“An Election Sermon”
by Simeon Howard (May 31, 1780)

The Rev. Simeon Howard (1733-1804; Harvard, class of 1758) succeeded the well-known patriot-preacher, Jonathan Mayhew, as Pastor of West Church (Congregationalist) in Boston. Howard delivered this sermon to the Council of Massachusetts Bay on May 31, 1780. A few months later, the Council elected John Hancock as its first governor.

This sermon (with Ex. 18:21 as its text) began by affirming, “Almighty God, who governs the world, generally carries on the designs of his government by the instrumentality of subordinate agents.” Howard viewed the 18th chapter of Exodus as having a general equity for political application. Although every detail of the Jewish Republic might not be followed, certain transcultural principles held for many societies.

Among those were that leaders were confirmed by popular election. One will find few interpretations supporting election by franchise from this passage that predate the Reformation. However, one senses that Howard’s audience, by this time, had accepted that as a given. Jethro, thus, is viewed as giving Moses the counsel to form a distributed government, with dispersed power. Leadership was to be delegated to qualified leaders, who would rule representatively.

Howard’s outline from this well-worn chapter was as follows:

1. The necessity of civil government to the happiness of mankind.
2. The right of the people to choose their own rulers.
3. The business of rulers in general.

Under the first heading, Howard observed that humans tend toward social organization. While natural liberty is important, the fact of sin also calls for objective restraint. If government is absent, sin is rampant. He advised: “controversies shall be determined, not by the parties concerned, but by disinterested judges, and according to established rules; that their determinations shall be enforced by the joint power of the whole community, either in punishing the injurious or protecting the innocent. Man is not to be trusted with his unbounded love of liberty, unless it is under some other restraint than what arises from his own reason or the law of God—these, in many instances, would make but a feeble resistance to his lust or avarice; and he would pursue his liberty to the destruction of his fellow-creatures, if he was not restrained by human laws and punishment.”

Concerning, secondly, the right of people to elect their own leaders, this pastor first denied any hereditary right to office. Next, with great clarity, he denied that other countries had the right to impose leaders on another state.

Nor has one state or kingdom a right to appoint rulers for another. This would infer such a natural inequality in mankind as is inconsistent with the equal freedom of all. One state may, indeed, by virtue of its superior power, assume this right, and the weaker state may be obliged to submit to it for want of power to resist. But it is an unjust encroachment upon their liberty, which they ought to get rid of as soon as they can. It is a mark of tyranny on one side, and of inglorious slavery on the other.

The magistrate is properly the trustee of the people. He can have no just power but what he receives from them. To them he ought to be accountable for the use he makes of this power.

If citizens did not have the right and opportunity to elect their own leaders, they were slaves. And under the third heading, rulers were chosen to act on behalf of the people who elected them—not for their own or for foreign interests.

The bulk of the sermon expands on what qualifications should be sought in rulers—a litmus test that applies to every society. Rulers were to be able, clear-headed, and proven for their reasoning ability. They were also to be men “of courage, of firmness and resolution of mind.” Citizens should be looking for “men capable of enduring the burden and fatigue of government—men that have not broken or debilitated their bodies or minds by the effeminating pleasures of luxury, intemperance, or dissipation. The supreme government of a people is always a burden of great weight, though more difficult at some times than others. It cannot be managed well without great diligence and application.”

Moreover, living faith was considered a requisite for good political leadership. Howard preached: “It is of great importance that civil rulers be possessed of this principle. It must be obvious to all that a practical regard to the rules of social virtue is necessary to the character of a good magistrate. Without this a man is unworthy of any trust or confidence. But no principle so effectually promotes and establishes this regard to virtue as the fear of God.”  He wisely queried:

Will he sacrifice everything dear in this life in the cause of virtue, when he has no expectation of any reward for it beyond the grave? Will he deny himself a present gratification, without any prospect of being repaid either here or hereafter? Will he expose himself to reproach, poverty, and death, for the sake of doing good to mankind, without any regard to God as the rewarder of virtue or punisher of vice?

