Fourth of July Celebration at Log College Press

Receive our blog posts in your email by filling out the form at the bottom of this page.

If your cause is just — you may look with confidence to the Lord and intreat him to plead it as his own. You are all my witnesses, that this is the first time of my introducing any political subject into the pulpit. At this season however, it is not only lawful but necessary, and I willingly embrace the opportunity of declaring my opinion without any hesitation, that the cause in which America is now in arms, is the cause of justice, of liberty, and of human nature. — John Witherspoon, The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men: A Sermon, Preached at Princeton, on the 17th of May, 1776. Being the General Fast Appointed by the Congress Through the United Colonies (1777)

It was five years ago today that Log College Press was founded on July 4, 2017. (See what this site looked like early on [as of January 19, 2018] via the Wayback Machine here.) Thanks to the support and encouragement of our dear readers, we have come a long way since then.

We have now published 7 books, and 10 booklets. Log College Press now has over 15,000 works by over 1,900 authors available to read on the site.

On this date in past years we have highlighted men who served the cause of civil and religious liberty, as well as books by our authors which celebrate the cause.

This year we take note of our authors which share a birthday with Log College Press and the United States of America:

At Log College Press we have much cause to celebrate, and we give thanks to God for the labors of godly men and women who have gone before in service to the cause of Christ and freedom. We also recognize how far this country has fallen from its ideal as epitomized in John Winthrop’s “City on a Hill” (1630).

Our national sins are great. It was in 1778 that Jacob Green famously said: “Can it be believed that a people contending for liberty should, at the same time, be promoting and supporting slavery?” And it was in 1832 that James R. Willson pointed out our great need as a nation to acknowledge our dependence upon and submission to God, and to kiss Son specifically, alluding to Ps. 2:12 and quoting Ps. 9:17, when took note of the great omission by our Constitutional Founding Fathers who chose not to honor God in our national charter: “Was it a mere omission? Did the convention that framed the constitution forget to name the living God? Was this an omission in some moment of national phrenzy, when the nation forgot God? That, indeed, were a great sin. God says, ‘the nations that forget God, shall be turned into hell’” (Prince Messiah).

Though far from where we as a nation ought to be, yet there is cause for remembrance of and thanksgiving for the blessings of the past as well as the mercies of today. As William B. Sprague once said, “LET THE DAY BE OBSERVED, BUT LET IT BE OBSERVED RELIGIOUSLY” (Religious Celebration of Independence: A Discourse Delivered at Northampton, on the Fourth of July, 1827 (1827)). That is to say, with respect to this civil holiday (as distinct from a religious holy day), we ought to celebrate its noblest ideals, exemplified in America’s fight for freedom and independence, with proper solemnities, in an appropriate Christian manner, but in humble acknowledgment of how far we as a people have still to go, by the grace of God, to arrive at those ideals.

To understand civil and religious freedom aright, we believe it is important to study God’s Word first, but not to neglect the study of history as well. Primary sources from the past are a valuable tool in promoting reformation and revival in the present. Our topical page on Church and State is one particular relevant resource. We thank our readers for their interest in and support of this project by Log College Press to make accessible what Presbyterians who have gone before had to say on this and other important matters. To God be the glory, as we we celebrate another Independence Day, and a birthday besides.

Log College Press and the Movies

(Receive our blog posts in your email by clicking here. If the author links in this post are broken, please visit our Free PDF Library and click on the author’s page directly.)

For those who enjoy the cinema, there are some interesting ties between American Presbyterians on Log College Press and the movies.

  • The 2003 film Gods and Generals, which tells the story of the War Between the States largely from the points of one military officer from the North and one from the South, features Stephen Lang who played Stonewall Jackson (Presbyterian deacon) and Martin Clark as Dr. George Junkin (Presbyterian minister, and Jackson’s father-in-law).

  • Francis J. Grimké and Matthew Anderson once had occasion to watch a film together - D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation (1915). The movie is famous for its positive portrayal of the Klu Klux Klan, which Grimké noted in his review. He vehemently critiqued the film for its apparent effort to excite racial prejudice against African-Americans.

