Chapter 5: Adam Rankin and Kentucky

Thesis (what I’m arguing)

Rankin’s public fight over Watts’s psalms, though exceptional in its intensity and publicity, documents the theological logic and emotional stakes of a normally silent process: denominational realignment driven by psalmody convictions.

Why this matters

Most denominational transfers driven by psalmody convictions left no written record—people simply moved to a church that matched their beliefs. Rankin’s pamphlet provides rare documentary evidence of the theological arguments and emotional intensity behind this process. His case illuminates a pattern that operated silently across the early American Presbyterian world.

Key evidence

Available extracts:

  • [[extract-rankin-appeal-to-synod]]: Dedicatory letter to ARP Synod showing Rankin explicitly sought a denomination that shared his psalmody convictions—demonstrates denominational realignment mechanism
  • [[extract-rankin-on-inspiration]]: Rankin frames Watts adoption as betrayal of Reformation martyrs, connecting psalmody to covenanting identity
  • [[extract-rankin-on-innovation]]: Rankin’s theological logic—worship practices are not adiaphora but foundational to faith; also shows social dynamics (anger from fellow ministers)
  • [[extract-rankin-on-watts-psalms]]: Rankin turns Watts’s own words against him (“almost opposite to the spirit of the gospel”)—shows how exclusive psalmody advocates attacked Watts’s theological premises
  • [[extract-rankin-opposition]]: Documents the moment of separation—“shut up to the necessity” of leaving, no hope of redress in Presbyterian courts
  • [[extract-rankin-arp-reception]]: Lathan’s account of Rankin joining ARP in 1793—independent corroboration that psalmody was the stated reason for transfer
  • [[extract-bishop-leaves-arp]]: Bishop’s 1819 departure from ARP to Presbyterian Church—counter-example showing bidirectional movement based on psalmody convictions
  • [[extract-synod-carolinas-psalmody]]: Corporate-level separation of Synod of Carolinas from General Synod over psalmody—parallels individual transfers at institutional scale
  • [[extract-rankinites-kentucky]]: Evidence that Rankin had followers in Kentucky—Bishop’s 1812-1815 article on “The Origin of the Rankinites” and reference to “Rankin and his friends”

Congregation-level parallel cases (the “silent process” documented):

  • [[extract-sharon-church-watts-origin]]: Sharon Church (York Co., SC) organized 1796 when “a number of families left” Bullock’s Creek and Beersheba Presbyterian churches over Watts introduction
  • [[extract-bethany-church-watts-origin]]: Bethany Church formed near Kings Mountain when hymn “innovation caused the withdrawal of a number of families from the Presbyterian Churches”
  • [[extract-pisgah-kings-mountain-origin]]: Names 12 specific families who were “active in attempting to keep God’s word sung in God’s house”—sought ARP connection “as their only hope”
  • [[extract-ebenezer-church-watts-division]]: Reverse pattern—existing ARP congregation divided when some wanted Watts; “ended in the formation of a Presbyterian Church”; church disorganized c. 1828
  • [[extract-providence-church-uninspired-supplant]]: “Many could not see their way clear to have the uninspired supplant the inspired”—precise theological formulation
  • [[extract-arp-south-partial-congregations-withdrew]]: Regional overview: “parts of several congregations did withdraw and organize Associate Reformed congregations” when psalmody changed
  • [[extract-anti-burgher-arp-disapprobation]]: Transatlantic sorting—Anti-Burghers from Scotland/Ireland systematically joined stricter Associate Church over ARP

From Davidson’s Kentucky Presbyterian history (2026-02-01):

  • [[extract-ky-rankin-opponents-characterization]]: How Transylvania Presbytery characterized Rankin—“bigotry,” “monomania,” “fanaticism,” personality-focused critique avoiding theological engagement
  • [[extract-ky-rankin-trial-charges]]: The three formal charges (slandering brethren, barring from communion, claiming divine dreams) and procedural refusal to hear theological argument
  • [[extract-ky-rankin-congregation-aftermath]]: Quantitative data—100 spectators at trial pledged support, 12 congregations / 500 families joined him, Mount Zion Church fate through 1833
  • [[extract-ky-rankin-martyrdom-framing]]: Competing narratives—Presbytery said “personality,” Rankinites said “martyr in the cause of truth, faithful Abdiel”
  • [[extract-ky-psalmody-wider-devastation]]: Kentucky churches “torn and convulsed for years”—Paris, Paint Lick, Silver Creek, Lexington, others affected
  • [[extract-ky-rankin-divine-dreams-testimony]]: The “dreams” charge in detail—Rankin claimed divine direction for move to Kentucky and opposition to Watts
  • [[extract-ky-rankin-biography-early-disputes]]: Rankin’s biography—declined Virginia pulpits over psalmody before Kentucky, covenanting martyrdom heritage
  • [[extract-ky-rankin-arp-second-trial]]: Remarkable connection—John Mason chaired the 1818 commission that suspended Rankin from ARP; Rankin wrote reply to Mason’s “Plea for Catholic Communion”
  • [[extract-ky-cane-run-conference-psalmody]]: Origin moment—Rankin raised psalmody at 1785 Cane Run Conference, “threw the apple of discord”

