First Presbyterian Church

You are currently browsing articles tagged First Presbyterian Church.

May 5: Rev. Gage vs. the Auburn Affirmation

5 May, 2015 in May 2015 by archivist | 1 comment

By the 1940s, efforts by modernists were well underway to effect a union between the PCUSA and the PCUS. As conservatives in the PCUS (aka Southern Presbyterian Church) began to fight against these efforts, with the formation of The Southern Presbyterian Journal as one major arm of that effort, the Auburn Affirmation came to summarize all that was wrong with the PCUSA and so criticism of the Affirmation was a key way of opposing the merger. Here, from an early issue of The Journal, the Rev. Daniel S. Gage, a professor at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, offered his critique of the Auburn Affirmation which had been issued in its final form on this day, May 5th, in 1924. 

The Auburn Affirmation
By Rev. Daniel S. Gage, D.D.
Professor of Philosophy and Bible,
Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri.

[excerpted from The Southern Presbyterian Journal, 1.5 (August 1942) 16-19.]

This document is one of the most important ecclesiastical papers ever issued. It deserves the most careful study, and this must of necessity be rather lengthy if studied in an article such as this.

It is thought by some that it merely raised some constitutional questions as to the powers of the General Assembly. It is true that this was raised by it, but only as the basis for a far more important “affirmation”. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., in reply to an overture from the Presbytery of Baltimore, in 1910, calling attention to the existence of doubts and denials of the faith of the Church, pronounced certain doctrines “essential”. The Assembly of 1916 repeated them and in 1923 the Assembly again declared them to be “essential” doctrines of the Word of God and of the Standards. We quote them from the actions of that Assembly as its deliverance was followed by the Auburn Affirmation.

1. It is an essential doctrine of the Word and of our Standards that the Holy Spirit did so inspire, guide and move the writers of Holy Scripture as to keep them from error.

2. It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God and our Standards that the Lord Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary.

3. It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God and our Standards that Christ offered up “Himself a sacrifice to satisfy Divine justice and to reconcile us to God.”

4. It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God and our Standards concerning the Lord Jesus Christ that on the third day he arose again from the dead, with the same body with which He suffered, with which He also ascended to heaven and there sitteth at the right hand of His Father, making intercession for us.

5. It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God as the supreme standard of our faith that our Lord Jesus showed His power and love by working mighty miracles. This working was not contrary to nature but superior to it. An affirmation which, on the title page, declares that it is designed to safe-guard the unity and liberty of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., was issued on May 5, 1924. It was signed by 1,283 ministers.

In some preliminary notes the “Conference Committee” says that through their correspondence they had certain knowledge that there were hundreds of ministers agreeing with the approving of the Affirmation who had refrained from signing it. They also in these notes declared that among the signers were conservatives and liberals.

“Differing as to certain theological interpretations, they are one in loyalty to our Church, to the Kingdom of God and in faith in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” They said that these signatures constitute an appeal to the church “for a general adoption of this same spirit of mutual confidence and unity, for a recognition of the fact that our church is broad enough to include men honestly different in their interpretations of our common standards and yet loyal, servants of Jesus, and for a new consecration of the whole church to work for the world, in obedience to our Lord.” In the Affirmation, itself, it is, stated at the beginning that the signers “feel bound in view of certain actions of the General Assembly of 1923 and of persistent attempts to divide the church and abridge its freedom, to express our convictions in matters pertaining thereto.” They asserted that they accepted the Westminster Confession of Faith “as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures”. Also, that they sincerely held and earnestly preached the doctrines of evangelical Christianity in agreement with the historic testimony of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, “of which we are loyal members”. “For the maintenance of the faith of our church, the preservation of its unity and the protection of the liberties of its ministers and people, we offer this Affirmation.”

Let us first note the constitutional questions raised by the Affirmation. It was a matter of wide report that there was being preached in the First Presbyterian Church of New York, doctrines quite contrary to the Standards. The Assembly ordered the Presbytery of New York to take steps to end this situation. The Affirmation holds that in so doing the Assembly went beyond its powers and handled the case unlawfully. But that by itself would not have made the Affirmation very important. But, more important, they held that the Assembly by declaring the above named Doctrines “essential parts” of the Word of God and of the Standards and in enjoining Presbyteries not to ordain candidates who did not subscribe to all of them in the form in which the Assembly had stated them, was, in effect, creating a new Confession of Faith. That, also it had altered the Ordination vows of a minister which had asked that he accept the Standards as “containing the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures” and that this vow did not compel a minister to put on that system the interpretation which the Assembly had so specifically expressed. They held that if these doctrines in this form were to be made essential and belief in all of them required, it should have been done by action of the Presbyteries in the constitutional manner prescribed for alteration of the Constitution and Standards of the Church. This was, of course an important problem. It was never settled but, as the sequence shows, went by default. These are the constitutional questions raised by the Affirmation. The remainder and by far the most important part, is devoted to a different problem.

It will have been noted that the signers declared that among their reasons for issuing the document, was “the protection of the liberties of its ministers and people”. Also, that there had been persistent attempts made “to bridge its (the church’s) freedom.” Of course this freedom was freedom of belief for no other kind of freedom is assailed by a Protestant Church, whose sanctions are limited to those of spiritual nature. And, it would be manifest without further study, that the signers believed their freedom of belief had been assailed by the deliverances of the Assembly in declaring certain doctrines “essential.” And, without further study it would be clear that the signers did not believe these doctrines to be essential. But further study will be made.

The Document begins by saying: “By its laws and history, the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. safe-guards the liberty of thought and teaching of its ministers. At ordination they receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this Church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scripture. This the Church has always esteemed a sufficient subscription. Manifestly, it does not require their assent to the very words of the Confession or to all its teachings or to interpretations of the Confession by individuals or church courts.” “The Confession also expressly asserts the liberty of Christian believers and condemns the submission of the mind or conscience to any human authority.” Here they refer to the Conf. XX, ii.

The Affirmation then proceeds to state parts of the history of the Church in which this freedom was asserted. In the act of adopting the Westminster Confession in 1729, the church stated, “there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good character and principles may differ. And in all these they think it the duty both of private Christians and Societies, to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other.”

