American Presbyterians and Sunday Mail

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

In recent news, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a mail carrier for the U.S. Postal Service who was forced to resign over his refusal to work (deliver mail) on the Lord’s Day and, subsequently, filed suit against the agency for its denial of an accommodation of his religious belief in keeping the Lord’s Day holy, and thereby violating his civil rights. Gerald Groff, the postal employee in question, had worked at the Post Office since 2012, but a 2013 arrangement between the U.S. Post Office and Amazon led to a requirement that mail be delivered on the Lord’s Day, a duty which Mr. Groff was initially able to avoid until the issue was pressed upon him, leading to his resignation for conscience’ sake. The Supreme Court’s ruling was welcomed by many who have been concerned about the encroachment of business on the Christian Sabbath, especially non-essential labor that is mandated by the federal government of its employees.

It should be noted, though, that the 2013 Post Office-Amazon arrangement which led to Mr. Groff’s trial of conscience is not the first time this particular issue has been confronted in American history. This very issue, in fact, was of immense concern to 19th century Presbyterians.

As far back as 1808, Postmaster General Gideon Granger directed that post offices be opened on the Lord’s Day for the sorting of mail. One particular local postmaster in Washington, Pennsylvania, Hugh Wylie — who was also a ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church — began to open his post office on the Lord’s Day not only for sorting of mail, but also for the distribution of mail. Eventually, the distribution of the mail began encroached upon the time of worship services, and complaints were made about the propriety of this sort of work occurring on this day of the week. Although the Post Office supported Wylie in his efforts to maintain the flow of mail, the Synod of Pittsburgh condemned Wylie and barred him from communion, and suspended him from the eldership. He appealed unsuccessfully to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.

Meanwhile, in 1810, the U.S. Congress passed a law requiring postmasters to open their offices on the Lord’s Day. In the context of the approaching War of 1812, the argument of necessity held sway in the public mind given that need for expedited communication during wartime carried plausible weight. But the opposing argument that the nation itself was involved in a sinful course of action by diverting federal employees and citizens from the duties of the Sabbath by maintaining a regular course of business on that day also began to carry weight in the minds of Christian citizens. Petitions were sent from the PCUSA General Assembly in 1812 and 1815 to Congress urging repeal of the 1810 legislation. Although these and other petitions went unheeded by Congress, the 1819 PCUSA General Assembly ruled concerning its members that engaging in business or commerce — in particular, in relation to Sabbath mail delivery — on the Lord’s Day was a bar to communion (Baird’s Digest [1856], p. 33).

In the mid-1820s and early 1830s, a renewed effort was made by Christians of various denominations to pressure Congress to repeal its legalization of mail delivery on the Lord’s Day. Lyman Beecher helped to found the General Union for the Promotion of the Christian Sabbath in 1828, and his 1829 sermon on the Pre-Eminent Importance of the Christian Sabbath zeroed in the Sabbath desecration caused by thousands of federal employees being pulled away from public worship to transport and deliver the mail, arguing at one point: “the petitions are, not that Congress will do any thing for religion, but, simply, that by legislation they will do nothing against religion - simply that they will not, with the people's money, hire their twenty-six thousand Mail-carriers, Post-masters and assistants, to unite with the wicked in prostrating the holy Sabbath! We ask for no union of church and state: but, simply, that the moral influence of the Sabbath may not be thus bartered away for secular gain.”

In 1829, Senator Richard M. Johnson, chairman of the Senate Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads and a devout Baptist, issued a report which shot down the petitions sitting before Congress to repeal the 1810 law, stating that “The transportation of the mails on the first day of the week, it is believed, does not interfere with rights of conscience” (Richard C. Wylie, Sabbath Laws in the United States [1905], p. 181). Stuart Robinson notes that “Colonel Johnson was by education and prejudice a Seventh Day Baptist, and the opinion gained general currency that his report was inspired, if not prepared, by a Seventh-Day Baptist preacher” (Sabbath Laws in the United States [1879]).

The controversy was not limited to the halls of Congress or the ecclesiastical courts, but spilled over into the press. Charles Hodge addressed the matter in The Biblical Repertory and Theological Review with his article The American Quarterly Review on Sunday Mails (1831). He objected to the manner in which this respectable journal portrayed the ongoing debate, and used the opportunity to articulate a clear understanding of the obligations of the Sabbath day for all Christians, and further argued that necessity was not at stake in the question of the propriety of mail delivery.

In his controversial 1832 discourse, Prince Messiah's Claims to Dominion Over All Governments; and the Disregard of His Authority by the United States, in the Federal Constitution, Reformed Presbyterian minister James R. Willson continued the argument against Sabbath mail delivery: “The Sabbath is very grossly and scandalously violated in all parts of the United States. It is true, the federal and state legislatures, and the courts of justice, do yet adjourn, on the Lord's holy day. But how do the officers of government spend their Sabbaths? Which of them reads the Holy Scriptures, ‘spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of religion?’ — The transportation of the mails — the opening of the post-offices, and the diffusion of political and other secular intelligence, profane the Sabbath, and corrupt the public mind.”

Stonewall Jackson is known to have been very particular about doing anything that would contribute to the delivery of mail on the Sabbath. Robert L. Dabney had this to say about it: “His convictions of the sin committed by the Government of the United States, in the unnecessary transmission of mails, and the consequent imposition of secular labor on the Sabbath day, upon a multitude of persons, were singularly strong. His position was, that if no one would avail himself of these Sunday mails, save in cases of true and unavoidable necessity, the letters carried would be so few that the sinful custom would speedily be arrested, and the guilt and mischief prevented. Hence, he argued, that as every man is bound to do whatever is practicable and lawful for him to do, to prevent the commission of sin, he who posted or received letters on the Sabbath day, or even sent a letter which would occupy that day in travelling, was responsible for a part of the guilt. It was of no avail to reply to him, that this self-denial on the part of one Christian would not close a single post-office, nor arrest a single mail-coach in the whole country. His answer was, that unless some Christians would begin singly to practise their exact duty, and thus set the proper example, the reform would never be begun; that his responsibility was to see to it that he, at least, was not particeps criminis; and that whether others would co-operate, was their concern, not his” (Life and Campaigns of Lieut.-Gen. Thomas J. Jackson (Stonewall Jackson) [1866], p. 88).

As late as 1889, Thomas P. Stevenson testified on behalf of the National Reform Association before the U.S. Senate in favor of a Sunday Rest Bill, submitting on that occasion a report on The National Mail Service and the Sabbath. Towards the end of his report he made this striking claim: “The action of the Government in this matter involves the whole nation in guilt and exposes the whole people to the righteous judgments of God. No man can say, ‘I never used the mails on the Sabbath; I am therefore not responsible.’ When irreligion and vice unsettle the foundations of social welfare, no man can assure himself that his personal or domestic interests will not be imperiled. When Israel went into captivity ‘that this land might enjoy her Sabbaths,’ the whole people suffered. A nation is justly held responsible for the action of its Government, because the nation is greater than the Government, and can reform it at pleasure. The violation of the Sabbath by the mail service involves in guilt not merely the officials in charge of the Post-Office Department, but the American people. The people have direct, legitimate, and, in some sense, authoritative access to the Government. Those who desire or would insist on the continuance of the Sabbath mail service, in the face of such considerations as we have urged, are a small minority of the population. It is only necessary for the people to speak; the Government will obey their voice.”

Eventually, in 1912, Congress finally acted to bar mail delivery on the Lord’s Day. It was to the great relief and acclaim of many Christians, but the greatest impetus for this change of heart on the part of the federal government was not the petitions of Sabbath-keepers, but the arguments of organized labor who emphasized the need of workers for a day of temporal and secular rest. Thus matters stood until the 2013 Amazon deal, and now in 2023, the highest court in the land has taken the part of a federal worker with a conscience about keeping the Lord’s Day holy. America’s controversy with the Lord, however, is far from resolved. The obligation upon all to uphold the Christian Sabbath, as stated in the Fourth Commandment, endures. Those who seek to witness to this truth rejoice with Gerald Groff, having won his day in court, and yet, as has been said in another context, “The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form.”

For further reading on this topic, with additional details, see this 2020 article by Barry Waugh, “Mail Carrying on Sunday.”

