The late Rev. George P. Hutchinson wrote a very readable history of Presbyterianism in the United States, under the title of THE HISTORY BEHIND THE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, EVANGELICAL SYNOD. That book is available to our readers courtesy of the PCA Historical Center. For our post today, we want to excerpt a small portion from Rev. Hutchinson’s book, here telling of how the Reformed Presbytery was organized on this day in 1774, and how later the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church came into existence in 1782 :—

The Reformed Presbytery of Scotland did, however, send in 1751 the Rev. John Cuthbertson, who ministered in America for 40 years until his death in 1791. On Cuthbertson’s first Sabbath in America he lectured on the passage in Luke (6:22-31) which begins, ‘Take no thought for your life,’ and ends, ‘But rather seek ye the kingdom of God.’ The words symbolized a ministry full of faith, labor, and sacrifice. Cuthbertson made his headquarters at Middle Octorara from which he served the Societies scattered throughout the Colonies. His travels and ministry are recorded in the diary which includes entries in both English and Latin. Perhaps the most familiar entries in the diary are: ‘Fessus, fessus valde—tired, very tired,’ and ‘Give all praise to my gracious God.’  Such an attitude of praise was necessary when, for instance, he wrote, after staying overnight with a parishioner: ‘Slept none. Bugs.’ Cuthbertson did much to make the organization of the scattered Societies more formal by ordaining elders and establishing sessions.  He was a hard worker, preaching as many as eleven times in one week and never using the same sermon twice.  Every Sabbath he would explain a Psalm, give a detailed lecture on a passage of Scripture, and preach a more popular sermon on the great themes of the Gospel.  Communion was held once a year among the Societies, and strict discipline was observed with regard to who was allowed to partake.

Cuthbertson sent repeated calls to Scotland for help, but it was not until 1773 that he was joined by Matthew Lind and Alexander Dobbin. On March 9, 1774, these three constituted the first Reformed Presbytery in America. The entry in the frontier preacher’s diary simply reads: ‘After more consultation and prayer, Presbytery.’  However, the first Reformed Presbytery was only destined to last eight years until 1782. In the meantime, the American Revolution!  The Covenanters in America had no more use for George III than their ancestors for Charles II. As Glasgow remarks: ‘To a man the Covenanters were Whigs. An unsound Whig made a poor Covenanter, and a good Covenanter made a loyal Whig.’ On July 2, 1777, Cuthbertson led some of his followers in taking an oath of fidelity to the cause of the Colonies.  In 1782 the three ministers of the Reformed Presbytery, under Cuthbertson’s leadership, joined with the Associate Presbytery to form the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.  Most of the Society People followed their leadership.  As a strict Covenanter later remarked: ‘The great majority of the Covenanters in the North followed their misguided pastor into the union.’

What is the explanation of this union? The position of the Covenanters in Scotland was that Christians should refuse ‘all voluntary subjection for conscience sake’ to the British Crown in protest against a Covenant-breaking government’s right to rule; whereas the Scottish Seceders had maintained that the Christian ought to acknowledge the civil authority of the Crown ‘in lawful commands.’  The Associate Presbytery in America had accordingly opposed the Reformed Presbytery’s position on the American Revolution.  However, now that the Colonies were no longer under the British Crown, the opinions of the American Covenanters and Seceders on the new civil government were in a state of flux, and could be more easily coalesced—especially in a time when the spirit of confederation was in the air.

Another apparent explanation is that the principle of the descending obligation of the Covenants seems to have come into question among some of the early American Covenanters.  This began to occur as early as 1760 according to Findley, an ex-Covenanter who found his way into the Associate Reformed Church.  He further maintains that the Reformed Presbytery agreed in 1774 or 1775 that ‘while the presbytery still continued to hold the covenants, testimonies, and sufferings of Scotland … in respectful remembrance,’ the only terms of communion insisted on by presbytery would be allegiance to the Scriptures and the doctrines of the Westminster Standards as agreeable to the Scriptures.  Cuthbertson himself is purported to have taught the personal rather than the national obligation to the Covenants.