  • J.G. Machen was a Charlie Chaplin fan, according to D.G. Hart, who commented, writing in Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America, pp. 164, 207:

The final issue that split fundamentalist and traditionalist Presbyterians concerned personal morality. In [James Oliver] Buswell's estimation this was the proverbial straw that would break the camel's back. Those in the church who sided with him, Buswell wrote (in what turned out to be his last letter to Machen), were concerned about reports that Westminster students used liquor in their rooms "with the approval of some members of the faculty." The use of alcohol, even in the celebration of the sacrament, he added, was "far more likely" to divide the church than "any question of eschatology." Buswell and other fundamentalists in the church were also "shocked" by leaders of the new denomination who defended "the products of Hollywood," a "useless,...waste of energy." Machen never responded to Buswell but his opposition to Prohibition provides a clue to his views on alcohol. In addition to opposing the expanded powers of the federal government that the Eighteenth Amendment granted, Machen also thought the Bible allowed moderate use of alcohol. This was also the position of the majority of faculty at Westminster who came from ethnic churches were the idea of total abstinence with American evangelicalism was foreign. As for Buswell's reference to Hollywood, Machen did enjoy going to the movies and commented favorably on Charlie Chaplin but did not make any remarks about film in his published writings.10

10. Buswell to Machen, December 4, 1936, MA. On Machen's fondness for movies, see, for example, his letters to his mother, May 14, 1913, March 11 and August 23, 1914, MA.

These are a few of the curious and fascinating connections between Hollywood and American Presbyterianism to be found at Log College Press. As we say here, even in regards to culture:

THE PAST IS NOT DEAD. 
PRIMARY SOURCES ARE NOT INACCESSIBLE.
18TH-19TH CENTURY AMERICAN PRESBYTERIANS ARE NOT IRRELEVANT.

No God in the Constitution

(Receive our blog posts in your email by clicking here. If the author links in this post are broken, please visit our Free PDF Library and click on the author’s page directly.)

The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God (Ps. 9:17).

A concern of many 19th century Presbyterians regarding the American Constitution is that it omits any reverent acknowledgement of God Almighty. The failure to honor the God of nations in our national charter was noted in a previous post highlighting the remarks of George Duffield IV and George Junkin. Today’s post highlights a remark attributed to Vice-President Alexander Hamilton. The omission of God in the U.S. Constitution was noticed by Presbyterians even outside of the Covenanter Church (which from the beginning of America’s founding as a nation until the 1960’s held to the position of political dissent) very early in American history as we shall see.

Appended to Thomas Smyth’s 1860 sermon The Sin and the Curse are comments regarding this defect of the U.S. Constitution.

No God in the Constitution

“The name of God does not occur in the Constitution which they framed, nor any recognition of Divine Providence.”

As a fitting accompaniment to an article in last week’s Observer, of which the closing period forms an appropriate title to still another item of history, connected with the same subject, some of your readers wil be, perhaps, interested in an extract or two from one of the many Congratulatory Addresses presented to President Washington on his election as First President under the new Constitution, with his reply.

“The First Presbytery of the Eastward,” in their “Address to George Washington, President of the United States, after many pious congratulations, &c., proceed thus:

“Whatever any have supposed wanting in the original plan” [of the Constitution], “we are happy to see so wisely provided in its amendments; and it is with peculiar satisfaction that we behold how easily the entire confidence of the people, in the man who sits at the helm of government, has eradicated every remaing objection to its form.

“Among these we never considered the want of a religious test, that grand engine of persecution in every tyrant’s hand: but we should not have been alone in rejoicing, to have some explicit acknowledgment of the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent, inserted somewhere in the Magna Charta of our country, &c., &c.

“October 28, 1789.”
…
The venerable Dr. [John] Rodgers once met Alexander Hamilton, soon after the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and said to him, “Mr. Hamilton, I am grieved to see that you have neglected to acknowledge God in the Constitution.” Hamilton replied, “My dear sir, we forgot to do it.”

George Duffield V also took note of the reported conversation between John Rodgers and Alexander Hamilton in The God of Our Fathers: An Historical Sermon (1861).

Hamilton said to Dr. Rodgers, “Indeed, Dr., we forgot it!”

In the same sermon Duffield quotes the words of John Mitchell Mason:

“That no notice whatever should be taken of that God who planteth a nation, and plucketh it up at his pleasure, is an omission which no pretext whatever can palliate. Had such a momentous business been transacted by Mohammedans, they would have begun, “In the name of God.” Even the savages, whom we despise, setting a better example, would have paid some homage to the Great Spirit. But from the Constitution of the United States, it is impossible to ascertain what God we worship; or whether we own a God at all. * * Should the citizens of America be as irreligious as her Constitution, we will have reason to tremble, lest the Governor of the Universe, who will not be treated with indignity by a people, any more than by individuals, overturn, from its foundation, the fabric we have been rearing, and crush us to atoms in the wreck.” — Works of J.M. Mason, D.D., Vol. i., p. 50.

