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

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

It’s been a busy summer at Log College Press. Here is an update on what’s been going on lately.

In August 2022, we added 301 new works to the site. Today we aim to highlight 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:

Some highlights at the Recent Addtiions page:

Be sure also to check out the quotes we have been adding at our blog for DPS members: Though Dead They Still Speak, including one by Cornelius Van Til on the authority of Scripture.

Please feel free to browse the many resources available to our readers in print and in digital format to our readers. There is a lot to explore, and many Presbyterian voices from the past to hear. Thank you, as always, for your interest and support, dear friends.

Nathan Strong (1748-1816): Founder of the Connecticut Evangelical Magazine

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

Editorial Note: Our guest writer today is Tom Sullivan, who for 36 years has served as The Narrated Puritan at Puritan and Reformed Audiobooks, and also serves as a research assistant for Dr. Sam Waldron, President, Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary.

Nathan Strong, was born in Coventry, Connecticut; ordained on Jan. 5, 1773; and served as pastor of the First Church, Hartford, where he remained until the close of life, Dec. 25, 1816.

This church received its fame from its first pastor Thomas Hooker, the Puritan founder of the Colony of Connecticut. It was known in Strong's day as the North Presbyterian Church in Hartford.

In 1798, Strong became the chief organizer of the Connecticut Missionary Society. Two years later, he became the principal founder and editor of The Connecticut Evangelical Magazine, which was also at that time a new departure, and which was destined to continue through fifteen volumes.

From an article in the Christian Spectator for 1833: “The plan of this work originated with Dr. Strong, and the labor of conducting it devolved chiefly on him. It was continued fifteen years, and amounted to as many volumes.” The first seven volumes were titled The Connecticut Evangelical Magazine (1800-1807); the next eight were titled The Connecticut Evangelical Magazine; and Religious Intelligencer (1808-1815).

Christian periodicals had long found their usefulness in England, but the reason for it not known in the Colonies was supposed that there was not enough material to keep the magazine interesting. However, at the beginning of the 19th century numerous revivals had been reported not only in local assemblies, but at the College of New Jersey under the presidency of Ashbel Green, and Yale College under the presidency of Timothy Dwight.

In the first editorial, Strong wrote, “The late wonderful outpouring of the Holy Spirit and revival of experimental religion, in large districts of the American Church will furnish much matter for publication to delight the hearts satisfy the benevolence of the children of God. There has not hath been so great and extensive a work of divine grace in this land since the years 1742 and 1744.”

Another goal of this magazine was to report on “the wonderful spirit of missions to heathen people, and to our new and scattered settlements on the borders of the wilderness…” The timing of this was providential for the magazine was started at the same period that the “Great Revival of 1800” had just started in Kentucky under the pastoral charge of James McGready (1763-1817). It was to Nathan Strong that Archibald Alexander wrote in January 1802, including correspondence from George A. Baxter, concerning a report on that notable revival.

From the Annals of the American Pulpit, Vol. 2, p. 36, William Sprague wrote: “It may be doubted whether he ever rendered a more important service to the church or to the country, than in the part which he took in establishing and sustaining the Connecticut Missionary Society.”

In 1801, he was honored with the degree of Doctor of Divinity from the College of New Jersey. A eulogy written from Thomas Robbins upon his death:

Dr. Strong was, for many years, my neighbor and intimate friend. I had an opportunity of observing him and there is perhaps no man who has departed, in respect to whose character I have a more definite and well considered opinion. [As the end of Strong’s mortal life approached] I remember to have been present on one occasion, when a neighboring minister put to him the question, “Are you ready to go yet?” and he replied, — “Yes, tomorrow, if God pleases."

Such was the piety of this long-time minister of God’s Word, founder of the Connecticut Evangelical Magazine.

A Window into Early American Presbyterianism: The Virginia Religious Magazine (1804-1807)

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

Editorial note: Our guest writer today is Zachary Groff, Director of Advancement & Admissions at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary and Pastor of Antioch Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Woodruff, SC.

From 1804 to 1807, The Virginia Religious Magazine enjoyed the editorial labors of then-President of Hampden-Sydney College Archibald Alexander and “a few of his ministerial colleagues” (perhaps including Samuel Houston, Matthew Lyle, George A. Baxter, Samuel Brown, Daniel Blain, Samuel L. Campbell, Conrad Speece, and John Holt Rice) “under the auspices of the Presbyterian Synod of Virginia.”

This short-lived Presbyterian periodical ran through three volumes comprised of six issues each. Despite its short tenure and relative obscurity, The Virginia Religious Magazine deserves celebration as one of the earliest religious periodicals in the United States of America, preceded by the Connecticut Evangelical Magazine (published by the congregational Missionary Society of Connecticut). Barring the discovery of evidence to the contrary, The Virginia Religious Magazine was the first such publication in the American South.

