A Word From William S. White to the Theological Student on What is Most Important

Receive our blog posts in your email by filling out the form at the bottom of this page.

Letters written by William Spotswood White (known to history as “Stonewall Jackson’s pastor”) to his sons were first published in The Central Presbyterian, and then assembled into one volume titled The Gospel Ministry, in a Series of Letters From a Father to His Sons (1860).

In one letter to Henry Martyn White, he wrote of the importance, as a theological student training for the ministry, of — in the midst of all the needful studies and activities — cultivating and maintaining a devotional spirit. In the vein of B.B. Warfield’s later classic The Religious Life of Theological Students (1912-1913), White writes the following (pp. 26-34):

You are most in danger from a failure to cultivate a devotional spirit. A Theological Seminary, in its external arrangements — its buildings — its lecture rooms, and its recitations; the intercourse of its students in the dining hall and upon the campus, is so much like a college, that the spirit of the college is very likely to prevail. The critical study of the Bible is likely to supplant the devotional. That all the young man says and does, even his sermons and his prayers, should be subject to the criticism of his fellow students and professors, although useful and necessary, may yet become hurtful to his spirituality. Now, whatever else he neglects, he must not neglect the throne of grace. Fail in all else sooner, than in the cultivation of deep spiritual piety. Fail in this, and whatever your attainments in other respects may be, should you live to enter the ministry, comfortless and useless you will live, labour, and die. Mere intellectual endowments, leading to popular applause, more frequently entangle, bewilder, and ruin the young preacher than all other baits of the devil combined.

White goes on to add:

One has truthfully and beautifully said, that ‘prayer is the breathing forth of that grace which is first breathed into the soul by the Holy Ghost.’ Every offering then, not made in the spirit of such prayer, is destitute of the purity and fragrance of heaven; and is not only unacceptable but hateful to God; so that prayerless study, prayerless preaching and visiting are worse than useless. What does not come from God never returns to him. All our services not baptized by the Spirit, freely given in answer to prayer, will be less acceptable to God than the offerings of paganism.

Further on in this letter White elaborates on the fountain of grace that must needs (to use an older expression) fill vessels in the service of God.

Suffer me then to enlarge on a thought already suggested. When we come really near to God, he freely grants us the sweet influences of his grace — ‘all grace comes from the God of grace’ — all that begins and completes the life of God in the soul of man. The soul enlightened and warmed by a near approach to the true altar, radiates both light and heat, and thus creates an atmosphere which refreshes, beautifies, and strengthens all who breathe it. ‘The river comes originally from the ocean, and not even the range of rocky mountains can prevent its return to the ocean. So, that alone which comes from God can return to God.’ Hence we feel and exhibit just so much of heaven, as we feel and manifest of the spirit of prayer. From this source alone can come our usefulness.

Whatever else a man may have or do, he never does, he never can become the channel through which God pours his grace upon the hill of Zion, unless he lives in constant, spiritual contact with heaven. He must bring God to his people before he can lift them to heaven.

Then whatever else you neglect, fail not to study upon your knees, such expressions of the word of God as these, ‘And this is the confidence we have in him, that if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us.’ ‘Whatsoever things ye desire when ye pray, believe that ye receive them and ye shall have them.’ ‘Ask in faith.’

Hear White as he concludes this letter:

Such a spirit of prayer is the first, the highest endowment of the ministry to which you now look forward. It is equally essential to your present condition and pursuits. Think not that this may be acquired hereafter. Just as well defer the study of Hebrew, church history, or theology. Nay, just as well, and even better, leave the Seminary at once. As is the student, so will be the preacher. An exception to this remark occasionally occurs, but there are just exceptions enough to establish the rule. Let all you now learn be baptized in a heart burning with love to Christ, and breaking with compassion for deathless souls perishing in sin. Let every day begin and end with the thought, ‘I am here, not to acquire learning with a view to win popular applause, but through God to acquire skill in winning souls to Christ.’

This valuable counsel from a father to a son, from an experienced pastor to a young theological student, highlights the need of those training for the ministry to not allow anything to dampen or extinguish the life of God in the soul of minister of Jesus Christ. The head of a minister must needs be (as they used to say) full of academic learning, but if the heart is not united to God in the sweet communion of prayer, then the vocation itself must be reconsidered. How crucial it is then for the minister who would lead his flock in spiritual service to God to himself be on his knees seeking grace to deliver the message of grace!