Hamilton’s biographer Ron Chernow, when speaking of the story of Hamilton’s quip about forgetting God, says: “One is tempted to reply that Alexander Hamilton never forgot anything important” (Alexander Hamilton, p. 235). James Renwick Willson would concur.

There is no acknowledgment of Almighty God, nor any, even the most remote, token of national subjection to Jehovah, the Creator. It is believed, that there never existed, previous to this constitution, any national deed like this, since the creation of the world. A nation having no God! In vain shall we search the annals of pagan Greece and Rome, of modern Asia, Africa, pagan America, and the isles of the sea — they have all worshipped some God. The United States have none — But here let us pause over this astounding fact. Was it a mere omission? Did the convention that framed the constitution forget to name the living God? Was this an omission in some moment of national phrenzy, when the nation forgot God? That, indeed, were a great sin. God says, “the nations that forget God, shall be turned into hell.” It was not, however, a thoughtless act, an undesigned omission. It was a deliberate deed, whereby God was rejected; and in the true atheistical spirit of the whole instrument, and of course, done with intent to declare national independence of the Lord of hosts (Prince Messiah's Claims to Dominion Over All Governments; and the Disregard of His Authority by the United States, in the Federal Constitution (1832), p. 25).

American Presbyterians in Europe

(Receive our blog posts in your email by clicking here. If the author links in this post are broken, please visit our Free PDF Library and click on the author’s page directly.)

St. Augustine, when he speaks of the great advantages of travelling, says, that the world is a great book, and none study this book so much as a traveller. They that never stir from home read only one page of this book. -- John Feltham, The English Enchiridion (1799)

Like many today who might be itching to travel again, American Presbyterians in the 19th century also sought the benefits of a long voyage, and Europe was one particular favorite destination. Among the life experiences of authors found at Log College Press, trips to Europe are a recurring theme, and our Travelogue page highlights this.

The letters, journals, books and poetry that resulted from such trips are a valuable historical record of life on one side of the pond as viewed through the eyes of residents from the other side. In today’s post, we take a closer look at these memorials of their experiences.

  • James Waddel Alexander — J.W. Alexander traveled to England, France, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, Scotland on a six-month tour of Europe in 1851. He met Adolphe Monod in Paris. Later, in 1857, he returned to Europe and met Charles H. Spurgeon in England, and Thomas Guthrie in Scotland, while also visiting France, Germany, Switzerland and Belgium. His reports on these travel experiences are recorded in Forty Years' Familiar Letters, and also in James W. Garretson, Thoughts on Preaching & Pastoral Ministry: Lessons from the Life and Writings of James W. Alexander.

  • Joseph Addison Alexander — J.A. Alexander spent a year in Europe (1833-1834). Time was spent in England, France, Switzerland, Germany, and Italy. From diary extracts given in H.C. Alexander’s The Life of Joseph Addison Alexander, we learn many fascinating details about the people he met, and the poems he wrote, inspired by his European travels.

  • Henry Martyn Baird — Baird spent much of his childhood in France and Switzerland, and then after graduating from the University of New York, lived in Greece and Italy during 1851-1853, and studied at the University of Athens. Besides his many written studies of the French Huguenots, he authored Modern Greece: A Narrative of a Residence and Travels in that Country (1856).

  • Robert Baird — Baird visited Europe many times as recorded in H.M. Baird’s biography The Life of the Rev. Robert Baird, D. D. (1866). Baird himself wrote about his travels in Visits to Northern Europe (1841) and Old Sights With New Eyes (1854). His travels also enabled him to write with personal knowledge about Protestantism in Italy.

  • John Henry Barrows — Barrows’ world travels, detailed in A World Pilgrimage (1897), included England, France, Germany, Greece and Italy.

  • Robert Jefferson Breckinridge — R.J. Breckinridge was appointed by the PCUSA General Assembly to serve as its representative in Europe, leading to a trip to England, France, Germany, Switzerland and Italy. His travels are detailed in Memoranda of Foreign Travel (1839 and, in 2 vols., 1845).

  • George Barrell Cheever — Cheever’s journey though the French-Swiss Alps is recorded in Wanderings of a Pilgrim in the Shadow of Mont Blanc and the Jungfrau Alp (1848).

