Category Archives: History

RePost: “My Own Life” by John Williamson Nevin

This originally appeared in The Reformed Church Messenger as a weekly series from March 2 to June 2, 1870

CHAPTER 1

My Childhood and Early Youth

Having been called upon to furnish the necessary material for some account of my life, to be given to the world in permanent form, it seems to me best, on the whole, that I should do it in the way at once of a general self-biography, using the first person rather than the third; the more especially so, because it has been desired that the sketch in question should take in something at least of my inward life along with its merely outward facts.

I was born on the 20th of February, 1803, of respectable parentage, in Franklin County, Pennsylvania. My father’s mother was a Williamson, sister to the distinguished Hugh Williamson, LL.D., one of the framers of the U. S. Constitution, and a man otherwise prominent during the period of the Revolutionary War, who held a high place afterward also, in the world of letters, as the author of the History of North Carolina, and Essay on Climate, and other publications. The family, in its coat of arms and otherwise, has always claimed descent (how truly I pretend not to say) from the celebrated Scottish chieftain, Sir William Wallace. Another brother lived and died as an Episcopal clergyman in England; where he is honorably represented by descendants mostly of the third generation. A third brother, Capt. John Williamson, became a successful and wealthy merchant, in Charleston, S. C.; and it was as namesake to him in particular, that I got my own middle name of Williamson–the only proper Christian name, in fact, with which I was ever known or spoken of in my early years.

Being of what is called Scotch-Irish extraction, I was by birth and blood also, a Presbyterian; and as my parents were both conscientious and exemplary professors of religion, I was, as a matter of course, carefully brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, according to the Presbyterian faith as it then stood. I say with purpose as it then stood; for I cannot help seeing and feeling, that a very material change has come upon it since, and this in a way not without serious interest for my own religious life.

What I mean, will appear at once, when I state that the old Presbyterian faith, into which I was born, was based throughout on the idea of covenant family religion, church membership by God’s holy act in baptism, and following this a regular catechatical training of the young, with direct reference to their coming to the Lord’s table. In one word, all proceeded on the theory of sacramental, educational religion, as it had belonged properly to all the national branches of the Reformed Church in Europe from the beginning. In this respect the Reformed Churches of Switzerland, France, Germany, Holland, and Scotland were of one mind; and this mind still ruled, at the time of which I now refer, the Presbyterianism of this country. True, there was no used here of the right of confirmation in admitting catechumens to full communion with the Church; but there was, what was considered to be substantially the same thing, in the way they were solemnly received by the church session. The system was churchly, as holding the Church in her visible character to the the medium of salvation for her baptized children, in the sense of that memorable declaration of Calving (Inst. iv. c. 1, s. 4), where, speaking of her title, Mother, he says: There is no other entrance into life, save as she may conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us from her breasts, and embrace us in her loving care to the end.

This was the system of educational religious in which it was my privilege to grow up, through the first years of my life, under the best sort of parental care, in the vulnerable old Presbyterian church of Middle-Spring. I was baptized by Dr. Robert Cooper, the retired former pastor of the congregation, just about the time that the vacant charge passed into the hands of his successor, the Rev. John Moodey; who also became Doctor of Divinity many years after–a deserved distinction, which I had the pleasure myself of obtaining for him from the Trustees of Marshall College, then at Mercersburg. His pastorate continued for half a century; in the course of which time a great change came over the Presbyterian Church at large, that brought with it in the end no small change also, in the character of this old country charge. But during my childhood and boyhood all was still, in the life and spirit of the congregation, as it had been from the beginning. The Scotch regime was in full force. Pastoral visitation was a business, as much as preaching. The school was held to be of right auxiliary to the church; and the catechism stood in honor and use everywhere, as the great organ of what was held to be a sound religious education. Every Sunday evening, especially, was devoted to more or less catechization of the family. I was put on simply Bible questions as soon as I could speak. Then came the Mother’s Catechism, as it was called; and then the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism–hard to be understood, but wholesome for future use. The same instruction met me again in the common school; where it was usual for the master, in those days, to examine his scholars once a week in the Catechism. All this as part of the established church system, and only to make room for its full operation in a higher form, where the work fell into the hands of the pastor himself, and was understood all round to form a main portion of his proper pastoral trust.

