Distributing the Lord's Supper

In this article at American Reformer, I review the history of the distribution of the Lord’s Supper in the Presbyterian tradition in light of current discussions about who should help in the distribution:

Distributing the Lord's Supper in the Presbyterian Tradition by Peter Bringe

Catechizing and the Westminster Shorter Catechism

Presbyterian Catechising by John Phillip (1817-1867). National Galleries of Scotland.

"Catechizing" refers to teaching the doctrines of the Christian faith in a systematic manner, especially through the use of questions and answers. The word comes from a Greek word found in the Bible (Luke 1:4, Gal. 6:6), κατηχέω (katécheó), which means “I teach orally, I instruct,” from kata and echos; to “sound down.” In English, catechism refers both to oral instruction and to written catechisms. Historically and etymologically, the oral instruction is primary, and the use and memorization of written catechisms is an aid in this work of catechizing. 

The Bible teaches the importance of such instruction. Exodus 12:26-27 and Deuteronomy 6:20-25 describe giving instruction in the faith through questions and answers. Deuteronomy 6:7 teaches parents to diligently teach the word of God to their children. "You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise." This point is confirmed in the New Testament as well (Eph. 6:4). And not only parents are responsible for catechizing. The Greek word katécheó is used to describe the pastor-teachers of the church in Galatians 6:6, "Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches." It is important for the pastors of the church to teach as well as preach (1 Tim. 4:13, 16), to give instruction in sound doctrine, in "the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness" (1 Tim. 6:3, cp. 2 Tim. 1:13-14). Ministers must not shrink back from declaring everything profitable, the whole counsel of God, giving the saints a systematic understanding of what God's word teaches (Acts 20:20, 27). 

Not only do we find biblical grounds for this doctrinal instruction by both parents and pastors, but also its use in church history. In the early church, catechetical lectures were given to catechumens before they were admitted to the sacraments, along with catechetical instruction afterwards. From early on, this instruction followed the outline of the Creed (Nicene or Apostles), the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the sacraments.

Catechetical instruction blossomed during the Reformation. Many catechism were written by the Reformers to assist in this work, such as Luther’s Large and Small Catechisms and the Genevan Catechism. The Roman Catholic Church responded with the “Roman Catechism” in 1566. 

Both parents and pastors were to be engaged in the work of catechism. Calvin held a catechism class on Sunday afternoons in between the morning and evening services, especially for the children. The Dutch Reformed tradition prescribed that pastors preach through the Heidelberg Catechism in their evening service. The Church of England in 1603 prescribed that all its pastors examine, instruct, and teach at least the youth and ignorant persons of their parish before the evening service for 30 minutes or more. The Church of Scotland prescribed in 1560 that the minister catechize on Sunday afternoons by publicly examining the youth before the congregation, instructing the whole congregation. In 1639, the Church of Scotland prescribed that every minister hold gatherings during the week for this catechizing (as portrayed in the painting above). It also prescribed that parents and masters catechize their households. 

The Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechisms were produced by the Westminster Assembly in the 1640s and they form part of the doctrinal standards of Presbyterian denominations like my own, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The Westminster Assembly produced these catechisms as a "Directory for ... catechising" for the churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland, in accord with the Solemn League and Covenant (1643). Its Form of Presbyterial Church Government included "catechising" among the ordinances to be practiced in each congregation and "To catechise, which is a plain laying down the first principles of the oracles of God" as among the duties of pastors. 

The Westminster Shorter Catechism has been used for centuries by Puritans, Presbyterians, and others to give instruction in the Christian faith, especially to the young and to those new to the faith. This catechism was used by English Puritans, with commentaries written on it by Thomas Vincent, Thomas Watson, and Matthew Henry. It was used throughout Presbyterian Scotland for centuries. It was also used in America, by Presbyterians and Congregationalists. It was included in the influential New England Primer, which was first published in 1690 and continued to be reprinted through the 19th century, and served as the basic textbook for beginning students as they learned to read. Thus, especially in the 1600s and 1700s, generations of American children were taught and discipled by this reliable tool of Christian discipleship.

The American Presbyterian Directory for Public Worship, approved in 1788, directed that 

Children, born within the pale of the visible Church, and dedicated to God in baptism, are under the instruction and government of the Church; and are to be taught to read, and repeat the Catechism, the Apostles Creed, and the Lord's prayer. They are to be taught to pray, to abhor sin, to fear God, and to obey the Lord Jesus Christ. And, when they come to years of discretion, if they be free from scandal, appear sober and steady, and to have sufficient knowledge to discern the Lord's body, they ought to be informed, it is their duty, and their privilege, to come to the Lord's Supper.

It also said, 

Let heads of families be careful to instruct their children and servants in the principles of religion. — Every proper opportunity ought to be embraced for such instruction. But we are of opinion that the sabbath evenings after public worship, should be sacredly preserved for this purpose.

Much of the responsibility for catechizing was on the parents, but often the church or school would also help in this work (e.g. public recitations, examinations, classes, or home visits). Sometimes the Scripture proofs were also memorized. 

For example, young Charles Hodge (1797-1878) and his brother were drilled in the catechism by their mother, who brought them to the catechism classes held by their pastor Ashbel Green for children, ages 3 or 4 to 10 or 12. When children of Dr. Green’s congregation had learned the catechism, they joined a Bible class which met weekly in the pastor’s study, which included continued review of the catechism. Then the youth attended Dr. Green’s series of lectures on the Shorter Catechism, which also attracted people of all ages. When Archibald Alexander (1772-1851) was a pastor, he held regular catechism classes for the children of the church on Saturday afternoons. He “put the class through the Shorter Catechism. The older children were required to bring written proofs of certain points assigned’” (Calhoun, Princeton Seminary, vol. 1, p. 57). Archibald himself had memorized it by the age of 7, at which point he had begun working on the Larger Catechism.

I am currently catechizing at church at 10:00 am on Sunday mornings with all ages welcome, working through the Westminster Shorter Catechism. You can find the recordings of those lessons here. You can find several written commentaries on it at this link and an outline of it here. You can also learn more about catechizing at this links:

Is the Shorter Catechism Worth While? by B.B. Warfield (1851-1921) 

Why Catechize? by Thomas Watson (1620–1686)

Catechizing: A Forgotten Practice by John Murray (1898-1975) 

The Parson Catechising by George Herbert (1593-1633)

Church Membership

A Christian must be a member of a church, under the oversight and jurisdiction of particular elders, exercising the communion of saints.