  • Theodore Ledyard Cuyler — Cuyler’s travels through England, France, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Greece, and the Czech Republic, are recorded in From the Nile to Norway and Homeward (1881).

  • George Duffield IV — Duffield’s travels were published in the Magazine of Travel during 1857, and later republished in Travels in the Two Hemispheres; or, Gleanings of a European Tour (1858).

  • Henry Highland Garnet — Garnet traveled to Europe in 1851, including England, Ireland Scotland and Germany. His speeches from some of those locations are found here.

  • Stephen Henry Gloucester — Gloucester, pastor of the Lombard Street Central Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, visited England and Scotland in 1847-1848. The record of his trip, and letters which he wrote home, can be found in Robert Jones, Fifty years in the Lombard Street Central Presbyterian Church (1894).

  • Charles Hodge — From 1826 to 1828, Hodge traveled to Europe, studying in Paris and and wrote a handwritten journal of his experiences (primarily in Germany) available to read here. See also A.A. Hodge’s The Life of Charles Hodge for more on these travels, including letters written to home.

  • Alexander McLeod — McLeod visited England and Scotland in 1830. His experiences are recounted in Samuel Brown Wylie’s Memoir of Alexander McLeod (1855). Wylie’s own trip to Europe in 1802-1803 is also discussed in this volume.

  • James Clement Moffat — Moffat recounts his experiences in the summer of 1872 in Song and Scenery; or, A Summer Ramble in Scotland (1874).

  • Walter William Moore — Moore recounts his experiences in England, Scotland, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands in A Year in Europe (1904, 1905).

  • James W.C. Pennington — The “Fugitive Blacksmith’s” s travels to England, Scotland and Germany are detailed in Christopher L. Webber, American to the Backbone: The Life of James W. C. Pennington, the Fugitive Slave Who Became One of the First Black Abolitionists. He was the first African-American in Europe to be awarded the degree of Doctor of Divinity.

  • Samuel Irenaeus Prime — Prime’s travels were recorded in Travels in Europe and the East: A Year in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Austria, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, 2 vols. (1855, 1856).

  • Joel Edson Rockwell — Rockwell’s journey through France, Germany, Italy, England, Scotland and Ireland is chronicled in Scenes and Impressions Abroad (1860).

  • William Buell Sprague — Sprague writes in the preface to his Visits to European Celebrities (1855), “In 1828, and again in 1836, I had the privilege of passing a few months on the continent of Europe and in Great Britain. In both visits, especially the latter, I was more interested to see men than things; and I not only made the acquaintance, so far as I could, of distinguished individuals as they came in my way, but sometimes made circuitous routes in order to secure to myself this gratification.” See also his Letters From Europe, in 1828 (1828).

  • Thomas De Witt Talmage — A world traveller, Talmage wrote Great Britain Through American Spectacles (1885); From the Pyramids to the Acropolis: Sacred Places Seen Through Biblical Spectacles (1892); and The Earth Girdled: The World as Seen To-Day (1896).

These are some of the men at Log College Press who spent time in Europe, and their writings often tell us about life abroad, and often inspired them in various ways, just as travels inspire us. It is human nature to want to travel, and if we are limited in our ability to do so at present, we can at least turn to others who have done so and be inspired by them.

That Cemetery Through Which Nicolas Cage Escaped With His Life

(Receive our blog posts in your email by clicking here. If the author links in this post are broken, please visit our Free PDF Library and click on the author’s page directly.)

Old Pine Street Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (photo credit: R. Andrew Myers).

Old Pine Street Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (photo credit: R. Andrew Myers).

Do you remember the 2004 film National Treasure? Among the scenes set in Philadelphia is one in which Benjamin Gates (played by Nicholas Cage) is pursued by the henchmen of Ian Howe (Sean Bean) through an old graveyard. That cemetery belongs to the Old Pine Street Presbyterian Church, a place of great importance within American Presbyterianism. It was also known as the “Church of the Patriots.” Dating to 1768, the church is the only remaining Presbyterian building that predates the American War of Independence.

Cemetery sign noting the connection to the film (photo credit: R. Andrew Myers).

Cemetery sign noting the connection to the film (photo credit: R. Andrew Myers).

The movie was filmed here over several days, and the church highlights this history.

Memorabilia from within the Old Pine Street Presbyterian (photo credit: R. Andrew Myers).

