James R. Boyd on the Providence of God

(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.)

James Robert Boyd employed a useful method of teaching the substance of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. First, he presented the particular question, followed by the great doctrinal truths comprehended within, supported by Scripture. Then, he listed practical lessons to be derived from those truths. Finally, he gave illustrations of these teachings to bring them home.

Today, we give an example of his method as it pertains to Q. 11 of the Shorter Catechism in The Westminster Shorter Catechism: With Analysis, Scriptural Proofs, Explanatory and Practical Inferences, and Illustrative Anecdotes (1854). It is a good subject for meditation, and Boyd’s teaching is a good reminder of a precious Scriptural truth.

Q. 11. WHAT ARE GOD’S WORKS OF PROVIDENCE?

God’s works of Providence are, his most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions.

What Truths are embraced in this Answer?

1. God preserves all his creatures. — Psal. cxiv. 15. The eyes of all wait upon thee: and thou givest them their meat in due season.

2. God governs all his creatures. — Psal. ciii. 19. His kingdom ruleth over all.

3. God directs and governs all the actions of his creatures. — Prov. xvi. 9. A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps.

4. God’s works of providence are most holy. — Psal. cxlv. 17. The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.

5. God’s works of providence are most wise. — Isa. xxviii. 29. The Lord of hosts, which is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working.

6. God’s works of providence are most powerful. — Psal. lxvi. 7. He ruleth by his power for ever.

What Lessons do you derive from the above Doctrines?

I learn (1.) That there is no such thing as blind fate; that there is a divine agency which guides, and protects, and governs; that it reaches to all places, beings, and events. (2.) To commit myself and all other creatures to the care and guidance of my Creator, and to endeavor at all times to act in obedience to his supreme will. (3.) That events which seem accidental, are nevertheless ordered by the Lord, as when the Bible informs us (1 Kings, xxii. 34) of a certain man who drew a bow at a venture, and smote the king of Israel between the joints of the harness. God’s providence directed the arrow to the mark. (4.) That the providence of God is merely the accomplishment of his eternal purposes concerning his creatures, and that all the circumstances of my life are regulated by his wisdom and power. Hence (5.) I must not murmur or complain when affliction befalls me, nor be ungrateful to God when he prospers me and gladdens me in my course. (6.) That the cause of religion — the church of Christ — is safe. (7.) That even the wickedness of man is overruled for good, as in the case of the envy of Joseph’s brethren, the crucifixion of our Saviour, and the sensuality of Henry VIII. of England.

What Illustrations can you give?

1. There is a habit of saying, “Such a thing will TURN UP,” as if it depended on chance; whereas nothing will turn up but what has been ordered. When a man becomes a Christian, he is written upon, “TO BE PROVIDED FOR,” and he ought, therefore, to notice, as he goes on, how Providence does provide for him.

2. When the Protestants in Rochelle were besieged by the French king, God, by his providence, sent in a number of small fishes that fed them, such as were never seen before in that harbor.

3. The raven, a bird that has not natural affection enough to feed its own young, yet providentially carried nourishment to the Hebrew prophet Elijah.

4. The Book of Esther details a series of the most wonderful providences in behalf of the Jewish people, when in great danger of a universal massacre.

5. The Rev. Richard Cecil has correctly observed, that “we are too apt to forget our actual dependence on Providence, for the circumstances of every instant. The most trivial events may determine our state in the world. Turning up one street instead of another, may bring us into company with a person whom we should not otherwise have met; and this may lead to a train of other events, which may determine the happiness or misery of our lives.”

6. OVERRULING PROVIDENCE. — “All these things are against me,” thought good old Jacob, when he exclaimed in the bitterness of his soul, “Joseph is not, Simeon is not, and will ye take Benjamin away?” And it did seem as if these bereavements would “bring down his gray hairs with sorrow to the grave.” But it was all cleared up when “he saw the wagons” which Joseph had sent to carry him and all his numerous family down to Egypt, and save them alive, during the terrible seven years’ famine. So Joseph himself must have thought, when his brethren cast him into the pit; when they sold him as a slave to the Ishmaelites; and when, upon the false charge of an adulterous woman, he was thrown into prison, without any hope of relief, or any prospect of it, except by a violent and ignominious death. But how was it, when he found himself suddenly raised to the vice-royalty of Egypt, and that God had sent him down to preserve the life of his venerable father, and of the very brethren who had so cruelly sold him to the passing caravan? “All these things are against us,” undoubtedly, thought our Puritan ancestors, when they were persecuted from city to city, and could find no secure resting-place short of this great Western wilderness; but God sent his angel before them, and what glorious foundations of civil and religious liberty did they lay upon these shores, for the building up of a great nation. We see in all these and numberless other striking examples, how much better care God takes of his people than they could take of themselves, and how he overrules the most adverse and trying events for their highest good. Indeed, this is a matter of every-day experience. Almost any person who has arrived at the age of forty, can recollect times when his favorite plans were thwarted, and it did seem as if the course of Providence was against him, when, as it proved in the end, it was all in his favor, and saved him from losses or calamities, in which the carrying out of his plans would inevitably have involved him. — Dr. Humphrey

Click here to browse our Bookstore!

Early American Covenanter Doctrine of the Civil Magistrate's Power Circa Sacra

(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 civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments for the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God. — 1646 Westminster Confession 23:3

The Westminster Assembly’s doctrine of church-state relations as outlined in chapter 23 particularly was a testimony against Erastianism, despite the fact that a few members of the Assembly were of the Erastian party. The Assembly’s position was contra-Erastian, and instead, an affirmation of the Presbyterian view that civil and ecclesiastical authorities are to work together, in their proper and distinct spheres, to advance the kingdom of God on earth — a position sometimes referred to as the Establishment Principle — exemplified in the very existence of the Westminster Assembly, which was summoned by the British Parliament to remedy the ecclesiastical situation in that nation.

The principle of national establishment of religion was partially rolled back by the 1788 amendments to the Westminster Standards by the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA), and even the present-day Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA) — which does affirm the duty of nations and their rulers to covenant with the Lord Jesus Christ to advance his kingdom on the earth — objects in its current Testimony to the portion of WCF 23:3 which follows the colon.

But a paper written in 1834 by William Sloane and affirmed by the RP Synod explains and defends the Westminster view of the relationship of church and state. An Erastian view — in which the civil ruler is the supreme authority in ecclesiastical matters — has reference to the power of the magistrate in sacris, that is, in sacred things. But the title of Sloane’s paper is Argument on the Magistrate’s Power Circa-Sacra, that is, about sacred things, which reflects the historic Presbyterian position (a position sketched notably in William Hetherington’s introduction to Robert Shaw’s Exposition of the Westminster Confession).

Sloane’s paper has recently been added to Log College Press and can be read here. In this published overture, Sloane explains what Scripture and the Confession teach in regards to the duty of magistrates with respect to upholding and defending the church, in contrast to Erastians, Papists and those who believed that the civil magistrate should have nothing to do with religion at all. He responds to common objections against the establishment principle; and argues that as God is the creator of both civil and ecclesiastical government, distinct but coordinate authorities intended to serve God on earth, and that all persons are bound by the second commandment, according to each person’s place and calling, to remove all monuments of idolatry (WLC 108 - which was never altered by the PCUSA, et al.), magistrates have certain duties to protect the church and uphold true religion in society.

For the full argument by William Sloane concerning the magistrate’s power and authority in matters circa sacra, visit his page here. It is a valuable window into the views of the early American Covenanter Church and the confessional position on church-state relations as inherited by them from the Westminster Assembly.

Click here to browse our Bookstore!

A.G. Fairchild on What Presbyterians Believe

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

For a good basic introduction to some of the major distinctive tenets of 19th century American Presbyterianism, Ashbel Green Fairchild has what you are seeking. In a tract titled “What Presbyterians Believe” he sketches, in opposition to certain caricatures, an outline of what Presbyterians truly affirm that the Bible teaches.

For example, Presbyterians believe that all who are saved are saved by the sovereign grace of God, not of works on the part of believers. Fairchild takes great pains to make clear the plan of salvation, as understood by his church and taught by the Scriptures and the Westminster Confession of Faith.