There have been times and places when this was not as much of an issue for Christians, because they would automatically belong to their parish church. But our present situation in America places more responsibility on the individual to take the initiative to join a church.

Those whom Christ saves, he makes members of his church, which he organizes with visible government and ordinances, and church members have no right to renounce its jurisdiction and fellowship.

A Christian has no right to withdraw from membership in Christ’s church and its jurisdiction, although they may transfer from one particular church to another.

A Christian is bound by his profession of faith in Christ to participate faithfully in the church's worship and service, to submit in the Lord to its government, and to heed its discipline.

Nor should a Christian want to withdraw from the church - Christ has instituted things like pastoral care, diaconal care, and the sacraments for the good of his people. One of the benefits of salvation is this fellowship in the household of God, in which you are both blessed and a blessing to others.

------------------

The visible church is composed of those who profess the true religion and their children (1 Cor. 1:2, 7:14). While Baptists would disagree with the inclusion of their children, they would agree that Christians are the church. Those who are baptized are added to the number of the church (Acts 2:41, 47, 1 Cor. 12:13).

The church is society, a fellowship, in which each member is called to participate in its common worship, in mutual edification, and in sharing according to abilities and needs (Acts 2:42, Heb. 10:24-25, 1 Thess. 5:11, 2 Cor. 8-9). As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, "Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; as also in relieving each other in outward things, according to their several abilities and necessities" (26.2).

Christ has appointed that there be a government in his church of elders to govern and shepherd the church, “all the flock” (1 Thess. 5:12-13, Acts 20:28), instituting the practice of church discipline, to be used as needed (Matt. 16:19, 18:15-20). Part of how Christ exercises the office of a king is by giving his people "officers, laws, and censures, by which he visibly governs them," as our Larger Catechism explains (WLC 45). Christians are commanded in Scripture to be subject to this government in the Lord. “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you” (Heb. 13:17). 

Christ has given pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the saints (Eph. 4:11-12). As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, "Unto this catholic visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto" (25.3). 

This is not to discount the bad experiences some people have with churches. Their suspicion toward the church in general may be understandable. But such a Christian should not want to withdraw from the church altogether, but to seek the care and ministry that Christ has appointed for his people. The church has a responsibility to faithfully care for one another and build up the body, and shepherds in particular have a duty to faithfully carry out their ministry, lest what Ezekiel 34:1-10 describes takes place.

This church is universal (Matt. 16:18), regional (Acts 20:17), and local (1 Cor. 16:19). Christians can transfer from church to church, especially when they move or when attempts to rectify a serious problem fail. But as long as they are Christians, they cannot withdraw from Christ’s church, and ought to therefore have membership in some church under some elders.

Jesus the King

"Q. 26. How doth Christ execute the office of a king? A. Christ executeth the office of a king, in subduing us to himself, in ruling and defending us, and in restraining and conquering all his and our enemies." (Westminster Shorter Catechism) 

In what two ways is Jesus king?

While Jesus has eternal dominion over all as God, he also has received a mediatorial dominion over all as our Redeemer, on the basis of his death and resurrection, to the end that he might save, lead, and protect God’s elect and restore God’s reign over a fallen world (John 17:2, Matt. 28:18, 1 Cor. 15:24-26). It is in this second sense that he was “given” all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). Not only does Jesus, as our Redeemer, execute the offices of a prophet and of a priest, but also of a king. 

Why do we need a king?

By nature, the fallen world is under the domain of Satan and the judgment of God. They are condemned outlaws, hostile to God, doing whatever their corrupt will desires, under a tyrant’s sway. They are like sheep without a shepherd (Matt. 9:36, 1 King 22:17, Ezek. 34:5-6), scattered, going their own way, subject to ravenous wolves. But by grace, sinners are brought into the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God and of his Christ (Col. 1:13-14). Jesus binds the strong man and plunders his house, drawing people into his kingdom (Matt. 12:25-29).

As early as Genesis 3:15, mankind was taught to believe in the king who delivers sinners from the domain of darkness with victory over the serpent. God said to that ancient serpent the devil, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15).

When did God first promise kings for his people? 

God promised to Abraham and Jacob to raise up kings from their offspring (Gen. 17:6, 16; 35:11), and instructions for a king were given in Deuteronomy 17. The book of Judges pointed to Israel’s need for a king to deliver and lead them. “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes”(Judges 21:25).

After God rejected Saul from being king, whom did he raise up and establish as king over his covenant people?

King David, son of Jesse, a shepherd from Bethlehem. The kingdom of Israel under King David and his heirs was an Old Testament manifestation and type of the kingdom of God. God chose this people and provided them with a king to deliver them and give them peace and rest (2 Sam. 7:8-11, Ps. 78:70-72). He promised to raise up David’s offspring to succeed him and to establish his throne forever (2 Sam. 7:12-16, Ps. 72, 89:1-37).

The kings like David, Asa, and Jehoshaphat received God’s word from the priests and enforced it, guided the people by it, delivered the people from their enemies, gave them peace in the land, and interceded for the people.

Yet, as David’s descendants acted corruptly, the kingdom fell. Was God done with the offspring of David? What did the prophets say? 

The prophets explained to the people that this situation was temporary. God would remember his covenant with David and raise up his heir and restore his kingdom and make it greater than ever before (Is. 9:6-7, 11:1-10, Ezek. 34:23-24, Micah 5:2-4). The king would come to Israel and shepherd God’s people and extend his reign to the ends of the earth. This would be the Christ, God’s anointed, who would deliver his people and establish heaven’s reign on earth. As the fulfillment of this prophecy, Jesus came as the Son of David, the promised king (Luke 1:31-33).

How does King Jesus subdue us to himself? 

He does so by subduing our hearts by converting us by his word and Spirit, so that we offer ourselves freely on the day of his power (Ps. 110:3, see also Acts 15:14-18). He powerfully calls out of the world a people to himself, bestowing saving grace upon his elect, rescuing them from the domain of darkness. He applies redemption by his word and Spirit.

How does King Jesus rule us? 

He rules his people internally by his grace, by his Spirit who writes God’s word on our hearts. He rules his people externally by his officers, his laws, and his censures (Eph. 4:11-12, 1 Cor. 12:28, Is. 33:22, Matt. 18:17-18). He also rules them in his providence by rewarding their obedience, correcting them for their sins, and ordering all things for their good (Rev. 2:10, 3:19).

How does King Jesus defend us? 

He defends us from our enemies by preserving and supporting us under all our temptations and sufferings, and by restraining and conquering our enemies. He both carries his sheep and he fights off the lions and bears (Is. 40:11, 1 Sam. 17:34-36).