What's New at Log College Press? - December 20, 2022

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

At the close of 2022, Log College Press is staying very active as we continue to expand the site and make accessible even more literature from early American Presbyterians.

Last month, in November 2022, we added 582 new works to the site. There are currently over 17,000 free works available at LCP. Today we are highlighting some of the new free PDFs available as found on our Recent Additions and Early Access pages, two features provided to members of the Dead Presbyterians Society.

Some highlights at the Early Access page:

  • Two works by Thomas Cleland, A Familiar Dialogue Between Calvinus and Arminius (1805, 1830); and The Socini-Arian Detected: A Series of Letters to Barton W. Stone, on Some Important Subjects of Theological Discussion, Referred to in His "Address" to the Christian Churches in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio (1815);

  • Abraham Brooks Van Zandt, God's Voice to the Nation: A Sermon Occasioned by the Death of Zachary Taylor, President of the United States (1850);

  • Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (1955); and Christianity and Barthianism (1962);

  • John Murray, The Reformed Faith and Modern Substitutes (1935-1936); and The Application of Redemption (1952-1954) [a series of many articles which served as the basis for his 1955 book Redemption Accomplished and Applied];

  • Geerhardus Vos, A Song of the Nativity (1924, 1972) [a Christmas poem]; and

  • early sermons by Francis James Grimké, Our Duty to the Poor — How We Observed It on Christmas (1881); Wendell Phillips: A Sermon Delivered Sunday, Feb. 24, 1884, at the Fifteenth Street Presbyterian Church, Washington, D.C. (1884); Our Future as a People (1890), each of which was contributed by a reader.

Some highlights at the Recent Addtiions page:

Also, be sure also to check out the quotes we have been adding at our blog for DPS members: Though Dead They Still Speak, including John Holmes Agnew: The Lord Loves the Gates of Zion; B.B. Warfield on Theological Study as a Religious Exercise and on What it Means to Glorify and Enjoy God; William H. Green on How the Child of God May Rightly Undergo Frowning Providences; John Murray: To the Calvinist Who Once Struggled With the Arminian Idea of Free Will; E.C. Wines: Christ is the Fountain of the Promises; James Gallaher on the Difference Between Calvinism and Fatalism; William S. Plumer's Suggested Guidelines for Making Family Worship More Profitable; Elizabeth Prentiss on Dying Grace; and T. De Witt Talmage: The Sabbath a Taste of Heaven.

We appreciate hearing from our readers if they find matters needing correction, or if they have questions about authors or works on the site, or if they have suggestions for additions to the site. Your feedback helps the experience of other readers as well.

Meanwhile, please feel free to browse the many resources available to our readers in print and in digital format. There is a lot to explore, and many Presbyterian voices from the past to hear. We look forward to seeing what the Lord has in store for Log College Press in 2023. Thank you, as always, for your interest and support, dear friends, and best wishes to you in the New Year!

Political Dissent by Early American Covenanters

(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.)

“John Ploughman says, Of two evils choose neither. Don't choose the least, but let all evils alone.” — Charles Spurgeon, The Salt-Cellars: Being a Collection of Proverbs, Together with Homely Notes Thereon (1889), p. 297

“...instead of being fixed by their favourite poster, 'of two evils choose the least,' I say,... when you give me the choice of two moral evils, I can choose neither of them. If I have the choice of two physical evils, I will choose the least. If I am asked whether I would choose to lose a toe or a leg, I would choose to part with a toe; but if I am asked whether I would desecrate the Sabbath by steam or by horse power, I say I would do neither. There is a dangerous and deadly fallacy lurking beneath this common maxim, against which I would warn all; for of two moral evils we must choose neither — we are not at liberty to do evil that good may come.” — William Symington, Speech of the Rev. Dr. Symington at the great meeting, for protesting against the desecration of the Sabbath by the running of trains on the Edinburgh and Glasgow railway on the Lord's day, held in the City Hall, Glasgow, February 26, 1842

“There is one political maxim that comforts me: ‘The Lord reigns.’” — John Newton, Letter III to Mrs. P., August 1775

When the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in America (RPCNA) was adopted in 1806 (published in 1807 under the title Reformation Principles Exhibited), a full chapter was included on the subject, in addition to the one on civil government, concerning “the right of Dissent from a Constitution of Civil Government.” Because American Covenanters view the scope of Christ’s dominion as King to include all things — nations as well as the church — they historically considered it sinful to omit (as the U.S. Constitution does) allegiance to him as King (Ps. 2:10-12). And further, oaths such as that required of elected officials (and often voters) by the same Constitution were consequently considered unlawful.

William Gibson, one of the early Covenanter ministers in America, who was involved in the preparation of Reformation Principles Exhibited, had in fact fled Ireland because of his refusal to swear an oath of allegiance to the government during the Irish Rebellion of 1797. Alexander McLeod, author of Messiah, Governor of the Nations of the Earth — a classic statement of Covenanter doctrine concerning the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ over all things — wrote about political dissent in the historical section of the RP Testimony. These men, as well as James Renwick Willson, Samuel B. Wylie and others, were confronted early on with issues of what it meant to be a loyal, patriotic civic-minded American citizen in the newly-formed republic of the United States of America.

For many Covenanters — and abolitionists in general, such as William L. Garrison, who described the U.S. Constitution as “a covenant with death and an agreement with hell” — the founding charter of this country, rather than manifesting Biblically-required submission to the laws of Christ, mandated sinful involvement by all who voted or swore oaths of allegiance to a document that exalted “We, the people” at the expense of Christ’s honor, and positively required endorsement of, a system that upheld the wicked practice of enslaving human beings. Thus, early American Covenanters declined to vote, or serve on juries, or to participate in any political activity that required them to sanction the political process as it then existed.

Even after the War Between the States — or, the “Late Rebellion” as it was termed by some — political dissent was viewed as a crucial aspect of Covenanter testimony to the claims of the Lord Jesus Christ upon America. It was not until the 1960’s that the doctrine of political dissent was dropped as a term of communion within the RPCNA. The current RP Testimony allows for voting in American civil elections if candidates meet certain criteria involving fidelity to Christian moral and doctrinal standards. However, a consistent application of the even current standard teaching of the RPCNA would prohibit a Covenanter from voting for most (all?) candidates standing for the 2020 election, if principle rather than pragmatism holds sway.

At the heart of this historic dissent from political activity in America is not an Anabaptistic rejection of all involvement in civil affairs. Covenanters confess (see the Westminster Confession of Faith chap. 23) that civil government is a good and needful ordinance of God. Their political activity in American history with regard to opposition to slavery (and other current forms of legal but immoral conduct such as Sabbath-breaking and abortion), is well-documented (see Joseph S. Moore, Founding Sins: How a Group of Antislavery Radicals Fought to Put Christ into the Constitution). The concern of Covenanters for godly civil government has always been at the forefront of their core convictions; so much so that their unpopular stand regarding political dissent has led them to suffer persecution for their unwillingness to embrace American political ideals. James R. Willson was once burned in effigy after he published Prince Messiah's Claims to Dominion Over All Governments; and the Disregard of His Authority by the United States, in the Federal Constitution (1832). Covenanters have historically considered it a noble and worthy sacrifice to decline to avail themselves of the political privilege of voting as long as the oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution is a part of the process of the elective franchise. But these were the same body of people who — beginning with Alexander Craighead, who was the first Presbyterian in America to publicly justify armed rebellion against Great Britain in 1743, and whose principles inspired the 1775 Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence — were front and center in the fight for American Independence, and in the fight for freedom for American slaves. Their desire for reformation encompassed both church and state.

Much more could be said about the Covenanter principle of political dissent, but to read them in their own words, it is helpful to consult the following:

  • Thomas Houston Acheson, Why Covenanters Do Not Vote (1912) - In this brief two-part article, Acheson gives six reasons that are NOT the reason why Covenanters do not vote; his six-fold reason why Covenanters do not vote; and the response to twelve objections to the Covenanter position.

  • George Alexander Edgar, The Reformed Presbyterian Catechism (1912) - In this catechism of RP principles (a reprise of Roberts’ 1853 catechism cited below), it is taught that nations and their constitutions are morally accountable before God, and that Christians therefore have a duty to dissent from immoral constitutions.

  • Finley Milligan Foster, What Voting Under an Unchristian Constitution Involves (n.d.) - This tract sketches the basic arguments of Covenanters that the U.S. Constitution is immoral, the act of voting involves acceptance of an immoral constitution, and that such is a sin against the King of the nations.