Words to Live By:
An announcement by the one of our regional presbyteries  spoke of the principles and practices of the Peacemaking Institute to be presented in class form to elders and laypeople on a weekend.  Alas, even in the most biblical of churches, men and movements have not always gotten along with one another.  So what  we read here in this post of John Culbertson being on the “outs” with other Covenantal Presbyterians is not at all unusual in church history.  From the book of Acts 15, we read of Barnabas and Paul differing as to whether to take John Mark with them on another missionary journey.  The sad text is Acts 15:39 where we are told “the contention was so sharp between them (Barnabas and Paul), that they departed asunder one from the other. . . .” (KJV) Yet from this seeming disappointment, the Lord overruled and now two missionary teams went out to the watching world.  Later Paul would confess that John Mark was beneficial to him.  So all of God’s people need to be patient with one another, especially they who are teaching and ruling elders, study the blessing  of mutual peace on the witness to the watching world, and do the  work in union with God’s people, when we will be strengthened by one another’s spiritual gifts in the visible church. 

The Remarkable Trance of William Tennent
by Rev. David T. Myers

The third son of the Rev. William Tennent, best known for starting the Log College, was William Tennent, Jr. Born in Ireland in 1705, he, along with the other members of his parent’s family, came to America where the father began a Presbyterian church. Each one of the sons, Gilbert, Charles, William, and John followed their father’s footsteps into the fledgling American Presbyterian church, studying at the famous Log College. As William Tennent Jr began his theological studies under the tutelage of his father and brother Gilbert, the following experience took place. This story is found in a pamphlet located in our PCA History Center, entitled “The Remarkable Trance of Rev. William Tennent” :

“(William) was conversing, one morning, with his brother, in Latin, on the state of his soul, when he fainted and died away. After the usual time he was laid out: and the neighbors were invited to attend the funeral on the next day. In the evening his physician and friend returned from a ride into the country, and was much afflicted at the news of his death. He could not be persuaded that it was certain; and, on being told that one of the persons who had assisted in laying out the body thought he had observed a slight tremor of the flesh under the arm, although the body was cold and stiff, he endeavored to ascertain the fact. He first put his own hand into warm water, to make it as sensitive as possible, and then felt under the arm, near the heart, and affirmed that he felt an unusual warmth, though no one else could. He had the body removed to a warm bed, and insisted that the people who had been invited to the funeral, should be requested not to attend. To this his brother objected as absurd, the eyes being sunk, the lips discolored, and the whole body cold and stiff. However, the doctor finally prevailed, and no hopes were entertained of success except by the doctor, who never left him night nor day.”

The story goes on to state that this went on for three days, when plans again were made to bury his body. The brother, probably Gilbert, felt that it was useless to treat a lifeless corpse, when the following happened.

“At this critical and important moment, the body, to the great astonishment of all present, opened his eyes, gave a dreadful groan, and sank again into apparent death.”

This revival of life and then death experience went on twice more, with the last time “life seem to return with more power, and a complete revival took place, to the great joy of the family and friends, and to the no small astonishment and conviction” of those who had gathered for his funeral.

What was remarkable about the following twelve months of Williams’s life was, while he took about a year to regain his strength, he was totally ignorant of every transaction of his life previous to his sickness. William had to be taught how to read and write, as a child was taught in those days. His knowledge of theology was completely gone, until one day in small degrees, his memory was revived, with a perfect knowledge of the past transactions of his life.

