A Presbyterian Prays for Those Who Govern Us
by David T. Myers

On the day following a historic national election of our nation, it is beneficial to remember that our founders advocated the absolute necessity of chaplains in our elected bodies to be prayer warriors for those national decisions which make our nation.

The practice started in the Constitutional Convention in 1787 when circumstances arose which threatened to tear asunder the meeting, Benjamin Franklin, hardly a theist, still arose to state that “if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without God’s notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?” He went on to state that if they fail to draw upon spiritual strength for guidance, they would succeed no better than the Builders of Babel. And so the idea of appointing a chaplain to preside in prayer before the Senate and the House of representatives came into existence.

Of the various religious figures represented by this spiritual need, a goodly number have came from our Presbyterian bodies. One such minister was the Rev. Robert Elliot, who served for two years in the House of Representatives, and then on this day, November 10, 1808, was appointed as chaplain of the Senate. He was to serve for two years in this position.

Besides leading in prayer for the members of that body, the chaplains then and today offer spiritual care, counseling for members, their families, and staff (which today numbers around 6000 people), discussion sessions, prayer meetings, and a weekly prayer breakfast. In the more recent past, funerals and marriages have come under his ministry.

Words to Live By:
It is certainly true that in this day, we cannot necessarily assume that a Congressional chaplain will be a Bible-believing, Gospel-preaching, man of God. There are however regular ministries to the leaders of our nation. And indeed, the new Vice-President Pence is a born again believer. How we need to pray for those of His elect who minister in governmental ways that God’s Spirit will bring that spiritual awakening to our nation while those who minister in Bible believing churches will be used of that same Spirit to pray for genuine revival among those who are members of our Presbyterian churches. Will the reader join the two authors of This Day in Presbyterian History in those prayers?

Already at this early date, two proposed overtures have been presented and will to come before the PCA’s General Assembly when it meets in June of 2017. One overture seeks to add two proof-texts to Chapter 24, paragraph 4 of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The other overture seeks to confer constitutional authority on chapter 59 of the PCA’s Book of Church Order. In light of these overtures, it seems appropriate to provide the following bit of historical background on the deliberations within the Westminster Assembly and how we came to have the text of chapter 24 of the Westminster Confession. The following comes from the 1992 PCA study on marriage and divorce:— 

III. The Original Intent of the Confession

It is a sound principle that constitutional documents should be interpreted according to their original intent. For creeds and confessions to function as subordinate norms, they must be read according to the grammatico-historical method of interpretation. Confessional subscription is not to anything the words can be taken to mean, but rather to the discourse meaning of the text.

The Westminster divines took up the question of marriage and divorce in 1646, the year the Confession was completed (apart from the proof texts requested by Parliament). The minutes record the following actions. The committee assignment was made February 23. The report on marriage was presented June 17 and debated August 3-4. The report on divorce was presented August 10 and debated September 10-11.

The proposed chapter “Of Marriage and Divorce” as a whole was debated November 9, and the section on willful desertion was recommitted. The committee reported back the next day, and, following further debate on willful desertion, the Assembly on November 11 adopted the chapter “Of Marriage and Divorce” as we now know it.

It is of interest that none of the antecedent Reformed confessions in the British Isles — neither the Scots Confession (1560) nor the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (1563) nor the Irish Articles of Religion (1615) – include a statement on divorce, and the articles on marriage in the latter two documents focus narrowly on the question of a celibate clergy. According to the Thirty-Nine Articles:

Bishops, priests, and deacons are not commanded by God’s law either to vow the estate of single life or to abstain from marriage. Therefore it is lawful also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness. (32)

The parallel affirmation in the Irish Articles of Religion is only slightly broader.

For the preservation of the chastity of men’s persons, wedlock is commanded unto all men that stand in need thereof. Neither is there any prohibition by the Word of God but that the ministers of the Church may enter into the state of matrimony: they being nowhere commanded by God’s law …[remainder repeats the Thirty-Nine Articles verbatim]. (64)

Taking into account also the Reformed confessions on the continent, the only Reformed creed to contain any reference to divorce prior to the Westminster Confession is the First Helvetic Confession (1536), which in its teaching on marriage includes a word for the civil government:

We contend that marriage has been instituted and prescribed by God for all men who are qualified and fit for it and who have not otherwise been called by God to live a chaste life outside marriage. No order or state is so holy and honorable that marriage would be opposed to it and should be forbidden. Since such marriages should be confirmed in the presence of the Church by a public exhortation and vow in keeping with its dignity, the government should also respect it and see to it that a marriage is legally and decently entered into and given legal and honorable recognition, and is not lightly dissolved without serious and legitimate grounds (27); emphasis added.

