Introduction to the Original Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
by Gradye Parsons

This is an introduction to the original Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Its purpose is to invite you to explore for yourself where we started with the Book of Order. As you explore this original document, you will find familiar Presbyterian attention to detail. You will also find sections that proscribe church life in the broadest terms. If you are a person who likes math, it may interest you to know that there are approximately 11,000 words in the original Book of Order (Form of Government and the Book of Discipline). Now, there are over 70,000. You may also want to have a dictionary handy, since some of the words are no longer a common part of our vocabulary.

Like many things in the history of the PC(USA), the constitution grew out of a solution to problems. One problem concerned the kind of structure that would be needed to meet the expansion of the church in the post-revolutionary war era. Another challenge focused on the increasing frustration of getting presbyteries with their ministers to attend the undelegated synod meetings. Traveling from the frontier of Tennessee and Kentucky to a synod meeting was an obstacle. But the truth is, even presbyteries that were nearby were finding excuses for not attending the meetings. So we did what we have always done. We reorganized.

A motion was brought forward in 1785 that, “for the better management of the churches under our care, this synod be divided into three synods, and that that a General Synod, or Assembly, be constituted out of the whole” (Minutes 1785, PCUSA, p. 597). Interestingly, a previous and separate motion was to “appoint a committee to take into consideration, the Constitution of the Church of Scotland, and other Protestant Churches; and agreeably to the general principles of Presbyterian Government, compile a system of general rules for the Government of the Synod, and the several Presbyteries under their inspection and the People in their communion” (Ibid).

Drafts were prepared and edited over the next two years. Two drafts were sent to the presbyteries for their input. The committee appointed to do the work fluctuated through the years, with John Rodgers being the consistent presence. Contrary to mythical memory, the Scottish system found in Parovan’s Collections was not adopted whole cloth. This was to be an Americanized form of church government. The church would be built from the ground up, not the other way around. The presbyteries would be the focus of power and responsibility, unlike Scotland, where the General Assembly retains all power except what it grants to lower bodies. The resulting draft was approved by the synod on May 28, 1788. Any future changes would have to be approved by the presbyteries. The next time the Presbyterian Church gathered, it would be as a General Assembly.

The original constitution begins with a preamble of unequaled beauty in its language and scope of the principles of Presbyterian governance. That preamble is found in chapter one of our current Book of Order (G-1.0300). What is not there is the introduction to the preamble, or the preamble’s preamble, as it were. The goal of the preamble was to,

in some measure prevent those rash misconstructions, and uncandid reflections, which usually proceed from an imperfect view of any subject; as well as make the several parts of the system plain, and the whole plan perspicuous and fully understood.

In other words, the preamble was to be the lens from which to view the whole constitution.

When you read the 1789 constitution, you will find particulars that will cause you to raise your eyebrows. Ministers are often referred to as bishops; the Presbyterian form of government that consists of congregational, Presbyterian and Synod Assemblies is affirmed as scriptural; and in a tiny spirit of ecumenical feeling, they “embraced in the spirit of charity, those Christians who differ from us, in opinion or in practice, on these subjects” (G.VII.1).

If a congregation had multiple ministers, they were to rotate the role of moderator of the session. Only synods, not presbyteries, had the right to send overtures to the General Assembly. But any changes to the constitution required a vote by the presbyteries. Parity of ministers and elders is only mentioned in the commissioners to the General Assembly. It is not mentioned in synods or presbyteries. The representation of elders at presbytery was debated in the various drafts. The formula was that every congregation with a pastor could send an elder or, if there were colleagues (more than one pastor), there could be an elder for each one. If a congregation or a yoked field could afford a minister, but did not have one, they could send one elder.

The requirements for a minister would seem odd to us now:

Presbyteries shall licence Probationers, to preach the Gospel; that after a competent trial of their talents, and receiving, from the churches, a good report; they may, in due time, ordain them to the pastoral office (G.XIII.1).

The process was that those seeking ordination would first meet the educational requirements, be examined by their presbytery over several sessions, and study divinity for at least two years. The examination included Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. After successfully completing these requirements, they would be licensed to preach. The Probationer would then preach in a congregation until the people were disposed to call him as their minister. At the congregational meeting, only those members who had paid their just proportion could vote. The presbytery would examine the Probationer for ordination. It was recommended that the congregation fast the day preceding the ordination service.