  • James Mitchell Foster, Shall We Condemn the Aggravated Guilt of This Nation in Vitiating the Consciences of its Christian Citizens by Requiring Them to Swear Allegiance to the Secular Constitution of the U.S. as the Condition of Exercising Their Political Privileges in the Governing Body? (1909) — No summary is needed after reading the title.

  • William Melancthon Glasgow, History of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in America - Political dissent is a recurring theme throughout Glasgow’s standard history of the denomination.

  • Nathan Robinson Johnston, “Political Dissent” (1892) - This is a letter to the editor of the Christian Instructor, reprinted in Political Dissenter, which responds to an article critiquing the Covenanter position on political dissent. Johnston responds to several points made by the author of that article in defense of political dissent.

  • James Calvin McFeeters, The Covenanters in America: The Voice of Their Testimony on Present Moral Issues (1892) - This testimony by McFeeters includes a chapter on “The Covenanters and Political Dissent.”

  • Alexander McLeod, Reformation Principles Exhibited (1807) - As mentioned above, this first Testimony of the RPCNA contains an historical section as well as a doctrinal outline, both of which articulate a position of political dissent from constitutions which omit and oppose allegiance to Christ.

  • John Wagner Pritchard, Soldiers of the Church: The Story of What the Reformed Presbyterians (Covenanters) of North America, Canada, and the British Isles, Did to Win the World War of 1914-1918 (1919) - This volume, of which we have written before, examines the contributions of RP members to the war effort in World War I in light of the issue of the usual requirements of soldiers to swear an oath of allegiance to their government. He writes: "People who do not understand, marvel that a Covenanter will give his life for his country but withholds his vote at election time. A Covenanter will give his life because of his loyalty to his country, and withholds his vote at election time because of his loyalty to Christ. To become a soldier he is required to swear loyalty to his country, and that he is always eager to do; but to vote at an election he is required to swear to a Constitution of Civil Government that does not recognize the existence of God, the authority of Christ over the nation, nor any obligation to obey His moral law; and that his conception of loyalty to Christ will not permit him to do."

  • William Louis Roberts, The Reformed Presbyterian Catechism (1853) — In this catechism of RP principles, “The right and duty of dissent from an immoral constitution of civil government” is identified as one of the twelve distinctive teachings of the RPCNA.

  • James McLeod Willson, Bible Magistracy; or, Christ's Dominion Over the Nations (1842) - After sketching fundamental principles of civil government and Christ’s Kingship over the nations, Willson applies those principles to the situation in the United States and affirms the need for political dissent.

  • James Renwick Willson, Prince Messiah's Claims to Dominion Over All Governments; and the Disregard of His Authority by the United States, in the Federal Constitution (1832) - This is perhaps the most detailed critique of the U.S. Constitution and its flaws from the Covenanter perspective.

  • Richard Cameron Wylie, Dissent From Unscriptural Political Systems (1896) - An address delivered at the First International Convention of Reformed Presbyterian Churches, held in Scotland, outlines reasons why Covenanters held to the doctrine of political dissent.

Although the doctrine of political dissent from immoral constitutions is not widely understood or accepted today among Christians and even among some Reformed Presbyterians, it is helpful to consider what early Covenanters believed in this country concerning involvement in civil affairs. There are some today who may abstain from voting because of indifference or apathy; those Covenanters did so out of a deep abiding conviction that Christ must be honored in the halls of government and at the ballot box. In this election year, it is worth pondering those convictions in the light of Scripture, and seeking to understand whether these principles remain relevant. There are many avenues to reformation, but the means as well as the end must be able to stand in the light of God’s word in order for a nation to be blessed. As A.A. Hodge (not a Covenanter, but a vice-president of the National Reform Association) said:

In the name of your own interests I plead with you; in the name of your treasure-houses and barns, of your rich farms and cities, of your accumulations in the past and your hopes in the future, — I charge you, you never will be secure if you do not faithfully maintain all the crown-rights of Jesus the King of men. In the name of your children and their inheritance of the precious Christian civilization you in turn have received from your sires; in the name of the Christian Church, — I charge you that its sacred franchise, religious liberty, cannot be retained by men who in civil matters deny their allegiance to the King. In the name of your own soul and its salvation; in the name of the adorable Victim of that bloody and agonizing sacrifice whence you draw all your hopes of salvation; by Gethsemane and Calvary, — I charge you, citizens of the United States, afloat on your wide wild sea of politics, There is Another King, One Jesus: The Safety Of The State Can Be Secured Only In The Way Of Humble And Whole-souled Loyalty To His Person and of Obedience His Law (Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, p. 287).

How did "In God We Trust" come to be on American currency? A 19th century Presbyterian played a major role

(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.)

James Pollock left his mark on history. Born on September 11, 1810, he graduated from the College of New Jersey (Princeton) and became a lawyer, a judge and congressman. At one point he roomed with Abraham Lincoln and they developed an enduring friendship. He was present when Samuel Morse sent his first message by telegraph: “What hath God wrought?” and helped to support telegraph technology financially. He was the first in Congress to advocate for the construction of a transcontinental railroad. He later served as Governor of Pennsylvania, Director of the U.S. Mint, and as President of Lafayette College.

In 1861, in the midst of war, while James Pollock was serving as Director of the U.S. Mint, Mark Richards Watkinson (1824-1877), a Baptist minister from Pennsylvania, wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase.

Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.

One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form in our coins.

Your are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were now shattered beyond recognition? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our part we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the Goddess of Liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words ‘perpetual union’; within this ring the all-seeing eye crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words ‘God, liberty, law.’

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the divine protection we have personally claimed. From my heart I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.

Within a week, Secretary Chase wrote the following to Director Pollock:

Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.

You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.

Pollock gave an official response to Chase’s request in an 1862 report:

The distinct and unequivocal recognition of the divine sovereignty in the practical administration of our political system is a duty of the highest obligation. History unites with divine revelation in declaring that “happy is that people whose God is the Lord.” In the exercise of political sovereignty our nation should honor him; and now, in this hour of peril and danger to our country and its liberties, it is becoming to acknowledge his power and invoke his protection. Our national coinage in its devices and legends should indicate the Christian character of our nation, and declare our trust in God. It does not do this. On the contrary, ancient mythology, more than Christianity, has stamped its impress on our coins. It is, however, gratifying to know that the proposition to introduce a motto upon our coins, expressing a national reliance on divine support has been favorably considered by your department, and will no doubt be approved by an intelligent public sentiment. The subject is under the control of Congress; and without a change in existing laws, no alteration in the legends and devices of most of our national coins can be made; a motto, however, may be added without additional authority or violation of the present law.
…
In consideration of the legal provisions referred to, it will be necessary, in attempting to introduce a motto on the face of our coins, to interfere as little as possible with the present legal devices. The first difficulty to be encountered is the necessary condensation. The idea should be unmistakably expressed in our own language, and at the same time the letter should be distinctly and easily legible. To unite these desiderata within the limits presented on the face of the coin, in connexion with the required arrangement of the legal devices, demands much reflection. The motto “In God is our trust,” which has become familiar to the public mind by its use in our national hymn the “Star Spangled Banner,” would be an appropriate one, but it contains too many letters to insert in the place of the crest, without crowding - too much for good taste. For greater brevity we may substitute the words, “God our trust,” which convey the same idea, in a form of expression according with heraldic usage, and as readily understood as the more explicit form of the other…The adoption on our coin of the motto “God our trust,” or some other words expressive of national reliance upon divine support, would accord fully with the sentiment of the American people, and it would add to the artistic appearance of the coins.

In the next annual report to the Secretary (1863), Pollock followed up with these remarks:

I would respectfully and earnestly ask the attention of the department to the proposition, in my former report, to introduce a motto upon our coins expressive of a national reliance on divine protection, and a distinct and unequivocal national recognition of the divine sovereignty. We claim to be a Christian nation. Why should we not vindicate our character, by honoring the God of nations, in the exercise of our political sovereignty as a nation? Our national coinage should do this. Its legends and devices should declare our trust in God; in him who is the “King of kings and Lord of lords.” The motto suggested, “God, our trust,” is taken from our national hymn, the “Star Spangled Banner;” the sentiment is familiar to every citizen of our country; it has thrilled the hearts and fallen in song from the lips of millions of American freemen. The time for the introduction of this or a similar motto is propitious and appropriate. ‘Tis an hour of national peril and danger, an hour when man’s strength is weakness, when our strength and our nation’s strength must be in the God of battles and of nations. Let us reverently acknowledge his sovereignty, and let our coinage declare our trust in God.