The kingdom of heaven is both a shelter and a transforming power, a place of protective defense and a power of righteous sway. It is a tree where the birds make their nest and it is leaven which transforms the dough (Matt. 13:31-33). (1) It is a shelter where there is reconciliation with God rather than condemnation, favor rather than wrath. In this kingdom there is justification and adoption, and thus peace and joy, through Jesus Christ (Col. 1:12-14). We take refuge under the protection of our king. (2) Jesus reigns in our hearts by his grace, producing sanctification, societal reform, and a new way of life. As a little sin can spread its corrupting influence in people and communities (1 Cor. 5:6), so the reign of Christ spreads its reforming influence in people and communities.

How does King Jesus restrain and conquer his and our enemies? 

As Jesus places us on his side, his enemies become ours as well. As the world hated him, so it hates his disciples. Therefore, in addition to death, our enemies include the world, the flesh, and the devil. But Jesus shall restrain and conquer them, for his glory, for our good, and to fulfill his messianic task to restore the world. He “will shatter kings on the day of his wrath. He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses” (110:5-6). As Psalm 2 describes the choice, we must either submit to the king and take refuge in him or suffer his wrath and perish (Ps. 2:12). He wields this power even now as he extends his kingdom (Rev. 2:15-16, 22-23). For example, he overthrew Jerusalem for its persistent persecution of him and his disciples. But one day he will return in glory to raise the dead and judge the world, repaying with affliction those who afflicted his church, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God or obey the gospel, purifying his church of all hypocrites, bringing all of this work to perfect completion (2 Thess. 1:6-10). 

Psalm 110 serves as a good summary of his kingship. Jesus was enthroned as king when he ascended to his Father’s right hand on the basis of his victorious work of redemption (Ps. 110:1). He now rules in the midst of his enemies, making his enemies his footstool (110:1-2). He does this in two ways, (1) by subduing the hearts of his people by his word and Spirit, so that they “offer themselves freely on the day of [his] power” (110:3), and (2) by restraining and conquering all his and our enemies, executing judgment among the nations (110:5-6).

"[The kingdom of God] was symbolized in the throne of David in Jerusalem and the Jewish theocracy, and it was visibly set up in its higher spiritual form when the long-promised Son of David, having redeemed his people on the cross, rose from the dead, ascended to the heavens and sat down at the right hand of God. This kingdom is not one among the many competing kingdoms of the earth. It is antagonistic to the kingdom of Satan only: all the natural kingdoms of men, except in so far as they are compromised with the kingdom of Satan, are penetrated and assimilated and rendered subservient to its own ends by the kingdom of God. All other kingdoms have their rise, progress, maturity and decadence, while this kingdom alone is eternal, growing broader and waxing stronger through all ages until its consummation in the city of God."
-A.A. Hodge, "The Kingdom Of Christ," Popular Lectures on Theological Themes (1887)

Jesus the Priest

"Q. 25. How doth Christ execute the office of a priest? A. Christ executeth the office of a priest, in his once offering up of himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, and reconcile us to God; and in making continual intercession for us." (Westminster Shorter Catechism)

Jesus became our redeemer to deliver us from our estate of sin and misery. As our redeemer he executes the offices of a prophet, of a priest, and of a king. 

Why do we need a priest? 

Because apart from him we are alienated from God, guilty and defiled, condemned by divine justice, unable to dwell with a holy God.

Who were some of the priests in the Old Testament? 

Aaron, Eleazar, Phinehas, Zadok, Joshua (the high priest after the exile), and Ezra. Some of the priests were also prophets (Ezekiel) and one was also a king (Melchizedek).

What did they do?

They received God’s word from the prophets and taught it, maintained the worship and vindicated the holiness of God, offered the various sacrifices and gifts of the people to God, and interceded for the people (Deut. 33:8-11, Lev. 10:10-11, Mal. 1-2, Heb. 5:1-4).

Where was it prophesied that the Christ would be a priest? 

Isaiah 53 and Psalm 110. "The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek'" (Psalm 110:4).

What is significant about Jesus being a priest of the order of Melchizedek? 

As Hebrews 7 explains, Melchizedek was the priest-king of Salem who received a tithe from Abraham and was a type of Christ. Being of the order of Melchizedek, Jesus is superior to the Levitical priesthood and is a priest-king of peace and righteousness, without beginning or end. It also defeats the objection to the priesthood of Jesus on the grounds that he was of the tribe of Judah rather than Levi - the Christ who was prophesied to be king was also appointed by God’s oath as a priest of the order of Melchizedek.

How was Jesus greater than the Levitical priests? 

In contrast to the Levitical priests, who were “many in number because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, [Jesus] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever” (Heb. 7:23-24). Jesus is God and man, and he was raised from the dead, to never die again, being made a “priest forever” by God’s oath. He also personally sinless and undefiled, without need to offer sacrifice for his own sins (Heb. 7:26-27).

Was it requisite that our priest be man? 

Yes, priests were chosen from among men to act on behalf of men in relation to God (Heb. 5:1-2). Jesus is a merciful high priest, able to sympathize with our weakness, having been tempted as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 2:17, 4:15).

What is the sacrifice that Jesus offered for sins? 

The sacrifice that he offered was himself. He partook of our flesh and blood to die for us, bearing our sins in his own body on the tree. Jesus secured an eternal redemption by his once-for-all offering of himself as a sacrifice without blemish to God (Heb. 9:12, 14). “But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Hebrews 9:26).

How is this sacrifice superior to the sacrifices that were offered by the Levitical priests? 

The animal sacrifices of the old covenant were shadows of what was to come. They pointed to Christ, directing the old covenant saints to believe in the Christ to come for their salvation. The fact that these sacrifices had to be continually offered showed their insufficiency of themselves to take away sins. It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (Heb. 10:1-4). The sacrifice of Christ did take away sins, once for all (Heb. 9:13–14). And rather than purifying the earthly holy place, which was a copy of the heavenly, Christ entered into the heavenly holy places by means of his own blood, appearing before God for us (Heb. 9:11-12).

What did Jesus do by his sacrifice of himself?

By his death, Jesus satisfied divine justice and reconciled us to God. His sacrifice of himself was a “propitiation” for our sins (Rom. 3:25, Heb. 2:17, 1 John 2:2, 4:10), which is to say that by atoning for our sins it appeased the just wrath of God and incurred God's favor. It is the grounds for our forgiveness, the debt of sin having been paid by Christ. By it, we are reconciled with God - peace has been made by the blood of the cross (Col. 1:20).