Though the authorship of individual articles included in the Magazine is difficult to determine, readers will benefit from a careful examination and consideration of the contents. William H. Foote attributes four (unspecified) articles to the pre-Princetonian Archibald Alexander, though the principal contributors seem to have been Conrad Speece and John Holt Rice.

Readers may choose to read the contents of the Magazine from beginning to end to catch a glimpse of an important historical moment in the development of American Presbyterianism. Reflections on practical religion, church history, theological topics, and contemporary revivals provide a window into the religious life of American Christians as they pressed westward into the frontier. Alternatively, a more selective approach to the contents of the Magazine will yield great spiritual benefit to interested readers. For example, the cautionary tale of Jack Vincent (The History of Jack Vincent, as found in Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 212-222), which is authored under the pseudonym Philo and attributed by William H. Foote to John Holt Rice, is a moving apocryphal – or at least embellished – account of the sad life and death of a certain Jack Vincent. Such tales powerfully warned readers away from carelessness in religion and child-rearing. In these stories we recognize one of the perennial concerns of ministers and parents: the diligent nurture and admonition of the rising generation.

To access The Virginia Religious Magazine in its entirety, please refer to the Archibald Alexander page. To pursue your own research into this fascinating periodical, be sure to consult the biographies of John Holt Rice, one by Philip B. Price and the other by William Maxwell, both available on the Log College Press website. Tolle Lege!

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

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.

In defense of a learned ministry: George A. Baxter

(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.)

In his notable ordination sermon for William McPheeters, preached at Bethel Presbyterian Church in Augusta County, Virginia, in 1806, George Addison Baxter, besides noting the necessity of ordination and election, as well as the duties of the gospel ministry, in speaking of the qualifications for the office he also articulated a defense of what later became Samuel Miller’s 1812 clarion call at Princeton for “an able and learned ministry.”

The the text upon which Baxter preached was 1 Tim. 3:1: “This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.” He says that “vital piety” is the chief qualification for such a man. And so it is. But then he goes on to add remarks that lay the groundwork for solid Biblical training for ministers. He joins the head with the heart in his description of the godly minister.

But I think it not only necessary that a minister should possess religion, and that in an eminent degree, he ought to be a man of the most upright, exemplary, and prudent conduct, patient, and forbearing, and able, on all occasions, to command his own temper. I mention this, because there are some professors of religion, of whom charity would teach us to hope well, who are, notwithstanding, subject to a fickleness and inconsistency of conduct, which would be very incompatible with the office of the gospel ministry. Together with the qualifications already mentioned, I think it very desirable, if not absolutely necessary, that a minister of Christ, should possess, in a good degree, the assurance of faith, and a warm zeal for glorifying God in the gospel of his Son.

It is undoubtedly of great importance, that the work of the ministry should not be committed to weak or ignorant men, who might be unable to teach others; competent gifts, as well as graces are indispensably requisite. I do not mean, that candidates ought to be rejected for the want of preeminent talents, but a gospel minister ought to possess a mind naturally sound, and well cultivated. A liberal education may not in all cases be indispensably necessary - uncommon natural talents combined with certain circumstances, may compensate in some degree for the want of improvement; but generally speaking, I think what is commonly called a liberal education ought to be required. A minister of Christ should certainly attend to all those branches of human learning, which might enable him to deliver his message with propriety; and in order to understand his message he ought to be acquainted with the sacred scriptures, in the original languages. There may be some dispute as to the course of study most proper to effect the first of the purposes, or to qualify a man for speaking, but it is certain that to accomplish both the purposes just mentioned, a considerable course of human learning, is absolutely requisite.

But there are some denominations in the world, who declare absolutely against the necessity of a learned ministry, and in support of their sentiments, allege the example of our Saviour, who chose fishermen and mechanics to be the first ministers of the new testament. Their error however, as happens in almost every case of bad reasoning, consists in comparing things which do not resemble. It is true that our Saviour in the first instance, chose mechanics and fishermen to publish the gospel: but to say nothing of the advantages which these men derived from his personal instructions and example, for upwards of three years; when he sent them in to the world, he endowed them with miraculous qualifications; he enabled them to perform miracles, to speak all languages that were necessary, and by a supernatural inspiration, instructed them what they ought to speak. ‘But when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in the same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not yet that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you’ [Matt. x.19-20]. Here now, were men, endowed with every qualification, that can be conceived of, or supposed necessary for the purpose. The gift of miracles which arrested the attention and carried conviction to the consciences of the world - the gift of tongues which contributed to the same end, and also furnished them with an opportunity of communicating the treasures of the gospel to all nations - and the spirit of inspiration, which enabled them to give the most appropriate and salutary instructions, on every occasion. I should think, if any thing can be inferred from our Saviour’s example in this case, taking the whole of it together, it would be that a minister of Christ, ought to possess all qualifications necessary for convincing and instructing the world.