In the last century there arose in New England a theology widely different from the theology of the Puritans and from the Westminster Standards. Mighty men on both sides entered into the debates which then were held on the problems of the theology then discussed. The New School Theology was never formulated in a definite Creed but its essential difference concerned the relation of mankind to Adam:—the imputation of his sin to man, the imputation of his guilt, being both denied by the New School. Different members of this school held different views on some matters,—especially as to why all men are sinful if no sin was inherited and if there is no “original sin”. Still the leaders of that day on both sides evidently did not take the words of the original Act of Adoption of 1729 as understood by the Affirmation for they did not feel that these profound differences could be harmonized by “mutual forebearance” and in 1837 and 1838 the Church divided into the Old and New School Assemblies. Four ninths of the Church went into the New School. And preceding this division, there had been several trials for heresy.

Here, it should be said that the New School doctrines were almost if not wholly in the Northern Synods. When the Southern Church withdrew it was from the Old School. The official theology of the Southern has been and is, Old School. But the affirmation goes on to say that after 33 years of separation, the theological debates having died down, these two Assemblies, differing so profoundly in interpretation of the Scriptures and the Standards, re-union,—on the basis of the Standards, each recognizing the other as a sound and orthodox body. No attempt was made to harmonize their different theologies. Both could be freely preached in the re-united body. New theories are rarely thought to their ultimate conclusion when first formulated. As far as I am aware, none of the New School at first denied the divinity of Jesus, the Vicarious Atonement, or the accuracy of the Bible. But, it should have been plain from the start, that the less man is a sinner, the less he needs a Saviour. And it should have been plain that if New School doctrines as to the original innocence of man,—the absence of original sin, that there was no imputation to man of either the sin or the guilt of Adam, were correct, then man could save himself, and the inevitable conclusion would be the loss of belief in the divinity of Christ, the Vicarious Atonement, and Humanism, in general.

And the Affirmationists were undoubtedly right in asserting that the history of the Church U.S.A. does show that what is said in one of the introductory paragraphs is correct,—that they were appealing to the Church “for a recognition of the fact that our Church is broad enough to include men honestly differing in their interpretation of our common standards, and yet loyal servants of Jesus Christ.” For since that union of 1870, there has been two wholly different theologies preached in the Church U. S. A., so different that it is impossible to reconcile them, and those differences do not concern minor matters, but are at the very foundation of the whole system of doctrine. That the Church, U.S.A. has been an “inclusive” church since then cannot be doubted.

The Affirmation then goes on to cite in support of their contention as to the fact that the whole history of the church is one of recognition of differing interpretations, the fact that in 1906, the church united with the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. “The union was opposed on the ground that the two churches were not one in doctrine, yet it was consummated. Thus did our church once more exemplify its historical policy of accepting theological differences within its bounds and subordinating them to recognized loyalty to Jesus Christ and united work for the kingdom of God.”

Next, the Affirmation definitely denies that any Council has power to settle any controversies of religion. It quotes the words of the Confession that “the Supreme Guide …. can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture”. “Accordingly our Church has held that the supreme guide in the interpretation of the Scriptures is … the Spirit of God speaking to the Christian believer.” The omitted words refer to the contrary doctrine of the Roman Catholics, and do not in any way alter the meaning of the Affirmation as the Supreme Guide and Judge.

But the Affirmation next challenges the declaration of the Assembly in its first “essential doctrine” that the writers of the Scriptures were kept free from error. It asserts that the Confession does not make this statement,—that it is not to be found in the Apostles’ or Nicene Creeds, nor in any of the great Reformation Confessions, and hold that the General Assembly of 1923 in so asserting, “spoke without warrant of the Scriptures or the Confession of Faith. We hold rather to the words of the Confession of Faith, that the Scriptures ‘are given by inspiration of God to be the whole rule of faith and life”.

Next, the Affirmation refers to the expression of the General Assembly of 1923, that five doctrinal statements were “essential doctrines of the Word of God and our Standards.” It declares that on the constitutional grounds they have before described, “we are opposed to any and all attempts to elevate these five doctrinal statements or any of them, to the position of tests for ordination or good standing in our church”. The plain meaning of this is that a minister may deny any or all of them and still be in good standing in the church. He may deny the inerrancy of Scripture, the Virgin Birth, the Vicarious Atonement, the Bodily Resurrection and the working of Miracles and be in good standing as to his faith and preaching.

Next, the Affirmation adds:—“Furthermore, this opinion of the General Assembly tends to commit our church to certain theories concerning the inspiration of the Bible, and the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Resurrection and the Continuing Life and Supernatural Power of our Lord Jesus Christ.” It will have been noted that in making the declaration that these doctrines were essential, the Assembly used the verbatim words of the Standards except as to the Miracles. But the Affirmation holds that these words merely express certain theories as to these five doctrines. In their place, the signers next say—and this is important, “We all hold most earnestly to these great facts and doctrines”, (here we call careful attention to the following quotation as it contains the heart of the Affirmation)—”we all believe from our hearts that the writers of the Bible were inspired of God: that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh; that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself and through Him we have our redemption; that having died for our sins He rose from the dead and is our ever-living Saviour; that in His earthly ministry He wrought many mighty works and by His vicarious death and unfailing presence He is able to save to the uttermost.” The above is printed with emphasis, heavy type, in the Affirmation. It would sound well if it were not for what follows. “Some of us regard the particular theories contained in the deliverance of the General Assembly of 1923 as satisfactory explanations of these facts and doctrines. But we are united in believing that these are not the only theories allowed by the Scriptures and Standards as explanations of these facts and doctrines of our religion and that all who hold to these facts and doctrines, whatever theories they may employ to explain them are worthy of all confidence and fellowship”.

Next is added: “We do not desire liberty to go beyond the teachings of evangelical Christianity. But we maintain that it is our constitutional right and Christian duty within these limits to exercise liberty of thought and teaching that we may more effectively preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world.” The Affirmation closes with a paragraph which deplores the evidence of division in the church, and appeals to all to preserve the unity and freedom of the Church.