This is not to say that Jesus and the Father were at cross-purposes. The Father had sent the Son because of his love for us, so that God and sinners would be reconciled. As John Murray has said, “The doctrine of the propitiation is precisely this: that God loved the objects of His wrath so much that He gave His own Son to the end that He by His blood should make provision for the removal of this wrath.” (John Murray, The Atonement. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962, p. 15)

How does Jesus continue to execute the office of a priest for us? 

He continues to make intercession for those who draw near to God through him (Heb. 7:25, Is. 53:12). As the Westminster Larger Catechism says, "Christ maketh intercession, by his appearing in our nature continually before the Father in heaven, in the merit of his obedience and sacrifice on earth, declaring his will to have it applied to all believers; answering all accusations against them, and procuring for them quiet of conscience, notwithstanding daily failings, access with boldness to the throne of grace, and acceptance of their persons and services" (Q&A 55).

Jesus the Prophet

"Q. 24. How doth Christ execute the office of a prophet?
 A. Christ executeth the office of a prophet, in revealing to us, by his word and Spirit, the will of God for our salvation." (Westminster Shorter Catechism)

The eternal Son of God became the Redeemer to deliver us out of an estate of sin and misery and into an estate of salvation and glory. He is not our redeemer and mediator by nature, but by grace. In this capacity and for this purpose, he is a prophet, priest, and king. 

Who were some of the prophets of the Old Testament? 

Moses, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, Jonah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, etc. 

What did they do? 

They delivered God’s word to the people, speaking and writing his word. God put his words into their mouths (Jer. 1:9). They often received and described visions given by God, and sometimes were given parables or demonstrations to deliver the message (Hos. 12:10). They often did miracles which demonstrated God’s power and mercy, as well as verified the message. They often interceded for the people in prayer.  

How did the ministry of the prophets differ from the teaching ministry of the priests? 

The prophets spoke as oracles of God, delivering revelation to God’s people. The priests received the written word of the prophets and taught it. The prophets delivered new revelations from God by speech and writings, while the priests read and taught those Holy Scriptures (Deut. 31:9-13, 33:10, Lev. 10:11). And while there were some women prophets in the Old and New Testaments, the ministers of the word in both eras have always been men.

Was there a prophetic expectation that the Christ would be a prophet? 

I think it is safe to say that Moses was the greatest prophet in the Old Testament. The concluding postscript of Deuteronomy says that “there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, none like him for all the signs and the wonders that the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt…” (Deut. 34:10-11). Yet, Moses prophesied in Deuteronomy 18:15-16 that the Lord would raise up a prophet like Moses for his people, to mediate between them and the Lord.

When people began to observe Jesus’ teaching and miracles, they realized that he was this great prophet, the Prophet. The Gospel of John makes this clear by noting that John the Baptist denied that he was the Prophet (John 1:21-27), while the people correctly realized that Jesus was the Prophet (John 6:14, 7:40). Peter quoted the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18 in Acts 3:22 as referring to Jesus.

How was Jesus greater than the other prophets? 

Both John and the writer of Hebrews points out that Jesus surpassed the other prophets by being God himself, the eternal Word, the only-begotten Son of the Father (John 1:1-3, 14-18, Hebrew 1:1-3, 3:1-6). Jesus makes his Father known perfectly and completely because he is “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” (Heb. 1:3). And as the Redeemer who accomplished redemption, Jesus proclaimed the final and permanent administration of the covenant of grace. Jesus is the final word. “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…” (Heb. 1:1-2a). This is why Scripture was completed and special revelation ceased once his word, delivered through the apostles, was written down (Heb. 2:3-4).

How did Jesus exercise his office as a prophet before his incarnation? 

By inspiring the prophets by his Spirit (1 Peter 1:10-11). Not only is Jesus greater than all other prophets, but he was always at work through the other prophets. The Old Testament was given through him, as he worked by his Spirit to prepare his people for his coming and to build them up through faith in him.

How did Jesus exercise his office as a prophet during his earthly ministry? 

Jesus exercised this prophetic ministry during his time on earth as he preached the gospel, taught his disciples, told parables, pronounced blessings and woes, foretold future events, taught through symbolic actions, and did many miracles, signs, and wonders. He made the Father known, revealed the substance and fullness of the covenant and the kingdom, and established the new covenant administration.

How did Jesus exercise his office as a prophet during the apostolic age?

He revealed God’s will by his Spirit through through his apostles whom he commissioned (John 14:25-26, 15:26-27), as well as by the NT prophets (Eph. 3:5, 4:11, 1 Cor. 12:28, Acts 13:1). The apostles and prophets (OT and NT) are the foundation and he is the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20). 

How does Jesus exercise his office as a prophet now? 

Jesus continues to exercise this office as he disciples us through Scripture and enlightens our minds by his Spirit to understand it (1 Cor. 2:12-16). He also continues to gift men for the ministry of the word, not as infallible prophets, but as preachers and teachers (Eph. 4:11).

What is it that Jesus makes known to sinners by his word and Spirit? 

The will of God for our salvation. This includes a knowledge of the true God, his works, and his will. The purpose of this revelation is that we might be justified by faith in Christ and conformed to his image by his discipleship (John 20:31, Matt. 28:18-20, 1 Tim. 3:15-17).

He delivered the full and final revelation of this message with his coming, a message that was once delivered to the saints through the prophets and apostles, and which was written down for the church in the New Testament. As this message has been delivered by the Prophet, and we await no greater revelation until his second coming, prophecy has ceased and we expect no further revelation. Let us attend to the written word of God and grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

The Incarnation of the Son of God

"Q. 22: How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man? A. Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin." (Westminster Shorter Catechism) 

Christ is the eternal Son of God, of one substance with the Father. At a particular time, for our salvation, he became man. He did this without giving up his divine nature, but united the two natures in one person. This is one of the great wonders of the Christian faith. It is such a wondrous thing that from time to time some heretics have felt the need to tone it down. But our catechism explains what God has revealed in his word concerning Jesus, that because we “share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things” and was made to be “like his brothers in every respect” so that he might be our high priest and die on our behalf (Heb. 2:14-18). As a man, he “in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15).

The Human Nature of Christ

What kind of body did Jesus take to himself?
He took to himself a true body. Some heresies have denied this, such as Docetism and Marcionism. Even in the days of the apostles, John warned of deceivers who “do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh” (2 John 1:7). Jesus took to himself a true human body with flesh and bones (Luke 24:39-42). He took to himself a mortal body, with its common infirmities, in weakness. His body was a true body, subject to the limitations of a human body.