In time, he was asked by his brother and another minister of what he remembered about this experience. He said:

“I found myself in an instant in another state of existence, under the direction of a superior Being, who ordered me to follow him. I was accordingly wafted along, I know not how, till I beheld at a distance an ineffable glory, the impression of which on my mind is impossible to communicate to mortal man. I immediately reflected upon my happy change, and thought ‘well, blessed be God, I am safe at last, notwithstanding all my fears.’ I saw an innumerable host of happy beings surrounding the inexpressible glory, in acts of adoration and joyous worship; but I did not see any bodily shape or representation in the glorious appearance. I heard things unutterable; I heard their songs and hallelujahs of thanksgiving and praise, with unspeakable rapture. I felt joy unutterable and full of glory. I requested permission to join the happy throng, when my conductor tapped me on the shoulder, and said, ‘You must return to the earth.’ This seemed like a sword through my heart. In an instant I recollected seeing my brother standing before me disputing with the doctor.”

Words to Live By:
As you have read this astonishing experience, remember the words of inspired Scripture recounting an earlier and most astonishing experience, as told in 2 Corinthians 12:2 – 4, “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago – whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows – such a man was caught up to the third heaven. And I know how such a man – whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows – was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.”

Words fail this author, and no doubt many of our readers, to correctly interpret what was thus written. The story we have recounted today was reported by the unknown author of this pamphlet as well as by Archibald Alexander in his book on the history of the Log College.

William Tennent Jr himself, went on after this experience to be ordained as a Presbyterian pastor, and became the pastor of the first Presbyterian Church in Freehold New Jersey, serving that congregation for 43 years before his death on this day, March 8, 1777. He was buried under the floor of the church, now called Old Tennent Presbyterian Church.

Nearly one-third of all PCA churches pre-date the 1973 formation of the PCA, and for most of those churches, we do not presently know their exact date of organization. Typically it is the newer churches where we have that information. But of those we do know the calendar date of the church’s organization, so here for this day, March 7th, we take this occasion to praise God for the following congregation, their pastor and staff, and their faithful labors in proclaiming the Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ alone:

Severn Run Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Millersville, Maryland, a member of the PCA”s Chesapeake Presbytery, was organized on March 7, 1993. Rev. Arch Van Devender planted this church, beginning his labors there in 1991, and he remains pastor there at Severn Run. And so on this occasion, we are pleased to reproduce from the Severn Run church’s web site:

A Brief History of the Severn Run Evangelical Presbyterian Church

The Severn Run Evangelical Presbyterian Church began as a work of Jesus Christ using the combined efforts of the Mission To North America [MNA] committee of the Potomac Presbytery, and the Severna Park Evangelical Presbyterian Church. It was originally conceived as an outreach to the Gambrills-Odenton-Millersville community which at the time [1990] was the fastest growing community in the State of Maryland.

A telephone call campaign (“It’s For You!”) was undertaken and successfully completed slightly under 20,000 calls to the local community to inquire if there was interest in a new local church. Many people responded positively and some 200 people ultimately came to our first service on 3 March 1991 from those contacted this way. Some of those are still with us.

Severn Run started out as a “mission church” in the PCA but became a full fledged church, on our second anniversary, March 7, 1993. Arch was called as the first official pastor and was ordained on the Fourth Anniversary of the church, March 5, 1995. After many years in temporary locations, God gave us our current home in Feb. 2000. It was the result of much labor and sacrifice on the part of the congregation and many friends from our sister churches in the area.

Throughout the years the church has earnestly endeavored to serve the Lord by being a place where people can find rest. Our motto, Rest Yourselves Under the Tree, refers to the hospitality offered to our Lord by His servant Abraham in Genesis 18:4. By exhibiting love to strangers, Abraham actually ministered to the Person of His Savior. In the same way Severn Run E.P. Church understands itself as being a community of believers where weary folks who are tired of traveling in a world that offers little hope or encouragement can be refreshed through the caring love shown by God’s people. Within this vision there are many and varied ministries through which the Lord reaches out His hands to those with whom we come in contact. Worship of our Sovereign God is understood as the deepest need for any person and as such is the cornerstone of the church’s hope for bearing fruit to the Kingdom of Christ.

