More by Samuel Miller on Creeds and Confessions

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

It was earlier this year that Log College Press announced the publication of a new edition of Samuel Miller on The Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confessions, a bicentennial tribute (originally published in 1824) to a classic work on an important topic. Meanwhile, we have been reviewing some recently digitized materials, which include The Watchman of the South (edited by William Swan Plumer and The Presbyterian (beginning in 1831, and edited by James Waddel Alexander in 1832-1833). Among the many interesting materials we have located in the pages of these journals is a 5-part series of articles by Samuel Miller titled “Creeds and Confessions” that appeared in first in The Watchman of the South (August-September 1838) and was republished in The Presbyterian (September-October 1838). Written in the midst of the church that split the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA) between the Old School and the New School, Miller brings his earlier-published arguments in favor of the imperative both to have sound creeds and confessions, and to maintain an appropriate standard of subscription to the same to bear on the questions that were being discussed with great fervency at the time.

The third article in the series is of particular interest because it examines the question of departures from the orthodox creed in an ecclesiastical context. Appeals to higher judicatories, and review of lower court rulings by the supreme judicatory are addressed by Miller, along with — by way of example — the question of secession in the American political context. The fifth and final article Miller delves into the specifics of what sort of level of confessional subscription is required to achieve its desired purpose of maintaining a defense of the truth, as the church is called to do, while balancing the individual consciences of some who might have scruples about “lesser” points of doctrine addressed in the creed.

Throughout this series Miller writes as a “teacher and watchman on the walls of Zion” who is concerned to protect the body of Christ from dangerous error. He assures the reader that the points he is making in his case for creeds and standards of subscription are just what he has taught for two and a half decades prior at Princeton Theological Seminary — that is, they are no new teachings, but rather he is standing on solid precedent. The historical examples of prior ecclesiastical bodies such as the Council of Nicaea and the Westminster Assembly and their efforts to fence out Arianism and Arminianism are discussed in some measure and referenced to show why confessional boundaries are needed.

Both sets of articles are now available on Log College Press to members of the Dead Presbyterians Society and can be found on the Early Access page. They are presented to the reader in raw form, which means that the title page of each issue precedes the article in question, and there is much contemporary material around Miller’s articles that may also interest the reader who appreciates the historical context of the day (for example, there is discussion of a New School convention held in Farmville, Virginia, including a letter by George Addison Baxter regarding his assessment of that convention).

These articles have never been republished since 1838 to the best of our knowledge and therefore will be of interest both to readers who appreciate the careful and sound theological scholarship of Samuel Miller, and those who share his concern and passion for the church as the repository of Biblical truth. Tolle lege!

Miller's Lecture on Creeds and Confessions: A Bicentennial Celebration

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

The most ardent and noisy opponents of Creeds have been those who held corrupt opinions…and…the most consistent and zealous advocates of truth have been, every where and at all times, distinguished by their friendship to such formularies. — Samuel Miller, The Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confessions ([1824], pp. 30-31; [2024], p. 22)

As the 1824 summer session began at Princeton Theological Seminary, Samuel Miller delivered a memorable lecture on The Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confessions. That lecture took place 200 years ago on July 2, 1824. There have been notable reprints of this work in 1833 and 1989. Now, in 2024, believing that Miller’s teaching on this matter is in fact relevant more than ever, Log College Press has issued a new edition of this valuable work.

In both our day and in Miller’s there are and were those who argue against the use of ecclesiastical creeds and confessions out of fear that they were supersede Scripture or impose the opinions of men on the consciences of others. To such, Miller addresses those concerns as well as others, and shows that Scripture itself mandates appropriate tests of orthodoxy.

An inspired apostle directed them not to be contented with a general profession of belief in the religion of Christ on the part of those who came to them as Christian teachers; but to examine and try them, and to ascertain whether their teaching were agreeable to the “form of sound words” which they had been taught by him: and he adds with awful solemnity — “If any man bring any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be ACCURSED". Here was, in effect, an instance, and that by Divine warrant, of employing a CREED as a test of orthodoxy: that is, men making a general profession of Christianity, are expressly directed by an inspired apostle, to be BROUGHT TO THE TEST, in WHAT SENSE THEY UNDERSTOOD THE GOSPEL, of which in general terms, they declared their reception; and how they explained its leading doctrines ([1824], pp. 25-26; [2024], pp. 18-19).

But shouldn’t Protestants embrace the position of “No creed but Christ,” and doesn’t this idea carry weight against those who believe that a church ought to have a confession of faith? Does a high view of confessional subscription mean that a document of human composition outweighs the authority of Scripture? Do confessional churches elevate the word of man above the word of God? If we accept that confessions may articulate the principal things taught by Scripture that we are to believe, what is the extent to which fundamental doctrines ought to be addressed by said confessions? Miller treats of these and other relevant questions that may be raised in this lecture from 200 years ago. The same concerns and objections that he addressed back then recur today, and his wisdom navigates a careful, Scriptural path through the errors that abound in this matter on all sides.

The 2024 Log College Press edition contains a preface by Jonathan Master, President of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary; a foreword by Allan Stanton; and two appendices, including a letter by Joseph Bellamy, and Samuel Miller’s Introductory Essay to John Holmes Agnew, A Manual on the Christian Sabbath. Those who take up and read this special volume will find that the Biblical principle of confessional integrity is upheld in a manner that has stood the test of time.

Be forewarned: Miller’s passion for ministers and Christians who care about unity in the truth is contagious. His words are both sound and inspiring. His logic is Biblical and consistent. His message is as important today as it was two centuries ago. As Dr. Carl Trueman said about this edition, “this little work by Samuel Miller will repay careful reflection by church officers and laypeople alike.”

James Hunt and the Revival of Presbyterianism in Virginia

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

“I think books are like people, in the sense that they'll turn up in your life when you most need them.” — Emma Thompson

James Hunt, an interesting colonial American Presbyterian minister in his own right, had a ringside seat to the 1740’s revival in Virginia known as the Great Awakening. He was born in Hanover, Virginia on February 19, 1731 to James and Sarah Hunt. The elder James Hunt in the early 1740s was part of a group led by Samuel Morris who were disaffected with the stale liturgical and spiritually dry worship that they experienced in the established Anglican church of the Old Dominion colony of Virginia.

A letter from a gentleman who knew the younger James Hunt and spoke to him shortly before his death and which contained Hunt’s narrative account of the events was published with annotations by John Holt Rice in the August 1819 issue of The Virginia Evangelical and Literary Magazine under the title Origin of Presbyterianism in Virginia.

This narrative of Hunt, conveyed to us by John Holt Rice, may be compared with other primary accounts of the beginning of the Hanover revival such as the letter of Samuel Morris (found in a 1751 letter from Samuel Davies to Joseph Bellamy and published as The State of Religion Among the Protestant Dissenters in Virginia); and the account given by David Rice (which appears in Robert H. Bishop, An Outline of the History of the Church in the State of Kentucky, During a Period of Forty Years, Containing the Memoirs of Rev. David Rice (1824)), and yet the narrative of Hunt, who was present (and indeed was spiritually awakened there) stands out for its rich, fascinating detail and, especially, for Hunt’s “pertinent remarks on the various providences of God” in the events which shaped the course of the revival.

Detail of the 1753 Fry-Jefferson map of Virginia, focusing on Hanover County in the center.

The Samuel Morris group had managed to acquire certain religious books which stirred something deep within them, including Thomas Boston’s Human Nature in Its Four-Fold State, Martin Luther’s commentary on Galatians, the sermons of George Whitefield, and the works of John Bunyan. The group would gather at a Reading Room constructed for the purpose of reading these works aloud and discussing them, and as this activity grew in popularity, additional reading rooms were erected, something that did not go unnoticed by the civil authorities.

One of the Samuel Morris Reading Rooms, the reconstructed frame of which stands at the Historic Polegreen Church in Mechanicsville, Virginia (photo by R. Andrew Myers).

At this point, we will take up Hunt’s narrative directly:

And now their number became too large for any private house to contain them. Another step is taken — they build first one and then another of what they called ‘reading houses.’ Here the number of attendants and the force of divine influence much increase. The charge against the four principals, first engaged in the work, is changed — they are no longer considered as individual delinquents, whose obstinacy might be sufficiently punished by the civil magistrate; but as a malignant cabal, that required the interposition of the Executive. They are accordingly cited to appear before the Governor and Council. This was a shock for which they were not well prepared. The exaction of frequent fines, for nonattendance at church, they bore with patience and fortitude for the sake of a good conscience; but to be charged with a crime, of the nature, and extent, and penalty of which they had but indistinct conceptions, spread a gloom over their minds, and filled them with anxious forbodings, more easily conceived than described. They were placed in the most awkward situation. They were certainly and obviously a religious society. separate and distinct from the only one, the established church, which either the government, or the people, knew in the country; yet they were without a name. — They saw and felt the propriety of being able some how to designate themselves when they came before the Governor and Council. They once thought of calling themselves ’Lutherans,’ but they found some sentiments advanced in the only one of his books which they had, with which they could not agree, In the mean while the day drew on when they were to appear in Williamsburg; and with gloomy forbodings they get out without a name by which to call themselves, and without any written plan to shew the nature of the association which they had formed.

One of the four, who travelled down by himself, had to take shelter from a heavy storm of rain in the house of some poor man on the road. While there, waiting for the rain to cease, he to divert his melancholy, took down from a dusty shelf, an old dusty volume, and began to read. He had not read far, till he found himself not diverted, but deeply interested. He found his own sentiments embodied in a system. He read on with renewed pleasure and surprise, until the ceasing of the storm admonished him it was time to pursue his journey. He wished to know of the man whether he would sell that book. The man answered, no: but if he had any desire for it, he would give it to him, as he had no use for it, and it was not worth selling. Our poor distressed traveller received it as the gift of heaven — it was an old Scotch Presbyterian Confession of Faith. Meeting his companions in Williamsburgh, they took a private room, and there deliberately examined the book, and found it contained exactly the system of doctrines which they believed; and though not so well understanding the discipline, they did not so cordially approve that, yet, they unanimously agreed to adopt it as their confession of faith. Although they did not foresee the advantage it would be to them, yet it relieved them from the awkward situation in which they were, the heads and leaders of a religious society without a name. — When called before the Governor and Council, and interrogated about their profession, they presented their new found book, as their confession of faith. The Governor, Gooch, (who it was said had been educated a Presbyterian, but for the sake of an office or for some other reason, had become a member of the established church,) immediately observed, on seeing the confession, that these men were Presbyterians, and that they were tolerated by the laws of England. But the Council, not feeling the same educational prejudice in favor of Presbyterianism, or not construing so liberally the laws relating to them, were not so easily satisfied — a good deal of bitterness was manifested by them towards the poor unfortunate culprits. But in the midst of this warm discussion (Mr. Hunt observed he had often heard his father mention it with awe and reverence,) the heavens became suddenly shrouded in darkness — thunders with tremendous peals seemed to shake the foundation of the house where they were; and the council chamber where they sat, appeared for a considerable time to be one continued blaze of lightning. The Governor and Council, as well as themselves, were seized with solemn awe — Mr. Hunt’s father told him, he had never before, nor afterwards, witnessed so tremendous a storm. When it abated he and his companions were dismissed with a gentle caution to beware not to excite any disturbance in his majesty’s colony, nor by any irregularities break the good order of society in their parish.