The Scriptures often make mention of a people as “given to Christ,” as “chosen in him before the foundation of the world,” and as “predestinated unto the adoption of children.” These, and many similar declarations, we regard as intended to teach one of tin most cheering doctrines of the Bible, viz:

THE ELECTION OF GRACE, OR GRATUITOUS ELECTION

After explaining the nature of the fall of man, and how all men, being completely wedded to their sins are totally averse to coming to God, Fairchild shows that God’s mercy toward mankind is immense, purposing from the beginning not to leave all to justly perish, but willing to save some from their sins, despite the unwillingness of any on their own to be saved.

… this determination of the Father, to make a people willing to come to Christ, including in it the means to secure the end, is what we style the election of grace. It was truly a purpose of grace, because its objects were not chosen on account of any goodness foreseen in them. On the contrary, God beheld them as sinners, who but for the interposition of electing love, would never be anything but sinners. He chose them to salvation as the end, and to faith and holiness as the means, and thus their election originated from his own spontaneous mercy.

Speaking further of the plan of salvation, Fairchild addresses a common concern that if God has pre-determined who receives saving grace, such is incompatible with a free offer of the gospel.

Such is the election of grace as it is held in our branch of the Church, and we may see that it perfectly harmonizes with the free unlimited offer of salvation. All are hidden to the gospel feast, because it is the duty of all to come, — because all are alike needy — because there is enough for all, and because all are to be left without excuse. When all refuse the invitation, God interposes to save a “remnant according to' the election of grace.”

Nor is there any force in the objection, “that if a man is elected, he will be saved, do what he may.” For we have seen that the elect are chosen to be saved, not from the punishment of sin merely, but from sin itself. They are chosen to be holy. The objection, then, amounts to this: that if a man is to be saved from sin, he will be saved, whether he be saved from sin or not!

Other objections are addressed by Fairchild:

• The doctrine of election makes God to be partial (showing favoritism);

• If election is true, there is no point in making use of the means of grace;

• If God is sovereign over all, prayer is useless.

With Scripture Fairchild shows that far from these objections having merit, the doctrine of election confirms that God’s mercy is not the outworking of partiality, that God ordains the means of grace as well as the end of salvation, that prayer is part of God’s plan of salvation and has immense importance and purpose.

Fairchild goes on to speak of the perseverance of the saints in holiness. Those whom God has decreed to save will be kept from falling by not being left to their own strength. What a comfort this doctrine is! Our strength will fail, but God’s power to keep his saints, “through faith unto salvation” (1 Pet. 1:5), means that God will be glorified not only by granting us a potential to be saved, but in actually seeing our salvation through until it is finally and fully accomplished.

Then Fairchild affirms another article of the Presbyterian creed — the definite, vicarious atonement of Jesus Christ. That atonement was not sufficient for all, but efficient for none. On the contrary, it is sufficient for all, and efficient for those for whom Christ’s saving work was intended.

It has been said that, on this subject, the point of difference between us and others is, whether Christ died for all? But this is not a. fair statement. We do, indeed deny that Christ died for all, in the sense in which that expression is understood by Arminians; but our Church has always maintained that in respect of the sufliciency and applicability of the Saviour’s sufferings, he may be said to have died for the whole world. The real ground of controversy among those who agree as to the nature of the atonement is, What is its ultimate design? Had the Lord Jesus no definite purpose to save any one? or did he suffer with the intention of saving all men?

We cannot think that Christ had no definite purpose in regard to the objects of his interposition. The Scriptures represent him as coming into the world with a positive intention to save sinners, not merely to render their salvation possible. Nor can we imagine that an all-wise Being would enter upon a work of such unexampled labour and suflering without a precise object to be attained. On the other hand, if we say that Christ intended to save all men, at once the question will arise, Why, then, are not all saved? It will not do to answer by saying, that the divine purpose has been defeated by the unbelief of man. For if God cannot hinder man’s unbelief, the prayers of Christians, and the labours of ministers, are alike useless. If God cannot make sinners willing to come to Christ, who can?

Presbyterians, therefore, deem it safest to conclude that the atonement accomplishes the design of its author, and saves all whom God intended it to save. And this doctrine, so far from being adapted to perplex inquiring sinners, has a most encouraging tendency; for if they are willing to be saved on the terms of the gospel, there must, of necessity, be a divine intention to save them — these two things being connected together in God’s decree. But if they stay away from Christ till they first ascertain what he intends to do with them, they will never come at all.

Besides the unwillingness of mankind to come to God, the inability of man to keep God’s law or to do anything that could accomplish their salvation is another key doctrine of which Fairchild speaks. And here he affirms that man’s inability does not lessen his culpability before God, nor does this doctrine present man as chained down and unable to come to God though desirous to do so. God is glorified in the true state of things wherein though man is unable to save himself or to do any good, God nevertheless enables sinners to come to Christ by faith and implants the desire to do so. “He that worketh in them to will, will not withhold the ability to do. Philip. ii.13.”

Fairchild goes on to address another theological concern - the salvation of those dying in infancy.

Presbyterians are of opinion that those dying in infancy are elect unto salvation. As they are involved in the guilt and misery of the fall, they are appropriate subjects of the divine mercy; and their election secures to them an application of atoning blood, and the renewing influences of the Spirit. Thus, when the Lord Jesus shall “gather his elect from the four winds,” infants will not be left behind.

Our doctrinal opponents dislike this view of the subject, because, if all who die in infancy are elect, then, as they could not have been elected on account of foreseen faith and works, it will follow that fully a third part of our species are saved by unconditional election.

When we speak of infants dying in infancy as elect, we mean that they are chosen out of the whole mass of human beings. Our use of the term, therefore, does not imply that any who die at that tender age are not elected. So when John, addressing the “elect lady,” speaks of her “elect sister” (2 John 13), we do not infer that she had non-elect sisters. In the exercise of his electing love, God had before him the whole race of mankind, not a particular class, age, or sex. And in the opinion of Presbyterians all who die in infancy were included in his purpose of mercy, and selected, along with others, out of the whole family of Adam.

Finally, Fairchild addresses God’s sovereignty over all things, including the evil that happens in this world. Affirming along with the Confession that God is not the author of sin, Fairchild yet explains that the Scriptures do indeed teach that nothing is outside the government of God, even sin. And that this doctrine, which he terms “divine appointment,” stands in contrast to “the gloomy notion of fate” and offers great consolation to believers in the midst of the trials of life.

Indeed, it is a prime principle with Presbyterians, that all the good in the universe proceeds from God; and all the evil from creatures, who act from their own free choice, uninfluenced by any compulsory decree.

We believe that the purposes of God do extend to all events, but not that they extend to all in the same manner. Some things God has purposed to bring to pass by his own agency, and other things, as sinful acts, he has purposed to permit, or suffer to be done by others. And the things which he does by his own agency, and those which he suffers to be done by others, include all that ever come to pass. We may add that this distinction between determinations to do on the part of God, and determinations to suffer sinful acts to be done by others, not only exists in our Confession, but has been taught by all Presbyterian divines from the earliest period.

This tract concludes with an extended quote from Thomas Scott, the English Bible commentator, on the sovereignty of God. It is fitting because the sovereignty of God is at the heart of the doctrines of grace, upon which Fairchild expounds. This distinctive teaching of the Presbyterian Church, based upon the Scriptures, is calculated to humble the pride of man and to exalt the glory of God in all matters, including that of salvation. It is a tract that is well worth the time to read and prayerfully consider.

Click here to browse our Bookstore!

James Harper's reasons for singing the Psalms in worship

(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.)

United Presbyterian minister and Professor of Theology at Xenia Theological Seminary James Harper (1823-1913) was the author of a commentary on the Westminster Shorter Catechism published in 1905. In addressing the matter of what praise is commanded and accepted by God in worship, he writes:

Question XL. What did God at first reveal to man for the rule of his obedience?

Q. 34. Touching the exercise of praise, what is the law?

A. That this is to be performed by the singing, or chanting, of hymns to God. Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Jas. 5:13; Acts 16:25; Ps. 67:3-5; 96:1-3; 100:1, 2.

