USA > Ohio > Montgomery County > Dayton > A history of the First Presbyterian Church of Dayton, Ohio : from 1845 to 1880 > Part 4
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8
He saw the hand of God in the great convulsion of 1861, and when the first rebel gun opened its fire on Sum- ter, he received the report with joy, and said to his friends, "That rebel spark will kindle a fire that shall burn till our land is purified from the sin and stain of slavery."
53
DR. THOMAS E. THOMAS' PASTORATE.
During the years of bloody conflict that ensued, Dr. Thomas was conspicuous in his efforts to uphold and strengthen the arm of the government. He opposed all faint-hearted measures and corrupt compromises for the sake of peace. In private and social circles, in public meetings with his fellow-citizens, in the general assemblies of the Church, and in the camp of the soldiers, he main- tained the righteousness of the national cause, and urged a vigorous prosecution of the war until every rebel surren- dered his arms, and every foot of American soil was conse- crated to liberty.
The First Church prospered under Dr. Thomas' minis- try, which continued for a period of thirteen years.
The excitement incident to our civil war was prejudicial to the spiritual interests of all the churches, and the First Church shared in this general depression. When the war closed the Church revived, and the year of 1869 was signalized by the largest ingathering that had ever been recorded in a single year, except 1844, which is still remem- bered as the year of the great revival under Dr. Barnes.
In the spring of 1867 the question of enlarging the church edifice was revived, and was received with favor by the people generally. The following extract, copied from the records, shows the action held at an adjourned meeting of the congregation, on the 4th of March, 1867. Dr. Thomas occupied the chair, and Mr. L. Moore was chosen secretary. The moderator reported the amount of the subscription already obtained, when, "On motion of Maj. Gen. McCook, it was voted to reconsider the action
54
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
of the last meeting, deciding in favor of the enlargement and improvement of the present building. On motion of Mr. H. L. Brown, a committee of ten persons was chosen, whose duty it should be to determine upon the character and cost of the improvement or new building, and to select three of their number as a Building Committee to contract for and carry out the design thus decided upon.
"The following persons were chosen said committee: T. A. Phillips, H. Stoddard Jr., C. McDermont, Isaac Haas, Jno. G. Lowe, J. W. Stoddard, T. O. Lowe, J. D. Phillips, E. A. Parrott, Samuel Craighead. On motion, D. W. Stewart and C. Wight were added to said com- mittee. On motion of L. Moore, it was -
"Resolved, As the sense of this meeting, that we can and ought to build a new church edifice, that we pledge our individual and united efforts to each other and to the con- mittee whom we have chosen, for the furtherance of this object."
Two days later, the Building Committee met, and was organized by the election of Col. Jno. G. Lowe, chairman, and D. W. Stewart, secretary. On motion of Dr. Thomas, Dr. McDermont and H. Stoddard Jr., were appointed a committee to revise and enlarge subscriptions. On motion, it was voted that Dr. Thomas be considered an ex-officio member of all committees. Messrs. T. A. Phillips, T. O. Lowe, and D. W. Stewart were appointed a committee on plans and correspondence.
55
DR. THOMAS E. THOMAS' PASTORATE.
Messrs. I. Van Ausdal was elected to fill the vacancy in the Building Committee, caused by the resignation of Mr. J. D. Phillips.
At subsequent meetings of the Building Committee reso- lutions were adopted to the following effect :
Appointing H. L. Brown, T. A. Phillips, and H. Stod- dard Jr., a committee to make all contracts for material and work for the new edifice.
Requiring a majority of the whole committee of twelve to decide upon the plans for the new building.
Authorizing Dr. Thomas to visit the architect, and ob- tain all necessary information in regard to the removal of the old, and the erection of the new building-the material of which was to be Dayton limestone.
On the 6th of May the trustees formally authorized the Building Committee to remove the old edifice, and, “ In place thereof, to erect such a building as will, in their opinion, meet the demands of the congregation." At the same time they placed at the disposal of the committee all funds that had been or might hereafter be subscribed for that purpose.