So Severn Run E. P. Church continues to look forward to new ministries to our community and new ways that we can touch the lives of people to help spread the vision of our fellowship even further. We look back with grateful astonishment to what God has done through the history of our church. He has shown Himself faithful to us in all things, sustaining us when we were weak, encouraging us when we were timid, and providing for us when we were needy. He, and He alone, is the reason for our existence, and it is to Him that we look for all that we need in the coming years of our service. To Him, and to Him alone, be all glory, honor and praise, now and forever, world without end. Amen!

Does your church have an anniversary pending in the near future? The PCA Historical Center has some ideas on how your church can observe the occasion, to the glory of our Lord. Click here to read “Celebrating Your Church’s Anniversary.”

STUDIES IN THE WESTMINSTER SHORTER CATECHISM

Q. 67. Which is the sixth commandment?

A. The sixth commandment is, Thou shalt not kill.

Q. 68. What is required in the sixth commandment?

A. The sixth commandment requireth all lawful endeavors to preserve our own life, and the life of others.

Scripture References: Exodus 20:13; Eph. 5:29; Matt. 10:23; Ps. 82:3, 4; Job. 29:13.

Questions:

1. What is the meaning of the word “kill”in this question?

The meaning of the word “kill” is to commit murder. The correct rendering of the Hebrew here is “Thou’ shalt do no murder”. This would mean the unjust taking of life.

2. What does the sixth commandment require in reference to our own lives?

It requires that we use all lawful endeavors to preserve it.

3. What are these lawful endeavors?

The Larger Catechism teaches: that this commandment requires “the just defense thereof against violence; – a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labour, and recreation.” (Q. 135)

4. What does the sixth commandment require in reference to others?

The Larger Catechism teaches: “By resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any.” (Q. 135)

5. What does the commandment mean by “lawful endeavors” toward ourselves and others?

By “lawful endeavors” it means a “sober” use of them as the Larger Catechism states it. We need such things as food, drink, recreation, labor-these are all an important part of human life. We need to be equally careful in our action towards others. In all areas we need to be certain our actions are consistent with the Word of God. Love, as presented in The Word, should be our basis of action.

6. Does this commandment speak only of the body?

No, this commandment is also speaking of the soul. There should be, on our part, a careful avoiding of sin and an equally careful and deli gent use of the means of’ grace.

THE SOBER LIFE

This devotional on the sixth commandment is one that I, as a busy minister of the Gospel, should take to heart even as I write it. And I pray that I, and you, might do so, all to the glory of God. Intemperance on the part of the saved is one of the most flagrant of sins. It seems that the more dedicated the believer is, there is a danger of breaking the sixth commandment by committing an evangelical form of suicide. Let me be very explicit here in what I mean by “an evangelical form of suicide”. There is the terrible temptation, used time and time again by Satan, for the believer in Christ to burn out his life for the Lord in a way that is not consistent with the whole counsel of God. There is actually here a form of self murder.

The born again believer is a person who must realize at all times that he is to be a good steward of what God has given him, realizing that his body is the temple of the Holy Ghost. It is a strange thing but the very believer who would not think of indulging in the gross forms of intemperance will tum right around and indulge in a so-called lesser form. He will not drink intoxicating beverages, but he will try to burn the candle at both ends. He will not attend parties that last far into the night, but he will overeat or try to live without exercising his body, keeping it in shape that he might have the stamina to do what God wants him to do when God wants him to do it. In these areas he is very inconsistent.

The Lord has brought to my mind the past few days that possibly the error here is that the dedicated believer might be looking upon the work of the Lord as an idol, that here we have a form of idolatry. Be assured that I am not advocating slothfulness or laziness in the work of our Lord. I am simply wondering if sometimes we forget the teaching of Titus 2:12, forgetting that the word “soberly” means “a constant reign on passions”. Need it be said that “passions” include our burning desire to serve Him? May God help us to be certain we walk in the Spirit and be sober, sensible in regarding how we spend our time. Looking back, do we take one day out of seven?