It will be noted that in the above statement of the facts and doctrines which all hold, it is admitted that the Biblical writers were inspired but they decline to believe that they were kept by the Spirit free from error. They believe God was in Christ, but not by the Virgin Birth. Nor was Jesus Christ necessarily then truly God and Man with two distinct natures and one person. That Jesus did rise from the dead but they decline to hold that it must have been by the resurrection of the body with which he was buried. That He did many mighty works but they decline to hold that they must have been genuine miracles. That His death was vicarious and yet the Atonement was not necessarily of such nature. In other words, all these views in the Confession reasserted by the Assembly are but theories for explanation of the above facts. Other theories are possible according to the Affirmation. One who denies all the above theories as expressed in the Confession could hold other theories and still be in good and regular standing and worthy of all confidence and fellowship.

How different might be the theologies preached in church in which all these theories might be believed by some and denied by others would be hard to say. Is it unfair to say that almost any doctrine short of denial of Jesus as Lord and Saviour could be preached? Almost any doctrine as to the reliability of Scripture, as to the person and nature of Christ,—as to the nature of His atonement,—as to His resurrection,—as to his life on earth as far as miracles are concerned. Could not ALL miracles be denied? Could it not be held that Jesus was but a man in whom God manifested Himself? Could not one hold other theories as to the appearance of Christ in the upper room than that He actually appeared in the Body? And so with other appearances? Of course he could,—if the statements of the Assembly which quotes the words of the Confession are but theories and other theories are possible.

The singers of the Affirmation declared that they had the constitutional right to preach other theories. And this was granted by the fact that the Committee of the Assembly of 1924 to which the Affirmation was referred recommended that no action be taken. Therefore, men of liberal views, of conservative views,—holding the Old School doctrines as to the sinfulness of man and those of the New School denying it, and therefore not so needing a Saviour as if he were “dead in trespasses and sin”,—those of Arminian theology as found in the Cumberland Church, and those of strict Calvinism; and other views which may be held are all in the one Church. The constitutional power of the Assembly to declare certain “theories” as the Affirmationists called them, of the Facts of Christianity to be essential, was never brought to the test. It was never sent to the Presbyteries. The Church decided to preserve outward ecclesiastical unity by permitting any private interpretation to be put on all the facts of Christianity. In their statement as to the Supreme Guide of doctrine these words are used, “accordingly our church has held that the supreme guide in the interpretations of the Scriptures is not, as with Roman Catholics, ecclesiastical authority, but the Spirit of God speaking to the Christian believer”. Any believer therefore has the right to hold his interpretations of all the facts of the Christian life. Certainly, this is true. But whether any believer has the right to preach his private interpretations and remain in a particular church, is not necessarily the case. Two courses are manifestly open to all organized churches. They may decide to permit any and all interpretations and thus preserve outward unity by permitting inward diversity.

The Affirmationists declared that they did not desire to go beyond the bounds of evangelical Christianity. But any one could freely determine for himself what these bounds were, decide for himself what evangelical Christianity is, and they claimed and received this right. On the other hand, any Church can, if it choose, decide that it wishes real unity of belief, and a consistent unified message in its bounds,—it may if it choose, decide what is the “Gospel” and what as Paul says, are “not even other gospels for they are no Gospel at all”. Outward unity at the price of inward diversity,—or real unity both outward and inward,—a declaration as to what is the true “Gospel” and the permission of any doctrine as to the Gospel,—these are apparently the lines which Churches must choose. Our Church so far has chosen to try to preserve both inward and outward unity. We must pay the price if we give up our real inward unity.

This study is written to call the attention of our Southern Church to the situation should there come organic union between the two Assemblies. We would enter a body far larger than ours in which all the above doctrines could be preached, and, of course, then, they could be preached in any part of our now Southern Church. That this amounts to removing almost all doctrinal standards needs for proof only that the Affirmation be studied. For note the paragraph introductory of the Affirmation to which reference was made near the beginning of this article,—that the Affirmation is an appeal for the recognition of the fact that our church is broad enough to include men differing in their interpretation of our common Standards.” It is the Interpretation which a man puts on words,—not the words, themselves, which determines his beliefs. Differing interpretations may mean differing and even mutually exclusive theologies. Organic union would be but outward, while there would not and could not be any real inner unity.

 

Tags: , , ,

May 4: Smyth’s Charge to Thornwell & Mullally

4 May, 2015 in May 2015 by archivist | No comments

Preach Christ! Preach this Gospel!

smythT_150The Pastoral Charge delivered by the Rev. Thomas Smyth to the Revs. James Henley Thornwell and Francis Patrick Mullally, was delivered on this day, May 4th, in 1860, upon their installation as co-pastors of the First Presbyterian Church of Columbia, South Carolina. [This is the same church where Dr. Derek W.H. Thomas is now pastor.]

thornwell02Though a brilliant theologian and teacher, much of Thornwell’s career was conflicted by his competing desire to actively minister to God’s people in the pastoral setting of the local church. Thornwell’s first service came with his installation in 1835 as pastor of the Lancaster, Waxhaw, and Six Mile Creek churches of Bethel Presbytery. By 1838 he left to assume duties at the South Carolina College, serving there as Professor of Rhetoric and Philosophy for two years, until the conviction of his calling brought him again to the pulpit, with his installation at First Presbyterian Church of Columbia, SC in 1840. One year later, South Carolina College again called upon him, now to serve as both chaplain and professor. This arrangement met the compelling interests of both callings and he remained at SCC from 1841 to 1851. A brief pastorate at the Glebe Street Church in Charleston, SC ended with a return to SCC as president, until in 1856 he accepted a call to serve as Professor of Systematic Theology at Columbia Theological Seminary. During most of his years at Columbia he also served as stated supply at the First Presbyterian Church of Columbia, until that post was made permanent in 1860, as detailed in the charge here presented by the Rev. Thomas Smyth. Rev. Thornwell died but a few years later, on 1 August 1862.


mullallyFrancis Patrick Mullally was born around 1830 in Tipperary, Ireland and taught at the Villa School in Mt. Zion, Georgia for nine years. He attended Washington and Lee University Law School and Columbia Theological Seminary, leading to his first pastorate at First Presbyterian Church of Columbia, SC. This pastorate was apparently interrupted by the war, during which time he served as an army chaplain. Between 1865 and 1904, Rev. Mullally served in ten separate locations, with a transfer of credentials to the PCUSA in 1889, and residing finally in Pelham Manor, NY, where he died on 2 Jan. 1904.