The fear of God, this and most other preachers thought, “is the most effectual and the only sure support of virtue in the world.” Men invested with civil powers are not,” Howard preached “less, but generally much more, exposed to temptations to violate their duty than other men. They have more frequent opportunities of committing injuries, and may do it with less fear of present punishment; and therefore stand in need of every possible restraint to keep them from abusing their power by deviating into the paths of vice.” Religion in general and the fear of God in particular played a crucial role in earlier political arena.

Rulers were also to be men of truth; their integrity would be the guarantors of treaties. They were also to hate covetousness or eschew greed and self-interest. Citizens should look for and support a “ruler who hates covetousness will conduct in a very different manner. He will never oppress or wrong the community; the public interest will be always safe in his hands; he will freely expend his time and his estate in discharging the duties of his office for the good of his country; he will be ever ready to promote good laws, though they deprive him of opportunities of making gain, and involve him in expense.”

Keeping with the typical homiletical practice of the day, the final third of the sermon is given over to application or ‘improvement.’ One choice morsel will hopefully interest the reader in accessing the entire sermon:

The people’s appointing their own rulers will be no security for their good government and happiness if they pay no regard to the character of the men they appoint. A dunce or a knave, a profligate or an avaricious worldliness, will not make a good magistrate because he is elected by the people. To make this right of advantage to the community, due attention must be paid to the abilities and moral character of the candidate.

In this sermon from Exodus, Howard even weighed in on specific economic policies, calling for repayment of debts, decrying devaluation of paper currency (“surely is an evil that ought speedily to be redressed; and, if it be possible, compensation should be made to the sufferers by those who have grown rich by this iniquity.”), and cautioning against tax rates that were too high. He further warned against opulence and reminded the civil governors of their need to support true religion.

If Howard is right, the general qualifications for rulers might be a topic to consider again.

This sermon is available online at: http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/howard.html. It also appears in my 2012 Election Sermons (http://www.amazon.com/Election-Sermons-David-W-Hall-ebook/dp/B0077B2RLK/ref=la_B001HPPL7E_1_27?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460059736&sr=1-27&refinements=p_82%3AB001HPPL7E).

By Dr. David W. Hall, Pastor
Midway Presbyterian Church

Does Doctrine Divide While Mission Unites?

This was the sentiment when the schism of 1837 between the Old School and New School Presbyterians was  healed in the days following May 20, 1869.  Doctrine had divided the Presbyterian church but it was not insignificant doctrines.  It is what made the Presbyterian Church what it was, namely, a biblical, Reformed church according to its subordinate standards, the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms.  The Old School, led by Princeton Theological Seminary men, held to it, while the New School Presbyterians, led by men like Albert Barnes and Charles Finney, wanted to weaken it.  (We will see all of the issues in an upcoming devotional on the schism on June 5)  But for this day, we look at the first day of the General Assembly in 1869 when there was talk of and actions of reunion.  Why did this change take place?

The pivotal reason was that a terrible Civil War had taken place in the land which consumed their attention and placed concerns for doctrine to shift to secondary place.  Ministers and churches of both Old School and New School Presbyterians were now united in political issues as it had to do with the support of the Federal government.  Slavery concerns were now a dead issue in that the war had brought  freedom for blacks.  Reconstruction was now the matter on the front burner, and both Old School and New School pretty much agreed on that.

It can also be said that the New School had become more conservative in their theology.  They had departed from the Plan of Union with the Congregationalist churches.  The New England theology which denied of certain fundamental doctrines was, for the most part, no longer an issue in their ranks.  In other words, if there was any problem with the Confessional Standards, it wasn’t an open one.  Many of the men and churches who had fought the earlier issues had passed to their heavenly reward, so they were not in the church any longer. Other men were filling their pulpits and positions.

With the opening of this Assembly, the presbyters voted to send the reunion plans down to the Presbyteries.  In the intervening months, 113 Old School presbyteries approved it, with 126 out of 129 New School presbyteries approving the reunion plans as well.  Only fifty–two ministers of the Old School Presbyterians protested, led again by Princeton Seminary men, like Charles Hodge.

At the next General Assembly in Pittsburgh in 1870, after the required number of presbyteries had passed it,  there was a symbolic march of delegates from each assembly to a certain street in that city, where joining forces, arm in arm, they marched in tandem to Third Presbyterian Church for a mass meeting.  A broadening church had begun in the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.  Mission and how to serve the masses via ecumenical means, became the watchword for the church.  It would be only a question of time when Reformed conservatives would begin to not recognize the church of their spiritual fathers.