The general plan of the new building was prepared by Dr. Thomas, and its details with drawings, specifications, etc., by Mr. Blackburn, a Cleveland architect. Mr. Isaac Haas, one of the elders of the Church, was appointed superintendent of the work, and executed his difficult task with great ability and success, and without accepting any compensation. Dr. Thomas was vigilant and untiring in
56
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
watching the progress of the work at every step, and in all its departments. On entering the eastern vestibule of the church, a handsome memorial tablet engages the attention of visitors. On this tablet is inscribed the names of
THOMAS EBENEZER THOMAS, D. D.,
AND
ISAAC HAAS,
With a brief reference to the character and work of each.
The renown acquired by King Solomon and his royal assistant, Hiram, in building the temple at Jerusalem, has come down to us through the mists of twenty-eight cen- turies, and who shall question the propriety of transmitting the names of Thomas and Haas to the generations of Presbyterians who may succeed us in the ages to come; and who, we trust, shall continue the worship of their fore- fathers, on the sacred spot where our beautiful temple now stands.
The people of Dayton well remember the quiet energy, . the eagle eye, the unremitting vigilance of Mr, Haas, as he watched the setting of every stone in the massive edifice ; they also remember the absorbing interest and joyous enthusiasm of Dr. Thomas as day by day, for months and years, he stood beside the workmen witnessing the slow materialization of his cherished plans for a house of wor- ship to the Most High; and who that is familiar with these facts, can hesitate to admit that the names of these gentle- men are worthy of the distinction conferred upon them,
57
DR. THOMAS E. THOMAS' PASTORATE.
Indeed the famous inscription on Sir Christopher Wren's tablet in St. Paul's Church, London,
" Si Monumentum quaeris circumspice," *
Might, with some propriety, have been placed under their names.
The walls and roof of the church were completed in 1869, and in that year also the Sabbath-school room was finished and used for public worship, but, owing to the general depression of business throughout the country, seven years elapsed before the main audience-room, and other parts of the building, were completed.
The total cost, exclusive of the materials utilized from the old church, was about $100,000.
In making their final building report to the congrega- tion, April 7th, 1874, the trustees refer to their endeavor to complete the work entrusted to them, in accordance with the designs furnished by the architect, and add, " We may now, with truth, assert that the First Presbyterian Congregation possesses the noblest, most substantial, and elegant church in this city."
During the erection of the church, the congregation, by invitation, worshiped jointly, for a period, with the Baptist brethren, in their large church, on Main Street, and the Christian courtesies of those brethren are heldzin grateful remembrance. Subsequently they accepted an invitation to worship with the people of the Park Presbyterian con-
" If you seek his monument, look around you.
8
58
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
gregation until their own house would be ready for occu- pation, and the hospitality of the Park Church brethren is also cordially cherished.
Before the completion of the new church, Dr. Thomas was elected to a professorship in Lane Theological Semi- nary, at Cincinnati. He decided to accept this position, and in consequence thereof, his pastoral relation with the First Church was dissolved in July, 1871. His withdrawal was deeply deplored, not only by the people of his charge, but by the citizens of Dayton generally. His vast knowl- edge, great oratorical powers, sound judgment, liberal spirit, and ready sympathy with every good cause, were qualities which won the admiration of all who knew him, and gave him a prominence in deliberative assemblies, that few men attain.
As a teacher he was pre-eminent. Though an active, sympathetic, and efficient pastor, his greatness was re- vealed in the pulpit, and in the Bible class. Nature and grace had specially endowed him for the sacred office.
" He had Elijah's dignity of tone, And all the love of the beloved John."
When Dr. Thomas left Dayton the universal feeling of the people found its truest utterance in the words of Hamlet :
"Take him for all in all, We shall not look upon his like again;"
And the existence of this sentiment was doubtless the
59
REV. JOHN McVEY'S PASTORATE.
main cause of the difficulty which the First Church expe- rienced in procuring his successor. Several calls were given and rejected. In most cases there was reasonable ground to believe that the calls would be promptly ac- cepted, and their rejection occasioned much surprise, but, in course of time, it transpired that the declining parties were distrustful of their ability to fill Dr. Thomas' place, and feared to put themselves in contrast with that great man.
On the 2d of February, 1875, Dr. Thomas died at Walnut Hills, the seat of Lane Seminary, and his body reposes in the beautiful cemetery near Dayton-which city continues to be the home of his wife and children.
