“I look back on that whole part of my early history with entire disapprobation and deep regret. On two points I totally disapprove my own conduct. In the first place, I was wrong in suffering myself to be so warmly and actively en­gaged in Politics as I was during that period. For though ministers have the rights and duties of citizens, and, probably, in most cases, ought to exercise the right of voting at elections; yet when party politics run high, and when their appearing at the polls cannot take place without exciting strong feelings on the part of many against them; and when their ministry among all such persons will be therefore much less likely to be useful, I cannot think that their giving their votes can have an importance equivalent to the injury it is likely to do. I think I was wrong in talking, and acting, and rendering my­self so conspicuous as a politician, as I did. I fear I did an amount of injury to my ministry, which could by no means have been counterbalanced by my usefulness as a politician.”—Rev. Dr. Samuel Miller.

It was on this day, December 7th, in 1800 that the Rev. Samuel Miller penned the following letter which explains some of his concerns about mixing politics and the Christian religion. Rev. Miller was still about a dozen years away from accepting his post as professor at the newly formed Princeton Theological Seminary. The portrait of him on the right dates to about the time he began at Princeton. The following account is drawn from volume one of the biography of Dr. Samuel Miller. The explanatory comments are those of his his son, Samuel Miller, Jr., who served as his biographer:—

The letter from which the following extract is taken was addressed to the Rev. Mr. Gemmil, of New Haven.

New York, December 7, 1800.

My dear Sir,

Your kind letter by Mr. Broome came duly to hand. I will endeavor to answer it as explicitly as I can. Few things have given me greater mortification and shame, than the use which has been and continues to be made of religion, in the present electioneering struggle for President of the United States. That mere politicians, who despise religion, should thus convert it into an engine of party, is not strange; but that men professing to love it, and especially its ministers, who ought to be its wise, prudent and wary defenders, should con­sent to do the same, is to me strange.. If I do not totally mistake, they are acting a part, calculated to degrade religion, to bring its ministers into contempt, and to excite in the minds of thoughtful and observing men a suspicion that, even in America, the idea of ecclesiastical encroachment and usurpation is not wholly destitute of foundation. I am mortified—I am humbled at the scenes which have passed and are passing be­fore me.

I profess to be a Christian. I wish all men were Christians. We should have more private, social and political happiness. But what then? Because Mr. Jefferson is suspected of Deism, are we to raise a hue and cry against him, as if he ought to be instantly deprived of his rights of citizenship? If he be an in­fidel, I lament it for two reasons: from a concern for his own personal salvation, and that a religion, which is so much spoken against, does not receive his countenance and aid. But not­withstanding this, I think myself perfectly consistent in saying that I had much rather have Mr. Jefferson President of the United States, than an aristocratic Christian.

But what are we to think of the consistency of the federal party? I hear men, whom I know to despise religion, bellow­ing against the republican candidate for his supposed want of it. And I hear on the other hand, Christian ministers inveigh­ing against one for infidelity, and ready to embrace another, and straining every nerve to exalt him, when his religion is equally questionable; nay, making no objection to men openly and infamously immoral. Can charity itself believe that re­ligion is the sole motive in this ease?

In explanation of the last foregoing paragraph, and as some palliation, too, of Mr. Miller’s adherence to the cause of Jefferson, it may be added, that the candidate of the Federalists for the Vice-presidency—Charles Cotesworth Pinckney—was currently charged by his opponents with infidelity and immorality.

Long afterwards Dr. Miller wrote,

There was a time, (from the year 1800, to 1809, or 1810,) when I was a warm partisan in favor of Mr. Jefferson’s polities and administration as President. Before his death, I lost all confidence in him as a genuine patriot, or even as an honest man. And after the publication of his posthumous writings, in 1829, my respect for him was exchanged for contempt and abhorrence. I now believe Mr. Jefferson to have been one of the meanest and basest of men. His own writings evince a hypocrisy, a selfishness, an artful, intriguing, underhand spirit, a contemptible envy of better men than himself, a blasphemous impiety, and a moral profligacy, which no fair, mind, to say nothing of piety, can contemplate without abhorence. 