Q. 35. Has God supplied the very songs to be used in this exercise?

A. Yes. He furnished expressly for this purpose "a book of praises" to the Church in its Old Testament stage, and has never recalled that appointment, but in the New Testament Scriptures has confirmed it.*

Q. 36. What confirmation is afforded in the New Testament?

A. a. There is no annulment of the previous order, as there is in the case of the sacrificial system;

b. Our Lord and His disciples sung, as is almost universally conceded, a series of Scripture psalms at the institution of the Supper, a New Testament ordinance, thus seemingly binding them together. Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26;

c. The directions given in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3 16 enjoin the singing of the Psalms, to denote which exhaustively three different terms are used.

In regards to this last point, the reader may wish to take note of a paper written by Harper for the 1902 Psalm Singers’ Conference held in Belfast in which he discusses at greater length the question of what is meant by “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” as found in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 (available to read here).

Appended to these remarks is a note which further elucidates Harper’s understanding of the place of the Psalms in worship.

Note.

If it is true, as will be more particularly shown in the exposition of the Second Commandment, that every part of our worship should have Divine appointment, the question, "What shall we sing in the worship of God," demands serious attention. By those who admit that the singing of God's praise is divinely prescribed, it is generally conceded that the compositions embodied in the Book of Psalms may properly be used in this exercise. But many who make this admission contend that uninspired compositions may also be used in the service of praise. As a matter of fact, also, those who take this view generally drop out the Psalms, and use instead in solemn worship hymns composed by uninspired and erring men.

In favor of restriction to the inspired Psalter as the matter of praise a few considerations are subjoined.

1. God gave to the Old Testament Church inspired songs for use in worship;

2. These songs were in course of time collected into one book called by Divine authority "The Book of Psalms," and forming an important and unique part of the sacred canon. Luke 20:42; Acts 1:20;

3. There is no clear evidence that God ever authorized His ancient people to use in the stated service of song any hymns but those which form the Psalter;

4. The use of this psalm-book for the purpose of praise has not been discountenanced in the New Testament;

5. On the contrary, the use of it as the "book of praises" has been in the New Testament countenanced, commended, and even commanded.

For instance, in instituting the Supper, a New Testament ordinance, our Lord with His disciples "hymned"; and it is generally agreed that in accordance with Jewish custom the hymns used were a series of psalms beginning with the 113th and ending with the 118th of the Psalter. Thus the Psalter was by Christ Himself declared to be a fit companion of the Supper;

Moreover, in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 the use of "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" is enjoined. These are found in the Psalter; many of the Psalms being in the ancient superscriptions styled "songs" (See Ps. 120- 134 inclusive). In the Septuagint, or Greek translation, the 72nd psalm closes thus, "The hymns of David, the son of Jesse, are ended"; and this is the translation which was, no doubt, in use among the Christians in Ephesus and Colosse,

Josephus, the Jewish historian, a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, states in his account of King David, that he composed many "hymns and songs" for purposes of worship.

Besides, the word "spiritual," prefixed in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 to the word "songs," denotes something produced by the Spirit of God, that is, inspired. Moreover, the Ephesians and Colossians are not told to make, but only to sing, to take, not make, spiritual songs for worship. It is implied that they already possessed such;

6. If in the apostolic Church other songs than those embodied in the Psalter were used in worship, the survival of them, or of some of them, might surely be expected; but none such can be found;

7. It is certain that in the early centuries of the New Testament Church the inspired Psalter was preeminently the hymn-book of Christians;

8. Heretics seem to have been the first to substitute compositions of their own;

9. The Psalter is the true union hymn-book.

In another place Harper addresses the theory that because in most cases prayers are not set but left to the wisdom of Christian prudence, saints may therefore compose or sing uninspired matter for praise in the worship of God. We not given a divine prayer book, but we are provided a divine hymn-book.

Question CVII. What doth the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer teach us?

Q. 6. Yet is not provision made in Scripture for the offering of praise to God as a distinct service?

A. Yes; we are in His Word enjoined again and again to render praise to Him; and in the compilation called "The Book of Psalms" a praise-hook, as distinguished from a prayer-hook, has been provided for our use in the exercise of praise.

Q. 7. Are there not petitions woven into the praises embodied in the Book of Psalms?

A. Yes; and in like manner praise of God is implied in our prayers; but the dominant, or characteristic, feature of the Psalms is praise, whereas the distinctive feature of the Lord's Prayer and of all prayer is petition.

Thus does Harper present a case within his exposition of the Westminster Shorter Catechism that psalmody is the divinely-mandated and only authorized matter for praise in God’s worship. In this he follows the example of perhaps the earliest American exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, written by Robert Annan in 1787, which also argued for the singing of inspired psalms only in worship. Not all American commentaries on the Westminster Standards affirm this position regarding the place of psalms in worship, but it is worthwhile to hear the reasons given by Harper for this historic Presbyterian practice.

Click here to browse our Bookstore!

Meet Jonathan Cross: The pioneer colporteur of the Alleghany mountains

(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.)

Do you know what a “colporteur” is? It is a someone who “peddles” or hands out books, newspapers, tracts, etc. - especially, in 19th century America, religious tracts, books and Bibles. Jonathan Cross (1802-1876) was one such colporteur, who worked for the American Tract Society for over two decades. He wrote about some of his experiences in western Virginia as “the pioneer colporteur in the Alleghany mountains” in Five Years in the Alleghanies (1863).

There are autobiographical details in most of his published writings, but we turn to the History of the Presbyterian of Washington (1889) for a brief biographical sketch of this interesting pioneer, who late in life, after having served as a ruling elder for many years, became a Presbyterian minister. Rev. Jonathan Cross

Was, for about six years, a member of our Presbytery. He was born in the year 1802, in Beaver County, Pa. At the age of twenty years he became a Christian, and afterwards was made a ruling elder. His burning zeal led him to enter the service of the American Tract Society, in which capacity he labored for many years, chiefly in West Virginia, in the double work of distributing evangelical literature and of winning souls by personal appeal and prayer. It was his great success in this line of service that led him to his entrance into the ministry late in life. In 1866, at the solicitation of that godly man, Samuel Ott, Esq., he came to his only pastoral charge, the Third [Presbyterian] Church of Wheeling [West Virginia], when that church was at the point of disbanding; but great success and increase marked his work until 1872, when ill health compelled him to retire. He died at Newark, Ohio, December 18, 1876, aged about seventy-four years. In many place he is remembered as an earnest evangelist.

Elsewhere in this volume we learn that Cross was ordained as a ruling elder on September 2, 1832; and he was installed as a pastor on December 16, 1866; until his pastoral charge was dissolved on February 4, 1873.

Cross is known to students of the Westminster Shorter Catechism for his 2-volume Illustrations of the Shorter Catechism, for Children and Youth (1864). In the preface to this work, we are told that Cross had memorized the Shorter Catechism by the age of six. But his heart was not changed by God’s Holy Spirit until he became a young man, and then he became zealous to share the gospel of God’s grace with others, and the Catechism was for him a valuable tool as a Sabbath School teacher. He was experienced in the expositions of the Catechism by John Brown of Haddington, John Willison and that which goes by the name of “Fisher’s Catechism.” But he felt the need for another tool to help teach children the truths of the Bible - thus, his Illustrations of the Shorter Catechism was born.

As a colporteur for the American Tract Society (Superintendent of Colportage for Virginia and North Carolina), Cross reported the following summary of his work in 1866:

In other parts of Western Virginia, after a great deal of labor you may find a few persons who can read; then they are furnished with books, and a Sunday-school is started by them, which becomes the means of the formation of a church. That is the work of the colporteurs. They go there and plant a little seed, and by the blessing of God it increases and prospers.

I could tell you many instances of such things. We generally found the people very ignorant, and in huts and cabins which the foot of a religious man had never entered. Here we scattered the seed; and the publications of this Society were placed in their hands.

In North Carolina, under my own supervision, one hundred thousand children were gathered into Sunday-schools; and I know of no other agency which is so well calculated to meet the wants of our destitute population as the Tract Society.

Cross and other colporteurs did much to promote education in the backcountry, as he tells us in an 1851 colportage report to the American Tract Society.