REV. JOHN McVEY'S PASTORATE.
After several unsuccessful efforts to secure a successor to Dr. Thomas, the Rev. John McVey, of Lebanon Springs, New York, was invited to visit Dayton, and preach to the congregation. He came, and preached so acceptably that a call to the pastorate was unanimously made out and presented, but Mr. McVey declined its acceptance. He thought the congregation had acted with precipitation, and that a better acquaintance should exist mutually be- fore entering into the pastoral relation. He expressed his willingness to revisit Dayton within a reasonable time, and if, after the second visit, the congregation should see fit to renew the call, it would probably meet his accept- ance. He repeated his visit; the call was renewed and
-
60
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
accepted, and he entered upon his pastoral duties on the 18th of September, 1872.
Mr. McVey was a young clergyman of high character and fine culture. He was imbued with a deep sense of the sacredness of his office, and, in his intercourse with the world, was more reserved than any of his predecessors.
The Church prospered under his ministry until near the close of his second year, when a lurking dissatisfaction developed itself and was found to be so general that the session deemed it necessary to advise him of the fact. At the same time they assured him of their inability either to state the cause of the dissatisfaction, or to remove it, and suggested that the pastor's resignation was the only remedy for the evil. Mr. McVey complained of the session's failure to advise him earlier of the existing opposition, and of their neglect to take proper measures to suppress it, in its incipiency.
The pastoral relation was dissolved by Presbytery, on the 17th of October, 1874, to take effect on the last Sab- bath of that month. In connection with this official act, the Presbytery, on hearing Mr. McVey's statement of the case, passed resolutions reflecting on the congregation for ill-usage of their pastor, at the same time appointing a delegate to read said resolutions from the pulpit of the First Church on a specified Sabbath. Against this action, the Church session entered a strong protest in its minutes. The session avers that Presbytery acted unwisely and un- justly in judging the case of Mr. McVey upon ex parte
61
REV. JOHN McVEY'S PASTORATE.
testimony; and it denies the correctness of certain allega- tions cited by the Presbytery in support of their action.
When Mr. McVey's relation to the Church was dis- solved, the congregation engaged the Rev. George A. Funkhouser, a professor in the United Brethren Biblical Seminary, of Dayton, to preach and administer the ordi- nances. This gentleman continued to occupy the pulpit for more than a year, and his ministration proved highly satisfactory to the people.
On the 4th of June, 1876, he was relieved by the Rev. Benjamin B. Warfield, who had just completed his theo- logical course at Princeton.
Mr. Warfield was a grandson of the late Rev. Dr. Robert J. Breckenridge, and being warmly recommended by the Princeton Professors, the session invited him to occupy the pulpit for a few months, hoping a better acquaintance would lead to permanent relations. He accepted the invi- tation, and in less than six weeks the congregation gave him a unanimous call to become their pastor, at a salary of $2500 a year.
At this time Mr. Warfield was suffering from disease of the throat, and decided to make his acceptance of the call contingent on the advice of his medical counselors. They advised him to abstain from preaching for several months, and the call was declined.
62
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
REV. LEIGH RICHMOND SMITH'S PASTORATE.
In July of the same year the Rev. Leigh Richmond Smith, of Bordentown, New Jersey, was invited to come to Dayton in the course of his summer vacation, and preach in the First Church as often as his engagements would permit. He came the following month, and occu- pied the pulpit several Sabbaths. Mr. Smith's preaching made so favorable an impression that, on the 22d of Sep- tember, he was asked to return, and accept an engagement for six months. He consented, and began his ministry, as stated supply, on the 12th of November, 1876.
The good impression made on his first visit was fully sustained, and before the expiration of his engagement, the congregation gave him a unanimous call to the pastorate, with an assured stipend of $2500 a year. More than three years have elapsed since Mr. Smith's installation; and the large accession that has been made to the membership of the Church in that period is a good testimony of his faithful and efficient labors.
