The Adopting Act of 1729 - Part 1
Gaining a group identity in the New World was a difficult thing to do in the 18th century. Everyone had their own sets of pressupositions related to where they or their family came from in the Old World. This is seen acutely in the differences in local government in the Colonies. But, perhaps it was even more problematic in the burgeoning colonial churches. Among the many groups in the New World, there were Congregationalists, episcopalians, Roman Catholics, and Presbyterians who were transplants to the colonies while still carrying the ecclesiastical traditions they were raised in.
This issue of denominational identity was a contentious one for the Presbyterians who traced their roots back to Calvin’s Geneva, Knox’s Scotland, and the Puritan nonconformists in the Church of England. What bound them together was a Presbyterian understanding of church government and the system of Reformed theology as recorded in the Westminster Standards. However, even though that was the unifying theological system, it was not the official confession of the American Presbyterian church. That was not the case until it was assumed as the doctrinal standards of the colonial Presbyterians with the passing of the Adopting Act in 1729. The Adopting Act of 1729 formed the basis of American Presbyterian confessionalism in the colonial church and that influence has never left. The Adopting Act set the church up for confessional fidelity and theological consistency for years to come. Due to the Adopting Act of 1729, far more controversies and divisions were avoided because the foundation of American Presbyterianism is a standardized governing document for Presbyterian ministers and churches which is based on the Word of God.
To see the importance of the Adopting Act and its impact on American Presbyterianism, five critical areas will be considered in this paper: First, the major background issues and events that led to the debate regarding the need for a stricter confessional standard will be overviewed. Second, is a discussion on both sides of the debate leading up to the adoption of the Westminster Standards. The third is a summary of the Adopting Act itself and the two different pieces of it. Fourth the impact of the Adopting Act on the Colonial church is considered with the first major controversy after the act, the Hemphill trial. And finally, the enduring influence of the Adopting Act on the modern-day will conclude this article.
The Growing Need for Confessionalism
The issue of subscription and confessionalism was on the mind of anyone who had ties to presbyterianism in the early part of the 18th century. After all, the hopes for a large Presbyterian church all but died in England after the failure to truly adopt and implement the standards in the Church of England. And there had been a split in Ireland over subscription. One of the issues of the lack of confessional standards in the colonial Presbyterian church, according to Michael Bauman, is that people tended to simply use what they saw in the Old World, and while that was helpful on the large scale, it did not give Presbyteries consistent ways to handle church discipline (1). But, as with many historical controversies, the issue was finally forced in America by reactions to two ministers, Robert Cross and John Clement, and their moral failures.
First, Robert Cross, a minister in the Philadelphia Synod, was accused of the sin of fornication. In modern times, this would receive a serious penalty, even up to the deposition of the minister. But with the Colonial Church not having consistent standards in place to handle such serious charges, these issues were handled in a “case-by-case” manner. Because of this, and Cross’ confession, the Synod of Philidelphia saw it as “a single and momentary lapse, and aware of the quick and full confession made by the offender, the Synod of Philadelphia administered only a slight penalty” (2). By all modern accounts, he truly did receive a small punishment. He was suspended for 4 Sundays and it was up to the local church to receive him as their minister again or not (3). The nature of him owning up to his sin followed by clear repentance was heavily considered during Robert Cross’ trial and penalty. But this was a simple matter of church discipline wherein the plaintiff was fully cooperative and the issue easily discernable. The problem for the burgeoning Presbyterian church in America would be how they handled more contentious and difficult cases of church discipline for the clergy.
It would only be a year until that happened. The Reverend John Clement was the object of the complaint. He had a reputation for being a difficult man and when the trial was over in 1721 he was found guilty of being “overtaken with drink… abusive language… quarreling… [and] stabbing a man” (4). To say that this disturbed the Synod and caused a kerfuffle would be an understatement. They were unprepared to handle such a serious case of discipline because they did not officially have an ecclesiastical standard by which to hold Clement. Bauman explains that “this shocking moral erosion in its ranks caused the synod to take stock of itself and to formulate proposals designed to forestall or remedy these and other failures.” And “Not surprisingly the various proposals offered to the synod reflected the religious heritage of the parties proposing them” (5). With these two cases and the Synod’s response in mind, it can be seen that there was a desire for more ecclesiastical standards, but the issue that played out would be “what standards” and “how strictly would they be enforced?”