Although the Westminster articles on divorce are without confessional precedent in the Reformed churches, they are understandable given the historical circumstances of the Westminster Assembly. By the Solemn League and Covenant (1643) both Assembly and Parliament were sworn to preserve and extend “the reformed religion and to “endeavor to bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms [Scotland, England, and Ireland] to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in [that] religion” (1st vow). As its dual title indicates, the Solemn League and Covenant was a political instrument as well as a religious commitment. At its heart lay “the conviction that the unity of a society inheres in its religion and church.”

Given the conception of a religiously unified society and the intimate connection between church and state that obtains under such circumstances, it is not surprising to find the social institution of marriage among the articles of religion addressed by the Westminster Confession. The Assembly no doubt judged that the unity of both church and society would be well-served by a confessional exposition of the doctrine of marriage, including the biblical grounds for its dissolution, a controversial issue in 17th century Britain. The Scottish Parliament, already in 1573 had enacted legislation which allowed divorce for desertion. With Anglo-catholic on the one hand, still arguing that marriage was indissoluble, and Milton, on the other, lobbying for divorce on grounds of incompatibility, the question could hardly be ignored as it was bound to have an effect on the civil law.

As it turned out, Parliament did not take the “humble advice” of its assembled divines on this issue but omitted the paragraphs on divorce in its authorized edition of the Confession published in 1648. The Savoy Declaration (1658) also chose to do without them, so it has fallen to the Presbyterian churches to wrestle with their confessional status.

Between the rigorous Anglican view and the relaxed view of Milton the Westminster position on divorce might seem to be a golden mean, but it was not adopted for any reason other than that it was believed to be biblical.

The Text of The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 24, Of Marriage and Divorce:—

I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband at the same time.

II. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.

III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And, therefore, such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, Papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.

IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the Word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man, or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together, as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own, nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood than of her own.
[Note: this is the original text of the Confession; most American Presbyterian denominations have made changes to this paragraph, softening the statement so as to allow for marriage to a deceased wife’s sister.]

V. Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.

VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage; wherein a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it, not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case.

On this day in 1877, Archibald A. Hodge began his duties as a professor of theology at the Princeton Theological Seminary.

Quoting a bit today from volume 2 of Dr. David B. Calhoun’s wonderful history of Princeton Seminary, pp. 47-48 :

In 1873 the directors had proposed that Archibald Alexander Hodge, professor of systematic theology at Western Theological Seminary, be appointed assistant to his father at Princeton. Charles Hodge thought the move unnecessary and no further steps were taken until 1877, when Dr. Hodge notified the directors that it was time for him to give up, or at least reduce, his teaching. Again the name of A.A. Hodge was put forward. Charles Hodge wrote to his son:

My dear Alexander:
You say I told you to go to Allegheny [Western Seminary]; you memory may be better than mine, but I have no recollection of having been so unwise. At any rate, in the event of your being called to Princeton, I shall not assume the responsibility of deciding whether you ought to come…
The view I take of the matter is simply this:
1. Our Board is bound to take that course which it thinks will best promote the interests of this Seminary and the general interests of this Church.
2. If our Directors think there is any other man available, as well qualified to fill the position as you, they ought to leave you where you are.
3. But if they are satisfied that you are the best man to keep up the character of this Institution for fidelity to our doctrinal standards, I, if a Director, although your Father, would vote for your election.
4. I would do this, because I think that this Seminary, not because of any superiority of its faculty, but simply because of providential circumstances, is at present, at least, of special importance. It, therefore, should be specially considered.
5. All such considerations, as delicacy, your personal wishes, cheapness of living here or there, are not of any serious weight.
6. The question whether you are the best available man to fill the place here, is for our Directors to decide. Their decision, however, is subject to a veto from your “inner consciousness,” if your conscience constrains you to exercise it. “Commit your way unto the Lord, and He will direct your steps.”

The directors elected A.A. Hodge associate professor of didactic theology, and he accepted and was inaugurated on November 8, 1877, in the First Presbyterian Church in Princeton. William M. Paxton, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of New York City, spoke for the board of directors. Princeton, he said, is a “school of learning” and a “cradle of piety.” “It is a place where educated young men are imbued with the doctrine of the Cross, and with this truth as a burning power in their hearts, they go out into the world to kindle and fire the hearts of others.” Your work is not done, Paxton reminded Hodge, “when you have demonstrated a truth or deposited an intellectual dogma in the memory of a student.” “No, no,” he added, “your responsibility continues until you have sent that truth as a lighted torch into his soul to kindle there its light and to warm his whole being as with fire.” “Give them Theology, give them orthodoxy, give them exposition, proof, demonstration, give them learning,” Paxton told the new professor, “but give it to them warm.“

[excerpted from Princeton Seminary: The Majestic Testimony, 1869-1929, by Dr. David B. Calhoun. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1996, pp. 47-48.]

