 
 Franklin seconded this motion. But adjournment was 
 carried without any vote of the motion.? Writing in 
 1834 Madison states: 
 
 “The proposition was received and treated with the respect due to it; 
 but the lapse of time which had preceded, with considerations growing 
 out of it, had the effect of limiting what was done, to a reference of the 
 proposition to a highly respectable committee. The Quaker usage, never 
 discontinued in the State, and the place where the convention held its 
 sittings, might not have been without an influence, as might also the 
 
 discord of religious opinions within the convention, as well as among 
 the clergy of the spot.” ? 
 
 Religious controversy, aside from that just mentioned 
 in connection with the Franklin motion, centered about 
 the question of the oath. The fourteenth resolution of the 
 Virginia plan as introduced in the Committee of the 
 Whole, May 29, was: 
 
 “Resolved, that the Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers within 
 
 the several States ought to be bound by oath to support the Articles of 
 Union.” 4 
 
 1 Farrand, op. cit., Appendix A. ccclv, excv, ecelxvii, ecelxxxix, eccxclli. 
 
 2 Journal of the Federal Convention, James Madison, edition of E. H. 
 Scott, Chicago, 1893, pp. 259-261. 
 
 § Farrand, op. cit., vol. iii, Appendix A, ccexciil. 
 
 cide VOL 1s DD.422, 25, 117. 
 
458 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Debate of this resolution at first assumed an exclusively 
 political nature. June 11, Mr. Luther Martin moved to 
 strike out “within the several states,’’ but his motion was 
 lost seven to four. Thereupon the Committee of the 
 Whole accepted the resolution by a vote of six to five; 
 Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, 
 South Carolina, and Georgia voting against Connecticut, 
 New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware.! 
 July 23, after unanimously inserting ‘“‘and of the national 
 government”’ the resolution passed the convention 
 unanimously. ? 
 
 The distinctively religious phase of this matter ap- 
 peared, August 20, when Mr. Charles Pinckney moved to 
 add “that no religious test or qualification shall ever be 
 annexed to any oath of office under the authority of the 
 United States.”? In his draft of a constitution as sub- 
 mitted to the Convention, May 29, Mr. Pinckney had 
 included a clause (Article vi), “The legislature of the 
 United States shall pass no law on the subject of religion.’’4 
 August 30, Pinckney’s motion came to a vote. It was 
 agreed to insert “or affirmation” after the word “oath,”’ 
 whereupon the whole passed, 8 to 1, with two states divided; 
 North Carolina voted in the negative and Maryland and 
 Connecticut were divided. Mr. Gouverneur Morris and 
 General C. C. Pinckney spoke for the resolution while 
 Mr. Sherman argued against it, “that it was unnecessary, 
 the prevailing liberality being a sufficient security against 
 Lestsane 
 
 1 Farrand, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 194, 203, 204, 207, 227, 231. 
 
 2 Ihid., vol. ii, pp. 87, 133. 
 
 3 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 335. 
 
 * Elliot, Debates, vol. v, supplementary, p. 131, Philadelphia, 1859. 
 ° Farrand, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 461, 468; Elliot, Debates, vol. v, p. 49. 
 
 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION 459 
 
 As it finally emerges from the Committee on Style we 
 find that the Constitution provides, Article vii, section 3: 
 
 “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the 
 members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial 
 officers both of the United States and of the several States, shall be 
 bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no re- 
 ligious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public 
 trust under the Unites States.” ! 
 
 It is quite impossible to give a definite quantitative 
 estimate of the contribution of each religious denomination 
 to the separate clauses of the Constitution. It is clear that 
 the device for the election of the chief executive by an 
 indirect election is derived from the Catholic model, the 
 College of Cardinals. And resemblances are numerous 
 between many of its features and various ecclesiastical 
 institutions. Yet it is not by any copying of external 
 features that the church and state governments of America 
 are most related. Certain great national impulses had 
 arisen in America to give expression to phases of a new 
 order of government. The Presbyterian Synod of Colonial 
 times stood alone as the first expression of this spirit. It 
 developed the method by which, through Republican 
 organization, the collective wisdom of the entire church, 
 lay as well as clerical, could be focused continuously upon 
 church affairs. The Congregational churches of Con- 
 necticut made an approach to this but doubtlessly through 
 their contact with the Presbyterial organization. The task 
 of American constitution-building was to create for all 
 the denominations and for all political units means where- 
 by the common affairs of the various social groups were 
 placed in the hands of conferences, synods, conventions, 
 
 1 Farrand, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 579, 603, 663. 
 
460 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 legislatures, congresses, assemblies, and the like, meeting 
 periodically. This was the American impulse. 
 
 And during the period which we are considering we have 
 found all denominations giving free rein to this impulse. 
 The Presbyterian Synod was debating and amending 
 Witherspoon’s report at the very same time, and in the 
 very same city with the Constitutional Convention. 
 
 The paramount issue in the campaign which ensued 
 for the ratification of the Federal Constitution was the 
 one of personal rights. The Constitution made no pro- 
 vision for guaranteeing individual rights and foremost 
 among such rights demanded was the one of religious 
 freedom. 
 
 The first states to ratify were Delaware, December 7, 
 1787, and Pennsylvania, December 12, the homes of the 
 Quakers and the Presbyterians. McMaster and Stone say 
 of the Pennsylvania convention, 
 
 **Searcely a sect, or creed . . . . . in the Commonwealth, but had at 
 least one representative on the floor of the convention. Some were — 
 Moravians; some were Lutherans; some were Episcopalians: some were 
 Quakers; most were Presbyterians.” ! 
 
 The Lutheran Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg was 
 president of this convention. We find Mr. Wilson, in the 
 convention, replying to the charge “that there is no 
 security for the rights of conscience,’’ with the query, 
 “T ask the honorable gentleman, what part of this system 
 puts it in the power of Congress to attack those rights? 
 When there is no power to attack, it is idle to prepare the 
 means of defence.”’? Ratification was carried with a 
 majority of fifteen votes and the dissenting minority issued 
 
 ' McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, p. 13. 
 ? Elliot, Debates, vol. iii, p. 252. 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION 461 
 
 an address to their constituents, Reasons of Dissent, pro- 
 posing fourteen amendments, the first being, 
 
 “The right of conscience shall be held inviolable, and neither the legis- 
 lative, executive, or judicial powers of the United States, shall have 
 power to alter, abrogate or infringe any part of the constitutions of the 
 several states, which provide for the preservation of liberty in matters of 
 religion.” ! 
 
 Trench Coxe of Pennsylvania was one of the writers in 
 support of the Constitution. He expressed admiration 
 for the religious clause already in the Constitution; 
 
 “No religious test is ever to be required . . . . . The convention 
 has the honor of proposing the first public act, by which any nation has 
 
 ever divested itself of a power, every exercise of which is a trespass on the 
 Majesty of Heaven.” ? 
 
 - Archbishop Carroll claims that the American Catholics 
 concurred with perhaps greater unanimity than any other 
 body of men in recommending and promoting the Con- 
 stitution “from whose influence America anticipates all 
 the blessings of justice, peace, plenty, good order and civil 
 and religious liberty.” Robinson finds that the New 
 England clergy “were, as a rule, strongly in favor of the 
 adoption.’’4 Two small Presbyterian bodies, the Associ- 
 ated Church and the Reformed Presbyterian Church, 
 decided to abstain from voting until the Constitution was 
 so amended as to acknowledge the sovereignty of God 
 
 1 The Reasons of Dissent. Philadelphia, 1787, Reprinted in Carey, 
 American Museum, vol. ii, no. v, pp. 536-553. 
 
 2 Coxe, Trench, An Examination of the Constitution for the United 
 States of America, Submitted to the People by the General Convention, At 
 Philadelphia, the 17th Day of September, 1787, and since adopted and 
 ratified by the Conventions of Eleven States, chosen for the purpose of 
 considering it, being all that have yet decided on the subject. By an American 
 Citizen. Philadelphia, 1788, pp. 15-16. Quoted in Ford, Pamphlets on 
 the Constitution, p. 146. 
 
 30Q’Gorman, The Roman Catholics, pp. 255-256. 
 
 4 Robinson, op. cit., p. 129. 
 
— 462 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 and the subserviency of the state to the kingdom of 
 Christ. ! 
 
 Luther Martin in his Genuine Information, delivered to 
 the Legvslature of the State of Maryland, relating to the 
 proceedings of the General Convention sets forth that: 
 
 “The part of the system which provides, that no religious test shall 
 ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the 
 United States was adopted by a great majority of the Convention and 
 without much debate: however, there were some members so unfashion- 
 able as to think, that a belief in the existence of a Deity, and of a state 
 of future rewards and punishments would be some security for the good 
 conduct of our rulers, and that, in a Christian Country, it would be at 
 least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Chris- 
 
 o 
 
 tianity and downright infidelity or paganism.” ? 
 
 Opposition to the Constitution on religious grounds was 
 strong in New England where Congregationalism was 
 established. In Connecticut we find that at the June 
 Meeting held in West Hartford, in 1788: 
 
 ‘A request from the Association of Windham County was laid before 
 this Association, requesting that some suitable Testimony might be 
 borne against a sinful omission in the late Federal Constitution, in not 
 looking to God for direction, and of omitting the mention of the name 
 
 of God in the Constitution they proposed to the people for their appro- 
 bation.” 3 
 
 This request was laid over and at the September Meeting 
 it was found to be unauthentic.4 In The American 
 Mercury (No. 88), February 11, 1788, we find a letter from 
 William Williams to “A Landholder”’ (Oliver Ellsworth), 
 which reads in part: 
 
 *“When the clause in the 6th article . . . . . came under considera- 
 
 tion, I observed I should have chose that sentence and anything relating 
 to a religious test, had been totally omitted rather than stand as it did, 
 
 1 Schaff, op. cit., p. 433. 
 2 Farrand, op. cit., vol. ili, p. 227. . 
 3 Records of the General Association, p. 126. 4 Ihid., p. 129. 
 
 _ _ ae Ps 
 
 ee 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION 463 
 
 but still more wished something of the kind should have been inserted, 
 but with a reverse sense, so far as to require an explicit acknowledgement 
 of the being of God, his perfections and his providence, and to have been 
 prefixed to, and stand as, the first introductory words of the Constitution, 
 in the following or similar terms, viz. We the people of the United States, 
 in a firm belief of the being and perfections of the one living and true God, the 
 creator and supreme Governor of the world, in his universal providence and 
 the authority of his laws; that he will require of all moral agents an account of 
 their conduct; that all rightful powers among men are ordained of, and 
 mediately derived from God; therefore in a dependence on his blessing and 
 acknowledgement of his efficient protection in establishing our Independence, 
 whereby it is become necessary to agree upon and settle a Constitution of 
 federal government for ourselves, . . . . . do ordain, ete. 
 
 that no other religious test should eyer be required.” ! 
 
 Oliver Ellsworth, later Chief Justice of the United 
 States, gave in The Connecticut Courant, December 17, 
 1787 (Number 1195), under the pseudonym “The Land- 
 holder,” the following discussion of the legal position of 
 the religious clause: 
 
 *“Some very worthy persons, who have not had great advantages for 
 information, have objected against that clause in the Constitution 
 which provides, that ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualifi- 
 cation to any office or public trust under the United States. They have 
 been afraid that this clause is unfavorable to religion. But my country- 
 men, the sole purpose and effect of it is to exclude persecution, and to 
 secure to you the important right of religious liberty. We are almost the 
 only people in the world, who have a full enjoyment of this important 
 right of human nature. In our country every man has a right to worship 
 God in that way which is most agreeable to his conscience. If he be a 
 good and peaceable person he is liable to no penalties or incapacities on 
 account of his religious sentiments; or in other words, he is not subject 
 to persecution. 
 
 But in other parts of the world, it has been, and still is, far different . 
 
 A religious test is an act to be done, or profession to be made, relating 
 to religion (such as partaking of the sacrament according to certain 
 rites and forms, or declaring one’s belief of certain doctrines) for the 
 purpose of determining whether his religious opinions are such, that he is 
 admissible to a public office. A test in favor of any one denomination of 
 
 1 Ford, Essays on the Constitution, pp. 207-209; Connecticut Courant, 
 February 4, 1788 (Number 1202). 
 
464 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Christians would be to the last degree absurd in the United States. If it 
 were in favor of either Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, 
 Baptists, or Quakers, it would incapacitate more than three-fourths of 
 the American citizens for any public office; and thus degrade them from 
 the rank of freemen. There need be no argument to prove that the 
 majority of our citizens would never submit to this indignity. 
 
 If any test-act were to be made, perhaps the least exceptionable would 
 be one requiring all persons appointed to office to declare, at the time of 
 their admisvzion, their belief in the being of God, and in the divine author- 
 ity of the Scriptures. In favor of such a test it may be said, that one who 
 believes these great truths will not be so likely to violate his obligations to 
 his country, as one who disbelieves them; we may have greater confidence 
 in his integrity. But, I answer: His making a declaration of such a 
 belief is no security at all. For suppose him to be an unprincipled man, 
 who believes neither the word nor the being of God; and to be governed 
 merely by selfish motives; how easy it is for him to dissemble! how easy for 
 him to make a public declaration of his belief in the creed which the law 
 prescribes; and excuse himself by calling it a mere formality. This is the 
 case with the test-laws and creeds in England... . . In short, 
 test-laws are utterly ineffectual; they are no security at all; because men 
 of loose principles will, by an external compliance, evade them. If they 
 exclude any persons, it will be honest men, men of principle, who will 
 rather suffer an injury, than act contrary to the dictates of their con- 
 sciences. If we mean to have those appointed to public office, who are 
 sincere friends to religion, we, the people who appoint them, must take 
 care to choose such characters; and not rely upon such cob-web barriers as 
 test-laws are. 
 
 But to come, to the true principle by which this question ought to be 
 determined; the business of civil government is to protect the citizen in 
 his rights, to defend the community from hostile powers, and to promote 
 the general welfare. Civil government has no business to meddle with 
 the private opinions of the people. If I demean myself as a good citizen, 
 I am accountable, not to man, but to God, for the religious opinions 
 which I embrace, and the manner in which I worship the Supreme 
 Being. If such had been the universal sentiments of mankind, and they 
 had acted accordingly, persecution, the bane of truth and nurse of error, 
 with her bloody axe and flaming hand, would never have turned so 
 great a part of the world into a field of blood. 
 
 But while I assert the rights of religious liberty, I would not deny that 
 the civil power has a right, in some cases, to interfere in matters of religion. 
 It has a right to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; 
 because the open practice of these is of evil example and detriment. 
 For this reason, I heartily approve of our laws against drunkness, profane 
 
 ——— 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION 465 
 
 g 
 
 swearing, blasphemy, and professed atheism. But in this state, we have 
 never thought it expedient to adopt a test-law; and yet I sincerely 
 believe we have as great a proportion of religion and morality, as they 
 have in England, where every person who holds a public office, must 
 either be a saint by law, or a hypocrite by practice. A test-law is the 
 parent of hypocrisy, and the off-spring of error and the spirit of persecu- 
 tion. Legislatures have no right to set up an inquisition, and examine 
 into the private opinions of men. Test-laws are useless and ineffectual, 
 unjust and tyrannical; therefore the Convention have done wisely in 
 excluding this engine of persecution, and providing that no religious test 
 shall ever be required.” ! 
 
 In Connecticut, as we see, the absence of a test-law 
 seems to have furnished a_serious argument against the 
 Constitution. Oliver Wolcott, in the ratifying convention 
 argued: 
 
 “T do not see the necessity of such a test as some gentlemen wish for. 
 The Constitution enjoins an oath upon all the officers of the United 
 States. This is a direct appeal to that God who is the avenger of per- 
 jury. Such an appeal to him is a full acknowledgment of His Being and 
 Providence. An acknowledgment of these great truths is all that the 
 gentleman contends for. For myself, I should be content either with or 
 without that clause in the Constitution which excludes test laws. Knowl- 
 edge and liberty are so prevalent in this country, that I do not believe 
 that the United States would ever be disposed to establish one religious 
 sect, and lay all others under legal disabilities. But as we know not what 
 may take place hereafter, and any such test would be exceedingly in- 
 jurious to the rights of free citizens, I cannot think it altogether superflu- 
 ous to have added a clause, which secures us from the possibility of such 
 oppression.” ? 
 
 Connecticut ratified the Constitution January 9, 1788, 
 being the fifth state to do so. 
 
 In Massachusetts the religious clause evoked even more 
 discussion than in Connecticut, so much so that it attracted 
 Dr. Manning from Rhode Island to the convention and 
 
 1 The Connecticut Courant, Monday, Dec. 17, 1787, “To the Land- 
 holders and Farmers” by “A Landholder”’ (Oliver Ellsworth). Quoted 
 in Ford, Essays on the Constitution, pp. 167-171. 
 
 2 Elliot, Debates, Philadelphia, 1859, vol. 11, p. 202. 
 
466 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 his influence was necessary in order to secure that slim 
 majority by which ratification was finally secured. 
 
 Here, too, the liberalism of the clause was attacked. 
 Major Lusk “‘concluded by saying, that he shuddered at 
 the idea that Roman Catholics, Papists and Pagans might 
 be introduced into offite; and that Popery and the In- 
 quisition may be established in America.”! While 
 Colonel Jones “thought, that the rulers ought to believe 
 in God or Christ; and that, however a test may be prosti- 
 tuted in England, yet he thought if our public men were to 
 be of those who had a good standing in the Church, it 
 would be happy for the United States; and that a person 
 could not be a good man without being a good Christian.’’2 
 
 Mr. Isaac Backus, though opposed to ratification, yet 
 spoke in favor of the religious clause: 
 
 “T shall begin with the exclusion of any religious test. Many appear 
 to be much concerned about it, but nothing is more evident, both in 
 reason and the Holy Scriptures, than that religion is ever a matter be- 
 tween God and individuals, and therefore no man or men can impose 
 any religious test without invading the essential prerogatives of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ . . . . . Let the history of all nations be searched 
 from that day (Constantine’s) to this, and it will appear that the im- 
 posing of religious tests hath been the greatest engine of tyranny in the 
 world. And I rejoice to see so many gentlemen who are now giving in 
 their rights of conscience in this great and important matter. Some 
 serious minds discover a concern lest if all religious tests be excluded, the 
 Congress would hereafter establish Popery or some other tyrannical way 
 
 of worship. But it is most certain that no such way of worship can be 
 established without any religious test.’’ 3 
 
 Mr. Parsons, of Newburyport, was among those who 
 gave in their testimony for the clause. He observed: 
 
 “It has been objected that the Constitution provides no religious test 
 by oath, and we may have in power unprincipled men, atheists and 
 
 1 Elliot, Debates, vol. ii, p. 148. 
 2 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 119. 
 3 [bid., vol. ii, pp. 148-149. 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION 467 
 
 pagans. No man can wish more ardently than I do that all our public 
 offices may be filled by men who fear God and hate wickedness, but it 
 must remain with the electors to give the government this security. An 
 oath will not do it. Will an unprincipled man be entangled by an oath? 
 Will an atheist or a pagan dread the vengeance of the Christian God, a 
 Being in his opinion the creature of fancy and credulity? It is a solecism 
 in expression. No man is so illiberal as to wish the confining places of 
 honor or profit to any one sect of Christians, but what security is it to the 
 government that every public officer shall swear that he is a Christian? 
 
 _ Sir, the only evidence we can have of the sincerity of a man’s 
 religion is a good life, and I trust that such evidence will be required 
 of every candidate by every elector.” ! 
 
 The Reverend Mr. Shute spoke as follows for the clause: 
 
 “To establish a religious test as a qualification for offices in the pro- 
 posed Federal Constitution it appears to me, sir, would be attended with 
 injurious consequences to some individuals, and with no advantage to the 
 whole. 
 
 By the injurious consequences to individuals, I mean, that some who in 
 every other respect are qualified to fill some important post in the 
 government, will be excluded by their not being able to stand the re- 
 ligious test; which I take to be a privation of part of their civil rights. 
 
 Nor is there to me any conceivable advantage, sir, that would result to 
 the whole from such a test. Unprincipled and dishonest men will not 
 hesitate to subscribe to anything, that may open the way for their ad- 
 vancement, and put them into a situation the better to execute their 
 base and iniquitous designs. Honest men alone, therefore, however well 
 qualified to serve the public, would be excluded by it, and their country 
 be deprived of the benefit of their abilities. 
 
 In this great and extensive empire, there is and will be a great variety 
 of sentiments in religion among its inhabitants. Upon the plan of a 
 religious test, the question I think must be, who shall be excluded from 
 national trusts? Whatever answer bigotry may suggest, the dictates 
 of candor and equity, I conceive, will be none. 
 
 Far from limiting my charity and confidence to men of my own denom- 
 ination in religion, I suppose, and I believe, sir, that there are worthy 
 characters among men of every denomination — among the Quakers — 
 the Baptists —the Church of England—the Papists—and even 
 among those who have no other guide, in the way to virtue and heaven, 
 than the dictates of natural religion. 
 
 The presumption is, that the eyes of the people will be upon the faith- 
 ful in the land, and, from a regard to their own safety, they will choose 
 
 1 Elliot, Debates, vol. 11, p. 90. 
 
468 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 for their rulers men of known abilities — of known probity — of good 
 moral characters . . . . . I know of no reason, why men of such a 
 character, in a community, of whatever denomination, in religion, 
 coeterts paribus, with other suitable qualifications, should not be ac- 
 ceptable to the people, and why they may not be employed by them with 
 safety and advantage in the important offices of government. The ex- 
 clusion of a religious test in the Proposed Constitution, therefore, clearly 
 appears to me, sir, to be in favor of its adoption.” ! 
 
 The Reverend Mr. Payson, of the Congregational 
 Church, said: 
 
 “The great object of religion being God supreme, and the seat of 
 religion in man being the heart or conscience, that is the reason God has 
 given us, employed on our moral actions, in their most important con- 
 sequences, as related to the tribunal of God; hence, I infer, that God 
 alone is the God of conscience, and, consequently, attempts to erect 
 human tribunals for the consciences of men, are impious encroachments 
 upon the prerogatives of God. Upon these principles, had there been 
 a religious test, as a qualification for office, it would, in my opinion, have 
 been a great blemish upon the instrument.” ? 
 
 Twelve of the four hundred delegates to this convention 
 were Baptists. Dr. Manning was so interested in the issue 
 that he came to the convention and labored for ratification. 
 He wrote, February 11, 1788: 
 
 **T felt so deeply interested in the adoption of the new Federal Consti- 
 tution by your state, that I attended the debates in convention more than 
 a fortnight . . . . . I considered Massachusetts the hinge on which 
 the whole must turn, and am happy in congratulating you on the favor- 
 
 able issue of their deliberations. I am mortified to find Father (Noah) 
 Alden among the nays.” ’ 
 
 Isaac Backus, as well as Father Alden, were Baptists who 
 remained Bitter-enders in their opposition to the Con- 
 stitution. But other Baptists like the influential Stillman 
 of Boston supported it. Ratification carried by the vote 
 of 187 to 168. The Governor, therefore, asked Dr. 
 