There were two modes, in which such higher church instruction was carried forward; the practice varying from one to the other in different years. In one year, it was by the pastor’s visiting one family after another, and catechizing each household separately; while in another year, it would be by bringing whole neighborhoods before him at some central place, where then, in the presence of one or more of the elders, an examination was held in a public and solemn way. On these occasions, the children were examined first; but after them the grown people also, on some portion of the Larger Westminster Catechism previously assigned for the purpose.

With this all comprehensive catechetical system corresponded the general church life of those days. It was staid, systematical, and grave; making much of sound doctrine; wonderfully bound to established forms; and not without a large sense for the objective side of religion embodied in the means of grace. There was much of this especially joined with the use of the holy sacraments. Each communion season was a four days’ meeting, where all revolved around the central service of the Lord’s table on the Sabbath; which a real, and not simply nominal humiliation and fast going before, on Friday, n the way of special preparation for such near and solemn approach to God.

This was fifty years ago, Such was the general order of religion then with all the Presbyterian churches of the Cumberland Valley. But what had become of it since? Wonderful to think of, it has almost entirely passed away. Not only Rouse’s Psalms–to which I seem to listen still as a found echo borne in upon my soul from the old stone church at Middle-Spring–have passed away with the whole generation that sung them; but the old catechetical system also is gone, and along with it the general scheme of religion to which it belonged, and which it served to hold together. A very great revolution in fact; which, however, has been brought to pass in so gentle and noiseless a way, that it is difficult now for the present generation to understand it, or to make any proper account of it whatever.

I look upon it as another important part of my training, worthy of note, that I was brought up on a farm, in the midst of a people of simple and plain manners; and that I became early familiar also, with the scenes and employments of country life; being put myself in fact to all sorts of farm work, just as soon as far as I was found to have any power of being useful in that way.

My father, however, though only a common farmer, was himself a man of liberal education, a graduate of Dickinson College, in the days of Dr. Nesbit–one who delighted in books, and who was honored fare and wide for his superior intelligence, as well as for his excellent charecter generally; and under his auspices, therefore, my country training was made to look from the beginning toward a course of full college learning. At an early day the Latin Grammar was pout into my hands, and my father himself became my teacher. My lessons were studied irregularly–sometimes in the barn, and sometimes in the field–and I had no fixed times for recitation. But the course was full, and the drill severe; first in Latin, and afterward also, in Greek; being worth more to me in truth, as I came to know at a later day, than all I learned of these languages subsequently passing through college.

Amazing Grace

I finally saw this movie.  The pietistic slogans were somewhat tiresome in the beginning.  It got much better.

Some things I thought were especially interesting. One learned the Wilberforce was considered less than a nationalist–antiwar, opposed to fighting the American colonies, willing to negotiate a peace with Napolean.  This cost him.  You also saw both his impatience and his patience in gradualism verses immediate perfection. The movie was good at showing his balancing act.

It also showed how weird America-style individualism is.  We have our aristocracy but they are not the kind that own all land so that the rest are tenants.  The origins of the welfare state make a lot more sense in thinking to the social change that modernity brought to a society with a “landed” class.

Did Clement (with his whole church) have amnesia?

Proving an unbroken chain of succession in the Roman Catholic Church is, by the strict definition, impossible. But the strict definition is pretty useless for most things, so I don’t see much reason to use it to defend Protestantism on the issues of teaching authority and succession. If Roman Catholics can make a credible case that there was an unbroken succession of bishops in Rome, then we should grant that point and move on to argue about other things.

Of course, that is an argument for church historians to make and for us to read about when we have time.  I haven’t read Luther on the “Babylonian Captivity of the Church” nor any replies.

But I have read Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, and that ends the issue as far as I’m concerned.

Clement did not know he was the Pope and did not act like the Pope.  I’ve seen some point out how much weight Clement gives his own authority, but that just seals the deal. He doesn’t give himself anything like Papal authority nor does he show any sign that he holds an office instituted by Christ to have authority over the Corinthian church.  His belief in the relative importance of his own church, in comparison to the Corinthians, if that is what he believed, only proves that we are seeing early in the development of the myth of the Papacy.