Secretary Chase’s response to this report, dated December 9, 1863, was:

I approve of your mottoes, only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with the word, “Our,” so as to read, “Our God and Our Country.” And on that with the shield it should be changed so as to read, “In God We Trust.”

The first appearance of the motto “In God We Trust” on American coinage was on the obverse side of a two-cent piece.

The first appearance of the motto “In God We Trust” on American coinage was on the obverse side of a two-cent piece.

The motto for American coins “In God We Trust” was approved by Congress on April 22, 1864. It was not until July 11, 1955, that Congress authorized the use of this motto on paper currency as well. This was at the urging of Congressman Charles Bennett of Florida, known also for his role in the establishment of a national memorial near Jacksonville, Florida to commemorate the French Huguenot settlement at Fort Caroline. This writer had the privilege to correspond with Congressman Bennett on certain matters before his passing.

James Pollock was a link in the chain which led to an important statement, however symbolic, of national reliance upon God as expressed in our currency. He was a Presbyterian, and a member of the National Reform Association, and the stamp he left upon history, and upon our national coinage, endures.

Remembering a prince in Israel who served His King

(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.)

Archibald Alexander Hodge, son of Charles Hodge, entered into glory on this day in history, November 12, 1886. As husband, father, pastor, missionary, professor, and author - A.A. Hodge did much to contribute to the advancement of the kingdom of Christ during his 63 years on earth.

Today, we remember one strand of his thought in particular concerning how the state ought to relate to both Christ and the Church. This was an important topic to him, which he developed in several of his writings. From one recent addition to Log College Press — provided graciously by our friend Dr. Wayne Sparkman of the PCA Historical Center — we take note of Hodge’s understanding of these relations in the American context.

Hodge delivered an annual address before the Presbyterian Historical Society, located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1878. This speech was soon made into a tract by the Christian Statesman, an organ of the National Reform Association, of which Hodge served as a vice-president. Titled “The State and Religion,” Hodge articulates the major theories of church-state relations, including the Roman Catholic, Erastian and what has been known as the “voluntary” theory of complete separation of church and state, described by Hodge as “the new American theory.”

Although the American form of government does not claim to install a king on the throne, according to Hodge, “We, the people” has become the new king in our country. But Hodge responds thus:

In our time another king has appeared, styled "The People," for whom absolute, irresponsible sovereignty is also claimed, who, it is assumed, can make, by prerogative, whatsoever he wills right.

We take the words of Melville originally addressed to James VI., of Scotland, and address them to this arrogant modern American sovereign, who proposes to set himself in the seat of God, "Ye are God's silly vassal. There are two kings and two kingdoms in America: there is king 'people,' the immediate head of the commonwealth, and there is Christ the king over both Church and commonwealth, whose subject the people is, and of whose kingdom the 'people' is not king nor lord, nor head, but subject only."

In short, Hodge advocated a “Reformed or Calvinistic” theory of government which sought to emphasize “a Christian State and a Free Church, founded on the recognition of the universal supremacy of King Jesus in both spheres.”

Elsewhere, he wrote these words which ring true today as never before:

In the name of your own interests I plead with you; in the name of your treasure-houses and barns, of your rich farms and cities, of your accumulations in the past and your hopes in the future, — I charge you, you never will be secure if you do not faithfully maintain all the crown-rights of Jesus the King of men. In the name of your children and their inheritance of the precious Christian civilization you in turn have received from your sires; in the name of the Christian Church, — I charge you that its sacred franchise, religious liberty, cannot be retained by men who in civil matters deny their allegiance to the King. In the name of your own soul and its salvation; in the name of the adorable Victim of that bloody and agonizing sacrifice whence you draw all your hopes of salvation; by Gethsemane and Calvary, — I charge you, citizens of the United States, afloat on your wide wild sea of politics, There is Another King, One Jesus: The Safety Of The State Can Be Secured Only In The Way Of Humble And Whole-souled Loyalty To His Person and of Obedience His Law. (Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, p. 287)

Hodge devoted his life to the service of his King in all areas, and he was deeply concerned about public desecration of the Sabbath, then under attack, as well as the education of youth by a State which claimed to be secular. In our day, marriage — another institution founded before the Fall — is also under attack, making Hodge’s words all the more relevant to 21st century readers.

We remember a prince in Israel today who served his King with “whole-souled loyalty”: A.A. Hodge.

National Reform Association Officers at Log College Press

(If the author links in this post are broken, please visit our Free PDF Library and click on the author’s page directly.)

We have previously written about the history and mission of the National Reform Association (NRA) here. Although closely associated with the Reformed Presbyterian of North America (RPCNA), which emphasizes the mediatorial kingship of Jesus Christ over all things, including nations, the mission of the NRA — firstly, to amend the US Constitution to acknowledge Christ’s kingship over the nation — was widely supported by 19th century American Presbyterians from a range of denominations. The number of ministers who were supporters or officers of the NRA is remarkable, some of whom are available to read here at Log College Press. The names which follow — and some of the quotes — are all highlighted in the January 31-February 1, 1872 and February 4-5, 1874 Proceedings of the National Convention to Secure the Religious Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the 1877 National Reform Manual.

National Reform Association.jpg

  • Samuel Agnew - The Treasurer of the Presbyterian Historical Society in Philadelphia also served as the Treasurer of the National Reform Association.

Our duty is plain. We must search and try our ways, and turn again to the Lord. The loss of his favor will explain everything that has happened. And the grand aim should be to learn how we have lost his favor, and by what means we can regain it. This is too large a theme to be discussed within the compass of a few pages. But there is one feature of our government too closely connected with this question and too conspicuous to be passed by in silence. I refer, as you will readily suppose — for the topic is a familiar one— to the absence of any adequate recognition of the sovereignty of God, and the religion of which he is the author and object, in our Constitution, and in the practical administration of our political system. It may be conceded that the spirit of Christianity is to a certain extent incorporated into our Constitutions. The legal recognition of the Sabbath, the oath on the Holy Evangelists, and the appointment of chaplains, are, so far, an acknowledgment of the Christian religion. But our national charter pays no homage to the Deity. His name does not once occur in the Constitution of the United States. And, as if to confound the charity which would refer this omission to some accidental agency, the same atheism is repeated and perpetuated in another form no less excusable. . . . . The coinage of the United States is without a God. . . . . Is it too much to hope that this opprobrium may be wiped away? If we have never been taught the lesson before, we are admonished of it now, that the ‘Lord reigneth.’ Has not the time come to make our formal national confession of this fundamental truth — to impress it upon our coinage; to insert it (peradventure it may not be too late,) as the keystone of our riven and tottering Constitution? If the country is not ready for these two simple but significant steps in the direction of Christianity, we have been chastened to very little purpose (The Sovereignty of God, the Sure and Only Stay of the Christian Patriot in Our National Troubles: A Sermon (1862), pp. 20-23).

The Constitution Should Contain a Recognition of the Sovereignty of God Over the Nation.

In the consideration of this topic three things will be assumed, as their establishment (in substance) belongs to another tract of this series, viz. -- (1) That every nation is an organism, a moral person, of which Jehovah is Creator and Sovereign; -- (2) That God, as Sovereign, gives a Nation its prosperity and its adversity, and that He gives these for purposes of reward, of chastisement, and of special training; -- (3) That it is the duty of every nation -- especially of every Nation blessed as we have been -- to recognize, as an organism, His Sovereignty (The Religious Defect of the Constitution of the United States (1868), pp. 1-2).

There is one strictly national, that commenced in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, which is, the want of an acknowledgment in it of a Supreme Being and of a Divine revelation. That all-important engine of our national prosperity is, in form at least, entirely atheistical. Undoubtedly it was a great sin to have forgotten God in such an important national instrument, and not to have acknowledged Him in that which forms the very nerves and sinews of the political body. He had led us through all the perils of the Revolutionary struggle, and had established us in peaceful and plentiful security, and then to have been forgotten in the period of prosperity, certainly demanded His rebuke. Therefore hath the voice of His Providence proclaimed and even still it sounds in our ears: “I did know thee in the wilderness, in the land of great drought. According to their pasture, so were they filled; they were filled, and their heart was exalted; therefore have they forgotten me. Therefore will I be unto them as a lion; as a leopard by the way will I observe them” (Judgment and Mercy: A Sermon, Delivered...On the Day of "Humiliation, Thanksgiving, and Prayer" (1820)).