Theological students, pastors and others will do well to read the full collection of White’s letters on The Gospel Ministry. They serve as a wise reminder of what is of chief importance to such a noble vocation. To know more about White’s own personal piety, and the success of his ministry, be sure also to peruse Rev. William S. White, D. D., and His Times: An Autobiography (1891), edited by the recipient of some of the letters in The Gospel Ministry, Henry Martyn White, as a testimony to his beloved father and pastoral mentor.

A Bibliography by William Childs Robinson

Receive our blog posts in your email by filling out the form at the bottom of this page.

One particular enjoyable aspect of perusing old books is noting their provenance — that is, the history of where the book came from. Or, who owned this book and from whose library? Many of the books found in the Log College Press digital library were scanned at the Princeton Theological Seminary library (to name but one) and arrived there by way of someone who bequeathed the book to Princeton. Many books were once owned, for instance, by B.B. Warfield, Louis F. Benson, Samuel Miller or William H. Green (which often bear their handwritten names or personalized book plate labels). These markings help to tell a story that is bigger than the book itself.

Recently, this writer acquired some books with especially interesting provenances. One such book is Thornwell’s Life and Writings (1875) by Benjamin M. Palmer. This copy comes from the library of William Childs Robinson, bears his name and handwritten notes, and includes an undated typewritten bibliography of the works of B.M. Palmer produced by Robinson himself. The list also notes which volumes were owned by Robinson.

One can picture Robinson — who says of himself that “I have lived in the shadow of Columbia Theological Seminary” (In Response to Recognition by the Alumni (1967)), where he studied and taught church history — sitting in front of his typewriter, working to develop this list and carefully recording with an asterisk those Palmer works which he owned in his library.

Bibliography of B.M. Palmer by William C. Robinson (undated, photo credit: R. Andrew Myers).

An inscription in this copy of Palmer’s biography of Thornwell informs us that it was given to him by his father, David, on October 18, 1919. Clearly, it was read with care. Thornwell’s Life and Letters by Palmer is referenced many times in Robinson’s 1931 study of Columbia Theological Seminary and the Southern Presbyterian Church.

Paul Settle, a student Robinson, drew a line from Thornwell to Palmer to Robinson in a “heartfelt tribute to his teacher.”

He was one of the last in a line of Southern Presbyterian worthies, extending from Thornwell, Dabney, Palmer, Girardeau, and others, to the present, who proclaimed and lived the whole counsel of God (quoted in David B. Calhoun, Pleading For a Reformation Vision: The Life and Selected Writings of William Childs Robinson (1897-1982) [2013], p. 125).

Another line can be drawn from Palmer’s biography of Thornwell to Robinson’s The Reformation: A Rediscovery of Grace (1962). Among the notations and underlining found in Robinson’s copy is this from p. 81: “…the doctrines of the Reformation, which are only the doctrines of grace…” And on p. 8 of Robinson’s The Reformation, we read: “On account of its rediscovery of the doctrines of grace, the Reformation has been hailed as a revival of Augustinianism.” Certainly, the concept that the Reformation was largely about the doctrines of grace is not unique to these authors, but it was crucially important in their understanding of the history and theology of their spiritual forefathers. And so it is to us. There are lines that connect truth between generations, and that is what today’s story is about.

Click here to join the Dead Presbyterians Society

Princeton vs. The New Divinity

(Receive our blog posts in your email by clicking here. If the author links in this post are broken, please visit our Free PDF Library and click on the author’s page directly.)

Twenty years ago, a handy little volume was published by Banner of Truth titled Princeton Versus The New Divinity. It is a collection of a handful of articles written by 19th century Princeton divines in response to the movement known by various names, including New England Theology, Edwardsean, and The New Divinity, among other nomenclatures. In general, it was a movement that heavily emphasized evangelism and revival at the expense of Biblical theology on such matters as sin, total depravity, and grace.