 1 Elliot, Debates, vol. ii, pp. 118-119. 
 
 2 Ihid., vol. 11, p. 120. 
 3 Guild, op. cit., p. 406. 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION 469 
 
 Manning to “close the solemn convocation with thanks- 
 giving and prayer,”! and Dr. Waterhouse, who dined in 
 a large company after the adjournment, said “‘the praise 
 of the Reverend Dr. Manning was in every mouth. 
 Nothing but the popularity of Dr. Stillman prevented the 
 
 rich men of Boston from building a church for Dr. 
 
 Manning’s acceptance.’ 
 
 With the possible exception of his fellow Baptist, John 
 Brown, Dr. Manning was the strongest single influence in 
 causing a final acceptance of the Federal Constitution by 
 the State of Rhode Island. That state at first rejected the 
 instrument and Manning wrote to the Reverend Dr. Smith 
 June 10, 1788: 
 
 ‘Our wicked State has rejected the Constitution by the town meetings 
 to which the Legislature sent it, instead of complying with the recom- 
 mendation of the General Convention. Our rulers are deliberately wicked 
 but the people of some of the towns begin to wake up since South Caro- 
 lina has adopted the new Constitution, and Massachusetts has so 
 effectually crushed Shayism.” # 
 
 Providence and Dr. Manning finally led the way to 
 ratification: 
 
 “At an adjourned meeting of the town (Providence) on Thursday 
 (August 27, 1789), a committee, that had been appointed on Tuesday for 
 the purpose, reported a draft of a petition to be presented to the Congress 
 of the United States, setting forth the distressed situation of this State, 
 the probability of our soon joining the Union, and praying that vessels 
 belonging to our citizens may be exempted from foreign tonnage and 
 goods shipped from this State from foreign duties, for such time and under 
 such regulations and restrictions as Congress in their wisdom shall think 
 proper. 
 
 This petition was unanimously voted: and after having been signed by 
 the moderator and town clerk, the Rev. Dr. Manning and Benjamin 
 Bourne, Esq., were appointed to proceed to New York and present the 
 same.” 4 
 
 1 Burrage, op. cit., pp. 121-122. 3 Iind., p. 411. 
 2 Guild, op. cit., p. 405. 4 Tbid., p. 424. 
 
470 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 President Manning had been one of the committee to 
 draft this petition. ! 
 
 May 24, 1790, a State Convention on the Federal 
 Constitution was held at Newport, where, after three 
 days of debate in the Second Baptist Church, adoption 
 was carried by a vote of thirty-four to thirty-two. In 
 August of that year President Washington visited Brown 
 University and publicly expressed his appreciation of the 
 zeal of that corporation “‘for the success of the cause of 
 your country. ’’2 
 
 New Hampshire, the ninth state to ratify, did so, June 
 21, 1788, and proposed twelve amendments, the eleventh 
 of which read: 
 
 “Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the 
 rights of conscience.” 3 
 
 Perhaps the fight over the religious clause was fiercest 
 in Virginia where so much had already been done for 
 religious liberty. Champions of religious freedom did not 
 wish to see their gains lost through federal interference 
 and Patrick Henry, George Mason, and others knew just 
 how to take advantage of this sentiment. Nine states 
 had ratified when the Virginia Convention met, June 22, 
 1788. Ratification was voted, June 25. 
 
 When the General Committee of the Baptists met at 
 Wilham’s Meeting-house, Goochland County, March 7, 
 1788, it was considered: 
 
 “Whether the new Federal Constitution, which had now lately made 
 its appearance in public, made sufficient provision for the secure enjoy- 
 
 ment of religious liberty; on which it was agreed unanimously that," in 
 the opinion of the General Committee, it did not.” 4 
 
 1 Staples, Annals of Providence. 
 
 * Guild, op. cit., p. 435. 
 
 * Provincial and State Papers, New Hampshire, vol. x, p. 17. 
 4 Semple, op. cit., p. 76. 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION A471 
 
 Accordingly they resolved to oppose ratification and Elder 
 John Leland, the most popular Baptist in Virginia, was 
 nominated as a delegate from Orange County, — the home 
 county of James Madison. Madison’s father wrote his 
 son, “The Baptists are now generally opposed to it (the 
 Constitution).”! On the day of election Elder Leland 
 withdrew in favor of Madison, a fact of great significance 
 for the cause of ratification and to be accounted for, 
 doubtlessly, by Madison’s well-known championship of 
 religious liberty. 
 
 James Madison wrote to Edmund Randolph, April 10, 
 1788: i 
 
 “As to the religious test, I should conceive that it can imply at most 
 nothing more than that without that exception, a power would have 
 
 been given to impose an oath involving a religious test as a qualification 
 for office.” ? 
 
 Randolph had at first felt that dangerous powers re- 
 specting religion had been conferred upon Congress by the 
 Constitution. But he altered his opinion and on June 
 10, 1788, in the Virginia Convention, he announced this: 
 
 “Freedom of religion is said to be in danger. I will candidly say, I 
 once thought that it was, and felt great repugnance to the Constitution for 
 that reason. Jam willing to acknowledge my apprehensions removed — 
 and I will inform you by what process of reasoning J did remove them. 
 The Constitution provides, that ‘The Senators and Representatives . 
 shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; 
 but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office 
 or public trust under the United States.’ It has been said, that if the 
 exclusion of the religious test were an exception from the general power 
 of Congress, the power over religion would remain. I inform those who 
 are of this opinion, that no power is given expressly to Congress over 
 religion. The senators and representatives, members of the state 
 
 1 Writings of James Madison, Hunt edition, vol. v., p. 105; James, op. 
 Cie Dm e 
 
 2 Farrand, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 297; Robertson, Debates of the Convention 
 of Virginia, 1788, (second edition, 1805), pp. 151-152. 
 
472 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 legislatures and executive and judicial officers, are bound by oath, or 
 affirmation, to support this Constitution. This only binds them to 
 support it in the exercise of the powers constitutionally given it. The 
 exclusion of a religious test is an exception from this general provision, 
 with respect to oaths or affirmations. Although officers, etc., are to 
 swear that they will support this Constitution, yet they are not bound to 
 support one mode of worship, or to adhere to one particular sect. It 
 puts all sects on the same footing. A man of abilities and character, of 
 any sect, whatever, may be admitted to any office or public trust under 
 the United States. I am a friend to a variety of sects, because they keep 
 one another in order. How many different sects are we composed of 
 throughout the United States? How many different sects will be in 
 Congress? We cannot enumerate the sects that may be in Congress. 
 And there are so many now in the United States, that they will prevent 
 the establishment of any one sect in prejudice to the rest, and will 
 forever oppose all attempts to infringe religious liberty. If such an 
 attempt be made, will not the alarm be sounded throughout America? 
 If Congress be as wicked as we are foretold they will, they would not run 
 the risk of exciting the resentment of all, or most of the religious sects of 
 America.” ! 
 
 Such was the judicious opinion of that Randolph whom 
 President Washington was to name as the first attorney- 
 general of the United States. 
 
 But Jefferson was writing from abroad, February 7, 
 1788, urging a declaration of rights which shall stipulate 
 freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of com- 
 merce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, etc., 
 etc. And in the convention Patrick Henry, who well 
 knew how to utilize public sentiment to the limit, de- 
 claimed: 
 
 “That sacred and lovely thing, religion, ought not to rest on the in- 
 genuity of logical deduction. Holy religion, Sir, will be prostituted to the 
 lowest purposes of human policy. What has been more productive of 
 mischief among mankind than religious disputes? Then here, Sir, is a 
 
 foundation for such disputes, when it required learning and _ logical 
 deduction to perceive that religious liberty is secure.” 2 
 
 1 Farrand, op. cit., vol. iii, p. 310. 
 * Elliot, Debates, vol. iii, p. 318. 
 
 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION 473 
 
 Mr. Madison replied: 
 
 “The honorable member has introduced the subject of religion. 
 Religion is not guarded —there is no bill of rights declaring that 
 religion should be secure. Is a bill of rights a security for religion? 
 Would the bill of rights, in this state, exempt the people from paying for 
 the support of one particular sect, if such sect were exclusively established 
 by law? If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a 
 poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost 
 freedom of religion. This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects, 
 which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for 
 religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of 
 sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute 
 the rest. Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people 
 are decidedly against any establishment — I believe it to be so in the 
 other states. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to 
 intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most 
 flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, 
 that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this 
 security should be depended upon from the general legislature than from 
 one particular state. A particular state might concur in one religious 
 project. But the United States abound in such a variety of sects, that it 
 is a strong security against religious persecution, and is sufficient to 
 authorize a conclusion, that no one sect will ever be able to outnumber 
 or depress the rest . a 
 
 I confess to you, Sir, were uniformity of religion to be introduced by 
 this system, it would, in my opinion, be ineligible; but I have no reason 
 to conclude, that uniformity of government will produce that of religion. 
 This subject is, for the honor of America, perfectly free and unshackled. 
 The government has no jurisdiction over it — the least reflection will 
 convince us, there is no danger to be feared on this ground.” ! 
 
 Virginia accompanied its ratification with a list of 
 proposed amendments and a Bill of Rights, Number 20 of 
 which read (see Article 16 of the Virginia Bill of Rights) : 
 
 “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the 
 manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, 
 not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural 
 and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion according to the 
 dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society 
 ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.” ? 
 
 * Elliot, op. cit., vol. ili, pp. 93, 330. __ 
 * Supra., p. 376; Elliot, op. cit., vol. i, p. 659. 
 
A474 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 This same declaration regarding religion was adopted by 
 North Carolina when she ratified, November 21, 1789, 
 after a most protracted debate relative to “the last clause 
 of the sixth article.” 
 
 Mr. Henry Abbot voiced the fear of many as follows: 
 
 “Some are afraid, Mr. Chairman, that should the Constitution be 
 received, they would be deprived of the privilege of worshipping God 
 according to their consciences, which would be taking from them a 
 benefit they enjoy under the present Constitution. They wish to know 
 if their religious and civil liberties be secured under this system, or 
 whether the General Government may not make laws infringing their 
 religious liberties. The worthy member from Edenton mentioned sundry 
 political reasons why treaties should be the supreme law of the land. 
 It is feared by some people, that by the power of making treaties, they 
 might make a treaty engaging with foreign powers to adopt the Roman 
 Catholic religion in the United States, which would prevent the people 
 from worshipping God according to their own consciences. — The worthy 
 member from Halifax has in some measure satisfied my mind on this 
 subject. But others may be dissatisfied. Many wish to know what 
 religion shall be established. I believe a majority of the community are 
 Presbyterians. I am for my part against any exclusive establishment, 
 but if there were any, I would prefer the Episcopal. The exclusion of 
 religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. They sup- 
 pose that if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists and 
 Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and 
 representatives might all be pagans. Every person employed by the 
 general and state governments is to take an oath to support the former. 
 Some are desirous to know how, and by whom they are to swear, since no 
 religious tests are required — Whether they are to swear by Jupiter, 
 
 Juno, Minerva, Proserpine, or Pluto . . . . . I would be glad some 
 gentleman would endeavor to obviate these objections, in order to satisfy 
 the religious ‘part of the society. . . . .°. v774 
 
 Mr. Iredell replied at length: 
 
 “Under the color of religious tests the utmost cruelties have been 
 exercised . . . . . America has set an example to mankind to think 
 more modestly and reasonably; that a man may be of different religious 
 sentiments from our own, without being a bad member of society . 
 
 I should be sorry to find, when examples of toleration are set even by 
 
 1 Elliot, Debates, vol. iv, pp. 189-190. 
 
 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION AV5 
 
 arbitrary governments, that this country, so impressed with the highest 
 sense of liberty, should adopt principles on this subject, that are narrow 
 and illiberal. I consider the clause under consideration as one of the 
 strongest proofs that could be adduced, that it was the intention of those 
 who formed this system, to establish a general religious liberty in America 
 tee . I confess the restriction on the power of congress in this 
 particular has my hearty approbation. They certainly have no authority 
 to interfere in the establishment of any religion whatsoever and I am 
 astonished that any gentleman should conceive they have. Is there any 
 power given to congress in matters of religion? Can they pass a single 
 act to impair our religious liberties? If they could it would be a just 
 cause of alarm. If the could, Sir, no man would have more horror 
 against it than myself. Happily no sect here is superior to another. 
 As long as this is the case, we shall be free from those persecutions and 
 distractions with which other countries have been torn. If any future 
 congress should pass an act concerning the religion of the country, it 
 would be an act which they are not authorized to pass by the Constitu- 
 tion, and which the people would not obey. Every one would ask, 
 ‘Who authorized the Government to pass such an act? It is not war- 
 ranted by the Constitution, and is a barefaced usurpation.’ The power 
 to make treaties can never be supposed to include a right to establish 
 foreign religion among ourselves, though it might authorize a toleration 
 of others. 
 
 But it is objected, that the people of America may perhaps, choose 
 representatives who have no religion at all, and that Pagans and Ma- 
 hometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to ex- 
 clude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious 
 freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for. — This is the founda- 
 tion on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. 
 The people in power were always in the right, and everybody else wrong. 
 If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened. 
 Nor would it answer the purpose, for the worst part of the excluded sects 
 would comply with the test, and the best man only be kept out of our 
 counsels. — But it is never to be supposed that the people of America 
 will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a 
 religion materially different from their own. It would be happy for 
 mankind if religion was permitted to take its own course, and maintain 
 itself by the excellence of its own doctrines. The divine Author of our 
 religion never wished for its support by worldly Authority. pe 
 It made much greater progress for itself, than when supported by the 
 greatest authority upon earth. 
 
 It has been asked . . . . . what is the meaning of that part, where 
 it is said, that the United States shall guarantee to every state in the 
 
476 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 union a republican form of government, and why a guarantee of religious 
 freedom was not included . . .. . Had Congress undertaken to 
 guarantee religious freedom, or any particular species of it, they would 
 then have had a pretence to interfere in a subject they have nothing to do 
 with. Each state, so far as the clause in question does not interfere, 
 must be left to the operation of its own principles. 
 
 Bs . I met by accident with a pamphlet this morning, in which 
 the author states as a very Serious danger, that the Pope of Rome might 
 be elected president. I confess that this never struck me before, and if 
 the author had read all the qualifications of a president perhaps his fears 
 might have been quieted . eines eis to treat such 
 idle fears with any degree of oravity 
 
 . ..,. . This article is calculated ee secure universal religious 
 liberty, by eating all sects on a level, the only way to prevent persecu- 
 tion. I thought nobody would have objected to this clause, which de- 
 serves in my opinion the highest approbation. This country has already 
 had the honor of setting an example of civil freedom, and I trust it will 
 likewise have the honor of teaching the rest of the world the way to 
 
 religious freedom also.” ! 
 
 In continuing his exposition of the clause, Iredell said: 
 
 “Tt has been universally considered, that in administering an oath, it is 
 only necessary to enquire if the person who is to take it, believes in a 
 Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments . 
 
 We may, I think, very safely leave religion to itself; and as to the form 
 of the oath, I think this may well be trusted to the General Government, 
 to be applied on the principles I have mentioned.” 2 
 
 Governor Johnston expressed great astonishment that 
 the people were alarmed on the subject of religion. This 
 he said, must have arisen from the great pains which had 
 been taken to prejudice men’s minds against the Constitu- 
 tion. He begged leave to add the following observations: 
 
 “When I heard there were apprehensions that the pope of Rome could 
 be the president of the United States, I was greatly astonished. 
 It appears to me that it would have been dangerous, if Gone contd 
 intermeddle with the subject of religion . . . . . When any attempt 
 is made by any government to restrain men’s peNiscicnees no good con- 
 
 sequences can possibly follow . 
 
 1 Elliot, op. cit., vol. iv, pp. 195-196. 
 2 Thid., vol. v, 197-198. 
 
 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION 477 
 
 But great apprehensions have been raised as to the influence of the 
 Eastern states. When you attend to circumstances, this will have no 
 weight. I know but two or three states where there is the least chance 
 of establishing any particular religion. The people of Massachusetts and 
 Connecticut are mostly Presbyterians. In every other state, the people 
 are divided into a great number of sects. In Rhode Island, the tenets of 
 the Baptists I believe prevail. In New York they are divided very much; 
 the most numerous are the Episcopalians and the Baptists. In New 
 Jersey they are as much divided as we are. In Pennsylvania, if any sect 
 prevails more than others, it is that of the Quakers. In Maryland the 
 Episcopalians are most numerous, though there are other sects. In 
 Virginia there are many sects; you all know what their religious senti- 
 ments are. So in all the Southern States they differ; as also in New 
 Hampshire. I hope therefore that the gentlemen will see there is no 
 cause of fear that any one religion’Shall be exclusively established.” } 
 
 Mr. Caldwell thought some danger might arise. He 
 imagined the clause might be objected to in a political 
 as well as in a religious way. He remarked: 
 
 “In the first place there was an invitation for Jews and Pagans of 
 every kind to come among us. At some future period this might endanger 
 the character of the United States . . . . . Even those who do not 
 regard religion acknowledge that the Christian religion is best calculated 
 of all religions to make good members of society, on account of its 
 morality. I think that, in a political view, those gentlemen who formed 
 this Constitution, should not have given this invitation to Jews and 
 Heathens. All those who have any religion are against the emigration of 
 those people from the Eastern Hemisphere.” ” 
 
 Mr. Spencer spoke as follows: 
 
 “He thought that no one particular religion should be established. 
 Religious tests have been the foundation of persecutions in all countries 
 . It is feared that persons of bad principles, deists, atheists, 
 
 etc., may come into this country, and there is nothing to restrain them 
 from being eligible to offices. He asked if it was reasonable to suppose 
 that the people would choose men without regarding their character. 
 Tests would not keep unscrupulous men out of office but would exclude 
 some truly conscientious and religious men. This would be a great 
 cause of objection to a religious test. But in this case as there is not a 
 
 1 Elliot, op. cit., vol. ili, pp. 175-176. 
 2 Ilid., vol. iv, pp. 198-199. 
 
478 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 religious test required, it leaves religion on the solid foundation of its 
 own inherent validity, without any connection with temporal authority, 
 and no kind of oppression can take place... . . He could not object 
 to this part of the Constitution and wished that every other etna was 
 as good and proper.” ! 
 
 Governor Johnston admitted that Jews, Pagans, etc., 
 might emigrate to the United States but said they could 
 not be in proportion to the emigration of Christians who 
 should come from other countries and that in all probability 
 the children even of such would be Christians, and that 
 this, with the rapid population of the United States, their 
 zeal for religion and love of liberty, would, he trusted, add 
 to the progress of Christian religion among us.” 
 
 Mr. Lenoir feared that there being no provision against 
 infringement of the rights of conscience, ecclesiastical 
 courts might be established;? and Mr. Wilson wished that 
 the Constitution had excluded popish priests from office for 
 “As there was no test required, and nothing to govern 
 them but honor, when their interest clashed with their 
 honor the latter would fly before the former.”’** Mr. Lan- 
 caster insisted that there was a real danger that papists 
 might occupy the presidential chair.® 
 
 The conclusion of this debate was the suggestion of a 
 bill of rights wherein the Virginia article on religious 
 freedom was incorporated. 
 
 In all, six states suggested an amendment bearing upon 
 the religious questions; the First Amendment to the 
 Constitution was the result. On June 8, 1789, Madison 
 proposed nine amendments, others were suggested and 
 agreed to by the two houses, September 25. The one 
 
 1 Elliot, op. cit., vol. iv, p. 200. 
 2 Ihid., vol. iv, p. 200. 
 3 Ihid., vol. iv, p. 203. 
 
 ‘lind voloivep..212: 
 > Ibid’, vol. iv; pa 216. 
 
 = =. * Se a ee = 
 
 —— a 
 
 j 
 | 
 . 
 . 
 
 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION 479 
 
 covering religion provides that ‘Congress shall make no 
 law respecting any establishment of religion, or pro- 
 hibiting the free exercise thereof.’’! 
 
 In the meantime the Baptist General Committee of 
 Virginia had opened correspondence with the Baptists in 
 other states, especially in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 
 and New York, the object being to secure codperation in 
 the matter of the procurement of this amendment. Elder 
 John Leland was at the head of this committee. At its 
 session in Richmond, August 8, 1789, it addressed a 
 patriotic letter to President Washington, invoking his 
 aid in the movement which they sponsored.2 They were 
 much pleased with the amendments and James Madison 
 wrote from his home among them in Orange County, to 
 President Washington, November 20, 1789, “One of the 
 principal leaders of the Baptists lately sent me word that 
 the amendments had entirely satisfied the disaffected of 
 his sect and that it would appear in their subsequent con- 
 duct.’’? 
 
 Not all on the contrary were satisfied. At least nine 
 times since that date a resolution proposing an amendment 
 to the preamble has been introduced into Congress. How- 
 ever, it has never got beyond the committee to which it had 
 been referred. The following is the pioneer resolution as 
 it was introduced by Mr. Frye of Maine: 
 
 “We, the people of the United States, devoutly acknowledging the 
 supreme authority and just government of God in all the affairs of men 
 and nations, and grateful to Him for our civil and religious liberty, and 
 encouraged by the assurances of His Word, invoke His Guidance, as a 
 
 Christian nation, according to His appointed way, through Jesus Christ, 
 in order to form, etc.” 
 
 1 Annals of Congress, vol. i, pp. 440 sqq., 448, 685-692, 699, 730 sqq., 
 196, 758. 
 
 2 James, op. cit., pp. 159-168; Catchcart, Centennial Offering, p. 109. 
 
 3 Writings of James Madison, vol. v. p. 429. 
 
480 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 “Thus” says Story, “the whole power over the subject of religion was 
 left exclusively to the state government, to be acted on according to 
 their own sense of justice and the state constitutions.”! ‘Probably, ” 
 he remarks elsewhere, “‘at the time of the adoption of the Constitution 
 and of the Amendment toit . . . . . the general, if not the universal 
 sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encourage- 
 ment from the state, so far as it is not imcompatible with the private 
 rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt 
 to level all religions and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in 
 utter indifference would have created universal disapprobation, if not 
 universal indignation.” ? 
 
 Slavery has been the one great issue thus far in the 
 history of the United States to threaten the destruction of 
 the Union. This question was present in the Constitu- 
 tional Convention, largely as the result of actions taken 
 by certain religious denominations. The churches of 
 America assumed the leadership of the forces for emanci- 
 pation and in the Constitution they already secured recog- 
 nition of the issue. The triumph of the churches in this 
 moral issue is a splendid illustration of the control of 
 American religious principles over both the principle of 
 separation of church and state and over purely economic 
 interests. 
 
 To the Quakers we owe the beginning of anti-slavery 
 sentiment in America. William Penn, like Friends in 
 general, seems to have owned slaves. German Friends, at 
 Germantown, April 1688, first addressed a protest “against 
 the traffic in the bodies of men,” and against handling 
 “men as cattle.” The Yearly Meeting of that year 
 recorded that a “paper was presented by some German 
 Friends concerning the lawfulness and unlawfulness of 
 buying and keeping negroes. It was judged not to be 
 proper for this meeting to give a positive judgment in the 
 
 1 Story, Commentary, pp. 702-703. 
 * Ibid., p. 700; Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, p. 371. 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION 48] 
 
 case, it having so general a relation to many other parts; 
 and therefore at present they forbear it.”! This document 
 is believed to be the first official protest of any religious 
 body in America against slavery. 
 