If the Papal office was instituted by Christ, then Roman Catholics must believe that there was a Great Fall from the pristine doctrine and practice of Peter and maybe Linus, and only afterward did the Church recover the fullness of the truth in the third and fourth centuries.

And, just to be clear, you can use a developmental argument for the Papacy or you can argue that it was instituted by Christ in Matthew 18. You can’t do both. They contradict one another.

I can’t believe someone saw so clearly where the Constitution would lead us!

“I foresee the day when rights will subsume responsibilities, where the poor and the despised will become wage slaves of the elites; and the mercantilism that we have fought against and the tyranny that we have stood against will be swallowed by the average American citizen. And they will call that ‘freedom’.”

via Arthur St. Clair on the U.S. Constitution — MichaelDuchemin.com.

William Whitaker on the sacraments

What, therefore, do we say? Do we take away all grace from the Sacraments? Far be it from us; although they [the Romanists] misrepresent us as so doing. For we say that they are most efficacious instruments of the Holy Spirit, and are also instrumental causes of grace: and this they also say; but we say it in one sense, they in another.

Of the efficacy of the Sacraments. 1. We teach and believe that the Sacraments are signs to represent Christ with his benefits unto us. 2. We teach further, that the Sacraments are indeed instruments whereby God offereth and giveth the foresaid benefits unto us. Thus far we consent with the Roman Church.

(William Whitaker, Reformed Catholic, pt. 19. Wks 1616. Vol 1. p. 610.)

Martin Bucer on trusting the way the Bible speaks of the Sacraments

Christ truly washes from their sins and regenerates those upon whom the Church bestows baptism, which is in fact the laver of regeneration…

Since we ought to speak of the Word and Sacraments as the Lord has commended them to his Church, and wishes them to be used, I some time since acknowledged, and reassert, that it is rightly said of the Word and Sacraments, when we speak simply of them, that they are the administration of salvation, channels, vehicles, and instruments of the Spirit and grace…

We shall then speak most fully, clearly, and certainly concerning these points of faith, when we speak according to the rule and form of the Scriptures. Now therein the Lord clearly says, that his Gospel is his power for salvation to every one that believes, that baptism is the laver of regeneration, that the eucharist is the communication of his body and blood, that his ministers bind and loose, retains sins and remit them; why therefore should not we also speak thus?

…by baptism we are said to be loosed and washed from our sins, because by baptism, through the power of Christ and the ministry of the Church, we receive pardon and cleansing…”

Source: The Doctrine of the Church of England as to the Effects of Baptism in the Case of Infants by William Goode

(see my discussion here)

What is the Gospel?

“Euagelio is a greke worde, and signyfyth good, mery, glad and joyfull tydings, and maketh a mannes hert glad, and maketh hym synge, daunce and leepe for joye. As when Davyd had kylled Golyath the geaut cam glad tydinge vnto the iewes, that their fearfull and cruelle enemy was slayne, and they delyvered oute of all daunger; for gladmess were of, they sange, daunced, and were ioyfull.” – William Tyndale

Calvin, Union with Christ, and Justification

Reading this paper all too hurriedly, I’ll nevertheless give some off the cuff responses.

  1. Why use the term “new perspective,” and waste ink saying what you don’t mean by that phrase, when you could just say “recent view”?
  2. I’d like to see documentation that there has ever been any other view of Calvin.  It seems to me that I’ve read Charles Hodge and others distance themselves from Calvin in areas related to this issue.  Is there really a recent view on Calvin that is different or is the change rather that people now want to follow his lead rather than go elsewhere.
  3. It seems to me that the author uses evidence of Calvin’s exposition of the forensic nature of justification as if that goes against the “new perspective on Calvin.”  Yes, justification is forensic and it involves all our sins being forgiven and us being counted righteous apart from the worth of our behavior.  But that doesn’t change the way that book 3 opens up.