Rev. Smyth in his pastoral charge likens the somewhat unique co-pastoral relationship of Thornwell and Mullally to that of a marriage, in which the two partners must learn to work together, to always speak and think well of each other:

It has been said that such a co-pastorship requires for its perpetuity of peaceful communion, as much grace as the matrimonial co-partnership.”

It is an apt analogy, though one we might otherwise have escaped us. Smyth also notes that in principle he disagrees with the idea of a co-pastorate, but that in this case he rejoices, given Thornwell’s gifts and abilities and in light of the freedom this arrangement will provide Thornwell in his professorial duties:

“Disapproving of it in the abstract, I rejoice, however, in this instance of such a double relation, and highly commend the wisdom of this church in securing for themselves, the community, the Seminary, and the church at large, the benefit of your practical and experimental pulpit ministrations, free from the cares of pastoral responsibilities.”

The pastoral charge presented here begins in good Presbyterian fashion with a laying of the groundwork. Smyth succinctly, yet convincingly explains the nature and order of ordination to office in the church. He states:

“Ordination does not create an office.  It does not impart fitness for an office… It does not confer authority upon the office or officers,…Ordination therefore, is the solemn ratification of this ascertained call of Christ, by His church,…   The importance of ordination is, therefore, apparent.  No one ought to take upon himself the office of the ministry without a lawful calling.”

[It is in this introductory section where a few distracting printer’s errors crept into the original text. The proof-texts provided are obviously in error when they cite Acts 45!]

Smyth’s pastoral charge surveys the scope of pastoral career, its pitfalls and challenges, but rises to it’s high point with it’s definition of the Gospel and a rousing clarion call to preach “this glorious Gospel of good news”:

“Preach Christ as set forth in the Gospel—the sum and substance of God’s testimony, and the author of eternal salvation to all who believe upon him.  Preach the Gospel as a creed or doctrine, that it may be intelligently received by a faith of which assurance is an element and exercise, compelling to a willing obedience the heart and the life.—Preach the doctrines of the Gospel as all converging and concentrating in the person, character, work, and offices of the one mediator between God and man; in Christ and him crucified; in Christ as God manifest in the flesh, and reconciling the world unto himself—not imputing unto sinners their trespasses.”

“Preach this Gospel—this glorious Gospel of good news—first and last, every way, and every where, in public and in private; in the pulpit and by the press; to the living and to the dying; to the lost and the saved.  Preach it in every method and variety of manner and of matter.  Yours is a model pulpit, and let yours be model preaching, and the practical exhibition of its manifold diversities of form.  Preach expositorily, textually, topically, doctrinally, practically, spiritually, apologetically, casuistically.  Many men, many minds, many tastes, and in all the love of variety, novelty, and fresh originality.  Become all things to all to win, and please, and profit all.”

Concluding the text is the charge to the people. Smyth is brief in his words to the people, yet to the point. It is interesting to note that in the last paragraph, he says his own days must surely be short. Born in 1808, he would have been only 52 or 53 years old at the time, and was but four years older than Thornwell. Yet he outlived Thornwell by eleven years and died in 1873.

It will also be noted from the title page that the larger portion of this pamphlet is missing, namely, the sermon by Dr. John L. Girardeau. The text of that sermon would have occured on pages 1-27 of the pamphlet, but is missing from the text on hand at the PCA Historical Center. Efforts are being made to locate a copy of the missing text.

Smyth’s pastoral and congregational charges serve as excellent models for pastors who may be themselves called upon to bring a charge someday to minister or people. For those who do not know the Presbyterian system well, this text provides a wonderfully brief, yet complete education into the nature and substance of ordination, pastoral responsibility, and congregational duty. In short, it is a message which well-deserves reprinting here, one which has been overlooked for too long.

To read the text of Rev. Smyth’s pastoral charge, click here.

Tags: , , ,

April 23: Rev. David X. Junkin

23 April, 2015 in April 2015 by archivist | No comments

DAVID X. JUNKIN, D.D.

junkinDXThe family was probably in its remotest ancestry Danish, but for many generations previous to the Revolution of 1688 had dwelt in Scotland. The Doctor’s maternal grandmother was Scotch, of the name of Wallace; his mother, Elinor Cochran born in Franklin county, Pa. The Junkins came to Pennsylvania early in the eighteenth century, and the grandparents of the Doctor to Cumberland about 1740, before Harrisburg was a town, and when Cumberland was a wilderness. His grandfather owned five hundred acres of land, on a part of which New Kingston now stands. The large stone-house, which he built a century and a quarter ago, is still standing north of that village.His father, Joseph Junkin, Esq., was born in Cumberland county, Pa., in January, 1750; his grandfather in county Down, Ireland. His father served three terms of voluntary enlistment in the Revolutionary army, and commanded a company at the battle of Brandywine, September 11, 1777, in which action he was seriously wounded.

In 1806 the family removed to “Hope Farm,” in Mercer county, where they built mills, and where the subject of this notice was born. He was the tenth son. He was educated at a school in Mercer, afterwards at the Mercer Academy. Then at the Milton Academy, under the celebrated teacher, Dr. Kirkpatrick, the teacher of Governors Curtin and Pollock, and other men who have risen to distinction in Church and State, and also in the medical profession.

After being prepared for the Junior class in college, young Junkin returned to Mercer and entered upon the study of the law in the office of the late Judge Banks.

After prosecuting legal study for two years—commencing at the age of seventeen—he resolved to complete his collegiate education, and for a time became a teacher, first in Northumberland, and then in Centre county, Pa. He was said to be fond of the profession, and quite successful as an instructor. After teaching for some time he repaired to Jefferson College, Pa., where he graduated A. B., in 1831.

Whilst in college he united with the Presbyterian church, and turned his attention to the Christian ministry. In college his contemporaries and professors considered him somewhat remarkable as a youth of genial affections, kind and generous impulses and proficient as a writer. He once was “contestor” as essayist for his literary society, and won the “honor.” After receiving the degree, in October, 1831, he repaired to Philadelphia, and spent the Winter of 1831-2 as a professor in the Pennsylvania “Manual Labor Academy,” at Germantown. In May, 1832, he entered the Theological seminary at Princeton, New Jersey, from which he graduated in the Fall of 1834. He had been, in October, 1833, licensed by the Presbytery of Philadelphia to preach the Gospel, and, soon after leaving the seminary, he was called to the pastorate of the First Presbyterian Church of Greenwich, New Jersey, and was ordained the pastor of it in the following Spring. In that pastorate he continued for nearly seventeen years, until he was called to F Street Church (now New York Avenue) Washington city, D. C.