By What Standard?
On September 27th, 1721, dividing lines were beginning to be drawn. At the close of the general assembly, George Gillespie put forward an overture that delegates should bring suggestions to the next year’s meeting that would improve the order of government and worship in the church. Jonathan Dickinson, Malachie Jones, Joseph Morgan, John Pierson, David Evans, and Joseph Webb argued against making changes to the standards of government and discipline (6).
Things seemed as if they were going to get contentious on the debate floor. But thanks to the wise leadership of Dickinson, things cooled (7). What happened was that the formal complaint of the men was accepted and then withdrawn after the men who filed the complaint wrote the following four points of conciliation:
[1.] We freely grant, that there is full executive Power of Church Government in Presbyteries and Synods, and that they may authoritatively, in the Name of Christ, use the Keys of Church Discipline to all proper Intent and Purposes, and that the keys of the Church are committed to the Church officers and them only.
[2.] We also grant, that the meer Circumstantials of Church Discipline, such as the Time, Place and Mode of carrying on in the Government of the Church belong to Ecclesiastical Judicatories to determine as occasions occur conformable to the general Rule in the word of God that require all things to be done decently and in order. And if these things are called Acts we will taken no offence at the word, provided that these Acts be not imposed upon such as conscientiously dissent from them.
[3.] We also grant, that Synods may compose Directories, and recommend them to all their Members respecting all the Parts of Discipline, provided that all subordinate Judicatories may decline from such Directories when they conscientiously think they have just Reason so to do.
[4.] We freely allow the Appeals may be made from all Inferiour to Superiour Judicatories, and the Superiour Judicatories have Authority to consider and determine such Appeals (8).
Following this wise addendum, the overture passed without further complaint, and the ministers went on their way. The following year, 1722, Dickinson was given the opportunity to preach the opening sermon of the Synod. He again disputed Gillespie’s overture from the year before and argued against its “practical… and theological implications” and the meat of his thesis was that “any creation of rules for doctrine, worship, or discipline that were beyond those given by Scripture were the primary factors in the divisions of Christianity and the loss of the true word of Christ” (9).
He opened his Synod sermon, on 2 Tim 3:17, by speaking to the purity of worship and the church, “God’s worship wants not to be deckt with ornaments of humane invention, nor the gaity of uninstituted rites, to render it pleasing in his eyes” (10). In other words, since God regulates his own worship, who is able to add to it and make it better or purer before the Lord? Or, as Bauman summarizes Dickinson’s position:
If we compose new rules for Church government, these rules will either be such as Christ has already made or else such as he has not. We need not make the first sort, and we dare not make the second. If we make such laws, they are either binding or they are not. If they are binding we have usurped from Christ his own peculiar kingly authority over the Church. If they are not binding they are useless as laws. Under no pretense is such ecclesiastical usurpation justified (11).
Dickson closed his sermon by calling the church to “open the doors of the Church as wide as Christ opens the gates of heaven and receive one another as Christ also received us (12). Dickinson’s pastoral care for the Synod and hope for purity of the church carried the day and the debate calmed for the next few years.
This background information is vital for understanding the Adopting Act and why it was ultimately good for the Presbyterian church. First, there really were no standards by which to handle heresy trials, or church discipline in general (this point would become the rallying cry of the pro-subscription part). While some cases are easy to handle (like Robert Cross) some are incredibly difficult and need guard rails (like John Clement). Both sides wanted to protect the purity of the church for the sake of Christ. Gillespie wanted to use subscription to the Westminster Standards as a means to bring about that end, while Dickinson desired to purely engage with Scripture and avoid binding men’s consciences. Even though the debate calmed, it never fully disappeared from the minds of the Synod.