Here Mr. Hunt stopped, to make a number of pertinent remarks on the various providences of God. Had not a storm driven one of those persecuted men into an unknown house for shelter — had the Governor not been educated a Presbyterian — or, finally, had not the clouds gathered blackness at that particular hour, it is probable the issue of their journey to Williamsburg would have been extremely different from what it was. He did not think there was any thing miraculous in any of these occurrences; but he thought (and so do I) that a man must be strangely blinded, who does not see, in such a train of unconnected contingent events, all concurring to the same end, the secret, though powerful hand of him who, ‘works all things according to the council of his own will.’

It was soon after these events that William Robinson arrived on a missionary journey to central Virginia. On July 6, 1743, Robinson preached the first Presbyterian sermon ever recorded in this region. The Samuel Morris group was so moved by his message that when it was time for him to depart they endeavored to give him some financial renumeration for his pastoral services. He declined the offer, but they managed to fill his saddle bags with money anyway which, when he realized what was done, finally accepted the gift — but not for himself. Instead, he in turn used the money to pay for the theological education of a young man he knew who had shown great promise. That young man turned out to be Samuel Davies, who would in the process of time, after completing his education, be sent to minister to the Samuel Morris group of Hanover. Davies’ missionary labors in Virginia, which are legendary, were paved by all that went before in the providence of God.

James Hunt, whose full account is very much worth reading, went on to study directly under Davies, both in Hanover and, later, at the College of New Jersey at Princeton. He was licensed to preach the gospel in 1760, and ordained to ministry the following year, whereupon he was admitted as a member of the Hanover Presbytery, under whose bounds he labored as an itinerant minister for a time. In 1763, he was called as the pastor of a congregation in Pennsylvania, but in 1770, he accepted a new call to jointly minister to the Bladensburg and Captain John’s congregations in Rockville County, Maryland, where he labored for the rest of his life. There, on his farm “Tusculum,” he founded Rockville Academy, which included among its pupils, the famous writer William Wirt. Hunt died on June 2, 1793, and his funeral sermon was preached by James Muir.

America's Debt to Calvinism

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

"He that will not honor the memory, and respect the influence of Calvin, knows but little of the origin of American liberty." — George Bancroft, Literary and Historical Miscellanies (1855), p. 406

The central thesis of this book — that John Calvin and his Genevan followers had a profound influence on the American founding — runs counter to widespread assumptions and rationale of the American experiment in government. — David W. Hall, The Genevan Reformation and the American Founding (2003), p. vii

On the Fourth of July, which is not only the date celebrated as the birth of the United States in 1776, but also the date on which Log College Press was founded in 2017, we pause to remember how God has dealt graciously with this nation in large part through the influence of the doctrines of grace and the principles of civil liberty which are associated with Calvinism.

American history has many streams running through it, including the Native American population, Spanish exploration, African-American slaves, and much more, but it cannot be denied that in the colonial era and in the early part of the republic, American principles and character were largely fashioned by the Protestant European settlers who came to this country and, looking to Scripture as their foundation, enacted laws, promoted education and even fought for freedom, on the basis of ideas taught in John Calvin’s Geneva.

To demonstrate this premise — which historically was unquestioned, but has been increasingly challenged in recent years — we will extract from the writings of some authors on Log College Press, and others, to show that many of America’s founding principles can be traced to the Calvinism that brought French Huguenots to Florida and South Carolina in 1562; English Anglicans and Presbyterians to Jamestown, Virginia in 1607; Pilgrims and Puritans to Massachusetts beginning in 1620; the Dutch Reformed to New Netherland (New York) in the 1620s; the Scotch-Irish, such as Francis Makemie in the 1680s, to Virginia and Pennsylvania; and the German Reformed settlers who, as did John Phillip Boehm in 1720, arrived in Pennsylvania and other ports of entry. Although painting a picture with broad strokes, and not at all unmindful of the secular character of this nation today under principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, it is worthwhile to consider how Geneva influenced the founding of America more than any other source. It has been well said by some that “knowledge of the past is the key to the future.”

Jean Leon Gerome Ferris, The Mayflower Compact, 1620

Egbert W. Smith writes, in a chapter titled “America’s Debt to Calvinism,” that:

If the average American citizen were asked, who was the founder of America, the true author of our giant Republic, might be puzzled to answer. We can imagine his amazement at hearing the answer given to this question by the famous German historian, [Leopold von] Ranke, one of the profoundest scholars of modern times. Says Ranke, ‘John Calvin was the virtual founder of America.’” — E.W. Smith, The Creed of Presbyterians (1901), p. 119

In a lecture given by Philip Schaff in 1854, he stated:

The religious character of North America, viewed as a whole, is predominantly of the Reformed or Calvinistic stamp…To obtain a clear view of the enormous influence which Calvin's personality, moral earnestness, and legislative genius, have exerted on history, you must go to Scotland and to the United States. — Philip Schaff, America: A Sketch of the Political, Social, and Religious Character of the United States of North America (1855), pp. 111-112

Nathaniel S. McFetridge devotes a chapter in his most famous book, Calvinism in History, to the influence of Calvinism as a political force in American history, and argues thus:

My proposition is this — a proposition which the history clearly demonstrates: That this great American nation, which stretches her vast and varied territory from sea to sea, and from the bleak hills of the North to the sunny plains of the South, was the purchase chiefly of the Calvinists, and the inheritance which they bequeathed to all liberty-loving people.

If would be almost impossible to give the merest outline of the influence of the Calvinists on the civil and religious liberties of this continent without seeming to be a mere Calvinistic eulogist; for the contestants in the great Revolutionary conflict were, so far as religious opinions prevailed, so generally Calvinistic on the one side and Arminian on the other as to leave the glory of the result almost entirely with the Calvinists. They who are best acquainted with the history will agree most readily with the historian, Merle D’Aubigne, when he says: ‘Calvin was the founder of the greatest of republics. The Pilgrims who left their country in the reign of James I., and, landing on the barren soil of New England, founded populous and mighty colonies, were his sons, his direct and legitimate sons; and that American nation which we have seen growing so rapidly boasts as its father the humble Reformer on the shores of Lake Leman [Lake Geneva].’” — N.S. McFetridge, Calvinism in History (1882), pp. 59-60

W. Melancthon Glasgow, referencing the great American historian George Bancroft, says:

"Mr. Bancroft says: 'The first public voice in America for dissolving all connection with Great Britain came not from the Puritans of New England, the Dutch of New York, nor the Planters of Virginia, but from the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians of the Carolinas.' He evidently refers to the influence of Rev. Alexander Craighead and the Mecklenburg Declaration: and this influence was due to the meeting of the Covenanters of Octorara, where in 1743, they denounced in a public manner the policy of George the Second, renewed the Covenants, swore with uplifted swords that they would defend their lives and their property against all attack and confiscation, and their consciences should be kept free from the tyrannical burden of Episcopacy....It is now difficult to tell whether Donald Cargill, Hezekiah Balch or Thomas Jefferson wrote the National Declaration of American Independence, for in sentiment it is the same as the "Queensferry Paper" and the Mecklenburg Declaration." — W. Melancthon Glasgow, History of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in America (1888), pp. 65-67

William H. Roberts, in a chapter on “Calvinism in America,” wrote:

Politically, Calvinism is the chief source of modern republican government. That Calvinism and republicanism are related to each other as cause and effect is acknowledged by authorities who are not Presbyterians or Reformed…The Westminster Standards are the common doctrinal standards of all the Calvinists of Great Britain and Ireland, the countries which have given to the United States its language and to a considerable degree its laws. The English Calvinists, commonly known as Puritans, early found a home on American shores, and the Scotch, Dutch, Scotch-Irish, French and German settlers, who were of the Protestant faith, were their natural allies. It is important to a clear understanding of the influence of Westminster in American Colonial history to know that the majority of the early settlers of this country from Massachusetts to New Jersey inclusive, and also in parts of Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas, were Calvinists.” — William H. Roberts in Philip Vollmer, John Calvin: Theologian, Preacher, Educator, Statesman (1909), pp. 202-203

Speaking of the Scotch-Irish, Charles L. Thompson wrote:

Did they abandon homes that were dear to them in Scotland first and then in Ireland? It was done at the call of God. They wanted homes for themselves and their children; but it was only that in them there might be a free development of the faith for which their fathers and they had suffered. Nor was their religion a thing of either forms or sentiment. It was grounded in Scripture. The family Bible was the charter of their liberties. To seek its deepest meanings was their delight. They, therefore, brought to to their various settlements in the new world a knowledge of the Calvinism which they had found in their Bibles, and a devotion to the forms in which it found expression giving definite doctrinal character to all their communities — character by which their various migrations may be easily traced. Whether in Nova Scotia, in Pennsylvania, in Kentucky and Tennessee, or wherever their pioneer footsteps led them, the stamp of their convictions, from which no ‘wind of doctrine’ and no ‘cunning craftiness’ could draw them, is seen in all their social life and on all their institutions. Almost universally they were Presbyterians and they are the dominant element in the Presbyterian Church today.