Memorabilia from within the Old Pine Street Presbyterian (photo credit: R. Andrew Myers).

So many civil and ecclesiastical luminaries were laid to rest in this cemetery. The list includes William Hurry (1721-1781), who rang the Liberty Bell when the Declaration of Independence was read publicly on July 4, 1776; Jared Ingersoll (1749-1822), who signed the U.S. Constitutions; and others who served in the Continental Congress, fought in the War of Independence, and contributed in other ways to American society.

Old Pine Street Presbyterian Cemetery (photo credit: R. Andrew Myers).

Old Pine Street Presbyterian Cemetery (photo credit: R. Andrew Myers).

At least seven authors at Log College Press are buried here, including George Duffield II (1732-1790), Moses Hoge (1752-1820), John Blair Smith (1756-1799), John Ewing (1732-1802), Stephen Henry Gloucester (1802-1850), Thomas Brainerd (1804-1866), and Hughes Oliphant Gibbons (1843-1910). Duffield, who served as pastor of Old Pine from 1772-1790 and as chaplain to the Continental Congress, is further commemorated with a distinctive sculpture at the cemetery.

This sculpture of George Duffield II at the cemetery was created in 2015 (photo credit: R. Andrew Myers).

This sculpture of George Duffield II at the cemetery was created in 2015 (photo credit: R. Andrew Myers).

Archibald Alexander once served as pastor of Old Pine.

Interior commemorative plaque honoring Archibald Alexander (photo credit: R. Andrew Myers).

Interior commemorative plaque honoring Archibald Alexander (photo credit: R. Andrew Myers).

A run through the cemetery by Nicholas Cage may inspire lovers of American Presbyterian history to take a walk through this church and its graveyard where history does indeed seem to come to life. Just around the corner, moreover, is the Presbyterian Historical Society, where statues honoring American Presbyterian heroes of the faith reside. One special city block in Philadelphia is a place that Presbyterian historians will cherish and appreciate long after Benjamin Gates escapes with his life. It is a National Treasure.

Old Pine Street Presbyterian Cemetery (photo credit: R. Andrew Myers).

Old Pine Street Presbyterian Cemetery (photo credit: R. Andrew Myers).

George Duffield asks, "Who should be our rulers?"

(If the author links in this post are broken, please visit our Free PDF Library and click on the author’s page directly.)

When a committee headed by Benjamin Franklin was formed to prepare a Constitution for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1776, Bishop William White was called upon to lead in prayer, while Presbyterian minister (also chaplain to the Continental Congress) George Duffield II (1732-1790) drafted an essay outlining Biblical principles for the selection of civil magistrates to aid in the work. He added brief remarks to the essay in 1787, but it was not published until his grandson, George Duffield V (1818-1888), included it in his The God of Our Fathers: An Historical Sermon (1861).

The title — Who Should Be Our Rulers? — is immediately expanded upon with this question:

Query. — May a community of professing Christians, of right require any profession of the Christian faith of those appointed to bear rule among them, previous to their admission to office, or make a profession of Christianity, a suspending term of their being admitted to any of the principal offices in the state?

Answering in the affirmative, Duffield offers seven reasons to explain.

1. Officers in the State are to be considered as the servants of the public, employed by the Body, to perform certain services for them, and for which service, they receive that reward or hire, which the community agree to give; though officers are the servants of the State, it is yet the highest honor the State can confer on any of its members, to repose confidence in them, to transact for them the public concerns.

2. No man, or set of men, has any natural right to any office in the State, more than he has a natural right to oblige or demand his neighbor to hire him to perform any service he has to do, and consequently none of his natural rights are in fringed — if the community think proper not to employ him, more than the farmer infringes on the natural rights of the laborer, when he chooses to employ another rather than him.

3. Every community has an undoubted right to choose whom they will employ, to perform any service for them, equally as the farmer has, to choose whom he will employ to perform any labor for him. And as they have a right to choose as they please, whom they will employ — So,

4. They have for the same reason, an equal right to make such regulations as they see proper, respecting the persons they will agree to employ in their service, so that these regulations infringe on no man's natural right, nor inflict any penalty on those they may not think proper to employ.