In many instances families were found, numbering from five to twelve persons, who did not know a letter of the alphabet; they wanted no books, of course. The colporteur would open some book, read a passage, and exhibit some of the pictures. The eyes of the children would sparkle; ‘Mother, get me that book — I want to learn to read it.” What mother can resist such an appeal? The book is bought, or received as a gift. In a little time the child is in school. Such an occurrence as the above has been very common in the experience of our colporteurs.

The labors of Cross and other colporteurs in 19th century America did much to bring the word of God, and many edifying religious books and tracts, to people who would not otherwise have received them. Is there a place for colporteurs in 21st century America? We do not wish to see Jehovah’s Witness tracts spread abroad, but the online work of Log College Press is perhaps akin to what pioneer colporteurs did two centuries ago in that we make accessible to many, through the internet, godly literature which might otherwise lay obscure and unconsulted in libraries. For this opportunity, we are grateful to the American Tract Society, its colporteurs, the Presbyterian Board of Publication, the Presbyterian Historical Society, librarians, and the staff of Internet Archive, Google Books and many other institutions, including the PCA Historical Center, and others, for their labors in making possible what we at Log College Press do. And so, in remembering the work of Jonathan Cross, we also aim to carry it forward.

Click here to browse our Bookstore!

Daniel Baker on what it means to be a Calvinist

(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.)

Daniel Baker was the author of a tract on God’s sovereignty which teaches that the dominion of God’s kingdom extends to all creation and that His omnipotent power governs all actions and events providentially. It is an excellent, brief argument for a Biblical doctrine which Calvinists are known to affirm. Baker also tackles the controversial word “Calvinist” head on:

3. The government of God extends^ not only to all things^ but to all events; not only to all creatures, hut to all their actions. I am aware that we are here launching into the deep ; but the Bible is our chart. It is a good chart, and we need fear nothing.

Reader, I am a Calvinist, so called; not that I embrace all the dogmas of the great Genevan divine, but certainly those that are embraced in the standards of our Church, and the longer I live, and the more carefully I examine the subject, the more thoroughly convinced am I, that the system, usually termed Calvinistic, is firmly based upon the Bible, and will stand the "test of scrutiny, of talents, and of time.” Nay, I will go further, and say that the system needs only to be correctly understood by all the true people of God to be received and loved. I repeat it, I am a Calvinist, but I am no fatalist!

He goes on to elaborate on what this means.

I hold to the sovereignty of God, and also to the free-agency of man, and whilst I believe that God worketh all things after the counsel of his own will, yet it is in such a way as "thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence done to the freedom of the creature; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." It may not be possible for me to discriminate between the human and the divine agency; nor can I tell where one colour in the rainbow terminates, and where another begins; yet do I know that these colours are different, and both in the rainbow! I may not be able to reconcile the free-agency of man with the fixed purposes of God which I believe; nor can I reconcile the free-agency of man with the foreknowledge of God, which all must believe; suffice it to know that both doctrines are taught in the Bible, and I know that the Bible is true. Do I trample upon reason? I deny it — I have a syllogism. It is this. My heavenly Father says that these doctrines are all true. My heavenly Father never tells lies, and therefore these doctrines are all true! But can they ever be reconciled or explained? I believe they both can, and will be, when God gives the key! Suppose, for a moment, that you were utterly unacquainted with your twofold existence, as consisting of soul and body. Now, whilst believing yourself to be a simple, and not a compound being, suppose I should say: "You are a mortal man, and must soon die ;" and the next moment should pronounce you an immortal being, and affirm that you can never die, but must live for ever! Would you not say, that I spoke very absurdly, and used very contradictory language? But, should I add, wait a little, and you will have the key, and then all will be plain, and you will see that all is true, and there is no absurdity, no contradiction whatever; methinks you would reply, "No, sir, no key will answer, none can reconcile things so perfectly contradictory, 'mortal,’ and yet at the same time 'immortal!" must die! and yet, will not, cannot die! the thing Is absurd. It cannot be! But when you are let into the secret of your twofold nature — O, now! there is no difficulty at all! Even so, in relation to the sovereignty of God, and the free-agency of man, we find it difficult to reconcile these things now, because the key is wanting. In a future state the key will be given, and then there will be no difficulty at all. In the mean time let us remember, that the Bible is suited to our probationary state. We need our faith tried, as well as any other grace, or virtue. And now our grand inquiry is, What does the Bible teach? for

“This is the judge that ends the strife,
Where wit and reason fail;
My guide to everlasting life,
Through all this gloomy vale.”

That the government of God extends, not only to all things but to all events; not only to all creatures, but to all their actions. In other words, that the providence of God is, in some way or other, concerned with all that is done or transpires on earth, is manifest from very many passages of Scripture. The strongest, I think, are those which assert the providence of God in cases where, least of all, it might have been expected.

Thus, in the 127th Psalm, we find it thus written: "Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it. Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." And again, "The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof, is of the Lord." But there is another passage of Scripture, perhaps, yet more remarkable; inasmuch as it asserts the providence and purpose of God in a case involving sin, dreadtul sin! The passage referred to is found in Acts ii. 23: "Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." The crucifixion of Christ, by envious and wicked Jews, was certainly a crime of great magnitude; and yet the apostle Peter tells us expressly that it was " according to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.” The explanation of the matter is simply this: God knowing all things, foreknew what evil passions would be waked up in the bosom of the Jews by the life, and doctrines, and reproofs of our Saviour, and he also knew full well to what a murderous deed those evil passions would lead, if not restrained. For wise and benevolent purposes towards our race, God determined, not to restrain those evil passions, but to leave the Jews, (as of course he justly might) to the freedom of their own will — leave them to act out their own depravity; purposing, as I have said, to overrule the whole matter to the accomplishment of great ends. God was certainly under no obligation to exercise a restraining influence upon those wicked Jews; and if He foreknew what crime they unrestrained would commit, his "foreknowledge had no influence on their fault, which had proved no less certain unforeknown;" hence the apostle Peter, at the very time that he speaks of the crucifixion of Christ as being according to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, nevertheless, charges home all the guilt thereof, upon the wicked Jews. Observe his language! "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”

The case of Joseph also, is precisely in point. He was hated by his brethren, and by them sold into Egypt. This was a great sin; and afterwards, when in trouble, they freely confessed it. "And they said, one to another, we are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought us, and we would not hear, therefore is this distress upon us. And Reuben answered, saying, Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child, and ye would not hear, therefore, behold also, his blood is required." Thus, all who had a hand in selling Joseph, acknowledged, and felt that they had acted freely, and they writhed under the stings of an accusing conscience. Yet, when Joseph made himself known unto them, and they were greatly troubled at his presence, what said Joseph unto them? "I am Joseph, your brother, whom ye sold into Egypt. Now, therefore, be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither; for God did send me before you to preserve life. Ye thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good, to save much people alive." There needs be no difficulty. The case is simply this. God being infinitely wise, knows how, in perfect consistency with the perfections of his character, to make use of all instrumentalities, good and bad, for the accomplishment of his wise and benevolent purposes. Certain things God brings to pass by a positive agency. Other things he simply permits to come to pass. And, let it be remarked, permission and approbation do not, by any means, mean the same thing. Napoleon Bonaparte, when a child, wished to go to a certain place, but was forbidden by his mother. Being headstrong, he persisted in going. "Well, my son," said his mother, "you may go, but remember! it is not with your mother's approbation." And thus God oftentimes permits things which, so far from commanding, he forbids, and highly disapproves. He permits sometimes because he would not interfere with the free-agency of the creature. He permits, sometimes, because he purposes (as in the cases already mentioned) to overrule the evil intended for good; and sometimes he permits, in a judicial way as a punishment for sins previously committed. Hence the language of Paul in reference to the heathen and their abominations: "Even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them aver to do things which are not convenient."