Did Jesus have a human soul as well as a human body?
Yes, he took to himself a human soul. Contrary to the heresy of Apollinarianism, he took to himself a “reasonable soul” (that is, a rational soul, a soul that could reason). This too was part of being "made like his brothers in every respect" (Heb. 2:17). He took on a human mind, will, and affections - all willingly subject to his divine will. He fully shared in our human experience, both in the outer life and in the inner life. When he suffered for us, he suffered in both body and soul. When he was in Gethsemane, he told his disciples, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me” (Matt. 26:38). He is able to sympathize with our weakness (Heb. 4:15). While he remained without sin, and thus did not experience any temptation arising from evil desires, yet he did experience things like hunger, thirst, sorrow, and weakness, as well as the temptations of the world and the evil one.

Jesus did not come as superman, a man of steel, but a man in your humble and mortal condition, capable of suffering. He hungered (Matt. 4:2). He got tired (John 4:6). As a youth he studied and grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52). As he prepared to offer himself as a sacrifice for sin, he was in agony, praying with loud cries and tears, with sweat that became like great drops of blood (Heb. 5:7, Luke 22:44). He experienced fear and yet pressed on for the joy that was set before him, entrusting his spirit into his Father’s hands. It was not enough to merely take on a visible appearance to talk with humans, as angels have done, but it was essential to become one of us, in order to die our death and raise us to new life and immortality.

What use should we make of the doctrine of Christ’s true humanity?
(1) Gratitude to Christ. (2) Confidence in his mercy and compassion, seeking his help. (3) Confidence in his sacrifice and redemption, receive and resting upon him. (4) Imitation of his love and humility. (5) Imitation of his perfect humanity. (6) To not despise human nature, body or soul, but to give thanks for Christ’s redemption of our whole nature.

The Virgin Birth

Was Jesus begotten by an earthly father? 

No, he was conceived apart from any earthly father in the womb of a virgin. 

Of whom was Jesus conceived? Out of what was his flesh made?
The flesh of Christ came from the virgin Mary, although miraculously conceived. Jesus was conceived “of her substance” (WLC 37, WCF 8.2). Even before his birth, Jesus was called by Elizabeth the fruit of Mary’s womb (Luke 1:42). Mary also nourished him in her womb and gave birth to him. As regards his divine nature, the Son is begotten of the Father before all ages, but as regards his manhood, he was conceived of Mary, of her substance. Jesus is the promised offspring of the woman (Gen. 3:15), of Israelite and Davidic descent according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3, 9:5).

By whose power was Jesus conceived in Mary’s womb and of her substance?
The Holy Spirit was the one who did this work. This is the angel’s answer to Mary’s question, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” How? By the Holy Spirit. Nothing will be impossible with God. The same explanation was given to Joseph: “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for what which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit” (1:20). The Holy Spirit does not act the part of a father, but as the worker of a miracle. The virgin conceived without intercourse, and this happened by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit wrought this miraculous conception, and did so in such a way that the personal union of Christ’s two natures existed from the moment of conception and what was conceived was holy, without original sin.

What implication might this doctrine have for the debate as to when personhood begins? 
Note that the Son of God was an unborn baby. The incarnation began at conception. Beginning at conception, a person was in Mary’s womb, conceived of her substance, but no longer her body. She was the “mother of my Lord” while pregnant (Luke 1:43).

How did this miraculous conception fulfill prophecy?
Christ was conceived in this way in accord with the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 (cp. Is. 9:9-7 and Matt. 1:22-23). "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Is. 7:14). 

Besides fulfilling prophecy, why is it important that Jesus was conceived of a virgin by the Spirit?
That Jesus might be the second Adam, a new beginning for the old humanity.

The covenant of works was made with Adam and all his natural posterity, all those descended from him by ordinary generation. Adam’s corruption was conveyed and his guilt imputed to his natural descendants. But Jesus took on Adam’s human nature without being his descendant by ordinary generation. The point is not that original sin comes from the man rather than the woman, but that original sin is passed on by the course of nature and that Christ was not conceived through the course of nature.

Jesus is the head of a renewed humanity, a new beginning for the old humanity, having the same human nature as Adam but without his headship and corruption. Jesus was descended from Adam, but not in a natural way. He was conceived of Mary’s substance by a supernatural work. He is the last Adam (Rom. 5:12-21), the one who would renew the lost children of the first Adam. Thus his miraculous conception is like our own spiritual rebirth in him: not by nature, but by the Spirit of God.

Books on the New England Puritans

Pilgrims Going To Church by George H. Boughton

The New England Puritans make for a fascinating study. I think what they attempted was noble, that they succeeded more than many realize, and that their decline was both due to weaknesses in their system (e.g. being Congregationalist rather than Presbyterian) and to the free choices made by some of their descendants to depart from the path. Here is an annotated bibliography of the best books I have read about them over the years, beginning with books primarily covering 17th century history and ending with books covering 18th century history.

A Reforming People: Puritanism and the Transformation of Public Life in New England by David D. Hall

I really enjoyed reading this book by David D. Hall, professor of New England church history at Harvard Divinity School (three of his books are listed here). It contains a careful look at how the New England Puritans transformed public life by implementing the biblical teachings, reforms, and ethic they had developed in their preaching and teaching. It was a good book on a historical level, giving a better understanding of our American roots and the development of our society, as well as on an applied theology level, giving an example of a society that took seriously the imperative to submit itself to Christ the King and his revelation, the Bible. Rather than moving toward a cruel and authoritative oligarchy (as some would portray it), Puritan society in New England fostered community participation and checks on any potentially “arbitrary” government power. The details of their reforms and practices as they were hammered out in the new world is quite interesting and inspiring.

Worlds of Wonder, Days of Judgment: Popular Religious Belief in Early New England by David D. Hall

This book is not as memorable as A Reforming People, but it was another good book by the same author, with a focus on the religion practiced by the people in early New England, how the theology taught in their books was practiced. As Edmund Morgan says in his review of this book, “[Hall] shows us, as never before, how the sophisticated doctrines of the Puritan clergy meshed, clashed, and merged with the inherited attitudes and assumptions of ordinary people in their day-to-day grappling with the mysteries of their world.” 

The Faithful Shepherd: A History of the New England Ministry in the Seventeenth Century, With a New Introduction by David D. Hall

One takeaway from this book is that New England churches were most radically Congregationalist in the 1630s and that from that time there was tension between those who defended that system and those who sought to modify it toward Presbyterianism. I find that the history of the New England Puritans shows that their heirs are not only found in modern Congregationalist churches, but also in Baptist and Presbyterian churches (the directions these two wings of Congregationalism tended toward).