The process to secure a minister from another congregation was through the presbytery. The pastor nominating committee would have to make their case to the presbytery as to why a minister should move (“translate”) from their current call. When the presbytery decided not to move the minister, then that was the end of the process. If the presbytery decided to allow the minister to move, the minister and his current congregation were summoned. Both congregations could argue their case for their call to the minister. Ministers were not reexamined when they moved from one presbytery to another.

You cannot read the 1789 constitution without appreciating the emphasis on discipline. Here is the section on the duties of a session:

The church session is competent to the spiritual government of the congregation: For which purpose, they have power to inquire into the knowledge and Christian conduct of the members of that church; to call before them offenders and witnesses, being members of their own society, and to introduce witnesses from other societies, or denominations, where it may be necessary, to bring the process to issue; and when they can be procured to attend; to admonish, to rebuke, to suspend, or exclude, from the sacraments, those who are found to deserve the censures of the church; to concert the best measures for promoting the spiritual interests of the congregation; and to appoint delegates to the higher judicatories of the church (G.VIII.2).

In this original constitution, the usual duties we associate with sessions are summed up in one phrase. Most of the section speaks to the duties that a session had for the “ordinary discipline” of the congregation. The duties of the presbytery, synod, and General Assembly also are focused on discipline.

However, in noting the emphasis on discipline, one has to only look in the “Forms of Process in the Judicatories of the Church” section to see the restraint that was exercised to enter any public and formal discipline process:

No complaint or information, on the subject of personal and private injuries, shall be admitted; unless those means of reconciliation, and of privately reclaiming the offender, have been used, which are required by Christ, Mat. XVIII. 15.16. And, in all cases, the ecclesiastical Judicatories, in receiving accusations, in conducting processes, or inflicting censures, ought to avoid, as far as possible, the divulging of offences, to the scandal of the Church: because the unnecessary spreading of scandal hardens and enrages the guilty, grieves the godly, and dishonours religion. And if any private Christian shall industriously spread the knowledge of an offence, unless in prosecuting it before the proper Judicatories of the Church, he shall be liable to censure, as an uncandid slanderer of his brother (D. I. 3).

The Judicatory, in many cases, may find it more for edification, to send some Members to converse, in a private manner, with the accused person; and, if he confess guilt, to endeavour to bring him to repentance; than to proceed immediately to citation (D.I. 5).

As the success of the Gospel greatly depends on the unblemished character of its Ministers; their soundness in the Faith, and holy, and exemplary conversation: and as it is the duty of all Christians to be very cautious in taking up an ill report of any man, it is especially so of a Minister of the Gospel. If, therefore, any man know a Minister guilty of a private censurable fault, he should warn him in private. But if he persist in it; or it become public; he should apply, to some other Bishop of the Presbytery, for his advice in the matter (D.I. 4).

The prosecutor shall be previously warned, that, if he fail to prove the charges, he must himself be censured, as a slanderer of the Gospel ministry; in proportion to the malignity, or rashness, that shall appear in the prosecution (D.II. 7).

Heresy and schism may be of such a nature as to infer deposition: but errors ought to be carefully considered; whether they strike at the vitals of religion, and are industriously spread; or whether they arise from the weakness of the human understanding; and are not likely to do much hurt.

II.11. A Minister, under process for heresy or schism, should be treated with Christian and brotherly tenderness. Frequent conferences ought to be held with him, and proper admonitions administered. Yet, for some more dangerous errors, suspension becomes necessary. But a Synod should be consulted in such cases (D.II.10).

These references from the discipline section show in a clear way that public and formal discipline was a last resort. Discipline was to be relational. The powers of governing bodies to discipline their charges was to tempered by Christian and brotherly tenderness.

The 1789 constitution reflects a church that had both existed in North America for over four generations and was looking for way to meet the needs of future generations. It allows much discretion by the various governing bodies and spells out in detail those things that matter to their common life. The principles that shaped its form continue to shape our understanding of governance today. To that extent, the 1789 constitution still makes it mark on the PC(USA) today.