I am so far from having any grounds of personal animosity against Mr. Jefferson, that the contrary is the case. While I sided with him in politics, he was remarkably polite and atten­tive to me; wrote me a number of respectful letters; (one of which is published in his posthumous writings;) and said and did many things adapted to conciliate my personal feelings. Nor did anything personal ever occur to change those feel­ings.

I renounce, and wish unsaid and unwritten, everything that I ever said or wrote in his favor.                                                      
Sam’l Miller
Princeton, June, 1830.

Still later, Dr. Miller, as if very intent upon leaving his matured opinions upon this whole subject on record, wrote again,

I look back on that whole part of my early history with entire disapprobation and deep regret. On two points I totally disapprove my own conduct. In the first place, I was wrong in suffering myself to be so warmly and actively en­gaged in Politics as I was during that period. For though ministers have the rights and duties of citizens, and, probably, in most cases, ought to exercise the right of voting at elections; yet when party politics run high, and when their appearing at the polls cannot take place without exciting strong feelings on the part of many against them; and when their ministry among all such persons will be therefore much less likely to be useful, I cannot think that their giving their votes can have an importance equivalent to the injury it is likely to do. I think I was wrong in talking, and acting, and rendering my­self so conspicuous as a politician, as I did. I fear I did an amount of injury to my ministry, which could by no means have been counterbalanced by my usefulness as a politician.

But I was, if possible, still more wrong in pleading with so much zeal the cause of Mr. Jefferson. I thought, even then, that he was an infidel; but I supposed that he was an honest, truly republican, patriotic infidel. But I now think that he was a selfish, insidious, and hollow-hearted infidel; that he had little judgment and no moral principle; that he was a hypocritical demagogue; and that his partisans rated his patriotism far higher than was just. I have long thought that his four volumes of posthumous works disclose a degree of meanness, malignity and hypocrisy, of which the friends of his memory have reason to be ashamed. The tradition is, that Mr. Jefferson himself, with minute care and absolute authority, selected all the parts of that publication, and left nothing to the discretion of his grandson, the editor. If it was so, his worst enemies could hardly have made a selection more un­friendly to his memory.

True, I am now, as I was then, a sincere and honest Repub­lican. But I totally mistook the real character of the leader of the nominal Republicans, who triumphed in the country at that time. I was gulled by hollow, hypocritical pretences, and did all I could to honor and elevate men, whom I now believe to have been unworthy of public confidence.

This language in regard to Mr, Jefferson may, to some persons, seem, if not wholly unjust, at least too strong and objurgatory. It would not have been here inserted, however, without the deepest conviction, after careful ex­amination, that every charge might be fully sustained. Mr. Jefferson had resided in Paris more than five years, the last four of them as our minister plenipotentiary; and returned to the United States in the Autumn of 1789, blindly enamored of Jacobinism, his head full of the worst French revolu­tionary ideas. (1.) He was not only an infidel, but a bitter, blaspheming in­fidel. (2.) He was a gross flatterer of the people—an unscrupulous dema­gogue past redemption. (3.) he was an apologist for insurrection and rebel­lion, and not in their more dignified form of secession, but in the vulgar shape of sedition and riot. (4.) As President, he was the originator of the incal­culably mischievous doctrine, that, public offices are the rightful “spoils” of a victorious party; and (5.) of the “policy” of vituperating a co-ordinate branch of the government, (the judiciary in this ease,) which was not subservient to his will. (0.) He was father of the doctrine of the repudiation of public debts. (7.) He was an insidious enemy and accuser of General Washington, at the very time when professing for him the sincerest regard. (8.) He was a high priest of that political creed, which justifies the means by the end, counting truth as secondary to the safe and plausible disparagement of personal and party opponents. (9.) In fine, his undoubted talents and acquirements only aggravated the littleness, meanness, insincerity, dishonesty, and malignity, which ought to consign his memory to everlasting shame and contempt. The evidence of all this is found, chiefly, in his own memoirs, letters, and memo­randa, carefully preserved by himself, and published posthumously, but doubt­less by his direction. He had fallen to that pitch of moral depravation, in which men lose their delicate sense of the difference between right and wrong; boast of their obliquities as praiseworthy; of their low cunning, as deserving the repute of sagacity and statesmanship; and treasure up against themselves, as honorable distinctions, the clear proofs of their debasement.