And now let it not be forgotten, this is all that is meant by a certain passage in our Shorter Catechism, which has been much caviled at, viz. "The decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass." In other words it may be stated thus: By the decrees of God, we mean no formal legislative enactment, (as, "Thus it shall be," and "thus it shall not be,") but, simply the calm and settled purpose of an infinitely wise and gracious God, to bring to pass; or permit to come to pass whatsoever does come to pass, for the glory of his name. Does any one ask, what is the difference between bringing to pass and permitting to come to pass? I answer, God brought to pass the incarnation of his Son; He permitted to come to pass his crucifixion. The difference is as wide as the east is from the west. Our doctrine, then, is simply this; By positive and permissive decrees, God, in wisdom and in love, manages the affairs of the universe, directs and controls all things, and all events, all creatures, and all their actions. It must be so, for suppose an event to take place without the divine permission; for example, then, it must be either because God is not aware of it, or cannot prevent it. If not aware of it. He cannot be omniscient; if He cannot prevent it, then he is not omnipotent; and then, of course, in the last case, "there must be a power behind the throne greater than the throne itself," which thought would be frightful! No, our doctrine is true, that the government of God extends not only to all things, but to all events, not only to all creatures, but to all their actions. In other words, that a Divine providence is concerned, in some way or other, concerned "in all the good and ill that checker human life."

Is further proof demanded? Permit me to quote a very remarkable passage found in Isaiah xlv. 7; "I form the light, and I create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things." What! the Lord create evil? Yes! but in such a way as casts no stain upon his moral perfections; but, on the contrary, will furnish new matter for admiration and praise. Hence, the language of joy and gratulation which immediately follows. "Drop down ye heavens from above! and let the skies pour down righteousness. Let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation. Let righteousness spring up together; I, the Lord, have created it." But how does God create evil. As he does darkness. The first sentence explains the last. Observe the language; I form the light, and I create darkness. How does God form the light? By a positive influence, pouring radiance around How does God create darkness? By withholding this radiance. Even so, by a positive influence, God makes peace, and by withholding that influence, creates evil, that is, permits it. In this, is God the author of sin? No more than the sun is the source of darkness, although its absence occasions that darkness.

Thus, as Baker explains, the Bible teaches — and so does Calvinism — that the sovereignty of God extends to all creatures and their actions in such a way that God is not the author of sin, but overrules all sinful actions to His glory and the good of His people. Read Baker’s full tract on The Sovereignty of God Explained and Vindicated here.

Click here to browse our Bookstore!

Three kinds of grace, according to Gilbert Tennent

(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.)

What is grace? Archibald Alexander in his Pocket Dictionary (1829, 1831) defines it as “free favour, unmerited kindness.” Gilbert Tennent in his 1743 sermon on this attribute of God — from his series on the chief end of man, reprinted also in Archibald Alexander’s compilation of Sermons of the Log College, edited by Samuel Davies Alexander — also speaks of it as “undeserved kindness.” Tennent elaborates that grace is both a divine attribute of God, and the gift of God towards others — and that God’s grace extends to “ail Creatures, even to the noblest Angels.”

The fact that God’s grace — unmerited favor — extends to all creatures suggests that not all creatures are beneficiaries of what is known as “saving grace.” Thus, distinctions must be made in the types of grace that God extends to His creatures. These distinct types of the grace of God are discussed in the writings of Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, Robert L. Dabney, W.G.T. Shedd, Geerhardus Vos and many other notable American theologians, all of whom properly distinguish between saving and common grace.

But to return to Gilbert Tennent’s sermon on grace, let us hear what this son of the founder of the Log College taught in 1743.

…Grace is Three-fold, viz., Universal, common, and saving. And

1st. Universal Grace is that, whereby Jehovah dispenses natural Things upon all his Creatures, and hence he is call’d the Saviour of all Men. 1 Tim. iv.10. And is said to preserve Man and Beast. Psa. xxxvi.6. He causes his Sun to rise upon the Fields of the Evil and the Good, and sends his Rain upon the Just and the Unjust: He gives to Man Life, Health, Strength, and all the Supports he enjoys therein, all which being undeserv’d, may be call’d Grace; but according to the Usage of Scripture and Antiquity, they seldom and less properly bear that Name.

2dly. Common Grace consists in the Communication of moral good Things upon Men promiscuously, whether they be good or bad, elect or not elect, just as natural Wisdom and Prudence, and all the Train of moral Vertues, in which even some Pagans have excell’d. And to these we may add, all outward religious Priviledges and Means of Grace; together with those transient Effects which are sometimes produced, by them upon the Unregenerate, such as some of Illumination, and Stirrings of religious Affection. In a Word all those common operations of the Holy Spirit, which are not follow’d by a habitual and saving Change, must be ascrib’d hereto. Of these mention is made Heb. vi.4-6. and also in the Parable of the Sower, Mat. xiii.20-21. But he that received the Seed into Stony Places, the same is he that heareth the Word, and anon with Joy receiveth it, yet hath he not Root in himself, but dureth for a while, for when Tribulation or Persecution ariseth, because of the Word, by and by he is offended. But

3dly. Saving Grace is that undue or undeserved Love of God, whereby he confers upon the Elect only, saving Benefits, of his own meer good Pleasure.

Thus, according to Tennent, the disposition of God towards all of his creatures is gracious, leading him to extend unmerited favor in some measure unto all, although saving grace is reserved for the elect only. The knowledge of God’s grace — in all its manifestations — is a mighty incentive to humility:

…methinks the Doctrine of Free Grace should powerfully induce us to Humility, Seeing that it is God only, who has made us to differ from others, and that we have nothing but what we have receiv'd. We are his Debtors, for all we have in Hand or Hope. The Nature of Grace supposes the Object, upon whom it is vouchsafed, unworthy of it. A continued humbling Sense of this, would as much conduce to our Benefit, as Ornament.

The sovereign and free grace of God, which flows from His very nature, will naturally bring low the pride of man and exalt the goodness of God. Consider this word from Tennent — the whole sermon is found in his Twenty-Three Sermons on Man's Chief End (1744) and in Alexander’s Sermons of the Log College (1855) — and may we then praise Him as the Psalmist does who said: “The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy” (Ps. 103:8).

Click here to browse our Bookstore!

Presbyterianism in Catechetical Form

(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.)

A recent acquisition of interest from the library of the late Dr. Morton Smith is a small booklet titled Presbyterianism in Catechetical Form, compiled by Mrs. M.W. Pratt and published by the Presbyterian Committee of Publication in Richmond, Virginia (1893). This work has not yet been uploaded to Log College Press, but it is hoped that we can do so in the future.

It is written for the Presbyterian in the pews and others who desire to better understand the system of doctrine and polity embraced by our church and articulated in its standards. A particular extract concerning the Westminster Assembly may serve to whet the appetite for this valuable and rare little work.

Question 1. What are the names of the Presbyterian standards of faith and government?
Answer. “The Confession of Faith,” “The Larger and Shorter Catechisms,” and “The Book of Church Order.”

Q. 2. When were the Confession of Faith and Catechisms written?
A. In 1643-1649.

Q. 3. Where?
A. In England, in Westminster Abbey.

Q. 4. By whose order?
A. The British Parliament.

Q. 5. Who composed the Assembly that wrote them?
A. One hundred and forty-two divines, including four from Scotland, thirty-two laymen, including two from Scotland. (Hetherington’s Hist. Westminster, pp. 98, 99.)

Q. 6. Of what denominations were they?
A. Presbyterians and Independents.

Q. 7. Were they learned and good men?
A. Yes; they were among the most learned and godly men who ever adorned the British empire.

Q. 8. What did Richard Baxter of them?
A. That the Christian world since the days of the apostles had never had a Synod of more excellent divines than this and this and the Synod of Dort.

Q. 9. What vow did they take before beginning their work?
A. I do sincerely and solemnly protest, in the presence of Almighty God, that in the Assembly of which I am a member I will not maintain anything in matters of doctrine but what I think in my conscience to be the truth, or in point of discipline but what I consider to conduce most to the glory of God and the good and peace of the church.

Q. 10. How long were they in preparing this work?
A. More than five and a half years.

Q. 11. What did they was their object in thus formulating their doctrine and form of church government?
A. That a scheme of doctrine and form of church government pure and scriptural would be the most excellent means for establishing the rights for which they were contending, and forming the virtues by which freedom is blest.

Q. 12. Has their work proved them wise prophets?
A. Yes, it has done more good for the world than any other books ever written except the Bible.

Q. 13. What country approved and adopted their work?
A. Scotland, in their General Assemblies of 1647-1648.

Q. 14. Were these standards adopted by the church in America?
A. Yes, in Philadelphia, in May, 1788, with a slight change in regard to civil government.

Click here to browse our Bookstore!