 In 1693 the Friends’ Meeting of Philadelphia advised 
 that no slaves should be bought ‘‘except to be set free.’’2 
 The 1696 Yearly Meeting advised Friends ‘‘not to en- 
 courage the bringing in of any more negroes,” and also 
 that they should be brought to meetings, and in other 
 respects well cared for.? In 1711 importation of slaves 
 was absolutely forbidden. This law was vetoed by the 
 Council in England as was another imposing the pro- 
 hibitive duty of twenty pounds per head on every slave 
 imported.* In 1758 the Yearly Meeting at Philadelphia 
 directed a “visitation” of all who held slaves, and decided 
 that all who should “be concerned in importing, selling, 
 or purchasing slaves” should be forbidden to sit in meet- 
 ings for discipline.® And the year of the Declaration of 
 Independence this Yearly Meeting took final action: 
 
 *“Where any members continue to reject the advice of their brethren, 
 and refuse to execute proper instruments in writing for releasing from 
 a state of slavery such as are in their power, or to whom they have any 
 claim, whether arrived at full age or in their minority, and no hopes of the 
 continuance of Friends’ labor being profitable to them; that Monthly 
 Meeting after having discharged a Christian duty to such, should testify 
 their disunion with them.” In accordance with this resolution, subordi- 
 nate meetings were directed to “‘deny the right of membership to such as 
 persist in holding their fellow men as property.” ® 
 
 1Thomas, History of the Friends in America, 5th edition, pp. 112-115; 
 Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. iv, p. 28: Bowden, 
 op. cit., vol. ii, p. 193. 
 
 * Bowden, op. cit:, vol. ii, p. 195. 4 Tbid., vol. ii, p. 197. 
 
 3 Thid., vol. 1, p. 196. bide vole te pin 212. 
 
 6 Applegarth, Quakers in Pennsylvania, in Johns Hopkins Unwersity 
 Studies, 10th series, vols. vii-ix, chapter iv, “‘Attitude of the Quakers 
 towards Slavery.” 
 
482 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 The Yearly Meeting of Pennsylvania, 1783, addressed 
 Congress on the iniquity of the slave trade. A special 
 delegation waited on Congress with a petition signed by 
 more than five hundred members, earnestly soliciting the 
 interposition of the Federal Government, for the sup- 
 pression of this atrocity.! 
 
 New England Friends in 1758 and 1769 passed strong 
 “minutes” in regard to slavery and in 1772 Friends were 
 “disowned” for not setting their slaves free. New York 
 Friends made it a disciplinary offence to buy, sell, or hold 
 slaves in 1776. And the Virginia Meetings were to disown 
 those who refused to manumit after 1784. This was the 
 action taken by the Baltimore Yearly Meeting for Mary- 
 land in 1777. By the close of the eighteenth century 
 there was not a slave in the possession of a Friend in good 
 standing except where they were held by trustees, and 
 state laws did not allow them to be set free.” 
 
 The Methodists soon took up the cause of the Blacks. 
 A minute of the Baltimore Meeting of 1780 asks and 
 answers the following questions: 
 
 “16. Ought not this Conference to require those travelling preachers 
 who hold slaves to give promise to set them free? Yes. 
 
 17. Does the Conference acknowledge that slavery is contrary to the 
 Jaws of God, man and nature, and hurtful to society; contrary to the 
 dictates of conscience and pure religion, and doing that which we would 
 
 not that others should do to us and ours? Do we pass our disapprobation 
 on all our friends who keep slaves? and advise their freedom? Yes.’ 3 
 
 In 1783 the following was answered (Question 10): 
 
 “What shall be done with our local preachers who hold slaves contrary 
 to the laws which authorize their freedom in any of the United States? 
 We will try them another year. In the meantime let every assistant 
 
 ' Bowden, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 217. 
 
 2 Ilnd., vol. ii, ch. viii. 
 
 ° Minutes of the Annual Conferences of the Methodist Church for the 
 Years, 1773-1823, N. Y., 1840, p. 12. 
 
CHURCHES AND THE CONSTITUTION 483 
 
 deal faithfully and plainly with every one, and report to the next con- 
 ference. It may then be necessary to suspend them.” ! 
 
 And in 1784 the following action was taken: 
 
 “Question 12, What Shall we do with our friends that buy and sell 
 slaves? Answer, If they buy with no other design than to hold them as 
 slaves, and have been previously warned they shall be expelled, and per- 
 mitted to sell on no consideration. 
 
 Question 13, What shall we do with our local preachers who will not 
 emancipate their slaves in the states where the laws admit it? Answer, 
 Try those in Virginia another year, and suspend the preachers in Mary- 
 land, Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. 
 
 Question 22, What shall be done with our travelling preachers that 
 now are, or hereafter shall be, possessed of slaves, and refuse to manumit 
 
 9 
 
 them where the law permits? Answer, Employ them no more.” ? 
 
 The conference of 1785 noted: ‘‘ We do hold in the deep- 
 est abhorrence the practice of slavery and shall not 
 cease to seek its destruction by all wise and prudent 
 means. ’’? 
 
 The Baptists of the South in 1789 resolved, “That 
 slavery is a violent deprivation of the rights of nature, and 
 inconsistent with a republican government, and we 
 therefore recommend it to our brethren to make use of 
 every legal measure to extirpate this horrid evil from the 
 land.’’+ 
 
 In 1787 a committee of Presbyterians brought in the 
 following overture at the annual meeting of the joint 
 synod: 
 
 “The Creator of the world having made of one flesh all the children of 
 men, it becomes them as members of the same family, to consult and 
 promote each other’s happiness. It is more especially the duty of those 
 who maintain the rights of humanity, and who acknowledge and teach 
 
 the obligations of Christianity, to use such means as are in their power to 
 extend the blessings of equal freedom to every part of the human race. 
 
 1 Minutes, p. 18. dA oy. SAV 
 3 British Minutes of 1785, edition of 1812, vol. i, p. 181. 
 4 Newman, The Baptists, p. 305. 
 
484 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 From a full conviction of these truths, and sensible that the rights of 
 human nature are too well understood to admit of debate, Overture, 
 that the Synod of New York and Philadelphia recommend, in the warm- 
 est terms, to every member of their body, and to all the churches and 
 families under their care, to do everything in their power consistent with 
 the rights of civil society, to promote the abolition of slavery and the 
 instruction of negroes, whether bond or free.” ! 
 
 Two days later, May 28, the Synod came to the 
 following judgment: 
 
 “The Synod of New York and Philadelphia do highly approve of the 
 general principles in favor of universal liberty, that prevail in America, 
 and the interest which many of the states have taken in promoting the 
 abolition of slavery; yet, inasmuch a3 men introduced from a servile state 
 to a participation of all the privileges of civil society, without a proper 
 education, and without previous habits of industry, may be, in many 
 respects, dangerous to the community, therefore they earnestly recom- 
 mend it to all the members belonging to their communion, to give those 
 persons who are at present held in servitude, such good education as to 
 prepare them for the better enjoyment of freedom; and they moreover 
 recommend that masters, wherever they find servants disposed to make 
 a just improvement of the privilege, would give them a peculiwm, or 
 grant them sufficient time and sufficient means of procuring their own 
 liberty at a moderate rate, that thereby, they may be brought into 
 society with the habits of industry that may render them useful citizens; 
 and, finally, they recommend it to all their people to use the most prudent 
 measures, consistent with the interest and the state of civil society, in 
 the counties where they live, to procure eventually the final abolition of 
 slavery in America.” 2 
 
 The General Association of the Connecticut Congre- 
 gationalists took up the question at their meeting in West 
 Hartford, June, 1788: 
 
 “On motion made by the Association in the Western District of New 
 Haven County, the association voted that the Slave Trade be unjust, and 
 that every justifiable means ought to be taken to suppress it. 
 
 Voted, also, that Drs. Goodrich, Edwards and Wales be a committee 
 to draw up an address and petition to the General Assembly, that some 
 effectual laws may be made for the total abolition of the slave trade. 
 
 1 Records, p. 539. 
 2 Thid., p. 540. 
 
CHURCHES :-AND THE CONSTITUTION 485 
 
 The committee... . . made a draft of a petition, etc., which was 
 accepted, and one for the total abolition of the slave trade, connected 
 with it. Drs. Edwards and Wales were appointed a committee to forward 
 said petition to the General Assembly.at their session in October next.”’ ! 
 
 That the churches had taken up the question of slavery 
 as a moral issue, had a great deal to do with the character 
 of the slavery clause inserted in the Federal Constitution. 
 Randolph, speaking of the slavery clause, noted, that ‘‘ By 
 agreeing to the clause (as it then stood), it would revolt 
 the Quakers and the Methodists.”? Quaker principles 
 were represented in the convention, as we have noted, by 
 Mifflin and Dickinson; Methodist ideals by Bassett. A 
 prospective abolition of the slave trade was secured. 
 
 During this period various states abolished slavery: 
 Vermont in 1777, Pennsylvania in 1780, New Hampshire 
 in 1783, Connecticut and Rhode Island (gradual eman- 
 cipation) in 1784; and Massachusetts in 1780 by a clause 
 in the Constitution which the courts later interpreted as 
 signifying emancipation. 
 
 Writing to their brethren in England in 1785, the Friends 
 of Pennsylvania and New Jersey remarked: “The silence 
 of Congress on the subject-matter of our Yearly Meeting’s 
 address in 1783, relative to the slave-trade engaged us to 
 revive that important affair in their view by a letter to the 
 President.”? In 1789, they memorialized Congress again 
 on the subject. 
 
 As soon as the emancipation of slaves had been accom- 
 plished in Pennsylvania, the Quakers were confronted with 
 the issue of the legal status of migratory slaves. In 1786, 
 April 12, General Washington wrote, relative to a slave 
 
 1 Records of the General Association, pp. 126-127. 
 Records of the Federal Convention, vol. ii, p. 374. 
 3 Bowden, op. cit., vol. 11, p. 361. 
 
486 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 of a Mr. Dably of Alexandria, who had escaped to Phila- 
 delphia, ““Whom a sect of Quakers in the city, formed for 
 such purposes, have attempted to liberate.” From Mr. 
 Dably’s account of the occurrence, General Washington 
 concluded, “that this society is not only acting repugnant- 
 ly to justice, so far as its conduct concerns strangers, but 
 in my opinion impoliticly with respect to the state, the 
 city in particular, without being able, by acts of tyranny 
 and oppression to accomplish its own. ends.””! 
 
 1 Washington, op. cit., Sparks edition, vol. ix, p. 158. 
 
CGATIVA, Balhae Vel 
 
 “AMERICAN. CIVIL CHURCH LAW” IN THE 
 STATE CONSTITUTIONS 
 
 As we have noted, Oliver Ellsworth asserted, during the 
 campaign for the ratification of the Federal Constitution, 
 through the Connecticut Courant, that he “would not 
 deny that the civil power has a right, in some cases, to 
 interfere in matters of religion. It has a right to prohibit 
 and punish gross immoralities and impieties.”’! 
 
 This view has been subsequently upheld by the Supreme 
 Court of the United States. In the case of Reynolds vs. 
 The United States, October, 1878, Chief Justice White 
 defined the bounds of religious liberty as guaranteed by 
 the Constitution as follows: 
 
 “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot 
 interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with prac- 
 tices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part 
 of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil 
 government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacri- 
 fice? Or if a wife religiously believed it her duty to burn herself upon the 
 funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of civil 
 government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice? 
 
 So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive 
 dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall 
 not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because 
 of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed 
 doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect 
 to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government 
 could exist only in name under such circumstances.” 2 
 
 The government, state and national, through its execu- 
 tives, legislature and courts, has had to deal with a great 
 
 1 Supra., p. 464. 
 2 United States Supreme Court Reports, vol. 98, pp. 166-177. 
 
488 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 variety of matters pertaining to religion; such as, the 
 appropriation of public funds to charitable institutions 
 managed by some particular denomination, church proper- 
 ties, Sunday observance, marriage rights, ete. In fact 
 Carl Zollman has worked out a very substantial treatise 
 on American Cwil Church Law. His first chapter is 
 devoted to an interpretation of the phrase “Religious 
 Liberty.”” He concludes: 
 
 “The American citizen is protected in his religious liberty against any 
 act of the Federal Government by the United States constitution and 
 against any act of his state government by his state constitution. Under 
 both he is entirely free to formulate any opinion whatsoever in regard to 
 religion, to practice and teach it to others, provided he respects their 
 rights and does not incite to crime or breach of the peace. In defining 
 forbidden acts the law recognizes the Christian religion as the prevailing 
 religion in this country and punishes blasphemers, Mormons, Christian 
 Scientists, fortune-hunters, members of the Salvation Army and others, 
 though the acts which have brought them into conflict with the law have 
 been performed with a religious motive. It fosters religion by affording 
 churches the right to become corporations, by protecting their worship 
 against disturbance, by exempting their property from taxation and by 
 providing for a cessation from work on Sunday. It permits (Illinois 
 excepted) the Bible, or portions of it, to be read in the public schools. 1 
 It allows the use of public-school buildings for Sunday schools and other 
 forms of religious worship where such use does not conflict with the school 
 laws or regulations and permits churches to lease their buildings to 
 
 1 A recent survey of the Bible in schools, Mr. Fleming in The Christian 
 Statesman, summarized in The Literary Digest, vol. 78, no. 11, September 
 15, 1923, p. 36 finds that: “‘ By the opinion of the Attorney-General or the 
 State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Bible is not used in the 
 schools of Minnesota, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Montana, 
 New York (outside of New York City), and possibly Louisiana.’ Wis- 
 consin, “‘excluded the Bible as a whole”’ but “‘plainly asserts that parts of 
 it might and should be used.” ‘‘The Bible is read by law every morning 
 in every schoolroom in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
 Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and probably Mississippi.’ ‘‘ Excepting 
 Massachusetts, these states have all passed the mandatory law within 
 the last ten years.’ ‘‘With the Bible definitely excluded from the 
 schools of twelve states and legally required to be read daily in the 
 schools of seven states, there remain twenty-nine states, with just about 
 half the national population, in which its daily use is permitted.” 
 
AMERICAN CIVIL CHURCH LAW 489 
 
 school districts for a consideration. It frowns upon the wearing of 
 denominational garments in the public school by teachers and does not 
 suffer pupils to break up the school discipline by absenting themselves 
 from public school on purely religious holidays.” ! 
 
 The effect of the Third Section of Article Six in the 
 Constitution and the First Amendment was to throw 
 religious responsibility back upon the state governments. 
 It appears that in the various colonial governments, 
 toleration, when secured, had meant only the separation 
 of some particular sect of Christians, not Christianity 
 itself, from the civil institutions. Even in the fundamental 
 Jaw of Rhode Island a Christian purpose was expressly 
 stated and a particular form of Christianity (Protestant- 
 ism) was required as a qualification for office holding. 
 The American Revolution was followed by an alarming 
 increase in irreligion and the influence of the French 
 Revolution added to the worries of those who were inter- 
 ested in the preservation of true religion in America. 
 Such was the battle thrown back upon the Christian state 
 in the United States. 
 
 In Virginia the Court of Appeal in the case of Kemper vs. 
 Hawkins, 1793, decided that the Bill of Rights was a part 
 of the Constitution and that all laws contrary to it were 
 null and void.2 An act of 1799 repealed every law in 
 seeming contradiction with the Bill of Rights, the Consti- 
 tution and the Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, on 
 the ground that “the several acts presently recited do 
 admit the Church established under the regal government 
 to have continued so subsequently to the Constitution.’’? 
 An act of January 12, 1802, to sell vacant glebe lands but 
 
 1 Zollman, American Civil Church Law, pp. 36-37; Bryce, op. cit., 
 first edition, vol. ii, chapter 103, ‘‘The Churches and the Clergy.” 
 
 2 Virginia Cases, Philadelphia, 1815, vols. i and ii, pp. 20-108. 
 3 Shepherd, Statutes at Large, vol. ii, p. 149. 
 
490 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 not to disturb any incumbent, the proceeds to go to the 
 parish debt and the remainder to the poor,! was unani- 
 mously sustained by the Court of Appeal in 1840. ‘‘ Not 
 until then,” says Howison, “‘was the divorce between 
 Church and State in Virginia complete.’’? 
 
 The New York Constitution of 1777 (Article 35) 
 abrogated all laws and parts of law, common or statute, 
 which “‘may be construed to establish or maintain any 
 particular denomination of Christians or their ministers;”’ 
 and ordained (Article 38), ““The free exercise and enjoy- 
 ment of religious profession and worship without discrimi- 
 nation or preference shall forever hereafter be allowed 
 within this State to all mankind.” In 1784 the legislature 
 repealed the “Settling Act” of 1693 and all subsequent 
 acts “which do grant certain emoluments and privileges to 
 the Episcopal Church,” with two restrictions; first, that 
 all persons naturalized by the state should take an oath of 
 abjuration of all foreign allegiance and subjection in all 
 matters, “ecclesiastical as well as civil,’ and second, that 
 clergymen were excluded from office as they “‘ought not to 
 be diverted from their great duties of the service of God 
 and the care of souls.’’ These clauses were repealed by the 
 Constitution of 1821, which however (Article 7, section 
 4), again forbad ministers or priests to hold office.* 
 
 The New Jersey Constitution of 1776 (Article 18) 
 decreed to every one “the inestimable privilege of wor- 
 shipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the 
 dictates of his own conscience,”’ but at the same time 
 (Article 19) imposed a religious test for office, which was 
 
 1 Shepherd, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 314-316. 
 
 2 Howison, History of Virginia, vol. ii, pp. 396-405. 
 
 3 Thorpe, Constitutions and Charters, vol. v, pp. 2636-2637; Hoffman, 
 
 Murray, Ecclesiastical Law of the State of New York, p. 40. 
 4 Thorpe, op. cit., vol. v, p. 2648. 
 
AMERICAN CIVIL CHURCH LAW 491 
 
 confined to “Protestant inhabitants of the Colony.””! 
 Bancroft deduces from this that “‘When the constitution 
 of that state (New Jersey) was framed by a convention 
 composed chiefly of Presbyterians, they established 
 perfect liberty of conscience without the blemish of a test.’’2 
 
 The Delaware Constitution of 1776 (Article 29) forbad 
 the “establishment of any one religious sect”? and also 
 ‘eivil office”’ to clergymen or preachers.?. And the holder 
 of any office or public trust must subscribe to the follow- 
 ing oath (Article 22): 
 
 “I do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only 
 son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do 
 acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to 
 be given by divine inspiration.” 4 
 
 The Constitution of 1792 fixed the standards for religion 
 in Delaware in the following terms, which have been 
 repeated in the Constitutions of 1831 and 1897: 
 
 Preamble; ‘‘Through divine goodness all men have, by nature, the 
 rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates 
 of their conscience.”’ > 
 
 Bill of Rights, Article One, Sections one and two: 
 
 “ Although it is the duty of all men frequently to assemble together for 
 the public worship of the Author of the universe, and piety and morality, 
 on which the prosperity of communities depends, are thereby promoted; 
 yet no man shall or ought to be compelled to attend any religious wor- 
 ship, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of worship, or 
 to the maintenance of any ministry, against his own free will and consent; 
 and no power shall or ought to be vested in or assumed by any magis- 
 trate that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control, the 
 rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship, nor a prefer- 
 ence be given by law to any religious societies, denominations, or modes 
 of worship. 
 
 Thorpe, op. cit, vol. v, pp. 2597-2598; Baird, Religion in America, p. 268. 
 2 Bancroft, op. cit., vol. v, p. 123. 
 
 3 Thorpe, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 567-568. 
 
 4 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 566. 
 
 > Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 568, 582, 600. 
 
492 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office, or 
 public trust, under this State.” } 
 
 In Pennsylvania by the Constitution of 1776 (Article 2 
 of the Declaration of Rights), “All men have a natural and 
 inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to 
 the dictates of their own consciences and understanding, ” 
 but civil rights weré restricted to persons “who acknowl- 
 edge the being of a God.” Office holders were required, 
 (section 10) to swear, or affirm, “I do believe in one God, 
 the creator and Governor of the Universe, the rewarder of 
 the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowl- 
 edge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be 
 by Divine inspiration.”? In the 1790 Constitution 
 (Article 9, section 4) there was added to the previous test 
 a. belief in “‘a future state of rewards and punishments.’’? 
 The Constitution of 1838 repeats this* and there it stands 
 to-day.° The state has never repealed the law of 1700 
 which imposed a penalty upon anyone who should “wil- 
 fully, premeditatedly, and despitefully blaspheme, or speak 
 lightly or profanely of Almighty God, Jesus Christ, the 
 Holy Spirit, or the Scriptures of Truth,” and the 
 Supreme Court in 1824, Updegraph vs. Commonwealth, 
 declared this law still in force.® 
 
 Charles Carroll of Carrollton wrote, February 20, 
 1829: 
 
 “When I signed the Declaration of Independence I had in view not 
 only our independence of England, but the toleration of all sects pro- 
 
 fessing the Christian religion, and communicating to them all equal 
 rights. Happily this wise and salutary measure has taken place for 
 
 1 Thorpe, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 568, 582, 601; McMaster, op. cit., vol. ili, p.149. 
 2 Thorpe, op. cit., vol. v, pp. 3082, 3085; Baird, op. cit., P. 270. 
 
 3 Thorpe, op. cit., vol. v, p. 3100. 
 
 4 Ibid., vol. v, p. 3113. 
 
 5 ihe vol. v, p. 3121. 
 
 6 Updegraph vs. Commonwealth, 11 Sergeant and Rowle, pp. 394, 404. 
 
AMERICAN CIVIL CHURCH LAW 493 
 
 eradicating religious feuds and persecution, and become a useful lesson to 
 all governments. Reflecting, as you must, on the disabilities, I may truly 
 say on the proscription of the Roman Catholics in Maryland, you will not 
 be surprised that I had much at heart this grand design founded on 
 mutual charity, the basis of our holy religion.” ! 
 
 The Maryland Bill of Rights of 1776 (Article 23) made 
 “persons professing the Christian religion . hal 
 equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.”’2 
 It forbad compelling any person to attend or support any 
 particular form of worship and “Yet the legislature may 
 in their discretion lay a general and equal tax for the 
 support of the Christian religion, leaving to each individual 
 the power” of indicating the direction of his own tax, to 
 any Church or to the poor. The property held by the 
 Church of England was to remain theirs forever. A 
 form of prayer for the new government was adopted 
 which the majority of the clergy of the Church of England 
 refused to use and these were consequently required to 
 pay a “treble tax”’ or to leave the country. Most of them 
 went and their churches were closed or used by other 
 bodies.’’? 
 
 Fhe North Carolina Constitution of 1776 (Article 19, of 
 the Declaration of Rights), claimed that ‘All men have 
 a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty 
 God according to the dictates of their own consciences.’’4 
 And yet, although it did not go so far as to support any 
 particular church or religion, it laid down that (Article 32, 
 of the Constitution) : 
 
 “No person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the 
 Protestant religion, or the Divine authority of either the Old or New 
 
 1O’Gorman, op. cit., p. 257. 
 