George Duffield V (not an NRA officer):

“Ye have robbed me, even this whole nation,” and as a nation He will hold us responsible for this robbery of his service and honor, just as much as he did Israel, and Babylon, and Persia, and Greece and Rome. To deny that God is ‘“THE GOVERNOR OF THE NATIONS,” (Ps. xxii. 28,) is to deny HIS DIVINE PROVIDENCE, acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence, and to deny the providence of God is to deny his ATTRIBUTES. * * * It is that old story of Israel and human nature over again: “Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked.” Temporal prosperity was too much for him. “Then he forsook the God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.’” (Deut. xxxii. 15.”)

* "That no notice whatever should be taken of that God who planteth a nation, and plucketh it up at his pleasure, is an omission which no pretext whatever can palliate. Had such a momentous business been transacted by Mohammedans, they would have begun, "In the name of God." Even the savages, whom we despise, setting a better example, would have paid some homage to the Great Spirit. But from the Constitution of the United States, it is impossible to ascertain what God we worship; or whether we own a God at all. * * Should the citizens of America be as irreligious as her Constitution, we will have reason to tremble, lest the Governor of the Universe, who will not be treated with indignity by a people, any more than by individuals, overturn, from its foundation, the fabric we have been rearing, and crush us to atoms in the wreck." —Works of J. M. Mason, D. D., Vol. i., p. 50.

“Was this omission intentional, as in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence? or was it a moral oversight, even greater than the tremendous political oversight in the original Articles of Confederation?” "Is it not strange that it appears not to have been perceived by any one at the time that the whole of this controversy arose out of a departure from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and the substitution of State sovereignty, instead of the constituent sovereignty of the people, as the foundation of the Revolution and the Union?" — ''Jubilee of the Constitution," by John Quincy Adams, April 30th, 1839, pp. 30-36 (The God of Our Fathers: An Historical Sermon (1861), pp. 13-15).

We have formed an association to effect an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Our proposed amendment does not touch to change — much less to abrogate — one of the truths, the principles or the features of that great instrument. Nor does it imply that we are wanting in appreciation of it; that we are dissatisfied or are restless under its working hitherto. Whoever likes the Constitution will find that we like it, and the institutions that have grown up under it, in the same measure and probably for the same good reasons. He will find us joined with him in the loyal support of all the good that is in it, its implied assertion of the rights of man and its wise provision for the growth of the nation. For such political wisdom given to our fathers we devoutly thank God; and it is our conviction and our boast that this Constitution is the best national charter recorded on the pages of history. But our fathers were not infallible, and the Constitution which they made for us was not perfect. Our nation's growth and experience have suggested several important amendments which have been already adopted ; and, as it seems to us, the time has come to discuss the adoption of another. There are certain evils and cer tain signs of coming evil which give us anxiety. These evils and evil omens we trace back to an omission in the Constitution, and it is evident that if this omission be supplied the evils will be averted. And this is what we propose to do. Our amendment, like all the others, is suggested by our experience, and, however it may seem to be late in the day, can never be out of date. There is no mention of God in the Constitution, no word which recognizes His sovereignty over human affairs or His interest in them. One of the great — one of the chief characteristics of our people at the time they entered into national com pact is thus ignored. The underlying faith of our forefathers, a faith which must have given life and shape to their politics and their institutions, is thus not alluded to. I repeat, this is the omission which now engages our attention and which we wish to supply. We feel that such an omission does injustice to the people, who, because of it, are but partially described and but partially represented in their Constitution. It would seem as if they had not understood how great and how grave was the work of nation-making in which they were engaged, and that they gave to.it only such earnestness as showed their desire for safety peace and wealth — mere material interests — though our forefathers, as we know, were a serious, thoughtful people, accustomed to do everything of a public nature in the name and the fear of God ; and though they settled the land and made their laws from the beginning as much for religious faith as for civil freedom, or rather, for the freedom of religious faith (Address of Dr. Edwards to the National Convention to Secure the Religious Amendment of the Constitution of the United States (1872)).

It is often claimed that the omission of all reference to God and His authority was simply an oversight; that His name was dropped from the oath by a mere inadvertence, and that the "no religious test" clause meant only no sectarian test; that some of the colonies had adopted sectarian tests, and that this was intended to forbid such tests under the Constitution. There are two things to be said in reply to this claim: First, that such deep forgetfulness and such astounding inadvertence in so grave a matter and in such circumstances, is wholly incredible and would scarcely lessen the nation's guilt if it were true. "For the wicked shall be turned into hell and all the nations that forget God." And, second, there are historical facts connected with the framing, adoption, and first administration of the Constitution, which put beyond all question that our Constitution and government has this Godless, Christless character by the design and purpose of its founders (Lectures in Pastoral Theology, Vol. 3 (The Covenanter Vision) (1917), p. 293).

It is time that, without any narrowness or bigotry, Christians were united in the affirmation that this is and shall be a Christian land, and that the acknowledgment of this truth shall be put beyond all peradventure by being formally in the National Constitution (Letter to David McAllister, December 11, 1873).

This Church [Reformed Presbyterian (Covenanter) Church of North America] is the special leader in the National Reform Movement. This is in the line of its testimony from the earliest days of Scotch Presbyterianism down to the present time. The thing which is peculiar to the Reformed Presbyterian Church (Old Side) and which distinguishes it from all others, is the refusal of its people to vote, hold office, or do any other act definitely incorporating themselves with the government until the nation shall specifically recognize Jesus Christ as the source of its civil authority, and God's law as the rule of national conduct in legislation and in the administration of its affairs, both international and domestic. While the Covenanter Church is alone in maintaining the consistency of its political dissent by refusing to vote, large numbers of Christian American citizens in other communions look upon it as a radical, if not fatal defect of the Constitution that it contains no recognition of God as supreme, or of the nation as a moral person bound by the moral law. The Constitution acknowledges no benefit to be derived from the Bible, the Sabbath, Christian morality, or Christian conduct in officials, and gives no legal basis for any Christian feature of the government.

...Reformed Presbyterians feel specially called upon to aid the success of this association at any cost or personal sacrifice. They believe that when the proposed amendments to the Constitution shall have been incorporated into that document, and not until then, shall this be a truly Christian government.

...That Movement seeks to add to the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States, as the source of its civil authority some acknowledgment of God and the Nation's accountability to him. At present the Preamble of the Constitution simply says 'We, the people of the United States,' as if the people were independent of the Almighty. The National Reform Association seeks to have that Preamble amended by inserting after the words just quoted, 'recognizing the dominion of Jesus Christ over the nations, and this nation's subjection to the Divine law (Presbyterians: A Popular Narrative of Their Origin, Progress, Doctrines, and Achievements (1892), pp. 420-421).

Christ’s Mediatorial authority embraces the universe.—Matthew 28:18; Philippians 2:9–11; Ephesians 1:17–23. It presents two great aspects. 1st. In its general administration as embracing the universe as a whole. 2nd. In its special administration as embracing the church…

The truth as held by all branches of the historical church is, that while Christ has been virtually Mediatorial King as well as Prophet and Priest from the fall of Adam, yet his public and formal assumption of his throne and inauguration of his spiritual kingdom dates from his ascension and session at the right hand of his Father….

The state is a divine institution, and the officers thereof are God’s ministers, Romans 13:1–4, Christ the Mediator is, as a revealed fact, “Ruler among the Nations,” King of kings, and Lord of lords, Revelation 19:16; Matthew 28:18; Philippians 2:9–11; Ephesians 1:17–23, and the Sacred Scriptures are an infallible rule of faith and practice to all men under all conditions…

It follows therefore— 1st. That every nation should explicitly acknowledge the Christ of God to be the Supreme Governor, and his revealed will the supreme fundamental law of the land, to the general principles of which all special legislation should be conformed. 2nd. That all civil officers should make the glory of God their end, and his revealed will their guide. 3rd. That, while no distinction should be made between the various Christian denominations, and perfect liberty of conscience and worship be allowed to all men, nevertheless the Christian magistrate should seek to promote piety as well as civil order (“Confession of Faith,” ch. 23, § 2). This they are to do, not by assuming ecclesiastical functions, nor by attempting to patronize or control the church, but by their personal example, by giving impartial protection to church property and facility to church work, by the enactment and enforcement of laws conceived in the true spirit of the Gospel, and especially in maintaining inviolate the Christian Sabbath, and Christian marriage, and in providing for Christian instruction in the public schools (Outlines of Theology, pp. 428-429, 434).