Alike among the Puritans, the Dutch and the Scotch-Irish, it was Calvinism which was the prevailing doctrine. Its relation to the life of our republic has often been recognized. — Charles L. Thompson, The Religious Foundations of America (1917), pp. 242-243

Loraine Boettner, in a section on Calvinism in America, quotes George Bancroft in regards to the American War of Independence:

With this background we shall not be surprised to find that the Presbyterians took a very prominent part in American Revolution. Our own historian Bancroft says: “The Revolution of 1776, so far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure. It was the natural outgrowth of the principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons, the English Puritans, the Scotch Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the Presbyterians of Ulster.” So intense, universal, and aggressive were the Presbyterians in their zeal for liberty that the war was spoken of in England as “The Presbyterian Rebellion.” An ardent colonial supporter of King George III wrote home: “I fix all the blame for these extraordinary proceedings upon the Presbyterians. They have been the chief and principal instruments in all these flaming measures. They always do and ever will act against government from that restless and turbulent anti-monarchial spirit which has always distinguished them everywhere.” When the news of “these extraordinary proceedings” reached England, Prime Minister Horace Walpole said in Parliament, “Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson.” — Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (1932), p. 383

Speaking of Calvinism’s influence on America, H. Gordon Harold wrote:

Now back of every great movement lie its proponents. Who were the people that fostered rebellion and revolution in the New World? Who spoke openly against the tyrannies and indignities they experienced? Who stepped forward with ready hearts, willing to die in resistance to the injustices meted out to them in the wilderness of this remote continent? They were mostly as follows: Huguenots from France; men of the Reformed faith, presbyterians of the Continent, who had come from the Palatinate, Switzerland, and the Low Countries; Lutherans who had fled the agonies of the Thirty Years’ War; German Baptists who had endured persecution; and Presbyterians and Seceders (ultra-Presbyterians) from Scotland and Ulster; also the Puritan Congregationalists from England. Practically all of these were Calvinists, or neo-Calvinists, and a large number of them were Ulster-Scotch Presbyterians. — H. Gordon Harold in Gaius J. Slosser, ed., They Seek a Country: The American Presbyterians (1955), pp. 151-152

Douglas F. Kelly had this to say about the “Presbyterian Rebellion” of 1776:

The gibe of some in the British Parliament that the American revolution was “a Presbyterian Rebellion” did not miss the mark. We may include in “Presbyterian” other Calvinists such as New England Congregationalists, many of the Baptists, and others. The long-standing New England tradition of “election day sermons” continued to play a major part in shaping public opinion toward rebellion toward England on grounds of transcendent law. Presbyterian preaching by Samuel Davies and others had a similar effect in preparing the climate of religious public opinion for resistance to royal or parliamentary tyranny in the name of divine law, expressed in legal covenants. Davies directly inspired Patrick Henry, a young Anglican, whose Presbyterian mother frequently took him to hear Davies.” — Douglas F. Kelly, The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern World: The Influence of Calvin on Five Governments From the 16th to the 18th Centuries (1992), pp. 131-132

At Log College Press, in appreciation of this great Calvinistic heritage which was bequeathed to 21st century Americans by Geneva and those who were inspired by her to come to these shores, we wish you and yours a very happy Fourth of July! And if we have not already “taxed” our readers’ patience without their consent (this blog post is admittedly longer than most), in the spirit of the day, we offer more to read from the following blog posts from the past. Blessings to you and yours!

Not "Super Bowl Sunday," But the Lord's Day, or the Christian Sabbath

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

What the world refers to as “Super Bowl Sunday” is not a designation that would have been countenanced by most 19th century Presbyterians. American football began in 1869, while professional football dates to 1920. So, of course, there was no Super Bowl around until well into the 20th century, but the issues of recreation, secularism and commercialism intruding into the Lord’s Day were well-known and widely addressed by Christians in the past.

American Presbyterians, who held to the understanding of the Fourth Commandment articulated in the Westminster Standards, believed that the whole day — that is, the first day of the week — should be devoted to the worship of God, which involves works of piety, necessity and mercy— to the exclusion of “worldly employments and recreations” (Westminster Confession of Faith 21:6-7).

That understanding is important to today’s article, but even beyond that, when considering what is widely known today as “Super Bowl Sunday,” besides the question of the lawfulness of attending to such recreation, another point of discussion centers on the terminology involved.

If words mean something — think of the words homoousios (“of the same substance” or “of the same essence”) and homoiousios (“of like essence”) and their meaning in the context of the great Arian controversy of the 4th century AD — then as Christians who are to take “into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5), we may wish to consider the voices of those in the past who have argued that the term “Sunday” is not a desirable or Biblical designation for the first day of week, much less “Super Bowl Sunday.”

First, let us hear Samuel Miller, the great defender of historic Presbyterianism from Princeton, who authored an 1836 article titled “The Most Suitable Name For the Christian Sabbath.” After addressing the objection of Quakers to the word “Sunday” (they believed the fourth commandment was abrogated and preferred to use the phrase “the first day of the week”), Miller turned his attention to the pagan origin of the term “Sunday.” After discussion of the history of the Christian observance of the first day of the week and its relationship to the Jewish Sabbath and the pagan Sunday, Miller sums up his position in a few succinct paragraphs:

We are now prepared to answer the question, “What name ought to be given to this weekly season of sacred rest, by us, at the present day?”

Sunday, we think, is not the most suitable name. It is, confessedly, of Pagan origin. This, however, alone, would not be sufficient to support our opinion. All the other days of the week are equally Pagan, and we are not prepared to plead any conscientious scruples about their use. Still it seems to be in itself desirable that not only a significant, but a scriptural name should be attached to that day which is divinely appointed; which is so important for keeping religion alive in our world; and which holds so conspicuous a place in the language of the Church of God. Besides, we have seen that the early Christians preferred a scriptural name, and seldom or never used the title of Sunday, excepting when they were addressing the heathen, who knew the day by no other name. For these reasons we regret that the name Sunday has ever obtained so much currency in the nomenclature of Christians, and would discourage its popular use as far as possible.

The Lord’s day, is a title which we would greatly prefer to every other. It is a name expressly given to the day by an inspired apostle. It is more expressive than any other title of its divine appointment; of the Lord’s propriety in it; and of its reference to his resurrection, his triumph, and the glory of his kingdom. And, what is in no small degree interesting, we know that this was the favourite title of early Christians; the title which has been habitually used, for a number of centuries, by the great majority both of the Romish and Protestant communions. Would that its restoration to the Christian Church, and to all Christian intercourse, could be universal!

The Sabbath, is the last title of which we shall speak. The objections made to this title by the early Christians no longer exist. We are no longer in danger of confounding the observance of the first day of the week with that of the seventh. Nor are we any longer in danger of being carried away by a fondness for Jewish rigour, in our plan for its sanctification. The fourth commandment still makes a part of the Decalogue. We teach it to our children as a rule still in force. It requires nothing austere, punctilious, or excessive; only that we, and all “within our gates,” abstain from servile labour, and consider the day as “hallowed,” or devoted to God. Whoever scrutinizes its contents will find no requisition in which all Christians are not substantially agreed; and no reason assigned for its observance which does not apply to Gentiles as well as Jews. As the first sabbath was so named as a memorial of God’s “rest” from the work of creation; so we may consider the Christian Sabbath as a memorial of the Saviour’s rest (if the expression may be allowed) from the labours, the sufferings, and the humiliation of the work of redemption. And, what is no less interesting, the apostle, in writing to the Hebrews, considers the Sabbath as an emblem and memorial of that eternal Sabbatism, or “rest which remaineth for the people of God.” Surely the name is a most appropriate and endeared one when we regard it in this connection! Surely when we bring this name to the test of either philological or theological principles, it is as suitable now, as it could have been under the old dispensation.

We have said, that we prefer “the Lord’s day” to any other title. We are aware, that this can never be the name employed by the mass of the community. There is something about this title which will forever prevent it from being familiar on the popular lip. The title “the Sabbath” is connected with no such difficulty. It is scriptural, expressive, convenient, the term employed in a commandment which is weekly repeated by millions, and so far familiar to all who live in Christian lands, that no consideration occurs why it may not become universal. “The Lord’s day” may, and, perhaps, ought ever to be, the language of the pulpit, and of all public or social religious exercises; meanwhile, if the phrase “the Sabbath” could be generally naturalized in worldly circles, and in common parlance, it would be gaining a desirable object.

A later Reformed Presbyterian (Covenanter) minister, Thomas M. Slater, covered much of the same ground in a tract titled “Nicknaming the Sabbath: A Protest Against Using Other Than Scriptural Names For the Lord's Day.” He too addressed the pagan nature of the term “Sunday” and argues that its usage is an affront to the Lord who set his name upon the first day of the week. For Slater, too, there was significance in the choice of terminology which ought not to be overlooked.

We grant that many sincere Christians have always called the Lord's day “Sunday,” not because they deliberately adopted that name for the Sabbath, but because they have always heard it so called, and never knew any serious objection to its use. But if such persons will reflect that “Sunday” is not the name by which God calls His day; that we have been given no authority to set aside His prescription; that this nickname originated among the foes of the Lord's day; that it was not adopted by Christians at all until pagan ideals invaded Christianity; that it has always been repudiated by a witnessing remnant of the friends of the Sabbath; and been favored by advocates of a secular day -- if a Christian who has a sincere desire to please God candidly weighs all that “Sunday” stands for, over against that all that the Scriptural names stand for, he will without question choose to call the Holy Day by its holy name, to the exclusion of all others. For “speech is the correlate of thought.”

Slater, like Miller, in the vein of Puritans before them who were sometimes known derisively as “Precisionists,” argued for expressions of thought grounded in Biblical principle, especially in a matter which Presbyterians of an earlier time viewed the importance of the Sabbath in its relation to both to the church and to civil society. It was not long before the first “Super Bowl Sunday” was held in 1967 that the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS) issued this relevant warning:

Let us beware brethren: As goes the Sabbath, so goes the church, as goes the church, so goes the nation [emphasis added]. Any people who neglect the duties and privileges of the Sabbath day soon lose the knowledge of true religion and become pagan. If men refuse to retain God in their knowledge; God declares that He will give them over to a reprobate mind. Both history and experience confirm this truth” (Minutes of the Sixty-First General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, A.D. 1948, p. 183).

If words really have particular meaning, we would do well to consider the counsel of these voices from the past and take a counter-cultural approach to our choice of terminology as it pertains to the holy day of God’s appointment. The religious devotion of many to “Super Bowl Sunday” does not go unnoticed. Can it be said of Christians that the “Lord’s Day” or the “Christian Sabbath” speaks to their devotion in equally apropos terms?

Matthew Anderson's Rules For Success in the Ministry

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

Matthew Anderson was born on this day in history, January 25, 1845, in Greencastle, Pennsylvania. A fifth-generation Presbyterian raised in a devout Christian home and taught the catechism. Determined to succeed in his education in order to best serve the Lord, Anderson studied at Oberlin College in Ohio, graduating there in 1874. He began his preparation for the ministry at Western Theological Seminary in Pittsburgh before transferring to the Princeton Theological Seminary, where, after his arrival, he first mistaken as a manual laborer, rather than a student. Anderson graduated in 1877, becoming one of the first African-American students to live on campus and graduate from the seminary at Princeton.