 2 Thorpe, op. cit., vol. iil, p. 1689. 
 
 3 Hawks, Ecclestastical Contributions, vol. ii, p. 283. 
 4 Thorpe, op. cit., vol. v, p. 2788. 
 
494 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Testament, or who shall hold religious opinions incompatible with the 
 freedom or safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or 
 place of trust in the civil department within this state.’ 1 An amend- 
 ment of 1835 changed the word “Protestant” to “Christian.” ? 
 
 No religious provisions were to be found in the South 
 Carolina Constitution of 1776 but the one of 1778 more 
 than compensated for this omission. It excluded from 
 the offices of governor, lieutenant governor, and member- 
 ship in the privy council or legislature all clergymen 
 “until two years after demitting the ministry.” And 
 Chapter xxxvill. read: 
 
 ‘All persons and religious societies, who acknowledge that there is 
 one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God 
 is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated. The Christian 
 Protestant religion shall be deemed and is hereby constituted and de- 
 clared to be, the established religion of this State. All denominations of 
 Christian Protestants in this State... . . shall enjoy equal re- 
 ligious and civil privileges.” Security of ownership for property held by 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church is ordered and provision for the in- 
 corporation of other religious bodies is made as follows, ““when ever 
 fifteen or more male persons, not under twenty-one years of age”’ shall 
 agree together for religious worship. Every such society “shall have 
 agreed to and subscribed in a book the following five articles, without 
 which no agreement or union of men, upon pretence of religion, shall 
 entitle them to be incorporated and esteemed as a church of the estab- 
 lished religion of this State: 
 
 1. That there is one Eternal God and a future state of rewards and 
 
 punishments. 
 
 2. That God is publicly to be worshipped. 
 
 3. That the Christian Religion is the true religion. 
 
 4. That the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are of 
 
 divine inspiration, and are the rules of faith and practice. 
 
 5. That it is lawful, and the duty of every man, being thereunto called 
 
 by those that govern, to bear witness to the truth.” 
 Pastors were to be chosen by a majority of the church, and no minister 
 might enter upon a pastorate until he had subscribed to a declaration, 
 “that he is determined by God’s grace out of the holy scriptures to 
 
 1 Thorpe, op. ctt., vol. v, p. 2793. 
 2 Ibid., vol. v, pp. 2798-2799. 
 
AMERICAN CIVIL CHURCH LAW 495 
 
 instruct the people committed to his charge, and to teach nothing as 
 required of necessity to eternal salvation, but that which he shall be 
 persuaded may be concluded and proved from the scripture; that he will 
 use both public and private admonition, as well to the sick as to the whole 
 within his care, as need shall require and occasion shall be given; and that 
 he will be diligent in prayers and in reading of the scriptures and in such 
 studies as help to the knowledge of the same; that he will be diligent 
 to frame and fashion his own self and his family according to the doctrine 
 of Christ and to make both himself and them, as much as in him lieth, 
 wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ; that he will 
 maintain and set forward, as much as he can, quietness, peace, and love 
 among all people, and especially among those that are, or shall be com- 
 mitted to his charge. 
 
 No person shall, by law, be obliged to pay towards the maintenance 
 and support of a religious worship, that he does not freely join in, or has 
 not voluntarily engaged to support.” 4 
 
 The Constitution of 1790 put aside these elaborate 
 provisions and decreed (Article 8, Article 1, section 23), 
 religious freedom “without distinction or preference,”’? but 
 maintained the exclusion of clergymen from civil office. 
 
 Georgia, by the Constitution of 1777 (Article 56), 
 established freedom of conscience; but required (Article 6) 
 that all members of the legislature ‘‘shall be of the Protest- 
 ant religion,’? and forbad (Article 62) clergymen seats in 
 the legislature. 
 
 Disestablishment was a slow process in New England. 
 Connecticut, by an act of 1729, had exempted Baptists 
 from the tax for ministers and meeting houses, when they 
 could present certificates signed by two magistrates. 
 In 1784 an “Act for Securing the Rights of Conscience” 
 was passed, which read, 
 
 “No persons professing the Christian religion, who soberly dissent 
 from the worship and ministry established by law, and attend worship by 
 
 1 Thorpe, op. cit., vol. vi, pp. 3255-3257. 
 
 2 Tbid., vol. vi, pp. 3264, 3261. 
 
 3 Ibvd., vol. ii, pp. 779, 784; Baird, op. cit., p. 272. 
 4 Ihid., vol. ii, p. 785. 
 
496 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 themselves, shall incur a penalty by not attending the established wor- 
 ship; that Christians of other denominations, who attend and help 
 maintain worship according to their consciences shall not be taxed 
 for the support of other worship; that those who do not belong to any 
 other society are to be taxed for the support of the State-Church; and 
 that all Protestant dissenters shall have liberty to use the same powers for 
 maintaining their respective societies, as belongs to societies established 
 by law.” ! 
 
 As modified in 1791 phe law read; 
 
 “In future, whenever any person shall differ in sentiments from the 
 worship and ministry, in the ecclesiastical societies in this state, consti- 
 tuted by law within certain bounds, and shall choose to join himself to 
 any other denomination of Christians, which shall have formed them- 
 selves into distinct churches or congregations, for the maintenance and 
 support of the public worship of God, and shall manifest such his choice, 
 by a certificate thereof, under his hand lodged in the office of the clerk of 
 the society to which he belongs—such person shall thereupon, and so 
 long as he shall continue ordinarily to attend on the worship and ministry 
 in the church or congregation, be exempted from being taxed for the 
 future support of the worship, and ministry in such society.” 2 
 
 The state still required every citizen to contribute to the 
 support of the Gospel, and taxes of all unconnected with 
 any church were turned over to the standing order. 
 An act of 1816 repealed the penalty for non-attendance 
 upon church. Governor Oliver Wolcott was placed in 
 power in 1817 by all the opponents of the state church.? 
 An act was thereupon passed that any person of any 
 Christian denomination should have full power to change 
 his church relations at will and that every Christian 
 society should have power to tax its own members only. 
 A Constitutional Convention was called and the new 
 
 1 Connecticut State Records, vol. i, p. 11; New Haven Historical Papers, 
 vol. ii, p. 400; Lauer, Church and State in New England, p. 84. 
 * Lauer, op. cit., p. 99. 
 3 Johnston, History of Connecticut, p. 352. 
 
 “—~"3e 
 
AMERICAN CIVIL CHURCH LAW 497 
 
 constitution of 1818 provided (Article 1, sections 3-4 and 
 Article 7, sections 1-2): 
 
 “The exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, 
 without distinction, shall forever be free to all persons in this state . . 
 No preference shall be given by law to any Christian sect or mode of 
 SVOrsHipme. <. oss No person should be compelled to join or support 
 
 nor be classed with, or associated to any congregation, church or re- 
 ligious association.” ! 
 
 This was drafted by a Baptist minister, Rev. Asahel 
 Morse of Suffield. Dr. Lyman Beecher wrote of this day: 
 “Tt was as dark a day as lever saw. The odium thrown on the ministry 
 was inconceivable. The injury done to the cause of Christ, as we then 
 supposed, was irreparable. For several days I suffered what no tongue 
 can tell for the best thing that ever happened to the State of Connecticut. 
 
 It cut the churches loose from dependence on State support. It threw 
 them wholly on their own resources and on God.” 2 
 
 New Hampshire laws for the support of religion were 
 similar to those of Connecticut. The Constitutions of 
 1776, 1784, and 1792 left unchanged the old colonial 
 law which made the church a town institution and its 
 support a matter of public tax, and discriminated in 
 favor of the Protestant religion.? Legislative acts of 
 1792, 1804, 1805, and 1807 recognized Baptists and 
 Episcopalians, Universalists and Methodists respectively 
 as legal sects.4 Complete religious liberty was achieved 
 by the Toleration Act of 1819 for All Christian Sects. 
 Still, the colonial idea remains in the Constitution of 1902, 
 wherein it is provided that “Every denomination of 
 Protestant Christians, demeaning themselves quietly and 
 as good subjects of the state, shall be equally under the 
 
 1 Thorpe, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 537, 545. 
 
 > Beecher, Autobiography, vol. i, p. 344. 
 
 ? Thorpe, op. cit., vol. iv, pp. 2451, 2470; New Hampshire Historical 
 
 Society, vol. v, p. 175; Cobb, op. cit., p. 500. 
 4 Lauer, op. cit., p. 101. 
 
498 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 protection of the law.”! Though another provision 
 states: “No person of any one particular religious sect or 
 denomination, shall ever be compelled to pay toward the 
 support of the teacher or teachers of another persuasion, 
 sect, or denomination.’’2 
 
 Vermont passed the following law in 1801: 
 
 “That every person of adult age, being a legal voter in any town or 
 parish, shall be considered as of the religious opinion and sentiment of 
 such society as is mentioned in said act, and be liable to be taxed for the 
 purpose mentioned in said act, unless he shall, previous to any vote, 
 authorized in and by said act, deliver to the clerk of said town or parish, a 
 declaration in writing, with his name thereto subscribed, in the following 
 words, to wit: I do not agree in religious opinion, with a majority of the 
 inhabitants of this town.’ 3 
 
 The Legislature in 1807 deprived the towns of the power 
 to support ministers or to build meeting houses by tax 
 levies; religion was placed upon a purely voluntary basis; 
 it was left to the individual to support the gospel of his 
 choice. : 
 
 Complete separation of church and state in Massa- 
 chusetts did not come until 1833.4 Article 3 of the Bill 
 of Rights of the Constitution of 1780 provided: 
 
 “As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of 
 civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality; 
 and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but 
 by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions 
 in piety, religion, and morality; therefore, to promote their government, 
 the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature 
 with power to authorize and require the several towns, parishes, pre- 
 cincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable 
 provision at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship 
 of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers 
 
 ‘ Thorpe, op. cit., vol. iv, pp. 2494-2495. 
 
 * Burrage, op. cit., pp. 129-130; Thorpe, loc. cit. 
 
 * Records of the Governor and Council of the State of Vermont, Appendix 
 E, -p. 402. 
 
 * Lauer, op. cit., p. 104. ; Se) 
 
 ee Se 
 
AMERICAN CIVIL CHURCH LAW 499 
 
 of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision is not 
 made voluntarily. 
 
 And the people of this commonwealth have a right and do invest 
 their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an at- 
 tendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid at stated 
 times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can con- 
 scientiously and conveniently attend.” 
 
 Dedham, by a majority vote, chose a Unitarian min- 
 ister. Many of the church members refused to attend 
 worship and the case was carried to the Supreme Court. 
 There Chief Justice Parker decided, 1820, The Dedham 
 Case, that the Constitution, “Bill of Rights of 1780 secures 
 to towns not to churches, the right to elect the ministers 
 in the last resort.”? The Constitution as amended in 
 1820, (Articles 6-7), abolished religious tests for office- 
 holding;? and in 1833 (Article 11), the church was 
 finally disestablished, a voluntary system of worship was 
 made universal and towns were discharged from all con- 
 cern and power over church affairs. 
 
 Cobb, in his Rise of Religious Liberty in America, 
 tabulates the following statistics relative to ecclesiastical 
 laws found in the first state constitutions: 
 two out of thirteen, Virginia and Rhode Island, conceded full and perfect 
 
 freedom; 
 six, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Georgia, North and 
 
 South Carolina, insisted on Protestantism; 
 two, Delaware and Maryland, demanded Christianity; 
 four, Pennsylvania, Delaware, North and South Carolina, required 
 
 assent to the divine inspiration of the Bible; 
 two, Pennsylvania and South Carolina, imposed a belief in heaven and hell; 
 
 three, New York, Maryland, and South Carolina, excluded ministers 
 from civil offices; 
 
 1 Thorpe, op. cit., vol. 111, pp. 1889-1890; Cobb, op. czt., p. 500. 
 
 2 Baker vs. Fales, 16 Massachusetts, p. 488; Lauer, op. cit., p. 105; 
 Buck, Massachusetts Ecclesiastical Law, p. 52. 
 
 3 Thorpe, op. cit., vol. 11, pp. 1912-1913. 
 
 4 Thid., vol. i, p. 1914. 
 
500 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 two, Pennsylvania and South Carolina, emphasized belief in one eternal 
 God; 
 
 one, Delaware, required assent to the doctrine of the Trinity; 
 
 five, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, and South 
 Carclina, adhered to religious establishment; 
 
 one, South Carolina, still spoke of religious “toleration”. ! 
 
 The same author finds the following characteristics of 
 state constitutions as a whole: 
 
 thirty-one use in their preambles the phrase ‘grateful to Almighty 
 God”; 
 
 three substitute for this “invoking the favor and guidance — or the 
 blessing — of Almighty God”’; 
 
 two only, Michigan and West Virginia, do not mention the name of 
 God; 
 
 twenty-six declare that it is the privilege of ““every man to worship God 
 according to the dictates of his own conscience’’; 
 
 eleven say that “the free enjoyment of religious sentiments and forms of 
 worship shal! ever be held sacred”’; 
 
 five assert a “duty of the legislature to pass laws for the protection” of 
 religious freedom; 
 
 nineteen declare that ‘“‘no human authority ought to control, or inter- 
 fere with the rights of conscience.”’ 
 
 nine ordain that “‘no person may be molested in person or estate on 
 account of religion’; 
 
 thirteen state that this liberty is “not to excuse licentiousnes. or justify 
 practices inconsistent with the peace and safety” of society: 
 
 seven say that it is “not to excuse disturbances of the public peace”; 
 
 three, that it is “not to justify practices inconsistent with the rights of 
 others”’; 
 
 three require that “no person may disturb others in worship”; 
 
 twenty-four forbid compulsion of any person to attend worship “con- 
 trary to his own faith”’; 
 
 one, New Hampshire, says that “no person of one sect may be compelled 
 to support a minister of another”’; 
 
 one, New Jersey, forbids compul.ion of any person to attend the worship 
 “contrary to his own faith”; 
 
 five forbid “‘an established Church”; 
 
 twenty-nine forbid the civil government to show any “preference” 
 for any sect; 
 
 three forbid any “‘subordination”’ of one sect to another: 
 
 1 Cobb, Rise of Religious Liberty in America, p. 507. 
 
 ee 
 
 EE ee a Es 
 
AMERICAN CIVIL CHURCH LAW 501 
 
 two, Delaware and Vermont, say that “every sect ought to observe the 
 Lord’s day and keep up some scrt of religious worship.” 
 
 fourteen forbid the appropriation of state money for the support of 
 sectarian instituticns; 
 
 seven include municipal money in this prohibition; 
 
 six apply the prohibition to any property of the state; 
 
 four, to any property of any municipality; 
 
 two, Michigan and Oregon, forbid even the appropriation of public 
 money to pay for chaplains to the legislature; 
 
 one, New Hampshire, says that the legislature may authorize towns and 
 parishes to provide for the support of religious teachers; 
 
 two, Massachusetts and Missouri, permit this authorization to parishes; 
 
 one, Maine, gives this power to “religious societies”’: 
 
 two, Virginia and West Virginia, forbid any such action on the part of the 
 legislature; 
 
 twenty-three declare that nc religious test shall be required for office; 
 
 eighteen add to this “for any public trust”; 
 
 four include voting a: exempt from tests; 
 
 six forbid tests for jury duty; 
 
 seventeen for witnesses; 
 
 two, Oregon and Wyoming, forbid the questioning of a witness as to 
 his religious belief; 
 
 eleven declare that no man can “be deprived of any civil right on account 
 of religious sentiments”’: 
 
 five, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, North Carolina and South Carolina, 
 provide that no person may hold: office “who denies the being of 
 Almighty God or the existence of a Supreme Being”’; 
 
 one, Arkansas, makes the denier of God incompetent as a witness; 
 
 two, Pennsylvania and Tennessee, restrict office to such as “believe in 
 God and a future state of reward and punishment”; 
 
 one, Maryland, requires this belief in a juror or witness, but for the office 
 holder demands only a belief in God; 
 
 two, Mississippi and Tennessee, though requiring some religious qualifi- 
 cation for office holding, yet forbid a religious test. ! 
 
 m 
 
 ‘In a certain sense and for certain purposes it is true,’ 
 says Judge Cooley, “‘that Christianity is a part of the law 
 of the land.”? Or as Bryce puts it, “Christianity is in 
 
 ‘ Cobb, op. cit., pp. 517-520; Bryce, op. cit., edition of 1911, vol. ii, pp 
 736-766; Stimson, American Statute Lavw. 
 
 ? Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, p. 579; Cornelison, The Relation 
 of Religion to Civil Government in the United States of America: A State 
 
 - 
 
502 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 fact understood to be, though not the legally established 
 religion, yet the national religion.””! 
 
 The Index, organ of the Liberal League, published, 
 January 4, 1873, the following League demands: 
 
 “1. We demand that churches and other ecclesiastical property shall no 
 longer be exempt from taxation. 
 
 2. We demand that the eniployment of chaplains in Congress, in State 
 legislatures, in the navy and militia, and in prisons, asylums, and all 
 other institutions supported by public money, shall be discontinued. 
 
 3. We demand that all public appropriations for education and charitable 
 institutions of a sectarian character shall cease. 
 
 4. We demand that all religious services now sustained by the govern- 
 ment shall be abolished, and especially that the use of the Bible in 
 the public schools, whether ostensibly as a text-book or avowedly as 
 a book of religious worship, sball be prohibited. 
 
 5. We demand that the appointment by the President of the United 
 States or by the Governors of the various States of all religious 
 festivals and fasts shall cease. 2 
 
 6. We demand that the judicial oath in the courts and in all other 
 departments of the government shall be abolished, and that simple 
 affirmation under the pains and penalties of perjury shall be estab- 
 lished in its stead. 
 
 7. We demand that all laws, directly or indirectly enforcing the ob- 
 servance of Sunday as the Sabbath shall be repealed. 
 
 8. We demand that all laws looking to the enforcement of ‘Christian’ 
 morality shall be abrogated, and that all laws shall be conformed to 
 the requirements of natural morality, equal rights, and impartial 
 liberty. 
 
 9. We demand that, not only in the Constitution of the United States and 
 of the several states, but also in the practical administration of the 
 same, no privilege or advantage shall be conceded to Christianity 
 or any other religion; that our entire political system shall be founded 
 and administered on a purely secular basis, and that whatever 
 changes shall prove necessary to this end be consistently, unflinchingly 
 and promptly made.” 
 
 without a Church, but not without a Religion; Cobb, op. cit.; Morris, 
 Christian Life and Character of Civil Institutions of the United States, 
 developed in the official and historical annals of the Republic. 
 
 1 Bryce, op. cit., edition of 1911, p. 770. 
 
 ? Congress in the crisis of the Civil War, July 1863, requested the 
 President to appoint a day for humiliation and prayer. 
 
 pe ee 
 
 
 
CTCA PINE RoeX Vi LI 
 
 AMERICAN CHURCHES GREET NEW NATIONAL 
 GOVERNMENT AT THE INAUGURATION 
 OF PRESIDENT WASHINGTON 
 
 Inauguration of a new national government under 
 President Washington found the churches of America 
 well organized and conscious of the duties and responsl- 
 bilities which rested upon them in connection with the 
 civic life of the nation. The addresses which they pre- 
 sented, in the names of their various denominations, to the 
 new head of the nation, show how conscious they were of 
 their part in the achievement of a successful statehood. 
 And their promises of a hearty coperation in the main- 
 tenance and promotion of religion and morality among 
 the people augured well for the future character of the 
 new state. 
 
 To express the sentiments of the Roman Catholics, 
 John Carroll, Bishop-elect of Baltimore, on behalf of the 
 clergy, and Charles Carroll, Daniel Carroll, Dominick 
 Lynch, and Thomas Fitzsimons for the laity, presented 
 President Washington with the following address (in 
 part): 
 
 “You encourage respect for religion; and inculcate by words and 
 actions, that principle, on which the welfare of nations so much depends, 
 that a Superintending Providence governs the events of the world, and 
 watches over the conduct of men. Your exalted maxims and unwearied 
 attention to the moral and physical improvement of our country, have 
 produced already the happiest effects. Under your administration, 
 America is animated with zeal for the attainment and encouragement of 
 
 useful literature. She improves her agriculture; extends her commerce; 
 and acquires with foreign nation. dignity unknown to her before . . . . 
 
504 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Whilst our country preserves her freedom and independence, we shall 
 have a well founded title to claim from her justice, the equal rights of 
 citizenship, as the price of our blood spilt under your eyes . . . 
 rights rendered more dear to us by the remembrance of former hard- 
 ships. When we pray for the preservation of them, where they have 
 been granted — and expect the full extension of them from the justice of 
 those states, which still restrict (New Jersey and South Carolina!) . 
 
 We recommend your preservation to the single care of Divine Provi- 
 dence.” 2 . 
 
 Washington’s reply was as follows (in part): 
 
 “To the Roman Catholic. in the United States of America. 
 
 America, under the smile: of Divine Providence — the protection of a 
 good government — and the cultivation of manners, morals, and piety. 
 cannot fail of attaining an uncommon degree of eminence, in literature, 
 commerce, agriculture, improvements at home and _ respectability 
 abroad . . . . . I hope ever to see America among the foremost 
 nations in examples of justice and liberality. And, I presume, that your 
 fellow-citizens will not forget the patriotic part, which you took in the 
 accomplishment of their revolution, and the establishment of your 
 government, or the important assistance, which they received from a 
 nation in which the Roman Catholic faith is professed . . . 
 
 May the members of your society in America, animated alone by the 
 pure spirit of Christianity, and still conducting themselves as the faith- 
 ful subjects of our free government, enjoy every temporal and spiritual 
 felicity.” 3 
 
 The Coetus of the German Reformed Church des- 
 patched the following Letter: 
 
 “To the President of the United States: 
 
 The address of the ministers and elders of the German Reformed 
 Church in the United States, at their general meeting, held at Philadel- 
 phia, the tenth of June, 1789. 
 
 As it is our most firm purpose to support in our persons a government 
 founded in justice and equality, so it shall be our constant duty to impress 
 the minds of the people entrusted to our care with a due sense of the 
 
 1 Supra, p. 499. 
 
 2 Shea, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 348-350; An Address from the Roman Cath- 
 olics of American to George Washington, Esq., President of the United 
 States. London, 1790. 
 
 3 Shea, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. sehen Washington’s Writings, (Sparks 
 edition), vol. xii, pp. 177-179. 
 
 a a a. rd 
 
 
 
NEW NATIONAL GOVERNMENT 505 
 
 necessity of uniting reverence to such a government and obedience to its 
 laws with the duties and exercises of religion. Thus we hope, by the 
 blessing of God, to be, in some measure, instrumental in alleviating the 
 burden of that weighty and important charge to which you have been 
 called by the unanimous voice of your fellow-citizens, and which your 
 love to your country has constrained you to take upon you. 
 