Joseph B. Stratton on the Kingship of Christ

(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.)

What does it mean when the Apostle Paul says that Jesus Christ is “the head over all things to the church” (Eph. 1:22)? No Christian questions whether Christ is King over the church. But is more meant by Paul than that simple proposition? Joseph Buck Stratton answers in a sermon preached on December 27, 1857 entitled “The Kingship of Christ” (A Pastor’s Valedictory: A Selection of Early Sermons (1899), pp. 20-21).

But the Scriptures teach much more than that Christ reigns in his church. He reigns also for the church. He is King in regard to whatsoever concerns the church. He commands and controls whatsoever can affect the church. Thus he is said to be "head over all things to the church." The world, out of which the church is gathered, and in which it exists, is not independent of his dominion, and is under his regimen, for the sake of the church. It does not tolerate the church, but it is tolerated on account of the church. It was made for Christ's kingdom; it is preserved in order to the completion of his kingdom; and when it is needed no more for his kingdom's sake, it will exist no more. And while it stands, it has no power in an atom of it to move against his consent, or his bidding, and is working together in all its parts for the accomplishment of his mediatorial purposes, and for good to them that love God and are the called according to his purpose. Hence his promise in regard to the church "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

And so he is king in regard to whatsoever is connected with the mission end of the church; "I am with you always," he said to his apostles when he gave them the charge to go and make disciples of all nations; and this word, "I am with you always," dwelling as it does as an ever living promise in the bosom of the church, is a security that his kingship is ever co-operating with the church. He is reigning over the world and in the world, for the furtherance of the work of the church. Just as he is said to have been in the church of old "in the wilderness," and just as he opened the sea, and made the rock gush with water, and the heavens rain down manna, and the walls of hostile cities fall to the ground, and the hearts of brave armies quail before the terror of his presence; for their deliverance and their triumph, so still, he is in the midst of the Sacramental host of his elect. And though their wanderings may seem long, and their victory and their inheritance seem to tarry strangely in their coming, yet, as surely as Israel reached the promised land, Christ, the King, in the greatness of his strength will travel with his church, till he and she together shall cross the last entrenchment of the enemy, and trample the ruins of the last stronghold of Satan beneath their feet. Such then, is his kingdom, the church; and the world so far as it is regarded as the scene and the subject of the church's operation.

This doctrine of the mediatorial kingship of Christ over all things for the good of his church, as taught by Paul and expounded upon here by Stratton, is a great comfort to believers in the midst of a hostile world. Christ has been appointed king for purposes that not only give glory to God but will do his people good not only by ruling and defending us, but also, in the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, “restraining and conquering all his and our enemies” (Q/A 26). “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18), he says. In his mediatorial office of King, the scope of his dominion is universal, and thus, he reigns over all and the victory over all belongs to him - praise to our King!

Click here to browse our Bookstore!

Remembering Robert Annan

(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.)

After having been thrown from his carriage the Sabbath before, Presbyterian minister Robert Annan went to his heavenly home on this day in history: December 5, 1819. One of the founding members of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church in 1782, he was also the author of one of the earliest American commentaries on the Westminster Confession of Faith.

A man of many interests, he carried on a debate through the newspapers under the pseudonym Philochorus with Benjamin Rush over the legitimacy of capital punishment (opposed by Rush). He also received a visit from George Washington once during the American War of Independence to discuss what were presumably mastodon bones found on Annan’s farm, an account of which Annan later published.

A leading force among the dissenting wing of colonial American Presbyterianism, Robert Annan is remembered two hundred years to the day that he entered his eternal rest.

Click here to browse our Bookstore!

Sinners are Called to the Lord's Supper: Samuel Bayard

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

Are you preparing to observe the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper? Preparation is a good thing because communicants are called to examine themselves first and so to “worthily partake” of the Supper (Westminster Shorter Catechism #97). But, it may be asked, who can adequately prepare for such a service? The Westminster Larger Catechism addresses this concern head-on:

Q172: May one who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord’s supper?

A172: One who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof; and in God’s account hath it, if he be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it, and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity: in which case (because promises are made, and this sacrament is appointed, for the relief even of weak and doubting Christians) he is to bewail his unbelief, and labor to have his doubts resolved; and, so doing, he may and ought to come to the Lord’s supper, that he may be further strengthened.

Judge Samuel Bayard, Esq., of French Huguenot descent, served as a ruling elder of the First (Nassau) Presbyterian Church of Princeton, New Jersey for 33 years. His Letters on the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (1822) also responds to the common anxiety shared by believers who feel that they are not in a position to come to the Table. Bayard offers these words of encouragement to those who so doubt of themselves:

My Dear Friend —

You acknowledge the weight of the obligation, and motives to obedience, stated in the preceding letters. You admit that Christians are obviously deficient in respect and gratitude to their Redeemer, if they willfully neglect to comply with his injunction, or abstain from institutions of his appointment. Still however you excuse your own delay in coming to his table, by alledging your unprepared state for this solemnity.

On this subject it is of great importance to form a correct opinion. Have you then ascertained, on scriptural grounds what is the preparation that is indispensible to a worthy communion? Do you imagine that nothing short of a state of sinless perfection, will authorize an attendance on the Lord's Supper; if so, you may indeed despair of ever being suitably prepared. — We are assured on the highest authority that “there is no one who liveth and sinneth not." — (Eccles. 7) In the heart of the holiest saint, how much indwelling corruption still exists! — No my friend, you must be content to come just as you are. The Lord Jesus ''came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." You must come in the exercise of faith, and of repentance, and relying on the assistance of Divine grace; with a fixed resolution to conform in your life and conversation with the rules of the gospel. Availing yourself of all the aids prescribed for advancing in holiness; — namely, of prayer — of meditation — study of the sacred Scriptures, and self examination, you have no ground for apprehension that the blessing of Heaven will be withheld from the use of these appointed means.

But you object — "After using the means, how shall I ascertain with any certainty that I am qualified for an admission to this solemn ordinance? I see many attend it without scruple, whose lives are in truth a libel on the profession they make. They must be grossly deceived in regard to their own state, — and I ask myself, may not this in like manner be the case with myself."

My brother, while we avoid presumption we should study not to err from excess of caution. lf all Christians were to reason thus, how thin would the ranks of openly professed followers of the Lord Jesus, then be!

Though your life is below the standard of the gospel; it is stained by no crime. You are not grossly ignorant. You are not an unbeliever in Divine Revelation. You do not willfully indulge in any known sin. Come then, not rashly, but with humility, and with a firm resolution, (aided by strength from above,) that in obedience to your Saviour’s dying command, you will commemorate his death, by a frequent attendance on this consolatory ordinance.

“There are many truly devout persons, who deal more seriously with themselves than with any one else, and from dejection or mistaken notions of duty some are disposed to render this Sacrament a mean of melancholy and discouragement instead of consolation and thanksgiving — they consider themselves as the chief of sinners, though they cannot fix on any great crime of which they have been guilty; and in consequence of this impression lose that cheerfulness of mind, and those pleasures which the gospel is calculated to impart.''

To such persons we may say — if men had been perfect the death of Christ would have been unnecessary. The means of grace are appointed for our advancement in holiness — the best of men have their infirmities; but the infirmities and weaknesses to which pious persons are exposed are their grief, against which they zealously contend. This ordinance is appointed to establish their faith, and to subdue every sin; such persons Christ affectionately invites to come to him for relief. “Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

Consider these words of encouragement, and remember that the Lord’s Supper is not an ordinance in which only the perfect may partake, but a means of grace to establish the faith of sinners who know they are such. Read more of Samuel Bayard’s Letters here.

Geerhardus Vos on the need for faithful creeds and confessions

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

During the run-up to the 1903 PCUSA revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith, B.B. Warfield wasn’t the only prominent Princetonian expressing concerns about the potential risks to the church. Geerhardus Vos, in an exchange with Abraham Kuyper, the Dutch theologian, during the 1890’s, reveals his opposition to the planned revision.