Princeton divines were greatly concerned that this new movement needed to be countered by sound theology. A number of articles were written in The Biblical Repertory and Theological Review, The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review and in other titles to respond to the movement by way of direct discussion and historical overview. Today we are thankful for the digitizing labors of those at the Library of the Princeton Theological Seminary who have made these articles, and others, so much more accessible.

As mentioned in the Banner of Truth volume, David Calhoun’s outline of the issues and authors involved, which appears in Princeton Seminary, Vol. 1, is highly recommended.

There were seven chapters/articles included in the 2001 Banner of Truth volume:

• Charles Hodge, Review of Cox’s Sermon on Regeneration, and the Manner of Its Occurrence (1830) — titled “Regeneration” in the BoT volume;

• Archibald Alexander, The Early History of Pelagianism (1830);

• Archibald Alexander, The Doctrine of Original Sin as Held by the Church, Both Before and After the Reformation (1830) — titled “Original Sin” in the BoT volume;

• Archibald Alexander, An Inquiry Into that Inability Under Which the Sinner Labours, and Whether it Furnishes Any Excuse for His Neglect of Duty (1831) — titled “The Inability of Sinners” in the BoT volume;

• Charles Hodge, The New Divinity Tried (1832);

• Albert Baldwin Dod, Finney’s Sermons (1835) and Finney’s Lectures (1835) — combined and titled “On Revivals of Religion” in the BoT volume — “William G. McLoughlin comments that Dod’s ‘review of the Lectures on Revivals can and should be properly considered the official and definitive counterattack upon the theological revolution that [Charles] Finney led,” David Calhoun, Princeton Seminary, Vol. 1, p. 467;

• John Woodbridge, Review of The Scriptural Doctrine of Sanctification Stated and Defended Against the Error of Perfectionism (1842) — titled “Sanctification” in the BoT volume; and

• Thomas Cleland, Bodily Affections Produced by Religious Excitement (1834) — an 1846 reprint was titled “Bodily Effects of Religious Excitement” and included the BoT volume.

All of these articles are available to read online at the links above. In addition, some others on this overall topic are also available to read and recommended for further study. Also, take note of our earlier post relating to the 1837-1838 split of the Presbyterian Church on the Old School-New School Explained.

• Archibald Alexander, January 25, 1802 Letter to Nathan Strong (1802);

• Lyman Hotchkiss Atwater, Dr. Woodbridge on Revivals: Influence of the New Divinity on Religion (1842);

• Lyman Hotchkiss Atwater, Old Orthodoxy, New Divinity and Unitarianism (1857);

• Lyman Hotchkiss Atwater, Jonathan Edwards and the Successive Forms of The New Divinity (1858);

• Lyman Hotchkiss Atwater, Revivals of the Century (1876);

• George Addison Baxter, January 1, 1802 Letter on the Kentucky Revival (1802);

• Charles Hodge, Finney’s Lectures on Theology (1847);

• William Buell Sprague, Lectures on Revivals of Religion (1832);

• David Alexander Wallace, The Theology of New England (1856); and

• B.B. Warfield, Edwards and the New England Theology (1912).

There is even more to read at Log College Press on this topic. But this may serve for starters. If you have an interest in the theological innovations that disrupted in the Presbyterian Church in the early 19th century, and how Princeton divines responded, dive in to these materials prayerfully, and with a Bible at hand, to better understand what was at issue, and how God’s Word and the history of the church sheds light on these matters. The editor of the Banner of Truth volume had to say about the importance of the subject:

Why these articles should be reprinted at a date so far removed from the controversy which occasioned them warrants introductory comment. Some controversies represent no more than a passing disturbance in the church. It was not to be so with the New Divinity. Both contending parties in the controversy saw this clearly. Those who introduced the new ideas were insistent that they would have revolutionary and long-term benefits for the advance of the gospel. Especially would this be so, they claimed, with respect to effective evangelism and the promotion of revival. The Princeton men, and those who supported them, were equally convinced that, should the new teaching succeed, it would mean a change of direction exceedingly adverse to the spiritual interests of later generations. Where the ‘New School’ were certain of the practical benefits resulting from the changes for which they were working, the ‘Old’ saw disaster.

Click here to browse our Bookstore!

A.G. Fairchild on What Presbyterians Believe

(Receive our blog posts in your email by clicking here. If the author links in this post are broken, please visit our Free PDF Library and click on the author’s page directly.)