5. For a society of professing Christians, to agree to employ none in any of their principal offices of service in the State, but such as profess Christianity, appears to be no more than a proper mark of respect paid to themselves, as a body, and to the Christian religion they profess, and cannot therefore, in that point of view be condemned. Whereas, on the other hand, to act a contrary part, must appear in the eyes of the far greater part of the community, treating Christianity with a degree of neglect, and has a direct tendency to sink it lower in the public esteem, and induce many through the influence, a connection of ideas has on the mind of man, to hold it on a par with Infidelity, in other respects as well, also, as in that wherein they would thus see it placed by the Constitution of their government.

6. Good morals are essentially necessary to the health and prosperity of the State. Whatever measure therefore, appears best adapted to preserve and promote the morals of the state ought to be embraced. Christianity is much better calculated to preserve and pro mote good morals than infidelity; as much therefore, as Christianity is better calculated for this great essential purpose, so much more advisable and prudent it is, to have Christian magistrates and officers, rather than infidels, especially when we consider,

7. The experience of all ages has confirmed the observation, that the principles and practice of superiors, and especially of rulers, have great influence on those of inferior rank; as in the history of the Jews; the complexion of the people at large, as either moral or profane, may generally be known by adverting to the character of the rulers that were over them, and it is ever to be expected, that every man will endeavour according to his opportunities for that purpose, to promote the sentiments he himself has embraced, and induce others to join him in practice.

These reasons being given, our author surveys some of the Scriptures that have bearing on how rulers should rule and how they should be selected. After highlighting Proverbs 14:34 (“Righteousness exalteth a nation…”), the Scriptural characteristics of a king (chief magistrate) given in Deuteronomy 17 are identified:

1st. He is to be of their Religion, that is a Jew, incorporated in that body and professing the Jewish Religion, no matter of what tribe or order, save only that none of the tribe of Levi, are to be chosen. This is all the exception made, and it is a good exception, still, nor will any of the clerical order desire it, unless they have forgotten the apostolic injunction, "Give thyself wholly to these things," 1 Tim. 4:15.

2d. He is to study the word of God, for though the expression, (Deut. 17:18,) has a special reference to the judicial law of that people, it cannot with propriety be restricted to that. It was the whole law which was with the priests and Levites, but this was the whole of the Divine Revelation, is still of excellent use to form even the highest officers of the State, for a faithful discharge of their trust to the commonwealth as well as to form the individual for usefulness here and glory hereafter.

3d. He was to learn to fear the Lord — but how is this most likely to be obtained to have rulers that are taught to fear God? Is it by choosing Infidels or by choosing Christians?

4th. He was to set an example to the people — and this example was certainly not for nothing, but that it might have influence; it was therefore as much the people's duty to observe and follow the example of their rulers, as it was theirs to set it. But what example shall we expect from Infidels? Are they likely to walk in the law of the Lord? &c, or ought we to choose examples of infidelity to set before us and our children to copy after?

More Scriptures follow:

A second direction from the sacred pages, 2 Samuel 23, "He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God." This is an express command of God, and delivered in terms so general, as render it impossible to be restricted to the Jews, but equally designed for us as any other portion of Sacred Writ. And will any say that an Infidel answers to this character, or is likely to rule in the fear of God? The 101st Psalm is generally understood as descriptive of those the Psalmist, by divine direction, was determined to employ in the service of the State; and such are characterized, v. 6, by walking in the perfect way. But is it possible to suppose infidelity can be that "perfect way?" Or if the Psalm should be understood of domestic servants, will not the argument hold much stronger with respect to those who are to serve the State?

In Isaiah 49:23, it is promised among the singular blessings that shall attend Christian States in the day of their greatest prosperity, that their rulers shall be "nursing fathers," &c, to the Church of Christ. But are Infidels likely to be these nursing fathers? Or when we know God generally accomplishes ends in the way of means adapted to these ends, shall we use the means that are most directly opposed to it, in order to obtain the so valuable and desirable ends?

He also considers several objections in favor of complete separation of church or state, that is, things civil and things religious. This leads to a discussion of the place of the Sabbath, which is part of the moral law of God.