But those with whom we contend, will suppose that by possessing real religion, and being taught in the school of Christ, they obtain all the knowledge and qualifications which are necessary. In reply to this, I will readily admit that religion is the best preparative, for understanding the word of God, and I have no doubt the divine Spirit, conspiring with the use of means, greatly assists a pious minister in his studies. But distinct from the qualifications which grace may confer, there are others absolutely necessary, and which may be acquired by a course of human means. It will, no doubt be admitted, as of the first importance, that a gospel minister should have a correct knowledge of the holy scriptures, for without this he is no better than the blind leading the blind. But to understand the holy scriptures, we should be acquainted with them, in the original languages, we should be acquainted with the history of those customs, and events, in the midst of which the inspired penman wrote, and to which they frequently allude; we should be versed in literary science, so as to understand the different modes of writing - the different phrases and figures with which all compositions abound, and the rules of interpretation, to which all writings human or divine, must be subjected, without some knowledge of this kind we shall not be qualified even to follow a good Commentator on the scriptures, or to form any opinion for ourselves. But how is this knowledge to be obtained? It may as already said be obtained by human means, or it might be conferred by the extraordinary inspiration of the divine Spirit. But those who neglect the natural means, and pretend that divine teaching gives them all necessary knowledge, are pretending to an inspiration which supersedes the use of means, and is therefore very distinct from the common operations of grace; for common grace does not supersede means, but encourages and assists in the use of them. But when any one makes pretensions of this kind, he ought to support them by miracles, or some supernatural evidences. The teaching of which he speaks is a secret miracle, and amounts to something like that inspiration which the apostles possessed, and if it be of this kind it needs a public miracle to make it credible. All pretending therefore that we are taught by the divine Spirit what things we ought to learn, as others learn them, should be rejected in the present day, as self-righteous presumption: and if any people give credit to such pretensions, they are manifestly in the high road of error and delusion: and what is worse, they put themselves under the influence of a delusion, which cannot be corrected or reasoned down because they do not profess to be led by reason, or evidence, or scripture, but by the unsupported assertions of a fellow creature. It perhaps would be well to recollect, that the plain line of distinction between impostures, and the real messengers of heaven, has been pretty much the same in every age. An impostor never proves his assertions. Mahomet had his secret miracles and inspirations, but he did not pretend to confirm them by any public miracles; and modern impostors, have their illumination and teachings for which they can give no evidence but their own assertion. On the other hand the real messengers of grace always deal with mankind as with reasonable creatures; when they introduced a divine revelation into the world at first they confirmed it by sufficient and undeniable miracles, and since the age of miracles has ceased they require the belief of nothing but what can be proved from a revelation sufficiently authenticated. These observations will, I trust, be sufficient to show that the improvement or knowledge necessary for the ministerial office are not to be expected in a supernatural way, and therefore that a course of scientific education is absolutely necessary.

But let it be remembered, that although all knowledge may be useful to a clergyman, his principal attention should be turned to the subject of divinity. His business is to understand and teach the doctrines of the word of God, and every man ought to be better acquainted with what belongs immediately to his own profession, than with any thing else. I have now taken a brief view of the principal things necessary to qualify a man for preaching the gospel. What I have mentioned are real and cordial religion, a prudent and upright moral deportment, a good degree of the assurance of faith, a fervent zeal for glorifying God in the gospel of his Son, and a mind sufficiently improved with useful knowledge. These things taken together and connected with a favorable train of providences, constitute what may be termed a divine call to the ministerial office. They are very much mistaken, who suppose a ministerial call to consist in blind impulses or impressions, of which a person can give no rational account, and which have no relation to his fitness for the work. A ministerial call comprehends all the necessary qualifications for the office, both human and divine. And a ministerial call without ministerial qualifications, in the greatest absurdity in the world.

In line with Presbyterians before and after him, Baxter here articulates an understanding of the qualifications for the gospel ministry that show the necessity for a well-rounded education, encompassing many branches of human learning, subordinate to the queen of sciences, that is, divinity. The faithful minister, in the age wherein apostolic miracles have ceased, must join human learning with divine knowledge, to best and most adequately deliver the message of reconciliation between God and man. An able and learned ministry is what God calls men to in accordance with his gracious declaration to mankind: “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool” (Isa. 1:18).