For a good basic introduction to some of the major distinctive tenets of 19th century American Presbyterianism, Ashbel Green Fairchild has what you are seeking. In a tract titled “What Presbyterians Believe” he sketches, in opposition to certain caricatures, an outline of what Presbyterians truly affirm that the Bible teaches.

For example, Presbyterians believe that all who are saved are saved by the sovereign grace of God, not of works on the part of believers. Fairchild takes great pains to make clear the plan of salvation, as understood by his church and taught by the Scriptures and the Westminster Confession of Faith.

The Scriptures often make mention of a people as “given to Christ,” as “chosen in him before the foundation of the world,” and as “predestinated unto the adoption of children.” These, and many similar declarations, we regard as intended to teach one of tin most cheering doctrines of the Bible, viz:

THE ELECTION OF GRACE, OR GRATUITOUS ELECTION

After explaining the nature of the fall of man, and how all men, being completely wedded to their sins are totally averse to coming to God, Fairchild shows that God’s mercy toward mankind is immense, purposing from the beginning not to leave all to justly perish, but willing to save some from their sins, despite the unwillingness of any on their own to be saved.

… this determination of the Father, to make a people willing to come to Christ, including in it the means to secure the end, is what we style the election of grace. It was truly a purpose of grace, because its objects were not chosen on account of any goodness foreseen in them. On the contrary, God beheld them as sinners, who but for the interposition of electing love, would never be anything but sinners. He chose them to salvation as the end, and to faith and holiness as the means, and thus their election originated from his own spontaneous mercy.

Speaking further of the plan of salvation, Fairchild addresses a common concern that if God has pre-determined who receives saving grace, such is incompatible with a free offer of the gospel.

Such is the election of grace as it is held in our branch of the Church, and we may see that it perfectly harmonizes with the free unlimited offer of salvation. All are hidden to the gospel feast, because it is the duty of all to come, — because all are alike needy — because there is enough for all, and because all are to be left without excuse. When all refuse the invitation, God interposes to save a “remnant according to' the election of grace.”

Nor is there any force in the objection, “that if a man is elected, he will be saved, do what he may.” For we have seen that the elect are chosen to be saved, not from the punishment of sin merely, but from sin itself. They are chosen to be holy. The objection, then, amounts to this: that if a man is to be saved from sin, he will be saved, whether he be saved from sin or not!

Other objections are addressed by Fairchild:

• The doctrine of election makes God to be partial (showing favoritism);

• If election is true, there is no point in making use of the means of grace;

• If God is sovereign over all, prayer is useless.

With Scripture Fairchild shows that far from these objections having merit, the doctrine of election confirms that God’s mercy is not the outworking of partiality, that God ordains the means of grace as well as the end of salvation, that prayer is part of God’s plan of salvation and has immense importance and purpose.

Fairchild goes on to speak of the perseverance of the saints in holiness. Those whom God has decreed to save will be kept from falling by not being left to their own strength. What a comfort this doctrine is! Our strength will fail, but God’s power to keep his saints, “through faith unto salvation” (1 Pet. 1:5), means that God will be glorified not only by granting us a potential to be saved, but in actually seeing our salvation through until it is finally and fully accomplished.

Then Fairchild affirms another article of the Presbyterian creed — the definite, vicarious atonement of Jesus Christ. That atonement was not sufficient for all, but efficient for none. On the contrary, it is sufficient for all, and efficient for those for whom Christ’s saving work was intended.

It has been said that, on this subject, the point of difference between us and others is, whether Christ died for all? But this is not a. fair statement. We do, indeed deny that Christ died for all, in the sense in which that expression is understood by Arminians; but our Church has always maintained that in respect of the sufliciency and applicability of the Saviour’s sufferings, he may be said to have died for the whole world. The real ground of controversy among those who agree as to the nature of the atonement is, What is its ultimate design? Had the Lord Jesus no definite purpose to save any one? or did he suffer with the intention of saving all men?