He went to lead a very successful ministry at the Berean Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, where he also founded the Berean Savings Association and the Berean Institute to help African-Americans learn job skills and achieve financial success.

In his autobiographical Presbyterianism: Its Relation to the Negro (1897), pp. 186-188, Anderson is careful to ascribe all of his success in the ministry to the good hand of God upon him, and to certain rules that he followed in his pastoral career. Here is the list of rules that guided Matthew Anderson’s ministry:

First. Never to undertake anything without first having studied it in all its different phases, with the Spirit's guidance, and after seeing it in all its relations, and there be given a reasonable assurance of success to undertake it.

Second. After having carefully considered the subject and convinced that the work in question should be undertaken, not to allow any adverse influences whatever to divert us from our purpose.

Third. In presenting the work to others, never exaggerate it with the hope of gaining friends, or money, to assist in carrying it on, but to show it in its true light, even though the truth for the time being would tend to prejudice against the work.

Fourth. When convinced that the work is needed, and that it is the will of Providence that we should undertake it, to make use of all the means at our command temporal, intellectual and spiritual, to secure its success.

Fifth. In all our labors to keep clearly before us not only the present, but the future wants of the people and to work accordingly, even though the people themselves do not see that they are needing such work.

Sixth. That we be guided and regulated by the great and immortal principles of divine truth, rather than by sentiment, which knows no creed, race or color, and which regards all men alike redeemed by one common Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. That while by the accidents of birth and the unholy sentiment of the country, our labors are confined principally to the people of the colored race, we should nevertheless regard ourselves, ministers of Christ, as embracing a wider sphere of labor, since in God's sight there is neither Jew nor Greek, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free, but all related by ties of consanguinity, having sprung from common parents.

Seventh. That we ever hold sacred the great cardinal truths of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, and make them the guiding star of our life work in all of our dealings toward our fellowmen.

Eighth. That we be perfectly frank and honest in all our work, never to misrepresent it for the sake of gain, take advantage of the ignorant, but at all times try and carry out the principles of the golden rule.

Ninth. That we fear no man, nor call any man master, but be kindly affectioned towards all men, and under no circumstances to allow an insult to pass unresented which was intended to belittle our manhood, not because of ourselves personally, but because of the race with which we are identified, and which to stigmatize would be the real object of the insult.

Tenth. That we listen to the criticisms and advice of friends, and acknowledge our failures and faults, and be ever ready to apologize to others for injuries done them by us.

These ten rules, though unwritten, embrace the principles which have regulated us in all our work up to the present time, and to which we attribute whatever success may have attended our labors.

In this list, we see a man careful to seek God’s leading, scrupulous to avoid or properly respond to personal conflicts or racial prejudice that would tend to undermine his ministry, and deeply impressed by the value of following the Golden Rule in all his actions and words. Though his social situation is not exactly that of Philadelphia in the 21st century, there is much to be learned from his approach to the pastoral ministry today. Great things can be accomplished for God by first walking in humble reliance upon His Spirit. We thus remember Matthew Anderson, born on this day in history 178 years ago.

Matthew Henry at Log College Press

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

There are some names that die, in spite of all that can be done to keep them alive; there are others that live, whoever may combine to blot them out of existence. Be it that no monument tells where their ashes repose; that no orator commemorates their fame; that no memoir proclaims to the world their character or their doings; yet let them, by the greatness of their intellectual efforts or public services, identify themselves with the character of the age in which they live, and it were scarcely a more hopeless task to undertake to pluck a star from the heavens, than to quench the lustre of their names, or to limit the usefulness of their lives.

It will hardly be questioned at this day, that the name of Matthew Henry belongs somewhere on the comparatively small list of names, which are not destined to lose their lustre with the lapse of ages. Passing by all the other important services which he rendered to the great cause of truth and piety, his commentary is an imperishable monument both of his greatness and his goodness — William B. Sprague

American Presbyterians have long expressed a love for the Puritans generally. We have highlighted their appreciation for John Flavel previously, and today the spotlight is on Matthew Henry (1662-1714). He was an English Puritan, the son of Philip Henry, whose commentary on the Bible (completed with the assistance of friends after his death), is still valued today.

  • Archibald Alexander, Preface to Matthew Henry's Commentary (1828, 1833)

    Recommendation to Colin McIver’s edition of Matthew Henry’s Exposition of the Westminster Shorter Catechism (1846)

  • James R. Boyd, Daily Communion with God on the Plan Recommended by Rev. Matthew Henry, V.D.M., For Beginning, Spending, Concluding Each Day With God (1873)

  • John Forsyth, Exposition of James in Matthew Henry’s Commentary (1848)

  • Charles Hodge, Exposition of Romans in Matthew Henry’s Commentary (1848)

  • Colin McIver, Matthew Henry’s Exposition of the Westminster Shorter Catechism (1846)

    The Rev. Matthew Henry’s Aphorisms on the Ministry, the Church, and Other Kindred Subjects (1847)

  • William B. Sprague, Review of the Memoirs of Matthew Henry (1834)

In every age, God raises up men for the defence of the gospel, and also for the exposition of his word; and some of these are honoured not only with usefulness while they live, but with more abundant and ex tensive usefulness after their decease; so that being dead they still speak. — Archibald Alexander on Matthew Henry’s Commentary

Breckinridge's Protest Against Instrumental Music in Worship

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

In December 1851, Robert Jefferson Breckinridge was very ill. So much so that, when he was requested by friends to address an important theological-practical issue in the church he willingly did so, while recognizing that it might be his last contribution to the church. He deemed the particular issue worthy to take up the final strokes of his pen. As a matter of fact, Breckinridge would live for another two decades, but in this matter he left on record a very powerful protest against the use of instrumental music in the stated public worship of God.

Breckinridge’s testimony against musical instruments in worship led, he says, to him being excluded from some pulpits and also to him being reviled in some cases. For him, though, it was a matter of conscience — respecting fidelity to God’s Word and his ecclesiastical standards — to maintain this position in the face of opposition from some among his brethren. It was at the request of other brethren who were dealing with the question of organs being brought into their own congregations that Breckinridge prepared his 11-point statement.

This article is dated December 30, 1851. According to Thomas E. Peck — who interacted with it in General Principles Touching the Worship of God (1855) — Breckinridge’s article was first published the Presbyterian Herald (Danville, Kentucky) and then reprinted in Baltimore three years later. On Log College Press, we currently have two editions of Breckinridge’s paper: 1) a reprint from the February 1853 issue of The Covenanter, edited by James M. Willson; and 2) an 1856 reprint published in Liverpool, England. The former includes a concluding paragraph that is lacking in the latter.

Breckinridge makes clear in his paper that he is not arguing against the use of musical instruments outside of public worship on the Lord’s Day. He is only addressing the ecclesiastical use of musical instruments as an accompaniment to praise that is sung in worship. He also makes clear in his article that his intended audience is that of the Presbyterian community. It is not a paper written to address all objections to a cappella worship, but only those main objections or concerns that have been voiced by Presbyterians. Key to his argument is a “fundamental” principle [one that we know today by the term “regulative principle of worship”], which, in his words, “[rejects] every human addition to God’s word, God’s ordinances, and God’s worship.”

If something substantial is introduced into the worship of God, Breckinridge argues, positive Scriptural warrant that such a change is necessary — and not merely warrant that it is indifferent — is required.

Persons who seek, openly or covertly, to undermine or to corrupt the faith or practice of our church, founded upon that grand principle, as, for example, by the introduction of instrumental music into our churches, ought to be able to show much more than that such practices are indifferent. They ought to be able to show that they are necessary; for, if they are only indifferent, the positive, general, and long continued settlement of the sense, feelings, and faith of the church against them are reasons enough why offensive attempts should not be made to change the order of our worship, merely to bring in things indifferent; especially when thereby divisions, alienations, and strifes, and at last schism may be the result.

According to Breckinridge, the primary arguments against the introduction of musical instruments into public Christian worship are that it is contrary to God’s commanded ordinances of worship, and it is contrary to the standards of the Presbyterian Church. In numerating the ordinances of public worship commanded by God in the Christian era, and sanctioned by the Westminster formularies, we find reading and preaching of the Word of God, prayer, praise by singing, and benedictions. In opposition to this, Breckinridge highlight the Church of Rome’s efforts to suppress, corrupt and add to every one of these ordinances. Specifically, he points to the use of the organ in worship as a corruption of the ordinance of praise whereby the mechanical tends to the supplant the vocal and spiritual aspects of the ordinance.

Here, then, is the outline of the argument in its simplest form: The use of instrumental music, of any sort, in the stated public worship of God in Presbyterian congregations is, 1st, contrary to the ancient and settled character and habits of Reformed Christians, and especially of those holding the formularies of the Westminster Assembly, and involves defections and changes most deplorable to them: 2d, It is contrary to the covenanted standards of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, both in the general principles and spirit, and the particular definitions and provisions thereof, and involves a breach of covenant: 3d, It is contrary to the revealed will of God, as exhibited in the positive institutions for his public worship set up by himself; and involves rebellion against his divine authority.

He goes on to spend some time discussing the Jewish usage of musical instruments on extraordinary occasions related to the Temple, and denies that they made up part of the regular Temple worship, much less the worship performed in the synagogue. But as this aspect of their worship, to the extent that it took place, was ceremonial in nature, and as Christian worship is based on that which is moral and not ceremonial, Breckinridge warns against any attempt to return to the ceremonial form of worship that has been abrogated. He emphasizes that we ought to look to the New Testament for instruction on how Christians should worship, and in the New Testament there is no warrant for the use of musical instruments in public worship by Christians.

The important place which Breckinridge occupies in the history of the American Presbyterian church, and the importance of the particular question he addresses here makes this paper very much worthy of study by the serious Christian. Note that the fuller edition is the 1853 edition from The Covenanter (see also the editorial comments by Willson, which show that not everything Breckinridge says would be endorsed by this representative leader of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, a denomination known for its a cappella worship). Both editions found on Log College Press are quite brief, as is, of course, the summary of Breckinridge’s position given above. His name is cited, though not this paper in particular, by John L. Girardeau in his own masterful treatise, Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of God (1888). See this writer’s paper from the Log College Review for a further look into historic Southern Presbyterian views on a cappella worship. Breckinridge’s 19th century Protest merits consideration by 21st century Christians today.