Published By: The SHIELD and SWORD, INC.
Dedicated to instruction in the Westminster Standards for use as a bulletin insert or other methods of distribution in Presbyterian churches
The Shield and Sword, Inc.
Vol. 5 No. 1 January, 1966
Leonard T. Van Horn, Editor.

“The Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants” by Elisha Williams (Mar. 30, 1744)

The great grandson of several New England families (John Cotton’s among them), Elisha Williams (1694–1755) graduated from Harvard in 1711. After a brief career of teaching and tutoring in 1722 he became the pastor of a congregational church in Wethersfield, Connecticut, prior to becoming and serving as the Yale rector from 1726-1739. His abilities as a scholar show why Yale was attracted to him, and his acumen shines through in this essay. After 1739, he ended his time at Yale, and some believed he was interested in serving in the Governor’s chair. After his Yale tenure, he served in the Connecticut legislature (1740-1749) and even temporarily as a Connecticut Supreme Court Judge—a pretty uncommon role for a pastor. A year before his death, he served in the Albany Congress with Benjamin Franklin to begin to plan for an American union. This sermon or essay was likely a reaction to a 1742 statute (in a climate of Revivalism) that prohibited pastors from preaching outside of their own pulpit. In what follows, one finds a learned and lucid articulation of the role of government and its interface with religion. Moderns would do well, at least, to be familiar with this.

This message is both one of the earliest and one of the lengthiest of the genre. Delivered a generation prior to military conflicts, this was not a typical sermon (although it is often associated with such because of its overt religious orientation). Williams was attempting to address the challenging relationship of church and state (“the extent of the civil magistrate’s power respecting religion” in his words). Mutually affirming the sole authority of Scripture, while also aware of abuses from an improper union of church and state, Williams set out to defend this proposition: “The more firmly this is established in our minds; the more firm shall we be against all attempts upon our Christian liberty, and better practice that Christian charity towards such as are of different sentiments from us,”

First, he addressed the Origin and End of Civil Government. Williams believed that reason led to certain conclusions (and in this tract he frequently cited “Mr. Lock” as the authority). Among them, humans had a natural freedom defined as: “This natural freedom is not a liberty for every one to do what he pleases without any regard to any law; for a rational creature cannot but be made under a law from its Maker: But it consists in a freedom from any superiour power on earth, and not being under the will or legislative authority of man, and having only the law of nature (or in other words, of its Maker) for his rule.” Flowing from this was the right to property, the right to elect leaders, and also the need for government and constitutions.

Williams’ segue to his second topic is: “Hence then the fountain and original of all civil power is from the people, and is certainly instituted for their sakes; or in other words, which was the second thing proposed, The great end of civil government, is the preservation of their persons, their liberties and estates, or their property.”

The third focal point is: “What liberty or power belonging to man as he is a reasonable creature does every man give up to the civil government whereof he is a member. Some part of their natural liberty they do certainly give up to the government, for the benefit of society and mutual defence (for in a political society every one even an infant has the whole force of the community to protect him), and something therefore is certainly given up to the whole for this purpose.” He identified what is freely given up in order to have good government under two heads: “1st. The power that every one has in a state of nature to do whatever he judgeth fit, for the preservation of his person and property and that of others also, within the permission of the law of nature, he gives up to be regulated by laws made by the society, so far forth as the preservation of himself (his person and property) and the rest of that society shall require.” Secondly, “the power of punishing he wholly gives up, and engages his natural force (which he might before employ in the execution of the law of nature by his own single authority as he thought fit) to assist the executive power of the society as the law thereof shall require.”