We cannot think that Christ had no definite purpose in regard to the objects of his interposition. The Scriptures represent him as coming into the world with a positive intention to save sinners, not merely to render their salvation possible. Nor can we imagine that an all-wise Being would enter upon a work of such unexampled labour and suflering without a precise object to be attained. On the other hand, if we say that Christ intended to save all men, at once the question will arise, Why, then, are not all saved? It will not do to answer by saying, that the divine purpose has been defeated by the unbelief of man. For if God cannot hinder man’s unbelief, the prayers of Christians, and the labours of ministers, are alike useless. If God cannot make sinners willing to come to Christ, who can?

Presbyterians, therefore, deem it safest to conclude that the atonement accomplishes the design of its author, and saves all whom God intended it to save. And this doctrine, so far from being adapted to perplex inquiring sinners, has a most encouraging tendency; for if they are willing to be saved on the terms of the gospel, there must, of necessity, be a divine intention to save them — these two things being connected together in God’s decree. But if they stay away from Christ till they first ascertain what he intends to do with them, they will never come at all.

Besides the unwillingness of mankind to come to God, the inability of man to keep God’s law or to do anything that could accomplish their salvation is another key doctrine of which Fairchild speaks. And here he affirms that man’s inability does not lessen his culpability before God, nor does this doctrine present man as chained down and unable to come to God though desirous to do so. God is glorified in the true state of things wherein though man is unable to save himself or to do any good, God nevertheless enables sinners to come to Christ by faith and implants the desire to do so. “He that worketh in them to will, will not withhold the ability to do. Philip. ii.13.”

Fairchild goes on to address another theological concern - the salvation of those dying in infancy.

Presbyterians are of opinion that those dying in infancy are elect unto salvation. As they are involved in the guilt and misery of the fall, they are appropriate subjects of the divine mercy; and their election secures to them an application of atoning blood, and the renewing influences of the Spirit. Thus, when the Lord Jesus shall “gather his elect from the four winds,” infants will not be left behind.

Our doctrinal opponents dislike this view of the subject, because, if all who die in infancy are elect, then, as they could not have been elected on account of foreseen faith and works, it will follow that fully a third part of our species are saved by unconditional election.

When we speak of infants dying in infancy as elect, we mean that they are chosen out of the whole mass of human beings. Our use of the term, therefore, does not imply that any who die at that tender age are not elected. So when John, addressing the “elect lady,” speaks of her “elect sister” (2 John 13), we do not infer that she had non-elect sisters. In the exercise of his electing love, God had before him the whole race of mankind, not a particular class, age, or sex. And in the opinion of Presbyterians all who die in infancy were included in his purpose of mercy, and selected, along with others, out of the whole family of Adam.

Finally, Fairchild addresses God’s sovereignty over all things, including the evil that happens in this world. Affirming along with the Confession that God is not the author of sin, Fairchild yet explains that the Scriptures do indeed teach that nothing is outside the government of God, even sin. And that this doctrine, which he terms “divine appointment,” stands in contrast to “the gloomy notion of fate” and offers great consolation to believers in the midst of the trials of life.

Indeed, it is a prime principle with Presbyterians, that all the good in the universe proceeds from God; and all the evil from creatures, who act from their own free choice, uninfluenced by any compulsory decree.

We believe that the purposes of God do extend to all events, but not that they extend to all in the same manner. Some things God has purposed to bring to pass by his own agency, and other things, as sinful acts, he has purposed to permit, or suffer to be done by others. And the things which he does by his own agency, and those which he suffers to be done by others, include all that ever come to pass. We may add that this distinction between determinations to do on the part of God, and determinations to suffer sinful acts to be done by others, not only exists in our Confession, but has been taught by all Presbyterian divines from the earliest period.

This tract concludes with an extended quote from Thomas Scott, the English Bible commentator, on the sovereignty of God. It is fitting because the sovereignty of God is at the heart of the doctrines of grace, upon which Fairchild expounds. This distinctive teaching of the Presbyterian Church, based upon the Scriptures, is calculated to humble the pride of man and to exalt the glory of God in all matters, including that of salvation. It is a tract that is well worth the time to read and prayerfully consider.

Click here to browse our Bookstore!

Three kinds of grace, according to Gilbert Tennent

(Receive our blog posts in your email by clicking here. If the author links in this post are broken, please visit our Free PDF Library and click on the author’s page directly.)