Words to live by: It’s not easy to be so objective with our own children as Dr. Hodge appears to have been with his, but his counsel to “Commit your way unto the Lord, and He will direct your steps” (Ps. 37:5) certainly remains good and true counsel. But realize this, that “committing our way to the Lord” isn’t something we do on the spur of a difficult decision. Committing our way means living according to God’s declared will, day by day. We may and will fail from time to time, but by God’s grace we persist in seeking His will as the operative force in our lives. Is it your heart’s desire to live a life that pleases your heavenly Father? Are you actively turning away from sin where you see it, and quickly confessing sin when you transgress? As you look over your life, can you say that you are dying more and more to sin, and living more and more unto righteousness? Then rest assured, the Lord is directing your steps!

Election Day is upon us, November 8th, and Dr. David W. Hall returns with the final of the election day sermons that he will examine for us in this series. He will be back next week with an overview of a related subject : Thanksgiving Proclamations and Congressional Fast-Days.

“A Sermon On A Day Appointed For Publick Thanksgiving”
by Joseph Lathrop (Dec. 14, 1786)

A survey of congressional proclamations for days of fasting or Thanksgiving is instructive, especially to those who have been catechized in the dogma of strict separationism.[1] Indeed, the religious worldview of the 1770s betrays the following key theological assumptions, which were apparently non-controverted at the time: (1) sinful depravity was the underlying cause of evil and immorality; (2) repentance was necessary to stay the hand of God’s judgment; (3) atonement was needed to pacify the wrath of the sovereign God; (4) God’s providence was at work in the course of human events; and (5) true (often “reformed”) religion was essential for liberty. Such theological non-negotiables were incompatible with anything other than the scriptural religion which had been passed down from Geneva.

In the first proclamation for a fast (June 12, 1775), Congress called not for what would today be a “moment of silence,” but for an entire “day of public humiliation, fasting, and prayer.” The specific aim was to “confess and deplore our many sins,” an idea almost infinitely remote from today’s predominantly secular worldview, and to beseech God to “forgive our iniquities.” God’s providence was mentioned no less than four times in this single bill, and God was described by that Congress as possessing “immutable justice,” again, a grim and solemn warning to believers which was light-years from the muted “understanding” of today’s religion or agnosticism. Besides praying for the people’s representatives who met in assemblies, this proclamation also specifically asked its citizens (Congress ordered the bill to be passed out in newspapers and hand bills as well.) to pray, “That virtue and true religion may revive and flourish throughout our land” and that God would “graciously interpose” to restore “invaded rights.” This proclamation was certainly not compatible with Deism or agnosticism (much less with many forms of rigid separationism). Its conclusion urged that “Christians of all denominations assemble for public worship and abstain from servile labor and recreations on said day.” Thus Congress declared a sabbath in OT fashion, using phrasing contained in the Calvinistic confessions which define lawful sabbath behavior.

Then in March 1776, a few months prior to the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, Congress (which did not intend to establish a federal denomination) called for “true penitence of heart” and reverent devotion to stir public acknowledgement of God’s active providence. Citizens were also summoned, as Genevans had been by the Council of Two Hundred two centuries earlier, to “confess and deplore their offenses against God.” Americans feared that their actively judging God had permitted the British to “subvert our invaluable rights [note; several times the phrase “invaluable” was preferred over “inalienable” as used in the Declaration] and privileges.” The 1776 fast proclamation urged people to pray for “pure undefiled religion universally [to] prevail” and repeated the recommendation that “Christians of all denominations” abstain from servile labor on the fast day. That this proclamation was based on clear theological notions may also be seen by its urging citizens to seek to “appease [God’s] righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness.” Such explicit scriptural formulation would later fade from American government rhetoric, but its overwhelming presence here indicates that this formulation was by no means problematic in 1776. Indeed, this symphony of proclamations provides a deeper understanding of the theological codas in the Declaration, whose adoption was sandwiched between this March 1776 act and later acts in the same period.

Later, a 1781 Thanksgiving proclamation, authored by Presbyterian minister John Witherspoon, again invoked the blessing of Isaiah 11:9 and pled with “the God of all grace” (1 Peter 5:10) to “incline our hearts . . . to keep all his laws.” It was not common law alone that guided, but God’s law. The next year, the Scotsman of Knoxian descent would also lead the Congress in committing to “a cheerful obedience to his laws,” and the practice of “true and undefiled religion [James 1:27] which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness.”

In October 1783, a New Jersey student of Witherspoon, Elias Boudinot (of Huguenot lineage), led the Congress in affirming “our dependence on that Almighty Being,” who was yet again asked to “smile upon our seminaries and means of education to cause pure religion and virtue to flourish, to give peace to all nations, and to fill the world with his glory.” Instrumental in these great ends was the continuation, for which Congress was grateful, of “the light of the blessed gospel.” This evangel was the settled faith of the vast majority, and nowhere did it seek to repudiate the legacy of Calvinism.

Toward the end of the Revolutionary hostilities, Congress called for a day of prayer and thanksgiving in which people would “assemble in their respective churches and congregations” to celebrate the “mercies and praises of their all-bountiful Creator, most holy and most Righteous, for his innumerable favors and mercies.” In words that reflected the sincere piety of the day, this declaration of August 1784 also asked support of the seminaries for the following purposes: “to raise up from among our youth, men eminent for virtue, learning, and piety to his service in church and state; to cause virtue and true religion to flourish; to give to all nations amity, peace and concord, and to fill the world with his glory.”

Likewise, in a Thanksgiving Day sermon in 1786, Witherspoon’s student Joseph Lathrop stated: “All the measures of civil policy ought to be founded on the great principles of religion; or, at the least, to be perfectly consistent with them: otherwise they will never be esteemed, because they will be contrary to that moral sense of right and wrong which God has implanted in the breast of every rational being.”[2] Choosing Isaiah 1:19-20 as his text, Lathrop outlined and applied as follows:

WHAT was spoken by the prophets to the ancient people of God, is written for our use, that we, through the warnings of scripture, might be moved with fear; and, through the comforts of scripture, might have hope.

OUR relation to God, as a people redeemed by his hand and preserved by his care, as a people enjoying his oracles and professing obedience to his laws, is so similar to theirs, that we may justly apply to ourselves what was here spoken to them. I shall therefore consider my text in accommodation to our own case: and shall observe,

1. That the land, in which we are placed, is a good land: and,
2. That our enjoyment of the good of the land depends on our obedience to God.

This sermon viewed British encroachments as unconstitutional and oppressive. In contrast, the platform of America’s federalist government was “framed and ratified in a manner still more liberal. It is not, in any sense whatever, a compact between the rulers and the people; but it is a solemn, explicit agreement of the people among themselves.” It was constructed by a convention of wise men, whom the people deputed solely for that purpose, and who, at that time, could have no share, and no appearance of a future share in the government they were framing.” “It was,” Lathrop continued, “then remitted to the people at large, and competent time allowed for their deliberate examination and discussion; and it was finally adopted and confirmed in consequence of their general approbation. So happily was it adjusted to the views of the people, at a time when the spirit of liberty was at the height, that not a single article was found in the whole, but what met the approbation of more than two thirds of the inhabitants assembled in the several towns to give their voices upon it. It is therefore, in the most absolute sense, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE; and, in this view, it is more sacred than any form of government in Europe.”

He continued:

Being framed by the people, it never ought to be changed, or altered without their general consent fairly asked, and freely given. There may undoubtedly be defects in it: nothing human is perfect: but still it is our own; not imposed, but chosen. And whatever imperfections attend it, yet it is acknowledged, by all, to be formed on the highest principles, of liberty. The administration of it is committed to men appointed by, and from among ourselves; to men who are frequently to return to private life; to men who are subject to the same laws and burthens, which they impose on their fellow citizens. The people have it in their power always to influence the measures of government by petition and instructions, and often to change their rulers by new elections. Nations, whose government is absolute, may be under the sad necessity of submitting to oppression, or of repelling it by force. This is a dreadful alternative, and usually terminates in the increase of the evil. We are under no such necessity. Our government is so constituted, that publick oppressions may be soon removed without force, either by remonstrances against the measures of rulers, or by a change of the rulers themselves.

Lathrop also argued from his Boston pulpit for proper resistance to civil government under the following condition: “when rulers usurp a power oppressive to the people, and continue to support it by military force in contempt of every respectful remonstrance . . . the body of the people have a natural right to unite their strength for the restoration of their own constitutional government. And, for the same reason, if a part of the people attempt by arms to control or subvert the government, the rulers, who are the guardians of the constitution, have a right to call in the aid of the people to protect it. If the people may use force to suppress an armed usurpation of unconstitutional authority, rulers may, on the same principle, use force to suppress an armed insurrection against constitutional authority.”[3]

Agree with all this or not, this sermon is admirable for seeking to mine the depths of an OT prophecy and apply it to the day. He offers several other worthwhile applications. It is also a timely reminder that repentant praying and thanksgiving praises are properly called for. Lathrop’s sermon is printed in Ellis Sandoz, Political Sermons of the American Founding Era (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998). It is online at: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N15978.0001.001/1:3?rgn=div1;view=fulltext.

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

For others like this order a copy of Twenty Messages to Consider Before Voting from Reformation Heritage Books.

[1] All references, identified by date, are taken from the Library of Congress’ Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1906-1913).

[2] Ellis Sandoz, ed., Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730-1805 (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1991), 839.

[3] Ellis Sandoz, ed., Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730-1805 (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1991), 872.