Returning to the central question of the government’s duty toward religion, Williams asserted: “Should a government therefore restrain the free use of the scriptures, prohibit men the reading of them, and make it penal to examine and search them; it would be a manifest usurpation upon the common rights of mankind, as much a violation of natural liberty as the attack of a highwayman upon the road can be upon our civil rights.” Nevertheless, there was not to be creedal coercion by the civil governor; each citizen (assumed to be a believer) retained the right of private, independent judgment. Later Williams will deduce that “the civil authority has no power to make or ordain articles of faith, creeds, forms of worship or church government.” To do such would be to establish religion; and these explicit limitations should be allowed to define the originalist meaning of “establishment.” In an extended comment, he sets forth this view:

But here you will say, ‘Tho’ they have no authority to establish a religion of their own devising, yet have they not authority to establish a pure religion drawn out of the sacred scriptures, either by themselves or some synodical assemblies, and oblige their subjects upon (at least) negative penalties to receive the same[?]’ This I shall endeavour fairly to consider when I have observed, that if by the word establish be meant only an approbation of certain articles of faith and modes of worship, of government, or recommendation of them to their subjects; I am not arguing against it. But to carry the notion of a religious establishment so far as to make it a rule binding to the subjects, or on any penalties whatsoever, seems to me to be oppressive of Christianity, to break in upon the sacred rights of conscience, and the common rights and priviledges of all good subjects. For let it be supposed as now pleaded, that the clergy or a synodical assembly draw up the articles and form of religion, agreeable in their judgment to the sacred scriptures, and the reception of the same be made binding by the civil authority on their subjects; It will then follow, That all such establishments are certainly right and agreeable to the sacred scriptures.

He continued to maintain that it was impossible “that any can have right or authority to oblige Christians to believe or practice any thing in religion not true or not agreeable to the word of God: Because that would destroy the sacred scriptures from being the only rule of faith and practice in religion to a Christian. If the sacred scriptures are his rule of faith and practice, he is oblig’d and that by God himself, to believe and practice accordingly.” With impressive clarity, he asserted:

No man therefore, or order of men, can have any right or power to oblige the Christian to believe or do any thing in religion contrary to, or different from, what God has obliged him: The position of the one is the removal of the other. This then is certain, that if this proposition be true, that a humane religious establishment is a rule binding to Christians, or that the civil authority have power to oblige their subjects to receive them; then they are always right and agreeable to God’s word; but the latter is not true; therefore the proposition is false. Humane establishments in matters of religion, carry in them no force or evidence of truth. They who make them are no ways exempt from humane frailties and imperfections: They are as liable to error and mistake, to prejudice and passion, as any others. And that they have erred in their determinations, and decreed and established light to be darkness, & darkness to be light, that they have perplexed the consciences of men, and corrupted the simplicity of the faith in Christ, many councils and synods and assemblies of state are a notorious proof. . . . If therefore the civil authority has a power to make a religious establishment binding to the subjects; those six articles [ed. from Henry VIII in 1540] were true, tho’ they contained abominable absurdities, and amazing falshoods; and the people were obliged to believe them, and those who suffered for disbelieving them suffered justly.

Sounding a note that would be amplified a few decades later, this preacher affirmed that, “Every society ought to be subject only to its own proper legislature.” On the flip side of that autonomy, no ruler could coerce the conscience of religious subjects, for “The ground of obedience cannot be extended beyond the ground of that authority to which obedience is required.”

Williams showed his Protestant heritage, affirming an idea popularized centuries earlier by Beza, by Mayhew shortly thereafter, and others, namely “that every law not contrary to a superior law is to be obeyed.” In this fashion, submission was limited.

Since this piece is so long, there is much more that can be profitably read. Thus, we are happy to commend this piece of early American political theology to readers. Find it available in Ellis Sandoz, Political Sermons of the American Founding Era (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998); or it is online at: http://consource.org/document/the-essential-rights-and-liberties-of-protestants-by-elisha-williams-1744-3-30/.

by Dr. David W. Hall, Pastor
Midway Presbyterian Church
Powder Springs, Georgia

Image source: Title page of sermon by Elisha Williams, as displayed on the Princeton University Digital Library, at http://pudl.princeton.edu/objects/q811kk37n