This exchange — detailed in Danny E. Olinger’s recent biography, Geerhardus Vos: Reformed Biblical Theologican, Confessional Presbyterian (2018), and in James T. Dennison, Jr.’s The Letters of Geerhardus Vos (2006) [both available at our Secondary Sources Bookstore page] — was private, but he also addressed the matter publicly on a few occasions. One was his article on “The Biblical Idea of Preterition” (The Presbyterian, 70, 36 (September 5, 1900): pp. 9-10); another was "The Scriptural Doctrine of the Love of God” (The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 13, 49 (January 1902): pp. 1-37). In the former article, Vos noted,

One of the gravest symptoms of the revision movement in the Presbyterian Church today consists in the absence of serious appeal to scriptural authority for the changes of confessional statement that are advocated….Consequently there is reason to fear that the spirit in which revision is sought forebodes greater evil to the church than any material modifications of the creed to which revision may lead. Even if the Calvinistic system of doctrine embodied in our standards were seriously mutilated in result of the present movement, so long as the great body of believers feel themselves in conscience bound to yield unquestioning faith to the Bible, there is always hope for a rehabilitation of the principles temporarily abandoned. But when once the sense of allegiance to the Word of God as the only authoritative rule of faith has become weakened, or while still recognized in theory has ceased to be a living force in the minds of believers, then the hope of a return to the truth once forsaken is reduced to a minimum.

See Olinger’s discussion of these articles, ibid., pp. 107-116, for a helpful analysis of the concerns that Vos had.

Furthermore, in 1896, Vos published his handwritten 5-volume Reformed Dogmatics in Dutch. As these volumes have been recently translated (they are not currently on this site), readers will find interesting his remarks from Volume 5, p. 41, on the value of faithful creeds and confessions.

There are many who deny to the church the power and right of making creeds, and think that to do so is in conflict with the sufficiency of Holy Scripture. Hence, too, there are many communions that hold to no confession, such as the Quakers, Darbyists, etc. One should grant that creeds are not absolutely necessary. A church, if one wishes to reason in the abstract, can exist without confessional documents, and has existed without such. These, however, were exceptional situations. It is impossible to guide someone through Scripture in its entirety or to ask him his opinions concerning the whole of Scripture. The essential things must be gathered together in order that the church may show how it understands Scripture in the light of the Spirit. The authority of these creeds is always bound to Scripture; they are susceptible to improvement, but may not be lightly revised, inasmuch as they are not a compendium of theology but the ripe fruits of the spiritual development of the church, sometimes obtained through a long struggle. A true revision does not tear down the old but explains and confirms it and further illumines it in connection with new times and circumstances. But it remains true that the Scripture is the norma normans [norming norm], the confession the norma normata [normed norm].

From these sources we learn both how Vos opposed the movement to amend the Westminster Confession of Faith, which succeeded in its goal in 1903, and why Vos valued sound confessionalism, viewing faithful creeds as a means to aid the church in its affirmation of what Scripture teaches on a systematic basis. It was precisely because of his view that Scripture is the only rule of faith and practice that Vos taught the necessity of creeds as subordinate to Scripture — to guard the exposition of those Scriptures by the church from error — and the danger of revisions when they sprang from preference as opposed to scriptural mandate.

Wilson's Notes on Ridgley's Body of Divinity

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

The first commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism was published by the English Independent minister Thomas Ridgley (1667-1734) under the title A Body of Divinity: Wherein the Doctrines of the Christian Religion are Explained and Defended: Being the Substance of Several Lectures on the Assembly's Larger Catechism (1731-1733) in two volumes. There are comparatively few expositions of the Larger Catechism as opposed to the many that have been published regarding the Shorter Catechism, and Ridgley’s is very comprehensive.

The first American edition of Ridgley’s commentary was published in Philadelphia (1814-1815) in four volumes, and edited with notes (“original and selected”) by James Patriot Wilson, Sr. (1769-1830). These four volumes have recently been added to Log College Press. The notes provide an early 19th century American Presbyterian perspective on the 18th century English Independent commentary of the 17th century Westminster Assembly’s Larger Catechism. One noteworthy feature is an appendix in the fourth volume containing 74 study questions intended to encourage disquisitions by theological students.

It should be noted that this set edited by James P. Wilson is to be distinguished from a later two-volume set edited by John M. Wilson, published in Edinburgh (1844) [an 1855 edition of which was reprinted by Still Water Revival Books in 1993], who also included his own notes, and a biographical sketch of Ridgley.

We have at least two commentaries covering the major Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms) already available at Log College Press (by Francis Beattie and Edward Dafydd Morris), but this edition of Ridgley by James P. Wilson constitutes the first stand-alone exposition of the Larger Catechism available to read here at LCP. These volumes should provide our readers with a treasure trove of Biblical and catechetical study - enough for a lifetime.

The Presbyterian Standards in the Light of God's Word: Daniel Baker

One of the tracts written by Daniel Baker for the Presbyterian Board of Publication was titled “The Standards of the Presbyterian Church, a Faithful Mirror of Bible Truth.” Here he provides a partial harmony of the Westminster Standards with the Word of God, along with commentary discussing some of its controversial doctrines about the sovereignty of God in salvation.

By the Standards of the Presbyterian Church, we mean the Confession of Faith, together with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of our Church. These, we verily believe, are, in every particular, based upon the Scriptures. As a faithful mirror presents, with great exactness, all the features of the object which it reflects, even so, in these Standards, may we all behold, as in a glass, that system of divine truth, which is taught in the Bible. And if the image reflected be the exact counterpart of the original, why should the mirror be blamed for its fidelity ? It creates nothing. It is responsible for nothing, but the accuracy of its reflecting power. This being the case, if there be any thing in the image reflected which we do not like, — in condemning that^ do we not really condemn the original ? And would it not, indeed, be more candid and just, to find fault with the original, and spare the mirror?
…
And now, in order that the reader may, at one glance, see that the Standards of the Presbyterian Church, are, indeed, a FAITHFUL MIRROR OF BIBLE TRUTH, we will place one immediately over against the other, and it will manifestly appear that the language of our Standards is not a whit stronger than the language of the Bible — but is its very echo, image, and counterpart:

Baker then compares confessional statements on the sovereignty of God with Scriptural texts. Following this, he addresses a series of common objections to these doctrines of God’s sovereignty.

The ultimate aim of his vindication is that of the Word of God. But as a faithful mirror reflects the light from its source, so the Standards of the Presbyterian Church, in the main, are found to reflect the truth of God’s Word. Read Baker’s tract to find out more.

Shedd on the love of God towards all men as men

In the context of an effort to revise the Westminster Confession of Faith, William Greenough Thayer Shedd argued in 1893 that the Confession already addressed some of the concerns that had been raised. One had to do with the question of the general love of God towards all men.

It is strenuously contended that the Standards contain no declaration of the love of God towards all men, but limit it to the elect; that they make no universal offer of salvation, but confine it to a part of mankind.

The following declaration is found in Confession ii. 1. "There is but one only living and true God, who is most loving, gracious, merciful, long suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin, the rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Of whom speaketh the Confession this? of the God of the elect only? or of the God of every man? Is he the God of the elect only? Is he not also of the non-elect? Is this description of the gracious nature and attributes of God intended to be restricted to a part of mankind? Is not God as thus delineated the Creator and Father of every man without exception? Can it be supposed that the authors of this statement meant to be understood to say that God is not such a being for all men, but only for some? If this section does not teach the unlimited love and compassion of God towards all men as men, as his creatures, it teaches nothing. (Shedd, Calvinism: Pure and Mixed - A Defence of the Westminster Standards, pp. 24-25)

The ED scholarship at Princeton Theological Seminary

The story is told by David B. Calhoun, “Old Princeton Seminary and the Westminster Standards,” in Ligon Duncan, ed., The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, Vol. 2, pp. 41-42 and by Cortlandt Van Rensselear in The Presbyterian Magazine, Vol. 7 (August 1857), pp. 369-370, of a brother and sister, Robert and Marian Hall, originally of Scotland and raised under the minister of the esteemed John Brown of Haddington, who came to America in 1785.

In 1831, they gave $2500 to endow a scholarship at (what is now known as) Princeton Theological Seminary. In doing so, they said:

Whereas, after a life of nearly fourscore years, much of which has been spent in examining the Word of God, we are fully satisfied of the correctness of the doctrines of religion as laid down in the Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, drawn up by the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and as held by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the United States, we desire that the scholarship which is endowed by this our bequest of two thousand five hundred dollars, be called the ED Scholarship, as a witness between us and the Theological Seminary, that the Lord he is God, agreeable to the said Confession of Faith and Catechisms.

