Note 196 — MEMOIR OF THE LIFE OF DAVID RITTENHOUSE; CONTINUED, FROM THE TIME OF HIS SETTLEMENT IN PHILADELPHIA.

Colonel Samuel J. Atlee, formerly a parishioner of the Rev. Mr. Barton, had written two letters to him, to inform him of his son’s arrival. The second of these only had got to hand, and was acknowledged at the same time as Mr. Rittenhouse’s. Col. Atlee, who was a steady friend of Mr. Barton’s family, was a valuable officer in the American army, in the earlier period of the war; and afterwards served as a delegate in congress, for the state of Pennsylvania.

The difficulty of Mr. Barton’s returning to Pennsylvania, and which he alludes to, in his letter to Mr. Rittenhouse, arose from the terms of his passport to New-York, from the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania: it permits him to go to New-York, “not to return.” A letter which Mr. Barton wrote to John De Hart, Esq. of Elizabeth-Town in New-Jersey, on the 30th of January, 1779, will sufficiently explain the conscientious scruples which actuated the writer’s conduct; and they were such as, it is presumed, will have weight, when dispassionately and liberally considered.

In addressing Mr. De Hart, Mr. Barton says:—“I received your favour of the 22d instant, by Mr. Alexander. The papers with which you entrusted me, gave me no trouble, except that of my not being able to serve you in the manner which was first proposed. You may depend on their safety in my hands; subject to such directions as you shall be pleased to give me.” “I wish for an opportunity to oblige you, and if any should offer, I beg you will employ me without any apology.

“I am just informed that my son has returned to his native country, after an absence of between three and four years. How melancholy and distressing is my situation! separated from eight children, and three congregations, to whom I am bound by duty, gratitude, and every tie of affection! ‘A parent only knows a parent’s woes;’ and such will feel for me. You are kind enough to tell me, that my son requests me to return to my parish. What he can mean by this request, I am totally at a loss to understand: could the matter have been determined by my option, I should never have left my parish, for any prospect of preferment that could offer. But no choice was left me, but either to take the oath, or to suffer a painful separation from my dearest connexions; as well as from a country which always had, since I have known it, my predilection and best wishes; a country to which, I can declare (with an appeal to heaven for the truth of the declaration,) I never did, or wished to do, ‘any act or thing prejudicial or injurious:’ and though my heart assures me, that many conscientious and good men have conformed to the test-act, yet my own conscience always revolted at the abjuration part of it, and prevailed with me to surrender every worldly consideration, that should come in competition, or tempt me to a violation of it. This, sir, was the only crime (if a crime it be) for which I now suffer banishment from all that are most dear to me; with an interdict, “not to return again.” I cannot therefore comprehend, how I can consistently return, before this interdict is cancelled; or some assurance given me, that I may again unite and live quietly with my family, without being subject to an abjuration, which I cannot take. The proper duties and profession of a minister of the gospel should, in my opinion, never lead him into the field of politics. In conformity to this opinion, every man who knows me can testify, that I never degraded my function by intermeddling, directly or indirectly, in the present unhappy contest: so that my own scruples would be a stricter tie upon me, than any that could be made by oaths or tests. You will excuse my troubling you on this subject, when I tell you, that the kind manner in which you address me has drawn it upon you.”