The point we want recognized in the Constitution is not a dogma of the churches, nor a theory of the schools, but a simple fact, everywhere operating, and universally recognized by believers. Jesus Christ is, as a fact, “Ruler among the nations,” (I.) providentially guiding their affairs, and determining their destinies; (2.) morally, by the revelation of truth and duty, the exhibition of motives, and stimulus and discipline of providentially arranged circumstances. If this be a matter of fact generally believed, should not a great self-governing community like this nation, conscious of its acts and of their character, make a distinct profession of its allegiance?

The practical recognition of this fact is no new thing in American history. It has formed a prominent characteristic of our successive governments, colonial, state, and national, from the beginning. We propose the adoption of no new principles, and no radical change of customs. We propose only to recognize, as a fundamental principle in the National written Constitution, that which has been a universally recognized principle of national life from the first. We aim not at change, but at conservation. We want to preserve through all coming time, and consistently carry out in all departments of law, the hitherto universally admitted fact, that Christianity is an element in the common law of the land (Address Concerning a Religious Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1874)).

The grand defect in the bond of our national union is the absence of the recognition of God as the Governor of this world. We have omitted — may it not be said refused? — to own him whose head wears many crowns, as having any right of dominion over us. The constitution of these United States contains no express recognition of the being of a God: much less an acknowledgment, that The Word of God, sways the sceptre of universal dominion. This is our grand national sin of omission. This gives the infidel occasion to glory, and has no small influence in fostering infidelity in affairs of state and among political men. That the nation will be blessed with peace and prosperity continuously, until this defect be remedied, no Christian philosopher expects. For this national insult, the Governor of the universe will lift again and again his rod of iron over our heads, until we be affrighted and give this glory to his name (The Little Stone and the Great Image; or, Lectures on the Prophecies Symbolized in Nebuchadnezzar's Vision of the Golden Headed Monster (1844), pp. 280-281).

We have never believed it perfect. Doubtless some improvements are possible; but it makes abundant provision for them, without utter demolition. The principal defect apparent to our vision meets us at the vestibule. The portico lacks one gem to perfect its lustre. There is union and justice, common defence and general welfare, blessing and liberty, but we cast our eyes about in vain for that which alone can give stability and beauty to the whole. The Koh-i-noor, whose radiant glories crown the grandeur of the beautiful temple, the Shekinah, is absent. The grand bond of our national Union does not distinctly acknowledge the being of a God. For more than forty years, a Fourth of July has seldom passed, on which I have not preached and warned my countrymen of this defect, and told them if it be not supplied, God would pull down their temple and bury a nation in its ruins. This warning has been sounded forth from thousands of pulpits in the land, and would have been much more extensively trumpeted but for the paralyzing influence of the fallacy couched in the demagogue's double entendre. ‘Religion has nothing to do with politics’ (Political Fallacies (1863), pp. 305, 306).

Nations have no difficulty in recognizing and acting on the principle of national, responsibility in their dealings with each other. In our recent troubles with Spain on account of the capture of the Virginius and the barbarous deeds that followed, we did not go to the individuals who perpetrated the outrage; we did not go to Cuba with our demand of reparation; we took our case directly to those who represented the supreme authority of Spain. From the nation we demanded reparation, and from it we received it. On the same principle God deals with all nations. They may refuse to acknowledge his authority; they may seek to throw off all responsibility to him; but it is in his prerogative and power to hold them to it, whether they acknowledge it or not. He claims, not only under his general ordinance, but in specific terms, to be the “Governor among the nations;” and in his Providence, as in his word, has shown that he does “judge among the nations,” and that “blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” The sacred history abounds with records of this, not only in respect to the chosen people, but the nations around them whose history is interwoven with theirs. And in records outside of the sacred history, we have the evidences, in all the ages, of his judgment and power, approving or condemning, blessing or punishing, the nations according to their character and acts. The history of our own nation is a sufficient illustration of this; as, also, of the fact that no existing nation of all the world has been brought under greater obligations to acknowledge and honor him (Moral Responsibility of Nations (1874)).

  • David McAllister (NRA General Secretary) - McAllister’s labors on behalf of the National Reform movement were diverse and extensive. Some of his writings from the 1870’s promoting an amendment to the US Constitution to acknowledge Christ as King are available to read at Log College Press. He also wrote a manual of the NRA’s history and principles.

The amendment proposed is such an addition, in substance, to the Preamble of the United States Constitution, as will suitably express our national acknowledgment of Almighty God as the author of the nation's existence and the source of its authority; of Jesus Christ as its ruler; and of the Bible as the fountain of its laws and the supreme rule of its conduct.

This is the great purpose of the National Association, based on the fundamental truth that a nation, as such, stands in clear and definite relations to God and his moral laws, and that in the Constitution, as well as the administration of its government, it is under obligations to acknowledge these relations (The Aims and Methods of the Movement to Secure the Religious Amendment of the Constitution of the United States (1872)).

The doctrine here advocated is, that as the different branches of our national government, the executive, legislative, and judicial, are co-ordinate, each supreme within its own sphere, and independent of the others, but all alike responsible directly to the people, so the church and state are co-ordinate institutions, totally independent of each other, each, in its own sphere, supreme with respect to the other, but both alike of Divine appointment, having one and the same head and fountain of all their powers, which is God. Whence both alike are bound to acknowledge, worship, and obey him. It is as great a solecism for the state to neglect this, as it would be for the church. Many seem to think that the complete separation of church and state, implies that the state, as such, has no duties to God, and no religious character. As logically it could be inferred from the family’s independence of the church, that that family has no religious character, and no duties to God. The family, the church, and the state, these are all co-ordinate institutions, severally independent of each other, yet all alike having one and the same Head, which they are equally bound in solemn form to acknowledge, worship, and obey. When the state, for any reason, declines to do this, it falls into a gross anomaly, and exemplifies that which is described in the second Psalm: Why do the nations rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against Jehovah, and against his Anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh; Jehovah shall have them in derision (A Nation’s Right to Worship God (1859), pp. 36-37).

Nor is slavery by any means the only sin with which, as a nation, we are chargeable. Our constitution of government, and its administration, are, to all intents and purposes, atheistic, ignoring the existence of God and every institution that he has established among men. This constitution was formed at a period when this country and Europe were both overrun by the principles of French infidelity, by men who were notoriously sceptical, and by whom all recognition of God was purposely excluded from this “remarkable document.” This no one can deny who has any acquaintance with the history of this period (God's Judgments, and Thanksgiving Sermons: A Discourse (1858), p. 12).

The first which I name, Religion, is first also in point of importance and necessity. This is a prime support of national greatness and perpetuity. No government, much less one that is wholly dependent upon the morals of the citizens, will long exist without it. By religion in this connection, I do not mean merely the religion of the individuals composing the State, but national religion acknowledged in the Constitution, embodied in the laws, and entering as an element into all those institutions which are the outgrowth and the exponents of the national life….We refuse, then, the profane maxims current in the mouths of political speculatists: "Religion has nothing to do with politics," "The State has no God," "Law knows no Bible."…We do not affirm that as a nation we are wholly destitute of the Christian element. There is much in our country which is the direct result of its influence. There are certainly here a large number devotedly attached to Christian principles. Our great benevolent and educational institutions are largely moulded and controlled by Christianity. Its powerful and permeating influence is everywhere felt. Nevertheless, as a government, we are not merely profoundly laic, as Guizot would say, but absolutely infidel and atheistic. Our Government is no more Christian than it is Jewish or Mohammedan. There is no recognition of God in its Constitution, no allusion to his name, authority, or law, not the most remote allusion to that great fundamental truth which, as the General Assembly in its late deliverance upon this subject truly declares, must underlie all our claims to be considered a Christian nation; viz., that there is one mediator between God and man (The Three Pillars of a Republic (1862) in Life and Work of J.R.W. Sloane, D.D. (1888), pp. 235, 238-240).

