|
The second minister of the
Church was the Rev. Joseph Morgan, a man of literary ability and versatile
gifts, a ready and prolific writer, whose absorption in mechanical
inventions, and in essays on Predestination and Church Unity, followed by
periods of spiritual earnestness and fervor, left a mingled and dubious
impression upon his strict Scotch congregation. His reputation was lessened
by his evident short-comings, and by contrast with the fame of his
illustrious successors of the honored name of Tennent.
Rev. Joseph Morgan was born in New London, Conn. November 6, 1674, of stock
of which he himself said "that [for Americans] they are a credible family.”
He was ordained by the Association of Ministers of Fairfield County, Conn.
He was at Greenwich in 1696, Bedford in 1700, Eastchester, and Westchester,
where, in 1704, he was dispossessed of his charge by Lord Cornbury, who
placed Rev. John Bartow, Missionary of the S. P. G., in his place. Mr.
Morgan then retired to New England, probably again to Greenwich.
The statement is made, on high authority, that he was one of the graduates
of Yale College in the first class that completed a regular course in that
institution, in 1702, two years before the college received its corporate
powers. President Woolsey wrote that “some interest is attached to Mr.
Morgan from the fact that he was not only one of the members of the first
class in Yale College, but also the only one who did not also take his
degree at Harvard, that is the only one veritably educated at Yale alone.”
Mr. Morgan came to Freehold in the latter part of the year 1708, or in 1709.
He appeared before the court to qualify in September, 1709, and is then
termed “Minister of ye Presbiterians in Freehold and Middletown!” Mr. Morgan
was "presented by several of said congregation, viz.: Jacob Lane, John Wicof,
John Sutfin, William Hendrickson, John Essmith, William Wilkins, and Anri
Marbison, in behalf of themselves and the rest of their breathren.” The
first three of these names were in the communion of the Dutch Reformed
Church of Freehold, the other four are said to represent the Presbyterian
church. Between Mr. Morgan’s application to the court and his qualifying, he
was installed on October 17, 1709, as first pastor of the Reformed Church,
of Freehold and Middletown, a double congregation of Dutch settlers,
sometimes called "the congregation of the Navesink,” the second act of
installation in the Reformed Church in the Jersies. He was received as a
member of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, after debate, in September, 1710.
At this meeting the following action is taken:
“It being reported that one Walter Kerr defamed the Presbytery, and Mr.
Morgan, minister to said Kerr, desiring advice therein how to behave, it was
referred to the said Mr Morgan to take cognizance of the offence, and to act
either by private or public censure, as the nature of the thing should
appear to him, and that report thereof should be made next meeting.”
The differences between Walter Ker and the Presbytery may probably be
resolved into differences between Ker and Morgan, for the sturdy consistent
old Covenanter, with his strict notions of the Church and zeal for the
advancement of his own faith, would probably not relish the union with the
Reformed congregation under Morgan’s ministry, nor would his hard Scotch
sense appreciate many of the eccentric Dominie’s schemes and dreams.
Although Mr. Morgan’s ecclesiastical connection from this time onward was
with the Presbytery and Synod of Philadelphia, he appears to have received
more sympathy and more support from the Dutch than from the Scotch
congregation. He occupied the parsonage belonging to the Dutch church with a
glebe of “one hundred acres of good arable land, as good as any in Freehold,
on which a family may subsist comfortably;” and on which the Dominie seems
to have lived comfortably indeed, realizing from it thirty pounds a year,
“besides his own bread.”
Mr. Morgan appeared at the original Presbytery of Philadelphia only once
after his reception in 1710. His continued absences prompt the Presbytery in
1716 to direct Jedediah Andrews to write him a letter “informing him that if
he comes not, nor sends sufficient reasons against next year, we shall take
it for granted that he has altogether deserted us.” The loss of the
Presbytery minutes of the following year do not allow us to know the result
of this mild warning.