It is said the Church and State ought to be kept entirely separate, and no connection admitted between things civil and religious, as they have no connection in nature, and many mischiefs have flowed from blending them together. If this be so, then great care must be taken to establish nothing of morality, for this is one grand essential constituent of religion, which consists in loving God supremely and our neighbors as ourselves; doing to all men as we would wish them in like circumstances to do to us. If any say the good of society requires this, I answer this is only giving up the position, and saying that though civil and religious things are to be kept entirely apart, they are yet in many things so inseparably connected that it is impossible to separate them one from the other. If this be so, we can then have no Sabbath established in any State, however composed entirely of professing Christians, unless it be somewhat of a political Sabbath, and entirely dissimilar to the word of God, for as the observation of a Sabbath is a part, and that a very material and foundation part of true Religion — for any State, therefore, to establish the observation of a Sabbath, is so far to blend Religion with their civil constitution; which, according to the above position, ought by no means to be done, but the two be kept entirely separate from each other. Nay, further, as the observation of a Sabbath is a part of revealed religion, and depends entirely on the divine authority of that revelation which enjoins it, we cannot establish the observation of a Sabbath without previously admitting, and equally establishing the divine authority of that revelation on which the Sabbath depends. We must, therefore, inevitably either admit and establish in our civil constitution the divine authority of the Scriptures, or we must utterly reject the Sabbath from amongst us, save as any one may choose of his own accord to observe the day. There is no alternative in the case. Admit, then, the Sabbath rejected, as on the above position it absolutely must be, and no one obliged to observe it, I leave it to any man who has observed how difficult it is with all the care that can be taken to have a Sabbath observed, I leave it to him to judge what our situation in a few years will be. Whether we shall be likely to have a Sabbath among us at all, but in this respect be purely heathen, and the Sabbath entirely gone, though the wisest and best of men in every age have esteemed the observation of the Sabbath of essential use to promote not only piety towards God, but morality toward men, and the great good of society; and God himself laid it down as a first grand foundation principle in the Jewish constitution, instantly after bringing them forth out of Egypt. The truth of the case is, it is impossible to run a line of distinction between things civil and religious, so as to separate the one from the other, in any civilized State. They are in many respects what God and nature have joined together, and man may not put asunder.

Duffield concludes with this thought:

I shall close my remarks on this subject at present with observing, old customs and institutions with which we have long been acquainted are like old friends, whom we shall not hastily cast off, without weighty reasons urging thereto. We have tried now for near a century an institution, the same in sub stance with that above pleaded for, formed by the celebrated founder of this State. No inconvenience has ever arisen from it. It has obtained universal esteem, is interwoven into our earliest thought of the matter, and grown up with our judgment; under this the people will feel themselves contented and happy; whether the case will be the same with the proposed alteration is greatly to be questioned, or rather the negative is certain, and the experiment, if made, will but too probably in its consequences verify in the State of Pennsylvania the Prophet Hosea's remark, (8:3-4) — "Israel hath cast off the thing which is good, they have set up rulers but not by Me."

Eleven years later, in 1787, also in Philadelphia while the national Constitutional Convention performing its work, Duffield remained of the same opinion:

The above piece was written at the time of forming the Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania, and though I wish to exercise all the charity I can for all mankind, and abhor the idea of subjecting any person to any, even the least injury on account of his religious sentiments or tenets in things pertaining to another world, so that he behave himself as a good citizen, yet, on a calm review of the case, at this distance of time, I cannot but think the arguments here adduced have weight, and that, on the whole, it is the safest line of conduct. - Philadelphia, Sept. 5th, 1787

We note that the 1776 Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania contains but one religious test for public office. Elected state representatives were required to swear to the public before they could be seated in the general assembly:

I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

A similar provision has been retained in each of the following (1790, 1838, 1874 and 1968) governing constitutions of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.

Perhaps Duffield’s essay — authored for the benefit of the original Pennsylvania constitutional drafting committee and essentially affirming that religion is a necessary component of a good civil magistrate — provides us with a better understanding for the retention of this religious test for public office that Pennsylvania has kept even until the present day (although disannulled by a 1961 U.S. Supreme Court decision). Read the rest of this remarkable essay here to see what, if anything, Duffield has to say to the 21st century Christian citizen and civil ruler.

A critique of the U.S. Constitution by two 19th century PCUSA ministers

(If the author links in this post are broken, please visit our Free PDF Library and click on the author’s page directly.)

While the U.S. Constitution was largely approved of by the Presbyterian Church of the 18th and 19th centuries (it is perhaps not a coincidence that the Synod of Philadelphia and New York, meeting in Philadelphia at the same time the Constitution Convention was meeting in the same city in May 1787, proposed amendments to the Westminster Confession of Faith, including to the chapter on the Civil Magistrate, which were approved of in 1788), there were some notable Presbyterian critics of our national charter.