In view of Mr. Smith's youth, and, I might add, his extreme modesty, the author will not touch upon the subject of his rare and varied endowments. A sketch of these will find a more fitting place in the opening pages of the next volume of this history; suffice it now to say, that if a propitious future shall fulfill the bright promise of Mr. Smith's present spring-time, he will be entitled to take a high rank in that galaxy of illustrious men who have pre- ceded him in the pulpit of the old First Church.
63
CHURCH MUSIC.
CHURCH MUSIC.
For a long period the question of Instrumental Music in public worship was a source of vexation to the Pres- byterian family in Europe and America, and at the present time it continues to agitate many congregations on both sides of the Atlantic.
The people of the First Church were decidedly averse to the use of instruments in public worship, until about the middle of the present century, when it was found that the sentiment of the Church had undergone a material change on the subject. In 1859, a harmonium was brought into the choir by permission of the session. The official records clearly show that the session had misgivings as to the result of the innovation. In spite of the instrument's virtuous name and harmless look, a majority of the session feared that, like the wooden horse of the Geeks, it might become an engine of mischief, and to guard against this danger they passed the following resolutions:
"Resolved, The conduct of sacred song in the church, like every other part of the public worship, is properly under the care of the Church session, and subject to their control.
" Resolved, The leader and members of the choir shall be appointed by the session from time to time, as may be necessary; and no one shall be connected with the choir but in virtue of such an appointment.
"Resolved, The session authorize the use of a harmonium.
"Resolved, The choir shall confine themselves ordinarily
64
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
to such music as shall be plain and familiar, so that the whole congregation may unite in singing.
"Resolved, The instrument shall be used only during the singing of the choir. No voluntaries, preludes or inter- ludes being permitted, except that the first four notes of a tune may be played, that the choir and congregation may know the piece to be sung; and, if the choir think it needful for rest and harmony, the last strain of a tune may be repeated."
As more than one half the members of the present con- gregation may be disposed to think that this repugnance to instrumental music was due to a want of taste and musical culture, justice to the memory of our ancestors requires a statement of the real ground of their opposition. They held -
1. That the use of a musical instrument in public wor- ship was at variance with the practice and traditions of the Church of Scotland, of which the American Presby- terian Church was a true branch ;
2. That it was one of the corruptions of the Roman Church, which, with other popish practices, was renounced at the Reformation, and had always been denounced by the Presbyterians of Scotland and Ireland, as well as by the English puritans ;
3. That neither the New Testament nor any authentic history, contains the slightest trace of evidence that instru- ments were used in the worship of God, by Christ or his apostles, or at any time during the first six hundred years of the Christian Church ;
65
CHURCH MUSIC.
4. That instrumental music was introduced by the Pope of Rome in the year 666 A. D., to attract people to the papal services, and gratify their unsanctified taste for amusement, and if Presbyterians, unmindful of the exam- ple of Christ and his apostles, should admit into their praise service, this sensuous element of Romish worship, there was no telling, how soon other corruptions of the Church of Rome would be adopted.
5. They further held that the use of instruments, under the Old Testament dispensation, was a part of the gorgeous temple ceremonies, that it was entirely in the hands of the priestly order, and when the symbolical ceremonies passed away, the instruments passed with them, and the simple spiritual worship of the New Testament dispensation was inaugurated.
6. They believed that organs tended to repress congre- gational singing, and contributed rather to the entertain- ment of the young and fashionable, than to the glory of God.
7. They pointed to the gradual gravitation towards Romanism of many Protestant Churches that had yielded to the soft seductions of a theatrical accompaniment in their service of praise.
8. They declared that the word of God was the only safe guide in the matter. In it there was the example of Christ and his apostles for the practice of vocal praise, while the Pope of Rome was the sole authority for the use of organs.
On the other hand, it was claimed by the advocates of 9
66
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
instrumental music, that there was no law on the subject ; that neither Christ nor the apostles, nor the reformers, nor the Westminster divines, ever published a word of pro- hibition against its use. They admit that its use is not mentioned in the New Testament, or in the early history of the Church, but claim that this omission proves nothing, since no mention is made of precentors in the early Christ- ian Church, and it has not been charged that the use of these functionaries, in conducting the singing during public worship, was a violation of the letter or spirit of the gospel.