Meanwhile, during his pastorate at Greenwich, which is just across the Delaware river from Easton, Pa.—the seat of Lafayette College—he was elected Professor of Belles Lettres by the trustees of that institution, and discharged the duties of that chair acceptably for seven years, until the increasing demands of his pastorate constrained him to resign. In 1834 he received from his alma mater the degree of A. M.

In 1845 he published, from the press of Wylie & Putnam, New York, the first edition of his work, entitled “The Oath, an Ordinance of God, and an Element of the Social Constitution,” which was highly commended by the press and the reviewers, and is quoted as standard on that subject. Shortly after this publication, the Columbia College, in the city of New York, conferred upon Mr. Junkin the degree of Doctor of Divinity.

After a very pleasant and successful pastorate of sixteen and a-half years at Greenwich, Dr. Junkin was called simultaneously to the pastoral office of the First Presbyterian Church at Chambersburg, Pa., and that of F Street, Washington City.

Personally he is said to have preferred the former, but, under advice of his Presbytery, accepted the latter.

In Washington he was the instrument, under God, of building up a strong church out of a weak one; and he there endeared himself, as he had done at Greenwich, to the people of his charge and to a large circle of other friends.

Some of the first minds in the country there sat under his ministry and appreciate it—such as Professor Joseph Henry, Governor McDowell, of Virginia, Gen. J. M. McCalla, the late Col. Nourse (the last two elders of the church), James Buchanan and others.

Whilst at Washington, Dr. Junkin made the acquaintance of the prominent men of the nation. At that time Webster, Clay, Benton, Calhoun, Graham, Cass, Fish, Filmore and men of like stamp in civil life, and Gen. Winfield Scott, Towson, Riley, Jessup and such soldiers were about the capital city. In October, 1853, Dr. Junkin accepted a unanimous call to Hollidaysburg, in his native State, and spent six and a-half years of a pleasant, laborious and profitable pastorate in that fine town and picturesque, locality.

His health being somewhat impaired, and needing rest from severe ministerial toil, he accepted the appointment of chaplain in the United States Navy, unexpectedly tendered him by his old friend, the President of the United States, and entered upon the duties of that office at the Philadelphia Navy Yard in May, 1860. On the 1st of January, 1861, under orders to that station, he entered upon duty as Chaplain of the United States Naval Academy, at Annapolis, Maryland. This was a very interesting field of labor, as his congregation was composed of the officers of the Academy and the midshipmen, some two hundred in number.

Captain, now Commodore Blake, was superintendent of the institution, and the Rodgers brothers were there, the one, Captain C. P. R. Rodgers (now Commodore), was Commandant of Midshipmen, and Lieutenant Geo. Rodgers in charge of the school-ship. This school-ship was the good old historical frigate, Constitution—”Old Iron-Sides”—the conqueror of the “Guerriere.”

During that Winter, Dr. Junkin preached regularly on board that frigate, and in the Academy chapel on shore, and made many pleasant acquaintances in city and naval circles.

But the mutterings of the civil war began to be heard, and after the assault on Fort Sumter there was a rush to arms, and troops began to hurry to Washington.

On the 18th of April Dr. Junkin went, via Baltimore and York, Pa., to Philadelphia, arriving in the latter city on the evening of the 19th. As he alighted from the cars, S. Bolivar Rowe approached him, asking in an excited manner: “Doctor, have you heard the news of the riot in Baltimore, and the burning of the bridge?” “Yes,” replied the doctor, “and it is startling news.” Said Rowe, “Gov. Curtin has just arrived from Harrisburg to try and forward troops to Washington, but they know not how to do it; two regiments that left this morning have returned—can’t get through Baltimore—and the authorities here are afraid that the rebels will take Washington before troops can be sent forward!” “Where is Gov. Curtin?” asked Junkin. “At the Continental.” “Well,” said the Doctor, “let us go thither forthwith and I can direct them how to forward troops.” They went to the hotel, but found that Gov. Curtin had gone up to the house of Gen. Patterson, in Locust street. Thither they hastened—rang the bell, and asked to see Gov. Curtin: “Can’t be seen, he is engaged with some officers in the General’s office,” said the porter. “Go tell Gov. Curtin,” said the Doctor, decisively, “that Dr. Junkin, of the United States Navy, must see him instantly on important public business.” This message brought the Governor to the parlor, where the following dialogue ensued:

“I understand, Governor, that you are at fault how to forward troops to Washington.”

Curtin replied, “Yes, Doctor, we know not what to do; we have plenty of troops here, but know not how to get them forward in season.” “It is to make a suggestion on that subject that I am come.” “You are acquainted about Baltimore, Doctor; can you tell me whether there is any road, say from ten to twelve miles north of Baltimore, on the Northern Central, by which troops can be moved across to the Relay House?”

“None, Governor; the roads all radiate from the city, but I have a better suggestion. I live at Annapolis, Maryland; the government has twenty-five acres of land and two good wharves at which to land troops and supplies at the Naval Academy, and I suggest that you at once charter or seize steamers and send troops to Annapolis. Keep the road from here to Perryville open by military guard, and you have a thoroughfare to Washington.” “But is there a railroad from Annapolis to Washington?” “A good single-track road to the junction, and double-track from thence to the city.” “That is the very thing,” said the Governor, “and I most heartily thank you for the suggestion.”

Dr. J. took his leave. The Governor returned to General Patterson’s office and reported the suggestion to the officers there assembled; and, as Governor Curtin afterwards said, “They all started to their feet exultingly.” Colonel Sherman exclaimed, “That is the very thing!” So said they all, and with that energy which marked the Governor’s conduct all through the war, he, General Patterson, and the officers present, at once hastened to put the suggestion in process of execution that very night.

Before morning the Massachusetts Eighth and the New York Seventh were en route; others followed. Annapolis was made the base of supplies, and the advance regiments marched into Washington just in season to deter the rebels from an assault contemplated the very night of their entrance.

