The Adopting Act of 1729 - Part 3

The Difficulty and Success of Applying the Adopting Act

As with any major shift in church polity, there were unforeseen issues. The church rejoiced in the nature of the compromise, and the fact that the denomination did not fall to pieces. But there was still the issue of clarity in the Act and how it would be applied. The key issue in interpreting and applying the act was that the morning minute and the afternoon minute began to circulate separately, which, due to the division in the acts, led some to proclaim that only scruples from chapters 20 and 23 of the Confession were acceptable before Synod (29). Naturally, this led to conflict and confusion.

The stricter subscriptionists preferred the afternoon minute, while the opposition preferred the morning minute. In reality, it was a nonissue because both pieces worked together in practice, and it was impossible to separate them as the morning minute established the afternoon minute, and the afternoon minute completed the morning minute (30). To show the importance of the Adopting Act, and how it helped maintain doctrinal fidelity, one must look no further than 5 years after it was passed. While doing a survey of American Presbyterian’s use of the Adopting Act in History is beyond the scope of this article, the Hemphill trial shows how useful the adoption of the Westminster standards would be for years to come.

The Samuel Hemphill Trial: The First Test of the Adopting Act

Following the confusion regarding the Adopting Act, and clarifications at the 1730 Synod, the Adopting Act was put to the test at the Samuel Hemphill trial. He was ordained to the ministry by the Starbane Presbytery, which required subscription, and he moved to America in 1734 and was accepted by the Synod (31). The minutes record that he “declared for and adopted the Westminster Confession Catechisms and Directory commonly annexed, the former as the Confession of [his] faith and the latter as the guide of [his] practice in matters of discipline as far as may be agreeable to the rules of prudence as in the adopting Acts of this Synod is directed” (32). (Notice, “acts” in the plural, showing there was still some confusion to the nature of the minutes in 1734).

It did not take long for charges to be filed against Hemphill for preaching outside the bounds of orthodoxy as laid out in the Scriptures and Westminster Standards. Compounding the issue was Benjamin Franklin, who attended the church and favored Hemphill and his rationalistic preaching. On April 10, 1735, A week before the trial, Franklin published A Dialogue Between Two of the Presbyterians Meeting in this City in the Pennsylvania Gazette. In it, Franklin argued against the Presbytery and believed they should not have the ability to hold a man accountable to a “fallible confession.”

In May, the Synod had commissioners publish a response, they penned An Extract of the Minutes of the Commission of the Synod, Relating to the Affair of the Reverend Mr. Samuel Hemphill, and shared that they had removed Hemphill from his ministry and would revisit the issue at Synod. Franklin responded with Some Observations on the Proceedings against the Rev. Mr. Hemphill; with a Vindication of His Sermons in July. The issue was getting attention, and the Synod needed a strong response. 

Dickinson, the leader of the anti-subscription party, responded with A Vindication of the Reverend Commission and defended the Synod’s right to depose Hemphill. Interestingly, his argument for censoring Hemphill (and the ecclesiastical right to do so) was consistent with one of his major earlier concerns about the Adopting Act, namely, hypocrites lying about holding the confession and teaching out of bounds anyways. He wrote that Hemphill “solemnly declared his assent to our doctrines, and adopted our Confession as the Confession of his Faith, but had preached sermons that were not consistent with the principles he professed” (33). If modern folks can learn anything from Dickinson, it is a humble spirit and the willingness to grow in knowledge while still fighting for truth. And, continuing his argument, Dickinson helped explain the confusing nature of the morning and afternoon minutes of the Adopting Act:

It was agreed that all the ministers in this Synod, or that hereafter shall be admitted into this Synod, do declare their agreement in and approbation of the Confession of Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, as being in all the essential and necessary articles, good forms of sound words, and systems of Christian doctrine; and do adopt them as the Confession of their Faith. And in case any minister of this Synod, or any candidate of the ministry, shall have any scruple with respect to any article or articles of the said Confession or Catechisms, he shall at the time of his making said declaration, declare his scruples to the Presbytery or Synod, who shall notwithstanding admit him to the exercise of the ministry within their bounds, and to ministerial communion; if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge his scruple or mistake to be only about Articles not essential or necessary, in doctrine, worship or government (34).

This helped future ministers understand the nature of the Adopting Act, the limits of subscriptionism, and how scruples were to be given and understood. And, it proves that the trial commission, in which John Thomson also served, understood and agreed that the scruples were not limited to those expressly mentioned in 1729 (chapters 20 and 23). In a few years, the Synod went from a near schism over the subscription issue, to wonderfully uniting over compromise.  It would have been easy to fold on the issue when forces like Benjamin Franklin were coming after the church, but they stood firm and cared for the purity of worship and doctrine.

Conclusion

There would be more controversy in the years to come related to Revivalism and the Old Side and New Side. But with the confession in place, there was a context by which to have the debates. And though the Presbyterian Church in America would suffer from schism and split, even to this day, the Adopting act gives context and precedent for what to unite and divide over. There would be disagreements over trained clergy, revival, slavery, a reunion of the northern and southern churches, doctrinal disputes between liberals and conservatives, ordination of women, and now issues related to LGBTQ+. But at the core of everything is a doctrinal standard that Presbyterian ministers can look to and agree on corporately (with acceptable scruples).

 Much like the creeds of the early church the Adopting Act (and the Westminster Standards in general) give subscribing Presbyterian churches confidence in what is being taught across the denomination. Even today, one could attend a PCA, ARP, OPC, or EPC church in the most rural part of Mississippi, and then attend one in the wealthiest neighborhood in New York City, and still receive the same essentials and necessary doctrines of the Presbyterian tradition. Presbyterians have always been a part of a big tent, but Presbyterians can be thankful that far more controversies and divisions were avoided because at the foundation of American Presbyterianism is a standardized governing document for Presbyterian ministers and churches. If one were to consider the impact of the Adopting Act, one must come to the conclusion that the adoption of the Westminster Standards has affected every single debate Presbyterians have had since 1729.

This article, including all citations, was originally posted at ReformationChambers.