 Deeply possessed of a sense of the goodness of God in the appointment 
 of your person to the highest station in the national government, we 
 shall continue, in our public worship and all our devotions before the 
 throne of grace, to pray that it may please God to bless you in your 
 person, in your family, and in your government, with all temporal and 
 spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus.’ ! 
 
 Washington replied: 
 
 “Tam happy . .. . . in believing that I shall always find in you 
 and the German Reformed Congregations in the United States a conduct 
 corresponding to such worthy and pious expression. 
 
 At the same time I return you my thanks for the manifestation of 
 your firm purpose to support in your persons a government founded in 
 justice and equity, and for the promise that it will be your constant 
 study to impress the minds of the people entrusted to your care with a 
 due sense of the necessity of uniting reverence to such a government and 
 obedience to it: laws with the duties and exercises of religion. 
 
 Be assured, Gentlemen, it is by such conduct very much in the power 
 of the virtuous members of the community to alleviate the burden of 
 the important office which I have accepted . . . . .”? 
 
 The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church sent 
 the following address (in part): 
 
 “Your military achievements insured safety and glory to America, in 
 the late arduous conflict for freedom; while your disinterested conduct, 
 and uniformly just discernment of the public interest, gained you the 
 entire confidence of the people: And in the present interesting period of 
 public affairs, the influence of your personal character moderates the 
 divisions of political parties, and promises a permanent establishment of 
 the civil government. 2 
 
 We are happy that God has inclined your heart to give yourself once 
 more to the public. And we derive a favorable presage of the event from 
 the zeal of all classes of the people, and their confidence in your virtues; 
 
 1 Minutes and Letters, pp. 428-434. 
 
 2 Iind., p. 435; a German translation appeared in the Philadelphia 
 Gemeinneutzige Correspondenze, number 4268, July 7, 1789; Washing- 
 ton’s Writings, Sparks edition, vol. xii, p. 156. 
 
506 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 as well as from the knowledge and dignity with which the federal councils 
 are filled. But we derive a presage, even more flattering, from the piety 
 of your character. Public virtue is the most certain means of public 
 felicity; and religion is the surest basis of virtue. We therefore esteem it 
 a peculiar happiness to behold in our chief magistrate, a steady, uniform, 
 avowed friend of the Christian religion; who has commenced his admin- 
 istration in rational and exalted sentiments of piety; and who, in his 
 private conduct, adorns the doctrines of the gospel of Christ; and, on the 
 most public and solemn occasions, devoutly acknowledges the govern- 
 ment of Divine Providence. 
 
 The example of distinguished characters will ever possess a powerful 
 and extensive influence on the public mind; and when we see, in such a 
 conspicuous station, the amiable example of piety to God, of benevolence 
 to men, and of a pure and virtuous patriotism, we naturally hope that it 
 will diffuse its influence; and that, eventually, the most happy conse- 
 quences will result from it. To the force of imitation, we will endeavor 
 to add the wholesome instructions of religion. We shall consider our- 
 selves as doing an acceptable service to God, in our profession, when we 
 contribute to render men sober. honest, and industrious citizens, and the 
 obedient subjects of a lawful government. In these pious labors, we hope 
 to imitate the most worthy of our brethren of other Christian denomina- 
 tions, and to be imitated by them; assured that if we can, by mutual 
 and generous emulation, promote truth and virtue, we shall render a 
 great and important service to the republic; shall receive encouragement 
 from every wise and good citizen; and, above all, meet the approbation of 
 our Divine Master. 
 
 We pray Almighty God, to have you always in His holy keeping. 
 May He prolong your valuable life, an ornament and a blessing to your 
 country, and at last bestow on you the glorious reward of a faithful 
 servant. 
 
 Signed by order of the General Assembly, John Rodgers, Moderator.” 
 May 25, 1789.1 
 
 Washington’s reply ran (in part): 
 
 “I will observe that the general prevalence of piety, philanthropy, 
 honesty, industry, and economy seems in the ordinary course of human 
 affairs, particularly necessary for advancing and confirming the happiness 
 of our country. While all men within our territories are protected in 
 worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of their consciences, it is 
 rationally to be expected form them in return that they will all be emu- 
 lous in evincing the sincerity of their professions by the innocence of their 
 lives and the beneficence of their actions; for no man who is profligate in 
 
 ‘Acts and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
 Church in the United States of America, A. D., 1789, pp. 4-6. 
 
 iad 
 
NEW NATIONAL GOVERNMENT 507 
 
 his morals, or a bad member of the civil community, can possibly be a 
 true Christian, or a credit to his own religious society. 
 
 I desire you to accept my acknowledgements for your laudable en- 
 deavors to render men sober, honest, and good citizens, and the obedient 
 subjects of a lawful government; as well as for your prayers to Almighty 
 God for His blessings on our common country, and the humble instru- 
 ment which He has pleased to make use of in the administration of its 
 government.” ! 
 
 The Address from the Committee on the United Baptist 
 Churches of Virginia was as follows (in part): 
 
 “We wish to take an active part . . . . . in expressing our great 
 satisfaction in your appointment to the first office in the nation . 
 
 The want of efficacy in the Confederation, the redundancy of laws, ail 
 their partial administration in the States, called aloud for a new arrange- 
 ment in our systems. The widsom of the States for that purpose was 
 collected in a grand convention, over which you, Sic, had the honor to 
 preside. A national government, in all its parts, was recommended as 
 the only preservation of the Union, which plan of government is now in 
 actual operation. 
 
 When the Constitution first made its appearance in Virginia, we as a 
 society, had unusual strugglings of mind, fearing that the liberty of 
 conscience, dearer to us than property or life, was not sufficiently secured. 
 ‘Perhaps our jealousies were heightened by the usage we received in 
 Virginia under the regal government, when mobs, fine, bonds, and 
 prisons were our frequent repast. 
 
 Convinced, on the one hand, that without an effective national 
 government the States would fall into disunion and all the consequent 
 evils, and on the other hand, fearing that we should be accessory to 
 some religious oppression, should any religious society predominate 
 over the rest; amidst all these inquietudes of mind our consolation 
 arose from this consideration — viz., the plan must be good, for it has 
 the signature of a tried, trusty friend, and if religious liberty is rather 
 insecure in the Constitution, the administration will certainly prevent all 
 oppressions, for a Washington will preside. According to our wishes, 
 the unanimous voice of the Union has called you, Sir, from your beloved 
 retreat, to launch forth again into the faithless seas of human affairs, to 
 guide the helm of the States. 
 
 By order of the Committee, 
 REvBEN Forp, Clerk. SAMUEL Harris, Chairman.”’ 2 
 
 1 Washington's Writings, Sparks edition, vol. xii, pp. 152-153. 
 2 James, op. cit., pp. 171-173; Leland, Works, pp. 52-54; Bitting, 
 Notes on the Century History of the Strawberry Association. 
 
508 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 The reply to this was (in part): 
 
 “Tf IT could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the 
 Constitution framed in the Convention, where I had the honor to preside, 
 might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, 
 certainly I would never have placed my signature to it; and, if I could 
 now conceive that the general government might ever be so administered 
 as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, 
 that no one would be mofe zealous than myself to establish effectual 
 barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of 
 religious persecution. For you doubtless remember, that I have often 
 expressed my sentiments, that every man, conducting himself as a good 
 citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, 
 ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates 
 of his own conscience. 
 
 When I recollect with satisfaction, that the religious society of which 
 you are members have been, throughout America, uniformly and almost 
 unanimously the firm friends to civil liberty, and the persevering pro- 
 moters of our glorious revolution, I cannot hesitate to believe that they 
 will be the faithful supporters of a free, yet efficient, general government. 
 Under this pleasing expectation, I rejoice to assure them that they may 
 rely upon my bect wishes and endeavors to advance their prosperity. 
 
 In the meantime, be assured, gentlemen, that I entertain a proper 
 sense of your fervent supplications to God for my temporal and eternal 
 happiness.” ! 
 
 The Address of the Religious Society called Quakers, 
 from their Yearly Meeting for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, 
 Delaware, and the Western Parts of Maryland and Vir- 
 ginia was as follows (in part): 
 
 “Being met in this our annual assembly, for the well ordering of the 
 affairs of our religious Society, and the promotion of universal right- 
 eousness, our minds have been drawn to consider, that the Almighty . 
 has permitted a great revolution to take place in the government of this 
 COUDUCEY a ehh ae 
 
 We are sensible thou hast obtained great place in the esteem and 
 affection of people of all denominations over whom thou presidest; and 
 many eminent talents being committed to thy trust, we much desire they 
 may be fully devoted to the Lord’s honor and service, — that thus thou 
 mayst be a happy instrument in his hand, for the suppression of vice, 
 
 1 James, op. cit., pp. 173-174; Backus, op. cit., pp. 224-225; Writings 
 of Washington, Sparks edition, vol, xii, pp. 154-155; Leland, Virginia 
 ~ Chronicle, pp. 47-48. 
 
 
 
NEW NATIONAL GOVERNMENT 509 
 
 infidelity, and irreligion, and every species of oppression on the persons 
 or consciences of man, so that righteousness and peace, which truly 
 exalt a nation, may prevail throughout the land, as the only solid founda- 
 tion that can be laid for the prosperity and happiness of this or any 
 country. 
 
 The free toleration which the citizens of these States enjoy, in the 
 public worship of the Almighty, agreeable to the dictates of their con- 
 sciences, we esteem among the choicest of blessings; and as we desire to be 
 filled with fervent charity for those who differ from us in matters of 
 faith and practice, believing that the general assembly of saints i, com- 
 posed of the sincere and upright-hearted of all nations, kingdoms, and 
 people; so, we trust, we may justly claim it from others: and in a full 
 persuasion that the divine principle we profess, leads unto harmony and 
 concord, we can take no part in carrying on war on any occasion, or 
 under any power, but are bound in conscience to lead quiet and peaceable 
 lives, in godliness and honesty among men, contributing freely our por- 
 tion to the indigencies of the poor, and to the necessary support of civil 
 government, acknowledging those who rule well to be worthy of double 
 honor; and if any professing with us are, or have been, of a contrary 
 disposition and conduct, we own them not therein; having never been 
 chargeable from our first establishments as a religious Society, with 
 fomenting or countenancing tumults or conspiracies, or disrespect to 
 those who are placed in authority over us. 
 
 We wish not improperly to intrude on thy time or patience, nor is it 
 our practice to offer adulation to any; but as we are, a people whose 
 principles and conduct have been misrepresented and traduced, we take 
 the liberty to assure thee, that we feel our hearts affectionately drawn 
 towards thee, and those in authority over us, with prayers, that thy 
 presidency may, under the ble sing of Heaven, be happy to thyself and to 
 the people; that through the increase of morality and religion, Divine 
 Providence may condescend to look down upon our land with a pro- 
 pitious eye, and bless the inhabitants with the continuance of peace, the 
 dew of Heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and enable us gratefully to 
 acknowledge his manifold mercies; and it is our earnest concern, that He 
 may be pleased to grant thee every necessary qualification to fill thy 
 weighty and important station to His glory . . . . . .”! 
 
 Washington replied (in part): 
 
 “We have reason to rejoice for the prospect, that the present national 
 government, which, by the favor of Divine Providence, was formed by 
 the common counsels, and peaceably established with the common 
 consent of the people, will prove a blessing to every denomination . 
 to render it such, my best endeavors shall not be wanting. 
 
 ° 
 *?) 
 
 1 Bowden, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 346-348. 
 
510 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Government being, among other purposes instituted to protect the 
 persons and consciences of men from oppression, it certainly is the duty of 
 rulers, not only to abstain from it themselves, but according to their 
 stations to prevent it in others. 
 
 The liberty enjoyed by the people of these States of worshipping 
 Almighty God agreeably to their consciences, is not only among the 
 choicest of their blessings, but also of their rights. While men perform 
 their social duties faithfully, they do all that society or the state can 
 with propriety demand or éxpect, and remain responsible only to their 
 Maker for the religion or mode of faith which they may prefer or profess. 
 
 Your principles and conduct are well known to me; and it is doing the 
 people called Quakers no more than justice to say, that (except their 
 declining to share with others, the burden of the common defence) 
 there is no denomination among us who are more exemplary and useful 
 citizens. 
 
 I assure you very explicitly, that in my opinion, the conscientious 
 scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness; 
 and it is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be as extensively 
 accommodated to them, as a due regard to the protection and essential 
 interests of the nation may justify and permit.” } 
 
 The address of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church reads (in part): 
 
 “We are conscious from the signal proofs you have already given, 
 that you are a friend of mankind; and, under this established idea, place 
 as full confidence in your wisdom and integrity for the preservation of 
 those civil and religious liberties which have been transmitted to us by 
 the providence of God and the glorious Revolution, as we believe ought 
 to be reposed in man. 
 
 We have received the most grateful satisfaction from the humble 
 and entire dependence on the great Governor of the Universe which you 
 have repeatedly expressed, acknowledging Him the source of blessing, 
 and particularly of the most excellent Constitution of these States, which 
 is at present the admiration of the world, and may in future become its 
 great exemplar for imitation; and hence we enjoy a holy expectation that 
 you will always prove a faithful and impartial patron of genuine, vital 
 religion, the grand end of our creation and present probationary existence. 
 
 Signed, in behalf of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 
 Tuomas Coke, 
 Francis Aspury.” ? 
 
 1 Washington's Writings, Sparks, vol. xii, pp. 168-169; Bowden, op. 
 cit., vol. li, pp. 348-349. 
 * Buckley, History of the Methodists, pp. 265-266. 
 
 oe 
 
 | 
 | 
 : 
 | 
 | 
 
 
 
NEW NATIONAL GOVERNMENT 511 
 
 The response of Washington was as follows (in part): 
 
 “To the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United 
 States of America. 
 
 It shall still be my endeavor to manifest . . . . . the sincerity of 
 my desires to contribute whatever may be in my power toward the preser- 
 vation of the civil and religious liberties of the American people. 
 
 I trust the people of every denomination who demean themselves as 
 good citizens, will have occasion to be convinced that I shall always 
 strive to prove a faithful and impartial patron of genuine, vital religion.” ! 
 
 A letter from President Washington, acknowledging the 
 congratulation sent him is addressed “‘To the Ministers, 
 Church wardens, and Vestrymen of the German Lutheran 
 Congregation in and near Philadelphia’’; in it he testifies 
 to the patriotism of the German Americans during the 
 War and says, among other things: 
 
 “From the excellent character for diligence, sobriety and virtue which 
 the Germans in general who are settled in America have ever maintained, 
 I cannot forbear felicitating myself on receiving from so respectable a 
 number of them such strong assurances of their affection for my person, 
 confidence in my integrity, and zeal to support me in my endeavors for 
 promoting the welfare of our common country.’ ? 
 
 Washington replied to the Synod of The Reformed 
 Dutch Church in North America: 
 
 “You, gentlemen, act. the part of pious Christians and good citizens 
 by your prayers and exertions to preserve that harmony and good will 
 towards men, which must be the basis of every political establishment; 
 and I readily join with you that ‘while just government protects all in 
 
 993 
 
 their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support’. 
 
 “To the Directors of the Society of the United Brethren 
 for Propagating The Gospel among the Heathen,” he 
 wrote: 
 
 1 Buckley, op. cit., pp. 266-267; Washington's Writings, Sparks edition, 
 vol. xil, pp. 153-154; Bangs, History of Methodism, vol. 1, p. 284. 
 
 * Washington's Writings, Sparks edition, vol. xii, pp. 147-148; Jacobs, 
 History of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United States, p. 346. 
 
 3’ Washington's Writings, Sparks edition, vol. xi, pp. 166-167. 
 
512 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 “T received with satisfaction the congratulations of your society and of 
 the Brethren’s congregations in the United States of America. For you 
 may be persuaded, that the approbation and good wishes of such a 
 peaceable and virtuous community cannot. be indifferent to me. 
 
 You will also be pleased to accept my thanks for the treaties (An 
 Account of the Manner, in which the Protestant Church of the Unitas Fratrum, 
 or United Brethren, preach the Gospel and Carry on their Mission among 
 the Heathen) you presented, and be assured of my patronage of your 
 laudable undertakings. ° 
 
 In proportion as the general government of the United States shall 
 acquire strength by duration, it is probable they may have it in their 
 power to extend a salutary influence to the aborigines in the extremities 
 of their territory. In the meantime, it will be a desirable thing, for the 
 protection of the Union, to cooperate, as far as the circumstances may 
 conventiently admit, with the disinterested endeavors of your society to 
 civilize and Christianize the savages of the wilderness.” ! 
 
 “To the Convention of the Universal Church Lately 
 Assembled in Philadelphia, ’’ Washington wrote in 1790: 
 
 “TY thank you for your congratulations. 
 
 It gives me the most sensible pleasure to find that, in our nation, how- 
 ever different are the sentiments of citizens on religious doctrines, they 
 generally concur in one thing; for their political professions and practices 
 are almost universally friendly to the order and happiness of our civil 
 institutions. I am also happy in finding this disposition particularly 
 evinced by your society. It is, moreover, my earnest desire, that all the 
 members of every association or community, throughout the United 
 States, may make such use of the auspicious years of peace, liberty and 
 free inquiry, with which they are now favored, as they shall hereafter 
 find occasion to rejoice for having done.” ? 
 
 Even the non-Christian Hebrews are included in the 
 list of acclaimers of the new nation. President Washington 
 sent the following response: 
 
 “To the Hebrew Congregation of the City of Savannah: 
 I thank you, with great sincerity, for your congratulations. I rejoice 
 that a spirit of liberality and philanthropy is much more prevalent than 
 
 ' Washington's Writings, vol. xii, p. 160. 
 2 Ibid., Sparks edition, vol. xii, pp. 193-194. 
 
NEW NATIONAL GOVERNMENT 513 
 
 it formerly was among the enlightened nations of the earth, and that your 
 brethren will benefit thereby in proportion as it shall become still more 
 extensive. Happily, the people of the United States of America have, in 
 many instances, exhibited examples worthy of imitation, the salutary 
 influence of which will doubtless extend much farther, if, gratefully en- 
 joying those blessings of peace, which, under the favor of Heaven, have 
 been obtained by fortitude in war, they shall conduct themselves with 
 reverence to the Deity, and charity towards their fellow-creatures. 
 
 May the same wonder-working Deity, who long since delivered the 
 Hebrews from their Egyptiah oppressors, and planted them in the 
 promised land, whose providential agency has lately been conspicuous 
 in establishing these United States as an independent nation, still con- 
 tinue to water them with the dews of Heaven, and to make the inhabi- 
 tants of every denomination participate in the temporal and spiritual 
 blessings of that people, whose God is Jehovah.” ! 
 
 We must not pass over the felicitations sent by that 
 individualist of individualists, Isaac Backus, to the new 
 civil head of a centralized nation: 
 
 “To George Washington, Esq., President of the United States. 
 
 Sir, Among the many addresses to your Excellency since your ad- 
 vancement to the highest seat of government in America, I suppose you 
 have received none from any community of Baptists in the State of 
 Massachusetts . . . . . An obscure individual begs your acceptance 
 
 'Washington’s Writings, vol. xii, pp. 185-186. Mention has not pre- 
 viously been made of the part played by the Hebrews in the American Revo- 
 lution because their support was individual rather than official. It should 
 be noted that considering their numbers in America (about three thousand 
 in all) their service to the cause of freedom was considerable. More than 
 fifty Jews fought in the Revolution, twenty-four of.whom were officers, 
 the names of Colonel Isaac Franks and Colonel David Salisbury Franks 
 being prominent. Haym Salomon sacrificed his fortune and his life for 
 independence. A friend of Pulaski and Kosciusko, he generously sup- 
 ported Robert Morris in his struggle for funds, giving in all about 
 $350,000. He died in a British prison. Aaron Levy of Philadelphia, 
 Benjamin Jacobs of New York, Isaac Moses of Philadelphia, Samuel 
 Lyon of New York, and Manuel Mordecai Noah of Savannah, all gave 
 large sums. In the active service were such men as Mordecai Sheftall, 
 Benjamin Nones, Jacob de la Motta, Jacob de Leon, Philip Moses 
 Russell, Solomen Bush, Emanuel de la Motta, Benjamin Ezekiel, Jason 
 Sampson, Ascher Levy, Nathaniel Levy, David Hays, Jacob Hays, 
 Reuben Etting, Jacob Cohen, Lewis Bush, Aaron Benjamin, Isaac 
 Israel, and Benjamin Moses. See Peters, Justice to the Jew, pp. 90-94; 
 Wolf, The American Jew as Patriot, Soldier, and Citizen; Wiernik, 
 
514 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 of a private token of love, which may be of more real service than many 
 flattering public addresses . 
 
 The continuation of tax and compulsion for religious ministers in New 
 England, while it is abolished in Virginia, is a clear demonstration of the 
 narrow selfishness of mankind. The continuance of it here for Congre- 
 gationalists, and the abolishing of it there for Episcopalians, are both 
 commended by Dr. Gordon in his History of the American Revolution, in 
 which is much impartiality about civil and military affairs. But religious 
 ministers, when supported by force, are the most dangerous men upon 
 earth; while no men are more necessary and useful to human society than 
 faithful teachers. Of this further evidence is given in two late pieces 
 which I here send you. 
 
 That your Excellency may still be guided and preserved in your 
 exalted and difficult station until righteous government shall be well 
 established in this land; that your latter days may be peaceful and happy, 
 and your end be eternal life, is the earnest prayer of 
 
 Your humble servant, 
 November 15, 1790.” } Isaac Backus 
 
 Most illuminating is the reply which President Wash- 
 ington addressed to his co-religionists: 
 
 “To the Bishops, Clergy and Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 in the States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Mary- 
 land, Virginia and North Carolina, in General Convention Assembled: 
 
 August 19, 1789. 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 I sincerely thank you for your affectionate congratulations on my 
 election to the chief magistracy of the United States. 
 
 The satisfaction arising from the indulgent opinion entertained by the 
 American people of my conduct will, I trust, be some security for prevent- 
 ing me from doing anything, which might justly incur the forfeiture of 
 that opinion. And the consideration, that human happiness and moral 
 duty are inseparably connected, will always continue to prompt me to 
 promote the progress of the former by inculcating the practice of the 
 latter. 
 
 On this occasion, it would ill become me to conceal the joy I have felt 
 in perceiving the fraternal affection. which appears to increase every day 
 
 History of the Jews in America, chapter xul. President Washington also 
 sent answers to addresses from “The Hebrew Congregation of Newport, 
 Rhode Island’’, and ““The Hebrew Congregations 1 in the Cities of Phila- 
 delphia, Richmond, and Charleston,” Wiernik, op. cit., pp. 100-103. 
 
 1 Hovey, op. cit., pp. 251-252. 
 
NEW NATIONAL GOVERNMENT 515 
 
 among the friends of genuine religion. It affords edifying prospects, 
 indeed, to see Christians of different denominations dwell together in 
 more charity and conduct themselves in respect to each other with a 
 more Christian-like spirit, than ever they have done in any former age, 
 or in any other nation. 
 