We respectfully submit to your consideration, whether these amendments are not simply an appropriate recognition of the relations which all just human authority sustains to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. Is not anything less than this wholly inconsistent with those relations? We propose the recognition of God, not only be cause He is the Supreme Ruler of all men and all organizations, but because it is He who has given the institution of civil government to man, and the just authority of the magistrate is derived from Him. "There is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God." It is surely fitting that a constitution framed by a Christian people should recognize a higher source of civil authority than the mere will or con sent of the. citizen. And in presenting civil government thus, as a divine institution, we enforce, by the highest possible sanctions, its claims upon the respect and obedience of the citizen. The true strength of a government lies in the conscientious regard felt for it as the ordinance of God. Thus only is the magistrate clothed with his true authority, and the majesty of the law suitably preserved. "The sanctions of religion," says De Witt Clinton, "compose the foundations of good government."

Government is instituted for man as an intellectual, social, and moral and religious being. It corresponds to his whole nature. It is intended (o protect and advance the higher as well as the lower interests of humanity. It acts for its legitimate purposes when it watches over domestic life, and asserts and enforces the sanctity of the marriage bond ; when it watches over intellect and education, and furnishes means for developing all the faculties of the mind; when it frowns on profaneness, lewdness, the desecration of the Sabbath, and other crimes which injure society chiefly by weakening moral and religious sentiment, and degrading the character of a people. Acting for such purposes, government should be established on moral principles. Moral principles of conduct are determined by moral relations. The relations of a nation to God and his moral laws are clear and definite: 1. A nation is the creature of God. 2. It is clothed with authority derived from God. 3. It owes allegiance to Jesus Christ, the appointed Ruler of nations. 4. It is subject to the authority of the Bible, the special revelation of moral law. In constituting and administering its government, then, a nation is under obligations to acknowledge God as the author of its existence and the source of its authority, Jesus Christ as its ruler, and the Bible as the fountain of its laws and the supreme rule of its conduct.

Up to the time of the adoption of the National Constitution, acknowledgments of this kind were made by all the States. They are yet made by many of the States. And in the actual administration of the national government the principle is admitted. But the fundamental law of the nation, the Constitution of the United States, on which our government rests and according to which it is to be administered, fails to make, fully and explicitly, any such acknowledgment. This failure has fostered among us mischievous ideas like the following: The nation, as such, has no relations to God ; its authority has no higher source than the will of the people; government is instituted only for the lower wants of man ; the State goes beyond its sphere when it educates religiously, or legislates against profanity or Sabbath desecration.

The National Association, which has been formed for the purpose of securing such an amendment to the Constitution as will remedy this great defect, and indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all Christian laws, institutions, and usages in our government on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the nation, invites all American citizens who favor such an amendment, without distinction of party or creed, to meet in Thorns' Hall, Cincinnati, on Wednesday, January 31, 1872, at 2 o'clock, P. M. All such citizens, to whose notice this call may be brought, are requested to hold meetings and appoint delegates to the Convention (Call For a National Convention (1872)).

Persuaded that God is the source of all legitimate power; that he has instituted civil government for His own glory and the good of man; that he has appointed His Son, the Mediator, to headship over the nations; and that the Bible is the supreme law and rule in national as in all other things, we will maintain the responsibility of nations to God, the rightful dominion of Jesus Christ over the commonwealth, and the obligation of nations to legislate in conformity with the written Word. We take ourselves sacredly bound to regulate all our civil relations, attachments, professions and deportment, by our allegiance and loyalty to the Lord, our King, Lawgiver and Judge; and by this, our oath, we are pledged to promote the interests of public order and justice, to support cheerfully whatever is for the good of the commonwealth in which we dwell, and to pursue this object in all things not forbidden by the law of God, or inconsistent with public dissent from an unscriptural and immoral civil power. We will pray and labor for the peace and welfare of our country, and for its reformation by a constitutional recognition of God as the source of all power, of Jesus Christ as the Ruler of Nations, of the Holy Scriptures as the supreme rule, and of the true Christian religion;. and we will continue to refuse to incorporate by any act, with the political body, until this blessed reformation has been secured (The Covenant of 1871)

The American Sabbath One Century Ago

Echoing a line from William Cowper ("When nations are to perish in their sins, / 'tis in the Church the leprosy begins), the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States once affirmed: "Let us beware brethren: as goes the Sabbath, so goes the church, as goes the church, so goes the nation" (1948). The same ecclesiastical body stated in 1933: "This nation cannot survive unless the Christian Sabbath is observed." 

With that principle in mind, in 1905, a fascinating volume was published by the National Reform Association, which was authored by Richard Cameron Wylie (1846-1928), a Reformed Presbyterian minister and long-term lecturer on behalf of the NRA, with an introduction by NRA President Sylvester Fithian Scovel (1835-1910), a Presbyterian minister and also President of Wooster University, regarding the state of the Christian Sabbath in America, along with the Biblical rationale for its public and civil establishment therein: Sabbath Laws in the United States. 

Beginning with a look at the colonial history of Sabbath laws in America, Wylie goes on to analyze the status of each states (there were 45 in 1905) and territory within the jurisdiction of the United States. This detailed study is followed by the Biblical grounds for the need to uphold the Fourth Commandment in modern American civil legislation. 

A documented study of this sort, authored by those who themselves advocated public and civil Sabbath-keeping, is rare to find. This particular volume, which precedes the efforts of the National Football League to largely dismantle US Sabbath laws beginning as early as the 1920's, provides a snapshot of the spiritual state of the country in 1905, just over one century ago. It is a window into the soul of America's past, and worth prayerfully comparing with America's present. 

The National Reform Association

A movement that began among 19th century American Reformed Presbyterians, and included support from many other various Protestant denominations, was known as National Reform. This movement sought to promote the national recognition of the crown rights of King Jesus within the U.S. Constitution by the amendment process, and hence, it also came to be known as the Christian Amendment movement.

Meeting were held by interested parties in Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania in 1863, but the National Reform Association was officially founded on January 27, 1864, in Allegheny City, Pennsylvania, although its origin is traced to an 1861 resolution adopted by the Lakes Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA) calling for the U.S. Constitution to be amended “to acknowledge God, submit to the authority of his Son, embrace Christianity, and secure universal liberty.” The organization’s original name was the National Association for the Amendment of the Constitution, but it was changed to the National Reform Association in 1875.

It is reported that members of the NRA actually met with President Abraham Lincoln before his death in an effort to advance their goals with his support. “A large and influential Committee was appointed to wait upon President Lincoln for an official endorsement of the work proposed by the Association. He responding said that in as far as he had opportunity to understand the purpose of the Association, he heartily favored it. Some time previous to this a number of Christian men had waited upon Mr. Lincoln and had requested of him the accomplishment of two measures. First, the abolition of American slavery, and second, the adoption of a suitable recognition of the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Constitution of the United States. To a few of the men who were on the Committee of the National Reform Association he privately said, ‘Gentlemen, in your former visit you requested of me two things. During the first term of my administration I was able to secure your first request. It is my hope that during my second term I will be able to secure your second request.’” (David McAllister, Christian Civil Government (1927), p. 24)

The list of early Presidents, officers and members include notable names such as William Strong (U.S. Supreme Court Justice and Presbyterian ruling elder); Archibald Alexander Hodge (Presbyterian minister); Charles Hodge (Presbyterian minister); Joshua Hall McIlvaine (Princeton Seminary professor); James Renwick Wilson Sloane (Reformed Presbyterian minister and Reformed Presbyterian Theological School professor); Thomas Patton Stevenson (Reformed Presbyterian minister); and Sylvester Fithian Scovel (Presbyterian minister and president of Wooster University); among other representatives and members from the Protestant Episcopal Church and other backgrounds, including Methodist and Baptist bodies.

The official publication of the NRA, The Christian Statesman, was founded by T.P. Stevenson and David McAllister in 1867. Proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution received significant popular support in the latter half of the nineteenth century, resulting in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, which tabled the proposal in 1874, and in hearings before Congress in the 1890s and 1910s.