What is grace? Archibald Alexander in his Pocket Dictionary (1829, 1831) defines it as “free favour, unmerited kindness.” Gilbert Tennent in his 1743 sermon on this attribute of God — from his series on the chief end of man, reprinted also in Archibald Alexander’s compilation of Sermons of the Log College, edited by Samuel Davies Alexander — also speaks of it as “undeserved kindness.” Tennent elaborates that grace is both a divine attribute of God, and the gift of God towards others — and that God’s grace extends to “ail Creatures, even to the noblest Angels.”

The fact that God’s grace — unmerited favor — extends to all creatures suggests that not all creatures are beneficiaries of what is known as “saving grace.” Thus, distinctions must be made in the types of grace that God extends to His creatures. These distinct types of the grace of God are discussed in the writings of Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, Robert L. Dabney, W.G.T. Shedd, Geerhardus Vos and many other notable American theologians, all of whom properly distinguish between saving and common grace.

But to return to Gilbert Tennent’s sermon on grace, let us hear what this son of the founder of the Log College taught in 1743.

…Grace is Three-fold, viz., Universal, common, and saving. And

1st. Universal Grace is that, whereby Jehovah dispenses natural Things upon all his Creatures, and hence he is call’d the Saviour of all Men. 1 Tim. iv.10. And is said to preserve Man and Beast. Psa. xxxvi.6. He causes his Sun to rise upon the Fields of the Evil and the Good, and sends his Rain upon the Just and the Unjust: He gives to Man Life, Health, Strength, and all the Supports he enjoys therein, all which being undeserv’d, may be call’d Grace; but according to the Usage of Scripture and Antiquity, they seldom and less properly bear that Name.

2dly. Common Grace consists in the Communication of moral good Things upon Men promiscuously, whether they be good or bad, elect or not elect, just as natural Wisdom and Prudence, and all the Train of moral Vertues, in which even some Pagans have excell’d. And to these we may add, all outward religious Priviledges and Means of Grace; together with those transient Effects which are sometimes produced, by them upon the Unregenerate, such as some of Illumination, and Stirrings of religious Affection. In a Word all those common operations of the Holy Spirit, which are not follow’d by a habitual and saving Change, must be ascrib’d hereto. Of these mention is made Heb. vi.4-6. and also in the Parable of the Sower, Mat. xiii.20-21. But he that received the Seed into Stony Places, the same is he that heareth the Word, and anon with Joy receiveth it, yet hath he not Root in himself, but dureth for a while, for when Tribulation or Persecution ariseth, because of the Word, by and by he is offended. But

3dly. Saving Grace is that undue or undeserved Love of God, whereby he confers upon the Elect only, saving Benefits, of his own meer good Pleasure.

Thus, according to Tennent, the disposition of God towards all of his creatures is gracious, leading him to extend unmerited favor in some measure unto all, although saving grace is reserved for the elect only. The knowledge of God’s grace — in all its manifestations — is a mighty incentive to humility:

…methinks the Doctrine of Free Grace should powerfully induce us to Humility, Seeing that it is God only, who has made us to differ from others, and that we have nothing but what we have receiv'd. We are his Debtors, for all we have in Hand or Hope. The Nature of Grace supposes the Object, upon whom it is vouchsafed, unworthy of it. A continued humbling Sense of this, would as much conduce to our Benefit, as Ornament.

The sovereign and free grace of God, which flows from His very nature, will naturally bring low the pride of man and exalt the goodness of God. Consider this word from Tennent — the whole sermon is found in his Twenty-Three Sermons on Man's Chief End (1744) and in Alexander’s Sermons of the Log College (1855) — and may we then praise Him as the Psalmist does who said: “The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy” (Ps. 103:8).

Click here to browse our Bookstore!

Samuel Davies: God's grace supplies our wants and nourishes us with his blessings

(Receive our blog posts in your email by clicking here. If the author links in this post are broken, please visit our Free PDF Library and click on the author’s page directly.)

Among the many treasures to be found at the Virginia Museum of History & Culture (originally named the Virginia Historical Society, and founded in part by the efforts of John Holt Rice, Jonathan Peter Cushing and others, but renamed in 2018), is a portion of Samuel Davies’ New Testament - leaves containing the text of a portion of Galatians through 2 Timothy, along with handwritten annotations by him.