Words to Live By: Many of us are in everyday life led into dozens of compromise situations which are necessary to simply get along with others.  But when that compromise involves fundamental doctrines which weaken our Christian faith, then there is a call to stand up and be counted and hold firm to the faith once delivered unto the saints.  Are you boldly standing for the historic Christian faith?

There was No Ecclesiology 101 on How to Begin a Denomination

There wasn’t a manual on denomination beginnings. No teaching elder had ever taken seminary courses on it. No one on the steering committee had any experience in the process.  It was entirely new to everyone, and yet it was something which had to be done.

Much like the northern Presbyterian church, the seeds of apostasy had entered the Presbyterian Church in the United States in the nineteen thirties of the twentieth century.  It was very small then, most often in the sense of shame of some of the language in the Confessional Standards.  But then there came a decided effort to capture the Southern Presbyterian Church for the liberal agenda, led as usual by the seminaries of the church.  Members would return from, for example, a war, and find that they no longer recognized the church of their fathers.  Principles and practices began to be printed in the denominational agencies which were contrary to the essentials of the Presbyterian faith.   And, like the Northern Presbyterian church experience, various conservative individuals and churches began to organize committees outside the church which would accomplish the work of the church.  So we read of the Southern  Presbyterian Journal, Concerned Presbyterians, The Presbyterian Evangelistic Fellowship, and Presbyterian Churchmen United.  These organizations, and the joint meetings they held, galvanized the conservatives of the Southern Presbyterian church.  Eventually all of these joined forces and established a Steering Committee for a Continuing Presbyterian Church.  Separation from unbelief would be demanded of them.

It was on May 19, 1973 in Atlanta, Georgia in the sanctuary of Westminster Presbyterian Church that 450 ruling elders from 261 churches representing 70,800 members joined together in a convocation of presbyters or Sessions.  They listened to stirring messages.  They viewed slide presentations which shared the kinds of churches and ministries which would be a part of any continuing church.  They reaffirmed their commitment to the Scriptures, the Reformed faith, and the Great Commission.  And when the pivotal time came for a vote as to whether to proceed ahead and actually begin a new denomination separate from the Presbyterian Church in the United States, the convocation voted 349 – 16.  Yet at the same time, they let it be clearly understood that there was love and respect toward any of their number, or within the church as a whole, who did not believe they should withdraw at this time.  It would be seven more months that such a new denomination became a reality, but this was one of the important beginnings of what became known eventually as the Presbyterian Church in America.  And this beginning came primarily from the ruling elders of the church.

Words to Live By:
Pray much for your ruling elder in the congregation of which you are a part.  They are men just like you who sit in the pews.  They have their fears and foibles just like you.  Yet God has called them to be overseers of the flock, to pastor the flock of God whom the Son has redeemed with His own blood.  Therefore, submit to them in the Lord, support them in the work, and be an encouragement to them in their work of shepherding the people of God.  They are a vital part of the church. Pray too that more ruling elders would be able to serve as commissioners at General Assembly.

The Bishop of All Beyond
by Rev. David T. Myers

Our title is most curious indeed. And yet Shelton Jackson was rightly given this nickname, to indicate that he in his long ministry of missionary service and after at least a million miles of travel, was indeed a true spiritual overseer for the Lord Jesus, in accord with biblical Presbyterianism. Long time readers of these posts will remember this present author wrote on him in our first year of posting Presbyterian persons, places, and events on this same date in 2012. And yet there is so much more information that we now wish to write another post about him.

Born on September 18, 1834 in Mohawk Valley, New York, this Princeton Seminary graduate of 1858 was ordained one year later by the Presbyterian Church, marrying his wife Mary Vorhees that same year. At first, they thought that foreign missionary service was their calling, but the Presbyterian Board for Foreign Missions turned them down due to his physical shortcomings, including his five foot height. He was instead directed to serve stateside. Even here, Jackson’s first call to ministry, among the Choctaw Indians in the Oklahoma Territory, was curtailed for exactly that reason, poor health. But over time, he so prevailed that the record of his service for the Savior was rendered with such great spiritual success that physical constraints are all but missing in the record.