Evidence gaps

Critical for the thesis:

  • Parallel silent cases: Evidence of others who transferred denominations over psalmody.
    • FOUND (2026-02-01): Lathan documents multiple transfer patterns: Bishop leaving ARP (1819), Synod of Carolinas separating over “psalmody and communion,” Anti-Burghers systematically joining Associate over ARP.
    • SUBSTANTIALLY STRENGTHENED (2026-02-01): Centennial History “Sketches of Congregations” documents multiple church-level cases in York County, SC and surrounding area. At least 5 ARP congregations (Sharon, Bethany, Pisgah, Providence, and others) were founded by families fleeing Presbyterian churches that adopted Watts. Ebenezer Church divided and disorganized when members wanted to introduce Watts. These are exactly the “quiet” cases the thesis claims existed—documented matter-of-factly in church origin stories without polemics. See congregation-level extracts listed above.

Important for the argument:

  • Rankin’s ARP reception and career: What happened after he joined?
    • FOUND (2026-02-01): Lathan provides detailed account: Rankin “made application to the Second Associate Reformed Presbytery of Pennsylvania, and was by that presbytery received.” He became founding member of Kentucky Presbytery (1800), then involved in the Bishop-Rankin difficulty (1812-1818)—a prolonged conflict rooted in “psalmody and communion.” Rankin was eventually suspended by a General Synod commission in 1818. Also wrote a reply to Mason’s “Plea for Sacramental Communion.” See [[extract-rankin-arp-reception]].
  • Transylvania Presbytery response: How did they officially respond to Rankin’s arguments?
    • FOUND (2026-02-01): Davidson’s Kentucky Presbyterian history provides detailed trial account. Key finding: Presbytery refused to engage Rankin’s theological arguments. When Rankin tried to “plead justification” and “enter into an argument upon the general subject,” he was “called to order, and directed to confine his remarks to the simple question of fact, ‘Had he or had he not conducted himself as was alleged?’” The trial was procedural, not theological. See [[extract-ky-rankin-trial-charges]].
    • The three formal charges were: (1) traduced his brethren, (2) unwarrantably debarred from communion those using Watts, (3) pretended to divine revelation through dreams. Presbytery explicitly disclaimed: “his particular sentiments merely in the use of psalmody were never considered as any ground of censure.” See [[extract-ky-rankin-martyrdom-framing]].
  • Opponents’ characterization: Did they frame it as theology or personality?
    • FOUND (2026-02-01): Davidson frames it almost entirely as personality. Chapter titled “The Rankin Schism” with sections “Rankin’s Bigotry,” “His Pretences to Divine Direction.” Language throughout emphasizes: “obstinate,” “opinionated,” “contentious,” “self-willed,” “monomania,” “fanaticism.” The phrase “Psalmody was his monomania” is Davidson’s verdict. Rankin compared to “a second Luther” for his “coarseness of expression.” See [[extract-ky-rankin-opponents-characterization]].
    • The competing “martyrdom narrative”: Rankin’s supporters viewed him as “a martyr in the cause of truth, persecuted for righteousness’ sake; the faithful Abdiel, who alone swerved not from his integrity.” See [[extract-ky-rankin-martyrdom-framing]].

