History of Philadelphia, 1609-1884, Part 97

Author: Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas), 1843-1898. cn; Westcott, Thompson, 1820-1888, joint author
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: Philadelphia, Pa. : L. H. Everts & Co.
Number of Pages: 992

USA > Pennsylvania > Philadelphia County > Philadelphia > History of Philadelphia, 1609-1884 > Part 97

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).

Cross became the principal pastor of the First con- gregation. He was assisted by the Rev. Francis Allison, who came to Philadelphia in 1752, and became principal of the grammar-school connected with the academy. He was made vice-provost of the college in 1755, master of arts by Nassau Hall, Princeton, in 1756, and created doctor of divinity by the University of Glasgow in 1757. Mr. Allison assisted Cross during the greater portion of the time of the latter, who resigned Jnne 22, 1758. Dr. Alli- son remained in charge of the First Church for some time after Mr. Cross' resignation.

After his resignation some difficulty was experi- enced in obtaining a successor. In 1759 a call was authorized to be made by the First congregation upon were made against him, and in 1759, Rev. John Ewing, a native of Nottingham, Cecil Co., Md., and at that time professor of philosophy in the College of Philadelphia, was elected pastor of the First Church.

The difficulties which had arisen between the Pres- byterians throughout North America, and separated them into independent jurisdictions, continued to keep them apart after the withdrawal of the New Lights, or Brunswick party, in 1741, for some years. In 1746 the Philadelphia Synod, to which the First Church was attached, had proposed a reconciliation. The New York Synod, to which the Second Church adhered, took no action upon this proposal for three years. In 1749 proposals were made in the New York Synod which were submitted to the Philadel- phia Synod, and referred to the commission formed by that body and to the Presbyteries. In 1750 both Synods met in New York and Philadelphia in the month of May. Each considered the subject of union, and plans were offered on both sides. Corre- spondence was followed by inaction until 1757, when both Synods agreed to meet in Philadelphia at the Second Presbyterian Church. In the month of May a plan of union was agreed upon, consisting of eight articles, by which differences on both sides were sought to be accommodated. This important paper concluded as follows :

"The Synod agree that all former differences and disputes are laid aside and buried, and that no future inquiry or vote shall be proposed in this Synod concerning these things ; but, if any member week a syn- odical inquiry or declaration about any of the matters of our past dif- ferences, it shall be deemed a censurable breach of this agreement, and be refused and be rebuked accordingly."

From that time forward, and until the change of the system of government, in 1788, by the institution of the General Assembly, when the new discipline and government, of the Presbyterian Church was adopted, the supreme control of the interests of that persuasion was reposed in the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, which usually met alternately in those cities, and sometimes at Elizabethtown, N. J.

The Synod of New York and Philadelphia at its first meeting agreed that the Presbytery of Phila-

1266

HISTORY OF PHILADELPHIA.

delphia should consist of the Rev. Messrs. Cross. Gil- bert Tennent, Francis Allison, Treat, Chesnut, Mar- tin, Beatty, Greenman, Hunter, Ramsey, Lawrence, and Kinkead. Notwithstanding this union, some of the old spirit remained, and it occasionally manifested itself in the disputes which were constantly arising between the Presbyteries and Synod. In 1762 a por- tion of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, becoming dis- satisfied with the action of the Synod, sustained by certain members of the Presbytery, asked that there should be a separation, and required and demanded that a Second Presbytery should be erected. It was resolved that the Second Philadelphia Presbytery should be erected for one year at least. It was com- posed of Messrs. Robert Cross, Francis Allison, and John Ewing, all of the First Church, with John Sym- onton and James Latta. The Second Presbytery was composed principally of the New Light party, Gilbert Tennent, of the Second Church, and others. In 1766 a motion was made to unite the two Philadelphia Presbytcries, but it was lost; upon which William Tennent, with some of the First Presbytery, entered a protest.

In 1754 Rev. Dr. Allison introduced a proposal into the Synod of New York and Philadelphia for laying some plan for the support of ministers' widows. A committee was appointed for that purpose, who made a favorable report, and in 1755 a plan was adopted. A charter was obtained for "The Fund for the Relief of Poor Presbyterian Ministers and Ministers' Widows and Children," which corporation still exists.