A11 explanation of his absence from Presbytery during these years appears in
the Archives of New Jersey for 1714, [1 series, iv., 190-195]. It is a
communication from Mr. Morgan to the Lords of Trade concerning a wondrous
scheme for the improvement of navigation by an invention, which will work
against wind at sea, will save many a ship from ship-wreck, will shorten
voyages by many weeks and months, and be excellent in war. This prophecy of
the days of steam, and ocean grey-hounds, consists in a combination of
wheels, cranks, booms, and oars, “Found out in ye year 1712 [to 1714] by
Joseph Morgan of Freehold in New Jersey in North America.” There follows a
description of thirteen modes of applying the invention to ships so that “if
any one of these thirteen ways be good my art is good, although twelve of ye
ways were good for nothing.” Beside his experiments exhibited before “The
Governour and Assembly and City of New York” [on June 17th, 1714,] and his
writing to “ye Governour of Boston with ye same desire” his brain was
occupied with “another art (hitherto unknown to the world) of far tyea an
hundred times) greater consequence and benefit to the world,” an art
unfortunately still unrevealed. He published in the same }^ear a treatise
011 Baptism, reviewing the “Portsmouth disputation examined.” If we add his
quiet practice of astrology, it is little wonder that, as he confessed to
Cotton Mather, a few years later, “ he had no leisure for reading, nor for
writing discourses for the church, and often knew not my text before the
Sabbath.”
Mr. Morgan published a number of his writings. A sermon preached at his own
ordination, and also at the ordination of Jonathan Dickinson, at
Elizabethtown, Sept. 29th, 1709, was published in New York in 1712. The next
year came his treatise on Baptism; he sent to Mather a treatise against the
Deists; then followed “A Remedy for mortal errors, showing the necessity for
the Anointing of the Spirit”; in 1724 he published a “Reply to an anoifluous
Railer against the doctrine of Election.” He tells Mather he hopes this Book
will remove the prejudices “which half the country here away, and almpst the
other half too, have against our Confession of faith.” His orthodoxy is
unquestioned, for “of all the agencies Satan has formed against our
Salvation, the most effectual is Arminiauism.” It is to be feared that in
this treatise his statements in regard to the divisive doctrine of
Christendom were not couched in such conciliatory mode as in a previous work
which he sent in 1718 to the S. P. G., the Missionary Society of the English
Established Church, on “The most effectual Way to Propagate the Gospel;” for
he declares that in this work his unfolding of the doctrine of
Predestination was approved both by keen opponents of the doctrine and by
strong Predestinarians, “which is a circumstance to hope that it is a
platform [as the author proposes] to reconcile the grievous contentions by
which the Church is rent to pieces and laid to the mercy of ye adversary.”
But apparently he received no more commendation from the authorities of the
Established Church than he had from his own Presbyterian brethren, who as he
naively confesses, told him that his language was too mean for him to be
capable to be a writer of books, and also informed him, “which almost broke
his heart,” that his hypothesis was not true! His hypothesis being the unity
of the church.
This action of his in making overtures of reconciliation to the Episcopal
church would probably not endear him to the Scotch, who had been taught by
bitterest experience to identify Prelacy with all that was tyrannical and
unjust. It would also rouse the ire of the sturdy Dutch Dominies; and
Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen of Raritan, the most prominent Reformed
minister in the central portion of the State, accordingly denounced Morgan
as the “friend and advocate of a lifeless, God-dishonouring formalism.”
Possibly the fact that Morgan was willing to baptize the children of
disaffected members of Frelinghuyseu’s congregation may have added unction
to the good Dutchman’s testimony against formalism as embodied in the person
of the visionary minister of Freehold.
In the first constitutional debates in the Synod in 1721, Mr Morgan, along
with Jonathan Dickinson,took the position of dissent from Synod’s supremacy
and authority In framing acts of discipline and government which should have
coercive force upon “subordinate judicatories.”
The following year the dissidents, while acknowledging the power of the
keys, and the authority of Symod in matters of appeal, yet hold, with the
apparently unanimous endorsement of the Symod, the position 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 they7 conscientiously think they7 have
just cause to do so.” This remarkable compromise was hailed with
acclamations of thanksgiving and praise, and was considered the solution of
the relation of the Courts of the Church.
In the more important debate of 1729, on the Adoption of the Westminster
standards, Mr. Morgan was absent although “timeous notice thereof” was
given. The troubles in his own congregation which had culminated in the
grave and varied charges brought against him, by some in the congregation
led to his separation from the Presbyterian church of Freehold in the year
1729 or 1730.