Joseph C. Harrod tells us that this New Testament was donated to the museum in 1963 (Theology and Spirituality in the Works of Samuel Davies (2019), p. 63). He also highlights a particular annotation on Ephesians 3:20:

Our Petitions can extend far; our tho’ts farther—But above—abundantly above— exceeding [abun]dantly above what we ask or think—exceeding [abun]dantly above all that we ask of think, —wt a [ . . . ]gious extent is this! And yet, thus far does [ . . . ] & Grace of God extend to supply our Wants & to [nou]rish us wth his Blessings. Amazing Tho’t! & how [ . . . ] exprest! Plain as Language can be; & yet as h[igh] as Tho’t can rise. The Repetition of ye Particle [ . . . ] in ye original renders it still more emphatical. [ . . . ] ναμένῳ ὑπὲρ πάντα ποιῆσαι ὑπὲρ ἐκ πε[ρισ]σοῦ ᾧν ἀιτούμεθα ἤ νοῦμεν—which may perhaps [ . . . ] thus translated, ‘Who is able to do above,— exceed[ . . . ] abundantly above all that we ask or think.

Harrod adds:

Samuel Davies recorded these observations on Ephesians 3:20 in his New Testament on a blank page opposite the printed text. His style was meditative, focusing on key words in the verse, which he wanted to recall later for personal reflection or sermon preparation. This annotation is one of several that have survived and indicates that their author gave meticulous attention to the Bible as he analyzed syntactical constructions in the Greek. The importance of Scripture extended even to the particle. The mention of the biblical text being “Plain” recalls the Reformation emphasis on the perspicuity of Scripture. In fine, Davies’ notes link the significance of the biblical text to the life of its readers: the reader learns that God graciously sustains believers by his word. Samuel Davies believed that the Bible was the foundation for genuine Christian piety and this chapter explores the contours of his reflections on the nature and place of Scripture in the Christian life.

Recently, this writer was able to visit the museum and hold these pages himself. Below is a photograph of a photocopy of these particular notes. See for yourself the careful handwriting (in English and Greek) of a minister who wrote this private, unpublished notes in his Bible almost three centuries ago.

Photocopy of Samuel Davies’ handwritten annotations from his personal Bible on Ephesians 3:20 (courtesy of the Virginia Museum of History & Culture, photo credit: R. Andrew Myers).

Praise God for his grace which supplies our wants and nourishes us with his blessings, as Samuel Davies testifies.

Click here to browse our Bookstore!

The Man Who Coined the TULIP Acrostic: Cleland Boyd McAfee

Although many credit Loraine Boettner (1901-1990) in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (1932) with originating the acrostic for the Five Points of Calvinism known as TULIP, it is believed that the real originator was instead Cleland Boyd McAfee (1866-1944), who did so in 1905 (whose TULIP was a slightly different version than that of Boettner). More widely known for his study of the King James Version of the Bible, and other works, McAfee is a 19th century-born American Presbyterian worth getting to know. Visit here for more information on his life and works. 

Note: This blog post was originally published on January 24, 2018 and has been very slightly edited.

What is Grace? A concise answer by A.A. Hodge & B.B. Warfield

Johnson’s Universal Cyclopedia contains an article on “Calvinism” originally written jointly by A.A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield, and later revised by Warfield, which also appears in Warfield’s Selected Shorter Writings, Vol. 2. In this article the concept of grace is defined simply and concisely.

Grace is free sovereign favor to the ill-deserving. It is the motive of redemption in the mind of God. It is exercised in the sacrifice of his Son, in the free justification of the believing sinner on the ground of that Son’s vicarious obedience and sufferings, and in the total change wrought in that sinner’s moral character and actions by the energy of the Holy Ghost. While the word grace applies equally to the objective change in relations and the subjective change of character, it is used in this connection to designate the energy of the Holy Ghost whereby the moral nature of the human soul is renewed, and the soul, thus renewed, is enabled to act in compliance with the will of God.

The word grace has been at the heart of many theological controversies, but here the concept is laid before us clearly, and, thus simply defined, is worthy of our thankful meditation.