Words to Live By:
“A sobering article about President Thomas Jefferson. It should remind us, in this year 2016, when people were said to be holding their noses voting for either candidate, that “there’s nothing new under the sun.” We must seek God’s mercy, and pray for those who rule over us–political and ecclesiastical–and for ourselves and our Republic.”—David E Crocker, Ch, LtCol, USAF Ret.

A Preacher’s “Kid” Serves Congress as Chaplain
by Rev. David T. Myers

Ralph Randolph Gurley did not  have a prayer, as the expression goes, in  not being a minister of the gospel. His father was a Congregationalist minister. His mother was the daughter of a minister. So he had two examples at home about the call to minister spiritual truth to others.

Born in Lebanon, Connecticut in 1797, he attended Yale College and graduated from it in 1818. Moving to our nation’s capitol, he was licensed to preach by the Baltimore Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church. He was never called to a congregation however. And he never went the next step to become an ordained minister in the Presbyterian church. But this lack of recognition didn’t hinder him from ministering to the poor in Washington D.C., nor serving his fellow-man in the political areas.

On two occasions, he was elected on December 6 in 1830 and on December 6 in 1847 to the Chaplain’s office of the House of Representatives in the mid-1800’s. He was preceded and followed by Presbyterian chaplains.  But his main ministry was as an agent of the American Colonization Society, which sought to provide free passage of free slaves to what is now Liberia, Africa. In fact, he was the one who named this West African nation, Liberia.

Recognize that this ministry with this organization which was founded in 1816 was far before the Civil War. Ralph Gurley traveled all through the states, including the Southern states, and three times to West Africa, seeking to reverse the slave trade and send free blacks back to Africa  It has limited success, even after the Civil War.  We will look at its organization on December 21. (See there)

Words to live by:  We would say today that Ralph Randolph Gurley had both a called position and a para-church ministry.  The called position was to the state representatives elected to the House of Representatives. It certainly had the potential to lead these politicians into the ways of the Lord. But he also had a calling in a social field to reverse the terrible scourge of slavery on our country. He diligently labored most of his life in that field as well. Any one, much less ministers of the gospel, who feel called to a particular ministry needs to not “let the grass grow under their feet” in engaging in it with all their  heart, as none of us know much time we will have on this earth.  So let us buy up every opportunity to do good for others, to say nothing of God, knowing that one day we will give a report to our Chief Shepherd, the Lord Jesus, of all our activities on the earth and in the church.

“To God’s Glory” : A Practical Study of a Doctrine of the Westminster Standards.
by Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn

THE SUBJECT : A Biblical View of Sin.

THE BIBLE VERSES TO READ : I John 3:4; Rom. 14:14; Gal. 3:10; Psalm 32:5; II Tim. 2:19; Isa. 53:6; Rom. 3:23; James 4:17; Eph. 4:18.

REFERENCE TO THE STANDARDS : Confession : VI; Larger Catechism : Q. 21-29; Shorter Catechism : Q. 13-19.

There is a low view of sin affecting the evangelical world today. In too many cases the sins of the unregenerate world are approved and adopted. Often evangelicals are found using as their examples those who are not only in the world but are of the world. The vileness of sin is not proclaimed.

If there is a message needed today it is the message : Sin is not a joking matter! A Biblical view of sin is needed today to meet the onslaught of the devil and his cohorts. And a Biblical view of sin is a view that is not at all dim. Nor is it a view that allows a believer to treat it lightly.

We have been taught, many of us, from early childhood the definition of sin : “Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.” (Shorter Catechism, Q. 14). We have been taught that the Bible alone must determine what is sinful. And yet many times we find in evangelical circles a low view of sin. Often a humorous approach toward it is even used in the pulpit. Especially among leaders of the youth is this done. Whether it is done to attract attention, or to be “one of the crowd,” or to be popular and draw crowds, it is still wrong. It is not a Biblical view of sin; it is in opposition to Philippians 4:8-9.

A grave, solid, and weighty doctrine does not allow for levity in regard to the doctrine of sin. Rather, the Psalmist states, “Ye that love the Lord, hate evil.” (Ps. 97:10). There should be a deep hatred of sin on the part of the believer, whether he is in the pulpit or the pew. A Biblical view of sin calls for Biblical war against sin in any form!