Machen on the Faith Intended For the Whole World

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

For we are not trying to spread over the world any particular view of Christian truth or any particular form of Christian organisation. I belong to the Presbyterian Church, but I have not the slightest zeal in seeking to have the Presbyterian Church extended over the non-Christian world. — Robert E. Speer, Christianity and the Nations (1910), pp. 331-332

In a striking example of two radically opposite approaches to the missionary vision, Robert E. Speer, the ecumenical layman-theologian, above, spoke of his desire for cooperation between denominations without giving weight to the distinctive beliefs of the Presbyterian church. But some years later, J.G. Machen responded clearly and forcefully to Speer’s statement with his own conviction that those distinctive beliefs represent a full-orbed gospel message as opposed to a watered-down gospel (The Attack Upon Princeton Seminary: A Plea For Fair Play [1927], pp. 8-9).

As over against such a reduced Christianity, we at Princeton stand for the full, glorious gospel of divine grace that God has given us in His Word and that is summarized in the Confession of Faith of our Church. We cannot agree with those who say that although they are members of the Presbyterian Church, they “have not the slightest zeal to have the Presbyterian Church extended through the length and breadth of the world.” As for us, we hold the faith of the Presbyterian Church, the great Reformed Faith that is set forth in the Westminster Confession, to be true; and holding it to be true we hold that it is intended for the whole world.

We may agree very much with Samuel Davies, who once wrote: “I care but little whether men go to Heaven from the Church of England or Presbyterian, if they do but go there; but Oh! Multitudes of both denominations must experience a great change before they obtain it” (August 13, 1751 Letter to brother-in-law John Holt). But there is an important difference between acknowledgment that Christianity is not at all confined to one denomination, which is most certainly the case, as confessed in the Presbyterian creed — “The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion…This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them” (Westminster Confession of Faith 25.2, 4) — and a desire, such as that which Machen expressed, that the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) be preached to the nations rather than a watered-down, non-offensive message be delivered to the world that eviscerates the truth of the gospel.

Cleland Boyd McAfee: The Man Who Coined the TULIP Acrostic

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

Although many [1] credit Loraine Boettner (1901-1990) in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (1932) with originating the acrostic for the Five Points of Calvinism known as TULIP [2] it is believed that the true originator was instead Cleland Boyd McAfee (1866-1944), who did so in 1905. We are thankful to Wayne Sparkman of the PCA Historical Center for highlighting this important footnote to church history in the past.

William H. Vail wrote a 1913 article in The Outlook which describes McAfee’s TULIP lecture, delivered before the Presbyterian Union of Newark, New Jersey, in the context of others who have written about the Five Points of Calvinism. Here is McAfee’s version of TULIP according to Vail:

And here is Boettner’s 1932 version for comparison:

The Five Points may be more easily remembered if they are associated with the word T-U-L-I-P; T, Total Inability; U, Unconditional Election; L, Limited Atonement; I, Irresistable (Effacious) Grace; and P, Perseverance of the Saints (source: The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (1932), p. 60).

We can see that Boettner modified McAfee’s list slightly as to the meaning of the U in TULIP, but otherwise retained McAfee’s usage.

McAfee would go on to serve as Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America (PCUSA) in 1929. His legacy may be studied from various perspectives — including his authorship of a famous hymn: Near to the Heart of God — but his TULIP acrostic, which rightly (see Boettner [3]) or wrongly [4} has certainly left its mark on history.

Note: This is an updated edition of a post published previously in 2018.

1. See, for example, Roger Nicole, Foreword to David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas & S. Lance Quinn, The Five Points of Calvinism Defined, Defended, and Documented (1963, 2004), p. xiv.
2. An allusion to the 1619 Canons of Dort, formally titled The Decision of the Synod of Dort on the Five Main Points of Doctrine in Dispute in the Netherlands.
3. Boettner employs the acrostic with great effectiveness albeit with this caution: “Let the reader, then, guard against a too close identification of the Five Points and the Calvinistic system. While these are essential elements, the system really includes much more. As stated in the Introduction, the Westminster Confession is a balanced statement of the Reformed Faith or Calvinism, and its gives due prominence to the other Christian doctrines.”
4. See, for example, Richard A. Muller’s negative assessment of the TULIP acrostic in Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (2012), p. 58ff.

John Murray on the Tercentenary of the Westminster Assembly

(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.)

On the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the commencement of the Westminster Assembly, which first convened on July 1, 1643, John Murray wrote a series of articles for The Presbyterian Guardian sketching the history of its calling, work and catechisms. Those articles are now available to read at Log College Press.

  • The Calling of the Westminster Assembly, Part 1 (1942)

  • The Work of the Westminster Assembly, Part 1 (1942)

  • A Notable Tercentenary (1943)

  • The Calling of the Westminster Assembly, Part 2 (1943)

  • The Work of the Westminster Assembly, Part 2 (1943)

  • The Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly (1943)

Murray wrote a great deal about the Westminster Assembly and Standards over his long career. His knowledge of the history and his conveyance of that knowledge to readers is extensive and edifying. In his article on the Catechisms, he makes a point that students of this history do well to bear in mind: the Confession and the Catechisms have overlapping but also distinct places in the work of the Assembly.

The Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly were, of course, intended to serve a different purpose from that of the Confession, and any comparison of the Catechisms with the Confession should bear this in mind. It should be said, however, that the formulations of the Catechism, especially of the Larger, are at certain points an improvement over the formulations of the Confession. It is altogether nature that the greater maturity of thought attained at the time of the Catechisms were prepared should have had this effect. For example, the formulation of the doctrine of the Covenant of Grace found in the Larger Catechism is more lucid and felicitous than that found in Chapter VII, Section III, of the Confession. A comparison of this section with Questions 30 to 32 in the Larger Catechism will readily show what is meant. Again, the definition of the sinfulness of the estate into which the fall brought mankind, given in both Catechisms, is in at least one respect more adequate than Chapter VI, Sections I to IV, of the Confession. This concerns the question of the imputation of the guilt of Adam’s first sin, a doctrine distinctly asserted in the Confession (Chapter VI, Section III) but not clearly grounded in the covenant relationship between Adam and posterity, as is done in the Larger Catechism, Question 22, and in the Shorter, Question 16. Well-grounded may be the surmise of William Cunningham that the discussions taking place in France in connection with Placaeus’ doctrine of mediate imputation and the decisions of the Synod of Charenton (1644-1645) had become better known and the implications better understood when the divines prepared the Catechisms. In any case, greater precision is manifest in both Catechisms than appears in the Confession. Examples like these show how necessary it is, in determining the position of the Westminster Assembly, to consult the Catechisms as well as the Confession, and in the matter of the subordinate standards in Presbyterian churches a great deal is to be gained by the inclusion of the Catechisms as well as the Confession.

With such insights as these, Murray guides his readers through the times and significance of the Westminster Assembly and its work. This series of articles by a remarkable scholar and teacher is a wonderful introduction to such an important chapter in church history.

Archibald Alexander on Prayer as a Means of Grace

(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 fourteenth chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith provides instruction concerning saving faith. In the opening paragraph, the following is stated:

The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.

By the infinite, eternal, and unchanging mercy of God, saving faith in Jesus Christ is instigated in a redeemed sinner’s heart by the work of the Holy Spirit; saving faith is a testimony to God’s grace (Jn. 3:8; 1 Cor. 12:3; Eph. 2:8; Titus 3:5). Furthermore, the confession teaches that saving faith is “ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word.” That is to say, that it is the normal course of action for the Holy Spirit to instigate saving faith through the reading, but especially, the preaching of God’s inspired Word. The apostle Paul testified to this when he penned the following:

How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? (cf., Matt. 28:19-20; 1 Cor. 1:21).

Therefore, in echoing the authoritative teaching of God’s Word, the Westminster Confession has properly recognized that the Spirit ordinary initiates saving faith through the preaching of His Word. However, the confession also describes how saving faith is “increased and strengthened,” and it happens by the administration of the sacraments and prayer. Collectively, the preaching of God’s Word, the administration of the sacraments, and prayer are known as the “ordinary means of God’s grace” by which the Christian believes and is matured in his faith (see Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 154). 

Admittedly, there is much to be said about how the preaching of Scripture and administration of the sacraments are a means of grace, but this essay is reserved for considering prayer in this regard and what our Presbyterian forefather, Archibald Alexander, had to say about it.

To arrive at how prayer is a means by which the Spirit strengthens a Christian’s faith, it should be understood what prayer is. The Westminster Shorter Catechism defines prayer as “an offering up of our desires unto God, for things agreeable to his will, in the name of Christ, with confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgment of his mercies” (Q&A 98; see Ps. 10:17; 62:8; Matt. 6:9-13; 7:7-8; Jn. 16:23-24; 1 Jn. 1:9; 5:14).  While there are several elements to prayer noted, of importance is what the given definition of prayer assumes﹘it presupposes that there is access to the God of mercy. Hence, because of Christ’s accomplished work of salvation, redeemed sinners may offer up their desires unto God in order that they might be recipients of His grace. Thus, the author to the Hebrews has written:

Let us, therefore, come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need (Hebrews 4:16).

This is the essence of why prayer is a means of God’s grace. By prayer, the Christian may come before the throne of grace and find refuge in the Lord. Prayer is communion with the triune God and to commune with Him is no insignificant matter s the following verses reveal:

Lord, You have heard the desire of the humble; You will prepare their heart; You will cause Your ear to hear… (Ps. 10:17).

Trust in Him at all times, you people; pour out your heart before Him; God is a refuge for us (Psalm 62:8).

Accordingly, Archibald Alexander has also written of this matter in a small article titled “Prayer A Privilege” [Practical Truths (1857), pp. 36-38] Therefore, in an attempt to elaborate on the significance of prayer as a means of grace, consider Alexander’s thoughts from his article:

Although God is everywhere present, yet he is invisible. He is an all-pervading Spirit, yet is perceived by none of our senses. We behold his glorious works in the heavens and in the earth, and may learn something, by careful observation, of the general laws by which the material universe is governed; but still the great Architect is concealed. As far as reason can lead us, we seem to be shut out from all intercourse with our Maker; and whether prayer is permitted would remain for ever doubtful, were it not for divine revelation. We are not surprised, therefore, that some deists have denied that prayer is a duty, or that it can be available to the Deity. Indeed, considering man as a sinner, it would seem presumptuous for such a creature to obtrude himself into the presence of a holy God. Natural religion, as it is called, is not at all suited to the wants of sinners, but divine revelation teaches us that God may be acceptably approached by sinners only through the mediation of his Son.

Prayer is everywhere in the Bible recognized as proper and inculcated as a duty. But it is also a most precious privilege, one of the richest blessings conferred on man. It opens a method of intercourse and communion with our Father in heaven; it furnishes a refuge for the soul oppressed with sin and sorrow; it affords an opportunity to the heart overwhelmed with an intolerable weight of misery to unburden itself, to pour its griefs into the ear of one who can pity and help.