Based in Denver, Colorado, Jackson became the Presbyterian mission superintendent for … get this readers … for Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Utah Territory, Arizona Territory, and New Mexico Territory. Oh yes, we add Minnesota too. Using the printed page, he was the editor of the Rocky Mountain Presbyterian, a denominational newspaper. He would use the great westward expansion of the Union Pacific railroad to wins souls to Christ and begin mission churches in all the towns to which that railroad would go. How does the number eight hundred plus congregations stack up in your sanctified thinking as to the success of his church planting work! And many of these churches still exist!

A friend once said of him that he would not hesitate if he thought he could save an old-hardened sinner, to mount a locomotive and let fly a Gospel message at a group by the wayside while going at a speed of forty miles an hour!

Of course, his greatest work of church building and service came up in the new territory of Alaska, of which we wrote extensively in our first post back on September 18, 2012. You can read it there, to add to your thanksgiving to God for the spiritual gifts given to this man by the Holy Spirit.

Words to Live By:
It was said that his Christian parents dedicated him to God at the age of four. Does not this spiritual act of setting him aside for God explain to us the wide opportunities for God’s service in his life? Let us as Christian parents train up our children in the way they should go. (Proverbs 22:6)

In Sheldon Jackson’s life, he set his heart and mind from his earliest days to be a servant of the Lord Jesus. Let us pray that our covenant children would follow his example as we live and instruct them in the worship and work of the Gospel.

A Presbyterian Synod Stands for American Liberty
by Rev. David T. Myers

In the past four years of this web magazine, the authors have made use of the many manuscripts on line on the History of the Presbyterian Church. Today’s post is no different, as we turn to the History of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, by Ezra Gillett, found on line. (Vol 1, pp 169 – 173)

The date is 1775. Just four weeks after the first bloodshed in the Revolutionary War at Lexington, Massachusetts, a Presbyterian regional meeting met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on this day, May 17, 1775. The American congress has gathered in the same city one week before this Synod meeting. The citizens of the city were talking about the approaching conflict on the streets of Philadelphia and in their meeting houses. So it was a pivotal time for these biblical and Presbyterian elders to meet in this regional meeting.

Present were twenty-four teaching elders and five ruling elders, representing nine presbyteries. The majority of the presbyteries didn’t sent any representatives to the meeting. Yet the smallness of their number was compensated by the vigor of their spirit. It was summed up by Gillett that they “calmly attended to their proper business and when the fitting time arrived, they gave appropriate expression to their patriotic sympathies and religious conviction on the subject of colonial rights.”

Present were some names which long time readers will recognize, like the Rev. John Witherspoon, Dr. John Rodgers, and the Rev. James Caldwell. We have written posts on all these Presbyterian ministers.

The primary action of this Synod is what concerns us here. They, in the words of Ezra Gillett, “appointed a day of solemn fasting, humiliation, and prayer to be carefully and religiously observed by the congregations of the Presbyterian church.” The motion was adopted and Witherspoon, Rodgers, and Caldwell were appointed to draw it up. Gillett says that “it bore throughout the stamp of their deep feeling and patriotic as well as religious zeal.” Such a call to this day underscored “the great truths of God’s sovereignty and providence, and personal duty in relation to the claims of gospel repentance, fasting, and obedience.” Five hundred copies were printed for all the Presbyterian congregations.

Gillett sums up that the Presbyterian church by the act of this “General Synod took its stand at Philadelphia by the side of the American Congress, then in session and its influence was felt in a most decisive manner through out the Church.”

Words to Live By:
At any critical time in our nation’s existence, such a call is needed for God to reveal Himself by divine providence in giving us His will in the situation at hand. For example, we Reformed and Presbyterian Christians need to pray corporately and individually for the election soon upon us. We need to pray for righteousness to exalt our nation and for our citizens to recognize that sin is a disgrace to any people. (Proverbs 14:34 NASB) We need to pray for revival in our Presbyterian churches and a spiritual awakening in the nation. Reader, will you pray for these in your personal devotions, your family devotions, and in your church family? Each of these petitions are needed . . . right now!