On May 31, 1752, the New Light congregation, belonging to what was afterward called the Second Presbyterian Church, occupied their new church at the northwest corner of Third and Arch Streets. The opening exercises were under the charge of Gilbert Tennent.1

Samuel Hazard says, ---

" In this building the pulpit was on the north side, with the pews facing it. The main door entered from Third Street, with an aisle across to the steeple-floor at the west end. After some years the pews in the contre were built, filling up that portion of the east and west aisle. The pews were one hundred and four in number, of which thirty-nine were square pows, chiefly around the walls of the church. Opposite the pulpit, on the south side, was a large square pew with columns, designed for the use of the Governor and other public men who attended ser- vice. . . . It is not recollected whether stoves were in nse at this early day in this church, but it is believed that two small ones were used, which, not making the church very comfortable, the ladies were in the habit of having foot-stoves brought to church to keep their feet warm. These were small square boxes made of wood and tin, perforated with holes, in which was placed a small vessel containing hot coals.

* * .

"On the Saturday evening preceding the sacramental occasione the ministers nud elders distributed, from the circle around the pulpit, to communicants small pieces of metal, called ' tokens,' the object of which

1 The sterple yot remained unfinished, and in 1753 a lottery was pro- jected to raise eight hundred and fifty-five pounds for the purpose of finishing it. This structure went on slowly, and in 17GI another lottery was projected to finish the steeple. It was suil that a considerable amount of money was spent on that part of the church, and it remained nuli ished a long time for want of Innds. A new scheme was proposed to raise thier thousand pieces of eight. The steeple was probably not finished until 1763 or 1764.

was to prevent persons from improperly conimnning. On one side of these tokens was impressed a heart; the reverse side was plain or im- pressed with the name of the congregation. The use of these tokens was, however, in a few years dispensed with."

In 1762 the Second congregation determined to pro- cure an assistant for Mr. Tennent, and a call was ex- tended to the Rev. George Duffield, of the Donegal Presbytery, but he did not respond. Mr. Tennent died Jan. 23, 1764, aged sixty-one years, and his re- mains were buried in the aisle of the Second Church under a monumental stone. On July 30, 1764, the Rev. John Murray, a native of Ireland, was called to the pastorship, and he took charge probably about the beginning of 1765, but he remained only a por- tion of the year, when he returned to Europe, reports having been received derogatory to his moral charac- ter. For more than three years the Second Church remained without a pastor. On Ang. 30, 1768, by a unanimous vote, the Rev. James Sproat, minister of the Congregational Church at Guilford, Conn., was called by the Second congregation. After some con- sideration he accepted the charge, and was installed in March, 1769. In John Adams' diary for 1775 he thus describes the result of a visit to the Second Pres- byterian Church to hear Sproat preach :

" There is a great deal of simplicity and innocence in this worthy man, but very little elegance or ingeonity. In prayer he hangs his head at an angle of forty-five degrees over his right shoulder. In his sermon, which is delivered without notes, he throws himself into a variety of indecent postures, heads his body, points his fingers, aod throws bis arms about withont aoy rule or meaning at all."

" About three years after the settlement of the Rev. Mr. Sproat," says Rev. Mr. Cuyler, "the enterprise at Campington was commenced." This means that efforts were made to establish regular religious ser- vices in the Northern Liberties. The Second Church obtained possession of a small house at the northeast corner of St. John and Coates Streets, which was fitted up for religious services. Here the pastors of the Second Church preached, and some small religious gain was obtained. They were necessarily stopped at the time of the Revolution, and the house became a storehouse for military munitions. From this small beginning originated what was afterward called the First Presbyterian Church of the Northern Liberties.

The lot of ground at the corner of Third and Arch Streets originally extended to Cherry Street, and it is supposed that a portion of it was at one time used as a burying-ground. The principal burying-ground of the congregation was on the north side of Arch Street, above Fifth. It was fifty feet front and three hundred and six feet in depth, running across what is now Cherry Street, which was not then opened. It was bought, in 1750, from Thomas Leech and others. This ground, which contained the ashes of so many Presbyterian fathers, has since been sold, and the mouldering relics of the earnest worshipers in the Second Church have been dug up and scattered by their successors.

1267

RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS.