These charges were before the Synod of 1726, presumably on in appeal from
the Presbytery of Philadelphia. They were seven in number. On the first
three he is sustained; Synod holding on the third, that “the accusers had
110 just ground for separation on that score.” The fourth accusation is the
curious charge of Mr. Morgan’s practice of the art of astrology. The actions
complained of had been performed in the earlier part of his ministry at
Freehold, in the days of his navigation schemes, for his accusers have
“partook with him in sealing ordinances many years after the things were
done they complain of.” Nevertheless, Synod finds more in this charge than
in the others and “cannot clear Mr. Morgan from imprudence and misconduct in
making the two alleged experiments of that kind, if the reports be true,
were his ends never so good and laudable.” The “two alleged experiments” are
unfortunately mentioned no further.
“As to the fifth article, although the Synod do not approve promiscuous
dancing, yet they judge it a clear indication of the captious and querulous
spirit of Mr. Morgan’s accusers, that they offer such a complaint against
him.” This is taken by many to mean Mr. Morgan’s “countenancing” dancing.
The last charge is the unfortunate one of intemperance, which the Synod
holds to be groundless. The Synod three years later, (1731) elected him
Moderator, as though to show their confidence in him. Mr. Morgan’s
subsequent troubles when connected with the Churches of Hopewell and
Maidenhead, have been held by many to have been caused b}^ intemperance
also, although there is no mention of the cause in the censure and
suspension, for a time, on account of “gross scandals” and “repeated
miscarriages.”
Dr. McLean, in his lecture on Joseph Morgan, says that “as there was no hope
of his promoting peace and union or of his being farther useful he resigned
his charge.” His last connection with the Presbyterians is contained in the
records of the Tennent Church.
October 15th, 1730. The Revd. Mr. Joseph Morgan [having made a complaint
against this congregation that they owed him above 200 pounds arrears of
Salleries met the congregation at the Old Scots meeting House, where
accompts were fairly made up, and Mr. Morgan gave the congregation a
Discharge in full.”
His last scenes with the Dutch congregation were more agreeable. He remained
with them until 1731, preaching his farewell sermon on August 31, when the
short period of John Tenuent’s active ministry in the Presbyterian Church
was nearly ended.
The Consistory of the Dutch church gave him at his departure a testimony of
their appreciation of his services. They declare him to be a man of
“acknowledged orthodoxy and exemplary character who, according to his
ability, has faithfully and zealously performed the duties of his charge.”
He was far from being inactive as a missionary in the destitute parts of the
county. At Allentown he preached, in his earlier ministry with the Freehold
church, and wrote to Mather of meeting there with a cold reception. Later,
in 1721, he writes more cheerfully of the changed attitude of that community
toward Presbyterian ministers. In 1722, a church having been built at
Allentown, Morgan was instrumental in securing Rev. Mr. Walton, a Yale
graduate, as its minister.
At Middletown, also, Mr. Morgan preached in a building which, even in his
day, was dilapidated and left to decay. Its neglected condition annoyed him,
and when riding by, if he saw the door or window open, he would stop, and
dismounting his horse, reverently close the open door or window before
proceeding on his way.
At Shrewsbury also was a Presbyterian house of worship for his services in
1727.
The dissatisfaction with his ministry followed him to his field of Hopewell
and Maidenhead, resulting in the further charges already mentioned. The
secret of his failure, with its salutary lesson may be learned from his own
words “While free from worldly avocations, the work of grace went on
abundantly, and people came from every quarter to receive spiritual
consolation. It would even melt one’s heart to see the humiliation,
selfabasement, and self-loathing, that appeared in them; and then fleeing to
the blood of Christ for relief, and to the free grace and good pleasure of
God, to draw them to Christ, and to see the change wrought in their lovely
souls.” But, he continues, “when from necessity he [the minister] entangles
himself in the affairs of this life the scene was mournfully changed.” Poor
Morgan with his strange vagaries, and noble ideas, and moments of fervor,
and times of temptation and abasement, a sweet but sad character, lovable
and pitiable, as well.
Beautiful, and true we trust, is the tradition concerning his later days;
that under the fiery impulse of Whitefield’s eloquence, the spirit of
Evangelism seized him in the rapture of a noble effort, and he traversed the
sea coasts of New Jersey, proclaiming the Gospel in desolate places; and
dying in the ardor of his aftermath, rests in an unknown grave.
The “Old Scots” Burying Ground Looking
Southwest. The Grave of Rev. John Tennent to the Right of the Background. |