It is true that General B. F. Butler has claimed the honor of making Annapolis a strategic point, but it rightfully belongs (Governor Curtin and General Patterson, and others have testified,) to the subject of this sketch.

In a speech made in New Castle in 1876, Governor Curtin publicly stated the above facts; (Dr. Junkin was absent from the city at the time). On his return to Annapolis, on Tuesday, April 23, Dr. Junkin was the instrument, by his self-possession and the risk of his own life, of preventing frightful destruction of life on Chesapeake Bay, opposite Annapolis. He was descending the bay in the large steam tug “Superior,” with fifty sailors and about three hundred Montgomery county volunteers. They were approaching the frigate “Constitution,” which had been hauled out for safety into the bay. The officers of the ship mistook the “Superior” for a hostile craft coming to take the frigate with armed men, two guns being also mounted at the bows of the tug, and no colors flying. They hailed, but could not hear the reply, and trained the ship’s broadside upon the thronged deck of the steamer.

“Come one rod nearer and I will blow you out of the water!” shouted Captain George Rodgers through his speaking-trumpet. Dr. Junkin had sprung upon one of the guns of the tug, where he waved a white handkerchief, and cried, “We are friends! we are friends!” but the wind was in his eye, and his voice not heard in the excitement of the moment. Still he cried, “I’m your chaplain! Do you think I would be in bad company?” Still he was unheard, though the vessels were now not two hundred feet apart. The word “fire!” was just about being given, when a midshipman rushed up to Captain Rodgers, exclaiming, “Captain, that man standing on, the Dahlgren gun is Dr. Junkin, our chaplain.” Then Rodgers recognized his chaplain, and the danger was over. Many lives would have been sacrificed but for his presence and exertions.

The Naval Academy was soon after ordered to Newport, Rhode Island, and the entire institution, officers, midshipman, and the whole personnel, with library, apparatus, &c., were transported on the ocean steamer “Baltic” to that city, landing at Fort Adams. Dr. Junkin continued to act as chaplain of the Academy until June, 1862, when he received orders to the receiving-ship “North Carolina” and the navy-yard at Brooklyn. He continued on duty there until September, when he was ordered to sea on the United States steam-frigate, “Colorado.” He joined his ship a Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and sailed in her first to Hampton Roads, Virginia, where she lay a month on guard-duty, and then proceeded to the West Indies and Key West, thence to the mouth of Mobile bay, opposite Fort, Morgan.

There the ship lay on blockade-duty for a year. But the Doctor’s health broke down, and the surgeons and Admiral Farragut advised him to take a month’s sick leave and go North. The Admiral, with whom he was on friendly terms, gave him leave-of-absence, and he returned to Brooklyn on board the steamer of that name. Just before he left the “Colorado,” his son William, paymaster in the navy, came on board, on his way from New Orleans to rejoin his ship, the “Potomac,” then lying at Pensacola, Florida. He had been to New Orleans for funds, of which he was bearing a large sum. That was the last interview between father and son in this life. A few weeks after his father sailed for the North, the son was cut down by yellow-fever in his twenty-second year. Dr. Junkin came to New Orleans in company with Admiral Farragut, and thence to New York. Whilst in the Gulf of Mexico he did a large amount of work, as he was the only chaplain in the East Gulf squadron.

He not only served in his own ship, but often conducted service and visited the sick: and wounded on other vessels. He instituted on his ship a school for the instruction of “contrabands,” some sixty of whom were on board, but he had to teach it himself, as no others were willing, although there were many professed friends of the Negro on board quite competent to teach if willing.

Pages upon pages might be filled with thrilling incidents connected with this part of Dr. Junkin’s life, both on sea and on shore, but the plan of this work will not admit of the detail. He kept a private “log” from which many extracts might be made. His exposure at sea and in a malarious climate—for the yellow fever was rife that year and was on the “Colorado”—had so sensibly impaired his health that he did not return to the Gulf of Mexico. Rheumatism set in and assumed a chronic form, from which he is still a sufferer. In consequence of this, after trying various methods of relief, he resigned his commission in the Navy and accepted a call to the North Presbyterian Church, in Chicago, hoping that a removal from the seaboard might result in the restoration of his health.

He served that church effectively for some two years, but instead of improving, his health grew worse under the moist and rigorous climate of that city, and he was constrained, with great reluctance, to resign his charge, which was so pleasant as a field of labor, and in which success seemed crowning his exertions.

He had received a unanimous call to the First Presbyterian Church of New Castle, Pa., in the Spring of 1866, and though still much disabled by rheumatism, he hoped that a return to his native air might be beneficial, and accordingly he accepted the call, and entered upon his duties in May, 1866. Since that date he has continued, amid much pain of body and other trials, a busy life as a Christian pastor. Although a sufferer, and hinder by bodily infirmity, his labors have been manifold, and have not been without tokens of God’s blessing upon them.

As might be expected in the case of a man of Dr. Junkin’s pronounced opinions and firm adherence to them, he has sometimes aroused opposition to his principles and person; but he is not a man who quails before opposition, if he is convinced that it proceeds from wrong principles or motives. People of integrity, it is believed, confide in him as a man of great kindness of heart and unswerving integrity, whilst those who differ with him in opinion, on temperance and other branches of moral reform in which he has been forward and firm, are apt to be severe and sometimes sour in their criticisms.

It is believed by all candid people, however, that his influence in New Castle has been always on the side of right, and that those who gainsay his course are no better members of the community, to say the least, than those who are his warm admirers and adherents. He is still enjoying, amid all his bodily infirmities, a green, active and cheerful old age.

Dr. Junkin has been a prolific writer. In addition to works already mentioned, he published, in 1857, his work entitled “THE GOOD STEWARD; or Evangelical Benevolence an Essential Element of Christianity,” which was published by the Presbyterian Board, and a second edition of his work on the “Oath” was issued about the same time, by the Martiens, of Philadelphia. In 1871, he published through the Lippincotts, of Philadelphia, his most extensive work, entitled, “GEORGE JUNKIN, D.D., L.L.D.A. A HISTORICAL BIOGRAPHY,” which contains not only the life of his brother, but a lucid history of the Presbyterian Church for the last half century. These works have had extensive sale.