The moral effect of prayer is important. It humbles the soul, and excites veneration for the august and holy character of God. But though prayer brings into exercise the noblest acts and emotions of which our nature is capable, yet it would be a grand mistake to confine the efficacy of prayer to their moral effects. Prayer, when offered in faith, for things agreeable to the will of God, actually obtains for the petitioner the blessings which he needs. It has an efficacy to obtain forgiveness of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and deliverance from a thousand evils. Prayer enters into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth; the prayer of faith is the mightiest engine upon earth. The Lord of heaven has given his word to answer prayer. He will be inquired of by his people, that he may bless them.

God can make any means effectual; and among the instituted means for the government of the world, and the preservation and comfort of his people, prayer holds a high place. The objection that God is immutable, and knows what we need, has no more force against prayer than any other means—no more force than if urged against the necessity of cultivating the ground in order to obtain a crop, or receiving food to nourish the body. The Christian life is sustained by prayer. By it every grace is exercised, every blessing is obtained. Without the sincere desires of the heart, prayer is nothing; it is worse—it is a mockery. He is the best Christian who prays most. As God is ever near to us, “for in him we live, and move, and have our being,” we are permitted to hold intercourse with him at all times, and in all places. We are commanded to “pray without ceasing”—to “be instant in prayer”—to “pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands.”

In prayer there is not only an outgoing of the soul to God, in acts of faith, love, and confidence, but there is an actual communication from God to the soul. Prayer is a holy converse—a fellowship with God. One hour spent in prayer, will accomplish more good than many employed in study or labor. Surely, then, it is good to draw nigh to God.

Indeed, prayer is a privilege, and it is a privilege precisely because it is a means of strengthening saving faith. Thus, the Christian life ought to be filled with the joy of communing with the triune God in prayer.

J.W. Alexander on Thankful Review following the Lord's Supper

(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.)

Q. 175. What is the duty of Christians, after they have received the sacrament of the Lord’s supper?

A. The duty of Christians, after they have received the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, is seriously to consider how they have behaved themselves therein, and with what success; if they find quickening and comfort, to bless God for it, beg the continuance of it, watch against relapses, fulfill their vows, and encourage themselves to a frequent attendance on that ordinance: but if they find no present benefit, more exactly to review their preparation to, and carriage at, the sacrament; in both which, if they can approve themselves to God and their own consciences, they are to wait for the fruit of it in due time: but, if they see they have failed in either, they are to be humbled, and to attend upon it afterwards with more care and diligence. — Westminster Larger Catechism

A wonderful little handbook or manual for those seeking to rightly observe the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is Plain Words to a Young Communicant (1854) by James W. Alexander (republished in 2000 by Banner Truth under the title Remember Him).

In the space of 85 brief chapters (80 in the Banner of Truth edition), Alexander addresses preparation for the Table, whether doubters can approach the table, self-examination, retrospect following communion, and many various aspects of the Christian Walk, including meditation, prayer, Sabbath-keeping, church attendance, and other means of grace and sanctification. Under the heading “Questions Before the Communion,” he has borrowed from a work by Ashbel Green titled Questions and Counsel for Young Converts (1831) [attributed erroneously by Banner of Truth to William Henry Green]. These questions are helpful to young believers (and old) in ascertaining the state of the soul before God.

There is one chapter especially worth highlighting for those who have just recently partaken of the sacrament: Thankful Review.

Through the tender mercies of our God, the cases are numerous, in which the young communicant retires from the Table of the Lord, strengthened and encouraged. The cardinal truth of Christianity has been set before his thoughts and become incorporated with his faith. He has seen Jesus [John 12:21]. His views of the infinite freedom of salvation have been made more clear. The evidences of his acceptance with God have become brighter. He is more disposed than ever before, to yield himself as a sacrifice, soul, body, and spirit, which is his reasonable service [Rom. 12:1]. Where any part of this is true, you have new cause for gratitude. It is “the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profit” (Isa. 48:17). Now is the time, to bless him for this grace, and to beg the continuance of it. Now is the time to set a watch against relapses, and to carry into effect the vows which you have made at the Lord’s Table. Henceforth, you will look for the recurrence of this sacrament with a lively expectation, founded on experience.

If you are preparing to partake of the Lord’s Supper or have just partaken, this devotional manual is a good aid to right observance. Read J.W. Alexander’s handbook for communicants in full here.

Gilbert Tennent on the Chief End of Man

(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.)

WSC Chief End of Man.png

In answer to perhaps the most profound question that can be asked, "What is the chief end of man?" the Westminster Assembly in its Shorter Catechism affirms that "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever." This simple summation of the purpose of life consists of two clauses, and the relationship between the two, as stated by Westminster, has been the subject of some interest and study, particularly in light of John Piper's "Christian Hedonism" philosophy.

At the beginning of a series of sermons based on the Westminster Shorter Catechism preached by Gilbert Tennent in 1743, published a year later, Tennent addresses the distinction between aiming at God’s glory and aiming at our enjoyment of Him.

4th. Propos’d, which was to shew, why should we aim at the Glory of God as our chief Mark in all our Actions?

It is true eternal Salvation, or our enjoying God (which supposes our Propriety in, or rightful claim to God as ours; and implies our Communion with him here imperfectly, and in the Life to come perfectly) is a great Motive of religious Obedience, the Expectation thereof should doubtless influence and excite us in the Service of God.

And most certainly there is a Connection between glorifying and enjoying God, so that he who rightly performs the former, is not like to miss the latter. Psa. 50.23. Whoso offereth Praise glorifieth me. And to him that ordereth his Conversation aright, will I shew the Salvation of God.

That enjoying of God may be likewise call’d an End, and that properly, (but a Subordinate one) which we may and ought to aim at in our religious Obedience. And it is doubtless and End, the Highest in its Kind, and next, in Order, Dignity, and Importance, to that of the Glory of God. On this account the venerable Assembly at Westminster in their larger catechism, call it the highest End of Man; it is certainly that, which intelligent Beings should seek after, next to the divine Glory. The Assembly did not design to put the aforesaid Ends upon a Par or equal Balance, by their Answer to the first Question in their Catechisms, in which they are both mention’d together; No, by no means, they intend only to represent the Connection subsisting between them, as well as their infinite Moment and Importance, and the Order in which we should seek after them; which is evident from their different Manner of wording them, the Order in which they place them, and the Scriptures they bring for the Confirmation of what they offer upon this Head. In the Larger Catechism the Question is worded thus, What is the chief and highest End of Man. God’s Glory, they signify by their answer, is the chief End of Man; and enjoying God fully, the highest End, i.e. (as has been before observ’d) of its kind, next to the other: Their giving the Glory of God the first Place in their Answer, shews that they prefer it in point of Dignity to the other, altho’ those Ends are inseperably connected together, (in the Manner before mention’d) yet they are really distinguished: It is one Thing to aim at God’s Honour, and another to aim at our own Comfort, and have no true regard to God’s Glory at all, therefore they cannot be both Supreme; but one must be Chief and the other Subordinate or refer’d to it.

There is a reason for the order of words in the answer to the question, and there is an intimate connection between the two aims of life. Thus, in the view of Gilbert Tennent (and others), God’s glory must precede our enjoyment of Him in the aims of life, and only in this order do the two goals rightly make up our chief end. Read more of what Tennent has to say on this point and others from the catechism here.

John Moorhead: Pastor of Boston's Church of the Presbyterian Strangers

(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.)

In the midst of the great Puritan Migration to New England (1620-1640), some Scotch-Irish assembled a congregation in Boston, Massachusetts which was known as the ‘Church of the Presbyterian Strangers.’ Its first pastor was the Rev. John Moorhead (1703-1773). He was born in Newton, near Belfast, in County Down, Ireland (Ulster), and educated in Edinburgh, before arriving in Massachusetts.

All accounts indicate that he was a very pious minister, who engaged in family visitation, catechism, and a faithful ministry of the Word. He left a deep impression among his flock and others, and has been noted in various studies of New England Presbyterianism.

It was not until 1730 that a Presbyterian Church was organized in Boston. Under the leadership of the Reverend John Moorhead a congregation known as “The Church of the Presbyterian Strangers” was organized and met in a “converted barn” owned by John Little on Long Lane. In 1735 title to the property was conveyed to the congregation for use by the Presbyterian Society forever “and for no other use, intention, or purpose whatever.” This “converted barn” served the congregation until 1744 when a new edifice was erected. It was in this building in 1788 that action was taken to make Massachusetts a state, in commemoration of which the name Long Lane was changed to Federal Street and the meeting house came to be known as Federal Street Church.

The congregation flourished and by the time their new building was erected numbered more than 250. Mr. Moorhead served the group until his death in December, 1773, following which the church was supplied by itinerant ministers [including David McClure] until 1783 when the Reverend Robert Annan was called to be pastor. Internal strife and opposition from the Puritan oligarchy finally led Mr. Annan to resign in 1786 after which the group voted themselves into a Congregational Society and after 1803 when William Ellery Channing became pastor, they joined the Unitarian fold. Relocating and erecting a new building in 1860 this group became the Arlington Street Church. In similar fashion one by one most of the seventy fairly well established Presbyterian churches of eighteenth century New England went over to other denominations. — Charles N. Pickell, Presbyterianism in New England: The Story of a Mission, pp. 6-7

A memoir of Moorhead written in 1807 says this of the early days of that congregation:

This little colony of Christians, for some time, carried on the public worship of God in a barn, which stood on the lot which they had purchased. In this humble temple, with uplifted hearts and voices, they worshipped and honoured Him, who, for our salvation, condescended to be born in a stable.

This same biographer highlights an important aspect of Moorhead’s ministry - family visitation.

Once or twice in the year, Mr. Moorhead visited all the families of his congregation, in town and country; (one of the Elders, in rotation, accompanying him,) for the purpose of religious instruction. On these occasions, he addressed the heads of families with freedom and affection, and inquired into their spiritual state, catechised and exhorted the children and servants, and concluded his visit with prayer. In this last solemn act, (which he always performed on his knees, at home and in the houses of his people), he used earnestly to pray for the family, and the spiritual circumstances of each member, as they respectively needed.

In addition to this labour of family visitations, he also convened, twice in the year, the families, according to the districts, at the meeting-house, when he conversed with the heads of families, asking them questions, on some of the most important doctrines of the gospel, agreeably to the Westminster confession of faith; and catechised the children and youth.

A young parishioner of Rev. Moorhead, David McClure, who briefly ministered to the flock in Boston after Moorhead’s death, wrote in his journal about this feature of the ministry at the Church of the Presbyterian Strangers.

We had the special advantage of a religious education & government in early life. Our parents gave us the best school education that their circumstances would allow. The children who could walk were obliged to attend public worship on the Sabbath, & spend the interval in learning the Shorter & the Larger Westminster Catechisms, & committing to memory some portion of the Scriptures. My mother commonly heard us repeat the catechisms on Sunday evenings. My parents departed with the supporting hope of salvation through the glorious Redeemer. In her expiring moments my mother gave her blessing & her prayers to each of her children, in order. She had many friends who mourned her death. She was favored with a good degree of health & was very cheerful, active & laborious, in the arduous task of raising, with slender means, a large family. To the labours of our worthy minister the Rev. Mr. Moorhead, we were much indebted for early impressions of religious sentiments. His practice was frequently to catechize the Children & youth at the meeting House & at their homes & converse & pray with them. He also visited & catechized the heads of all the families in his congregation, statedly.

Moorhead is mentioned often in Alexander Blaikie’s History of Presbyterianism in New England (although under the spelling of “Moorehead”). Blaikie writes that Moorhead was ordained on March 30, 1730, and adds that

"This religious society was established by his pious zeal and assiduity."…He was the forty-sixth minister settled in Boston, and "soon after his induction he married Miss Sarah Parsons, an English lady, who survived him about one year."

André Le Mercier, the 37th minister settled in Boston, a French Huguenot Presbyterian, was a colleague of Moorhead’s at this time and is mentioned by Blaikie in this connection.

A letter from Rev. Moorhead [not yet available on Log College Press] was published in Glasgow, Scotland in 1741, which gives an account of conversions associated with the Great Awakening ministries of George Whitefield and Gilbert Tennent.

Portrait of Phillis Wheatley by Scipio Moorhead (1773). It is said to be “the first frontispiece depicting a woman writer in American history, and possibly the first ever portrait of an American woman in the act of writing.”

Portrait of Phillis Wheatley by Scipio Moorhead (1773). It is said to be “the first frontispiece depicting a woman writer in American history, and possibly the first ever portrait of an American woman in the act of writing.”

Moorhead was a slave owner. His slave, Scipio Moorhead, is famous in history for his artistic skill. His portrait of Phillis Wheatley appeared in her Poems on Various Subjects, Religious and Moral (1773). Wheatley wrote An Elegy to Miss Mary Moorhead, on the Death of Her Father, the Rev. Mr. John Moorhead in December 1773. Of him she wrote:

With humble Gratitude he render'd Praise,
To Him whose Spirit had inspir'd his Lays;
To Him whose Guidance gave his Words to flow,
Divine Instruction, and the Balm of Wo:
To you his Offspring, and his Church, be given,
A triple Portion of his Thirst for Heaven;
Such was the Prophet; we the Stroke deplore,
Which let's us hear his warning Voice no more.
But cease complaining, hush each murm'ring Tongue,
Pursue the Example which inspires my Song.
Let his Example in your Conduct shine;
Own the afflicting Providence, divine;
So shall bright Periods grace your joyful Days,
And heavenly Anthems swell your Songs of Praise.

The “Presbyterian Strangers” of Boston thought very highly of their pastor. In his funeral sermon [not yet available on Log College Press], by David McGregore, he was described as “an Israelite indeed.” He left an enduring legacy that is reflected in the lives of David McClure and others. Boston is not the city set upon a hill that it once was, although pockets of piety endure. But Moorhead is worthy of remembrance today as a pioneer of New England Presbyterianism.

Resources on Calvinism at Log College Press

(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.)

And I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in his dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering, love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the peculiar redemption which Christ made for his elect and chosen people; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having believed. Such a gospel I abhor. The gospel of the Bible is not such a gospel as that. We preach Christ and him crucified in a different fashion, and to all gainsayers we reply, "We have not so learned Christ." (Charles Spurgeon, Sermon no. 98, New Park Street Pulpit 1:100)

It is no novelty, then, that I am-preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines, which are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus. By this truth I make a pilgrimage into the past, and as I go, I see father after father, confessor after confessor, martyr after martyr, standing up to shake hands with me. Were I a Pelagian, or a believer in the doctrine of free-will, I should have to walk for centuries all alone. Here and there a heretic of no very honorable character might rise up and call me brother. But taking these things to be the standard of my faith, I see the land of the ancients peopled with my brethren - I behold multitudes who confess the same as I do, and acknowledge that this is the religion of God’s own church. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermon on Election 1:551)

Although Calvinism (which Charles Spurgeon has described as “the gospel, and nothing else”) permeates the works of American Presbyterians on numerous topics, and we have pages dedicated to the topics of Systematic Theology the Westminster Standards, there are particular resources on Calvinism to be found at Log College Press which we aim to highlight today. These may be worth bookmarking for future study by the student of the doctrines of grace.

Calvinism is also known by the acrostic TULIP, which is intended to make the so-called ‘Five Points of Calvinism’ easier to remember. It was the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) in The Netherlands which articulated the Calvinistic Five Points in response to the Arminian Remonstrants. And it was Loraine Boettner who popularized (and modified) the TULIP acrostic summarizing those Five Points in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (1932), but it was Cleland Boyd McAfee who is believed to have coined it in the first place c. 1905. We have noted this previously, but it is worth mentioning again.

The history of McAfee’s utilization of TULIP as an aid to teaching the doctrines of grace was perhaps first recorded by William H. Vail in an important 1913 article as was discussed previously here. What’s particularly interesting about Vail’s historical study of the Five Points is that is draws from multiple authorities, including the Synod of Dort, Jonathan Dickinson, and several living (at that time) leading clergymen.

William H. Vail’s chart showing the Five Points of Calvinism compared historically. A represents the list derived from Abbott’s Dictionary of Religious Knowledge; B comes from Dr. Francis Landey Patton; C is from Dr. Hugh Black; D is from the Rev. G…

William H. Vail’s chart showing the Five Points of Calvinism compared historically. A represents the list derived from Abbott’s Dictionary of Religious Knowledge; B comes from Dr. Francis Landey Patton; C is from Dr. Hugh Black; D is from the Rev. George B. Stewart; and E is from the Rev. Isaac N. Rendall.

The Five Points, says Mr. Vail, “as formulated by the Synod of Dort, according to two authorities, are as follows:

1. Personal, Gratuitous Election to Everlasting Life.
2. Particular Redemption.
3. Depravity, Native and Total.
4. Effectual Calling, or Re generation, by the Holy Spirit.
5. Certain Perseverance of Saints unto Eternal Life.

1. Divine Predestination.
2. The Redemption of Men through the Death of Christ.
3. Total Depravity.
4 Redemption through Grace.
5. Perseverance of Saints.”

The list from Jonathan Dickinson is as follows:

1. Eternal Election. Ephesians i. 4, 5.
2. Original Sin. Romans v. 12.
3. Grace in Conversion. Ephesians ii. 4, 5.
4. Justification by Faith. Romans iii. 25.
5. Saints' Perseverance. Romans viii. 30.

The TULIP list from Cleland B. McAfee, as noted by Vail, is as follows:

1st, T stands for Total I)epravity.
2d, U “ “ Universal Sovereignty.
3d, L -- “ Limited Atonement.
4th, I -- “ irresistible (, race.
5th, P -- “ Perseverance of the Saints.

Jonathan Dickinson covered this ground in The True Scripture Doctrine Concerning Some Important Points of Christian Faith (1741).

Robert L. Dabney wrote on The Five Points of Calvinism (1895) [not yet available at Log College Press] and identified them as follows:

1.. Original Sin
2. Effectual Calling
3. God’s Election
4. Particular Redemption
5. Perseverance of the Saints

The works by Dickinson and Dabney have been republished by Sprinkle Publications in 1992 as one combined volume.

Loraine Boettner in 1932 wrote: “The Five Points may be more easily remembered if they are associated with the word T-U-L-I-P; T, Total Inability ; U, Unconditional Election; L, Limited Atonement; I, Irresistible (Efficacious) Grace; and P, Perseverance of the Saints.” This has become the standard meaning of the TULIP acrostic.

Other resources to be found at Log College Press which concern Calvinism either historically or theologically considered include:

  • Ashbel Green Fairchild, The Sovereignty of God, Especially in Election; The Great Supper: or, An Illustration and Defence of Some of the Doctrines of Grace; and What Presbyterians Believe;

  • Abel M. Fraser, Calvinism: A Bible Study;

  • John L. Girardeau, Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism;

  • A.A. Hodge, Calvinism;

  • Samuel Miller, Introductory Essay to the Thomas Scott’s Articles of the Synod of Dort (available in print here); Presbyterianism the Truly Primitive and Apostolical Constitution of the Church of Christ (available in print here); and Mole-Hills and Mountains, or The Difficulties of Calvinism and Arminianism Compared;

  • Nathan L. Rice, God Sovereign and Man Free: Or, The Doctrine of Divine Foreordination and Man's Free Agency, Stated, Illustrated and Proved From the Scriptures;

  • W.G.T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure and Mixed - A Defence of the Westminster Standards;

  • William D. Smith, What is Calvinism?; and

  • B.B. Warfield, Calvinism and Calvinism: The Meaning and Uses of the Term; and Calvinism.

There are additional works on the subject that Log College Press hopes to add in the future such as Robert Hamilton Bishop, An Apology For Calvinism; and Samuel A. King, Presbyterian Doctrines, as Contained in the Five Points of Calvinism. And many more are already on the site relating to the thought of both John Calvin and Augustine. Also, be sure to consult, David N. Steele, et al., The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented.

It is a core belief of historic Presbyterianism that people who are saved are saved by grace alone and not by works (Eph. 2:8-9). This is a reflection of both God’s sovereignty and man’s inability to save himself. The works referenced above concerning the doctrines of grace, and many more not mentioned by name here, are resources to take up and study by those who wish to better understand historic doctrine, which is, in the words of Spurgeon, “no novelty…no new doctrine,” but simply the fundamental teaching of God’s Word on soteriology. To God be the glory!

Recent Additions to Log College Press -- January 28, 2021

(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.)

As we approach 10,000 separate works available to read for free online at Log College Press, we wish to keep our readers apprised of some recently-added highlights.

  • Caleb Cook Baldwin (1820-1911) and his wife Harriet Fairchild Baldwin (1826-1896) were American Presbyterian missionaries to China. Together they served Chinese Christians for almost five decades, and translated much of the Bible into the Fuzhou (Foochow) dialect. Mrs. Baldwin’s poems were published posthumously, and her pencil sketches are a joy to behold.