After the secession of the New Lights from the First Presbyterian Church, the latter gradually recov- ered its strength, principally by immigration from Scotland and Ireland. On Aug. 10, 1761, the Rev. Dr. Allison, Capt. Arthur, William Rush, John Wal- lace, John Coney, John Bleakley, Alexander Huston, William Bradford, John Fullerton, George Bryan, George Sharswood, and John Johnson, a committee of the First Church, resolved that John Chevalier, William Rush, and George Bryan should be appointed "to procure as much ground on Society Hill as will suffice for a church, only deferring till hereafter the procuring of a graveyard." It was also directed that the committee should treat with the Messrs. Shippen for some of their lots; and it was also determined to procure a house in the southern part of the town for temporary worship. Accordingly a small house was procured, at the corner of Second and South Streets, where worship was conducted by the pastor. In June, 1762, the committee agreed that an address should be drawn up by Dr. Allison and the Rev. Mr. Ewing to the pro- prietaries of the province, " request- ing a lot of ground to build a meet- ing-house on within the bounds of the city, in the southern part." On Oct. 19, 1764, Thomas and Richard Penn granted the lot, one hundred and seventy-four feet on Fourth Street by one hundred and two feet on Pine, " to the congregation bc- longing to the old Presbyterian meeting-house on the south side of High Street, near the court-house, in the city of Philadelphia, to the intent that a church or meeting- house should be erected thereon, and a burial-yard laid out for the use of the said society of Presby- terians forever." This lot was afterward increased by purchases made by the society.

In 1765, in the month of June, it was resolved that it would be expedient to build the church. Consulta- tion was attempted to be had with the Second Pres- byterian Church, but that congregation refused to take any part in the matter. On July 4, 1765, it was agreed to open subscriptions for the purpose of building a church. William Rush and George Bryan were ap- pointed collectors for the upper part of the city ; John Mease, Alexander Huston, and Samnel Pur- viance, for the central part ; and James Craig, Robert Knox, Samuel Moore, and John Jones, for the lower part.

In January, 1766, the committee reported that about six hundred pounds had been promised by different persons. It was determined to erect the church, which was not to exceed the dimensions of eighty feet long by sixty feet wide. John Moore,

William Rush, James Craig, George Bryan, and Samuel Purviance, Jr., of the First Church, were ap- pointed a building committee, and Robert Smith the architect. Although the church was occupied for the first time on May 30, 1768, it was not finished. On November 14th, of that year, a committee of the First and Third Churches voted to sell "the tempo- rary house which had been a vendue-house, on South by Second Street, to help pay for the new house, be- cause it was not in repair to defend the congregation against the storms and cold weather in winter." About that time it was ascertained that the congrega- tion was composed of about eighty families, of whom twenty came from the First Church and sixty from the temporary church. By the aid of lottery, granted by the Assembly in 1769, to raise two thousand five hun- dred pounds, the First, Second, and Third Churches were enabled to pay off the greater portion of their

THIRD PRESBYTERIAN (OLD PINE STREET) CHURCHI.

debts. This also enabled the Third Church to com- plete its building. "The cost of the church," says Rev. R. H. Allen, in his centennial anniversary ad- dress of the " Old Pine Street Church," has been esti- mated at sixteen thousand dollars. The building was of brick. The front on Pine Street had a large cen- tral door, surmounted by a pediment. On each side of the door in the first story was an arched window. In the second story was a large central window, two arched windows on each side, and a circular window in the pediment. On the east side there was a door in the centre and two windows on each side of it. This doorway was immediately opposite the pulpit. It was approached by a broad walk leading from Fourth Street, where there was a gate. In the second story were five arched windows. The south front was exactly the same as the north. The west side of the church was a blank wall, except that immediately back of the pulpit, which was on that side, was a

1269

HISTORY OF PHILADELPHIA.

window. There was a neat brick floor, high ceiling, rich and elaborate carving on the woodwork, square, high-back pews, in which short men and children entering, they were lost sight of; brass candlesticks burnished to golden brightness, and filled with honest tallow candles, which were snuffed three times in an evening, and a high box pulpit, covered with red velvet, the whole producing an effect which was then magnificent." 1