I have admiration for the New England Puritans, but a consistent takeaway I draw from studying them is an appreciation for Presbyterianism. As Charles Hodge noted in the 19th century, “Had New England, with her compact and homogenous population, and all her other advantages, enjoyed the benefit of a regular Presbyterian government in the church, it would, in all human probability, have been the noblest ecclesiastical community in the world.”

The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop by Edmund S. Morgan

An excellent little book that not only tells the story of John Winthrop, but in telling it, lays out the Puritan mission and dilemma, to seek purity without retreating from society. I seem to remember a few brief passages where the author might have misrepresented or overly simplified the theology of the Puritans, but taking those comments with a grain of salt, the book is worth reading. Morgan was a professor of history at Yale, and three of his books are listed here.

The Puritan Family: Religion and Domestic Relations in Seventeenth-Century New England by Edmund S. Morgan

The Puritans took quite seriously the idea that the household is basic to human society. This book is an interesting look into the family life and household structure of the New England Puritans, including the relationships of husbands and wives, parents and children, and masters and servants. (Another book I have but which I have not read cover to cover is a similar book covering family life in Plymouth Colony in particular, A Little Commonwealth: Family Life in Plymouth Colony by John Demos.)

New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians 1620-1675 by Alden T. Vaughan

An excellent book on the New England Pilgrims and Puritans and their interactions with the native peoples by Alden T. Vaughn, a professor of history at Colombia University (I have the third edition, published in 1995). I came across this book while researching missionary efforts to the native tribes of New England, since it spends three chapters on that subject. It traces the relationships of the colonies to the tribes in other respects as well, from the founding of Plymouth in 1620 to King Philip’s War in 1675. (Two other books I found helpful on Puritan missions were The Theology of Puritan Missions by Rooy and The Puritan Hope by Iain Murray.) 

Anne Bradstreet: A Guided Tour of the Life And Thought of a Puritan Poet by Heidi L. Nichols

My wife and I read this book while we were expecting our daughter Anne. Later I found out that I am descended from Anne Bradstreet. This book gives a helpful overview of Anne’s life and context as well as her writings, many of which are included in the book (both of her poetry and her proverbs). This is probably the best single book to get on Anne Bradstreet, but another biography with greater focus on her life and character is Beyond Stateliest Marble by Douglas Wilson (also published as Anne Bradstreet: Passionate Femininity), and a good biography for younger readers is Anne Bradstreet by Simonetta Carr.

William Brewster of the Mayflower: Portrait of a Pilgrim by Dorothy Brewster

A helpful and informative biography of a man who lived an eventful life - a Cambridge education, service abroad under Queen Elizabeth, Postmaster and Bailiff of Scrooby Manor, outlaw printer in Holland, and elder of the Pilgrims’ church. This book mostly tells of Brewster's life leading up to the Mayflower. I also have another biography of Brewster which I have not yet read but have heard recommended, Pilgrim: A Biography of William Brewster by Mary B. Sherwood.

Pilgrim Colony: A History of New Plymouth 1620-1691 by George D. Langdon

A helpful history of Plymouth colony from its founding in 1620 to its annexation to Massachusetts in 1691. While many accounts of Plymouth’s history focus only on its beginning, it was nice to see the full history of the colony laid out. Another less academic history of Plymouth which I have partly read is Samuel Eliot Morrison’s, The Story of the “Old Colony” of New Plymouth. Of course, William Bradford’s history of the colony up to 1646, Of Plymouth Plantation, is an important classic. I have the edition edited by Samuel Eliot Morrison. For more on the founding of that colony, you can get Mourt's Relation, an account first printed in 1622, from Applewoods Books. 

Puritans at Play: Leisure and Recreation in Colonial New England by Bruce C. Daniels

An interesting look into how the Puritans viewed and practiced leisure and recreation. While they placed limits on play, they still had fun within those limits. And even as those limits expanded later in the colonial period, they continued to be influenced by the original principles of practicality and moral restraint.

Jonathan Edwards: New Biography by Iain H. Murray

I have read many of Iain Murray’s books and I have appreciated each one. This biography of Jonathan Edwards was no exception. And in the life of Jonathan Edwards, we learn more about what happened to New England Puritanism in the 18th century.

The Gentle Puritan: A Life of Ezra Stiles, 1727-1795 by Edmund S. Morgan

An interesting book for its insight into 18th century New England from the perspective of the history of Ezra Stiles, a Congregationalist minister and president of Yale College. This book continues the story of New England from the Great Awakening through the American Revolution to 1795. As the author says in his preface concerning Ezra Stiles, “his intellectual curiosity was omnivorous, and precisely because his mind was more receptive than creative, this book is as much a study of the times as it is of the man.” The book also provides another perspective on Edwards, and especially his successors, since Stiles was usually on the other side. I would like to read a book on Stiles' successor at Yale, Timothy Dwight IV, but I have not done so yet. 

Connecticut’s War Governor: Jonathan Trumbull by David M. Roth

I did not know much about Governor Trumbull until we visited his hometown, Lebanon, CT, which is where I got this book. He was a vital figure during the American War for Independence and a man firmly rooted in New England's Puritan heritage. 

“Day after day, through personal tragedy, and through news of military defeat, financial chaos, and political confusion at Philadelphia, Jonathan Trumbull sat at his desk in the 'War Office' and turned out the directives, and occasionally pleas, that kept the Connecticut war effort functioning until ultimate victory was achieved. The old man came to be something of a comic figure to the sophisticated visitors, especially the French, who passed through Lebanon during the war. Remarks were made about the short, unimposing governor whose conversation was saturated with biblical exhortations. Yet, the smiles never lingered very long, for this Old Testament patriarch never appeared very anachronistic when the time came for performance. His quotas were always filled on time. He was the man to whom Washington turned when the shaky Continental Army was on the point of dissolution.” (p. 65)

The Pioneers: The Heroic Story of the Settlers Who Brought the American Ideal West by David McCullough

One important aspect of studying the New England Puritans is that their legacy is not only to be found in New England, but also in other parts of the USA, especially the Midwest. My own New England ancestors moved west over the generations to Wisconsin. This book tells the story of the settlers who came from New England to settle the Northwest Territory, and in particular, the town of Marietta, Ohio.