Most famous was RPCNA pastor James Renwick Willson, who was burned in effigy in Albany, New York for the preaching and publication of his sermon “Prince Messiah's Claims to Dominion Over All Governments; and the Disregard of His Authority by the United States, in the Federal Constitution” (1832). Many objected to his argument that Christ and His law should be recognized in the U.S. Constitution, and others objected to his questioning whether George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were in fact Christian.

But Willson and the RPCNA generally were not alone in their concerns about the most fundamental principles embedded in the U.S. Constitution.

George Duffield IV (1794-1868) was a PCUSA pastor who preached an 1820 sermon titled "Judgment and Mercy: A Sermon, Delivered...On the Day of 'Humiliation, Thanksgiving, and Prayer.'" In this sermon he identified mercies granted by God to the United States, as well as particular national sins which incurred God's judgments. His grandfather, by the way, was a chaplain for the Continental Congress.

There is one [sin] strictly national, that commenced in the adoption of the federal constitution, which is the want of an acknowledgement in it of a Supreme Being, and of a divine revelation. Although an eminent Judge of a neighbouring state, one of the guardians of that constitution, has happily decided, that it is assumed in it, that the United States are a christian nation, and Christianity the religion of the country, yet, that all important engine of our national prosperity, is, in form at least entirely atheistical. Undoubtedly it were a great sin, to have forgotten God in such an important national instrument, and not to have acknowledged Him in that which forms the very nerves and sinews of the political body. He had led through all the perils of the revolutionary struggle, and had established us in peaceful and plentiful security, and then, to have been forgotten, in the period of prosperity, certainly demerited his rebuke. Therefore hath the voice of his providence proclaimed, and even still it sounds in our ears, I did know thee in the wilderness in the land of great drought. According to their pasture so were they filled; they were filled, and their heart was exalted; therefore have they forgotten me. Therefore I will be unto them as a Lion: as a Leopard by the way will I observe them. Hosea, 13, 5–7.

Another sin for which we suffer, is a want of due respect, to the moral and religious qualifications, of those that are elevated to offices of trust and power. The question is too seldom asked, 'have such the fear of God before their eyes?' while on the other hand the sole inquiry instituted is 'will they suit and seek the interest of my party.' By the fear of the Lord, saith Solomon are riches and honour, Prov. 22, 4, as He himself had found it, and the fear of the Lord is not only the treasure of an individual, but forms in rulers, the chief permanent security of national wealth.

His proof texts for the second proposition were 2 Sam. 23.2-3 and 2 Chron. 19. Here he is addressing Art. VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

Another prominent critic of the U.S. Constitution, who nevertheless famously sided with the Union during the War which split both the nation and the mainline American Presbyterian church, was George Junkin, Sr. (1790-1868), father-in-law to Stonewall Jackson (and also a character in the 2003 movie Gods and Generals), published The Little Stone and the Great Image; or, Lectures on the Prophecies Symbolized in Nebuchadnezzar's Vision of the Golden Headed Monster (1844), in which he wrote (pp. 280-281):

The grand defect in the bond of our national union is the absence of the recognition of God as the Governor of this world. We have omitted — may it not be said refused? — to own him whose head wears many crowns, as having any right of dominion over us. The constitution of these United States contains no express recognition of the being of a God: much less an acknowledgment, that The Word of God, sways the sceptre of universal dominion. This is our grand national sin of omission. This gives the infidel occasion to glory, and has no small influence in fostering infidelity in affairs of state and among political men. That the nation will be blessed with peace and prosperity continuously, until this defect be remedied, no Christian philosopher expects. For this national insult, the Governor of the universe will lift again and again his rod of iron over our heads, until we be affrighted and give this glory to his name.

These comments by prominent 19th century American Presbyterians who were outside of the RPCNA reveal a remarkable inter-denominational alignment in their understanding of the relationship between church and state, one that is not well-remembered in the 21st century, an age which does not give much consideration to the concept of “national sins,” but which is nevertheless worthy of notice.

Debate in Detroit

Presbyterian minister George Duffield IV (1794-1868) in Detroit, Michigan, at the behest of his congregation, confronted the local Episcopal Bishop over a sermon that he had preached arguing for Episcopal Government and Apostolic Succession. In 1842, Duffield, in a series of letters, addressed the Bishop, and challenged him on Episcopal Government. For students of polity, or those with an interest in Presbyterian church government, Rev. George Duffield’s work against Episcopacy showcases a debate in an American context and would prove helpful to anyone studying the subject.