The first pastor elected by the Third Church was the Rev. Samuel Aitken, who was chosen Nov. 14, 1768, and who officiated alternately with the pastors of the First Church. Mr. Aitken served for some months with satisfaction, but eventually a controversy arose between the Third and First congregations, and also. between the ministers. Charges of gross immorality having been laid against Mr. Aitken, he was sus- pended from the ministry, but was restored by the Synod in 1772. He was joined to the first Philadel- phia Presbytery. The congregation of the Third Church was thus left without a pastor. The time that had elapsed after the suspension of Mr. Aitken had been supplied by the pastors of the First Church and by others. On Aug. 5, 1771, at a meeting of the congregation, at which the Rev. Dr. Francis Allison was moderator, a majority of the members extended a call to the Rev. George Duffield, of the Presbytery of Donegal, and promised him a salary of two hundred pounds per annum. Mr. Duffield was pastor of the churches at Big Spring, Carlisle, and Monegan. He was what was called in the politics of the Presbyterian Church of that day "a new-side man." The choice was, therefore, very unpalatable to the members of the First Church, who belonged to the old-side, and from whom the Rev. Gilbert Tennent, with the New Lights, had gone out. They claimed that the congregation of the Third Church had no right to elect a pastor "with- out their approbation," and they did not approve of Mr. Duffield. There was nothing against him as a fervent and humble minister of God, nor as regarded his piety, activity, or learning ; but there was a great spirit of combativeness in Presbyterianism from its earliest introduction into Pennsylvania, and this case gave an opportunity for a display of the heat and controversy which seem to be necessary to a healthy And lively condition of ecclesiastical affairs. After the call was made it was necessary that permission should be obtained to prosecute the call before the Presbytery of Donegal. This permission was granted by Synod May 26, 1772, by a large majority. The Second Presbytery having refused to grant such per- mission, and an appeal being made by the Third Church to the Synod, the action of the latter created

Thin In the description of Itny. R. H. Allen, in his " Historical Ail- Gress." There must have been s'ilsequent altriations, by which on the inde towards Fourth Street the centre doorway was filled up, and a door- way substituted near the Hutth and one hear the south end. The en- Having in a perfect reqursentation of the old butl hing as It stood in the emery of persons now Hving.

great dissatisfaction, A long protest against the action of the Synod was presented by Messrs. Alexander McDowell, Matthew Wilson, and James Latta, who dissented from the vote of the Synod reversing the judgment of the Second Presbytery of Philadelphia, and "giving the liberty to the people who call them- selves the congregation of Pine Street" to prosecute a call to the Rev. Mr. Duffield. In May, 1773, the Pres- bytery of Donegal reported to the Synod that they had accepted Mr. Duffield's resignation, who had been called to the Third Church. After that acceptance Mr. Duffield came to Philadelphia and proceeded to discharge his duties, or, rather, he attempted to dis- charge them. When he was ready to assume the charge of the congregation it was found that the First Church, having been unsuccessful before the Synod, was determined to prevent the Rev. Mr. Duffield from preaching in the Third Church, The First Church people, exercising the rights of owners, locked the doors on Sunday to prevent the use of the building. This may have been done several times, but on Sun- day, Sept. 27, 1772, the controversy came to the test of force. Mr. Duffield, with a large number of the con- gregation, repaired to the church. The scene is thus described by the Rev. George Duffield, grandson of the first pastor of Pine Street Church :2

" A multitude assembled in the street below the old edifice, pressing and impatient to enter. The throng increasing, the rival and contesting authorities of the Pine Street congregation, having secured an entrance through the window, the doors were unlocked from within and throwa open. Immediately the crowd rushed in, and others arriving so filled the house and the doors of entrance that on the arrival of the preacher he found it impossible to enter. To meet the exigency, he was carried and lifted up so as to enter by one of the large windows that on either side of the pulpit opened to the west on the graveyerd. The religious services commenced, and had not proceeded further than about the close of the second Psalm, when the crowded assemblage began to surge by some movement from the door on the northeast corner. The minister had erisen and annonnced his text, when the king'e magistrate was seen struggling end pressing his way up the middle aisle till he took his stand near the spot where afterward was, and undisturded remains, interred the body of my grandfather. The royal officer ordered the con- gregation to disperse; and, pulling from his pocket the riot act, he began to read it authoritatively for the purpose of carrying its provisions into effect. The preaching thus being interrupted for the moment, Mr. Robert Knox, one of the trustees of the congregation, rose, und, with a loud, commanding voice, addressing the magistrate, exclaimed, in full Scotch- Irish brogue, 'Quet that, Jimmy Bryant.' The magistrate proceeded a second time, when he repeated his command, adding, 'Don't come here to disturb the people in their worship of God ' The king's officer still proceeding with his reading. Mr. Knox, a man of tall, athletic form and stout muscle, with heroic resolution and nerve, left his pew, and, taking the magistrate with one hand by the uape of the neck and the other by the breeches, lifted him above the heade of the crowd, and carrying him to the door, cast him forth unceremoniously, saying, ' There, take that! Begone! and disturb Do more the worship of God!' Then, turning to the preacher, he added, 'Go on, Mr. Duffield,' which he did without further molestation. The next day my grandfather was arrested, brought before the mayor, the venerable and excellent Thomas Willing, whom I well remember often to have seen, as on my way to church I passed his residence, on the corner of Third Street and Wil- ling's Alley, just opposite St. Paul's Church. He was charged with having instigated and nided in riotous proceedings at the Pine Street Church. The court demanded of him what was his answer to the charge. lle responded courteously to the worthy meyor that he ' had no plea to uffer,' and claimed to have done nothing but exercise his right as a