Besides these, Dr. Junkin has given to the press many addresses, sermons and shorter publications, both in prose and verse, and has been one of the most voluminous writers for the periodical press.

For many years, including before and after the war, he wrote for the Presbyrian of Philadelphia, over the signature of “NESHANNOCK,” and his writings, whether narrative, descriptive or controversial, were always read with avidity.

The Doctor also wrote a biography of General Towson, one of the heroes of the War of 1812, which was published in New York in 1852.

This sketch of Dr. Junkin has been compiled by the historian from “scrapbook” jottings of the Doctor’s, made at various periods.  —  History of Lawrence County, 1877, pages 168-170

Tags: , , ,

April 8: First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, MS

8 April, 2015 in April 2015 by archivist | No comments

The First Presbyterian Church of Jackson was organized on a Saturday afternoon, April 8, 1837 by the Reverend Peter Donan and four persons: Mrs. Margaret E. Mayson, Mrs. Susan Patton, and John Robb and his wife, Marion.  The organization meeting was held in “the Old State House,” Mississippi’s first capitol, a small two-story structure on the northeast corner of E. Capitol and N. President Streets.   Peter Donan continued as the church’s pastor for four years.  There were no elders for two years, no deacons for six years, nor a Presbyterian house of worship for nearly nine years.  In the first two years of its existence, the church had but three new members.

In 1841, Reverend Donan was followed by Reverend  S. H. Hazard, who was pastor for little more than one year.  He was succeeded by the Reverend  Leroy Jones Halsey, a dynamic man and preacher, under whose ministry the congregation commenced to grow.  Halsey spurred the building of the first sanctuary on the northwest corner of North State and Yazoo Streets.  When Dr. Halsey resigned in 1848, the pulpit was supplied until February 22, 1849. The congregation then called as pastor the Reverend Isaac James Henderson, who served until he was succeeded by the Reverend L. A. Lowry on December 3, 1853.   Mr. Lowry was a fine pastor and effective preacher, but died of Yellow Fever after but two years service.  The pulpit was supplied from March, 1855, until a call was extended to the Reverend John Hunter on January 24, 1858.

[For more on the history of First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, MS, see the church web site.]

Words to Live By:
Blessed Zion: First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, Mississippi, 1837-2012, is a wonderful church history, written by Dr. Sean Lucas and published early in 2013. The book’s preface alone would be worth the purchase price, in my estimation. There Dr. Lucas summarizes several lessons drawn from the writing of this history:

1. It only takes one generation for a church to die. The reasons may vary: “a poor pastoral choice; a failure to continue to preach God’s Word faithfully; a transition in the church’s understanding of mission; an inability to see and adapt to the neighborhood around it.” By the grace of God, First/Jackson has been blessed in making many right choices over the many years.

2. The quality of the ruling elders who serve the church. These men who form the Session of the church must be talented, godly men.

3. The value of long-term pastorates, allowing for great stability, space for godly pastors to “to shape the theological and experiential perspective of the congregation in favor of the grand, winsome, evangelical truths of Reformed Christianity,” and enabling pastors to earn the long-term trust of their congregation.

4. What Dr. Lucas calls “The Road Not Taken,” i.e., knowing that mistakes, even disastrous ones, can be so easily made, we must recognize and rely upon God’s mercy and blessing. We note that Rev. Peter Donan, the founding pastor of First/Jackson, later departed from the Reformed Faith, but in God’s providence, that was some years later and by that time he had no influence on the life of this congregation. “Churches that stand faithful through the generations are those that seek men who are faithful to the Scripture, true to the Reformed faith, and obedient to the Great Commission.”

5. The blessings of evangelical Presbyterianism. A great church will not “major in the minors” but will focus on proclaiming Christ and Him crucified.

Tags: , , ,

March 30: The Office of Ruling Elder, by F.P. Ramsay

30 March, 2015 in March 2015 by archivist | No comments

Church government, or polity, is one of my continuing interests, particularly in relation to the historical background of the PCA’s BOOK OF CHURCH ORDER.

As explained below, the following article by Franklin Pierce Ramsay appeared posthumously in the July 1930 issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY [the original series of this title, not the one you know today]. Ramsay had written a commentary on the Southern Presbyterian BOOK OF CHURCH ORDER, which was published in 1898 and so the article below can be seen both as an appendix to that volume and as a charge to a ruling elder. Much of the content of Ramsay’s commentaryremains pertinent for the PCA’s BCO, since in many cases the text of the modern edition is still unchanged some 113 years later. Even where the comparable paragraph has changed, Ramsay’s comments still offer good insights into the underlying principles which remain.

The Rev. Franklin Pierce Ramsay was born on March 30, 1856. He was educated at Davidson College, Johns Hopkins University, the University of Chicago (Ph.D.) and Columbia Theological Seminary. In his forty-five year career, he served as pastor of at least six Presbyterian congregations and also as president of several colleges, including King College, Bristol, Tennessee. The Rev. F. P. Ramsay died on September 30, 1926. Thus far I have not been able to locate a photograph of him.

The Office of Ruling Elder : Its Obligations and Responsibilities
By the Rev. F.P. Ramsay, Ph.D.
[Christianity Today 1.3 (July 1930): 5-6.]

The following address was made by the late Dr. Ramsay on the occasion of the installation of his son, R.L. Ramsay, Ph.D., professor of English in the University of Missouri, as an elder in the First Presbyterian Church of Columbia, Mo., on March 25, 1925. It came into our hands through another son, the Rev. Mebane Ramsay of Staten Island, N.Y., who found it among the papers left by his lamented father.

As one is to be here inducted into the office of Ruling Elder of the Presbyterian Church, my remarks will seek to be appropriate to the occasion.

At this induction into office the elder makes a declaration of his doctrinal belief, that the Scriptures are the Word of God, and that the Confession of Faith (and Catechisms) contain the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures; and he promises to study the (doctrinal) purity of the Church. This is the covenant that he enters into with the Church when inducted into this office. Here is the difference between an unofficial member and an officer in the Presbyterian Church : the member simply professes his personal faith in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ ; the officer professes his belief in the Church’s doctrinal system. One may become a member who does not believe that the Confession of Faith contains the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures, or even that the Scriptures are the Word of God, if only he trusts in Jesus Christ and means to obey Him ; but one cannot become an officer in the Presbyterian Church without accepting its doctrinal system and intending to strive for the Church’s doctrinal purity—unless he is willing to come into his office on a false profession.