Farther, it is our will, that the Professors in said Seminary be careful, that no person holding sentiments inconsistent with the Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, be ever admitted to the benefit of said Scholarship.

It was their wish, furthermore, that this scholarship be given to “such as are poor and needy.” When Marian was asked why it should not be called the “Hall Scholarship,” a memorable exchange followed:

“As your brother and self have now founded a Scholarship, it can be called the Hall Scholarship.”

”I dinna wish my worthless name to be remembered after I am dead and gone, but I do wish to do something for the cause of true religion, which shall maintain the truth, as long as the Kirk shall lead, and, therefore, I wish the Scholarship to be named ED.”

Being asked the meaning of the name, she replied, “And dinna ye ken, young mon? E’en go and read your Bible.”

“Well, I have read it, and still I do not recollect the meaning of use of ED.”

“Do you not recollect that when the two tribes and a half, who had their inheritance on the east side of Jordan, had assisted the other tribes to subdue their enemies, and were about to return to their possessions, before they crossed the river, they built an altar? And do you not know that the other tribes were about to make war upon them for the erection of this altar, supposing it to have been intended for an altar of worship distinct from that appointed by Jehovah? The two and a half tribes gave the others to understand that they were entirely mistaken in their conjectures. The altar was not an altar of worship, but an altar of witness, that Jehovah alone was the true God, and that it had been created in token of their views and desires. (‘And the children of Reuben and the children of Gad called the altar ED; for it shall be a witness between us that the Lord is God.’ Joshua 22:34)

She continued, “I dinna like your Hopkinsian. I believe in the doctrines of the Bible, as expressed in the Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Presbyterian Church, and I wish that the Scholarship be called ED, as a witness between us and the Theological Seminary, that the Lord is God, agreeably to said Confession and Catechisms: and I dinna wish that any person holding sentiments inconsistent therewith, be ever admitted to the benefit of said scholarship.”

And that is the story of how the ED scholarship began at Princeton Theological Seminary.

The North and the South Celebrate the 250th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly

One of the reasons I started Log College Press was because I like books, especially old books. Another reason was because I like history, especially the history of books about history. I like seeing how past generations thought about the past, and how that thought has changed over time. The fancy name for it is “historiography,” the study of the writing of history, or the study of the methods by which historians practiced their trade, and the interpretations historians throughout history have given to events in the past. I can probably credit my 12th grade AP American History teacher for this part of my intellectual pleasure, because she would frequently teach us not only about the past, but about how various historians viewed the past.

All that to say, I like perusing books like the two published at the end of the 19th century by the Northern and Southern Presbyterian Churches, that celebrated the 250th anniversary of the Westminster Assembly. The North published Addresses at the Celebration of the Two Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly in 1898, while the South published Memorial Volume of the Westminster Assembly one year before (both of these volumes are on our Compilations page). Not only do you find in these works in-depth studies of particular topics from the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, but you also learn how approaches to the Confession and to the Assembly have changed over the years.

If you appreciate the Westminster Assembly and its written documents, if you enjoy history, and especially if you are such a history nerd that you love historiography, then you will love reading these two books. They’re free on our site, so download them today.

A Sabbath Afternoon Read for the Family from James R. Boyd

Are you seeking something edifying to read this Sabbath afternoon with your family? Consider The Child’s Book on the Westminster Shorter Catechism by James Robert Boyd. He designed it as a supplemental catechism for students 12 and under with the aim of reviewing the great divine truths found in the Westminster Shorter Catechism. He suggests that a half an hour on Sabbath afternoons be given to the study of this little book as a method of stirring up consideration religious conversation and promoting the spiritual interests of the family.

This is a good exercise for the family consistent with the aim of the Sabbath (see Boyd on the Fourth Commandment). And this is a means of involving the whole family in discussion of those matters which all should know about the basic divine truths of Christianity. Not meant to replace, but to supplement, the study of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, this little volume is a means of reinforcing the knowledge that every member of the family should know and can be used to stimulate further discussion. Here is one matter that may prompt a healthy family discussion:

Q. What is the best day of the week?
A. The Sabbath-day.

Q. Why is it the best?
A. Because it is to be kept holy, or spent in a religious manner.

If you are looking for a tool to help the family keep the Sabbath during the afternoon, this book will serve you well. For more in-depth study, be sure to check out Boyd’s other exposition: The Westminster Shorter Catechism: With Analysis, Scriptural Proofs, Explanatory and Practical Inferences, and Illustrative Anecdotes.

Henry Rowland Weed's 19th Century Presbyterian Study Guide

Among the 19th century American Presbyterian works on the Westminster Confession of Faith, one by Henry Rowland Weed (1789-1870) stands out: Questions on the Confession of Faith and Form of Government of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (1842).

In question-and-answer format, Weed’s study guide tackles both the Confession of Faith and the Form of Government of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, delving into both its ecclesiological history and principles. Further, there is a brief section on admission to the sacrament of baptism. His questions are not always followed by an answer — sometimes the reader is just meant perhaps to go back to the source document, or discuss, or ponder. Sometimes his questions are answered with a simple Scripture reference. And at other times, the answers given are more full.

An extract from the section on the Confession relating to the chapter on God is given as a sample:

Q. 1. Are there more Gods than One? Deut. vi. 4. 1 Cor. viii. 4.
Q. 2. What is God? John iv. 24.
Q. 3. Why do the Scriptures ascribe bodily members and organs unto God?
A. It is an accommodation to our weakness, to express those perfections and acts, of which those bodily parts are known emblems: as hands, of power; and eyes and ears, of knowledge. Q. 4. How is God distinguished, in Scripture, from idols? 1 Thes. i. 9. latter part.
Q. 5. What are some of the attributes of God? Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7.
Q. 6. Are the divine attributes really distinct from God himself, or separable one from another? A. Certainly not; such ideas would be inconsistent with the infinite perfection of the divine nature.
Q. 7. How are the attributes of God commonly divided ? A. The most commonly received division is, into Communicable and Incommunicable.
Q. 8. What are the Communicable attributes? A. Those of which some resemblance may be found in creatures ; as wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, truth.
Q. 9. What are the Incommunicable attributes? A. Those, of which there is no resemblance in the creature ; as Independence, Infinity, Eternity, Unchangeableness.

From the section on the Form of Government, another sample extract pertaining to ruling elders is given:

Q. 1. What is the office of the Ruling Elder? 1 Tim. v. 17.
Q. 2. By whom are Ruling Elders to be chosen?
Q. 3. How is this office designated in Scripture? 1 Cor. xii. 28. 1 Tim. v. 17.
Q. 4. How are they distinguished from Pastors? 1 Tim. v. 17.
Q. 5. While inferior in rank to Ministers of the word, have they an equal vote in the Judicatories of the Church ? A. Yes.
Q. 6. What are the duties of this office? A. Excepting the administration of the word, and sacraments, they are the same as those of the pastoral office. Heb. xiii. 17. James v. 14.
Q. 7. By what arguments does it appear that this office ought to be maintained in the Church? A. 1. Christian Churches were formed after the the model of the Jewish Synagogue, in which there was a class of officers of this kind. 2. It appears from a careful examination of Rom. xii. 6—8. 1 Cor. xii. 28, and other passages already referred to, that there was such a class of men in the Churches organized by the Apostles. 3. The early history of the Church; and 4. The necessity of the case.

Appended to this exposition of the standards of the Presbyterian Church is Ashbel Green’s Questions and Counsel for Young Converts. Altogether, Weed’s work is a valuable 19th century compendium of information about what the Presbyterian Church believes and how it is to be governed. Download it here for your own edification, study and reference.

Ashbel Green's Commentary on the Westminster Shorter Catechism is on the LCP Website

If I asked you for a list of commentaries on the Westminster Shorter Catechism, chances are th two volume set by Ashbel Green wouldn't be on it. But you can find it here, written for the youth of his day. He also published a history of Presbyterian mission work during the 19th century, and a variety of sermons and addresses. These can be found on the Log College Press website, so spend some time browsing what we've collected.