" Address nt the centennial celebration, 1868.

1269

RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS.

minieter of Christ to preach hie gospel. The mayor remarked that this etand taken by him would greatly embarrase the court. He might plead not guilty, and enter his brother, Dr. Samuel Duffield, as bail, which he would at once accept. This was respectfully declined. The mayor, after further conversation and remonstrance, etaled that he would willingly go hia bail himself, desiring to avoid the necessity of committing him to prison. My grandfather courteously thanked the mayor for his kindness, but respectfully remarked that if hie honor felt it his duty to remand him to prison, he would much prefer to go there than, by putting in a plea on his unlawful arreet, directly or indirectly admit the tyrannical exercise of power in interfering with aod trying him for the exercise of what he claimed to be his right, derived not from king or magistrate, or any established church, but from God, to preach his gospel wherever people willingly and peacefully assembled to hear him. On further conversation and consideration hy the court, he was dismissed to his home, with information that at another time the matter would be investigated. He never afterward was summoned to appear in court in relation to the charge."

After this time Mr. Duffield was undisturbed by any attempt to exercise force to prevent his minis- trations, but the First Church went to law to recover possession of the property, and the Third Church obtained the familiar title of "the fighting church."

At the meeting of the Synod in May, 1773, the First Church made complaint of the conduct of Mr. Duffield and the congregation. The Third Church made a reply. The Second Presbytery, to which the Pine Street Church had formerly belonged, and which was strongly under the influence of the First Church, refused to receive Mr. Duffield as a member. He also made his appeal to the Synod. Before the matter could be settled by the Synod, however, the First Church withdrew the consideration of the matter from the Synod, alleging in effect that they could not obtain a fair decision from that body. Mr. Duffield was eventually received into the Second Presbytery, but having carried his point in this mat- ter, that his presence might not molest men who did not sympathize with him in ecclesiastical matters, he voluntarily applied for, and received, a dismission to the other Presbytery, with whose members he had more especial affinity. As far as the ecclesiastical tribunals were concerned, the case was thus ended; but the courts succeeded to the controversy, which had not been settled when the American Revolution fairly commenced. Although verdicts were obtained by the First Church, they were not settled, and law was compelled to be silent amid the clash of arms.

The Associated Presbyterian Church of Scotland, more frequently known as the Seceders, or Secession Church, arose in November, 1733, but it had no or- ganization in Philadelphia perhaps until 1751. In that year the Associate (Burgher) Synod received an application for a minister from persons residing in Philadelphia. In 1752 another request was forwarded with a promise to defray all the expenses of the mis- sion. It was not, however, until 1766, that the Rev. David Telfair, who was the first known minister of the Burgher congregation, arrived in this city. A church was erected upon a lot on the south side of Shippen Street, between Third and Fourth, where a frame building was erected twenty-seven feet in width by forty feet in depth. He remained pastor of this

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.

History of Philadelphia, 1609-1884, Part 97

Author: Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas), 1843-1898. cn; Westcott, Thompson, 1820-1888, joint author Publication date: 1884 Publisher: Philadelphia, Pa. : L. H. Everts & Co. Number of Pages: 992

Author: Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas), 1843-1898. cn; Westcott, Thompson, 1820-1888, joint author
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: Philadelphia, Pa. : L. H. Everts & Co.
Number of Pages: 992