  • John Armor Bingham (1815-1900) was a friend of Titus Basfield (whose correspondence was destroyed sadly in the 1990s). He is known to history as a lawyer who participated in the trial of the conspirators involved in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, a prosecutor in the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, and as the primary author of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

  • Alexander Latimer Blackford (1829-1890) was an American Presbyterian missionary and the first moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Brazil.

  • Amos Dresser (1812-1904) was a Presbyterian minister, abolitionist and pacifist. He was once publicly beaten in Tennessee for carrying abolitionist literature and advocating their contents, a story recounted in his famous Narrative.

  • Edward Payson Durant (1831-1892) was a ruling elder to whom A.A. Hodge gives credit for inspiring Hodge to write his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith.

  • Mary Augusta McConnell Palmer (1822-1888) was the wife of Benjamin Morgan Palmer.

  • Elizabeth Lee Allen Smith (1817-1898) was the wife and biographer of Henry Boynton Smith. She is also known for her hymn translations, including that of I Greet Thee Who My Sure Redeemer Art, attributed sometimes to John Calvin (this attribution is disputed).

  • Lewis French Stearns (1847-1892) was the son of Jonathan French Stearns. Lewis served as a professor at Bangor Theological Seminary in Maine, and was greatly mourned when he died in his early 50s.

  • Hermann Warszawiak (1865-1921) was a born a Polish Jew, but after his conversion to Christ, his heart was set on missions to the Jews who lived in New York City.

  • Loyal Young (1806-1890) and Watson Johnston Young (1838-1919) were father and son Presbyterian ministers. Samuel Hall Young, the famous missionary to Alaska, was another son of Loyal Young. Loyal’s commentary on Ecclesiastes was a noteworthy contribution to Biblical exegesis. Both Loyal and Watson were poets as well.

  • Many additional writings by Lyman Hotchkiss Atwater, Albert Barnes, Francis Landey Patton, Henry Boynton Smith, and others have been added in recent weeks as well.

As always, we are grateful for the suggestions of our readers for people and works to add to the site. And as Log College Press continues to grow, keep checking back to see what’s new. Tolle lege!

Joel Parker's Initiatory Catechism

(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.)

We have previously drawn our readers’ attention to The Presbyterian's Hand-Book of the Church: For the Use of Members, Deacons, Elders, and Ministers (1861), prepared jointly by Joel Parker (1799-1873) and Thomas Ralston Smith (1830-1903). In its guidance to Christian parents and to church officers, the teaching of the Westminster Shorter Catechism is naturally encouraged. But included also is a related tool, described as the Initiatory Catechism, by Joel Parker, which we wish to highlight today.

Originally published in 1855 under the title The Pastor's Initiatory Catechism, or, The Shorter Catechism: Made More Brief and Simple for Young Children (we do not yet have the 1855 edition on Log College Press), it is republished in The Presbyterian’s Hand-Book of the Church. Our author describes it thus:

A short explanation of the design of this appendage may not be out of place.

The Initiatory Catechism passes over the same general ground as the Assembly's Shorter Catechism, with a little additional matter in respect to the ecclesiastical arrangements of our revered and beloved Church. This is the main thing which distinguishes it as the Presbyterian Initiatory Catechism. The Assembly's Shorter Catechism is added in a compact style, in order that these forms of instruction, by being bound up in the Manual, may serve to remind parents of their duty, and that they may not be lost, as they are apt to be when possessed only in the cheap penny editions prepared for children's classes.

Organized under three headings, the first is titled “Christian Doctrine” (73 questions and answers). Next, is “Christian Duty” (48). And finally, there is “The Christian Church” (8) - for a total of 129 questions and answers. It begins thus:

1. Who made you?

God.

2. What else has God made?

He made all things.

3. Of what did God make all things?

Of nothing.

4. For what did God make you?

To love and serve him.

5. What will make you most happy?

To love and serve God.

6. How long will it make you happy to love and serve God?

All my life.

7. Will to love and serve God make you happy in the next world too?

Yes, when I die.

8. What is the rule to show you how to love and serve God?

The Word of God.

9. What does the Word of God teach you?

To love the truth and do right.

10. Is God good?

Yes; in all he thinks and does.

11. Does God know all things?

Yes; he knows all ray thoughts.

12. Does God see all things?

Yes; and he sees me all the time, night and day.

13. Did God make all men at once?

No; he first made one man and one woman.

14. What were their names?

Adam and Eve.

One can see the overlap with Westminster as well as Joseph P. Engles’ Catechism for Young Children, and yet note points of divergence as well. The third section on the church in particular covers fresh ground. It is a catechism that is not well known today, but it was appreciated and employed in its day. To read it in full, see The Presbyterian’s Hand-Book on the Church, pp. 56-70 here. It is a short read and edifying to see how one pastor in the mid-19th century employed a catechism based on Westminster to meet the particular needs of those coming into the Presbyterian Church.

Thomas Bradbury on Baptism - the American Edition

(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.)

Thomas Bradbury (1677-1759) was an English Dissenting minister (Congregational) who was known for his defense of the divinity of Christ in the midst of the Salters’ Hall controversy beginning in 1719. His sermons on many topics, including baptism — published as The Duty and Doctrine of Baptism in Thirteen Sermons (1749) — were highly regarded. An American edition of those baptism sermons was published in 1810 with an introduction and notes by the collaborative effort of John Brodhead Romeyn and Alexander McLeod. Also included was an abridged memoir of the life of Thomas Bradbuy by John Brown of Whitburn, son of John Brown of Haddington.

Romeyn, John Brodhead, Introduction and Notes to Thomas Bradbury's The Duty and Doctrine of Baptism Title Page cropped.jpg

Romeyn and McLeod — whose strong personal friendship and remarkable ecclesiastical partnership is noted in Samuel B. Wylie’s Memoir of Alexander McLeod — performed a valuable service in their introduction and with their notes at the end of the book. The introduction sketches out the Reformed view of the sacraments, and that of Baptism specifically, as detailed broadly in the creeds and catechisms of the Reformed churches, and in the Westminster Standards particularly. Together, these contributions strengthen an already powerful resource for the better understanding of the Reformed doctrine of baptism. This American edition may be found in several places at Log College Press, including the John B. Romeyn page, the Alexander McLeod page and the Sacraments page. Bookmark or download this volume for further study, and take a few minutes to peruse what Romeyn and McLeod in particular have written as to the teaching of the Reformed confessions on the subject of infant baptism. The attentive reader will be richer for it.

250th Anniversary Commemoration of the Westminster Assembly (1897)

(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.)

In May 1897, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States (Southern Presbyterian Church) convened in Charlotte, North Carolina, in part to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the Westminster Assembly. Moderator George T. Goetchius presided over the exercises which were organized by a committee consisting of Rev. Francis R. Beattie, Rev. Charles R. Hemphill and Ruling Elder Henry V. Escott. A memorial volume was published in recognition of the event, which included the text of an introduction, plus eleven addresses. This memorial volume may be read in full at our Compilations page. But now each of the men who delivered their addresses has their own page at Log College Press, including most of their known published writings.

Memorial Volume of the Westminster Assembly Title Page cropped.jpg

  • Francis Robert Beattie (1848-1906) - Beattie edited and wrote the introduction to the memorial volume, which includes an able historical framework to the work of the Assembly as well as a helpful bibliography of secondary source literature. The previous year he authored a valuable exposition of the Westminster Standards which is still in print today, and contains a 1997 biographical sketch by Dr. Morton H. Smith. Born in Canada, he served several years on the faculty of Columbia Theological Seminary in South Carolina, but in 1893 he joined the faculty at what is now Louisville Theological Seminary in Kentucky. He authored a number of works, and also served as an editor at The Presbyterian Quarterly and the Christian Observer.

  • Henry Alexander White (1861-1926) - White served as a long-time Professor of History at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia, and is known for his biographies. His address was on the social and political historical context of the Westminster Assembly.

  • Robert Price (1830-1916) - Price served as a Professor at Southwestern Presbyterian University in Clarksville, Tennessee (now Rhodes College in Memphis). His address was on the ecclesiastical situation in Great Britain at the time of the Westminster Assembly.

  • Thomas Dwight Witherspoon (1836-1898) - Witherspoon was a beloved pastor in Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi and Kentucky, and had previously served as Moderator of the PCUS General Assembly in 1884. His address on was the details of the Assembly itself - its place of meeting, how it was conducted, and who were the participants.

  • Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) - Dabney had previously served as Moderator of the PCUS General Assembly in 1870. A minister, chaplain, professor, author, architect, and farmer, Dabney’s broad experience made him one of the most respected theologians in 19th century America. His address was on the doctrinal contents of the Westminster Standards, as well as the necessity and value of creeds.

  • Givens Brown Strickler (1840-1913) - Strickerl had previously served as Moderator of the PCUS General Assembly in 1887, and would later serve as a Professor at Union Theological Seminary in Virginia. His address was on the nature and usefulness of catechisms.

  • Eugene Daniel (1849-1935) - Daniel was pastor at the First Presbyterian Church of Raleigh, North Carolina. Serving in his capacity as alternate for Benjamin Morgan Palmer, his address was on the theme of the connection between church polity, doctrine and worship in the Westminster Standards.

  • James Doak Tadlock (1825-1899) - Tadlock served as President of King College in Tennessee. His address was on the relationship between the Westminster Standards and other Reformed creeds and confessions.

  • Moses Drury Hoge (1818-1899) - Hoge served as pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church in Richmond, Virginia for almost 54 years. His address was on the relationship between the Westminster Standards and foreign missions.

  • Samuel Macon Smith (1851-1910) - Smith served as pastor at the First Presbyterian Church of Columbia, South Carolina for many years. His theme was on the relationship of the Westminster Standards to current religious ideas and the needs of the future.

  • John Franklin Cannon (1851-1920) - Cannon served as pastor of the Grand Avenue Presbyterian Church in St. Louis, Missouri, and went on to serve as Moderator of the PCUS General Assembly in 1899. His address was on the influence of the Westminster Standards upon the individual, the family and upon society, with particular reference to the Christian Sabbath.

  • William Michael Cox (1859-1940) - Judge Cox of Baldwyn, Mississippi was the only ruling elder to address the assembly in this memorial commemoration. He served as a justice on the Mississippi Supreme Court. His address was on the contribution of Westminster to the cause of civil liberty and civic government.

The combined contributions of each of these men constitute a profound, informative and enduring tribute to the legacy of the Westminster Standards. Students of church history in the early 21st century, and those who love the Presbyterian church standards of the 17th century, will find much to glean in these memorial addresses from the late 19th century. Read them all together or individually, but be sure to take note of this valuable resource for your Westminster studies.