Our Errand in the Wilderness

The Mayflower in Plymouth Harbor by William Halsall

It was April 5th, 1621. The winter was over and a new year had begun (in those days, the year began on March 25th). A few weeks earlier, on March 16th, the Pilgrims had made contact with the Wampanoag and over the next week or two they had established a treaty with them, making friends with Samoset, Squanto, and Massasoit. The deadly illness that had plagued them for months was beginning to lift. Nevertheless, they had reached a point of decision. The Mayflower, their ship, was about to depart. The Mayflower had stayed extra long because of their difficulties and insecurity. But now it was time for the ship to return. Half of their people had died. They were not guaranteed a better winter the next time around. Would they stay or would they return on the Mayflower?

None of the passengers returned on the Mayflower. This small group of 52 people remained - without a ship - in their little village on the coast of New England. Why were they there? Why did they stay? Why had they ventured everything on this settlement?

This was the same question asked 50 years later by Samuel Danforth, the pastor in Roxbury, Massachusetts. In 1670 he preached a memorable election day sermon entitled, “A Brief Recognition of New-England’s Errand into the Wilderness” (available online here). What was their errand in the new world? What was the purpose of their settlement? Why did the founders of New England, Pilgrims and Puritans, go out into the wilderness and remain there? He took his text from Matthew 11:7-10 where Jesus spoke of John the Baptist. 

And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind? But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

This was Danforth's main point:

Such as have sometime left their pleasant Cities and Habitations to enjoy the pure Worship of God in a Wilderness, are apt in time to abate and cool in their affection thereunto: but then the Lord calls upon them seriously and throughly to examine themselves, what it was that drew them into the Wilderness, and to consider that it was not the expectation of ludicrous levity, nor of Courtly pomp and delicacy, but of the free and clear dispensation of the Gospel and Kingdome of God.

Having explained this doctrine, he began to apply it, with its first use being: 

Use 1: Of solemn and serious Enquiry to us all in this general Assembly, Whether we have not in a great measure forgotten our Errand into the Wilderness. You have solemnly professed before God, Angels and Men, that the Cause of your leaving your Country, Kindred and Fathers houses, and transporting your selves with your Wives, Little Ones and Substance over the vast Ocean into this waste and howling Wilderness, was your Liberty to walk in the Faith of the Gospel with all good Conscience according to the Order of the Gospel, and your enjoyment of the pure Worship of God according to his Institution, without humane Mixtures and Impositions.

It is incumbent us, their heirs, to make a similar enquiry. Have we forgotten our errand in the wilderness? Have we been true to our godly heritage?

What Danforth said of New England generally was indeed true of the Pilgrims in particular. William Bradford listed several reasons they decided to leave Holland, including the coming war with Spain and economic hardship, but the first reason went beyond these to the bigger picture: 

And first, they saw and found by experience the hardness of the place and country to be such as few in comparison would come to them, and fewer that would bide it out and continue with them … For many, though they desired to enjoy the ordinances of God in their purity and the liberty of the gospel with them, yet (alas) they admitted of bondage with danger of conscience, rather than to endure these hardships … But it was thought that if a better and easier place of living could be had, it would draw many and take away these discouragements. (Of Plymouth Plantation)

Thus, the difficulties of life in Holland were not just a hinderance to their comfort, but a hinderance to their mission of building a community that enjoyed the ordinances of God in their purity and the liberty of the gospel. They were not persecuted in Holland, but due to economic, political, and cultural pressures, they were in danger of shrinking and scattering. These difficulties also kept other English Puritans from joining them. But in the new world, as an English colony in the wilderness, they had the opportunity to build a place where others might come from England and join them, practicing freely the principles of God’s word.

Many Puritans desired a further reformation of church and society, but were held back from it in England. If the Pilgrims established this reformation in New England, in a land where they could make a good living, be secure from foreign conflicts, and create an English society reformed by God’s word, then these Puritans could come and join them. The settlement of a new land would certainly be more difficult in the short term, but the opportunities were much greater and the long term prospects much brighter than in Holland.

Indeed, this is what happened! The Pilgrims arrived in Plymouth in 1620. In 1630, John Winthrop and his fleet arrived in Boston harbor, bringing 1,000 Puritans. By 1640, about 20,000 Puritans had come to New England. Their background differed from the Pilgrims, but their basic intention was the same: to complete the reformation and enjoy the purity of God’s ordinances and the liberty of the gospel. In 1643, Plymouth and the other Puritan colonies joined a federation and declared, “we all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely to advance the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the Liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace.”

Therefore, William Bradford said concerning the arrival of the Puritans in 1630, 

Thus out of small beginning greater things have been produced by His hand that made all things of nothing, and gives being to all things that are; and, as one small candle may light a thousand, so the light here kindled hath shone unto many, yea in some sort to our whole nation; let the glorious name of Jehovah have all the praise. (Of Plymouth Plantation)

In fact, when Bradford was writing, “our whole nation” of England (at least, as represented by its parliament) had embraced Puritanism, corrected the tyranny of the king, and had called the Westminster Assembly to reform the church. This brought great joy to the Pilgrims. Bradford wrote in 1646: 

Do you not now see the fruit of your labors, O all ye servants of the Lord? that have suffered for His truth, and have been faithful witnesses of the same, and ye little handful amongst the rest, the least amongst the thousands of Israel? … But thou wilt ask, ‘What is the matter? What is done?’ … The tyrannous Bishops are ejected, their courts dissolved, their canons forceless, their service cashiered, their ceremonies useless and despised, their plots for popery prevented, and all their superstitions discarded and returned to Rome from whence they came, and the monuments of idolatry rooted out of the land … Hallelujah! (Of Plymouth Plantation)

Unfortunately, that full national embrace of Puritanism was short lived in England. But what Bradford celebrated would endure in New England, as well as in Scotland. And the influence of New England Puritans and Scots-Irish Presbyterians would spread throughout what would become the United States of America.

In application, let us first consider whether we have we forgotten our errand? Have you, and has our nation forgotten? Have we neglected our privileges, blessings, and heritage? Have we forgotten the importance of "our Liberty to walk in the Faith of the Gospel according to the Order of the Gospel, and our enjoyment of the pure Worship of God according to his Institution"?

Secondly, let us attend and prosecute our Errand into the Wilderness! We did not come to see a reed shaking in the wind. Therefore do not be such a reed - light, empty, and limp - but be “solid, serious and sober Christians, constant and stedfast in the Profession and Practice of the Truth, Trees of Righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he may be glorified, holding fast the profession of our Faith without wavering” (Danforth). Nor did we come for courtly pomp and soft clothing. Therefore do not be soft, immodest, or vain, but rather humble, respectable, with self-controlled. 