Useful context:

  • What happened to Rankin’s congregation after the split?
    • FOUND (2026-02-01): Dramatic quantitative detail from Davidson. At the trial, “a hundred of the spectators promptly stepped forward” to support Rankin. At the June 1792 meeting, “Commissioners appeared from portions of twelve congregations, representing five hundred families.” Mount Zion Church “continued to cling to their pastor with a devoted attachment”—even after he left ARP in 1818, they became Independent. After Rankin left (~1825), they “gradually dwindled, until they became almost extinct.” The Presbyterian loyalists had to “erect a new building” since Rankin “retained possession of the church edifice.” See [[extract-ky-rankin-congregation-aftermath]].
    • Some Rankin followers (1798) broke off to join Associate Church missionaries from Scotland, forming “six congregations” that later moved “across the Ohio.” See [[extract-ky-rankin-congregation-aftermath]].
  • Were there others in Kentucky who sided with Rankin?
    • SUBSTANTIALLY EXPANDED (2026-02-01): Davidson provides much more detail than Lathan. “Five hundred families” from “twelve congregations” joined him. Named witnesses who testified against Rankin (Robert Steel, Robert Patterson, John Maxwell, James Trotter) show some division within Mount Zion itself. His elder David Logan withdrew with him. The psalmody conflict affected “scarcely a congregation” in Kentucky—Paris, Paint Lick, Silver Creek, Providence, Harrodsburg, Bethel, Lexington all “suffered” from these disputes. See [[extract-ky-psalmody-wider-devastation]].

Counter-arguments

What would someone who disagrees say?

  • “Rankin’s public, combative approach was unusual; his case doesn’t represent typical psalmody-driven realignment.” Most people who transferred denominations over psalmody did so quietly after local disputes—Rankin made it a large-scale public fight.
  • “The controversy was really about Rankin’s personality, not theology.” His rhetoric was so extreme (comparing opponents to persecutors of Reformation martyrs) that the conflict may have been driven by his combativeness rather than genuine theological disagreement.

My response:

  • Exceptional ≠ unrepresentative: Rankin’s method (public, combative, pamphlet-publishing) was exceptional, but his convictions (exclusive psalmody) and outcome (denominational transfer to ARP) were representative of a broader pattern. The York County congregation-level evidence now documents this directly: Sharon, Bethany, Pisgah, and Providence churches were all founded by families who quietly left Presbyterian congregations over Watts—no pamphlets, no synod fights, just “a number of families left.” Ebenezer Church divided and eventually disorganized over the same issue. These cases prove the “normally silent process” was real and common.
  • The “personality” counter-argument now has evidence from both sides:
    • Opponents’ framing: Davidson’s 1847 history frames Rankin entirely in personality terms—“obstinate,” “opinionated,” “monomania,” “fanaticism,” “bigotry.” Presbytery explicitly declared “his particular sentiments merely in the use of psalmody were never considered as any ground of censure.” When Rankin tried to argue theology at trial, he was “called to order” and told to answer only factual questions. The establishment refused to engage his theology.
    • Rankinite framing: Supporters saw him as “a martyr in the cause of truth, persecuted for righteousness’ sake; the faithful Abdiel.” They insisted “the question of psalmody was tried on its naked merits.”
    • Analysis: The fact that 500 families from 12 congregations joined Rankin suggests his support was about more than personality. Churches throughout Kentucky were “torn and convulsed for years by disputes on Psalmody”—not by disputes about one man’s temperament. The dreams charge (Charge 3) may have been strategically useful for dismissing Rankin as a fanatic without engaging his biblical arguments.

Connection to other chapters

  • Follows from Ch 4 (Early Adopters and Resisters): After surveying the broad landscape of adoption and resistance, this chapter zooms in on a documented case to show the theological logic and emotional intensity behind resistance. Rankin exemplifies the maximalist position sketched in Ch 4.
  • Parallels Ch 6 (John Mason and New York): Together, Rankin and Mason provide two detailed case studies of psalmody conflict. Comparing them may reveal regional/contextual differences (frontier Kentucky vs. urban New York). Remarkable discovery (2026-02-01): John Mason himself was chairman of the 1818 ARP commission that suspended Rankin—the two case studies literally intersect. Mason was “in the zenith of his fame” while judging Rankin for “lying, and slandering his brethren.” Rankin wrote a direct reply to Mason’s “Plea for Catholic Communion.” This direct connection deserves exploration—what did each represent to the other?
  • Sets up Ch 7 (Movement Between Bodies): Rankin’s case documents the mechanism of denominational transfer—his appeal to the ARP shows how exclusive-psalmody denominations attracted defectors from the mainline. Ch 7 will trace this pattern more broadly.

Gaps discovered while writing

[Add items here as you draft]

Raw notes / questions

  • Rankin published his pamphlet in 1793, addressed to the ARP Synod in Philadelphia
  • He explicitly frames himself as defending principles the ARP “much recommended”
  • His rhetoric consistently connects psalmody to Reformation martyrdom and covenanting heritage
  • Question: Was this rhetoric effective? Did it resonate with Scottish-Irish audiences specifically?
  • Question: What was the outcome of his appeal to the ARP?