If there is one result to a low view of sin it is that of carnality. Certain sins become easy to tolerate in our lives. It becomes more important to present a Gospel of fun instead of a Gospel that has a Holy God and His glory at its center. It is time that we come back to a high view of the Church and a high view of the presentation of God’s Word. When that happens we will be much more prone to view sin as sin against a Holy God.

The Bible tells us that we are to put aside any sort of sin from us. The Bible tells us that sin is evil, yet it is a transgression against the law of the Holy God. And yet too many times we persist in dealing with sin lightly. How can we be certain that we will have a Biblical doctrine of sin in the days to come? Let us list some principles that will guide us in this holy calling.

1. Let us be certain we understand that a Sovereign God saved us and that we dare not think in any way there was anything in us to deserve salvation.

2. Let us be certain our relationship with Christ was begun in a Biblical way. Too many times “easy believism” is our trouble. Did we come to the Christ of the Scriptures with a recognition of His holy law, of our own polluted sinfulness, and of the terrible guilt of sin under which we were buried and which made us sorrowful?

3. Let us be certain we recognize the power of sin (Jer. 17:9) and that it can rule over us in devious ways. Too many times we mistake participation in the “proper” things of this life as good, when in reality they are the works of the flesh. Sin, with its devious power, thus wins another victory.

4. Let us be certain we stay very close to our Lord, even Jesus Christ. There is no better treatment for the disease of careless living than a long and deep drink from the well of Christ. The closer we stay to Him and His Word, the more we will separate ourselves from this “present world” (II Tim. 4:10). The carnal wisdom, acceptance, reasoning, prejudice, affections, etc., of the world are sin before a holy God.

5. Let us be certain we hide His Word in our hearts. David said, “Through Thy precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way.” (Ps. 119: 104). This will cause us to forsake sin in every form in our lives.

6. Let us be certain we guard our thoughts (II Cor. 10:5), our words (Ps. 34:13), our actions (Titus 3:8), so that we might not sin against a Holy God.

Certainly, there are many more principles that could be cited. But if we would concentrate on these principles in our lives our view of sin would be Biblical. That is, we would look upon it as vile and offensive to a Holy God. It is no joking matter!

December 3, 1870, and You Are There.

A nice review in a newspaper of the time, covering an ordination in a Presbyterian church, not quite one hundred fifty years ago. Things haven’t changed much, though apparently on this occasion the Rev. Witherspoon brought both the charge to the pastor and the charge to the congregation. Today we would typically have one elder (usually a teaching elder) bring the charge to the pastor, and another elder (teaching or ruling) bring the charge to the congregation.

The Petersburg Index, Petersburg, Virginia, December 3, 1870

INSTALLATION OF REV RICHARD MCILWAINE

The installation of this talented young minister, (so well known in Petersburg) as pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Lynchburg, took place on Thursday night and was witnessed by a large congregation. The Virginian says of the ceremony.

The sermon was preached by Rev. W. W. Houston, of Salem, on the text “One Faith;” It’s object being to show that amid all the differences of Christian sects there is a oneness of faith.  This was illustrated by the fact that all Christians agree in that faith that has but one object, one fruit or result, and one issue.  It was a very solemn appeal and was listened to with close attention.

After sermon Mr. Houston propounded the questions that are required by the Form of Government, which being answered in the affirmative, the relation was declared as regularly instituted.

After this, Rev. Dr. [Thomas Dwight] Witherspoon delivered a most solemn charge to the Pastor, urging him to appreciate his work-to preach Christ – to be faithful to all his charge, and to cultivate spirituality in all his efforts.

After this, the Dr. proceeded to charge the people, first to love their pastor, then to care for his spiritual welfare, then to pray for him, and uphold him in every possible way as co-laborers in the great work of the ministry.  This charge was closed with an allusion to his visit here at the beginning of the war, when so many that received him so cordially, are now missed from the church on earth.  His allusion to these things melted the church to tears.

The whole services were then closed with prayer and the singing of a hymn, when many of the church came forward and gave a cordial welcome to their new pastor.

Words to Live By:
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17, ESV)