Just to elaborate on point three:

John Calvin argued that union with Christ was the key to both justification and sanctification and all other benefits that believers received. He begins his book on the application of the redemption purchased by Christ in this way:

We must now see in what way we become possessed of the blessings which God has bestowed on his only-begotten Son, not for private use, but to enrich the poor and needy. And the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us. To communicate to us the blessings which he received from the Father, he must become ours and dwell in us. Accordingly, he is called our Head, and the first-born among many brethren, while, on the other hand, we are said to be ingrafted into him and clothed with him, all which he possesses being, as I have said, nothing to us until we become one with him (3.1.1).

As Calvin’s opening statement on how we receive Christ’s benefits this would be enough to show that Calvin taught that union with Christ was the key to sharing in Christ’s righteous status before the Father. However, Calvin does not simply leave his Institutes with this general introductory statement, but rather reiterates the importance of union with Christ. In chapter 11 of Book 3, Calvin begins his discussion of justification by saying:

I trust I have now sufficiently shown how man’s only resource for escaping from the curse of the law, and recovering salvation, lies in faith; and also what the nature of faith is, what the benefits which it confers, and the fruits which it produces. The whole may be thus summed up: Christ given to us by the kindness of God is apprehended and possessed by faith, by means of which we obtain in particular a twofold benefit; first, being reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent Father; and, secondly, being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to integrity and purity of life.

Here it is laid out for us. Faith is given to us by God so that we may be united to [“apprehend”] Christ and thus be both justified and sanctified.

Now none of this means that Calvin would not defend the justification we have united to Christ as perfect and complete so that we are never lacking in confidence that we are right with God.  None of this means he would be anything less than vociferous about basing out standing with God as dependent on our level of sanctification.  It seemed to me that the only way the writer’s counter-evidence could work is if we decided that it did mean all that.

All who are united to Christ share his perfect status.  As Calvin says (somewhere!) God could no more condemn us than he could condemn his own Son.

I stress again that this was a quick reading and I made it yesterday.  So read the article and tell me if you think I’ve missed the point.

Zacharias Ursinus explains why we baptize infants even though baptism only profits with faith

Faith is, indeed, necessary to the use of baptism, with this distinction. Actual faith is required in adults, and an inclination to faith in infants. There are, therefore four terms in this syllogism, or there is a fallacy in understanding that as spoken particularly, which must be understood generally. Those who do not believe, that is, who have no faith at all, neither by profession nor by inclination, are not to be baptized. But infants born to believing parents have faith as to inclination.

…We also deny the minor proposition; for infants do believe after their manner, or according to the condition of their age; they have an inclination to faith. Faith is in infants potentially and by inclination, although not actually as in adults. For, as infants born of ungodly parents who are without the church, have no actual wickedness, but only an inclination thereto, so those who are born of godly parents have no actual holiness, but only an inclination to it, not according to nature, but according to the grace of the covenant. And still further: infants have the Holy Ghost and are regenerated by him. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb, and Jeremiah is said to have been sanctified before he came out of the womb (Luke 1.5; Jeremiah 1.5). If infants now have the Holy Ghost, he certainly works in them regeneration, good inclinations, new desires, and such other things as are necessary for their salvation, or he at least supplies them with everything that is requisite for baptism, according to the declaration of Peter, “Can any man forbid water to them who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we.” It is for this reason that Christ enumerates little children amongst those that believe, saying, “Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me.” Inasmuch now as infants are fit subjects for baptism, they do not profane it as the Anabaptists wickedly affirm.

[Zacharias Ursinus was the primary author of the Heidelberg Catechism]

Steps to “Enlightenment” unbelief

STEP ONE: pagans worship nature as a chaotic force without rules.  They personify the forces they can distinguish and try to bribe them or manipulate them through offerings and rituals.

STEP TWO: The gospel is preached to pagans and they repent of their false gods and turn to the one true God who has revealed himself in Jesus.

STEP THREE: The Christians learn and internalize over time the idea that God is knowable and that creation can be studied in order to learn about His wisdom.

STEP FOUR: study of creation involve measuring, timing, and hypothesizing rules that describe nature accurately.

STEP FIVE: The Christians learn and internalize that nature is not chaotic but acts in predictable ways that can be described by “rules.”

STEP SIX: A rule governed impersonal mechanism is posited which does not allow miracles.  God is abandoned because “everyone knows” that only witnesses lie; nature never varies.

From Dionysius to Jesus and Paul to Newton to Hume.

But the story is not over.