Abingdon Presbytery appeals to Synod over psalmody controversy (1787)

Context

The dissertation describes how throughout most of the South, the use of Watts’ “versions” met with opposition. The passage documents two instances of presbyteries taking action over psalmody: Hanover Presbytery in Virginia being asked to discipline a minister for using Watts, and Abingdon Presbytery in Tennessee sending a delegation to the Synod for an official ruling.

Extract

Throughout most of the South the use of Watts’ “versions” met with opposition. The Presbytery of Hanover, in Virginia, was asked to discipline the Reverend Charles Cummings for using Watts in his congregation. The newly-formed Presbytery of Abingdon, in Tennessee, greatly disturbed over the Psalmody controversy, sent a delegation to the 1787 meeting of the Synod of New York and Philadelphia to appeal its case, and to ask for official judgment. The result was a significant “either-or” permission by the synod:

In respect to the psalmody; the Synod have allowed the use of the imitation of the Psalms of David for many years, to such congregations as choose them, and still allow of the same, but they are far from disapproving of Rous’s versions, commonly called the Old Psalms, in those who were in the use of them and chose them, but are of the opinion that either may be used by the churches, as each congregation may judge most for their peace and edification, and therefore highly disapprove of public severe, and unchristian censures being passed upon either of the systems of psalmody, and recommend it to all ministers in those parts of the Church, to be more tender and charitable on these heads.

Significance

This extract documents a critical moment in the institutional history of the psalmody controversy:

1. Disciplinary action: Hanover Presbytery was asked to discipline Rev. Charles Cummings specifically for using Watts - showing the controversy reached the level of formal church discipline
2. Frontier conflict: Abingdon Presbytery (newly formed in Tennessee) was “greatly disturbed” and formally appealed to the highest court for a ruling
3. The “either-or” resolution: The Synod’s 1787 response established the policy of allowing both Rous and Watts according to congregational preference
4. Plea for charity: The Synod explicitly condemned “severe, and unchristian censures” on both sides, suggesting the controversy had grown bitter
5. Regional pattern: The mention of “those parts of the Church” acknowledges that the frontier and South were particular hotspots

This action two years before Rankin’s 1789 General Assembly protest shows the controversy was already serious enough to require high-level institutional adjudication. The Synod’s attempt at a “both/and” compromise failed to satisfy exclusivists like Rankin.