Over time, a number of issues have been the focus of the NRA’s labors, beyond its primary goal of advancing a Christian amendment to the US Constitution acknowledging national submission to the Lord Jesus Christ, including Sabbath laws, religion in public schools, pro-life concerns, and other matters of interest to those who hold to Christ’s mediatorial kingship over both church and state.

It is this fundamental doctrine of Christ’s mediatorial kingship over all things, publicly avowed by the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, and affirmed by many Reformed and Presbyterian ministers and churches in America over the years (Francis Robert Beattie, Alexander Craighead, Robert Lewis Dabney, Samuel Davies, Robert James Dodds, Robert James George, David McAllister, James Calvin McFeeters, Alexander McLeod, Gilbert McMaster, Alfred Nevin, Benjamin Morgan Palmer, William Swan Plumer, William Sommerville, David Steele, Thomas Patton Stevenson, James Henley Thornwell, Geerhardus Vos, Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, James McLeod Willson, James Renwick Willson, Richard Cameron Wylie, and Samuel Brown Wylie, are among such men represented at Log College Press), that undergirds the mission of the National Reform Association.

Who can forget the profound words of A.A. Hodge, in particular, on behalf of the "crown rights of Jesus"? 

"And if Christ is Lord of lords and King of kings, if he is really the Ruler among the nations, then all nations are in a higher sense one nation, under one King, one law, having one interest and one end. There cannot be two laws for Christians—one to govern the relations of individuals, and the other the relations of nations. We must love our neighbor-man as ourselves, so the Master says; therefore we must love our neighbor-man as our own. The rivalries, jealousies, antagonisms and cruel wars between nations are all hideous fratricidal contests and satanic rebellions against Christ our common King. How miserably small and narrow and selfish is the form of so-called patriotism which our poor children are taught is so great a virtue, in comparison with that holy, uplifting passion which comprehends all nations as inseparable parts of the one living universal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ! Suppose your enterprise in the great competitions of manufacture and trade surpasses theirs, and you grow rich and gild your palaces with the spoils of their poverty; suppose your sinews of war or your personal prowess and valor surpass theirs, and your empire grows great out of the ruins of their commonwealth,—what are you, after all, but the betrayer of your brother's peace or the destroyer of your brother's life and the disloyal render of the body of your common Lord? Alas, that we have yet to learn that the so-called code of honor among nations is just as mean and vulgar a thing as the code of honor among individuals!

And if Christ is really King, exercising original and immediate jurisdiction over the State as really as he does over the Church, it follows necessarily that the general denial or neglect of his rightful lordship, any prevalent refusal to obey that Bible which is the open lawbook of his kingdom, must be followed by political and social as well as by moral and religious ruin. If professing Christians are unfaithful to the authority of their Lord in their capacity as citizens of the State, they cannot expect to be blessed by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in their capacity as members of the Church. The kingdom of Christ is one, and cannot be divided in life or in death. If the Church languishes, the State cannot be in health, and if the State rebels against its Lord and King, the Church cannot enjoy his favor. If the Holy Ghost is withdrawn from the Church, he is not present in the State; and if he, the only "Lord, the Giver of life," be absent, then all order is impossible and the elements of society lapse backward to primeval night and chaos.

Who is responsible for the unholy laws and customs of divorce which have been in late years growing rapidly, like a constitutional cancer, through all our social fabric? Who is responsible for the rapidly-increasing, almost universal, desecration of our ancestral Sabbath ? Who is responsible for the prevalent corruptions in trade which loosen the bands of faith and transform the halls of the honest trader into the gambler's den ? Who is responsible for the new doctrines of secular education which hand over the very baptized children of the Church to a monstrous propagandism of Naturalism and Atheism ? Who is responsible for the new doctrine that the State is not a creature of God and owes him no allegiance, thus making the mediatorial Headship of Christ an unsubstantial shadow and his kingdom an unreal dream?

Whence come these portentous upheavals of the ancient primitive rock upon which society has always rested? Whence comes this socialistic earthquake, arraying capital and labor in irreconcilable conflict like oxygen and fire? Whence come these mad nihilistic, anarchical ravings, the wild presages of a universal deluge, which will blot out at once the family, the school, the church, the home, all civilization and religion, in one sea of ruin ?

In the name of your own interests I plead with you; in the name of your treasure-houses and barns, of your rich farms and cities, of your accumulations in the past and your hopes in the future,—I charge you, you never will be secure if you do not faithfully maintain all the crown-rights of Jesus the King of men. In the name of your children and their inheritance of the precious Christian civilization you in turn have received from your sires; in the name of the Christian Church,—I charge you that its sacred franchise, religious liberty, cannot be retained by men who in civil matters deny their allegiance to the King. In the name of your own soul and its salvation ; in the name of the adorable Victim of that bloody and agonizing sacrifice whence you draw all your hopes of salvation; by Gethsemane and Calvary, — I charge you, citizens of the United States, afloat on your wide wild sea of politics, There is Another King, One Jesus: The Safety Of The State Can Be Secured Only In The Way Of Humble And Whole-souled Loyalty To His Person and of Obedience His Law." (A.A. Hodge, Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, pp. 284-287)

While Eph. 1:21-22 is considered by many to be the locus classicus showing Christ’s mediatorial reign over all things (sometimes Matt. 28:18 too), McAllister argues from several other Scriptural passages thus in Christian Civil Government, p. 158:

"The Scriptures Teach that Christ is Ruler of Nations

1. Jesus Christ as Mediator, has all power and universal dominion committed to him, which must include authority over nations.

MATTHEW 28:18. – ‘And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.’

JOHN 5:22, 23. – ‘The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son; that all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father which hath sent him.’

ACTS 10:36. – ‘Jesus Christ, he is Lord of all.’

1 CORINTHIANS 15:27. – ‘He [the Father] hath put all things under his [the Son’s] feet.’

PHILIPPIANS 2:9-11. – ‘God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.’"

William O. Einwechter, “The Judgment is God’s” in Explicitly Christian Politics: The Vision of the National Reform Association (1997), p. 81, writes:

“The Judgment is God’s: Christ’s Reign

According to the Old Testament prophetic Scriptures and the New Testament revelation, the statement that the ‘judgment is God’s needs to be further defined to declare that in this age of fulfillment ‘the judgment is Christ’s.’ This declaration concerning the Lord Jesus Christ reflects the fact of His current mediatorial reign over the nations. At the time of the resurrection and ascension, the Lord Jesus Christ was invested with all authority in heaven and earth and given dominion over all the nations. The Father has committed all judgment to the Son who presently rules at His right hand. Let us briefly consider three important biblical texts that lead to the conclusion that now the judgment is Christ’s."

Einwechter (a Reformed Baptist mininster and former vice-president of the NRA) then goes on to discuss Psalm 2, Psalm 110 and Daniel 7 and how these particular passages teach that Christ, in his mediatorial office of king, has unlimited scope of authority and dominion over all things.

The current mission statement (2017) of the NRA includes this statement:

“In order to honor the commandment of Scripture to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord over the nations of the earth (Psalm 2:7-12; Matt 28:18; Eph 1:20-22; Col. 2:10; Rev 1:5; Rev 11:15) and to progress with fulfillment of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20), the mission of the National Reform Association since 1863 has been to work with political leaders, pastors, and lay leaders to promote reformation in government and society, and to secure an amendment to the United States Constitution modifying it as needed, particularly in its Preamble and First Amendment, to recognize Jesus Christ as King and Supreme Governor of the United States. The wording of the new Preamble would be proposed as such:

WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, recognizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the law of God as the paramount rule, and Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Savior and Lord of all, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Thus, from the mid-19th century to the present, the NRA, organized with both Reformed Presbyterian leadership and ecumenical support, continues to testify on Biblical grounds that the United States has an obligation to acknowledge the kingship of Christ and to submit to his mediatorial reign over the nations. To read more about this organization and its principles, please consult 1) George Price Hays, Presbyterians (1892), pp. 420-421; 2) Robert Ellis Thompson, A History of the Presbyterian in the United States (1895), pp. 280-283; 3) David McAllister, Christian Civil Government (1927); 4) James H. Moorhead, Princeton Seminary in American Religion and Culture (2012), pp. 227-228; and 5) Explicitly Christian Politics: The Vision of the National Reform Association (1997).

Note: The author of this post serves on the Board of the National Reform Association as Secretary and Treasurer.