 I receive with the greater satisfaction your congratulations on the 
 establishment of the new Constitution of government, because I believe 
 its mild yet efficient operations will tend to remove every remaining 
 apprehension of those, with whose opinions it may not entirely coincide, 
 as well as to confirm the hopes of its numerous friends; and because the 
 moderation, patriotism, and wisdom of the present Federal Legislature 
 seem to promise the restoration of order, and our ancient virtues, the 
 extension of genuine religion, and the consequent advancement of our 
 respectability abroad, and of our substantial happiness at home.” ! 
 
 President Washington also replied to addresses from the 
 Congregational Church and Society at Medway, formerly 
 St. John’s Parish, in the State of Georgia;2 and to the 
 Members of the New Church in Baltimore.? 
 
 While these addresses were pouring in on the chief 
 executive of the new nation, the First Congress was pro- 
 ceeding to organize the administration of the New Govern- 
 ment in a spirit of “moderation, patriotism, and wisdom,” 
 which to President Washington seemed “to promise the 
 restoration of order, and our ancient virtues, the extension 
 of genuine religion, and the consequent advancement of 
 our respectability abroad, and of our substantial happiness 
 at home.” September 25, 1789, Mr. Boudinot, a Presby- 
 terlan member of the House, from New Jersey, moved 
 a resolution to request the President to recommend “a 
 day of public thanksgiving and prayer . . . . . for the 
 many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by afford- 
 ing them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Consti- 
 
 ' Washington's Writings, Sparks edition, vol. xii, pp. 162-163. 
 2 [hid., vol. xii, pp. 198-199. 
 3 Ihd., vol. xii, pp. 201-202. 
 
516 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 tution of government for their safety and happiness.” 
 Mr. Burke did not like this mimicking of European cus- 
 toms, while Mr. Tucker objected to the idea of returning 
 thanks for a Constitution before they had experienced that 
 it did actually promote safety and happiness. Mr. 
 Sherman, however, supported the resolution and Mr. 
 Boudinot was able to quote precedents from the practices 
 of the late Congress. Accordingly it was passed.! 
 
 Congress under the new constitution, following tradition, 
 the precedent of previous American legislative bodies, and 
 the leadership of President Washington, thus officially 
 recognized those national churches which had so enthusi- 
 astically greeted the new government and pledged it whole- 
 hearted support. State and church mutually agreed to 
 accept each other, to work together in harmony for their 
 common ideals of politics and religion, the basis for our 
 American Civil Church Law. 
 
 1 Annals of Congress, vol. 1, pp. 914-915, 923. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Acts and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 
 the United States of America, A. D. 1789. Philadelphia, 1803. 
 
 Acts and Proceedings of the General Synod of the Reformed Protestant 
 Dutch Church in North America. Vol. i, 1771-1812: Preceded by the 
 Minutes of the Coetus (1738-1754) and the Proceedings of the Con- 
 ferantie (1755-1767) and followed by the Minutes of the Original 
 Particular Synod (1794-1799). New York, 1859. 
 
 Adams, James Truslow, Revolutionary New England, 1691-1776. Boston, 
 1923. 
 
 Adams, John. Works of, with a Life of the Author. Notes and Illustra- 
 tions by Charles Francis Adams. 10 vols. Boston, 1850-1856. 
 
 Adams, John and Abigail, Familiar Letters of John Adams and His Wife. 
 Edited by His Grandson, Charles Francis Adams. 2 vols. Boston, 
 1875. 
 
 Adams, Zabdiel, Election Sermon, Preached . . .. . May 29, 1782. 
 Boston, 1782. 
 
 Address from the Roman Catholics of America to George Washington, Esq., 
 President of the United States. London, 1790. 
 
 Andrews, C. N., Colonial Folk Ways. Chronicles of America Series, vol. 9. 
 New Haven, 1919. 
 
 Applegarth, A. C., Quakers in Pennsylvania. Johns Hopkins University 
 Studies. 10th Series. vols. 7-9. Baltimore, 1892. 
 
 Armitage, Thomas, History of the Baptists. New York, 1887. 
 
 Asbury, Francis, Journal. 3 vols. New York, 1821. 
 
 Aspund, John, The Annual Register of the Baptist Denomination in North 
 America to November 1, 1790. 
 
 Backus, Isaac, History of New England, with Particular Reference to the 
 Denomination Called Baptists. 3 vols. 1777, 1784, 1796. Abridgement 
 1804. Second edition, with notes by David Weston, Newton, 1871. 
 
 Bachus, Isaac, An Appeal to the Public For Religious Liberty, against 
 the Oppressors of the Present Day . . . . . Boston, 1773. 
 
 Bacon, L. W., A History of American Christianity. New York, 1900. 
 
 Bailey, G. S., The Trials and Victories of Religious Liberty in America; 
 A Centennial Memorial, 1876. Philadelphia, 1876. 
 
 Baird, Robert, Religion in America: or, An Account of Origin, Relation 
 to the Staie, and Present Conditions of the Evangelical Churches in the 
 United States, With Notices of the Evangelical Denominations. New 
 York, 1844; second edition, 1856. 
 
518 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 » Baird, Robert, Progress and Prospects of Christianity in the United 
 States. London, 1851. 
 
 Balch, Thomas, Calvinism and American Independence. Philadelphia, 
 1909. 
 
 Bancroft, G., History of the United States. 10 vols. Boston, 1834-1874. 
 
 Bandot, Seraphin, Discours pronouncé le 4 Juillet, Jour de V anniversaire 
 de V indepéndence, dans l’église catholique, par le Reverend Pére Seraphin 
 Bandot, Recollet, Awmonier de son Excellence Mr. Gerard Ministre 
 Plénipoteniaire de France auprés des Etats Unis de l Amerique Supten- 
 trionale. Philadelphia, 1779. 
 
 Bangs, Nathan, Life of the Reverend Freeborn Garrettson, Compiled from 
 his Printed and Manuscript Journals and other Authentic Documents. 
 New York, 1832. 
 
 Bascom, Bishop H. B., Methodism and Slavery. Nashville, 1846. 
 
 Bates, F. G., Rhode Island and the Formation of the Union. New York, 
 1898. 
 
 Beard, Charles A., An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. 
 New York, 1913. 
 
 Beardsley, E. E., Life and Correspondence of Samuel Johnson, D.D., 
 Missionary of the Church of England in Connecticut and First President 
 of King’s College. Boston, 1881. 
 
 Beardsley, E. E., Life of William Samuel Johnson. Boston, 1876. 
 
 Beardsley, E. E., History of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut, from 
 1635 to 1865. 2vols. 4th edition, New York, 1883. 
 
 Beecher, Lyman, Autobiography, Correspondence, etc. Edited by Charles 
 Beecher. 2 vols. New York, 1864-1865. 
 
 Benedict, David, History of the Baptist Denomination. 2 vols. Boston, 
 1813. 
 
 Benson, Allen, Our Dishonest Constitution. New York, 1914. 
 
 Bentley, W. J., Diary, 1783-1819. Published by Essex Institute. Salem, 
 1905-1914. 
 
 Bernheim, G. D., History of the German Settlements and of the Lutheran 
 Church in North and South Carolina. Philadelphia, 1872. 
 
 » Bitting, C. C., Notes on the Century History of the Strawberry Association 
 
 of Virginia for One Hundred Years from 1776 to 1876. 
 
 » Bitting, C. C., Religious Liberty and the Baptists. Philadelphia, 1879. 
 Black, J. W., Maryland’s Attitude in the Struggle for Canada, in Johns 
 Hopkins University Studies, vol. vii, tenth series. Baltimore, 1892. 
 Blaikie, Alexander, History of Presbyterianism in New England. Boston, 
 
 1881. 
 
 Boucher, Jonathan, A View of the Causes and Consequences of the American 
 Revolution; in Thirteen Discourses, preached in North America between 
 the years 1763 and 1775, with an Historical Preface. Wondon, 1797. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 519 
 
 Boucher, Jonathan, Autobiography in Notes and Queries, 5th Series, vol. 
 vi. 
 
 Boudinot, J. J., The Life and Public Services, Addresses and Letters of 
 Elias Boudinot. 2 vols. New York, 1896. 
 
 Bowden, James, The History of the Society of Friends in America. 2 vols. 
 London, 1854. 
 
 Brackenridge, Hugh Montgomery, Six Political Discourses Founded on 
 the Scripture. Lancaster, n.d. 
 
 Brackett, J. R., “The Status of the Slave, 1775-1789” in Essays in the 
 Constitutional History of the United States. New York, 1899. 
 
 Breckinridge, R. J., Presbyterian Government Not a Hierarchy, but a 
 Commonwealth, and Presbyterian Ordination. Baltimore, 1843. 
 
 Breed, Wm. P., An Historical Discourse on Presbyterians and the Revo- 
 lution. Philadelphia, 1876. 
 
 Breed, Wm. P., Proceedings and Addresses at the Laying of the Corner- 
 stone and at the Unveiling of the Statue to John Witherspoon in Fairmont 
 Park, Philadelphia. Compiled by Rev. Wm. P. Breed. Philadelphia, 
 1877. 
 
 Briggs, C. A., American Presbyterianism, Its Origin and Early History. 
 New York, 1885. 
 
 Briggs, F. W., Bishop Asbury: A Biographical Study for Christian Workers. 
 London, 1879. 
 
 Bryce, James, American Commonwealth. 2 vols. New York, 1886. 
 
 Bryce, James, Modern Democracies. 2 vols. New York, 1921. 
 
 Buckley, J. M., A History of Methodism in the United States. 2 vols. 
 New York, 1898. 
 
 Buckley, J. M., A History of Methodists in the United States. Fourth 
 edition, New York, 1900. 
 
 Burrage, Henry S., A History of the Baptists in New England. Phila- 
 delphia, 1894. 
 
 Carey, Mathey, editor, American Museum, January 1787-December 1792. 
 12 vols. Philadelphia, 1787-1792. 
 
 Chamberlain, Mellen, John Adams. Boston, 1898. 
 
 Chauncy, Charles, A Discourse on the Good News from a Far Country. 
 Boston, 1766. 
 
 Chauncy, Charles, Trust in God, the Duty of a People in a Day of Trouble. 
 
 era LsOStOns 117 Os 
 
 Gnatacy besitos The Accursed Thing must be taken away from among 
 the People tf they would reasonably hope to stand before their Enemies . 
 Boston, 1782. 
 
 Clark, Jonas, A Sermon Preached at Lexington, April 19,1776 . . . 
 
 To which is added a Brief Narrative of the Principal Transactions of that 
 Day. Boston, 1777. 
 
520 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Clark, Jonas, Election Sermon, Preached . . . . . 1781. Boston, 1781. 
 
 Cobb, Sandford, H., Rise of Religious Liberty in America. New York, 
 1902. 
 
 Cole, G. D. R., Social Theory. New York, 1920. 
 
 Combe, Thomas Edwin, A Sermon, Preached July 20th, 1775. Phila- 
 delphia, 1775. 
 
 Connecticut Courant for December 17, 1787 (Number 1195). Hartford, 
 
 Connecticut, The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, 1636-1776. 
 15 vols. Hartford, 1850-1890. 
 
 Connecticut, The Public Records of the State of Connecticut, Hartford, 
 1894-1895. 
 
 Constitution of the Reformed Dutch Church in the United States. New 
 York, 1793. Second edition, 1815. 
 
 Cooley, T. M., A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations which rest 
 upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union. 6th 
 edition, Boston, 1890. 
 
 Cooper, Samuel, The Crisis. Boston, 1754. 
 
 Cooper, Samuel, A Sermon... . . on the Commencement of the 
 Constitution and Inauguration of the New Government. Boston, 1780. 
 
 ~ Cornelison, I. A., The Relation of Religion to Civil Government in the 
 United States: A State Without a Church, but not Without a Religion. 
 New York, 1895. 
 
 Corwin, E. F., History of the Reformed Church (Dutch). New York, 1895. 
 
 Corwin, E. F., Manual of the Reformed Church in America. 38rd edition, 
 New York, 1879. 
 
 Coxe, Trench, An Examination of the Constitution for the United States of 
 America, Submitted to the People by the General Convention at Phila- 
 delphia, etc. By An American Citizen. Philadelphia, 1788. 
 
 Cross, Arthur Lyon, The Anglican Episcopate and the American Colonies, 
 in Harvard Historical Studies, vol. ix. New York, 1902. 
 
 Davis, Narrative of the State of Religion among Dissenters in Virginia. 
 
 de Tocqueville, Alexis, Democracy in America. Translated by Henry 
 Reeve. New York, 1835. 
 
 De Schweinitz, Bishop Edmund, Life and Times of David Zeisberger. 
 Philadelphia, 1880. 
 
 DeWarville, Brissot, J. P., Citoyen Francais, Noveau Voyage dans les 
 Etats-Unis de V Amerique Septentrional fait en 1788. 
 
 De Witte, Cornelius, La Vie de Thomas Jefferson. Paris, 1861. 
 
 DeWitt, John First General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States of America. Philadelphia, 1881. 
 
 Dickinson, John, The Writings of, edited by Paul Leicester Ford. Phil- 
 adelphia, 1895. 
 
 Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution. Boston, 1829. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 521 
 
 . Documentary History of New York. 4 vols. Albany, 1849-1851. 
 
 Douglass, William, A Summary, historical and political, of the first planting, 
 progressive improvements, and present state of the British Settlements 
 an North America. 2 vols. Boston, 1749-1753. 
 
 Drake, Acts and Proceedings of the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, 
 A. D., 1787-1788. Philadelphia, 1788. . 
 
 Draught of the Form of the Government and Discipline of the Presby- 
 terian Church in the United States of America. New York, 1787. 
 
 Draught of a Plan of Government and Discipline for the Presbyterian 
 Church in North America, Proposed by a Committee Appointed for that 
 Purpose. Philadelphia, 1786. 
 
 Drew, Samuel, The Life of the Reverend Thomas Coke, D.D. New York, 
 1818. 
 
 Dubbs, J. H., A History of the Reformed (German) Church in the United 
 States. New York, 1895. 
 
 Duché, Jacob, The American Vine: A Sermon Preached before Congress, 
 20 July, 1775. Philadelphia, 1775. 
 
 Duché, Jacob, The Duty of Standing Fast in our Spiritual and Temporal 
 Liberties. A Sermon, in Christ Church... . . 7 July, 1775, before 
 the First Battalion, etc. Philadelphia, 1775. 
 
 Duffield, George A Sermon Preached in the Third Presbyterian Church in 
 the City of Philadelphia, Thursday, December 11, 1783... . . 
 Philadelphia, 1784. Reprinted in The Patriotic Preachers of the Ameri- 
 can Revolution, pp. 344-368. 
 
 Dwight, Timothy, Travels in New England and New York. 4 vols. 
 New Haven, 1821-1822. 
 
 Ecclesiastical Records of the State of New York, edited by E. F. Corwin, 
 7 vols. Albany, 1901-1916. 
 
 Eckenrode, H. J., Separation of Church and State in Virginia.  Rich- 
 mond, 1910. 
 
 Elliot, Jonathan, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the 
 Adoption of the Federal Constitution, etc. 5 vols. Philadelphia, 1836- 
 1859. 
 
 Elmer, L. Q. C., History of New Jersey, with Biographical Sketches of the 
 Governors and Reminiscences of the Bench and Bar. Newark, 1872. 
 
 Emory, Robert, History of the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church. Revised and brought down to 1858 by W. P. Strickland. 
 
 Farrand, Max, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. 3 vols. 
 New Haven, 1911. 
 
 Faulkner, J. A., The Methodists in America. New York, 1903; 3rd edition, 
 New York, 1913. 
 
 Fischer, S. G., Struggle for American Independence. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 
 1908. 
 
522 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Foote, W. H., Sketches of Virginia: History and Biography. 1st series - 
 Philadelphia, 1849; 2nd series, Philadelphia, 1855. 
 
 Ford, H. J., The Scotch-Irish in America. Princeton, 1915. 
 
 Ford, P. L., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, published 
 during its discussion by the people, 1787-1788. Brooklyn, 1888. 
 
 Ford, P. L., Essays on the Constitution of the United States, published 
 during its discussion by the people, 1787-1788. Brooklyn, 1892. 
 
 Four Dissertations on the Reciprocal Advantages of a Perpetual Union 
 between Great Britain and*her American Colonies. London, 1766. 
 
 Fristoe, William, History of the Ketocton Baptist Association. Staunton, 
 Virginia, 1808. 
 
 Galloway, Joseph, The Examination of Joseph Galloway, Esq., Late 
 Speaker of the House of Assembly of Pennsylvania, before the House of 
 Commons in a Committee on the American Papers, etc. London, 1779. 
 
 Galloway, Joseph, Historical and Political Reflections on the Rise and 
 Progress of the American Revolution. London, 1780. 
 
 Gano, John of Frankfort, — formerly of New York, Biographical Memoirs 
 of the Late Reverend. New York, 1806. 
 
 Garrettson, Mr. Freeborn, Experiences and Travels of. Philadelphia, 1791. 
 
 Gillette, E. H., History of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. 
 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1864. Revised edition, Philadelphia, 1873. 
 
 Goodrich, Elizur, D.D., The Principles of Civil Union and Happiness 
 Considered and Recommended. A sermon... . . May 10th, 1787. 
 Hartford, 1787. 
 
 Gordon, William, History of the Rise, Progress and Establishment of the 
 United States of America: Including an account of the Late War and of 
 the Thirteen Colonies from their Origin to that Period. 4 vols. London, 
 1788. 
 
 Gordon, William, Election Sermon, Preached . . . . . July 19, 1775. 
 
 Greene, G. W., Life of Nathaniel Greene. 3 vols. 1867-1871. 
 
 Greene, M. L., The Development of Religious Liberty in Connecticut. 
 Cambridge, 1905. 
 
 Grigsby, H. B., History of the Virginia Federal Convention of 1788, with 
 Some Account of the Eminent Virginians of the Body. 2 vols. Rich- 
 mond, 1890-1891. 
 
 Guild, R. A., Life, Times, and Correspondence of James Manning and the 
 Early History of Brown University. Boston, 1864. 
 
 Gunning, Election Sermon, Preached.... . May 28, 1783. Boston, 1783. 
 
 Gunn, Alexander, Memoir of Reverend John H. Livingston. 1829; 2nd 
 edition, 1856. 
 
 Haltigan, James, The Irish in the American Revolution and their Early 
 Influence in the Colonies. Washington, 1908. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 523 
 
 Hamilton, Alexander, A Full Vindication of the Measures of the Congress, 
 from the Calumnies of their Enemies: in Answer to a Letter under the 
 Signature of A W. Farmer. Whereby his Sophistry is exposed, his 
 cavils confuted, and his Wit ridiculed. New York, 1774. 
 
 Hamilton, Alexander, The Farmer Refuted: or, A More impartial and com- 
 prehensive View of the Dispute between Great Britain and the Colonies; 
 intended as a further vindication of Congress, in answer to a Letter from 
 A W. Farmer, entitled a View of the Controversy, ete. New York, 1775. 
 
 Hamilton, J. L., History of the Unitas Fratrum, or Moravian Church in 
 
 the United States of America. New York, 1895. 
 
 Hart, Levi, Description of A Good Character Attempted and Applied to the 
 Subject of Jurisdiction and Civil Government. A Sermon delivered . 
 May 11th, 1786. Hartford, 1786. 
 
 Hawkins, E., Historical Notices of the Missions of the Church of England 
 in the North American Colonies, Previous to the I ndependence of the 
 United States: Chiefly from the Manuscript Documents of the Society for 
 the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. London, 1845. 
 
 Hawks, F. L., Contributions to the Ecclesiastical History of the United 
 States of America. 2 vols., 1, Virginia; 2, Maryland. New York, 
 1836-39. 
 
 Hawks, F. L., Efforts to Obtain a Colonial Episcopate before the Rev- 
 olution. In Protestant Episcopal Historical Society Collection, vol. i. 
 New York, 1851. 
 
 Hawks, F. L. and Perry, W. S., Journals of the General Convention of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church, 1785-1853. Philadelphia, 1861. 
 
 Headley, J. T., The Chaplains and Clergy of the American Revolution. 
 New York, 1864. 
 
 Hening, W. W., Statutes at large, being a Collection of all the laws of 
 Virginia, from the first session of the legislature in the year 1619-1792. 
 13 vols. 1809-1823. 
 
 Henry, W. W., Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches. New 
 York, 1890-1891. 
 
 Hildreth, Richard, History of the United States. 6 vols. New York, 
 1849-1856. 
 
 Hitchcock, Gad, Election Sermon... . . May 25, 1774. Boston, 
 1774. 
 
 Hodge, Charles, The Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church in 
 the United States of America. Parts i and ii, 1705-1788. Philadelphia, 
 1839-1840. 
 
 Hoffman, Murray, Ecclesiastical Law of the State of New York. New York, 
 1868. 
 
 Hovey, Alvah, A Memoir of the Life and Times of the Reverend Isaac 
 Backus. Boston, 1859. 
 
524 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 Howard, Simeon, Election Sermon, Preached . . . . . May 31, 1780. 
 
 Boston, 1780. 
 
 Howell, Robert B. C., The Early Baptists of Virginia. Philadelphia, 1876. 
 
 Howison, R. R., History of Virginia. Richmond, 1849. 
 
 Huntington, Joseph, D.D., National Justice: A Sermon Delivered . 
 May 13, 1874. WHartford, 1784. 
 
 Inglis, Charles, The True Interest of America Impartially Stated, in 
 Certain Strictures on a Pamphlet intitled Common Sense, by An Ameri- 
 can. Philadelphia, 1776" 
 
 Inglis, Charles, Letters of Papinian, in which the Conduct, Present State 
 and Prospect of the American Congress are examined. London, 1779. 
 Jacobs, H. E., History of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United 
 
 States. New York, 1900. 
 
 James, Charles F., Documentary History of the Struggle for Religious 
 Liberty in Virginia. Lynchburg, 1900. 
 
 James, E. L., The Character and Career of Francis Asbury, Illustrated by 
 Numerous Selections from his Journal, Arranged in Chronological Order. 
 1872. 
 
 Jefferson, Thomas, Writings of. Washington edition, 9 vols. New York, 1861, 
 
 Jefferson, Thomas, Writings of. P.L. Ford edition, 10 vols. New York, 
 1892-1899. 
 
 Johnson, Samuel, Taxation no Tyranny; An Answer to the Resolutions of 
 the American Congress. London, 1775. 
 
 Johnson, W. F., America’s Foreign Relations, 2 vols. New York, 1916. 
 
 Jones, R. M., The Quakers in the American Colonies. London, 1911. 
 
 Jones, R. M., Sharpless, Isaac, and Gummere, The Quakers in the Ameri- 
 can Colonies. New York, 1911. 
 
 Journals of the Continental Congress. Library of Congress edition by 
 W. C. Ford and Gaillard Hunt. Washington, 1904—in progress. 
 
 Journal of the Federal Convention by James Matison, edited by E. H. 
 Scott. Chicago, 1893. 
 
 Journals of the House of Dey of Virginia, 1776, 1777. Richmond, 
 1827-1828. 
 
 Journals of Each Provincial Congress of Massachusetts in 1774 and 1775. 
 Lincoln edition. Boston, 1838. 
 
 Kempshall, Reverend Everard, Caldwell and the Revolution, a historical 
 sketch of the First Church of Elizabeth prior to and during the war of the 
 Revolution. Being a discourse delivered on Sunday, January 25, 1880 
 
 . . . Elizabeth, New Jersey, 1880. 
 
 Kehler Max J., Phases in the History of Religious Liberty in America in 
 Publications of the Jewish Historical Society. vol. 11. 
 
 Langdon, Samuel, A Sermon before the Congress . . . . . at Water- 
 town, May 31, 1775. Watertown, 1775. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 525 
 
 Lauer, P. E., Church and State in New England in Johns H. opkins Univer- 
 sity Studies, series 10, number 10, Baltimore, 1892. 
 
 Lee, Jesse, A Short History of the Methodists in the United States of 
 America. Baltimore, 1810. 
 
 Lee, Leroy, M., Life and Times of Jesse Lee. Richmond, 1848. 
 
 Leland, John, Writings, edited by Miss L. F. Green. New York, 1845. 
 
 Leonard, Lewis A., Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton. New York, 1918. 
 
 Lincoln, C. H., The Revolutionary Movement in Pennsylvania, 1760-1776. 
 Philadelphia, 1901. 
 
 Livingston, E. B., The Livingstons of Livingston Manor. New York, 1910. 
 
 Livingston, M., Letter to. . . . . John, lord bishop of Llandaff. 
 Boston, 1768. 
 
 Loyalist Poetry of the Revolution. Philadelphia, 1857. 
 
 Loyalist Verses of Joseph Stansbury and Doctor Jonathan Odell, relating to 
 the American Revolution. Albany, 1860. 
 
 Madison, James, Writings of. G. Hunt edition. 9 vols. New York, 
 1900-1910. 
 
 McMaster, J. B. and Stone, F. D., Pennsylvania and the Federal Con- 
 vention. Lancaster, 1888. 
 
 Mains, George P., Francis Asbury. New York, 1909. 
 
 Mann, William J., Life and Times of Henry Melchoir Muhlenberg. Phila- 
 delphia, 1887. 
 
 Mayhew, Jonathan, A Discourse concerning Unlimited Submission and 
 Non-resistance to the Higher Powers, with some Reflections on the Resist- 
 ‘ance to King Charles the First, and on the Anniversary of his Death, — 
 in which the mysterious Doctrine of that Prince’s Saintship and Martyr- 
 
 dom is unriddled. Boston, 1750. 
 
 Mayhew, Jonathan, The Snare Broken, A Thanksgiving Discourse, 
 preached . . . . . May 23, 1766, occasioned by the Repeal of the 
 Stamp Act. Boston, 1766. 
 
 McConnell, S. D., History of the Americqn Episcopal Church, from the 
 Planting of the Colonies to the End of the Civil War. New York, 1890. 
 Melllwain, Charles H., The American Revolution: A Constitutional 
 
 Interpretation. New York, 1923. 
 
 Mellwaine, H. R., Religious Toleration in Virginia, in Johns Hopkins 
 University Studies in History and Political Science. 10th series, number 
 4, Baltimore, 1894. i 
 
 McSherry, James, History of Maryland, Baltimore, 1849. 
 
 McTyeire, H. H., History of Methodism. Nashville, 1914. 
 
 Meade, William, Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia. 2 
 vols. Philadelphia, 1857. 
 
 Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, 1864. 
 
 Meredith, W. H., Jesse Lee, A Methodist Apostle. New York, 1909. 
 
 = ‘4 . HE ¢ & 
 
526 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Merrill, J. H., Memoranda relating to the Mifflin Family. Philadelphia, 
 1890. 
 
 Miller, Samuel, Memoir of the Reverend John Rodgers. Philadelphia, 1840. 
 
 Minutes of the Annual Conferences of the Methodist Church for the Years, 
 1778-1828. New York, 1840. 
 
 Minutes, Methodist, British. Edition of 1812. London, 1812. 
 
 Minutes of the (Provisional) Synod, 1771-1793 and of the (First) Particular 
 Synod, 1794-1799. (Dutch Reformed). 
 
 Minutes of a Convention of Delegates from the Synods of New York and 
 Philadelphia and from the Associations of Connecticut, held annually, 
 1766-1775. Hartford, 1843. 
 
 Minutes of the Presbytery of New York. Edited by D. R. Fox in New York 
 State Historical Association Journal. Vol. i, pp. 22-43. 
 
 Minutes and Letters of the Coetus of the German Reformed Congregations in 
 Pennsylvania, 1747-1792. Philadelphia, 1903. 
 
 Minutes of the Synod of New York and Philadelphia (Presbyterian). 
 
 Morris, B. F., Christian Life and Character or Civil Institutions of the - 
 United States, developed in the official and historical annals of the Re- 
 public. Philadelphia, 1864. 
 
 Morse, A. E., The Federalist Party in Massachusetts to the Year 1800. 
 Princeton, 1909. 
 
 Morse, Jedidiah, Annals of the American Revolution. Hartford, 1824. 
 
 Moss, Lemuel (editor), Baptists and the National Centenary. Phila- 
 delphia, 1876. 
 
 Muhlenberg, H. A., Life of John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg. Philadelphia, 
 1849. 
 
 Muzzey, D.S., Thomas Jefferson. New York, 1918. 
 
 Myles, William. A Chronological History of the People Called Methodists 
 of the Connexion of the Late Reverend John Wesley, from their rise in the 
 year 1729 to their last conference in 1802. London, 1803; fourth edition, 
 London, 1813. . 
 
 Narrative of the Organization and of the Early Measures of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in the United States in the Pennsylvania Register, 
 vol. ili, pp. 405-406, June 27, 1829. 
 
 Neuman, A. H., History of the Baptist Churches in the United States. 
 8rd edition, New York, 1900. 
 
 Notes and Queries: A Medium of Intercommunication for Literary Men, 
 General Readers, etc. 92 vols. London, 1849-1895. 
 
 Novanglus et Massachusettensis: or Political Essays, published in the 
 Years 1774 and 1775, on the principal points of Controversy between 
 Great Britain and her Colonies. The former by John Adams, late Presi- 
 dent of the United States; the later by Jonathan Sewell, the King’s Attor- 
 ney General of the Province of Massachusetis-Bay. To which are Added 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 527 
 
 a number of Letters lately written by President Adams to the Honorable 
 William Tudor, some of which were never before published. Boston, 
 1819. 
 
 O’Brien, M. J., A Hidden Phase of American History: Ireland’s Part in 
 America’s Struggle for Liberty. New York, 1920. 
 
 O’Gorman, Thomas, A History of the Catholic Church in the United States. 
 New York, 1895; 3rd edition, New York, 1900. 
 
 Overton, J. H., John Wesley. New York, 1891. 
 
 Payson, Phillips, Election Sermon, Preached . . . . . May 27, 1778. 
 Boston, 1778. 
 
 Perry, W. S., A Half-century of Legislation: Journal of the General Con- 
 vention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, 1785- 
 1835; With Historical Notes and Documents. 3 vols. Claremont, 
 New Hampshire, 1874. 
 
 Perry, W. S., A Handbook. of the General Convention of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church giving its History and Constitution, 1785-1880. 
 2nd edition, New York, 1881. 
 
 Perry, W. S., The History of the American Episcopal Church, 1587-1883. 
 2 vols. Boston, 1885. 
 
 Perry, W.S., Influence of the Clergy in the War of the Revolution. Pamph- 
 let, New York, 1891. 
 
 Perry, W. S., The Faith of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence 
 (N. P., 189?) 
 
 Perry, W. S., Bishop Seabury and Bishop Provoost. (N. P., 1862.) 
 
 Perry, W. S., Historical Collections Relating to the Episcopal Colonial 
 Church, Covering Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Maryland, 
 and Delaware. 4 vols. Hartford, 1870. 
 
 Peters, M. C., Justice to the Jew: the story of what he has done for the world. 
 New York, 1908. 
 
 Philadelphia Ledger, January 27, 1776. 
 
 The Reasons of Dissent. Philadelphia, 1787. 
 
 Records of the General Association of the Clergy of Connecticut, 1738- 
 1799. Hartford, 1888. 
 
 Records of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, ete. 
 Philadelphia, 1904; earlier edition Philadelphia, 1841. 
 
 Reformed Dutch Church, Minutes of the General Synod, vol. i, 1771-1812. 
 New York. 
 
 Report of Committee of Revisors appointed by the General Assembly of 
 Virginia in 1776. Richmond, 1784. 
 
 Robin, Abbe, A New Journey in North America. Philadelphia, 1782. 
 
 Robinson, W. A., Jeffersonian Democracy in New England in 
 Yale Historical Publications. Miscellany, vol. iii. New Haven, 
 1916. 
 
528 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Rodgers, John, The Divine goodness displayed in the American Revo- 
 lution, A Sermon Preached December 11, 1783, a day of Public Thanks- 
 gwing. New York, 1783. 
 
 Rodgers, John, The Faithful Servant Rewarded. A Sermon delivered at 
 Princeton, May 6, 1795, occasioned by the death of the Reverend John 
 Witherspoon. New York, 1795. 
 
 Rowland, Kate Mason, Life and Writings of George Mason. 2 vols. 
 New York, 1892. 
 
 Sabine, Lorenzo, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American 
 Revolution, with a Historical Essay. 2 vols. Boston, 1864. 
 
 Sanderson, John, Biography of Signers of the Declaration of I ndependence. 
 9 vols. Philadelphia, 1823-1827. 
 
 Schaff, Philip, “Church and State in the United States” in American 
 Historical Association Papers, vol. ii, number 4. 
 
 Schaff, Philip, The Creeds of Christendom. New York, 1877-1884. 
 
 Schlesinger, A. M., The Colonial Merchants and the Revolution in Columbia 
 University Studies, vol. xxviii. New York, 1918. 
 
 Schmucher, S. S., Retrospection of Lutheranism in the United States. 
 Philadelphia, 1840. 
 
 Seabury, Samuel (2nd), A Brief View of the Origin and Results of Episco- 
 pacy in the United States of America. New York, 1836. 
 
 Seabury, Samuel, Free Thoughts on the Proceedings of the Continental 
 Congress, held at Philadelphia, September 5, 1774: wherein their Errors 
 are exhibited, their Reasonings confuted, and the fatal Tendency of their 
 Non-importation, Non-Exportation, and Non-Consumption Measures 
 are laid open to the plainest Understandings; and the only means pointed 
 out for preserving and securing our present happy Constitution . 
 
 By A W. Farmer. New York, 1774. 
 
 Seabury, Samuel, The Congress Canvassed: or an Examination into the 
 Conduct of Delegates at their Grand Convention in Philadelphia, Sept. 1, 
 1774, addressed to the Merchants of New York. By A W. Farmer, 
 Author of Free Thoughts. New York, 1774. 
 
 ‘Sedgwick, Theodore Jr., Life of William Livingston. New York, 1833. 
 
 Seidensticker, Oswald, First Century of German Printing. Philadelphia, 
 1893. 
 
 Semple, Robert B., A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in 
 Virginia. Richmond, 1810. Revised and extended by G. W. Beale, 
 Richmond, 1894. 
 
 Sharpless, Isaac A., A History of Quaker Government in Pennsylvania. 
 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1899. 
 
 Sharpless, Isaac, A., Political Leaders of Provincial Pennsylvania. New 
 York, 1919. 
 
 Sharpless, Isaac A., Quakerism and Politics: Essays. Philadelphia, 1905. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 529 
 
 Shea, John Gilmary, The Catholic Church in Colonial Days. New York, 
 1886. 
 
 Shea, John Gilmary, History of the Catholic Church in the United States. 
 4 vols. New York, 1886-1892. 
 
 Shea, John Gilmary, Life and Times of Archbishop Carroll. New York, 
 1888. 
 
 Smith, G. G., Life and Labors of Francis Asbury. Nashville, 1896. 
 
 Smith, Samuel S., Life of John Witherspoon, D.D., Prefixed to his 
 Works. 
 
 Smyth, Thomas, ‘“‘Presbyterianism, the Revolution, the Declaration, and 
 the Constitution” in The Southern Presbyterian Review, March, 1848, 
 vol. i, no. 4, pp. 33-79. Columbia, South Carolina, 1848. 
 
 Smyth, Thomas, ‘‘The True Origin and Source of the Mecklenburg and 
 National Declaration of Independence”, in The Southern Presby- 
 terian Review, June, 1847, vol. i, no. 1. Columbia, 1847. 
 
 Smyth, Thomas, Works. 
 
 Smith, William, The Works of. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1803. 
 
 Sprague, William B., Annals of the American Pulpit. 9 vols. New York, 
 1859-1869. 
 
 Staples, W. R., Annals of Providence to 1832. Providence, 1843. 
 
 - Staples, W. R., Rhode Island in the Continental Congress, with the Journal 
 of the Convention that Adopted the Constitution, 1765-1790. Providence, 
 1870. 
 
 Stevens, Abel, History of Methodism. 3 vols. New York, 1858. 
 
 Stevens, Abel, History of the Methodist Episcopal Church. New York, 
 1864. 
 
 Stevens, Abel, Memorials of the Introduction of Methodism into the 
 Eastern States. Boston, 1852. 
 
 Stillé, C. J., The Life and Times of John Dickinson, 1732-1808. Phila- 
 delphia, 1891. 
 
 Stillman, Samuel, A Sermon, Preached . . . ... at Boston, May 26, 
 1779. Boston, 1779. 
 
 Strickland, W. P., The Pioneer Bishop: or, The Life and Times of Francis 
 Asbury. New York, 1858. 
 
 Story, Joseph, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 
 3 vols. Boston, 1833. Text edition, Boston, 1833. 
 
 “Stuart, Reverend John, Memoir of” in Documentary History of New 
 York. vol. iv. Albany, 1851. 
 
 Thom, W. T., “The Struggle for Religious Freedom in Virginia: The 
 Baptists” in Johns Hopkins University Studies. Series xviii, numbers 
 10-12. Baltimore, 1900. 
 
 Thomas, A. C. and R. H., History of the Friends in America. 5th edition, 
 New York, 1919. 
 
530 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Thomas, David, The Virginia Baptist: or a View and Defense of the 
 Christian Religion, as it is professed by the Baptists of Virginia. In 
 three parts; containing a true and faithful account, 1. Of their Principles. 
 2. Of their Orders as a Church. 3. Of the principal Objections made 
 against them especially in this Colony, with a serious Answer to each of 
 them. Baltimore, 1774. 
 
 Thompson, J. P., Church and State in the United States. Boston, 1873. 
 
 Thomson, R. E., History of the Presbyterian Churches in the United 
 States. New York, 1890? 
 
 Thornton, J. W., The Pulpit of the American Revolution: or, The Political 
 Sermons of the Period of 1776. New York, 1860. 
 
 Thorpe, F. N., The Federal and State Constitutions . . .. . 7 vols. 
 Washington, 1909. 
 
 Tiffany, C. C., A History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
 States of America. New York, 1895. 
 
 Tigert, J. J., A Constitutional History of American Episcopal Methodism. 
 Nashville, 1894. 
 
 Tigert, J. J., The Making of Methodism: Studies in the Genesis of Institu- 
 tions. Nashville, 1898. 
 
 Tipple, E. S., Francis Asbury, The Prophet of the Long Road. New York, 
 1916. 
 
 Tipple, E. S., The Heart of Asbury’s Journal, Being the Substance of 
 the Printed Journals of the Reverend Francis Asbury, Forty-five Years 
 Itinerant Preacher in America and Thirty-two Years a General Super- 
 intendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church. New York,-1904. 
 
 Todd, J. A., Centennial Discourse. New York, 1876. 
 
 Transactions of the Moravian Historical Society. 
 
 Trent, William P., ‘‘The Period of Constitution-Making in the American 
 Churches” in Essays in the Constitutional History of the United States 
 in the Formative Period, 1775-1789. By Graduates and Former Mem- 
 bers of the Johns Hopkins University. Edited by J. F. Jameson. 
 New York, 1889. 
 
 Tyerman, L., The Life and Times of the Reverend John Wesley, M. A.., 
 the Founder of the Methodists. 3 vols. 6th edition, London, 1890. 
 
 Tyler, M. C., The Literary History of the American Revolution, 1763-1783. 
 2 vols. New York, 1897. 
 
 Usher, R. G., The Pilgrims and their History. New York, 1918. 
 
 Wales, Samuel, D.D., The Dangers of our National Prosperity: A Sermon 
 delwered . . .'. . May 12, 1785. Hartford, 1785. 
 
 Ward, Julius H., The Life and Times of Bishop William White. New 
 York, 1892. 
 
 Washington-Duché Letters: Now Printed for the first time from the original 
 manuscript, with an introduction by Worthington Chauncey Ford, 
 Brooklyn, 1890. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 531 
 
 Washington, George The Writings of. Edited by W. C. Ford. 14 vol- 
 umes. New York and London, 1889-1893. 
 
 Washington, George, The Writings of. Edited by Jared Sparks. 12 vols. 
 Boston, and New York, 1834-1847. 
 
 Webster, Richard, History of the Presbyterian Church in America from 
 us origin until the year 1760, with Biographical Sketches of its Early 
 Ministers. Philadelphia, 1857. 
 
 Webster, Samuel, Election Sermon, Preached ...... May 28, 1777. 
 Boston, 1777. 
 
 Wesley, John, Works. 
 
 West, Samuel, Election Sermon, Preached . . . . . May 24, 1776. 
 Boston, 1776. 
 
 Wetherill, Charles, History of the Free Quakers. Philadelphia, 1894. 
 
 White, William, A Sermon on Duty of Civil Obedience, as Required in 
 Scripture. Philadelphia, 1799. 
 
 White, William, A Sermon on the Reciprocal Influence of Civil Policy and 
 Religious Duty: delivered . . . . . Philadelphia . . . . . Febru- 
 ary 19, 1795. Philadelphia, 1795. 
 
 White, William, Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
 States. Edited by B. F. De Costo. Philadelphia, 1820; 2nd edition 
 1836; New York, 1880. 
 
 White, William, The Past and the Future: A Charge on Events Connected 
 with the Organization of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
 States of America and the Lessons they Inculcate. Philadelphia, 1834. 
 
 White, William, The Case of the Episcopal Churches in the United States 
 Considered. ‘‘To Make New Articles of Faith and Doctrine No Man 
 thinketh it lawful: new laws of government, What Commonwealth or Church 
 is there which maketh not at one time or another,” Hooker. Philadelphia, 
 1783. Reprinted, 1827 and in the Protestant Episcopal Quarterly 
 Review, vol. vi, 1859. 
 
 Wiernik, P., History of the Jews in America. New York, 1912. 
 
 Wilberforce, Samuel, A History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
 America. New York, 1849; 3rd edition, London, 1856. 
 
 Wilson, Bird, D.D., Memoir of the Life of the Right Reverend William 
 White, D.D., Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State 
 of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, 1839. 
 
 Windsor, Justin, Narrative and Critical History of America. 8 vols. 
 Boston, 1886-1889. . 
 
 Wise, John, Democracy is Christ's Government in Church and State. 
 Republished, 1772. 
 
 Witherspoon, John, The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men: 
 A Sermon, preached at Princeton the 17th of May, 1776. Philadelphia, 
 1776. 
 
532 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Witherspoon, John, Essay on Money, as a Medium of Commerce: with 
 remarks on the advantages and disadvantages of paper admitted into 
 general circulation: by a citizen of the United States. Philadelphia, 1786. 
 
 Witherspoon, John, Works of. To Which is prefixed an account of the 
 Author's life, by Reverend John Rodgers. 9 vols. Edinburg, 1815. ~ 
 
 Wolf, Simon, The American Jew as Patriot, Soldier, and Citizen. Phila- 
 delphia, 1895. 
 
 Woodburn, J. A., “‘Causes of the American Revolution,” in Johns 
 Hopkins University Studies; series 10, number 12. Baltimore, 1892. 
 Zeisberger, David, Diary of, translated and edited by E. F. Bliss. 2 vols. 
 
 Cincinnati, 1885-1888. 
 
 Zollmann, Carl, “‘American Civil Church Law” in Columbia University 
 Studies, vol. 77. New York, 1917. 
 
 Zubly, John Joachim, An Humble Enquiry into the Nature of the Depen- 
 dency of the American Colonies upon the Parliament of Great Britain 
 and the Right of Parliament to lay Taxes on the said Colonies, by A 
 Freeholder of South Carolina. Not printed, 1769. 
 
 Zubly, John Joachim, The Law of Liberty: A Sermon on American Affairs 
 preached at the opening of the Provincial Congress of Georgia. Phila- 
 delphia, 1775. 
 
 Zubly, John Joachim, The Stamp Act Repealed: A Sermon preached at 
 Savannah, June 25, 1766. Charleston, 1766. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Abbot, Henry, 474 
 
 Adams, James Truslow, 51 
 
 Adams, John, 20, 24, 43, 50, 60, 83, 96, 
 140, 145, 201, 219, 220, 228, 363, 409 
 410, 411, 419, 433, 437-438. 
 
 Adams, Samuel, 87, 158, 331, 410, 427. 
 
 Adams, Zabdiel, 60. 
 
 Aitken, Robert, 268, 428-429. 
 
 Alison, Patrick, 73, 100, 260, 269, 270, 
 273, 412, 414. 
 
 Andrews, C. N., 6. 
 
 Anglicans, see Protestant Episcopalians 
 
 Ambrose, Var, 126 
 
 American Book Concern (Methodist) 
 
 193, 
 
 Antonelli, Cardinal 246-247, 249, 2538, 255- 
 Qos 
 
 Armstrong, James, 101. 
 
 Articles of Confederation, 4, 59, 86, 191, 
 226, 428. 
 
 Asbury, Francis, 124, 168, 169, 178-181 
 184-187, 189, 190, 192-193, 510. 
 
 Aston, John, 244. 
 
 Backus, Isaac, 117, 132, 140, 183, 325-326, 
 SUIS Sls SRRESBME BUSY Vr eyoey ail ably. 
 466, 468, 513-514. 
 
 Baldwin, Abraham, 61, 455. 
 
 Bancroft, Aaron, 318. 
 
 Baptists, 11, 13, 15, 19, 21, 47; 58; 65; 72, 
 99, 116-123, 320, 346, 363-364, 368- 377, 
 380-386, 388, 390-392, 399, 408, 410, 
 415, 425, 443-447, 455, 467, 469-471, 
 479, 483, 487, 507-508. 
 
 Barnard, ileenoiliss 
 
 Barratt’s Chapel, 185. 
 
 Bass, Edward, 44, 229. 
 
 Bassett, Richard, 185, 453. 
 
 Beach, Abraham, 27, 30, 197, 207, 209. 
 
 Beard, Ge 9 
 
 Bedford, Gunning, 82, 454 
 
 Beecher, Lyman, 497 
 
 Bible, American edition, 415, 428. 
 
 Blair, John, 100, 454. 
 
 Borgia, Stephen, 243 
 
 Boston Gazette, 54. 
 
 Boucher, Jonathan, 22-24, 49, 110, 125- 
 126. 
 
 Boudinot, Elias, 103, 515-516. 
 
 Bourne, Benjamin, 469. 
 
 Bowden, John, 215. 
 
 Boyd, Adam, 101. 
 
 Brackenridge; H. H., 101. 
 
 Bryce, James, 6, 7. 
 
 Burke, Edward, 20. 
 
 Caldwell, James, 102-104. 
 Carpenters’ Hall, 140, 331. 
 Carroll Family, 22, 440. 
 
 Carroll, Charles, 238, 418, 425, 492-493, 
 503. 
 
 Carroll, Daniel, 237, 431, 453, 503. 
 
 Carroll, John, 126, 234, 236, 240-244, 246, 
 248-255, 257-259, 425-426, 453, 461, 503. 
 
 aa Lonel 
 
 Chandler, Dr. T. B., 29, 36, 38. 
 
 Chase, Samuel, 46, 113, 425. 
 
 Chatham, Lord, 24. 
 
 Chauncy, Charles 52-53, 62, 318. 
 
 Chew, Benjamin, 147. 
 
 Chief White Eyes, 159, 421-422. 
 
 Christ Church and St. Peter’s, 40, 41, 42, 
 411. 
 
 Christmas Conference, 186-192. 
 
 Church of England, see 
 Episcopalians, 
 
 Cincinnati, Society of, 44. 
 
 Clark, Abraham, 85, 103. 
 
 Clark, Jonas, 58-59. 
 
 Clay, Eli, 3 349-343. 
 
 Clement XIV, 236. 
 
 Clinton, George, 108, 435. 
 
 Coke, Thomas, 169, 180-183, 185-186, 188- 
 190, 510. 
 
 College of Cardinals, 13 
 
 College of New Jersey (Princeton), 13, 82, 
 84, 98, 101, 103, 110, 135, 260, 267, 284, 
 SZOMOU Lalo O4: 
 
 College of Philadelphia (University of 
 Pennsylvania), 135-136. 
 
 College of Rhode Island (Brown), 323, 325, 
 326, 330, 343, 446, 470. 
 
 Committee of Correspondence, 51, 210, 
 226. 
 
 “‘Comnron Sense’’, 34, 36, 41, 112 
 
 Connecticut Courant, 463-465, 487. 
 
 Conscio ad Clericum, 349. 
 
 Constitutional Convention, Federal 13, 14, 
 
 81, 83, 103, 104, 114, 135, 136, 144, 192, 
 213, 237, 261, 270, 275, 440-486 
 
 Continental Congress, 2-3, 29, 39, 41-42, 
 5D, D5 09-60, 67, (35 10, ¢1, 84, G0 SO; 
 ish, TORS, Tol, TIGL Thy Suis WAG Are 
 135-1SGeel ool 40 914521 DOW lem 20s 
 205, 226, 236, 237, 239, 250; 260; 268 
 329-331, 334, 363-364, 407-439, 443-445, 
 
 Congregationalists, 11-13, 20-22, 47-68, 
 117, 140, 326, 346-356, 410, 446-451, 
 453, 455, 459, 462-468, 484-485, 515. 
 
 Congregation de Propaganda Fide, 242- 
 243, 246-249, 255-256, 258. 
 
 Coombe, Thomas, 40-41. 
 
 Cooper, Myles, 29, 38, 40, 269 
 
 Cooper, Samuel, 54, 
 
 Corporation for Relief of Widows and 
 Orphans of Clergy, 209-210 
 
 Craig, Elijah, 337, 339, 383. 
 
 Croes, John (Bishop), 44. 
 
 Protestant 
 
534 
 
 Cushing, Caleb, 410. 
 Cushing, Thomas, Bole 
 
 Dartmouth College, 422. 
 
 Davidson, Robert, 100 
 
 Davie, William, 82, 454 
 
 Davis, Samuel, 366. 
 
 Dayton, Jonathan, 82, 103-104. 
 
 De Bandol, M., 128-130. 
 
 De Lotbiniére, F. L. C., 126 
 
 De Warville, Brissot, 133, 157 
 
 D’Estaing, Count, 138. 
 
 De Kalb, Baron, 22 
 
 De Tocqueville, ‘Alexis, 6 
 
 Declaration of Independence, 3, 46, 78, 
 85, 103, 124, 226, 237, 239, 362, 492, 499, 
 
 Dedham Case, 499, 
 
 Dickinson, Jonathan, 132, 134-135, 137 
 138, 144, 408, 453. 
 
 Drinker, Hans, 137. 
 
 Duane, James, 40, 47, 209, 212, 408, 428- 
 429, 453 
 
 Duché, Jacob, 40, 43, 410-414, 419. 
 
 Duffield, George, 96- 98, 260, 264, 268 
 269, 271, 273, 275, 281, 414, 429. 
 
 Dwight, Timothy, 346, 446- 447, 453 
 
 Edwards, Jonathan, 318. 
 
 “Election Sermon’’, 50. 
 
 Electoral College, i 
 
 Ellis, Reuben, 178 
 
 Ellsworth, Oliver, 82, 454, 462-465, 487. 
 Emmons, Nathaniel, 346- 347, 356 
 
 s Engagement Clause”, 191-192 
 Ettwein, John, 158- 159, 317, 439 
 
 “Fabius”, 135. 
 
 ‘‘Farmer’s Letters’, 134. 
 
 Federal Constitution, 4, 57, 116, 134, 215, 
 228, 226, 347, 361, 439- 486, 489, 502 
 
 Fitzsimons, Thomas, 432, 453, 503. 
 
 Sie eee or “Fighting Quakers”’ 
 
 Fisher, Joshua, 146. 
 
 Horde. Reuben, 339-340, 342-343, 385, 399, 
 
 Fourth of July, 219 
 
 Franklin, Benjamin, 14, 72, 244, 425, 430- 
 432, 455- 457. 
 
 Freeman, James, 318 
 
 Freneau, Philip, 100 
 
 Fristoe, William, 343, 371-372 
 
 Froelich, 292, 299, 
 
 x 
 
 Galloway, Joseph, 66-72, 262, 331. 
 
 Gano, John, 118, 122- 123, 323, 326, 330- 
 Soler 25: 
 
 Garrettson, Freeborn, 124, 192. 
 
 Gatch, Philip, 124, 174, 177, 178. 
 
 Gay, Ebenezer, 318. 
 
 General Association of the 
 Baptists, 336-346. 
 
 General Association of Connecticut Con- 
 gregationalists, 62-65, 447, 484-485. 
 
 General Conference, Methodist, 192. 
 
 Gerard, Ambassador, 127-128. 
 
 Gerry, Elbridge, 87, 455. 
 
 Separate 
 
 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Gilman, Nicholas, 455. 
 
 Good Friday, 427. 
 
 Goodrich, Elizur, 449-451. 
 
 Gordon, William, 49-50, 57, 514. 
 
 Gorham, Nathaniel, 455. 
 
 Green, Jacob, 85, 100. 
 
 Greene, Nathaniel, 134, 136. 
 
 reba David, 27, 44, 212, 225-226, 228- 
 229, 435. 
 Guy Fawkes’ Day, 127. 
 
 Hall, James, 101. 
 
 Hamilton, Alexander, 15, 39,47, 87,453-454. 
 
 Hampden Sydney College, 267. 
 
 Hancock, John, 90, 124, 158, 334, 364, 412. 
 
 Hanover, Presbytery, 79- 82, 266, 368, 
 372-373, 400. 
 
 Hardenbergh, Jee 29 28 2958 
 
 Harris, Samuel, 337, 343, 507. 
 
 Hart, John, 85. 
 
 Hart, Levi, 449. 
 
 Harvard College, 13, 53, 100, 318. 
 
 Hausihil, B.M., 116. 
 
 Hawks, F. L., 27, 199, 367, 370, 380, 406. 
 
 Hebrews (Jews), 477, 512-514. 
 
 Helffenstein, J. C. A., 109. 
 
 Hellfrich, J. H., 309. 
 
 Helmuth, J. A. C., 19, 306, 313, 314. 
 
 Hendel, William Jr., 110, 306, 307, 309. 
 
 Henry, Patrick, 27, 47, 367, 388-389, 393, 
 435, 470, 472-473. 
 
 Herkimer, Nicholas, 109. 
 
 Hitchcock, Gad, 55-56. 
 
 Hobart, Bishop, 208. 
 
 Hodges, Dean George, 47, 231. 
 
 Hooper, William, 46, 419. 
 
 Hopkins, Stephen, 331. 
 
 Hopkinson, Francis, 85, 226. 
 
 Howard, Simeon, 58. 
 
 Houston, William C., 454. 
 
 Hughes, John, 71. 
 
 Huntington, Joseph, 447-448. 
 
 Inglis, Charles, 28-36, 39, 40, 73, 104, 107. 
 
 Iredell, James, 474-476. 
 
 Jarratt, Rev. M., 27. 
 
 Jay, John, 36, 40, 47, 226-227, 408, 410, 
 427, 436, 453. 
 
 Jefferson, Thomas, 4,17, 21, 47, 220, 362, 
 367-368, 378-379, 402-403, 405, 472. 
 
 Jews, see Hebrews. 
 
 Jones, Daniel, 415. 
 
 Johnson, Samuel, 439, 454. 
 
 Johnson, Dr. Samuel, 124. 
 
 Johnson, Samuel S., 454. 
 
 Johnston, Governor Samuel, 476-478. 
 
 Kemper vs. HGakins, 489. 
 
 Kern, J. M., 110. 
 
 Kerr, James, 74. 
 
 King, Rufus, 455. 
 
 King’s Chapel, 319. 
 
 King’s College (Columbia), 35, 38 39, 
 116, 212, 284, 454. 
 
 Kinzie, James, Sole 
 
 Kunze, dey Gog 313-314 
 
INDEX 
 
 Laidlie, Archibald, 105-106. 
 Lambert, Nathaniel, 446. 
 Lambeth, Palace, 43, 201, 228, 438. 
 Landaff, Bishop of 62. 
 
 Langdon, John, 445. 
 
 Langdon, Samuel, 53-54, 56-57. 
 Latta, Samuel, 260, 269, 273. 
 Leaming, Jeremiah, 27, 37. 
 
 Wee belies 20s 
 
 Lee, R. H., 27, 86, 145. 
 
 Lee, Thomas, 387. 
 
 Leland, John, 339, 342-343, 370-371, 479. 
 Lewis, Francis, 46. 
 
 Lewis, John, 239-240, 247. 
 
 ‘Leydt, John, 109, 284. 
 
 Linn, Wiliam, 292, 295, 298-299. 
 Livingston, John H., 105-106, 283, 286- 
 288, 290, 292-296, 298-300, 303-305. 
 
 Livingston, Peter Van Berg, 97. 
 
 Livingston, William, 62, 83-84, 98, 102- 
 103, 454. 
 
 Logan, James, 133. 
 
 Low, Peter, 295. 
 
 Lulworth, Castle, 259. 
 
 Lusk, Major, 466. 
 
 Lutherans, 13, 19, 69, 114-116, 306, 310- 
 315, 377, 408, 460, 511. 
 
 Lydekker, Garret, 107. 
 
 Lynch, Dominick, 503. 
 
 Madison, Bishop James, 27, 31, 44, 229. 
 
 Madison, James, 21, 47, 82, 84, 101, 198, 
 367, 371, 375-377, 393, 394, 399, 404, 
 453-454, 457, 471, 473, 478-479. 
 
 Mann, John, 309. 
 
 Manning, James, 323, 325-327, 330-331, 
 333, 343, 408, 439-440, 443-444, 446, 
 465-466, 468-470. 
 
 Marshall, John, 47. 
 
 Martin, Alexander, 81. 
 
 Martin, Luther, 82, 454, 458, 462 
 
 Mason, George, 21, 27, 367, 375, 380-381, 
 387-389, 401, 454, 470. 
 
 Mayhew, Jonathan, 27, 50-51, 318 
 
 McCall, Daniel, 101 
 
 McClanahan, Thomas, 122. 
 
 McDougal, Alexander, 98 
 
 McKean, Thomas, 83, 428, 454. 
 
 McWhorter, Alexander, 101, 260, 264, 271, 
 Dione tid 
 
 Meacham, Joseph, 329. 
 
 Meeting for Sufferings, 137-139, 141, 143- 
 147, 152-153, 156-157. 
 
 Mennonites, 20, 401. 
 
 Methodists, 12-13, 15, 19, 69, 121, 123-125, 
 167-193, 202, 37’, 380, 382, 388, 453, 
 482-483, 497, 510-511. 
 
 Meyer, H., 295. 
 
 Mifflin, Thomas, 134, 135, 137,331, 408, 453. 
 
 Miller, John, 100. | 
 
 Miller, Nathaniel, 444-445. 
 
 Miller, Samuel, 106. 
 
 Monroe, James, 398-399. 
 
 Montague, Richard, 329. 
 
 Moore, Bishop, 209, 211-212. 
 
 Moravians, 12-13, 69, 157-163, 315-317, 
 422, 438-439, 460, 511-512. 
 
 535 
 
 Morrell, Thomas, 124. 
 
 Morris, Gouverneur, 40, 86, 427, 458. 
 
 Morris, Robert, 44, 86. 
 
 Morse, Asahel, 497. 
 
 Morse, Jedediah, 24. 
 
 Mublenberg, F. A. C., 115-116, 312-315 
 408-409, 427, 440, 460. 
 
 Muhlenberg, H. E., 313. 
 
 Muhlenberg, H. M., 114, 306, 310-313. 
 
 Muhlenberg, J. P. G., 114-115. 
 
 Newark Academy, 267. 
 Nicholas, R. C., 378. 
 North-West Ordinance, 423, 430, 438. 
 
 Odell, Jonathan, 45-46, 97. 
 Ogden, Uzal, 212. 
 Otis, James, 51. 
 
 Page, John, 215, 220. 
 
 Paine, Robert Treat, 50, 331, 419. 
 
 Paine, Thomas, 103, 112. 
 
 Papinian, Letters of, 36. 
 
 Parker, Bishop, 212. 
 
 Patterson, William, 82, 454. 
 
 Payson, Philips, 57-58, 347, 468. 
 
 Pembertons, 136-138. 
 
 Pemberton, Israel, 141, 146, 151, 331. 
 
 Pemberton, James, 141, 145, 146, 331. 
 
 Pemberton, John, 141, 143, 146. 
 
 Pendleton, Edmund, 27, 378, 387. 
 
 Penn, John, 147. 
 
 Peters, Richard, 212. 
 
 Philadelphia Association, 323, 325, 328, 
 330, 335, 443. 
 
 Philadelphia College (University of Penn- 
 sylvania), 215, 260, 267. 
 
 Phoebus, William, 188. 
 
 Pinckney, Charles, 215, 454, 458. 
 
 Pinckney, C. C., 454, 458. 
 
 Pius VI, 246, 256-257. 
 
 Plowden, Charles, 256, 259. 
 
 Powell, Samuel, 226. 
 
 Powers, Lemuel, 342. 
 
 Presbyterians, 12-13, 19-22, 29, 47, 66-104, 
 106, 254, 260-282, 321, 362, 366-368, 
 377, 380, 386, 388, 390, 393, 398-401, 
 408, 410, 415, 440-443, 446, 451, 453, 
 454, 459-461, 491, 505-507, 515. 
 
 Protestant Episcopalians (Anglicans, 
 Church of England), 3, 12-13, 19-47, 65, 
 70, 72, 78-79, 106-107, 167-168, 170- 
 171, 173, 180-181, 183-184, 189, 194- 
 233, 241, 319, 326, 365-367, 372-373, 
 377-378, 380-381, 387-388, 408, 410, 
 432-438, 451-455, 467, 474, 490, 494, 
 497, 514-515. 
 
 Provoost, Samuel, 39, 43-44, 201-202, 209, 
 212, 215, 221, 225-226, 228, 319, 415, 
 433, 436-437. 
 
 Purcell, Dr. Henry, 200. 
 
 Quakers, 12, 15, 19-20, 70, 72, 99, 131-157, 
 262, 319, 321,326, 330-331,401, 408, 410, 
 416, 427, 453, 457, 460, 480-482, 485- 
 486, 508-510. 
 
 Queen’s College (Rutgers), 13, 285. 
 
536 
 
 Randolph, Edmund, 27, 82, 220, 380, 408, 
 454, 457, 471-472. 
 
 Rankin, Thomas, 124, 172, 174. 
 
 Reed, Joseph, 82, 137, 139, 452. 
 
 Reichel, John F., 316. 
 
 Reformed Church, Associate, 271-272. 
 
 Reformed Church, Dutch, 12-13, 19, 
 47, 99, 106-109, 271-272, 283-305, 511. 
 
 Reformed Church, German, 12-13, 109- 
 114, 305-310, 504-505. 
 
 Reynolds vs. The United States, 487. 
 
 Ritzema, John, 284. 
 
 Rodda, Martin, 124. 
 
 Rodgers, John, 75, 84, 98-100, 1063 260, 
 2002 1, 2lase2 hier lon 4150440.) 4408 
 506. 
 
 Rodney, Caesar, 46. 
 
 Roman Catholic, 13, 21, 125-130, 197-198, 
 234-259, 332, 362, 377, 409, 416-418, 
 420, 425, 430-432, 453, 459, 466-467, 
 474, 503-504. 
 
 Romeyn, Dirck, 109, 290, 292, 295. 
 
 Ross, Betsy, 133. 
 
 Ross, George, 46. 
 
 Rubel, Domine, 109, 288. 
 
 Ruff, Daniel, 174. ‘ 
 
 Rutledge, John, 410. 
 
 Rysdyk, Isaac, 295. 
 
 Salomon, Haym, 513. 
 
 Schlatter, Michael, 110. 
 
 Seabury, Samuel, 37-40, 170, 185, 202, 
 208, 211, 215, 220-221, 225, 229, 319. 
 
 Seabury, Samuel Jr., 201-203, 232-233, 
 
 Secker, Archbishop, 205. 
 
 Semple, Robert B., 369-425. 
 
 Sergeant, J. D., 85. 
 
 Sherman, Roger, 456, 458, 516. 
 
 Shippen, Edward, 215 
 
 Shute, Rev. Daniel, 467 
 
 Slavery, 480-486. 
 
 Smalley, John 346. 
 
 Smith, Hezekiah, 118, 329-330. 
 
 Smith, Bishop Robert, 44. 
 
 Smith, Robert, 138, 225, 260, 269. 
 
 Smith, William, 40-41, 199, 212, 218, 225- 
 
 226, 433-434. 
 Society of Jesus (Jesuits), 25, 236. 
 ‘‘Spanktown Forgeries’’, 145. 
 St. George’s Chapel, 106-107. 
 St. Paul’s Church, 35. 
 Stamp Act, 27, 73, 112, 136. 
 Stiles, Ezra, 48, 333, 348. 
 Stillman, Samuel, 58, 119-120, 329, 469. 
 Stockton, Richard, 85, 102. 
 Strong, Caleb, 455. 
 Stuart, John, 28. 
 Suffolk Resolutions, 409-410. 
 Symmes, J. C., 85, 439. 
 
 Taylor, George, 46. 
 
 Thanksgiving Day, 219. 
 
 Thomson, Charles, 83, 137, 439, 454. 
 Trevett vs. Weeden, 446. 
 
 Triebner, C. F., 116. 
 
 NATIONALISM AND RELIGION 
 
 Trinity Church, 28-36, 73, 99, 106, 107, 
 116. 
 Trinity College, vi. 
 
 Universalist, 497, 512. 
 Unitarians, 198, 318-319. 
 Updegraph vs. Commonwealth, 492. 
 
 Vasey, Thomas, 182, 184. 
 
 Venerable Society for the Propagation of 
 the Gospel, 22, 28, 36, 37, 44, 107, 
 196, 454. 
 
 Von Schweinitz, H. C. A., 158, 317. 
 
 Von Steuben, Baron F. W., 109. 
 
 Waddell, James, 100. 
 
 Wales, Samuel, 448-449. 
 
 Walker, Jeremiah, 338-339, 370, 374, 383, 
 388, 425. 
 
 Waller, John, 337, 342, 343. 
 
 Ward, Samuel, 136, 331, 408. 
 
 Warren Association, 118, 323, 326-330, 
 334-335, 364-365, 443. 
 
 Washington, George, 4-6, 10, 21, 23, 27, 
 31, 33, 40, 42, 45, 47, 53, 86, 122, 125, 
 127, 134, 136, 157-158, 193, 237, 267, 
 317, 344, 401, 408, 414, 453-454, 470, 
 472, 479, 485-486, 503-515. 
 
 Watters, William, 124, 169, 173-176. 
 
 Weikel, J. H., 109. 
 
 Webster, Samuel, 57. 
 
 Wesley, John, 19, 123-124, 168-177, 179- 
 191, 453. 
 
 West, Samuel, 57, 318. 
 
 “Westchester Farmer’’, 37-39. 
 
 Westerlo, Eli, 109, 286-287, 292, 295. 
 
 Weyberg, C. D., 109, 306. 
 
 Wharton, Thomas, 136, 138, 146, 148. 
 
 Wharton, Thomas, Jr., 149. 
 
 Whatcoat, Richard, 182, 184. 
 
 Wheelock, Eleazar, 422, 423. 
 
 White, William, 43, 184-185, 194-198, 200- 
 203, 204-209, 211-212, 214, 216, 218, 220, 
 225-229, 232-235, 414, 429, 433, 436- 
 437, 451-453. 
 
 Whitman, Thomas, 329. 
 
 Wibird, Mr., 20. 
 
 William and Mary College, 13, 44, 229. 
 
 Williams, John 339, 342, 374, 383, 425. 
 
 Williamson, Hugh, 454, 457. 
 
 Wilson, James, 82. 
 
 Wilson, Matthew, 265. 
 
 Wise, John, 50. 
 
 Witherspoon, John, 45, 71-72, 75, 82-96, 
 104, 260, 264, 269, 271, 273, 280, 282, 
 284, 408-409, 427-428, 440-442. 
 
 Wolcott, Oliver, 465, 496. 
 
 Wright, James, 113. 
 
 Wythe, George, 387, 454. 
 
 Yale, 48, 267, 348, 349, 350, 454-455. 
 Zane, Isaac, 155. 
 
 Zeisberger, David, 159-163. 
 Zubly. Ja Je, 110-113) 408: 
 
7 
 4 
 
 
 
BW4079 .C5H9 
 be ieetor™ and A in America, 
 
 HT ANA 
 
 1 1012 00017 1878 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 Printed 
 in USA 
 
 HIGHSMITH #45230 
 
"ahs ae ee 
 vf af 4 * hh i oat) 
 ce alt ler o ie ri er 
 
 ny mn }} j 
 
 Pan 
 
 A ety 5 aie i \p " ‘ 7 } a, re sti . yimes 1 iat if 
 Da OLN ak 
 
 
 

 
 ae 2. a ~ a4 Bas : : 
 = = = “3 7 : = 
 
 2 F ¢ ~ 
 ta fale aire arena 
 
 
 
 
 
 ser yam 
 
 Lgarmeengerle 
 MR I. Bog 
 
 Sa a Sie pee 
 SS gece 
 
 MOREE SAE 
 TO Les dit Leland 
 
 RSS THAN IER a, 
 bet oe SRS ES 
 ee ey