Instead, we came into the wilderness, as the people did in the days of John the Baptist, for the ministry of God’s word. As Danforth said, we came for “the pure and faithful Dispensation of the Gospel and Kingdom of God.” This is a worthy thing to seek. Jesus said, “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33). This kingdom is established and administered by Christ’s ordinances, used with faith and obedience (Matt. 20:18-20, see also WLC 45, 191). Let us arise and build, and seek the Lord’s blessing.

The Puritans spoke much of the ordinances of God and of keeping them pure and observing them diligently. These ordinances included prayer, singing psalms, the reading and preaching of Scripture, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, catechizing, biblical church government, collection for the poor, and the observance of the Christian sabbath. God works by these means, and by them Christ builds and administers his kingdom. They are to be kept unmixed with human innovations and used with faith, a faith which embraces the promises and obeys the commands. 

Thirdly, let us also give thanks to God for this good heritage. Be grateful for these forefathers and their sacrifices. Throughout our country’s history, the purposefulness of these forefathers has been an inspiration and a corrective. You and I have benefitted from their work. Our whole country has been blessed by their perseverance. Praise God for giving them such a zeal for his kingdom. May he give us a similar zeal and may he call back our countrymen to the faith of our fathers.

19th Century Presbyterians and Abortion

When the Orthodox Presbyterian Church affirmed in 1972 "that voluntary abortion, except possibly to save the physical life of the mother, is in violation of the Sixth Commandment," they were not breaking new ground.

The 1869 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America unanimously adopted the following committee report:

"That it is with great pain we are constrained to admit the increasing prevalence, in many parts of our country, of unscriptural views of the marriage relation, in consequence of which the obligations of that relation are disregarded by many, and separations of husbands and wives, and divorces for slight and unwarranted reasons are becoming more frequent every year. Nor can we shut our eyes to the fact that the horrible crime of infanticide, especially in the form of the destruction, by parents, of their own offspring, before birth, also prevails to an alarming extent. The evils which these errors and crimes have already brought upon our country, and the worse evils which they threaten in the near future, make it imperative, as we believe, that the whole power of the ministry and Church of Jesus Christ should be put forth in maintenance of the truth, and of virtue in regard to these things. Many causes have operated to produce a corruption of the public morals so deplorable, prominent among which may be mentioned the facility with which divorces may be obtained in some of the States, constant promulgation of false ideas of marriage and its duties, by means of books, lectures, &c., and the distribution, through the mails, of impure publications. But an influence no less powerful than any of these, is the growing devotion to fashion and luxury of this age, and the idea which practically obtains to so great an extent, that pleasure, instead of the glory of God and the enjoyment of his favor, is the great object of life. It is therefore the duty of the Church of Christ to oppose, in every practical way, these and all other corrupting agencies and tendencies, and we especially urge upon all ministers of the gospel the duty of giving instruction to the people of their respective charges, as to the scriptural doctrine concerning the marriage relation. We warn them against joining in wedlock any who may have been divorced upon other than scriptural grounds. We also enjoin upon church sessions the exercise of due discipline in the cases of those members who may be guilty of violating the law of Christ in this particular.

"This Assembly regards the destruction by parents of their own offspring before birth with abhorrence, as a crime against God, and against nature, and as the frequency of such murders can no longer be concealed, we hereby warn those that are guilty of this crime, that except they repent, they cannot inherit eternal life. We also exhort those who have been called to preach the gospel, and all who love purity and truth, and who would avert the just judgment of Almighty God from the nation, that they be no longer silent or tolerant of these things, but that they endeavor by all proper means, to stay the flood of impurity and cruelty. We call upon all to remember that marriage is honorable, not only in itself, but in its ends. Therefore, those who seek to avoid the responsibility and cares connected with the bringing up of children, not only deprive themselves of one of the greatest blessings of life, and fly in the face of God's decrees, but do violence to their own natures, and will be found out of their sins even in this world."

This statement is quoted in a book by Hugh Lenox Hodge, the brother of theologian Charles Hodge. Hugh Hodge was a committed Presbyterian and the Professor of Obstetrics and the Diseases of Women at the University of Pennsylvania. He wrote a book, Foeticide, or Criminal Abortion in 1869, to join with the efforts of his profession to "illuminate the public mind on the nature of this crime, and to urge our legislative and executive officers to greater stringency in the formation and execution of legal enactments" (p. 4). He argued that human existence and the union of our body and soul begins at conception, and that from that point the child “is truly a perfect human being, and that its criminal destruction is murder” (p. 27). The book can be found online here: Foeticide, or Criminal Abortion.

Reformation Day

On October 31, 1517, the people of Wittenberg were preparing to attend church, since it was All Saints Eve. They were doubtless excited about the next day, All Saints Day. Their ruler, Frederick the Elector of Saxony, was authorized to grant indulgences on All Saints Day to all who came to the Castle Church, paid some money, and venerated the relics he displayed there on that day. 

Frederick had collected over 17,000 relics, including objects like fragments of the cross, the burning bush, and bones of the saints. These indulgences were desired because it was thought that the veneration of them would release people from penalties they would have to pay either in this life or in purgatory. Frederick was not the only one offering them. In the next province over, John Tetzel was selling indulgences, simply for the payment of money, which could be acquired either for yourself or for your loved ones in purgatory. The pope had authorized these indulgences, believing that it was in his power to distribute the treasury of merit laid up by Christ and the surplus merits of the saints.

Already in the previous year, Martin Luther had begun to warn his congregation against the use of indulgences. He had preached about it on All Saints Eve in 1516. Now on All Saints Eve in 1517, Luther published 95 theses against the sale of indulgences, posting it on the church door of the Castle Church. 

Luther argued that the pope had no power to release souls from purgatory - he only had power to release people from penalties imposed by the church in this life, what we might call church discipline. He argued that the pope had no treasury of merit at his disposal, for Christ’s merits are freely available to all true Christians without indulgence letters, and the saints have no extra merit to share with others: at most, they have only done their duty. He also argued that indulgences misled people, replacing repentance, faith, and true good deeds with human traditions.

Once Luther’s arguments were translated and made known, indulgences lost their credibility in Wittenberg. Elector Frederick himself ceased his annual display of his relics in 1523. On the other hand, Luther's arguments were not received well by the bishop of Rome. The ensuring controversy grew into a wide-ranging reform of the church according to Scripture called the Protestant Reformation. 

Lutherans continued to observe All Saints Day in a reformed way, without praying to the saints, trusting in their merits, or worshipping their relics. In the 1600s they would also begin celebrating Reformation Day on October 31st, gratefully remembering the event that had sparked the Reformation.