It was true, they said, that during the sitting of the Westminster assembly the church organs were removed from St. Paul's and St. Peter's, in London, but this was done not by the assembly, but by a commission of parlia- ment for political reasons. The men of the assembly were divided themselves, on the question of instrumental music, and wisely forbore to pass any law on the subject.
They claimed further that God had ordained the use of instruments in his worship under the old dispensation, and if it was pleasing to him then, we have no reason to think it would be otherwise now. He had often encouraged his chosen people to praise him, not with the lips only, but with the harp, the lute, the trumpet, the timbrel, and the psaltery. Music they claimed to be a natural help to devotion. It had no typical meaning, and should not be regarded a part of those symbolic ceremonies that passed away. It did not aid worship by any mystical significance but acted by a proper and natural operation. God had fitted it to harmonize with the human voice, and his sanc-
67
CHURCH MUSIC.
tion of it in sacred song was sufficient proof of its value in elevating the devotions of his worshipers, and inspiring a more warm and joyful expression of their grateful praise. They claimed that, at most, it was an open question, and that the members of every congregation should have liberty to use or reject instruments, according as they prove to be a help or hindrance to edification. The fol- lowing telling points occurred in the course of a public discussion of the subject :
In arguing the question, the anti-instrumentalists laid great stress on the "mutual regard due to the rights of conscience." They often referred to their friends as the conscientious men of the Church, and alleged that it was not a matter of conscience with the innovators at all.
A humorous layman replying, to this argument, said he was amused at the equanimity with which these gentlemen and their adherents monopolize all the conscientious con- victions of the Presbyterian Church. They harp' on the duty of "mutual regard for the rights of conscience," but when it is boldly avowed by them that all the conscience is in their keeping, what becomes of the mutuality ? Like Irish reciprocity, it is all on one side. Their assumption reminded him of a story of Daniel O'Connell, "who, on one of his trips from Dublin to London, was crossing in the Holyhead steamer, and sitting down in the cabin to dinner, he found on the dish before him a very fine salmon trout. The day being Friday, and the air keen, and Dan being sharp set, he coolly transferred the entire delicacy to his own plate, apologetically remarking, with a comical glance
68
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
at his fellow passengers, "Gentlemen, you will excuse me, as this is a fast day in my Church." A stalwart cattle drover seated opposite, who had been covetously eyeing the dainty, too modest to ask for a portion, was dumb- founded for a moment at the coolness of the procedure, but recovering his wits, he seized knife and fork, stretched over the table, severed the trout in two, and bearing off much the larger half, exclaimed reproachfully to O'Con- nell, "Bad manners to ye, de yez think nobody has a sowl to be saved but yourself?" "So, sir;" exclaimed the speaker. I may ask these gentlemen, "Do you think nobody has a conscience to protect but yourselves."
Another speaker, who favored a radical improvement in the service of praise, thought it well to relax the rigid custom of the Scottish Church. He related the case of a poor fellow who was once a singer in church, and had occasionally served as a precentor. He had the misfortune to lose his teeth, and he could not sing. He was told to go to a dentist. On going back to the church with a false set of teeth, there was a theological row. He was told that he was using an artificial instrument and could not be allowed to sing there any more !
A solemn conservator of the ancient regime rejoined, that the question was not to be settled by sophistry or anecdotes, but by the word of God. The anecdotes related had a savor of salt water about them, and had better be left to the marines. He called upon his opponents to pro- duce ONE SCRIPTURE PRECEDENT, or a THUS SAITH THE LORD, in favor of using instruments in the service of the sanc-
69
DISCIPLINE.
tuary. If they could not do this, said he, they had better cease their agitation and give the Church peace.
This challenge was promptly met by a gentleman who rose in the audience with a Bible in his hand, and said : "This sacred book contains the revelation of God to man. It tells us of a heaven and a hell, and that, in the latter place, there is wailing and gnashing of teeth ; there is no instrumental music there! In the former place, God's own happy home, this book tells us there are angels there, angels with harps in their hands; and John tells us in the Revelations, that not only were there harps in heaven, but that the angels were harping on harps." These arguments have availed to such a degree, that, of the fifty-four mil- lions of Presbyterians throughout the world, about four millions only continue their opposition to the instrumental accompaniment.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.