Let me stress this a little. Note the difference between the unofficial members, who are required only to profess faith in Christ, and the officers, who are required to profess acceptance of a body of doctrine. Thus the Presbyterian Church is both liberal and intolerant.

Note that it is intolerant of disbelief in its system of doctrine on the part of its officers. Why? The Church is a propagandist institution, an organization for the purpose of advocating and propagating certain beliefs. It is true that the Church’s end is to produce and nourish a certain life ; but belief is an inseparable element of that life and necessary to it. Or be that as it may, the Church is organized and works upon that assumption, and so sets itself to propagate certain beliefs. This system of beliefs its officers are required to accept and maintain and propagate.

Here is a striking difference between the Church and the University. The University is organized to search for truth ; the Church, to propagate the truth. The University, assuming that there is truth still hidden, sets itself to investigate and discover new truth ; but the Church, assuming that certain truths have been given to it by revelation from God, sets itself to teach and disseminate that truth. The University asks questions, the Church answers questions.

The candidate on this occasion is a University man, filled with the University spirit ; and I therefore say to him that the Church is organized on the assumption that it already has the truth and exists for the purpose of disseminating and propagating this truth. If a society were organized for the purpose of propagating Socialism, a man might conceivably belong to that society, and yet be a professor in the University. If in the University he were teaching social science, he would endeavor to lead his students in investigations that would enable them to judge for themselves between Socialism and Individualism, seemingly indifferent whether they became Socialists or Individualists, but only concerned that they became capable of weighing the claims of both. But if this same man joins the Socialistic society, and is sent out as one of its speakers to expound and advocate its system of beliefs, and make converts to it, and ground them in it; he is then a propagandist of Socialism, and will endeavor to gain adherents to the system. He is then at work on the assumption that Socialism is true and established, and now needs to be propagated. So the Church is a propagandist society; and its officers, and especially its elders and ministers, are its agents to disseminate its system.

Now, one may not believe that the system of beliefs held by the Presbyterian Church is truth, or that it is wise to have an organization for advocacy and propagation of this system ; but if he becomes an officer in this Church, pledged to promote its system  and  propagate its beliefs, then he professes himself to receive this system and covenants to cooperate with others in disseminating it. He is not obliged to assume this obligation; he is not obliged to make this profession and pledge, any more than he is obliged to become a lecturer for the Socialistic society. But if he does make this profession and pledge, and does become an officer in the Presbyterian Church, he must be loyal to this profession and pledge, or disloyal. If a man should join the Socialistic society, not believing in Socialism, or not believing in its type of Socialism, and should accept a commission from it to go out as one of its speakers, and as such should really oppose its type of Socialism; we and other honest men would accuse him of borrowing from within, of betraying his trust, and of paltry dishonesty. I trust that the man to be now ordained will never sink so low.

Now the Ruling Elder in the Presbyterian Church is not indeed a lecturer to advocate its principles to the same extent as the Minister is ; but he is, all the same, the conserver and guardian of its doctrinal purity. The eldership has equal voice with the Ministers in the Presbyteries and higher courts of the Church, which judge its Ministers and administer its whole government and discipline, and control its administration ; and the eldership in the local Church, always more numerous than the ministry, have the control. And it lies as a special obligation on the elders to see that the teaching in their church is loyal to the Confession of Faith of the Church. If the pastor should be somewhat erratic, and yet in life and spirit is loyal to the system of truth, the elders should bear with him, and cooperate with him on the whole ; but if at any time the pastor departs from the system and becomes disloyal to the system, the elders are there to protect the Church against his false teaching. So I say that the elders are the conservers of our system of doctrine.

Nor need we be ashamed of being members and agents of a propagandist society. True, there is such a thing as progress in understanding religious truth; and the Presbyterian Church makes provision for this progress. It provides for amending its doctrinal standards; and it has amended them again and again. We do not say that we believe them to be errorless, but to contain the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures;  and any elder or minister may propose amendments. So new truth may be discovered, or better statements of truth may be invented ; but this improvement of the system is to be made by those who believe in the system, and by methods that insure full discussion.

But while there is this provision for progress and change, the very nature of Christianity makes it a stable thing. The process of revelation runs through many generations, a growth from its germinal beginning in the beginning of human history up to its fruitage in Jesus Christ. This revelation of truth through the ages has reached its consummation in the Perfect Word. We cannot now go back and make the history different. We cannot go back now, and prevent the entrance of sin into the world. We cannot change or improve the covenants with Abraham. We cannot make the redemption from Egypt, and the Mosaic legislation, and the settlement in Canaan, throw any finer light on the teachings of Christ. We cannot build the tabernacle or the temple, or fashion the priesthood and sacrifices, or turn the music of the temple, to clearer significance on what the Christ was to be. We cannot alter the development of the Messianic monarchy, so that the Son of David shall mean more than it does. We cannot adjust the birth of Jesus, or His miracles, or His resurrection, more in accordance with modern skepticism, or make His bloody death more aesthetic. We cannot call Him down from heaven and instruct Him how to guide His Church and to apply His religion. There are the facts, and we cannot now change them ; there is the Christ that God has given us, and we cannot modernize Him ; there is the unalterable revelation shining in the heaven of history, and we cannot remake it.

We can only accept Him as He is, and enthrone Him in our hearts and lives. Let us be loyal to Him, and loyal to His Church.

And especially may educated men, men whose very occupations require them to push on the frontiers of inquiry in science and philosophy and literature, render this service to their Lord : they can be loyal to Him, and loyal to His revelation made once for all, and thus testify that progress in investigation does not mean putting out the light of the past ; and can show that humble faith in Christ is consistent with the scientific humility of willingness to learn.

Christianity as a system of truth is a great building. Its foundations have been laid, and even its walls have already risen into the skies. It rises like the Memorial Tower yonder on the campus. We may come and build upon this building ; but we will not wreck its walls nor raze its foundations. We will build ourselves and our lives into the rising structure, sure that we shall be safe on its walls that waver not, and on its foundations that tremble not. For here is Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and today and forever.

Words to Live By:
“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.”—Hebrews 13:17, NASB

Tags: , , ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »